ABOUT THE PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC CHARACTER OF YOUR PROPOSAL
GaryN:
And yes, the ISS is orbiting withing the atmopsphere, much thinner up there, but sufficient if my theory is correct that when looking through that deep column of it towards the stars from the ISS, enough for the shorter, invisible light to be converted to visible. I have not invented any new scientific process here, only applied known sciece to atmosoheric processes
GaryN:
as with Mercury Messenger, which can not actually 'see' Mercury, it is much too dark, there is no Sunlight even so close to Mercury!
First of all
GaryN,
you don't have a model (because you have no maths). Second,
you don't have a theory (at least what in science we consider a theory), since you don't back your claims with a theoretical framework that can explain this atmospheric transformer mombojombo and don't have any observational evidence whatsoever. Third,
I would say it's difficult even to know if you have an hypothesis, since those also need self-consistency at least in terms of logical reasoning, something I suspect you lack due to the way you pseudoskeptically doubt about an instrument but not abour a subjective, missinterpreted, non quantitative testimony.
It's very common in pseudoscientific thinking to make things
unfalsifiable. That means changing the parameters of the proposed hypothesis as to be farther and farther from the reach of everyone. You see, when this happens in science we inmediatly drop in the trash that hypothesis. First of all because science is an analythical aproach to understand nature and
nature is publicly avaiable. The public aspect of science is at the core of the scientific method. If an experiment can't be
repeated or made in different conditions maybe it's because it does not show anything about nature. Second, because to make the evidence more and more distant from any enquirer, pseudoscience always tries to make more and more
ad hoc assumptions, something that real science fights with the
Occam's razor.
All of this has been broken in you posts (this points out to a pseudoscience defense). You still insist in the eye-witness acount of the apollo astronauts for some reason but the atmospheric transformer theory you are talking about is in fact a theoretical physics problem, not just a human-space-exploration issue.
GaryN:
Photos from the ISS taken while looking TOWARDS Earth are no proof that the Sun is visible from cislunar space.
GaryN:
The only known view away from Earth from the US part of the ISS is from the node 2 Zenith porthole
GaryN:
What is visible from the Russian or Japanese modules is not known, Zvezda has 16 windows, but you never hear about them, and nothing about astrophotography/astronomy from them
GaryN:
Find me an image from any of thise so called visible light telescopes
GaryN:
The Hipparcos instrument was not a regular camera connected to a telescope, and plus, you will not find any pretty photos from it
GaryN:
I'll look more closely at your post when I get time, but the first thing I see as being off is from the images from SOHO, that first image in the second row. Why is the photosphere shown in yellow when NASA tells us the photosphere is white when viewed from space, and 4500Å is blue?
You can see how when someone provided contrary evidence about your statements you choosed to ignore them or take your assumptions a bit further. All that matters to you is making your hypothesis unfalsifiable: if an image could have been taken by a visible light space-telescope you say that there are none, if we shou you there are, you say the cameras are weird, if we show you the contrary then you are suspicious about the color differentiation palette chossen to display the image, if the sun can be seen from many probes than you concentrate your efforts on manned missions, if we show you there are images of the sun from manned missions, you say the windows looks always in such a configuration that the light from the sun has to pass through the atmosphere (something that has been debunked in my previous post I think), if we show you that there are more windows in the ISS you say there are no images from them, if we tell you that the sun appears in other angles during space walks you don't seem to care, in the end you think that the ISS is not a secure place for your theory so you become obssesed with the idea that only apollo astronauts could proof you are wrong... and you continue like that, with an arrogant
pseudoskepticism and an inmense disrespect for the people that is loosing their time in this nonsese to help you to come to a better conclusion.
GaryN:
The only people who know what the view is like from Cislunar space are the Apollo astronauts, and Armstrong said quite clearly that it was black out there
This is like saying that only extremely circunstantial evidence can prove or disprove your "theory". Are you sure that only the testimony of apollo astronauts in cislunar space could demolish your thesis? Why your optical theory is so dependent on that specific mission, on the fact that people where on board, etc... why?
If your thesis is correct, then all of physicis would be shaken. The issue about the sun been different color or invisible far from earth is a colateral very non-impressive effect if you compare it with all the other issues it would create in physics. Only apollo astronauts in cislunar space? what about a non-manned spacecraft with a camera in the Kuiper Belt? what about experiments on earth in optics, and light-matter interaction? what about the soviet era? what we have to even care about the space-exploration part to disprove or prove your idea? there are plenty of ways of telling you are wrong but you only want to make us think that your idea magically is only noticed in cislunar space by human observers, so you can make the evidence far more subtle and distant. But this does not follow at all from your "atmospheric tranformer theory".
Lastly, I want to point out something funny. You state that UV light when passing through a gas becomes visible. You also state that the Sun does not emmit visible light. Do you realize that the second does not follow from the first one? Even if all that transformer bollocks of the UV light is true, what assumptions or observations support the second statement???? Why the sun should be dark from space?
By the way I want to notice also that you are telling us that this trasnformation of color happens in earth's atmosphere and in the moon's atmosphere (a gentle reminder that is an atmosphere in the way a star is a hot charcoal, by the way:
Moon is considered not to have an atmosphere because it cannot absorb measurable quantities of radiation) as if both where even similar in composition, density, temperature, etc... the Sun looks the same in both bodies, how you explain that?. Your "theory" is independent from the composition of the gasses? It always work? If i'm close to Saturn I also see the Sun but if I'm near Mecury I can't?
By the way one more thing (I can't stop I know):
GaryN:
as with Mercury Messenger, which can not actually 'see' Mercury, it is much too dark, there is no Sunlight even so close to Mercury!
Did you know that
Mercury also has an atmosphere in the sense that the Moon does? It has even 3 times more pressure than the one of the Moon! Why then it's so dark? Well, I have an answer if you want to change opinion to make your idea stand a little more: the fact is that the surface of Mercury is very bright in visible wavelenghts and not thark at all, and this also aplies to the MESSENGER's camera. Who said that they have difficoulties collecting light from Mercury? Show us the source of that absurd statement please. Maybe you are confusing the
albedo of the surface with the fact that visible light arrives at it (in fact under the same lightning contitions mercuty is on average darker than Earth (remember that earth has reflective deserts, clouds, and ice sheets that make the surface look not very dark),
but in fact the Moon is darker and you don't have issues with that don't you?)