It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: PeterMcFly
How possibly that a thread goes for so long about a simple problem of sensor dynamic range?
It tell a lot !!!
Pfft, that's nothing. You're welcome to check out the 51-page "sister thread" at thunderbolts.info... where GaryN is pushing the same idea, despite realms of evidence to the contrary posted there in responce.
originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: ComplexCassandra
Apart from the fact that the sun reflects off of other objects (Apollo craft, ISS, the moon, astronauts) while they're in space?
But no visible light from stars in space, right?
originally posted by: ComplexCassandra
Having read through this thread it seems to me that GaryN is suggesting, in its simplest form, that the electromagnetic radiation emitted from stars is only "shifted" into the part of the spectrum that is visible to the naked, human eye when it passes through a planetary atmosphere.
Correct me if I have misunderstood, GaryN?
Despite the ridicule, if we assume an empirical standpoint, this is a fair hypothesis.
It is also, as far as I can see, quite easy to test.
We have devices on Earth capable of emitting electromagnetic radiation at a vast range of frequencies. All we need do is firstly, look at each source through a vacuum tube to see how they look through a vacuum. Then fill the vacuum tube with the components of a planetary atmosphere and repeat the experiment to see which frequencies, if any, get shifted into the visible part of the spectrum.
Seems pretty straightforward. Should be possible in a college/uni lab.
originally posted by: 3danimator2014
originally posted by: ComplexCassandra
Having read through this thread it seems to me that GaryN is suggesting, in its simplest form, that the electromagnetic radiation emitted from stars is only "shifted" into the part of the spectrum that is visible to the naked, human eye when it passes through a planetary atmosphere.
Correct me if I have misunderstood, GaryN?
Despite the ridicule, if we assume an empirical standpoint, this is a fair hypothesis.
It is also, as far as I can see, quite easy to test.
We have devices on Earth capable of emitting electromagnetic radiation at a vast range of frequencies. All we need do is firstly, look at each source through a vacuum tube to see how they look through a vacuum. Then fill the vacuum tube with the components of a planetary atmosphere and repeat the experiment to see which frequencies, if any, get shifted into the visible part of the spectrum.
Seems pretty straightforward. Should be possible in a college/uni lab.
No it is not a fair hypothesis. You can't just come up with "ideas". You have to be able to back up what you are suggesting if you want people to listen. Especially if you wasn't people who understand physics to listen.
If you can't do some basic maths and explain HOW what you are suggesting would work then you have no place coming up with theories. This isn't how science works...
Physicists don't just say " heyyyyy.....what if photons are L shaped particles? Well that my theory...prove me wrong."
We will ALL in this thread listen to GaryN and take him seriously if he could put any weight at all on his ideas. But he can't. Are my parents thoughts on the Higgs field to be taken seriously? No, what they think is irrelevant.
originally posted by: ComplexCassandra
originally posted by: 3danimator2014
originally posted by: ComplexCassandra
Having read through this thread it seems to me that GaryN is suggesting, in its simplest form, that the electromagnetic radiation emitted from stars is only "shifted" into the part of the spectrum that is visible to the naked, human eye when it passes through a planetary atmosphere.
Correct me if I have misunderstood, GaryN?
Despite the ridicule, if we assume an empirical standpoint, this is a fair hypothesis.
It is also, as far as I can see, quite easy to test.
We have devices on Earth capable of emitting electromagnetic radiation at a vast range of frequencies. All we need do is firstly, look at each source through a vacuum tube to see how they look through a vacuum. Then fill the vacuum tube with the components of a planetary atmosphere and repeat the experiment to see which frequencies, if any, get shifted into the visible part of the spectrum.
Seems pretty straightforward. Should be possible in a college/uni lab.
No it is not a fair hypothesis. You can't just come up with "ideas". You have to be able to back up what you are suggesting if you want people to listen. Especially if you wasn't people who understand physics to listen.
If you can't do some basic maths and explain HOW what you are suggesting would work then you have no place coming up with theories. This isn't how science works...
Physicists don't just say " heyyyyy.....what if photons are L shaped particles? Well that my theory...prove me wrong."
We will ALL in this thread listen to GaryN and take him seriously if he could put any weight at all on his ideas. But he can't. Are my parents thoughts on the Higgs field to be taken seriously? No, what they think is irrelevant.
Which is precisely why I suggested a way in which GaryN could test his hypothesis.
Think of it this way.
Cast your mind back to your early science lessons. Remember all those basic practical experiments you did. The teacher would state a scientific fact and then you would do a little experiment devised to PROVE that fact?
It wasn't groundbreaking science. It was designed to show you that you didn't have to take things on faith, as it were, but rather could find ways to test it for yourself.
GaryN has shown repeatedly that he refuses to take things "on faith" - he has, if you will, adopted the empiricist viewpoint.
I have merely suggested a way that he can test his hypothesis empirically with the hope of putting this argument to bed.
Just as our science teachers knew what would happen when we put a lighted splint in a test-tube full of hydrogen we all know what the results of the proposed experiment will be. However, GaryN will not believe any of us unless he sees for himself. So I came up with a very simple experiment designed to test his hypothesis.
Sorry, my bad.
one simple question - where do you think the light in this : photograph comes from ?
I re-read this thread from page 1. Guess what there was on the first page? A PHOTO OF STARS TAKEN FROM THE ISS
I know a LOT more about photography/the equipment than YOU since I bought my first SLR 35+ years ago will be on later when home from work.
Having read through this thread it seems to me that GaryN is suggesting, in its simplest form, that the electromagnetic radiation emitted from stars is only "shifted" into the part of the spectrum that is visible to the naked, human eye when it passes through a planetary atmosphere. Correct me if I have misunderstood, GaryN?
It is also, as far as I can see, quite easy to test.
We have devices on Earth capable of emitting electromagnetic radiation at a vast range of frequencies.
If you can't do some basic maths
Sorry, my mistake. I thought you meant it would be easy for scientists to tests GaryN theory. If you meant that he can do it himself then you are totally right... but as someone beat me to say..He won't.
originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: GaryN
thank you for utterly failing to have any grasp of science - it seems an " easier " image is required :
same question - what is the source of the light in that pic
special plead your way out of that
originally posted by: wildespace
originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: GaryN
thank you for utterly failing to have any grasp of science - it seems an " easier " image is required :
same question - what is the source of the light in that pic
special plead your way out of that
From what I gather of GaryN's explanations, it's the lunar dust suspended above the lunar surface. If so, I'm surprised anything is visible in that photo, there must be heaps of dust up there to create so much light.
originally posted by: 3danimator2014
originally posted by: wildespace
originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: GaryN
thank you for utterly failing to have any grasp of science - it seems an " easier " image is required :
same question - what is the source of the light in that pic
special plead your way out of that
From what I gather of GaryN's explanations, it's the lunar dust suspended above the lunar surface. If so, I'm surprised anything is visible in that photo, there must be heaps of dust up there to create so much light.
Yes...that is what he is suggesting.. He also doesnt explain how far into space this magical property of earth's atmosphere extends.
Which takes me back to my comment that no one should make scientific claims without being able to back them up ...With science.
Otherwise I might suggest that the moon has a very thin atmosphere made of nano particles of iridium. It would SO easy for NASA to disprove this. ..but they don't!
originally posted by: 3danimator2014
originally posted by: wildespace
originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: GaryN
thank you for utterly failing to have any grasp of science - it seems an " easier " image is required :
same question - what is the source of the light in that pic
special plead your way out of that
From what I gather of GaryN's explanations, it's the lunar dust suspended above the lunar surface. If so, I'm surprised anything is visible in that photo, there must be heaps of dust up there to create so much light.
Yes...that is what he is suggesting.. He also doesnt explain how far into space this magical property of earth's atmosphere extends.
Which takes me back to my comment that no one should make scientific claims without being able to back them up ...With science.
Otherwise I might suggest that the moon has a very thin atmosphere made of nano particles of iridium. It would SO easy for NASA to disprove this. ..but they don't!