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 nick c » Sun Jun 05, 2011 8:55 am

Earlier on this thread flippinrocks posted a youtube link to an interview with Edgar Mitchell.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LV1FAqB1N9A

Starting at :55, Mitchell described seeing the stars from the rotating spaceship while on the journey to the Moon...
...a 360 degree panorama of the heavens appears in the cabin window. That was awesome...an overwhelming experience. And we have to realize that in space without the intervening atmosphere the heavens are 10x as bright, the stars 10x as numerous...because there is no atmosphere to block the light.
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2287
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread postby GaryN » Sun Jun 05, 2011 9:47 am

Hi Frank,
You were just mentioning the ionosphere layers, thought I would post this here. I wasn't
familiar with the IMAGE experiment, and the site seems to be not maintained, but it
shows how dynamic the region around the Earth is. I don't know if there is a similar
system in operation at present, but if not, why not?
I'm very busy just at the moment Frank, I'll get to your posts here and in the EM Universe
thread ASAP.
(image too big)
http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/discoveries/N40.jpg
New observations by IMAGE reveal that a layer in the Earth's outer atmosphere acts like a heat shield by absorbing energy from solar storms and reducing their ability to heat the lower atmosphere. However, it imposes a heavy toll for its services by creating a billion-degree cloud of electrified gas, or plasma, that surrounds the planet.
Although the magnetosphere does a good job staving off the solar wind, Earth is not home free. Since the solar wind plasma is comprised of electrically charged particles that are moving rapidly past the Earth's magnetic field, a multimillion amp electric current is generated, which flows down the Earth's invisible magnetic field lines and pumps up to a trillion watts of power into the magnetosphere, especially above the polar regions, where the aurora (northern and southern lights) form. Without the space storm shield, heat from these enormous electric currents would cause our lower atmosphere (lower ionosphere) to expand and increase orbit-disrupting drag on spacecraft.

http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/discoveries/n40.html
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: 2571
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread postby fosborn_ » Mon Jun 06, 2011 4:28 pm

by nick c » Sun Jun 05, 2011 10:55 am

Earlier on this thread flippinrocks posted a youtube link to an interview with Edgar Mitchell.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LV1FAqB1N9A

Starting at :55, Mitchell described seeing the stars from the rotating spaceship while on the journey to the Moon...
...a


Nice of you to bring it up again nick c, I don't think anyone whats to address the issue though. ;)
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: 519
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread postby fosborn_ » Mon Jun 06, 2011 4:31 pm

by GaryN » Sun Jun 05, 2011 11:47 am

Hi Frank,
You were just mentioning the ionosphere layers, thought I would post this here. I wasn't
familiar with the IMAGE experiment, and the site seems to be not maintained, but it
shows how dynamic the region around the Earth is. I don't know if there is a similar
system in operation at present, but if not, why not?


What are you talking about GaryN ?
Does it pertain to this discussion? Just curious. :?
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: 519
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread postby fosborn_ » Mon Jun 06, 2011 4:35 pm

by GaryN ;
I'll get to your posts here and in the EM Universe
thread ASAP.

Take your time, read the book, its actually quite interesting. :)
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: 519
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread postby Aardwolf » Mon Jun 06, 2011 6:15 pm

fosborn_ wrote:
by nick c » Sun Jun 05, 2011 10:55 am

Earlier on this thread flippinrocks posted a youtube link to an interview with Edgar Mitchell.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LV1FAqB1N9A

Starting at :55, Mitchell described seeing the stars from the rotating spaceship while on the journey to the Moon...
...a


Nice of you to bring it up again nick c, I don't think anyone whats to address the issue though. ;)

So stars so bright they were visible from inside the CSM with all the lights on, yet are not visible on film with sometimes minutes of exposure. Something doesn't add up.

Maybe we should just take his word for it, just like his word about aliens living amongst us.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1225
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread postby Aardwolf » Mon Jun 06, 2011 6:42 pm

fosborn_ wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:Just a couple of things.

1) I think all those quotes are from missions within the ionosphere so they dont really prove anything as the point is the ionosphere is one of the layers potentially shifting the light frequency.


I'm doing a little follow up on the night time F Layer and have this information to add to the discussion;
The F1-Layer is sometimes present in daylight at a height of 220-230 Km. It is not a stable reflector. At night it increases in height and merges with the F2 Layer to form the night-time F-Layer at heights between 280 and 320 kM.
http://www.smeter.net/propagation/skytrig.php


"In January, the altitude was 340 kilometers. By March it has lost 8
kilometers before the Progress-59 supply ship raised its altitude by 5 kilometers. In
May, the ISS lost 4 1/2 kilometers and was re-boosted by the Progess-60 supply
ship by 5 1/2 kilometers. Again the ISS continued to lose altitude by 5 1/2
kilometers by July when the Progress-61 supply ship raised its orbit by 9 1/2
kilometers. http://spacemath.gsfc.nasa.gov/weekly/6Page30.pdf


So it looks like the F layer is not a factor in observing star light.

Why so intersted in the F1 layer only? Have you looked up the extent of the F2 layer?
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1225
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread postby nick c » Mon Jun 06, 2011 8:52 pm

hi Aardwolf,

Aardwolf wrote:So stars so bright they were visible from inside the CSM with all the lights on, yet are not visible on film with sometimes minutes of exposure. Something doesn't add up.

Maybe we should just take his word for it, just like his word about aliens living amongst us.
And maybe he just turned off the lights?

Edgar Mitchell's position on UFO's has no bearing on his report of being able to see stars from his spaceship. (We do not know whether some UFO's are alien craft or not, Dr. Mitchell is entitled to his opinions.) But here we have an eyewitness statement, from his experience and observations while on a journey to the Moon. Furthermore, NASA officials have consistently taken a position which is consistent with Dr. Mitchell's statement.

As well as equiping the lunar spaceships with celestial navigation equipment:
The lunar landing program employed 37 stars as guides for spacecraft navigation. Their prescribed position is so predictable and constant that a spaceship could journey hundreds of thousands of miles and land within hundreds of feet of a desired lunar landmark.
lovenav.jpg

Apollo Astronaut Sighting Star with Space Sextant


http://er.jsc.nasa.gov/seh/navigate.htm
How could they use this instrument if the stars were not visible?



Also, in reponse to my email, a NASA spokesperson confirmed that the suspected stars on an image of the Earth/Moon taken by the Mercury Messenger were stars.
Indeed, Nicholas, those are stars.

Mike CarlowiczEditor - NASA Earth Observatory - http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov774-413-5168 (home office) and 508-566-2620 (cell)michael.j.carlowicz@nasa.gov


-the instrument used was the Wide Angle Camera which takes pictures in visible to near infra red and uses a CCD chip similar to what is found in a commercially available digital camera.


So Dr. Mitchell's statement, about seeing stars from space, is substantiated by the rest of NASA, his position on UFO's is irrelevant to the issue.
Bottom line:
Stars are visible from space...the evidence is overwhelming.

Nick
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2287
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread postby GaryN » Mon Jun 06, 2011 9:57 pm

How could they use this instrument if the stars were not visible?

We have been through this before, Nick.
Navigation during the Apollo missions was conducted almost entirely by radar
from the ground accompanied by calculations from the ground computers with
lesser help from the onboard computer. The sextant and the techniques for using
it were seen as an almost useless backup system by the time the missions to the
Moon actually flew.

The device was almost useless, as they found that the debris, mostly ice
crystals, that surrounded the craft on its journey, glowed as brightly as
the stars, so they could not tell what was what. That is from the mission
report, I didn't dream that one up.
The reports from astronauts are all over the map, some did see stars, some
didn't, and what I am trying to say is that they may both be correct, that
the visibility depends on a number of factors, the electron density between
the observer and observed, leading to Compton shifting of higher frequency
'light' to the visible, being one, but not neccessarily only mechanism.
The topic started with the Sun and has wandered, as things tend to do down
here, and perhaps we should return to that. I have e-mailed numerous sites
asking why a picture of the Sun is not available that looks like the Sun we
see from Earth, even offered to supply a Solar filter, but no answers. I'm
probaby on an ignore list by now. I did get an answer from one helpful fellow
about this Sun image:
Image
He said he had dug as deep as he could, no one has any idea where it originated.
The ISS engineers stated that the platform should make an excellent base for
astronomy due to its stability. They would just need some mounts on the outside
to attatch their scopes to. None has been done. Like Aardwolf says, "Something
doesn't add up".
@fosborn
What are you talking about GaryN ?
Does it pertain to this discussion? Just curious.

From the short time the mission was active, they seem to have discovered just
how electro-magnetic the earths surroundings are, and how quickly things
change in response to both local AND distant events. We should be examining
our own back yard much more closely, with a network of instruments that can
track these changes in real or near real time. I think we would find that our
weather is mainly dependant on changes to the ion/magnetosphere. Why do they
spend billions on looking for gravity waves, or trying to determine how many
billion light years away some object is, when we still have such a lot to learn
about our home world? Doesn't make sense to me.
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: 2571
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread postby fosborn_ » Tue Jun 07, 2011 4:31 am

by fosborn_ » Tue Jun 07, 2011 6:21 am
The device was almost useless, as they found that the debris, mostly ice
crystals, that surrounded the craft on its journey,glowed as brightly as
the stars
,


Thanks for pointing that out. I don't think it helps your position though.
From the short time the mission was active, they seem to have discovered just
how electro-magnetic the earths surroundings are, and how quickly things
change in response to both local AND distant events. We should be examining
our own back yard much more closely, with a network of instruments that can
track these changes in real or near real time. I think we would find that our
weather is mainly dependant on changes to the ion/magnetosphere. Why do they
spend billions on looking for gravity waves, or trying to determine how many
billion light years away some object is, when we still have such a lot to learn
about our home world? Doesn't make sense to me.


Are you trying to say something to the effect you have some science to explain the brightness of star light to earthlings? Do you acknowledge star light does not get brighter in the F layers of our atmosphere? You speak in such genneralites as to make it impossible to discuss it IMO. Isn't the reason for a post is to discuss something. If you wish to defend your position, be specific. But on the other hand:


GaryN wrote:
'Fraid not, Frank. I'm just wallowing around in waters where I don't even belong, struggling to keep my head
above water!


Not like I'm much better off. Its just easier to shoot holes in something than defend it. ;)
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: 519
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread postby Aardwolf » Tue Jun 07, 2011 10:45 am

nick c wrote:hi Aardwolf,

Aardwolf wrote:So stars so bright they were visible from inside the CSM with all the lights on, yet are not visible on film with sometimes minutes of exposure. Something doesn't add up.

Maybe we should just take his word for it, just like his word about aliens living amongst us.
And maybe he just turned off the lights?
But he didn’t say that did he. Best to stick to what he said if you want to use it as evidence. In fact he didn’t actually say he saw 10 times as many stars. He just reasoned that he should in an interview 30+ years later.


nick c wrote:Apollo Astronaut Sighting Star with Space Sextant
http://er.jsc.nasa.gov/seh/navigate.htm
How could they use this instrument if the stars were not visible?
They didn't. It was redundant and essentially useless for purpose.


nick c wrote:Also, in reponse to my email, a NASA spokesperson confirmed that the suspected stars on an image of the Earth/Moon taken by the Mercury Messenger were stars.
Indeed, Nicholas, those are stars.

Mike CarlowiczEditor - NASA Earth Observatory - http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov774-413-5168 (home office) and 508-566-2620 (cell)michael.j.carlowicz@nasa.gov


-the instrument used was the Wide Angle Camera which takes pictures in visible to near infra red and uses a CCD chip similar to what is found in a commercially available digital camera.
Until humans can see in the near infra red this isn’t evidence they were visible.


nick c wrote:Bottom line:
Stars are visible from space...the evidence is overwhelming.

Nick
Real bottom line:
Stars may or may not be visible from space...there is no evidence only conflicting eye witness reports.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1225
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread postby fosborn_ » Tue Jun 07, 2011 11:03 am

Oops I miss this one:

observed, leading to Compton shifting of higher frequency


That is a pretty broad subject. Until you narrow down your specific application its not vary useful in this discussion 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: 519
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread postby Aardwolf » Tue Jun 07, 2011 11:07 am

fosborn_ wrote:by fosborn_ » Tue Jun 07, 2011 6:21 am
The device was almost useless, as they found that the debris, mostly ice
crystals, that surrounded the craft on its journey,glowed as brightly as
the stars
,

Thanks for pointing that out. I don't think it helps your position though.
It doesn't disprove it though. If they knew which were stars and which were particles it wouldn't have been a problem. The problem was they couldn't tell the difference. If they couldn't tell the difference, then how do they know if there were any stars in the image?

Furthermore, any discussion about visible stars in space needs to explain why when Carl Sagan asked NASA to turn Voyager around and photograph the planets from 40 AU, not a single star appeared. Even though there are supposed to be 10x as many, 10x brighter, the 15 second exposures didn't show a single star.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1225
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread postby fosborn_ » Tue Jun 07, 2011 3:14 pm

It doesn't disprove it though. If they knew which were stars and which were particles it wouldn't have been a problem.] The problem was they couldn't tell the difference.If they couldn't tell the difference, then how do they know if there were any stars in the image?
Aardwolf



Sounds pretty lame to me man. I just quote what was said and observed the obvious. Kind of Occam's razor dude.
If you what to assume things and get all complex about it, sounds like the hard way to do it. So do your home work and get back to us.

Carl Sagan? I don't remember any Carl Sagan in this thread. Not a factor 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: 519
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread postby nick c » Tue Jun 07, 2011 3:24 pm

Aardwolf wrote:They didn't. It was redundant and essentially useless for purpose.
The sextant was "essentially useless" because it had ben replaced by radar and computer systems, not because it did not work. It did work, that is, stars could be sighted through it, although there was the problem with debris. It then became a back up system. The important point is that stars could be seen from space and that is why this device was on all of the Apollo missions.
GaryN wrote:The device was almost useless, as they found that the debris, mostly ice
crystals, that surrounded the craft on its journey, glowed as brightly as
the stars, so they could not tell what was what. That is from the mission
report, I didn't dream that one up.
The device was almost useless because debris travels with the craft and makes it difficult to distinguish the small pieces of debris from the stars. The sextants usefulness was diminished due better alternatives not because of the invisibility of stars. The fact that the sextant was on all of the Apollo missions as a back up is defacto proof that stars can be seen from space. Why would they have it installed on a spaceship (where the use of every inch of space and ounce of weight was at a premium) if they could not see the stars?

But as Frank Reed, an expert in celestial navigation, points out:
During the early Gemini missions real experiments were conducted in celestial
navigation in space. These experiments showed numerous problems, but also
indicated that there was at least a chance that standard celestial could be
adapted for flights to the Moon. By the time of the later Gemini missions, the
astronauts all knew that they would not be using sextants for navigation on the
Moon missions (they were already training for the new computer-based system),
and some of the later Gemini astronauts apparently resented the time wasted on
these continuing experiments.


That is not to say that the sextant on Apollo was never used for navigation.
On the Apollo 8 mission, for example, which orbited the Moon in December of
1968, Jim Lovell entertained himself by shooting some celestial sights. They
confirmed the spacecraft's position to the level of accuracy required, but
everyone understood that Lovell was just exercising his personal favorite
astro-skill (Lovell was a Navy flyer, more famous for commanding Apollo 13).
http://www.irbs.com/lists/navigation/0405/0009.html
The device was used, which means that it had to be sighted upon a fixed star.

Criticizing the flaws in the instrument or difficulties in using it is a essentially a smokescreen. The very existence of this instrument as a piece of standard equipment on all of the Apollo missions (in conjunction with the testimony of Dr. Mitchell) is proof enough (imhop) that stars can be seen from space.

Nick
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2287
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

PreviousNext

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests