The Moon and Common Sense

[Phi for All]

 

The strongest darkness is a dome.

 

!

Moderator Note

You aren't communicating your ideas very well. Most of this thread is people asking what you're talking about, and you insisting you're making perfect sense.

 

Part of the problem is your mis-use of terminology. What do you mean by "strongest darkness"? How is the "strength" of darkness measured? Also, people have asked you what you mean by "dome". If you're going to use your own terms, you need to be able to explain them to people who are used to scientific terms.

 

Also, when someone asks you to explain something, it helps nobody for you to say, "I've answered your objection elsewhere". Obviously, you haven't, or they wouldn't have asked for you to explain it again.

 

And please lose the attitude. The others in this discussion want some clarity, you're using unfamiliar terms, so have some patience and please aim for more clarity and rigor. No need to respond to this note in thread, just help us understand what you're talking about.

[Mordred]

Calculating the amount of photons in a volume of space is trivial. Science doesn't rely on human senses so terms such as light or dark has very little meaning.

 

The contribution of the number density of photons is easily calculated via the Bose-Einstein distribution formula.

 

Our test equipment can measure all spectrums of electromagnetic radiation which confirms the Bose-Einstein distribution formula.

 

 

[latex]n_i(\varepsilon_i) = \frac{g_i}{e^{(\varepsilon_i-\mu)/kT}-1}[/latex]

 

Which is roughly [latex]3.71*10^8/m^3[/latex] at universe blackbody temperature of 2.73 K

 

You can check this article to confirm.

 

 

http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0406095v2.pdf "The Cosmic energy inventory"

Edited May 28, 2016 by Mordred

[B. John Jones]

 

 

Hypotheses need to be testable. How would you test your idea?

 

 

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.

 

Okay. I am probably mistaken concerning the darkened part of the moon being due to the earth's shadow. Still, darkness is always a shadow of minor magnitude, compared to a prevailing light. We see shadows from small objects on the earth, we understand the earth has it's shadow where there is night, and the moon likewise. We know that the region very distant around the earth and moon is very bright, whether we view the sky during the daytime or night, because even late at night the moon is very bright. The moon, of necessity, keeps where it is visible from under the earth's shadow.

 

If darkness predominates part of the daily cycle, and light the other part, but the relatively distant moon is still very well lit the entire night, then light dominates. Nighttime is a very mere dome.

[Strange]

Everything you say is correct. Except it is a cone, not a dome.

[B. John Jones]

 

!

Moderator Note

You aren't communicating your ideas very well. Most of this thread is people asking what you're talking about, and you insisting you're making perfect sense.

 

Part of the problem is your mis-use of terminology. What do you mean by "strongest darkness"? How is the "strength" of darkness measured? Also, people have asked you what you mean by "dome". If you're going to use your own terms, you need to be able to explain them to people who are used to scientific terms.

 

Also, when someone asks you to explain something, it helps nobody for you to say, "I've answered your objection elsewhere". Obviously, you haven't, or they wouldn't have asked for you to explain it again.

 

And please lose the attitude. The others in this discussion want some clarity, you're using unfamiliar terms, so have some patience and please aim for more clarity and rigor. No need to respond to this note in thread, just help us understand what you're talking about.

Okay, point by point:

 

Strongest darkness: the primary shadow cast by a convex earth--from a point of view under the shadow--will be convex, tapering to a lesser, more dispersed shadow, looking outward. We're accustomed, and our scientific laws reflect, shadows cast against objects. Here, we're talking about shadows cast away from the object, from a view within the shadow, not from without. Key distinction.

 

[okay, no more reply to this moderator note.]

Edited May 28, 2016 by B. John Jones

[Janus]

Okay. I am probably mistaken concerning the darkened part of the moon being due to the earth's shadow. Still, darkness is always a shadow of minor magnitude, compared to a prevailing light.

We see shadows from small objects on the earth, we understand the earth has it's shadow where there is night, and the moon likewise. We know that the region very distant around the earth and moon is very bright, whether we view the sky during the daytime or night, because even late at night the moon is very bright. The moon, of necessity, keeps where it is visible from under the earth's shadow.

Darkness is not always due to shadow, but can also be just due to there being nothing to direct light to our eyes. The Sunlit side of the Moon is bright because it reflects the Sunlight hitting it to our eyes. The side away from the Sun is dark because it is not being struck by the Sun and is in the Moon's own shadow. The night sky is,( on the most part) dark because there isn't enough stuff out there to reflect sufficient sunlight back to our eyes( Notable exceptions are those planets which reflect enough light to appear as points of light).

If darkness predominates part of the daily cycle, and light the other part, but the relatively distant moon is still very well lit the entire night, then light dominates. Nighttime is a very mere dome.

[B. John Jones]

If the terms being used are not scientific, they are not scientific in terms of very modern science. Natural science uses natural terms, like "earth," "gentle," or "cruel." True science is merely pondering nature, in any reasonable terms. It didn't begin technically. Scientific folk should still contemplate nature in natural terms, making use of technical terms when useful. I for one, study nature, and science; but primarily I live. The arts supersede the technical aspects. And I shouldn't apologize for that.

[Strange]

Okay, point by point:

 

Strongest darkness: the primary shadow cast by a convex earth--from a point of view under the shadow--will be convex, tapering to a lesser, more dispersed shadow, looking outward. We're accustomed, and our scientific laws reflect, shadows cast against objects. Here, we're talking about shadows cast away from the object, from a view within the shadow, not from without. Key distinction.

 

 

The strongest shadow is called the "umbra". The lesser shadow is called the "penumbra".

 

Neither of these can really be called a dome.

[B. John Jones]

Darkness is not always due to shadow, but can also be just due to there being nothing to direct light to our eyes. The Sunlit side of the Moon is bright because it reflects the Sunlight hitting it to our eyes. The side away from the Sun is dark because it is not being struck by the Sun and is in the Moon's own shadow. The night sky is,( on the most part) dark because there isn't enough stuff out there to reflect sufficient sunlight back to our eyes( Notable exceptions are those planets which reflect enough light to appear as points of light).

 

When a room is perfectly enclosed, without an internal source of light, it is very dark, even during daytime. It seems that light is absent but the fact remains, you're under a shadow. Introduce a candle, but imagine it suspended in the enclosed room the size of a stadium. If your back was turned to the candle, you're going to have the same quality of light as you would with something to reflect against. Something to reflect against would merely be the prominent thing in the room. The only ways to make it more dark in the room is to either diminish the light source or to come under another shadow. Removing the thing reflecting the light does not diminish the room's illumination. Darkness is due to shadow.

[Strange]

Darkness is due to shadow.

 

 

Is that supposed to be an insight?

[B. John Jones]

 

 

The strongest shadow is called the "umbra". The lesser shadow is called the "penumbra".

 

Neither of these can really be called a dome.

Thank you. Regardless, however we've measured and calculated these regions, it actually correlates more like the color spectrum. We only measure bit-by-bit. But it's actually a spectrum, not a stratum. However we measure the umbra and penumbra, the effect from the view under a massive shadow is a ceiling. A pointed measurement is irrelevant to the effect. A shadow is not stratified but has soft transition. We're not accustomed to thinking in terms of being under a shadow the propensity of nighttime.

 

 

Is that supposed to be an insight?

 

You're supposed to assume, always due, from the context.

Science is cute but wisdom has authority. The sun and moon are governors.

Edited May 28, 2016 by B. John Jones

[StringJunky]

.... but wisdom has authority.

Wisdom comes from acknowledging mistakes; you have yet to do this.

[B. John Jones]

Wisdom comes from acknowledging mistakes; you have yet to do this.

 

Actually, I have:

 

 

Okay. I am probably mistaken concerning the darkened part of the moon being due to the earth's shadow. Still, darkness is always a shadow of minor magnitude, compared to a prevailing light. We see shadows from small objects on the earth, we understand the earth has it's shadow where there is night, and the moon likewise. We know that the region very distant around the earth and moon is very bright, whether we view the sky during the daytime or night, because even late at night the moon is very bright. The moon, of necessity, keeps where it is visible from under the earth's shadow.

 

If darkness predominates part of the daily cycle, and light the other part, but the relatively distant moon is still very well lit the entire night, then light dominates. Nighttime is a very mere dome.

[StringJunky]

 

Actually, I have:

 

Good, maybe you can work on the rest that others have pointed out to you.

[B. John Jones]

The main thing I wanted to say is that nighttime is a shadow, and the universe is much richer in lighting than we seem to understand.

Good, maybe you can work on the rest that others have pointed out to you.

 

Unfortunately, I'm the only one bold enough here to challenge conventions. Everywhere else, majority holds sway. Fortunately, I'm not obligated to you.

[StringJunky]

Unfortunately, I'm the only one bold enough here to challenge conventions.

I take it Galileo is a hero of yours? We have seen lots of Galileo wannabees.

[B. John Jones]

Uh huh. And who do you think made the most mistakes? Giants like Einstein and Newton, or your run of the mill "scientists?" I think the former ones weren't afraid to challenge conventions, and made the most mistakes.

Uh huh. And who do you think made the most mistakes? Giants like Einstein and Newton, or your run of the mill "scientists?" I think the former ones weren't afraid to challenge conventions, and made the most mistakes.

And believe me, my aim is not to be a scientist. My aim is wisdom. I prefer ministry, hands down, to science. Actually I prefer music to science, or a good meal. I prefer far better things than science.

[Robittybob1]

Uh huh. And who do you think made the most mistakes? Giants like Einstein and Newton, or your run of the mill "scientists?" I think the former ones weren't afraid to challenge conventions, and made the most mistakes.

And believe me, my aim is not to be a scientist. My aim is wisdom. I prefer ministry, hands down, to science. Actually I prefer music to science, or a good meal. I prefer far better things than science.

I'd say if you want to teach scientists you have to learn science.

[Strange]

The main thing I wanted to say is that nighttime is a shadow

 

Everyone knows that.

 

, and the universe is much richer in lighting than we seem to understand.

 

Than you understand, maybe.

 

 

Unfortunately, I'm the only one bold enough here to challenge conventions.

 

You are not really challenging conventions. Apart from a few basic errors (some of which you have acknowledged - thank you) you are stating stuff that is common knowledge.

 

Thank you. Regardless, however we've measured and calculated these regions, it actually correlates more like the color spectrum.

 

It is true that colours are affected slight differently because of diffraction and dispersion, but the calculation (based on observation) is simply based on the fact that light travels in straight lines.

 

We only measure bit-by-bit. But it's actually a spectrum, not a stratum. However we measure the umbra and penumbra, the effect from the view under a massive shadow is a ceiling. A pointed measurement is irrelevant to the effect. A shadow is not stratified but has soft transition. We're not accustomed to thinking in terms of being under a shadow the propensity of nighttime.

 

I have no idea what any of that means, I'm afraid. It could be written in another language.

 

You're supposed to assume, always due, from the context.

 

Yes, it is always true that the absence of light is shadow. Not really a particularly remarkable fact.

 

Science is cute but wisdom has authority.

 

Science works because it checks things against reality. How do you test wisdom?

 

The sun and moon are governors.

 

What does that mean?

I prefer far better things than science.

Science is just a method for testing ideas against the real world.

 

I can see that not everyone is interested in that. But if so, why are you wasting your time on a science forum?

Edited May 28, 2016 by Strange

[swansont]

If the terms being used are not scientific, they are not scientific in terms of very modern science. Natural science uses natural terms, like "earth," "gentle," or "cruel." True science is merely pondering nature, in any reasonable terms. It didn't begin technically. Scientific folk should still contemplate nature in natural terms, making use of technical terms when useful. I for one, study nature, and science; but primarily I live. The arts supersede the technical aspects. And I shouldn't apologize for that.

I don't run across gentle and cruel much in physics. Science tends to be less subjective than you imply.

The main thing I wanted to say is that nighttime is a shadow, and the universe is much richer in lighting than we seem to understand.

 

You still haven't quantified your terms

[B. John Jones]

I'd say if you want to teach scientists you have to learn science.

I'm always learning learning science, will always be learning science. It will never be my major. I don't teach science. I teach.

I don't run across gentle and cruel much in physics. Science tends to be less subjective than you imply.

 

You still haven't quantified your terms

This is true. Formal science quite often disowns truths, such as terms like "gentle," which is very physical. Formal science disregards such things as "cruelty," in terms of such things as those bacteria that are at enmity with nature.

I don't run across gentle and cruel much in physics. Science tends to be less subjective than you imply.

 

You still haven't quantified your terms

As I've said, I'm a dreamer, not a scientist or mathematician.

[ajb]

The main thing I wanted to say is that nighttime is a shadow,

I think we all knew that. It is simply due to the Earth rotating... as they teach in junior school.

 

 

 

and the universe is much richer in lighting than we seem to understand.

This is also true, in my opinion, but you have made a very loose statement. If your point is that we expect further advances in optics, optical astronomy and so on then I agree.

 

 

Formal science quite often disowns truths, such as terms like "gentle," which is very physical.

Again, in the context of science, you should ask yourself what 'truth' means. It is not so simple as you might think.

 

 

Formal science disregards such things as "cruelty," in terms of such things as those bacteria that are at enmity with nature.

Bacteria are part of our ecosystem. They are natural by any meaningful definition.

 

Also, words like 'cruelty' are moral statements and thus belong to philosophy and ethics. But don't get me wrong, ethics are important in how science is done.

 

 

As I've said, I'm a dreamer, not a scientist or mathematician.

This is clear and maybe one reason you are finding it hard to communicate.

[Robittybob1]

I'm always learning learning science, will always be learning science. It will never be my major. I don't teach science. I teach.

...

I'll repeat: if you want to teach scientists you have to first learn a lot more science.

[Strange]

Formal science disregards such things as "cruelty," in terms of such things as those bacteria that are at enmity with nature.

Bacteria are part of nature, not "at enmity with it".

[swansont]

This is true. Formal science quite often disowns truths, such as terms like "gentle," which is very physical. Formal science disregards such things as "cruelty," in terms of such things as those bacteria that are at enmity with nature.

 

If it's true then you were wrong when you said they were terms used by natural science.

 

 

As I've said, I'm a dreamer, not a scientist or mathematician.

 

You are visiting a science discussion site. When in Rome...