Here's a couple more,
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. |
I don't think there is enough science to say that there isn't a fluid barrier between the Earth and the nearest star.
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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid).
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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid).
Exactly. Our whole solar system could be surrounded by some kind of fluid.
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!
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.Great idea, rejected a priori by zetetics. Quoting from the wiki (http://wiki.tfes.org/Zeteticism): "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."
Finally, think of an experiment to test whether <A> or <B> happens.
Good luck!
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.
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 have given a bit more thought to your conclusions.
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?
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,
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.
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. ???
I'd like to be able to give some excuse for this, like being in hospital (which is true, but not relevant).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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
How does that account for the fact that only the stars and planets exhibit this effect and not the moon and sun?
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.
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.
How does that account for the fact that only the stars and planets exhibit this effect and not the moon and sun?
Because stars and planets are very dim objects in comparison.
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.
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.
How does that account for the fact that only the stars and planets exhibit this effect and not the moon and sun?
Because stars and planets are very dim objects in comparison.
So the luminosity of the subject is what's causing the appearance of fluid distortion?