ApolloHoax.net
Off Topic => Other Conspiracy Theories => Topic started by: Dalhousie on July 19, 2015, 06:42:11 PM
-
It begins apparently. http://www.examiner.com/article/pluto-truthers-are-pretty-sure-that-the-nasa-new-horizons-mission-was-faked
Any other reports?
It seems to be a given that whatever space achievement happens these days some kook will deny it. Chinese space walks, lunar rovers, Mars missions, Pluto flyby....
-
Our pal Hunchbacked has jumped on the bandwagon, complaining that even Jarrah has fallen for NASA's hoax. But hunchie is much more sophisticated, and not as easily fooled.
-
Thread running on the lizard lovers web site. The stupid is strong there.
Sorry, AC/DC just on the radio, air guitars across the room....
-
Our pal Hunchbacked has jumped on the bandwagon, complaining that even Jarrah has fallen for NASA's hoax. But hunchie is much more sophisticated, and not as easily fooled.
Yes, JW has a video proclaiming to the world that he's been waiting to see such pictures since he was a small child. The comments section is full of people telling him that he has fallen for a NASA hoax and the pictures are some form of CGI. Surely JW must now realise the blind faith of the people that follow his channel.
Interestingly, JW also states that he prefers to call Pluto a planet as 'dwarf planet' is a contradiction in terms, and the heart looks more like a butterfly or bird spreading its wings. I guess he still thinks his opinion is more important than any of the people that have invested their time in the New Horizons project.
-
"Dwarf planet" is a contradiction in terms? No, it's whatever it's defined to be. And the IAU created the official definition.
As Neil Degrasse Tyson says, "Get over it".
-
"Dwarf planet" is a contradiction in terms? No, it's whatever it's defined to be. And the IAU created the official definition.
Exactly. The defintion by the IAU was put forward to allow objects beyond Neptune to be classed into the category of dwarf planet. Sadly for Pluto it too fell into the definition of a dwarf planet.
-
Add our friend Adrian to the list of New Horizon deniers too.. (infowars and possibly his own site, but I won't endorse it with a visit).
-
:o
Do any of them give their theory as to why in the world NASA even WOULD fake New Horizons? I mean, people can at least come up with a vaguely plausible reason to fake the moon landings, what with the political agenda of the space race with Russia. But...a fake project that's been ongoing for 9 years just to pretend to send us some pictures of a far-off planet? What in the world would that accomplish as a fake?
-
:o
Do any of them give their theory as to why in the world NASA even WOULD fake New Horizons? I mean, people can at least come up with a vaguely plausible reason to fake the moon landings, what with the political agenda of the space race with Russia. But...a fake project that's been ongoing for 9 years just to pretend to send us some pictures of a far-off planet? What in the world would that accomplish as a fake?
I think it's kind of self-perpetuating now. They have to keep claiming it's fake because otherwise all the reasons they gave for the Moon landings being fake (rockets don't work in space, the Van Allen Belt is impenetrable etc) would unravel.
-
I think it's kind of self-perpetuating now. They have to keep claiming it's fake because otherwise all the reasons they gave for the Moon landings being fake (rockets don't work in space, the Van Allen Belt is impenetrable etc) would unravel.
But they are conspiratorially aware. We are not ;)
-
"Dwarf planet" is a contradiction in terms? No, it's whatever it's defined to be. And the IAU created the official definition.
As Neil Degrasse Tyson says, "Get over it".
But I live in Illinois and Illinois state law forbids me from getting over it:
Illinois General Assembly - Full Text of SR0046 (http://ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&SessionId=76&GA=96&DocTypeId=SR&DocNum=46&GAID=10&LegID=40752)
5 RESOLVED, BY THE SENATE OF THE NINETY-SIXTH GENERAL
6 ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, that as Pluto passes
7 overhead through Illinois' night skies, that it be
8 reestablished with full planetary status, and that March 13,
9 2009 be declared "Pluto Day" in the State of Illinois in honor
10 of the date its discovery was announced in 1930.
But there is a loophole: we're too far north for Pluto to ever pass overhead.
-
:o
Do any of them give their theory as to why in the world NASA even WOULD fake New Horizons? I mean, people can at least come up with a vaguely plausible reason to fake the moon landings, what with the political agenda of the space race with Russia. But...a fake project that's been ongoing for 9 years just to pretend to send us some pictures of a far-off planet? What in the world would that accomplish as a fake?
I think it's kind of self-perpetuating now. They have to keep claiming it's fake because otherwise all the reasons they gave for the Moon landings being fake (rockets don't work in space, the Van Allen Belt is impenetrable etc) would unravel.
I expect to see it. But the level of self belief and the reliance of "does not look right" is astounding. That appears to be the sole basis. So what have I observed on the Icke forum? "Does not look right" and "because NASA" all within the bounds of self belief with some other outstanding observations to back it up. No stars for example...... it is interesting in a way.
-
5 RESOLVED, BY THE SENATE OF THE NINETY-SIXTH GENERAL
6 ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, that as Pluto passes
7 overhead through Illinois' night skies, that it be
8 reestablished with full planetary status, and that March 13,
9 2009 be declared "Pluto Day" in the State of Illinois in honor
10 of the date its discovery was announced in 1930.
This is why I get frustrated with lawmakers and such like, and their ability to spend time debating such matters.
But there is a loophole: we're too far north for Pluto to ever pass overhead.
Good spot :)
-
It begins apparently. http://www.examiner.com/article/pluto-truthers-are-pretty-sure-that-the-nasa-new-horizons-mission-was-faked
Any other reports?
I saw this linked a couple of times as proof that "NASA artists are slipping".
https://www.yahoo.com/makers/newly-captured-images-of-pluto-are-shockingly-124189039895.html
-
"Dwarf planet" is a contradiction in terms? No, it's whatever it's defined to be. And the IAU created the official definition.
As Neil Degrasse Tyson says, "Get over it".
Alan Stern disagrees with Tyson. So do I. As Pluto would say, Tyson is no Carl Sagan.
The IAU decision was a farce with risible justification. A "dwarf" planet is still a planet. Just as a "giant" planet is still a planet.
-
It's an arbitrary categorisation. I'm pretty sure as the discovery of exoplanets accelerates, categories of planets will proliferate even more.
-
I agreed with the IAU decision entirely.
