Bring4th

Are stars visible to the naked eye out in space?

~~
 Typical near-Earth sub-space view into deep space  

I heard that outside of Earth the sun's too bright to see any stars.

(10-11-2016, 05:37 PM)IndigoGeminiWolf Wrote: [ -> ]I heard that outside of Earth the sun's too bright to see any stars.

Of course, if this were true, IGW, you'd still be able to see at least one star... no? 

"Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read." -- Groucho Marx

This would-you-see-stars-in-space kind of question and its attendant polarizing controversy (over what is after all a fairly innocuous phenomenon to planet-hugging Earthlings who have very little business worrying about the vagaries of deep-space anthropo-optics) is a nice example of folk-epistemology and folk-logic in action in a heavily-distorted disinformation-field. (I used to be involved in the covert-influence biz, which is why I ride this topic like a hobbyhorse at the drop of a hat, as I think it's important for more to be known about this phenomenon in the civilian sphere-- seeing as how things have come to a certain technologically crucial pass. There are those here at this forum who I am confident know how to take aboard information of this nature:
http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2007/bus...0907p.html;
http://yournewswire.com/brzezinski-it-is...on-people/;
http://strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mi...thomas.htm;
https://www.amazon.it/Processed-Reality-...1475256493;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2oWL63U...17562470FC;
https://www.amazon.com/Influence-Practic...0205609996;
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/150110...KW2WTGJD23;
http://www.thatinscrutablething.com/2008...rgant.html)



The historical model for this is the semi-fabled controversy of medieval Church academicians over precisely how many angels might be able to dance together on the head of a pin. (Of course modern science has answered this question.)



How many questions does such a question beg? How many covert (perhaps unconscious) decisions about the nature of this, that, and the other in infinite reality must you have made prior to even opening your mouth in such a dispute? A cynic would say that in such cases all that could happen would be for the arguers to group-mindedly bring to conscious light the logical reductio ad absurdum of the initial unconsciously-adhered-to axioms (which would self-servingly be pulled out out the disputants' ideological asses, as it were, to put it vulgarly but accurately). Such controversy quickly reveals that it is simply cover for deeper issues that the disputants don't know how to articulate, and thus they must use the nearest seemingly "realistic" worldly natural process as a metaphorical framework to carry on with, what's known as a "stalking horse". Also, there's a strong element of the good old so-called "straw man" argumentation ploy. It is all a primitive form of psychological warfare, using deception deceptively. Which is pretty damn sneaky, and obstructive (to say the least) to those actually seeking the truth without being burned at the stake or impaled or drawn-and-quartered for re-educational therapy because they have differing opinions on Earth-flatness or supposed Mandela-effects or the like. The underlying point is for the disputant to somehow lure his adversaries into his rigged psycholinguistic and random-axiom framework, and by a maniacally strict use of hyperrationalism and hyperlogicism (ignoring any real-world-sampling feedback that shows the absurdity of this) tricks the opposition into unwittingly agreeing against their own interest in his particular axioms. Once they realize they have to also come to his unwanted conclusions, they get so downhearted that they lose their will to argue their point anymore, and creep off to pout and plot until they can come up with some further utter balderdash provocation to use metaphorically to re-start the actual eternal underlying unacknowledged controversy. Peoples is the craziest monkeys, as the noted psywar expert Dr. Ludwig von Drake authoritatively almost stated.



4. Hide your conclusion from your opponent until the end.
Mingle your premises here and there in your talk.
Get your opponent to agree to them in no definite order.
By this circuitous route you conceal your goal until you have reached all the admissions necessary to reach your goal.
-- from Arthur Schopenhauer, Eristische Dialektik: Die Kunst, Recht zu behalten Eristic [Dialectic: The Art of Winning an Argument] (1831)
  http://www.bring4th.org/forums/showthrea...7#pid83937


Oh. Almost forgot the original point of this rant.



Good treatment of it here: https://www.quora.com/Can-you-see-stars-...uter-space
Generally, you'd see megatons of 'em with the naked eye, give or take some filter-distortion from the necessary space-vehicle windows of course (I'm assuming physical corporeal presence out yonder, as opposed to flitting about hither and thither astrally-bodied or via remote viewing , etc. which considerations open up a whole 'nother can of optical worms). Way, way out to hell and gone between galaxy-clusters things might get a little dim and bleak visually. The general idea is that light tends to starkly stand out in darkness, when all is said and done, and isn't (despite appearances) just swallowed up and negated by mere timespace optical illusions of "attenuation by distance" and "darkness" as if these were facets of some superior potent cosmic negative force. Hmmm, that sounds like the Ra's main thrust of revelatory info in an allegorical nutshell.

The timid fuddy-duddies at NASA won't let on, because it's bad for P.R., but in deep space your head psychically implodes due to invasive radiation from the enigmatic potrzebie-9 surreally-charged particle -- and next thing you know this is going on deep in your unshieldable simian nervous system:



O the horror! Next up, you're unaccountably hearing aliens speaking in strange tongues, and traversing alien landscapes:





And when you get back to Earth, there are certain inconvenient... aftereffects: