• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Two suns?

KingMerv00 said:
Think about that. Proxima Centauri is 4.2 light years away and clearly visible to the naked eye
Click to expand...

No it isn't. Proxima Centauri has an Apparent magnitude of about 11. Humans max out at 7-8. It's just about possible that a Red dwarf start could exist at Oort cloud distances and have been missed. Thing is Niburu is meant to be far closer than that.
 
geni said:
No it isn't. Proxima Centauri has an Apparent magnitude of about 11. Humans max out at 7-8. It's just about possible that a Red dwarf start could exist at Oort cloud distances and have been missed. Thing is Niburu is meant to be far closer than that.
Click to expand...

Looks like you are right. My mistake. I was probably thinking of Alpha Centauri which is quite a bit larger.
 
skepticlady said:
Thanks for that link I saw this "The picture of Nibiru posted on YouTube was revealed to in fact be a Hubble image of the expanding gas shell around the star V838 Mon." I knew there had to be a logical reason for it.
Click to expand...

Sure that is what "THEY" would like you to believe. Actually it is the Death Star, Luke did not destroy it, he was in on the conspiracy and pulled up and flew over and shot a futureistic hologram missile into it.
 
abaddon said:
Many moon landing hoaxers believe that the stars will look different from the moon.
Click to expand...

Could you do me a favor and put more context to this, because honestly the stars would appear different from the surface of the moon. In fact stars would look different from outside of the atmosphere, because the way we see the stars is changed by viewing them through the atmosphere.

I think the moon hoaxers are full of crap, and fail at the most basic understanding of physics. I am just trying to understand what you mean by that quote.
 
The Moon hoaxers, often called HBs (Hoax Believers), claim that either the star locations would be substantially different (i.e. different constellations) or that they would be substantially brighter. Neither is true; people have computed the actual loss due to the atmosphere and it's pretty small, except at the horizon.

The "substantially brighter" argument is often used as a prop for the claim that the stars should have been visible in photos taken on the surface, or that the astronauts should have easily seen the stars.

The "twinkling" effect is about the only significant difference, and that's not visible in still photos.
 
geni said:
No it isn't. Proxima Centauri has an Apparent magnitude of about 11. Humans max out at 7-8. It's just about possible that a Red dwarf start could exist at Oort cloud distances and have been missed. Thing is Niburu is meant to be far closer than that.
Click to expand...

Dunno - The radio sky would be lighting up like a christmas tree. The thing would be radiating somewhere in the energy spectrum
 
fullflavormenthol said:
Could you do me a favor and put more context to this, because honestly the stars would appear different from the surface of the moon. In fact stars would look different from outside of the atmosphere, because the way we see the stars is changed by viewing them through the atmosphere.

I think the moon hoaxers are full of crap, and fail at the most basic understanding of physics. I am just trying to understand what you mean by that quote.
Click to expand...

grmcdorman said:
The Moon hoaxers, often called HBs (Hoax Believers), claim that either the star locations would be substantially different (i.e. different constellations) or that they would be substantially brighter. Neither is true; people have computed the actual loss due to the atmosphere and it's pretty small, except at the horizon.

The "substantially brighter" argument is often used as a prop for the claim that the stars should have been visible in photos taken on the surface, or that the astronauts should have easily seen the stars.

The "twinkling" effect is about the only significant difference, and that's not visible in still photos.
Click to expand...

^What he said.

The HBs often claim that NASA, realising that any astronomer would be able to determine the presence of fakery by determining that the photographs were reallytaken on Earth using stellar parallax. Thus, ebil NASA eliminated all stars from the photographic record to cover their tracks.

Of course, this hoaxer claim neglects the obvious, i.e.:

The lunar distance is insufficient for parallax to be evident.

Cameras do not work in such a way as to be able to capture both bright daylit objects whilst also capturing stars. Nor does the human eye, for that matter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom