In Space, No One Can See The Stars

[Camilo]

In the daytime, you can see the Sun in the sky and, at night, you can see the stars. But, if you go up into outer space, you will NOT see the Sun and you will NOT see the stars!

Look - No Stars!NASA keeps quiet about that little-known fact because, even today, scientists do not understand the nature of light. To them, ignorance is an embarrassment, so please don’t ask.


by Owen K Waters

http://www.spiritualdynamics.net/articles/quantum-mysteries/

[STATIC]

I don't think this is correct. The part about dark matter is interesting but if you go up into space you will see both the stars and the sun. The reason you don't see stars in pictures is that most times there is something in the frame that is much closer and brighter so the camera will bring that into focus and stars become invisible.

[Operator]

In the daytime, you can see the Sun in the sky and, at night, you can see the stars. But, if you go up into outer space, you will NOT see the Sun and you will NOT see the stars!


As if the pictures, allegedly taken on the moon, are not anomalous enough ... how would NASA then explain the abundant
sunlight in the moon pictures ? There is sunlight but no sun ... :confused:

LVR2WTK20Ig

P.S. Day and night on earth are caused by the rotation of the planet. If you are not close to a planet wouldn't it be 'day' all the time?

[Synchronicity]

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae323.cfm

[STATIC]

The case of moon landing pictures is probably a whole different ball game :). Here is a picture from the iss. http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/files/2011/08/Sun-Earth-Light-International-Space-Station-194.jpeg
You can see the sun but not the stars. That's cause the sun is much brighter than the stars. Also your eyes are matter as well :)

[Operator]

The case of moon landing pictures is probably a whole different ball game :). Here is a picture from the iss. http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/files/2011/08/Sun-Earth-Light-International-Space-Station-194.jpeg
You can see the sun but not the stars. That's cause the sun is much brighter than the stars. Also your eyes are matter as well :)

The anomalies, yes (perhaps too much of a distraction) but I indeed meant the same as in your image: there can't be
shadows from sunlight if you wouldn't be able to see the sun itself (a star too b.t.w.).

[STATIC]

I'm assume that if you took a much longer exposure of that same picture the stars would show up
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-8ghlRKUjDtM/UQOAaRjFcrI/AAAAAAAADiM/msrKGfDDbxg/s400/Long+exposure+photo+of+stars+from+the+ISS.jpg

[Atlas]

----------



The sun seen from space:

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/350324/EARTH-AND-SUN.jpg

The stars seen from space:

http://i43.fastpic.ru/thumb/2012/0914/d8/f8b46da399eb6a312e2970eb8e61b8d8.jpeg

[Carmody]

It's called 'f stops', and 'f range' meaning the amount of light level range the given camera lens and sensor (be it eye or CCD, or whatever) can handle.

The human eye ranges it's iris opening to change the light coming in to levels that the retina can use.

it is typically estimated that the overall contrast range of the human eye is 1:1,000,000... but that the iris opens and closes to create a 'slider' area of about 300~350:1 contrast range in a given image seen by the eye. All the way open and we are in near dark, all the way closed, and we are in 'earth-bright' conditions. If the iris of the eye is too closed for the given brightness of the scene viewed, we can't see anything, it's all darkened. If the iris is too open, we get 'whited out', and can't see anything.

Cameras are the same, they have limits that are actually less than that of the human eye, as they are more complex than the eye and less capable. cameras and telescopes, etc, any of that has greater range and greater capacities for types of imaging and imaging subtleties, but cannot yet equal the human eye's full qualities in any given scene of visible light (daily human life on the surface, etc). Close, but not yet. On the surface of the planet, with modern equipment, the human eye is still better than the best camera or image capture systems. Meaning, one can buy $50,000 camera lenses and $50k-100k-500k analog or digital cameras (ariflex, RED, ILM, Sony, Panasonic,)... anything you want, at any price, and the human eye is still better. Film is still better than all or any of those digital systems.... And the digital systems are the ONLY thing that is used in space, for all kinds of obvious reasons.

These mechanical image capture systems all have limits that are slightly lesser than that of the eye, with respect to dynamic range and capacities to capture or display subtleties in any given 'single scene'.


High profile film directors such as Christopher Nolan,[13] Paul Thomas Anderson[14] and Quentin Tarantino have all publicly criticized digital cinema, and advocated the use of film and film prints. Most famously, Tarantino has suggested he may retire because he will no longer be able to have his films projected in 35mm in most American cinemas. Tarantino considers digital cinema to be simply "television in public."[15] Christopher Nolan has speculated that the film industries adoption of digital formats has been driven purely by economic factors as opposed to digital being a superior medium to film: "I think, truthfully, it boils down to the economic interest of manufacturers and [a production] industry that makes more money through change rather than through maintaining the status quo."[13]

The sun is incredibly bright, when within the solar system, near the earth's position. The planets and stars are incredibly dim in comparison. for example, the stars are so dim in comparison to the moon (when) reflecting the sun's light, that any image that has the moon in it, is GOING to have 'zero to none' stars visible in it. The human eye has the same problem if in space and looking at the lit moon.

IF..the given camera is turned away from even this much much dimmer than the sun 'moonlight' THEN it's iris and exposure time can be adjusted to capture some starlight.


Dynamic Range Latitude

Digital sensors lack the extended dynamic range of film. In particular, they tend to 'blow out' highlights, losing detail in very bright parts of the image.[8] If highlight detail is lost, it is nearly impossible to recapture in post-production.[9]

In general, film can be underexposed and overexposed, retaining detail and information in the camera negative.[8]

In order for digital image capture systems to have any detail at all, they adjust the iris on the lens to not overblow (white out) the highlights (brightest parts) and then let the blacker parts fade into the backdrop.

In space, it's all digital image capture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_cinematography).

I have yet to see the film 'gravity'. If there is any visible stars in any form of a 'sunlit' scene, trust me, it's all invented cinema, as that is what the public expects to see. IF (the cinematographers using CGI to fake it) She was tumbling in space, on the dark side of the earth, and they 'filmed' that, and pointed away from the earth, then we get to see some stars. IF, they showed her spacesuit reflecting sunlight AND had stars in the background, that would be pure bull****.

[STATIC]

Now that the stars and sun thing has been put to rest, what do you guys think of the dark matter part of the article. Do you think that it's possible that what science has dubbed dark matter could be the footprint of another dimension? When I dream am I cruising around in dark matter :)

[Camilo]

I believe no-one except for those who have been out into space, can tell for sure what you can see or not out there.

[take]

In the daytime, you can see the Sun in the sky and, at night, you can see the stars. But, if you go up into outer space, you will NOT see the Sun and you will NOT see the stars!

Look - No Stars!NASA keeps quiet about that little-known fact because, even today, scientists do not understand the nature of light. To them, ignorance is an embarrassment, so please don’t ask.


by Owen K Waters

http://www.spiritualdynamics.net/articles/quantum-mysteries/

Please. The quality of this forum has truly gone down :/

[Carmody]

Well, there is an issue tied to this. The one of spooky action at a distance, vs that of inter-dimensional travel, vs that of localized resonance. That reality is local, and relative.

So I'm not sure that I dismiss ALL parts of the idea.

[Violet]

The only thing I can see is that here on Earth light has a difficult time not bumping into anything.

Even looking at a bulb, the light first bumps into the glass that filters it and - if no other obstacles underway - then meets your eye.

I wonder too what light would do with no intervening matter. It seems no absolute occurence of that could ever be witnessed by us, if there is always a physical eye needed to register that.