-Eric Dollard"All the theories collapse when you can't see the stars in outer space."
And there has been no proof since the beginning of manned space flight that the Sun can be seen from outer space.
On the ISS there is the SOLAR/SOLSPEC device that looks out at at the Sun, but the Sun position sensor it uses is not an optical device. There is the $2 billion AMS device looking for Dark Fairy Dust that looks out into deep space.
But a regular camera or telescope looking out into deep space? Or a porthole to see deep space from? Nope.
Over the winter I worked my way through hours of video of EVAs from the ISS, the most boring video you will ever see. The EVAs are so tightly coreographed that the astronauts don't once get a chance to look at the Moon or stars, and in all those hours of video, the Moon or stars are not mentioned once, even though there should have been many opportunities to see them when on the dark side of the Earth. Moonlight, which should be as bright or brighter than when viewed from Earth is never mentioned, though it at times should have provided ample illumination to see by.
All the evidence leads to the conclusion that the Sun or Moon or stars can not be seen from space, especially when outside of the Earths extended atmosphere, and NASA will not even consider performing the simplest of experiments to prove that they are visible, yet nobody questions this fact.
The theories are all nonsense, and the 'facts' about all the 'stars' they think they see out there are also nonsense. If the images from SOFIA were available it would be found that the millions of objects observed at certain IR wavelengths, and are assumed to be stars, actually show a shape, and not just a point of light. The one image I did see, and that quite clearly showed a few objects exhibiting distinct shapes, has been taken down, and I can not find it, or any other similar images anywhere.
The only true Suns out there are at the center of what we are told are galaxies, or perhaps at the center of globular clusters too, but most of what they detect with their instruments is the Lyman line of neutral hydrogen, which surrounds all planets and moons too, and will therefore appear to be bright, and be assumed to be stars.
I did manage to find one sofia comparison image at another site
but this site says that the SOFIA sky image is a 'simulation' (data with a lot of processing), and much of what is seen is noise from a warm telescope. I find that confusing, but it seems IR imaging is subject to confusion.
http://coolwiki.ipac.caltech.edu/index.php/ConfusionThe term "confusion-limited" refers to images in which there are so many detected sources that distinguishing individual objects is difficult. In a confusion-limited image, the spatial structure of the background resembles the superposition of many point sources. In the optical, the confusion limit is not often encountered, but can be reached in dense star clusters (e.g., in the image shown below). At near-infrared wavelengths, the background is usually dominated by emission from partially-resolved and unresolved stars or distant galaxies. In the mid- and far-IR, the background can also contain a contribution from Galactic "cirrus" emission. In an image that is near or at the confusion limit, determining whether a particular faint source is part of the background or is a target can be difficult.
So what are we seeing with these images? No doubt the mathemagicians can create some nice images from the data, but are they anywhere near correct? Just show me a photo of the Sun or Moon from space, NASA, without using Earths atmosphere. Can't be done, and your theories should all collapse.