Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote:

> J. J. Lodder <nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> > Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> thor stoneman <consequently7990662@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> Also, conmen sense has precedence before a mathematical derivation.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Not in physics.
> >
> > But physicists have a well-trained common sense....
> >
> > Jan
> >
> >
>
> I think this is the key statement. Common sense is not really "common" in
> the the "universal" sense.

Right. 'Common sense' is what people use to reach conclusions rapidly,
to do the right things in everyday life.
It is not inate, it is formed through everyday experience,
and schooling, and training.
So 'common sense' is not fixed, it evolves with experience..

That is, in normal peolple. It doesn't work like that with people who
have dug themselves in in some kind of fixed belief system.
They have become immune to new experiences.
It doesn't really matter whether the are creationists,
flat-earthers, or relativity-nutters, or....

A good question to ask people like that is:
what observation would make you change your mind?

Jan

> Common sense means a set of inferred rules based on trials and successes in
> personal experience. Where that personal experience is widespread, then
> those rules will be widely shared. The inferred rules do not have to be,
> and in fact are not usually taken to be, absolute or holding always; they
> just have to work most of the time. An example of a common sense rule is
> that light doesn't go around a corner, based on the everyday experience of
> not being able to see around a brick wall. Mistakes are sometimes made,
> however, by people who assume that those common-sense rules of thumb do
> actually represent laws of nature.
>
> Physicists have the benefit of having personal experience in a certain
> domain of knowledge that is broader than what most people have. They know,
> for example, from personal experience that light does go around corners
> because they have seen and used diffraction. They know that velocities do
> not add by simple sum, because they have run into actual scenarios where
> that rule fails and where another well-known rule does work.
>
> This is true in ANY specialized field — that the practitioners have
> personal experience that is more refined in that field than the everyday
> experience more widely shared — and is true in medicine or in aeronautics
> just as much as in physics.
>
> There are a number of people here, though, that despise expertise in
> general and believe that everything that is true should appeal to the
> lowest common denominator of common sense. This is, frankly, just a FOMO
> artifact and is suitable for mockery.

On Wednesday, 9 February 2022 at 22:31:24 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Odd Bodkin <bodk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> > > Odd Bodkin <bodk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> thor stoneman <consequen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>> Also, conmen sense has precedence before a mathematical derivation.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> Not in physics.
> > >
> > > But physicists have a well-trained common sense....
> > >
> > > Jan
> > >
> > >
> >
> > I think this is the key statement. Common sense is not really "common" in
> > the the "universal" sense.
> Right. 'Common sense' is what people use to reach conclusions rapidly,
> to do the right things in everyday life.

Like recognizing insane fanatic morons; that's why it had
to be banned from physics.

> That is, in normal peolple. It doesn't work like that with people who
> have dug themselves in in some kind of fixed belief system.
> They have become immune to new experiences.
> It doesn't really matter whether the are creationists,
> flat-earthers, or relativity-nutters, or....

Or relativists; but there is still some hope, even some of
them prefer TAI over their religious "proper" idiocies.

J. J. Lodder <nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> J. J. Lodder <nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
>>> Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> thor stoneman <consequently7990662@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Also, conmen sense has precedence before a mathematical derivation.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not in physics.
>>>
>>> But physicists have a well-trained common sense....
>>>
>>> Jan
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I think this is the key statement. Common sense is not really "common" in
>> the the "universal" sense.
>
> Right. 'Common sense' is what people use to reach conclusions rapidly,
> to do the right things in everyday life.
> It is not inate, it is formed through everyday experience,
> and schooling, and training.
> So 'common sense' is not fixed, it evolves with experience..
>
> That is, in normal peolple. It doesn't work like that with people who
> have dug themselves in in some kind of fixed belief system.
> They have become immune to new experiences.
> It doesn't really matter whether the are creationists,
> flat-earthers, or relativity-nutters, or....
>
> A good question to ask people like that is:
> what observation would make you change your mind?
>
> Jan
>

True. Ironically, the answer often given, in a passive-aggressive pique, is
“Something obvious from everyday experience.”

This is basically a statement that they already know everything they need
to know to figure the rest out. I can’t imagine the dark cellar they get
accustomed to with that.

>
>> Common sense means a set of inferred rules based on trials and successes in
>> personal experience. Where that personal experience is widespread, then
>> those rules will be widely shared. The inferred rules do not have to be,
>> and in fact are not usually taken to be, absolute or holding always; they
>> just have to work most of the time. An example of a common sense rule is
>> that light doesn't go around a corner, based on the everyday experience of
>> not being able to see around a brick wall. Mistakes are sometimes made,
>> however, by people who assume that those common-sense rules of thumb do
>> actually represent laws of nature.
>>
>> Physicists have the benefit of having personal experience in a certain
>> domain of knowledge that is broader than what most people have. They know,
>> for example, from personal experience that light does go around corners
>> because they have seen and used diffraction. They know that velocities do
>> not add by simple sum, because they have run into actual scenarios where
>> that rule fails and where another well-known rule does work.
>>
>> This is true in ANY specialized field — that the practitioners have
>> personal experience that is more refined in that field than the everyday
>> experience more widely shared — and is true in medicine or in aeronautics
>> just as much as in physics.
>>
>> There are a number of people here, though, that despise expertise in
>> general and believe that everything that is true should appeal to the
>> lowest common denominator of common sense. This is, frankly, just a FOMO
>> artifact and is suitable for mockery.
>

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Today was a clear day without any clouds. I saw 30% of the moon at 1:00 pm (30 degrees east) but I saw absolutely no stars. No one not including the Sun.

https://skyandtelescope.org/observing/how-to-see-sirius-in-the-daytime/

This person saw Sirius in the morning but Sirius is a star; whereas, ISS is not self illuminated.

A good example of common sense is:

Do chickens have lips?

Sound and prudent judgment

“Common” implies that there is something available to everyone that can be freely used by common people and educated and privileged people. “Sense” often refers to one of the body’s senses and its ability to perceive external stimuli, such as seeing, smelling, touching, etc.

Basically, “sense” refers to an understanding of something and recognizing an object based on past or present experiences.

Can you see the stars, like at night, during the day?

On Friday, February 4, 2022 at 3:59:29 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 2/4/2022 5:04 PM, thor stoneman wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Anyway, if the moon is 500 times larger, that means the ISS would be
> >> 1/500 times as bright as the moon (ignoring albedo, I know the moon is
> >> quite dark on average). Since the full moon is quite bright, 1/500 of
> >> that should be easily visible.
> >
> > Yes that is true but the ISS is not high enough and the intensity of the Sun is blocked by the shadow of the earth.
> I am still waiting for your math showing how long it takes from sunset
> to when the ISS, 250 miles directly overhead, moves into the shadow of
> the earth.
>
> Need help with the math?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVpjFdf5l8c

Feb 5 2022

Sarah Hughes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5ncpXEMSL8

On February 9, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>> Also, conmen sense has precedence before a mathematical derivation.

con men sense, indeed -
>> Not in physics.
>
> But physicists have a well-trained common sense....

uhhhh......

https://www.nytimes.com/1974/10/22/archives/physicists-test-telepathy-in-a-cheatproof-setting-random-selection.html

"Scientists at the Stanford Research Institute who conducted experiments with
number of persons, including Uri Geller, report that Mr. Geller, and probably most people,
have an ability to send and receive information by some “as yet unidentified perceptual modality.”"

--
Rich

RichD wrote:
> On February 9, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>> Also, conmen sense has precedence before a mathematical derivation.
>
> con men sense, indeed -
>
>>> Not in physics.
>>
>> But physicists have a well-trained common sense....
>
> uhhhh......
>
> https://www.nytimes.com/1974/10/22/archives/physicists-test-telepathy-in-a-cheatproof-setting-random-selection.html
>
> "Scientists at the Stanford Research Institute who conducted experiments with
> number of persons, including Uri Geller, report that Mr. Geller, and probably most people,
> have an ability to send and receive information by some “as yet unidentified perceptual modality.”"

Well :-) Let's say that it is a collective, across time and space
property...

RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On February 9, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>> Also, conmen sense has precedence before a mathematical derivation.
>
> con men sense, indeed -
>
>>> Not in physics.
>>
>> But physicists have a well-trained common sense....
>
> uhhhh......
>
> https://www.nytimes.com/1974/10/22/archives/physicists-test-telepathy-in-a-cheatproof-setting-random-selection.html
>
> "Scientists at the Stanford Research Institute who conducted experiments with
> number of persons, including Uri Geller, report that Mr. Geller, and probably most people,
> have an ability to send and receive information by some “as yet
> unidentified perceptual modality.”"

Nothing to do with physicists.

>
>
> --
> Rich
>

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Wednesday, February 9, 2022 at 10:47:56 AM UTC-8, carl eto wrote:
> This diagram shows the Earth in late May when the space station’s orbital track is closely aligned with the day–night terminator. The astronauts see the Sun 24 hours a day (midnight Sun effect) while Earth-bound skywatchers watch the satellite pass by every 93 minutes from dusk till dawn.
> Bob King https://skyandtelescope.org/observing/watch-international-space-station/
>
>
> This statement is patently incorrect since the ISS is in the shadow of the earth at night.

So, you read the article and still didn't anything it said!

Your ignorance of the subject matter is just overwhelming. You need to get a new hobby because this one is just kicking your ass.

On Wednesday, February 9, 2022 at 11:06:41 AM UTC-8, carl eto wrote:
> On Monday, January 10, 2022 at 5:50:49 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > On Monday, January 10, 2022 at 1:45:04 PM UTC-8, carl eto wrote:
> >
> > > Have you seen photos of the ISS taken from the earth?
> > Have you ever looked for them? They are easy to find...
>
> > https://www.indiatimes.com/technology/news/astrophotography-international-space-station-pic-in-front-of-moon-535437.html
>
>
> Look the ISS is pictured orbiting the moon!

No, it is simply in front of the moon... are you really this stupid>

On Wednesday, 9 February 2022 at 23:07:01 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> > Odd Bodkin <bodk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> >>> Odd Bodkin <bodk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> thor stoneman <consequen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> Also, conmen sense has precedence before a mathematical derivation.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Not in physics.
> >>>
> >>> But physicists have a well-trained common sense....
> >>>
> >>> Jan
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> I think this is the key statement. Common sense is not really "common" in
> >> the the "universal" sense.
> >
> > Right. 'Common sense' is what people use to reach conclusions rapidly,
> > to do the right things in everyday life.
> > It is not inate, it is formed through everyday experience,
> > and schooling, and training.
> > So 'common sense' is not fixed, it evolves with experience..
> >
> > That is, in normal peolple. It doesn't work like that with people who
> > have dug themselves in in some kind of fixed belief system.
> > They have become immune to new experiences.
> > It doesn't really matter whether the are creationists,
> > flat-earthers, or relativity-nutters, or....
> >
> > A good question to ask people like that is:
> > what observation would make you change your mind?
> >
> > Jan
> >
> True. Ironically, the answer often given, in a passive-aggressive pique, is
> “Something obvious from everyday experience.”

No, poor stinker, it is not. You're fabricating and lying, as
always.
And your Shit is no way a result of any observation, it's
just a consequence of your violating common sense
newspeak (or jargon, if you prefer).

Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote:

> RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On February 9, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>>> Also, conmen sense has precedence before a mathematical derivation.
> >
> > con men sense, indeed -
> >
> >>> Not in physics.
> >>
> >> But physicists have a well-trained common sense....
> >
> > uhhhh......
> >
> > https://www.nytimes.com/1974/10/22/archives/physicists-test-telepathy-in-a-c
heatproof-setting-random-selection.html
> >
> > "Scientists at the Stanford Research Institute who conducted experiments
> > with number of persons, including Uri Geller, report that Mr. Geller,
> > and probably most people, have an ability to send and receive
> > information by some "as yet unidentified perceptual modality.""
>
> Nothing to do with physicists.

Sure, James Randi was good at it too...

Jan

RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On February 9, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>> Also, conmen sense has precedence before a mathematical derivation.
>
> con men sense, indeed -
>
> >> Not in physics.
> >
> > But physicists have a well-trained common sense....
>
> uhhhh......
>
> https://www.nytimes.com/1974/10/22/archives/physicists-test-telepathy-in-a-che
atproof-setting-random-selection.html
>
> "Scientists at the Stanford Research Institute who conducted experiments
> with number of persons, including Uri Geller, report that Mr. Geller, and
> probably most people, have an ability to send and receive information by
> some "as yet unidentified perceptual modality.""

Uh, the context (which you snipped) was obviously -in physics-,

Jan

On Wednesday, February 9, 2022 at 6:46:01 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 9, 2022 at 10:47:56 AM UTC-8, carl eto wrote:
> > This diagram shows the Earth in late May when the space station’s orbital track is closely aligned with the day–night terminator.. The astronauts see the Sun 24 hours a day (midnight Sun effect) while Earth-bound skywatchers watch the satellite pass by every 93 minutes from dusk till dawn.
> > Bob King https://skyandtelescope.org/observing/watch-international-space-station/
> >
> >
> > This statement is patently incorrect since the ISS is in the shadow of the earth at night.
> So, you read the article and still didn't anything it said!
>
> Your ignorance of the subject matter is just overwhelming. You need to get a new hobby because this one is just kicking your ass.

No, I did not read the said article since the article shows the ISS illuminated at night which is not physically possible since the shadow of the earth would prevent the ISS to be illuminated at night; henceforth, the described article is moot.

On Thursday, February 3, 2022 at 10:40:28 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:

> Anyway, if the moon is 500 times larger, that means the ISS would be
> 1/500 times as bright as the moon (ignoring albedo, I know the moon is
> quite dark on average). Since the full moon is quite bright, 1/500 of
> that should be easily visible.

None of the stars that are visible at night are visible during the day; therefore, common sense tells me that the photographs of the ISS were fabricated.

On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 12:50:21 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> carl eto <carleto4...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > With the LICK you should be able to read the astronaut's name tag. How
> > come the photos have such low resolution. Surely, you can find better
> > photos, unless the ISS is fake. Did you see the movie Gravity?
> >
> This may not occur to you, but the ISS is moving across the sky at a pretty
> good clip. A full pass overhead takes about 5 minutes, horizon to horizon..
>
> Large telescopes do not move this fast. They are built to track the motion
> of stars in the sky due to the rotation of the earth, not to track
> something in low-earth orbit.
>
> To collect enough light to “read the astronaut’s name tag”, one of these
> large telescopes would need to stay on target for several minutes at least.
>
>
> As you can see, your idea is simply dead in the water technically.
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

How is the ISS illuminated at night?

carl eto <carleto4157990662@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 9, 2022 at 6:46:01 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
>> On Wednesday, February 9, 2022 at 10:47:56 AM UTC-8, carl eto wrote:
>>> This diagram shows the Earth in late May when the space station’s
>>> orbital track is closely aligned with the day–night terminator. The
>>> astronauts see the Sun 24 hours a day (midnight Sun effect) while
>>> Earth-bound skywatchers watch the satellite pass by every 93 minutes
>>> from dusk till dawn.
>>> Bob King
>>> https://skyandtelescope.org/observing/watch-international-space-station/
>>>
>>>
>>> This statement is patently incorrect since the ISS is in the shadow of
>>> the earth at night.
>> So, you read the article and still didn't anything it said!
>>
>> Your ignorance of the subject matter is just overwhelming. You need to
>> get a new hobby because this one is just kicking your ass.
>
> No, I did not read the said article since the article shows the ISS
> illuminated at night which is not physically possible since the shadow of
> the earth would prevent the ISS to be illuminated at night; henceforth,
> the described article is moot.
>

There’s the story of Galileo inviting local religious leaders to his house
to look through his telescope to see the moons orbiting Jupiter. Religious
leaders said all heavenly bodies orbited the earth, and so they were
convinced no moons could be orbiting Jupiter. Galileo invited them to bend
over and look through his telescope to see for themselves. They declined to
look, saying that there would be nothing to see.

