asgard@cpro.UUCP (J.R. Stoner) (10/29/86)
In article <58@reality1.UUCP>, james@reality1.UUCP (james) writes: > I seem to recall that on one of the Apollo missions that astronauts reported > seeing strange flashes of light. This was a long time ago, and I wasn't even > in high school at the time, so I may just be the victim of a modern "old > wive's tale". Does anyone else remember anything about this and/or the > cause? > -- > James R. Van Artsdalen ...!ut-ngp!utastro!osi3b2!james "Live Free or Die" No. The famous story was about John Glenn's ride into orbit in the Gemini. He noted that sparkling objects were hovering outside the viewport of the capsule and speculated on what they could be. Since some of the particles were seen to be "following" the capsule it was though they were flecks of ice or paint from the Gemini itself. They could not have been Cerenkov flashes, as those are photon events and therefore could not be objects maintaining an orbit. -- From the manic ravings of J.R. (May the farce be with you) Stoner
jpierre@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU (John Pierre) (10/30/86)
In article <130@cpro.UUCP> asgard@cpro.UUCP (J.R. Stoner) writes: >In article <58@reality1.UUCP>, james@reality1.UUCP (james) writes: > >> I seem to recall that on one of the Apollo missions that astronauts reported >> seeing strange flashes of light. This was a long time ago, and I wasn't even >> in high school at the time, so I may just be the victim of a modern "old >> wive's tale". Does anyone else remember anything about this and/or the >> cause? >> -- >> James R. Van Artsdalen ...!ut-ngp!utastro!osi3b2!james "Live Free or Die" > >No. The famous story was about John Glenn's ride into orbit in the Gemini. the above could also be a reference to sky lab missions when astronauts reported seeing flashes...they were determined to be cosmic rays that had struck their retinae, making them see sparks of light. -john pierre @athena.mit.edu @mit-eddie.arpa
zdenek@heathcliff.columbia.edu (Zdenek Radouch) (10/31/86)
In article <130@cpro.UUCP> asgard@cpro.UUCP (J.R. Stoner) writes: > >No. The famous story was about John Glenn's ride into orbit in the Gemini. >He noted that sparkling objects were hovering outside the viewport of the >capsule and speculated on what they could be... > ....They could not have been Cerenkov >flashes, as those are photon events and therefore could not be objects >maintaining an orbit. 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 all the neurons in the brain get hold of the information necessary to process the images. The fact is that once you grow up, it's there and it enables you to understand what you see. But the brain can deal only with known objects and only in a limited way. So if the receptors or the optical nerves are stimulated in a new and unknown way, there is not too much the brain can do. As a result you "see" something, but that something is not necessarily a real object. To conclude: 1. When the visual cortex tells you, that you see something, that information alone doesn't enable you to tell, whether the object you "see" exists. 2. Since you don't even know if the object exists, it doesn't make too much sense to speculate if the object is "here" or "there", let alone if it's maintaining an orbit. And the moral of the story - When you perform any measurment in physics, use only instruments you understand. If you have to use an unreliable device, consider it before making the conclusion. zdenek ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Men are four: He who knows and knows that he knows, he is wise - follow him; He who knows and knows not that he knows, he is asleep - wake him; He who knows not and knows that he knows not, he is simple - teach him; He who knows not and knows not that he knows not, he is a fool - shun him! zdenek@CS.COLUMBIA.EDU or ...!seismo!columbia!cs!zdenek Zdenek Radouch, 457 Computer Science, Columbia University, 500 West 120th St., New York, NY 10027
levy@ttrdc.UUCP (Daniel R. Levy) (11/06/86)
In article <3640@columbia.UUCP>, zdenek@heathcliff.columbia.edu (Zdenek Radouch) writes: >In article <130@cpro.UUCP> asgard@cpro.UUCP (J.R. Stoner) writes: >> >>No. The famous story was about John Glenn's ride into orbit in the Gemini. >>He noted that sparkling objects were hovering outside the viewport of the >>capsule and speculated on what they could be... > >> ....They could not have been Cerenkov >>flashes, as those are photon events and therefore could not be objects >>maintaining an orbit. > >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? Cerenkov flashes would just appear as sparkles with no particular position and orientation. (And what medium were the flashes taking place in? Space outside the viewport was pretty well a vacuum. If in the eye, the flashes would seem to follow Glenn's gaze.) -- ------------------------------- 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
zdenek@heathcliff.columbia.edu (Zdenek Radouch) (11/07/86)
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? >And what medium were the flashes taking place in? What flashes? >If in the eye, the flashes would seem to follow Glenn's gaze. Why? 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Men are four: He who knows and knows that he knows, he is wise - follow him; He who knows and knows not that he knows, he is asleep - wake him; He who knows not and knows that he knows not, he is simple - teach him; He who knows not and knows not that he knows not, he is a fool - shun him! zdenek@CS.COLUMBIA.EDU or ...!seismo!columbia!cs!zdenek Zdenek Radouch, 457 Computer Science, Columbia University, 500 West 120th St., New York, NY 10027
levy@ttrdc.UUCP (Daniel R. Levy) (11/13/86)
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
werme@alliant.UUCP (Eric Werme) (11/13/86)
Too many people: >>>No. The famous story was about John Glenn's ride into orbit in the Gemini. >>>He noted that sparkling objects were hovering outside the viewport of the >>>capsule and speculated on what they could be... Sigh. You netters are making me feel old (Just :-) !). What Glenn saw was different than what the Apollo astronauts saw. He saw sparkling objects drifting behind the capsule, especially right after dawn. The fireflies, as he called them, could be created by tapping the side of the capsule. Turns out that they were merely ice crystals formed from venting urine or some such. +-------------------------------+-----------------------------+ | The Art of Programming | Eric J Werme | | needs to be tempered with | uucp: decvax!linus!alliant | | the Structure of Engineering | Phone: 603-673-3993 | +-------------------------------+-----------------------------+
zdenek@heathcliff.columbia.edu (Zdenek Radouch) (11/14/86)
In article <1316@ttrdc.UUCP> levy@ttrdc.UUCP (Daniel R. Levy) writes: [addressing me] > >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..... I don't mind any discussion as long as it stays within reasonable limits. The question is what are the reasonable limits. Physics is very complex science and we "know" only so much. There is nothing wrong with discussing even the wildest ideas in physics and its laws, because, as we found many times in the past even the most elementary laws can be wrong. But there are some rules for the discussion. You might not agree with me about a particular law but we must ABSOLUTELY agree on the methods of discussion. Also, we have to make sure that we know and are aware of the possible differences between the real phenomena and their interpretations. In the case of this posting, attempts were made to identify "flashes" as result of a particular physical phenomenon. My objection is not that somebody thinks its Cerenkov radiation. I'm saying that before we start to talk about flashes in vacuum and Cerenkov radiation, we should find out if there really was anything like that. Similarly you shouldn't speculate if my hair got gray as a result of the stress during my work, or because it's natural at my age. It's a wig... The case of sci.med is even worse. The question if all the intelligence in the brain is acquired or inherited is very old and still not resolved. Just that and the fact that I like to play the Devil's advocate would make me argue for the other side. And when somebody says "it's inherited, there is an EVIDENCE..." Do you expect me to say "Oh yeah, I believe it"? Yes, I am skeptical, sometimes for the sake of skepticism. I always play the Devil's advocate. I have found that the systematic doubt is extremely beneficial, especialy in the sciences. You don't like Socrates and his methods of "systematic doubt and questioning of another to reveal his hidden ignorance..."? You believe that they are in contradiction with being "broadminded, educated, and tolerant of discussion"? Think about it. > >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. Sometimes, I get really dismayed by the level of contribution to "sci".physics. I don't mean the case when somebody asks an elementary question or even what could be called a "stupid" question about physics. That's fine. But when somebody "explains" a phenomenon by a theory that's equivalent to considering little green dwarfs controlling the world, I don't consider that to be beneficiary. Especially for those, who can't tell... As a matter of discouragement I often reply in rather rude way. Sorry. The intent is not to discourage from posting, but rather to force people to think before posting. Once I started, one more apology. In my article about the "space elevator" I made a joke about using digesting tract as a means of determining the speed. The reason I posted it in sci.physics and not in sci.med was because I was affraid in the latter they'd believe it. I didn't expect that despite the fact that it was appended to a 4-page description of it's impossibility, someone in the net.physics world would believe it.... zdenek zdenek@cs.columbia.edu or ...!seismo!columbia!cs!zdenek