Stars Can't Be Seen from Outer Space

a reply to: sadang

you dont actually think for yourself when all you do is agree with GaryN, you are just basically accepting his views because you cant think of any yourself, if you were thinking for yourself you would be asking where GaryN is wrong and only if you cant find anything wrong with his theories then you would agree.. unfortunately you wont even acknowledge (the same goes for GaryN) that you both agree that the moon is both visible and invisible.

I consider the quotes that GaryN uses of Neil misinterpretations because when I am fully night adapated in the country side on a cloudless night i would also describe the night sky as black.. unless you want me to describe the stars as well?
there is also no indication from GaryN to consider if Neil was talking about being in a brightly lit command module or the day lit side of the lunar surface.. is there any reason why?

regardless of what you think CCD does, SOHO has imaged the solar corona in the visible electromagnetic spectrum from the sun-earth L1 point. therefore visible electromagnetic spectrum IS BEING EMITTED FROM THE SUN

a reply to: GaryN

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

is the Solar Corona emitted from the sun??
is it in the visible wavelength as captured by SOHO??
if the answer to both is yes the sun is emitting light from the visible spectrum. therefore my statement is not a lie.

a reply to: Box of Rain
- your post can be as you want cause it reflect your way of thinking
- for all other written by you read again the point two from my previous post

a reply to: choos
- stop trying to put words in my mouth
- what I know and understand is not what you think I know and understand
- a CCD don't detect light - think at this point deeper than Coulomb
- for all other written by you read my above recommendation to Box of Rain

a reply to: sadang

but all you are doing is agreeing with GaryN...

theres no input, GaryN has already suggested that the moon is both visible and invisible when outside of Earths atmospheric influences.. it surely cant be both??

it doesnt matter how a CCD works.. it it designed to image in the visible electromagnetic spectrum right?? so it captures the same electromagnetic radiation wavelengths that our eyes processes.

if a CCD doesnt image in the visible electromagnetic spectrum then you are referring to a camera that is designed to image UV or IR or something else which is a completely different machine. basically you would be talking about oranges and everyone else is talking about apples.

a reply to: choos
- "but all you are doing is agreeing with GaryN...". I'll repeat again specially for you: stop trying to put words (your words) in my mouth. We both see the Sun, but I see it with my eyes and you with your eyes? Do you think we should/would see it the same? Can you comprehend what I'm trying to suggest?
- in our discussion matters a lot how a ccd works, because you use it as a reference to argue about light. I repeat again: a ccd don't sense any kind of light from the entire what you call electromagnetic spectrum
- oranges and apples are still both fruits. go further than that and find their deep common denominator

originally posted by: sadang
a reply to: choos
- "but all you are doing is agreeing with GaryN...". I'll repeat again specially for you: stop trying to put words (your words) in my mouth. We both see the Sun, but I see it with my eyes and you with your eyes? Do you think we should/would see it the same? Can you comprehend what I'm trying to suggest?

Right so we've descended into Philosophy101 now?

All our eyes work in the same way and respond to the same visible light frequencies. We all call the same thing yellow.

- in our discussion matters a lot how a ccd works, because you use it as a reference to argue about light. I repeat again: a ccd don't sense any kind of light from the entire what you call electromagnetic spectrum

Depends on the CCD, but if a a CCD is working in the visible spectrum then what it photographs is what our eyes can see. Photographs taken with a CCD showing stars, the sun and planets are showing what you would see with your eyes.

You are also forgetting that photographs existed before the CCD was invented, and photographs taken by film cameras show stars, planets, moons and the sun in space with no atmosphere or lunar dust or whatever other feeble excuse GaryN has come up with to limit his own narrow limit of acceptability (a limit designed to prove that he can never be wrong despite the fact that he is) show what our eyes can see and what astronauts have described seeing over 5 decades of manned space exploration.

Here, have a photograph taken by Apollo 11 on film in Earth Orbit showing the sun:

www.lpi.usra.edu...

a reply to: sadang

if we see the sun the same or not is unimportant, we see the sun in the visible light spectrum and that is the important part, if you dont you are NOT HUMAN..
what Im arguing for is that the sun IS EMITTING radiation from the visible electromagnetic spectrum.
What GaryN and you seem to be arguing for is that the sun does NOT emit visible electromagnetic radiation, although it does emit UV and IR..

how a CCD works is also completely irrelevant.

Does the CCD detect visible electromagnetic radiation?
if the answer is yes, what is the source?
if the answer is no, then you are referring to something completely different probably UV or IR or something else in the electromagnetic spectrum that is NOT within the visible wavelength range.

a reply to: sadang

I realized I should rephrase my question. What I should have asked was this:

One thing that confuses me about GaryN's claim is that why is the visible light portion of the EM spectrum magically missing from the EM radiation emitted by the Sun?

He admits that the Sun gives off the parts of the EM spectrum in wavelengths shorter than visible light (UV, X-ray, gamma rays), and the Sun emits the parts of the EM spectrum in wavelengths longer than visible light (infrared, radar, radio), but he claims that the Sun mysteriously does not emit the part of the spectrum in between UV and IR.

Why doesn't it? What is the mechanism mysteriously causing a middle part of the Sun's EM spectrum (the part occupied by visible light) to be missing? A clear and succinct answer would be appreciated.

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo
- is nothing about Philosophy101 is all about understanding
- right, all our eyes work in the same way, but without mind to process their signals and another something to interpret all these, they are completely useless devices. What make you think that my way of interpretation is the same as yours? Should it be?
- a ccd don't detect light. it seems that you also can't or don't want to comprehend more than what you were already taught
- and read again my answer to you from here: a reply to: sadang

a reply to: choos
- it seems that you have not managed to understand what I wanted to suggest.
- it's ok, someday maybe, when you will have more time for deep reflections will see my words in another light!

a reply to: Box of Rain
- it seems that you still not read my previous suggestion. ok, it's up to you!

originally posted by: sadang
a reply to: Box of Rain
- it seems that you still not read my previous suggestion. ok, it's up to you!

You wrote:

- for all other written by you read again the point two from my previous post

and that "point two" was:

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

...so my question in my post above still holds. Why isn't the sun a source of visible light when it is a source of the rest of the EM spectrum? Why would there mysteriously be a hole in the sun's spectrum between 380 nm and about 750 nm wavelengths?

"We had gone into night just shortly after the docking was made. You didn't see a lot on the night side. You saw stars up above, and down below you might see the lights from a city".

Neil Armstrong discussing his first Gemini flight, from 'First Man: The life of Neil Armstrong" by James Hansen. My bold and italics.

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

And Michael Collins (who orbited the Moon while Armstrong and Aldrin were on the lit surface) unambiguously said that he could see stars while on the night side of the Moon.

In his autobiography "Carrying the Fire: An Astronaut's Journeys," Collins wrote about his experience as the command module passed behind to the night side of the Moon, and left him in complete isolation (not even able to communicate with Earth for some of that time, due to the Moon being in the way):

"I feel this powerfully -- not as fear or loneliness -- but as awareness, anticipation, satisfaction, confidence, almost exultation.

I like the feeling. Outside my window I can see stars -- and that is all. Where I know the moon to be, there is simply a black void, the moon's presence is defined solely by the absence of stars."

So Michael Collins did see stars. Not when the brightly lit Moon was mostly in his field of view, but he did when his eyes were in darkness.

a reply to: Box of Rain

Well, I am late to this discussion (I left this thread unread because of obvious anti-scientism and I don't like talking to walls trying to bring some light into the darkness), but may I ask:

did someone explain the spectral lines in sunlight, or from other stars/planets?
Or, better, the difference between most of them, so it can't all just be some kind of reflection/stimulation in Earth's athmosphere?

a reply to: sadang

its not that im not managing to understand, its that it is irrelevant.

what is it that the CCD is detecting??
is it of the visible electromagnetic radiation spectrum??

if it is then our eyes can detect it also, if it isnt then you are talking about a completely different part of the spectrum.

I dont care about the post processing of the light it isnt relevant, what I am asking you is, is that electromagnetic radiation from the visible wavelength band?

You like claim that you think for yourself dont you? shouldnt be too hard to think up your own answer to it.

Cassini spacecraft photographed stars in visible light: photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov...

And Saturn's rings too: www.nasa.gov...

Which begs the question - how can cameras "see" Saturn's rings in visible light? Same goes for Saturn's moons, and other airless bodies in the Solar System.

a reply to: Box of Rain

He admits that the Sun gives off the parts of the EM spectrum in wavelengths shorter than visible light (UV, X-ray, gamma rays), and the Sun emits the parts of the EM spectrum in wavelengths longer than visible light (infrared, radar, radio), but he claims that the Sun mysteriously does not emit the part of the spectrum in between UV and IR.

With no ordinary telescope outside of Earths atmosphere then experiments can not be performed, and all this bickering can never be resolved. Even Hubble is still within Earths atmosphere, though the atmsospheric components are different to the lower atmosphere, but solar radiation still interacts with it.
Search for "Atmospheric Composition and Vertical Structure", by Thomas W. Schlatter
There is no gap in the light spectrum, as UV and IR are also only created by way of solar radiation interacting with matter, and even electrons are classed as matter. You will not see them using IR cameras to look into space from the ISS, the best IR is available at the altitude of SOFIA because the atmosphere creates most IR there. Solar radiation in the vacuum needs to be detected by instruments that have the capability to 'decode' wavefronts that ordinary optics designed to detect spherical wavefronts can not. Then we have to get into the way photons travel in groups, which is different to individual photons.
Photons that travel in free space slower than the speed of light
arxiv.org...
Repeatedly showing images of the Sun when the Earth is in view mean nothing other than that there is still sufficient matter around the Earth to transform the solar radiation into photons with spherical wavefronts that the camera optics can focus. From LEO, the only valid experiment would be to let an independent group of astronomers put one of their telescopes with camera at the focal plane on the ISS, facing away from Earth. NASA has denied any attempts to do so, and will never allow such tests in the future. Putting a camera in cislunar space has been done, and it saw nothing (Apollo), but from lunar orbit, stars were seen if exposure times were long enough, and the film sensitive enough, and the line of sight long enough, as the lunar atmosphere is very thin but certainly exists.
Even the FUV camera/spectrograph on the lunar surface needed time exposures, though the spectrograph produced much brighter results than the high speed film, and from then on all astronomy from space has been spectrographic. As sadang has pointed out though, with the nature of light and vision and consciousness, there is still much to be explained. It is not so simple as most here believe.

a reply to: Box of Rain
- it seems you finally read what I suggested you to read, but don't or don't want to understand what you read!
- so again: read the point two of my answer to you from this message sadang

a reply to: choos
- it is irrelevant for your way of thinking
- the entire chain of processing of an information is important, from premises to conclusions!

originally posted by: GaryN
a reply to: Box of Rain

There is no gap in the light spectrum, as UV and IR are also only created by way of solar radiation interacting with matter, and even electrons are classed as matter.

Well, yeah -- that's obvious. We can't see light unless it interacts with matter, either...that is, we can't see light unless it is shining directly into our eyes (interacting with the light receptors in our eyes), either directly from a light source (sun, light bulb, etc,) or reflect off of something and into our eyes (the Moon, an asteroid, a sidewalk, etc.). The same goes for the light sensitive parts of a camera or film.

...So I'm not sure what your point is. Nothing can see or detect light or UV or IR if it is streaming past and NOT entering an eye or detector. Space and clear Earth air are not "all aglow" with the light streaming through it; that light can only be seen when it hits something. The light coming through my window can't be seen as it comes through my window (the clear air in front of my window is not "visibly aglow" with light), but only after it hits something (a wall, for example) and reflects back into the light receptors in my eye.

IR radiation can't be detected streaming through the empty space in a vacuum; it can only be detected when it strikes an IR detector (again, either directly from the IR source, or after it is reflected back). But again, that's all very obvious, and I'm not sure how that helps your argument.

With no ordinary telescope outside of Earths atmosphere then experiments can not be performed, and all this bickering can never be resolved. Even Hubble is still within Earths atmosphere, though the atmsospheric components are different to the lower atmosphere, but solar radiation still interacts with it.
Search for "Atmospheric Composition and Vertical Structure", by Thomas W. Schlatter
There is no gap in the light spectrum, as UV and IR are also only created by way of solar radiation interacting with matter, and even electrons are classed as matter. You will not see them using IR cameras to look into space from the ISS, the best IR is available at the altitude of SOFIA because the atmosphere creates most IR there.

The SOHO and STEREO observatories are at Lagrangian points (SOHO at L1; STEREO A and B at L4 and L5). SOHO can detect UV, and the twin STEREO observatories can detect UV and visible light. The Kepler Spacecraft is in an Earth-trailing orbit that has it currently about 1 AU from Earth; Kepler uses a CCD in a photometer that detects visible light from stars. Some deep space probes use the visible light from stars for their autonomous on-board navigation.

originally posted by: wildespace
Cassini spacecraft photographed stars in visible light: photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov...

I posted that back on page 26

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: GaryN
a reply to: Box of Rain
Even Hubble is still within Earths atmosphere

But the Hubble looks directly away from Earth, up into deep space. Wasn't that your criteria for photos of space from the ISS?

I've never seen such a wide movement if goal posts. Previously, you explained spacecraft photos in deep space as capturing IR and UV, now you say that even those frequencies are invisible / don't exist in deep space.

By the way, what is your responce to my post with Cassini images just earlier?

Let's not call it bickering, let's engage in some theoretical physics. So, is the Sun (and other stars) emmiting EM radiation across the whole spectrum, or is there a gap in visible part? If there is, why is it there?

originally posted by: GaryN
Putting a camera in cislunar space has been done, and it saw nothing (Apollo)

Not true - how many times do I need to post these from Apollo 16:





or this from Apollo 15's capture of a lunar eclipse:



Why have you ignored the images of a solar eclipse taken by Gemini?

I bet you also didn't know UV images of Earth and Moon were taken in cislunar space by Apollo as well.