The Boring Sun

[GaryN]

From a BBC interview with Mike Massimino, on his recently released book "Spaceman":

As you look at the planet and you see this beautiful oasis, which is what it is, and you turn your head and look out into the the blackness, the darkness out there...

He did mention, as have other EVA astronauts, about the unblinking points of light that could be seen, but my interpretation remains that they must be looking through the upper atmosphere to see those points of light, and not away from Earth. In the interview I heard on the radio but can not find in its entirety now, the interviewer got a little too close to an awkward question about the view from EVA, and Massimino gave a long and rambling reply that answered absolutely nothing. And looking away from Earth, there is nothing to be seen.

[GaryN]

John Glenn, Friendship 7, from transcript.

The sky above is absolutely black, completely black.

His full comment was:

The sky above is absolutely black, completely black. I can see stars though up above. I do not have any of the constellations identified as yet. Over.

At the time his main view was towards Earths horizon, as he had just watched the Sun go down, and had a blue band across the width of the horizon. I believe he was seeing the stars in the forward direction, looking through earths atmosphere above the horizon, and that looking up, it was indeed absolutely black, which is what many other astronauts since Glenns brave venture have told us. How I'd have loved to sit and chat with him.

[GaryN]

Todays TPOD https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/category/tpod/ examines the idea that the appearance of the planets may change when there is some event occurring which changes in Earths atmospheric conditions and make the planets look larger, or have a tail. If the astronauts who say it is totally black out there are to be believed, and I certainly do, then it is our atmosphere that makes the heavens visible at all.
William Herschel suggested 2 centuries ago that the light in space "be unfit for vision"

In this case, radiant heat will at least partly, if not chiefly, consist, if I may be permitted the expression, of invisible light; that is to say, of rays coming from the sun, that have such a momentum as to be unfit for vision. And admitting, as is highly probable, that the organs of sight are only adapted to receive impressions from particles of a certain momentum, it explains why the maximum of illumination should be in the middle of the refrangible rays; as those which have greater or less momenta are likely to become equally unfit for the impression of sight.

His reasoning in this and other matters he covers is very interesting and well reasoned given the state of astronomy at the time. We now know there are other processes at work in Earths atmosphere that can create or change the wavelength and characteristics of the incoming solar irradiance. He also suggested that the Sun was cold, with which I agree, and likely inhabited. No comment.

These days though, we really only need look to Mercury for confirmation that Earths atmosphere creates the light. Mercury is about the darkest object in the Solar system, and the Mercury Messenger 'cameras' see in only the near IR, for the NAC, and visible and other spectral lines with the WAC, emissions from surface material, but the emissions are so weak that Mercury would be black to anyone orbiting the planet. So how come it is a bright morning/evening star sometimes? Does that make sense to anyone?

For the work of Velikovsky there are major implications, and by association, the Thunderbolts team too. The planets may have looked bigger and closer, brighter of different in colour, be flaming or trailing sparkling tails, but from space nothing at all would be visible. It's all going on at wavelengths or configurations "unfit for the impression of sight."

I do not believe that the planets would have moved around haphazardly in the event of a major Solar conflagration, or from a passing interloper object, but I would not rule out the planets moving into an organised polar configuration, and the planets tipping over in the event of a major magnetic storm. Anyway, it's really, really black out there.

[perpetual motion]

",as those which have greater or less momenta are likely to become equally unfit for the impression of sight".
Good, but I would change (Momenta) to (The amount of particles in a given space,
however small it may be).
I wouldn't say momenta has very much to do about this, the more particles in an given space, plus or minus, would be the color factor that our eyes can perceive.
More protons, brighter light spectrum, fewer protons, dimmer light spectrum.
No so called frequencies involved. Frequencies are man made with man made
electricity. To many theories involving waves on a beach or waves on a pond
or waves in an oscillograph or scope. My dictionary doesn't even have that word written in it. All man made. It is all in your imagination. Just like my theory
that says that the magnetosphere is squeezing and holding this atmosphere
to this or any planet for that matter.

[GaryN]

The link in my previous post should point to Smoke Without Fire Part Two
https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2016/1 ... -part-two/

I wouldn't say momenta has very much to do about this

I thought momenta fine, for the models of light we have come to accept. Smaller light 'particles' have a higher frequency and carry more energy per unit, which I think of as momenta.
The neutrino then has the highest energy per particle, and there are so many of them that the total energy from solar neutrinos, according to one model, would be 2.3 GW/M^2 at Earths distance. There are other models of light, including one that can do away with the Aether model some of us favour, but whatever the correct model turns out to be, if we can ever reach one, the fact is that if nothing is visible to our eyes in space then all the present models used in astronomy and astrophysics are just pure junk. Really frustrating, when the empirical science could be performed from the altitude Glenn attained, with 60's era instruments.
Energy–momentum relation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy%E2 ... m_relation

[GaryN]

From 2010 to 2014, the Picard satellite acquired more than a million pictures of the Sun, as well as many other measurements. Scientists are now sifting through the data to learn more about how our star works and better understand what drives its variations.

