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.
And no, you can't see Jupiter with the naked eye if he's behind the sun or too close to the sun. The suns' glare cancels out a lot of stuff. And no, you don't know what light band it's viewable in - maybe it's one that isn't humanly perceptible.
Why just tonight the moon is almost directly overhead in Las Vegas.
Surely you see Jupiter if it is not in these conditions you state and that is my point...Why would you make these statements in response to my post? I already stated the Sun is capable of obscuring objects by either its size or light?
1) Do you agree the size of the object in the photos (i.e., evidence) clearly indicates that if the Sun was not present, it would be visible to the naked eye?
2) Do you agree you can see Jupiter with a naked eye?
3) Do you agree an object of that size and in that close a proximity to the Sun would be visible everywhere the Sun could be Sun on the Earth on that date?
How does this relate to telescopes in the Antarctic and photos in New Zealand? I am still unclear as to how photos in New Zealand relate to telescopes in the Antarctic...
However, constellations that appear closer to the North and South Poles are only visible to the corresponding hemisphere…The southern hemisphere has 11 circumpolar constellations, including six first-order magnitude stars, whereas the northern hemisphere only has five circumpolar constellations, none of which has very bright stars…Why? Because the South Pole faces the galactic center of the Milky Way, providing a view of billions of stars.
The Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC), which is visible to the unaided human eye, is a familiar sight to observers in Earth’s southern hemisphere. Along with the Small Magellanic Cloud (SMC) not far from it on our sky’s dome, it looks like nothing so much as a small, faint bit of the Milky Way that has broken off…For observers South of about 20 degrees South Latitude, the LMC is circumpolar, meaning that it can be seen (at least in part) all night every night of the year, weather permitting…In the northern hemisphere, only observers south of about 20 degrees North latitude can ever see it at all.
Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
And here is one that gives 6 reasons for a binary:
www.sott.net...
They are angular momentum, the Kuiper Cliff, the Oort comets and the other 3 are about precession. Too many corrections needed with the existing method and some sort of precession acceleration.
Of course, that still doesn't prove precession is due to our Sun being in orbit with a companion star, but it certainly makes the case stronger. Ultimately one would have to find the companion star in question to prove anything.
Either way, this trend of the annual precession rate increasing is exactly what one would expect to find from two stars in a binary orbit following Kepler's law.
Precession appears to be the evidence right under our noses, telling us that our Sun is also part of a binary star system (in contrast to a lone ball of fire bobbing up and down along its way through the galaxy).
But I am afraid it eagerly leaps to its desired conclusion far too quickly based upon points that are not actually anything more than points which do not exclude the existence of a binary system.
"Amazingly, the South Pole now ranks with the grand research laboratories such as Fermilab and CERN," said theoretical physicist Francis Halzen of the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Chinese researchers have ambitious plans for telescopes that work in the optical, infrared and terahertz ranges, Burton noted.
Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by jeichelberg
The best thing that a person with questions about the sky can do is to go outside and look up. This is not so easy in the information age. The graphics and pictures on the monitor all have explanations to go with them and everything seems so easy to understand and is so nicely packaged. However, the virtual word is not the real world. The real world obeys physical laws. The virtual world doesn't. Things are a lot different in the real world from the way they are portrayed in the virtual world. It is the real world that we are part of and that we need to observe. Observing the virtual world is like observing nothing.
Originally posted by CherubBaby
reply to post by jeichelberg
I have a good question for you. Why don't you stop asking questions and practice giving some answers to your questions.? You already have them don't you? I mean thats why your asking the same things over and over and over and over and over again isn't it.
Are you a trial lawyer or just another person who should realize they only have an opinion. As do other human beings on this planet who are just as capable as yourself .