Stars Can't Be Seen from Outer Space

a reply to: GaryN

Oh look. You still failed to address the questions about your "glowy things" that were asked before.

Why would the asteroid only glow on the side that is facing the sun and not all over?

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: GaryN

Oh look. You still failed to address the questions about your "glowy things" that were asked before.

Why would the asteroid only glow on the side that is facing the sun and not all over?

I didn't answer that because it is another time wasting question, or shows a complete lack of understanding of some basic and well understood scientific principle. The whole rock does not glow, only where the solar UV radiation 'rays' strike the surafce material and cause fluorescence in the top few microns of the surface. Replace tour visible light rays from the Sun with UV ones, there will only be emissions from the lit side, and there will be shadows in the unlit holes or behind high spots.

originally posted by: GaryN

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: GaryN

Oh look. You still failed to address the questions about your "glowy things" that were asked before.

Why would the asteroid only glow on the side that is facing the sun and not all over?

I didn't answer that because it is another time wasting question, or shows a complete lack of understanding of some basic and well understood scientific principle.

You mean like not understand the basic scientific principles of visible light?

The whole rock does not glow, only where the solar UV radiation 'rays' strike the surafce material and cause fluorescence in the top few microns of the surface. Replace tour visible light rays from the Sun with UV ones, there will only be emissions from the lit side, and there will be shadows in the unlit holes or behind high spots.

Would that be UVA, UVB or UVC?

a reply to: GaryN

and the earthshine image I posted above?

a reply to: TerryDon79

Would that be UVA, UVB or UVC?

Lots of info on the internet about fluorescence, do your own homework. Vacuum UV (in the vacuum) to cosmic rays can cause it.

@OBM

and the earthshine image I posted above?

Provide the image details please.

a reply to: GaryN

It's not up to me to provide proof of your (rediculous) claims. That would be your responsibility.

a reply to: GaryN

tothemoon.ser.asu.edu...-127-20018

onebigmonkey.com...

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: GaryN

tothemoon.ser.asu.edu...-127-20018

onebigmonkey.com...

Lousy images of the stars as usual, using the lunar atmosphere to make them visible, and when not using the atmosphere? With the 2485 film? Garbage, absolute garbage.
tothemoon.ser.asu.edu...

Earthshine, created by FUV/EUV from Earth and/or Van Allen belt making the lunar surface fluoresce. Prove it isn't.

FUV
www3.telus.net...
EUV
www.spaceflight101.net...

a reply to: GaryN

You really are making it up as you go along aren't you.

Not all of those pictures of stars aren't taken in lunar orbit, in cislunar space there is no lunar atmosphere. Even those taken in lunar orbit are not looking through the lunar atmosphere. It matters not that they aren't crystal sharp pictures, you don't get to decide which quality is acceptable. They are visible light images of stars taken by film dedicated to recording visible light.

And no, the burden of proof is on you to prove your ridiculous theory: Earthshine is not UV light converted into visible spectrum on the moon. It's reflected visible light reflecting back from the moon. The VAB doesn't reach the moon. You have linked to images taken with specialised UV cameras using UV sensitive film taken over several minutes. The Apollo images were taken in 1/125" on normal (albeit very sensitive) 35mm film.

It's easy, all you have to do is admit you're wrong and just making this nonsense up with any evidence-based support at all.

I cant see the stars when it's daytime out either.... except for that one... I can see that one real good.

a reply to: GaryN

- it's hard to change minds already set in a specific way, to shape a specific reality.
- in my opinion the final phrase of your message should look like this "ALL LIGHT, HEAT AND LIFE IS EVOLVED ONLY IN THE MAGNETOSPHERE OF SUNS AND PLANETS".
- interesting book, I saw this idea even to a few contemporary, just everything is more than what we call "electricity".
- btw: - archive.org...

originally posted by: sadang
a reply to: GaryN

- it's hard to change minds already set in a specific way, to shape a specific reality.

Nah, all we need is a bit of tangible proof.

Saying "it is so, because NASA haven't taken photos that would prove me otherwise" just doesn't cut it, sorry.

49 pages of evidence _for_ stars and the Sun being visible in space, and not a single post with proof against that.

originally posted by: GaryN
a reply to: 3danimator2014

But then i thought.."why bother"

Just what I have been thinking.

And yet here we all are, almost 50 pages in

originally posted by: GaryN

Lousy images of the stars as usual, using the lunar atmosphere to make them visible, and when not using the atmosphere? With the 2485 film? Garbage, absolute garbage.

lies!!!

back HERE you were telling Phage that you cant see stars from the vicinity of the moon since the moon has insufficient atmosphere.

a reply to: wildespace

- why do you need NASA to understand things or to prove something?
- the light not belongs to NASA, so its proofs are just its proofs and nothing more
- I suppose for you is more comfortable to agree with what NASA says, than what GaryN says.

a reply to: sadang

It's not just NASA. There are other space agencies around the world that aren't American.

Let's give GaryN some facts to deal with:

The moon's atmosphere is a tiny fraction of a percent that of Earth's - really tiny.

No-one is denying that the moon does not reflect UV light. However, the UV light it reflects is a tiny fraction compared with the amount of visible light reflected - around 0.7 to 0.3% depending on which end of the UV spectrum you look at. This is the reason that UV images of the moon have to be much longer exposures.

No-one is denying that Earth reflects UV light, but again it is far less than it receives. Earth taken with UV film from the moon and cislunar space also have to be longer exposures.

No-one is denying that UV light causes some materials to flouresce. That flourescence, however, is of a very specific nature for each mineral that exhibits the property based on the energy transformation caused by the mineral itself as it absorbs the UV light.

What everyone here is denying, because there is absolutely no scientific basis for it, is that UV light is magically transformed into the visible spectrum and that this is the only reason anything can be photographed on the moon or in space. What is also being denied is that there is sufficient lunar atmosphere for this to be magically transform the tiny amount of UV light received into enough bright visible spectrum light to be photographed. The moon's atmospheric composition is nothing like Earth's, so how can the interaction of UV light with it possibly recreate the exact same visible spectrum as we see on Earth. Likewise the lunar surface with a surface regolith composition that is unlike Earth's surface somehow magically recreates the exact same visible spectrum through flourescence alone?

Stars, planets and other objects in space are visible to the human eye and photographable by normal film not because of some mystical magic hitherto undetected process that only GaryN understands, but because they are emitting and/or reflecting visible spectrum light that we can see and photograph.

Any other explanation is just fantasy and a complete misrepresentation of reality.

a reply to: sadang

The properties of light were understood 300 years before NASA existed. The only people with an obsession about NASA are the ones who don't understand what they do, and whose ignorance of space research doesn't tell them that there are many many people and organisations involved that are not American.

originally posted by: sadang
a reply to: wildespace

- why do you need NASA to understand things or to prove something?

Exactly. Tell that to GaryN, he's been going on and on about what NASA did or did not photograph, in order to prove his point.

In my previous posts, I mentioned the hundreds of thousands of people and organisations, all around the world, who were involved in space exploration and the science involved. People who designed and built the rockets, the spacecraft, the cameras, etc. All those people studied at universities, learning the known sciences, and adding to our knowledge as part of their studies and jobs.

And GaryN implies that all that study and work is "smoke and mirrors", and all these people were secretly inducted into the "real" knowledge base about how light is not visible in space, and sworn to secrecy.

Myself and the "onebigmonkey" are trying very hard to be reasonable here; perhaps you and GaryN could show some effort and meet us half-way?

a reply to: TerryDon79
- ok. let me reformulate, maybe now things will be more clear for you: "why do some needs space agencies to understand things or to prove something?"

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo
- and the Earth was also scientifically understood as being flat for about 1000 years. Luckily time works against any dogma, be it even scientifically proven.

a reply to: wildespace
- did you thought at least one sec that maybe I also try to be resonable here, when I agree with GaryN that light is not visible in outer space?
- you ever wondered the fundamental question "why?" and how far have you gone with the question?