Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Sun is Invisible in space!!

page: 2
19
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 03:29 AM
link   
a reply to: SaturnFX

Yeah. Imagine a beam of white light and as it strikes atmosphere, matter, something it splits into the visible spectrum.

If the was no matter or for some reason matter was cancelled out. Would pure white light from the sun be visible? Even looking at it...




posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 03:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I could see looking directly at the sun and checking it out in space, it would definitely be visible, even shadows happen in space.

But I don't think the sun lights up all of outer space as it lights up Earth's atmosphere, turning it blue and all. So the particles in the air definitely make a difference in the behavior of the sun's photons.

Although I'm sure that if an astronaut was floating out there, the sun would hit his space suit. Am I right?
edit on 18amFri, 18 Apr 2014 03:31:17 -0500kbamkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 03:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: GallopingFish
a reply to: SaturnFX

Yeah. Imagine a beam of white light and as it strikes atmosphere, matter, something it splits into the visible spectrum.

If the was no matter or for some reason matter was cancelled out. Would pure white light from the sun be visible? Even looking at it...



If it's white light, it's visible. There's no "splitting into a visible spectrum" needed.



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 03:32 AM
link   
I just ... holy s***. How do people make it out of middle school? How?



This isn't even the equivalent of the "If I don't see it, it doesn't exist" malarkey, this is just flat out stupid.



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 03:34 AM
link   
Weird idea.. but, if you can see the light of the sun in space then why can't you see the stars in the moon landing photos? They're light too? I'm assuming that a camera lens works pretty much like the eye.



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 03:39 AM
link   
Ouch,

Im not pushing it or anything, I'm interested in other points of view. The dudes in the video are pretty serious..

Infact is anyone out there considering that maybe inside a star something is happening that we don't know about??

I sure as hell don't because I didn't go to middle school.

a reply to: Nyiah

edit on 18-4-2014 by GallopingFish because: spelling



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 03:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: blobzilla
Weird idea.. but, if you can see the light of the sun in space then why can't you see the stars in the moon landing photos? They're light too? I'm assuming that a camera lens works pretty much like the eye.


Because the photos were taken during the daytime. You can't see the light of the sun reflecting off space (which is why it is black) but you can see the sun glaring off the moon.

Don't be fooled by the black sky: those photos were taken in daylight, at the same kind of exposure length as you would use in bright sunlight on Earth (1/250th of a second).

You can't take star photos at 1/250 sec!



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 03:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: blobzilla
Weird idea.. but, if you can see the light of the sun in space then why can't you see the stars in the moon landing photos? They're light too? I'm assuming that a camera lens works pretty much like the eye.


Yes, and for the same reason you can't see them with your eye.

You've got so much dynamic range and that's it. Your eye (and a camera lens) uses an iris to adjust the amount of light allowed in. That's because you can only see a certain range of intensity, and an iris is the mechanism for setting that range. So when you're in daylight, you've got a lot of light input. The iris stops down to limit the incoming light, and adjust your eye to cope with a larger dynamic range of external scene illumination. The upshot is that you lose very low level light sources - your eye is not only throwing away photons by stopping the iris down, the pigments in your eye are bleached out so that your low level receptors - the rods - are not functioning at all.

You don't see this happen because your brain hides the transitions. For example, you likely don't notice that you see in black and white in low light.

Cameras generally have even less dynamic range than an eye. If they're set to image bright scenes, you don't stand a snowball's chance in hell of seeing something as dim as a star.



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 04:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: GallopingFish
a reply to: SaturnFX

Yeah. Imagine a beam of white light and as it strikes atmosphere, matter, something it splits into the visible spectrum.

If the was no matter or for some reason matter was cancelled out. Would pure white light from the sun be visible? Even looking at it...


erm...you would see the light on the particles that make up the sun of course lit up....
Are you asking if the sun disappeared, would you see the sun? not following...



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 04:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Rob48

Cheers Rob, I appreciate the reply and that clears a mess in my head!



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 04:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: blobzilla
Weird idea.. but, if you can see the light of the sun in space then why can't you see the stars in the moon landing photos? They're light too? I'm assuming that a camera lens works pretty much like the eye.


This might be a more intuitive explanation. Consider hearing.

If you are in a quiet den for a while, you can hear a clock ticking if you think about it and don't tune it out.

But if you had Mastodon on cranked up to a 9 on your stereo, you aren't going to hear the clock ticking any more. It's not that it's not there, it's just that your ear has adjusted dynamic range for metal, and can't perceive very small inputs.



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 04:17 AM
link   
a reply to: SaturnFX

Yeah basically

if you had an object with no matter ( im not sure how, but entertain the theory just temporarily) and this ghost object produced light somehow.

Is it an apt deduction not to reason that you could see through the said ghost object ( in this case a star)



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 04:25 AM
link   
a reply to: GallopingFish

If something produces photons (light), and those photons fly directly into your eye, you will see light. It's as simple as that. What's all this nonsense talk about light being split into visible spectrum
Visible light is photons within a certain range of wavelength, we see it and we can't see light outside of that range. But I'm sure you already know that.

These Youtube videos are a complete mash-up of nonsense and leading-by-the-nose that are directed at the gullible and uneducated "woo" crowd.



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 04:26 AM
link   
a reply to: GallopingFish

No. Even if the light was somehow being produced out of a total vacuum, and you wee somehow suspended in the total vacuum but still alive, then if the photons struck your eye you would be able to see it.

So, if there was no other matter around to bounce the beam into your eye, and no other light sources, then you would see a light surrounded by total darkness. If you turned so that the light was not in your field of view then you would not be able to see anything at all (unless, say, you lifted your hand up into your field of view so that it reflected some of the light into your eye).

But if you are looking directly at the light source, you will see it.

Never mind middle school, isn't this elementary school stuff?
edit on 18-4-2014 by Rob48 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 04:27 AM
link   
a reply to: GallopingFish

What the hell has happened to common sense?




posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 04:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: GallopingFish
Infact is anyone out there considering that maybe inside a star something is happening that we don't know about??

There might be things we don't yet know about the Sun, but we do know that it's made up mostly of hydrogen, and its titanic mass creates so much gravity that the Sun's core is hot and dense enough to support thermonuclear fusion of hydrogen into helium, which would release immense amounts of energy.

We even created our own mini-suns, albeit briefly, by testing H-bombs.
edit on 18-4-2014 by wildespace because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 04:59 AM
link   
a reply to: GallopingFish

Thanks to you TIL something very interesting, nice work OP.

This reminds me of an idea I posted on here the other day that modern astronomic measures could be incorrect because over vast distances optical illusions and "evolving" constants of physics could affect our perception. Dark matter or anti-matter could do something like refract or magnify the light so in reality those stars could be much closer, distant, larger or smaller than they appear. Just an idea that maybe the universe is even more diverse than previously thought when it comes to matter, gravity, light and reactions in distant places.



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 05:00 AM
link   
How do you explain the Bat signal then?



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 05:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: GallopingFish

Does that not mean it has to bounce off matter?

If you shine a torch right in my eye I will see the light filament which is matter. In fact any earth created light will have matter in it or creating it.

What if there was no matter but still light??
Reply to: Phage



But light is made up both of waves and particles (matter). This matter is known as photons...has mass too...
So when we are looking at light, we are looking at matter. So if there was no matter, there is no light either.



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 05:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: GallopingFish
Apparently the sun cannot be seen by the visible spectrum in space!!

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



Like your retina, for example...





new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join