Sun is not visible outside the upper Atmosphere?

[Isserley]

Stoc91H2snE
I watched the video above where Peter is talking about our inability to see light rays and only seeing reflected light (rays). He also says that in Space you would be blinded by the Sun even though you would not see it because our Atmosphere is what provides the refraction, thus making it visible. So I'm a bit puzzled at this.
He also said that there is not one nasa photo of the Sun taken from the out side of our Atmosphere in the visible spectrum..

Can we not see the light sources in the visible spectrum? Our photoreceptors in the eyes detect those wavelengths and we can see the source (at least here on the Earth).

Does our eye's lens and the vitreous humour not provide for the medium for the light to travel through and refract, thus allowing us to detect light radiations falling on the photoreceptors, while in the outer space, too?

Even if we did not have the medium between the light source and the photoreceptors, should we still not be able to "see" the source as it's being detected by the photoreceptors.

After all, aren't our instruments that detect Gamma, X-rays and IR in Space also working on the same principles and they are in the Vacuum of Space without a medium in-between? Why would visible light be any different than the other higher/lower wavelength radiations (Peter said that light is not transmitted in the visible spectrum in Outer Space)?
What are everyone else's meditations on this specific subject?
I think this is one big fat "Truman Show"

[TargeT]

think about it this way:

when you shine a flash light and look at the "beam" (no dust in the air etc..) what do you see? can you see "light" or nothing? is the light there?

Perhaps our understanding of light is not quite right, perhaps we should refer to it more as "energy" or "photon creating energy" as all we see is the photon's created by the energy striking matter.

Some matter creates many more photons than other mater (reflective / absorbent") is this refraction or photon creation?

An interesting discussion on this topic is held in this thread:

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?52788-Technology-For-a-New-Future-scientific-explanation-for-gravity-and-perpetual-motion&highlight=7redorbs

hope that helps a bit to answer your question.

[RMorgan]

Well, this is not possible, mostly because the sun itself is a big combustive sphere that provides its own fuel.

The sun is literally a big burning ball. So, we can´t see the photons themselves, but we can see the source.

If his statements were truth, our experiments with spacial telescopes, which are located in the very extreme limits of our upper atmosphere would be a failure.

[TargeT]

Well, this is not possible, mostly because the sun itself is a big combustive sphere that provides its own fuel.

The sun is literally a big burning ball. So, we can´t see the photons themselves, but we can see the source.

If his statements were truth, our experiments with spacial telescopes, which are located in the very extreme limits of our upper atmosphere would be a failure.

I Do not think the sun is a big combustive sphere, I do not think there is any "combustion" going on at all.

What is seen as "combustion" is just plasma on large scale, the sun is an electro-magnetic focal point, an "electric phenomenon" not a combustive one.. this is why the Corona is MILLIONS of degrees hotter than the surface, and why we see "sun spots" that are black when the plasma flows off.


for more on this see:
http://www.holoscience.com/wp/

[WanderingRogue]

So, am i getting this right.... we can see the source of light, but not the light itself? And if that's true, then you can't see the sun because the light blinds us from seeing it? Or is he saying you could look directly at it from space and see nothing? I'm thinking its more like a light bulb...you can't see the parts that create the light unless it is off...but I'm also using my simple mind for this thought process.

[Fred Steeves]

I have serious doubts as to whether the sun is actually that hot at all. Doesn't it take planetary atmosphere to focus a star's energy, thus turning it into heat? Like how focusing a magnifying glass outside onto a piece of paper will burn it, whether the day is hot or cold?

Of course a simple experiment, which I'm certain has already been done, could solve the question. Is the area of space around Earth hotter than the area of space around Mars? If not, then me thinks "Houston, we have a problem". Because with the big ball of fire story, it had better be.

If I'm missing some crucial piece of basic solar physics here, then someone please dial me in. :)

Cheers,
Fred

[norman]

Ok, Fred, it's you and me off on a recci'

Set the controls for the heart of the sun.

I tend to think that if I chucked something into the sun, it would burn up pretty damn quick.



edit:

Which has been around for the longest time?

1) convincingly real CGI techniques.

2) NASA movies of the roaring sun?

[RMorgan]

Well, this is not possible, mostly because the sun itself is a big combustive sphere that provides its own fuel.

The sun is literally a big burning ball. So, we can´t see the photons themselves, but we can see the source.

If his statements were truth, our experiments with spacial telescopes, which are located in the very extreme limits of our upper atmosphere would be a failure.

I Do not think the sun is a big combustive sphere, I do not think there is any "combustion" going on at all.

What is seen as "combustion" is just plasma on large scale, the sun is an electro-magnetic focal point, an "electric phenomenon" not a combustive one.. this is why the Corona is MILLIONS of degrees hotter than the surface, and why we see "sun spots" that are black when the plasma flows off.


for more on this see:
http://www.holoscience.com/wp/

Well, it´s combustive if we realize the hydrogen and helium work as its fuel; These gases are heated to extreme high levels until they get ionized and become plasma emitting extreme radiation that we feel as heat...lol...That´s it, as far as my limited knowledge of astrophysics go.

[TargeT]

I have serious doubts as to whether the sun is actually that hot at all. Doesn't it take planetary atmosphere to focus a star's energy, thus turning it into heat? Like how focusing a magnifying glass outside onto a piece of paper will burn it, whether the day is hot or cold?

Of course a simple experiment, which I'm certain has already been done, could solve the question. Is the area of space around Earth hotter than the area of space around Mars? If not, then me thinks "Houston, we have a problem". Because with the big ball of fire story, it had better be.

If I'm missing some crucial piece of basic solar physics here, then someone please dial me in. :)

Cheers,
Fred

I think your mostly wrong and a little right ;)


The sun itself is hot, very hot, but that heat does not "radiate" out to us like a space heater does in a home. This energy we call "light" is transmitted through space (vacuum) & does not atrophy at all until it strikes an object, an asteroid, or planet for example. It needs "matter" to interact with; now the earth benefits from having an atmosphere by equalizing the temperature, sort of "stabilizing" it, as the dark side stays warm and the light side is buffered so its not too hot, the moon for example. The temperature of the Moon can dip down to -153°C during the night, in the day can rise to 107°C; there is no atmosphere to buffer the temperature, no "insulation".




Well, it´s combustive if we realize the hydrogen and helium work as its fuel; These gases are heated to extreme high levels until they get ionized and become plasma emitting extreme radiation that we feel as heat...lol...That´s it, as far as my limited knowledge of astrophysics go.


I do not think this is the case either (burning of hydrogen and helium, though there may be some of that happening too).

I see it more like a lightning rod or sort of like a magnifying glass for the galactic energies that are always present, these are what create Nebula and other phenomenon’s, we are awash in energy, and at certain points it concentrates...

the "vacuum" is anything but, it is FULL of energy, vacuum is the worst term for it (unless you are simply talking about breathable air, then there should be a caveat noted).

I think the sun is a focal point for energy & the plasma is just a byproduct of all those energies converging, sort of like a magnifying glass collecting and redirecting the suns energy here on earth.

[RMorgan]

Well, this is not possible, mostly because the sun itself is a big combustive sphere that provides its own fuel.

The sun is literally a big burning ball. So, we can´t see the photons themselves, but we can see the source.

If his statements were truth, our experiments with spacial telescopes, which are located in the very extreme limits of our upper atmosphere would be a failure.

