200mm | ISO 50 | f/13 | 1/8000sec | 10 stop ND filter
When we want to look at the Sun from Earth, we use a solar filter of some
kind so that we do not
damage our eyes or camera. This is the Sun as seen through a Neutral
There are no photos taken from outside of Earths atmosphere using a
similar filter, and NASA has not taken a similar filter into space
or even into low Earth orbit, the International Space Station for example.
No solar filters were taken on any of the Apollo missions to the Moon,
even though for most of the journey the Sun should have been shining all
the time. There are no mentions of the Sun in any of the transcripts
available, and none of the astronauts talked about the appearance of the
Sun from space. There are images of the Sun from Earth orbit, and images
from the surface of the Moon, and some from orbit around the Moon, but
none were taken using a solar filter, and the ones from Lunar orbit
were taken using a very high speed, military class surveillance film,
again with no filter.
The Sun seen from the ISS.
All photos of the Sun taken from space are taken looking towards
the Earth, whereas from Earth we must be looking outwards,
from Earth. Also it can be
found from the image information that no solar filter was used. By looking
at the Sun in this way, the line of
sight to the Sun must be passing through the Earths upper atmosphere,
which is much thinner than it is lower down, but the line of sight
passes through thousands of miles of this thinner atmosphere, and that is
a very important consideration, as it is my contention
that it is the Earths atmosphere that produces the light and the heat
(heat is infra-red light) that we see or feel from the Earths surface.
(Photos from the ISS are often taken using 'fish-eye' type lenses, and by
eye no curvature of the Earth is noticeable
from that altitude. This also has the effect of making the Sun
appear further from the Earth, but is actually just above the horizon)
I have termed this process the "Atmospheric Light Transformer" model,
which was inspired by a little known scientist known as
Horace Winfield Webster, who in 1949 claimed that when astronauts went
into space they would not be able to see the Sun, Moon or the stars.
To this day there have been no experiments performed to disprove his
claims, and in fact his theory has been verified by many astronauts
over the years, by the Apollo astronauts who traveled to the Moon and
back, and by astronauts in low Earth orbit when they have had an
to look away
from Earth. This is
confirmed in transcripts of the Apollo crews conversations and also in
interviews with past and present
Space Shuttle and ISS crew members.
Although this image is labeled as 'Corona-Window Calibration', I
suspect it must be of the Sun, taken with the 2495 very high speed film.
It was taken at the beginning of the TEC (Trans-Earth coast) subsequent to
the imaging of the corona from orbit 72.
The best image of the Sun from the lunar surface is probably from A14,
using the SO-168 colour film and a 60mm lens.
In all cases, where the Sun is visible it is due to the interaction of the
shorter wavelength solar radiation with the fine lunar dust to produce
visible wavelength light. This a phenomena known from laboratory
The LADEE (Lunar Atmosphere and Dust Environment Explorerspacecraft)
confirmed the presence of the sub-nanometer sized dust grains as
well as a tenuous neon and helium exosphere. Though the artists
depiction suggests the scattering of visible light by the dusty
interpret it as visible light (full spectrum) produced by the bombardment
of the lunar dust by UV and up solar radiation, a fluorescence.
Artist’s concept of NASA's Lunar Atmosphere and Dust Environment Explorer
(LADEE) spacecraft in orbit above the moon.
Many people have informed me that there are instruments such as SOHO or
SDO that 'take pictures' of the Sun from space, but neither
of these instruments see at visible wavelengths, and our eyes would see
none of what they do. The shorter wavelength light from the Sun must be
being converted, by the atmosphere, to wavelengths that we can
see, and by processes known and accepted by mainstream science.
There is no new science being proposed here.
I consider myself a very competent scientist, and as such require that
what I am expected to believe be backed up
by independently verifiable, repeatable experiment and observations. This
is known as the empirical science method.
My claims that the Sun is not visible from 'clear' space, well outside of
Earths atmosphere, is an extraordinary one,
and as such am told that it would require extraordinary proof, to which I
fully agree. But, as I would be trying to prove
a negative, then it must be up to those who believe the Sun is
visible from outside of Earths atmosphere to prove it.
I welcome then that those who are convinced the Sun must be visible in
space show the proof. The experiments required
are in themselves very simple, and require only using the same camera and
filter and identical exposure settings to the
photo at the top of this page. Of course only those with access to space
could perform the experiments, and they seem
to have no interest in doing so, with good reason I believe.
EMail comments and/or proof of the Suns visibility from space to:
The heat from the Sun is another instance where scientific proof is
lacking. We can see the bright Sun from Earth, so it is assumed
that it must be just as bright from space. We can feel the heat of the
Sun, brutally from many locations, so how could we not be able to
feel its heat from space? Another assumption.
When measuring the heat of the Sun from Earth we would likely use a
pyrheliometer, for measurement of direct solar radiation
A device of this type has never been used from space though,
or even from low Earth orbit. The heat from the Sun is
not directly measured from space, but instead a rather complex method that
uses spectral measurements, and then assuming that the Sun is a
near-black body object and then using Wien's
the heat from the Sun. Similarly, the heat of the Sun has never
been measured directly from anywhere other than Earths surface, so the
accepted solar constant is yet another assumption.
We are racking up many assumptions already, but real science makes no
As has been pointed out to me, and quite correctly, is that the surface of
a spacecraft outside of Earths atmosphere, or the surface of
a moon or planet with no or little atmosphere will get hot, and this fact
has been scientifically tested. So the Sun must emit heat?
This again is an assumption, as what is occurring is that the shorter
wavelength (not visible) radiation from the Sun is causing the
electrons of the atoms on the surface being irradiated to undergo orbital
transitions, and when they return to their original
orbit they give off light which heats the surrounding matter. As was found
by experiment on the lunar surface, the heat does not
penetrate very far, and just a few centimeters under the surface the
regolith is just below 0C, and remains at that temperature
as far as they managed to drill, around 5 feet down. The same would be
found with the surface of Mercury.
My quest to try and determine the visibility of the Sun from space began
after watching a Youtube video around 10 years
ago by Eric Dollard, an electrical engineer, who claimed that the Sun and
stars are not visible in free space. This is a clip
from a more recent video:
Eric Dollard, The Sun is Not What we We Have Been Told
If the Sun is not what we are told it is, what other possibilities are
there? In 1901, George Woodward Warder wrote "Cities
of the Sun", available from archive.org.
I have my own alternative model of the Sun, as an Opto-Electro-Magnetic
I will be going into much more detail on the science involved and the
instruments being used by present day investigators
in the Astronomy and Astrophysics section.