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_ » Tue Jun 13, 2017 8:48 pm

So with either their American Aviator sunglasses and/or their visors, they should have been able to look at the Sun and describe how it appeared, though obviously the colour would not be correct.

I posted quotes that they did describe it as bright. The Apollo 16mm crew compartment video in cis lunar showed bright sun light flooding in the windows.
Wow, But there are tons of space based hardware looking at the sun. Including solar illuminance measurements above the atmosphere.

Of all the experiments performed, no time was allotted for observation or photography of the Sun while in cislunar space, just plain ridiculous. Even from orbit, Skylab similarly had not one experiment to observe the Sun with a camera

I've posted pictures of Shuttle/ Hubble with sun in the background of Hubble, Gemini Camera sweeping across the sun at higher zenith than the ISS could ever capture, The Luner Module unblocking the sun with 16 mm camera at 70 miles above the lunar surface, The EVA s clearly in cis lunar sunlight with the EVA light pointed toward the CM hatch. So really what is ridiculous to who..
, though they had a UV and x-ray experiments on the external Apollo Telescope mount. And as usual, they took no solar filters. This is the smoking gun when it comes to the visibility of the Sun from space, the fact that they will not even take them out there, or if they do, as with Petit, they are looking towards Earth, through the atmosphere, and not away from Earth.

LOL..
GaryN...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.

Cool, at lest your back to admitting eye witness accounts..
So science is a hypothesis based on the absence of evidence? Even in the face of many falsifications...
To quote myself..
Wow, But there are tons of space based hardware looking at the sun.


GaryN...To me it is an opto-electro-magnetic machine at the physical level,

Finally a token piece of science..
Micro-Opto-Electro-Mechanical Systems (MOEMS) | GTQ
gtq.imb-cnm.csic.es › Home › Research Lines
Non-invasive magnetic or opto-thermal actuation may be a smart alternative for contactless light attenuation/intensification with simple, low-cost and miniaturized ...
A passive opto-electronic lightning sensor based on electromagnetic field detection for utilities applications

Is this close, or must we keep guessing?

but it also has metaphysical properties, is the generator of the Cosmic Consciousness, though not conscious in itself, and we are all intimately connected to that consciousness if we can learn to quieten what we think is our personal consciousness, but which is really the Ego that arises as we acquire language and are programmed by our education and environment. Turn off the Ego, tune in to the Sun for the real truth about itself.

o dam, metaphysical and philosophy of consciousness discussion, was just addressed to Kevin..
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.

But lets just ignore it.. ;)
But theoretically, if we were to follow the thread topic, we might get this train on the rails as some recent posters have done.
You posted this business of " opto-electro-magnetic machine" sorry but in this forum it really comes out to visual electromagnetic, Its just machine that is funny.
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 lightentering 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 spectrumand 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

So how does Astronomers saying the necessity of a ND to view the sun properly not falsify your thinking?
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: 483
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread postby fosborn_ » Sun Jun 18, 2017 8:16 am

M_Dwarf.jpg

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/lif ... -red-stars
Life might have a shot on planets orbiting dim red stars
M dwarfs, the most common type of star in the galaxy. Of the roughly 200 planets that have been spied around M dwarfs, dozens are in the coveted habitable zone...
M dwarfs make up about 70 percent of the several hundred billion stars in the galaxy. They are cool and tiny — at least for a star. Proxima Centauri, an M dwarf and the closest star to the sun, is roughly 2,800° Celsius....
. Many M dwarfs aren’t much bigger than Jupiter,...
M dwarfs appear to be prolific planet producers. The dim stars harbor 3.5 times as many small planets,...
For a planet to stay warm around such a cool star, it has to huddle up close..


I read this article and thought of this thread. While this seems to bod well for EU theory,(IMO) :D it seems falsifying for T BS theory. :( If our sun is as this thread postulates our orbit would be well beyond the habitable zone. ;)
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: 483
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread postby fosborn_ » Tue Jun 20, 2017 8:19 pm

Light is a big deal in this thread. Just looking at what is being taught. I'm liking this simple overview..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1tflE-L2Dc
Published on Jul 5, 2015
126 - Wave-Particle Duality of Light

In this video Paul Andersen explains how light can be treated as both a particle and a wave. Physicists use scale to determine which model to use when studying light. When the wavelength of light is equivalent to the size of the object a wave model is used. When the energy is equivalent to the energy of a photon a particle model is used.

WP_Duality.jpg
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: 483
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread postby fosborn_ » Mon Jun 26, 2017 8:48 pm

A question I have been wondering and one I think GaryN has had. How can starlight be visible from such great distances and I wonder if this summary from the book; "Fields of Color: The theory that escaped Einstein", could be a possibility.
http://www.quantum-field-theory.net/chap-3/
The electromagnetic field, like gravity, is a force field; it is the agent that transmits force from one electric charge to another. It consists of two component fields, electric and magnetic. Unlike gravity, which is always attractive, the EM force can be attractive, repulsive, or even sideways. Its field nature was suggested by Michael Faraday in 1845 and field equations were developed by James Maxwell in 1864. These equations predicted EM waves (oscillations in field intensity) that travel at a speed of 300,000 km/second, which turned out to be the same as the speed of light. Not only did Maxwell’s equations thus explain the entire field of optics, they also predicted a vast spectrum of EM radiation that includes radio and TV waves, microwaves, infrared, visible light, ultraviolet, x-rays, and gamma rays.

The quantum nature of the EM field was discovered by Max Planck while studying radiation from a hot object. He found that the data made sense if the radiation is not infinitely divisible, but consists of discrete amounts of energy that he called quanta. These quanta are now called photons. Planck also found that the energy of a photon is proportional to its frequency of oscillation.

Later Einstein showed that absorption of radiation occurs in the same discrete amounts of energy, suggesting that the quanta are actually particles. This was the first round in the fields-vs.-particles battle which goes on even today. In QFT a photon is a field and only a field. It spreads out in space and exhibits interference effects. When a photon is absorbed, no matter how spread out it may be, its energy is deposited into the absorbing atom. This is called quantum collapse.
My Highlights
http://www.quantum-field-theory.net/chap10/
I going to buy this at Amazon, its cheap for the ebook.

https://journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10 ... ev.89.1004
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: 483
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread postby JeffreyW » Tue Jun 27, 2017 7:32 am

fosborn_ wrote:A question I have been wondering and one I think GaryN has had. How can starlight be visible from such great distances?


Because there is nothing blocking the light. Most of outer space is vacuum, there is nothing there.
User avatar
JeffreyW
 
Posts: 1805
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:30 am
Location: Cape Canaveral, FL

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread postby fosborn_ » Tue Jun 27, 2017 8:29 am

JeffreyW wrote:Because there is nothing blocking the light. Most of outer space is vacuum, there is nothing there.

Thanks for your response, but I remember a paper by Miles Mathis about starlight. He predicted that it should be Twinkling, even above the atmosphere, which eye witness accounts say they are unblinking. So maybe he was thinking
in terms of particles, not waves? If particles it strikes me as the extreme distances even with 200 light year limit, seems fantastic, that the spreading of the light sphere would leave detectable particles at the brightness we see objects. Wave function collapse seems workable for me.
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: 483
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread postby fosborn_ » Tue Jun 27, 2017 5:31 pm

JeffreyW wrote:
Because there is nothing blocking the light. Most of outer space is vacuum, there is nothing there.

From the book I'm reading..
[quote "Fields of Color: The theory that escaped Einstein"
For centuries people thought of space as mere emptiness with objects embedded in it. Stars, mountains, molecules, electrons — these are all things that exist in space; if nothing is present, there is only empty space. In other words, space is a container. In the field picture, on the other hand, there is no empty space.Fields pervade space; they are a condition or property of space. You can’t have space without fields. Fields obey laws that specify how a change at one point affects the field at adjacent points and how the change is propagated through space.
Location 690/3202][/quote]
This is something that seems intuitive. Where as a nothingness seems counterintuitive.imo..
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: 483
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread postby fosborn_ » Sat Jul 15, 2017 6:09 am

I found an interesting article of a lot of the seemingly outside the box ideas referred to in this thread. It might help make sense of how some of the ideas are derived..
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/cienc ... sica36.htm
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: 483
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread postby GaryN » Tue Sep 12, 2017 11:15 pm

On Saturday night, 9 Sept, I was driving home and directly before me as I drove up a long, gently climbing straight stretch of 2 lane road with conifer trees at both sides, and the Moon was right in front of me, but bigger than I have ever seen it before, the detail was amazing. Yes, the Moon was fairly low above the horizon, and I am aware of the optical illusion explanation. I could not see the Moon when I got home because of surrounding trees, didn't think any more about it. Last night I was out doing my exercise routine, and leaning back at one point, I nearly fell over. The patch of sky looking straight up was absolutely full of stars, more than I can remember ever having seen, the bigger ones were way bigger than usual, and they were all blue! Not just a blueish tint, but a good solid mid blue. Tonight they are looking normal. I suspect that the battering the ionosphere has been taking the last few days changed both the visibility and the colour of the stars, reminding me of the Russian astronauts who said the stars appeared blue to them from certain altitudes. Perhaps the Moon was also made to look larger too because of the atmospheric disturbances?
I see in todays TPOD, Smoke without Fire Part Two
https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2017/0 ... art-two-2/
that Rens van der Sluijs ponders atmospheric optical effects and how this may explain the appearance of certain heavenly bodies on some occasions. Of course, I believe that the visibility of anything outside of Earths atmosphere is due solely to Earths atmosphere, and will do so until scientifically proven otherwise.
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: 2536
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread postby fosborn_ » Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:21 pm

GaryN wrote:On Saturday night, 9 Sept, I was driving home and directly before me as I drove up a long, gently climbing straight stretch of 2 lane road with conifer trees at both sides, and the Moon was right in front of me, but bigger than I have ever seen it before, the detail was amazing. Yes, the Moon was fairly low above the horizon, and I am aware of the optical illusion explanation.

I saw it to. did my foreground reference test. It was no bigger.

GaryN..Last night I was out doing my exercise routine, and leaning back at one point, I nearly fell over. The patch of sky looking straight up was absolutely full of stars, more than I can remember ever having seen, the bigger ones were way bigger than usual, and they were all blue! Not just a blueish tint, but a good solid mid blue. Tonight they are looking normal.


I think in night time viewing it falls under the topic of good seeing conditions.
clearSky.png

Read from left to right. Locate a column of blue blocks. That's when the sky will likely to be clear and dark. A more detailed explanation is here, but the short version is: the clear sky chart predicts hourly cloud cover, atmospheric transparency and seeing. (Good "seeing" occurs when the air is steady enough to allow you to see fine detail on planets through a telescope.) http://cleardarksky.com/csk/

GaryN..I see in todays TPOD, Smoke without Fire Part Two
https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2017/0 ... art-two-2/
that Rens van der Sluijs ponders atmospheric optical effects and how this may explain the appearance of certain heavenly bodies on some occasions. Of course, I believe that the visibility of anything outside of Earths atmosphere is due solely to Earths atmosphere, and will do so until scientifically proven otherwise.

That is as far a stretch from the intention of his article as you can get. IMO
People have noted facts of science in this thread that cast doubt on your belief.
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: 483
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

Previous

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests