Vulcan, jy het oorvloedige merkers in jou pos, nl. “ [ quote author=The Vulcan link=topic=2585.msg26211#msg26211 date=1354284869]” heel aan sy begin en “ [ /quote]” heel aan sy einde. Die middelgedeelte bevat ’n “ [ /quote]” merker wat “ [ /url]” hoort te wees.
'Luthon64
ek wonder wat ons vriend so se van hierdie beelde: http://phys.org/news/2012-11-incredible-raw-image-saturn-swirling.html
Vervalsings! Alles vervalsings! Enigeen kan dit met Photoshop doen, en julle arme ateïste is naïef genoeg om dit te glo!
Wat van foto’s wat in die 70’s geneem is voor photoshop bestaan het?
Destyds was dit die duiwel se werk gewees. Deesdae is daar genoeg ateïste en ander onheilige sondaars wat beskik oor Photoshop om die duiwel se werk vir hom te bevorder.
'Luthon64
Hehehe, gaan kyk bietjie na die ou se nuutste bydraes:
Hy is so mal soos 'n fokken haas. Ek kan nou sien wat aangaan: hy probeer sowaar nie my vrae ontwyk nie; sy kennis van die vakgebied is so min dat hy nie besef waarom my argumente absoluut fataal is vir sy idees nie. Hy verstaan nie eers die mees basiese aspekte van hoe gravitasie werk of waarom planete in 'n baan om die son bly nie.
Nou ja, nou weet ek nie of ek dan maar moet moed opgee met hom nie. Sulke doelbewuste, stiksienige onkunde is frustrerend. So nou wonder ek: antwoord ek sy skrywe vir die voordeel van moontlike waarnemers van die debat, of skryf ek hom nou maar af?
Sal sien of ek tyd en energie het vir nog…
Die jammer deel is, hierdie tipe ouens sal gou gou agterkom jy’t opgegee en dan koning kraai.
Dis nie jou skuld nie, en ek dink nogsteeds jy moet maar die handdoek ingooi. Dis net sad, is al.
Die beste wat ons kan doen is nie om mense te oortuig hulle is verkuerd nie, maar net liewers hulle te wys hoe om meer rasionaal te dink.
Maar met die man is so ver in 'n hoek dat hy nooit sal kan verander nie. Miskien is dit maar better om kinders te wys hoe om te dink en die groot mense uit te los.
Ag, as daar maar net 'n pil was om hiermee te help. Dis godsonmoontlik (pun not intended) om hierdie tipe te probeer reghelp.
Brianvds, I posted a response at LitNet to challenge fruitcake Kobus de Klerk’s assertion that the shadow of a spacecraft should be visible on a photograph of a large portion of Jupiter. My response is framed in terms of photographic resolution.
However, I neglected to point out that, in the offered pictures, even if it was possible, the photos themselves hadn’t been amplified enough to show the expected detail.
Moreover, there’s an inherent contradiction in de Klerk’s view: On the one hand, he maintains that we cannot be sure we’re seeing the Jovian moons, even with powerful hi-res telescopes, while at the same time saying that we can magnify an image sufficiently to discern the shadow of a small spacecraft. On the latter premise, we should be able positively to identify any Jovian moon after appropriate magnification. But de Klerk cannot have it both ways, as he demands. Either we can resolve an image sufficiently to reveal adequate detail, or we cannot.
Not that such inconsistencies can ever be sufficient to prod a wake-up from the imaginative confabulations that we have seen from de Klerk so far — please feel free to point them out, should you so wish. More invention is sure to follow but I have noticed that de Klerk appears to be increasingly frustrated with your counters… so, good job!
'Luthon64
Mefiante: Yup, any beginner amateur knows that in astronomy, it is all about resolution rather than magnification. I don’t expect our correspondent to know that either. 
Ahem, if I may interject with another noob question:
The way I understand it is that the problem in astronomy is LIGHT GATHERING not magnification. You can magnify all you want but you lose light intensity the more you do. So the point is to gather more light (wider telescopes) so you can magnify it more. Is this correct?
That’s true enough as far as it goes. The more light you can gather from a distant object, the better the resolution of its features in an image of it. Useful magnification is limited by the resolution of that image. (You can zoom into an image, whether digital or analogue, but there’s always a limit at which further magnification does not reveal additional useful detail.)
'Luthon64
Right. The eyepiece magnify the object but the more light you gather the sharper it you see it. A scope usually come with a set of eyepieces.
Well I set up the small scope I bought, last night and pointed it at Jupiter.
I can confirm that I was able to see 3 of the moons of Jupiter.
Your scope has been rigged with advanced future technology by the CIA to simulate moons around jupiter. It’s all a lie, trust no one.
…except your own hunches as prompted by an old book of fairytales.
'Luthon64
What you see is actually a computer simulation beamed to your scope by the Illuminati. This is so that you think all is well but meanwhile the Io-ens (who are in with the Illuminati) are preparing to come and get us. They are on Jupiter time, so their clocks run slower. They’ve been doing this since Galileo’s time so nobody has actually seen Jupiter and it’s moons.
Is hierdie ou (de Klerk) nog aan die gang? Miskien sal dit help om aan hom te veduidelik hoe die spoed van lig oorspronklik uitgewerk was.
Ja, natuurlik is hy. Sy deuntjie sal hy ook nooit verander nie. Dit is nie moontlik om ’n konsekwente debat te voer met ’n mens wat onvertroud met óf logika óf die mees basiese beginsels van fisika en optika nie. Lees gerus hoe kinderagtig en onbevoeg die “argumente” is wat hy bring. Die vermaaklikheidswaarde daarvan is hoogs aanbeveel. Sy laatste juweel is dat teoretiese berekeninge van resolusies en projeksies ens. sommer verkeerd moet wees want dit neem nie “praktiese” aspekte in ag nie, never maaind dat díé teoretiese oorwegings ideale gevalle ontleed waar alles 100% reg werk. Maar nee, ’n foto wat omtrent die helfde van Jupiter wys, moet volgens De Klerk ook die skaduwee wys van die ruimtetuig wat die foto geneem het.
Ek betwyfel dit erg. Ek sou sê dat dit net ’n nuwe rits ontduikings en belaglikhede sal aanmoedig.
'Luthon64