But the most often-quoted "I told you so" moment concerns Alfred Wegener, who looked at the continents of the Earth and reckoned that they could probably all fit together pretty well. On the face of it, this theory is bloody stupid. Whole continents sailing about the world ? There there Wegener, be a good chap and pass the opium.
 |
| Also, he was a vampire. |
Some examples. As as scientist I get fairly regular emails (and occasionally real post) about revolutionary new theories. It's an occupational hazard. The latest is an extremely badly-written and very boring website which can be viewed here. You don't want to though. It's dull. I've no idea if some poor sod has genuinely taken the time to invent a new and pointless theory or if it's just some massively elaborate scamming routine.
Then of course there's the notorious TimeCube, where a very angry man has decided that
a) Everyone is evil apart from him and
b) Something about days being made up of 4 different days happening simultaneously, or something.
I don't know what he's talking about and no-one else does either.
But my all-time favourite has to be the downright strange Space Mirror Mystery. This very well-designed but badly-worded website espouses the theory that there's a giant mirror, 300 million km wide, surrounding the Earth. Nothing exists further away than this, it's all just reflections in the space mirror (I can think of 7 spacecraft off the top of my head further away than this, but never mind). The best bit is that you can download "items" 1-4 for free, but to get item 5 (whatever that is) you have to pay a very specific $101.
Which is why I want to be a pseudoscientist. Not for them the drudgery of sifting through data, endlessly analysing and re-analysing in the hope of making an iota of progress. They don't have to toil away, re-writing the same damn thing over and over again in different ways, or give Power Point presentations to anyone, or have to worry how much it will cost them to publish a paper with colour figures. No, for them it's much easier to claim that it's all bollocks and blame it on the Moon*, or Nazi space werewolves or whatever.
* In the case of astrologers I mean this literally.
This sounds a lot more fun to me. Screw astronomy. I think I'll be the world's first radio astrologer. Sure, we know all about planetary influences, but what about distant quasars ? If Jupiter rising in Scorpios can cause you to feel slightly put-out for a few days, what happens when the Crab pulsar is directly overhead ? Does it make your natural sense of timing much much better ? Does a very bright continuum source cause you to feel all wibbly ? What about when an GPS satellite - which is much brighter than any natural sources - moves through your star sign ?
The last one is obvious - the US government is bent on using the mystical energies of GPS satellites to control the destiny of everyone on Earth. Hell, those jerks are probably using ley lines as well.
EDIT : I drafted this a while ago but it slipped off the front page and I forgot to publish it. Alas, the "space mirror mystery" website no longer functions, so I replaced the link in the text with a webarhive version - fortunately this contains about 90% of the original material.
Hello Pradipta,
ReplyDeleteI see that you offer items for sale on your website. $1001 is quite a lot of money, what do I get for this ? Do you sell actual pieces of the space mirror ?
Dear Rhys,
ReplyDeleteThere is no price for science. I think you have not understood the theory of space mirror mystery for cause of my bad English. I think if you understand the theory clearly, you may able to making a visual graphic effect and explain the truth to the astronomers. For the welfare of space science the theory needs your help.
Hello Pradipta,
ReplyDeleteI will try to understand your theory as best as I am able. I have some questions.
You seem to be saying that there is a giant spherical mirror surrounding the Solar System, and that most of what we see from Earth is actually just reflections in the space mirror. It's not clear to me how wide you think the mirror is. In some places, you seem to be saying it's of radius 150 million km centered on Earth, but this cannot be the case, since the Sun is 150 million km away. Furthermore, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune are all much further away than this, and we've sent space probes to all of them. The Voyager and Pioneer spacecraft are even further away than this, as is the New Horizons probe. If the mirror was 150 million km across, these spacecraft would all have collided with it.
In other places, you state more clearly that it is 300 million km across and centered on the Sun. Again, this does not explain how we are able to send spacecraft beyond this point. You seem to say that it is not possible for us to send spacecraft beyond this distance - yet we have done so, many times.
It is also unclear to me if you believe the mirror is the edge of the Universe, or if there is more beyond it which we just can't see.
We can see millions of distant stars and galaxies. If these are not real but only reflections, what are they reflections of ?
Finally, I do not understand why you think such a theory is necessary. If you accept that we are able to prove the Sun is 150 million km away, why do you think the measurements of other objects are wrong ? If your idea is correct, it would mean that all of astronomy is wrong. Why do you think this should be the case ?
Rhys
Dear Rhys,
ReplyDeleteAll of your questions have already answered in the website. Perhaps you ignore to read them for cause of my bad English. You should have visited the pages viz: mirror and space mirror, how/why space mirror formed in space, important notes- I to III of the web page (space mirror and expected mysteries) and the documents attached in web page (my offer)
The theory of space mirror mystery is completely based on a single rule, i.e. “Everything has a limited form or shape”. Can you explain me about any form or shape what have unlimited form or shape? If you unnecessarily try to do so I can easily defeat you by words.
Availability of above natural law, when inspired me about the existence of space mirror mystery, then I deeply considered about the measurement of the size of sun and earth. As the inhabitant of the earth, our astronomers have measured that the size of sun is 3,00,000 times bigger than earth. If sun is 3,00,000 times bigger than earth, then from earth, we must find that an earth like size object would be completely disappeared at the place of sun. Am I wrong?
Please tell me, whether I am wrong? I shall proceed further after getting your answer.
Pradipta.
Dear Pradipta,
ReplyDeleteI attempted to reply but it seems to have disappeared. I apologise if you get this twice.
My questions are not clearly answered on your website. I have read through the whole site, but could not find answers to the questions, so this is why I asked them. I would be grateful if you could try and answer them here, or at least copy the parts of your site which you think answers them.
In particular, I should like to know how you think spacecraft have avoided hitting the space mirror, and how it is that we see other stars and galaxies. A mirror cannot show anything if it has nothing to reflect.
I don't understand why everything having a limited shape means there should be a giant space mirror.
The Sun is approximately 110 times the diameter of the Earth, I am not sure why you say 30,000. If we placed a planet the same size as the Earth as far away as the Sun, it would be too small to resolve with the eye - but we could still see the light it would reflect. Similarly we can see Mercury and Venus even though they look like points of light to the unaided eye. With a telescope, we can resolve them and see that they are spherical planets.
Thanks,
Rhys
Dear Rhys,
ReplyDeleteFor my previous reply I have spent 40 minutes of time and you know the reason. So it is impossible to explain you the theory fluently. Apart from that you mislead my statements in your previous reply as well as your article. Can you say where I said that sun is 30,000 times bigger than earth? Also can you say where did the theory say that the space mirror is just wide of 300 million kilometers? And you explained in your article.
For fluent conversion I need a translator. I say with great regret I have no astronomical friend so I am not able to provide a good translator. Have you any Indian friend belongs to Odia language. It might be good for a true conversion.
Thanks
Quite honestly it is not my intention to mislead you or state any part of your theory incorrectly. I certainly don't feel any need to do so.
ReplyDeleteYou are quite right to point out that you did not say the Sun was 30,000 times bigger than the Earth. I misread this. What you actually said was 300,000 (you wrote it as 3,00,000 in your previous reply.) If by bigger you mean "more massive", then this is correct. If you mean its diameter is 300,000 times bigger, then this is wrong.
On this part of your website : http://www.spacemirrormystery.in/whyspace.html
You seem to be implying that the mirror is 150 million km wide.
However, on this page : http://www.spacemirrormystery.in/expectedmysteries.html
You say that the "original" (real ?) objects are within 150 million km, but later you say they are within 300 million km of the Sun.
In the .doc file available here : http://www.spacemirrormystery.in/offer.html you seem to say that the mirror is 300 million km wide.
The conflicting numbers make me confused about how large you think the mirror is, but 300 million km seems to be the most likely number.
Unfortunately, while I have several Indian friends, none of them speak Odia as far as I know. I will check.
I do appreciate you taking the time time to respond. Since conversation is difficult, perhaps I could ask you only to answer one question : if the mirror is only 300 million km wide, how is it that our spacecraft (like Voyager : http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/where/) have not hit it ?
Dear Rhys,
ReplyDeleteI am so sorry for my unintentional delay in reply because I was suffering from/with ….
I am wrong. I should have written as the word “mass” instead of word “size” in necessary places of my website as well as the attached document. I think also I have used so many defective words and that cause confusing the readers who considering my theory as vague. I promise I shall rectify them as soon as possible
From sun and from earth are different words. From earth we are observing and considering everything. Since earth rounds sun in a year so “Item No-2” says about calculations only from sun.
Lastly you say “I do appreciate you taking the time time to respond. Since conversation is difficult, perhaps I could ask you only to answer one question : if the mirror is only 300 million km wide, how is it that our spacecraft (like Voyager : http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/where/) have not hit it ?”
Friend, lot of thanks for your kind responds. You are looking for only one answer why our spacecraft does not hit ‘space mirror’. Firstly I have never said the mirror is 300 million km wide. Perhaps my defective words and sketches make you think so. I have already said that from earth we are observing space mirrors on the two points i.e. on the point of sun and on the point of earth shadow………….
I have pointed out in Note-1 of the web page http://spacemirrormystery.in/expectedmysteries.html
“Remember that as light the power of remote reflects in mirror. One should keep in mind that targeting on the reflected picture, by a remote device we can get the desired result. Suppose you are watching a space film on a Television set and such film’s image also appears in a mirror opposite. Now you are bored and like to change over through the remote control of the television. You can do so either by directing directly on the television or by directing on image on the mirror.
Through remote space organizations have sent man less space vehicle to different space objects like Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune ….etc. Cause of reflections on space mirror those men less space vehicles are going to the real space objects on real root. It may be noted here that since we are able only to see the real space objects situated within the radius of 150 million kilometers from earth and particularly we cannot see anything real space objects out of the above radius of the earth’s darken part, through remote we can never send man less space vehicles out of above distances.”
I have explained more clearly in doc. Attached in : http://www.spacemirrormystery.in/offer.html
Friend, however you have not understand what is space mirror, why it formed in space, how it function in space, my above saying would be worthless. To know what is space mirror? I have a simple question given below for all astronomers including you
“We are living within sun light. So before thinking anything, we should verify how far we could see the space objects within sunlight. It appears from earth, in mass sun is 3,00,000 times bigger than earth, then it also appear to me that an earthlike object would completely disappeared at sun’s distance. Am I wrong? If yes, let me answer at which distance earthlike object would be completely disappeared from earth.”
Thanks.
Hello Pradipta,
ReplyDeleteThank you for taking the time to respond. I hope you are well.
I think I am beginning to understand. You are not saying that the mirror is 300 million km wide, but you are saying that we cannot observe objects further away than this because they would be too small to see. Is this what you mean ? How wide do you think the mirror is ?
There is a calculation in your word document that states 845 million km, but it's not clear to me if you think this is how far away the mirror is or if it refers to a particular reflection in the mirror.
In your word document, you state : "Let us discuss that whatever we see from Earth within radius of 150 million kilometres is true and real and beyond that it is reflection of the space mirror." That strongly suggests you think there is a spherical mirror with the Earth at the center, of radius 150 million km. Is this correct ? Elsewhere you seem to refer to two mirrors. Image no.3 in your document appears to show four mirrors.
"then it also appear to me that an earthlike object would completely disappeared at sun’s distance."
This is not correct. If we were to take, say, the Moon, and move it further and further away, it would appear smaller and fainter, but it would never completely disappear. For example, the planet Mercury is much smaller than the Earth and at least 80 million km away, but we can still see it.
If a planet is too small or too far away, we will not be able to resolve it with our eyes, but this does not mean we will not see it - it will appear as a point of light. For example, we can see artificial satellites at night even though they are small and far away. We cannot see the shape of the satellite, but we can see it as a point of light.
Another example would be a man holding a candle. Nearby, I will be able to clearly see the shape of the flame. As he moves away, it will become impossible to see the shape of the flame, but I will still be able to see the light it emits.
If we have a large enough telescope, we could detect a planet at any distance.
Dear Rhys,
ReplyDeleteI shall explain your every queries in latter. Please tell me the particular answer “at which distance would the earth like object be completely disappeared from earth?”
Please read the last paragraph of my previous response. The short answer is "never". There is no distance at which an earth-size planet will completely disappear. With a sufficiently sensitive camera we could detect it at any distance.
ReplyDeleteDear Rhys,
ReplyDeleteThere is a rule as follow:
“Unless/until our eyes objects, we are able to see the vast space. Whatever we see through our eyes, telescope enlarges the same. If anything objects our eyes we cannot see beyond that, neither telescope will help us through it.”
I don’t ask you about any large enough telescope, what could detect a planet at any distance. Since following rule avail and we all aware of them:
“We can see only light and illuminated objects. We cannot see anything in dark. An object how bigger it may be, become smaller and smaller as it goes away and away from our eye sight, the thing appears us smaller and smaller till it disappears from our eye sight.”
Then my question is very clear “at which distance would the earth like object be completely disappeared from earth?”
.
I assume that by "completely disappeared" you mean "not visible to our eyesight." As I said, it will never completely disappear, ever. No matter how far away it is, it will still be detectable, but not necessarily with our eyes.
ReplyDeleteAn object the size of Earth will appear as a point of light to our eyes when it is further than 43 million kilometeres away.
That does not mean it will not be visible, only that we won't be able to see any features on it because our eyes are too small.
With a telescope we would still be able to see features on its surface. With our eyes, we will only see a bright point of light, but we will still see it.
However, the further away the object is, the fainter it will appear. To become as faint as the faintest star we can see with our eyes, if illuminated by the Sun, the earth-sized object will have to be about 1.3 billion kilometers away. It would still be easy to detect though, even with a small camera we could just take a long-exposure photograph and it would be detected.
Note that no matter how far away we place an object, its angular size (how much of the sky it spans) will never, ever reach zero (it's easy to show this, I will describe it below). It may be too small to see any details with the eye, but that does not mean it completely disappears. I am emphasising this point because our eyes are just another instrument, there's nothing special about them.
We know that the circumference of a circle (c) is given simply by multiplying its radius (R) by 2*pi, or, c =2* pi * R.
We also know that a circle spans 360 degrees.
Let us imagine we are at the center of the circle and we are looking at some object which happens to be a distance R away from us. Let the physical size of the object be S.
As long as the object is small relative to the diameter of the circle, the angular size of the object (a) will be given by a = S/c * 360.
This is simply the ratio of the physical size of the object to the length of the circle (i.e. how much of the sky it spans) multipled by the total number of degrees in a circle.
Note that from this forumla it is impossible for a to equal 0 unless S = 0.
This forumla is an approximation - it does not work well if the size of the object is close to the diameter of the circle. However it is very good when the object is much smaller than the diameter of the circle.
To give an example, suppose I am looking at a house 12.56m wide that is 200m away. Suppose that house is just one in a circle of houses surrounding me, all at the same distance away. The total length of the houses will be 2*pi *200 = 1256m.
Then, each house being 12.56m wide, will span 12.56 / 1256 = 0.01 times the total length (or 1%). Since the total span of the circle is 360 degrees, that means each house will have an angular size of 3.6 degrees. If I move the houses further away, there angular size will never, ever reach 0.0.
If the last paragraphs are difficult to understand I'd be happy to draw a picture.
To summarise, an earth-like planet will be visible to our eyes at a maximum distance of 1.3 billion kilometres if illuminated from the Sun. However, this is irrelevant. With a telescope, it will be visible at any distance. It will never disappear completely - that is physically impossible.
Cheers,
Rhys
Dear Rhys,
ReplyDeleteNo, “completely disappeared “I meant that the existence of an object size of earth would be completely reached at zero stage from our earth.
We cannot see anything in dark. An object how bigger may it be, if it is not illuminated by anything then we cannot see it even we cannot detect it. Light is necessary to see or detect anything.
Your example and concluded answer given by you are correct but they just tell about a constant lightening atmosphere, so logically nobody as well as you can reach at zero stage. Now I understand why astronomers have done a mistake.
Our existence is just situated with the composition of light and dark. As the inhabitant of earth we get light from sun and we know that 50% of earth is illuminated and rest 50% of earth remain in dark. As the inhabitant of earth we are observing and researching the vast space of our surrounding although sun is the vital source what covering our 50% parts our existence. Sun is always generating high power and light and supplying them it’s surrounding. No doubt sun has formed a biggest atmosphere So proceed before any research, we should consider that how far distance we could observe the objects remaining within sunlight.
So I asked you the question that “at which distance would the earth like object be completely disappeared from earth?” your answer is as follow:
“an earth-like planet will be visible to our eyes at a maximum distance of 1.3 billion kilometres if illuminated from the Sun. However, this is irrelevant. With a telescope, it will be visible at any distance. It will never disappear completely - that is physically impossible.:”
Friend, kindly observes the facts. Our existence has been started from sun and we know the distance between earth to sun is 150 million kilometers. So it is logically proved and clearly appeared if an earthlike object moves from our earth toward sun, would be completely zero at the sun‘s distance. This fact proves also the position of earth always zero everywhere at the distance of 150 million kilometers. So we can never see or detect any illuminated objects of sun beyond 150 million kilometers.
Although Sun has formed a biggest atmosphere, unfortunately we are able only to see or detect the illuminated objects within radius of 150 million kilometers only from earth point. Since we find our existence position is completely zero at the distance of 150million kilometers, on the two points, i.e. on the point of sun and on the point of earth’s shadow, SPACE MIRRORS is formed. Cause of space mirror on the point of sun, we find the sunspots on sun and cause of space mirror on the point of earth’s shadow, we find a vast space in night.
Friend, if you understand above I shall proceed further that how space mirror function in space.
Thanks.
"I meant that the existence of an object size of earth would be completely reached at zero stage from our earth."
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry - that sentence doesn't make any sense, could you find someone to check the English please, or try rephrasing it ?
