Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #423285 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "HGW..." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-06-23 09:36 +1000 |
| Last post | 2017-07-19 19:32 +1000 |
| Articles | 13 on this page of 113 — 26 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Does Light Really Exist. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-23 09:36 +1000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-06-23 10:49 +1000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-22 23:37 -0700
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-06-23 17:09 +1000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-23 00:36 -0700
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Lipek Mniak <iluka@sskwpiw.pp> - 2017-06-23 11:08 +0000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-06-23 16:49 -0400
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Valok Planek <lkupuu@kwklewan.oo> - 2017-06-24 10:21 +0000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-06-22 18:53 -0700
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Valok Planek <lkupuu@kwklewan.oo> - 2017-06-24 10:50 +0000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-06-24 04:29 -0700
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Valok Planek <lkupuu@kwklewan.oo> - 2017-06-24 11:42 +0000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-23 07:34 -0500
Re: Does Light Really Exist. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-06-23 16:55 -0400
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Itu Ikosaku <tkiuu@iotkswwwswu.si> - 2017-06-25 09:43 +0000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-23 09:08 -0500
Re: Does Light Really Exist. pcardinale@volcanomail.com - 2017-06-23 12:14 -0700
Re: Does Light Really Exist. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-06-23 16:57 -0400
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-06-23 22:40 +0200
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Iorgas Gerakis <grura@agsiskswk.ai> - 2017-06-24 12:10 +0000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-24 08:42 -0500
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-06-24 16:28 +0200
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-24 23:08 -0500
Re: Does Light Really Exist. "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-06-24 21:40 -0700
Re: Does Light Really Exist. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-25 14:56 +1000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-06-24 22:14 -0700
Re: Does Light Really Exist. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-26 11:16 +1000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-06-25 18:54 -0700
Re: Does Light Really Exist. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-26 19:30 +1000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-25 10:21 -0500
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-06-25 22:23 +0200
Re: Does Light Really Exist. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-26 19:50 +1000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-06-26 06:03 -0700
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-26 10:05 -0500
Re: Does Light Really Exist. "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-06-26 08:23 -0700
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Jim Petroff <ruuri@twjotr.eo> - 2017-06-26 15:43 +0000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-06-26 09:19 -0700
Re: Does Light Really Exist. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-27 08:15 +1000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-06-30 17:43 +0200
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-06-30 11:36 -0700
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-05 11:20 -0500
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Oveho Trofyzikovu <zfeuur@ceuuwi.ku> - 2017-07-05 17:10 +0000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-07-06 03:49 +0200
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-06 11:11 -0500
Re: Does Light Really Exist. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-06 20:19 +1000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-06 09:05 -0500
Re: Does Light Really Exist. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-06 20:40 +0000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-07 09:43 +1000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-07 22:49 +0000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-07 09:11 -0500
Re: Does Light Really Exist. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-08 09:44 +1000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-08 00:09 -0500
Re: Does Light Really Exist. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-09 10:06 +1000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-08 18:01 -0700
Re: Does Light Really Exist. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-09 12:56 +1000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-08 20:45 -0700
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-10 09:50 -0500
Re: Does Light Really Exist. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-11 10:58 +1000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-10 19:58 -0700
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-10 23:57 -0500
Re: Does Light Really Exist. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-12 08:22 +1000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-11 14:54 +0000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-12 08:23 +1000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-12 03:07 +0000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-13 09:42 +1000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-13 03:15 +0000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-14 09:34 +1000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-14 05:24 +0000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-19 10:20 +1000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-07-19 15:20 +0200
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Michael Moroney <moroney@TheWorld.com> - 2017-07-19 19:56 +0000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-06-30 17:40 +0200
Re: Does Light Really Exist. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-03 11:37 +1000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-06-26 07:26 -0700
Re: Does Light Really Exist. "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-06-26 07:42 -0700
Re: Does Light Really Exist. "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-06-26 07:51 -0700
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-06-25 23:58 +0200
