[geocentrism] Re: Space Shuttle Pics
- From: "Jack Lewis" <jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 09:51:22 +0100
Dear Neville,
Great explanation, but I do have one query. Presumably all the shuttle
astronauts must be under some pressure to maintain this lie, what about the
jokers who paid to go into space with the Russians?
Jack
----- Original Message -----
From: Neville Jones
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 11:23 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Space Shuttle Pics
Dear All,
There has been much speculation over whether or not the astronauts could see
and/or photograph stars.
The lens effect proposed by Asimov is not true, since a star is a point
source, not an extended one. It is well known that the higher one goes, the
more impressive the view of the stars becomes. I certainly had a tremendous
view of them outside the Lick Observatory in California. Hence, large optical
telescopes are built at high elevation, where there is less atmosphere above
the site.
The stars are still there even in broad daylight. So why do we not see them?
Well, the answer is that we both see them and do not see them, depending upon
our definition of the concept of seeing.
EMR incident upon the retina causes a chemical reaction over a particular
integration time. This chemical reaction is converted into electrical impulses
which travel along the optic nerve to the brain, where interpretation takes
place. Therefore, is the act of 'seeing' the chemical reaction, or the
interpretation?
The difference is this: light from the stars is still falling upon the
photoreceptors in the retina in broad daylight and causing some chemical
reaction. Hence, with this definition the stars are being 'seen'. However,
other EMR is reaching the same photoreceptors, but is much more bright, such
that the chemical reaction caused by this secondary light source completely
swamps that of the star. The brain then gets the majority vote, as it were, and
does not register any stars.
On the Moon or in space, when looking directly at the stars, rather than at
the surface of some object, the stars would have nothing to swamp their signal
and would therefore register in the brain, or on the photographic film or CCD.
They would thus be 'seen' under either definition. Not too bright, with the
exposure times used, but still visible. Furthermore, some of the shots on the
Moon would definitely have been overexposed, since the astronauts had no light
meter, either internal nor external, and thus had to guess the right exposure
setting (a very hit-and-miss technique); these would show stars clearly and
could thus have been used by NASA to answer this specific long-running
criticism.
The eye very quickly adapts, although full dark adaptation does take some
seconds. This is easily verified by walking outside from a bright room on a
clear night. The stars can be seen straight away, and fainter stars slowly
become visible as the eye continues to adapt. You can also look up and see the
stars in the presence of street lighting.
With a very fine photographic emulsion, as was seemingly used with the NASA
Space Shuttle photographs under consideration, there should most definitely be
some stars visible in the black regions of the photograph.
The problem for NASA, as I see it (no pun), is that, having hoaxed the Apollo
missions and claimed that stars were invisible, they were then stuck with this
explanation for all time, including quite routine high-altitude/LEO stuff with
the Space Shuttle. For them to change their story now, means admitting the Moon
hoax.
It will be interesting to see what the Chinese say, God willing, especially
as they have already dispensed with the Great Wall of China visible from space
myth (I and many others stated that this was not possible years and years ago,
from basic diffraction theory).
Neville.
-----Original Message-----
From: joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 07:25:22 +1000
But would the astronauts see stars? Armstrong said they couldn't - whose
telling the truth?
the scientific opinion, I cant confirm yet, is that they do not see
stars... even from the shuttle... A lenz is necessary... What do those on the
base station see..? Asimov said we only see stars because of the amplification
lenz effect of a curved atmosphere... OK Has anybody done a high flying
passenger jet flight? any stars?
Lets clean this up..
Philip.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One-click Webmail Access - Easily monitor & access your email accounts!
Visit http://www.inbox.com/notifier and check it out!
Other related posts:
