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: 31
40
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 28 2016 @ 11:22 AM
link   

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.

edit on 2/28/2016 by Box of Rain because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 28 2016 @ 11:37 AM
link   

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.



posted on Feb, 28 2016 @ 12:01 PM
link   

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.

Yeah. By what mechanism would they be self-focusing.

I mean, if one is to imaging a concentric shell 100 LY from a star as opposed to one that is 1 LY from a star, the surface area of that larger sphere would be much much greater. How could the energy of the UV light falling on a given parts of the "inside" surface of the larger sphere be that same as the energy falling on a given part of the smaller one, considering that the total energy would be spread across the larger surface area.

If the UV light didn't follow the inverse-square, then if I calculated all of the total energy falling upon the entirety of the inside surface of the larger sphere, it would be greater than the total energy falling upon the smaller sphere. Where would that additional UV energy come from?

It doesn't make sense from a critical-thought perspective.

edit on 2/28/2016 by Box of Rain because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2016 @ 01:15 PM
link   
a reply to: ignorant_ape

Such simple logic brings such profound humour.



posted on Feb, 28 2016 @ 02:01 PM
link   
I feel the need to reiterate that GaryN is clearly leading you all on for fun. He even crested his own "fan" account to act as a cheerleader.

I mean, this is all good discussion about space and light..but don't believe for a second GaryN believes the rubbish he's posting.



posted on Feb, 28 2016 @ 02:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Box of Rain



Do you have any science that backs this up?


Do some searching. Self focusing:
en.wikipedia.org...

In QED, with EM radiation of sufficient intensity, the vacuum itself becomes a non-linear optical medium. Experiments as to if a single beam can be self focusing can not be performed until the necessary intensity of a single beam can be reached, and it might soon be possible.
Is self focusing in vacuum possible? (preview only)
www.deepdyve.com...




All point-source EM radiation follows the inverse-square law,


But the source of EM radiation from distant objects may be considered a point source array really, as with images of the Lyman-Alpha hydrogen glow seen from the Apollo FUVC. The glow consists of countless electronic emissions overlapping in time, a continuum. Those combined emissions will form a composite self focusing beam. Present models believe the light from distant Suns is visible because of its intensity, it is visible light from a hot radiator, but if the light is not due to heat but to electronic transitions of atoms in a plasma, then no heat is required, and I still have seen no proof that the Sun emits any heat, no experiments have been done from outside of Earths atmosphere to directly measure the supposed heat. Again, it is higher energy radiation being transformed down by multiple 'collisions' in our atmosphere, and the IR we feel is the emissions at the lower end of the process.
If the light reaching us from distant stars is not what we have been told, then all the models collapse. Those stars may just be planets with sufficient atmosphere glowing electronically, like Earth does, and the light reaches us because it collectively self focuses.
And if I don't have these explanations exactly right, well, at least I am trying to figure out what goes on, most are just happy to accept what the PTB tell us is going on, and they hope nobody looks close enough to see that the Emperor really has no clothes. Some simple and cheap experiments from the ISS would put all this speculation to rest in minutes, but unfortunately NASA et al have abandoned empirical science altogether, and with good reason.
Oh, and there is no worry about being killed by gamma rays from space, they are transformed down in energy levels quite easily in the atmosphere. You would most likely be baked to a crisp by the intense IR produced at the surface by the downward transformation of those gamma rays!



posted on Feb, 28 2016 @ 03:00 PM
link   

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...


But that would bean UV radiation is not homogeneous and smooth over a distance. If parts of the radiation from a star are self-socusing (and, by the way, the information in your link doesn't seem to apply to the UV radiation from a star), then that would mean that the UV light would fall more granularly -- with some of the energy focused, and some not.

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.

Those areas of little or no UV radiation would need to exist because the additional increased energy in the focused UV radiation would have needed to come from somewhere. The "focused UV radiation" can't be homogeneous. Going back to that imaginary sphere I mentioned around the star: the total amount of energy falling upon the inside of the sphere would need to always be the same. So if you were to have additional energy where the UV radiation is focused, you would need to take away an equal amount of energy from some other part of the UV radiation.

It can't all be focused.



posted on Feb, 29 2016 @ 12:32 AM
link   
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, or magnetism, or gravity, or electricity. Ever get to thinking we are on the wrong track altogether?
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. I'd be happy just to know if the stars are visible from cislunar space first and go from there. 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.



posted on Feb, 29 2016 @ 12:40 AM
link   

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.
yes we do


Ever get to thinking we are on the wrong track altogether?
no


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.
who?


I'd be happy just to know if the stars are visible from cislunar space first and go from there.
youve been shown they are


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.
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.
edit on 294129/2/1616 by TerryDon79 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 29 2016 @ 01:49 AM
link   
@GaryN
Step by step you are closer to the essence of what is a star and what it radiate. Or you already know but you have chosen the small steps technique. However you are perfectly right in your rhetorical phrase: "I think there is still much we don't know about light, but really, we don't know what light is, or magnetism, or gravity, or electricity. Ever get to thinking we are on the wrong track altogether?".



posted on Feb, 29 2016 @ 01:55 AM
link   

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.



armstrong could see the glare of the sun, he said he couldnt make out the corona because there was too much glare..

so if he could see the sun, then they can see the stars (with effort) since they are one and the same.



posted on Feb, 29 2016 @ 07:29 AM
link   
A couple of related threads:

www.apollohoax.net...

cosmoquest.org...



posted on Feb, 29 2016 @ 05:59 PM
link   
a reply to: sadang



Step by step..

Frustratingly small steps it seems, but I'll keep at it!

We must also consider the human vision system and perception in all this, and how the mind processes the evidence we are presented with. One comment from a moonwalker was very telling I think, he said" You see what you expect to see" when asked about his experiences. That, I think, is why Mitchell 'snapped', he could not internalise the fact it is so black out there, his observations did not match the mental model that had been formed in his head by years of false science indoctrination.
If it is OK with you sadang I'd like you to comment on my web page when I get the basic outline completed. I'm only about 10% along with the project so far, there is tons of information I have collected over my years of research, and rather than having bits and pieces of my own and others work spread all over the place, it will be good to have it all in one place for easy reference. And I intend it not to be just a one-sided view, I will include comments and arguments the from nay sayers who have presented valid and well reasoned counter claims. I could PM you with the site address when ready?



posted on Feb, 29 2016 @ 06:50 PM
link   


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



posted on Feb, 29 2016 @ 08:38 PM
link   
Nasa has pictures of stars from the space shuttle, so either the shuttle pictures are fake or this theory is BS.



posted on Feb, 29 2016 @ 08:41 PM
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.


I would say the 2nd option out of those 2 is correct.

It's been shown to GaryN numerous times how there are stars. Also the Sun. He just ignores it so he can promote his soon to be website.



posted on Mar, 1 2016 @ 06:11 AM
link   


He just ignores it so he can promote his soon to be website.


Another website for ignorance? The world can hardly wait...



posted on Mar, 1 2016 @ 10:08 AM
link   

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.



posted on Mar, 1 2016 @ 10:32 AM
link   

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.

But...but...I read it on the internet, and it was an alternative explanation that goes along with my pre-conceived notions that mainstream science is lying to us and hiding stuff from us...

...Therefore it must be true.

edit on 3/1/2016 by Box of Rain because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2016 @ 10:34 AM
link   
oh dear - just when i thought things could not sink lower :

i now suspect the OP is having conversations with his own sock puppet

warning kids - this is what happens when you are utterly scientifically illiterate




top topics



 
40
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join