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: 55
40
<< 52  53  54    56  57  58 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 19 2016 @ 11:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: GaryN

There is no gap in the light spectrum


so in your reply to whether you believe there is a gap in the electromagnetic spectrum where visible light is, you have just admitted that there is no gap.

so you are clearly admitting that the sun is emitting visible electromagnetic radiation..

and back here you say that light ie. visible electromagnetic radiation will travel in the vacuum of space.


Light created in the atmospheres of planets or moons WILL travel in the vacuum - GaryN
www.abovetopsecret.com...


so really you have admitted that we can see the sun in cis-lunar space and therefore since the sun is a star, we can see stars in cis-lunar space.




posted on Jul, 20 2016 @ 06:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: choos
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.


I can tell you exactly why he so vehemently agrees with GaryN ..



posted on Jul, 21 2016 @ 02:22 AM
link   
a reply to: 3danimator2014
- no you can't really, you just think and say you can!
- as well as others here you don't ask nothing from what is unclear, you always have certitudes, even if such a thing as "certitudes" does not exist!
- but of course you all have the rights to think and manifest as you wish
- and of course I'll ever agree with the main idea of GaryN, namely that stars can't be seen in the outer space, not to oppose to the mainstream "certitudes" but because this is an impossibility.
edit on 21-7-2016 by sadang because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 21 2016 @ 08:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: sadang
a reply to: 3danimator2014
- no you can't really, you just think and say you can!
- as well as others here you don't ask nothing from what is unclear, you always have certitudes, even if such a thing as "certitudes" does not exist!
- but of course you all have the rights to think and manifest as you wish
- and of course I'll ever agree with the main idea of GaryN, namely that stars can't be seen in the outer space, not to oppose to the mainstream "certitudes" but because this is an impossibility.


You have absolutely zero knowledge of what you are talking about. You just like to say "anything is possible, there are no certitudes" but ignore the centuries of data and the fact that every single device that uses radiowaves, microwaves, xrays, visible light etc works on the principles that ensure stars are visible from space. What you, GaryN, are proposing flies against EVERYTHING that we use in our lives daily. So, yes, you are wrong. 100% wrong. That is a certainty. If you were remotely right, your ideas would revolutionise physics and earn you a multitude of prizes and eternal recognition. Your name would be up there with Einstein.

But all you are doing is arguing, poorly, on some internet forum. No maths to show us, no proof to show us. Just "anything is possible, there are no certainties.."

You should be embarrassed.



posted on Jul, 21 2016 @ 12:43 PM
link   
- I'm still waiting to see why you consider that "he so vehemently agrees with GaryN"
- now tell me please what I am talking about if you are so sure I have "absolutely zero knowledge".
- why do you consider my idea should revolutionize something or to earn a multitude of prizes (this argument tell something very crude about your values in life and your education), and maybe not just native fit in the natural laws of the Universe? perhaps because you consider a certitude that a star should emit visible light, as it is seen, analyzed, interpreted, understood and used here on Earth?
- my point three from previous message was clear enough, but it seems not for you. so now who should be embarrassed?



posted on Jul, 21 2016 @ 01:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: sadang
- why do you consider my idea should revolutionize something or to earn a multitude of prizes (this argument tell something very crude about your values in life and your education), and maybe not just native fit in the natural laws of the Universe? perhaps because you consider a certitude that a star should emit visible light, as it is seen, analyzed, interpreted, understood and used here on Earth?

Because through empirical evidence, we know human eyes can detect the EM spectrum between about 380 nm and about 750 nm -- that empirical evidence being that we can see light if it enters our eyes and interacts with the light-sensitive cells in our eyes and connected to our brains.

Please provide a well-researched and logical reason that our eyes and brains would NOT be able to detect EM radiation with frequencies between about 380 nm and about 750 nm that interacts with the light-sensitive cells in our eyes in the vacuum of space.

...and "cuz maybe we can't" is not a well-researched and logical answer. I mean, if we're going to say that, we may as well say that rainbows are unicorn farts "cuz maybe they are".



posted on Jul, 21 2016 @ 01:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: sadang
- and of course I'll ever agree with the main idea of GaryN, namely that stars can't be seen in the outer space, not to oppose to the mainstream "certitudes" but because this is an impossibility.


I'll never agree with GaryN because he is completely wrong, and there have been example after example of photographs of stars (including the sun) and planets taken from the lunar surface, cislunar space, Earth orbit, deep space, taken facing away from Earth, above any kind of atmosphere, not to mention countless quotes from astronauts describing their experience of seeing the stars and planets away from Earth's atmosphere.

GaryN has either handwaved these away, moved the goalposts to provide some arbitrary criteria that he thinks eliminates any of the things he has demanded people supply, or more often that not just pretended he hasn't seen them. He has been demanding answers to his questions for years now on any forum that will tolerate him and his approach and responses have always been the same. Everyone else is wrong except him. He's welcome to believe that, but he's the only one that does.

I posted some images taken in cislunar space above showing stars and planets. According to your philosophy the photograph should be impossible, yet there they are.

Just in case you're going to accuse me of not actually doing research into the subject, try reading this:

onebigmonkey.com...

GaryN's ignored it countless times, no reason why you can't ignore it as well.



posted on Jul, 21 2016 @ 11:35 PM
link   
This will be my last post, ever, on ATS, many will be glad to hear.
After examining all the evidence, particularly the quotes from astronauts who have said it is black out there in cislunar space, or when looking away from Earth from an ISS EVA, and also from those who from LEO who say they can see thousands of points of un-flickering white light, or the Russians with their blue or red/gold stars, and, believing that all astronauts have been telling the truth, then the only logical conclusion is that the stars are or are not visible depending on their location, the direction of observation, and the composition, density, and depth of column that the line of site to those stars passes through. The position of the Sun will also have an effect, as the otherwise invisible solar radiation can change the characteristics of the atmosphere/ionosphere that the observers line of sight passes through.
I will believe absolutely what the astronauts say they saw, beginning with Armstrong, but also supported by a growing number of ISS crew who have been willing to talk about the blackness when looking away from Earth. That very few will ever have the 'ears to hear' what they are saying just speaks to the total brainwashing of the public by the education system and mainstream media. Tests will never be performed to determine the truth, NASA and the PTB are happy to let the confusion created by the statements of the various astronauts continue.
The most glaring, or not, example of the ridiculousness of it all is of course the lack of a photograph of the Sun from cislunar space, followed by the lack of photos of the planets form cislunar space, and then the stars. Even from the ISS cupola there is a problem not many notice, and that is the visibility of Mars. We have photos taken from the Cupola showing the Moon, Venus and Jupiter, looking through Earths atmosphere of course.
news.nationalgeographic.com...
I don't see one of Mars though, or Saturn. The reason I believe is that Mars would look white when seen from the cupola, not red as we see it from Earth. Saturn can be a difficult astro-photography subject from Earth due to atmospherics, but that should not be a problem from the ISS, should it?
And of course the fact that NASA will not give camera EXIF data for their images if it would be possible for someone to notice that something was amiss, exposure times being the easiest to spot. So, I do have to thank some of the members here for making me double and even triple check my findings, but I have so far not found any obvious faults with what I claim. Only experiments can lift one of those veils Armstrong talked of, but perhaps Iran will one day be able to offer the proof, if they are ever allowed to leave LEO, which I doubt.
I'm happy to think that perhaps even one or two ATS members might have begun to see the holes in NASAs stories and deceptions, and so long as the posts that I and others have made concerning the matter remain on the Internet, then others who in the future may ask about the subject will have much to consider. Of course they must make up their own minds, but at least it is not just a one sided story any more. Peace.
edit on 21-7-2016 by GaryN because: sp.



posted on Jul, 22 2016 @ 02:53 AM
link   
a reply to: GaryN
- never say never GaryN
- you are right in your observations, and only one should be enough to rise question marks in a right minded human being, not in the current dual and circular way of thinking and education

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo
- it's your right to agree or not with anyone as well as it's also your duty to not impose others your point of view. the same for me!

a reply to: Box of Rain
- "we know human eyes can detect..." in the Earth's environment. further responses find yourself alone



posted on Jul, 22 2016 @ 03:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: sadang
- "we know human eyes can detect..." in the Earth's environment. further responses find yourself alone


except that we can see how things work in a vacuum chamber while it is running.

also, in reverse you can easily test GaryN's theories by shining a UV lamp into a room full of air and by GaryN's theory alot of visible light will come out..

like those tanning salons, thats why they wear those funky glasses, not to shield your eyes from the UV light but because once those machines turn on the UV light being emitted immediate interacts with the air in the room causing any unprotected eye to see nothing but white light. /sarcasm
edit on 22-7-2016 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2016 @ 04:13 AM
link   
a reply to: choos
- exactly like a vacuum chamber is not in the Earth environment / sarcasm? no, sad instead!



posted on Jul, 22 2016 @ 04:33 AM
link   
a reply to: sadang

so you would consider that inside a working vacuum chamber is similar to earths environment that humans have adapted their eyesights to?

if its similar would that mean a human can survive inside a working vacuum chamber also?? surely if our eyes can adapt to such a large change in the atmospheric conditions so can the rest of the body.

p.s. why dont you goto a tanning salon, get yourself a bed, turn it all on, turn off all the lights and remove the glasses, why wont you try out GaryN's theory?

p.p.s. and another thing.. is the moon's surface also "earths environment" that humans have had their eyes evolved to so that they can see??
edit on 22-7-2016 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2016 @ 06:19 AM
link   
a reply to: choos
- yes indeed, in relation to what you call light there is no difference. How,? Simply, just go deep than that!



posted on Jul, 22 2016 @ 06:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: sadang
a reply to: Box of Rain
- "we know human eyes can detect..." in the Earth's environment. further responses find yourself alone

Human eyes can see wavelengths of the EM spectrum between about 380 nm and 750 nm in Earth environment. Now give me a reason that human eyes would NOT see those same wavelengths of the EM spectrum in a space.

I mean, GaryN is saying that if I would STILL not see that light if I were on the space station (in a pressurized environment with air) or if I were wearing a space suit. So it isn't even the issue of "my eyes would be in a vacuum".

Please explain.



posted on Jul, 22 2016 @ 07:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: GaryN
This will be my last post, ever, on ATS, many will be glad to hear.


Good.



After examining all the evidence, particularly the quotes from astronauts who have said it is black out there in cislunar space,


But completely ignored the quotes where they mention stars - like this one from John Glenn:

"The sky is absolutely black, completely black. I can see the stars up above."



..snip...
The most glaring, or not, example of the ridiculousness of it all is of course the lack of a photograph of the Sun from cislunar space, followed by the lack of photos of the planets form cislunar space, and then the stars.


Apart from the ones I've posted repeatedly and that you conveniently ignore.



Even from the ISS cupola there is a problem not many notice, and that is the visibility of Mars. We have photos taken from the Cupola showing the Moon, Venus and Jupiter, looking through Earths atmosphere of course.


Ooh look, a whole new goalpost - bet you're really hoping you guessed right on that one...



news.nationalgeographic.com...
I don't see one of Mars though, or Saturn. The reason I believe is that Mars would look white when seen from the cupola, not red as we see it from Earth. Saturn can be a difficult astro-photography subject from Earth due to atmospherics, but that should not be a problem from the ISS, should it?


It will look red, because it is.



And of course the fact that NASA will not give camera EXIF data for their images if it would be possible for someone to notice that something was amiss, exposure times being the easiest to spot. So, I do have to thank some of the members here for making me double and even triple check my findings, but I have so far not found any obvious faults with what I claim. Only experiments can lift one of those veils Armstrong talked of, but perhaps Iran will one day be able to offer the proof, if they are ever allowed to leave LEO, which I doubt.
I'm happy to think that perhaps even one or two ATS members might have begun to see the holes in NASAs stories and deceptions, and so long as the posts that I and others have made concerning the matter remain on the Internet, then others who in the future may ask about the subject will have much to consider. Of course they must make up their own minds, but at least it is not just a one sided story any more. Peace.


Bye.



posted on Jul, 22 2016 @ 07:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: sadang

- it's your right to agree or not with anyone as well as it's also your duty to not impose others your point of view. the same for me!


I'm not imposing a view, I'm telling you facts. Believe them, don't believe them, you're choice - it's not me looking stupid.

Now that GaryN has left us I'm looking forward to you taking the debate forward with some useful facts of your own.



posted on Jul, 22 2016 @ 08:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: GaryN

...I don't see one of Mars though, or Saturn. The reason I believe is that Mars would look white when seen from the cupola, not red as we see it from Earth. Saturn can be a difficult astro-photography subject from Earth due to atmospherics, but that should not be a problem from the ISS, should it?

Here's a visible light image of Mars taken in space by ESA's Mars Express spacecraft:



It looks ruddy-red-brown.

Source: www.space.com...



posted on Jul, 22 2016 @ 08:27 AM
link   
By the logic that you cannot see stars or other objects in outer space because of the vacuum is illogical. You want to tell me if you step into Nasa's vacuum chamber, and suck out all the air (which makes it a vacuum if you were wondering GaryN), it will be pitch black? Even though the lights are on? Come on man! Stop being an eggplant!



posted on Jul, 22 2016 @ 08:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: xGerhardSAx
By the logic that you cannot see stars or other objects in outer space because of the vacuum is illogical. You want to tell me if you step into Nasa's vacuum chamber, and suck out all the air (which makes it a vacuum if you were wondering GaryN), it will be pitch black? Even though the lights are on? Come on man! Stop being an eggplant!


He also says pictures taken by visible light cameras would capture only blackness inside a vacuum chamber, as if that specific part of Electromagnetic radiation (the visible light portion of the EM spectrum) can't travel through a vacuum -- but the other parts can.


edit on 2016-7-22 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2016 @ 09:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Box of Rain
- light is a local phenomenon. when this will be understood then everything will become clear and simple. how and why this require a paradigm shift!

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo
- facts are facts only in a specific frame of thinking. what make you believe I still stand strictly in your frame?

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People
- a ccd don't detect light.

a reply to: xGerhardSAx
- it's not because of vacuum is because of the wrong concept about what is commonly called light



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 52  53  54    56  57  58 >>

log in

join