Theory: the moon, sun and stars are just reflections

Quote from: bravimone on May 19, 2014, 08:02:09 AM

I knew you would deny my last statement but maybe someone who is willing to learn something may find it useful.
Anyway, why don't you try to look at the LED of a TV remote with a camera while hitting a button? Infrared is not heat, it's just light, only at a too low frequency for our eyes to see it.

You fail to understand what I'm telling you.  It's the LED that allows you to "see" the infrared.  Radiowaves can be sent through a light bulb too.  The current is not visible on it's own.

The LED emits infrared.

What frequency radio waves come out of a light bulb?

Ok there seem to be a few different things going on.

1. EM radiation of all kinds is just photons of different energies.
2. Human eyes are only sensitive to a certain range of those energies. We call photons in that range 'visible light'.

There seems to be an assertion in this thread that any photons outside that range shouldn't be called light. They already are, everywhere, by many people and it's not a contentious issue. But if it will help things move along here, then I'm happy to use 'light' only for EM with wavelengths roughly between 300 and 800nm, although different people can see very different ranges depending on age, health and other factors. Other animals can see an even wider variety of frequencies.

So, nomenclature we can agree on:
300-800nm is light or visible light
any other wavelengths are just EM, photons or some other term - anything but light.

Hopefully that's ok, so with that clear, what radiation travels through a vacuum? Everything except visible light?

Ok there seem to be a few different things going on.

1. EM radiation of all kinds is just photons of different energies.
2. Human eyes are only sensitive to a certain range of those energies. We call photons in that range 'visible light'.

There seems to be an assertion in this thread that any photons outside that range shouldn't be called light. They already are, everywhere, by many people and it's not a contentious issue. But if it will help things move along here, then I'm happy to use 'light' only for EM with wavelengths roughly between 300 and 800nm, although different people can see very different ranges depending on age, health and other factors. Other animals can see an even wider variety of frequencies.

So, nomenclature we can agree on:
300-800nm is light or visible light
any other wavelengths are just EM, photons or some other term - anything but light.

Hopefully that's ok, so with that clear, what radiation travels through a vacuum? Everything except visible light?

Nothing travels through a vacuum. It's as simple as that.

Animals see and hear different frequencies than humans.  Are we talking about animals?  No, we are not.

This is correct.  We're talking about the propagation and perception of light by an organic eyeball.   That is, the reception of light-sensitive cells to impact by photonic energy.  It's immaterial whose eyeball "sees" the light from the sun.  Your claim is simply an attempt—typical of flat earthers—to obscure the science of the question in point.

Humans cannot SEE frequencies outside of the VISIBLE...

You obviously missed the part of my comment wherein I said "Interestingly, people who've had their eyes' corneas removed, such as in cataract surgery, without being replaced by UV-blocking lenses can actually see in the UV range, as the normal human cornea contains a UV filter to protect our retinas". Whether or not your avoidance in addressing this fact was deliberate, you're obviously unable to answer it, and by default it confirms that humans in fact can see in the UV spectrum given the right conditions.

My father had two cataract repair procedures involving the excision of both corneas on two separate occasions, both under a local anaesthetic.  He reported that the fluorescent lights in the OR "looked funny" after the corneas were removed, and he thought he was "hallucinating" because of the anaesthetic.  I explained that he was simply "seeing" the UV emitted by the fluorescent tubes in the ceiling.

The visible light frequency doesn't exist there.

This claim (about light in space) indicates a total lack of understanding about the propagation of electromagnetic radiation—such as that emitted by the sun.  Humans can see emitted sunlight—if they're in space—between a range of around 300 nanometers to a little over 700 nanometers. 

Incidentally, you're probably unaware that light, radio and TV, radar, and X-rays are all identical forms of electromagnetic energy, and that all can travel through a vacuum.
 

Nothing travels through a vacuum. It's as simple as that.

I believe this statement to be totally incorrect sceptimatic.  Can you please provide a reference to another site, or a scientific citation that confirms your belief.  To say of a scientific claim that "It's as simple as that" does not amount to any sort of empirical evidence.  As you've often said yourself on these forums, people's "opinions" are just that—until they're proved to be correct with viable evidence.

So... where's your evidence for claiming that "nothing" travels through a vacuum?
 

Quote from: EarthIsASpaceship on May 18, 2014, 03:59:04 PM

Animals see and hear different frequencies than humans.  Are we talking about animals?  No, we are not.

