Stars Can't Be Seen from Outer Space

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: wildespace

Essentially, this thread is a more complicated version of the question: If a tree falls in the woods with no-one around to hear it, does it make a sound?

I don't think it's that. This thread is more like about a falling tree making sound waves that are undetectable by human ears or the microphone (whether they are present there or not, no difference), because of the area the falling tree is in. According to GaryN & co, those inaudible sound waves become audible when interacting with another area.

Do Australians walk on their hands?
You heard it first at ATS.

originally posted by: InachMarbank
Do Australians walk on their hands?
You heard it first at ATS.

Quite the opposite; They perceive the Earth's spin differently than people in the Northern Hemisphere because they are stnding on their feet.

Here's a more extreme example to illustrate this better: People standing on the South Pole are standing "upside down" relative to people standing on the North Pole. In the graphic below, a person at the North Pole looking down at his feet while the Earth spins would say that the spin of the earth seems counter-clockwise (anticlockwise). However, a person standing on the South Pole looking "down" at his feet would say the Earth is spinning clockwise.

That's because the person in the North pole "looking down at his feet" is looking in the opposite direction than the person "looking down at his feet" at the South Pole.



NOTE:
(I want to add something else, but I'm running out of editing time, so I'll add it to a post below...)

Continued from my post above:

This is also the reason that '3danimator2014' said that the constellation of Orion looked to be upside down when he viewed it when he visited the Southern Hemisphere relative to how he usually sees it at his home in the Northern Hemisphere.

Here's why:
The image below is the Earth -- with North "up", South "down", and Orion in space. The stick figures represent a person viewing from the mid-latitudes of the Northern hemisphere (say between the 30th and 50th North Latitude, which includes much of North America and Europe), and the other stick figure represents someone in the Southern Hemisphere, say between the 35th and 50th South Latitude (which includes almost all of Australia).

As you can see, each stick figure is standing a little "sideways" on Earth, with the southern guy a little "upside down" relative to the Northern guy.





If we rotate the view so the stick figure in the Northern hemisphere is standing upright as we see him on this graphic, and that Northern guy views the Constellation of Orion, he will see it with Betelgeuse being in the upper part of Orion as we view it, and Rigel in in the lower part, as in the graphic below:





...However, If we rotate the view so the stick figure in the Southern hemisphere is standing upright as we see him on this graphic, and that Southern guy views the Constellation of Orion, he will see it a bit flipped around -- with Rigel being in the upper part of Orion as we view it, and Betelgeuse in in the lower part, as in the graphic below:

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Oh yeah, oops,
Thanks for catching my stupid error.

In that diagram,
the stick figure on the top could turn right,
and not face the arrow,
and the stick figure on the bottom could turn right
and face the arrow.

I had gotten hung up on black mirrors...
I think it was this time lapse image of stars,
shot north of Chile, with camera supposedly pointed toward the equator,
and showing star rotation going in opposite directions,
just on opposing side of equator...

sguisard.astrosurf.com...

"The camera was pointed west and towards the celestial equator. The stars on the left of the image seem to rotate around the Southern Celestial Pole (which is the projection in the sky of the Earth South pole) while the stars to the right seem to rotate around the Northern Celestial Pole. The stars located at the celestial equator make straight lines."

Why would the lines diverge like that at the equator?

I don't see how your response addresses the ultimate answer I provided in my post,
the question of why we can't see the stars from very high altitudes.

Why should there be any difference in light perception,
from high altitude, to low altitude???
I can't think of a typical reason...

So... basically...
as I have thus far speculated...
the reason stars can't be seen at night,
is because they are just light beams,
emitted from green and red laser beams,
invisibly hidden inside, and levitating, and guiding through seasons,
giant upside down diamonds in the sky,
just above the troposphere,
combined with the blue light from Earth's atmosphere,
hitting the wide part of the diamond,
split many times inside the diamond,
beamed through the thin part of the diamond, to the Firmament
bounced off a black mirror, (part of Firmament),
back into the diamond, split many times again,
back to constellation holes,
and made visible as white light,
upon returning to the blue light of the troposphere.

Umm....

There is another slide show I put together,
comparing the arc of a photograph NASA put out over the Italian peninsula,
with the same would be arc on the typical globe model.
They do not match.
The arc I copied from NASA over the Italian peninsula,
compared to the arc I copied from a typical globe model,
is more than twice as wide.

www.youtube.com...

