Observable data - requires actually completing a task e.g. taking a picture. Someone explaining what they believe to be how the stars appear using a model based on a concept is not observable evidence.
It says that the video is created using images from the opportunity rover. Also, the dust filled atmosphere might be another contributing factor for the poor visibility.
That said, it seems strange that not even a single star is visible.
So you think NASA would create this ELABORATE and completely unbelievable hoax, and forget something as simple as adding stars to a photo that they are showing to millions of people? They fake everything and forget something as simple as that? Where's the logic?
I never made any claims other than no deep sky / night sky imagery seems to exist for Mars. What exactly is real or fake at NASA is debatable. Some data seems legitimate while much is admittedly done as "simulation", "CGI", "Composites", edited, etc.
It's difficult to access raw data.
Send a billion dollar mission into outer space forget to take pictures of outer space. You believe this...
Many many articles have been written about not being able to see the night sky due to the camera quality, which is a powerful as an unaided eye, and the dust from the planet.
There are orbiter images aren't there? Idk man I'm just here to debate my side. You do have some good points. Hard to wrap my head around something so insidious.
Well if you know how a camera works they are focusing on light and land on the planet surface, I'm sure if they wanted to take a photo of the sky and the planet they could, just a longer exposure. It's kind of hard to do both while orbiting a planet at high speeds.
Google iPhone night sky pictures. You'd be amazed at what you see. The point is that they never made a real attempt to even document the night sky from Mars.
Star trails tell you what direction the stars are moving relative to the observer. The exposure time is different but the law that causes it wouldn't change.
Notice all the lights not moving with the stars? Notice the "?" around them. There's a reason for that.
Maybe those ones not moving with the stars.. aren't stars?? The cosmic rays could easily be cosmic rays.. our ozone absorbs cosmic rays, mars doesn't have that so when a photon with high energy hits the Martian atmosphere it ionizes it causing light.
So you believe Mars has a dynamic never seen before - novel stellar phenomena easily observed and yet it holds no scientific value besides some really low quality black and white images.
Also Ozone is made from plasma. The ionosphere is said to be charged particles - basically defined the same way plasma is. Here's something else: all plasma requires and electrical input. No electro-magnetic field no plasma. "Cosmic Rays" is a fancy way of saying energy waves.
On Earth you can do very simple experiments to show - energy field/electricity + gas = ionization/plasma. Produce Ozone in the process. [You will smell it]. Yet you believe some backwards causality exists in space.
From what I can see there is no experiment showing the public model actually works the way its been modelled. There's absolutely no observable evidence UV Light creates Ozone in the ionosphere - which subsequently blocks UV Light no less. That's like salt turning something alkaline to then repel alkalinity.
Also where is the Ozone all around the Earth? You don't smell it. But UV Light is constantly reaching Oxygen in the atmosphere. When you do smell it is after lightning storms. Not even denied by the mainstream
When ambient Air is passed over an ultraviolet lamp, UV 185nm, it will split the oxygen (O2) molecule. The resulting oxygen atoms (O-), seeking stability, attach to other oxygen molecules (O2), forming Ozone (O3).
This is pretty common knowledge...
Anyways that wasn't my argument.
I was saying that cosmic rays (high energy photons) can ionize a gas creating a glow.. similar to this..
Dude there are literally Ozone generators that you can buy that use UV light... there's your experiment
I never said it was the same exact thing, I said it's the same concept. Ionization through radiation. Thorium radiation is far weaker than gamma radiation so it needs a more sensitive set up to be visible, hence the chilled alcohol vapor.
"This Ultraviolet UV ozone generator Produces ZERO nitrogen oxides, and the ozone output is unaffected by high humidity (two characteristics not possible with corona discharge ozone generators unless only pure oxygen is used for feed gas)."
You can use UV or Corona discharge. This company sells both.
"The Biggest difference between corona discharge and UV ozone generation methods is that UV ozone generators have stable ozone output levels throughout humidity ranges, while the output of corona discharge ozone generators is significantly reduced by just moderate humidity levels such as 40–70% (ozone output is reduced by approx. 40-70% with 40-70% humidity)."