This is correct.  We're talking about the propagation and perception of light by an organic eyeball.   That is, the reception of light-sensitive cells to impact by photonic energy.  It's immaterial whose eyeball "sees" the light from the sun.  Your claim is simply an attempt—typical of flat earthers—to obscure the science of the question in point.

Quote

Humans cannot SEE frequencies outside of the VISIBLE...

You obviously missed the part of my comment wherein I said "Interestingly, people who've had their eyes' corneas removed, such as in cataract surgery, without being replaced by UV-blocking lenses can actually see in the UV range, as the normal human cornea contains a UV filter to protect our retinas". Whether or not your avoidance in addressing this fact was deliberate, you're obviously unable to answer it, and by default it confirms that humans in fact can see in the UV spectrum given the right conditions.

My father had two cataract repair procedures involving the excision of both corneas on two separate occasions, both under a local anaesthetic.  He reported that the fluorescent lights in the OR "looked funny" after the corneas were removed, and he thought he was "hallucinating" because of the anaesthetic.  I explained that he was simply "seeing" the UV emitted by the fluorescent tubes in the ceiling.

Quote

The visible light frequency doesn't exist there.

This claim (about light in space) indicates a total lack of understanding about the propagation of electromagnetic radiation—such as that emitted by the sun.  Humans can see emitted sunlight—if they're in space—between a range of around 300 nanometers to a little over 700 nanometers. 

Incidentally, you're probably unaware that light, radio and TV, radar, and X-rays are all identical forms of electromagnetic energy, and that all can travel through a vacuum.

Give it up Geoff.  Try as you may, I will not be convinced.  Maybe one day you will see through the bullshit.  There's a lot of it in this world so you must be strong willed and determined.  I don't believe you are.

All those devices you mention... light, radio, tv, radar and x rays travel through a vacuum because of one thing.  Can you think of what it is?

All those devices you mention... light, radio, tv, radar and x rays travel through a vacuum because of one thing.  Can you think of what it is?

Electromagnetic and/or radiant energy.
 
 


I'd also like you to further address this error you made earlier:  "You CANNOT see infrared without a thermal camera.  It is heat, not light".

Any el-cheapo point and shoot camera will capture an IR image with a $5 filter on its lens.

This IR image was captured with an off-the-shelf, 10-year-old Nikon D50...
 

 
 
NO "thermal" camera needed.  Capturing IR images has nothing to do with heat.  Do really think a camera's sensor can detect the heat of an object from 1,000 metres away LOL?
 
 

 

NO "thermal" camera needed.  Capturing IR images has nothing to do with heat.  Do really think a camera's sensor can detect the heat of an object from 1,000 metres away LOL?

I'm fully aware of what Infrared photography is.  It is NOT THE SAME as thermal imagery.  You need to brush up on your reading comprehension.  Infrared photography just uses a filter that blocks all visible light.  Of course things are going to look different without color.   (Black and white, Sepia, etc.)

Quote from: EarthIsASpaceship on May 19, 2014, 02:05:47 PM

All those devices you mention... light, radio, tv, radar and x rays travel through a vacuum because of one thing.  Can you think of what it is?

Electromagnetic and/or radiant energy.

How can EM devices travel through a vacuum simply because they are EM devices?  Doesn't quit answer my question.

I'm confused now. The claim earlier was that visible sunlight was infrared until it hit the atmosphere at which point it became visible light.

Now the claim is that no EM radiation at all travels through a vacuum?

/edit: "How can EM devices travel through a vacuum simply because they are EM devices?  Doesn't quit answer my question."
Why wouldn't photons travel through a vacuum? A bullet would.

I'm fully aware of what Infrared photography is.  It is NOT THE SAME as thermal imagery.

You said earlier:  "You CANNOT see infrared without a thermal camera.  It is heat, not light."

Apparently you're not prepared to admit your mistake, but that's okay.  My evidence of your error is in the IR image I posted above captured without a thermal camera.

That picture is just a photo without color....you know the VISIBLE spectrum...red, orange, yellow, green, blue, purple.

How can EM devices travel through a vacuum simply because they are EM devices?  Doesn't quite answer my question.

Electromagnetic energy of specific wavelengths can travel through various media as quantum particles (which are theoretically massless).  Depends on the wavelength and the media.  And all quantum particles can also travel in a total vacuum, as an energy stream.  Note that when defining the speed of light, we usually refer to its speed in a vacuum.

