The Boring Sun

[GaryN]

This may have been posted before, but these time lapse photo's seem to show stars way above the atmosphere. I don't understand your view that the sun only emits in waves...

The stars in the 'videos' from the ISS are well within the ionosphere of Earth if you work out from the curvature shown. Also the stars are more visible as the Sun is coming up, as the dusty disk around the Sun amplifies the effect that produse the visibility. In the very low light experiments imaging the Zodiacal light from the Apollo missions, the stars were visible over the limb of the Moon under similar circumstances.
http://www.nasaimages.org/luna/servlet/ ... ight-views
NASA and other agencies are very good at producing the eye candy that diverts our attention away from considering what they do not show us, images that should be easily obtainable from space, but for some reason aren't. Now they have the external HD video cameras on the ISS, where is an image of the Moon, looking the same as an HD video taken from Earth? I suppose they are just not interested in seeing the Moon from space. Unless the Earth is in, or just out of shot, of course.
I still waiting for the results of this test:
Hubble to Use Moon as Mirror to See Venus Transit
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubbl ... irror.html
Yes, Hubble is imaging the Moon, thanks to its UV/Vis. spectrograph and other instruments.

Sparky, I don't know your level of knowledge regarding light, but there is lots of info online. Walter Lewin has an intro lecture, The Mystery of Light.
http://video.mit.edu/watch/the-mystery-of-light-9952/
He admits that we don't actually know what it is, but we do know how it behaves and how to use it in some amazing ways.
You can also look at his lecture series, Electricity and Magnetism:
http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-02 ... -lectures/
Lecture 34 is very informative, I thought.

[Sparky]

Yes, lots of stars way above the atmosphere....don't know about ionosphere.

Here is a time lapse, with no stars, that supports Gary's argument:
http://youtu.be/b8v0LCOJ1Vk

i'll look at the info about light....

[Sparky]

Here's an interview with Buzz Aldrin who admits to seeing stars.. @ 2:50 +
http://youtu.be/E7RUwbqrO08

[GaryN]

Here's an interview with Buzz Aldrin who admits to seeing stars..

I'm not saying they never see stars (most of which are not really stars though) but the objects will only be visible under specific conditions. Looking into deep space, there will be nothing visible. And I still haven't decided if I'm going to believe anything the Freemasons say, as Mitchell said the stars were 10 times brighter, and the Sun and Moon were large and bright, yet he/they never took pictures of them.

More Madness?

The boring, cold Sun?
The idea that the Sun is hot has no evidential support. The temperature is a calculation based on assumptions and incorrect interpretations. Mad, you say, quite Mad. Seems I am not the first to have questioned the standard model though, and it was William Herschel, in the late 1700s, who first proposed such. He was convinced to change his official stance, but who knows if he actually changed his mind.
The Oahspe Bible also says the Sun gives off no heat or light:

As light, and heat, and magnetism, and electricity, are all one and the same thing, which are the manifestation of vortexian currents under different conditions, the student must not lose sight of the fact that none of these so-called things are things in fact, that is, entities of themselves, separately or combined.
...
This great hemispherical lens, atmospherea, not only thus manufactureth light and heat, but it also affordeth man the means of seeing the sun and moon and stars. It hath the power also of magnifying millions of comparatively dense etherean worlds, so that man can see through them. The student should consider this from the standpoint of a magnifying lens in a microscope, which hath power to distend many things so one can see through their fibres, which to the naked eye seem dense. For etherea is not nearly so rarified as mortals suppose. Without the sun's atmospherean lens, man could not even see the moon, nor stars; and the sun itself would seem as a pale red star.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/oah/oah/oah404.htm
Though much of Oahspe may seem strange to us, had we not been indoctrinated into our present view of how things work, the Vortexia and solutions of corpor needles might have made much sense and offer a much simpler explanation for how it all works.

Seems like Luis Prada, who I only just learned of and haven't looked at in any detail yet, is the present main proponent of this idea:
LUIS E. PRADA: The Sun Is Cold
http://indianinthemachine.wordpress.com ... more-14528

And the announcement that water had been found on the Sun would certainly be much easier explained if the Sun were not hot, as opposed to trying to explain it by some intricate, unproven mechanisms. Plasma can be cool, even super-cooled, through expansion, to a point where it behaves similarly to a B-E condensate.
I think we, collectively, have drunk way to much of the Kool-Aid offered us by so called experts.

