Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Sun is Invisible in space!!

page: 12
16
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 2 2014 @ 05:27 AM
link   
Jeez I hoped this thread was a joke, but it looks like it's more Electric Universe crap.
There's a reason that the only places you'll see anyone talking about this garbage and not be joking are Internet forums and YouTube videos - helpful hint: It's not because powerful people are trying to suppress anything.

Obviously the motivation of the promoters is money and a cult following, but for those that are tempted to go with it because you're feeling rebellious against the Government, Science, etc - please don't become an idiot just because it's 'different' and 'cool'.

It seems obvious to me that most people on the Internet who go for this sort of thing basically want to watch a 30 minute video and suddenly be smarter than the smartest people on the world.
Here's a rather obvious fact, whatever you want to believe you are not going to receive that information from a short video. It takes many YEARS of experience and learning to even BEGIN to grasp any serious subject matter. If some forum idiot comes along and says they've disproven well established modern theories on the back of a napkin last night and they've put together a YouTube video to show it, trust me - they haven't.
We all want to feel clever and special, but believing in a load of crap only makes you special... very, very special..

Scientific theory is not the 'my mate down the pub has a theory' type, so when someone says something like "Yes well you don't KNOW what the Sun is like, that's just a theory" - they're talking like it were a hypothesis. However the scientific theories being discussed are just this, theory, and as such have mountains of highly detailed evidence to back them up that has been peer reviewed and correlates with other methods. If it concerns anyone that much you can do what I did, actually LEARN about as much as possible so you can BEGIN to understand. Asking someone on a forum to 'prove' something which has basically been proven to the entire scientific community and do it in 100 words or less is ridiculous. Modern scientific understanding is so complex and vast that unless you are prepared to take people's word for it to an extent, you'd better start learning NOW and realise that you will never know everything.

I find it ridiculous and actually quite insulting that some people who will even admit they know nothing about the subject matter will watch half an hour of tripe and then argue with people who actually know what they're talking about and think they're superior somehow.

We're at a point where information is now easier to find than ever, yet so many people seem to waste this gift on lining people's pockets while destroying their minds..

You can access a lot of actual useful information online like free university course content, MIT has a massive collection of course material online available for free as do others. There are even excellent and more informal sites like Khan's Academy.
Then there's the old favourite - books..

But if all of the useful information is all too complicated to understand so you keep feeling paranoid you're just being 'programmed by the system' or something, or you would rather stick to becoming a 30 minute YouTube video expert in a dumb subject that no one worth their salt takes seriously - be my guest. You'll always find a home on an 'alternative subject forum' away from those nasty scientists and pesky intellectuals.




posted on Sep, 2 2014 @ 01:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Yea exactly. The physical medium for the light to be seen is your eye or a telescopic/optic device. The photons of varying frequencies (Within different waveforms/frequencies) will be seen regardless of whether they pass through a forgiving atmosphere like ours, or the vacuum of space.



posted on Sep, 3 2014 @ 05:04 PM
link   

On tonight, live from 10PM Eastern time!

Show thread with listening information



posted on Sep, 3 2014 @ 07:02 PM
link   
a reply to: GallopingFish

Hmm, I think I get what you are saying. It`s true that we actually see the light not the sun but because it`s concentrated around a point that is emitting light, we call it the sunlight or simply sun because that point is the star that we call sun...



Light cannot be seen unless it's bouncing off objects or particles.

Agreed.



This is cool because you could technically look through the sun!!!! I wouldn't though because this guy says you still go blind ;-)

Nope you can`t look through the sun because there are concentrated particles also with the difference of producing light not bouncing it. Only thing you would see is light. And yes you would probably go blind looking at it with naked eye.



posted on Sep, 3 2014 @ 08:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: GallopingFish

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

The Sun is a ball of (mostly) hydrogen gas. The fusion of hydrogen into helium deep inside the center of the sun creates photons. Those photons are eventually emitted from the sun (after being absorbed and re-emitted by the stuff in the layers above the center). Those emitted photons that were originally caused by the fusion then strikes our eyes, and we see that as sunlight.

Therefore, what we see when we see sunlight is the fusion reactions of the Sun...i.e., when we see sunlight, we see the Sun.

What you seem to be saying is "we can't see the sun because the bright light coming from it obscures it". However, that bright light IS the Sun.



Now there is no way to prove what is happening underneath the photosphere. This is speculation and theory, on all counts.

People should stop dogmatically following inside the sun information as a fact and regurgitating it as gospel. Its a theory.