That picture is just a photo without color....you know the VISIBLE spectrum...red, orange, yellow, green, blue, purple.

Uh... yeah... that's what an IR image is.  But it wasn't necessary to utilise a "thermal" camera as you claimed.  It was taken with an ordinary old Nikon, with an IR filter mounted on the lens to cut the visible spectrum.

We only "see" around 45% of the sun's total light energy (in the visible spectrum).  The rest is UV and IR.  Which is why we need the lens  filter.

That picture is just a photo without color

Too stupid to know what an IR photo is.

I'm not surprised.

Umurweird, this is your final warning about making personal attacks.  Next time, you will get some time off. 

Quote from: Goddamnit, Clown on May 19, 2014, 09:44:11 AM

Ok there seem to be a few different things going on.

1. EM radiation of all kinds is just photons of different energies.
2. Human eyes are only sensitive to a certain range of those energies. We call photons in that range 'visible light'.

There seems to be an assertion in this thread that any photons outside that range shouldn't be called light. They already are, everywhere, by many people and it's not a contentious issue. But if it will help things move along here, then I'm happy to use 'light' only for EM with wavelengths roughly between 300 and 800nm, although different people can see very different ranges depending on age, health and other factors. Other animals can see an even wider variety of frequencies.

So, nomenclature we can agree on:
300-800nm is light or visible light
any other wavelengths are just EM, photons or some other term - anything but light.

Hopefully that's ok, so with that clear, what radiation travels through a vacuum? Everything except visible light?

Nothing travels through a vacuum. It's as simple as that.

Nonsense. We went through this months ago. If nothing travels through a vacuum, what are air molecules travelling through? What are photons traversing between air molecules?

Umurweird, this is your final warning about making personal attacks.  Next time, you will get some time off.

Sure, take the fun out of things.

In other words, black and white.

I'm sorry, but I can't see what sort of point you're trying to make by repeating this "black and white" thing?

But yes; by their very nature most (but not all) IR images look to be rendered in black and white—or more correctly, monochrome.

This is also an IR image:
 


Several factors have influenced the pinkish look of this IR image—the specific DSLR sensor used, the IR filter installed on the camera's lens, and also the software algorithms used for white balance.

IR images obviously have no real color to them, but the DSLR’s sensor has to assign something to the red, green, and blue sensors associated with the photoreceptors' Bayer pattern.  While the IR images from every camera will appear slightly different to those of any other camera, most current DSLRs will produce an IR file that looks somewhat similar to the image above.   

Nonsense. We went through this months ago. If nothing travels through a vacuum, what are air molecules travelling through? What are photons traversing between air molecules?

I had a feeling this wasn't something new. So what was the suggestion last time?

Quote from: Shmeggley on May 19, 2014, 06:41:17 PM

Nonsense. We went through this months ago. If nothing travels through a vacuum, what are air molecules travelling through? What are photons traversing between air molecules?

I had a feeling this wasn't something new. So what was the suggestion last time?

I don't remember exactly, as I recall it was something vague and muddled that didn't make any sense. Shocking, I know. I think it involved the idea that air molecules expand to fill up all the available space?

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 19, 2014, 10:22:50 AM

Quote from: Goddamnit, Clown on May 19, 2014, 09:44:11 AM

Ok there seem to be a few different things going on.

1. EM radiation of all kinds is just photons of different energies.
2. Human eyes are only sensitive to a certain range of those energies. We call photons in that range 'visible light'.

There seems to be an assertion in this thread that any photons outside that range shouldn't be called light. They already are, everywhere, by many people and it's not a contentious issue. But if it will help things move along here, then I'm happy to use 'light' only for EM with wavelengths roughly between 300 and 800nm, although different people can see very different ranges depending on age, health and other factors. Other animals can see an even wider variety of frequencies.

So, nomenclature we can agree on:
300-800nm is light or visible light
any other wavelengths are just EM, photons or some other term - anything but light.

Hopefully that's ok, so with that clear, what radiation travels through a vacuum? Everything except visible light?

Nothing travels through a vacuum. It's as simple as that.

Nonsense. We went through this months ago. If nothing travels through a vacuum, what are air molecules travelling through? What are photons traversing between air molecules?

This makes no sense. I don't get what you're trying to say.

Let me clarify what I am saying.

Nothing, as in, NOTHING, meaning no matter, molecules, light waves, radiation, whatever you can possibly think of CANNOT travel through a vacuum.