I wonder if there was this kind of outcry when Ceres was "demoted" in the 1860s.
I think the nomenclature is problematic, though, as a dwarf planet is explicitly defined as not being a type of planet. I also think "cleared its orbit" would be better stated as "gravitationally dominant in its orbit".
-
https://www.yahoo.com/makers/newly-captured-images-of-pluto-are-shockingly-124189039895.html
How do we know that the painting is not a hoax? ;) Pretty uncanny really.
-
I saw this linked a couple of times as proof that "NASA artists are slipping".
https://www.yahoo.com/makers/newly-captured-images-of-pluto-are-shockingly-124189039895.html
How long before this artist's impression is used to 'prove' that there should be stars in the photos?
-
I saw this linked a couple of times as proof that "NASA artists are slipping".
https://www.yahoo.com/makers/newly-captured-images-of-pluto-are-shockingly-124189039895.html
How long before this artist's impression is used to 'prove' that there should be stars in the photos?
Not long at all. ;) Collection of all of the wall Pluto conspiracies. Half way down is obligatory "where are the stars." Click at your own risk...
http://www.inquisitr.com/2269612/planet-x-or-nibiru-pluto-and-the-new-horizons-mission-the-masonic-ritual-connection-according-to-conspiracy-theorists/
-
But there is a loophole: we're too far north for Pluto to ever pass overhead.
Yeah. Unfortunately it's not even in the Northern Hemisphere right now; its declination is about -20 degrees.
What's really sad about that is that it's outside the swath of sky that can be seen by the Arecibo radio telescope. It's in Puerto Rico, and it can only see within 20 degrees of the local vertical.
-
Alan Stern disagrees with Tyson. So do I. As Pluto would say, Tyson is no Carl Sagan.
Actually, I've been saying for some time that not only is Tyson the first to fill Carl Sagan's shoes, he's arguably doing an even better job. Tyson seems totally at ease in front of an audience; Sagan never did.
The IAU decision was a farce with risible justification. A "dwarf" planet is still a planet. Just as a "giant" planet is still a planet.
There are 8 planets in our solar system, and that's a very reliable number. If we merge dwarf planets into the planet category, then the number will be "large and unknown". Either way, never again will the count be the "9" we were taught in school.
Scientific understanding changes, and people have to adapt to that.
-
Actually, I've been saying for some time that not only is Tyson the first to fill Carl Sagan's shoes, he's arguably doing an even better job. Tyson seems totally at ease in front of an audience; Sagan never did.
100%. NDT did a great job of the COSMOS reboot, and I understand he was Ann Druyan's first choice.
The only thing I disliked about the new COSMOS was the cheap, poorly animated cartoons. One of the key appeals and strengths of the original COSMOS was the mini-documentaries that told the stories of individuals and their contributions to science, e.g. Johannes Kepler and Jean-François Champollion
There are 8 planets in our solar system, and that's a very reliable number. If we merge dwarf planets into the planet category, then the number will be "large and unknown". Either way, never again will the count be the "9" we were taught in school.
Scientific understanding changes, and people have to adapt to that.
Agree with this too. I used to be in the "Pluto is a planet" camp, but three things have convinced me that the IAU have got this right...
1. Pluto's orbit is highly eccentric (so much so that it crosses the orbit of another planet. No other planet does this.). It is also highly inclined to the orbits of the 8 planets
2. This diagram
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/ApolloHoax/kuiper-belt.jpg)
Orbitally, Pluto has more in common with the Kuiper Belt object Eris than it has with any of the planets
3. This comparison
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/ApolloHoax/pluto-eris.jpg)
Pluto is not much bigger that the Kuiper Belt object Eris, and is actually less massive!! If Pluto is a planet, then Eris is also a planet, and any other Kuiper belt object the size of Eris or bigger (and there could be thousands of them) would also have to be classed as planets.
-
Thanks for your post smartcooky.
One of the innate problems for astronomers has been the development of technology to see further and further, and of course over time more objects get discovered. It is no different to Galileo and the discovery of Jupiter's moons. This helped redefine science as we know it today, and the move towards the heliocentric model.
Once we began observing objects beyond Pluto, it was clearly apparent that they really feel under a different definition to the 8 planets owing to their orbital parameters and sizes/masses.
In golfing parlance, once these objects were defined as dwarf planets, Pluto didn't make the cut. Fundamentally, they still have the word planet in their title, but they are different to the 8 inner planets in many ways, so warrant a different definition. The IAU took the correct course and gave them a different category.
-
I don't see how astronomers have an innate problem with technology. People who don't understand science have the innate problem.
There's actually one way that Pluto's classification matters, but once again it's totally artificial:
http://www.wired.com/2013/08/pluto-cartography/
I had a totally innocent question about which of Pluto's poles were we seeing in sunlight, and the more I dug into it the harder it was to believe how screwed up the whole topic had become.
As far as I'm concerned, the definition of any object's north pole should be the direction of its positive angular momentum vector, regardless of where it happens to point. Perhaps we should just not talk about Pluto's north and south poles but rather its +L and -L poles.
-
I don't see how astronomers have an innate problem with technology. People who don't understand science have the innate problem.
That's not what I meant, although it read like it :)
What I was trying to say is that astronomers are trying to build a picture of our Universe, and new techology reveals new objects. So, they begin with one classification, and then new objects are discovered whereby they make another classifcation, only to find the objects previously classified fit better into the new classifaction (if that makes sense). So the new technology imposes problems for the astronomers as they refine their models and classifications. Hell. we've all been at those management meetings when we spend hours going over some definition because something has changed that upsets a previous aspect of the project.
A good parallel comes from particle physics, where we used to have the eightfold way, but that has now been replaced by the standard model. The classifcation of the elements has undergone a similar process.
-
I don't see how astronomers have an innate problem with technology. People who don't understand science have the innate problem.
That's not what I meant, although it read like it :)
What I was trying to say is that astronomers are trying to build a picture of our Universe, and new techology reveals new objects. So, they begin with one classification, and then new objects are discovered whereby they make another classifcation, only to find the objects previously classified fit better into the new classifaction (if that makes sense). So the new technology imposes problems for the astronomers as they refine their models and classifications. Hell. we've all been at those management meetings when we spend hours going over some definition because something has changed that upsets a previous aspect of the project.
A good parallel comes from particle physics, where we used to have the eightfold way, but that has now been replaced the standard model. The classifcation of the elements has undergone a similar process.
Another good parallel comes from "The Great Debate" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Debate_%28astronomy%29).
At one time, all the visible nebulae were thought to be within the Milky Way galaxy. However, developments in technology allowed Hubble set the record straight, and showed that a good many of these nebulae were other galaxies.
-
What I was trying to say is that astronomers are trying to build a picture of our Universe, and new techology reveals new objects. So, they begin with one classification, and then new objects are discovered whereby they make another classifcation, only to find the objects previously classified fit better into the new classifaction (if that makes sense).
That's hardly unique to astronomy; it's common to every field of science. That's how it makes progress.
-
That's hardly unique to astronomy; it's common to every field of science. That's how it makes progress.
Indeed, and coming back to the orginal point about Pluto's status, it's why individuals like Jarrah White fly in the face of science by claiming that 'dwarf planet' is a contradiction in terms, as they don't understand how science works in the first place.
-
It reminds me of the huge and passionate debate about how to classify the platypus upon its discovery.
-
Yes, Q had a little joke there.
-
:o
Do any of them give their theory as to why in the world NASA even WOULD fake New Horizons? I mean, people can at least come up with a vaguely plausible reason to fake the moon landings, what with the political agenda of the space race with Russia. But...a fake project that's been ongoing for 9 years just to pretend to send us some pictures of a far-off planet? What in the world would that accomplish as a fake?
Im pretty sure a lot of them are flat-earthners. Be it a Poe or not.
-
:o
Do any of them give their theory as to why in the world NASA even WOULD fake New Horizons? I mean, people can at least come up with a vaguely plausible reason to fake the moon landings, what with the political agenda of the space race with Russia. But...a fake project that's been ongoing for 9 years just to pretend to send us some pictures of a far-off planet? What in the world would that accomplish as a fake?
You have made a fundamental error of judgement in assuming that these nut-bars are capable of rational thought!
-
I have a genuine question.
Why dont you see stars in the photos?
I mean, one would expect that Pluto, being far away from the sun, reflects little light from it. NASA maybe adjusted the exposure to see it brighter but that would mean the stars must be visible too, but they dont.
I could be wrong but seeing "Pluto time":
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-lets-you-experience-pluto-time-with-new-custom-tool
"Just how dim is the sunlight on Pluto, some three billion miles away? While sunlight is much weaker than it is here on Earth, it isn’t as dark as you might expect. In fact, for just a moment during dawn and dusk each day, the illumination on Earth matches that of high noon on Pluto."
Again, I dont have photography experience so I could be wrong.
-
I have a genuine question.
Why dont you see stars in the photos?
Try taking a night-time photo with a modern digital camera.
Report back when you have tried.
-
I have a genuine question.
Why dont you see stars in the photos?
Try taking a night-time photo with a modern digital camera.
Report back when you have tried.
I did, no stars. But you didnt read the link I provided.
""Just how dim is the sunlight on Pluto, some three billion miles away? While sunlight is much weaker than it is here on Earth, it isn’t as dark as you might expect. In fact, for just a moment during dawn and dusk each day, the illumination on Earth matches that of high noon on Pluto.""
(http://i.imgur.com/DtXYkev.jpg)
In this picture, Pluto doesnt looks like the illumination is comparable to earth dusk or dawn. (please correct me on this) Its too luminous as far as I can see. So either NASA increased the exposure to see it brighter or It looks like that way already. If they changed the exposure, we would see stars along with pluto, right?
-
I have a genuine question.
Why dont you see stars in the photos?
Try taking a night-time photo with a modern digital camera.
Report back when you have tried.
I did, no stars. But you didnt read the link I provided.
""Just how dim is the sunlight on Pluto, some three billion miles away? While sunlight is much weaker than it is here on Earth, it isn’t as dark as you might expect. In fact, for just a moment during dawn and dusk each day, the illumination on Earth matches that of high noon on Pluto.""
(http://i.imgur.com/DtXYkev.jpg)
In this picture, Pluto doesnt looks like the illumination is comparable to earth dusk or dawn. (please correct me on this) Its too luminous as far as I can see. So either NASA increased the exposure to see it brighter or It looks like that way already. If they changed the exposure, we would see stars along with pluto, right?
You've answered your own question. Stars are dim and if there is a bright object in the field of view then the camera settings will not be set to register the starlight. You can get stars into that type of image in two ways:
- Take two exposures and layer them onto each other.
- Expose correctly for the stars and have the dwarf planet over-exposed
As the object of interest is the dwarf planet, what would be gained by setting the camera to expose for the stars?
As for the image being "too luminous", you are showing that you don't really understand photography. You would have to factor in the exposure, f-speed and so on to understand how the image is built up. The image might even be the result of stacking multiple images to counteract noise. Or it may be taken in different wavelengths to show certain details (for example, amateur astrophotographers will use methane filters to image cloud details on the gas giants, of near-infrared to cut through atmospheric distortion).
-
I have a genuine question.
Why dont you see stars in the photos?
Try taking a night-time photo with a modern digital camera.
Report back when you have tried.
I did, no stars. But you didnt read the link I provided.
""Just how dim is the sunlight on Pluto, some three billion miles away? While sunlight is much weaker than it is here on Earth, it isn’t as dark as you might expect. In fact, for just a moment during dawn and dusk each day, the illumination on Earth matches that of high noon on Pluto.""
(http://i.imgur.com/DtXYkev.jpg)
In this picture, Pluto doesnt looks like the illumination is comparable to earth dusk or dawn. (please correct me on this) Its too luminous as far as I can see. So either NASA increased the exposure to see it brighter or It looks like that way already. If they changed the exposure, we would see stars along with pluto, right?
You've answered your own question. Stars are dim and if there is a bright object in the field of view then the camera settings will not be set to register the starlight. You can get stars into that type of image in two ways:
- Take two exposures and layer them onto each other.
- Expose correctly for the stars and have the dwarf planet over-exposed
As the object of interest is the dwarf planet, what would be gained by setting the camera to expose for the stars?
As for the image being "too luminous", you are showing that you don't really understand photography. You would have to factor in the exposure, f-speed and so on to understand how the image is built up. The image might even be the result of stacking multiple images to counteract noise. Or it may be taken in different wavelengths to show certain details (for example, amateur astrophotographers will use methane filters to image cloud details on the gas giants, of near-infrared to cut through atmospheric distortion).
I dont have a good understanding of photgraphy, you are right.
I stand corrected then.
-
I have a genuine question. Why dont you see stars in the photos?
I mean, one would expect that Pluto, being far away from the sun, reflects little light from it. NASA maybe adjusted the exposure to see it brighter but that would mean the stars must be visible too, but they dont.
I could be wrong...
"Just how dim is the sunlight on Pluto, some three billion miles away? While sunlight is much weaker than it is here on Earth, it isn’t as dark as you might expect. In fact, for just a moment during dawn and dusk each day, the illumination on Earth matches that of high noon on Pluto."
I mentioned the exposure for a photo at Pluto in a post of November 2012, and I don't think I knew there was a spacecraft heading to Pluto at that time, or if I had previously known it, had forgotten by then.
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=238.msg7574#msg7574
My maths has never been too good, but I once worked out that if you got out as far as Pluto in its average orbit around the sun, it would be too dim for you to get a sharp hand-held full-sun photo of it on standard film, but if you took a sharp and properly-exposed shot of it and included plenty of sky, you still wouldn't see most stars in the photo.
The link in that post leads to an older post of June 2003 at the CosmoQuest forum which explains a little basic about the exposures for:
1. A typical sunlit scene on Earth.
2. A well-exposed photo of stars from Earth.
http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php/6040-Fox-Special-rescreening-in-NZ-24-June-2003?p=102903#post102903
Number 2 requires at least 30,000 and up to 130,000 times the exposure of number 1. Most hoax-believers have no idea of the figures involved and have never taken a properly exposed photo of stars to either prove or disprove them.
One doesn't particularly need much photographic experience or mathematic expertise to work this out (although those do help) -- just the knowledge of photography's "Sunny-16" rule in the days of film, and how the brightness of light from one source diminishes over a given distance. I vaguely recall that the rule is something like, "Double the distance, quarter the light." Or in photographic terms, "Double the distance, four times the exposure." -- Opening up two full apertures OR two shutter-speed increases OR one of each.
-
In this picture, Pluto doesnt looks like the illumination is comparable to earth dusk or dawn. (please correct me on this) Its too luminous as far as I can see. So either NASA increased the exposure to see it brighter or It looks like that way already. If they changed the exposure, we would see stars along with pluto, right?
Here is the original picture: http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/multimedia/display.cfm?Category=Planets&IM_ID=20233
The close approach LORRI pictures were exposed for 0.1 seconds to compensate for the low light. The LORRI gallery has some 10 second exposures that show stars: https://www.nasa.gov/newhorizons/lorri-gallery
-
I have a genuine question.
Why dont you see stars in the photos?
Try taking a night-time photo with a modern digital camera.
Report back when you have tried.
I did, no stars. But you didnt read the link I provided.
""Just how dim is the sunlight on Pluto, some three billion miles away? While sunlight is much weaker than it is here on Earth, it isn’t as dark as you might expect. In fact, for just a moment during dawn and dusk each day, the illumination on Earth matches that of high noon on Pluto.""
(http://i.imgur.com/DtXYkev.jpg)
In this picture, Pluto doesnt looks like the illumination is comparable to earth dusk or dawn. (please correct me on this) Its too luminous as far as I can see. So either NASA increased the exposure to see it brighter or It looks like that way already. If they changed the exposure, we would see stars along with pluto, right?
From Pluto, the Sun is fainter than it is from Earth, but still can be 250 to 450 times brighter than the full Moon
- Phil Plait
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/03/15/bafact-math-how-bright-is-the-sun-from-pluto/#.VbDm7VK2WfI
Try taking pictures of stars on a full moon night. When you work out how bloody difficult that is to do, imagine trying to do so with the moon 450 times brighter
-
I have a genuine question.
Why dont you see stars in the photos?
Try taking a night-time photo with a modern digital camera.
Report back when you have tried.
I did, no stars. But you didnt read the link I provided.
""Just how dim is the sunlight on Pluto, some three billion miles away? While sunlight is much weaker than it is here on Earth, it isn’t as dark as you might expect. In fact, for just a moment during dawn and dusk each day, the illumination on Earth matches that of high noon on Pluto.""
(http://i.imgur.com/DtXYkev.jpg)
In this picture, Pluto doesnt looks like the illumination is comparable to earth dusk or dawn. (please correct me on this) Its too luminous as far as I can see. So either NASA increased the exposure to see it brighter or It looks like that way already. If they changed the exposure, we would see stars along with pluto, right?
You've answered your own question. Stars are dim and if there is a bright object in the field of view then the camera settings will not be set to register the starlight. You can get stars into that type of image in two ways:
- Take two exposures and layer them onto each other.
- Expose correctly for the stars and have the dwarf planet over-exposed
As the object of interest is the dwarf planet, what would be gained by setting the camera to expose for the stars?
As for the image being "too luminous", you are showing that you don't really understand photography. You would have to factor in the exposure, f-speed and so on to understand how the image is built up. The image might even be the result of stacking multiple images to counteract noise. Or it may be taken in different wavelengths to show certain details (for example, amateur astrophotographers will use methane filters to image cloud details on the gas giants, of near-infrared to cut through atmospheric distortion).
I dont have a good understanding of photgraphy, you are right.
I stand corrected then.
You don't need one. Take the camera of your choice, go out on a clear night, photograph stars.
There are only 3 possible results.
1. You won't do it.
2. You will make excuses.
3. You will do it and discover how difficult it actually is to photograph stars.
I really hope you will do number 3. Until you attempt it, you really do not appreciate how much effort is involved. I have hours of wasted long exposures, all destroyed because some idiot turned on the kitchen light.
The only thing that will really persuade you is when you try and fail. As I did many years ago. Now, I have several thousands worth of gear, and plan to spend thousands more.
Nevertheless, ISO, aperature and so forth are the same regardless. Take whatever camera you have and go photograph some stars. Post your results right here.
In advance, I know what your results will be, and I know you will not post them.
-
Nevertheless, ISO, aperature and so forth are the same regardless. Take whatever camera you have and go photograph some stars. Post your results right here.