[Lloyd]

* The Electric Sun Discussion is discussing the idea that the Sun's surface may be only 1,000K or so.
* It occurred to me recently that a way to tell if celestial objects are stars, or just planets, may be via spectroscopy. The Cepheid variables that were first used to estimate the distance of the nearest galaxy, I think, or at least the distance to the Milky Way center, apparently have spectra more like the Sun, than like planets. I haven't investigated this closely, but it seems correct off-hand.
* I'd actually prefer that the stars in the Milky Way be mere planets of the Solar System, so that the universe would be much smaller and easier to travel between planets and that the celestial objects be more habitable than hot stars. But I prefer knowing the truth, more than indulging in fantasy.

[GaryN]

* It occurred to me recently that a way to tell if celestial objects are stars, or just planets, may be via spectroscopy.

Space based astronomy is all about spectra. When they say Hubble sees visible light, it is detecting mainly Hydrogen spectra, the most common one being the Balmer 656 and 432nm lines, which are at red and blue wavelengths.

But, if your line of sight to a distant 'star' passes through a cloud of ionised Hydrogen, how do you know if the emissions are from the object or from something inbetween you and the star? As some starlight is polarised, then it must, I think, have passed througha strong electric field to become polarised.

* I'd actually prefer that the stars in the Milky Way be mere planets of the Solar System

Many of those objects, looking at some of the SOFIA images, seem to show odd shapes more reminiscent of asteroids or odd shaped moons. Also, many of them appear to show not a complete outline, but more like a partial outline, as we see with the phases of the Moon. This is why I place much importance on the FUVC images of Earth from the Moon. They realised spectroscopy was the only way to see most of what is out there.

But I prefer knowing the truth, more than indulging in fantasy.

The truth lies in what NASA and the other agaencies do not and can not show us, not in what they do show. The fact that they can not show us the Sun, or Moon or any of the planets, using a regular camera or telescope, from outside of the Earths atmosphere/ionosphere, should be all the information you need to determine that they are deliberately covering up some very important fundamental truths.

[GaryN]

Good news! I asked on the Urthecast web site if they were planning a Munecast camera. I had thought about one orbiting the Moon, but it seems the camera on the ISS will be able to rotate and, possibly, view the Moon. I just can't wait to see if they ever do show us the Moon, and if so, will it be shown close to a crescent Earth. Just hope the world doesn't end before I get to see the results.

Theras Wood says:
This is an intriguing idea, Gary. And you’ve made an interesting observation here — one of our plans is to, at times, flip the camera around to look back into space. This way, when cloud cover is extremely dense, we hope to capture imagery of outer space. And perhaps, the moon : )

[GaryN]

Sun's Almost Perfectly Round Shape Baffles Scientists

[Chai Wallah]

I wonder if the Sun really is revolving..
or, is it like the plasma globe, where the filaments move over the surface - giving the appearance of movement..
off course there seems to be constant movement - maybe because all the planets are constantly moving around it (with the attendant connscting magnetic / plasma filaments also revolving )

[GaryN]

I wonder if the Sun really is revolving..

The rotating magnetic field at the centre of the Sun is certainly spinning, IMO, with a 'surface' velocity of C. Keep in mind though that we have ony ever 'seen' the Sun, other that from the surface of the Earth, through instruments that in no way represent what we could actually see with our eyes, from space. The shells do rotate, from Aether drag, and if we use the instrumentally observed speed of rotation of the outer shell, then it is possible to calculate the Solar wind speed at the Earth. They measure the proton speed when they say Solar wind, but this can be different to the calculated Aether wind speed, as the protons(and a small percentage of heavier ions) and electrons carried by the Aether can be slowed or accelerated depending on the existence of coronal holes or streamers.
"Since the spin velocity of the Sun at its equator has been found to be one revolution per 25 days or 4.63 x 10^-7 rev/sec., and the distance from the Sun to the Earth is known to be 1.49 x 10^11 meters, then the velocity of the Aether must be equal to:(2 pi r)x(spin velocity) or:
2 X 3.14 X 10^11m X 4.63 X 10^-7 rev/sec.=433Km/sec." (ref. Katirai)
The accepted average is closer to 460 km/sec, but the size and rotation rate of the Sun do vary, so an exact figure is unlikely to be easy to agree on. The rotation rate of the electron BTW, which has not been determined AFAIK, must, under this model, be greater than 10^32 rev/sec. Believe it or not.
I am still convinced though that the Sun is not anything like what we are told, but even if they knew the truth, they wouldn't tell us, as it would wreck their whole cosmological model.

[Chai Wallah]

Keep in mind though that we have ony ever 'seen' the Sun, other that from the surface of the Earth, through instruments that in no way represent what we could actually see with our eyes, from space. The shells do rotate, from Aether drag, and if we use the instrumentally observed speed of rotation of the outer shell, then it is possible to calculate the Solar wind speed at the Earth. They measure the proton speed when they say Solar wind, but this can be different to the calculated Aether wind speed, as the protons(and a small percentage of heavier ions) and electrons carried by the Aether can be slowed or accelerated depending on the existence of coronal holes or streamers.
"Since the spin velocity of the Sun at its equator has been found to be one revolution per 25 days or 4.63 x 10^-7 rev/sec., and the distance from the Sun to the Earth is known to be 1.49 x 10^11 meters, then the velocity of the Aether must be equal to:(2 pi r)x(spin velocity) or:
2 X 3.14 X 10^11m X 4.63 X 10^-7 rev/sec.=433Km/sec." (ref. Katirai)
The accepted average is closer to 460 km/sec, but the size and rotation rate of the Sun do vary, so an exact figure is unlikely to be easy to agree on. The rotation rate of the electron BTW, which has not been determined AFAIK, must, under this model, be greater than 10^32 rev/sec. Believe it or not.
I am still convinced though that the Sun is not anything like what we are told, but even if they knew the truth, they wouldn't tell us, as it would wreck their whole cosmological model.

very interesting thank you

maybe the ancients had a different view of the sky because of the evolution of the human eye.
maybe what the ancients saw is still there- and now only animals can see it, as its out of our present perception..
: like you say what we see ( or interpret as light ) is different depending on the receiving instrument of those electro magnetic 'waves'

[GaryN]

maybe the ancients had a different view of the sky because of the evolution of the human eye.

If the large scale catastrophic resurfacing of the Earths surface is true, then evolution never had a chance, and the eye is the primary object cited by creationists as evidence for an intelligent design. Who the designers were is the question, just a more advanced version of us, I'd say.
I think what the ancients saw and recorded is more a function of our ionosphere at the time. All the solar system objects would have had their own ionospheres changed too, and I believe that when the Sun goes into a more energetic mode again, we will be just as mystified, confused, and awed. And then maybe turned to dust as the resurfacing occurs again?

and now only animals can see it

That would be interesting to be able to plug into some animals vision systems and convert what they are seeing into images we could view. More interesting might be what that animal might see from orbit or in deep space, as I don't believe ours can see very much at all!

[GaryN]

Drawing of the 1860 eclipse by G. Tempel.

http://sunearthday.nasa.gov/2006/locations/firstcme.php
I wonder if the view from space would have been the same, or is it only our ionosphere making the rays and a CME visible?

[Lloyd]

Gary, have you seen this page, esp. toward the bottom? http://www.angelfire.com/rnb/pp0/plasma3.html

[GaryN]

Thanks Lloyd, looks interesting, will have to go through his whole site when I get chance. Oahspe is either the work of a very creative imagination, or is perhaps one of the best examples of automatic writing. Although sometimes very strange and confusing, I wonder if an entity or spirit trying to explain complex science to someone from that period might have resulted in some models that were not technically fully correct, but were the best that could be expected?
I did see from researching Oahspe a little, that some parts from the earliest version had been removed from the revised editions, and that one passage had been in the form of a rebuke of Newbrough for intending to use the provided information to promote his own agenda. He was a 33rd degree Freemason, so things get kind of 'muddy', to me. I think the part about light and heat from the Sun is correct though, and so long as NASA will not perform some simple tests to prove that the Sun, or Moon, are visible from the ISS (without using the ionosphere) then I will continue to believe that the whole accepted cosmological model is a crock.