🚀 go-pugleaf

On 9 Jul, 16:09, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 8, 7:53 am, Ian Parker <ianpark...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 7 Jul, 23:27, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 7, 5:30 am, OsherD <mdocto...@ca.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > > > FromOsherDoctorow
>
> > > > Roswell was a "UFO farce", all right.  I think, though, that what
> > > > bothers Ian Parker is really that Pentcho Valev and I, independently
> > > > and with no connection, keep surviving on sci.physics as
> > > > Nonconformists, even though trolls and graffiti artists keep attacking
> > > > my posts, while mostly mainstream physicists dislike Pentcho's
> > > > disagreement with Einstein.
>
> > > > As for Roswell, not only was it a UFO farce, perpetrated arguably by
> > > > Con Artists wanting to sell books and souvenirs and photographs, but
> > > > at some point the "USSR Evil Empire is Dead" obsessors made use of the
> > > > story to propagandize that Aliens had given the USA stealth and
> > > > similar information which enabled destroying the USSR and China and
> > > > their allies.  Well, now we know that the USSR basically downsized to
> > > > Russia, which has exactly the same policies as the USSR except that
> > > > it's smarter in de-emphasizing hard propaganda and in using the Free
> > > > market to destroy the West, while China never was in trouble from
> > > > stealth or any other Western technology.  In fact, Russia now has more
> > > > allies than before if we count Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Outer
> > > > Mongolia, Belarus, as well as nations that it keeps under Military and
> > > > Economic threat like Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzebekistan,
> > > > Kazakhstan, and partially Ukraine.   The USSR's downsizing also
> > > > succeeded in winning allies and friends for it in Africa, Latin
> > > > America, India, Islamist nations, etc., without having to supply so
> > > > much money to them since they were now supposedly "too small" (not so
> > > > much in area but population).
>
> > > > I disagree with Pencho about Einstein's "deliberate" frauds or
> > > > criminality or intentionally deceiving anybody, and I think that parts
> > > > of GR and SR (Special Relativity) are good local approximations in our
> > > > part of the Universe, though not likely in very strong gravitational
> > > > conditions, the early Universe (quantum-related, etc.), the
> > > > microscopic level, or other Universes in the Multiverse, and also I'm
> > > > interested in Superluminal motion which I think is a different phase
> > > > rather than an impossibility, which (Superluminal motion) Joao
> > > > Magueijo and many others are interested in.
>
> > > > OsherDoctorow
>
> > > "Deliberate frauds", "criminality" etc. belong to style and are
> > > therefore inessential. In my view, the only essential thing in
> > > Einstein's relativity is Einstein's 1905 light postulate:
>
> > >http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
> > > "...light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity
> > > c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."
>
> > > If the light postulate is true, then miraculous effects (time
> > > dilation, length contraction etc.) do exist and Einstein is at least
> > > one of the discoverers of the fantastic world we live in. However if
> > > the light postulate is false, that is, if the speed of light obeys
> > > Newton's model presenting light as discontinuous bullet-like particles
> > > and disobeys Maxwell's model presenting light as discontinuous field,
> > > then Einstein's 1954 confession resolves all remaining problems:
>
> > >http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf/files/975547d7-2d00-433a-b7e3-4a...
> > > Albert Einstein: "I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot
> > > be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures.
> > > Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the
> > > theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary
> > > physics."
>
> > But Physics is advancing on the basis of Relativity. To repeat - all
> > scientific theories must be tested. Field theories have never
> > depateted from invariance under the Lorentz transformation. You know
> > this I know this.
>
> > I have been looking through the thread once more ref. stars on the
> > Moon. Now if you are in a well lit room at night (on Earth) you cannot
> > see stars even if the window is taken out  ans you look directly into
> > the night sky. It is said, correctly, that as the Moon has no air the
> > sky is black and stars can be seen. However there are problems with
> > dynamic range. The astronauts (and their cameras) could not see stars
> > any more than I can see stars from a lit room. It is a question of
> > dynamic range. You cannot see stars at 25 fps either on Earth at night
> > or on the Moon. Point a normal video at the night sky and you just get
> > a blank, as indeed they got a blank on the Moon.
>
> > These are facts which you could say - I know, they know. The
> > relativistic paradoxes all have whiskers on them. You are perfectly at
> > liberty to construct a non relativistic field theory. You have though
> > to put it relative to something (Aldebaron?) though. If the theory
> > does not have Lorenz invariance it must be tied to something or other.
>
> > These are points of the "I know, you know" variety.
>
> > Je remarque que vous avez ajouté "sci.fr.physique". Je souviens que
> > vous avez fait une critique de la 2ime loi de thermodymamique en
> > francais. Peut etre je faux dire que j'ai un interet fort en
> > intelligence artificielle. Je crois que compression est la seul mesure
> > d'intelligence. C'est a dire Entropie maximale.
>
> > fleurs - printemps, source, ressorte  -  quel mot?
>
> > Tout mots sont "spring" en anglais. Donc un epeuve d'intelligence est
> > un mesure de compression! Je sais beaucoup sur le 2ieme loi!
>
> >   - Ian Parker
>
> Venus is not an actual star.  Instead Venus is at least twice to
> nearly three times as bright as Earth, especially when viewed from the
> physically dark as coal surface of our Selene/moon, and rather easily
> recorded by an unfiltered Kodak moment.
>
Depends on your exposure. Venus is indeed 2-3 times as bright as the
Moon by steradian. However it is typically only a tenth of a millirad
across. You would need a zoom lens. In fact you cannot resolve out the
phases with the naked eye. Neither can a Hasslebad camera. You would
need a reflex camera with a high powered lens.

Venus can in fact be seen in daylight on Earth.

I used to be quite keen on photography as a hobby so I have a fairly
good idea of what was achievable on the Moon. The astronauts BTW never
imagined that the landings would be called into question. Venus was
not a priority.


  - Ian Parker