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: 44
40
<< 41  42  43    45  46  47 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 05:39 AM
link   
a reply to: GaryN



Is that you in Flickr?




posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 06:06 AM
link   
a reply to: GaryN

Is there any way that could be you?

A search of the page for The Japan Times fails.



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 06:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: GaryN
a reply to: ConnectDots




You’ve been banned from YouTube?


No, I ended up deleting my account after some issues with missing posts, and no help at all from them. I first noticed the problem when trying to show a friend, at his house, my comments on a youtube video, but they were not there. After some head scratching , it turned out that I had to be logged in to youtube for them to show up, so any time I was not logged in to youtube, nobody could see them. Searching turned up that other people were having this problem, and youtube seems to have no intention of looking into it. So when I deleted my account because I didn't like their attitude, it also deleted all my previous posts I guess. The youtube comments seem to be dynamically loaded, it is not a 'flat' database, which means they can manipulate things in order to show different results to different people, opinion shaping perhaps. When I looked up the shareholders of youtube, it reads like a PTB glee club.


Was “garyinsooke” your username?


Yes.


I couldn’t pull up anything at your link.


I used the Google site search " garyinsooke site:https:" then youtube.com, but this board wouldn't accept that. Just a garyinsooke search brings up my other posts (I'm not the same one asking decoration questions BTW), but nothing from youtube.
@
wmd_2008

NONE repeat NONE of the imaging devices that photograph in space are any different in the way that they record light from digital sensors in cameras.


You have no idea what you are talking about. Look up the 'camera' specs, it's a spectral imager, and it's ISO must be in the millions. Do the stars in your image look anything like the ones from the ISS? Look at the CCD specs, it uses a lumogen coating to put UV into the working range of the CCD, so it goes from IR to UV. Which filters were in use when the image was taken, how long was the exposure? I'll let you look into that, I've had enough of your repeated questions. I've explained the vacuum stuff too, not doing it again. The Earth from Kagua is interesting, very blue though, will see if I can find details of the camera. When in Lunar orbit, the view always has the lunar rim in sight, same as pictures from the ISS, making me suspect it is the atmosphere making earth visible. It's possible the camera could have coated optics too, and that it is seeing UV, will let you know if I can find the specs.

@sadang
Just saw your last post, so for you I will explain. Light created in the atmospheres of planets or moons WILL travel in the vacuum, we have all seen images taken with a camera on the Apollo missions of the Moon and Earth, from a distance, that can not be denied. But it is how far the light will travel, that is the question. The light created in the lunar atmosphere reflecting off the dark lunar surface is very weak, and will not reach Earth, the light from Mars will not reach Earth. The Moon is visible to us because the UV or EUV radiation produced in the lunar atmosphere, or Martian atmosphere, from solar radiation. It is not just visible light that is created, the UV WILL travel to Earth, and that UV/EUV will create visible light in Earths atmosphere, which we can then see. Vacuum UV will travel much greater distances because it carries more energy and has a self focusing tendency due to the nature of the vacuum itself, which is really a non-linear optical medium.






More TOTAL and UTTER BS from YOU first you don't have to be logged into youtube for people to see your comments or other comments.

As for your UV comments
just fkn



A problem encountered in using front illuminated (FI) CCDs is the lack of quantum efficiency (QE) in the UV region of the optical spectrum.This problem arises because the UV light is absorbed in the FI CCD electrode structure before it can contribute to the signal charge in the bulk of the CCD.


THAT would only be a problem if you want to image UV not visible light.

No sensor has a base ISO of MILLIONS quite the opposite it's usually 50-200 iso that's why the signal has to be TURNED up to get you camera to increase light sensitivity and THAT'S why you get NOISE at higher iso's.

The rest of your post is your usual pile of BS.

Earth from Hayabusa2

Earth from Himawari-8

Earth Moon from Hayabusa2

Moon Earth from Chang'e 5 T1

Just a few of many



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 06:21 AM
link   
a reply to: GaryN

From Everything's Electric, this is you:




posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 06:41 AM
link   
a reply to: wmd_2008
Save your breathe it is quite clear you are trying to convince someone who hasn't the faintest clue about physics. Actually I take that back. They have some idea of some physical processes allowing them to write reams of nonsense filled with "real scientific words" but their total lack of understanding of the laws of physics prevents them from understanding....then denial kicks in...the defensive position kicks in....then ignorance flows freely.

This thread should merge with the Flat Earthers.

It would help in a lot of threads if people had spent their youth using film cameras, hours in darkrooms, hours messing about with light etc etc Soooo many threads full of BS because people don't understand the relationship between aperture, ISO and speed of cameras and the human eye.



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 06:44 AM
link   
a reply to: yorkshirelad

YES that's him to a tee



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 07:07 AM
link   
a reply to: ConnectDots

i am going to have to take a break from this thread - if that is ATS user " garyn" then his crimes against geology are going to get me banned



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 08:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: ConnectDots
A search of the page for The Japan Times fails.

This is why, correct?

You made a comment which has since been deleted:




posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 11:21 AM
link   
a reply to: ConnectDots




Is that you in Flickr?


Yes. On the Thunderbolts site I am GaryN, and my main threads are about the Sun, E/M Geomorphology, and the E/M universe. Most of what we are told about the history of the Earth is bogus, conventional geology is a farce, and so is astronomy, and much of astrophysics. They really have no idea what the Sun is or how it works, as Dollard says. I also believe the fear of nuclear radiation has been blown out of all proportion, and that we should have had cheap, clean energy long ago if it not been for the power of the oil, coal and gas industries to influence politicians. Yes, I'm an all around conspiracy theorist!

@wmd_2008


More TOTAL and UTTER BS from YOU first you don't have to be logged into youtube for people to see your comments


My comments were NOT visible unless I was logged in. Search "youtube comments not visible unless logged in"
So now you call me an outright liar. Disagreeing with my interpretation of what can be seen in space is one thing, this is a science forum, but for calling me a liar, no more replies to you ever.


And isn't this interesting.
GOOGLE 'World's Biggest Censor
www.usnews.com...



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 11:23 AM
link   
a reply to: GaryN
What is it about a spectral imager that makes invisible light visible? All I know about spectral imaging is that it records the full spectrum or its specific parts at every point in the image plane.

Spectral imagers are built commercially, too. Commercial satellites use them to monitor Earth, and they're used in microscopy too.

So what stops, say, Russian or Indian space enthusiasts launching one on a mini-satellite and pointing it into deep space?



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 12:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: GaryN
Most of what we are told about the history of the Earth is bogus, conventional geology is a farce, and so is astronomy, and much of astrophysics. They really have no idea what the Sun is or how it works, as Dollard says.

Amen.


I also believe the fear of nuclear radiation has been blown out of all proportion, and that we should have had cheap, clean energy long ago if it not been for the power of the oil, coal and gas industries to influence politicians. Yes, I'm an all around conspiracy theorist!

Thank you for your courage in speaking out.





posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 01:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: GaryN


My comments were NOT visible unless I was logged in. Search "youtube comments not visible unless logged in"
So now you call me an outright liar. Disagreeing with my interpretation of what can be seen in space is one thing, this is a science forum, but for calling me a liar, no more replies to you ever.



That just PROVES you are talking BS you NEVER comment on the pictures or the links or external text re the equipment because YOU can't all you do is re quote your BS theories



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 01:59 PM
link   
Here is more evidence of GaryN BS I know you have an interest in a view from 35,000 km



Elektro-L payloads

The main payload of the satellite would be a special scanner with a 20-degree angle of view, designated MSU-GS, capable of obtaining images in the visible and infrared ranges of the spectrum. From the height of its geostationary orbit, its angle of view would be enough to watch the entire disk of the Earth. Visible and infrared components of the imager were promised to have a resolution of one and four kilometers respectively and be capable of producing images every 30 minutes.




What your excuse for this being possible


Oh and another recent BS claim about the colour green

Earth


This pair of images represents the same viewpoint on Earth through two different sets of filters on the MESSENGER spacecraft. On top, three filters in red, green, and blue wavelengths were combined to make an image that approximates what the human eye would see. The green mass at the center is the Amazon jungle of South America. The deserts of West Africa are just visible on the edge of the Earth's disk below and to the right of South America. The bottom image is "pushed" into the near infrared; instead of red, green, and blue, it is composed of images taken through near-infrared, red, and green filters. Chlorophyll, the green pigment in plant leaves, is very strongly reflective at near infrared wavelengths, much more so than it is in red or green wavelengths, so the vegetated parts of Earth burst into bright red color.


USUAL EXCUSES IN 3.....2.......1........
edit on 22-6-2016 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-6-2016 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 02:03 PM
link   
- hard life here GaryN! Sorry for you, but what you try here is a complete none-sense! They are too full of scientific knowledge, to have time for rhetorical questions, alternative theories, ideas, or to see above top secret lies present everywhere around us! Really hard life!



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 02:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: sadang
- hard life here GaryN! Sorry for you, but what you try here is a complete none-sense! They are too full of scientific knowledge, to have time for rhetorical questions, alternative theories, ideas, or to see above top secret lies present everywhere around us! Really hard life!


