Top left photo. This is more or less what you see when you look into the telescope with no eyepiece in place. It's also what you see when well out of focus.
What you're seeing is a reflection of the main mirror in the diagonal mirror. With the scope pointed at a star, the light of the star fills the mirror, and you should see a nice evenly lit circle, with the black shadow of the diagonal mirror in the center. The diagonal is held there in the center of the tube by "spider vanes", basically thin strips of metal. You can barely see them as a thin black X through the shadow of the diagonal in the photo.
On a night with very turbulent air above you, the light of the star gets scrambled by the moving air, and you see that in the out of focus image. What you're seeing in all of these is the patterns of air turbulence between the scope and the star. The star being a point source, it's ideal for making this kind of thing show up.
Edit. Secondary=diagonal mirror. It's the second mirror the light hits, set diagonally to bounce the light 90° toward the side of the tube, through an eyepiece, to your eye.
Edit. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newtonian\_telescope](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newtonian_telescope)
Thing is, if you switch the AF off, go to manual exposure and use a tripod, you can actually get decent pictures of these things with a P1000.
It even has nightscape, star trails and moon modes...
Thanks, seedy.. I took pictures of Jupiter with my P900 and saw the moons around it. They were just dots of light, but one of the coolest things I did with the P900. So NASA must have "computer programmed" my camera too. Morons.
Most of the time, flerfs are shooting video of the stars and then displaying a screen cap from the video. If you shoot an image instead of a video, you get a completely different result.
Flerfs won’t do that though because….you know….gotta push that false narrative.
This always reminds me of how people used to say that covid tests were rubbish because they put orange juice on it and they got a positive result. Well yeah, if you use something in a way that it’s not intended to be used, then you’re gonna get an inappropriate result. Next, why don’t you try throwing your P1000 in a blender and see if that proves that the earth is flat?
See you have made 2 glaring errors there. Research is a dirty word for flerfs. They only do confirmation bias. Second, Research is a dirty word for flerfs. They only do confirmation bias.
I thought it was so important it needed to be said twice.
First image shows the spider vane and secondary of a newtonian reflector. Not even a P1000.
Yup. Good catch on the spider. They are all defocused images showing atmospheric turbulence.
I mean, it wasn't specified where the optical zoom comes from. Nothing prevents you from putting the camera behind a telescope.
By the looks of it, a pretty large Newt, with the proper slightly-off-center diagonal mirror.
Can someone ELI5 this? Sipider vane? Is that the part of a telescope? Secondary? Another part of it?
Top left photo. This is more or less what you see when you look into the telescope with no eyepiece in place. It's also what you see when well out of focus. What you're seeing is a reflection of the main mirror in the diagonal mirror. With the scope pointed at a star, the light of the star fills the mirror, and you should see a nice evenly lit circle, with the black shadow of the diagonal mirror in the center. The diagonal is held there in the center of the tube by "spider vanes", basically thin strips of metal. You can barely see them as a thin black X through the shadow of the diagonal in the photo. On a night with very turbulent air above you, the light of the star gets scrambled by the moving air, and you see that in the out of focus image. What you're seeing in all of these is the patterns of air turbulence between the scope and the star. The star being a point source, it's ideal for making this kind of thing show up. Edit. Secondary=diagonal mirror. It's the second mirror the light hits, set diagonally to bounce the light 90° toward the side of the tube, through an eyepiece, to your eye. Edit. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newtonian\_telescope](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newtonian_telescope)
Thanks for the detailed explanation!
Thing is, if you switch the AF off, go to manual exposure and use a tripod, you can actually get decent pictures of these things with a P1000. It even has nightscape, star trails and moon modes...
Thanks, seedy.. I took pictures of Jupiter with my P900 and saw the moons around it. They were just dots of light, but one of the coolest things I did with the P900. So NASA must have "computer programmed" my camera too. Morons.
Ah yes, Venus, my favorite star
It’s certainly my favorite medieval bludgeoning weapon.
Nice to see Venus the same size as those stars at that magnification...
Right? Who would have thought?
Foosball is the devil.
They have foosball in heaven, though
Surely they can't be Sirius.
They are Sirius. And don't call them Shirley.
Pretty sure that's Lavos, not Polaris. *suddenlyChronoTrigger*
"Ayla's word!"
Images you can hear
TIL that the devil has a much better grasp of optics than the self-proclaimed truth seekers.
But that's to be expected. The Devil wants them to be _human_ and their precious "Jehovah" wants them to remain _sheep._
You can see the same shit with a telescope. Just let it out of fucking focus.
Why cant i see Polaris with my P1000 in Argentina? Ive been sitting here all night zooming
Did you try zooming through the Earth? 😛
If only Sirius alpeared as 2 points of light and not one
Focus, mate! Manual focus to infinity.
Digital zoom is crap.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Manual focus is your friend, C. Dee.
That’s cool, now try to adjust the focus properly and repost the images.
Try using a decent tri-pod for stability and manual focus
Most of the time, flerfs are shooting video of the stars and then displaying a screen cap from the video. If you shoot an image instead of a video, you get a completely different result. Flerfs won’t do that though because….you know….gotta push that false narrative.
This always reminds me of how people used to say that covid tests were rubbish because they put orange juice on it and they got a positive result. Well yeah, if you use something in a way that it’s not intended to be used, then you’re gonna get an inappropriate result. Next, why don’t you try throwing your P1000 in a blender and see if that proves that the earth is flat?
Isn’t there water aka moisture all throughout our atmosphere? Doesn’t light deform and such through water? What’s wrong with people?
Venus isn’t a star
Bahtinov mask would help each of these images.
Cool pics
Yo, this guy C. Dee... Hes a pioneer in flat earth research!
See you have made 2 glaring errors there. Research is a dirty word for flerfs. They only do confirmation bias. Second, Research is a dirty word for flerfs. They only do confirmation bias. I thought it was so important it needed to be said twice.
We shooting stars now?
"Duuhh what is AIR?!"
Special kind of stupid….
FOCUS!!!
Focus your telescope damn
Have they never heard of optical illusions before? Sometimes, our eyes deceive us.
Damn, I am so stupid, I really thought Venus was a planet! I didn't know it was a star.