If the earth is not spinning, and is covered by a stationary dome

Then why, with any off the shelf camera capable taking long exposure shots, will the objects in the sky A) streak across the image, and B) reveal additional objects in the sky that the naked eye, nor a near instant exposure shot will show?

Can you be a bit more clearer on what you mean? Put up some pictures to explain.

Can you be a bit more clearer on what you mean? Put up some pictures to explain.

Not that you're actually going to think they're real, but : http://www.mountwashington.org/photos/galleries/?g=18

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 06, 2014, 10:43:41 AM

Can you be a bit more clearer on what you mean? Put up some pictures to explain.

Not that you're actually going to think they're real, but : http://www.mountwashington.org/photos/galleries/?g=18

You've just put up  timelapse stills from a  video. What's your point here?

Quote from: RandomREalist on April 06, 2014, 10:49:25 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 06, 2014, 10:43:41 AM

Can you be a bit more clearer on what you mean? Put up some pictures to explain.

Not that you're actually going to think they're real, but : http://www.mountwashington.org/photos/galleries/?g=18

You've just put up  timelapse stills from a  video. What's your point here?

Lol, do you seriously not know the difference between timelapse, and long exposure? This: http://www.mountwashington.org/photos/galleries/?g=18 is a time lapse video. If you take any one still image, you have a picture of a flower. A long exposure photo is where the shutter remains open during the entire time, allowing light to hit the film/sensor continuously.

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 06, 2014, 10:59:46 AM

Quote from: RandomREalist on April 06, 2014, 10:49:25 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 06, 2014, 10:43:41 AM

Can you be a bit more clearer on what you mean? Put up some pictures to explain.

Not that you're actually going to think they're real, but : http://www.mountwashington.org/photos/galleries/?g=18

You've just put up  timelapse stills from a  video. What's your point here?

Lol, do you seriously not know the difference between timelapse, and long exposure? This: http://www.mountwashington.org/photos/galleries/?g=18 is a time lapse video. If you take any one still image, you have a picture of a flower. A long exposure photo is where the shutter remains open during the entire time, allowing light to hit the film/sensor continuously.

Get real will you.

Quote from: RandomREalist on April 06, 2014, 11:04:59 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 06, 2014, 10:59:46 AM

Quote from: RandomREalist on April 06, 2014, 10:49:25 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 06, 2014, 10:43:41 AM

Can you be a bit more clearer on what you mean? Put up some pictures to explain.

Not that you're actually going to think they're real, but : http://www.mountwashington.org/photos/galleries/?g=18

You've just put up  timelapse stills from a  video. What's your point here?

Lol, do you seriously not know the difference between timelapse, and long exposure? This: http://www.mountwashington.org/photos/galleries/?g=18 is a time lapse video. If you take any one still image, you have a picture of a flower. A long exposure photo is where the shutter remains open during the entire time, allowing light to hit the film/sensor continuously.

Get real will you.

hmm, nice veiled attack there Scep, what's to "get real"? The fact that you don't understand BASIC photographic principles, because you want to claim EVERYTHING is faked?

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 06, 2014, 11:21:04 AM

Quote from: RandomREalist on April 06, 2014, 11:04:59 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 06, 2014, 10:59:46 AM

Quote from: RandomREalist on April 06, 2014, 10:49:25 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 06, 2014, 10:43:41 AM

Can you be a bit more clearer on what you mean? Put up some pictures to explain.

Not that you're actually going to think they're real, but : http://www.mountwashington.org/photos/galleries/?g=18

You've just put up  timelapse stills from a  video. What's your point here?

Lol, do you seriously not know the difference between timelapse, and long exposure? This: http://www.mountwashington.org/photos/galleries/?g=18 is a time lapse video. If you take any one still image, you have a picture of a flower. A long exposure photo is where the shutter remains open during the entire time, allowing light to hit the film/sensor continuously.

Get real will you.

hmm, nice veiled attack there Scep, what's to "get real"? The fact that you don't understand BASIC photographic principles, because you want to claim EVERYTHING is faked?

Those star timelapses are not basic photography, so don't try and pass them off as such.

Quote from: RandomREalist on April 06, 2014, 11:25:44 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 06, 2014, 11:21:04 AM

Quote from: RandomREalist on April 06, 2014, 11:04:59 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 06, 2014, 10:59:46 AM

Quote from: RandomREalist on April 06, 2014, 10:49:25 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 06, 2014, 10:43:41 AM

Can you be a bit more clearer on what you mean? Put up some pictures to explain.

Not that you're actually going to think they're real, but : http://www.mountwashington.org/photos/galleries/?g=18

You've just put up  timelapse stills from a  video. What's your point here?

Lol, do you seriously not know the difference between timelapse, and long exposure? This: http://www.mountwashington.org/photos/galleries/?g=18 is a time lapse video. If you take any one still image, you have a picture of a flower. A long exposure photo is where the shutter remains open during the entire time, allowing light to hit the film/sensor continuously.

Get real will you.

hmm, nice veiled attack there Scep, what's to "get real"? The fact that you don't understand BASIC photographic principles, because you want to claim EVERYTHING is faked?

Those star timelapses are not basic photography, so don't try and pass them off as such.

Again, not a time lapse. And again, yes it is, it is SO easy to make a long exposure picture, that it can be done BY ACCIDENT. Ever see an "action" photo that was "ghosted", with the subject appearing to be in multiple places at once? that's a long exposure, done sort of in reverse. The subject is moving faster than the shutter speed, so while the shutter was open, collecting light, it appeared to the camera as if the subject was in multiple places

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 06, 2014, 11:28:48 AM

Quote from: RandomREalist on April 06, 2014, 11:25:44 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 06, 2014, 11:21:04 AM

Quote from: RandomREalist on April 06, 2014, 11:04:59 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 06, 2014, 10:59:46 AM

Quote from: RandomREalist on April 06, 2014, 10:49:25 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 06, 2014, 10:43:41 AM

Can you be a bit more clearer on what you mean? Put up some pictures to explain.

Not that you're actually going to think they're real, but : http://www.mountwashington.org/photos/galleries/?g=18

You've just put up  timelapse stills from a  video. What's your point here?

Lol, do you seriously not know the difference between timelapse, and long exposure? This: http://www.mountwashington.org/photos/galleries/?g=18 is a time lapse video. If you take any one still image, you have a picture of a flower. A long exposure photo is where the shutter remains open during the entire time, allowing light to hit the film/sensor continuously.

Get real will you.

hmm, nice veiled attack there Scep, what's to "get real"? The fact that you don't understand BASIC photographic principles, because you want to claim EVERYTHING is faked?

Those star timelapses are not basic photography, so don't try and pass them off as such.

Again, not a time lapse. And again, yes it is, it is SO easy to make a long exposure picture, that it can be done BY ACCIDENT. Ever see an "action" photo that was "ghosted", with the subject appearing to be in multiple places at once? that's a long exposure, done sort of in reverse. The subject is moving faster than the shutter speed, so while the shutter was open, collecting light, it appeared to the camera as if the subject was in multiple places

Agreed that easy to do.  My dad did some back in the 80's with a tripod and a SLR 35ml. Not time lapse at all, just one shot where the shutter is open for a long time.

How long was the exposure?

My dad's pictures? I can't remember exactly, I was about 8  . I remember him setting it up - he tried it with differing amounts of times. 30 mins, 1 hour, 2 hours.  He loved experimenting with photography, God rest his soul.  That's why the sky looks blue rather than black, cos of the longer exposure.

How long was the exposure?

And at least some of the photos from the page I linked, include exposure times, I saw one and 4 hours in the captions

So what does your long exposure prove exactly?

So what does your long exposure prove exactly?

The movement of the relative positions of the stars and earth.

Can you be a bit more clearer on what you mean? Put up some pictures to explain.

You will always deny the pictures a real. Always fake right!

So what does your long exposure prove exactly?

Are you that dumb. It proves that the stars are moving. If it was not moving you would see the stars as points of light.

Some very dramatic ones.  Makes me want to get my camera out.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2031704/Australian-photographer-Lincoln-Harrison-endures-15-hour-photo-shoots-capture-stunning-night-images-star-trails.html

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 06, 2014, 12:31:55 PM

So what does your long exposure prove exactly?

The movement of the relative positions of the stars and earth.

You know fine well it doesn't prove that, so stop telling lies.

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 06, 2014, 12:31:55 PM

So what does your long exposure prove exactly?

Are you that dumb. It proves that the stars are moving. If it was not moving you would see the stars as points of light.

Stars are moving? I thought it was the Earth that was moving?

Some very dramatic ones.  Makes me want to get my camera out.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2031704/Australian-photographer-Lincoln-Harrison-endures-15-hour-photo-shoots-capture-stunning-night-images-star-trails.html

Yeah, good idea, go and get your camera out because long exposure settings are a piece of cake. Just go out and crash bang wallop, what a picture.
Have a word will you.

It shows the movement of stars relative to the earth, in a concentric manner.

Quote from: airyfairy76 on April 06, 2014, 12:53:26 PM

Some very dramatic ones.  Makes me want to get my camera out.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2031704/Australian-photographer-Lincoln-Harrison-endures-15-hour-photo-shoots-capture-stunning-night-images-star-trails.html

Yeah, good idea, go and get your camera out because long exposure settings are a piece of cake. Just go out and crash bang wallop, what a picture.
Have a word will you.

I've seen it done, and seen the resulting pictures, by one of my parents.  Have a word yourself.

It shows the movement of stars relative to the earth, in a concentric manner.

Are your stars moving or your Earth. Make up your mind.

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 06, 2014, 01:18:01 PM

Quote from: airyfairy76 on April 06, 2014, 12:53:26 PM

Some very dramatic ones.  Makes me want to get my camera out.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2031704/Australian-photographer-Lincoln-Harrison-endures-15-hour-photo-shoots-capture-stunning-night-images-star-trails.html

Yeah, good idea, go and get your camera out because long exposure settings are a piece of cake. Just go out and crash bang wallop, what a picture.
Have a word will you.

I've seen it done, and seen the resulting pictures, by one of my parents.  Have a word yourself.

So go and get your camera out then. Oh and you'll need a nice steady tripod. Make sure your camera is set up as steady as possible whilst you cleverly hold the shutter open, making sure you don;t vibrate it or you'll mess up, etc, etc, etc, et,c. Now off you pop you immediate professional you...at every mortal thing just like most other gobby gloubulites. Have a serious word you gonk.

Quote from: airyfairy76 on April 06, 2014, 01:21:06 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 06, 2014, 01:18:01 PM

Quote from: airyfairy76 on April 06, 2014, 12:53:26 PM

Some very dramatic ones.  Makes me want to get my camera out.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2031704/Australian-photographer-Lincoln-Harrison-endures-15-hour-photo-shoots-capture-stunning-night-images-star-trails.html

Yeah, good idea, go and get your camera out because long exposure settings are a piece of cake. Just go out and crash bang wallop, what a picture.
Have a word will you.

I've seen it done, and seen the resulting pictures, by one of my parents.  Have a word yourself.

So go and get your camera out then. Oh and you'll need a nice steady tripod. Make sure your camera is set up as steady as possible whilst you cleverly hold the shutter open, making sure you don;t vibrate it or you'll mess up, etc, etc, etc, et,c. Now off you pop you immediate professional you...at every mortal thing just like most other gobby gloubulites. Have a serious word you gonk.

Must you be so rude?  It really isn't necessary.

You don't need to hold the shutter open - yes, a tripod is required.  A good SLR (even 35ml ones twenty years ago), will allow the shutter to open to a specified time.  No holding it open necessary. 

I haven't done it.  My father did.  If you have an SLR I can borrow, I'd be delighted to do it. Unfortunately my compact digital camera doesn't have long exposure ability.   No need to supply a tripod.

Quote from: Starman on April 06, 2014, 12:53:08 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 06, 2014, 12:31:55 PM

So what does your long exposure prove exactly?

Are you that dumb. It proves that the stars are moving. If it was not moving you would see the stars as points of light.

Stars are moving? I thought it was the Earth that was moving?

Actually, this may will surprise you, but EVERYTHING is moving. But in this case, you're right The movement seen, shows the rotation of the earth, around its axis

Quote from: airyfairy76 on April 06, 2014, 01:19:41 PM

It shows the movement of stars relative to the earth, in a concentric manner.

Are your stars moving or your Earth. Make up your mind.

The important word is "relative".  The earth is moving.  The stars are moving "relative" to the earth.

Quote from: airyfairy76 on April 06, 2014, 01:19:41 PM

It shows the movement of stars relative to the earth, in a concentric manner.

Are your stars moving or your Earth. Make up your mind.

Actually both.

Here is one you can watch. You will see the clouds pass by also.
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">