The Boring Sun

[fosborn_]

this waste of money

I don't think it a waste of money, only that being taxpayer funded all the data should be readily available. And SOFIA can not spy on us on the surface, the aircraft would have to fly upside-down to do so!
Yes, the lower atmosphere absorbs IR, so they need to be above most of it, but, in reality (mine), the reason they fly at the altitude they do is because there is the creation of IR from shorter wavelength light at that altitude. Experiments have never been performed to measure the wavelengths and intensities available at increasing altitudes, and how the results would relate to the ion types and electron densities in those layers, from the surface and out to say 10,000 km. I believe it would be found that visibility would be in layers, and at some altitudes nothing would be naked eye visible, a phenomena reported by the first high altitude parachutist. The stars disappeared for a while on his way down.

https://youtu.be/ZyIVaZXDhho?t=9
INSPIRATIONAL - Felix Baumgartner - Headcam footage space Jump!! FULL

This lets you observe the changing colors of the Sun while descending from 127000. No mention of stars blanking out. Or ever seeing them above the bright glare of the sun light.

[fosborn_]

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/file ... 015550.jpg.

History: Hubble Space Telescope Deployed -- April 25, 1990
This week in 1990, the Hubble Space Telescope was deployed from the cargo bay of space shuttle Discovery as part of STS-31.
the Hubble Space Telescope orbits at an altitude of about 350 miles (560 kilometers)

2017-05-08 10.02.59.jpg (47.62 KiB) Viewed 9438 times

A higher altitude shot of a visible Sun..

[GaryN]

Don't give in GaryN.

Thanks for the encouragement pm. Yes, the response on some sites can be incredible, but I feel that such vehement reaction is an indication I am on the right track. The invisible Sun of course is the real trigger of the animosity, yet none can find me an image that would meet the requirements of empirical science. I'm shown images from instruments that see what our eyes could not, but it seems none of them understand the instruments in the least. As with Hubble eye-candy images, they think they are what we would see out there.

Kevin, I also have appreciated your input and ideas over the years. Your perspective may be very different, but that is not meant in any negative manner. I too have dowsing ability, as I think we all do to various degrees. My level is basic, just the water detecting, and I have been successful where others have failed, sometimes very low flow and deep, but I found it. On my own property I have one spot that I have scared non-believers with, the reaction to the rods being so strong with one lady that she shrieked, dropped the rods and ran. I told her she was obviously a natural, but she was shaking for a good while.
That there are forces around us that science can not explain does not mean they do not exist, and you are very fortunate to be able to sense the more subtle ones. When I told my native spirit guide tenant once, after being up in the hills one day, that I thought the land was beginning to speak to me, he answered that it always had, and it was I who was learning to hear. I intend to improve my hearing. And get back in physical shape, too much time at the computer after a long, cold (for my area anyway) winter.

Daniel

I do not have any answers about this conundrum, usually i can state something but both cases have good arguments or attractions.

At least you are considering the issue, most just accept what mainstream tells us. Keep your options open, at least until there is proper scientific investigation of the issues. That might be a long time coming though.

Frank

Luna 3 using a 200mm lens at 50,000km onto 35 mm aerial-reconnaissance film (obtained from American spy balloons

That would have been the 2485, Hawkeye film. Just incredible specifications, so why such crap images? And still no real photos of the Lunar far side, only from spectral imaging and laser altimeters or infrared film. If the Chinese ever get their far side probe landed safely, and if the images are released, there will be some 'splainin' to do. Lighting conditions will be very different than expected, though obviously it should be just as bright as the near side appears to us from Earth, if bright Sunlight is the illumination source.
And your Sun images from balloon or LEO mean nothing, I want images of the Sun from outside the atmosphere, or at least looking directly away from Earth. Won't happen.
My last attempt, for a while anyway, to find any evidence that stars or anything else were visible by the Apollo astronauts failed completely. I have used the highest resolution image files I can find, run them through software that NASA never though anyone would have, pulled out any information that might have been stars, and then run it through the astrometry.net star pattern matching site, and all fail. Given the incredible specs on the aerial-reconnaissance films, stars should have been detectable, especially where there is little else on the film. Nothing.
Until proven otherwise, I will continue to believe the Apollo astronauts that it is totally black out there, and find it distasteful that so many doubt their words and yet can not even offer a reason why they would take no images of the Sun or planets or stars from cislunar space when they had the finest cameras and films available. Websters light transforming model, fully developed, along with experiments, would explain everything, and I have no doubt this is already known by the military, but will never be known to us.

[kevin]

Garyn,

I have long been saying that Dylan got it wrong, in that the answers are not blowin in the wind, because the wind is not blowing.
The layers of atmosphere are displacing in location( in space) relative to spin zones of consciousness ( aether/plasma)

Let's imagine that our vision is a two way deal, with outward spin signals returning via opposite spin return signals.
At variant altitude layers perhaps the return signals don't return?

The clues are in nature, in spin, two way 720 degree spin.
The sun......
A two way spin pinch point of consciousness, the illusion is of this planet circulating, but that is an illusion of an observer that thinks light travels, and in straight lines.
Light occurs when the spin meets it's opposite spin, the stress /vibration causing heat.

We are products of a tiny slither of condition at the surface of this planet, everything We view is via and of materials of that tiny slither, anything made here is of here , it will always be of here and the condition of here.

No-thing is what has been assumed, it's far far better, a living universe.

In a radio sense , I call it tuning into radio 1.618 , but be prepared to be ridiculed, to Me it's water off a ducks back, as I am quackers to most.
kevin

[GaryN]

Your model is music to my ears Kevin, pure Buckminster Fuller. The worlds top experts still admit that they do not know what light actually is, and you are likely correct there too. As with all that we try to understand, it has to be based on a more mechanical model, something with substance, so the model of light being transformed is so that there is a process in operation that we can grasp, that is acceptable to the way our minds have been conditioned.
I have great hopes that more people will begin to understand a view of our reality based on the Cosmometry concept.

In this basic model the entire double spiral pattern is made from a single phi spiral, duplicating this spiral to create a vortex pattern in both clockwise and counter-clockwise spin directions.

You are already there Kevin, I think still have one foot in the old world .
Cosmometry
http://cosmometry.net/overview-of-cosmometry

[kevin]

Garyn,
Excellent link.
In the megalithic forums some are hooked on shadows, and it is not that they are at fault in any way, it is more a question of what is a shadow?
A shadow is a consequence of the field of the whatever creating a resistance pattern to the field of the dominant wave pattern that thus means that in the local area of the shadow there is less light.
That sounds obvious unless You drop the assumed method of light travelling, and instead think in terms of field patterns in a fixed medium of universe.
The fixed medium been super conductive and a near perfectly packed solid.

Then flowing about along the geometry bounderies of the fixed medium is consciousness ( aether/plasma)

The sun ( stars) are pinch points at huge scale to ourselves, both emitting and receiving flows of consciousness.

No-thing actually exists as assumed, all is simply compressions of consciousness held as local memory fields, and all fields interact with all other fields .
Every field is spinning in duality, thus the variation occurring over what We call time.

I have this odd ball ability to follow all of this at our scale, then it is simple to think it inwards and outwards at all scales.
The geometry is followable, then by thinking on a different channel I can switch at will to that which is travelling locally in pattern form upon the geometry.

The overall consciousness memory field of this planet is constantly been inputted and emmiting information, and presently the overall vast majority can only receive the dominant information, hence.....
Forgive them, for they could not know.

It's not easy been able to receive information that the herd cannot, but suddenly that information will permeate the dominant memory, then everyone will accept it is a given.

Up until then it would be very easy to simply meld into the background, but that is a cowards way.

And I am a pig headed Yorkshire old so and so.
Kevin

[hyrumpoint0]

Your model is music to my ears Kevin...

I agree, the establishment has no idea what light is. They write mathematical formulae to describe it's behavior, but like everything else, they just don't know.
What is this model? I do not understand it. Can you give a very brief synopsis and maybe an example?
I visited the Cosmometry website and am more confused.

[GaryN]

What is this model? I do not understand it. Can you give a very brief synopsis and maybe an example?
I visited the Cosmometry website and am more confused.

