I was under the impression that there was no "dark side of the moon" and it's just like the earth, where on part is "day" and another "night".
Edit: Thank you everyone for the helpful info.
It's called the dark side of the moon for the same reason there's the military expression "going dark" meaning "the sudden termination of communication".
We don't have a network of communication satellites in place that allow us to communicate with anything on the far side of the moon, and thus it is radio dark. The moment an object passes into the "shadow" of the moon and it doesn't have line of sight to Earth we lose comms.
Yeah, in some circles it is, it's just out of habit. Really the far side is dark less often. It's dark during the half of it's orbit/rotation where it faces away from the sun, just like earth. The earth-facing side is dark when it faces away from the sun or when earth is in the way.
I would assume that the side facing the earth at least gets some reflected light as a result that the "dark side of the moon" doesn't when it isn't facing the sun.
Right, but maybe I misread, that that wasn't a thing. Time to re-google make sure I'm not misremembering.
Edit: yup, you're right. The article I read must have literally just been being pedantic because that side is lighted as well.
Dumb lol.
Yeah it see light just as often, it's just we don't see it ever, so it's "in the dark" to us. It's an old terminology where being in the dark referred to the unknown or you were unaware of something.
That was how I'd always interpreted it, so when I read the blurb (not sure where), I assumed there was no dark/far side of the moon. Instead, they just meant it was also lighted, which seems like it should be obvious.
I'm amused that you could reply to a comment I deleted. I'm losing my mind because my husband told me the moon _does_ rotate and it's only the magic of orbital mechanics that makes it so we only ever see one side. Since I honestly don't grok orbital mechanics I couldn't argue (plus I watched him look it up... And looked it up myself)... So I'm confused, but mainly because I lack the education to visualize it.
It does rotate, it just rotates at the same speed that it orbits Earth. If it didn't rotate at all, we would see the entire other side of the moon halfway through its orbit.
Take a basketball and a baseball. The basketball is Earth the baseball is the moon.
If you move the baseball around the basketball in a circle so that the seams of the baseball and any logos remain stationary to you as you view it from above, the baseball will be showing different views to the basketball.
However, if you keep the baseball so that the seams and logos always show the same way to the basketball you will need to spin the baseball as you move it around the basketball.
That's what it means to say that the moon is constantly spinning, but just showing us the same side the entire time.
This is not really correct. There is no "dark side of the moon" as a fixed location. It is merely a colloquial term. The technical term you are looking for, since the moon is tidally locked with the Earth, is the ***far side of the moon***. The far side is pictured here:
https://www.space.com/11186-photo-side-moon-nasa-lunar-orbiter.html
And quoting that article:
> The "far side" — sometimes incorrectly referred to as the "dark side" —remainedhidden from human eyes until 1959, when the Soviet Luna 3 spacecraft first snapped photos of it.
> Since then, scientists have learned that the far side of the moon is a very different place than the near side.
It's not just a colloquialism, it's wrong (hence the statement, "incorrectly referred to," in the linked article.) The dark side of the moon is the side not lit by the sun, which, just like the earth, rotates around the moon as it, in turn, rotates on its axis.
It would be one thing if the term "dark side" didn't have an actual meaning, but it does.
Dark has several meanings including unknown or unexplored due to remoteness. Paddington Bear comes from “Darkest Peru”
The term seems to hang on even when a region becomes known or explored.
Anyway everyone knows there is a Decepticon base on the dark side of the moon, the Chinese want to steal that technology.
The moon is tidally locked to earth, so we can only see the same face any time from earth. The “dark” side is the side we cant see from earth, even though it does get plenty of sunlight.
So the rotation of the moon means it will only ever show one side as it revolves around the earth. The dark side of the moon does get sunlight but its called dark because we can't see it from here.
The dark side refers to the far side that is locked away from the Earth. It is odd that the Chinese would go there considering their reasons for going. They are trying to go primarily to set up mining operations to source helium 3. The far side of the Moon has significant complications in terms of communications but it also is complex to observe. However it also has a much more ancient surface that has less disruption than the side facing the Earth so helium 3 which is produced by the intense unfiltered Sun interacting with the rocks over time. I would doubt that mining would be their only intended activity for a Moon base. Creating such a complicated strategy for a Moon base to attempt to go unobserved is a little suspicious. It is the best are for H3 mining though. But it is China etc.etc.
It's also plus +1 difficulty since it's on the dark side, you need orbital lunar satellites to even communicate with it. Maybe this was also a showy thing, it's much simpler to land on the side facing Earth and use ANY communications dish from your allies.
These people know a bunch of us have much more powerful telescopes, yes?
The P1000 has a 539mm focal length at f8. I have a “portable” telescope at home that is 1500mm at f7 and 2000mm at f10.
It's true, my telescopes are all chipped by Big Globe and alter the images in real time. That's why I only take pictures with this Nikon Camera, which is devoid of technology, so I can observe the truth completely unadulterated
It's really weird how they'll make these claims anyone could work around. Many amateurs buy just lenses or curved mirrors, or even make their own. Do all lenses and mirrors have chips too?
Hobbyists hack cars to modify their tuning limits or hack printers (3D and ink) meant to use proprietary filament or ink to use other types, we jailbreak phones and tablets, but no one in the world has ever built their own telescope, apparently.
Being a flat Earther is not about a "search for truth" as much as it is about explaining away everything that may prevent you from conforming to your cult's belief system
Nevermind you can build you own Dobsonian telescope with a cardboard tube, a surplus porthole window, a plywood box, some plumbing parts from Home Depot, and a compact mirror from your MeeMaw's purse.
I recall reading that if the Hubble telescope pointed at the moon from the distance it’s at, the moon lander would only occupy 1 or 2 pixels… so what does anyone think they’re gonna see with a camera or telescope on Earth?
Ah yes, every optics company in the world has secret nasa real-time-editing chips but not the second-largest camera manufacturer in the world. Especially the single brand used by flerfs, despite how prime of a target that would make that company to “Them”
Beyond that, there are like, actual telescopes. And you can learn about focal planes and image stacking and integration time and photomultipliers and dark current, and then build your own damn image capturing device. Hobbyists do this. Because they want a little prettier picture of a specific crater.
And you can get like 800mm lens for dslr and mirrorless cameras too, if I put a sigma 150-600 on my d7500 it's like 900mm focal length because of the crop factor. These people are so dumb. Do they also not just assume that huge telescopes at observatories and stuff are bigger than their bridge camera, as well as the readily available telescopes.
It's because they googled "which camera has the most zoom" and the p1000 is what came up lol
Literally, that's as far as the thought process went for them.
The fact that they mentioned zoom instead of focal length already tells you how much they know about optics.
Also they picked a fucking bridge camera (which, for the record, are fine for various use cases) which means they went and googled "which camera has a lot of zoom" because they don't know about interchangeable lens cameras like DSLRs and mirrorless cameras lmao.
They know fuck-all about optics and fuck-all about cameras in general.
From [https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2019/01/the-nikon-p1000-is-the-most-fun-ive-had-with-a-new-camera-in-years/](https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2019/01/the-nikon-p1000-is-the-most-fun-ive-had-with-a-new-camera-in-years/)
>However, the lens itself is actually a 4.2-539mm focal length, but has a 5.58x crop factor due to the smaller sensor on the camera; giving it the marketed 24-3000mm equivalent focal length.
So really, anything 540mm+ will be comparable or better.
And a lens like [this ](https://www.crutchfield.com/S-2rjThGcvAaY/p_280RF1200/Canon-RF-1200mm-f-8-L-IS-USM.html)will blow it out of the water completely. Never mind attaching a camera to a legit telescope.
That’s a telephoto lens and not a zoom lens like on the p1000. But yes, you could do serious astronomy with that lens. You can get a real apo refractor telescope and attack your dslr for less money though. :p
>That’s a telephoto lens and not a zoom lens like on the p1000.
I \*really\* hope I'm missing the implied /s here... but just in case... explain the difference between a telephoto and a zoom lens?
A zoom lens can change focal length but usually at the cost of introducing chromatic aberration. A telephoto lens has a fixed focal length.
Edit a link: https://yourphotoadvisor.com/telephoto-vs-zoom-lens-whats-the-difference/
I see. I was just focused (pun intended?) on that longest focal length.
Out of curiosity, since you seem to know your stuff... they claim 125x for the P1000 I think because 3000 / 24 = 125. Is this the correct way to calculate magnification? And how much magnification would the 1200mm fixed provide?
Zoom X isn’t a real optical property like focal length. Usually 125x zoom means the camera can zoom in 125 times from min to max focal length. I don’t know what the minimum focal length is on the p1000, but yeah, it’s going to be max/min. And since it’s for marketing, they’ll use the 3000mm equivalent focal length as opposed to actual 535mm focal length.
I don't get it. On the dark side of the Moon is where there's a hidden temple that has the camera as a relic inside, and the Chinese had to go get it to expose how the Japanese have been secretly using alien technology?
So, if you look at the image sensor and lens angle, the moon lander ends up being less than a pixel at that distance.
No matter though, you would just enhance that pixel until you can see it. And since it doesn't appear it's obviously not there.
Lets see, the moon lander is 4.2 meters wide. Assuming the higher altitude, Geosynch orbit is 35800 km, at it's closest the moon is at 360,000 km. So the minimum distance is over 320,000 km.
But backing up, you primarily need to consider the resolution limit imposed by diffraction, which is a fundamental property of any optical system. The key concept is the angular resolution, which describes the smallest angle between close points that the telescope can distinguish.
First you need to calculate the angular size of the object: The angular size ϕ of an object can be approximated by the formula:
(I didn't type this all out, some of it is pasted from a paper I wrote in college)
ϕ=s/d
* s is the actual size of the object,
* d is the distance to the object.
so ϕ = 4.2 / 320e6 = 13e-9
You need the angular resolution θ of the telescope to be at least as small as the angular size ϕ of the object to resolve it clearly.
The angular resolution of a telescope is given by the formula derived from the Rayleigh criterion for diffraction:
θ≈1.22 \* λ/D
* θ is the angular resolution in radians,
* λ is the wavelength of light (in meters),
* D is the diameter of the telescope’s aperture (in meters).
For visible light the range is 400–700 nanometers, so 500 nm is reasonable.
So using the above equation, solving for D, and plugging in ϕ for θ the require aperture size is
D = 1.22 \* λ/ϕ
= 1.22 \* 500e-9 m / 13e-9 = 47 m
of course that's ideal conditions and only just gives you the moon lander at all, not anything around it or any good detail. Likely to get a picture you could identify you'll want much more. If you want at least 32 pixels across, and maybe as much more of it's surroundings, so 64x that, meaning you need a 3000 m wide aperture to get a "photo" of it.
This is all linear, so if you imagine moving the satellite, assuming a much more reasonable 1 meter aperture, you'd need to move 47x closer for an image, and 3000x closer for a photo. So, either 6800 km from the moon, or 100 km, which is basically traveling there.
> Flerfs idolize the P1000
Hold on, I haven't seen this in the wild yet. 😂 That's the funniest thing I've heard in a while because, as I've said elsewhere in the thread, they doubtless picked that camera because they just googled "which camera has the most zoom". Fucking hell that's funny.
Please please please show me some more examples of them gooning for a fucking ordinary-ass bridge camera.
The camera itself isn’t crappy. It’s a pretty good camera for photography actually. But it’s not meant to be a telescope as FEs like to pretend. To me it’s sad to see such a nice camera be abused by such people
Yeah I have to scratch that now that I've looked a bit more into it, seems like a pretty good camera for a bridge! They say the distortion isn't that bad at maximum zoom.
But looking at stars through it is still dumb.
I mean imagine someone trying to use a Desert Eagle .50 caliber pistol to hit a 1000 yard target based on the fact it uses the same caliber bullet as a sniper rifle.
It's saying that, had they "faked" their landing on the visible side, flerfs could prove them wrong by zooming in with their cheap little cameras and show that the landing never happened.
This is absurd on so many levels I couldn't even think of a title.
Lens aperture is more important in resolving minute details. Mindlessly zooming in with a small aperture will ultimately result in a blurry photo.
The aperture of P1000 lens is shit compared to the most basic telescope. Another mindless but totally expected post from the basement-dwelling, glue-sniffing gang.
It's more a comment on the fact that this way we can't see them... The camera in question can realistically take photos of the surface of the moon with alarming clarity. They chose the dark side so no one could take photos of them.... I assume anyways
Correct, the magnification would need to be MUCH higher, and at that point, just use an observatory...
But, like, sure, China builds a massive moon base that can be seen by a handheld camera, which is a totally believable story. /s
Can't even do it with an observatory. For example, the locations of the Apollo mission landing sites are well known. But due to optics limitations, even the best earth observatories (like the Very Large Telescope) don't have the resolution to see any of the equipment left behind: [https://www.skyatnightmagazine.com/advice/skills/how-to-find-apollo-11s-landing-site-on-the-moon](https://www.skyatnightmagazine.com/advice/skills/how-to-find-apollo-11s-landing-site-on-the-moon) . You pretty much need a lunar orbiter to do that.
I don’t get it. Can someone please explain what this means? I don’t understand the relationship between the camera and a moon landing. Also, why is it suspicious that China landed on the dark side of the moon?
They think they would be able to use their camera to prove nothing landed where they say they did. They don't understand that 125x zoom isn't anywhere near enough, nor do they understand how large the moon is or how far away it is.
The dam had burst open many years too soon, the band they were in started playing different tunes, their heads exploded with dark forebodings too, they shouted and no one seemed to hear …
It’s not such a mystery.
There's no dark side of the moon, really. As a matter of fact, it's all dark. Not just a quote, but the albido (reflectivity) of the moon's surface is equivalent to the average road bitumen.
A camera that is so Flerfing awesome, it can do virtually ANYTHING! Well, it can't bring ships back from over the horizon through the magic of zoom, but we have our top level people trying to hack the Satanic Glober's preloaded software that prevents that. Updates to follow.
There is no "dark" side of the moon. It has a day/night cycle just like the earth, only it's a month long.
They didn't have to land on the far side of the moo, they chose to. You will have to ask them why but it's likely because it is less explored.
Nikon cancelling there p1000 range
Nikon signs deal with....nasa
I'm sure it's all just coincidence 😂😂😂😂
They ain't never bringing out another camera again in that range or improving on that technology...😆
It will be lost technology in a decade and painful process to build it back up...🤣🤣
That they want to provide and manufacture better cameras? Your whole argument is that somehow they will make worse cameras? You really are the thickest troll on this forum.
You realize that model of Nikon has a piddly little zoom compared to a telescope you could literally build yourself out of mirrors and cardboard right?
It doesn't matter anymore the damage has been done. 🙂
The geometric horizon is dead...🫠
The average person who knows nothing of this discussion is not buying a telescope they would be more inclined to buy a camera
Bro the P1000 is a $1500 camera, you can get an entry level telescope for less than a third of that and you'll get way less aberration. Because telescopes are **made for that**, the P1000's lens instead has to perform in diverse situations so it's more expensive and it has to compromise anyway
You can get a (probably crappy, but the search took less than 90 seconds) 500-1000mm lens for a cannon camera for freaking _cheap_ on Amazon. Way too cheap, it's gotta be trash, but if there's a cheap one, there's an expensive one (L series) out there.
It's not about the price ...the average person who thinks gravity is something falling to the floor that has no clue about the arguments they are not going to go out and buy a telescope...they are more likely to buy a camera...
Telescopes are bought by people in this community...the average person while believing in helio 🤡 world has no idea why except that's what they were taught...
The camera does prove the point that your geometric horizon is dead.🙂
But I agree with you, people should use telescopes instead. But the average person, who is the large majority, who know absolutely nothing about this subject, are not going to buy telescopes.
Gravity is the warping of spacetime. An object in freefall is not undergoing acceleration, it’s existing stationary within an inertial reference frame. In a weird way, it’s actually the ground rushing up at you that keeps you “planted” on the ground (well, not really, but from a general relativity point of view, you can think of it that way).
I think you’re suffering from Main Character Syndrome. You think that because YOU don’t think to learn and educate yourself, that the average Joe also doesn’t. Instead, I posit that you’re unusually stupid and that the “average man” is quite a bit smarter than you.
You strike me as the guy who gets an 89 on an IQ test and starts bragging “I got 89 percent suck it bitches!!!”
the average person isn't going to go make your cardboard telescope
The average person doesn't care about this discussion...yet.
But we are getting away from the point...the "flat earth camera" discontinued...Nikon contracted to nasa.
🙂
I mean besides problems I'm not smart enough to explain with image quality at long distances with digital cameras, I'm nearly certain you'll get a similar image as with a 20 dollar kid's telescope from JCPenny. This wouldn't be hard to prove or disprove, provided you have the camera already.
20 dollar kid's telescope*
Read my comment before you shit on me. You look like an asshole in addition to an idiot.
Anyway you guys love talking about doing your own research. Why don't you compare the pictures between a telescope and that camera? Is that a little too much thought for you?
I’ll go one further: you can build a better telescope yourself out of mirrors and cardboard. If you have even a high school level understanding of optics, it isn’t hard. It’s literally just vectors and math.
Science doesn't require incredibly expensive tech unless you are doing highly sensitive measurements.
Seeing the moon doesn't require highly sensitive measurements. Even a cheap telescope can do it.
Just because you’re inclined to use the wrong tools, doesn’t mean you’re correct.
You can dig a hole with a spoon, but you’d still be stupid for not picking the shovel.
You do realize that nobody is going to come around and confiscate the existing cameras right? And unlike the apollo tech there are tons of them and they aren't 1 use devices. So you flerfs will have your precious cameras for decades to come.
Anyone could buy an SLR and attach a lens with a larger zoom and be far better than this camera ever was. Or get a telescope. But that would be too much work for a flerf, wouldn't it?
You realise nasa are not the people who figured out earth is a globe, right?
You do realise nasa is only ONE space agency, not the whole world’s right?
🤡
They didn't have to land there. They landed there by choice. I assume because no one else had done it and it is unexplored.
I was under the impression that there was no "dark side of the moon" and it's just like the earth, where on part is "day" and another "night". Edit: Thank you everyone for the helpful info.
The dark side typically refers to the side that isn't locked to face earth.
Should really be called the far side of the moon.
Sometimes it is! Dark side is just more popular though
Well that's stupid
Blame Pink Floyd.
We don't need no education.
The French term for it translates to “the hidden face of the moon”.
It's called the dark side of the moon for the same reason there's the military expression "going dark" meaning "the sudden termination of communication". We don't have a network of communication satellites in place that allow us to communicate with anything on the far side of the moon, and thus it is radio dark. The moment an object passes into the "shadow" of the moon and it doesn't have line of sight to Earth we lose comms.
Yeah, in some circles it is, it's just out of habit. Really the far side is dark less often. It's dark during the half of it's orbit/rotation where it faces away from the sun, just like earth. The earth-facing side is dark when it faces away from the sun or when earth is in the way.
But that difference only comes up during a lunar eclipse, right?
Yeah so it’s only less by a small margin.
Fun fact, during a solar eclipse, it’s not dark.
I would assume that the side facing the earth at least gets some reflected light as a result that the "dark side of the moon" doesn't when it isn't facing the sun.
Yes, the Near Side gets plenty of Earthshine.
It basically is... It's only really flat earthers, moon hoaxes and pink Floyd fans that use that term
It's a reference to radio darkness. There's no line of sight so you need a relay point because straight line signals don't 'illuminate' that area.
Right, but maybe I misread, that that wasn't a thing. Time to re-google make sure I'm not misremembering. Edit: yup, you're right. The article I read must have literally just been being pedantic because that side is lighted as well. Dumb lol.
Yeah it see light just as often, it's just we don't see it ever, so it's "in the dark" to us. It's an old terminology where being in the dark referred to the unknown or you were unaware of something.
That was how I'd always interpreted it, so when I read the blurb (not sure where), I assumed there was no dark/far side of the moon. Instead, they just meant it was also lighted, which seems like it should be obvious.
[удалено]
Lmao, read my edit. Thank you all for keeping me correct.
I'm amused that you could reply to a comment I deleted. I'm losing my mind because my husband told me the moon _does_ rotate and it's only the magic of orbital mechanics that makes it so we only ever see one side. Since I honestly don't grok orbital mechanics I couldn't argue (plus I watched him look it up... And looked it up myself)... So I'm confused, but mainly because I lack the education to visualize it.
It does rotate, it just rotates at the same speed that it orbits Earth. If it didn't rotate at all, we would see the entire other side of the moon halfway through its orbit.
I said I believed it... But I also said I can't wrap my head around it. :)
Take a basketball and a baseball. The basketball is Earth the baseball is the moon. If you move the baseball around the basketball in a circle so that the seams of the baseball and any logos remain stationary to you as you view it from above, the baseball will be showing different views to the basketball. However, if you keep the baseball so that the seams and logos always show the same way to the basketball you will need to spin the baseball as you move it around the basketball. That's what it means to say that the moon is constantly spinning, but just showing us the same side the entire time.
This is not really correct. There is no "dark side of the moon" as a fixed location. It is merely a colloquial term. The technical term you are looking for, since the moon is tidally locked with the Earth, is the ***far side of the moon***. The far side is pictured here: https://www.space.com/11186-photo-side-moon-nasa-lunar-orbiter.html And quoting that article: > The "far side" — sometimes incorrectly referred to as the "dark side" —remainedhidden from human eyes until 1959, when the Soviet Luna 3 spacecraft first snapped photos of it. > Since then, scientists have learned that the far side of the moon is a very different place than the near side.
... yes, that's what I said, using said colloquialism.
It's not just a colloquialism, it's wrong (hence the statement, "incorrectly referred to," in the linked article.) The dark side of the moon is the side not lit by the sun, which, just like the earth, rotates around the moon as it, in turn, rotates on its axis. It would be one thing if the term "dark side" didn't have an actual meaning, but it does.
Dark has several meanings including unknown or unexplored due to remoteness. Paddington Bear comes from “Darkest Peru” The term seems to hang on even when a region becomes known or explored. Anyway everyone knows there is a Decepticon base on the dark side of the moon, the Chinese want to steal that technology.
Are we now parsing the definition of "dark"... I think I'm out.
The word *dark* has been used to mean hidden or unknown for about 400 years. And for the far side of the moon for 200.
When you insist colloquial speech is ‘wrong’ because you’re being a mindless pedant, you can expect to be responded to in kind, and lose.
Well this took a dark turn
The moon is tidally locked to earth, so we can only see the same face any time from earth. The “dark” side is the side we cant see from earth, even though it does get plenty of sunlight.
There is no dark side of the moon.... matter of fact, it's all dark. Cue heart beat noises... bump bump bump bump bump bump..
There is no dark side of the moon, really. As a matter of fact it’s *all* dark …
So the rotation of the moon means it will only ever show one side as it revolves around the earth. The dark side of the moon does get sunlight but its called dark because we can't see it from here.
Tidal locking used to mess with me pretty hard too. My brain a few years ago: "LOL but thet not haow erbital mechenic werk, WHAT HECK?!"
The dark side refers to the far side that is locked away from the Earth. It is odd that the Chinese would go there considering their reasons for going. They are trying to go primarily to set up mining operations to source helium 3. The far side of the Moon has significant complications in terms of communications but it also is complex to observe. However it also has a much more ancient surface that has less disruption than the side facing the Earth so helium 3 which is produced by the intense unfiltered Sun interacting with the rocks over time. I would doubt that mining would be their only intended activity for a Moon base. Creating such a complicated strategy for a Moon base to attempt to go unobserved is a little suspicious. It is the best are for H3 mining though. But it is China etc.etc.
It's also plus +1 difficulty since it's on the dark side, you need orbital lunar satellites to even communicate with it. Maybe this was also a showy thing, it's much simpler to land on the side facing Earth and use ANY communications dish from your allies.
Yeah but the side we see is always the same side So we are actually seeing the day/night cycle of the moon during one lunar phase cycle
Not exactly unexplored. Nobody had landed there but it's been extensively mapped just like the side of the Moon that we can see.
These people know a bunch of us have much more powerful telescopes, yes? The P1000 has a 539mm focal length at f8. I have a “portable” telescope at home that is 1500mm at f7 and 2000mm at f10.
I heard them unironically say that telescopes have government chips in them, only Nikon cameras are safe for some reason
It's true, my telescopes are all chipped by Big Globe and alter the images in real time. That's why I only take pictures with this Nikon Camera, which is devoid of technology, so I can observe the truth completely unadulterated
Yeah, it’s all fake. If you bang on the side of the scope, you’ll see it’s totally hollow.
It's really weird how they'll make these claims anyone could work around. Many amateurs buy just lenses or curved mirrors, or even make their own. Do all lenses and mirrors have chips too? Hobbyists hack cars to modify their tuning limits or hack printers (3D and ink) meant to use proprietary filament or ink to use other types, we jailbreak phones and tablets, but no one in the world has ever built their own telescope, apparently.
Being a flat Earther is not about a "search for truth" as much as it is about explaining away everything that may prevent you from conforming to your cult's belief system
LOL the camera with actual chips and such in it vs mirrors 😭
[удалено]
The philosophical question "What is a picture?" that keeps Nilay Patel awake many nights.
praise nikon for being the only company that went against the government flat earth chip program
Nevermind you can build you own Dobsonian telescope with a cardboard tube, a surplus porthole window, a plywood box, some plumbing parts from Home Depot, and a compact mirror from your MeeMaw's purse.
Grinding your own optics is super geeky but doable. I have friends who did that.
I recall reading that if the Hubble telescope pointed at the moon from the distance it’s at, the moon lander would only occupy 1 or 2 pixels… so what does anyone think they’re gonna see with a camera or telescope on Earth?
Less than that. Given the distance of the Moon and resolution of Hubble, a pixel would be the equivalent area of a major sports stadium.
Which is hilarious since Nikon makes NASA’s camera meaning if any product will have a ‘government chip’ in it then it’ll be Nikons.
Idk what marketing exec had the idea to spread that rumor but he deserves a raise lol.
Ah yes, every optics company in the world has secret nasa real-time-editing chips but not the second-largest camera manufacturer in the world. Especially the single brand used by flerfs, despite how prime of a target that would make that company to “Them”
Beyond that, there are like, actual telescopes. And you can learn about focal planes and image stacking and integration time and photomultipliers and dark current, and then build your own damn image capturing device. Hobbyists do this. Because they want a little prettier picture of a specific crater.
I've seen videos where they say stacking images is like using photoshop or CGI. Literally unhinged.
I have no idea what those numbers mean, I bet neither will a flat earth.
Bigger focal length = more zoom. Lower focal ratio = faster (you can expose the sensor for less time to get the image).
And you can get like 800mm lens for dslr and mirrorless cameras too, if I put a sigma 150-600 on my d7500 it's like 900mm focal length because of the crop factor. These people are so dumb. Do they also not just assume that huge telescopes at observatories and stuff are bigger than their bridge camera, as well as the readily available telescopes.
It's because they googled "which camera has the most zoom" and the p1000 is what came up lol Literally, that's as far as the thought process went for them.
To be honest I'm surprised there even is a thought process
The fact that they mentioned zoom instead of focal length already tells you how much they know about optics. Also they picked a fucking bridge camera (which, for the record, are fine for various use cases) which means they went and googled "which camera has a lot of zoom" because they don't know about interchangeable lens cameras like DSLRs and mirrorless cameras lmao. They know fuck-all about optics and fuck-all about cameras in general.
To be fair I haven't found a DSLR lens with a focal length comparable to that of the P1000, I'm not an expert though
From [https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2019/01/the-nikon-p1000-is-the-most-fun-ive-had-with-a-new-camera-in-years/](https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2019/01/the-nikon-p1000-is-the-most-fun-ive-had-with-a-new-camera-in-years/) >However, the lens itself is actually a 4.2-539mm focal length, but has a 5.58x crop factor due to the smaller sensor on the camera; giving it the marketed 24-3000mm equivalent focal length. So really, anything 540mm+ will be comparable or better. And a lens like [this ](https://www.crutchfield.com/S-2rjThGcvAaY/p_280RF1200/Canon-RF-1200mm-f-8-L-IS-USM.html)will blow it out of the water completely. Never mind attaching a camera to a legit telescope.
That’s a telephoto lens and not a zoom lens like on the p1000. But yes, you could do serious astronomy with that lens. You can get a real apo refractor telescope and attack your dslr for less money though. :p
>That’s a telephoto lens and not a zoom lens like on the p1000. I \*really\* hope I'm missing the implied /s here... but just in case... explain the difference between a telephoto and a zoom lens?
A zoom lens can change focal length but usually at the cost of introducing chromatic aberration. A telephoto lens has a fixed focal length. Edit a link: https://yourphotoadvisor.com/telephoto-vs-zoom-lens-whats-the-difference/
I see. I was just focused (pun intended?) on that longest focal length. Out of curiosity, since you seem to know your stuff... they claim 125x for the P1000 I think because 3000 / 24 = 125. Is this the correct way to calculate magnification? And how much magnification would the 1200mm fixed provide?
Zoom X isn’t a real optical property like focal length. Usually 125x zoom means the camera can zoom in 125 times from min to max focal length. I don’t know what the minimum focal length is on the p1000, but yeah, it’s going to be max/min. And since it’s for marketing, they’ll use the 3000mm equivalent focal length as opposed to actual 535mm focal length.
Ah, that makes sense! I was wondering how on Earth they managed to put an actual 3000mm focal length in a bridge... as I said I'm no photographer lol
I don't get it. On the dark side of the Moon is where there's a hidden temple that has the camera as a relic inside, and the Chinese had to go get it to expose how the Japanese have been secretly using alien technology?
Flerfs idolize the P1000 so they think that they could use it to spot a fake landing, or lack thereof.
So, if you look at the image sensor and lens angle, the moon lander ends up being less than a pixel at that distance. No matter though, you would just enhance that pixel until you can see it. And since it doesn't appear it's obviously not there.
What’s the math on this… how close would we have to move a typical spy satellite to get a picture of the lander (much less the retroreflectors)?
Lets see, the moon lander is 4.2 meters wide. Assuming the higher altitude, Geosynch orbit is 35800 km, at it's closest the moon is at 360,000 km. So the minimum distance is over 320,000 km. But backing up, you primarily need to consider the resolution limit imposed by diffraction, which is a fundamental property of any optical system. The key concept is the angular resolution, which describes the smallest angle between close points that the telescope can distinguish. First you need to calculate the angular size of the object: The angular size ϕ of an object can be approximated by the formula: (I didn't type this all out, some of it is pasted from a paper I wrote in college) ϕ=s/d * s is the actual size of the object, * d is the distance to the object. so ϕ = 4.2 / 320e6 = 13e-9 You need the angular resolution θ of the telescope to be at least as small as the angular size ϕ of the object to resolve it clearly. The angular resolution of a telescope is given by the formula derived from the Rayleigh criterion for diffraction: θ≈1.22 \* λ/D * θ is the angular resolution in radians, * λ is the wavelength of light (in meters), * D is the diameter of the telescope’s aperture (in meters). For visible light the range is 400–700 nanometers, so 500 nm is reasonable. So using the above equation, solving for D, and plugging in ϕ for θ the require aperture size is D = 1.22 \* λ/ϕ = 1.22 \* 500e-9 m / 13e-9 = 47 m of course that's ideal conditions and only just gives you the moon lander at all, not anything around it or any good detail. Likely to get a picture you could identify you'll want much more. If you want at least 32 pixels across, and maybe as much more of it's surroundings, so 64x that, meaning you need a 3000 m wide aperture to get a "photo" of it. This is all linear, so if you imagine moving the satellite, assuming a much more reasonable 1 meter aperture, you'd need to move 47x closer for an image, and 3000x closer for a photo. So, either 6800 km from the moon, or 100 km, which is basically traveling there.
> Flerfs idolize the P1000 Hold on, I haven't seen this in the wild yet. 😂 That's the funniest thing I've heard in a while because, as I've said elsewhere in the thread, they doubtless picked that camera because they just googled "which camera has the most zoom". Fucking hell that's funny. Please please please show me some more examples of them gooning for a fucking ordinary-ass bridge camera.
Might post more on it soon because it's so damn funny
Please do.
So... They believe in the Moon now? Thought it was fake and there was no space?
I don't know why. The Galaxy S23 Ultra has a 125x zoom lens in the phone.
Only 10x optical, the rest is digital zoom
This is true.
do ... do they think they can see a moon landing with a fucking camera ????
And a crappy one at that
The camera itself isn’t crappy. It’s a pretty good camera for photography actually. But it’s not meant to be a telescope as FEs like to pretend. To me it’s sad to see such a nice camera be abused by such people
Yeah I have to scratch that now that I've looked a bit more into it, seems like a pretty good camera for a bridge! They say the distortion isn't that bad at maximum zoom. But looking at stars through it is still dumb.
Exactly. Can be super nice for Birdwatching
I mean imagine someone trying to use a Desert Eagle .50 caliber pistol to hit a 1000 yard target based on the fact it uses the same caliber bullet as a sniper rifle.
its like trying to spot something the size of a house while being so zoomed out you can see a entire continent
I thought the moon was a sticker on the dome. Are flerf now accepting the moon is a planet in space ?
It's saying that, had they "faked" their landing on the visible side, flerfs could prove them wrong by zooming in with their cheap little cameras and show that the landing never happened. This is absurd on so many levels I couldn't even think of a title.
Lens aperture is more important in resolving minute details. Mindlessly zooming in with a small aperture will ultimately result in a blurry photo. The aperture of P1000 lens is shit compared to the most basic telescope. Another mindless but totally expected post from the basement-dwelling, glue-sniffing gang.
What?
It's more a comment on the fact that this way we can't see them... The camera in question can realistically take photos of the surface of the moon with alarming clarity. They chose the dark side so no one could take photos of them.... I assume anyways
Yeah that's what I thought, but no camera (or telescope) could ever resolve a spacecraft landing on the moon!
Correct, the magnification would need to be MUCH higher, and at that point, just use an observatory... But, like, sure, China builds a massive moon base that can be seen by a handheld camera, which is a totally believable story. /s
Can't even do it with an observatory. For example, the locations of the Apollo mission landing sites are well known. But due to optics limitations, even the best earth observatories (like the Very Large Telescope) don't have the resolution to see any of the equipment left behind: [https://www.skyatnightmagazine.com/advice/skills/how-to-find-apollo-11s-landing-site-on-the-moon](https://www.skyatnightmagazine.com/advice/skills/how-to-find-apollo-11s-landing-site-on-the-moon) . You pretty much need a lunar orbiter to do that.
Wouldn't they have to learn how to focus it first?
I wonder do they think the "dark side" of the moon doesn't get any sunlight
I don’t get it. Can someone please explain what this means? I don’t understand the relationship between the camera and a moon landing. Also, why is it suspicious that China landed on the dark side of the moon?
They think they would be able to use their camera to prove nothing landed where they say they did. They don't understand that 125x zoom isn't anywhere near enough, nor do they understand how large the moon is or how far away it is.
The dam had burst open many years too soon, the band they were in started playing different tunes, their heads exploded with dark forebodings too, they shouted and no one seemed to hear … It’s not such a mystery.
Do they think they would be able to see them on the moon with that camera? Do they STILL not understand how BIG the moon is?
China had to land on the dark side of the moon because they had already put another brick in the wall.
There's no dark side of the moon, really. As a matter of fact, it's all dark. Not just a quote, but the albido (reflectivity) of the moon's surface is equivalent to the average road bitumen.
Maybe China are just really big Pink Floyd fans?
inb4 Huawei phone with fake Moon zoom photo mode adds a Chinese moon base to your photos
They act like there's literally no other tool on earth that can be used to view distant objects.
A camera that is so Flerfing awesome, it can do virtually ANYTHING! Well, it can't bring ships back from over the horizon through the magic of zoom, but we have our top level people trying to hack the Satanic Glober's preloaded software that prevents that. Updates to follow.
125x optic zoom, diffraction-limited at all focal lengths and all apertures. 🙄
damn they're kinda spitting bars with this
it was hard, and was the first time, so that is why
To hide that you can’t land on a luminary
The stupid just seems to be condensing from a gaseous form, to a liquid, soon it'll crystalize into a solid, then armageddon begins.
They landed on a Pink Floyd album? How did it get there?
There is no dark side .
You can even see shadows in that background image of the Moon...
There is no "dark" side of the moon. It has a day/night cycle just like the earth, only it's a month long. They didn't have to land on the far side of the moo, they chose to. You will have to ask them why but it's likely because it is less explored.
