A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Jupiter



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old October 25th 09, 05:50 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,aus.photo
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default 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  
Old October 25th 09, 08:39 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,aus.photo
Doug Jewell[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 426
Default 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  
Old October 25th 09, 10:23 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,aus.photo
Noons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,245
Default 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  
Old October 25th 09, 10:28 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,aus.photo
Noons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,245
Default 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  
Old October 25th 09, 02:28 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,aus.photo
Outing Ignorant Trolls Is FUN!
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default 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.

  #37  
Old October 25th 09, 02:48 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,aus.photo
Look! Another Troll!
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default 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  
Old October 25th 09, 02:55 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,aus.photo
Jürgen Exner
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,579
Default 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  
Old October 25th 09, 05:28 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,aus.photo
k
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 69
Default 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  
Old October 25th 09, 08:48 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,aus.photo
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 06:50 PM
Got my Jupiter 21m 200mm f/4 lens adm Digital Photography 1 January 20th 05 04:48 AM
Got my Jupiter 21m 200mm f/4 lens Siddhartha Jain Digital SLR Cameras 2 January 20th 05 04:48 AM
Got my Jupiter 21m 200mm f/4 lens Siddhartha Jain Digital Photography 0 January 19th 05 07:59 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:16 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2022 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.