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 Density filter.

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 as seen from the International Space Station.

All photos of the Sun taken from space are taken looking towards the Earth, whereas from Earth we must be looking outwards,
away 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.
Quote:
THE INDIANAPOLIS STAR
Space Ships May Lose Sight of Sun, Moon After Takeoff
By HOWARD W. BLAKESLEE New York, Feb. 17, 1949
Under a new theory of light, the space ship starting for the moon won't be able to see it
after leaving the earth's atmosphere. Stranger still, the ship no longer will be
able to we the sun. This theory says that visible light If not emitted by the sun. The
sun's rays are something that turns Into light In the atmosphere. These rays are invisible
even after being reflected from the moon, And remain so until they enter the air.
The author of the theory is Horace Winfield Webster, Detroit. He is a research physicist
and astronomer, graduated In 1907 from Johns Hopkins, where he majored In
geology. The rays from the sun he says are gamma radiation, which Is the shortest wave length form
of light. Gamma ravs are identical with X-Rays and are equally invisible to lhe eye.
Gamma rays come only from the nuclei, or cores, of atoms. No other sort of light rays are
emitted by these atomic centers. All the other rays from nuclei are made of small particles.
Webster says this gamma ray from atomic cores is the only kind of light whose source is
known with certainty, and he assumes that It Is the source of visible light.
When Gamma rays pass through certain substances it is a proven fact that they change their
wave lengths. Webster says that in his theory this known change proves that in
the earth's atmosphere these rays Will he altered, becoming longer until they are the wave
length that is visible to human eyes. It Is an accepted fact of science that the
only difference between gamma rays and visible light is length of the waves.
The space ship navigator, under Webster's theory, could see the moon by using a
fluoroscopic screen to change the gamma rays Into visible light. He could see the sun in
the same manner. But If this theory Is right, space ship travelers will have to lie
shielded with plenty of lead. Otherwise the gamma rays in space will kill them.
End quote

The article can also be found in the Salt Lake City Desert News through Google
newspaper archives. Light is invisible in space, theory claims
Horace was on the right track but obviously the Apollo astronauts did not have lead shielding
during their time in space, nor while on the Moon. The nature of light propagation in
space was less understood at that time. The fluroscope idea would not
work either, but there are now Sun sensors that can be used as a part of
space navigation systems, and Star Trackers that can detect 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 opportunity
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 2485 very high speed, 'extended
red' (near IR) response 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 experiments.

The LADEE (Lunar Atmosphere and Dust Environment Explorerspacecraft)  confirmed the presence of the sub-micron 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 atmosphere, I
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: garyinsooke@yahoo.com

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.



Typical 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 displacement law to calculate 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 assumptions.
Here is an article that was published in the Sky and Telescope
magazine in 1926 that questions scienific assumptions about the Suns heat. Heat Of the Sun.—I have no doubt what I am about to write will
meet with skepticism and be considered as a vagary of an
untrained mind. Be it so, I have the satisfaction to know that the
scientific world is no nearer a solution of the sun's heat, than a guess.
I think there is sufficient merit in the theory I herewith advance,
to at least bespeak some consideration of scholars who are deep in
sidereal lore. I am aware that mankind is slow to accept the unusual and does not take
kindly to ideas unless promulgated by well known authority. Many writers are
prone to cling to popular authorities for a long time without question. Scientists have
many times found it necessary to revise accepted formulas. Many theories have been
advanced to account for the heat of the sun. This little article may call forth discussion leading to a
correct solution of this unsettled question.
It not Surprising that one feeling the warmth of the sun's rays should
look upon it as a heated body. If so, we must consider that this heat must be
radiated through a space of 93,000,000 miles; we wonder how it is possible for any substance to
endure a heat so intense that we can feel its influence so far away and itself
not be dissipated. C. A Young asks, 'How is such heat maintained? How long has it lasted already?
How long will it continue? Are there any signs of either increase or diminution—
questions to which, in the present state of science, only vague and unsafactury replies are possible."
Forest Ray Moulton, I believe quoting Mr. Young. says, "Many different theories have been proposed, two of which now
chiefly occupy the field. One of them finds the chief source of solar heat in the
impact of meteoric matter. the other, in the slow contraction of the sun. The temperature is
far beyond that required to melt or vaporize any known terrestrial substance. Many
methods have been used for obtaining the temperature Of the sun, but most of them have rested on
physical principles, which are unsound." One writer suggests that the sun is of or
contains a large proportion of radium. With all the theories, they so far do not try to get away from the
idea of radiation from a hot body. The sun's rays are different from any
heat or light rays, produced by combustion of any substance on earth—more diffusive.
I notice that after discarding the idea of a superheated sun, they fall back on the
compression theory to explain the wonderful warming of this great luminary and cling to the thought of
direct heat radiation. The experimenter in the use of his intricate apparatus, for measuring solar heat,
does not take into consideration the combined effect of light and air, which might be quite
different were it possible to measure the heat above the air.
The effect of the light ray on the atmosphere must surely lead one
astray as to the ray per se. He is simply measuring the combined action of light and air.
The nearer we approach a heated body on earth, the more we feel the heat;
on the contrary the nearer we approach the Sun the cooler we find the
atmosphere, as evidenced by the aviator's experience as he ascends, and the
perpetual snow on the highest mountains. This should cause to
wonder if the Sun is really hot. Then arises the question: If the sun is not hot,
What then is the explanation of the heat we receive from that source?
Perhaps there is a satisfactory answer to this world-age question,
one that will clear up this much mooted phenomenon. We are told that
everything is in a sort of vibration, nothing stands absolutely still. Our
brain receives knowledge of the world through vibrations impinging on our organs of sense.
All life and growth is the result of vibration and circulation. The heat of the sun is no
exccption to this law. The sun's rays coming from a distance of 93,000,000 miles,
at the astonishing rate of 186,000 miles per second, every atom of atmosphere receives the
impact of a tremendous blow, coming with inconceivable rapidity. This onslaught on every
atom, or molecule of the atmosphere, causes friction and vibration sufficient,
together With an electro—Chemical action, to account adequately for all the
heat we receive from this great orb of day.
Einstein states that beams of light have mass and weight, are deflected from a
straight line by gravitation. Hence, if the sun's rays are proven to have
weight it is reasonable to assume that their impinging on the atmospheric body would
cause agitation and Vibration to account for the heat we receive from the sun.
I have no doubt that investigation along this line will prove this theory correct.
The sun is not hot, but gives us heat by the action of its rays on the intimate
structure of the atmospheric through the vibrations of its electrons.
E. A. Converse M.D. October 24, 1926.

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
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIcVLQVw624

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.
https://archive.org/details/citiesofsun00warduoft

I have my own alternative model of the Sun, as an Opto-Electro-Magnetic Machine.

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.

On this BBS site is a long thread entitled The Boring Sun which discusses many aspects of this subject.

Index