The Boring Sun

[fosborn_]

Miles says it only loses energy on interaction so we would be seeing ultraviolet light that has lost energy (spin) and shifted into visible light

This won't work with GaryN's EOS (Electric Oort Star) concepts
Miles would object too IMO. GaryN says the stars are thousands of times closer than we estimate. Tired light requires the great distances to work its magic right?

[Aardwolf]

Miles says it only loses energy on interaction so we would be seeing ultraviolet light that has lost energy (spin) and shifted into visible light

This won't work with GaryN's EOS (Electric Oort Star) concepts
Miles would object too IMO. GaryN says the stars are thousands of times closer than we estimate. Tired light requires the great distances to work its magic right?

Miles Mathis' tired light doesn't need great distances. He states in the link;

Because the photon is so much smaller than the electron, this energy shift is much much smaller than Bremsstrahlung. It requires millions or billions of interactions to create any measurable shift.

So yes this could happen over great distances in open space or alternatively over a short distance through a thick atmosphere. How many interations with matter will a photon have through the atmosphere? I would expect it to be at least in the billions.

[fosborn_]

Miles Mathis wrote:
Because the photon is so much smaller than the electron, this energy shift is much much smaller than Bremsstrahlung. It requires millions or billions of interactions to create any measurable shift.So yes this could happen over great distances in open space or alternatively over a short distance through a thick atmosphere. How many interations with matter will a photon have through the atmosphere? I would expect it to be at least in the billions.

Ok, but we are talking about the F layers in the ionosphere. Its vary rarified air and with GaryN's EOS concept, it has to work on the moon also. Will this apply or will we need specialized theory for each environment ?

[Aardwolf]

Miles Mathis wrote:
Because the photon is so much smaller than the electron, this energy shift is much much smaller than Bremsstrahlung. It requires millions or billions of interactions to create any measurable shift.So yes this could happen over great distances in open space or alternatively over a short distance through a thick atmosphere. How many interations with matter will a photon have through the atmosphere? I would expect it to be at least in the billions.

Ok, but we are talking about the F layers in the ionosphere. Its vary rarified air and with GaryN's EOS concept, it has to work on the moon also. Will this apply or will we need specialized theory for each environment ?

I would expect the F Layers to be significantly denser than deep space. I'm not sure why the moon comparison is relevant. Do you have any images taken in the visible light only spectrum from the moon?

[fosborn_]

I would expect the F Layers to be significantly denser than deep space. I'm not sure why the moon comparison is relevant. Do you have any images taken in the visible light only spectrum from the moon?

You said dense atmosphere at first, no qualification, have you changed your mind? Cause that shifts your whole primiss. Does Miles say how dense?

Moon relevence;

Moon relevence;
If you informed of GaryN's EOS concept, he accepts stars are sometimes visible from the moon becuase of its ionosphere, not just because of absence of glare. He also says a well defined Sun, on moon pictures is because of this overall mysterious effect with the moons ionosphere,.
Pictures of stars on the moon? I think only want address your Miles application at this point, but later sure.
Thanks
Frank
reason for edit; had to many copy and paste duplicate statements.

[Aardwolf]

I would expect the F Layers to be significantly denser than deep space. I'm not sure why the moon comparison is relevant. Do you have any images taken in the visible light only spectrum from the moon?

You said dense atmosphere at first, no qualification, have you changed your mind? Cause that shifts your whole primiss. Does Miles say how dense?

Moon relevence;

Moon relevence;
If you informed of GaryN's EOS concept, he accepts stars are sometimes visible from the moon becuase of its ionosphere, not just because of absence of glare. He also says a well defined Sun, on moon pictures is because of this overall mysterious effect with the moons ionosphere,.
Pictures of stars on the moon? I think only want address your Miles application at this point, but later sure.
Thanks
Frank
reason for edit; had to many copy and paste duplicate statements.

No, I said thick atmosphere because I was refering to the whole atmosphere. When you redirected to the F Layers I stated that it was denser than deep space. Do you disagree that the Earth's ionosphere is denser than deep space? How dense I'm not sure but I'm certain there is potential for a photon to interact with billions of particles on its way through a few hundred miles of it.

As for the Moon, without evidence, any discussion about whats visible from it is just speculation. And anyway, I thought the existence of a lunar ionosphere was still a subject of debate.

[fosborn_]

No, I said thick atmosphere because I was refering to the whole atmosphere.

Right.

When you redirected to the F Layers I stated that it was denser than deep space.

But you applied Miles idea to the whole atmosphere, so you still haven't designated what Miles refers to as a thick atmosphere. Do you know?
Its ok, its only information.
As Mr. Tea (BAUT persona) would say (over and over) relax, relax, relax....

