Why no stars in photos taken in space?

Discussion in 'Community Discussion' started by leekohler, Apr 30, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #1
    OK- I'm just curious. Why is it that you never see stars in the backgrounds in photos taken out in space?

    No- I'm not looking for conspiracy theories. I just can't figure it out.
     

    Attached Files:

  2. Jaffa Cake macrumors Core

    Jaffa Cake

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    The City of Culture, Englandshire
    #2
    I believe it's because the stars are generally so dim that short exposure photography can't pick up enough light for them to show – other light 'sources' such as the moon or the earth drown them out.
     
  3. Eidorian macrumors Penryn

    Eidorian

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    #4
    Lunar day time just lacks atmosphere. The Saturn one probably needs a wider field of view. You are focusing on a relatively bright planet at that distance.
     
  4. bamaworks macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2007
    Location:
    Lexington, KY
    #5
    I would say a lot of it has to do with how bright the focal object is, if you opened the aperture up long enough to capture the light from the stars (since they are far less bright) the photo would be fully washed out by the light reflecting off of the rather bright focal object. So I'd say it has to do with aperture size and shutter speed having to be small enough and fast enough to capture the main object in focus.

    EDIT: Dang, no one had posted when I began typing, haha.
     
  5. leekohler thread starter macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #6
    Interesting. I'm just curious because I went to see Hubble 3D at the Imax last weekend. Everything was beautifully shot and I was hoping to finally see stars in the background on the space walk scenes, but no such luck. I'm wondering what it looks like when someone is in orbit above the Earth. Is the Earth too bright for them to see the stars too?
     
  6. maflynn Moderator

    maflynn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    Boston
    #7
    The earth rise shots you see are taken in the "daylight" so like here on earth. We are unable to see stars during the day. The lunar surface has no atmosphere so you don't see a blue sky but the sun's brightness is blocking out the the stars.
     
  7. OttawaGuy macrumors 6502a

    OttawaGuy

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    #8
    The government agency that perpetrates the Moon landing hoax forgot to turn that layer on in Photoshop. ;)
     
  8. leekohler thread starter macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #9
    So, I guess we'd have to be outside of the solar system to actually be able to photograph stars, because Saturn and Jupiter are pretty far out, and even in those photos you don't see them.

    I already said no conspiracy theories. Let's not take it there please, joking or not.
     
  9. phas3 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2008
    #10
    I was looking at the pictures you posted up and I thoght "wait a minute there are stars"...until I wiped my screen to make sure..it was just dust LOL:D
     
  10. balamw Moderator

    balamw

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2005
    Location:
    New England
    #11
    No, you just need to look where there are no other bright & close objects in your field of vision.

    Like Hubble. (I saw the same IMAX film last week).

    Compared to the nearest stars the Sun and anything its light reflects on are just really bright. In part, thanks to this little law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law.

    B
     
  11. mkrishnan Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #12
    No, not exactly... Hubble can image the Milky Way. Here's an example of a Hubble picture of distant stars...

    [​IMG]

    One has to adequately shield for or filter light from local sources -- it's going to be very hard to image stars in the same frame as one of the planets, because the planet's reflected light from our own star is so much brighter than the starlight from the distant stars. To do that, one would essentially need an approach like HDR where the low intensity light could be combined with the high intensity sources without saturating.
     
  12. leekohler thread starter macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #13
    I did the same thing. :)

    Gotcha. But most of the things we see from Hubble are magnified quite a bit. I'd just like to see a regular ol' photo taken of space. I know it would most likely just look like the night sky, but I would also think it might be a bit more detailed.

    I knew that already. I saw the movie. ;) I was just hoping there would be a way to get an image of a large planetary body and have the stars show up too- maybe at the edge of the solar system.
     
  13. patrick0brien macrumors 68040

    patrick0brien

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2002
    Location:
    The West Loop
    #14
    -Lee

    It's all about the metering. If you meter your camera to take a picture of Saturn from the distance in your example, it is so bright you'd need to adjust your exposure/f-stop/and shutter speed down so you could see the detail. Otherwise you'd see a white circle.

    Now, if you remove Saturn from that same view, meter on the starfield, and adjust your exposure/f-stop/shutter accordingly, you'd see the stars just fine.

    You cannot have them both in a natural picture, you'd need photoshop to have both. In fact, those examples are likely what you human eye would see as they would "f-stop" down (using your irises) to compensate for the brightness of the object.

    Oo. Heres a test, how many stars can you see with a full moon as compared with no moon? I know that's not fair in Chicago, but go with me :)
     
  14. comictimes macrumors 6502a

    comictimes

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2004
    Location:
    Berkeley, California
    #15
    Ooh an HDR shot from space of the Earth half in day, half night would be amazing....
     
  15. leekohler thread starter macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #16
    I wish I could. We really can't see stars in the city. :(
     
  16. CaptMurdock macrumors 6502a

    CaptMurdock

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2009
    Location:
    The Evildrome Boozerama
    #17
    Here's an experiment: Go out tonight and have one of your friends photograph you standing under a streetlight with a view of the night sky in the background. Trust me: no stars.
     
  17. leekohler thread starter macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #18
    Umm... I live in Chicago , we can never see stars anyway at night. I think I got my answers already. Thanks. ;)
     
  18. leekohler thread starter macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
  19. Dagless macrumors Core

    Dagless

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2005
    Location:
    Fighting to stay in the EU
  20. pilotError macrumors 68020

    pilotError

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2006
    Location:
    Long Island
    #22
    You can see the stars, you just need to let your eyes adjust.

    If your in a light room and go outside and look up, your eyes can't adjust to the darkness and see the stars. You also suffer from extraneous light from buildings, cars, bridges, etc.

    Find a dark spot (on top of a roof, in a park, etc.), hang out for about 20 minutes and suddenly you'll see more and more start to appear to you.

    In NYC, the astronomy clubs meet by the beach, since there's protected wetlands and no buildings around. They don't start to setup for 20 minutes until their eyes get adjusted then do their telescope setup (for those without a computer).

    My parents have a house in the mountains (upstate NY) and when we are inside or just drive up, you can see stars, but not much more than I see here in Long Island. We sit in the hot tub (why suffer ;) ) with the lights out, and are absolutely blown away by what appears after a while.

    In the city, you'll still be limited, because there's a lot of ambient light thrown up into the sky which kills the fun, but you'll see more than you did before.
     
  21. KellydenAdel, Jul 4, 2014
    Last edited: Jul 4, 2014

    KellydenAdel macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2014
    #23


    There are no stars visible in space, because there is NO FIELD to cause the induction for the light be visible.

    Outside of the earths Ionosophere and its field there are no stars (other than our sun, since we are in ITS field and induction) to be seen.


    "We were never able to see stars from the lunar surface or on the daylight side of the moon by eye without looking through the optics” ~ Neil Armstrong. Apollo 11


    The Voyager images of the solar system are the most notable. Images that required very long over-exposure to see Uranus and Neptune yet not a single star was picked up in the field. The exposures were so long the images were smeared due to motion. Surely there should have been thousands of stars picked up. Uranus and Saturn are seen just as well as stars from Earth yet Voyager needed very long exposures to pick them out becasue they were so dim from its increased distance, yet not a single star was picked up. Stars would not have dimmed becasue another 40 AU would be irrelevant to their brightness. It doesn't make any sense.



    Light necessitates a medium of induction. This is why there are NO STARS TO SEE far outside a field or the ionosphere.

    Finally, it has been disclosed by insiders within the space program,
    N.A.S.A., of a “certain complication”. It was found that when far outside
    the Earth’s field of influence the stars and sun are NOT VISIBLE! However,
    the Earth and the Moon are plainly visible. No direct light in outer space,
    only that made visible by gross physical matter. This gives rise to an
    important question, does the “light” from the sun propagate with a velocity
    at all, or is it simply a function of time. The “time delay” may be no more
    than a hysteresis of the luminiferous aether.



