The Boring Sun

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread postby fosborn_ » Wed Jun 07, 2017 11:42 am

Cargo wrote:I don't believe a word of the big Space Agencies and what they tell us normal humans about Space.

But you may find some interesting choices of words in this article.
https://sureshemre.wordpress.com/2016/0 ... -in-space/

The fallback of Mainstream seems to be only aperture and exposure, as well as deflection of the topic by equating photography (or worse) with Human Seeing.
https://www.universetoday.com/117215/wh ... look-like/

https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments ... l_through/
This one especially being so recent, but notice how quickly the topic is steered away from the subject.


You got anything that actually proves anything other than a hack opinion article that adds nothing ? At lest pull out some specifics you dispute, notice this, or notice that, says noting..IMO example what about the human eye sensitivity do you dispute? You say nothing of what the big agencies say is valid? Give some examples please.
The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries,
is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'
Isaac Asimov
fosborn_
 
Posts: 477
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread postby GaryN » Wed Jun 07, 2017 1:51 pm

Thamks for the links Cargo. This one illustrates just how diverse the ideas are on how light works:
https://sureshemre.wordpress.com/2016/0 ... -in-space/

We see the stars on Earth with the naked eye because the atmosphere acts like a lens or a big camera aperture. The air molecules scatter the photons coming from the distant star. Our eyes receive the light of the star from different directions because of the scattering. There may be millions of molecules in the air scattering the star light towards our eye. Therefore the star light is amplified million times compared to the situation in space where there is no air therefore no scattering and no amplification.


The light is amplified by being diffused. Easy enough to test if you have access to space outside of the atmosphere.

I am amazed that some humans can actually see the stars by the naked eye in space.


None of the astronauts reported being able to see stars from cislunar space, only how totally black it was out there.
The ALT model would predict exactly that, no atmosphere, no light.

fosborn
Hope you can site a source for this and confirm this assertion.(ND filter) I think it will go the way of the Apollo EVA flood light... IMO


You can ask an astronomer yourself, seeing as you don't believe me. I was on the phone for over an hour with one of the scientists working at NPS in Monterey, and though he did not support my idea of nothing being visible from clear space, he asked around and the shop floor consensus was that the ND filter would be the only way to see the Sun properly from outside of the atmosphere..
As for the Apollo EVA lighting, I did not respond to your previous post as you have completely distorted the facts, even making up a graphic that shows the floodlight pointing the wrong way. The light was pointing exactly where it was designed to and illuminating the precise area it was supposed to. The thruster shadow was in exactly the same place on the A15,16,17 cislunar EVAs, impossible if it was sunlight. The floodlight was the ONLY source of illumination, and you can not prove otherwise. I'm a little disappointed though that you didn't say "oh, the sun is so hot and bright out there that the navigation computer oriented them so they were out of the Sunlight, for safety". There is no light or heat from the Sun when in clear space and unless you can prove otherwise then I will not respond further to your twisting of the available information, your deep indoctrination by the mainstream education and science authorities has totally blinded you to independent thinking and reasoning. IMO.
In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete. -Buckminster Fuller
User avatar
GaryN
 
Posts: 2535
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread postby fosborn_ » Wed Jun 07, 2017 9:59 pm

GaryN..As for the Apollo EVA lighting, I did not respond to your previous post as you have completely distorted the facts, even making up a graphic that shows the floodlight pointing the wrong way.
Apollo_CSM_lunar_orbit.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c0/Apollo_CSM_lunar_orbit.jpg

What ever you say....

GaryN..None of the astronauts reported being able to see stars from cislunar space, only how totally black it was out there.
The ALT model would predict exactly that, no atmosphere, no light.

No how many times you say it. still a false statement.. Not IMO. but posted quotes...
You can ask an astronomer yourself, seeing as you don't believe me. I was on the phone for over an hour with one of the scientists working at NPS in Monterey, and thoughhe did not support my idea of nothing being visible from clear space, he asked around and the shop floor consensus was that the ND filter would be theonly way to see the Sun properly from outside of the atmosphere..

So he stated context. the proper viewing of the sun hasn't anything to do with its visual light. Its seeing it properly. In over an hours conversation you never got a name who you were talking to? My bet it was the janitor.. ;) Don't put words and meaning where there is non..IMO
I'm a little busy but I have some more comment on the hack article, later..
The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries,
is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'
Isaac Asimov
fosborn_
 
Posts: 477
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread postby comingfrom » Thu Jun 08, 2017 7:23 am

I did some googling.
I'm not agreeing or disagreeing. I'd like to know.

The origin of this misconception [can't see stars in space] is usually traced back to an interview with the crew of Apollo 11, where (it is claimed) Neil Armstrong said he couldn’t see stars in space. What the crew were actually discussing at the time was the inability to see stars on the daylight side of the Moon, which is not surprising given how bright the lunar surface can be relative to the airless black of space. Even in space the stars aren’t overly bright, and our eyes can lose dark adaption pretty quickly.

Brian Koberlein: https://briankoberlein.com/2015/09/11/can-astronauts-see-stars-in-space/


[On the ISS] Astronauts get to spend about 45 minutes 16 times a day over the nightside, just enough time for their eyes to become fully dark adapted before the sun pops up again along the Earth’s curvature. In darkness, about as many stars are visible from orbit as you’d see from a dark rural sky.

Edward Tsang Lu (Astronaut and physicist): “There is something really cool about floating in a spaceship looking at all the stars! It’s fun to watch stars as they rise and set through the atmosphere as we circle Earth. They start to twinkle as the light rays bend while passing through the uneven density of the atmosphere. They, as they get closer to the actual horizon, they start to look orange and then red before blinking out. Sometimes they even turn green briefly. This is just the same effect that makes sunsets look orange and red. “

Source: https://astrobob.areavoices.com/2016/05/18/can-astronauts-see-stars-from-the-space-station-the-moon/


Astronaut Chris Hadfield doing a TedX Talk: "Looking out at the rest of everything... an unfathomable blackness, like a texture you can stick your hand into."

@ 7:40 in YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zo62S0ulqhA


Astronaut photograph ISS044-E-45215 was acquired on August 9, 2015 by a member of the Expedition 44 crew, with a Nikon D4 digital camera using a 28 millimeter lens

https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/stargazing-from-the-international-space-station


Stargazing Astronaut Photographs Famed Constellations in Space (Images)

Constellations seen from Earth inspire wonder in many skywatchers, but what do they look like when viewed from space? One astronaut on the International Space Station beamed down her special cosmic views to Earth via social media.

NASA astronaut Karen Nyberg posted Twitter updates during her time aboard the orbiting outpost including a few special photos of familiar star patterns as seen from her perspective.

http://www.space.com/22299-astronaut-sees-constellations-from-space-photos.html


"So there was a little space around the far side of the Moon where I was shadowed from both the Earth and the Sun and that was pretty amazing. I could see more stars than I could possibly imagine. It really makes you wonder about our place in the Universe and what we're all about. When you see that many stars out there you realize that those are really suns and those suns could have planets around them...

The sky is just awash with stars when you're on the far side of the Moon, and you don't have any sunlight to cut down on the lower intensity, dimmer stars. You see them all, and it's all just a sheet of white."

Al Worden, astronaut in the command module Apollo 15.
https://www.outerplaces.com/science/item/13651-apollo-15-al-worden-astronaut-moon-space


Conflicting testimonies side by side in a quick video.
Neil deGrass Tyson (Astrophicist): Stars are visible once outside the atmosphere, even when the Sun is in the sky.
Neil Armstrong (Astronaut): We were never able to see stars. The sky was a deep black when viewed from the moon and from cislunar space.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94PpTmOMXfQ


"... according to NASA astronaut Clayton C. Anderson, who lived on the space station for 152 days back in 2007, the sky doesn’t really look all that different. Anderson states, “the sky looks the same to us as it does to you, except that you are looking through the Earth’s atmosphere. For the most part, we can see the same things, with a bit better clarity… more so, if we take some extra steps.”

https://futurism.com/milky-way-look-like-iss-2/


~Paul
User avatar
comingfrom
 
Posts: 759
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:11 pm
Location: NSW, Australia

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread postby fosborn_ » Thu Jun 08, 2017 10:03 am

Wow! once in a while, objective observers contribute like you and mose...
The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries,
is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'
Isaac Asimov
fosborn_
 
Posts: 477
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread postby fosborn_ » Fri Jun 09, 2017 6:53 am

comingfrom » Astronaut Chris Hadfield doing a TedX Talk: "Looking out at the rest of everything... an unfathomable blackness, like a texture you can stick your hand into."
@ 7:40 in YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zo62S0ulqhA

I guess you missed this part of Hadfiild's discription of seeing stars above the atmosphere..
Feb 17, 2013 - Chris Hadfield, a commander at International Space Station, answered ... replied: "It looks like a carpet of countless tiny perfect unblinking lights in endless velvet,

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... FvXRdAi4xA


Also as far as seeing stars in cis lunar space..
fosborn_ wrote:
Just perusing a radio transcripts document of Apollo 10 about half way to the moon.
http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/53134295
page 145

SC Hello, Houston, Apollo 10.
CAPCON Go ahead, 10.
CAPCON 10, Houston. Go ahead.
SC Hello, Houston, Apollo 10.
CAPCON Go ahead.
CAPCON Hello, Apollo 10, Houston. We are
reading you § by. Go ahead, Tom.
CAPCOM 10, Houston. Do you read?
SC Yes, now how do you read, Charlie?
CAPCON 5 by, Tom, you were coming 5 by all
the time.
SC Oh, okay. I Just wanted to give
you a star visibility data point. Just a second ago, when
the sun was in the right side window, number 5 window, I
can see on the Southern Cross, Aerux and alpha beta Centauri
out my left window and charts the first time we've been able
to see it.

CAPCOH Rog, good show.
SC And we couldn't - John couldn't
see many other stars, Just the real big ones, you know, like
alpha beta Centauri and Acrux. Now as the sun moves on
around, they've disappeared, but thatts the first glimpse
of any stars I've gotten.

CAPGOM Roger, we
The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries,
is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'
Isaac Asimov
fosborn_
 
Posts: 477
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread postby fosborn_ » Fri Jun 09, 2017 8:21 am

Cargo wrote:I don't believe a word of the big Space Agencies and what they tell us normal humans about Space.

But you may find some interesting choices of words in this article.
https://sureshemre.wordpress.com/2016/0 ... -in-space/


Looks like another religious indoctrination site.. I don't believe much the psudo science bunk from religious indoctrination sites..
A Vision for a Universal Renaissance
Renaissance Universal (RU) is a movement and a network of people dedicated to the ideal of a universal renaissance in human affairs. The impetus and inspiration for the movement came from Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar on January 27, 1958.
Another sentiment that motivates the RU movement is respect for all living beings.
"All molecules, atoms, electrons, protons, positrons and neutrons are the veritable expressions of the same Supreme Consciousness. Those who remember this reality, who keep this realization ever alive in their hearts, are said to have attained perfection in life. They are the real devotees, the real bhaktas... .”

My highlights..

Renaissance Universal
Suresh Emre..I was deeply inspired by Shrii Shrii Anandamurti’s call
“O human beings! You are fortunate. The clarion call of the Universal has reached you.


Suresh Emre..Only a minority of astronauts clearly stated they could see the stars unaided by camera if they adjusted their eyes. The key phrase is “adjusting the eyes.”

She never explains what adjusting the eyes mean or is. Surely not adjusting to night vision. :roll:

We see the stars on Earth with the naked eye because the atmosphere acts like a lens or a big camera aperture. The air molecules scatter the photons coming from the distant star. Our eyes receive the light of the star from different directions because of the scattering.


Really? O please can someone explains how light scattering causes light amplification ? That would be some pretty blurred vision of any night object, moon planets stars..
No references are sited, all of it is thinking out loud, by a not so educated opinion... IMO
It demonstrates how religious zeal can dumb down even a physicist. IMO
Suresh Emre..I have worked as a physicist..My main goal is to inspire the reader to engage in Self-discovery and expansion of consciousness...
My highlights
Guess that job didn't work out. Guess that person works for Renaissance Universal full time now..
A lighthouse light is a concentrated beam, focused by special lenses. Because of its highly increased intensity, this beam of light can travel a very long distance.

The design of the lighthouse light as we know it today, originated at the beginning of the 18th Century. The French inventor Augustin Fresnel had correctly deduced that light was pure energy that traveled in waves, and he then spent his life developing lenses and reflectors that could capture and concentrate light. The first lighthouse optics that he designed combined highly polished prisms with an array of lenses that captured light and concentrated it back into a main beam. The design was concentric in arrangement,funneling the light into a beam that was many times brighter than its source. This light could be seen for more than 20 miles. Fresnel’s design of concentric glass rings to concentrate light is still used today in the production of automobile headlights, traffic signals and projectors. Many of today’s lighthouses have a system of rotating lenses, and the newer ones flash off and on as a way of conserving energy.
my ighlights..
https://www.loc.gov/rr/scitech/mysterie ... house.html
The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries,
is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'
Isaac Asimov
fosborn_
 
Posts: 477
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread postby kevin » Fri Jun 09, 2017 9:52 am

Fosborn,

You appear to have a problem when anyone says....Consciousness.

You only posted part of those quotes.
Then personally attacked the writer.
In those quote She says She worked at the Hadron collider site, and volunteered for the renaissance consciousness.

Consciousness is the means that all of creation is formed and operates via, it is the universal medium that enables vision.

Light occurs where a duality of meeting fields collide, it is super luminal, there is no speed of light, that is merely the local rate at the surface of this planet and is the net difference in opposing meeting fields.

To comprehend any of this, instead of demanding adherence to indoctrination based current science ( which is a religion that demands adherence to it's rule books) You need to better attune to consciousness, it contains all knowledge .

Kevin
kevin
 
Posts: 1095
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2008 10:17 am

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread postby kevin » Fri Jun 09, 2017 10:04 am

Fosborn,
http://www.ru.org/index.php/renaissance-universal

If?? You look at this site one of it's key directives is to return science to where it should be, and not the compartmentalised maker of weapons of mass destruction it now is.

That compartmentalisation is what keeps secret the real nature of universe away from common man, and uses that secret knowledge for war.

Is there a problem for Yourself in breaking free of such?

Kevin
kevin
 
Posts: 1095
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2008 10:17 am

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread postby fosborn_ » Fri Jun 09, 2017 10:43 am

You appear to have a problem when anyone says....Consciousness.

There are lots of threads or forums to discuss the religious and spiritual aspects of Consciousness. So in that aspect, the way you speak with such certainty it appears you are merely wanting to proselytize for your faith.
But if you ever get motivated and find a thread that specializes in the science of it. There are secular disciplines that deal with it..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Chalmers
David John Chalmers (/ˈtʃælmərz/;[2] born 20 April 1966) is an Australian philosopher and cognitive scientist specializing in the areas of philosophy of mind and philosophy of language. He is Professor of Philosophy and Director of the Centre for Consciousness at the Australian National University. He is also a University Professor, Professor of Philosophy and Neural Science, and a Director of the Center for Mind, Brain and Consciousness (along with Ned Block) at New York University.[3][4] In 2013, he was elected a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences.

In those quote She says She worked at the Hadron collider site, and volunteered for the renaissance consciousness.


she has in the past.. not current.. A reading comprehension issue. And you think that article would be written by a competent person in a science discipline? :roll:
She didn't say what her job was, I suppose another janitor.. ;)
Last edited by fosborn_ on Fri Jun 09, 2017 11:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries,
is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'
Isaac Asimov
fosborn_
 
Posts: 477
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread postby kevin » Fri Jun 09, 2017 11:13 am

Fosborn,

I am not in any shape or form religious, or promoting any such.
Do not try to adhere to myself that which is not My comprehension.

Consciousness should be scientifically comprehended,, but it is not, it is such as Yourself that tries to fit it into some sort of religious box.

She did state what Her job was at the hadron collider if You bother to fully read Her posts instead of making adhomion attacks against Her.
Is there some problem with anyone been a janitor?

I do not, and thankfully will never adhere to the current religion called science, it is the problem, therefore I am not offering any explanations of how the sun operates within the current ASSUMED manner.
I am not saying that consciousness is of any deity or god, but that it is the fundamental building block of creation, and that all in creation operates via it.

STOP attacking My posts as You are, otherwise I will ask the moderators to check out Your posts.

Kevin
kevin
 
Posts: 1095
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2008 10:17 am

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread postby fosborn_ » Fri Jun 09, 2017 11:45 am

STOP attacking My posts as You are, otherwise I will ask the moderators to check out Your posts.

Kevin


Attacking or holding you accountable for the logic or science principles of your declarations? If you want to edit out the bad actors, you need a blog. IMO
Frank ....you don't seem to explain any details, only generalities. For instance what do your star fields and planet fieds consist of? And if light is created when they touch, why would light travel any particular direction or give details about the objects in view or create particular spectrums for different .objects?
What is better about your ideas than accepted science?



To comprehend any of this, instead of demanding adherence to indoctrination based current science ( which is a religion that demands adherence to it's rule books)You need to better attune to consciousness, it contains all knowledge.

Kevin
kevin

Posts: 1054
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2008 12:17 pm



LOL..In the context of the site you use. This is preaching univeralism.. so ok, report it.. I'm offended, by it (the preaching), but I'm a big boy and this is a public forum. I do my share of hitting the report button and I'm dismissed often enough, because it;s not an issue for them.

What would really be cool if we got back on the rails of what this threads focus is.. Just a suggestion.. 8-)
I do some janitor work, on my current job and have as a specific occupation. Maybe thats why I use it as an example. I,m not ashamed of it.. but your right to take note of it.
The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries,
is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'
Isaac Asimov
fosborn_
 
Posts: 477
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread postby nick c » Fri Jun 09, 2017 12:14 pm

Kevin,
Your philosophizing is not relevant to this thread.
The topic here is the visibility/invisibility of stars as seen from space.
You are welcome to open your own thread covering your thoughts on consciousness. If you choose to do that, than any discussion of the visibility of stars would be off topic on that thread.
It is simply a matter of forum etiquette.
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2241
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread postby fosborn_ » Fri Jun 09, 2017 6:42 pm

:mrgreen:
GaryN wrote:fosborn to kevin
Do you have any science, to explain your faith based conclusions, done with such confidence? This is a science forum, you know. you need to at lest make a token effort of it.


And where is your science Frank? The idea that anything at all is visible from cislunar space, despite the astronauts claims otherwise, is a faith based conclusion, with absolutely no science to support it.

Where is my science about light in cis lunar space? Sense I google all my science, why fix it if its not broken..
In physics and chemistry, wave-particle duality holds that light and matter exhibit properties of both waves and of particles.


I think there is repeatable experiments to demonstrate the different natures.It explains how detailed image information gets from point a to point b. And something you can't explain .
I re, re, re, re-posted the recording transcripts again of Apollo 10 talking about the Stars they could finally see at the half way point to the moon. So its the opposite of what you predicted.


GaryN...military R&D scientists said the only way to see the Sun correctly from clear space was with the Neutral Density filter,


Wiki..
In photography and optics, a neutral-density filter, or ND filter, is a filter that reduces or modifies the intensity of all wavelengths, or colors,of light equally, giving no changes in hue of color rendition. It can be a colorless (clear) or grey filter. The purpose of a standard photographic neutral-density filter is to reduce the amount of light entering the lens...
In practice, ND filters are not perfect, as they do not reduce the intensity of all wavelengths equally. This can sometimes create color casts in recorded images, particularly with inexpensive filters. More significantly, most ND filters are only specified over the visible region of the spectrum and do not proportionally block all wavelengths of ultraviolet or infrared radiation. This can be dangerous if using ND filters to view sources (such as the Sun or white-hot metal or glass), which emit intense invisible radiation, since the eye may be damaged even though the source does not look bright when viewed through the filter. Special filters must be used if such sources are to be safely viewed.
my highlights

GaryN..but NASA has never shown such a photo, and in fact seems to have a dread of things like solar filters,and took none on the Apollo missions. What possible reason was there for the Photographic Branch to make such a decision? Only one that I can think of.


So nobody goes blind looking at the sun?

GaryN.. There is no light or heat from the Sun when in clear space and unless you can prove otherwise then I will not respond further to your twisting of the available information, your deep indoctrination by the mainstream education

There is plenty of light with in the suns plasmasphere and sense we are in a galaxy plasmasphere there is plenty of light there, too even if I use your science fantasy. If the universe is vary old there is no clear space.. I only present what I find. If you can't take the heat, your right you should get out the kitchen, I know I have plenty of times over the years.. ;)
The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries,
is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'
Isaac Asimov
fosborn_
 
Posts: 477
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread postby GaryN » Fri Jun 09, 2017 11:43 pm

So nobody goes blind looking at the sun?

Seems to me that they had dark visors which worked pretty well when taking pictures of the Sun from the Lunar surface, so why wouldn't the visors protect them from the Sunlight if used inside the craft? A little ingenuity and they could have photographed the Sun through the same visors.
Bit of a tongue in cheek affair I think naming the missions Apollo, the God of Light and Truth, when all the first humans to be able to study the source of the Light from space gave us was darkness and ignorance. Maybe next trip they'll remedy those shortcomings?
In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete. -Buckminster Fuller
User avatar
GaryN
 
Posts: 2535
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

PreviousNext

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest