The Boring Sun

[GaryN]

Gary,
what about the planar wave?

I don't think the classical model of the planar wave is going to do the job here. The most likely model is of the Sun as a transmitter, a spherical antenna, and the atmospheres of planetary bodies as the receivers. There is no light per se travelling through space, the Sun is vibrating the aether, a push-pull.
I do agree with you that the appearance and distance measurements of the supposed stars out there will be greatly affected. Lets have a look at the heavens from outside of the Van Allen belts and do some comparisons.

The atmosphere of Titan is very complex, and any consideration of heating by the Sun has to be discounted. It's atmosphere demonstrates the importance of the emission and absorption processes that are going on in all atmospheres, even thin ones. In Titans case, there is a lot of radiation from Saturn, but how much of that radiation is derived from Saturn being a good sized receiver and transformer/re-transmitter of Solar radiation?

Frank:

The solar irradiance is the output of light energy from the entire disk of the Sun, measured at the Earth.

Measured at Earth. If the Sun is not visible from cislunar space, then the light must be created within the atmosphere. The TSI in the table shows little UV/EUV, but that, IMO, is because it is all being transformed to the visible light and heat wavelengths. I see what you are getting at though, but experiments performed both from within and without the atmosphere would be the only way to get more precise measurements of the levels and types of radiation at increasing distances from Earth.

[moses]

Gary,
you seem to have a resonance model. The ether carrying an array of vibrations. But light travels in a different medium. So transmitting through the ether is much faster than the speed of light, c.

Doing models one can get excited and move on rather than examining the details thoroughly. That we agree on many very significant things is worth reminding everyone here that we have free thinking, whereas the mainstream view was formed authoritatively but it means that they all have one view on just about everything, whereas we have so many different views.

Cheers,
Mo

[fosborn_]

There is no light per se travelling through space,

Frank:

The solar irradiance is the output of light energy from the entire disk of the Sun, measured at the Earth.

Measured at Earth. If the Sun is not visible from cislunar space, then the light must be created within the atmosphere. The TSI in the table shows little UV/EUV, but that, IMO, is because it is all being transformed to the visible light and heat wavelengths. I see what you are getting at though, but experiments performed bothfrom within and without the atmosphere would be the only way to get more precise measurements of the levels and types of radiation at increasing distances from Earth.

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, (400 miles) 40 degree, orbit

the Sun at 320 miles altitude, during Hubble placement, looking out of shuttle bay..

So TSI measurements are done well above the atmosphere 400 miles, and as you noted how low the FUV and EUV levels are. But what is there varies considerable. So perhaps we see with TSI , light does travel or is present through the void from point A to B...

Apollo EVA Cis Lunar space

mapping1.gif (14.39 KiB) Viewed 9070 times

The Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE) is a NASA-sponsored satellite mission ...It launched into a 645 km, (400 miles)
The Spectral Irradiance Monitor (SIM) is a newly designed spectrometer that provides the first long-duration solar spectral irradiance measurements in the visible and near infrared (Vis/NIR). The wavelength coverage is primarily from 300 to 2400 nm, with an additional channel to cover the 200-300 nm ultraviolet spectral region
The SOlar Stellar Irradiance Comparison Experiment (SOLSTICE).. The new SOLSTICE makes daily solar ultraviolet (115-320 nm) irradiance measurements

https://youtu.be/1t8UNxY2bgQ?t=58

[fosborn_]

I was surprised with this simulation of lunar sunrise..
https://youtu.be/MVKJs6jLDR4

So here is an actual sunrise of mars, cut form a panorama picture..

taken by the Surface Stereo Imager on board NASA's Phoenix Mars Lander, documents the passage of the midnight sun over several days.

https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagega ... _1136.html

And looking at the ISS, I found a rough method to get some actual scale of the sun minus glare at that orbit using the solar panels..

https://youtu.be/1t8UNxY2bgQ?t=65
Just thought it would be fodder for the discussion, an effort at visual scale of our star ..
Lloyds list of photon theories.. Great work!
http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=13695

[fosborn_]

I thought this answer to the question, "how bright is the sun" was interesting;

How bright is our Sun when seen from space?
https://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze ... 7.htm#q293
How bright is the sun when observing it from outside of earth's atmosphere, like from the space shuttle or from the surface of the moon for example? I don't believe I have seen a photograph of the sun like this before.
Reply
Unless you specify how you assess brightness, "how bright" asks for a personal judgment. My answer might be "somewhat brighter, not exceedingly so," but it all depends what you observe.
One way of judging brightness is by the solar constant, the power beamed by the Sun on a surface of 1 square meter perpendicular to the Sun's rays, at the Earth's mean distance. The figure is usually given as 1.36 kilowatt, but by the time it reaches the surface of the Earth it may be 2/3 as much or less. A lot of the missing energy is scattered, giving us the blue of the sky, which is really sunlight coming from other directions. As you rise in altitude, the sky gets darker and then blacker, as less of the atmosphere is above you and less scattering occurs.The Sun seen from space dazzles, in part because the background is very black.

