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 fosborn_ » Mon Jun 13, 2011 3:27 pm

Aardwolf wrote;
You're confusing the captions. This part relates to the wide angle shots not the planets. The planets were taken through narrow angle camera using the visible violet, blue and green filters over probably many minutes of exposure.


And you missed the obvious point.

The
result of this great brightness is an image
with multiple
reflections from the optics in the camera.Wide-angle images
surrounding the sun also show many artifacts attributable to
scattered light in the optics. These were taken through the clear
filter with one second exposures.

Thanks for the minor but useless point as far as context of the discussion. ;)
With a clear filter the great brightness of the sun creates the artifacts in the wide angle optics.
The critical mind would not have missed it. :)
But it still points out that GaryN's extreme position that the sun is not bright, and is, well, extremely wrong.

Blatantly incorrect.

Earth has a full disc magnitude of about -4 at 1 AU. At 40AU the magnitude of a crescent Earth (as in the Voyager photo) would be circa +5.5. This makes it barely visible to the naked eye and dimmer than about 2,000 stars visible to the naked eye from Earth. At 10x brighter this should bring another 20,000 stars brighter than +5.5. But were not talking about the naked eye, were talking about overeposed images counted in minutes. If you wanted to pick up an Earth magnitude object in the visible range, you cant fail to pick up the brighter stars. Those images should be full of brighter stars.

See below for what you would get after 30 seconds (through the "restricting" atmosphere). Compare that to Voyager's multi-minute visible shots.


Avert your eyes if seeing it in the raw is offensive;
EXPOSURE_DURATION = 5.7600 <SECONDS>

Maybe Vidicon can pick those bad boys up. Looks pretty bright for stars. I guess JJohson has a point about all that processing.
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 Aardwolf » Tue Jun 14, 2011 8:05 am

fosborn_ wrote:Aardwolf wrote;
You're confusing the captions. This part relates to the wide angle shots not the planets. The planets were taken through narrow angle camera using the visible violet, blue and green filters over probably many minutes of exposure.


And you missed the obvious point.

The
result of this great brightness is an image
with multiple
reflections from the optics in the camera.Wide-angle images
surrounding the sun also show many artifacts attributable to
scattered light in the optics. These were taken through the clear
filter with one second exposures.

Thanks for the minor but useless point as far as context of the discussion. ;)
With a clear filter the great brightness of the sun creates the artifacts in the wide angle optics.
The critical mind would not have missed it. :)
But it still points out that GaryN's extreme position that the sun is not bright, and is, well, extremely wrong.
Not an obvious point, an irrelevant one. Not sure anyone is stating it isn't bright. The point (as it's always been) is to determine if it's bright in the visible range. As you helpfully point out these are clear filter images and they are being flooded with UV & infrared so another strawman.


fosborn_ wrote:
Blatantly incorrect.

Earth has a full disc magnitude of about -4 at 1 AU. At 40AU the magnitude of a crescent Earth (as in the Voyager photo) would be circa +5.5. This makes it barely visible to the naked eye and dimmer than about 2,000 stars visible to the naked eye from Earth. At 10x brighter this should bring another 20,000 stars brighter than +5.5. But were not talking about the naked eye, were talking about overeposed images counted in minutes. If you wanted to pick up an Earth magnitude object in the visible range, you cant fail to pick up the brighter stars. Those images should be full of brighter stars.

See below for what you would get after 30 seconds (through the "restricting" atmosphere). Compare that to Voyager's multi-minute visible shots.


Avert your eyes if seeing it in the raw is offensive;
EXPOSURE_DURATION = 5.7600 <SECONDS>

Maybe Vidicon can pick those bad boys up. Looks pretty bright for stars. I guess JJohson has a point about all that processing.
What is it I am looking at and how does it relate to my unaddressed comments?
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1290
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread postby GaryN » Tue Jun 14, 2011 12:29 pm

Thanks for weighing in with the info JimJ, but I'm still puzzled by all this
color, temperature, brightness etc. If there is so much discussion on the 'Net
about the star under our nose, how can we be so sure about the color of stars
so much further away? The Sun in visible light, according to NASA:
Image
And if the color is wrong, then the temperature is wrong, and everything that
depends on these figures is also presumably wrong. Is that logical?
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: 2645
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread postby fosborn_ » Wed Jun 15, 2011 3:31 am

Aardwolf wrote:Not an obvious point, an irrelevant one. Not sure anyone is stating it isn't bright. The point (as it's always been) is to determine if it's bright in the visible range. As you helpfully point out these are clear filter images and they are being flooded with UV & infrared so another strawman.

I have been stating bright in the visible range all along. Glad the critical mind picked up on that. ;)
Yoiur UV IR flood is unqualified, and a smoke screened straw man. :P


Aardwolf wrote:Well I guess it suits your argument to ignore the Voyager images then. Which is a shame considering they are sone of the only images ever taken from space in visible light.

So, in a purely theoretical scenario,do you think that clear filter photos taken in space with 15 second exposures would show stars in them?
Aardwolf
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=4579&start=75#p52973


Thanks for supporting my point. They are taken in the visible range. :)

I pionted out the basic science that says the sun is bright in the visual spectrum and you state an unfounded opinion of UV and IR flood has not been supported. :?

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/vision/cie1976.html#c2
Shown above is an enlarged section of the 1976 CIE Chromaticity Diagram to show the path of a blackbody radiator that is caused to increase in temperature. As a heated object becomes incandescent, it first glows red, then yellow, white, and finally blue. This occurs because the wavelength associated with the peak radiation of the blackbody radiator becomes progressivley shorter with increased temperature


THE SPECTRAL SEQUENCE
Class Spectrum Color Temperature

G still weaker hydrogen, ionized and neutral metals yellowish 5300-6000 K
T methane bands infrared under 1200 K


Aardwolf wrote:What is it I am looking at and how does it relate to my unaddressed comments?
Aardwolf


Aardwolf wrote:So Earth from 40 AU is brighter than say Venus from aroung 1 AU? You can easily take a shot of Venus among the stars from Earth in an exposure of a couple of seconds. Yet Earth from 40 AU is too bright for the background stars? Even though stars viewed in space are supposed to be "10 x brighter"? How exactly do you calibrate for a dim Earth at 40 AU 0.12 the size of a pixel using a clear filter, yet exclude stars 10 x brighter when exposing for probably in excess of 15 seconds?
Aardwolf

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=4579&start=75#p52989

This picture was taken with 5.7 second exposure, your question is demonstrated to be irrelevant.
Also based on this picture, there are hardware issues you or I are unaware of. Especially sense you have already agreed the Voyager shots were the only visual range of photo's taken. :|
C1637740.JPG


Aardwolf wrote:Well I guess it suits your argument to ignore the Voyager images then. Which is a shame considering they are sone of the only images ever taken from space in visible light.

So, in a purely theoretical scenario,do you think that clear filter photos taken in space with 15 second exposures would show stars in them?
Aardwolf
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=4579&start=75#p52973


All high lighted within the quotes are added by me.
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 Aardwolf » Wed Jun 15, 2011 9:31 am

I can’t follow most of what you have posted so I’ll just pick out the bits I can make sense of.

fosborn_ wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:Not an obvious point, an irrelevant one. Not sure anyone is stating it isn't bright. The point (as it's always been) is to determine if it's bright in the visible range. As you helpfully point out these are clear filter images and they are being flooded with UV & infrared so another strawman.

I have been stating bright in the visible range all along. Glad the critical mind picked up on that. ;)
Yoiur UV IR flood is unqualified, and a smoke screened straw man. :P
The wide angle photos from Voyager in the Family Portrait are taken with the clear filter which means that all frequencies of light are recorded on the image. I had made an error in that they don’t record IR but the clear filter certainly picks up UV just as you stated here;
fosborn_ wrote:Funny how important homework is.
Instrument Detector


Detector Type : VIDICON
Detector Aspect Ratio : 1.000000
Minimum Wavelength : 0.280000
Maximum Wavelength : 0.640000
Nominal Operating Temperature : 282.000000

Wow dips into the UV and comes up short on the visible IR. Playing by your rules, I reject this antique of a CCD.

As for the image you provided, are you stating that it is an image of stars taken in visible light only? If so could you provide a link to where you obtained the image and its details.

And to avoid some confusion Voyager has images in many frequencies, not just visible. So just because I stated it has some of the only visible light only images, doesn’t necessarily mean they all are.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1290
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread postby GaryN » Wed Jun 15, 2011 11:45 am

The Vidicon is a study in itself, Frank, and we don't know just
what a military version is capable of. They are used in spectrometry
too, in conjunction with the appropriate grating for whatever
wavelengths you are looking for. The Space Shuttle tether videos
were from a Vidicon, so what were they seeing when they showed a
fat cylinder which was really a very thin wire? They were seeing
an ionised region around the wire. They also showed all the junk
drifting around the shuttle, showing up as what people thought
were UFOs. The 'First Step' Apollo scene used a Vidicon camera, as
the light was so low they needed extreme sensitivity. Normal room
light is 50 times more intense than the tube could handle, and for
brighter seens they switched to a lens with an f60 rating. I'd avoid
using any Vidicon images to prove or disprove anything, you just
don't know what you are getting.
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: 2645
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread postby fosborn_ » Wed Jun 15, 2011 12:14 pm

I can’t follow most of what you have posted so I’ll just pick out the bits I can make sense of.


Thanks for the effort. :)

The wide angle photos from Voyager in the Family Portrait are taken with the clear filter which means that all frequencies of light are recorded on the image. I had made an error in that they don’t record IR but the clear filter certainly picks up UV just as you stated here;

O crap, your being civil, now I have to be civil! ;) Ok, if that's how your going to play it. :oops:

As for the image you provided, are you stating that it is an image of stars taken in visible light only? If so could you provide a link to where you obtained the image and its details.


well if I gave the link, that would be cheating. The OP was about how to querie a search engine. So I thought part of the game was I post you find.
But I will post the specs on this photo. Your part is to figure out where I got it, with your critical skills. ;)
I can't do all your home work for ya. :)
C2058922_clear.gif

IMAGE DESCRIPTION
SPACECRAFT_NAME = VOYAGER_2
MISSION_PHASE_NAME = JUPITER_ENCOUNTER
TARGET_NAME = AMALTHEA
IMAGE_ID = '1195J2-003'
IMAGE_NUMBER = 20589.22 /*FLIGHT DATA SUBSYSTEM(FDS)
IMAGE_TIME = 1979-07-07T14:23:59Z
EARTH_RECEIVED_TIME = 1979-07-07T15:15:30Z
INSTRUMENT_NAME = NARROW_ANGLE_CAMERA
SCAN_MODE_ID = '1:1'
SHUTTER_MODE_ID = NAONLY
GAIN_MODE_ID = LOW
EDIT_MODE_ID = '1:1' /*FULL RESOLUTION
FILTER_NAME = CLEAR
FILTER_NUMBER = 0
EXPOSURE_DURATION = 0.9600 <SECONDS>


Ok, same picture with violet filter;
C2058924_Violet.gif


IMAGE DESCRIPTION
SPACECRAFT_NAME = VOYAGER_2
MISSION_PHASE_NAME = JUPITER_ENCOUNTER
TARGET_NAME = AMALTHEA
IMAGE_ID = '1197J2-003'
IMAGE_NUMBER = 20589.24 /*FLIGHT DATA SUBSYSTEM(FDS)
IMAGE_TIME = 1979-07-07T14:25:35Z
EARTH_RECEIVED_TIME = 1979-07-07T15:17:06Z
INSTRUMENT_NAME = NARROW_ANGLE_CAMERA
SCAN_MODE_ID = '1:1'
SHUTTER_MODE_ID = NAONLY
GAIN_MODE_ID = LOW
EDIT_MODE_ID = '1:1' /*FULL RESOLUTION
FILTER_NAME = VIOLET
FILTER_NUMBER = 1
EXPOSURE_DURATION = 1.9200 <SECONDS>


And to avoid some confusion Voyager has images in many frequencies, not just visible. So just because I stated it has some of the only visible light only images, doesn’t necessarily mean they all are.

OK, Thanks; :?
Minimum Wavelength : 0.280000
Maximum Wavelength : 0.640000

More than what's in the specs?
I have a graph that shows the camera sensitivty at various wave lengths at home on my PC and will try to post it when I'm home. It might help in the discussion.

Instrument Filter '3 - VIOLET'


Filter Name : VIOLET
Filter Type : INTERFERENCE
Minimum Wavelength : 0.350000
Maximum Wavelength : 0.450000
Center Filter Wavelength : 0.400000

Cool, narrows it to the visible wave length. How handy. ;)
My Highlights in quotes. 8-)

Aardwolf wrote:
Well I guess it suits your argument to ignore the Voyager images then. Which is a shame considering they are sone of the only images ever taken from space in visible light.
:twisted: Sorry, I wan't to be mature about it, but that's not me. ;)
So you had it right the first time. Thanks again. 8-)
I bet if I keep looking through the images, I will eventualy find your earth shot and then the feathers will fly (hopefully not mine). :)
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 fosborn_ » Thu Jun 16, 2011 4:31 am

GaryN wrote:The Vidicon is a study in itself, Frank, and we don't know just
what a military version is capable of. They are used in spectrometry
too, in conjunction with the appropriate grating for whatever
wavelengths you are looking for. The Space Shuttle tether videos
were from a Vidicon, so what were they seeing when they showed a
fat cylinder which was really a very thin wire? They were seeing
an ionised region around the wire. They also showed all the junk
drifting around the shuttle, showing up as what people thought
were UFOs. The 'First Step' Apollo scene used a Vidicon camera, as
the light was so low they needed extreme sensitivity. Normal room
light is 50 times more intense than the tube could handle, and for
brighter seens they switched to a lens with an f60 rating. I'd avoid
using any Vidicon images to prove or disprove anything, you just
don't know what you are getting.


Wrong. Your not even close to the Voyager camera, The lunar camera (different tube design) is a Westing House SEC with video intensifier. The shuttle camera is a SEC Vidicon.
Voyager is the Slo-Scan Vidicon tube design.
Also the Lunar camera design is to see earth light lunar surface all the way to a noon day sun on earth. So I don't see the over sensitivity issue.
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 Aardwolf » Thu Jun 16, 2011 7:48 am

fosborn_ wrote:Ok, same picture with violet filter;
C2058924_Violet.gif


IMAGE DESCRIPTION
SPACECRAFT_NAME = VOYAGER_2
MISSION_PHASE_NAME = JUPITER_ENCOUNTER
TARGET_NAME = AMALTHEA
IMAGE_ID = '1197J2-003'
IMAGE_NUMBER = 20589.24 /*FLIGHT DATA SUBSYSTEM(FDS)
IMAGE_TIME = 1979-07-07T14:25:35Z
EARTH_RECEIVED_TIME = 1979-07-07T15:17:06Z
INSTRUMENT_NAME = NARROW_ANGLE_CAMERA
SCAN_MODE_ID = '1:1'
SHUTTER_MODE_ID = NAONLY
GAIN_MODE_ID = LOW
EDIT_MODE_ID = '1:1' /*FULL RESOLUTION
FILTER_NAME = VIOLET
FILTER_NUMBER = 1
EXPOSURE_DURATION = 1.9200 <SECONDS>

The Amalthea images don't have stars in the background. Those points of light are either artifacts or possibly some of the dust that orbit in Amalthea's gossamer ring. If you look at the full images (which for some reason you wish to keep their location secret) you will see that some are streaking accross the photo at different lenghts (ie speed). No stars.

