Space
Replies
-
PlaydohPants wrote: »I don't know much about photography but that must be a pretty powerful lense!
Do you carry a telescope hiking?
Actually it's kind of the opposite. A telephoto lens is the camera equivalent of a telescope. It brings distant things closer. You use it for birds and lions and stuff you can't get very close to. A wide angle lens is the opposite, it makes things looks like they're further away. Really useful for landscapes because that's how you fit everything in the frame, like horizon to horizon.
Earth is spinning and you get blurry pictures if stuff moves when the shutter is open. With that particular lens, 20 seconds is the limit for pinpoint stars. Any longer than that and they turn into trails.
That Milky Way one, I shot from Slate Peak. It's at the end of the highest road in WA, about 7,400 feet. Right in the heart of the North Cascades. I camped by my car that night, used the car as a wind block. It was cold - I took my glove off to adjust something on the camera and my voice went up a few octaves. Anyway, this guy drove up with a digital telescope. It was set up on a rotating mount, he'd find Polaris, do some computery stuff, and then it would rotate his camera at the exact same speed as the planet, and in the opposite direction. It let him keep the shutter open for hours and still get sharp photos. That's how people do deep space photography. He told me he'd been "collecting" one photograph for a year and a half.
Here's a star trails photo from Seattle. Obviously, it's plane trails too. But you can figure out which is why. I don't remember the details but from looking at it I'd say this was more like 45 minutes. Digital cameras have trouble keeping the shutter open that long so in reality this was probably more like 90 individual 30 second exposures. I blend them back together in Photoshop, just combine the light from each layer. That's why the jet trails have gaps, I must have missed one.
1 -
GnothiSeauton23 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Believe it or not that was with a 24 mm lens. Er, a wide angle one.
I have more photos from that night but not available at the moment.
Anyway it was mid October so it was maybe 25 or 30 F (colder air is clearer) and probably 4,000 feet above sea level.
The clouds are reddish-orange because this is pretty close to Portland (OR). Here's another pic, the red on the horizon is light from Seattle 200 miles away.
can we hang out sometime. Please.
Come out to Seattle some time and it will be kick *kitten*. There will be volcanoes, glaciers, rainforests, deserts, and archipelagos.0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »thisonetimeatthegym wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »thisonetimeatthegym wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »thisonetimeatthegym wrote: »They trust scientists and scientists tell them a fairy tale and the masses think it's facts.
I don't have a supercollider of my own, so I can't reproduce today's grand experiments and see if those physicists are pulling the wool over my eyes or not. Back in the day, 500 or 600 years ago, you could walk up the stairs and drop a stone and a piece of wood and see which one hit the ground first. But in today's world, all the long hanging fruit has already been picked. It's the really complex stuff that's left, which is harder for the public to verify or sometimes even understand.
I like reading about this stuff, though. And trying to understand it, as best I can.
I have a digital camera; most of you have seen some of my pictures. They're made of pixels. Well, there are actual pixels inside the camera - these are wells that capture photons and essentially count them. They're physically bigger than the wavelength of red light. My camera wouldn't work unless scientists were right about quantum mechanics. We think light acts as both a wave and a particle, we built very complex machinery around the smallest details of that assumption, and they work exactly the way they should. That's a shockingly powerful confirmation of the theory.
The physicists have a supercollider and they found out they pull the wool over their own eyes.
And some physicists are sick of moving the goalposts.
Can you give me some examples of what you mean?
Do you agree that things like digital cameras and computers are pretty solid confirmation of a lot of quantum mechanics?
"It is not an exaggeration to say that most of the world’s particle physicists believe that supersymmetry must be true—the theory is that compelling. These physicists’ long-term hope has been that the LHC would finally discover these superpartners, providing hard evidence that supersymmetry is a real description of the universe…
Indeed, results from the first run of the LHC have ruled out almost all the best-studied versions of supersymmetry. The negative results are beginning to produce if not a full-blown crisis in particle physics, then at least a widespread panic. "
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=6836
They ran it again, to no avail. One physicists take on it:
Saturday, August 06, 2016
The LHC “nightmare scenario” has come true.
Since I entered physics, I’ve seen grand unified models proposed and falsified. I’ve seen loads of dark matter candidates not being found, followed by a ritual parameter adjustment to explain the lack of detection. I’ve seen supersymmetric particles being “predicted” with constantly increasing masses, from some GeV to some 100 GeV to LHC energies of some TeV. And now that the LHC hasn’t seen any superpartners either, particle physicists are more than willing to once again move the goalposts.
During my professional career, all I have seen is failure. A failure of particle physicists to uncover a more powerful mathematical framework to improve upon the theories we already have. Yes, failure is part of science – it’s frustrating, but not worrisome. What worries me much more is our failure to learn from failure. Rather than trying something new, we’ve been trying the same thing over and over again, expecting different results.
When I look at the data what I see is that our reliance on gauge-symmetry and the attempt at unification, the use of naturalness as guidance, and the trust in beauty and simplicity aren’t working. The cosmological constant isn’t natural. The Higgs mass isn’t natural. The standard model isn’t pretty, and the concordance model isn’t simple. Grand unification failed. It failed again. And yet we haven’t drawn any consequences from this: Particle physicists are still playing today by the same rules as in 1973.
http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2016/08/the-lhc-nightmare-scenario-has-come-true.html?m=1
Interesting. Sounds like we don't understand part of reality yet, we've come up with some theories to try to understand it, and none of them have been right yet. I don't see anything sinister in that.
So what do you think about digital cameras as confirmation that light acts as a particle and a wave? I mean one of the sentences you quoted as 'During my professional career, all I have seen is failure.' and in my life I feel the opposite.
I never said anything was sinister in that. What I am saying is that science is in a credibility crisis. This is not something I invented - this is what scientists themselves see as a problem.
That there are applied uses to science like your camera is a good thing. I wasn't discussing that. What I was discussing, specifically, was tge show Cosmos, and generally, the state of tge scientific institution. This is a pic from the science journal nature, on the state of their institution:
1 -
NorthCascades wrote: »PlaydohPants wrote: »How cool would our night sky look with the Andromeda galaxy if we could see dim light better?
I shot this from Climbers' Bivy on the side of Mount Saint Helens a couple years ago, my friend and I camped at the end of the road before getting up at dawn to go for the summit. Look near the top of the frame, about 1/3 the way in from the right.
Truly beautiful1 -
thisonetimeatthegym wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »thisonetimeatthegym wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »thisonetimeatthegym wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »thisonetimeatthegym wrote: »They trust scientists and scientists tell them a fairy tale and the masses think it's facts.
I don't have a supercollider of my own, so I can't reproduce today's grand experiments and see if those physicists are pulling the wool over my eyes or not. Back in the day, 500 or 600 years ago, you could walk up the stairs and drop a stone and a piece of wood and see which one hit the ground first. But in today's world, all the long hanging fruit has already been picked. It's the really complex stuff that's left, which is harder for the public to verify or sometimes even understand.
I like reading about this stuff, though. And trying to understand it, as best I can.
I have a digital camera; most of you have seen some of my pictures. They're made of pixels. Well, there are actual pixels inside the camera - these are wells that capture photons and essentially count them. They're physically bigger than the wavelength of red light. My camera wouldn't work unless scientists were right about quantum mechanics. We think light acts as both a wave and a particle, we built very complex machinery around the smallest details of that assumption, and they work exactly the way they should. That's a shockingly powerful confirmation of the theory.
The physicists have a supercollider and they found out they pull the wool over their own eyes.
And some physicists are sick of moving the goalposts.
Can you give me some examples of what you mean?
Do you agree that things like digital cameras and computers are pretty solid confirmation of a lot of quantum mechanics?
"It is not an exaggeration to say that most of the world’s particle physicists believe that supersymmetry must be true—the theory is that compelling. These physicists’ long-term hope has been that the LHC would finally discover these superpartners, providing hard evidence that supersymmetry is a real description of the universe…
Indeed, results from the first run of the LHC have ruled out almost all the best-studied versions of supersymmetry. The negative results are beginning to produce if not a full-blown crisis in particle physics, then at least a widespread panic. "
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=6836
They ran it again, to no avail. One physicists take on it:
Saturday, August 06, 2016
The LHC “nightmare scenario” has come true.
Since I entered physics, I’ve seen grand unified models proposed and falsified. I’ve seen loads of dark matter candidates not being found, followed by a ritual parameter adjustment to explain the lack of detection. I’ve seen supersymmetric particles being “predicted” with constantly increasing masses, from some GeV to some 100 GeV to LHC energies of some TeV. And now that the LHC hasn’t seen any superpartners either, particle physicists are more than willing to once again move the goalposts.
During my professional career, all I have seen is failure. A failure of particle physicists to uncover a more powerful mathematical framework to improve upon the theories we already have. Yes, failure is part of science – it’s frustrating, but not worrisome. What worries me much more is our failure to learn from failure. Rather than trying something new, we’ve been trying the same thing over and over again, expecting different results.
When I look at the data what I see is that our reliance on gauge-symmetry and the attempt at unification, the use of naturalness as guidance, and the trust in beauty and simplicity aren’t working. The cosmological constant isn’t natural. The Higgs mass isn’t natural. The standard model isn’t pretty, and the concordance model isn’t simple. Grand unification failed. It failed again. And yet we haven’t drawn any consequences from this: Particle physicists are still playing today by the same rules as in 1973.
http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2016/08/the-lhc-nightmare-scenario-has-come-true.html?m=1
Interesting. Sounds like we don't understand part of reality yet, we've come up with some theories to try to understand it, and none of them have been right yet. I don't see anything sinister in that.
So what do you think about digital cameras as confirmation that light acts as a particle and a wave? I mean one of the sentences you quoted as 'During my professional career, all I have seen is failure.' and in my life I feel the opposite.
I never said anything was sinister in that. What I am saying is that science is in a credibility crisis. This is not something I invented - this is what scientists themselves see as a problem.
That there are applied uses to science like your camera is a good thing. I wasn't discussing that. What I was discussing, specifically, was tge show Cosmos, and generally, the state of tge scientific institution. This is a pic from the science journal nature, on the state of their institution:
Do you think the crisis extends to all of science, or is it limited to cutting edge cosmology?0 -
thisonetimeatthegym wrote: »kinkyslinky16 wrote: »Space is truly unfathomable. I love watching cosmos with my girl Mary. Blows my mind every time!
The television show Cosmos is pseudoscience in large degree.
That's cool. You must be significantly more intelligent than Neil Degrasse Tyson.
Please, please teach me everything you know.
2 -
Space sure is stupid.
There's just waaay too much of it.
.... can you imagine trying to paint it?2 -
NorthCascades wrote: »thisonetimeatthegym wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »thisonetimeatthegym wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »thisonetimeatthegym wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »thisonetimeatthegym wrote: »They trust scientists and scientists tell them a fairy tale and the masses think it's facts.
I don't have a supercollider of my own, so I can't reproduce today's grand experiments and see if those physicists are pulling the wool over my eyes or not. Back in the day, 500 or 600 years ago, you could walk up the stairs and drop a stone and a piece of wood and see which one hit the ground first. But in today's world, all the long hanging fruit has already been picked. It's the really complex stuff that's left, which is harder for the public to verify or sometimes even understand.
I like reading about this stuff, though. And trying to understand it, as best I can.
I have a digital camera; most of you have seen some of my pictures. They're made of pixels. Well, there are actual pixels inside the camera - these are wells that capture photons and essentially count them. They're physically bigger than the wavelength of red light. My camera wouldn't work unless scientists were right about quantum mechanics. We think light acts as both a wave and a particle, we built very complex machinery around the smallest details of that assumption, and they work exactly the way they should. That's a shockingly powerful confirmation of the theory.
The physicists have a supercollider and they found out they pull the wool over their own eyes.
And some physicists are sick of moving the goalposts.
Can you give me some examples of what you mean?
Do you agree that things like digital cameras and computers are pretty solid confirmation of a lot of quantum mechanics?
"It is not an exaggeration to say that most of the world’s particle physicists believe that supersymmetry must be true—the theory is that compelling. These physicists’ long-term hope has been that the LHC would finally discover these superpartners, providing hard evidence that supersymmetry is a real description of the universe…
Indeed, results from the first run of the LHC have ruled out almost all the best-studied versions of supersymmetry. The negative results are beginning to produce if not a full-blown crisis in particle physics, then at least a widespread panic. "
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=6836
They ran it again, to no avail. One physicists take on it:
Saturday, August 06, 2016
The LHC “nightmare scenario” has come true.
Since I entered physics, I’ve seen grand unified models proposed and falsified. I’ve seen loads of dark matter candidates not being found, followed by a ritual parameter adjustment to explain the lack of detection. I’ve seen supersymmetric particles being “predicted” with constantly increasing masses, from some GeV to some 100 GeV to LHC energies of some TeV. And now that the LHC hasn’t seen any superpartners either, particle physicists are more than willing to once again move the goalposts.
During my professional career, all I have seen is failure. A failure of particle physicists to uncover a more powerful mathematical framework to improve upon the theories we already have. Yes, failure is part of science – it’s frustrating, but not worrisome. What worries me much more is our failure to learn from failure. Rather than trying something new, we’ve been trying the same thing over and over again, expecting different results.
When I look at the data what I see is that our reliance on gauge-symmetry and the attempt at unification, the use of naturalness as guidance, and the trust in beauty and simplicity aren’t working. The cosmological constant isn’t natural. The Higgs mass isn’t natural. The standard model isn’t pretty, and the concordance model isn’t simple. Grand unification failed. It failed again. And yet we haven’t drawn any consequences from this: Particle physicists are still playing today by the same rules as in 1973.
http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2016/08/the-lhc-nightmare-scenario-has-come-true.html?m=1
Interesting. Sounds like we don't understand part of reality yet, we've come up with some theories to try to understand it, and none of them have been right yet. I don't see anything sinister in that.
So what do you think about digital cameras as confirmation that light acts as a particle and a wave? I mean one of the sentences you quoted as 'During my professional career, all I have seen is failure.' and in my life I feel the opposite.
I never said anything was sinister in that. What I am saying is that science is in a credibility crisis. This is not something I invented - this is what scientists themselves see as a problem.
That there are applied uses to science like your camera is a good thing. I wasn't discussing that. What I was discussing, specifically, was tge show Cosmos, and generally, the state of tge scientific institution. This is a pic from the science journal nature, on the state of their institution:
Do you think the crisis extends to all of science, or is it limited to cutting edge cosmology?
According to Nature magazine and scientific papers with titles like "Why most published research findings are false," science has concluded the problem is wide spread:
"The paper, which has become the most widely cited paper ever published in the journal PLoS Medicine, examined how issues currently ingrained in the scientific process combined with the way we currently interpret statistical significance, means that at present, most published findings are likely to be incorrect.
Richard Horton, the editor of The Lancet recently put it only slightly more mildly: "Much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue." Horton agrees with Ioannidis' reasoning, blaming: "small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance." Horton laments: "Science has taken a turn towards darkness."
http://bigthink.com/neurobonkers/believe-it-or-not-most-published-research-findings-are-probably-false0 -
-
The thing about our understanding of the universe and the way it works is we build on our understanding of it as we gather more facts. That's why I love science and exploration.0
-
-
4
-
Oh, you guys are talking about the new Cosmos. I was talking about the Carl Sagan one the whole time. It's a book and a TV show.
0 -
GnothiSeauton23 wrote: »thisonetimeatthegym wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »thisonetimeatthegym wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »thisonetimeatthegym wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »thisonetimeatthegym wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »thisonetimeatthegym wrote: »They trust scientists and scientists tell them a fairy tale and the masses think it's facts.
I don't have a supercollider of my own, so I can't reproduce today's grand experiments and see if those physicists are pulling the wool over my eyes or not. Back in the day, 500 or 600 years ago, you could walk up the stairs and drop a stone and a piece of wood and see which one hit the ground first. But in today's world, all the long hanging fruit has already been picked. It's the really complex stuff that's left, which is harder for the public to verify or sometimes even understand.
I like reading about this stuff, though. And trying to understand it, as best I can.
I have a digital camera; most of you have seen some of my pictures. They're made of pixels. Well, there are actual pixels inside the camera - these are wells that capture photons and essentially count them. They're physically bigger than the wavelength of red light. My camera wouldn't work unless scientists were right about quantum mechanics. We think light acts as both a wave and a particle, we built very complex machinery around the smallest details of that assumption, and they work exactly the way they should. That's a shockingly powerful confirmation of the theory.
The physicists have a supercollider and they found out they pull the wool over their own eyes.
And some physicists are sick of moving the goalposts.
Can you give me some examples of what you mean?
Do you agree that things like digital cameras and computers are pretty solid confirmation of a lot of quantum mechanics?
"It is not an exaggeration to say that most of the world’s particle physicists believe that supersymmetry must be true—the theory is that compelling. These physicists’ long-term hope has been that the LHC would finally discover these superpartners, providing hard evidence that supersymmetry is a real description of the universe…
Indeed, results from the first run of the LHC have ruled out almost all the best-studied versions of supersymmetry. The negative results are beginning to produce if not a full-blown crisis in particle physics, then at least a widespread panic. "
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=6836
They ran it again, to no avail. One physicists take on it:
Saturday, August 06, 2016
The LHC “nightmare scenario” has come true.
Since I entered physics, I’ve seen grand unified models proposed and falsified. I’ve seen loads of dark matter candidates not being found, followed by a ritual parameter adjustment to explain the lack of detection. I’ve seen supersymmetric particles being “predicted” with constantly increasing masses, from some GeV to some 100 GeV to LHC energies of some TeV. And now that the LHC hasn’t seen any superpartners either, particle physicists are more than willing to once again move the goalposts.
During my professional career, all I have seen is failure. A failure of particle physicists to uncover a more powerful mathematical framework to improve upon the theories we already have. Yes, failure is part of science – it’s frustrating, but not worrisome. What worries me much more is our failure to learn from failure. Rather than trying something new, we’ve been trying the same thing over and over again, expecting different results.
When I look at the data what I see is that our reliance on gauge-symmetry and the attempt at unification, the use of naturalness as guidance, and the trust in beauty and simplicity aren’t working. The cosmological constant isn’t natural. The Higgs mass isn’t natural. The standard model isn’t pretty, and the concordance model isn’t simple. Grand unification failed. It failed again. And yet we haven’t drawn any consequences from this: Particle physicists are still playing today by the same rules as in 1973.
http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2016/08/the-lhc-nightmare-scenario-has-come-true.html?m=1
Interesting. Sounds like we don't understand part of reality yet, we've come up with some theories to try to understand it, and none of them have been right yet. I don't see anything sinister in that.
So what do you think about digital cameras as confirmation that light acts as a particle and a wave? I mean one of the sentences you quoted as 'During my professional career, all I have seen is failure.' and in my life I feel the opposite.
I never said anything was sinister in that. What I am saying is that science is in a credibility crisis. This is not something I invented - this is what scientists themselves see as a problem.
That there are applied uses to science like your camera is a good thing. I wasn't discussing that. What I was discussing, specifically, was tge show Cosmos, and generally, the state of tge scientific institution. This is a pic from the science journal nature, on the state of their institution:
Do you think the crisis extends to all of science, or is it limited to cutting edge cosmology?
According to Nature magazine and scientific papers with titles like "Why most published research findings are false," science has concluded the problem is wide spread:
"The paper, which has become the most widely cited paper ever published in the journal PLoS Medicine, examined how issues currently ingrained in the scientific process combined with the way we currently interpret statistical significance, means that at present, most published findings are likely to be incorrect.
Richard Horton, the editor of The Lancet recently put it only slightly more mildly: "Much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue." Horton agrees with Ioannidis' reasoning, blaming: "small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance." Horton laments: "Science has taken a turn towards darkness."
http://bigthink.com/neurobonkers/believe-it-or-not-most-published-research-findings-are-probably-false
I'd be interested to hear your actual opinion. All you ever do is copy and paste articles that fit your narrative. Almost everything you've posted in this thread has been a direct copy paste. For every article you find I can easily find others that refute it. Until you are capable of actually digging deeper and offering both perspectives your arguments will always be shallow.
It's called cutting to the chase.
I have an opinion. One that many will demand an outside source to validate my opinion.
I save us all time.
But since you asked:
For me, science is a tool to find out what God has made. If I say, the tool is flawed - it needs repair, I am just saying what the majority of scientists have determined about their own field. I am not anti science. To the contrary. I love it. What I hate is how science is used as a belief system by some.
I've dissected cats, put cells in a centrifuge, poured agar into petri dishes, spent more time than I liked looking into a microscope, wrote papers, sat in colloqia, organized colloquia, sat in on professor's faculty meetings.
And what I saw is that the human element in the sciences, and everything that goes with that element (love of money, fueds, ego, ambition, confirmation bias, politics, etc.) is represented very heavily in it. It can't be "trusted," or "believed in." It is a tool to be used. You may love a tool, but you cannot make a tool your lover or friend or god.
We are a tiny dot if seen in the midst of the millions in a city. Those millions in the city are seen from space as a tiny dot of light. If you look form a greater distance, this gorgeous planet we inhabit is seen as a dot of light among countless other dots of light.
Do you honestly expect science to explain the big truths of a universe we can barely see, when we have just this year noticed two additional body parts we overlooked all this time we've been studying the human body?
----
So much of it is conjecture, speculation based on flimsy evidence, moving goalposts to call things proof that otherwise would not have been. The people who propose the ideas know it is speculative, but it gets written about in school textbooks as incontrovertible fact. It is not. Not remotely close.
The sciences are not supposed to require faith, but essentially it's been operating on it for a generation.
And they use it as a litmus test "do you believe in [any major unproved theory here - evolution, supersymmetry, abiogenesis, big bang, singularity] ?" And any response to the contrary leads to shock. Excuse me, the science I signed up for didn't require me to BELIEVE it. It required of itself to PROVE it to me. It has abandoned that standard a long time ago.
----
Is that enough of my opinion for you, or would you like sources of where I got these ideas?1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tmbeLTHC_0Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 910 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions