Stars Can't Be Seen from Outer Space

originally posted by: GaryN

@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.

GaryN has admitted that visible light spectrum can travel through cislunar space or without a medium.. so seeing light from stars is absolutely possible.

do you have any proof whatsoever that the sun does NOT emit visible light?

a reply to: choos
For some strange reason, the 390 to 700 nm band is not produced by the Sun or other stars. It's an unexplained mystery.

Deal with it.

originally posted by: GaryN
The real nature of what is out there is likely closer to that described by Bahram Katirai, but his book "A Revolution in Astronomy" is no longer available as he died mysteriously and quite young. I did save a copy on Google Drive, but can not post the link due to this sites software, but the link can be found on the first post at this site, which I got banned from because I questioned authority.
cosmoquest.org...

Thank you for your time and effort.

Just for the record, here is the Table of Contents page for the 170 page PDF:

a reply to: Phage

but :

richard of york gave battle in vain - didnt he ?????

or was that just a " mandela effect ????????? "

originally posted by: ConnectDots

And dust mites living in your pillow are actually tooth fairies. Microbiologists have been lying to us all along.

I'm currently reading through that PDF, for enterntainment purposes obviously. Right off the bat, the guy states that

The larger a telescope‟s lens or mirror, the greater its ability to collect light, and hence the greater the distance it can see.

Erm, no, the size of a telescope's lens or mirror determines its resolution (how much detail it can see), not how far it can see.

originally posted by: wmd_2008
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.

- is not about pulling out conscpiracy cliches, is about sensing the wrong premises on which was developed the current science
- if Newton would have understood correct gravity, relativity would never have existed, Planck size would have been just a size and the light would have been a banal effect of specific energy manifestation.
- all current technology rely on Maxwell electromagnetic theory and its variations at micro and macro levels, far, far away from the intrinsic nature of phenomena and interactions on which rely the Universe.

originally posted by: GaryN
The real nature of what is out there is likely closer to that described by Bahram Katirai, but his book "A Revolution in Astronomy" is no longer available as he died mysteriously and quite young.

How did you find out that he had died?

Do you remember the year he died?

Briefly, what were the mysterious circumstances?

originally posted by: GaryN
. . . the link can be found on the first post at this site, which I got banned from because I questioned authority.
cosmoquest.org...

As in "rejecting perfectly good Mainstream answers."

How dare you?

a reply to: choos

do you have any proof whatsoever that the sun does NOT emit visible light?

Do you have any proof that it DOES emit visible light? Can you think of a scientific experiment to PROVE it does?

a reply to: ConnectDots

From GaryN's link

The circle of an open pupil in the average human eye has a diameter of about 0.7 cm and a surface area of 0.38465 cm2
In comparison with the lens of the eye, the light collecting surface of the Hubble telescope‟s objectivehas a diameter 357.14 times larger than that of the eye. Its surface area is about 127,551 times larger than that of the eye. This means that the Hubble telescope collects 127,551 times more light than the human eye. If all this light were used to create brighter rather than larger images than the naked eye sees, then the light of those images must be 127,551 times brighter than the images the naked eye sees. For this reason,
the telescope can make a star appear 127,551 times brighter

Love this logic

This raises the question: What is the maximum distance an object can be seen through the Hubble telescope? The answer is 357.14 times the distance that the naked eye can see. The reason is
that an object 357.14 times farther away,

No doubt the eye and brain combined have a great dynamic range but what his BS science also forgets to take into account Digital Sensors can do TIMED EXPOSURES.

He claims later that it will help but not much it seems according to him but FILM has been used long before digital .

Also ACCURATE parallax measurement would cast doubt on it.

Telescopes are all about LIGHT GATHERING not about magnification

Yet another one of these to add to the ATS bowl



Keep it up and we can all have breakfast

a reply to: wmd_2008


The scientific method has four steps
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

originally posted by: GaryN

Do you have any proof that it DOES emit visible light? Can you think of a scientific experiment to PROVE it does?

the sun definitely emits xrays, extreme UV and infrared, otherwise this image would not exist in any form whatsoever.

so given this fact, you are saying that the sun emits electromagnetic radiation from xrays all the way down to infrared (of which visible light is known to be within), but for the specific wavelength between 390-710 nm the sun magically doesnt emit that??

there is this giant hole right in the middle of the suns electromagnetic spectrum is there???

what is your explaination for this magic??

basically what you are telling me is akin to saying that green doesnt exist but all the other colours do because that specific wavelength range is missing.

- the current scientific method is a completely wrong way to prove something, cause they exclude the observer influence over the final results. it was a scientific method on the days of the steam train not now in the time of Higgs boson. it could still be a scientific method perhaps seen from the frontiers of the Universe. more correctly would be to say it allows shaping a local reality according to a working hypothesis.
- now what is the light spectrum and its tutor electromagnetic theory? an intrinsic reality or cosmic energy or a local shaped reality?

a reply to: choos
The IR image is from Earth, but even if it was from space, it wouldn't be visible anyway Here's a chance to shine though for someone with patience, and some smarts. I have neither.
The LASO C3 instrument has filters in the visible wavelengths, so work out how to show me the images.
lasco-www.nrl.navy.mil.../filter/filter
Edit: Of course the link doesn't take you to where it should, you're on your own.

originally posted by: GaryN
a reply to: choos
but even if it was from space, it wouldn't be visible anyway

but it would be visible to sensors designed to image IR wouldnt it?? which means that the sun does emit IR..
so to summarise, we have equipment to image the sun in UV and we have equipment to image the sun in IR both can be done in space without any issues..

but the issue you have is that you know that the sun emits radiation from atleast UV to IR, but somewhere in the middle the sun has a massive hole that it does not emit, that just so happens to be what we humans have developed to rely on seeing.

also why dont you link to that page properly??

p.s. still no explaination about the magical hole in the suns electromagnetic spectrum from you.

originally posted by: ConnectDots
Do you remember the year he died?

Apparently, here is his obituary: Bahram Katirai.

I got the URL from Google Books.

He died in 2010.

He was born and went to high school in Iran, then moved to Canada. He was a teacher of the Baha'i Faith. (That reminds me of Marko Rodin.)

Apparently he had numerous patents.

He was also the author of Revolution in Physics.

Regarding the Baha'i Faith:

He held the conviction that within the writings of the Faith lay not only the blueprint for the spiritual and social advancement of humanity, but also hidden gems in the realm of science and the arts. His efforts to correlate the Baha'i teachings with questions in science may well prove to be of great significance to future scientists and Baha'i scholars.

Memory of Bahram Katirai

originally posted by: ConnectDots
Briefly, what were the mysterious circumstances?

I have not even been able to determine the "official" cause of death, which was at age 62, so far.

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: GaryN
a reply to: choos
but even if it was from space, it wouldn't be visible anyway

p.s. still no explaination about the magical hole in the suns electromagnetic spectrum from you.

This magical hole was also questioned many many...sigh...many pages ago. Still no answer

originally posted by: sadang
- the current scientific method is a completely wrong way to prove something, cause they exclude the observer influence over the final results. it was a scientific method on the days of the steam train not now in the time of Higgs boson. it could still be a scientific method perhaps seen from the frontiers of the Universe. more correctly would be to say it allows shaping a local reality according to a working hypothesis.
- now what is the light spectrum and its tutor electromagnetic theory? an intrinsic reality or cosmic energy or a local shaped reality?

Amazing dedication to this thread...this is the ONLY thread you have ever posted to

You know what arouse my suspicion? The fact that you agree with GaryN. Its almost unprecedented that a thread has no other people siding with it. But here we are. Even Flat earth threads have one or 2 people agreeing with the Op.

a reply to: 3danimator2014

Why is it that you are commenting on a member instead of on an issue?