Attiyah's Sun Theory

Attiyah Zahdeh
==============

---------------------------
Abstract

1- Science considers that the origin of the whole electromagnetic flux received at the Earth directly from the seen Sun's position in the sky is originally generated by intrasolar, nuclear fusion reactions. Is this consideration completely right?
I consider that "no" is the plausible answer. I see that the Sun as observed at the Earth involves an auroral corona of continuous, global, daytime, very bright auroras. This means that the light the Earth receives from the seen Sun's position in the sky is partly from an auroral origin, i.e., this part, irrespective of its ratio, is produced in the whole daytime ionosphere-magnetosphere system by the same mechanism that produces the classical polar auroras. So, can we prove that the Sun as observed at the Earth involves an auroral corona?
2- Science considers that the skylight is due to the scattering of the solar light by the constituents of the Earth's atmosphere and ionosphere.
Is this consideration completely right?
According to Attiyah’s Sun Theory, the answer is: "no". This theory considers that very considerable portion of the skylight (the light that is spread during the day in the Earth's atmosphere and ionosphere) is originally produced in the whole daytime ionosphere-magnetosphere system by the same mechanism which generates the classical polar auroras.

Attiyah's Postulates

1) A main portion of the skylight comes from global daytime auroras.
2) Through its intimate coordination and cooperation with the rest of the magnetosphere, including Van Allen radiation belts, the ionosphere serves as a global-scale discharge tube.
3) The magnetosphere works as a parabolic converging mirror.
4) The Sun as seen at the Earth’s surface involves a well-developed auroral radiant point (auroral corona).

Introduction

1- The Spacecraft observations from outside the geomagnetosphere do not show any spectra emitted by neutral atoms, neutral molecules and molecular ions. Therefore, the Sun's composition is void of neutral atoms such as O1 and H1, neutral molecules such as N2, and molecular ions such as N2+. According to this fact, the spacecraft observations from outside the geomagnetosphere do not show the presence of O1 red 630.0nm spectrum, O1 yellowish-green 557.7nm spectrum, Doppler-shifted H emissions, N2 Lyman-Birge-Hopfield (LBH) bands and N2+ 391.4nm spectrum in the direct solar light.
2- The Earth-based observations confirm that the direct solar light does include all of O1 red 630.0nm spectrum, O1 yellowish-green 557.7nm spectrum, Doppler-shifted H emissions, N2 Lyman-Birge-Hopfield (LBH) bands and N2+ 391.4nm spectrum.
Accordingly, there is a mystery. This mystery is represented in the absence of all O1 red 630.0nm spectrum, O1 yellowish-green 557.7nm spectrum, Doppler-shifted H emissions, N2 Lyman-Birge-Hopfield (LBH) bands and N2+ 391.4nm spectrum from the direct solar light from outside the geomagnetosphere meanwhile the Earth-based observers confirm their relatively concentrated presence in the direct solar light.
From where does the solar electromagnetic flux as observed at the Earth get the emissions of neutral atoms, neutral molecules and molecular ions?
How does the seen Sun's position in the sky receive these emissions from their origin?
Is there a source of such emissions in between the Earth and Sun so that the solar flux carries its light or combine with it while passing through in its way earthward?

Anyway, the above-mentioned Attiyah's Postulates are an attempt to answer all the previous questions. Concisely, the answers focus on that the dayside ionosphere houses global, permanent, very bright auroras, and the magnetosphere works as a parabolic converging mirror capable of forming at its focus a well-developed auroral radiant point and its companion corona both of which are optically involved in the seen Sun's position in the sky. Thus, let ask and answer.
{1} Do the Earth-based observations show that the direct solar light demonstrates the behavior of the auroral light? In other words, what is the mutual behavior between them?
Both of the auroral light and direct solar light show two properties:
A- Both the auroral light and all the light emissions received at Earth coming directly from the seen Sun's position in the sky show simultaneous variations with the geomagnetic activities and precipitation of the charged particles on the ionosphere.
B- The intensity variations of the auroral brightness and light received at Earth coming directly from the Sun are directly proportional to the level of the geomagnetic activities and strength of the precipitation of the charged particles on the ionosphere.
Accordingly, depending on this mutual behavior, we can conclude that the light received at the Earth coming directly from the seen Sun's position in the sky must involve an auroral light so as to be capable of demonstrating the auroral behavior.
Well, it is worthwhile mentioning two more mutual aspects.
(a) Both the auroral oval and dome of the skylight are normally almost restricted to the same altitude in the ionosphere above the Earth's surface.
(b) The upper limits of both the auroral oval and dome of the skylight appear field-aligned. In this respect, we must know that the field-alignment is a property of the aurora-produced light.

{2} Do the auroras generate all of O1 red 630.0nm spectrum, O1 yellowish-green 557.7nm spectrum, Doppler-shifted H emissions, N2 Lyman-Birge-Hopfield (LBH) bands and N2+ 391.4nm specrum?
Yes, they do. All these five emissions are normally generated in the polar ionosphere during the auroral activities. No doubt, there are other tens of auroral spectra from neutral atoms, neutral molecules and molecular ions, all of which either invisible and visible could be observed at the Earth coming directly in a relatively concentrated intensity from the seen Sun's position. However, in the following discussion for the sake of simplicity, I confine my talk to O1 red 630.0nm spectrum and O1 yellowish-green 557.7nm spectrum because the Earth-based spectroscopy and photometry show that the O1 red 630.0nm and O1 yellowish-green 557.7nm spectra are usually the most abundant and conspicuous emissions in both the auroral light and direct solar light.

Somewhat Detailed Discussion

Please, think with me in the following discussion.
(1) Both the O1 red 630.0nm spectrum and O1 yellowish-green 557.7nm spectrum are not generated in the Sun because it is void of neutral oxygen atoms.
(2) Both the O1 red 630.0nm spectrum and O1 yellowish-green 557.7nm spectrum are observable in the direct solar flux received at the Earth.
The connection of these two facts triggers this question: from where does the seen Sun's position in the sky get the O1 red 630.0nm spectrum and O1 yellowish-green 557.7nm spectrum?
I see that the only plausible source for these emissions is global daytime auroras. However, the following two facts strongly support this explanation.
A- Both the O1 red 630.0nm spectrum and O1 yellowish-green 557.7nm spectrum are characteristic emissions of the auroral light. In their turn, the variations of auroral emissions are known to be simultaneous with the geomagnetic activities and intimately correlated with particle precipitation on the ionosphere.
B- All the variations of the O1 red 630.0nm spectrum and O1 yellowish-green 557.7nm spectrum observable in the direct solar flux received at Earth show simultaneity with the geomagnetic activities and intimate correlation with particle precipitation on the ionosphere.
What do we conclude from connecting the last two facts (A- & B-)?
We conclude that the O1 red 630.0nm spectrum and O1 yellowish-green 557.7nm spectrum observable in the direct solar flux received at Earth are from very active, global, daytime auroral origin.
Taking for granted that this conclusion is right, then it spontaneously triggers this question: what is the mechanism that enables the daytime auroral O1 red 630.0nm spectrum and O1 yellowish-green 557.7nm spectrum to be concentrated and return earthward in the direct solar flux?
Only a process of focusing is capable of doing so. Hence, does such a focused light necessarily mean the presence of a parabolic converging mirror located directly above the light-emitting region of the ionosphere?
Yes, it does.
So, what is there above the ionosphere?
It is the geomagnetosphere (or say: the upper ionosphere-magnetosphere system).
Hence, is there any distinguished auroral display which can indicate that light of classical polar auroras might be seen while reflected in a concentrated manner?
Yes, the auroral corona (auroral radiant point) represents this distinguished display. Really, the appearance of the auroral corona reminds one of sunrise and looks like a starburst.
In the aggregate, we conclude that the Sun's position in the sky as seen at the Earth involves a well-developed auroral corona (auroral radiant point) formed inside the geospace at the focus of a parabolic, converging magnetosphere-made mirror, i.e., inside the magnetosphere itself.
Anyway, as long as the parabolic mirror converges at its focus parallel light rays, one might ask this question: do auroras in the ionosphere give forth parallel rays that spread upwards in the magnetosphere?
Yes, certainly.
It is established that auroras produce field-aligned light. A considerable portion of this light spreads from the ionosphere upwards as rays normal to the direction of the geomagnetic field. Because the lines of the geomagnetic field are almost parallel, then the rays which spread upwards perpendicular to these lines themselves are also almost parallel.
However, we must regard that the auroral radiation point (auroral corona) is not at all a matter of perspective (rail-road track effect), but instead it is a real convergence of auroral rays or other auroral forms. The concentrated light at the auroral radiant point, the variable intensity of its light, its looking like a starburst, its resembling a spotlight, its reminding of the sunrise appearance, its changeable shape, its variable colours, the observed probability of the formation of a rainbow opposite its heavenly position, its observed probability to appear as a ball, and its movement in the east-west direction at a rate of one degree per four minutes of time – all of these –consolidate to prove that it is not due to perspective.


The Auroral Oval and Dome of the Skylight

The photos taken for the auroral oval and dome of the skylight together could obviously show that both of them either expand simultaneously or contract simultaneously. However, the observations of Dynamics Explorer and Polar Spacecraft could show this very evident synchronized behavior in both of the auroral oval and dome of the skylight. Thus, only who does not believe his own eyes may ignore Attiyah's postulates.
Certainly, always the auroral oval has a dayside part. Sometimes, the auroras in the dayside part become more active than their simultaneous very bright counterparts in the night part of the oval. At the times of such events which may frequent daily, the dayside part of the auroral oval seems from space so larger and more extensive than the nighttime part. Nevertheless, in spite of the appearance of an auroral radiant point and its companion corona in the sky of the nighttime region of the auroral belt at the times of such very bright auroras, we do not see any auroral radiant point or its companion corona in the sky of the dayside region of the auroral belt. Does the brightness of the skylight of the dayside region of the auroral belt embed and hide the latter inevitable auroral radiant point and its companion corona, or does the solar light involve them?
I outweigh the latter probability, i.e., I consider that the seen Sun's position in the sky involves both the dayside auroral radiant point and its companion corona. The following reasons stand behind this outweighing.
1- No one talked about seeing an auroral radiant point of the bright auroras in the sky of the dayside region of the auroral belt whatever was the faintness of the skylight.
2- We do not find any report about seeing an auroral radiant point or its companion corona in the sky of the dayside region of the auroral belt at the times of the total solar eclipses whose tracks of totality passed the auroral belt itself. Instead we find photos of the diamond ring and reports about it. No doubt, the brightness of the skylight during the total solar eclipses at the times of the bright auroras is short of embedding their auroral radiant point and its companion corona.
3- Although, first, the "Midnight Sun" phenomenon is observed in the sky of the "heart" of the auroral zone and, second, the midnight at such a region is usually a time of auroral activity which might show very bright auroras, there are no reports of seeing any "auroral radiant point" besides the midnight Sun or far from it. Therefore, I consider that the absence of the auroral corona from the sky of the midnight Sun can indicate that the Midnight Sun itself usually involves it. Sometimes, the face of the Midnight Sun appears as converged draperies.
4- The observations always show an enhancement in the direct flux from the seen Sun's position at the times of the intensification of the auroral activities in the sky of the dayside region of the auroral belt. In addition to, such an enhancement seems not only simultaneous with the geomagnetic activities and the strengthened particle precipitations on the ionosphere, but also directly proportional to the level of them both.
5- At the time of the solar flares, the brightness of the ionosphere shows a global-scale increase, i.e., an increase appears simultaneously in the brightness of both the auroral oval and dome of the skylight.
6- About two to three days after the observation of a coronal mass ejection (CME) from the Sun, a simultaneous enhancement of the brightness appears in all of the auroral oval, the direct light from the Sun's position in the sky and dome of the skylight.



=================
attiyah_zahdeh@hotmail.com

Hi Attiyah,

Welcome to the BAUT forum. I have moved your post to the Against the Mainstream (ATM) portion of our forum. If you are willing to debate any of the points you make in this post, that would be the place to do it.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

Sorry, but pictures from space show no such phenomena. They do show the auroras over the poles, but there's no evidence whatsoever of the same thing anywhere else.

Plus a simple light meter is enough to demonstrate that the visible band electromagnetic energy being received during daylight on the Earth comes from the Sun.

Then there's the total energy output of the Sun, which, when divided by the surface presented by the Earth at 93 million miles, fits with great precision into the amount of energy received from said body.

Auroras are pretty and sometimes disrupt communications, but that's about it.

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

And what about all the other bodies in the Solar System that do not have aurorae and ionospheres -- such as the Moon and the asteroids? How are we able to see them? What is their source of light? And even if these bodies do have aurorae, why is it that we see light and shade consistent with that of a large, bright object sitting where the Sun appears to be? Hmmm.....

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

Further, what about the spacecraft that either directly study the sun or get electricity through solar PV panels? If anything, they get somewhat greater solar flux (no atmospheric effects).

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

Great thanks to the reputable Moderator Antoniseb.
However, I want to to say to the reputable members: Maksutov ,Celestial Mechanic and Van Rijn that Attiyah's Sun Theory does not deny that the Sun is a luminous body wherein nuclear fusion reactions are occurring. We must differentiate between the skylight and the direct solar light.

Attiyah's Sun Theory

Abstract

1- Science considers that the origin of the whole electromagnetic flux received at the Earth directly from the seen Sun's position in the sky is originally generated by intrasolar, nuclear fusion reactions. Is this consideration completely right?
I consider that "no" is the plausible answer. I see that the Sun as observed at the Earth involves an auroral corona of continuous, global, daytime, very bright auroras. This means that the light the Earth receives from the seen Sun's position in the sky is partly from an auroral origin, i.e., this part, irrespective of its ratio, is produced in the whole daytime ionosphere-magnetosphere system by the same mechanism that produces the classical polar auroras. So, can we prove that the Sun as observed at the Earth involves an auroral corona?
2- Science considers that the skylight is due to the scattering of the solar light by the constituents of the Earth's atmosphere and ionosphere.
Is this consideration completely right?
According to Attiyah’s Sun Theory, the answer is: "no". This theory considers that very considerable portion of the skylight (the light that is spread during the day in the Earth's atmosphere and ionosphere) is originally produced in the whole daytime ionosphere-magnetosphere system by the same mechanism which generates the classical polar auroras.

Attiyah's Postulates

1) A main portion of the skylight comes from global daytime auroras.
2) Through its intimate coordination and cooperation with the rest of the magnetosphere, including Van Allen radiation belts, the ionosphere serves as a global-scale discharge tube.
3) The magnetosphere works as a parabolic converging mirror.
4) The Sun as seen at the Earth’s surface involves a well-developed auroral radiant point (auroral corona).
===============
Evidence from the Midnight Sun

Postulate # 1 under Discussion

"A main portion of the skylight comes from global daytime auroras".


My theory does not deny that the main portion of the skylight, especially in the stratosphere and the underlying gases, is a scattered light, but it does not consider that the main portion of the scattered light is from a solar origin. Instead, my theory considers that a main portion of the scattered light in the skylight in the stratosphere and the underlying gases is auroral in origin, and that usually during the daytime the scattered light in these layers has an aurora-lit background mostly apparent visually in the form of all-sky diffuse auroras. In the stratosphere and even in the upper mesosphere, there are an effective intensity of the blue ozone and a greatly lesser amount of the blue argon. However, I wonder if there is any relation between the presence of the natural "ozone hole" and the midnight Sun phenomenon. No doubt, the auroras themselves are a source of a lot of blue and bluish-violet spectra.
What are the main phenomena capable of supporting this consideration?
1)Frequently very bright polar auroras light the sky to the level of making it appears not only as blue as during the normal daytime but also even as bright as during it.
2)The twilight and the differences of its duration and brightness both of which are latitude dependent and season dependent.
3) The skylight during the totality phase of the solar eclipse mostly remains greatly brighter than the twilight. Frequently, the track of totality becomes brightly lit with green light
4) The Midnight Sun.
At the time of the midnight Sun, the sky becomes dark in spite of the presence of the Sun somewhat high above the horizon. Simply, the midnight Sun means that the normal Sun of the daytime is present at the time of the night or in a night sky. In other words, it means a sunny sky at night ,.i.e. a sunny sky without daylight even of the brightness of the twilight. Therefore, this phenomenon incites one to ask: where has the daylight that is usually concomitant with the Sun just gone?
5) The so-called white nights.
Simply, a white night is a prolonged, somewhat bright twilight which sometimes extends along the otherwise originally supposed normal, dark night such that there would be no normal night darkness separating the evening twilight from the morning one. In other words, a white night means that the 24-hour day would be formed of permanent daylight such that it could be divided into: a sunny part and a Sunless part. In five words, a white night is a Sunless daylight.
Fortunately, both the phenomenon of the midnight Sun and the phenomenon of white nights are coincident. Factually, both of these two phenomena occur within the arctic and antarctic circles. Accordingly, because these two abnormalities are light displays, one would conclude that they should be associated with optical activities thought of to be characteristic of the regions within the arctic and Antarctic circles such that they would be extensive to the degree of showing all-sky display. Owing to the presence of the two classical auroral zones within the Arctic and Antarctic circles, it turns out that the sought optical activities are the auroras themselves.
In short, the midnight Sun is a phenomenon characteristic of the auroral zone indicating the absence of the skylight in spite of the presence of the Sun somewhat high in the same sky. As well, the white night is a phenomenon characteristic of the auroral zone indicating the absence of the Sun in spite of the presence of somewhat bright skylight in the same sky.
Accordingly, one can reach a common conclusion saying that the presence and the absence of the skylight are associated with the auroral activities.
Anyway, it is worthwhile mentioning that around the midnight the diffuse auroras are usually greatly fainter than the discrete ones (Lloyd et al, Space Research, COSPAR Series, vol. VIII, p. 186)
(Carlson and Egeland, Introduction to Space Physics, p. 477 & p. 488).
In addition to, it is probable that at such a time comparatively very high auroras might occur in the upper parts of F2-layer rather than in the D-layer and E-layer that, first, are directly overlying the scattering atmospheric layers or only few tens of kilometers far from them, respectively , second, at the night time their electric currents usually become weak and, third, their electron and ion contents decrease considerably. Of course, the midnight Sun phenomenon occurs at night. In short, during the normal daytime the bright auroras of the D- and E- layers are near to the scattering atmospheric layers, and their light and blue emissions also form a bright background for these layers meanwhile the auroras at the time of the midnight Sun are comparatively too far from the same layers, and their colors are generally void of blue emissions.
So far, because of the relatively too high occurrence of the midnight auroras their diffuse displays, if any, become mostly subvisual. In addition to, because of their great distance – several hundreds of kilometers - from the stratospheric layers and the underlying gases they mostly cannot provide them with enough light to cause the visual degree of scattering, meanwhile their almost subvisual discrete displays could converge and make their auroral radiant point and its corona which may seem:
A- obviously rayed as in the case of the images at these URLs wherein we can judge that the Sun's disk involves an auroral radiant point and its companion corona:
http://w2.syronex.com/jmr/albums/200...Sun-3.jpg.html
http://joannagabler.com/images/lgimages/midnightSun.jpg
http://spacSun.rice.edu/~has/Midnight_Sun.htm
B- faintly rayed such as in the case of the images at URLs:
http://tonno.tesre.bo.cnr.it/~bellalui/Midnight1.jpg
C- non-rayed, or perhaps with subvisual rayedness such as in the case of the image at URL:
http://www.wisarts.com/digital/threed/pages/013_jpg.htm
Anyway, it is probable that auroral displays of visual, rayed draperies and curtains would occur in the upper parts of E-layer or in F1-layer and appear converged Sun-aligned as in the image at this URL:
http://www.enchgallery.com/fractals/...idnightSun.htm

Summary

Although, first, the "midnight Sun" phenomenon is observed in the sky of the heart of the auroral zone and, second, the midnight at such a region is usually a time of auroral activity which might show very bright discrete auroras, there are no reports of seeing any "auroral radiant point" besides the midnight Sun or far from it. Therefore, I consider that the absence of the auroral corona from the sky of the midnight Sun can indicate that the midnight Sun itself usually involves it. Sometimes, the face of the midnight Sun appears as converged draperies.
(Greenler, R., Rainbows, Haloes and Glories, 1980, p. 22, p. 160, and p. 176).
(Assimov, I., The Double Planet, 1960, p. 85).
However, it is well known that the auroral draperies show convergence at an auroral radiant point that is usually accompanied by an auroral corona:
(Chapman and Bartels, Geomagnetism, 1951, p. 456, plate 29, and plate 30).

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

Hi Attiyah Zahdeh,

The bulk of your first message in this thread is identical to the first message in your previous thread. We'd appreciate it if you could try and not make duplicate copies of the same information in multiple places. It would be better to simply link to the one place where the information is.

As a side matter, let me ask you this: If a significant fraction of the Sun's energy transmitted to Earth comes in the form of auroras, why does it get colder at night, and why doesn't the Earth's temperature vary in such a way that it significantly increases in the places where auroras are most visible?

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

Dear Antoniseb,
I do not consider that a significant fraction of the Sun's energy transmitted to Earth comes in the form of auroras, but I consider that a significant fraction of the skylight is generated as auroras. According to my postulates, a certain fraction of the direct solar light, irrespective of its ratio, is due to the global, daytime auroras.
I know that the highest temperature during the daytime could be recorded in the polar ionosphere wherein we find the greatest auroral activity due to the auroral electrojets.

Threads merged.

Hi Attiyah.I intended to address as many of your points as I was able in the order you've presented them, but this one was probably the easiest to answer first:
The "midnight sun" (polar day during summer solstice) never reaches zenith (stays very close to the horizon, yes?) so why would the sky at those latitudes become any brighter than "twilight" or "dusk-like"?
St. Petersburg, Russia is famous for its "white nights", yet is not within the arctic circle.
I don't see the connection between auroral phenomenon and the polar day/night in polar latitudes. Just because they occur in similar regions does not mean that they are causally related.

I've listed the urls you provided; numbers 1, 2, 4, and 6 weren't working correctly. Except for number 4, I was able to find and link in the correct url below.
Number 1 looks like a typical sunset-like evening... not mid-day bright, as one might expect of a horizon-hugging sun. Any optical effects in the picture look like typical aberrations normally produced by a camera lens. I'm not sure what number 2 is supposed to represent or support. It's a painting. Number 3 didn't show anything surprising. I couldn't get number 4 to work. Numbers 5 and 6 are digital compositions intended for artistic purposes, not actual solar images.

I'll try and provide more later.
Oh yes, could you please provide references to the spectral data contained in the introduction of your original post?
Thanks.

To SMEaton:
Please, google more data and images concerning the MIDNIGHt SUN.

How do you explain that the time is midnight and the sky is clearly that of the familiar night meanwhile the Sun is still shining above the horizon?
Why is the skylight absent while the Sun is still somewhat high above the horizon?
Why is there a direct solar light while there is no daylight spread in the sky?
How is it a real night in a clear sky and at the same time the Sun is still sending its light while seen distant tens of minutes from the horizon (the supposedly sunset horizon)?
Do you agree on this statement:
"Were the Sun as a luminous body the origin of the skylight, this skylight shoud not be absent at all where the Sun itself is still shining above the horizon"?.

Hello Attiyah.
I had already googled 'midnight sun' before replying the first time, and have seen many relevant photographs. Particularly at this site, which one can sift through and find hundreds, if not thousands, of photos from the North Pole.
On the NOAA site one can choose the time and date range for photos (actually they're camera stills) from 2002 to the present. For the date, I chose January 2004 to September 2004 (to bracket the summer solstice in June), with the 'all times' option. If the sky was relatively free of clouds, and the camera wasn't blocked by ice or snow, I could clearly see a blue background sky. Some were brighter than others, but still blue.
The Scandinavian 'midnight sun' photo that you linked to does show a "dusky" blue sky as well.
Sorry, I'd write more but it's late!
Just this: I think there's some energy considerations re: energetic solar particles incedent upon the earth's atmosphere during a "normal" aurora and the requirements for a "global" aurora that would have to scatter light throughout the atmosphere. I'll think about it more. I'm a little foggy right now; time to sleep.
Oh, could you please list the references for the spectral data you included in your first post's introduction?
Thanks,
SMEaton

Perhaps this post by Celestial Mechanic was overlooked?

Attiyah Zahdeh, would you please answer Celestial Mechanic's questions?

If I may, I will extend them somewhat.

In the Attiyah Zahdeh idea, what is the expected brightness of Venus, as seen from the surface of the Earth, as a function of time?

In the Attiyah Zahdeh idea, what is the expected brightness of the Apollo asteroids, as seen from the surface of the Earth, as a function of time?

In the Attiyah Zahdeh idea, what is the expected brightness of the Galilean moons, as seen by the Pioneer 10 and 11, Voyager 1 and 2, Galileo, and Cassini probes, as a function of time?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SMEaton
Hello Attiyah.
I had already googled 'midnight sun' before replying the first time, and have seen many relevant photographs. Particularly at this site, which one can sift through and find hundreds, if not thousands, of photos from the North Pole.
On the NOAA site one can choose the time and date range for photos (actually they're camera stills) from 2002 to the present. For the date, I chose January 2004 to September 2004 (to bracket the summer solstice in June), with the 'all times' option. If the sky was relatively free of clouds, and the camera wasn't blocked by ice or snow, I could clearly see a blue background sky. Some were brighter than others, but still blue.
The Scandinavian 'midnight sun' photo that you linked to does show a "dusky" blue sky as well.
Sorry, I'd write more but it's late!
Just this: I think there's some energy considerations re: energetic solar particles incedent upon the earth's atmosphere during a "normal" aurora and the requirements for a "global" aurora that would have to scatter light throughout the atmosphere. I'll think about it more. I'm a little foggy right now; time to sleep.
Oh, could you please list the references for the spectral data you included in your first post's introduction?
Thanks,
SMEaton



Hello SMEaton,
Also reviewing the Google-searched images will show you a ratio of the photographs of the midnight sun having somewhat blue backgrounds. Those such photographs do not disprove my idea because it is greatly probable that they were taken during moony nights or at times of all-sky, somewhat bright auroras in the lower ionosphere during magnetic storms or substorms.
However, it is obvious that you avoided answering my questions.
How do you explain the presence of the luminous Sun above the horizon of a clear sky meanwhile the sky itself is dark and there is no daylight?
How do you explain a sunny midnight?
How do you explain the "all night" sun?

Regarding the references for the spectral data, you can google such titles: the Sun's composition, the solar spectra from SOHO, and the solar irradiance on the Moon.

Did you look through the NOAA site I linked to?
You're creating problems where there aren't any. You're assuming that your theory is correct, and then trying to fit the data into the framework of your assumptions. "Moony nights"? Have you ever seen an all-blue sky during a full moon? I haven't, and I've observed many full moons.
Attiyah, do you live in the northern latitudes, where the 'midnight sun' phenomenon is common? If not, have you visited there? Or talked to people who do live there? Or are you basing this off of photographs? That's an honest question, and a valid one. If you do live in such a region, then you need to provide your own photographic evidence, without bias, to support the theory you have put forth. All I have is what you've provided as evidence and what I can find through Google. But then, I'm not the one presenting an alternate theory.
No, I didn't. You linked only two webpages that actually had photos included. I viewed those. The Scandinavian "midnight sun" photo, that you initially referenced, shows a blue sky, even though the sun is near the horizon. The other photo looks overexposed. In fact, both photos are more than likely overexposed, since they're pointed more or less directly at the sun. My point is this: to successfully present any image as empirical evidence of a phenomenon, that image must be carefully processed to account for any aberration that might skew or bias the data. Such as: overexposure, chromatic aberration, spherical aberration, CCD bias, and so on. Many of these apply more to telescopic astrophotography than simple shoot-from-the-hip scenic photography (apologies to any scenic photographers out there who might be reading this).
The evidence you've provided does not support this.
Once again, the photos you've provided does not support this.
Stating the same question in three different ways does not equate to "questions".
I've googled enough already. When one presents specific data as you have, there should be references ready in case someone calls it into question. Did you gather and process this data yourself? Pretend you're in front of a panel of university astronomy professors, and you're presenting your thesis. When asked about a set of data, do you tell the interviewer to look it up themselves?

It is a simple thing. On the first day of Summer, for people above the Arctic Circle, the Sun is above the horizon when it crosses the Meridian both at noon and midnight (and all the rest of the day as well).

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

Hello SMEaton
I want to ask you an alternative question.
Why is the midnight Sun called the midnight Sun?

Hello Antoniseb
You agree that it is midnight while the Sun is still shining above the horizon.Really, it is a sunny midnight. Virtually, the time is midnight and the daylight is absent meanwhile the Sun is above the horizon.

Far be it from me to answer in Antoniseb's place, but have you looked at the pics at all, Attiyah? There is an enormously bright sun in the picture, and this tends to darken all things around it in the background, because the camera will set the shutter time for the brightness of the sun. This will underexpose the sky, which will then turn relatively dark on the picture. It is just simple camera "physics".

I would advise you to take a trip to the north in summer and see for yourself.

__________________

Any comments in glorious red are to be considered in ModeratorMode.


善數, 不用籌策 (shàn shù, bù yòng chóu cè)
He who is good at counting, uses no counting tools
“A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is”
道德經, 二十七 (dào dé jīng, 27)

I added some emphasis to your quote to indicate the part I disagree with. You probably live someplace where a trip above the arctic circle in late June seems too exotic to imagine. The sky is blue when the Sun shines at midnight, just like any other time. You can see images from the South Pole station that show this if you don't feel like making the trip yourself.

I can assure you from first hand observation that there is daylight in the sky, and you are wrong to put it in my mouth that I said otherwise.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

Heck, where I live, on June 21st of every year, dusk ends around 11:00pm, and false-dawn starts at 4am, and I'm not even at an especially high latitude.

Does make for some really nice outdoor evenings in June, but makes for lousy astronomical viewing.

__________________
And you, to whom adversity has dealt the final blow
With smiling [faces] lyin' to ye' everywhere ye' go
Turn to, and put out all your strength of arm and heart and brain
And like the Mary Ellen Carter, rise again.

I can feel your pain

There is over 2 months in summer here when sun is less than 12 degrees below horizon and only brightest stars are visible at night...

Attiyah Zahdeh:

If sun is at any given altitude, the sky is equally bright no matter what time of day it is, it can be midnight or noon depending on location and time of year, but the sky is equally bright regardless of time of day as long as sun is at same altitude.

What it looks like on a photo depends on the exposure time, it doesn't necessarily tell what it really looked like.

Attiyah Zahdeh, you have been asked several direct, pertinent questions about the ATM claim that you presented (not counting my own), in this thread.

It seems that you have only partly answered some of these.

Please answer all the open questions.

If you require clarification of any question, please ask for it.

If you do not know the answer to any questions, please say so.

If you need more time to answer any question, please say so (and give an estimate of when you will be providing an answer).This does not answer the direct, pertinent question that you were asked.

Please provide a list of the references for the spectral data you included in your first post's introduction.

[QUOTE=Nereid;815180]Perhaps this post by Celestial Mechanic was overlooked?

Attiyah Zahdeh, would you please answer Celestial Mechanic's questions?

If I may, I will extend them somewhat.

In the Attiyah Zahdeh idea, what is the expected brightness of Venus, as seen from the surface of the Earth, as a function of time?

In the Attiyah Zahdeh idea, what is the expected brightness of the Apollo asteroids, as seen from the surface of the Earth, as a function of time?

In the Attiyah Zahdeh idea, what is the expected brightness of the Galilean moons, as seen by the Pioneer 10 and 11, Voyager 1 and 2, Galileo, and Cassini prob

-=============
Concerning the questions of Celestial Mechnic I consider that I answered them in this statement:

Attiyah's postulates are obvious.
Great thanks to the reputable Moderator Antoniseb.
However, I want to to say to the reputable members: Maksutov ,Celestial Mechanic and Van Rijn that Attiyah's Sun Theory does not deny that the Sun is a luminous body wherein nuclear fusion reactions are occurring. We must differentiate between the skylight and the direct solar light.

Accordingly, my idea does not expect any difference in the expected brightness for any celestial body as a function of time.

So if I have this straight, you're saying the sky produces its own light. Can you explain, in clear, simple sentences, why it gets dark at night?

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

erm magic?

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

A whole bunch of physics based radiative transfer models (such as MODTRAN) do a pretty good job of modelling the skyshine without recourse to auroral phenomena. That would suggest that auroral illumination is not a significant component of skyshine.

That's not an answer. They may seem obvious to you, but the questions wouldn't be asked if the answers were obvious. This is your idea, and many details are unclear. Now why don't you answer the questions?

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser