The Boring Sun

[oz93666]

That's to say the surface we see when looking into a sun spot . http://www.etwebsite.com/TheSurfaceOfTheSun.pdf

I'm sure this information must have been covered here before , it's not new , but extremely convincing.

Any thoughts about how thick this solid crust is , and what lies beneath?

[oz93666]

... The greatest weapon of mass destruction that the ISIS posses is not a physical threat to humanity, only to those who have hidden the truth from us for so long. Conspiracy theory, or conspiracy fact?

You're thoughts would be better received on the davidickeforum , one or two scientist members , join up and I can discuss them with you there.

[GaryN]

Any discussion that talks about the heat of the Sun is very presumptuous. There have been no scientific experiments to measure the heat of the Sun from outside of Earths atmosphere in a manner similar to how the heat from the Sun is measured from Earths surface.

[fosborn_]

quote] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TOKo7Ik9f8Dr. Pierre-Marie Robitaille: Sun on Trial | EU2014, theory of a liquid surface sun.[/quote]

This might be useful in your investigations. Pierre talks about the heat processes and how properly addressing thermodynamics, explains the smooth black body radiation.

[GaryN]

Any discussion that talks about the heat of the Sun is very presumptuous. There have been no scientific experiments to measure the heat of the Sun from outside of Earths atmosphere in a manner similar to how the heat from the Sun is measured from Earths surface

.
(Moved from http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... =3&t=16375)

So stating a fact is now considered NIAMI? Has anyone looked at how they measure the heat from the Sun from space vs from Earth? Two different methods all together, the one from space using spectra and Weins displacement law, assuming the Sun is a black body radiator. If the spectra are from electronic and not thermal processes then the Sun is not a black body radiator.

@fosborn

This might be useful in your investigations. Pierre talks about the heat processes and how properly addressing thermodynamics, explains the smooth black body radiation.

I'll take a look at that Frank, thanks. However I do believe all the models of the Sun are wrong from first principles. The Sun is an opto-electro-magnetic machine, it's primary source is gamma rays.
Horace Winfield Webster, 'disappeared' from astronomy literature, was most likely correct.
https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid= ... 5260&hl=en
With the Gamma source model, the Sun will naturally evolve all the observed characteristics. Light, electricity and magnetism, the Trinity.

[fosborn_]

Horace Winfield Webster, 'disappeared' from astronomy literature

LOL.. If only he lived to talked to the Apollo astronauts. The falsification of human, eye witnesses have been adequate for the objective investigators.
Also another test of his theory stated that spacecraft would have to have plenty of lead shielding for humans to survive travel. Yet none was used and everyone survives. Kind of a canary in the mine test.
So the theory failed both its test.

So stating a fact is now considered NIAMI?

When you ignore basic science and all the space based sensors, this is the only place for you. IMO
Again people have traved to the moon. And falsified your thinking. Star light is visible.

[GaryN]

LOL.. If only he lived to talked to the Apollo astronauts. The falsification of human, eye witnesses have been adequate for the objective investigators.

I'll continue to believe Armstrong, that from cislunar space, nothing is visible. Only scientific proof will convince me otherwise, a simple photo of the Sun from half way to the Moon will suffice. Similarly with the heat from the Sun, when they use a pyrheliometer from cislunar space, I'll believe there is any measurable heat from the Sun. Of course they will need a Sun sensor to know where to point the pyrheliometer, as they won't be able to see it! The history of measuring the heat of the Sun from Earth has been an interesting and confusing pursuit for centuries, with many results indicating the Sun must be a variable star whose output varies by 5-10%, but without a proper understanding of how the heat is created, they were on a wild goose chase.

When you ignore basic science and all the space based sensors

I know my basic science and I know what the space based sensors are detecting. They are not measuring heat, a pyroheliometer measures heat, none have been used in space.

Also another test of his theory stated that spacecraft would have to have plenty of lead shielding for humans to survive travel. Yet none was used and everyone survives. Kind of a canary in the mine test.

It depends on the level and density of the gamma radiation and the exposure time. The Moon emits gamma rays and yet men still went there.

Gamma-Ray Moon

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap060527.html

And the Sun can be viewed in Gamma rays

Gamma Rays from the Sun: A New Way for Looking at the Solar System

http://today.slac.stanford.edu/feature/ ... thesun.asp

If the Sun generates gamma rays in the core, then a number of mechanisms will cause attenuation of the levels.

Gamma Ray Attenuation
http://www.nuclear-power.net/nuclear-po ... tenuation/

Pair production will be occurring closest to the source, then Compton scattering, which may be the cause of the higher temperature, spectrally determined, at certain distances from the core, and then the photoelectric effect farthest away from the Sun. I think Horace Winfield Webster had a model that should be further investigated, but of course NASA will never do so.

[fosborn_]

PM Mr Armstrong I do realize that when you were on the surface of the Moon you had very little time for gazing upwards but could you tell us something about what the sky actually looks like from the Moon – the Sun, the Earth and the stars if any and so on?

NA The sky is deep black when viewed from the Moon as it is when viewed from cisluna space, the space between the Earth and the Moon. The Earth is the only visible object other than the Sun

https://stargazerslounge.com/topic/2281 ... nar-space/

[GaryN]

NA The sky is deep black when viewed from the Moon as it is when viewed from cisluna space, the space between the Earth and the Moon. The Earth is the only visible object other than the Sun that can be seen although there have been some reports of seeing planets I myself did not see planets from the surface but I suspect they might be visible.

Word twisting again Frank, have you no shame? Why didn't you quote the whole statement? Armstrong was being asked about the view from the Lunar surface, offered that the sky was also deep black in cislunar space, and the only thing visible from the Lunar surface was the Earth and the Sun. The meaning is perfectly clear, I'd accept the opinion of a grammaticist if that would help?

[fosborn_]

He included cis lunar space conditions as same as the moon conditions. so his seeing earth and sun is same in cis. lunar conditions. its an inclusive statement. Any devsion of the subject is an assumption on your part. Think in Boolean logic perhaps to see it.

you prove it by using the blackness of space for both moon and Cis lunar space. Sun and Earth visibility can't be edited out as you are doing.

[fosborn_]

The sky is deep black when viewed from the Moon as it is when viewed from cisluna space, the space between the Earth and the Moon. The Earth is the only visible object other than the Sun that can be seen although there have been some reports of seeing planets I myself did not see planets from the surface but I suspect they might be visible.

So when there is a diffrence in the 2 environments, he points it out. on the surface, some had reported seeing planets, but on the surface, he didn't see any( leaving open the implication in cis lunar space he did). He didn't change it for visibility of the sun because its th same in both conditions.

[GaryN]

He included cis lunar space conditions as same as the moon conditions.

Putting words in his mouth again. LADEE and other instruments have shown that there is an atmosphere on the Moon, there is exceedingly little in Cislunar space. The only reason the Sun and even Earth are visible from the Moon is because of the atmosphere. Nothing is visible from cislunar space.
If the astronauts are telling the truth, which I sincerely believe they have done, and say that stars are both visible and not visible, then it is true, and there is only one possible explanation. Simple really, but few will ever understand it, and NASA will not do the experiments to confirm it, or allow others to perform those experiments.

[fosborn_]

Putting words in his mouth again.

thats your refuting logic?

that there is an atmosphere on the Moon, there is exceedingly little in Cislunar space. The only reason the Sun and even Earth are visible from the Moon is because of the atmosphere. Nothing is visible from cislunar space.

Ok circular arguments. assumptions based on assumptions powered by a true belief system. I can't argue that one. You got me stumped.
In another thread you defined yourself as a crackpot, so at lest that makes sense. In this thread you admitted a couple of times when I pressed you for understanding of other peoples theory's (that you cut and paste into your own ideas), you admitted your in over your head, and that makes sense. So I pretty much quit putting in the man hours to keep finding out you have no idea what you write about. But because you keep pitching your faith, I feel the need to be the fly in th jelly, now and then.

[GaryN]

From the A15 deep space EVA, the Westinghouse colour TV camera footage:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTB7ppXU2Kc
Camera specs.
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/Niemyer-Paper.pdf
Auto gain, low light level capability. Must have been broken? Or not enough lumens from the EVA light?

[fosborn_]

From the A15 deep space EVA, the Westinghouse colour TV camera footage:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTB7ppXU2Kc
Camera specs.
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/Niemyer-Paper.pdf
Auto gain, low light level capability. Must have been broken? Or not enough lumens from the EVA light?

Cool footage, down inside the hatch you can see a cabin light, vary dim. usually its a vary bright source in the camera frames. Its vary dim in this footage so gives a reference to see how much the f stop is adjusted to accommodate the bright sun light. Simply wishful thinking on your part. Also the angle of the sun light is all wrong to be confused with the tiny flood lamp.


http://www.ems.psu.edu/~fraser/Bad/BadClouds.html

Saying that they were not the same photons emitted as received is correct (they are not). Yet, that was merely a way of making a point about something that confuses many students (largely because their teachers are equally confused). These concepts are (all too often) presented as if some radiation is absorbed and then it is subsequently emitted. The implication is that there is some conservation of radiation as if a glass were first filled with water and then the same water (and the same amount of water) were subsequently released. But this is not the way nature works. Neither the atmosphere nor the photosphere emits radiation because either receives radiation. Each emits because of the temperature (and other characteristics of the medium). The Stefan-Boltzmann Law does not say the emission depends upon the amount of radiation received.

The energy emitted by the atmosphere comes only in part from energy received in the form of radiation and the radiation emitted is not the same radiation, nor does it even have the same spectrum as that which might have been received. Yet, the term reradiate implies that some radiation is absorbed and then it is subsequently emitted. And we know that radiation is not conserved in this way. Clearly, I am not telling you anything new about the physical processes, but I might be telling you something new about the way school teachers and students interpret the word reradiation to imply a process that has no physical reality. Recall, my pages are pedagogical in nature.

This may be why your confused about solar radiation's affect in our atmosphere.