This is not the Moon. The Moon is not so small. The Moon eclipses are at least the same radio the Sun is (total eclipses, or annular eclipses, if a few smaller than the Sun). You won't make me believe this object is the Moon. This is that object «rogue planet» seen orbiting the Sun just on the same date in that year, on February the 27th 2007. This is not the Moon. Not at all.
(Ya no comulgamos con ruedas de molino = You can't fool us more times and once again).
Are you even aware that this video was taken by STEREO and not by SDO? Gotta learn more about satellites orbits and lunar viewing "outside Earth", and a little bit about physics.
Hello there! Have you thought about intellectus list building (do a google search)? Ive heard some unbelivable things about it and my cousin got a ton of buying buyers added to their list.
Carl Sagan - "Our collective free time needs to shift as much as possible to education. Whether you're a young student or finished school long ago, get out to the library whenever you can and work hard to learn everything you can about this world. Each individual and society will benefit from being able to solve more problems and make better decisions. Education is an amazing discovery process that repays you endlessly."
First destructive solar flare was recorded in 1859. Telegraph poles were on fire and telegraph network were down. After careful study, next event was already foreseen with 90% life wipe out but Scientists coded the actual date in Religious way to prevent people from panicking (late 19th century). Micheal the Archangel was the key where he defeated Satan and save the Earth from burning in Hell. 2012 - 1859 = 153.
Search 153 that relates "Micheal the Archangel" in Google. You'll be surprised.
The thing is, it's not the fact it is on NASA's website that makes it real, it's the fact that there is every evidence to suggest they are real, SOLAR were certainly launched, they are certainly obtaining images such as this, so why fake the moon traversing the face of the Sun? Unless there is some tangible evidence that such images are 'fake' rather than difficult to explain properly in the tiny area youTube provides, I see no point to paranoia ;)
Nope, but twice now on this video alone I've had to explain the physics behind this to you. Healthy scepticism is good, all-out paranoia is another matter, and it is an insult to people who have worked long and hard to find out more about the universe around them to start accusing them of being part of some kind of 'scam'.
Like the Anti-static tech that allowed your computer to be designed and built? NASA Tech.
Like the Anti-icing coating that keeps planes flying? NASA Tech.
Like the Scratch-Resistant lenses on Telescopes? NASA Tech.
Like the next generation of Prosthetics? NASA Tech.
Considering that earlier on in this very video you hadn't even figured out the image wasn't taken from Earth, I find your authority in the matter rather limited.
Correct. Maybe you should actually learn a bit about the STEREO telescope system before you start calling people sheeples or it's output 'animations', but then, that would actually require learning something for once wouldn't it?
Fact is, this is a Video, not an animation. To lower people who have an interest in these Videos to the level of 'Sheeples' is ridiculous, and to call it an animation alongside that implies you believe it is 'made up'. That's an insult to everyone involved. People are quite happy to live off the benefits of developing this tech, yet the amount who refuse to believe it does what it is designed to do is amazing, despite seeing evidence on a daily basis.
Nope, it's pretty much the same distance, what has changed in this image is the distance from the moon :)
There's a nice little demonstration if you close one eye, and place your finger so that it obscures your monitor. Now move your head back slowly, you'll see that your finger gets 'smaller' from your perspective much faster than the monitor does because what made it optically larger was distance. It's that parallax effect that causes what is shown in this Video :)
The circle is the moon. STEREO-B was about 1.9-2.1 Million km from the Earth at this point in a Geocentric orbit around the Sun, and roughly the same distance from the Sun as the Earth is, but a lot further away from the Earth itself than the moon is.
No worries, I was probably being on the defensive because I've been trying to explain to people how the Moon can look smaller compared to the Sun the further you are from it, so I apologise if it seemed like I was being patronising.
no its too small because like others said, the way we see it from here they look the same size because of the distance difference. an eclipse doesnt look like this at all because the moon covers the ENTIRE sun even though the sun is bigger than it.
That's an optical effect that only applies from the Earth's surface. The STEREO spacecraft are not orbitting the Earth, they used a slingshot around the moon to place them into Heliocentric, rather than Geocentric orbit.
The moon image was taken on 12th March 2007 from an oblique angle to the Earth by the 'A' spacecraft which was ahead of the Earths orbit and looking across the plane of orbit, so the moon was visually smaller.
Just to clarify this post, the Earth is roughly 384,000km from the Moon, STEREO B (Not A as I erroneously posted last time) is 1.9 Million km from the Moon, just under 5 times further away. This makes the apparent size of the Moon 5 times smaller, and because STEREO B is in a Heliocentric orbit at 1AU, the Sun remains the same apparent size as it does from Earth.
@Andyrolled lol the moon is very small in comparison to the sun The Earth is small compared to the sun, that is the moon and it only looks little because of the distances, the sun only looks the same size as the mmon on earth because the sun is time bigger than the moon but that much further away too
@Andyrolled actually i would say that the moon is too big to be real .. maybe you did not know but the sun is actually 416 times bigger then the moon ...
Trivia: The Moon is 400 times smaller than the Sun, but it is 400 times closer to the Earth, allowing it to fit perfectly over the Sun during an eclipse. In an annular eclipse, the Moon is slightly further away, allowing a ring of sunlight to be visible around the limb of the Moon (annular from the Latin for ring 'annulus').
Just to let you know the Longest Ever Solar Eclipse seen and recorded in stone is over Albuquerque NM USA and the date is 759 BCE. Sept. 27. The youtube user nmRevealedTours uses cyber sky to show it, run the date and location. I ran it on 6 different trial programs my self with the same results every time. I set it up as a screensaver video that starts 7:51am to 6:15pm as min. = sec. (about a 10 min loop)
Sorry for the late reply, There probably was, there's a Solar Eclipse somewhere most years, but it wouldn't matter either way because this wasn't taken from the perspective of the Earth's surface, so, for example if you were on Mars, the Earths moon could cross the Sun (you wouldn't see it most likely, but bear with me), and that would be an eclipse, even though the shadow might go nowhere near Earth itself.
Because the camera is set to only pick up Ultraviolet light. Before you make a post asking such a dumb question, make sure your spelling is better than a 6 yr. old kid, "y iz the sun purple?" it makes you look even more retarded than you already are.
@MilesB1975 Well, you're sort of right. The STEREO spacecraft uses ultraviolet cameras to image the sun so the original image was colored to represent what UV light might look like if we could see it. Some of the other colors like the yellows and greens probably represent different wavelengths and are differentiated visually by different colors. So what i am saying is that the image was artificially colored to allow for scientists to differentiate between different temperatures of wavelengths.
"The Sun and the Moon are two of the Signs of God: they do not darken for the death or birth of any person, but God strikes fear into His servants by means of them. So when you see them darken, remember and mention God, declare His Greatness, offer prayer, give in charity, and supplicate to Him and seek His forgiveness." (Holy Quran, Surat Fussilat, the Signs Explained)
@Panz82 There are many scientists they share the same opinion with me.Do you think that they are fanatic too? Or do you think that you more clever than them? Regards.
@lhaley14 first thing...i also never said that i believed in evolution. i might be strongly arguing for it but thats different. second i talked to a geologist that graduated from Virginia Tech with a PhD, he believed in evolution, and was an atheist, but he was the one that told me about the rocks being crushed. He said without a doubt in his mind that the entire Appalachian Mountains were underwater at some point in time. He also said that the App Mts were bigger than the rockies but....
But this all began with a simple disagreement of mutual exclusion of second law and evolution. Do you believe order can be increased without purpose (or design)?
@lhaley14 order cant be increased without order already being in place. what i mean is that all the order that we humans classify as an increase in order comes from an orderly occurrence. but the order had to start somewhere. so no i do not believe that order can increase without purpose/design. everything in our universe is orderly and its slowly losing it...the universe is slowly breaking down/dying. so the order was put in place by a conscious being.
@EazyE6793 Can the following fit in your beliefs? God set everything in motion (assuming our models are correct) at time t=0 (the Big Bang), left everything to evolve (galactic systems, star systems, life, etc...) and here we are. There is no scientific explanation for anything before t=0 (no observations). We don't even attempt to test it. Since order can increase (as long as a net increase of disorder - breakdown) can't the above be conceivable, and over a vast time scale, our models correct?
@lhaley14 and honestly im not saying that the universe hasnt evolved. it says that the earth was here before God fixed it up if you will. But the order was put here before the universe. You also ask why would God use rules that violate our observations. That is a VERY bold statement. If God is real you just put yourself beside him and said he is wrong. We observe. He makes. a color blind tells abd artist that he painting is red, but in fact the painting is green. who is right?
@EazyE6793 I didn't say God is wrong. I questioned the correctness of the Bible. By our definition, green is a color associated with a specific frequency. So, if the paint is emitting light of that frequency, then it is green. If it is detected by someone else at a different frequency (tinted glasses, color blind, etc...) that doesn't change the color of the object.
@lhaley14 people say that religion was what science is now, back then. it was their explanation for everything. Im not a science or math guru so i cant sit here and prove things to you that i know nothing about. I recommend that you look up a scientist named Dr. Carl Baugh. study his work. he is one of the best archeologists in the world. if somebody finds something somewhere they call him to come look at it. i think youll find it interesting what he has to say.
@EazyE6793 I know of a Carl Baugh. It's probably not the same one you're referring to because he is not called upon by anyone of any reputable name. In fact, his work has been shown time and time again to likely be false. See, in science, whatever you publish comes directly under scrutiny of the public. If your work cannot be reproduced, then it is wrong or statistically insignificant. If you want a good archaeologist, check out Dr. Ze'ev Herzog of Telaviv University. This man is truly unbiased.
@lhaley14 im obviously we are both arguing/debating from a very biased stand point. you are for evolution and big bang. me for creationism. i think that if somehow somewhere there were to be a perfectly unbiased debated looking at every fact or possible theory from different minds it would be a very even debate.
@EazyE6793 I know it seems I'm biased, and maybe I am at this point, but it's taken me a long time of convincing arguments to get here. I have a scientific background and I have studied several models. Complex things just fit, and it's hard to deny the most likely. Though I don't have blind faith holding my logical mind behind (and obviously you don't either), I still have very spiritual beliefs, none of which are in the Old Testament. I follow the Sermon on the Mount, for it's teachings, but...
@lhaley14 i can disprove every so called contradiction in the Bible. I have questioned my faith so many times i cant count how many. I've studied a lot and plan on continuing to study how everything happens and works and why. But i believe that there are things that no matter how long man is in existence we wont be able to explain. Because if we can explain everything there is no need for a god. God has no limitations so whats to say he cant mess around with his creation a little.
@EazyE6793 I'm sure we will never get to understand everything. There is far too much to understand. Please help me with one contradiction. How could trees that bear fruit have existed before the Sun was lit? And why would limitless God need a day to rest?
@lhaley14 as you said...light is on the same frequency so no matter the glass or eye condition its still the same color. but let me continue my story. so nobody tells the man hes color blind or that the painting is in fact red. so the man, being a very popular journalist rights a story about how amazing this painting is. everyone in the world reads it and wants to see this green painting for themselves. but until they can go they cannot see what it actually is.
@EazyE6793 Well, science doesn't work this way. We pride ourselves by not believing what someone says. In science, that person puts a complete description of his work out. Even grad students are required to do this. Then, anyone can attempt to reproduce this. If it can't be reproduced, then we have a problem. How many Big Foot "carcasses" have been costume, or mixtures of animals, etc.... Even the person who filmed the first "Big Foot" is reported to admit it a hoax on his death bed. Men lie.
@EazyE6793 ... not much more in the Bible. I've given a taste of my beliefs a couple posts down, I truly feel that science is a great tool that helps us understand nature. Science is far from perfect (it's nature is to be imperfect), but if it's used as intended, we can find models of nature with high probabilities. Acceptance of the likeliest is the best we can do as nothing can be proved. And when conflicting information comes along, the model is modified or thrown out.
@lhaley14 First of all. asking if God can make a rock he can't pick up is only a limitation of our language...its a play on words and is invalid. I'll say the same can nothing turn into something. Math says it can't. 0/1 = undefined. something(0) exploding(/1) into everything(undefined) aka not possible. Secondly i have definately thought about maybe a big bang is how God made everything, but if he wrote the Bible(through people) all of it has to be true, not parts of it....
@EazyE6793 0/1 = 0. Even though the limit is in our language, there is still a logical limit. And here is your deductive logic again. Since you believe the bible to be true, then all observations are explained by the bible. You know your answer already. Science uses inductive logic. The observations made have led to the formation of the general theory. I guess it can be less stressful to simply turn off thought and believe the answer is given than to constantly search for the answers.
@lhaley14 we as humans are a very prideful race. we think were right and we hate to admit were wrong. so maybe our technology points to what weve theorized but, our technology is nothing compared to what actually happens in our world. until we have a devise that can tell me exactly how fast a galaxy is moving away or how big an electron actually is, we can be very wrong. and we probably are very wrong.
@EazyE6793 We probably are wrong, but we're probably more correct than we were in the past. This is the beauty of science. Men hate to be wrong. But in science you can't help it. When you put your work out and someone shows it's wrong, you cannot deny it. Scientists can admit when they are wrong. Creationists can't admit when they are wrong because if they do, then their faith has been lost. And if I believed in the same end as they do for lost faith, then I'd never admit being wrong either.
@EazyE6793 The fact that all science is public and anyone can check your work makes it very powerful. I have never known biologists to be of the conspiring type. In fact, they love nothing more than to argue and 1-up each other. The greatest thing a scientist can do for himself is to refute an established theory. And for macro evolution, check out some recent journals (past 10 years) and you'll see we are finding more transitional forms, DNA sequences, etc... that support it.
@EazyE6793 The defecate of an organism is one of the increases of disorder as the organism takes the food energy and increases order. The second law is still followed since the increase of disorder is greater than the increase of order. Don't forget to include heat, etc.... By your statement, you will never see order naturally increase. When a handful of sand is thrown into the air, the most dense material falls first and layers are created until the least dense material falls.
@lhaley14 my chemistry teacher showed us an example of energy change...ill break it down....he said that if the energy starts at level A and goes to level M thats the change. it does matter how it got there. it couldve went from A to F to W,Y,Z, and then back to M. The change is A to M. what im saying is, it doesnt matter how it got there but it went from A to M, disorderly to orderly. and sand is a little less complicated than a solar system, much less a life.
@EazyE6793 The second law doesn't say that it order cannot be increased. It only says that the total disorder of the isolated system is increased. You cool water into ice, which increases order, but the increase of temperature of the surroundings is more disorder than the increase of order of the ice.
@EazyE6793 Same with human functions. The increase in order due to the growth of a human is much less than the increase of disorder by the increase in temperature of the surroundings plus the waste products coming out of the body.
@lhaley14 but humans...trees..animals anything thats alive is so much more complicated than water. and actually your example earlier with sand isnt true...gravity pulls on everything the same. a feather will fall jus as fast as a boulder in a vaccum. and the reason you know that your computer is mn made is because its so complicated it couldnt have jut happened. the cell of a plant is much more complicated than that computer and the best theory that we have is that it just happened.
@EazyE6793 I didn't say in a vacuum. The gravitational force is not the same (F = GMm/r^2), but the acceleration due to gravity is for objects that are tested at the same location on Earth. The reason why an object with more density falls faster has to do with the interaction with air as well. This is why balloons with helium float.
@EazyE6793 I'm saying that evolutionary processes do not disobey the second law. The second law says the total disorder of the universe will increase with every real process. My examples are processes that occur where order is seen to increase, but there is much more than the most obvious. Collisions of molecules causing faster random motions, production and release of waste products, etc... are what compliment the second law and the increase of disorder is greater than the increase of order.
@lhaley14 and saying that its so complicated it has to be man made isnt a ridiculous assumption. ex. i buy a 2010 honda accord, break it down to every individual part. ill take it back to the factory and set them all there. ill tell no one to touch the parts. they will not form a car. they will sit there for eternity decomposing unless someone thinks about it and puts them together to make a car.
@EazyE6793 Well, if I said exactly the same thing, but replaced your honda with my dog (break him down into parts and place them somewhere and not let anyone touch them), the parts would still not form a dog, but dogs are obviously not man-made. So, we can't just assume a complicated object must be made by man.
@EazyE6793 The second law and evolution are not mutually exclusive. I applaud your questioning. We are not born with this knowledge, and if you continually question things, you will find an answer. But remember to keep your mind open to logic. Oh, and I am more certain my computer is man-made than your computer because I built it and I am man. And to say something is complicated so it couldn't have just happened is ridiculous. Our theories for evolution of cells are not that they just happened.
@lhaley14 they kinda are that they just happened. life isnt spontaneous. out of the nine planets or eight(if you dont count pluto) ours is the only one with life. this proves that life doesnt just happen. and youll argue that the other planets arent suitable to support life. there not suitable for our form of life...why not another form of life. why not instead of carbon based...theyre titanium based(just gettin creative). the theory says we adapted to our planet...why didnt life adapt to others
This has been flagged as spam show
NASA faked the Apollo moon missions in a studio. Here's a link to some of the proof.
spurstalk (dot) com/forums/showthread (dot) php?t=144487
Cosmored 1 week ago in playlist Hubble Telescope Space NASA
NASA? really?? cool though! =)
iLOVENATURE2011 2 weeks ago
This is not the Moon. The Moon is not so small. The Moon eclipses are at least the same radio the Sun is (total eclipses, or annular eclipses, if a few smaller than the Sun). You won't make me believe this object is the Moon. This is that object «rogue planet» seen orbiting the Sun just on the same date in that year, on February the 27th 2007. This is not the Moon. Not at all.
(Ya no comulgamos con ruedas de molino = You can't fool us more times and once again).
TrueHamal 1 month ago
@TrueHamal
Are you even aware that this video was taken by STEREO and not by SDO? Gotta learn more about satellites orbits and lunar viewing "outside Earth", and a little bit about physics.
Flangerus 4 weeks ago
Comment removed
TrueHamal 1 month ago
thats obamas ball hahahaha
carlynicegirl28 2 months ago
@carlynicegirl28 HAhaha
farshad040 3 weeks ago
@farshad040 im just telling the truth hahaha
carlynicegirl28 2 weeks ago
Hello there! Have you thought about intellectus list building (do a google search)? Ive heard some unbelivable things about it and my cousin got a ton of buying buyers added to their list.
FanMyLan 2 months ago
Have nasa released 3d footage of this?
mrtoshko 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Carl Sagan - "Our collective free time needs to shift as much as possible to education. Whether you're a young student or finished school long ago, get out to the library whenever you can and work hard to learn everything you can about this world. Each individual and society will benefit from being able to solve more problems and make better decisions. Education is an amazing discovery process that repays you endlessly."
TheLogicalBrain 3 months ago
First destructive solar flare was recorded in 1859. Telegraph poles were on fire and telegraph network were down. After careful study, next event was already foreseen with 90% life wipe out but Scientists coded the actual date in Religious way to prevent people from panicking (late 19th century). Micheal the Archangel was the key where he defeated Satan and save the Earth from burning in Hell. 2012 - 1859 = 153.
Search 153 that relates "Micheal the Archangel" in Google. You'll be surprised.
pogpog28 5 months ago
What's that black thing?I am not saying it is fake because i know it was posted in NASA's website
Ximan92x 7 months ago
@Ximan92x
The thing is, it's not the fact it is on NASA's website that makes it real, it's the fact that there is every evidence to suggest they are real, SOLAR were certainly launched, they are certainly obtaining images such as this, so why fake the moon traversing the face of the Sun? Unless there is some tangible evidence that such images are 'fake' rather than difficult to explain properly in the tiny area youTube provides, I see no point to paranoia ;)
SuperOfficerDibble 7 months ago
@SuperOfficerDibble but what is that black thing?looks like a nigga's tit
Ximan92x 7 months ago
falsssooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
MrEncho 7 months ago
It looks like the Sun is looking at it
32wallace 7 months ago 2
the moon is hah. dunno why it makes me laugh
gunandhec 7 months ago
0:04 is the greek symbol for the son of god
smacknrat 7 months ago
Space? Space!
SPAAAAACEEEE!!!!!
Gondooo 7 months ago
@Gondooo Go to space. Space? Yea, go to space!
kiloggolik 7 months ago
@kiloggolik FACT: space does not exist.
ricochet188 7 months ago
@ricochet188 ????
FireMaster12100 7 months ago
@FireMaster12100 !!!! play portal !!!!
ricochet188 7 months ago
@ricochet188 must agree with you
Vladythebest96 7 months ago
Very cool.
George Vreeland Hill
GeorgeVreelandHill 8 months ago
Virtually brainwashed sheeples will be amazed by every thing NASA shows them, including "animation".
USFullOfLies 8 months ago
@USFullOfLies
Sheeples are people who get repeatedly proved wrong and then return 2 weeks later because they think no-one is looking....
SuperOfficerDibble 8 months ago
@SuperOfficerDibble
are you deluded?
USFullOfLies 8 months ago
@USFullOfLies
Nope, but twice now on this video alone I've had to explain the physics behind this to you. Healthy scepticism is good, all-out paranoia is another matter, and it is an insult to people who have worked long and hard to find out more about the universe around them to start accusing them of being part of some kind of 'scam'.
SuperOfficerDibble 8 months ago
@SuperOfficerDibble
at least it proves you believe in "animations".
have a nice day sheepy
USFullOfLies 8 months ago
@USFullOfLies
Like the L.E.D's on your computer? NASA Tech.
Like the Anti-static tech that allowed your computer to be designed and built? NASA Tech.
Like the Anti-icing coating that keeps planes flying? NASA Tech.
Like the Scratch-Resistant lenses on Telescopes? NASA Tech.
Like the next generation of Prosthetics? NASA Tech.
Considering that earlier on in this very video you hadn't even figured out the image wasn't taken from Earth, I find your authority in the matter rather limited.
SuperOfficerDibble 8 months ago
@SuperOfficerDibble
holy shit,
now it's "not taken from earth"
USFullOfLies 8 months ago
@USFullOfLies
Correct. Maybe you should actually learn a bit about the STEREO telescope system before you start calling people sheeples or it's output 'animations', but then, that would actually require learning something for once wouldn't it?
SuperOfficerDibble 8 months ago
@SuperOfficerDibble
Does the 'animation' said it?
USFullOfLies 8 months ago
@USFullOfLies
Fact is, this is a Video, not an animation. To lower people who have an interest in these Videos to the level of 'Sheeples' is ridiculous, and to call it an animation alongside that implies you believe it is 'made up'. That's an insult to everyone involved. People are quite happy to live off the benefits of developing this tech, yet the amount who refuse to believe it does what it is designed to do is amazing, despite seeing evidence on a daily basis.
SuperOfficerDibble 8 months ago
@SuperOfficerDibble
"This is a video, not an animation"
epic quote.
but take this quote and post it on your channel
"In land of virtually brainwashed sheeples, the more you educated the more you are brainwashed"
bye.
USFullOfLies 8 months ago
@USFullOfLies
Bye. Have fun running away.
SuperOfficerDibble 8 months ago
It kind of looks like the sun tracks the motion of the moon, think of the two sunspot clusters as eyes.
When you see it, you'll shit bricks.
phuturephunk 9 months ago
when i see this i remember how beautiful this world / life / space is.
iJH97 9 months ago
DOPE!
oath13x 9 months ago
wow!
Chadrueschproduction 9 months ago
DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMMMMMNNNNNN!!!!!!!! thats fucking sick!!!!!!!!
Jesters76 9 months ago
Comment removed
bikenbeer2000 10 months ago
huh... that was fast
MegaLeviboy 10 months ago
@MegaLeviboy its speed up internet nerd
19may0001 9 months ago
So is NASA's spacecraft somewhere 2x the distance of the earth from the sun, as we see here, right?
USFullOfLies 10 months ago
@USFullOfLies
Nope, it's pretty much the same distance, what has changed in this image is the distance from the moon :)
There's a nice little demonstration if you close one eye, and place your finger so that it obscures your monitor. Now move your head back slowly, you'll see that your finger gets 'smaller' from your perspective much faster than the monitor does because what made it optically larger was distance. It's that parallax effect that causes what is shown in this Video :)
SuperOfficerDibble 10 months ago
@SuperOfficerDibble What the hell are you saying?
Im talking about the distance from the camera(wherever the taker is in) , the earth ( obviously the shadowed circle) , and the sun
USFullOfLies 10 months ago
@USFullOfLies
The circle is the moon. STEREO-B was about 1.9-2.1 Million km from the Earth at this point in a Geocentric orbit around the Sun, and roughly the same distance from the Sun as the Earth is, but a lot further away from the Earth itself than the moon is.
SuperOfficerDibble 10 months ago
@SuperOfficerDibble Oh sorry for the mistake, but i think i 've mistaken distinguishing the shadowed circle as the moon,
just had a blink of this video,
USFullOfLies 10 months ago
@USFullOfLies
No worries, I was probably being on the defensive because I've been trying to explain to people how the Moon can look smaller compared to the Sun the further you are from it, so I apologise if it seemed like I was being patronising.
SuperOfficerDibble 10 months ago
great....GREETINGS FROM ITALY
zioband 11 months ago
This is pretty awesome ;O
monstermasher666 11 months ago
no its too small because like others said, the way we see it from here they look the same size because of the distance difference. an eclipse doesnt look like this at all because the moon covers the ENTIRE sun even though the sun is bigger than it.
Andyrolled 11 months ago
@Andyrolled
That's an optical effect that only applies from the Earth's surface. The STEREO spacecraft are not orbitting the Earth, they used a slingshot around the moon to place them into Heliocentric, rather than Geocentric orbit.
The moon image was taken on 12th March 2007 from an oblique angle to the Earth by the 'A' spacecraft which was ahead of the Earths orbit and looking across the plane of orbit, so the moon was visually smaller.
SuperOfficerDibble 10 months ago
@SuperOfficerDibble
Just to clarify this post, the Earth is roughly 384,000km from the Moon, STEREO B (Not A as I erroneously posted last time) is 1.9 Million km from the Moon, just under 5 times further away. This makes the apparent size of the Moon 5 times smaller, and because STEREO B is in a Heliocentric orbit at 1AU, the Sun remains the same apparent size as it does from Earth.
SuperOfficerDibble 10 months ago
Why would anyone seriously think this is fake....
EmperorofCartoons 11 months ago
1. its probably fake
2. that cant be the moon its too small, its probably mercury or venus
Andyrolled 11 months ago
@Andyrolled lol the moon is very small in comparison to the sun The Earth is small compared to the sun, that is the moon and it only looks little because of the distances, the sun only looks the same size as the mmon on earth because the sun is time bigger than the moon but that much further away too
jamesracek88 11 months ago
@Andyrolled actually i would say that the moon is too big to be real .. maybe you did not know but the sun is actually 416 times bigger then the moon ...
Bjo15 11 months ago
Is it bad of me to take joy in scorlling down and reading the stupid comments? Especially the ones that just say fake :P
bgs893 11 months ago
@bgs893 nah its not bad of you, i do the same thing lol.. :)
biatchd 11 months ago
that can't the moon, it's too small, isn't it?
MrDaveArt 11 months ago
Comment removed
marasu66 11 months ago
@marasu66 I think it's a ufo, some of them are circular and very big.
MrDaveArt 11 months ago
fake
mayagrace11 1 year ago
OMG THAT IS SOOOOOO AMZING!! I am freaking out here!!!
annemariebratz 1 year ago
wow the moon moves fast
KcAjzIbiT 1 year ago
@KcAjzIbiT Its a time lapse lol
VocalistOfTruth 1 year ago
what is tht giant purple thing!?!??!?i am not good with space stuff so dont blame me!
maddyrox100 1 year ago
@maddyrox100 um the sun mate......
TheCTM13 1 year ago 2
THE EYE OF SAURON !!!!!!!!
jaythebadkid 1 year ago
pause at 0:04 looks like an evil eye
bibi4u200 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
/watch?v=TWF7osOouW8
naperoko 1 year ago
Beautiful
B0rnToRoll 1 year ago
uso=unter see objekt,under see objekt oder/or wetterballong !
proconiswarman 1 year ago
ufo
proconiswarman 1 year ago
@proconiswarman No because its identified. Its an IFO
DemonAMVs 1 year ago
Trivia: The Moon is 400 times smaller than the Sun, but it is 400 times closer to the Earth, allowing it to fit perfectly over the Sun during an eclipse. In an annular eclipse, the Moon is slightly further away, allowing a ring of sunlight to be visible around the limb of the Moon (annular from the Latin for ring 'annulus').
sulijoo 1 year ago 8
moon: EEEEEEEEEKKKK!!!!!!!! youre too bright get out of my way!!!!!!!
amberwolfgirl 1 year ago
Moon: umm i want--- hey get outta my way!!!
themeter3000 1 year ago
Is this actual recording? Where was the recording made from? Very cool.
zsifk 1 year ago
@zsifk lol have you read the title?
tayeulecolis 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Moon "photo-bombed" the Sun. Nice. :)
laserfloyd 1 year ago
The Moon "photobombed" the Sun. Nice. :)
laserfloyd 1 year ago
Moon: WAAAAAASSSSSSAAAAAAAAPP!!!!!!!! Earth: WAAAAAAAASSSSSAAAAAAAPP!!! Nasa Stereo Spacecraft: True True
rg78578785 1 year ago 10
@rg78578785 Space core:IM IN SPAAAAAAAAAACEEEE
Pokeblox45 6 months ago
youtube was before christ u E-tard! ha
rg78578785 1 year ago
Just to let you know the Longest Ever Solar Eclipse seen and recorded in stone is over Albuquerque NM USA and the date is 759 BCE. Sept. 27. The youtube user nmRevealedTours uses cyber sky to show it, run the date and location. I ran it on 6 different trial programs my self with the same results every time. I set it up as a screensaver video that starts 7:51am to 6:15pm as min. = sec. (about a 10 min loop)
nmRevealedTours 1 year ago
This is fake 100%, dont believe anything these retard's say
ZoeHannahan 1 year ago
@ZoeHannahan your a retard
predstoric 1 year ago
@predstoric The sun is real, the moon is fake, I seen the real video
ZoeHannahan 1 year ago
@ZoeHannahan wha the moon is fake???? weird
7898ritchie 1 year ago
@ZoeHannahan Your a retard, retard
mexicano7771000 1 year ago
@mexicano7771000 Im also cute ^______________^
ZoeHannahan 1 year ago
@ZoeHannahan Im fun ~( ^ . ^ )~
mexicano7771000 1 year ago
@mexicano7771000 omg me too!! let's be firend's!!!
ZoeHannahan 1 year ago
@ZoeHannahan Umm no -.-
mexicano7771000 1 year ago
the sun looks all....gay.
Djdwaynedlivecom 1 year ago
It was posted by NASA on their website on the 12th March 2007 and is NOT fake.
Took me 15 seconds of this thing called research to find that out...
SuperOfficerDibble 1 year ago 69
@SuperOfficerDibble LOL so true XD
MjrDario 1 year ago
@SuperOfficerDibble there was a solar eclipse in 2007?!
TheSpaceBandits 9 months ago
@TheSpaceBandits
Sorry for the late reply, There probably was, there's a Solar Eclipse somewhere most years, but it wouldn't matter either way because this wasn't taken from the perspective of the Earth's surface, so, for example if you were on Mars, the Earths moon could cross the Sun (you wouldn't see it most likely, but bear with me), and that would be an eclipse, even though the shadow might go nowhere near Earth itself.
SuperOfficerDibble 8 months ago
@SuperOfficerDibble fake
marioluigi1234567 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
imba fake nice try
ShockNibiru 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
fake
Pirke0007 1 year ago
@Pirke0007 not fake.... nasa enhances the picture of the sun to note any changes of its atmosphere
k32323 1 year ago
Moon: "excuse me, pardon me, just going to get more popcorn."
SuperBamaslim 1 year ago 200
@SuperBamaslim lol popcorn
MrCheekymonkey1996 1 year ago
@SuperBamaslim HAHAHAHAHA XD
SandBox86 1 year ago
@SuperBamaslim lol omfg your fcking hilarios you made me cry while laughing lol
april76301 1 year ago
@SuperBamaslim XD Sun: "Oh go ahead then. Why iseverybody clapping down there?"
LisaMini32 1 year ago
@SuperBamaslim LOL
Wielder432 1 year ago
@SuperBamaslim Wow you're so funny that you made me laugh haha. I thumbs up for this!
supercoolmunkee 1 year ago
@SuperBamaslim Lol.
PrincessPearl33 1 year ago
@SuperBamaslim hahahahah love it!
imigeru 8 months ago
@SuperBamaslim Bring some chocolate and soda too, plz..!! *kiss blow* XD
tsumine 7 months ago
I know, also known as false colour.
MilesB1975 1 year ago
There are 8-9 planets that orbit the sun ..
papparazi81 1 year ago
Everyone knows that eclipses are caused by Dragons eating the Sun.
MilesB1975 1 year ago
@MilesB1975 LOL i thought i was kungfu space monkeys :/
Best be packing my bags
a3har 1 year ago
Excellent video graphics Nasa did
kadmany 1 year ago
y iz the sun purple?
maddie123ist 1 year ago
@maddie123ist yea, it can be, in infrared, ultravioler or xray. It must has some color.
4kx 1 year ago
@maddie123ist
Because the camera is set to only pick up Ultraviolet light. Before you make a post asking such a dumb question, make sure your spelling is better than a 6 yr. old kid, "y iz the sun purple?" it makes you look even more retarded than you already are.
YearZer02022 1 year ago
@maddie123ist I think the Sun looks purple here because of the coloured filter that the camera looks through, Like Sunglasses for the camera.
MilesB1975 1 year ago
@MilesB1975 Well, you're sort of right. The STEREO spacecraft uses ultraviolet cameras to image the sun so the original image was colored to represent what UV light might look like if we could see it. Some of the other colors like the yellows and greens probably represent different wavelengths and are differentiated visually by different colors. So what i am saying is that the image was artificially colored to allow for scientists to differentiate between different temperatures of wavelengths.
TheBohrokMan 1 year ago
normal poeple call that, an accelerated filming of the sun, the earth and the moon.
joerisoldier 1 year ago
Does the atmospheres lense-like shape zoom in on things as they are closer to it or is the amount of light that it blocks create some huge effect?
edgeofsins 1 year ago
Solar Eclipse
"The Sun and the Moon are two of the Signs of God: they do not darken for the death or birth of any person, but God strikes fear into His servants by means of them. So when you see them darken, remember and mention God, declare His Greatness, offer prayer, give in charity, and supplicate to Him and seek His forgiveness." (Holy Quran, Surat Fussilat, the Signs Explained)
kaltersi 1 year ago
@kaltersi LOL so fanatic you have to give a natural phenomenon a religious explanation? (sorry for my bad english)
Panz82 1 year ago
Comment removed
kaltersi 1 year ago
@Panz82 There are many scientists they share the same opinion with me.Do you think that they are fanatic too? Or do you think that you more clever than them? Regards.
kaltersi 1 year ago
@Panz82 LOL religion without science is blind.
So you have to make them co-exist.
a3har 1 year ago
@a3har i'm not saying anything against that.... i believe in God but i believe also in science
Panz82 1 year ago
@Panz82 sorry brah......it's one or the other
Univarman 1 year ago
@Univarman definitely no mate
Panz82 1 year ago
thats cool
kazb25 1 year ago
the sun has a mole that moves
redsuyguy98 1 year ago
@EazyE6793 The main question I want to ask you is, do you believe order can be increased without purpose (or design)?
lhaley14 1 year ago
@lhaley14 first thing...i also never said that i believed in evolution. i might be strongly arguing for it but thats different. second i talked to a geologist that graduated from Virginia Tech with a PhD, he believed in evolution, and was an atheist, but he was the one that told me about the rocks being crushed. He said without a doubt in his mind that the entire Appalachian Mountains were underwater at some point in time. He also said that the App Mts were bigger than the rockies but....
EazyE6793 1 year ago
@EazyE6793 i meant to write creationism instead of evolution on that first post.
EazyE6793 1 year ago
But this all began with a simple disagreement of mutual exclusion of second law and evolution. Do you believe order can be increased without purpose (or design)?
lhaley14 1 year ago
@lhaley14 order cant be increased without order already being in place. what i mean is that all the order that we humans classify as an increase in order comes from an orderly occurrence. but the order had to start somewhere. so no i do not believe that order can increase without purpose/design. everything in our universe is orderly and its slowly losing it...the universe is slowly breaking down/dying. so the order was put in place by a conscious being.
EazyE6793 1 year ago
@EazyE6793 Can the following fit in your beliefs? God set everything in motion (assuming our models are correct) at time t=0 (the Big Bang), left everything to evolve (galactic systems, star systems, life, etc...) and here we are. There is no scientific explanation for anything before t=0 (no observations). We don't even attempt to test it. Since order can increase (as long as a net increase of disorder - breakdown) can't the above be conceivable, and over a vast time scale, our models correct?
lhaley14 1 year ago
@lhaley14 and honestly im not saying that the universe hasnt evolved. it says that the earth was here before God fixed it up if you will. But the order was put here before the universe. You also ask why would God use rules that violate our observations. That is a VERY bold statement. If God is real you just put yourself beside him and said he is wrong. We observe. He makes. a color blind tells abd artist that he painting is red, but in fact the painting is green. who is right?
EazyE6793 1 year ago
@EazyE6793 I didn't say God is wrong. I questioned the correctness of the Bible. By our definition, green is a color associated with a specific frequency. So, if the paint is emitting light of that frequency, then it is green. If it is detected by someone else at a different frequency (tinted glasses, color blind, etc...) that doesn't change the color of the object.
lhaley14 1 year ago
@lhaley14 people say that religion was what science is now, back then. it was their explanation for everything. Im not a science or math guru so i cant sit here and prove things to you that i know nothing about. I recommend that you look up a scientist named Dr. Carl Baugh. study his work. he is one of the best archeologists in the world. if somebody finds something somewhere they call him to come look at it. i think youll find it interesting what he has to say.
EazyE6793 1 year ago
@EazyE6793 I know of a Carl Baugh. It's probably not the same one you're referring to because he is not called upon by anyone of any reputable name. In fact, his work has been shown time and time again to likely be false. See, in science, whatever you publish comes directly under scrutiny of the public. If your work cannot be reproduced, then it is wrong or statistically insignificant. If you want a good archaeologist, check out Dr. Ze'ev Herzog of Telaviv University. This man is truly unbiased.
lhaley14 1 year ago
@lhaley14 im obviously we are both arguing/debating from a very biased stand point. you are for evolution and big bang. me for creationism. i think that if somehow somewhere there were to be a perfectly unbiased debated looking at every fact or possible theory from different minds it would be a very even debate.
EazyE6793 1 year ago
@EazyE6793 I know it seems I'm biased, and maybe I am at this point, but it's taken me a long time of convincing arguments to get here. I have a scientific background and I have studied several models. Complex things just fit, and it's hard to deny the most likely. Though I don't have blind faith holding my logical mind behind (and obviously you don't either), I still have very spiritual beliefs, none of which are in the Old Testament. I follow the Sermon on the Mount, for it's teachings, but...
lhaley14 1 year ago
@lhaley14 i can disprove every so called contradiction in the Bible. I have questioned my faith so many times i cant count how many. I've studied a lot and plan on continuing to study how everything happens and works and why. But i believe that there are things that no matter how long man is in existence we wont be able to explain. Because if we can explain everything there is no need for a god. God has no limitations so whats to say he cant mess around with his creation a little.
EazyE6793 1 year ago
@EazyE6793 I'm sure we will never get to understand everything. There is far too much to understand. Please help me with one contradiction. How could trees that bear fruit have existed before the Sun was lit? And why would limitless God need a day to rest?
lhaley14 1 year ago
@lhaley14 as you said...light is on the same frequency so no matter the glass or eye condition its still the same color. but let me continue my story. so nobody tells the man hes color blind or that the painting is in fact red. so the man, being a very popular journalist rights a story about how amazing this painting is. everyone in the world reads it and wants to see this green painting for themselves. but until they can go they cannot see what it actually is.
EazyE6793 1 year ago
@EazyE6793 Well, science doesn't work this way. We pride ourselves by not believing what someone says. In science, that person puts a complete description of his work out. Even grad students are required to do this. Then, anyone can attempt to reproduce this. If it can't be reproduced, then we have a problem. How many Big Foot "carcasses" have been costume, or mixtures of animals, etc.... Even the person who filmed the first "Big Foot" is reported to admit it a hoax on his death bed. Men lie.
lhaley14 1 year ago
@EazyE6793 ... not much more in the Bible. I've given a taste of my beliefs a couple posts down, I truly feel that science is a great tool that helps us understand nature. Science is far from perfect (it's nature is to be imperfect), but if it's used as intended, we can find models of nature with high probabilities. Acceptance of the likeliest is the best we can do as nothing can be proved. And when conflicting information comes along, the model is modified or thrown out.
lhaley14 1 year ago
@lhaley14 First of all. asking if God can make a rock he can't pick up is only a limitation of our language...its a play on words and is invalid. I'll say the same can nothing turn into something. Math says it can't. 0/1 = undefined. something(0) exploding(/1) into everything(undefined) aka not possible. Secondly i have definately thought about maybe a big bang is how God made everything, but if he wrote the Bible(through people) all of it has to be true, not parts of it....
EazyE6793 1 year ago
@EazyE6793 0/1 = 0. Even though the limit is in our language, there is still a logical limit. And here is your deductive logic again. Since you believe the bible to be true, then all observations are explained by the bible. You know your answer already. Science uses inductive logic. The observations made have led to the formation of the general theory. I guess it can be less stressful to simply turn off thought and believe the answer is given than to constantly search for the answers.
lhaley14 1 year ago
@lhaley14 we as humans are a very prideful race. we think were right and we hate to admit were wrong. so maybe our technology points to what weve theorized but, our technology is nothing compared to what actually happens in our world. until we have a devise that can tell me exactly how fast a galaxy is moving away or how big an electron actually is, we can be very wrong. and we probably are very wrong.
EazyE6793 1 year ago
@EazyE6793 We probably are wrong, but we're probably more correct than we were in the past. This is the beauty of science. Men hate to be wrong. But in science you can't help it. When you put your work out and someone shows it's wrong, you cannot deny it. Scientists can admit when they are wrong. Creationists can't admit when they are wrong because if they do, then their faith has been lost. And if I believed in the same end as they do for lost faith, then I'd never admit being wrong either.
lhaley14 1 year ago
@lhaley14 creationists are just fanatics
Panz82 1 year ago
@EazyE6793 The fact that all science is public and anyone can check your work makes it very powerful. I have never known biologists to be of the conspiring type. In fact, they love nothing more than to argue and 1-up each other. The greatest thing a scientist can do for himself is to refute an established theory. And for macro evolution, check out some recent journals (past 10 years) and you'll see we are finding more transitional forms, DNA sequences, etc... that support it.
lhaley14 1 year ago
weareallstarstuff. tumblr. com/
you won't regret it! ★☆
eybaebae 1 year ago
Comment removed
lhaley14 1 year ago
@EazyE6793 The defecate of an organism is one of the increases of disorder as the organism takes the food energy and increases order. The second law is still followed since the increase of disorder is greater than the increase of order. Don't forget to include heat, etc.... By your statement, you will never see order naturally increase. When a handful of sand is thrown into the air, the most dense material falls first and layers are created until the least dense material falls.
lhaley14 1 year ago
@lhaley14 my chemistry teacher showed us an example of energy change...ill break it down....he said that if the energy starts at level A and goes to level M thats the change. it does matter how it got there. it couldve went from A to F to W,Y,Z, and then back to M. The change is A to M. what im saying is, it doesnt matter how it got there but it went from A to M, disorderly to orderly. and sand is a little less complicated than a solar system, much less a life.
EazyE6793 1 year ago
@EazyE6793 The second law doesn't say that it order cannot be increased. It only says that the total disorder of the isolated system is increased. You cool water into ice, which increases order, but the increase of temperature of the surroundings is more disorder than the increase of order of the ice.
lhaley14 1 year ago
@EazyE6793 Same with human functions. The increase in order due to the growth of a human is much less than the increase of disorder by the increase in temperature of the surroundings plus the waste products coming out of the body.
lhaley14 1 year ago
@lhaley14 but humans...trees..animals anything thats alive is so much more complicated than water. and actually your example earlier with sand isnt true...gravity pulls on everything the same. a feather will fall jus as fast as a boulder in a vaccum. and the reason you know that your computer is mn made is because its so complicated it couldnt have jut happened. the cell of a plant is much more complicated than that computer and the best theory that we have is that it just happened.
EazyE6793 1 year ago
@EazyE6793 I didn't say in a vacuum. The gravitational force is not the same (F = GMm/r^2), but the acceleration due to gravity is for objects that are tested at the same location on Earth. The reason why an object with more density falls faster has to do with the interaction with air as well. This is why balloons with helium float.
lhaley14 1 year ago
@EazyE6793 I'm saying that evolutionary processes do not disobey the second law. The second law says the total disorder of the universe will increase with every real process. My examples are processes that occur where order is seen to increase, but there is much more than the most obvious. Collisions of molecules causing faster random motions, production and release of waste products, etc... are what compliment the second law and the increase of disorder is greater than the increase of order.
lhaley14 1 year ago
@lhaley14 and saying that its so complicated it has to be man made isnt a ridiculous assumption. ex. i buy a 2010 honda accord, break it down to every individual part. ill take it back to the factory and set them all there. ill tell no one to touch the parts. they will not form a car. they will sit there for eternity decomposing unless someone thinks about it and puts them together to make a car.
EazyE6793 1 year ago
@EazyE6793 Well, if I said exactly the same thing, but replaced your honda with my dog (break him down into parts and place them somewhere and not let anyone touch them), the parts would still not form a dog, but dogs are obviously not man-made. So, we can't just assume a complicated object must be made by man.
lhaley14 1 year ago
@EazyE6793 The second law and evolution are not mutually exclusive. I applaud your questioning. We are not born with this knowledge, and if you continually question things, you will find an answer. But remember to keep your mind open to logic. Oh, and I am more certain my computer is man-made than your computer because I built it and I am man. And to say something is complicated so it couldn't have just happened is ridiculous. Our theories for evolution of cells are not that they just happened.
lhaley14 1 year ago
@lhaley14 they kinda are that they just happened. life isnt spontaneous. out of the nine planets or eight(if you dont count pluto) ours is the only one with life. this proves that life doesnt just happen. and youll argue that the other planets arent suitable to support life. there not suitable for our form of life...why not another form of life. why not instead of carbon based...theyre titanium based(just gettin creative). the theory says we adapted to our planet...why didnt life adapt to others
EazyE6793 1 year ago