The Boring Sun

[fosborn_]

mike massimino:

You will like the first few minutes if this video.
The Black Void
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfizPfCO7sY

2017-04-11 13.10.07.png (42.33 KiB) Viewed 9157 times

ISS on over bright disk of earth. yes one might observe inky black background. Did you have a point ?

[GaryN]

Did you have a point ?

The point is that his comments conflict with those of other astronauts who describe the blackness as complete. Without the empirical science experiments being performed and all data made available I can not say 'case closed' with this matter.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmcwW-8CC6E

[fosborn_]

Did you have a point ?

The point is that his comments conflict with those of other astronauts who describe the blackness as complete. Without the empirical science experiments being performed and all data made available I can not say 'case closed' with this matter.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmcwW-8CC6E

sorry but that is your imagination. its a totaly false statment concerning astronauts observation. No many how nany times you say it. It's still just as false.

[fosborn_]

FYI..

https://www.wired.com/2008/12/earthbreathing/

observations have revealed a previously unknown rhythmic expansion and contraction of Earth’s atmosphere on a nine-day cycle....
The sun’s coronal holes, seen as dark regions in the image above, direct plasma away from the sun and out into the solar system. When these particles get to the Earth, they heat the upper atmosphere, causing the outer atmosphere to expand and contract...
"From the Earth’s perspective, we’re in the sun’s outer atmosphere," said Jeffrey Thayer, an aerospace engineer at UC-Boulder.

[GaryN]

its a totaly false statment concerning astronauts observation.

Ah, now I understand. When astronauts say it is totally black out there I should automatically append "with myriad points of un-flickering light" and when they say they can not see stars, "because the Sun is in their eyes and/or they are not fully dark adapted".
I'll keep that in mind.

FYI..

Yes, there is till much about the Sun we do not know, even what it looks like from space, as it can't be photographed. With some of the newer cameras it is amazing just what can be photographed from Earth though, or even videoed, such as the major Moons of Jupiter.
On Youtube, there are a number of videos claiming the Moon is much closer than we are told, but really it is pointing to another explanation altogether. This video explains that we should not be able to see the Tycho crater by eye, yet it can be seen.

The Moon is closer than you think.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xaieiEK_QmQ

This one, using a Canon SX50 can show a lot of detail on the Moon, and even the moons of Jupiter.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwLbj0fBvXk
Using the solar constant model, surely the moons of Jupiter should not be visible by way of reflected Sunlight. 1/57 of light intensity at Earth reaches Jupiter, and only, at 100% albedo, 1/57 of that light would make it back to Earth, so how can those moons appear as such bright points of light?

So what is going on here? Some daytime zooming of the Moon produces odd visual effects that make no sense with the model of reflected sunlight from the Moon being bright enough to cut through the blue airglow layer, but if the light is being created in that and/or other layers and forward scattered, then the images do make sense. All the problems are eliminated if it is accepted that the images of the Moon, planets and stars are generated by probably vacuum UV emissions from those bodies exciting matter in Earths atmosphere and emitting visible light. Yes, everything we see through the atmosphere is a projection. Only experiments performing the same zooms with the same cameras from cislunar space or low Earth orbit while looking AWAY from Earth could confirm or destroy this proposal, but will never be attempted.

[fosborn_]

Big talker writes:

Ah, now I understand. When astronauts say it is totally black out there I should automatically append "with myriad points of un-flickering light" and when they say they can not see stars, "because the Sun is in their eyes and/or they are not fully dark adapted".
I'll keep that in mind.

But post no documentation.. Hmmmm..

[GaryN]

A couple of screen shots from simulations of the view from outside of the ISS Cupola that illustrate the restricted view from the cupola. Nobody seems to realise that you can not see space from the space station, without looking through Earths atmosphere to the stars, and under certain conditions, the planets, though I have not found a photo of Saturn so far.

[fosborn_]

="GaryN"
Here is the video of Don Pettit preparing to photograph the transit of Venus across the face of the Sun. He had the foresight to bring his own camera filter, as for some reason NASA does not normally carry them on the ISS.
At roughly these times, he makes some comments that are rather misleading:
0:40 can see earth and solar system

No, not at all, that's just your conspiracy imagination..

GaryN...4:20 atmospheric effects of earth and venus
This experiment has not been performed before, so he wonders about the effects of Earths atmosphere and the atmosphere of Venus. He is confirming that there is atmosphere in his line of sight to the Sun

my highlight.

He was talking about contact times and how planitary atmosphere affects it. He said in the ISS he would be eliminating the earths atmosphere from the affect on the contact times. So your wrong.

GaryN..6:07 full aperture solar filter
Yes, we can see that it is a full aperture filter, and appears to be a film type filter, possibly Mylar, but he does not say exactly which filter it is, and I can find no details. It is referred to in some articles as being a "neutral colour solar filter", but does he mean a neutral density filter?

Pettit describes the camera system: "I'll be using a high-end Nikon D2Xs camera and an 800mm lens with a full-aperture white light solar filter."
https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/s ... sitofvenus

GaryN...Probably not, as NASA seems to be very wary of using ND filters, even though I was advised by military R&D boffins that the ND filter would be the only way to see the Suns true colour from space.

Who told you this? What papers or specs can you site that demonstrates this? Sounds bogus to me.

Above the atmosphere, this hazzard would be a lot more important issue;

Moreover neutral density filters used with cameras may or may not extinguish harmful Infra-red and Ultraviolet radiation.
http://starcircleacademy.com/2012/04/solar-filter/

GaryN..7:30 observation of earth and near earth vicinity
Confirming that they can not see deep space.

quote from video in this time frame...

"if you are a person who likes to make images of earth in the near earth vicinity"

Your wrong again.

GaryN..The camera was one of the modified ones that has extended IR capabilities, and it would show as red/orange on the LCD camera display.

Really? How do you know that is what Don Pettit's camera specs were? Sounds Bogus...

https://youtu.be/7K5DiKsZhTk?t=77

[GaryN]

Really? How do you know that is what Don Pettit's camera specs were? Sounds Bogus...

If a 762nm narrow band filter was being used, then the camera had extended IR sensitivity or it would see nothing.

(NASA/International Space Station Astronaut Don Pettit works with two still cameras mounted together, one of which is an infrared modified still camera, modified by Spencer's Camera & Photo of Alpine, Utah. Photo credit: NASA)

http://www.spencerscamera.com/astro-conversions.cfm
And I'm not impressed by your image/video showing the sun from orbit. They, as usual, were using the fish eye lens that distorts things, and were in a low orbit, so the image is still taken looking trough a lot of atmosphere.

[fosborn_]

GaryN..And I'm not impressed by your image/video showing the sun from orbit. They, as usual, were using the fish eye lens that distorts things, and were in a low orbit, so the image is still taken looking trough a lot of atmosphere.

Doesn't matter what you think, it doesn't change the facts to the casual observer. That is why I like to post it. To remind the uninformed, how speculative you are.

Just like the Apollo 15 lunar eclispes stars are visible.

So, where are they looking? The central object is obviously an overexposed moon, and at the time of the eclipse it would have been lined up with the main star of Capricorn as viewed from Earth, but much searching shows that it is actually in the constellation of Aquarius - see below.

Apollo15LunarEcilpse.png (45.92 KiB) Viewed 8969 times

related to previous photograph.
http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/stars/page5.html

One of the really really, really tedious pieces of crap that Apollo deniers trot out withboringregularity is the “No stars” argument. They really are stupid on this, probably because they’ve never been outside much.

my highlight..

[GaryN]

Apollo deniers

You think I'm an Apollo denier?? I use many images and transcripts and interview sources to support my claim that nothing is visible from cislunar space, just as Armstrong and others said, how can I be a denier??
Your last image means nothing without more info, and was actually an experiment with photographic photometry. I have never said there is no electro-magnetic energy emanating from objects, supposedly stars, in space, and that these objects can be seen by using the appropriate instruments, but our eyes are only capable of seeing very specific types and intensities of this radiation, and which is only available where this otherwise invisible EM radiation has been converted by interaction with matter of sufficient type and density.

The first view (l-r) is a four-second exposure which was taken at the
moment when the moon had just entered the umbra; the second is a 15-second
exposure taken two minutes after entry; the third, a 30-second exposure
three minutes after entry; and the fourth is a 60-second exposure four
minutes after entry. The background star field is clearly evident.

http://www.zerognews.com/galleria/image ... 075762.txt
So where is the matter that is doing the conversion around the Moon to make the stars visible? The Extended sodium exosphere.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 5/abstract
And what kind of light would be generated? According to this chart,
perhaps it was the strong line at 588nm, a visible wavelength.
http://physics.nist.gov/PhysRefData/Han ... table2.htm
But did the astronauts claim to have seen these stars while the experiment was being performed? With such long exposures to get them on film, probably not, but without the film specs. it can not be said for sure, though I suspect it was a fairly fast film and the stars not visible to the astronauts. It is also noticeable that with the shorter exposures the stars are visible only closer to the Moon, suggesting that the density of the sodium would be higher closer to the Moon, which, to me, makes sense.

[fosborn_]

Apollo deniers

You think I'm an Apollo denier??

No, my focus was actually the not seeing stars, so that wasn't thought out well on my part.

I use many images and transcripts and interview sources to support my claim that nothing is visible from cislunar space, just as Armstrong and others said..

And as the many transcripts and quotes I have posted, I demonstrated your quotes of Astronauts are false. You distort the information to meet you desired outcome.

GaryN.. but our eyes are only capable of seeing very specific types and intensities of this radiation, and which is only available where this otherwise invisible EM radiation has been converted by interaction with matter of sufficient type and density

Purely statements of faith. "You got nothing", But that's your story and your stickin to it...
https://youtu.be/BewKY_BpVXg

GaryN..http://www.zerognews.com/galleria/image ... 075762.txt
So where is the matter that is doing the conversion around the Moon to make the stars visible? The Extended sodium exosphere.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 5/abstract
And what kind of light would be generated? According to this chart,
perhaps it was the strong line at 588nm, a visible wavelength.

