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.

 

Why do we see distant stars?

page: 4
13
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 16 2013 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Lone12
 


For your reading pleasure:

For The World Is "Hollow", And I Have Touched The Sky
www.abovetopsecret.com...
by this_is_who_we_are
started on 3/20/2012 @ 10:55 AM



posted on Aug, 16 2013 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by this_is_who_we_are
reply to post by Lone12
 


For your reading pleasure:

For The World Is "Hollow", And I Have Touched The Sky
www.abovetopsecret.com...
by this_is_who_we_are
started on 3/20/2012 @ 10:55 AM


- thank you
going there now



posted on Aug, 16 2013 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Im a Marty
Also - those stars are long gone!


They are not long gone. Most of the stars we see in the sky are "only" a few dozen light years to a few thousand light years away. Let's pick a star 5000 light years away. The light we we is from only 5000 years ago, which is a VERY short time in the life of a star.

That star 5000 LY away whose light just reached us is almost certain still shining.



posted on Aug, 16 2013 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
Hey, I'd never thought about it...but you're absolutely right. That's an unimaginable distance to us in thinking about it or even considering how much is floating between here and there. This is what is in close, for that matter.



I've wondered for awhile now if someday we're going to find out that looking out from Earth will end up being like a side view mirror in a car. "Objects may be closer than they appear". That would be both exciting and real sobering, wouldn't it?


First off, the Kuiper belt is not so dense that you can't see through it from the inside. In fact the Kuiper belt is mostly empty space, and if you were in it, you would be lucky to come across an object. The sames goes for the asteroid belt. It's not like the movies where asteroids are everywhere. You would be able to blindly pass through the asteroid belt without ever hitting (or maybe without ever seeing) and asteroid.

Space itself is also almost totally empty (even more empty than the Kuiper belt). For the most part, space is a better vacuum than the best vacuums we can artificially create on Earth.

HOWEVER, and having said that, there are dust clouds that are able to obscure the visible light from stars. For example, when we look towards the center of our galaxy, and view the faint cloud we call the "Milky Way" (as in this long-exposure view of it)...

...we can see the dense patch of stars toward the center of the galaxy, but we also see a dark band running through it. That dark band is a dust cloud that lies between Earth and the center of the galaxy, and it obscures our view of the center of the galaxy.



And not only does the dust cloud keep us from seeing the center of the galaxy (in visible light), abut the center of the galaxy itself obscures the opposite side of the galaxy from our view, such as in the graphic below:


This area is referred to in astronomy as "The Zone of Avoidance". Visible light cannot get through, but astronomers have learned about this region of the galaxy using other means --such as radio telescopes and infrared telescopes.


zone of avoidance Region of the sky near the plane of the Milky Way, where dust absorption and the high concentration of stars make it difficult to locate other galaxies optically. It typically spans 10° on either side of the galactic plane. Some kinds of galaxies in the zone of avoidance can now be detected by their radio, infrared or X-ray emissions, which are less vulnerable to dust and gas absorption. Surveys of such galaxies are important for tracing large-scale structure, since some important nearby superclusters and the great attractor either cross the zone of avoidance or lie mostly within it.
Source: Astronomyca.ca - "Zone of Avoidance":

Zone of Avoidance Wikipedia Article



posted on Aug, 16 2013 @ 07:01 PM
link   
So what i don't understand is if we are moving through the galaxy at thousands of miles per hour and moving up and down in the plane how do we always see the same stars? Are other galaxy's moving at the same rate that we are? How do they make their sky charts when we are all moving and sky apps show accurately, this all confuses me
In the risk of sounding stupid can someone explain??

How do we pass through the same meteor showers year after year and how does a comet swing so far out and still find it's way back to it's orbit do we all travel on the same plane and orbit,, can nothing take that comet out of it's path and how does JPL keep that orbit true?

edit on 8/16/2013 by whatnext21 because: (no reason given)


So if they just discovered a new star, is that in a different galaxy and is that galaxy colliding with our own and how many new stars are we going to see when more collide, if that is what is happening...



Spaceweather.com
NEW STAR IN THE SKY: Around the world, amateur astronomers are turning their telescopes toward minor constellation Delphinus where a new star has appeared. Koichi Itagaki of Yamagata, Japan, discovered the nova on August 14th. At the time, the stellar brightness was +6.3. Since then it has continued to brighten, crossing the 6th magnitude threshold of naked-eye visibility. John Chumack photographed the surging nova on August 15th from the John Bryan State Park in Yellow Springs, Ohio:


edit on 8/16/2013 by whatnext21 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2013 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatnext21
So what i don't understand is if we are moving through the galaxy at thousands of miles per hour and moving up and down in the plane how do we always see the same stars? Are other galaxy's moving at the same rate that we are? How do they make their sky charts when we are all moving and sky apps show accurately, this all confuses me
In the risk of sounding stupid can someone explain??

How do we pass through the same meteor showers year after year and how does a comet swing so far out and still find it's way back to it's orbit do we all travel on the same plane and orbit,, can nothing take that comet out of it's path and how does JPL keep that orbit true?

edit on 8/16/2013 by whatnext21 because: (no reason given)


So if they just discovered a new star, is that in a different galaxy and is that galaxy colliding with our own and how many new stars are we going to see when more collide, if that is what is happening...


edit on 8/16/2013 by whatnext21 because: (no reason given)


All the stars in our galaxy are in motion, just like our sun, but not in the same direction nor movement as our sun.

However, the amount of motion that our sun and other stars have, is very small compared to the distance of those other stars.

It takes our sun 250 million years to make one revolution around the center of our galaxy. You and I live less than 100 years on the average. Only the most sensitive equipment would be able to measure the amount the stars will have moved in such a short amount of time that we live.

Even thousands of years ago, the stars still mostly appear in the same constellations without much movement to distort those constellations. Their positions of where they are in the sky did seem to move, but only because of the wobble the Earth has, and takes over 25,000 years to complete.

To give you an analogy: Use a mountain or very tall building and have it be at least 5 kilometers away or more. Look at it.

Now walk in any direction about 100 meters.

How much in position did that mountain or building seem to change to your eyes?

Our sun is moving at about 220 kilometers per second. In one hour we will have moved 792,000 kilometers through space. In one day we will have moved 19,008,000 kilometers. In one year we will have moved 6,937,920,000 kilometers.

But, in just one light year is 9,460,730,472,580. That is over 1,363 times greater than the amount we moved in a whole year.

The building or mountain at 5 kilometers was only 50 times greater than the distance you moved, and your eyes wouldn't see the difference. The closest star, Alpha Centauri is 4.3 times further away than 1 light year.....

Other galaxies move around, but not all at the same speed or directions, eventually collisions do happen between galaxies. You can google for images of it and you'll see some spectacular images.

But it takes time. a LOT of time. Galaxies are moving fast, but nothing is moving so fast, that you'll see a difference each day. The size of the galaxies and the distances they are, are even more vast than the distances of the furthest stars we can see.

Comets orbit our sun. Some have very short periods and do not go that far out from us, some are long period comets that go out to the very edge of our solar system. So they move with us and our sun.
The debris trails that they leave behind, and that we pass through, giving us those meteor showers, are also moving with us too, and is why we past through them each month. They don't get "left behind". If you want to leave the solar system, you'll have to increase your speed and achieve solar escape velocity....which changes the further you get from the sun.

Can something take a comet out? Sure. It can be broken up by the sun, collide with a planet, or collide with another large object that shatters it.

JPL doesn't "keep comets in orbit" I'm afraid.



posted on Aug, 16 2013 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatnext21
So what i don't understand is if we are moving through the galaxy at thousands of miles per hour and moving up and down in the plane how do we always see the same stars? Are other galaxy's moving at the same rate that we are? How do they make their sky charts when we are all moving and sky apps show accurately, this all confuses me
In the risk of sounding stupid can someone explain??

The stars are so far away from each other that even though we are moving through the galaxy, the amount we move relative to the distance away from the other stars is small, and the apparent movement of the stars in the sky is hard to see in the short term.

In the long term, the sky WILL look different and the stars WILL move around. For example, one star that is moving very fast relative to the rest of the stars around us in "Barnard's Star". Barnard's star is actually very dim, and too dim to see without a telescope, but it is moving faster than the rest of the stars (relative to us) .

Barnard's Star, showing
position every 5 years 1985–2005

Image Source

Barnard's Star will move close enough to Earth in about 7700 years to be the closest star, supplanting Proxima Centauri, which is the closest star today. In about 32,000 years, a star call Ross 248 will move into the role as "closest to our solar system". 32,000 years sounds like a long time, and it is to us humans, but it is just a blink of an eye in the life of a star.

So the sky is always changing, but due to the vast distances between stars and the timeframe for the change, we humans can't see the sky changing just by looking up.

Here is an interesting article:
What will the Constellations Look Like in 50,000 Years




Originally posted by whatnext21
How do we pass through the same meteor showers year after year and how does a comet swing so far out and still find it's way back to it's orbit do we all travel on the same plane and orbit,, can nothing take that comet out of it's path and how does JPL keep that orbit true?

Comets orbit the Sun, and they can stay in stable orbits just like the planets stay in stable orbits. The dust and debris fields left behind by these comets are along the comet's orbital path, and that orbital path, and the dust and debris, all move along with the solar system through space as one big unit. Where the Sun goes, the comet's orbit goes,and the dust and debris goes, and all of the other planets orbits. It's all one system.

And, yes -- something can certainly perturb a comet's orbit, and cause that comet's orbit to change. For example, if a comet's orbit takes it too close to Jupiter, Jupiter will affect that comet enough to change the orbit. However, there is more empty space out there than there are planets, and most comets won't get close enough to a planet to have its orbit affected.




Originally posted by whatnext21
So if they just discovered a new star, is that in a different galaxy and is that galaxy colliding with our own and how many new stars are we going to see when more collide, if that is what is happening...



Spaceweather.com
NEW STAR IN THE SKY: Around the world, amateur astronomers are turning their telescopes toward minor constellation Delphinus where a new star has appeared. Koichi Itagaki of Yamagata, Japan, discovered the nova on August 14th. At the time, the stellar brightness was +6.3. Since then it has continued to brighten, crossing the 6th magnitude threshold of naked-eye visibility. John Chumack photographed the surging nova on August 15th from the John Bryan State Park in Yellow Springs, Ohio:


That's not really a new star, but an exiting star that suddenly brightened or exploded (a nova or supernova). The sudden brightening of a star that was once not visible is what's new -- not the star itself. That particular star/nova is thought to be in our galaxy. Stars are probably discovered all the time, but those stars were always there in our galaxy, just way to dim and/or far away to be seen without a telescope.

We are not currently colliding with another galaxy. It is thought that the Sagittarius Dwarf Elliptical Galaxy will collide with us, but not for another 100,000,000 years (it's probably collided with our Galaxy at least once before.

If there was a collision going on now (which there isn't), the collision of galaxies happens so slowly relative to the lifespan of a human that we will not notice the collision, and there probably won't be any stars that "pop into" our galaxy from a collision with another that any human would be able to point to and say that star just moved from one galaxy to the other".


edit on 8/16/2013 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2013 @ 02:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by doorhandle
Trying to find a relevant thread to post this in, and this thread kinda fits the bill - apologies if it is a little off tangent to what the OP is asking:

In thinking why Luna shots of the Moons sky are so dark with no stars I searched and came across a rare video of the late and great Neil Armstrong talking to the also late an great Sir Patrick Moore, where he clearly states, very clearly, that you cannot see stars from on the Moon or in 'cisluna space', i.e. the area of space between the Moon and the Earth.

This contradicts what people in the thread state, and even what NASA say! that the Earth's atmosphere is blurring the visibility of stars..so in space and on the Moon they would be super Bright and clear...but Neil Armstrong who has been there says otherwise.

______beforeitsnews/space/2012/12/astronomy-question-visibility-of-stars-from-the-moon-2-2450802.html

helios.gsfc.nasa.gov...

Anyway my question is - can we (with our eyes not a camera) see distant stars in space or can't we?


Armstrong's words will make more sense if you consider that stars are very dim, and the Apollo astronauts had always some light around: lights in the spacecraft, and the very bright sunlight on the surface of the Moon. Their eyes never had the chance to adapt to enough dark to see stars. Same reason why there are no stars in the photos from the Moon - the camera used short exposure because of sunlit terrain.

It's a very basic subject, but the moon hoaxers keep bringing it up. To see stars with your own eyes, you need to be in a relative darkness and give your eyes time to adjust; and to take a photo of stars, you need to use a long exposure (1 minute or more).



posted on Aug, 17 2013 @ 04:25 AM
link   
reply to post by doorhandle
 


Apollo astronauts used to check navigation using stars! As has been stated it's about dark adaption of your eyes if any bright surface is in your field of view your eyes adapt to that have you ever traveled through a really long road/rail tunnel when you see the light after that your almost blinded if the sunlight is really bright.



posted on Aug, 17 2013 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by wildespace
 



..and the very bright sunlight on the surface of the Moon.


According to NASA the average light level that was determined to be the best for EVA,s was under full Earthshine conditions, or during the early 'morning'. That light level would be equivalent to standing on a weathered asphalt surface (albedo about 0.12) with a bare 60 watt incandescent lamp suspended 2.2 meters above the surface. Why don't you go out and reproduce that experiment and see what you can see. You need to try it in an area with no hint of light in the sky, an overcast night would be good, or anywhere near light polluted areas.
The probable reason that Armstrong said he could see no colour on the Lunar surface, or even in 'dirt' he held in his hand, when the Sun was at a low angle was that the light level was so low that the colour receptors of his eyes were not receiving enough light to function, much as it is under Moonlight to our eyes. The notion that the Lunar surface is bright is not supported by NASA at all, ever. Higher Sun angles were deemed unsuitable for EVAs as there are no shadows and as the topology can not be determined, it would be very difficult to judge distances or to see humps and depressions, a dangerous situation.
Lighting constraints on Lunar surface operations.(pdf)
www.lpi.usra.edu...
And why the light on the lunar surface gets brighter the higher up the Sun is doesn't make sense, with no atmosphere to attenuate light at low angles like happens on Earth, they should be in full sunlight as soon as the Sun is up. As Armstrong said, light on the Moon is very strange, but definitely not blindingly bright.
Hubble sits out in bright Sun much of the time, but it has a lens hood, and as long as it does not look within a certain angle to the Sun, can detect the deep heavens just fine, so for the astronauts, looking through a simple black cardboard tube held close to their visor, while they are looking away from the Sun should allow them to see the full glory of the heavens. They shouldn't even need the black tube, but I'll throw it in for good measure. I can look at a bright light bulb till my eyes hurt, look up and see stars easily, the dark adaptation period is not needed to see the brighter stars, or the planets.



posted on Aug, 17 2013 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by AllIsOne
I.e. Hipparcos 5926 in Cassiopeia is 16,308 light-years away. One light year is 9.4607 × 10*12 km. How come we can see that star without any major flickering? Seeing a star means that the light traveled an almost unimaginable distance without being absorbed, or blocked along the way. I feel the photons should have hit something along the way, i.e. planets, gasses, suns, space debris, etc.. The universe is full of moving objects. Yet, we see that star continuously shinning at night?


Simple there is nothing in the way space is huge and there are lots of stars. There is some suns we dont see they could be blocked by nebula's or even the center of our own galaxy. Now there is stars that are just to faint for us to see at all. Lets look at the Hubble telescope for a minute. With prolonged exposure it can see stars up to about 30th magnitude. Whats this mean well our sun has an absolute magnitude of about -27(meaning of course very easy to see.Now we take our sun and we move it out from us now for simplicity of math will say our sun is 32.6 light years away. Now the suns magnitude has dropped all the way to 5.

So this means you could actually still see it with binoculars since that works up to about magnitude 10. but the Hubble telescope even though its 32.6 light years away Hubble would see still be able to see it up to 3.26 million light years away.If we have a star a thousand time brighter which alot are were out to about 3.26 billion light years.

So distance has an effect on light The brightness of any object falls off as the square of the distance from the telescope. luckily for us our sun is almost dead center for luminosity meaning about half the stars in the sky are brighter then ours meaning there is lots of stuff to see.



posted on Aug, 17 2013 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


Thank you so much for your detailed explanation, very enlightening indeed. The fact that we are really looking at the past when we look to the skies is mind boggling in itself...




posted on Aug, 17 2013 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by GaryN
 


The 60-watt lamp experiment refers to the full earthshine conditions. In the early morning, with the Sun up, there will be considerably more light falling on the terrain. Did you forget that the moon walkers had tinted visors, which they are seen having down on almost every photo from the Moon?



All Apollo landings and EVAs happened in the morning, by the way, so we know they didn't have to do it in the earthshine. They had the very bright Sun shining in the sky. Here are the sun angles for all Apollo EVAs, with varying sun angles which get as high as 48.7 degrees: www.hq.nasa.gov...

The paper you linked studies the possible conditions for night-time EVAs (illuminated by the earthshine), and the sun-angle constraints during the day with regards to identifying the landscape. It says nothing about the lunar morning or day being dark.

Since there is no atmosphere on the Moon, the first light from the rising Sun creates a harsh contrast between sunlit and shadowed areas, just like Armstrong mentioned in the above video, and as seen on many Apollo photos.
edit on 17-8-2013 by wildespace because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2013 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by wildespace
 


Not the artificially(halogen, full spectrum) lit astronaut again...
NASA went to a lot of trouble to identify the problems of low light condition, but I can find no papers on the problems of blinding sunlight, which they should have been more worried about if the Sun was brighter than anything we have ever experienced on Earth. The gold film on the visor is a crock, just like the gold foil on the lander. Kubrick said they need to spice things up a bit, it was too dreary up there.
Another thing I have never seen used on the Moon was a colour calibration chart, or white balance card. Surely they would need that to be able to get true colours for processing or post-processing purposes?



posted on Aug, 17 2013 @ 08:19 PM
link   
Wildespace, wmd_2008 - your posts make perfect sense, its clear to me now that Armstrongs comments were not exactly true...I can see why he didn't do many interviews - so easy to say something that can get misinterpreted...even after 40yrs

I am guessing the other moon visits were during a much lower angle of sun hence being able to see stars better than Armstrong could.

Wiki article below..the first bit anyway, regards the absence of stars in the moon landing photos...

en.m.wikipedia.org...


edit on 17-8-2013 by doorhandle because: added hyphen

edit on 17-8-2013 by doorhandle because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2013 @ 02:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by GaryN
reply to post by wildespace
 

NASA went to a lot of trouble to identify the problems of low light condition, but I can find no papers on the problems of blinding sunlight, which they should have been more worried about if the Sun was brighter than anything we have ever experienced on Earth.

No need for papers, the golden visors speak for themselves. They wouldn't be having them down if the Moon was a dim place. On the other hand, I can find no papers on the problems of the Moon being too dark during the day, which they should have been more worried about if the lunar day were darker than day on Earth. I also don't see them using any artificial lights during the EVAs.


Another thing I have never seen used on the Moon was a colour calibration chart, or white balance card. Surely they would need that to be able to get true colours for processing or post-processing purposes?

A colour chart next to the famous orange soil at Shorty crater, Apollo 17:

And there must have been enough light for their eye colour receptors to notice this orange soil.

Apollo 17 colour chart next to a multi-coloured rock: www.hq.nasa.gov...

Apollo 15 colour chart: www.hq.nasa.gov...

The moon walkers report seeing rocks of different colours, purple, green, etc.


David Scott: (in july 1971 commander of Apollo 15) "Can you imagine finding a green rock on the Moon? Think about that. We'd never had any green rocks in training. Nobody'd ever said anything about green rocks - orange, or anything - and all of a sudden you're sitting there and, you find a green rock! I missed it; Jim (LMP James Irwin) saw it. I didn't see it; and then I saw it; and it was really green.
Source

P.S. Apologies to everyone if this is getting off-topic.
edit on 18-8-2013 by wildespace because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by wildespace
 


Yes, I think I'll have to defer to your obviously superior study of the Lunar surface and lighting, if they saw coloured rocks the Sunlight must have a good wide spectrum, and be of sufficient intensity. Well done wildespace!



posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

Originally posted by Im a Marty
I think I read that the stars light is amplified by the atmosphere, When in space - or on the moon, you cannot see the stars that we see here.

Also - those stars are long gone!


I'm not going to get into the first part of your post, considering I'm exhausted from trying to convince gary-whats-his-name that a photon does not need atmosphere to be seen (considering the Apollo astronauts used an optical sextant to navigate by star).

The second part of your post though...
Why would you say they are long gone?


We know stars live for billions of years (such as our sun, which has been around for almost 5 billion years), and the stars we see in the sky are only a few hundred to several thousand light years away. Why would they be gone, if we are seeing them as they were only a couple of thousand years ago?





Is he the only person saying this? Is this written down on some nibiru web page somewhere? Can someone point me to a link where this is actually explained? I've been seeing this statement come up more and more and it's alarming. Something to do with photons in space?

A basic question: If photos only travel through an atmosphere, how is an atmosphere any different than any other collection of gas and dust in any nebula, why do we put telescopes on mountains again? Oh yeah, to get rid of the dense atmosphere. I haven't really looked into this nonsense but by that logic shouldn't we be putting our telescopes on the bottom of the ocean so that stars are really bright?


I mean, when was the last time water vapor assisted you in seeing something? Like when I drive in fog, things tend to blurr and become less defined, last I checked our atmosphere had a considerable amount of water vapour.


I mean really.....why can we only see stars at night? If the atmosphere helps us see stars then why when the closest star comes into view can we see jack shizz of the rest of the sky???? Light refraction, if the atmosphere helps us see things then why does the nearest stars light wash out?



Yes, I think I'll have to defer to your obviously superior study of the Lunar surface and lighting, if they saw coloured rocks the Sunlight must have a good wide spectrum, and be of sufficient intensity. Well done wildespace!


Are you implying that our sun does not have a spectrum? Have you ever grown a plant, they kinda require different light spectrum to flower etc..... Last I checked at least.

The mind boggels


edit on 19-8-2013 by vind21 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by GaryN
reply to post by wildespace
 


Not the artificially(halogen, full spectrum) lit astronaut again...
NASA went to a lot of trouble to identify the problems of low light condition, but I can find no papers on the problems of blinding sunlight, which they should have been more worried about if the Sun was brighter than anything we have ever experienced on Earth. The gold film on the visor is a crock, just like the gold foil on the lander. Kubrick said they need to spice things up a bit, it was too dreary up there.
Another thing I have never seen used on the Moon was a colour calibration chart, or white balance card. Surely they would need that to be able to get true colours for processing or post-processing purposes?



I suggest you look into physics and more specifically light diffusion which does not occur on the moon having no atmosphere but the main reason was protection against UV rays and not the brightness of the sun. As for color calibration they had one on there arm go back look its called the US flag.
edit on 8/19/13 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2013 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Im a Marty
I think I read that the stars light is amplified by the atmosphere, When in space - or on the moon, you cannot see the stars that we see here.

Also - those stars are long gone!


Is this stuff really out in the world of supposed knowledge for people to read and believe.




top topics



 
13
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join