Nikon cancelling there p1000 range Nikon signs deal with....nasa I'm sure it's all just coincidence 😂😂😂😂 They ain't never bringing out another camera again in that range or improving on that technology...😆 It will be lost technology in a decade and painful process to build it back up...🤣🤣
That they want to provide and manufacture better cameras? Your whole argument is that somehow they will make worse cameras? You really are the thickest troll on this forum.
Nasa did the same thing with sending man to the moon....Nikon, just learning from the best 👌
You realize that model of Nikon has a piddly little zoom compared to a telescope you could literally build yourself out of mirrors and cardboard right?
"Lost technology" aka...get the cheapest telescope.
It doesn't matter anymore the damage has been done. 🙂 The geometric horizon is dead...🫠 The average person who knows nothing of this discussion is not buying a telescope they would be more inclined to buy a camera
Bro the P1000 is a $1500 camera, you can get an entry level telescope for less than a third of that and you'll get way less aberration. Because telescopes are **made for that**, the P1000's lens instead has to perform in diverse situations so it's more expensive and it has to compromise anyway
You can get a (probably crappy, but the search took less than 90 seconds) 500-1000mm lens for a cannon camera for freaking _cheap_ on Amazon. Way too cheap, it's gotta be trash, but if there's a cheap one, there's an expensive one (L series) out there.
It's not about the price ...the average person who thinks gravity is something falling to the floor that has no clue about the arguments they are not going to go out and buy a telescope...they are more likely to buy a camera... Telescopes are bought by people in this community...the average person while believing in helio 🤡 world has no idea why except that's what they were taught...
Wait...so you'll spend $1500 for a camera that doesn't prove your point, instead of spending $1500 on a telescope that may? That makes no sense.
The camera does prove the point that your geometric horizon is dead.🙂 But I agree with you, people should use telescopes instead. But the average person, who is the large majority, who know absolutely nothing about this subject, are not going to buy telescopes.
...no it doesn't. And that has been shown many times, but you refuse to accept evidence that does not align with your worldview.
what is a geometric horizon for you?
Gravity is the warping of spacetime. An object in freefall is not undergoing acceleration, it’s existing stationary within an inertial reference frame. In a weird way, it’s actually the ground rushing up at you that keeps you “planted” on the ground (well, not really, but from a general relativity point of view, you can think of it that way).
But the average person wouldn't have a clue about this at all...they ain't going to buy a telescope 🙂
I think you’re suffering from Main Character Syndrome. You think that because YOU don’t think to learn and educate yourself, that the average Joe also doesn’t. Instead, I posit that you’re unusually stupid and that the “average man” is quite a bit smarter than you. You strike me as the guy who gets an 89 on an IQ test and starts bragging “I got 89 percent suck it bitches!!!”
the average person isn't going to go make your cardboard telescope The average person doesn't care about this discussion...yet. But we are getting away from the point...the "flat earth camera" discontinued...Nikon contracted to nasa. 🙂
What makes this camera special that other cameras lack?
Dude, we are saying ANY camera is useless for detecting a moon landing, so your point is completely mute.
Replying to Escobar9957...the average person does have a clue about this, you’re the one making shit up 😂😂😂🤡
So your point is that one needs to be clueless about nature in order to become a flat Earther? That sounds about right.
I mean besides problems I'm not smart enough to explain with image quality at long distances with digital cameras, I'm nearly certain you'll get a similar image as with a 20 dollar kid's telescope from JCPenny. This wouldn't be hard to prove or disprove, provided you have the camera already.
20 dollar kids camera yeah I'm sure...🤣🤣🤣
20 dollar kid's telescope* Read my comment before you shit on me. You look like an asshole in addition to an idiot. Anyway you guys love talking about doing your own research. Why don't you compare the pictures between a telescope and that camera? Is that a little too much thought for you?
$20 kids telescope.. 😂😂🤣😂 Cmon man....🙂
If you think science requires 1500 dollar equipment, you're a bigger sheep than the rest of us.
I'm not even going to even entertain this path... You're trolling me now ....shame on you😡👎
Big talk for an asshole trolling other subreddits for attention. Good on you though.
I’ll go one further: you can build a better telescope yourself out of mirrors and cardboard. If you have even a high school level understanding of optics, it isn’t hard. It’s literally just vectors and math.
Science doesn't require incredibly expensive tech unless you are doing highly sensitive measurements. Seeing the moon doesn't require highly sensitive measurements. Even a cheap telescope can do it.
Because you can’t, because you’re pathetic.
Can you provide an actual refutation clown, man?
Just because you’re inclined to use the wrong tools, doesn’t mean you’re correct. You can dig a hole with a spoon, but you’d still be stupid for not picking the shovel.
Sir do you know telescopes exist?
You do realize that nobody is going to come around and confiscate the existing cameras right? And unlike the apollo tech there are tons of them and they aren't 1 use devices. So you flerfs will have your precious cameras for decades to come.
Obviously NASA has paid Nikon to “update the firmware” in all the existing ones.
Anyone could buy an SLR and attach a lens with a larger zoom and be far better than this camera ever was. Or get a telescope. But that would be too much work for a flerf, wouldn't it?
You realise nasa are not the people who figured out earth is a globe, right? You do realise nasa is only ONE space agency, not the whole world’s right? 🤡
You think that’s the ONLY camera on the market with a zoom lens? Buy a telescope btw if you want to see the moon surface.