The photocatalytic reaction is done with Titanium Oxide so now show where TiO2 exists in the upper atmosphere. It doesn't.
It not only produces Ozone but but Formaldehyde, Hyrdoxyl radicals and others. Change the catalyst and you change the result of the reaction! This means its dependent on the catalyst
This is how the vegetation cycle works. Photosynthesis.
So if this is true for how the upper atmosphere works it implies that 1-there is a Titanium Oxide barrier or net [substrate] at the very each of our ionosphere, or that photosynthesis is going on which makes the Earth a giant living organism which would require a shell where the substrate exists to allow for the reaction.
Not totally against the idea - but without any knowledge of a barrier, shell or substrate in the outer edges of our world it doesn't make sense.
Dude that photo catalytic reaction is with water, not even a gas so why are you trying to compare??
"Creation: an oxygen molecule is split (photolyzed) by higher frequency UV light (top end of UV-B, UV-C and above) into two oxygen atoms (see figure):
O2 + ℎν → 2 O•
Each oxygen atom then quickly combines with an oxygen molecule to form an ozone molecule:
O• + O2 → O3"
And also it seems like you have no idea the biology behind photosynthesis...
"Light is absorbed by two Photosystems called Photosystem I (PSI) and Photosystem II (PSII). These protein complexes contain light harvesting chlorophyll molecules and accessory pigments called antenna complexes. The photosystems are also equipped with reactions centers (RC). These are complexes of proteins and pigments which are responsible for energy conversion. The chlorophyll molecules of PSI absorb light with a peak wavelength of 700nm and are called P700 molecules. The chlorophyll molecules of PSII absorb light with a peak wavelength of 68Onm and are called P68O molecules."
Dude that photo catalytic reaction is with water, not even a gas so why are you trying to compare??
"Dude that exothermic reaction is with water, it's not even a gas why are you trying to compare."
thy·la·koid
each of a number of flattened sacs inside a chloroplast, bounded by pigmented membrane.
When the pigment [catalyst] changes the nature of the reaction and the end result do you think its reasonable to say it has a connection to what's going on? Does your photocatalytic reaction work without Titanium Oxide [a pigment]?? No.
Where's the titanium dioxide in the upper atmosphere?
The Ozone-Oxygen Cycle is pseudoscience. It cannot be observed nor produced in a lab. It needs a pigmented substrate to work.
Oxidation of organic contaminants using magnetic particles that are coated with titanium dioxide nanoparticles and agitated using a magnetic field while being exposed to UV light.
Use of titanium dioxide in self-sterilizing photocatalytic coatings (for application to food contact surfaces and in other environments where microbial pathogens spread by indirect contact).
Oxidation of organic contaminants using magnetic particles that are coated with titanium dioxide nanoparticles and agitated using a magnetic field while being exposed to UV light.
Decomposition of crude oil with TiO2 nanoparticles: by using titanium dioxide photocatalysts and UV-A radiation from the sun, the hydrocarbons found in crude oil can be turned into H2O and CO2.
The reaction works on hydrocarbons too, not just "H2o".
Titanium Oxide is a pigment. All metal oxides are. The causal function lost on people seems to do with pigments and absorption or rejection of light waves.
Pigments are also found in all organisms that display photosynthetic capabilities. You believe this is a coincidence perhaps.
A theory is built on observational evidence. Without observation it is pseudoscience.
Now show where UV light reacting with Ozone [without a catalyst] creates Ozone. It doesn't. It's falsified by this observational data. There is no causal function that allows it to happen.
Spamming theoretical junk does not prove anything. Try to think for a moment. If the pigmented substrates are needed for photocatalytic reaction and there are none in the upper atmosphere, what is the cause for the reaction.
There must be a cause. We live in a causal reality.
Photodynamic therapy - Typical photosensitizers include tetraphenylporphyrin and methylene blue [pigment/dye]. Laser therapy [tatoo removal] reacts with pigment in the skin.
Greek ῥόδον (rhódon) for "rose", due to its pinkish color, and ὄψις (ópsis) for "sight".[3] Rhodopsin is a biological pigment found in the rods of the retina
There should be an undiscovered scientific law in here somewhere. Flesh it out for a Nobel if you want. Pigment is required for photochemical reactions. Without pigment the or very degrees of it will change the efficiency of the reaction.
Aim some UV Light at a bottle of oxygen and see how long it takes to produce Ozone. The reaction is not happening without a catalyst/pigment.
It's not proven correct. And to prove it wrong isn't possible as you can't prove a negative [though it being unproven and treated as correct is wrong].
They do not show any experimental data proving the reactions they claim are taking place.
To prove this correct take a transparent cloud of o2 or rather a composition of whatever atmosphere exists at that level of atmosphere, recreate the observed pressure/temperature/denisty - then bombard it with UV radiation. If it yields Ozone and whatever else it's a hypothesis that held up to experimental work.
It's then proven correct! Show the experimental work that has proven this!!! It's an easy experiment. It should have been performed a hundred times over.
They never did the experimental work! It's just conceptual math. Junk. Pseudoscience.
They are actually. They were found. But it only raised more questions. Their optics are complete junk as well. Except for one picture - a calibration test for HiRISE which can't seem to be located.
Their optics and imagery are subpar in every example
They aren't fucking luaching RED cameras to mars, you need radiation hardened shit that can take a beating on launch and landing and just existing in the environment, no, it isn't going to be amazing pictures.
Except for one picture - a calibration test for HiRISE which can't seem to be located.
HiRISE is an orbiter looking at mars, why would stars ever show up there?
1 - the Opportunity images are high-definition panoramic.
2 - The HiRISE did a single "calibration" test taking a huge expansive night sky image. Only a very small portion was released publicly and does not seem to be available.
3 - the very few images of the night that are taken seem to show novel - non-understood physical phenomena above. Seems like a pretty massive potential for scientific discovery. Ignored instead. Seems legit.
You will not find one real photo/video of earth, mars, or anything else.
You will not find any picture of the stars from orbiter, mars, or any other placd because its to hard to fake.
Think about it, more than 60 years in space no real video, photto specially no ones that might show "perspective" that includes night sky with stars, moons etc, its always something. Camera exposure, dust , etc.
Trust your first instinct its all bullshit. No astronaut, doing spacewalks ever panned camera for you to see anything but pieces of module, a glove, him working and so on, not even by mistake. After hundreds of spacewalk missions. Common sense
So you believe Mars has a dynamic never seen before - novel stellar phenomena easily observed and yet it holds no scientific value besides some really low quality black and white images.
Also Ozone is made from plasma. The ionosphere is said to be charged particles - basically defined the same way plasma is. Here's something else: all plasma requires and electrical input. No electro-magnetic field no plasma. "Cosmic Rays" is a fancy way of saying energy waves.
On Earth you can do very simple experiments to show - energy field/electricity + gas = ionization/plasma. Produce Ozone in the process. [You will smell it]. Yet you believe some backwards causality exists in space.
From what I can see there is no experiment showing the public model actually works the way its been modelled. There's absolutely no observable evidence UV Light creates Ozone in the ionosphere - which subsequently blocks UV Light no less. That's like salt turning something alkaline to then repel alkalinity.
Also where is the Ozone all around the Earth? You don't smell it. But UV Light is constantly reaching Oxygen in the atmosphere. When you do smell it is after lightning storms. Not even denied by the mainstream
A theory is built on observational evidence. Without observation it is pseudoscience.
Now show where UV light reacting with Ozone [without a catalyst] creates Ozone. It doesn't. It's falsified by this observational data. There is no causal function that allows it to happen.
Spamming theoretical junk does not prove anything. Try to think for a moment. If the pigmented substrates are needed for photocatalytic reaction and there are none in the upper atmosphere, what is the cause for the reaction.
There must be a cause. We live in a causal reality.
77 comments
1 NimSauce 2017-07-29
http://www.astronomy.com/news/2016/06/what-do-the-stars-look-like-from-mars
1 HideFoundHide 2017-07-29
That is CGI. We are looking for observed data. An image. A real one.