Re: Does Light Really Exist. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-26 19:52 +1000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-06-26 06:06 -0700
Re: Does Light Really Exist. "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-06-26 06:14 -0700
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Jim Petroff <ruuri@twjotr.eo> - 2017-06-26 15:39 +0000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Ernardin Ignace <ee@wrrawiwidir.ic> - 2017-06-25 09:13 +0000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-06-25 11:50 +0200
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Itu Ikosaku <tkiuu@iotkswwwswu.si> - 2017-06-25 10:00 +0000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-06-25 12:20 +0200
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Itu Ikosaku <tkiuu@iotkswwwswu.si> - 2017-06-25 10:40 +0000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-06-25 17:33 +0200
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Jim Petroff <ruuri@twjotr.eo> - 2017-06-26 15:49 +0000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-06-26 18:31 +0200
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Jim Petroff <ruuri@twjotr.eo> - 2017-06-26 18:12 +0000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-06-25 12:14 +0200
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-06-25 12:05 +0200
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Itu Ikosaku <tkiuu@iotkswwwswu.si> - 2017-06-25 10:10 +0000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-06-25 12:33 +0200
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Itu Ikosaku <tkiuu@iotkswwwswu.si> - 2017-06-25 10:48 +0000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Poutnik <Poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-06-24 16:40 +0200
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Iorgas Gerakis <grura@agsiskswk.ai> - 2017-06-24 17:28 +0000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-25 09:20 +1000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-06-24 17:04 -0700
Re: Does Light Really Exist. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-25 10:44 +1000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-06-24 17:54 -0700
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-25 03:14 +0000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-06-24 20:50 -0700
Re: Does Light Really Exist. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-25 15:05 +1000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-25 16:37 -0500
Re: Does Light Really Exist. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-26 11:47 +1000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-06-26 18:02 +0200
Re: Does Light Really Exist. Jim Petroff <ruuri@twjotr.eo> - 2017-06-26 16:30 +0000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-06-26 16:31 -0700
Re: Does Light Really Exist. gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-07-13 23:30 -0700
Re: Does Light Really Exist. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-19 10:24 +1000
Re: Does Light Really Exist. gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-07-19 01:26 -0700
Re: Does Light Really Exist. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-19 19:32 +1000
Page 6 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-24 17:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <73cd4f8c-1e88-4bd5-9959-d911344e62de@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #423387 |
On Saturday, June 24, 2017 at 6:44:37 PM UTC-6, HGW... wrote: > > On 25/06/17 10:04, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > On Saturday, June 24, 2017 at 5:20:42 PM UTC-6, HGW... wrote: > > > > > > Tom, you are wrong yet again. I'm just fifty years ahead of you. > > > > Stupid ignorant Ralphie-boy, you're 50 years behind the big bang. > > The BB is just a bullshit christian idea.... I agree: it didn't happen that way. And since you're ideas are 50 years older than a nonexistent phenomenon, you don't exist either. You're just bad electrons swirling around on the internet. > > > > Yes, a person won't see a light ray unless it intersects her eye. So > > > > what? We do see light that does intersect our eyes all the time. > > > > > > What nonsense. If that were true the night sky would be white. > > > > Olbers' paradox is busted. Didn't you get the memo? > > Not related.... > If we could see all the light in the universe, there wouldn't be much > black anywhere.....but that's too hard for you and Tom.... That depends on what you mean by "light." I'm using 400 to 700 nm for the definition. Any other definition requires explanation and definition. Since you NEVER define or explain anything, your comments are garbage.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-25 03:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oin9qk$162k$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #423382 |
HGW... <hgw@....> wrote: > On 24/06/17 00:08, Tom Roberts wrote: >> On 6/22/17 6/22/17 6:36 PM, HGW... wrote: >>> Nobody has ever seen a light ray. >> >> How silly. Why do you just make up silly stuff and pretend it is true? > > Tom, you are wrong yet again. I'm just fifty years ahead of you. > > >> Yes, a person won't see a light ray unless it intersects her eye. So >> what? We do see light that does intersect our eyes all the time. > > What nonsense. If that were true the night sky would be white. > >> Tom Roberts > > Every star you see in the night sky is light intersecting your eye. Idiot. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-24 20:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7a8d470c-f8d3-492d-86c6-abc118621a8a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #423396 |
You Guys are very "Limited". Trapped in your Faulty view of space time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW..." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-25 15:05 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <oingb8$1dkd$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #423396 |
On 25/06/17 13:14, Odd Bodkin wrote: > HGW... <hgw@....> wrote: >> Tom, you are wrong yet again. I'm just fifty years ahead of you. >> >> >>> Yes, a person won't see a light ray unless it intersects her eye. So >>> what? We do see light that does intersect our eyes all the time. >> >> What nonsense. If that were true the night sky would be white. >> >>> Tom Roberts >> >> > > Every star you see in the night sky is light intersecting your eye. > > Idiot. Bodkin, you are exceptionally funny today... At every point in space, light is passing through in all directions. If it was possible to see it, even though it DID NOT enter our eyeballs in its direction of travel, what do you think the sky would look like? --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-25 16:37 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oipaf8$a2h$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #423408 |
On 6/25/17 12:05 AM, HGW... wrote: > On 25/06/17 13:14, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> HGW... <hgw@....> wrote: > >>> Tom, you are wrong yet again. I'm just fifty years ahead of you. >>> >>> >>>> Yes, a person won't see a light ray unless it intersects her eye. So >>>> what? We do see light that does intersect our eyes all the time. >>> >>> What nonsense. If that were true the night sky would be white. >>> >>>> Tom Roberts >>> >>> >> >> Every star you see in the night sky is light intersecting your eye. >> >> Idiot. > > Bodkin, you are exceptionally funny today... > At every point in space, light is passing through in all directions. The light that passes through (x,y,z) without passing intersecting the eye has nothing to do with the validity of the statement that we do see light that does intersect our eyes all the time. The stars we see are examples of that. This is the statement you called "What nonsense." When cattle contracts hoof-in-mouth disease, they get shot. > If > it was possible to see it, even though it DID NOT enter our eyeballs in > its direction of travel, what do you think the sky would look like? > > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW..." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-26 11:47 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <oipp3k$tgs$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #423449 |
On 26/06/17 07:37, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> >>> >>> Every star you see in the night sky is light intersecting your eye. >>> >>> Idiot. >> >> Bodkin, you are exceptionally funny today... >> At every point in space, light is passing through in all directions. > > The light that passes through (x,y,z) without passing intersecting the > eye has nothing to do with the validity of the statement that we do see > light that does intersect our eyes all the time. The stars we see are > examples of that. This is the statement you called "What nonsense." > > When cattle contracts hoof-in-mouth disease, they get shot. > >> If it was possible to see it, even though it DID NOT enter our >> eyeballs in its direction of travel, what do you think the sky would >> look like? Bodkin, you don't seem to understand the situation we are discussing. A light ray is not visible for the simple reason that as far as we know, it does not emit or reflect light in all directions. However, if there was another way for our eyes to know of its existence, (for instance if a light ray DID reflect other light) it would be seen as the light ray it is...just like a search light can be observed passing through a smoky atmosphere. It should be obvious then, that if we could 'see' all the light in the universe somehow, the whole sky would appear white, not black. --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-26 18:02 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <oirb7j$1dpj$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #423449 |
Op 25-jun-2017 om 23:37 schreef Odd Bodkin: > On 6/25/17 12:05 AM, HGW... wrote: >> On 25/06/17 13:14, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> HGW... <hgw@....> wrote: >> >>>> Tom, you are wrong yet again. I'm just fifty years ahead of you. >>>> >>>> >>>>> Yes, a person won't see a light ray unless it intersects her eye. So >>>>> what? We do see light that does intersect our eyes all the time. >>>> >>>> What nonsense. If that were true the night sky would be white. >>>> >>>>> Tom Roberts >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Every star you see in the night sky is light intersecting your eye. >>> >>> Idiot. >> >> Bodkin, you are exceptionally funny today... >> At every point in space, light is passing through in all directions. > > The light that passes through (x,y,z) without passing intersecting the > eye has nothing to do with the validity of the statement that we do see > light that does intersect our eyes all the time. The stars we see are > examples of that. This is the statement you called "What nonsense." > > When cattle contracts hoof-in-mouth disease, they get shot. When Usenet crackpots catch rabies, they get pampered. Dirk Vdm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jim Petroff <ruuri@twjotr.eo> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-26 16:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oircq9$1hos$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #423501 |
Dirk Van de moortel wrote: >>>>>> Yes, a person won't see a light ray unless it intersects her eye. >>>>>> So what? We do see light that does intersect our eyes all the time. >>>>> >>>>> What nonsense. If that were true the night sky would be white. Lol, light cannot intersect a human eye, unless the back of the eye and head where empty or at very least transparent. You guys are throwing proverbs a bit too much.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | numbernumber1964@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-26 16:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0250b008-3a0f-48df-bf49-252c89666d5f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #423285 |
Modern astronomers use parallax to determine the distance to a star. Parallax is based on the stars of the stellar universe that are stationary. The change in the angular position of a star is measured after an observer on the surface of the earth propagates the distance of the earth's orbital diameter (six months) which is used as the parallax reference distance but the distance to a 4.22 light year (4 x 10^16 meters) star is more than 10^7 times larger than the earth's orbital diameter (1.4 x 10^10 m); consequently, the reference distance of the earth's orbital distance is to short of a length to obtain a change in the angular position (resolution) that can be detected by a telescope. Example, using a/c = cos θ where a is the parallax reference distance and c is the distance to the star and θ is the resolution forms (1.4 x 10^10 m) / (4 x 10^16 meters) = a/c. When a/c --> 0, a/c = θ; consequently, θ = 3.5 x 10^-7 degree or .00126 arcsec which is less than the resolution of the Hubble and proves parallax cannot be used to determine the distance to a 4.22 ly star. Moreover, a dimming method of the star's intensity is used to determine the distance to a star that are more than 350 light years from the earth but the detection of a star that is more than 350 light years from the earth would require a resolution of more than .001 arcsec yet the Hubble space telescope has a resolution of .1 arcsec which proves modern astronomy is physically invalid.
The images of the Eagle Nebula obtained using the Spitzer space telescope were created using computer induced images since the image of the Eagle Nebula represents a celestial gas cloud (fig 14) but the vacuum of celestial universe cannot support the structure of a gas cloud since the existence of a cloud requires an atmosphere. In addition, a planet has been detected that is orbiting a 4.22 ly star but the Hubble telescope has a resolution of .1 arcsec. To detect an object on the surface of the moon would require an illuminated object with a diameter of 200 meters. The Hubble proportionality p is formed using the moon's distance and the 200 m resolution diameter p = (3.84 x 10^8 m) / (200 m) = 10^6. The detection of a 4.22 ly planet using the Hubble requires a minimum planetary diameter of {(4.22 ly) / p} = {(4 x 10^16) / p} = 1010 m that is more than 1,000 times the diameter of the earth (1.3 x 10^7 m) which proves the Hubble telescope that is the most power telescope known to man cannot be used to view a 4.22 ly planet; consequently, Chilean astronomers use the dimming of a 4.22 ly star Proxima Centauri caused by a planet orbiting a 4.22 star viewed using the La Silla telescope (Escude, p. 408) but the variation of the intensity (dimming) of a 4.22 light year star caused by the planet's area reducing the 4.22 ly star's intensity is within the intensity measurement fluctuation caused by the thermodynamic variations of the earth's atmosphere which proves the detection of a planet orbiting a 4.22 ly stars is physically invalid. Furthermore, the Institute of Astronomy in Cambridge detected a blackhole of the Perseus Clustera that is 250 million light years from the earth using the Chandra X-ray space telescope but X-rays cannot be focused using an optical lens which would make it extremely difficult to detect stellar X-rays produced by a 250 million light year blackhole. Also, the detection of a blackhole requires the viewing of stars that surround the blackhole but to detect a 250 million ly star would require a telescopic resolution power of more than .0001 arcsec yet the Hubble has a resolution power of .1 arsec which proves blackholes are an astronomic hoax.
The Big Bang expansion theory is justified using the symmetry of a spiral galaxy. The outwardly radiating tentacles of a spiral galaxy represent a galaxy that stars originate from a central point which is used to justify that the stellar universe is expanding but the image of a spiral galaxy was arbitrarily created by manually manipulating a photographic image since the photographic images of the Milky Way spiral galaxy contains the Sun and the Earth that would require the photographer to be many millions of light years away from the earth which is not physically possible. Also, the density of the stars that constitute the celestial universe viewed from all directions from the earth is constant yet the image of the Milky Way galaxy represents a higher density of stars at the center of the Milky Way and along the tentacles of the Milky Way which conflicts with the constant density of stars of the celestial universe viewed from the earth. Furthermore, to view the stars of the NGC 4414 spiral galaxy in the constellation Coma Berenices that is approximately 60 million light-years away from Earth would require a resolution of more than .001 arcsec yet the Hubble space telescope resolution is .1 arcsec which proves the images of spiral galaxies are fake. The stars of the stellar universe are stationary since the stars of the constellations that constitute the celestial universe have not change positions since the advent of photograph (120 years). Furthermore, the red shift is used to justify the Big Bang expansion theory but every star in the universe at different times and positions forms both red and blue shifts since the stellar universe is stationary. When the observer on the surface of the earth propagates towards a star that motion is caused by the earth's daily and yearly motions the blue shift is produced and when the observer propagates away from the star, the red shift is observed; consequently, the stellar red and blue shifts are formed by the earth's daily and yearly motions affect on the observer viewing the stars of a stationary celestial universe which contradicts the Big Bang theory that is based on a celestial universe that stars are in motion (expanding).
The Caltech-MIT lunar laser ranging experiment is described in Smullin paper "Optical Echoes from the Moon" (1962). The Caltech-MIT lunar reflector experiment is an attempt at measuring the distance from the earth to the moon using a mirrored reflector that was install on the surface of the moon during the Apollo 11 mission. A 2.3 W laser beam at the earth is pointed at the lunar reflector that is 238,900 miles from the earth. The laser beam's intensity is reflected by the lunar reflector then detected by the Lick observatory. The Hubble space telescope (.1 arcsec) is six times more powerful than the Lick telescope (.6 arcsec). The Hubble requires an illuminated object that has a diameter of 200 meters to form a detectable intensity on the surface of the moon yet the Caltech-MIT lunar reflector has a surface area of one square meter which proves the lunar reflector experiment is a hoax. In addition, the 2.3 W laser beam, after propagating a distance of 238,900 miles, to the moon, would disperse and forms a beam diameter of four miles at the moon. The laser expansion ratio is derived using the initial one inch diameter of the 2.3 W laser beam and the four mile (253,440 inches) diameter expansion of the laser beam's diameter after propagating 238,900 miles to the moon R = (253,440 inches) / (1 inch) = 253,440. Using an analogy, the 2.3 W laser beam is pointed at the moon forming a laser beam that intensity is distributed about a four mile circular diameter area at the moon. The intensity incident to the moon is then reflected by a four mile diameter mirror that is hypothetically situated on the surface of the moon which would form a beam diameter of R x 4 miles = 1,013,760 miles after the reflected four mile diameter laser beam propagates back to the earth; consequently, a 2.3 W laser beam's intensity cannot form a detectable intensity after propagating to the moon and back. The Caltech-MIT lunar laser ranging experiment is based on a 2.3 W laser beam's intensity that does not disperse after propagating to the moon and back.
"Hey, wait a sec! Hubble’s resolution is only 0.1 arcseconds, so the lander is way too small to be seen as anything more than a dot, even by Hubble. It would have to be a lot bigger to be seen at all. In fact, if you do the math (set Hubble’s resolution to 0.1 arcseconds and the distance to 400,000 kilometers) you see that Hubble’s resolution on the Moon is about 200 meters! In other words, even a football stadium on the Moon would look like a dot to Hubble." (By Phil Plait | August 12, 2008, Discover online).
The Apollo 11 mission did not land on the surface of the moon since the lunar lander does not contain the minimum amount of rocket fuel required in descending the lander onto the surface of the moon using a descent rocket re-entry. Using the analogy, the amount of fuel required to launch a payload from the surface of the earth into the earth's orbit is approximately equal to the amount of fuel required in descending the same payload weight onto the surface of the earth from the earth's orbit using a descent rocket re-entry; consequently, the amount of fuel required to descent a payload from the moon's orbit to the surface of the moon can be calculated using an earth base rocket launch by compensating for the moon's gravity. The total weight of the Apollo 11 lunar lander (dry) is 15,083 lb. Using the moon gravity of .166 g the lunar lander weight would be comparable to (15,083 lb) x (.166) = 2,504 lb on the surface of the moon; consequently, to decent the lander onto the surface of the moon would be comparable to launching a 2,504 lb payload from the surface of the earth into the earth's orbit. The Taep'o-dong 2 rocket has a maximum payload weight of 1,000 lbs and uses 114,913 lb of liquid rocket fuel which forms a fuel-payload ratio of R = (114,913 lb) / (1,000 lb) = 115. Using the fuel-payload ratio R, the minimum amount of rocket fuel required to launch a 2,504 lb payload into the earth's orbit is (2,504 lb) x R = 287,960 lb; consequently, to descent the 15,083 lb lander (moon weight of 2,504 lb) onto the surface of the moon using a descent rocket requires 287,960 lb of fuel yet the total amount of fuel used in the lander descent is 18,000 lb which proves the lunar lander did not land on the surface of the moon.
