Technical ignorance allows for some funny situations

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Jun 8, 2014.

  1. RichA

    J. Clarke Guest

    In article <201406111435232756-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>, savageduck1
    @{REMOVESPAM}me.com says...
    >
    > On 2014-06-11 20:34:17 +0000, PeterN <> said:
    >
    > > On 6/11/2014 11:50 AM, Savageduck wrote:
    > >> On 2014-06-11 13:18:10 +0000, PeterN <> said:
    > >>
    > >>> On 6/11/2014 12:48 AM, Savageduck wrote:
    > >>>
    > >>> <snip>
    > >>>
    > >>>>
    > >>>> The most important comment to come out of the Wikipedia article on
    > >>>> homeopathy is this:
    > >>>> "Homeopathy lacks biological plausibility and the axioms of homeopathy
    > >>>> have been refuted for some time. The postulated mechanisms of action of
    > >>>> homeopathic remedies are both scientifically implausible and not
    > >>>> physically possible."
    > >>>> < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy >
    > >>>>
    > >>>
    > >>> I would not take Wikipedia as a scientific authority. Yes it does
    > >>> represent current thought to a large degree. But it is not scientific
    > >>> authority.
    > >>
    > >> While Wikipedia isn't the NEJM, in many areas it provides verifiable
    > >> information supported by citable references. Also they accept supported
    > >> challenges.
    > >> I use Wikipedia for many references when the articles are well written
    > >> and referenced, in the case of homeopathy it meets both of those standards.
    > >>
    > >>> I am not as quick as you to put down alternative treatments, including
    > >>> homeopathy.
    > >>
    > >> So, would you prefer acupuncture to a pacemaker to deal with arrhythmia
    > >> and other cardiac issues?

    > >
    > > Acupuncture is as appropriate a treatment for a cardiac issue as
    > > dialysis, or ketchup.

    >
    > I seem to recall that you had recent knee replacement surgery. I guess
    > acupuncture wasn't too effective to prevent that from happening.
    >
    > >> Would you prefer a pill which is basically inert to treat pneumonia?
    > >> Homeopathy is useless other than as placebo therapy, and any beneficial
    > >> effects of many other traditional medicine is purely accidental or
    > >> coincidental.

    > >
    > > We are still in the early stages of the healing arts. I would not be so
    > > quick to dismiss anything.
    > >
    > > With no chemical intervention my heart ejection fraction increased from
    > > 36% to 52% by using a machine that pumps air into me at night.

    >
    > Aah! at little CPAP is need to help you through the night. That sleep
    > apnea can be managed in several ways, the first of which is to cut out
    > that ice cream you love so much.


    Don't make the assumption that sleep apnea is exclusively the product of
    obesity. There are many thin people with sleep apnea.
    J. Clarke, Jun 12, 2014
    #81
    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 6/11/2014 7:54 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
    > On Wed, 11 Jun 2014 19:32:21 -0400, PeterN
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> On 6/11/2014 7:26 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
    >>> On Wed, 11 Jun 2014 18:33:30 -0400, PeterN
    >>> <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>> ---- snip ----
    >>>
    >>>>>> Skin cancer is prevented through an intense dose of UV light.
    >>>
    >>> Not so: quite the reverse in fact. The article you have linked to
    >>> below describes the use of chemotherapy in which the agent is
    >>> activated by ultraviolet light to kill an _already_established_
    >>> cancer.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Questionable at best. My various lesions (Solar keratoses, pre-cancerous
    >>>>> lesions, & squamous & basal cell carcinoma) have been dealt with in a
    >>>>> number of ways, exposure to UV light of any intensity has not been part
    >>>>> of that therapy for me.
    >>>>
    >>>> It's called photodynamic therapy, and being administered as Sloan-Kettering.
    >>>> This article from the National Cancer Institute explains the treatment.
    >>>>
    >>>> <http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Therapy/photodynamic>
    >>>>
    >>> As you say, it's a treatment. It's not, as you originally claimed, a
    >>> preventative.
    >>>

    >>
    >> It's purpose is to prevent actinic kerotosis from developing into
    >> cancer. It is not used on cancers. I have been getting those treatments
    >> for several years, and hopefully understand my treatments.

