Hollow Sun? Probably Yes!

reply to post by GaryN


Then there's the simple fact that wavefront sensors are simply devices for measuring the aberrations of an optical wavefront. They are used in adaptive optics, for correcting optical distortions. For earth-based telescopes, they help correct atmospheric distortions. In space-based telescopes, they help correct any distortions of the mirror. But the CCD still needs the photons to function. A wavefront sensor won't help with that.

Cassini exposures can be much shorter than you specified. I've seen stated exposures of less than a second, for images taken through red, green, or blue filters (i.e. no infrared or UV was allowed through).

What about the Sun's outer layers and atmosphere? If atoms and electrons in the Earth's atmosphere can turn the invisible light visible, why can't atoms and electrons in the Sun do that?

reply to post by wildespace

Then there's the simple fact that wavefront sensors are simply devices for measuring the aberrations of an optical wavefront.

That is ONE of the purposes that the wavefront sensors are used for, there are others, and some of the stuff is still classified, or you need a license from Goddard that has non-disclosure agreements attached. As well as the hardware, you also need the software to put all the 'dots' back together properly.
The old kindergarten level model of light is just a simplified way of trying to explain it, but it is really far more complex than that.

Cassini exposures can be much shorter than you specified. I've seen stated exposures of less than a second, for images taken through red, green, or blue filters (i.e. no infrared or UV was allowed through).

Again, things are not as simple as we might think, and what Cassini detects is not 'light' as the simple model suggests, which is why you can not just use simple, camera-like optics to take a picture. If you are sending an instrument to orbit a planet with a decent atmosphere, then the simple optics will work, the HiRISE camera for example, but they can not send a camera with simple optics to orbit the Moon and take colour pictures. All the lunar orbiting instruments rely mainly on IR and UV, and spectral imaging.

The Urthecast camera that is to be mounted on an external ISS platform uses simple optics, and the mount for the camera was recently installed, on EVA 35 This camera will be mainly viewing EArth, but a company representative informed me that the camera could be rotated to view the Moon if Earth viwing conditions were very poor. But, it seems that the camera mount was incorrectly assembled, and motion would have been restricted. Right, NASA doesn't know what it's doing, they goofed. Or did they? I don't believe that camera could see the Moon, NASA knew that, and goofed intentionally I'd say. Years in the planning and they still messed up accidentally? Give me a break. Then there was a school class suggested experiment to look at the Sun through a pinhole camera. Guess what. At the last minute, "Oh, something just came up, we'll have to postpone that experiment." Yeah, right.

@wmd

SERIOUSLY you don't have a clue!!!!

That's only your opinion. And talking of opinions:

“There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance.”

― Hippocrates

So it is only my opinion that the Moon could not be videoed from the ISS, while looking away from Earth. But, it is only opinion that it can. We can video the Moon from Earth, so we MUST be able to video it from space, stupid. Well the science is simple, and the equipment needed for the experiment is already in place and sat doing nothing most of the time. Opinion vs science, I wan't to see the experiment, not listen to opinion.

As for the Sun though, we really don't understand it at all, but my guess is that it is much more exotic than a gravity dependant fusion reactor. I'm going with the 4 wave phase conjugate mixer, with a rotating magnetic field as its 'heart'. The waves are in the microwave frequency range, which then allows for creation of UV and up to Gamma ray energies to be created. It is most likely cool (plasma can be supercooled even), and consist of concentric nested spheres of different energy levels, but maybe could have regions where UFOs, maybe giant mother ships, would be safe. Now you can call me crazy. ;-)

reply to post by GaryN


The reason they dont use camera like optics as you put it is weve gone digital but i assure you had they put a camera visible light doesn't suddenly change frequencies. So if the visible spectrum is missing where did it go? .

Originally posted by dragonridr
reply to post by GaryN

 

The reason they don't use camera like optics as you put it is weve gone digital but i assure you had they put a camera visible light doesn't suddenly change frequencies. So if the visible spectrum is missing where did it go? .

GaryN is wrong and optics has NOTHING to do with being digital its a ccd chip at the end of a reflecting or refractor telescope that's all and that is exactly the same set up used by many amatuer astronomers using DSLR's with the standard lens removed or web cams.

The reason for the optics used are focal length so detailed pictures can be taken when traveling towards the object and very detailed shots can be taken when in orbit or with a wide field set up not so detailed but a faster aperture for short exposure times.

As in the Cassini set up.

ISS Sensing Instruments:
Wide Angle Camera [WAC](20 cm f/3.5 refractor; 380-1100 nm; 18 filters; 3.5ox3.5o)
Narrow Angle Camera [NAC](2 m f/10.5 reflector; 200-1100 nm; 24 filters; 0.35ox0.35o)

Even Curiosity on Mars is using a 1 MP sensor but they are larger than you would find in say a 1 MP web cam reason being the actual pixels on the chip are larger so they collect as much light as possible.

Cramming many mega pixels on small chips causes NOISE which effects the quality of images even more so when the iso settings are increased due to a low level of light.

Here is an example a Sony A57 (uses same chip as my A37) against a Panasonic Lumix GH3
the Sony uses an APS-C sized sensor the GH3 a micro 4/3 sensor which is smaller.

Tested at iso 6400



The GH3 picture is noisier on the ISS they have Nikons with normal lenses to take pictures of the Earth and Moon if in view.

Oh and the Moon that cant be photographed in space

www.flickr.com...

Info Settings: 1/5000 ƒ/16 ISO 12800 400 mm

Originally posted by xxcalbier
O my god did ever one FLUNK science 9th grade class???
you have one star it is spinning and planets are orbiting around that star at such and such speeds ,
for earth around 60k per hour . Now earth orbits the sun at this speed because the sun exerts a certain amount of gravitational pull on it . And the earth pulls away at a cirtian speed as well because of a little thing called cintrifical force , So wile the sun is pulling earth towards it the speed and mass of earth are pulling away from it.
over the coarse of millions of years a balance is reached were the suns pull and the earths pull equal out .
the result is our orbit . Now in order for the sun and earth to reach a balance each has a cirtian amount of MASS .
with the KNOWN factors of earths speed and earths mass you can calculate the suns mass .
Now if the sun was hollow as you think it would have to be MUCH larger in order to exert the same amount of force on earth as the mass HAS to be there in order for earth to be were it is,
The suns size is correct for the earths size and mass to be in the orbit it is.
Look up the suns MASS we know within a very small amount exactly what it is > you don't need to send a probe into it to learn this any more then you need a measuring tape to tell how far the moon of any other body is.
The suns mass and size equal what we look at each day and wile it does expand and contract slightly tahts because it gets hotter and cooler at times.
But hey dont take my word for it just take science class and stay AWAKE this time.
so If the sun had less mass earth would pull away if was larger ((in order to be hollow earth would be toast

Hmmm ...
I have a question - What if 'hollow Earth' theory is correct? Would a hollow Earth pull away from a hollow sun, or orbit it?

reply to post by dragonridr

So if the visible spectrum is missing where did it go?

It didn't go anywhere, the simple optics are just not able to 'focus' the wavefront, it is not a 'photon' of the type that simple optics, such as our eye or regular camera can 'decode'. Again, a simple experiment can prove it one way or another and end all the speculation.

@wmd

Oh and the Moon that cant be photographed in space

From that site:

One of the Expedition 32 crew members aboard the Earth-orbiting International Space Station captured this image of the full moon on Aug. 1, 2012. Other pictures in this series depict a totally different image of Earth's natural satellite because of distortion caused by the atmosphere.

If you look at the other images of the Moon in that set you will realise it is taken through Earths atmosphere. The field of view from the Cupola does not allow for seeing into deep space, only space around the edge of the Earth. There are no back windows to see deep space from, that's why a photo would have to be taken while on an EVA, or by using the Canadarm2 which can point out into deep space. You sure must drink NASA Kool-Aid by the gallon. What NASA shows us is not the important issue here, it is what they DON'T show us, the stuff that is so simple that everyone overlooks it. Proof, I want proof, scientific proof.
And don't keep going on about CCDs, they are a only part of the system, you need the complex optics and the software too. Does your camera have those?

@doodydoll

Hmmm ...
I have a question - What if 'hollow Earth' theory is correct? Would a hollow Earth pull away from a hollow sun, or orbit it?

Well, under a different model, the Sun would be an electromagnetic machine, and gravity would be a magnetic phenomena. If the Moon (and probably all the planets too) are hollow, then you are looking at a different mechanism for the orbits of planets and moons. Maxwell stuff, but coincidentally, if you use Maxwell equations they turn out the same as gravity base calculations for orbits etc. Which is it? I'd go with gravity being a magnetic phenomena.

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


His forced smile creeps me a bit I would like to understand how we explains supernovas (and results like neutron stars) or the different aging process of stars (he provides for the birth of the star only).

Originally posted by doobydoll
Hmmm ...
I have a question - What if 'hollow Earth' theory is correct? Would a hollow Earth pull away from a hollow sun, or orbit it?

edit on 3-9-2013 by doobydoll because: (no reason given)

If the Earth and the Sun were hollow, their own gravity would collapse them into a solid sphere, until they achieve hydrostatic equilibrium. There's no way such massive objects could exist as hollow spheres.

Smaller bodies, like asteroids or moons, can have more than 50% of empty space inside them, although it still doesn't mean one big hollow space.

The hollow earth, or hollow sun, theories ignore the most basic physics.

As for wavefront sensors (still a very new subject to me!), does anyone have this paper Wavefront Sensing: From Historical Roots to the State-of-the-Art, or feel generous enough to get it and sum up the history and use of this techonlogy for us? Somehow I doubt that it's been Goddard's exclusive know-how until recently.

reply to post by GaryN


First as YOU don't seem to look at things and get the meaning

Other pictures in this series depict a totally different image of Earth's natural satellite because of distortion caused by the atmosphere

Other pictures which means that picture was NOT distorted by the atmosphere.

Lets have a look at 2 others then.

www.flickr.com...

www.flickr.com...

This from the txt below the second image on that site!!!!

it is not easy at first sighting to recognize the heavenly body as the full moon. Another picture in this series depicts a totally different image of Earth's natural satellite because of the lack of distortion caused by the atmosphere.

Then we the simple facts of images of the Earth taken by Hasselblad FILM cameras on the way to the Moon and also that the Astronauts checked their position by looking for certain stars.



Re the optics please READ from the Imaging Science Subsystem team on Cassini.

Cassini ISS

The ISS consists of two framing cameras. The narrow angle camera is a reflecting telescope with a focal length of 2000 mm and a field of view of 0.35 degrees. The wide angle camera is a refractor with a focal length of 200 mm and a field of view of 3.5 degrees

What is complex about the optics

All DIGITAL cameras have processing software built into the camera cpu chip.

Here are 2 every manufacturer has a system in their cameras.

Sony Bionz

Canon Digic

reply to post by wmd_2008

Other pictures which means that picture was NOT distorted by the atmosphere.

The denser the atmosphere they are looking through, the more the image of the Moon is affected. As the Moon moves further away from the Earths rim, it is less affected. In the 'sweet spot' it will look just like the Moon we see from Earth. But, if they could see the Moon to track it all the way around to an overhead position, that is, looking away from the Earth, the Moon would first loose its silver appearance, then slowly darken through reds to browns and then become invisible. How far the Moon could be seen as it moves away from Earths atmosphere is unknown, another one of those simple experiments that has never been done. They can not, from the cupola, even with the extra windows they installed, see far away enough from the rim to be looking through clear space. The atmosphere in this case means not only clouds, but all the way out into the ionosphere, which is much deeper than just the distance visible from the Cupola, as can be seen here:

jpgmag.com...

Originally posted by GaryN
reply to post by dragonridr

 

So if the visible spectrum is missing where did it go?

It didn't go anywhere, the simple optics are just not able to 'focus' the wavefront, it is not a 'photon' of the type that simple optics, such as our eye or regular camera can 'decode'. Again, a simple experiment can prove it one way or another and end all the speculation.

@wmd

Oh and the Moon that cant be photographed in space

From that site:

One of the Expedition 32 crew members aboard the Earth-orbiting International Space Station captured this image of the full moon on Aug. 1, 2012. Other pictures in this series depict a totally different image of Earth's natural satellite because of distortion caused by the atmosphere.

If you look at the other images of the Moon in that set you will realise it is taken through Earths atmosphere. The field of view from the Cupola does not allow for seeing into deep space, only space around the edge of the Earth. There are no back windows to see deep space from, that's why a photo would have to be taken while on an EVA, or by using the Canadarm2 which can point out into deep space. You sure must drink NASA Kool-Aid by the gallon. What NASA shows us is not the important issue here, it is what they DON'T show us, the stuff that is so simple that everyone overlooks it. Proof, I want proof, scientific proof.
And don't keep going on about CCDs, they are a only part of the system, you need the complex optics and the software too. Does your camera have those?

@doodydoll

Hmmm ...
I have a question - What if 'hollow Earth' theory is correct? Would a hollow Earth pull away from a hollow sun, or orbit it?

Well, under a different model, the Sun would be an electromagnetic machine, and gravity would be a magnetic phenomena. If the Moon (and probably all the planets too) are hollow, then you are looking at a different mechanism for the orbits of planets and moons. Maxwell stuff, but coincidentally, if you use Maxwell equations they turn out the same as gravity base calculations for orbits etc. Which is it? I'd go with gravity being a magnetic phenomena.

See there is where your misunderstanding is. Wave fronts dont need to be focused they are simple electromagnetic energy. We can amplify them such as i dont know a telescope or binoculars but this isnt focusing them. See if the frequency doesnt change then if you have a camera or your eyes both will see visible light. Now we can make cameras that see parts of the spectrum we cant see. But that has nothing to do with seeing visible light from a star.

Now how can you insist the sun is hollow when we know its not by something called empirical data. Your argument like saying the sun turns off at night see this would contradict something scientists call observation.

reply to post by wmd_2008


Yeah i understand? But that image is still very much within our solar system? Now im no expert on this really but im pretty sure thats not deep space? If im wrong please enlighten me as im not one of these types who disagree on anything that conflicts on my my beliefs? Nor am i educated enough on this theory to stamp my feet claiming "Im right your wrong"

reply to post by GaryN


TOTAL BS if that very very very thin layer of atmosphere could effect what is seen we would see sweet FA at ground level using your logic.

Originally posted by GaryN

The denser the atmosphere they are looking through, the more the image of the Moon is affected. As the Moon moves further away from the Earths rim, it is less affected. In the 'sweet spot' it will look just like the Moon we see from Earth.

Or can you see well through dense fog or clouds

Explain this then

AS10-34-5026 (18-26 May 1969) --- An Apollo 10 photograph of Earth taken from 100,000 miles away

a reply to: muzzleflash

What causes an explosion here on Earth?

How does a balloon explode...it's full of mostly empty space. Sure, there are particles in the air, but they barely touch one another.
If the center of the sun is a vacuum, and the plasma (ionized super-heated hydrogen) is the shell in equilibrium, then as the fuel begins to reduce, the inside and outside pressures change. At first there would be a struggle to keep equilibrium, so there would be swelling of the vacuum. The fuel would be burned more quickly as a result. And like a balloon who's shell has expanded too quickly....POP!

This video contains one of the most plausible theories I've heard, and it neatly explains everything in simple terms.

a reply to: Observer99

My...you're a bright one.
It's clear that when you say "we" you can only speak for what you don't know.

Are you familiar with the geometry of vorteces (vortex) and toris (torus)?
Most are familiar with a vortex, it's universally known.
However, the donut shaped Torus, is only more recently showing up in Cosmological findings.
The Earth's magnetic field is in the shape of a Torus.
If you were to turn a sphere inside out, it would be a Torus. ...and though a sphere is solid, a Torus has a void in it's center.
Look at any planet that has rings. Why are their hollow spaces between the rings? Why aren't the rings always touching?
It's because of the magnetic fields that are prevalent throughout planets, our solar system, and the universe.

It is in fact, highly plausible that the Sun is hollow, or rather, has a vacuum at it's center.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

A void is just an empty space.
A vacuum is a negative volume which will attempt to filled.
A black hole is a vortex AND a vacuum. Hurricanes and Tornadoes are just vorteces.
The center of the sun might just be a vacuum without the vortex component.
See?

This video very simply describes away a lot of problems that scientists have very complicated answers for.
i.e. Sun spots, why the atmosphere of the sun is hotter than it's surface, coronal mass ejections, magnetic loops, etc.

Certainly, it's just a theory....but what if one day it turns out to be closer to the truth than what we previous thought? It's worth thinking about. Just because one "scientist" cooks up the idea, doesn't automatically mean it's filet mignon.

Reminds me of Francis E. Dec (esq)'s conception of the "inside out planets".