ApolloHoax.net
Off Topic => Other Conspiracy Theories => Topic started by: Bryanpoprobson on November 02, 2015, 02:27:34 AM
-
Some of you must have seen the stuff on the web from this Crow person? He has raised an issue regarding the alleged transparency of Venus during transits of the Sun. What I am trying to get my head around, should this be expected? After all the Sun is 8.4 light minutes away and Venus is 2.2 Lm's away during transit. Do we view a past image of the sun as Venus transits, in that Venus occupies a region 6.6 minutes before the light from the sun reaches it. Or does this have no baring on what we see..? I've never really thought about this before..
-
It's possibly something to do with Residual Bulk Image in the sensor. It's possible that the sensor on SDO does not employ any sort of Near Infra-Red flush routine which may mean that the pixel wells retain some charge between readouts. This article explains it well:
http://gxccd.com/art?id=418&lang=409
Of course, the hard-of-thinking will automatically move to their default position:
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-PrUgM7lz2kE/Ut9wQyE4gdI/AAAAAAACOc0/U5Lvy8vfr5Q/s1600/ancient-aliens-guy-im-not-saying-its-aliens-but-its-aliens.jpg)
without bothering with any of that research or investigation nonsense.... :o ::)
-
What exactly is the question? Is the image of Venus brighter than it should be? There's probably some light bending around the edges - atmosphere diffraction.
-
I'm still trying to get my head around the relative light delays...
-
Some of you must have seen the stuff on the web from this Crow person? He has raised an issue regarding the alleged transparency of Venus during transits of the Sun. What I am trying to get my head around, should this be expected? After all the Sun is 8.4 light minutes away and Venus is 2.2 Lm's away during transit. Do we view a past image of the sun as Venus transits, in that Venus occupies a region 6.6 minutes before the light from the sun reaches it. Or does this have no baring on what we see..? I've never really thought about this before..
He also has a video that the moon is/hollow/somewhat transparent as eclipses he has "shown videos that the sun shines through the moon.
-
Some of you must have seen the stuff on the web from this Crow person? He has raised an issue regarding the alleged transparency of Venus during transits of the Sun. What I am trying to get my head around, should this be expected? After all the Sun is 8.4 light minutes away and Venus is 2.2 Lm's away during transit. Do we view a past image of the sun as Venus transits, in that Venus occupies a region 6.6 minutes before the light from the sun reaches it. Or does this have no baring on what we see..? I've never really thought about this before..
He also has a video that the moon is/hollow/somewhat transparent as eclipses he has "shown videos that the sun shines through the moon.
The sun shines through the moon?
I myself never seen something like that with my telescope. Here is an example of the occultation of Aldebaran by the Moon:
-
Some of you must have seen the stuff on the web from this Crow person? He has raised an issue regarding the alleged transparency of Venus during transits of the Sun. What I am trying to get my head around, should this be expected? After all the Sun is 8.4 light minutes away and Venus is 2.2 Lm's away during transit. Do we view a past image of the sun as Venus transits, in that Venus occupies a region 6.6 minutes before the light from the sun reaches it. Or does this have no baring on what we see..? I've never really thought about this before..
He also has a video that the moon is/hollow/somewhat transparent as eclipses he has "shown videos that the sun shines through the moon.
The sun shines through the moon?
I myself never seen something like that with my telescope. Here is an example of the occultation of Aldebaran by the Moon:
You need to watch one of his videos as I can't explain it, just reporting.
-
He thinks Lunar eclipses are manipulated, lol.
-
I'm still trying to get my head around the relative light delays...
It's does give you a pause for thought, but having a quick think about it, it takes 4 to 8 hours for a transit to occur, with the suns (maximum) relative size being 32', I would think that it transits too slowly for this to be a noticeable effect.
-
I'm still trying to get my head around the relative light delays...
It's does give you a pause for thought, but having a quick think about it, it takes 4 to 8 hours for a transit to occur, with the suns (maximum) relative size being 32', I would think that it transits too slowly for this to be a noticeable effect.
Was it not a similar effect with the transit of Mercury that provided evidence for Einstein's General Theory of Relativity?
-
Was it not a similar effect with the transit of Mercury that provided evidence for Einstein's General Theory of Relativity?
That was to do with perihelion shift, Newtonian physics predicts the shift of the perihelion by a certain amount. Basically relativity predicts a further shift due to gravity being a distortion in space time and Mercury's shift was in line with the predictions of relativity rather than Newton. OR something like that. :)
-
http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node98.html
-
I think, but am not sure, that one way to look at the relativistic precession of Mercury's perihelion is that the curvature of spacetime caused by the sun's gravity effectively changes the number of degrees in a circle around it to something slightly different from 360.
-
I think, but am not sure, that one way to look at the relativistic precession of Mercury's perihelion is that the curvature of spacetime caused by the sun's gravity effectively changes the number of degrees in a circle around it to something slightly different from 360.
Oh my, you've just triggered a memory from long ago, on the now late and sadly missed Self Service Science Forum. Back in 2002 this American guy named Donde appeared, with a claim that Pi had an arbitrary value. There were a bunch of threads in which we explored that concept. If you go to http://www2b.abc.net.au/science/k2/stn/archives/archive56/newposts/570/topic570023.shtm there's a post early on with links to all the earlier threads discussing this fascinating ::) topic.
Then Donde got the idea that extra-solar navigation would be impossible because...well...it seemed to be he had no idea that a spacecraft could track its target and alter its course as necessary: http://www2b.abc.net.au/science/k2/stn/archives/archive33/newposts/218/topic218528.shtm
-
Then Donde got the idea that extra-solar navigation would be impossible because...well...it seemed to be he had no idea that a spacecraft could track its target and alter its course as necessary:
It doesn't help that more than one pop-sci tv show has stated that the accuracy required to send a space probe to a distant planet is equivalent to hitting a golf ball in Los Angeles and having it land on a Miami golf green. Since in-flight spacecraft course correction was not mentioned, some HB's took it as proof that the missions would be impossible to accomplish.
-
I mean, I do find it astounding that we're able to send probes to Pluto and have them get there, but to me, that's a tribute to the human ingenuity involved, not evidence that it didn't happen. I guess that's because I never have been conspiratorially aware.
-
Then Donde got the idea that extra-solar navigation would be impossible because...well...it seemed to be he had no idea that a spacecraft could track its target and alter its course as necessary:
It doesn't help that more than one pop-sci tv show has stated that the accuracy required to send a space probe to a distant planet is equivalent to hitting a golf ball in Los Angeles and having it land on a Miami golf green. Since in-flight spacecraft course correction was not mentioned, some HB's took it as proof that the missions would be impossible to accomplish.
Definitely major problems with taking an analogy that's meant to give an idea of the distances involved as being therefore an analogy to everything else about the situation.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the relative distance for a spacecraft actually easier to manage in some ways since space is mostly empty? You don't have to account for a complex, changing atmosphere with highly unpredictable wind conditions.
-
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the relative distance for a spacecraft actually easier to manage in some ways since space is mostly empty? You don't have to account for a complex, changing atmosphere with highly unpredictable wind conditions.
Exactly. The physics of space travel is very "clean". None of that pesky friction, turbulence, wind or drag.
-
Was it not a similar effect with the transit of Mercury that provided evidence for Einstein's General Theory of Relativity?
That was to do with perihelion shift, Newtonian physics predicts the shift of the perihelion by a certain amount. Basically relativity predicts a further shift due to gravity being a distortion in space time and Mercury's shift was in line with the predictions of relativity rather than Newton. OR something like that. :)
The best description I have seen was by Isaac Asimov in a short essay called "The Planet that Wasn't". This was basically the story of the non-existence of the intra-mercurial planet "Vulcan", a planet which was thought to have been the cause of the errors in Mercury's precession mesurements...
"By Einstein's relativistic view of the Universe, mass and energy are equivalent, with a small quantity of mass equal to a large quantity of energy in accordance with the equation e=mc2.
The Sun's enormous gravitational field represents a large quantity of energy and this is equivalent to a certain, much smaller, quantity of mass. Since all mass gives rise to a gravitational field, the Sun's gravitational field, when viewed as mass, must give rise to a much smaller gravitational field of its own.
It is this second-order pull, the small gravitational pull of the mass-equivalent of the large gravitational pull of the Sun, that represents the additional mass and the additional pull from within Mercury's orbit. Einstein's calculations showed that this effect just accounts for the motion of Mercury's perihelion, and accounted further for much smaller motions of the perihelia of planets farther out."
Full text of Asimov's essay here (it still a good read after all these years)
http://geobeck.tripod.com/frontier/planet.htm