Stars Can't Be Seen from Outer Space

a reply to: TerryDon79
- can you offer a single evidence and argue why I should consider it an evidence?

a reply to: sadang

No.

Just forget everything the astronauts said.
Forget all the photos.
Forget all the science.

Live in ignorance, I couldn't care less.

a reply to: choos
- I'm not trying to deny anything
- where you see in my sentence the words light, em, wavelength?
- and a hammer grows from a seed on the shelf at the supermarket! or perhaps is easier for you to label/call/define an ant to only becomes an ant. than to think at the real meaning of my words.
- again your invincible logic in which you spin like the fox around the tail!

a reply to: choos
- again due to your invincible but useless logic, you put your own interpretation in my mouth.
- I said "what you call..." but again your logic is full of thinking patterns from which you can't escape, to sense real meaning of my phrases.

a reply to: TerryDon79
- thanks. for me is enough. I prefer a free minded ignorance than a scientific dogma!

I'm done with this thread. It's a joke.

Just remember.....never ask the "can't be seen" group for evidence. They don't have any (as has been proved since page 1)

originally posted by: sadang
- I'm not trying to deny anything
- where you see in my sentence the words light, em, wavelength?
- and a hammer grows from a seed on the shelf at the supermarket! or perhaps is easier for you to label/call/define an ant to only becomes an ant. than to think at the real meaning of my words.
- again your invincible logic in which you spin like the fox around the tail!

a hammer does not grow.
it is labelled by humans.
it is similar for light, humans have labelled visible light.

it is your problem that you have decided to refer to something completely different to visible light as visible light.

- again due to your invincible but useless logic, you put your own interpretation in my mouth.
- I said "what you call..." but again your logic is full of thinking patterns from which you can't escape, to sense real meaning of my phrases.

you might call it circular because you simply dont understand what im saying.

also there is no real meaning in your phrases. because when you say "what you call" it is the same as saying "what scientists have called" since we are using their definitions.

so when you go say that "what we call visible light is not from the EM spectrum", what you are referring to as visible light is NOT actually visible light by definition.

in other words, when we are all here arguing about apples, you have come along arguing about a pizza, thinking its an orange, calling it an apple.

The opening post of this thread links to The Wild Heretic.
That website claims 99.9% certainty that Earth is concave and we live on the inside of it,
and the gravity that keeps us from falling to the center of the earth is ether...
An 1897 experiment done on a Florida beach building a 4 mile long RECTILINEATOR is evidence cited for this certainty...

Anyway...
If you live in a city, chances are you can't see many stars either.
The lights from the city seem to interfere/block the visible light of the stars.

Clouds have a very high albedo.
If you are above the clouds, wouldn't the light reflected off the clouds be quite great, relative to the stars?
(as well as the not as bright light reflected from earth and water too)

This thread has turned from at least somewhat informative and exploratory to pure back-and-forth bickering. I still have hope that it will turn around. I'd rather people post and discuss photos, diagrams, scientific data, etc.

Lots of insteresting stuff has been posted in this thread, such as the photographic equipment and settings used by the Apollo moon walkers (and how it compares to photography on Earth), various info and images about the ISS, and much more. This thread has been a nice challenge, and has actually made me go and research things.

I hope this thread doesn't devolve into nothing or gets closed.

originally posted by: sadang
- I said "what you call..." but again your logic is full of thinking patterns from which you can't escape, to sense real meaning of my phrases.

So, you're saying that you don't call radiation from the sun electromagnetic radiation - it's just radiation from the sun?

originally posted by: InachMarbank
The opening post of this thread links to The Wild Heretic.

A study of the secret space program will open up worlds of information that is wild and mind-boggling. This is the universe (multiverse) we actually live in.

All the sarcasm and ridicule one can dish out will not change it.

a reply to: ConnectDots

a reply to: sadang

Well, maybe now we can start from the beginning and explore the topic without sarcasm, ridicule, or ad hominems.

I keep looking for new information to come out on the topic.

It's hard, though, because there is so much pressure on people to keep their mouths shut.

a reply to: ConnectDots

It's hard, though, because there is so much pressure on people to keep their mouths shut.

Here's your chance to explain something: If an atmosphere is necessary to see stars, why do stars get brighter the higher you go on a mountain or in an airplane? There is less atmosphere below you then.

a reply to: DJW001

I don't think an atmosphere is needed to see stars from Earth.

Rather, an atmosphere is the matter that is necessary to create visible light from the radiation of the sun.

a reply to: ConnectDots

Rather, an atmosphere is the matter that is necessary to create visible light from the radiation of the sun.

So why are you more likely to get sunburnt in the mountains?

a reply to: DJW001

I don't know whether your statement is true or false.

Also, is sunburn caused by ultraviolet light?

If it is, how is it relevant?

as the delusions of sad-gary seem to hinge on the unevidenced assertion that :

interaction with a gas " transforms " invisible phontons into visiblie phontons [ magic not explained ]

then one has to wonder how the delusion explains lights interaction with liquids

i has just been helping to teach a friend some of the physics of underwater photography - so i thought of this thread

originally posted by: ConnectDots

For people willing to invest some money (and a great deal of time) in order to be well-informed, there are two whistleblowers re. the secret space program who will educate you about true science and technology giving interviews at the website Gaia.com.

They are William Tompkins and Corey Goode.

No money is required to read transcripts of these interviews.

I have started a new thread in General Chit Chat (because I have no intention of debating you or trying to change your mind) based on an interview of William Tompkins: Are You Interested in the Secret Space Program?

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: ConnectDots

Rather, an atmosphere is the matter that is necessary to create visible light from the radiation of the sun.

So why are you more likely to get sunburnt in the mountains?

You don't know that people in high altitudes can get burnt much more easily? You don't know that UV light causes sunburn? Are you 12?

As for his question, why don't you use your brain for 2 minutes to understand why he asked it. You claim the atmos is necessary to propagate light. Are you aware that there is less air high up? Or is this another basic fact you seem to be unaware of? So since there is less air, how re people more likely to get burnt in the mountains? At some point you have to answer some questions.