View Without the Van Alan Radiation Belts

James_ wrote:
This view is from Senja, Norway. I think everyone will notice there are more stars and galaxies to be seen from this perspective.

https://www.facebook.com/visitsenja/videos/1903312136661873/?hc_ref=ARQSq3VkIcnYLTly7mylok2yRtwNX9LXC3i8kuTJLrR3NR4fHK4c-SFfJMkL4efu1Ow&fref=nf

@All,
One reason why I will not allow myself to become polarized with respect to global warming is being 1/2 Norwegian and having lived in Norway has allowed me to see things from different perspectives. And with climate change the goal should be to want to see the best possible solution realized.
And to restate my position once again which is mainly for wake's benefit, chances are that co2 is an intensifier in our atmosphere while waste heat is possibly the biggest threat. This includes building exciting atmospheric gases by the coatings they use to alter the frequency of light in our atmosphere.

Wake wrote:


Anywhere in the world with clear air you can have sky scenes just like that.

James_ wrote: I think everyone will notice there are more stars and galaxies to be seen from this perspective.

James_ wrote:

Wake wrote:


Anywhere in the world with clear air you can have sky scenes just like that.

Thanks for the link, oops just another claim. You are tiresome wake.

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" wrote: Auroras.....Seattle (you have to get away from the city to see them).

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" bluffed: You seem to be getting tired a lot lately.

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:

Wake wrote:


Anywhere in the world with clear air you can have sky scenes just like that.

Thanks for the link, oops just another claim. You are tiresome wake.

You seem to be getting tired a lot lately. Have you not been eating and sleeping well?

Wake is right on this one.

You can still go out into the high desert away from places like San Francisco and see skies like this. If you northeast far enough, you will see the Auroras too. We sometimes even see them coming out the northeast here in Seattle (you have to get away from the city to see them).

litesong wrote:

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" wrote: Auroras.....Seattle (you have to get away from the city to see them).

My friend & I would telescope observe east of Everett & occasionally saw aurora. If we saw aurora on a particular date, we'd plan an observing session about 27-28 days later, & have a better chance than normal to see aurora, again. The sun rotates once every 25 days or so. Add <10% more due to the Earth's revolution around the sun. Then, if the sunspots that created the first aurora still existed, you had a chance of seeing aurora, 27-28 days later.

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:

Wake wrote:


Anywhere in the world with clear air you can have sky scenes just like that.

Thanks for the link, oops just another claim. You are tiresome wake.

You seem to be getting tired a lot lately. Have you not been eating and sleeping well?

Wake is right on this one.

You can still go out into the high desert away from places like San Francisco and see skies like this. If you northeast far enough, you will see the Auroras too. We sometimes even see them coming out the northeast here in Seattle (you have to get away from the city to see them).

I lived in Seattle for 25 years and was in the Cascades enough to know the difference. It must be a different Seattle / Cascades
that you live in / near.

James_ wrote:
ITN,
I remember now. When the Puget Sound was being polluted you yourself took action to have it cleaned up, right ?

James_ wrote:
And this means showing up at work to do whatever job it is that your employer pays you to do. Yep, you and wake like to play word games (aka Word Crimes).
...deleted Holy Link...

Into the Night wrote:

litesong wrote:

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" wrote: Auroras.....Seattle (you have to get away from the city to see them).

My friend & I would telescope observe east of Everett...

True, you can sometimes see Auroras from Everett. It's getting harder though, as housing and businesses east and north of Everett expands.

litesong wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

litesong wrote:

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" wrote: Auroras.....Seattle (you have to get away from the city to see them).

My friend & I would telescope observe east of Everett...

True, you can sometimes see Auroras from Everett. It's getting harder though, as housing and businesses east and north of Everett expands.

When I said, we observed east of Everett, I meant up in the mountains, away from light pollution. Even 30miles away from light pollution in the Pac. NW, observations of galaxies, that were vertical in the sky over parts of Australia, were difficult. But, my friend was great at finding low surface brightness galaxies, even as low as 5arc-degrees off the horizon.
Yeah, it was wondrous to see celestial objects 5arc-degrees off the horizon in the Pac. NW, that were near vertical in Australia.

James_ wrote:

litesong wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

litesong wrote:

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" wrote: Auroras.....Seattle (you have to get away from the city to see them).

My friend & I would telescope observe east of Everett...

True, you can sometimes see Auroras from Everett. It's getting harder though, as housing and businesses east and north of Everett expands.

When I said, we observed east of Everett, I meant up in the mountains, away from light pollution. Even 30miles away from light pollution in the Pac. NW, observations of galaxies, that were vertical in the sky over parts of Australia, were difficult. But, my friend was great at finding low surface brightness galaxies, even as low as 5arc-degrees off the horizon.
Yeah, it was wondrous to see celestial objects 5arc-degrees off the horizon in the Pac. NW, that were near vertical in Australia.

I've lived there. I've also have been in the Pacific out in the ocean, definitely no lights there. According to you and ITN I am blind.

James_ wrote:
I think this only because you can only consider your own thoughts. This means that ITN can't think for himself because he is not capable of considering a perspective other than his own.

James_ wrote:
He did claim to have saved the Puget Sound from pollution when it was the company he works for repairing a sewage treatment plant.

James_ wrote:
He badly misrepresented that situation.

James_ wrote:
Difficult to trust someone who lies so badly.

James_ wrote:
Of course if it wasn't for me having lived in Seattle I might not have caught his lies about the area.

James_:
I think this only because you can only consider your own thoughts. This means that ITN can't think for himself because he is not capable of considering a perspective other than his own.

Into the Night wrote:
You think so? I've studied many kinds of religions. I know how they affect the cultures they appear in. I know the similarities. I know the differences. I have studied philosophy, formal logic, mathematics, and the sciences. I know when someone is spouting bullshit. I can build my own computer and write the operating system for it. I can build embedded systems practically with my eyes closed. Yet I know the view the programmer that can only handle ECMA has, and what he is able to contribute and why. My hobby is etymology, not only of English words, but of other languages as well.

So...what perspective other than my own am I not capable of???

[b]James_ wrote:According to you and ITN I am blind.

James_ wrote:

James_:
I think this only because you can only consider your own thoughts. This means that ITN can't think for himself because he is not capable of considering a perspective other than his own.

Into the Night wrote:
You think so? I've studied many kinds of religions. I know how they affect the cultures they appear in. I know the similarities. I know the differences. I have studied philosophy, formal logic, mathematics, and the sciences. I know when someone is spouting bullshit. I can build my own computer and write the operating system for it. I can build embedded systems practically with my eyes closed. Yet I know the view the programmer that can only handle ECMA has, and what he is able to contribute and why. My hobby is etymology, not only of English words, but of other languages as well.

So...what perspective other than my own am I not capable of???

Only your own perspective. You're trying to validate why your perspective is is right.

James_ wrote:
@All,
To go into some detail about physics, what would show the difference between observing the night sky from a place like Senja, Norway https://www.google.com/maps/place/Senja/@69.853241,13.6879986,6z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x45db591ae8a5bf15:0xa0e572d1f453bd02!8m2!3d69.2964771!4d17.6458971 and Seattle, Washington, USA https://www.google.com/maps/place/Seattle,+WA/@44.6381957,-118.6637133,4z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x5490102c93e83355:0x102565466944d59a!8m2!3d47.6062095!4d-122.3320708 or Sea Ranch, California, USA https://www.google.com/maps/place/Sea+Ranch,+CA+95480/@42.0075372,-124.3190686,5z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x80813585cc939d9b:0x2d989b0bde4c835!8m2!3d38.7151899!4d-123.4544532 are 2 factors.
One is something called intrinsic brightness. And if I am right about the Van Allen Radiation belts effecting our atmosphere then this would also lessen the intrinsic brightness of stars.

James_ wrote:
I think this is why litesong and into the night keep refering to the Aurora Borealis. Because if they looked at images of the night sky taken from Senja, Norway and anywhere in California they might not be able to explain why the intrinsic brightness of stars and the night sky is brighter when seen from Senja, Norway.

James_ wrote:
And this is what wake said in defending any imaging taken from California;
The increasing population and air pollution has eliminated the usefulness of those investments but pretending that this has anything to do with the Van Allen belts is pretty rediculous.

James_ wrote:
Plainly you have no intentions of growing up.
end quote

Like litesong and ITN, have to take his word for it.

James_ wrote:
And that is what a debate is about.

James_ wrote:
It's about being right even when you are wrong because only winning the debate matters. and not understanding why something is happening.

litesong wrote:

[b]James_ wrote:According to you and ITN I am blind.

