The Boring Sky (Sun)

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?
User avatar
GaryN
Posts: 2816
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 3:18 am

Re: The Boring Sky (Sun)

Unread post by GaryN » Sun Apr 04, 2021 11:38 pm

Not sure what you are saying here antosarai. The atmosphere is nothing to do with the visibility of the rocket, it has its own visible light that even in a vacuum would be visible at that distance. The stars in the band of atmosphere around Earth are NOT visible if looking away from earth, it is the deep column of the atmosphere that the line of sight to those stars passes through to the ISS that makes them visible. From Earths surface our line of sight to the stars passes through the much denser lower atmosphere, there is more matter for the stars radiation to be transformed to visible wavelengths.
With the Moon there is not enough matter between the surface and the stars for anything to be visible by eye, but at EUV the stars were visible. From lunar orbit they did see some stars as the line of sight again passes through a deep enough column of matter to produce enough visible light for the cameras to detect with sensitive film.
The Martian visitors MAY see some stars but they would not have the same colours, and the Milky Way will not be visible if my model is correct. If it was they would have shown us by now. That "they were not there to look at the stars" is a cop out.
In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete. -Buckminster Fuller

antosarai
Posts: 158
Joined: Sun May 18, 2014 3:41 pm

Re: The Boring Sky (Sun)

Unread post by antosarai » Mon Apr 05, 2021 2:12 pm

Geometry tell us the line of sight from the ISS to the rocket (both in the same orbit) is tangent to a circumference 408-410km above sea level, doesn't it? The atmosphere at that level is nothing but a hard vacuum, isn't it? Certainly not "the denser part of Earths atmosphere", is it?

And can't we even aim our line of sight higher, way higher than the rocket's level?

User avatar
GaryN
Posts: 2816
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 3:18 am

Re: The Boring Sky (Sun)

Unread post by GaryN » Tue Apr 06, 2021 7:12 pm

The atmosphere at that level is nothing but a hard vacuum, isn't it?
A hard vacuum can still contain matter, the density of such matter decreases with distance from the Earth (or any other body). It is the density and type of the matter that determines the amount of transformation of the shorter wavelength solar radiation to visible light, and also to infrared. The longer the path is to the observed object then the more matter there can be in between observer and observed.
And can't we even aim our line of sight higher, way higher than the rocket's level?
No, there are no cameras on the ISS that can look away from Earth. There is no point, they would see nothing at visible wavelengths. Numerous astronauts have told us nothing is visible when looking away from the Earth (or the Moon), why are they not believed?
In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete. -Buckminster Fuller

crawler
Posts: 679
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 5:33 pm

Re: The Boring Sky (Sun)

Unread post by crawler » Tue Apr 06, 2021 10:35 pm

GaryN wrote:
Tue Apr 06, 2021 7:12 pm
The atmosphere at that level is nothing but a hard vacuum, isn't it?
A hard vacuum can still contain matter, the density of such matter decreases with distance from the Earth (or any other body). It is the density and type of the matter that determines the amount of transformation of the shorter wavelength solar radiation to visible light, and also to infrared. The longer the path is to the observed object then the more matter there can be in between observer and observed.
And can't we even aim our line of sight higher, way higher than the rocket's level?
No, there are no cameras on the ISS that can look away from Earth. There is no point, they would see nothing at visible wavelengths. Numerous astronauts have told us nothing is visible when looking away from the Earth (or the Moon), why are they not believed?
Re a hard vacuum.
Does a hard vacuum contain......
gravity?
Photons?
Neutrinos?
Electric field?
Magnetic field?
Aether?
Praether?

Matter? What is matter then? Which of the above are matter? Which of the above have mass?
Einstein didnt believe in a hard vacuum. His hard vacuum had to be well away from mass, ie impossible.
STR is krapp -- & GTR is mostly krapp.
The present Einsteinian Dark Age of science will soon end – for the times they are a-changin'.
The aether will return – it never left.

User avatar
GaryN
Posts: 2816
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 3:18 am

Re: The Boring Sky (Sun)

Unread post by GaryN » Sat Dec 04, 2021 11:11 pm

I thought I'd check to see if there had been any further posts on the Heat and Light from the Sun topic I started at the beginning of 2020 on the skeptics site. Strangely it is not visible in the "Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology" section.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... ay.php?f=5
They trimmed the whole index page so it can not be seen. the thread is still there but has been hidden. Chickenshit? "lacking courage, manliness, or effectiveness". Perfect.
Heat and Light from the Sun
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... p?t=341690
In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete. -Buckminster Fuller

BuckeyeFrank
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2021 9:24 pm

Re: The Boring Sky (Sun)

Unread post by BuckeyeFrank » Fri Dec 17, 2021 4:30 am

I think I'm more interested to know what William Shatner expected to see, compared to what he reported?

Google questions that list on searches...

What did Shatner say about space flight?
“Everybody in the world needs to see it,” Shatner continued. “This comforter of blue that we have around us. We think, Oh, that's blue sky. And then suddenly you shoot through it, all of a sudden, like you whip off a sheet when you've been asleep, and you're looking into blackness." Oct 14, 2021

I'm watching his episode, The Prime Video of Shatner's flight with the crew of Blue Origins.
25 minutes into the episode, he said he was going with a complete open mind. He seems totally focused on the context of the efforts to save earth, nothing about stars. Also he ask astronaut Mike Good what he saw on his flight, but another earth focused comment.
If the ideas that NASA is more propaganda than fact, one must discern which witnesses might give an honest account. Something about W. S. urges me to trust his account. But it sure would have been more telling if it had been a night flight or if any sun glasses were needed? Also I just don't understand how the space vehicle's blunt nosed aerodynamics reaches hypersonic speeds, compared to those of the X15 and US AF blackbird programs.

User avatar
GaryN
Posts: 2816
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 3:18 am

Re: The Boring Sky (Sun)

Unread post by GaryN » Fri Dec 17, 2021 7:45 pm

Hi BuckeyeFrank , welcome to the Forums!
If the ideas that NASA is more propaganda than fact, one must discern which witnesses might give an honest account. Something about W. S. urges me to trust his account.
Anyone who has had a chance to look directly away from Earth from orbit has said that it is totally black out there but no mainstream news source has ever questioned why this is so. As for an honest account I go with Chris Hadfield, love to sit and have a chat with him.

Chris Hadfield describes the beauty of the spacewalk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQSShzXAhFg

He chooses his words carefully but never mentions seeing the stars, and at 0.59 the screen goes black for a couple of seconds when he is in space. As he turns he sees the Moon visible through Earths upper atmosphere, which is the only time it can be seen.

And then Tim Peake:
The first professional British astronaut said the most unexpected thing was "the blackness of space".
"We always talk about seeing the view of planet Earth and how beautiful it is and you come to expect that.
"But what people don't mention that much is when you look in the opposite direction and you see how dark space is.
"It is just the blackest black and that was a real surprise to me."
But it sure would have been more telling if it had been a night flight ..
The Inspiration 4 mission went through complete darkness during every orbit, but the cupola always faced Earth and always will, just as it does on the ISS. Nothing to see out there, move on...
In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete. -Buckminster Fuller

BuckeyeFrank
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2021 9:24 pm

Re: The Boring Sky (Sun)

Unread post by BuckeyeFrank » Tue Dec 21, 2021 4:37 am

Thanks GaryN for commenting about my post.

I think your theory is a great toolbox, for re examining my understanding of accepted science .

GaryN wrote:
Sun Apr 04, 2021 11:38 pm
From Earths surface our line of sight to the stars passes through the much denser lower atmosphere, there is more matter for the stars radiation to be transformed to visible wavelengths.
When I put on the paradigm hat, of this thread, a confusing concept is, where exactly is the transition zone located, as others have asked ?
Would it simplify thinking, by restricting the question to search for a distinct zone of media or phenomena (between luminary and the observers location), uniformly shifting to visible light ?
Would a discrete zone, alter your fundamental principle (not addressing all the possible exceptions just yet) ?
GaryN wrote:
Sun Apr 04, 2021 11:38 pm
From lunar orbit they did see some stars as the line of sight again passes through a deep enough column of matter to produce enough visible light for the cameras to detect with sensitive film.
Do you have a link to this or do you have a suggested search to find this information ?

User avatar
GaryN
Posts: 2816
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 3:18 am

Re: The Boring Sky (Sun)

Unread post by GaryN » Tue Dec 21, 2021 9:34 pm

Do you have a link to this or do you have a suggested search to find this information ?
Here is one image: The camera was mounted on a window bracket so they could do a long exposure. The film was the 2485 very high speed, extended red sensitivity film that the D.O.D had allowed NASA to use as at the time it was classified.
http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/stars/wp ... _05_06.jpg

Above us the stars: Apollo low light photography
http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/stars/starryskies.html
where exactly is the transition zone located,
It is not a sudden transition but a gradual one as the non-visible light source interacts with matter in the column between observer and observed. I would like to see a camera pointing upward on a rocket launch so we could see if and when the stars began to dim or change wavelength during ascent, but better might be to launch a camera on a sounding rocket and then have it fall back to Earth while being pointed at the stars and record colour and intensity with decreasing altitude. This type of mission would likely not be allowed by the US/EU authorities under national security restrictions.
In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete. -Buckminster Fuller

User avatar
GaryN
Posts: 2816
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 3:18 am

Re: The Boring Sky (Sun)

Unread post by GaryN » Mon Dec 27, 2021 7:04 pm

Scientists finally solve the mystery of why comets glow green
https://www.popsci.com/science/why-do-c ... low-green/
Comets are speeding chunks of ice and dust left over from the formation of the solar system...
Still flogging that dead horse, but as we learned from Apollo 13 they could not see or photograph comet Bennett from space. A very simple, never to be performed experiment is all that is required to confirm that the green or any other colour the comet might display is generated in Earths atmosphere.
In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete. -Buckminster Fuller

BuckeyeFrank
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2021 9:24 pm

Re: The Boring Sky (Sun)

Unread post by BuckeyeFrank » Wed Dec 29, 2021 1:01 am

BuckeyeFrank wrote:
Fri Dec 17, 2021 4:30 am
But it sure would have been more telling if it had been a night flight or if any sun glasses were needed? Also I just don't understand how the space vehicle's blunt nosed aerodynamics reaches hypersonic speeds, compared to those of the X15 and US AF blackbird programs.
I finished the W S Blue Origins Episode 1, I was surprised they didn't need sun glasses, Shatner didn't even see the need to shade his eyes when he was in full glare of the sun. Maybe the cameras were adjusting to the brightness, but when the sun was visible the in the upper corner of one of the view ports, the camera didn't lens flare or adjust to the lighting conditions.
Also the I noted that when speed and altitude information was displayed at 100,000 ft. the speed was 1780 mph, but no aerodynamic shape was utilized it the ship's design. Also, showing clearly in the port windows the horizon was flat (or were they filming the zero G on NASA's KC-135A Zero G flight ?). My conclusion is disappointing. I hoped they would have shown us the actual film of the flight not another star trek episode. So my trust in W Shatner's description of above the atmosphere, even though it would support the theory of this thread, is not something I would use as any further pro or con evidences.

User avatar
GaryN
Posts: 2816
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 3:18 am

Re: The Boring Sky (Sun)

Unread post by GaryN » Wed Dec 29, 2021 8:18 pm

Shatner's description of above the atmosphere, even though it would support the theory of this thread, is not something I would use as any further pro or con evidences.
Do you believe that the Apollo astronauts actually went to the Moon?
In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete. -Buckminster Fuller

Cargo
Posts: 522
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2010 2:02 am

Re: The Boring Sky (Sun)

Unread post by Cargo » Thu Dec 30, 2021 6:39 am

Look at this thing: https://jwst.nasa.gov/content/observato ... hield.html Multiple sheets of uber pure polyimides (surprisingly 'invented' by Dupont shortly after Roswell, the 'kapton' material)
To NASA, 230F is just 'warm', and -390F is kind of 'cold'. That's a delta of a very powerful eyeball cooking ~700F. Their estimate of delta 570F is just margins.
Now imagine staring at the source of what this shield is absorbing/deflecting, and you can't really see it, because the wavelength is not within range of your soft biology tissue receptor. What temperature does your soft tissue eye operate at?
interstellar filaments conducted electricity having currents as high as 10 thousand billion amperes

User avatar
GaryN
Posts: 2816
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 3:18 am

Re: The Boring Sky (Sun)

Unread post by GaryN » Sat Jan 01, 2022 12:18 am

A $10 billion boondoggle. From outside of Earths atmosphere the heating of the shield should be recognised as being from the photo-electric effect and not from thermal infrared heat from the Sun. And of course the interpretations of the data collected by this instrument will be tailored to fit the standard model of the cosmos. One simple experiment from space would blow the whole standard model away, which is why it will never be allowed.
In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete. -Buckminster Fuller

Cargo
Posts: 522
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2010 2:02 am

Re: The Boring Sky (Sun)

Unread post by Cargo » Sun Jan 02, 2022 5:57 am

As was said 2 years ago by an eyewitness account, "It's perfectly black" -Chris Hadfield.
interstellar filaments conducted electricity having currents as high as 10 thousand billion amperes

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests