It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Stars Can't Be Seen from Outer Space

page: 28
40
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 23 2016 @ 09:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: GaryN

So, to sum up your "idea", all of known science about light, heat, radiation, stars, the sun and space are wrong?


Yeah. ..After reading his last post..im not replying to him anymore. He MUST be trolling us. I can't say why otherwise because my post will be removed..but he has got to be trolling.




posted on Feb, 23 2016 @ 10:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: GaryN

So, to sum up your "idea", all of known science about light, heat, radiation, stars, the sun and space are wrong?


Yeah. ..After reading his last post..im not replying to him anymore. He MUST be trolling us. I can't say why otherwise because my post will be removed..but he has got to be trolling.


I'm thinking the same. Page after page he's been shown that stars (therefore the Sun) has been photographed on more than one occasion. Then comes out with that last "idea"? I mean, what the hell?!



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 01:23 AM
link   
I'm here to support GaryN in his titanic try to find an answer, and to confirm according to my knowledge and understanding that what we call light can no be seen from outer space by human eyes. Too many just write here, without asking about the fundamental bricks of their own so called "scientific" convictions.

Stars Can't Be Seen from Outer Space:
- with human eyes
- as what we define on Earth as visible light
- because deep space has nothing similar to what we define on Earth as magnetosphere



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 03:14 AM
link   
a reply to: sadang

Yeah, and don't forget the Flat Earth!
Man, this thread really lets me wonder about the standards of education of some members.


On one side we have a solid, falsified, massively interlinked build of science.

On the other side we have some "theory" telling us that neither fission, nor fusion, nor bandgap in semiconductors or anything related was understood correctly - please step away from your magic computer machine, which works just with a lot of these thingamajigs!



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 06:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: sadang
I'm here to support GaryN in his titanic try to find an answer, and to confirm according to my knowledge and understanding that what we call light can no be seen from outer space by human eyes. Too many just write here, without asking about the fundamental bricks of their own so called "scientific" convictions.

Stars Can't Be Seen from Outer Space:
- with human eyes
- as what we define on Earth as visible light
- because deep space has nothing similar to what we define on Earth as magnetosphere


Says the member with exactly one post. Could you explain why you hold this belief with exactly one other person in the world?



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 07:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: sadang
I'm here to support GaryN in his titanic try to find an answer, and to confirm according to my knowledge and understanding that what we call light can no be seen from outer space by human eyes. Too many just write here, without asking about the fundamental bricks of their own so called "scientific" convictions.

Stars Can't Be Seen from Outer Space:
- with human eyes
- as what we define on Earth as visible light
- because deep space has nothing similar to what we define on Earth as magnetosphere


Well...i studied physics for 3 years at university. Granted it was a while ago, but im pretty sure I understand how electromagnetic waves propagate in space. And I assure you GaryN is talking nonsense.

There is no quest for answers here...If GaryN is right then accepted physics is wrong in this case..which it clearly isn't since we have 26 pages of proof.

This is something that really grates about ATS. People challenging accepted and proven physics...but only with ideas. No proof or maths given. Science revolves around maths. By all means, challenge the scientific establishment, but unless you are going to "show your working"...i and most other who understand how science works, won't take you seriously.

Science isn't just coming up with a nice sounding idea. Deal with it.
edit on 24-2-2016 by 3danimator2014 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 07:46 AM
link   


- because deep space has nothing similar to what we define on Earth as magnetosphere


Given that area is not limited to the Earth's surface or atmosphere, why wouldn't stars be visible near the earth outside of the atmosphere?



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 08:03 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

to be pedantic - we dont actually know the true level of batcrap crazy anti-science delusions " out there "

so for the time being :

our new sock puppet --- oops member shares this delusion with just one other contributer to this thread



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 08:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: GaryN
a reply to: 3danimator2014


Even when it says it was captured in visible light you have an excuse


Here's the raw image, it lists CL1 and CL2.
saturn.jpl.nasa.gov...



Here is the filter wheel list for both cameras.

The Narrow Angle camera has 12 filters per wheel.

Filter Wheel 1
CL1 Clear
RED Red
BL1 Blue band 1
UV2 Ultraviolet band 2
UV1 Ultraviolet band 1
IRP0 Infrared 0º polarizer
P120 120º polarizer
P60 60º polarizer
P0 0º polarizer
HAL Hydrogen Alpha
IR4 Infrared band 4
IR2 Infrared band 2

Filter Wheel 2
CL2 Clear
GRN Green
UV3 Ultraviolet band 3
BL2 Blue band 2
MT2 Methane band 2
CB2 Continuum band 2
MT3 Methane band 3
CB3 Continuum band 3
MT1 Methane band 1
CB1 Continuum band 1
IR3 Infrared band 3
IR1 Infrared band 1

The Wide Angle camera has nine filters per wheel.


Filter Wheel 1
CL1 Clear
IR3 Infrared band 3
IR4 Infrared band 4
IR5 Infrared band 5
CB3 Continuum band 3
MT3 Methane band 3
CB2 Continuum band 2
MT2 Methane band 2
IR2 Infrared band 2

Filter Wheel 2
CL2 Clear
RED Red
GRN Green
BL1 Blue band 1
VIO Violet
HAL Hydrogen Alpha
IRP90 Infrared 90º polarizer
IRP0 Infrared 0º polarizer
IR1 Infrared band 1

So the raw image was taken through cl1 & cl2 so NO filtration so VISIBLE LIGHT thanks for the confirmation



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 08:57 AM
link   
a reply to: wmd_2008

Wow. I had no idea they has so many filters. Thanks for the info.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 12:49 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79




So, to sum up your "idea", all of known science about light, heat, radiation, stars, the sun and space are wrong?


In space, yes. The tests to prove my "idea" are simple, no mathematical skills (3danimator2014) necessary to take a camera on an ISS EVA and take a decent picture of the Sun while looking AWAY from the Earth. Never been done, NASA will not give the EVA astronauts even a couple of minutes to look into deep space and describe what they see, describe the Sun, the visibility of the planets or stars. Those who have sneaked a peek say it is totally black when looking AWAY from Earth, but that stars are visible when looking around the rim of the Earth. and can be photographed from the Cupola too. So Hadfield did not lie, stars can be seen from space, and also can NOT, depending on which way they are looking. Lets see an A7S video the stars in real time like it can from Earth when looking AWAY from Earth, into the void. Lets hear a good reason why the Apollo astronauts never took a picture of ANYTHING from cislunar space when they had nothing much else to do for 3 days in space. What DID they do for 3 days, each way??
The Moon is the clue to it all, and the reason they distract the masses with talk of a manned Mars mission, which will never happen. They can not ever allow civilians to go to the Moon, as they would soon be asking why they could not see the stars or planets. The military crews just say nothing, apart from Armstrong, who told the truth but is still not believed, and NASA never explained scientifically why he couldn't see them. It is only the opinion of people who were never there that "the sun was in his eyes, the moon surface was too bright, visor too dark" etc. Armstrong NEVER made any excuses, and there are no excuses for not seeing, or photographing, stars in cislunar space when they were in total blackout for hours sometimes, and must have fully dark adapted.
The images available from Chang'e 3 tell the facts about the extremely strange lighting conditions on the Moon, and the lack of any pictures of the stars is not because the cameras were not designed to do simple astrophotography, it is because there is nothing to see even if they tried the longest possible exposure times. Venus should show up with long exposure, it is so bright in UV that it has the energy to produce visible light by the now accepted process of UV interaction with the fine lunar dust atmosphere. LADEE has confirmed the process, but now you don't want to accept that science?



I'm here to support GaryN


Wow, thanks sadang! I think the only reason I keep banging my head against the wall with the NASA worshippers here, (or maybe paid disinfo agents, never know who's who on the Internet, and especially sites like ATS) is that I keep believing there must be at least one or two people out there who can see, or begin to see, through the deceptions NASA has used to hide the facts about the total blackness of deep space. Once suspicions are raised, then by examining the evidence, or lack of, more closely it becomes obvious, or should, that something is very much amiss with the whole affair.
I am not saying I understand all the processes involved, nobody even knows what light really is, but I do understand enough to realise that the present models do not hold up under close examination.

wmd_2008



So the raw image was taken through cl1 & cl2 so NO filtration so VISIBLE LIGHT thanks for the confirmation


You really don't understand do you? No filtration, correct, but the sensor can detect well into the IR, so if there is IR you will get an image. If there is visible light AND IR then how do you know if it is visible light or IR being imaged? You don't. So to get just RGB, you use filters which block IR and pass only R or G or B. So find pictures that show JUST visible wavelengths. And the exposure times please.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 12:53 PM
link   
a reply to: GaryN

I guess you really are a troll.

