Stars Can't Be Seen from Outer Space

originally posted by: irgust
a reply to: cooperton
If the stars can't be seen in space how does the hubble telescope take pictures of stars?

NASA has brainwashed us into believing their fairytales? Without space, lots of people would have useless jobs.

a reply to: JuJuBee

Without space. Um...

Are you kidding me? Of course stars can be seen from space. If you are on the dark side of the earth or the moon you can see billions of stars with the naked eye. The problem occurs when you try to view stars while in direct sunlight. Our eyes and our recording equipment simply can't handle the contrast. The dimmer, further, stars are simply washed out by the bright light. This is optics 101. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that this myth is still so pervasive. After all, some people still think the earth is flat.

So many are not really knowing what is light, what is magnetosphere of a celestial entity, what is a star, what is cislunar space, what is space in its inner structure, what really is magnetism and gravity related to celestial bodies and in special to the space between them, and so on! just people without ... how to discuss this theme with people full of "scientific certitudes" who never asked "Why?", further than the complaisance. No one seem to sense that always is much more important what is not shown or said than what is. So GaryN keep your current way because you are close to the intimate nature of the Universe than most around here.

originally posted by: sadang
So GaryN keep your current way because you are close to the intimate nature of the Universe than most around here.

so when you say he is close to the intimate nature of the universe you are saying that you know MORE than GaryN??

and GaryN knows MORE than mankind whom has been studying light long before GaryN was born and much, much longer than when GaryN first thought of his flawed theory??

surely you guys have some sort of practical example to show to us how you guys know more than mankind?

and basically you are also saying that in a practical example such as shining a torchlight into a camera that are both in a near perfect vacuum (such as a large vacuum chamber) that the light wont be seen at all?

To the extent you define what is a vacuum, as will be the practical result you'll obtain and the answer you will get! Did you catch the point?

a reply to: choos

Posted this before



Two Astronauts at work in the vacuum chamber and NO problems getting a picture in there.

a reply to: sadang

So many are not really knowing what is light,

This is the main problem sadang. Scientists do understand a lot about light, but it is not so simple as the school system teaches. Our Sun is a star, yes, but that it is not visible from space by eye or a regular camera is known, but not admitted by mainstream, it would destroy too many beliefs, to many accepted models of just what is out there in space. There are no photographs of the Sun from outside of Earths, or the Moons or Mars atmosphere. Nothing is visible from cislunar space, which is what Armstrong told us from the start. Here is the Sun seen in many ways, by many instruments, there is no photograph of the Sun from cislunar space.

Pictures of the Sun
www.planetary.org...

Scientists do know enough about light to construct devices that can detect the Sun, and this is necessary because without these devices space travel would not be possible. Even the Apollo craft had a Sun sensor.

Adcole Sun sensors
adcole.com...

The Solar radiation can be detected, and how a sun sensor works can be found on the Internet if anyone is really interested, but it seems most on this site are either intentionally trying to confuse things for some reason known only to them, or are amazingly uneducated in the science required to understand just how much NASA has been, and still is, lying to us.

a reply to: GaryN

Or it could be your theory is idiotic care to comment on the picture above taken in a vacuum chamber.

a reply to: GaryN
Never heard of sun sensors before, thanks for the head-ups.

So yeah, sun sensors.

In typical sun sensors, a thin slit at the top of a rectangular chamber allows a line of light to fall on an array of photodetector cells at the bottom of the chamber. A voltage is induced in these cells, which is registered electronically. By orienting two sensors perpendicular to each other, the direction of the sun can be fully determined.

And from this article: www.azosensors.com...

The sun sensor is operated based on the entry of light into a thin slit on top of a rectangular chamber whose bottom part is lined with a group of light-sensitive cells. The chamber casts an image of a thin line on the chamber bottom. The cells at the bottom measure the distance of the image from a centerline and determine the refraction angle by using the chamber height.

The cells are operated based on the photoelectric effect. They convert the incoming photons into electrons and hence voltages which are in turn converted into a digital signal.

So it still needs photons of light to operate. Just like with wavefront sensors, you decided to throw definitions away and just let a fancy-sounding term support your ideas.

As for the mainstream scientists being aware that you cannot supposedly see light in space, how is it that this notion is completely abscent from all educational, scientific and technological literature and papers? After all, people who are behind the space missions of today and the past got all their knowledge from that education and those papers.

Or do they have a secret education program and a secret set of science/techology papers that they base their work on?

I know, understand and agree with what you say GaryN, but I consider that scientists understand a lot about their light, as they consider it, as they were educated to analyze, interpret and took conclusions of this phenomenon to shape devices and tools to work with, and educate others accordingly.

originally posted by: wildespace

That stars (or any other visible light) are invisible in space is a stupid "alternative theory", mostly propagated by Eric Dollard (and our own GaryN on ATS), and is based on misunderstanding and misrepresentation.

Just for the record, the highlighted “Eric Dollard” is actually Peter Lindemann.

Here is the YouTube of the same video:

www.youtube.com...

Also helpful: The Description accompanying the YouTube video.

originally posted by: ConnectDots
Also helpful: The Description accompanying the YouTube video.

And of course his idea is easily debunked when you consider light shining from the source straight into your eyes. How did he miss that one out?

a reply to: wildespace

So it still needs photons of light to operate.

Photons are a 'catch all' term, again nobody really knows what a photon is.

a particle representing a quantum of light or other electromagnetic radiation. A photon carries energy proportional to the radiation frequency but has zero rest mass.

representing a quantum of light or other EM radiation. You can not draw me a photon. The Sun sensors are fairly straightforward, but the size and accuracy of the slit or pinhole has to be so precise that you need to buy one from the manufacturers, you couldn't make one that would see anything in space. The EM radiation from the Sun is not of the configuration that our eyes could detect, and the sensors involve science based on coherence and fourier transforms. Put simply, it is the slit/pinhole that creates the photons the sensor needs to operate. Without the slit/pinhole. the detector would see nothing.

As for the mainstream scientists being aware that you cannot supposedly see light in space, how is it that this notion is completely absent from all educational, scientific and technological literature and papers?

It can not be admitted as all the models of astronomy will have to be thrown out. Most of what we are told are stars out there really are not stars. The instruments are likely detecting the radiant energy from the atmospheres or surfaces of planets or moons. The radiant energy reaches all the way up to gamma rays, which even the Moon produces. As the gamma rays interact with matter, the energy levels decrease due to repeated collisions, so then we have x-ray, EUV, far UV, and UV. Earths atmosphere is converting this solar radiation to visible light of the type our eyes can detect. Some of it is scattered back out into space, which is why it can be seen from space for a certain distance. Yes choos, the type of light our eyes see does travel in the vacuum, for a similar distance that it will travel within Earths atmosphere, but it will not be visible for ever as the wavefront becomes planar with distance, and our eyes can not focus it. No stars are visible from space because they are too far away. Only the coherent light from electronically created methods will travel great distances in the vacuum, it becomes self focusing. But, at the other end, you need an atmosphere or special instruments to convert that radiation back to visible light. Why nobody believes the astronauts I can't figure out. They say it is scarily black from Earth orbit when looking away from Earth, and the Apollo astronauts say nothing at all is visible from cislunar space and they are the only ones that know this.

Or do they have a secret education program and a secret set of science/techology papers that they base their work on?

Yes, and it is mostly classified, military eyes only, national security and all that. The only way to figure it all out is by examining what NASA does not tell or show us, such as a photograph of the Sun from clear space. Can't be done.

originally posted by: GaryN
a reply to: wildespace
Photons are a 'catch all' term, again nobody really knows what a photon is.

We know that they deliver energy, and we know how to "catch" that energy. We see that energy as light, and photocells turn that energy into electricity.

The Sun sensors are fairly straightforward, but the size and accuracy of the slit or pinhole has to be so precise that you need to buy one from the manufacturers, you couldn't make one that would see anything in space.

Got anything to support that statement, or is that just your conjecture? How are you equating precision with the ability to see anything?

The EM radiation from the Sun is not of the configuration that our eyes could detect, and the sensors involve science based on coherence and fourier transforms. Put simply, it is the slit/pinhole that creates the photons the sensor needs to operate. Without the slit/pinhole. the detector would see nothing.

Got anything to support that statement, or is that just your conjecture?

It can not be admitted as all the models of astronomy will have to be thrown out. Most of what we are told are stars out there really are not stars. The instruments are likely detecting the radiant energy from the atmospheres or surfaces of planets or moons. The radiant energy reaches all the way up to gamma rays, which even the Moon produces. As the gamma rays interact with matter, the energy levels decrease due to repeated collisions, so then we have x-ray, EUV, far UV, and UV. Earths atmosphere is converting this solar radiation to visible light of the type our eyes can detect. Some of it is scattered back out into space, which is why it can be seen from space for a certain distance. Yes choos, the type of light our eyes see does travel in the vacuum, for a similar distance that it will travel within Earths atmosphere, but it will not be visible for ever as the wavefront becomes planar with distance, and our eyes can not focus it. No stars are visible from space because they are too far away. Only the coherent light from electronically created methods will travel great distances in the vacuum, it becomes self focusing. But, at the other end, you need an atmosphere or special instruments to convert that radiation back to visible light. Why nobody believes the astronauts I can't figure out. They say it is scarily black from Earth orbit when looking away from Earth, and the Apollo astronauts say nothing at all is visible from cislunar space and they are the only ones that know this.

Got anything to support that statement, or is that just your conjecture?

Why, upon discovering that there's no visible light in outer space, could the scientists not have made that knowledge available for the academia and for future space scientists and engineers?

Yes, and it is mostly classified, military eyes only, national security and all that. The only way to figure it all out is by examining what NASA does not tell or show us, such as a photograph of the Sun from clear space. Can't be done.

You have a very warped way of proving something. So how did the Soviet, Chinese, and Indian scientists and engineers got their spaceflight programs working? Do all the hundreds of thousands of people working on space missions get "initiated" into that secret academia project so that their work can succeed, but also get sworn to secrecy to not release this knowledge to the public?

Can't you see how ridiculous your ideas are?

It seems that I was right GaryN, you have to again and again start from beginning maybe sometime someone will finally ask: But what if?

Again, and again, and again and also everywhere I read the same arguments from those full of scientific certitudes, while both Newton and Einstein were not sure about anything, working with previous and even their own suppositions to develop their theories, that we consider now as immutable rules. At least they were sufficiently educated and with common sense to publicly admit that, compared with the "clever" full of certitudes of nowadays.

What we call light is a local conditions dependent phenomenon! Why, how, based on what and so on, have to be answered by each one of you, rather than keep arguing the same stereotypical phrases that can be read anywhere in the manual or on the Internet.

You can't see stars during the daytime, why would you be able to see them in space where it's always daytime? ..

How did this end up 34 pages lol