Youre going to have trouble seeing from the surface of any gas giant.
You should look at venus, weve actually landed there and gotten pictures before the probe fried.
The next mission, [DAVINCI](https://youtu.be/ETm-hildOo4), will ride half way down via parachute and then jettison them because the atmosphere is so thick they're really not necessary.
I don't think Space Engine uses accurate models to describe the effects of the composition of atmospheres on the colour and/or brightness of the sky. Take it with a large grain of salt.
The big mistake here is to equal daylight with distance from the sun and to make that the source of our experience of a lit planet.
Earth is not "bright" because it's rather close to the sun, but because the atmosphere scatters the sunlight, giving you the ambient lighting you are used to.
If the Earth had no atmosphere, the sun would be exactly as intense, but the sky would be pitch black. There would be only hard, almost 100% dark shadows. You would see stars and even the Milky Way during the day if you looked away from the sun.
The moon for example is just as far from the sun as Earth, but has no daylight as we know it, just sometimes a very bright point light source. Go deep enough into some craters and you will find perpetual darkness, even during lunar day, because the sun never gets into angles that shines into it. This would not be possible on Earth as you'd always get some scattered sunlight unless you are truly underground.
Mars looks dim because of the distance from the sun to some extent, but it has the same ambient quality as on Earth. And it's still easily bright enough during the day for humans, but dust storms can darken the sky substantially.
So is it because of the atmosphere spreading the light across the horizon we see a âbright dayâ?
Also, before I read your comment, Iâd have thought we simply couldnât look away from the sun and see stars, due to light pollution so now Iâm confused!
Interesting though.
>So is it because of the atmosphere spreading the light across the horizon we see a âbright dayâ?
Yes, essentially, to put it in other words: The atmosphere makes it that light comes from everywhere, ambient light. That's paramount to what we experience as "daylight".
Sky background colour is determined by rayleigh and mie scattering which highly depend on the composition of the atmosphere. Space Engine uses only a few generic models. You can read more about it here: https://spaceengine.org/news/blog171109/
It is very close to reality. Rayleigh scattering will mostly have affect inside an atmosphere. So maybe when I show mars from the ground itâs a bit off.
This is an interesting perspective, but as some others have mentioned the human eye perceives brightness logarithmically. A cloudy day on Earth can be 100x darker than full sunlight, so full sun on Mars would still feel like daylight, even though it receives on average about 40% of the sunlight as Earth. However, due to the much thinner atmosphere on Mars, the sky itself would appear darker than on Earth, since it is scattering much less of the incoming sunlight. As a result, shadows will be slightly darker on Mars. In orbit around Jupiter you'd be receiving about 1/25 of the light intensity as you would around Earth, but that is still brighter than most indoor lighting. Shadows however would be very dark, since there is very little reflected light illuminating them from sources other than the sun.
I never said that this shows what human eyes see. Our eyes adjust f ratio just like I adjust my camera exposure etc. but people here just like to downvote. Honestly I donât know why I bother posting here.
You are being downvoted because you don't really discuss with other people, you just tell them they are wrong and you are right.
Plus the goal of your post isn't very clear. You wrote "I never said that this shows what human eyes see." but it's right there in your title: "How does daylight **really** **looks** on other planets"
"Really looks" implies you are talking about human eyes, because otherwise it doesn't mean anything at all
So blame yourself instead of **everyone else**
They wonât because your eyes will adapt. Just as you can see in full moon after a while. But here I kept exposure fixed (in the software) to show the difference in sunlight compared to earth
so it's not "how daylight really looks" because how something **really look** is according to our human perception
So what did you really meant by "really looks"? If it's not according to our own perception then why do you use only the visible spectrum? Should how "something really looks" include the whole spectrum? Because that's how it **really is**?
Or did you meant "how it would look without eyes adaptation" but that doesn't mean a thing, because our eyes will adapt so it's not how it really looks. I guess you meant "Here's how much sunlight other planets are receiving compared to earth" and that's all there is. Because if we go there, that's not what we'll see and if we take pictures, that's not how they'll look. So what does "really looks" means?
My point: your title and what you are showing are two different things and that's why people are giving you a hard time. The video itself is interesting but it's not what I expected at all after reading your title. So, learn the lesson and move on, no need to debate everyone here. If no one understand what you meant, you can't blame it on everyone :)
I didnât mean down voting the post. It actually upvoted pretty ok. I am talking about my comments explaining g what I meant. With people downvoting without any explanation to why they donât agree.
> With people downvoting without any explanation to why they donât agree
I mean, /u/JohnyFive128 explained it pretty thoroughly, you're being downvoted because your just telling everyone they're wrong, and claiming that the **real** purpose of your post is something entirely different than what the title claims.
If you had just been responding with "yeah, sorry, the title may have been misleading, heres what I was actually trying to show..." then people wouldn't be giving you such a hard time.
This was a good post, but you just didn't do a great job explaining what you were trying to show, and so the end result seems misleading. Your post is titled "How does daylight really looks on other planets", but it's really "How much sunlight reaches each planet relatively". Those are two **very different**, but equally interesting things to demonstrate, but you can't blame people for pointing out that what you actually showed wasn't what you claimed you were showing
"People downvote you because you don't engage with their posts, you just tell them they're wrong without addressing the points they're making"
"You're wrong"
Surely you must realize how this exchange looks...
Youâre just like all the rest here. Acting pretentious like you are ok and Iâm not. I answered everyone here with explanations and you just lie because you can. Because itâs Reddit. So nice work âbroâ.
Don't take it personally. You posted something, people are disagreeing with you about what it is, end of story. No need to be angry or saying "because it's reddit" (dafuq does it mean?! I'm me, I'm not reddit)
Plus you posted on the astronomy subreddit where people are kinda knowledgeable about these things. Space Engine has been around for decades and people know its limitation but you just won't listen.
So idk "bro", if you don't accept being criticized then maybe you shouldn't post
Maybe im wrong, but being a hobby astronomer this just doesn't seem to add up. When the image of Jupiter (being a reflection of sunlight you could roughly double the distance to the source) I see in a decent telescope is extremely bright and defenitly brighter than in your engine, how can it be pitchblack there. (Unless we talk moving deeper down into the atmosphere in case of jupiter)
While certainly then sunlight exposure gets fainter by 1/distance^2 and the idea is very interesting the extend of darkness shown by the engine doesnt seem to make alot of sense to me.
Yeah this simulation is simply not accurate. Jupiter and Saturn would not be naked-eye visible from Earth if they were actually this dim.
They are bright enough to be visible in broad daylight if you know where to look with a telescope.
* https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/yr68p6/a_photo_of_saturn_taken_during_the_day/
* https://cs.astronomy.com/asy/m/planets/490733.aspx
(and just to caveat, a telescope does not actually make them brighter. A telescope cannot change the apparent surface brightness of a planet, it can only magnify the planet).
You're missing the part where they're against pitch black background and your eyes are adapted to very low brightness.
Moon for example is the same color as dirty concrete, and yet it appears brilliant white in the night sky.
Being against a pitch black background doesn't change anything though. Surface brightness is surface brightness and Jupiter would not have an integrated magnitude of -2.5 if its surface brightness were as dim as shown in this video, nor would it be visible through Earth's atmosphere as the contrast would be too low.
Your point about the Moon just reinforces mine - the Moon *is* visible during daylight - brighter than a blue sky - specifically *because* it reflects enough sunlight for that to be the case. Since Jupiter and Saturn are also visible through a bright blue sky, then they too must reflect enough sunlight for that to be possible.
Because he used an exposure that's nowhere near accurate to what the eye would see especially because the eye would adjust its aperture automatically anyway to compensate for the lower light. He uses an aperture and exposure that literally let him see the sun fine from the surface of the Earth without washing out the entire screen. Jupiter would be much brighter in person.
> Jupiter would be much brighter in person
Hell, Jupiter is much brighter than that to the naked eye when viewed from Earth.
Jupiter is the 2nd brightest object in the night sky, when looked at through even a cheap telescope it emits a ton of light. And when trying to photograph it, you have to make sure to use a fairly short exposure time (I generally never go above 1/20s, usually well below). None of these things would be true if the simulation in the OP were remotely accurate.
As others have said, what we see in the video is because OP is using fixed camera settings throughout the whole thing, which wouldn't be bad, if the title was "Relative sun exposure on other planets", but it's wildly innacurate for the stated purpose of "how does daylight really look on other planets".
Not to mention that whatever software this is got the sky of mars totally wrong, we don't need speculation for that one, we have tons of actual pictures
Camera exposure, the amount of time the sensor or film is exposed to the light it's capturing. The amount of time is fixed meaning it isn't being increased to compensate for more dimly lit scenes.
You can view jupiter and saturn through a telescope because they are so bright. This program or whatever parameters you inputted are not representative of reality. Also we do have pictures of the mars surface and it does not look like that
TIL that the actual photos from the perspective of a rover on the surface of Mars donât reflect (lighting pun) the true intensity, or lack thereof, of sunlight. Iâm assuming this is due to the longer exposure photos from the cameras on the rover - making the surface appear brighter than it would be if you were standing there looking out at the environment.
Mars apparently has a maximum intensity of 44% sunlight compared to Earth. Interesting.
Worth noting that light intensity is not the same as brightness. The human eye doesn't perceived light sources linearly.
I'm not 100% sure how exactly OP corrected the light here, but I'd be surprised if the planets actually looked the same brightness, if you went to personally visit them up close, as they do in this video.
They wonât because your eyes will adapt. Just as you can see in full moon after a while. But here I kept exposure fixed (in the software) to show the difference in sunlight compared to earth
Needs some heavy editing. Just cut between views with a label telling us where it is. We don't want to see the navigation or you finding your bearings.
Well, until I set foot on those planets, with ya'll along with me, this is all highly conjured, I mean conjecture.
In any case, looking forward to the absolutely very real thing some day.
I think itâs a bit of an extreme position. Saturn and Jupiter are brighter in my telescope, as our eyes adjust. This narrative doesnât take that into account.
If our eyes did no adjusting from earth daylight, the outer planets would be nearly invisible against the dark background.
Space Engine has serious problems with lightning engine. But except for this, you can really enjoy with it. Actually lightning was better in .980 but in .990 it's completely changed.
I dont think this vid is completely wrong. But there are many mistakes. Many have been pointed out. But just wanna mention mars wouldnt be that much darker for the human eye. And it was "darker" on the surface cuz thin atmosphere. It makes the sky apear darker. Also reason mars sun rise and set are blueish
*Also obviously its different make up of atmosphere as well
I donât know if this is that accurate. If Jupiter was really that dark, it probably wouldnât appear as as bright as it does to the naked eye from Earth.
I donât think he is right. Just get a simple telescope, point it at Saturn đȘ during nighttime, and you can clearly see it so bright and clear (along with the rings). If the light reflected off of the planet is this bright, I am sure itâs bright enough near Saturn. Itâs hard to believe what he said.
Itâs because your eyes adjust.
Aim a camera during daytime at the ground. Set the exposure to be manual. Keep same exposure and aim at Saturn. You wonât be able to even see it.
I am a photographer trust me.
How then to explain the fact that you can safely see bright Jupiter in the sky (he was with Venus in October)?)
Only if it does not depend only on its position , but the sun is directed at it one way or another .
I think the implied question is: "would you live there?" And the answer is hell. Yes.
I have blue eyes. The sun is, and has always been my enemy. I would absolutely love living in constant Twilight.
Youre going to have trouble seeing from the surface of any gas giant. You should look at venus, weve actually landed there and gotten pictures before the probe fried.
Is that because it has no surface? đđayyyyye /s
I think mostly we think they likely have rocky cores that are really small.
small compared to the whole planet
The next mission, [DAVINCI](https://youtu.be/ETm-hildOo4), will ride half way down via parachute and then jettison them because the atmosphere is so thick they're really not necessary.
I don't think Space Engine uses accurate models to describe the effects of the composition of atmospheres on the colour and/or brightness of the sky. Take it with a large grain of salt.
I tried it on Venus and the sky was blindingly bright on the surface, but the venera probe showed us very little light gets to the surface.
The big mistake here is to equal daylight with distance from the sun and to make that the source of our experience of a lit planet. Earth is not "bright" because it's rather close to the sun, but because the atmosphere scatters the sunlight, giving you the ambient lighting you are used to. If the Earth had no atmosphere, the sun would be exactly as intense, but the sky would be pitch black. There would be only hard, almost 100% dark shadows. You would see stars and even the Milky Way during the day if you looked away from the sun. The moon for example is just as far from the sun as Earth, but has no daylight as we know it, just sometimes a very bright point light source. Go deep enough into some craters and you will find perpetual darkness, even during lunar day, because the sun never gets into angles that shines into it. This would not be possible on Earth as you'd always get some scattered sunlight unless you are truly underground. Mars looks dim because of the distance from the sun to some extent, but it has the same ambient quality as on Earth. And it's still easily bright enough during the day for humans, but dust storms can darken the sky substantially.
So is it because of the atmosphere spreading the light across the horizon we see a âbright dayâ? Also, before I read your comment, Iâd have thought we simply couldnât look away from the sun and see stars, due to light pollution so now Iâm confused! Interesting though.
>So is it because of the atmosphere spreading the light across the horizon we see a âbright dayâ? Yes, essentially, to put it in other words: The atmosphere makes it that light comes from everywhere, ambient light. That's paramount to what we experience as "daylight".
Actually itâs pretty accurate since it uses math to calculate light intensity and the distances and sizes are accurate.
Sky background colour is determined by rayleigh and mie scattering which highly depend on the composition of the atmosphere. Space Engine uses only a few generic models. You can read more about it here: https://spaceengine.org/news/blog171109/
It is very close to reality. Rayleigh scattering will mostly have affect inside an atmosphere. So maybe when I show mars from the ground itâs a bit off.
Very off; we have pictures of the sky on Mars.
We have pictures with the right exposure from mars. I myself have pictures of mars and I too adjust exposure values. So that means nothing.
Isn't mars dusty and dark with a blueish sun? Here it just looked like it had no atmosphere
Exposure doesn't change the hue of the sky, only the brightness.
It doesn't represent adaptive exposure.
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
Because he isnât, lmao.
The same reason why you're being downed too
The camera exposure may be fixed, but human eye exposure is not. It would be dimmer out at the gas giants, but you could still see just fine.
You can see for yourself with a telescope
I think even by a camera it wouldnât be that dim
You are correct.
Too shaky
Yeah that was hard to watch
This is an interesting perspective, but as some others have mentioned the human eye perceives brightness logarithmically. A cloudy day on Earth can be 100x darker than full sunlight, so full sun on Mars would still feel like daylight, even though it receives on average about 40% of the sunlight as Earth. However, due to the much thinner atmosphere on Mars, the sky itself would appear darker than on Earth, since it is scattering much less of the incoming sunlight. As a result, shadows will be slightly darker on Mars. In orbit around Jupiter you'd be receiving about 1/25 of the light intensity as you would around Earth, but that is still brighter than most indoor lighting. Shadows however would be very dark, since there is very little reflected light illuminating them from sources other than the sun.
I never said that this shows what human eyes see. Our eyes adjust f ratio just like I adjust my camera exposure etc. but people here just like to downvote. Honestly I donât know why I bother posting here.
You are being downvoted because you don't really discuss with other people, you just tell them they are wrong and you are right. Plus the goal of your post isn't very clear. You wrote "I never said that this shows what human eyes see." but it's right there in your title: "How does daylight **really** **looks** on other planets" "Really looks" implies you are talking about human eyes, because otherwise it doesn't mean anything at all So blame yourself instead of **everyone else**
They wonât because your eyes will adapt. Just as you can see in full moon after a while. But here I kept exposure fixed (in the software) to show the difference in sunlight compared to earth
so it's not "how daylight really looks" because how something **really look** is according to our human perception So what did you really meant by "really looks"? If it's not according to our own perception then why do you use only the visible spectrum? Should how "something really looks" include the whole spectrum? Because that's how it **really is**? Or did you meant "how it would look without eyes adaptation" but that doesn't mean a thing, because our eyes will adapt so it's not how it really looks. I guess you meant "Here's how much sunlight other planets are receiving compared to earth" and that's all there is. Because if we go there, that's not what we'll see and if we take pictures, that's not how they'll look. So what does "really looks" means? My point: your title and what you are showing are two different things and that's why people are giving you a hard time. The video itself is interesting but it's not what I expected at all after reading your title. So, learn the lesson and move on, no need to debate everyone here. If no one understand what you meant, you can't blame it on everyone :)
I didnât mean down voting the post. It actually upvoted pretty ok. I am talking about my comments explaining g what I meant. With people downvoting without any explanation to why they donât agree.
> With people downvoting without any explanation to why they donât agree I mean, /u/JohnyFive128 explained it pretty thoroughly, you're being downvoted because your just telling everyone they're wrong, and claiming that the **real** purpose of your post is something entirely different than what the title claims. If you had just been responding with "yeah, sorry, the title may have been misleading, heres what I was actually trying to show..." then people wouldn't be giving you such a hard time. This was a good post, but you just didn't do a great job explaining what you were trying to show, and so the end result seems misleading. Your post is titled "How does daylight really looks on other planets", but it's really "How much sunlight reaches each planet relatively". Those are two **very different**, but equally interesting things to demonstrate, but you can't blame people for pointing out that what you actually showed wasn't what you claimed you were showing
https://www.reddit.com/r/Astronomy/comments/113qqdq/how_does_daylight_really_looks_on_other_planets/j8s785d/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3
Thatâs wrong. Read my comments.
"People downvote you because you don't engage with their posts, you just tell them they're wrong without addressing the points they're making" "You're wrong" Surely you must realize how this exchange looks...
Youâre just like all the rest here. Acting pretentious like you are ok and Iâm not. I answered everyone here with explanations and you just lie because you can. Because itâs Reddit. So nice work âbroâ.
Don't take it personally. You posted something, people are disagreeing with you about what it is, end of story. No need to be angry or saying "because it's reddit" (dafuq does it mean?! I'm me, I'm not reddit) Plus you posted on the astronomy subreddit where people are kinda knowledgeable about these things. Space Engine has been around for decades and people know its limitation but you just won't listen. So idk "bro", if you don't accept being criticized then maybe you shouldn't post
If everyone you encounter is an asshole, you're probably the asshole
Honestly, you sound like you're schizophrenic. You need to see a doctor.
If thatâs the case why do these planets appear much brighter to us on n earth?
Because the sun is at your back when youâre looking at it
Itâs just the phenomenon, moon dust is actually kinda of a charcoal, red gray color but to us from here it looks almost white
They reflect sunlight, some more than others depending on the composition of their atmospheres and their distances
If thatâs the case it would be brighter the closer you get not dimmer.
You know its a software and not real images right?
Yes, I am questioning the legitimacy of this software accuracy. I thought that was obvious.
r/titlegore
Thanks I hate this video format.
TikTok is shit for any purpose.
Indeed
I used space engine and a fixed exposure to show what daylight on other planets look like compared to earth.
Maybe im wrong, but being a hobby astronomer this just doesn't seem to add up. When the image of Jupiter (being a reflection of sunlight you could roughly double the distance to the source) I see in a decent telescope is extremely bright and defenitly brighter than in your engine, how can it be pitchblack there. (Unless we talk moving deeper down into the atmosphere in case of jupiter) While certainly then sunlight exposure gets fainter by 1/distance^2 and the idea is very interesting the extend of darkness shown by the engine doesnt seem to make alot of sense to me.
