What can I image in 5 minutes?

What can I image in 5 minutes?

This page is intended to show that it possible to obtain pleasing
images of galaxies with as little as 5 minutes exposure.

http://www.martin-nicholson.info/fiv...s/5minutes.htm


Martin Nicholson, Daventry, England.
http://www.martin-nicholson.info/1/1a.htm

Visit the Astronomical Hall of Shame at http://www.geocities.com/queen5658/

On 2 Dec, 08:47, ukastronomy
wrote:
What can I image in 5 minutes?

This page is intended to show that it possible to obtain pleasing
images of galaxies with as little as 5 minutes exposure.

http://www.martin-nicholson.info/fiv...s/5minutes.htm

Martin Nicholson, Daventry, England.http://www.martin-nicholson.info/1/1a.htm

Visit the Astronomical Hall of Shame athttp://www.geocities.com/queen5658/

"Oriel36 - "only" posts between 100 and 200 times per month. I have
read his postings on planetary motions many times but I am no nearer
understanding what point he is trying to make then when I first
started the exercise! "

Take your pick,

The understanding that the natural noon cycles are unequal has been
known since remote antiquity until in the late 17th century it was
decided otherwise -

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...3%A9reo.en.png

Of course that attempt to explain axial and orbital motion is only
supported by subhuman intellects notwithstanding that the actual
reasoning is superb in how it distinguishes natural noon from the
human devised 24 hour clock noon.

Because of the imability to grasp even the most basic astronomical
principle which links clocks and terrestrial longitudes to the axial
cycle,there is not a chance that you small intellect can grasp the
neccessary modification for the explanation as to why we experience
variations in daylight/darkness North and South of the Equator or the
seasons for that matter.Even with the images of the Earth from space
in front of you -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwTrYVBcx9s

I well know why Copernicus used variable axial inclination which
prevents me from calling you a fool outright,besides I could not care
less what you thought of me.I do understand why the modification to
Copernican reasoning is required and what exactly prevents that
modification being made and especially for climatological purposes.

I do not offer you a challenge,your judgements of astronomy let alone
people are so poor that it would take away from the puzzle.Variable
inclination cannot be proposed as the explanation for the seasons
insofar as the time lapse footage of the Earth from space does not
allow it.

For genuine astronomers,the puzzle of how to line the solar radiation/
orbital shadow boundary with the geographical poles thereby giving the
Equinox and global equality of daylight/darkness is resolved by an
addition of an additional component borrowed from orbital
motion.Presently,and contrary to observational evidence,the
explanation is based on an untenable pseudo-dynamic of axial tilt -

http://www.astronomy.org/programs/se...ns-general.gif

I only fault you for being simpleminded in an era when images of the
Earth from space are availible to bring astronomy in line with climate
studies or visa versa.You carry on worrying about variable stars and
taking pretty pictures,that too is a facet of astronomy,but the real
astronomy is putting images in context and in that you are
useless.Take that as an honest judgement from an astronomer.

If you want people to read your material you will need to do three
things.

Make the content much, much clearer.
Make the content much, much shorter.
Post it far, far less often.

OK?

Visit oriel36 at the Astronomical Hall of Shame at http://www.geocities.com/queen5658/

On 2 Dec, 11:45, oriel36 wrote:

ukastronomy wrote:

(replying to oriel36)

please don't reply to trolls, it only encourages them.

"Mark McIntyre" wrote in message
...
: ukastronomy wrote:
:
: (replying to oriel36)
:
: please don't reply to trolls, it only encourages them.

Trolls deliberately post garbage, Kellerher actually means what he
says. Kellerher isn't a troll, he's merely deranged. You won't get
through to him, though, so he gives the appearance of a troll.

On Dec 2, 2:38 pm, "Androcles" wrote:
"Mark McIntyre" wrote in message

...: ukastronomy wrote:

:
: (replying to oriel36)
:
: please don't reply to trolls, it only encourages them.

Trolls deliberately post garbage, Kellerher actually means what he
says. Kellerher isn't a troll, he's merely deranged. You won't get
through to him, though, so he gives the appearance of a troll.

