If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Jupiter
On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 12:09:33 +1100, Noons
wrote: Eric Stevens wrote,on my timestamp of 25/10/2009 10:49 AM: Ignorance is mutual. "mutual"? The stupid troll jumps in with crap from Florida in a post discussing Australia and the ignorance is "mutual"? How about one-sided, from the stupid aioe troll? Oodnadata is not an entirely silly suggestion, except for the thought of living there. Oh, so that is not ignorance, now? As for living there, in retirement it's probably not a bad place at all. Which is what was said. Care to read properly instead of jumping to conclusions? Jeez! You were the one who mentioned Oodnadata. I thought I was coming to your aid. Who needs enemies with friends like you? Eric Stevens |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Jupiter
Look! Another Troll! wrote:
On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 23:56:56 +1000, Noons wrote: Outing Trolls wrote,on my timestamp of 24/10/2009 9:24 PM: On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 22:17:05 +1000, Noons wrote: Goos stuff as usual, Piggo. Pity you can't move all that gear 300 miles inland, eh? Inland is worse, but then you'd know this if you knew the least bit about photography and astronomy. Another **** poor attempt of yours to try to look like you knew something. Trolls never do. What an idiot... Inland *is* worse, because inland air is more unstable, has higher fluctuations in humidity levels, often contains more dust and particulate pollutants, and is downright turbulent compared to areas near ocean air. All are enemies of "seeing" conditions. The weakest link when you have a decent telescope optics. You haven't got a bloody clue do you? The best observatories are placed where a) light pollution is minimal, b) humidity is low, and c) altitude is high. There are a few places where some of these conditions can be achieved relatively close to a coastline, but for the most part these conditions are more likely to exist inland. Hence why Siding Springs Observatory is a very good location - it is in a very lightly populated area so there is little light pollution. It's location in the mid-west of NSW generally has very low humidity and few cloudy/rainy nights, and at an altitude of about 1200m it has 1.2km less atmosphere to look through than if it was at sea level. Yes, there will occasionally be dust issues, and the odd convection problem inland, but these are minor compared to the problems that higher coastal humidities cause - not the least of which is fewer clear-sky nights. Get out into the outback of Australia, and the stars twinkle much less than they do in coastal areas. The twinkling of course is related to the amount of atmospheric disturbance. snip crap from a troll who knows nothing about what he is talking about -- What is the difference between a duck? |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Jupiter
Eric Stevens wrote,on my timestamp of 25/10/2009 4:50 PM:
You were the one who mentioned Oodnadata. Exactly. I thought I was coming to your aid. Really? By claiming "ignorance is mutual"? When it is obvious it is the florida troll that has no clue what/where he's talking about? Who needs enemies with friends like you? Precisely. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Jupiter
Doug Jewell wrote,on my timestamp of 25/10/2009 7:39 PM:
Hence why Siding Springs Observatory is a very good location - it is in a very lightly populated area so there is little light pollution. It's and of course according to the florida troll, "badly" placed because it is inland. Get out into the outback of Australia, and the stars twinkle much less than they do in coastal areas. The twinkling of course is related to the amount of atmospheric disturbance. Doug: this idiot lives in florida, usa. He's got no clue what he's talking about when it comes to outback Australia: he doesn't even know where that is. Don't forget his is the country where beauty queen contestants don't know which continent Paris is in. Don't waste your time reasoning with a troll, not worth it. snip crap from a troll who knows nothing about what he is talking about Bingo! |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Jupiter
On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 15:44:43 +1100, Noons wrote:
Outing Ignorant Trolls Is FUN! wrote,on my timestamp of 25/10/2009 1:05 PM: But like all useless trolls that know nothing about astronomy nor photography, trolls who also know nothing about meteorology nor how land cools off and heats up quicker with larger thermal contrasts (compared to large bodies of water), they can't comprehend how this huge contrast in thermal energies are fed into the atmosphere directly above the land .This rest of demented raving clipped And of course you are an expert in photography, meteorology and astronomy. One wanders why you're posting as an unidentified troll from a well known troll site, instead of working in Chile. Ah yes: there are no "observatories" in florida... BWAHAHAHA! bwahahah right back atcha ... you know nothing of geology as well, I see. There's a very good reason that people in FL have only built large structures in certain locations. Even then, some eventually fall into sink-holes. **** are you ever an idiot. resides. My own 16" diameter telescope mirror can take up to 3 hours to You're confusing the mirror in your bathroom with a telescope mirror. Careful: the aliens you're seeing are actually your nose hairs... Your post is a worthy display of a perfect example of what ignorance means. Your post is a perfect example of crass, ignorant trolling. Ahh..., the childish comments from a troll trying to save face after just having been proved to be the ignorant fool that he is. Warms my heart to see this admission from you, it does. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Jupiter
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Jupiter
On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 18:39:02 +1000, Doug Jewell
wrote: Look! Another Troll! wrote: On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 23:56:56 +1000, Noons wrote: Outing Trolls wrote,on my timestamp of 24/10/2009 9:24 PM: On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 22:17:05 +1000, Noons wrote: Goos stuff as usual, Piggo. Pity you can't move all that gear 300 miles inland, eh? Inland is worse, but then you'd know this if you knew the least bit about photography and astronomy. Another **** poor attempt of yours to try to look like you knew something. Trolls never do. What an idiot... Inland *is* worse, because inland air is more unstable, has higher fluctuations in humidity levels, often contains more dust and particulate pollutants, and is downright turbulent compared to areas near ocean air. All are enemies of "seeing" conditions. The weakest link when you have a decent telescope optics. You haven't got a bloody clue do you? The best observatories are placed where a) light pollution is minimal, b) humidity is low, and c) altitude is high. There are a few places where some of these conditions can be achieved relatively close to a coastline, but for the most part these conditions are more likely to exist inland. No, only the most convenient of them are inland, for cultures that can't be bothered with or can't afford to think globally. Inland because most of the population has already overbred and colonized most shores, creating the light pollution that excludes those prime locations for astronomy. That's why the most prized locations are in such short supply. High altitude, if possible, near large masses of ocean water, with low-population density. Mauna Kea qualifies perfectly. The rest of your limited australian values and shallow reasoning, snipped. I'm starting to think this is genetic from all those low-life criminal morons inbreeding for so long. Your culture is providing so many present-day examples of this. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Jupiter
Look! Another Troll! wrote:
[...] No, it is not another troll. It is the same old boring well-known tedious P&S troll with the agravated split-personality disorder. jue |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Jupiter
where is Florida?
sounds like it must be an SA town.. k "Look! Another Troll!" wrote in message ... | On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 23:56:56 +1000, Noons wrote: | | Outing Trolls wrote,on my timestamp of 24/10/2009 9:24 PM: | On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 22:17:05 +1000, Noons wrote: | | Goos stuff as usual, Piggo. Pity you can't move all that gear 300 miles inland, | eh? | | Inland is worse, but then you'd know this if you knew the least bit about | photography and astronomy. Another **** poor attempt of yours to try to | look like you knew something. Trolls never do. | | | What an idiot... | | Inland *is* worse, because inland air is more unstable, has higher | fluctuations in humidity levels, often contains more dust and particulate | pollutants, and is downright turbulent compared to areas near ocean air. | All are enemies of "seeing" conditions. The weakest link when you have a | decent telescope optics. | | Some of the most stable pristine skies can be found in less-inhabited | regions of places like Florida, where any part of the land is only a couple | hundred miles from either coastline. The skies deep in the Everglades for | example, easily rival the night-skies you will see in some remote national | forest at the very top of the Rocky Mountains. (Viewed and photographed the | night-skies at both, so I have first-hand experience with these locations | for night-sky seeing conditions.) Ocean water has generally laminar | air-flows, most of the pollutants have dropped out of the sky--any coming | from other land-masses when airflow direction is inland. The fluctuations | in humidity levels (a killer of air quality and seeing for astronomy), are | usually much more gradual when dealing with ocean air as opposed to inland | continental air. | | This is why the most favored large telescope installations are built | furthest from large land masses, as high as possible (when possible), and | surrounded by or very near the largest bodies of ocean water with | prevailing inland air-flows. This is precisely why they choose the Hawaiian | Islands for some of the larger and more advanced observatories not too long | ago. The upcoming mega-telescopes now in construction are being built near | the ocean in places like the coastal deserts in Chile near the Pacific | shore. | | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Very_Large_Telescope | | Since he is doing planetary imaging, light-pollution is not much of a | concern, unless he gets into the outer planets (which won't show much in a | telescope of that size anyway). Or if he'd be trying to do long exposures | in place like downtown Times-Square New-York City. | | Had you said, "Pity you can't move all that gear to a coastal region | further from light pollution." Then you might have been perceived as having | an iota of credible experience with either subject, photography or | astronomy. Since you gave him the worst advice possible concerning this | field of interest, there's only one conclusion possible. | | Did you learn anything today? You useless **** of an ignorant troll. | |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Jupiter
On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 21:23:05 +1100, Noons
wrote: Eric Stevens wrote,on my timestamp of 25/10/2009 4:50 PM: You were the one who mentioned Oodnadata. Exactly. I thought I was coming to your aid. Really? By claiming "ignorance is mutual"? When it is obvious it is the florida troll that has no clue what/where he's talking about? It was only obvious to those who already knew Oodnadata. I'm willing to bet that the troll didn't have the faintest idea of what you were talking about. That's why I said 'ignorance is mutual' (whatever he said about you applied at least equally well to him) and went on to post the photograph of the landscape. I could have posted photographs of the town itself but that would have given the troll to talk about the disturbance created by all those people.. Who needs enemies with friends like you? Precisely. At least now I know what I'm dealing with. :-( Eric Stevens |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
WTB: Zorki 3m with Jupiter 8 | John Doe | General Equipment For Sale | 0 | March 28th 05 03:24 AM |
cleaning Jupiter-8 50mm | Robert Feinman | 35mm Photo Equipment | 5 | January 23rd 05 07:50 PM |
Got my Jupiter 21m 200mm f/4 lens | adm | Digital Photography | 1 | January 20th 05 05:48 AM |
Got my Jupiter 21m 200mm f/4 lens | Siddhartha Jain | Digital SLR Cameras | 2 | January 20th 05 05:48 AM |
Got my Jupiter 21m 200mm f/4 lens | Siddhartha Jain | Digital Photography | 0 | January 19th 05 08:59 PM |