1 NimSauce 2017-07-29
i didn't know articles and words are all cgi now.
1 HideFoundHide 2017-07-29
Observable data - requires actually completing a task e.g. taking a picture. Someone explaining what they believe to be how the stars appear using a model based on a concept is not observable evidence.
1 catburglerinparis 2017-07-29
So why don't you look through a telescope yourself?
1 HideFoundHide 2017-07-29
Do not have access to Mars.
1 Iamamansass 2017-07-29
Lol don't know why this made me laugh.
1 kottsch 2017-07-29
https://www.360cities.net/image/mars-panorama-curiosity-selfie-night
1 HideFoundHide 2017-07-29
"Digital Art Compilation"
Curiosity Rover portrait composited with Vista Telescope Milky Way image.
The stars in that picture were taken here.
Keep trying.
1 kottsch 2017-07-29
Hmm, so what are you suggesting?
Don't tell me you're a flat earther.
1 HideFoundHide 2017-07-29
No. But its interesting that physics can be modelled many ways. Also that every model has problematic observational confections.
1 DracoRaknar 2017-07-29
http://pancam.sese.asu.edu/projects_2.html
1 HideFoundHide 2017-07-29
Appreciate finding this. They have no idea what they are looking at
Something is majorly wrong with the star alignment - Linked picture needs to be flipped vertically and rotated ~15 degrees.
The stars appear to be in different alignments on Mars. Thanks. Figured there was a reason for burying this.
1 The_Veracity_Sector 2017-07-29
Napoleon like anyone can even know that?
1 wildfireonvenus 2017-07-29
There is no planet Mars either.
1 jaysanbrody 2017-07-29
It says that the video is created using images from the opportunity rover. Also, the dust filled atmosphere might be another contributing factor for the poor visibility.
That said, it seems strange that not even a single star is visible.
1 HideFoundHide 2017-07-29
Think about how long the landers have been there and how much imagery was taken. Not a single picture of the star filled sky? Unbelievable.
Something is wrong with the story being told.
1 catburglerinparis 2017-07-29
So you think NASA would create this ELABORATE and completely unbelievable hoax, and forget something as simple as adding stars to a photo that they are showing to millions of people? They fake everything and forget something as simple as that? Where's the logic?
1 HideFoundHide 2017-07-29
A loaded question.
I never made any claims other than no deep sky / night sky imagery seems to exist for Mars. What exactly is real or fake at NASA is debatable. Some data seems legitimate while much is admittedly done as "simulation", "CGI", "Composites", edited, etc.
It's difficult to access raw data.
Send a billion dollar mission into outer space forget to take pictures of outer space. You believe this...
1 catburglerinparis 2017-07-29
Many many articles have been written about not being able to see the night sky due to the camera quality, which is a powerful as an unaided eye, and the dust from the planet.
1 HideFoundHide 2017-07-29
Perhaps GoPro should sponsor the next Mission to Mars.
Is that same convoluted answer used to explain no HIRISE images?
1 catburglerinparis 2017-07-29
There are orbiter images aren't there? Idk man I'm just here to debate my side. You do have some good points. Hard to wrap my head around something so insidious.
1 HideFoundHide 2017-07-29
Post an orbiter image with stars in the background.
1 catburglerinparis 2017-07-29
Well if you know how a camera works they are focusing on light and land on the planet surface, I'm sure if they wanted to take a photo of the sky and the planet they could, just a longer exposure. It's kind of hard to do both while orbiting a planet at high speeds.
1 PKMN_Master_Red 2017-07-29
Just like the American government could TOTALLY go to the moon again, but EH, WHY BOTHER?
1 HideFoundHide 2017-07-29
You didn't even try.
HiRISE
Now see if you can find the original image.
1 jackphillips0 2017-07-29
Take a picture of the night sky with your phone, can you see the stars? Oh must mean they're not actually there if they aren't in the photo.
1 HideFoundHide 2017-07-29
Google iPhone night sky pictures. You'd be amazed at what you see. The point is that they never made a real attempt to even document the night sky from Mars.
1 jackphillips0 2017-07-29
Why would they need to? What would they get from that they don't already have
1 HideFoundHide 2017-07-29
For starters an image of only half the sky rotating. oh and "cosmic rays" and some really wonky physics apparently.
Notice a long exposure on earth yields images like this.
Clearly the physics on Mars are different.
1 jackphillips0 2017-07-29
Those are vastly different exposure times, how do you derive a difference in physics with photos?
1 HideFoundHide 2017-07-29
Star trails tell you what direction the stars are moving relative to the observer. The exposure time is different but the law that causes it wouldn't change.
Notice all the lights not moving with the stars? Notice the "?" around them. There's a reason for that.
1 jackphillips0 2017-07-29
Maybe those ones not moving with the stars.. aren't stars?? The cosmic rays could easily be cosmic rays.. our ozone absorbs cosmic rays, mars doesn't have that so when a photon with high energy hits the Martian atmosphere it ionizes it causing light.
1 HideFoundHide 2017-07-29
So you believe Mars has a dynamic never seen before - novel stellar phenomena easily observed and yet it holds no scientific value besides some really low quality black and white images.
Also Ozone is made from plasma. The ionosphere is said to be charged particles - basically defined the same way plasma is. Here's something else: all plasma requires and electrical input. No electro-magnetic field no plasma. "Cosmic Rays" is a fancy way of saying energy waves.
On Earth you can do very simple experiments to show - energy field/electricity + gas = ionization/plasma. Produce Ozone in the process. [You will smell it]. Yet you believe some backwards causality exists in space.
From what I can see there is no experiment showing the public model actually works the way its been modelled. There's absolutely no observable evidence UV Light creates Ozone in the ionosphere - which subsequently blocks UV Light no less. That's like salt turning something alkaline to then repel alkalinity.
Also where is the Ozone all around the Earth? You don't smell it. But UV Light is constantly reaching Oxygen in the atmosphere. When you do smell it is after lightning storms. Not even denied by the mainstream
Lightning = plasma arc.
1 jackphillips0 2017-07-29
Lmao I can see it's useless to try to explain it to you so I won't try
1 HideFoundHide 2017-07-29
Provide a single experiment done where Ozone was created with UV Light.
1 jackphillips0 2017-07-29
When ambient Air is passed over an ultraviolet lamp, UV 185nm, it will split the oxygen (O2) molecule. The resulting oxygen atoms (O-), seeking stability, attach to other oxygen molecules (O2), forming Ozone (O3).
This is pretty common knowledge...
Anyways that wasn't my argument.
I was saying that cosmic rays (high energy photons) can ionize a gas creating a glow.. similar to this..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3fi6uyyrEs
"The trajectories of individual charged particles leave behind cloudy trails as they ionize the cooled, supersaturated air-alcohol vapor..."
Literally same exact concept
The only reason those aren't glowing with light is because it's not nearly as strong as something like a gamma ray.
1 HideFoundHide 2017-07-29
So where is a single experiment of this?
Except there's no alcohol or thorium in the upper atmosphere.
1 jackphillips0 2017-07-29
Dude there are literally Ozone generators that you can buy that use UV light... there's your experiment
I never said it was the same exact thing, I said it's the same concept. Ionization through radiation. Thorium radiation is far weaker than gamma radiation so it needs a more sensitive set up to be visible, hence the chilled alcohol vapor.
1 HideFoundHide 2017-07-29
Link one? Looks like a plasma generator to me
"High Voltage Corona Generator"
Thorium has an electrical field by the way. Seen here
1 jackphillips0 2017-07-29
There are two ways to do it.
"This Ultraviolet UV ozone generator Produces ZERO nitrogen oxides, and the ozone output is unaffected by high humidity (two characteristics not possible with corona discharge ozone generators unless only pure oxygen is used for feed gas)."
http://www.o3ozone.com/ozone_generators_air_purifiers/ozone_generators_air_water_purifiers/uv_ozone_generator/uv_pro_550_ozone_generator.htm#uv_pro_550_shock_treatment_ozone_generator
You can use UV or Corona discharge. This company sells both.
"The Biggest difference between corona discharge and UV ozone generation methods is that UV ozone generators have stable ozone output levels throughout humidity ranges, while the output of corona discharge ozone generators is significantly reduced by just moderate humidity levels such as 40–70% (ozone output is reduced by approx. 40-70% with 40-70% humidity)."
http://www.o3ozone.com/compare_features/ultraviolet_vs.htm
I'm not surprised that you only find the answer that fits what you are TRYING to prove..
1 HideFoundHide 2017-07-29
The photocatalytic reaction is done with Titanium Oxide so now show where TiO2 exists in the upper atmosphere. It doesn't.
It not only produces Ozone but but Formaldehyde, Hyrdoxyl radicals and others. Change the catalyst and you change the result of the reaction! This means its dependent on the catalyst
This is how the vegetation cycle works. Photosynthesis.
So if this is true for how the upper atmosphere works it implies that 1-there is a Titanium Oxide barrier or net [substrate] at the very each of our ionosphere, or that photosynthesis is going on which makes the Earth a giant living organism which would require a shell where the substrate exists to allow for the reaction.
Not totally against the idea - but without any knowledge of a barrier, shell or substrate in the outer edges of our world it doesn't make sense.
1 jackphillips0 2017-07-29
Dude that photo catalytic reaction is with water, not even a gas so why are you trying to compare??
"Creation: an oxygen molecule is split (photolyzed) by higher frequency UV light (top end of UV-B, UV-C and above) into two oxygen atoms (see figure): O2 + ℎν → 2 O• Each oxygen atom then quickly combines with an oxygen molecule to form an ozone molecule: O• + O2 → O3"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone–oxygen_cycle
And also it seems like you have no idea the biology behind photosynthesis...
"Light is absorbed by two Photosystems called Photosystem I (PSI) and Photosystem II (PSII). These protein complexes contain light harvesting chlorophyll molecules and accessory pigments called antenna complexes. The photosystems are also equipped with reactions centers (RC). These are complexes of proteins and pigments which are responsible for energy conversion. The chlorophyll molecules of PSI absorb light with a peak wavelength of 700nm and are called P700 molecules. The chlorophyll molecules of PSII absorb light with a peak wavelength of 68Onm and are called P68O molecules."
Proteins son
http://photosynthesiseducation.com/photosynthesis-in-plants/
1 HideFoundHide 2017-07-29
"Dude that exothermic reaction is with water, it's not even a gas why are you trying to compare."
thy·la·koid
When the pigment [catalyst] changes the nature of the reaction and the end result do you think its reasonable to say it has a connection to what's going on? Does your photocatalytic reaction work without Titanium Oxide [a pigment]?? No.
Where's the titanium dioxide in the upper atmosphere?
The Ozone-Oxygen Cycle is pseudoscience. It cannot be observed nor produced in a lab. It needs a pigmented substrate to work.
1 jackphillips0 2017-07-29
It can be produced and there are machines you can buy to do it, Jesus Christ.
1 HideFoundHide 2017-07-29
It's not UV that is creating it, it's the Titanium Oxide. Remove the Titanium Oxide does it still work? No.
1 jackphillips0 2017-07-29
According to who?
1 HideFoundHide 2017-07-29
According to anyone that observes the reaction works with Ti02 and doesn't once it's removed. This is not even contested.
A UV source without the pigment is a UV Lamp. A UV Lamp by itself doesn't produce Ozone.
1 jackphillips0 2017-07-29
Dude have you taken a chemistry class?? Titanium Oxide is needed to split water (H20) not an oxygen molecule (O2)
1 HideFoundHide 2017-07-29
It's a photocatalytic reaction. Just as a gas and liquid can both be oxidized, the reaction works on more than just "H2o"
Provide a single experiment where Ozone was created without TiO2.
Photocatalytic Reaction
The reaction works on hydrocarbons too, not just "H2o".
Titanium Oxide is a pigment. All metal oxides are. The causal function lost on people seems to do with pigments and absorption or rejection of light waves.
Pigments are also found in all organisms that display photosynthetic capabilities. You believe this is a coincidence perhaps.
1 jackphillips0 2017-07-29
Have fun
https://www.ucar.edu/communications/gcip/m1sod/m1pdfc2.pdf
1 HideFoundHide 2017-07-29
Page 8 - why do you think the goal Ozone distribution mirror the magnetic field lines?
The paper is psuedoscience. There's no experimental or obversataonal data to show Ozone forming without a pigmented substrate.
It's unproven unfalsifiable theory without experimental observation confirming its hypothesis.
1 jackphillips0 2017-07-29
You have no way to say it's wrong, a theory is correct until proven otherwise and you can't prove otherwise.
http://www.chemeddl.org/alfresco/service/api/node/content/workspace/SpacesStore/9a8074e0-57de-4338-874a-e95af1888f61/OzoneModelingPart1.pdf?guest=true
1 HideFoundHide 2017-07-29
A theory is built on observational evidence. Without observation it is pseudoscience.
Now show where UV light reacting with Ozone [without a catalyst] creates Ozone. It doesn't. It's falsified by this observational data. There is no causal function that allows it to happen.
Spamming theoretical junk does not prove anything. Try to think for a moment. If the pigmented substrates are needed for photocatalytic reaction and there are none in the upper atmosphere, what is the cause for the reaction.
There must be a cause. We live in a causal reality.
1 jackphillips0 2017-07-29
That last link I said was an actual experiment with data logged over time, refute that.
1 HideFoundHide 2017-07-29
Seems you do.
Photosynthesis - Thylakoids and Chlorphyll pigments
Bioluminescence - Light emitting pigment Luciferin
Photodynamic therapy - Typical photosensitizers include tetraphenylporphyrin and methylene blue [pigment/dye]. Laser therapy [tatoo removal] reacts with pigment in the skin.
Photoresistors - Uses a substrate/catalyst Very loosely defined chemical made and owned by IBM.
Eye-Sight utilizes Rhodopsin
There should be an undiscovered scientific law in here somewhere. Flesh it out for a Nobel if you want. Pigment is required for photochemical reactions. Without pigment the or very degrees of it will change the efficiency of the reaction.
Aim some UV Light at a bottle of oxygen and see how long it takes to produce Ozone. The reaction is not happening without a catalyst/pigment.
1 jackphillips0 2017-07-29
Prove this wrong
http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/radiation_hays/
1 HideFoundHide 2017-07-29
It's not proven correct. And to prove it wrong isn't possible as you can't prove a negative [though it being unproven and treated as correct is wrong].
They do not show any experimental data proving the reactions they claim are taking place.
To prove this correct take a transparent cloud of o2 or rather a composition of whatever atmosphere exists at that level of atmosphere, recreate the observed pressure/temperature/denisty - then bombard it with UV radiation. If it yields Ozone and whatever else it's a hypothesis that held up to experimental work.
It's then proven correct! Show the experimental work that has proven this!!! It's an easy experiment. It should have been performed a hundred times over.
They never did the experimental work! It's just conceptual math. Junk. Pseudoscience.
1 InfectedBananas 2017-07-29
My god, the person, or you, have no idea what comic rays even are, they aren't fucking streaks in space.
1 HideFoundHide 2017-07-29
That was labelled by NASA.
1 InfectedBananas 2017-07-29
They aren't doing long exposure shots...
1 HideFoundHide 2017-07-29
They are actually. They were found. But it only raised more questions. Their optics are complete junk as well. Except for one picture - a calibration test for HiRISE which can't seem to be located.
1 InfectedBananas 2017-07-29
They aren't fucking luaching RED cameras to mars, you need radiation hardened shit that can take a beating on launch and landing and just existing in the environment, no, it isn't going to be amazing pictures.
HiRISE is an orbiter looking at mars, why would stars ever show up there?
1 HideFoundHide 2017-07-29
1 - the Opportunity images are high-definition panoramic.
2 - The HiRISE did a single "calibration" test taking a huge expansive night sky image. Only a very small portion was released publicly and does not seem to be available.
3 - the very few images of the night that are taken seem to show novel - non-understood physical phenomena above. Seems like a pretty massive potential for scientific discovery. Ignored instead. Seems legit.
1 HempCO719 2017-07-29
Ever seen one of Mars's moons in any pictures? Day or Night?
1 catburglerinparis 2017-07-29
Yes I have. Look it up on google haha
1 HempCO719 2017-07-29
Just Did didnt not find any. Even in images. Can you link what you found?
1 NimSauce 2017-07-29
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=picture+of+phobos+from+mars
man, google is hard to use
1 HempCO719 2017-07-29
That link didnt work. Can I get a new one?
1 DracoRaknar 2017-07-29
http://pancam.sese.asu.edu/projects_2.html
1 HempCO719 2017-07-29
That is boss, man. Thank you for that.
1 catburglerinparis 2017-07-29
What do you mean by that?
1 hock3yboy 2017-07-29
You will not find one real photo/video of earth, mars, or anything else. You will not find any picture of the stars from orbiter, mars, or any other placd because its to hard to fake. Think about it, more than 60 years in space no real video, photto specially no ones that might show "perspective" that includes night sky with stars, moons etc, its always something. Camera exposure, dust , etc. Trust your first instinct its all bullshit. No astronaut, doing spacewalks ever panned camera for you to see anything but pieces of module, a glove, him working and so on, not even by mistake. After hundreds of spacewalk missions. Common sense
1 Golden_Links 2017-07-29
Buyba telescope. It will blow your mind 😂
1 DracoRaknar 2017-07-29
Here you go, Here's a whole bunch, with descriptions and stuff, taken using the Pancam on Mars Rover Spirit.
http://pancam.sese.asu.edu/projects_2.html
1 NYLON_G 2017-07-29
NASA = Not a space agency
1 jackphillips0 2017-07-29
Lmao no those exposures are different
1 HideFoundHide 2017-07-29
Think about how long the landers have been there and how much imagery was taken. Not a single picture of the star filled sky? Unbelievable.
Something is wrong with the story being told.
1 catburglerinparis 2017-07-29
Yes I have. Look it up on google haha
1 kottsch 2017-07-29
Hmm, so what are you suggesting?
Don't tell me you're a flat earther.
1 DracoRaknar 2017-07-29
http://pancam.sese.asu.edu/projects_2.html
1 HideFoundHide 2017-07-29
So you believe Mars has a dynamic never seen before - novel stellar phenomena easily observed and yet it holds no scientific value besides some really low quality black and white images.
Also Ozone is made from plasma. The ionosphere is said to be charged particles - basically defined the same way plasma is. Here's something else: all plasma requires and electrical input. No electro-magnetic field no plasma. "Cosmic Rays" is a fancy way of saying energy waves.
On Earth you can do very simple experiments to show - energy field/electricity + gas = ionization/plasma. Produce Ozone in the process. [You will smell it]. Yet you believe some backwards causality exists in space.
From what I can see there is no experiment showing the public model actually works the way its been modelled. There's absolutely no observable evidence UV Light creates Ozone in the ionosphere - which subsequently blocks UV Light no less. That's like salt turning something alkaline to then repel alkalinity.
Also where is the Ozone all around the Earth? You don't smell it. But UV Light is constantly reaching Oxygen in the atmosphere. When you do smell it is after lightning storms. Not even denied by the mainstream
Lightning = plasma arc.
1 HideFoundHide 2017-07-29
A theory is built on observational evidence. Without observation it is pseudoscience.
Now show where UV light reacting with Ozone [without a catalyst] creates Ozone. It doesn't. It's falsified by this observational data. There is no causal function that allows it to happen.
Spamming theoretical junk does not prove anything. Try to think for a moment. If the pigmented substrates are needed for photocatalytic reaction and there are none in the upper atmosphere, what is the cause for the reaction.
There must be a cause. We live in a causal reality.
1 jackphillips0 2017-07-29
Prove this wrong
http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/radiation_hays/