Stars Can't Be Seen from Outer Space

a reply to: 3danimator2014

A bogus argument.

The topic is fact vs. opinion.

You have posted gobbledygook which is irrelevant.

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: 3danimator2014

A bogus argument.

The topic is fact vs. opinion.

You have posted gobbledygook which is irrelevant.

You have repeatedly shown that you don't know what a fact is. So there can be no real discussion.

a reply to: 3danimator2014

You apparently think a fact is whatever the mainstream tells you it is.

Is that what you think?

a reply to: ConnectDots

I think you should worry less about where the information comes from and concentrate on whether it is true.

I know the photo I posted taken in cislunar space on film by Apollo 16 is of Saturn Mars and various constellations not because I was told it was but because I checked it against a variety of sources.

Mainstream is sometimes mainstream because it's true, and it is a factual truth that people can see and have seen and photographed stars in space in whatever goalpost moving scenario you care to narrow your definition of acceptability by.

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: 3danimator2014

You apparently think a fact is whatever the mainstream tells you it is.

Is that what you think?

Ooooooh. I see. You are one of those guys. You distrust mainstream science even after everything it's given you

But to answer you. No I don't. I trust things which have been proven time and time and time and time and time again.

When you or anyone can show us something that goes against what science teaches us. Actually show us. Not just talk. Either show us or show us the maths proving mainstream science right.

Do you understand that physics is all about maths? Do you think particle physicists sit around and say things like "hey....what if quarks are made of little unicorn shaped bundles of energy!!??" ..vut don't back it up with anything whatsoever.

Please tell me you get what I'm saying . L

a reply to: 3danimator2014
- if you can say that "a transistor is a purely quantum mechanical device", then you really know what you're talking about! You're indeed the man!
- "...then I think it's reasonable to assume that theory is largly correct." probably seen from the other end of the Universe it keeps its aspect of "largely correct". have you ever heard about environment and local conditions dependence for a specific phenomenon?
- now tell me please, why stars are visible in space? just don't talk again about last 500 years facts!

a reply to: bigtrousers
- hubble altitude doesn't mean outer or deep space.

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

But to answer you. No I don't. I trust things which have been proven time and time and time and time and time again.

Gadgets that work validate a part of mainstream science. No question.

Gadgets that work have nothing to do with the subject of this thread, which is the nature of light.

Mainstream science is clueless on anything that has to do with the nature of the universe, including gravity.

(The secret space program is not clueless, however; the knowledge is out there - it is just not discussed freely and openly.)

originally posted by: ConnectDots

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

But to answer you. No I don't. I trust things which have been proven time and time and time and time and time again.

Gadgets that work validate a part of mainstream science. No question.

Gadgets that work have nothing to do with the subject of this thread, which is the nature of light.

Mainstream science is clueless on anything that has to do with the nature of the universe, including gravity.

(The secret space program is not clueless, however; the knowledge is out there - it is just not discussed freely and openly.)

But gravity isn't art of what science knows as electromagnetic radiation

If you cam connect your point about science not understanding where gravity comes from with the scientific understanding of electromagnetic radiation, then you post is nothing but meaningless rhetoric.

Sure, it's way too easy to say "Well, what if we don't understand the EM force so well that maybe light can't be seen in space". I mean, saying that light can't be seen in space is one thing, but just saying it without any explanation to back up what your saying is just saying stuff to say stuff; what's the point? What's your point?

I may as well go back to what I said a few pages ago about Rainbows being unicorn farts. Sure -- hundreds (I dare say a couple of thousand) of years of scientific observation, calculations, hypotheses seemingly validated through the scientific process, and the combined knowledge from other related theories about nature has allowed us to understand light and optics in such a way that we have a very viable explanation for what causes a rainbow.

However, the fact (and it is a fact) that scientific understanding can be wrong means that we should ignore all of that understanding of optics that humans have accumulated over the years and instead say that it's possible that rainbows are flying unicorn farts....And we are supposed to believe it's possible that unicorn farts cause rainbows only because "science can be wrong".

That's exactly what you are saying here, albeit with the question "can the part of the EM spectrum that includes visible light radiation be seen in space?" You are telling us to ignore all of the knowledge humans have accumulated about how light behaves for no other reason except "because science can be wrong".

Specifically, you're saying that we should believe that for some unexplained magical reason, the visible light part of the EM spectrum striking the light-sensitive cells in my eye or striking the photoelectric-sensitive parts of a CCD can be seen on Earth, but mysteriously can NOT be seen in a vacuum or in space.

I'm all for believing that light can't be seen in space, or that unicorn farts cause rainbows -- I mean, I'm not automatically going to put my fingers in my ears and ignore the possibility. However, you need to give me a reason for believing that light can't be seen or photographed in vacuum. So far you have not provided any reason whatsoever to believe this is true, and no reason for us to abandon the current scientific understanding of EM radiation. In fact, you haven't even explained why photos from space and photos from a vacuum DO show light being visible to cameras in a vacuum.

Back to your point about gravity: You're right, we don't know where it comes from. However, that's not exactly relevant. What would be relevant is if you could give me one valid reason (backed up by observation, data, and calculations) why our understanding of EM radiation is so wrong that it is wrong about how light travels through a vacuum.

Man, spelling has gone downhill in this thread as the tempers are flared.

originally posted by: sadang
a reply to: 3danimator2014
- now tell me please, why stars are visible in space?

It's quite simple, really. Stars convert mass to energy through nuclear fusion, and that energy is emitted as photons of electromagnetic radiation, throughout the spectrum from radio to gamma, including what we call the visible light.

We, humans, evolved to detect that part of EM spectum, which we see as light. On Earth or in space, it doesn't matter: stars (including the Sun) emit visible light, and we see it.

For the 50+ pages of this thread, anyone has yet to provide any proof to the contrary, and proof has been provided time and again that yes, we can see light in space.

originally posted by: sadang
- now tell me please, why stars are visible in space? just don't talk again about last 500 years facts!

The past 500 years doesn't need to have anything to do with it.

It is known that the human eye (and digital and film cameras) are sensitive to EM radiation, including EM radiation with wavelengths between about 380 and 750 nm. We know that human eyes and cameras are sensitive to this part of the EM spectrum because (obviously) we know that we can see that part of the spectrum, and we can see that cameras can capture images of that part of the spectrum....

...and there is absolutely no reason why that would be any different in a vacuum or in the vacuum of space. If someone cap provide good reason why EM radiation in space would not be able to be detected, then please do so; I would like to hear why not. I'm always willing to consider new ideas, as long as those ideas have reason and critical thought behind them.

originally posted by: sadang
a reply to: choos
- lies in your mouth and according to your way of thinking, not mine!
- the only thing that still somehow intrigue me are that images on films made outside of Earth exosphere, even that for them could be other influences and/or conditions that could explain that images.

so according to your way of thinking, when you ignore SOHO images and Apollo lunar images and say that you havent ignored anything you arent lying??

if those images intrigue you why do you ignore them?

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: 3danimator2014

A bogus argument.

The topic is fact vs. opinion.

You have posted gobbledygook which is irrelevant.

if the argument is we cant see stars then thats nonsense, i can see a massive yellow looking one coming up over the horizon right now, sometimes the moon and the sun both occupy the same hemisphere :O

a reply to: ConnectDots

No. We may not know where gravity comes from, but we can measure it and predict its influence , right down to sending probes out to take photos of planets and stars.

a reply to: wildespace
- pay attention to point 2 from my previous message

a reply to: Box of Rain
- human eye as well as a CCD are sensitive to something but not to what you call EM radiation from which you consider light is part of. review not per-review Maxwell, Heavyside, Steinmetz.... even before Coulomb's times.
- as I already said few times till now, light is a local phenomenon

a reply to: choos
- my suggestion to you is to be a bit open-minded perhaps will sense an universal truth: others can see and see things other way, maybe their own way, as a result of be humans, not a robot. You got it?

After scanning through this thread, all I can say is...

WOW!!

(sat here for 5 minutes staring at this response and pondering some of the other responses here, and I honestly don't have anything else...59 pages and...just WOW!)

P.S. I guess (while here) I will just throw in another vote for ..."Uhhhhh, seriously? YES, the stars most definitely can be seen from space!" Reality must be a truly terrifying place for some.

Take care.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
After scanning through this thread, all I can say is...

WOW!!

(sat here for 5 minutes staring at this response and pondering some of the other responses here, and I honestly don't have anything else...59 pages and...just WOW!)

P.S. I guess (while here) I will just throw in another vote for ..."Uhhhhh, seriously? YES, the stars most definitely can be seen from space!" Reality must be a truly terrifying place for some.

Take care.

i blame religion for this astounding lack of intellect in the 21st century.

double post.

originally posted by: sadang

- my suggestion to you is to be a bit open-minded perhaps will sense an universal truth: others can see and see things other way, maybe their own way, as a result of be humans, not a robot. You got it?

so you think that when you ignore everything while saying you have not ignored anything is due to me being close minded??

if noticing your hipocrisy makes me narrow-minded, i guess you have a point.

- human eye as well as a CCD are sensitive to something but not to what you call EM radiation from which you consider light is part of.

and there we have it.
admitting that what you call "light" is completely different to what is defined as light.
so while everyone in this thread have been talking about oranges, you have been referring to apples and calling it an orange.
way to waste everyones time.

a reply to: sadang

Yesterday I authored a thread here on ATS discussing the moral and social implications of contacting an ET (Extra Terrestrial)...

Here

After reading the past few pages of this thread, I'm now thinking my thread may have been in haste. I have often made the following rhetorical remark with the intent of sarcasm. However, I never honestly thought I would actually ask this question in all seriousness (actually not kidding either)....

What color is the sky on your planet? Because you certainly can't be from the same planet we call "Earth". I mean no disrespect by this question, I'm actually being honest.

You speak of being open minded and sensing 'universal truths', seeing things in different ways than humans do. Please help us understand what these truths you speak of are, and what things you see. It's clear from your writings, certainly on the past couple pages, you see things we don't see, and don't see things we do see. Your perception of what we call "reality" is clearly also quite different.

Please enlighten us (...or me anyway).

a reply to: ConnectDots

I tried responding to this over the weekend but I was at a festival and my connection to the real world was flaky:

There is no problem with scientific facts. Yes, they are derived from experimentation and interpretation of the results of that experimentation, but what happens then is that this interpretation (and the experimentation process) is subject to critical (and it can be very critical) examination by other scientists. Ideas which show promise are examined and re-examined and placed into their proper context by people who spend their lives researching a topic (by which I do not mean 'using Google'). Any scientist's work can be replicated by any other scientist.

Scientific reporting is very specific about what it claims, and is also very specific about what it does not claim. GaryN's claims have routinely taken the results of an area of research and completely misapplied it in a way that the authors did not intend.

Opinions can't be tested, the philosophical nature of existence can't be measured, but you can see and photograph stars in space.