All you have are assumptions you preach. You got nothing.

http://physics.nist.gov/PhysRefData/Han ... table2.htm
But did the astronauts claim to have seen these stars while the experiment was being performed? With such long exposures to get them on film, probably not, but without the film specs. it can not be said for sure, though I suspect it was a fairly fast film and the stars not visible to the astronauts. It is also noticeable that with the shorter exposures the stars are visible only closer to the Moon, suggesting that the density of the sodium would be higher closer to the Moon, which, to me, makes sense.[/quote]

Nothing but speculations. It only makes sense to you.

Interesting fact..

The range of electromagnetic energy emitted by the sun is known as the solar spectrum, and lies mainly in three regions: ultraviolet, visible, and infrared. The solar spectrum extends from about 0.29 µm (or 290 nm) in the longer wavelengths of the ultraviolet region, to over 3.2 µm (3,200 nm) in the far infrared. Small amounts of radio waves are also given off by the sun and other stars. In fact, if the sun's image is made from its radio waves, it appears 10% larger than if its image is made from visible light. There are some "cooler" stars that give off mostly radio waves and no visible radiation.

http://environ.andrew.cmu.edu/m3/s2/all_atmos_sys.htm

[fosborn_]

Hey! this will put some excitement in the boring s...

The SORCE spacecraft was launched on January 25, 2003 on a Pegasus XL launch vehicle to provide NASA’s Earth Science Enterprise (ESE) with precise measurements of solar radiation. It launched into a 645 km, 40 degree orbit and is operated by the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics (LASP) at the University of Colorado (CU) in Boulder, Colorado, USA. It will continue the precise measurements of total solar irradiance (TSI) that began with the ERB instrument in 1979 and has continued to the present with the ACRIM series of measurements. SORCE will also provide the measurements of the solar spectral irradiance from 1nm to 2000nm, accounting for 95% of the spectral contribution to TSI.

http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/

Spectral Irradiance Monitor (SIM)
The SIM instrument will take contiguous spectral readings of the near UV, visible, and near infrared portions of the solar spectrum, from 200 to 2000 nm, which includes the peak of the solar spectrum and together add up to more than 90% of the Total Solar Irradiance. The SIM instrument consists of two solar spectrometers set side by side within one casing. Only one of the spectrometers will be used to take measurements on a daily basis. Sunlight entering this instrument is directed into a prism which then directs different wavelengths of ultraviolet, visible, and near infrared into separate directions. The separate wavelengths of light will then illuminate an array of photodiodes. The photodiodes measure the specific wavelengths of light between low energy ultraviolet (200 nm) radiation and near infrared (2000 nm) radiation. (nm stands for nanometer, which is one one-billionth of a meter.) SIM will measure these wavelengths in intervals that vary in width from 0.25 nm in the ultraviolet to 34 nm in the near infrared.

This bad boy is at 400 miles altitude..

[GaryN]

This bad boy is at 400 miles altitude..

Yeah, but it doesn't carry a pyrheliometer to directly measure the heat, they collect spectra and use the assumption that the Sun is a blackbody, and apply Plancks or Weins formulas to come to an approximation of the heat. I won't ever get NASA to cooperate, but be interesting to see if a pyrheliometer could be taken on a plane or maybe high altitude balloon to compare readings with those measured at the surface, as I think the heat is produced mainly in the lower atmosphere. Your constant heel nipping almost always gives me some ideas or leads me to research further on things Frank, keep it up!

[fosborn_]

This bad boy is at 400 miles altitude..

Yeah, but it doesn't carry a pyrheliometer to directly measure the heat, they collect spectra and use the assumption that the Sun is a blackbody, and apply Plancks or Weins formulas to come to an approximation of the heat. I won't ever get NASA to cooperate, but be interesting to see if a pyrheliometer could be taken on a plane or maybe high altitude balloon to compare readings with those measured at the surface, as I think the heat is produced mainly in the lower atmosphere. Your constant heel nipping almost always gives me some ideas or leads me to research further on thingsFrank, keep it up!

Me too..

But look at the way it measures the spectrum of light..

The SIM instrument will take contiguous spectral readings of the near UV, visible, and near infrared portions of the solar spectrum, from 200 to 2000 nm, which includes the peak of the solar spectrum and together add up to more than 90% of the Total Solar Irradiance. The SIM instrument consists of two solar spectrometers set side by side within one casing. Only one of the spectrometers will be used to take measurements on a daily basis. Sunlight entering this instrument is directed into a prism which then directs different wavelengths of ultraviolet, visible, and near infrared into separate directions. The separate wavelengths of light will then illuminate an array of photodiodes.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Featu ... rce_08.php

Also the node 2 zenith window, have you found any updated pictures other than this one? I suspect, they won't show them till the last paper has been published, This is the only tibit they post..
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/stat ... ml#results

NASA Image: ISS043E104149 - Moon Imaging Experiment Photo session

MoonNode2Zport_.gif (3.56 KiB) Viewed 8910 times

cut a portion out of the original..

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYSKlDGJLUY
16 seconds into this youtube video, there is this shot of the Suyuz at the ISS, looks like the moon lower right?