The Boring Sun

[perpetual motion]

The inverse square law of light defines the relationship between the irradiance from a point source and distance. It states that the intensity per unit area varies in inverse proportion to the square of the distance. Distance is measured to the first illuminate surface.
Ok, now what is needed is for NASA to prove that these objects really illuminate
outside of their prospective bodies and that is out beyond our Exosphere at
some 118000 miles!
Man,are we getting fed doodoo or what????
Now these dudes are measuring 'light' which is not seen out 'there' and throwing
numbers around like a credit card, then coming up with some preposterous
number as to the distance 'TO' some unknown 'star or what have you' for us to
gawk at is a bunch of falsified information that should have them all fired.
No wonder the human race hasn't evolved or is it preprogramed into our brains
as to not to figure this stuff out.

[fosborn_]

After freezing my thread, Nick suggested I contact you, since we are both apparently 'walking a thin line.'

http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... 10&t=15922

You or anyone are/is encouraged to contact me directly (to avoid problems) at acwdownsouth@yahoo.com. I'm getting confused as to what EU is really about -- I've been told that to point out that NASA has been lying to us for about half a century is a 'conspiracy theory.'

When you get right down to it, Isn't EU itself a 'conspiracy theory'?

EU isn't, because they don't accuse people of intentionally lying about the data ( as this thread blatantly does), only miss interpreting it.

My experience in this thread is when valad falsifying observer evidence is posted, its strongly implied to be conspiracy theory, and or the supporting posters simply changes the speculative limits.

If you consider the clutter of pure speculation (based on more pure speculation)and intentional distortion of the observations, the validity of the supporting investigations is nil.
It strikes me as strong example why the New Insights and Mad Ideas area should be separate form the TB project. Its abuse as conspiracy central is not productive. IMO

[GaryN]

EU isn't, because they don't accuse people of intentionally lying about the data ( as this thread blatantly does)

If you are calling me a liar then show where I am lying or be ignored from now on.

It strikes me as strong example why the New Insights and Mad Ideas area should be separate form the TB project. Its abuse as conspiracy central is not productive. IMO

Questioning authority is not the same as claiming conspiracy. I am doing my best to try and understand the silence or omissions in the science that NASA presents, particularly with the lack of images, or visual observation of stars from the surface of the Moon. Can NASA be accused of being involved in a conspiracy if they don't say anything? If nobody even asks the questions, why would NASA have to say anything?

Google: "Are stars visible from the Moon?"
No results found for "Are stars visible from the Moon".

Nobody has even asked the question. I'd like to officially ask that question to Charlie Bolden. Not that he would reply, but if he did you could bet that there would be a long rambling response that didn't actually answer the question.

"Are stars visible from the lunar surface?"
1 hit.
http://asterisk.apod.com/viewtopic.php?t=23539

The visors were too dark seems to be the stock answer, but were they? "like looking through a one way mirror" was how the view was described. That was in order to minimise stray light so they could see clearer, not to dim the already dim light levels. The visors could be raised and lowered by the large tabs on them, even by gloved astronauts.

(Studio lighting in training session.)
And I am expected to believe that 12 of Americas Finest, could not, or did not even try to figure out if the stars were visible???

The Chang'e 3 panoramic cameras do not need or have darkened visors., or filters.
Here is a document about the camera. Depth of field 3 metres to infinity. No images of stars or planets other than Earth.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/s ... clnk&gl=ca
and the .gz file with the photos:
http://www.raa-journal.org/docs/papers_ ... 939.pdf.gz

China’s Chang’e 3 Camera Still Snapping Photos From The Moon

While I understand the scientific importance of getting UV images of the night sky, if I could go to the moon, I’d bring a portable reflecting telescope like the one I use here at home. Without the jittery and often soft images caused by atmospheric turbulence, I could use my highest magnification to get rock-steady, crisp images of everything. Astronomical nirvana!

I think he'd be rather let down by the performance of his favourite 'scope from the lunar surface.

http://astrobob.areavoices.com/2015/10/ ... -the-moon/
Note that the visible light image is from Hubble. No visible light telescope on the Moon? A missed opportunity I'd say.

