Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Do you have a source of information that you are using for your claim that 'all northern constellations are visible from the northern hemisphere while all southern constellations are not visible from the southern hemisphere'?
Not true. Place the North pole on one end and the south pole on the opposite end and it fits all observations.
The RET/heliocentric model fails to explain why the south polar stars are not visible regardless of location on the same latitude while the north ones are. Since the same situation is supposed to apply on a globe regardless of north or south pole, then like the north pole constellations that are visible regardless of position on the same latitude, so should the south pole constellations be visible regardless of position on the same latitude. But this is not the case.
In fact the only model that does work is a disk with the north pole "near" the edge and a south pole "on" the edge directly opposite one another on a flat disk spinning end over end. If the RET/heliocentric model was correct as advertised - you would see the south pole constellations from all positions on the same latitude just as you see the north pole constellations from any location on the same latitude.
Now understand I am not advocating FE, just showing that the RET/heliocentric model does not fit all observations as advertised and claimed. No more that the current FE model does.
But to get into a more scientific explanation one has to understand aberration of starlight to understand the flaws with our current cosmology.
Can you provide a layout of continents on this 'end over end' disk that allows for alignment with the north and south celestial poles while also allowing the north and south celestial poles to be 180 degrees apart from each other from any given point?And not all those star trails are like they like to show you.Nice wide-angle (or fisheye) lens photograph there. It does not accurately show what is seen with the naked eye however.
??
A cat has better night vison because it's cones are made for that purpose. CCD's are made to capture what the human eye sees to reproduce pictures faithfully as to what we observe. Go ahead, take your camera outside and take a picture - see if it shows things better than you can see without night vision attachments. In fact they have less resolution than the human eye.
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/cameras-vs-human-eye.htm
"Most current digital cameras have 5-20 megapixels, which is often cited as falling far short of our own visual system. This is based on the fact that at 20/20 vision, the human eye is able to resolve the equivalent of a 52 megapixel camera (assuming a 60° angle of view)."
We are not talking about regular cameras. The fact that Hubble can take pictures in infrared alone, proves that its simply not correct that the CCDs used in telescopes are made to reproduce what we see as accurately as possible. Why on earth would you want that?Which has nothing to do with the amount of light it gathers - which is determined only by aperture size. A one hour exposure on Sunday gathers no more light than a one hour exposure on Tuesday. The two overlaid only increase the detail or resolution - not the amount of light collected on each exposure. You can make what is within range appear brighter and more detailed, but putting one exposure on top of another does not increase the distance except by a very slight amount.
But a one hour exposure gathers more light than a 1 second exposure. So no, when you take puctures, the light gathered does not only depend on aperture, it depens on exposure too. You just said it yourself. It also matters how much of the gathered light is actually detected, and recorded on the image, and that is way more than the eye is capable of. You seem to be under the impression that aperture determines the distance you can see. It is simply not so when you dont use the naked eye.A CCD again is not made to see in the dark - but to reproduce the colors that the human eye sees faithfully. Only with infrared lights can a camera see better than you in the dark, IF the CCD is equipped to see in the infrared. But again, seeing in infrared does not increase distance nor the louight gatheing power, it remains the same as light is all frequencies combined.
Thats simply incorrect. Go to the following link and read the part about intensity range. It specifically says that CCDs can be used to enhance intensity range.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_vision
And again, if it can see infrared, then you are wrong when you say that its made to reproduce what the human eye sees."A telescope's most important attribute is its aperture, which determines the brightness and sharpness of everything you see through your scope. Technically, this is the diameter of the main lens or mirror and as the aperture increases so does the details of the image you see. Depending on the aperture you will either see an open or a restricted field of view. For example a good 10" aperture scope shows sharper images than even a well-made 6" aperture telescope."
How does that contradict what i say?Apparently you need to read some books on how telescopes work.
https://starizona.com/acb/basics/equip_whichisbest.aspx
"Aperture
The diameter of the lens or mirror in a telescope--the aperture--is the single most important factor for stargazing. The bigger the aperture, the more light the telescope gathers. Ultimately this is the main purpose of a telescope: to gather as much light as possible and funnel it into your eye. Since the light-gathering ability of a telescope is determined by the area of the lens or mirror, doubling the aperture quadruples the light-gathering ability. A small difference in aperture makes a big difference in what you see. A look at the picture below shows the difference between the area of an 8" telescope mirror and the typical 7mm opening of the human eye. An 8" telescope gathers more than 800 times as much light as the unaided eye."
I know how telescopes work, i have used many. You on the other hand need to read something that is NOT about naked eye observations, because that is simply not what Hubble is used for.The CCD in Hubble is far less than your eye.
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090207234120AAvedWz
"The Wide Field Camera 3 (WFC3), which is to be installed during the servicing mission in 2009, will also have 2 CCD chips each of 2048 x 4096 pixels for a total of 16 mega-pixels. "
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/cameras-vs-human-eye.htm
"Most current digital cameras have 5-20 megapixels, which is often cited as falling far short of our own visual system. This is based on the fact that at 20/20 vision, the human eye is able to resolve the equivalent of a 52 megapixel camera (assuming a 60° angle of view)."
So even someone with less than 20/20 vision (52 megapixels) has more resolution that Hubble which only amounts to 16 megapixels.
And we have not even started to talk about light extinction due to dust, the amount of which has been sadly underestimated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulysses_%28spacecraft%29
"Ulysses discovered that dust coming into the Solar System from deep space was 30 times more abundant than previously expected."
Is far less what? Less resolution? What does that have to do with collecting light and distance?
?
Btw, the longest distance you can see with the naked eye, was what is thought to have been a gamma-burts observed in 2008, and estimated to be 7.5 billion lightyears away. Multiply that with whatever the maths you did gave you for Hubble and tell me that 13-14 billion lightyears will be a problem.
http://www.universetoday.com/13280/biggest-ever-cosmic-explosion-observed-75-billion-light-years-away/
And its not even the telescopes that limit the range of how far we can see...its the fact that we look back in time due to the speed of light. There is a reason the term "visible universe" was coined.
Yes, if you flip a disk horizontally (like flipping a coin), you will see a North and South Celestial Pole (NCP/SCP). This would imply that the N.Pole and S.Pole are on the EDGE of the disk. Since motion is relative, if the Earth was stationary, the half the sky would be above the disk (seen everywhere on earth) and the other half below the disk (seen nowhere on Earth). This does not happen. There is NO WAY to make the sky look/act right with a disk.Simply put, you can probably take a disk and do strange and wonderful things to it (ad hoc explanations) to create an effect, like in this case. You can have a map with the N.Pole in the middle to take care of many things north of the equator. You can have another with the S.Pole in the middle to take care of the southern stuff. You can ...
But each model is different. There is no single FE model/map that handles everything. Just ad hoc explanations that MAY work for one situation but cause problems in all the other situations.
The RET/heliocentric one handles these situations without changing models - naturally, elegantly.
Not true. Place the North pole on one end and the south pole on the opposite end and it fits all observations.
The RET/heliocentric model fails to explain why the south polar stars are not visible regardless of location on the same latitude while the north ones are. Since the same situation is supposed to apply on a globe regardless of north or south pole, then like the north pole constellations that are visible regardless of position on the same latitude, so should the south pole constellations be visible regardless of position on the same latitude. But this is not the case.
In fact the only model that does work is a disk with the north pole "near" the edge and a south pole "on" the edge directly opposite one another on a flat disk spinning end over end. If the RET/heliocentric model was correct as advertised - you would see the south pole constellations from all positions on the same latitude just as you see the north pole constellations from any location on the same latitude.
Now understand I am not advocating FE, just showing that the RET/heliocentric model does not fit all observations as advertised and claimed. No more that the current FE model does.
But to get into a more scientific explanation one has to understand aberration of starlight to understand the flaws with our current cosmology.
The RET/heliocentric model is symmetrical around the equator. What you see north of the equator (e.g. NCP with stars spinning around it) you will see south of the equator (e.g. SCP with stars spinning around it) - by definition (symmetry).
A disk with the N.Pole (or S.Pole) in the middle, definitely does NOT work. The stars circle the NCP (like Polaris) and their arcs/circles continue to grow all the way to the edge with the stars near/above Antarctica (barely above ground) making 50,000+ mile circles.
Furthermore for example, at S. Georgia Island (54° S), the SCP would be 54° up looking due south. This only works with a spherical Earth. It is impossible on a FE. The SCP is up in the sky based on your latitude getting higher and higher the farther south you go.
On a Flat Earth, the SCP would be on the ground south of the Antarctica "wall". Using the pictures/stamps above, ALL the stars above the SCP would be located between YOU and the edge. ALL the stars below the SCP would be located between the edge and equator on the OPPOSITE side of the disk! How do you see them when they are WAY WAY BEHIND YOU (on the other side of the world)?
The Celestial SPHERE (not plane), corresponds EXACTLY to the spherical Earth's latitudes (declination). What this means is EVERY day/night, the stars in the sky as viewed from a latitude will always be at the same declination:... and so on. THAT means on an Earth disk, Sigma Octantis will circle 50,000+ MILES! - not be a single point (very small circle actually) in the sky.
- Polaris (89° N declination) will ALWAYS circle the Earth above 89° N latitude.
- Rigel (Orion, 8° S declination) will ALWAYS circle the Earth above 8° S latitude.
- Sigma Octantis (Octans, 89° S declination) will ALWAYS circle the Earth above 89° S latitude.
Sorry, but you don't understand astronomy and the geometry of objects.
And the eyes determines what you eventually see.
No, its not that simple. The CCD-chip that gathers the light instead of your eye, is waaaay more sensitive than a human eye. It simply sees better in the dark. Just like a cat has better nightvision than a human.
Yes. But it is more sensitive, can collect light over long periods of time, and combine pictures taken at different wavelengths. Your eye cant do that.
Would a cat see the same thing as you if it looked in the telescope, or would it see things you cant see since its eyes are more sensitive to light? Now imagine using a CCD that is thousands of times more sensitive than the cat of an eye, and combining the light recieved over an hour into one picture. How good your eyesight is, is irrelevant.
This is simply untrue. The distance is not determined solely by the aperture. Put a blind man in front of the telescope and say that again. Or a person that has sightly worse eyesight than you, or better for that matter.
You seem to focus only on how much light is collected. You need to factor in the CCDs ability to sum that light over time, and its ability to see stuff that is way beyond the capabilities of your eyes.
Random image pulled of the internet, just to give you an idea...the CCD in Hubble is probably vastly superior to the ones used to make that chart btw.
I know you are "just playing Devil's Advocate", but I don't follow "You are assuming that FE'rs are correct in their interpretation in the first place of locations and spins in order to argue against their interpretation, yes?"And yet unlike the north celestial pole stars that are visible from the same latitude everywhere, the south pole stars are not visible from the same latitude everywhere. This defeats that argument on its face. If it is applicable to the North pole stars - it should be applicable to the south pole stars - under the theory of a globe.Well no! On the (supposed) flat earth:
Be honest.
Not an advocate of FE, but that claim wont stand as it first assumes the disk must be spinning as if on a record player, not if you tumbled the record end for end along a center axis.
And asnswers the north and south pole star problems as well.
The north pole is in the centre of the disk (and the North Celestial Pole is above that) and
the south pole is, err, well there isn't one! and so where is the South Celestial Pole?That is the whole question, the flat earth has no place for a single point South Celestial Pole.
You are assuming that FE'rs are correct in their interpretation in the first place of locations and spins in order to argue against their interpretation, yes? But if you place the North pole near the edge, just as they place the south pole on the edge - then all problems are resolved. All interpretations then match exactly what we see. I am not arguing they are correct in their interpretation of the placement of the poles and map - just that a correct placement could make the theory match exactly with what we observe.
And as I stated - am not a supporter of FE, just playing Devil's Advocate and showing there are many other interpretations available but that of standard theory.I guess it's just a way of putting, and in there end on any FE model I have seen there is no way the southern hemisphere stars could rotate about South Celestial Pole.
- I certainly don't "assuming that FE'rs are correct" in anything about theor flat earth model.
- In my interpretation of their model, the flat earth is not rotating at all, but the "heavens" are rotating above it centred on the North Celestial Pole.
Of course, it is the earth rotating and the North Celestial and South Celestial Poles are just extensions of the asix of rotation.
Simply put, you can probably take a disk and do strange and wonderful things to it (ad hoc explanations) to create an effect, like in this case. You can have a map with the N.Pole in the middle to take care of many things north of the equator. You can have another with the S.Pole in the middle to take care of the southern stuff. You can ...
But each model is different. There is no single FE model/map that handles everything. Just ad hoc explanations that MAY work for one situation but cause problems in all the other situations.
The RET/heliocentric one handles these situations without changing models - naturally, elegantly.
The short answer: the CCD's used in telescopes and cameras are much more sensitive than the human eye. And you mention yourself that prolonged exposures pushes that difference even further. On top of that it has the ability to detect infrared and other frequencies that the human eye cant see at all. I dont really see how the sensitivity of the human eye is relevant to begin with to be honest...noone is actually looking through these telescopes with their eyes, they are watching a screen.
Be honest.
Not an advocate of FE, but that claim wont stand as it first assumes the disk must be spinning as if on a record player, not if you tumbled the record end for end along a center axis.
And asnswers the north and south pole star problems as well.
Well no! On the (supposed) flat earth:
The north pole is in the centre of the disk (and the North Celestial Pole is above that) and
the south pole is, err, well there isn't one! and so where is the South Celestial Pole?That is the whole question, the flat earth has no place for a single point South Celestial Pole.
Here's a link.
http://www.truthingenesis.com/2013/01/03/carbon-dating-flaws-doesnt-carbon-dating-disprove-the-bible/
?Here's an article with a great time-lapse photo taken of the night sky near the equator. The Flat Earth Model cannot explain why the stars closer to directly overhead are traveling in a straight line across the sky, while their paths become more and more circular around two separate points as you look farther to the north and south. The Flat Earth Model insists that all stars are rotating around a single point in the "center", but this photo would be impossible if that were true.
