Dark Side ...

[Hope]

Did anyone see this last week - http://tinyurl.com/ogrx3bw

[Shaker]

Cool stuff 

[ekim]

Where would the sun be relative to moon and earth?

[Sassy]

It means absolutely NOTHING.. It is not educational in that it does nothing nor helps man in any field of life on earth.
Might as well show what Snoopy's bum looks like...
It adds nothing to life...

[Shaker]

Not to yours, of that I have no doubt whatever; but other people - educated, intelligent, questioning people - are interested in reality and want to understand how and why the universe is the way it is.

[Hope]

Where would the sun be relative to moon and earth?

Behind the camera.  See graphic in article.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not to yours, of that I have no doubt whatever; but other people - educated, intelligent, questioning people - are interested in reality and want to understand how and why the universe is the way it is.

Setting up a science vs religion thing again I see.
Your description of these supposedly wonderful people (The Stepford antitheists?) is I feel a bit suspect. A John Polkinghorne or a Carl Sagan is as interested in the universe and the way it is and yet are not atheist let alone antitheist but I would say that their definition of the universe is a bit broader than that of the mechanistic dinosaurs I suspect you are alluding to.

[ekim]

Where would the sun be relative to moon and earth?

Behind the camera.  See graphic in article.

Oh, I didn't look that far.  I would have expected the moon to be brighter, with the sun shining upon it from that position.

[Shaker]

Setting up a science vs religion thing again I see.

I wasn't aware I'd mentioned religion. Where did you see it in the thirty-seven words I wrote?

Bashful Anthony is a great one for slinging around the word obsession (often three times in a row when the mood is on him, which it usually is); he'd do well to take a look at your posts, but I know he won't.

[Hope]

Where would the sun be relative to moon and earth?

Behind the camera.  See graphic in article.

Oh, I didn't look that far.  I would have expected the moon to be brighter, with the sun shining upon it from that position.

I think the issue is that, since the moon doesn't have reflective material like water, it remains a far duller item than the earth is.

[ekim]

Where would the sun be relative to moon and earth?

Behind the camera.  See graphic in article.

Oh, I didn't look that far.  I would have expected the moon to be brighter, with the sun shining upon it from that position.

I think the issue is that, since the moon doesn't have reflective material like water, it remains a far duller item than the earth is.

... and yet when you look at the photos of moon and earth from the moon landing, the moon looks quite bright as it does when a full moon is seen from earth.

[Shaker]

... and yet when you look at the photos of moon and earth from the moon landing, the moon looks quite bright as it does when a full moon is seen from earth.

That's because you're seeing it (a) from much closer - as close as it's possible to be in the case of the moon landing - and (b) seeing the side illuminated by the sun.

The measure of a body's reflectivity is known as its albedo. Earth's albedo varies; liquid water isn't that strongly reflective whereas ice at the poles and white cloud are - in the latter case this is why Venus is so amazingly bright in the sky first and last thing in the day, since it's shrouded in thick white cloud that throws back so much of the sunlight it receives. Moon dust is a light grey, which gives it a reasonably high albedo when it reflects light, as it does in the case of a full moon for instance.

[Hope]

That's because you're seeing it (a) from much closer - as close as it's possible to be in the case of the moon landing - and (b) seeing the side illuminated by the sun.

Thanks for that Shakes.  I knew about the reflectivity issue, but wasn't sure of the details.  One learns something every day.

[BashfulAnthony]

Not to yours, of that I have no doubt whatever; but other people - educated, intelligent, questioning people - are interested in reality and want to understand how and why the universe is the way it is.

A pity that attitude does not apply to your views on religion!

[BashfulAnthony]

Setting up a science vs religion thing again I see.

I wasn't aware I'd mentioned religion. Where did you see it in the thirty-seven words I wrote?

Bashful Anthony is a great one for slinging around the word obsession (often three times in a row when the mood is on him

Dear obsessive Shaker  -     I do read other posts; I'm not sure you do.  Perhaps that is why you seem to ignore posts that are difficult to answer!

[Shaker]

A pity that attitude does not apply to your views on religion!

Since religion isn't in the explaining-the-way-reality-is business (and a lot of the time actively falsifies it), no need.

[BashfulAnthony]

A pity that attitude does not apply to your views on religion!

Since religion isn't in the explaining-the-way-reality-is business (and a lot of the time actively falsifies it), no need.

"No need to bother," full stop!

[jeremyp]

"There is no dark side of the Moon.  As a matter of fact, it's all dark" - Gerry O'Driscoll.

[BashfulAnthony]

"There is no dark side of the Moon.  As a matter of fact, it's all dark" - Gerry O'Driscoll.

As a planet, so is the Earth, except when reflecting sunlight.

[jeremyp]

Where would the sun be relative to moon and earth?

Behind the camera.  See graphic in article.

Oh, I didn't look that far.  I would have expected the moon to be brighter, with the sun shining upon it from that position.

You have the Earth directly behind it and the Earth is much more reflective than the Moon.  Probably the camera needed to be adjusted so that the Earth isn't completely washed out.

[Shaker]

Dear obsessive Shaker  -     I do read other posts

When can we expect you to grill Vlad on why he brought religion into a thread which has absolutely nothing whatever to do with it, then?

I'm not sure you do.

I don't see everything by everyone, it's true, but neither does anyone else.

Perhaps that is why you seem to ignore posts that are difficult to answer!

I've already asked you which posts I've supposedly not answered, but since you were incapable of providing an answer I assumed that no such posts exist, otherwise you would have pointed them out.

[BashfulAnthony]

Dear obsessive Shaker  -     I do read other posts

When can we expect you to grill Vlad on why he brought religion into a thread which has absolutely nothing whatever to do with it, then?

I'm not sure you do.

I don't see everything by everyone, it's true, but neither does anyone else.

Perhaps that is why you seem to ignore posts that are difficult to answer!

I've already asked you which posts I've supposedly not answered, but since you were incapable of providing an answer I assumed that no such posts exist, otherwise you would have pointed them out.

One which springs immediately to mind, is my response to your sychophantic hero-woship of the dissolute Hitchens.  There are other examples, but I don't bother to make a note of them, as you do.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

A pity that attitude does not apply to your views on religion!

Since religion isn't in the explaining-the-way-reality-is business (and a lot of the time actively falsifies it), no need.

Personal viewpoint. It's very holism can prevent reductionist twaddle of the Shaker variety.

[Shaker]

Personal viewpoint. It's very holism can prevent reductionist twaddle of the Shaker variety.

Ahhh, holism - there goes the bullshit alarm.

[jeremyp]

A pity that attitude does not apply to your views on religion!

Since religion isn't in the explaining-the-way-reality-is business (and a lot of the time actively falsifies it), no need.

Personal viewpoint. It's very holism can prevent reductionist twaddle of the Shaker variety.

Got anything to say on the subject of the thread?