What part of "People with exceptional vision have reported seeing a dozen to a score of stars in the Pleiades. They would love the skies of Norway.
With an 8-inch telescope, seeing galaxies of apparent magnitude 14 would be considered good seeing. Again, really dark Norwegian skies "might" show magnitude 15(2.5 times dimmer)."
Lumping me with "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" is a big error on your part.

Into the Night wrote:

Not what a debate is about. At this point, you are trying to make an inversion fallacy by defining 'debate'.

litesong wrote:

[b]James_ wrote:According to you and ITN I am blind.

What part of "People with exceptional vision have reported seeing a dozen to a score of stars in the Pleiades. They would love the skies of Norway.
With an 8-inch telescope, seeing galaxies of apparent magnitude 14 would be considered good seeing. Again, really dark Norwegian skies "might" show magnitude 15(2.5 times dimmer)."
Lumping me with "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" is a big error on your part.

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Not what a debate is about. At this point, you are trying to make an inversion fallacy by defining 'debate'.

A debate is about winning. That's all. Who are better ?
Republicans or Democrats ? A debate will answer that question even if in reality there is no winner.

James_ wrote:

litesong wrote:

James_ wrote:According to you and ITN I am blind.

What part of "People with exceptional vision have reported seeing a dozen to a score of stars in the Pleiades. They would love the skies of Norway.
With an 8-inch telescope, seeing galaxies of apparent magnitude 14 would be considered good seeing. Again, really dark Norwegian skies "might" show magnitude 15(2.5 times dimmer)."
Lumping me with "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" is a big error on your part.

Most people don't understand how scientists can tell how far away distant stars and galaxies are.

[b]James_ wrote:
This might actually support my theory. After all, the big selling point for the Hubble Telescope was that it'd be out of our atmosphere. And it is possible that while they used pollution as a reason that would be because they did not realize that our atmosphere is in an excited state.

James_ wrote:
The view from Senja showed what might be grass it was so bright yet the light pollution didn't prevent a spectacular view of one part of our galaxy. It did seem like one part of the view was dimmed by the Sun but another part wasn't.

James_ wrote:
And with wake and ITN they could even find an image from somewhere else because they said they were right because there perspective was right. And they either say San Francisco or Seattle. Again one perspective. :-)

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:

litesong wrote:

James_ wrote:According to you and ITN I am blind.

What part of "People with exceptional vision have reported seeing a dozen to a score of stars in the Pleiades. They would love the skies of Norway.
With an 8-inch telescope, seeing galaxies of apparent magnitude 14 would be considered good seeing. Again, really dark Norwegian skies "might" show magnitude 15(2.5 times dimmer)."
Lumping me with "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" is a big error on your part.

Most people don't understand how scientists can tell how far away distant stars and galaxies are.

It's not hard. You just have to precise in your measurements.

[b]James_ wrote:
This might actually support my theory. After all, the big selling point for the Hubble Telescope was that it'd be out of our atmosphere. And it is possible that while they used pollution as a reason that would be because they did not realize that our atmosphere is in an excited state.

The original purpose of Hubble was to place a telescope outside the Earth's atmosphere, since air is fluid and distorts the image. You might even say it was because the atmosphere is in an excited state. You would be correct.

Hubble was not built because of light pollution or any other kind of pollution. Nobody (that had anything to do with the project) ever said it was.

James_ wrote:
The view from Senja showed what might be grass it was so bright yet the light pollution didn't prevent a spectacular view of one part of our galaxy. It did seem like one part of the view was dimmed by the Sun but another part wasn't.

The view of Senja is nice, but it has nothing to do with the Van Allen belts.

James_ wrote:
And with wake and ITN they could even find an image from somewhere else because they said they were right because there perspective was right. And they either say San Francisco or Seattle. Again one perspective. :-)

Actually, my favorite star viewing area near me is Rome, OR. It is open desert, so there are no lights. It is desert, so the skies are usually clear and dry (humidity does mess with your viewing). Wintertime is the best, when the air is cold and not moving around so much.

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" wrote: favorite star viewing area near me is Rome, OR.

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:

litesong wrote:

James_ wrote:According to you and ITN I am blind.

What part of "People with exceptional vision have reported seeing a dozen to a score of stars in the Pleiades. They would love the skies of Norway.
With an 8-inch telescope, seeing galaxies of apparent magnitude 14 would be considered good seeing. Again, really dark Norwegian skies "might" show magnitude 15(2.5 times dimmer)."
Lumping me with "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" is a big error on your part.

Most people don't understand how scientists can tell how far away distant stars and galaxies are.

It's not hard. You just have to precise in your measurements.

[b]James_ wrote:
This might actually support my theory. After all, the big selling point for the Hubble Telescope was that it'd be out of our atmosphere. And it is possible that while they used pollution as a reason that would be because they did not realize that our atmosphere is in an excited state.

The original purpose of Hubble was to place a telescope outside the Earth's atmosphere, since air is fluid and distorts the image. You might even say it was because the atmosphere is in an excited state. You would be correct.

Hubble was not built because of light pollution or any other kind of pollution. Nobody (that had anything to do with the project) ever said it was.

James_ wrote:
The view from Senja showed what might be grass it was so bright yet the light pollution didn't prevent a spectacular view of one part of our galaxy. It did seem like one part of the view was dimmed by the Sun but another part wasn't.

The view of Senja is nice, but it has nothing to do with the Van Allen belts.

James_ wrote:
And with wake and ITN they could even find an image from somewhere else because they said they were right because there perspective was right. And they either say San Francisco or Seattle. Again one perspective. :-)

Actually, my favorite star viewing area near me is Rome, OR. It is open desert, so there are no lights. It is desert, so the skies are usually clear and dry (humidity does mess with your viewing). Wintertime is the best, when the air is cold and not moving around so much.

And yet Mt. Rainier is closer and would be better. It has year round snow. Cold, crisp air year round plus lots of nice scenery. I liked your little story though. It's a shame that a map doesn't tell you about an area.

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:

litesong wrote:

James_ wrote:According to you and ITN I am blind.

What part of "People with exceptional vision have reported seeing a dozen to a score of stars in the Pleiades. They would love the skies of Norway.
With an 8-inch telescope, seeing galaxies of apparent magnitude 14 would be considered good seeing. Again, really dark Norwegian skies "might" show magnitude 15(2.5 times dimmer)."
Lumping me with "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" is a big error on your part.

Most people don't understand how scientists can tell how far away distant stars and galaxies are.

It's not hard. You just have to precise in your measurements.

[b]James_ wrote:
This might actually support my theory. After all, the big selling point for the Hubble Telescope was that it'd be out of our atmosphere. And it is possible that while they used pollution as a reason that would be because they did not realize that our atmosphere is in an excited state.

The original purpose of Hubble was to place a telescope outside the Earth's atmosphere, since air is fluid and distorts the image. You might even say it was because the atmosphere is in an excited state. You would be correct.

Hubble was not built because of light pollution or any other kind of pollution. Nobody (that had anything to do with the project) ever said it was.

James_ wrote:
The view from Senja showed what might be grass it was so bright yet the light pollution didn't prevent a spectacular view of one part of our galaxy. It did seem like one part of the view was dimmed by the Sun but another part wasn't.

The view of Senja is nice, but it has nothing to do with the Van Allen belts.

James_ wrote:
And with wake and ITN they could even find an image from somewhere else because they said they were right because there perspective was right. And they either say San Francisco or Seattle. Again one perspective. :-)

Actually, my favorite star viewing area near me is Rome, OR. It is open desert, so there are no lights. It is desert, so the skies are usually clear and dry (humidity does mess with your viewing). Wintertime is the best, when the air is cold and not moving around so much.

And yet Mt. Rainier is closer and would be better. It has year round snow. Cold, crisp air year round plus lots of nice scenery. I liked your little story though. It's a shame that a map doesn't tell you about an area.

It probably would. I do, however, occasionally pass through Rome.

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:

litesong wrote:

James_ wrote:According to you and ITN I am blind.

What part of "People with exceptional vision have reported seeing a dozen to a score of stars in the Pleiades. They would love the skies of Norway.
With an 8-inch telescope, seeing galaxies of apparent magnitude 14 would be considered good seeing. Again, really dark Norwegian skies "might" show magnitude 15(2.5 times dimmer)."
Lumping me with "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" is a big error on your part.

Most people don't understand how scientists can tell how far away distant stars and galaxies are.

It's not hard. You just have to precise in your measurements.

[b]James_ wrote:
This might actually support my theory. After all, the big selling point for the Hubble Telescope was that it'd be out of our atmosphere. And it is possible that while they used pollution as a reason that would be because they did not realize that our atmosphere is in an excited state.

The original purpose of Hubble was to place a telescope outside the Earth's atmosphere, since air is fluid and distorts the image. You might even say it was because the atmosphere is in an excited state. You would be correct.

Hubble was not built because of light pollution or any other kind of pollution. Nobody (that had anything to do with the project) ever said it was.

James_ wrote:
The view from Senja showed what might be grass it was so bright yet the light pollution didn't prevent a spectacular view of one part of our galaxy. It did seem like one part of the view was dimmed by the Sun but another part wasn't.

The view of Senja is nice, but it has nothing to do with the Van Allen belts.

James_ wrote:
And with wake and ITN they could even find an image from somewhere else because they said they were right because there perspective was right. And they either say San Francisco or Seattle. Again one perspective. :-)

Actually, my favorite star viewing area near me is Rome, OR. It is open desert, so there are no lights. It is desert, so the skies are usually clear and dry (humidity does mess with your viewing). Wintertime is the best, when the air is cold and not moving around so much.

And yet Mt. Rainier is closer and would be better. It has year round snow. Cold, crisp air year round plus lots of nice scenery. I liked your little story though. It's a shame that a map doesn't tell you about an area.

It probably would. I do, however, occasionally pass through Rome.

Are you and litesong wiccan by any chance ?

Into the Night wrote:

I am not. I can't speak for litebeer.

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

I am not. I can't speak for litebeer.

From what you both post it makes me think the 2 of you are married. And with star gazing, nothing you said makes me think either one of you have much of an interest in astronomy. I think it's because of too much parallel deflecting with you and litesong.

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

I am not. I can't speak for litebeer.

From what you both post it makes me think the 2 of you are married. And with star gazing, nothing you said makes me think either one of you have much of an interest in astronomy. I think it's because of too much parallel deflecting with you and litesong.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You REALLY haven't paying attention to what is being posted, have you?

Did you know that you can get a good view of the stars most anywhere in the world?

Cities and their associated light pollution problems are a VERY small area of the total area of the surface of the Earth!

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:

I am not. I can't speak for litebeer.

From what you both post it makes me think the 2 of you are married. And with star gazing, nothing you said makes me think either one of you have much of an interest in astronomy. I think it's because of too much parallel deflecting with you and litesong.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You REALLY haven't paying attention to what is being posted, have you?

Did you know that you can get a good view of the stars most anywhere in the world?

Cities and their associated light pollution problems are a VERY small area of the total area of the surface of the Earth!

James_ wrote:
And to you it won't matter what I post because you'll be debating why your perspective is right because you've read something.

James_ wrote:
This suggests to me that you haven't gone anywhere except maybe to Rome, Oregon to get stoned and watch stars with Litesong.

James_ wrote:
I think you are lucky that way to have only lived in one area and to not have been exposed to a lot of different cultures, etc. Must be nice.

James_ wrote:
@All,
When I am able to have my experiment tried the magnitude or intrinsic brightness of stars and galaxies will be able to be compared at various altitudes and locations. The air quality will be able to be tested to see if there is any air borne pollution or not, no assumptions.

James_ wrote:
That's kind of how science used to work

James_ wrote:
but as to Into (IMHO) Ignorance goes we can use modeling and debate why our algorithm is better than the other one.

James_ wrote:
Kind of why climate change is so hotly debated today.

James_ wrote:
Verifying information has been replaced by computer modelling

James_ wrote:
and if any asks into the night (always small letters for IMHO a small mind) he'll debate logarithms so they end up having no value and then will complain about people using HOLY LINKS which he does not support because when people think for them self they don't have to adhere to any rule or principle but can make things up as they go.

James_ wrote:
It is IMHO a mild form of brainwashing that he employs. I've heard of sects doing that and they did have one in eastern Oregon and might even belong to it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajneeshpuram

James_ wrote:
@litesong and into the night, I don't know either of you but you both keep IMHO coming back to some belief you have and you go to Oregon because of it.

James_ wrote:
It makes me cautious.

James_ wrote:
Unlike itn I think we should go by the best science available because if we lived as Native Americans did before Europeans came to America, they could kill, rape, etc. from each other because they had no laws that they followed.

James_ wrote:
And most likely they also lived a difficult life.

James_ wrote:
It's just that when change comes the past is often romanticized.

James_ wrote: And with star gazing, nothing you said makes me think either one of you have much of an interest in astronomy.

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:
@All,
When I am able to have my experiment tried the magnitude or intrinsic brightness of stars and galaxies will be able to be compared at various altitudes and locations. The air quality will be able to be tested to see if there is any air borne pollution or not, no assumptions.

Don't ignore the effects of water vapor, air temperature, nearby light sources, etc. They will all affect your measurements. They are all unknown factors too.

James_ wrote:
That's kind of how science used to work

Science today is quite simple. It consists of a set of falsifiable theories that describe nature. That's it.

The ramifications of that simple definition are profound. Not just any old theory becomes part of the body of science. No theory of science is ever proven.

You have developed a theory that you can measure pollution by measuring the magnitudes of various stars. I have no problem with that theory, but you should realize the sources of error within it. You should also be aware that not all pollution is visible, and will not affect your readings.

If you're trying to prove CO2 is a pollutant, it is not. NOTHING is a pollutant simply by virtue of a material being what it is.

James_ wrote:
but as to Into (IMHO) Ignorance goes we can use modeling and debate why our algorithm is better than the other one.

Science isn't algorithms. Science isn't data either. Computer modelling is manufactured data. That isn't data either.

James_ wrote:
Kind of why climate change is so hotly debated today.

It is hotly debated today because the Church of Global Warming is trying to establish itself as a state religion. It is because the Church of Global Warming stems from the Church of Karl Marx, and is being used as an excuse to impose Marxism.

James_ wrote:
Verifying information has been replaced by computer modelling

Computer models aren't data. Manufactured data is not data.

James_ wrote:
and if any asks into the night (always small letters for IMHO a small mind) he'll debate logarithms so they end up having no value and then will complain about people using HOLY LINKS which he does not support because when people think for them self they don't have to adhere to any rule or principle but can make things up as they go.

You should learn the idea of a reference. My reference is the theories of science I bring up, most commonly the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. They are the only reference I need. The ONLY authoritative reference for a theory of science itself is the authors of that theory and the test results against the null hypothesis of that theory.

James_ wrote:
It is IMHO a mild form of brainwashing that he employs. I've heard of sects doing that and they did have one in eastern Oregon and might even belong to it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajneeshpuram

Heh. The Rajneesh are GONE. Long time ago now.

James_ wrote:
@litesong and into the night, I don't know either of you but you both keep IMHO coming back to some belief you have and you go to Oregon because of it.

I never lived in Oregon. I pass through it regularly though. It happens to be in the way.

James_ wrote:
It makes me cautious.

You REALLY gotta keep up with the news. The Rajneesh are GONE

James_ wrote:
Unlike itn I think we should go by the best science available because if we lived as Native Americans did before Europeans came to America, they could kill, rape, etc. from each other because they had no laws that they followed.

There is not 'best' science. There is science, or there is not. The definition of science is pretty simple.

The indigenous tribes found here HAD laws. They still do today. Several of them even had a republican form of government (most are matriarchies, stemming from their religions). Tribes are as different from one another as one nation is from another. The only difference is scale, and that they were here before Europeans arrived. Like any set of nations, they had their wars, treaties, religious differences, religious similarities, etc.

James_ wrote:
And most likely they also lived a difficult life.

Not true. They lived quite comfortable lives. Life for them is quite a bit harder now, thanks to government welfare imposed on them.

James_ wrote:
It's just that when change comes the past is often romanticized.

You mean the change that caused the tribes to be decimated through war and disease brought upon them by the Europeans? Have their land stolen? Have their men killed? Their women and children enslaved? Put them on 'reservations' under government welfare? That forced them to turn away from their culture and religion?

Yeah. I can see why they would look to the past to remember what it used to be like.

litesong wrote:

James_ wrote: And with star gazing, nothing you said makes me think either one of you have much of an interest in astronomy.

litesong wrote: ..."it was wondrous to see celestial objects 5arc-degrees off the horizon in the Pac. NW, that were near vertical in Australia"....
//////
It is good that James shows no ability to determine the truth of my statement.

James_ wrote:

litesong wrote:

James_ wrote: And with star gazing, nothing you said makes me think either one of you have much of an interest in astronomy.

litesong wrote: ..."it was wondrous to see celestial objects 5arc-degrees off the horizon in the Pac. NW, that were near vertical in Australia"....
//////
It is good that James shows no ability to determine the truth of my statement.

If you're talking about a constellation led(?), etc then at what time are you watching it ?

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:
@All,
When I am able to have my experiment tried the magnitude or intrinsic brightness of stars and galaxies will be able to be compared at various altitudes and locations. The air quality will be able to be tested to see if there is any air borne pollution or not, no assumptions.

Don't ignore the effects of water vapor, air temperature, nearby light sources, etc. They will all affect your measurements. They are all unknown factors too.

James_ wrote:
That's kind of how science used to work

Science today is quite simple. It consists of a set of falsifiable theories that describe nature. That's it.

The ramifications of that simple definition are profound. Not just any old theory becomes part of the body of science. No theory of science is ever proven.

You have developed a theory that you can measure pollution by measuring the magnitudes of various stars. I have no problem with that theory, but you should realize the sources of error within it. You should also be aware that not all pollution is visible, and will not affect your readings.

If you're trying to prove CO2 is a pollutant, it is not. NOTHING is a pollutant simply by virtue of a material being what it is.

James_ wrote:
but as to Into (IMHO) Ignorance goes we can use modeling and debate why our algorithm is better than the other one.

Science isn't algorithms. Science isn't data either. Computer modelling is manufactured data. That isn't data either.

James_ wrote:
Kind of why climate change is so hotly debated today.

It is hotly debated today because the Church of Global Warming is trying to establish itself as a state religion. It is because the Church of Global Warming stems from the Church of Karl Marx, and is being used as an excuse to impose Marxism.

James_ wrote:
Verifying information has been replaced by computer modelling

Computer models aren't data. Manufactured data is not data.

James_ wrote:
and if any asks into the night (always small letters for IMHO a small mind) he'll debate logarithms so they end up having no value and then will complain about people using HOLY LINKS which he does not support because when people think for them self they don't have to adhere to any rule or principle but can make things up as they go.

You should learn the idea of a reference. My reference is the theories of science I bring up, most commonly the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. They are the only reference I need. The ONLY authoritative reference for a theory of science itself is the authors of that theory and the test results against the null hypothesis of that theory.

James_ wrote:
It is IMHO a mild form of brainwashing that he employs. I've heard of sects doing that and they did have one in eastern Oregon and might even belong to it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajneeshpuram

Heh. The Rajneesh are GONE. Long time ago now.

James_ wrote:
@litesong and into the night, I don't know either of you but you both keep IMHO coming back to some belief you have and you go to Oregon because of it.

I never lived in Oregon. I pass through it regularly though. It happens to be in the way.

James_ wrote:
It makes me cautious.

You REALLY gotta keep up with the news. The Rajneesh are GONE

James_ wrote:
Unlike itn I think we should go by the best science available because if we lived as Native Americans did before Europeans came to America, they could kill, rape, etc. from each other because they had no laws that they followed.

There is not 'best' science. There is science, or there is not. The definition of science is pretty simple.

The indigenous tribes found here HAD laws. They still do today. Several of them even had a republican form of government (most are matriarchies, stemming from their religions). Tribes are as different from one another as one nation is from another. The only difference is scale, and that they were here before Europeans arrived. Like any set of nations, they had their wars, treaties, religious differences, religious similarities, etc.

James_ wrote:
And most likely they also lived a difficult life.

Not true. They lived quite comfortable lives. Life for them is quite a bit harder now, thanks to government welfare imposed on them.

James_ wrote:
It's just that when change comes the past is often romanticized.

You mean the change that caused the tribes to be decimated through war and disease brought upon them by the Europeans? Have their land stolen? Have their men killed? Their women and children enslaved? Put them on 'reservations' under government welfare? That forced them to turn away from their culture and religion?

Yeah. I can see why they would look to the past to remember what it used to be like.

Have you ever wondered why the spirit that watched over Native Americans left them unprepared for what was to come ?

James_ wrote:
I have mentioned before that the world population was increasing.

James_ wrote:
It was inevitable that others come here.

James_ wrote:
As for their culture there are ways for them to remember.