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 hertz » Tue May 24, 2011 9:24 am

a relatively unhearlded event occurred 6 feb 2011 (superbowl sunday)...first live 3D images of the sun: you can watch it live here: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/stere ... index.html
hertz
 
Posts: 147
Joined: Tue May 10, 2011 12:29 pm

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread postby GaryN » Wed May 25, 2011 12:18 pm

@fosborn
So does this mean you have no idea of the physics, of why you think star light might brighten in our atmosphere, more than what we would see in space?

Well, I wouldn't say no idea, but but not the overall mechanism. Miles Mathis may have
the answer with his ideas on spin.
By my spin equation, an electron that loses more than two spin levels actually
becomes a photon. That is simply what we call a particle with that number of spins. The electron
doesn't contain the photon, like our glass jar with photons inside. An electron simply IS a photon with extra spins. We call a photon with two extra spins an electron, and a photon with six extra spins is a proton or neutron
.
So yes, I do believe that we will not see stars, or will see very few stars by eye
from outside of the ionosphere, except by looking through the ionosphere.
http://i.imgur.com/x4gZX.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: 2586
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread postby fosborn_ » Wed May 25, 2011 2:53 pm

So yes, I do believe that we will not see stars, or will see very few stars by eye
from outside of the ionosphere, except by looking through the ionosphere.


So only stars will have this effect?
Is mars much dimmer outside the Ionosphere?

(reason for edit: changed example planet to Mars.)
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: 522
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread postby fosborn_ » Wed May 25, 2011 3:29 pm

GaryN wrote:@fosborn
So does this mean you have no idea of the physics, of why you think star light might brighten in our atmosphere, more than what we would see in space?

Well, I wouldn't say no idea, but but not the overall mechanism. Miles Mathis may have
the answer with his ideas on spin.


I don't see how this applies to the ionosphere. Do you have some examples?

GaryN wrote:So yes, I do believe that we will not see stars, or will see very few stars by eye
from outside of the ionosphere, except by looking through the ionosphere.
http://i.imgur.com/x4gZX.jpg


Does this visual amplification of light apply only to stars? Would Mars be dimmer also?

reason for edit; correct quote scripts.
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: 522
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread postby GaryN » Wed May 25, 2011 4:18 pm

Does this visual amplification of light apply only to stars? Would Mars be dimmer also?

Well, I wondered how it would look from the ISS, but it seems Mars is pretty boring too.
"mars from the iss"
"mars viewed from the iss"
"mars as seen from the iss"
Tried lots of other variations, no matches.
My search terms are too vague, or too tight you say, but just asking
a question did find a match, not to your question, but related.
"Can Mars be seen from the International Space Station?"
http://marstelescope.net/can-mars-be-se ... scope/.php
We know the Earth and Moon can be seen from Mars orbit, this image when their orbits
brought them almost to their closest.
Image
The un-enhanced version:
Image
Pretty dark out there...
And Earth from the Martian surface using the pancam on the Spirit Rover.
(May it rust in peace. http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2385892,00.asp )
Image
http://space.about.com/od/pictures/ig/E ... m-Mars.htm
Again Frank, I suspect it is our atmosphere that makes Mars so bright in our skies.
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: 2586
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada


Re: The Boring Sun

Unread postby fosborn_ » Thu May 26, 2011 4:30 am

Ok Lloyd, do you know of any physics that can explain how starlight can amplify itself in our atmosphere?

I don't think GaryN has provided any yet. The ISS has pictures of stars with the Nikon camera and GaryN accepts those pictures, I think because the ISS altitude puts it in so high in the ionosphere F layer. So what ever mysterious physics is at work, must have its minimum effects at the 400 KM altitude of the ISS.

This is a ground based picture compared to the ISS. Looks the same to me.
http://seds.org/messier/xtra/ngc/mel111 ... s006e40537
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: 522
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread postby Lloyd » Thu May 26, 2011 8:16 pm

Fosborn said: do you know of any physics that can explain how starlight can amplify itself in our atmosphere?

* No. What evidence is there that the atmosphere amplifies starlight? There's not much atmosphere above 400 km, is there?
* I can imagine the possibility that atmospheres magnify images, because atmospheres are spheres and glass spheres amplify images, so maybe air spheres could do so somewhat similarly.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4224
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread postby fosborn_ » Thu May 26, 2011 8:23 pm

Lloyd wrote:
Fosborn said: do you know of any physics that can explain how starlight can amplify itself in our atmosphere?

* No. What evidence is there that the atmosphere amplifies starlight? There's not much atmosphere above 400 km, is there?
* I can imagine the possibility that atmospheres magnify images, because atmospheres are spheres and glass spheres amplify images, so maybe air spheres could do so somewhat similarly.


No problem Lloyd, thanks for the response. I thought you accepted the idea that Star EUV and X rays brightened the appearance of the stars within planetary ionospheres, as GaryN does. But clearly I was mistaken and apologize.

Thanks
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: 522
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread postby GaryN » Fri May 27, 2011 12:07 am

I wasn't saying amplification Frank, but a change in the property of the
light due to something happening in the ionosphere. I have a lot to learn,
or try and learn, and at the moment I have much else that I should be doing.
I was just looking into how, maybe, distant plane waves arriving outside the
ionosphere, and the way that the eye works, may result in total, or at least
a very high order, of destructive interference, so we can not see anything!
The ionosphere somehow restores things so we are able to see them again, but
I don't think I'll ever have time to get into the details, or at least not until
later in the year.
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: 2586
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread postby D_Archer » Fri May 27, 2011 3:10 am

Hi Gary,

A possibility could be that the photon picks up some energy from the ionosphere! This would restore some of its lost energy from the long travel. Thereby brightening for a clearer picture here on earth.

For some good conceptions of what light actually is/does, Miles Mathis has some clear understandings >

Why do Stars Twinkle? > http://milesmathis.com/twink.html
The THEORY of TIRED LIGHT, why wrong why right > http://www.milesmathis.com/tired.pdf

Regards,
Daniel
- Shoot Forth Thunder -
User avatar
D_Archer
 
Posts: 1168
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:01 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread postby Aardwolf » Fri May 27, 2011 5:38 am

I think Miles Mathis would say the ionosphere interaction will cause photons to lose energy and redshift so when near ultraviolet light hits the atmosphere it would be shifted to visible.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1249
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread postby fosborn_ » Fri May 27, 2011 6:53 am

GaryN » Fri May 27, 2011 2:07 am I wasn't saying amplification Frank, but a change in the property of the
light due to something happening in the ionosphere. I have a lot to learn,
or try and learn, and at the moment I have much else that I should be doing.
I was just looking into how, maybe, distant plane waves arriving outside the
ionosphere, and the way that the eye works, may result in total, or at least
a very high order, of destructive interference, so we can not see anything!
The ionosphere somehow restores things so we are able to see them again, but
I don't think I'll ever have time to get into the details, or at least not until
later in the year.


As far as amplifiation of light, if you have alegidly dim star light, turning into brighter star light, how is that not amplifing a signal ?

Destructive Interference? :? The previous link you gave me was constructive interference, did you reverse coarse? Or did I read it wrong?

As far as the way the human eye processes it, its not a factor if a camera can process the same results. As an example the ISS Nikon takes a picture, then a ground photo of the same area of the sky is taken and compared and they both look the same.
http://seds.org/messier/xtra/ngc/mel111 ... s006e40537
So unless the ISS photogropher says his pictures are much dimmer that what he is seeing, I don't know the eye physiology is nessisary to address. Or if the ground photographer says it for that matter.

In your search for why it might happen, maybe treat the Ionosphere as a solid state device and then you might be able to create a method of physical analysis and come up with some hard figures. Other wise it will only be subjective and opinions, of yes it is or no it isn't IMO (kind of makes a pun :) ). But on the other hand, this is NIMI. :)


Thanks for your efforts and considerate responces.
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: 522
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread postby fosborn_ » Fri May 27, 2011 7:02 am

D_Archer wrote:Hi Gary,

A possibility could be that the photon picks up some energy from the ionosphere! This would restore some of its lost energy from the long travel. Thereby brightening for a clearer picture here on earth.

For some good conceptions of what light actually is/does, Miles Mathis has some clear understandings >

Why do Stars Twinkle? > http://milesmathis.com/twink.html
The THEORY of TIRED LIGHT, why wrong why right > http://www.milesmathis.com/tired.pdf

Regards,
Daniel

So you are saying star light is actually vary bright as it starts out and tires out, then re aquires it orignal energies. So the end result is we are actualy seeing the stars true brightness?
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: 522
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread postby Aardwolf » Fri May 27, 2011 7:22 am

fosborn_ wrote:
D_Archer wrote:Hi Gary,

A possibility could be that the photon picks up some energy from the ionosphere! This would restore some of its lost energy from the long travel. Thereby brightening for a clearer picture here on earth.

For some good conceptions of what light actually is/does, Miles Mathis has some clear understandings >

Why do Stars Twinkle? > http://milesmathis.com/twink.html
The THEORY of TIRED LIGHT, why wrong why right > http://www.milesmathis.com/tired.pdf

Regards,
Daniel

So you are saying star light is actually vary bright as it starts out and tires out, then re aquires it orignal energies. So the end result is we are actualy seeing the stars true brightness?

Miles says it only loses energy on interaction so we would be seeing ultraviolet light that has lost energy (spin) and shifted into visible light.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1249
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

PreviousNext

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

cron