The Dark Moon

[Cargo]

Sorry, I'm off-topic enough from GaryN's Dark Moon, that I should stop. I'll just wait for a picture from the dark side of the moon of the milky way.
The Moon is very dark. Like black asphalt if I heard correctly.

[GaryN]

A schotoma is a mental blind spot, a person is unable to see what is right in front of them. I don't think there is a word for being unable to see what is NOT in front of them, but in the case of NASA this is what is required, as there is so much elementary data that is NOT available. Nobody can see that there are no photographs taken of the Sun from outside of the atmosphere utilising the same equipment and techniques as we use to take a photo of the Sun from the surface of the Earth. This is an undeniable fact, anyone who believes otherwise should present data that meets the requirements of the empirical scientific standards.

With Higsy, if he really is a qualified scientist then by default he is an atheist, a Godless person. Even those who might claim to be Christian or Muslim or Jew are for the most part Godless as they do not participate in the act of moving closer to God in the way he have been instructed to do so, through meditation. The goal when meditating is to still the Ego, and those who do not practice stilling the Ego are always under its influence. The Ego though does not wan to be stilled, which is why many ancient teachers throughout history have offered us help in doing so by the use of psychedelics and hallucinogens, and depictions of Jesus with such substances are to be found going back to the beginnings of Christianity. The psychedelics are depicted all the way back to the earliest times and places, such as Gobekle Tepi.
Rupert Sheldrake in this talk describes it well:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ye6mQHOV2lI
So to me it seems Higsy is ALL Ego, and though I admit to only being perhaps an orange belt psychonaut and may never progress to black belt (Ayahuasca) I do use the helpers maybe a couple of times a year when I am having difficulty stilling the Ego through meditation alone. "Know thyself" takes on a new meaning when the Bible is read as the mystical document it really is. Be still and know that I am God.

Another thing we do not see from mainstream science is a multi-spectral view of the Earth from space, from the Moon perhaps. We have seen the dayside Lyman Alpha partial shell from the Apollo FUVC camera, and the EUV of the Van Allen belt from the Chang'e lander, but where is a multi-spectral view? Just how many structures would we see?
Cargo:

The Moon is very dark. Like black asphalt if I heard correctly.

And Mercury is probably no brighter than the image of 67P that Solar pointed to earlier. Lets see some numbers NASA.

[Higgsy]

A schotoma is a mental blind spot, a person is unable to see what is right in front of them. I don't think there is a word for being unable to see what is NOT in front of them,

A word for not seeing what is not in front of you? Perhaps not one word, but "not hallucinating" might suffice.

...anyone who believes otherwise should present data that meets the requirements of the empirical scientific standards.

There is only one person in this discussion who has been presenting data that "meets the requirements of the empirical scientific standards", and it's not you.

With Higsy, if he really is a qualified scientist then by default he is an atheist, ... I admit to only being perhaps an orange belt psychonaut and may never progress to black belt (Ayahuasca) I do use the helpers maybe a couple of times a year when I am having difficulty stilling the Ego through meditation alone. "Know thyself" takes on a new meaning when the Bible is read as the mystical document it really is. Be still and know that I am God.

I keep thinking this is a discussion about science and being proved wrong.

Another thing we do not see from mainstream science is a multi-spectral view of the Earth from space, from the Moon perhaps

A multi-spectral view? You are the one who linked to apaper on imaging spectrometers for remote sensing. What is it exactly that you want and why?

How are you getting on with providing evidence or sources for these claims made as stements of fact?:

• SO243 film is sensitive to beyond 1000nm

• The cameras on the Lunar Orbiters were fiited with Wratten 25a filters

• The spectral response of the cameras on the Lunar Orbiters were tested at 600, 800 and 1000nm

• Vidicons replaced film and scanners as imaging devices for 60s planetary satellites because of their IR capabilities

[Solar]

A couple of thoughts:

1- The Martian south pole has Geysers that release quite a lot of dark carbon dioxide into the Martian atmosphere every Martian spring. No one knows how long this has been occurring. Consider also that Mars can have dust storms that blanket the entire planet. This presents a method to transport that darker carbon monoxide material globally. I’ve not seen anything assessing the extent to which those processes might affect Martian albedo over millions of years but judging from image progression from the Dust storm of Summer 2018, and remembering the dust laden rovers Spirit and Opportunity, things can get pretty serious up there. Not to mention the UV radiation for this planet as well.

2- Mercury, usually considered "dark grey", has “Dark Stains”. These “stains” have been identified as “a form of carbon called graphite”, like pencil lead. It appears to be spotty but this would have some affect on absorbance and reflectance. Not sure if the explanation being offered is correct Remote sensing evidence for an ancient carbon-bearing crust on Mercury: Patrick N. Peplowski, Rachel L. Klima, David J. Lawrence et al. I don’t think anyone knows why Mercury is so dark. It has a more extensive magnetic field than Luna. If the previous UV hypothesis of ‘sunburn’ were correct for Luna’s patchy magnetic field one might expect a more extensive magnetic field such as Mercury to result in a lighter surface.

Interesting thing with Mercury. Its proximity to Sol might make it prone to being 'sandblasted' by darkened dust from the Sun. In order to try and establish the presence of an electric field scientist working on data for Parker Solar Probe have to distinguish spikes in the data to try and separate actual electric field spikes from the impacts of dust grains on the sensors coming from the sun itself. They suspect a dust free zone at some point but here one has dust coming from the sun as a possible dimming influence. The reason for bringing this up is because maybe Mercury’s graphite “stains” might come from solar wind dust similar to the way …

Saturn’s Yin-Yang moon Iapetus who’s leading edge, the darker side, is theorized to collect debris from other satellites, possibly from Saturn’s moon Phoebe. The comet-like tails celestial bodies project elements and molecules into the solar wind and other planets and moons orbit through those influences.

Googling the question “What does space smell like?” Or specifically “What does the moon smell like?” returns the possible scent (once mixed with air) of ionization-recombination processes; as if ‘something’s burning’.

Lots to consider but I do see how you’re asking the question. Mars has been overhead in my area just a bright as you please for weeks now.

[GaryN]

How are you getting on with providing evidence or sources for these claims made as stements of fact?:

SO243 film is sensitive to beyond 1000nm

The SO-243 was rated to 700nm, NASA wanted to go to 750nm but Kodak said that was impractical.

The cameras on the Lunar Orbiters were fiited with Wratten 25a filters

The hi-res images I found all listed "clear" in the filter field.

The spectral response of the cameras on the Lunar Orbiters were tested at 600, 800 and 1000nm

Not true. They used those wavelengths for something to do with a calibration strip at the edge of the film. I speed read a lot, errors occur.

Vidicons replaced film and scanners as imaging devices for 60s planetary satellites because of their IR capabilities

Yes, for a while. But once they realised spectroscopic observations were the way to go the old school photography was doomed. The CCD made that possible, and of course the math that went along with it. Imaging went from analog to digital overnight.There is very little visible light out there, it is only generated when a body has an atmosphere, and the amount of visible light produced dependant on the composition and density of that atmosphere. There is also the spectral emissions of the surface materials of the body but those are mostly in the IR below what film would ever be able to detect.

I did find one of my saved pdf files that has some interesting figures.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... ypt8V6NxAh

The document title is 'Orbital imagery for planetary exploration'.

Have a look at that and then we can maybe discuss planetary surface illumination levels.

[Higgsy]

How are you getting on with providing evidence or sources for these claims made as stements of fact?:

SO243 film is sensitive to beyond 1000nm

The SO-243 was rated to 700nm, NASA wanted to go to 750nm but Kodak said that was impractical.

Thank you, as I have been saying all along, the film does not even extend into the IR.

The cameras on the Lunar Orbiters were fiited with Wratten 25a filters

The hi-res images I found all listed "clear" in the filter field.

Thank you. As I have been saying all along, many images from Lunar Orbiter (and LRO and MESSENGER and Mariner) were from the visible and all the data supports the idea that the Sun's visible light level is as expected at the various planets and at the Moon .

The spectral response of the cameras on the Lunar Orbiters were tested at 600, 800 and 1000nm

Not true. They used those wavelengths for something to do with a calibration strip at the edge of the film. I speed read a lot, errors occur.

Thank you, your correction is noted.

Vidicons replaced film and scanners as imaging devices for 60s planetary satellites because of their IR capabilities

Yes, for a while.

No. The IR capability of vidicons was never the reason they replaced film and scanners (the real reason is that they give a video signal out without having to have a chemistry lab with limited supplies on the satellites), but we won't quarrel over this. Thank you for the corrections to your claims - it's a big man who can accept he has been wrong.

There is very little visible light out there, it is only generated when a body has an atmosphere, and the amount of visible light produced dependant on the composition and density of that atmosphere.

Well there you go, we have come full circle, because you are now assuming the point that has been in question all along. What evidence do you have for this assertion?

The document title is 'Orbital imagery for planetary exploration'.
Have a look at that and then we can maybe discuss planetary surface illumination levels.

I shall await your first sally.

[GaryN]

Thank you, as I have been saying all along, the film does not even extend into the IR.

Huh? Why would they use the Wratten 25a filter if the film does not extend into the IR?

Thank you. As I have been saying all along, many images from Lunar Orbiter (and LRO and MESSENGER and Mariner) were from the visible and all the data supports the idea that the Sun's visible light level is as expected at the various planets and at the Moon .

If the SO-243 extends to the IR and they did not use a filter then how do you know that the images are not all IR and that there is no visible light?
The IR photos from Apollo obviously show that there is IR.
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apol ... azine/?56A
So how do the measured planetary surface illumination levels compare with the predicted?

[Higgsy]

Thank you, as I have been saying all along, the film does not even extend into the IR.

Huh? Why would they use the Wratten 25a filter if the film does not extend into the IR?

So you're going to renege on the admissions of error that you made just a day ago? You said the following:

The SO-243 was rated to 700nm, NASA wanted to go to 750nm but Kodak said that was impractical.

700nm is not in the IR, so the film does not, by your own admission, extend into the IR.

Furthermore you also said this:

The hi-res images I found all listed "clear" in the filter field.

Now you're claiming use of the Wratten 25a after all.

So are you sticking by your admissions or are you reneging on them? If you renege on them, I'm just going to demand your sources again.

Thank you. As I have been saying all along, many images from Lunar Orbiter (and LRO and MESSENGER and Mariner) were from the visible and all the data supports the idea that the Sun's visible light level is as expected at the various planets and at the Moon .

If the SO-243 extends to the IR and they did not use a filter then how do you know that the images are not all IR and that there is no visible light?

But you have agreed that SO-243 extends to just 700nm so it is not IR sensitive. So the images in that case were all taken in the visible. And we know from the filter characteristics of the cameras on the other missions that many images were taken in the visible.

The IR photos from Apollo obviously show that there is IR.
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apol ... azine/?56A

Of course there is some IR. Why wouldn't there be? In Apollo 12 there were 104 IR images taken from orbit as part of the multispectral experiment, which you link to above. But that is not your contention - your claim is that there is only IR and no visible, which is obviously and blatantly wrong. For example, from Apollo 12 alone there were a total of 1725 exposures of which only 104 were in the IR (all from orbit).

[Poppa Tom]

As I understand it, the moons surface is silicate and has glass-like properties, hence the high reflectivity.

[nick c]

As I understand it, the moons surface is silicate and has glass-like properties, hence the high reflectivity.

Actually it is the opposite. The Moon has a very low reflectivity.
See the chart here:
https://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/A/Albedo

[GaryN]

These are the surface lighting levels calculated assuming the inverse square law is valid. That assumption is reasonable, but the assumption that the Sun emits any visible light has not been confirmed experimentally.

Sun is 135,000 lumens at Earth distance.

Moon 4800 lux
Mercury 28500
Venus 53000
Mars 2750
Jupiter 700

How do these numbers compare to the measured values?

[Higgsy]

These are the surface lighting levels calculated assuming the inverse square law is valid. That assumption is reasonable, but the assumption that the Sun emits any visible light has not been confirmed experimentally.

Rubbish. The spectral emission and the total irradiance of the Sun have been measured over and over again. Why do you make these absurd claims?

Sun is 135,000 lumens at Earth distance.

What does that even mean? Lumens are a measure of luminous flux over a solid angle or an area. Perhaps you mean lux (lumens per square metre).

Moon 4800 lux
Mercury 28500
Venus 53000
Mars 2750
Jupiter 700

Your figures are wrong. The Sun's irradiance at the top of Earth's atmosphere (directly overhead, clear skies) is ~1320W/sq m. The luminous efficacy is 93 lumens/watt, so the maximum luminous flux at the Earth's at the top of Earth's atmosphere falling on a horizontal surface is 122,000lux, which falls to 98,000lux at the bottom of Earth's atmosphere. The Moon will be the same. Mercury's luminous flux will vary in its orbit between about 1,290,000 lux and 560,000 lux because of the eccentricity of its orbit. Venus: in the absence of its atmosphere would be 235,000lux, but because of its dense atmosphere and clouds, that would fall to much less at the surface. Mars - at the top of the atmosphere about 54,0000lux. The atmosphetre is thin but dusty, so less at the surface. And so on. All of these are absolute maxima - sun directly overhead on a horizontal surface.

[Higgsy]

Mars - at the top of the atmosphere about 54,0000lux.

Of course this is a typo and should read 54,000lux

[Poppa Tom]

As I understand it, the moons surface is silicate and has glass-like properties, hence the high reflectivity.

Actually it is the opposite. The Moon has a very low reflectivity.
See the chart here:
https://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/A/Albedo

Mahalo for your time. I love links.
So the fact that it (moon) rules the night sky, is attributed to its proximity to us. Were Pluto that close it would outshine the moon?
Geometric albedos – the amount of radiation relative to that from a flat Lambertian surface which is an ideal reflector at all wavelengths.
Does this not enter into the equation? I haven't counted all the craters on Pluto or the moon-and I never will
Parts of Pluto are almost flat and pure what then the 'heart' is surrounded by darkness. Were the moon as flat would it compare in lumens?
The physical aspects of the spheres are the determining factor in their reflectivity in these measurements. I am now wondering if silicate can out-reflect frozen nitrogen?

Thanks again. I really appreciate the info

[nick c]

Poppa Tom,
Your original statement was:

As I understand it, the moons surface is silicate and has glass-like properties, hence the high reflectivity.

My response showed why that is wrong. The Moon has low reflectivity (albedo).

from Merriam-Webster...
Definition of albedo: reflective power
specifically : the fraction of incident radiation (such as light) that is reflected by a surface or body (such as the moon or a cloud)

Note: Proximity of an observer to a planet/moon does not affect the albedo of the object. Proximity only affects the appearance to the observer.