|
|
Post by 1611kate on Apr 29, 2015 5:14:28 GMT
I have only just come to believe that the moon is a light (Based on the Bible as source of truth.)
I'm going to be observing the moon a lot more closely now. In Eric's latest interview he mentioned that the moon gives off a cold light. Does anyone have information on this? I need to look into it and observe it for myself.
|
|
|
|
Post by 1611kate on Apr 29, 2015 5:16:20 GMT
Sorry efrohi, I don't know how I missed you saying the same thing.
I'm in Australia by the way. I had a look of your moon pic. Now I need some good binoculars.
|
|
|
|
Post by preciousjewel on Apr 29, 2015 5:43:34 GMT
Is it just me, or is it colder when it's a full moon?
|
|
|
|
Post by preciousjewel on Apr 29, 2015 5:57:41 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by preciousjewel on Apr 29, 2015 6:02:01 GMT
So, if the moon is full, and it's only the sun's warm light its reflecting. Then when it's full it should be warmer and not colder!
|
|
|
|
Post by aliveandkicking on Apr 29, 2015 7:23:24 GMT
Amazing that these pictures are being taken with an image stabilised hand held camera!
|
|
|
|
Post by LIT on Apr 29, 2015 9:28:30 GMT
So, if the moon is full, and it's only the sun's warm light its reflecting. Then when it's full it should be warmer and not colder! I don't believe that if the Moon reflects sunlight it would do so like a parabolic mirror. The light would be diffused, so it won't heat anything up. After all, the Moon is convex in appearance. It can't focus the sunlight it receives, so it shouldn't be able to warm things up either. Here is an interesting discussion regarding plants, but I guess it might be related to this: Does reflected sunlight have the same effect as direct sun?Here is another link, which actually answers your question: Does a full moon reflect the sun’s heat as well as it’s light? |
|
|
|
Post by aliveandkicking on Apr 29, 2015 9:52:36 GMT
I would be very interested to know what people think of the moon pictures taken with the canon SX60. They clearly show the shadows on the craters and clearly show exactly what you would expect from a round moon illuminated by the Sun. Just how does a flat earther reconcile that with the idea something totally different is happening on earth, being created by a spotlight sun high in the sky, when the sun can be seen shining upon the underneath of a cloud at sunrise or sunset???
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2015 21:44:27 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2015 23:20:18 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2015 3:32:37 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by heathen on May 1, 2015 15:00:34 GMT
Amazing that these pictures are being taken with an image stabilised hand held camera! Looks like this camera is $500 on amazon. Makes me want to look into something a little better even. Maybe with a tri pod. This looks more fun than my telescope. |
|
|
|
Post by LIT on May 1, 2015 15:17:51 GMT
heathenI have a similar camera - Panasonic DMC-FZ70 60x optical zoom. You can't see the Moon the way they show it in the video. They might have attached the camera to a telescope or my camera is so much crappier than the Canon 
|
|
|
|
Post by aliveandkicking on May 1, 2015 17:00:17 GMT
heathenI have a similar camera - Panasonic DMC-FZ70 60x optical zoom. You can't see the Moon the way they show it in the video. They might have attached the camera to a telescope or my camera is so much crappier than the Canon |
|
|
|
Post by LIT on May 1, 2015 17:54:02 GMT
aliveandkickingWell, it is not the same as the canon video. Anyway, I guess I should replace mine as I don't even see it the way they show it in the video, it is way worse, and I bought it, because I thought I would be able to observe the Moon like that. I am wondering if I didn't damage it when I was recording the sun eclipse in March.
|
|
|
|
Post by aliveandkicking on May 1, 2015 18:37:38 GMT
aliveandkickingI am wondering if I didn't damage it when I was recording the sun eclipse in March. Possibly so. I would have thought it would be easy to see that difference though for other pictures too. |
|
|
|
Post by LIT on May 1, 2015 18:58:18 GMT
It looks fine when I take regular pictures, but I can't record the Moon in such contrast. Maybe I should look into the camera settings.
|
|
|
|
Post by aliveandkicking on May 1, 2015 19:06:10 GMT
From the comments of his video he says he does not use full resolution as it becomes blurry
Also in another video of the moon of his, magnfication is much greater than the 60 optical only and is using digital mag also which i had not realised
------------------------------
I don't believe the cameras zoom it that good.
·
Hide replies
SuperAZXCVB 10 months ago
it is . Look at specification. 60x- 1200mm 35eqv but x 5 because digital zoom on video is on and it is five times so it is 60x5=300 X that means 1200mm X 5 . Moon on full frame is about 2600mm so it is much over it . New Kodak AZ651 got 1560mm optical zoom.
|
|
|
|
Post by LIT on May 1, 2015 19:17:13 GMT
In fact, 60x optical zoom doesn't mean 60 times closer than what we see with our eyes. These cameras start at around 20 mm up to 1200 mm, while the human eye has a focal length of around 50 mm, so if you don't use any zoom any picture taken through a camera will show the images farther away and smaller. This can be easily seen when you point a camera at the Moon with no zoom. The Moon is 2-3 times smaller than what you see with your eyes. So if you account for that fact and you start from 50 mm, the camera in fact has 26 times magnification, not 60 The rest is digital zoom which you can do at home as well by cropping the image digitally. I can see the Moon much better with my small telescope with the 25 mm lens, the magnification is only 25 times, but the Moon looks way better than through the camera. |
|
|
|
Post by aliveandkicking on May 1, 2015 19:29:20 GMT
In fact, 60x optical zoom doesn't mean 60 times closer than what we see with our eyes. These cameras start at around 20 mm up to 1200 mm, while the human eye has a focal length of around 50 mm, so if you don't use any zoom any picture taken through a camera will show the images farther away and smaller. This can be easily seen when you point a camera at the Moon with no zoom. The Moon is 2-3 times smaller than what you see with your eyes. So if you account for that fact and you start from 50 mm, the camera in fact has 26 times magnification, not 60 The rest is digital zoom which you can do at home as well by cropping the image digitally. I can see the Moon much better with my small telescope with the 25 mm lens, the magnification is only 25 times, but the Moon looks way better than through the camera. Interesting to know. Since i have been on this forum i have wondered about getting some decent equipment. I know though that i go thru fads so it will be better to have something practical i can carry around and rush outside with or put in the car for a trip. Given all of this digital equipment it would be really cool to have a digital lens permanently outside to connect to the puter while i am still inside. |
|
|
|
Post by LIT on May 1, 2015 20:23:57 GMT
Buying a telescope with a camera mount and using a regular camera can do a much better job. You might want to look at Maksutov 127(aperture size 127 mm and a focal length of 1540 mm). Using a 10 mm eyepiece will give you 154x optical magnification.
|
|
|
|
Post by aliveandkicking on May 1, 2015 20:49:36 GMT
Buying a telescope with a camera mount and using a regular camera can do a much better job. You might want to look at Maksutov 127(aperture size 127 mm and a focal length of 1540 mm). Using a 10 mm eyepiece will give you 154x optical magnification. Ok thanks for that. I can see you sound like the man to prove the earth is round long before i get around to it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2015 11:07:21 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by moonshine on May 10, 2015 17:57:36 GMT
If the moon was flat wouldn't it turn oval shaped when it moved further away?
Could the moon be more like a plasma globe in slow motion?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2015 18:06:27 GMT
Interesting video, Top 10 Demos With The Plasma Globe by Arbor Scienific... I don't know about the moon. I don't have a strong opinion about how it is made. For now I am just observing what others say. It certainly seems solid and round from here. But it could be as you say, or as steve says, an empty bowl, made out of metal: SHOCKING - The Moon is a Shield - YouTubeAnd there's also the Mark Sargent - Crrow777 hypothesis, that it is projected. Hey, as you see, I don't know much about many things, but at least I don't attack you for your opinions and knowledge. Far from that. I've seen enough negativity and intolerance as it is. |
|
|
|
Post by moonshine on May 10, 2015 18:15:19 GMT
It looks solid from here too, that's why I have issue with the flat spotlight model.
I was toying with the idea of the plasma/Tesla thing and what if the rocky looking surface of the moon was like a left over residue, sort of exhausted particles after something energetic took place from within. Sounds a bit mad now I've wrote it down but hopefully you get my drift.
That big 'crater' at the bottom keeps reminding me of that plasma gobe.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 10, 2015 18:33:20 GMT
That's the problem with Dubay right there. He has to force everyone in most cases to abide by his explanation of things, so there can be no discussion of things that he has an opinion on.
Here we have the widest range of opinions, and in some cases, like mine, we don't have one. This is much better for a forum. As you said, with his mindset, he should stick to having a blog.
The main two foundations are wrong: 1) a forum should allow discussion, 2) IFERS (with its mission to study flat earth) should not ban people because they are Christians or because they believe the Holocaust happened.
So both "IFERS" and "FORUM" are not what that "thing" is. That is more the "Eric Dubay worshiping club", or "Eric Dubay slaves".
|
|
