I'm looking for a wallpaper but every picture has reflections, out-of-focus light points (called bokeh apparently) and parts of hardware in it. Certainly there must be a good picture of the sun, as it would appear to the naked eye from space, somewhere.
Why is there no good picture of the sun from space?
Other urls found in this thread:
Same reason why we never been again on the moon, and why there are strange glitches with NASA videos.
There is an absolute shedload of pictures of the sun, taken from space. I believe they use the infrared section of the spectrum because the sun is pretty bright iirc. Fucking google it
being someone who has never been to NASA's awesome studio with swimming pool gigantic LCD screens and lots of harnesses
not knowing the spaceman video failure
not knowing the thing you call "space" is actually liquid air.
I think infowars is shit but this is ironically a better explanation of the current world than most thinkers can come up with on weed.
No he means there's no "good" pictures as in pictures he can use as a desktop wallpaper. There are pictures alright, but they're shit.
Same reason you can't stare at the sun, its very bright!
When you aim a CCD at the sun it dials home to the CIA and streams your consciousness to a box not unlike the one in Ghostbusters. They literally own your past, present, and future thoughts even after you die.
all you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be
Have you come to grips with the universe and how its features perceivable by your brain are represented therein by your senses? Are you satisfied with how """light""" is implemented as a universal carrier of information, and how the information carried by it is represented in your sensory systems?
Why is the frequency band our retinas are sensitive to so narrow anyway? The frequency on one end is just about twice the other end, compared to sound it's as if you could hear tones just about an octave apart (which wouldn't be much, would it). Why doesn't our sight extend well into the ranges we call infrared and ultraviolet? Are our brains too slow to represent a much wider frequency range with the same resolution (i.e. approximately the the same number of subjective "colors" within a given bandwidth)?
On an evolutionary basis, motion detection was more important. Our eyes are pretty shit tbh fam.
Are our brains too slow to represent a much wider frequency range with the same resolution
No our eyes literally do not have the physical sensors capable of picking it up in the first place. We do not have the hardware.
tfw there isn't objectively anything such as "white" or "black", it just depends on a given observer's "sight" thresholds of perception and saturation
Outside of dead center, our periphery is absolute shit resolution too. It's amazing we weren't killed off as a species a long time ago.
run rabbit run
So if someone replaced their eyes with optical sensors that are sensitive to a wider bandwidth, could that extended information be passed to the brain and be interpreted by it and presented to the mind's main loop (aka "consciousness")?
Are there animals which have a sight resolution at least as good as ours in the central part of the field of vision, but in a much wider angular space?
Certainly there must be a good picture of the sun, as it would appear to the naked eye from space.
Just set your background to RGB(255,255,255) to see sun as seen with naked eye from space. Maybe you should look into the other wavelengths?
What could be done even without replacing your eyes is mapping an extended spectrum over our current one, at the cost of lower sensibility for differences in wavelengths.
That's what I meant by whether the brain is not performant enough to support a larger spectrum range while maintaining relative sensitivity (that would necessitate perceiving of new "colors" which were unknown (and unimaginable, as we can't imagine a color we never experienced).
becaus ethe sun isnt real and weve never been to space
They should try taking a picture during the day when the sun is out.
I'm just joking
This. The only good post in this sewage thread.
pf would be considered fags if they did this album cover today
pink floyd would be lost in the abyss of soundcloud indie trash if they made music today
Is there even a guarantee that any two observers subjectively perceive the same light wavelength as "color" that "looks" the same? Because apparently there isn't - you can't even objectively describe how any specific "color" "looks" like (try explaining to someone who has been blind since birth how e.g. "green" looks like). If there is no guarantee that specific "colors" subjectively "look" the same to everyone, then any two persons could perceive them differently, and only agree on the labels that specific "colors" have.
overkill on the cgi
How all these huge temperatures like millions of kelvins etc. if the Sun's surface temperature is about 6000 K?
that's the colour temperature dumbshit
I won't believe flatearthers until they have forked Stellarium and proven that a planetarium based on a flat Earth model can also model the sky at least as well if not better.
Some burger went out of his way to make appear Murrika appear much larger than it really is. Images such as these are catering to normies so they're almost always fake to a lesser or larger extent (although this one goes a bit overboard).
So green color is inherently 6 gorillion kelvin? Good to know, better try not touch any plants etc.
try explaining to someone who has been blind since birth how e.g. "green" looks like
What do blind people "see" anyway? Is there some sort of "null color" that's different from black and really any other?
some sort of "null color" that's different from black and really any other
For the most part yes. The only possible way it would work if two of the colors in RGB were swapped with each other. Other people can reliably order colors bry brightness, saturation, what colors look like a mix of two others, etc.
a good picture of the sun, as it would appear to the naked eye from space
"white" circle on "black" background
Why do you make assumptions about the observer's vision system and assume the light from the Sun's disk would necessarily fully saturate it (i.e. be "white"), while all of the surrounding area would stay below its perception threshold (i.e. be "black")?
null signal (different from both non-zero and zero signals, symbolically signifying "no signal")
no signal at all (i.e. truly no signal, not even "null")
Are all these inherently different cases? Or not necessarily?
I fucking know this is bait, but I'll bite anyway.
The reason NA looks bigger in the first image is because it was taken closer to the ground you faggot. There's a certain point when approaching a sphere where you see less of the surface but the object still appears round.
you see less of the surface
and the sphere stays the same size
Of course it doesn't stay the same size, you'd probably see it getting bigger or smaller depending on distance. There's just a certain point where you see less of the surface but can still fit the whole thing into your camera's fov.
Kind of like when you go to a high altitude and can see farther, but the horizon doesn't feel like it's much farther away.
Can your replicate this supposed effect (a continent appearing larger or smaller with the Earth as a whole appearing the same size) in a program such as Celestia or Space Engine?
The general effect should probably be present, probably not as extreme as the posted examples though, given 3d rendering inaccuracies and lack of fisheye lenses goypro camera.
t. sphere viewing expert
Sun's surface temperature is about 6000 K
That's correct. Flares reach much higher temperatures, however.
Fuck, what I meant was you're able to see less of an object's surface and it still appear spherical. The only reason it looks exactly the same size is because those images are scaled to the same size. Given I've never been to space, I can't really tell how much the difference in potential visible surface area would be once you're far enough that the edge is all within your fov.
What actual information do all the distinct colors on that image actually represent? Because it seems like they are used to represent something else and not "color" itself (at least in the usual intuitive sense of the term).
see links in
Colorization is mostly there for easier classification of different wavelengths. When someone studying the sun shows image of specific color to someone else, they immediately know, about what wavelength are they talking about. Colors are probably mostly picked arbitrarily, as most of those wavelengths are outside of the range of the human eye.
Ok, so suggesting that the image implied 6 million kelvin being "the color temperature" of green was just babbling?
"humanities" people ridiculed by engineers
engineers ridiculed by physicists
physicists ridiculed by mathematicians
mathematicians ridiculed by philosophers
philosophers ridiculed by everyone
Yes, reaching green is not possible. There are no green stars, only colors on the curve are possible (pic related).
This chart seems to imply that
- "green" is "something that is neither reddish nor blueish and not a mixture of either, and has a specific wavelentth range that lies in between of reddish and blueish"
- "purple"/"violet" etc. is "something that is a mixture of reddish and blueish and lies between them but elswhere than green, and has no distinct wavelength"
Why does art consider yellow a primary color (considering green a mixture of yellow and blue and orange a mixture of yellow and red), while science and technology implies that green should be considered the third "primary" color besides red and blue?
The only reason it looks exactly the same size is because those images are scaled to the same size.
checked and mind=blown
Why is there no good picture of the sun from space?
NASA doesn't want to offend Apollo.
Yes, reaching green is not possible. There are no green stars
That's disappointing. If there were, would Earth plants not be able to use their light for photosynthesis?
the fact that plants are green connected to the fact that there's no green stars
The plot thickens
it's difficult wading through science's lies to get to the truth
Yes purple/pink has no monochromatic source. Your brain makes that color up.
Artist use something called subtractive color model. It's more convenient for use with mixing pigments.
If there were, would Earth plants not be able to use their light for photosynthesis?
Wouldn't then plants evolve such they could use whatever spectrum available instead?
As and implied, "null" metadata symbols are used to simulate the absence of a signal (or at least the absence of any actual data) from the signal itself, as a true absence of it obviously cannot be represented within itself but only be registered "from the ouside". Similarly, ASCII value 0x00 (NUL) usually means "no character", and because it can be placed within a character stream it makes it possible to suppress actual data without stopping the character stream itself (which would be ambiguous as it could happen due to a variety of reasons).
case 1 (foo=x)
data source says: "we can confirm the value of foo is x currently"
case 2 (foo=0)
data source says: "we can confirm there is no foo currently"
case 3 (foo=null)
data source says: "we don't have any information on foo currently"
case 4 ()
<fug, can't establish connection to data source
If Earth was a sphere, explain RADAR.
Could the message received from data source in case 3 be due to the data source itself being in a case 4 situation (i.e. not having any message whatsoever from its own data source)?
Yes, possibly. After all, if you are relaying messages from entity A to entity B and your message input from A is empty while B expects a message, it's usually better to tell B "my input is empty right now" than leave B completely in the dark and just do the same as A (i.e. not send anything at all).
What about it? Geometry of Earth does not prevent radar from working. You should instead explain GPS if Earth was flat.
Radar displays are two-dimensional, so they need to be normalized to some plane, and normalizing them to the plane parallel to the ground is usually most practical (while information on how far away from you in terms of altitude an object on the radar is needs to be derived from another source than the radar display).
case 2 (foo=0)
data source says: "we can confirm there is no foo currently"
The message could possibly also be "we can confirm the value of foo is at reference point currently", as the term "zero" in most general terms means "anchor reference point for the given context" (what that actually means, and whether it can be synonymized with "no foo currently", depends on what foo actually is and what the values associated with it represent).
You should instead explain GPS if Earth was flat.
Its based on the Earth's magnetic fields. Satellites are a hoax and if you believe in them you should be shot.
So you're telling me Earth is not normalized to a flat Plane, which is impossible, by your own logic. And there is only one source in RADAR. Or else it wouldn't be a secret from the enemys you are tracking.
Its based on the Earth's magnetic fields.
Show me how I can derive my position using only Earth's magnetic field, if magnetic flux density at my location is 33.3421 uT.
Ever heard of a compass? It's always pointing due North. AKA the center of the world. Multiply the compass vector by your magnetic field strength and you have your position from the pole. Ever heard of polar coordinates. No? I suggest you read up pal.
Yes purple/pink has no monochromatic source. Your brain makes that color up.
Why does that work (i.e. a linear frequency range with its ends seemingly conveniently tied up in a circle)? There doesn't seem to be a similar phenomenon in sound, specifically if you mix together low bass and high treble you still hear both distinct from another but simultaneously, rather than hearing some other "tone" that seems neither bass nor treble but has no specific frequency (actually the latter is a property of noise rather than tones, and we don't get noise from mixing very low and very high tones together).
You do realize that the compass needle has two endpoints (duh), and calling them "north" and "south" and picking one of them as being the reference is entirely arbitrary? How about me claiming that the "center of the world" is "south" beyond that "wall of ice" where according to you (I guess) all those armies are preventing anyone's access? But hey, then the specific effective direction of "south" would change depending on my own position (meaning that then my "center of the world" would be at the point at infinity in no specific direction, or in any direction at all).
Multiply the compass vector by your magnetic field strength and you have your position from the pole.
Explain compass vector. You also forgot to mention which type of multiplication to use as you re multiplying two vectors together. Cross or dot product? Units also don't quite work out.
There is also a quick test to disprove your theory. Take a smartphone or GPS receiver and put a strong magnet next to it. According to your theory position should change. If it would magnets would be a great countermeasure against GPS guided missiles.
A compass simply would fail to function if it were to point inwards to the center of a sphere. What more proof do you even need? Your claim is preposterous, if North and South were merely "arbitrary directions" they could not be North and South. They are aligned to the Galactic Plane which the Earth lies upon and are equal at all points in the universe.
Ever heard of polar coordinates.
A polar coordinate system with just a single point of origin implies a flat (or at least non-closed) surface. Nice circular argument, 2/10 made me reply.
(the North Pole being the center of the Galactic Plane, as it were)
globeheads getting BTFO ITT
The directions known as "north" and "south" surely are distinct in that they point towards the poles, but calling them "north" and "south" sure is arbitrary, and so is picking one of them as a reference direction.
the Galactic Plane which the Earth lies upon
Whoa there. That's like saying the nuclei of the cells in your body "lie upon" (or are somehow aligned with, whatever) the plane you're walking on. Did astrologers abandon their obsession with the "zodiacal" (i.e. ecliptical) plane for the galactic plane now? Will they progress to the hypergalactic plane at some point?
Fork Stellarium so it accurately models the sky using algorithms that rest upon your assumptions or gtfo, flathead.
i.e. a linear frequency range with its ends seemingly conveniently tied up in a circle
It's not tied together in circle. It's different amounts of opposing frequencies added together.
Analogy with sound would be the sound of piano and violin. You can play middle c on both of them and yet they sound differently, due to different content of higher harmonic frequencies. Tone of a piano also doesn't have a specific frequency, but consists of multiple frequencies added together.
It probably comes with experience of having to deal with the previous faggot OPs, so he's well versed on their visual system.
Yet another shill thread that could have been solved with a simple search if it was genuine to make an excuse to push flat earth nonsense here.
he's well versed on their visual system.
Ha, someone got it.
Shine a torch in your eyes, and report back if you had more than 4 levels of contrast.
<hurr the moon landings were faked because there's no stars in the background!>
Good-quality film records about ?4000 levels of contrast, 20th Century video cameras that could be carried had about 30, human eyes are good for 100-- in ideal situations-- not with a torch in your face (then it's about 3 levels).
he thinks he can model the sun instead of praising it
What does "good" mean though? The picture he has is fairly good for a visual picture, it can't get much better. See
Caphalopods detect a bajillion more colors than we do, and have perfect eyes without the visual nerve sticking out into the eyeball. They do lack lenses however so they can't see very far.
Considering we share the same genes that detect and process light, and the same structures, it would be a massive fucking surprise if we didn't see the same thing at least 90% of the time. Remainder could be colorblind, synesthetes, and other such mutants.
A) The average temperature in the photosphere is about 6000K, it varies a fucking lot from 3000K in sunspots to 100000000K in flares. That is the "surface" of the sun.
B) Upper photosphere and Chromosphere are different layers of the suns atmosphere not its surface, and they're much hotter.
C) That image is literally showing you temperatures of some flare regions, meaning parts of the corona that are ejected into space through the photosphere. Think of them as volcanoes... the surface of the earth is pretty cool, but if you measure just the average temperatures of volcano ejecta, it would be pretty hot no?
Caphalopods detect a bajillion more colors than we do
Wonder how all those colors look like. Can't imagine any other colors beyond those known all life. Are what we know as "colors" just illusions of our brains, just shorthand representations of points of light where a certain wavelength predominates, which look as they do just due to how our brains work, and the way they look to us has really nothing to do with what is merely the property of some object's surface emitting/reflecting light of certain frequencies?
Why is the corona so hot, given it's a distance away from what can be considered the "surface" (and where the density is much lower than the Sun's average density)?
What does "good" mean though? The picture he has is fairly good for a visual picture, it can't get much better.
Man I dunno he's being autistic about the window reflections and the spaceship parts being in the frame.
Probably because inside the sun is still a lot of physical stuff moving around, and there's a limit to how fast stuff can move around because it bumps in to other stuff and slows down. Outside the sun it's all radiation baby, and radiation don't give a fuck because it doesn't have anything to slow it down.
If radiation is "non-physical" then how come it's slowed down by "physical" stuff?
I probably worded that poorly, beyond the surface of the sun all of the energy is being sent off in the form of radiation, and also in addition to that there is nothing actually there in space to slow the radiation down. It's not "because" it's radiation, it's because there's nothing in space to slow the radiation down.
Heat is kinetic energy -- almost got it, however it's not 'radiation'.
Temperature is defined by the average speed of molecules within a volume. Inside the Sun, while there's more energy, the Hydrogen and Helium don't have the freedom to move as they do outside; it's basically like a rubbery crystal. In the corona, electrons and protons get accelerated electromagnetically, and have fewer collisions.
Because space travel is fan fiction and pseudo-science at best.
We've never been to space or the moon, rockets leaving the atmosphere and satellites are impossible, black holes aren't real, the big bang has never been proven and is only a fantasy theory, ISS isn't real, NASA is a fraud, Space shuttle Columbia blew up but nobody was in it, We have never been to the moon, Space X is subsidized government propaganda, Evolution has never been proven, Memes are created and pushed by CIA niggers to sway public opinion.... How far do you want to go?
Memes are created and pushed by CIA niggers to sway public opinion
Not my memes man. No way.
Heh, not the quality pottery memes from 2001 - 2007 I assure you, those were much more organic and original. Newer stuff that is trendy and dry like Bain, flat earth, tide pods, the emperor president, you get the idea.
Good. Goatse is safe.
Let's be honest, asking about space on 8ch is like running into into a klan meet-up and going "hey guyze, this is the jew convention, right?"
Flat Earthers shit up everything they touch.
Humans are pursuit predators: we walk after a thing until it collapses, exhausted and unable to continue to flee. We see well enough to follow animals and make sense of their tracks. Our advantages are in intelligence (the other part of making sense of tracks) and, mainly, physical endurance. Many animals are faster than us but none can escape.
It's just too bad that those are also excellent features for a slave race.
Let's be honest, asking for serious discussion on 8ch is like running into reddit and posting "hey guyze, i hate niggers!"
Channers shit up everything they touch.
True shit My understanding is that our ability to jog long distances is on par with our intelligence when compared to other species.
That's already a case in a natural sense:
These tetrachromatic humans have completely normal brains and cand still see beyond the visible spectrum, interpreting what they see as new colors.
Maybe I am autistic, but I stare at sun sometimes. It's very painful and burns my retinas but yeah.
They don't. I have an uncle who was blind since birth. He describes it as a lost concept to him. It's not like he just sees black; he just sees absolutely nothing. Those neural networks just aren't there.
This has implications for the consideration of the soul and duality. If there was a soul that created a subjective conciousness seperate from the body, he should see black, since the subjective receptor should be rcieving nothing and still interpreting that lack of input but, since he never had a chance to develop that part of his brain, that part of the "soul" never existed. The soul is the effect of the brain.
This has implications for the consideration of the soul and duality. If there was a soul that created a subjective conciousness seperate from the body, he ?should see black, since the subjective receptor should be rcieving nothing and still interpreting that lack of input but, since he never had a chance to develop that part of his brain, that part of the "soul" never existed. The soul is the effect of the brain.
Hmm. Never thought about it like this. Cut out all the senses of a person, and what remains of their consciousness?
You can do that with a globe and a camera: metabunk.org
<hur durr wat is a telephoto
<hur durr you cant resize a picture
Educate yourself, retard.
probably not what anyone here is looking for.
but you can take your own picture using telescopes provided to you over the internet. you have to leave an email and they send it to you after a day or so iirc
it just so happens i took a picture of the sun like 3 years ago with this.