Many long time PHOTOGRAPHERS on here even pro & semi pro myself 37 years this year so YES I AND MANY OTHERS have a good idea how light works and some of us also post HERE

If what we are told didn't work YOU would NOT be bashing a keyboard to talk to others around the world.



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 03:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: wmd_2008
If what we are told didn't work YOU would NOT be bashing a keyboard to talk to others around the world.

- continuing to infinitely repeating me the same thing, will not make me think other way than I think now. I was not born yesterday!

- on the other hand, making devices according to a specific theory doesn't mean that theory is corect at all, means only that device works according to that theory and nothing else! the shadow of a shape is not the same thing as the shape itself! can you comprehend this?

- nothing personal believe me!



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 04:08 PM
link   
a reply to: wildespace




So what stops, say, Russian or Indian space enthusiasts launching one on a mini-satellite and pointing it into deep space?


Nothing really, except the money. They won't just put a regular camera up there, the D4 as used from the ISS for example, at the focal plane of a regular telescope, and point it away from Earth. Pointing towards Earth, the light is obviously of the type our eyes and conventional optics can see, pointing away from Earth, depending on altitude, it would indeed be interesting to see what the same instrument would see, as the wavefronts would not be focusable with conventional optics according to my theories. The microsats may well be able to see things, as NASA is making available some of the technology that allows the supposed stars to be made visible, but not the classified stuff.




...Originally developed for the Hubble and James Webb space telescopes, ...wavefront sensing

www.nasa.gov...

Its all about wavefront sensing, which involves some very clever science AND maths and computer processing. Our eyes or regular camera optics can not focus the wavefronts of the 'light' travelling the vacuum. So in the future if there are microsats showing pictures of the supposed stars from space, you have to realise it will not be from a conventional camera and optics.
The history of the devices that can focus these wavefronts is interesting. The early ones could only detect single wavelenghts, the optics were so expensive and difficult to produce as the quality of the lens material and the accuracy of the lens/prism/grating/phase plate was pushing the limits of science and engineering and fabrication. Then they managed to 'decode' 2 wavelengths with the next generation, and so on. The advent of the full frame APS sensor though, and the extreme levels of gain of the newer CCDs, AND the SOFTWARE, allows them to do away with all the complex optics, reducing costs and size/weight accordingly. The Star Trackers are the best example of that, and it was the military star trackers that drove the development of it all.

@-sadang




hard life here GaryN!


Yes, but that's OK. I have learned a lot myself because of the reaction of some of the posters here, making me research things to find answers to their mocking and often insulting, and quite often shockingly uninformed posts. What I have learned convinces me I am on the right track, though as you say, nobody fully understands the nature of light, and I have never claimed to either, but I do know it is not as simple in space as it is within the atmosphere, that the light is of a different configuration. I often think I am wasting my time here, as it is the same few insulters who post most of the comments, and because the ATS site does not provide view counts for the topics, I don't know how many people might be reading the posts but not replying for fear of being subject to the same derision. It seems to me also that there may be some "opinion shaping" going on on ATS, certain topics get pushed out of the limelight, while total sensationalist drivel subjects get high ratings. Maybe its not ATS doing any manipulation, it is just the "News of the World" type of subjects that most people are interested in, and not science or learning truth aspects. That's the way of the world it seems, unfortunately.

"There are great ideas undiscovered, breakthroughs available to those who can remove one of the truth's protective layers. There are places to go beyond belief..."

I hear you Neil, too bad you couldn't have removed more of those protective layers, but telling us it is totally black out there certainly removed ONE of those layers for me.



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 05:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: sadang
. . . none-sense . . . /quote]

I don't know what you mean by that.

Please explain.



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 10:19 PM
link   
a reply to: GaryN
Wavefront sensors don't focus the wavefront to make invisible light magically visible. They simply measure the optical abberation, so that it could be corrected by other means. Oh, and they've been used in many areas of our lives for decades, including lens testing and ophthalmology.

Look at all the commercial organisations around the world using wavefront sensors: www.adaptiveoptics.org...

Once again, you're just throwing sciency-sounding terms around, hoping that they will prop your ideas, without actually understanding what they mean.


but I do know it is not as simple in space as it is within the atmosphere, that the light is of a different configuration.

All we need is actual proof of that, or at least a solid hypothesys that works off maths and at least some corroborating evidence. I have yet to see that evidence in this thread.
edit on 22-6-2016 by wildespace because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2016 @ 02:04 AM
link   
a reply to: sadang

Technology does not rely on only one theory film/ digital cameras rely on chemical/optical and electronics amongst many.

So pulling out conspiracy clichés is pointless.



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 41  42  43    45  46  47 >>

log in

join