I Do not think the sun is a big combustive sphere, I do not think there is any "combustion" going on at all.

What is seen as "combustion" is just plasma on large scale, the sun is an electro-magnetic focal point, an "electric phenomenon" not a combustive one.. this is why the Corona is MILLIONS of degrees hotter than the surface, and why we see "sun spots" that are black when the plasma flows off.


for more on this see:
http://www.holoscience.com/wp/

Well, it´s combustive if we realize that hydrogen and helium (there´s a little bit of oxygen, carbon, neon and iron as well) work as its thermonuclear fuel; These gases are heated to extreme high levels of temperature under impressively huge pressure until they get ionized and become plasma, emitting extreme radiation that we feel as heat...lol...That´s it, as far as my limited knowledge of astrophysics go anyway.


I have serious doubts as to whether the sun is actually that hot at all. Doesn't it take planetary atmosphere to focus a star's energy, thus turning it into heat? Like how focusing a magnifying glass outside onto a piece of paper will burn it, whether the day is hot or cold?

Of course a simple experiment, which I'm certain has already been done, could solve the question. Is the area of space around Earth hotter than the area of space around Mars? If not, then me thinks "Houston, we have a problem". Because with the big ball of fire story, it had better be.

If I'm missing some crucial piece of basic solar physics here, then someone please dial me in. :)

Cheers,
Fred

Fred,

The sun emits tons of radiation, which gladly is filtered by our atmosphere and what´s left we are able to feel as heat.

Only the fact that its gases being transformed into plasma under such extreme thermonuclear process and external pressure makes it extremely hot.

Anyway, there are several methods of measuring planets and starts temperature, including color and spectrum analyzes.

Raf.

[norman]

My double glazing has a partial vacuum to cut down the transmission of heat.

I'm not absolutely sure space is a 'vacuum' but I think it would be hard to feel direct "heat" from the sun even if it's incredibly hot.

[RMorgan]

My double glazing has a partial vacuum to cut down the transmission of heat.

I'm not absolutely sure space is a 'vacuum' but I think it would be hard to feel direct "heat" from the sun even if it's incredibly hot.

In fact, vacuum is a great radiation conductor. Our air and atmosphere, on the contrary, are very good insulators, gladly.

[norman]

My double glazing has a partial vacuum to cut down the transmission of heat.

I'm not absolutely sure space is a 'vacuum' but I think it would be hard to feel direct "heat" from the sun even if it's incredibly hot.

In fact, vacuum is a great radiation conductor. Our air and atmosphere, on the contrary, are very good insulators.



Aah... ok, so the vacuum in my window panels is more about keeping noise out.:confused:

[RMorgan]

My double glazing has a partial vacuum to cut down the transmission of heat.

I'm not absolutely sure space is a 'vacuum' but I think it would be hard to feel direct "heat" from the sun even if it's incredibly hot.

In fact, vacuum is a great radiation conductor. Our air and atmosphere, on the contrary, are very good insulators.



Aah... ok, so the vacuum in my window panels is more about keeping noise out.:confused:

Exactly, vacuum is the perfect sound insulator, because sound is a mechanical wave. Mechanical waves don´t propagate in the vacuum.

Radiation, however, are either energetic particles or energetic waves and don´t require a medium to travel.

[TargeT]

My double glazing has a partial vacuum to cut down the transmission of heat.

I'm not absolutely sure space is a 'vacuum' but I think it would be hard to feel direct "heat" from the sun even if it's incredibly hot.

In fact, vacuum is a great radiation conductor. Our air and atmosphere, on the contrary, are very good insulators.



Aah... ok, so the vacuum in my window panels is more about keeping noise out.:confused:

A thermos keeps hot beverages hot and cold beverages cold by separating the contents from the outside world with a vacuum. Heat is conducted by three modes, conduction, convection, and radiation. A vacuum prevents conduction and convection, and a reflective coating (your "glaze") serves to reflect radiated heat back where it came from. The VIG (vacuum-insulated glass) works the same way, with a vacuum between two panes of glass, and a low-E coating to prevent radiant heat from escaping.

[WanderingRogue]

If the sun is so hot, then why is space cold? I am sure it is warmer in our atmosphere than outside of it....space shuttles and satellites don't burn up when they are on the sunny side of our planet...and lots of comets are made of ice...maybe people will say that it depends on how far you are from the sun, like getting closer or farther from a fire or any other heat source...but then maybe it isn't hot at all and it works in a whole different way. They have those fancy stoves that you can touch with your hand and not get burned, but use a pan and you can boil water or fry eggs just like a conventional stove.

I want one of these by the way!
PWFBXslEI24

[Ammit]

This is a question from my mind, not a dig at your theories....

How do we know the sun is as you say" Well, it´s combustive if we realize that hydrogen and helium (there´s a little bit of oxygen, carbon, neon and iron as well) work as its thermonuclear fuel;", what if it is not what we all think, know or have been told by our trusted scientists........

If in the memory of chat here before, the sun is a portal, then, why would all these space travellers try to pass through something as hot as our sun is supposed to be.......

Things are not what they seem to be, people are perplexed by the strangeness of " I think the sun is a focal point for energy & the plasma is just a by product of all those energies converging, sort of like a magnifying glass collecting and redirecting the suns energy here on earth."............what if this was correct????

I personally have no idea so any teachings would help me to understand...
Ammit

[TargeT]

If the sun is so hot, then why is space cold? I am sure it is warmer in our atmosphere than outside of it....space shuttles and satellites don't burn up when they are on the sunny side of our planet...and lots of comets are made of ice...maybe people will say that it depends on how far you are from the sun, like getting closer or farther from a fire or any other heat source...but then maybe it isn't hot at all and it works in a whole different way. They have those fancy stoves that you can touch with your hand and not get burned, but use a pan and you can boil water or fry eggs just like a conventional stove.


Heat is conducted by three modes, conduction, convection, and radiation. A vacuum prevents conduction and convection but is very condusive to radiation.

Conduction is the transfer of heat between substances that are in direct contact with each other.

convection, is the transfer of heat from one place to another by the movement of fluids or gasses (anything but solids, as that is conduction).

Both conduction and convection require matter to transfer heat.

Radiation is a method of heat transfer that does not rely upon any contact between the heat source and the heated object. For example, we feel heat from the sun even though we are not touching it. Heat can be transmitted though empty space by thermal radiation. Thermal radiation (often called infrared radiation) is a type electromagnetic radiation (or light). Radiation is a form of energy transport consisting of electromagnetic waves traveling at the speed of light. No mass is exchanged and no medium is required.



Satellites and shapce shuttles get VERY hot in space, the shuttles have large amounts of insulation and cooling equipment, the satellights are just built to "take" it.


So, I think we have circled back to our original question... What is LIGHT?

is it just electromagnetic waves that interact with objects, causing them to produce photons (which are visible to to the human eye) ?

[skamandar]

If the sun is so hot, then why is space cold? I am sure it is warmer in our atmosphere than outside of it....space shuttles and satellites don't burn up when they are on the sunny side of our planet...and lots of comets are made of ice...maybe people will say that it depends on how far you are from the sun, like getting closer or farther from a fire or any other heat source...but then maybe it isn't hot at all and it works in a whole different way. They have those fancy stoves that you can touch with your hand and not get burned, but use a pan and you can boil water or fry eggs just like a conventional stove.

I want one of these by the way!
PWFBXslEI24

Very good questions indeed...

[norman]

is it just electromagnetic waves that interact with objects, causing them to produce photons (which are visible to to the human eye) ?



Light is scattered so we see it coming from all around us, as long as there are atoms/molecules to scatter the light. If there is nothing there to scatter the light, the only light we'll see is by looking directly at the source.

[WanderingRogue]

You guys type too fast! I'm writing my questions and you are answering them before i post...lol...thank you for the extended explanation of how heat works TargeT...I seem to remember some of those points from grade school...guess I should have paid more attention!

[RMorgan]

is it just electromagnetic waves that interact with objects, causing them to produce photons (which are visible to to the human eye) ?

Photons are the elementary particles present in light ( and all electromagnetic radiation), thus light can be either particle or wave (duality principle). They aren´t "produced" by the interaction with external objects.

What happens is that objects absorb part of the received light/photons and other part bounces back from their surface in different wavelengths that we interpret as colors.

[Ammit]

So, where does the heat come from?

[TargeT]

is it just electromagnetic waves that interact with objects, causing them to produce photons (which are visible to to the human eye) ?



Light is scattered so we see it coming from all around us, as long as there are atoms/molecules to scatter the light. If there is nothing there to scatter the light, the only light we'll see is by looking directly at the source.

so you're postulating that light is a directional stream of photons, that draws a strait light from source to target (does NOT travel as waves), if you view it at any angle but strait on it does not exist & it must be reflected off something (again, at the correct angle) to be viewed?

I do not think this is the case (at least not all of it).




is it just electromagnetic waves that interact with objects, causing them to produce photons (which are visible to to the human eye) ?

Photons are the elementary particles present in light ( and all electromagnetic radiation), thus light can be either particle or wave (duality principle). They aren´t "produced" by the interaction with external objects.

What happens is that objects absorb part of the received light/photons and other part bounces back from their surface in different wavelengths that we interpret as colors.


are you familiar with quantum electrodynamics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_electrodynamics), did you know that objects emit photons when struck with energy, ?


Light is a very interesting phenomenon, not fully understood yet I think.

it doesn't appear to be as simple as "splash photon's in this direction and when they are reflected/refracted we see something".

[norman]

It seems that radiated heat can energize molecules to make them hot and so become another source of heat.


edit: probably something similar going on with light too.

[Ammit]

Thanks for your reply Norman.

[RMorgan]

are you familiar with quantum electrodynamics, did you know that objects emit photons when struck with energy, ?


I´m not exactly an expert, but I have some notions.

It doesn´t change the fact that light, when seeing as particle, is elementary made of photons and what we perceive as shapes and colors are simply the result of these photons bouncing back in different wavelengths from the world around us, wether by quantum interactions or by simple radiation/reflection/refraction phenomenons.

The biggest part of what we perceive with our eyes is due to light reflection and refraction.

The electrons that eventually produces photons accordingly to quantum electrodynamics are insufficient to create perceivable light to our eyes. It happens in quantum level only. We don´t see them with our naked eyes.

There isn´t a single object or material in our world that can be considered a naturally practical light emitter that doesn´t require an external energy source or a chemical reaction.

[Fred Steeves]

Hmmm, what an interesting conversation. This is my next logical question: I trust most of this technical information comes from NASA, but we also like to joke that NASA stands for Never A Straight Answer. We don't even know what they have really been doing supposedly just hanging around in low orbit for the last 30-40 years, why they have seemingly never heard of Tesla's Free Energy, or why they think the Moon is so normal.

This is just basic, close to Earth stuff, so why do we trust so implicitly what they tell us the Sun is composed of, or how we relate to it's dynamics?

I'm just sayin...

Maybe someone should channel Wernher Von Braun. :)

[Ammit]

Thanks Fred,, that is really what I meant to ask..

[norman]

It's just occurred to me, that you probably could park a space ship up close to the sun if you had a fancy technology that could stop the radiated heat from revving up the atoms of the craft.

Considering how amazing the technology we've seen with anti grav' is, that doesn't seem too hard to do.

[Hervé]

Let's start from the concept of "radiated" energy of which "light" is only a small portion of that spectrum. Eg. one cannot see "radio waves" yet they make all these electronic gadgets come alive.

Same with "light," since, with it, our environment comes alive with a full spectrum of colors whereas, without it, it all becomes shades of greys if not utter pitch black.

Hence, we don't see light waves with our physical eyes. What we see is the interaction of these light waves with matter, first at source then at reception.

At source, agitation of atoms and molecules, through added energy, turns matter from stable state to "red and white hot." Much the same way that water molecules placed in a microwave oven get steam hot through the micowaves interacting with the water molecules. One cannot see thes microwaves yet they turn frozen meals into burning hot lunches or diners.

At reception, the colors we see with our physical eyes are the ones "reflected" by the substance being irradiated with the light waves. Hence, a "red" brick is seen as "red" because the light wave band being reflected due to the atomic structure of the substance is in the red portion of the light spectrum. All the other "colours" of the spectrum are being absorbed or going "through" the substance as X-Rays do; hence photographic "filters" or sunglasses.

As for what happens in and around the sun... better start digging what's in this paper by "Daniel" who was made mysterious by David wilcock:

www.soldierhugs.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Geoengineering.pdf (www.soldierhugs.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Geoengineering.pdf)

See this thread also:

Geoengineering, Chemtrails, HAARP,World Orders, Time Lines and Ascension (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?51752-Geoengineering-Chemtrails-HAARP-World-Orders-Time-Lines-and-Ascension)

[TargeT]

are you familiar with quantum electrodynamics, did you know that objects emit photons when struck with energy, ?


I´m not exactly an expert, but I have some notions.

It doesn´t change the fact that light, when seeing as particle, is elementary made of photons and what we perceive as shapes and colors are simply the result of these photons bouncing back in different wavelengths from the world around us, wether by quantum interactions or by simple radiation/reflection/refraction phenomenons.

it seems that the structure of light is very important to how it interacts with objects


The light has a plasmatic structure, the same as plasma of the proton and electron, and is made as a mixture of magnetic fields strength with difference that the light has dynamic composite magnetic field (maf) strength spiral helixial cylindrical composite matter mafs plasma structure rather than the dynamic composite mafs spherical structure of the matters the like of the plasma of the neutrons.



http://www.keshefoundation.org/en/new-horizons/teachings

light also appears to travel at different speeds (in certain situations) yet another thing we "know" that apparently we need to learn about.




Hmmm, what an interesting conversation. This is my next logical question: I trust most of this technical information comes from NASA, but we also like to joke that NASA stands for Never A Straight Answer. We don't even know what they have really been doing supposedly just hanging around in low orbit for the last 30-40 years, why they have seemingly never heard of Tesla's Free Energy, or why they think the Moon is so normal.

This is just basic, close to Earth stuff, so why do we trust so implicitly what they tell us the Sun is composed of, or how we relate to it's dynamics?

I'm just sayin...

Maybe someone should channel Wernher Von Braun. :)

I get most my stuff from the "Electric Universe" theories... mostly seen here:
http://www.holoscience.com/wp/

NOT NASA (for very much the reasons you stated)


As for what happens in and around the sun... better start digging what's in this paper by "Daniel" who was made mysterious by David wilcock:

www.soldierhugs.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Geoengineering.pdf (www.soldierhugs.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Geoengineering.pdf)


this link is DOA :(

[Hervé]

[...]


As for what happens in and around the sun... better start digging what's in this paper by "Daniel" who was made mysterious by David wilcock:

www.soldierhugs.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Geoengineering.pdf (www.soldierhugs.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Geoengineering.pdf)


this link is DOA :(

I am not sure why it's not working since when I right click on it to save the .PDF as [...] it works fine. You can try directly from the website:

http://www.soldierhugs.com/nwo-greatest-crimes-against-humanity/

... scrolling down to the first .PDF.

[TargeT]

http://www.soldierhugs.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Geoengineering.pdf

;) looks like you copied the link from a post or something (the links usualy get shortened and you'll see ....'s involved, that's a dead give away)

[ThePythonicCow]

this link is DOA :(

I am not sure why it's not working since when I right click on it to save the .PDF as [...] it works fine.

http://www.soldierhugs.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Geoengineering.pdf

;) looks like you copied the link from a post or something (the links usualy get shortened and you'll see ....'s involved, that's a dead give away)

Yup - exactly - happens a lot. Copying and pasting what's visible on the screen, with long links, doesn't work. What's visible on the screen is shortened by replacing some middle portion with "...".

You have to right click the link and select "Copy Link Location", then paste that, to get the entire URL.

I fixed all versions of this link, as originally posted and as subsequently quoted, in the above posts. So now the links work, but some of the above posts don't make so much sense ... oh well :).

[panopticon]

It's a really good point.
Why aren't there more photo's, taken from outside the atmosphere, of the sun in the visible spectrum?
Maybe because they are not that interesting to science...


Dark Sky, Bright Sun.

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/9709/sunview_sts82.jpg

Explanation: In low Earth orbit there is not enough atmosphere to diffuse and scatter sunlight, so shadows are black and the sky is dark - even when the Sun shines. The harsh lighting produced this dramatic effect as mission specialist Gregory Harbaugh photographed colleague Joseph Tanner during their second spacewalk to service the Hubble Space Telescope in February 1997. The aft section of the Space Shuttle Discovery is visible in the background with the Sun hanging over a delicate crescent of the Earth's limb. A checklist is attached to Tanner's left arm, and Harbaugh's reflection is just visible in Tanner's visor.
Source (http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap990214.html).

here's Voyager 1 from 1990:


PIA00450: Solar System Portrait - View of the Sun, Earth and Venus

http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/browse/PIA00450.jpg

This color image of the sun, Earth and Venus was taken by the Voyager 1 spacecraft Feb. 14, 1990, when it was approximately 32 degrees above the plane of the ecliptic and at a slant-range distance of approximately 4 billion miles. It is the first -- and may be the only -- time that we will ever see our solar system from such a vantage point. The image is a portion of a wide-angle image containing the sun and the region of space where the Earth and Venus were at the time with two narrow-angle pictures centered on each planet. The wide-angle was taken with the camera's darkest filter (a methane absorption band), and the shortest possible exposure (5 thousandths of a second) to avoid saturating the camera's vidicon tube with scattered sunlight. The sun is not large in the sky as seen from Voyager's perspective at the edge of the solar system but is still eight million times brighter than the brightest star in Earth's sky, Sirius. The image of the sun you see is far larger than the actual dimension of the solar disk. The result of the brightness is a bright burned out image with multiple reflections from the optics in the camera. The "rays" around the sun are a diffraction pattern of the calibration lamp which is mounted in front of the wide angle lens. The two narrow-angle frames containing the images of the Earth and Venus have been digitally mosaiced into the wide-angle image at the appropriate scale. These images were taken through three color filters and recombined to produce a color image. The violet, green and blue filters were used; exposure times were, for the Earth image, 0.72, 0.48 and 0.72 seconds, and for the Venus frame, 0.36, 0.24 and 0.36, respectively. Although the planetary pictures were taken with the narrow-angle camera (1500 mm focal length) and were not pointed directly at the sun, they show the effects of the glare from the nearby sun, in the form of long linear streaks resulting from the scattering of sunlight off parts of the camera and its sun shade. From Voyager's great distance both Earth and Venus are mere points of light, less than the size of a picture element even in the narrow-angle camera. Earth was a crescent only 0.12 pixel in size. Coincidentally, Earth lies right in the center of one of the scattered light rays resulting from taking the image so close to the sun. Detailed analysis also suggests that Voyager detected the moon as well, but it is too faint to be seen without special processing. Venus was only 0.11 pixel in diameter. The faint colored structure in both planetary frames results from sunlight scattered in the optics.
Source (http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA00450).



KAGUYA (SELENE) Successfully Captures Moving Images of the Earth at the Time of a Penumbral Lunar Eclipse using HDTV

http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2009/02/img/20090218_kaguya_2.jpg

Source (http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2009/02/20090218_kaguya_e.html).

Video of above Penumbral Lunar Eclipse (original source (http://space.jaxa.jp/movie/20090218_kaguya_movie01_e.html)).

V-raRzHWH7M

All these images are either filtered or through a low atmosphere environment.
Anyone find some (in the visible spectrum) that aren't?

[norman]

It's VERY hard to photograph the sun because it's millions of times brighter than the rest of the image.

Lenses are made of glass, and you know what happens to glass when the sun gets on it.

The golden rule in classic photography it to never let the sun get in the lens.

Trying to photograph the sun totally breaks that rule, and the results nearly always show what a golden rule it always has been.



EDIT:

But here's a tip.

If you a determined to get a photo of the sun, this is the best chance you've got of getting a decent image that doesn't have spurious fake suns all over the place as well as the one you want.


Set the camera up on a tripod and carefully point it straight at the sun so that the sun is EXACTLY DEAD CENTER, at 90 degrees to the plane of the back of the camera ( most importantly ) exactly straight ahead of all the curves of all the surfaces of all the elements of the lens group ( all modern lenses are a group of glass surfaces )

By being so accurately straight on at the sun, you will minimize the image artifacts, but probably not eliminate them altogether. At least you are less likely to create any of those 'virtual' suns in the picture that always seem to get people so excited, thinking they've got an image of something real out there besides the sun.


Always remember that when you are pointing your camera at the sun, you doing something it was never designed for.

[Tophaceous]

I have serious doubts as to whether the sun is actually that hot at all. Doesn't it take planetary atmosphere to focus a star's energy, thus turning it into heat? Like how focusing a magnifying glass outside onto a piece of paper will burn it, whether the day is hot or cold?

Of course a simple experiment, which I'm certain has already been done, could solve the question. Is the area of space around Earth hotter than the area of space around Mars? If not, then me thinks "Houston, we have a problem". Because with the big ball of fire story, it had better be.

If I'm missing some crucial piece of basic solar physics here, then someone please dial me in. :)

Cheers,
Fred

I think your mostly wrong and a little right ;)


The sun itself is hot, very hot, but that heat does not "radiate" out to us like a space heater does in a home. This energy we call "light" is transmitted through space (vacuum) & does not atrophy at all until it strikes an object, an asteroid, or planet for example. It needs "matter" to interact with; now the earth benefits from having an atmosphere by equalizing the temperature, sort of "stabilizing" it, as the dark side stays warm and the light side is buffered so its not too hot, the moon for example. The temperature of the Moon can dip down to -153°C during the night, in the day can rise to 107°C; there is no atmosphere to buffer the temperature, no "insulation".




Well, it´s combustive if we realize the hydrogen and helium work as its fuel; These gases are heated to extreme high levels until they get ionized and become plasma emitting extreme radiation that we feel as heat...lol...That´s it, as far as my limited knowledge of astrophysics go.


I do not think this is the case either (burning of hydrogen and helium, though there may be some of that happening too).

I see it more like a lightning rod or sort of like a magnifying glass for the galactic energies that are always present, these are what create Nebula and other phenomenon’s, we are awash in energy, and at certain points it concentrates...

the "vacuum" is anything but, it is FULL of energy, vacuum is the worst term for it (unless you are simply talking about breathable air, then there should be a caveat noted).

I think the sun is a focal point for energy & the plasma is just a byproduct of all those energies converging, sort of like a magnifying glass collecting and redirecting the suns energy here on earth.

When an astronaut is on a spacewalk outside of the spacecraft, what is the temperature or his/her spacesuit when in visual contact with the sun? is it 107 c. and when he/she goes to the "dark side" of the spacecraft does the temperature of the spacesuit drop to -153 degrees C? Like on the moon? Astrophysics is so far out of my expertise I might as well be giving advice to Baryshnikov on how to dance.

[TargeT]

I have serious doubts as to whether the sun is actually that hot at all. Doesn't it take planetary atmosphere to focus a star's energy, thus turning it into heat? Like how focusing a magnifying glass outside onto a piece of paper will burn it, whether the day is hot or cold?

Of course a simple experiment, which I'm certain has already been done, could solve the question. Is the area of space around Earth hotter than the area of space around Mars? If not, then me thinks "Houston, we have a problem". Because with the big ball of fire story, it had better be.

If I'm missing some crucial piece of basic solar physics here, then someone please dial me in. :)

Cheers,
Fred

I think your mostly wrong and a little right ;)


The sun itself is hot, very hot, but that heat does not "radiate" out to us like a space heater does in a home. This energy we call "light" is transmitted through space (vacuum) & does not atrophy at all until it strikes an object, an asteroid, or planet for example. It needs "matter" to interact with; now the earth benefits from having an atmosphere by equalizing the temperature, sort of "stabilizing" it, as the dark side stays warm and the light side is buffered so its not too hot, the moon for example. The temperature of the Moon can dip down to -153°C during the night, in the day can rise to 107°C; there is no atmosphere to buffer the temperature, no "insulation".

When an astronaut is on a spacewalk outside of the spacecraft, what is the temperature or his/her spacesuit when in visual contact with the sun? is it 107 c. and when he/she goes to the "dark side" of the spacecraft does the temperature of the spacesuit drop to -153 degrees C? Like on the moon? Astrophysics is so far out of my expertise I might as well be giving advice to Baryshnikov on how to dance.

I'm not sure how fast those maximums are reached, but it the space suits do have built in cooling and heating systems for the extreme temp.s that are experienced, this is also why the one of the visors of their helmets have the gold plating sun shield also.

much of what is discussed here (especially by me) is not standard astro-physics, and a typical astro physicist will not tell you these things.

But between the two material sets the "electric universe" model is much more plausible and fits Occam's razor much more closely, if you are interested in the topic check out the link I posted on it, it is actually much easier to grasp than the "crap" taught in public schools (probably because it is much closer to reality and doesn't rely on wild speculatory explenations for things like "Sun spots" or the Corona of the sun, Commet tails and Nebula shapes, Quasars and binary systems... these are all easily explained by the "Electric universe" model)

[Referee]

Well, this is not possible, mostly because the sun itself is a big combustive sphere that provides its own fuel.

The sun is literally a big burning ball. So, we can´t see the photons themselves, but we can see the source.

If his statements were truth, our experiments with spacial telescopes, which are located in the very extreme limits of our upper atmosphere would be a failure.

Are you sure the sun is a big ball of fire or were you told that? Have a look into the electric Universe theory it seems to make a lot of sense.

[Sirius White]

Great topic.

I think there are some great answers and questions here. I admit I should know more about the subject but this gets me to study it more. I think as stated, light is more mysterious than we know- and our idea of light is absolutely deceiving.

Some esoteric schools in the past associated light with that of the demi-urge, the aspect of light that kept us bond in the material hologram. There were many reasons, but you can either look at the sun as the force that holds it altogether, hence harmony. or the force that keeps the spirit in bondage to the local "Nucleus" (and the solar system). Afterall, light is what creates the experience to "see" yet this "seeing" is limited in its spectrum of what it can see, and actually, obscures/occults the true nature of the universe. The darkness, the infinite void was actually seen as the source of all light, while the stars/suns were merely the reflection of the light of that which is occulted/unseen. Meaning, that the biggest stars from where we could see it, held the most "light of God" and hence were worshipped/and or aligned with on certain days of the year. So in a way, light is what deceives your visuals, and occults the true underlying nature of the universe- that which is invisible to most of our bodily senses. What we see thanks to light, is not what it is at all. I always found that...fascinating.

I like the ideas on the electric universe, electric-magnetism, and more.

I also like taking into account bizzare theories that come from contactees. Two in particular were interesting. Alex Colliers idea of the sun, and how it actually is the cause of gravity. And Lloyd Zirbes falling bodies theory, that all theses tiny bodies that work together (and spin/compress in different ways) create a series of many different fields which make the Sun a heavy creator of gravity. Lloyd Zirbes had contact with beings who told him this knowledge, and also spoke about Nuclear testing completely messing up our magnetic field waaay before others did. Also, I am of personal belief nuclear explosions and the force generated there-in also create temporary minute rips in space-time that can be utilized by other entities who know how to travel through them. And may create problems for us on a quantum level of probabilities (and what many researchers call, timelines).

I can only add an esoteric angle. But thank you all for the convo, I do agree that the suject of light is more than the simplistic understanding of mainstream media. It will be known of the spectrum of light that comes off the cells as well......and how it interacts with the quantum aspect and beyond (yes, I do believe things exist beyond the planck limit).

[Solon]

