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: 35
40
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 05:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: ConnectDots

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...


Well, yeah. light just cruising through empty space can't be seen. That's obvious. Objects can only be seen when that lights strikes the object and then is reflected back into our eyes. I should be able to see the moon in space because some of the light that strikes the Moon can reflect back into my eyes, and then strike the light receptors in my eyes. Again, that's obvious.

Same for the Sun and stars. If I were in space and my eyes were not in the line of that light from the sun and stars, then I couldn't see that light as it cruises through empty space. However, if my eyes get in the line of that light of the sun, then light from the Sun or stars striking the light receptors my eyes can be seen -- and thus the Sun can be seen.

I'm not sure how Eric Dollard thinks he's making the point that stars or the sun can't be seen; he isn't.


edit on 6/4/2016 by Box of Rain because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 11:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: GaryN
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.



1) Does the slit cause the nearly-flat incoming waves to amplify/accentuate to more detectable levels?

2) Since massive bodies, such as the earth and moon, bend incoming cosmic rays, they allow visibility within their atmosphere?

3) Once you get far enough away from massive bodies, or simply look in a direction away from them while in a spaceship, you will see complete blackness because it is essentially "outside" the interconnected visible web of the cosmos? I hope these words convey what I am trying to say.



posted on Jun, 4 2016 @ 11:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: sadang
while both Newton and Einstein were not sure about anything

... modern technology proved them right time and again. Rocketry, GPS, and many things in your life you take for granted and don't think about, are based on Newtonian and Relativistic laws. Those two gave us our modern life.

I'd like to see the alternative/anti-mainstream "experts" like Hoagland, Talbott, or Haramein give the humanity anything useful. Still waiting...
edit on 4-6-2016 by wildespace because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2016 @ 01:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Box of Rain



Objects can only be seen when that lights strikes the object and then is reflected back into our eyes.

Peter Lindemann doesn't have it right either. There is no visible light coming from the Sun to reflect off anything. Visible light is only created by interaction with a column of matter, such as an atmoshere. Once it is created, it can be reflected or focused with a lense similar to the ones in our eyes.
A space based telescope with conventional optics will not see anything in space, which is why there isn't one, and NASA will not allow anyone to try it to find out. These guys tried their best, permission denied.

www.skyandtelescope.com...
www.drewexmachina.com...

And the Apollo crews had no solar filters for their cameras, and no telescope to see the stars better with, not even a cheap pair of binoculars. Sheesh, will it never sink in why?



posted on Jun, 5 2016 @ 02:14 AM
link   
a reply to: GaryN



A space based telescope with conventional optics will not see anything in space, which is why there isn't one, and NASA will not allow anyone to try it to find out. These guys tried their best, permission denied.

Your source:

So far, the response to the idea from NASA and Boeing (the ISS's main contractor) has been enthusiastic
www.skyandtelescope.com...



posted on Jun, 5 2016 @ 02:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: GaryN

Peter Lindemann doesn't have it right either. There is no visible light coming from the Sun to reflect off anything. Visible light is only created by interaction with a column of matter, such as an atmoshere.

That's what I understood Peter Lindemann to be saying, actually.

"The visible spectrum effect of the sun is created by the upper atmosphere."


edit on 6/5/2016 by ConnectDots because: Clarify



posted on Jun, 5 2016 @ 03:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

That was in 2003 apparently.

What happened?



posted on Jun, 5 2016 @ 04:02 AM
link   
a reply to: GaryN
What will happen if the European, Russian, or Indian public try to launch an optical space telescope?

When commercial manned spaceflight takes off, who would prevent astronauts from looking out into space when they're in a planet's or a moon's shadow? Apollo astronauts, which you so dearly love referencing, already did that, though, and they saw a dizzying multitude of stars.

history.nasa.gov...

Collins reports: "Houston, it's been a real change for us. Now we are able to see stars again and recognize constellations for the first time on the trip. The sky is full of stars, just like the nights on Earth. But all the way here we have just been able to see stars occasionally and perhaps through monoculars, but not recognize any star pattern."



www.nasa.gov...

Anders said they were in darkness as they were, "just starting to go around, behind the moon, still in contact with the Earth, but in the shadow of not only the sun but also Earth shine, Earth shine being six times brighter than moon shine."

It was at that time Anders looked out of his window and, "saw all these stars, more stars than you could pick out constellations from," and suddenly there was the moon.



posted on Jun, 5 2016 @ 02:23 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton



1) Does the slit cause the nearly-flat incoming waves to amplify/accentuate to more detectable levels?


It would seem the Sun Sensors are using a 36um pinhole, so are using it as a grating to produce IR photons. The edge of the hole must be incredibly smooth or the photons will not be collimated and no clear image possible. But I have not studied this, this is just what I believe is what is happening.




2) Since massive bodies, such as the earth and moon, bend incoming cosmic rays, they allow visibility within their atmosphere?

Er, don't know about that. Cosmic rays would be affected more by magnetic fields, not gravity. Cosmic rays hitting the Lunar surface though do produce gamma rays. We can't see those gamma rays of course, but if they are being 'converted' in Earths atmosphere to lower wavelengths, then perhaps that is why the Moon is so bright from Earth, but so dull when seen from clear space, dull enough that it can not be seen from mid point between the Earth and Moon.



3) Once you get far enough away from massive bodies, or simply look in a direction away from them while in a spaceship, you will see complete blackness because it is essentially "outside" the interconnected visible web of the cosmos? I hope these words convey what I am trying to say.


In deep space it will be so black in all directions that you would go insane very quickly, like being locked in a sensory deprivation chamber. Interconnected visible web of the cosmos? No, you lost me there.


@wildespace


What will happen if the European, Russian, or Indian public try to launch an optical space telescope?


Why haven't they I wonder? If some keen amateurs say they could do it on the cheap, surely China could afford to do it. Or Russia, India, Japan, even Iran.


When commercial manned spaceflight takes off, who would prevent astronauts from looking out into space when they're in a planet's or a moon's shadow?


Nothing. Hopefully they will have windows when they go to Mars so they can see the Glory of the Heavens, but it seems they might not have windows.

@ConnectDots


a reply to: Phage

That was in 2003 apparently.

What happened?


You can't rush these things you know. They have been working on the Solar Probe, now Solar Probe Plus, for 50 years. When it does launch it will NOT have a regular camera so we can see what the Sun actually looks like at visible wavelengths. And the Sun should be white viewed from space according to NASA, but they haven't told the artists that it seems:
solarprobe.jhuapl.edu...

ConnectDots

That's what I understood Peter Lindemann to be saying, actually.


He says that the Moon would be visible because it is reflecting sunlight, but it is not visible from high Earth orbit. The light generated by the lunar atmospheric dust which does reflect off the surface will only be visible for perhaps 50,000 miles, but we don't know how far they were from the Moon when they took the last image when they were heading back to Earth. Also he says the atmosphere scatters Sunlight, which is why the sky is blue. I don't agree with that, and neither does Miles Mathis, though I don't agree with his reason either! Awkward sod ain't I? I think it is just airglow from UV excited oxygen molecules high in the atmosphere.



"... Earth shine being six times brighter than moon shine."


NASA calculated 67 times more light from a full disk Earth viewed from the Moon than from a full Moon seen from Earth.


It was at that time Anders looked out of his window and, "saw all these stars, more stars than you could pick out constellations from," and suddenly there was the moon.


Suddenly there was the Moon, that's the clue. When the Sun is rising, the Suns corona makes the dust and stars visible for a while, and this can be seen with the A17 images, using the 2485 film, ASA 16,000, 'pushable' to 64,000 during processing. The most sensitive, and expensive, Military spec film ever produced.
www.lpi.usra.edu...
Without the solar radiation, the stars dim and then disappear, as can be seen in the series of images.
www.lpi.usra.edu...



posted on Jun, 5 2016 @ 09:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: GaryN
Without the solar radiation, the stars dim and then disappear, as can be seen in the series of images.
www.lpi.usra.edu...


if you are talking about the series of images from A17-159-23909 to A17-159-23911.. those white streaks are NOT stars.



posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 12:34 AM
link   


There is no visible light coming from the Sun to reflect off anything. Visible light is only created by interaction with a column of matter, such as an atmoshere.


Here lies the whole understanding of what is light, why is a local conditon phenomenon and much, much more than that! Just has to understand what is light and matter and type of interactions between them.



posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 03:45 AM
link   
a reply to: sadang

Is your quote quoting a member or an external source?



posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 06:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: GaryN
Without the solar radiation, the stars dim and then disappear, as can be seen in the series of images.
www.lpi.usra.edu...


if you are talking about the series of images from A17-159-23909 to A17-159-23911.. those white streaks are NOT stars.


Actually, yes they are. Those are long exposure photographs to capture the zodiacal light. GaryN still makes no sense, however.



posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 08:45 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

i see, my bad.



posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 09:13 AM
link   
GaryN --

If I were in a very good vacuum chamber (with virtually no atmosphere) and there was a light source in that chamber (a light bulb), would I be able to see that light source if I looked at it? Would I also be able to see the reflected light illuminating the walls of the chambers or illuminating my hands in front of me?

If yes, why would my eye be able to detect the photons of light in that vacuum chamber when I look at the light source or when I look at the reflected light illuminating objects in the chamber -- but not detect photons of light in space when I look at the light source (the Sun or stars) or look at the reflected light from the Moon being illuminated by the Sun?

If no, then how can you explain that people who have been in vacuum chambers (to test space suits, etc) have not ever said that they can't see any light while in the chamber?


edit on 6/6/2016 by Box of Rain because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 09:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Box of Rain

He wont answer I posted a picture taken in the vacuum chamber and the Astronaut is clearly seen.



posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 10:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: Box of Rain

He wont answer I posted a picture taken in the vacuum chamber and the Astronaut is clearly seen.

For that matter, I wonder how he explains how the astronauts who serviced the Hubble telescope could see what they were doing. The Hubble is 350 miles up, which is above the atmosphere --- or does he claim that 350 miles up is still within the range where the atmosphere makes reflected sunlight visible?


edit on 6/6/2016 by Box of Rain because: (no reason given)


(post by 3danimator2014 removed for a manners violation)

posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 02:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: sadang

Is your quote quoting a member or an external source?


Sorry for that, that quotes are from previous GaryN post.



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join