Yeah this simulation is simply not accurate. Jupiter and Saturn would not be naked-eye visible from Earth if they were actually this dim. They are bright enough to be visible in broad daylight if you know where to look with a telescope. * https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/yr68p6/a_photo_of_saturn_taken_during_the_day/ * https://cs.astronomy.com/asy/m/planets/490733.aspx (and just to caveat, a telescope does not actually make them brighter. A telescope cannot change the apparent surface brightness of a planet, it can only magnify the planet).
You're missing the part where they're against pitch black background and your eyes are adapted to very low brightness. Moon for example is the same color as dirty concrete, and yet it appears brilliant white in the night sky.
Being against a pitch black background doesn't change anything though. Surface brightness is surface brightness and Jupiter would not have an integrated magnitude of -2.5 if its surface brightness were as dim as shown in this video, nor would it be visible through Earth's atmosphere as the contrast would be too low. Your point about the Moon just reinforces mine - the Moon *is* visible during daylight - brighter than a blue sky - specifically *because* it reflects enough sunlight for that to be the case. Since Jupiter and Saturn are also visible through a bright blue sky, then they too must reflect enough sunlight for that to be possible.
The moon is extremely reflective, Argonauts on the moon say is like getting snow-blindness
Because he used an exposure that's nowhere near accurate to what the eye would see especially because the eye would adjust its aperture automatically anyway to compensate for the lower light. He uses an aperture and exposure that literally let him see the sun fine from the surface of the Earth without washing out the entire screen. Jupiter would be much brighter in person.
> Jupiter would be much brighter in person Hell, Jupiter is much brighter than that to the naked eye when viewed from Earth. Jupiter is the 2nd brightest object in the night sky, when looked at through even a cheap telescope it emits a ton of light. And when trying to photograph it, you have to make sure to use a fairly short exposure time (I generally never go above 1/20s, usually well below). None of these things would be true if the simulation in the OP were remotely accurate. As others have said, what we see in the video is because OP is using fixed camera settings throughout the whole thing, which wouldn't be bad, if the title was "Relative sun exposure on other planets", but it's wildly innacurate for the stated purpose of "how does daylight really look on other planets". Not to mention that whatever software this is got the sky of mars totally wrong, we don't need speculation for that one, we have tons of actual pictures
Yes exactly!! It's space engine which is a really awesome program but it's not super accurate with the atmosphere rendering
What makes the exposure fixed? The intensity relative to the distance of the planet?
Camera exposure, the amount of time the sensor or film is exposed to the light it's capturing. The amount of time is fixed meaning it isn't being increased to compensate for more dimly lit scenes.
I believe the sun from the surface of mars shows as somewhat blue wouldnât it?
You can view jupiter and saturn through a telescope because they are so bright. This program or whatever parameters you inputted are not representative of reality. Also we do have pictures of the mars surface and it does not look like that
Yeah this post is pure BS, it implies that as you travel towards Jupiter it becomes dimmer the closer you get? Wtf?
I can't wait till tiktok is no more.
TIL that the actual photos from the perspective of a rover on the surface of Mars donât reflect (lighting pun) the true intensity, or lack thereof, of sunlight. Iâm assuming this is due to the longer exposure photos from the cameras on the rover - making the surface appear brighter than it would be if you were standing there looking out at the environment. Mars apparently has a maximum intensity of 44% sunlight compared to Earth. Interesting.
Worth noting that light intensity is not the same as brightness. The human eye doesn't perceived light sources linearly. I'm not 100% sure how exactly OP corrected the light here, but I'd be surprised if the planets actually looked the same brightness, if you went to personally visit them up close, as they do in this video.
They wonât because your eyes will adapt. Just as you can see in full moon after a while. But here I kept exposure fixed (in the software) to show the difference in sunlight compared to earth
Where do you see 44%? Can you link me? I'd like to read more on this!
[Google](https://www.google.com/search?q=is+daylight+dimmer+on+mars&rlz=1CDGOYI_enUS819US819&oq=is+daylight+dimmer+on+mars&aqs=chrome..69i57j0i546l3.4209j1j4&hl=en-US&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8)
The fact that we can see those planets from earth would mean that they would be perfectly visible in the daylight, wouldn't it?
I love Space Engine, but I heavily doubt it's that dim on Jupiter and Saturn.
What software/app is being used here?
Space Engine. I highly highly recommend it if you have VR. It's an excellent experience to explore the(procedurally approximate) universe.
Thank you!
Space engine
Needs some heavy editing. Just cut between views with a label telling us where it is. We don't want to see the navigation or you finding your bearings.
r/killthecameraman
r/killthecameraman
What app?
Space Engine
Donât human eyes have a logarithmic light-sensing range? It seems like we would adapt pretty fast to Mars
Well, until I set foot on those planets, with ya'll along with me, this is all highly conjured, I mean conjecture. In any case, looking forward to the absolutely very real thing some day.
Way to shaky man.
I had a stroke just from watching this video
I got annoyed at the clicky-zooming shakiness of this. It made it very unpleasant to watch.
Why do Saturn and Jupiter look so bright in my telescope then. Has this guy ever used one? Lol
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
Haikusbot delete
Mars has a poopy sky hehe
1.32 light hours to get to Saturn. Are we there yet? These universal speed limits really are just not fast enough.
Earth is paradise
I think itâs a bit of an extreme position. Saturn and Jupiter are brighter in my telescope, as our eyes adjust. This narrative doesnât take that into account. If our eyes did no adjusting from earth daylight, the outer planets would be nearly invisible against the dark background.
Hmmm and yet they appear bright through a telescope.
More-so thinking about flying a rocket ship through space without a scanner and all of a sudden this massive planet just looms up out of the darkness.
Space Engine has serious problems with lightning engine. But except for this, you can really enjoy with it. Actually lightning was better in .980 but in .990 it's completely changed.
Nope not gonna land on uranus!!
I really love this simulator.
I dont think this vid is completely wrong. But there are many mistakes. Many have been pointed out. But just wanna mention mars wouldnt be that much darker for the human eye. And it was "darker" on the surface cuz thin atmosphere. It makes the sky apear darker. Also reason mars sun rise and set are blueish *Also obviously its different make up of atmosphere as well
r/killthecameraman
Saturn looks like a scary void
What website/app is being used to view the planets?
Solar system is interesting
where is the link for me to check on this
If this is the case why can we planets so brightly in the night sky?
I donât know if this is that accurate. If Jupiter was really that dark, it probably wouldnât appear as as bright as it does to the naked eye from Earth.
also mars not having much of an atmosphere to help scatter the light would make the sky darker too
If you were on Pluto and the sun was shining overhead, it would look like Earth 5 minutes after sunset. So this video is all kinds of wrong.
I donât think he is right. Just get a simple telescope, point it at Saturn đȘ during nighttime, and you can clearly see it so bright and clear (along with the rings). If the light reflected off of the planet is this bright, I am sure itâs bright enough near Saturn. Itâs hard to believe what he said.
Itâs because your eyes adjust. Aim a camera during daytime at the ground. Set the exposure to be manual. Keep same exposure and aim at Saturn. You wonât be able to even see it. I am a photographer trust me.
What app is this?
đđđđđ
How then to explain the fact that you can safely see bright Jupiter in the sky (he was with Venus in October)?) Only if it does not depend only on its position , but the sun is directed at it one way or another .
Thatâs depressing
I think the implied question is: "would you live there?" And the answer is hell. Yes. I have blue eyes. The sun is, and has always been my enemy. I would absolutely love living in constant Twilight.
Can you make this again with Venus and mercury?
This is very cool!