In advance, I know what your results will be, and I know you will not post them.
I think Gazpar is on our side. No need to be so hard on him.
-
Nevertheless, ISO, aperature and so forth are the same regardless. Take whatever camera you have and go photograph some stars. Post your results right here.
In advance, I know what your results will be, and I know you will not post them.
I think Gazpar is on our side. No need to be so hard on him.
I will do it, I just have to wait until is night here. Im on your side dont worry, im playing the hb side.
-
Try looking at this photo: https://500px.com/photo/48322274/milkyway-starfield-by-stefan-holm
You'll notice that the photographer has used certain settings to capture this picture - namely an aperture of f5, a shuttertime of 20 seconds, and an ISO setting of 1600.
Compare to this photo were the sun is out. https://500px.com/photo/29148769/blue-horizon-by-da-go.
It's data are f5.6, 1/320s, ISO 100.
That means to create the starfield-picture, the exposure has been increased by 20x320 and 2^4 (4 doublings of the ISO equals 4 doublings of the shuttertime or 4 f-stops on the aperture).
That is a difference of 20x320x16= 102400 times more light in the daytime than in the nighttime.
Pluto is about 40 times farther from the sun than we are. That means it receives 40^2 times less light per area. It's high noon is 64 times dimmer than on Earth. That is equal to 6 f-stops.
Underexposing a picture with 6 f-stops does not produce a viable photo. Therefore: No stars on a photo of Pluto.
edit: spelling
-
Nevertheless, ISO, aperature and so forth are the same regardless. Take whatever camera you have and go photograph some stars. Post your results right here.
In advance, I know what your results will be, and I know you will not post them.
I think Gazpar is on our side. No need to be so hard on him.
I am not being hard on Gazpar. It is only the practical exercise that drives home the lesson. I know for a fact that the first time I did it, my reaction was "Holy cow, this is harder than it looks" and I was forewarned and forearmed, and equipped as to what to expect.
There is no substitute for making the attempt oneself. It's a learning experience.
-
So I went to my backyard recently and took this pictures of the moon and some stars on the sky.
Moon
(http://i.imgur.com/xP5GOpf.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/V4Z6ANq.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/Z0Eqy6U.jpg)
Random stars
(http://i.imgur.com/upqpZUW.jpg)
Is it supposed to be any stars?
Cellphone Iphone 5s
Camera specifications:
8 megapixels with 1.5µ pixels
ƒ/2.2 aperture
Sapphire crystal lens cover
True Tone flash
Backside illumination sensor
Five-element lens
Hybrid IR filter
Autofocus
Tap to focus
Exposure control
Auto HDR for photos
Face detection
Panorama
Auto image stabilization
Burst mode
Photo geotagging
-
You need a real camera, one where you can control ISO setting, aperture and exposure time. A phone camera isn't good enough for that. And you need a tripod.
-
So I went to my backyard recently and took this pictures of the moon and some stars on the sky.
Can you post the metadata? I recommend the ExifWizard app. It's free.
Do you know which stars you shot? You can use the SkyMap app to identify them.
-
If we can get the metadata and the magnitude of the stars we can calculate the exposure required for the LORRI camera to pick up stars given the known exposure setting of the Heart of Pluto picture.
-
Im using your apps Chew. I came a little late so dont expect the star positions to be 100% accurate.
(http://i.imgur.com/V4Z6ANq.jpg)
The star to the left is Spica. Virgo.
Focal Length:
133mm (35mm eq.)
Aperture: f/2.2
Exposure: 1/15s
Ev: 6.2
ISO equiv: 2000
ApertureValue: 2.275007124536905
BrightnessValue: -8.309981401115934
ColorSpace: sRGB
ComponentsConfiguration: YCbCr
DateTimeDigitized: 2015:07:23 21:50:19
DateTimeOriginal: 2015:07:23 21:50:19
DigitalZoomRatio: 4.601503759398496
ExifVersion: 2.2.1
ExposureBiasValue: 0
ExposureMode: Auto
ExposureProgram: Normal
ExposureTime: 0.06666666666666667
FNumber: 2.2
Flash: Off, Did not fire
FlashPixVersion: 1.0
FocalLenIn35mmFilm: 133
FocalLength: 4.15
ISOSpeedRatings: 2000
LensMake: Apple
LensModel: iPhone 5s back camera 4.15mm f/2.2
LensSpecification: 4.15,4.15,2.2,2.2
MeteringMode: Pattern
PixelXDimension: 3264
PixelYDimension: 2448
SceneCaptureType: Standard
SceneType: Directly Photographed
SensingMethod: One-chip color area
ShutterSpeedValue: 3.907099697885196
SubjectArea:
X Center: 1623,
Y Center: 1215,
Width: 1789,
Height: 1068
SubsecTimeDigitized: 607
SubsecTimeOriginal: 607
WhiteBalance: Auto
(file) DateTime: 2015:07:23 21:50:19
Make: Apple
Model: iPhone 5s
Orientation: Left
ResolutionUnit: Inches
Software: 8.4
XResolution: 72
YResolution: 72
PixelWidth: 3264
PixelHeight: 2448
FileName: IMG_0101.JPG
FileSize: 422.864 kB
(http://i.imgur.com/upqpZUW.jpg)
Those 2 starS, I think, they are Hadar and Rigel from Centaurus.
Focal Length:
133mm (35mm eq.)
Aperture: f/2.2
Exposure: 1/15s
Ev: 6.2
ISO equiv: 2000
ApertureValue: 2.275007124536905
BrightnessValue: -8.309981401115934
ColorSpace: sRGB
ComponentsConfiguration: YCbCr
DateTimeDigitized: 2015:07:23 21:50:32
DateTimeOriginal: 2015:07:23 21:50:32
DigitalZoomRatio: 4.601503759398496
ExifVersion: 2.2.1
ExposureBiasValue: 0
ExposureMode: Auto
ExposureProgram: Normal
ExposureTime: 0.06666666666666667
FNumber: 2.2
Flash: Off, Did not fire
FlashPixVersion: 1.0
FocalLenIn35mmFilm: 133
FocalLength: 4.15
ISOSpeedRatings: 2000
LensMake: Apple
LensModel: iPhone 5s back camera 4.15mm f/2.2
LensSpecification: 4.15,4.15,2.2,2.2
MeteringMode: Pattern
PixelXDimension: 3264
PixelYDimension: 2448
SceneCaptureType: Standard
SceneType: Directly Photographed
SensingMethod: One-chip color area
ShutterSpeedValue: 3.907099697885196
SubjectArea:
X Center: 1623,
Y Center: 1215,
Width: 1789,
Height: 1068
SubsecTimeDigitized: 688
SubsecTimeOriginal: 688
WhiteBalance: Auto
(file) DateTime: 2015:07:23 21:50:32
Make: Apple
Model: iPhone 5s
Orientation: Left
ResolutionUnit: Inches
Software: 8.4
XResolution: 72
YResolution: 72
PixelWidth: 3264
PixelHeight: 2448
FileName: IMG_0102.JPG
FileSize: 327.181 kB
-
I am not being hard on Gazpar. It is only the practical exercise that drives home the lesson. I know for a fact that the first time I did it, my reaction was "Holy cow, this is harder than it looks" and I was forewarned and forearmed, and equipped as to what to expect.
There is no substitute for making the attempt oneself. It's a learning experience.
To be fair, it was a bit harsh. However, I get where you are coming from. I know just how hard it is (http://www.stephenjennette.com) to take anything near resembling a half-decent nightime image and it boils my pee when I hear a complete moron (Heiwa, for example) just handwaving away the effort, time and cost that it takes.
Gazpar, there's a lesson in here somewhere. People that know what they are talking about can get frustrated by others dismissing their years of work with ridiculous claims. Prof Brian Cox is the one that springs to mind here. Its a normal human reaction, but IMHO, it can play into the hands of the HB. Keep asking the questions because this place is a font of knowledge. At the same time, be prepared to Do Your Own Research. Taking everything that you hear here as gospel without investigating and checking facts is the same mentality that the HBs use. The difference is that here, the people are very knowledgeable and are often experts in the field that they are talking about. Hence their words carry a heck of a lot more authority than some gobshite sitting in his bedroom creating conspiracy theory YouTube videos.
-
Those 2 starS, I think, they are Hadar and Rigel from Centaurus.
??
Rigel is in Orion.
-
Gazpar, you may well be picking up stars in your photo, but if you are, that is not in any way an anomaly or contradictory to what has been said about exposure times. The one really obvious other feature of that image is that the Moon is greatly overexposed. It's a bright blob with a lot of 'haze' around it. Even with that overexposure of the Moon you've only picked up a couple of faint blobs that might be bright-ish stars. Now imagine if you had the correct exposure to show the detail of the Moon and think how unlikely picking up stars would be in that instance.
-
This is a good tuition webpage for doing astrophotography using a digital SLR.
http://theartofnight.com/2014/06/the-art-of-astrophotography-tutorial/
It's by fellow-Kiwi Mark Gee who was Astronomy Photographer of the Year 2013 in the annual competition run by the Royal Observatory, Greenwich. On his webpages he mentions some of the difficulties he had in his early years before he could turn out the good stuff.
-
lonelyspeck.com is another great resource.
Key to that type of photography is having access to very dark skies. If you try to get shots like that in an area where there is light pollution, or skyglow from nearby towns then you are going to get very frustrated!
-
Those 2 starS, I think, they are Hadar and Rigel from Centaurus.
??
Rigel is in Orion.
Alpha Centauri is also known as Rigel Kent. It shows up as "Rigel" in the SkyMap app.
Gazpar, your latitude, longitude, elevation, and the direction your camera was pointed wasn't in the metadata. That means you do not have location services turned on in your phone. That will skew the SkyMap app; it needs your location to properly show the location of the stars. What city do you live in and which direction were you pointed when you took the pic of the two stars?
-
Alpha Centauri is also known as Rigel Kent. It shows up as "Rigel" in the SkyMap app.
No, it's known as Rigil Kent (or Toliman). Skymap is incorrect if it is calling it Rigel. Rigel (Beta Orionis) is in Orion
-
Alpha Centauri is also known as Rigel Kent. It shows up as "Rigel" in the SkyMap app.
No, it's known as Rigil Kent (or Toliman). Skymap is incorrect if it is calling it Rigel. Rigel (Beta Orionis) is in Orion
Holy crap, I never noticed the difference in spelling! Talk about your attentive blindness. Thank you. It is spelled wrong in the SkyMap app.
-
Those 2 starS, I think, they are Hadar and Rigel from Centaurus.
??
Rigel is in Orion.
Alpha Centauri is also known as Rigel Kent. It shows up as "Rigel" in the SkyMap app.
Gazpar, your latitude, longitude, elevation, and the direction your camera was pointed wasn't in the metadata. That means you do not have location services turned on in your phone. That will skew the SkyMap app; it needs your location to properly show the location of the stars. What city do you live in and which direction were you pointed when you took the pic of the two stars?
Location:
Lat: -28 Lon:-59
Moon photo: RA: 40 DEC: -2
2 Star Photo: RA: 12 DEC: 55
(http://i.imgur.com/qhegNsE.png)
Is an older photo, the coordinates are not the same.
This is a good tuition webpage for doing astrophotography using a digital SLR.
http://theartofnight.com/2014/06/the-art-of-astrophotography-tutorial/
It's by fellow-Kiwi Mark Gee who was Astronomy Photographer of the Year 2013 in the annual competition run by the Royal Observatory, Greenwich. On his webpages he mentions some of the difficulties he had in his early years before he could turn out the good stuff.
I will check it, thank you. Do you also have one about basics of photography?
Gazpar, you may well be picking up stars in your photo, but if you are, that is not in any way an anomaly or contradictory to what has been said about exposure times. The one really obvious other feature of that image is that the Moon is greatly overexposed. It's a bright blob with a lot of 'haze' around it. Even with that overexposure of the Moon you've only picked up a couple of faint blobs that might be bright-ish stars. Now imagine if you had the correct exposure to show the detail of the Moon and think how unlikely picking up stars would be in that instance.
That makes sense.
-
Gazpar, if you're worried about people knowing where you live then you should edit your post and erase the last 3 digits of your latitude and longitude (and crop off the top of the photo); otherwise people can find out where you are to within 11 meters.
-
Is an older photo, the coordinates are not the same.
Then it won't help identify the stars. Which direction where you facing when you took the photo? From your location and the direction I can identify the stars.
-
Gazpar, if you're worried about people knowing where you live then you should edit your post and erase the last 3 digits of your latitude and longitude (and crop off the top of the photo); otherwise people can find out where you are to within 11 meters.
Done
Is an older photo, the coordinates are not the same.
Then it won't help identify the stars. Which direction where you facing when you took the photo? From your location and the direction I can identify the stars.
I posted it wrong.
The coordinates I used for:
Moon photo: RA: 40 DEC: -2
2 Star Photo: RA: 12 DEC: 55
Are the ones I took with the direction I was facing.
The other from the picture is just from there, I was showing you that Rigel is in Centaurus too, not just Orion. The coords of above are the ones you are looking for.
-
RA changes 15.04° an hour with respect to the stars. If it is an old photo and you don't know the exact date and time it was taken then it will not help identify the stars. Which direction (north, northeast, southwest, etc) where you facing when you took the photo of the stars?
-
I think Gazpar's pictures are a very good example of why people don't try to photograph stars with a moon or planet in the same shot. In his pictures, the Moon is an indistinguishable blob of light, without even gross detail of the surface, and the star is a mere blip, with again no detail (in fact, it could be an artifact of some sort). From a scientific viewpoint, you would get no useful information about either the Moon or the star. It's sort of a "worst of both worlds" situation.
Since we can get very good information on the stars from other sources, it's obvious that NASA would be more interested in exposing for Pluto, rather than to pick up the stars.
-
The other from the picture is just from there, I was showing you that Rigel is in Centaurus too, not just Orion. The coords of above are the ones you are looking for.
Then there is an error in whatever sky map app that is. There is only one star named Rigel and it is in Orion. The one in your image should be labelled "Rigel Kentaurus" or "Rigil", as pointed out before, and cannot correctly be called "Rigel".
-
RA changes 15.04° an hour with respect to the stars. If it is an old photo and you don't know the exact date and time it was taken then it will not help identify the stars. Which direction (north, northeast, southwest, etc) where you facing when you took the photo of the stars?
210º Southwest
-
Now I get it. Pluto should have to look like the moon in my photo to see any stars. Overexposed.
-
Now I get it. Pluto should have to look like the moon in my photo to see any stars. Overexposed.
Correct. Which is what I pointed out earlier.
As Pluto is the object of interest, the image exposure has been set to show it and not the stars. There'd be no point whatsover in sending a $multi-billion probe on a 10-year journey to take a photo of stars, would there?
The hoax-believers can't seem to get this simple point into their thick skulls. "Why are there no pictures of the stars?" they cry. "Because we can take perfectly good pictures of stars from here...why would we spend billions on sending someone to the Moon with a crummy hand-held camera to take poor quality images" is the answer, but of course, their minds are closed.
-
I think Gazpar's pictures are a very good example of why people don't try to photograph stars with a moon or planet in the same shot. In his pictures, the Moon is an indistinguishable blob of light, without even gross detail of the surface, and the star is a mere blip, with again no detail (in fact, it could be an artifact of some sort). From a scientific viewpoint, you would get no useful information about either the Moon or the star. It's sort of a "worst of both worlds" situation.
It can be done, by taking two pictures and layering them together in something like Photoshop. One exposed for the stars, one for the Moon. There's very little to be gained though, as the Moon is so bright that it swamps out the near stars
Remember that knuckle-dragger Weisbecker? He couldn't get his peabrain around an image that was a composite of at least three different images....
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=602.0
-
The other from the picture is just from there, I was showing you that Rigel is in Centaurus too, not just Orion. The coords of above are the ones you are looking for.
Then there is an error in whatever sky map app that is. There is only one star named Rigel and it is in Orion. The one in your image should be labelled "Rigel Kentaurus" or "Rigil", as pointed out before, and cannot correctly be called "Rigel".
The app also reverses the sign of the declination. Point it Polaris and it reads -90.
-
The app also reverses the sign of the declination. Point it Polaris and it reads -90.
It sounds like a rubbish app.
I use two different planetariums, both of which are free. Stellarium is the prettiest one, is intuitive, very powerful and is cross platform:
http://www.stellarium.org/en_GB/
I believe that there is a mobile app too, but the last time I tried it it was pretty poor.
I use Cartes du Ciel in my observatory to interface with my telescope mount. It's not as pretty, a fair bit mre difficult to use, but it works better as an observatory application:
http://www.ap-i.net/skychart/en/start
There are others, but those two should cover most needs.
-
The app also reverses the sign of the declination. Point it Polaris and it reads -90.
It sounds like a rubbish app.
Yeah but it's free!
-
Alan Stern disagrees with Tyson. So do I. As Pluto would say, Tyson is no Carl Sagan.
Actually, I've been saying for some time that not only is Tyson the first to fill Carl Sagan's shoes, he's arguably doing an even better job. Tyson seems totally at ease in front of an audience; Sagan never did.
I find him a pretentious git. Unlike Sagan, he has done very little science, he is now an educator, rather than a scientist. Nothing wrong with that, but he gets passed off as an expert on everything, which he isn't. His ignorance in some areas, such as philosophy, is appalling.
The IAU decision was a farce with risible justification. A "dwarf" planet is still a planet. Just as a "giant" planet is still a planet.
There are 8 planets in our solar system, and that's a very reliable number. If we merge dwarf planets into the planet category, then the number will be "large and unknown". Either way, never again will the count be the "9" we were taught in school.
Scientific understanding changes, and people have to adapt to that.
[/quote]
I don't think you understand the problem with the IAU decision, the flaws in process and scientific reasoning.
-
Actually, I've been saying for some time that not only is Tyson the first to fill Carl Sagan's shoes, he's arguably doing an even better job. Tyson seems totally at ease in front of an audience; Sagan never did.
100%. NDT did a great job of the COSMOS reboot, and I understand he was Ann Druyan's first choice.
The only thing I disliked about the new COSMOS was the cheap, poorly animated cartoons. One of the key appeals and strengths of the original COSMOS was the mini-documentaries that told the stories of individuals and their contributions to science, e.g. Johannes Kepler and Jean-François Champollion
There are 8 planets in our solar system, and that's a very reliable number. If we merge dwarf planets into the planet category, then the number will be "large and unknown". Either way, never again will the count be the "9" we were taught in school.
