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: 53
40
<< 50  51  52    54  55  56 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 16 2016 @ 11:22 AM
link   
A picture of the sun taken by Gemini XII around the time of a solar eclipse

tothemoon.ser.asu.edu...

And one of the images showing the eclipse itself:

en.wikipedia.org...#/media/File:Gemini_XII_Mission_Image_-_Solar_Eclipse.jpg

and some info about the eclipse.

en.wikipedia.org...

The crew report seeing it while they were transmitting to Antigua. They were, by definition, looking in the opposite direction to Earth.

and here, JAXA's Kaguya probe illustrates why looking at the sun with a camera isn't a great idea:





posted on Jul, 16 2016 @ 11:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: wildespace
a reply to: ConnectDots
Can wisdom and love calculate the orbits of planets, asteroids, or comets, calculate the fuel and trajectories of rockets, and get them to rendezvous with those planets/asteroids/comets many years in the future?

Can wisdom and love study molecular interactions and come up with life-saving medical treatments or groundbreaking material physics?

Was it love and wisdom that created this computer or mobile device you're typing on?


Only Love and Wisdom can take us forwards, if there was only Hate and Ignorance we would have ceased to exist long ago.



posted on Jul, 17 2016 @ 02:34 AM
link   
The Sun in a Gemini IX image taken during EVA

tothemoon.ser.asu.edu...-38064_G09-S

Anotherone of the Gemini XII eclipse:

greenatom.earth...



posted on Jul, 17 2016 @ 11:29 AM
link   
a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

Can I just say that you're the most useful monkey ever? All these solid facts that you keep bringing up, guys like GaryN keep ignoring.



posted on Jul, 17 2016 @ 12:41 PM
link   
Lets see them use this method from the outside of Earths atmosphere. Or even on an EVA from the ISS.
Astronomy without telescope the Sun through video camera and solar filter.
lupuvictor.blogspot.ca...
Can't be done.



posted on Jul, 17 2016 @ 05:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: GaryN
Lets see them use this method from the outside of Earths atmosphere. Or even on an EVA from the ISS.
Astronomy without telescope the Sun through video camera and solar filter.
lupuvictor.blogspot.ca...
Can't be done.


Of course it can: www.nasa.gov...
blogs.esa.int...




posted on Jul, 17 2016 @ 11:36 PM
link   
a reply to: wildespace




"Lets see them use this method from the outside of Earths atmosphere. Or even on an EVA from the ISS."

Can you read?? The images were taken from the Cupola, which means they must be looking through the band of atmosphere around the Earth, so no wonder they look like images taken from Earth. The difference is that from the cupola they could not image the whole transit, the Sun went out of the line of visibility from the Cupola. I have shown you using Celestia just where the Sun was during transit, just above Earths rim.

The Sun gets very dim just as it stars to be clipped by the Cupola window edge in images they don't expect anyone to look at.
eol.jsc.nasa.gov...
Of course they don't provide camera metadata for these shots. Devious they may be, but not stupid.



posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 01:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: GaryN
Can you read?? The images were taken from the Cupola, which means they must be looking through the band of atmosphere around the Earth, so no wonder they look like images taken from Earth.


sorry but no, looking out horizontally there is basically no atmosphere to make stars visible. the only possible way to see stars according to your theory would be to look at the horizon of the earth.

average air density at sea level is 1.225 kg/m3
average air density at 50km is 9.77525E-4 kg/m3
average air density at 400km is 2.62E-12 kg/m3

so roughly 99.999202% of the atmosphere is BELOW 50km that is available to make stars visible..

and your theory is saying that 2.14E-12% or 0.00000000000214% of sea level atmosphere is capable of making the stars visible?? then at sea level we should be constantly blinded by light.
edit on 18-7-2016 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 02:11 AM
link   
- again and again the same useless comments, which can be seen all over the internet
- no one seems to think for himself, they just repeat meaningless what they have been taught
- it is becoming increasingly obvious that they do not even know what it means "to see"



posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 03:09 AM
link   
a reply to: sadang

And your contribution has been?

Another couple of images for Gary to ignore

en.wikipedia.org...#/media/File:STS-134_EVA4_view_to_the_Russian_Orbital_Segment.jpg

upload.wikimedia.org...(l)_Reid_Wiseman.jpg
edit on 18/7/2016 by OneBigMonkeyToo because: extra image



posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 03:33 AM
link   
a reply to: sadang

But the good thing is that there are hopefully others - the general public worldwide - reading and opening up their minds.



posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 04:11 AM
link   
a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

- exactly what just I said!
- is not about ignoring something, is about understanding it!
- ISS not means cisluna or deep space
- as I said... spaces and spaces! only limited human minds can think the space around an electron from hidrogen atom is the same as the space around the electron of Helium atom! for sure limited human mind can bravery do this!



posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 04:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: sadang
a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

- exactly what just I said!
- is not about ignoring something, is about understanding it!
- ISS not means cisluna or deep space
- as I said... spaces and spaces! only limited human minds can think the space around an electron from hidrogen atom is the same as the space around the electron of Helium atom! for sure limited human mind can bravery do this!


GaryN has claimed the moon is invisible from cislunar space.

he has also previously claimed the lunar "atmosphere" is highly reflective and therefore should have made seeing stars from Apollo images visible in every shot.

he has also claimed that the lunar "atmosphere" was too thin to see anything.

if you take into account of all three of these things that GaryN has mentioned, it would show he is contradicting himself over and over.

theres no evidence of him trying to understand this, only his ignorance of what he has previously said to suit what he currently thinks regardless of contradictions.



posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 04:43 AM
link   
a reply to: sadang

Nope, not really, all you've done is say how great GaryN is and how stupid everyone else is.

Hanging on to some else's coat tails is not the same as understanding anything or actually doing any research yourself.

GaryN makes repeated claims, demands evidence, then either pretends he hasn't seem them, moves the goalposts to make sure that nothing will ever satisfy the increasingly narrow criteria that he has set, then misrepresents the words and findings of people who actually research space or who have actually been there. He does that not just here but all over the internet.

He demanded photographs of the sun taken facing away from the Earth. i gave him some taken by Gemini. No response. He demands images of the sun not taken from the ISS cupola. I've just provided some. No response. On another forum he wondered whether there was any imagery from Chinese probes showing the sun. I provided him with a film taken by Japan's Kaguya showing the sun emerging from behind the Earth. No response. He claims no astronauts talk about stars, I provide him with a link to my own site showing the referred to them all the time. He claims there are no photographs of stars in space, I provided him with a link showing that this was completely untrue. What was that about me not doing any research or understanding a subject?

Now, where's your evidence in support of the claim that you can't see stars in space?



posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 10:07 AM
link   
a reply to: choos
- GaryN has its own theory about light and certainly more than just light, and this is the reason I support him
- his arguments are the words of someone who was in space, not of an armchair wannabe
- and also the fact that there is not any image of the Sun taken from outer space in what is called the visible electromagnetic spectrum and added from myself: avoiding magnetosphere and/or magnetotail of planets.

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo
- don't try to put words in my mouth
- all "evidences" from lower than what is called exosphere have to be excluded from current debate
- my "evidences" have the same source as yours + my own different understanding
- read again my previous message and ask yourself: "Why?"



posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 10:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: sadang
a reply to: choos
- GaryN has its own theory about light and certainly more than just light, and this is the reason I support him


perhaps you didnt read any posts other than GaryN's in this thread properly??
GaryN has been shown to be wrong with nearly every "theory" he has provided
He IGNORES all evidence that has been provided that proves him wrong and goes on his blind rants while changing his mind about how it works depending on how he feels.
He has never once admitted to his own mistakes, leading to him to be contradicting himself over and over again.

But by all means if you want to support a theory which states that the moon is both visible and invisible depending on when you ask, then support GaryN all the way.


- his arguments are the words of someone who was in space, not of an armchair wannabe


how about the other 23 astronauts that have been to cis-lunar space and their testimonies?? what makes Neil's cherry picked misinterpreted quotes special and the other 23 liars??

if you wanted arguments from people who have been in cis-lunar space about seeing stars, you have already been provided with more than enough and yet you continue to ignore theirs?? why??


- and also the fact that there is not any image of the Sun taken from outer space in what is called the visible electromagnetic spectrum and added from myself: avoiding magnetosphere and/or magnetotail of planets.


this is an outright lie.
SOHO has provided exactly what you just claimed doesnt exist. it has provided alot of images in the visible electromagnetic spectrum at Sun–Earth L1 point of the sun.
edit on 18-7-2016 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 01:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: sadang
- 400Km not means cisluna space. there are spaces and spaces, some denser other less denser. I mean the energy density not particles. and the exosphere still has its own energy gradient!
- visible light is a local phenomenon
- is hard GaryN, is hard to open minds already well closed!

Visible light is absolutely a local phenomenon -- i.e., local to the light receptors in the back of your eye, local to the light sensors in a digital camera, and local to the light sensitive emulsions in print film.

We can't see light unless it enters our eyes (or camera). However, it can enter our eyes, and be quite visible, by us looking at a direct light source and aligning our eyes with the light from that source (the Sun, a star, a light bulb, etc), or looking at the reflected light of one of the direct sources reflecting off of something (something like the Moon, a planet, or the wall in front of me).

Otherwise, no. Cislunar space is, for the most part, completely dark because there is practically nothing for photons of light to visibly reflect off of and back into our eyes (or into a camera). The photons of light streaming through virtually empty space (or through clean, clear air on Earth) are invisible if they are streaming past our eyes rather than into our eyes.


edit on 7/18/2016 by Box of Rain because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 02:38 PM
link   
a reply to: choos
- I usually think for myself about what others want to say, and I don't need others to explain me their own gorgeous way of thinking. this apply to GaryN theory and your interpretation.
- why do you consider the Neil quotes as being misinterpreted and not the other's 23 words being misinterpreted? there are references and references!
- a CCD don't detect light

a reply to: Box of Rain
- you are close but still on a wrong path for understanding what is light and why and how it is a local phenomenon. Back to Newton and Maxwell!
- "the Sun, a star, a light bulb, etc" are sources but certainly not of light.

For all, stop telling me about electromagnetic theory, how wonderful it is explained by the current science and how I type these ideas using a product built exactly using this theory. I can say only as choos said: "cherry picked misinterpreted quotes".



posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 02:46 PM
link   
a reply to: sadang



- again and again the same useless comments, which can be seen all over the internet


This is all they can do, keep repeating the same unscientific nonsense. Like a pack of dogs running down their prey, they just keep on hounding, nipping, tiring out their target until it falls. Well, it won't work here, the hounds bark is much worse than its bite, because it has no teeth.
@OBM



Now, where's your evidence in support of the claim that you can't see stars in space?


It is not possible to prove a negative, it is you who must PROVE that stars ARE visible from cislunar space, which requires experiments. The Apollo astronauts couldn't get their stories straight though.




..retired Air Force Brigadier General Charles Duke: 'No we couldn't see the stars anytime on the voyage: it was too bright!' he unequivocally stated..


It was too bright. What was too bright, the Sun, or the sky? If it was too bright, how could they do low light photography experiments? Nothing makes sense with their statements, lets do some experiments.




this is an outright lie. SOHO has provided exactly what you just claimed doesnt exist. it has provided alot of images in the visible electromagnetic spectrum at Sun–Earth L1 point of the sun.


No, your statement is the outright lie. There are no visible wavelenght photographs of the Sun from SOHO.



posted on Jul, 18 2016 @ 03:05 PM
link   
a reply to: sadang

My post was half-mocking...

My point is that light that reaches our eyes (from our eyes being directly in the path of light coming from a light source, or our eyes being directly in the path of that light reflecting off of something) is visible. Light that streams past our eyes through virtually empty space (or through clean, clear air on Earth) is invisible.


- "the Sun, a star, a light bulb, etc" are sources but certainly not of light.

These all emit photons, part of whose EM wavelength is between 390 to 740 nm, which become visible upon interacting with the light receptors in our eyes and interpreted by our brains. So, yeah -- those are sources of visible light.


One thing that confuses me about GaryN's claim is that why is the visible light spectrum so magically invisible to eyes, cameras, or telescopes? I mean, he says that (for example) the Hubble Telescope can see in ultraviolet (wavelengths shorter than visible light), and can see in infrared (wavelengths longer than visble light), but according to Gary, it mysteriously can't see the wavelengths of the EM spectrum in between ultraviolet and infrared -- i.e., the visible light spectrum...

...but why not? Why would there be a hole in between ultraviolet and infrared that the Hubble can't see?


edit on 7/18/2016 by Box of Rain because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
40
<< 50  51  52    54  55  56 >>

log in

join