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: bboyer, MGmirkin

Locked
fosborn_
Posts: 526
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread post by fosborn_ » Wed Mar 14, 2012 3:45 pm

Seems this happens when there are solar storms, but the article does not give a technical reason for the blindness. I am wondering if the ionosphere of Venus is temporarily blown away or distorted so that the optics can not function as designed? Or CCD saturation, like being blinded for a ?while after you glimpse a very bright light?
http://www.space.com/14834-solar-storm- ... craft.html
A question to add is, were they shooting stars before they got to Venus's ionosphere ?

In the Cassini pictures why are there not stars visible ? Page seven a photograph of MUNDILFARI, should be within Saturn's ionosphere isn't it?
http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/photos/raw/r ... eID=255802
Well Thanks Frank! I appreciate your efforts in trying to show where my reasoning is incorrect
Cool, any appreciation will do. :)
The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries,
is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'
Isaac Asimov

User avatar
GaryN
Posts: 2668
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread post by GaryN » Thu Mar 15, 2012 12:22 pm

Tough to say what the Star Tracker is seeing, or how it works Frank. There is one part of it that I can find no info on, just listed as "custom unit", and no technical details of the other units. Interesting that it was developed by Le Officine Galileo, who have provided many devices to the Vatican since the late 1800s, microscopes originally, but also cameras, and the development of Star Trackers. Suffice to say they are not simple cameras, but I don't think I want to go any deeper into this rabbit hole, all roads seem to lead to Rome, so to speak, along with a whole bunch of dubious multinational organisations.
There latest Cassini images show what must be longish time exposures of Moons passing through the field of view, I suppose I could find out the moons orbital speed, and knowing the cameras field of view, work backwards to determine exposure time. I would think many stars should be visible in this image, but if it is a long exposure (I think 20 minutes is max) then you would certainly not see anything by eye.
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: 2668
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread post by GaryN » Thu Mar 15, 2012 8:46 pm

May 19, 1780, The Dark Day.
"The occurrence brought intense alarm and distress to multitudes of minds, as well as dismay to the whole brute creation, the fowls fleeing bewildered to their roosts, and the birds to their nests, and the cattle returning to their stalls." Frogs and night hawks began their notes. The cocks crew as at daybreak. Farmers were forced to leave their work in the fields. Business was generally suspended, and candles were lighted in the dwellings. "The Legislature of Connecticut was in session at Hartford, but being unable to transact business adjourned. Everything bore the appearance and gloom of night."

The intense darkness of the day was succeeded, an hour or two before evening, by a partially clear sky, and the sun appeared, though it was still obscured by the black, heavy mist. But "this interval was followed by a return of the obscuration with greater density, that rendered the first half of the night hideously dark beyond all former experience of the probable million of people who saw it. From soon after sunset until midnight, no ray of light from moon or star penetrated the vault above. It was pronounced 'the blackness of darkness!'" Said an eye-witness of the scene: "I could not help conceiving, at the time, that if every luminous body in the universe had been shrouded in impenetrable darkness, or struck out of existence, the darkness could not have been more complete." Though the moon that night rose to the full, "it had not the least effect to dispel the death-like shadows." After midnight the darkness disappeared, and the moon, when first visible, had the appearance of blood.
Although the accounts start out by describing what could have been smoke, there is no mention in any account I have read, of the smell of smoke. Coincidentally, 1780 was a peak of sunspot activity, believed to be as high or higher than the 1960 peak. Sounds like an "Atmospherean Blowout" 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
nick c
Moderator
Posts: 2483
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread post by nick c » Fri Mar 16, 2012 10:19 am

GaryN wrote:Although the accounts start out by describing what could have been smoke, there is no mention in any account I have read, of the smell of smoke. Coincidentally, 1780 was a peak of sunspot activity, believed to be as high or higher than the 1960 peak. Sounds like an "Atmospherean Blowout" to me.
May 19, 1780 was the "day of darkness," it was a regional event over parts of Canada, and New England. There is evidence that it was caused by a massive forest fire in Canada combined with cloudy weather. The days preceeding the day of darkness there were reports of soot in the rain water and discoloration of the sky.
[It is interesting that the area had just emerged from one of the worst winters on record, where the harbors of Boston and New York had frozen over. I do not know if that severe winter has any connection to the day of darkness in the following Spring?]

By an "Atmospherean Blowout," are you suggesting that there was a meteorite or a comet fragment impacting the Earth? This could have caused the gigantic forest fire which in turn caused the day of darkness. It would seem to me that forests would not have been very dry in May, as usually this is a wet time of the year.
Or it could have been caused by something similar to the Great Chicago Fire - the suggestion of an extraterrestrial cause is discussed in the following tpod's:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/ ... gofire.htm
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/ ... 7biela.htm
Although, I do not know of any reports of darkness after the Chicago fiire, or Tungaska (a blast rather than a rain of fire).
I think that fire from the sky is an unexplored avenue. It is not hard to imagine that the Earth may at times intercept flammable cometary gases/plasma which ingnite in the atmosphere causing fires at some location on the surface of the Earth.

User avatar
GaryN
Posts: 2668
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread post by GaryN » Sat Mar 17, 2012 12:15 pm

By an "Atmospherean Blowout," are you suggesting that there was a meteorite or a comet fragment impacting the Earth?
No, I have not read any reports of other atmospheric effects, explosions, flashes of light, lightning, winds, hail, hot rocks or gravel falling, which seem to go along with meteorite or comet events. It seems it was quiet and still. A cloud of sooty particles would need to cover a large area and be quite dense to produce such total darkness. Because I believe the visibility of the stars and planets, moon, and even the Sun, is determined by ionospheric conditions, I am looking at a Solar event that has thinned, or changed the composition of, our atmosphere, rendering the heavens invisible.
I would also consider that there may have been a dense, sooty cloud present, which might have been produced by a solar event creating such material. Carbon is believed to be produced in a triple alpha process, and I think something like that could happen very quickly under certain conditions. It would require accepting that the Sun functions in a much different manner than presently assumed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple-alpha_process
There are also Biblical references to the Sun going dark, and similar accounts around the time of some major ancient military confrontations, but I have no idea how those would relate to the 1780 event.
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

fosborn_
Posts: 526
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread post by fosborn_ » Sat Mar 17, 2012 1:14 pm

GaryN wrote;
There latest Cassini images show what must be longish time exposures of Moons passing through the field of view, I suppose I could find out the moons orbital speed, and knowing the cameras field of view, work backwards to determine exposure time. I would think many stars should be visible in this image, but if it is a long exposure (I think 20 minutes is max) then you would certainly not see anything by eye.
My highlights.

http://history.nasa.gov/ap10fj/as10-day2-pt8.htm
My highlights
024:19:27 Stafford: Okay. I just wanted to give you a star visibility data point. Just a second ago, when the Sun was in the right window, number 5 window
, I could barely see the Southern Cross, Acrux, and Alpha and Beta Centauri out my left window, and that's the first time we've been able to see it.

024:19:44 Duke: Roger. Good show.

024:19:48 Stafford: We couldn't - And, Mr. Charlie, we couldn't see many other stars, just the real big ones, you know, like Alpha and Beta Centauri and Acruz.Now, as the Sun moves on around, they've completely disappeared, but that's the first glimpse of any stars I've gotten.
[Stafford from the Technical Crew Debriefing, June 1969 -"I finally saw the first stars when we were approximately 100,000 miles from the Earth. At that time, I saw Acrux, and Alpha and Beta Centauri, but they were very dim. I saw these out of my side window. As we neared the Moon, I didn't see any more".]
AS15-88-11997sm.JPG
AS15-88-11997sm.JPG (12.08 KiB) Viewed 8355 times

As far as star navigation in cis-lunar space here is a good human experience with it;
024:53:26 Young: It's got to do with the position of the Earth and how much light we're getting through there and everything.

[Young from the Technical Crew Debrief, June 1969 - "Optics calibration was extremely difficult because there were not any visible stars to fly to in the telescope. So we put it off as long as we could. On the way to the Moon, there was never a case where we had more than one or two stars visible, even 180 degrees from the Sun. There was no place where we could recognize constellations on the way to the Moon, and there were very few places, where we were doing P23's or P23-type things, where we could recognize individual stars except through the optics. It would be very convenient if there were a routine in the computer which would fly the spacecraft to position a star for optics calibration if they're required for each P23. It would save you a great deal of fuel, especially when you can't see the darned stars in the first place. When you were doing star landmark tracking in the vicinity of the Earth, you had to do the optics calibration to find a star a great deal further away from the Earth than the procedure recommends. The procedure wants you to do the optics calibration in the vicinity of the body that you're tracking. You couldn't do that. The Earth, the Moon, and the Sun cause star shafting across the telescope, and completely blank your vision from seeing any stars with the Lunar Module on. The Lunar Module caused Sun shafting into the optics at various positions. From the start of TLI through translunar coast, we were never at any time able to see any stars except through Auto optics".]
024:53:32 Duke: Say again, John. You were cut out.
024:53:36 Young: It's got to do with the way the sunshine is shining on the Earth, how much light is getting scattered back in the telescope, and how much is coming in off the LM. It's really - It's really blanking out all the stars.
My highlights.
I wonder if this falsifies your idea stars are only visible close to the earth?
The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries,
is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'
Isaac Asimov

User avatar
GaryN
Posts: 2668
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread post by GaryN » Sun Mar 18, 2012 11:50 am

I wonder if this falsifies your idea stars are only visible close to the earth?
I don't know who/what to believe any more Frank, the accounts from the astronauts are all over the place. Strangely though, it seems the higher the order of Freemason the astronauts were, the better they could see the stars. Go figure. I still think a picture worth at least a thousand words, so I'm waiting on a decent picture from the ISS of the Sun, or Moon, or the planets, before I believe they can be seen at all times, rather than just under certain circumstances.
Image
The White Silk Scottish Rite flag (in color): to the moon and back.

Edgar Mitchell, (first 2 minutes), stars 10 times brighter.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LV1FAqB1N9A
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

fosborn_
Posts: 526
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread post by fosborn_ » Sun Mar 18, 2012 12:50 pm

I don't know who/what to believe any more Frank, the accounts from the astronauts are all over the place.
Sorry, but the thoroughness of the debriefing notes and the the frustration expressed and the persistence expressed, at trying to get the navigation equipment to work more reliably, should speak volumes of the validity of the data.
But your causal dismissal of this first hand information, makes me wonder how objective you might be in this aspect of your investigation. :|
So as usual IMO, the answer is somewhere in the middle where nobody is happy about it. :roll:

Sorry, to much March Madness. :roll: :D
The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries,
is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'
Isaac Asimov

User avatar
GaryN
Posts: 2668
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread post by GaryN » Thu Mar 22, 2012 10:02 am

Sorry, to much March Madness.
I hare you Frank. :D

Landed on this page while looking for the camera data for the Dawn mission framing cameras. Never did find the data, they are making it harder and harder to come by. I'm pretty sure though that with a point-and-shoot camera there would be nothing visible at Vesta, which means our eyes would see nothing either.
There is some very clever science, but it is all geared towards determining planet/moon/asteroid surface composition and distribution, which will be of great interest to the Corporations as they gear up their Galactic expansion plans!
First things first. Space cameras are not like the one in your phone or point-n-shoot pocket camera. Space cameras usually have detectors that can detect light across slightly more of the electromagnetic spectrum than human eyes can see, from near-ultraviolet to near-infrared wavelengths. More importantly, while the pictures that they take are often pretty, they are not intended to be for snapshots; they are sophisticated, precise scientific measuring devices.
Dawn FC filter color ratios explained.
http://planetary.org/blog/article/00003239/
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

fosborn_
Posts: 526
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread post by fosborn_ » Thu Mar 22, 2012 12:07 pm

I'm pretty sure though that with a point-and-shoot camera there would be nothing visible at Vesta, which means our eyes would see nothing either.
GaryN did you ever download the viewer software for the voyager images of the sun and the various stars that were imaged in the visible light ranges?
I hope you include those in your investigations some day. :)
The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries,
is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'
Isaac Asimov

User avatar
GaryN
Posts: 2668
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread post by GaryN » Thu Mar 22, 2012 11:17 pm

GaryN did you ever download the viewer software
No, I don't use Windows, so the viewer is no good. I'll see if I can find a Linux version, but for now, I did find many images at this site:
http://www.planetary.org/explore/topics ... wdata.html
I downloaded a few and played with brightness. contrast, sharpening, but can't see any stars in them, and I have no idea where an image of the Sun would be. Maybe you can enlighten me? :-)
were imaged in the visible light ranges
The visible ranges, yes, but there are emission lines of lots of elements in the visible range, it does not mean there are 'colours' of the type our eyes see.
The narrow band filters help to identify what is emitting, but the wide-band or clear filters are only going to tell you there is something emitting, but not what. The exposure times, considering this is a Vidicon, suggest to me there is probably very little in the way of light our eyes could detect until you were literally almost bumping into those moons.
The Voyager images would seem to strongly reenforce my beliefs, not disprove them. Thanks Frank! And, you also gave me an idea for some silicon vidicon multi-spectral glasses. IR to UV. You'll need a pair if you want to see much in space. I'll cut you in for profit sharing. :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

seasmith
Posts: 2815
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread post by seasmith » Sat Mar 24, 2012 5:07 pm

And, you also gave me an idea for some silicon vidicon multi-spectral glasses. IR to UV
Gary,

Is there an app for that ?

~

User avatar
GaryN
Posts: 2668
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread post by GaryN » Sat Mar 24, 2012 8:10 pm

..IR to UV.
Is there an app for that ?
IR through UV, I should have said...
Converting UV to Vis, not a problem though. Maybe that is what these glasses, Apollo 7, were for? I see no reference as to what they were.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Histo ... 4-1558.jpg

Another Apollo 7 shot. Earth glow, bright central object, lots of stars.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Histo ... 3-1518.jpg

And from Apollo 12, a glowing astronaut!
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apoll ... 6/6826.jpg

From Apollo mission history:
A sun filter is provided to make it possible to use the sun as an
alignment target and was exercised for the first time on Apollo 9. The
filter worked well functionally -- even sunspots could be counted --
but the actual alignment was not performed.
From:
http://web.mit.edu/digitalapollo/Docume ... report.pdf
So come on NASA, show us some sunspots from the ISS!
Or even the May 5 Moon, Saturn and Spica?
Image
Nah, keep forgetting they are not interested in astrophotography. :(
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

fosborn_
Posts: 526
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread post by fosborn_ » Wed Mar 28, 2012 4:46 pm

I hare you Frank.
I live for your humor GaryN! ( don't quit your day job dude. :) )
were imaged in the visible light ranges

The visible ranges, yes, but there are emission lines of lots of elements in the visible range, it does not mean there are 'colours' of the type our eyes see.
The narrow band filters help to identify what is emitting, but the wide-band or clear filters are only going to tell you there is something emitting, but not what. The exposure times, considering this is a Vidicon, suggest to me there is probably very little in the way of light our eyes could detect until you were literally almost bumping into those moons.
The Voyager images would seem to strongly reenforce my beliefs, not disprove them. Thanks Frank! And, you also gave me an idea for some silicon vidicon multi-spectral glasses. IR to UV. You'll need a pair if you want to see much in space. I'll cut you in for profit sharing.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... =15#p52323

Sorry GaryN, but sounds like balderdash* to me. Can you back it up with references please?
Previously I have called you out on your Vidicon understanding. ;)

*( I prefer item # 2.
Obsolete . a muddled mixture of liquors. in the dictionary)
The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries,
is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'
Isaac Asimov

User avatar
GaryN
Posts: 2668
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread post by GaryN » Sat Apr 21, 2012 11:25 pm

Frank referenced:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... =15#p52323
Ah, but that was then...
Image
This is now!
Image
;-)
Previously I have called you out on your Vidicon understanding.
The vidicon, being a storage-type device, was the only device capable of imaging in the very low light conditions in space, but it still did not return any images of the Lunar far side when used with the F0.7 lens. Or if it did, for some reason, they never showed us those images.
The first 'images' of the far side have been taken with the MoonKam onboard the twin GRAIL craft.

Lunar far side and a rising Earth.
Image

Lunar images from the GRAIL MoonKam, including far side images.
http://images.moonkam.ucsd.edu/main.php

So there is light on the far side of the Moon, you say. Well, yes, and no. I have tried to find details on those cameras, in particular the CCD they use, with no luck. I suspect it might be a new Fairchild CMOS chip, exceedingly sensitive, and with near-IR capabilities. They are supposedly colour cameras, but there is no colour in those images, and the resolution sucks. Just as good images are available from Earth, but not of the far side, of course. The cameras are seeing only in IR, IMO. Another NASA con job. I'm hoping you can find fault in my conclusions, Frank, with references, of course. :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

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests