Stars Can't Be Seen from Outer Space

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: wmd_2008
Your use of name-calling discredits your post.

And you lying about his name calling does what to your posts?

a reply to: cooperton

OP, your last post on this thread was on June 5, 2016.

Any chance you will return?

I would be very interested!

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: cooperton

OP, your last post on this thread was on June 5, 2016.

Any chance you will return?

I would be very interested!

I still think the idea is fascinating. Neil Armstrong, GaryN and sadang have put me closer to believing there is some sort of void in which stars are no longer visible in particular parts of space. In my opinion, If outside of our cosmic egg is completely dark and no stars are visible, it strongly reinforces the idea of biocentrism/conscio-centrism in which we as the paramount of consciousness on earth are the focus of this cosmic creation.

I think of the sims computer game where if you go too far off the map its just completely black - obviously it was unnecessary to program anything outside the confines of the inhabitable living space.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: cooperton

OP, your last post on this thread was on June 5, 2016.

Any chance you will return?

I would be very interested!

I still think the idea is fascinating. Neil Armstrong, GaryN and sadang have put me closer to believing there is some sort of void in which stars are no longer visible in particular parts of space.

Please don't add Neil into that list. He never thought o said why you think he's saying about stars.

I can't imagine being so scientifically illiterate that what Gary an sadang said would make sense.

Oh well...to each their own

originally posted by: cooperton
In my opinion, If outside of our cosmic egg is completely dark and no stars are visible, it strongly reinforces the idea of biocentrism/conscio-centrism in which we as the paramount of consciousness on earth are the focus of this cosmic creation.

There was testimony given at The Citizen Hearing on Disclosure about spacecraft actually navigated with consciousness.

And I was glad to hear consciousness stated as a necessary component of a unified theory at the round table discussion at the end of the 2016 Energy Science & Technology Conference, a Tesla-inspired gathering of researchers, inventors and engineers.

I do think uncovering hidden, already known by some, science and technology is what we should be focusing on.

a reply to: cooperton
- I am glad that I sparked some curiosity, that's the purpose of my existence here. under no circumstances to give answers and solutions already known and consistent with current scientific knowledge. the same as Neil, GaryN and others.
- there is no void anywhere in the entire Universe, at least not of what we define as the concept of void. this should be a starting point in understanding what is light and why it is only a local phenomenon.

a reply to: ConnectDots
- we have to understand what is consciousness not to unify it in some kind of abracadabra limited human mind theories, cause it is already unified with anything else in this Universe.

originally posted by: sadang
- we have to understand what is consciousness not to unify it in some kind of abracadabra limited human mind theories abracadabra limited human mind theories, cause it is already unified with anything else in this Universe.

I disagree with you there.

If we were to understand consciousness, then we should be able to fit it into a unified theory, were we to have accurate and complete physics with which to put all the pieces together into a grand, unified theory.

Why the sarcasm "abracadabra limited human mind theories"?

There is nothing wrong with human mind theories, in my opinion.

Apparently this is a time lapse picture of star trails, from an observatory in Spain, by J.C. Casado.

It looks kind of like a painting, but that might just be because the exposure is so great, due to the time lapse. So I am figuring the picture is genuine...

I am figuring two cameras may have been used here, because it seems to show around a 180 degree view (past the celestial north pole, and almost to the south celestial pole) and it doesn't seem to have a fish eye effect.

Couple of questions...

1. It seems to show a full rotation of the celestial north pole. How is this possible? Wouldn't you need 24 hours of night to capture a full rotation of stars with a camera?

2. If stars are only visible at the troposphere, how is it possible to see the stars at the celestial north pole? You wouldn't be able to see troposhere part of sky just above the north pole from Spain, would you?

originally posted by: InachMarbank

1. It seems to show a full rotation of the celestial north pole. How is this possible? Wouldn't you need 24 hours of night to capture a full rotation of stars with a camera?

2. If stars are only visible at the troposphere, how is it possible to see the stars at the celestial north pole? You wouldn't be able to see troposhere part of sky just above the north pole from Spain, would you?

I have a feeling that you might be asking a very good question, but I'm not sure, because the members on this thread who seem to be interested in photos have not responded to your post.

originally posted by: InachMarbank

1. It seems to show a full rotation of the celestial north pole. How is this possible? Wouldn't you need 24 hours of night to capture a full rotation of stars with a camera?

its an ultra wide angle lens, so yes, kind of like a fish eye lens.

its not a full rotation, follow one of the lines and you will find that its not even a 180 degree rotation. there is just that many stars that it makes it look like its a full rotation.

your second question is for the "cant see stars" posters.

originally posted by: ConnectDots

originally posted by: InachMarbank

1. It seems to show a full rotation of the celestial north pole. How is this possible? Wouldn't you need 24 hours of night to capture a full rotation of stars with a camera?

2. If stars are only visible at the troposphere, how is it possible to see the stars at the celestial north pole? You wouldn't be able to see troposhere part of sky just above the north pole from Spain, would you?

I have a feeling that you might be asking a very good question, but I'm not sure, because the members on this thread who seem to be interested in photos have not responded to your post.

And now they have. Like they have every question in this ridiculous thread.

Unlike the stars can't be seen trio who have not answered anything at all.

Isn't that funny? By your standards, that means we must have asked very good questions.

originally posted by: InachMarbank

Apparently this is a time lapse picture of star trails, from an observatory in Spain, by J.C. Casado.

It looks kind of like a painting, but that might just be because the exposure is so great, due to the time lapse. So I am figuring the picture is genuine...

I am figuring two cameras may have been used here, because it seems to show around a 180 degree view (past the celestial north pole, and almost to the south celestial pole) and it doesn't seem to have a fish eye effect.

Couple of questions...

1. It seems to show a full rotation of the celestial north pole. How is this possible? Wouldn't you need 24 hours of night to capture a full rotation of stars with a camera?

2. If stars are only visible at the troposphere, how is it possible to see the stars at the celestial north pole? You wouldn't be able to see troposhere part of sky just above the north pole from Spain, would you?

As choos explained the star trails are not complete rotations you can see that, you also said the image was a timelapse it may be from a timelapse were a series of short exposures combined to form the trails.

Also due to the focal length the time of year and the position on Earth a star trail picture can appear to have stars curving in opposite directions a quick search on Google Images will let you see many examples.

a reply to: choos

its not a full rotation, follow one of the lines and you will find that its not even a 180 degree rotation. there is just that many stars that it makes it look like its a full rotation.

Yeah looks accurate, what you posted.
I zoomed in to look at the arcs of star trails near the center of the north celestial pole.
The bright lines are the easiest to follow.
Looks like they stop after 90 degrees, or so...
(It's difficult to see if this applies to all the trails, but some appear that way...)

If 90 degrees is accurate, this kind of takes the question in the opposite direction, doesn't it?
If the arc is only 90 degrees that would show 1 quarter of a rotation.
But nights in spain are usually closer to half of a rotation.
In July (the longest days) the nights are still more than 10 hours.
(www.sunrise-and-sunset.com...)
But a quarter of one day is only 6 hours...

Here are pics of Spain and Italy apparently taken from the ISS.

The pic of Spain shows stars (though that bright spot is admitted to be camera flash)

The pic of Italy shows no apparent stars.
(if you look close you should be able to see 3 triangular placed star color dots on the right side of the photo, slightly above the arc of Earth --
you may only be able to make out 2 on this upload, but on the pic I have on my PC at home I can see 3 --
it is not likely these are stars -- I have seen that same kind of triangular 3 dot image reflect off my glasses from street lights at a certain angle --
so I'm guessing those dots are that effect)

Both these pics are at night. So no interference from Sun, I wouldn't think...

The Italy picture looks to have higher definition than the Spain picture.

Why are there stars in the Spain pic, but not the Italy pic?

originally posted by: InachMarbank

Why are there stars in the Spain pic, but not the Italy pic?

most likely still due to exposure, the sea in the picture of italy seems more lit by something compared with the image of spain where the sea is much darker.

cant answer from the perspective that stars cant be seen in space.

originally posted by: InachMarbank

If 90 degrees is accurate, this kind of takes the question in the opposite direction, doesn't it?
If the arc is only 90 degrees that would show 1 quarter of a rotation.
But nights in spain are usually closer to half of a rotation.
In July (the longest days) the nights are still more than 10 hours.
(www.sunrise-and-sunset.com...)
But a quarter of one day is only 6 hours...

not sure what you are asking but 6 hours of night time mixed in with starting during sunset or finishing with sunrise could give you this effect.

originally posted by: InachMarbank

Here are pics of Spain and Italy apparently taken from the ISS.

The pic of Spain shows stars (though that bright spot is admitted to be camera flash)

The pic of Italy shows no apparent stars.
(if you look close you should be able to see 3 triangular placed star color dots on the right side of the photo, slightly above the arc of Earth --
you may only be able to make out 2 on this upload, but on the pic I have on my PC at home I can see 3 --
it is not likely these are stars -- I have seen that same kind of triangular 3 dot image reflect off my glasses from street lights at a certain angle --
so I'm guessing those dots are that effect)

Both these pics are at night. So no interference from Sun, I wouldn't think...

The Italy picture looks to have higher definition than the Spain picture.

Why are there stars in the Spain pic, but not the Italy pic?

Different exposures. I think this is pretty basic knowledge which I'm disappointed people don't seem to grasp

originally posted by: InachMarbank

The last image is an artwork, although it was created based on a real ISS photo. www.visitlondon.com...

Notice how soft and dreamy it looks? My guess is that the author removed stars for a more pleasing black background.

That said, the caption says it's a moonlit scene, and moonlit scenes are always brighter than moonless ones, and thus require a shorter exposure.

a reply to: 3danimator2014
- so which is what according to your pretty basic knowledge? which is long and which is short?
---
- the last image is for sure and artwork - fotoforensics.com...

a reply to: sadang

The Spain image is 0.5 sec (or 1/2 sec) exposure. eol.jsc.nasa.gov... (The bright light is the overexposed Moon, by the way)

The Italy image was taken at 1/8 sec exposure, so about 4 times longer. eol.jsc.nasa.gov...