Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 230

Thread: Conjunctions

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    17,305
    Quote Originally Posted by Solon View Post
    I'm sure you know as well as I do Van Rijn, but this is basically what I go by:
    http://roma2.rm.ingv.it/en/research_areas/4/ionosphere
    No, I don't know. "No images through the Earths atmosphere." One definition of that would be the Karman line at 100 km, where you reach a pretty good vacuum. Or you might be counting the thermosphere, or the exosphere. You might be including the entire solar system, since there will be a few molecules from Earth out there. Frankly, it looked to me like you were just shifting the goalposts when ISS images with stars were presented. If your definition counts atmosphere as being above the ISS, and therefore you'll ignore any images from it, what is the point of starting this thread?

    I'll ask again: What do you count as Earth's atmosphere? To what altitude do you believe Earth's atmosphere extends?

    I'm just looking for one image. In 40+ years of manned space flight, is that too much to ask?
    You've been given images and rejected them.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,321
    Solon,

    Do you have a physics model that justifies your assumption that stars are not visible beyond the ionosphere? If so, do you have an explanation for why this model has not been adopted by any physicist anywhere? Do you have an explanation for why this model's predictions are contradicted by eyewitness testimony?

    Also, exactly how much of the Apollo Project do you think was hoaxed? Obviously, you must think the part where Apollo used star sightings for navigation beyond the ionosphere, and the part where Apollo astronauts claim to have seen stars beyond the ionosphere, were hoaxed. Does your Apollo hoax conspiracy theory end there, or does it extend to other aspects of Apollo as well?

    Also, if stars really did have the property you claim, why wouldn't NASA (and everybody else) simply describe stars as they really are? There's nothing inherently spooky about starlight that is excited or energized or whatever by some atmospheric process, if that were actually the case. It'd be the kind of thing that ends up on the backside of cereal boxes: "Fun fact -- stars are only visible within Earth's atmosphere. In space, they can't be seen at all!"

    We know NASA has no problem admitting things are different on the other side of the ionosphere: They claim to have sent a UV camera to the moon precisely because UV starlight isn't visible through the atmosphere, but is visible beyond it.

    I mean, not only is your theory at odds with all of science ever, and not only does it not have any supporting evidence, but it doesn't even have a reason to be concealed. Most conspiracy theories at least have a bad reason to exist. Yours doesn't even have that, so far. You're saying that everything we predict and observe about electrons and photons is obviously wrong, and that NASA goes along with it--why?

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,222
    Quote Originally Posted by Solon View Post
    Unless I get a chance to go into space myself and check it out, the lack of any astronomy or astro-
    photography from any orbital missions, around Earth or the Moon, (at visible wavelengths, with a regular
    camera) has to make me wonder why.
    Why what? You haven't demonstrated this supposed lack of astrophotos. Until/unless you do so, there is nothing to discuss.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    2,296
    Quote Originally Posted by Solon View Post
    ...The stars are only visible within the ionosphere. The Milky way
    is visible within a certain distance of the Earth, but they never pan up to show just how far they can
    be seen. Now we are in CT land, I will say I think all NASA images are carefully orchestrated...
    No, that is nonsense. Of course stars can be seen outside the ionosphere. What do you think all those deep-space vehicles are looking at with their star trackers?

    Quote Originally Posted by Solon View Post
    I'm just looking for one image. In 40+ years of manned space flight, is that too much to ask?
    You couldn't have looked very hard. The Apollo astronauts talked about seeing stars in their optics and out the window while in lunar shadow. Or in this article there's a nice stellar image from Pluto-New Horizons taken in interplanetary space. Your claim is easily refuted by multiple lines of evidence.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    8,769
    Quote Originally Posted by Solon View Post
    Only by the FUVC device.
    Why would that matter? Is it only visible light that suddenly becomes effective in air?

    Why was the surface of the moon illuminated by sunlight? Is sunlight somehow different from starlight?

    Is it only starlight that becomes magically visible in air? What about all the photos of the moons of Saturn, etc? Why aren't they dark?

    What about the fact that the astronauts reported seeing stars (and used a navigation system based on the position of stars)?

    Is there a conspiracy to hide the fact that starlight only becomes visible in air? Why? Wouldn't such a thing be a remarkable and useful piece of scientific information?

    If it is air that makes starlight visible then wouldn't you expect them to look significantly different at the altitude of the ISS, etc? Wouldn't someone have mentioned this?

    Do you begin to see how ... erm ... "implausible" such an idea is?

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    17,305
    Quote Originally Posted by Solon View Post
    I try to keep withing guidelines, but when I suspect there is something amiss, I need to ask questions.
    Unless I get a chance to go into space myself and check it out, the lack of any astronomy or astro-
    photography from any orbital missions, around Earth or the Moon, (at visible wavelengths, with a regular
    camera) has to make me wonder why.
    [...]
    To be more specific then, I'd like to see
    images of some stars, or planets, or even THE SUN, with a digital camera (of course, you will need a filter
    to look at the Sun) in a direction more or less perpendicular to the Earth surface.
    Okay. To be specific, here is a page about deep sky images taken from the ISS:

    http://messier.seds.org/more/m-pettit.html

    Note what the fellow in the picture is holding up to a port. Quoting the page:

    The following images were taken by astronaut Donald R. Pettit during his spaceflight onboard the International Space Station (ISS) from Earth orbit:
    Coma star cluster:

    http://messier.seds.org/Pics/Jpg/mel...s006e40537.jpg

    Coalsack:

    http://messier.seds.org/Pics/Jpg/coa...s006e28016.jpg

    and

    http://messier.seds.org/Pics/Jpg/coa...s006e28028.jpg

    Here's the LMC, and LOTS of stars:

    http://messier.seds.org/Pics/Jpg/lmc-iss006e28030.jpg

    Two big dipper images:

    http://messier.seds.org/Pics/Jpg/uma-iss006e40544.jpg

    http://messier.seds.org/Pics/Jpg/uma-iss006e40545.jpg


    So there you go, lots and lots of stars, from the ISS, not even the edge of the Earth in the picture. So, will you agree that your notion is incorrect, or are you going to invent another reason to reject these pictures?

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  7. #37
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    3,359
    Erm..... HST anyone? Does that take photographs from a height that makes Solon happy?

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    13,083
    Yup Hubble.
    Rules For Posting To This Board
    All Moderation in Purple

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    8,769
    I have seen others argue that cameras can take photos of the stars, but you can't actually "see" them.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    7,580
    Quote Originally Posted by Solon View Post
    With the altitude of the ISS, they are than losing 300-400 km of the electron column that we view through from
    Earth. That's a lot less length for Compton shifting, which I think may be responsible for the visibility of
    stars, to occur. By looking sideways through the ionosphere, you are increasing the electron column depth.

    Solon
    I think it is about time that you start to give some evidence or physical theories as to why you "Compton shifting" is the cause that we can see stars only from the Earth through the ionosphere. Based on current electrodynamics this comment is preposterous. So, in your next post give a full explanation on how this works. If not, you may expect an infraction, as you have already been informed about the how and what of this part of the board by Captain Swoop in another thread.
    All comments made in red are moderator comments. Please, read the rules of the forum here and read the additional rules for ATM, and for conspiracy theories. If you think a post is inappropriate, don't comment on it in thread but report it using the /!\ button in the lower left corner of each message. But most of all, have fun!

    Catch me on twitter: @tusenfem
    Catch Rosetta Plasma Consortium on twitter: @Rosetta_RPC

  11. #41
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    10,688
    Quote Originally Posted by Solon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by slang View Post
    Which always remains in the ionosphere, so obviously they can't qualify. I'm pretty sure there won't be any quantitative arguments as to why the ionosphere matters. Shrug.
    With the altitude of the ISS, they are than losing 300-400 km of the electron column that we view through from
    Earth. That's a lot less length for Compton shifting, which I think may be responsible for the visibility of
    stars, to occur. By looking sideways through the ionosphere, you are increasing the electron column depth.
    Like I said, nothing quantitative.

    So where's the ionosphere in the images that the thread I linked to in post #6 is about?
    ____________
    "Dumb all over, a little ugly on the side." -- Frank Zappa
    "Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
    "This is really very simple, but unfortunately it's very complicated." -- publius

    Moderator comments in this color | Get moderator attention using the lower left icon:
    Recommended reading: Board Rules * Forum FAQs * Conspiracy Theory Advice * Alternate Theory Advocates Advice

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    6,011
    From the 'Earth Sky' news page today.. Conopus as seen from the ISS..

    http://external.ak.fbcdn.net/safe_im...%2Fcanopus.jpg

    Canopus seen from ISS
    From southerly latitudes, you’ll easily find Canopus on February evenings. Look southward below brilliant Sirius.
    Canopus is our second-brightest star.

    Might I suggest you go to that site and look at the image provided.. If you do that.. No argument can be maintained.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    2,296
    The Voyager spacecraft use Canopus trackers for attitude determination. They see stars, and as they are pretty much in interstellar space, one can safely say they are out of the ionosphere.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    12,536
    The "Astro Observatory" was a group of telescopes that flew
    twice on the space shuttle: Astro-1 flew on STS-35, Columbia,
    December 2-11, 1990, and Astro-2 flew on STS-67, Endeavour,
    March 2-18, 1995.

    http://science.nasa.gov/missions/astro/

    The photo of Astro, with the constellation Orion in the
    background, was taken through a window looking out into
    space shuttle Columbia's payload bay December 10, 1990,
    with a 35mm film camera. The photo was taken at night--
    when the shuttle was in Earth's shadow. The telescope
    and payload bay are illuminated by moonlight.

    The orbiter flew with the payload bay facing away from
    Earth while the Astro payload was in use.

    The Hopkins Ultraviolet Telescope was on both Astro flights:

    http://praxis.pha.jhu.edu/

    On that page is a link to the gallery:

    http://praxis.pha.jhu.edu/pictures/photopg2.html

    Which contains a link to a larger image of the Orion photo,
    titled "Astro-1 Telescopes in Payload Bay at Night":

    http://praxis.pha.jhu.edu/pictures/astro1.hut_night.jpg

    STS-35 Astro-1 telescopes, in their on-orbit operating
    configuration, are documented in the payload bay of Columbia.
    To the right of the Astro-1 payload is the constellation Orion.
    The three ultraviolet telescopes are mounted and precisely
    aligned on a common structure, called the cruciform, that is
    attached to the instrument pointing system (IPS). Visible here
    are the star tracker (silver cone at the far left), the Hopkins
    Ultraviolet Telescope (HUT), and the Wisconsin Ultraviolet
    Photo-Polarimeter Experiment (WUPPE) (to the right of HUT).
    Since the photo was taken during orbital night, the payload
    is being illuminated only by scattered light from the nearly
    full moon. (Astro-1)
    NASA Photo ID: STS035-28-022
    Unfortunately 640 x 480 seems to be the largest size
    available for that image. My guess is that is because it
    was taken on very fast film, in order to record the stars
    and moonlit telescope, so it is very grainy, and a larger
    copy would just show larger grain, not more detail.

    -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
    http://www.FreeMars.org/jeff/

    "I find astronomy very interesting, but I wouldn't if I thought we
    were just going to sit here and look." -- "Van Rijn"

    "The other planets? Well, they just happen to be there, but the
    point of rockets is to explore them!" -- Kai Yeves

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    144
    I came to BAUT to ask questions, to pick the minds of what appeared to be a group of well
    educated, knowledgeable people who could maybe help explain some of the inconsistencies
    I think I see in images and data available online. Numerous folk cast aspersions on
    the attitudes and assertions of both members and moderators of BAUT, and cautioned me not to
    bother, but everyone gets a fair chance in my books, and up until recently I had no concerns or
    complaints. Running a tight ship for sure, but that's understandable.
    I'll admit some of my ideas are ATM, but if incorrect they should be easy to disprove, and I am
    willing and eager to learn the reasons for my possible misapprehensions. I am branded a conspiracy
    theorist though, and rather than learning, I have to spend my time parrying the thrusts of members
    like stutefish, who somehow reaches the conclusion I am an Apollo hoax proponent. For the record,
    I do believe there were manned missions to the Moon, and I believe the images from the FUVC device
    were taken from the surface of the Moon, and that many experiments were performed on the Moon.
    I don't have a spare lifetime to reply to all the questions, it's many against one now, and I prefer
    the one asking many model. If the BAUT members are not willing to try and provide answers to my
    investigation, perhaps in fear that something I learn might support one or more of my alternative
    interpretations of the available evidence, then we'll finish this here and now, that's fine with me.
    I will gladly look at any images put forward here, and to the best of my ability, and time permitting,
    conduct photo/image forensics on them to determine if they meet my criteria, and provide reasons why
    if they do not. And if I still may, I'll post questions in the appropriate areas, avoiding all personal
    beliefs and opinions, in the hope I can learn, and understand where my reasoning may be in error.
    And I do want to thank the members who so far have been helpful and civilised in their responses.
    Gary. Err, Solon.
    Added:
    Just saw your post as I was going to post, Jeff.
    I am familiar with the ASTRO mission, looked at quite a few of the UV images. As to the star visibility,
    I have found information that demonstrates that the view is again through the ionosphere. Believe me or
    not, but I am not here to waste your time. I'll look through the site again for sure and try to reconfirm,
    but I think it fairly obvious that the altitude and orientation of the shuttle means they must be looking
    through a good deal of atmosphere. If I could see what the big scope was seeing, pointing outwards, in the
    visible, I'd have no argument. If the camera data were available though, it might help in determining
    some of the mechanics of the process I am investigating, but another step I need to go through is the
    understanding of if bound or unbound electrons would be more effective in the Compton process, or even if it
    makes a difference. That then might help determine if the effect is greater or less at different
    altitudes. I really appreciate you taking some time to research this though.
    And if anyone else was willing to put in a little effort, I really would like to try and find out if the
    BIPH or Yukon Ranger 900nm 'scopes would function at orbital heights, as that could be an important part of the
    investigation. I don't get any answers to my queries from them, or NASA, and silence always gets my
    Columbo senses humming.
    Added again. Just did a quick search before I posted, here is the ASTRO image I was thinking of. They are lit up,
    but I think those are still some stars visible.
    http://archive.stsci.edu/uit/project/Astro1/uit_orb.gif

  16. #46
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Birmingham AL
    Posts
    1,182
    Solon: It is not up to the posters and moderators here to address any gratuitous assertion that you post, it is up to you to give us the science backing your assertions, then we have something to discuss. If you assert something, then give some real physics to back the claim...

    Dale

  17. #47
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    17,305
    Quote Originally Posted by Solon View Post
    I'll admit some of my ideas are ATM, but if incorrect they should be easy to disprove, and I am
    willing and eager to learn the reasons for my possible misapprehensions.
    What? Your ideas are incorrect. They have been disproved. For instance, here:

    http://www.bautforum.com/showthread....40#post1990140

    There is no scientific support for your notion and observation from manned and unmanned spacecraft are inconsistent with it. Nor have you shown any reason why every space faring government and company would support such a grand conspiracy to lie about the visibility of stars in space.

    I am branded a conspiracy theorist though
    You're arguing for a conspiracy!

    I will gladly look at any images put forward here, and to the best of my ability, and time permitting,
    conduct photo/image forensics on them to determine if they meet my criteria, and provide reasons why
    if they do not.
    My prediction: You will invent reasons to ignore every image from every spacecraft, manned and unmanned, as well as any statement by any astronaut that has spoken of seeing stars in space.

    And if I still may, I'll post questions in the appropriate areas, avoiding all personal
    beliefs and opinions, in the hope I can learn, and understand where my reasoning may be in error.
    If you ask more questions, please be honest about them. For instance, don't ask for ISS images if you're just going to shift the goalposts to dismiss any images from the ISS.

    I have found information that demonstrates that the view is again through the ionosphere. Believe me or
    not, but I am not here to waste your time. I'll look through the site again for sure and try to reconfirm,
    but I think it fairly obvious that the altitude and orientation of the shuttle means they must be looking
    through a good deal of atmosphere. If I could see what the big scope was seeing, pointing outwards, in the
    visible, I'd have no argument.
    I don't see Earth in that picture. But, anyway, if you were honest about that, you'd just look at the Hubble images and admit you have no argument. It has produced many visible light images and for its high resolution it is important that it not be looking through a good deal of atmosphere.

    However, since Hubble is so obvious, I expect you're ignoring that as well.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  18. #48
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,382
    And you keep ignoring ... star trackers. They have been mentioned several times. They image stars regularly at all sorts of crazy distances from the Earth.

    Direct questions:
    Why do you discount star trackers as evidence of being able to detect/see stars outside the ionosphere?
    Why would you accept a photograph if you do have a reason that star trackers do work?

    Your ideas are easy to disprove - it is just that you are refusing to accept any of the proofs. That is why you are being asked to spell out what you think. Then point by point rebuttals can be presented. Instead you ask for something, when given it you declare it is not quite right, or that it is suspicious. So you ask for something else, bit harder to get. When that shows up - hey, there is a problem with that. If you presented your ideas then people could suggest why and how they could be challenged in ways you may not have thought of. I could prove walls are hard by running head first into it. But if I asked someone might suggest I try throwing a ball at it first.

  19. #49
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    67
    Don't all the photographs from our deep space probes count? Voyagers? Cassini?

  20. #50
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    144
    What? Your ideas are incorrect. They have been disproved. For instance, here:
    Ah, yes, those images from Saturday Morning Science. I have the images somewhere that show
    a zoomed out view, and the Earths crescent is just out of view. Give me time. Please watch
    the video, astromark.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIDdbG7TD-Y

    And telling me about Hubble and star trackers or whatever other complex instruments you can
    find is not what this is about. We were talking about the equipment available on the ISS or
    a shuttle. You guys are widening the goalposts.

    I'll try to post a quick question here, as seeing at is involved with a conspiracy, it's not allowed
    upstairs. With the linked image, taken on the last shuttle mission, could someone estimate,
    from the known altitude of the shuttle at the time, the distance to the horizon, and the
    radius of the Earth based on the visible crescent, how many kilometers the highest star would
    appear to be above the surface? I was just wondered if my estimation was close to anyone elses.
    http://images.nationalgeographic.com...39_600x450.jpg
    (I just saw this, thought it would be a good tag line, but it seems there is no option?)
    I would rather discover a single fact, even a small one, than debate the great issues
    at length without discovering anything at all.-Galileo Galilei

  21. #51
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    67
    Quote Originally Posted by Solon View Post
    With the linked image, taken on the last shuttle mission,
    It was the second to last.


    could someone estimate,
    from the known altitude of the shuttle at the time, the distance to the horizon, and the
    radius of the Earth based on the visible crescent, how many kilometers the highest star would
    appear to be above the surface?
    At least 40 trillion km.

    Dude. Seriously.

  22. #52
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    10,688
    Quote Originally Posted by Solon View Post
    I would rather discover a single fact, even a small one, than debate the great issues
    at length without discovering anything at all.-Galileo Galilei
    Yeah yeah yeah.... "People laughed at Galileo, people laughed at Einstein, but people also laugh at Bozo the Clown". (paraphrased Carl Sagan)
    ____________
    "Dumb all over, a little ugly on the side." -- Frank Zappa
    "Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
    "This is really very simple, but unfortunately it's very complicated." -- publius

    Moderator comments in this color | Get moderator attention using the lower left icon:
    Recommended reading: Board Rules * Forum FAQs * Conspiracy Theory Advice * Alternate Theory Advocates Advice

  23. #53
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    1,612
    And telling me about Hubble and star trackers or whatever other complex instruments you can
    find is not what this is about. We were talking about the equipment available on the ISS or
    a shuttle. You guys are widening the goalposts.
    This is your own statement from an earlier post:

    The stars are only visible within the ionosphere
    Citing the numerous instruments that capture images of the stars in the visible spectrum from well outside the ionosphere is a direct and relevant refutation of that statement. Why restrict it to cameras used on the ISS and shuttle? What is so special about them compared to other imaging devices?

  24. #54
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    17,305
    And as I fully expected, you'll ignore all images.

    Quote Originally Posted by Solon View Post
    And telling me about Hubble and star trackers or whatever other complex instruments you can
    find is not what this is about. We were talking about the equipment available on the ISS or
    a shuttle. You guys are widening the goalposts.
    This makes no sense. You ask for evidence of visible light from stars in space, but you ignore obvious evidence of this. You haven't given any logical reason to reject Hubble or star trackers. You've been given images from the ISS and Shuttle, but you have added additional and vague requirements after they were provided.

    Here is a direct question, please answer before you answer my other questions:

    What EXACTLY would you accept as evidence, where you would admit, here, that your notion is wrong?

    By "exactly," I would expect that if you are provided evidence that conforms to your specification you would immediately admit that you're wrong. If you would add any conditions after such is provided, you would admit that you were not being honest with your request.
    Last edited by Van Rijn; 2012-Feb-17 at 07:58 PM.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  25. #55
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    8,769
    Quote Originally Posted by Solon View Post
    I am branded a conspiracy
    theorist though, and rather than learning, I have to spend my time parrying the thrusts of members
    like stutefish, who somehow reaches the conclusion I am an Apollo hoax proponent. For the record,
    I do believe there were manned missions to the Moon, and I believe the images from the FUVC device
    were taken from the surface of the Moon, and that many experiments were performed on the Moon.
    And the astronauts saw stars. If you claim they are lying, what else should we think.

    Quote Originally Posted by Solon View Post
    We were talking about the equipment available on the ISS or
    a shuttle. You guys are widening the goalposts.
    No, you were talking about stars only being visible because of some magical effect of the atmosphere. You can't shift the goalposts to exclude evidence from well outside the atmosphere just because it proves you wrong.

    Anyway, people on the ISS have reported that they saw stars.

    You appear to be saying that they lied. And then you wonder why this thread has been moved to CT...

  26. #56
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    2,296
    Quote Originally Posted by Solon View Post
    I came to BAUT to ask questions, to pick the minds of what appeared to be a group of well
    educated, knowledgeable people who could maybe help explain some of the inconsistencies
    I think I see in images and data available online.
    And from my experience, I immediately knew of a large amount of evidence contradicting your claim that stars cannot be seen outside the ionosphere - some of which I cited for you. You're welcome.

    I'll admit some of my ideas are ATM, but if incorrect they should be easy to disprove,

    They were. That's OK; lots of interesting ideas turn out to be wrong. Yours was interesting.

    ...For the record, I do believe there were manned missions to the Moon,

    Excellent. Then you can hear your claim that stars cannot be seen outside of the ionosphere refuted by Apollo 11 commander Neil Armstrong:
    071:59:20 Armstrong: Houston, it's been a real change for us. Now we're able to see stars again and recognize constellations for the first time on the trip. It's - the sky is full of stars. Just like the night side of Earth. But all the way here, we've only been able to see stars occasionally and perhaps through the monocular, but not recognize any star patterns.

    071:59:52 McCandless (CAPCOM): I guess it's turned into night up there really, hasn't it?

    071:59:58 Armstrong: Really has.
    They could see stars during translunar cruise - outside the ionosphere - but not many because they ship was constantly brightly lit by sunlight from the nearest star. At the time of this exchange, they had passed into the shadow of the Moon and could see plenty of stars - outside the ionosphere.

    I don't have a spare lifetime to reply to all the questions, it's many against one now, and I prefer
    the one asking many model.


    You asked, we answered; why are you complaining? In any case, the refutation of your claim is very plain from a cursory reading of this short thread.

    If the BAUT members are not willing to try and provide answers to my
    investigation, perhaps in fear that something I learn might support one or more of my alternative
    interpretations of the available evidence, then we'll finish this here and now, that's fine with me.


    No melodramatics, please. I and several others provided answers to you that directly satisfied the sort of evidence you said you were seeking.

    I will gladly look at any images put forward here, and to the best of my ability, and time permitting,
    conduct photo/image forensics on them to determine if they meet my criteria, and provide reasons why
    if they do not.


    Your said that
    The stars are only visible within the ionosphere
    and complained about
    the lack of any astronomy or astro-photography from any orbital missions, around Earth or the Moon, (at visible wavelengths, with a regular camera)

    You were provided examples of visible-light imaging from orbit, from interplanetary space, and from near-interstellar space.

    I am familiar with the ASTRO mission, looked at quite a few of the UV images. As to the star visibility,
    I have found information that demonstrates that the view is again through the ionosphere.


    And you have been provided examples of images which are unquestionably not taken through the ionosphere, and you have been given examples of sensors which rely on acquiring starlight in deep space all the way out to the beginning of interstellar space. Your claim is directly refuted by multiple examples meeting your criteria. If you want to do science, you can't ignore evidence refuting an idea of which you are fond.
    Last edited by sts60; 2012-Feb-17 at 04:36 PM. Reason: Added missing "refuted"

  27. #57
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    1,836
    Quote Originally Posted by Solon View Post
    I'll try to post a quick question here, as seeing at is involved with a conspiracy, it's not allowed upstairs. With the linked image, taken on the last shuttle mission, could someone estimate, from the known altitude of the shuttle at the time...
    According to Wikipedia, 348 kilometres.

    ...the distance to the horizon...
    According to my maths, about 2100 kilometres.

    ...and the radius of the Earth based on the visible crescent...
    Well, when I look at the picture, the arc of the Earth appears to be part of a circle with a radius of about 30 centimetres. The stars at the top of the picture are about 7 centimetres above the horizon. Is that what you're talking about?

    ...how many kilometers the highest star would appear to be above the surface? I was just wondered if my estimation was close to anyone elses.
    http://images.nationalgeographic.com...39_600x450.jpg
    Kilometres? How can you come up with an answer in kilometres? My answer is in degrees.

    Let me explain.

    1. Earth radius = 6360km, orbital altitude = 348km. Therefore a right-angle triangle with corners at Shuttle, Earth centre and Horizon has one side of 6360km and a hypotenuse of 6708km (6360 + 348) will have a second side of about 2100km (Pythagoras). Therefore the distance from the Shuttle to the horizon is about 2100km. Note that this happens to be about one-third of the Earth's radius.

    2. The arc of the Earth in that photo as displayed on my computer suggested an apparent Earth radius of about 30cm. Therefore, at that scale, the distance from the Shuttle to the horizon is about 10cm. The highest stars in that photo are about 7cm above the horizon.

    3. Draw a circle of radius 30. Draw a line from the centre C which intersects the circle at H and extends to point S such that the distance HS is 7. Draw a line HE at right angles to line CS, such that the distance HE is 10. The angle HES is about 35 degrees. (Would someone like to check my calculations?)

    4. Therefore the highest stars in that photo are about 35 degrees above the horizon.

    Does that make sense?

    Of course none of this is relevant. We have, as STS60 has posted, evidence from the Apollo astronauts that they could see stars, and we know they used star sightings for spacecraft alignments. As you accept Apollo was real, as we know Apollo navigation relied on the astronauts making star sightings, and as we know Apollo travelled outside the ionosphere, then we know that it's possible to see stars when outside the ionosphere. Where is there wiggle room on this?

  28. #58
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    13,083
    If Starlight can only be seen in the Ionosphere how come there was bright Sunlight on the Moon?

    O are the other stars different to the Sun in some way?
    Rules For Posting To This Board
    All Moderation in Purple

  29. #59
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    2,296
    Quote Originally Posted by Solon View Post
    And telling me about Hubble and star trackers or whatever other complex instruments you can
    find is not what this is about.
    It most certainly is.

    You said there were no examples of photography of the stars, planets, or Sun from any orbital missions about the Earth or Moon. You were provided examples of Earth orbit photography from Hubble - which is a big camera. Here's one with all three, in visible light, from lunar orbit, by Clementine's imaging star tracker - in other words, a camera.

    And star trackers, from the Canopus sensors of Mariner, Lunar Orbiter, Voyager, and so on, to today's compact star cameras, all depend strongly on visible light. If your claim was correct, they would not work. Your claim is directly refuted by half a century of space flight experience.

    We were talking about the equipment available on the ISS or a shuttle.

    When examples were given of stellar photography from the ISS you immediately tried to discount them. When examples were given of other instruments taking the kinds of images you claimed were impossible, unquestionably pointing away from Earth - the kind you said didn't exist - you tried to exclude them.

    You guys are widening the goalposts.

    Nonsense. You are being given many examples of exactly the kinds of visible-light observations - humans, star sensors, and camers - you claim are impossible. You cannot exclude examples which directly refute your central claim ("The stars are only visible within the ionosphere") by declaring, oh, you didn't mean examples which you simply hadn't thought of.

    -----
    ETA: Also, these observations conform explicitly to your stated criteria:

    OK, the goalposts are now set firm. No images through the Earths atmosphere.
    ------

    I would rather discover a single fact, even a small one, than debate the great issues
    at length without discovering anything at all.-Galileo Galilei


    You really ought to re-read this quote.
    Last edited by sts60; 2012-Feb-17 at 03:01 PM. Reason: fixed 2nd paragraph, and 3rd,... and 4th... and typos

  30. #60
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    2,296
    Quote Originally Posted by Solon View Post
    ...The stars are only visible within the ionosphere.

    ...To be more specific then, I'd like to see
    images of some stars, or planets, or even THE SUN, with a digital camera (of course, you will need a filter
    to look at the Sun) in a direction more or less perpendicular to the Earth surface....
    According to your post, starlight cannot be seen outside the ionosphere. The Sun is a star - and you clearly include the Sun in your category of light that can't be seen outside of the ionosphere. According to your criteria, the Apollo crews could not have seen the Moon because they were outside the ionosphere, and the Moon is lit by the Sun, and is essentially a planetary body anyway. According to your criteria, all of the Apollo lunar photography - thousands and thousands of images, taken in visible light with an "ordinary camera", must be phony. So must the many hours of film and video motion imagery. So must the Surveyor and Lunar Orbiter and Ranger imagery. (So must be all the Soviet Luna, Lunokhod, etc. imagery.)

    Yet you claim you do not dispute the reality of the Apollo missions. You are contradicting yourself.

Similar Threads

  1. One Night, Dozens of Triple Conjunctions
    By Fraser in forum Universe Today
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2012-Mar-26, 10:40 PM
  2. JEN (questions about Sirius and planet conjunctions)
    By Jeanny514 in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 2012-Jan-03, 02:24 AM
  3. Earth-Venus Inferior Conjunctions
    By leokor in forum Astronomy
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 2011-Feb-10, 11:09 PM
  4. Mercury as Morning Star with many Conjunctions
    By Centaur in forum Astronomical Observing, Equipment and Accessories
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 2009-Jan-29, 03:19 AM
  5. Inferior Conjunctions of Venus with Earth
    By BigDon in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 2008-Dec-15, 07:02 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
here
The forum is sponsored in-part by: