🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jul 9, 12:25 pm, Ian Parker <ianpark...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

You are so funny.  Venus is 2 to 3 times as bright as Earth, and
that's a good 6 to 8 times as bright as our moon that's physically as
dark as coal.

> 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.

That's very DARPA of yourself.  Too bad you have not one such image to
back up that phony statement.  However, it seems I have posted links
to multiple images that prove otherwise. (sorry about that)

>
> 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

From orbit and from EVAs, Venus would have been next to impossible for
having continually excluded (you'd have to intentionally work pretty
hard at having to continually exclude Venus, not to mention a few
other than Earth or Venus items that should also have photo recorded
on that unfiltered film)

 - Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth