Ask a Spiritual Physicist

[radarmark]

Neutrinos are strange folk (they are so hopelessly wierd, all I can offer for an explanation is NOVA | The Ghost Particle | PBS), which we physicists only really understand mathematically (they are really small in terms of interactions--since they are electrically neutral and not effected by anything but the weak force and gravity) billions are reated in rectors every second but even the best counter will click only once a second or so. Of every billion neutrinos hitting the earth at the equator, one might react during its plunge through all that mass.

Remember, Einstein posulated (assumed) the "speed limit of light". We already know why some particles (in some extreme situations) are faster than light (see Cherenkov radiation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). So precident has "kinda sorta" been set.

The site I will be watching is Neutrino Unbound

Thanks for the "real time update"

 

[radarmark]

Warning: The neutrino "faster than light" may be wrong.\

Kust read the paper (http://static.arxiv.org/pdf/1109.4897.pdf). I could not follow the 6.9 nano-second statistical error reported on page 16 (they mention MLE analysis, but do not show details). Then I found that at least one other person had(http://johncostella.webs.com/neutrino-blunder.pdf) the same issue.

Bottom line: wait for peer review and repeat of experiment.

Pax et amore omniavincunt.

 

[Bhaktajan II]

OTOH, A spy satellite can read licence Plates on cars . . .

So how large a tellescope does an earth bound person need to watch repairmen fixing satellites in orbit?

Similarly, Why can't a orbiting telescope see the American Flag on the Moon?

Has humanity ever seen a photo of the earth from space ---taken from behind the Moon's horizon?

I presume that no space satellite photo of earth has ever been seen nor shown to the public ---the only so-called photos are computer-generated similations.

[I also understand that all deep space sightings are indeed computer-generated similations via algoryhtms].

 

[Dream]

Bottom line: wait for peer review and repeat of experiment.

That doesn't sound very fun. Lets write a book about the huge implications of Einstein's incorrect theories.

So how large a tellescope does an earth bound person need to watch repairmen fixing satellites in orbit?

That's a fun question. I think you wouldn't need that big of a telescope if the satellite was well illuminated, turned at just the right angle to reflect light toward you, and didn't have much else around it reflecting light.

Surface Speed on Earth: I've been told that the circumference of the earth is about 25,000 miles and turns once in 24 hrs. That converts to 40,233.6 km x 24hrs x 60 min x 60 s = 3,476,183 kilometers per second if you are standing at the equator looking up. Your satellite may happen to be in geosynchronous orbit or it may be flying faster, slower, or even in the opposite direction of the earth. It may also be going around north to south, which could be very tricky to track by hand. You will need a computer controlled telescope and some fancy software.

Next Step: If your satellite is in 'Geosynchronous' orbit, such as a communications satellite, then you are in luck! These match the turning of the earth so you might be able to see a satellite under the right conditions. There is the problem of light from cities, stars and other places that can create a kind of fuzz that will keep you from seeing your satellite. You'll need some sort of filter to filter out certain wavelengths of light and only except those wavelengths that would come straight through the atmosphere into your telescope. In the end you will probably only be able to see it using microwaves, but you mustn't do that without special permission.

Go to Jail: Using microwaves is called 'Radar' and will get you into trouble with the governments. If you accidentally happened to bounce radar off of the 'Wrong' satellite you might accidentally be thrown into jail and forgotten. Whoops.

 

[radarmark]

OTOH, A spy satellite can read licence Plates on cars . . .

I do not know where you got that... the best resolution commericially available is .4x.4m = 1 pixel.

. So how large a tellescope does an earth bound person need to watch repairmen fixing satellites in orbit?

About the same (you would "see" the repairman as about a 5x3 pixel figure). The "size" dpends on how you want to do it and what kind of objective clarity you want. If you want a fairly representative picture you would perceive as a repairman, because of the copmpromise of magnifiction and light-gathering power, it would take something roughly equivalent to one of the top 10 or 20 optical telescopes (really big).

Similarly, Why can't a orbiting telescope see the American Flag on the Moon?

Lack of light-gathering ability (the aperture is too small).

Has humanity ever seen a photo of the earth from space ---taken from behind the Moon's horizon?

can't be done..... if you mean horizon is what we normally mean, the moon's fathest point from its center of mass as we see it. Hard to see over a horizon, try to see Americas from Europe or vice versa. Now if you mean from the dark side of the moon (the same hemisphere is always pointed at the sun), that was done by the Soviets years ago.

I presume that no space satellite photo of earth has ever been seen nor shown to the public ---the only so-called photos are computer-generated similations.

Nope, many many images exist from both manned and unmanned space platforms (look at cover of old Whole Earth Catalogue)

I also understand that all deep space sightings are indeed computer-generated similations via algoryhtms].

Again, nope. Many, many pics exist of everything from satellites (Echo I is one I remember taken from Polmar) to the furthest things seen from an optical telescope. Now, things like multi-mirror, very large aperture, radio telescopes or Hubble have to be "Integrated" in a computer for use to "See" them because they are (a) beyond the wavelength we see or (b) made up of many many pixels (most new telescopes are constructed like a video camera... you do not actually see the image, but a pixel-correlated version, that is the CCD sends out electrical signals that are processed into an image).

Clear?

 

[radarmark]

That doesn't sound very fun. Lets write a book about the huge implications of Einstein's incorrect theories.

Well, written large, we do not know if Brownian Motion, quantum mechanics, phonons, special relativity, or general relativity (just to mention a few) are "incorrect". For the big one (General Relativity) we already knew that his cosmological constant was wrong. As far a the speed of light goes, don't hold your breath. What is usually meant by "Einstein's Theory" is then very true in the big sense, but some details might be wrong (like it is possible that neutrinos are ftl, but physicists would fix that like they did the Comological Constant).

As far as his beliefs (materialism, scientism, "block universe", eternalism, strict determionism, the "incompleteness of quantum theory", or "spooky action at a distance") go, they are, like my beliefs "unproovable" since they are metaphysical assumptions. In that, they are not "theory" in any scientific sense since they are not directly testable or observble. One must come to one's own conclusions based on reason.

Clear?

 

[Bhaktajan II]

I do not know where you got that... the best resolution commericially available is .4x.4m = 1 pixel.

That would be acceptable for public consumption ---I've never seen any though.

About the same (you would "see" the repairman as about a 5x3 pixel figure). The "size" dpends on how you want to do it and what kind of objective clarity you want. If you want a fairly representative picture you would perceive as a repairman, because of the copmpromise of magnifiction and light-gathering power, it would take something roughly equivalent to one of the top 10 or 20 optical telescopes (really big).

That is what size telescope I was assuming was available ----again, I've never seen any though, for public consumption.

that was done by the Soviets years ago.

What I have not seen is "A photo of Earth, taken from space with the POV of the 'Sun behind the Camera's back, thus, showing a Full-Moon Frontal Portrait of the earth's 360 degrees ---exactly like the POV/Vista we have as when we see a full-moon ---and for comparison such a photo taken from 'the dark side of the Moon' would provide Two (2) views in one. With the Sun behind the Camera's back and the moon's Dark Side in Front & the earth beyond too . . . that shot I want to see.

But, for public consumption, . . .

Nope, many many images exist from both manned and unmanned space platforms (look at cover of old Whole Earth Catalogue)

. . . we have traditionally based our mass-knowledge upon Soviet Photos during the Cold-war as posted of new age Catalogues for back-to-the-country homesteaders of the 1960's?????????

Again, nope. Many, many pics exist of everything from satellites (Echo I is one I remember taken from Polmar) to the furthest things seen from an optical telescope.

. . . all such pics do all un-eventfull and not very revealing of distance, nor esp. scale, nor detail.

Now, things like multi-mirror, very large aperture, radio telescopes or Hubble have to be "Integrated" in a computer for use to "See" them because they are (a) beyond the wavelength we see or (b) made up of many many pixels (most new telescopes are constructed like a video camera... you do not actually see the image, but a pixel-correlated version, that is the CCD sends out electrical signals that are processed into an image).

This is what I am referring to.

Clear?

BTW, I cannot believe any satalites can travel south to north orbits ---what is the story there?

 

[Bhaktajan II]

Now for something completely new:

Why cannot a camera [intergrated with computers I presume] be made to capture photos . . . that REMOVE "PERSPECTIVE"?

So that a Photo would resemble the "Non-Perspective" medeivel Paintings?

Also,

Is our human seeing of things in "Perspective" I kind of illusion?
A commonplace illusion that our brain washes over us?

Similarly, at least we don't ever feel the spin of the earth or how we live our lives hanging upside down by the stickiness of our gravity-contact points known as feet.

Too bad about all those downunder.

Ever notice there is no time-lag fatigue when traveling due south or north?
Would that work for airlines too [I quess I'm joking here about this one]?

 

[Thomas]

Is our human seeing of things in "Perspective" I kind of illusion?
A commonplace illusion that our brain washes over us?

I'm not sure if it's an apocryphal tale that a common view was that our ancestors either couldn't see perspective, or were just crap at art, but as someone at the time pointed out, if Egyptians couldn't paint in 3D, they could certainly build in 3D.

A view I favour more is that artists created 'interior' views, they weren't bothered about technical accuracy in the depiction of surfaces, but rather what was going on ... there's that famous painting, St Someone on a journey, in which the St is represented three times on the canvas ... at the start, the middle, and the end of the journey.

On a more serious note, true 3D vision, perspective etc., would be a necessity for hunters, wouldn't it? Deflection for projectiles, things like that?

I also heard (again, might be suspect) that hearing in men is generally sharper on direction than in women? again, a natural selection quality useful in a hunter ... interesting, as it seems that most men no longer hear what women are saying once their daughters have passed through their teenage years. (Well, this man, anyway). I say I'm losing my higher frequencies, they say I'm just not paying attention ...

God bless,

Thomas

 

[radarmark]

thomas and baktajan--

I do appreciate the questions.

Thomas, a 3D view is essential to survival of species and since Pan Pan and Pan Bonobo have it, probably so to all our ancestors. They did not care about non-interior views.... they "knew" what the object really looked like as a separate entity (from earliest cave-painting to current "primative" art). Aural direction is a tad better in men (for the reasons noted).

A camera (with appropriate computer h/w s/w) could remove3 perspective. Why would one want to? In our heads we know lack of perspective is "wrong". Depends on what you want to do with it I suppose. The 2-D perspective would show what we "know" to be the truth of the object... but it is non-perceptional (we realize that something is wrong with "primative" art, like Egyptian paintings.

"Is our human seeing of things in "Perspective" I kind of illusion? A commonplace illusion that our brain washes over us?" It is just the opposite. What we percieve (what I say we can know, in a scientific sense) is 3D... without that perspective we could not accurately duck a punch or throw a spear, so it is very important.

No one is ever upside down if they are on earth standing on their feet. Thet is the definition of direction "down". It seems what you are focusing on are universals that just do not exist. While a whale shark on its own can be explored with our eyes and sense of touch so that we think of it as in-its-own perfectly proportioned, this is a function of thought. We never see it that way, it is a property of what we think of as "whale-shark" but it is never a property of what we perceive as "whale-shark". The prefect symmetry and proportionality is a function of our minds integrating a great many data points. On the other hand, if we ever saw this perfect proportionality with our eyes, we would know something was wrong. Ditto with gravity. The only reason you believe that someone is "up-side down" is that your mind creates the image, it does not exist in the real world.

"Ever notice there is no time-lag fatigue when traveling due south or north?"
That is because you never change the diurnal and nocturnal sequnceing around you.
Jet lag is caused by the external world (diurnal and nocturnal sequnceing around you) not matching your "internal clock".

 

[radarmark]

I do not know where you got that... the best resolution commericially available is .4x.4m = 1 pixel.

That would be acceptable for public consumption ---I've never seen any though.

Go up on web, look at latest Googleearth, cange from map to stellite and you will see it.

About the same (you would "see" the repairman as about a 5x3 pixel figure). The "size" dpends on how you want to do it and what kind of objective clarity you want. If you want a fairly representative picture you would perceive as a repairman, because of the copmpromise of magnifiction and light-gathering power, it would take something roughly equivalent to one of the top 10 or 20 optical telescopes (really big).

That is what size telescope I was assuming was available ----again, I've never seen any though, for public consumption.

Just look up the largest telescopes and take a little hike out there. I assure you Mt Wilson and Kitt's Peak and all the other ones have public tours.

that was done by the Soviets years ago.

What I have not seen is "A photo of Earth, taken from space with the POV of the 'Sun behind the Camera's back, thus, showing a Full-Moon Frontal Portrait of the earth's 360 degrees ---exactly like the POV/Vista we have as when we see a full-moon ---and for comparison such a photo taken from 'the dark side of the Moon' would provide Two (2) views in one. With the Sun behind the Camera's back and the moon's Dark Side in Front & the earth beyond too . . . that shot I want to see.

But, for public consumption, . . .

That is exactly what the cover of the "Whole Earth Catalogue" shows. This (gpn‑2000‑001138.jpg) is one such image, taken by crew of Apollo 13. For the shot from the dark side of the moon, see Lunar Atlases or go to the library and get the USSR Academy report on Luna 3 (first images) if you prefer paper.

Nope, many many images exist from both manned and unmanned space platforms (look at cover of old Whole Earth Catalogue)

. . . we have traditionally based our mass-knowledge upon Soviet Photos during the Cold-war as posted of new age Catalogues for back-to-the-country homesteaders of the 1960's?????????

I do not get the question here... if you look you will find it, if you don't look you won't. Not much different than knowing what a hedgehog looks like. Get a book or a image on Google or go outside and see.

Our knowledge is cumulative, I do not have to send another expensive moon-shot to get pictures. Like I do not have to invent the Calculus and Reimannian Geometry and Minkowski Spaces and the Special Theory of Relativity to understand E=m*c*c (that is mass times the speed of light squared). And if I want proof, I go watch old films of nuclear tests (which I am very glad we do not have to repeat).

Again, nope. Many, many pics exist of everything from satellites (Echo I is one I remember taken from Polmar) to the furthest things seen from an optical telescope.

. . . all such pics do all un-eventfull and not very revealing of distance, nor esp. scale, nor detail.

Yep, again, depends on what you want. Most of us do not need a photo quality image as if taken from 20 feet away. The cost of such a photo would be astonomical. You would have to take up, say the Mt Wilson telescope for an hour or so, program it to track a satellite, do all the programming to correlate the CCD outputs (those are the electronic cells that are like the cones and rods in our eyes), and process into a picture (do you want jpeg or a film copy?). Distance cannot be part of the criteria. See, if you want a picture as if it were taken 20 feet away, you will not be able to tell it is taken from 20,000 miles away. It is impossible to put a ruler next to the satellite, so scale is not possible either. You have to do research... get a pic, find out what satellite it was, get a copy of that sateillite to scale (say taken in the lab), find out ho0w far away it was when your photo ws taken....get the idea? Knowledge is built of bits and pieces and no one person can know it all.

Now, things like multi-mirror, very large aperture, radio telescopes or Hubble have to be "Integrated" in a computer for use to "See" them because they are (a) beyond the wavelength we see or (b) made up of many many pixels (most new telescopes are constructed like a video camera... you do not actually see the image, but a pixel-correlated version, that is the CCD sends out electrical signals that are processed into an image).

This is what I am referring to.

Again, fail to see the question here (my limitation, not yours). Let me take a SWAGNER though (sicentific wild-assed guess not easily refuted). No camera using film can make an image that does not include perscpective (that is a function of the pohysics of electro-magnetic theory and the nature of photons). Now, taking a photo depends on the resolution opf not only the camera and telescope (call these the optical parameters, short for all that em mumbo-jumbo in last sentence) but of the film. Use fast film and the dots and grains of the result show up to us. Use slow film and we do not see the dots and grains. But this is a time-consuming and expensive proposition. So we substitute CCDs for the grains on the film and voila, digital photography (which can be many many times the resolution of even the best "spy satellite film" which is why spy satellites were among the first things to use CCDs, or so say the spy authors).

That is only half the problem now... do you want to use infra-red, visual, ultra-violet, milli-meter wave, or micro-waves to take your picture? The difference is merely one of wavelength and energy (this gets us into quantum physics). Now for each region of this vast spectrum must be post-processed differently (because of QP) and in general the shorter the wavelength (x-rays or gamma-rays) the more complex the algorithms to create an image that "looks right" to our eyes.

BTW, I cannot believe any satalites can travel south to north orbits ---what is the story there?

Not true, we have launched a great many military sateillites in so-called "polar orbit". The orbital mechanics are different so they are usually in elliptic orbits.


Again, thanks, had to put on my thinking cap again.

Pax et amore omnia vincumt.

 

[seattlegal]

We need your expert opinion regarding this post:

http://www.interfaith.org/forum/was-jesus-the-only-heavenly-14313-8.html#post252878

 

[Bhaktajan II]

That is exactly what the cover of the "Whole Earth Catalogue" shows. This (gpn‑2000‑001138.jpg) is one such image, taken by crew of Apollo 13. For the shot from the dark side of the moon, see Lunar Atlases or go to the library and get the USSR Academy report on Luna 3 (first images) if you prefer paper.

This is what is said at your link given:

View of the Earth as seen by the Apollo 17 crew traveling toward the Moon. This translunar coast photograph extends from the Mediterranean Sea area to the Antarctica South polar ice cap. This is the first time the Apollo trajectory made it possible to photograph

1] What would be the distance from the earth globe required to get this POV of a approx 6,000 mile Diameter sphere?

2] Why is the sphere shown a perfect round circle ---shouldn't it be an oval?

3] How is the aperture capturing so much resolution? Wasn't the "Trajectory traveling camera Moving at astronomical Speed"?

4] Why only (1) Photo?

 

[Bhaktajan II]

Originally Posted by bhaktajan
BTW, I cannot believe any satalites can travel south to north orbits ---what is the story there?

Not true, we have launched a great many military sateillites in so-called "polar orbit". The orbital mechanics are different so they are usually in elliptic orbits.

I said: "cannot believe any satalites can travel south to north orbits" ---I did not say rocket propelled.

 

[radarmark]

Well, once the rocket has burned out, they are satellities. Take GPS satellities (no motor on them), one of the orbital inclinations (angle between the plane of earth's equator and the orbit) is precisely 90 degrees (over the poles).

Natural satellites are a different kettle of fish. Big ones are usually formed from the same proto-mass that formed the parent planet. Since they shared the same rotational effects and forces, they are usually cloise to being co-planar. There are a lot of "captured" natural satellites (see especially the Saturanian groups) which are wildly retrograte or prograde (can rotate in opposite direction and well "off axis"). Are any of them at polar, not perfectly, but as close to being polar as most big ones are to being equatorial (right over the equator).

There is really nothing special about a polar orbit. Artifical satellites are placed in them all the time. Big natural satellites share the total angular momentum of the proto-cloud that condensed into the planet and moon, so must be nearly equatorial (but even then can be retrograde... orbit the opposite way fromn the planet), but that "nearly" is within 10 or 15 degrees, not perfect. Hypothecized "captured" satellites (we have never seen this happen, but it is the most likely explanation for those little tiny satellites around the gas giants) can be both retrograde and incluned at 90 degrees, though the odds of that would be slim (given all the possible orbits between zero and 360 degrees and what you consider "close enough" (that is is 89 to 91 degrees close enough?)).

Does that make sense? Just look at angle of inclination on "Moons of Saturn" on wiki.

Pax et amore omnia vincunt.

 

[Bhaktajan II]

A] If I took all the stars seen in both the Northern & Southern Skies and crammed them nexted to eachother ---what percentage of the sky would be Stars? ---what percentage of the sky would be Black Space?


B] Just as Night-Time Stadium Lighting can create a Daytime Lighting Affect ---why do not all those night-time stars in the sky create a Daytime Lighting Affect.
It would seem that Star-light travelling through the vacuum of space would not be deminished through the lightyears-of-a-continuous-unbroken-supply-flow of Sun-light emitting from Billons of Suns.

Since they have been shining light sinse the big bang occurred ---why is outer space black & dark rather than alight like a Night-Time Stadium lighting event?

 

[radarmark]

Long time question (called Obler's Paradox) the best reference is
Astronomy 505

Now for the unmathematical "radar's solution". The universe is expanding but has a fixed amount of stars. Many of which are receding faster than the speed of light (they do not contribute). Many more are so "red-shifted" you cannot see them any more (they do not contritute). The remainder are what you see.

For your first question: if they were all in one area, they are less than 1% of total area of sky. Which brings us to the next big question, yes, the universe may be "big enough" (infinate) so that 100% of the sky would be covered (like it was from any particular point of view at the end of the big bang (see "Comsic Microwave Background"). Howeever, due to the relativistic effects noted in the first paragraph, 99% os those sources are no longer visible.

Pax et amore omnia vincunt.

 

[Bhaktajan II]

There is a quote:
"man is the measure of all things"

Now, if 99% of the Universe is black empty space and much much less than 1% is biological life . . . can one summise that the cosmic creation is producing "Space" . . . and all else is 'clinkers' and sparks.

The major output of the cosmos has been "Space"?

Thus all else insignificant?

Thus, "space is the measure of all things"

 

[radarmark]

You misunderstand, that 99% of the universe is existent, but just not visible. The farthest stars are moving away from us at ver the speed of light, we know they are there (from the Cosmic Basckground Radiation) but we can no longer see them. Then about half of the stars not going over the speed of light are so far away (hence moving so fast) their what would be visual light becomes infrared light, and we can no longer see them.

Put it this way, if the universe were not expanding your Stadium Lighting Effect would light up the skys to noon-time brightness all night, every night.

So the fact that the night-time sky is dark is (in some way) proof of the expansion of the universe and relativity!

Pax et amore omnia vincunt

 

[Bhaktajan II]

You misunderstand

I'll ask again:

What is the ratio of Planets (Matter & Mass) to Empty Space?

As per your response: the answer was 99:1.

99% Space : 1% Planets.

In post 139 you have managed to state that 100% of space is fill by Planets. What's up?