I'm thinking it is like...
If Earth took up the same area,
was a 41% bigger sphere,
and had the bottom 29% cut off,
that would match this arc I copied from the NASA image over the Italian peninsula...

Thoughts?

originally posted by: InachMarbank

...

Why should there be any difference in light perception,
from high altitude, to low altitude???
I can't think of a typical reason...

- this picture speaks for itself even in terms of electromagnetic theory, why there is a difference in perception of light. the most interesting part comes from the right upper corner.

originally posted by: sadang

originally posted by: InachMarbank

...

Why should there be any difference in light perception,
from high altitude, to low altitude???
I can't think of a typical reason...

- this picture speaks for itself even in terms of electromagnetic theory, why there is a difference in perception of light. the most interesting part comes from the right upper corner.

No, this picture speaks for itself in terms of scattered sunlight in the atmosphere, and of photographic exposure.

originally posted by: sadang

originally posted by: InachMarbank

...

Why should there be any difference in light perception,
from high altitude, to low altitude???
I can't think of a typical reason...

- this picture speaks for itself even in terms of electromagnetic theory, why there is a difference in perception of light. the most interesting part comes from the right upper corner.

If the exposure had been higher, then the top right corner would be flooded with light. You are totally clueless my friend

As it is this is one of my favourite NASA images.

originally posted by: sadang

originally posted by: InachMarbank

...

Why should there be any difference in light perception,
from high altitude, to low altitude???
I can't think of a typical reason...

- this picture speaks for itself even in terms of electromagnetic theory, why there is a difference in perception of light. the most interesting part comes from the right upper corner.

That shows light being scattered by the atmosphere and some of that scatter light reflecting toward a camera that is pointed toward that reflected light, allowing the camera to capture that reflected light.

A similar thing would happen in space if with a camera pointed at an asteroid in space. The sunlight that reflects off of the asteroid and back into the camera would be detected by the camera and captured in an image (although that reflected light would be less scattered).

The same thing would be true in both cases if that reflected light was reflected into our eyes rather than into a camera.

a reply to: wildespace
- not what? you said something more than me? or how your answer help him to understand the existence or not of a difference in light perception with altitude variation?

a reply to: 3danimator2014
- why? are you sure?
- according to your wrong answer I don't think this is your favorite NASA image at all! you just like to say words.

a reply to: Box of Rain
- Sun radiate, it does not light!
- you have something against this claim?

originally posted by: sadang
a reply to: Box of Rain
- Sun radiate, it does not light!
- you have something against this claim?

Yeah.

When the stuff that we see as light is analyzed, that stuff turns out to be EM radiation between the wavelengths of about 380 nm and about 750 nm. The Sun also gives off EM radiation. Even GaryN has said that the sun gives off EM radiation in wavelengths longer than 750 nm (infrared, or IR) that can be detected by IR cameras, and gives off radiation in wavelengths shorter than 380 nm (ultraviolet, or UV) that can be detected by UV cameras, so there is no reason that the sun would not give off radiation between 380 nm and 750 nm -- which is the radiation that we know to which the cells in our eyes are sensitive, and to which normal cameras are sensitive.

If our eyes and a normal camera are not reacting to the EM radiation between 380 nm and 750 nm that falls upon them when they "see light", then to what exactly (be specific) are they reacting?

a reply to: Box of Rain
- doesn't matter what GaryN said. you now talk with me not with GaryN, even though there are some that still believe I'm the same as GaryN.
- I always supported the main idea of GaryN, namely that stars can't be seen in deep space, not his own theory.
- I think is time to repeat again:
--- a CCD as well as a human eye doesn't detect light, here on Earth or in any corner of the Universe
--- light is a local phenomenon
- and finally I still don't know, you agree or not with the fact that Sun doesn't light, but instead it only radiate?

a reply to: sadang


Well, you didn't answer my question about what is the stuff to which a human eye is sensitive -- What SPECIFICALLY is the stuff you are calling visible light, but you say is different than the stuff science identifies as visible light (science identifies "visible light" as EM radiation between certain wavelengths).

originally posted by: sadang
- and finally I still don't know, you agree or not with the fact that Sun doesn't light, but instead it only radiate?

I'm don't get what you are saying. The Sun radiates -- it radiates EM radiation, one form of which is visible light. Visible light is radiation.

Specifically, the Sun radiates photons. Depending on the energy and wavelengths of those photons, those photon manifest themselves as different kinds of EM radiation. Certain energies/wavelengths of the photons in that radiation manifests itself as Gamma radiation, certain energies/wavelengths are Xrays, certain ones are UV radiation, certain energies/wavelengths pf those photons manifest itself as visible light radiation, certain ones as infrared radiation, also microwave radiation, and radio radiation.

So yeah -- the sun radiates; specifically it radiates photons as EM radiation. Some of that photon radiation is visible light, some of it is other forms of EM radiation.

originally posted by: sadang
a reply to: wildespace
- not what? you said something more than me? or how your answer help him to understand the existence or not of a difference in light perception with altitude variation?

a reply to: 3danimator2014
- why? are you sure?
- according to your wrong answer I don't think this is your favorite NASA image at all! you just like to say words.

a reply to: Box of Rain
- Sun radiate, it does not light!
- you have something against this claim?

It's a beautiful image. That's why I like it. I've seen it countless times and even had it aamy desktop image.

originally posted by: sadang
- "Houston, it's been a real change for us. Now we are able to see stars again and recognize constellations for the first time on the trip. It's—the sky is full of stars. Just like the nightside of Earth. But all the way here, we have only been able to see stars occasionally and perhaps through the monocular, but not recognize any star patterns."

Has it been established on the thread why they could see stars occasionally?

originally posted by: sadang
- if Newton would have understood correct gravity, relativity would never have existed, Planck size would have been just a size and the light would have been a banal effect of specific energy manifestation.
- all current technology rely on Maxwell electromagnetic theory and its variations at micro and macro levels, far, far away from the intrinsic nature of phenomena and interactions on which rely the Universe.

The universe is basically driven by the electric force rather than gravity as Newton described it (without defining) it?

a reply to: ConnectDots

Has it been established on the thread why they could see stars occasionally?

Countless times: dark adaptation, yet some people keep ignoring it.

a reply to: DJW001

You took out my italics when you quoted me.

I would appreciate it if you would not doctor my words.

Leaving out things said is acceptable.

But not doctoring what I said.

Italics are used for a reason.

originally posted by: SecretKnowledge
a reply to: cooperton

Maybe we are the only planet with the only moon revolving around the only sun in the whole universe...
Now thats a scary thought.

Aye, and not likely at all.

originally posted by: ConnectDots

originally posted by: sadang
- "Houston, it's been a real change for us. Now we are able to see stars again and recognize constellations for the first time on the trip. It's—the sky is full of stars. Just like the nightside of Earth. But all the way here, we have only been able to see stars occasionally and perhaps through the monocular, but not recognize any star patterns."

Has it been established on the thread why they could see stars occasionally?

As has been mentioned, because when their field of view was dominated by a bright object (the Earth, the Moon, or the Sun), their eyes would become accilamted to that bright light, and their pupils would constrict, not allowing enough light in to see stars.

The same thing would happen if you were standing under a street light on a starry night, and looked up into that street light. Your eyes would adjust to the brightness of the street light, and you would not be able to see any stars beyond that light as long as that light was dominating your field of view.

Here is astronaut Jim Lovell communicating with mission control during Apollo 8 about not seeing stars/seeing stars:

036:16:05 Lovell:
...At this, this particular attitude of the spacecraft, the band is gone; we're in a position whereby the Sun is behind us, and I can see quite a few stars. Now yesterday I could also, after getting dark-adapted, see quite a few stars around the constellation Cassiopeia which at first I couldn't. But right now this band precludes you see anything at all except Arcturus which, of course, I know we're aiming at right now.

[color emphasis mine]


By the way, it's similar to why stars sometimes do not show up in pictures. If you had a camera that could have the exposure times manually adjusted (rather than being totally automatic), and you set those exposure times to bright-daylight settings (the exposure and aperture settings necessary to get a good picture in bright daylight) and tried to take a picture of a starry sky at night, the stars in the sky that you could see with oyour eyes would not show up in the picture, because the camera was adjusted to take bright-daylight pictures....just like when your eyes are adjusted to seeing in bright light, you would not be able to see stars at night.

When pictures were taken on the moon, the exposure settings needed to be set similar to bright daylight settings because of the brightness of the lunar surface, even though the sky was dark.