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: 36
40
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 02:31 PM
link   
a reply to: sadang

Do you agree that Peter Lindemann has stated that concept in the video?




posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 02:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: GaryN

Regarding what Peter Lindemann said:

He said light is not transmitted in the visible spectrum in outer space, that if you look at the sun in outer space without gold reflectors you'll be blinded, but you can't see the sun.

Do you agree with that?


No, but that is tough to test. In space you would have a visor or be behind a window, which would block UV. IR was supposedly blocked by the gold film on the visors, but this leads to another interesting question. How much heat can be measured coming from the Sun in space? How is the heat of the Sun measured from Earths surface? Google is your friend. Then compare that with how it is measured in space.
The image of Sunita Williams touching the Sun in the EVA photo also raises questions. The camera is pointing at the Sun, a Sun unfiltered by Earths lower atmosphere, so supposedly much hotter and harsher. My Nikon will not take a photo of a high angle Sun, it just refuses. I suspect that is to protect the sensor from the light and heat of the Sun. If I put on a Solar filter, it will take an image.
The energy of the Sun has never been measured by any space mission, they do not take the instruments necessary to do the experiment, but just use the "Solar Constant" to calculate the light and heat levels out there, but again, this is an assumption. NASA will not do experiments that could make a mockery of much of what we are told about conditions in space.



posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 03:13 PM
link   
a reply to: ConnectDots

No, I agree GaryN is right in his statement that I quoted. But as always details and the meaning of terms used are crucial!



posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 03:16 PM
link   
a reply to: sadang

To clarify, have you viewed the Peter Lindemann video?



posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 03:25 PM
link   
a reply to: ConnectDots

Of course!



posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 04:08 PM
link   
a reply to: sadang

To start from the beginning, I posted the Peter Lindemann video, which I thought clearly explains that there is no visible light radiating from the sun, and that the atmosphere is needed to create visible light with which to see.

Yet this is posted:


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.





posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 06:29 PM
link   
a reply to: ConnectDots

You can't see the light from the sun just "floating by" in empty space...that light would need to fall upon an object in order for it to be visible. I agree with that. If light not falling upon an object was visible, then empty space would glow like a lit-up fog; but it doesn't. The air around us (a medium through which most light can pass) would glow like a lit-up fog if the light rays moving through it were visible; but it doesn't glow.

So I agree that photons light can't be seen if they are just moving past my eyes (and not directly into my eyes).

However, I disagree with GaryN that we can't see the Sun if we are looking directly at it (with protection), or his assertion that we can't see the moon in space. The sunlight reflecting off of the Moon and back to our eyes can be seen by our eyes.

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



posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 06:43 PM
link   
a reply to: ConnectDots



To start from the beginning


Yes, I watched the video from the beginning. He states that you can not see light, you only see an object because the light reflects off it. This is not correct. If you were in clear space, you would not see a hand in front of your face even if it was where you knew it should be in full sunlight, there is no light of the type that can be reflected. It first must be created by interaction with matter, then it can be reflected. Not just matter on the surface of an object though, it needs a deep column of matter to interact with. So I don't agree where he said in space you would see light reflected off the Moon. The visible light created by the solar radiation interacting with lunar dust, OR created by UV from the Earths upper atmosphere interacting with the lunar dust, does reflect off the Lunar surface, but it is far too weak to reach earth. You will never see an EVA astronaut illuminated by Moonlight.
The Moon is only visible from Earth because of Earths atmosphere.
Heres a puzzle. In all images of the Earth from the Lunar surface, or from Lunar orbit, or even from the ISS, you will see no green on Earth. Why is that?
Oh some smart-alec will show me a full Earth from space with lots of green, but those images are not from a camera, they are from spectral imagers. There is a difference, though few seem to understand that.



posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 08:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: GaryN
He states that you can not see light, you only see an object because the light reflects off it. This is not correct.

Are you saying that we can see light itself?


If you were in clear space, you would not see a hand in front of your face even if it was where you knew it should be in full sunlight, there is no light of the type that can be reflected. It first must be created by interaction with matter, then it can be reflected.

As far as I'm concerned, you and Peter Lindemann fully agree on that.

Peter stated that a diffraction lens is necessary to capture an image in the visible light spectrum in outer space.

And there was discussion about taking images from outer space with a diffraction lens vs. a pinhole camera starting here. I think it gets confusing because they shift from outer space to what we see on earth without a transition in between. Shortly after that, I think Peter misspoke, because the guy asks about taking an image with a pinhole camera (which has no lens, correct?) and Peter says that you see the object that the light reflects off of. Additionally, Peter says you get no image of the sun because you’re pointing it at the source of light.

Does NASA have no visible light images of the sun because we can’t photograph the sun even with a diffraction lens?

edit on 6/6/2016 by ConnectDots because: Deletion



posted on Jun, 6 2016 @ 09:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: GaryN
Heres a puzzle. In all images of the Earth from the Lunar surface, or from Lunar orbit, or even from the ISS, you will see no green on Earth. Why is that?

From the ISS and visible-light satellites, there's plenty of green visible, although it is filtered through the hazy blue atmosphere. Have a look through the ISS photo archive and you're bound to find some: eol.jsc.nasa.gov...
For example, this shot: eol.jsc.nasa.gov...

Here's an Apollo 11 Hasselblad shot as they were leaving the Earth, with some forests visible:


There's some vaguely green visible in equatorial Africa in this Earth shot from the Moon:


But what does this have to do with your theory of visible light being created by the atmosphere?
edit on 6-6-2016 by wildespace because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 12:55 AM
link   
a reply to: ConnectDots

And here I agree with you that in space is not visible light coming from a star (Sun in our solar system), to become visible to human eyes it has to reduce its energy, and that can happen only by interaction with other energies lower than that expelled by a star. And to understand that it has to be understood in terms of energy why the Universe is dark for human eyes, when it is full of energies expelled by billions and billions of stars!

Now I'm sure others will come suddenly to explain me that light has wave length, has frequency, has both particle and wave characteristics and so on. To all of them I suggest to go back to founding fathers of what we call and are educated to understand now as light and understand their work.



posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 05:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: sadang
a reply to: ConnectDots


Now I'm sure others will come suddenly to explain me that light has wave length, has frequency, has both particle and wave characteristics and so on. To all of them I suggest to go back to founding fathers of what we call and are educated to understand now as light and understand their work.


And to you i suggest that you stop using your computer, watching your tv, using your phone, listening to the radio, microwaving your food etc...IMEDIATELY, since all those things involve and utilize our vast understanding of electromagnetism, photons/waves etc...and if what you say is right then all we know is wrong.

By the way, i find it highly suspicious that you only registered recently and this is the only post you have replied to..but hey ho.
edit on 7-6-2016 by 3danimator2014 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2016 @ 03:50 AM
link   
Hmmm.

So much to do, or we now have a dead thread?



posted on Jun, 8 2016 @ 06:31 AM
link   
a reply to: GaryN

Explain this then.



Two Astronauts at work in the vacuum chamber.

NONE of your claimed requirements in there yet one Astronaut taking a picture of his colleague with NO problems.

As for your repeated FALSE claims of special imaging equipment ALL digital sensors capture shades of gray.

How Sensors Work

The only thing different about sensors on probes/satellites in space is quality and protection HOW THEY WORK is no different from a normal digital camera.

Stop talking BS



posted on Jun, 8 2016 @ 09:44 AM
link   
I should have asked GaryN this question a long time ago, but here goes:

How do we (or rather, a few select people like yourself) know that light is invisible to the human eye or normal cameras in space? That's apart from the ad-hoc argument about how no one has allegedly taken pictures of, or reported seeing, stars in space. Are your ideas actually based on some experiment, science paper, etc?

In other words, what foundation are you standing on when debating these things with us here? I really hope it's not just the "fact" that no one has allegedly taken pictures of or reported seeing stuff in space.



posted on Jun, 8 2016 @ 11:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: GaryN
He states that you can not see light, you only see an object because the light reflects off it. This is not correct.

originally posted by: ConnectDots
Are you saying that we can see light itself?


We can't see light itself unless it enters our eyes and strikes the light-sensitive cells in our retinas. If light is just streaming past us (not entering our eyes) then we cannot see it. Otherwise, the open spaces around us would look like a bright fog of light.

We can't see sunlight streaming past us in space, but if we look at the sun (put our eyes in line with the sunlight), then we can see the Sun in space. We can't see the moonlight (reflected sunlight) streaming past our eyes in space, but if we look at the moon (put our eyes in line with the sunlight reflecting off of the moon), then we can see the moon in space.

edit on 6/8/2016 by Box of Rain because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2016 @ 11:22 AM
link   
I always found this guy interesting.




posted on Jun, 8 2016 @ 11:27 AM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

If you were on the dark side of the Moon shielded from the sun you should be able to see stars. The sun is so bright you have to be shielded from it to see stars. It's the same reason we don't see stars during the daytime.



posted on Jun, 8 2016 @ 12:01 PM
link   
a reply to: awareness10
You find utter ignorance interesting?

"Today the solar flux is 140 something. It should be 200 something."

140 whats? Somethings? Flux of what?



posted on Jun, 8 2016 @ 12:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: awareness10
I always found this guy interesting.


Yes, fascinating how much pseudo-scientific woo-woo one man can spew.

"There are no light years... 'cause there's no light"

edit on 8-6-2016 by wildespace because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join