I have now decided : The Earth is actually FLAT...!

Page 10 of 10 [ 148 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

Ban-Dodger
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Jun 2011
Age: 1022
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,820
Location: Возможно в будущее к Россию идти... можеть быть...

17 May 2016, 3:47 pm

Some people do question NASA, especially when NASA releases footage where their astronauts become partial-transparent during certain time-frames, such as being able to see through their arms, through their head, etc., but that can be discussed some other day as time/resources permit.

mikeman7918 wrote:
True, but in all seriousness I would start seriously suspecting that NASA is doing something fishy and lying. In that image the lighting is inconsistent, there is no shadow on the rings, apparent exposure time is inconsistent, and countless other things.

It would be like if you were in the market for a house and someone sent you this totally genuine photo of their house for sale that they swear is real:
Image

You would probably start seriously questioning their credibility after that, or at least stop taking them seriously. That image you posted was about as obviously fake as that house image.

Now I want to return back to commenting about the Saturn-image...
naturalplastic wrote:
The middle Saturn pic is obviously a painting, and obviously meant to be taken as an artist's conception.

The bottom one is actually a composite of 165 photographs taken over a three hour period by the Cassini probe in 2006 that takes in infared, and ultraviolet, as well as, visible light. Not meant to be understood as a normal snapshot of how the planet looks to the human eye at a given moment. So there is no point in studying "it's shadows".

Now I need to know which is the case, whether it's a time-lapse composite of over 100 snap-shots, otherwise I need to know more details about the camera-settings in which the "photo" was captured. For a 3-hour composite, I have to question, why is the sun still in the same stationary location, when I would expect it to have moved at least a little bit to cause something like a blurr-line, unless the sun-spot is supposed to be stationary in that exact same location for 3 hours for some reason ?
mikeman7918 wrote:
They look about as different as those Saturn images. I know that the white house is real though because I have been to Washington DC and seen it in person. Different cameras with different color balances and different amounts of quality can change a lot.

Image
This makes a lot of sense if you know some stuff about light. I don't know about you, but sometimes when I'm board I study the lighting in the room I'm in and try to understand why every shadow is the way it is by tracing where the light is coming from and what it's bouncing off of. This makes perfect sense to me though, and I will explain why.

Light can bounce off of things and light up other things, this is something that any non-blind person should know. The Moon can reflect light from the Sun and light things up a bit here on Earth. It happens all the time. The planet is being lit up because light is bouncing off the rings, which clearly diffuse a lot of light. The lighting patterns on the "surface" of Saturn is consistent with this.

The haze around Saturn is always there, it's just that it's usually not visible with the exposure times used to photograph the lit side of the planet. It's the same reason why stars are not visible in images of planets like the three genuine ones above. It's the same thing going on when you can't see many stars in a city yet when you are in the middle of nowhere you can see them better, all that changes is the lighting in your environment and your eyes adjust accordingly.

As for the light going through the rings, Saturn's rings are actually translucent. In most images they appear opaque but that's because they are being brightly lit and what's behind them is dark. The best way to demonstrate this yourself is by using a window. In the day when it's bright on both sides of it you can see out just fine although you can make out your reflection, in the night when you have the interior lights on you can barely see out though because your reflection is overpowering the light coming in even though the reflection is the same absolute brightness as it was before. If you turn off the interior lights then you can see out again. The same thing is going on here, the rings are hard to see through because the light they diffuse overpowers anything behind them but a lot of light still does cruise right through them undisturbed, which is why you can see the light coming through them.

The thing about human eye-sight is that the eyes will adjust to be able to aborb more light the longer one has been in darkness. Cameras, how-ever, typically take very dark pictures of pitch-blackness at night-time, unless you set it to a very high light-sensitivity. I can guarantee you that if I tried to take a picture of a cat that was outside at night-time, with my regular digitcal-camera, the picture would only come out black with only very faint light-traces. Attempting to capture a digital-snapshot of the stars in the sky would also not register the view of the sky (I have only gotten a black screen as a result when I tried it with a normal digital-camera), and so Saturn would need to be quite bright unless the "Casini" camera has ultra-sensitive settings ? Exactly what kind of equipment are they using and why do they not make it a point to let us know which light-frequency the planets are being photographed ? (Ultra-Violet, Infra-Red, etc)

Not to side-track from discussions about experimental-design, but I also remember coming across some "leaked" information about how Jupiter looks like a planet full of vegetation and teeming with life and civilisation if viewed through an extremely high-powered telescope in the ultra-violet spectrum, but when viewed from the regular light-spectrum, they say that it appears to be a dead planet, covered with poisonous-clouds. You can find a few uploads from a handful of users on You-Tube who show the strange things that they capture in the sky via the infra-red or ultra-violet light-spectrum but I have yet to get the equipment to see if I can capture similar things for myself (then the question becomes which co-ordinates on earth and time of when to do such filming). The existence of CGI/blue/green/chromakey screen-technology forces me to question the validity of anything that I now see (even anything that we see in the news could just be a film-production of events that never really happened being passed off as news as the following video-clip demonstrates as being absolute possible)...

Anyway, I look forward to having these experiments carried out, assuming the economy doesn't impode into a sudden global-disaster on the 28th of May 2016CE or anything of that nature of course...


_________________
Pay me for my signature. 私の署名ですか❓お前の買うなければなりません。Mon autographe nécessite un paiement. Которые хочет мою автографу, у тебя нужно есть деньги сюда. Bezahlst du mich, wenn du meine Unterschrift wollen.


mikeman7918
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Mar 2016
Age: 22
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,929
Location: Utah, USA

17 May 2016, 8:40 pm

Ban-Dodger wrote:
The thing about human eye-sight is that the eyes will adjust to be able to aborb more light the longer one has been in darkness. Cameras, how-ever, typically take very dark pictures of pitch-blackness at night-time, unless you set it to a very high light-sensitivity. I can guarantee you that if I tried to take a picture of a cat that was outside at night-time, with my regular digitcal-camera, the picture would only come out black with only very faint light-traces. Attempting to capture a digital-snapshot of the stars in the sky would also not register the view of the sky (I have only gotten a black screen as a result when I tried it with a normal digital-camera), and so Saturn would need to be quite bright unless the "Casini" camera has ultra-sensitive settings ? Exactly what kind of equipment are they using and why do they not make it a point to let us know which light-frequency the planets are being photographed ? (Ultra-Violet, Infra-Red, etc)

If you want to find that information about the cameras used NASA (and every other space agency) provides extensive information on that kind of stuff, you just have to know where to look (and actually bother to look).

When using a telescope to magnify Saturn it's easy to photograph even with my iPhone camera, in fact right now Jupiter is in a great position for telescope viewing and I have wanted an excuse to get out my telescope and look at it so I could do that and give you a demonstration if you wanted. A telescope does not increase (or decrease) the apparent brightness per square arc-second and if it did then it would be breaking some fundamental laws of optics and thermodynamics, so an image of a planet (or anything else for that matter) seen through a telescope would appear just as bright as it would if you were right next to it. The only way to change the brightness of an image is to do so with the hardware that captures the image weather that be your eye or a camera, this is done by controlling how much light is captured and for how long. In the case of the images you posted, they would have to be rather short exposures to look like that otherwise the planet would be totally washed out and overpoweringly bright.

I have actually obsessed over CGI for a while, so I am well aware of what it's capable of. Note how I haven't cited photos or videos as proof of anything.


_________________
Also known as MarsMatter.

Diagnosed with Asperger's, ADD, and Generalized Anxiety Disorder in 2004.
In denial that it was a problem until early 2016.

Deviant Art


LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

19 May 2016, 6:11 pm

Ban-Dodger wrote:
You can't have it both ways, saying that it's in a part of space that is considered to be upwards of 2000°C, whilst simutaneously also being at deep-freeze temperatures, too.

If you'd taken a bit of chemistry - and I do mean a little bit - you'd understand how this is possible. 'Temperature' is the measure of how fast atoms & molecules are moving and vibrating. However, temperature is only conducted when the moving atoms of a hotter substance hit the more stationary atoms of anther substance, causing them to move as well. You can have a very, very thin gas (the upper atmosphere) in which the atoms and molecules are moving incredibly fast (that is, they are very hot) but which cannot transmit much heat to other substances (like a human, or the sensor of a thermometor) because there simply aren't enough atoms impacting the other substance.


Quote:
Back to Brian Mulllin, this guy teaches physics as a professor if I heard correctly from another source, and his issue is that the ISS is said to have reflective-material to bounce of radiation to keep it from over-heating. However, the solar-panels are connected to the ISS, according to the CGI-images depicting the ISS, and those are made of metals. That was where he started to find errors/contradictions in the mainstream explanations. Metals will become super-heated when exposed to high temperatures, meaning that for it to cool, the heat would need to dissipate into somewhere, and if that atmosphere of which the ISS is genuinely 2000°C as is shown in that altitude-temperature-chart, then his question is exactly where is the heat dissipating to for the ISS to be able to remain at room-temperature ? Remember, when you heat up an oven, all of the tin-foil/aluminum-shielding doesn't do anything to keep the chicken from getting cooked, even if set to broil-mode where heat is only coming from one direction.

Now you're confusing heat with radiation. Certain kinds of electromagnetic radiation (which powers the solar panels, btw) are capable of exciting atoms and thus are felt as heat even though radiation has no mass. The ISS can *radiate* into space even when it cannot conduct heat.
As for your supposed physics grad...



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

19 May 2016, 6:40 pm

Ban-Dodger wrote:
For a 3-hour composite, I have to question, why is the sun still in the same stationary location, when I would expect it to have moved at least a little bit to cause something like a blurr-line, unless the sun-spot is supposed to be stationary in that exact same location for 3 hours for some reason ?

Saturn is almost 900 million miles from the sun.

Read that again.
900 million miles.
The parallax the sun of three hours of travel is effectively nothing at that distance.

Quote:
The thing about human eye-sight is that the eyes will adjust to be able to aborb more light the longer one has been in darkness. Cameras, how-ever, typically take very dark pictures of pitch-blackness at night-time, unless you set it to a very high light-sensitivity. I can guarantee you that if I tried to take a picture of a cat that was outside at night-time, with my regular digitcal-camera, the picture would only come out black with only very faint light-traces. Attempting to capture a digital-snapshot of the stars in the sky would also not register the view of the sky (I have only gotten a black screen as a result when I tried it with a normal digital-camera), and so Saturn would need to be quite bright unless the "Casini" camera has ultra-sensitive settings ? Exactly what kind of equipment are they using and why do they not make it a point to let us know which light-frequency the planets are being photographed ? (Ultra-Violet, Infra-Red, etc)

You know you can get good night photos just by slightly altering the exposure times on even a normal camera, right?
Quote:
Not to side-track from discussions about experimental-design, but I also remember coming across some "leaked" information about how Jupiter looks like a planet full of vegetation and teeming with life and civilisation if viewed through an extremely high-powered telescope in the ultra-violet spectrum, but when viewed from the regular light-spectrum, they say that it appears to be a dead planet, covered with poisonous-clouds. You can find a few uploads from a handful of users on You-Tube who show the strange things that they capture in the sky via the infra-red or ultra-violet light-spectrum...

*snicker*
That's on the level of 'not even wrong.'
You can also find videos of perpetual motion machines on youtube.
Jupiter is really goddamn far away. With a nice home telescope, you can see a blurry, striped dot... and that's a planet with a diameter roughly 10x of ours. Regardless of what spectra you are looking at, you will not see fine enough details to make out civilizational structures on Jupiter with a home-sized telescope.

But, gods! By all means, get a telescope anyway and explore what you can see of the solar system and universe from home. Set up and test your own experiments. Just don't use youtube as your only source of information; there are lots of resources for hobby-astronomers, and it's not at all unusual for a non-professional astronomer to catch first glimpse of a new comet or asteroid and have it named after them. It's even highly likely that there will be an astronomy club somewhere near you that you could join.