Scientific understanding changes, and people have to adapt to that.
Agree with this too. I used to be in the "Pluto is a planet" camp, but three things have convinced me that the IAU have got this right...
1. Pluto's orbit is highly eccentric (so much so that it crosses the orbit of another planet. No other planet does this.). It is also highly inclined to the orbits of the 8 planets
2. This diagram
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/ApolloHoax/kuiper-belt.jpg)
Orbitally, Pluto has more in common with the Kuiper Belt object Eris than it has with any of the planets
3. This comparison
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/ApolloHoax/pluto-eris.jpg)
Pluto is not much bigger that the Kuiper Belt object Eris, and is actually less massive!! If Pluto is a planet, then Eris is also a planet, and any other Kuiper belt object the size of Eris or bigger (and there could be thousands of them) would also have to be classed as planets.
Nothing wrong with bodies large enough to have achieved hydrostatic equilibrium but too small to have deuterium fusion being planets. As a classification is is far more rational than the IAU one, with the risible nonsense about "clearing the neighbourhood". I would doubt however that there are thousands of them, in our solar system at least.
-
....they are different to the 8 inner planets in many ways, so warrant a different definition. The IAU took the correct course and gave them a different category.
Pluto has achieved hydrostatic equilibrium, is internally differentiated, has a range of active surface processes, some driven internal processes, satellites, diverse tectonics, a relatively young surface, and an atmosphere. How is that different to the other planets?
The IAU decision was not made after peer review, broad-based and comprehensive discussion in the literature just just a vote amongst a rump of delegates at the tail end of a conference.
-
I find him a pretentious git. Unlike Sagan, he has done very little science, he is now an educator, rather than a scientist. Nothing wrong with that, but he gets passed off as an expert on everything, which he isn't. His ignorance in some areas, such as philosophy, is appalling.
Does he put himself forward as an expert in Philosophy? If not, then that's like castigating him for his ignorance in repairing car engines, sky-diving or anything else for that matter.
I quite like NdGT, and I find that he comes across as an excellent presenter. He has a good turn of phrase and is very comfortable in front of audiences.
The new Cosmos, however, I could not get on with. To be fair, the original Cosmos series (along with Attenbrough's Life on Earth) stand as the two programs that awakened a lifelong love of science in me. I can still remember watching Cosmos as a kid growing up in the middle of Ireland and realising that there was so much more than my fairly isolated life had shown me thus far. The new version didn't float my boat at all. It just didn't have the magic that Sagan, for all his awkward vocalisations and appearance, had.
-
Pluto has achieved hydrostatic equilibrium, is internally differentiated, has a range of active surface processes, some driven internal processes, satellites, diverse tectonics, a relatively young surface, and an atmosphere. How is that different to the other planets?
Asteroid 2004 BL86 has its own satellite, so does that make asteroid 2004 BL86 planet by your definition? The problem with classifying objects is that there is always that inevitable Venn diagram where characteristics from one class overlap with those of another. It is the same in biology, look at the pill bug and wood louse.
Pluto is smaller than our own Moon, sits in part of the solar system where objects have an inclined elliptical orbit to the Sun. As we discover more about the solar system we could potentially have hundreds of planets. It is far easier and more sensible to limit the planets to a few based on size and orbital parameters, and classify the remaining objects as dwarf planets. The classification is pragmatic and sensible based on clear criteria and rather decisive criteria. If we begin classifying in science based on a plethora of criteria it simply gets messy. I would say the things you have described are sub criteria.
-
Does he put himself forward as an expert in Philosophy? If not, then that's like castigating him for his ignorance in repairing car engines, sky-diving or anything else for that matter.
I quite like NdGT, and I find that he comes across as an excellent presenter. He has a good turn of phrase and is very comfortable in front of audiences.
I don't know about philosophy, since it didn't come up at the talk he gave at my alma mater. But he freely admitted his ignorance of history, though he did get a little snippy with me when I suggested that the reason I had known a certain piece of information and he hadn't was that I'd had really good history teachers. ("Are you saying I didn't?" were his exact words.) Actually, part of the point of bringing it up was the fact that everyone is ignorant of something.
-
Everybody is ignorant about almost everything.
This is inevitable. The total sum of human knowledge vastly exceeds what a single individual can learn in a lifetime.
The total sum of potential knowledge about the universe that can be acquired, eventually, is far greater than that.
-
Pluto has achieved hydrostatic equilibrium, is internally differentiated, has a range of active surface processes, some driven internal processes, satellites, diverse tectonics, a relatively young surface, and an atmosphere. How is that different to the other planets?
Asteroid 2004 BL86 has its own satellite, so does that make asteroid 2004 BL86 planet by your definition? The problem with classifying objects is that there is always that inevitable Venn diagram where characteristics from one class overlap with those of another. It is the same in biology, look at the pill bug and wood louse.
Pluto is smaller than our own Moon, sits in part of the solar system where objects have an inclined elliptical orbit to the Sun. As we discover more about the solar system we could potentially have hundreds of planets. It is far easier and more sensible to limit the planets to a few based on size and orbital parameters, and classify the remaining objects as dwarf planets. The classification is pragmatic and sensible based on clear criteria and rather decisive criteria. If we begin classifying in science based on a plethora of criteria it simply gets messy. I would say the things you have described are sub criteria.
This for me is the main reason to not count Pluto as one of the main planets in the Solar System. The eight planets Sunward of it sit in pretty much the same orbital plane, and Pluto very conspicuously doesn't. That suggests to me that different processes were involved in its formation as opposed to the Inner Eight. And that, in turn, suggests to me a good reason to exclude it from the List of Planets.
-
Asteroid 2004 BL86 has its own satellite, so does that make asteroid 2004 BL86 planet by your definition? The problem with classifying objects is that there is always that inevitable Venn diagram where characteristics from one class overlap with those of another. It is the same in biology, look at the pill bug and wood louse.
Yes. Off topic, but ever heard of a Thylacine?
Debate has gone on for years over whether this animal should be classified as a dog or a cat, even in its two most common descriptions; "Tasmanian Tiger" and "Marsupial Dog"
-
I noticed this today:
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/beyond-pluto-2nd-target-chosen-for-new-horizons-probe/ar-BBmcVxo
The extended mission if approved due to have another encounter four more years.