Peter's musings on visible light

[amigo]

Peter Lindemann Visible Light Musings - YouTube

I watched the video above where Peter is talking about our inability to see light rays and only seeing reflected light (rays). He also says that in Space you would be blinded by the Sun even though you would not see it because our Atmosphere is what provides the refraction, thus making it visible. So I'm a bit puzzled at this.

Can we not see the light sources in the visible spectrum? Our photoreceptors in the eyes detect those wavelengths and we can see the source (at least here on the Earth).

Does our eye's lens and the vitreous humour not provide for the medium for the light to travel through and refract, thus allowing us to detect light radiations falling on the photoreceptors, while in the outer space, too?

Even if we did not have the medium between the light source and the photoreceptors, should we still not be able to "see" the source as it's being detected by the photoreceptors.

After all, aren't our instruments that detect Gamma, X-rays and IR in Space also working on the same principles and they are in the Vacuum of Space without a medium in-between? Why would visible light be any different than the other higher/lower wavelength radiations (Peter said that light is not transmitted in the visible spectrum in Outer Space)?

I'd love to hear more about this (Peter if you are willing and able please chime in).

What are everyone else's meditations on this specific subject, pro et contra?

[SubQuantum]

I was reading Tom Van Flandern's book "Dark Matter, Missing Planets, and New Comets", and in it he says that light propagates superluminally, is massless, and not visible until interaction with mass, at which time a photon is emitted. It then travels at C and has all the usually observed attributes. It also is subject to attenuation from that point on. This seems to make sense to me, but would not the interaction with the mass of the optic system in a human produce the photon, therefore making it possible to see sunlight in the visible spectrum even in space? Also, does not SOHO give us images of the sun in the visible spectrum from space? I may be wrong about that, that's why I ask. Also, I'm not sure the analogy of the laser is entirely accurate because if you look at the source of the laser you will see it VERY well! I think they take people to jail for shining lasers at airplanes..... That said, it would explain the oddity of no visible stars in the Apollo moon footage, wouldn't it!! Anyway, fascinating subject and discussion, and thanks for the video!!

-SubQuantum

[Rubberband]

More light on the subject.....

Scientists bend light the ‘wrong’ way | Fox News

[Bob Smith]

Dr. Mehran Keshe on the Structure of Light

To add to the mix --
Dr. Mehran Keshe claims light has a structure, and arises due to interactions between magnetic plasmatic fields. Here's a link to his book on this matter:
Book 2 - The Structure of the Light | Keshe Foundation
Here's his YT channel, where he does speak on the phenomenon of light:
keshefoundation - YouTube
Bob

[jdodson]

I watched the video above where Peter is talking about our inability to see light rays and only seeing reflected light (rays). He also says that in Space you would be blinded by the Sun even though you would not see it because our Atmosphere is what provides the refraction, thus making it visible. So I'm a bit puzzled at this.

Its an interesting idea but i would think that the source would be visible.
The particles which produce the light would themselves be reflecting the light waves. Take fire for example, we can see fire due to the reflection of the light on the gasious material being burned as its released from wood. We can see the flame because its own light is reflecting off of itself.

[Peter Lindemann]

Evidence?

Its an interesting idea but i would think that the source would be visible.
The particles which produce the light would themselves be reflecting the light waves. Take fire for example, we can see fire due to the reflection of the light on the gasious material being burned as its released from wood. We can see the flame because its own light is reflecting off of itself.

Hi Everybody,

Please don't forget, that the film was correctly titled "...Musings....". So let's be perfectly clear, I do not claim to be an authority on this subject. Here is what I do know, to re-iterate what is on the film:
1) I have never been in outer-space and looked at the Sun to know for sure if it is directly visible.
2) My comments in this regard are based on research done by Tom Brown at Borderland Sciences Research Foundation in the early 1990's.
3) He interviewed a number of former US Astronauts and photographic experts at NASA who would only tell him certain things "off the record".
4) Then there was the 400 page book, published by NASA, about the Sun. It had over 5000 photographs of the Sun in it, and not a single image taken of the Sun, from outer-space, in the visible spectrum.
5) And finally, there are all of the photographs taken of the Earth, from the Moon, that show no stars.

So, while I do not know for sure, I can say with certainty, that there is a complete "lack of evidence" of any star, including our own, being visible and photographable on film, in the visible spectrum of light between 400 and 700nm when that image is taken from space.

If anyone has evidence to the contrary, I would love to see it!

Down here in the atmosphere, that ordinary "rays of light" are completely invisible is directly observable. I show that a laser beam is not visible even when the beam passes directly in front of the eyes, even though you can see that it is there when it is interrupted.

In the same vein, you can "see" what has been "illuminated" by ordinary light, but you cannot see the light, itself. The space between objects seems quite empty, even though "light" is approaching our eyes from EVERY DIRECTION in order that we may see objects all around us. It is true, that here in the atmosphere, we CAN see "sources of light" when we look directly at them. So, I do not dismiss any observable reality.

This is certainly a fascinating subject, and I have no need to be either "correct" or "controversial" about it. Michael Kishline filmed me in, what would have ordinarily been, a private conversation at the Conference. He put the film on YouTube without asking me about it. That is why you have access to it.

With regard to the subject at hand, I have simply considered the situation carefully, weighed the evidence at my disposal, and drawn my own conclusions. I am comfortable with my current set of beliefs on this subject.

Peter

[Gestalt]

Tom Brown wrote about the Nature of Light here: Light & Electricity | Borderlands – The Crossroads of Science & Spirit

Eric Dollard also mentioned somewhere on this forum about not being able to see the sun and stars while in space, but I can't find it. I'm assuming he got the info from Tom Brown.

The following is rather interesting.

"Another incredible chunk of information....There are some bizarre things going on with the Sun and the properties of light in space. John Keely says that the Sun and stars are invisible when viewed from space. Light only manifests when in the presence of a gas which serves as a percussive medium for the Aether to allow the generation of light through interference; thereby slowing the Aether to lower frequencies.

Rudolph Steiner also says that the Sun and stars are invisible from space. Tom Brown (of Borderland Sciences in California) says he talked on the phone to one astronaut who said they could not take pictures of the Sun or stars UNLESS the camera was inside the ship (where there is air). On hearing this, Tom called NASA and asked the Public Information Officer if the Sun could be seen from space. The PIO said of course. At that point Tom explained about the story he was working on and that he had talked to an astronaut who confirmed the premise of no visible light from space. The PIO got very upset on the phone and said that information was not supposed to be given to the public."(source)

[SubQuantum]

Wow. How bizarre is that? NASA doesn't want the public to know that light from the stars and sun cannot be seen in space. What could they possibly think would be wrong with revealing such a fact? Do they think we're just so fragile that any such revelation would damage our poor little psyche's?

I have no problem with the idea, and I find it a fascinating topic. Plenty of room for discussion. That's what we're here for.

[madhatter]

Not sure exactly why it would be not disclosed. Here's what little I know, interstellar medium is primarily composed of Hydrogen atoms at 89% and 9% helium. It's emission spectrum is right on the edge of the visable spectrum, Balmer series H-alpha 656.281nm. That is the 'optical visible' filter used to view the sun other than others outside the visible spectrum.

being that the sun is also composed of Hydrogen gas that spectrum would be very active, now depending on the 'atmosphere' in the shuttle or suit,that will effect what would be visible to our eyes.

it's not difficult to figure out what is visible and what's not, look into the absorption and emission spectrum of elements.

on the chemical elements of the Sun, Hydrogen & Helium are the majority.

Emission spectra are produced by thin gases in which the atoms do not experience many collisions (because of the low density). The emission lines correspond to photons of discrete energies that are emitted when excited atomic states in the gas make transitions back to lower-lying levels.

A continuum spectrum results when the gas pressures are higher. Generally, solids, liquids, or dense gases emit light at all wavelengths when heated.

An absorption spectrum occurs when light passes through a cold, dilute gas and atoms in the gas absorb at characteristic frequencies; since the re-emitted light is unlikely to be emitted in the same direction as the absorbed photon, this gives rise to dark lines (absence of light) in the spectrum.

now what do we know about space?
the sun is mainly hydrogen and helium, ISM is hydrogen and helium. conduction and convection of thermal energy (i.e. thermal radiation) is not possible in space do to a lack of atmosphere.

based on current known physics how again should we be able to see the sun in space as we do on earth in an atmosphere of nitrogen, oxygen, carbon, etc...?

[Peter Lindemann]

Spectrum Absorption

Dear Madhatter,

Your idea that the cold hydrogen and helium in the interstellar space would have the same absorption spectrum that the incandescent hydrogen and helium would emit from the solar corona is the best explanation I have ever heard of WHY we may not be able to see the Sun in outer space. This is excellent, and completely logical!

So, when all of the other solar emissions (infrared, ultraviolet, radio waves, microwaves, x-rays, gamma rays, and everything else) hit the upper atmosphere, they excite the photon emissions (from the ozone, oxygen, nitrogen and other gases) that we see as the yellow solar orb surrounded by a light blue sky.

Fascinating.

Peter

[GSM]

Think about this;-

Satellites monitor the Sun in infra-red and ultraviolet as well as visible light because visible light does not provige enough information.

Photons emitted by enerised matter as per atmospheric gasses will have specific quanta and frequencies - NOT a continuous HOT body spectrum !

Never forget - Never A Sensible Answer !

What we see via the atmosphere has been filtered, reflected and refracted by it, not generated by it unless via ionisations etc.

[jdodson]

I still dont understand why the matter would turn invisible.
The light is just a property of the matter. The sun isnt pure light..its just heated matter producing the light property. The fields themselves are invisible to us but the matter producing those fields have the same interaction with the field itself as everything else does. It is a fascinating topic though, fun to think outside of the box.

[kcarring]

The Brightness of the Sun

The bright sun, a portion of the International Space Station and Earth’s horizon are featured in this image photographed during the STS-134 mission’s fourth spacewalk in May 2011. The image was taken using a fish-eye lens attached to an electronic still camera.

Image Credit: NASA

[Peter Lindemann]

Diffraction Grating

Dear kcarring,

Thanks for posting this photograph. I know you believe that it refutes what I have been saying, but it actually supports what Tom Brown found out. The astronauts he spoke with told him that NASA developed a special diffraction grating that was put on the helmet visors, and capsule windows, so that the Sun could be seen. In this photograph, it is obvious that the "Sun" is surrounded by the visible artifacts of this sort of rainbow diffraction process, where as the other parts of the image are not.

Again, I am not trying to be either correct or controversial, but I believe this photograph strongly supports the thesis under discussion.

Peter

[madhatter]

Dear Madhatter,

Your idea that the cold hydrogen and helium in the interstellar space would have the same absorption spectrum that the incandescent hydrogen and helium would emit from the solar corona is the best explanation I have ever heard of WHY we may not be able see the Sun in outer space. This is excellent, and completely logical!

So, when all of the other solar emissions (infrared, ultraviolet, radio waves, microwaves, x-rays, gamma rays, and everything else) hit the upper atmosphere, they excite the photon emissions (from the ozone, oxygen, nitrogen and other gases) that we see as the yellow solar orb surrounded by a light blue sky.

Fascinating.

Peter

I was putting together a more comprehensive post that is now 9 pages long and only half done! I'll finish it soon. But I've heard the question and read the many many ideas as to if it's visible or not.
Now the interesting bit is that there is no pictures of the sun in the visible continuous spectrum, the closest is with the H-alpha filter. The filter is used due to the low energy level of the photon emission of hydrogen.
It gets a bit more complicated with temperature and eigenstates of hydrogen, not to mention that the bohr model is specific to hydrogen only and extrapolated for the other elements.

The is also the matter of relativity, as strange as it sounds the visible color spectrum of the sun without an atmospheric filter would call into question QED, Black body radiation and holy grail of C.

I was going to sit and try to calculate the visible light as filtered by ISM but that would only take me back to the same problem as it involves using the particle nature and relativity of current physics.

my best guess is that it's a dim russet red/orange color but with a very high intensity. the odd part would be the reflective energy of bodies and they're color spectrum, our brains have evolved with 'white' being our reference that is in actuality a bit more towards the green/yellow. this is purely due to our earths atmosphere, to find ourselves in space where objects radiate colors without a 'white' light source would be disconcerting to us.