Stars Can't Be Seen from Outer Space

originally posted by: sadang
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?

It's full of plasma, correct?

Or is it full of energy?

originally posted by: sadang

- 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.

lunar surface EVA's were made on the road back to earth? in LEO??

are you able to prove that the light from the cislunar EVA of apollo 15 was artificial light created by man??

and by that last statement of yours, artificial light created by man is perfectly fine in deep space? so human eyes and cameras can definitely see artifical light created by man, such as an incandescent light bulb?? no problems with that??

a reply to: ConnectDots
- is any difference between the two, other than our own interpretation based on wave-particles concept?
- from now on you are alone on the rod of knowledge and understanding. first step is to understand what is plasma beyond the current scientific vision of a bunch of charged particles. there are no particles anywhere excluding our own convenient interpretation. a small hint: the inertia or momentum is a fundamental properties of motion not of stillness.

a reply to: choos
- I talked about space EVA, not landing EVA.
- no I can't prove, but you can?
- yes, is perfectly fine, cause they are created to radiate something that already fits our eyes sensitivity domain.

originally posted by: sadang

a reply to: choos
- I talked about space EVA, not landing EVA.
- no I can't prove, but you can?
- yes, is perfectly fine, cause they are created to radiate something that already fits our eyes sensitivity domain.

how are you so sure that it is artificial light??

there was no lighting fixtures attached to the outside of the command module as far as I am aware, if it was a hand held light source such as a torch the light direction would have been from somewhere near the camera as that is where the hatch is closest to.

so then how are you so sure that the light source is artificial light created by man?

when you say our eyes "sensitivity domain" do you mean light sources with wavelengths between ~390-700nm such as the normal, defined, visible light electromagnetic radiation?

and also, if we were to bring an off the supermarket shelf incandescent light bulb, plug it all in and turned it on, we would see the light it makes in deep space no problems?? that is what you are claiming right??

a reply to: choos
- I said I can't prove is artifical light not that I'm sure about that. I'm sure that respective light can't come from the Sun radiation, only according to my own understanding, but I can't prove using your methods, terms and theories. The only solution is to go both in deep space and see for ourselves.
- if I wanted to say that I would have said directly and I would not have used the term "radiate something".

originally posted by: sadang
a reply to: choos
- I said I can't prove is artifical light not that I'm sure about that. I'm sure that respective light can't come from the Sun radiation, only according to my own understanding, but I can't prove using your methods, terms and theories. The only solution is to go both in deep space and see for ourselves.
- if I wanted to say that I would have said directly and I would not have used the term "radiate something".

yes, they radiate alot of heat and some light, well, a traditional incandescent light bulb does anyway.

but you are suggesting that if we did take a traditional incandescent light bulb into deep space, it would somehow (unknown to you and me) make visible light (and heat because thats what they are known to do) although artificial, because thats precisely what you are claiming is happening on the Apollo 15 cislunar EVA.

originally posted by: sadang
a reply to: ConnectDots
- from now on you are alone on the rod of knowledge and understanding.

Is that your way of saying you can't explain it?

originally posted by: sadang
the inertia or momentum is a fundamental properties of motion not of stillness.

Are you a proponent of the work of Walter Russell?

a reply to: choos
- how a bulb make visible light is very well known, you can see they are already used on the helmets there
- what you can't comprehend is that there is a huge difference between Sun radiation to become light and light from an electric light bulb

a reply to: ConnectDots
- is a request or an ascertainment?
- somehow but not only. I'm the proponent of my own work!

originally posted by: sadang
- is a request or an ascertainment?

It's a question based on your responses.

Why would you tell members on a forum that they're on their own, provided they're not being rude and nasty in their questions, that you can't answer? Isn't the purpose here to answer questions the best we can?

originally posted by: sadang
I'm the proponent of my own work!

Are you willing to share what that work entails? Whether it's your livelihood or not?

originally posted by: sadang
a reply to: choos
- how a bulb make visible light is very well known, you can see they are already used on the helmets there
- what you can't comprehend is that there is a huge difference between Sun radiation to become light and light from an electric light bulb

used on the helmets?? is this the Apollo space suit you are talking about????

so does a fusion reaction emit heat and light??

and also, since you do say that artificial light can exist outside of earths influence ie artifical light in cislunar space.
cislunar space is not our local environment.

so light is not a local phenomenon.

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
i do mean to insult the alleged intelligence of certain ATS members with this , but here is irrefutable evidence that stars are visible from outside earths atmosphere :


source

if you dont get it - too bad

Don't mean to bust your balls, but I think you are missing the OPs point or where they are coming from. First lets consider all kinds of people use ATS, could be our little brothers, sisters, wives, --people deep into spirituality, people feeling the Matrix-effect of our reality, people who simply think outside the box.

In this case, I think the OP will concede Earth, the Moon, and the Sun are all around us, or where they are supposed to me. Maybe they've thought up a box where only 3 of these things exist (or maybe the other planets too, idk).

Now, is it really such an 'idiotic' thing to think about? If they are receptive to the other posts, pointing out ISS photos of stars, Hubble, & other astronauts accounts, as well as learn about how depth of field and aperture & light source/position change what film can see, and a bright source like the sun can blot out the outward darkness...

There have been many great philosophers and scientists who've thought outside the box to illustrate very poignant ideas. I imagine if they came on the board talking about a cat in a box, both alive & dead people would have something to poke them about (if they came pre-Schrodinger).

TL-DR Lighten up Aperoo

a reply to: ConnectDots
- I hoped you will never put this question. I hoped you are already on your own path of studying and understanding and just want to complete it. Sorry, it was my mistake!
- is not my intent to hurt someone when telling him is on his own path, this is just my way of telling him that it's time to make his own effort of studying and understanding
- no, according to my opinion a forum exists to find other opinions about various subjects, not to give answers, cause no one has answers just personal opinions.
- why I'll do something like this? what is worth for someone to know something that is not find and understood by himself through his own effort?

a reply to: choos
- as I said you will never cease to round in your own circle of logical thinking
- when you will open that circle will sense there is much, much more than you ever thought
- keep in mind for future: peoples are different in thinking and is not mandatory to follow the same patterns as yours
- and I suppose you did not read my last sentence. let me put it here again: "what you can't comprehend is that there is a huge difference between Sun radiation to become light and light from an electric light bulb"
- do you asked ever why a light bulb has a glass bulb?
- light is a local phenomenon

originally posted by: sadang
a reply to: ConnectDots
- I hoped you will never put this question. I hoped you are already on your own path of studying and understanding and just want to complete it. Sorry, it was my mistake!
- is not my intent to hurt someone when telling him is on his own path, this is just my way of telling him that it's time to make his own effort of studying and understanding

I am not hurt; I'm asking questions of you because I'm interested in your opinion regarding the subject matter of the thread.

I agree that we all have to do our own homework. And I do a great deal of homework.

But part of my search is to benefit from the knowledge of others here on the forum. Some members have invaluable information.

originally posted by: sadang
. . . no one has answers just personal opinions.

Yes, but personal opinions are worth sharing as long as everyone is respectful of opinions that are different from one's own.

I call it putting our heads together, and I think that's how progress is made.

originally posted by: sadang

-and I suppose you did not read my last sentence. let me put it here again: "what you can't comprehend is that there is a huge difference between Sun radiation to become light and light from an electric light bulb"
- do you asked ever why a light bulb has a glass bulb?
- light is a local phenomenon

whats in the glass bulb?? you mean an INERT gas or sometimes completely vacated???
or are you going to try and say that the glass is what creates light? even though we clearly see the light coming from the filament.

also I read it, but did you read my question??
does nuclear fusion create heat and light?

and having light available in cis-lunar space proves that light is not a local phenomenon. why? because they are in cis-lunar space.. the second that light bulb leaves earths influence, it will no longer produce light at all.
there more then just this one cislunar EVA from Apollo 15..
why does the command module have light entering the window and how can it clearly be that the light is not fixed to the command module neither. if the light fixture was fixed then regardless of the orientation of the command module the light coming into the window will be the same, but it can easily be seen that from a single mission light entering the window is changing.

Let's discuss a photo again, for a change.

This one is from Apollo 12, taken after lunar orbit insertion:

AS12-50-7403



www.flickr.com...
www.lpi.usra.edu...

The Sun is clearly high above the Moon, illuminating the Moon brightly, and even sending some glare into the camera.

So how can the Sun do that if visible light is strictly an atmospheric phenomenon?

originally posted by: wildespace
Let's discuss a photo again, for a change.

This one is from Apollo 12, taken after lunar orbit insertion:

AS12-50-7403

www.flickr.com...
www.lpi.usra.edu...

The Sun is clearly high above the Moon, illuminating the Moon brightly, and even sending some glare into the camera.

So how can the Sun do that if visible light is strictly an atmospheric phenomenon?

Well, Gary says that the moon dust provides enough "atmos". I remember it on early pages

originally posted by: 3danimator2014
Well, Gary says that the moon dust provides enough "atmos". I remember it on early pages

I'd like to hear from ConnectDots and sadang, though.

And let's face it, employing the lunar dust suspended over the Moon as an explanation for all this bright sunlight (and seeing the Sun itself) just doesn't hold water.

a reply to: wildespace
- maybe you should first ask, according to your accepted electromagnetic nature of light, how it is possible to see that light phenomenon over the Moon surface without light (being it particle or wave) reflecting towards the camera film from something which is already floating there!
- in the second time that image is not taken from cisluna or deep space, the main theme of this topic
- and in the third time let's don't forget all these images are all edited by hand or with their own words "... For the images on color film, a generic color processing formula, arrived at by tweaking representative images by hand, was applied in an attempt to shift them back closer to their original colors."
- and I still continue to claim that light is a local phenomenon and Sun not radiate light.
- now, what is your opinion about these streaks of light?

originally posted by: sadang

- and in the third time let's don't forget all these images are all edited by hand or with their own words "... For the images on color film, a generic color processing formula, arrived at by tweaking representative images by hand, was applied in an attempt to shift them back closer to their original colors."

ahem..

and what were the original colours?? and where were the original colours from??

you order others to do research but seems you failed on this one.

originally posted by: sadang
a reply to: wildespace
- now, what is your opinion about these streaks of light?

I'd say that the Sun is not too far out of the shot, and is shining at the window and the camera. This creates a glare across the glass surfaces such as the window and the lens.

Sun glare is pretty common in space, and mission control people have to take that into consideration when planning images.

Here's a photo of Sun glare taken by the New Horizons spacecraft, when pointed more or less in the direction of the Sun:



You don't need any kind of medium (dust or atmosphere) for it to occur; just the sunlight and glass surfaces. There was definitely nothing around New Horizons when it took that picture.