    >
    > That's not what's described in the article.
    >
    > I'm mostly past the treatment for actinic keratosis. I have had about
    > 8 major skin cancers chopped out of me, many more treated by
    > cryotherapy and a huge number nipped in the bud by topical treatments
    > such as Aldara and Efudix, which latter has currently turned my face
    > into a bloody mask. In a few weeks it will be new me. In the mean
    > time, I have a BCC to be excised from my shoulder and three mystery
    > packages to be subject to biopsy.
    >
    > This kind of thing has been keeping me largely indoors for the last
    > year. Life is fun when you get old.
    >


    The first one was a basil cell. My dermatologist told me it developed
    from being in the sun thirty years ago, and warned me to stay out of the
    sun. I told him I would rather worry about it in thirty years. He had
    no sense of humor about that. At my last exam he didn't find any
    cancers. I commented that he only finds them when he's not very busy. It
    took over ten years, but he now understands my sense of humor.



    --
    PeterN
    PeterN, Jun 12, 2014
    #82
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 18:15:01 -0400, PeterN <>
    wrote:
    : On 6/9/2014 8:27 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
    : > On Sunday, 8 June 2014 02:59:39 UTC+1, RichA wrote:
    : >> I flipped by a show on TV called, "UFO Files" or some such name. They had film of a triangular shaped "UFO." They intoned how it was never explained by the air force. It was 4 lights, probably on a plane, defocused by a camera lens with a squarish diaphragm. I laughed out loud.
    : >
    : > But not as fun as a program called Ancient Aliens.
    : > On this program they forget the facts that aliens probbly wouldn't need landing strips made for them by early humans, because if they could take off from their own world chances are they'd be able to land too. Would aliens really travel to earth and forget they couldn't land.
    : > And of course they'd help the egyptians build pyramids I mean what else whould they come to earth for.
    : >
    :
    : How do you explain the lack of carbon traces inside the pyramids?

    Accepting your assertion that there is such a lack, I'd guess that it's
    because the builders didn't use steam or diesel power to hoist the blocks into
    place.

    Bob
    Robert Coe, Jun 14, 2014
    #83
  4. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Mon, 9 Jun 2014 09:07:53 -0400, "Mayayana" <> wrote:
    : "RichA" <> wrote in message
    : news:...
    : I flipped by a show on TV called, "UFO Files" or some such name. They had
    : film of a triangular shaped "UFO." They intoned how it was never explained
    : by the air force. It was 4 lights, probably on a plane, defocused by a
    : camera lens with a squarish diaphragm. I laughed out loud.
    : >
    :
    : So the alien disguise worked. :)

    The really hilarious yarns are the ones where the aliens proceed to conquer
    the Earth (or try to). If you've just arrived at a distant planet, about which
    you're certain to know very little, the last thing you'd want to do is pick a
    fight with the inhabitants.

    Bob
    Robert Coe, Jun 14, 2014
    #84
  5. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 08:07:45 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave <>
    wrote:
    : On Sunday, 8 June 2014 02:59:39 UTC+1, RichA wrote:
    : > I flipped by a show on TV called, "UFO Files" or some such name. They had film of a triangular shaped "UFO." They intoned how it was never explained by the air force. It was 4 lights, probably on a plane, defocused by a camera lens with a squarish diaphragm. I laughed out loud.
    :
    : For loons how about this.
    :
    : -----------------------------------------------
    : "Put into laymen's terms, the solar panels capture the sun's energy, but pull on the sun over time, forcing more energy to be released than the sun is actually producing," WIT claims in a scientific white paper published on Wednesday -
    :
    :
    :
    : http://nationalreport.net/solar-panels-drain-suns-energy-experts-say/
    :
    :
    : Scientists at the Wyoming Institute of Technology, a privately-owned think tank located in Cheyenne, Wyoming, discovered that energy radiated from the sun isn't merely captured in solar panels, but that energy is directly physically drawn from the sun by those panels, in a process they refer to as "forced photovoltaic drainage." -
    :
    : WIT is adamant that there's no immediate danger, however. "Currently, solar panels are an energy niche, and do not pose a serious risk to the sun.
    :
    :
    :
    : I wonder if there's anyone on this group will argue that they are correct ;-)

    Well, I suppose the argument would go something like this:

    When photons of light arrive at the earth from the sun, some of them are
    reflected, rather than absorbed. That's why the side of the earth that's
    pointed towards the sun looks bright from a spaceship. Some of those photons
    will inevitably make it back to the sun; and since a photon carries energy,
    those photons will decrease, by a minuscule amount, the net transfer of energy
    from the sun to the earth.

    A solar panel, because it's designed to absorb, not reflect, radiation, should
    reflect fewer photons back to the sun than would an average patch of the
    earth's surface. So the sun gets back less energy because the solar panel is
    there, and the solar panel can be said to have extracted, just by its
    presence, additional energy that the sun would not otherwise have lost.

    So far, so good. But it should be obvious, even to the "scientists" at a
    right-wing think tank, that the amount of energy being discussed is many
    orders of magnitude too small to have any practical effect on the energy
    output of the sun. But what the hell; if someone (the Coach brothers?) is
    crazy enough to pay them to come up with such yarns, I guess they'd be crazy
    not to take the money.

    Or maybe the whole thing was just a joke. Did it come out around April 1? ;^)

    Bob
    Robert Coe, Jun 15, 2014
    #85
  6. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 6/14/2014 6:06 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
    > On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 18:15:01 -0400, PeterN <>
    > wrote:
    > : On 6/9/2014 8:27 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
    > : > On Sunday, 8 June 2014 02:59:39 UTC+1, RichA wrote:
    > : >> I flipped by a show on TV called, "UFO Files" or some such name. They had film of a triangular shaped "UFO." They intoned how it was never explained by the air force. It was 4 lights, probably on a plane, defocused by a camera lens with a squarish diaphragm. I laughed out loud.
    > : >
    > : > But not as fun as a program called Ancient Aliens.
    > : > On this program they forget the facts that aliens probbly wouldn't need landing strips made for them by early humans, because if they could take off from their own world chances are they'd be able to land too. Would aliens really travel to earth and forget they couldn't land.
    > : > And of course they'd help the egyptians build pyramids I mean what else whould they come to earth for.
    > : >
    > :
    > : How do you explain the lack of carbon traces inside the pyramids?
    >
    > Accepting your assertion that there is such a lack, I'd guess that it's
    > because the builders didn't use steam or diesel power to hoist the blocks into
    > place.
    >
    > Bob
    >



    And they painted the glyphs in the dark. All I am saying is that we
    really don't know, and there are lots of theories,to which we should
    keep an open mind. In 1914 if you said Newton's theory of gravity was
    wrong, you would have bee thought to be a crackpot.

    --
    PeterN
    PeterN, Jun 15, 2014
    #86
  7. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 16:48:50 -0700, Savageduck
    <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    : On 2014-06-14 23:16:14 +0000, Robert Coe <> said:
    :
    : > On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 08:07:45 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave <>
    : > wrote:
    : > : On Sunday, 8 June 2014 02:59:39 UTC+1, RichA wrote:
    : > : > I flipped by a show on TV called, "UFO Files" or some such name.
    : > They had film of a triangular shaped "UFO." They intoned how it was
    : > never explained by the air force. It was 4 lights, probably on a
    : > plane, defocused by a camera lens with a squarish diaphragm. I laughed
    : > out loud.
    : > :
    : > : For loons how about this.
    : > :
    : > : -----------------------------------------------
    : > : "Put into laymen's terms, the solar panels capture the sun's energy,
    : > but pull on the sun over time, forcing more energy to be released than
    : > the sun is actually producing," WIT claims in a scientific white paper
    : > published on Wednesday -
    : > :
    : > :
    : > :
    : > : http://nationalreport.net/solar-panels-drain-suns-energy-experts-say/
    : > :
    : > :
    : > : Scientists at the Wyoming Institute of Technology, a privately-owned
    : > think tank located in Cheyenne, Wyoming, discovered that energy
    : > radiated from the sun isn't merely captured in solar panels, but that
    : > energy is directly physically drawn from the sun by those panels, in a
    : > process they refer to as "forced photovoltaic drainage." -
    : > :
    : > : WIT is adamant that there's no immediate danger, however.
    : > "Currently, solar panels are an energy niche, and do not pose a serious
    : > risk to the sun.
    : > :
    : > :
    : > :
    : > : I wonder if there's anyone on this group will argue that they are correct ;-)
    : >
    : > Well, I suppose the argument would go something like this:
    : >
    : > When photons of light arrive at the earth from the sun, some of them are
    : > reflected, rather than absorbed. That's why the side of the earth that's
    : > pointed towards the sun looks bright from a spaceship. Some of those photons
    : > will inevitably make it back to the sun; and since a photon carries energy,
    : > those photons will decrease, by a minuscule amount, the net transfer of energy
    : > from the sun to the earth.
    : >
    : > A solar panel, because it's designed to absorb, not reflect, radiation, should
    : > reflect fewer photons back to the sun than would an average patch of the
    : > earth's surface. So the sun gets back less energy because the solar panel is
    : > there, and the solar panel can be said to have extracted, just by its
    : > presence, additional energy that the sun would not otherwise have lost.
    : >
    : > So far, so good. But it should be obvious, even to the "scientists" at a
    : > right-wing think tank, that the amount of energy being discussed is many
    : > orders of magnitude too small to have any practical effect on the energy
    : > output of the sun. But what the hell; if someone (the Coach brothers?) is
    : > crazy enough to pay them to come up with such yarns, I guess they'd be crazy
    : > not to take the money.
    : >
    : > Or maybe the whole thing was just a joke. Did it come out around April 1? ;^)
    : >
    : > Bob
    :
    : I guess you missed some of the posts in this thread. It was pure satire
    : from the *National Report*. All of their stories are made
    : tongue-in-cheek, and should be taken with a pinch of salt.
    : < http://nationalreport.net >

    Yeah, I didn't see that until after I wrote my reply. But it was clear that
    something was goofy.

    You have to give the satirist credit, though. He did manage to leave in that
    one whiff of plausibility.

    Bob
    Robert Coe, Jun 15, 2014
    #87
  8. RichA

    Tony Cooper Guest

    On Sun, 15 Jun 2014 00:20:01 -0400, Robert Coe <> wrote:

    >On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 16:48:50 -0700, Savageduck
    ><savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >: On 2014-06-14 23:16:14 +0000, Robert Coe <> said:
    >:
    >: > On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 08:07:45 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave <>
    >: > wrote:
    >: > : On Sunday, 8 June 2014 02:59:39 UTC+1, RichA wrote:
    >: > : > I flipped by a show on TV called, "UFO Files" or some such name.
    >: > They had film of a triangular shaped "UFO." They intoned how it was
    >: > never explained by the air force. It was 4 lights, probably on a
    >: > plane, defocused by a camera lens with a squarish diaphragm. I laughed
    >: > out loud.
    >: > :
    >: > : For loons how about this.
    >: > :
    >: > : -----------------------------------------------
    >: > : "Put into laymen's terms, the solar panels capture the sun's energy,
    >: > but pull on the sun over time, forcing more energy to be released than
    >: > the sun is actually producing," WIT claims in a scientific white paper
    >: > published on Wednesday -
    >: > :
    >: > :
    >: > :
    >: > : http://nationalreport.net/solar-panels-drain-suns-energy-experts-say/
    >: > :
    >: > :
    >: > : Scientists at the Wyoming Institute of Technology, a privately-owned
    >: > think tank located in Cheyenne, Wyoming, discovered that energy
    >: > radiated from the sun isn't merely captured in solar panels, but that
    >: > energy is directly physically drawn from the sun by those panels, in a
    >: > process they refer to as "forced photovoltaic drainage." -
    >: > :
    >: > : WIT is adamant that there's no immediate danger, however.
    >: > "Currently, solar panels are an energy niche, and do not pose a serious
    >: > risk to the sun.
    >: > :
    >: > :
    >: > :
    >: > : I wonder if there's anyone on this group will argue that they are correct ;-)
    >: >
    >: > Well, I suppose the argument would go something like this:
    >: >
    >: > When photons of light arrive at the earth from the sun, some of them are
    >: > reflected, rather than absorbed. That's why the side of the earth that's
    >: > pointed towards the sun looks bright from a spaceship. Some of those photons
    >: > will inevitably make it back to the sun; and since a photon carries energy,
    >: > those photons will decrease, by a minuscule amount, the net transfer of energy
    >: > from the sun to the earth.
    >: >
    >: > A solar panel, because it's designed to absorb, not reflect, radiation, should
    >: > reflect fewer photons back to the sun than would an average patch of the
    >: > earth's surface. So the sun gets back less energy because the solar panel is
    >: > there, and the solar panel can be said to have extracted, just by its
    >: > presence, additional energy that the sun would not otherwise have lost.
    >: >
    >: > So far, so good. But it should be obvious, even to the "scientists" at a
    >: > right-wing think tank, that the amount of energy being discussed is many
    >: > orders of magnitude too small to have any practical effect on the energy
    >: > output of the sun. But what the hell; if someone (the Coach brothers?) is
    >: > crazy enough to pay them to come up with such yarns, I guess they'd be crazy
    >: > not to take the money.
    >: >
    >: > Or maybe the whole thing was just a joke. Did it come out around April 1? ;^)
    >: >
    >: > Bob
    >:
    >: I guess you missed some of the posts in this thread. It was pure satire
    >: from the *National Report*. All of their stories are made
    >: tongue-in-cheek, and should be taken with a pinch of salt.
    >: < http://nationalreport.net >
    >
    >Yeah, I didn't see that until after I wrote my reply. But it was clear that
    >something was goofy.
    >
    >You have to give the satirist credit, though. He did manage to leave in that
    >one whiff of plausibility.
    >
    >Bob


    As I mentioned earlier, the site is a rip-off of The Onion.

    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando FL
    Tony Cooper, Jun 15, 2014
    #88
  9. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Sun, 15 Jun 2014 00:36:06 -0400, Tony Cooper <>
    wrote:
    : On Sun, 15 Jun 2014 00:20:01 -0400, Robert Coe <> wrote:
    :
    : >On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 16:48:50 -0700, Savageduck
    : ><savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    : >: On 2014-06-14 23:16:14 +0000, Robert Coe <> said:
    : >:
    : >: > On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 08:07:45 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave <>
    : >: > wrote:
    : >: > : On Sunday, 8 June 2014 02:59:39 UTC+1, RichA wrote:
    : >: > : > I flipped by a show on TV called, "UFO Files" or some such name.
    : >: > They had film of a triangular shaped "UFO." They intoned how it was
    : >: > never explained by the air force. It was 4 lights, probably on a
    : >: > plane, defocused by a camera lens with a squarish diaphragm. I laughed
    : >: > out loud.
    : >: > :
    : >: > : For loons how about this.
    : >: > :
    : >: > : -----------------------------------------------
    : >: > : "Put into laymen's terms, the solar panels capture the sun's energy,
    : >: > but pull on the sun over time, forcing more energy to be released than
    : >: > the sun is actually producing," WIT claims in a scientific white paper
    : >: > published on Wednesday -
    : >: > :
    : >: > :
    : >: > :
    : >: > : http://nationalreport.net/solar-panels-drain-suns-energy-experts-say/
    : >: > :
    : >: > :
    : >: > : Scientists at the Wyoming Institute of Technology, a privately-owned
    : >: > think tank located in Cheyenne, Wyoming, discovered that energy
    : >: > radiated from the sun isn't merely captured in solar panels, but that
    : >: > energy is directly physically drawn from the sun by those panels, in a
    : >: > process they refer to as "forced photovoltaic drainage." -
    : >: > :
    : >: > : WIT is adamant that there's no immediate danger, however.
    : >: > "Currently, solar panels are an energy niche, and do not pose a serious
    : >: > risk to the sun.
    : >: > :
    : >: > :
    : >: > :
    : >: > : I wonder if there's anyone on this group will argue that they are correct ;-)
    : >: >
    : >: > Well, I suppose the argument would go something like this:
    : >: >
    : >: > When photons of light arrive at the earth from the sun, some of them are
    : >: > reflected, rather than absorbed. That's why the side of the earth that's
    : >: > pointed towards the sun looks bright from a spaceship. Some of those photons
    : >: > will inevitably make it back to the sun; and since a photon carries energy,
    : >: > those photons will decrease, by a minuscule amount, the net transfer of energy
    : >: > from the sun to the earth.
    : >: >
    : >: > A solar panel, because it's designed to absorb, not reflect, radiation, should
    : >: > reflect fewer photons back to the sun than would an average patch of the
    : >: > earth's surface. So the sun gets back less energy because the solar panel is
    : >: > there, and the solar panel can be said to have extracted, just by its
    : >: > presence, additional energy that the sun would not otherwise have lost.
    : >: >
    : >: > So far, so good. But it should be obvious, even to the "scientists" at a
    : >: > right-wing think tank, that the amount of energy being discussed is many
    : >: > orders of magnitude too small to have any practical effect on the energy
    : >: > output of the sun. But what the hell; if someone (the Coach brothers?) is
    : >: > crazy enough to pay them to come up with such yarns, I guess they'd be crazy
    : >: > not to take the money.
    : >: >
    : >: > Or maybe the whole thing was just a joke. Did it come out around April 1? ;^)
    : >: >
    : >: > Bob
    : >:
    : >: I guess you missed some of the posts in this thread. It was pure satire
    : >: from the *National Report*. All of their stories are made
    : >: tongue-in-cheek, and should be taken with a pinch of salt.
    : >: < http://nationalreport.net >
    : >
    : >Yeah, I didn't see that until after I wrote my reply. But it was clear that
    : >something was goofy.
    : >
    : >You have to give the satirist credit, though. He did manage to leave in that
    : >one whiff of plausibility.
    : >
    : >Bob
    :
    : As I mentioned earlier, the site is a rip-off of The Onion.

    I seldom, if ever, read The Onion. There are only 24 hours in the day.

    Say, do you suppose that The Onion would be willing to embark on the task of
    lobbying Congress for a 28-hour day? That and the 8-day week have long been
    favorite causes of mine.

    Bob
    Robert Coe, Jun 15, 2014
    #89
  10. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 6/15/2014 12:20 AM, Robert Coe wrote:
    > On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 16:48:50 -0700, Savageduck
    > <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    > : On 2014-06-14 23:16:14 +0000, Robert Coe <> said:
    > :
    > : > On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 08:07:45 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave <>
    > : > wrote:
    > : > : On Sunday, 8 June 2014 02:59:39 UTC+1, RichA wrote:
    > : > : > I flipped by a show on TV called, "UFO Files" or some such name.
    > : > They had film of a triangular shaped "UFO." They intoned how it was
    > : > never explained by the air force. It was 4 lights, probably on a
    > : > plane, defocused by a camera lens with a squarish diaphragm. I laughed
    > : > out loud.
    > : > :
    > : > : For loons how about this.
    > : > :
    > : > : -----------------------------------------------
    > : > : "Put into laymen's terms, the solar panels capture the sun's energy,
    > : > but pull on the sun over time, forcing more energy to be released than
    > : > the sun is actually producing," WIT claims in a scientific white paper
    > : > published on Wednesday -
    > : > :
    > : > :
    > : > :
    > : > : http://nationalreport.net/solar-panels-drain-suns-energy-experts-say/
    > : > :
    > : > :
    > : > : Scientists at the Wyoming Institute of Technology, a privately-owned
    > : > think tank located in Cheyenne, Wyoming, discovered that energy
    > : > radiated from the sun isn't merely captured in solar panels, but that
    > : > energy is directly physically drawn from the sun by those panels, in a
    > : > process they refer to as "forced photovoltaic drainage." -
    > : > :
    > : > : WIT is adamant that there's no immediate danger, however.
    > : > "Currently, solar panels are an energy niche, and do not pose a serious
    > : > risk to the sun.
    > : > :
    > : > :
    > : > :
    > : > : I wonder if there's anyone on this group will argue that they are correct ;-)
    > : >
    > : > Well, I suppose the argument would go something like this:
    > : >
    > : > When photons of light arrive at the earth from the sun, some of them are
    > : > reflected, rather than absorbed. That's why the side of the earth that's
    > : > pointed towards the sun looks bright from a spaceship. Some of those photons
    > : > will inevitably make it back to the sun; and since a photon carries energy,
    > : > those photons will decrease, by a minuscule amount, the net transfer of energy
    > : > from the sun to the earth.
    > : >
    > : > A solar panel, because it's designed to absorb, not reflect, radiation, should
    > : > reflect fewer photons back to the sun than would an average patch of the
    > : > earth's surface. So the sun gets back less energy because the solar panel is
    > : > there, and the solar panel can be said to have extracted, just by its
    > : > presence, additional energy that the sun would not otherwise have lost.
    > : >
    > : > So far, so good. But it should be obvious, even to the "scientists" at a
    > : > right-wing think tank, that the amount of energy being discussed is many
    > : > orders of magnitude too small to have any practical effect on the energy
    > : > output of the sun. But what the hell; if someone (the Coach brothers?) is
    > : > crazy enough to pay them to come up with such yarns, I guess they'd be crazy
    > : > not to take the money.
    > : >
    > : > Or maybe the whole thing was just a joke. Did it come out around April 1? ;^)
    > : >
    > : > Bob
    > :
    > : I guess you missed some of the posts in this thread. It was pure satire
    > : from the *National Report*. All of their stories are made
    > : tongue-in-cheek, and should be taken with a pinch of salt.
    > : < http://nationalreport.net >
    >
    > Yeah, I didn't see that until after I wrote my reply. But it was clear that
    > something was goofy.
    >
    > You have to give the satirist credit, though. He did manage to leave in that
    > one whiff of plausibility.
    >


    The appearance of plausibility makes for good satire.


    --
    PeterN
    PeterN, Jun 15, 2014
    #90
  11. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 6/15/2014 9:07 AM, Robert Coe wrote:

    <snip>

    > I seldom, if ever, read The Onion. There are only 24 hours in the day.
    >
    > Say, do you suppose that The Onion would be willing to embark on the task of
    > lobbying Congress for a 28-hour day? That and the 8-day week have long been
    > favorite causes of mine.
    >
    > Bob
    >


    I once proposed a law banning the use of wall stretchers for offices &
    small stores. The building owners lobbyists paid me for the proposal. It
    was unfair to have tenants who were getting more space than they paid for.

    --
    PeterN
    PeterN, Jun 15, 2014
    #91
  12. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Sun, 15 Jun 2014 07:30:32 -0700, Savageduck
    <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    : On 2014-06-15 13:07:04 +0000, Robert Coe <> said:
    :
    : > I seldom, if ever, read The Onion. There are only 24 hours in the day.
    : >
    : > Say, do you suppose that The Onion would be willing to embark on the task
    : > of lobbying Congress for a 28-hour day? That and the 8-day week have long
    : > been favorite causes of mine.
    :
    : Then we would have the 51.429 minute hour.

    I was thinking we might drop minutes altogether and go to centihours (100 Ç =
    1 H).

    But with either notation, the new hour wouldn't be shorter than the old one.
    The idea is to lengthen the day, not to merely rearrange it.

    Bob
    Robert Coe, Jun 16, 2014
    #92
  13. RichA

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Monday, 16 June 2014 05:00:47 UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2014-06-16 03:05:27 +0000, Robert Coe <> said:
    >



    >
    >
    > Unfortunately you have a constant you can't change, the Earth's rate of
    >
    > rotation around its axis. You might squeeze 28 hours into that
    >
    > rotation, but they are going to be shorter hours and the real time
    >
    > won't change. Right now one rotation is 86,400 Si seconds = 24 hours.


    23 hours 56 mins & 4 seconds to be exact.
    Whisky-dave, Jun 16, 2014
    #93
  14. RichA

    J. Clarke Guest

    In article <2014061521004729945-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
    savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com says...
    >
    > On 2014-06-16 03:05:27 +0000, Robert Coe <> said:
    >
    > > On Sun, 15 Jun 2014 07:30:32 -0700, Savageduck
    > > <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    > > : On 2014-06-15 13:07:04 +0000, Robert Coe <> said:
    > > :
    > > : > I seldom, if ever, read The Onion. There are only 24 hours in the day.
    > > : >
    > > : > Say, do you suppose that The Onion would be willing to embark on the task
    > > : > of lobbying Congress for a 28-hour day? That and the 8-day week have long
    > > : > been favorite causes of mine.
    > > :
    > > : Then we would have the 51.429 minute hour.
    > >
    > > I was thinking we might drop minutes altogether and go to centihours (100 Ç =
    > > 1 H).
    > >
    > > But with either notation, the new hour wouldn't be shorter than the old one.
    > > The idea is to lengthen the day, not to merely rearrange it.

    >
    > Unfortunately you have a constant you can't change, the Earth's rate of
    > rotation around its axis. You might squeeze 28 hours into that
    > rotation, but they are going to be shorter hours and the real time
    > won't change. Right now one rotation is 86,400 Si seconds = 24 hours.
    >
    > I guess you realize that your lengthened 28 hour day is going to create
    > major Sunrise & Sunset anomalies. Let's say for example Sunset is at
    > 19:00 hours on day 1. Then on day 2 it will be at ±23:00, day 3 it will
    > be ±27:00, and day 4 ±03:00. All because no matter what you do to
    > lengthen the day, Earth is still going to rotate around its axis at
    > rate of approximately 24 x 60 minute hours.


    I think he's proposing decoupling the working day from the diurnal
    cycle.
    J. Clarke, Jun 16, 2014
    #94
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. =?Utf-8?B?bW9tbXlraXNzZXM=?=

    I have two situations I cant seem to fix on my own!

    =?Utf-8?B?bW9tbXlraXNzZXM=?=, May 29, 2004, in forum: Microsoft Certification
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    450
    =?Utf-8?B?bW9tbXlraXNzZXM=?=
    May 29, 2004
  2. Graham Cross
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    816
    Phil McKerracher
    Jan 27, 2005
  3. Mike Garner

    Canon wide-angle lenses - Real life situations please?

    Mike Garner, Feb 6, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    595
    Johnny
    Feb 7, 2004
  4. Joseph O'Brien

    cameras for low light situations?

    Joseph O'Brien, Feb 11, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    320
    AArDvarK
    Feb 11, 2004
  5. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    693
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page