The Boring Sun

[Sparky]

Gary, check this out... http://youtu.be/PtdcdxvNI1o

[GaryN]

Good find Sparky!

I was just looking at some images of EVA astronauts, this one for example:

NASA doesn't allow the use of these free-flying devices any longer, so on the ISS they are always tethered. They do have a thruster pack for emergency use, but they are not allowed to 'fly' around. It seems like NASA is just trying to make it look like space is so dangerous that it takes lots of planning and rehearsals on their underwater mock-up models before they perform the actual EVA, and that may be sensible, but I think it is overdone.
Anyway, the EVA astronauts MUST have had a view of deep space at some point in their missions, and the stars should have been easily visible, but I can find no reports of them commenting on the stars, nor lectures or talks they have given, nor articles or books they may have written about their experiences on those EVAs, which would have to have included mention of the stars.
Steve Robinson is almost laying on his back here, looking out into space. He never mentioned stars either, or not that I have found so far anyway.

Much bigger:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... adarm2.jpg
I enlarged the visor reflection and it seems the light source is not the Sun but one of the high intensity lights on Canadarm, but he'd only have to shield his face with his hand and look out to space to see the stars. No dark adaptation should be required, as I can easily look at a bare light bulb and then look up and immediately see stars, so they should be able to do just the same, especially as the stars are much brighter in space, 10 times brighter if you believe Ed Mitchell.

[GaryN]

Recent Supermoon from the ISS.

Bigger:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BNXrBuECUAEO23D.jpg:large

[GaryN]

Baring unforeseen events, I should live long enough to find out if this unit will work. If it does, then the "innovative optical technology" will likely be responsible, but there is no info I can find on the technical details.

About the size of a shoe-box with a mass of about 2kg, the ILO-X uses innovative optical technology in combination with advanced software and microminiaturised electronics to deliver dramatic deep-space images of objects inside and outside the Milky Way. ILO-X technology could also help with the detection of dangerous asteroids and the search for planetary resources.

http://www.engadget.com/2013/05/28/iloa ... telescope/

[GaryN]

Re: the ARKYD space based telescope. With all the press being given this device, I think they have to be pretty sure it works. It seems like they have indeed built a mini-Hubble, using technology developed by Goddard and being licensed to private companies. Part of the technology seems to be micro-machined, maybe silicon, diffractive optics. So, we could well have mini-Hubbles in orbit soon, but I still maintain if regular optics worked in space, one of the camera manufacturers would have put one up there before now. You will never see a space based telescope using a Nikon D2X, but it won't be until we get some human eyeballs up there wanting to see the majesty of the heavens that the uselessness of our eyes in space will be realised.

Wavefront Sensing Technology Portfolio

How do you bring technologies for the James Webb Space Telescope, exploration of Mars and the search for extrasolar planets, down to Earth? Put them in everyday products to benefit us Earthlings!

The NASA Goddard Flight Center, creator of marvelous and advanced optical technologies, is keenly focused on transferring its advanced wave front sensing, and related optical processing technologies, to the private sector. In 2011, that commitment has risen to a new level – the Can You See It Now? Campaign.

http://techtransfer.gsfc.nasa.gov/wavefront/

[GaryN]

Noisy Stars May Make Phantom Planets-Why hyperactive stars are planet hunters' biggest headache

Alpha Centauri B's disputed world is not the first to come under close scrutiny. In 2010 an international team announced the discovery of a small planet around the star Gliese 581, smack-dab in the middle of the star's Goldilocks zone—the region where temperatures are just right for plentiful liquid water. Yet other researchers looking through their own data found no sign of the planet. Many other candidate detections are just as marginal, says David Latham, a planet-hunting veteran at the CfA, but remain unpublished.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... om-planets

The data used to find these supposed planets is so fragile that much of what they believe they are seeing probably does not exist. Some of the instruments now being employed are amazing pieces of science and engineering, but the interpretation of what they see is left to astronomers who don't even understand the instruments they are using. I wonder how long it will be before they might have to admit that they are not even sure A.Cen.B is indeed a star?
If the instruments work as I believe they do, then the star may just be a planet, perhaps with a Moon, and be much closer than they think.
So for my interpretation of the science behind modern astronomy to work, the Vacuum needs to be a nonlinear medium, and surprisingly, I am not alone in that belief. Full text available from the linked site.
"Spin space: the vacuum as a nonlinear medium"
http://www.researchgate.net/publication ... cle_Masses
Quite simple really.

Some conspiracy...
Galileo and the Vatican.
It has been assumed that Galileo designed the optics for the microscopes, and later, telescopes he provided to the Vatican, but from what I can deduce, Galileo was an artisan, a craftsman, but not a scientist. It seems though that for his telescopes he must have had a much more advanced, and complete, theory of light that I don't believe he was capable of. Then the Star Tracker cameras were provided by the Officine Galileo, who also work closely with the Vatican. It might then be not too far off the mark to suggest that the designs for these instruments came from the Vatican, and that Galileo was only the producer. Only when the engineering science and materials became available were the details provided to allow their manufacture. Similarly, it seems that only now the micro or nano fabrication technologies are available (outside of the Military) to allow for the production of the relatively tiny devices such as ARKYD and ILO-X, whos technology to me seems to be rather, er, out of this world?

[Sparky]

I was looking at some NASA utube vids., and in several they admitted that space was black from vantage points outside the atmosphere....So, I guess that is settled.

[GaryN]

It wasn't until development of the Shack-Hartmann optics science and the CCD that visible wavelength space based astronomy was possible. The Military had tried in the late 50's and 60's with their best optics and most sensitive detectors but saw nothing. Lyman Spitzer had to wait nearly 40 years to get a space based visible light device built for him. They had 'telescopes' for the Astro programs in the Shuttle cargo bay, looking out into deep space, but never a visible light telescope. Hubble was the first. And then they didn't get it quite right as they hadn't taken into account the reduction of the atmospheric lensing effect at the orbital height Hubble sits at, hence the blurry early Hubble images, and the need for the first servicing mission.
The Military probably still has much optics technology that will not be available for many more years, so what the heck might they have seen already?

[allynh]

I like the mix of stars, reflected moonlight, and city lights on this one. I thought that the city lights were a forest fire at first. I don't know if the scattering of tiny lights on the ocean are hot pixels or ships at sea.

AstroKarenN Karen L. Nyberg 26 Aug
Seven Sisters overlooking Reunion & Mauritius Islands in a moonlit Indian Ocean. August 25

https://twitter.com/AstroKarenN/status/ ... to/1/large

[GaryN]

Nice pic, but NASA knows exactly when the stars will be most visible, the position of the Sun behind the Earth just before sunrise is best, and when the zodiacal light is strongest. They are of course looking through the Earths atmosphere, so with longer exposure the stars can be visible, through the atmosphere, most of the time. I'd like to see the Seven Sisters at the time, and in the direction of my choosing, which would be looking AWAY from earth, not towards it.

[GaryN]

Hubble's new shot of Proxima Centauri, our nearest neighbor

Shining brightly in this Hubble image is our closest stellar neighbor: Proxima Centauri.
...
Although by cosmic standards it is a close neighbor, Proxima Centauri remains a point-like object even using Hubble's eagle-eyed vision, hinting at the vast scale of the Universe around us.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-11-hubble-sho ... t.html#jCp

So PC is a point-like object for Hubble, but the artists turn it into this? We do not see a dust disk, which most stars will have, we can not see sunspots, or starspots, but a weak magnetic field has apparently been detected. In X-rays they say they see twisted filaments:

But Mars in x-rays also seems to show faint filaments.


As the colours are arbitrary, then with the appropriate artistic treatment, I think they could both be made to look very similar.
In short, I am not satisfied that PC is a star, and if they do detect planets around it, then they are really moons, and PC is a planet. Also, odds are they will have very short orbital times, as do many of the supposed planets they say they can detect around stars many times further away than PC.

On planet hunting:

Finding these planets is very difficult, since they cannot be seen directly but only through the subtle shifts in light sent from distant stars.

The peculiarities of this approach mean that even searching for planets around our nearest star - Proxima Centauri, a cooler and smaller star than our sun about 4.24 light years away - is still extremely difficult.

In October 2014 though, they hope to be able to use gravitational lensing, supercomputers, and some amazing mathematics to be able to detect any possible planets.

Proxima Centauri Exoplanet Search: Star Alignment May Open Up Search For Our Nearest Alien Neighbours
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/06 ... 82632.html

[Sparky]

In October 2014 though, they hope to be able to use gravitational lensing, supercomputers, and some amazing mathematics to be able to detect any possible planets.

Gary, did you forget to add the

[GaryN]

Thank's Sparky, those icons will suffice, but I didn't use any as I couldn't find one that expressed indignant contempt.

When I stepped out my front door a couple of nights ago, I was almost blinded by Venus, low in the evening sky. I'd never seen it as bright, and I see a few people on the 'net commenting on that. It has even been shown by experiment that the light of Venus can cast a shaddow. But again, as with Mars, Venus is too small, according to the accepted limits of our eyes to register an object of less than 1 arc minute, to be seen by eye. Venus at present has only an apparent angular diameter of 1/2 arc minute, so they use the opposition surge mechanism to explain why it is visible by eye. Miles Mathis debunks that process quite easily with mathematics, so what is the reason it is so easily visible?
Venus, like Mars, has x-ray emissions from its atmosphere, by way of fluorescence of hydrogen and oxygen in its atmosphere.
Chandra Captures Venus In A Whole New Light

http://chandra.harvard.edu/press/01_rel ... 12901.html
So using the soliton model of light travel, the self focusing x-ray beam from the atmosphere of Venus, and then that beam creating the light we see by interaction with Earths atmosphere, we can explain how Venus is so easily visible. As the solitons will travel basically forever without loss of energy, this process must be considered for the visibility of many objects we see from Earth, but what really then are those objects?
Brown Dwarfs are are one of the objects most likely to be planets, as the idea that the heat from a brown dwarf can be detected at the proposed distance of such objects is preposterous, and the way that the space based instruments work is by the detection of spectra that are from the electrical excitation of atomic elements, and not from thermal excitation. I believe it will be found that most objects now classed as stars of one type or another will be found to be planets, and what are seen as planets around those stars are really moons around a planet. This may also explain the large number of observed binary stars systems, as the Earth and Moon seen from a distance would appear as a co-orbiting pair, and as the Earth and the Moon both emit in x-rays, the same soliton beam process would make Earth and Moon visible to someone on another planet, providing that planet had sufficient atmosphere.
Lunar x-rays.

[Ras]

I watched the Moon and the Sun today, at the same time in the sky above San Diego, CA. The young Moon's bright edge was NOT pointing at the Sun. It was way off, so this introduces the conversation about the nature of light. Light cannot be used in measuring wide ranges because it is bent by gravity and other effects of atmosphere. This opens the whole discussion about the Flat Earth once again - my view is that the Sun is much smaller than the Moon and as they are wobbling above mostly static Earth, we can observe this phenomena and understand the true nature of what we call "Space" which is much more than just space, but probably much less in distance than official 'science' fairy tale (or a horror tale) suggests.
We need to know MUCH MORE about Arctic and Antarctica in order to even start to understand Earth. Antarctica is, obviously, FORBIDDEN zone, we know absolutely nothing about it except, again, fairy tale 'theories' that are thrown at us. No visible evidence of any kind of the size, climate, atmosphere etc.
Sun is small. It is also cold. It is just a portal, an energetic transformer. The heat is created when Sun rays are interacting with aether on Earth. (Funny, I just noticed that you can form the word "Earth" from the word "Aether". Coincidence?)
My topic "Earth is Flat" is closed on this forum, in "Mad Ideas", for no reason at all. This tells me that the people who started the whole movement called "Electric Universe" are probably just 'cointelpro', just like sites like 'abovetopsecret' and many similar are. I may not be a physics expert but I am media expert and I know that having moderators who are actually watchdogs of this kind is a tell sign, a very good indicator.
So, a legitimate theory, the one that has many very serious proponents and a lot of scientific arguments cannot even be discussed on this site, not even in "mad ideas"? Why would I ever write another letter in a heavily controlled forum like this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QciLVJZNq4c

[Sparky]

Sun is small. It is also cold. It is just a portal, an energetic transformer. The heat is created when Sun rays are interacting with aether on Earth. (Funny, I just noticed that you can form the word "Earth" from the word "Aether". Coincidence?) ---my view is that the Sun is much smaller than the Moon and as they are wobbling above mostly static Earth, --- So, a legitimate theory, the one that has many very serious proponents and a lot of scientific arguments cannot even be discussed on this site, not even in "mad ideas"? Why would I ever write another letter in a heavily controlled forum like this?

Oh hell, quit your whining and post in " the general theory of stellar metamorphosis"!
You will find a kindred soul there.