Do you disagree that the Earth's ionosphere is denser than deep space?

Untill we know what each other is talking about, its a distraction.
Do you know what Miles was talking about ?

How dense I'm not sure but I'm certain there is potential for a photon to interact with billions of particles on its way through a few hundred miles of it.

Hundreds of mile of it? Sounds like we are getting pretty thick here. What is your attitude starting point?
Ok you take it on faith? Its all a guessing game then. But on the other hand this is NIMI
Sorry to have wasted your time.

[fosborn_]

As for the Moon, without evidence, any discussion about whats visible from it is just speculation. And anyway, I thought the existence of a lunar ionosphere was still a subject of debate.
Aardwolf

As well as mars. Your right on dude.

[fosborn_]

No, I said thick atmosphere because I was refering to the whole atmosphere.

Right.

When you redirected to the F Layers I stated that it was denser than deep space.

But you applied Miles idea to the whole atmosphere, so you still haven't designated what Miles refers to as a thick atmosphere. Do you know?
Its ok, its only information.
As Mr. Tea (BAUT persona) would say (over and over) relax, relax, relax....

Do you disagree that the Earth's ionosphere is denser than deep space?

Untill we know what each other is talking about, its a distraction.
Do you know what Miles was talking about ?

How dense I'm not sure but I'm certain there is potential for a photon to interact with billions of particles on its way through a few hundred miles of it.

Hundreds of mile of it? Sounds like we are getting pretty thick here. What is your attitude starting point?
Ok you take it on faith? Its all a guessing game then. But on the other hand this is NIMI
Sorry to have wasted your time.

Wow, I do not like my post! this really sucks. But I couldn't figure out why I couldn't relax, relax?
I now know what I liked about GaryN's link he gave me. I was pressing him for details at how he was thinking X Rays could convert down to visible light. GaryN gave a link to an Applied Science example. I could actually see the science he was seeking in the real world. Miles Mathis, if I read enough of him, maybe I would be doing cartwheels too, but give me applied science any day. So sorry I was so, what ever that was.

[GaryN]

Well, I'm bored with this subject, and anyone who thinks that space travel
will be fun is in for a shock. It will be boring too. Stuck in a tin can
for months or years with nothing to see, pitch blackness will be your only
companion. Of course, if you have the correct instruments, you will be able
to take very long exposures of little patches of the blackness and see some
little bright points. Woop-de-doo.
2 combined 10 minute exposures from the Dawn framing camera. I think they do
the 2 exposures so they can remove the pixel blowouts from cosmic rays, as there
would be many more spots present.

A star field in the constellation Cepheus is a composite of two 600-second
exposures by the Framing Camera acquired during tests on December 3, 2007.

Bigger:
http://dawn.jpl.nasa.gov/multimedia/ima ... log_lg.jpg
Only under very specific circumstances will stars be visible by eye, or a
regular digital or film camera. The very clever optics of the new space-
based telescopes allow for the capturing and conversion of energies that
are normally invisible.
I think even the background stars visible in Kubricks 2001 film may be an
optimistic portrayal. It is black out there.

[Sparky]

Well, I'm bored with this subject, and anyone who thinks that space travel
will be fun is in for a shock. It will be boring too. Stuck in a tin can
for months or years with nothing to see, pitch blackness will be your only
companion. Of course, if you have the correct instruments, you will be able
to take very long exposures of little patches of the blackness and see some
little bright points. Woop-de-doo.
2 combined 10 minute exposures from the Dawn framing camera. I think they do
the 2 exposures so they can remove the pixel blowouts from cosmic rays, as there
would be many more spots present.

A star field in the constellation Cepheus is a composite of two 600-second
exposures by the Framing Camera acquired during tests on December 3, 2007.

Bigger:
http://dawn.jpl.nasa.gov/multimedia/ima ... log_lg.jpg
Only under very specific circumstances will stars be visible by eye, or a
regular digital or film camera. The very clever optics of the new space-
based telescopes allow for the capturing and conversion of energies that
are normally invisible.
I think even the background stars visible in Kubricks 2001 film may be an
optimistic portrayal. It is black out there.

I quote the post because i agree completely...looking at tiny points of light is boring.....well, i think doing science is boring!

But we need people who get enjoyment from doing boring things so that society progresses, whatever that means....

Space is an extremely hostile environment...hell, earth is a hostile
environment, except for local areas, or efforts of people to conform it to livable.

what the hell is the subject here...boring sun..? ...yes it is!! .people distracting themselves from the hellishness of life focus upon the dynamics of the sun to mediate the overt or subtle torment of life...hell, i need more vodka.!!

[fosborn_]

GaryN wrote;

Only under very specific circumstances will stars be visible by eye, or a
regular digital or film camera. The very clever optics of the new space-
based telescopes allow for the capturing and conversion of energies that
are normally invisible.

I think your to much of a moving target to debate with. You give me link to demostrate your ionisphere science and I inform you, all your graphics and math, are in the wrong dirrection, of constructive interference. You then reverse coarse and call for destructive interference. And call upon Mile Mathus to save your concept.
You tried practical science, it fails, so you shoot for Miles.
There are astronaults who see the stars if they have sense enough to turn down the cabin lights let their eyes adjust and and be in a non-glare external environment. You think every one of thoes flight jockies care about seeing the stars? Funny only the ones that actualy care, know how to find the simple conditions to do so.

If the ionosphere were a factor for creating visible star light, the stars should get dimmer with altitude but they are brighter;

"My God, the stars are everywhere: above me on all sides, even below me somewhat, down there next to that obscure horizon."
-Astronaut Mike Collins from Gemini X, July 1966.

Musgrave: The view of the heavens: the stars are brighter and you see the entire celestial sphere.On an EVA, your helmet is fairly panoramic. But if you don't think about having these experiences they won't happen to you.

http://www.spacestory.com/omni_part_1.htm

Science Officer and Flight Engineer Edward T. Lu wrote this:

After turning off the lights, it takes a few minutes for your eyes to adapt to the dark, and slowly the stars get more and more distinct. These past couple of weeks the moon has been close to a new moon, so without the light from the moon, the stars seem even brighter.

The view is something close to what you might see on a very dark mountaintop on a very clear night. Only better..

The bright red dot of the planet Mars has been a great sight recently, with Earth and Mars being very close now (relatively speaking). Here in low Earth orbit, we aren't significantly closer than you are on the ground to Mars, but without the atmosphere to look through it makes it clearer and brighter. It is bright enough that even when we are on the lit side of the Earth, and with all the lights on inside, it is clearly visible against the black background of space

http://themidnightskyny.tripod.com/

So after your conclusion, I state mine. You have failed to connect the dots IMO.

[Aardwolf]

Just a couple of things.

1) I think all those quotes are from missions within the ionosphere so they dont really prove anything as the point is the ionosphere is one of the layers potentially shifting the light frequency.

2) For the second or third time, I have explained that getting brighter does not mean it has gained energy. Getting brighter for a human just means that you are observing more light in the visible range. Shifting light from UV to visible will increase brightness to your eyes but it is effectively losing energy.

[fosborn_]

Re: The Boring Sun
by Aardwolf » Fri Jun 03, 2011 11:13 am

Just a couple of things.

1) I think all those quotes are from missions within the ionosphere so they dont really prove anything as the point is the ionosphere is one of the layers potentially shifting the light frequency.

Me;

If the ionosphere were a factor for creating visible star light, the stars should get dimmer with altitude but they are brighter

by Aardwolf wrote;

2) For the second or third time, I have explained that getting brighter does not mean it has gained energy. Getting brighter for a human just means that you are observing more light in the visible range. Shifting light from UV to visible will increase brightness to your eyes but it is effectively losing energy.

If there is an energy loss (conservation of energy and all), in the conversion, would this would be in the IR?
what I am saying is, you should be able to create a test condition, for actually measuring this effect, to test its reality.

When I use the word amplify, I didn't intend to say a gain of energy in the system. More along the lines, of one signal modulating ( sum, difference and the two originals) the energy or maybe more precisely the fields, already present in the system. Sorry to add to the confusion.

[fosborn_]

Just a couple of things.

1) I think all those quotes are from missions within the ionosphere so they dont really prove anything as the point is the ionosphere is one of the layers potentially shifting the light frequency.

I'm doing a little follow up on the night time F Layer and have this information to add to the discussion;

The F1-Layer is sometimes present in daylight at a height of 220-230 Km. It is not a stable reflector. At night it increases in height and merges with the F2 Layer to form the night-time F-Layer at heights between 280 and 320 kM.
http://www.smeter.net/propagation/skytrig.php

"In January, the altitude was 340 kilometers. By March it has lost 8
kilometers before the Progress-59 supply ship raised its altitude by 5 kilometers. In
May, the ISS lost 4 1/2 kilometers and was re-boosted by the Progess-60 supply
ship by 5 1/2 kilometers. Again the ISS continued to lose altitude by 5 1/2
kilometers by July when the Progress-61 supply ship raised its orbit by 9 1/2
kilometers. http://spacemath.gsfc.nasa.gov/weekly/6Page30.pdf

So it looks like the F layer is not a factor in observing star light.