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_ » Sat Jul 30, 2011 4:32 pm

GaryN, thanks dude, its been a hell of a ride. Checking out of this thread.
Frank. :)
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 » Sat Jul 30, 2011 7:40 pm

And thank you too Frank!
Image
;-)
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 Ras » Mon Aug 22, 2011 1:44 pm

I'm going to award you 1 point for the image Frank, I hadn't seen that one.
NASA doesn't make it easy to find the older images. (On the other hand, I
heard a guy on the radio a while ago, forget his name now, who said his
research had determined that during the Nixon administration, many of
the older NASA staff had retired or quit, and the younger ones gone to
GE, Westinghouse, et al, taking much of what had been developed or discovered
over the years with them, and leaving the new staff to basically start over.



...or maybe most of those images were poor quality fakes, so they would not withstand modern technology scrutiny.
It still puzzles me how people can believe that Apollo landings ever happened.
Ras
 
Posts: 26
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2010 10:07 am

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread postby GaryN » Sun Oct 16, 2011 11:56 am

Finally found an image of the Moon from the shuttle where the Moon is not
close to the crescent Earth. If you look at the full size image, you can
see that the moon looks, to my eyes, like a light brown. Is that sunlight
or Earthshine illuminating the Moon?. If it is the Sun, then should we not
see some deep shadowing in the bay? The bay must be lit by some very strong
but diffuse lighting, as there are almost no shadows visible . The white is
very white and the colors seem true.
I can't find who the photographer was, or the camera or exposure settings.
Image
Full Image:
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/ima ... 012320.jpg
Another interesting image. From the graininess of the Shuttle, this would seem
to be a low light long exposure, but there are only, maybe, one or two stars visible.
Image
Full Image:
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/ima ... 047286.jpg
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 Oct 31, 2011 7:09 pm

Is it possible to take a video of the stars from Earth? The Yukon Digital Night
Vision Ranger seems to be capable of such at 900nm, but as this is from a UFO sighting,
I was just wondering if it was a fake.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoeAeuG83BM
There are quite a few others by different people in different parts of the world,
so I doubt they are all fake, so I'm wondering if this same device, taken to the ISS,
would be able to see the stars too?
If so, why do they spend millions on the Star Tracker cameras, when this device at
less than $1000 new, seems to spot stars just fine?
And could a video camera with a solar filter, pick your wavelength, take a video
of the Sun from the ISS? I've E-Mailed a number of filter and astronomy sites, and
had few replies, and none have been able to direct me too any images, only suggestions
to where to look, and there is nothing relevant at any of them. The Apollo Telescope
Mount on Skylab id the most common suggestion, but I can't find anything, not at
visible wavelengths anyway.
The question of imaging the sun from space using a regular still or video camera and
off-the-shelf filter has been avoided, except for one company that assured me their
filters would work just fine in space, and believes it is time constraints and budgets that
have prevented such shots being taken. Doesn't this make anyone wonder??
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 Aardwolf » Tue Nov 01, 2011 9:29 am

GaryN wrote:Another interesting image. From the graininess of the Shuttle, this would seem
to be a low light long exposure, but there are only, maybe, one or two stars visible.
Images taken from the shuttle do not really resolve the problem because the shuttle orbits within the ionosphere.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1302
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread postby GaryN » Tue Nov 01, 2011 11:40 am

Images taken from the shuttle do not really resolve the problem because the shuttle orbits within the ionosphere.

True, and there are absolutely no star images from craft on a Lunar path, between
ionosperes of Earth and Moon. It is what is not available that gives the game
away to me, though I'll be told lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. Another
thing there isn't, is forward facing cameras on any of the launch vehicles. Lots
of videos showing a recedeing Earth, none showing what should be the stars becoming
brighter as the atmosphere thins.
The ionosphere is quite variable of course, so a forward facing camera would help
me try and determine if the star visibility decreases smoothly with altitute, or
if there may be layers where there were sudden changes in visibility, indicating
boundary layer effects. There really is, IMO, an elephant in the room that nobody
even attempts to see.
There is/was a system to monitor ionospheric density, and there was a Google Earth plug-in
that showed the ionosphere supposedly in near real time, but it didn't seem very
good, and did not show any localised variations, just vague swaths. It has now it
seems become a pay-to-use service so haven't seen what it has to offer.
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/sc ... onosphere/
There is SWANS too, have to take a closer look at that site.
http://gpsweather.meteo.be/ionosphere
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 » Thu Nov 03, 2011 10:51 pm

Boy, that huge AR 1339 sunspot must be quite the sight from the ISS.
I wonder if they observe or do any research from up there? ;-)
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 Nov 04, 2011 11:42 am

OK, I'll transcribe the conversation between the ISS and some students
from James Bay Elementary School in Houston, Texas. Feb 2004.

Q. Are you able to see and measure sunspots from the International Space Station?
A: Crystal, can we measure sunspots from the ISS, and that's a good experiment to perform. Unfortunately today, I do not know why, we are not measuring them from the International Space station. Over

We are not measuring them today implies they are monitored regularly. So where do I find the
info online?
"sunspots from the ISS"
"sunspots from the International Space Station"
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 » Sat Nov 12, 2011 12:07 pm

It seems the boring Sun is pretty interesting to these guys:
Image
http://solspec.projet.latmos.ipsl.fr/SO ... /Home.html
A pdf on the instruments.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/p78 ... lltext.pdf
I just wonder how much extra trouble and expense it would be for NASA to put
a regular camera, zoom lens and filter up there too?
Earth based images:
T2i, telephoto lens, mylar solar filter, sepia enhanced.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/22897666@N00/5497883414/
An unfiltered Sun, from Earth.
Image
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 Nov 14, 2011 11:33 am

Boy, there sure are a lot of instruments 'looking' at the Sun, it really isn't boring!
The ISS is running the SOLSPEC experiment, which can be used to produce filtergrams.
They are examining the full spectrum, including the visible wavelengths, but I can only find
2 images.
Image
Image
http://solar.nro.nao.ac.jp/solar-b/sot_e/FG.html
Still no images taken with a regular camera, I'm convinced it is not possible, from space.
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 » Tue Nov 15, 2011 11:57 am

Here is a video, through a filter, of the Sun. There appears to be an object
close to the Sun, though it could be in the atmosphere, or further out than the Sun.
Of course there could be a lot of distortion from the atmosphere, filter, lens,
optics, CCD, but I just wonder what a video of the Sun from the ISS would look like,
through different filters. Of course, I don't think you will ever see a video of the
Sun from space, and unfortunately, NASA doesn't have the resources to even attempt it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2sGuIYqiwww
Oh, just saw this, problem solved, it was the filter! But anyway, just a glass out of some
welding goggles will let you video the Sun. I'll be mailing NASA one right away!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7OhYNiq ... re=related
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 Nov 18, 2011 12:39 pm

Wow, think I'll save up for one of these!
The Binocular Photon Machine
Image
http://nightvisionastronomy.com/index.html
The Crescent nebula looking more like a torus. Of course everything looks like
a torus to me. :D
Image
So of course, I have emailed the manufacturer to ask if NASA had shown any interest in
their product for use in space. I wonder what would be seen?
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 » Tue Nov 22, 2011 8:01 pm

Well, this should be interesting. Donald Pettit, NASAs photography guy, will be back on the ISS on Nov 30, and will have use of a recently delivered, specially modified Nikon D3s. Can't wait to see what shows up in the IR looking outwards. If I am correct, he won't see much, as there is not enough atmosphere up there to reconstruct the wavefront from distant objects. A regular lense can't do it, so if there is anything detectable, it should be fainter than the same camera would capture from the Earths surface.
http://www.prlog.org/11573824-nasa-cont ... photo.html
I have had no replies from the manufacturers of the BIPH or Yukon Ranger devices, or from NASA about the possible use of these devices from space. Non-replies are a bummer, they always get my conspiracy juices flowing. :D
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 » Sun Nov 27, 2011 3:26 pm

SOFIA, the Stratospheric Observatory For Infrared Astronomy, is supposedly capable of imaging in the visible wavelengths too. It has a separate mirror for focusing the visible light to a 3 CCD camera used for target aquisition and tracking. However, there are no images in the visible available as far as I can determine. Anyone else want to give it a go? Even after uprading the CCDs to much more sensitive ones, I don't think they can see much, maybe about as much as the Star Tracker cameras? I Emailed to ask about a visible light image gallery, no response.
And with high altitude astronomy, I have contacted some companies involved in balloon based projects for possibly lifting spacecraft to an altitude where they can reach orbit with much less fuel. They have videos of the Earth from downward pointing cameras, and some images from their maximum altitude, showing a very dark sky, but no stars. I know, I know, exposure time.
So I asked if they could put a camera on top of the balloon looking up, or rather out, which should then not be affected by the brightness of the Earth. Could we see the stars then? No response. I'll try one last E-Mail offering to supply a Yukon Ranger or BIPH if they would try it out from up there, but I don't hold out much hope for a response.(If they did say yes, I'd have to try and get the loan of one!)
So, until proven wrong, I must conclude that stars are not visible with a regular camera, in white light, from high in, or above the atmosphere, which means that it is the atmosphere making them visible, there is no other explanation. I thought the guys at BAUT, or other astronomy sites may be of some help, but my questions mostly go unanswered. :(
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

PreviousNext

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests