The Dark Moon

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light? If you have a personal favorite theory, that is in someway related to the Electric Universe, this is where it can be posted.
Higgsy
Posts: 628
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 10:32 pm

Re: The Dark Moon

Unread post by Higgsy » Tue Nov 10, 2020 12:36 am

GaryN wrote: Mon Nov 09, 2020 8:37 pm
Higgsy wrote:First of all you give absolutely no reference or evidence for your assertion that Apollo video cameras were low light devices or that NASA had to go to the DoD to use them.
Early in the Apollo program NASA became aware of a special low-light television imaging tube that Westinghouse had developed for the Department of Defense. Due to the war in Viet Nam, the Army was developing low light devices for use as jungle surveillance devices and on aircraft to spot a downed pilot at night. To meet the DOD requirements Westinghouse developed a sensitive image tube that combined a variable-gain light intensifier with a secondary electron conduction (SEC) target. The SEC tube had the capability to reproduce objects in motion, at low light levels, without the normal smearing produced by vidicon or image orthicon tubes.

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/ApolloTV-Acrobat5.pdf
Thanks for that. I accept now that the Apollo video camera used an image intensifier SEC tube which is capable of low light operation. But you didn't quote this from the same page of your linked report: "Since there were no other device [sic] that could possibly meet the Apollo TV camera mission requirement to operate unattended at both lunar day and lunar night and survive all phases of the Apollo mission, the DOD was asked to allow Westinghouse to use the SEC tube for the Apollo TV camera program." (My emphasis). In other words the low light capability was driven by the requirement to operate the camera during the lunar night, and is therefore no evidence that light levels during the lunar day were expected to be low. You have either carelessly missed this point, or you have knowingly and dishonestly hidden it from readers of the forum to mistakenly give the impression that the choice of Apollo video camera technology is evidence for light levels lower on the lunar surface than conventionally expected.

In checking various documents referenced in the report above, the day lens has an equivalent f-number of f/60 and the night lens of f/1.15 (including ND filters). The night lens is therefore approximately 11 stops or 2,700 times brighter ((60/1.15)^2) than the day lens, which can be compared with the maximum scene brightness in the specifications of the camera of 12,600 ft-lamberts (43,000 lux) for the day, and 5 ft-lamberts (17 lux) for the night (a ratio of 2,520). See page 51 of https://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hist ... 3-1968.pdf. Yet again the actual evidence does not in any way support your idea.
"Why would the conservation of charge even matter?" - Cargo

User avatar
GaryN
Posts: 2918
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 3:18 am

Re: The Dark Moon

Unread post by GaryN » Tue Nov 10, 2020 9:45 pm

I think you need to understand some of the instruments that have/are being utilised. This is a good intro to imaging spectroscopy.
https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/jour ... full?SSO=1
And there are NO visible light photos of the lunar far side, everything from the Luna 3 image and up to LRO is infrared. Mariner 10 data required a great deal of manipulation to produce those images.

Being a NASA skeptic means looking at what we are not shown or told just as much if not more than what they do show or tell us. Here are just the first items.

A photograph of the Sun from space using the same type of camera, exposure settings and filters that many photographers use from Earth. I'd also like to see such an image from the ISS as although there are photos of the Sun from the ISS we have no idea of the intensity. Using the same setup as Earth based solar photography we would likely see that the intensity from orbit is greatly reduced. Of course the EXIF file would be needed but NASA has a habit of losing EXIF files where the data might reveal a discrepancy with expected values.

Direct measurement of the Suns heat from space using a pyrheliometer. Similarly from the ISS as again it would show an obvious discrepancy with Earth based measurements.

A photo of the stars taken from space with the same setup that Earth based astrophotographers use. The Apollo astronauts tried and were not successful. A photo of the stars from the ISS would have to be taken looking AWAY from Earth, but this is not possible from the Cupola due to line of sight limitations. Zenith facing portholes are only utilised for special scientific experiments and the results of these experiments not made public or available by request.

