Stars Can't Be Seen from Outer Space

a reply to: xGerhardSAx

One of the stars in that image is Nunki, which is one of the brightest stars most often used for navigational sightings by Apollo astronauts.

nova.astrometry.net...

I'm sure sadgary will claim airglow or some such nonsense as stellarium suggests that it would have been looking in a direction almost parallel with Earth's horizon, however this image:

issphotolibrary.sinc3all.pt...

is unequivocally taken looking in the opposite direction to Earth, which can be verified by looking at the time, date and location information on that page.

The cupola was not in place when those photos were taken, so no cop out there either.

It seems I upset a lot of people. I hope this to be a good sign for some of them.
- all images taken bellow exosphere are irrelevant
- a CCD don't detect light
- you all do your own research why
- and of course you can keep posting all images you want as long as you don't really question anything

originally posted by: sadang
It seems I upset a lot of people. I hope this to be a good sign for some of them.
- all images taken bellow exosphere are irrelevant
- a CCD don't detect light
- you all do your own research why
- and of course you can keep posting all images you want as long as you don't really question anything

Still ignoring all the facts and info posted by everyone. Even quotes from Nasa and astronauts.
You know better right? You have the facts right?
because...

originally posted by: sadang
It seems I upset a lot of people. I hope this to be a good sign for some of them.

Sounds like an admission of trolling to me.

- all images taken bellow exosphere are irrelevant

Firstly, no they aren't, secondly what about those taken above the exosphere? You know, the ones I posted?

- a CCD don't detect light

You have yet to provide anything remotely resembling proof that this is the case, and you are still ignoring those images posted that are taken on film.

- you all do your own research why

So when we don't do our own research you bitch about us just slavishly following a doctrine yet when we do that is somehow bad? I do my own research to prove to people like you that you are wrong.

- and of course you can keep posting all images you want as long as you don't really question anything

Those images that you claim don't exist?

As for questioning, we are questioning you.

Questioning something does not automatically invalidate the answer you were given in the first place. If you are genuinely asking questions you need to be interested in the answer, not ruling out all answers that don't agree with your point of view.

So, about those images I posted taken on film above the exosphere. Why no response to those?

originally posted by: sadang
It seems I upset a lot of people. I hope this to be a good sign for some of them.

If you mean you have disheartened us by show us how some people can be frustratingly ignorant about how the natural world works, then yeah. It's disheartening to know there are people such as yourself out there in the world.

- all images taken bellow exosphere are irrelevant

You have been shown images taken outside the atmosphere, too. Why are you ignoring those?

- a CCD don't detect light

A CCD is known to be sensitive to radiation from the EM spectrum between about 380 nm and 750 nm. That part of the spectrum is known as "visible light". The same CCD technology is used in cameras that are used in space, and those cameras are also sensitive to radiation from the EM spectrum between about 380 nm and 750 nm.

- you all do your own research why

You are the one making claims that go against known technology such as "CCDs cannot detect light".

A CCD is designed in such a way that photon energy exhibiting a certain wavelength (wavelengths including the wavelengths of visible light between 380 nm and 750 nm) falling upon a pixel of that CCD will generate a charge that can be displayed by the display device as a visible signal.

That in a nutshell is how a CCD works. Now, please explain why this CCD would work differently in space. You have not given me ANY REASON AT ALL that this would be the case. You just say "research it yourself". Well, it's not up to me to find reasons why established technology and science is NOT true. You are the one making the claim that it isn't true, so you are the one that needs to give me some explanation.

You're the one who says that the visible light part of the spectrum will "magically" not be able to stimulate the photo-electric sensors on a CCD in space while they can stimulate the photo-electric sensors on a CCD on Earth. I use the word "magically'" because you haven't given us an explanation as to why this would be the case.

"Because Sadang says so" is not a valid explanation.

- and of course you can keep posting all images you want as long as you don't really question anything

The questions you have posed have all been answered by us; you just choose to ignore them. I have asked many questions over my lifetime about how the natural world works. I have researched the answers and attempted to verify them by doing my own observations, or reading up on how others have answers these questions through experiment that have been verified by other independent parties (that is, via the scientific process). You, on the other hand, don't seem to attempt to verify any of your claims. You just make claims, which are often counter to verifiable scientific principles, and provide no explanation as to why your counter claims should be considered valid.

And again, "because Sadang says so" is not an explanation.

originally posted by: sadang
It seems I upset a lot of people. I hope this to be a good sign for some of them.
- all images taken bellow exosphere are irrelevant
- a CCD don't detect light
- you all do your own research why
- and of course you can keep posting all images you want as long as you don't really question anything

I can assure you that none of us are even remotely upset or angry. Frustrated with your ignorance, sure..but angry? Don't be ridiculous.

originally posted by: sadang
a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo


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

I'm not criticising you for not being perfect t im English. I'm saying...oh forget it...what the hell am I doing arguing with you.

a reply to: xGerhardSAx
- I'm not ignoring anything, just express a different opinion
- could you define what is a fact?
- why quotes from Nasa and astronauts should be considered facts?

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo
- why do you want to prove that I'm wrong?

a reply to: Box of Rain
- "...how the natural world works" you make me laugh! what's the relation between electromagnetism and "...how the natural world works"? what's the relation betwwen what you call light and "...how the natural world works"? what's the relation between what you call electric charge and "...how the natural world works"? what's the relation between the what you call gravity and "...how the natural world works"?
- I appreciate your effort to explain how a CCD works, but here is nothing new for me. I would have appreciated a lot more if you had told me for example what is a charge, or which is the internal structure of what you call the electron. or of a photon? or what was the definition of an electron made by Thomson and why he did it that way, before the official "scientific" mainstream imposed the current concept of it as a duality particle-wave! not in vain I sent you all back to Coulomb. back to the bricks of current so called "science".
- and finally still... a CCD don't detect light. it is a scientific fact, not my words. just you have to sense the real meaning of this aspect and its implications.
- and of course you can continue to call me ignorant as long as you wish, it's your right!

a reply to: 3danimator2014
- you're right! what the hell are you doing arguing with me! your understanding is too far compared to mine! Don't be ridiculous.

originally posted by: sadang
a reply to: xGerhardSAx
- I'm not ignoring anything, just express a different opinion

lies.
you have you ignored ALL images from the langragian points.
you have ignored ALL apollo lunar images.
you have ignored images of phobos
you have ignored images of ceres
you have ignored images of pluto
etc..

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: sadang
a reply to: xGerhardSAx
- I'm not ignoring anything, just express a different opinion

lies.
you have you ignored ALL images from the langragian points.
you have ignored ALL apollo lunar images.
you have ignored images of phobos
you have ignored images of ceres
you have ignored images of pluto
etc..

Plus, opinion really has nothing to do with a subject matter like this. Ones opinion wont change the way light and EM radiation in general (or any universal process for that matter) interact with matter or the way its detected.

WE are talking about testable and repeatable facts that have centuries and hundreds of thousands of experiments to back everything up. None of us, not once expressed our "opinion" about this matter.

There lies the problem with your answers so far.

originally posted by: sadang

- could you define what is a fact?

I think we all instinctively know the difference between fact and opinion, but a cause for confusion, I think, is that often people assume that something generally accepted as fact is fact.

The problem is, scientific "facts," which are derived from experimentation, have been derived via. interpretation of the results of experiments by people.

People disagree on things. They have different opinions about what the facts are.

a reply to: ConnectDots
Yeah, but CCDs in space still detect EM radiation in the visible spectrum and turn it into images. Just like they do on Earth. This, along with numerous accounts of astronauts describing seeing stars in space, points to the fact that, yes, you can see stars in space.

originally posted by: ConnectDots

originally posted by: sadang

- could you define what is a fact?

I think we all instinctively know the difference between fact and opinion, but a cause for confusion, I think, is that often people assume that something generally accepted as fact is fact.

The problem is, scientific "facts," which are derived from experimentation, have been derived via. interpretation of the results of experiments by people.

People disagree on things. They have different opinions about what the facts are.

Umm..no. Facts are facts. They are altered by ones opinion. Hoe can you not see this logic?

a reply to: choos
- lies in your mouth and according to your way of thinking, not mine!
- the only thing that still somehow intrigue me are that images on films made outside of Earth exosphere, even that for them could be other influences and/or conditions that could explain that images.

a reply to: 3danimator2014
- ones opinion has the power to change everything, even if you maybe can't comprehend the truth of these words according to your current knowledge and understanding. in in the case of what you call light is not about changing it instead is about understanding and redefining it.
- "testable and repeatable facts that have centuries and hundreds of thousands of experiments"... what value of truth have all you call facts if their premises were wrong?

a reply to: 3danimator2014

If you were the Creator, Source, or whatever you want to call it speaking, you could make that statement.

But you're not; you're just like the rest of us.

So, your idea of the facts is your opinion, just like my idea of the facts is my opinion.

Fallible human beings glean facts the best they can.

That's why we have these endless, ego-driven, annoying arguments in forums.

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: 3danimator2014
That's why we have these endless, ego-driven, annoying arguments in forums.

In this, and some other threads, the arguing is about something so simple and evident as stepping off a cliff and falling to your death or injury because of gravity. Are people really prepared to say "well, we know so little about the universe, and the mainstream science lies to us all the time, so absolutely anything can happen, so I'm gonna step off this cliff and perhaps levitate. Gravity is just a theory, after all"


Some things really are facts, like falling off a cliff, or seeing light in space.

originally posted by: sadang
a reply to: choos
- lies in your mouth and according to your way of thinking, not mine!
- the only thing that still somehow intrigue me are that images on films made outside of Earth exosphere, even that for them could be other influences and/or conditions that could explain that images.

a reply to: 3danimator2014
- ones opinion has the power to change everything, even if you maybe can't comprehend the truth of these words according to your current knowledge and understanding. in in the case of what you call light is not about changing it instead is about understanding and redefining it.
- "testable and repeatable facts that have centuries and hundreds of thousands of experiments"... what value of truth have all you call facts if their premises were wrong?

Your pseudo phylosophical twaddle helps no one and does nothing for mankind . Meanwhile the computer you are using is working on quantum mechanics (transistors) snd our working knowledge of electromagnetic waves (the screen)

If pure science is swaywd by opinion then you would not have all these exceedingly technical devices to play with. So go ahead and keep spouting your airy fairy la la la we are all made of moonstone and fairy dust bullsh*t. Because that's al you are contributing.

I know a transistor is a purely quantum mechanical device. Do you? It's incredible that man has reached theis stage of understanding in just over 100 years from the industrial revolution. I trust science and all it has given us and all it will. I understand how it works. You don't.

Men are not infallible, I know this. But when you have over a billion high tech devices tablet and computer screens all working from a scientific theory or if one can cool or trap particles using our understanding of EM theory. ..then I think it's reasonable to assume that theory is largly correct.

And that theory says stats are visible is space.

So go ahead and keep resorting to airy fairy nonsense...its meaningless. Totally and utterly meaningless. You are like a politician. Saying things that sound good (except with you they dont) but that mean nothing.

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: 3danimator2014

If you were the Creator, Source, or whatever you want to call it speaking, you could make that statement.

But you're not; you're just like the rest of us.

So, your idea of the facts is your opinion, just like my idea of the facts is my opinion.

Fallible human beings glean facts the best they can.

That's why we have these endless, ego-driven, annoying arguments in forums.

Stop using your computer then. Because it's running on quantum and electromagnetic theories. Theories which have been proven right over a billion times. No one is ego driven. I'm proud of mankind having reached this level of understanding. You seem to want to hold us up. No thanks. Why don't you do pray to your god and ask him for a next gen semiconductor device or a room temp superconductor. Maybe they will magically appear in front of you.

But just in case...let the scientists keep working on them. Since its scientists and engineers who have given us all the technology we run our lives in. Not your god. Mankind is amazing.

originally posted by: irgust
a reply to: cooperton
If the stars can't be seen in space how does the hubble telescope take pictures of stars?

magic?

originally posted by: bigtrousers

originally posted by: irgust
a reply to: cooperton
If the stars can't be seen in space how does the hubble telescope take pictures of stars?

magic?

It would appear that's how sadang/GaryN and ConnectDots think it works. Or doesn't work. Whatever clueless path they are choosing to go down today.