The Boring Sun

[GaryN]

Why does the temp, here on Earth, drop at night and during a solar eclipse?

The radiation from the Sun that creates light and heat in the atmosphere is cut off, and the heat stored on the surface and in the atmosphere will radiate out into space. But I'm suspecting there is more to this question than meets the eye?

[Grey Cloud]

Why does the temp, here on Earth, drop at night and during a solar eclipse?

The radiation from the Sun that creates light and heat in the atmosphere is cut off, and the heat stored on the surface and in the atmosphere will radiate out into space. But I'm suspecting there is more to this question than meets the eye?

Hi GaryN,
No it's not a trick question and I'm even more confused. You seem to be saying that there is non-heat radiation from the Sun which is transmogrified into light and heat in Earth's atmosphere.
[Edging a bit further out on the limb...] So if this is the case, the Moon, having no atmosphere, would go part way to explaining your reply to Nick? That is to say that is why the Moon explanation didn't cover the day/night, ecplipse question.

If you are saying what I think that I think you are saying then I'm intrigued as it will open up avenues of thought for my own (non-scientific) musings.

[GaryN]

No it's not a trick question and I'm even more confused. You seem to be saying that there is non-heat radiation from the Sun which is transmogrified into light and heat in Earth's atmosphere.

Yes.

So if this is the case, the Moon, having no atmosphere, would go part way to explaining your reply to Nick?

The Moon does have an atmosphere, very thin, but the light on the Moon is created almost entirely by the very fine dust in the atmosphere, the particles when struckj by UV radiation put out a full spectrum visible light. There is very little heat generated though. UV striking the lunar surface can cause IR emissions from the surface material, heating a very thin layer on the surface. On Earth it is atmospheric gas molecules that glow at different wavelengths, depending on the energy of the UV hitting them, that create most light, but there are other mechanisms creating light too, but not necessarily visible light.

That is to say that is why the Moon explanation didn't cover the day/night, ecplipse question.

I though my explanation did answer that question. I must be confused...

[Grey Cloud]

Thanks Gary, I think I've got it finally.

[GaryN]

If there is no visible light from the Sun, where does the light on Mars come from?
The first question should be what the actual light on Mars is like, as NASA shows us different colours for both the sky and the ground. The true colours are most likely from the Pancam. This is a raw image.

This larger image shows the red sky.
http://rhinocrisy.org/images/mars/blue/sol.jpg
Pancam images can be found here:
http://pancam.sese.asu.edu/true_color.html
Although the spectrum of the Sun has not been directly measured, they have used the colour calibration patches on Curiosity to calculate the spectrum:

The spectrum peaks at 610nm, as seen in the calculated spectrum graph.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi. ... 000777.pdf
From Mars orbit, the Mars Webcam gives us a pretty good idea of how Mars would look by eye.

From:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/esa_marsw ... 2969459741
In this and other images it can be seen that there is, a brighter patch, the size and intensity varies depending on the viewing geometry, but I believe this demonstrates that, as on the Moon, a diffuse beam of brighter illumination is created by Solar UV exciting the nanometer sized dust particles, thus creating an overall reddish light, with the brighter patch being at the centre of this diffuse lighting.
It is believed that the colour is due to the scattering of visible sunlight by the fine dust particles, which seems reasonable, but I also find that 610nm is also the strongest emission wavelength of silica coated, nanometer sized iron particles, or iron coated silica particles. So which process is really occurring?
An interesting finding from temperature readings obtained by the Rover Environmental Monitoring Station (REMS) aboard Curiosity is that it is warmer when the dust is thicker. Surely by convention, the dust should block sunlight, reducing the temperature? If it is the dust creating light as per my model, then more dust will mean more conversion of UV to visible, and IR light.
Rover Environmental Monitoring Station
http://mars.nasa.gov/msl/mission/instru ... sors/rems/

Are there other ways that light could be created at Mars? Most of Mars atmosphere is CO2, the dreaded greenhouse gas, though Mars atmosphere is too thin for the CO2 to create a greenhouse effect they tell us. CO2 though, under the influence of an electric field does produce a bright, almost full spectrum light.
http://www.doscience.co.uk/images/carbondioxide.jpg
Some images from Mars show the sky to be blue, and it is thought that when it is calm and there is no dust, that the sky would be a darker blue than we see from Earth, but with NASA playing with colours, and intensities, just what we would see by eye remains to be determined.

I have also been looking at the images from Junocam, and from what I can determine so far, the light intensity is far too high for it to be sunlight reflecting from the molecules in the atmosphere, using the Solar constant value applicable at Jupiters present distance, and my best guesses about the sensitivity of Junocam and the exposure times. I think Jupiter is producing its own light, including thermal IR wavelengths, which would explain why Jupiter radiates more energy that what it supposedly gets from Sunlight. When more images and data arrive from Junocam, I'll try to confirm my suspicions.

[perpetual motion]

any glass or gem lens
Spherical and Chromatic Aberration

The images formed by most real mirrors and lenses suffer from effects called aberrations. Aberrations are deviations from the ideal images we have encountered so far; the most common is when all the light rays from a point on an object do not quite focus at a single image point.

Chromatic Aberration: Chromatic aberrations are related to the dispersion of light into different colors as in a prism. Because the index of refraction of a lens depends on the color of light, different colors are refracted by different amounts. For a plane surface such as the prism, the way the rays of different colors disperse can be calculated using Snell's law. For a lens, we can use the lens maker's formula to estimate the effect of chromatic aberration. According to this formula, the focal length f depends on the index of refraction of the lens. Hence, f is different for different colors and the location of an image is different for each color. Many optical instruments employ multiple lenses and it is sometimes possible to compensate for chromatic aberration by arranging the aberrations of separate lenses to cancel each other. Even with this approach, however, most optical systems have at least a small amount of chromatic aberration.

Spherical Aberration: Since it is relatively simple to make an accurate spherical shape, spherical surfaces for mirrors and lenses are convenient. In any real situation, rays that are not exactly on the axis will not focus exactly at the ideal image points we found for mirrors or lenses. Such deviations are called spherical aberrations because they are due to the spherical shape of the mirror or lens. Certain curved surfaces with non-spherical shapes give better focusing properties than those of spherical shapes. For this reason, high precision optical components often employ parabolically shaped surfaces. Components of this shape cost more to manufacture, but they give better image properties from off-axis rays.

Scattering of Light in Atmosphere
White light consists of waves of all colors. Traveling through empty space, a light beam containing all colors will retain all colors and continue to travel in the same direction. But, if that light beam should pass through a medium containing small particles, an effect called scattering can occur. Some light waves will bounce off the small particles and change direction while others will not be affected. The amount of scattering depends on the relative sizes of the particles and the wavelength of the light being scattered. If the particles are large compared with the wavelength of light, then they will act like tiny mirrors, reflecting all wavelengths of light equally. The color of the scattered light will be the same as that of the original beam. If the scattering particles are small compared with the wavelength of light, then the amount of scattering will depend on the wavelength of the light. Shorter wavelengths (bluer light) are scattered more than longer wavelengths (redder light). This results in scattered light that is bluer than the original beam and transmitted light that is redder than the original beam. The amount of scattering also increases as the number of particles increases. Using Rayleigh scattering we can explain a) the blue color of the sky; b) the reddish appearance of the sun at sunset and sunrise.
Again, this is what I have been saying all along, is that everything that is mentioned
about or for physics are all done within an the atmosphere around this planet.

Now I know why all of the so called photos that they say are taken of outer
space come in on black and white. There isn't any light out there to take color
photos. These cameras, whatever, are observing the particle spectrum that is
emitted by the sun which are operated by an array of different colored filters
which would not work outside of an atmosphere.
Besides the paragraphs above there are not any ''light wave" or"frequency" to be
heard of. These observations have to be particle spectrums.
Then there is this so called "radiation", how far down did they have to dig to come
up with this doozy? But that may be on another day.
Physicists: A profession where you can come up with any idea or number and
get away with it.

[GaryN]

X-ray Detection Sheds New Light on Pluto

"We've just detected, for the first time, X-rays coming from an object in our Kuiper Belt, and learned that Pluto is interacting with the solar wind in an unexpected and energetic fashion,” said Carey Lisse, an astrophysicist at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory (APL) in Laurel, Maryland, who led the Chandra observation team with APL colleague and New Horizons Co-Investigator Ralph McNutt. “We can expect other large Kuiper Belt objects to be doing the same."

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/chand ... pluto.html
Makes me wonder, if Pluto is emitting x-rays, then how many of the sources in images such as this might also be glowing planet or moon sized objects too?

And might even exotic objects such as some Wolf-Rayet stars be being misinterpreted?

X-ray Emission from Nitrogen-Type Wolf-Rayet Stars
https://arxiv.org/abs/0912.1326
Perhaps many of the millions of supposed stars out there are not stars at all, and are much closer than we presently believe?

[perpetual motion]

Maybe this is a question out of this world.
Why are they building more ground based observatories than any space based
satellite telescopes? Big HMMMMM on that one.
Every web site that I have been to, it is all physics related. If this does not
change, this forum will not get very far.
Everyone has their own theory, and argue till the end of time on it. They will write giant tomes in their belief, confusing in every way, to not sway away from this physics
belief system of old. They believe everything that mainstream science says. The
more they write about a certain subject, either words or some type of imaginary
math problem, the further it ends up going in reverse.
Science is not making much head way to say the least.

[GaryN]

Why are they building more ground based observatories than any space based satellite telescopes?

Earths atmosphere does am amazing job of converting the radiative energies of whatever all those objects really are out there into photons that can be detected by relatively simple devices like conventional telescopes. As is demonstrated (but not scientifically proven) by the lack of simple telescopes in space, the type of E/M radiation they detect is not present outside of the atmosphere, so very complex and still classified science and engineering must be used, such as with Hubble, if observations are to be made from space.
The same applies to radio astronomy too. The only operating space based radio telescope is the Russian Spektr-r, located in low earth orbit. It is used in conjunction with ground based radio telescopes, as a 'fringe' detector in a large array. Looking at what little data is available from Spektr-r, it is obvious the signal is incredibly weak, barely above background, and I believe if they tried from further outside the atmosphere, it would detect nothing.
Certain altitudes will provide stronger emissions at certain wavelengths, as with some IR wavelengths that are observed by SOFIA, but there are very few images available out of the thousands that must have been acquired over the years, and the contractor is under no obligation to release the images, ever. From what little was available from the early years, some images seemed to show that all the objects in the Milky Way were not stars, but millions of regular and irregular shaped objects of kilometre and less sizes, many actually resolvable as having regular geometrical shapes, some like Saturn's' moon Pan.

I suspect that the energetic "Milky Way Haze" is not because we are looking at the centre of our galaxy where there is a Black Hole, but is actually from our binary twin Sun, and the Milky Way is a shared disk surrounding and between a pair of Suns. Perhaps like this, though this is a model of twin black holes.

Or maybe this:

And maybe, just maybe, Sols counterpart is an antimatter Sun, which would explain where all that antimatter from the supposed big bang has gone??

[perpetual motion]

This is the first image of Earth made from the surface another planet. It was taken by the Mars Exploration Rover Spirit on March 8, 2004, an hour before sunrise, with the surface of Mars in the foreground. "The contrast was doubled to make Earth easier to see". No,no, no, no, no.
Oh great, now I can not find the darn photo. Anyway, this could not be, because this photo shows that the
earth is just a small dot. They say that the earth is a lot larger than Mars so how come this earthly dot
is barely visible in this photo? Should it not be much larger than a mere dot?

[GaryN]

Here is your Earth from Mars photo.


https://earthspacecircle.blogspot.ca/20 ... -mars.html

Just before sunrise, and looking through the Martian atmospheric dust.

Earth seen by Voyager 1 spacecraft from 4 billion miles away
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-SxcpWZwtT3c/ ... -Space.jpg
Looking through the dust of the ring. Intervening matter of some sort, even electrons can make the UV and up radiation from Earths upper atmosphere visible to instruments with capabilities far beyond those of the human eye. But, as many astronauts have said, their eyes could see nothing from deep space, and if we can easily see stars and planets from Earths surface, but not from deep space, then the presently accepted models are wrong. Simple experiments would confirm the fact.

In this image from Mercury Messenger, Earth and Moon can be seen. The Earth and Moon both emit UV/EUV, the camera detects only IR, the matter in Mercurys atmosphere does the conversion. Could be an oxygen absorption line. Nothing would be visible by eye of course.
http://planetary.s3.amazonaws.com/asset ... tretch.png

I'll never understand why people don't believe the astronauts though, surely black is black?

[perpetual motion]

"There are very few images available out of the thousands that must have been acquired over the years, and the contractor is under no obligation to release the images, ever."
Honestly, what exactly is Mainstream scared of,or should I say NASA, that they will not release all of the
photos that they have accumulated over these years. Unless NASA etc., is privately funded, these photos
belong in the public domain.

[perpetual motion]

More light? Or an optical illusion.
The zodiacal light is a solar system phenomenon. The grains of dust that create it are like tiny worlds – ranging from meter-sized to micron-sized – densest around the immediate vicinity of the sun and extending outward beyond the orbit of Mars. Sunlight shines on these grains of dust to create the light we see. Since they lie in the flat sheet of space around the sun, we could,( in theory), see them as a band of dust across our entire sky, marking the same path that the sun follows during the day. And indeed there are sky phenomena associated with this band of dust, such as the gegenschein. But seeing such elusive sky phenomena as the gegenschein is difficult. Most of us see only the more obvious part of this dust band – the zodiacal light – in either spring or fall.
Like the zodiacal light, the gegenschein is sunlight scattered by interplanetary dust. Most of this dust is orbiting the Sun in about the ecliptic plane, with a (possible) concentration of particles at the L2 Earth–Sun Lagrangian point.
It is distinguished from zodiacal light by its high angle of reflection of the incident sunlight on the dust particles. It forms a slightly more luminous, oval glow directly opposite the Sun within the band of luminous zodiacal light. The intensity of the gegenschein is relatively enhanced, because each dust particle is seen in full phase.
The actual brightness of sunlight that would be observed at the surface depends also on the presence and composition of an atmosphere. For example, Venus's thick atmosphere reflects more than 60% of the solar light it receives. The actual illumination of the surface is about 14,000 lux, comparable to that on Earth "in the daytime with overcast clouds".
Sunlight on Mars would be more or less like daylight on Earth during a slightly overcast day, and, as can be seen in the pictures taken by the rovers, there is enough diffuse sky radiation that shadows would not seem particularly dark. Thus, it would give perceptions and "feel" very much like Earth daylight. The spectrum on the surface is slightly redder than that on Earth, due to scattering by reddish dust in the Martian atmosphere.
For comparison purposes, sunlight on Saturn is slightly brighter than Earth sunlight at the average sunset or sunrise (see daylight for comparison table). Even on Pluto the sunlight would still be bright enough to almost match the average living room. To see sunlight as dim as full moonlight on Earth, a distance of about 500 AU (~69 light-hours) is needed; there are only a handful of objects in the Solar System known to orbit farther than such a distance.
The Poynting–Robertson effect applies to grain-size particles. From the perspective of a grain of dust circling the Sun, the Sun's radiation appears to be coming from a slightly forward direction (aberration of light). Therefore, the absorption of this radiation leads to a force with a component against the direction of movement. (The angle of aberration is extremely small since the radiation is moving at the speed of light while the dust grain is moving many orders of magnitude slower than that.) The result is a slow spiral of dust grains (into the Sun). Over long periods of time this effect cleans out much of the dust in the Solar System.
Man a live, we just can't keep up with these publications, the more they write the further into the hole it goes,
black hole that is.
The Tortuga's will never catch the hare's.

[GaryN]

Like the zodiacal light, the gegenschein is sunlight scattered by interplanetary dust.

Not visible at all from cislunar space. Viewing coronal and zodiacal light is only possible when there is an atmosphere to look through, as was done by the Apollo astronauts, and more recently by LADEE, from a very low lunar orbit.

Frame from LADEE’s star tracker camera showing the zodiacal light rising on the moon’s horizon from its extremely low orbit on April 12, 2014. Credit: NASA

This is a Star Tracker image, so the colour is arbitrary, though they make it look like a sunrise.
There are no sunrise images from Chang-e 3 on the lunar surface with its Bayer filtered colour camera.

LADEE Sees Zodiacal Light before Crashing into Moon, but Apollo Mystery Remains
http://www.universetoday.com/111482/lad ... y-remains/

[perpetual motion]

Bohr could be right with this one after all.
Could this be the one that we are looking for?
Could this also be the one that mainstream says that there is LIGHT out there, reflecting of of these orbs?
I would say that it is created and emitted from these orbs.
Another Hmmmm.
https://www.britannica.com/science/ligh ... -in/165416