A photo of the stars taken from the lunar surface. The Chinese have not managed to show us from the near or far side. I am told its too cold for the cameras to work, but cooling CCD sensors is an accepted method for improving performance.

A photo of the Lunar far side using a camera with a visible band-pass filter. Some cameras such as my old Nikon Coolpix 950 can be used for IR photography, if you can afford the filter, and the newer Nikons and most digitals have IR blocking, so NASA had to pay to get some of their cameras made IR capable again. Most of the films they used on the Apollo missions had extended red sensitivity for a reason.

To believe that a supposedly scientific organisation such as NASA would not have performed any of the above experiments in order to establishing some very important baseline information is beyond belief.
“I think 99 times and find nothing. I stop thinking, swim in silence, and the truth comes to me.” -Albert Einstein

Higgsy
Posts: 628
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 10:32 pm

Re: The Dark Moon

Unread post by Higgsy » Wed Nov 11, 2020 5:11 pm

Having a discussion with you is like discussing with a bot. You make an assertion, I demonstrate quantitatively and irrefutably that your assertion is complete nonsense, and instead of actually engaging with the argument, and either conceding you are wrong or making a relevant counter-argument, you just produce another unsupported and erroneous assertion unconnected with what has just passed. This has happened about the camera on Mariner 10, the cameras on MESSENGER, the video camera on Apollo, solar spectral measurements from space, the cause of blue skies and so on. You simply refuse to engage with quantitative evidence, just like a religious zealot and quite unlike a scientist.
GaryN wrote: Tue Nov 10, 2020 9:45 pm I think you need to understand some of the instruments that have/are being utilised. This is a good intro to imaging spectroscopy.
I don't need your irrelevant introductions to spectroscopy (as used in remote sensing of the Earth in this case). I'm a professional physicist.
And there are NO visible light photos of the lunar far side, everything from the Luna 3 image and up to LRO is infrared.
That's not just erroneous or a mistake, it's a blatant lie. When people start lying, it's a sure sign that they have no evidence to support their case. Luna 3 camera, AFA-E1 used hardened isochromatic film recovered by the Russians from American spy balloons. This is well documented by the Russian scientist who was responsible for the camera system. Isochromatic film is sensitive in the blue, less sensitive in the orange and red and insensitive in the infra-red. So much for your Luna-3 claim.

As for the LRO, I have already pointed out that the high resolution 100m/pixel mapping of the entire lunar surface was carried out at 643nm. The WAC on the LRO has two ultraviolet filters and five visible filters - it doesn't even accept IR light. It has a visible lens and UV lens. When using the visible lens no UV is passed. The visible lens is a 6mm f/5.5 design. When working in the UV, data is acquirred by summing pixels 4 x4, because the signal is low in UV (of course it is because the Moon is illuminated by close to black body radiation from the Sun at about 5,800K). See Robinson et al, Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera (LROC) Instrument Overview, Space Sci Rev 150, 81-124 (2010). So much for your LRO claim.

Why are you lying?
Mariner 10 data required a great deal of manipulation to produce those images.
Is that your attempted refutation of the detailed optical and operational data that I presented in a post above that showed that Mariner 10's camera system was entirely compatible with an illuminace at Mercury's surface just as expected by mainstream considerations? Pathetic. No rationale, no mechanism, no evidence, no argument as usual.
A photograph of the Sun from space using the same type of camera, exposure settings and filters that many photographers use from Earth. I'd also like to see such an image from the ISS as although there are photos of the Sun from the ISS we have no idea of the intensity. Using the same setup as Earth based solar photography we would likely see that the intensity from orbit is greatly reduced. Of course the EXIF file would be needed but NASA has a habit of losing EXIF files where the data might reveal a discrepancy with expected values.
Utterly stupid suggestion. What good is an EXIF file to determine the luminance of a source if a filter is fitted (as it must be to directly photograph the Sun)? The Sun's luminance is determined by properly calibrated experiments to measure the solar constant and the Sun's spectrum, which are reported in great detail in the scientific literature, not by your schoolboy experiments.
Direct measurement of the Suns heat from space using a pyrheliometer. Similarly from the ISS as again it would show an obvious discrepancy with Earth based measurements.
I have already explained that pyrheliometers measure total radiant flux (not infra-red only). The radiant energy from the Sun has been measured spectrally and totally from space. I have already explained that the Earth surface and space measurements of the solar spectrum and radiance when compared are entirely compatible with the standard mechanisms for absorption and scattering in the atmosphere. You can keep burying your head in the sand, but the facts are the facts.

I'm not going to comment on every one of your nonsensical puerile demands. Life is too short, since you ignore everything that doesn't fit into your preconceived notions anyway.
To believe that a supposedly scientific organisation such as NASA would not have performed any of the above experiments in order to establishing some very important baseline information is beyond belief.
What is beyond belief is that a reasoning adult would believe that the "important baseline information" is in question, and requires your childish "experiments" to establish the truth, given the mountains of quantitative data reported in the literature which show your idea is bunkum.
"Why would the conservation of charge even matter?" - Cargo

User avatar
GaryN
Posts: 2918
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 3:18 am

Re: The Dark Moon

Unread post by GaryN » Wed Nov 11, 2020 8:46 pm

Luna 3 camera, AFA-E1 used hardened isochromatic film
You have a reference for that? I understood that all the US spy balloon cameras used what was to become the 2485 film, which was IR sensitive. If it was not IR sensitive then that would explain why it was such a poor, dark photo, like the Beresheet ones.

The best far side images were from the Orbiter 4 mission.
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/luna ... mission/?4
They used the SO 243 film with the Wratten 25a IR filter. 3 band IR, no visible.
What good is an EXIF file to determine the luminance of a source if a filter is fitted (as it must be to directly photograph the Sun)?
No filter on this shot.
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/file ... l_full.jpg
No solar filters on the ISS, unless one of the astronauts takes one, as Petit did for the Venus transit shots. All looking through Earths atmosphere of course, from the cupola you have to be.

And some more nonsense for your perusal:

Comet Atlas
https://spaceweather.com/images2020/10n ... _strip.jpg

Can comets be seen from outside of Earths atmosphere? During the Apollo 13 mission they tried twice to photograph comet Bennet but did not succeed. The camera was mounted to the window bracket so the navigation computer could orient the craft precisely at the target, even though the astronauts could not see it. They were about to make a third attempt when the blowout occurred, so no further attempt was made, they had much more serious matters to deal with.
One issue was how they would navigate back to Earth if all the systems were down. Back to basics was one solution for getting their coarse bearings so they used the Alignment Optical Telescope to view the limb of the Earth, Moon and Sun. This instrument that was used to look at the stars was going to be pointed at the Sun! No solar filter, good idea!
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/aot1.jpg
“I think 99 times and find nothing. I stop thinking, swim in silence, and the truth comes to me.” -Albert Einstein

Higgsy
Posts: 628
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 10:32 pm

Re: The Dark Moon

Unread post by Higgsy » Thu Nov 12, 2020 1:20 am

GaryN wrote: Wed Nov 11, 2020 8:46 pm
Luna 3 camera, AFA-E1 used hardened isochromatic film
You have a reference for that?
https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/spacecr ... =1959-008A
I understood that all the US spy balloon cameras used what was to become the 2485 film, which was IR sensitive. If it was not IR sensitive then that would explain why it was such a poor, dark photo, like the Beresheet ones.
None of the reconnaissance films were IR sensitive so far as I know. The earlier ones before 1957 had no sensitivity beyond about 680nm. After 1957, they were "red-extended" to a bit beyond 720nm. They had little or no sensitivity by 740nm. https://www.asprs.org/wp-content/uploa ... 95-699.pdf, figure 1. The Luna 3 images weren't dark - they were low quality owing to the rather complicated process to take, develop, scan and get them back to Earth, and in particular the noisy analogue data transmission from satellite recorders.We're talking 1958 and a chemical lab on a satellite.
The best far side images were from the Orbiter 4 mission.
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/luna ... mission/?4
They used the SO 243 film with the Wratten 25a IR filter. 3 band IR, no visible.
The best far side images in existence are from LRO as I have pointed out before, where the atlas was taken in the visible. That fact on its own, regardless of anything else gives the lie to your statement "And there are NO visible light photos of the lunar far side, everything from the Luna 3 image and up to LRO is infrared". Orbiter 4 took very few images of the far side, and most of the far side images were taken by Orbiter 5. Pretty much all the images you linked to are near-side if you check the longitude. The Orbiters did use SO243 film, a very fine grain and slow red extended panchromatic film - but what is your source for the Wratten 25a, and what on earth do you mean by three band IR? Reference please.
What good is an EXIF file to determine the luminance of a source if a filter is fitted (as it must be to directly photograph the Sun)?
No filter on this shot.
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/file ... l_full.jpg
But that is not an image of the Sun. That is an image with at least part of the Sun incidentally in it. If the exposure data for that shot said 1/200s at f/8, how would you infer the luminance of the Sun? To infer an estimate of the luminance you need to expose the sun so that it does not saturate the film or sensor (and for that you need a filter), know what the exposure time and aperture are, know what filter is used and know the spectral and absolute sensitivity of the film or sensor. But if you wanted to measure the Sun's luminance accurately, you wouldn't do it that way, you'd use something like a calibrated spectrometer; as indeed we do.
"Why would the conservation of charge even matter?" - Cargo

User avatar
GaryN
Posts: 2918
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 3:18 am

Re: The Dark Moon

Unread post by GaryN » Thu Nov 12, 2020 8:26 pm

but what is your source for the Wratten 25a, and what on earth do you mean by three band IR? Reference please.
The SO 243 was sensitive in the IR to beyond 1000 nm, the Wratten 25A was a longpass red tri-colour filter blocking below 580nm. So why use a film created for IR if you don't use a filter? The spectral responses was tested at 600,800, and 1000 nm in order to meet requirements.
But that is not an image of the Sun. That is an image with at least part of the Sun incidentally in it.
Well try this one then.
https://cosmic-watch.com/cosmicbeta/wp- ... ace_c.jpg
If they used the same ND filter and exposure setting as are used on Earth would we see sunspots? The reason they don't take solar filters, particularly the ND filter, is that they would be expected to use them! And that would really raise some questions they would rather not hear. Imagine going to deep space and not taking a solar filter, what nonsense.
“I think 99 times and find nothing. I stop thinking, swim in silence, and the truth comes to me.” -Albert Einstein

Higgsy
Posts: 628
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 10:32 pm

Re: The Dark Moon

Unread post by Higgsy » Thu Nov 12, 2020 10:23 pm

GaryN wrote: Thu Nov 12, 2020 8:26 pm
but what is your source for the Wratten 25a, and what on earth do you mean by three band IR?
The SO 243 was sensitive in the IR to beyond 1000 nm,
I don't believe you. Reference please.
the Wratten 25A was a longpass red tri-colour filter blocking below 580nm.
It was. Please give us a reliable reference that the Wratten 25 was used in the optical path of the Orbiter cameras.I don't believe your assertion that it was. Do you know what a tri-colour filter is?
The spectral responses was tested at 600,800, and 1000 nm in order to meet requirements.
Reference please.
"Why would the conservation of charge even matter?" - Cargo

User avatar
GaryN
Posts: 2918
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 3:18 am

Re: The Dark Moon

Unread post by GaryN » Fri Nov 13, 2020 8:59 pm

In your link
https://www.asprs.org/wp-content/upload ... 95-699.pdf
it is stated that they used the Wratten 25 filter.

The Russian guy talking about how they hacked the film said that a film much more sensitive than they had was needed for photography of the cosmos. So the D.O.D. gets the military to let NASA use some of their night time aerial surveillance film which used near-IR. In the 60s I was doing my apprenticeship and was being tutored by an ex-RAF photographic tech. and saw some of the enlargements that used these visible and IR films. Astounding resolution.
So they now knew that the light levels are so low at the Moon that they needed not just sensitivity but extended red, near IR capability as there are more photons available at these wavelengths than there are at visible light wavelengths. The vidicon was then turned to not so much for its visible light sensitivity but for its IR capabilities.
So even now we can see that when visiting a rocky body with no atmosphere that the near IR is necessary and a dedicated camera is used. The NAC on Messenger was IR band limited, the NAC on LRO did not have a filter as far as I can see but was near IR capable, and if there is so little visible light that it would not have affected imaging then it was superfluous anyway.
Please give us a reliable reference that the Wratten 25 was used in the optical path of the Orbiter cameras.I don't believe your assertion that it was.
Well, I can't locate that paper at the moment, I have gigabytes of PDF documents I have collected over the years and admit my file systems are utterly chaotic, but am sure I have it somewhere. I DO NOT make things up to try and embellish my model of lighting and illumination but the evidence for their (25a) use is plenty. And if there is so little visible light out there then the Wratten 25a might not even have been needed anyway, the only useful thing out there is the IR.

The near IR emissions are most likely surface luminescence which could be from proton excitation, possibly vacuum UV, but definitely not from reflected visible light.

So you have now managed to strengthen my belief that the old model is totally obsolete, and we really are now seeing the cosmos in a whole new light.
“I think 99 times and find nothing. I stop thinking, swim in silence, and the truth comes to me.” -Albert Einstein

Higgsy
Posts: 628
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 10:32 pm

Re: The Dark Moon

Unread post by Higgsy » Sat Nov 14, 2020 1:57 am

Your post is obviously an attempt on your part to divert from the fact that you made claims, stated as facts, that I called you out on and that you cannot justify. I am not going to let you get away with that.
GaryN wrote: Fri Nov 13, 2020 8:59 pm In your link
https://www.asprs.org/wp-content/upload ... 95-699.pdf
it is stated that they used the Wratten 25 filter.
"They" used the Wratten filter? Who is "they"? In that link, the only mentions of the Wratten 25 filter (which, by the way, passes visible liight from the orange-red and longer wavengths), is the exposure details for a First World War film (Eastman Panchromatic Aero Film,Hyper-sensitized) using the filter; and the filter factor of various 1950s films, including SO243, with Wratten 25 and Wratten 12 (yellow).
The Russian guy talking about...blah blah blah...was superfluous anyway.
You stated as a fact:
The SO 243 was sensitive in the IR to beyond 1000 nm
I don't believe you. I think you are lying. Give us a reference or admit you were wrong.

You stated as a fact:
The best far side images were from the Orbiter 4 mission.
They used the SO 243 film with the Wratten 25a IR filter. 3 band IR, no visible.
I don't believe they used a Wratten 25a filter in Orbiter. I believe you are lying. Give us a reference or admit you're wrong.

You stated as a fact:
The spectral responses was tested at 600,800, and 1000 nm in order to meet requirements.
I don't believe you. I think you are lying. Give us a reference or admit you're wrong.

In your last post you said in response to my challenge:
Please give us a reliable reference that the Wratten 25 was used in the optical path of the Orbiter cameras.I don't believe your assertion that it was.
Well, I can't locate that paper at the moment...
Surprise, surprise!
...I have gigabytes of PDF documents I have collected over the years and admit my file systems are utterly chaotic, but am sure I have it somewhere. I DO NOT make things up to try and embellish my model of lighting and illumination but the evidence for their (25a) use is plenty.
If it's plenty, you should be able to provide it. But the evidence here is that you do make things up, for which you have not the slightest evidence. That can be an honest mistake, but when it's pointed out to you, and you repeat it, that's lying.

Let's continue. You stated as fact:
The vidicon was then turned to not so much for its visible light sensitivity but for its IR capabilities.
I don't believe you. You are telling porkies. Give us a reference or admit you are wrong.

All this fibbing that you indulge in, seemingly routinely, is not a good look.
"Why would the conservation of charge even matter?" - Cargo

User avatar
GaryN
Posts: 2918
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 3:18 am

Re: The Dark Moon

Unread post by GaryN » Tue Nov 17, 2020 7:20 pm

"liar" "liar" "liar"
Despite Higsy displaying his usual lack of civility, I really have to give him credit here for bringing to light the fact that the low light level devices NASA used during Apollo were really seeing mainly in the IR, not visible light. I'll be kicking myself for a week for not realising this before, but it explains the lousy images from the Apollo 8 video camera when viewing the Earth. The vidicon tube for the camera was rated useable to 800 nm, but I believe that mainly it was detecting the 656 nm Balmer line from Earths cloud tops. 656 nm is till a popular centre wavelength for many of the spectral instruments they send into space, but now there are many filters in the IR and maybe one or 2 in the visible range, but these are still not to be taken as visible light of any humanly visible light as their intensity is very low, the instruments extremely sensitive.

Adding a couple more items to the list of things we are not shown or told by NASA:

The surface brightness of any of the planets or moons or other bodies that have been visited. Even the latest Mars visitor will not be able to tell us that, no simple light meter included in the many instruments.

A photo of the Earthshine illuminated portion of a crescent moon taken from space. From outside of Earths atmosphere the moon is very difficult to see by eye until they are much closer which is the reasons they did not observe the Moon from Apollo 8 until they were in orbit. They flew backwards the whole way. The Moon we are shown from the ISS is of course seen through Earths atmosphere.
“I think 99 times and find nothing. I stop thinking, swim in silence, and the truth comes to me.” -Albert Einstein

Higgsy
Posts: 628
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 10:32 pm

Re: The Dark Moon

Unread post by Higgsy » Wed Nov 18, 2020 6:50 pm

GaryN wrote: Tue Nov 17, 2020 7:20 pm
"liar" "liar" "liar"
Despite Higsy displaying his usual lack of civility,
Let's deal with this straight away. What do you call the practice of stating things as facts that are not true? My "lack of civility" was driven by your mendacity. How is anyone meant to debate a scientific topic with someone who just makes up things out of whole cloth, and states them as facts, and does so repeatedly. Their evidence base must be poor indeed if they have to lie to support their case. Just to summarise, here are the things you stated as facts in support of your argument for which you have no source:
  • 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
I will immediately apologise if you can justify those statements but you have made no attempt to do so. I could use another word for your habit of making false statements, but a pig wearing lipstick is still a pig.
I really have to give him credit here for bringing to light the fact that the low light level devices NASA used during Apollo were really seeing mainly in the IR, not visible light.
Except, except there is not the slightest shred of evidence in this thread that that is so. I have answered every single one of your claims with direct and authoritative evidence that the cameras worked and were used in the visible, and you have ignored and tried to skate over every single point. Any neutral observer reading through this thread would agree with me. This is merely an attempt on your part to play the Black Knight gambit.
I'll be kicking myself for a week for not realising this before, but it explains the lousy images from the Apollo 8 video camera when viewing the Earth. The vidicon tube for the camera was rated useable to 800 nm, but I believe that mainly it was detecting the 656 nm Balmer line from Earths cloud tops.
And your evidence for the presence of excited atomic hydrogen at the top of Earth clouds is what exactly? This is all of a piece with the rest of your fantasies, none of which have the support of any evidence whatsoever. I suppose you still think the blue sky is due to Balmer-β. What a joke.
"Why would the conservation of charge even matter?" - Cargo

Cargo
Posts: 700
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2010 2:02 am

Re: The Dark Moon

Unread post by Cargo » Sat Nov 21, 2020 6:18 am

Classic Higgsy.
I'm pretty sure you would never apologize for Dark Anything. Even though all Dark Things are based on complete nonsense.
You can twist and contort, but you can't see the dark light shining at you from Space. Maybe we should dig up the false color calibration on the the Mars landers.
Or, produce any eyeball visible light star field picture from the other/dark side of moon in less then 2 seconds. I'll wait.
Gotta keep that Red Planet Red, no matter what, right?
interstellar filaments conducted electricity having currents as high as 10 thousand billion amperes
"You know not what. .. Perhaps you no longer trust your feelings,." Michael Clarage
"Charge separation prevents the collapse of stars." Wal Thornhill

Higgsy
Posts: 628
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 10:32 pm

Re: The Dark Moon

Unread post by Higgsy » Sat Nov 21, 2020 12:43 pm

Cargo wrote: Sat Nov 21, 2020 6:18 am Classic Higgsy.
No evidence, no mechanism, no rationale from you either it seems.
I'm pretty sure you would never apologize for Dark Anything.
What?
Even though all Dark Things are based on complete nonsense.
So you say. You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. To make a substantive contribution, you could provide some evidence to support the four assertions above. Or any evidence really, in support of the proposition.
You can twist and contort, but you can't see the dark light shining at you from Space.
So you say.
Maybe we should dig up the false color calibration on the the Mars landers.
Bring it on.
"Why would the conservation of charge even matter?" - Cargo

Cargo
Posts: 700
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2010 2:02 am

Re: The Dark Moon

Unread post by Cargo » Mon Nov 23, 2020 1:15 am

I'm sorry I was too eccentric in my text. Though it's kind of like saying, the facts, which I alluded to, just have a Dark Meaning that is beyond your mind's ability to reason. This Dark Meaning is there, even though it can't be physically measured. The Dark Meaning pervades every inch of empty space. Even though it can not be seen or detected. This Dark Meaning, is now a fact. Because they say so.

Unless they are Wrong, then Dark Meaning doesn't exist. Would you apologize for being wrong about believing/thinking that Dark X is a Fact?

It would be great fun to talk about the Mars Color topic, but since that is within an atmosphere, it's not really relevant to this thread. Maybe I'll start another one. (JPL vs NASA, who do you think was right?)

So what would the Milky Way look like to you, if you were on a space ship half way between Earth and Mars, and looked our the window? How bright would it be to your eyes? Could you see it at all?
interstellar filaments conducted electricity having currents as high as 10 thousand billion amperes
"You know not what. .. Perhaps you no longer trust your feelings,." Michael Clarage
"Charge separation prevents the collapse of stars." Wal Thornhill

Higgsy
Posts: 628
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 10:32 pm

Re: The Dark Moon

Unread post by Higgsy » Mon Nov 23, 2020 2:02 am

Cargo wrote: Mon Nov 23, 2020 1:15 am I'm sorry I was too eccentric in my text. Though it's kind of like saying, the facts, which I alluded to, just have a Dark Meaning that is beyond your mind's ability to reason. This Dark Meaning is there, even though it can't be physically measured. The Dark Meaning pervades every inch of empty space. Even though it can not be seen or detected. This Dark Meaning, is now a fact. Because they say so.
I still have no idea what you are talking about.
Unless they are Wrong, then Dark Meaning doesn't exist. Would you apologize for being wrong about believing/thinking that Dark X is a Fact?
Nope, no idea. Try asking me your question using terms that a physicist might understand? I have no idea what Dark Meaning and Dark X are.
...the Mars Color topic...it's not really relevant to this thread. Maybe I'll start another one
Be my guest.
So what would the Milky Way look like to you, if you were on a space ship half way between Earth and Mars, and looked our the window? How bright would it be to your eyes? Could you see it at all?
Of course you'd see it. It would be a bit brighter and much more resolved than seen from the location with the best seeing on Earth. Why do you think the HST exists and why is more than $10B being spent on JWST?
"Why would the conservation of charge even matter?" - Cargo

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests