Maybe We Do Live In a Matrix....Something like a ZOO.

This is High Definition video from Space. Shouldn't we be able to see at least 1 star? It's as if our "reality" is contrived.

-CareWeMust

a reply to: carewemust
Living on Earth we are able to see stars thanks to our atmosphere. In space that luxury is not there. I don’t disagree that we may possibly be living in the matrix but seeing stars can be explained with a little research. The universe is a truly fascinating thing to research and I still gain many hours each day just learning this stuff. Happy hunting!

a reply to: Allaroundyou

Not quite. If anything, the atmosphere impedes our view of the stars to varying degrees. A good example is thick cloud cover or fog.

Take a look at this article. It explains the apparent phenomenon youre talking about.

Link to article

Case in point, it all has to do with exposure time and other light sources essentially saturating the image and drowning out the star light.

a reply to: Allaroundyou

I hope you're right. Otherwise the Space Telescope is just sitting in a studio taking pictures of star tapestries on a wall, lol.

a reply to: CreationBro
Ahhhh Very interesting! And that photo in the article is absolutely gorgeous. Very cool topic for me to pop up a view videos on. Thank you for the correction and the link.

a reply to: carewemust
Dude if that was proven I would be in the streets with my darn shovel demanding answers lol

a reply to: carewemust
Now you got me all in my room on my tablet watching “conspiracy theory” videos on this!

It's just the bloom of the light reflecting off our planet. It's really that simple, the same reason you can't hardly see any stars from the middle of a city.

Why is Your title absolutely unrelevant to the actual topic?

originally posted by: carewemust
This is High Definition video from Space. Shouldn't we be able to see at least 1 star? It's as if our "reality" is contrived.

Stars other than the Sun won't be seen on that camera.

Sunlight, including that which is reflected on Earth, is actually absurdly bright. The only way to get a decent pic is to decrease exposure.

Unfortunately, when you decrease the light that comes in to the camera, you can't see the stars anymore.

I don't understand science, but I believe we're living in a computer program.

did I get it right?

a reply to: carewemust



No it is a trick of light that manifests in all the pictures taken from space..at least with older cameras. . That is one of the accusations of those claiming the moon landing was a hoax.

Cute, the youngest children were driving the Apollo mission as well.
We got to learn a lot about Satellite technology down links and atomic clocks.
The 1963 James Bond movie "From Russia with love" or Kennedy and the "Cuban missile crisis".
The Luna 15 photography from Russia available for childrens imaginations!

How come the blue ball in the background shows no land masses?

Is that from the sun bouncing off the atmosphere too?

originally posted by: carewemust
This is High Definition video from Space. Shouldn't we be able to see at least 1 star? It's as if our "reality" is contrived.

-CareWeMust

You must not know how a camera works? Funny trolls...I wrote out a whole explanation a 2 year old would understand about how cameras work and why you don't see stars in such simple terms only a moron wouldn't understand

But then re-read your title and decided this is an obvious time-suck thread of nonsense...

originally posted by: CreationBro
a reply to: Allaroundyou

Not quite. If anything, the atmosphere impedes our view of the stars to varying degrees. A good example is thick cloud cover or fog.

Take a look at this article. It explains the apparent phenomenon youre talking about.

Link to article

Case in point, it all has to do with exposure time and other light sources essentially saturating the image and drowning out the star light.

Exactly... its because people compare apples and oranges. Yes we see stars at night. Because there is no light bent off the atmosphere to give it color. Also the missing light makes our eyes compensate and open our iris, this in turn lets in the dim light from the stars.

In the case of that photo. The light source is so close that in order to get proper exposure the iris is closed down letting in less light which ofcourse also effects stars far away.

In a controlled experiment it would be like having a 12kw film light in the left side of a big black warehouse and on the right side you have a 150w film light.
If you wanted to expose to make the 12kw light have a color in the center... ie. Not overexposed, you'd have to close the iris so much down it would make the 150w look like it wasnt turned on.

I could only speculate on the simulation theories, but a genuine "thank you" is deserved for sharing this live feed.

This is probably one of the neatest things I have seen on there

a reply to: flice


Also thank you for this explanation

It throws a real wrench in a lot of the moon landing conspiracy theories, which are heavily based on the lack of stars visible. Your explanation makes perfect sense

I would like to clear up my post with the following:

I don’t disagree that we may possibly be living in the matrix

I believe it is entirely possible. If Nick Bostrum is to be believed, the odds in favor of it are astronomically high (that we're 1 of many simulations vs. the sole physical reality)