We can disagree about the use of equipment, but the fact that the stars are provably not as described by NASA, there is a lot more work to do to get to the bottom of what is going on above us. I don't agree that the star should look like a point, unless I'm going by information provided by people I don't trust and ignoring what I found.
I'd agree that there is a lot more work to do to understand what we see in the night sky. However, this tangent on equipment has nothing to do with people or opinions; it is a simple fact of optics that anyone can see given that they have access to a high-quality telescope that is used and maintained properly.
The question of (1) whether stars are different from what NASA says they are and (2) whether they look like "points" (or have a symmetrical airy disc structure instead of the bloated irregular mass in that video:
https://www.skyatnightmagazine.com/advice/how-to-star-test-a-telescope/) are in fact two different and independent questions. If the only person you can trust is yourself, as St. Giles said, then you need to get several telescopes, cameras, etc. to demonstrate on your own that those bloated "boiling" irregular masses aren't just due to equipment problems. You need to establish if the camera can really focus on stars, and if so where the exact focus point is. As St. Giles said, you need to demonstrate that those bloated shapes aren't due to other variables such as the camera sensor, ISO values, over-magnification etc. Once again, cameras are really not good by themselves to study the night sky; there's too much electronics and technology in general that affects the images and over-processes them. And the aperture is execrable compared to a telescope. Your best bet is to look at stars with a telescope or photograph stars through the telescope with the camera. If you have an amateur astronomy club near you, see if you can rent/borrow some of their telescopes or go to one of their meetings. Regardless of agreement or non-agreement with their specific cosmology beliefs, that will give you access to better equipment to use to explore this if you want.
The fact that you can replicate the stars as I've seen is maybe a sign you should ditch the preconceived ideas and look at your results independently.
This has nothing to do with preconceived cosmology ideas on my end; I'm open to listening to various interpretations of what stars are, what they are made of, how big they are, how far away etc. However, independent of all of those bloated star videos (as well as mainstream scientists), I have myself seen stars resolve to points of light or organized airy discs in good telescopes. And that is pretty much what anyone else with experience involving telescopes, amateur or professional, will tell you. With regard to my replication of the bloated stars, re-read the text below from my previous post you are referencing:
I've used quite a few digital cameras, binoculars, and telescopes over the years, and could easily replicate the boiling blobs you are seeing. The problem is that once again in order to replicate this, you need to de-focus the image, which defeats the whole purpose of looking at the object in the first place, unless you are testing optical quality.
The
only way what you are seeing can be replicated is basically if the instrument is
misused; i.e., it is purposely thrown out of focus or "de-focused". Would you call a family portrait picture that is grossly out of focus so everyone looks like blobs of color a good representation of the subject (or an instrument being used properly)? The fact that I can replicate your results by purposefully "misusing" an instrument actually is a warning that the bloated and boiling star images are NOT accurate representations of their true structure. You're basically just looking at the peculiarities of your own optics.
At any rate, good luck with your experiments.
Topic: How Sunrise and Sunset Work on Flat Earth (Read 23212 times)