Why?

A vacuum...a true vacuum does not exist to us, except for what we see or don't see,d epending on how scientific you want to be.
We see it as black because our eyes rely on waves to see and a vacuum is devoid of anything of the sort that would allow that......UNLESS those waves are reflected through a medium and off a surface back to our eyes.

We see this at night with stars and stuff against an ice dome that is against a vacuum or black, which uses that medium to reflect the light waves back to our eyes.
If there was no dome then there is no light or heat or anything because it would be absorbed, which is the reason why a globe with somehow a floating atmosphere could not work and that's just one reason.

I don't expect you to understand it. I mean, how can you? You're hell bent on fully focusing on the next indoctination about your marble planet, so you're hardly going to be able to comprehend the simplicity of reality.

This makes no sense. I don't get what you're trying to say.

Let me clarify what I am saying.

Nothing, as in, NOTHING, meaning no matter, molecules, light waves, radiation, whatever you can possibly think of CANNOT travel through a vacuum.

Why?

A vacuum...a true vacuum does not exist to us, except for what we see or don't see,d epending on how scientific you want to be.
We see it as black because our eyes rely on waves to see and a vacuum is devoid of anything of the sort that would allow that......UNLESS those waves are reflected through a medium and off a surface back to our eyes.

We see this at night with stars and stuff against an ice dome that is against a vacuum or black, which uses that medium to reflect the light waves back to our eyes.
If there was no dome then there is no light or heat or anything because it would be absorbed, which is the reason why a globe with somehow a floating atmosphere could not work and that's just one reason.

I don't expect you to understand it. I mean, how can you? You're hell bent on fully focusing on the next indoctination about your marble planet, so you're hardly going to be able to comprehend the simplicity of reality.

You keep saying that but you have never answered a simple question: why? Why shouldn't anything be able to move in a vacuum? If there is nothing, nothing is stopping something to move. So again, why?

You keep saying that but you have never answered a simple question: why? Why shouldn't anything be able to move in a vacuum? If there is nothing, nothing is stopping something to move. So again, why?

Why is it so difficult for you to get your head around this?

Nothing means nothing, so how can anything AT ALL be in nothing? How can anything move in nothing.
There is no up or down or horizontal, so how does anything move?
Answer this, then we can go on from there.

Quote from: bravimone on May 20, 2014, 01:10:02 AM

You keep saying that but you have never answered a simple question: why? Why shouldn't anything be able to move in a vacuum? If there is nothing, nothing is stopping something to move. So again, why?

Why is it so difficult for you to get your head around this?

Because your made up bullshit bears no relationship to actual reality.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 20, 2014, 01:14:07 AM

Quote from: bravimone on May 20, 2014, 01:10:02 AM

You keep saying that but you have never answered a simple question: why? Why shouldn't anything be able to move in a vacuum? If there is nothing, nothing is stopping something to move. So again, why?

Why is it so difficult for you to get your head around this?

Because your made up bullshit bears no relationship to actual reality.

There's more to reality than burying your nose into books that some story teller wrote.

Why is it so difficult for you to get your head around this?

Nothing means nothing, so how can anything AT ALL be in nothing? How can anything move in nothing.
There is no up or down or horizontal, so how does anything move?
Answer this, then we can go on from there.

Up/down are human-defined concepts. Horizontal, as the name says, is based on the horizon. No horizon, no horizontal. I don't see how those are necessary for an object to move, they are just useful concepts for us humans, that's all.

The horizon happens to be horizontal; however, things being horizontal are not dependent on the horizon.  Also, all known concepts are human defined. 

Can we please stop talking philosophically and start a discussion based on reality?
Of course if you have a vacuum and put some solid object inside it the average will not be a vacuum anymore, but the volume not occupied by the object will remain a vacuum. Now, why shouldn't the object be able to move? It doesn't need to know which way is "up" or "down", any direction is fine.

With pretty ordinary lab equipment it's possible to get a vacuum in the milli- or nano-pascal range. Vacuums as high as that have mean free paths of at least 10s of metres or more likely, several kilometres. This means that, on average, atoms will travel that far before encountering another atom. So for our purposes, it really is mostly empty space in there.

All manner of routine experiments are done in vacuums that high (and higher) and there haven't been any reports of light suddenly not working, or objects being unable to move or solid matter violently boiling off to fill the space, or any of the other claims that have been made here.