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 GaryN » Sun Jul 03, 2011 11:09 pm

Also why do the x ray images not show up in our atmosphere, in visible star light? (considering GaryN's, and your idea, that the earth's local environment is creating visible star light)

Geez you ask some tricky questions Frank. Good for you! There is much more I need to
learn about the new instruments in use, and lenses and gratings and polorisation, etc.
I'm sure there is an answer, just need to find it somehow!
I see the latest generation of Star Tracker cameras has been sent to the ISS, smaller
and lighter and low power consumption.
http://www.nrl.navy.mil/media/news-releases/25-11r/
From what I can determine, it uses a transmission grating, and lenses ground in-house.
Those NRL boys are pretty smart, and they can bring out the objects I do not believe
we can see by eye, or with a normal camera.
I came across this while searching around:
This also has led me to wonder if the different planetary colors we see are the result of the gasses in their atmospheres being excited by the Sun.

So, I'm not alone in my ponderings, but this Ralph René guy sounds like he was (deceased)
a real hardcore conspiracy theorist. I don't see him having been mentioned on TB before,
should be good for some comments though.
http://ralphrene.com/
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: 2660
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread postby fosborn_ » Mon Jul 04, 2011 4:12 am

by GaryN » Geez you ask some tricky questions Frank. Good for you!


Not tricky, just a simple falsification test.

by GaryN » I see the latest generation of Star Tracker cameras has been sent to the ISS, smaller
and lighter and low power consumption.
http://www.nrl.navy.mil/media/news-releases/25-11r/
From what I can determine, it uses a transmission grating, and lenses ground in-house.
Those NRL boys are pretty smart, and they can bring out the objects I do not believe
we can see by eye, or with a normal camera.


I don't think its the way you spin it. Sense much of the testing took place on the ground, not in space.
The DISC can be programmed to generate images from 256x256 pixels to 1024x1024 pixels with each pixels having 12-bit resolution. It was extensively tested on the ground by imaging the night sky numerous times.
http://www.nrl.navy.mil/media/news-releases/25-11r/

image3_25-11rS.JPG

Image of the Orion Constellation including the Orion Nebula taken by DISC from the ground, prior to launch.
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: 524
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread postby Aardwolf » Mon Jul 04, 2011 10:31 am

fosborn_ wrote:
fosborn_ wrote:
When I look at the calibration images they are pretty much at the same level of the sky images (it seems most apparent in the browsing images). I think this means that the level the vidicon would pick up stars is in the zero zone of the Vidicon ( which I think means its just not in the design limits to see large quantities of stars at once at those light levels Vs planets).
This would explain a lot to me, about how they can see earth in the pale blue dot and not stars. I need to find that image in the raw to really confirm this. I'll keep looking.

by Aardwolf » Mon Jun 27, 2011 9:23 am
The Family Portrait images are not necessarily in the same spot on the full Vidicon image. The 6 frame consolidation is cropped and zoomed. Earth for example was about 75% to the right of the full image.

Not sure what your saying, sorry. But would like to emphasis the position of earth to the Sun.
From Voyager's great distance Earth and
Venus are mere points of light, less than the size of a picture
element even in the narrow-angle camera. Earth was a crescent
only 0.12 pixel in size. Coincidentally, Earth lies right in the
center of one of the scattered light rays resulting from taking
the image so close to the sun
.

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/photo_galler ... family.txt
You refered to a "zero zone" where the instrument could be sensitive to planets but not stars however I was trying to point out that the targeting of the images isnt that precise so favouring a "zero zone" is not an answer. And as I mentioned earlier, if planets were imaged then the thousands of stars that would be brighter than the planets at that distance should have been imaged too. They didn't have any special optics that could only see planets did they?


fosborn_ wrote:
by Aardwolf » I suspect you haven't interpretted it correctly.

vg1_wa_clear_sm.GIF

Well, lets look at it again. The dotted line says its the filter alone. The solid line says its the Filter + Instrument.
How many ways can you interpret it?
If the instrument restricted to visible then why have a UV filter at all? Why arn't all the UV filter images blank? Your interpretation makes no sense.

Well, if its not the clear filter + instrument and its a UV filter + instrument, than its some other spec. Right?
There isn't enough information to make any interpretation of that graph. What is it showing? Where does it come from? What do the * and ** refer to? Which instrument? Does it relate to a specific image or mode? Transmission (spectral I assume) normally refers to filters so what relevance to the instrument? It would probaly help if you actually provided links but I know you like to keep these things secret.

Could you provide a similar graph for the UV filter and an image using it to explain how UV images are captured if the instrument restricts UV?

Also, are you now calling bullshit on your earlier post?;

fosborn_ wrote:Funny how important homework is.
Instrument Detector


Detector Type : VIDICON
Detector Aspect Ratio : 1.000000
Minimum Wavelength : 0.280000
Maximum Wavelength : 0.640000
Nominal Operating Temperature : 282.000000

Wow dips into the UV and comes up short on the visible IR. Playing by your rules, I reject this antique of a CCD.



fosborn_ wrote:
So still no stars in the visible range only filters. Keep hunting.
Aardwolf


Not sure why your still behind the 8 ball here, but I have shown visible star images with the voyger images. Game over.
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=4579&p=53618#p53333
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=4579&p=53618#p53311
So you keep saying but until you find one that doesn't use the clear filter its meaningless and the graph you supplied doesn't make any sense considering we know (and you pointed out) the instrument operates in UV. Just look at the non-blank UV filter images if you doubt it.


fosborn_ wrote:Also why do the x ray images not show up in our atmosphere, in visible star light? (considering GaryN's, and your idea, that the earth's local environment is creating visible star light)
The squares mark the visible stars.
X-ray_image_of_the_Pleiades_sm.JPG

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:X-ray ... eiades.gif
Possibly because they are too energetic to be shifted by our ionosphere. I would only expect near or very near UV to be shifted into visible. I suspect it's just not thick enough to shift x-rays all the way through the UV range to visible. What do these look like in near UV?

And just for clarification, personally I would expect visible light to be seen and photographed in space. I'm not certain why this wouldn't be the case, however, I still dispute that there is any definitive evidence to support my view and that's what science should be about. My view is irrelevant until I have something to prove it and I wont accept mainstream assurances nor dubious "proofs".
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1302
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread postby fosborn_ » Mon Jul 04, 2011 1:26 pm

Aardwolf » You refered to a "zero zone" where the instrument could be sensitive to planets but not stars however I was trying to point out that the targeting of the images isnt that precise so favouring a "zero zone" is not an answer.

cool, zero zone was some BS I interpolated from some calibration data. I don't think the term zero zone has ever been used in the speck. Sorry poor choice of a word. But it did look like many a calibrations to set the dark modes, they simply pointed a the sky to set it. Which is why I think only the brighter stars show up.

Aardwolf » And as I mentioned earlier, if planets were imaged then the thousands of stars that would be brighter than the planets at that distance should have been imaged too. They didn't have any special optics that could only see planets did they?

No special optics, only antique VIDICON, you can't compare modern CCD tech to it. Anyway the main point for me was simply to demonstrate the stars emit light in the visible range as we see on earth. But, again it did look like many a calibrations to set the dark modes, they simply pointed a the sky to set it. Which is why I think only the brighter stars show up. .
Only the basic promise is established ( star light is in the visible range, just like we see on earth) .

Aardwolf » There isn't enough information to make any interpretation of that graph. What is it showing? Where does it come from? What do the * and ** refer to? Which instrument? Does it relate to a specific image or mode? Transmission (spectral I assume) normally refers to filters so what relevance to the instrument? It would probaly helpif you actually provided links but I know you like to keep these things secret.

My highlights.
The graph is a test result of their calibrations. It is self explanatory to me. It is for both wide and narrow cameras,if I remember right.
The specs I looked up do not require a security clearance. They take only simple searches to find. I have learned a lot in this thread thanks to you and GaryN, but I wanted you to learn some too, as in how to use your search engine and do a little gum shoe work, it really is a fun aspect of this thread, and I think you are missing out on it.

Could you provide a similar graph for the UV filter and an image using it to explain how UV images are captured if the instrument restricts UV?

Maybe, when I get time. Bet you could find it too if you tried.

Aardwolf » Also, are you now calling bullshit on your earlier post?;

I think this is my favorite question in your post. :lol:
Fosborn_ >>>Wow dips into the UV and comes up short on the visible IR. Playing by your rules, I reject this antique of a CCD.

Is was BS comment, just shinning you on. Plus I have had a learning curve in this thread too.
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: 524
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread postby fosborn_ » Mon Jul 04, 2011 1:32 pm

fosborn_ wrote:
Also why do the x ray images not show up in our atmosphere, in visible star light? (considering GaryN's, and your idea, that the earth's local environment is creating visible star light)
The squares mark the visible stars.
X-ray_image_of_the_Pleiades_sm.JPG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:X-ray ... eiades.gif

Aardwolf » Possibly because they are too energetic to be shifted by our ionosphere. I would only expect near or very near UV to be shifted into visible. I suspect it's just not thick enough to shift x-rays all the way through the UV range to visible. What do these look like in near UV?

how about The star, named Mira . Why is the tail not visible in our telescopes on earth?
glx2007-04r_img01_small.jpg

The Galaxy Evolution Explorer discovered Mira's strange comet-like tail during part of its routine survey of the entire sky at ultraviolet wavelengths. When astronomers first saw the picture, they were shocked because Mira has been studied for over 400 years yet nothing like this has ever been documented before.

http://www.galex.caltech.edu/media/glx2 ... img01.html

And just for clarification, personally I would expect visible light to be seen and photographed in space. I'm not certain why this wouldn't be the case, however,I still dispute that there is any definitive evidence to support my view and that's what science should be about. My view is irrelevant until I have something to prove it and I wont accept mainstream assurances nor dubious "proofs".
Aardwolf

Well cool, I have enjoyed discussing it with you.
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: 524
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread postby fosborn_ » Mon Jul 04, 2011 8:48 pm

Aardwolf »
So you keep saying but until you find one that doesn't use the clear filter its meaningless and the graph you supplied doesn't make any sense considering we know (and you pointed out) the instrument operates in UV. Just look at the non-blank UV filter images if you doubt it.


Well if you look up the instrument lay out, there is no UV filter on the wide angle camera, only the narrow angle. So a non issue. Kind of hard looking at"the non-blank UV filter images if you doubt it", if there none to be had on the wide angle camera. All images I posted were wide angle just like the posted specs said.
Here is a violet filter, same effect. Is it still meaningless? 8-)
vg1_wa_violet.gif

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=4579&start=105#p53333
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: 524
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread postby Aardwolf » Tue Jul 05, 2011 8:31 am

fosborn_ wrote:Is it still meaningless?

Unfortunately due to the combination of your refusal to provide links or citations, together with your admissions of BS our entire discussion has become meaningless.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1302
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread postby fosborn_ » Tue Jul 05, 2011 8:38 am

Aardwolf wrote:
fosborn_ wrote:Is it still meaningless?

Unfortunately due to the combination of your refusal to provide links or citations, together with your admissions of BS our entire discussion has become meaningless.


Cool. But the BS was clearly flying both directions. :)
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: 524
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread postby Aardwolf » Tue Jul 05, 2011 8:40 am

fosborn_ wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:
fosborn_ wrote:Is it still meaningless?

Unfortunately due to the combination of your refusal to provide links or citations, together with your admissions of BS our entire discussion has become meaningless.


Cool. But the BS was clearly flying both directions. :)

Please prove or retract.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1302
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread postby fosborn_ » Tue Jul 05, 2011 8:56 am

fosborn_ wrote:
Aardwolf »
So you keep saying but until you find one that doesn't use the clear filter its meaningless and the graph you supplied doesn't make any sense considering we know (and you pointed out) the instrument operates in UV. Just look at the non-blank UV filter images if you doubt it.


Well if you look up the instrument lay out, there is no UV filter on the wide angle camera, only the narrow angle. So a non issue. Kind of hard looking at"the non-blank UV filter images if you doubt it", if there none to be had on the wide angle camera. All images I posted were wide angle just like the posted specs said.
Here is a violet filter, same effect. Is it still meaningless? 8-)
vg1_wa_violet.gif

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=4579&start=105#p53333

Aardwolf » Please prove or retract


Sorry should have added IMO, but I choose prove. ;)
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: 524
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread postby GaryN » Sun Jul 10, 2011 11:28 am

Thе Space Dynamics Laboratory hаѕ constructed identical inclination fοr many years bυt thе one launched οn Endeavour іѕ a breakthrough іn distance аnԁ cost. It’s οnƖу a few inches prolonged аnԁ any section іѕ approaching tο cost a few hundred thousand dollars. Lаrɡеr star cameras now unoccupied typically cost millions οf dollars each. “Thіѕ capability іѕ already out thеrе,” Young ѕаіԁ. “Whаt wе′re doing іѕ miniaturizing іt tο concede (іt tο bе used bу) smaller аnԁ smaller spacecraft.”

http://www.hywns.com/camera/endeavor-ca ... ersity.htm
I don't see a lot of information on the DISC camera, but it would seem that the Star Tracker
cameras work in the visible part of the spectrum because they don't want too many stars to
be detected! Even supercomputers are pathetic at pattern finding compared with the human brain,
so in order for the on-board computer to be able to function, only a limited number of stars
must be 'in frame' at any one time. So by restricting observations to the visible, isn't this
telling us that there is not too much to see? The sparse white dots the Trackers show us is all
our eyes would see.
And why does a Tracker cost millions of dollars? Sure they need radiation hardened lenses, but
the fact that they need to spend so much tells me things are not as simple as we might think.
It is not possible to use just a normal digital camera with a hardened lens and take pictures
of stars. Also, because of the CCD and the electronics, they are probably seeing stars so dim
that our eyes would see even less, tinier points of light, or maybe even nothing at all?
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: 2660
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread postby GaryN » Mon Jul 11, 2011 11:12 am

Our Boring, Black Sun.

Until I see proof otherwise, I believe our Sun would be black if we tried to view
it from outside Earths atmosphere. There are many images of the Sun taken through
various filters, from the surface of the Earth, but none showing the same type of
image from space. Solar filters don't work in space?
All images from the ISS, or Space Shuttle show the Sun as a distorted
white blob, and close to a crescent Earth, meaning to me, that it is within the
ionosphere, and only visible because of the ionosphere.
Some ancient winged Sun images had a black Sun, others a deep red, or a yellow-red.
The only way I can imagine this happening is if Earths magnetic field declined
sufficiently, the magnetosphere would no longer offer protection, and our ionosphere
could be blown away by a large Solar flare. No ionosphere and the Sun would not be
visible, only the more energetic 'wings' of the corona.
So, when the Sun is seen again as being black, it has not arrived from somewhere
far away as some ancient predictions foretell, it is our Sun, and it has blown away our
ionosphere. Again. As the ionosphere rebuilds, it will go through the red phase too, and
eventually back to its present appearance. In space, it is black to our eyes all the time.
The views we see of the Sun from SOHO are not in the visible range, so we can not see them
except by some very sophisticated instruments.
I imagine the time when there was no, or very little ionosphere would also be the time
when some electrical machining and other life destroying electrical phenomena could
decimate life on Earth.
If the Sun emits most radiation at around 500 nm, then why is there no image of the Sun,
taken from space, showing the sun at such wavelengths? "Well, we can see it from the Earth
at that wavelength, so why bother?", is one answer I have received. OK, so lets see it
from space, with a regular camera and optics, through say a 483 nm centered, narrow pass
filter, and I'll shut up. ;)
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: 2660
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread postby GaryN » Fri Jul 15, 2011 10:37 am

If the photosphere of the Sun is the region producing visible light, then why is it
so difficult to obtain an image of this light from space? There are no images that I
can find that have been taken by anything resembling a normal camera.
Image
This is an image of the photosphere, from the SDO, but the 'camera' is a little more
complex than I would have thought neccessary.
Larger image at http://www.tesis.lebedev.ru/en/sun_pict ... =12&y=2010
Image
http://hmi.stanford.edu/Description/hmi ... rview.html
Perhaps someone can explain to me why a Michelson interferometer is the device
required to 'see' visible light?
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: 2660
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread postby fosborn_ » Fri Jul 15, 2011 2:15 pm

by GaryN » Mon Jul 11, 2011 1:12 pm

Our Boring, Black Sun.

Until I see proof otherwise, I believe ourSun would be blackif we tried to view
it from outside Earths atmosphere.


How hot is the surface of the Sun ?
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: 524
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread postby Shrike » Fri Jul 15, 2011 5:19 pm

fosborn_ wrote:
by GaryN » Mon Jul 11, 2011 1:12 pm

Our Boring, Black Sun.

Until I see proof otherwise, I believe ourSun would be blackif we tried to view
it from outside Earths atmosphere.


How hot is the surface of the Sun ?


about 5000 Celsius
Shrike
 
Posts: 75
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2011 1:29 pm
Location: Netherlands (Nederland, Holland)

PreviousNext

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests