Page 1 of 4

The Boring Sky (Sun)

Posted: Fri Jan 10, 2020 5:28 am
by Cargo
I know we're still in the mist of a forum change-over. So this is a continuation and slight rename of a classic thread. The Boring Sun.

If you missed the news the past week, Japan dumped their load of hi-def landscapes images, and they are incredible. Sadly though, I haven't seen an actual night-time picture. You would think with the ultimate zero-citylight-pollution-atmosphere location possible, they would show off what the Stary Night Sky of the Dark Side of the Moon actually looks like. Think of countless shots like the milky way floating through the grand canyon.
I guess it's all black out there really. Gosh..

Re: The Boring Sky (Sun)

Posted: Fri Jan 10, 2020 8:57 am
by JP Michael
I missed that news. Do you have a link for reference so i can have a look, please?

Re: The Boring Sky (Sun)

Posted: Sat Jan 11, 2020 4:30 am
by Cargo
I need to visit my browser history on another computer, there was one article which linked to someone's personal site that converted all the images to png. But for the raw info, here's the link
http://moon.bao.ac.cn/pubMsg/detail-CE4EN.jsp

Link to moon photos

Posted: Sun Jan 12, 2020 3:34 am
by moonkoon
This link has the .png files of the Chinese moon photos.

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/ ... KCDhaghL8j

Re: The Boring Sky (Sun)

Posted: Sun Jan 12, 2020 6:11 am
by JP Michael
Cargo wrote:
Fri Jan 10, 2020 5:28 am
Sadly though, I haven't seen an actual night-time picture. You would think with the ultimate zero-citylight-pollution-atmosphere location possible, they would show off what the Stary Night Sky of the Dark Side of the Moon actually looks like. Think of countless shots like the milky way floating through the grand canyon. I guess it's all black out there really. Gosh..
Or they've been told to 'confirm' a certain earlier public narrative regarding the 'blackness' of the sky as seen from the lunar surface, daytime or not. Assuming Chang-e is even on the moon at all (they also had to 'confirm' a soft lunar landing with absent rocket crater and no dust on the landing pads; I wonder how many times they had to practice that before they got a decent take), rather than being in a fully controlled simulation centre like NASA's moon landing hoax. Why spend billions sending men to the moon when you can do it all in a simulation centre for a fraction of the price and funnel the remainder of the cash off to top-secret military weapons programs (the actual purpose of NASA: a double-funded military-industrial complex with half fobbed off as 'civilian').

I wouldn't be surprised at all to discover that the lunar skyshots produced by Chang-e have been digitally edited to keep promoting NASAs lies regarding their 1970's Apollo moon program. In fact, I'm going to download a couple of those PNGs and send them off to a friend of mine who is an expert in digital image alterations and see if he can pick up any of the tell-tale signs of digital alteration of the images by Chinese-NASA propagandists.

Re: The Boring Sky (Sun)

Posted: Tue Jan 14, 2020 2:50 am
by GaryN
NASA's moon landing hoax
And the Earth is flat too I suppose.

The Boring Sun thread had become rather long and rambling so I will be spinning off a different one, "The Dark Moon", in which I will attempt, using what data is available (including Apollo mission images and reports) to show that the lunar surface is so dim that it should not be visible at all from Earth, let alone against a clear bright blue sky.
I will also be putting up "The Gods were real" where I hope to show that this is the only logical explanation for the huge number of extensive and complex structures located in many parts of the world. Mithra was one of many Sun Gods who could literally move mountains, and even Yaheshua (Biblical Jesus) told us the very same thing.
Here is, to me, a rather interesting Youtube presentation, The Bible of Mithra. The whole thing is worth a watch I believe to those with open minds, but interesting starting at 55:05 we seem to be told that it is the atmosphere that allows for the conversions of the Suns complex emissions to the heat and light that sustain us all.
https://youtu.be/A1l1D22Lw0Q?t=3307
I feel a New Age in the offing, or perhaps a return to what was obviously a time of peace and plenty and stunning works of engineering, architecture and art, so good time for a new BBS!

Re: The Boring Sky (Sun)

Posted: Sun Jan 26, 2020 9:41 pm
by Brent72
Wow. Those pics from the moon do show a very dark, starless sky.

Does anyone know if there were pictures of a starry sky seen from the Mars rover? Mars has more of an atmosphere right?

It also leads me to ask another question; For those who believe that there are billions of stars in billions of galaxies, that have been shining light in every direction for billions of years... why do we have a dark night sky? Surely the light from all this EM radiation would be much more than what we experience?

Re: The Boring Sky (Sun)

Posted: Mon Jan 27, 2020 12:59 am
by moses
Hi Brent72,
If the light from a star is bent by the atmosphere then the starlight would appear to come from a much bigger area and so affect many sensors of a camera. Whereas in space the light from a star would be extremely narrow but more intense but only affect one sensor at most of a camera. So if a camera had a huge number of sensors then that region of where the star is would appear dark.

Cheers,
Mo

Re: The Boring Sky (Sun)

Posted: Tue Jan 28, 2020 2:21 am
by Brent72
Thanks for your reply Mo.
So what you’re saying is that Earth’s atmosphere bends a lot of light from many regions to an observer on the ground, a bit like being underwater and looking at the outside world - refraction by the water gives you a wider field of view?

Re: The Boring Sky (Sun)

Posted: Wed Jan 29, 2020 12:28 am
by moses
Hi again Brent72,
The light from a star is deflected in all directions by the atmosphere. So some light that was originally going to hit your shoulder gets deflected into your eye, so a lot of light that was originally going to hit cell B on your retina is bent and instead hits cell A. So instead of the light hitting only cell A if there was no atmosphere actually many cells are hit quite a lot.

So, if this theory is correct, then looking at the stars from a space vehicle one should see a lot more blackness. If however the starlight was bent by the material in space or in the Solar System then the stars would appear the same from space.

This bending of light opens up the possibility of light being bent in one direction primarily by any sort of gravitational or electrical or even a dust gradient in space. This would mutilate astronomy as we know it because parallax measurement would be wrong.

Cheers,
Mo

Re: The Boring Sky (Sun)

Posted: Thu Jan 30, 2020 5:43 pm
by Brent72
Thanks for the clarification Mo.
Does your theory explain why light from the sun appears to be redshifted when the sun is near the earth’s horizon - because the light is deflected even more over a greater portion of the atmosphere? (In the same way that smoke causes more deflection).

Someone should put a telescope on the moon to make observations without the effects of an atmosphere.
Or maybe Thunderbolts - with a bit of crowdfunding - could put a telescope into orbit..

Re: The Boring Sky (Sun)

Posted: Thu Jan 30, 2020 8:15 pm
by GaryN
Brent72
Does your theory explain why light from the sun...
There is no visible light from the Sun, only that which is created in the atmosphere, which is why from outside of Earths atmosphere the Sun is not visible.

Someone should put a telescope on the moon to make observations without the effects of an atmosphere
The Moon does have an atmosphere, comprised mostly of fine silicate dust particles. The idea of a visible light or even UV telescope on the near side is not on the books with good reason. The dust is the reason that the Sun is visible from the Lunar surface.

The measurements of sky brightness on Lunokhod-2
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... Lunokhod-2

There are no similar experiments from the night time far side and they will never be performed as it would be found that the stars are not visible from there either.

Quite interesting too, I thought.
Luminescence of the Lunar Surface
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.10 ... -3408-1_25

Re: The Boring Sky (Sun)

Posted: Fri Jan 31, 2020 1:38 am
by moses
Hi again Brent72,
the mainstream call it refraction and that is the mathematics they use to explain the red light on the horizon. So they have no deflection by light coming straight down from a star directly overhead. And similarly they have no bending of light going through space except for gravity near a star.

So if light is bent by the atmosphere, which makes a star appear wider, then light is quite likely bent by physical gradients in space such as a cosmic dust gradient. There is probably a higher concentration of some material 1AU from the Sun compared with 10AU so there is a gradient of this material for light coming towards the Earth at about 90 degrees to the Sun. This is where parallax is measured. If the light is bent by this material gradient then parallax measurements could easily be many orders of magnitude incorrect.

This gets more complicated when one considers telescopes but more experiments of dust gradients, etc, are needed.
Cheers,
Mo

Re: The Boring Sky (Sun)

Posted: Fri Jan 31, 2020 11:28 am
by Brent72
GaryN wrote:
Thu Jan 30, 2020 8:15 pm
Brent72
Does your theory explain why light from the sun...
There is no visible light from the Sun, only that which is created in the atmosphere, which is why from outside of Earths atmosphere the Sun is not visible.
Thanks GaryN for your interesting reply and the links.
I just want to ask, if we can’t see the sun (or any stars) without having an atmosphere, how are we getting images from the Hubble telescope of stars and galaxies? Is it due to plasma/dust clouds in space?

Thanks too Mo for your reply.
If we are happy that visible light (originating from the sun) is deflected/refracted by the earth’s atmosphere, and
also that there exist clouds of gas/dust/plasma in space,
then how can anyone expect light (EM radiation) to not be altered as it passes through these clouds in space?
Surely the parallax method for measuring distances is flawed?

Re: The Boring Sky (Sun)

Posted: Sat Feb 01, 2020 1:40 am
by moses
"Surely the parallax method for measuring distances is flawed?" Brent72

The issue is if light is bent towards the Sun then the stars are much closer to us than currently thought. One check of this is to consider an observer lightyears from the Sun and calculate the brightness of the Sun at that distance. If the Sun was unusually bright or dull then we would suspect a problem. However the way mainstream calculate this brightness there does not seem to be a problem.

So how does mainstream measure brightness. Is it the number of photons collected in a unit area. So if one makes this unit area big enough it does not matter if the light is bent a bit or not. So if the light is bent a bit the astronomers would not know. Then they measure parallax and so ascribe a 'power' to that star which could be stated as the number of photons hitting a unit area at say 1 lightyear from that star. Of course if the distance is much less that that calculated then there would be millions of stars nearby that would be less powerful than the Sun. Which is not a problem for EU because even a Mercury sized body could be in arc mode.

Basically something as big as the Sun would be a rarity whilst there would be heaps of Mercury or Earth sized bodies out there. And maybe getting the conditions for life seen on Earth may be an extreme rarity.

Cheers,
Mo