Peter's musings on visible light

[kcarring]

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

Peter,

I don't actually believe one way or the other, and I made no comment, actually at all, so I find it a bit odd that you would know what I think... perhaps you thought I added the caption, when in reality that caption was what was below the NASA photo.

I merely found the topic interesting, as do you, and I caught the bit about "musings" and your specific mentioning that you had no proof one way or the other...

In a way I totally understand your view as preposterous as it may first seem, light not refracted by substantial airborne particles cannot be seen "in mid air" so to speak, and it is known that the human eye can only "see so far", so your theory does prove interesting, surely we cannot see the however many miles away the sun is, meaning, the actual sun object.. itself.. so in space, light must either be visible or not...

The one thing I wonder is this:

Let us assume for a second that light itself, is truly invisible.

And let us assume that space, as taught is not a complete void, there are gasses, particles, etc.

Could the sun, then be visible in space, merely due the illumination and refraction of millions of miles of however much matter existed between us, and the star itself? And that once again, like on Earth we are not seeing the sun itself, nor the light, merely what is in between?

re: lenses

All digital cameras will create those artifacts when you get to close to being directly pointed at the sun... that is a known to me... but you bring up an interested point.

A camera is NOT a human eye. It's lense is, in essence a layer, an atmosphere, a substance capable of potentially creating enough refraction, itself, to "bring light into view.."

I don't know. interesting thing tho, for sure

cheers

[madhatter]

there should be a clarification, photons are emitted when electrons move up then back back down in energy states. current theory is quantized eignestates and is based on the Bohr model of the hydrogen atom, then it's extrapolated to atoms of multiple electrons, the many body problem makes it so complex that it's not possible to calculate it directly like the hydrogen atom.

now the current accepted theory is that EM radiation causes this excitation and photon emission. the EM wave itself is not visible to human eyes, photons can be depending on the energy state and frequency.

The sun is said to have a photosphere of hydrogen and helium gas, this layer is opaque to light, i.e. light from the core would be blocked. the photon emission from hydrogen and helium would be energy dependent, the emitted photons would then be subject to traversing thru the ISM of hydrogen and helium.

Now this is for the abundant elements of the sun and those are the ones within human visibility, thus the sun in space if viewed thru human eyes in space would look very different then on earth, how different?

going back to the EM waves from the sun there are high energy radiation waves outside the visible spectrum, these waves will impart energy to the electrons of matter in their path and they will emit photons based on their spectral trait. objects will be bright, our eyes would emit photons within themselves and we'd be subject to a light show of blinding color. So then in order to see the sun a filter would be needed, the atmosphere of the shuttle and esp the suit is not dense enough to offer protection so then the helmet lens or window would need to have filters, being that psychologically it may be a bit disturbing to view a sun that's dim and red/orange on critical space jaunts it would make more sense to have filters that reproduce a similar effect that is on earth.

the high energy radiation of the sun makes it difficult to exclude it's ability to generate visible photons on matter in its path.

still not 100% sure why it's not disclosed in mainstream science.

[jdodson]

the high energy radiation of the sun makes it difficult to exclude it's ability to generate visible photons on matter in its path.

I think bruce did glow when he got hit by gamma waves in the hulk lol.
Ever snap a glow stick? The chemicals produce the same exact effect, light from excited electrons. Brings back memories of skating rinks lol.

The sun is said to have a photosphere of hydrogen and helium gas, this layer is opaque to light, i.e. light from the core would be blocked.

i.e light from the outside is reflected. problem solved, interaction completed.

[barbosi]

Walter Russell in his book "The Secret of Light" gives the answer to the topic of this thread. We cannot perceive light with our senses, as our senses are sensitive to motion only.

Since Peter is a good acquaintance of John Bedini which proved to be familiar with Russell's works, I can assume (and this is a potential source of error from my part though) that Peter is aware of "The Secret of Light".

Not a casual reading, but certainly revealing for the non traditional scientific minds.

Chimed-out.

[madhatter]

i.e light from the outside is reflected. problem solved, interaction completed.

reflected H-alpha in the balmer series of the visible spectrum, and that would actually be more of a scattering. the photosphere would not be like a reflecting mirror but a dense gas filter. The sun would have to have another nearby star to 'illuminate' it, as there is not one it's the radiation source and illuminates nearby matter, how that matter is seen is entirely dependent upon it's composition, temperature and energy level of the incident EM wave.

[Armagdn03]

I have to agree with a lot of what has been said by Peter Lindemann and Madhatter has said.

For a long time now I have viewed "particles" as resonant structures. What I mean by this is that they have their own inherent bandwidths, quality factors etc. Taken in multiples, accumulations of particles can be sympathetic to larger wavelengths and thus receive and emit outside of their fundamentals, which is exactly what madhatter is saying here...

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

Viewed from this perspective, Energy may travel through a medium in a wavelength outside of our perceivable spectrum, become absorbed by a particle, or accumulation of particles, and experience frequency shifting, phase shifting etc. These in combination with effects like optical pumping, superposition of waves (blue and red shift, beat frequencies), polarization etc... create a very interesting transducer mechanism. You may have a very high frequency radiation, impinge upon the earths structure, and we in the end feel heat, and see visible light. Did the sun Emmit heat? probably, but was the structure of space of the quality to transmit that form of energy? What is easily transited will be in accord with the bandwidth (determined by the local permittivity and permeability) of the space through which it travels. This easily transmitted frequency may be transduced into many other forms when coming into contact with complex geometries of particles.

As peter noted, this can also be accomplished through diffraction gratings and other transducer mechanisms.

Andrew

[madhatter]

don't know why I didn't think of this before, has anyone seen a hydrogen flame? in daylight it's invisible, in reduced light it's visibility spectrum is dependent on temperature.

The spectrum of our own Sun is a case in point. Because the temperature of the Sun’s atmosphere is a relatively cool 5800 K, few hydrogen atoms have electrons in any excited state. Hence, in the Sun, visible hydrogen lines are quite weak—that is, of low intensity compared with the same lines in many other stars—even though hydrogen is by far the most abundant element there.

don't forget here in earth an open hydrogen flame can react with the atmosphere.

I'm intentionally leaving out a discussion on the Balmer and Lymann series and K ~ A class stars.

[gyula]

Hi Folks,

Some interesting pieces of info on what wavelengths the Hubble Telescope can sense:

HubbleSite - Hubble's Wavelengths

and what can it really see:

What Does the Hubble Really See? | Fox News

greetings,
Gyula

[Armagdn03]

I'm intentionally leaving out a discussion on the Balmer and Lymann series and K ~ A class stars.

Please don't! I would be very interested to hear.

[Allcanadian]

This is a very interesting subject and I have thought on this for a long time moreso in regards to perception.

Consider that we know as a fact energy which we call light has travelled from every star not unlike our sun to other planets and our eyes however the space between is considered "empty". We know 20+ tons of dust fall on the earth every year from somewhere and the facts tell us space is actually full of gasses such as hydrogen and helium as well as a seemingly infinite amount of energy.

Now the common consensus by most critics is that we "cannot get something from nothing" however we know for certain there cannot be "nothing" anywhere in any space because the closer we look the more we see. It is this gap between popular opinion and science which has always baffled me and how there would seem to be so many self-proclaimed experts who incorrectly repeat popular opinion as proof in contradiction to the facts.

It would seem that the closer we look the more our universe could be seen as not so much black and white or empty and full but gray or diffuse. What we see as objects are simply regions of slightly greater density and what we call empty is simply a region of slightly lesser density, however as for the true density of space we have no knowledge.

My conclusion is not a good one, the facts we have tell us our senses cannot be trusted and for the most part the popular opinion of things is a state of delusion in contradiction to the facts.
On another note, once we have grasped this simple concept of diffuse space then the seemingly impossible taks of understanding what the Electric, Magnetic and Gravic fields are fundamentally becomes a relatively easy task. When this becomes common knowledge and is understood, believe me, our world and the perception of it will never be the same.

Regards
AC

[SkyWatcher]

Hi folks, I only post because i have had thoughts about this light thing as well in the past.
Think LCD monitor, then relate that to a hologram.
peace love light
tyson

[jdodson]

the photosphere would not be like a reflecting mirror but a dense gas filter. The sun would have to have another nearby star to 'illuminate' it, as there is not one it's the radiation source and illuminates nearby matter

I like hearing your point of view but it just doesnt seem logical to me, isnt the photosphere liquid, due to the high compression of the gases? It seems to me all liquids would carry the same light reflective properties. Also the sun isnt a perfect sphere so its own light would reach its own surface even if the light from each individual point were projected directly outwards.

@AllCanadian Great post

[madhatter]

I like hearing your point of view but it just doesnt seem logical to me, isnt the photosphere liquid, due to the high compression of the gases? It seems to me all liquids would carry the same light reflective properties. Also the sun isnt a perfect sphere so its own light would reach its own surface even if the light from each individual point were projected directly outwards.

@AllCanadian Great post

here's another one of those standing theories tossed on it's ear, recent measurements of the sun show it to be a perfect sphere!

[amigo]

Great posts everyone, thank you!

Someone mentioned about difference between the human eye and the camera, the later having a lens.

I would like to add to that cameras were made to mimic human eye (both have a lens) so there's a medium in both where light could refract through and if invisible be made visible by whatever means.

Makes one wonder though: we could see the light sources in space then, but only if they were in the direct line of sight as the light would refract and become visible (whether it be our eyes or camera lens).

That of course does not exclude bounced-off light from other objects. I read somewhere (can't recall where correctly, maybe here) that light does not bounce off but actually whatever it hits, it excites and the excited object emits light (photons?).

I guess we could debate a traditional dualistic theory of light (at least that's what I was taught) but perhaps we should leave it alone?

An idea came to my mind while reading all the posts so far though. What if an experiment was conducted on Earth, in such a way that a chamber is evacuated of air (best possible vacuum) and then a true light source used to determine whether it is really visible or not.

Further more various gasses would be added to the chamber to simulate the environment of Space (and other environments) so it can be determined how presence of gas impacts the light source.

Lastly, how do we establish what a "true" light source is? I do not subscribe to the conventional "burning gasses" theory of the Sun and other stars, as I'm in the Electric Universe tent, but the question remains.

Any thoughts about the above?

[bhaas]

Here's one just for fun.

If we could see light we'd all be "blind" nothing to see but light.
All would be bright. No color no nothing. Just like darkness. Can't see
a thing. They're both one and the same.

Hmmmmmmm.

Hope I'm not losing it