The Chang'e UV telescope operates in the near UV and does see stars and galaxies, though exposure times are not known, but magnitude 13 require 30 seconds from what I can determine. The human eye can not see near UV though as the lens of the eye blocks it, but it is possible to see near UV if you remove the lens, as Monet did.
http://petapixel.com/2012/04/17/the-hum ... s-removed/

Hadn't seen this before, puts a new light on things I'd say:

The Original Lunar Observatories
(Lunokhod 2)

The conclusion from these observations was that sunlight scattering from dust suspended above the lunar surface was making the sky up to 13 to 15 times brighter than the Earth’s nighttime sky with a full Moon present. This glow would certainly hinder daytime observations in the visible and UV from the lunar surface casting some doubt on the idyllic view of using the Moon as an observatory site at these wavelengths. Data from the NASA’s LADEE (Lunar Atmosphere and Dust Environment Explorer) mission completed in April 2014 should be able to shed more light on the role of lunar dust in brightening the lunar sky.

http://www.drewexmachina.com/2014/08/21 ... rvatories/

I think one of the moonwalkers did mention the sky as being a shiny black. The glowing solar UV excited silica dust particles emitting a full spectrum visible light, a skyglow. It is not visible sunlight that is being scattered, there is none to scatter. The lighting on the lunar surface must be quite strange indeed. The diffuse beam generated by the low sun (more dust in the line of sight) is when they took their best, almost studio quality colour photos.


All solar system bodies will have their own intrinsic light then, some not visible because of wavelength, some because it is below the level of detection of the instruments. Bodies with unexpectedly high or even over-unity albedo are best explained by the intrinsic light from a solar UV excitation model.

[perpetual motion]

Several moons, such as Earth's moon and the Galilean satellites, have exospheres without a denser atmosphere underneath. Here molecules are ejected from surface rocks and follow independent Parabolic Trajectories until they collide with the surface. Authors differ as to whether such moons are considered to have atmospheres or not. Smaller bodies such as asteroids, in which the molecules emitted from the surface escape to space, are not considered to have exospheres.
Parabolic trajectories are minimum-energy escape trajectories, separating positive-energy hyperbolic trajectories from negative-energy elliptic orbits.
Under standard assumptions a body traveling along this trajectory will coast to infinity, arriving there with hyperbolic excess velocity relative to the central body. Similarly to parabolic trajectory all hyperbolic trajectories are also escape trajectories. The specific energy of a hyperbolic trajectory orbit is positive. The shape of a hyperbolic trajectory is a hyperbola.
Scientific ERRORS often result from seeing correlation and jumping to a conclusion that one of the correlated variables caused the other. Maybe it was the other way around, or perhaps a third (but unknown) variable caused the correlation—or the correlation is spurious. Unless one first understands the forces, energy, and mechanism, the imagined cause will often be wrong and will only produce an expensive “wild goose chase.”
Ok, now I will ask this type of question again, where in the ?? does NASA get this
radiation from if the sun is not nuclear? Besides not emitting any LIGHT!
The first paragraph MAY have some logic to its wording.
The third paragraph IS the truth.

[fosborn_]

Re: The Boring Sun
Unread postby GaryN » Sat Dec 05, 2015 4:14 pm
If you are calling me a liar then show where I am lying or be ignored from now on.

I have shown on several occasions where you have misreported the facts( search my post in this thread). You have said you would not post anymore responses to my post several times and yet you still do .

You can see stars from the moon if the glare of the sun is blocked (including background scatter), as with the 1X navigation scope with its 50%reduction in light through poorly designed optics of the lunar lander. but your comeback is the trace atmosphere is enough to produce your notions. Its full of circular thinking. Why do you even keep making the statement when you reject the evidence.

You want valid science about the suns light, this guy gives some profitable information.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TOKo7Ik9f8
enjoy...

[GaryN]

You want valid science about the suns light, this guy gives some profitable information.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TOKo7Ik9f8
enjoy...

Definitely belongs in the NIAMI section, along with the explanation of the Suns fusion process.
http://solar-center.stanford.edu/FAQ/Qfusion_TP.html
Gravitational collapse is nonsense. The Sun is an opto-electro-magnetic machine whos emanations are responsible for the movement of all the solar system bodies and the creation of heat and light in the atmospheres of those bodies.
All other mad ideas pale in comparison.

[fosborn_]

by GaryN »The visors were too dark seems to be the stock answer, but were they? "like looking through a one way mirror" was how the view was described.

No, the stock answer is the glare of the sun and its reflection on the moon's surface. Same answer as the Apollo astronauts in their travels between the earth and the moon, the bright glare of the sun in cislunar space and all space in between. The glare of the sun and the suns reflection off the moons surface was nullified with the 1X navigation scope ( effectively blocking unwanted sources) on the lunar lander and stars were seen and used for navigation purposes. The theory was tested in situ ( gee that sounds cool, hope it means tested in the actual environment)

Gravitational collapse is nonsense.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TOKo7Ik9f8

Don't know what you looked at, but this video is about the sun having a surface, not being gaseous but liquid, and an explanation of its spectrums. He also speaks of the visible spectrums (the visable light in the corona, 34:30 into video) from the sun and the various sources.
He gave no indication of a thermonuclear core and gravitational collapse. This video is at EU 2014 and I didn't see any rotten fruit being pitched at him. It struck me as useful with Charles Chandlers model. I plan to ask him.

[GaryN]

He gave no indication of a thermonuclear core and gravitational collapse.

Where does the pressure come from to get metallic liquid hydrogen?

He also speaks of the visible spectrums (the visable light in the corona,

He talks about light from the photosphere, and the heat from the Sun. I want to see a photograph of the Sun then from Lunar orbit, or from Mars orbit, or Mercury orbit, any orbit, or from cislunar space, or deep space. I want to see the results of experiments measuring the heat from the Sun in cislunar space, or from high Earth orbit even. Lets put a solar concentrator on the Moon. There is just so much that is NOT available that should be. A total of 36 days in cislunar space during the Apollo missions, not a single photo of the Sun.
The GOES satellites in geostationary orbit have the usual sun monitoring gear, but of course no visible light camera.
Dr Robitaille needs to go back and begin again, prove that their is any heat or light coming from the Sun before building a model based on assumptions.

[perpetual motion]

Ok, here we go! I have the perfect way for our space agency to tell us the Truth
on the subject of the question about light in Outer Space. That is to take a
Prism along for the ride on some mission, with a plain camera, white background
and publicly show what can not be seen. Of course this set up would have to
be on the outside of this vehicle (in open air as they say) and no gas inside of
the camera lens, no filters either!
Would they do this or have they done this? We will probably never be told. For
a publicly funded Business such as this we should be informed of everything that this outfit did, is going to do and what they are thinking about doing, and quit doing
most everything for the military.
Take that prism out there, I want to see this one.

[GaryN]

You will never see a prism being tried out in cislunar space, there is no light to spread out, just as there is no light to concentrate to produce heat. I believe that this is what Pink Floyd were trying to tell us with their album cover for Dark Side of the Moon.

The 30th anniversary edition cover reminds us that astronomy is now all about spectra.


Roger Waters was a friend of Stanley Kubrick, I think they were trying to get the word out. A prism won't work in clear space.

More Moon stuff...
From the images on this page, it would seem that the Lunar surface is darker when the Sun is overhead. Short shadows, darker surface. The first image of the lander has long shadow, is brighter. Conclusion: More dust, more light created. A low Sun means a longer path for the UV Solar radiation through the dust. Like to see a high elevation Sun.

Long shadow
http://moon.bao.ac.cn/_data/multimedia/ ... %9B%BE.jpg
shorter shadow
http://moon.bao.ac.cn/_data/multimedia/ ... %82%B9.jpg
Almost no shadow
http://moon.bao.ac.cn/_data/multimedia/ ... %BF%91.jpg

From:
http://moon.bao.ac.cn/multimedia/img2dce3.jsp

No filters on the camera, so they can't take a picture of the Sun I guess, even though the Apollo cameras didn't seem to suffer from doing so with no filter.

[comingfrom]

Wow, thanks for showing us those, Gary.

In the second image you link there, stars can be seen in green, particularly just above the lander there are precisely five stars, plus one larger object and two more stars, towards the left of the image, in the sky.
Also, an interesting very conical, or pyramid, rock near the horizon, at far left of the the image

And going through the gallery, I found these.
Is this lens flare, or could it be some kind of auroral display?

http://moon.bao.ac.cn/_data/multimedia/imgce3/038...B9N0203.jpg

http://moon.bao.ac.cn/_data/multimedia/imgce3/032...B9N0203.jpg

[fosborn_]

="GaryN..Where does the pressure come from to get metallic liquid hydrogen?

I don't think that's his focus. What gives me a sense of his validity and respect as a researcher, is he sticks to what he knows. I really enjoy his explanations of the chemistry of plasma and how using temperature with plasma is misleading. Its just as CC teaches about using other theories to expand personal understanding, by having things explained through different applications.
http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/ ... -26-07.PDF

Since layered liquid metallic hydrogen would be essentially incompressible, its
invocation as a solar constituent brings into question much of current stellar physics.
The central proof of a liquid state remains the thermal spectrum of the Sun itself. Its
proper understanding brings together all the great forces which shaped modern physics.
Although other proofs exist for a liquid photosphere, our focus remains solidly on the
generation of this light.

I like C. Chandlers nebula collapse theory, to get things in position. Also his star formation.

[perpetual motion]

The exosphere is the outermost layer of Earth's atmosphere, ranging from the exobase at an altitude of about. 450 mi. above sea level to ABOUT HALF WAY to the Moon. It is mainly composed of hydrogen, helium and some heavier molecules such as nitrogen, oxygen and carbon dioxide closer to the exobase. The atoms and molecules are so far apart that they can travel hundreds of kilometers without colliding with one another, so the atmosphere no longer behaves like a gas. These free-moving particles follow ballistic trajectories and may migrate in and out of the magnetosphere or the solar wind.
Several moons, such as Earth's moon and the Galilean satellites, have exospheres without a denser atmosphere underneath. Here molecules are Ejected From Surface Rocks and follow independent Parabolic Trajectories until they collide with the surface. Authors differ as to whether such moons are considered to have atmospheres or not. Smaller bodies such as asteroids, in which the molecules emitted from the surface escape to space, are not considered to have exospheres.
In astrodynamics or celestial mechanics a parabolic trajectory is a Kepler orbit with the eccentricity equal to 1. When moving away from the source it is called an escape orbit, otherwise a capture orbit.
Under standard assumptions a body traveling along an escape orbit will coast along a parabolic shaped trajectory to infinity, with velocity relative to the central body tending to zero, and therefore will never return. Parabolic trajectories are minimum-energy escape trajectories, separating positive-energy hyperbolic trajectories from negative-energy elliptic orbits.
Scientific ERRORS often result from seeing a correlation and jumping to a conclusion that one of the correlated variables caused the other. Maybe it was the other way around, or perhaps a third (but unknown) variable caused the correlation—or the correlation is spurious. Unless one first understands the forces, energy, and mechanism, the imagined cause will often be wrong and will only produce an expensive “wild goose chase.”
I have been looking for months for some kind of picture of our suns magnetosphere
interacting with the planets in this solar system, but have found nothing of
this sort. All that I can find is physics mumbo jumbo. Some of this abstract art
shows (Mainly Jupiter) and it magnetosphere with its moons orbiting on its
magnetic lines. Now since I cannot find this of the sun, which I think is what
really is going on with the sun and planets, I will still seek this further. That and the
fact that there may not be Birkeland currents after all, is that these suns are
self contained energy sources (Perpetual Motion Devices) and not nuclear for
crying out loud.Thermionic emission is the emission of electrons from a heated metal (cathode). This principle was first used in the Coolidge's tube and then later in the modern day X-ray tubes. Before the discovery of the principle, gas tubes were used for X-ray production.
The cathode has its filament circuit that supplies it with necessary filament current to heat it up. As the temperature increases, the surface electrons gain energy. The energy acquired by the surface electrons allows them to move a short distance off the surface thus resulting in emission.The electrons emitted from the surface are limited by the space charge effect.Space charge refers to the collection of electrons which are emitted from the metal surface, after the application of tube current, at a short distance away from the metal surface.
These electrons collect and form a cloud of charge around the metal surface. This space charge limits the further emission of electrons form the surface and is referred to as space charge effect.
Think sun size here, think huge, think solar size, and forget about everything and
anything that is said about outside of this solar system, because they know
nothing about those, they are only guesses.

[GaryN]

@comingfrom

..just above the lander there are precisely five stars, plus one larger object and two more stars, towards the left of the image, in the sky.

Most likely cosmic ray effects, not stars, as they don't show up anywhere else. I was informed stars were visible in the shots of Earth, but that was retracted when similar stars were noted on the dark part of the crescent Earth. And if stars ever were photographed from the Moon, it should be front page news, but probably 99.999% of the population does not know they are not visible from the Moon. Interesting I thought that nobody has been willing to voice an opinion on if the camera is capable of imaging the stars. I don't see any reason why not, which must mean that nothing is visible.

@fosborn

The central proof of a liquid state remains the thermal spectrum of the Sun itself.
...
Although other proofs exist for a liquid photosphere, our focus remains solidly on the
generation of this light.

There is proof of neither from outside of the Earths atmosphere. Pyranometers in clear space? Never heard of one. Photo of the Sun from cislunar space? Still looking...

I like C. Chandlers nebula collapse theory

I don't. But then I don't like much at all of the standard model stuff!


@ perpetual motion

Unless one first understands the forces, energy, and mechanism, the imagined cause will often be wrong and will only produce an expensive “wild goose chase.”

Yes, and I think we are still lacking that basic understanding, we are missing a decent sized slice of the pie.

Now since I cannot find this of the sun, which I think is what really is going on with the sun and planets, I will still seek this further. slice of the whole pie.

I don't think there have been any scientific missions to try and locate such a connection, but I think you are right, it will be just a scaled up version of the Jupiter-Io link. The planets are magnetically coupled to the Sun, the moons similarly to their planets. The larger/stronger the magnetic field of the planet, the more moons it will have it seems.
Disappointing that there was no magnetometer aboard New Horizons, as I believe there will be a magnetic field at Pluto because it has moons.

An objective to measure any magnetic field of Pluto was dropped. A magnetometer instrument could not be implemented within a reasonable mass budget and schedule, and SWAP and PEPSSI could do an indirect job detecting some magnetic field around Pluto.

It remains unknown whether Pluto has a magnetic field, but the dwarf planet's small size and slow rotation suggest it has little to no such field.

And how true is this story which I read or heard somewhere? That when New Horizons was being built and launched, no one really believed that Pluto could have a magnetic field.

They didn't send the instrument because they didn't think it was needed.

What they think Plutos atmosphere looks like:


We have visible light from fluorescence from the Ralph/Multispectral Visible Imaging Camera


Chang'e shows us the Earth at EUV, I'd like to see Pluto. Maybe there is nothing to see, but then why send an instrument (ALICE airglow mode) with that capability if you don't use it? I think they don't want us to know that Pluto does have a magnetic field, when by their models it shouldn't have.

ALICE
http://www.boulder.swri.edu/palice/docs ... n_2005.pdf

Randy Gladstone (SwRI, San Antonio) spoke about “Ly-alpha at Pluto.” Pluto ultraviolet (UV) airglow line emissions will be very weak, except at HI Lyman-alpha (Ly-a). Ly-a at Pluto could have both a solar (Sun) and an interplanetary (IPM/interplanetary medium) source. Ly-a should be scattered by Hydrogen atoms in Pluto’s atmosphere. He uses the Krasnopolsky & Cruikshank (1999) Pluto atmosphere model that predicts the number of Hydrogen atoms at altitude. There are several observations near Pluto closest approach planned with the New Horizons Alice instrument to measure Lyman-alpha emissions. (1218 Å)

We have only seen results from occultation mode. Airglow mode would show us, as did the EUV device on Chang'e, the state of the ionosphere. Is there a van Allen belt type structure around Pluto? Will they tell us if there is? I'd bet that with having moons Pluto must have a magnetic field.

[perpetual motion]

The atoms and molecules are so far apart that they can travel hundreds of miles without colliding with one another, so the atmosphere no longer behaves like a gas.
WHAT?? (EARTH Min Distance 91,404,000 mi.)
He uses the Krasnopolsky & Cruikshank (1999) Pluto atmosphere model that predicts the number of Hydrogen atoms at altitude.
WHAT? WHAT?? (PLUTO Min Distance 2,765,000,000 mi.)
Somebody please run some numbers as of this so called inverse square law thingy.
Something is definitely wrong with this picture, as to these planets would have
to be fed from the suns magnetic force lines.