[magic]

A number of you may be familiar with the out of focus videos of stars taken by the Nikon P900. We see a circular light with a fluid like visual affect, in some cases the focus can be manipulated to make the star appear amorphous. These videos are typically disregarded as not focusing the P900.

I too disregarded this phenomenon as a P900 owner but upon further thought, came to realize that when taking a photo of ANYTHING ELSE, anything from a bird, car, indoor lights the list goes on, neither of the two affects mentioned occur.

I've also taken photos of the moon at maximum optical and digital zoom and do not notice such an affect at any point during focusing, neither does the sun with the appropriate solar filter.

Disregarding the precepts of any particular wholesale ideology, would it be safe to conclude that both the moon and the sun are closer to us than the stars are, being in front of this fluid substratum?

[rabinoz]

Really, I am sure you problem is simply that the camera will not focus well on such a small bright object in a black field. Here are a couple of photos of planets and stars.

Venus and Jupiter on July 1, 2015     Photo taken under Full Moon The one taken under a full moon shows quite a few stars as simply bright dots (and a certain amount of digital noise!). Here's a couple more, Full Moon on July 1, 2015, 35 mm equiv 720x4 mm     Jupiter on May 27, 2016, 35 mm equiv 720x4 mm The first photo and the last two were taken on Panasonic DMC-TZ60 at an optical zoom of x30 (35mm equiv of 720 mm) and a digital zoom of x4, making the effective focal length about 2880 mm. The image of Jupiter is clearly much smaller than than of the moon. You might find you do better with manual focus set to inf. But the bottom line is that planets (and stars, if you can focus) do come out very small.

Just a little addendum. My photo of Jupiter is still not properly in focus and is very overexposed. It does look very small (and much smaller than the moon), but from that photo the subtended angle is about 0.027° (if my calculations are correct?), but should be 0.010°. Still it hardly looks like a big disk!

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

I don't think there is enough science to say that there isn't a fluid barrier between the Earth and the nearest star.

[model 29]

I'm not familiar with the video of stars taken by a Nikon P900 appearing out of focus, but I'm guessing it was autofocus.  Autofocus does tend to work better on larger well-lit objects than it does on tiny pinpoints of light.

[TotesNotReptilian]

I don't think there is enough science to say that there isn't a fluid barrier between the Earth and the nearest star.

This is technically true. The earth's atmosphere is considered a fluid.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

I don't think there is enough science to say that there isn't a fluid barrier between the Earth and the nearest star.

This is technically true. The earth's atmosphere is considered a fluid.

Exactly. Our whole solar system could be surrounded by some kind of fluid.

[TotesNotReptilian]

I don't think there is enough science to say that there isn't a fluid barrier between the Earth and the nearest star.

This is technically true. The earth's atmosphere is considered a fluid.

Exactly. Our whole solar system could be surrounded by some kind of fluid.

Sounds like a fun theory to me. One that disagrees with the prevalent understanding of the solar system.

Now you need to ask yourself:
How would the universe behave differently under my theory than under the prevalent theory?
Can this difference be observed?

Turn these questions into a hypothesis: If my theory is true, then <A> should happen. If the prevalent theory is true, then <B> should happen.

Finally, think of an experiment to test whether <A> or <B> happens.

Good luck!

[rabinoz]

I don't think there is enough science to say that there isn't a fluid barrier between the Earth and the nearest star.

1) Jupiter is not a star!
2)  Really, the planets have been observed in great detail for centuries. The only sign of any fluid between us and them is our own atmosphere. 

[Rounder]

Turn these questions into a hypothesis: If my theory is true, then <A> should happen. If the prevalent theory is true, then <B> should happen.

Finally, think of an experiment to test whether <A> or <B> happens.

Good luck!

Great idea, rejected a priori by zetetics.  Quoting from the wiki:  "A zetetic forms the question then immediately sets to work making observations and performing experiments to answer that question, rather than speculating on what the answer might be then testing that out...the zetetic does not make a hypothesis...he skips that step and devises an experiment...and bases his conclusion on the result of that experiment. Many feel this is a more reasonable method than the normal scientific method because it removes any preconceived notions and biases the formation of a hypothesis might cause, and leaves the conclusion up entirely to what is observed."

Sounds nice in theory, but I think it is exceedingly difficult to perform an experiment without at least a gut feelng of what one expects to happen.  In fact, I don't think it possible at all, except in the irresponsible case of performing an experiment in a field where you have no knowledge. 

[magic]

I'm only using relative terms for convenience.

rabinoz,
The P900 is capable of focusing on the stars/planets with manual focus with relative ease. In fact, it is interesting to note that the same manual focus setting at 83x optical zoom with the sun and moon as the subject also maintains focus on all other celestial bodies...

When using manual focus to induce the fluid effect on stars, a result of being out of focus, the same setting will make all celestial bodies except for the sun and moon have this fluid effect. I've tried this over many nights with varying weather conditions and the results are consistent.

This hypothesis is based on this observation that the sun and moon are closest to us followed by this fluid substratum followed by the stars/planets based on this.


model 29,
Here you go.

[TotesNotReptilian]

When using manual focus to induce the fluid effect on stars, a result of being out of focus, the same setting will make all celestial bodies except for the sun and moon have this fluid effect. I've tried this over many nights with varying weather conditions and the results are consistent.

I would love to see the actual pictures (with their corrosponding aperature/zoom/exposure settings), including the sun/moon pictures.

[rabinoz]

A number of you may be familiar with the out of focus videos of stars taken by the Nikon P900. We see a circular light with a fluid like visual affect, in some cases the focus can be manipulated to make the star appear amorphous. These videos are typically disregarded as not focusing the P900.

I too disregarded this phenomenon as a P900 owner but upon further thought, came to realize that when taking a photo of ANYTHING ELSE, anything from a bird, car, indoor lights the list goes on, neither of the two affects mentioned occur.

I've also taken photos of the moon at maximum optical and digital zoom and do not notice such an affect at any point during focusing, neither does the sun with the appropriate solar filter.

Disregarding the precepts of any particular wholesale ideology, would it be safe to conclude that both the moon and the sun are closer to us than the stars are, being in front of this fluid substratum?

I have given a bit more thought to your conclusions.

Yes, you are quite correct, there is a "fluid substratum", but it is between us and all of the "celestial objects". This "fluid substratum" is simply the atmosphere.
I am fairly sure that the difference between the stars and the rest is that their "apparent size" is so small that it less than the resolution of your eye, your camera or even the best telescopes.
The perturbations (air currents and temperature differences) in the atmosphere deflect the rays of light making images of stars "twinkle".
The much larger "apparent sizes" of the planets, moon and sun averages out the variations in "individual rays" so they do not appear to twinkle.

I think the "twinkling" is the cause of the "fluid effect" in the videos. There is a little of the same effect around the edges of the images of some planets.
Really though, I don't think I would read too much into out of focus videos.

Look up "Why stars twinkle".

[magic]

When using manual focus to induce the fluid effect on stars, a result of being out of focus, the same setting will make all celestial bodies except for the sun and moon have this fluid effect. I've tried this over many nights with varying weather conditions and the results are consistent.

I would love to see the actual pictures (with their corrosponding aperature/zoom/exposure settings), including the sun/moon pictures.

Until I feel like posting my own photos any Nikon P900 user can set their camera to Manual mode, Manual focus about 85% of the focus bar, and record video at 83x zoom will create the fluid effect.

Call me paranoid but I keep my signature lower by not posting content. Some of what I've posted before found itself as original content but I'm not here to keep score just to discuss any potential merits.

[magic]

rabinoz,
While I can understand how a person can "determine" this fluid substratum to be our atmosphere. However I am approaching this without embracing any wholesale ideology, including that of what is "known" about the composition of our "atmosphere". The reason for this is that embracing any part of what is "known" and distributed at an institutional level is to incorporate any falsehoods that may be inherent in the quality of the information.

Your response regarding relative size is welcomed as I've thought along the same rationale although I could not support it other than the relative size as you did. However, the ISS does not exhibit this fluid substratum behavior and acts as any terrestrial based light source does when out of focus and away from water. What I'm getting at is that it is, in my observations, at the same tier as the moon and sun that do not appear to exhibit the same visual qualities as the distant lights do (stars/planets to use relative terms).

Regarding the twinkling of stars, is something when they are in focus, does not exhibit, there is no deviation in their color or fluidity to their appearance they are simply a light with a consistent amount of luminescence, unaffected by any factor. However when out of focus it appears that the visual appearance of the same stars produce an entirely different quality. In my observation I would currently be biased to think that the stars twinkle because the human eyes are attempting to focus and it may go in and out of focus doing this and causes the "twinkling" we are familiar with.

[rabinoz]

rabinoz,
While I can understand how a person can "determine" this fluid substratum to be our atmosphere. However I am approaching this without embracing any wholesale ideology, including that of what is "known" about the composition of our "atmosphere". The reason for this is that embracing any part of what is "known" and distributed at an institutional level is to incorporate any falsehoods that may be inherent in the quality of the information.

Your response regarding relative size is welcomed as I've thought along the same rationale although I could not support it other than the relative size as you did. However, the ISS does not exhibit this fluid substratum behavior and acts as any terrestrial based light source does when out of focus and away from water. What I'm getting at is that it is, in my observations, at the same tier as the moon and sun that do not appear to exhibit the same visual qualities as the distant lights do (stars/planets to use relative terms).

Regarding the twinkling of stars, is something when they are in focus, does not exhibit, there is no deviation in their color or fluidity to their appearance they are simply a light with a consistent amount of luminescence, unaffected by any factor. However when out of focus it appears that the visual appearance of the same stars produce an entirely different quality. In my observation I would currently be biased to think that the stars twinkle because the human eyes are attempting to focus and it may go in and out of focus doing this and causes the "twinkling" we are familiar with.

Stars exhibit this behaviour only because their apparent size is so far below the resolution of our eyes, camera or even telescopes. One the closest stars to us is Alpha Centauri A which has an angular size of 0.007 seconds of arc. The human has a resolution of around 1 minute of arc (don't think mine are that good) - even best astronomical telescope on earth cannot resolve even that star.

Planets that we can see and the ISS appear far larger than that. The "twinkling" light from these larger objects can average out over adjacent pixels, or rods in your eyes.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

I don't think there is enough science to say that there isn't a fluid barrier between the Earth and the nearest star.

1) Jupiter is not a star!
2)  Really, the planets have been observed in great detail for centuries. The only sign of any fluid between us and them is our own atmosphere. 

Good thing I didn't mention anything about planets anyway... I swear you'd try to make me wrong if I said the sky was blue (it is debatable as to why though lol)

[rabinoz]

I don't think there is enough science to say that there isn't a fluid barrier between the Earth and the nearest star.

1) Jupiter is not a star!
2)  Really, the planets have been observed in great detail for centuries. The only sign of any fluid between us and them is our own atmosphere. 

Good thing I didn't mention anything about planets anyway... I swear you'd try to make me wrong if I said the sky was blue (it is debatable as to why though lol)

I'd like to be able to give some excuse for this, like being in hospital (which is true, but not relevant).
In other words, while what I said was true, it was not a fair response to your post, so all I can do is apologise (and wonder what I was thinking at the time)!

Sorry!
And no, I would not argue about sky being blue and the only question I have seen about the cause of was one "Flat Earther" saying that "NASA claimed that the blue sky caused by refraction".
But, that was not even on this site! The "interesting" statement was:

First of all, the sky is not blue because of the refraction of white light, as NASA satanists want you to think. If this was the case - and white light entering the atmosphere was indeed refracted into blue - it would not be possible for the Moon, the Sun, or the stars to appear white. They are white, of course, so clearly the REers are either ignorant or lying. 

which though was rather incorrect and inflammatory.

Enough of that, I don't think I'll ask what other theories there might be!

[magic]

rabinoz,
While I can understand how a person can "determine" this fluid substratum to be our atmosphere. However I am approaching this without embracing any wholesale ideology, including that of what is "known" about the composition of our "atmosphere". The reason for this is that embracing any part of what is "known" and distributed at an institutional level is to incorporate any falsehoods that may be inherent in the quality of the information.

Your response regarding relative size is welcomed as I've thought along the same rationale although I could not support it other than the relative size as you did. However, the ISS does not exhibit this fluid substratum behavior and acts as any terrestrial based light source does when out of focus and away from water. What I'm getting at is that it is, in my observations, at the same tier as the moon and sun that do not appear to exhibit the same visual qualities as the distant lights do (stars/planets to use relative terms).

Regarding the twinkling of stars, is something when they are in focus, does not exhibit, there is no deviation in their color or fluidity to their appearance they are simply a light with a consistent amount of luminescence, unaffected by any factor. However when out of focus it appears that the visual appearance of the same stars produce an entirely different quality. In my observation I would currently be biased to think that the stars twinkle because the human eyes are attempting to focus and it may go in and out of focus doing this and causes the "twinkling" we are familiar with.

Stars exhibit this behaviour only because their apparent size is so far below the resolution of our eyes, camera or even telescopes. One the closest stars to us is Alpha Centauri A which has an angular size of 0.007 seconds of arc. The human has a resolution of around 1 minute of arc (don't think mine are that good) - even best astronomical telescope on earth cannot resolve even that star.

Planets that we can see and the ISS appear far larger than that. The "twinkling" light from these larger objects can average out over adjacent pixels, or rods in your eyes.

Using relative terms, the same stars (all of them from what I've observed on my P900) and all the planets I've observed exhibit the same fluid appearance when the focus is set as specified in an earlier post. This observation is in conflict with any statement separating this visual phenomenon being apparent in stars and not planets.

I have also observed from great distances man made light sources through a humid night sky and cannot replicate this effect. Both the man made light source and the stars use the same focus setting and when applied to one another creates a completely opposite visual feedback. When the camera puts the star in focus, the same "in focus" setting applied to the man made light source afar results in a sharp image of the light. Focal length at extreme distances are relative.

I've also dabbled in macro photography and the resolution of light or chromatic aberrations do not exhibit this fluid effect when observed. Stars and planets are the only thing that I have seen do this, except for the youtube video with LED light in water I linked earlier.

[rabinoz]

Using relative terms, the same stars (all of them from what I've observed on my P900) and all the planets I've observed exhibit the same fluid appearance when the focus is set as specified in an earlier post. This observation is in conflict with any statement separating this visual phenomenon being apparent in stars and not planets.

I have also observed from great distances man made light sources through a humid night sky and cannot replicate this effect. Both the man made light source and the stars use the same focus setting and when applied to one another creates a completely opposite visual feedback. When the camera puts the star in focus, the same "in focus" setting applied to the man made light source afar results in a sharp image of the light. Focal length at extreme distances are relative.

I've also dabbled in macro photography and the resolution of light or chromatic aberrations do not exhibit this fluid effect when observed. Stars and planets are the only thing that I have seen do this, except for the youtube video with LED light in water I linked earlier.

As far as I am concerned, the only "fluid" is the atmosphere. I find it hard to guess what might happen with a seriously out of focus lens.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

Using relative terms, the same stars (all of them from what I've observed on my P900) and all the planets I've observed exhibit the same fluid appearance when the focus is set as specified in an earlier post. This observation is in conflict with any statement separating this visual phenomenon being apparent in stars and not planets.

I have also observed from great distances man made light sources through a humid night sky and cannot replicate this effect. Both the man made light source and the stars use the same focus setting and when applied to one another creates a completely opposite visual feedback. When the camera puts the star in focus, the same "in focus" setting applied to the man made light source afar results in a sharp image of the light. Focal length at extreme distances are relative.

I've also dabbled in macro photography and the resolution of light or chromatic aberrations do not exhibit this fluid effect when observed. Stars and planets are the only thing that I have seen do this, except for the youtube video with LED light in water I linked earlier.

As far as I am concerned, the only "fluid" is the atmosphere. I find it hard to guess what might happen with a seriously out of focus lens.

How does that account for the fact that only the stars and planets exhibit this effect and not the moon and sun?