So, the Sun is yellow/orange when seen from space, not white as NASA tells us. If anyone really knows, these guys surely should.

The CNES microsatellite has delivered a 1st image of the Sun.

https://cnes.fr/en/web/CNES-en/8647-gp- ... of-sun.php
So their you go, a million photos of the Sun, can't wait to see them.
https://picard.cnes.fr/en/PICARD/index.htm

SOFIA has a new IR sensor, inspired by the structure of a moths eye.

Bigger:
https://3c1703fe8d.site.internapcdn.net ... yeinsp.gif
They rarely show us SOFIA images, maybe they will condescend to showing us at least one or two from the new sensor
http://phys.org/news/2016-12-moth-eye-c ... sofia.html?

[perpetual motion]

SOFIA is a is a joint program between NASA and the German Aerospace Center and is a Boeing 747SP jetliner modified to carry a 100-inch diameter telescope that uses eight instruments to study the universe at infrared wavelengths that cannot be detected from ground-based observatories. Cycle 5 provides 455 research hours to U.S. programs and 80 hours to German programs.

Nice find Gary, I just read about this SOFIA project the other day and was wondering who was forking over
the tab on this waste of money. And then, who do they spy on for the rest of their unlogged hours. This is
sort of like the AWAC planes taking photos for Google Earth for years.

Anyway, I too would like to see just a couple of these so called photos, of "anything" from outer space, because
they have had four to five years to come up with some sort of imagination from this programming.

I know that I have said this before, but why is it that when a person wants to learn something about
science, is everywhere you turn it all still relates to physics, and I thought that EU was trying to get
away from this. But still, even on this forum it is still physics talk. I've been reading on this site almost
every night for years and it hasn't made much headway.

It is still interesting though.

[GaryN]

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.

I've been reading on this site almost every night for years and it hasn't made much headway.

This site started me on a journey that may never end, and I have learned much. Thunderbolts is up against much of the establishment on many fronts, so expect no rapid progress on getting alternative theories out to the general public, and probably next to no acceptance of those alternative models by the mis-educated general public. Think yourself fortunate that you can at least consider what is outside the box, most can not.

[moses]

Gary,
it seems to me that if the light from stars is bent by the atmosphere or maybe the magnetosphere of Earth, then the area of light coming from that star will be enormously increased compared with seeing that star from space. Is this what you are saying ?

Cheers,
Mo

[GaryN]

Gary,
it seems to me that if the light from stars is bent by the atmosphere or maybe the magnetosphere of Earth, then the area of light coming from that star will be enormously increased compared with seeing that star from space. Is this what you are saying ?

Cheers,
Mo

It is, IMO, not such a simple thing as the atmosphere increasing the area of light, as if it were so then putting a big Celestron telescope in space should produce images of stars. It won't, so they don't even dare try it. It is the nature of the light outside of an atmosphere that is quite different to that at the surface, not just wavelengths that we are unable to see but also the configuration of the light, which can not be focused by conventional lenses, including those in our eyes.
More research is being done on the ionosphere, but that does not include testing the visibility of the heavens from increasing altitudes.

Revolutions in understanding the ionosphere, Earth's interface to space

Scientists from NASA and three universities have presented new discoveries about the way heat and energy move and manifest in the ionosphere, a region of Earth's atmosphere that reacts to changes from both space above and Earth below.

https://phys.org/news/2016-12-revolutio ... space.html

Early Russian astronauts told us the stars could be blue or red/gold, and that the Sun looked really strange. US astronauts have not commented on such, lets do some tests.
Also, the 'light' coming from great distances surely must pass through clouds of plasma, or electric fields etc, and surely there must be changes to that 'light? Now they are considering the effects of plasma though, with regards to the microwave background measurements:

Observations cast new light on cosmic microwave background

The new source of radiation in the 22 to 100 GHz range observed by WMAP and Planck appears to be emission from cold electrons (known as free-free emission). While cosmologists have corrected for this type of radiation from hot electrons associated with galactic nebulae where the source temperatures are thousands of degrees, the new model requires electron temperatures more like a few 100 K.

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-01-cosmic-mi ... d.html#jCp

There would be a lot of re-writing of textbooks if NASA would perform some pretty basic science with respect to what is visible by eye from outside of Earths atmosphere, so they just avoid the issue. Only a private or publicly funded mission could provide the truth. Or make a complete idiot of me. But, I have studied many of the instruments sent into space, and have full confidence in my conclusions.

[moses]

Gary,
You may be right, however I could see that the area of light coming from a star could be a billion times larger on Earth than that star seen from space. There may well be more to it and perhaps a galactic cloud does increase the area of light passing through it, and maybe electric fields can bend light. It also adds credence to the possibility of light bending towards the Sun and thus putting the parallax measurements out so that the stars could be enormously closer than what we think.

Cheers,
Mo

[GaryN]

Hi Mo,
The satellites in geosynchronous orbit would seem to present an ideal opportunity to view the heavens from a different perspective, but there are no cameras facing away from Earth on any of them. The Echo Star/DISH network had a camera facing Earth 'till NASA took over the channel.It caught too many unexplainable images apparently. Nothing is known of the specs. of the camera, but it did not show Earth looking like we would expect to see it from space. Perhaps Van Allen belt radiation affected its performance?
https://www.google.ca/search?q=dish+ear ... BSgA&dpr=1
As we are looking through the Van Allen radiation belt when we view the stars from Earth, could it be acting as a lens and making the (supposed) stars look further away?

We'll never know. NASA has turned space into the most boring of places, EVAs are too dangerous to be out there doing experiments, all their external cameras suck, and none of them point away from Earth, into deep space, even though the engineers who designed the ISS said it would provide an excellent platform for space based astronomy and astrophotography.


More likely nonsense:
Deepest x-ray image ever reveals black hole treasure trove

http://news.psu.edu/story/443589/2017/0 ... sure-trove
Our sun, the planets and even moons also give off x-rays, so as you say, they may just appear to be larger objects further away? ROSAT is at 360 mile altitude, so the x-ray background could well be from (oxygen?) emissions in the plasmasphere further out.
Moon in x-rays with background emissions.

[moses]

<As we are looking through the Van Allen radiation belt when we view the stars from Earth, could it be acting as a lens and making the (supposed) stars look further away? Gary>

The stars are measured in June say and then again in December, so the Van Allen Belt would have no effect on the calculated distances even if it did bend the light.

<Our sun, the planets and even moons also give off x-rays, so as you say, they may just appear to be larger objects further away? Gary>

Or electrically fired up little objects that are a lot closer to us than calculated. My main issue is that light from a star may bend towards the Sun before it hits Earth. Now in June the light is bent in the opposite direction to that in December, so the distance calculations could easily be magnitudes out.

Another thing is the bending of light moving past the Sun is calculated by Einstein ideas, whereas bending by electrical potentials, say, might well start bending a lot further away from the Sun compared with the need for the light to be very close to the Sun by the Einstein/gravity method, or even through refraction.

I am disturbed by the censorship of space that you seem to be suggesting. I could never have imagined it is so extensive. What about the Chinese satellites. I guess we poor peasants would be psychologically damaged if we knew.

Cheers,
Mo

[willendure]

From a BBC interview with Mike Massimino, on his recently released book "Spaceman":

As you look at the planet and you see this beautiful oasis, which is what it is, and you turn your head and look out into the the blackness, the darkness out there...

He did mention, as have other EVA astronauts, about the unblinking points of light that could be seen, but my interpretation remains that they must be looking through the upper atmosphere to see those points of light, and not away from Earth. In the interview I heard on the radio but can not find in its entirety now, the interviewer got a little too close to an awkward question about the view from EVA, and Massimino gave a long and rambling reply that answered absolutely nothing. And looking away from Earth, there is nothing to be seen.

Recently I read "Road to the Stars", Yuri Gagarin's account of his part in the man's first flight into orbit.

On the subject of whether or not the stars are visible in space, he writes:

"Through the portholes I saw a diamond-field of shining, bright, cold stars."

His eyes were tested very thoroughly no less than seven times before he was selected to train as a cosmonaut. So there you go, even the first space man saw the stars.

[GaryN]

willendure:

So there you go, even the first space man saw the stars.

And I have seen lots of photos from the ISS showing stars, so I believe the stars are visible from low earth orbit. They are not visible, and there is no proof that they are, if you are not looking through the "frangible matter", as Herschel described it. The light "unfit for the impression of sight" must pass through a certain amount of this frangible matter for the conversion to visible light to occur.
In this diagram, to scale, I have shown the depth of the column of matter that the lines of sight from the ISS cupola must pass through. From Earth we are looking only through a thin, but denser column of matter. The vertical line would be the L.O.S. from the ISS cupola if they could see at 90 degrees from the perpendicular, but they can not because of the angle of the cupola windows and the superstructure of the ISS, which blocks the view. Judging by the radius of the Earth visible in the photos from the cupola, I have estimated the most likely line of sight, which would be the angled line. The density of the matter in the L.O.S. will decrease with altitude, and there is still matter out to at least 10,000 kilometres, but I have just used 1000 here.
So, the amount of matter in the L.O.S. column will be, must be, equivalent to the amount of matter in the column we look through when viewing the stars from Earths surface, as if it wasn't, the stars would not be visible, just as they are not from the lunar surface as there is insufficient matter for visible light to be created from the type of EM radiation being emitted by the stars, or whatever they really are.
And the reason the Russian astronauts saw blue or red/gold stars is because they were able to see 'higher up', at a steeper angle, so were only looking through a column of matter composed of material that gives off light at those wavelengths.

Bigger
http://www3.telus.net/myworld/iss_los3.jpg
To test the visibility of the stars when looking away from earth, the camera would need to be pointing along the horizontal line leading away from Earth, but there are no windows/portholes available to take such a photo.