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: 56
40
<< 53  54  55    57  58  59 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 22 2016 @ 09:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

But then he also says that portion of the spectrum can travel through a vacuum because there is no gap. So now that he's left the thread I guess it can be left to die with the summation of Gary's hypothesis:

The entirety of the EM spectrum can travel through a vacuum. Visible light (which is part of the EM spectrum), can not.




posted on Jul, 22 2016 @ 09:20 AM
link   

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


My consumer camera has a CCD, and that camera can capture visible light images.


EDIT TO ADD:
And yes - I understand how a CCD (or CMOS, for that matter) captures light of different "colors" (albeit greyscale intensities associated with the light from those different colors) by running the visible light spectrum through a Bayer filter or other color filter. However, the wavelengths captured by the CCD or CMOS with or without the filters are still wavelengths of the EM spectrum associated with the visible light portion of the spectrum.

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



posted on Jul, 22 2016 @ 10:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People
- go further and deeper than that and will see a CCD don't detect light at all. I mean beyond the electron's energy levels!



posted on Jul, 22 2016 @ 10:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: sadang
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People
- go further and deeper than that and will see a CCD don't detect light at all. I mean beyond the electron's energy levels!


But a camera with a CCD can still give me visible light pictures of stuff. Something is allowing that camera to detect visible light, because it shows up in the pictures.



posted on Jul, 22 2016 @ 10:29 PM
link   
Whatever happens now, I'm gonna keep this thread alive by posting latest ISS photos of the starry space



posted on Jul, 23 2016 @ 04:40 AM
link   
I'm assuming pictures of a beautiful red Mars taken from space by Hubble and various interplanetary probes from many nations would somehow be inadmissible evidence and there's no point posting them?



posted on Jul, 23 2016 @ 04:43 AM
link   
a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

im guessing that Mars images dont count because human eyesight has evolved to see within Earth's environment not Mars, so Mars should be invisible.
edit on 23-7-2016 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2016 @ 04:54 AM
link   
a reply to: wildespace
- great, but make it with details about optics and software used to digitally prepare that image



posted on Jul, 23 2016 @ 06:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
I'm assuming pictures of a beautiful red Mars taken from space by Hubble and various interplanetary probes from many nations would somehow be inadmissible evidence and there's no point posting them?

To GaryN they are inadmissible because, according to him, the Hubble and other space telescopes use things like diffraction gratings and wavefront sensors (which, according to him, are so advanced and expensive, that no public or commercial space mission could use them) to be able to detect that magically invisible light. But then he said that cameras in space can "see" IR and UV just fine. And lately, he said that the Hubble orbits in the upper reaches of the atmosphere, which allows it to "see" optical light as well.

With such wide movement of goalposts, this thread reminds me of the game "whack-a-mole".

edit on 23-7-2016 by wildespace because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2016 @ 06:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: sadang
a reply to: wildespace
- great, but make it with details about optics and software used to digitally prepare that image

The images usually come from this site: eol.jsc.nasa.gov... and they give the camera/lens/exposure/etc. information. I don't know what software they use to process images, but I'd assume it's not too different from software used by professional and amateur photographers for their earth-based photos.



posted on Jul, 23 2016 @ 06:50 AM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

I think this guy is saying that he was on a sound stage about 100 feet long.

Men flying around the Moon!



posted on Jul, 23 2016 @ 01:11 PM
link   
a reply to: wildespace
- I just tried to indirectly emphasize two aspects
--- a CCD don't detect light regardless of what kind it is from so called electromagnetic spectrum
--- all images taken for so called visible light range from lower than exosphere are irrelevant
edit on 23-7-2016 by sadang because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2016 @ 01:17 PM
link   
a reply to: sadang

a) And those images taken on film outside Earth's exosphere?

and

b) You don't get to decide what's relevant. You know those posts where you keep telling us that we can't impose our views on you - that counts for you too. What definition of exosphere are you using? Why?


The thread title says "Stars can't be seen from outer space'. They can. Photos and witness testimony say so. Prove otherwise.



posted on Jul, 23 2016 @ 01:42 PM
link   
Here's one person describing seeing them:



So there was a little space around the far side of the Moon where I was shadowed from both the Earth and the Sun and that was pretty amazing. I could see more stars than I could possibly imagine...The sky is just awash of stars when you’re on the far side of the moon, and you don’t have any sunlight to cut down on the lower intensity, dimmer stars. You see them all, and it’s all just a sheet of white... I saw so many stars looking out that it was very hard to make out anything like a Milky Way. In fact, there were so many stars that I had some difficulty finding any of the 37 brighter stars we used as navigation guide stars because they were so bathed in starlight from all the other stars around them.


medium.com...



posted on Jul, 24 2016 @ 01:50 AM
link   
a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo
Wow, that's a fantastic quote, thank you. I'd love to have been there myself.

Of course, the certain three monkeys will cover their eyes, ears, and mouth at this first-hand account, because it goes against their ideas.



posted on Jul, 24 2016 @ 01:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: sadang
a reply to: wildespace
a CCD don't detect light regardless of what kind it is from so called electromagnetic spectrum

So how do CCDs accumulate the electric charge that is then used to create a digital image? Please educate us on this. I was under the impression that the electric charges in a CCD are created by photons of light.

An image is projected through a lens onto the capacitor array (the photoactive region), causing each capacitor to accumulate an electric charge proportional to the light intensity at that location.

en.wikipedia.org...

It's the same way solar panels work.
electronics.howstuffworks.com...



posted on Jul, 24 2016 @ 02:01 AM
link   
a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo
- yes, you are right. I forgot to mention they are irrelevant according to my point of view
- and according to my point of view stars can not be seen in outer space
- I was here to support GaryN in his endeavor and to assure him that there are people who also consider that stars can not be seen in the outer space, even though I consider that based on knowledge and understanding different from him.
- I left many clues in my posts for those interested to understand more or sense the fallacies from current science
---
- your last message don't prove anything, at lest not to me... you know the Earth has a magnetosphere and also a magnetotail, which for 6 days cover entirely the Moon's path. think about this in your further "scientific" arguments!



posted on Jul, 24 2016 @ 02:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: sadang
a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo
- yes, you are right. I forgot to mention they are irrelevant according to my point of view
- and according to my point of view stars can not be seen in outer space


Your point of view is in denial of the facts.



- I was here to support GaryN in his endeavor and to assure him that there are people who also consider that stars can not be seen in the outer space, even though I consider that based on knowledge and understanding different from him.
- I left many clues in my posts for those interested to understand more or sense the fallacies from current science


Clues are no use if they are impenetrable. Try posting some facts and logical argument that disprove current scientific thinking.



---
- your last message don't prove anything, at lest not to me... you know the Earth has a magnetosphere and also a magnetotail, which for 6 days cover entirely the Moon's path. think about this in your further "scientific" arguments!


And this piece of information discovered by science is relevant how to photographs taken that are not in the magnetotail? You're trying to dismiss science but then use it when it suits you. If a man is behind the moon, how is the Earth's magnetotail affecting his ability to see stars when he is totally shielded from it? Think about that when you try and use science inappropriately.

Stars are visible in space. Stars have been photographed in space. Do I need to repost the pictures taken by Apollo 16 again, you seemed to skip over them?



posted on Jul, 24 2016 @ 02:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton
Apparently, stars can't be seen from outer space:

www.wildheretic.com...

Most compelling evidence in the link above is the guy who sky dived from outer spaced and said everything was so dark. Even Neil Armstrong said that the universe was dark and you could only see the earth and the sun from the moon (he says it in the first minute of this video):



Where do the stars go? Some would say that it is the atmosphere that acts as a lens to allow us to see the stars at ground level, but I dont think this is valid. If this were true, then this would mean that the sun would be more intense at ground level than outside the atmosphere, which it is not. Outside the atmosphere the sun radiates about 1.3kW/m^2, whereas at the earth's surface this power dissipates to about 1 kW/m^2. So, maybe stars, and the universe, are not what we think they are. Any thoughts?

***In terms of some astronauts being able to see the stars, and some not, maybe it is a matter of where you are positioned in relation to the moon?



Ah stars CAN be seen from outer space....

But yes, outside the atmosphere, the color of space is the blackest black you have ever seen. It's true night.



posted on Jul, 24 2016 @ 04:47 AM
link   
a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo
- my point of view is my point of view, and it could be in denial with what you consider facts. think again about this.
- any clue is impenetrable only for people who don't want to think other way than the majority. facts and logical arguments are available all the time and everywhere but they are strictly related to a specific frame of thinking, change the frame or adjust it according to other premises and is not necessary to disprove anything.
- how I use current official and unofficial terms and knowledge is strictly related to the interlocutor. while I'm trying to suggest clues and other way of understanding of what you consider immutable laws, which btw are not immutable more than humans do them so, you still continue just telling things that everyone were educated to know and are well known
- magnetosphere and magnetotail was just another clue, cause I have to use common terms to express my thinking
- maybe you wanted to say that stars are visible in space according to your point of view, cause "you don't get to decide what's relevant"
- according to my point of view stars are not visible in outer space cause they can not be, cause this is an impossibility. think again about this.
- according to my point of view stars don't emit light as well as a ccd don't detect it. think again about this.

a reply to: wildespace
- you are on the right path but as I already said in a previous message you have to go deeper with understanding than Coulomb



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 53  54  55    57  58  59 >>

log in

join