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: 65
40
<< 62  63  64    66  67  68 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 4 2016 @ 03:52 PM
link   
a reply to: ConnectDots

Yet another request for evidence and yet another deflection.

Why is it impossible for you to answer questions? (I know you won't answer this)




posted on Aug, 4 2016 @ 03:59 PM
link   
a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo
- yes indeed, this is beyond idiotic, now it depends from which part you look!

a reply to: choos
- yes indeed, mainly if you like to argue without considering to what is sensitive a CCD or human eyes!

a reply to: xGerhardSAx
- after two editing just that? it seems is a waste of time and I start to really understand the effort of GaryN!

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk
- while you still like to use great words like "irrefutable FACT", can you give a single example of an "irrefutable FACT" and argue it as deep as you can?

a reply to: xGerhardSAx
- the main question is you know what and how you see?

"Smart" guys full of certitudes and "irrefutable FACTS" play the same game here, the same crossfire game! Sad, very sad!



posted on Aug, 4 2016 @ 04:00 PM
link   
a reply to: sadang

Can YOU offer any EVIDENCE that stars can't be seen from space?

No? Didn't think so.

Lots of words with no substance.

Try again.



posted on Aug, 4 2016 @ 04:14 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79
- can you offer any evidence that stars can be seen from space?



posted on Aug, 4 2016 @ 04:31 PM
link   
a reply to: sadang

yes - astronaut // cosmonaught testiminon - the photo archives of every space program



posted on Aug, 4 2016 @ 04:31 PM
link   
a reply to: sadang

It's been offered throughout he whole thread.

You, however, haven't offered a single shred of evidence. Neither has connectdots.



posted on Aug, 4 2016 @ 04:32 PM
link   
a reply to: ConnectDots

actually - yes - i have - and they are a pack of cockwombles

now that is the evidence for YOUR claims ?



posted on Aug, 4 2016 @ 04:42 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79
- that are evidences according to your point of view not mine
- can you offer a single evidence and argue why I should consider it an evidence?



posted on Aug, 4 2016 @ 04:45 PM
link   
a reply to: sadang

So no evidence from you then?

Thought not.

Just more words and no evidence.



posted on Aug, 4 2016 @ 04:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: sadang
a reply to: TerryDon79
- can you offer any evidence that stars can be seen from space?


The photons of EM radiation given off by stars and the Sun includes photons of radiation between certain wavelengths that our eyes on Earth can detect as light. There is absolutely no reason to believe that our eyes would not be able to detect this same EM radiation between those same wavelengths in space, or in any vacuum.

That's like saying if I hit my finger with a hammer while in Earth's atmosphere, it will hurt; but if I hit my finger with a hammer in a space (or in a vacuum), I won't feel anything. I mean, do you have any proof that I would feel it while in space? No? -- you have no proof that I would feel it? Well since you have no evidence and in that case, it makes logical sense that a hammer smacking my finger in space or in a vacuum would not be felt.


edit on 8/4/2016 by Box of Rain because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2016 @ 04:52 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

So no evidence from you then?

Thought not.

Just more words and no evidence.



posted on Aug, 4 2016 @ 04:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: sadang
a reply to: TerryDon79

So no evidence from you then?

Thought not.

Just more words and no evidence.


Explain how eyes sense what you call "light" -- and explain what exactly you are calling "light" -- and then explain why eyes would not be able to sense that stuff that you call light while in a vacuum or while in space...or if the issue is that the stuff you call light is not present in space or in a vacuum, then explain why it isn't.



edit on 8/4/2016 by Box of Rain because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2016 @ 04:58 PM
link   
a reply to: sadang

Seriously?!

How about the astronauts testimonials and the PHOTOS they took? You know, the things you ignored.



posted on Aug, 4 2016 @ 05:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Box of Rain
- a hammer has to become hammer...



posted on Aug, 4 2016 @ 05:09 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79
- can you offer a single evidence and argue why I should consider it an evidence?



posted on Aug, 4 2016 @ 05:11 PM
link   
a reply to: sadang

I already did.

The argument for stars being seen from space is based on.....wait for it....evidence.

The argument against it is, well, an argument with no evidence.



posted on Aug, 4 2016 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Public Service Announcement


Debate Politely!!!!

No snark. No bickering. No name-calling.
Community Announcement re: Decorum



and, as always:

Do NOT reply to this post!!



posted on Aug, 4 2016 @ 06:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Box of Rain

What science calls the "visible light" part of the EM spectrum are wavelengths of EM radiation between about 380 nm and about 750 nm. Longer wavelengths of that EM radiation is infrared, microwaves, and radio radiation, and sorter wavelengths are ultraviolet, Xrays, and gamma rays.

Science can tells us through measurement and instrumentation that our eyes and a camera can sense the visible light part of that EM radiation, but not sense the higher and lower wavelengths.


No quarrel.

Except that special cameras can sense other wavelengths, correct? (Maybe they’re not called “cameras.”)


The way we sense that part on the EM spectrum that science calls "visible light" is by receptors in our eyes that are sensitive to those EM wavelengths, and groups of those receptors, along with our brains, puts together an image based on the EM radiation from those wavelengths.

Gary N and Sadang claims that our eyes are NOT sensing that part of the EM spectrum.

I don’t hear them saying that at all.

I only hear them saying that the radiation from the sun is not visible light until it hits matter.



posted on Aug, 4 2016 @ 09:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: sadang
- yes indeed, mainly if you like to argue without considering to what is sensitive a CCD or human eyes!



you are trying to deny reality.

visible light has been defined as EM radiation with wavelengths between ~390-700nm of which our eyes are sensitive to.
you claim our eyes are not sensitive to this EM radiation at all with no proof whatsoever.
so what you refer to as visible light, cannot be referred to as visible light.


originally posted by: sadang
- a hammer has to become hammer...


a hammer does not become a hammer.
a hammer only becomes a hammer when we label/call/define it a hammer.

for instance, an ant most likely does not label it a hammer.

the same is for visible light.
scientists have labeled visible light as part of the EM radiation spectrum with wavelengths between ~390-700nm and our eyes are sensitive to it. this is what we call visible light.

you claim that our eyes are not sensitive to this band of EM radiation therefore it cannot be labelled as visible light.
hence what you call visible light is not visible light.
you need to stop wasting everyones time here.
edit on 4-8-2016 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2016 @ 09:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: ConnectDots
I don’t hear them saying that at all.

I only hear them saying that the radiation from the sun is not visible light until it hits matter.


perhaps you missed it?? here it is:

"- human eye as well as a CCD are sensitive to something but not to what you call EM radiation from which you consider light is part of. - Sadang"
www.abovetopsecret.com...

they have clearly stated that the human eyes are not sensitive at all to what you call visible light.







 
40
<< 62  63  64    66  67  68 >>

log in

join