Eric P. Dollard

[dR-Green]

Am I missing something? Are you saying Tesla got it wrong at Colorado Springs?

I get the impression that's what's being said too. What's interesting then is that patent 1119732 is of a slightly different design... I don't know at this point if Tesla had figured something out (namely what has been concluded here) and then came up with the new design? That would make sense if we are to assume that he knew what he was doing.

Patent US1119732 - ELECTRICAL ENERGY - Google Patents

Although in relation to the crystal radio, that works (with a flat spiral for me) and the signals are seen to be out of phase.

[t-rex]

Colorado Springs

Tesla's Colorado Springs transformer is configured to primarily develop an enormous E.M.F. to give rise to an intense electrostatic potential. The secondary alone is the Telluric component, the rest is for big sparks mostly. I am very disappointed, I do not believe Tesla even nknew about the monophase conversion with quarter wave coils. In reading Colorado Springs it would seem he is groping for answers to his wireless ideas. He was a bit ahead in his time. After his failure at Wardenclyffe to produce a working system led to a total "free for all". DeForest, Marconi, Fesseden, Armstrong, and others all scrambled on each other like lizards in a box to create "Radio". It became such a mess, along with the Navy getting ripped off by Marconi, that the Feds made the whole mess illegal and the Navy took over.

Fortunately for us we are over that now, and also the Bearden dis-info phase has passed. The C.R.I. is the engineers attempt to move forward based upon known facts and reliable experiments. The groundwork for this has been given by myself here on forum for about one year now, so let's march forward, not get lost in details of the past misunderstanding.

73 DE N6KPH

[Nhopa]

Test results

Hi Eric:
With dr-Green's help hopefully I figured out how to post full size images. All pertinent information included on each chart. With the one turn test coil I could go down to a total of 8.5 cm below the secondary from the current 5 cm. Is that test necessary? Also I will repeat the extra coil test with a home built variable air capacitor, similar to dr-Green's contraption.

[Nhopa]

To be or not to be "visible".

[QUOTE=7redorbs;198588].....I decided not to take Edward Leedskalnin at his word, and I did some research further into the rays that appear to be coming from the Sun, (or perhaps Sol is a better euphemism) and I discovered that the Stars and the Sun are not visible outside of an atmosphere....QUOTE].

Hi 7redorbs:
This is an interesting statement and I for one would be very interested to find out by what means did you make your discovery. I tend to believe that light waves are not visible outside of our Earth atmosphere. Looking at old NASA photos and videos of the moon landings, I can't find any light source visible on the sky except the illuminated Earth. One wonders why such a mystery surrounds such a basic phenomena. We only hear that someone said this and someone else red that, but nothing concrete. So if you 7redorbs could tell me/us more about what do you know we would all very much appreciate it.
Another issue is the Hubble telescope. My INTERNET search did not provide me with enough information on the Hubble's construction to determine whether or not there is a gas filled space between the optical mirror and the front entrance of the telescope. This is very important to know. If light only manifest as a visible entity in presence of an atmosphere, then the Hubble must have some sort of gas filled chamber front of it lens. This would make sense from another point, that is, it would be easier to keep the optical lens at a certain temperature, insulated from direct exposure to the outer space. Now if it turns out that Hubble's lens is in direct contact with the outer space then light must be visible out there for an optical lens to work.
If it turns out for certain that light sources are invisible beyond our atmosphere then the question is how much atmosphere do we need to see it, i.e. how thick and how dense? Do the astronauts, looking out of their pressurized cabin, see lights of the sun and stars?

[SERG V.]

Hi Mr.T.Rex !!

How do you know that data about Tesla Magnifying Transformer didn't polished ?? Not by Tesla himself but some enemy structures like in case of D.I. Мendelev's periodic table and many other.... !!

[7redorbs]

[QUOTE=Nhopa;198839]

.....I decided not to take Edward Leedskalnin at his word, and I did some research further into the rays that appear to be coming from the Sun, (or perhaps Sol is a better euphemism) and I discovered that the Stars and the Sun are not visible outside of an atmosphere....QUOTE].

Hi 7redorbs:
This is an interesting statement and I for one would be very interested to find out by what means did you make your discovery. I tend to believe that light waves are not visible outside of our Earth atmosphere. Looking at old NASA photos and videos of the moon landings, I can't find any light source visible on the sky except the illuminated Earth. One wonders why such a mystery surrounds such a basic phenomena. We only hear that someone said this and someone else red that, but nothing concrete. So if you 7redorbs could tell me/us more about what do you know we would all very much appreciate it.
Another issue is the Hubble telescope. My INTERNET search did not provide me with enough information on the Hubble's construction to determine whether or not there is a gas filled space between the optical mirror and the front entrance of the telescope. This is very important to know. If light only manifest as a visible entity in presence of an atmosphere, then the Hubble must have some sort of gas filled chamber front of it lens. This would make sense from another point, that is, it would be easier to keep the optical lens at a certain temperature, insulated from direct exposure to the outer space. Now if it turns out that Hubble's lens is in direct contact with the outer space then light must be visible out there for an optical lens to work.
If it turns out for certain that light sources are invisible beyond our atmosphere then the question is how much atmosphere do we need to see it, i.e. how thick and how dense? Do the astronauts, looking out of their pressurized cabin, see lights of the sun and stars?

That is exactly my point.

IF visible light really is from PARTICLES OF MATTER, whose "orbits" are spinning, and if the longitudinal wave (from the sun) is spinning at high speed, then it may explain sufficiently why light is produced from both the AURORA BOREALIS and the ATMOSPHERE in general.

If this was true, I discovered immediately that if I was right about transverse light of 186,000miles per second being caused by a faster wave of 291,000 miles per second from all stars and suns reacting with the atmosphere then outside of the atmosphere visible light will not be observable to a lens, without a said atmosphere, and the mass that the particles are associated with. ( Take note that I did this with no physics degree, no electronics degree, NOTHING) Thanks Eric. You are a genius, that inspires me so much.

So, to summarise, the transverse wave is produced by a longitudinal wave of 291,000mi/sec (or potentially much much faster waves). The transverse wave is emitted at light speed, only when the spinning north and south pole magnets from the sun (longitudinal field) react with other spinning mass.

I realised immediately , (as I think inductively) that I could use my lack of knowledge of Telescopes and optics to confirm my prediction.

If I am right, they will have found that their light telescopes ONLY, and I MEAN ONLY, work with an air in between the vacuum of space, and the lens. Less all the star light will appear as longitudinal (invisible).

At least if my hypothesis holds , the better light detectors will be found to have a very high density atmosphere between the source medium and the detector lens or sensor array. I was impressed because even someone like old me was able to inductively consider a proof to Tesla and Eric Dollards Longitudinal waves of 291,000mi/sec (or more) coming from the sun, and a possibility to prove without doubt.

That in the absence of atmosphere, the waves are black.... for me it is getting a bit spooky. All that dark matter the scientists are looking for........ hmmm Could it really be in the propogation speed of waves from the stars (because clearly by inductive approach stars do not appear to emit light).

Stars and suns, they appear to emit a dark, black substance, in the form of wave, it has energy certainly. It is also spinning with great kinetic, otherwise I doubt the atmosphere, and the orbiting magnets of particles would collide so brilliantly together. Afterall, the light in a bulb, is not produced by electrons. It's produced by the collision , and density of north and south pole magnets at the filament.

That's why the filament is so small, and thin. The north and south poles they crowd there, at the weakest point in the entire wire, if you increase the thickness, the north and south poles no longer escape.

This suggests that heat is created by interaction of MASS with a longitudinal from outer space. The longitudinal wave itself, having no radiation emissions, or scatter, appears to be at least implied as lossless. If it is kinetic movement, in the longitudinal wave, and the vacuum does provide no resistance, then this may explain why it travels at a greater propogation rate through that medium, in comparison to an atmosphere which has high amount of rotation , caused by the planet rotation itself and the kinetic energy of particles moving in the aether.

Indeed, light speed (186,000mi/sec) waves would be produced in the fashion of deflection of magnetic orbits, and longitudinal waves of higher speed would be produced in mediums with no deflection, such as the vacuum of space. The wave becomes dark and invisible until interacting with matter.

It is in my approximation why the Moon should also have no reflections.

Lets not forget the important note of the kinetic I have made. If the longitudinal wave is a spinning twirling wave (much like our electricity), than our efforts are surely not in vain. If the resistance of the vacuum of space is significantly low, and we know it is, because it has a negative temperature in Celsius, even when "sun waves" travel through it. IS this not proof already that transverse waves are produced by reflection? And is it not enough proof already Light IS reflection? Maybe not... so I will continue a little further...

IF the resistance in the vacuum is 0, and that is what is causing the longitudinal wave to be invisible, and the moving particles in the vacuum ARE resistance to the longitudinal wave that IS invisible, then the kinetic energy of waves from the sun, or any electrical conductor are PRESERVED in the vacuum.

Behold how and why Tesla really could have achieved a means of "transmitting electricity absolutely regardless of distance". If indeed, the sun is transferring it's longitudinal wave energy into the atmosphere across the entire span of the orbit radius of earth without loss, then it represents a great victory of proof for Tesla's longitudinal wave. It also explains why in Tesla's biography he explains his vision of the sun, before drawing his alternating current diagram and 4 quadrant motor & Transformer system. Perhaps a little hidden mesage from Tesla. If his comments that his flying saucers "were befitting of king solomon" wasn't?

Anyway... Now I'm waffling but I'm significantly glad my previous post was not entirely in vain.

Keep up the good work Eric, David, Peter. I'm sorry that my musings are without basis and usefulness occasionally. In the case of this though I hope I provide a tunnel of some kind. (if you forgive the pun)

To summarise I think atmospheric density and a regular lenz and/or light sensor ought to give results by amplitude of the light alone..... If I am right then high density == high amplification of light....... Density or impulse density == amplification/luminescence concentration. If luminescence was a function of the kinetic energy of the wave rotation, and the interacting particulate matter (in this case the atmosphere or a compartment within a telescope that sits directly in between the test medium and the lenz. It's well worth nothing this might suggest that all telescopes are looking at a "particle reaction" rather than an "particle existence".

Sure, it's quantum physics, but I have muted faith in many of these so called faculties of science. If they were called faculties of interdependent natural philosophy I'd be happier. Not knowing such a thing held me back a decade in my understanding, I'm only 28. But I am serious.

Best,
A

[SilverToGold]

They don't need a gas. I believe William Lyne who also revealed this fact stated that they have specially coated lens that allows them to see the otherwise invisible light. It may also be the case that is why the gold colored doom on space suits really is for.



And this is a very old idea. The earliest trace of this is a book from early 1920's that referred to an older book hundreds of years old that said the sun is a dark cold mass that emits no visible light. This is before anyone even came close to being in space according to common history. There is nothing new under the sun.

.....I decided not to take Edward Leedskalnin at his word, and I did some research further into the rays that appear to be coming from the Sun, (or perhaps Sol is a better euphemism) and I discovered that the Stars and the Sun are not visible outside of an atmosphere....

.

Hi 7redorbs:
This is an interesting statement and I for one would be very interested to find out by what means did you make your discovery. I tend to believe that light waves are not visible outside of our Earth atmosphere. Looking at old NASA photos and videos of the moon landings, I can't find any light source visible on the sky except the illuminated Earth. One wonders why such a mystery surrounds such a basic phenomena. We only hear that someone said this and someone else red that, but nothing concrete. So if you 7redorbs could tell me/us more about what do you know we would all very much appreciate it.
Another issue is the Hubble telescope. My INTERNET search did not provide me with enough information on the Hubble's construction to determine whether or not there is a gas filled space between the optical mirror and the front entrance of the telescope. This is very important to know. If light only manifest as a visible entity in presence of an atmosphere, then the Hubble must have some sort of gas filled chamber front of it lens. This would make sense from another point, that is, it would be easier to keep the optical lens at a certain temperature, insulated from direct exposure to the outer space. Now if it turns out that Hubble's lens is in direct contact with the outer space then light must be visible out there for an optical lens to work.
If it turns out for certain that light sources are invisible beyond our atmosphere then the question is how much atmosphere do we need to see it, i.e. how thick and how dense? Do the astronauts, looking out of their pressurized cabin, see lights of the sun and stars?

[SERG V.]

[SilverToGold]

Any particle from the period table that has mass is fine.

The denser the more light though.

Best,
A

Well, I'm no expert and make no pretense to understand this phenomena but if what you say is true. Then why isn't glass (that the lens are made of) enough to make them visible?

If you look at Tesla's experiment on this radiation (roentgen radiation), it reacts differently depending on the type of atom it strikes. Not just mass but what the material is makes an important distinction. It's not merely density or mass as you say.

[madhatter]

This is getting off topic and we may want to start another thread on this phenomenon to keep the channel clear.

I have technical information in regards to this I can share.

[7redorbs]

Sorry, I did a really long post again. So i deleted it and replaced it with this.. I don't want to distract you or take the focus away.

I just wanted to thank Eric. Not enough people do. Please don't write me off too fast. I have read all of Eric's books, and some of the ones he recommends, and I do understand some of it.


Best,
A

[t-rex]

Notes on Impulse Forces

1) Tesla's radiant matter lamps: Tesla developed a single terminal lamp consisting of a spherical bulb and a central monopolar multipactive cathode. Damped, asymmetrical, oscillations can make this bulb a projector of radiant matter. Find and read his descriptions of this lamp.

2) Vassilatos overemphasizes the uni-directional discharge. The distinction here is, are we considering Tesla's Telluric work, this a harmonic wave, or are we considering his vacuum (Aether) work, this a transient wave?

3) Considering then, a non recovering transient or "uni-directional impulse", it is that once all the dielectric energy is abruptly thrown into magnetic form this magnetic energy recoils with an intense Forward EMF. A shock wave of electrostatic potential ensues. Steinmetz makes an analog of the cracking of a whip. Robert Golka, "Mr. Sparks", performed an interesting series of violent EMF discharges utilizing electric railway equipment.


Arc électrique / Electric arc - YouTube
arc electrique - YouTube

4) Experimental verification: Sputins experiment involves discharges in rust, Iron Oxides, Sulfates, and Hydroxides along with carbon compounds give a solid state soup. Ferrous sufides work as catwhisker diodes. Did he just hit the right little booger on the grill and trigger a uni-directional transient?

5) Observations from the Goethean presentation of dielectric magnetic polarity, this in the "Free Energy" video: two violent disruptive discharges are shown here, dielectric short circuit, and a magnetic open circuit. Watch closely how the magnetic impulse tweaks the solid state video camera in this scene, the dielectric does not.

6) Childhood memories remind me of the tragedy of burning out my FM radio. This came about by simply arcing a grounded TV doorknob condenser, 10KV @ 500 pFd charge, to a one square foot metal plate. Snap and the radio went dead. Bummer.

7) Vassilatos in his Vril Compendium, shows instances of photographs of the surrounding countryside being visible inside glass telephone insulators, or on the decks of ships, these after lightning strikes. This is one step beyond radiant matter.

8) The idea of electron clusters flew by. Let us look at this idea. J.J. Thompson did not discover the electron as the Einsteiners know it. To J.J. Thompson it was an Aether Corpuscle, 1000 times smaller that the so called "electron". He did not like this adulteration nor did Steinmetz. Now we find that Steinmetz goes so far as to say that this "electron" is a Chemical Atom! Einstein is going to call 911. Are we to now think that a multiplicity of J.J. corpuscles are the electrons of the "electron" and no counter-polar nucleus exists? And what about the element Coronium?

9)Another experimental observation from my RCA days. I had assembled a "spark gap" transformer, it consisted of one of the ceramic coils in the Bolinas photos. The primary was of the configuration shown by Tesla in his Colorado Notes, reference number one in my recent writing. The output was remarkable. A small radar triode, 24G (or 3C24?) I think. Upon exposing this tube to the corona of transformer it operated as a Crookes tube. Blue electron fluorescence was seen on the inside of the glass. Now what was astonishing was that this electron glow remained after the transformer was de-energized. In attempt to pick it up in my fingers a fractal display of Coronium green streamers spread across the glass and the tube discharge in a snap. Is this the monopolar "charge" questioned by Faraday?

From Colorado Springs Notes:



10) So now the doors are flung open into the Borderlands, but how does this serve the engineer? What can we make of this that works?

73 DE N6KPH

[t-rex]

Tesla Transformer

1) Nhopa Coil Notes

The graphs are hard to use when off scale or skewed. Back off the test coil more until meter stays on scale. I see your magnification factor is about 130. It is best if the magnification factor is given by coil maker, here is how it is done. Find peak reading on meter, its frequency noted as "carrier". Go down in frequency until meter reads 71% of the peak reading, this frequency noted as "Lower Side Band" (LSB). Go above carrier (CXR) frequency until again the meter reads 71% of the peak reading, this frequency noted as "Upper Side Band" (USB). Now subtract the LSB from USB. Take this difference, or 3dB bandwidth, and divide it by the CXR frequency. Finally take this result and divide it into one. Hence derived is the magnification factor. It is most important that this be as large as possible and every effort must be made to maximize it. The magnification transformer.

2) Duplication of Colorado Transformer in a scaled down version. This is an easy task. In principle the Lineal dimensions of distributed networks scale directly as wavelength and frequency are inverses. Not so with lumped components like inductors and condensers, these scale to the square root of the scale factor. Thus if a one hundreth size unit is made the inductors and condesners must be one tenth in size, square root of 100.

3) From accounts given in Tesla biographies, like JJ Oniel's "Prodigal Genius", once perfected the Tesla Transformer made quite a commotion, heard 20 miles away. Horses jumped from the ground, sparks following their feet. It burned out the generating station. Tesla had created a cumulative oscillation, as frequently described by Steinmetz, these oscillations possibly of global magnitude. While the frequency of about 45 Kc/sec is thought to be "too high" for earth resonance, that line of thinking is Einstein thinking, Schumann BS. It is ironic Marconi chose 44.77 Kc/sec for his Bolinas KET station.

4) Looking at the Colorado Notes it is noticed that his considerations and math are are most basic, high school level. No consideration of transient refraction, reflections, and impedance matching are to be found. Tesla actually tries to suppress the distributed constants rather than utilize them. For cumulative oscillations an electric discharge, like in the spark gap, or the IB22 diode, is required. Here is the "negative resistance" for cumulative oscillations, but there seems something more lurks. It is an interesting form of regeneration. It would seem from this that Tesla considered the spark discharge essential for the formation of his wireless waves, here was a fatal misunderstanding so prevalent in Tesla's day. Giant sparks do not represent practical technologies. Look at it today, "The Tesla Coil is for only making sparks" Golka yells, but do I want my 132 KV substation shooting sparks everywhere, surely not! Golka went into convulsions. So that is what we ended with, giant pecker heads spewing forth electrical effluvia, useless. So now we try to go beyond that, looking at Tesla as a pioneer, working in uncharted waters, unsure of actually where it would go or how it would get there(where?). Tesla gives the groundwork but now it needs further developments that were not possible with the materials and understanding available in his day.

73 DE N6KPH

[dR-Green]

I tested the extra coil with a metallic connection to the secondary last night, expecting the peak frequency of the whole thing to come down, but interestingly it has gone up. I'm having to use more capacitance on the condenser rings WITH the extra coil than without it to get the frequency down to the 3.67 Mc target. I wasn't expecting that Extra coil being connected to the lower ring (top of secondary), and the upper ring being connected to secondary neutral/earth.

Also I don't know what's going on here. I noticed it accidentally when looking to see if anything happened with an LED on the output using the test setup. The coil output accidentally shorted across the unlit LED to earth and it flashed. It turns out the LED lights on switch closure or a direct short across the LED, then it stays off. I'm not sure if it also lights on switch opening as I've only done it by hand, but by connecting and disconnecting the coil from earth quickly the LED can be made to look as if it's constantly on. Red LED appears to be the best and the polarity makes no difference.

[Michael Kishline]

Yes, you can see the Sun and Stars from space!

[QUOTE=7redorbs;198849]

That is exactly my point.

IF visible light really is from PARTICLES OF MATTER, whose "orbits" are spinning, and if the longitudinal wave (from the sun) is spinning at high speed, then it may explain sufficiently why light is produced from both the AURORA BOREALIS and the ATMOSPHERE in general.

If this was true, I discovered immediately that if I was right about transverse light of 186,000miles per second being caused by a faster wave of 291,000 miles per second from all stars and suns reacting with the atmosphere then outside of the atmosphere visible light will not be observable to a lens, without a said atmosphere, and the mass that the particles are associated with. ( Take note that I did this with no physics degree, no electronics degree, NOTHING) Thanks Eric. You are a genius, that inspires me so much.

So, to summarise, the transverse wave is produced by a longitudinal wave of 291,000mi/sec (or potentially much much faster waves). The transverse wave is emitted at light speed, only when the spinning north and south pole magnets from the sun (longitudinal field) react with other spinning mass.

I realised immediately , (as I think inductively) that I could use my lack of knowledge of Telescopes and optics to confirm my prediction.

If I am right, they will have found that their light telescopes ONLY, and I MEAN ONLY, work with an air in between the vacuum of space, and the lens. Less all the star light will appear as longitudinal (invisible).

At least if my hypothesis holds , the better light detectors will be found to have a very high density atmosphere between the source medium and the detector lens or sensor array. I was impressed because even someone like old me was able to inductively consider a proof to Tesla and Eric Dollards Longitudinal waves of 291,000mi/sec (or more) coming from the sun, and a possibility to prove without doubt.

That in the absence of atmosphere, the waves are black.... for me it is getting a bit spooky. All that dark matter the scientists are looking for........ hmmm Could it really be in the propogation speed of waves from the stars (because clearly by inductive approach stars do not appear to emit light).

Stars and suns, they appear to emit a dark, black substance, in the form of wave, it has energy certainly. It is also spinning with great kinetic, otherwise I doubt the atmosphere, and the orbiting magnets of particles would collide so brilliantly together. Afterall, the light in a bulb, is not produced by electrons. It's produced by the collision , and density of north and south pole magnets at the filament.

That's why the filament is so small, and thin. The north and south poles they crowd there, at the weakest point in the entire wire, if you increase the thickness, the north and south poles no longer escape.

This suggests that heat is created by interaction of MASS with a longitudinal from outer space. The longitudinal wave itself, having no radiation emissions, or scatter, appears to be at least implied as lossless. If it is kinetic movement, in the longitudinal wave, and the vacuum does provide no resistance, then this may explain why it travels at a greater propogation rate through that medium, in comparison to an atmosphere which has high amount of rotation , caused by the planet rotation itself and the kinetic energy of particles moving in the aether.

Indeed, light speed (186,000mi/sec) waves would be produced in the fashion of deflection of magnetic orbits, and longitudinal waves of higher speed would be produced in mediums with no deflection, such as the vacuum of space. The wave becomes dark and invisible until interacting with matter.

It is in my approximation why the Moon should also have no reflections.

Lets not forget the important note of the kinetic I have made. If the longitudinal wave is a spinning twirling wave (much like our electricity), than our efforts are surely not in vain. If the resistance of the vacuum of space is significantly low, and we know it is, because it has a negative temperature in Celsius, even when "sun waves" travel through it. IS this not proof already that transverse waves are produced by reflection? And is it not enough proof already Light IS reflection? Maybe not... so I will continue a little further...

IF the resistance in the vacuum is 0, and that is what is causing the longitudinal wave to be invisible, and the moving particles in the vacuum ARE resistance to the longitudinal wave that IS invisible, then the kinetic energy of waves from the sun, or any electrical conductor are PRESERVED in the vacuum.

Behold how and why Tesla really could have achieved a means of "transmitting electricity absolutely regardless of distance". If indeed, the sun is transferring it's longitudinal wave energy into the atmosphere across the entire span of the orbit radius of earth without loss, then it represents a great victory of proof for Tesla's longitudinal wave. It also explains why in Tesla's biography he explains his vision of the sun, before drawing his alternating current diagram and 4 quadrant motor & Transformer system. Perhaps a little hidden mesage from Tesla. If his comments that his flying saucers "were befitting of king solomon" wasn't?

Anyway... Now I'm waffling but I'm significantly glad my previous post was not entirely in vain.

Keep up the good work Eric, David, Peter. I'm sorry that my musings are without basis and usefulness occasionally. In the case of this though I hope I provide a tunnel of some kind. (if you forgive the pun)

To summarise I think atmospheric density and a regular lenz and/or light sensor ought to give results by amplitude of the light alone..... If I am right then high density == high amplification of light....... Density or impulse density == amplification/luminescence concentration. If luminescence was a function of the kinetic energy of the wave rotation, and the interacting particulate matter (in this case the atmosphere or a compartment within a telescope that sits directly in between the test medium and the lenz. It's well worth nothing this might suggest that all telescopes are looking at a "particle reaction" rather than an "particle existence".

Sure, it's quantum physics, but I have muted faith in many of these so called faculties of science. If they were called faculties of interdependent natural philosophy I'd be happier. Not knowing such a thing held me back a decade in my understanding, I'm only 28. But I am serious.

Best,
A

Off topic, so I'll make this short.

Yes, the Hubble Mirrors Optical Array by Perkin-Elmer are heated to a constant 15deg Celsius which is why it doesn't do Inferred.

Yes, the Optical Array is open to the vacuum of space with no optical obstruction of a clear enclosure for the highest resolution.

No, light does not only manifest as observable when in contact with a gaseous atmosphere, otherwise lights refraction, reflection and diffusion's from every molecule or atom resulting in enormous spectral flare would never travel very far and we would be living in a glowing radiant fog. Your own gel filled eye in the vitreous humor would become a solid white opacity like a large cataract.

Does light only manifest as observable when contacting an optical medium with a high-index of refraction? Is yet to be determined do to the fact, that which is observing will always have an optical medium prior to the receiving array.

Example: Cornea-Retina, Optical lens - CMOS array, Optical lens - film.

The only true test would be a geometric optical arrangement using no mediums of gas or solid before the receiving array, such as a pin hole camera as your lens, photographic paper, film or raw CMOS chip as your receiving array all open to the vacuum of space.

Yes, you can see the sun and stars from space with current mediums I just discussed. It's a matter of camera "f stop" and aperture settings, I can whiteout or blackout the back round of any visual arrangement using these basic settings.

Observe the Milky Way, the stars and our own Sun from space with correct camera settings.
Great video to put most of this confusion all to rest.
Yes, you can see the Sun and Stars from space! To the Contrary. - YouTube

Mike