They were as crazy as you are.

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

carl eto <carleto4157990662@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 12:50:21 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> carl eto <carleto4...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> With the LICK you should be able to read the astronaut's name tag. How
>>> come the photos have such low resolution. Surely, you can find better
>>> photos, unless the ISS is fake. Did you see the movie Gravity?
>>>
>> This may not occur to you, but the ISS is moving across the sky at a pretty
>> good clip. A full pass overhead takes about 5 minutes, horizon to horizon.
>>
>> Large telescopes do not move this fast. They are built to track the motion
>> of stars in the sky due to the rotation of the earth, not to track
>> something in low-earth orbit.
>>
>> To collect enough light to “read the astronaut’s name tag”, one of these
>> large telescopes would need to stay on target for several minutes at least.
>>
>>
>> As you can see, your idea is simply dead in the water technically.
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
>
> How is the ISS illuminated at night?
>

It’s illuminated by two or three hundred amateurs who watch the ISS every
night, holding flashlights aimed at the ISS to make it brighter in their
amateur telescopes. One or two wouldn’t do it, but two or three hundred
flashlights add up.

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

> >
> There’s the story of Galileo inviting local religious leaders to his house
> to look through his telescope to see the moons orbiting Jupiter. Religious
> leaders said all heavenly bodies orbited the earth, and so they were
> convinced no moons could be orbiting Jupiter. Galileo invited them to bend
> over and look through his telescope to see for themselves. They declined to
> look, saying that there would be nothing to see.
>
> They were as crazy as you are.
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Tell us what is illuminating the ISS at night and if you cannot what does that make you?

On Thursday, 10 February 2022 at 19:44:03 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

> There’s the story of Galileo inviting local religious leaders to his house
> to look through his telescope to see the moons orbiting Jupiter.

There is also a story of a poor idiot woodworker invited to
look at GPS clocks, indicating t'=t. He said that all clocks
have to indicate holy dilation and declined to look, saying
that there would be nothing to see.

On Thursday, February 10, 2022 at 11:07:14 AM UTC-8, carl eto wrote:
> > >
> > There’s the story of Galileo inviting local religious leaders to his house
> > to look through his telescope to see the moons orbiting Jupiter. Religious
> > leaders said all heavenly bodies orbited the earth, and so they were
> > convinced no moons could be orbiting Jupiter. Galileo invited them to bend
> > over and look through his telescope to see for themselves. They declined to
> > look, saying that there would be nothing to see.
> >
> > They were as crazy as you are.
> > --
> > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Tell us what is illuminating the ISS at night and if you cannot what does that make you for constantly, obsessively and compulsively avoiding the question using any method that you can think of to avoid the problem?

On Thursday, February 10, 2022 at 1:07:14 PM UTC-6, carl eto wrote:

> Tell us what is illuminating the ISS at night and if you cannot what does that make you?

The Sun illuminates the ISS at night.

The orbit of the ISS is ***STEEPLY*** inclined by over 51 degrees relative to the Equator,
and the Earth's axis is tilted by over 23 degrees. Therefore, for great portions of the year,
the ISS will not by eclipsed by the Earth. There are other portions of the year when it
-does- enter Earth's shadow.

On Thursday, February 10, 2022 at 11:25:30 AM UTC-8, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, February 10, 2022 at 1:07:14 PM UTC-6, carl eto wrote:
>
> > Tell us what is illuminating the ISS at night and if you cannot what does that make you?
> The Sun illuminates the ISS at night.
>
> The orbit of the ISS is ***STEEPLY*** inclined by over 51 degrees relative to the Equator,
> and the Earth's axis is tilted by over 23 degrees. Therefore, for great portions of the year,
> the ISS will not by eclipsed by the Earth. There are other portions of the year when it
> -does- enter Earth's shadow.

Your statement is patently untrue since the ISS height of 250 miles above the surface of the earth results in the shadow of the earth incident to the ISS, at night, preventing the ISS from being illuminated.