I am trying to wrap my head around the frequencies emitted from the celestial heavens; I am certain that there are electromagnetic resonances projecting from the stars, however I am not certain that there has been a human to discover the appropriate means in which this emission quantity can be measured. At this very moment, all I can do is rely on the general consensus and suppress my skepticism. I am only in the infantile stages of my investigation of the cosmos, therefore this is just the beginning.
In physics, radiation is defined as the emission or transmission of energy in the form of waves or particles through space. Radiation is emitted from an object when heat is applied.
My forte is non-ionizing radiation; so please forgive me if I speak apprehensively in regards to cosmic radiation. I am sort of using this post as a way to familiarize myself with this category of radiation; this way, I can apply basic electromagnetic (EM) concepts and hopefully come up with my own hypothesis as to how cosmic radiation influences organisms living here on earth.
According to what I've found through a brief internet search, there are two main sources of cosmic energy in our atmosphere: the sun and deep space. (Soo.. what about the stars?) As we know, the sun emits endless energy particles in the form of free protons. Deep space emissions are generally less frequent, but are of higher energy. Somehow, astronomers have come to the conclusion that deep space emissions primarily consist of protons with fractions of helions AKA alpha particles (consisting of two protons and two neutrons bound together into a particle identical to a helium-4 nucleus).
Deep space also projects ionized nuclei of heavy elements. Astronomers have no idea where galactic cosmic rays originate (correct me if I'm wrong) but they tend to believe they are remnants of supernovae, gamma ray bursts, or quasars (fuzzy talk for explosions). What I find confusing is that astronomers focus on the energy emitted from these celestial explosions -- not from the already existing starlight that is present. It appears as though there is no means to record starlight radiation.
I will assume we all know the definition of starlight, which typically falls into the category of visible EM radiation. So what is there to say about starlight? Well, personally I’d like to start with the basics. During the night these solar reflections are known as albedo (meaning "whiteness”). Albedo measures the reflected diffusion of astronomical radiation upon a surface. It lacks dimension and is measured on a 0-1 scale. A blackbody is a system that absorbs radiation; e.g. a black matte surface (such as blacktop) makes for a blackbody and emits blackbody radiation. On the albedo scale, 0 corresponds to a blackbody via absorption, whereas 1 corresponds to the body reflecting radiation. The higher the albedo, the higher % of EM radiation reflected.
Surface albedo is essentially a ratio of irradiance reflected to irradiance received by a surface. The proportion of light reflected is determined by the nature of the surface area itself, as well as the spectral and angular distribution of solar radiation reaching the objects surface. Imaginably, these rational factors depend on atmospheric composition, geographic position, and time.
The term albedo generally gives reference to an entire spectrum of solar radiation unless otherwise noted for a specific wavelength. As I predicted, there are constraints when measuring albedo, however it is categorically simplified by the spectrum in which solar energy reaches a surface. Low albedo appears dark (in a forest where trees for example absorb radiation), and high albedo appears bright (snow reflecting radiation). Due to cloud cover, Earths planetary albedo is roughly 30-35%.
So, why so much about albedo? Where am I going with this?
I think it’s important to touch upon the astronomical field of photometry. Before I can jump into astronomy, I think it’s best that I start with the basics. The fundamentals of evaluating the stars began first with simple visual observation, right? There seems to be research performed on the albedos of planets, satellites, and astroids, but I am struggling to find an abundance dedicated towards the stars. In photometry, wavelength, lighting angle, and fluctuation in albedos can be used to infer about properties of an object. If not to focus on the stars, then my next inclination is to focus on the Moon.
A guy by the name of Grant Matthews measured the Moons albedo to be 0.136. This was in 2008, so that goes to show just how underdeveloped this sort of research is. While the Moon reflects light on Earth, the Earth in turn shines light on the Moon; this light is called Earthshine. Earthshine is brightest during the new Moon.
Earthshine intensity is a function of celestial geometry, and is also proportional to the albedo of the Earth’s surface (which is comprised of many factors: clouds, deserts, snow etc.). Albedo is a regulator of climatic energy balance, meanwhile it’s dependent on the climate system. It is thus a major focus in climate research. Terrestrial albedo data cannot be collected via satellite, therefore careful ground observations are most reliable.
Personally, I think it is really important to focus on albedo for the sole reason that I believe that our realm of existence relies solely on electricity. The energy exchange between the Earth and Moon is very obvious.
Through the time I spent reading tonight, I found that ... according to modern his-story, radioactivity was "discovered" in 1896. I am starting to get frustrated because this just simply does not make sense. I have no doubt that ancient civilizations had knowledge of radioactivity. I'm going to stop here for tonight, because the more I research this shit, the more silly it sounds to me. NASA is a joke. We never landed on the Moon.
Night.