Sun is not visible outside the upper Atmosphere?

[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]

Posted by TargeT (here)
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]

Posted by norman (here)

Posted by TargeT (here)

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).

Posted by RMorgan (here)

Posted by TargeT (here)
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]

Posted by TargeT (here)
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

See this thread also:

Geoengineering, Chemtrails, HAARP,World Orders, Time Lines and Ascension

[TargeT]

Posted by RMorgan (here)

Posted by TargeT (here)
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/ne...zons/teachings

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

Posted by Fred Steeves (here)
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)

Posted by Amzer Zo (here)
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

this link is DOA

[Hervé]

Posted by TargeT (here)
[...]

Posted by Amzer Zo (here)
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

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-great...inst-humanity/

... scrolling down to the first .PDF.

[TargeT]

http://www.soldierhugs.com/wp-conten...ngineering.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]

Posted by TargeT (here)
this link is DOA

Posted by Amzer Zo (here)
I am not sure why it's not working since when I right click on it to save the .PDF as [...] it works fine.

Posted by TargeT (here)
http://www.soldierhugs.com/wp-conten...ngineering.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.



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.

here's Voyager 1 from 1990:

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



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.

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



Source.

Video of above Penumbral Lunar Eclipse (original source).

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

Posted by TargeT (here)

Posted by Fred Steeves (here)
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".

Posted by RMorgan (here)
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]

Posted by Tophaceous (here)

Posted by TargeT (here)

Posted by Fred Steeves (here)
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]

Posted by RMorgan (here)
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.