Strange Posted May 28, 2016 Share Posted May 28, 2016 I'm sure that most of us here have seen images of the varieties of colored systems, such as the galaxies, and the vast physical phenomena of the heavens. We're most familiar with bright, white light. But the universe is much richer with light. These images in themselves are majestic. How much more majesty should we expect the further we venture beyond the harsh light of the sun? These galaxies are far beyond the light of the Sun, so I am not sure what your point is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted May 28, 2016 Share Posted May 28, 2016 It is only "brilliant" on one side. The other side is unlit. (Don't forget, several nations have sent probes to orbit the Moon.) Shouldn't it really be the 'far side' as it is true that we can never see that portion of the Moon from Earth. But still, it is lit by the Sun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B. John Jones Posted May 28, 2016 Author Share Posted May 28, 2016 It is only "brilliant" on one side. The other side is unlit. (Don't forget, several nations have sent probes to orbit the Moon.) When the moon is full, it's brilliant all around because it's above the dome. When the moon is partial, It's brilliant except where it is darkened by the dome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted May 28, 2016 Share Posted May 28, 2016 Shouldn't it really be the 'far side' as it is true that we can never see that portion of the Moon from Earth. But still, it is lit by the Sun. The far side (from Earth) may be light or dark. When the moon is full, it's brilliant all around because it's above the dome. When the moon is partial, It's brilliant except where it is darkened by the dome. This is just wrong. A partial Moon appears that way because (as you said earlier) it is a small ball illuminated from one side by the Sun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B. John Jones Posted May 28, 2016 Author Share Posted May 28, 2016 These galaxies are far beyond the light of the Sun, so I am not sure what your point is. That's my point. Beyond the harsh white light, there's much richer lighting. But far superior to our images. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted May 28, 2016 Share Posted May 28, 2016 You know that most of those images are false colour? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted May 28, 2016 Share Posted May 28, 2016 Beyond the harsh white light, there's much richer lighting. We all agree, there are other sources of electromagnetic radiation in the Universe besides our Sun. Is there any science you wish to disucss, or is this all more 'artistic' or 'philosophical'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B. John Jones Posted May 28, 2016 Author Share Posted May 28, 2016 (edited) The far side (from Earth) may be light or dark. This is just wrong. A partial Moon appears that way because (as you said earlier) it is a small ball illuminated from one side by the Sun. The part of the moon intersecting the earth's dome is distinct from the dome on the moon. Imagine a beach ball as earth and a ping pong ball as the moon beside the earth. Each has it's own shadow. But if the ping pong ball intersected the beach ball's dome, [it's intersection]* would model the moon when viewed from beneath the beach ball's dome of night. Of course, a room, and the balls aren't the best environment to test in. It wouldn't be uniform with the solar system. *[not it's intersection, the area of the ping pong ball above the intersection that's still viewable from under the dome] Edited May 28, 2016 by B. John Jones Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted May 28, 2016 Share Posted May 28, 2016 We are discussing the phases of the Moon? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_phase) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B. John Jones Posted May 28, 2016 Author Share Posted May 28, 2016 We all agree, there are other sources of electromagnetic radiation in the Universe besides our Sun. Is there any science you wish to disucss, or is this all more 'artistic' or 'philosophical'? Since when are discussions about natural phenomenon regarding natural satellites, not science? Of course, since so-called "modern" science. Let's just teach the kids to not ponder in science! That's real smart! -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted May 28, 2016 Share Posted May 28, 2016 That's my point. Beyond the harsh white light, there's much richer lighting. But far superior to our images. Those images are "beyond the hard white light". The part of the moon intersecting the earth's dome is distinct from the dome on the moon. Imagine a beach ball as earth and a ping pong ball as the moon beside the earth. Each has it's own shadow. But if the ping pong ball intersected the beach ball's dome, [it's intersection]* would model the moon when viewed from beneath the beach ball's dome of night. Of course, a room, and the balls aren't the best environment to test in. It wouldn't be uniform with the solar system. *[not it's intersection, the area of the ping pong ball above the intersection that's still viewable from under the dome] That is an eclipse of the Moon, not the phases of the Moon. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_eclipse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted May 28, 2016 Share Posted May 28, 2016 Since when are discussions about natural phenomenon regarding natural satellites, not science? It is not the subject, but the content that defines if we are discussing science or not. So far, you have basically attempted to describe the phases of the Moon (see the diagram above) and made some stange statement about light in the Universe. Of course, since so-called "modern" science. Let's just teach the kids to not ponder in science! That's real smart! I have no idea where this has come from, nor do I see what it has to do with this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B. John Jones Posted May 28, 2016 Author Share Posted May 28, 2016 You know that most of those images are false colour? I know that the images are inferior to what they are in truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted May 28, 2016 Share Posted May 28, 2016 I know that the images are inferior to what they are in truth. Strange wording... You mean as in seeing the objects directly with your own eyes from a spaceship? That depends on what the images are of. Somethings you cannot see directly, such as images in the X-rays or infrared. Also false colour can be used to help identify structures and so on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B. John Jones Posted May 28, 2016 Author Share Posted May 28, 2016 (edited) Those images are "beyond the hard white light". That is an eclipse of the Moon, not the phases of the Moon. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_eclipse No, in eclipse, the moon is always either precisely between the sun and the earth, or precisely at the apex of the earth's dome. Also, in the latter case, the moon would be in the transitional area from dark, to dim, to light. Edited May 28, 2016 by B. John Jones Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted May 28, 2016 Share Posted May 28, 2016 No, in eclipse, the moon is always either precisely between the sun and the earth, or precisely at the apex of the earth's dome. Exactly. So that cannot be the cause of the phases of the Moon as you suggest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B. John Jones Posted May 28, 2016 Author Share Posted May 28, 2016 It is not the subject, but the content that defines if we are discussing science or not. So far, you have basically attempted to describe the phases of the Moon (see the diagram above) and made some stange statement about light in the Universe. I have no idea where this has come from, nor do I see what it has to do with this thread. Does my "strange statement" not "qualify" as a hypothesis? I do hope we do still use hypotheses in this new and improved science. The problem is ancient. Conventional people prefer conventional thinking. Exactly. So that cannot be the cause of the phases of the Moon as you suggest. No, lunar eclipse occurs when the moon is at one precise point of the dome. This occurs every few months or so somewhere on earth. It rarely occurs from a given point of view. Lunar eclipse is simply the full moon occurring precisely at the apex of the dome. Full moon rarely occurs precisely at the apex. Full moon usually occurs anywhere else along the dome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted May 28, 2016 Share Posted May 28, 2016 Does my "strange statement" not "qualify" as a hypothesis? You said -- I know that the images are inferior to what they are in truth. How is this a hypothesis? You need to think about making the statement less subjective and less philosophical. Think about 'inferior' and 'truth' in a scientific context. It seems you have nothing to actually test. I do hope we do still use hypotheses in this new and improved science. We do indeed. But the statements should be scientific, or at least very close to being so (ideas get reshaped as work goes on). The problem is ancient. Conventional people prefer conventional thinking. I don't understand what this has to do with the discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B. John Jones Posted May 28, 2016 Author Share Posted May 28, 2016 (edited) Well, we don't want to go off topic, but 'truth' is not normally what one is looking for in science. One is looking for models and testing how well they agree with nature. Anyway, as I said, we know that night and day is explained by the Earth's rotation; we know that the Moon reflects light from the Sun; we know that there are plenty of photons in the Universe from all sorts of sources and wavelengths (taking into accound Doppler shift when needed). So, what is it that you want to discuss? "Science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding." --Einstein on "Truth" (much more on truth in science, by Einstein) You said -- I know that the images are inferior to what they are in truth. How is this a hypothesis? You need to think about making the statement less subjective and less philosophical. Think about 'inferior' and 'truth' in a scientific context. It seems you have nothing to actually test. We do indeed. But the statements should be scientific, or at least very close to being so (ideas get reshaped as work goes on). I don't understand what this has to do with the discussion. As I said, I have time for genuine folks. Edited May 28, 2016 by B. John Jones Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted May 28, 2016 Share Posted May 28, 2016 "Science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding." --Einstein on "Truth" (much more on truth in science, by Einstein) If you want to discuss truth in science, then you should start another thread. It seems off topic with regards to your opening statements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted May 28, 2016 Share Posted May 28, 2016 I'm sure that most of us here have seen images of the varieties of colored systems, such as the galaxies, and the vast physical phenomena of the heavens. We're most familiar with bright, white light. But the universe is much richer with light. These images in themselves are majestic. How much more majesty should we expect the further we venture beyond the harsh light of the sun? How much richer was your experience breathing in the fresh air of protected regions of the earth than when you viewed an image of our globe? Sunlight as well as darkness mask multitudes of details, whether darkness is the shadow cast by the earth, or another shallow dome over a much grander surface. This does not answer my question. Well-lit implies a certain amount of illumination. How much? Put another way, if the earth is well-lit, then most of the universe is not. These images you see from telescopes are only visible by increasing light-gathering ability both in area and in time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted May 28, 2016 Share Posted May 28, 2016 As I said, I have time for genuine folks. Meaning you only want to discuss things with people who will just listen and agree with you? I think you have come to the wrong forum for that. Please also think about what Swansont has said. You need a definition of 'well-lit' if one is going to be scientific about all this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted May 28, 2016 Share Posted May 28, 2016 Does my "strange statement" not "qualify" as a hypothesis? Hypotheses need to be testable. How would you test your idea? No, lunar eclipse occurs when the moon is at one precise point of the dome. This occurs every few months or so somewhere on earth. It rarely occurs from a given point of view. Lunar eclipse is simply the full moon occurring precisely at the apex of the dome. Full moon rarely occurs precisely at the apex. Full moon usually occurs anywhere else along the dome. Can you be clearer what you mean by "the dome". I assume you mean the shadow created by the Earth. Which is why I said that is the cause of lunar eclipses. (Which you seem to agree with.) The phases of the moon are not caused by the Earth's shadow. They are simply because part of the Moon's surface is not illuminated by the Sun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B. John Jones Posted May 28, 2016 Author Share Posted May 28, 2016 I assume the "dome" you refer to is the shadow of the Earth that you described in the previous post. It is actually a cone, rather than a dome (as some simple geometry will show). In which case, you seem to be talking about an eclipse, rather than the phases of the Moon. The phases of the Moon are caused by the fact that, as you described above, it is a small ball illuminated by a large light (the Sun) and so the other side of it is shadowed. The strongest darkness is a dome. The shadow would taper off somewhat cone-like. And I've answered your latter objection elsewhere. I assume the "dome" you refer to is the shadow of the Earth that you described in the previous post. It is actually a cone, rather than a dome (as some simple geometry will show). In which case, you seem to be talking about an eclipse, rather than the phases of the Moon. The phases of the Moon are caused by the fact that, as you described above, it is a small ball illuminated by a large light (the Sun) and so the other side of it is shadowed. The very dark part of the shadow is a dome. The shadow will taper off somewhat cone-like. And no, an eclipse is a specific junction of the moon with the apex of the dome, as I've stated severally, or between the apex and the point of the cone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted May 28, 2016 Share Posted May 28, 2016 The strongest darkness is a dome. The shadow would taper off somewhat cone-like. And I've answered your latter objection elsewhere. The very dark part of the shadow is a dome. The shadow will taper off somewhat cone-like. And no, an eclipse is a specific junction of the moon with the apex of the dome, as I've stated severally, or between the apex and the point of the cone. Please explain why the shadow would be a dome, in contradiction to the laws of optics. (You haven't answered my other point, you have simply repeated the same assertions.) If you think that the phases of the moon are caused by the Earth's shadow, please explain why the phases do not coincide with perigee and apogee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts