Why don't we have real videos of stars from observatories?

I would explain this to you, but you have to graduate from elementary school science class first.

Baka.

Because observatories have good optics so you actually see what you're pointing them at instead of a bunch of artifacts

>>19146455
so where's the closeup footage?

stars are not what we are told

also the so called planets are FallenAngels

>>19146457
you still just see a dot.
it's just a high resolution dot.

>>19146461
I just realised when all the stars fall, that shit will likely release them.

File: 1495226581709.png (480KB, 1051x540px) Image search: [Google]

480KB, 1051x540px

>>19146602

>>19146602
quite possibly...

>>19146455
technically there is still artifact because of atmospheric interference . it makes the stars twinkle and makes sure that no images from earth will be of hd quality because of light diffusion in the atmosphere. a good portion is from moisture in the air which is moving about but hasnt formed a cloud

>>19146457
Because there is a thing call the atmosphere / ozone layer that causes visual distortion of stellar objects we perceive, that's why we have Hubble and the soon-to-be James Webb space telescope. Rotation of the earth as well as the distance in which the light must travel can also cause visual distortion.

God damn, read a fucking book. Fuckin' hell, man.

>>19146720
>read a fucking book
I would rather kill myself

>>19146720
KYS

>>19146738
>>19146740
like pottery

>>19146461
>stars are not what we are told
what are they?

File: diffraction_pattern.jpg (33KB, 590x300px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 590x300px

Stars will always appear as a small dot surrounded by concentric rings. That's an interference pattern caused by the opening of the telescope or camera lens. It's same thing as that experiment where you shine a laser through a small slit and creating a pattern of lines on the wall in front of the slit.

A bigger telescope will create a tighter and brighter dot but it also depends on the frequency of the light. Blue light will create a more tighter dot than red light and that is why images from radio telescopes doesn't have that high resolution and also why the radio dishes have to be so big.

You need a really REALLY big telescope to be able to have enough angular resolution to look at a distant star directly, otherwise they will always appear as an interference pattern.

Also if a point of light (such as a star) is out of focus it will take the shape of the optical opening while having a bunch of interference patterns within it (you can do this with just using your own eyes, will explain in later posts). I will post examples of this in some other posts with images and such.

>>19147035
:)

>>19147035
>Also if a point of light (such as a star) is out of focus it will take the shape of the optical opening while having a bunch of interference patterns within it (you can do this with just using your own eyes, will explain in later posts). I will post examples of this in some other posts with images and such.
astrophysicist here.

i know how to fix that problem, and elevate the diffraction limit of an obstructed reflector to that of a refractor of the same diameter, for about 1/4 the production cost and 1/20 the retail cost a point of sale.

File: optical openings.jpg (634KB, 2612x1844px) Image search: [Google]

634KB, 2612x1844px

>>19147035
As I said, a point of light that is out of focus will take the shape of the optical opening while having a bunch of interference patterns within the shape.

You can do this using your own eyes, first take a glass, bottle or something shiny that will reflect light. Now sit with the sun infront of you and hold the glass around 4cm from your eyes and try to catch the suns reflection on the glass. Focus on that reflection and then relax your eyes like you're trying to focus on something in the far distance. If you do that then the reflection will get bigger and turn into the exact same shape as panel number 3 in the image I posted.

>>19147081
>astrophysicist here
kys
psychologist here

>>19147105

>kys
>psychologist here

then you should recognize the psychology of cognitive dissonance in what you just said. :)

>>19146951
The sentient Host of Heaven

File: distortion.jpg (682KB, 4896x1840px) Image search: [Google]

682KB, 4896x1840px

>>19147035
>>19147101

Now, how come the stars are flickering and jumping around all over the place? It's because turbulence in the air caused by temperature differences distorts the image. I'm sure all of you have watched the air move around like crazy above a car roof on a hot sunny day. It's the EXACT same thing.

>>19147081
You got my interest, go on.

File: orbs.jpg (31KB, 650x315px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 650x315px

>>19147101
This is also what so called "orbs" are. They are caused by particle (dust, raindrop, snow) in the air that gets illuminated by the camera flash creating a small point of light but since the particle is close to the lens the light point will be out of focus and show up as an interference pattern.

>>19146461

yeah i knew this one too bro

listen faggot niggers,

according to science you aren't seeing the actual suns rays reaching earth (because millions of gorillians of miles)

instead science says radiation from the sun arrives to earth through portals and our ionosphere (LOL) converts that into visible light (bullshit)

so according to science the gorillians of billions of miles away stars (that are suns lol) must work in the same way

>it's that or pretending light has an infinite range WHICH IS FUCKING RETARDED

scientism is just santa claus for retarded adults, they give you a mathmetical model and then you can work that out and say look it adds up! the equations works! but you are too stupid to realise you are still only just looking at a model for which these equations work for NOT THE REAL WORLD

big bang out of nothing, gorillians of billions of years and lgiht years is literally hyper AUTISM

it's so fucking retarded, muh ball earth, muh gorillians of years and muh evolution, muh i evolved from a retarded monkey buttfucking a fish

people with glasses will see this any fucking time it rains.

>>19147627
>any fucking time it rains.
w a t e r. a b o v e. t h e. f i r m a m e n t.

>>19147314
10/10 post, would only be better if
>mathmetical model
was instead misspelled as
>methmatical model

Can this entire retarded conspiracy really boil down to people who don't understand intuitively how like reflects/refracts? And as a result of that ignorance, are calling bullshit on spheres/balls in general?

Is that most of it?

Light