"History shows us examples of scientists who were able to make a great leap forward specifically because they were not limited by the data. One of the most dramatic examples occurs at the beginning of the nineteenth century, when we may find a scientist willing to ignore the limitations of numerical facts for the sake of correct idea or theory, even to the extent of saying that certain numbers probably should be made a little bit bigger, others a little smaller, and so on. It was precisely in this way that Dalton proceeded in developing his atomic theory. Some scientists do not like examples of this sort, because they imply a special virtue "fudging" the evidence or "cooking" the data, and they warn us that we must not ever tell our science students that discoveries have been made in this way." (Suppe, p. 300).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-13 23:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f7a46421-ae8d-4a83-ba71-4b433780668f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #423285 |
On Friday, June 23, 2017 at 5:06:05 AM UTC+5:30, HGW... wrote: > Nobody has ever seen a light ray. A person in empty space would not know > if an intense laser beam went right past his nose. > Our eyes perceive images of objects as they were at a previous instant. > So c is really just the speed of information. > How do we know the thing we call light actually exists? > -- To return to the original question, yes, what you will see when a 'ray of light' for example a laser pointer is shone across a smoke filled room, is the light refracted off the smoke particles in the room. It is worth noting that a stream of light 5 metres from yourself, in a smoke filled room, will illuminate smoke particles which, in turn will reflect a stream of photons to your eye or camera, now each of these paths will be < 5 metres and only one path will be exactly 5 meters away from your eye. Each of these light streams will have differing arrival times since the distance they travel will be different. Has anyone highlighted this?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW..." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-19 10:24 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <okm8rv$12gh$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #424811 |
On 14/07/17 16:30, gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com wrote: > On Friday, June 23, 2017 at 5:06:05 AM UTC+5:30, HGW... wrote: >> Nobody has ever seen a light ray. A person in empty space would not >> know if an intense laser beam went right past his nose. Our eyes >> perceive images of objects as they were at a previous instant. So c >> is really just the speed of information. How do we know the thing >> we call light actually exists? -- > > To return to the original question, yes, what you will see when a > 'ray of light' for example a laser pointer is shone across a smoke > filled room, is the light refracted off the smoke particles in the > room. > > It is worth noting that a stream of light 5 metres from yourself, in > a smoke filled room, will illuminate smoke particles which, in turn > will reflect a stream of photons to your eye or camera, now each of > these paths will be < 5 metres and only one path will be exactly 5 > meters away from your eye. > > Each of these light streams will have differing arrival times since > the distance they travel will be different. > > Has anyone highlighted this? No... but it is pretty obvious and not really relevant. The point is, if the smoke was not there, you would not see the beam. With the smoke present, you only see the bits of the beam that were scattered and pass into your eyes. --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-19 01:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f3cc5939-3542-4d6d-a966-2459fc8f748d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #425549 |
On Wednesday, July 19, 2017 at 5:54:35 AM UTC+5:30, HGW... wrote: > On 14/07/17 16:30, ......com wrote: > > On Friday, June 23, 2017 at 5:06:05 AM UTC+5:30, HGW... wrote: > >> Nobody has ever seen a light ray. A person in empty space would not > >> know if an intense laser beam went right past his nose. Our eyes > >> perceive images of objects as they were at a previous instant. So c > >> is really just the speed of information. How do we know the thing > >> we call light actually exists? -- > > > > To return to the original question, yes, what you will see when a > > 'ray of light' for example a laser pointer is shone across a smoke > > filled room, is the light refracted off the smoke particles in the > > room. > > > > It is worth noting that a stream of light 5 metres from yourself, in > > a smoke filled room, will illuminate smoke particles which, in turn > > will reflect a stream of photons to your eye or camera, now each of > > these paths will be < 5 metres and only one path will be exactly 5 > > meters away from your eye. > > > > Each of these light streams will have differing arrival times since > > the distance they travel will be different. > > > > Has anyone highlighted this? > > No... but it is pretty obvious and not really relevant. > The point is, if the smoke was not there, you would not see the beam. > With the smoke present, you only see the bits of the beam that were > scattered and pass into your eyes. > > > > -- So what was AE's 'ray of light'?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW..." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-19 19:32 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <okn8uq$eeo$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #425582 |
On 19/07/17 18:26, gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com wrote: > On Wednesday, July 19, 2017 at 5:54:35 AM UTC+5:30, HGW... wrote: >>> Each of these light streams will have differing arrival times since >>> the distance they travel will be different. >>> >>> Has anyone highlighted this? >> >> No... but it is pretty obvious and not really relevant. >> The point is, if the smoke was not there, you would not see the beam. >> With the smoke present, you only see the bits of the beam that were >> scattered and pass into your eyes. >> > So what was AE's 'ray of light'? Good question....but something does go from A to B. I actually think light does exist but it involves another dimension. --
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web