Stars Can't Be Seen from Outer Space

This thread is still going on? What was the answer to the question I posted weeks and weeks ago: If an atmosphere is necessary to see stars, why do stars get brighter the higher up you go on a mountain or in an airplane?

a reply to: DJW001

It's very simply.

Magic!

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: TerryDon79

Guess what?

Some of us are here on ATS for something other than entertainment!

Also, this thread will come up when people do google searches.

ATS is a valuable resource for seekers.

The only information that "seekers" would find that this thread is a resource is information that we CAN see light in space, and that the Sun, Moon, and a lightbulb in space would be visible to eyes and a camera. If they are seeking information about those things NOT being visible in space, then this thread is a terrible resource for people seeking that information because it gives no explanation or reason whatsoever to support that claim. A resource for information should, I dunno, actually give some explanatory information.

The only pseudo-information this thread had given about not being able to see light in space is the false idea that what we call "light" that we can see on Earth is not part of the EM spectrum. I say it's "pseudo-information" and a "false idea" because instruments can be used to show that what our eyes perceive on Earth as light and what cameras can detect as light is radiation that is part of the EM spectrum -- AND that part of the EM spectrum is also present in space; therefor that EM radiation would be able to be perceived by our eyes and detected by cameras.

If there is any information in this thread that can be a valuable resource for showing that what our eyes and a camera see as light on Earth cannot be seen in space or in a vacuum by eyes or a camera, then please point it out. I have seen no such information that could be used as a resource.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

The resource I'm talking about re. whistleblowers is only obtained by people who are willing to do what is takes to get educated.

Naysayers going on and on and on nitpicking about conflicts with their worldview, which has been programmed into them by the establishment, will just keep on keeping on, but they're spinning their wheels.

a reply to: ConnectDots

Blah blah blah blah.

Evidence?

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: ConnectDots

Blah blah blah blah.

Evidence?

I'm actually a bit over how much him and sadgary can write without actually saying anything whatsoever

a reply to: 3danimator2014

That's exactly what it is.

They use lots of words without any substance. It's almost like "if I say lots, maybe they'll just go away".

originally posted by: ConnectDots
. . . the secret space program . . .

The existence of the secret space program is proof of alternative science.

It is painful to be in a position of having to state the obvious.

a reply to: ConnectDots

Are you going to prove anything? You keep saying thing like "the exaidtence of the secret space program is proof of alternative science", but you never provide any evidence.

Lots and lots of words, but no evidence.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Do you live on planet Earth?

originally posted by: ConnectDots

originally posted by: ConnectDots
. . . the secret space program . . .

The existence of the secret space program is proof of alternative science.

It is painful to be in a position of having to state the obvious.

So is that why the light we can see on Earth isn't EM radiation, and is that why the claim that "what we perceive as light cannot be detected by eyes or a camera in a vacuum" could be a valid claim?

Going back to my half-facetious/half serious post about rainbows being the farts from winged unicorns. Considering that alternative science exists, then that is evidence for my claim about unicorn farts and rainbows.

I mean...alternative science and all. Alternative science explains why that possible explanation for rainbows is worth serious consideration. Right?

a reply to: ConnectDots

What does that have to do with stars and their visibility from space?

originally posted by: Box of Rain
So is that why the light we can see on Earth isn't EM radiation . . .

My understanding is that the light we can see is radiation from the sun which is part of the EM spectrum, yes. I would not call it EM radiation.

I would call it radiation from the sun which is part of the EM spectrum, emphasizing light we can see on Earth.

is that why the claim that "what we perceive as light cannot be detected by eyes or a camera in a vacuum" could be a valid claim?

Have I already answered your question?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You lost me on the rest of your post . . .

a reply to: ConnectDots

i cannot speak for :ATS member - TerryDon79 - but i wish i did not - its infested with idiots

a reply to: ignorant_ape

I would have to agree with you there.

a reply to: ConnectDots

what EXACTLY is the " evidence " - of teh alledged " secret space program " ?

a reply to: ignorant_ape

To answer your question, I have to ask you about your knowledge of what has been in the public domain about "UFO''s?

In other words, are you aware of things such as the Disclosure Project and the Citizen Hearing on Disclosure?

a reply to: ConnectDots

oh dear - do not be evasive - anser the question - what is the EVIDENCE of the alledged " sectet space program ""

a reply to: ignorant_ape

I take that as a "no, I haven't."

That's the problem.

Lack of awareness.

originally posted by: ConnectDots

originally posted by: Box of Rain
So is that why the light we can see on Earth isn't EM radiation . . .

My understanding is that the light we can see is radiation from the sun which is part of the EM spectrum, yes. I would not call it EM radiation.

I would call it radiation from the sun which is part of the EM spectrum, emphasizing light we can see on Earth.

What science calls the "visible light" part of the EM spectrum are wavelengths of EM radiation between about 380 nm and about 750 nm. Longer wavelengths of that EM radiation is infrared, microwaves, and radio radiation, and sorter wavelengths are ultraviolet, Xrays, and gamma rays.

Science can tells us through measurement and instrumentation that our eyes and a camera can sense the visible light part of that EM radiation, but not sense the higher and lower wavelengths. The way we sense that part of the EM spectrum that science calls "visible light" is by receptors in our eyes that are sensitive to the EM radiation of those wavelengths, and groups of those receptors (along with our brains) puts together an image based on the EM radiation from those wavelengths.

Gary N and Sadang claims that our eyes and a camera can NOT sense that part of the EM spectrum, but rather the "mysterious stuff" that our eyes can sense as light is something else entirely (what it is, they don't say), and not the same thing that science calls "light", which is EM radiation between certain wavelengths on the EM spectrum.

By the way, we have other cells in our bodies that can sense the EM radiation from other EM wavelengths -- our nerve cells can sense Infrared radiation (just above "visible light" in the EM spectrum) and our brains register it as heat. We also have cells that contain a substance that is sensitive to the UV part of the EM spectrum (just below "visible light" in the EM spectrum) and those cells respond by changing color.

So why would it seem unlikely that we have cells in our eyes that would be sensitive to other wavelengths of EM radiation -- namely the portions of EM radiation that is of wavelengths that science refers to as "visible light"?

And if our eyes or a camera are sensitive to that portion of EM radiation, then why would they mysteriously NOT be sensitive to those wavelengths in space (as GaryN and Sadang claim)?


Furthermore, we have built cameras with EM radiation-sensitive receptors that can capture both what science calls "visible light" (although GaryN and Sadang disagree that 's what it is) and the parts of the EM spectrum on either side of the visible light part -- namely Xrays, UV, IR, microwaves, and radio.

Similar technology is used to build the EM-sensitive receptors that can detect both UV and visible light, but GaryN and Sadang claim that while that camera can detect the UV radiation part and the IR radiation part of the EM spectrum in space, it mysteriously can't detect the visible light radiation part of the EM spectrum.

But why not? They don't say.

You lost me on the rest of your post . . .

The rest of my post is in response to the notion that some people have saying "mainstream science doesn't know everything, so alternative science ideas are also valid"....

...As if someone asks the question:
"why wouldn't the part of the EM spectrum that includes the wavelengths between 380 nm and 750 nm be able to be detected in a vacuum with our eyes or with a camera, but CAN be detect with our eyes or with a camera on Earth?"

and the answer given is:
"Because mainstream science doesn't know everything, so maybe that part of the spectrum really isn't the light we can see"

That's all fine and dandy, but if our eyes aren't detecting that part of the EM spectrum when we see light, then what is our eyes detecting? If a camera really isn't detecting that part of the EM spectrum when it captures an image, then what IS that camera detecting?

Alternative science is fine, and sometimes valuable, but there needs to be some substance behind the alternative claims, not just unsubstantiated "what ifs".