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.
originally posted by: GaryN
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...
originally posted by: Box of Rain
originally posted by: GaryN
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...
Do you have any science that backs this up? All point-source EM radiation follows the inverse-square law, whether it be microwaves, infrared, visible light, ultraviolet, or X-rays.
If you had any credible research that shows that UV radiation does not follow the inverse-square law, that research would be new to me.
originally posted by: wildespace
originally posted by: Box of Rain
originally posted by: GaryN
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...
Do you have any science that backs this up? All point-source EM radiation follows the inverse-square law, whether it be microwaves, infrared, visible light, ultraviolet, or X-rays.
If you had any credible research that shows that UV radiation does not follow the inverse-square law, that research would be new to me.
And it would also mean that the UV and gamma radiation from massive stars, neutron stars, black holes, and supernovae in our galaxy would be incredibly strong as measured from Earth. Luckily, it is not so.
Do you have any science that backs this up?
All point-source EM radiation follows the inverse-square law,
originally posted by: GaryN
a reply to: Box of Rain
Do you have any science that backs this up?
Do some searching. Self focusing:
en.wikipedia.org...
That would mean that we would sometime be able to see a star's light from Earth, and sometime we wouldn't -- it would depend on whether the "focused" parts of the EM radiation was reaching us or if the parts where little or no radiation was reaching us.
yes we do
originally posted by: GaryN
a reply to: Box of Rain
That would mean that we would sometime be able to see a star's light from Earth, and sometime we wouldn't -- it would depend on whether the "focused" parts of the EM radiation was reaching us or if the parts where little or no radiation was reaching us.
I hear what you are saying, and I have no answer. What?? He has no answer?? OMG!
I think there is still much we don't know about light, but really, we don't know what light is
yes we do
or magnetism,
yes we do
or gravity,
yes we do
or electricity.
no
Ever get to thinking we are on the wrong track altogether?
who?
Some have suggested that it is only when we are looking at the stars, or there is a detector looking at those stars, that there is any light traveling through space, that the detector causes a wave collapse, or that light is instantaneous, a spooky action, and other explanations.
youve been shown they are
I'd be happy just to know if the stars are visible from cislunar space first and go from there.
figure out why someone hasn't performed tests to satisfy 1 person who could quite easily perform the test themselves. Oh I don't know. Silly NASA.
I believe Armstrong about the blackness, but the lack of images is not proof, as others have said. Only verifiable experiments under strict conditions can really give us the answer to that question. If they are not, then we have to figure our why.
originally posted by: GaryN I believe Armstrong about the blackness, but the lack of images is not proof, as others have said. Only verifiable experiments under strict conditions can really give us the answer to that question. If they are not, then we have to figure our why.
Step by step..
Primary navigation for these missions was done from the ground. As a backup, and for segments of the mission where ground tracking was not practical, an on-board inertial navigation system was used.
Astronauts periodically used a sextant to sight on stars and the horizons of the Earth and Moon to align the inertial system, and to verify the accuracy of the Earth-based tracking data.
Link
originally posted by: CB328
Nasa has pictures of stars from the space shuttle, so either the shuttle pictures are fake or this theory is BS.
He just ignores it so he can promote his soon to be website.
originally posted by: roadgravel
He just ignores it so he can promote his soon to be website.
Another website for ignorance? The world can hardly wait...
originally posted by: 3danimator2014
originally posted by: roadgravel
He just ignores it so he can promote his soon to be website.
Another website for ignorance? The world can hardly wait...
Just you wait, people will fall for it.