So instead we should just make it up as we go.... every one of us. 6 billion different ideas about how the sun works, just toss the scientific method and current theories out the door, they are useless.

I mean really... all those Phd's can't mean much. High School physics is all I need to decide how the universe works.

Orrr.. we can follow the scientific method and, as man has in recent history, build on the backs of giants. Pass along information and theories which may be fine tuned as time passes or, as in the case of the flat earth, we can discover that previous ideas were incorrect. But!! But never forget that the determination that the world is not flat was that of science and the exercise of the scientific method.




IThe scientific method has four steps:
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.


A scientific theory is a series of statements about the causal elements for observed phenomena. A critical component of a scientific theory is that it provides explanations and predictions that can be tested.



posted on Sep, 3 2014 @ 11:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Op3nM1nd3d
a reply to: GallopingFish

Hmm, I think I get what you are saying. It`s true that we actually see the light not the sun but because it`s concentrated around a point that is emitting light, we call it the sunlight or simply sun because that point is the star that we call sun...


The light we see is from reactions associated with the workings of the sun....i.e., we see sunlight from the sun, light that is the photons produced by the sun, photons produced as the sun does the things the sun does (the sun's reactions).

Therefore, I'd call seeing those photons "seeing the sun".

An analogy to what 'galloping fish' said would be sort of like saying we can't really see a fire because the light from the flame is in the way.

edit on 9/3/2014 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2014 @ 11:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: GallopingFish

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

The Sun is a ball of (mostly) hydrogen gas. The fusion of hydrogen into helium deep inside the center of the sun creates photons. Those photons are eventually emitted from the sun (after being absorbed and re-emitted by the stuff in the layers above the center). Those emitted photons that were originally caused by the fusion then strikes our eyes, and we see that as sunlight.

Therefore, what we see when we see sunlight is the fusion reactions of the Sun...i.e., when we see sunlight, we see the Sun.

What you seem to be saying is "we can't see the sun because the bright light coming from it obscures it". However, that bright light IS the Sun.



Now there is no way to prove what is happening underneath the photosphere. This is speculation and theory, on all counts.

People should stop dogmatically following inside the sun information as a fact and regurgitating it as gospel. Its a theory.


It's called a "theory" and not just a "hypothesis". A hypothesis is closer to pure speculation., while theory may start as speculation, but evidence is gathered in an attempt to support it.

A theory starts as a hypothesis, but then that hypothesis is tested to discover whether or not their is evidence that supports that hypothesis. Then, those test and the evidence gathered by those tests are re-tested by other people, and peer reviewed, looking to poke holes in the hypothesis, the evidence gathered by the tests, and the testing methods themselves.

Only after all of that, the hypothesis is then considered a theory.

The scientific evidence associated with the standard model of how the Sun works has been tested, retested, and poked at by scientists trying to find things wrong with the hypothesis. So far, the idea about the Sun being powered by the fusion of hydrogen gas into helium has withstood enough scientific scrutiny to be considered a "theory".

Sure -- a theory basically starts as speculation, but that speculation is supported by evidence and testing. Maybe that theory is wrong, but until someone comes up with one that better fits the evidence gathered by observation and testing, then it is the best theory we have.

It's not just wild speculation.



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 03:10 AM
link   
science in action!!!



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 05:44 AM
link   
if that was true, you could not see stars in space to!

oh! wait.
you Never see stars in photos from space.
the telescopes in space use
infared, gamma and other dadiation.
but not light?



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 06:14 AM
link   
a reply to: buddha

WRONG the reason stars dont show on say the Apollo photographs is because of the exposure settings if YOU knew anything regarding the exposure details or photography YOU would understand that



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 08:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: buddha
if that was true, you could not see stars in space to!

oh! wait.
you Never see stars in photos from space.
the telescopes in space use
infared, gamma and other dadiation.
but not light?

The Hubble Telescope has taken some images using visible light. It can also image in ultraviolet and near-infrared, and those other wavelengths are often used to enhance images, BUT it has also produced images of stars using only visible light

www.spacetelescope.org...

www.hubble.stsci.edu...=A+Hubble+gallery%40%2Cgallery%2C&i=img001

And as wmd_2008 said, the reason many (although not all) of the Apollo images did not show stars is because the exposure settings on the Apollo cameras were set to a more "daylight" exposure level, due to the brightness of the scene they were usually photographing. If you took your camera and set it on daylight exposure settings, and that took a picture of one of the most starry nighttime skies you have seen on Earth, you would probably not get any stars in your image, either.

edit on 9/4/2014 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 10:40 AM
link   
a reply to: adjensen

How do I get appointed to spout an opinion on a radio program for ATS?



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 10:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: AgentSmith
Obviously the motivation of the promoters is money and a cult following


I think whoever came up with this one-size-fits-all excuse was probably after money and a cult following. Probably the pedophile James Randi who came up with it.



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 11:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: BridgebyaFountain

originally posted by: AgentSmith
Obviously the motivation of the promoters is money and a cult following


I think whoever came up with this one-size-fits-all excuse was probably after money and a cult following. Probably the pedophile James Randi who came up with it.


Now,now I have a nice screen capture of that now who could I send that to, I wonder



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 11:20 AM
link   
a reply to: wmd_2008

You could send it to James Randi I guess, and see what he thinks of it. He's not a friend of yours is he?



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 09:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People



The light we see is from reactions associated with the workings of the sun....i.e., we see sunlight from the sun, light that is the photons produced by the sun, photons produced as the sun does the things the sun does (the sun's reactions). Therefore, I'd call seeing those photons "seeing the sun".

An analogy to what 'galloping fish' said would be sort of like saying we can't really see a fire because the light from the flame is in the way.


I agree. But what do you actually see? the light or the fire? I mean forget how our brain are thinking for one second cause it`s one and the same for them based on already known information. Thing is you actually see the light not the fire as word itself or chemical reaction behind it. Our eyes are receptors that respond only to light and then send signals to our brain which then filter or transform it into something understandable.

Another explanation. One says: "I`m on fire" but that doesn`t neccesarily mean that he is standing on fire or is covered in fire right? It`s the word that was invented that is messing the whole thing up.

So again, you see the actual light or photons or whatever you want to call it. It`s not like it`s blocking its way, but light is the only thing you would ever see from a source of light and not the word behind it or the chemical reaction which produces it...

And yes, as far as our brain is concerned "light from fire" IS "fire". But in truth there is only "light from fire"

Hopefully I explained myself better this time....



edit on 4-9-2014 by Op3nM1nd3d because: spelling



posted on Sep, 4 2014 @ 09:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: buddha
if that was true, you could not see stars in space to!

oh! wait.
you Never see stars in photos from space.
the telescopes in space use
infared, gamma and other dadiation.
but not light?


read the OP.

gerry garcia didn't make a sound when he fell in the forest. coz no one heard him fall.



posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 07:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Op3nM1nd3d
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People



The light we see is from reactions associated with the workings of the sun....i.e., we see sunlight from the sun, light that is the photons produced by the sun, photons produced as the sun does the things the sun does (the sun's reactions). Therefore, I'd call seeing those photons "seeing the sun".

An analogy to what 'galloping fish' said would be sort of like saying we can't really see a fire because the light from the flame is in the way.


I agree. But what do you actually see? the light or the fire?...

So again, you see the actual light or photons or whatever you want to call it. It`s not like it`s blocking its way, but light is the only thing you would ever see from a source of light and not the word behind it or the chemical reaction which produces it...


What I'm saying that if a fire is the heat caused by a chemical reaction, and one aspect of that heat/chemical reaction is the creation of photons of light, then when we see the photons of light, we are seeing the visible aspects of that chemical reaction. Therefore were are seeing the visible parts of the fire (obviously we can't see the invisible parts of the fire).

So the light of the flame IS the flame/fire.


Similarly with the Sun, if the Sun is a fusion reaction, and one aspect of that fusion reaction is the creation of photons of light, then when we see the photons of light, we are seeing the visible aspects of that fusion reaction. Therefore were are seeing with our eyes the visible aspects of the Sun.

So the light from the Sun IS the Sun.

We can see the fusion reaction, because the fusion reaction makes sunlight. Sure, there are other aspects of the fusion reaction we cannot see with our eyes -- aspects of the fusion reaction that can only be seen with equipment that can see the gamma ray, ultraviolet, x-ray, etc parts of the EM spectrum. However, that doesn't mean that the visible light we see in any less a real aspect of the Sun doing its thing.


The bottom line is this:
The sunlight isn't getting in the way of seeing the Sun because the sunlight IS the Sun (at least in part). The photon of light we see was caused by the fusion reaction; we are seeing that reaction.


edit on 9/5/2014 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2014 @ 02:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People




The sunlight isn't getting in the way of seeing the Sun because the sunlight IS the Sun (at least in part). The photon of light we see was caused by the fusion reaction; we are seeing that reaction.


Absolutely correct.

It's amazing what people think..





new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in

join