The Boring Sun

[GaryN]

You are correct Frank, I have my ducks no where near in a row with the light transormer model.I'll have to work on that some. With my model, the Sun is at its core a vacuum arc at the pinch in a cosmic flux tube. It's light will be the highest energy gamma rays, though there is no theoretical upper limit to the energies possible. The standard model has the nuclear rector at the core producing those gamma rays, but which is correct we may never know. So we look at gamma ray attenuation:
Gamma ray physics
https://www.britannica.com/science/gamma-ray
or
Gamma Ray Attenuation
http://www.nuclear-power.net/nuclear-po ... tenuation/
We see gamma ray flashes from solar flares, created again, IMO, at the point where the peanut pinch occurs in the solar flux tubes..
With either model, many gamma rays do not get far from the source, so from outside of the sun it is gamma ray quiet. Gamma rays are extremely difficult to focus, so the image of gamma rays from the Moon is about as good as it gets right now. Also that is not a photo really, it is a continuum, and likely required a long time to collect those gamma ray hits. The energy level of the gamma rays will have also dropped as there is still a substantial amount of matter, and electrons are matter, between the Moon and the detector.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... mpton.html
Lower down the energy ladder are x-rays, though there is overlap in the spectrum.

X-ray Scattering and Fluorescence From Atoms and Molecules
https://www.nist.gov/publications/x-ray ... -molecules

And lower down EUV, UV and so on. the thermal IR we feel on Earths surface occurs in the lower levels, some molecules being struck by UV can fluoresce in the IR for up to 5 minutes. There can also be direct high energy cosmic ray to UV and even visible light in the atmosphere.

Measurement of the near-infrared fluorescence of the air for the detection of ultra-high-energy cosmic rays
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011APh....34..333C
So as you can see, this is not just a simple model, there is much to be taken into consideration. Maybe I can get a grant of a couple of million a year for a few years to do a complete analysis? Anyway, I hope this rough outline helps show the direction of my thinking as to the ALT model.

[fosborn_]

Gamma Ray Attenuation
http://www.nuclear-power.net/nuclear-po ... tenuation/
We see gamma ray flashes from solar flares, created again, IMO, at the point where the peanut pinch occurs in the solar flux tubes..
With either model, many gamma rays do not get far from the source, so from outside of the sun it is gamma ray quiet.Gamma rays are extremely difficult to focus, so the image of gamma rays from the Moon is about as good as it gets right now. Also that is not a photo really, it is a continuum, and likely required a long time to collect those gamma ray hits. The energy level of the gamma rays will have also dropped as there is still a substantial amount of matter, and electrons are matter, between the Moon and the detector...
And lower down EUV, UV and so on. the thermal IR we feel on Earths surface occurs in the lower levels, some molecules being struck by UV can fluoresce in the IR for up to 5 minutes. There can also be direct high energy cosmic ray to UV and even visible light in the atmosphere.

It seems we are still back to how can the atmosphere create more information than the moon reflects. The substantial time to accumulate an image is even more of a problem. When there are flashes of meteor strikes on the moon and they are visible, there isn't enough time to accumulate an image. VUV is the same issue. When the ISS is seen crossing the face of the moon, there is no blurring or any indication of residual images or re charge or dimming of a trailing image.

[GaryN]

It seems we are still back to how can the atmosphere create more information than the moon reflects.

I hope I am understanding your question correctly, but the Moon is not reflecting much of anything if there is no Sunlight in space. The Moon is creating UV, and it is that UV that is converted to visible light by Earths atmosphere. No need for long exposures.
Moon UV images:
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apoll ... azine/?131
On the Moon itself, the beam developed by the solar radiation energising the lunar dust can be seen. NASA knew precisely when and where this beam would be at its strongest, and this determined where and when the missions would land to take advantage of the much brighter light than that of Earthshine, which was the primary light source, and according to NASA Earthshine alone would be sufficient to safely do the EVAs.


Earths UV, which is what produces Earthshine, and not reflected Sunlight.

The Apollo mission images are still the best and only images really of the conditions in space. The astronauts must hve been exceedingly bored by the time they were approaching the Moon and took some images of the first light they had seen since leaving cislunar space. They are available at this post on the Space Engine forums.
http://forum.spaceengine.org/viewtopic. ... t=45#p6801
These were taken using the very high speed 2485 film, in preparation for the imaging of the solar corona.

With the camera mounted on the window bracket, the G&N computer could orient the spacecraft so that it was pointing in exactly the correct direction to take the shots, even if the astronauts themselves could not see the corona due to the low light levels. The computer would also know exactly where the planets were, but not a single photo of even super-bright, from Earth, Venus. Again it is Earths atmosphere creating visible light from the Venus UV. And when I say UV, I don't know what exact wavelengths, but probably the shorter ones.

Are those some stars visible too? Most likely, and probably because the lunar atmosphere charged by the solar radiation is acting almost as an amplifier, something akin to changing the grid biasing on the old vidicon devices.

These images of the Moon taken during trans-Earth coast show just how black things will be to those venturing into space. Two phases of the Moon are shown, so the images must have been taken when their trajectory was still curved, as if they were on a straight line back to Earth, they would only have seen the full moon.

Quarter Moon.

And some more NASA cheating. The far side of the Moon was photographed from the external bay of the A16 CM.

Must have been some good camera, as during A16, the near side of the Moon was in full illumination. There are no proper photographs still of the lunar far side, and there will never be a hi-res still or video camera orbiting the Moon, no HiRISE type images, though even HiRISE is not just a Bayer filtered device, it has an IR filter too.

Next I will be looking at the light conditions on Mercury, and will use the standard model as explained in the Space Engine video, and explain why the model, to use the proper technical term, is really a "cart of bollocks".

[fosborn_]

It seems we are still back to how can the atmosphere create more information than the moon reflects.

I hope I am understanding your question correctly, but the Moon is not reflecting much of anything if there is no Sunlight in space. The Moon is creating UV, and it is that UV that is converted to visible light by Earths atmosphere. No need for long exposures.
Moon UV images:
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apoll ... azine/?131
On the Moon itself, the beam developed by the solar radiation energising the lunar dust can be seen.
Earths UV, which is what produces Earthshine, and not reflected Sunlight.

I don't think your understanding my question..
That doesn't make sense. if the moon is creating VUV again it would look like the earth's VUV and vis versa according to this picture and no details would ever be visible..

3f031_highc.jpg (4.35 KiB) Viewed 9252 times

If the earth was creating the VUV then the dark side would not exist..
Magazine OO AS16-131-20100 to AS16-131-20182 [83 ultraviolet images (0 surface; 10 orbital; 73 other)] ...
the UV pictures you refference to.

from; Photography Equipment and Techniques:
A Survey of NASA Developments

COLOR SENSITIVITY
The third characteristic used to define films is the basic color
sensitivity of the photosensitive material.
A blue-sensitive material has the inherent sensitivity of the
silver salt to theultraviolet and blue light of the visible spectrum.
An orthochromatic material is one that has an extended sensi-tivity to provide response to both the blue and green regions of
the visible spectrum.
A panchromatic material is one that has full sensitivity to all
colors of the visible spectrum including the blues, greens, and reds.
An extended red panchromatic material is the basic panchromatic
material but with the sensitivity extended as far as possible
in the visible red region of the spectrumand approaching the very
near infrared in its response.
An infrared-sensitive film is one that has been sensitized to
respond to the near-infrared radiation of the spectrum. Such films
retain their characteristic sensitivity to blue light and near ultraviolet
and thus require a filter that absorbs the ultraviolet radiation
if the full benefit of infrared recording is to be obtained.

I use the highlights to show all the detail we get form the moon images is based on the visual spectrum. Any magic downshifted visible spectrum from VUV or gamma is just going to be visual blobs. Your reasoning isn't holding up. IMO.

FYI...
Pioneer 4 was a spin stabilized spacecraft launched on a lunar flyby trajectory and into a heliocentric orbit making it the first US probe to escape from the Earth's gravity. It carried a payload similar to Pioneer 3: a lunar radiation environment experiment using a Geiger-Mueller tube detector and a lunar photography experiment. It passed within 60,000 km of the Moon's surface. However, Pioneer 4 did not come close enough to trigger the photoelectric sensor. No lunar radiation was detected. The spacecraft was still in solar orbit as of 1969...
But..Luna 3
NSSDCA/COSPAR ID: 1959-008A
Photoelectric cells were used to maintain orientation with respect to the Sun and Moon. The spacecraft had no rockets for course adjustment.

[perpetual motion]

That last sentence makes no sense at all, even if it did, it still would not work in "Outer Space".

[fosborn_]

That last sentence makes no sense at all, even if it did, it still would not work in "Outer Space".

Hmmm...
https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/spacecr ... =1959-008A

Luna 3, an automatic interplanetary station, was the third spacecraft successfully launched to the Moon and the first to return images of the lunar far side....
The interior of the spacecraft held the cameras and film processing system, radio equipment, propulsion systems, batteries, gyroscopic units for attitude control, and circulating fans for temperature control. The spacecraft was spin stabilized and was directly radio-controlled from Earth.

Maybe that helps, why would it not work?

A photocell was used to detect the Moon and orient the upper end of the spacecraft and cameras towards it. Detection of the Moon signaled the camera cover to open and the photography sequence to start automatically. After photography was complete, the film was moved to an on-board processor where it was developed, fixed, and dried. Commands from Earth were then given and the film was moved to a scanner where a bright spot produced by a cathode ray tube was projected through the film onto a photelectric multiplier. The spot was scanned across the film and the photomultiplier converted the intensity of the light passing through the film into an electric signal which was transmitted to Earth. A frame could be scanned with a resolution of 1000 lines, the transmission could be done at a slow rate for large distances from Earth and a faster rate at closer range.

I think this was amazing low tech..

[GaryN]

I use the highlights to show all the detail we get form the moon images is based on the visual spectrum.

Your highlight:

the visible red region of the spectrum

But more of the text

but with the sensitivity extended as far as possible
in the visible red region of the spectrum and approaching the very
near infrared in its response.

So if you have a film that will detect into the deep red and the near IR, could you see that against the utter blackness of space? And how long was the film exposed?
All film is sensitive to UV and x-rays too, but normally the lens glass blocks UV, so they need a UV lens, which they did have with them. And again, what exposure? And then the developing process, how far did they 'push' the film to make things visible? The 2485 could be pushed to ISO 16,000, and I have read even higher. The Special Order films, the SO ones, were only made for NASA, so we likely don't even know their full capabilities. Each photo taken told NASA very much more about the nature of light in space, they were experiments, and not just pretty photos. THE FUVC instrument and the results obtained put an end to any idea of regular astronomy in space, from then on all development was spectroscopic in nature, which is why it took NASA nearly 50 years to give Lyman Spitzer his space telescope. So really, when it comes to what was actually visible by eye, and that is the $64K question, only the astronauts themselves can tell us, and from quotes and transcripts, more than just Armstrong said it was totally black. The finest eyes and trained observers said black. We have other astronauts who say looking away from Earth from orbit that it is totally black, and then the likes of Massimino saying he could see the glory of the Heavens even while in sunlight, so something is very much amiss here. The Controllers have very little to worry about though, these discrepancies will never enter the consciousness of the masses as the mainstream media will just not mention them, and the few who do look closely and realise something is amiss can do nothing to change things.
I have been banned from most mainstream forums, even some 'alternative" sites, ridiculed and insulted all for suggesting that empirical science should be employed to establish some very basic truths. I see Michael Mozina has posted about his experiences, in the upper forums, but doubt even he would go as far as to say there is no proof that the Sun is visible from cislunar space, whereas I will continue to say that until there is verifiable proof otherwise, and there is none at all so far. Why bother banging my head against the wall when nobody will ever take the idea seriously? Well, maybe I won't for much longer. Some things are just not meant to be known to us, not just in astronomy or astrophysics, but in geology, the history of Earth and humanity, and more.
Taking a picture of the Sun through the lunar dust, using the very high speed 2485 film proves nothing about the visibility of the Sun, by eye, from clear space. Neither yourself nor anyone else can prove that anything at all is visible from deep space, a staggering thought I know, astronomy and astrophysics would be destroyed totally, and that can not be allowed.

I think this was amazing low tech..

Absolutely, but if they had sent my old Zenit SLR (still have it) up there, with the trusty old Kodachrome 64 or even the 200, it would not have seen anything, as was with the RCA 3 tube colour camera with the f/0.7 high speed lens that Kubrick inherited. I'll post the details on the Mercury Messenger 'cameras' soon, nothing that they saw would be visible to the eye, despite Mercury supposedly being so brightly lit by visible light from the Sun.
To your credit Frank you are the only person so far to have spent such efforts in trying to prove they could see the stars or anything else from cislunar space, even the so called experts will not make an attempt to do so, and with good reason.

[GaryN]

I think I broke Google search.

No results found for "Atmospheric Light Transformer" site:http://www.thunderbolts.info/

[fosborn_]

So if you have a film that will detect into the deep red and the near IR, could you see that against the utter blackness of space? And how long was the film exposed?
All film is sensitive to UV and x-rays too, but normally the lens glass blocks UV, so they need a UV lens, which they did have with them. And again, what exposure? And then the developing process, how far did they 'push' the film to make things visible? The 2485 could be pushed to ISO 16,000, and I have read even higher...

This is why I am looking at the oldest probes, before it was such specialized hardware ( most bang for the buck, not conspiracy T)

Lunik 3 began snapping an automatic sequence of photos with its wide-angle and zoom lenses, advancing the strip of film from its lead-lined cartridge. The camera was fixed to the spacecraft, so in order to capture images from various angles, Lunik 3 rotated itself up and down and side to side between photos using small gas jets. This went on for 40 minutes, exposing 29 squares of Genetrix film, and imaging 70 percent of the far side of the moon.

Unfortunately, unlike the Genetrix balloons from which the special film had been salvaged, the Soviets had not yet discovered a means to physically return the exposures from space to a development lab on Earth. Their solution was to process film in the same chemical-bath-and-dry method used on Earth, but inside a miniature, automatic, zero-gravity darkroom. Inside its pressurized hull, Lunik 3’s Yenisey photographic system slid the strip of exposed film between two rubber seals into a reservoir of thick, single-stage developing fluid, then out another sealed slit into the film dryer. Considering the quality of the cameras and film, the resulting black-and-white photographs must have been spectacular.

GaryN...I have been banned from most mainstream forums, even some 'alternative" sites, ridiculed and insulted all for suggesting that empirical science should be employed to establish some very basic truths.

The space.com forum link you posted, was vary forthright and gives a good summery of your position and its opposition. I think the biggest issue is how you deal with falsifications rather than admitting the validity and simply state, its the area you want to pursue anyway. Which by posting the link, I think your saying.

GaryN.. I see Michael Mozina has posted about his experiences, in the upper forums, but doubt even he would go as far as to say there is no proof that the Sun is visible from cislunar space, whereas I will continue to say that until there is verifiable proof otherwise, and there is none at all so far.Why bother banging my head against the wall when nobody will ever take the idea seriously? Well, maybe I won't for much longer.Some things are just not meant to be known to us, not just in astronomy or astrophysics, but in geology, the history of Earth and humanity

I have participated with in this thread and invested much labor. I have reviewed and appreciated the history of space exploration more that I would have ever otherwise.
I have honestly embraced your thinking, walked a mile in your shoes. It was a fascinating moment to consider a paradigm shift, I think a lot of people would enjoy a turnover of " boring Astronomy" ( example Trump election).

But after engaging in my own investigations, it didn't hold up. But applying Charles Chandlers wisdom of learning other theories even when they are in no agreement with my own, had proven wonderfully enriching. I think at this stage you might do a paradigm shift of your own, rather than quit.

Admit the obvious falsifications, and pursue it for the pure enrichment that it is. dam the facts, its fodder for the seeds of something greater. Your a vary intelligent individual. Your energies are improperly channeled for a lack of intellectual flexibility. IMO

[GaryN]

Printing bricks from moondust using the Sun's heat

Bricks have been 3D printed out of simulated moondust using concentrated sunlight – proving in principle that future lunar colonists could one day use the same approach to build settlements on the Moon.

http://www.moondaily.com/reports/Printi ... t_999.html
My prediction? Won't work, will never even be tried.

[GaryN]

Your last post may take me a while to answer fully Frank. Very well put, and thanks for your kind words and encouragement. I do not intend to quit so much as move to a new phase. After almost 10 years since coming across the TB site I have undergone a transition of thinking, due in great part to the posts on the forum by many of the present and past members, and on this topic you have been instrumental in driving me to further research. That we have both examined the available evidence and come to such opposing views, well, c'est la vie.
Although I still fully support the broader model of the Electric Universe, I have also developed some aspects that differ from those of the authors of the site. One is the source of the power to drive the model, and I am excited by the Safire project findings already, as that seem to be confirming, so far, ideas that sprung to mind many years ago, the basic but fuzzy principles. Of course I am willing to modify my models as the experiments continue, I am not going to deny hard science. Unfortunately that is something the mainstream seems to have abandoned, and replaced with assumptions and mathematical jiggery-pokery.
Todays TPOD is a case in point. Ball of Confusion.
https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2017/0 ... confusion/
Though I agree with Steve Smiths posts for the most part, this is a case where the assumption of astronomers that all the objects in the photo are stars has I feel sent him off course. My examination of how the instruments work and what they detect, leads me to believe that how that data is interpreted by astronomers is bogus. Yes, EM forces will organise these objects, but there is no proof they are stars like our Sun, but objects with atmospheres that will glow due to those atmospheres being energised by a central Sun or perhaps by local electrical conditions where no central source is evident. The distance to and size of these clusters is again based on an incorrect basic understanding of the hardware involved and the processes of light creation and propagation.
I like to believe that I am fully open to changing my mind, that my thinking is flexible enough to accept where I am in error, but also admit sometimes I can be a stubborn old sod.

[perpetual motion]

Don't give in GaryN. These web site forums will eat you up. I went over to Space. com and read what
they were saying to you. Don't give an inch to these over educated fools that during their four
years of college, read every book they can get their grimy hands on, and mostly remember all of
it, but know absolutely nothing. Just try not to associate or talk with people like those, that is
all they live for is to cut people down, because THEY are right no matter what is said.
BELEIVE!!

[kevin]

GaryN,

Forgive them , for they do not know.
None of us know, We are all akin to puppy dogs putting their paws in puddles.
I for one value highly what You contribute here, and have learned ever so much.
Thank you.
Kevin

[D_Archer]

Hooray for GaryN

Over the years i always read the posts in this thread and find it fascinating still.

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

Keep on trucking.

Regards,
Daniel

[fosborn_]

by GaryN » Fri May 05, 2017 1:59 pmThe distance to and size of these clusters is again based on an incorrect basic understanding of the hardware involved and the processes of light creation and propagation.
I like to believe that I am fully open to changing my mind, that my thinking is flexible enough to accept where I am in error, but also admit sometimes I can be a stubborn old sod.

Stubborn? Your not unique.
As far as light creation and propogation, I agree, you have exposed a lot of questions.

concerning the Ball of Confusion.
https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2017/0 ... confusion/
It helps illustrate my question with your light transformer thinking.

The Orion A molecular cloud (for comparison)
This image compares a new infrared image from the VISTA survey telescope at ESO’s Paranal Observatory in northern Chile with a visible light view of the region from the Digitized Sky Survey 2 (DSS).

We are told we see more detail, but only because a lot of information has been filtered out. If all visual information was removed from the image, what would actually be identifiable? You propose such a thing. Your gamma ray only or VUV planet sphere image projection, would leave out all other information. How is all this additional visual information created? Matched electron spin encrypted packets ? Spooky action at a distance?

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

The US Genetrix spy balloons had a sun light sensor to turn the cameras on and off, so after sunset, no film would be wasted.
As did Soviet and US early moon probes to take pictures only when close enough to the moon and receiving enough light to take pictures.