Re: Stars Are Thousands Of Times Closer Than They Appear
* That's a neat image of galaxies, Nitai. Whether you believe EU or Bahram, those galaxies, if they are redshifted, are indeed at least ten times closer than conventionally estimated. * Gary, I think the reason cameras don't usually get good images of stars is that the shutter speeds are too fast. I know I've seen images of stars from the north pole, wherein the stars look like streaks because of long exposure times. The stars nearest the pole made the shortest streaks and those farthest away made the longest streaks. * If you go out at night with your eyes closed and then open them very briefly and immediately close them again, you may not see the stars either. * Richard Hoagland discussed this subject with Jim Collier on Art Bell's radio show over ten years ago. Collier thought the moon landings were a hoax. And he thought the Apollo images didn't show stars because it was all fake. * I don't know what the albedo of stars should be if they're planets, instead of stars, although, as I said before, I think the stars could be very small stars, like Uranus. Small stars can be bright or dim, depending on how much electric current they receive.
Aristarchus
Re: Stars Are Thousands Of Times Closer Than They Appear
In addition, I believe that the maker of the Hasselblad camera referring to the model used during the Apollo missions to the moon had an exposure time to take pictures of the stars on the moon.
GaryN
Re: Stars Are Thousands Of Times Closer Than They Appear
Gary, I think the reason cameras don't usually get good images of stars is that the shutter speeds are too fast. I know I've seen images of stars from the north pole, wherein the stars look like streaks because of long exposure times.
You can get images of the stars from the surface of the earth, and sure, the film speed, exposure time, aperture, all that stuff will affect the results. I am talking about seeing stars from outside of our atmosphere, or from a moon or planet with no atmosphere. The high altitude balloon daytime observations are very interesting.
The daylight visibility of stars has been investigated for an observer altitude of 100 000 ft, using published visual threshold data and calculated sky luminance. Venus, Jupiter, and Sirius, plus Mars at its brighter phases, can be detected with the naked eye if the observer knows where to look for them in the sky. Saturn and Canopus may be seen only under rare circumstances. A random search of the sky will reveal neither planets nor stars except possibly Venus. If a 10-power telescope of large exit pupil is used, there is a possibility of detecting an occasional star by careful search of the sky. The daytime sky will not exhibit nighttime luminance until an altitude of roughly 100 km has been reached, assuming no contribution from airglow.
Oh, but it's too bright up there, you say, how could you see the stars?
Ken Tapping an astronomer at the NRC Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics notes: "If we were on the Moon's surface, where there is no atmosphere, we could simply shade out the Sun and the reflected glare from the ground and see the stars perfectly well. On the Earth, our atmosphere tends to scatter the sunlight, which is what makes the sky look blue. This blue is sufficiently bright that it is very difficult to see the stars through it, although on really clear days, in dark places such as the bottom of a well, where reflected light from things on the ground isn't reaching your eyes, it is sometimes possible to see a star or two."
From above most of the atmosphere, the same should apply to the balloon observations. Don't tell me the observers did not know to use a lens hood, and don't tell me NASA doesn't know that. The reason we can not see stars from space is that all the action is taking place in the UV, far UV, x-ray wavelengths, and travels as a quasi-planewave. Our eyes can not see it, and neither can your regular film, regardless of settings. The reason this is of utmost importance is that it demonstrates that the objects producing the quasi-planewave are highly charged regions above the surface, producing their own emissions and not reflecting light from our Sun, or other Suns. The Earths far UV producing, Sun facing charge layer. NOT reflected light.
GaryN
Re: Stars Are Thousands Of Times Closer Than They Appear
@Aristarchus Sidenote:
Could we set aside the notion that NASA cannot take images of stars in space
That video is from a highly UV sensitive video camera, not a still camera. All those white dots are floating dust/junk reflecting UV. There are dots between the camera and the crescent of the Earth, how can those be stars? And some of the white blobs are slowly moving, while others move quite quickly! Lots of things there I don't think NASA wanted us to see.
Aristarchus
Re: Stars Are Thousands Of Times Closer Than They Appear
Gary,
I'm running low on my post level for one day at TB forum, but I will try to acquire more information in the coming days. However, it's my understanding that Yuri Gagarin claimed to have seen stars on his flight into outer space from the daylight side of the Earth, as long as one is looking in the opposite direction of the Sun.
Lloyd
Re: Stars Are Thousands Of Times Closer Than They Appear
Re: Stars Are Thousands Of Times Closer Than They Appear
Orthogonal wrote:
kalensar wrote: I once read an article from earthmatrix.com about how Mercury should be used as the standard measurement of AU since it is the first planet in our lineup. The guy who runs earthmatrix.com is a mathematician and apparently openminded on top of it. So I gave him a read and was surprised by his findings in the essay. His findings on the numbers, and I've done this too, was that using Mercury distance as AU revealed a Holographic sequence. Fractals. The line up also put the center of the planetary system at the Asteroid Belt instead of out past Saturn.
If you can find that article I would like to read it. The way you've explained it doesn't make any sense. A fractal pattern would exist, regardless of the unit of measure. The unit of measure is extrinsic and has no relation to the object being measured.
I checked on it yesterday just before I posted my response for the article. It is not there in it's entirety so I had to pull the information from my memory, and from my own numbers on that particular line of thought.
It is easy enough to put it down on a notepad to see the fractal sequential pattern that originated between the planet distances when put into Mercury AU. Just give it a try.
Lloyd
Re: Stars Are Thousands Of Times Closer Than They Appear
* Here are more paraphrased passages from Bahram's book. - In 2006 a few distant objects thought to be stars were moved to the list of planets after noticing changes in their positions via relative parallax. - In relative parallax star photo comparisons, the fact that over 25% of the parallaxes of the fixed stars are negative indicates that those over 25% are actually closer than the stars with changed positions, which latter are usually considered planets. - When astronomers take measurements that are negative or greater than an arc-second they throw out that data on the assumption that they are errors. - A way to determine not only the relative distances of stars, but also determine if objects are stars or planets, is to use simultaneously two telescopes separated by great distances to view the same object. - This would also measure parallaxes accurately. - The photographs of many globular clusters reveal that some objects therein do not appear as small points of light, but rather as significant discs, even through small telescopes. - This indicates they are just light hours away and some could be even closer than Pluto (but at a high celestial latitude). - In figure 8 the shadows of cluster objects can be seen on the objects that are located farther back behind them (and shadows can't be seen on stars). - Evidence that "cluster-type Cepheids" may be planets is that the light of some of them is variable (like a planet going through phases like the moon). - Because objects in a star cluster are very faint and do not shine like stars, so by conventional astronomers they are called very old, burnt out stars. - But they are more likely young planets, not worn out or burnt out stars. * Here's info on van Maanen & the Andromeda galaxy: http://www.weblore.com/richard/adrian_van_mannen.htm, which may or may not support Bahram's view.
ItJustMakesSense
Re: Stars Are Thousands Of Times Closer Than They Appear
So would everybody agree that our sun and other celestial objects that could be called suns in the universe/galaxy are rare? If this is the case why would the sun be able to conduct so much energy as opposed to planets? Would the sun be made of a rare material that conducts the universal energy highly efficiently. Maybe gold.(side note)- Its no wonder that the metals that conduct electricity the best are the most valuable. Its easy to see why from a EU perspective
GaryN
Re: Stars Are Thousands Of Times Closer Than They Appear
Thanks for those links, Lloyd, nice to know I'm not totally alone with my views. Diffusion of a very tiny light beam is what Miles Mathis said his gut feeling was, but I have changed my opinion on that, I'm leaning towards a dielectric boundary layer mechanism, but still looking into that. I did get one reply to my recent E-Mails to assorted individuals: E-Mail reply from commercial pilot. (Question: Are there more and brighter stars visible from high altitude?)
Hi Gary, Good question!!! You can see many, many more stars up there above most of the atmosphere, but the Plexiglas kills the extra brightness, even with the cockpit lights turned off. I used to carry German binoculars, excellent optics, but the Plexiglas kills them, too. So, the brightness is about what it is on a moonless night in the countryside. Regards, Capt. Dave
Plexiglass transmits 95% in the visible, but blocks UV depending on the 'mix' and the wavelength, with almost full blockage between 250-350 nm. for all mixes. If it is a sandwich, plexi and glass, then I don't know what the transmittance characteristics would be. I'm suspecting that the higher you go, the smaller and fainter the stars become, just trying to track down if there are any sudden drop-offs, or if it is progressive.
Aristarchus
Re: Stars Are Thousands Of Times Closer Than They Appear
GaryN wrote: That video is from a highly UV sensitive video camera, not a still camera.
Gary, picking up from yesterday, and it really isn't my intention to distract from the main focus of this thread, but reading the comments on this topic regarding how much the stars are visible as one travels into space, leaves me scratching my head. I mean, it's all a bit confusing, isn't it?
"The sky is black, you know," "It's a very dark sky." ~ Neil Armstrong
"My God, the stars are everywhere: above me on all sides, even below me somewhat, down there next to that obscure horizon. The stars are bright and they are steady." ~ Mike Collins - Gemini 10
"I can't see the earth, only the black starless sky behind the Agena,... As I slowly cartwheel away from the Agena, I see nothing but the black sky for several seconds..." ~ Apollo 11
"When the sunlight comes through the blackness of space, it's black. I didn't say it's dark, I said black. So black you can't even conceive how black it is in your mind. The sunlight doesn't strike on anything, so all you see is black." ~ Gene Cernan Apollo 17
"Astonishingly bright cold stars could be seen through the windows." ~ Yuri Gagarin, Russian cosmonaut
"We were never able to see stars from the lunar surface or on the daylight side of the moon by eye without looking through the optics" ~ Neil Armstrong. Apollo 11
"Seeing the bright blue sky turning pitch-black and seeing stars appear while it is daytime is absolutely mind-blowing" ~ Michael Melvill, SpaceShipOne pilot
"If you were standing on the Moon, you would indeed see stars, even during the day." – Phil Plait, Bad Astronomy
GaryN
Re: Stars Are Thousands Of Times Closer Than They Appear
"If you were standing on the Moon, you would indeed see stars, even during the day." – Phil Plait, Bad Astronomy
He really lives up to his name, I think. So who do we believe with those statements? Eric Dollard also said you could not see stars in space, and that a grating was added to the observation port windows, which allowed them to see the stars, but I suspect there would be no colors visible, as the grating would just be making one specific wavelength visible. I'm disappointed, but not surprised, that no one at NASA has answered my E-Mails, but that seems to be their solution to an awkward question, ignore it, hope it goes away.
nick c
Re: Stars Are Thousands Of Times Closer Than They Appear
5.Can You See Stars in Space? Is it true that in space a person is not able to see stars all around them like we do here on Earth? No, I hear that in space the stars look wonderful, bright (although not twinkling) and very clear. What has probably caused some of this confusion is that in the typical photo or video image from space, there aren't any stars. This is because the stars are much dimmer than the astronaut, Moon, space station, or whatever the image is been taken of. It is extremely hard to get the exposure correct to show the stars. Luckily, the human eye handles the different light levels much better than a camera does.
So I gave him a read and was surprised by his findings in the essay. His findings on the numbers, and I've done this too, was that using Mercury distance as AU revealed a Holographic sequence. Fractals. The line up also put the center of the planetary system at the Asteroid Belt instead of out past Saturn.
