The suns position taken from the same location at the same time over the year

Isn't it beautiful 

There should be a noticeable shift for daylight savings, but there is not.

Still, it's a cool picture.

Ah, the analemma. It is pretty, but that picture doesn't look real because the size of the sun in it is not constant. Here's another:

There should be a noticeable shift for daylight savings, but there is not.

Maybe it was taken from a place that doesn't recognize daylight saving time, or used a reference other than local civil time that isn't adjusted for it, like UTC.

There should be a noticeable shift for daylight savings, but there is not.

Still, it's a cool picture.

You are aware not everywhere does daylight savings, and smart people that want to take pictures like this will compensate for that.

I dislike the fact it was taken without a filter and the sun appears a different size in each.

Quote from: narcberry on December 21, 2017, 10:00:32 AM

There should be a noticeable shift for daylight savings, but there is not.

Still, it's a cool picture.

You are aware not everywhere does daylight savings, and smart people that want to take pictures like this will compensate for that.

I dislike the fact it was taken without a filter and the sun appears a different size in each.

Nobody gives a fuck about what you dislike.

There should be a noticeable shift for daylight savings, but there is not.

Dingbat! The title says, "taken from the same location at the same time".

Daylight savings does not change time, it only changes the setting on the places that observe daylight saving. Here in Queensland we do not.

Still, it's a cool picture.

But, why is it so?

Which one is "so" the one where the sun changes size or the other where the sun does not. I'm not sure which one you RE'ers are presenting as fact.

Which one is "so" the one where the sun changes size or the other where the sun does not. I'm not sure which one you RE'ers are presenting as fact.

The apparent change in size of the sun is due to glare.

Is it my imagination or does the analemma in the first photo have a distinct bend to it, which I believe should not be there?

Oh my, I just had to share this awesome feat of astrophotography planning.

This was taken by Cenk and Tunc Tezel (that's right out of the copyright in the bottom left, yes this is a protected photo I'm not using it for profit) between 2005 and 2006.  An anelemma that includes a total solar eclipse as one of the sun images, and indeed the background.  There were only two total eclipses during 2005-2006, the 2005 umbra never touched land, so it had to be March 29, 2006.  The position of the sun on the analemma, and the location of what I believe is Venus in the lower right, supports this.  Because of the ocean view and tropical location, this photo was probably taken on the southern coast of Turkey, near Antalya, at around 1056 UTC (1356 local).

In order to plan this shot, the camera must have been mounted in a fixed location for a full year, perhaps two exposures each month on chosen days at exactly the same time as mid totality on eclipse day, while accounting for DST (which Turkey abolished in 2016 - the things I learn on this site!).  While not technically difficult, not too many folks would think of this.  Great photo.

The rabbit need to hold the flashlight steady.

Quote from: narcberry on December 22, 2017, 07:48:06 AM

Which one is "so" the one where the sun changes size or the other where the sun does not. I'm not sure which one you RE'ers are presenting as fact.

The apparent change in size of the sun is due to glare.

HAHAHAHAHHAHA

HAHAHAHAHHAHA

So nothing rational to contribute?
It is well known that glare can affect the apparent size of the sun, and by changing the exposure setting you can change the apparent "size" of the sun.
The first picture is one which was done quite poorly.

Quote from: narcberry on December 26, 2017, 07:33:01 AM

HAHAHAHAHHAHA

So nothing rational to contribute?
It is well known that glare can affect the apparent size of the sun, and by changing the exposure setting you can change the apparent "size" of the sun.
The first picture is one which was done quite poorly.

It just seems to me that the glare problem would affect all the pictures of the sun, not a slow fade-in and fade-out as pictured. The image is clearly doctored - your glare theory is laughable.

It just seems to me that the glare problem would affect all the pictures of the sun, not a slow fade-in and fade-out as pictured. The image is clearly doctored - your glare theory is laughable.

Are you a complete moron?
Do you really think there are that many suns?

Yes, the picture is "doctored" as it combines numerous pictures of the sun.

Yes, the glare problem would affect all pictures of the sun taken without an adequate filter.
However if you adjust the exposure settings, or have the camera do it automatically, say from it being brighter or darker when the picture is taken, it can have variations, even systematic ones, between the suns.

Now do you have anything rational to contribute?

So you're saying someone is adjusting the exposure just right to make the sun appear to move further away and then closer again? That they are deliberately abusing the "glare" to create this effect?

So you're saying someone is adjusting the exposure just right to make the sun appear to move further away and then closer again? That they are deliberately abusing the "glare" to create this effect?

No, I'm saying they are incompetent.

Quote from: narcberry on December 26, 2017, 12:36:54 PM

So you're saying someone is adjusting the exposure just right to make the sun appear to move further away and then closer again? That they are deliberately abusing the "glare" to create this effect?

No, I'm saying they are incompetent.

So they accidentally made the sun appear this way? And that was because of glare they didn't account for. Yet the path of the sun is such that it appears to have been deliberately manipulated?

I don't see the strength of your argument.

Quote from: JackBlack on December 26, 2017, 12:50:53 PM

Quote from: narcberry on December 26, 2017, 12:36:54 PM

So you're saying someone is adjusting the exposure just right to make the sun appear to move further away and then closer again? That they are deliberately abusing the "glare" to create this effect?

No, I'm saying they are incompetent.

So they accidentally made the sun appear this way? And that was because of glare they didn't account for. Yet the path of the sun is such that it appears to have been deliberately manipulated?

I don't see the strength of your argument.

I don't see the strength of your brain.

Quote from: JackBlack on December 26, 2017, 12:50:53 PM

Quote from: narcberry on December 26, 2017, 12:36:54 PM

So you're saying someone is adjusting the exposure just right to make the sun appear to move further away and then closer again? That they are deliberately abusing the "glare" to create this effect?

No, I'm saying they are incompetent.

So they accidentally made the sun appear this way? And that was because of glare they didn't account for. Yet the path of the sun is such that it appears to have been deliberately manipulated?

I don't see the strength of your argument.

Multiple experiments conducted by multiple people at different locations. The purpose of the experiment was to trace the location of the sun not how bright it might be.

This can easily be validated even without a camera. Pick a window in your house where you can view the sun at some time during the day from a specific spot on the floor. Then at that time, on the first Saturday of every month, stand on that spot and have a friend place a gold star on the windows where you see the sun.

Or, you can continue to pick at meaningless attributes and learn nothing and prove nothing. It seems that the best you can do is discuss a nonrelevant point and then invoke rule #5.

So they accidentally made the sun appear this way? And that was because of glare they didn't account for. Yet the path of the sun is such that it appears to have been deliberately manipulated?

I don't see the strength of your argument.

No. There is no evidence of deliberate manipulation.
I will leave it up to incompetence for now.

Quote from: narcberry on December 26, 2017, 12:57:01 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on December 26, 2017, 12:50:53 PM

Quote from: narcberry on December 26, 2017, 12:36:54 PM

So you're saying someone is adjusting the exposure just right to make the sun appear to move further away and then closer again? That they are deliberately abusing the "glare" to create this effect?

No, I'm saying they are incompetent.

So they accidentally made the sun appear this way? And that was because of glare they didn't account for. Yet the path of the sun is such that it appears to have been deliberately manipulated?

I don't see the strength of your argument.

I don't see the strength of your brain.

Saturn
Date Registered:  May 04, 2017
someone has dipped into their bag-o-alts.