Sun is not visible outside the upper Atmosphere?

**Sirius White** · 11th December 2012 09:04

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** · 7th March 2016 20:36

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** · 9th April 2016 17:38

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** · 9th April 2016 17:59

Posted by Solon (here)
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"

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=PM5zrzd4pOU

**Bill Ryan** · 9th April 2016 18:10

Posted by Solon (here)

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

Which members?

**ThePythonicCow** · 10th April 2016 10:58

Posted by Solon (here)
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).

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** · 10th April 2016 14:58

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

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

Posted by Solon (here)

Posted by Nick Matkin (here)
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** · 10th April 2016 15:11

Posted by StandingWave (here)

... 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** · 10th April 2016 16:46

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** · 10th April 2016 17:16

Posted by Ernie Nemeth (here)

This thread's got me thinking.

Good!

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

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):

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 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** · 10th April 2016 18:15

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/p...art=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/~thunde...623c36#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** · 10th April 2016 18:22