Why mankind will always be stuck to Earth and visiting aliens are impossible...

I've outlined the basis for this thought here but my simple analogy deserves an own topic in this section of the forum.



- the butterfly is stuck on this cherry
- the cherry uses the gravitational force (G of unknown quantity) to attract the butterfly to its skin
- in order for the butterfly to escape from the cherry, she needs to overcome this attraction and create a "repulsion" from the surface
- hovering on the skin doesn't work as the air around the skin of the cherry (the "atmosphere") experiences the same G of the cherry
- jumping doesn't work as G still acts on the butterfly
- G is solely based on m; mass is defining gravitational pull (and thus "push")
- the butterfly needs to eat away at least half of the mass of the cherry in order to have enough G to be able to escape
- at the moment the butterfly has eaten the cherry enough, it then becomes susceptible to the gravitational force of the Earth, many times stronger than that of the cherry. In order to escape not only the cherry (Earth for us) but also the Earth (Sun to us), she needs to eat then more than half the Earth  in order to escape according to the same concept
- she then becomes a "planet", in orbit around the Sun, no escape from there...

Any alien civilization, no matter how intelligent and active for more than the microseconds mankind is living on this planet, will suffer from exactly the same problem making it both for us impossible to visit them and for them to visit us.

Huh? We have things called "rockets" you know, which will only advance technologically as time progresses. Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're trying to say here.

Huh? We have things called "rockets" you know, [...] Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're trying to say here.

That is as crystal clear as that starless pitch black background of the "photo" of Pluto earlier this year... 

Quote from: TheEarthIsRound. on December 15, 2015, 12:32:53 PM

Huh? We have things called "rockets" you know, [...] Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're trying to say here.

That is as crystal clear as that starless pitch black background of the "photo" of Pluto earlier this year... 

http://blogs.discovery.com/inscider/2014/08/stars-in-photos-from-space.html

You can't see the stars due to the light that our own sun emits.

Quote from: Gaia_Redonda on December 15, 2015, 01:50:58 PM

Quote from: TheEarthIsRound. on December 15, 2015, 12:32:53 PM

Huh? We have things called "rockets" you know, [...] Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're trying to say here.

That is as crystal clear as that starless pitch black background of the "photo" of Pluto earlier this year... 

http://blogs.discovery.com/inscider/2014/08/stars-in-photos-from-space.html

You can't see the stars due to the light that our own sun emits.

Near freaking Pluto? 

The Sun must look from all the way out there (~40 AU) like some big Venus, not much bigger...

Suddenly the millions of stars and galaxies that are surrounding us shut down, causing a pitch black contrastless background? It was Sunday; no stars shining behind Pluto.

I keep amazed by how senseless the whole thing is... 

Quote from: TheEarthIsRound. on December 15, 2015, 01:57:54 PM

Quote from: Gaia_Redonda on December 15, 2015, 01:50:58 PM

Quote from: TheEarthIsRound. on December 15, 2015, 12:32:53 PM

Huh? We have things called "rockets" you know, [...] Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're trying to say here.

That is as crystal clear as that starless pitch black background of the "photo" of Pluto earlier this year... 

http://blogs.discovery.com/inscider/2014/08/stars-in-photos-from-space.html

You can't see the stars due to the light that our own sun emits.

Near freaking Pluto? 

The Sun must look from all the way out there (~40 AU) like some big Venus, not much bigger...

Suddenly the millions of stars and galaxies that are surrounding us shut down, causing a pitch black contrastless background? It was Sunday; no stars shining behind Pluto.

I keep amazed by how senseless the whole thing is... 

Sure, it's far away, but the light is being reflected off the planet. I'd highly recommend looking into the science of this before making assumptions like this. There are also photo enhancement techniques used increase the blackness of the background. Again, I'd recommend that you look into that.

Quote

Near freaking Pluto? 

The Sun must look from all the way out there (~40 AU) like some big Venus, not much bigger...

Suddenly the millions of stars and galaxies that are surrounding us shut down, causing a pitch black contrastless background? It was Sunday; no stars shining behind Pluto.

Sure, it's far away, but the light is being reflected off the planet.

When the Sun looks like a big Venus, there's little light that reaches Pluto  in the first place (hence the extreme cold out there) and even less "reflected" from the surface.

The pitch black background gives it away immediately. It's impossible to ignore stars when photographing the skies. Unfiltered in space that should be even harder.

I'd highly recommend looking into the science of this before making assumptions like this.

Thank you; exactly my starting point; science. Not; science fiction.

You stick with Arthur C. Nasa, I stick to reality, ok?

There are also photo enhancement techniques used...

Why would you photo enhance a CGI? Sounds rather silly. 

Quote from: TheEarthIsRound. on December 15, 2015, 02:06:02 PM

Quote

Near freaking Pluto? 

The Sun must look from all the way out there (~40 AU) like some big Venus, not much bigger...

Suddenly the millions of stars and galaxies that are surrounding us shut down, causing a pitch black contrastless background? It was Sunday; no stars shining behind Pluto.

Sure, it's far away, but the light is being reflected off the planet.

When the Sun looks like a big Venus, there's little light that reaches Pluto  in the first place (hence the extreme cold out there) and even less "reflected" from the surface.

The pitch black background gives it away immediately. It's impossible to ignore stars when photographing the skies. Unfiltered in space that should be even harder.

Quote

I'd highly recommend looking into the science of this before making assumptions like this.

Thank you; exactly my starting point; science. Not; science fiction.

You stick with Arthur C. Nasa, I stick to reality, ok?

Quote

There are also photo enhancement techniques used...

Why would you photo enhance a CGI? Sounds rather silly. 

Let me explain this to you once: light does not behave in the same way that it does in space. Light doesn't "decrease" the farther you get away from something. The only reason that it happens on Earth is because of atmospheric effects. Next, the reason the stars are not seen in the photo is because the light reflecting off the surface of the planet washes out the light from the stars that are many light-years away. Please, learn some science.

Also, you'd think that if NASA had faked the photos, they'd have been smart enough to add stars.

Funny diversion of the topic.

Indeed there's no atmosphere to divide the light; that means also the "reflection" off the surface cannot "block out" millions and millions of stars, galaxies and what-elses in the skies. Your argument is valid for both sides of the coin, not just when you want it to be.

Your attempts were fun to play with.

Back on-topic as there has been no reaction to what I painted here.

Gravity keeps us all attracted. Everywhere. So no aliens and no space travel, I'm sorry to bring disappointing news...

Funny diversion of the topic.

Indeed there's no atmosphere to divide the light; that means also the "reflection" off the surface cannot "block out" millions and millions of stars, galaxies and what-elses in the skies. Your argument is valid for both sides of the coin, not just when you want it to be.

Your attempts were fun to play with.

Back on-topic as there has been no reaction to what I painted here.

Gravity keeps us all attracted. Everywhere. So no aliens and no space travel, I'm sorry to bring disappointing news...

*cough*

Space travel is real, and if it's not real (at this time), it's still possible. It's completely possible to break free of Earth's gravity. You just have to exceed escape velocity, which is 40,320 kilometers per hour. Are you trolling, or do you really not know anything about what you're talking about?

It's completely possible to break free of Earth's gravity.

Totally agree, I had a helium balloon once. But, it floated away. Dang gravity wasn't powerful enough to hold it to the earth!

Let me explain this to you once: light does not behave in the same way that it does in space. Light doesn't "decrease" the farther you get away from something. The only reason that it happens on Earth is because of atmospheric effects.

So, now you deny the inverse square law?  Is there any part of physics that you are not going to redefine?

Huh? We have things called "rockets" you know, which will only advance technologically as time progresses. Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're trying to say here.

There is no proof of rockets in 'space'. No picture it never happened, period.

Quote from: TheEarthIsRound. on December 15, 2015, 02:23:14 PM

Let me explain this to you once: light does not behave in the same way that it does in space. Light doesn't "decrease" the farther you get away from something. The only reason that it happens on Earth is because of atmospheric effects.

So, now you deny the inverse square law?  Is there any part of physics that you are not going to redefine?

No, I'm not saying that it remains constant. I'm saying that it's brightness doesn't decrease. Is there any thread that you can visit without completely throwing it off?

No, I'm not saying that it remains constant. I'm saying that it's brightness doesn't decrease. Is there any thread that you can visit without completely throwing it off?

Brightness doesn't decrease?

Mercury, Earth and Pluto all receive (and reflect according to their albedos) the same amount of bright light from the Sun, no matter if they're 0.1, 1 or 40 AU away?

"Reflections" that make backgrounds full of millions of stars and galaxies, impossible to miss with the cheapest camera suddenly disappear and produce pitch black contrastless "photos"?

Tragicomical NASA clowns on LSD.

Subscribed. I love this guys logic! Got my brain going. Thanks Gaia.

The inverse square law doesnt mean that light fades away. All the energy continues its way, and photons hold the exact same frequency (if we ignore any relativistic effect). The difference is that when we take a measure of the sun's energy from a distance that incides in a surface, we are measuring energy per ANGULAR SIZE. Indeed, if we consider the reflector part of a sphere that encompasses the sun at a radius the same as the detector's distance, then we can see why less light is detected. This is just a basic application of Gauss' law.

