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: 29
40
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 02:41 AM
link   
a reply to: GaryN

I know a LOT more about photography/the equipment than YOU since I bought my first SLR 35+ years ago will be on later when home from work.




posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 03:14 AM
link   
How possibly that a thread goes for so long about a simple problem of sensor dynamic range?

It tell a lot !!!



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 04:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: PeterMcFly
How possibly that a thread goes for so long about a simple problem of sensor dynamic range?

It tell a lot !!!

Pfft, that's nothing. You're welcome to check out the 51-page "sister thread" at thunderbolts.info... where GaryN is pushing the same idea, despite realms of evidence to the contrary posted there in responce.



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 04:33 AM
link   
a reply to: wildespace



Pfft, that's nothing. You're welcome to check out the 51-page "sister thread" at thunderbolts.info... where GaryN is pushing the same idea, despite realms of evidence to the contrary posted there in responce.


LOL, you probably don't even know what is dynamic range of a sensor. LOL ...



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 08:47 AM
link   
Having read through this thread it seems to me that GaryN is suggesting, in its simplest form, that the electromagnetic radiation emitted from stars is only "shifted" into the part of the spectrum that is visible to the naked, human eye when it passes through a planetary atmosphere.

Correct me if I have misunderstood, GaryN?

Despite the ridicule, if we assume an empirical standpoint, this is a fair hypothesis.

It is also, as far as I can see, quite easy to test.

We have devices on Earth capable of emitting electromagnetic radiation at a vast range of frequencies. All we need do is firstly, look at each source through a vacuum tube to see how they look through a vacuum. Then fill the vacuum tube with the components of a planetary atmosphere and repeat the experiment to see which wavelengths, if any, get shifted into the visible part of the spectrum.

Seems pretty straightforward. Should be possible in a college/uni lab.
edit on 25-2-2016 by ComplexCassandra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 08:50 AM
link   
a reply to: ComplexCassandra

Apart from the fact that the sun reflects off of other objects (Apollo craft, ISS, the moon, astronauts) while they're in space?

But no visible light from stars in space, right?



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 08:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: ComplexCassandra

Apart from the fact that the sun reflects off of other objects (Apollo craft, ISS, the moon, astronauts) while they're in space?

But no visible light from stars in space, right?


Get down off that high horse and stop jumping to conclusions.

I know what the results will be. You know what the results will be. Most of the people here know what the results will be.

I was proposing a way whereby, short of hitching a ride into space, GaryN could test his hypothesis. It seems he won't realise his misunderstanding until he sees the evidence for himself.

ETA: Besides, his theory is not entirely preposterous but rather based on bits of poorly understood (on his part) science.

We know, for example, that the Earth's atmosphere reacts with different wavelengths of light in differing ways. Trapping IR as heat, for example.

edit on 25-2-2016 by ComplexCassandra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 08:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: ComplexCassandra
Having read through this thread it seems to me that GaryN is suggesting, in its simplest form, that the electromagnetic radiation emitted from stars is only "shifted" into the part of the spectrum that is visible to the naked, human eye when it passes through a planetary atmosphere.

Correct me if I have misunderstood, GaryN?

Despite the ridicule, if we assume an empirical standpoint, this is a fair hypothesis.

It is also, as far as I can see, quite easy to test.

We have devices on Earth capable of emitting electromagnetic radiation at a vast range of frequencies. All we need do is firstly, look at each source through a vacuum tube to see how they look through a vacuum. Then fill the vacuum tube with the components of a planetary atmosphere and repeat the experiment to see which frequencies, if any, get shifted into the visible part of the spectrum.

Seems pretty straightforward. Should be possible in a college/uni lab.


No it is not a fair hypothesis. You can't just come up with "ideas". You have to be able to back up what you are suggesting if you want people to listen. Especially if you wasn't people who understand physics to listen.

If you can't do some basic maths and explain HOW what you are suggesting would work then you have no place coming up with theories. This isn't how science works...

Physicists don't just say " heyyyyy.....what if photons are L shaped particles? Well that my theory...prove me wrong."

We will ALL in this thread listen to GaryN and take him seriously if he could put any weight at all on his ideas. But he can't. Are my parents thoughts on the Higgs field to be taken seriously? No, what they think is irrelevant.



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 09:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: ComplexCassandra
Having read through this thread it seems to me that GaryN is suggesting, in its simplest form, that the electromagnetic radiation emitted from stars is only "shifted" into the part of the spectrum that is visible to the naked, human eye when it passes through a planetary atmosphere.

Correct me if I have misunderstood, GaryN?

Despite the ridicule, if we assume an empirical standpoint, this is a fair hypothesis.

It is also, as far as I can see, quite easy to test.

We have devices on Earth capable of emitting electromagnetic radiation at a vast range of frequencies. All we need do is firstly, look at each source through a vacuum tube to see how they look through a vacuum. Then fill the vacuum tube with the components of a planetary atmosphere and repeat the experiment to see which frequencies, if any, get shifted into the visible part of the spectrum.

Seems pretty straightforward. Should be possible in a college/uni lab.


No it is not a fair hypothesis. You can't just come up with "ideas". You have to be able to back up what you are suggesting if you want people to listen. Especially if you wasn't people who understand physics to listen.

If you can't do some basic maths and explain HOW what you are suggesting would work then you have no place coming up with theories. This isn't how science works...

Physicists don't just say " heyyyyy.....what if photons are L shaped particles? Well that my theory...prove me wrong."

We will ALL in this thread listen to GaryN and take him seriously if he could put any weight at all on his ideas. But he can't. Are my parents thoughts on the Higgs field to be taken seriously? No, what they think is irrelevant.


Which is precisely why I suggested a way in which GaryN could test his hypothesis.

Think of it this way.

Cast your mind back to your early science lessons. Remember all those basic practical experiments you did. The teacher would state a scientific fact and then you would do a little experiment devised to PROVE that fact?

It wasn't groundbreaking science. It was designed to show you that you didn't have to take things on faith, as it were, but rather could find ways to test it for yourself.

GaryN has shown repeatedly that he refuses to take things "on faith" - he has, if you will, adopted the empiricist viewpoint.

I have merely suggested a way that he can test his hypothesis empirically with the hope of putting this argument to bed.

Just as our science teachers knew what would happen when we put a lighted splint in a test-tube full of hydrogen we all know what the results of the proposed experiment will be. However, GaryN will not believe any of us unless he sees for himself. So I came up with a very simple experiment designed to test his hypothesis.

Sorry, my bad.
edit on 25-2-2016 by ComplexCassandra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 09:22 AM
link   
a reply to: ComplexCassandra

But he won't. He's been offered a mountain of proof and ignores it or changes what proof he requires.

As stated earlier, he's up to 51 pages of the same bs on another site. There was also plenty of proof showed to him there.

I believe he's done it on more than this and that other site too.

Trolls. Can't reason with them. Can't shoot them with a cannon.



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 09:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: ComplexCassandra

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: ComplexCassandra
Having read through this thread it seems to me that GaryN is suggesting, in its simplest form, that the electromagnetic radiation emitted from stars is only "shifted" into the part of the spectrum that is visible to the naked, human eye when it passes through a planetary atmosphere.

Correct me if I have misunderstood, GaryN?

Despite the ridicule, if we assume an empirical standpoint, this is a fair hypothesis.

It is also, as far as I can see, quite easy to test.

We have devices on Earth capable of emitting electromagnetic radiation at a vast range of frequencies. All we need do is firstly, look at each source through a vacuum tube to see how they look through a vacuum. Then fill the vacuum tube with the components of a planetary atmosphere and repeat the experiment to see which frequencies, if any, get shifted into the visible part of the spectrum.

Seems pretty straightforward. Should be possible in a college/uni lab.


No it is not a fair hypothesis. You can't just come up with "ideas". You have to be able to back up what you are suggesting if you want people to listen. Especially if you wasn't people who understand physics to listen.

If you can't do some basic maths and explain HOW what you are suggesting would work then you have no place coming up with theories. This isn't how science works...

Physicists don't just say " heyyyyy.....what if photons are L shaped particles? Well that my theory...prove me wrong."

We will ALL in this thread listen to GaryN and take him seriously if he could put any weight at all on his ideas. But he can't. Are my parents thoughts on the Higgs field to be taken seriously? No, what they think is irrelevant.


Which is precisely why I suggested a way in which GaryN could test his hypothesis.

Think of it this way.

Cast your mind back to your early science lessons. Remember all those basic practical experiments you did. The teacher would state a scientific fact and then you would do a little experiment devised to PROVE that fact?

It wasn't groundbreaking science. It was designed to show you that you didn't have to take things on faith, as it were, but rather could find ways to test it for yourself.

GaryN has shown repeatedly that he refuses to take things "on faith" - he has, if you will, adopted the empiricist viewpoint.

I have merely suggested a way that he can test his hypothesis empirically with the hope of putting this argument to bed.

Just as our science teachers knew what would happen when we put a lighted splint in a test-tube full of hydrogen we all know what the results of the proposed experiment will be. However, GaryN will not believe any of us unless he sees for himself. So I came up with a very simple experiment designed to test his hypothesis.

Sorry, my bad.


Sorry, my mistake. I thought you meant it would be easy for scientists to tests GaryN theory. If you meant that he can do it himself then you are totally right... but as someone beat me to say..He won't.



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 01:18 PM
link   
a reply to: ignorant_ape




one simple question - where do you think the light in this : photograph comes from ?


Another simple question: Why is the Sun so large and diffuse in that image? The Sun should be a well defined disk about 1/4 inch or less in the image. LADEE gave us the answer, it is the fine atmospheric dust that both creates and then diffuses the light. Without the dust, the Sun would not be visible, which is why it is not visible from cislunar space. Good rule of thumb with the Apollo crews, when they could see something, they took a photo. When they couldn't they didn't. Pretty simple I'd say.
Here's a nice colour image from the DAC:
images.jsc.nasa.gov...
Will all Apollo images you never actually see the Sun come out from behind the Earth or Moon, you only see the light created by the otherwise invisible solar radiation interacting with the atmosphere. That creates the visible light our eyes, or the camera, can detect. If the Sun was visible in cislunar space, they would have taken a picture of it.

TerryDon79




I re-read this thread from page 1. Guess what there was on the first page? A PHOTO OF STARS TAKEN FROM THE ISS


That image was taken from inside the ISS, so is not looking out into space, it is looking through Earths atmosphere. Here's a Saturday Morning Science youtube video explaining they take long exposures from inside the ISS. They won't allow a camera outside the ISS, looking away from Earth. People have tried, NASA won't cooperate.
www.youtube.com...

wmd_2008



I know a LOT more about photography/the equipment than YOU since I bought my first SLR 35+ years ago will be on later when home from work.


I doubt that. I got started in 1968, tutored by an ex RAF aerial photography technician. I was familiar with dioptres waaaay back!

ComplexCassandra




Having read through this thread it seems to me that GaryN is suggesting, in its simplest form, that the electromagnetic radiation emitted from stars is only "shifted" into the part of the spectrum that is visible to the naked, human eye when it passes through a planetary atmosphere. Correct me if I have misunderstood, GaryN?


You are correct so far.




It is also, as far as I can see, quite easy to test.


The easiest way is to do the experiments in space.




We have devices on Earth capable of emitting electromagnetic radiation at a vast range of frequencies.


It's not just the frequency, it is the type of light, the EM configuration of the radiation packet. Perhaps calling the radiation from the Sun a more magnetic light, and the light created by the interaction of magnetic light with matter an electric light? Then there is the wavefront, so even with light of the frequency our eyes can see, the simple lenses of our eyes or a regular camera can not focus it, which is why Hubble has to use prisms, gratings, phase plates and a whole lot of algorithms and computing power to 'see' the stars. Putting a regular camera at the focal plane of a regular telescope in space won't work, and again NASA will not allow it to be tried.

3danimator2014



If you can't do some basic maths


Screw the maths, do the experiments, out in space! The universe is not maths, and that is the main problem with astronomy and physics nowadays, it has been taken over by mathematicians! Like black holes and neutron stars, all mathematical creations which do not exist in reality, and can never be proven to. Astronomy meets all the definitions of a pseudoscience.

3danimator2014




Sorry, my mistake. I thought you meant it would be easy for scientists to tests GaryN theory. If you meant that he can do it himself then you are totally right... but as someone beat me to say..He won't.


It is already proven that you can not see EUV or UV, so if the light in space is really all at higher energies then we know you couldn't see it. With light of the frequencies our eyes can see, it still does not mean your eyes can see it, they can only detect simple wavefronts.
Wavefront sensor
en.wikipedia.org...

The only way to know what is visible in deep space is to ask someone who has been there. Armstrong told us, why can't you believe him?

And how are your skills in lighting 3danimator2014? I have been looking at the Chang'e 3 images that Emily Lakdawalla has put on planetary.org, and I think there is enough info there to be able to test some lighting models. I will do it in 3DStudio, what do you use? This image shows that the light source is diffuse,

planetary.s3.amazonaws.com...
The stones are in focus, but the edges of the camera shadow are not sharp and clean as they would be with a Sun that was a well defined, small disk.

Fun with a new data set: Chang'e 3 lander and Yutu rover camera data
www.planetary.org...



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 01:32 PM
link   
a reply to: GaryN

thank you for utterly failing to have any grasp of science - it seems an " easier " image is required :



same question - what is the source of the light in that pic

special plead your way out of that



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 01:42 PM
link   
a reply to: GaryN

So, in conclusion, whatever evidence is provided you will just dismiss it as it doesn't fit with your rediculous hypothesis.

Thanks for the heads up.



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 05:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: GaryN

thank you for utterly failing to have any grasp of science - it seems an " easier " image is required :



same question - what is the source of the light in that pic

special plead your way out of that

From what I gather of GaryN's explanations, it's the lunar dust suspended above the lunar surface. If so, I'm surprised anything is visible in that photo, there must be heaps of dust up there to create so much light.



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 05:28 PM
link   
a reply to: GaryN


No it does NOT, it shows the CSM lit by the EVA light put there exactly for the purpose of retrieving the canisters.

How is the light visible without atmosphere in cislunar space?



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 06:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: wildespace

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: GaryN

thank you for utterly failing to have any grasp of science - it seems an " easier " image is required :





same question - what is the source of the light in that pic

special plead your way out of that

From what I gather of GaryN's explanations, it's the lunar dust suspended above the lunar surface. If so, I'm surprised anything is visible in that photo, there must be heaps of dust up there to create so much light.


Yes...that is what he is suggesting.. He also doesnt explain how far into space this magical property of earth's atmosphere extends.

Which takes me back to my comment that no one should make scientific claims without being able to back them up ...With science.

Otherwise I might suggest that the moon has a very thin atmosphere made of nano particles of iridium. It would SO easy for NASA to disprove this. ..but they don't!
edit on 25-2-2016 by 3danimator2014 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2016 @ 06:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: wildespace

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: GaryN

thank you for utterly failing to have any grasp of science - it seems an " easier " image is required :





same question - what is the source of the light in that pic

special plead your way out of that

From what I gather of GaryN's explanations, it's the lunar dust suspended above the lunar surface. If so, I'm surprised anything is visible in that photo, there must be heaps of dust up there to create so much light.


Yes...that is what he is suggesting.. He also doesnt explain how far into space this magical property of earth's atmosphere extends.

Which takes me back to my comment that no one should make scientific claims without being able to back them up ...With science.

Otherwise I might suggest that the moon has a very thin atmosphere made of nano particles of iridium. It would SO easy for NASA to disprove this. ..but they don't!


And they could test what type of cheese it was made from.

I know they have the technology so why won't they test it?



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 04:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: wildespace

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: GaryN

thank you for utterly failing to have any grasp of science - it seems an " easier " image is required :





same question - what is the source of the light in that pic

special plead your way out of that

From what I gather of GaryN's explanations, it's the lunar dust suspended above the lunar surface. If so, I'm surprised anything is visible in that photo, there must be heaps of dust up there to create so much light.


Yes...that is what he is suggesting.. He also doesnt explain how far into space this magical property of earth's atmosphere extends.

Which takes me back to my comment that no one should make scientific claims without being able to back them up ...With science.

Otherwise I might suggest that the moon has a very thin atmosphere made of nano particles of iridium. It would SO easy for NASA to disprove this. ..but they don't!

The burden of proof is on the person making the claim.


So, as much as I like alternative theories and engaging in a debate, I've been thoroughly disappointed that GaryN's only proof (or defence) is that, as he claims, there are no photos of stars or Sun from outside an atmosphere. Even if there weren't any, abscence of evidence is not the evidence of abscence.


edit on 26-2-2016 by wildespace because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 05:08 AM
link   
a reply to: wildespace

the problem is that " garyn " will not // cannot accept that ANY photograph taken outside an atmosphere that captures visible light . utterly demolishes his pet claim



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join