Stars Can't Be Seen from Outer Space

originally posted by: sadang
- 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 CCD is designed from our understanding of how light works.. so our understanding of light is completely wrong, yet we make machines that work on these wrong principles..

and whats the source of the "information" that enters the CCD?
if it is not from the visible light spectrum, you are talking about a completely different machine to what everyone else is talking about.

spaceflight.nasa.gov...

After turning off the lights, it takes a few minutes for your eyes to adapt to the dark, and slowly the stars get more and more distinct. These past couple of weeks the moon has been close to a new moon, so without the light from the moon, the stars seem even brighter. The view is something close to what you might see on a very dark mountaintop on a very clear night. Only better. Our solar system is located midway out from the center of the big disk of stars that is our galaxy. When you look in the directions along the disk you see more stars than if you look perpendicular to the disk. This is the Milky Way - the line of stars, gas, and dust that cross the sky, and it is incredibly distinct when viewed from here. We have a pair of image stabilized binoculars (that work by suspending the prism in some sort of fluid so it smooths out the jitter), and through those I like to look at the various nebula and star clusters you can see when looking towards the center of our galaxy along the Milky Way....The bright red dot of the planet Mars has been a great sight recently, with Earth and Mars being very close now (relatively speaking). Here in low Earth orbit, we aren't significantly closer than you are on the ground to Mars, but without the atmosphere to look through it makes it clearer and brighter. It is bright enough that even when we are on the lit side of the Earth, and with all the lights on inside, it is clearly visible against the black background of space. With our binoculars or the high power lenses on the cameras you can see the disk of Mars

Worth noting that ISS Expedition 7 was before the cupola was installed.

a reply to: choos
- I know is very hard to turn back again to really understand something which is blindly used day by day, but this is up to you!

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo
- as I already said anything bellow exosphere should be excluded for this topic, cause according to my point of view light is a local phenomenon

a reply to: sadang

You should read your post to choos back to yourself.

I don't care what you have decided doesn't count, I have decided it does. More to the point, thousands of scientists also think that stars are visible in space, and can be photographed - that's why they send cameras up there. Your attempts to narrow down the area of space where you have decided photographs can be taken do not in any prove the point of the thread.

Regardless of your goalpost moving, explain the photographs I showed from cislunar space well above the exosphere. Explain the quotes from astronauts who have been well beyond the exosphere.

Just come up with any actual evidence of your own that you have worked out all by yourself that proves your point.

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo
- I know it's hard for you to discuss with someone who don't want to obey the rules, but there is no other way to force people think by themselves and for themselves as deeper as they can. and this is also available even for you.
- as you have decided what count and what not, I also have decided against all thousands of scientist, that light is a local phenomenon
- I gave enough clues but you still wait explanations for photographs from cisluna space. it's your right to believe what is more comfortable to you.

a reply to: sadang

So, no matter how much evidence is shown to you to prove you wrong, you're just going to discount it because you "don't follow the rules"?

Way to "Deny Ignorance". Oh wait. That's the opposite of denying ignorance. You're literally embracing it to keep your "stars can't be seen from space" argument.

originally posted by: sadang
a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo
- I know it's hard for you to discuss with someone who don't want to obey the rules, but there is no other way to force people think by themselves and for themselves as deeper as they can. and this is also available even for you.

~yawn~

Could you be any more patronising? You have yet to show any evidence of thinking for yourself, and you have ignored the arguments of those who do.

- as you have decided what count and what not, I also have decided against all thousands of scientist, that light is a local phenomenon

That's your privilege. Wallow in a cesspool of ignorance all you like, it won't make you right.

- I gave enough clues but you still wait explanations for photographs from cisluna space. it's your right to believe what is more comfortable to you.

I'm not awaiting explanations for the photographs, I know when and where and how they were taken and under what circumstances - I'm awaiting your explanation. I'm guessing you don't have anything coherent to offer in that regard.

originally posted by: sadang
a reply to: choos
- I know is very hard to turn back again to really understand something which is blindly used day by day, but this is up to you!

blindly used indicates that these devices were given to us by an outside source. that is wrong

we, human beings, designed these devices whether you want to admit it or not, these devices work from our understanding of how light behaves.

if these principles did not work as you want to believe, these devices would not do as they are designed to do its as simple as that. images from SOHO would simply not exist, images of the heart shape on pluto would not exist.

and its not hard to turn back on principles that are wrong.. you just need to provide the adequate evidence, of which you have provided nothing but philosophy on par with jaden smith.

a reply to: TerryDon79
- you can interpret as tendentiously as you wish my words, is your right, but this will not help you understand more than if leaning up on current science bases. see my previous posts for clues.

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo
- see my recommendation made above, they are available for you too.
- maybe would be great to define the term "evidence" first, cause repetition of other repetitions are not evidences
- also try first to define the term "ignorance", cause each frame of thinking has its own cesspool and wallowers
- reality is you're not waiting explanations, you're waiting words from which you can hang to argue with me according to what and how you were educated, to demonstrate the apparently validity of your thinking
- keep in mind that I'm here just to support GaryN in his endeavor, namely to confirm that "Stars Can't Be Seen from Outer Space", not to agree words by words with his way of thinking, as well as yours. can you comprehend this or is too much for you?

a reply to: choos
- blindly indicates these devices are used by final users without understanding their intimate way of functioning, resulting a specific way of education of these peoples, not to say their were designed starting from misinterpreted premises. I know for sure why I sent you back to think deeper than Coulomb. Try to understand for yourself why!
- "we human beings" are not you in person. try doing quantitative and qualitative difference.
- as I said you till now in repeated times, go back to the premises of current science's bricks to analyze the quality and quantity of their clay, sand and water, if you know what I mean.
- the wrong premises have to be discovered by yourself, otherwise they are completely pointless. why? try to find!

Here is a nice picture of Earth and Moon from the Messenger probe at a distance of 114 million miles.

www.dailymail.co.uk...

I submitted the image to the nova.astrometry.net site and got this back:

nova.astrometry.net...

If you overlay it in Stellarium you can see that the green circles are exact matches.



Mars just happens to be there in Stellarium today, not when the photo was taken.

As a bonus, have some stars photographed by Cassini

helloearth.info...

Stars photographed in space.

originally posted by: sadang

a reply to: choos
- blindly indicates these devices are used by final users without understanding their intimate way of functioning, resulting a specific way of education of these peoples, not to say their were designed starting from misinterpreted premises.

so you dont deny that these devices were built with our knowledge of how light should behave?

also why are you avoiding answering a simple question, what is the source of information that the CCD is processing? what is it and where did it come from?

Guys if someone like Phage cannot get though to them, just let them bask in their own ignorance!
I think we have proven our point that they are missing the mark so far its not even funny.
Stars CAN be seen from Space with telescopes, cameras and the human eye...period...done!

originally posted by: sadang
a reply to: TerryDon79
- you can interpret as tendentiously as you wish my words, is your right, but this will not help you understand more than if leaning up on current science bases. see my previous posts for clues.

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo
- see my recommendation made above, they are available for you too.
- maybe would be great to define the term "evidence" first, cause repetition of other repetitions are not evidences
- also try first to define the term "ignorance", cause each frame of thinking has its own cesspool and wallowers
- reality is you're not waiting explanations, you're waiting words from which you can hang to argue with me according to what and how you were educated, to demonstrate the apparently validity of your thinking
- keep in mind that I'm here just to support GaryN in his endeavor, namely to confirm that "Stars Can't Be Seen from Outer Space", not to agree words by words with his way of thinking, as well as yours. can you comprehend this or is too much for you?

a reply to: choos
- blindly indicates these devices are used by final users without understanding their intimate way of functioning, resulting a specific way of education of these peoples, not to say their were designed starting from misinterpreted premises. I know for sure why I sent you back to think deeper than Coulomb. Try to understand for yourself why!
- "we human beings" are not you in person. try doing quantitative and qualitative difference.
- as I said you till now in repeated times, go back to the premises of current science's bricks to analyze the quality and quantity of their clay, sand and water, if you know what I mean.
- the wrong premises have to be discovered by yourself, otherwise they are completely pointless. why? try to find!

Your grasp of the English language seems to be getting worse with each post. I suggest not trying so hard to come across as a different person Gary.

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo
- a CCD don't detect light.

a reply to: choos
- read again my first and last recommendation to you from my previous message and maybe will sense why direct answers are not a solution.

a reply to: xGerhardSAx
- you didn't prove anything, just used others arguments. if you have be used your own knowledge and understanding, then you have finished your post with "..." cause stars can not be SEEN from DEEP space.

a reply to: 3danimator2014
- arrogance and ignorance! I'm curious how well you know another language.

originally posted by: sadang

a reply to: choos
- read again my first and last recommendation to you from my previous message and maybe will sense why direct answers are not a solution.

your point from that post is ridiculous..
you want to suggest that since I dont know what a CCD really truly does, that is enough to invalidate what a CCD actually does for everyone else.

its simple really, a CCD was designed by humans, based on what humans know and define as visible light.

if what you say is true and a CCD is producing images of what we define as visible light is not visible light then firstly, we are talking about a different visible light.
where we are referring to visible light as has been defined and have CCD's built from these definitions and knowledge compared with what you refer to as visible light which is undefined, since no one knows about it apart from you and GaryN, secondly, the CCD you refer to is also a completely different machine as it does not operates in the conditions as what is defined as visible light.

p.s. Please refrain from telling others that they have not proven anything while using others arguments. That is precisely the description of your behaviour

originally posted by: sadang
a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo
- a CCD don't detect light.

The photographs I posted say otherwise. The photographs I take with my digital camera say otherwise. The people who designed and developed the CCD say otherwise.

The other photographs I posted were taken by people using standard film cameras, people who could describe what they saw. You keep missing out those ones. Why is that?

originally posted by: sadang
a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo
- a CCD don't detect light.

Please tells us what do CCDs detect and convert into an electric charge. We're all ears.

a reply to: xGerhardSAx
- you didn't prove anything, just used others arguments. if you have be used your own knowledge and understanding, then you have finished your post with "..." cause stars can not be SEEN from DEEP space.

Yeah, like you are doing right?

From Nasa's Q&A website:
"Is it true that in space a person is not able to see stars all around them like we do here on Earth?
No, I hear that in space the stars look wonderful, bright (although not twinkling) and very clear. What has probably caused some of this confusion is that in the typical photo or video image from space, there aren't any stars. This is because the stars are much dimmer than the astronaut, Moon, space station, or whatever the image is been taken of. It is extremely hard to get the exposure correct to show the stars. Luckily, the human eye handles the different light levels much better than a camera does.

Dr. Eric Christian
(July 2001)
"
helios.gsfc.nasa.gov...
Also
"Of course we can see stars in space. We see stars more clearly from space than we do from Earth, which is why space telescopes are so useful. And yet, this question comes up again and again. Not just from moon landing skeptics and fringe science promoters, but from everyday folks who are sure they learned somewhere that stars can’t be seen in space.

When overexposed, the Moon seems to glow brilliantly. Credit: Bob King/Sky and Telescope
When overexposed, the Moon seems to glow brilliantly. Credit: Bob King/Sky and Telescope

The origin of this misconception is usually traced back to an interview with the crew of Apollo 11, where (it is claimed) Neil Armstrong said he couldn’t see stars in space. What the crew were actually discussing at the time was the inability to see stars on the daylight side of the Moon, which is not surprising given how bright the lunar surface can be relative to the airless black of space. Even in space the stars aren’t overly bright, and our eyes can lose dark adaption pretty quickly.

An image from the ISS of stars and glowing layers of Earth's atmosphere.
An image from the ISS of stars and glowing layers of Earth’s atmosphere.

But what about all those photos of objects in space, such as the one of the international space station seen above? There’s no stars to be seen in the image. It’s actually quite common to see images of planets and other objects against a starless black background. Doesn’t that support the idea of a starless sky in space? No, since it’s no surprise that an image focused on a bright object like a planet or moon won’t have a long enough exposure to see stars clearly. There are plenty of images from space that do show stars, as well as other faint phenomena such as the green airglow of our atmosphere.

What this misconception really shows is how easily a misconception can get locked into our heads. We can all fall prey to the trap of holding misconceptions without really thinking about them. That’s part of the reason why we focus on published and verifiable evidence in science.

Which is why this isn’t such a silly question after all."
briankoberlein.com...

The two (?) people arguing that stars are invisible to both cameras and eyes in pace will never concede their position, all that can be done is to keep posting things that prove them to be utterly wrong.

Here's a nice photo taken by Japan's Kaguya in lunar orbit. What's that coming over the hill? Is it a sunrise? An invisible something hits the lens:

www.universetoday.com...

LADEE's star tracker takes photos of stars while in lunar oribt. The star tracker camera, according to sadgary, is impossible:

www.nasa.gov...

www.nasa.gov...

www.astronomy.com...

www.planetary.org...

China's chang'e-3 probe photographs stars with its lunar optical telescope:

www.space.com...:*

I can go on
hugequestions.com...

"Mars ... is bright enough that even when we are on the lit side of the Earth, and with all the lights on inside, it is clearly visible against the black background of space."
Science Officer and Flight Engineer Edward T. Lu

"You see stars and planets and our galaxy on edge."
Don Pettit, science officer for the international space station

Don Pettit photo from ISS, pointing away from earth I might add

Maybe those aint starts, just a dirty window right?


spaceflight.nasa.gov...