Spherical objects around the Coronal SUN!!!!

[graflok]

You both say the shadows are wrong if it's an object but when I ask how you
know they are shadows and not simply color you say they aren't shadows.

I asked you to prove your point simply because you appear to have no
point at all that can stand on its own without self-contradiction.

If you insist that you do have an argument then present it please. Show
us some evidence that these things are pixel artifacts.

Or, if you wish to prove that they can't be objects in space then please show
us why without using self-contradictory "logic."

You can start by showing why the dark areas must be shadows (if the things
are objects) and cannot simply be coloration of said objects. I have asked
this question several times and you have both avoided it. It's an important
question.

[elcribbo]

Originally Posted by graflok

You both say the shadows are wrong if it's an object but when I ask how you
know they are shadows and not simply color you say they aren't shadows.

I asked you to prove your point simply because you appear to have no
point at all that can stand on its own without self-contradiction.

If you insist that you do have an argument then present it please. Show
us some evidence that these things are pixel artifacts.

Or, if you wish to prove that they can't be objects in space then please show
us why without using self-contradictory "logic."

You can start by showing why the dark areas must be shadows (if the things
are objects) and cannot simply be coloration of said objects. I have asked
this question several times and you have both avoided it. It's an important
question.

Right, I want you to pay attention. This really isn't that difficult, but you appear to be struggling with it.

If you shine a light on an object, the side nearest the light will be illuminated. It doesn't matter whether the object is blue or brown or white or has a tartan check or lime green and salmon pink stripes. In the pictures in question the sides facing the sun are not the sides which are illuminated. For those to be physical objects you would need to discount not only the laws of physics but those of every day life and common fucking sense.

Does that explain it for you? For my next post I'll explain how things look smaller the further away they get.

[boots]

If a normal camera was used then you could expect shadows.

Does an ultra violet light cast a shadow.? Would it not pick up differences in shadings of colors, instead of shadows?

.

[graflok]

Originally Posted by elcribbo

Right, I want you to pay attention. This really isn't that difficult, but you appear to be struggling with it.

If you shine a light on an object, the side nearest the light will be illuminated. It doesn't matter whether the object is blue or brown or white or has a tartan check or lime green and salmon pink stripes. In the pictures in question the sides facing the sun are not the sides which are illuminated. For those to be physical objects you would need to discount not only the laws of physics but those of every day life and common fucking sense.

Does that explain it for you? For my next post I'll explain how things look smaller the further away they get.

Very funny. You obviously can't read and now you're trying to insult my
intelligence! Thanks for the laugh.

Now read what I wrote again. If you're still having trouble maybe you can
find a friend who can read it to you (if you have any).

[yhwhschild]

Originally Posted by elcribbo

Right, I want you to pay attention. This really isn't that difficult, but you appear to be struggling with it.

If you shine a light on an object, the side nearest the light will be illuminated. It doesn't matter whether the object is blue or brown or white or has a tartan check or lime green and salmon pink stripes. In the pictures in question the sides facing the sun are not the sides which are illuminated. For those to be physical objects you would need to discount not only the laws of physics but those of every day life and common fucking sense.

Does that explain it for you? For my next post I'll explain how things look smaller the further away they get.

Correct me if I am wrong but don't these pictures come from NASA. If so wouldn't their guys do a better job of photo shopping these pics if they were trying to scam us. Also who says that the laws of light and shadows that work on earth also applies to object so close to the sun.

[the nine]

Originally Posted by elcribbo

Sadly, I think it's just you. There are very few people letting the truth get in the way of a good story on this forum.

For instance, the fact that the lighting makes it impossible for these objects to physically exist will be ignored - no matter how many times you patiently explain it - in favour of theories about space whales.

your facts are based on widely accepted theorys of science, if there are indeed intelligently controlled craft very close to the sun, this would seem impossible too(from a current scientific point of view).. this could be energy displacement technology seeing the light on the opposite side and shadow facing the light source.

we have come a long way intellectually as a species, but we have so far to go yet..making statements like that shows your mind is closed, and not open to new intellect..

let go..to a certain extent.

[elcribbo]

Originally Posted by graflok

Very funny. You obviously can't read and now you're trying to insult my
intelligence! Thanks for the laugh.

Now read what I wrote again. If you're still having trouble maybe you can
find a friend who can read it to you (if you have any).

Well I've asked several friends to have a look at it for me and to help me with the big words and they're all a bit confused. You see, this is what you wrote:

Originally Posted by graflok

You both say the shadows are wrong if it's an object but when I ask how you
know they are shadows and not simply color you say they aren't shadows.

I asked you to prove your point simply because you appear to have no
point at all that can stand on its own without self-contradiction.

If you insist that you do have an argument then present it please. Show
us some evidence that these things are pixel artifacts.

Or, if you wish to prove that they can't be objects in space then please show
us why without using self-contradictory "logic."

You can start by showing why the dark areas must be shadows (if the things
are objects) and cannot simply be coloration of said objects. I have asked
this question several times and you have both avoided it. It's an important
question.

So, point by point...

When I said that they weren't shadows I was referring to a particularly clutch-at-straws post (it might have been yours, I can't remember) that said the shadows might be cast by a much smaller object that we can't see between the objects and the sun, which is quite plainly impossible.

You asked me to present an argument. I believe I did that fairly clearly in my reply. I have explained why these things can't be physical objects in a way that doesn't use 'self-contradiction'. I'm not sure how much less self-contradictory I can be than 'the side that's illuminated should be illuminated and the side that isn't illuminated should be dark'. That really is as simple as it gets.

I haven't specifically proven that they are compression artefacts because I don't know enough about that to do so. But I'm sure you'll be able to use a process of elimination. Either they are physical objects or they are some sort of distortion on the picture. I've proved that they aren't physical objects. Which doesn't leave us too many other options.

I specifically wrote that the colour of the object is irrelevant. Look at the NASA pictures again. Are you seriously claiming that the illumination on the objects is because of the colour? Are you saying that a couple of coats of white emulsion are going to illuminate an object to such an extent that it's going to appear to be brighter than the side illuminated by the sun?

[elcribbo]

Originally Posted by yhwhschild

Correct me if I am wrong but don't these pictures come from NASA. If so wouldn't their guys do a better job of photo shopping these pics if they were trying to scam us.

I'd have thought so, yes. I'm not claiming that they are.

Originally Posted by yhwhschild

Also who says that the laws of light and shadows that work on earth also applies to object so close to the sun.

Everybody.

[elcribbo]

Originally Posted by the nine

your facts are based on widely accepted theorys of science

Thanks very much.

Originally Posted by the nine

if there are indeed intelligently controlled craft very close to the sun, this would seem impossible too(from a current scientific point of view).. this could be energy displacement technology seeing the light on the opposite side and shadow facing the light source.

Yes, you're quite right. It could be energy displacement. It could also be gangs of angels with torches, a black hole trying to swallow a white hole, or one of God's contact lenses. It could be any one of a hundred different things for which there is no evidence.

Originally Posted by the nine

we have come a long way intellectually as a species, but we have so far to go yet..making statements like that shows your mind is closed, and not open to new intellect..

If you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.

[graflok]

Originally Posted by elcribbo

When I said that they weren't shadows I was referring to a particularly clutch-at-straws post (it might have been yours, I can't remember) that said the shadows might be cast by a much smaller object that we can't see between the objects and the sun, which is quite plainly impossible.

Hardly impossible. What are you smoking?

I've proved that they aren't physical objects. Which doesn't leave us too many other options.

In your own hallucination you may think you've proven it but you haven't
really proven anything.

I specifically wrote that the colour of the object is irrelevant.

And, that's the most comical thing you've written so far. Of course it's
relevant. The perceived darkness and lightness of objects are aspects of
color and reflectance or lack of it. A dark portion of an object may be
caused by shadow or it may also simply be a dark portion of the
object, i.e., it's color. Perhaps you were not aware that gray and black are
colors?

I simply asked how you (or yogurt-brain) knew it was one and not the other,
and all this nonsense has proceeded from that.

Look at the NASA pictures again. Are you seriously claiming that the illumination on the objects is because of the colour?

Not illumination, no. That would make no sense and I didn't say that. I
really do think you should work on your reading skills.

Are you saying that a couple of coats of white emulsion are going to illuminate an object to such an extent that it's going to appear to be brighter than the side illuminated by the sun?

White emulsion? What part of your anatomy do you pull these things out of?
I've said nothing about emulsion. WTF are you talking about now?

[monkeyboy]

http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/about/instruments.html

# SUMER (Solar Ultraviolet Measurements of Emitted Radiation)
# SUMER from the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research, Germany

so these brighter areas are where the radiation is being emmitted and nothing to to with light or shadow so can we get back to the real question what are these solid objects orbiting the sun?

[elcribbo]

Originally Posted by graflok

Hardly impossible. What are you smoking?

Impossible. Here's some elementary high school physics for you. Take your time.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/space/s...reclipse.shtml

Perhaps this will help explain the basic concept of shadows cast by small objects when the light source is much bigger. It's the same as a solar eclipse on earth. You see, when you just make stuff up I can prove you wrong.

Originally Posted by graflok

In your own hallucination you may think you've proven it but you haven't really proven anything.

Not by your standard of proof, no. But then again your standard of proof is as logical as your belief that the sun lights up the opposite side of the body it's shining on.

Originally Posted by graflok

And, that's the most comical thing you've written so far. Of course it's
relevant. The perceived darkness and lightness of objects are aspects of
color and reflectance or lack of it. A dark portion of an object may be
caused by shadow or it may also simply be a dark portion of the
object, i.e., it's color. Perhaps you were not aware that gray and black are
colors?

Well, seeing as you ask, no, black isn't a colour. Anyway, we're getting nowhere here because I suspect you're being deliberately obtuse. Look at this image.


Are you seriously telling me that a dark colour would explain the lack of illumination on the side of the object nearest the sun? Seriously? You can't see that the sun would light that side of the object up? If the answer to this question is 'no, I genuinely don't understand that' then I suggest we give up this thread now as I really think we're wasting our time.

Originally Posted by graflok

Not illumination, no. That would make no sense and I didn't say that. I
really do think you should work on your reading skills.

You have implied it throughout. Don't start denying it now you've been proved wrong. You have argued against the dark areas being shadows. Shadows are the absence of illumination.

Originally Posted by graflok

White emulsion? What part of your anatomy do you pull these things out of?
I've said nothing about emulsion. WTF are you talking about now?

I was making the point that the colour would make no difference to whether the sun would illuminate the object or not, as well you know.

[the nine]

Originally Posted by elcribbo

Thanks very much.

Yes, you're quite right. It could be energy displacement. It could also be gangs of angels with torches, a black hole trying to swallow a white hole, or one of God's contact lenses. It could be any one of a hundred different things for which there is no evidence.

If you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.

I assume this last comment is humour now and not your specific science and facts you have been spouting in this thread..?


arrogance causes confrontation, why not simply put IMHO (in my humble opinion) at the end of your posts rather than state FACT?

have a nice day!

[graflok]

Originally Posted by elcribbo

Perhaps this will help explain the basic concept of shadows cast by small objects when the light source is much bigger. It's the same as a solar eclipse on earth. You see, when you just make stuff up I can prove you wrong.

What does this have to do with the color/shading issue? Nothing.

Not by your standard of proof, no. But then again your standard of proof is as logical as your belief that the sun lights up the opposite side of the body it's shining on.

I said nothing of the sort but, of course, you wouldn't know that since you
haven't correctly interpreted anything else I've written so far.

Well, seeing as you ask, no, black isn't a colour. Anyway, we're getting nowhere here because I suspect you're being deliberately obtuse.

Black isn't a color? You're joking, right?

"Black is the color of objects that do not emit or reflect light in any part of the visible spectrum ..."

Black - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Black - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Black - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Are you seriously telling me that a dark colour would explain the lack of illumination on the side of the object nearest the sun?

Nope. But, again, I don't expect you to understand that since you
haven't understood a word I've said so far.

Seriously? You can't see that the sun would light that side of the object up?

Of course it would but since you have no comprehension of anything I've said
so far I don't expect you to understand that either.

You have implied it throughout. Don't start denying it now you've been proved wrong. You have argued against the dark areas being shadows.

Not exactly but you're getting warmer. I've argued that the dark areas
might not be shadows and it's impossible to be sure they are shadows
at the distances involved in those photos. My only point, I repeat, my only
point is that it is impossible to be sure that those dark areas in those photos
represent shadows caused by illumination from the sun. It is not that
they are definitely not shadows, just that one can't be sure if they are or
not. That's all.

You on the other hand seem convinced that they could only be shadows.
So, I could take a white ball, paint half of it black and hold it across the
room from you and, apparently, you would swear that the dark side was a
shadow because in your mind a dark area must be a shadow and can't be
anything else. It is apparently inconceivable to you that a dark area could
simply be a dark area. The act of painting one half an object darker than
the other would totally fool you into thinking there must be a light source on
the opposite side of the area I painted. This is why I find your posts so
amusing.

Shadows are the absence of illumination.

Not exactly. Shadows are areas of relatively less illumination than
bordering areas. This is easy to prove with a light meter. Shadows often do
have illumination, it's just significantly less than a bordering area so it
appears darker to the eye.

[oioioi]

If you put a black disc on the torch and shined it at the ping pong ball would part of it be unilluminated? Is it possible that when you get close to the sun there are 'black spots' of light?

[elcribbo]

Originally Posted by graflok

What does this have to do with the color/shading issue? Nothing.

You said that the shadows might be caused by a smaller object that we can't see between the objects and the sun. This is the explanation of why that is wrong.

Originally Posted by graflok

I said nothing of the sort but, of course, you wouldn't know that since you
haven't correctly interpreted anything else I've written so far.

Maybe. I really can't be arsed searching through your posts to find where you said it.

Originally Posted by graflok

Black isn't a color? You're joking, right?

"Black is the color of objects that do not emit or reflect light in any part of the visible spectrum ..." source

No, I'm serious. If you have a pot of black paint then you (and I) would describe it as a colour. But when you're talking about light, black is defined as the absence of colour.

Originally Posted by graflok

Nope. But, again, I don't expect you to understand that since you
haven't understood a word I've said so far.

Thank you. At last. So please explain how the side of the object nearest the sun isn't illuminated.

Originally Posted by graflok

Of course it would but since you have no comprehension of anything I've said
so far I don't expect you to understand that either.

Thank you again. Now we're getting somewhere.

Originally Posted by graflok

Not exactly but you're getting warmer. I've argued that the dark areas
might not be shadows and it's impossible to be sure they are shadows
at the distances involved in those photos. My only point, I repeat, my only
point is that it is impossible to be sure that those dark areas in those photos
represent shadows caused by illumination from the sun. It is not that
they are definitely not shadows, just that one can't be sure if they are or
not. That's all.

You on the other hand seem convinced that they could only be shadows.
So, I could take a white ball, paint half of it black and hold it across the
room from you and, apparently, you would swear that the dark side was a
shadow because in your mind a dark area must be a shadow and can't be
anything else. It is apparently inconceivable to you that a dark area could
simply be a dark area. The act of painting one half an object darker than
the other would totally fool you into thinking there must be a light source on
the opposite side of the area I painted. This is why I find your posts so
amusing.

I'm glad I amuse you. If you took the black half of the ball and held it up against an enormous light source I wouldn't get so confused. Because, you see, that side would be illuminated. Please explain to me how that wouldn't work.

Originally Posted by graflok

Not exactly. Shadows are areas of relatively less illumination than
bordering areas. This is easy to prove with a light meter. Shadows often do
have illumination, it's just significantly less than a bordering area so it
appears darker to the eye.

Fair, if fairly nitpicking, point. Please explain how the side of the object nearest the sun has relatively less illumination than the side furthest from the sun.

[kingmob]

I don't think these are fake.

There has been a dozen of these type of videos in the last decade, and there is some footage much more compelling than this.

Whether the sun reflects or not, we can't know. Obviously, if this is technology, its very advanced, so who knows what its capable of. And we certainly don't know enough of true physics to be able to make any conclusions. Half the science is a bunch of BS anyways, designed to misguide the masses.