|
Post by fattydash on Jul 6, 2011 11:51:20 GMT -4
The fact that Michael Collins and others repeated used the lame and INCORRECT explanation for not seeing stars as having to do with pupillary constriction proves Apollo to be far more bull than far out science.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jul 6, 2011 11:57:13 GMT -4
The fact that Michael Collins and others repeated used the lame and INCORRECT explanation for not seeing stars as having to do with pupillary constriction proves Apollo to be far more bull than far out science. Oh really? What is the correct explanation?
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 6, 2011 12:13:09 GMT -4
Light/dark adaptation has 3 components.
1) Pupillary constriction/dilatation constitutes 30 fold of the million fold response and occurs within fractions of a second, not minutes as the astronauts and their apologists claim.
2) Neuronal adaptation. The brain itself responding to dark/light. As with pupillary constriction, this too is an autonomic response occurring within fractions of a second. This accounts for roughly 3 fold or so of the million fold dark/light adaptive response.
3) Consumption and reconstitution of the light sensitive chemicals with which the photons directly react. This constitutes 10,000 fold of the million fold dark/light adaptive response. 10 minutes is required to reconstitute the color sensitive chemicals. 40 minutes to reconstitute the "simply light" sensitive chemicals in the periphery of the retinae.
All high level aviators, military pilots, test pilots, astronauts are aware of these facts and in great detail with regard to the practical aspects. Their lives depend on it.
Michael Collins and the others are therefore lying. Playing dumb.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jul 6, 2011 12:57:27 GMT -4
The fact that Michael Collins and others repeated used the lame and INCORRECT explanation for not seeing stars as having to do with pupillary constriction... Citation(s), please.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jul 6, 2011 13:08:19 GMT -4
While we are waiting on your citation that Collins actually said this, why don't you tell us how a partially correct response given in the way the public understands, constitutes proof that the whole thing was a fraud? After all if, as a high level aviator, if he did have the knowledge you say he should have, then the answer represents the same mistake whether the mission was real or not.
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Jul 6, 2011 13:15:17 GMT -4
Similar stance on another forum recently.
I also think there was a case of not wanted on voyage when other jobs were at hand so not really looked for with intent? Not checked the mission requirements.
Anyway. High level wotsits, are they trained in this biology?
I understand that dark adaption takes a while. Been out enough times to know my peepers do not make the change instantly. There was a question on one of the UK military aptitude tests, pamphlet we were given when showing an interest in joining many moons ago, claiming 20 mins for proper adaption from bright light in the answer. It was many years ago before tinternet and I expect the intensity of the light before will have some impact.
Also, a recent prod at the skies with my scope and I had to look at a patch of sky for a while to pick up the cluster I thought I was looking at. Nice colours but the local polution makes it a pain (not literal), that and comming back into the house to check the puter for what I thought I was looking at, house lights off but the computer screen was bright (I now have the program to alter the colours and intensity).
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jul 6, 2011 13:16:23 GMT -4
The fact that Michael Collins and others repeated used the lame and INCORRECT explanation for not seeing stars as having to do with pupillary constriction... Citation(s), please. I think we all have a pretty good idea what he is referring. But rather than preempt fattydash's response with a guess, it is best just to let him speak his mind.
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 6, 2011 13:16:53 GMT -4
Take a look at any basic physiology book, try Guyton. If you look dark/light adaptation up on Wikipedia, you'll see the author there refers to pupillary constriction/dilatation as a "minor" mechanism. The regeneration of photosensitive chemicals is referred to as the major adaptive mechanism. Wikipedia I believes leaves out neuronal adaptation.
I actually acquired a copy of the physiology manuel flight surgeons and test pilots used, studied from 1n 1968. There is a great amount of detail there. I thought the presentation was quite good, all the basics and much more.
Try this Data, google search dark/light adaptation. You'll get a 100 references, some better than others, all confirming my points as above.
For what it is worth, Guyton is considered the best basic textbook of physiology by physicians.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jul 6, 2011 13:20:46 GMT -4
Take a look at any basic physiology book, try Guyton. If you look dark/light adaptation up on Wikipedia, you'll see the author there refers to pupillary constriction/dilatation as a "minor" mechanism. The regeneration of photosensitive chemicals is referred to as the major adaptive mechanism. Wikipedia I believes leaves out neuronal adaptation. I actually acquired a copy of the physiology manuel flight surgeons and test pilots used, studied from 1n 1968. There is a great amount of detail there. I thought the presentation was quite good, all the basics and much more. Try this Data, google search dark/light adaptation. You'll get a 100 references, some better than others, all confirming my points as above. For what it is worth, Guyton is considered the best basic textbook of physiology by physicians. I think the citation datacable requested is one that shows Collins actually said what you are claiming he said. At least that is what I want to know.
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 6, 2011 13:23:23 GMT -4
The argument as regards a watered down explanation for public consumption is weak, but granted that, say that was the motivation, dark/light concerns were never discussed appropriately in the non public contexts, such as in the debriefing reports, and as all are well aware, the astronauts purported consistently had problems visualizing stars via the scanning scope because of the alleged effects of the bright cabin. That said, Aldrin himself mentions that they sighted stars in a dark cabin. That was his motivation for modifying the star charts and having them viewed through a special dark environment friendly box.
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 6, 2011 13:25:05 GMT -4
Carrying the Fire is where Collins makes his most clear and directed statement as regards this point.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jul 6, 2011 13:37:57 GMT -4
Carrying the Fire is where Collins makes his most clear and directed statement as regards this point. It's a big book and I don't have it. Do you have a page number so I could look it up? Or could you paste a short quote here?
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jul 6, 2011 13:41:06 GMT -4
The argument as regards a watered down explanation for public consumption is weak, but granted that, say that was the motivation, dark/light concerns were never discussed appropriately in the non public contexts, such as in the debriefing reports.... Not "discussed appropriately" according to whom? You? What is your expertise in these matters to make that determination? Do you have any published reports to back up this claim?
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 6, 2011 14:04:38 GMT -4
I have read the debriefing reports several times for every single Apollo mission. In not one of the debriefing reports have I read dark/light adaptation concerns discussed intelligently. On every occasion where astronauts have responded to this concern in non debriefing popular accounts or interviews, the pupillary constriction explanation is the one offered and so must be very much viewed as the explanation intended for us, the funders of this exploration, the patrons of Apollo, to buy into. I have queried NASA in their public forums, ask a scientist type sites and have never heard anything other than the pupillary constriction line. Even when I ask professional astronomers this question, they refer to pupillary constriction as an explanation for the lack of adequate astronaut dark adaptation.
Pupillary constriction is not an explanation I proffered, it is one the astronauts and NASA has proffered. We, the patrons of Apollo , cannot change their story for them. Their account has already been entered into the history books. They say pupillary constriction. So be it. That explanation cannot be correct. Our physiology is what it is.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jul 6, 2011 14:14:45 GMT -4
How important is all this really? I mean that quite seriously. It had nothing whatsoever to do with why they were there, so what reason would they have to go into detail on the subject? Isn't having been on the Moon what people actually want to hear them talk about? You reject the idea of "but it's a popular science book!" It's true, however. It is also a popular science book on a subject having really very little to do with how the eyes work.
|
|