The Boring Sun

[Ras]

In my humble opinion, this topic is the most important topic in the world right now. Very simple logic, yet it proves a lot. It proves not only that the whole "science" needs complete rework, it also proves that our leaders are not our leaders but something else.

[Lloyd]

Yes, Ras, our "leaders" are our programmers.

Gary, I just posted a bit at http://thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpBB3/v ... 423#p72423 which is relevant here too. It's the part about Joseph George's theory in the lower part of that message.

[GaryN]

Is a Solar eclipse visible from the ISS? I don't see any images or even mention of such, so I ran Celestia and set the Moon as the target, looking from the ISS. Sure enough, on Nov 13 2012, at 1:08 PM PST, the full eclipse occured. So why has an eclipse never been imaged from the ISS? Just too boring for the astronauts I suppose, what other reason could there be, it was nap time and they didn't want to loose beauty sleep?
@ras

In my humble opinion, this topic is the most important topic in the world right now.

It should be important, but the truth is that 99.99% of the worlds populations doesn't even think about it, and the small percentage who might see that something is amiss can do nothing about it. NASA has long since quit answering my E-Mails, and I get ignored on the forums where I go to ask questions. To me, that indicates I am on the right track, if not totally correct.

[Ras]

I think you should be happy that you don't get much reaction...if you did, you could have serious problems, such as some of the vanished inventors had. So, we can only research this for ourselves, sharing with the world will not go smoothly. Too much money is spent every day to make sure that people (don't) think they way they do.

[GaryN]

Hi Ras,
I think I'm too small a fish to be any threat to the PTB, so far. However, if I was to announce and fund raise for the placing of a ruggedised but optically normal telescope/camera in Earth orbit that could be used by the public for viewing the Sun, Moon, planets, conjunctions, the Milky Way, then I'd be hearing from someone. Doubt they'd approve a launch for some reason or other, or ensure it never got to orbit somehow. Even an upward (outward) facing camera on a high altitude balloon is not allowed, and I know that because I have asked two companies that operate such balloons if I can put a 'box' on top, and have had no reply. I'm now trying to interest a Canadian high school astronomy class who have sent up a couple of HABs to participate in such an experiment, will see how that works out.

[Ras]

Now, let me ask something very amateur - if the Earth atmosphere (meaning not only the air components but also Ether) is so important, does all this have something to do with Sun and the Moon being so large when they are close to the horizon? Officially, that is just a trick of human mind, people believe that they are bigger and they actually are not.
We can still see the stars from the airplane at the high altitude...so, even though the air is rare, the atmosphere is still present enough to help us see the rest of the Universe.
Probably many other similar questions could be asked.

[nick c]

Now, let me ask something very amateur - if the Earth atmosphere (meaning not only the air components but also Ether) is so important, does all this have something to do with Sun and the Moon being so large when they are close to the horizon? Officially, that is just a trick of human mind, people believe that they are bigger and they actually are not.

The official explanation is correct, the Moon is not larger when on the horizon, it is an optical illusion. In fact, it is slightly smaller when on the horizon. The angular diameter of the moon can be measured and the moon is slightly larger when directly overhead. Think about it, the rising moon is an Earth radius farther than the overhead moon.
You can perform a simple experiment with this, take a dime and hold it at arm's length. Use it to compare the size to the rising full moon. About 6 hours later compare the dime at arm's length to the overhead moon. I have done this experiment and the rising moon is slightly smaller than the overhead moon, even though the rising moon looked much bigger at a casual glance.
The traditional explanation is that the human mind compares the rising moon to objects on the horizon...trees, hills, building, etc. However, some dispute that:
http://www.how-come.net/2007/12/18/why- ... -overhead/
So, it is definitely an optical illusion. Measurement of the angular diameter of the rising moon versus the overhead moon proves that to be true. But the factors that affect the mind's interpretation is still not clear.

[promethean]

CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla., November 27 - NASA is looking for new ideas on what to do with two space telescopes left over from a once-secret U.S. spy satellite program.

The U.S. space agency asked the scientific community on Tuesday for its input into possible missions for a pair of space telescopes donated last year to NASA by the National Reconnaissance Office, which operates the nation's spy satellites.

"NRO offered us their leftover hardware if we want it. They've been totally open in allowing us to study whether this hardware would be of advantage to NASA," said Paul Hertz, who oversees NASA's astrophysics programs.

Topping the list of existing proposals is to use one telescope for a mission to learn more about an anti-gravity force known as "dark energy," which is believed to be responsible for speeding up the universe's rate of expansion.

The phenomenon was discovered in the 1990s by two teams of researchers who shared the 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics for their work.

The National Academy of Sciences has made that mission, known as the Wide-Field Infrared Survey Telescope, its top choice for an astrophysics space mission for the next decade.

NASA estimates the WFIRST mission would cost $1.5 billion to $2 billion, but it cannot begin a major new astrophysics project until spending winds down on the over-budget and delayed James Webb Space Telescope, which is a successor to the Hubble Space Telescope and is scheduled for launch in 2018.

The NRO telescopes, which were built to peer down at Earth, each have a primary mirror that is 7.9 feet in diameter, much larger than the 4.3-foot (1.3-meter) observatory originally proposed for the WFIRST mission.

While a larger telescope may allow for more detailed observations, it could be more expensive to outfit with instruments and launch into space.

"There's a whole lot of ways that a larger telescope might benefit you, even if it doesn't save you money," Hertz said.

Another option is to pair the WFIRST mission with a new initiative to view Earth-sized planets beyond the solar system, said Princeton University researcher David Spergel, who organized a workshop for scientists in September to discuss telescope proposals.

The extra-solar planet hunter also could be a stand-alone mission.

Another idea is to use one of the telescopes to study how the sun affects Earth's magnetic field.

Like the Hubble observatory, the NRO telescopes are capable of producing extremely high-resolution images. Although they are declassified, NASA is prohibited from using the donated telescopes to produce visible-light images of Earth.

Looking beyond astrophysics missions may get at least one of the telescopes out of storage sooner.

"Astrophysics is limited in its ability to do anything based on pre-existing project developments in our budget. The rest of the agency has potentially more flexibility," said Michael Moore, NASA's assistant director for innovation and technology.

"Can you use the hardware to address things that are being done in advanced technology development or with humans or with robotics? That expands the universe of potential users," he said.

NASA said responses to its request for mission proposals are due by January 7.

Any ideas ? ( other than looking for pink unicorns )

[onthehook]

The only thing they can use them for is for spares without proper funding, the bake sale thing only goes so far, if the supposed leadership was there, Earth would have the funding for the Webb and the unequipped twins to ring three sides of the planet - at least for collision avoidance, most of the cutting edge science has moved from the visible light spectrum now and it would be a waste of limited resources for them to be deployed without the extra funding.

[GaryN]

Hi Ras, the Earths atmosphere certainly does affect the appearance of the Sun and Moon, and the closer to the Earth then the more effect as the higher density of gases, water vapour in particular, affect light more. I agree with Nick that there is an optical illusion regarding the apparent size, though I have never tried measuring. The Moon to me certainly does look smaller when it is directly overhead.
The HAB experiment I'd like to do is to try and determine the visibility of the stars at different altitudes, by taking an image every so often on the way up, and record exposure times. Yes we can still see the stars from an aircraft, but from what I have heard from pilots is that they aren't any more impressive at high altitude, even through binoculars, and are just white, no colour. A night time balloon launch reaching 90,000 ft would, I believe, offer some interesting data.
@promethean

Any ideas ? ( other than looking for pink unicorns )

I saw that article a while ago, and suggested they just put a good camera at the focal plane ( I don't think there are any instruments in there at all) and use it to view the Moon. No reply there of course, as without the special instruments the other space 'telescopes' use, it would see nothing. There are still no pictures of the far side of the Moon, despite what people tell me. If you look closely at the instruments on LRO for example, you will find that they do not take regular photos, they use IR, UV, spectroscopy, and laser altimeters to create a 'picture'.
They claim to take colour images, but colour is a misnomer, as they decided a while back that any image that utilises 3 wavelengths can be called colour, even if that means 2 IRs and a UV, which of course we couldn't see by eye.
I'll continue to believe the Sun puts out about as much visible light, the type our eyes can see, as a rock, and I'm now leaning the same way with heat. They are both created within the Earths ionosphere I believe.

[GaryN]

A not-so-boring Sun just now it seems. A good opportunity to snap a pic of the Sun through an ND filter? Don't hold your breath...

This weekend the International Space Station will turn itself to face the Sun, enabling ESA’s SOLAR instrument to capture an entire rotation of the solar surface. This is the first time the Station has changed attitude for scientific reasons alone.

Read more: http://www.universetoday.com/98673/inte ... z2Dg6scf8b

[GaryN]

I'd been puzzling over the video from the MoonKAMs on the twin GRAIL spacecraft, as up until now there have been no videos of the far side. The Jaxa videos were easy to explain after looking at the instruments, but I can find no details of how the MoonKAM worked. When I went to try and get behind a paywall that seemed like it might have info, I got a very quick look at a page where the words 'quantum optics' caught my eye in the short time before the page was replaced by a login page. This is new tech to me, but is this possibly the answer? If the Military are 50 years ahead of what we get to see or hear about, just what else do they have?

Quantum camera a sophisticated new way of taking pictures

With some elegant implementations, the ghost image [is] indistinguishable from a photograph," said Meyers, who has been involved in the field since 2006, when he produced the first ghost image of a remote object at the Army Research Lab.

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-0 ... s-detector

[GaryN]

Interesting. The Curiosity rover has ND filters on its Mastcams, and they used them to take a shot of a solar transit from the Martian surface.

The Sol 37 Curiosity Mastcam images:
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/multimedia ... amera=MAST_
There is also a Bayer filter, which means the images using that one should be what a consumer digital camera, and our eyes, should see. I haven't seen a detailed plan of the Mastcams, but I don't think it is possible for them to use the Bayer and the ND filters together, so we can not see the colour of the Sun.
An interesting point though is that the camera should then, at night, be able to see the stars, or other planets, and the Moon too, but I can find no images. There are some tiny white specks on some of the transit images, but not sure if they are stars or CCD hot spots. The cameras can work in full auto mode, or Command mode, so they should be able to set a long enough exposure for the stars to show, but will have to try and find info there. If the camera can only do short exposures, then of course my suspicions are raised. And as seems standard now, they don't, or don't make it easy anyway, to obtain exposure settings.

[Ras]

It must be painful to research in space science when the sources, like NASA and other 'government' agencies are so NOT RELIABLE. Even when they, occasionally, speak the truth, we have to second guess them, since they lie soooo much.
The whole 'science' that we know is questionable and needs to go back to the roots, to the basics and start all over. Everything is, often deliberately, wrong.
The human world we live in is a purposefully twisted one, in order to provide abnormal and unnatural control of the population. Why? Power. And who knows what other motives.

[GaryN]

You are so correct, IMO, Ras. and it is very frustrating that NASA will not 'come clean' about so many issues. When they don't want to answer a question, they ignore it, and there is no way to force them to answer questions as they are still basically a military operation. Just the fact that they can not show a video of the Moon, which is perfectly simple from Earth, should raise a big flag, but nobody seems interested in pursuing the matter. If the Moon is not visible from the ISS with one of the 4 colour video cameras on Canadarm2, and is quite capable of pointing those cameras into deep space, that should be a huge wakeup call, but everyone is asleep it seems. NASA knows, as do I by just using Celestia, when the Moon will be visible, and in a way that does not endanger the cameras by accidentally looking at the Sun, which is one of their excuses. The Moon can be seen from Earth, why would we want to see it from space, is another one. Pathetic, I'd say. If the Moon can not be videoed from space, then everything we have been told about the visibility of objects in space is wrong, and that means that most of what we are told these objects are is probably also wrong.

Everything is, often deliberately, wrong.

Agreed. Taking the exact opposite stance to what NASA says usually gets you a lot closer to the truth, and that holds true even up to Black Holes, which I'd rather believe are White Points, the centres of creation of everything that exists in our 'little' Universe, the Vedic model.

The human world we live in is a purposefully twisted one, in order to provide abnormal and unnatural control of the population. Why? Power. And who knows what other motives.

That's the way it has always been, and only total revolution can change it, but it seems that 99.9999% of humanity has been programmed so well that they never question authority, and I suppose if you are one of the fortunate ones who lives and eats and parties well all the time, why rock the boat? Those less fortunate have no say (democracy is a joke) at all, and no way to change things in the least. What 'they' are really trying to prevent, I think, is humanity realising its full potential. As Buckminster Fuller said, we are all born geniuses, and dumbed down by the education system, and he was right there. I also think we have the capability to progress spiritually to a very great degree, so much so that we would no longer be subject to the restraints of our physical reality, or to the control of those would keep us enthralled.