All that work with lots of people and expensive lasers to try and prove the Earth is flat. It is so simple and cheap to test for that. If the Earth is flat then the sun must be circling above it once per day at some constant height. That means that the track of the shadow of the tip of a stick should be circular everywhere on Earth at all times of the year. Well, for any spot between the arctic circles, that shadow track is a hyperbola, except on the equinoxes when it is a straight line. Never a circle. Case closed. All one needs to debunk flat Earth is a stick and a sunny day. That is really sad for flerfers!
Their excuse to deny this is that the shape of the ground cannot be determined by looking up at the sky. But modeling this over a flat table and a gym ball will show sky observations can absolutely prove the shape of the surface.
or more easily put not one observation that can be made of the sun supports that it is circling above.... you know the main difference the great 19th century hoax pulled off in the flat earth belief.. all previous FE beliefs thought the sun rose & set. something we see almost every day.
...where it is guaranteed to bend along the surface to any distance, because in the evening and night the surface cools down faster than the air above, creating a strong positive temperature gradient, aka dense layer of air above the surface, with refraction coefficients above 1 and more with ease. Refraction coefficient 1 or greater means light curves with the same radius as the earth or smaller. OF COURSE THE LASER AIMED AT THE HORIZON WILL BE VISIBLE AT THE OTHER END. How many years do this clowns need to understand refraction, when there are excellent resources available for free to study it? And FECore claims to have engineers on board. Really? Sorry for the clown. But FECore called me a clown as I pointed out their many errors in the doku of their last test. They couldn't even use a calculator correctly, have no clue what a correct equation looks like, and they messed up the refraction calculations completely. They tried to apply Snell's law on a medium with a density gradient. Even in Wikipedia is stated that Snell's law can only be applied on the boundary of 2 homogeneous media. For air you have to apply Fermat's principle using calculus. The result is, light curves in an arc with a certain radius depending mainly on the temperature gradient. This is already studied in great detail since centuries and the resulting equations are even published in Wikipedia. If you don't think Wikipedia is correct, I independently derived exactly the same equations myself from basic physics, using the Ciddor equation to calculate the index of refraction and Fermat's principle and Calculus.
But then the beam is level over the horizon. They should do some science on a shorter distance and measure the refraction with an auto level at the same height.
@@vimalramachandran I think that’s really difficult to accomplish. For starters you would need measurements for temperature and moisture along the entire path of the beam.
Globebusters Bob I know you will see this, perhaps you should explain how the ham radio repeater on the ISS works and why Doppler shifts need to be accounted for....
Or that it shows up on schedule as predicted. Occasionally you can see 2 passes 90 minutes apart. Plus multiple videos of the ISS passing in front of the Sun and Moon.
@@scott_meyer True. I bring that up because Bob is a ham radio license holder and has all the equipment already to test with but refuses to do so. Rather telling in my opinion.
I have screenshots of the ISS repeater received on my SDR, with very obvious Doppler shift. Every time I show it to a flerf, they claim it's a "cartoon" or CGI or say "you can't see radio."
Well, well ...THAT might actually be the bending of light ... If refraction worked just in the OPPOSITE way as it PROVABLY works. (Oops, oops, am I just giving them ideas ... a century long ongoing conspiracy how refraction "really" works?)
@@ReinoGoo Argh, Reino, you're a spoilsport. Don't bring up such nitty gritty details ... it will surely work ... somehow. The "globe lie" had hundred of years to be brought to perfection and during all that time it had the full support of "the powers that be". You need to give that brave little group of flerfs just some more time. Consider how many obstacles, they have to fight, like being banned from social media. Or some especially impertinent people actually go and use math to refute their arguments - when everybody knows math isn't reality! -- Martin
@@mittelwelle_531_khz The ”globe lie” had hundred of years of verification - by practical use. Math gets very real when you use a sextant, a nautical almanac and a chronograph to find your position on the ocean.
@@ReinoGooYou are just somewhat too rational! After a bit more than five years I personally can't tackle all that flat Earth crap in any other way but just by adding my satirical remarks. Reino, am I right you are a bit newer in that "scene" than I am? -- Martin
Wait they said their p900's were not enough to see the targets from the start point? But I thought the p900 was the magic camera that could see behind curves.
wow you sat on this one a long time. Good timing though some folks have started trying to use the FECore laser test as proof again. I guess they didn't know you already destroyed this thing.
Would it matter either way? They rarely ever admit their trickery and false claims have been revealed and often continue to use them for years afterward, just look at how often the silly clown brigade still flabs on about "black swan", despite that being so easily destroyed that it's laughable they ever seriously brought that piece of abstract art ever up...
I'm going to keep posting this ad infinitum or until the flerfs are all extinct. Why is it that the one experiment that would prove/disprove the shape of the earth is the one that no flerfs will ever do? I'm talking about measuring the angular size of the Sun during one single day. There are two ways that I could achieve this; 1) Buy a $2000 solar telescope 2) Use two sticks, a mirror, a piece of cardboard and a piece of string. I'll go for option two, thanks very much! I don't have a lot of spare cash lying around :(
@QED Hello QED, I have not yet conducted this exact experiment but I have hopes that it would succeed. Now for a bit of boring backstory. Many years ago I visited the National Museum of photography in Bradford. Here is a link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Science_and_Media_Museum In one of the corridors they have a pinhole camera photograph onto a large (8x4 foot, I cannot remember) piece of photographic film. What I do remember is that the aperture was formed by four razor blades arranged in a diamond configuration. Now I am not an expert in optics, I can only guess that the sharper the aperture the sharper the image will be. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. You are probably hoping that I will eventually get to the point. A long ago my (ex)wife and I ran a pub/restaurant in a rural location. I knew that a partial eclipse was due. So using a rear-view mirror from a dumped car and the four razor blade trick I projected an image of the Sun through a window into the bar. On the far wall it was approximately 15" diameter from maybe about 45 feet away. If you have a North facing window I suggest that you try this.
Sounds like he has every excuse as to why all of the evidence that would have proved his point isn't present in his video/documentation. "Yes, I proved the Earth is flat. No, I didn't put any of that evidence into my argument about it. I will do it next time." And the next time he does this, he should have some people from both sides of the argument both at the target and the laser source, the way they did it in the first FE documentary.
Not so, it's just a projection of the green Balaton Laser still reflecting between the ice wall and the dome ... back an forth all the time. Btw. - and probably to the deep disappointment of all you Ufologists: that's also what captain Frazior (sp?) observed from his airplane.
So, Sly, are you really suggesting an easy error about date and time slipped in the FEcore document? (Because a tiny little oversight is the worst that might have happened, God forbid you are suggesting that was intentionally!) What kind of interest could FEcore have NOT to meticulously proofread their publications so their donors can be 100% sure the money they give to them isn't just spent to finance a bunch of guys and their spouses a weekend trip to a nice holiday location, like Lake Balaton. No no, Sly, it's really MUCH more probable there's a century long conspiracy going on to lie about the true shape of the Earth, supported by millions of scientists and engineers all around the globe.
3 ปีที่แล้ว +3
To me, that doesn't look like the moon. I don't mind being wrong at that, but is seems to have the wrong color temperature and intensity. I can see that it's over exposed, but I've never seen it make glare just like that. Again, I don't mind being wrong, but that really look like just another light source.
They even boast the moon in both that clip and the test segways.. and the evidence supports it being the moon.. I too could be wrong, but I have this to go on, and it corroborates other findings in pt 2
@@slysparkane808 Drone. I didn't even think of a drone. How upset would they be if someone showed up on their next jaunt and flew a drone vertically up and down above their target?
@@Sableagle Or they could do such a thing (flying a drone up and down) themselves. But no, that would come too close to start doing real science ... But, you just gave me an idea: as refraction doesn't hardly effect a beam of light going straight up, what about pointing two laser beams in a substantial distance from each other straight up, fly a GPS equipped drone over them, and locate the beam maximum? How much apart from each other would the two lasers have to be and how high would the drones need to fly to get a substantial difference between the "globe vs. flat" predictions? But wait a minute: if the two lasers were spaced further away from each other than could be measured with a tape measure, they would need to reveal their equivalent for the Haversine formula on a flat Earth. And so far THAT HAS ALWAYS been a show stopper, because they can't do so: *It would give EVERYBODY even more than seven ways to Sunday to prove them wrong with a simple handheld GPS device.*
Can someone please explain to me why the brightness of the moon is universally bright from the centre to the sides? If it’s the suns light reflecting off of a sphere that we’re observing, shouldn’t there be a ‘hotspot’ of reflection in the centre and very little brightness toward the sides, like everywhere else in the world where light is reflecting off of a sphere? Genuine question!
@@slysparkane808 A dull surface like you describe would surely not reflect light brightly enough, if at all, to luminate the night and cast clear shadows. If I made a sphere of dry dirt, I'm sure it wouldn't reflect light like the moon is said to, if at all. But we can all observe how bright the moon appears, so it would clearly need to be a somewhat reflective surface to be that way, if it's the sun's light being reflected. It MUST be somewhat reflective to be reflecting the sunlight, as described in the heliocentric model, especially as it's VERY bright. So, the surface facing us directly would have to be brightest, with the sides, facing almost 90 degrees away from the face, being much more dull - no brightness at all.
@@charliedurnford3277 wouldnt reflect bright enough? Are you saying that the sand at the beach isnt bright enough to see from a distance? Or the dirt from a farm field? When we see the moon.. it is not a reflection OF the Sun, its surface is simply lit BY the Sun.. FE likes to misuse the action of Reflection to make the absurd Hotspot on a ball claim while remaining ignorant of the fact that nobody claims the Moon to have a smooth surface..
@@slysparkane808 You clearly made no sense If we can see the moon because the sun is lighting it up it's obviously a reflection So wtf are you smoking ?
lol i always laugh when i hear someone say "oh my god" cause if they dont believe in a god then they are invoking something they dont even believe in, and if they do believe in god, then they are breaking one of their god's rules, and blaspheming
@@Kyrelel Well, if you take the bible literally and the “laws” described in it as something to adhere to, saying god’s name outside prayer or when discussing the specific nature of god or the bible, is indeed blasphemy. They used to stone people for doing so.
@@mmixlinus I don't really care what you do mate, I'm just comment on what I think of that particular saying, not a reflection on the video, which I enjoyed
I'm in just a few min and FECORE is already wrong. There is no beam that will never diverge. It's basic optics. The formula for the Airy disk defines the divergence of a beam given the size of the optics and the wavelength of light. There is no way around this. Anyone with any understanding of optics knows this. A good collimater helps, along with a spacial filter, but the Airy limit is still as good as you can do. So they fail in the first few min of this video.
Laser physicist here. Whenever you hear "disperse" it should be "diverge".
good point
All that work with lots of people and expensive lasers to try and prove the Earth is flat.
It is so simple and cheap to test for that.
If the Earth is flat then the sun must be circling above it once per day at some constant height.
That means that the track of the shadow of the tip of a stick should be circular everywhere on Earth at all times of the year.
Well, for any spot between the arctic circles, that shadow track is a hyperbola, except on the equinoxes when it is a straight line.
Never a circle.
Case closed.
All one needs to debunk flat Earth is a stick and a sunny day.
That is really sad for flerfers!
The track of the Sun on the Equator at the Equinoxes is utterly impossible on a Flat Earth. I've never heard them even attempt to explain that.
Their excuse to deny this is that the shape of the ground cannot be determined by looking up at the sky. But modeling this over a flat table and a gym ball will show sky observations can absolutely prove the shape of the surface.
or more easily put not one observation that can be made of the sun supports that it is circling above....
you know the main difference the great 19th century hoax pulled off in the flat earth belief.. all previous FE beliefs thought the sun rose & set. something we see almost every day.
@@vimalramachandran
_Looks at shape of ceiling. Looks at shape of floor. Shakes head at silly flerfers._
More proof of "you have to lie to flerf". Research well done. Thanks Sly.
Exactly as I been saying....they don't level the laser. They just point it at the horizon.
The second time they have done that, makes the experiment completely null and void. So stupid.
...where it is guaranteed to bend along the surface to any distance, because in the evening and night the surface cools down faster than the air above, creating a strong positive temperature gradient, aka dense layer of air above the surface, with refraction coefficients above 1 and more with ease. Refraction coefficient 1 or greater means light curves with the same radius as the earth or smaller.
OF COURSE THE LASER AIMED AT THE HORIZON WILL BE VISIBLE AT THE OTHER END.
How many years do this clowns need to understand refraction, when there are excellent resources available for free to study it? And FECore claims to have engineers on board. Really?
Sorry for the clown. But FECore called me a clown as I pointed out their many errors in the doku of their last test. They couldn't even use a calculator correctly, have no clue what a correct equation looks like, and they messed up the refraction calculations completely. They tried to apply Snell's law on a medium with a density gradient. Even in Wikipedia is stated that Snell's law can only be applied on the boundary of 2 homogeneous media. For air you have to apply Fermat's principle using calculus. The result is, light curves in an arc with a certain radius depending mainly on the temperature gradient. This is already studied in great detail since centuries and the resulting equations are even published in Wikipedia.
If you don't think Wikipedia is correct, I independently derived exactly the same equations myself from basic physics, using the Ciddor equation to calculate the index of refraction and Fermat's principle and Calculus.
@@WalterBislin Given the temperatures and heights published by FE core, can you calculate what the refraction coefficient was in their tests?
But then the beam is level over the horizon.
They should do some science on a shorter distance and measure the refraction with an auto level at the same height.
@@vimalramachandran I think that’s really difficult to accomplish. For starters you would need measurements for temperature and moisture along the entire path of the beam.
Well done Sly. Love the smell of roast FE fail in the morning.
Globebusters Bob I know you will see this, perhaps you should explain how the ham radio repeater on the ISS works and why Doppler shifts need to be accounted for....
Or that it shows up on schedule as predicted. Occasionally you can see 2 passes 90 minutes apart. Plus multiple videos of the ISS passing in front of the Sun and Moon.
@@scott_meyer True. I bring that up because Bob is a ham radio license holder and has all the equipment already to test with but refuses to do so. Rather telling in my opinion.
@@gps9308
I want to catch a Solar or Lunar transit. A few months back a Solar transit was visible from my house but clouds ruined that.
I have screenshots of the ISS repeater received on my SDR, with very obvious Doppler shift. Every time I show it to a flerf, they claim it's a "cartoon" or CGI or say "you can't see radio."
@@gps9308, if the FOG tests are any indication, he's tested it and it didn't give him the results he wanted to so he's covering it up.
Who need a laser test? We can stand on a mountain, looking at the sun over a different continent, and see it going down in the ocean below us.
Well, well ...THAT might actually be the bending of light ... If refraction worked just in the OPPOSITE way as it PROVABLY works.
(Oops, oops, am I just giving them ideas ... a century long ongoing conspiracy how refraction "really" works?)
@@mittelwelle_531_khz Funny how that bending never bends the constellations of stars out of shape. They only rotate, in the same direction.
@@ReinoGoo Argh, Reino, you're a spoilsport. Don't bring up such nitty gritty details ... it will surely work ... somehow.
The "globe lie" had hundred of years to be brought to perfection and during all that time it had the full support of "the powers that be". You need to give that brave little group of flerfs just some more time.
Consider how many obstacles, they have to fight, like being banned from social media. Or some especially impertinent people actually go and use math to refute their arguments - when everybody knows math isn't reality!
-- Martin
@@mittelwelle_531_khz The ”globe lie” had hundred of years of verification - by practical use.
Math gets very real when you use a sextant, a nautical almanac and a chronograph to find your position on the ocean.
@@ReinoGooYou are just somewhat too rational!
After a bit more than five years I personally can't tackle all that flat Earth crap in any other way but just by adding my satirical remarks.
Reino, am I right you are a bit newer in that "scene" than I am?
-- Martin
Wait they said their p900's were not enough to see the targets from the start point?
But I thought the p900 was the magic camera that could see behind curves.
Surely you must know that the "p" in p900 stands for periscope.
@@misterocain I thought it was Pee 900! Are they saying the flat earth camera of choice is no good?
I find this to be.... interesting.
Don't they know, lying for jeues is still lying?
wow you sat on this one a long time. Good timing though some folks have started trying to use the FECore laser test as proof again. I guess they didn't know you already destroyed this thing.
Part of fecore business plan: wait a long period, then recycle all footage from long ago. Flerfs, being expert researchers, wouldn't notice that 🤭
Would it matter either way? They rarely ever admit their trickery and false claims have been revealed and often continue to use them for years afterward, just look at how often the silly clown brigade still flabs on about "black swan", despite that being so easily destroyed that it's laughable they ever seriously brought that piece of abstract art ever up...
1:12 Almost said curvature lol
When a flat earther says ''yes, there's ahh a massive dump of um media going to be released'' there has to be a joke in there somewhere.
and I'm trying soooo hard not to tell that joke :)
@@slysparkane808 hehee
Loved the "whomp whomp".
But. But But But But.... they are all licensed, experienced, professional engineers.
so are the majority of our nation's hard working plumbers..
I'm going to keep posting this ad infinitum or until the flerfs are all extinct. Why is it that the one experiment that would prove/disprove the shape of the earth is the one that no flerfs will ever do? I'm talking about measuring the angular size of the Sun during one single day.
There are two ways that I could achieve this;
1) Buy a $2000 solar telescope
2) Use two sticks, a mirror, a piece of cardboard and a piece of string.
I'll go for option two, thanks very much! I don't have a lot of spare cash lying around :(
@QED Hello QED, I have not yet conducted this exact experiment but I have hopes that it would succeed.
Now for a bit of boring backstory. Many years ago I visited the National Museum of photography in Bradford. Here is a link:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Science_and_Media_Museum
In one of the corridors they have a pinhole camera photograph onto a large (8x4 foot, I cannot remember) piece of photographic film. What I do remember is that the aperture was formed by four razor blades arranged in a diamond configuration. Now I am not an expert in optics, I can only guess that the sharper the aperture the sharper the image will be. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
You are probably hoping that I will eventually get to the point.
A long ago my (ex)wife and I ran a pub/restaurant in a rural location. I knew that a partial eclipse was due. So using a rear-view mirror from a dumped car and the four razor blade trick I projected an image of the Sun through a window into the bar. On the far wall it was approximately 15" diameter from maybe about 45 feet away.
If you have a North facing window I suggest that you try this.
Nice teaser, Sly. Now we all want to see part 2.
FEcore are they still around. Thought they went the way of the dodo bird.
They have. The only issue is that FECore missed that memo.
So FE core has the same ammount of evidence as the guy whose girlfriend goes to another school but is definetly real, you guys.
So they designed the test specifically to maximize refraction rendering the test useless. Typical.
Sounds like he has every excuse as to why all of the evidence that would have proved his point isn't present in his video/documentation. "Yes, I proved the Earth is flat. No, I didn't put any of that evidence into my argument about it. I will do it next time." And the next time he does this, he should have some people from both sides of the argument both at the target and the laser source, the way they did it in the first FE documentary.
Matt Powel has an inflatable banana in his backyard he calls Dr Peel
I’ve heard this FACT as well
Not so, it's just a projection of the green Balaton Laser still reflecting between the ice wall and the dome ... back an forth all the time.
Btw. - and probably to the deep disappointment of all you Ufologists: that's also what captain Frazior (sp?) observed from his airplane.
Nice video Sly.
Oh, come on man! What is this? Cliffhangers in a YT video? That's quite a sly maneuver. Oh, wait!
Great Job can't wait for Part 2
Sly laying the smackdown AGAIN!!
💪💪🌍🌎🌏
And now here i am raving to a FE debunking video...
You mean.......it’s really a globe? I’m, totally not staggered.
Where is Biloue (Remember Concave Earth?) when you need it? LOL
9:00 It is like bigfoot and nessisie and the aliens. They appear to people but no one has a camera on them
Can’t wait for part 2 with this teasing !!!
hope to have it uploaded tonight
oooohweeeeh! The pimp hand be dealing some hertz today.
10:38 aren't those local stars?? According to flerfers' auto-focus (in)capabilities of course. 🤣
En conclusión??
th-cam.com/video/4o3ioJt0Sd0/w-d-xo.html
So, Sly, are you really suggesting an easy error about date and time slipped in the FEcore document?
(Because a tiny little oversight is the worst that might have happened, God forbid you are suggesting that was intentionally!)
What kind of interest could FEcore have NOT to meticulously proofread their publications so their donors can be 100% sure the money they give to them isn't just spent to finance a bunch of guys and their spouses a weekend trip to a nice holiday location, like Lake Balaton.
No no, Sly, it's really MUCH more probable there's a century long conspiracy going on to lie about the true shape of the Earth, supported by millions of scientists and engineers all around the globe.
To me, that doesn't look like the moon. I don't mind being wrong at that, but is seems to have the wrong color temperature and intensity.
I can see that it's over exposed, but I've never seen it make glare just like that. Again, I don't mind being wrong, but that really look like just another light source.
They even boast the moon in both that clip and the test segways.. and the evidence supports it being the moon.. I too could be wrong, but I have this to go on, and it corroborates other findings in pt 2
What's the big glowing thing on the left side of the image?
11:47
a spy drone from "They"
@@slysparkane808 Drone. I didn't even think of a drone. How upset would they be if someone showed up on their next jaunt and flew a drone vertically up and down above their target?
@@Sableagle Or they could do such a thing (flying a drone up and down) themselves. But no, that would come too close to start doing real science ...
But, you just gave me an idea: as refraction doesn't hardly effect a beam of light going straight up, what about pointing two laser beams in a substantial distance from each other straight up, fly a GPS equipped drone over them, and locate the beam maximum?
How much apart from each other would the two lasers have to be and how high would the drones need to fly to get a substantial difference between the "globe vs. flat" predictions?
But wait a minute: if the two lasers were spaced further away from each other than could be measured with a tape measure, they would need to reveal their equivalent for the Haversine formula on a flat Earth. And so far THAT HAS ALWAYS been a show stopper, because they can't do so:
*It would give EVERYBODY even more than seven ways to Sunday to prove them wrong with a simple handheld GPS device.*
Can someone please explain to me why the brightness of the moon is universally bright from the centre to the sides? If it’s the suns light reflecting off of a sphere that we’re observing, shouldn’t there be a ‘hotspot’ of reflection in the centre and very little brightness toward the sides, like everywhere else in the world where light is reflecting off of a sphere? Genuine question!
There would not be a hot spot.. for the same reason there is no hot spot on a dirt road, an unplanted farm field.. a beach..
@@slysparkane808 A dull surface like you describe would surely not reflect light brightly enough, if at all, to luminate the night and cast clear shadows. If I made a sphere of dry dirt, I'm sure it wouldn't reflect light like the moon is said to, if at all. But we can all observe how bright the moon appears, so it would clearly need to be a somewhat reflective surface to be that way, if it's the sun's light being reflected. It MUST be somewhat reflective to be reflecting the sunlight, as described in the heliocentric model, especially as it's VERY bright. So, the surface facing us directly would have to be brightest, with the sides, facing almost 90 degrees away from the face, being much more dull - no brightness at all.
@@charliedurnford3277 wouldnt reflect bright enough? Are you saying that the sand at the beach isnt bright enough to see from a distance? Or the dirt from a farm field? When we see the moon.. it is not a reflection OF the Sun, its surface is simply lit BY the Sun.. FE likes to misuse the action of Reflection to make the absurd Hotspot on a ball claim while remaining ignorant of the fact that nobody claims the Moon to have a smooth surface..
@@slysparkane808 You clearly made no sense
If we can see the moon because the sun is lighting it up it's obviously a reflection
So wtf are you smoking ?
@@paul8093 How does a person see something?
I'm just here to find out what you call it.
Please link the videos you said you will @ 3:50.
was my bad.. I think I didnt hit save originally description edit.. all there now
Fuckin flat earth Columbo over here. Great work Sly!
lol i always laugh when i hear someone say "oh my god" cause if they dont believe in a god then they are invoking something they dont even believe in, and if they do believe in god, then they are breaking one of their god's rules, and blaspheming
I struggle to find anything in your comment that is actually true. "oh my god" is neither invocation nor blasphemous :/
‘Oh my God‘ can be used to express surprise or alarm and need not have anything to do with belief in a God.
@@Kyrelel Well, if you take the bible literally and the “laws” described in it as something to adhere to, saying god’s name outside prayer or when discussing the specific nature of god or the bible, is indeed blasphemy. They used to stone people for doing so.
oh, so should I just skip "oh my god" and go with "well fuck me sideways"? After all, they mean more-or-less the same thing
@@mmixlinus I don't really care what you do mate, I'm just comment on what I think of that particular saying, not a reflection on the video, which I enjoyed
I'm in just a few min and FECORE is already wrong. There is no beam that will never diverge. It's basic optics. The formula for the Airy disk defines the divergence of a beam given the size of the optics and the wavelength of light. There is no way around this. Anyone with any understanding of optics knows this. A good collimater helps, along with a spacial filter, but the Airy limit is still as good as you can do. So they fail in the first few min of this video.
33rd
not first
You look to be now
@@aaronarmstrongaa well, let the first comment as a lost tape
🥇
do you deliberately pick the most annoying "music" you can find for your videos?
it really doesn't aid your credibility.
What? Are you deaf?
and you have any credibility?
@@escutus No, I'm a musician that can actually play instruments. Unlike the computer jockey that made that god awful noise.
@@axeman2638 breaking news: People have different tastes. Get over it
It's still sh*t ;p