New member and first post, and as I have been researching this very subject for over 5 years now, I thought it appropriate I should add to this older thread. As I have not had chance to look though much of the forums yet, perhaps there is a more recent thread on this or a similar topic?
My background is in science and technology, though I do not have any pieces of paper from any University to confirm that I have achieved any level of proficiency in these subjects. I am self taught to a large degree, and have been soaking up information since I first learned to read, and continue to do so. Perhaps the biggest influence on my thinking has been Buckminster Fuller, who I had heard of over the years but did not really pay attention to until about 1990. I was very pleased to read that he, like myself, had been rather a rebel when it came to education, and felt fortunate that I had not let the system fill my head with the 'facts' that I would need to know to ever be anybody in this world, to get a job, to be a part of the system. I read just about everything available about him, and all the books he wrote, including Synergetics. One of Americas finest thinkers, engineers, poets even, and yet I doubt very few students today have ever heard of him, most likely because his views do not fit in with the Corporate run education system.
So, I consider myself a free thinker, capable of examining a subject from what I believe is an unbiased perspective, and capable of looking at things and understanding them from first principles. When I get my teeth into something, I don't let go until I am certain I have looked into every aspect, and understand fully.
With the subject of the Sun and light, I am in the process of putting together a web page that will attempt to explain in a way that most people will be able to understand, just what I have learned. The conclusion I must reach is that even our own Sun is not visible from outside of Earths atmosphere, from cislunar space for example. I am not going to go into the details here, all that will be available when the web page is ready, but, to put it in its simplest form, the radiation the Sun emits is all at much shorter wavelengths than our eyes can see. It starts out with gamma rays really, and is transformed downwards in energy towards x-rays, EUV etc, through the visible, and all the way down to infra-red, by the interaction of solar radiation with matter. The visible light and heat we experience on Earth is all due to the atmosphere. Do I have proof of that? No, and for the simple reason that NASA will not perform the most simple experiments from space, experiments that in seconds could answer the question once and for all. No private company or corporation has ever been in a location in space to test the model, and it is clearly shown that NASA has blocked every attempt by well meaning and competent amateur astronomy groups to place equipment in orbit, or on the Moon, equipment which could, and would I believe, show that the present astronomical and astrophysical models are completely and utterly wrong.
I will not try to hide anything I have written about on other forums, and a search for either Solon or GaryN with regards to the Sun and stars will turn up many posts, warts and all, that will show how I have tried to work my way through the issues, understand the science and examine the instruments that have been sent on numerous missions over the years. It turns out that the answer lies not in what NASA or other agencies have shown us, but what they have not shown us, the simple experiments that have not been performed, and the lack of statements from those who have been out in space to the locations where human observation could be performed, namely the Apollo astronauts on their way to the Moon and back. Yes, I do believe they went, and landed on the Moon, though my reasoning for how they achieved those missions is perhaps even more controversial than my New Model of the Sun and light!
Now to try and catch up on what has been happening on this forum...

[Solon]

Well I was hoping that Avalon members might have a little better grip on just how great the deception is with regards to what we are told about the Sun, but it seems the brainwashing is so complete that even here nobody can see that the Emperor has no clothes. Too bad, but not really surprising.

[Wide-Eyed]

Well I was hoping that Avalon members might have a little better grip on just how great the deception is with regards to what we are told about the Sun, but it seems the brainwashing is so complete that even here nobody can see that the Emperor has no clothes. Too bad, but not really surprising. You are not giving much to comment on there Solon just that you like an annoying dog with a bone and self taught in science . Enjoy Eric Dollard and maybe it squares with your "Truman Show"

PM5zrzd4pOU

[Bill Ryan]

I was hoping that Avalon members might have a little better grip

Which members?

[ThePythonicCow]

New member and first post, and as I have been researching this very subject for over 5 years now,

I would have hoped that someone studying this topic for over five years would have by now found such sites as Amazing New Sun Photos from Space (Aug 2011) (http://www.space.com/30-amazing-sun-photos-space.html).

Those who can present little or no evidence for their theory, and who reject all evidence to the contrary on account of:

it being all a bunch of lies -- we "NASA" means "Never A Straight Answer"(to paraphrase how I view your theory that the sun is not visible outside the atmosphere) place a heavy burden on themselves. A good theory is "falsifiable" ... it can be proven wrong. A bad theory is a waste of our time, for we cannot test it.

Given that you've been stuck on this theory for over five years, you're either wasting both your time and ours, if you've not been able to get past this issue, or at least wasting our time, if someone is paying you to toss confusions into the alternative media, like trying to toss red meat into the animal cage.

Given that it's been this long, I don't hold out much hope for your leaning much here, and I doubt that you came here to learn. Rather you likely came here, whether or not you're aware of it, to stir up a fuss and confuse the discussion.

I for one do not welcome such (ab)use of this forum.

[StandingWave]

Good grief! I would not blame Solon for leaving this forum after being treated in this way. Some very reactionary comments to a rather blunt affront on his part, I will agree. Adults ought to be able to see the frustration inherent in that last jibe and try to see through to the deeper motivation for it. Forgiveable considering the constant dismisals he has received over the years. This thread on Thunderbolts.info started by Solon aka GaryN has been going for ages and has engendered some interesting discussion: http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=4579&hilit=garyn (http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=4579&hilit=garyn)

He has raised a very good point in this related thread, imho:



The Hubble Telescope is outside the atmosphere. Faked images?

Hubble uses still classified Military technology, first developed for the ICBM program. Why do you think no other space capable nation has a telescope in space? Why do you think NASA will not let these talented groups put a conventional telescope in space?



Why is it that the 'optics' on space-based platforms are not optics in the conventional sense? That website you referenced, Paul, displays images made with equipment that is not a conventional optical camera. Why not use conventional optics in space beyond the atmosphere? Solon claims to have spent five years researching this and has concluded that the visual spectrum is somehow not available to be photographed out there which is why fancy 'optics' are required to image the sun and other stars from space-based platforms.

[Bill Ryan]

... defending Solon ...



Solon only beats one drum. He's posted about this over 2,200 times on the Thunderbolts forum over a five year period, as member GaryN. He can continue there for another 2,200 posts and five more years if he wishes... but not here. :)

The thesis is illogical. If the sun wasn't visible outside of our atmosphere (and the sun is a star), we'd not be able to see any stars. He doesn't know what light is.

Reductio ad absurdum.

Like the Flat Earth threads, this thread should probably be closed. It does Avalon no credit. If anyone strongly disagrees, we're not going to stop them from leaving.

[Ernie Nemeth]

Why does the eye see white? Why does the eye see color? What is light? How much of what we "see" is a construct of the mind?

Why in space would we not see? What is the median of space? What is the vacuum? What is the ether? Are they the same?

This thread's got me thinking. Why the quick turn to ban it?

[Bill Ryan]

This thread's got me thinking.

Good! :)

Next to consider: —> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pale_Blue_Dot

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/73/Pale_Blue_Dot.png
Seen from about 6 billion kilometers, Earth appears as a tiny dot (the blueish-white speck
approximately halfway down the brown band to the right) within the darkness of deep space.

An enlargement (my own):

http://projectavalon.net/Pale_Blue_Dot.jpg

That's very visible to me. But if this generates the response that all NASA photos are faked, then the discussion stalls in the middle of the road, and just can't go anywhere.

Re light in a vacuum, it's basic junior high school physics to create a vacuum by pumping all the air out of a glass bell jar. Note that you can still see through it! Things don't suddenly go all opaque. :)

Now pick up a laser pointer. (Or even just a flashlight!) You can see the light go right through the vacuum and out the other side.

And if you turn on an electric bar heater, the kind that glows red with radiated heat (that's infrared in the electromagnetic spectrum), the heat will go through the jar, as well. You can sense it with your hand (or a thermometer). That's got nothing to do with the eye, or with color.

Try it. It's the simplest of simple science. Speculating idly about this stuff is different from doing it.

Light is part of the electromagnetic (EM) spectrum. It's only something special to us because we humans can detect ('see') it. If EM waves can't go through a vacuum, then on Earth we're totally isolated from everything out there. And that's evidently not the case.

Re closing threads like this, well, I'm glad some of them make you think! But not for too long, I hope. There are many other more worthwhile things to think about (considering the laws of investment of time and energy, against return).

We can theoretically start threads about any number of how-many-angels-can-dance-on-a-pin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_many_angels_can_dance_on_the_head_of_a_pin%3F) topics. Here's one to get students arguing, and laughing, in a bar:

Does the pink elephant I believe I can see but you can't, really 'exist'?

But that doesn't mean that we should promote or entertain them here. There are other locations that are better venues for some subjects. This is basically a serious forum, for people who have at least some background knowledge and understanding (or, at least, a keen analytical mind) — about how and why things are likely to work the way they do, or be the way they are. (And no. That's NOT a mainstream point of view. :) )

[Solon]

I would have hoped that someone studying this topic for over five years would have by now found such sites as Amazing New Sun Photos from Space (Aug 2011).

All taken with an instrument that sees what your eyes can not. You obviously know nothing of the science involved.

@StandingWave


Why not use conventional optics in space beyond the atmosphere?

Bingo! I asked the folks at NPS in Monterrey how best to take a PHOTOGRAPH of the Sun in space, this TB post explains:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=4579&sid=ff3dc0278f309d512422f0bf12461fc0&start=225#p66268


The thesis is illogical. If the sun wasn't visible outside of our atmosphere (and the sun is a star), we'd not be able to see any stars. He doesn't know what light is.

There are no stars visible, nothing is visible, from cislunar space. Neil Armstrong told us that, and he was there. You were not but think you know better.

@StandingWave

Good grief! I would not blame Solon for leaving this forum after being treated in this way.

Yes, this forum is obviously not what I had hoped it would be, and you Sir (Bill Ryan) are obviously not the person I though you were, which makes me seriously question the motives for the existence of this whole forum. I'll lose no sleep over being banned if that is your intent.
Why not put some of your effort in trying to get an interview with one of the 200+ astronauts who have been on an EVA and therefore in a position to actually see into deep space, and ask them to describe the view looking AWAY from Earth? The Russians described the view from orbit, how does that compare with how US astronauts see things?
http://www.thunderbolts.info/~thundes2/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=4579&p=105462&sid=b30e5acc571854d8c023d76160623c36#p105985
The Sun is the centre of our very existence, but what it really is or how it works is being hidden from us, and the implications of it not being visible from clear space would not only rock the present models of astronomy, but completely destroy them. The con is so large that few can internalise it, but anyone willing to really study the science SHOULD soon be able to discover the truth.

[DNA]

I would have hoped that someone studying this topic for over five years would have by now found such sites as Amazing New Sun Photos from Space (Aug 2011).

All taken with an instrument that sees what your eyes can not. You obviously know nothing of the science involved.

@StandingWave


Why not use conventional optics in space beyond the atmosphere?

Bingo! I asked the folks at NPS in Monterrey how best to take a PHOTOGRAPH of the Sun in space, this TB post explains:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=4579&sid=ff3dc0278f309d512422f0bf12461fc0&start=225#p66268


The thesis is illogical. If the sun wasn't visible outside of our atmosphere (and the sun is a star), we'd not be able to see any stars. He doesn't know what light is.

There are no stars visible, nothing is visible, from cislunar space. Neil Armstrong told us that, and he was there. You were not but think you know better.

@StandingWave

Good grief! I would not blame Solon for leaving this forum after being treated in this way.

Yes, this forum is obviously not what I had hoped it would be, and you Sir (Bill Ryan) are obviously not the person I though you were, which makes me seriously question the motives for the existence of this whole forum. I'll lose no sleep over being banned if that is your intent.
Why not put some of your effort in trying to get an interview with one of the 200+ astronauts who have been on an EVA and therefore in a position to actually see into deep space, and ask them to describe the view looking AWAY from Earth? The Russians described the view from orbit, how does that compare with how US astronauts see things?
http://www.thunderbolts.info/~thundes2/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=4579&p=105462&sid=b30e5acc571854d8c023d76160623c36#p105985
The Sun is the centre of our very existence, but what it really is or how it works is being hidden from us, and the implications of it not being visible from clear space would not only rock the present models of astronomy, but completely destroy them. The con is so large that few can internalise it, but anyone willing to really study the science SHOULD soon be able to discover the truth.

You shouldn't take these things so personal bro.
With Bill jumping into your thread and debating the subject it is only going to make more folks want to read it.
And if you are looking to learn and or let people know about what you are talking about there is no better way to do so than in a debate format.
Don't be so concerned with whither folks agree or do not agree initially in so far as your pet theory goes.
Welcome the opportunity to talk about and expand upon your topic.

[Hervé]

Yep, another round of nonsense apparently stemming from misconstrued interpretations of Eric Dollard's statement to the effect of: "Light is not visible in space"

The statement is true:



[...]
Then I must have misread or misunderstood something, because I thought someone in this thread said that the stars are not visible in outer space, like from the moon.

You probably read and understood correctly what is written... however, as far as the veracity of such statement is concerned, there may be some serious misconceptions at the basis of such considerations, fueled by some NASA high-contrast pictures.

However, the light they emit in the form of photon is itself not visible until said photons hit something. The very same way one can see a movie on a theatre's screen as well as the arching between white hot graphite electrodes inside the film projector but nothing in between projector and screen :)



[...]
And yes space is full of light we cannot see :)

... unless one is old enough to have experienced going to the vue and see a movie in a theatre where smoking was allowed... did anyone ever saw that beam of light landing on the big screen?

... yet that theatre's space was full of these buggers called "photons."


:jester:



In other words, unless a photon interacts with itself (as in interference patterns or holographic projections) or something else [dust, as in sun-motes], said photon, by itself, is not visible while zooming through space :)

[Bill Ryan]

you are obviously not the person I though you were, which makes me seriously question the motives for the existence of this whole forum. I'll lose no sleep over being banned if that is your intent.

Done. This is just more 'Flat Earth' noise (a metaphor!), and that's not going to happen here. The 'motives for the existence of this whole forum' are to exchange good quality, reliable information, and to raise awareness backed by intelligence, knowledge and shared high quality experience. Your contributions, however well-intended, are not in alignment with that.

[Verdilac]

The thing is Solon, if you believe this, you may never find out if its correct. So why alienate people by sticking with it if they don't want hear it.

We have all posted things that have went down like a concrete overcoat and as time goes by we realise why.

[Ernie Nemeth]

There is no light in space - until it hits something. Space is not completely black because light in space is hitting things - the rarified particles of primarily hydrogen gas and microscopic particles of dust.

On Earth, light is constantly scattered by particles in the air and so daytime is light that has come from the sun and has been scattered by interacting particles.

I have never heard of "special" optics required for space-based detecting, unless the topic is about shielding and guarding against certain optical distortions. The Hubble telescope has a set of "spectacles" at the focal aperture to correct for the fact that the mirror was polished to the wrong shape and is "myopic" without its "glasses".

The sun is essentially a ball of light. It must be visible in space or there would be perpetual darkness on Earth.

To say that the quality of space is different in outer space, as they used to call it, brings up an entirely alternate can of worms. And in some of the more outlandish theories such ideas have been proposed for other reasons.

If a photon hits a receptor in my eye and the signal reaches my brain and I am made aware of that fact internally, I will see the light, no matter where I might be. It is true that my eye itself cannot be exposed to space directly so there is that argument.

But if the argument goes there: you cannot see light in space because your eye would explode!

[Bill Ryan]

The thing is Solon, if you believe this, you may never find out if its correct.

Not if the intention is to proselytize! (Definition: "to induce someone to convert to one's faith, to recruit someone to join one's party, institution, or cause.")

One-note members, joining only to promote a particular rigid idea to which they're already committed (in Solon's case, for 5 years and 53 pages/2,273 posts on another forum, ALL on one fixed notion from which they've never swayed), are likely to give others, and themselves, quite a hard time here.

:)

[DNA]

The thing is Solon, if you believe this, you may never find out if its correct.

Not if the intention is to proselytize! (Definition: "to induce someone to convert to one's faith, to recruit someone to join one's party, institution, or cause.")

One-note members, joining only to promote a particular rigid idea to which they're already committed (in Solon's case, for 5 years and 53 pages/2,273 posts on another forum, ALL on one fixed notion from which they've never swayed), are likely to give others, and themselves, quite a hard time here.

:)

Okay, I'm glad you mentioned that.
I didn't know there was such a history there.
For a second I thought Mr. Ryan was having a Mr. Grumpy Pants day. :)
I was going to do my best to avoid you in the threads today for fear I might get banned. But I now see you had some gravity here, so I will proceed.
It is remarkable how folks have jumped on to this flat earth thing with so much vigor.
I'm of the opinion that NASA is really a organization for disinformation and little more, but surely a thousand years of amateur astronomy should account for something.
Anyway, I'm again happy to see you clarify there being so much history here. It is possible that folks who are so dedicated to this, seemingly silly flat earth thing are part of a psy-op which you have mentioned before and I give credence to. Good Day :sun:

[Hervé]

Anyway, how come something not visible is able to cast shadows... way up there?


http://upglobalblog.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Astronaut-Working-on-Columbus-Module-of-International-Space-Station-with-AZ-Painted-Columbus-Lettering-and-ESA-Logo-Visible-STS122-1200X800.jpg
Astronaut Hans Schlegel working on Columbus module of the ISS (Copyright ESA)

FG0fTKAqZ5g
Oooops... many a sunrise... did you spot the Orion belt?

[Verdilac]

The thing is Solon, if you believe this, you may never find out if its correct.

Not if the intention is to proselytize! (Definition: "to induce someone to convert to one's faith, to recruit someone to join one's party, institution, or cause.")

One-note members, joining only to promote a particular rigid idea to which they're already committed (in Solon's case, for 5 years and 53 pages/2,273 posts on another forum, ALL on one fixed notion from which they've never swayed), are likely to give others, and themselves, quite a hard time here.

:)

Okay, I'm glad you mentioned that.
I didn't know there was such a history there.
For a second I thought Mr. Ryan was having a Mr. Grumpy Pants day. :)
I was going to do my best to avoid you in the threads today for fear I might get banned. But I now see you had some gravity here, so I will proceed.
It is remarkable how folks have jumped on to this flat earth thing with so much vigor.
I'm of the opinion that NASA is really a organization for disinformation and little more, but surely a thousand years of amateur astronomy should account for something.
Anyway, I'm again happy to see you clarify there being so much history here. It is possible that folks who are so dedicated to this, seemingly silly flat earth thing are part of a psy-op which you have mentioned before and I give credence to. Good Day :sun:

Trust me to get quoted twice when I made a typo :facepalm: , I was only trying to calm troubled waters, that will teach me .:blushing:

[Rocky_Shorz]

If the sun is so hot, then why is space cold? I am sure it is warmer in our atmosphere than outside of it....space shuttles and satellites don't burn up when they are on the sunny side of our planet...and lots of comets are made of ice...maybe people will say that it depends on how far you are from the sun, like getting closer or farther from a fire or any other heat source...but then maybe it isn't hot at all and it works in a whole different way. They have those fancy stoves that you can touch with your hand and not get burned, but use a pan and you can boil water or fry eggs just like a conventional stove.

I want one of these by the way!
PWFBXslEI24

According to the Russian scientist, the Sun is cold fusion and why maintenance ships around our sun don't burn up.

He says the Sun's center is a black hole gateway ships pass through continuously

He also said distance from sun doesn't matter for a planets temperature. Atmosphere heats up by light hitting air particles

Why would cameras in the space station photograph the Sun if our eyes can't see it?

[Rocky_Shorz]

Here is a good video for those who haven't seen it yet


This was a very interesting video, and after watching this guy, grandson of a Russian leader and KGB father, spy for a mother, passing on info you would never hear through our media programmers, you will see who Ben is fighting for, he believes the world is divided in 2, it is the Illuminati against the 4th Reich.

He goes through categories of alien races, who is in contact with which side...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpO9Eghln4g

world financial collapse didn't happen on Sept, 13th like he said would happen in this video, stock markets were wild, but it was smoothed out...

I'll have to add this guy to my watch list, he mentions his blog...

US government says there are only 4 categories of Aliens, Reptilian, Reptoid, Insectoid and Gray's then the human races. Onyx went on the Extended tour and might have a few more to add, maybe those are categories of who is visiting earth.

What is the difference between Reptoid and Reptilians?

[Bill Ryan]

If the sun is so hot, then why is space cold?

Because you have to have something there to heat up, for it to be hot. :)

Heat in objects (including in gases) is just the energy of molecular motion. Molecules vibrate more and more, the more energy they have, and that's sort of what heat is. (Infrared radiation is something else: we're talking about hot solids, liquids or gases.)

But in empty space, there's not even a gas. There's the occasional single molecule here and there, but very, very, very little indeed.

So in space, there's [almost] nothing there. The space shuttle (or whatever might be out there now that re-enters in the same way!) gets hot because of friction against the upper atmosphere. That's by design, so that it slows down... simple air resistance. Like sticking your hand, or head, out of a car window. And every motorcyclist will understand that. :)

In empty space, there's [almost] nothing to rub against or hit against... therefore there's no friction... therefore there's no heat (generated that way). And there's no molecular motion, because there are [almost] no molecules.

So — it's 'cold'. Anything there that's hot radiates away all its heat really fast. It just all leaks away, instantly, because there's no insulation of any kind.

The Earth stays warm because the atmosphere acts like an insulating blanket. That's why the moon, which has little or no measurable atmosphere, has such extremes of temperature. It has no 'blanket' on it at all.

~~~

The comments here are interesting. I honestly, honestly, mean no disrespect. But it's quite an eye-opener that in a small minority of people — and this may not be anyone's fault, at all — basic knowledge of physics is so very limited.

Most things one can work out from the simplest basic principles, if the basic principles are understood. (That's kind of what science is.) It's pretty much common sense, once one knows the building blocks, as it were.

I and others are truly happy to do our best to explain this stuff, because at school one might simply have had a really bad teacher, which is barely one's own fault. And someone who's more-than-averagely bright (as every Avalonian surely is!) should be able to understand a post... like this one. :star:

[regnak]

The Sun is cold not hot if it was hot it would explode :shielddeflect:

most of our laws of nature are wrong laws are simple and work upper and lower


earth heat comes from the planet
cold season is when earth is closes to the sun
colder on mountain top
warmer on ground

solar flares only come from middle of the sun :blushing:
the sun works like a ant and elephant doing sea saw
the sun is the ant space is the elephant

[Bill Ryan]

.
:facepalm:

I put quite a lot of time and effort into the last post of mine, #63 above (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?52934-Sun-is-not-visible-outside-the-upper-Atmosphere&p=1059914&viewfull=1#post1059914).

The thread is closed. My apologies to anyone who was interested in learning about the science. It doesn't deserve to stay open.