Quote from: TheEarthIsRound. on December 16, 2015, 05:01:41 AM

No, I'm not saying that it remains constant. I'm saying that it's brightness doesn't decrease. Is there any thread that you can visit without completely throwing it off?

Brightness doesn't decrease?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminosity

In astronomy, luminosity is the total amount of energy emitted by a star, galaxy, or other astronomical object per unit time.[1] It is related to the brightness, which is the luminosity of an object in a given spectral region.[1]

It doesnt. You are probably mistaking brightness with magnitude, which is the perceived intensity of a star from a distance.

Mercury, Earth and Pluto all receive (and reflect according to their albedos) the same amount of bright light from the Sun, no matter if they're 0.1, 1 or 40 AU away?

No, because that depends on flux density (light current per area), and therefore depends on the distance.

"Reflections" that make backgrounds full of millions of stars and galaxies, impossible to miss with the cheapest camera suddenly disappear and produce pitch black contrastless "photos"?

I assume you can understand the difference between a telescope with an incredibly narrow field of vision being able to take a picture of a galaxy after some hours of exposure, and a picture taking with a wide angle lense of an object with a very high apparent magnitude such as a planet from its orbit.

Tragicomical NASA clowns on LSD.

Aw man. Yet another conspiracy theorist.

During the day on Earth, while the sun is up, the stars are not visible. In space, when the space station is orbiting around a section of Earth where it's daytime, they don't see stars either. During the night on Earth, while the sun is not up, you can see stars. The same applies to the space station orbiting around a section of Earth where it's nighttime.

Now, pluto is only 29 AU from the sun. At this distance, the apparent magnitude of the sun is somewhere around -19.17. The apparent magnitude of the sun from Earth is -26.7. This puts the sun's brightness at Pluto, about halfway between the Moon's brightness and the Sun's brightness from Earth.

While the apparent magnitude of the Sun from Pluto is considerably less, it's worth noting that the closest star to Earth that isn't the Sun, Proxima Centauri, has an apparent magnitude of +11.05. Even with an apparent magnitude of only -19.17 at Pluto, the Sun's light is still way more than enough to wash out the light from other stars. Combine that with the reflectiveness of Pluto's surface, and there's no chance that you're going to be seeing a star on the lit side of Pluto.

There. You can stop spewing your NASA conspiracy theory shit now.

Hold the bus!
Your saying we did not send a probe to Pluto because there are no stars in the pictures?!?!
You mean to say that NASA has super great CGI on ALL of the ISS videos, all space launches, all pictures from space that are so good they are completely indistinguishable from real imagery, but they forgot to put the stars in the Pictures of Pluto?!?!?!

So wait, which is it. Brilliant team of CGI experts, better than any combination of CGI experts working in the billion $ film industry. Or a bunch of forgetful loons?
You cant have both.

 . . .

Oh, wait, you want both dont you


Anyway, here comes the facts part.
As explained, a long exposure time will allow dark things to shine. Short exposure things will make less bright things disappear.

here we have long exposure

Time:   2015-11-02 03:46:24 UTC
Exposure:   9967 msec
Target:   PLUTO
Range:   131.8M km

here we have a short exposure

Time:   2015-07-13 20:02:50 UTC
Exposure:   100 msec
Target:   PLUTO
Range:   0.8M km

[url=http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/soc/Pluto-Encounter/index.php]http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/soc/Pluto-Encounter/index.php [/url]

Both pictures taken with the same camera. But you only see stars when the shutter is open of 90x longer than the pictures of Pluto.

Found another pretty one for you all

Time:   2015-07-14 19:04:46 UTC
Exposure:   150 msec
Target:   PLUTO
Range:   0.4M km

Pluto is between the sun and New Horizons. Because Pluto is blocking most of the Suns lights you can just make out some stars.

Thanks for adding some more info onto my post MaNaeSWolf.

Found another pretty one for you all

Quote

Time:   2015-07-14 19:04:46 UTC
Exposure:   150 msec
Target:   PLUTO
Range:   0.4M km

Pluto is between the sun and New Horizons. Because Pluto is blocking most of the Suns lights you can just make out some stars.

Haha, funny one.

What is causing this halo of sunlight around "Pluto"? There's no atmosphere to diffuse the light, so how do you minions explain this away?

Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on December 17, 2015, 10:19:28 AM

Found another pretty one for you all

Quote

Time:   2015-07-14 19:04:46 UTC
Exposure:   150 msec
Target:   PLUTO
Range:   0.4M km

Pluto is between the sun and New Horizons. Because Pluto is blocking most of the Suns lights you can just make out some stars.

Haha, funny one.

What is causing this halo of sunlight around "Pluto"? There's no atmosphere to diffuse the light, so how do you minions explain this away?

Ahh, yet another retarded statement. Pluto does have an atmosphere. Maybe you should read up on things before making yourself look stupid.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Pluto

But, I'm sure you're just going to say "hurr durr its fake pluto doesnt have an atmosphere durr", so you can buy yourself a telescope, and observe it yourself.

Circular reasoning.

How do you know Pluto has an atmosphere?
Well, look at the "photos" of New Horizon.

Stick to your beliefs, it only hurts yourself.

And if you were really knowledgable on Pluto, you wouldn't make such a dumb comment about the telescope. Pluto is far too small and faint to observe any atmospheres...

The points from the OP haven't been addressed, but I'm not surprised. Trolling NASA bullshit is much more "fun" for the minions. Real thinking has to sink in still.

Circular reasoning.

How do you know Pluto has an atmosphere?
Well, look at the "photos" of New Horizon.

Stick to your beliefs, it only hurts yourself.

The points from the OP haven't been addressed, but I'm not surprised. Trolling NASA bullshit is much more "fun" for the minions. Real thinking has to sink in still.

No, it's not circular reasoning. You can observe it for yourself. Go get a powerful telescope.

And no, the points from the OP have been addressed. You've just chosen to be an ignorant shill and not bother looking at them.

What is causing this halo of sunlight around "Pluto"? There's no atmosphere to diffuse the light, so how do you minions explain this away?

Okay wait. Do you or do you not believe those are real photos? Because if you dont think they are real then what does the atmosphere thing matter?

If you do think they are real then yes, we will explain the atmosphere. Do you want an explanation?

And I am not sure what claims you are making from the original point.
If I understand correctly  - assist me if I am wrong

 - You can only leave the gravity of a body once you match its mass?

is that more or less what you are saying?

Quote

What is causing this halo of sunlight around "Pluto"? There's no atmosphere to diffuse the light, so how do you minions explain this away?

Okay wait. Do you or do you not believe those are real photos? Because if you dont think they are real then what does the atmosphere thing matter?

If you do think they are real then yes, we will explain the atmosphere. Do you want an explanation?

Don't bother; the "photos" cannot be real as mankind cannot get into space. Ever.

And I am not sure what claims you are making from the original point.
If I understand correctly  - assist me if I am wrong

 - You can only leave the gravity of a body once you match its mass?

is that more or less what you are saying?

Mass is the defining factor for gravity
To fight a larger gravitational field, one has to have more gravitational force than the field
To fight the Earth, one needs to overcome the mass of the Earth, so indeed have a bigger mass yourself.
Then you just end up as a planet orbiting the Sun (orbit changes as the mass changes) in the eternal dance with the Moon.

No escape from it.
Same holds for alien civilizations; they would like to visit us but that's evenly impossible for them.

Pluto is far too small and faint to observe any atmospheres...

I was not sure but, if you believe that the Hubble exists we have images of Pluto from telescopes

And back in 2010 those images gave Astronomers enough information to gather that Pluto had an Atmosphere of ice (not H2O) that was evaporating on the sun side and setting on the dark side as it slowly rotated around its axis.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/science/pluto-20100204.html] [url]http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/science/pluto-20100204.html[/url]
The articel also gives some nice info of how they Used hubble images of Pluto to start planning how they will photograph it when New Horizons arives.

Mass is the defining factor for gravity
To fight a larger gravitational field, one has to have more gravitational force than the field
To fight the Earth, one needs to overcome the mass of the Earth, so indeed have a bigger mass yourself.
Then you just end up as a planet orbiting the Sun (orbit changes as the mass changes) in the eternal dance with the Moon.

No escape from it.
Same holds for alien civilizations; they would like to visit us but that's evenly impossible for them.

Sure. You can fight a larger gravitational field with a larger gravitational field, but you can also accelerate to a speed fast enough to escape the gravitational field. Are you trolling, or do you have know knowledge of physics whatsoever?

Quote

Pluto is far too small and faint to observe any atmospheres...

I was not sure but, if you believe that the Hubble exists we have images of Pluto from telescopes

And back in 2010 those images gave Astronomers enough information to gather that Pluto had an Atmosphere of ice (not H2O) that was evaporating on the sun side and setting on the dark side as it slowly rotated around its axis.

[url]http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/science/pluto-20100204.html]http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/science/pluto-20100204.html] [url]http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/science/pluto-20100204.html[/url]
The articel also gives some nice info of how they Used hubble images of Pluto to start planning how they will photograph it when New Horizons arives.

And Gaia, if you say that the Hubble is fake and only the government uses it, then you'd be wrong: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/servicing/series/How_science_is_done.html