ncoming radiation to be reduced to the fre- quency levels of visible light. The greater the density, the greater the scattering, which in to aggegate at lower levels of the atmos- phere acts like a magnifying glass, producing an enlarged image, a phenomenon which explains why the Sun and the Moon appear larger when just above the horizon at dawn or dusk. In this sense therefore, the "nearer we are to" the Sun at a small scale, "the brighter the stars will be". At a larger scale, however, the picture may well change markedly, for as we proceed from the Earth's surface towards deep space, the particle density gradually decreases from about the Loschmidt constant4 of 2.68719 x 1019 (or 26,871,900,000,000,000,000) particles per cubic centimetre at standard temperature and atmospheric pressure until it equals the density of the interstellar hydrogen gas, esti- mated at 1 gas atom per cm3 which, relative to conditions on Earth, represents an extreme vacuum. While high-frequency electromagnetic radiation can be made to manifest itself as visible light in a cathode ray tube under con- ditions of very low pressure or a moderate vacuum, if this is increased to an extreme vacuum, then the light disappears. As far as the generation of light is concerned, there- fore, the decisive factor here would be the specific particle density required to produce it which, at a certain distance from the Earth may be too rarefied to do so. Assuming for the moment that there is such a boundary condition of density, the sky would then gradually darken as it is approached, in keeping with the assertion in the penultimate sentence in the above quotation, namely; "The closer we approach this source of light and heat, the colder and darker its face will become," and in regions lying beyond it the sky would be totally black. If this is actually the case, then whence did the light come that enabled the astronauts to be filmed during their visit to the Moon, which is supposed to have no atmosphere? In his book The Awesome Life-Force5 Joseph H. Cater, a physicist and engineer who stud- ied data from the American Apollo missions to the Moon very closely, discusses amongst 5: The Sun 79 other things the presence or otherwise of an atmosphere and strong gravitational field on the Moon. The scientifically proffered view of the absence of any significant lunar gravity he contests, stating that: ...A strong Moon gravity, of course, is not com- patible with orthodox physics. Other powerful evidence of a dense Moon atmosphere came from statements made by astronauts during Apollo missions. The following case is a typical example. Prior to the publicized excursions to the Moon, early astronauts had stated that the stars were not visible above the atmosphere. This is to be expected. There is little or no diffusion of light in outer space and therefore the only stars that could be seen would be those whose discs could be resolved. This could only be done with powerful telescopes. An atmosphere functions in a manner analogous to a lens. The light from a distant star is diffused and spread out. Consequently, stars are visible because of a greatly enlarged and distorted image of the disc caused by the atmosphere. On the Apollo 11 mission shortly before reach- ing the Moon, Armstrong stated that he could see the crater Tycho clearly and that he could see the sky all around the Moon, even on the rim of it where there is no earthshine or sunshine, Collins then stated, 'Now we're able to see stars again and recognise constellations for the first time on the trip....The sky's full of stars...it looks like its night side on Earth.' This means that after leaving the Earth the astronauts could not see any stars until they got close enough to the Moon to view them through the Moon's atmosphere! If this transcript of the astronauts' commen- tary is authentic - and there is no reason to suppose that it is not - then light is a function of the atmosphere without which no stars can actually be seen. By extension, this invisibil- ity could obviously also apply to the Sun, its actual degree of visibility as a much larger, far closer and more powerfully radiant object being dependent on the ultimate extent and attentuation of the Earth's atmosphere. In this sense, therefore, the face of the Sun could indeed be dark. All of this would appear to confirm Viktor's proposition....
