How far away is the moon?

Another video using a Nikon p900 with 83x. Lately, my tablet is showing me ads for the camera. Spies are everywhere.

So tell me, how many parsecs can a Nikon zoom in on? That would make a great ad for Christmas shoppers. IF we have Christmas this year. After Nov. 8, it may be cheerless holiday.

What is this? My properly-formatted video is not showing up in Preview. If so, you can type in the title.

New Nikon P900 Star Footage for Flat Earth friends released on 11-1-2016

And yet it neither moves nor is round.

There are plenty of good reasons why the people you delight in calling "shills" come here to debunk your crap.

Maybe we're more interested in making sure the more gullible members of society don't fall for your nonsense. Maybe we don't want to see them wasting their time and money on scammers who prey on them (I dealt with a lot of that at the height of the Planet X debacle). Maybe we just want to make sure that people have access to the facts, and scientifically verifiable knowledge.

Of course I can see that 99% of you flat-earthers are trolls, just intent on winding people up, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't take the time to correct your misrepresentation of the facts.

Oh, and I'd challenge you to prove any of us are sock puppets (I could make the same claim about you) or show where we've indulged in the same fallacies as your side.

BTW, still waiting for answers as to how the height of the sun and moon can be different when measured from different locations - Thread: How far away is the moon? (Page 7) Anybody want to have a go at this? No?? Beuler??? Anyone?????

Why should I? You just proved that you will reject every image showing a full globe image, as all flat earthers do.

Any other "problems" with the globe earth?

I actually said there are problems with both models, and was asked for those concerning the globe model.

This thread is obviously not an open forum, but has a clear agenda.

Good post. Yes, their entire argument is spawned from magic. A magic I was once under the spell of.

You may recognize me from other posts, as I can spot their sock puppet a/c accounts, using them as a front to support their nonsense.

Also, disinfo agents use double standards, where they're allowed to use the same fallacies they love to point out in their exhaustive dissections of their opponent's post.

When you really drive home a point, you can observe this by how many responses the panicked disinfo respond to. They love gang tackling the opposition.

Hydra only posts in thread that contest heliocentric theory. How obvious can one get? I can guarantee he's trolling youtube, flat earth forums, as well as other conspiracy, free-thought forums. He's easily the most desperate, followed by the insecure dr. astro.

Keep up the good work. I only like to point out how the obvious fear in every response of theirs.

I mean, if we're just a stupid minority of idiots that nobody believes and we are such nimrods when it comes to science - they sure are worried about us.

You won't see me trolling forums of people who believe in Santa. I don't care.

Can you come up with something new?

It's getting boring to read the same stupid gibberish every second day.

.

99% of us are trolls. Please support that with evidence. Or are you talking out of your ass to support your lie?

Wait, I don't need proof.

So, you come here to make sure gullible members of a conspiracy forum don't fall for anti-establishment accepted science?

thanks for telling me you're a disinfo troll. Wow, how pathetic. You just spelled out exactly what most claim you are.

Seems all the ball people have is insults and character assassination. When your only argumnet is abusive words you have none. It is not your fault that you have been decived since who were a child. You are grown up now, so should do your own thinking. A ball Earth lie often told is still a lie.

There is zero physical proof of the ball Earth theory, none. There is no curvature, no curvature not a ball, not a ball then you cannot call the Earth a sphere.

The Earth is and shall always remain a flat plane.

99% of us are trolls. Please support that with evidence.

Another video using a Nikon p900 with 83x.

I am not promoting sales of Nikon cameras, but this is what everyone (but me) is using now. To take pictures of stars a zillion miles away! Instead of X to denote magnification values, they should think about using P to indicate parsecs.
One (1) parsec = 19 trillion miles). Resolution at those distances is not good, but it is nevertheless awesome that camera optics have improved that much.
OK, a little sarcasm here.

Wow - a whooping 83x magnification.


I took the picture below in January in the vicinity of M42 for some spectral analysis.

:starsize:

Oh, the magnification was 1250x. - You just have to use the right equipment and the right focus.

But these video camera dimwits will never learn that they have to set the focus to manual when filming celestial objects.

.

Wow - a whooping 83x magnification.


I took the picture below in January in the vicinity of M42 for some spectral analysis.

:starsize:

Oh, the magnification was 1250x. - You just have to use the right equipment and the right focus.

But these video camera dimwits will never learn that they have to set the focus to manual when filming celestial objects.

.

Now that is dang interesting.

So interesting that I googled magnification of stars.
This is what I found after a short search:


[link to www.skynews.ca]

"Welcome to the Binocular Universe

If you have never turned your binoculars skyward on a starry night, you might be surprised by how much they can reveal. Under a dark moonless sky, with your eyes alone, you can see perhaps 3,000 stars. But with binoculars, that number swells to 100,000 or more! Even better are the hundreds of star clusters, galaxies and nebulas that become visible in binoculars. And let’s not forget the sights closer to home. The Moon is transformed into a cratered wonderland, and you’ll be able to pull in the distant planets Uranus and Neptune and watch the nightly dance of Jupiter’s four biggest moons."

So ordinary storebought binoculars can get thousands of stars to come into view. And the moon is likewise amenable to closeups.

Thanks very much for your help. But your picture seemed less than impressive. Perhaps a pair of cheap binoculars would pull in celestial objects better than your present optical devices.

Perhaps you would be kind enough to share your images of moon craters.

The video in the OP was able to zoom in on a 50-mile-wide crater from 235,000 miles away. Maybe you can show us a much smaller crater, or perhaps the moon buggy left there almost 50 years ago. That would be great. Thanks.

Now that is dang interesting.

So interesting that I googled magnification of stars.
This is what I found after a short search:


[link to www.skynews.ca]

"Welcome to the Binocular Universe

If you have never turned your binoculars skyward on a starry night, you might be surprised by how much they can reveal. Under a dark moonless sky, with your eyes alone, you can see perhaps 3,000 stars. But with binoculars, that number swells to 100,000 or more! Even better are the hundreds of star clusters, galaxies and nebulas that become visible in binoculars. And let’s not forget the sights closer to home. The Moon is transformed into a cratered wonderland, and you’ll be able to pull in the distant planets Uranus and Neptune and watch the nightly dance of Jupiter’s four biggest moons."

So ordinary storebought binoculars can get thousands of stars to come into view. And the moon is likewise amenable to closeups.

Thanks very much for your help. But your picture seemed less than impressive. Perhaps a pair of cheap binoculars would pull in celestial objects better than your present optical devices. Perhaps you would be kind enough to share your images of moon craters.

The video in the OP was able to zoom in on a 50-mile-wide crater from 235,000 miles away. Maybe you can show us a much smaller crater, or perhaps the moon buggy left there almost 50 years ago. That would be great. Thanks.

They only "enlarge in size" (aka go out of focus) when the equipment imaging them is misused. Try looking through a properly adjusted astronomical telescope and see if the "enlarge".

And as for distance, how else do you explain measurements of stellar parallax? If the stars are stuck on your supposed "firmament dome" then they shouldn't move relative to each other - yet they do...

Not only is parallax measurable from earth, but we've now had spacecraft making much more accurate measurements which are giving us a vastly better map of our local stellar neighbourhood, as well as details of the rest of the galaxy.


What's the obsession with NASA? You do realise that the movement of the stars, both parallax and proper motion, were measured long before NASA even existed!

Or are you going down the "NASA is just the Illuminati" route and claiming that they've been behind the conspiracy for thousands of years.


How about Stellarium - a very well put together digital model which you can use to explore the heavens. It's based on a spherical earth and very distant stars, and will easily demonstrate that, when viewed from a "spinning sphere" the stars will show the kinds of circular trails we observe.

It's open source - [link to sourceforge.net (secure)] - so by all means go and dig into it, and show us where the developers have made the errors in the model.

Oh, and BTW, how do you explain the observed circular star trails round the south celestial pole? If the flat earth model is correct, they can't happen.


And yet proper motion, like parallax, is actually observable!

Again, why are the stars moving around on your dome thing? Shouldn't they be fixed and immutable?

Of course the reason we don't see changes in the short term is that, although they're moving pretty fast, they're also very, very far away. Accurate measurements over time do show the movement however, and trying to deny it is ignoring actual facts.

Oh, and another intersting stellar motion I'd challenge you to explain is the effect of precession of the earth's axis changing the "pole star". This has happened in recent time, and we have historical records detailing the changes. Yet another case of the immutable, unchanging celestial dome not behaving...


I've no idea why you picked the nym, but given your lack of research and rigour in your arguments, "Stella Artois" might have been a better choice, and might explain your rambling, chaotic approach to discussions...

Wait, I don't need proof.



Well, you don't need proof for any of your claims, so why should you need proof for this one.

If you're not a troll, then why are you apparently unable to discuss or debate the points in a calm and rational manner? Why do you resort to name calling and other personal attacks? Why are you unwilling to answer any questions about your world-model?

If you're not a troll then please take a moment to answer my question about the inconsistencies in measuring the sun's height above the earth. It's a genuine question about the validity of the opposing models of reality, and surely merits an honest and fair resposne...

And yet you have failed to provide any proof of either claim...

Well, it was only a matter of time until finally science stepped up and provided proof of one of their claims. Thanks science! It only took you two years to do SOMETHING.

This thread has been HYJACKED! It was originally about a 50 mile wide moon crater that can supposedly be seen with the naked eye from a distance of 286,000 miles. A claim that can be verified as false. Simply locate a 50 mile land mark on Google Earth. Zoom out 50 miles (Google earth max distance) and you will see that landmark becomes too small to see. Apply this observation to this moon example and you'll soon realize there is a great conflict of logic going on. Even a 4th grader would be able to see this.

This thread has been HYJACKED! It was originally about a 50 mile wide moon crater that can supposedly be seen with the naked eye from a distance of 286,000 miles. A claim that can be verified as false. Simply locate a 50 mile land mark on Google Earth. Zoom out 50 miles (Google earth max distance) and you will see that landmark becomes too small to see. Apply this observation to this moon example and you'll soon realize there is a great conflict of logic going on. Even a 4th grader would be able to see this.

There are so many failures in the heliocentric model. Gravity, centrifugal force, the lack of visible curving, the atmosphere wheel that syncs with the surface and defies space vacuum, and the meaning of "level," for Pete's sake.