@MrNinjaDuck8 Stars are much dimmer than the Earth or other objects lit up in space, so in order to adjust the cameras so that stars are visible, the other objects being focused on would look like they're glowing. To adjust to the foreground objects, the stars disappear. This works on the surface of the Earth too - take a picture of the moon, and depending on the settings of the camera, many of the stars may disappear.
Hey....Give yourself a pat on the back though. You did a much better job than Brian Welch did prior to his passing....It wasn't going to last forever though now was it? The truth will always shine on the darkness of lies, and disinformation once people pull their heads out of their collective asses!
BTW, Phil, how was TAM 9 at the South Point? Did you catch any of the flyers? You know, the ones with the comics about Jarrah White, and his interactions with you and Adam Savage. I also left plenty with some of the major solar flares recorded at the NGDC during APOLLO MISSION DATES! Come on Phil, ignoring the truth won't make it go away. I'd close up the disinformation shop before public ridicule becomes a permanent situation at your public appearances...It's coming BUB!
Hey Phil, I spend alot of times trying to find photos of stars, where the Earth, and Shuttle/ISS is still in the photograph, and not over-exposed, like you PRO APOLLO NUTTERS have tried to say was impossible from the moon. The moon has an 8 % Albedo...While the Earth has an albedo around 30 %. And yet, if you would watch the attached video response, you'll see your NASA buddies have let their guard down and blown you and your PAN buddies excuses straight out of the koolaid cup you drink from!
one more reason is during a17 moon exploration, schmitt had raised his gold visor briefly thus exposing his face to bald solar radiation (and sky too). facing the sun, of course, he'd have been blinded by the sunlight. turning away from the sun, however, and looking up he'd have been seeing constant thousands of starlights.
stars can't be filmed with even few seconds exposures, but the human eye is versatile in quickly adapting to lighting changes. that's why stars can be seen in space day.
(contd) when 'crossing' one another, starlight won't be diminished by the sunlight. look toward the sun and you won't see any stars. but turn your head away, you'd definitely see stars
the space outside the earth's atmosphere doesn't contain any gas, or at the most, contains only very sparse gaseous molecules. so there can never be any sunlight dispersion. if it is so, then the only light visible to the naked eye would be the one directly incident on the cornea. so if you look at the sun, then it'd all be sunlight. but if you turn your head away, say 90 deg or even 180 deg, then there'd be only the incident starlight and since light rays don't cause interference (contd.)
Assuming you could see 360 degrees at the same time, technically you could see more stars by going further away from the Earth. Now if you're talking about the 165 degrees most humans can see, then no you can't see more.
ONLY longitudinal waves travel in a vacuum. You can not see any stars when you are in space, or from the surface of the moon, or planets without an atmosphere.
You need to use a diffraction grating, as does Hubble.
Could you see the sun from space without a diffraction grating??
@garyinsooke Um, yes you can see stars in space, and on the moon. You do not need an atmosphere to see stars. You do, however, need to be away from sources of bright light. A lack of atmosphere would enhance the visibility of stars, not hinder it, but you still need to be able to see them without ambient light washing them out.
@wen790 was it really necessary to write in caps? i mean are you seriously that desperate for attention? i don't know who Jaret Whites is.. but if he just another Moon Hoax Conspiracy nutjob.. then there is no reason for Plait to even put up with him.
@wen790 thanks for answering both my questions in a single strike. You are an attention whore (cause of the caps) and 2nd. Jaret Whites is a Conspiracy Nutjob.. bwahahahaha take it easy my friend. you keep telling yourself that it's impossible to get out of this planet's Orbit. Take care.
@mmmodafoca ------nasa went to the extreme to get a nazi slave murderer VON BRAUN out of germany to work on a fiction moon landing
this guy VON BRAUN was part of a slave murderer that killed countless JEWS in dark caves building rockets to blow up london ....
also VON BRAUN THE NAZI JEW MURDERER SAID IN HIS OWN WORDS QUOTE..CONSIDERING MY CACULATIONS IT WOULD TAKE A ROCKET SPACESHIP 266 TIMES BIGGER THAN THE SATURN 5 JUST TO MAKE one single voyage to the moon.
@wen790 oh i love how since he belonged to or was working for the Nationalist party therefore he was killing Jews in gas chambers.. Excellent connection you made there. Second i had no ideaa Von Braun was the only Aerospace engineer working for nasa. How Easily you give into Arguments from Authority, you fucking putz learn to quote correctly and then open your mouth to say whatever idiotic thing you want to serve your pathetic agenda. Have a great one chump :D.
@wen790 wow when i thought you couldn't get any senseless you go and out do yourself brilliantly that only another impaired being with your intellect can comprehend you. Down right genius in a way if you think about it.. oh wait you couldn't because you'd think of a conspiracy to make your world even more complicated. Have a great day champ..oops meant to say Chump.
@wen790 bwahahaha looks like i hit a sensitive spot. quick say an irrelevant quip about nothing. Hang in there, you keep telling yourself the moon landing never happened. If it makes you feel better, you should also think that the NEW WORLD ORDER is after you.. and your precious freedoms. Take it easy buddy don't overload.
@wen790 wtf are you talking about? nasa bible religion?? it's not like i worship the Rockets Nasa Engineers develop. I do believe what they do is important for Future exploration and to continue to push the boundaries of what is the human frontier. No one is gonna be eating Dog food you idiot! and for those who enjoy a that type of nourishment my apologies. Get your Conspiracy theorist ass out of this video chat. YOU ARE SPAM!
I wonder if one might perceive less stars in space. Without the twinkling effect of atmospheric disturbance, the effective point-like sources of light will be static on one's retina if one looks in a fixed direction. This then may allow for the significant reduction in the perception of fixed visual features (eg all the blood vessels that over lie the retina are rarely noticed as causing shadow effects, and various optical illusions rely upon this), unless one repeatedly moves focus of ones gaze
Unfortunately this video is dead wrong because it doesn't consider the stars close to the horizon. If the earth would have no atmosphere there would be many more faint stars visible to the naked eye!! This is because the doubling effect of the atmosphere close to the horizon. This is why the sun in a sunset almost loses 80% of its brightness and you can look at it without hurting your eyes! This can of course be more/less depending on air particles (pollution). The video is clearly wrong here!
@CaffeinatedThinking ... HAHAHAHA.. not only did I provide where he implied that the atmosphere wouldn't have an effect on starlight ( he also mentioned visible light ), I provided examples of how the atmosphere has a great effect on visible light. You're too slow , too stupid and just plain ignorant. Maybe next time geek.
@CaffeinatedThinking .. which brings me to my next point kids. Don't smoke crack .. or you'll end up with the understanding of the moron I've had the pleasure of educating.
@CaffeinatedThinking .. and since you are obviously to dumb to understand I'll explain it to you. The atmosphere will have the same effect on starlight as it does sunlight. Do you think that the properties in the atmosphere that shift the sunlight in the visible light spectrum turns off at night and does not effect the starlight?
@CaffeinatedThinking .. what's with these fail attempts and grasping a straws to try to prove a point that you so miserably failed to make? Try between 1:00 - 1:35 where he stated that you wouldn't see that many more stars and that the atmosphere has no effect on visible light. Which again, my obviously uneducated friend, is utterly wrong because the atmosphere as a huge effect on visible light where it can change the color of the sky from one end of the visible light spectrum to the other.
@CaffeinatedThinking .. He implied that the atmosphere does not have an effect on viewing the stars, which are in visible light, but again, bonehead, this is not true as provided in the very easy to understand examples that I provided for your uneducated mind.
@CaffeinatedThinking .. He implied that the atmosphere does not have an effect on viewing the stars, which are in visible light, but again, this is not true as provided in the very easy to understand examples that I provided for your uneducated mind.
@CaffeinatedThinking .. was deleted by accident and you didn't do shit. My last 2 comments schooled your mind and made you look like the idiot you are.
@CaffeinatedThinking .. He implied that the atmosphere does not have an effect on viewing the stars, which are in visible light, but again, bonehead, this is not true as provided in the very easy to understand examples that I provided for your uneducated mind.
@CaffeinatedThinking .. He implied that the atmosphere does not have an effect on viewing the stars, which are in visible light, but again, bonehead, this is not true as provided in the very easy to understand examples that I provided for your uneducated mind.
@CaffeinatedThinking .. He implied that the atmosphere does not have an effect on viewing the stars, which are in visible light, but again, bonehead, this is not true as provided in the very easy to understand examples that I provided for your uneducated mind.
@CaffeinatedThinking .. He implied that the atmosphere does not have an effect on viewing the stars, which are in visible light, but again, bonehead, this is not true as provided in the very easy to understand examples that I provided for your uneducated mind.
@CaffeinatedThinking .. He implied that the atmosphere does not have an effect on viewing the stars, which are in visible light, but again, bonehead, this is not true as provided in the very easy to understand examples that I provided for your uneducated mind.
@CaffeinatedThinking .. you're a fucking moron buddy. He implied that the atmosphere does not have an effect on viewing the stars, which are in visible light, but again, bonehead, this is not true as provided in the very easy to understand examples that a provided your uneducated mind.
@CaffeinatedThinking .. this is also true when the sun is setting and wavelengths are stretched out to show pinks and reds in the sky. The visible light is refracted in the atmosphere. Another example where the atmosphere is having an effect on visible light.
@CaffeinatedThinking .. let me simplify this for you ;) He claimed that the atmosphere has no effect on visible light. Which is false because when you are on a plane at 38,000 feet, the sky, which you see on the ground as blue in the visible light spectrum, is more white, which indicates that the atmosphere does have an effect on visible light .. hence the change in the color of the sky.
@CaffeinatedThinking .. What?! Are you confused or just lost? I wrote it at least 3 times. Glad to know you have a hard time following the bouncing ball. So sad because I bounced it as slow as I possibly could.
@CaffeinatedThinking .. again , the debate was about visible light. Sticking to it only makes you come across as a useless debater and a pure waste of time. However, if being useless and wasting time was your goal, then you did you great job CrackheadThinker. Can't say it was informational but it was fun(ny).
@CaffeinatedThinking .. yo Crack Head .. are you lost?! The question was about visible light . Stop trying to shift the focus because you realized that you don't have a leg to stand on and well, are an idiot who thinks he knows what he is talking about.
@CaffeinatedThinking .. says the joke who thinks the atmosphere filters or distorts ultraviolet and infrared light but has no effect on visible light. Even though the frequency range of ultraviolet and infrared light reside on either side of light spectrum, adjacent to the visible light frequency range. Ok buddy, did you get your education from a crack jack box or is this what you learned on Sesame Street? Maybe you should consider changing your handle to CrackheadThinking.
@CaffeinatedThinking .. "You" never mentioned using instruments to view ( lol .. absorb ) the ultraviolet or infrared light. Are you confused? Why would the "transparent" atmosphere have an effect on ultraviolet and infrared light and not visible light? Are you implying that the transparent atmosphere acts as frequency filter? Think about this one because ultraviolet and infrared reside on opposite sides of the spectrum. The original comment was so simple .. how are you having a hard time?
@CaffeinatedThinking .. what!? He said that we won't be able to see more stars being above or higher, as implied by the original question , in the atmosphere. His reasoning .. because the atmosphere is transparent. Maybe you didn't listen @ 1:14. Then he went on to state that we would be able to see ultraviolet and infrared light above the atmosphere. Both are wrong.
You can't see ultraviolet and infrared light .. period! Going above the atmosphere isn't going to magically bring ultraviolet and infrared light into the visible part of the light spectrum.
PS> you can't see ultraviolet and infrared light .. period! Going above the atmosphere isn't going to magically bring ultraviolet and infrared light into the visible part of the light spectrum. Which bring me to my next point kids ,, don't smoke crack!
PS> you can't see ultraviolet and infrared light .. period! Going above the atmosphere isn't going to magically bring ultraviolet and infrared light into the visible part of the light spectrum. Which bring me to my next point kids ,, don't smoke crack!
This guy has no idea what he is talking about. To simplify the concept for both him and the people who actually believe what he says .. ofcourse you can see more stars, up to the point of total obstruction, when "pollution" is less or not present. To put this in to practice, compare the number of visible stars, in the city, in a suburban area, a rural area and out in a country area. Now apply the same practice when there is more to less atmosphere present.
@ ytmoog's last comment. Maybe because in space there is no night or day, just time. You have to be on a planet, moon, asteroid, etc to experience day or night. Otherwise time is just a guideline in reference to what earth goes by.
Does anyone on YouTube have a high school diploma?
Blah blah blah. I flew from Los Angeles to Montana. The first night there I was stunned by the amount and clarity of the stars, comets, and odd things in the sky. Why arent there any stars in the apollo photos. Weird.
@jamesandrew2000 a lot of reasons, one of the main, is every picture is taken when the planet is facing the sun, that makes it reflect a lot of the light from the sun, and it creates somewhat like a glow, also cameras are exposed too much, cameras need a low exposure level to take stars
@worderr: pardon messieur, but if you'd look at your post again, you'll see you should have corrected it to "stars need high exposure levels to be visible on films". the greater the object's apparent brightness, the less exposure level a "film" would need. though i do agree with the substance of your comment that with the exposure setting for sun, you can't capture 'fainter' objects.
@ytmoog: the sun's definitely brighter than the stars. but the concept of being bright or brighter or darker applies only to within an atmospheric observation. light dispersion! on the moon when you point your head away to the sun-opposite sky, your eyes won't be filled with sunlight because there's no dispersion. starlight would enter your eyes since light rays from independent sources don't interfere.
@ytmoog: again you're wrong! bright and sunlit lunar surface would be seen only when the astronaut points his head to the surface. i said point away from the sun and look at the sky. since photons from different sources have the property of non-interference in vacuum, the astronaut would see no dispersion. that is, only starlight! the human eye pupil adjusts easily to varying degrees of light as well. full moon on a dark clear night? on earth you mean! i don't know how that compares here?
@ytmoog: and there are many other examples of hi-alt flying pilots seeing stars even during 'daytime' high up above 7 or 8 kms. test pilot mike melville and many u2 pilots have see stars in the sky during 'daytime' flying. what's the explanation for that?
@ytmoog: the reason snaps and vids don't show stars is because of the exposure setting. no one's arguing that. let me make it clear. the u2 and sr71 pilots "SAW" stars with their eyes. nasa simply dismisses that fact. they say stars can't be seen from space during "daytime". that's what is being hidden from the sane physics viewpoint.
@ytmoog: the whole of nasa websites are buzzing with their "keywords". you just have to follow them. please refer to any nasa site and search. there are tens of such references. right from neil armstrong, michael collins to eugene cernan and jack schmitt have been denying being able to 'see' stars in space. even the astronauts who did leo/eva endorse the same. i don't know why you termed it as straw when there's solid evidence for that!
@ytmoog: sorry, but you repeat what nasa denies! optical physicists all over the world agree that there's no light dispersion in a vacuum. they say, therefore, starlight on the moon won't be affected by the presence or absence of sun. if cernan saw stars from the lem shadow, then why's nasa denying it? why does schmitt deny it? or any such? if you could endorse apollo astronauts' views initially, then why this turnaround now? links in next post please.
@ytmoog: i've already given the links. don't understand the cross-references to schmitt's and cernan's remarks. that's harrison schmitt denying it. jack schmitt never even hinted at stars, even now! i do hope you understand what i meant by 'turnaround'. by 'turnaround' i mean nasa has diametrically opposite statements on being able, or otherwise, to see stars from space. now you hinted at any conspiracy theory. i never even mentioned it. what i'm here for is the truth. (contd)
@ytmoog: (contd) ask phil plait. he says @badastronomy. com that stars can not be seen from outer space during "day". do you agree with that? or do you agree with cernan? let me put this straight: can stars be seen, or not, from outer space? do you agree with nasa at their site or do you agree with wikipedia? did not the sun reflection from the moon surface block cernan view of starlight? how's starlight blocked when there's no dispersion? these questions will remain unanswered here i suppose!
Because there is not a camera in existence which is capable of photographing the bright sunlit lunar surface and the stars which are vastly dimmer at the same time.
Use a long exposure to capture the stars and the moon would be vastly over exposed. While a short exposure would capture the moon ok, but not the dimmer stars.
Thanks for the informative video! I spoke to an astrophysicist who said that once you leave the atmosphere entirely, you no longer can see ANY stars because without the function of the atmosphere to scatter the light, the "resolution" of your retina is too low! He claims that a tiny spot on your retina will be lit, but it will simply be too small for you to sense. The planets are clearly visible, but the stars are just too tiny. I was amazed, but he swears this is the case. Can you confirm this?
My intuition told me the same, but my source is a academic astrophysicist. What if more than one receptor needs to be hit for the brain to register? Is there a minimum resolution of the eye? I do not know these things. I want to know if anyone has reported back from space!
Could you please let me know where you have read/heard this? I have searched and failed to find any such direct word of mouth, just people who are "sure I've heard it somewhere...".
They were able to see stars from lunar orbit when on the night side of the moon, and Collins mentioned that. They also used the stars for navigation purposes.
They also did solar corona photography which captured stars as well.
But they did not see stars from the surface as they landed on the day side.
Very interesting. So yes you see more, but no not that many more. Yeah, Iridium satellites (Iridium flares) can be be briefly seen during daylight (heavens above) and are awesome to watch at night.
Not to invalidate your point, but you can see venus during the day, as well as that close star known as the Sun. You can also see objects you would expect to see at night during the day too, such as satellites. These aren't stars per se but unless you knew what you were looking at you would say they were stars.
LIAR! There is damn much more start just when you go abobe 18 - 22 000 meters! The distant stars are clearly visible when you get above the smoke. On the Moon, it must be a sight of lifetime. Sadly, the astroNOTs did not seen ANY...
Don't call someone a liar because you disagree with them.
There are other ways to get away from the "smoke" including going into the middle of the desert as I have. There are many many more stars than usual. Probably that is a good comparison to 18-22,000m high. What are you comparing it with?
lol at basing the fact that the atmosphere is 90% transparent to help your argument that you don't see many more stars from space, and excluding the fact that, there's so much shit in the air. Not to mention the light in big cities effecting how many stars you see as well.
Is it possible to see across the diameter universe (if it was round), because if we look backwards in time, and the big bang was at the center, wouldn't we be forced to stop half way at the beginning of the universe?
Well, presumably getting above the atmosphere would at least remove 100% of the light pollution? Because if you're in a city and can only see a total of 5 stars, I assume that going above the atmosphere would reveal a few thousand more? (Just like going far away from cities)
If you think you have a real argument (and not a sound byte), put some money alongside that mouth and take it to Apollohoax or the BAUT. They'd be glad to have someone with interesting ideas to debate. The 500-character limit here makes it very difficult to get beyond inappropriate simplifications and gross approximations. It is a venue for bullshit, not for science.
Sure, take it to a known Apollo propaganda hangout where your IP address is used to screw you PC into shit, and then your banned when you point out the liars there, in their obvious lies. Go congratulate each other on how well you deceive and lie...You don't need me for that!
I don't associate with twisted fucks who lie for a living...Go hang with your lying friends, or post on a known liar, propagandists video at YT...Ooops you are already doing that. Ass haned to him by a comedian. What a mook...You guys should get along great!
Been to those types of sites...aware of the human filth that hangs there...Not interested...Now you going to try and forward the idea that there are no hackers on the net, and that those who have sites treating those disagreeing with them won't abuse having their IP's....
Attention Phil! Get a new gig dumbass. You were bested by a comedian! And you came off sounding like a NAZI apollogist to boot. Give everyone at NASA a break, and try debunking something you have a chance not sounding like a dumbass about...Maybe hair tonic!!!
To be fair, the hoax believers say the Apollo 16 UV photography was accomplished in low Earth orbit. Of course, these are the same hoax believers who state that stars were intentionally omitted from the faked-up surface photographs because even photographing star backdrops from low Earth orbit "wouldn't be good enough."
The hoax believers rarely earn points for consistency.
Funny...Guess you missed Joe Rogan kicking Plaits ass, while simultaneously gettin the most inconsistent, and contradictory propgandist debunk stuck in PHILS throat. So he offered a million dollar bet up to deflect his obvious error. Phil said the weight of the backpacks made anot incapable of leaving very far off the surface in 1/6 G. And then when it was pointed out that they made great leaps in later missions, he was stuck in the contradiciton and made the bet instead of answering!
Your fucking hero propagandist Phil fucked up major, and not one of you fucking want to be propagandists like him have the fucking guts to admit it. Because it renders all of you, all of your excuses, and all of your nasty comments about those who see the fraud for what it is, completely impotent! Nice try with the constitency comment! Your officially neutered!!!
The old 'why would they want to look at the stars theory" just doesn't hold water. It wouldn't take minutes for ones eyes to adjust whatsoever. Even say it did there were so many missions to the moon where the astronots were doing trivial things such as hitting golf balls and the like do you actually think they couldn't take a extra 2 minutes to take a star photo or look at the stars? Get real....
Try a star party some time. Learn how dim stars actually are, and how long your vision takes to dark-adapt.
And then go back and look at the actual surface transcriptions and astronaut writings, where they describe viewing stars. And for extra points, learn about the UV photography performed by Apollo.
actually there is a interview with the astronauts right after the apollo mission right here on Youtube where they say to reporters they couldn't see any stars from the moon and for extra points try to stop smoking whatever you have been smoking. BTW I saw the UV photography a while back and that has been called into question by many debunkers as faked by be taking from earth orbit origianlly.
That's changing the argument. You claimed there was no attempt to photograph stars. When shown that there was scientifically useful star photography (in UV), you change the claim to one of pretending to photograph stars. See the essential dishonesty?
Bullshit...Dont worry about these asswipes stalker...they''ll bullshit you until you've had enough. They UV lie is just that. THe picture of the UV telescope on the moon is one of the most absurd shots of all. The thing was photoshopped into the goddamned photo. Any ingorant asshole with the ability to see and think can observe that for themself. These propagandists miss the obvious while pointing out the absurd!
I know un4g1v3n1. These bullshit artists are more full of it then the Chicago stockyards. They have no interest whatsoever in finding out the truth. There is so much evidence dug up against apollo even a chimp would realize it by now. It is pretty obvious this is totally unimportant to them. What is important it continuing the lie. I recently heard LBJ had many apollo paper classified not to open till 2026. Do you know if this is true?
I'm not sure. Barring cloning for organ transplants, or cloning for continuation of individual consciousness. Those radiation proof liars should all be dead. Barring the complete destruction of humanity on the planet, or the internet by then, I believe people will be ready for the truth. Until then, we can just keep shaking them until their ego's and pride shake loose enough to accept mankind hasn't the capacity to leave LEO for now.
If they would just use their eyes, and common sense now!
You need to go hang out with dipshit Plait, cause he's the only one that will support your idiocy. Outside the atmosphere the stars are MAGNIFICENT, even on the daylight side of the Earth where seeing them was described as a MINDBLOWING. But apollonots didn't thing them worthy of mention. WAKE THE FUCK UP MOOG, you sound like a true NASA KNOB SLOBBERER!
why cant u see any stars on any of the apollo missions or any of the current missions that are shown on the PBS???
MrNinjaDuck8 3 months ago
@MrNinjaDuck8 Stars are much dimmer than the Earth or other objects lit up in space, so in order to adjust the cameras so that stars are visible, the other objects being focused on would look like they're glowing. To adjust to the foreground objects, the stars disappear. This works on the surface of the Earth too - take a picture of the moon, and depending on the settings of the camera, many of the stars may disappear.
Flyborg 3 months ago in playlist More videos from TheBadAstronomer
@Flyborg thanks
MrNinjaDuck8 3 months ago
Right, room 237 was just a coincidence............... All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.
unatics 6 months ago
Hey....Give yourself a pat on the back though. You did a much better job than Brian Welch did prior to his passing....It wasn't going to last forever though now was it? The truth will always shine on the darkness of lies, and disinformation once people pull their heads out of their collective asses!
un4g1v3n1 6 months ago
BTW, Phil, how was TAM 9 at the South Point? Did you catch any of the flyers? You know, the ones with the comics about Jarrah White, and his interactions with you and Adam Savage. I also left plenty with some of the major solar flares recorded at the NGDC during APOLLO MISSION DATES! Come on Phil, ignoring the truth won't make it go away. I'd close up the disinformation shop before public ridicule becomes a permanent situation at your public appearances...It's coming BUB!
un4g1v3n1 6 months ago
Hey Phil, I spend alot of times trying to find photos of stars, where the Earth, and Shuttle/ISS is still in the photograph, and not over-exposed, like you PRO APOLLO NUTTERS have tried to say was impossible from the moon. The moon has an 8 % Albedo...While the Earth has an albedo around 30 %. And yet, if you would watch the attached video response, you'll see your NASA buddies have let their guard down and blown you and your PAN buddies excuses straight out of the koolaid cup you drink from!
un4g1v3n1 6 months ago
Is that Carl Sagan's book "Contact" on your bookshelf ?
MrSupa321 7 months ago
that face he made when he said "the earth is in the way" was priceless!
Xieatrus 9 months ago
Maybe someone can explain this image. From what I have been able to find out,
this was taken using the panchromatic filter, and I would presume an 'eyes
wide open', long exposure.
Mars Global Surveyor,Mars Orbiter Camera
Earth, Moon, and Jupiter, as Seen From Mars
w w w.msss.com/mars_images/moc/2003/05/22/R05-00763.gif
Explanation page:
w w w.msss.com/mars_images/moc/2003/05/22/
garyinsooke 9 months ago
one more reason is during a17 moon exploration, schmitt had raised his gold visor briefly thus exposing his face to bald solar radiation (and sky too). facing the sun, of course, he'd have been blinded by the sunlight. turning away from the sun, however, and looking up he'd have been seeing constant thousands of starlights.
stars can't be filmed with even few seconds exposures, but the human eye is versatile in quickly adapting to lighting changes. that's why stars can be seen in space day.
zambi007i 9 months ago
@zambi007i try telling that to a moon hoaxer their brain will start to melt then they will call you a sheep.
derrick713 8 months ago
@derrick713
and probably they'll count me in their dreams!
zambi007i 8 months ago
Yeahh, whatever, what counts is that stars ARE visible in space....and our moon-doofies did not see any stars......hmmm.....
Syphonaptera 9 months ago
@Syphonaptera Moon-doofies? What's that?
andromidius 7 months ago
(contd) when 'crossing' one another, starlight won't be diminished by the sunlight. look toward the sun and you won't see any stars. but turn your head away, you'd definitely see stars
zambi007i 10 months ago
the space outside the earth's atmosphere doesn't contain any gas, or at the most, contains only very sparse gaseous molecules. so there can never be any sunlight dispersion. if it is so, then the only light visible to the naked eye would be the one directly incident on the cornea. so if you look at the sun, then it'd all be sunlight. but if you turn your head away, say 90 deg or even 180 deg, then there'd be only the incident starlight and since light rays don't cause interference (contd.)
zambi007i 10 months ago
....so the answer is yes you can see more stars from space
s8nsK405 10 months ago
this guy is a asshole
wen790 11 months ago
@wen790 hahaha you are pathetic man.. Phil plait is one of those charming Nerds whom everybody would consider a delight to be around.
mmmodafoca 11 months ago
Assuming you could see 360 degrees at the same time, technically you could see more stars by going further away from the Earth. Now if you're talking about the 165 degrees most humans can see, then no you can't see more.
Ye4hBuddy 11 months ago
ONLY longitudinal waves travel in a vacuum. You can not see any stars when you are in space, or from the surface of the moon, or planets without an atmosphere.
You need to use a diffraction grating, as does Hubble.
Could you see the sun from space without a diffraction grating??
garyinsooke 11 months ago
@garyinsooke Um, yes you can see stars in space, and on the moon. You do not need an atmosphere to see stars. You do, however, need to be away from sources of bright light. A lack of atmosphere would enhance the visibility of stars, not hinder it, but you still need to be able to see them without ambient light washing them out.
EmperorofCartoons 10 months ago 2
dk head
wen790 11 months ago
THIS GUY AVOIDED JARET WHITES QUESTIONS
HE PROMISED JARET WHITE A INTERVIEW BUT HE LIED AND WAS SCARED TO ANSWER WHITES QUESTIONS.
WIMMPED OUT
wen790 11 months ago
@wen790 was it really necessary to write in caps? i mean are you seriously that desperate for attention? i don't know who Jaret Whites is.. but if he just another Moon Hoax Conspiracy nutjob.. then there is no reason for Plait to even put up with him.
mmmodafoca 11 months ago
@mmmodafoca -------IF YOU CANT MAKE IT FAKE IT
wen790 11 months ago
@wen790 thanks for answering both my questions in a single strike. You are an attention whore (cause of the caps) and 2nd. Jaret Whites is a Conspiracy Nutjob.. bwahahahaha take it easy my friend. you keep telling yourself that it's impossible to get out of this planet's Orbit. Take care.
mmmodafoca 11 months ago
@mmmodafoca ------nasa went to the extreme to get a nazi slave murderer VON BRAUN out of germany to work on a fiction moon landing
this guy VON BRAUN was part of a slave murderer that killed countless JEWS in dark caves building rockets to blow up london ....
also VON BRAUN THE NAZI JEW MURDERER SAID IN HIS OWN WORDS QUOTE..CONSIDERING MY CACULATIONS IT WOULD TAKE A ROCKET SPACESHIP 266 TIMES BIGGER THAN THE SATURN 5 JUST TO MAKE one single voyage to the moon.
your the dirt bag
wen790 11 months ago
@wen790 oh i love how since he belonged to or was working for the Nationalist party therefore he was killing Jews in gas chambers.. Excellent connection you made there. Second i had no ideaa Von Braun was the only Aerospace engineer working for nasa. How Easily you give into Arguments from Authority, you fucking putz learn to quote correctly and then open your mouth to say whatever idiotic thing you want to serve your pathetic agenda. Have a great one chump :D.
mmmodafoca 11 months ago
Comment removed
wen790 11 months ago
@wen790 wow when i thought you couldn't get any senseless you go and out do yourself brilliantly that only another impaired being with your intellect can comprehend you. Down right genius in a way if you think about it.. oh wait you couldn't because you'd think of a conspiracy to make your world even more complicated. Have a great day champ..oops meant to say Chump.
mmmodafoca 11 months ago
@mmmodafoca ---nasa nazi lover
chill scum
wen790 11 months ago
@wen790 bwahahaha.. excellent come back. I'm sure Jaret whites would be proud of your ongoing stupidity :D
mmmodafoca 11 months ago
Comment removed
wen790 11 months ago
@wen790 bwahahaha looks like i hit a sensitive spot. quick say an irrelevant quip about nothing. Hang in there, you keep telling yourself the moon landing never happened. If it makes you feel better, you should also think that the NEW WORLD ORDER is after you.. and your precious freedoms. Take it easy buddy don't overload.
mmmodafoca 11 months ago
@mmmodafoca your nasa bible religion you must believe
as for overload and new world order
its happening right in front of everybodys face
by july gas will be $5.00 galleon
if a economic collapse happens
you will overload........ eating dog food out of a can like mad max
wen790 11 months ago
@wen790 wtf are you talking about? nasa bible religion?? it's not like i worship the Rockets Nasa Engineers develop. I do believe what they do is important for Future exploration and to continue to push the boundaries of what is the human frontier. No one is gonna be eating Dog food you idiot! and for those who enjoy a that type of nourishment my apologies. Get your Conspiracy theorist ass out of this video chat. YOU ARE SPAM!
mmmodafoca 11 months ago
@wen790 ---you must be a flamer that has the hots for plato
wen790 10 months ago
Comment removed
wen790 11 months ago
Comment removed
wen790 11 months ago
I wonder if one might perceive less stars in space. Without the twinkling effect of atmospheric disturbance, the effective point-like sources of light will be static on one's retina if one looks in a fixed direction. This then may allow for the significant reduction in the perception of fixed visual features (eg all the blood vessels that over lie the retina are rarely noticed as causing shadow effects, and various optical illusions rely upon this), unless one repeatedly moves focus of ones gaze
bi1iruben 1 year ago
Unfortunately this video is dead wrong because it doesn't consider the stars close to the horizon. If the earth would have no atmosphere there would be many more faint stars visible to the naked eye!! This is because the doubling effect of the atmosphere close to the horizon. This is why the sun in a sunset almost loses 80% of its brightness and you can look at it without hurting your eyes! This can of course be more/less depending on air particles (pollution). The video is clearly wrong here!
Gigaloader 1 year ago
@CaffeinatedThinking ... HAHAHAHA.. not only did I provide where he implied that the atmosphere wouldn't have an effect on starlight ( he also mentioned visible light ), I provided examples of how the atmosphere has a great effect on visible light. You're too slow , too stupid and just plain ignorant. Maybe next time geek.
jaekent 1 year ago
@CaffeinatedThinking .. *head shake* .. sorry buddy but you are just way too stupid to educate.
jaekent 1 year ago
@CaffeinatedThinking .. which brings me to my next point kids. Don't smoke crack .. or you'll end up with the understanding of the moron I've had the pleasure of educating.
jaekent 1 year ago
@CaffeinatedThinking .. and since you are obviously to dumb to understand I'll explain it to you. The atmosphere will have the same effect on starlight as it does sunlight. Do you think that the properties in the atmosphere that shift the sunlight in the visible light spectrum turns off at night and does not effect the starlight?
jaekent 1 year ago
@CaffeinatedThinking .. you moron .. starlight is visible light. Hence you can see the starlight.
jaekent 1 year ago
@CaffeinatedThinking .. are you and sy(phil)is .. lmfao .. together? Seriously, why would you make yourself look so stupid for him?
jaekent 1 year ago
@CaffeinatedThinking .. what's with these fail attempts and grasping a straws to try to prove a point that you so miserably failed to make? Try between 1:00 - 1:35 where he stated that you wouldn't see that many more stars and that the atmosphere has no effect on visible light. Which again, my obviously uneducated friend, is utterly wrong because the atmosphere as a huge effect on visible light where it can change the color of the sky from one end of the visible light spectrum to the other.
jaekent 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CaffeinatedThinking .. He implied that the atmosphere does not have an effect on viewing the stars, which are in visible light, but again, bonehead, this is not true as provided in the very easy to understand examples that I provided for your uneducated mind.
jaekent 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CaffeinatedThinking .. He implied that the atmosphere does not have an effect on viewing the stars, which are in visible light, but again, this is not true as provided in the very easy to understand examples that I provided for your uneducated mind.
jaekent 1 year ago
@CaffeinatedThinking .. was deleted by accident and you didn't do shit. My last 2 comments schooled your mind and made you look like the idiot you are.
jaekent 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CaffeinatedThinking .. He implied that the atmosphere does not have an effect on viewing the stars, which are in visible light, but again, bonehead, this is not true as provided in the very easy to understand examples that I provided for your uneducated mind.
jaekent 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CaffeinatedThinking .. He implied that the atmosphere does not have an effect on viewing the stars, which are in visible light, but again, bonehead, this is not true as provided in the very easy to understand examples that I provided for your uneducated mind.
jaekent 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CaffeinatedThinking .. He implied that the atmosphere does not have an effect on viewing the stars, which are in visible light, but again, bonehead, this is not true as provided in the very easy to understand examples that I provided for your uneducated mind.
jaekent 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CaffeinatedThinking .. He implied that the atmosphere does not have an effect on viewing the stars, which are in visible light, but again, bonehead, this is not true as provided in the very easy to understand examples that I provided for your uneducated mind.
jaekent 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CaffeinatedThinking .. He implied that the atmosphere does not have an effect on viewing the stars, which are in visible light, but again, bonehead, this is not true as provided in the very easy to understand examples that I provided for your uneducated mind.
jaekent 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CaffeinatedThinking .. you're a fucking moron buddy. He implied that the atmosphere does not have an effect on viewing the stars, which are in visible light, but again, bonehead, this is not true as provided in the very easy to understand examples that a provided your uneducated mind.
jaekent 1 year ago
Comment removed
jaekent 1 year ago
@CaffeinatedThinking .. this is also true when the sun is setting and wavelengths are stretched out to show pinks and reds in the sky. The visible light is refracted in the atmosphere. Another example where the atmosphere is having an effect on visible light.
jaekent 1 year ago
@CaffeinatedThinking .. simple enough for your simple mind to comprehend? Kid!
jaekent 1 year ago
@CaffeinatedThinking .. let me simplify this for you ;) He claimed that the atmosphere has no effect on visible light. Which is false because when you are on a plane at 38,000 feet, the sky, which you see on the ground as blue in the visible light spectrum, is more white, which indicates that the atmosphere does have an effect on visible light .. hence the change in the color of the sky.
jaekent 1 year ago
@CaffeinatedThinking .. What?! Are you confused or just lost? I wrote it at least 3 times. Glad to know you have a hard time following the bouncing ball. So sad because I bounced it as slow as I possibly could.
jaekent 1 year ago
@CaffeinatedThinking @CaffeinatedThinking .. wow! You're debating skills are as weak as your intelligence.
jaekent 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CaffeinatedThinking .. lol .. you're a geek ... And still you have no idea what you are talking about.
jaekent 1 year ago
@CaffeinatedThinking .. again , the debate was about visible light. Sticking to it only makes you come across as a useless debater and a pure waste of time. However, if being useless and wasting time was your goal, then you did you great job CrackheadThinker. Can't say it was informational but it was fun(ny).
jaekent 1 year ago
@CaffeinatedThinking .. nice cover my simple minded friend but not good enough. Maybe next time.
jaekent 1 year ago
@CaffeinatedThinking .. yo Crack Head .. are you lost?! The question was about visible light . Stop trying to shift the focus because you realized that you don't have a leg to stand on and well, are an idiot who thinks he knows what he is talking about.
jaekent 1 year ago
@CaffeinatedThinking .. says the joke who thinks the atmosphere filters or distorts ultraviolet and infrared light but has no effect on visible light. Even though the frequency range of ultraviolet and infrared light reside on either side of light spectrum, adjacent to the visible light frequency range. Ok buddy, did you get your education from a crack jack box or is this what you learned on Sesame Street? Maybe you should consider changing your handle to CrackheadThinking.
jaekent 1 year ago
@CaffeinatedThinking .. *sigh. You are so lost , its funny and yet so sad because you actually think that you know what you are talking about.
jaekent 1 year ago
@CaffeinatedThinking .. "You" never mentioned using instruments to view ( lol .. absorb ) the ultraviolet or infrared light. Are you confused? Why would the "transparent" atmosphere have an effect on ultraviolet and infrared light and not visible light? Are you implying that the transparent atmosphere acts as frequency filter? Think about this one because ultraviolet and infrared reside on opposite sides of the spectrum. The original comment was so simple .. how are you having a hard time?
jaekent 1 year ago
@CaffeinatedThinking .. what!? He said that we won't be able to see more stars being above or higher, as implied by the original question , in the atmosphere. His reasoning .. because the atmosphere is transparent. Maybe you didn't listen @ 1:14. Then he went on to state that we would be able to see ultraviolet and infrared light above the atmosphere. Both are wrong.
jaekent 1 year ago
You can't see ultraviolet and infrared light .. period! Going above the atmosphere isn't going to magically bring ultraviolet and infrared light into the visible part of the light spectrum.
jaekent 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
PS> you can't see ultraviolet and infrared light .. period! Going above the atmosphere isn't going to magically bring ultraviolet and infrared light into the visible part of the light spectrum. Which bring me to my next point kids ,, don't smoke crack!
jaekent 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
PS> you can't see ultraviolet and infrared light .. period! Going above the atmosphere isn't going to magically bring ultraviolet and infrared light into the visible part of the light spectrum. Which bring me to my next point kids ,, don't smoke crack!
jaekent 1 year ago
Comment removed
jaekent 1 year ago
This guy has no idea what he is talking about. To simplify the concept for both him and the people who actually believe what he says .. ofcourse you can see more stars, up to the point of total obstruction, when "pollution" is less or not present. To put this in to practice, compare the number of visible stars, in the city, in a suburban area, a rural area and out in a country area. Now apply the same practice when there is more to less atmosphere present.
jaekent 1 year ago
@ ytmoog's last comment. Maybe because in space there is no night or day, just time. You have to be on a planet, moon, asteroid, etc to experience day or night. Otherwise time is just a guideline in reference to what earth goes by.
Does anyone on YouTube have a high school diploma?
theLITTLEshow1 1 year ago
@goodnoah shut the fuck idiot they are a fucking lending on the moon! Stop whit your fucking conspiration only the idiot and retard belive in that !
mastrtimtom 1 year ago
You are a fucking idiot "moonlanding beliver"!
goodnoah 1 year ago
web. archive. org/web/20021224134737/ ~ w_w_w_2. acc. af. mil/accnews/jan98/980025. html
web. archive. org/web/20071118005912/ ~ flysouth. co. za/prime/archiveprime/2005-04-01/Astronaut visits SA after SpaceShipOne trip. shtml
substitute ~ with the ones b4 w_w_w
what do you have to say to being able to "see" stars during daytime beyond the dense atmosphere? what about the same in space?
zambi007i 1 year ago
Blah blah blah. I flew from Los Angeles to Montana. The first night there I was stunned by the amount and clarity of the stars, comets, and odd things in the sky. Why arent there any stars in the apollo photos. Weird.
jamesandrew2000 1 year ago
@jamesandrew2000 a lot of reasons, one of the main, is every picture is taken when the planet is facing the sun, that makes it reflect a lot of the light from the sun, and it creates somewhat like a glow, also cameras are exposed too much, cameras need a low exposure level to take stars
worderr 1 year ago
@worderr: pardon messieur, but if you'd look at your post again, you'll see you should have corrected it to "stars need high exposure levels to be visible on films". the greater the object's apparent brightness, the less exposure level a "film" would need. though i do agree with the substance of your comment that with the exposure setting for sun, you can't capture 'fainter' objects.
zambi007i 1 year ago
@jamesandrew2000
Because you were viewing them at night, but during Apollo it was 'daytime'.
And the sun (and sunlit lunar surface) is just slightly brighter than the stars.
Also because even on a clear night photographing stars with a hand held camera is not all that easy.
ytmoog 1 year ago
@ytmoog: the sun's definitely brighter than the stars. but the concept of being bright or brighter or darker applies only to within an atmospheric observation. light dispersion! on the moon when you point your head away to the sun-opposite sky, your eyes won't be filled with sunlight because there's no dispersion. starlight would enter your eyes since light rays from independent sources don't interfere.
zambi007i 1 year ago
@zambi007i
"on the moon when you point your head away to the sun-opposite sky"
..you would still have the very bright sunlit lunar surface in your field of view.
Have you never seen the full moon on a dark clear night?
ytmoog 1 year ago
@ytmoog: again you're wrong! bright and sunlit lunar surface would be seen only when the astronaut points his head to the surface. i said point away from the sun and look at the sky. since photons from different sources have the property of non-interference in vacuum, the astronaut would see no dispersion. that is, only starlight! the human eye pupil adjusts easily to varying degrees of light as well. full moon on a dark clear night? on earth you mean! i don't know how that compares here?
zambi007i 1 year ago
@zambi007i
"...be seen only when the astronaut points his head to the surface"
The lunar surface does extent a bit further than around their feet
"i said point away from the sun and look at the sky"
Yep, look away from the sun, the ground, any high terrain, the earth... then allow your eyes to adjust to the darkness and you could see stars.
A few Apollo astronauts were able to see stars doing that.
"full moon on a dark clear night?"
It is really bright you know.. or maybe you don't
ytmoog 1 year ago
@ytmoog: and there are many other examples of hi-alt flying pilots seeing stars even during 'daytime' high up above 7 or 8 kms. test pilot mike melville and many u2 pilots have see stars in the sky during 'daytime' flying. what's the explanation for that?
zambi007i 1 year ago
@zambi007i
"mike melville"
Did any of the many pictures he took show stars?
Because the video captured from spaceship one doesn't.
I have also seen video taken from U2 planes at high altitude, great view of the earth, no stars.
"what's the explanation for that?"
The answer is that whether or not you could see stars depends on your viewing conditions.
ytmoog 1 year ago
@ytmoog: the reason snaps and vids don't show stars is because of the exposure setting. no one's arguing that. let me make it clear. the u2 and sr71 pilots "SAW" stars with their eyes. nasa simply dismisses that fact. they say stars can't be seen from space during "daytime". that's what is being hidden from the sane physics viewpoint.
zambi007i 1 year ago
@zambi007i
where has nasa ever stated it is impossible to see stars from space during "daytime"?
that sounds like a straw man to me.
ytmoog 1 year ago
@ytmoog: the whole of nasa websites are buzzing with their "keywords". you just have to follow them. please refer to any nasa site and search. there are tens of such references. right from neil armstrong, michael collins to eugene cernan and jack schmitt have been denying being able to 'see' stars in space. even the astronauts who did leo/eva endorse the same. i don't know why you termed it as straw when there's solid evidence for that!
zambi007i 1 year ago
@zambi007i
"right from neil armstrong, michael collins to eugene cernan and jack schmitt have been denying being able to 'see' stars in space."
They did not see stars because of the sun and bright sunlit lunar surface.
But that does not mean it is impossible to see stars from space during "daytime".
Incidentally Gene Cernan DID see stars from the lunar surface while in the shadow of the LM
Message me a link where 'nasa' states that it is 'impossible', to see stars from space during 'daytime'.
ytmoog 1 year ago
@ytmoog: sorry, but you repeat what nasa denies! optical physicists all over the world agree that there's no light dispersion in a vacuum. they say, therefore, starlight on the moon won't be affected by the presence or absence of sun. if cernan saw stars from the lem shadow, then why's nasa denying it? why does schmitt deny it? or any such? if you could endorse apollo astronauts' views initially, then why this turnaround now? links in next post please.
zambi007i 1 year ago
@zambi007i
Huh?
Please point me to anywhere that nasa claims it is 'impossible' to see stars from space during the 'day'.
"why does schmitt deny it?"
Why are you assuming he went to the same effort that Cernan did?
Cernan went to the effort to black as much light from the sun as possible and allowed his eyes to adjust and was able to see a few stars.
"why this turnaround now?"
What turnaround?
This conspiracy theory of yours must be the most pointless I have ever read.
ytmoog 1 year ago
@ytmoog: i've already given the links. don't understand the cross-references to schmitt's and cernan's remarks. that's harrison schmitt denying it. jack schmitt never even hinted at stars, even now! i do hope you understand what i meant by 'turnaround'. by 'turnaround' i mean nasa has diametrically opposite statements on being able, or otherwise, to see stars from space. now you hinted at any conspiracy theory. i never even mentioned it. what i'm here for is the truth. (contd)
zambi007i 1 year ago
@zambi007i
"harrison schmitt denying it"
Denying what? Cernan managed to see a few stars because he made an effort to block as much light as possible and let his eyes dark adapt.
If Schmitt had not done the same he would not have been able to.
Amazingly it is very hard to see feint stars when really bright sunlit objects and ground is in your field of view.
How hard is that?
Please point me to anywhere that nasa claims it is 'impossible' to see stars from space during the 'day'.
ytmoog 1 year ago
@ytmoog: (contd) ask phil plait. he says @badastronomy. com that stars can not be seen from outer space during "day". do you agree with that? or do you agree with cernan? let me put this straight: can stars be seen, or not, from outer space? do you agree with nasa at their site or do you agree with wikipedia? did not the sun reflection from the moon surface block cernan view of starlight? how's starlight blocked when there's no dispersion? these questions will remain unanswered here i suppose!
zambi007i 1 year ago
@zambi007i
Took a look at Phil's page and nowhere does he say it's 'impossible' to see stars from space during the 'day'.
He talks about photographing stars and the Apollo photos.
"did not the sun reflection from the moon surface block cernan view of starlight?"
Can you read?
Cernan used the shadow the LM to help block light, then allowed his eyes to dark-adapt.
"how's starlight blocked."
It isn't. And I never said it was
Human eyes take time to adapt to dark conditions. That is your answer
ytmoog 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ytmoog: en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories#Photographs_and_films
though not nasa page, but it's endorsed.
helios. gsfc. nasa. gov/qa_star. html#starsp
again nasa astronomy rep.
incidentally, nasa says the opposite here:
lunarscience. nasa. gov/kids/moon_stars
this is what's a paradox. during apollo they deny it. afterward they make a turnaround to say something very convenient to the context.
zambi007i 1 year ago
@jamesandrew2000
"Why arent there any stars in the apollo photos."
Because there is not a camera in existence which is capable of photographing the bright sunlit lunar surface and the stars which are vastly dimmer at the same time.
Use a long exposure to capture the stars and the moon would be vastly over exposed. While a short exposure would capture the moon ok, but not the dimmer stars.
Try it with the full moon some time.
ytmoog 1 year ago
... and the earth is opaque. LOL
Djudge01 1 year ago
where did your hair go?
fabiobit 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
crap!
nightst9lker 2 years ago
Wow, you said all this without editing a bunch of clips into a bigger size like most of the people do here on youtube. You know your stuff!!
h666a 2 years ago
"Apollo 11s position is they didn't "recall"seeing stars period."
Not to rehash an old argument but where did that state that they saw 'no' stars at all 'period'.
In the press conference you mentioned that was not the question they were asked.
They were asked if they saw stars from the lunar surface or while photographing the solar corona in spite of the 'glare'.
ytmoog 2 years ago
Could someone please cite a reliable source for their information? I'd really like to see one, as I am very curious about this! Thanks!
sebwatches 2 years ago
Thanks for the informative video! I spoke to an astrophysicist who said that once you leave the atmosphere entirely, you no longer can see ANY stars because without the function of the atmosphere to scatter the light, the "resolution" of your retina is too low! He claims that a tiny spot on your retina will be lit, but it will simply be too small for you to sense. The planets are clearly visible, but the stars are just too tiny. I was amazed, but he swears this is the case. Can you confirm this?
sebwatches 2 years ago
That seems like rubbish.
The light from an individual star would still hit one of the light receptive cells in your eye and as such will be visible if it is bright enough.
ytmoog 2 years ago
My intuition told me the same, but my source is a academic astrophysicist. What if more than one receptor needs to be hit for the brain to register? Is there a minimum resolution of the eye? I do not know these things. I want to know if anyone has reported back from space!
sebwatches 2 years ago
Many people have reported back,
and if out of the suns glare they all were able to see stars.
ytmoog 2 years ago
Could you please let me know where you have read/heard this? I have searched and failed to find any such direct word of mouth, just people who are "sure I've heard it somewhere...".
sebwatches 2 years ago
Well one person who has stated such is Hans Schlegel the German ESA astronaut who was recently on the ISS.
He states : "And the stars, they dont blink. They are just like needle points of light."
I will send you the link if you want.
ytmoog 2 years ago
Fascinating!
Gorteenminogue 2 years ago
Light pollution. Street lamps and cities really do kill a great view of the starts. Best places are where there isn't a lot of man made light.......
Darthbelal 2 years ago
"they did not see stars as they orbit around the dark side."
Collins specifically stated that he did.
They also used the stars for navigation, which did actually need them to be able to see them.
My guess is they assumed the questioner asked them if they saw the stars from the lunar surface.
ytmoog 2 years ago
They were able to see stars from lunar orbit when on the night side of the moon, and Collins mentioned that. They also used the stars for navigation purposes.
They also did solar corona photography which captured stars as well.
But they did not see stars from the surface as they landed on the day side.
ytmoog 2 years ago
Cos it was daytime, and the stars are quite a bit dimmer than the sun.
ytmoog 2 years ago
hhahaha
erkball 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Good video thanks
sufy1000 2 years ago
Very interesting. So yes you see more, but no not that many more. Yeah, Iridium satellites (Iridium flares) can be be briefly seen during daylight (heavens above) and are awesome to watch at night.
frededison 2 years ago
cool, thx
PlatinumDestroyer 2 years ago
well Ill tellyou what man....when we the "public" start tryin to land on the moon via balloon, thats when well make progress man.....shit...
johnsmdm 2 years ago
I just can't wait for JWST
arsenelupin123 2 years ago
Except in the Far UV.
arsenelupin123 2 years ago
Comment removed
geekboy1034 2 years ago
wow! i learned something about astronomy.thanks
TENJHOTENGE1 2 years ago
You forgot to mention the light pollution from cities etc... But great video anyway :)
okram1942 2 years ago
"light pollution"
Probably not a big problem at 35000 feet.
ytmoog 2 years ago
@ytmoog
Not a problem at 35000 feet, above the atmosphere or in the countryside, but in the cities it is a "big" problem...
okram1942 2 years ago
Why in old nasa pictures can you see no stars at all have wondered about this for a long time can any one answer this please
spacemonkey32204 2 years ago
"Why in old nasa pictures can you see no stars at all"
Did these old photos have brightly lit objects in the foreground?
Then the answer is that the stars are much dimmer than what is in the foreground and the exposure time on the camera is too short to pick them up.
It isn't just old pics either.
Here is a good video taken on the ISS, several times he shows views outside. With the earth and ISS brightly lit outside.
/watch?v=JgBgmw-2U8c
ytmoog 2 years ago
A good example of that is the moon pictures. :P
Opiedid 2 years ago
if you mean the moon pictures.... its fucking day time so you cant see stars during day can you smartass
abigor315 2 years ago
Not to invalidate your point, but you can see venus during the day, as well as that close star known as the Sun. You can also see objects you would expect to see at night during the day too, such as satellites. These aren't stars per se but unless you knew what you were looking at you would say they were stars.
Mostlyharmless1985 2 years ago 2
completly right you are sir - my answer was done with haste and mostly fueled my rage towards conspiracy nuts
abigor315 2 years ago
You actually can see some stars in the daytime with a telescope.
jgoemat 2 years ago
NASA even say you can see stars in the day without an atmosphere
YOU ARE WRONG abigor315
KillTheShill 2 years ago
I have seen a star during the day. I looked through a telescope about as big as a van.
Abengoshis 2 years ago
LIAR! There is damn much more start just when you go abobe 18 - 22 000 meters! The distant stars are clearly visible when you get above the smoke. On the Moon, it must be a sight of lifetime. Sadly, the astroNOTs did not seen ANY...
trodas 2 years ago
Don't call someone a liar because you disagree with them.
There are other ways to get away from the "smoke" including going into the middle of the desert as I have. There are many many more stars than usual. Probably that is a good comparison to 18-22,000m high. What are you comparing it with?
sebwatches 2 years ago
Crisper? I think he means sharper!
rationalway 2 years ago
Meh, either works for me. Peace mate
Epistemofo 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
watch?v=g1kVeXXTn1s
What are you afraid of Plait?
Why are you and Jay Windley lying to people?
un4g1v3n1 2 years ago
lol at basing the fact that the atmosphere is 90% transparent to help your argument that you don't see many more stars from space, and excluding the fact that, there's so much shit in the air. Not to mention the light in big cities effecting how many stars you see as well.
Shorty20122012 2 years ago
@Shorty
Did you actually watch the video?
Perhaps you should listen to the question.
ytmoog 2 years ago
Is it possible to see across the diameter universe (if it was round), because if we look backwards in time, and the big bang was at the center, wouldn't we be forced to stop half way at the beginning of the universe?
JTS11d6 3 years ago
As long as you don't have to go to the moon to do it...Radiation being as deadly in space as it is!
LOL!
Hey Phil, you made it in another video buddy! Goddamn your a popular...or is it an elm?
un4g1v3n1 2 years ago
Well, presumably getting above the atmosphere would at least remove 100% of the light pollution? Because if you're in a city and can only see a total of 5 stars, I assume that going above the atmosphere would reveal a few thousand more? (Just like going far away from cities)
Flyborg 3 years ago
If you think you have a real argument (and not a sound byte), put some money alongside that mouth and take it to Apollohoax or the BAUT. They'd be glad to have someone with interesting ideas to debate. The 500-character limit here makes it very difficult to get beyond inappropriate simplifications and gross approximations. It is a venue for bullshit, not for science.
Unless, of course, you prefer it here?
notthemusewere 3 years ago
Sure, take it to a known Apollo propaganda hangout where your IP address is used to screw you PC into shit, and then your banned when you point out the liars there, in their obvious lies. Go congratulate each other on how well you deceive and lie...You don't need me for that!
un4g1v3n1 3 years ago
Paranoid much?
Of course, if all you have is insults and bullshit, you probably wouldn't last long there anyhow.
notthemusewere 3 years ago
I don't associate with twisted fucks who lie for a living...Go hang with your lying friends, or post on a known liar, propagandists video at YT...Ooops you are already doing that. Ass haned to him by a comedian. What a mook...You guys should get along great!
un4g1v3n1 3 years ago
Been to those types of sites...aware of the human filth that hangs there...Not interested...Now you going to try and forward the idea that there are no hackers on the net, and that those who have sites treating those disagreeing with them won't abuse having their IP's....
Naive much?
un4g1v3n1 3 years ago
Crisper stars...Sounds like a good name for a new potato chip there Phil! They taste great and their SPACIER. What a mook!
un4g1v3n1 3 years ago
Attention Phil! Get a new gig dumbass. You were bested by a comedian! And you came off sounding like a NAZI apollogist to boot. Give everyone at NASA a break, and try debunking something you have a chance not sounding like a dumbass about...Maybe hair tonic!!!
un4g1v3n1 3 years ago
To be fair, the hoax believers say the Apollo 16 UV photography was accomplished in low Earth orbit. Of course, these are the same hoax believers who state that stars were intentionally omitted from the faked-up surface photographs because even photographing star backdrops from low Earth orbit "wouldn't be good enough."
The hoax believers rarely earn points for consistency.
notthemusewere 3 years ago
Funny...Guess you missed Joe Rogan kicking Plaits ass, while simultaneously gettin the most inconsistent, and contradictory propgandist debunk stuck in PHILS throat. So he offered a million dollar bet up to deflect his obvious error. Phil said the weight of the backpacks made anot incapable of leaving very far off the surface in 1/6 G. And then when it was pointed out that they made great leaps in later missions, he was stuck in the contradiciton and made the bet instead of answering!
un4g1v3n1 3 years ago
Your fucking hero propagandist Phil fucked up major, and not one of you fucking want to be propagandists like him have the fucking guts to admit it. Because it renders all of you, all of your excuses, and all of your nasty comments about those who see the fraud for what it is, completely impotent! Nice try with the constitency comment! Your officially neutered!!!
un4g1v3n1 3 years ago
They didn't and never did..
stalkervision 3 years ago
The old 'why would they want to look at the stars theory" just doesn't hold water. It wouldn't take minutes for ones eyes to adjust whatsoever. Even say it did there were so many missions to the moon where the astronots were doing trivial things such as hitting golf balls and the like do you actually think they couldn't take a extra 2 minutes to take a star photo or look at the stars? Get real....
stalkervision 3 years ago
It does and they did and they did.
Try a star party some time. Learn how dim stars actually are, and how long your vision takes to dark-adapt.
And then go back and look at the actual surface transcriptions and astronaut writings, where they describe viewing stars. And for extra points, learn about the UV photography performed by Apollo.
notthemusewere 3 years ago
actually there is a interview with the astronauts right after the apollo mission right here on Youtube where they say to reporters they couldn't see any stars from the moon and for extra points try to stop smoking whatever you have been smoking. BTW I saw the UV photography a while back and that has been called into question by many debunkers as faked by be taking from earth orbit origianlly.
stalkervision 3 years ago
That's changing the argument. You claimed there was no attempt to photograph stars. When shown that there was scientifically useful star photography (in UV), you change the claim to one of pretending to photograph stars. See the essential dishonesty?
notthemusewere 3 years ago
Bullshit...Dont worry about these asswipes stalker...they''ll bullshit you until you've had enough. They UV lie is just that. THe picture of the UV telescope on the moon is one of the most absurd shots of all. The thing was photoshopped into the goddamned photo. Any ingorant asshole with the ability to see and think can observe that for themself. These propagandists miss the obvious while pointing out the absurd!
un4g1v3n1 3 years ago
I know un4g1v3n1. These bullshit artists are more full of it then the Chicago stockyards. They have no interest whatsoever in finding out the truth. There is so much evidence dug up against apollo even a chimp would realize it by now. It is pretty obvious this is totally unimportant to them. What is important it continuing the lie. I recently heard LBJ had many apollo paper classified not to open till 2026. Do you know if this is true?
stalkervision 3 years ago
I'm not sure. Barring cloning for organ transplants, or cloning for continuation of individual consciousness. Those radiation proof liars should all be dead. Barring the complete destruction of humanity on the planet, or the internet by then, I believe people will be ready for the truth. Until then, we can just keep shaking them until their ego's and pride shake loose enough to accept mankind hasn't the capacity to leave LEO for now.
If they would just use their eyes, and common sense now!
un4g1v3n1 3 years ago
No need to shake, just provide some of this evidence.
Because all I have seen from you here is incoherent rants and insults.
"They supposedly had to use the stars as a guide..."
No. They used the position of the moon to fine-tune their trajectory.
"Crisper stars"
Yep, on earth you will notice that the stars 'twinkle'. because of turbulence in the upper atmosphere.
Outside of the atmosphere the stars do not 'twinkle' in the same way.
ytmoog 3 years ago
You need to go hang out with dipshit Plait, cause he's the only one that will support your idiocy. Outside the atmosphere the stars are MAGNIFICENT, even on the daylight side of the Earth where seeing them was described as a MINDBLOWING. But apollonots didn't thing them worthy of mention. WAKE THE FUCK UP MOOG, you sound like a true NASA KNOB SLOBBERER!
un4g1v3n1 3 years ago