Ban-Dodger
Veteran
Joined: 2 Jun 2011
Age: 1026
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:
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.
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:
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".
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.
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.
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...
17 May 2016, 8:40 pm
19 May 2016, 6:11 pm
19 May 2016, 6:40 pm
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Jupiter May Have Been Flat At One Point, Not Spherical |
20 Feb 2024, 3:37 am |
| Melting polar ice is slowing the Earth's rotation |
30 Mar 2024, 2:12 pm |
| Scientists Working On Plan To Cool Earth By Blocking The Sun |
04 Feb 2024, 4:14 pm |
