The Boring Sun

[GaryN]

Apollo 16 Deep space EVA.
http://www.sciencephoto.com/media/239599/view
Apollo 17 Deep space EVA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... LsQ#t=5137

Have a look at these two videos as well. Notice anything about the shadows on the CM and the camera position?
In the transcripts they mention nothing about the heat or light from the Sun, or about stars, even though they use no dark visors on the EVA.

[GaryN]

Start transearth extravehicular activity 218:39:46
End transearth extravehicular activity 220:03:28

219 00 33 Mattingly (EVA): It is that, all right. I don't even see any stars.

219 33 44 Duke (onboard): Okay. Can you see the sunsight?

219 33 46 Young (onboard): On this - on this event timer, Charlie, I got 04:16. Is that right?

219 33 50 Duke (onboard): That thing ain't working. No. Can you see the sunsight, Ken?

219 33 57 Mattingly (EVA): No, sir.

219 36 48 Mattingly (EVA): You get a good look at the Earth, Charlie?

219 36 49 Duke (onboard): Oh, yeah. And I spun around and looked at the Moon, too. The thing that impresses me, though, is how black it is, Ken. Yeah, is it black!

219 37 05 Mattingly (EVA): I'm really surprised I don't see any stars.

219 37 07 Young (onboard): Charlie's only said 25 times it's black out there.

219 37 11 Duke (onboard): What?

219 37 12 Young (onboard): You've only said that 25 times. (Laughter)

219 37 14 Duke (onboard): (Garble) see (garble) (laughter).

219 37 15 Young (onboard): It really must be black out there! (Laughter)

219 37 17 Duke (onboard): It's really black! (Laughter)

From A17:

CC Question 12 for each of you: What do you hope to tell your grandchildren as your most memorable moment of your trip to the Moon?

Well, I'll start with that one, Hank. I had two impressions. The-the first is the dazzling beauty of Descartes -the surface. It was just one of the most awe-inspiring sights I've ever seen. And, secondly, on the EVA, when you look away from the Earth -or the Moon - it's Just the utter blackness of space. It really is black out there.

If the astronauts do not lie, then I accept that the earth and Moon are visible from the A16 distances of 173,406 nautical miles to Earth, 33,894 from the Moon. This is not out of line with my earlier calculation that the Moon would be visible up to perhaps 50,000 miles. It would have been nice to have had the EVA at the half-way point to know if the Moon was still visible.
On the matter of the Stars though, how many astronauts, including quite a few now form the ISS, do we have to hear say"looking away from Earth it is totally black" for anyone to believe them?? And if it is totally black, then what are the implications? I'd say all the present astronomy models are garbage. All those stars are not stars at all, just fluorescing atmospheres of planets and moons.
I still haven't found out what the sunsite was.

[fosborn_]

Ok, lets grade your national inquire submittal....

NoStarsHeadInHatch2.png (49.34 KiB) Viewed 7190 times

During the EVA this is the only time he said couldn't see stars.. His head in the hatch , his ass hanging out in the abyss...
He didnt say it 23 times, he said it once on EVA. So a joke, get it?

A16TrnsEarthEVAsm.png (31.42 KiB) Viewed 7190 times

LOL,, No Sun? Look at the glare in in dark external sunvisor? Not to mension the bright lighted surfaces...

Duke (onboard): That thing ain't working. No. Can you see the sunsight, Ken?
219 33 57 Mattingly (EVA): No, sir.

Such conflicting statements , Clearly equipment optics issues,,, if your not a true believer, I guess..
Also they did the gamma ray flash experiments with the covers over their eyes after the EVA.. So the jokes make sense...

A quote I transcribed from the EVA video;

4:28 min man, the outer visor with glare shield really comes in handy...

Mission report;

Visibility. - 'The sun angle chosen for the extravehicular activity
was excellent from an operational point of view . It was , however , very
difficult to look at the unipole , when installed , or to look in the direction
of quad D ·while standing in the hatch . Visibility of the scientific instrument module bay was good. The only area seen to be in a dark
shadow was between the scientific instrument module bay bulkhead and the
side of the mapping camera . After the panoramic and mapping camera cassettes
were removed , visibility into the empty cassette spaces was excellent
.

The Command .Module Pilot was observing the lunar horizon and star
patterns from a totally darkened cockpit at about 122 : 5 5 when he noticed
a white flash which occurred some distance below the horizon.

So as allways, your wrong. IMO..
Your grade F-. Why o Why you say? Because, as always in the bright glare of the sun you cant see stars, not on the moon or Cis Lunar space. Only if you have blocking of the glare and your sun shield is up...

[GaryN]

Because, as always in the bright glare of the sun you cant see stars, not on the moon or Cis Lunar space.

I'm glad you cleared that up for me, as always I should believe what you say and not what the astronauts say.

So a joke, get it?

Oh jeez, now I feel really stupid, I should have known all along that they were joking when they said, and still do, that it is just black out there. A running, insider joke started by Armstong. And the joke is on me now. And getting the Suns shadow of the CM thrusters in exactly the same place every time for the whole duration of the EVAs just speaks to the accuracy of that G&N computer system. Brilliant, my hats off to you now NASA!

[GaryN]

Lunar night cycle.

"..and I'm telling you there are more stars than you can imagine"

From the IMAX video Magnificent Desolation: Walking on the Moon. Now we have low light video cameras that can capture stars in real time, I'm looking forward to seeing footage similar to that which NASA depicts in the above images, if they ever go back within my lifetime. Or maybe even from cislunar space?

[GaryN]

Earth-Like Planet Around Proxima Centauri Discovered

The German weekly Der Spiegel announced recently that astronomers have discovered an Earth-like planet orbiting Proxima Centauri, just 4.25 light-years away. Yes, in what is an apparent trifecta, this newly-discovered exoplanet is Earth-like, orbits within it’s sun’s habitable zone, and is within our reach. But is this too good to be true?

http://www.universetoday.com/130276/ear ... iscovered/

Might Proxima not even be a star though, and the planet actually a moon? I consider that their interpretations could be totally wrong, as they are starting out with an assumption. They believe it is a star, so instrument data is interpreted based on that assumption. If it is our atmosphere that makes the stars visible, then the flare emissions from Proxima may be from its own atmosphere being energised by flares from events on our own Sun. The 'reflection' of x-rays say, from a Solar flare, would be expected to reach us after around 8.5 light years, if their distance to Proxima is correct, and I believe it likely is for the closer objects. Other wavelengths will be produced in the atmosphere of Proxima, depending on the nature of such atmosphere, so what we end up detecting from the Earth based telescopes may have a very different mechanism from that being assumed.

Proxima Centauri as a Flare Star
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... 92/?page=1
Rather old but I think the model still stands.

The moderate magnetic field on the flare star Proxima Centauri

A high resolution UVES spectrum was used to measure magnetic flux from Zeeman broadening in absorption lines of molecular FeH around 1mu.

So the magnetic flux is based on methods that are from what is assumed to be a star. If it was a fluorescing atmospheric shell of a planet, could they be misinterpreting the data?
http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.2986

Sun-Like Stars Generate Magnetic Field in Unexpected Way

Magnetic fields in the sun and stars like it are generated by a dynamo, which is a process involving convection — the rising and falling of hot gas in the star's interior — and the rotation of the star.

http://www.space.com/33607-sun-like-sta ... ation.html

Well there is an assumption, sold to us as a fact. So again, they could be barking up the wrong tree. I have no faith in the Hertzsprung-Russell Diagram and the assumptions made based on it. If the stars are not visible from outside of Earths atmosphere, then ALL of their models are wrong, and the blackness described by the Apollo cislunar EVA boys surely confirms that they are not. The experiments required to prove the fact are very simple.

[fosborn_]

http://www.crystalinks.com/indiastronomy.html

It would be surprising for us to know today that this science had advanced to such an extent in ancient India that ancient Indian astronomers had recognized that stars are same as the sun,that the sun is center of the universe (solar system) and that the circumference of the Earth is 5,000 Yojanas. One Yojana being 7.2 kms., the ancient Indian estimates came close to the actual figure.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... 71#p114323
Of relevance to some discussions on here, about whether or not the stars are visible in space (??!). He writes:
(Yuri Gagarin's account of his part in the man's first flight into orbit. )
"Through the portholes I saw a diamond-field of shining, bright, cold stars."

[perpetual motion]

Over the course of 108 minutes, Vostok 1 traveled around the Earth once, reaching a maximum height of 203 miles (327 kilometers).
Nice shot, but hardly high enough to not see these stars. Thirty thousand feet
would be much better.
To bad that this planet has a fairly heavy atmosphere or they could have sent
him clear to the planet mars, which would be no big deal with zero air pressure.

[fosborn_]

Over the course of 108 minutes, Vostok 1 traveled around the Earth once, reaching a maximum height of 203 miles (327 kilometers).
Nice shot, but hardly high enough to not see these stars. Thirty thousand feet
would be much better.

Pure speculation, falsified by eye witnesses. IMO..

NASA astronaut Scott Kelly (@StationCDRKelly) shared this photograph on social media, taken from the International Space Station on Sept. 10, 2015. Kelly wrote, "#GoodMorning Texas! Great view of you, the #moon, and #Venus this morning. #YearInSpace"
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/iss044e095609_0.jpg

ISS_MoonVenus.png (48.75 KiB) Viewed 6940 times

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaOC9danxNo

ChrisH_MgrTom.png (48.9 KiB) Viewed 6940 times

Mgr.png (11.69 KiB) Viewed 6940 times

[–]ColChrisHadfieldCHRIS HADFIELD[S] 2506 points 2 years ago
Space is profound, endless, a textured black, a bottomless eternal bucket of untouchable velvet and untwinkling stars.

[GaryN]

Over the course of 108 minutes, Vostok 1 traveled around the Earth once, reaching a maximum height of 203 miles (327 kilometers).
Nice shot, but hardly high enough to not see these stars. Thirty thousand feet
would be much better.
To bad that this planet has a fairly heavy atmosphere or they could have sent
him clear to the planet mars, which would be no big deal with zero air pressure.

I'm suspecting you meant 33,000 kilometres, the high orbit, where there are hundreds of satellites, but none of them have cameras or telescopes that look away from Earth. I know weight is a major consideration with those launches, but really, would a camera weighing a few ounces break the bank? The communications satellites already have high speed downlinks, surely some compressed image files aren't going to take up much valuable bandwidth.
It's not air pressure that restricts getting to Mars, it's getting out of Earths gravity well. The proposed Solar Probe Plus mission is going to need a huge rocket to get to the Sun, as Earths gravity is still dominant until the craft reaches a certain distance from Earth. What that distance will before the Suns gravity dominates I haven't tried to work out.

Yes Frank, I believe the stars are visible form the ISS, I've heard the accounts, seen the photos. I have also heard that looking away from the Earth or the Moon from orbit, or from the deep space EVAs that it is totally black out there. The reason should be obvious by now. Here's an interesting quote from the A15 deep spac EVA. Why didn't he stay out and take a look around?

242:29:11 Scott (onboard): That's very nicely done. That's about - 22 minutes. Which is just about what we figured. You went back and looked at all that stuff. So that's just about right.

242:29:52 Scott (onboard): It's fun out there, isn't it?

242:29:54 Worden (onboard) [Scott in air/ground transcript]: Mm-hmm. Should have stayed longer.

[Comm break.]

[Al gets a question along the same lines during the inflight press conference tomorrow. When asked why he came in so soon, he answered that he came in when the job was done. The following interview with Dave, conducted in 2004, was before I discovered it was Worden who said he should have stayed out longer.]

[Woods - "Al seemed to spend an awful short time outside. You told him you should have stayed there longer. He was all for get out there, do the job, get back in. That seems a bit of a shame from his point of view."]

[O'Brien - "I would imagine that you would have a little bit of free time, but this wasn't time critical. You were plugged into the CSM. You weren't in a rush."]

[Scott - "Weren't in a rush, but on the other hand, the purpose was to get the film and get back in. I think Al did the right thing. Came back in. I mean, it'd be nice to stay out and float around and look around but, why? So if you stay out and float around and look around and then something goes wrong during that period, then you say, 'Why did I do that?' So I think what you do is you do your job and you get back in and close the hatch and say, 'Gee, that was wonderful. I had a great time. I did my job.' I think to float around out there is exposing yourself to an unnecessary risk. It's low risk, but on the other hand, it's high risk. So what if that last minute is a time you popped a leak for some reason? Eh? So shoot, get the job over. As sort of an analogy, we used to fly airplanes in bad weather. Rule was always; go to your destination, finish your mission and then play around because if you got to get down, you got fuel."]

[Woods - "You say to him here, 'You should have stayed longer.'"]

[Scott - "He got it done very quickly and very efficiently and came back in and the comment is, 'Geeze, you were having a good time. Why didn't you stay a while?' But I didn't really mean that. I meant it in a positive way. 'You should have stayed out there and stayed longer. You were doing really great, terrific.' But if you look at the seriousness of it, he did exactly right. He got his job done and he got in."]

Worried about maybe springing a leak, yet not worried about that while on the Lunar surface with all those sharp rocks around, sounds a little lame to me. No, he didn't stay out and look around as there is nothing to see, as confirmed by the A16 deep space EVA reports. I bet if they had turned of the EVA light they would have gone into some kind of shock very quickly because of the utter blackness of it all, sensory deprivation.

[perpetual motion]

Ok, I meant (SAE) 30000 miles is the earths outer sphere. I don't think that I am
talking Chinese here, but these orbiters and sats. are not out far enough to
not see these objects they are speaking of.
I would still bet 5000000 Polynesian Rupia that it is the air pressure on this
planet that prevents objects from hurtling into space with no resistance.
And I would bet also that if there wasn't any air pressure that you could fire
a high powered rifle bullet and with the right calculations, that it would hit
the moon.
There's that ugly word GRAVITY that everyone is still stuck on.
I am not sure about this but this so called GRAVITY boundary is like 180000 mi.
or so from earth. Give or take.
Anyhow, air pressure is where it is. The magnetic field is squeezing these gases
and holding them to this planet is where our air pressure comes from.
It's the only logical explanation there is.
We all must get away from our former teachings and forget most of the physics
we are brain washed into believing.

[GaryN]

How Does the Sun Work?| Space News
https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2016/0 ... pace-news/

The EU proponents, with their alternative models of how the Sun works, are still in the dark in some very important ways. There is no heat from the Sun that reaches Earth or any other planet or Moon. That the electric Sun model believers do not question one of the key aspects of the present models is a failure to perform scientific due diligence, as there are no experiments that have ever measured the heat of the Sun from outside of Earths atmosphere, using devices that are used from the surface of the Earth to measure the heat from the Sun, the pyrheliometer for example.
"Meteorology practical and applied" by Moore, John William, Sir, 1845-1937 is available online, well worth looking at to see how the Suns heat has been measured, and some of the results. For instance, the measured heat from the Sun was well above the base line just 2 months before the Carrington event, coincidence maybe, or perhaps it was an increase in solar radiation of much shorter wavelengths that was heating the atmosphere, and might offer us a warning of future solar storms?
https://archive.org/details/meteorologyprac01moorgoog

[nick c]

There is no heat from the Sun that reaches Earth or any other planet or Moon.

Gary,
What do you make of the enormous difference between the nighttime, permanently shaded areas, and daytime (sunlight exposed areas) temperatures on the Moon? These were measured by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter.
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/new-n ... ide-102070

[GaryN]

Hi Nick,
The LRO instrument that measured the lunar surface temperatures is a new one on me, seems like it is using spectral data to determine temperature:
Diviner lunar radiometer experiment.
http://staff.diviner.ucla.edu/science.shtml

Experiments were performed by the Apollo astronauts on the Moon, so the surface temperatures were measured by platinum thermometers and thermocouples.
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/ALSEP/pdf ... 591808.pdf

Chang'e 3 has temperature sensors on its surfaces, a sun facing one registering 100C, the shaded side 0C.

Just below the surface and down to 1 metre, the temperature is a steady -35C.

What does this all mean? Well, I think they are assuming heat from the Sun is causing the surface heat, but the heat from the Sun on the lunar surface was never measured in the same way as we would measure it from Earths surface, by a Pyrheliometer or Pyranometer, they just assumed the heat from the sun would be roughly the same as at Earth, 1400 watts or so per square metre. I believe the light on the lunar surface is a cold light, it is produced by fluorescence of the fine lunar dust by UV radiation from the Sun. Pointing a pyrheliometer at the Sun would likely have given a very low value, perhaps just a few Watts/sq m. So how else could the surface be heated? UV striking the surface will cause IR emissions from the surface grains, as it would with the surface of the Change'e lander, and the different composition of the two may explain the difference in measured surface temperatures. The wavelength and volume of IR photons emitted by a surface will depend on the wavelength and intensity of the UV striking it.
This is why the Diviner instrument on LRO can also be used to determine the nature of the surface materials on the Moon, it has filters that can detect the particular spectral luminescence of certain minerals.
As with light, it is what NASA does not show us, the experiments they don't perform, that should make us question their models, or the models they show the public anyway, as I think they must know what is really going on out there. If the astronauts are to be believed that it is totally black out there, even the Sun not being visible from deep space, then obviously the models they show us are nonsense.
As for how the Sun really works, I'll stick with the idea of the pinch-vacuum arc-gamma ray core. When the Lord said "Let there be light", he wasn't talking about visible light perhaps, but the most powerful of lights, which through gamma-gamma physics is the source of all the matter in the Universe. The Light of Creation.

[Grey Cloud]

There is no heat from the Sun that reaches Earth ...

Gary,
Your reply to Nick was way above my technicals so here is a simpler question which will hopefully produce a simpler answer:
Why does the temp, here on Earth, drop at night and during a solar eclipse?