Do you mean not understanding Websters Atmospheric Light Transformer model or Kevin and I's little sidebar thing?

If with the ALT model than it boils down to replacing the model of light, or heat, as heat is just another wavelength of light, coming directly from the Sun, but being created in the atmospheres of planets or moons by a higher level of solar radiation interacting with the matter in such atmosphere. This also renders the solar constant model invalid.

As an example, and possibly a chink in the armour of present astronomical models, is this article:

Surprise! When a brown dwarf is actually a planetary mass object

Sometimes a brown dwarf is actually a planet—or planet-like anyway. A team led by Carnegie's Jonathan Gagné, and including researchers from the Institute for Research on Exoplanets (iREx) at Université de Montréal, the American Museum of Natural History, and University of California San Diego, discovered that what astronomers had previously thought was one of the closest brown dwarfs to our own Sun is in fact a planetary mass object.

https://phys.org/news/2017-05-brown-dwa ... -mass.html
With the ALT model, I would have these type of objects as planets with sufficient atmosphere to glow in a way detectable by the present instruments in use. Similarly with Venus and Saturn, our Suns radiation heats the atmosphere by the transformer mechanism. Saturn puts out more energy than it receives from the Sunlight incident on it, according to the old model, but in reality it is producing more energy because there is more atmosphere for the solar radiation to transform.
This would also explain perhaps the heating observed in Earths mid-atmospheric region, which has been a bit of a puzzle to the standard model proponents. It is a region where the nature of the solar radiation interacts with a particular type and/or density of matter and is giving off a wavelength of light that heats surrounding material. Electron transition heating? Most likely.
Without the solar constant model, then the nature of the solar radiation by my reckoning, means that the radiation must go great distances and not loose its energy, so even planets or moons way out there, having sufficient atmosphere, will be warmer and brighter that the standard model allows. This has already been noted at Pluto, but has not even been pondered I don't think. They just assume instrument calibration errors perhaps, can't argue with the Solar constant, can we?
It is already accepted, I think, that certain, perhaps quantised levels of E/M radiation, and beginning in the Vacuum UV region, will become self focusing, and thus can travel almost infinitely without loosing energy. If so, then it is possible that ALL the objects we are told are stars MIGHT be just be planetary bodies within the solar system, and my guess is that they are located in the proposed Oort cloud. True stars are pinches in a cosmic flux tube, and if no evidence of a flux tube is found, IMO, it is not a star.
And even further outside the box:
This self perpetuating radiation might be then considered a soliton perhaps, but if we go that route, then we should also consider something like Kevins view, that is that nothing moves, including light. As Einstein stated: "The Universe is an aggregate of non-simultaneous and only partially overlapping energy events." With vacuum solitons, it can be so.
ARE WE VACUUM WAVES?
https://msu.edu/~hitchco4/vacwaves.pdf
The vacuum would be an infinitely dense, infinitely energetic, closest packed arrangement of the aether, or Akasha.

I hope that cleared things up for you hyrumpoint0, confused the heck out of me!

[GaryN]

It is already accepted, I think, that certain, perhaps quantised levels of E/M radiation, and beginning in the Vacuum UV region, will become self focusing, and thus can travel almost infinitely without loosing energy.

This self focusing only applies if the Akasha is considered a non-linear optical medium.

Experiments to try and detect and measure the Quantum jitter at the Planck scale have been running for a couple of years, but the most recent information does not give any answers. Will this be another never ending, more money needed experiment, like the search for non-existant dark unicorns, or could this eventually change our understanding of our reality?

The experiment:

Quantum jitter’ to reveal if we live in a hologram
http://www.futurity.org/scientists-list ... er-755062/

First Measurements of High Frequency Cross-Spectra from a Pair of Large Michelson Interferometers.(pdf)
https://dspace.mit.edu/openaccess-disse ... 1.1/104884
...

The discussion going on in The Mythical Interpretations thread also could be greatly affected by the ALT model and should I think be considered by all parties, as the view of the Heavens would change greatly if the appearance of the Sun and planets and milky way was to be changed by the conditions of the Earths atmosphere. They all may have appeared much brighter, bigger/closer at the time of a solar event. The ancient symbols of the Sun show a progression, recorded worldwide, of symbols that to me support Dave Talbots claim of Earth being in a polar position. The symbols would be showing the Sun, in my model, as being observed from above or below the Sun, the tori being viewed face on.

In the ancient symbols the Sun first appeared as a dot, then a dot with a circle, the torus, and continued to change its appearance over time. The dots and rays in these images represent the resonant hot spots in the torus, and the rays due to the streamers that would be bringing in or releasing electrons or protons to balance the charge differentials.

Ignoring the standard models text, SN47A may be similar in appearance to some of what was witnessed from Earth.

What was being seen would be changing as the conditions of the Sun changed, or Earths atmospheres changed, so sometimes only certain structures would be visible, and not that they were actually present or absent.
If we are going to take ancient images or words into account, then we should not discount more recent observations that the heavens appeared very different for some reason:
August 7, 1566, at dawn, Basle, Switzerland

April 4, 1561 at dawn over Nuremberg, Germany


Luke 21:25-26

25 “There will be signs in the sun, moon and stars. On the earth, nations will be in anguish and perplexity at the roaring and tossing of the sea. 26 People will faint from terror, apprehensive of what is coming on the world, for the heavenly bodies will be shaken.

And there endeth todays sermon.

[GaryN]

Me:

The ancient symbols of the Sun show a progression, recorded worldwide, of symbols that to me support Dave Talbots claim of Earth being in a polar position.

I just had an idea that might have allowed the Sun to be seen as the ancient symbols show, but without requiring Earth to have been in the polar configuration, and that it might be possible that the Sun was in a strong quadrupolar magnetic field configuration. It is possible here that it may have also shown a cross at some time during this change, perhaps the origin of the cross symbol and its association with the Sun and early religions.
The Suns face as seen in the images above also fit with the images of Surya, the Hindu Sun god. Studies going back supposedly as far as the the 1561 event would indicate solar proton fluence and cosmic ray 'storms' creating "the thin nitrate-rich layers that have been found in both Arctic and Antarctic firn and ice cores". Now I am not a big fan of ice core dating, but still, this must provide some food for thought. Perhaps all the ancient observations were due only to solar storms during pole reversals. And these storms would have indeed changed the state of Earths atmosphere greatly and thus, with the ALT model, the view of the Heavens.

Solar cosmic ray events for the period 1561–1994: 1. Identification in polar ice, 1561–1950
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 7/abstract

[hyrumpoint0]

Do you mean not understanding Websters Atmospheric Light Transformer model or Kevin and I's little sidebar thing?

Thanks for taking the time to explain! I was referring to the sidebar theory, but both interest me.

I understand the words, "Atmospheric light Transformer model" and agree that is occurring, but don't understand how as much. For example, the atmosphere doesn't perform fluorescence because wouldn't that mean the atmosphere would glow and we wouldn't be able to discern the shape of the E/M radiation source?
I really like how the ALT model can answer why some planets seem to be giving off more energy than they otherwise would due to their distance from the sun, and the brown dwarfs being planets. Very interesting stuff really, but I don't know what to believe from establishment sources like NASA. People accept their data and conclusions as true, often without any scepticism, and then we base our theories off of their information. I often wonder if our understanding is just a huge artificial house of cards. It might help to explain why basic knowledge has stopped growing for many decades, IMO.

It is already accepted, I think, that certain, perhaps quantised levels of E/M radiation, and beginning in the Vacuum UV region, will become self focusing, and thus can travel almost infinitely without loosing energy. If so, then it is possible that ALL the objects we are told are stars MIGHT be just be planetary bodies within the solar system, and my guess is that they are located in the proposed Oort cloud. True stars are pinches in a cosmic flux tube, and if no evidence of a flux tube is found, IMO, it is not a star.
And even further outside the box:
This self perpetuating radiation might be then considered a soliton perhaps, but if we go that route, then we should also consider something like Kevins view, that is that nothing moves, including light. As Einstein stated: "The Universe is an aggregate of non-simultaneous and only partially overlapping energy events." With vacuum solitons, it can be so.
ARE WE VACUUM WAVES?
https://msu.edu/~hitchco4/vacwaves.pdf
The vacuum would be an infinitely dense, infinitely energetic, closest packed arrangement of the aether, or Akasha.

I hope that cleared things up for you hyrumpoint0, confused the heck out of me!

I feel better now, but I can't say I'm less confused:)

[GaryN]

I understand the words, "Atmospheric light Transformer model" and agree that is occurring, but don't understand how as much.

Don't worry, nobody does!
Miles Mathis looks at the number of explanations offered jusy for why the sky is blue.
http://milesmathis.com/sky.html
He is correct that it is not because of scattered sunlight, and if there is no visible light coming from the Sun, meaning it is not visible from cislunar space, then it can not be scattered Sunlight. The processes going on in our atmosphere are numerous and complex, so as well as fluorescence there can be chemiluminescence.

Fluorescence and Chemiluminescence have a common origin. They both result
from the decay of a molecule in a higher energy or "excited" state back
down to the ground state. This decay results in the release of energy and
the emission of a photon.

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/19 ... .Ch.r.html
There will be scattering occurring too at the lower levels if visible light is created higher up. That we don't fully understand what is going on in our own atmosphere is crazy, but a detailed analysis would have to uncover the fact that as you got further away from Earth, the amount of visible Sunlight would decrease and at some point the Sun would no longer be visible by eye, not necessarily because there was none at all, but because it would be below the limits of our vision. Some of the layers would be found to be quite thin I think, and at some altitudes the Moon and stars might not be visible or be of different colours, as was reported by the early Russian astronauts whose elliptical orbits took them through many of these layers.
The definitive experiments will never be performed, so the ALT model is only one of an overall short-to-long wavelength transformation, which will apply generally to all planetary bodies with atmosphere.
This also explains why the comets and asteroids are so dark, there is no atmosphere to create the light to be reflected from the surface, what little visible light there might be could only be created in the coma. If they took a big chemical photo-flash out there and set it off, it would likely be found there is lots of colour, another experiment I doubt will ever be performed, it would give the whole game away.

[hyrumpoint0]

That we don't fully understand what is going on in our own atmosphere is crazy, but a detailed analysis would have to uncover the fact that as you got further away from Earth, the amount of visible Sunlight would decrease and at some point the Sun would no longer be visible by eye, not necessarily because there was none at all, but because it would be below the limits of our vision.

So if that were true, satellites would have to be using different solar panels, ones that transform different wavelengths into electric current. Does NASA or other space agencies claim to use specialized solar panels? in the UV range?

[GaryN]

So if that were true, satellites would have to be using different solar panels, ones that transform different wavelengths into electric current. Does NASA or other space agencies claim to use specialized solar panels? in the UV range?

I have tried to find out about the solar panel details but there is little info. One way it could be done is as with the Sun Sensors that they take into space as part of the navigation system, along with the Star Trackers, whereby they use a grating, either pinhole or slit. The Sun Sensors are self powering and produce excess power that can be utilised for other purposes. So yes, I suspect they are not using the kind of solar panels we would at the surface.
There are other types of Sun Sensors, and I think they are now using APS sensors, as are the Star Trackers, and prices have come down considerably as the technology advances.
https://www.cubesatshop.com/product-cat ... e-sensors/
You will also see the Sextant on that page, a poor mans Star Tracker, but the real deal is still $200K and up, and only available from sources that are basically military, and they don't have to sell you one if they don't like you! The Sextant will only be of use for LEO situations I think, utilising only the portions of the technology released in the "Can you see it now?" program.
https://partnerships.gsfc.nasa.gov/wavefront/
But they are developing UV solar panels for space:
https://cleantechnica.com/2011/09/24/40 ... n-funding/
We have only been considering wavelengths in the ALT model so far, but must also consider the wavefronts. Then we get into stuff such as the Huygens-Fresnel principle, plane waves etc.

[Cargo]

Well holy cows I had to google that, "plasmonic effect"

I guess they avoid all use of the word plasma as much as possible with talking about plasmonic things.

Except one paper which lightly puts it as "We have studied the effect of plasma energy".