Also please explain why you think stars can be resolved in 1.92 secs near Jupiter yet when at 40AU multiple minutes in the same filter cannot pick up any at all?
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1290
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread postby fosborn_ » Thu Jun 16, 2011 8:26 am

The Amalthea images don't have stars in the background. Those points of light are either artifacts or possibly some of the dust that orbit in Amalthea's gossamer ring. If you look at the full images (which for some reason you wish to keep their location secret) you will see that some are streaking accross the photo at different lenghts (ie speed). No stars.

Prove it. You must be desperate. There are many many pictures with stars in them.

Also please explain why you think stars can be resolved in 1.92 secs near Jupiter yet when at 40AU multiple minutes in the same filter cannot pick up any at all?

Get more specific, produce the level and quality of imformation I have. Then we will discuss 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 fosborn_ » Thu Jun 16, 2011 8:33 am

If you look at the full images (which for some reason you wish to keep their location secret) you will see that some are streaking accross the photo at different lenghts (ie speed). No stars.


I gave the reason, but I be more dirrect, if your to lazzy to carry your own water, I'm not your water boy. :)

In this thread, based on the OP, your suppose to have Search engine skills. If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen. ;)

you will see that some are streaking accross the photo at different lenghts


Wrong.
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 Aardwolf » Fri Jun 17, 2011 6:39 am

fosborn_ wrote:
The Amalthea images don't have stars in the background. Those points of light are either artifacts or possibly some of the dust that orbit in Amalthea's gossamer ring. If you look at the full images (which for some reason you wish to keep their location secret) you will see that some are streaking accross the photo at different lenghts (ie speed). No stars.

Prove it. You must be desperate. There are many many pictures with stars in them.
You introdced the image and state they are stars so the onus is on you to prove they are. Of course it doesn't help matters when you refuse to say where they come from. Maybe you created it yourself. Is it normal in scientific discourse to refuse to say where evidence comes from? Seems a bit childish to me.


fosborn_ wrote:
Also please explain why you think stars can be resolved in 1.92 secs near Jupiter yet when at 40AU multiple minutes in the same filter cannot pick up any at all?
Get more specific, produce the level and quality of imformation I have. Then we will discuss it.
What more specifics do you need? You say the image you provided has exposure of 1.92 secs, yet the Pale Blue Dot image has much longer exposure than that and it used the same camera and the same filter. Explain why there are no stars in it then (the fact is neither have stars in them but lets hear your explanation).
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1290
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread postby Aardwolf » Fri Jun 17, 2011 6:45 am

fosborn_ wrote:
If you look at the full images (which for some reason you wish to keep their location secret) you will see that some are streaking accross the photo at different lenghts (ie speed). No stars.


I gave the reason, but I be more dirrect, if your to lazzy to carry your own water, I'm not your water boy. :)

In this thread, based on the OP, your suppose to have Search engine skills. If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen. ;)

you will see that some are streaking accross the photo at different lenghts


Wrong.
If you refuse to back up your image what more is there to say except there's still no proof of any stars in any images of visible light only.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1290
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread postby Aardwolf » Fri Jun 17, 2011 7:34 am

fosborn_ wrote:
you will see that some are streaking accross the photo at different lenghts


Wrong.
STAR1.jpg
STAR1.jpg (2.14 KiB) Viewed 6393 times
STAR2.jpg
STAR2.jpg (1.92 KiB) Viewed 6393 times
STAR3.jpg
STAR3.jpg (1.95 KiB) Viewed 6393 times
STAR4.jpg
STAR4.jpg (1.99 KiB) Viewed 6393 times
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1290
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: The Boring Sun

Unread postby Sparky » Fri Jun 17, 2011 8:31 am

Aardwolf wrote:
you will see that some are streaking accross the photo at different lenghts

STAR1.jpg
STAR2.jpg
STAR3.jpg
STAR4.jpg


I assume the increased horizontal to vertical distance is what you are referring to as streaking? I think it is clear in all images, especially the last one.

For the long exposures, how do they keep everything from streaking?

And what makes the grainy background?... thank you




ummm, images did not show :?:
"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong."
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire
Sparky
 
Posts: 3517
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm

PreviousNext

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests