The Boring Sun

[D_Archer]

Hi Gary,

Miles Mathis just posted this: http://milesmathis.com/olbers.pdf , on Olbers' paradox.

Could it help with the no pictures from space? If the light spreads spherically and brightness decreases with distance, a normal camera that registers visible light would already be too small to detect any coherent picture..as the physical photons do not come in close enough to each other, even with longer exposures it would be difficult, i think the human eye would have the same problem.

Only problem i see is that the sun is not really that far away.....so it could work for distant stars this way, but the Sun?

Regards,
Daniel

[GaryN]

Hi Daniel,
I think Miles has an incorrect view of how it all works, but without the simple experiments that could put me out of my misery, and possibly put just about every scientist in the world into a state of shock, speculation is the best we can do.
The BIPH device, if it can see nothing from outside the atmosphere, indicates, to my messed up mind, that the diagram that shows blocking of certain wavelengths of solar radiation by the atmosphere is another ass backwards one.

The photons we can see or detect at the Earths surface are created in the atmosphere. If they are blocked, what happens to that energy, it can't just vanish.

[Sparky]

Gary, this is a site for Hubble's Advanced Camera for Surveys:
http://www.sciencecentric.com/art_style ... -6397.html

As I understand it, that camera takes images in the visual range.

Have we determined if Hubble is looking through atmosphere?

If not, wouldn't this indicate that visible light from stars is there, just very faint?

[starbiter]

Gary, this is a site for Hubble's Advanced Camera for Surveys:
http://www.sciencecentric.com/art_style ... -6397.html

As I understand it, that camera takes images in the visual range.

Have we determined if Hubble is looking through atmosphere?

If not, wouldn't this indicate that visible light from stars is there, just very faint?

The Advanced Camera for Surveys is described in the link below. It seems to have a number of different sensors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_C ... or_Surveys

The next link doesn't describe the sensor used, but it has contact info. Maybe You can ask if stars are seen in the visual range.

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archiv ... 7/42/full/

michael

[GaryN]

What Hubble or other instruments can detect is not the issue. The science and engineering of some of the devices is impressive to say the least, but they do not represent how the human eye works, and the optics in your average camera are designed to mimic what our eyes would see. The ACS on Hubble has slitless spectroscopy mode, the most utilised mode, and I believe they also use Lumogen to shift UV above the CCDs useful working range to visible wavelengths. If it is being used spectrographically, then the visible wavelengths could well be from the emissions of whatever element has a transition that produces those wavelengths, as seen in spectrum tubes. Then you have the ability to do very long duration exposures, and the photo-multiplier effect of the on-chip electron multipliers. With this thread I have never questioned what the instruments are capable of, I'm saying our eyes, or a regular, Bayer filtered camera will not see any of this. Maybe I should try a crowd funded space telescope project too, I wonder if Nikon would donate a D2X and a suitable lens? Even a unit mounted atop a balloon going to 100,000 ft. would tell us something, but I haven't had an answer from the balloon operators I have tried so far, will try some others. Camera on full auto, take a pic every minute or so, shouldn't need NASA for something like that.

[Sparky]

Gary, thanks for the info...

Another thought: Virgin's low orbit flights may provide an opportunity to acquire images and first person observations.

There are other private rocket projects, but I don't remember who...

[GaryN]

An answer about night vision in space from ceoptics (the eyepiece producer)

Yes, night vision devices would perform identically in space. With no intervening atmosphere, one would realize a greater magnitude gain than viewing from earth when looking at DSO's and stars.

There is quite a lot of information from NASA about enhanced and synthetic vision, but none of it about their use in space. Seeing is believing though (well, with NASA, not always) so maybe a night vision, crowd sourced NV telescope is in order?

[D_Archer]

An idea about night vision in space: I think that you would be totally blinded (full light) when you are not behind a planet from the sun.

Regards,
Daniel

[GaryN]

I think that you would be totally blinded (full light) when you are not behind a planet from the sun.

The devices are not supposed to be subject to daylight at all, and as with the video cameras that used vidicon tubes, they are toast if they are pointed at the Sun. But in space, even if light, as we think of it, does come form the Sun, then pointing away from the Sun, or having a lens hood would be fine. The weakness I see here is the telescope, as, by my theory, there are no photons until you are inside the atmosphere. Normal optics can not capture the Solar UV or above wavefronts to produce the photons that the device needs to produce the electrons that are turned into images. Again, this is a simple matter for experiments to reveal the truth, but NASA does not even seem to want to go near the subject.

[Patrick]

Neil Armstrong 1970 BBC interview. No stars seen in space.

Tesla 1891 lectures. Here Tesla explains how he gets his vacuum tubes to light up via electrostatic (as opposed to electromagnetic) thrusts.

No gas and no plasma or rather ionosphere means no visible stars or sun.


The photos that seem to show a sun in the visible spectrum are nothing more than lens flares. Artifacts as a result of the glass itself. The rays from the electric sun ( as anode ) are pressure waves in the Aether and lack transverse character. These rays vibrate the glass itself producing a transverse and longitudinal waves of in the material which get broadcast through the medium as electrostatic pressure thrusts which then end up vibrating the cones in our eyes.

Light might take no time to travel. The apparent velocity might be due to the time it takes for the gross matter to resonate with the lines of force from the light source. More lines means more work done in same amount of time.

Tesla did not buy into the concept of photon. His particles which he associated with the photoelectric effect are particles of matter not Aether particles. The description for these material particles can be found in the Tesla Radiant Energy patent. The description of the Aether is found in the 1891 lectures. Tesla seems to see 'electron' as a wave in the Aether. Or rather a vortex that is associated with matter. In other words the charge itself is the Aether carried along with matter.

