Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-crg!nike!rutgers!clyde!cuae2!ltuxa!ttrdc!levy From: levy@ttrdc.UUCP (Daniel R. Levy) Newsgroups: sci.physics Subject: Re: Flashes in space Message-ID: <1316@ttrdc.UUCP> Date: Wed, 12-Nov-86 19:39:46 EST Article-I.D.: ttrdc.1316 Posted: Wed Nov 12 19:39:46 1986 Date-Received: Thu, 13-Nov-86 05:26:18 EST References: <130@cpro.UUCP> <3640@columbia.UUCP> <1298@ttrdc.UUCP> <3792@columbia.UUCP> Distribution: net Organization: AT&T, Computer Systems Division, Skokie, IL Lines: 94 In article <3792@columbia.UUCP>, zdenek@heathcliff.columbia.edu (Zdenek Radouch) writes: >In article <1298@ttrdc.UUCP> levy@ttrdc.UUCP (Daniel R. Levy) writes: >>In article <3640@columbia.UUCP>, zdenek@heathcliff.columbia.edu (Zdenek Radouch) writes: >>>Don't be so fast with your conclusions. Let me remind you that the eye >>>is a very very bad optical device. It is the brain what makes you see >>>so clearly! I'm not going to start the never ending discussion about how >>Perhaps Glenn was mistaken, but wasn't his impression of something which >>was _hovering_, that is, not moving? >I don't even know if Glenn said anything, let alone what he said. >All I was trying to say was that if one wants to do physics, he has >to THINK before making conclusion based on something somebody else >might have seen. >> ...Cerenkov flashes would just appear as >>sparkles with no particular position and orientation. > >I also said that with something like a flash it's not even possible or at >least very difficult (using an eye) to determine it's origin. Given all >that, there's no point in speculating about the position. > >What's orientation of a flash? Well, in this hypothetical (or real) case, there ARE a number of valid tests which can tell where a "flash" is NOT. Such as: cover one eye, and then the other, then both, with the hands. Are the "flashes" gone? Do they return when the hands are removed? If so, it would take a real skeptic to say that the "flashes" were in the eyes. If one thought one saw the "flashes" on the opposite side of a window, one could cover the window with something like a piece of paper. Are they gone? If so, they cannot be on the near side of the window (though they might be in the window material itself, granted). >>And what medium were the flashes taking place in? > >What flashes? The flashes you yourself were talking about above, Mr. Skeptic! What are you trying to discover or prove by saying "what flashes?" >>If in the eye, the flashes would seem to follow Glenn's gaze. > >Why? It would be better to say "might" than "would" in this context, granted. An unspoken assumption was that "cosmic rays" might well be the cause of Cerenkov flashes. If so, and this phenomenon were in the eyes itself, one might well expect the rays to continue penetrating the eyes no matter what way they were pointed. This would produce a "following the gaze" effect, simply because the "gaze" is defined as what is being currently seen by the eyes! At this point, I am beginning to be reminded of Descartes's arguments which led to the conclusion "I think, therefore I am." One of them was that the Deity (he didn't address the issue of whether there was a Deity or not) was an Evil Genius (that is, who was manipulating things to fool Descartes). Your skepticism seems to reflect an Evil Genius assumption. >There's one more thing I'd like to mention. >In the original posting, the author remembers astronauts reporting seeing >strange flashes. He asks: "Does anyone else remember anything about this >and/or the cause?" J.R. Stoner's reply starts "No." and continues "They >could not have been Cerenkov flashes because...". I follow this with an >article about the eye and its unreliability and there comes a followup that >quotes me, asks questions that (I think) I answered and speculates about >poor Cerenkov again. > >I understand that Cerenkov radiation is really exciting subject but can you >PLEASE read the article, you are responding to, before writing the response? > >Thank you, >zdenek I wish I had your original article now, in order to point out more thoroughly where you were unclear enough to permit further speculation. It has since been deleted from my site (I do not have control over the netnews here). I'm sorry, Mr. Encyclopedia Britannica, that I cast aspersions, implicit as they were, upon you. Your articles had previously struck me as being rather broadminded, educated, and tolerant of discussion and yes, dissent. That encouraged my reply, and I hardly expected the rebuff. Recently what I am seeing (and not only here, but in sci.med) appears to be an increasing tone of skepticism almost for skepticism's sake, a Devil's advocacy, a Socratic method exposition. If that's what you want to do, fine. But please don't cast aspersions, such as the explicit aspersion you cast upon me above, upon others in the process yourself. This will likely be the last reply I ever make to an article which you have joined in the discussion of. I'd rather sit it out than have my face slapped. -- ------------------------------- Disclaimer: The views contained herein are | dan levy | yvel nad | my own and are not at all those of my em- | an engihacker @ | ployer or the administrator of any computer | at&t computer systems division | upon which I may hack. | skokie, illinois | -------------------------------- Path: ..!{akgua,homxb,ihnp4,ltuxa,mvuxa, go for it! allegra,ulysses,vax135}!ttrdc!levy