The Sun is Invisible in space!!

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: tsingtao

well, from what i've read about nutrinos, they take a very long time to get to the surface of the sun.

I think you're referring to light. Neutrinos take the direct route but you can sort of think of light (some of it) taking the long way, lots of detours from atom to atom.

ok, but wasn't it nutrino's that brought keanu reeves to earth when it stood still?

a reply to: Rob48

I hear ya. It sounded like "we're just immune" to me. As in his followers have heard the crackpot claim about him many times before. The thing is, this is Lindemann and that "shoe" seems to fit him.

NO and NO again...

While correct that you do not perceive light as it travels directly in a medium, you DO and CAN see the sun in visible light while in space.

Need proof?

farm3.static.flickr.com...

Also please dont go out and look at the sun. It will blind you regardless of what some manic fellow is saying during a conference.

a reply to: jollyjollyjolly

The Camera lense has defraction gradings in it.

Also the sunlight is not in free space it is passing through the atmosphere in the picture provided.

Good luck finding a photo thats not touched up and nasa doesnt own. because its not gonna be on the net.

You can't see light in free space. Period.

a reply to: GallopingFish

You can't see light in free space. Period.

Clearly the voice of experience.
Can't argue with a statement seething with such authority.

Diffraction gratings? You sure about that? Even if it did, diffraction gratings don't alter the wavelength of light. They just separate light into its constituent wavelengths. Were you asleep in science class?

a reply to: Rob48

If i had a pinhole camera in free space, pointed it at the sun and took a picture. It would be a picture of nothing, black.

Same with the stars.

If one person reads this and goes and spends time researching, and finds the truth, i feel its worth mentioning it over and over.

a reply to: GallopingFish

If i had a pinhole camera in free space, pointed it at the sun and took a picture. It would be a picture of nothing, black.

No, It would be a picture of a very white spot.

Same with the stars.

That would depend on how long you left the pinhole open. Stars are a lot dimmer than the Sun because they are very much farther away.

i feel its worth mentioning it over and over.

Doesn't matter how many times you say it, it's nonsense.

a reply to: Phage

This energy we call "light" is transmitted through space (vacuum) & does not atrophy at all until it strikes an object, an asteroid, or planet for example. It needs "matter" to interact with it.

This best describes light, the light we are arguing over is visible light. Light in free space is yet to strike matter.

a reply to: GallopingFish
So light does not spread? It is not subject to the inverse square law? Visible light is somehow different (other than wavelength) from all other forms of electromagnetic radiation?


Oh...and where did you say the neutrinos come from?

originally posted by: GallopingFish
a reply to: jollyjollyjolly


Also the sunlight is not in free space it is passing through the atmosphere in the picture provided.

No it isn't. The atmosphere is much thinner than you think it is.

originally posted by: GallopingFish
a reply to: jollyjollyjolly

The Camera lense has defraction gradings in it.

Also the sunlight is not in free space it is passing through the atmosphere in the picture provided.

Good luck finding a photo thats not touched up and nasa doesnt own. because its not gonna be on the net.

You can't see light in free space. Period.

Heres one and it isnt NASA and its in free space www.isas.jaxa.jp... the big thing in the picture behind venus its called the sun.

originally posted by: GallopingFish
a reply to: Phage

This energy we call "light" is transmitted through space (vacuum) & does not atrophy at all until it strikes an object, an asteroid, or planet for example. It needs "matter" to interact with it.

This best describes light, the light we are arguing over is visible light. Light in free space is yet to strike matter.

If you are not looking directly at the light source than you need matter for light to reflect off of. But if you look directly at the light source like a distant star nothing is needed. Look even by this screwy theory light has to travel through fluid in your eye so even that would still make it visible. Now mind you this has nothing to do with it but it will still be the same as passing though at atmosphere or water. I really cant believe people actually by this how do you think we take pictures of stars using hubble its nothing more than mirrors.

Stars in zodiacal light and the lunar sunrise captured by LADEE, a camera in space.

www.planetary.org...

Apollo already did this obviously

a reply to: dragonridr

That pic you sent is from Japan aerospace exploration agency... There logo has a Vector symbol in it just as Nasa has a Vector symbol. Russia has a Vector symbol too... Here is some others... watch it all

www.youtube.com...

Do the research...

Huge Lies

originally posted by: GallopingFish
a reply to: dragonridr

That pic you sent is from Japan aerospace exploration agency... There logo has a Vector symbol in it just as Nasa has a Vector symbol. Russia has a Vector symbol too... Here is some others... watch it all

www.youtube.com...

Do the research...

Huge Lies

Spooky music - check
Tenuous conclusions drawn from thin air - check
Total lack of relevance - check

Yep, it's a conspiracy alright.

That's right sheeple, wake up - using a red V in your logo will make your science work.

a reply to: GallopingFish

Little knowledge is dangerous.

The sun can be seen in space.

I can understand the confusion, though, because Earth's atmosphere acts in various ways, enhancing the sun's effect. Sun doesn't look identical outside the atmosphere.

Sun is basically radiating pure energy, that then converts into sub-energies, like light and warmth when it hits the atmosphere of a planet. However, you'd still see the sun, but it wouldn't look as bright or glowing (but it'd still be dangerous to stare at it, and it would burn you in a blink of eyes (I don't like to use only one eye as an example, because that'd be masonic, and unrealistic - whoever really usually blinks only one eye? When that's done, it's called "winking" instead of "blinking")) if you become exposed (it's very hot on moon, and of course on every surface that's exposed to the sun's energy in space - except the shadow side, which is very cold).

So I can comprehend why such a confusion can be born - sun looks tiny and dim by comparison to how we usually see it through the magnifying glass-atmosphere.

Maybe you mean that light-as-energy cannot be seen, until it converts to sub-energies, like light and heat by hitting an object, surface or atmosphere - and there, you'd be almost correct. Until the pure energy is light, it probably can't be seen very brightly - though I am not sure that it's completely invisible.

The fun fact is, none of us can really know FOR SURE, until we can get out, away from Earth's atmosphere, and see for ourselves. Everything that we know about space and sun is pretty much second-hand information, even if it's true. That way, it's not truly -true- information, like the things we can experience directly. But then again, if we only talked about such things, conversations would be very tiny and boring. Either we could only discuss things we can all experience, or the things we discuss would not have been experienced by others, rendering them useless from their point of view.

But to convolute your point further; the surface of your eyes IS something the light can bounce off of.. (:

Btw, I wonder if the Rayleigh-Scattering theory is correct about why the sky is blue.. there has been some arguments against it, but can any of us truly and really know, without expanding our consciousness or reading Akasha directly? Perhaps if we can expand ourselves to become the sky itself (or reach to that part of our selves - after all, all is One, which means, that we already are also the skies of all planets simultaneously, we just don't remember it in our usual consciousness), or just remember our previous existence (before incarnation) very clearly, we can have the true answers..

This is beginning to sound like philosophy, probably, but .. how much, and what, can we truly know for sure? Especially of such extraterrestrial matters, like what the sun would really look like outside Earth's magnifying influence? (The spaceships that have been sent to space from this planet are usually operating way below the deadly Van Allen belts, so Earth's atmosphere is still a factor, possibly distorting their view - and can we really trust an organization that was created by Nazi criminals?)

So they just changed "NAZI" into "NAZA" and flipped the Z around..

a reply to: Shoujikina

"Light-as-energy"? What? Sorry, you're way off base there. The sun is just as bright outside the Earth's atmosphere. Why wouldn't it be?

And it's not like NASA could cover this up. Do you seriously think that NASA is the only organisation that has made observations from outside the Earth's atmosphere?

How ever did this nonsense start? Is it some weird distortion of the fact that you can't see a laser beam shining through empty space unless it hits dust etc? Well that is obvious, but you will still see it if it is shone straight at you!

originally posted by: Phage

Apparently the sun cannot be seen by the visible spectrum in space!!

That's stupid. If you look directly at a light source you will indeed see it. Try a flashlight.

Agreed it's stupid, but flashlights have reflective mirror like material around the bulb and glass surround. I suppose that is to give off more light though.

a reply to: violet

Not to give off more light, but to direct all of the possible light in a specific direction.