Moontanman

I need to write a story about bigfeet... yeah that's the ticket bigfeet have big... feet? Just a story told by Natives to scare children guys...

While accurate its not very satisfying, I still have questions but I suspect that answering my questions would take a book like manuscript at least. I struggle with figuring out what is fundamentally different about the Saturn Titan system and the Jupiter Galilean moons system. Gravity is similar on all five moons, composition is similar, temps are similar, cryovolcanism is similar. I wonder if there is a book about this concept or even papers going into detail about this, it would be a very interesting read. I do have my own speculations about this but they are just speculations.

There is a fine line between a numerator and a denominator. Only a fraction of people understand this.

The attenuation of light by water depends on whether it is fresh or marine as well, spending many years growing live coral required an understanding of how light and water "slide past" each other, even the glitter effect can have a strong influence on coral growth. The glitter effect allows for a more intense amount of light reaching further into the water. UVa penetrates far enough for coral to need chemicals to turn that UV into visible light, it allows the UV light to be used for photosynthesis and give many corals their bright colors... in fact I used black lights to influence coral to produce more intense colors. Light plus water equals some interesting phenomena.

It does bring some things into focus that I have wondered about as well! I've given this some more thought and I wonder if the florescent part could have been because I was just at the limit of red light and might have had a bit of yellow left in the glitter flashing around the deck of the liberty ship I was exploring.

Thank you, learning is why I am here!

You do make a good point, the color of a star reflects its peak output, the fact that the star emits a range of light with just the peak defining its color. Our own sun should, by that peak color thinking, be greenish but there are no green stars, the rest of the sun's spectrum washes out the green peaks. I tried to look this up but no joy, too many pages of the color of stars based on their spectrum on Google but... I saw recently where it is thought that if the Earth was placed around a red star or a blue blue star the color of the star would appear close to what we see from earth due to the peak temp being a peak that ignores the rest of the spectrum. Our own eyes would probably fool us into seeing a moreor less yellow sun in the sky. Evidently googling this requires more finesse than I have. I would like to see a source for this please, it goes against everything I know about plants and photosynthesis.

I honestly have no clue, I know that at depth red light is gone and my blood was bright green with a yellowish florescence to it. I try to take care not to cut my self underwater but that one time I gashed myself pretty good and bled like a stuck pig. The liberty ship I was diving on was full of sharp metal and swimming around through the ship was likely to get you cut at least slightly. On a positive side I did manage to get some interesting glass glass jugs that had been sunk as garbage when the ship was intentionally sunk. I remember quite clearly swimming across the deck with sunlight glinting all-around me and being surrounded by a cloud of fluorescent green blood.

No I was talking about my blood, if you ever get cut below 30 feet or so the blood will be fluorescent green!

I stand corrected!

This idea of life conforming to the wavelength of light can be seen in plants that grow deep under water. Various colors of plants grow at various depths taking advantage of the filtering of light by water. By the time you get down to around 30 feet red light all but vanishes, blood is florescent green not red and plants that grow deep underwater are various colors from red to brown to yellow. Various pigments are used to supplement chlorophyll and even shift light from UV to visible light all to harvest the sun as efficiently as possible. I see no reason this wouldn't happen on other planets under the light of strange stars.

It's really not religion that pisses me off, it's the people who not only believe but think they have the right to dictate how I live based on their fairy tales.

Why is it silly to critique religion? Religion is in desperate need of critical thinking, in fact religion is a prime source of nonsensical people deceptively tryin to denigrate the very thing that Richard Dawkins is knowledgeable about he has every right to defend Science from. I'm not your honey, and disagreement is not what we are talking about, we are talking about lying to influence people against the reality of the scientific method. Any and all deception is worthy of being denigrated as a reasonable topic of discussion.

I don't give a shit what other people believe or do not believe, all that is important is what you can show and what you are showing is disrespect for reality.

You are trying to poison the well by being a disrespectful jerk, Dawky... really? Religion deserves no respect and Richard Dawkins gives religion none and rightfully so. You seem to be disappointed we don't bow down to your nonsensical disrespect of Dawkins. I respect anyone who stands up to the idea of a god as nonsense and I lack not only a belief in a god I lack respect for you... personally!

I don't get religion either and I am basically uneducated, I just require the things I believe to be real actually exist.

There was a time when I would have supported free speech unconditionally... then came the people who use free speech to make false claims and the gullibility of people to influence them in directions that are anti social at best... see the maga movement.

Since "revealed truth" is simply telling people what you want them to believe regardless of any conflict with reality, possibly actors would be the experts to use?

The expansion is real not something mathematical or made up. The term Big Bang was coined to denigrate the idea of an expanding universe after the expansion was discovered. It is my understanding that the term Big bang was coined after the expansion was discovered not before. Do you have a link? ??? What is the take away from this? We know that the Big Bang Theory is not complete due to it not encompassing quantum mechanics but to say it is naive? I'm not sure where you are coming from on that. Not interested, the name threw me, I regret asking, if you want to discuss religion please start a new thread. Please explain why Einstein's atheism is relevant? The universe can be both infinite and have a beginning... t=0 is the key.

Interesting, I've never heard of Yeshu but you would need to start another thread to explain it to me. None of that sounds familiar to me, quite possibly someone else can answer that.