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: 69
40
<< 66  67  68    70  71  72 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 12 2016 @ 08:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
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.

You put the Earth and Moon in the same category as the Sun for brightness?

Your post assumes that conditions in outer space are the same as on Earth, doesn’t it?

What is the “band” referenced in the Lovell quote?




posted on Aug, 13 2016 @ 01:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Box of Rain
- now if we established that Sun radiates something (call it EM energy if you like so), and for sure it not radiate light as we see it from the Eart's atmosphere, the next step would be to understand why I say the light is a local phenomenon. from now on you are alone on this road, you have to make your own effort.

a reply to: ConnectDots
- the Universe is driven by something more finer and inconceivable stronger than electricity, and not on gravity of Newton.
- stars can be seen occasionally depending on the crew distance from Earth, cause in the cisluna space, interplanetary and deep space the stars can not be seen by human eyes, as they radiate don't light.



posted on Aug, 13 2016 @ 03:27 AM
link   
We're not getting anywhere with this, are we? This feels like discussing astrophysics with patients at a mental institution (no offence meant, it just seems like a bizzare, pseudo-logical affair that lacks any cohesion and logic).

Back to the drawing board: what does the Sun emit, why can't we see that emission in space, and why does it become visible when it goes through the atmosphere?

Please provide some answers to those questions, don't be deliberately vague and putting the burden of proof on other people's shoulders.



posted on Aug, 13 2016 @ 05:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: sadang
a reply to: ConnectDots
- the Universe is driven by something more finer and inconceivable stronger than electricity, and not on gravity of Newton.

As in the aether/ether?


originally posted by: sadang
- stars can be seen occasionally depending on the crew distance from Earth, cause in the cisluna space, interplanetary and deep space the stars can not be seen by human eyes, as they radiate don't light.

On page 20 GaryN states:


originally posted by: GaryN
. . . stars could be seen from cislunar space if they were looking through the sextant, it incorporated the view of what the Star Tracker was seeing, though we know that waste dumps made the sextant useless for a while after the waste dump. Solar UV will make the water in the waste glow.

Do you agree with that?

and:


I don't question that stars can be seen, from the ISS cupola for example, but that is because of the atmosphere . . .

Any disagreement there?

And, finally, does this quote from GaryN summarize the issue that remains – that an experiment is definitely called for but due to the nature of the government agency NASA, it’s not going to happen?


There are NO stars when looking outward, but only an experiment could confirm that, (though nobody here would believe it even if it was proven experimentally!) or maybe get the astronauts who have told of the blackness together and let them discuss the situation openly. NASA wouldn't go for that.


(post by 3danimator2014 removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Aug, 13 2016 @ 07:13 AM
link   
a reply to: 3danimator2014

Things that work speak for themselves. They are proof that the engineering that produced them was effective.

Theories are a horse of a different color.

Theories are humankind's best attempt to describe the phenomena we observe.

Theories have to be updated as new observations are made.



posted on Aug, 13 2016 @ 07:45 AM
link   
a reply to: wildespace
- again the same need of proof! why someone need other proof, instead of their own research and studies! I really can't understand that!

a reply to: ConnectDots
- doesn't matter how you call it, what matter is to correct understand it
- no, they can't be seen even through a sextant from cisluna space
- no, totally agree
- right

a reply to: 3danimator2014
- you still continue just saying words
- let me give you a hint: what you call electricity works not because you call it electricity! the same for what you call em radiation.
edit on 13-8-2016 by sadang because: - make some correction ot text



posted on Aug, 13 2016 @ 09:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: sadang
a reply to: wildespace
- again the same need of proof! why someone need other proof, instead of their own research and studies! I really can't understand that!

My research and studies show that light is visible in outer space.



posted on Aug, 13 2016 @ 12:06 PM
link   
a reply to: wildespace
- that's ok for me. my research and understanding show that what we call light is an impossibility in deep space. is this ok for you too?



posted on Aug, 13 2016 @ 01:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: sadang
a reply to: wildespace
- that's ok for me. my research and understanding show that what we call light is an impossibility in deep space. is this ok for you too?

But why?

What is it about EM radiation within the part of the EM spectrum commonly referred to as "visible light" radiation that would make such radiation undetectable by light-sensitive organisms and equipment?

If we can detect UV radiation in space and we can detect IR in space, then what would be the reason that would would not be able to detect the EM radiation between UV and IR?

Please show us the research you are talking about that says the EM radiation between wavelengths of 380 nm and 750 nm that strike/interact with the light-sensitive cells in a human eye would NOT be detectable by that human eye.


edit on 2016/8/13 by Box of Rain because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2016 @ 04:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: sadang
a reply to: ConnectDots
- doesn't matter how you call it, what matter is to correct understand it

Could you give us a better word to call it?

In other words, what do you base your understanding on?


originally posted by: sadang
- no, they can't be seen even through a sextant from cisluna space

Is the following diagram an accurate depiction of cislunar space?





www.wpclipart.com...



posted on Aug, 13 2016 @ 11:11 PM
link   
a reply to: ConnectDots


Is the following diagram an accurate depiction of cislunar space?


No. It appears to be an illustration for... well, children.



posted on Aug, 14 2016 @ 10:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Box of Rain
- see the hint I made to 3danimator2014
- how to show you something that don't fit in your way of thinking. make the required effort and review all the fundamental concepts from current science like magnetism, electricity and gravity, find their common denominator and then will start to see all things with other eyes.
- for example try to fill with something that 99.9999999999996% empty space from the volume of an atom of hydrogen, then you will understand what Sun radiates and why what we call light here on Earth environment can't be seen in deep space.

a reply to: ConnectDots
- let's say "plasma"?
- on a different understanding of the entire Universe
- as accurate as it can be, but only if it is included the magnetosphere of the Earth



posted on Aug, 14 2016 @ 10:48 AM
link   
a reply to: sadang

snip.

anyway, what exactly does the magnetosphere got to do with seeing things?
edit on 14-8-2016 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2016 @ 12:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: sadang
a reply to: wildespace
- that's ok for me. my research and understanding show that what we call light is an impossibility in deep space. is this ok for you too?

We're lucky, though, that the scientific and technological reality doesn't depend on your or mine opinions or research. Cameras, telescopes, and other optical equipment used in space has been designed with the mainstream knowledge of light and how it works. And there's absolutely no evidence that that equipment fails to work in space, or that it works in some other ways than what we're told. No evidence that astronauts in space couldn't see stars or any other light, in fact there are multiple accounts that they did. No scientific foundation for what is claimed in this thread, only the vague hand-waving, moving of the goal posts, and the usual "go and research it yourself" cop out.



posted on Aug, 14 2016 @ 02:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: sadang
a reply to: Box of Rain
- see the hint I made to 3danimator2014


I don't play that game.

Just tell us your evidence in a clear and concise manner for why the portion of EM radiation that is commonly referred to as "visible light" is not really light at all.

Actually presenting your evidence should be quite simple and would relieve the ATS community of trying to extract this alleged evidence from you like it was a molar in the back of your mouth.


edit on 2016/8/14 by Box of Rain because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2016 @ 03:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: sadang
- no, they can't be seen even through a sextant from cisluna space

Would you be able to explain to me the reason why you and GaryN disagree on that? I know you can't speak for him, but if you can, I would be interested in knowing the rationale for the disagreement.


originally posted by: sadang
- let's say "plasma"?

Okay that makes sense to me.

In fact, I’m fascinated with a statement I heard during a Roundtable discussion that took place at The Secret Space Program Conference 2014 – that is that plasma seems to display sentient properties.



posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 05:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Box of Rain
. . . the portion of EM radiation that is commonly referred to as "visible light" is not really light at all.

I don't think that's the premise.

The premise is that the sun's radiation doesn't become visible light until the right condition is met.

Hasn't that premise been clearly stated?


edit on 8/15/2016 by ConnectDots because: Clarify



posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 08:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: ConnectDots

The premise is that the sun's radiation doesn't become visible light until the right condition is met.



so the premise is suggesting that nuclear fusion does not produce heat or light??



posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 09:00 AM
link   
Apparently you CAN see the stars with a camera on Mars:

www.360cities.net...



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 66  67  68    70  71  72 >>

log in

join