[GaryN]

Will this work in space?
New Camera Sensor 1000x More Sensitive Than Current Sensors

The sensor is able to produce clearer images than image sensors in use today, particularly in low-light situations, thanks to the fact it’s able to trap light-generated electrons for longer times than current sensors.

http://petapixel.com/2013/05/31/new-cam ... ore-112823
If there is no light outside of the coronasphere, then there would be no electrons to make it work, using just camera type optics. If they do use it, it will be in conjunction with their fancy optics which are, I think, wave front detectors for (probably) vortex mode spatial solitons.

[Ras]

I believe that the direction of this topic (and all similar topics in the world) should be slightly different. Instead of proving the official theories wrong, over and over, we should focus on the true reality! What is it? The Sun is hollow, the Earth is most likely hollow too. Eric Dollard says that if all the facts about aether and the nature of the Universe are lined up, then, maybe, just maybe, those distant lights that we see in the sky are not the kind of lights we know...they could be instantaneous, aether based, and the whole concept of the size and nature of the Universe should be studied from scratch. I strongly believe all this to be the case.
Today, officially, the speed of light is considered a constant. How do we know that anything is a constant? Because we measured it on Earth? In the lab? I don't think that the speed of light is a constant even in labs today, let alone in nature, or in Space.
There are so many good attempts to clarify all this, talents like Gary and such should focus on discovering as much as they can, rather than proving the same thing over and over.
Try to prove anything to some hard core priest of whatever religion. You can spend a lifetime of energy and they will not change at all. Why even trying? The priests of modern science are just that - they belong to the cult and they are all brainwashed (or most of them). The followers, 90% of people, are also very hard to convince. All you are left with are a few unorthodox thinkers, a bunch of trolls, maybe a genius here and there. Ordinary people never accept anybody. They just do what they are told. If Einstein is the scientist they were told is the smartest ever, they will believe that. If, instead, in the books and in the media it was said that Bruce Willis is the smartest guy on the planet, kids will learn that and if you try to convince them otherwise, it would not work. Tesla? Tesla who?

There no photos of the stars. Reports from "astronauts" are confusing, contradictory, or none. Just a coincidence? I would not even spend one minute of proving that it is impossible this is a coincidence. Instead, let's gather all the info of what was said about this phenomena in the world, from quality sources.

[GaryN]

maybe, just maybe, those distant lights that we see in the sky are not the kind of lights we know...they could be instantaneous, aether based, and the whole concept of the size and nature of the Universe should be studied from scratch.

I believe Buckminster Fuller had a better understanding of the nature of the Universe than most present day scientists, and if there are any instantaneous actions, then the Universe is indeed much stranger than presently accepted.

519.20 If light or any other experiential phenomenon were instantaneous, it would be less than a point.

He also believed that information=energy=matter, and others are looking at the implications of such a reality:

From "Information, Matter and Energy – a non-linear world-view"

Extending our perspective by the dimensions of the IEM-concept, implies a
complete paradigm shift in our current scientific understanding. This has been
already asserted by most indigenous traditions as they neither regard living processes
in terms of a physico-chemical processes nor as a fight in the Darwinian and Neo-
Darwinian sense against external enemies. They consider life as a game, a challenge
and an adventure.8 Rather than protection and mistrust, mere curiosity and trust are
at the forefront. Be it indigenous or quantum-mechanical terminology, one can
characterize life by four complementary realities, which are: (1) everything is spatially
and temporally limited, (2) everything is connected to everything else, (3) everything
is a symbol that represents something else, (4) everything is one and part of an
undividable whole.

pdf file:
http://biophysics.sbg.ac.at/paper/biosem-madl-2006.pdf‎

The failure of NASA or any other agency to prove that stars, or anything else, can be seen by eye when looking into deep space should set off alarm bells all over the place, but it seems most of the worlds population is happily swallowing the blue pills pushed by mainstream science. The red pills can have some rather unsettling side effects though, use with caution!

[Sparky]

http://hubblesite.org/the_telescope/nut ... ments/acs/

ACS sees in wavelengths from the far ultraviolet to visible light,

To make a point.

Could we see the moon from space?

[GaryN]

ACS sees in wavelengths from the far ultraviolet to visible light,

Yes, complex instruments can see many things our eyes or a regular camera can not, clever stuff.

Could we see the moon from space?

Depends how you look at it. Using Earths atmosphere you can view or photograph the moon for a short period on each orbit. Looking outwards, perpendicular to Earths surface, there are AFAIK no camera images. The Moon was viewed in UV using the Astro-1 and 2 EIT instrument.

Quite the beast, but it didn't have a regular camera among its instruments.
The Moon in UV from Astro, and visible from the ground. No visible light image from Astro though.

From what clues are offered from the Apollo mission astronauts, it seems about 50,000 miles distant is when the Moon becomes visible by eye, but again this may well be dependant on variables such as the viewing geometry, the state of the lunar ionosphere, neutral hydrogen 'reflection'.
The Video cameras on Canadarm2 should also be able to image the Moon, but there is no video of such.
Heres a short vid about controlling the arm. Are those stars in the vid at about 2:30?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7NvsxcoDKo


An image of M94 from the Astro device shows a considerably different structure to that seen in red light. In UV it could well be just a star with a torus/current ring, and not a starburst galaxy, as per Katirais contention.

Bigger:
http://archive.stsci.edu/uit/project/As ... 736_pr.gif
It has been considered by some astronomers that our solar system would display spiral arms like a galaxy if viewed from an appropriate distance, with similar instruments.

NASA and others continue to avoid the simple experiments that can blow all their theories to bits, can't say I blame them.