Milky Way Photograph Debate [split]

[law guy]

I never said the milky way could not be photographed I said that it would be completely different when photographed from outside than it is from photographed from earth.
]

But this is what your post said:

Cool image, but it isn't real.

For one, Earth is inside the Milky Way, and the only way to capture it as you say you've done is to be from an angle outside of it.

Being inside of the galaxy, all you're going to see looking out is a thin band, nothing like your photoshob job.

You asseted that -hh's picture couldn't be real because he couldn't take that picture from Earth. If you're now disagreeing with yourself, I'm relieved. If all you're saying is that you don't think the image is one that can been seen from Earth, then no need to reiterate my earlier posts on the failure of education, light pollution, etc.

 

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

You're right. Me and Space.com just haven't got a clue

The guys at Space.com know what they are talking about...

 

[pdpfilms]

You're right. Me and Space.com just haven't got a clue

Wow. Really Josh... This motion you speak of, it is from earth's rotation... and it moves allstars together. This is a fact that is widely recognized, and it seems like you at least understand that part. But this does nothing for your argument. So the stars rotate (to us).... please explain why, exactly, this means the photo is a fake. I could understand the fact that there's no motion blur in the photo.. but that's because the FOV was so wide, and exposure time relatively short enough that none appeared. Explain your argument, please.

I am sorry Josh, but you are completely wrong on this issue. To quote a very stubborn and insistent poster...

"If common logic doesn't point that out, science and math will and they just have.... I'm not going to dispute such an indisputable fact... Debate it until you're blue in the face, the facts are posted above and I've backed up every single one of my claims and have countered every bit of this nonsense - as far as I am concerned, there is nothing further to discuss."

Some day josh, you will travel into the unpolluted countryside... and it will all click. I'm sorry that you haven't already.

 

[law guy]

You're right. Me and Space.com just haven't got a clue

Well, half of your statement is something I could agree with, and I do think space.com (and founder Lou Dobbs) has a clue.

The position shift is from the movement of the Earth's orbit. Further it just doesn't support your assertions that stars won't be in the same place relative to one another. The whole sky will be in the same place relative to one another - so you point your camera a little to the right to get the same picture.

 

[gauchogolfer]

You're right. Me and Space.com just haven't got a clue

Look, Space.com said to line up the star with a reference point on the ground, like a telephone pole. Obviously, as the earth rotates relative to that, we are going to notice that the stars appear to move. But, the size, shape, proportions of the stars, constellations, and galaxies, do not. So, of course we can see star traces in the sky due to the earth's rotation, this is obvious, and not being disputed. What IS being disputed is the appearance of the Milky Way, or any other constellation for that matter. Are you seriously suggesting that Orion, Sagittarius, Ursa Major, all look different depending where on the world you are, and what time of year it is? Not their location in the night sky, because obviously that changes, but their shape and location relative to each other. If you dispute this, I'm sorry, but you're just dead wrong.

 

[Josh]

The guys at Space.com know what they are talking about...

Which is funny, as it mirrors the exact same thing I've said from post #1

Look, Space.com said to line up the star with a reference point on the ground, like a telephone pole. Obviously, as the earth rotates relative to that, we are going to notice that the stars appear to move. But, the size, shape, proportions of the stars, constellations, and galaxies, do not. So, of course we can see star traces in the sky due to the earth's rotation, this is obvious, and not being disputed.

By that alone, would you say that if you took a photo using the closest telephone pole to your house as a reference, and at some other random time, I did the same thing using the closest telephone pole to my house - that the overlaid images are likely to overlap and the stars to be in the same positions?

I surely hope not....

 

[pdpfilms]

By that alone, would you say that if you took a photo using the closest telephone pole to your house as a reference, and at some other random time, I did the same thing using the closest telephone pole to my house - that the overlaid images are likely to overlap and the stars to be in the same positions?

I surely hope not....

Of course they won't. UNLESS you take the second photo, and rotate and slide it into place. Then the stars will line up, just like they did in the space.com photo and -hh's. Relative to each other, these stars are completely unmoving. Do you dispute that?

 

[gauchogolfer]

By that alone, would you say that if you took a photo using the closest telephone pole to your house as a reference, and at some other random time, I did the same thing using the closest telephone pole to my house - that the overlaid images are likely to overlap and the stars to be in the same positions?

I surely hope not....

Of course that's not what I said. What I said was that relative to some stationary object on the earth's surface the sky visible from that surface will change during the year. This is obvious, and not being disputed. I'm disputing your use of the space.com quote that says the sky will have shifted with respect to this fixed object to extend that to say that constellations will have shifted with respect to each other and the surrounding stars.

If -hh goes back a month later and takes the picture again at the same time of night, the Milky Way will certainly be in a different place relative to the cabin. But, it will look exactly the same and have exactly the same stars around it.

Done.

 

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

Which is funny, as it mirrors the exact same thing I've said from post #1

Post #1...? What are you talking about...?

Are you just trolling or what...?

By that alone, would you say that if you took a photo using the closest telephone pole to your house as a reference, and at some other random time, I did the same thing using the closest telephone pole to my house - that the overlaid images are likely to overlap and the stars to be in the same positions?

The stars would all be the same relatively to each other, yes...

Here's one image of the big dipper taken in November 1998 in NJ (link):

And another taken in April 2004 in CA (link):

Notice how the stars all are perfectly aligned relatively to each other...?

 

[Josh]

Relative to each other, these stars are completely unmoving. Do you dispute that?

To a degree, yes, and to a degree, no.

Observably, you'd never notice a different. But if you actually made measurements, you would notice a difference over time.

 

[pdpfilms]

To a degree, yes, and to a degree, no.

Observably, you'd never notice a different. But if you actually made measurements, you would notice a difference over time.

"Over time"... over a few thousand years, yes. But between around the OP's potograph and the comparable space.com photo... no.

 

[gauchogolfer]

To a degree, yes, and to a degree, no.

Observably, you'd never notice a different. But if you actually made measurements, you would notice a difference over time.

Over 10,000 years yes, of course the shape will change. But that is not at all what all this brouhaha you started is about.

 

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

To a degree, yes, and to a degree, no.

Observably, you'd never notice a different. But if you actually made measurements, you would notice a difference over time.

And how the **** will that affect the picture in this discussion...?!? Your talking minute changes that aren't noticeable to the naked eye or normal photograpy... those shifts take millennia and has nothing to do with earth rotation...

 

[jsw]

Guys, I suggest we just ignore Josh on this, as clearly his grasp of perceived spatial movement of distant stellar bodies is lacking.

Constellations and stars don't move perceptibly with relation to each other over reasonable periods of time (i.e., not millennia).

For them to do so would imply superluminal velocities. Simple algebra could confirm this.

 

[Josh]

It's pretty funny that you guys take Space.com's word, but dispute mine - when they say the exact same thing. I even provided a website several posts ago that show how the stars are different over seasons - yet even then it was disputed.

But...I am on a forum of people who believed the PPC outperformed Intel, but now would say the opposite "Since that's what Steve says.."...so

Take this thread how you will, but I've wasted enough of my time with such an absurdly simple concept that for some reason is difficult for some to grasp.

 

[pdpfilms]

It's pretty funny that you guys take Space.com's word, but dispute mine - when they say the exact same thing. I even provided a website several posts ago that show how the stars are different over seasons - yet even then it was disputed.

But...I am on a forum of people who believe the PPC outperformed Intel, but now would say the opposite "Since that's what Steve says.."...so

Take this thread how you will, but I've wasted enough time drilling simple facts though thick skulls.

Huh. Okay, jsw is right.

Total lost cause here.

 

[jsw]

Huh. Okay, jsw is right.

Total lost cause here.

Agreed. I know how powerful the urge to reply might be, but resist.

Edit: actually, I made that easier to do. No good can come of this. No one will change anyone else's mind here, and I see no advantage to further discussion, as it's becoming incendiary.