The Boring Sun

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread postby GaryN » Fri Jul 22, 2011 1:56 pm

What some cheese with that wine?
would the darkest Voyager methane filter work okay for you?

I guess my attempt at sarcasm wasn't very good...
I don't understand why it isn't obvious to more people that you can not take
a white light image of the Sun from space, with a regular camera and solar filter.
There is not one image of such, anywhere. The filters will work in space but none have
been used. I can not and will not believe it is because nobody is interested in doing so.
Light from the sun is traveling as a planewave, produced by the countless number of
point sources of 'illumination' from the photospheric shell of ionisation.
Our eyes, or a regular camera whose optics are designed to mimic the human eye, can not
detect these waves. The optics require a very precisely ground curve towards the
outer edge, and some carefully calculated gratings etched onto those special profile
lenses. The nature of these optics IS classified, and that is why they are ground
in-house, by the NRL.

Image
This image of the Sun, Earth and Venus was taken by the Voyager 1 Spacecraft on February 14, 1990, when it was approximately 32 degrees above the plane of the ecliptic and at a slant-range distance of around 4 billion miles. This is the very first time, and may be the only time, that we will ever see our solar system from such a vantage point.

That's really impressive, don't you think? I can not locate the image in a NASA catalog though.

Its the one they used to take pictures of the sun.


A methane filter for the Sun? What is methane doing on the Sun? ;-)
Anyway, it is interesting that methane lines were detected from a brown dwarf,
but that to me is evidence they are seeing a planet, not a star.
In 1995 the study of brown dwarfs changed dramatically with the discovery of three incontrovertible substellar objects, some of which were identified by the presence of the 670.8 nm lithium line. The most notable of these objects was Gliese 229B, which was found to have a temperature and luminosity well below the stellar range. Remarkably, its near-infrared spectrum clearly exhibited a methane absorption band at 2 micrometres, a feature that had previously only been observed in gas giant atmospheres and the atmosphere of Saturn's moon, Titan. Methane absorption is not expected at the temperatures of main-sequence stars. This discovery helped to establish yet another spectral class even cooler than L dwarfs known as "T dwarfs" for which Gl 229B is the prototype.

Yes, typical, make up another class of star to explain the unexpected.
In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete. -Buckminster Fuller
User avatar
GaryN
 
Posts: 2651
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread postby fosborn_ » Fri Jul 22, 2011 2:38 pm

The filters will work in space but none have
been used. I can not and will not believe it is because nobody is interested in doing so.
Light from the sun is traveling as a planewave, produced by the countless number of
point sources of 'illumination' from the photospheric shell of ionisation.


Sorry, anytime I ask you to explain that, you never have a clue what your talking about.

I guess my attempt at sarcasm wasn't very good...

No, it was obvious. You did quite good.

A methane filter for the Sun? What is methane doing on the Sun?


You make no sense, explain this graph to me please.
vg1_wa_ch4u.JPG
The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries,
is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'
Isaac Asimov
fosborn_
 
Posts: 524
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread postby GaryN » Sat Jul 23, 2011 4:11 pm

Sorry, anytime I ask you to explain that, you never have a clue what your talking about
.
Image
Mars in x-rays, with its array of point source 'lights'. Converting the radiation
to a form our eyes can see is what modern space based optics is all about.
Or our ionosphere. ;-)
You make no sense, explain this graph to me please.

It could be a lot of things, why don't you tell me what it is and
end my suspense? I'll guess it's to do with Methane.
In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete. -Buckminster Fuller
User avatar
GaryN
 
Posts: 2651
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread postby fosborn_ » Sat Jul 23, 2011 5:28 pm

Mars in x-rays, with its array of point source 'lights'. Converting the radiation
to a form our eyes can see is what modern space based optics is all about.
Or our ionosphere.

Sorry, still looks like nonsense. Can you explain further. Those look like giant blobs of light, is that what the starlight turns into? We sould be seeing glowing nebulus blobs, not stars. :?
What are they suppose to be? And why doesn't mars look that way from here on earth, if its getting converted from X rays to visible light?

It could be a lot of things, why don't you tell me what it is and
end my suspense?


Okay, its pretty complex but I will give it a try;
vg1_wa_ch4u_sm.GIF

We should note the visible frequency spectrum along the bottom of the graph. Its obvious that the filter passed only of visible light within this range, while yet limiting the transmission level to avoid saturating the Vidicon with light.
FamPortSun_125.JPG

Which seems to work quite well for a G2V star, much like the 600 or so others within 600 ly of our sun.

I did notice in other applications of the filter, when more transmission of light is needed, not less, its used in the IR parts of the spectrum as the Cassini mission used on its NAC ( 889nm).

I'll guess it's to do with Methane.

No. It has to do with the :
The wide-
angle image of the sun was taken with the camera's darkest
filter (a methane absorption band) and the shortest possible
exposure (5 thousandths of a second) to avoid saturating the
camera's vidicon tube with scattered sunlight. The sun is not
large as seen from Voyager, only about one-fortieth of the
diameter as seen from Earth, but is still almost 8 million times
brighter than the brightest star in Earth's sky, Sirius.


reason for edit, added to comment of mars.
The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries,
is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'
Isaac Asimov
fosborn_
 
Posts: 524
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread postby GaryN » Sun Jul 24, 2011 10:41 am

Sorry, still looks like nonsense. Can you explain further.

I think I am getting my mind around how it all works, but still some
gaps to fill in. Here are a couple of articles that might offer some
clues.

The eye and its limitations. In part, this paper explains how a planewave
is focused, but if the planewave has a large radius, it will be focused
well behind the retina and nothing will be seen.
http://www.physics.mcgill.ca/~moore/P10 ... ure-16.pdf
The planewaves of the Sun have a very large radius. So it seems to me that
outside of the ionosphere, white light would not be visible unless you have
the correct optics, and I don't mean a regular telescope. To do the conversion
with regular lenses, I think the scope would have to have very large lenses and
be very long. You need the lenses like they have in the Star Trackers to image
more distant stars whose planewaves will be all but flat, of extreme radius.
Wiki has some info, I can probably find better, but a good start.
The Wavefront.
The plane wavefront is a good model for a surface-section of a very large spherical wavefront; for instance, sunlight strikes the earth with a spherical wavefront that has a radius of about 93 million miles (1 AU). For many purposes, such a wavefront can be considered planar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wavefront
The X-rays points from Mars' ionosphere are creating a large radius planewave. Have you seen an
image of Mars from the ISS or space shuttle? We can see it from Earth though, so
what is happening?
Maybe not relevant, but a pretty picture anyways! The Sun, enlarged by the Martian atmosphere, so I bet
if it was overhead, it would just about disappear. Color enhanced, they always have to
play with their images.
Image
An enlarged image, again from Spirit Rover.
Image
The image has been enlarged; the sun actually appears as a bright spot much smaller
than what we see from Earth.
In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete. -Buckminster Fuller
User avatar
GaryN
 
Posts: 2651
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread postby fosborn_ » Sun Jul 24, 2011 3:01 pm

GaryN wrote:
Sorry, still looks like nonsense. Can you explain further.

I think I am getting my mind around how it all works, but still some
gaps to fill in. Here are a couple of articles that might offer some
clues.

The eye and its limitations. In part, this paper explains how a planewave
is focused, but if the planewave has a large radius, it will be focused
well behind the retina and nothing will be seen.
http://www.physics.mcgill.ca/~moore/P10 ... ure-16.pdf


I read this and nothing in the lecture indicates that. Maybe you should quote the portion your referring to.

This makes the ability of the iris to accommodate different light levels seem very puny indeed. How is it then that we all know of situations where we can see very well what is going on but where a normal camera just cannot take a good picture? This is because the eye has, in fact, an enormous range of accommodation; up to about afactor of 10 12, or about a million times that of the camera!

my highlights.

GaryN wrote:The planewaves of the Sun have a very large radius.


Sense the first link doesn't support eye limits and the second link goes like this;

The plane wavefront is a good model for a surface-section of a very large spherical wavefront; for instance, sunlight strikes the earth with a spherical wavefront that has a radius of about 93 million miles (1 AU). For many purposes, such a wavefront can be considered planar.


However, many waves are approximately plane waves in a localized region of space. For example, a localized source such as an antenna produces a field that is approximately a plane wave far from the antenna in its far-field region. Similarly, if the length scales are much longer than the wave’s wavelength, as is often the case for light in the field of optics, one can treat the waves as light rays which correspond locally to plane waves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plane_wave

So far no banana pellet.

GaryN wrote:The X-rays points from Mars' ionosphere are creating a large radius planewave. Have you seen an
image of Mars from the ISS or space shuttle? We can see it from Earth though, so
what is happening?
Maybe not relevant, but a pretty picture anyways! The Sun, enlarged by the Martian atmosphere, so I bet
if it was overhead, it would just about disappear. Color enhanced, they always have to
play with their images.


Sorry GaryN this is still nonsense so far IMO.

Similarly, if the length scales are much longer than the wave’s wavelength, as is often the case for light in the field of optics, one can treat the waves as light rays which correspond locally to plane waves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plane_wave

None of this works for your idea IMO. Thanks for the interesting material and the effort to explain it.
The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries,
is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'
Isaac Asimov
fosborn_
 
Posts: 524
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread postby GaryN » Sun Jul 24, 2011 10:10 pm

I read this and nothing in the lecture indicates that.

I said there might be clues in there, not a direct answer! ;-)
Well I'm sorry you don't see my direction here, but you keep on poking holes in
my ideas by all means! Eventually I will have to approach my friend for his
opinion, but I want to be double sure that there are no glaring holes in it.
He is currently doing post-doctorate research on optics for high power lasers,
for the military, so he knows his stuff, and I'd be awfully embarrassed if I had
it all totally wrong!
Pull this apart Frank:
With the photosphere, we can see the 'granulation'. If you look at the bigger picture,
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/rea ... latest.jpg
(and why do they make a 'white light Sun orange??)
we see a disk with an array of millions of elements. Are these elements radiating?
And what are we detecting from the photosphere? Neon, which will go into glow mode
if you look at it wrong, is a considerable component. Very pretty.
Image
If you add all these together,and perhaps factor in some extinction, do you get white?
Unusual color variability of eruptive stars
We substantiate the conclusion that the unusual color variability found previously in some eruptive stars is typical of a broad class of nonstationary objects, manifests itself over a wide temperature range (from B0 to K 3), and can be regarded as a new type of stellar variability.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/mj6t774455q7w478/
Would it make more sense, in an electric model, for the color changes to be electrical
in nature? Especially if these 'stars' are charged planets, not nuclear furnaces.
The point sources on the Mars X-ray image are a snapshot, whereas the white light
images of the Sun are a continuum. The Mars X-Ray dots would cover the sphere with
longer exposure, and we would see the outer surface of a shell, as with the photosphere
of the Sun.
And, if we need a big lens to focus these planewaves, would one with a radius the size
of our ionosphere do? There is more to it than that at the shorter wavelengths, as
polarisation has to be taken into account, but this is why the optics in the space based 'telescopes'
are so complex, and expensive. The lens on a camera that Kubrick borrowed
from NASA(in the late 60s)for ultra-low light filming was reportedly worth millions,
and I don't doubt some of the present generation of specialised ones are, inflation
adjusted, just as expensive. We don't know the half of it. Or maybe I don't know any
of it? :-)
In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete. -Buckminster Fuller
User avatar
GaryN
 
Posts: 2651
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread postby fosborn_ » Mon Jul 25, 2011 3:32 am

And, if we need a big lens to focus these planewaves, would one with a radius the size
of our ionosphere do?


But we don't need a lens, our astronauts did it with out a lens. You haven't established the problem with planewaves yet.

http://www.physics.mcgill.ca/~moore/P10 ... ure-16.pdf , I thought this was a great paper, I don't doubt this guys smarts.
The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries,
is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'
Isaac Asimov
fosborn_
 
Posts: 524
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread postby GaryN » Tue Jul 26, 2011 11:07 am

But we don't need a lens, our astronauts did it with out a lens.

Did what? See stars, or the Sun?

A little off topic, but I did find a search term that resulted in some
hits related to star visibility from space, and even a youtube vid from
Don Pettit:
"astrophotography from the International Space Station"
In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete. -Buckminster Fuller
User avatar
GaryN
 
Posts: 2651
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread postby fosborn_ » Tue Jul 26, 2011 4:20 pm

http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/vid ... clip07.mpg

one thing I was looking for was sun light through the windows in cis lunar space. It looks like there were opertunities to see this in some of this footage.
this is a almost shot of the sun;
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/ima ... -7587.html
as12-51-7587sm.jpg



Also you may have found this picture, but here it is ( stars in space); http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/ima ... 58222.html
s71-58222_StarField_smer.JPG
The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries,
is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'
Isaac Asimov
fosborn_
 
Posts: 524
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread postby GaryN » Tue Jul 26, 2011 10:35 pm

Also you may have found this picture, but here it is ( stars in space);

I'm going to award you 1 point for the image Frank, I hadn't seen that one.
NASA doesn't make it easy to find the older images. (On the other hand, I
heard a guy on the radio a while ago, forget his name now, who said his
research had determined that during the Nixon administration, many of
the older NASA staff had retired or quit, and the younger ones gone to
GE, Westinghouse, et al, taking much of what had been developed or discovered
over the years with them, and leaving the new staff to basically start over.
I'm tempted to believe him.)
I'm going to award myself 2 points though, as I think the image supports my
contention that "stars could not be seen in space by eye or with a regular
camera". How? Well one of the limitations of the eye is that it can not store,
accumulate, the light it receives. Having to have long exposures with such a fast
film indicates that the eye could not register those dots. Secondly, the film
was a highly UV sensitive version of the 2485. We don't know what wavelengths
were actually captured, but if they were all UV, we could not see them either.
I haven't looked into the lens that was used, so can't comment. Maybe the camera
was normal, but the film wasn't.
Again, it is to be noted that the bright central object does not wash out the
background objects, one of the arguments I see quoted often for not being able
to see background 'stars' with a bright foreground object.
I hadn't seen the first image before either, but it doesn't lend much to the
discussion I don't think.
In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete. -Buckminster Fuller
User avatar
GaryN
 
Posts: 2651
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread postby fosborn_ » Wed Jul 27, 2011 4:19 am

GaryN wrote; Secondly, the film
was a highly UV sensitive version of the 2485.


wrong.

Although it might seem that there should be no light on the moon when it is in Earth's shadow, sunlight is scattered into this region by Earth's atmosphere. This task was an attempt to measure by photographic photometry the amount ofscattered light reaching the moon.

The background star field is clearly evident, and this is very important for these studies.


sun light reaching the moon. So visible spectrum. This isn't called "the BS" thread for nothing. ;)

I hadn't seen the first image before either, but it doesn't lend much to the
discussion I don't think.


It would matter only to the unbiased observer, sorry. :|

GaryN; Having to have long exposures with such a fast
film indicates that the eye could not register those dots.


Wrong.
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/ima ... 58222.html
The first is a four-second exposure which was taken at the moment when the moon had just entered umbra;


http://www.physics.mcgill.ca/~moore/P10 ... ure-16.pdf
This makes the ability of the iris to accommodate different light levels seem very puny indeed. How is it then that we all know of situations where we can see very well what is going on but where a normal camera just cannot take a good picture? This is because the eye has, in fact, an enormous range of accommodation; up to about afactor of 10 12, or about a million times that of the camera!
The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries,
is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'
Isaac Asimov
fosborn_
 
Posts: 524
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread postby GaryN » Wed Jul 27, 2011 8:54 pm

wrong.

I don't think you can just say 'wrong' when it comes to this film. It had a
wide range of reported ASA ratings from 1250 to 16,000, and could be sensitized
differently depending on the application.

The film chosen was Kodak 2485, with panchromatic sensitization and good uv sensitivity.

That is from an article behind a paywall, and was from the Skylab era.Seems Google can get
past the paywall though.
http://www.opticsinfobase.org/abstract. ... o-16-4-983
True, it wasn't a purely UV film like some they used, but maybe it was just the UV
that was imaged?
sun light reaching the moon. So visible spectrum.

UV is visible, to the film anyway.
This is because the eye has, in fact, an enormous range of accommodation; up to about afactor of 10 12, or about a million times that of the camera!

The eye is good at many things, but can not store the photons like film. 4 seconds with an ASA 16,000 film is a long time. The eye needs, from what I read, about 1.5 million photons per second for perception to occur. If you want to chase down how many the film needs, I'd be interested to hear.
In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete. -Buckminster Fuller
User avatar
GaryN
 
Posts: 2651
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread postby fosborn_ » Thu Jul 28, 2011 2:38 pm

GaryN »
I don't think you can just say 'wrong' when it comes to this film. It had a
wide range of reported ASA ratings from 1250 to 16,000, and could be sensitized
differentlydepending on the application.


Although it might seem that there should be no light on the moon when it is in Earth's shadow, sunlight is scattered into this region by Earth's atmosphere. This task was an attempt to measure by photographic photometry the amount of scattered light reaching the moon.


If you look at what the mission was, the fact that the earth's atmosphere is what the light passed through and the fact the the earths atmosphere obsorbs UV light, there is no application requiring UV sensitive film.

The film chosen was Kodak 2485, with panchromatic sensitization and good uv sensitivity.

I would like to put some context into your comparison.
this is a discription of the Sky Lab camera;
Exploring the earth’s atmosphere by photography from Skylab
Availability of a 35-mm camera equipped with interference filters, together with an 8-inch-square uv-transmitting window for the Skylab scientific airlocks,

So yes I think this whole camera was built around the customized, Kodak 2485, with panchromatic sensitization and good uv sensitivity. Makes sense.

Here is the camera used for the Apollo 15 experiment;
a 35mm Nikon camera

The earth's atmosphere absorbs UV and the experiment centers of scattered light through the earths UV absorbing atmosphere.
So no customized UV sensitive version of that film is necessarily. It would have been defeating of the experiment's purpose.


GaryN »That is from an article behind a paywall, and was from the Skylab era.Seems Google can get
past the paywall though.


Paywall was waiting for me, so I couldn't verify the quote. If you come up with an accessible source, please pass it on. My searches revealed nothing.

The eye is good at many things, but can not store the photons like film. 4 seconds with an ASA 16,000 film is a long time. The eye needs, from what I read, about 1.5 million photons per secondfor perception to occur. If you want to chase down how many the film needs, I'd be interested to hear

My source says 1709 photons. Big difference, I think.
The human eye can barley detect a star whose intensity at the earth’s surface

Yahoo Answers.
GaryN »UV is visible, to the film anyway


Can you show some specs to support that ?

My highlights.
The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries,
is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'
Isaac Asimov
fosborn_
 
Posts: 524
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 10:20 am
Location: Kansas

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread postby GaryN » Fri Jul 29, 2011 3:59 pm

Although it might seem that there should be no light on the moon when it is in Earth's shadow, sunlight is scattered into this region by Earth's atmosphere.

It will also I think, be being hit by EUV, so could UV be coming from the moon
because the EUV is being downshifted to UV in the moons ionosphere?
http://euv.lpl.arizona.edu/euv/

My source says 1709 photons. Big difference, I think.


Are you talking about 1 receptor, or the number of photons to see a star? A star bordering
on visibility is estimated to emit 1 million photons/sec, from what I find on the net. Less
than I quoted, true, but at least at 1.5 million it should be unmistakable.

Can you show some specs to support that ?


No. I keep coming up against paywalls with my searches. I'm sure a lot of that
info should be free, much of it has been paid for by taxpayers already.
In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete. -Buckminster Fuller
User avatar
GaryN
 
Posts: 2651
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

PreviousNext

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests