Stars Can't Be Seen from Outer Space

originally posted by: ConnectDots

originally posted by: ConnectDots

For people willing to invest some money (and a great deal of time) in order to be well-informed, there are two whistleblowers re. the secret space program who will educate you about true science and technology giving interviews at the website Gaia.com.

They are William Tompkins and Corey Goode.

No money is required to read transcripts of these interviews.

I have started a new thread in General Chit Chat (because I have no intention of debating you or trying to change your mind) based on an interview of William Tompkins: Are You Interested in the Secret Space Program?

I don't understand what a secret space program has anything to do with the topic. If light cannot be seen in space (which is the topic at hand), then it's always been that way, whether or not a secret space program exists.

The question is "why can't light be seen in space". Please give a valid, well-thought out, and scientifically backed (use your own scientific investigation if you don't trust the science of others) reason for light in space to be undetectable by cameras and human eyes.

Ignore the idea of space programs, secret or otherwise, for a moment and just give a explanation for why light would be undetectable in space.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
I don't understand what a secret space program has anything to do with the topic.

What it has to do with the topic is that NASA is cited as an authority entity from the naysayers on this thread.

Once a secret space program is discovered, all information coming from NASA is suspect.

All information coming from mainstream academia, news, and the government is suspect.

Because the secret space program is just what it says it is, secret, it is unrealistic and uncalled for to ask for proof and links and the regular stuff posts are backed up with under normal circumstances.

Suppressed science and technology is suppressed sometimes brutally.

Use your imagination.

You can figure this out.

a reply to: ConnectDots

NASA scientists are not the people who have been studying the characteristics of light for the past several hundred years. The scientific understanding of what light is predates NASA by a long, long time. In fact, I don't even think NASA really has done much in the realm of human understanding of light.

For a moment, let's all ignore NASA's images from space showing light being visible. In fact, let's ignore all of the images of light being visible in space that comes from Russia, Japan, China, India, and the European Space Agency. Let's Ignore all of that completely and simply concentrate the discussion on light itself. Please explain to me what characteristic of our understanding of light (and the rest of the Electromagnetic radiation spectrum) would make it so that light is not visible in space?

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
Please explain to me what characteristic of our understanding of light (and the rest of the Electromagnetic radiation spectrum) would make it so that light is not visible in space?

I believe it is probably the fact that mainstream science has removed the aether/ether from the universe. When that happened, science took a wrong turn.

originally posted by: ConnectDots

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
Please explain to me what characteristic of our understanding of light (and the rest of the Electromagnetic radiation spectrum) would make it so that light is not visible in space?

I believe it is probably the fact that mainstream science has removed the aether/ether from the universe. When that happened, science took a wrong turn.

I still don't understand the claim that "light cannot be seen by human eyes or by a camera in space". Why not?

Again, a straightforward question is this:
Going by the scientific understanding that has been learned over many, many years by many, many scientists of electromagnetic radiation, and specifically the wavelengths of that electromagnetic radiation called "visible light", what part of our understanding of that electromagnetic radiation is so wrong that we don't realize that the "visible light" portion of it can't be seen in space? Please be specific about the reason.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
I still don't understand the claim that "light cannot be seen by human eyes or by a camera in space". Why not?

I'm not positive that you're stating the issue exactly correctly.

I'm going to leave that for someone more technical than I am to answer.

I do know from my research that Tesla went to visit Hertz to express his concerns about misinterpretation from the get-go of what Hertz did in the lab.

I also know that there is such a thing as a longitudinal as opposed to a transverse electrical wave, which sometimes propagates quicker than the speed of light.

originally posted by: ConnectDots

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
I still don't understand the claim that "light cannot be seen by human eyes or by a camera in space". Why not?

I'm not positive that you're stating the issue exactly correctly.

I'm going to leave that for someone more technical than I am to answer.

I do know from my research that Tesla went to visit Hertz to express his concerns about misinterpretation from the get-go of what Hertz did in the lab.

I also know that there is such a thing as a longitudinal as opposed to a transverse electrical wave, which sometimes propagates quicker than the speed of light.

You are claiming some level of agreement with GaryN and Sadang argument that light is not visible to the human eye or to a camera in space -- or even in a vacuum for that matter.

My question is this: Why isn't it?

The energy of electromagnetic radiation is understood by science to be carried by photons. The energy carried by those photons comes in different ranges of wavelengths: X-rays are electromagnetic radiation that falls between a range of wavelengths, UV radiation are electromagnetic radiation that falls between a range of wavelengths, visible light is electromagnetic radiation that falls between a range of wavelengths, infrared radiation is electromagnetic radiation that falls between a range of wavelengths, radio waves are electromagnetic radiation that falls between a range of wavelengths, etc.

My question is if our understanding of electromagnetic radiation is correct, then why wouldn't that radiation be detectable in a vacuum or in space? If, on the other hand, our understanding of electromagnetic radiation is NOT correct, then please explain what is incorrect about it.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
You are claiming some level of agreement with GaryN and Sadang argument that light is not visible to the human eye or to a camera in space -- or even in a vacuum for that matter.

A more accurate way of putting what I agree with, is that the radiation from the sun does not become what we call visible light until it hits matter (as in the atmosphere).

My eyes glaze over with all the talk about cameras.

To be honest, I'm really not interested in that part.

originally posted by: ConnectDots

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
You are claiming some level of agreement with GaryN and Sadang argument that light is not visible to the human eye or to a camera in space -- or even in a vacuum for that matter.

A more accurate way of putting what I agree with, is that the radiation from the sun does not become what we call visible light until it hits matter (as in the atmosphere).

My eyes glaze over with all the talk about cameras.

To be honest, I'm really not interested in that part.

What about when it hits the matter in our eyes? Would that make it become visible?

What science calls visible light is measured by instruments here on Earth. Those instruments tell science that the thing that our eyes are sensitive to -- i.e., the thing that our eyes can detect, and the thing that consumer cameras can detect -- is wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum that are slightly longer than UV radiation and slightly shorter than infrared (IR) radiation. That range of wavelengths in between UV and IR is what is science calls the "visible light" portion of electromagnetic radiation. They call it that because it is what they have found to be visible by human eyes and by common consumer cameras.

You seem to be saying that what our eyes see is maybe NOT that at all, but something else. Well, what is it?

And GaryN and Sadang have said that the other wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation, such as X-rays, UV radiation, IR radiation, Microwave radiation, and radio waves are all capable of being detected by the various space telescopes we have out there (some of them beyond the reaches of the atmosphere), but for some reason (according to them) the only part of the spectrum of electromagnetic radiation spectrum that our telescopes cannot detect is the radiation between the wavelengths of UV and IR -- the wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum called "visible light" by science.

Why can all of those other wavelengths be detected, but the specific range of wavelengths known as visible light not be detected. What's special about that part of the spectrum?

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
What about when it hits the matter in our eyes?

Where are these eyes located when it happens?

originally posted by: ConnectDots

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
What about when it hits the matter in our eyes?

Where are these eyes located when it happens?

Anywhere. Eyes would work the same way on the space station or on Earth or wearing a spacesuit on an asteroid.


By the way, the answer to the question:

"What about when it hits the matter in our eyes? Would that make it become visible?"

is "Yes".

In fact, light is REQUIRED to enter our eyes and interact with our eyes in order for us to see that light. Light that does not enter our eyes is invisible to us. It is that interaction of light with the insides of our eyes that makes light visible to us, or the interaction of light with the insides of a camera that makes light reveal itself in a picture.

Originally Posted by Soylent Green is People:
Eyes would work the same way on the space station or on Earth or wearing a spacesuit on an asteroid.

By the way, the answer to the question:

"What about when it hits the matter in our eyes? Would that make it become visible?" is "Yes".

In fact, light is REQUIRED to enter our eyes and interact with our eyes in order for us to see that light. Light that does not enter our eyes is invisible to us. It is that interaction of light with the insides of our eyes that makes light visible to us, or the interaction of light with the insides of a camera that makes light reveal itself in a picture.

Earlier in this thread I speculated the stars may not be visible above the troposphere (or near the peak of the troposphere) due to interference from other light sources. I think this was poor speculation on my part.

As a side point, stars appear to rotate counter clockwise in the north pole, and clockwise in the south pole.

This doesn't appear to make sense, because isn't Earth only spinning clockwise?
If I'm spinning clockwise and I look up,
the ceiling appears to be spinning counterclockwise,
if I look down,
the floor appears to be spinning clockwise.

But under what circumstance, when standing on Earth,
could I ever look down at the stars?

No answer to this question comes to me.

So under what circumstance should the stars ever appear to spin clockwise when looking up?

I thought about this for a few minutes, and the answer seemed to come to me...

A flat mirror will always reflect an image that's right side up and reversed right to left.
A cylindrical mirror can produce images that are flipped upside down and images that are not reversed.

So for the stars to appear to be moving clockwise when looking up, you'd have to assume
they were being reflected off a flat mirror,
and to appear to be moving counterclockwise, you'd have assume
they were being reflected off a cylindrical mirror.

This still doesn't answer why we can't see the stars from beyond the troposphere,
but it's what started the thinking process for me.

Then you have to wonder, where are they being shined from.

It must be above Earth, but maybe not above the troposphere (by much, or at all)

And then you have to wonder, how is the light made invisible above the troposphere.

I started reading up on all the theories of electromagnetic radiation, and light "waves," and visible versus invisible light and no answer was coming to me.

Then I did a google search on: flat invisible; and I came across this patent

www.google.com...

"Invisible setting for round diamonds
Inventors Israel Itzkowitz

A round diamond having a girdle with oppositely located flattened portions is disclosed. Each of the flattened portions has a cut-out with sloped walls. The girdle preferably has facets at its circumference, except at its flattened portion. The round diamond is set into a barrel having a ridge member comprising a prong dimension to fit into the respective cut-out and to frictionally engage one of the sloped walls of the cut-out, thereby, rigidly securing the diamond to the barrel."

So I'm thinking this is the answer to what keeps the stars invisbile above the troposhere, they are just flattened light boxes shining against mirrors, enclosed in diamond like shapes to make them invisible.

How big are these diamond like shapes still seems puzzling to me. I'm guessing they are HUGE.
From the upper troposhere or lower stratosphere to exobase (outer Firmament)???

Anyway... shine bright like a diamond...

www.youtube.com...

P.S. another side note, I came across a seemingly interesting statistic reading about the atmosphere, that could give an idea when Earth was made complete for life:

"Free oxygen did not exist in the atmosphere until about 2.4 billion years ago during the Great Oxygenation Event and its appearance is indicated by the end of the banded iron formations."

en.wikipedia.org...

P.P.S.
I am a passenger... inside a heart shaped "box"...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

Cheers

originally posted by: InachMarbank

As a side point, stars appear to rotate counter clockwise in the north pole, and clockwise in the south pole.

This doesn't appear to make sense, because isn't Earth only spinning clockwise?

someone will explain it better, but think of it as when standing at the north pole you would be standing "upright".
at the south pole you would be viewing the stars in an inverted position compared to the north pole.

try just spinning on the spot and look up and note a point on the roof and which way its moving, then look down and note a point and which way its moving.

umm not a good explaination but basically its because you would be inverted.

Reply to choos:
someone will explain it better, but think of it as when standing at the north pole you would be standing "upright". at the south pole you would be viewing the stars in an inverted position compared to the north pole. try just spinning on the spot and look up and note a point on the roof and which way its moving, then look down and note a point and which way its moving.

I tried to address that in my post.
It is true, if you spin on the spot,
and look up,
ceiling is spinning opposite to you,
and look down,
floor is spinning with you.

But whether you are standing on either north pole or south pole,
you will always look up at the stars, right?
When would you ever look down at the stars standing on Earth?

And isn't earth only spinning the same way at the north and south poles?

originally posted by: InachMarbank

But whether you are standing on either north pole or south pole,
you will always look up at the stars, right?
When would you ever look down at the stars standing on Earth?

And isn't earth only spinning the same way at the north and south poles?

the earth is spinning in one direction yes, regardless of where you are.
and you are right you wont ever look down to see stars.
to relate it back to the spinning on the spot, think of the spinning as the earths rotation.
when you look up it is the same as looking up while standing at the north pole.
when you look down it is the same as looking UP while standing at the south pole. (if you are athletic enough you could instead try spinning in the same direction while doing a handstand)

do you kind of understand that you would be inverted while standing on the southpole relative to standing on the north pole?

sorry for the bad explaination, its in my head, just difficult to put into words.

originally posted by: InachMarbank
When would you ever look down at the stars standing on Earth?

When you're in the Southern Hemisphere. Everybody knows that people in Australia are "upside down".

P.S. This thread has gotten a lot more interesting all of a sudden. Big kudos from me.

At this point it might make sense to point out that there is a difference between light and vision. Light is an exchange of energy independent of any observer. Vision is a biological process that occurs when light impinges on an organism with a nervous system. Light does not require an observer. Organisms with nervous systems sometimes "see" things without actually interacting with light.

Cameras, whether digital or chemical, record interactions with light. They can be made to be sensitive to a much broader range of light than the human eye.

Light can be regarded as either a wave or a particle; all that matters is that it can deliver energy. Human eyes can perceive light in a very narrow range of energies. Light does not require a medium to propagate.

a reply to: DJW001
Thank you for all these little facts, although I think those are common knowledge.

It brings us to the crux of the topic, though. As far as I can gather, GaryN and his co-thinkers imply that light (i.e. EM radiation in the visible part of the spectrum) propagates through the vacuum of space in such a form as to be undetectable by human eyes or normal cameras. Something to do with the wave being longitudinal rather than transverse.

So, with all the subjective and emotionally-charged comments being flung to and fro in this thread, myself and I'm sure many others here would love to see some actual scientific research / documentation / data on this. Not the vague weasel-wording and hand-waving, the moving of the goalposts or putting the burden of proof on others.

There's a good saying that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This is certainlty the case with this thread. But even some ordinary evidence will do. We have seen none in this thread for all 60+ pages.

a reply to: wildespace

Essentially, this thread is a more complicated version of the question: If a tree falls in the woods with no-one around to hear it, does it make a sound?

originally posted by: wildespace

originally posted by: InachMarbank
When would you ever look down at the stars standing on Earth?

When you're in the Southern Hemisphere. Everybody knows that people in Australia are "upside down".

P.S. This thread has gotten a lot more interesting all of a sudden. Big kudos from me.

First and only time I've bento the Southern Hemisphere I thought I was looking at mars, then realised it wasn't because I was looking at Betelgeuse and mighty Orion was upside down.

Very weird seeing something you had looked at your whole life suddenly mom recognisable at first glance.

And that's my pointless little story