It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Some folks are born silver spoon in hand,
Lord, don't they help themselves, oh.
But when the taxman comes to the door,
Lord, the house looks like a rummage sale, yes...
You've left quite a mess here under your stewardship
You thought you figured it out but you'll learn your place in this
Might take some convincing for you to see the truth
There are so many things we've got in store for you.
Originally posted by touchdowntrojans
reply to post by DJW001
Stars are "theoretically point sources of light, but they photograph as tiny but nevertheless measurable discs. Of course scientists measure star dimensions in their pictures. Read about it pretty often.
This here is from NASA;
articles.adsabs.harvard.edu...
The most important part of the article;
So when we take seconds long exposure pictures of stars, which is what they would have done back in the 1960s, just like the NASA article says here, the fixed star acquires fairly large dimensions.
The star of course is not a "disc" of light, nor is it in reality a "point" of light. But as you read here, stars "acquire comparatively large dimensions" owing to the fact we cannot image them instantaneously.
Because their images are less spread out when photographed from space, they look smaller. Of course the angular measurements are tiny. You can look them up for yourselves.
So one argument would be that in lunar orbit or from the lunar surface with a 1.6 inch aperture sextant, 40mm, you'd see 50,000 stars instead of of the 6 thousand you'd see with the human eye. The stars would be more blue, "smaller" in the sense just mentioned, their aberration would shift them by arcseconds from their earth POV positions. The planets would be smaller too. The planet's positions would reflect parallax, light to camera time differences and small aberrational effect as well. So there would be 4, 5, 6, 10 times the stars given scope or camera aperature difference and the stars would be moved and different sized and different colored. Since this might simply be an overwhelming task to hoax such a picture, one could suggest this as an explanation for why the astronauts say they don't see very many stars so very well and they never try to take pics of them. Too hard to hoax with all of this going on.
I think that is how a better argument for the star thing might go as I laid it out there. Better than saying they couldn't navigate given the aberration problem. I already said that doesn't make sense and believe the poster is wrong on that altogether.edit on 7-11-2012 by touchdowntrojans because: left out some words
I think the idea there would be they are jockeying for position in space to blow one another up. The moon landing claims are just PR fluff. What they are really doing is building bombers and transport vehicles. So in that case the russians won't say anything. It doesn't serve them and only draws attention to their hoax scientific efforts. They too are building a shuttle type bomber or earth orbit military ferries and so on. Makes good sense on some levels.
Originally posted by touchdowntrojans
reply to post by seabhac-rua
I think the idea there would be they are jockeying for position in space to blow one another up. The moon landing claims are just PR fluff. What they are really doing is building bombers and transport vehicles. So in that case the russians won't say anything. It doesn't serve them and only draws attention to their hoax scientific efforts. They too are building a shuttle type bomber or earth orbit military ferries and so on. Makes good sense on some levels.
Originally posted by touchdowntrojans
reply to post by wmd_2008
Of course stars' images have width. Take a look and take a measure if you please.
myhome.spu.edu...
Every single one of these star images has a width measurable in degrees, radians, whatever is your pleasure. Because the above article is old does not mean the person did not articulate things well. Newton was not wrong because he wrote long ago.
You can read about it on your own, or if you care to wait, I'll find a thing or two for you about how stars are "smaller" when imaged from space with a modern camera, or one from the turn of the century. All the same.
Using the same exposure time and film speed and aperture, whether photgraphing today or one hundred years ago, the atmosphere will spread out the image of a star and so any given star will appear as a smaller disc on a shot taken from space.