So here is Voyager s mosiac shot of 60 frames. I croped the sun out of it...

then the original resized..

Voyager 1 "Family Portrait"

https://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA00451

this mosaic consisting of a total of 60 frames, Voyager 1 made several images of the inner solar system from a distance of approximately 4 billion miles and about 32 deqrees above the ecliptic plane..0
. Our sun is seen as the bright object in the center of the circle of frames. The wide- angle image of the sun 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 as seen from Voyager, only about one-fortieth of the diameter as seen from Earth, but is still almost 8 million times brighter than the brightest star in Earth's sky, Sirius. The result of this great brightness is an image with multiple reflections from the optics in the camera. Wide-angle images surrounding the sun also show many artifacts attributable to scattered light in the optics. These were taken through the clear filter with one second exposures.

[fosborn_]

GaryN...We see stars from Earth, even though they are well below the limits of detection, let alone resolution, by the human eye. We see them because of their intensity. But, if there is visible light coming from this point source, then by another reasoning, the wavefront of those stars would be flat, planar, by the time they reach Earth, and it would not be possible for our eyes to focus the light in order that it excites a rod or cone and trigger the vision circuits of the brain. Even the wavefronts from our Sun would have a large enough radius to be considered flat at Earths distance, and therefore non-focusable to our eyes. ..

GaryN...I don't think the classical model of the planar wave is going to do the job here.

Seems like we are all over the map. But we can show that we a lest can see Vega. Even with conflicting studies..
http://www.livescience.com/33895-human-eye.html

The Earth's surface curves out of sight at a distance of 3.1 miles, or 5 kilometers. But our visual acuity extends far beyond the horizon. If Earth were flat, or if you were standing atop a mountain surveying a larger-than-usual patch of the planet, you could perceive bright lights hundreds of miles distant. On a dark night, you could even see a candle flame flickering up to 30 mi. (48 km) awa y...
Back in 1941, the vision scientist Selig Hecht and his colleagues at Columbia University made what is still considered a reliable measurement of the "absolute threshold" of vision — the minimum number of photons that must strike our retinas in order to elicit an awareness of visual perception. The experiment probed the threshold under ideal conditions: study participants' eyes were given time to adapt to total darkness, the flash of light acting as a stimulus had a (blue-green) wavelength of 510 nanometers, to which our eyes are most sensitive, and this light was aimed at the periphery of the retina, which is richest in light-detecting rod cells. The scientists found that for study participants to perceive such a flash of light more than half the time, the subjects required between 54 and 148 photons to hit their eyeballs. Based on measurements of retinal absorption, the scientists calculated that a factor of 10 fewer photons were actually being absorbed by the participant's rod cells. Thus, the absorption of 5 to 14 photons, or, equivalently, the activation of just 5 to 14 rod cells, tells your brain you're seeing something.

At Wha Distanc Can the Human Eye Detect a Candle Flame?*
Kevin Krisciunas and Don Carona
Texas A&M University
Department of Physics an Astronomy
4242 TAMU, College Station, TX 77843
Abstract - Usin CCD observations of a candle flame situated at a
distance of 338 m and calibrated with observations of Vega, we show
that a candle flame situated at ~2.6 km (1.6 miles) is comparable in
brightness to a 6th magnitude star with the spectral energy distribution
of Vega. The human eye cannot detect a candle flame at 10 miles or
further, as some statements on the websuggest.

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1507/1507.06270.pdf

This forum should give you some ideas, GaryN...
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable ... light.html

[GaryN]

Moses

Gary,
you seem to have a resonance model. The ether carrying an array of vibrations.

Yes, and if we think of the Sun or other genuine stars as being of the nature of spherical antenna, then we can account for the torus, which is in effect a loop antenna, which is related to the Hertzian dipole antenna, but with switched E&B fields. Plasma can be both a receiver and transmitter.

1 EVA floodlight Illuminated the CM hatch right side EVA handrails, and LM EVA transfer handrails

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/20090016336.pdf



Through the methane filter, deep red, but hydrogen has an emission line that falls within the filters bandwidth. Looking at the Sun they were looking through millions of miles of ionised and neutral hydrogen and other stuff, maybe even through the atmosphere or rings of an intervening planet. Wouldn't be surprised, these guys, the scientists, really do know their stuff, and I admire the science and technology employed. It is the astronomers who are still stuck in the age of the visible light telescope, and don't understand what the instruments are showing them or how it relates to the mechanism of the eye, brain and and mind. Then consider that the civilian version of the Vidicon had an effective rating of ASA 200,000, and then the image processing on Earth. Even if there were enough photons to trigger vision, the red is almost in the IR, and you would be hard pushed to make it out against the total blackness of space. Oahspe says that the Sun seen from space would be a small, pale red disk. I'd buy that, but not with my eyes maybe!

My mind is now set Frank, the Apollo mission astronauts with their comments and interviews, plus what is available from the transcripts is all I need to convince me nothing is visible by eye, not even the Sun, from clear space. They took no photos of the Sun (except with the very high speed 2485 film, looking through the lunar dust) never talked about it, not right for such as supposedly blazingly bright and burning hot ball of pure white fire.

I'm very reluctant to spend any more time considering the visibility of the Sun from space, it plain isn't, though sensitive enough instruments of the correct design may be able to pick up something. The thread was started with the claim of the non-visibility of the Sun or stars, by eye, from outside of the atmosphere, and there has been no evidence presented here or on any other forum that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that they are visible. Yours has been the best effort to prove they are, but without hard science or convincing, verifiable source evidence to back up your claims, not good enough.

This hearing is adjourned until and if new and compelling evidence comes to light. Have a good summer.

[fosborn_]

GaryN quoted..1 EVA floodlight Illuminated the CM hatch right side EVA handrails, and LM EVA transfer handrails

Thats right the pole mounted flood lights the Command Module, and rails on the command module. But faces the wrong direction to light the Service module where much of the Cis Lunar EVA work was.
You allways misapply that explanation..

The light was oriented to illuminate the
CM hatch, right-side EVA handrails, and
LM EVA transfer handrails

So any Cis Lunar EVA pictures showing the Astronauts brightly lighted from solar radiation is just that. The Spacecraft had to be oriented perpendicular to the Sun for the thermal rotation to assist the electronics cooling system.

ApolloEVA_.jpg (6.98 KiB) Viewed 8968 times

[fosborn_]

GaryN...Through the methane filter, deep red, but hydrogen has an emission line that falls within the filters bandwidth.

You say this first, then you say the next in the same statement...

GaryN...Looking at the Sun they were looking through millions of miles of ionised and neutral hydrogen and other stuff, maybe even through the atmosphere or rings of an intervening planet. Wouldn't be surprised,

So I guess your thinking out loud and negate your first guess of methane filter, because of all the bright rays interfering with the clear filter Inner Planet frame shots..

PIA00451_Croped.jpg (7.29 KiB) Viewed 8945 times

The wide angle image of the sun 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.

Wide-angle images
surrounding the sun also show many artifacts attributable to
scattered light in the optics. These were taken through the clear
filter with one second exposures.

So I looked up some graphics to demonstrate the position and 32 deg ecliptic plane position Voyager 1 was at when the pictures were taken. Don't see any intervening planetary atmospheres...

Voyager 1 at 32 deg ecliptic plane

also this graphic shows Voyager 1 s 32 deg view of the ecliptic plane also I think..

approximately 4
billion miles and about 32 deqrees above the ecliptic plane.

So with this visual information your guess is totally bogus.. IMO

GaryN.. these guys, the scientists, really do know their stuff, and I admire the science and technology employed.

Once again you might be thinking out loud, They are competent, then they are incompetent.

GaryN..It is the astronomers who are still stuck in the age of the visible light telescope, and don't understand what the instruments are showing them or how it relates to the mechanism of the eye, brain and and mind. Then consider that the civilian version of the Vidicon had an effective rating of ASA 200,000, and then the image processing on Earth

Image processing on earth?
Lots of speculation despite the facts.IMO

The wide angle image of the sun 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.

GaryN.. the Apollo mission astronauts with their comments and interviews, plus what is available from the transcripts is all I need to convince me nothing is visible by eye, not even the Sun,

With all the posted Astronaut quotes I have shown otherwise, and you keep billboarding this blanket statement, you perpetrate a blatant falsehood.. I have read it takes 11 good teachings to overcome 1 bad. I feel like I'm spitting in the wind in this thread, but I think it worth being the fly in the jelly now and thin, to remind the casual observer, there is always the obvious to refute the seemingly outrageous .
also if this is one of your rules now..

GaryN...Looking at the Sun they were looking through millions of miles of ionised and neutral hydrogen and other stuff, maybe even through the atmosphere or rings of an intervening planet. Wouldn't be surprised,

So if this is the case, most stars are going to have a lot of this sort of environment, now your theory would be you can only not see your local star (so able to see remote stars after all) if your at an inner planetary orbit?
Enjoy your summer...

[D_Archer]

Pitch black, Chinesians on the moon:

https://planetary.s3.amazonaws.com/data ... 4_A_2C.png

Regards.
Daniel

[fosborn_]

http://www.planetary.org/blogs/emily-la ... ange3.html

These photos are different: they are clearly direct from the original digital data. They're still not perfect -- they have been downsampled, contrast-enhanced, watermarked, and JPEG-compressed -- but they're so, so much better than what I've seen before, rich with detail and nuanced in color. They were also accompanied by a little bit of information about when they were taken, which is great. Here's the trove of images.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index. ... msg1145993

[GaryN]

Pitch black, Chinesians on the moon:

It is accepted that a photo of the sky when there is a bright foreground would not show stars due to the short exposure time required. It is also accepted that if you increased the exposure time that the foreground would be washed out but that then the stars would become visible. So let's do a long exposure, won't hurt the camera.
Truth is nobody will ever see the stars from the Lunar surface, under any circumstances. One reason is that civilians will never be allowed to go to the Moon, or even outside of low Earth orbit, NASAs game would be up immediately.

A lunar day:What the view from Chang'e 3 should look like:
http://moon.bao.ac.cn/#cbp=/cn/showMedia.jspx?id=2004


The International Lunar Astronomy Association is going to be very disappointed, just as were the Amateur Space Telescope groups, nothing will ever come of their efforts. Even UV astronomy from the Moon will be a flop, the Lunar sky is too bright in the UV to get clear photos, as the only image available from the Chang'e UV telescope shows.
Pinwheel Galaxy.
http://cdn2.gbtimes.com/cdn/farfuture/9 ... naoc_0.png
Not as good as the images from the FUVC instrument from the Apollo missions. What about IR astronomy? Never seen it mentioned.
I have just watched the 6 part National Geographic TV series, "Mars". Again, no civilians are ever going to Mars, but watched to see how they handled the star visibility issue, what the Sun looked like, or if they ever discussed astronomy, which they didn't. The purpose of the series was to romanticise the efforts of humans in space, the hardships and challenges and rewards. An outright attempt to soften up the public in order to convince us to cough up more billion$ for NASAs long term plans, but which they will drag on 'till long after I am gone, and with little ever being achieved.
http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/mars/

[fosborn_]

GaryN...Truth is nobody will ever see the stars from the Lunar surface, under any circumstances. One reason is that civilians will never be allowed to go to the Moon, or even outside of low Earth orbit, NASAs game would be up immediately.

REPORTER (Patrick Moore): I have two brief questions that I would like to ask, if I may. When you were carrying out that incredible Moon walk, did you find that the surface was equally firm everywhere or were there harder and softer spots that you could detect? And secondly, when you looked up at the sky, could you actually see the stars in the solar corona in spite of the glare?

ALDRIN: The first part of your question, the surface did vary in its thickness of penetration somewhere in flat regions. [...]

ARMSTRONG: We were never able to see stars from the lunar surface or on the daylight side of the Moon by eyewithout looking through the optics[i.e., the lunar module's navigation telescope]. I don't recall during the period of time that we were photographing the solar corona what stars we could see.

The LM had only a 1x scanning scope, So like I have said in the past, when the brightness of the sun is blocked, such as bore sighting , stars will be seen.

[fosborn_]

GaryN...Truth is nobody will ever see the stars from the Lunar surface, under any circumstances

http://www.spaceartifactsarchive.com/20 ... apollo.htm

This star chart was flown on the Apollo 17 mission to the Taurus Littrow region...
This star chart was used prior to lift off...
The transparent disk section is folded over. Gene Cernan states that he used this chart to orient the ship just prior to launch back into lunar orbit. The fold was done with his gloved hand, so he could align the star chart properly during the events just before lunar surface lift off.

[fosborn_]

GaryN... nothing is visible by eye, not even the Sun, from clear space. They took no photos of the Sun (except with the very high speed 2485 film, looking through the lunar dust) never talked about it, not right for such as supposedly blazingly bright and burning hot ball of pure white fire.

https://youtu.be/XUYDbDlGXqo?t=2940 set fps to .25

When advised of the docking, Houston control broke out a large cartoon showing Snoopy kissing Charlie Brown. The accompanying balloon read, "Smack. You're right on target, Charlie Brown." With the tunnel locked up, the LM was cast loose and a firing of its engine drove it into an orbit around the sun.

https://er.jsc.nasa.gov/seh/Ap10.html