Images Of The Earth And Moon Taken By Osiris

[Navigator]

Posted by guyres (here)

Posted by Navigator (here)

Posted by guyres (here)
Then for the images taken from the ISS, which is not really in space but midway, 400 km altitude for 800km average thickness of the atmosphere, they are not admissible because not taken since the total space.

I didn't quite understand your statement

It's really hard for me to be understood, I'm responsible for it and have to rephrase it again.

As far as I know, the ISS is 400km above sea level in the atmosphere (and should be called IAS, the International Atmospheric Station), halfway between land and interplanetary space (which starts at 800km altitude). The atmosphere has several layers and all these layers together form the atmosphere.

The photos taken from the ISS are taken in a double atmosphere, that of the station added to the very fine one outside the station.

If, and only if, light is a property of the atmosphere, awakened by solar radioactive microwaves interacting with the earth atmosphere. We can imagine that there is no light emitted by the sun but electro-magnetic and radioactive waves that illuminate the atmosphere of different planets. In this hypothesis all the photos taken from the earth or the space station are subject to the same laws, which you explained very well in your first answer.

But what about outside, most of the images that come to us are artist's views. I still have not found a photo of the sun taken from the interplanetary space (outside atmosphere). The only photos of the sun are snuff in bright spectra invisible to the human eye (x-ray, infrared, etc.). Those taken from the IAS (or ISS) are through the atmosphere.

Posted by Navigator (here)
but on your last sentence you have to consider that with all media, "making things look good" or "making imagery suit the dialogue" or "make things attention catching" dictates that accuracy (and sometimes even truth) is lost at the expense of show. Never believe anything outright, but always be prepared to search both sides of an argument

The image is never reality, only a huge simplification of it. The map is not the territory. And what we see in the sky is not the sun, just a one image. A vivid picture of an explosion in very high atmosphere (I'm not saying it's true, I pursue the hypothesis).

(For the NASA the sun is made of Hydrogen & Helium and iIts influence extends far beyond the orbits of distant Neptune and Pluto. And it is very hot. Here: https://www.nasa.gov/sun)

Indeed the sun has a great influence, until the supposed cloud of Oort and further, but in my humble opinion it is not its so-called heat that maintains this huge body (the solar system) traveling in the space, there is necessarily a powerful electromagnetic energy behind all that.

What I proposed was just a digression on the old theory of cold dark sun. Obviously I do not know, I question. When I see the supposed size of the heliosphere, the sun at the center of this immense body is invisible to itself, as is the human soul for us.

Forgive me if once again this post is incomprehensible. This makes me all the same pleasure to share my madness.

Quite clear that time Guyres!

I have a couple comments ... you seem to have some entangle thoughts. The heat from the sun comes from various frequencies of radiation that are resonating molecules and speeding up their vibration. Since there is no "matter" in space heat cannot travel via convection from sun to earth - only via radiation. You seem to be asking why doesn't light work in this way as well ... well, it does indeed. Light is invisible until it brushes matter, then it picks up qualities of that matter as it continues it travels, allowing us to see matter -- we don't actually see any matter at all, all we see is how light has been influenced by it ... and we don't see light itself lest for its change on being affected by matter.

Getting back to your imagery of the sun by NASA - you referred to what they do as "simplification", but what they do is the opposite for the purpose of extracting more detail. If your eyes could also see in frequencies outside of visible light, such as x-rays, gamma-rays, infrared, ultraviolet, various radio waves, etc. would you be seeing more detail or less? You would be able to see things invisible to a regular eye. This is why NASA uses all these frequencies to image the sun and planets and deep space; visible light only carries very little information by comparison. Artists "impressions" are done for media purposes only and are always labelled as such on original sources - no one is trying to be tricky about this.

The main question I think your are proposing is whether it is possible for the sun to be dark and cold ... well, if we consider that the sun is made at least partly of matter, then the radiation created within it's internal processes will also have effect on that matter that it is made of -- so yes I think it may actually be very hot - by the same processes that it heats the earth. We can consider the same with light - since the sun is made partly of matter, when the "light" (photonic) radiation passes through that matter, the light has already picked up the sun's "qualities" by the time it is ejected past its mass. So based on the same principles that the bodies it casts its energy to are not cold and dark, I'd say that the sun is not cold and dark, with the caveat of understanding the points I tried to clarify above.

Thanks for clarifying your initial post!

EDIT: and on the "electromagnetic" comment you made - yes the sun expels massive amounts of EM radiation -- all visible light and all the various spectrum of energy the sun unleashes are mere slices of the entire electromagnetic spectrum.

[petra]

Posted by Hervé (here)

Posted by guyres (here)
Merci Hervé,
je viens de voir les images C2 et C3, je me rends compte que l'espace est soi bleu, soi rouge ou l'inverse, s'il n'y a là aucune manipulation de la réalité je suis juste un idiot, cela n'est pas nouveau.
[...]

Aren't you curious enough to learn why one is blue and the other red? And what's the difference between the two?

Are you guys talking about the doppler effect? Je ne parlez pas le Francais

The "red vs blue" stood out to me.

-- EDIT --

I can't help thinking of how colors can be affected underwater too, this is probably off topic but I think someone might find it interesting how colors appear different under the sea.

[jagman]

To the flat Earthers. There is a Prince in Nigeria who will pay you 50 grand if you send him 25 hundred. Then you can take the 50 grand and put it on a down payment towards a seat on spacex.lol sorry my bad joke for the day.

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by petra (here)
Are you guys talking about the doppler effect?

A technical note: the redshift—blueshift Doppler effect only comes into effect with super-high speeds, i.e. significant fractions of the speed of light. We'd not see anything detectable like that among local solar system objects.

[petra]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by petra (here)
Are you guys talking about the doppler effect?

A technical note: the redshift—blueshift Doppler effect only comes into effect with super-high speeds, i.e. significant fractions of the speed of light. We'd not see anything detectable like that among local solar system objects.

Thanks Bill, sometimes I have no idea if I am even helping or not, that just kind of popped into my mind.
Once upon a time I was going around asking people "Why is red the opposite of blue?" and I didn't think I was EVER going to get an answer. But then one day I asked my little brother of all people - and he told me The Doppler Effect.

[Hervé]

Posted by petra (here)
[...]
The "red vs blue" stood out to me.
[...]

guyres is talking about the coloring of the LASCO images from the SOHO satellite:

A coronagraph is a telescope that is designed to block light coming from the solar disk, in order to see the extremely faint emission from the region around the sun, called the corona.


The Large Angle and Spectrometric Coronagraph (LASCO) is one of a number of instruments aboard the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory satellite (SOHO). LASCO consists of three solar coronagraphs with nested fields of view:[1]

• C1 - a Fabry–Pérot interferometer coronagraph imaging from 1.1 to 3 solar radii
• C2 - a white light coronagraph imaging from 1.5 to 6 solar radii (orange)
• C3 - a white light coronagraph imaging from 3.7 to 30 solar radii (blue)

These coronagraphs monitor the solar corona by using an optical system to create, in effect, an artificial solar eclipse. The white light coronagraphs C2 and C3 produce images of the corona over much of the visible spectrum, while the C1 interferometer produces images of the corona in a number of very narrow visible wavelength bands.

... which are nothing more than adding a colored filter onto one's camera's lens to be able to distinguish which is which:

C2 does not have a narrowband, spectroscopic quality filter. As an aid to separation of F from K coronal light, however, it has broadband color filters and polarizers for polarization analysis, as does C3.


C3 is designed to function at extremely large solar elongation angles, and therefore differs in a number of respects that optimize it for this region. In particular, the field lens, which determines the radial extent of the field of view, is quite large compared to the other C2 optics.

Otherwise, without filters and/or processing, that is, in the RAW data, that's what they look like:

LASCO RAW

C2


C3

Courtesy of ESA/NASA SOHO and the LASCO instrument team.

[Ol' Roy]

Guryes, and others, if our atmosphere is the only thing that enables to see the stars! Then what are we seeing from our space telescopes? ie. Hubble and Kepler and Osiris. They are stationed outside our atmosphere! Not unless they are a bunch of pretty pictures, which lead us to believe it! Lol! Speaking of space telescopes! I don't know if it is possible, but couldn't NASA train those powerful telescopes on the moon and Mars! They could see an ant crawling, if there is any! What about the powerful satellites orbiting the Earth, that can see your eyes blinking or better yet the color of your eyes! Surely they have the same tech orbiting the moon and Mars! Just my thoughts! Sorry to get off topic! Best to everyone!

[DNA]

If someone is that dedicated to the flat earth theory, they should buy a weather balloon some duct tape and a go pro camera. From what I understand these tools alone can get you into lower orbit and get you pictures of space and the curvature of the earth. I state this because a lot of the flat earth theorists won't accept any big budget Government sponsored space program pictures, and I actually find that valid for I don't trust those groups very much either.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hes4wh3nzUE

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=hes4wh3nzUE

Demonstrating how Coriolis effects bullet drop at 1000 yards

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jX7dcl_ERNs

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=jX7dcl_ERNs

[guyres]

Posted by Hervé (here)

Posted by guyres (here)
Merci Hervé, je viens de voir les images C2 et C3, je me rends compte que l'espace est soi bleu, soi.[...]

Aren't you curious enough to learn why one is blue and the other red? And what's the difference between the two?

Dear Hervé, I was thinking the topic was about pictures in/from space, and in my various questions I ask for one of the sun taken from outside atmosphere in a visible human spectrum.

To answer your question about my curiosity, I will say that these images (C2, C3) do not answer mine about the sun. In addition to unnatural colors there is a vinyl front.



This one is taken from the atmosphère (ISS), or an artist view…

Then if the topic is unrelated space images and sunlight, I do not get it.

Posted by Ol' Roy (here)
Guryes, and others, if our atmosphere is the only thing that enables to see the stars! Then what are we seeing from our space telescopes? ie. Hubble and Kepler and Osiris. They are stationed outside our atmosphere! …

Hi Roy I spoke atmospheres in general, all the planets or almost one by one, the spacesuit also, and perhaps the telescope are not made in a vacuum.

Posted by Navigator (here)
Quite clear that time Guyres! I have a couple comments ... are mere slices of the entire electromagnetic spectrum.

Again thank you Navigator for taking the time to answer in fine style to some of my questions.

-----------------------

It is difficult to play the ingenuous without going for an idiot in the eyes of some (there I leave the subject) and thus generate answers that sometimes seem condescandantes.

Thank you all

[Sunny-side-up]

It has been said that you can't see stars and planets in FREE-SPACE.

Free space is the space outside of the effects of our Sun/star.

So it's not the space just outside of our atmosphere where we are still in affect of the Suns influence .

[guyres]

Posted by Sunny-side-up (here)
It has been said that you can't see stars and planets in FREE-SPACE.

By who? Where ? (maybe by Spalding in the old book...) I have not said Interstellar Space, just Interplanetary Space.

I said that according to an old theory we could not see the stars outside the atmosphere (all types of atmosphere).
I said also a lot of things about the ISS and the light. So what is the problem?

And the biggest question behind, is a picture of the sun from space (without filter).
No picture yet. While there are satellites and telescope that may meet this demand.

Is it of the fact I said there is sometime patronizing (condescendant) answers?
Is there subject that whe are not allow to talk?

Hubble also not outside atmosphere, but there is some.

[Hervé]

guyres, the point I have been addressing with my posts is this one:

Posted by guyres (here)
[...]
... did you notice that we do not see any star, I heard about a theory that says we can only see the planets provided with an atmosphere since in the space and once out of the atmosphere all the stars disappear.
[...]
Just to share, I havent been out in space, so I dont know.

I addressed that "theory" in post # 18 and then proceeded to provide the evidence that when observed outside earth's atmosphere by satellites such as STEREO A & B and SOHO's LASCO telescopes, stars' lights are still visible when observed with telescopes designed to detect the visible spectrum of electromagnetic waves..

So, although you haven't gone into space to see with your own eyes, you can still know that stars' lights don't disappear in space but are there and observable with visible light spectrum telescopes aboard satellites. That satellites may have their own atmosphere is beside the point since it is so thin as to be negligible and irrelevant.

Posted by guyres (here)

Posted by Hervé (here)

Posted by guyres (here)
Merci Hervé, je viens de voir les images C2 et C3, je me rends compte que l'espace est soi bleu, soi.[...]

Aren't you curious enough to learn why one is blue and the other red? And what's the difference between the two?

Dear Hervé, I was thinking the topic was about pictures in/from space, and in my various questions I ask for one of the sun taken from outside atmosphere in a visible human spectrum.

To answer your question about my curiosity, I will say that these images (C2, C3) do not answer mine about the sun. In addition to unnatural colors there is a vinyl front.
[...]

As for the sun, unless one looks at it behind a welding mask protective glass, one gets one's eyes burnt... so do camera CCD's which are designed to detect faint lights unless these CCD sensors are protected by filters, etc.... So, no luck in getting direct, unfiltered pictures of the sun from space unless it happens to be in the field view of some Cassini sort of space craft.

En résumé, faudrait pt' être arrêter de mélanger torchons et serviettes

[guyres]

Posted by Hervé (here)
En résumé, faudrait pt' être arrêter de mélanger torchons et serviettes

Ok you're the one who knows, I'm stuck, I do not have my picture of the sun, despite your attempts. End of discussion

[Sunny-side-up]

Posted by Sunny-side-up (here)
It has been said that you can't see stars and planets in FREE-SPACE.

Free space is the space outside of the effects of our Sun/star.

So it's not the space just outside of our atmosphere where we are still in affect of the Suns influence .

Guryes

I said that according to an old theory we could not see the stars outside the atmosphere (all types of atmosphere).
I said also a lot of things about the ISS and the light. So what is the problem?

And the biggest question behind, is a picture of the sun from space (without filter).
No picture yet. While there are satellites and telescope that may meet this demand.

Is it of the fact I said there is sometime patronizing (condescendant) answers?
Is there subject that whe are not allow to talk?

Hubble also not outside atmosphere, but there is some.

Hi guyres I was referring to this comment:

Quote Posted by Ol' Roy (here)
Guryes, and others, if our atmosphere is the only thing that enables to see the stars! Then what are we seeing from our space telescopes? ie. Hubble and Kepler and Osiris. They are stationed outside our atmosphere! …

Yes outside our atmosphere but still well in side the sun influence or if you like our sun atmosphere.

One who has said about FREE-SPACE is 'Eric P. Dollard'
yes a controversial man but a great man of science and knowledge.
To me he says a lot that helps open minds from within his field.

[Navigator]

Posted by Ol' Roy (here)
... Speaking of space telescopes! I don't know if it is possible, but couldn't NASA train those powerful telescopes on the moon and Mars! They could see an ant crawling, if there is any!

No it wouldn't work. Think that any image of an ant crawling would require a focus field of view of view as an absolute of a few inches. Think that in order to be visible to any eye or camera, photons have to bounce off the ant and the surrounding area and into the camera. A lot of them. These photons that actually can hit the scene scatter after hitting the ant and the ground in all directions, then they scatter a lot more going through the martian atmosphere (or earths or wherever) in all directions. let's assume our telescope is a million miles away and has an opening or sensor three feet in diameter to collect photons. Even if you leave the telescope collecting photons for hours, how many that bounced off your ant and couple inches of scenery that he is walking through, that didn't scattered in every other direction actually make into that sensor / opening in your telescope. slim to none and slim is out of town. Collecting the photons over hours would not be able to pick up any movement that the ant makes because as it moves it is further scattering all the photons that need to stay bounced in a specific pattern for them to enter the telescope in a consistent enough way to form the image.

These telescopes work for deep space because stars and nebulae and things like that are emitting an order of magnitude more photons (stars are where photons are created) so high than the ant example it cannot be comprehended. Add to that, the fact that these tescopes receive very consistent partterns of these photons so that they can collect them in the telescope over hours days or even weeks, in order for an image to actually form completely. Same thing with methods other than visible light such as other frequencies of the EM - same principle applies.


In the reverse, Hubble was actually built from an extremely high end spy satellite capable of seeing detail on earth from low earth orbit where it can successfully gather enough photons for that purposes considering it is a mere few hundred km from the earth's surface (except in case of geosync orbits which can capture less detail) and the scattering effect is orders of magnitude less. This had to be very heavily modified to be able to enable it to work for deep space imaging. What is needed for a "spy" satellite orbiting around a body and what is needed for deep space exploration are technically quite different. It would be very difficult and way too expensive to try to build one that is good at both.

Short answer -- Not really possible to use a deep space telescope or solar observatory for this purpose. These telescopes are purpose built and no extra unnecessary cost or complexity is added beyond their purpose -- the rules of space engineering. What you are imagining is already in existence, as orbit based spy/imaging satellites that already orbit many planets we've sent them to. I am reasonably certain that the Mars orbiters have better resolution than NASA will let on or display.

[Cidersomerset]

Just saw this and it would be good if you could access it live on the web. It
does not say that and I don't know the 'tekky' side but a live colour version
of google maps where you could look at places in real time or archived would
be cool. Though that would have security and privacy issues and would just
be a fancy spy in sky programme and I presume would not be allowed as
everyone would be zooming into area 51 etc...



UK satellite to make movies from space

By Jonathan Amos
BBC Science Correspondent

12 Jan 2017


Artwork: Manufacturer SSTL calls it Carbonite-2, but Earth-i refers to the satellite as VividX2

A British satellite has gone into orbit on an Indian rocket to acquire full-colour, high-
definition video of the surface of the Earth. The demonstrator is expected to pave
the way for a series of at least 15 such spacecraft, which will be operated by the
Guildford-based company Earth-i.

The small, low-cost UK mission was one of 31 payloads riding on the Indian Polar
Satellite Launch Vehicle. It lifted off from the Satish Dhawan spaceport in Andhra
Pradesh.Controllers made first contact with the UK satellite as planned within a few hours.

The spacecraft is a pre-production model. If it performs well over the coming
months, its manufacturer, SSTL, also in Guildford, will proceed with Earth-i's first
batch of five operational spacecraft.

The contract for these platforms was signed in November.

read more..short vid on link.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-42654281