Tell me all about the stick,the stopwatch and how a star returns 3
minutes 56 seconds earlier each night without exception.

I suppose it is beyond you to realise that you need an additional day
every fourth year for that notion to work or rather 3 years of 365
days and 1 year of 366 days.The system Isaac give you was not a
clockwork solar system,it was worse,it was a calendrically driven
clockwork solar system.

Poor Isaac never spotted the error or rather built on the false idea
first proposed by Flamsteed. so what you have now is 3 centuries of
junk with the actual principles kept nicely intact .

The only other crowd with a problem with the 24 hour day and natural
phenomena are the creationists,your can be presented using a simple
graphic -

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...3%A9reo.en.png

On a scale of damage done to the honor of human reasoning,I would say
Flamsteed's mistake is a Krakatoa event -

"... our clocks kept so good a correspondence with the Heavens that I
doubt it not but they would prove the revolutions of the Earth to be
isochronical" John Flamsteed

On Dec 2, 1:59 pm, ukastronomy
wrote:
If you want people to read your material you will need to do three
things.

Make the content much, much clearer.
Make the content much, much shorter.
Post it far, far less often.

OK?

Visit oriel36 at the Astronomical Hall of Shame athttp://www.geocities.com/queen5658/

On 2 Dec, 11:45, oriel36 wrote:

Better in the astronomical hall of shame than being in your
astrologer's hall of fame.

I could not care less if you ever read the material,the fact of the
matter is that if you are too stupid to grasp where Flamsteed * jumped
the tracks and give you a creationist notion which believes that the
noon cycles are 24 hours exactly or that you can justify the motions
of the Earth using the return of a star then you deserve your
astrologer's tag -

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...3%A9reo.en.png

I am enjoying the spectacle of numbskulls like yourself who no longer
have any technical arguments to present so make sure you include
yourself in your marvelous hall and we can all be shamed together.You
actually are convinced that you are 'astronomers' but I assure you,if
you cannot present the reasons why the value of 23 hours 56 minutes 04
seconds is nothing more than a calendrrically based convenience then
you nothing more than a stupid astrologer with a telescope.

Be clear indeed !,how can a person be clear to the simpleminded..






* "... our clocks kept so good a correspondence with the Heavens that
I doubt it not but they would prove the revolutions of the Earth to be
isochronical" Flamsteed

On Dec 2, 2:04 pm, Mark McIntyre wrote:
ukastronomy wrote:

(replying to oriel36)

please don't reply to trolls, it only encourages them.

Do you not like the additional orbital component needed to explain the
variations in daylight/darkness North and South of the Equator -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwTrYVBcx9s

Your minds have been so rotted with empirical junk that you cannot
even grasp what the images are showing you and that it is a rather
large modification to the explanation for the seasons by replacing
variable inclination with a new orbital component.

For astronomy to grow it has to struggle through dull creatures who
have nothing to say and live on what you believe are established
'facts',I assure you,facts are transitory and subject to modification
and you have just seen a rather large one in replacing variable axial
tilt with an orbital component based on the fact that a location
slowly turns through 360 degrees over the course of an annual orbit
apart from the independent axial motion/orientation.

It is all waiting for genuine astronomers to develop..

"Androcles" wrote in message
. uk...

"Mark McIntyre" wrote in message
...
: ukastronomy wrote:

: please don't reply to trolls, it only encourages them.

Trolls deliberately post garbage, Kellerher actually means what he
says. Kellerher isn't a troll, he's merely deranged. You won't get
through to him, though, so he gives the appearance of a troll.

I've tried reading some of his and "bradguths" stuff, it has all the
appearance of being a rational scientific argument but it doesn't actually
make sense.

A weird experience to try and read it - like the experience of reading a
difficult science textbook but never having the satisfaction of
comprehension. Not recommended!

I wonder if all the posts written fresh "to order" or is there a lot of
cut-and-pasting? The thought of it all being typed in by someone is
staggering!

- MP

That is just about the time it takes me to masturbate using my favorite
sex fantasy Bert