Stars Can't Be Seen from Outer Space

originally posted by: ConnectDots

originally posted by: Box of Rain
. . . the portion of EM radiation that is commonly referred to as "visible light" is not really light at all.

The premise is that the sun's radiation doesn't become visible light until the right condition is met.

What do you call the EM radiation between 390 to 700 nm? If that portion of EM radiation is not visible in space, what makes it visible in the atmosphere? What is the difference between the "invisible" and "visible" variants of this specific portion of radiation?

We know that solar panels work in space as they do on earth, generating electricity from photons of light. Digital cameras work in basically the same way (each pixel is like a tiny solar panel), and we have digital visible light photos from deep space, as well as film and vidcon images.

But yeah, those questions at the start of this post are the most important ones; I'd greatly appreciate it if you could answer them.

originally posted by: wildespace
What do you call the EM radiation between 390 to 700 nm?

Don’t forget that your question presupposes that mainstream science is reflecting reality in the concept of the electromagnetic spectrum.

And don’t forget that there is alternative science, which you have described as “stupid.”

Don’t forget also that it is believed by myself and others on this thread that we can’t get a straight answer out of NASA.

And don’t forget that I believe there is a secret space program, and within that program lies the most advanced technology known to anyone at this stage in history. That advanced technology is not based on mainstream science.

Because the secret space program is secret, and because it can be downright dangerous for some to talk about it, having a normal conversation on this subject matter is almost impossible.

My sincere advice to everyone is to get with the program of researching the secret space program.

There are enough whistleblowers who have spoken out that one can educate him or herself if the will is there.

a reply to: ConnectDots

Thanks for conveying your sentiments, but they don't have anything to do with my questions. What does the supposed secret space program have to do with how invisible radiation from the Sun turns visible in an atmosphere? What does it have to do with NASA?

I'm only asking if you know why the Sun's radiation in space is invisible, and how does it turn visible in an atmosphere. That's all. Let's hear some research, experiments, or at least a hypothesis based on some data, instead of invoking the bogeyman and shouting "it's a conspiracy!"

Or are you saying that answering even those questions is dangerous and will make "them" go after you?

originally posted by: wildespace
What does the supposed secret space program have to do with how invisible radiation from the Sun turns visible in an atmosphere?

The "supposed" secret space program is relevant because the answers to the hard questions are known there and not by the rest of us.

Studying the secret space program will reveal the fact that habits of trying to learn science through the mainstream, which suppresses the truth because the powers that be demand that the truth be suppressed, is not a wise thing to do.

I don't know why the radiation of the sun becomes visible light when it interacts with matter.

As GaryN has stated, experimentation is called for.

It is an unreasonable question to ask, if you're listening to what is being said about suppression and secrecy.

Maybe there is some whistleblower who has touched on the answer to your question. If there is, I'm not aware of it.

But I would suggest that a more appropriate question to ask is, "Where should I start learning about the secret space program?"

originally posted by: ConnectDots

And don’t forget that there is alternative science...

No matter from what position someone is arguing, or what mainstream science tells us about something, there can always be a claim of "alternative science" -- therefore the fact that "alternative science" exists is in of itself not evidence that the alternative science is anything meaningful.

Alternative hypotheses are fine, but it needs to be accompanied by evidence that helps support those hypotheses -- not just thrown out there saying "well, what if mainstream science is wrong???".

For example, mainstream science tells us that your big toe is just an appendage of your body. However, what if I come up with an alternative claim that your big toe is really a separate sentient being -- although I will offer no evidence in support of that claim. Does the fact that I simply made an alternative claim make that alternative claim worthy of being considered? The answer is no.

Granted, if I had some evidence to back up my claim about your big toe, showing that it had displayed some signs of thinking for itself, rather than just being a collection of bones, muscle, and ligaments protruding from your foot, then maybe my claim is a hypothesis that would desrve some consideration.

However, as it is right now, Sandang has not given us any reason to consider his claim, except to make the vague and un substantiated assertion that "what our eyes see isn't what science calls light", and you haven't given us any reason to consider alternative claims, and discard the known science, other than by simply saying "but what if the alternative claim is right and science is wrong?"

I'm willing to entertain the notion that science is wrong (it has been wrong in the past, and will be wrong in the future), but you need to give a specific reason for me to consider alternative claims -- that is, give me evidence SUPPORTING those alternative claims. Without evidence, those are just empty meaningless claims.

originally posted by: ConnectDots

I don't know why the radiation of the sun becomes visible light when it interacts with matter.

As GaryN has stated, experimentation is called for.

This is a silly point to make, because OBVIOUSLY light needs to interact with matter to be seen. NOBODY is disputing that fact.

If I were in space with nothing around me, and my back was to the Sun, I would not "see" the photons of light streaming past me, because they would not be falling upon anything. I would need to turn around so those photons of light would enter my eye and interact with the matter in my eye for me to see the Sun.

"Space itself" does not light up in the sun, because space is virtually empty. There is nothing in virtually empty space that sunlight would reflect off of and enter my eye. However, if my back was to the Sun, but an asteroid was in front of me, I would see the Sunlight that reflected off of the asteroid and back into my eye, where it could interact with the matter in my eye to allow me to see it.

GaryN says that even the sunlight reflecting off of the asteroid and bouncing back into my eye and interacting with the matter in my eye WOULD STILL BE INVISIBLE. That does not make any sense.


Let's now talk about light on Earth. If I were on earth, with my back to the Sun, I would not see the sunlight streaming through the air past me. That's because clear air is mostly transparent, allowing light through mostly unimpeded. Again, I would need to turn around and face the Sun to allow the photons of sunlight into my eye to interact with the matter in my eye if I wanted to see direct sunlight. But if my back was still to the sun, and there was a tree in front of me, I would be able to see the light from the sun reflected off of the tree and back into my eye, where it could interact with the matter in my eye to allow me to see it.

According to GaryN, air is not transparent, but is actually required to make light visible. However, if that were true, then the air around us would be all aglow with light as the light interacted with the air. However, that is not the case; the air is mostly transparent, and it isn't a glowing mass of matter being visibly lit up by the sun.

a reply to: ConnectDots

- a big up from me for this answer

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People
- Sun radiation needs interaction to become light as we see it here on Earth, but for sure not with matter or at least not with what we understand through matter. go deeper than that, matter term is too coarse in this analysis.
- a good starting point is to stop thinking about Sun radiation in terms of particle, otherwise you will always spin in the circle defined particle physics.

originally posted by: sadang
a reply to: ConnectDots

- a big up from me for this answer

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People
- Sun radiation needs interaction to become light as we see it here on Earth, but for sure not with matter or at least not with what we understand through matter. go deeper than that, matter term is too coarse in this analysis.

How so? What is the process that sunlight undergoes in air to become visible? You have said "the sun only becomes visible light when it goes through the atmosphere" a few times, but you have yet to explain it.

- a good starting point is to stop thinking about Sun radiation in terms of particle, otherwise you will always spin in the circle defined particle physics.

Fine. Light is a particle called a photon that carries energy. That does not explain why photons that are more energetic (say, UV light) can be detected by certain kind of camera in space, and photon particles that are less energetic (say, IR light) can be detected by certain kind of camera in space, but photon particles that have energies in between IR and UV cannot be detected by certain kind of camera in space.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People


Oops. I mis-read your post on my phone, and answered in my post above as if you said to START thinking about sun radiation in the terms of a particle...

OK...that's fine too. Photons that comprise EM radiation (such as X rays, Gamma rays, visible light, and radio waves) are neither particles nor waves. They may exhibit properties of both particles and waves, and can sometimes be described in terms of particles, and sometimes be described in terms of waves, but it is neither. Instead, it is something totally different.

It's more of a field that carries a force. In the case of photons, they are the carrier of the Electromagnetic (EM) force. The EM force is what gives us radio, gamma rays, light, and xrays, electricity, and magnetism, among other things.


But that still doesn't explain why EM radiation needs to travel through atmosphere to be detected. You have still not given any clear answer (not even close to a clear answer) for why atmosphere is required for EM radiation such as light radiation to become detectable and/or visible.

Why is it so difficult for you to simply answer the question? Stop giving hints (hints that have so far been meaningless because they have been self-contradictory) and just give an answer.

originally posted by: sadang
- Sun radiation needs interaction to become light as we see it here on Earth, but for sure not with matter or at least not with what we understand through matter. go deeper than that, matter term is too coarse in this analysis.

Are you suggesting that "atmosphere" is not really a subset of "matter"?

originally posted by: ConnectDots

The "supposed" secret space program is relevant because the answers to the hard questions are known there and not by the rest of us.

a supposed super secret space program kinda makes it clear that they CAN see light sources/reflections in deep space.

otherwise you would have them piloting their spaceships directly into the sun/mars/jupiter without them knowing.

originally posted by: sadang

- Sun radiation needs interaction to become light as we see it here on Earth, but for sure not with matter or at least not with what we understand through matter. go deeper than that, matter term is too coarse in this analysis.

so the aurora phenomena is a lie?? its not actually electrons its something completely different??

double post

a reply to: choos
The technology is more advanced than using human's eyesight.

a reply to: ConnectDots

and according to sadang, we wont see anything.

not even with a sextant like they had in Apollo, not even with camera's designed to image visual light such as in SOHO because "CCD's dont detect light"

so when they are in their little spacesuits putting things together they have no idea in which orientation things would go.

Al Worden during his EVA in cis-lunar space was just blindly guessing where he was going what he was holding onto as he went to collect film he needed to retrieve.

a reply to: choos
I'm talking about technology that is not public - that requires whistleblowers and connecting dots to learn about.

a reply to: ConnectDots

and im talking about the technology used during the Apollo era (space technology is still fairly young at this point) that enabled them to see when they were doing their EVA's both on the lunar surface and in cislunar space.
or the technology used to see the solar corona onboard SOHO.

surely they arent using technology from the secret space program?? if so that technology is accessible, even to the public.

china, russia, india, japan have all imaged the moon with no super special cameras that work according to our understanding of how light behaves also.

so either your super secret space station can also see light (sources) in deep space without super special unheard of equipment, or sadang and GaryN are wrong.

ETA: the mere thought that every single space faring organization is required to play along with the idea that we can see light sources in deep space when in fact we cant (as some would have us believe) is also insane when you think about the amount of effort is required to maintain such an illusion for god knows how long..
it would have been easier to rewrite our understanding of how light works.

If one is aware that on planet Earth, we live in a culture of lying as business as usual coming from mainstream sources, why would one waste time arguing about the details being spewed therefrom?

Instead, one would find ways of circumventing the mainstream.

Discussions that are not an exercise in futility can take place only within that scenario, in my opinion.

originally posted by: ConnectDots
If one is aware that on planet Earth, we live in a culture of lying as business as usual coming from mainstream sources, why would one waste time arguing about the details being spewed therefrom?

Instead, one would find ways of circumventing the mainstream.

Discussions that are not an exercise in futility can take place only within that scenario, in my opinion.

Wouldn't circumventing the mainstream (purely for the sake of it, it seems) also be an exercise in futility? Practially all our modern life, achievements, and things we use but take for granted, were designed based on mainstream knowledge. I don't see the alternative "gurus" operating any kind of space missions, contributing to infrastructure on earth, or enhancing our lives in any practical way.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People
- is not about sunlight rather is about Sun radiation, and is not about air rather is about Earth environment, and I don't talk about gases here.
- is not fine at all, but if you feel comfortable continue to think about it in terms of particles or even duality particle-wave.
- giving a direct answer will deprive you of the discovery through your own efforts, using your own mind and way of thinking.

a reply to: ConnectDots
- thinking in terms of matter the atmosphere is part of it, but what is matter when everywhere is only empty space! or perhaps it is not empty at all?

a reply to: choos
- see where the aurora happen, at which altitude!
- do you talk about electron as a particle or as a wave? the electron of Thomson or the electron of current science.
- almost all EVA were made on the back road to the earth, in the Earth Low Orbit, where the light is already present
- the EVA from Apollo 15, was indeed made in cisluna space but it seems you confuse light created from Sun radiation with artificial light created by man.