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: 72
40
<< 69  70  71    73  74  75 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 22 2016 @ 05:35 AM
link   
a reply to: wildespace
I don’t have technical knowledge re. photography and cameras to help solve the riddle.

I, also, would like to hear from sadang on my previous question:





posted on Aug, 22 2016 @ 06:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: wildespace
I don’t have technical knowledge re. photography and cameras to help solve the riddle.

The cameras and the film used by the Apollo astronauts have been documented well. They used Hasselblad cameras with 70mm Kodak film. The information about the film and its sensitivity is at the archive here: www.lpi.usra.edu...

Here's some info about those cameras: petapixel.com...

All in all, they worked in the same way as any film camera here on Earth.



posted on Aug, 22 2016 @ 07:25 AM
link   
a reply to: wildespace
Is the debate regarding photographs going to solve the issue of whether or not the radiation from the sun is actually visible light, though?



posted on Aug, 22 2016 @ 09:36 AM
link   
a reply to: choos
- I'm not ordering anyone, I only suggest.
- it seems you are here only to contradict inconvenient subjects without any desire to really understand something more. you behave exactly like a spoiled child!
- from where do you think I get that text? try to find it and will get the answers to your own questions, which should not have been written if you would be really interested by the subject and not just writing words!

a reply to: wildespace
- yes you're right! I missed this aspect. They could indeed be glares and not streaks as I supposed.

a reply to: ConnectDots
- in my opinion Sun radiate something not light. radiation of Sun should become light through specific interactions, which in cisluna or deep space can't take place.



posted on Aug, 22 2016 @ 09:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: sadang
- from where do you think I get that text? try to find it and will get the answers to your own questions, which should not have been written if you would be really interested by the subject and not just writing words!



i know where you get it.. thats the thing..
the reason im doing this is because it is the same method that you are using, basically im gauging your reaction seeing if you practice what you preach (so far you have failed, strange)
seems when i ask you to do some research about that quote its me being childish but you are perfectly fine with it??

seriously, your interpretation is completely wrong on that quote. go read it again and research as to why i say this.

edit on 22-8-2016 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2016 @ 10:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: sadang
in my opinion Sun radiate something not light. radiation of Sun should become light through specific interactions, which in cisluna or deep space can't take place.


And, no instrument can compensate for that?

In my previous post:



which included the video “Can stars be seen in space?”


photos taken from the International Space Station were mentioned.

What about those photos?

edit on 8/22/2016 by ConnectDots because: Fix code



posted on Aug, 22 2016 @ 12:12 PM
link   
a reply to: choos
- I'm very aware you play the game of who's smarter just I'm not interested by your game.
- your interpretation of my interpretation is completely wrong, cause I understand very well your point of view, your arguments, and intentions, but for sure you don't know nor understand mine. You follow a path of thinking I follow another one. You try each time to fit me in various patterns without having the ability to understand that you're not the first who try this.
- I'll repeat it here "... For the images on color film, a generic color processing formula, arrived at by tweaking representative images by hand, was applied in an attempt to shift them back closer to their original colors." exactly to stimulate your intuition not your logic.

a reply to: ConnectDots
- thanks for that video. I did not seen it till now, but I'll watch it asap.
- all images from ISS are irrelevant cause its altitude of 400 Km is in the thermosphere of the Earth.
- you can't understand why I say this because you still see the nature of light as an electromagnetic radiation. as I said you have to reconsider the current science on other premises. this is a life endeavor, not of a few hours on a forum!



posted on Aug, 22 2016 @ 12:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: sadang
- you can't understand why I say this because you still see the nature of light as an electromagnetic radiation. as I said you have to reconsider the current science on other premises.

How can you say that?

You haven't been paying close attention to my posts, evidently.

I'm confused about your disagreement with GaryN and I'm trying to get to the bottom of it.

I'm also confused about why pictures are taken from the ISS. I guess you're saying the ISS is within the Earth's atmosphere.

I had been thinking it was because they have special cameras at this point in history.



posted on Aug, 22 2016 @ 01:21 PM
link   
a reply to: ConnectDots
- indeed I did not read all your previous posts, only from when you interact with me. sorry, I don't have to much spare time!
- as I said from my first posts, I came here only to support GaryN about the fact that stars can't be seen from outer space, that not meaning that I agree with his explanations why they can't be seen
- I was talking about the pictures of stars taken from ISS



posted on Aug, 22 2016 @ 09:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: sadang
- I'll repeat it here "... For the images on color film, a generic color processing formula, arrived at by tweaking representative images by hand, was applied in an attempt to shift them back closer to their original colors." exactly to stimulate your intuition not your logic.



again you have demonstrated that you do not practice what you preach.. here is a more complete quote:


The images then received some "color" processing. This was done because the aging of the film had altered the original colors captured when the film was exposed. In the case of the images on black and white film, the "color shifting" was removed by grayscaling the images. For the images on color film, a generic color processing formula, arrived at by tweaking representative images by hand, was applied in an attempt to shift them back closer to their original colors.


now have another gander at why your interpretation is wrong.. could it have something to do with digitizing?

p.s. oh and this isnt a game of who is smarter.. this is just me seeing whether or not you practice what you preach and again you have failed..



posted on Aug, 23 2016 @ 02:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: ConnectDots
I'm also confused about why pictures are taken from the ISS. I guess you're saying the ISS is within the Earth's atmosphere.

I had been thinking it was because they have special cameras at this point in history.

Apollo astronauts used what essentially are normal film cameras, early ISS missions did the same, and now they're using ordinary digital SLR cameras. Both types of cameras work by focusing the photons of visible light onto the film / sensor, subsequently allowing the image to be developed / formed digitally.

The International Space Station orbits the Earth within the middle of the thermosphere, which is nominally considered a layer of the Earth's atmosphere, but it's so dilute compared to the lower layers of the atmosphere, that for all intents and purposes it can be considered the vacuum of space. 80% of our atmoasphere's mass is concentrated within the troposphere. The mass of the thermosphere above about 85 km is only 0.002% of the total mass.

What I'm basically getting at here is that such a tenuous environment is by far not enough to greate such bright sunlight (and the image of the Sun itself), or make stars visible to the naked eye and a long-exposure camera shot.

And the Sun (and its light) for ISS and Apollo astronauts is very bright, creating some challenge due to the harshness of contrast. luminous-landscape.com...


edit on 23-8-2016 by wildespace because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2016 @ 05:15 AM
link   
a reply to: choos
- and you think I just copied that fragment of text without reading the entire paragraph? What childish thinking!
- just find another way to interact with me, logic and sarcasm are not enough
- digitizing from digit or fingerizing from finger?



posted on Aug, 23 2016 @ 05:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: sadang
a reply to: choos
- and you think I just copied that fragment of text without reading the entire paragraph? What childish thinking!
- just find another way to interact with me, logic and sarcasm are not enough
- digitizing from digit or fingerizing from finger?


you did just quote one portion of the paragraph and assumed it supported you when its far from its purpose
also its not just the entire paragraph you failed to consider, you failed to consider the entire page and the purpose for the page.

you just read one small snippet and ran with it (erroneously, making you look like you dont practice what you preach).

that quote has nothing to do with this topic, it also has nothing to do with your point of view, yet you still quoted from it twice as if it supported you..

and yes it has got something to do with digitizing, but not with digit (number) or "fingerizing from finger"
keep searching why and practice what you preach.

p.s. i understand im not as good at this as you are, you would have just said "for your answers, you are now on your own" but that would only show im leading you on a wild goose chase (which is precisely what you keep displaying, even ConnectDots has called you on this), which in this case im not, so i cant just follow your example here.
edit on 23-8-2016 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2016 @ 06:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: wildespace
What I'm basically getting at here is that such a tenuous environment is by far not enough to greate such bright sunlight (and the image of the Sun itself), or make stars visible to the naked eye and a long-exposure camera shot.

But how do you know how dense the atmosphere has to be?

I think that Thomas Joseph Brown’s testimony about his experience dealing with NASA is compelling.

That, along with the abundant challenges to mainstream physics coming out of whistleblower testimony, which I find also compelling, makes this discussion rather a waste of time, in my opinion.



posted on Aug, 23 2016 @ 09:30 AM
link   
a reply to: choos
- is your right to say whatever you want and as long as you want, but this will not make you understand more



posted on Aug, 23 2016 @ 10:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: sadang
a reply to: choos
- is your right to say whatever you want and as long as you want, but this will not make you understand more



unfortunately your lack of practicing what you preach is stopping you from understanding why you are so wrong with your interpretation of that quote.

as you would say, go research "digitizing" and find out for yourself why you have misinterpreted that cherry picked quote, only if you go find the answer yourself will it be worthwhile, something along them lines right?



posted on Aug, 23 2016 @ 05:10 PM
link   
a reply to: ConnectDots

In the link wildespace gave, you see a picture taken from the shuttle flight deck showing the Milky Way.

Nikon D3s f2.8 4 secs iso 9000. to get similar quslity images on Earth typical exposures are f2.8 iso 3200 @ 20-30 seconds.

Allowing for the difference in iso (in stops) then less exposure is required higher up and kind of shoots holes in GaryN's BS theory



edit on 23-8-2016 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2016 @ 05:35 PM
link   
a reply to: wmd_2008
Your use of name-calling discredits your post.



posted on Aug, 23 2016 @ 05:36 PM
link   
a reply to: ConnectDots

The truth hurts that's what they say



posted on Aug, 23 2016 @ 05:38 PM
link   
a reply to: ConnectDots
Didn't call him a name only his theory



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 69  70  71    73  74  75 >>

log in

join