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: 30
40
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 09:35 AM
link   
a reply to: ignorant_ape

I never quite understood GaryN's claim that a human retina or a visible light camera CCD would would not be able to register EM radiation from the visible light spectrum falling upon them. I mean, why not?




posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 11:51 AM
link   
a reply to: ignorant_ape



same question - what is the source of the light in that pic special plead your way out of that



If nothing is visible from cislunar space, then the Earth is not visible from the Moon unless there is an atmosphere of some kind to make it visible. All the images of Earth are taken when it is low in the lunar sky, except for the Chang'e one with the dim Earth, and the one from A14 showing the bright crescent of Earth, which is from the glowing shell of neutral hydrogen around Earth that we saw from the FUVc camera.
history.nasa.gov...
Again it is the UV creating the light in the lunar atmosphere. There is more than just dust, there is argon, helium, neon too. Yes, very sparse, but without experiments nobody know just what effect they have on visibility. Obviously I can not get into space to test my theories, and if they won't let any other people test things in space, like telescopes or cameras looking away from Earth, then what chance do I have?
If Armstrong said it was black in Cislunar space, then it is up to NASA or anyone else to prove he was lying, and they won't and can't.



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 12:01 PM
link   
a reply to: GaryN

So you're just going to ignore everything else, come up with a claim you can't back up and then say it's NASA who won't do any experiments?

Troll much?



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 12:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: GaryN
All the images of Earth are taken when it is low in the lunar sky...


All? These weren't:

www.lpi.usra.edu...



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 01:38 PM
link   
a reply to: GaryN

wjen i said :


special plead your way out of that


i was being fooking sarcastic



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 09:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: GaryN
All the images of Earth are taken when it is low in the lunar sky, except for the Chang'e one with the dim Earth, and the one from A14 showing the bright crescent of Earth, which is from the glowing shell of neutral hydrogen around Earth that we saw from the FUVc camera.


if that is your theory to explain it.. do you realise what the sun is made of??

if apollo 14 can see the earth because of some glowing shell of hydrogen.. then we can see the sun AND stars in cislunar space (or anywhere without an atmosphere) because they are some glowing shell of hydrogen also.



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 10:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: GaryN
All the images of Earth are taken when it is low in the lunar sky, except for the Chang'e one with the dim Earth, and the one from A14 showing the bright crescent of Earth, which is from the glowing shell of neutral hydrogen around Earth that we saw from the FUVc camera.


if that is your theory to explain it.. do you realise what the sun is made of??

if apollo 14 can see the earth because of some glowing shell of hydrogen.. then we can see the sun AND stars in cislunar space (or anywhere without an atmosphere) because they are some glowing shell of hydrogen also.


I can't believe I actually missed that.

Many stars for you (in my head)



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 10:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Box of Rain




All? These weren't:


Weren't taken from the Moon, you mean?

@choos
(Can't use " for some reason)
"if apollo 14 can see the earth because of some glowing shell of hydrogen.. then we can see the sun AND stars in cislunar space (or anywhere without an atmosphere) because they are some glowing shell of hydrogen also."

No no no, you don't get the picture. Yes, the Sun puts out UV, and can be seen from the Moon by way of the lunar dust atmosphere. The Earth has the UV shell, seen as a crescent in the A14 image, so that shell is visible because the visible light is being created by that UV interacting with the lunar atmosphere. No atmosphere in cislunar space to convert that UV to visible light. You must have atmosphere of some sort to create visible light. Further out from Earth it is mostly electronic, meaning an electron is knocked off an atom, or gained. In the lower levels it is mostly from the fluorescence of molecules, and in the Moons case, the visible white light is created by UV interacting with tiny silica particles. I am NOT creating any new science here, these are all well known, documented effects. All I am doing is using known science to create the light around planets or moons and probably even around comets, rather than it being visible sunlight being reflected or refracted or scattered or whatever, by those atmospheres. The Solar Constant, ISN'T. It's a total con job, which means that most of astronomy is too.

@TerryDon79


I can't believe I actually missed that.


You didn't.



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 10:45 PM
link   
a reply to: GaryN

I don't suppose you have any sources to prove anything you just said about visible light?

Or is this just a theory from one?



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 05:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: GaryN

No no no, you don't get the picture. Yes, the Sun puts out UV, and can be seen from the Moon by way of the lunar dust atmosphere. The Earth has the UV shell, seen as a crescent in the A14 image, so that shell is visible because the visible light is being created by that UV interacting with the lunar atmosphere.


you were talking about hydrogen.. not ultra violet light.. and whats an ultra violet shell??

but anyway if i understand your explaination correct.

UV from the sun is interacting with the UV shell of earth (whatever that is) and those UV from the sun then bounce towards the moon in order to interact with the very very thin lunar dust (which isnt a UV shell) and is now visible??

so the UV shell of earth is not visible??


No atmosphere in cislunar space to convert that UV to visible light.


so the sun ONLY emits Ultra violet light it doesnt emit any visible light, infra red light, x rays or gamma rays?


You must have atmosphere of some sort to create visible light.


then it should be argument over..

because the Sun has an atmosphere of some sort.. which means stars also have their own atmosphere of some sort..


Further out from Earth it is mostly electronic, meaning an electron is knocked off an atom, or gained. In the lower levels it is mostly from the fluorescence of molecules, and in the Moons case, the visible white light is created by UV interacting with tiny silica particles.


so the visible white light ONLY interacts with the silica particles in the lunar atmosphere and NOT the silica particles on the lunar SURFACE??


I am NOT creating any new science here, these are all well known, documented effects. All I am doing is using known science to create the light around planets or moons and probably even around comets, rather than it being visible sunlight being reflected or refracted or scattered or whatever, by those atmospheres. The Solar Constant, ISN'T. It's a total con job, which means that most of astronomy is too.


you are contradicting yourself.. you are against the standard that light is being reflected or refracted or scattered..

but you claim light (UV) is being reflected or refracted or scattered by an atmosphere of some sort (thus becoming visible light) ONLY..

the problem here is that you think the sun and by extension stars dont have an atmosphere of some sort.. but they do.. which according to your belief, makes the sun and by extension the stars visible in cis-lunar space.



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 09:22 AM
link   
Right GaryN, there is clear evidence of all said by Armstrong and reinforced by Aldrin when he said at min 44:42 "I don't remember seeing any", just majority of people are too impressed by the apparent complexity of electromagnetic theory and the light association to it, to agree with Armstrong and with the fact that there is no visible light in the cislunar and deep space, and that what we call visible light is a byproduct of interaction of what is radiated by Sun and the Earth atmosphere. Or to quote somehow the wildespace; "the evidence of absence is not the absence of evidence."



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 09:33 AM
link   
a reply to: sadang


...the fact that there is no visible light in the cislunar and deep space, and that what we call visible light is a byproduct of interaction of what is radiated by Sun and the Earth atmosphere.

Explain this please
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I don't care if it's the Sun or light bulbs, how is it visible with no atmosphere?



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 12:02 PM
link   
a reply to: DenyObfuscation


I don't care if it's the Sun or light bulbs, how is it visible with no atmosphere?


The EVA light creates the kind of light we are familiar with on Earth, which can travel through a vacuum, and falls off with the inverse square law. If UV or higher energy solar radiation interacts with matter and creates visible light, then that light is the same type as the light bulb creates, and also will travel through vacuum and fall of with the inverse square law too.
UV and higher energy solar radiation DOES NOT fall of with the inverse square law, it becomes self focusing and will travel almost for ever with very little loss of energy, which means that any object out there, if it has an atmosphere, can have light. This is why Pluto at some wavelengths was was found to be brighter than calculations using the Solar Constant had predicted. It also explains the very high albedo figures of some planets and moons, as again they work from the idea of a solar constant to calculate the light level at the object to determine its albedo, but if light is being created IN the objects atmosphere, then albedo figures are meaningless, the light is NOT reflected light.
I'm in the process of creating a web page, The Sun and Light, where I will try to explain the model better, with links to all the science involved so you can see I am not making up that science. As information gets buried in these long threads and is time consuming to look through, it should also save me having to repeat and repeat the same explanations.



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 12:16 PM
link   
a reply to: GaryN

WTF ????????????????

you are just making this up - ad - hoc all the way .



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 12:18 PM
link   
a reply to: GaryN

So all of this and the other site you posted on wasn't about finding answers. It was about finding enough (false) information for you to create a website.

All I've got to say is this....

Bad troll! Bad!!



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 03:00 PM
link   
Good work GaryN. You said something very important in your last message for someone with an open mind, but it seems that very few are here to really find answers, mostly just bla bla bla. Hope to see soon online your website.
edit on 27-2-2016 by sadang because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 03:46 PM
link   
a reply to: sadang
Have you ever noticed how a blacklight will brighten up a room due to the UV interacting with the atmosphere, creating visible light? Doesn't happen.



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 08:16 PM
link   
Doesnt the hubble kinda debunk this title it takes photos of stars, while in space? reply to: cooperton



posted on Feb, 27 2016 @ 10:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: jgmara
Doesnt the hubble kinda debunk this title it takes photos of stars, while in space? reply to: cooperton


According to GaryN,

Hubble has to use prisms, gratings, phase plates and a whole lot of algorithms and computing power to 'see' the stars.

Which is complete bull***t, of course. It's just a telescope with a digital sensor.

GaryN seems to just throw these terms around without even knowing what they mean, especially in his remarks about wavefronts and wavefront sensors.
edit on 27-2-2016 by wildespace because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2016 @ 02:14 AM
link   
As if thermosphere is the same as cislunar space. As if 400Km is the same as 400000Km. Is so hard to understand the difference between the two?



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join