A sensor is not the same thing that takes the photograph. It's not brain surgery. Your ignorance is bewildering.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 01:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: GaryN
a reply to: TerryDon79




So, to sum up your "idea", all of known science about light, heat, radiation, stars, the sun and space are wrong?


In space, yes. The tests to prove my "idea" are simple, no mathematical skills (3danimator2014) necessary to take a camera on an ISS EVA and take a decent picture of the Sun while looking AWAY from the Earth. Never been done, NASA will not give the EVA astronauts even a couple of minutes to look into deep space and describe what they see, describe the Sun, the visibility of the planets or stars. Those who have sneaked a peek say it is totally black when looking AWAY from Earth, but that stars are visible when looking around the rim of the Earth. and can be photographed from the Cupola too. So Hadfield did not lie, stars can be seen from space, and also can NOT, depending on which way they are looking. Lets see an A7S video the stars in real time like it can from Earth when looking AWAY from Earth, into the void. Lets hear a good reason why the Apollo astronauts never took a picture of ANYTHING from cislunar space when they had nothing much else to do for 3 days in space. What DID they do for 3 days, each way??
The Moon is the clue to it all, and the reason they distract the masses with talk of a manned Mars mission, which will never happen. They can not ever allow civilians to go to the Moon, as they would soon be asking why they could not see the stars or planets. The military crews just say nothing, apart from Armstrong, who told the truth but is still not believed, and NASA never explained scientifically why he couldn't see them. It is only the opinion of people who were never there that "the sun was in his eyes, the moon surface was too bright, visor too dark" etc. Armstrong NEVER made any excuses, and there are no excuses for not seeing, or photographing, stars in cislunar space when they were in total blackout for hours sometimes, and must have fully dark adapted.
The images available from Chang'e 3 tell the facts about the extremely strange lighting conditions on the Moon, and the lack of any pictures of the stars is not because the cameras were not designed to do simple astrophotography, it is because there is nothing to see even if they tried the longest possible exposure times. Venus should show up with long exposure, it is so bright in UV that it has the energy to produce visible light by the now accepted process of UV interaction with the fine lunar dust atmosphere. LADEE has confirmed the process, but now you don't want to accept that science?



I'm here to support GaryN


Wow, thanks sadang! I think the only reason I keep banging my head against the wall with the NASA worshippers here, (or maybe paid disinfo agents, never know who's who on the Internet, and especially sites like ATS) is that I keep believing there must be at least one or two people out there who can see, or begin to see, through the deceptions NASA has used to hide the facts about the total blackness of deep space. Once suspicions are raised, then by examining the evidence, or lack of, more closely it becomes obvious, or should, that something is very much amiss with the whole affair.
I am not saying I understand all the processes involved, nobody even knows what light really is, but I do understand enough to realise that the present models do not hold up under close examination.

wmd_2008



So the raw image was taken through cl1 & cl2 so NO filtration so VISIBLE LIGHT thanks for the confirmation


You really don't understand do you? No filtration, correct, but the sensor can detect well into the IR, so if there is IR you will get an image. If there is visible light AND IR then how do you know if it is visible light or IR being imaged? You don't. So to get just RGB, you use filters which block IR and pass only R or G or B. So find pictures that show JUST visible wavelengths. And the exposure times please.



Sorry mate..i didnt read your while reply. But why on earth would astronauts who have every minute of their time allocated to some task waste tame on Mr GaryN's theories.. your ideas are ludicrous. That's like asking professional hunters to hunt for pink rhinos...After all they never looked.

I know the analogy is not 100% spot on..but im making a point.

You have to be able to show us that your theory holds water without someone else's help otherwise that tells us that you are in no position to be making these kinds of theories.

That's why on the real world, my mother and father don't offer up theories on neuritino spin. Because their theories are irrelevant unless they can't show some working (maths)

And if you are planning on saying that Pete Higgs postulated the boson named after him 60 years before it was found and he needed thousands of particle physicists help to find it for him...you would be right.
But you can be sure that he mapped it all out for them. In maths. Where to look.

You have given us nothing. Just an "idea" you have, no science to back anything up and then you demand that the busy few astronauts up there humour you, otherwise somwhow that means you are right?


No no no no no. Sorry


edit on 24-2-2016 by 3danimator2014 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 03:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: GaryN

In space, yes. The tests to prove my "idea" are simple, no mathematical skills (3danimator2014) necessary to take a camera on an ISS EVA and take a decent picture of the Sun while looking AWAY from the Earth. Never been done, NASA will not give the EVA astronauts even a couple of minutes to look into deep space and describe what they see, describe the Sun, the visibility of the planets or stars. Those who have sneaked a peek say it is totally black when looking AWAY from Earth, but that stars are visible when looking around the rim of the Earth. and can be photographed from the Cupola too. So Hadfield did not lie, stars can be seen from space, and also can NOT, depending on which way they are looking. Lets see an A7S video the stars in real time like it can from Earth when looking AWAY from Earth, into the void. Lets hear a good reason why the Apollo astronauts never took a picture of ANYTHING from cislunar space when they had nothing much else to do for 3 days in space. What DID they do for 3 days, each way??
The Moon is the clue to it all, and the reason they distract the masses with talk of a manned Mars mission, which will never happen. They can not ever allow civilians to go to the Moon, as they would soon be asking why they could not see the stars or planets. The military crews just say nothing, apart from Armstrong, who told the truth but is still not believed, and NASA never explained scientifically why he couldn't see them. It is only the opinion of people who were never there that "the sun was in his eyes, the moon surface was too bright, visor too dark" etc. Armstrong NEVER made any excuses, and there are no excuses for not seeing, or photographing, stars in cislunar space when they were in total blackout for hours sometimes, and must have fully dark adapted.
The images available from Chang'e 3 tell the facts about the extremely strange lighting conditions on the Moon, and the lack of any pictures of the stars is not because the cameras were not designed to do simple astrophotography, it is because there is nothing to see even if they tried the longest possible exposure times. Venus should show up with long exposure, it is so bright in UV that it has the energy to produce visible light by the now accepted process of UV interaction with the fine lunar dust atmosphere. LADEE has confirmed the process, but now you don't want to accept that science?



Bravo sir for battling the army of parrots and keeping your cool. If anyone can give a logical rebuttal to Gary's quote here^, I am all ears. If not, Stop spewing erroneous insults.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 05:20 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

one simple question - where do you think the light in this :



photograph comes from ?



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 05:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: cooperton

one simple question - where do you think the light in this :



photograph comes from ?


Well duh!

It's god holding a flashlight.



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 01:26 AM
link   
It's not just about NASA agency, it is about the principle and values with which NASA works. A brief incursion in its history, both the official and that gossiped on corners, would give anyone reason to doubt on its activity. Or as you said in a previous message, people with real interest (not only mimetic) in understanding, should first care about what does NASA don't tell and show, and most important; why!

No one can accept the space as something total black without starting to ask yourself about the fundamental bricks of his own being. It is an instinctive reaction of not accepting that, reaction caused by religious education on the one hand and the scientific on the other hand. Fear of the dark is subconsciously associated with fear of death, fear which shapes consciences for thousands of years on this planet.

The space is completely dark for human eyes, even our Sun so bright seen from Earth is completely dark seen from the outer space, or from cislunar space. Of course all these thinking in conventional terms of what we define as light and dark, which doesn't mean the Universe should obey its structure and manifestation to our limited knowledge and understanding.

And as a general rule, thinking the entire Universe, known and mostly unknown, works according to the concepts we define here on Earth, in this specific medium and conditions, is not a sign of great wisdom. Just a sign of great and immediate interest to shape a specific reality.



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 01:45 AM
link   
a reply to: sadang

You do see the photo 2 posts above yours and also quoted in mine which is one above yours, right?

You see that big lighty, shiney thingy?

You do? That's great!!!

It's called the Sun.

The Sun also happens to be, wait for it, a star! OMG a STAR!

So, can stars be seen from outer space or is it just black?

I'll let you think about that for a moment.
edit on 254525/2/1616 by TerryDon79 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 01:58 AM
link   
a reply to: GaryN

I re-read this thread from page 1. Guess what there was on the first page?

A PHOTO OF STARS TAKEN FROM THE ISS

Here's a link to the NASA page where the photo is. LINK

ETA Is star light couldn't be seen from space, how exactly would the astronaut hrs have pictures of the moon they're heading towards, standing on and departing? The moon is lit by the Sun after all. The Sun being a star would make that light star light.
edit on 250425/2/1616 by TerryDon79 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 02:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: GaryN

You really don't understand do you? No filtration, correct, but the sensor can detect well into the IR, so if there is IR you will get an image. If there is visible light AND IR then how do you know if it is visible light or IR being imaged? You don't. So to get just RGB, you use filters which block IR and pass only R or G or B. So find pictures that show JUST visible wavelengths. And the exposure times please.



in your opinion what is the major difference between visible light and IR?

why can we see visible light but not IR.



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join