ageyer,
ageyer wrote:Hello Fridger
First of all,I didn't open this thread.Whoever did, was talking about a giant gash on Pluto.If it belonged here or not should have been decided then,not now.
I was specifically referring to your HMIR claims within this thread. This part should be moved.
Second,We don't stack up images.We use just one chosen among hundreds(apparently you didn't pay much attention to what I said, let alone watch the Io video).
It was not really clear in what you wrote. I naturally assumed you were stacking the hundreds of consecutive pictures you took. The only other sensible alternative is to select one picture among many, having least atmospherical disturbances. That is also a known technique in the context of video recording of bright objects which I mentioned earlier. Neither option will help enough as to your claims...
Third,the point of light source is a known concept in astro-imaging.I can direct you to a few of these explanations if you're interested in learning. about it.
Of course what we know in physics is a "point light source", but NOT a "point
of light source". The latter expression does hardly make sense to me from an English point of view, but OK English is not my native language. Yet all my professional work is carried out in English...
And please note, I have published a number of scientific papers on theoretical optics and I am a vivid astro-amateur since my early youth
A
point (light)
source obviously has negligible extent. In practice, any light source that is a large distance away from the observer (compared to its extent) effectively turns into a
point (light)
source. A star would be a typical example of a point light source. Is this what you mean with a "point
of light source"??
Fourth,just because you are a physicist,doesn't qualify you to question the merit of a grounbreaking technique such as HMIR.
If I am not qualified, who else should be?
It seems that you should brush up with your narrow view of new methods for astro-imaging.
Another JOKE
Fridger
PS: If I look at Mars or Saturn through my 8" Celestron telescope, take into account it's focal length (~2000mm) and the focal length of the eyepiece then these planets have precisely the correct size in the focal plane as calculated with any decent emphemeris software (Celestia!). This observation of Mars, Saturn,... is however subject to the same "atmospheric magnifying glass" effect that you argue to magnify Pluto's size enormously! How that?
Honestly, why don't you try to convince some people in other forums...
