On Tuesday, February 8, 2022 at 2:53:50 PM UTC-8, thor stoneman wrote:
> On Monday, January 10, 2022 at 5:50:49 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-5fb7b693ca6aaa8fd28d620bf0c31f52.webp
>
>
Are you suggesting that the ISS can be viewed during the day? The photo that the link is referring to appears to be taken during the day. Can you explain this? Thank you.

On 2/8/2022 6:09 PM, thor stoneman wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 8, 2022 at 2:53:50 PM UTC-8, thor stoneman wrote:
>> On Monday, January 10, 2022 at 5:50:49 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
>>> https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-5fb7b693ca6aaa8fd28d620bf0c31f52.webp
>>
>>
> Are you suggesting that the ISS can be viewed during the day? The photo that the link is referring to appears to be taken during the day. Can you explain this? Thank you.

I looked at the website suggested to see when the ISS is visible to me.
It was apparently visible tonight but I didn't bother to look since it
was only 10 degrees above the highest at most. And somewhat cloudy.

I did see that it had visual magnitude -3.2 at times. I believe that is
bright enough to see during the day.

On Tuesday, February 8, 2022 at 4:21:18 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 2/8/2022 6:09 PM, thor stoneman wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 8, 2022 at 2:53:50 PM UTC-8, thor stoneman wrote:
> >> On Monday, January 10, 2022 at 5:50:49 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> >>> https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-5fb7b693ca6aaa8fd28d620bf0c31f52.webp
> >>
> >>
> > Are you suggesting that the ISS can be viewed during the day? The photo that the link is referring to appears to be taken during the day. Can you explain this? Thank you.
> I looked at the website suggested to see when the ISS is visible to me.
> It was apparently visible tonight but I didn't bother to look since it
> was only 10 degrees above the highest at most. And somewhat cloudy.
>
> I did see that it had visual magnitude -3.2 at times. I believe that is
> bright enough to see during the day.

Good God. Use some common sense. Do you see any stars during the day?

On Tuesday, February 8, 2022 at 9:28:32 AM UTC-8, thor stoneman wrote:

> > > The photograph depicts the ISS at 3:00 am by the ESA is fictional since the ISS is in the shadow of the earth.

> > Well, in Ramersdorf, Austria, where this photo was taken, on June 6th, night only lasts from 11:55 PM until 1:51 AM, the nights are *very* short, and astronomical twilight starts then, at 1:51 AM, which means that by 3 in the morning the ISS can easily be illuminated by Sun, which rises that day at 4:55 AM. At 3 AM from this location, the ISS is NOT in the shadow of the Earth.

> 5:03 AM
> Monday, June 6, 2022 (GMT+2)
> Sunrise in Ramersdorf, Austria
>
> Are you also making fun of me?

Only if you insist that the ISS does not exist... in which case, yes, I would definitely make fun of you, since you clearly wouldn't have the brains given to a mud fence...

On Tuesday, February 8, 2022 at 3:09:39 PM UTC-8, thor stoneman wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 8, 2022 at 2:53:50 PM UTC-8, thor stoneman wrote:
> > On Monday, January 10, 2022 at 5:50:49 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-5fb7b693ca6aaa8fd28d620bf0c31f52.webp
> >
> >
> Are you suggesting that the ISS can be viewed during the day? The photo that the link is referring to appears to be taken during the day. Can you explain this? Thank you.

The sky is blue long before the Sun rises, especially in photos.

On Tuesday, February 8, 2022 at 4:43:30 PM UTC-8, carl eto wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 8, 2022 at 4:21:18 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > On 2/8/2022 6:09 PM, thor stoneman wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, February 8, 2022 at 2:53:50 PM UTC-8, thor stoneman wrote:
> > >> On Monday, January 10, 2022 at 5:50:49 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > >>> https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-5fb7b693ca6aaa8fd28d620bf0c31f52.webp
> > >>
> > >>
> > > Are you suggesting that the ISS can be viewed during the day? The photo that the link is referring to appears to be taken during the day. Can you explain this? Thank you.
> > I looked at the website suggested to see when the ISS is visible to me.
> > It was apparently visible tonight but I didn't bother to look since it
> > was only 10 degrees above the highest at most. And somewhat cloudy.
> >
> > I did see that it had visual magnitude -3.2 at times. I believe that is
> > bright enough to see during the day.

> Good God. Use some common sense. Do you see any stars during the day?

Absolutely... if you *exactly* where to look... and it depends on *your* definition of "day".

On 2/8/2022 7:43 PM, carl eto wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 8, 2022 at 4:21:18 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 2/8/2022 6:09 PM, thor stoneman wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, February 8, 2022 at 2:53:50 PM UTC-8, thor stoneman wrote:
>>>> On Monday, January 10, 2022 at 5:50:49 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
>>>>> https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-5fb7b693ca6aaa8fd28d620bf0c31f52.webp
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Are you suggesting that the ISS can be viewed during the day? The photo that the link is referring to appears to be taken during the day. Can you explain this? Thank you.
>> I looked at the website suggested to see when the ISS is visible to me.
>> It was apparently visible tonight but I didn't bother to look since it
>> was only 10 degrees above the highest at most. And somewhat cloudy.
>>
>> I did see that it had visual magnitude -3.2 at times. I believe that is
>> bright enough to see during the day.
>
> Good God. Use some common sense. Do you see any stars during the day?

A quick google turned up a discussion of "Daylight Astronomy", one said
the sky has an equivalent magnitude of -4.0 and something would have to
have a larger absolute magnitude to be easily visible. Venus reaches as
bright as -4.92 and can be seen during daylight at times (I've seen it).
Others claim to have seen Jupiter and Sirius during the day and one
claims to have seen Mars as well. But you have to know where to look.
And have better eyes than I have. The ISS can be as bright as absolute
magnitude -5.90, easily a daylight object.

Other stars? Probably not. Unless there's a supernova.

On Tuesday, February 8, 2022 at 6:43:30 PM UTC-6, carl eto wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 8, 2022 at 4:21:18 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:

> > I did see that it had visual magnitude -3.2 at times. I believe that is
> > bright enough to see during the day.
> Good God. Use some common sense. Do you see any stars during the day?

You can do so with a small telescope. You just need to know
where to point your instrument. With a modern "GOTO" telescope,
it's almost trivial, although 50+ years ago, I viewed stars in
daylight using my homebuilt 6" Newtonian reflector.
https://tinyurl.com/2p8vyfks
https://tinyurl.com/2jknebzs
https://tinyurl.com/2p83cpyu

Under conditions of good "seeing", the image of a star is a
diffraction-limited point, much brighter than the surrounding sky.
Use a high power eyepiece to dim the apparent brightness of
the surrounding sky, and try spotting some of the brighter
stars.

Planets are harder, but I viewed planets as dim as Mars during
the day, using an old-fashioned scope without GOTO electronics.

On Wednesday, February 9, 2022 at 1:04:59 AM UTC-6, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 8, 2022 at 6:43:30 PM UTC-6, carl eto wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 8, 2022 at 4:21:18 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
> > > I did see that it had visual magnitude -3.2 at times. I believe that is
> > > bright enough to see during the day.
> > Good God. Use some common sense. Do you see any stars during the day?
> You can do so with a small telescope. You just need to know
> where to point your instrument. With a modern "GOTO" telescope,
> it's almost trivial, although 50+ years ago, I viewed stars in
> daylight using my homebuilt 6" Newtonian reflector.
> https://tinyurl.com/2p8vyfks
> https://tinyurl.com/2jknebzs
> https://tinyurl.com/2p83cpyu
>
> Under conditions of good "seeing", the image of a star is a
> diffraction-limited point, much brighter than the surrounding sky.
> Use a high power eyepiece to dim the apparent brightness of
> the surrounding sky, and try spotting some of the brighter
> stars.
>
> Planets are harder, but I viewed planets as dim as Mars during
> the day, using an old-fashioned scope without GOTO electronics.

In the days before GOTO telescopes, my strategy was to first align
the telescope with a daylight-visible object, like Venus or the Moon.
Then I could "sweep" the scope in the direction that I knew the
star or other planet would be. Without a starting object to align the
scope, it's pretty much impossible.

Need I add that this was in the days before calculators? I had to work
out positions by hand, starting with published tables. (Yuck!) A friend
and I had a competition to see how many stars/planets we could spot
and how late in the morning (or early in the evening) we could spot them.
By "daytime", we meant at least fifteen minutes after sunrise or fifteen
minutes before sunset.

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

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.

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

On Wednesday, 9 February 2022 at 16:54:08 UTC+1, 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.
>
> 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

No, poor halfbrain, you've fabricated such a rule, of course,
as expected from a relativistic stinker. And lensing is well
known also by everyday experience.

> Physicists have the benefit of having personal experience in a certain
> domain of knowledge that is broader than what most people have.

That's a lie they like to repeat to themself.

Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Wednesday, 9 February 2022 at 16:54:08 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
....
>> Physicists have the benefit of having personal experience in a certain
>> domain of knowledge that is broader than what most people have.
>
> That's a lie they like to repeat to themself.

No that's not a lie. A lie is, for instance, "Me, Maciej Wozniak, I am
one the best logicians humanity ever had."

Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, 9 February 2022 at 16:54:08 UTC+1, 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.
>>
>> 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
>
> No, poor halfbrain, you've fabricated such a rule, of course,
> as expected from a relativistic stinker. And lensing is well
> known also by everyday experience.

Lensing is not light going around a corner. You are an idiot.

>
>> Physicists have the benefit of having personal experience in a certain
>> domain of knowledge that is broader than what most people have.
>
> That's a lie they like to repeat to themself.

In physics, it is true that physicists have broader contact with those
phenomena than people in other disciplines have.

Now, I gather that you think you are an expert in ALL experiential
knowledge in ALL disciplines. That is insanity, though, as I’m sure you’ve
been told.

>
>

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

On Wednesday, 9 February 2022 at 17:59:15 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 9 February 2022 at 16:54:08 UTC+1, 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.
> >>
> >> 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
> >
> > No, poor halfbrain, you've fabricated such a rule, of course,
> > as expected from a relativistic stinker. And lensing is well
> > known also by everyday experience.
> Lensing is not light going around a corner. You are an idiot.

It's more general, but can also result in a light going
around a corner. You're an idiot.

> Now, I gather that you think you are an expert in ALL experiential
> knowledge in ALL disciplines.

Said an woodworker idiot, expert in ALL experiential
knowledge in ALL disciplines, expert on mathematics,
expert on standards, expert on jargons, expert on contexts
and expert on just anything.

Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, 9 February 2022 at 17:59:15 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 9 February 2022 at 16:54:08 UTC+1, 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.
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>
>>> No, poor halfbrain, you've fabricated such a rule, of course,
>>> as expected from a relativistic stinker. And lensing is well
>>> known also by everyday experience.
>> Lensing is not light going around a corner. You are an idiot.
>
> It's more general, but can also result in a light going
> around a corner. You're an idiot.
>
>
>> Now, I gather that you think you are an expert in ALL experiential
>> knowledge in ALL disciplines.
>
> Said an woodworker idiot, expert in ALL experiential
> knowledge in ALL disciplines, expert on mathematics,
> expert on standards, expert on jargons, expert on contexts
> and expert on just anything.
>
>

Ah, now see you’re just citing the things you are crappy at. That doesn’t
make me an expert in all things (like you’ve claimed to be). It just means
there are some things you know very little about, including standards, the
value and purpose of jargon and contextual meanings, and yeah …
mathematics.

Don’t translate your incompetence areas into claims of superiority by
others. Your inferiority complex is YOUR problem.

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

On Wednesday, 9 February 2022 at 19:13:05 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 9 February 2022 at 17:59:15 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, 9 February 2022 at 16:54:08 UTC+1, 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.
> >>>>
> >>>> 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
> >>>
> >>> No, poor halfbrain, you've fabricated such a rule, of course,
> >>> as expected from a relativistic stinker. And lensing is well
> >>> known also by everyday experience.
> >> Lensing is not light going around a corner. You are an idiot.
> >
> > It's more general, but can also result in a light going
> > around a corner. You're an idiot.
> >
> >
> >> Now, I gather that you think you are an expert in ALL experiential
> >> knowledge in ALL disciplines.
> >
> > Said an woodworker idiot, expert in ALL experiential
> > knowledge in ALL disciplines, expert on mathematics,
> > expert on standards, expert on jargons, expert on contexts
> > and expert on just anything.
> >
> >
> Ah, now see you’re just citing the things you are crappy at.

No, poor stinker, I'm just citing [just some of] things
you believe you're unfaliable in.

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.

Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, 9 February 2022 at 19:13:05 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 9 February 2022 at 17:59:15 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, 9 February 2022 at 16:54:08 UTC+1, 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>> No, poor halfbrain, you've fabricated such a rule, of course,
>>>>> as expected from a relativistic stinker. And lensing is well
>>>>> known also by everyday experience.
>>>> Lensing is not light going around a corner. You are an idiot.
>>>
>>> It's more general, but can also result in a light going
>>> around a corner. You're an idiot.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Now, I gather that you think you are an expert in ALL experiential
>>>> knowledge in ALL disciplines.
>>>
>>> Said an woodworker idiot, expert in ALL experiential
>>> knowledge in ALL disciplines, expert on mathematics,
>>> expert on standards, expert on jargons, expert on contexts
>>> and expert on just anything.
>>>
>>>
>> Ah, now see you’re just citing the things you are crappy at.
>
> No, poor stinker, I'm just citing [just some of] things
> you believe you're unfaliable in.
>

Never infallible in anything.

Better equipped than you, though — obviously.

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

On Tuesday, February 8, 2022 at 10:29:49 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:

> A quick google turned up a discussion of "Daylight Astronomy", one said
> the sky has an equivalent magnitude of -4.0 and something would have to
> have a larger absolute magnitude to be easily visible. Venus reaches as
> bright as -4.92 and can be seen during daylight at times (I've seen it).
> Others claim to have seen Jupiter and Sirius during the day and one
> claims to have seen Mars as well. But you have to know where to look.
> And have better eyes than I have. The ISS can be as bright as absolute
> magnitude -5.90, easily a daylight object.
>
> Other stars? Probably not. Unless there's a supernova.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

The ISS is only visible because it reflects sunlight. It isn't bright enough to be seen in the middle of the day and the best time to view the ISS is either at dawn or dusk. Viewing opportunities of the ISS can vary between one sighting a month to several a week, depending on your location and the orbit of the ISS.Jan 12, 2022

According to nasa the ISS cannot be seen during the dAY.

Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 9 February 2022 at 19:13:05 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, 9 February 2022 at 17:59:15 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Wednesday, 9 February 2022 at 16:54:08 UTC+1, 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, poor halfbrain, you've fabricated such a rule, of course,
>>>>>> as expected from a relativistic stinker. And lensing is well
>>>>>> known also by everyday experience.
>>>>> Lensing is not light going around a corner. You are an idiot.
>>>>
>>>> It's more general, but can also result in a light going
>>>> around a corner. You're an idiot.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Now, I gather that you think you are an expert in ALL experiential
>>>>> knowledge in ALL disciplines.
>>>>
>>>> Said an woodworker idiot, expert in ALL experiential
>>>> knowledge in ALL disciplines, expert on mathematics,
>>>> expert on standards, expert on jargons, expert on contexts
>>>> and expert on just anything.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Ah, now see you’re just citing the things you are crappy at.
>>
>> No, poor stinker, I'm just citing [just some of] things
>> you believe you're unfaliable in.
>>
>
> Never infallible in anything.
>
> Better equipped than you, though — obviously.
>

Better equipped than you does not equate to a claim of perfection, Woz,
especially since there are so many things you’re not very good at.

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

On Tuesday, February 8, 2022 at 6:34:26 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 8, 2022 at 4:43:30 PM UTC-8, carl eto wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 8, 2022 at 4:21:18 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > On 2/8/2022 6:09 PM, thor stoneman wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, February 8, 2022 at 2:53:50 PM UTC-8, thor stoneman wrote:
> > > >> On Monday, January 10, 2022 at 5:50:49 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > >>> https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-5fb7b693ca6aaa8fd28d620bf0c31f52.webp
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > > Are you suggesting that the ISS can be viewed during the day? The photo that the link is referring to appears to be taken during the day. Can you explain this? Thank you.
> > > I looked at the website suggested to see when the ISS is visible to me.
> > > It was apparently visible tonight but I didn't bother to look since it
> > > was only 10 degrees above the highest at most. And somewhat cloudy.
> > >
> > > I did see that it had visual magnitude -3.2 at times. I believe that is
> > > bright enough to see during the day.
>
> > Good God. Use some common sense. Do you see any stars during the day?
> Absolutely... if you *exactly* where to look... and it depends on *your* definition of "day".

Can you see stars other than Sirus and the Sun at 1:00 pm?

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!

On Wednesday, 9 February 2022 at 19:57:00 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Odd Bodkin <bodk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, 9 February 2022 at 19:13:05 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Wednesday, 9 February 2022 at 17:59:15 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> On Wednesday, 9 February 2022 at 16:54:08 UTC+1, 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.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 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
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> No, poor halfbrain, you've fabricated such a rule, of course,
> >>>>>> as expected from a relativistic stinker. And lensing is well
> >>>>>> known also by everyday experience.
> >>>>> Lensing is not light going around a corner. You are an idiot.
> >>>>
> >>>> It's more general, but can also result in a light going
> >>>> around a corner. You're an idiot.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Now, I gather that you think you are an expert in ALL experiential
> >>>>> knowledge in ALL disciplines.
> >>>>
> >>>> Said an woodworker idiot, expert in ALL experiential
> >>>> knowledge in ALL disciplines, expert on mathematics,
> >>>> expert on standards, expert on jargons, expert on contexts
> >>>> and expert on just anything.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> Ah, now see you’re just citing the things you are crappy at.
> >>
> >> No, poor stinker, I'm just citing [just some of] things
> >> you believe you're unfaliable in.
> >>
> >
> > Never infallible in anything.

Nonononononono! No way infallible!!! Just knoledgeable
enough to know everything and never make any mistakes.

Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, 9 February 2022 at 19:57:00 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Odd Bodkin <bodk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, 9 February 2022 at 19:13:05 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Wednesday, 9 February 2022 at 17:59:15 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, 9 February 2022 at 16:54:08 UTC+1, 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.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, poor halfbrain, you've fabricated such a rule, of course,
>>>>>>>> as expected from a relativistic stinker. And lensing is well
>>>>>>>> known also by everyday experience.
>>>>>>> Lensing is not light going around a corner. You are an idiot.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's more general, but can also result in a light going
>>>>>> around a corner. You're an idiot.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now, I gather that you think you are an expert in ALL experiential
>>>>>>> knowledge in ALL disciplines.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Said an woodworker idiot, expert in ALL experiential
>>>>>> knowledge in ALL disciplines, expert on mathematics,
>>>>>> expert on standards, expert on jargons, expert on contexts
>>>>>> and expert on just anything.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Ah, now see you’re just citing the things you are crappy at.
>>>>
>>>> No, poor stinker, I'm just citing [just some of] things
>>>> you believe you're unfaliable in.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Never infallible in anything.
>
> Nonononononono! No way infallible!!! Just knoledgeable
> enough to know everything and never make any mistakes.
>

Nope, just more knowledgeable than you in some areas. That doesn’t
translate to knowing everything or infallibility.

See? This is an example of your poor language and logic skills.

But then again, I bet most people are better than you in some things,
because you’re really poor in some things.

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