    THERE ARE STARS seen in low earth orbit and from the ISS


    BUT thats because they are WELL WITHIN the IONOSPHERE and very well within the earth inductive field.



    This has nothing to do with "apollo hoax" , it has to do with OUT IN DEEP SPACE, there are NO STARS TO BE SEEN.

    Period.


    Voyager photos and likewise, and Apollo photos all prove this fact.


    Light requires a medium of induction for its appearance, even TESLA said this .
     
  22. chabig macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2002
    #24
    Earth's "field"? Induction? Light is light. It needs no medium.
     
  23. KellydenAdel macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2014
    #25

    Nice claim, too bad its nonsense.

    galileo probe images of stars????????? NOPE none

    Voyager probe images of stars?????? NOPE none.


    You have no idea what LIGHT is. GR and QM gave up on the geometry of light a LONG time ago.

    Nor do you even know what the term induction refers to.

    I collect lasers and been studying light and magnetism for 20 years. You have NO intelligent contribution to the subject.


    Go study for 20 years then come back.




    It needs no medium. ???? !!!!


    All induction requires a FIELD, son. There are no particles mediating instant action at a distance.

    Go study, ok? !



    We can of course give definition TO space, but only as is meant an attribute WITHIN a field, AS a product of a field.

    A field containing space is moving at a rate of change of the field as measured BY its attribute, space.


    To speak otherwise is like saying There is light (field) expanding into/within illumination (nonsensical). Rather illumination is an attribute co-principle to and as light

    Light,/EM , like magnetism itself being a radiation is expanding with its attributional 'field of illumination (space)'. We say we are 'in an illuminated space', when the proper causation would be that we are 'standing within the space of illumination (field)'

    where ε0 is the permittivity of space, and μ0 is the permeability of space. Since none of the four Maxwell’s equations is defined to be a causal relation, and since each of these equations connects quantities simultaneous in time, none of these equations represents a causal relation. That is, ∇ · D is not a consequence of ρ (and vice versa),∇ Å~E is not a consequence of ∂B/∂t (and vice versa), and∇ Å~H is not a consequence of J + ∂D/∂t (and vice versa). Thus, Maxwell’s equations, even though they are basic electromagnetic equations (since most electromagnetic relations are derivable from them), do not depict cause-and-effect relations between electromagnetic reactions



    I have about 100 pages to write on this WITH mathematical proofs, most of which come from OLEG JEFIMENKO himself. Too bad he died not too long ago.

    How did I 'discover' that there are no fields in space? ....I came across countless discoveries along the road, and they all pointed at one unknown point, all of them pointing at a place I had never looked, I wasn't even looking for!,..... finally so many pointing fingers could not be ignored. There is no space outside of a field. It is impossible. Likewise therefore no time. Likewise therefore no inductions. Space is a property of a field, an attribute, but there are none, and never has there ever appeared ‘a field within ‘existing space’ ', because space is the effect, not the "medium" into which there is field expansion.

    As is typical of GR and QM, they have been looking at the horses ass, rather than the in the horses mouth. When a field is present, then so too space, but not "a field expanding, contracting, interacting IN SPACE".

    GR and QM have it backwards (as usual), they have reified SPACE as a 'thing' that 'does things'. Space has done nothing, never has done anything (as a principle or autonomous entity, since definitionally it has no such existence).


    Us crazy humans cannot think this way since the entire world we live in is countless endless ocean of fields overlapping fields overlapping fields etc. Namely also, of course, since all matter itself are trillions of spheres of magneto-dielectric 'bubbles' in temporary equilibrium.


    .....likewise GR and QM dismiss 'fields' as a principle of space (rather than a modality of the Ether/Aether).
    To reify space is like saying "love attracts a rock".


    There IS instant action at a distance regarding fields, because space-time does NOT exist outside of a field, space is effect WITHIN a field.

    A field CANNOT,NEVER HAS terminated in space. Space is IN a field, but not the inverse.

    Counter-voidance is spatial compression, or what the commoner calls "magnetic repulsion" is spatial compression. Of course these are polarized Ether-fields, but what is being compressed is space itself, as given definition by polarized field gradients at maximum counter-voidance ('repulsion').

    As even Dollard admits, Ether always seeks self-voidance, ALWAYS, IN counterspace.



    If, as is logically necessitated, space is merely an attribute of a field, then are we splitting hairs by saying someone is moving potato chips rather than moving french fries, since both are modalities of a POTATO. LOL.
    They say specificity is divinity, and the clearer the better I suppose.


    All radiation is spatial, all magnetism IS definitionally of course, pure termination of electricity, but always attributional TO a subject. Magnetism itself has no autonomous existence like dielectricty.
    TEM, magnetism OF a mass "X", etc. Magnetism as co-principle of the universe, unlike dielectricity, cannot , does not exist as 'an island unto itself' Polarization OF magnetism IN/OF X, and thru X

    .......This also explains Dollard many mention repeatedly of (NASA) seeing ONLY the sun and the earth FAR outside the field of the earth....but no stars.
    No light far outside of earth, because no field = no space = no induction

    Magnet is of course polarized, electrification isn’t caused by the magnetic field against a dielectric, BUT the moving space WITHIN that polarized field of the magnet against the dielectric that is causing electrification. People think the field is causing electrification, rather it’s the moving space causing inertial plane torque. Space has only one dimension as within a field, that space is moving (as meant WITHIN a field) is how energy is created, but moving space WITHIN a field. Spatial displacement against an inertial plane causes its torque/breaking. The limit of space is just the boundary-plane of ANY field.

    We think of fields as the "breaks" upon the dielectric inertial plane which creates 'dielectric friction' which = electrification, but in speaking in the SAME WAY we accurately state that "space as immediate attribute TO any field is the barrier which causes electrification", we are literally sweeping the attribute of a polarized field, that being SPACE, against a dielectric causing electrification, rather than the interaction of fields, we have their attributes influencing conjugate fields (mag on dielectric fields etc.)


    This of course is , almost, one of those "chicken or the egg" situations, but still all math and evidence points to the Space itself OF a field, rather than the field itself. Namely, ALL fields ARE Ether-modalities by definition, logically and reductively so!

    Convergent fields (conterspatial) and divergent fields ('spatial', or polarized)

    A space (as attribute to a polarized field) sweeping against a counterspace-barrier = Planck / Electrification.

    This "NO Causation" (as per fields, since there is no field in space , rather only the inverse) feature is part of a couple of books by
    OLEG JEFIMENKO

    BUT he NEVER makes the the connection between fields and space!!!! Arggh!
    He has the math, he points out the mystery, but he MISSES the connection!!

    He states:
    It is traditionally asserted that, according to Maxwell’s equation (3), a changing magnetic field produces an electric field (‘Faraday induction’) and that, according to Maxwell’s equation (4), a changing electric field produces a magnetic field (‘Maxwell induction’). The very useful and successful method of calculating induced voltage (emf) in terms of changing magnetic
    flux appears to support the reality of Faraday induction. And the existence of electromagnetic waves appears to support the reality of both Faraday induction and Maxwell induction. Note, however, that as explained in section 1, Maxwell’s equation (3), which is usually considered as depicting Faraday induction, does not represent a cause-and-effect relation because in this equation the electric and the magnetic field is evaluated for the same moment of time. Note also that in electromagnetic waves electric and magnetic fields are in phase, that is, simultaneous in time, and hence, according to the principle of causality (which states that the cause always
    precedes its effect), the two fields cannot cause each other (by the principle of causality, the fields should be out of phase if they create each other).

    And there is one more fact that supports the conclusion that what we call ‘electromagnetic induction’ is not the creation of one of the two fields by the other. In the covariant formulation of electrodynamics, electric and magnetic fields appear as components of one single entity— the electromagnetic field tensor (dielectric). Quite clearly, a component of a tensor cannot be a cause of another component of the same tensor, just like a component of a vector cannot be a cause of another component of the same vector.

    Therefore, since it is impossible to interpret both the electric and the magnetic field as relativistic effects, one must conclude that neither field is a relativistic effect.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page