" So it is logically proved and clearly appeared if an earthlike object moves from our earth toward sun, would be completely zero at the sun‘s distance"
No, it isn't. As I've said, the angular size of an object never reaches zero. Never. It does not matter how big the size of the object is or how far away it is, it will always have some finite angular size. As I demonstrated in the last comment, this is easy to show. Objects can appear to be very small, but they do not shrink to zero. This is extremely simple mathematics.
If you are referring to the fact that objects may become so faint that they are undetectable as they move further from the Sun, then this is true. I calculated the distance of 1.3 billion kilometeres using the known luminosity and distance of the Sun, together with the size and albedo of the Earth. If you accept the distance to the Sun is 150 million kilometers, then presumably you also accept the size of the Earth and the luminosity of the Sun. My calculation was as follows :
1) We know the energy output of the Sun, and we know the distance and size of our Earth-sized object. Therefore we can calculate how much energy is received and refelected by the object.
F = (Lsolar * pi * r^2) / (4*pi*D^2)
Where F is the flux recieved by the object, Lsolar is the Sun's luminosity, r is the radius of the Earth and D is the distance to the object (assuming, for simplicity, that the object is the same distance from the Sun and from the Earth).
2) Knowing the distance of the Earth-sized object, we can calculate how much of the radiation reflected by the object we would recieve.
Fe = (a*L*r^2) / (16*pi*D^4)
Where Fe is the flux recieved at Earth and a is the albedo (reflectivity of the Earth, about 0.35). Here we have D^4, not D^2, since the flux from the Sun has already diminished by D^2 just to reach the object, so decreased by a further D^2 as it's refelcted back to the Earth.
3) I then convert it to apparent magnitudes using the following :
m = -2.5*log(Fe/Fref)
Where Fref is the flux of a well-known reference object, in this case the star Vega (2.7*10^-8 W/m^2).
Then, being lazy, I just tried different values of D until I got m = 6, which is about the faintest thing we can see.
"Your example and concluded answer given by you are correct but they just tell about a constant lightening atmosphere"
No, they assume the radiation is spread out so that more distant objects receive less light. This is a very simple and VERY important part of the calculation. As you can see in the above formula, the brightness of an object reflecting sunlight decreases very rapidly with distance from the Sun and Earth - but it never reaches zero.
Sunlight does not fill some "atmosphere" outside of which it instantly stops. It decreases smoothly in proportion to 1/D^2, where D is the distance from the Sun.
Since neither the size of an object nor its brightness can ever reach zero, no matter how far away they are, please explain the "facts" that prove how an Earth-sized object would be invisible at the Sun's distance. I do not understand the meaning of "Our existence has been started from sun".
I am sorry not to explain you properly.
ReplyDeleteCompletely disappear means zero. Neither the object would be visible to earth nor does any telescopic instrument help us to detect through it.
Sun has forms a grand atmosphere and we blindly believe that within sunlight we could observe the objects situated more than thousands million kilometers. Is the fact correct? We should keenly observe and examine.
You asked ( Since neither the size of an object nor its brightness can ever reach zero, no matter how far away they are, please explain the "facts" that prove how an Earth-sized object would be invisible at the Sun's distance. I do not understand the meaning of "Our existence has been started from sun".)
Our existence begins with sun. Cause of sun we find ourselves along with a grandest atmosphere and we, all are researching the space facts from earth point. Astronomers have rightly observed the distance between our earth to sun is 150 million kilometers and rightly assess that in mass, sun is 3,00,000 times bigger than earth. Both concluded finding are interlinked each other and from these facts it appears the size of earth like object would be completely disappear at sun distance. This existing fact proves also the position of earth always zero everywhere at the distance of 150 million kilometers.
Newton’s third law of relativity is “every action has a reaction”. Since we are researching space from earth through telescopic instruments and, if within sunlight our earth or our existence would be completely disappeared or reached at zero at 150 million kilometers away, and then how could we see the real things beyond of it? But what we see beyond of our existence but they are all reflections in space mirrors.
It appears sun has formed a grandest atmosphere but a vast part of it lies behind space mirror. And this is the truth.
You seem to be saying that the fact the Sun is very big and far away somehow means an Earth-sized object would disappear if it was as far away as the Sun. This does not make any sense.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that the Sun has an atmosphere is not relevant. Light can travel in a vacuum, it does not depend on an atmosphere. Nor is Newton's third law of motion relevant, this only relates to forces and momentum, neither of which you have mentioned.
It is mathematically impossible for any object to disappear completely no matter how far away it is placed.
For further examples of the fact that nothing disappears completely, consider what we can see with telescopes on shorter distances - or even microscopes. Bacteria, for example, are completely invisible to the naked eye, but can easily be seen with a microscope. Or if a person walks away from you, they will eventually disappear - but you can still see them with a telescope. Similarly, with a telescope we can see craters on the moon that are entirely invisible to the naked eye, as well as the rings of Saturn, the moons of Jupiter, orbiting satellites, etc. etc.
The angular size of all of these examples is too small to see with the eye, but not zero. Thus the telescope can magnify them to make them visible. If their size were really zero, a telescope would not help.
For an object to disappear completely even to a powerful telescope, it would have to do one of two things :
1) Have an angular size of 0 degrees. This is impossible because all objects have finite size and must therefore have some finite angular size (however small) as I previously demonstrated (a = S/c).
2) Reflect no light back towards the observer. Since their angular size cannot reach zero, the only way this could happen would be if the strength of the light being emitted reached zero. However, as I've said (and has been extremely well-measured) light decays in proportional to 1/D^2, so it does not reach zero.
Note that the last two points are mathematically certain. There is no way around them. Moreover, they have been extremely well-tested - they are facts.
Perhaps you could try to explain, without reference to the Earth or the Sun, why an object would either have a size of 0 degrees or reflect no light back towards an observer if it was sufficiently far away ?
Perhaps some pictures will help.
ReplyDeleteHere, I show what happens to an object as I move it further away. In this case, the object is a red stick. Let's say it's 2m tall (although the numbers do not matter too much).
When the stick is very close to me, it will appear very large. At about 2.41m away, it will span 45 degrees.
http://www.rhysy.net/Other/2m.png
If I move the stick further away, it will appear smaller, even though its size is unchanged. Note that in all of these pictures I am keeping the size constant.
At 22.9m away, it will span just 5 degrees.
http://www.rhysy.net/Other/22m.png
Let's keep going. Now if I move it 114.6m away, it will span just 1 degree.
http://www.rhysy.net/Other/114m.png
If we go even further, to around 1145.9m, it will span just 0.1 degrees. This is pretty close to the smallest thing we can see with our eyes. Unfortunately I can't render an image this big because to keep the same scale it would have to be 180,000 pixels long, and that's too much for my computer (I'll happily render a smaller version if you like).
But look at the lines of sight to the top and bottom of the stick. You will notice that they form two sides of a triangle, with the stick as the other side. As we move the sitck further away, the triangle gets longer and sharper. However, the stick remains the same size.
Imagine that we continue to move the stick further and further away. From the pictures, I hope you can see that this means the triangle would get longer and sharper. But it would never stop being a triangle - or to put it another way, the angular size of the stick will never reach zero. Even if the stick is a trillion kilometres away, it would still be possible to draw a really long, sharp triangle from the observer to the top and bottom of the stick. So it can never disappear entirely.
Dear Rhys,
ReplyDeleteBe practical!!!
We are seeing a grandest atmosphere and that is combination of light and dark and we are the central observer. What do we see? Why do we see? There are so many questions we have to consider genuinely. Mathematics could give us correct answer if the procedure based on genuine and correct. Blind procedure on mathematics leads us always toward wrongness.
It is very unfortunate that very beginning our astronomers are fault and blindly searching far far away objects through giant telescopes and reporting wrong statement and that will never be fruitful near future or for coming generation. For fruitful space research astronomers should genuinely observe/ verify/ examine the rules of nature. I believe intelligent astronomers must reach at the truth.
Your 3 images help me to understand and I know now why do you strongly object and why shall other astronomers strongly object the theory of space mirror mystery?
As per your images you have shown about triangles marking as ‘A’ as the viewer point of the observer and ‘B’ ‘C’ are the points of a stick of two meters length. If a match’s stick would be 2 inches length, mathematically you are also getting never ending answer because you are following wrong procedure and drawing the unending lines imaginary and blindly believe that everything can be discovered through telescopic instrument. Of course your mathematic is correct for a limited extend and telescopic instruments may function within such limitation.
“We can see only light and illuminated objects. We cannot see anything in dark. An object how bigger it may be, become smaller and smaller as it goes away and away from our eye sight, the thing appears us smaller and smaller till it disappears from our eye sight.”
If the stick of 2 meters length moves away from observer, it appears to observer that the size of the stick become shorter to shorter as if the 2meters stick converted as 1.50/1.00/0.50/0.10and at last zero
Prior I say everything has a limited form or shape. So I don’t say the angular size would be change if any object move away from us rather I say the object shall appear to us smaller and smaller till completely disappear.
A 40 meters Bowing Jet may appear at distance sky as size of an eagle. If it further move it appears too small till complete disappear.
Previously you replied “You seem to be saying that the fact the Sun is very big and far away somehow means an Earth-sized object would disappear if it was as far away as the Sun. This does not make any sense.”
Yes, I am saying so. Sun is the biggest luminous body in our surrounding and within sunlight we are able to see the real objects within radius of 150 million kilometers only. Beyond everything is reflection. Asteroids, Jupiter, Saturn.. ahead everything is reflection although the real is situated within 75 million kilometers to 150million kilometers from earth. I don’t know why it doesn’t make your sense.
You also replied “The fact that the Sun has an atmosphere is not relevant. Light can travel in a vacuum, it does not depend on an atmosphere. Nor is Newton's third law of motion relevant, this only relates to forces and momentum, neither of which you have mentioned.”
Sun is a luminous body and in mass 3,00,000 time bigger than earth what generate light and energy and supply them towards its surrounding and other hand such energy and light resist by darkness. Every action has a reaction. Cause of action and reaction a certain atmosphere is formed and everything including earth is floating on it.
Friend, this is my last reply. I understand you but I have failed to explain you. Truth is always truth. Without study of the theory of space mirror mystery, our space science has no future. Please, study systematical and do the best for prosperous space research.
Thank you.
If you don't wish to respond any further then I understand. However, if you change your mind, let us ignore the Solar System and issues of lighting, and concentrate on the example of moving a stick further and further away. Let us ignore light completely, and deal only with the angular size of the object.
ReplyDelete"As per your images you have shown about triangles marking as ‘A’ as the viewer point of the observer and ‘B’ ‘C’ are the points of a stick of two meters length."
Yes, this is correct. The angle at the observer's end is the angular size of the stick.
"If a match’s stick would be 2 inches length, mathematically you are also getting never ending answer..."
Yes. The size of the stick does not matter - its angular size never reaches zero, even if I put a matchstick1 million kilometres away.
"...because you are following wrong procedure and drawing the unending lines imaginary... Of course your mathematic is correct for a limited extend"
This is the part I don't understand. What is wrong with the procedure ? Why is it only correct for a limited extent ? What is that extent - how far away must an object be before it becomes invisible ?
As I said, the angular size of the stick is the angle the lines A and B make at the position of the observer. It will always be possible to draw a triangle between the observer and the stick, so it will always have some angular size.
What you are saying is that beyond some distance, this will not be possible - that it is not possible to draw triangles that are too narrow. I don't understand why this should be. There is no lower limit as to how small the angle may be. Granted, they may become incredibly small, 0.1 degrees or 0.000000001 degrees or 0.000000000000000000000000000001 degrees, but never zero.
Moreover, if you agree the mathematics is correct to some distance, then there must be a distance at which the mathematics stops working. Why ? What is it that happens at that distance to prevent me from drawing a triangle ?
Consider also that this has been tested extremely well for much smaller objects on smaller distances - bacteria, for example.
"A 40 meters Bowing Jet may appear at distance sky as size of an eagle. If it further move it appears too small till complete disappear."
Eagles can be at different distances. At 40m a jumbo jet (wingpan 60m) would span about 56 degrees. An eagle (wingpsan 2m) would have to be about 1.5m distant to appear the same size. Jumbo jets are easily visible at their cruising altitude (about 11,000 m), when their angular size is about 0.3 degrees.
Artificial satellites are visible at very much higher altitudes. The International Space Station is easily visible - its distance of 330 km and length of 110m give it an angular size of 0.02 degrees. The Iridium communications satellites are also visible, even though they just 4m wide and at an altitude of 780km (angular size 0.0003 degrees).
By my calculation the angular size of the Earth at the distance of the Sun (which you claim would be zero) would be about 0.005 degrees, considerably larger than the size of the Iridium satellites.
Note also the planet Mercury is smaller than the Earth and can be seen even when it is at the same or greater distance than the Sun.
Do you have a mathematical formula to calculate the angular size of an object at different distances ?
"Prior I say everything has a limited form or shape. So I don’t say the angular size would be change if any object move away from us rather I say the object shall appear to us smaller and smaller till completely disappear."
Just to be clear, I think you mean physical size here, not angular. The physical size of an object never changes, it's the angular size that gets smaller at larger distances.
Dear Rhys,
ReplyDeleteWe should not forget the following:
Our surrounding is composition of light and dark. Sun supplies us light and energy. We are burn and living on earth. From earth point we are observing a grandest surrounding. Sun is the biggest luminous body in our surrounding and formed a grandest atmosphere. After verification of the rule of nature it appears within sunlight we are able to see the real objects within radius of 150 million kilometers only. No telescopic instrument can help us to observe other real object of solar system. If practically we move out towards darken point of earth we can observe new objects and new area of solar system
You told:
“….let us ignore the Solar System and issues of lighting, and concentrate on the example of moving a stick further and further away. Let us ignore light completely, and deal only with the angular size of the object.’
Alright, as per your instruction, ignoring light, in straight way I am restlessly moving a stick further and further away, day and night till to my death, yet I meet no end. This is irrelevant because everything has a limited form or shape. Ignoring light we cannot follow this rule.
Your claim by way of mathematics perhaps common to the astronomers and on such believes modern telescopes have been developed day by day. Researchers are spending their vital time behind reflective things and looking after another earth like planet. We should be practical and within sun light we can observe the real space and space object within radius of 150 million kilometers only and others are mere reflection. For space research, telescope is necessary instrument but it makes no difference between real and unreal. We have to consider the differences and lead our research accordingly. Except that everything is absolutely correct what you have told.
You suggest:
“Just to be clear, I think you mean physical size here, not angular. The physical size of an object never changes, it's the angular size that gets smaller at larger distances.”
I am sorry. I used the term ‘angular size’ in my writing as meaning of your both saying. Now I am clear and say, we observe from the point of earth and since it appears to us the physical size as well as the angular size of earth are zero at the distance of 150 million kilometers, telescope may help us to detect/discover any real object (including bacteria) at any place within radius of 150 million kilometers from earth.
The reason I say to ignore light is because it does not affect the angular size of an object. How large an object appears to us (its angular size) depends only on its physical size and its distance from us. It will appear brighter or dimmer depending on how much light it is reflecting, but not larger or smaller.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that you are saying that there is a very strict limit of 150 million kilometers beyond which we cannot see anything, since the angular size of objects becomes zero at this point. Can you explain why this should be ? What happens to stop triangles existing that are larger than 150 million kilometers ? You seem to accept that the mathematics works to this distance, but not beyond it. Why ?
Dear Rhys,
ReplyDeleteExistence of Sun has made us two parts, i.e. light part and dark part. Before I said our light part or the light part of earth reflects on the center of sun and our dark part or the darken part of earth reflects on the center of earth’s shadow. As the observer of earth we see the consequence.
For better understanding again I tell you with another form:
Our light part along with dark background reflects on the centre of sun and our dark part along with light back ground reflects on the centre of earth’s shadow. As the observer of earth we see the consequence. We see the sunspots on sun and we see innumerable images on our dark part.
We find “every action has a reaction”. Sun reflects on earth is an action same as the reflection of earth on the sun is a reaction. Cause of the action of sun we find a grandest atmosphere composition of real and unreal things and cause of the reaction of earth, we find the sun spots on sun
You are absolutely perfect, angular size will never be zero. Cause of the action of sun and cause of the reaction of earth, from earth point it appears everything would be zero at sun’s distance.
Sorry to take so long to respond - I've been having computer problems.
DeleteIf angular size never reaches zero, then this also means an object can never completely disappear at any distance. It will always reflect some light towards the observer. I am not sure what you mean by "cause of action of sun and cause of the reaction of earth". The Sun emits light in all directions, which will be reflected off objects (such as planets). The further away the objects are from the Sun, the less light they will reflect.
One side of the planet will always be dark because it is not illuminated by the Sun. If we are looking at a planet which is between us and the Sun, then we will not see it because it is not reflecting light toward us. But this does not depend on distance. We cannot see the Moon when it is between us and the Sun, but it is much closer than the Sun.
Here is another picture to show what I mean. There are two planets, A and B, of the same size, orbiting the Sun. Planet A is close to Earth but directly between us and the Sun, so it will appear dark to us. Planet B is further away but in a different postion with respect to us and the Sun, so part of it will be illuminated. This means we will be able to see it.
http://www.rhysy.net/Other/Planets.png
I have made the parts of the planets not facing the Sun a dark grey to make it easier to see, really they should be black.
Let me know if this is what you mean, or if you think it is not correct. Previously, you seemed to be stating that it was only distance which mattered to detecting distant planets, not where they are in relation to the Sun.
Dear Rhys,
DeleteYou have stated as follow:
“If angular size never reaches zero, then this also means an object can never completely disappear at any distance. It will always reflect some light towards the observer.”
Yes, it appears practically as well as mathematically that the angular size of any object never reaches zero but you like to proceed only on mathematically since you are sitting on farther objects (images). You are following non-division able mathematics as 2 cannot be properly divided by 3 and answer will be got 0.6666666666666…………….. no ending solution. We need solution and accept the answer as 0.66. You should be practical.
Everything has a limited form or shape. Sun has also a limited shape and formed a limited atmosphere. Living within a limited atmosphere, why do you think an object can never completely disappear at any distance? Let us consider two facts. Firstly if an object moves practically on a real path farther and farther, conclusively it will reach at same place because any reality has a certain limitation. Secondly if an object imaginary moves on any imaginary path farther and farther, conclusively it will reach at no end because imaginary has no limitation. You may consider which fact we should accept. The theory is based on first consideration.
Once upon a time people considered the earth as a disc type object. Gradually that idea vanished and people came to know that earth look like a biggest orange. We are the happiest human living within such an enrich science and hi-fi technology and think that science has a completely victory over blind era. We have also gained hi-fi space science technology but I repeatedly say that our astronomers have deceived by space mirror. Observing image Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto etc our astronomers are also saying that our solar system looks like a disc similarly different astronomers are searching different farther object aimlessly. It appears there is no future of space science; however we have not unveiled the mystery of space mirror.
We have observed 27 different moons in a month. I don’t oppose why we see them. I don’t oppose at the image given by you. I never dispute anything what is appeared us within radius of 150 million kilometer.
Thank you
The exact solution to 2/3 is 2/3. If we multiply 2/3 by 3, we get 2 - if we were to say that 2/3 = 0.66, then 0.66 x 3 = 1.98, which is clearly not the same. We cannot arbitrarily say that numbers are finite when they are not. Your "practical" solution gives the wrong answers. Moreover, why should we say that 2/3 is 0.66 and not 0.666666666 ?
DeleteSuppose I was told to walk two thirds of a kilometre three times. Then I would have walked two kilometres, not 1.98 kilometres. Now in practise it is true that I will not be able to measure the distance I've walked with infinite precision - I may not be able to say, for example, if I really walked 2.0 kilometres or 2.000005 kilometres. But this is only a measurement limit, not a real limit as to how precise a distance I may walk. There does not exist a smallest unit of distance.
But suppose, for the sake of argument, that there IS a smallest unit of distance, that objects cannot be any smaller than this. Even in this case, angular size is a measured property which depends on distance from the observer - it is not a physical property of the object. There cannot possibly be a smallest unit of angular size.
Consider again the planet Mercury, for which you accept the standard distance and size. It is too small to resolve with our eyes, so we might conclude from this that its angular size is zero. Yet the fact that we can see it tells us that it is reflecting some light toward us, so its true angular size cannot be zero.
"Living within a limited atmosphere, why do you think an object can never completely disappear at any distance?"
For the reasons I have already explained and you have agreed with : objects which are further away get smaller and fainter, but they cannot reach zero.
I am not sure what you mean by "limited atmosphere" in this case. Above 100 km from the Earth the atmosphere is negligible, I don't understand how the atmosphere is supposed to make things visible.
In conventional astronomy the Universe is not thought to be infinite, just very very large (about 100 billion light years across).
I am not clear what is supposed to happen at 150 million kilometres that means an Earth-sized planet should completely disappear. I have already shown that it would be detectable at much greater distances. Are you saying that they should disappear because its small angular size would be close to zero ? If so, this will depend on its physical size, so larger objects should be visible at larger distances. Or is is something to do with the "limited atmosphere" ?
Dear Rhys,
DeleteExcuse me, I am not as brilliant at math as you. I just explained the nature of non-division able math. I had no intention to hurt you. The accepted answer 0.66 is correct because that also means 0.66666666666666.................................. as well as 2/3. To avoid the use of infinite 6, we adopt above short cut.
Now, you are living in Prague and I live in Puri. I can’t see you. I don’t think your existence (angular size) is zero. I can meet you by way of western root or eastern root. Similarly I live in Puri and from Puri I can’t see you in spite of my best effort. Your appearance to me is completely zero.
Very beginning I have said that there is no difference between our solar system and our universe. Sun has formed a grandest spherical atmosphere and all the space objects including earth are floating on it. Since I believe our universe has a conclusively formation, the angular size of objects of our universe will never be zero at any place of our universe. So I wrote the following in my previous reply:
“Everything has a limited form or shape. Sun has also a limited shape and formed a limited atmosphere. Living within a limited atmosphere, why do you think an object can never completely disappear at any distance? Let us consider two facts. Firstly if an object moves practically on a real path farther and farther, conclusively it will reach at same place because any reality has a certain limitation. Secondly if an object imaginary moves on any imaginary path farther and farther, conclusively it will reach at no end because imaginary has no limitation. You may consider which fact we should accept. The theory is based on first consideration.”
You urge the following:
“I am not clear what is supposed to happen at 150 million kilometers that means an Earth-sized planet should completely disappear.”
I have accepted all of your calculation. You have calculated that the angular size of an earth-sized object would be 0.005 at the sun’s distance. You are correct. A real earth-sized planet would not be zero at sun’ distance but imaginary earth-sized planet would be zero at sun’s distance.
You say:
“In conventional astronomy the Universe is not thought to be infinite, just very very large (about 100 billion light years across).”
I am happy to learn above. At last you accept the rule “everything has a limited form or shape.” But that makes no sense.
Dear Rhys,
ReplyDeleteYour long silence appears to me, you have accepted the theory of space mirror mystery. Since you thought the theory is void from ab initio, so you ignored to read other factors of the theory with carefully. I awaited your further frequent questions. Everything contained in the theory are repeatedly scrutinized at every angle. Of course I have not explained the theory elaborately but I think who can understand the construction of space mirror in space, he must understand all.
The theory does not oppose the true science. It is just alerting that as an inhabitant of earth we find that the size of our earthlike object would be ZERO or completely disappear at just the distance of sun. Hence we can observe only real thing and real area within 150 million kilometers only because the light part of earth and dark background reflect on sun and within such dark background our light part of earth become zero at 150 million kilometers and we meet a mirror on the point of sun what reflects reversely 75 million kilometers and get another mirror. Same as the dark part of earth and light back ground reflects on the point of earth’ shadow and within such light background our darken part of earth become zero at 150 million kilometers and we meet a mirror on the point of earth’s shadow what reflects reversely 75 million kilometers and get another mirror. Remember we observe the consequence from earth point. We can unveil the mystery of space mirror by way of discovering the real Jupiter or real Saturn.
When sun, earth and Jupiter shall remain in a row, the image Jupiter (772 million kilometers) shall appear very brightly and on same row but in different angle the real Jupiter (253 million kilometers) will appear as fading red color. In the last part of coming January 2015, sun, earth and Jupiter will remain in a row and in that time real Jupiter can be discovered by very technically way. We can discover this fact from ISS (International Space Station) or any observatory. Unfortunately it is my beyond capacity. Friend, I just procreate an illegitimate child but have no capacity to bring up. Please you or your colleagues adopt it and bring up. History will be witnessed at your great job.
You are only person who sincerely responded and heard the theory from beginning. Lots of thank for your kind cooperation and for attempt of true science.
Thank you again.
Hi Pradipta,
ReplyDeleteI am sorry for the long delay. I was very confused by your last response and got sidetracked with other matters. No, I do not accept the space mirror.
"I have accepted all of your calculation. You have calculated that the angular size of an earth-sized object would be 0.005 at the sun’s distance. You are correct. A real earth-sized planet would not be zero at sun’ distance..."
You seem to accept that planets do not appear to have zero size at the Sun's distance, yet this was the original statement you made when I asked you about the basis of the space mirror idea. This implies you now believe the space mirror idea is false.
But then you go on to say :
"....but imaginary earth-sized planet would be zero at sun’s distance."
I really have no idea what this means.
To re-iterate from our earlier discussion :
I wrote : "I think I am beginning to understand. You are not saying that the mirror is 300 million km wide, but you are saying that we cannot observe objects further away than this because they would be too small to see. Is this what you mean ?"
Your reply : "Please tell me the particular answer “at which distance would the earth like object be completely disappeared from earth?”
So, please clarify if you think there is some distance limit beyond which we cannot see anything. This was my interpretation of the "limited form or shape".
I do wish you all success and happiness in caring for your child.
Dear Rhys,
ReplyDeleteWelcome to back. I expected the question?
I have given you this answer time and again. I have earlier told that the angular size of real object (like bacteria or too small object) will never be zero at any place of the universe. If any real object practically moves away farther to farther on real path; in conclusion it must reach in same place because our universe has a limited form or conclusive shape. Please note this point.
Next point is the distance between our earth and space mirror. During the conversion, I have learned from you many things. Yes, you are correct that I told you “at which distance, an earth like object would be zero?” and you answered me the angular size of an earth like object is 0.005 and it would never be zero at any point of time. I admit because existence means something and non-existence means nothing. We all have read the two facts from mathematics i.e., existence and non-existence. Non-existence means always zero and existence means 1 to 9 or 0.01 or 0.001 or 0.000001 or 0.0000000000……1. Remember we do proceed our mathematics holding both items otherwise we have no mathematics.
Sun is a luminous body and produce invisible light what reflects our earth along with other things of our universe. Here earth along with other things is existing body. Without reflection of light they are zero. The invisible light is zero and next our earth angular size appeared and from earth, we are observing the distance measurement between earth to sun is 150 million kilometers (0 to 150 million kilometers). From earth it appears the imaginary earth becomes zero at sun’s distance.
Thank you.
I keep asking the question because I don't understand your answers. Honestly, if I did, I wouldn't keep asking.
ReplyDeleteYou appear to accept that in an infinite universe, objects would never reach zero size. We could just keep moving objects further away and they'd look smaller and smaller but never reach zero. I hope you agree with this.
But you also seem to think that in a finite universe, of limited size, objects would eventually reach zero size at some distance. Now, if you are saying that this distance is the edge of the Universe, and beyond that nothing exists (and hence zero size), then I agree. But this doesn't say anything about the exact size of the Universe. How do you know it's 150 million kilometres ? Why not 150 billion, or 729 trillion, or infinite ?
You asked me to calculate the size of the Earth if it was 150 million kilometres away and I have done so. What you seem to be saying here is that the answer is not relevant because that's the distance to the edge of the universe. Previously you were saying the exact reverse of this - that because an Earth-sized planet would disappear at 150 million kilometres, that would be the edge of the universe. That's why I spent so long explaining that it wouldn't disappear at this distance.
Whatever it may be? Then you believe: Space mirror = Zero
ReplyDeleteSince you have sent an email to the staff at Cardiff University saying that you think I am convinced of the space mirror, let me state things more bluntly. You are wrong. Your idea is utter nonsense, pure and simple. You have completely ignored my previous response, repeatedly evaded many of my questions, and despite the fact I have shown the fundamental basis of your ridiculous idea to be the gibberish that is is, have failed to change your mind. Go away. I absolutely reject your idea and want nothing further to do with it. Goodbye.
DeleteExcuse me, Rhys.
DeleteRemember every mirror has zero concepts. But all zero are not mirror. So I did not write the astronomy people that you are convinced at space mirror concept, rather I wrote that you are convinced at zero concept after a long debate. See your reply dt. 27.11.2014; that is the zero what I had been saying about, although you alleged I am getting such zero following reversely. I was very happy; at least you reach at “zero concepts” although you claim, you know that. Very good! Gradually that zero must lead you towards the concept of space mirror.
Truth is always truth, false is always false. I have invited astronomical people including some members of the department of physics and astronomy of Cardiff University to read the debate carefully for determining the differences between true and false astronomy. At last I say you have not yet accepted the concept of “space mirror mystery”.
Thanks.
Hey Rhys,
ReplyDeleteI think all this dialog is a wonderful illustration for the article you wrote but you might not want to
follow the rabbit down the rabbit hole next time.
Just saying...
Ron
Indeed. It was worth a shot, but I'm done now.
Delete"The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it." - Alberto Brandolini
Just digged it up. Great read :) And I really, really admire your patience here Rhys. Best of luck to you on any future endavours.
ReplyDeleteMarcin