Stars Can't Be Seen from Outer Space

originally posted by: ConnectDots
It will take you 2 minutes and 13 seconds to listen to whistleblower Eric Dollard tell you succinctly what's wrong with official science regarding the sun:

originally posted by: ConnectDots

His official website: Eric P. Dollard

He didn't explain anything. He said a lot of words, but offered no explanations.

He said the sun was a hollow shell, but he didn't explain why the Sun would have such a large mass if it were hollow. If all of the mass was contained in the shell of the Sun, what keeps that shell from collapsing? He also says that fusion is occurring in the flares. If that is true, why can't we detect the fusion in the flares?

One thing he says that is "sort of" true is that light is not visible in free space. But this is something everyone knows, and isn't something that is being debated here; light must interact with something to be seen -- but that "something" could be our eyes or a camera. He says that light must react with matter to be seen, which is true, but our eyes are matter. Therefore, if my eyes were NOT situated in such a way that light rays could enter my eyes (i.e., I was not LOOKING at the Sun, but rather that sunlight was streaming past me in empty space), then that light streaming past me would NOT be visible. However, if my eyes were situated in such a way to allow the sunlight into them (if I were looking at the Sun), then I WOULD see that sunlight.

The same is true with reflected light. I can't see the light reflecting off of the keys on my keyboard unless that reflected light is entering my eyes, and the only way it can enter my eyes is if my eyes were pointed in the direction of the light reflecting from the keyboard. If I were looking above the keyboard at the mostly transparent air above it, I cannot see the reflected light from the keyboard "streaming though" that air.

And the idea of "Mostly transparent air" brings me to another point. In some matter, the atoms are sparse enough and/or transparent enough that light goes through without being visibly affected by the matter -- such as when light goes through the clear atmosphere of Earth. That's why we can't see most of the light streaming through the clear air -- but we can see light if it reflects off of particles in the air, such as water droplets (fog and clouds) or dust or smoke particles. That light is seen by our eyes because the rays of light hit that water droplet or dust or smoke particle and then is reflected into our eyes.

But if I were in space looking directly at the sun (meaning my eyes were situated in such a way that the rays of light from the sun would enter my eyes and strike the matter in my eyes that makes up the light-detecting cells of my eyes), then I would be able to see the sun.

It makes no sense whatsoever to say that "electromagnetic radiation in space cannot be detected. but it can be detected on earth". I mean, why can't it be detected in space? He offers no explanation as to why visible light and other EM radiation would be any different in space.

Voyager looking back at earth in 1977
No CCD tech back then, and certainly no atmosphere to "make the earth and moon magically apprear"
Info on camera's of Voyager
voyager.jpl.nasa.gov...
www.quora.com...
en.wikipedia.org...



Earth viewed from the moon by Kaguya in 2007 (no atmosphere im afraid)


Cassini looking at earth, Saturn rings etc...again no atmosphere
Also here is the specs for the cameras on Cassini
ciclops.org...


And the exposure even let the light of few stars be seen in most of the images.
But I suppose...ignorance is bliss

like i said, the only people who disagree with verifiable fact are the religious.

a reply to: TerryDon79
- why do you ask me to prove?

a reply to: choos
- it's your behavior of circular way of thinking to add exceptions not mine
- and of course you can continue the same way as until now

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk
- the change from geocentric to heliocentric model, both scientificaly proven facts at their times, in reality doesn't change anything. the truth is beyond the false concept of last at least 2000 years of "centric" models.
- it seems you are already know to fish, THUD?

a reply to: ConnectDots


a reply to: xGerhardSAx
- I appreciate you attention to details, but if a CCD don't detect light (in my opinion!) what make you believe a photoconductive surface used in vidicon tubes from Voyager do that?
- also did you took into consideration the magnetosphere and magnetotail of various celestial bodies until now?

a reply to: bigtrousers
- boy, religion and science are on the same boath on the waves of current civillisation, and both kiss the foot of the same kings, so stop seeing them as separate and mainly as opposite entities.

originally posted by: sadang

- I appreciate you attention to details, but if a CCD don't detect light (in my opinion!) what make you believe a photoconductive surface used in vidicon tubes from Voyager do that?

The clue's in the name: 'photoconductive'.

Vidicon tubes were widely also used in early terrestrial weather satellites and also in the Surveyor lunar probes. These have all been proven to work in space. If you are going to claim they don't, then you need to present some sort of evidence other than your opinion as to why.

- also did you took into consideration the magnetosphere and magnetotail of various celestial bodies until now?

Did you? Try explaining your point.

originally posted by: xGerhardSAx
Voyager looking back at earth in 1977
No CCD tech back then, and certainly no atmosphere to "make the earth and moon magically apprear"
Info on camera's of Voyager
voyager.jpl.nasa.gov...
www.quora.com...
en.wikipedia.org...

Earth viewed from the moon by Kaguya in 2007 (no atmosphere im afraid)

Cassini looking at earth, Saturn rings etc...again no atmosphere
Also here is the specs for the cameras on Cassini
ciclops.org...

And the exposure even let the light of few stars be seen in most of the images.
But I suppose...ignorance is bliss

Oh my god......

That Cassini image is incredible. Absolutely breathtaking

I love that mission so much im hoping to do a long post recapping all the discoveries and images it made and took before they end its life next year. Just need to find the time.

Back on topic. . Sadand/GaryN and connect, quick question. Why are you so quick to take a supposed whistle blowers word for it over every single amateur astronomer, astronomer, physicist etc on the planet when they offer no proof whatsoever .

Are you really that full of hatred for NASA that these are the desperate depths you will sink to ? It's quite sad.

originally posted by: sadang
a reply to: TerryDon79
- why do you ask me to prove?

a reply to: choos
- it's your behavior of circular way of thinking to add exceptions not mine
- and of course you can continue the same way as until now

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk
- the change from geocentric to heliocentric model, both scientificaly proven facts at their times, in reality doesn't change anything. the truth is beyond the false concept of last at least 2000 years of "centric" models.
- it seems you are already know to fish, THUD?

a reply to: ConnectDots

a reply to: xGerhardSAx
- I appreciate you attention to details, but if a CCD don't detect light (in my opinion!) what make you believe a photoconductive surface used in vidicon tubes from Voyager do that?
- also did you took into consideration the magnetosphere and magnetotail of various celestial bodies until now?

a reply to: bigtrousers
- boy, religion and science are on the same boath on the waves of current civillisation, and both kiss the foot of the same kings, so stop seeing them as separate and mainly as opposite entities.

so you think the death cult of islam has any bearing on the scientific world? the last they contributed was about 1000 years ago, nothing since.

the amount of times ive been banned for explaining to a religious flat earther why they do not just "fly off" the planet "if" its spinning at thousands of mph.

where do these religious people receive their "education"? the ark encounter in kentucky is a huge stain on the underpants of the 21st century.

its mainly an american problem regarding fundie christians calling for the execution of doctors who perform entirely legal abortions based on their book of nonsense, all religions are just cults, every church is like its own cult believing in its own brand of nonsense, whatever brings in the silver for the priests.

a reply to: sadang

Because you're one of the ones who say "stars can't be seen from space".

You can't prove it. All you can do is ignore the evidence to prove your claims wrong. That's called being ignorant.

originally posted by: sadang

- it's your behavior of circular way of thinking to add exceptions not mine
- and of course you can continue the same way as until now

ofcourse im going to carry on how i have been going.

you have clearly stated that it is not the same light from the EM radiation spectrum that everyone else is referring to.

its like arguing about thongs, where one person is thinking a g-string and another is thinking flip-flops.

how about you get to defining what you mean when you say "light" since your "light" is not from the EM radiation spectrum.

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo
- you sense something indeed but still not so deep to flash the light of understanding. photoconductive and charge coupled device have something in common, that's the path you have to follow... back to Coulomb!
- and you still expect explanations right? wrong behavior! knowledge is universal, understanding is individual! make your own effort or stay comfortable with current scientific descriptions of various phenomena.

a reply to: 3danimator2014
- Sadang/GaryN as you like to say, have much more understanding of the world than you perhaps will never achieve in this life.
- on the other hand it's never too late!

a reply to: bigtrousers
- apparently you did not see the forest for the trees! try to make the difference between religion and faith, its leaders and parishioners.
- dogma and extremism exists in both science and religion, and both of them are based on the same value: "whatever brings in the silver..."

a reply to: TerryDon79
- maybe you did not understood my request. let me repeat again: why do you want me to prove? what means in your opinion to prove something? to use words that fit with your current knowledge and understanding? why you want only the fish as well as almost all in the current human society? what's the reason?
- can you comprehend that according to my way of thinking, I can say the same thing about you, namely "That's called being ignorant"?

a reply to: choos
- finally it seems you started to took it a bit smoothly. it's ok. just go further and further, deeper and deeper. you just scratched the surface of real knowledge. Coulomb is still waiting everyone to understand his way of thinking!

originally posted by: sadang
a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo


a reply to: 3danimator2014
- Sadang/GaryN as you like to say, have much more understanding of the world than you perhaps will never achieve in this life.
- on the other hand it's never too late!

Yes, so much understanding that you cant even explain it or show it to us.

Ok, what you just said is so ridiculous, im outta here. Good luck guys.

originally posted by: sadang
a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo
- you sense something indeed but still not so deep to flash the light of understanding. photoconductive and charge coupled device have something in common, that's the path you have to follow... back to Coulomb!
- and you still expect explanations right? wrong behavior! knowledge is universal, understanding is individual! make your own effort or stay comfortable with current scientific descriptions of various phenomena.

a reply to: 3danimator2014
- Sadang/GaryN as you like to say, have much more understanding of the world than you perhaps will never achieve in this life.
- on the other hand it's never too late!

a reply to: bigtrousers
- apparently you did not see the forest for the trees! try to make the difference between religion and faith, its leaders and parishioners.
- dogma and extremism exists in both science and religion, and both of them are based on the same value: "whatever brings in the silver..."

a reply to: TerryDon79
- maybe you did not understood my request. let me repeat again: why do you want me to prove? what means in your opinion to prove something? to use words that fit with your current knowledge and understanding? why you want only the fish as well as almost all in the current human society? what's the reason?
- can you comprehend that according to my way of thinking, I can say the same thing about you, namely "That's called being ignorant"?

a reply to: choos
- finally it seems you started to took it a bit smoothly. it's ok. just go further and further, deeper and deeper. you just scratched the surface of real knowledge. Coulomb is still waiting everyone to understand his way of thinking!

faith in their predertimined cult/religion of their parents? why so circular?

a reply to: sadang

So you don't even understand the concept of proof? Got it.

You just sit there and spout your rubbish. Who needs proof, right?

originally posted by: sadang
a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo
- you sense something indeed but still not so deep to flash the light of understanding. photoconductive and charge coupled device have something in common, that's the path you have to follow... back to Coulomb!
- and you still expect explanations right? wrong behavior! knowledge is universal, understanding is individual! make your own effort or stay comfortable with current scientific descriptions of various phenomena.

I have given up on expecting explanations from you, because clearly you have absolutely nothing to offer to this but pseudo-philosophical nonsense. Throw away the fortune cookies and read some books, preferably ones that don't involve electric universe babble.

Stars are visible in space, stars can be photographed in space - you have pages and pages of evidence showing you that, so try and come up with something other than the crap dished out by fake gurus and the scientifically illiterate.

Some more reading for people actually interesting in finding things out:

ntrs.nasa.gov...

originally posted by: sadang

- finally it seems you started to took it a bit smoothly. it's ok. just go further and further, deeper and deeper. you just scratched the surface of real knowledge. Coulomb is still waiting everyone to understand his way of thinking!

wait so before when I said what you refer to as light is not what we refer to as light, I was completely off base.

but when I say what you refer to as light is not what we refer to as light, im on the right track??
great...

also im not the one that needs to go further at the moment.. you are the one who is using a different term of "visible light" that is so far undefined.

a reply to: 3danimator2014
- I'm sorry but I can not be superficial in understanding. using others stuffs and pompous words are not signs of real deep understandings, just signs of mimicry.

a reply to: TerryDon79
- I understand very well the concept of proof, and mainly what really stays behind it, the intention.
- I don't understand why you want me to prove something

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo
- electric Universe? what stupid joke! is much more deep than just electric... back to Coulomb!
- stars are not visible in deep space and can not be photographed there, it can be seen or photographed only at precise positions in space

a reply to: choos
- I meant you stop a bit becoming so aggressive to my way of thinking not that you are on the right track related to what is "light". and please stop using this game of logic, otherwise you'll continue to revolve in your own circle of logic.
- is not only about simple "light" it is about how it become light, from the source to the point of observation.

originally posted by: sadang
a reply to: 3danimator2014
- I'm sorry but I can not be superficial in understanding. using others stuffs and pompous words are not signs of real deep understandings, just signs of mimicry.

a reply to: TerryDon79
- I understand very well the concept of proof, and mainly what really stays behind it, the intention.
- I don't understand why you want me to prove something

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo
- electric Universe? what stupid joke! is much more deep than just electric... back to Coulomb!
- stars are not visible in deep space and can not be photographed there, it can be seen or photographed only at precise positions in space

a reply to: choos
- I meant you stop a bit becoming so aggressive to my way of thinking not that you are on the right track related to what is "light". and please stop using this game of logic, otherwise you'll continue to revolve in your own circle of logic.
- is not only about simple "light" it is about how it become light, from the source to the point of observation.

stars can be photographed in space, they regularly are, and technically even earth is in space if youre going to be pedantic then i will too.

get a powerful zoom camera and look directly into the sun with it and see if you go blind , if you dont then youre right, if you go blind were right.

originally posted by: sadang
- electric Universe? what stupid joke! is much more deep than just electric... back to Coulomb!

You don't understand a single thing you are posting.

- stars are not visible in deep space and can not be photographed there, it can be seen or photographed only at precise positions in space

This is beyond idiotic.

Let me guess, every time someone or something posts a picture of stars in space, or describes the stars they can see at a point in space, that is one of the places where stars can't be seen or photographed. I'll have another guess, you'll never tell anyone where those specific points are.

originally posted by: sadang

- I meant you stop a bit becoming so aggressive to my way of thinking not that you are on the right track related to what is "light". and please stop using this game of logic, otherwise you'll continue to revolve in your own circle of logic.
- is not only about simple "light" it is about how it become light, from the source to the point of observation.

it isnt my game of logic it is derived from your own logic.

this is precisely what you said:
"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." - Sadang
www.abovetopsecret.com...

so clearly the visible light that you are referring to, is not the same visible light that everyone else is referring to.

you need to understand that the visible light that is being discussed in this thread has been defined. you are bringing in a new definition of visible light that isnt defined, not by you, not by anyone, and you are expecting to use that definition as the basis of your argument.

so until you can define what you mean when you say visible light, you are pretty much wasting everyones time.