ApolloHoax.net
Apollo Discussions => The Hoax Theory => Topic started by: tarkus on October 02, 2015, 02:59:47 PM
-
Even though the official version insists that we believe in the scientific spirit of those who planned the monumental scam of Apolo, the truth is that this "exploring spirit" failed miserably when it was time to overfly the moon. What better example than the indiference towards that sector 100% unknown to mankind, the hidden face that (from Earth) we aren't able to see? One would expect that at least one of the six landings should've taken place in that unknown and unexplored sector, but all six landing took place in the side we all know. The excuse for this is that the dark side was "too accidented" and any descend manouver would take a high risk. But Apollo didn't even show enthusiasm about cartographing the surface in detail. In fact, the lack of detailed images of the dark side is pathetic, with just this picture, that was allegedly taken by the Apollo 16 in 1972:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4f/Back_side_of_the_Moon_AS16-3021.jpg/800px-Back_side_of_the_Moon_AS16-3021.jpg)
But there are two serious problems with this image: The first and most evident, is that this sector is brightened up by the Sun, when Apollo 16 supposedly landed on the opposite side of the Moon during daytime, so, as it's IMPOSSIBLE for both hemispheres to be simultaneosuly brightened, we can conclude that the image is FAKE, by the same reason that would make impossible for both New York and Tokyo to have daytime at the same time.
The second big problem with the image from Apollo, is that when it's compared with the image obtained by the probe LRO in 2009, we can see that NOT A SINGLE CRATER MATCHES THE OTHER.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/04/Moon_Farside_LRO.jpg/800px-Moon_Farside_LRO.jpg)
By the way, Apollo 16 landed on the moon with the sun high in the sky, as revealed the same images of the mission ...
(http://spacemodels.nuxit.net/Panoramas/HR/A16-107-17432-39HR.jpg)
(http://i59.tinypic.com/2i1mfc2.jpg)
NASA lied and keeps doing so. Let's see another image, in this case an animated gif presented recently by the space agency, where we can see Moon's transit "photographed" (badly photoshopped) from beyond the Moon's orbit. Again, we see the hidden face of the Moon in the foreground, a Moon with a dark grey tone that should be explained. It doesn't take much, just a peek at the sky on a fullmoon's night, to know how our satelite looks like. That grey tone is 100% FAKE.
(https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_width/public/thumbnails/image/dscovrepicmoontransitfull.gif?itok=m-pCEXqi)
But the worst is the relative sizes of both bodies: If we're supposed to believe that the Earth, watched from the moon, is as small as Apollo's images make it out to be, then as we move farther away from Earth, it should become smaller and smaller. THEN WHAT THE HELL IS DOING SUCH A GIGANTIC EARTH BEHIND THE MOON? Surely the guy that was asked to come up with such a clumsy animation was told that the Moon has a diameter 4 times smaller than Earth, and the genius represented this scale as if both bodies were displayed side by side.
But there's more. Not only the Moon's transit is fake, but the very same image of the Earth spinning behind is obviously fake, as we can see the clouds remaining static, motionless for several hours, without shifting place or losing form. Who was the half-wit who made this joke of an animation?
-
A more important question is, who is the half-wit behind that monumentally gigantic pile of steaming post?
An even more important question is, what is your documentation and proof for these ridiculously outlandish claims?
Until you present something that can be considered evidentiary, that entire post is no more than wild opinion.
Facts?
-
Jack Schmitt proposed missions to the far side. The objection was not that it was "too accidented," as you claim in quotes (but provide no reference for), but that the entire Apollo infrastructure depended on telemetry and other radio communications that would be impossible for a landing on the far side.
You present two photographs without references, purporting them to both be of "the far side" of the Moon, but you don't give any way for somebody to check the geodetic coordinates of the photos to verify that they are indeed of the same regions of the lunar surface. The photo you purport to be taken by Apollo 16, of the "far side" of the Moon, includes obvious maria which are a feature of the near side only. This immediately leads one to suspect that your two photos are not necessarily expected to show identical features.
To support your claim that Apollo 16 landed where the sun was "high in the sky," you provide two photographs. You simply beg the question that they depict a sun at its zenith, and offer no quantitative treatment to extract that information from the photos.
Finally, you present an animation attributed to NASA (but again provide no reference so that your critics can verify its provenance). You offer two observations, first that the relative brightness is not what you expect to see, and second that the relative sizes are not what you expect. Both are answered by factors in photography of which you are evidently ignorant. First, the Moon as seen in the night sky is not seen relative to the sunlit Earth. You are seeing the Moon against a black background, at night, with dark-adapted eyes. In contrast, a photograph taken of both the sunlit side of the Earth and the sunlit side of the sky must employ an exposure setting amenable to both. In such an exposure, which is replicated many times in photography from the ISS, the Earth's albedo in the range of 30% shows it much brighter than the Moon's average albedo in the 15% ballpark. Despite what you see at night, that is a true representation of the relative brightness of Earth and Moon.
Second, the comparative size of the objects in the image is a function of the focal length of the imager, and also of the ratio of distance between the Earth and Moon and the distance from each to the imager. This is a well-known property of focal length exploited by all photographers of any appreciable training or experience. Rather than accusing NASA of lying, you should correct your ignorance of photography.
-
Jay beat me to this, but give a reference number of the two images of the backside of the moon.
I look at the size of the moon/earth and the size appears to be about right considering that the moon is roughly 1/4 of the Earth.
Just what color do you believe that the moon should have? Link some study to back up your allegation.
-
The first image is from the Apollo 15 Metric Mapping Camera:
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/catalog/metric/revolution/?AS16RTE
Number 3021 to be precise, taken after TEI.
As Tarkus can find out when TEI was, he can find out where the lunar terminator should be.
You can make a start on that little mission on this page of mine:
http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/sides/sideways.html
Where I have used the image in question.
As it was after TEI, it also will bear no relation to the terminator's position during the surface based part of the mission.
Another slight problem Tarkus has is that he is supplying an image taken by Apollo in a position that can only have been done in the proximity of the moon to prove that Apollo was nowhere near the moon.
Duh!
As for the garbage about the view of Earth, the clouds do move:
(http://i62.tinypic.com/muvrt4.jpg)
The hurricane in that was a weather feature observed from LEO satellites too.
Tarkus' contention that the moon is the wrong size is provably false, and easily done with all sorts of free astronomical software
Try again.
-
Still, at least there's an argument there, so it could be worse.
-
The first image is from the Apollo 15 Metric Mapping Camera:
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/catalog/metric/revolution/?AS16RTE
Number 3021 to be precise, taken after TEI.
As Tarkus can find out when TEI was, he can find out where the lunar terminator should be.
You can make a start on that little mission on this page of mine:
http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/sides/sideways.html
Where I have used the image in question.
As it was after TEI, it also will bear no relation to the terminator's position during the surface based part of the mission.
Another slight problem Tarkus has is that he is supplying an image taken by Apollo in a position that can only have been done in the proximity of the moon to prove that Apollo was nowhere near the moon.
Duh!
As for the garbage about the view of Earth, the clouds do move:
(http://i62.tinypic.com/muvrt4.jpg)
The hurricane in that was a weather feature observed from LEO satellites too.
Tarkus' contention that the moon is the wrong size is provably false, and easily done with all sorts of free astronomical software
Try again.
I could see cloud patterns changing slightly. One wouldn't expect to much of a move during the transit.
-
Still, at least there's an argument there, so it could be worse.
lol :)
even though much is already wrong.
-
As Tarkus can find out when TEI was, he can find out where the lunar terminator should be.
He can also attempt to explain why, if that image is the "far side" of the Moon, we can see Mare Crisium creeping into view. In fairness, he just copied two of the images Wikipedia reports as "far side" images. I doubt he's expended much original effort to determine whether they really are of the same region of the lunar surface.
-
Oh, an as for no crater on the LRO view being visible on the Apollo 16 view, I'd suggest look for the location of Ibn Finas, King and Ostwald.
It will help if you rotate the Apollo image to the correct angle and use Google Moon.
When you're done, you can apologise for wasting my Friday evening wiping up this regurgitated claptrap.
-
I could see cloud patterns changing slightly. One wouldn't expect to much of a move during the transit.
I know. His claim was they didn't move at all. He was wrong :D
-
The first image is from the Apollo 15 Metric Mapping Camera:
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/catalog/metric/revolution/?AS16RTE
Number 3021 to be precise, taken after TEI.
As Tarkus can find out when TEI was, he can find out where the lunar terminator should be.
You can make a start on that little mission on this page of mine:
http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/sides/sideways.html
Where I have used the image in question.
As it was after TEI, it also will bear no relation to the terminator's position during the surface based part of the mission.
Another slight problem Tarkus has is that he is supplying an image taken by Apollo in a position that can only have been done in the proximity of the moon to prove that Apollo was nowhere near the moon.
Duh!
As for the garbage about the view of Earth, the clouds do move:
(http://i62.tinypic.com/muvrt4.jpg)
The hurricane in that was a weather feature observed from LEO satellites too.
Tarkus' contention that the moon is the wrong size is provably false, and easily done with all sorts of free astronomical software
Try again.
Wrong (not read?) Are of Apollo 16 and the AS16-3021, Wikipedia itself uses as an example here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far_side_of_the_Moon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far_side_of_the_Moon)
And so you see the Earth from the Moon, therefore, if the image was taken much further, the Earth should be even smaller !!!
(http://i59.tinypic.com/2n1uf7r.jpg)
Link animation graphic:
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_width/public/thumbnails/image/dscovrepicmoontransitfull.gif?itok=m-pCEXqi (https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_width/public/thumbnails/image/dscovrepicmoontransitfull.gif?itok=m-pCEXqi)
-
Apollo didn't even show enthusiasm about cartographing the surface in detail. In fact, the lack of detailed images of the dark side is pathetic
And this bit is just plain wrong.
There are as many, if not more, Apollo images of the lunar far side as there are of the near side, and complete coverage had already been done by Lunar Orbiter (Soviet efforts aside). The Metric and Panoramic cameras have very high resolution. Some of the Hasselblad images from orbit have more detail than Lunar Orbiter ones, and those details are vindicated by modern probes.
Face it, the more you dissect your post, the more wrong it contains.
-
Oh, an as for no crater on the LRO view being visible on the Apollo 16 view, I'd suggest look for the location of Ibn Finas, King and Ostwald.
It will help if you rotate the Apollo image to the correct angle and use Google Moon.
When you're done, you can apologise for wasting my Friday evening wiping up this regurgitated claptrap.
Thanks for the afternoon's cleanup.
-
Wrong (not read?) Are of Apollo 16 and the AS16-3021, Wikipedia itself uses as an example here:
Typo my part, it is an Apollo 16 metric mapping camera - as you can see from the link in my post.
And so you see the Earth from the Moon, therefore, if the image was taken much further, the Earth should be even smaller !!!
(http://i59.tinypic.com/2n1uf7r.jpg)
You do not understand the importance of perspective.
That photograph of from Apollo 17, by the way, shows a time and date specific view of Earth matched by weather satellites:
(http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/CATM/ch4/a17/wpimages/wp037322c6_05_06.jpg)
-
Wrong (not read?) Are of Apollo 16 and the AS16-3021, Wikipedia itself uses as an example here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far_side_of_the_Moon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far_side_of_the_Moon)
And do you believe that Wiki might be possibly wrong?(or at least a little overzealous with its description.
And so you see the Earth from the Moon, therefore, if the image was taken much further, the Earth should be even smaller !!!
(http://i59.tinypic.com/2n1uf7r.jpg)
Link animation graphic:
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_width/public/thumbnails/image/dscovrepicmoontransitfull.gif?itok=m-pCEXqi (https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_width/public/thumbnails/image/dscovrepicmoontransitfull.gif?itok=m-pCEXqi)
The image you present was taken by the DSCOVR satellite roughly in a 1 million mile orbit
-
Wrong (not read?) Are of Apollo 16 and the AS16-3021, Wikipedia itself uses as an example here:
Yes, but what Wikipedia doesn't tell you, and what you have to figure out for yourself, is that neither one of those images purports to be the entire far side of the Moon. To those of us familiar with lunar topography, it is obvious those photographs were taken about 60 degrees of longitude apart. The Apollo 16 image quite clearly shows Mare Crisium, which is at the eastern edge of the far side. The LRO image shows Tsiolkovsky Crater at the left, meaning it was centered over the western edge of the far side.
And so you see the Earth from the Moon, therefore, if the image was taken much further, the Earth should be even smaller !!!
That photograph was taken with a wide-angle lens. It will make distant objects appear proportionally smaller because its field of view is wider. Please learn about photography before accusing others of deception.
-
The first image is from the Apollo 15 Metric Mapping Camera:
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/catalog/metric/revolution/?AS16RTE
Number 3021 to be precise, taken after TEI.
As Tarkus can find out when TEI was, he can find out where the lunar terminator should be.
You can make a start on that little mission on this page of mine:
http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/sides/sideways.html
Where I have used the image in question.
As it was after TEI, it also will bear no relation to the terminator's position during the surface based part of the mission.
Another slight problem Tarkus has is that he is supplying an image taken by Apollo in a position that can only have been done in the proximity of the moon to prove that Apollo was nowhere near the moon.
Duh!
As for the garbage about the view of Earth, the clouds do move:
(http://i62.tinypic.com/muvrt4.jpg)
The hurricane in that was a weather feature observed from LEO satellites too.
Tarkus' contention that the moon is the wrong size is provably false, and easily done with all sorts of free astronomical software
Try again.
Wrong (not read?) Are of Apollo 16 and the AS16-3021, Wikipedia itself uses as an example here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far_side_of_the_Moon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far_side_of_the_Moon)
And so you see the Earth from the Moon, therefore, if the image was taken much further, the Earth should be even smaller !!!
(http://i59.tinypic.com/2n1uf7r.jpg)
Link animation graphic:
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_width/public/thumbnails/image/dscovrepicmoontransitfull.gif?itok=m-pCEXqi (https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_width/public/thumbnails/image/dscovrepicmoontransitfull.gif?itok=m-pCEXqi)
Presumably, your next post will demonstrate your clear understanding of FOV, focal length and perspective, Right?
Because you know what those are, right?
-
Tarkus.
The sizes are odd because its a matter of field of view of the camera.
Using a simulator, you can verify they are legit:
Earth viewed from 1.600.000km(distance from DSCOVR satellite)with 45º of FOV:
(http://i.imgur.com/uHRvC1L.jpg)
Earth viewed from 1.600.000km with 1º of FOV:
(http://i.imgur.com/fY3lVjv.jpg)
Identical, isnt it?
Earthrise from the moon at 45º FOV:
(http://i.imgur.com/OcPH9mt.jpg)
Earthrise from the moon with 1º FOV:
(http://i.imgur.com/baMF3BA.jpg)
-
The other problem Tarkus has is choosing to take on MMC image in isolation, when in fact it was one of series taken through the TEC phase.
Here's what happens when you run all the images together:
-
Here's what happens when you run all the images together:
Which is so much easier to grok that scrolling quickly down the LPI atlas with your head upside down. Thanks! It's almost as if that's what you'd see after TEI, ascending away from the eastern edge of the far side.
-
Here's what happens when you run all the images together:
Which is so much easier to grok that scrolling quickly down the LPI atlas with your head upside down. Thanks! It's almost as if that's what you'd see after TEI, ascending away from the eastern edge of the far side.
Cool video makes it seem like you are in the CSM as it travels from the moon. Great addition.
-
tarkus, just about everything you said in your opening post was wrong. At this point, you can either:
(a) Dig in, ignore the corrections and information offered you, and stubbornly cling to your original claim.
(b) Concede your errors, reconsider your original premise, and learn something.
Which will it be?
-
Second, the comparative size of the objects in the image is a function of the focal length of the imager, and also of the ratio of distance between the Earth and Moon and the distance from each to the imager. This is a well-known property of focal length exploited by all photographers of any appreciable training or experience. Rather than accusing NASA of lying, you should correct your ignorance of photography.
perfect example
http://i398.photobucket.com/albums/pp65/frenat/slide_truck_barn.gif
The truck and barn never move, only the focal length changes.
-
Quite aside from Tarkus' failure to provide references, and clear lack of understanding in photography and photgraphic analysis, there is another failure on his part, a basic mistake that is made by a good many poeople and one that they don't often understand even when you try to explain it to them.
As Spock said in "The Wrath of Khan"..."His pattern indicates ...two-dimensional thinking."
He posts pictures of the moon and, while he probably realises the moon is a globe, he argues through the photos, which are a two dimesnionsl representation of a three dimensional object, as though it is flat.
-
The other problem Tarkus has is choosing to take on MMC image in isolation, when in fact it was one of series taken through the TEC phase.
Here's what happens when you run all the images together:
Do you know the time interval between images?
-
Blimey...two pretty obnoxious posters "reactivate" their accounts within days of each other. Who'd have thunk it, eh? ::) ::)
*Thinks* Gee, Golly, Gosh, I wonder if they could possibly be socks?? ::)
The second big problem with the image from Apollo, is that when it's compared with the image obtained by the probe LRO in 2009, we can see that NOT A SINGLE CRATER MATCHES THE OTHER.
This is the second time that you have posted this garbage claim. I comprehensively refuted it here:
No matches not a single crater between the two pictures. Because both are FALSE.
Wrong.
(http://imageshack.com/a/img538/1830/lymA8n.jpg)
They aren't particularly hard to match. 10 minutes with Virtual Moon Atlas (http://www.ap-i.net/avl/en/start) did the job
Can you now retract your assertion tarkus? Or do you not have the cojones to admit that you are wrong?
So, again, do you retract your assertion?
-
But the worst is the relative sizes of both bodies: If we're supposed to believe that the Earth, watched from the moon, is as small as Apollo's images make it out to be, then as we move farther away from Earth, it should become smaller and smaller. THEN WHAT THE HELL IS DOING SUCH A GIGANTIC EARTH BEHIND THE MOON? Surely the guy that was asked to come up with such a clumsy animation was told that the Moon has a diameter 4 times smaller than Earth, and the genius represented this scale as if both bodies were displayed side by side.
Oh my.
Further evidence that you seem to have real problems with perspective (hmm....did you work out your error with the CSM position yet?). As an aside, I wonder which other non-native English speaker always seems to struggle with visual effects and perspective.....
Rather that spend time explaining it all to you again I refer you to this excellent educational video
-
Wow... this place is great!
I asked for facts, and I got facts.
Only, I didn't get any facts from the OP. I got them all from the regulars.
This place is great!
;)
-
Blimey...two pretty obnoxious posters "reactivate" their accounts within days of each other. Who'd have thunk it, eh? ::) ::)
*Thinks* Gee, Golly, Gosh, I wonder if they could possibly be socks?? ::)
The second big problem with the image from Apollo, is that when it's compared with the image obtained by the probe LRO in 2009, we can see that NOT A SINGLE CRATER MATCHES THE OTHER.
This is the second time that you have posted this garbage claim. I comprehensively refuted it here:
No matches not a single crater between the two pictures. Because both are FALSE.
Wrong.
(http://imageshack.com/a/img538/1830/lymA8n.jpg)
They aren't particularly hard to match. 10 minutes with Virtual Moon Atlas (http://www.ap-i.net/avl/en/start) did the job
Can you now retract your assertion tarkus? Or do you not have the cojones to admit that you are wrong?
So, again, do you retract your assertion?
Surely you jest. He hasn't retracted any of his propositions. ::)
-
Surely you jest. He hasn't retracted any of his propositions. ::)
Just bravely ran away like Brave Sir Robin.
-
lol :)
even though much is already wrong.
Well, of course it is. If he were right, he wouldn't be an HB. But you have to admit, it's better than a blind, "Nuh uh!"
-
At least there is something to bite at with this one. The other guy, it was just a shallow regurgitation of hackneyed claims.
-
Still, at least there's an argument there, so it could be worse.
lol :)
even though much is already wrong.
Tarkus probably deserves an A E for effort and an F for everything else.
-
The other problem Tarkus has is choosing to take on MMC image in isolation, when in fact it was one of series taken through the TEC phase.
Here's what happens when you run all the images together:
Do you know the time interval between images?
I'm not sure what the interval is, but it could probably be worked out! From my overlays of MMC images in Google Moon (see my site if you want to download them), the CSM typically moved about 40 km between images, but settings may have been different for TEC.
The TEC images were taken in two sessions, once about two and a half hours (the session from just after the TEI burn) and the second some time later for about 15 minutes to run off the final frames before the EVA to collect the magazines. Looking at the AIA, my guess is that 99 exposures were made during the first session.
Here are the relevant parts of the transcript:
199 20 22 Peterson: And, 16, it'll take about 3 hours to get rid of that mapping camera film, if we run it all the way out.
200 31 02 Mattingly (onboard): Mapping Camera to Extend.
200 33 52 Duke (onboard): Mapping Camera's going On, right.
...
203 03 11 Peterson: Okay, 16. We need to get the Mapping Camera, Off
212 55 06 Mattingly: Hank, would you say again what you wanted done with this Mapping Camera, please?
212 55 09 Hartsfield: Roger, Ken. We just want to run the film out and leave the door shut. We want to get the Image Motion, On; Mapping Camera, On; and barber pole plus 2. That gives us a higher speed.
214 37 48 Hartsfield: And Ken, the Mapping Camera is out of film, but the Stellar Camera is still feeding a little.
-
Surely you jest. He hasn't retracted any of his propositions. ::)
Just bravely ran away like Brave Sir Robin.
i wonder how Tindawhathisface is at minstrelling? ;D
-
The other problem Tarkus has is choosing to take on MMC image in isolation, when in fact it was one of series taken through the TEC phase.
Here's what happens when you run all the images together:
Do you know the time interval between images?
I'm not sure what the interval is, but it could probably be worked out! From my overlays of MMC images in Google Moon (see my site if you want to download them), the CSM typically moved about 40 km between images, but settings may have been different for TEC.
The TEC images were taken in two sessions, once about two and a half hours (the session from just after the TEI burn) and the second some time later for about 15 minutes to run off the final frames before the EVA to collect the magazines. Looking at the AIA, my guess is that 99 exposures were made during the first session.
Here are the relevant parts of the transcript:
199 20 22 Peterson: And, 16, it'll take about 3 hours to get rid of that mapping camera film, if we run it all the way out.
200 31 02 Mattingly (onboard): Mapping Camera to Extend.
200 33 52 Duke (onboard): Mapping Camera's going On, right.
...
203 03 11 Peterson: Okay, 16. We need to get the Mapping Camera, Off
212 55 06 Mattingly: Hank, would you say again what you wanted done with this Mapping Camera, please?
212 55 09 Hartsfield: Roger, Ken. We just want to run the film out and leave the door shut. We want to get the Image Motion, On; Mapping Camera, On; and barber pole plus 2. That gives us a higher speed.
214 37 48 Hartsfield: And Ken, the Mapping Camera is out of film, but the Stellar Camera is still feeding a little.
That gives a pretty good estimation 1.5-1.75/sec. using A11 post flight information the TEI had about 3300 fps so the distance interval was maybe 1 mile. Bob could do a better job than I in the estimation, but seems close.
-
As always, I am staggered by the amount of information that is out there, and may I thank those of you who have gone the extra miles to add a whole pile of new information (to me anyway), and hang it together in such detail.
Tarkus, you must be really pleased to have all this new information at your fingertips - it would be good to see you return and thank all those above who put it all together for you and others like me who hadn't seen it before...
And perhaps it might have been better to have applied at least a tiny bit of basic effort beforehand to find out more about the images you stumbled upon/over.. Because now, in hindsight of course, it would seem that you posted them in complete and utter ignorance...
-
This is the second time that you have posted this garbage claim. I comprehensively refuted it here:
No matches not a single crater between the two pictures. Because both are FALSE.
Wrong.
(http://imageshack.com/a/img538/1830/lymA8n.jpg)
They aren't particularly hard to match. 10 minutes with Virtual Moon Atlas (http://www.ap-i.net/avl/en/start) did the job
Can you now retract your assertion tarkus? Or do you not have the cojones to admit that you are wrong?
So, again, do you retract your assertion?
After carefully examining both sectors identified for you, I must say that was a good try, but failed. If what you intend is to find matches, please point out identical sectors, not only similar. ;)
(http://i62.tinypic.com/28s7ymo.jpg)
(http://i61.tinypic.com/2e5o5xg.jpg)
Furthermore, not only must have exact match in the aforementioned sectors but also in craters that surround these areas ... not you think? and it is abundantly clear that there are no coincidences.
Zacalwe, do you not have the cojones to admit that you are wrong? 8)
-
Zacalwe, do you not have the cojones to admit that you are wrong? 8)
Do you?
Going back to read all your posts to this thread, it's clear you have very poor spatial reasoning skills. You don't understand perspective. You don't understand field of view. You don't understand even a simple thing such as how features are differently distorted by being on a round object. You really don't understand much of anything that pertains to the claims you've made. The question is how many different people are going to have to explain these things to you before you realize that you simply don't have the skills needed to look at photos and understand what they depict? How many people are going to have to explain that it's not "superstition" to simply have appropriate human perception?
-
After carefully examining both sectors identified for you, I must say that was a good try, but failed. If what you intend is to find matches, please point out identical sectors, not only similar. ;)
Do you understand that those craters are identifiable enough to have names? Do you understand that they've been researched, studied, mapped, and photographed many, times for decades? It's one thing to be totally ignorant of photography, which you are, but it's yet another degree of failure not to understand even simple facts about the practice of astronomy. You're really not very good at this.
-
Second, the comparative size of the objects in the image is a function of the focal length of the imager, and also of the ratio of distance between the Earth and Moon and the distance from each to the imager. This is a well-known property of focal length exploited by all photographers of any appreciable training or experience. Rather than accusing NASA of lying, you should correct your ignorance of photography.
perfect example
http://i398.photobucket.com/albums/pp65/frenat/slide_truck_barn.gif
The truck and barn never move, only the focal length changes.
It is you who do not know ... astronomical photography: you can not see Jupiter larger if the same image is the moon, the moon will ALWAYS largest being in the foreground, using an example of nearby objects as the van and the house reveals his utter ignorance of astronomical photography and the vast distances that reign in space, you can not play with the focus in the same way, you understand?
-
Furthermore, not only must have exact match in the aforementioned sectors but also in craters that surround these areas ... not you think? and it is abundantly clear that there are no coincidences.
Zacalwe, do you not have the cojones to admit that you are wrong? 8)
You clearly have issues with spatial awareness. Here. let me help you work out which is your arse and which is your elbow:
(http://i60.tinypic.com/dy7p55.jpg)
(http://i58.tinypic.com/2j5nztt.jpg)
-
Second, the comparative size of the objects in the image is a function of the focal length of the imager, and also of the ratio of distance between the Earth and Moon and the distance from each to the imager. This is a well-known property of focal length exploited by all photographers of any appreciable training or experience. Rather than accusing NASA of lying, you should correct your ignorance of photography.
perfect example
http://i398.photobucket.com/albums/pp65/frenat/slide_truck_barn.gif
The truck and barn never move, only the focal length changes.
It is you who do not know ... astronomical photography: you can not see Jupiter larger if the same image is the moon, the moon will ALWAYS largest being in the foreground, using an example of nearby objects as the van and the house reveals his utter ignorance of astronomical photography and the vast distances that reign in space, you can not play with the focus in the same way, you understand?
Thank you for the word salad proving you have no idea what you're talking about. Do you even know what focal length is? And van? Did you bother to look at the gif provided? there is no van.
-
...you can not play with the focus in the same way, you understand?
You can if the camera is on a space ship and therefore also able to travel vast distances. That's just how lenses work, and something every photographer learns. Thank you for continuing to demonstrate your utter ignorance of photography, spatial reasoning, and perspective. I've tried several times to parse the rest of your rant, but it simply makes no sense.
-
It is you who do not know ... astronomical photography: you can not see Jupiter larger if the same image is the moon, the moon will ALWAYS largest being in the foreground, using an example of nearby objects as the van and the house reveals his utter ignorance of astronomical photography and the vast distances that reign in space, you can not play with the focus in the same way, you understand?
Mmm, I did want a nice salad for my lunch.
Are you saying foreground objects are always larger?
I guess this image http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/stray-dog-sits-in-front-of-the-greek-parliament-building-in-news-photo/462401258 is complete impossible, then? The dog clearly takes up less of the height or width of the photograph than the building behind him.
-
It is you who do not know ... astronomical photography: you can not see Jupiter larger if the same image is the moon, the moon will ALWAYS largest being in the foreground, using an example of nearby objects as the van and the house reveals his utter ignorance of astronomical photography and the vast distances that reign in space, you can not play with the focus in the same way, you understand?
Mmm, I did want a nice salad for my lunch.
Are you saying foreground objects are always larger?
I guess this image http://cache1.asset-cache.net/gc/462401258-stray-dog-sits-in-front-of-the-greek-gettyimages.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=GkZZ8bf5zL1ZiijUmxa7QfWnY53zaVviZmcAQ4%2B7S5oVQsk%2B9Ymwkb0tXgPGSog2waapegCXXvbRj1H73Sk5Hg%3D%3D is complete impossible, then? The dog clearly takes up less of the height or width of the photograph than the building behind him.
I get a 403 - Forbidden: Access is denied error
-
This is the second time that you have posted this garbage claim. I comprehensively refuted it here:
No matches not a single crater between the two pictures. Because both are FALSE.
Wrong.
(http://imageshack.com/a/img538/1830/lymA8n.jpg)
They aren't particularly hard to match. 10 minutes with Virtual Moon Atlas (http://www.ap-i.net/avl/en/start) did the job
Can you now retract your assertion tarkus? Or do you not have the cojones to admit that you are wrong?
So, again, do you retract your assertion?
After carefully examining both sectors identified for you, I must say that was a good try, but failed. If what you intend is to find matches, please point out identical sectors, not only similar. ;)
(http://i62.tinypic.com/28s7ymo.jpg)
(http://i61.tinypic.com/2e5o5xg.jpg)
Furthermore, not only must have exact match in the aforementioned sectors but also in craters that surround these areas ... not you think? and it is abundantly clear that there are no coincidences.
Zacalwe, do you not have the cojones to admit that you are wrong? 8)
How much did you have to rotate the red box about 145 deg. counterclockwise was my guess
-
Are you saying foreground objects are always larger?
He appears to be claiming such effects don't occur in astronomical photography because of "astronomical distance." The distances are large, but also so are the sizes. The governing mathematics, however, do not qualitatively change simply because you put larger numbers into the formulas. But as we've seen in his other posts, tarkus has no demonstrable spatial reasoning ability, so I imagine we'll get simply more of his cargo-cult reasoning.
-
So, wait...behind his claim that both images are false is an assumption that not only did NASA (or whomever) have to make up an image of what the far side of the Moon should look like, it didn't occur to anyone there to re-use the artwork once they'd done it?
Well, that's not dissimilar to the fancy that NASA studio techs would set up for AS14-64-9123 and take -9125 at the same time, break down the set, shoot something unrelated, then come back on thursday and set it all back up again because someone reminded them they needed a -9124 as well!
-
Are you saying foreground objects are always larger?
He appears to be claiming such effects don't occur in astronomical photography because of "astronomical distance." The distances are large, but also so are the sizes. The governing mathematics, however, do not qualitatively change simply because you put larger numbers into the formulas. But as we've seen in his other posts, tarkus has no demonstrable spatial reasoning ability, so I imagine we'll get simply more of his cargo-cult reasoning.
Just like hunchbacked. Coincidence?
-
Zacalwe, do you not have the cojones to admit that you are wrong? 8)
Do you not have them? Over in your Apollo 13 thread you claimed that the service module should have been visible in the photos taken through the LM rendezvous window. Plenty of examples of why that was not so were presented, including one that used a model of the spacecraft. You did not even acknowledge them. Now, do you care to admit you were wrong about that?
-
You know, tarkus, in several hoax scenario I've read, the shots from lunar orbit were done using a giant spherical model for the moon, which means your claims don't even make any sense in a hoax. And, really, if you were going to fake a moon orbit, having to make a 2D image of the moon for each photo, correcting for changes in perspective as the craft orbits, would be absolutely maddening, and that's just still images! A large model (including one as large as the moon ;) ) would create its own changes in perspective out of its own reality.
-
Thank you for the word salad proving you have no idea what you're talking about. Do you even know what focal length is? And van? Did you bother to look at the gif provided? there is no van.
My bad, I meant "truck" instead of "van". I'm sorry that it made you so confused. But getting back on topic, you can't transfer the focal length between to approximated objects, like the truck and the barn, to objects in space, where such objects are thousands of miles apart from each other, and the fact that there's infinite focus in space.
For example, the Moon is smaller than Jupiter. But, if the Moon's transit where to happen in front of Jupiter, the Moon would leave Jupiter completely covered. Same thing happens between the Moon and the Earth. So, the Moon, would never look smaller than the Earth, as it's shown in that animation.
If you can show me that trick with the focal length, but with actual celestial bodies, then we'll talk.
-
Thank you for the word salad proving you have no idea what you're talking about. Do you even know what focal length is? And van? Did you bother to look at the gif provided? there is no van.
My bad, I meant "truck" instead of "van". I'm sorry that it made you so confused.
I'm not confused. But from your posts apparently YOU are.
But getting back on topic, you can't transfer the focal length between to approximated objects, like the truck and the barn, to objects in space, where such objects are thousands of miles apart from each other, and the fact that there's infinite focus in space.
For example, the Moon is smaller than Jupiter. But, if the Moon's transit where to happen in front of Jupiter, the Moon would leave Jupiter completely covered. Same thing happens between the Moon and the Earth. So, the Moon, would never look smaller than the Earth, as it's shown in that animation.
Prove it. Multiple people say otherwise.
-
For example, the Moon is smaller than Jupiter. But, if the Moon's transit where to happen in front of Jupiter, the Moon would leave Jupiter completely covered. Same thing happens between the Moon and the Earth. So, the Moon, would never look smaller than the Earth, as it's shown in that animation.
Possibly the most stupid thing ever written here.
(http://i.giphy.com/6N6XiH1wc3gKQ.gif)
-
...
For example, the Moon is smaller than Jupiter. But, if the Moon's transit where to happen in front of Jupiter, the Moon would leave Jupiter completely covered. Same thing happens between the Moon and the Earth. So, the Moon, would never look smaller than the Earth, as it's shown in that animation.
If you can show me that trick with the focal length, but with actual celestial bodies, then we'll talk.
That depends on the distance the observer is from the moon.
-
Thank you for the word salad proving you have no idea what you're talking about. Do you even know what focal length is? And van? Did you bother to look at the gif provided? there is no van.
My bad, I meant "truck" instead of "van". I'm sorry that it made you so confused. But getting back on topic, you can't transfer the focal length between to approximated objects, like the truck and the barn, to objects in space, where such objects are thousands of miles apart from each other, and the fact that there's infinite focus in space.
For example, the Moon is smaller than Jupiter. But, if the Moon's transit where to happen in front of Jupiter, the Moon would leave Jupiter completely covered. Same thing happens between the Moon and the Earth. So, the Moon, would never look smaller than the Earth, as it's shown in that animation.
If you can show me that trick with the focal length, but with actual celestial bodies, then we'll talk.
Tarkus. Try this: Get a piece of paper. Draw a triangle - one with two sides of the same lenght. The third side should be short, so you get a narrow triangle with a small angle at the top. Now, a short length from the top - about a quarter down, draw a line across parallel with the bottom one. So you have two triangles, same angles on the corners, but different in scale. Measure the centerline, and write the lenght of it next to it. Measure the bottom line, and the transverse line near the top. Now you have a two-dimensional representation of a two-body system with a full eclipse. Look at the numbers you wrote. Multiply them with a billion. Now you have astronomical distances. Exactly the same relations between Earth, Moon and a distant observer.
-
I was (almost) prepared to accept that Tarkus was .. er.. somewhat ignorant of the very basic skills required to compare two images..
Not any longer - after that last post where he didn't even mention simple rotation, let alone perspective and distortion issues from the spherical shape of the Moon (duh), and the fact that he doesn't understand magnification and focal length (or pretends not to)...
Nah, not any longer, given the explanations and handholding. It's either a troll, or ... frankly, this person is beyond help and further explanation is a complete waste of time.
-
Tarkus. Try this: Get a piece of paper. Draw a triangle -
I think you lost him about there.
-
For example, the Moon is smaller than Jupiter. But, if the Moon's transit where to happen in front of Jupiter, the Moon would leave Jupiter completely covered. Same thing happens between the Moon and the Earth. So, the Moon, would never look smaller than the Earth, as it's shown in that animation.
Explain why not. The trigonometry is not hard. The Moon is smaller than Earth. I assume you have no problem with the idea that if the two are next to each other this will be obvious. So what if you were looking at it from a position significantly further away than the orbital distance between Earth and Moon. Why wouldn't the Moon appear smaller in front of the Earth under those circumstances?
-
Tarkus. Try this: Get a piece of paper. Draw a triangle -
I think you lost him about there.
snicker.
-
For example, the Moon is smaller than Jupiter. But, if the Moon's transit where to happen in front of Jupiter, the Moon would leave Jupiter completely covered. Same thing happens between the Moon and the Earth. So, the Moon, would never look smaller than the Earth, as it's shown in that animation.
If you can show me that trick with the focal length, but with actual celestial bodies, then we'll talk.
The DSCOVR satellite is 1 million miles from Earth, the Moon is 250,000 miles so here's some size calculations:
If Earth and Moon side-by-side:
2159 miles / 7917 miles = 27.2% (Moon would appear 27.2% of Earth size)
Looking to Moon from DSCOVR:
Earth (at 1 million miles): 7917 / 1,000,000 = 0.0079
Moon (at 0.75 million miles): 2159 / 750,000 = 0.00288
Relative size of Moon/Earth: 0.00288 / 0.0079 = 36.4%
From animation:
Earth: 272 pixels
Moon: 99 pixels
Relative size of Moon/Earth: 99/272 = 36.4%
Therefore relative size of Moon to Earth in animation (36.4%) is consistent with what we would expect to observe (36.4%) from 1 million miles away, and IS larger than what you would observe if Earth and Moon were side-by-side (27.2%).
-
After carefully examining both sectors identified for you, I must say that was a good try, but failed. If what you intend is to find matches, please point out identical sectors, not only similar. ;)
Examine them again, preferably AFTER you have been to your optician to have your eyesight checked.
(http://i62.tinypic.com/28s7ymo.jpg)
The craters in the red box are Ostwald, Ibn Firnas and Ardeshir. Ostwald is the crater with the smaller crater lying on it's rim- crater Recht (Ostwald is the topmost of the trio in the left hand image and on the bottom right in the right hand image.
The middle crater of the trio is Ibn Firnas. This is a distinctive crater, not only because it is in this recognisable trio, but also because it has the 21km Ibn Firnas L crater right on the edge of it's southern rim.
The bottom crater of the trio (in the left hand image) and top left in the right hand image is Ardeshir. Notice the distinctive triple central peaks which identifies it (Mons Ardeshir).
(http://i61.tinypic.com/2e5o5xg.jpg)
This is the 81km in diameter Olcott. Again, it is highly distinctive both due to it's proximity to the trio named above, but also because it has it's southern rim eroded by crater Olcott L. It also has the recognisable ghost crater Olcott E to the side.
I chose those craters to match due to their easily identifiable shapes and bordering craters. I am more than happy to match any number of craters that lie along the terminator. For example Becvar is very distinctive and lies to the left of the red box on the right hand image. It is very recognisable due to it's souther rim having two overlapping craters. To it's north is the pairing (again overlapping) Gregory and Gregory Q. Further along the terminator is the double craters Langemark. These are all visible in both images.
You do realise that they are rotated, don't you? And also that they are on a sphere, a sphere that is being photographed from different locations, angles and with different lighting?
Zacalwe, do you not have the cojones to admit that you are wrong? 8)
I've been wrong plenty of times here and elsewhere and am always happy to be corrected. However, this time I am very comfortable that I am correct. Identifying Lunar craters I do know about.
Just like hunchbacked. Coincidence?
That was my though too. Hunchie has demonstrated many, many times his complete and utter inability to identify simple spatial reasoning and any understanding of perspective. Tarkus has demonstrated similar inabilities. Even when I drew a big box around the craters and named them he is unable to rotate the images in his mind's eye and match them. It's a wonder that he's able to cross the road without getting run over....
You clearly have issues with spatial awareness. Here. let me help you work out which is your arse and which is your elbow:
I'm not sure that I'd trust him to find the hole in his bum even with the use of both hands, a map and a torch....
-
Tarkus. Try this: Get a piece of paper. Draw a triangle -
I think you lost him about there.
Yes, that was a complex concept. I keep wondering how these people get through their day without getting hurt by bumping into furniture and doors and falling down stairs. There must be a problem with the ability to orient oneself in a 3-dimensional world. Like hunchbacked, who blew a fuse when I asked him if he was blind on one eye, and that was his problem when contemplating perspective.
-
Oh for Christ's sake Tarkus, this is just stupidity in the extreme...
(http://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/07/41/74/3c/targu-mures-fortress.jpg)
Which is bigger, the man or the red-roofed building in the back ground?
Which is further away from the camera?
The perspective/distance relationship is the INVERSE RATIO of the distances, given by the formula
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/math/d/1/5/d153a17e7fa1f16e36c9fb50b76a26bf.png)
Where
h = the height/diamater of the object
d = distance of the object from you
a = actual height/diameter of the object
If a basketball is 5 metres from you and another identical basketball is 50 metres from you, then the near one will appear 10 times bigger than the far one. The same rule applies for 20m & 200m, 400km and 4000km, 50 million km and 500 million km.
THE RULES OF PERSPECTIVE DO NOT CHANGE AT ASTRONOMICAL DISTANCES!!!!!
-
Spatially challenged.
-
For example, the Moon is smaller than Jupiter. But, if the Moon's transit where to happen in front of Jupiter, the Moon would leave Jupiter completely covered.
As seen from Earth, yes. But not as seen from near Jupiter. You simply cannot ignore the effect caused by moving the camera closer to or farther away from the subjects, and/or altering the focal length of the camera to make objects a certain size in the frame at a certain distance. This is basic photography and elementary mathematics.
Same thing happens between the Moon and the Earth. So, the Moon, would never look smaller than the Earth, as it's shown in that animation.
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
If you can show me that trick with the focal length, but with actual celestial bodies, then we'll talk.
The animation shows exactly that, but you're too arrogant and stubborn to realize how. There is nothing magical about celestial bodies in this respect. They're just objects of certain sizes, certain distances apart. You're apparently confused because you're hard-wired to think of things only as they would be if seen from Earth. All these examples that people are showing you, using ordinary objects on Earth, are exactly applicable to your animation. The math doesn't change just because the numbers are large -- i.e., the sizes of the objects and the distances between them and to the camera. You don't seem to realize that a camera on a spacecraft 100 million kilometers or so out in space will create exactly the same sorts of photographic effects using planets that can be created on Earth using much smaller objects and distances.
I have to agree with my colleagues: if you cannot see the qualitative similarity between examples set on Earth and the photographs taken from spacecraft of planetary bodies, then you're beyond help. Spatial reasoning can be improved with exercises, but not until the person realizes he needs that help. You are too wound up in your own arrogance to consider that you, not everyone else, may be the one who is wrong. And arrogant people are ineducable.
-
I keep wondering how these people get through their day without getting hurt by bumping into furniture and doors and falling down stairs. There must be a problem with the ability to orient oneself in a 3-dimensional world.
No, there's just the inability to rationalize it. Most of us don't cogitate our way through our surroundings. We navigate affine space through a projection that makes sense to the unconscious processes that guide us. Spatial reasoning is the ability to apply cognitive processes to that intuitively obtained view, and not everyone does it well. Combine that inability, in tarkus' case, with something right out of Dunning and Kruger's paper and you have, well, tarkus.
-
Thank you for the word salad proving you have no idea what you're talking about. Do you even know what focal length is? And van? Did you bother to look at the gif provided? there is no van.
My bad, I meant "truck" instead of "van". I'm sorry that it made you so confused. But getting back on topic, you can't transfer the focal length between to approximated objects, like the truck and the barn, to objects in space, where such objects are thousands of miles apart from each other, and the fact that there's infinite focus in space.
For example, the Moon is smaller than Jupiter. But, if the Moon's transit where to happen in front of Jupiter, the Moon would leave Jupiter completely covered. Same thing happens between the Moon and the Earth. So, the Moon, would never look smaller than the Earth, as it's shown in that animation.
If you can show me that trick with the focal length, but with actual celestial bodies, then we'll talk.
Bolding mine.
My telescope says you are wrong. Galileo says you are wrong. Three of the Galiliean moons are larger than our own Moon, but they don't cover up Jupiter, not at all.
-
Look tarkus, here is a simple one you can verify yourself. You know that the Sun and the Moon have about the same apparent diameter in the sky. You will realise this because of solar eclipses, the moon just coveres the sun during a total eclipse (unless ,of course, you think that eclipses are faked)
The Sun is 1,392,000 km in diameter, but the Moon is only 3475 km in diameter. 1,392,000 / 3475 = 400.5; the Sun is 400 times the size of the moon, so how can the moon completely cover it?
Well, the Sun is 150,000,000 km away, but the Moon is only 380,000 km away. 150,000,000 / 380,000 = 394.7, or near enough 400.
The Sun may be 400 times bigger than the moon, but it is 400 times further away, so their apparent sizes are about the same.
-
(unless ,of course, you think that eclipses are faked)
Well, not exactly, but he does consider the similar apparent diameter of Earth and Moon as evidence that the Moon is an artificial construct. Don't believe me? Read his posts in other threads.
-
Well, not exactly, but he does consider the similar apparent diameter of Earth and Moon as evidence that the Moon is an artificial construct. Don't believe me? Read his posts in other threads.
Not for me the first time is/was hard enough.
-
(unless ,of course, you think that eclipses are faked)
Well, not exactly, but he does consider the similar apparent diameter of Earth and Moon as evidence that the Moon is an artificial construct. Don't believe me? Read his posts in other threads.
I'm sure you meant the Sun and the Moon
I'm aware of what he believes in that regard, I just don't think my brain can stand any more insults!
-
I'm sure you meant the Sun and the Moon
Yes, I did. Thanks. Although, of course, from a certain distance the ones I mentioned ... oh, nevermind.
-
This thread keeps making me think of this:
(https://html1-f.scribdassets.com/3jchbwyh6oa2awc/images/20-c09c8633ff.jpg)
-
This thread keeps making me think of this:
(https://html1-f.scribdassets.com/3jchbwyh6oa2awc/images/20-c09c8633ff.jpg)
Cool :)
-
For example, the Moon is smaller than Jupiter. But, if the Moon's transit where to happen in front of Jupiter, the Moon would leave Jupiter completely covered. Same thing happens between the Moon and the Earth. So, the Moon, would never look smaller than the Earth, as it's shown in that animation.
Possibly the most stupid thing ever written here.
(http://i.giphy.com/6N6XiH1wc3gKQ.gif)
He says stupid and makes a scene where the moon moves behind the earth ... who is stupid here? you are, because it does not distinguish between objects in the foreground or in the background.
Look again:
(https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_width/public/thumbnails/image/dscovrepicmoontransitfull.gif?itok=m-pCEXqi)
I do not remember seeing a NASA animation more ridiculous than this... ;D
The following image shows a ratio of more realistic size, I think the Earth should be even smaller still.
(http://i.ytimg.com/vi/8ot54JUfZ_w/maxresdefault.jpg)
-
...
For example, the Moon is smaller than Jupiter. But, if the Moon's transit where to happen in front of Jupiter, the Moon would leave Jupiter completely covered. Same thing happens between the Moon and the Earth. So, the Moon, would never look smaller than the Earth, as it's shown in that animation.
If you can show me that trick with the focal length, but with actual celestial bodies, then we'll talk.
That depends on the distance the observer is from the moon.
The observer is obviously on Earth, you're kidding?
-
The observer is obviously on Earth, you're kidding?
The observer is not always on Earth, such as in the animation in your original post.
-
The following image shows a ratio of more realistic size, I think the Earth should be even smaller still.
From what distance? At what focal length? Give actual numbers and show us how you computed them. Your critics were kind enough to show you how to do the math. Now do it.
-
For example, the Moon is smaller than Jupiter. But, if the Moon's transit where to happen in front of Jupiter, the Moon would leave Jupiter completely covered. Same thing happens between the Moon and the Earth. So, the Moon, would never look smaller than the Earth, as it's shown in that animation.
Explain why not. The trigonometry is not hard. The Moon is smaller than Earth. I assume you have no problem with the idea that if the two are next to each other this will be obvious. So what if you were looking at it from a position significantly further away than the orbital distance between Earth and Moon. Why wouldn't the Moon appear smaller in front of the Earth under those circumstances?
Earth is 4 times larger than the Moon but this becomes apparent only when both bodies are lined up next to each other ... but if the Moon is in the foreground, the disc will completely cover the Earth, do not forget that Moon is about 400,000 km away and it looks like a small sphere of only about 2 degrees from the moon Earth, and if you turn away even more (as in the animated gif) Earth will be just like a point , come on!!! It is so difficult to understand?
-
...but if the Moon is in the foreground, the disc will completely cover the Earth
No.
..do not forget that Moon is about 400,000 km away...
Away from Earth, yes. Not that far away from every point from which photographs can be taken.
It is so difficult to understand?
Your concept of the problem is wrong. There's no comfortable way to say it -- you are entirely ignorant of the quantitative relationships that involve perspective and the focal length of lenses. The ratio of distances among the photographer and the objects in the scene is a factor. The focal length of the camera is a factor. Your abject ignorance of these factors do not suddenly make your proposal valid.
-
He says stupid and makes a scene where the moon moves behind the earth ... who is stupid here? you are, because it does not distinguish between objects in the foreground or in the background.
Except the moon is not behind the Earth and I didn't make the image, the Galileo probe did. Your lack of spatial awareness and unfamiliarity with subject in which you are claiming expertise lets you down again - just as I suspected it would.
Have a look at this. It is a small bottle of Stella, and a much larger bottle of wine. Other alcoholic beverages are available. I'm not going to insult my own intelligence by explaining things, try using your own to work out what's going on.
(http://i61.tinypic.com/dhb9dg.jpg) (http://i57.tinypic.com/20gxrau.jpg)
-
For example, the Moon is smaller than Jupiter. But, if the Moon's transit where to happen in front of Jupiter, the Moon would leave Jupiter completely covered. Same thing happens between the Moon and the Earth. So, the Moon, would never look smaller than the Earth, as it's shown in that animation.
Explain why not. The trigonometry is not hard. The Moon is smaller than Earth. I assume you have no problem with the idea that if the two are next to each other this will be obvious. So what if you were looking at it from a position significantly further away than the orbital distance between Earth and Moon. Why wouldn't the Moon appear smaller in front of the Earth under those circumstances?
Earth is 4 times larger than the Moon but this becomes apparent only when both bodies are lined up next to each other ... but if the Moon is in the foreground, the disc will completely cover the Earth, do not forget that Moon is about 400,000 km away and it looks like a small sphere of only about 2 degrees from the moon Earth, and if you turn away even more (as in the animated gif) Earth will be just like a point , come on!!! It is so difficult to understand?
You are the one with difficulty understanding. The apparent size of any object depends on your distance from it. You have been shown the calculations that prove you to be wrong and shown images that do the same. Do you care to acknowledge the replies with actual numbers in or are you not actually capable of doing so?
And I await your response to my challenge regarding your being proved wrong on the Apollo 13 thread as well.
-
http://i398.photobucket.com/albums/pp65/frenat/slide_truck_barn.gif
The truck and barn never move, only the focal length changes.
The truck and barn don't move, but the camera does.
-
For example, the Moon is smaller than Jupiter. But, if the Moon's transit where to happen in front of Jupiter, the Moon would leave Jupiter completely covered. Same thing happens between the Moon and the Earth. So, the Moon, would never look smaller than the Earth, as it's shown in that animation.
Explain why not. The trigonometry is not hard. The Moon is smaller than Earth. I assume you have no problem with the idea that if the two are next to each other this will be obvious. So what if you were looking at it from a position significantly further away than the orbital distance between Earth and Moon. Why wouldn't the Moon appear smaller in front of the Earth under those circumstances?
Earth is 4 times larger than the Moon but this becomes apparent only when both bodies are lined up next to each other ... but if the Moon is in the foreground, the disc will completely cover the Earth...
Whether this is true literally depends on how far away from the Moon you are. If you are on a spacecraft 1.5 million kilometres from the Moon, with the Earth on the far side of the Moon, how big will the Moon be compared to the Earth (that is, with the Earth 1.9 million kilometres away).
...do not forget that Moon is about 400,000 km away and it looks like a small sphere of only about 2 degrees from the moon Earth...
When looked at from the Earth, the Moon is about 0.5 degrees across. When looked at from the Moon, the Earth is about 2 degrees across. But there are places other than the Moon and Earth from which both objects can be seen. Like out in deep space.
...and if you turn away even more (as in the animated gif) Earth will be just like a point , come on!!! It is so difficult to understand?
Apparently it is for you.
Here's a simple illustration:
E----------Mn----------------------------------------You
r
t
h
Imagine you're on one side of the Moon with the Earth on the other side. The distance You-Moon is four times the distance Moon-Earth, and the Earth's diameter is roughly four times that of the Moon.
How much of the Earth is the Moon going to cover?
Answer: Not all of it.
-
This thread keeps making me think of this:
(https://html1-f.scribdassets.com/3jchbwyh6oa2awc/images/20-c09c8633ff.jpg)
Oh my dear Lord, where did you get that from?
That gave me my biggest laugh today... :-)
-
I do not remember seeing a NASA animation more ridiculous than this... ;D
The following image shows a ratio of more realistic size, I think the Earth should be even smaller still.
(http://i.ytimg.com/vi/8ot54JUfZ_w/maxresdefault.jpg)
Hi Tarkus, the image you intuitively believe should be realistic is only so if the observer is a distance of roughly 10,000 miles from the Moon.
Calcs to match your image:
Earth (at 260,000 miles): 7917 / 260,000 = 0.03045
Moon (at 10,000 miles): 2159 / 10,000 = 0.2159
Relative size of Moon/Earth: 0.2159 / 0.03045 = 7.09 = 709%
The DSCOVR satellite is not 10,000 miles from the Moon, it is 750,000 miles away. From that distance the relative size would be 36% which is consistent with the NASA animation.
-
Tarkus, there is a difference between:
Being far away and zoom a lot.
Being close and not zooming at all.
-
Tarkus,
I have two direct questions for you:
1) Do you now understand where you went wrong regarding the far-side crater identification?
2) Please explain how images like this are captured:
(http://www.spaceweather.com/swpod2011/20mar11/Paco-Bellido1.jpg)
We all know that the Moon, when seen from the Earth subtends an angle that is roughly equal to the width of a little finger-nail when held at arm's reach. How then does the moon appear so large in that image? Let me give you a hint, it is not Photoshopped in. And here's a movie of the same effect:
So, two simple questions. Answer them please.
I am not attempting to be a Moderator, but i do refer you to the forum rules (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=18.0):
"The definition of trolling on this forum is:
a) repeatedly making statements with the intention of provoking a negative response (ie. anger);
b) repeatedly making the same claim or accusation while ignoring responses that dispute it.
c) repeatedly making claims while ignoring requests to either support or withdraw them
d) making unfounded accusations against members of the forum (ie. accusing people of being government disinfo agents). If you can't prove it then don't make the accusation.
e) repeatedly deleting (or heavily modifying) posts in order to cover up past statements. If you can't stand behind your own statements then don't make them in the first place.
f) pretending to hold a controversial belief (ie. that the moon landings were faked) in order to waste our time responding to you, or to anger us for your own entertainment. The best way to avoid being wrongfully accused of this behavior is to defend your claims or retract them.
I wait, in anticipation, for your answers.
-
Tarkus,
Here is a simple graphical representation of the relationship between sizes and observer distance.
(http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj292/JasonTT/Satellite%20example.jpg) (http://s275.photobucket.com/user/JasonTT/media/Satellite%20example.jpg.html)
The grey circle M is 1/4 the size of the green circle E. The blue square S1 is located at a distance at which M appears the same size as E (indicated by the red lines). S2 is located further, at which distance it is clear that E appears larger than M.
As M gets further away, the distance of S1 from M at which the two circles appear the same size increases, but crucially it always remains less than the distance between E and M, and in fact the ratio of distances remains fixed.
This does not change as the distances get larger! Any observer further away than S1 in any of these examples will see a smaller M in front of a larger E. Exactly as in the NASA images, in fact.
-
Yeah, right, I'm calling obvious troll. Nobody could be this daft.
-
Yeah, right, I'm calling obvious troll. Nobody could be this daft.
Reminds me of Jack White
-
Yeah, right, I'm calling obvious troll. Nobody could be this daft.
Reminds me of Jack White
Reminds me of insert name of choice
-
Yeah, right, I'm calling obvious troll. Nobody could be this daft.
Reminds me of Jack White
Reminds me of insert name of choice
Well yeah, but Jack White was VERY bad with spatial reasoning. Legendary almost.
-
Yeah, right, I'm calling obvious troll. Nobody could be this daft.
Reminds me of Jack White
Reminds me of insert name of choice
Well yeah, but Jack White was VERY bad with spatial reasoning. Legendary almost.
As a newbie without all the experience of a lot around here, spatial issues reminds me of hunbacked
-
Yeah, right, I'm calling obvious troll. Nobody could be this daft.
Reminds me of Jack White
Yes, people can be this daft, and Jack White was definitely one of them. No spatial reasoning ability to speak of, yet fully convinced that he's an expert. I'm off to reread Dunning & Kruger.
-
Oh for Christ's sake Tarkus, this is just stupidity in the extreme...
(http://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/07/41/74/3c/targu-mures-fortress.jpg)
Which is bigger, the man or the red-roofed building in the back ground?
Which is further away from the camera?
The perspective/distance relationship is the INVERSE RATIO of the distances, given by the formula
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/math/d/1/5/d153a17e7fa1f16e36c9fb50b76a26bf.png)
Where
h = the height/diamater of the object
d = distance of the object from you
a = actual height/diameter of the object
If a basketball is 5 metres from you and another identical basketball is 50 metres from you, then the near one will appear 10 times bigger than the far one. The same rule applies for 20m & 200m, 400km and 4000km, 50 million km and 500 million km.
THE RULES OF PERSPECTIVE DO NOT CHANGE AT ASTRONOMICAL DISTANCES!!!!!
Make a small effort, go and read something about astrophotography ... you'll find out the use of a symbol on some cameras, looks good:
(http://blogldc.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/DT-09-final-infinity.png)
You can not do these tricks when you look at planets or very distant objects, when you focus to infinity no way to make background objects look larger. To understand what ought to read or practice ... either stop beating around the bush and admit that your argument is wrong.
-
Oh for Christ's sake Tarkus, this is just stupidity in the extreme...
(http://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/07/41/74/3c/targu-mures-fortress.jpg)
Which is bigger, the man or the red-roofed building in the back ground?
Which is further away from the camera?
The perspective/distance relationship is the INVERSE RATIO of the distances, given by the formula
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/math/d/1/5/d153a17e7fa1f16e36c9fb50b76a26bf.png)
Where
h = the height/diamater of the object
d = distance of the object from you
a = actual height/diameter of the object
If a basketball is 5 metres from you and another identical basketball is 50 metres from you, then the near one will appear 10 times bigger than the far one. The same rule applies for 20m & 200m, 400km and 4000km, 50 million km and 500 million km.
THE RULES OF PERSPECTIVE DO NOT CHANGE AT ASTRONOMICAL DISTANCES!!!!!
Make a small effort, go and read something about astrophotography ... you'll find out the use of a symbol on some cameras, looks good:
(http://blogldc.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/DT-09-final-infinity.png)
You can not do these tricks when you look at planets or very distant objects, when you focus to infinity no way to make background objects look larger. To understand what ought to read or practice ... either stop beating around the bush and admit that your argument is wrong.
What many have posted and you refuse to accept simple facts, these trig relationships do not go away with enormous distances they maintain the relationship. Look at the diagrams that smartcookie, Alan and/or Jason have posted. It is really easy to see where you are wrong.
-
Make a small effort, go and read something about astrophotography ... you'll find out the use of a symbol on some cameras, looks good:
(http://blogldc.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/DT-09-final-infinity.png)
You can not do these tricks when you look at planets or very distant objects, when you focus to infinity no way to make background objects look larger. To understand what ought to read or practice ... either stop beating around the bush and admit that your argument is wrong.
Again, you are showing your inexperience and lack of knowledge. Imaging the Moon you do have to change the focus point from the limb to the centre of the disc. Similarly, imaging planets will also need changes in focus, but this is mainly due to the turbulence in the atmosphere.
Seeing as you are back, care to address these points:
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=988.msg33948#msg33948
-
Make a small effort, go and read something about astrophotography ...
You'll find there are some very talented and experienced astro-photographers on this forum. so you are onto a loser with that one.
Really though tarkus, photography doesn't really come into this. Simple relative sizes and distances are all you need. I have provided several calculations, and others have posted countless examples and diagrams. They tell you everything you need to know.
-
Tarkus,
I have two direct questions for you:
1) Do you now understand where you went wrong regarding the far-side crater identification?
2) Please explain how images like this are captured:
(http://www.spaceweather.com/swpod2011/20mar11/Paco-Bellido1.jpg)
We all know that the Moon, when seen from the Earth subtends an angle that is roughly equal to the width of a little finger-nail when held at arm's reach. How then does the moon appear so large in that image? Let me give you a hint, it is not Photoshopped in. And here's a movie of the same effect:
So, two simple questions. Answer them please.
I am not attempting to be a Moderator, but i do refer you to the forum rules (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=18.0):
"The definition of trolling on this forum is:
a) repeatedly making statements with the intention of provoking a negative response (ie. anger);
b) repeatedly making the same claim or accusation while ignoring responses that dispute it.
c) repeatedly making claims while ignoring requests to either support or withdraw them
d) making unfounded accusations against members of the forum (ie. accusing people of being government disinfo agents). If you can't prove it then don't make the accusation.
e) repeatedly deleting (or heavily modifying) posts in order to cover up past statements. If you can't stand behind your own statements then don't make them in the first place.
f) pretending to hold a controversial belief (ie. that the moon landings were faked) in order to waste our time responding to you, or to anger us for your own entertainment. The best way to avoid being wrongfully accused of this behavior is to defend your claims or retract them.
I wait, in anticipation, for your answers.
I do not speak or read English ... however I've managed to read and understand them all of you, I said this before, and as you assume they have more and better knowledge than me, from now on I'm going to write my language, Spanish, so from now will be equal, that way I will be able to respond to more users.
1) No me equivoqué acerca de los cráteres, simplemente me he concentrado en el gif, cuando se agote el tema, vuelvo con las imágenes fijas que siguen sin coincidir, mientras tanto le acepto que el usuario que hizo la selección de esas pequeñas áreas fue capaz de encontrar pequeñas similitudes, pero si hemos de ser honestos, al menos toda una franja de la Luna debiera coincidir en ambas imágenes, pero a esto lo voy a desarrollar en detalle en otro post.
2) usted está jugando entre dos imágenes pero una de ellas es próxima: la casa... ¿comprende o no la diferencia? en el gif de la Luna hay dos cuerpos celestes, ambos se enfocan igual, le reitero lo que he dicho al usuario anterior, en astronomía es imposible jugar con el foco para crear la ilusión con la que tanto se insiste, debe usted admitirlo o admitir que jamás usó un telescopio en su vida.
O admitir que está usando una táctica troll de marear la perdiz.
Finalmente, respecto a sus demandas, las niego y le ruego me señale por favor en qué post me ha leído acusar a alguien de ser agente del gobierno, no me atribuya palabras que no me pertenecen.
Tampoco he borrado ningún post, no acuse falsamente!!! está usted nervioso? tranquilo hombre, no pierda la calma y reconozca humildemente que no tiene respuestas adecuadas.
-
I do not speak or read English ... however I've managed to read and understand them all of you, I said this before, and as you assume they have more and better knowledge than me, from now on I'm going to write my language, Spanish, so from now will be equal, that way I will be able to respond to more users.
I do not speak Spanish. Your questions were posed in English, so please do me the honour of replying in a language that I understand. Failing that, I shall start to use Gaelic and where would that get us?
-
You can not do these tricks when you look at planets or very distant objects, when you focus to infinity no way to make background objects look larger.
Changing focus on a camera doesn't make objects larger or smaller, it just well.. brings the object into focus. You change the apparent object sizes by changing focal length. You change the relative object sizes by moving nearer or further away.
In the case of the DSCOVR satellite, it has a 3000mm focal length telescope to give nice big apparent size, but is a long way from the Moon (750,000 miles).
-
I do not speak or read English ... however I've managed to read and understand them all of you, I said this before, and as you assume they have more and better knowledge than me, from now on I'm going to write my language, Spanish, so from now will be equal, that way I will be able to respond to more users.
I do not speak Spanish. Your questions were posed in English, so please do me the honour of replying in a language that I understand. Failing that, I shall start to use Gaelic and where would that get us?
I will be totally lost, I'm not sure about a Gaelic to English link.
-
You can not do these tricks when you look at planets or very distant objects, when you focus to infinity no way to make background objects look larger.
This is not a photographic trick, it is simple perspective. It would work just as well with your eyes. You have been shown diagrams and calculations that show where you are wrong. Why will you not address them instead of concentrating on what you think are photographic tricks?
either stop beating around the bush and admit that your argument is wrong.
You first. See the Apollo 13 thread.
-
Tarkus,
Here is a simple graphical representation of the relationship between sizes and observer distance.
(http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj292/JasonTT/Satellite%20example.jpg) (http://s275.photobucket.com/user/JasonTT/media/Satellite%20example.jpg.html)
The grey circle M is 1/4 the size of the green circle E. The blue square S1 is located at a distance at which M appears the same size as E (indicated by the red lines). S2 is located further, at which distance it is clear that E appears larger than M.
As M gets further away, the distance of S1 from M at which the two circles appear the same size increases, but crucially it always remains less than the distance between E and M, and in fact the ratio of distances remains fixed.
This does not change as the distances get larger! Any observer further away than S1 in any of these examples will see a smaller M in front of a larger E. Exactly as in the NASA images, in fact.
Su dibujo es simplista y erróneo: la Luna se encuentra a unas 30 veces el diámetro de la Tierra, mientras que en el dibujo, llega a estar sólo a 10 veces... y notará usted que cuanto más se aleja la Luna de la Tierra en ese dibujo, mayor porción de la Tierra es cubierta por la Luna, por esa razón la Luna jamás podía verse de menor tamaño cuando está en primer plano.
Si usted es astronauta de Apolo y ve a la Tierra desde la cara conocida, se sube a un rover imaginario capaz de llevarle hasta las antípodas de la Luna, una vez usted llega al punto opuesto del alunizaje (en la cara oculta) se sube a un cohete y despega en línea recta... nunca podrá observar la Tierra, pues ésta quedará por siempre cubierta por la Luna. Lo mismo sucede con la sonda automática, un tránsito real de la Luna delante de la Tierra necesariamente debe mostrar a la Luna MUCHO MÁS GRANDE que la Tierra.
Se han registrado algunos tránsitos de la Luna con planetas como Júpiter, usted no puede hacer el truco de que júpiter se vea de mayor tamaño, a pesar de que (obviamente) Júpiter es MUCHO MAYOR que la Luna en tamaño, lo mismo aplica para el caso Tierra-Luna.
-
Yeah, right, I'm calling obvious troll. Nobody could be this daft.
Turns out I am wrong. Somebody could be this daft.
-
We all know that the Moon, when seen from the Earth subtends an angle that is roughly equal to the width of a little finger-nail when held at arm's reach. How then does the moon appear so large in that image? Let me give you a hint, it is not Photoshopped in.
And Tarkus, you can do the fingernail test yourself. Then move that hand closer to your eye and you will see that the apparent relative sizes of the Moon and fingernail change as it moves. That is a simple demonstration of what everyone here has been trying to tell you. You don't have to wait for the Moon. The test will work with any distant object.
Please report back on this after trying it.
-
Make a small effort, go and read something about astrophotography...
We have. In fact, many of us have been photographers and/or astronomers for quite a number of years.
...you'll find out the use of a symbol on some cameras, looks good.
That refers to focusing distance, which is an entirely different thing altogether from focal length. You are confusing basic topics in photography and making quite a fool of yourself by persisting in your arrogance.
You can not do these tricks when you look at planets or very distant objects, when you focus to infinity no way to make background objects look larger.
Focus distance is not the same as focal length.
To understand what ought to read or practice... either stop beating around the bush and admit that your argument is wrong.
My argument is not wrong. I've been a photographer for 30 years and have, at times, made my living at it. In my job as an engineer I have designed optical systems from scratch. You do not know what you're talking about. You're confusing elementary concepts in both astronomy and photography.
-
I do not speak Spanish. Your questions were posed in English, so please do me the honour of replying in a language that I understand.
Agreed. If you are going to seek out English-speakers as your audience, then conduct the discussion in English, please. If you do not speak English, then either learn it, hire a translator, or look for debate among people who speak your language.
-
1) No me equivoqué acerca de los cráteres, simplemente me he concentrado en el gif, cuando se agote el tema, vuelvo con las imágenes fijas que siguen sin coincidir, mientras tanto le acepto que el usuario que hizo la selección de esas pequeñas áreas fue capaz de encontrar pequeñas similitudes, pero si hemos de ser honestos, al menos toda una franja de la Luna debiera coincidir en ambas imágenes, pero a esto lo voy a desarrollar en detalle en otro post.
No. You said there was no overlap, that you could not find the same craters on the two images. You have been proven wrong, stop moving the goalposts.
2) usted está jugando entre dos imágenes pero una de ellas es próxima: la casa... ¿comprende o no la diferencia? en el gif de la Luna hay dos cuerpos celestes, ambos se enfocan igual, le reitero lo que he dicho al usuario anterior, en astronomía es imposible jugar con el foco para crear la ilusión con la que tanto se insiste, debe usted admitirlo o admitir que jamás usó un telescopio en su vida.
O admitir que está usando una táctica troll de marear la perdiz.
Some of us to take photographs. Lots of them. We also have telescopes. Go learn how to use a camera. I've demonstrated, again using perfectly simple household objects and a phone camera, how easy your claim is to be debunked. Prove me wrong.
Finalmente, respecto a sus demandas, las niego y le ruego me señale por favor en qué post me ha leído acusar a alguien de ser agente del gobierno, no me atribuya palabras que no me pertenecen.
Tampoco he borrado ningún post, no acuse falsamente!!! está usted nervioso? tranquilo hombre, no pierda la calma y reconozca humildemente que no tiene respuestas adecuadas.
The general rules were being quoted. Some parts apply specifically to you, others do not. Yet. See if you can work out which bits.
-
I probably speak enough Spanish to get the gist (and enough Gaelic to get a few words, provided it's Irish Gaelic), but this brings up a question I've long had.
If your English isn't very good, why wouldn't you seek out a forum in a language you do speak well? Just posting in Spanish at an English-language forum is . . . I'm actually kind of at a loss for adjectives. Nonsensical? Rude, obviously. Pointless, too. Even "trollish," though accurate, doesn't go all the way to covering this issue.
-
Tarkus,
Here is a simple graphical representation of the relationship between sizes and observer distance.
(http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj292/JasonTT/Satellite%20example.jpg) (http://s275.photobucket.com/user/JasonTT/media/Satellite%20example.jpg.html)
The grey circle M is 1/4 the size of the green circle E. The blue square S1 is located at a distance at which M appears the same size as E (indicated by the red lines). S2 is located further, at which distance it is clear that E appears larger than M.
As M gets further away, the distance of S1 from M at which the two circles appear the same size increases, but crucially it always remains less than the distance between E and M, and in fact the ratio of distances remains fixed.
This does not change as the distances get larger! Any observer further away than S1 in any of these examples will see a smaller M in front of a larger E. Exactly as in the NASA images, in fact.
Su dibujo es simplista y erróneo: la Luna se encuentra a unas 30 veces el diámetro de la Tierra, mientras que en el dibujo, llega a estar sólo a 10 veces... y notará usted que cuanto más se aleja la Luna de la Tierra en ese dibujo, mayor porción de la Tierra es cubierta por la Luna, por esa razón la Luna jamás podía verse de menor tamaño cuando está en primer plano.
Si usted es astronauta de Apolo y ve a la Tierra desde la cara conocida, se sube a un rover imaginario capaz de llevarle hasta las antípodas de la Luna, una vez usted llega al punto opuesto del alunizaje (en la cara oculta) se sube a un cohete y despega en línea recta... nunca podrá observar la Tierra, pues ésta quedará por siempre cubierta por la Luna. Lo mismo sucede con la sonda automática, un tránsito real de la Luna delante de la Tierra necesariamente debe mostrar a la Luna MUCHO MÁS GRANDE que la Tierra.
Se han registrado algunos tránsitos de la Luna con planetas como Júpiter, usted no puede hacer el truco de que júpiter se vea de mayor tamaño, a pesar de que (obviamente) Júpiter es MUCHO MAYOR que la Luna en tamaño, lo mismo aplica para el caso Tierra-Luna.
I speak spanish.
For anyone wondering, Ill traduce what he said the best I can:
Your drawing is simplistic and wrong: the moon is at a distance 30 times the diameter of the earth, while in the drawing, is just 10 times... and you will notice that the farther away the moon is from the earth in this drawing, a bigger proportion of the earth is covered by the moon, because of that reason the moon would never be seen of less size when it is on the first plane.
If you are an Apollo astronaut and you see the earth from the known face, you drive the imaginary rover capable of carry you on to the farside of the moon. Once you are in the opposite side of the moon from where you landed, you get inside a rocket and you fly away in a straight line... you would never see the earth, because it will be covered for ever by the moon. The same happens with the satellite, a real transit of the moon infront of the earth must necessarily show the moon much more bigger than the earth.
It has been registered some transits of the moon with planets like jupiter, you cannot make jupiter be seen with a bigger size when jupiter is obviously much bigger than the moon, the same example applies in the Earth-Moon scenario.
-
I think part of the problem is that people who argue these points don't take photos much. Because even as a teenager, I would look at photos and go, "Weird, I thought that looked closer/further/bigger/smaller than it came out." Once I had an SLR, I soon realized that the standard 55 mm lens that came with it wasn't very good for stuff really near or really far. Then the money sink of lenses came into my life.
Anyone who's ever used a telephoto lens should understand how the photo of "little guy, big moon" was taken. Heck, just watching some news casts where they zoom in on a scene makes it obvious.
-
Attached is a scale model (1 pixel = 100 miles) of the exact sizes and relationship between the Earth, Moon and the position of the DSCOVR satellite. That is one very wide PNG image :)
(http://i611.photobucket.com/albums/tt192/Paul99999/earth-moon-from-1000000_zps4juzoxxj.png)
The Moon is clearly smaller than the Earth as observed from DSCOVR, and looks pretty much like around 36.4% I'd say as a Moon/Earth diameter ratio. The second attachment is a crop of just the Earth/Moon section to make the detail easier to see.
(http://i611.photobucket.com/albums/tt192/Paul99999/earth-moon-from-1000000-detail_zpsofqf2hmv.png)
No-one can argue with that surely ???
-
Tarkus,
Here is a simple graphical representation of the relationship between sizes and observer distance.
(http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj292/JasonTT/Satellite%20example.jpg) (http://s275.photobucket.com/user/JasonTT/media/Satellite%20example.jpg.html)
The grey circle M is 1/4 the size of the green circle E. The blue square S1 is located at a distance at which M appears the same size as E (indicated by the red lines). S2 is located further, at which distance it is clear that E appears larger than M.
As M gets further away, the distance of S1 from M at which the two circles appear the same size increases, but crucially it always remains less than the distance between E and M, and in fact the ratio of distances remains fixed.
This does not change as the distances get larger! Any observer further away than S1 in any of these examples will see a smaller M in front of a larger E. Exactly as in the NASA images, in fact.
Su dibujo es simplista y erróneo: la Luna se encuentra a unas 30 veces el diámetro de la Tierra, mientras que en el dibujo, llega a estar sólo a 10 veces... y notará usted que cuanto más se aleja la Luna de la Tierra en ese dibujo, mayor porción de la Tierra es cubierta por la Luna, por esa razón la Luna jamás podía verse de menor tamaño cuando está en primer plano.
Si usted es astronauta de Apolo y ve a la Tierra desde la cara conocida, se sube a un rover imaginario capaz de llevarle hasta las antípodas de la Luna, una vez usted llega al punto opuesto del alunizaje (en la cara oculta) se sube a un cohete y despega en línea recta... nunca podrá observar la Tierra, pues ésta quedará por siempre cubierta por la Luna. Lo mismo sucede con la sonda automática, un tránsito real de la Luna delante de la Tierra necesariamente debe mostrar a la Luna MUCHO MÁS GRANDE que la Tierra.
Se han registrado algunos tránsitos de la Luna con planetas como Júpiter, usted no puede hacer el truco de que júpiter se vea de mayor tamaño, a pesar de que (obviamente) Júpiter es MUCHO MAYOR que la Luna en tamaño, lo mismo aplica para el caso Tierra-Luna.
I speak spanish.
For anyone wondering, Ill traduce what he said the best I can:
Your drawing is simplistic and wrong: the moon is at a distance 30 times the diameter of the earth, while in the drawing, is just 10 times... and you will notice that the farther away the moon is from the earth in this drawing, a bigger proportion of the earth is covered by the moon, because of that reason the moon would never be seen of less size when it is on the first plane.
If you are an Apollo astronaut and you see the earth from the known face, you drive the imaginary rover capable of carry you on to the farside of the moon. Once you are in the opposite side of the moon from where you landed, you get inside a rocket and you fly away in a straight line... you would never see the earth, because it will be covered for ever by the moon. The same happens with the satellite, a real transit of the moon infront of the earth must necessarily show the moon much more bigger than the earth.
It has been registered some transits of the moon with planets like jupiter, you cannot make jupiter be seen with a bigger size when jupiter is obviously much bigger than the moon, the same example applies in the Earth-Moon scenario.
Thank you for translating.
Tarkus, here is an image of the Earth and Moon taken by Mars Odyssey:
http://btc.montana.edu/ceres/Worlds/earthmoon.jpg
From this site, which gives the source: http://btc.montana.edu/ceres/Worlds/earthmoon.htm
Here is part of the caption that goes with it: "2001 Mars Odyssey's Thermal Emission Imaging System (THEMIS) took this portrait of the Earth and its companion Moon, using the infrared camera, one of two cameras in the instrument. It was taken at a distance of 3,563,735 kilometers (more than 2 million miles) on April 19, 2001 as the 2001 Mars Odyssey spacecraft left the Earth. From this distance and perspective the camera was able to acquire an image that directly shows the true distance from the Earth to the Moon. The Earth's diameter is about 12,750 km, and the distance from the Earth to the Moon is about 385,000 km, corresponding to 30 Earth diameters." (bolding mine)
Look how small the Moon is compared to the Earth. Imagine it moving round in its orbit as the observer watches, coming between the observer and the Earth, and taking into account the numbers given above. Can you see that the idea that the Moon would always entirely cover the Earth, no matter the distance of the observer, is nonsensical?
-
I think part of the problem is that people who argue these points don't take photos much.
Or don't work in film and video as well, where dynamic lens adjustments have to be made, often to achieve the expected effect and not to create some flashy effect like a dolly-zoom.
-
Some of us to take photographs. Lots of them.
I take between 10,000 and 15,000 photographs a year. I have a studio and an associated business, although that is not my primary employment.
-
I speak spanish.
For anyone wondering, Ill traduce what he said the best I can:
Your drawing is simplistic and wrong: the moon is at a distance 30 times the diameter of the earth, while in the drawing, is just 10 times... and you will notice that the farther away the moon is from the earth in this drawing, a bigger proportion of the earth is covered by the moon, because of that reason the moon would never be seen of less size when it is on the first plane.
If you are an Apollo astronaut and you see the earth from the known face, you drive the imaginary rover capable of carry you on to the farside of the moon. Once you are in the opposite side of the moon from where you landed, you get inside a rocket and you fly away in a straight line... you would never see the earth, because it will be covered for ever by the moon. The same happens with the satellite, a real transit of the moon infront of the earth must necessarily show the moon much more bigger than the earth.
It has been registered some transits of the moon with planets like jupiter, you cannot make jupiter be seen with a bigger size when jupiter is obviously much bigger than the moon, the same example applies in the Earth-Moon scenario.
Using your translation and I'm not sure this is fair, but tarkus this is exactly backwards as the view from the Mars image proves.
-
Tarkus, the problem isn't your English; it's quite serviceable. The problem is your complete failure to grasp elementary trigonometry, and as has been already pointed out, your confusing of basic aspects such as focus and focal length.
But your biggest problem is your stubborn refusal to learn anything. You literally have no idea what you're talking about, and yet you keep dismissing actual experts when they try to help you. Even more distressing, understanding this doesn't require real expertise; you can observe the same principle in everyday life, and the math involved is grade-school stuff.
-
Make a small effort, go and read something about astrophotography ... you'll find out the use of a symbol on some cameras, looks good:
(http://blogldc.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/DT-09-final-infinity.png)
You can not do these tricks when you look at planets or very distant objects, when you focus to infinity no way to make background objects look larger. To understand what ought to read or practice ... either stop beating around the bush and admit that your argument is wrong.
I have been doing astrophotography on and off for about 40 years. I am also a photographer by trade and have my own darkroom and digital printing business.
You are making the fundamental error of confusing focal distance with focal length.
Focal distance is the distance from the lens to the object being observed. Its IN FRONT of the lens.
Focal length is the distance from the lens back to the focal point or plane. Its BEHIND the lens.
The ∞ symbol is used to set the "depth of field" on a camera; that is the range over which everything in the field of view is "in focus". By setting the ∞ symbol opposite the f-stop (f) figure, you can read the depth of field off the other f-stop figure
(http://bobatkins.com/photography/technical/digitaldof/35mmdof.jpg)
In this example the ∞ symbol is dialled to a point opposite f16 on one side of the centre mark. You then look at the distance number opposite the f16 on the other side of the centre mark, and this will tell you that when the camera lens is set to f16, everything from ∞ to just under 0.4m (1.2 ft) away from the lens will be "in focus" i.e. sharp.
Having read through what I have just written, I think I might understand your confusion. The ∞ symbol on a camera is not used for anything other than to get close up objects in a field to appear in focus along with far away objects. NOTE: that is close up physically, NOT relatively. DEPTH OF FIELD will not work at astronomcal distances because those distance are too large, but this has NOTHING to do with the relative sizes of objects in the field.
-
The entire "moon will always block the Earth" argument could be readily tested with some cheap supplies (two Styrofoam spheres, one approximately four times the size of the other) and two wooden dowels), a basic camera, and probably less than 20 minutes of effort.
Set up the spheres side by side with the center at the same height, start the camera right next to the small sphere, and move the camera away. See how the image changes.
-
The entire "moon will always block the Earth" argument could be readily tested...
Agreed, but tarkus simply sidesteps all those invitations to stage his own demonstrations by asserting than nothing we can do on Earth proves anything about astronomical objects and distances. It's a cargo-cult appeal to magic.
-
The entire "moon will always block the Earth" argument could be readily tested...
Agreed, but tarkus simply sidesteps all those invitations to stage his own demonstrations by asserting than nothing we can do on Earth proves anything about astronomical objects and distances. It's a cargo-cult appeal to magic.
Yep.
One of Tarkus' premises seems to be that if you make the numbers big, the fundamental nature of math changes.
-
I think he's confused by our use of "focal length" and field of view, which he assumes means focus distance. That's why he referred to the infinity symbol as a lens setting. Astronomical photography can be done via normal lenses with the focus setting at infinity, and it appears tarkus (wrongly) believes that things we point to that are affected by focal length (i.e., the effects of foreshortened foreground/background relationships) cannot thereby be manipulated with an infinity focus distance. As many have noted, he's conflating similarly named but dissimilar concepts in optics.
-
I think he's confused by our use of "focal length" and field of view, which he assumes means focus distance. That's why he referred to the infinity symbol as a lens setting. Astronomical photography can be done via normal lenses with the focus setting at infinity, and it appears tarkus (wrongly) believes that things we point to that are affected by focal length (i.e., the effects of foreshortened foreground/background relationships) cannot thereby be manipulated with an infinity focus distance. As many have noted, he's conflating similarly named but dissimilar concepts in optics.
I think it is much more simple. Tarkus thinks that local "up" is universal and all cameras must perforce have the same orientation wherever they are in space. Sure, you can rotate your camera on the ground, but in space that is verbotten for reasons which he declines to specify.
-
Meh.
Unless my brain has gone to porridge what with these hot days we've been having, lens length is only material in how wide the field of view is. It matters for "Earth should look bigger" (that is, take up more of the frame in some photograph in question) but not for any comparison of visual diameters. Aka "The Moon should look bigger than the Earth."
For that question, it is only about location, location, location. Camera matters not. It's all in the geometry.
Which is why I must repeat; from the distance of Earth, Jupiter's larger moons are clearly incapable of covering Jupiter. So, Tarkus, will you admit that there exists a distance -- one smaller than infinity -- at which the Moon will be visually smaller than the Earth?
-
Unless my brain has gone to porridge what with these hot days we've been having, lens length is only material in how wide the field of view is. It matters for "Earth should look bigger" (that is, take up more of the frame in some photograph in question) but not for any comparison of visual diameters. Aka "The Moon should look bigger than the Earth."
It's the combination of camera position and focal length. The dolly zoom manipulates both, usually with the goal of maintaining the foreground object at the same size in the frame. This results in a shift in the perception of distance between foreground and background elements, best described as expanding or compressing the apparent depth in the scene.
-
Yah, but does not the dolly zoom trick require, well, the dolly?
If Tarkus is directly comparing apparent diameter of Moon and Earth without consideration of the frame, that is purely a matter of the distance the photograph was made from.
-
do not forget that Moon is about 400,000 km away and it looks like a small sphere of only about 2 degrees from the moon Earth
Correct, Earth appears 2 degrees across from the Moon, 400,000 km away. So how big will Earth appear to be from double that distance?
-
Here's a Stellarium animation I did for elsewhere on the interwebz:
(http://i60.tinypic.com/2d1usdk.jpg)
Tarkus, is this astronomy software lying to me?
-
Meh.
Unless my brain has gone to porridge what with these hot days we've been having, lens length is only material in how wide the field of view is. It matters for "Earth should look bigger" (that is, take up more of the frame in some photograph in question) but not for any comparison of visual diameters. Aka "The Moon should look bigger than the Earth."
For that question, it is only about location, location, location. Camera matters not. It's all in the geometry.
Hi nomuse, yes you are right, if we are just considering relative sizes then cameras and focal lengths and focal points are not relevant. You just need to compare Moon/Earth size ratios and relative distances to observer as I did in a couple of earlier posts and others have done in diagrams and photos.
To confirm 'in the field' the effect of focal length on relative size I went out this morning and shot the following:
70mm focal length, with the 'Moon' (small ruler) one metre from the 'Earth' (the big ruler). The camera is positioned 6 metres further on from the 'Moon'. The relative distances match the Earth/Moon/DSCOVR positions ;)
(http://i611.photobucket.com/albums/tt192/Paul99999/6m-070mm_zpswp1mvi1u.jpg)
Using 10cm on the small ruler for the Moon diameter and 40cm on the big ruler for the Earth (sizes chosen to keep things simple) and after resizing and cropping to an image width of 1000 pixels we get:
Moon (168px) / Earth (498px) = Moon/Earth ratio of 0.337 = 33.7%.
Now at 100mm focal length (all objects and the camera unmoved):
(http://i611.photobucket.com/albums/tt192/Paul99999/6m-100mm_zpsdo1dkkds.jpg)
Moon (152px) / Earth (454px) = Moon/Earth ratio of 0.335 = 33.5%.
200mm:
(http://i611.photobucket.com/albums/tt192/Paul99999/6m-200mm_zpsxi03snjb.jpg)
Moon (162px) / Earth (484px) = Moon/Earth ratio of 0.335 = 33.5%.
And finally 300mm:
(http://i611.photobucket.com/albums/tt192/Paul99999/6m-300mm_zpsylfrx5lt.jpg)
Moon (236px) / Earth (710px) = Moon/Earth ratio of 0.332 = 33.2%.
Conclusion 1: So allowing for lens distortion through the zoom range, and margin of error from measuring the pixel lengths, the Moon and Earth ratio has remained constant regardless of focal length.
Now the effect of moving the camera forwards. We already have the 6m ratio at around 33% regardless of focal length.
So with camera at 3m from the Moon (at 70mm focal length):
(http://i611.photobucket.com/albums/tt192/Paul99999/3m-070mm_zpsx5ckj24n.jpg)
Moon (171px) / Earth (423px) = Moon/Earth ratio of 0.404 = 40.4%.
So Moon has increased in size relative to Earth by moving nearer.
And with camera at 1m from the Moon (70mm):
(http://i611.photobucket.com/albums/tt192/Paul99999/1m-070mm_zps0iximo7o.jpg)
Moon (353px) / Earth (473px) = Moon/Earth ratio of 0.746 = 74.6%.
The Moon has again increased substantially relative to the Earth.
Conclusion 2: Changing the relative distances between objects and observer changes the relative size of the objects.
-
Which adds one more to my list of hoax beliefs that can be overturned with a straight-edge.
-
I do not speak or read English ... however I've managed to read and understand them all of you, I said this before, and as you assume they have more and better knowledge than me, from now on I'm going to write my language, Spanish, so from now will be equal, that way I will be able to respond to more users.
(http://i60.tinypic.com/33kvcs4.jpg)
If anything you seem to be responding less often now that you have changed into your native tongue. Is this nothing more than a crude attempt to derail the thread?
-
Yah, but does not the dolly zoom trick require, well, the dolly?
Yes of course, and part of tarkus' problem seems to be that he is unable to determine how properly to compare images taken from different distances, say from spacecraft versus from Earth. Vary the distance but leave the focal length alone and you see a proportional difference in the scene, but (for distant objects) little if any difference in apparent size in the frame. Vary the focal length and leave the distance alone and you see a different apparent size of the entire scene with respect to the frame, but no difference between objects in the scene. Combine the two effects, as any happenstance photography will naturally do, and it requires some thought to determine whether the objects are properly depicted.
-
There's also the issue of the shifting of the goalposts.....first he claimed that not one single crater matched. Cue a quick shift of the goalposts when he was shown that not only one was matched, but a whole group. The he claims that they are "similiar" but of course that doesn't count.
What is it with hoaxies that they are such intellectual cowards that they are unable to either hold their position or admit when they are incorrect?
-
Ego is a large hurdle for many. The importance of being right in a black and white world.
-
Changing focus on a camera doesn't make objects larger or smaller, it just well.. brings the object into focus.
Actually, changing focus does make the scene appear larger or smaller, but only slightly. That's because it changes the distance between the lens and the imager/film, which changes the size of the image formed on the latter.
This is especially noticeable for macro lenses, which move out quite far from their "infinity" focus points, but still it's important in photometry. For example, it has to be taken into account in measuring the size of the earth that appears in the background of the photos the Apollo 17 astronauts took of each other next to the flag. The camera is quite close to the flag and astronaut so its lens was moved relatively far from the film to bring them into focus. This made the (out of focus) earth appear slightly larger than it would if the astronauts were taking a picture of the earth with the lens focused at infinity.
This isn't directly relevant to the present discussion of pictures of the earth and moon together from space well away from both, as the lens would simply be focused at infinity and left there. But it should be pointed out for completeness.
-
If anything you seem to be responding less often now that you have changed into your native tongue.
It's amazing how these problems (just like the lack of time) always comes up when the Hoaxers are supposed to explain their beliefs with more than "I want to believe", but are never any hindrance in spouting new lies, accusations, silly remarks... One could almost think they are not totally honest...
-
Changing focus on a camera doesn't make objects larger or smaller, it just well.. brings the object into focus.
Actually, changing focus does make the scene appear larger or smaller, but only slightly. That's because it changes the distance between the lens and the imager/film, which changes the size of the image formed on the latter.
This is especially noticeable for macro lenses, which move out quite far from their "infinity" focus points, but still it's important in photometry. For example, it has to be taken into account in measuring the size of the earth that appears in the background of the photos the Apollo 17 astronauts took of each other next to the flag. The camera is quite close to the flag and astronaut so its lens was moved relatively far from the film to bring them into focus. This made the (out of focus) earth appear slightly larger than it would if the astronauts were taking a picture of the earth with the lens focused at infinity.
This isn't directly relevant to the present discussion of pictures of the earth and moon together from space well away from both, as the lens would simply be focused at infinity and left there. But it should be pointed out for completeness.
Hi ka9q, yes I see what you mean. I was just making the point that you wouldn't be trying to change focal length by turning the focus ring!
-
For example, it has to be taken into account in measuring the size of the earth that appears in the background of the photos the Apollo 17 astronauts took of each other next to the flag. The camera is quite close to the flag and astronaut so its lens was moved relatively far from the film to bring them into focus. This made the (out of focus) earth appear slightly larger than it would if the astronauts were taking a picture of the earth with the lens focused at infinity.
Thank you for explaining this. I tried to analyze one of these photos a few years back, and the Earth was stubbornly too large and I could not figure out why.
-
I tried to analyze one of these photos a few years back, and the Earth was stubbornly too large and I could not figure out why.
You did also consider that the nominal focal length is also effective only for the center of the image? As you move towards the sides of the image formed by a rectilinear lens, the distance to the lens also increases.
-
While on the topic of the lunar far side, I though this comparison between the historic Luna 3 image and LRO fascinating. https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/details.cgi?aid=4109
-
While on the topic of the lunar far side, I though this comparison between the historic Luna 3 image and LRO fascinating. https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/details.cgi?aid=4109
Large advances in imagery in 50 years
-
While on the topic of the lunar far side, I though this comparison between the historic Luna 3 image and LRO fascinating. https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/details.cgi?aid=4109
Large advances in imagery in 50 years
What will we have in the next 50?
-
While on the topic of the lunar far side, I though this comparison between the historic Luna 3 image and LRO fascinating. https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/details.cgi?aid=4109
Large advances in imagery in 50 years
What will we have in the next 50?
What I would like to see is an observatory with sufficient angular resolution to view the Apollo landing sites and hardware directly, perhaps that would shut up the HB's.
-
Doubtful. They'd just say they were planted sometime between then and then.
-
Doubtful. They'd just say they were planted sometime between then and then.
Oh the "secret" launches, you may be correct.
-
Doubtful. They'd just say they were planted sometime between then and then.
Oh the "secret" launches, you may be correct.
I thought the same thing, but if conspiracy theorists thought through the consequences of their claims, they would not be grawlix-ing conspiracy theorists.
-
Large advances in imagery in 50 years
Mainly in digital imagery. The Apollo Hasselblad photos still look amazing for having been taken nearly 50 years ago; they rival even good digital cameras today. But they required the exposed film be physically returned to earth and processed.
The big advance today is that we can get the same image quality (or even better) without having to physically return anything to earth.
-
While on the topic of the lunar far side, I though this comparison between the historic Luna 3 image and LRO fascinating. https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/details.cgi?aid=4109
AS I've been trawing through Apollo Panoramic camera images I have been astonished at the level of detail they contain - particularly in the very very very high resolution scans (see my thread on Hadley Rille from orbit) - quite often from higher altitudes than the LRO.
Likewise Lunar Orbiters's data, which seems only to have been let down by image processing at this end.
-
Zond 5-8 (http://mentallandscape.com/C_CatalogMoon.htm) are also quite amazing, being also photographs returned as film.
Modern reprocessing of Luna 3 (http://www.astrosurf.com/nunes/explor/explor_luna3.htm) images shows improvements, though the choice of time of lunar day did not help.
-
Large advances in imagery in 50 years
Mainly in digital imagery. The Apollo Hasselblad photos still look amazing for having been taken nearly 50 years ago; they rival even good digital cameras today. But they required the exposed film be physically returned to earth and processed.
The big advance today is that we can get the same image quality (or even better) without having to physically return anything to earth.
Even 35 mm slide film was pretty good - remember that they were meant to be projected on large screens 5 m across with minimal loss of resolution.
I seem to recall a large format positive film has a resolution in the giga-pixel range.
-
Zond 5-8 (http://mentallandscape.com/C_CatalogMoon.htm) are also quite amazing, being also photographs returned as film.
Modern reprocessing of Luna 3 (http://www.astrosurf.com/nunes/explor/explor_luna3.htm) images shows improvements, though the choice of time of lunar day did not help.
The justification I guess was that they wanted to capture as much of the unseen hemisphere as possible. Most people see the image as poor reproductions, copies of paper copies. The original was much better, though still poor by modern standards. And of course the image was revolutionary, showing that the far side was very different to the near side, fewer maria and all highlands.
-
Zond 5-8 (http://mentallandscape.com/C_CatalogMoon.htm) are also quite amazing, being also photographs returned as film.
Modern reprocessing of Luna 3 (http://www.astrosurf.com/nunes/explor/explor_luna3.htm) images shows improvements, though the choice of time of lunar day did not help.
The justification I guess was that they wanted to capture as much of the unseen hemisphere as possible. Most people see the image as poor reproductions, copies of paper copies. The original was much better, though still poor by modern standards. And of course the image was revolutionary, showing that the far side was very different to the near side, fewer maria and all highlands.
Heck, it could have been largely the same, and it still would have been revolutionary, as it was something no one had seen before. As far as we know and very likely so, nothing ever. Given the tech at the time, a startling and stunning achievement.
-
I remember getting excited over it when I was five. Would have been 1963 or thereabouts.
-
I seem to recall a large format positive film has a resolution in the giga-pixel range.
Film resolution is usually expressed in lpm (lines per millimetre) but that is not quite a direct equivalent of digitial image resultion. Its an expression of the best possible level of detail that film can show, wheras digital resolution just says how big the image is. A typical good quality professional film has a resolution of around 100 lpm, but each line needs two rows of pixels, one dark and one light so the equivalent digitial resolution of the film will be 200 pixels per millimetre. A 35mm film frame is 36 x 24 mm, so at 200 ppm
(36 x 200) x (24 x 200) = 7,200 pixels x 4,800 pixels = 34,560,000 pixels, or around 35 MP
Medium format film has several aspect ratios, 645, 66, 67, 68, 69 and (rarely) 610 but as near as I can figure, most of the Apollo surface photography was on 66 (60mm x 60mm format)
(60 x 200) x (60 x 200) = 12000 pixels x 12000 pixels = 144,000,000 or around 150 MP
Large format film usually comes in three formats 5 x 4" (125mm x 100mm) 7 x 5 (175mm x 125mm) and 10 x 8" (250mm x 200mm)
5 x 4 = (125 x 200) x (100 x 200) = 25000 pixels x 20000 pixels = 500,000,000 or arounf 500 MP
Its not until you get up to the 10 x 8 format that "gigapixels" kick in
10 x 8 = (250 x 200) x (200 x 200) = 50000 pixels x 40000 pixels = 2,000,000,000 or around 2 GP
However I cannot see any advantage in using large format film on space missions. The advantages of better resultion will surely be outweighed by the disadvantages. The film base itself is much thicker than a 120 or 135 film (adding weight) and the photographic equipment is much larger and heavier. Also, the film is so physically large that at anything approaching short focal lengths, you have to start taking into account the "petzval field curvature" and that gets very complcated.
-
I looked up the Lunar Mapping Camera, which was maid by Fairchild. The image taken by the terrain cameras was 4.5"x4.5", with the film width being 5 inches. The magazine held 1,500 feet of film. The images had a resolution of 80 lines/mm using Kodak EK3404 film (apparently the stuff is still made - does anyone know if film is still the primary source for arial applications?).
So, for a case where someone didn't have to carry a large camera (I can just picture Neil Armstrong wielding a Speed Graphic and 4x5 sheets of Ektachrome while wearing a space suit), NASA deemed the weight penalty (275 pounds) worth the effort to get the high-res images on large-format film.
http://history.nasa.gov/afj/simbaycam/fairchild-lunar-mapping-camera.htm
-
And to think all this film wasn't fogged by the deadly VARB and by the space radiation that would have rendered any astronaut, ill/dead
-
I looked up the Lunar Mapping Camera, which was maid by Fairchild. The image taken by the terrain cameras was 4.5"x4.5", with the film width being 5 inches. The magazine held 1,500 feet of film. The images had a resolution of 80 lines/mm using Kodak EK3404 film (apparently the stuff is still made - does anyone know if film is still the primary source for arial applications?).
So, for a case where someone didn't have to carry a large camera (I can just picture Neil Armstrong wielding a Speed Graphic and 4x5 sheets of Ektachrome while wearing a space suit), NASA deemed the weight penalty (275 pounds) worth the effort to get the high-res images on large-format film.
http://history.nasa.gov/afj/simbaycam/fairchild-lunar-mapping-camera.htm
I think they stopped a year ago. I could be wrong, but a bell is ringing.
-
Don't forget that image resolution is limited by lens diffraction as well as the imager/film. LRO has an objective mirror roughly 200 mm in diameter, and its pictures are nearly as good as its diffraction limit.
How big were the Apollo SM camera objectives?
-
And to think all this film wasn't fogged by the deadly VARB and by the space radiation that would have rendered any astronaut, ill/dead
Well, that is a pretty dense bunch of polyester for a particle to drill through. I've accidentally exposed bulk film to light and only the sprockets and outer couple of layers have been light shot. But your point is well-taken, anyway.
-
And to think all this film wasn't fogged by the deadly VARB and by the space radiation that would have rendered any astronaut, ill/dead
Well, that is a pretty dense bunch of polyester for a particle to drill through. I've accidentally exposed bulk film to light and only the sprockets and outer couple of layers have been light shot. But your point is well-taken, anyway.
You have to realise that most of these people have no clue what a sprocket might be.
-
Well, the website says it was a 76mm focal length lens at f4.5. Theoretically, that meant the objective was 17mm, but that's clearly not the case. F-values for lenses really refer to the effective f-stop of the lens, based on the internal optics, transmission loss, etc.
Taking a WAG based on the size of the magazine in the photo and the handle designed for a spacesuit glove, I'm going to guess that the front piece of glass was in the range of 4 to 5 inches in diameter.
-
And to think all this film wasn't fogged by the deadly VARB and by the space radiation that would have rendered any astronaut, ill/dead
Well, that is a pretty dense bunch of polyester for a particle to drill through. I've accidentally exposed bulk film to light and only the sprockets and outer couple of layers have been light shot. But your point is well-taken, anyway.
You have to realise that most of these people have no clue what a sprocket might be.
I'm not old. Just very experienced... Now where's my rotary phone?
-
And to think all this film wasn't fogged by the deadly VARB and by the space radiation that would have rendered any astronaut, ill/dead
Well, that is a pretty dense bunch of polyester for a particle to drill through. I've accidentally exposed bulk film to light and only the sprockets and outer couple of layers have been light shot. But your point is well-taken, anyway.
You have to realise that most of these people have no clue what a sprocket might be.
I'm not old. Just very experienced... Now where's my rotary phone?
Someone else said that and I laughed. Then my kids saw a rotary phone and had no clue.
I stopped laughing.
-
I'm not old. Just very experienced... Now where's my rotary phone?
Don't feel bad. Iron Man had a rotary dial mounted in his chest plate at one time.
-
I'm not old. Just very experienced... Now where's my rotary phone?
At least you prolly don't have a party line
-
Someone else said that and I laughed. Then my kids saw a rotary phone and had no clue.
I stopped laughing.
They've got old toys at Simon's play group, which includes several toy rotary phones. Simon is probably the only kid there whose parents' phone still plugs into the wall, but all the kids still play with them just fine.
-
I'm not old. Just very experienced... Now where's my rotary phone?
At least you prolly don't have a party line
Actually, the Bell System, in one of their educational movies that we saw when I was in second grade, had an explanation of the etiquette required for party lines. I grew up in the north suburbs of Chicago, so that was a non-issue for us, but it was something we had to learn in case we visited folks in rural areas.
I still think, occasionally, that 251 really is ALpine - 1...
-
At least you prolly don't have a party line
Sorry, side track of a fault (maybe a urban myth) from the 70's when I was a fledgling Telecoms engineer.
Party Lines (shared service in UK) work over a single pair of wires. The A leg is Customer 1 and the B leg Customer 2, when either party picked up their phone the polarity of of the loop, ie which leg saw the extended Eth would be charged for the call. However when the phone received an incoming call, a 75 V ringing current would be sent (to eth) on the respective customers A or B leg. The Eth being made at the customers premises.
The fault was this, the phone would be crackly and not work properly, but if the customer received an incoming call their dog would bark and then the phone would work fine for a couple of days..
Fault was:- The dog was tied via a metal lead to a radiator, the earth connection was connected to that radiator, the eth was not a full connection. When the phone rang the dog would get a shock and bark, it also pissed itself, the piss would make the eth connection good and stay good until it dried out. :)
-
You, sir, are a steely-eyed telephone man.
-
You, sir, are a steely-eyed telephone man.
I disagree, that is more like Columbo territory ;D
-
Fault was:- The dog was tied via a metal lead to a radiator, the earth connection was connected to that radiator...
I've heard a different version of that story, one in which the dog seemed psychic because it always began to bark well before the phone rang. The core elements were the same: the dog tied to the loose grounding electrode and the ringing voltage shocking the dog who peed on it and made it work for a while.
-
Fault was:- The dog was tied via a metal lead to a radiator, the earth connection was connected to that radiator...
I've heard a different version of that story, one in which the dog seemed psychic because it always began to bark well before the phone rang. The core elements were the same: the dog tied to the loose grounding electrode and the ringing voltage shocking the dog who peed on it and made it work for a while.
Naw I grew up with a party line and the dog din't bark before the phone ran, not even after it started ringing, But then we didn't tie her to the readiator either Man it was really great when my folks got the central heating furnace installed, clean also no coal or heating oil, just pipe able nat. gas :)
-
In the early 2000s my wife worked customer service for Ameritech. At that time there were still people in Chicago on party lines. Mostly older people that had never had an upgrade in many years. There were still people renting phones for $5-10 a month as well. She left because part of the job was to try to upsell to people no matter what they called in for.
-
The other things with party lines, being central heating was not the norm, was the earth was to a spike in the ground. Summer months the cure was to tell the customer to go and chuck a bucket of water on the spike.
Then there was the woman complaining of getting Radio Two on the cooker.
Pass me 746.
-
The other things with party lines, being central heating was not the norm, was the earth was to a spike in the ground. Summer months the cure was to tell the customer to go and chuck a bucket of water on the spike.
Then there was the woman complaining of getting Radio Two on the cooker.
Pass me 746.
You do get radio on long lines... :) I did, as an apprentice joke, tell a customer to put his phone in a bucket of water, to wet his ground connection.. :( Naughty boy
-
Ah, did not think of that at the time because I did not know about it ;)
I suppose the retelling pun side it was a gas cooker.... I do not recall what fuel it was.
-
Then there was the woman complaining of getting Radio Two on the cooker.
Yes, as long as it's an AM broadcast (e.g on MF or LF) this can happen whenever you have a loose connection somewhere acting as an electrical nonlinearity (an imperfect diode).
Not quite the same thing, but when I built crystal sets as a kid I discovered that the metal finger stop on a dial phone provided a great signal. The whole telephone line became a longwire antenna.
-
As a young man I lived not all that for from the local TV transmitter (Emley Moor).
You could get a decent picture by sticking your finger in the TV aerial socket.
-
Right.
-
Not quite the same, but there's a video or two going around showing local youth listening to AM radio broadcasts from a tower by jamming a dry weed against the metal.
-
Not quite the same, but there's a video or two going around showing local youth listening to AM radio broadcasts from a tower by jamming a dry weed against the metal.
Instead of smoking it? :)
-
Maybe that's underground speak? "Like, yo we've been jamming the dry weed against the metal, man."
Come to think of it, _we_ could use that term to describe how it is when an HB refuses to listen to reason. As in, "We have been jamming the dry weed against the metal all day long and the guy still insists on a "C" rock."
-
Then there was the woman complaining of getting Radio Two on the cooker.
Yes, as long as it's an AM broadcast (e.g on MF or LF) this can happen whenever you have a loose connection somewhere acting as an electrical nonlinearity (an imperfect diode).
Not quite the same thing, but when I built crystal sets as a kid I discovered that the metal finger stop on a dial phone provided a great signal. The whole telephone line became a longwire antenna.
At the time I would not have know about this, a 17 year old apprentice. I know now you can but never connected it with that event so to speak.
But I never built a crystal set today. Now, I wonder where I can get the required bits today?
I have spent time "tuning" a length of solder jammed in the rear of a TV for a good signal.
-
But I never built a crystal set today. Now, I wonder where I can get the required bits today?
Oh, they're still available. You'd just use a more modern diode.
Of course, with only talk radio to listen to, why bother?
-
It's the doing for the hell of it. Something I should have done yonks ago. Never really did a lot of hobbying but followed a few kits and tried a few things, making my own transformers and audio filters etc. but it all sort of petered out as kit became non raidable for parts. Scrap items that is, the usual suspects still sell stuff but when times were tight the scrap bin was a haven. Nowadays kit is returned, cannot even repair that anymore so stopped fiddling many years ago. Bag it up, send it off. Cannot even remember the resistor colour code and would have to dig a book out for the legs on a transistor. Been a while.
Call it whimsy.
:)
-
I went big with my first DIY electronics and built a synthesiser.. I can't for the life of me remember the magazine, but it must have been around 1978/9
Cannot even remember the resistor colour code and would have to dig a book out for the legs on a transistor. Been a while.
Call it whimsy.
:)
Black Brown Red Orange Yellow Green Blue Violet Green White. Now I have a little ditty that acts as an memory aid for that but it is so NON PC I couldn't repeat it on here. The first three bands are the number 4th band is the multiplier you can sometimes have 5th the tolerance followed by the 6th temp co-efficient.
-
I went big with my first DIY electronics and built a synthesiser.. I can't for the life of me remember the magazine, but it must have been around 1978/9
Electronics Today International? UK?
I wanted to build it, but I was missing too many issues, and never got the kit for etching my own circuit boards .....
-
I went big with my first DIY electronics and built a synthesiser.. I can't for the life of me remember the magazine, but it must have been around 1978/9
In the 70's, when TTL timing chips first became available, I designed and built a digital tachometer for my car. Just got it finished and was considering marketing it when the same circuit showed up in an electronics mag so I bagged that idea. Anyway, I much prefer using an analog dial tach.
Then I built a Heathkit 2-meter ham mobile rig and, just after finishing it, they recalled it (couldn't pass FCC specs) and paid me a little for my trouble.
-
Electronics Today International? UK?
I wanted to build it, but I was missing too many issues, and never got the kit for etching my own circuit boards .....
I forgot about that, I worked in an ARC (Area Repair Centre) and persuaded my boss to buy a professional etching system, with UV templates and proper chemical baths.. :)
-
Perhaps Father Ted will be able to help us. The magic start at the 30 second mark. But do watch the whole clip!
;D
-
Perhaps Father Ted will be able to help us. The magic start at the 30 second mark. But do watch the whole clip!
;D
I don't think tarkus gets it
-
Black Brown Red Orange Yellow Green Blue Violet Green White.
No, it's Black Brown Red Orange Yellow Green Blue Violet *Gray* White.
Now I have a little ditty that acts as an memory aid for that but it is so NON PC I couldn't repeat it on here.
I suspect I learned the same ditty you did. Begins with "Bad boys", right?
The first three bands are the number 4th band is the multiplier you can sometimes have 5th the tolerance followed by the 6th temp co-efficient.
Only the high precision resistors. Most have two bands for the mantissa. E.g., brown-black-red
is 1 k ohm and yellow-violet-orange is 47 k ohm. The fourth band is the tolerance; none = 20%, silver = 10%, gold = 5%. A temp coefficient band must be really rare; I've never seen one.
-
Not quite the same, but there's a video or two going around showing local youth listening to AM radio broadcasts from a tower by jamming a dry weed against the metal.
You mean the tower that's the antenna?
AM radio stations use an entire tower as an antenna element. (Some have several towers in a line, driven in such a way that they produce a directional beam.) They are insulated from ground and fed with up to 50 kW, so you can be seriously burned just by touching it. I wouldn't be surprised if the dry weed in question burst into flames after a while.
-
Black Brown Red Orange Yellow Green Blue Violet Green White.
No, it's Black Brown Red Orange Yellow Green Blue Violet *Gray* White.
Now I have a little ditty that acts as an memory aid for that but it is so NON PC I couldn't repeat it on here.
I suspect I learned the same ditty you did. Begins with "Bad boys", right?
The first three bands are the number 4th band is the multiplier you can sometimes have 5th the tolerance followed by the 6th temp co-efficient.
Only the high precision resistors. Most have two bands for the mantissa. E.g., brown-black-red
is 1 k ohm and yellow-violet-orange is 47 k ohm. The fourth band is the tolerance; none = 20%, silver = 10%, gold = 5%. A temp coefficient band must be really rare; I've never seen one.
I remember an electronic lab where we fabricated black boxes to do certain tasks. The resister code was posted on the wall, but I don't remember any saying that went with I. I do suffer from CRS. :)
-
No, it's Black Brown Red Orange Yellow Green Blue Violet *Gray* White.
gray* ? I speak the real version of English, do you mean "Grey?" ;D
I'm sorry I couldn't resist, you are quite correct of course. :)
PS. My version was even less PC than that. :(
-
Not quite the same, but there's a video or two going around showing local youth listening to AM radio broadcasts from a tower by jamming a dry weed against the metal.
You mean the tower that's the antenna?
AM radio stations use an entire tower as an antenna element. (Some have several towers in a line, driven in such a way that they produce a directional beam.) They are insulated from ground and fed with up to 50 kW, so you can be seriously burned just by touching it. I wouldn't be surprised if the dry weed in question burst into flames after a while.
It most certainly did. As far as I can figure out, the twig is grounded through their bodies (they comment on the video about feeling a shock, which becomes outright pain as the stick gets too hot to hold.) Actually, I suspect the twig in questing is WET, not dry -- that thermal expansion of the wet fibre and/or water evaporating off is what is pushing the air to make audible sound from the AM. And once the water content gets too low, it carbonizes, the conductivity goes WAY up, and all sorts of exciting things start to happen...
-
No, it's Black Brown Red Orange Yellow Green Blue Violet *Gray* White.
gray* ? I speak the real version of English, do you mean "Grey?" ;D
I'm sorry I couldn't resist, you are quite correct of course. :)
PS. My version was even less PC than that. :(
Of course this all depends on your definition of real English! :)
-
As tarkus is back posting on other threads I'm just going to reiterate my earlier question for him: how big will earth appear from 800,000 km?
-
As tarkus is back posting on other threads I'm just going to reiterate my earlier question for him: how big will earth appear from 800,000 km?
He appears to be gish galloping through many "anomalies.
-
He appears to be gish galloping through many "anomalies.
Yes, he seems to have found Eric Hufschmid's stuff and has wrongly believed Eric is some kind of expert.
-
He appears to be gish galloping through many "anomalies.
Yes, he seems to have found Eric Hufschmid's stuff and has wrongly believed Eric is some kind of expert.
That's what he was doing in his recent absence finding other people to mimic
-
After carefully examining both sectors identified for you, I must say that was a good try, but failed. If what you intend is to find matches, please point out identical sectors, not only similar. ;)
Examine them again, preferably AFTER you have been to your optician to have your eyesight checked.
(http://i62.tinypic.com/28s7ymo.jpg)
The craters in the red box are Ostwald, Ibn Firnas and Ardeshir. Ostwald is the crater with the smaller crater lying on it's rim- crater Recht (Ostwald is the topmost of the trio in the left hand image and on the bottom right in the right hand image.
I admit that there is some similarity between the sectors that you point out, although the craters surrounding these selections do not match ... but to say that both images (Apollo and LRO) are equivalent, should you point out at least one full sector, portion that goes from north to south, but you do not because you have not found anything more than 2-3 doubtful craters, and thus believes he has disproved something.
-
I admit that there is some similarity between the sectors that you point out, although the craters surrounding these selections do not match
Yes they do. As has been mentioned several times to you, the far side of the Moon is known geology. All those craters and regions have actual names and are very familiar even to amateur astronomers. Your inability to rectify the distortion caused by the spherical shape is your own problem.
... but to say that both images (Apollo and LRO) are equivalent, should you point out at least one full sector, portion that goes from north to south
Shifting the goalposts. Further, you wrongly assume these photos have the same orientation, such that such a "sector" could arise. Still more evidence of your copious ignorance and utter incompetence at spatial reasoning.
...but you do not because you have not found anything more than 2-3 doubtful craters, and thus believes he has disproved something.
Your claim has been thoroughly rebutted and you know it. That's why you have to come back and invent new rules for the comparison.
-
Meh.
Unless my brain has gone to porridge what with these hot days we've been having, lens length is only material in how wide the field of view is. It matters for "Earth should look bigger" (that is, take up more of the frame in some photograph in question) but not for any comparison of visual diameters. Aka "The Moon should look bigger than the Earth."
For that question, it is only about location, location, location. Camera matters not. It's all in the geometry.
Hi nomuse, yes you are right, if we are just considering relative sizes then cameras and focal lengths and focal points are not relevant. You just need to compare Moon/Earth size ratios and relative distances to observer as I did in a couple of earlier posts and others have done in diagrams and photos.
To confirm 'in the field' the effect of focal length on relative size I went out this morning and shot the following:
70mm focal length, with the 'Moon' (small ruler) one metre from the 'Earth' (the big ruler). The camera is positioned 6 metres further on from the 'Moon'. The relative distances match the Earth/Moon/DSCOVR positions ;)
(http://i611.photobucket.com/albums/tt192/Paul99999/6m-070mm_zpswp1mvi1u.jpg)
Using 10cm on the small ruler for the Moon diameter and 40cm on the big ruler for the Earth (sizes chosen to keep things simple) and after resizing and cropping to an image width of 1000 pixels we get:
Moon (168px) / Earth (498px) = Moon/Earth ratio of 0.337 = 33.7%.
Now at 100mm focal length (all objects and the camera unmoved):
(http://i611.photobucket.com/albums/tt192/Paul99999/6m-100mm_zpsdo1dkkds.jpg)
Moon (152px) / Earth (454px) = Moon/Earth ratio of 0.335 = 33.5%.
200mm:
(http://i611.photobucket.com/albums/tt192/Paul99999/6m-200mm_zpsxi03snjb.jpg)
Moon (162px) / Earth (484px) = Moon/Earth ratio of 0.335 = 33.5%.
And finally 300mm:
(http://i611.photobucket.com/albums/tt192/Paul99999/6m-300mm_zpsylfrx5lt.jpg)
Moon (236px) / Earth (710px) = Moon/Earth ratio of 0.332 = 33.2%.
Conclusion 1: So allowing for lens distortion through the zoom range, and margin of error from measuring the pixel lengths, the Moon and Earth ratio has remained constant regardless of focal length.
Now the effect of moving the camera forwards. We already have the 6m ratio at around 33% regardless of focal length.
So with camera at 3m from the Moon (at 70mm focal length):
(http://i611.photobucket.com/albums/tt192/Paul99999/3m-070mm_zpsx5ckj24n.jpg)
Moon (171px) / Earth (423px) = Moon/Earth ratio of 0.404 = 40.4%.
So Moon has increased in size relative to Earth by moving nearer.
And with camera at 1m from the Moon (70mm):
(http://i611.photobucket.com/albums/tt192/Paul99999/1m-070mm_zps0iximo7o.jpg)
Moon (353px) / Earth (473px) = Moon/Earth ratio of 0.746 = 74.6%.
The Moon has again increased substantially relative to the Earth.
Conclusion 2: Changing the relative distances between objects and observer changes the relative size of the objects.
You make the same mistake as the rest of their comrades in astrophotography these tricks with the focus not work, you can not make the planet that is in the background looks larger than the one in the foreground, and much unless a spacecraft is able to perform such tricks, as well, why do such a thing? only is a poor way to not accept the obvious: that animation is horrifying.
NASA has made other trash animated gif, in this case "Pluto" ... the New Horizons had focus problems during their journey? always it looks blurry !!!
(https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_width_feature/public/thumbnails/image/pluto-observations-through-the-years.gif?itok=A_WsMQ7f)
-
You make the same mistake as the rest of their comrades in astrophotography these tricks with the focus not work
No, once again you fail to understand the problem at all. The ratio of the distances between the photographer and various objects in the field of view is what determines, along with focal length, the apparent sizes. You defeated that by cropping and resizing the image to make some selected object the same size in the frame, and then defeated it by studying only one effect in isolation. You simply don't know what you're doing, and you're fudging the evidence to make it come out the way you need it to.
What's really sad is that in order to have staged this experiment, you had to have seen the effects we referred to. But you've deliberately arranged for data points that appear to prove your point in defiance of that.
-
always it looks blurry !!!
I guess we can add acuity to the pile of things regarding photography of which you are totally ignorant.
-
I admit that there is some similarity between the sectors that you point out, although the craters surrounding these selections do not match ...
Why do hoaxies seem incapable of learning how to use the quotation function of this board? or is it that they are so keen to "keyboard-bash" an answer without thinking first?
Tarkus- your original claim was this:
No matches not a single crater between the two pictures.
You are now in possession of a number of craters that match. Do you know retract your original claim? A simple "yes" will suffice.
but to say that both images (Apollo and LRO) are equivalent, should you point out at least one full sector, portion that goes from north to south, but you do not because you have not found anything more than 2-3 doubtful craters, and thus believes he has disproved something.
Now you are moving the goalposts. Your attempt to be slippery and weasel out is noted.
I can easily match the remaining craters in both images, but I am unsure why I should invest further time and effort in your education when you seem incapable of making the slightest effort to learn. Have you tried to match both images yourself? have you downloaded the Virtual Moon Atlas (http://www.ap-i.net/avl/en/start) tool that I pointed out that I used? Show me a tiny piece of evidence that you have done ANY research or work yourself, over and above copy'n'pasting from Moon hoax websites.
If you genuinely want the craters matching and have tried to do so but cannot (you may have bad eyesight or some problem with spacial awareness. Or have some learning difficulties), then I can do so. If, however, you simply cannot be bothered to try for yourself than I have no intention wasting my time further on you. You made a claim. I showed to an acceptable standard that your claim was incorrect. The first time that I did this you ignores it. The second time you moved the goalposts. Evidence that you are genuinely interested in learning something or be aware that (in my eyes at least) you have proved yourself to be nothing more than an Internet troll.
-
You make the same mistake as the rest of their comrades in astrophotography these tricks with the focus not work, you can not make the planet that is in the background looks larger than the one in the foreground, and much unless a spacecraft is able to perform such tricks, as well, why do such a thing?
Tarkus, since you return to this subject, how about answering my question? Earlier you said that the Earth appears 2 degrees wide from the moon, 400,000 km away. How big will it appear from twice that distance?
-
You make the same mistake as the rest of their comrades in astrophotography these tricks with the focus not work, you can not make the planet that is in the background looks larger than the one in the foreground, and much unless a spacecraft is able to perform such tricks, as well, why do such a thing? only is a poor way to not accept the obvious: that animation is horrifying.
So you still think that a Moon in front of a planet will always look bigger than the planet?
Explain this image then?
(http://www.skyandtelescope.com/wp-content/uploads/triple_transit_JUPOS-341px.png)
Two of Jupiter's moons in front of Jupiter (you can tell they are in front as their shadows are on Jupiter's surface). Why do the moons look SMALLER than Jupiter even though they are closer to us on Earth than Jupiter is? Do you accept that if were you hovering close to one of those moons surfaces that the moon would look big and Jupiter (relatively!) small. It's all down to basic geometry again - please go and buy an introduction to geometry book. And while you are there you could buy a beginners guide to photography so you can learn about focus, focal length and exposure. Perhaps the college library has some books you could borrow?
-
You make the same mistake as the rest of their comrades in astrophotography these tricks with the focus not work, you can not make the planet that is in the background looks larger than the one in the foreground, and much unless a spacecraft is able to perform such tricks, as well, why do such a thing? only is a poor way to not accept the obvious: that animation is horrifying.
NASA has made other trash animated gif, in this case "Pluto" ... the New Horizons had focus problems during their journey? always it looks blurry !!!
(https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_width_feature/public/thumbnails/image/pluto-observations-through-the-years.gif?itok=A_WsMQ7f)
Tarkus
How about you try the Stellarium program (http://www.stellarium.org/). Try a few experiments: see how large the Earth and Moon look when seen from various distances.
Once you've done that, come back and tell us we're wrong, with screenshots to show us our errors. Or see if you can be brave enough to admit you've been wrong.
-
NASA has made other trash animated gif, in this case "Pluto" ... the New Horizons had focus problems during their journey? always it looks blurry !!!
(https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_width_feature/public/thumbnails/image/pluto-observations-through-the-years.gif?itok=A_WsMQ7f)
Have you ever taken an image from a moving vehicle? I'm sure that everything was not in focus. and these fuzzy images are taken from far out. look at the images of the close encounter, no fuzziness or blur no issues just your inability to understand spatial issues, that have been pointed out several times.
EDIT: corrected spelling
-
NASA has made other trash animated gif, in this case "Pluto" ... the New Horizons had focus problems during their journey? always it looks blurry !!!
Have you ever taken an image from a moving vehicle? I'm sure that everything was not in focus. and these fuzzy images are taken from far out. look sat the images of the close encounter, no fuzziness or blur no issues just your inability to understand spatial issues, that have been pointed out several times.
I think tarkus is still confused by focus and that infinity symbol on an SLR lens. He thinks it's not possible to focus on really distant things. So to him Pluto was "out of focus" as it's a long way away I guess.
Actually the long range Pluto images are "blurry" because they are up-sampled from a very small number of pixels - the Hubble image (the 4th one in the sequence) was actually only 3 pixels wide before it was up-scaled and detail interpolated!
I'm not sure how tarkus would account for Hubble's image of a section of the M31 Andromeda galaxy. Around TWO MILLION LIGHT YEARS away. Looks in focus to me...
(http://imgsrc.hubblesite.org/hu/db/images/hs-2015-02-a-large_web.jpg)
-
Meh.
Unless my brain has gone to porridge what with these hot days we've been having, lens length is only material in how wide the field of view is. It matters for "Earth should look bigger" (that is, take up more of the frame in some photograph in question) but not for any comparison of visual diameters. Aka "The Moon should look bigger than the Earth."
For that question, it is only about location, location, location. Camera matters not. It's all in the geometry.
Hi nomuse, yes you are right, if we are just considering relative sizes then cameras and focal lengths and focal points are not relevant. You just need to compare Moon/Earth size ratios and relative distances to observer as I did in a couple of earlier posts and others have done in diagrams and photos.
To confirm 'in the field' the effect of focal length on relative size I went out this morning and shot the following:
70mm focal length, with the 'Moon' (small ruler) one metre from the 'Earth' (the big ruler). The camera is positioned 6 metres further on from the 'Moon'. The relative distances match the Earth/Moon/DSCOVR positions ;)
(http://i611.photobucket.com/albums/tt192/Paul99999/6m-070mm_zpswp1mvi1u.jpg)
Using 10cm on the small ruler for the Moon diameter and 40cm on the big ruler for the Earth (sizes chosen to keep things simple) and after resizing and cropping to an image width of 1000 pixels we get:
Moon (168px) / Earth (498px) = Moon/Earth ratio of 0.337 = 33.7%.
Now at 100mm focal length (all objects and the camera unmoved):
(http://i611.photobucket.com/albums/tt192/Paul99999/6m-100mm_zpsdo1dkkds.jpg)
Moon (152px) / Earth (454px) = Moon/Earth ratio of 0.335 = 33.5%.
200mm:
(http://i611.photobucket.com/albums/tt192/Paul99999/6m-200mm_zpsxi03snjb.jpg)
Moon (162px) / Earth (484px) = Moon/Earth ratio of 0.335 = 33.5%.
And finally 300mm:
(http://i611.photobucket.com/albums/tt192/Paul99999/6m-300mm_zpsylfrx5lt.jpg)
Moon (236px) / Earth (710px) = Moon/Earth ratio of 0.332 = 33.2%.
Conclusion 1: So allowing for lens distortion through the zoom range, and margin of error from measuring the pixel lengths, the Moon and Earth ratio has remained constant regardless of focal length.
Now the effect of moving the camera forwards. We already have the 6m ratio at around 33% regardless of focal length.
So with camera at 3m from the Moon (at 70mm focal length):
(http://i611.photobucket.com/albums/tt192/Paul99999/3m-070mm_zpsx5ckj24n.jpg)
Moon (171px) / Earth (423px) = Moon/Earth ratio of 0.404 = 40.4%.
So Moon has increased in size relative to Earth by moving nearer.
And with camera at 1m from the Moon (70mm):
(http://i611.photobucket.com/albums/tt192/Paul99999/1m-070mm_zps0iximo7o.jpg)
Moon (353px) / Earth (473px) = Moon/Earth ratio of 0.746 = 74.6%.
The Moon has again increased substantially relative to the Earth.
Conclusion 2: Changing the relative distances between objects and observer changes the relative size of the objects.
You make the same mistake as the rest of their comrades in astrophotography these tricks with the focus not work, you can not make the planet that is in the background looks larger than the one in the foreground, and much unless a spacecraft is able to perform such tricks, as well, why do such a thing? only is a poor way to not accept the obvious: that animation is horrifying.
NASA has made other trash animated gif, in this case "Pluto" ... the New Horizons had focus problems during their journey? always it looks blurry !!!
(https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_width_feature/public/thumbnails/image/pluto-observations-through-the-years.gif?itok=A_WsMQ7f)
Focus is not the same thing as focal length. You've been told this multiple times before. I can only assume you are trolling at this point.
-
You make the same mistake as the rest of their comrades in astrophotography these tricks with the focus not work
No, once again you fail to understand the problem at all. The ratio of the distances between the photographer and various objects in the field of view is what determines, along with focal length, the apparent sizes. You defeated that by cropping and resizing the image to make some selected object the same size in the frame, and then defeated it by studying only one effect in isolation. You simply don't know what you're doing, and you're fudging the evidence to make it come out the way you need it to.
What's really sad is that in order to have staged this experiment, you had to have seen the effects we referred to. But you've deliberately arranged for data points that appear to prove your point in defiance of that.
Hi Jay, are you referring to my experiment (with the rulers)? It's not tarkus' experiment, it's one I posted a couple of weeks ago. It shows that changing focal length DOES NOT change the relative sizes of the objects, but that changing relative distances between objects DOES change relative object sizes. :)
-
Have you ever taken an image from a moving vehicle? I'm sure that everything was not in focus. and these fuzzy images are taken from far out. look at the images of the close encounter, no fuzziness or blur no issues just your inability to understand spatial issues, that have been pointed out several times.
The movement of the craft really shouldn't come into it. After all, the Earth is rotating somewhere near 1000 miles per hour (at the Equator) and revolving around the Sun at about 67,000 miles per hour, yet I am still, with very amateur equipment, able to capture an image like this:
(http://astrob.in/78647/0/rawthumb/gallery/get.jpg) (http://astrob.in/full/78647/0/)
Where tarkus has gone wrong is that he does not understand the source of the Pluto images (Hey! Another thing that tarkus knows bugger all about. Who'd have thunk it?!? ::) ).
The GIF in question was created from images of Pluto captured over several decades. https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/goddard/views-of-pluto-through-the-years
The very first image in the sequence was captured by Clive Tombaugh, the discoverer of Pluto in 1930. the next four images were from the Hubble Space Telescope. The remainder were from New Horizons.
Tarkus' ignorance makes him confuse a low resolution image as being blurry. The image is low resolution due to the imaging systems on the NH probe being limited by Dawes Limit of the onboard kit.
-
You make the same mistake as the rest of their comrades in astrophotography these tricks with the focus not work, you can not make the planet that is in the background looks larger than the one in the foreground, and much unless a spacecraft is able to perform such tricks, as well, why do such a thing? only is a poor way to not accept the obvious: that animation is horrifying.
NASA has made other trash animated gif, in this case "Pluto" ... the New Horizons had focus problems during their journey? always it looks blurry !!!
(https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_width_feature/public/thumbnails/image/pluto-observations-through-the-years.gif?itok=A_WsMQ7f)
I'll just leave this here for you Tarkus.
(http://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/DSCOVR/images/dscovrepicmoontransitfull.gif)
-
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_width_feature/public/thumbnails/image/pluto-observations-through-the-years.gif?itok=A_WsMQ7f[/img]
I'll just leave this here for you Tarkus.
(http://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/DSCOVR/images/dscovrepicmoontransitfull.gif)
[/quote]
And the sky is black, how unique that NASA continue to "lie" about that. ::)
-
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_width_feature/public/thumbnails/image/pluto-observations-through-the-years.gif?itok=A_WsMQ7f[/img]
I'll just leave this here for you Tarkus.
(http://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/DSCOVR/images/dscovrepicmoontransitfull.gif)
And the sky is black, how unique that NASA continue to "lie" about that. ::)
It's pretty cool though. The camera is parked at L1 pointing back at Earth from circa a million miles out. Puts things in "perspective", LOL.
Oops, apologies, Tarkus doesn't understand that either.
-
Hi Jay, are you referring to my experiment (with the rulers)? It's not tarkus' experiment, it's one I posted a couple of weeks ago.
Hehe, that explains why I couldn't figure out what point he was trying to make by it. And I guess it's true what I said: one cannot have performed the experiment without seeing the effects that defeat Tarkus' claim. :) Sorry for appearing to drag you through the mud.
And yes, it's quite apparent at this point Tarkus doesn't know the differences among focus, focus distance, and focal length.
-
Hi Jay, are you referring to my experiment (with the rulers)? It's not tarkus' experiment, it's one I posted a couple of weeks ago.
Hehe, that explains why I couldn't figure out what point he was trying to make by it. And I guess it's true what I said: one cannot have performed the experiment without seeing the effects that defeat Tarkus' claim. :) Sorry for appearing to drag you through the mud.
And yes, it's quite apparent at this point Tarkus doesn't know the differences among focus, focus distance, and focal length.
Nor how to quote.
-
Nor how to quote.
Indeed, which is one of the reasons I mistook Peter B's comments for Tarkus'. To me it seemed Tarkus performed a reasonably dispositive experiment, then ignored its results and changed the subject.
-
Nor how to quote.
Indeed, which is one of the reasons I mistook Peter B's comments for Tarkus'. To me it seemed Tarkus performed a reasonably dispositive experiment, then ignored its results and changed the subject.
Quotes are not difficult. I often harbour the thought that it is intentional. I was tempted to bork this quote for the sake of irony, but I manfully resisted.
-
Nor how to quote.
Indeed, which is one of the reasons I mistook Peter B's comments for Tarkus'. To me it seemed Tarkus performed a reasonably dispositive experiment, then ignored its results and changed the subject.
Jay, it was Paul's experiment, not Pete B's. :)
-
Jay, it was Paul's experiment, not Pete B's. :)
All right, I'm just going to give up on proper attribution at this point. From now on, everyone who isn't me will be called Bob. Except for Bob. :P
-
Jay, it was Paul's experiment, not Pete B's. :)
All right, I'm just going to give up on proper attribution at this point. From now on, everyone who isn't me will be called Bob. Except for Bob. :P
I sincerely hope that's "Bob" Rowan Atkinson style.
-
https://youtu.be/wOdfNwD9cEA (https://youtu.be/wOdfNwD9cEA)
-
Jay, it was Paul's experiment, not Pete B's. :)
All right, I'm just going to give up on proper attribution at this point. From now on, everyone who isn't me will be called Bob. Except for Bob. :P
Bob 1203 checking in
-
Jay, it was Paul's experiment, not Pete B's. :)
All right, I'm just going to give up on proper attribution at this point. From now on, everyone who isn't me will be called Bob. Except for Bob. :P
Even me and Andromeda?
-
Jay, it was Paul's experiment, not Pete B's. :)
All right, I'm just going to give up on proper attribution at this point. From now on, everyone who isn't me will be called Bob. Except for Bob. :P
Even me and Andromeda?
He'll just have to call you ladies Bobbie. :)
-
Jay, it was Paul's experiment, not Pete B's. :)
All right, I'm just going to give up on proper attribution at this point. From now on, everyone who isn't me will be called Bob. Except for Bob. :P
Wait - I'm a Bob. So if you're going to call me Bob because my user name is SUS_Pilot, then you can't call me Bob, because I'm Bob. So you'll have to call me SUS_Pilot, but you can't do that because everyone who is not Bob is Bob. But.....
...Norman
...Norman
...Nor -
[Apologies to Stephen Kandel]
-
Jay, it was Paul's experiment, not Pete B's. :)
All right, I'm just going to give up on proper attribution at this point. From now on, everyone who isn't me will be called Bob. Except for Bob. :P
Wait - I'm a Bob. So if you're going to call me Bob because my user name is SUS_Pilot, then you can't call me Bob, because I'm Bob. So you'll have to call me SUS_Pilot, but you can't do that because everyone who is not Bob is Bob. But.....
...Norman
...Norman
...Nor -
[Apologies to Stephen Kandel]
So what's your issue, Bob?
-
Just having fun with it. I suddenly channeled "I, Mudd"...
-
Given my abysmal track record lately with attribution, I can't even trust myself to apply gender-specific monikers. "Bob" just sounded funniest, for reasons that include but are not limited to Rowan Atkinson.
-
I'm Bob, and so is my wife.
-
Given my abysmal track record lately with attribution, I can't even trust myself to apply gender-specific monikers. "Bob" just sounded funniest, for reasons that include but are not limited to Rowan Atkinson.
Tell me it ain't so!
-
It's pretty cool though. The camera is parked at L1 pointing back at Earth from circa a million miles out.
I know I've seen that clip, but I don't remember when it was taken. If DISCOVR was precisely at the L1 point, that would suggest that a total eclipse of the sun occurred. (The moon does cross in front of the sun glint on the earth behind it.)
But spacecraft are never parked precisely at L1 because that would put them in the center of the sun's disc as seen from earth, and that greatly increases the radio noise seen by the ground antennas. Instead they follow a "halo" orbit around L1 in which the spacecraft appears to closely circle the sun over the course of a year.
-
By the way, Dr Robert Farquhar, who probably did more than anybody to analyze and promote the use of the libration points (especially L1) by spacecraft, passed away on Sunday. At least I had the honor to meet him last year during the ISEE-3 Reboot Project.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_W._Farquhar
-
All right, I'm just going to give up on proper attribution at this point. From now on, everyone who isn't me will be called Bob. Except for Bob. :P
Wait, what? What's my uncle got to do with this?
;)
-
By the way, Dr Robert Farquhar, who probably did more than anybody to analyze and promote the use of the libration points (especially L1) by spacecraft, passed away on Sunday.
Here's a picture of Dr Farquhar and me, taken August 2014 during the ISEE-3 flyby of the Earth-Moon system. (That's Dr. Farquhar on the right. And I now have my hair back.)
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152829930331486
-
You make the same mistake as the rest of their comrades in astrophotography these tricks with the focus not work, you can not make the planet that is in the background looks larger than the one in the foreground
Tarkus, I had some time, so here's some data for you. I collated some easily located data on planetary distances and apparent size. The first two columns contain data on the perihelion and aphelion for each planet in the solar system. The next two show the minimum and maximum separation between each planet and Earth, calculated by simple addition or subtraction of the perihelion and aphelion data. Then we have data on the apparent sizes of the planets when observed from Earth. Finally, the columns in red show the ratio between maximum and minimum separation and maximum and minimum apparent size.
(http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj292/JasonTT/Sizes%20table.png) (http://s275.photobucket.com/user/JasonTT/media/Sizes%20table.png.html)
Firstly the data on the apparent sizes of the planets when viewed from Earth contradicts your statement that you can't have a planet in the background looking bigger than one in the foreground when astronomical distances are concerned. You'll notice, for example, that Mars always appears smaller than Jupiter despite being significantly closer to Earth at all times, that Venus does appear larger than Jupiter when at closest approach but appears significantly smaller when at maximum separation from Earth even though it is still 'in the foreground', and Mercury, the closest of all, always appears smaller than Jupiter and Saturn. This, by the way, is something I and several others have personally verified by looking at these planets through telescopes with our own eyes: it is not a result of playing with photographic equipment.
Question 1: Given this, do you still maintain it is impossible for an object in the background to appear larger than one in the foreground?
Secondly, the numbers in red show a clear relationship between distance and apparent size. For example, Venus is nearly seven times closer at closest approach and it appears 7 times larger. This relationship is the same, and the range over which it applies shows it is linear. In other words, if you get twice as close, something will appear twice as large, and if you get twice as far away, something will appear half the size. This relationship also clearly applies at astronomical distances, as here it is derived from astronomical observations of the planets that anyone can make with their own eyes and a telescope.
Question 2: Given this, and that Earth appears to be 2 degrees wide from 400,000km away, how big will it appear from twice as far away, at 800,000km?
Two simple questions. Will you provide two simple answers? If not, why not?
[Edited to correct an error in the first question that is neatly captured by the quoted version later on...]
-
This relationship also clearly applies at astronomical distances, as here it is derived from astronomical observations of the planets that anyone can make with their own eyes and a telescope.
Don't even need a telescope - it was glaringly obvious at 6am this morning when I set out to work on my bike.
-
You make the same mistake as the rest of their comrades in astrophotography these tricks with the focus not work, you can not make the planet that is in the background looks larger than the one in the foreground
Tarkus, I had some time, so here's some data for you. I collated some easily located data on planetary distances and apparent size. The first two columns contain data on the perihelion and aphelion for each planet in the solar system. The next two show the minimum and maximum separation between each planet and Earth, calculated by simple addition or subtraction of the perihelion and aphelion data. Then we have data on the apparent sizes of the planets when observed from Earth. Finally, the columns in red show the ratio between maximum and minimum separation and maximum and minimum apparent size.
(http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj292/JasonTT/Sizes%20table.png) (http://s275.photobucket.com/user/JasonTT/media/Sizes%20table.png.html)
Firstly the data on the apparent sizes of the planets when viewed from Earth contradicts your statement that you can't have a planet in the background looking bigger than one in the foreground when astronomical distances are concerned. You'll notice, for example, that Mars always appears smaller than Jupiter despite being significantly closer to Earth at all times, that Venus does appear larger than Jupiter when at closest approach but appears significantly smaller when at maximum separation from Earth even though it is still 'in the foreground', and Mercury, the closest of all, always appears smaller than Jupiter and Saturn. This, by the way, is something I and several others have personally verified by looking at these planets through telescopes with our own eyes: it is not a result of playing with photographic equipment.
Question 1: Given this, do you still maintain it is impossible for an object in the background to appear larger than one on the background?
Secondly, the numbers in red show a clear relationship between distance and apparent size. For example, Venus is nearly seven times closer at closest approach and it appears 7 times larger. This relationship is the same, and the range over which it applies shows it is linear. In other words, if you get twice as close, something will appear twice as large, and if you get twice as far away, something will appear half the size. This relationship also clearly applies at astronomical distances, as here it is derived from astronomical observations of the planets that anyone can make with their own eyes and a telescope.
Question 2: Given this, and that Earth appears to be 2 degrees wide from 400,000km away, how big will it appear from twice as far away, at 800,000km?
Two simple questions. Will you provide two simple answers? If not, why not?
Nice comparisons.
-
You make the same mistake as the rest of their comrades in astrophotography these tricks with the focus not work, you can not make the planet that is in the background looks larger than the one in the foreground, and much unless a spacecraft is able to perform such tricks, as well, why do such a thing? only is a poor way to not accept the obvious: that animation is horrifying.
So you still think that a Moon in front of a planet will always look bigger than the planet?
Explain this image then?
(http://www.skyandtelescope.com/wp-content/uploads/triple_transit_JUPOS-341px.png)
Two of Jupiter's moons in front of Jupiter (you can tell they are in front as their shadows are on Jupiter's surface). Why do the moons look SMALLER than Jupiter even though they are closer to us on Earth than Jupiter is? Do you accept that if were you hovering close to one of those moons surfaces that the moon would look big and Jupiter (relatively!) small. It's all down to basic geometry again - please go and buy an introduction to geometry book. And while you are there you could buy a beginners guide to photography so you can learn about focus, focal length and exposure. Perhaps the college library has some books you could borrow?
No, I do not speak of "a moon" but "Moon" Jupiter's moons are very small relative to the planet, they are not a comparable case. And the debate about whether it is possible or not the focal trick is endless, in any case the question is what would a probe such manipulation ... getting smaller and darker to the Moon:
(http://i61.tinypic.com/jtxs04.jpg)
NASA used the same horrible image of Google Moon for animation.
And although it seems joke, NASA collaborates in this way in the confusion between "far side" and "dark side".
-
And the debate about whether it is possible or not the focal trick is endless...
Every debate with you is endless because you simply ignore or sidestep everything that proves you wrong. Do you seriously think other people can't see what you choose to ignore?
You've been shown demonstrations that thoroughly disprove what you claim would be the case. Do you even pay attention them?
-
The first image is from the Apollo 15 Metric Mapping Camera:
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/catalog/metric/revolution/?AS16RTE
Number 3021 to be precise, taken after TEI.
As Tarkus can find out when TEI was, he can find out where the lunar terminator should be.
You can make a start on that little mission on this page of mine:
http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/sides/sideways.html
Where I have used the image in question.
As it was after TEI, it also will bear no relation to the terminator's position during the surface based part of the mission.
Another slight problem Tarkus has is that he is supplying an image taken by Apollo in a position that can only have been done in the proximity of the moon to prove that Apollo was nowhere near the moon.
Duh!
As for the garbage about the view of Earth, the clouds do move:
(http://i62.tinypic.com/muvrt4.jpg)
The hurricane in that was a weather feature observed from LEO satellites too.
Tarkus' contention that the moon is the wrong size is provably false, and easily done with all sorts of free astronomical software
Try again.
Thanks for the link to the mosaic of images taken by the Apollo 16, he had not seen. A little serious because about half of the images work are "burned" ... what happened?
(http://i61.tinypic.com/2cniou8.jpg)
I asked this question but I saw the answer: why the hidden face was lit during the Apollo 16 mission?
-
Never picked up a camera, have you?
-
You make the same mistake as the rest of their comrades in astrophotography these tricks with the focus not work, you can not make the planet that is in the background looks larger than the one in the foreground, and much unless a spacecraft is able to perform such tricks, as well, why do such a thing? only is a poor way to not accept the obvious: that animation is horrifying.
So you still think that a Moon in front of a planet will always look bigger than the planet?
Explain this image then?
(http://www.skyandtelescope.com/wp-content/uploads/triple_transit_JUPOS-341px.png)
Two of Jupiter's moons in front of Jupiter (you can tell they are in front as their shadows are on Jupiter's surface). Why do the moons look SMALLER than Jupiter even though they are closer to us on Earth than Jupiter is? Do you accept that if were you hovering close to one of those moons surfaces that the moon would look big and Jupiter (relatively!) small. It's all down to basic geometry again - please go and buy an introduction to geometry book. And while you are there you could buy a beginners guide to photography so you can learn about focus, focal length and exposure. Perhaps the college library has some books you could borrow?
No, I do not speak of "a moon" but "Moon" Jupiter's moons are very small relative to the planet, they are not a comparable case. And the debate about whether it is possible or not the focal trick is endless, in any case the question is what would a probe such manipulation ... getting smaller and darker to the Moon:
(http://i61.tinypic.com/jtxs04.jpg)
NASA used the same horrible image of Google Moon for animation.
And although it seems joke, NASA collaborates in this way in the confusion between "far side" and "dark side".
Moved those goal posts again, tarkus face it as one moves away from the moon as you described in one of your posts the relative angular sizes can be computed and you will find that yes the moon being in the foreground will be smaller than the earth in the background. It is simple trig. nothing fancy the reason we have solar eclipses is the4 moon covers the sun's disk w3hile being in excess of 90 million miles from the sun.
-
I asked this question but I saw the answer: why the hidden face was lit during the Apollo 16 mission?
Seriously, really??
Because this happens, every month:
-
And the debate about whether it is possible or not the focal trick is endless,
Tarkus, it is not a focal trick, it is a simple case of perspective. I notice your failure to address the table of actual data I provided. Why would that be?
-
No, I do not speak of "a moon" but "Moon" Jupiter's moons are very small relative to the planet, they are not a comparable case.
Sure it's comparable! All of Jupiter's moons are smaller than the planet, and our one moon is smaller than our planet. If it wasn't, it would be the planet and we would be on its moon.
Only you seem to be confused about the distinction between the "far" and "dark" sides of the moon. In the DISCOVR pictures, taken from the direction of the Sun, we see our moon just as it is beginning another cycle (from "old" to "new" moon). At that time the "far side" (from the earth) faces DISCOVR and is fully lit, just like the earth behind it. The "dark side" of the moon at that time is the "near side" that always faces the earth, but which faces away from DISCOVR in this photograph.
And yes, the relative brightness is correct. The moon is much darker than the earth; it has no atmosphere, clouds or bodies of water to scatter and reflect sunlight.
-
No, I do not speak of "a moon" but "Moon" Jupiter's moons are very small relative to the planet, they are not a comparable case.
So the "tarkus law of relative sizes" only applies to a single object, The Moon - no other moon or object allowed?? Why would it only apply in one instance? That's simply ridiculous!! :'(
Look tarkus, we know how big the Moon is, we know how big the Earth is, and we know how far the Moon is from the Earth, and we know how far the DISCOVR satellite is from both. Do you agree with that statement?
Here's the figures, do you agree?
Earth 7918 miles diameter
Moon 2158 miles diameter
Moon to Earth distance approx 250,000 miles
DISCOVR to Earth distance approx 1,000,000 miles
Now let's pick a random angular size calculator off the internet and calculate apparent sizes:
http://sizecalc.com/#distance=750000miles&physical-size=2158miles&perceived-size-units=degrees (http://sizecalc.com/#distance=750000miles&physical-size=2158miles&perceived-size-units=degrees)
http://sizecalc.com/#distance=1000000miles&physical-size=7918miles&perceived-size-units=degrees (http://sizecalc.com/#distance=1000000miles&physical-size=7918miles&perceived-size-units=degrees)
Feel free to put your own figures into the calculator if you disagree with any of my figures.
The results are Moon 0.16 degrees, Earth 0.45 degrees. The angular size of the Earth from 1,000,000 miles away is 0.45 degrees, which surely you can see is much bigger than the Moon at 0.16 degrees.
And the debate about whether it is possible or not the focal trick is endless,
What "focal trick"? Photography is irrelevant to relative size discussion, but your continued fascination with 'focal tricks' shows that are choosing to remain wilfully ignorant on the basics of photography. Google "basic photography concepts" or similar and allow yourself to be educated. Look for the words focal length, focus, and exposure to get you started.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=basic+photography+concepts (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=basic+photography+concepts)
in any case the question is what would a probe such manipulation ... getting smaller and darker to the Moon:
(http://i61.tinypic.com/jtxs04.jpg)
NASA used the same horrible image of Google Moon for animation.
See calculations above and then measure size in pixels of the Moon and Earth from NASA animation. A clue for you - they match...
You mention how dark the Moon is on the NASA animation, there are two aspects to this:
1) the DISCOVR satellite's mission is to photograph Earth weather and so the EXPOSURE (yes that word again) is optimised for that purpose. So when the Moon occasionally photo-bombs the image it will be underexposed,
2) but as explained to you before, the average albedo of the Moon is around 0.12, the Earth's albedo is around 0.2 to 0.3, so the Earth is actually physically brighter than the Moon. Do you really believe that an object dominated by regolith and lava plains, is brighter than an object with water and clouds??
Here's a photo I took last night of the Moon, didn't exactly burn a hole in the camera sensor with it's brightness did it? (and by the way - no stars.... ;))
(http://i611.photobucket.com/albums/tt192/Paul99999/70pct-moon-22-oct-2015_zpsod8kxcti.jpg)
-
This is good fun, a camera simulator:
http://camerasim.com/apps/original-camerasim/web/ (http://camerasim.com/apps/original-camerasim/web/)
Can adjust focal length and distance to subject (thus showing the relationship between relative object sizes and distances).
Switch it manual mode, and can adjust the exposure components (shutter speed, aperture and ISO).
tarkus - a good way for you to learn how a DSLR camera works without having to buy one.
Try this - set to Manual, then keep changing one setting (e.g. shutter speed) step by step to see what effect it has on the image.
-
Wow, this looks like a great resource - daily updates now on the DSCOVR website!
http://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/ (http://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/)
For each image, it even gives Sun/Earth/Vehicle angle and actual distances. Great for working out fields of view and apparent sizes. And the SEV angle of around 11 degrees in July shows why there was no eclipse on the NASA Moon animation.
-
No, I do not speak of "a moon" but "Moon" Jupiter's moons are very small relative to the planet, they are not a comparable case.
So the "tarkus law of relative sizes" only applies to a single object, The Moon - no other moon or object allowed?? Why would it only apply in one instance? That's simply ridiculous!! :'(
Look tarkus, we know how big the Moon is, we know how big the Earth is, and we know how far the Moon is from the Earth, and we know how far the DISCOVR satellite is from both. Do you agree with that statement?
Here's the figures, do you agree?
Earth 7918 miles diameter
Moon 2158 miles diameter
Moon to Earth distance approx 250,000 miles
DISCOVR to Earth distance approx 1,000,000 miles
Now let's pick a random angular size calculator off the internet and calculate apparent sizes:
http://sizecalc.com/#distance=750000miles&physical-size=2158miles&perceived-size-units=degrees (http://sizecalc.com/#distance=750000miles&physical-size=2158miles&perceived-size-units=degrees)
http://sizecalc.com/#distance=1000000miles&physical-size=7918miles&perceived-size-units=degrees (http://sizecalc.com/#distance=1000000miles&physical-size=7918miles&perceived-size-units=degrees)
Feel free to put your own figures into the calculator if you disagree with any of my figures.
The results are Moon 0.16 degrees, Earth 0.45 degrees. The angular size of the Earth from 1,000,000 miles away is 0.45 degrees, which surely you can see is much bigger than the Moon at 0.16 degrees.
And the debate about whether it is possible or not the focal trick is endless,
What "focal trick"? Photography is irrelevant to relative size discussion, but your continued fascination with 'focal tricks' shows that are choosing to remain wilfully ignorant on the basics of photography. Google "basic photography concepts" or similar and allow yourself to be educated. Look for the words focal length, focus, and exposure to get you started.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=basic+photography+concepts (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=basic+photography+concepts)
in any case the question is what would a probe such manipulation ... getting smaller and darker to the Moon:
(http://i61.tinypic.com/jtxs04.jpg)
NASA used the same horrible image of Google Moon for animation.
See calculations above and then measure size in pixels of the Moon and Earth from NASA animation. A clue for you - they match...
You mention how dark the Moon is on the NASA animation, there are two aspects to this:
1) the DISCOVR satellite's mission is to photograph Earth weather and so the EXPOSURE (yes that word again) is optimised for that purpose. So when the Moon occasionally photo-bombs the image it will be underexposed,
2) but as explained to you before, the average albedo of the Moon is around 0.12, the Earth's albedo is around 0.2 to 0.3, so the Earth is actually physically brighter than the Moon. Do you really believe that an object dominated by regolith and lava plains, is brighter than an object with water and clouds??
Here's a photo I took last night of the Moon, didn't exactly burn a hole in the camera sensor with it's brightness did it? (and by the way - no stars.... ;))
(http://i611.photobucket.com/albums/tt192/Paul99999/70pct-moon-22-oct-2015_zpsod8kxcti.jpg)
You in your fantasy assumes that a spacecraft is in orbit photo lab ... do you really believe in all that NASA delivered him to entertain? perhaps you have traveled within the probe a photographer ... hmm ... yeah, that should be, but sometimes the photographer appears to have been drunk and not having the right focus, as the case of the New Horizons ... fuzzy, always fuzzy ...
(https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_width_feature/public/thumbnails/image/pluto-observations-through-the-years.gif?itok=A_WsMQ7f)
-
Never picked up a camera, have you?
Did you have sex ever?
Now answer this: WHY WAS DAY IN THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF APOLLO 16 moon landing?
-
You in your fantasy assumes that a spacecraft is in orbit photo lab ... do you really believe in all that NASA delivered him to entertain? perhaps you have traveled within the probe a photographer ... hmm ... yeah, that should be, but sometimes the photographer appears to have been drunk and not having the right focus, as the case of the New Horizons ... fuzzy, always fuzzy ...
What sort of incoherent babble is this? If you can't understand the demonstrations that show you your errors, ask politely for clarification. But simply posturing your ongoing ignorance of photography as if it revealed some sort of legitimate controversy is baffling.
-
Did you have sex ever?
What prompted this blatantly personal attack? The questions you're being asked are legitimate. You clearly don't know how cameras work at even the basic level, and you seem to believe your level of ignorance is common or apropos. You're being shown how to acquire a basic knowledge of photography in the hopes that you can see for yourself how your misconceptions have led you to faulty expectations. When you reject those invitations in favor of hurling insults, you reduce the chances that anyone will think you have any actual claims.
Now answer this: WHY WAS DAY IN THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF APOLLO 16 moon landing?
Because the Apollo missions' landing sites were generally at local lunar morning, meaning the entire lit hemisphere extended westward from the site. For sites near the center of the near side, this lit portion would include portions of the far side.
-
Never picked up a camera, have you?
Did you have sex ever?
Why? Do you need to know what to expect? I consider it unlikely you'll need the info.
Now answer this: WHY WAS DAY IN THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF APOLLO 16 moon landing?
I ALREADY GAVE YOU THE ANSWER.
Read the replies you are given.
-
tarkus - do you agree or disagree with my calculations?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Here's (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMD4UqwmQzk) a neat video by Scott Manley (if you play or watch videos about Kerbal Space Program, he's a great guy for that) about the DISCOVR images. Worth checking out.
-
Now let's pick a random angular size calculator off the internet and calculate apparent sizes:
Just wanted to thank you for mentioning that angular size calculator. I had some stray questions regarding angular size where I had done the math "by hand" and wanted to double check it, and had no idea there were handy little tools out there for exactly that!
-
...
Tarkus, answer the damn questions that have been put to you, especially those dealing with actual numbers and calculations. Otherwise I will have to assume that one of two things is true: 1: you don't understand them and are too arrogant to admit it, or 2: you do understand them and know that if you were actually honest you'd have to admit to being wrong about something, which you are also too arrogant to do.
How big would Earth appear to be from 800,000 km? Simple question, and the tools you need to answer it are right here in the thread. Get on with it.
-
Never picked up a camera, have you?
Did you have sex ever?
Now answer this: WHY WAS DAY IN THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF APOLLO 16 moon landing?
So the answer's no, eh? Didn't think so. From your posts, it's obvious that you don't even know what photography is.
-
Did you have sex ever?
Now you have moved from wrong to childish. Pathetic to watch someone who can't answer simple questions resort to such immature attacks on the people. Answer the questions you have been asked before you demand answers from others.
-
Now let's pick a random angular size calculator off the internet and calculate apparent sizes:
Just wanted to thank you for mentioning that angular size calculator. I had some stray questions regarding angular size where I had done the math "by hand" and wanted to double check it, and had no idea there were handy little tools out there for exactly that!
Here is a link to a video concerning the calculation
-
Because the Apollo missions' landing sites were generally at local lunar morning, meaning the entire lit hemisphere extended westward from the site.
I think you meant that the lit hemisphere extended eastward from the landing site. E.g., during the Apollo 11 landing, which was at 23 degrees east, the moon was between first quarter and half full. Apollo 12 landed well to the west at 23 degrees west, so the moon was already past half full. No Apollo landings took place after full moon, since they were all in local morning on sites on the near side.
But regardless of mission the crews saw all sun phases plus a dark hemisphere as they orbited.
-
Because the Apollo missions' landing sites were generally at local lunar morning, meaning the entire lit hemisphere extended westward from the site.
I think you meant that the lit hemisphere extended eastward from the landing site. E.g., during the Apollo 11 landing, which was at 23 degrees east, the moon was between first quarter and half full. Apollo 12 landed well to the west at 23 degrees west, so the moon was already past half full. No Apollo landings took place after full moon, since they were all in local morning on sites on the near side.
But regardless of mission the crews saw all sun phases plus a dark hemisphere as they orbited.
:o
Two t-shirts!!
-
Yeah, I'm glad I don't have to pay for those. ;D
-
Never picked up a camera, have you?
Did you have sex ever?
You had better start behaving like a mature adult really quick because you are on very thin ice right now. Let me put it more clearly:
STOP insulting people
STOP making immature comments like the one above
START answering our questions
If you do not follow this advice I will ban you.
-
Did you have sex ever?
What prompted this blatantly personal attack? The questions you're being asked are legitimate. You clearly don't know how cameras work at even the basic level, and you seem to believe your level of ignorance is common or apropos. You're being shown how to acquire a basic knowledge of photography in the hopes that you can see for yourself how your misconceptions have led you to faulty expectations. When you reject those invitations in favor of hurling insults, you reduce the chances that anyone will think you have any actual claims.
You did not seem so angry when your friends are laughing at my language ... stupid questions elicit responses in the same tone.
Now answer this: WHY WAS DAY IN THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF APOLLO 16 moon landing?
Because the Apollo missions' landing sites were generally at local lunar morning, meaning the entire lit hemisphere extended westward from the site. For sites near the center of the near side, this lit portion would include portions of the far side.
The sun was high during the Apollo 16 mission, near the zenith, the same mission photos prove it. Being the case, the dark side should be dark, you must admit it or prove his point, accuse another of ignorance is no argument.
-
Never picked up a camera, have you?
Did you have sex ever?
You had better start behaving like a mature adult really quick because you are on very thin ice right now. Let me put it more clearly:
STOP insulting people
STOP making immature comments like the one above
START answering our questions
If you do not follow this advice I will ban you.
You are not measured with the same yardstick your friends ... having fun making jokes how are you, in this thread:
(https://html1-f.scribdassets.com/3jchbwyh6oa2awc/images/20-c09c8633ff.jpg)
(http://i60.tinypic.com/33kvcs4.jpg)
-
Did you have sex ever?
What prompted this blatantly personal attack? The questions you're being asked are legitimate. You clearly don't know how cameras work at even the basic level, and you seem to believe your level of ignorance is common or apropos. You're being shown how to acquire a basic knowledge of photography in the hopes that you can see for yourself how your misconceptions have led you to faulty expectations. When you reject those invitations in favor of hurling insults, you reduce the chances that anyone will think you have any actual claims.
You did not seem so angry when your friends are laughing at my language ... stupid questions elicit responses in the same tone.
Now answer this: WHY WAS DAY IN THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF APOLLO 16 moon landing?
Because the Apollo missions' landing sites were generally at local lunar morning, meaning the entire lit hemisphere extended westward from the site. For sites near the center of the near side, this lit portion would include portions of the far side.
The sun was high during the Apollo 16 mission, near the zenith, the same mission photos prove it. Being the case, the dark side should be dark, you must admit it or prove his point, accuse another of ignorance is no argument.
Ummm. Those are awfully long shadows for the sun to be near zenith. Could you explain how you came to your conclusion?
-
Tarkus - you are behaving exactly like any other hoax believer.
Making unsupported claims.
Won't answer questions about those clamis.
Won't acknowledge information which rebuts those claims.
Moving on to another unsupported claim
(repeat a few times just to be sure)
Starts personal attacks.
Gets banned.
Never ever having shown any evidence for your claims, which aren't in any way new claims, you are just another person who thinks your lack of knowledge trumps the knowledge of real experts and interested amateurs. You haven't even looked for the pictures you claim don't exist. Where have you taken those ideas from?
-
The sun was high during the Apollo 16 mission, near the zenith, the same mission photos prove it. Being the case, the dark side should be dark, you must admit it or prove his point, accuse another of ignorance is no argument.
The moon is a ball, a sphere. Even if it's about quarter moon from Earth's perspective, as it was on that date, then a craft in lunar orbit would still see a fully lit hemisphere, half the side permanently facing Earth, and half the part permanently facing away from Earth, during part of its orbit.
Moreover, the sun is nowhere near zenith in Apollo 16 photos. Apollo 16 landed in the moon's tropical latitude wise (https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/alsjcoords.html). Now, the listed sun angles (https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/alsj-sunangles.html) put Apollo 16's sun angle at most at less than 49 degrees. That's not even close to at zenith for the tropics.
Now, let's compare a picture of a child's shadow at zenith in the tropics (https://tracks4africa.co.za/listings/photo_gallery/w254336/) with Apollo 16 photos. This (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a16/AS16-117-18849.jpg) was one of the last photos taken on the surface from Apollo 16. Compare that shadow to the child's shadow. Or find another picture of a noon shadow in the tropics.
Now, I'm not a scientist. I am not an engineer.
I am not even a photographer, but, as near as I can see, that's nowhere close to zenith.
If anyone has any corrections, please, inform me.
-
stupid questions elicit responses in the same tone.
It's not a stupid question to ask whether you've ever used a camera before, especially considering the lack of understanding your comments imply.
The sun was high during the Apollo 16 mission, near the zenith...
No, it wasn't. These are easily looked up figures. Further, they are even easily computed figures, knowing the landing site location and date.
Being the case, the dark side should be dark...
There is no such thing as "the dark side" of the Moon.
...you must admit it or prove his point, accuse another of ignorance is no argument.
I'm not accusing you of being ignorant. I'm noting that you are ignorant. If you don't like it, stop being ignorant. It's not everyone else's fault that you willfully ignore facts that others can discover easily.
-
(https://html1-f.scribdassets.com/3jchbwyh6oa2awc/images/20-c09c8633ff.jpg)
Do you have any idea how inaccurate this illustration, and why?
-
The sun was high during the Apollo 16 mission, near the zenith, the same mission photos prove it.
The sun at the Apollo 16 landing site was higher than for any other Apollo mission because the landing had been delayed six hours by a problem with the CSM. However, the sun was far from overhead; its elevation at the end of EVA-3 was still only 48.7 degrees.
This is fully consistent with shadows in pictures taken at the time, e.g., https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/AS16-117-18850.jpg, taken about an hour before the end of EVA3.
-
The sun was high during the Apollo 16 mission, near the zenith, the same mission photos prove it.
The sun at the Apollo 16 landing site was higher than for any other Apollo mission because the landing had been delayed six hours by a problem with the CSM. However, the sun was far from overhead; its elevation at the end of EVA-3 was still only 48.7 degrees.
This is fully consistent with shadows in pictures taken at the time, e.g., https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/AS16-117-18850.jpg, taken about an hour before the end of EVA3.
And the image of the backside of the moon was taken before TEI after a few orbits of the moon, which would allow more sunlit area on the far side.
-
There is no such thing as "the dark side" of the Moon.
...matter of fact, it's all dark.
-
LO is gonna have my ass for burning bandwidth like a Saturn V, but here goes...
Now answer this: WHY WAS DAY IN THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF APOLLO 16 moon landing?
Why should anyone answer your questions? You don’t answer any, why should we?
At any rate the question is wrong. This isn’t the “opposite side” from the Apollo 16 landing site. “Orion” landed at latitude 8° 58’ S, longitude 15° 30’ E. AS16-M-3021 is centered at latitude 12° N, longitude 103° 42’ E which is just over a quarter of the way around the Moon from the landing site.
You were also wrong to compare AS15-M-3021 (centered at 12° N, 103° 42’ E )…
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4f/Back_side_of_the_Moon_AS16-3021.jpg/800px-Back_side_of_the_Moon_AS16-3021.jpg)
…with this image (centered at latitude 0°, longitude 180°)…
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/04/Moon_Farside_LRO.jpg/800px-Moon_Farside_LRO.jpg)
Because as you can see from the coordinates, the upper photo is 78° - or nearly a quarter of the way around the globe from the second image and (as you yourself pointed-out) the backside is mostly in shadow, so there is very little visible overlap (It also didn’t help that AS16-M-3021 is rotated over 130° so that north is to the lower-right. Here it rotated so that north is up:
(http://i61.tinypic.com/fwjfwn.jpg)
Incidentally, the second image is not a photograph at all (and it’s not from 2009). It’s an orthographic map projection of a mosaic stitched together from over 15,000 LOR wide-angle camera images. This was released in 2011 (http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/posts/298#extended). This image was one of six – each 60° apart (the link has all six with links to zoomable versions).
In this image, I’ve annotated some conspicuous features:
(http://i57.tinypic.com/okv67q.png)
Here is an illustration (also centered at latitude 0°, longitude 180°) showing how much of the far side was in shadow at the time AS16-M-3021 was taken.
(http://i62.tinypic.com/xazph.png)
On the left is an albedo map that shows the dark-bottomed craters like Tsiolkovsky and Mare Moscoviense. On the right is a shaded relief map of the same area that shows the other craters better. Note that the terminator is quite close to Tsiolkovsky
If you wanted a closer match to AS16-M-3021, you could have started with the orthographic map projection centered on latitude 0°, longitude 120°E):
(http://i57.tinypic.com/c0nj4.png)
Here are the diagrams showing the shading as before:
(http://i60.tinypic.com/fn4xvm.png)
Here is the orthographic with features annotated, including (as before) Mare Moscoviense, Tsiolkovsky and Lomonsov:
(http://i58.tinypic.com/2jag5s1.png)
From this angle, you can see many of the features in other images, such as this Soviet Luna 3 images from 1959…
(http://i60.tinypic.com/300a3pk.jpg)
…and this Chinese Chang’e 2 image from 2014…
(http://i58.tinypic.com/21l4d95.png)
… and, of course, AS16-M-3021:
(http://i58.tinypic.com/2z7en9y.jpg)
Because the sun is setting on Tsiolkovsky, the sun is only shining on the rim and central peak, but not the crater floor. As we’ve seen (above), Mare Moscoviense is already deep in shadow.
At this point, I can point-out another big problem with your two comparison images: You are comparing an orthographic map projection that shows an entire 180° hemisphere with a photo taken at an altitude of only 1,200km above a sphere that is only 1,737km in radius. From that altitude, the horizon is much closer, as shown in this diagram:
(http://i62.tinypic.com/24vk85k.png)
Thus, instead of a 180° hemisphere, we only see ~107.5° from one side of the Moon to the other in AS16-M-3021.
Here is the ~orthographic shade diagram of the Moon from the same angle as AS16-M-3021:
(http://i60.tinypic.com/2v8nwcn.png)
Here is the shade diagram from the same angle, but at the altitude that AS16-M-3021 was taken:
(http://i62.tinypic.com/mx0nro.png)
Notice that Mare Crisium and Mare Moscoviense are, from this low angle, much closer to the horizon to the left and right, and Tsiolkovsky is near the horizon to the lower right.
Compare it to AS16-M-3021:
(http://i60.tinypic.com/1ry9eb.png)
So in summary, when comparing these two images:
Tarkus did not correct for the almost 80° difference in center-point.
Tarkus did not account for the difference between an orthographic map projection and a point-of-view less than one radius above the surface of a sphere.
Because of these two things, as others have pointed-out…
Tarkus did not account for limb-foreshortening when comparing the near-straight-down view of craters from the photograph to the nearly edge-on POV from the orthographic projection.
Also, because he had the center-point so far off,
Tarkus incorrectly stated that the area shown in AS16-M-3021should be in shadow, when it was not.
Tarkus did not correct for the ~130° rotation of the photograph.
If we plot these errors onto the Earth, using the same latitudes & longitudes and the proportional altitude for the close-up POV of the photograph, then Tarkus’ errors basically compared this…
(http://i57.tinypic.com/357on0l.png)
…to this…
(http://i62.tinypic.com/21kf6rp.png)
…and claiming NOT A SINGLE FEATURE MATCHES ANOTHER.
This brings us to the most serious error of all. When Tarkus believed he saw a mismatch, he made no attempt whatsoever to try to understand it. He didn’t try to find out anything about the images. Hell, he didn’t even ask anyone if they saw something he didn’t. He just assumed that if he doesn’t understand it, it must be fake.
That’s no way to go through life, kid.
-
LO is gonna have my ass for burning bandwidth like a Saturn V, but here goes...
<snippety>
This brings us to the most serious error of all. When Tarkus believed he saw a mismatch, he made no attempt whatsoever to try to understand it. He didn’t try to find out anything about the images. Hell, he didn’t even ask anyone if they saw something he didn’t. He just assumed that if he doesn’t understand it, it must be fake.
That’s no way to go through life, kid.
Bravo sir, Bravo :)
I've done similar stuff for ground based photos:
http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/shadows/shadindex.html
and also for the movement of the lunar terminator:
http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/terminator/termindex.html
over the course of the missions, but haven't got as far as 16 yet.
http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/kmz/apollokmz.html
You can also get a good idea of which parts are lit and how that changes by looking at the photos taken from orbit, which I've plotted in google moon (Apollo 16 is still in progress).
Which just goes to show, tarkus, that lots of people have already done the legwork for you if you get off your backside and actually look into the topic properly.
We landed on the moon, and every single documented aspect of the mission - every single one - ties together in a coherent and consistent narrative that matches exactly what history documents and science expects.
Tarkus, your version of events is incoherent, inconsistent and matches nothing that the real world tells you should happen.
-
The sun was high during the Apollo 16 mission, near the zenith, the same mission photos prove it. Being the case, the dark side should be dark, you must admit it or prove his point, accuse another of ignorance is no argument.
Here's how the Moon looked, roughly, in April 1972
http://www.calendar-12.com/moon_calendar/1972/april
They landed on April 21st.
That's all the help you get.
Where did they land? You get this from Wikipedia.
Was the Sun at its max, relative to the landing point? You figure it out.
-
Never picked up a camera, have you?
Did you have sex ever?
You had better start behaving like a mature adult really quick because you are on very thin ice right now. Let me put it more clearly:
STOP insulting people
STOP making immature comments like the one above
START answering our questions
If you do not follow this advice I will ban you.
You are not measured with the same yardstick your friends ... having fun making jokes how are you, in this thread:
(https://html1-f.scribdassets.com/3jchbwyh6oa2awc/images/20-c09c8633ff.jpg)
(http://i60.tinypic.com/33kvcs4.jpg)
This is by far the stupidest post you have made how is the Sun 93 million miles from the earth pass between the Earth and Moon 239000 miles away? Do you ever read or think about your posts?, Or do you just go to a hoax web page and start copying?
-
(https://html1-f.scribdassets.com/3jchbwyh6oa2awc/images/20-c09c8633ff.jpg)
The image is from Science Made Stupid: How to Discomprehend the World Around Us by Tom Weller.
The real question is does tarkus understand the satirical nature of it or does he think it's real?
-
tarkus probably believes it, thanks for the info.
-
tarkus probably believes it, thanks for the info.
It's out of print now but by kind permission of Tom Weller himself...
http://files.chrispennello.com/tweller/Science%20Made%20Stupid.pdf (http://files.chrispennello.com/tweller/Science%20Made%20Stupid.pdf)
I like his periodic table...
-
tarkus probably believes it, thanks for the info.
It's out of print now but by kind permission of Tom Weller himself...
http://files.chrispennello.com/tweller/Science%20Made%20Stupid.pdf (http://files.chrispennello.com/tweller/Science%20Made%20Stupid.pdf)
I like his periodic table...
It'sw all rather bizarre. Dalhousie would get a kick out of the Types of rocks.
-
Tarkus is reposting it from someone else in the discussion. In irritation, I suspect, at being personally attacked. As it happens, I have reported a post for using the exact same tactics as he; seriously, people, having sex or not is not evidence of anything but whether or not you've had sex. Can we not go there?
That said, yes, Tarkus, you're ignorant. You're willfully ignorant, in fact. You are demonstrably ignorant because you don't want to learn. You don't want to learn because you think you know it all, and any time someone points out something that you don't know, you get mad. You'll notice that Jay has been corrected in this very thread and been gracious about it. He accepted the correction, because the person showed evidence that he was wrong. If you read around, you'll note that we all tend to do that. That's because everyone makes mistakes, and everyone is ignorant of something. That's okay; there's nothing wrong with that. What you're doing is wrong, because you are not correcting your ignorance, and you're getting mad at other people for not being as ignorant as you.
Seriously, let's consider something. Let's say you're right, and NASA has not only never sent a manned mission to the Moon, they've never even sent an unmanned mission to the Moon. Isn't it more logical to assume that the images of the far side of the Moon would always match, because they'd basically all be the same fake? It would take less work to have one mock-up of the far side to fake all the others from rather than making it up anew every time, wouldn't it?
-
You'll notice that Jay has been corrected in this very thread and been gracious about it. He accepted the correction, because the person showed evidence that he was wrong.
Ka9q and I trade corrections all the time because we're both engineers and that's part of the job culture. One engineer can be wrong from time to time, but if a group of them has a culture of constantly checking each other's work, then product of that group stands a much smaller chance of being wrong. Of course I'm gracious because I recognized immediately in each case the error I'd made, and I've learned not to take it personally. Posting during the day for me means splitting attention between work and forum. Roll 39 was in my head because I had recently had a conversation with someone about its being recently scanned and put online. The east-west motion I botched because in my mind the hemisphere of sunlight was rotating counterclockwise, not the Moon. These are things that I would have frankly thought more about if I had not been trying to get a post out the door in the 90 seconds of free time I had. Or if I were putting it in a book, or on Clavius.org.
I pay the price for my haste, inattention, and carelessness. It's not a high price in this case, but high enough that I remember to double check my answers. But how can I argue with the facts? If the facts say I'm wrong, then no amount of pouting, lashing out, or digging in will fix that. Credibility is not sticking to your guns at all costs. Credibility is showing you go where the facts go, even if you pay a personal price for the trip.
-
And Jay, mentioned the fact you were wrong, something that our hoaxers don't seem to have the ability or desire to say.
-
(https://html1-f.scribdassets.com/3jchbwyh6oa2awc/images/20-c09c8633ff.jpg)
The image is from Science Made Stupid: How to Discomprehend the World Around Us by Tom Weller.
The real question is does tarkus understand the satirical nature of it or does he think it's real?
The better question is what the hell does a Japanese car have to do with an eclipse? ::)
-
(https://html1-f.scribdassets.com/3jchbwyh6oa2awc/images/20-c09c8633ff.jpg)
:o
-
LO is gonna have my ass for burning bandwidth like a Saturn V, but here goes...
Now answer this: WHY WAS DAY IN THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF APOLLO 16 moon landing?
Why should anyone answer your questions? You don’t answer any, why should we?
At any rate the question is wrong. This isn’t the “opposite side” from the Apollo 16 landing site. “Orion” landed at latitude 8° 58’ S, longitude 15° 30’ E. AS16-M-3021 is centered at latitude 12° N, longitude 103° 42’ E which is just over a quarter of the way around the Moon from the landing site.
You were also wrong to compare AS15-M-3021 (centered at 12° N, 103° 42’ E )…
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4f/Back_side_of_the_Moon_AS16-3021.jpg/800px-Back_side_of_the_Moon_AS16-3021.jpg)
That’s no way to go through life, kid.
I deeply appreciate his work, is what distinguishes it from other trolls who only know how to insult and then rush to denounce the moderator when they meet their permanent lack of respect, I congratulate you.
I still have two doubts because according to the lunar calendar, the 25th of April, almost the entire side pointing to Earth was lit, leaving the dark side at night.
(http://i61.tinypic.com/o8i2p2.jpg)
http://www.moonconnection.com/moon_phases_calendar.phtml (http://www.moonconnection.com/moon_phases_calendar.phtml)
According to the timetable, the ideal to photograph the dark side was the week of the 14th, long before 25.
And the second question is the same date as Apollo 16 returned just two days later (April 27), but that is impossible, the return can not take less than three days.
-
Here is the mission report.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/frame.html select A16, choose mission report
Lunar Ascent 175: 3 1:4 8
TEI 200:21: 3 3
Landing 265: 51:05
-
You act like photographing the far side of the moon was the primary mission, tarkus. The Lunar Orbiter missions already mapped 99% of the moon long before Apollo 16.
Also, self-righteous posturing about 'trolls' is laughable in the face of your own comments.
-
Never picked up a camera, have you?
Did you have sex ever?
You had better start behaving like a mature adult really quick because you are on very thin ice right now. Let me put it more clearly:
STOP insulting people
STOP making immature comments like the one above
START answering our questions
If you do not follow this advice I will ban you.
You are not measured with the same yardstick your friends ... having fun making jokes how are you, in this thread:
(https://html1-f.scribdassets.com/3jchbwyh6oa2awc/images/20-c09c8633ff.jpg)
(http://i60.tinypic.com/33kvcs4.jpg)
This is by far the stupidest post you have made how is the Sun 93 million miles from the earth pass between the Earth and Moon 239000 miles away? Do you ever read or think about your posts?, Or do you just go to a hoax web page and start copying?
I never said such madness, does Google Translator an error? you forget that I use that tool, you know because I had clarified, would not it have been more cautious ask instead of making a mockery?
I bring back a paragraph J Windley:
Your concept of the problem is wrong. There's no comfortable way to say it -- you are entirely ignorant of the quantitative relationships that involve perspective and the focal length of lenses. The ratio of distances among the photographer and the objects in the scene is a factor. The focal length of the camera is a factor. Your abject ignorance of these factors do not suddenly make your proposal valid.
Of course no one is able to answer those questions in any case (or yourself) is the space agency's own broadcasting this graphic which should report on the more improbable and incomprehensible photographic tricks.
You fit the facts to their own convenience, such as dark gray gif Moon moon is due to low albedo ... despite how low albedo left blind eyes to see Armstrong as a star.
If Apollo generates many doubts, the images of the probes end up convincing scam, where the details of the fragments that make up the rings of Saturn are? Cassini brought computer animations only worthless, you have you examined the images of Pluto?
(https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_width_feature/public/thumbnails/image/nh-nix-hydra-no-captions1.jpg?itok=RxO96j9p)
To show this, it is better not show anything ...
I return with this animation, this is not serious:
(https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/pluto-observations-through-the-years.gif)
no one has answered the New Horizons has focus problems, this garbage ashamed of images, an insult to the intelligence, how to believe in NASA and drawings?
And if I have not been able to respond to all it is for two reasons, I am only against a dozen of you and because I work with another language, something perfectly understandable to anyone, but beyond the understanding of the trolls in this forum.
-
no one has answered the New Horizons has focus problems...
Of course they have. Your inability to understand the answer doesn't create a legitimate controversy.
And if I have not been able to respond to all it is for two reasons, I am only against a dozen of you and because I work with another language
I don't care. You chose an English-language forum as a venue, with many participants. No one forced you to start several threads. Your inability or unwillingness to maintain a suitable discussion is entirely your problem.
-
I never said such madness, does Google Translator an error? you forget that I use that tool, you know because I had clarified, would not it have been more pridente ask instead of making a mockery?
But the image you posted does say that and in essence since you selected and posted it, you by association agree with what is on the image.
-
no one has answered the New Horizons has focus problems, this garbage ashamed of images, an insult to the intelligence, how to believe in NASA and drawings?
Look at the URL of that Pluto animation - "pluto-observations-through-the-years.gif"
They weren't all taken from New Horizons - only the later ones were.
"I work with another language, something perfectly understandable to anyone, but beyond the understanding of the trolls in this forum."
Why don't you spend some time learning better English, then, since you CHOSE to come here, to a forum which conducts its business in English?
-
And why do hoax believers enter a forum that they KNOW that its parcipitants oppose their position, and then complain about being ganged up on?
-
no one has answered the New Horizons has focus problems, this garbage ashamed of images, an insult to the intelligence, how to believe in NASA and drawings?
Look at the URL of that Pluto animation - "pluto-observations-through-the-years.gif"
They weren't all taken from New Horizons - only the later ones were.
"I work with another language, something perfectly understandable to anyone, but beyond the understanding of the trolls in this forum."
Why don't you spend some time learning better English, then, since you CHOSE to come here, to a forum which conducts its business in English?
A set of the best available photos of Mars and Jupiter taken through history would have similar improvements in resolution. Only a hoax believer would take such a triumph of imaging technology and twist it into somehow being evidence of the hoax.
-
Having lost out on the lunar farside and then shifting to Pluto I detect a Gish gallop.
I also find it amusing that tarkus thinks that images of tiny moons of Pluto are not worth showing, without any comprehension of the fact that these objects were just points of light in previous images.
-
Or that even Pluto's large moon (co-dwarf-planet?) Charon wasn't discovered until 1978.
-
no one has answered the New Horizons has focus problems,
Yes, they have. But just for the hell of it, here it is again:
A small and distant object will appear as a point from Earth, as a few pixels in an Earth orbiting telescope, and will gradually appear larger, and hence with better detail, as a probe approaches it. What we see with those images is exactly what would be expected. Why do you expect different?
However, since you have refused repeatedly to answer two simple questions I have put to you, you are not in a positon to complain about your questions not being answered.
1: How large will Earth appear to be from 800,000km given that you have already stated it appears 2 degrees wide from 400,000km.
2: What have you to say about the business with the 'invisible' service module given the numerous demonstrations posted so far that show it is just what would be expected given the shapes and positions of the spacecraft and camera?
And if I have not been able to respond to all it is for two reasons, I am only against a dozen of you
Irrelevant since we are pretty much all asking for the same answers.
and because I work with another language,
Irrelevant because you choe to come here and engage with a group that works in English. Language problems are not the reason you are refusing to answer my simple questions. You understand them perfectly, you simply keep eveading them.
-
...
Of course no one is able to answer those questions in any case (or yourself) is the space agency's own broadcasting this graphic which should report on the more improbable and incomprehensible photographic tricks.
You fit the facts to their own convenience, such as dark gray gif Moon moon is due to low albedo ... despite how low albedo left blind eyes to see Armstrong as a star.
No. You were given reasonable explanations, but they don't fit into your cartoon view of how things work. Yet rather than taking advantage of the opportunity to learn something, you stubbornly cling to your ignorance. That's nobody's fault but your own.
If Apollo generates many doubts, the images of the probes end up convincing scam, where the details of the fragments that make up the rings of Saturn are? Cassini brought computer animations only worthless, you have you examined the images of Pluto?
People who actually understand the subject don't have doubts. This does not include you, as you have repeatedly demonstrated. And, yes, I have examined the images of Pluto. And I worked, a little. on the spacecraft that took those images, and I have worked with some of the investigators on that mission. You, on the other hand, have no idea what you're talking about. You can't even grasp the simplest concepts, such as...
I return with this animation, this is not serious:
...
no one has answered the New Horizons has focus problems, this garbage ashamed of images, an insult to the intelligence, how to believe in NASA and drawings?
First, you thought it was remarkable that images taken from three billion miles away were fuzzy. That is merely hilarious, but what's really amazing is that you looked at really excellent sharp pictures taken from the flyby and said they were fuzzy. That's simply denying what's right in front of you. Nothing more clearly shows your absolute determination to disbelieve Apollo, but that's your problem, not reality's.
And if I have not been able to respond to all it is for two reasons, I am only against a dozen of you and because I work with another language, something perfectly understandable to anyone, but beyond the understanding of the trolls in this forum.
Quit whining. You have found plenty of time to jump from one failed claim to another, and to waste time arguing with educated people rather than learning anything. That's your fault, and your fault only.
Now, given your ridiculous failure with the Pluto images, and the many mistakes you have already made on this forum, I ask again:
Why do you never reconsider your opinions when your endless errors are pointed out to you?
And why, since you seem determined not to learn anything, should anyone keep trying to educate you?
-
(https://html1-f.scribdassets.com/3jchbwyh6oa2awc/images/20-c09c8633ff.jpg)
I never said such madness, does Google Translator an error? you forget that I use that tool, you know because I had clarified, would not it have been more cautious ask instead of making a mockery?
So, if English is not your first language, let me help you out with the above diagram.
umbrella and umbrage would be correctly labelled the penumbra and umbra. Corolla should be corona.
Does this help you realise the error you made when you used this diagram to support you argument? Will you now retract your position?
-
And why do hoax believers enter a forum that they KNOW that its parcipitants oppose their position, and then complain about being ganged up on?
Persecution complex... possibly?
-
...
Does this help you realise the error you made when you used this diagram to support you argument? Will you now retract your position?
Judging from past performance, I'm not holding my breath waiting
-
(https://html1-f.scribdassets.com/3jchbwyh6oa2awc/images/20-c09c8633ff.jpg)
I never said such madness, does Google Translator an error? you forget that I use that tool, you know because I had clarified, would not it have been more cautious ask instead of making a mockery?
So, if English is not your first language, let me help you out with the above diagram.
umbrella and umbrage would be correctly labelled the penumbra and umbra. Corolla should be corona.
Does this help you realise the error you made when you used this diagram to support you argument? Will you now retract your position?
To be fair to Tarkus, he didn't originally post the image (see P6) and I don't believe he thinks it's correct. His inability to manage message quotes properly made it end up looking like he's posted it.
He does have some strange ideas but, I think he probably does have a basic understanding of astronomy. Beyond that however...
-
To be fair to Tarkus, he didn't originally post the image (see P6) and I don't believe he thinks it's correct. His inability to manage message quotes properly made it end up looking like he's posted it.
That's what I thought too. He quoted it as an example of how the big boys were being unfair to him and calling him names. Though his inability to manage to use quotes properly seems to be a common failing with hoaxies.
He does have some strange ideas but, I think he probably does have a basic understanding of astronomy.
I'm not sure that I'd go quite that far.....
-
To be fair to Tarkus, he didn't originally post the image (see P6) and I don't believe he thinks it's correct. His inability to manage message quotes properly made it end up looking like he's posted it.
He does have some strange ideas but, I think he probably does have a basic understanding of astronomy. Beyond that however...
Thanks for that clarification. My mistake for not following the thread properly. In fairness to tarkus, I retract my previous post.
-
To be fair to Tarkus, he didn't originally post the image (see P6) and I don't believe he thinks it's correct.
Okay, I'll buy that interpretation.
-
I started this commentary piece. I also described why tarkus posting it, de facto indicates that he endorses/believes it
And this lend to to the comment does he ever look at what he's posting or think about what he is posting.
Luke I believe was trying to make it simple for tarkus to understand why I said This is by far the stupidest post you have made how is the Sun 93 million miles from the earth pass between the Earth and Moon 239000 miles away? Do you ever read or think about your posts?, Or do you just go to a hoax web page and start copying?
-
Guys, I'm used to being ignored by the HBs, but I pointed out in post 292 that Tarkus hadn't been the one to initially post that image.
-
You are correct in post#75 This thread keeps making me think of this:
(https://html1-f.scribdassets.com/3jchbwyh6oa2awc/images/20-c09c8633ff.jpg)
Guys, I'm used to being ignored by the HBs, but I pointed out in post 292 that Tarkus hadn't been the one to initially post that image.
never to ignore you!
-
Guys, I'm used to being ignored by the HBs, but I pointed out in post 292 that Tarkus hadn't been the one to initially post that image.
Oops! Sorry Gillian, I missed that. (It is a quite a busy thread though...)
-
Man, I got a lot of mileage out of that post!
I own the Tom Weller book. I was very pleased to see that it is freely distributable on pdf as well as readable online. Of course I'd prefer for him to be making money off it, but having it available to new readers is a Good Thing.
-
Man, I got a lot of mileage out of that post!
I own the Tom Weller book. I was very pleased to see that it is freely distributable on pdf as well as readable online. Of course I'd prefer for him to be making money off it, but having it available to new readers is a Good Thing.
Chock full of laugh out loud moments, I'm surprised it didn't get a reprint. I could potentially organise a reprint at cost if I had any contact with him and a wee bit of market research. I have a mate who does short run digital print.
-
It's quirky all right. :o I really didn't notice the image, just glancing at it without really looking, thinking it another 'Let's try educating tarkus' post.' Only later did I really read it, and it cracked me up pretty well. ;D
-
Sorry, but I have to return to post #1, since I didn't see anyone mention this -
Even though the official version insists that we believe in the scientific spirit of those who planned the monumental scam of Apolo, the truth is that this "exploring spirit" failed miserably when it was time to overfly the moon. ........ Apollo didn't even show enthusiasm about cartographing the surface in detail. In fact, the lack of detailed images of the dark side is pathetic, with just this picture, that was allegedly taken by the Apollo 16 in 1972:
Image URL - https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4f/Back_side_of_the_Moon_AS16-3021.jpg/800px-Back_side_of_the_Moon_AS16-3021.jpg
The picture you included, Tarkus, is the only one on wikimedia - AS16-M-3021
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Back_side_of_the_Moon_AS16-3021.jpg
It's just blatant falsehood to suggest, as you did, that it's the only one..... Did you consider why it is numbered 3021? Did you ask yourself where numbers 3000 to 3020 are?
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/catalog/metric/mission/?16
Quote; "The Apollo 16 mission carried a mapping (metric) camera located in the SIM Bay of the Command Service Module. A total of 3480 black & white images were taken of which 2491 were considered usable"
So that's AS16-M-0027 through to AS16-M-3440 - all dedicated to mapping, many of which cover the far side of the Moon.
-
It's quirky all right. :o I really didn't notice the image, just glancing at it without really looking, thinking it another 'Let's try educating tarkus' post.' Only later did I really read it, and it cracked me up pretty well. ;D
The mockery goes right to the very end.
This book set in Monotone Bimbo
or the acclaim at the end
I'd love this book, except that I'm dead. - Roger Bacon
No, no, you've misattributed that quote. I'm the one who said it. - Francis Bacon
You have to love it.
-
Guys, I'm used to being ignored by the HBs, but I pointed out in post 292 that Tarkus hadn't been the one to initially post that image.
Whoops, how rude of us. Sorry!
-
The mockery goes right to the very end.
This book set in Monotone Bimbo
or the acclaim at the end
I'd love this book, except that I'm dead. - Roger Bacon
No, no, you've misattributed that quote. I'm the one who said it. - Francis Bacon
You have to love it.
Heh, I downloaded the eBook. It's certainly something! ;D
-
I'm not whining, when I say that I am only against a dozen and speak the language problem is in response to your complaints that I'm not responding. CSM regarding the lunar module, it is possible that it is an error of judgment on my part, because of not being able to prove my point, I decided not to continue discussing this.
Finally, the reason for choosing this English-speaking forum to discuss these issues is because I have not found any Spanish-speaking people who know much about a subject as here, appreciate and value the knowledge and ability displayed by some users this forum, because they can learn things and correct errors, for example the case of CSM. And Jay is right when he says it was a mistake to open as many threads would have been better to exhaust first, sorry.
With respect to gif Pluto, it is assumed that these images are obtained by the probe as it approaches the planet, having said that, I disagree with the argument of the distance, a distant object should be small, but as it approaches should be growing in size, it makes no sense to publish blur and even pixilated, especially if one wants to try something ... a blurred pebble and black background manufactures anyone in awhile on the PC.
I would read the answer to my previous contribution on the far side of the moon, adding more doubt ... how far away the moon this picture was taken?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/Back_side_of_the_Moon_AS16-3021.jpg)
I do not know if this image was obtained by the CSM as it orbited the Moon or LM, in any case limited to the height at which they were traveling could not portray the Moon in full size. The image mosaic part this photo suggests that the spacecraft moved away from the satellite, which would be right for the return trip, but the problem is that it is the opposite side of the Moon, traveled in the opposite direction Earth for this picture? and what happens with the date of April 25, with the return to Earth just two days later? all this seems at odds with the flight plan released NASA.
-
for the Pluto gif you have to remember that until this year, the best image anyone had was comprised of 3x3 pixels. So yes, upscaling that looks a bit messy but if you look at the fifth image in the sequence, then even from those few pixels they did a remarkable job of predicting surface features particularly the 'heart'
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I'm not whining, when I say that I am only against a dozen and speak the language problem is in response to your complaints that I'm not responding. CSM regarding the lunar module, it is possible that it is an error of judgment on my part, because of not being able to prove my point, I decided not to continue discussing this.
Finally, the reason for choosing this English-speaking forum to discuss these issues is because I have not found any Spanish-speaking people who know much about a subject as here, appreciate and value the knowledge and ability displayed by some users this forum, because they can learn things and correct errors, for example the case of CSM. And Jay is right when he says it was a mistake to open as many threads would have been better to exhaust first, sorry.
With respect to gif Pluto, it is assumed that these images are obtained by the probe as it approaches the planet, having said that, I disagree with the argument of the distance, a distant object should be small, but as it approaches should be growing in size, it makes no sense to publish blur and even pixilated, especially if one wants to try something ... a blurred pebble and black background manufactures anyone in awhile on the PC.
I would read the answer to my previous contribution on the far side of the moon, adding more doubt ... how far away the moon this picture was taken?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/Back_side_of_the_Moon_AS16-3021.jpg)
I do not know if this image was obtained by the CSM as it orbited the Moon or LM, in any case limited to the height at which they were traveling could not portray the Moon in full size. The image mosaic part this photo suggests that the spacecraft moved away from the satellite, which would be right for the return trip, but the problem is that it is the opposite side of the Moon, traveled in the opposite direction Earth for this picture? and what happens with the date of April 25, with the return to Earth just two days later? all this seems at odds with the flight plan released NASA.
It was recorded after TEI during the trip back to earth
-
I'm not whining,
Yes you are
when I say that I am only against a dozen
What did you think would happen when you posted so much nonsense?
and speak the language problem is in response to your complaints that I'm not responding.
Yet somehow you can respond. I don't buy it for a moment.
CSM regarding the lunar module, it is possible that it is an error of judgment on my part,
Ya think? You have been abjectly wrong on everything you have claimed so far. You will likely be wrong on everything you claim henceforth.
because of not being able to prove my point,
Yet that gave you no pause for thought. Why is it that you cannot prove your point? Did you think for a moment why that might be?
I decided not to continue discussing this.
Why?
Finally, the reason for choosing this English-speaking forum to discuss these issues is because I have not found any Spanish-speaking people who know much about a subject as here, appreciate and value the knowledge and ability displayed by some users this forum, because they can learn things and correct errors, for example the case of CSM. And Jay is right when he says it was a mistake to open as many threads would have been better to exhaust first, sorry.
It matters not a whit how many threads you open. It is a tactic that is so jaded that nobody cares anymore. We have seen it all before and done it all before.
Somehow, you thought it was new. Turns out you are wrong. Again.
With respect to gif Pluto, it is assumed that these images are obtained by the probe as it approaches the planet,
Except that it is not.
having said that, I disagree with the argument of the distance, a distant object should be small, but as it approaches should be growing in size, it makes no sense to publish blur and even pixilated, especially if one wants to try something ... a blurred pebble and black background manufactures anyone in awhile on the PC.
Wrong again on so many levels.
I would read the answer to my previous contribution on the far side of the moon, adding more doubt ... how far away the moon this picture was taken?
So you didn't bother finding out? What a lovely researcher you are. Why exactly should anyone bother with an image you decline to identify?
I do not know if this image was obtained by the CSM as it orbited the Moon or LM,
Why do you not know? Did you do no research? Do you expect everyone else to do your research on your behalf?
in any case limited to the height at which they were traveling could not portray the Moon in full size.
You think every probe travels at the same height?
The image mosaic part this photo suggests that the spacecraft moved away from the satellite, which would be right for the return trip, but the problem is that it is the opposite side of the Moon, traveled in the opposite direction Earth for this picture? and what happens with the date of April 25, with the return to Earth just two days later? all this seems at odds with the flight plan released NASA.
That is incoherent. Which flight plan? How do mosaics have anything to do with orbital mechanics? Sure, one can stitch imagery together and so forth and sure the resolution will be affected by proximity, but bluntly, Newton doesn't much care.
-
It was recorded after TEI during the trip back to earth
IIRC it was circa 40,000 klicks, but I could be wrong.
I any event, tarkus has yet again failed to note focal length etc.
My eldest daughter (13) is actually better than me at working this out. I calculate it out when I am behind the lens. She instantaneously does it. I remain astonished.
-
It was recorded after TEI during the trip back to earth
IIRC it was circa 40,000 klicks, but I could be wrong.
I any event, tarkus has yet again failed to note focal length etc.
My eldest daughter (13) is actually better than me at working this out. I calculate it out when I am behind the lens. She instantaneously does it. I remain astonished.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/AS16-131-20163HR.jpg here it is, but there is no data on what time it was taken.
-
It was recorded after TEI during the trip back to earth
A8, A9, A11, A12, A13, A14, A15, A16 or A17?
All of them had TEI so which one?
You don't have the foggiest.
Focal length? You don't have the foggiest either?
Which camera? You don't know that either.
Camera settings? Nope, do not have the remotest clue.
Do you know anything?
I am minded of the movie "the Untouchables"... You brought a shoehorn to a rocket launch.
Now, I don't object to that as long as the shoehorn wielder is willing to learn as I have done, and is willing to admit they are wrong as I have done.
What I object to is those who refuse point blank to accept they are wrong despite all evidence.
-
It was recorded after TEI during the trip back to earth
A8, A9, A11, A12, A13, A14, A15, A16 or A17?
All of them had TEI so which one?
You don't have the foggiest.
Focal length? You don't have the foggiest either?
Which camera? You don't know that either.
Camera settings? Nope, do not have the remotest clue.
Do you know anything?
I am minded of the movie "the Untouchables"... You brought a shoehorn to a rocket launch.
Now, I don't object to that as long as the shoehorn wielder is willing to learn as I have done, and is willing to admit they are wrong as I have done.
What I object to is those who refuse point blank to accept they are wrong despite all evidence.
Sorry, it was A16
-
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/AS16-131-20163HR.jpg here it is, but there is no data on what time it was taken.
Not remotely close to the pic Tarkus quoted.
But which picture did he in fact cite? AS-16-3021.
No such exists. Either he is ignorant of the nomenclature or intentionally obfuscating the image used and these are not mutually exclusive.
I could seek the image to which he refers, but why? Surely it is up to him to provide actual references, no?
-
Tarkus - you don't make it clear, but I assume that the photo was taken two days from reentry, and that you have a problem with that. Keep in mind that the CSM is speeding up as it leaves lunar orbit due to Earth's stronger gravity, and can cover well over two thirds the distance home in two days.
-
Sorry, it was A16
No big deal. I was addressing tarkus, not you.
-
Tarkus - you don't make it clear, but I assume that the photo was taken two days from reentry, and that you have a problem with that. Keep in mind that the CSM is speeding up as it leaves lunar orbit due to Earth's stronger gravity, and can cover well over two thirds the distance home in two days.
I believe you are being overly optomistic as to what tarkus can handle.
-
Finally, the reason for choosing this English-speaking forum to discuss these issues is because I have not found any Spanish-speaking people who know much about a subject as here, appreciate and value the knowledge and ability displayed by some users this forum...
Then understand that you will have to learn to communicate in English. Not just conversational English, but the English required to discuss complex, specialized topics.
...a distant object should be small, but as it approaches should be growing in size, it makes no sense to publish blur and even pixilated
A distant object is small in the photo. The only way to make it of comparable size to photographs taken from nearby is to resize and crop that portion of the distant photo. You can't do that without making it blurry. This is basic photography. The recording medium has a natural resolution. When you magnify what it records, it doesn't magically add data that the original medium was unable to record.
This has been explained two you twice. Stop being so arrogant and think carefully about what people are trying to tell you.
-
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/AS16-131-20163HR.jpg here it is, but there is no data on what time it was taken.
Not remotely close to the pic Tarkus quoted.
But which picture did he in fact cite? AS-16-3021.
No such exists. Either he is ignorant of the nomenclature or intentionally obfuscating the image used and these are not mutually exclusive.
I could seek the image to which he refers, but why? Surely it is up to him to provide actual references, no?
I identified the image for him on page one :D
As for when exactly it was taken, and the altitude, it is not difficult - I just checked. The AFJ transcript contains the details of when the camera was turned on and off, and the PAO makes regular announcements during the TEI process as to their position relative to the moon.
Tarkus either knows where the information is, in which case he can find it, or he doesn't have a clue, in which case he has no business passing comment.
-
CSM regarding the lunar module, it is possible that it is an error of judgment on my part, because of not being able to prove my point, I decided not to continue discussing this.
Nearly, and yet so far. It's more than possible- it absolutely was an error on your part. You got it wrong, it was as simple as that. And then you decided to bury that in a gish-gallop and hope that no-one would notice.
However, at least you are beginning to recognise that you can be in error and that notions that you held are based on nothing more than errors in your thinking. It's an important point and one that you should think further on. There's no shame in being wrong and no-one here will mock anyone for being corrected. Continuing to argue when the evidence is shoved under your nose will attract opprobrium though.
-
I'm not whining, when I say that I am only against a dozen and speak the language problem is in response to your complaints that I'm not responding.
It is not adequate. You have been asked the same question repeatedly by me several times, and the same subject has been discussed by others. In the time it has taken you to write these responses and drag more arguments to the table you could have answered the one simple question: how big will Earth appear to be from 800,000 km?
CSM regarding the lunar module, it is possible that it is an error of judgment on my part, because of not being able to prove my point, I decided not to continue discussing this.
But you waited until now to acknowledge your mistake. Why?
Finally
No, not finally. You still have not answered the question: how big will Earth appear to be from 800,000 km? All the tools you need to answer that question are right here in this thread, as well as in countless online resources. Please just answer this one question.
because they can learn things and correct errors, for example the case of CSM.
So why has it taken you so long to acknowledge your mistakes and errors when they have been pointed out to you so many times?
With respect to gif Pluto, it is assumed that these images are obtained by the probe as it approaches the planet,
Why assume anything? The source of the images is freely available online.
a distant object should be small, but as it approaches should be growing in size,
It is growing in size. But if it starts out at 3 pixels wide, how many pixels wide will it have to be before it doesn't look blurry?
it makes no sense to publish blur and even pixilated, especially if one wants to try something
Wrong. Even a blurred image tells us new things. Who knew before the pictures were published that Pluto's moon Kerberos has two lobes? Even with a blurred image we have learned a significant fact we didn't know before. Only laymen think all images should be crisp and detailed to be of value.
I do not know if this image was obtained by the CSM as it orbited the Moon or LM,
Neither. It was taken on the return journey to Earth, from some considerable distance.
Now, for the third time in this post alone, how big will Earth appear from 800,000 km if it is 2 degrees wide from 400,000 km? Can we expect an answer to this any time soon?
-
Guys, I'm used to being ignored by the HBs, but I pointed out in post 292 that Tarkus hadn't been the one to initially post that image.
Not ignoring you here, just not following the thread properly. I have back pain at the moment, so sitting at a computer is not the most comfortable activity and focus on the detail is poor. The muscles between my shoulder blades cramped up 2 weeks ago and I'm in some discomfort. It is the reason that I am not partaking in the thread as much as I normally do.
-
A distant object is small in the photo. The only way to make it of comparable size to photographs taken from nearby is to resize and crop that portion of the distant photo. You can't do that without making it blurry. This is basic photography. The recording medium has a natural resolution. When you magnify what it records, it doesn't magically add data that the original medium was unable to record.
You mean like this...
-
You mean like this...
:D
We can laugh, but there are CSI fans worldwide that believe this is actually possible.
-
Not ignoring you here, just not following the thread properly. I have back pain at the moment, so sitting at a computer is not the most comfortable activity and focus on the detail is poor. The muscles between my shoulder blades cramped up 2 weeks ago and I'm in some discomfort. It is the reason that I am not partaking in the thread as much as I normally do.
Ouch, GWS.
I had a similar problem in February which ended up flaring into pinched nerves in my spine. Cue the worst 4 weeks of pain that I have ever felt. I have never been so grateful for modern medicine, namely Co-Codomol, Amitriptyline, Naproxen and Diazepam.
Try and get some physio if you can...I ignored a stiff neck and muscle cramps for a couple of weeks. What then happened is that the muscles swelled and ended up pinching the nerve bundles coming out of my spine at C4, which then created a feedback loop-the pinched nerves caused pain and spasms, which then pinched the nerves more and so-on. At it's worst, I had no power in my left arm, no feeling in my fingers and a loss of movement in my hand.
-
Chock full of laugh out loud moments, I'm surprised it didn't get a reprint. I could potentially organise a reprint at cost if I had any contact with him and a wee bit of market research.
At the very least the author should set up a website with the pdf file and a Paypal link for donations. I'd certainly kick him a few bucks. The laughs are worth it.
-
I have a terrible pain in all the diodes down my left hand side.
-
I would read the answer to my previous contribution on the far side of the moon, adding more doubt ... how far away the moon this picture was taken?
AS16-3021.jpg included herein
I do not know if this image was obtained by the CSM as it orbited the Moon or LM
This is clear from the naming scheme of the sections of the gallery I pointed you at. The 'revolution' is stated as 'Revolution TE' - the pictures in this magazine were taken after Trans-Earth injection - after the CM engine had been fired to send them back to Earth. You can browse those taken from the CM when in orbit in previous folders.
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/catalog/metric/mission/?16
in any case limited to the height at which they were traveling could not portray the Moon in full size. The image mosaic part this photo suggests that the spacecraft moved away from the satellite, which would be right for the return trip, but the problem is that it is the opposite side of the Moon, traveled in the opposite direction Earth for this picture?
Look at the previous revolutions and this one in sequence.
You have to remember that the outward and return trips weren't going between two static points - when returning from Moon to Earth, they have to aim for the point where Earth will be in a couple of days time, NOT for a static point in space. This may on the return journey entail heading out from the far side, not from a side that's visible from Earth at the time, depending on how Earth and Moon are aligned at the time of TEI and where the Earth will be at the end of the journey.
and what happens with the date of April 25, with the return to Earth just two days later? all this seems at odds with the flight plan released NASA.
Isn't this accounted for by the fact that the Earth and the Moon are both in motion? If you disagree, post a link to the flight plan you're looking at, and state how April 25 fits into it.
-
Not remotely close to the pic Tarkus quoted.
But which picture did he in fact cite? AS-16-3021.
No such exists.
It does, actually. It's part of the TE series of A16 mapping photos. AS16-3021.jpg, it's within the URL of the first instance of Tarkus posting the picture. Or AS16-M-3021.
And yes, this was referred to in post #4 ...
-
Not remotely close to the pic Tarkus quoted.
But which picture did he in fact cite? AS-16-3021.
No such exists.
It does, actually. It's part of the TE series of A16 mapping photos. AS16-3021.jpg, it's within the URL of the first instance of Tarkus posting the picture. Or AS16-M-3021.
In early documents, the 'M' tended to be missing from Mapping Camera reference numbers, though it is there on the page I referred him to at the LPI. Wikipedia gives both.
The fact remains that it is not impossible to discover more than anyone ever needs to know about when and where the photo was taken, and whether what is visible is correct, and whether what is lit is correct.
-
So yes, upscaling that looks a bit messy
Tarkus should understand that this is a judgment call by the person releasing the photo. When New Horizons was still far away from Pluto, the planet covered only a few pixels in its imager. If they had released the image exactly as received, you'd just see a black frame with a tiny white dot. Upscaling couldn't add any information not already in the picture, but it makes what's there a little easier for most people to see. As New Horizons approached the planet, the size of its images grew and NASA no longer had to upscale as much. The result is a series of pictures in which the planet can appear roughly constant in size, but the resolution keeps improving.
Tarkus should also understand that many probes (including New Horizons) carry several cameras with different focal lengths. A camera with a long focal length lens and a narrow field of view might be used when still far from the planet to get as much resolution as possible. At closest approach, other cameras with shorter lenses and wider fields of view are also used to get additional features, such as multispectral imaging (e.g., to make color pictures). The narrow field camera may still be used to gather tiles for a mosaic with much higher resolution than a single image. So even when pictures are not upscaled, resolutions and apparent pixel sizes can vary a great deal.
they did a remarkable job of predicting surface features particularly the 'heart'
Actually I think it looks like Opus the Penguin in profile.
-
So yes, upscaling that looks a bit messy
Tarkus should understand that this is a judgment call by the person releasing the photo. When New Horizons was still far away from Pluto, the planet covered only a few pixels in its imager. If they had released the image exactly as received, you'd just see a black frame with a tiny white dot. Upscaling couldn't add any information not already in the picture, but it makes what's there a little easier for most people to see. As New Horizons approached the planet, the size of its images grew and NASA no longer had to upscale as much. The result is a series of pictures in which the planet can appear roughly constant in size, but the resolution keeps improving.
Been trying to find where I got the "3 pixels wide" from but can't find it. Found this on the JPL website which does have the original source images inset, bigger than 3 pixels clearly, more like 16 pixels across.
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/spaceimages/details.php?id=PIA00825 (http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/spaceimages/details.php?id=PIA00825)
-
And Jay is right when he says it was a mistake to open as many threads would have been better to exhaust first, sorry.
Thank you for the apology. The "gish-gallop" is a well known tactic of hoaxies. Perhaps you should now revisit those threads and address the questions that you have outstanding (including some of mine).
appreciate and value the knowledge and ability displayed by some users this forum, because they can learn things and correct errors
Hopefully you can also learn to do likewise....
With respect to gif Pluto, it is assumed that these images are obtained by the probe as it approaches the planet
Stop assuming and do some research! Are you beginning to see why people are reacting in the way that they do? You are assuming things and trying to build a case based on those assumptions with people that know about these subjects. Stop assuming and start doing some proper research.
these images are obtained by the probe as it approaches the planet
I've shown you in a previous post that this is not the case. The first image in the sequence was one of Clyde Tombaugh's image of Pluto, captured in 1930!
but as it approaches should be growing in size
Which the images do!
it makes no sense to publish blur and even pixilated, especially if one wants to try something
"If I ran the zoo.." argument.
And again, you are displaying your ignorance of the most basic aspects of planetary imaging. Let's look at this another way- Tarkus, go and find out the distance that each image in the gif were taken from. Then find out the imager specifications (number of pixels, sensor size, well depth, QE efficiency), the optical train specifications (focal length, aperture and focal speed). Then find out the post-processing procedures (Dark frame subtraction? Bias frame calibration? Flat frame calibration?). Once you have all of this, then tell us why the images are wrong.
I would read the answer to my previous contribution on the far side of the moon, adding more doubt ... how far away the moon this picture was taken?
Irrelevant.
You need to know the focal length, aperture, focal speed and film sensitivity. That impacts what is captured, not distance from the object.
I do not know if this image was obtained by the CSM as it orbited the Moon
Again, you are making assumptions. Do your research and then when you DO know, we can talk.
The image mosaic part this photo suggests that the spacecraft moved away from the satellite,
Rubbish. The focal length, aperture and sensor/film size controls what image is captured. You don't know these details, so again you are making an assumption. Ally that with a demonstrably poor knowledge of the most basic aspects of photography and you are dancing on very, very thin ice.
-
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/AS16-131-20163HR.jpg here it is, but there is no data on what time it was taken.
Not remotely close to the pic Tarkus quoted.
But which picture did he in fact cite? AS-16-3021.
No such exists. Either he is ignorant of the nomenclature or intentionally obfuscating the image used and these are not mutually exclusive.
I could seek the image to which he refers, but why? Surely it is up to him to provide actual references, no?
I identified the image for him on page one :D
As for when exactly it was taken, and the altitude, it is not difficult - I just checked. The AFJ transcript contains the details of when the camera was turned on and off, and the PAO makes regular announcements during the TEI process as to their position relative to the moon.
Tarkus either knows where the information is, in which case he can find it, or he doesn't have a clue, in which case he has no business passing comment.
I didn't remember your post but I knew that you knew when it was taken. and I couldn't find the montage aqt the time. Now bookmarked!
-
Guys, I'm used to being ignored by the HBs, but I pointed out in post 292 that Tarkus hadn't been the one to initially post that image.
Not ignoring you here, just not following the thread properly. I have back pain at the moment, so sitting at a computer is not the most comfortable activity and focus on the detail is poor. The muscles between my shoulder blades cramped up 2 weeks ago and I'm in some discomfort. It is the reason that I am not partaking in the thread as much as I normally do.
You have my sympathy! I have scoliosis, and I'm waiting for my insurance to approve an MRI to see what's going on back there. My lower back went out in August and hasn't been what passes for normal since then.
-
I have a terrible pain in all the diodes down my left hand side.
Mind the size of a planet, and all they want you to do is open the door.
-
I have a terrible pain in all the diodes down my left hand side.
Mind the size of a planet, and all they want you to do is open the door.
Life? Don't ask me about life.
-
It is not adequate. You have been asked the same question repeatedly by me several times, and the same subject has been discussed by others. In the time it has taken you to write these responses and drag more arguments to the table you could have answered the one simple question: how big will Earth appear to be from 800,000 km?
(http://i61.tinypic.com/1zbqrkh.jpg)
Half of the little land of the moon picture. The giant gif Earth is disproportionate.
(http://i62.tinypic.com/11ghteb.jpg)
But you waited until now to acknowledge your mistake. Why?
So why has it taken you so long to acknowledge your mistakes and errors when they have been pointed out to you so many times?
better late than never, right? I have the impression that you are only looking the fight.
With respect to gif Pluto, it is assumed that these images are obtained by the probe as it approaches the planet,
Why assume anything? The source of the images is freely available online.
I say assume because NASA does not always tell the truth ... and often says things that make no sense, but do not be offended because NASA is not God.
a distant object should be small, but as it approaches should be growing in size,
It is growing in size. But if it starts out at 3 pixels wide, how many pixels wide will it have to be before it doesn't look blurry?
(https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_width_feature/public/thumbnails/image/7-8-15_pluto_color_new_nasa-jhuapl-swri-tn.jpg?itok=_xgbD3j5)
If the idea is to show how a planet is becoming bigger as time the observer is approaching, why the size of each image is increased until it blurred or pixelated?
One is that I bring it now, it makes no sense to show a planet of this size in such a blur, it seems like a joke.
it makes no sense to publish blur and even pixilated, especially if one wants to try something
Wrong. Even a blurred image tells us new things. Who knew before the pictures were published that Pluto's moon Kerberos has two lobes? Even with a blurred image we have learned a significant fact we didn't know before. Only laymen think all images should be crisp and detailed to be of value.
You can believe what you want, but this is an inexplicable shit, it is preferable to see a planet three times smaller and well defined that this crap blurred and out of focus.
You seem blinded by hate, hard to believe that a lover of astronomy can feel satisfied with a photographic material so horrible.
I do not know if this image was obtained by the CSM as it orbited the Moon or LM,
Neither. It was taken on the return journey to Earth, from some considerable distance.
That is impossible because the image is the hidden side of the Moon, have you forgotten? what that means is the Apollo spacecraft traveling in the opposite direction to Earth, but that possibility does not appear in the NASA flight plan, then?
-
Half of the little land of the moon picture. The giant gif Earth is disproportionate.
This doesn't answer the question. We want to know the angular size of the earth when seen from a distance of 800,000 km. Do you understand the question?
One is that I bring it now, it makes no sense to show a planet of this size in such a blur, it seems like a joke.
If you don't like pictures with enlarged pixels, you are always free to bring it up in Photoshop or Gimp and reverse the process. You'll end up with a black frame and a tiny dot, but that's your preference.
That is impossible because the image is the hidden side of the Moon, have you forgotten? what that means is the Apollo spacecraft traveling in the opposite direction to Earth, but that possibility does not appear in the NASA flight plan, then?
You don't seem to understand orbital mechanics, which isn't surprising -- many people don't.
The trans-earth injection (TEI) burn was conducted on the far side of the moon, just as the trans-lunar injection (TLI) was conducted on the far side of the earth, away from the moon. As Apollo then came back around to the near side of the moon, it climbed away from it. So after TEI the astronauts saw (and photographed) a moon that, as it receded, first showed mostly the far side and then a combination of the far and near sides, limited of course by solar illumination. And that's exactly what we see in those photographs.
-
It is not adequate. You have been asked the same question repeatedly by me several times, and the same subject has been discussed by others. In the time it has taken you to write these responses and drag more arguments to the table you could have answered the one simple question: how big will Earth appear to be from 800,000 km?
(http://i61.tinypic.com/1zbqrkh.jpg)
Half of the little land of the moon picture. The giant gif Earth is disproportionate.
Wide angle vs. telephoto.
Instead of trying to understand the math, you might try a good book on photo composition. If you can get your hands on the Life magazine book series on photography, you'll learn a lot of the practical applications.
-
I say assume because NASA does not always tell the truth ... and often says things that make no sense
It seems to me that this is the crux of your argument, as with many others arguing your point of view. For reasons best known to yourself you have decided that NASA tells lies. It is a false and ridiculous position from which to argue.
That is impossible because the image is the hidden side of the Moon, have you forgotten? what that means is the Apollo spacecraft traveling in the opposite direction to Earth, but that possibility does not appear in the NASA flight plan, then?
Which part of the flight plan did not include returning home again? Your point may have been lost in translation, but it makes no sense.
Go look at the entire sequence of images, you will see that photographs increasingly reflect the view that you see from Earth as it gets closer to it and the curve of the craft's trajectory points it towards a point that intersects Earth's orbit. Try not to think of that trajectory as a straight line but a curve.
This is not a difficult concept to grasp, and you can easily prove it to yourself by looking at the images. Luckily for you, some of us are prepared to put the work in, and here is the sequence from that magazine that I did for my site:
It's on this page http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/sides/sideways.html
-
Half of the little land of the moon picture.
That is not what I asked. I asked what the angular size will be from 800,000 km. It is 2 degrees wide from 400,000 km, so how big will it look, in degrees, if you move to 800,000 km? Do you mean by your answer 'half the little land' that it will appear 1 degree wide?
The giant gif Earth is disproportionate.
The two images were taken with completely different equipment, so you cannot expect the Earth to take up the same size in the image from the two sources.
better late than never, right?
Indeed, but why wait until so late?
I have the impression that you are only looking the fight.
No, I am holding you to common courtesy when discussing things. When you make mistakes and they are pointed out to you it is generally considered polite to acknowledge that rather than try and move on as though it didn't happen.
I say assume because NASA does not always tell the truth
So that's your justification for just making stuff up and then being upset when NASA doesn't conform to your expectations?
If the idea is to show how a planet is becoming bigger as time the observer is approaching, why the size of each image is increased until it blurred or pixelated?
How big is 1 pixel? You either have a tiny image or a large blurred one, but neither has more detal. The level of detail is determined by the number of pixels the planet takes up.
it is preferable to see a planet three times smaller and well defined that this crap blurred and out of focus.
The size of the image doesn't make a difference. There is no more detail or definition in a small image that is only 50 pixels wide than there is in a magnified image of something that was only 50 pixels wide on the original image.
You seem blinded by hate,
I'm not the one desperately clinging to the idea that NASA is some conspiracy-driven organisation lying to the world.
hard to believe that a lover of astronomy can feel satisfied with a photographic material so horrible.
It's also hard to believe someone can't manage a straight answer. Now, can you clarify: do you mean to say that the Earth will appear one degree wide from 800,000 km when you say 'half the little land o the Moon pic'?
That is impossible because the image is the hidden side of the Moon, have you forgotten?
No, I haven't. Orbital mechanics dictates that the spacecraft spends some time moving away from the Moon on the far side before it swings round to head towards Earth. It didn't just fly in a straight line between the two objects.
-
I am coming to realise that either tarkus really has no understanding or conceptualisation of perspective, or he is pretending he doesn't understand so that he can keep arguing.
-
That is impossible because the image is the hidden side of the Moon, have you forgotten? what that means is the Apollo spacecraft traveling in the opposite direction to Earth, but that possibility does not appear in the NASA flight plan, then?
No, as others have pointed out, you need to start accelerating whilst on the far side, so that you reach the required speed when Earth (or, more crucially, the point where Earth will be as you finish the journey) comes into view.
Remember, as I pointed out to you before - both the Earth and the Moon are moving as you do this, it's not a journey between two stationary points. This will also be a factor in where the craft is when the TEI starts.
Tell us which 'flight plan' you've been looking at, please....
-
Half of the little land of the moon picture. The giant gif Earth is disproportionate.
(http://i62.tinypic.com/11ghteb.jpg)
tarkus - you STILL haven't read any basics of photography or basics of geometry/trigonometry books have you?
The relative sizes of objects depends on their physical size AND their distance from the camera. The field of view is determined by the focal length of the camera.
Where you see the phrase "focal length" perhaps you can substitute the word "zoom", does that make it easier to understand? So on an 18-200mm zoom lens for example, 18mm is "zoomed out" (wide field of view and everything smaller), 200mm is "zoomed in" (narrow field of view - everything bigger).
In the first image, the Earth is 'small' because a wide-angle lens has been used (70mm?). I could find out the actual focal length if you'd indicated the reference number for this image (apologies if you did that earlier in the thread). Others will know I'm sure.
In the second image, the Earth is 'large' because the camera lens is a 2,800mm focal length telescope with a FOV of 0.6 degrees http://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/DSCOVR/pdf/DSCOVR%20-%20EPIC%20Instrument%20Info%20Sheet.pdf (http://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/DSCOVR/pdf/DSCOVR%20-%20EPIC%20Instrument%20Info%20Sheet.pdf). As explained many times, the Moon is 'small' in this image because the photo is taken from 1,000,000 miles from the Earth (and the relative sizes are determined by their physical size and their distance from the camera).
-
Half of the little land of the moon picture. The giant gif Earth is disproportionate.
(http://i62.tinypic.com/11ghteb.jpg)
Sometimes you get a little window into someone's true abilities, and after you posted this ^^, all I can say is WOW! You really do know absolutely nothing about photography, do you?
Ages ago I asked you a question: http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=988.msg33948#msg33948 Now i know why you can't answer it...you have no idea about the most basic things in photography.
I say assume because NASA does not always tell the truth ... and often says things that make no sense, but do not be offended because NASA is not God.
a distant object should be small, but as it approaches should be growing in size,
It is growing in size. But if it starts out at 3 pixels wide, how many pixels wide will it have to be before it doesn't look blurry?
Repeating the claim does not make it any less incorrect. Have you done any research yet since I posted this?
Tarkus, go and find out the distance that each image in the gif were taken from. Then find out the imager specifications (number of pixels, sensor size, well depth, QE efficiency), the optical train specifications (focal length, aperture and focal speed). Then find out the post-processing procedures (Dark frame subtraction? Bias frame calibration? Flat frame calibration?). Once you have all of this, then tell us why the images are wrong.
That is impossible because the image is the hidden side of the Moon, have you forgotten? what that means is the Apollo spacecraft traveling in the opposite direction to Earth, but that possibility does not appear in the NASA flight plan, then?
Another "tell", which shows that you have no idea. It seems that you think that Apollo flew directly to the Moon, which is probably why you wanted to see the astronauts sitting at the controls driving there. Given your inability to understand simple perspective and your obvious problems with spatial reasoning, I bet that you think that the shortest distance to the Moon is a direct line? I think that you are struggling to comprehend that the universe is in 3D, to be honest.
Here's an excellent gif from Bob Braeunig's site: http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/hybrid-profile.htm
(http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/pics/hybrid.gif)
I'm willing to wager that you had no idea that the trajectory looked like this.
-
The LM & Earth image is from Apollo 17
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS17-134-20463
and the focal length is indeed 70mm
-
I'm willing to wager that you had no idea that the trajectory looked like this.
I'm a little surprised at Earth being portrayed as static in space, but is this accounted for by the mechanics of the Earth/Moon system being locked in one orbit around the Sun?
I had pictured the CM 'aiming' for a point in space where Earth would arrive at the end of the journey; which seems to be portrayed in the arrival at the Moon on the outward journey.
-
It's just a matter of selecting the proper coordinate system. It is simpler to view the trajectory in an Earth-centered coordinate system than in a Sun-centered one.
-
(http://i61.tinypic.com/1zbqrkh.jpg)
Half of the little land of the moon picture. The giant gif Earth is disproportionate.
(http://i62.tinypic.com/11ghteb.jpg)
The left picture was taken over 45 years ago from 2380000 miles from the earth, the right is taken very recently from 1000000 with different cameras they will not compare size wise
But you waited until now to acknowledge your mistake. Why?
So why has it taken you so long to acknowledge your mistakes and errors when they have been pointed out to you so many times?
better late than never, right? I have the impression that you are only looking the fight.
With respect to gif Pluto, it is assumed that these images are obtained by the probe as it approaches the planet,
Why assume anything? The source of the images is freely available online.
I say assume because NASA does not always tell the truth ... and often says things that make no sense, but do not be offended because NASA is not God.
Why do you ASSUME this, it is your opinion, not based on factual evidence.
That is impossible because the image is the hidden side of the Moon, have you forgotten? what that means is the Apollo spacecraft traveling in the opposite direction to Earth, but that possibility does not appear in the NASA flight plan, then?
[/quote]
As others have stated the TEI burn happened on the side of the moon sway from the earth and the trajectory is a curve away from the moon, giving the montage that you see. Notice in the montage the moon rotating.
-
I'm willing to wager that you had no idea that the trajectory looked like this.
I'm a little surprised at Earth being portrayed as static in space, but is this accounted for by the mechanics of the Earth/Moon system being locked in one orbit around the Sun?
I had pictured the CM 'aiming' for a point in space where Earth would arrive at the end of the journey; which seems to be portrayed in the arrival at the Moon on the outward journey.
The earth isn't static as you know, but the animation with a moving source point would have been more difficult.
-
(http://i611.photobucket.com/albums/tt192/Paul99999/moon-earth-dscovr-relative-sizes_zpsuzxcgcja.jpg)
ok, tarkus, try this...
We know that the Moon and the Sun appear the same relative size from Earth, hence a Solar Eclipse when the Moon passes between the Earth and Sun. So let's test out the trigonometry on that using an online calculator (while using the calculator perhaps you could answer Jason's long standing question...):
Sun
Size: 1,392,000 km diameter
Distance from Earth: 152,000,000 km (at aphelion)
http://sizecalc.com/#distance=152000000kilometers&physical-size=1392000kilometers&perceived-size-units=degrees
Apparent size = 0.525 degrees
Moon
Size: 3474 km diameter
Distance from Earth: 384,400 km
http://sizecalc.com/#distance=384400kilometers&perceived-size=0.517805degrees&physical-size-units=kilometers
Apparent size = 0.518 degrees
The two numbers match to a hundredth of a degree, so we have proved that you can measure relative size of astronomical objects using trigonometry, do you agree?
So let's turn to the NASA animation:
Moon
Size: 3,474 km diameter
Distance from DSCOVR: 1,520,830 - 384,400 = 1,136,430 km
http://sizecalc.com/#distance=1136430kilometers&physical-size=3474kilometers&perceived-size-units=degrees
0.17515 degrees
Earth
Size: 12,742 km diameter
Distance from DSCOVR: 1,520,830 km
http://sizecalc.com/#distance=1520830kilometers&perceived-size=0.48004degrees&physical-size-units=kilometers
0.48004 degrees
Compare relative sizes:
Moon/Earth size ratio (using trigonometry) = 0.17515 / 0.48004 = 0.365 = 36.5%
Moon/Earth size ratio (pixel sizes from animation) = 164 pixels / 448 pixels = 0.366 = 36.6%
Therefore, animation is totally consistent with our calculations. The relative Moon and Earth sizes are exactly what we would expect.
If you want to further prove to yourself that relative size calculations can work at any distance, no matter whether close or astronomical then let's link those two items up.
All you need to do is go outside with a 67mm tennis ball (or other similar sized spherical object). Place it on a fence post or table edge, and then step back 7.4 metres. My crystal ball predicts that if you line up the tennis ball with the Moon you will get a Tennis Eclipse...
(Here's the crystal ball by the way: http://sizecalc.com/#physical-size=67millimeters&perceived-size=0.518degrees&distance-units=meters)
Move further back and Moon will become visible from behind the tennis ball (and thus LARGER in relative terms compared to the tennis ball). Move further forward and Moon will be totally hidden by the tennis ball (and the Moon will become smaller in comparison to the tennis ball).
After doing this please come back and confirm that you now understand how distance from observer determines relative object sizes and that it applies at all distances, and that the NASA animation is totally correct.
-
I have the impression that you are only looking the fight.
This is a debate forum to which you came voluntarily. If you don't wish to debate your conclusions, go elsewhere.
I say assume because NASA does not always tell the truth ... and often says things that make no sense, but do not be offended because NASA is not God.
That's not any sort of an answer. You don't tell the truth either and often say things that make no sense. No one is arguing here because they worship NASA as their hero. They're here because they know the facts and the associated sciences and are quite able to use them to show you how you are in error. Maybe instead of projecting hero-worship onto your critics, you should take care of that irrational hatred you seem to have for NASA and the space program.
One is that I bring it now, it makes no sense to show a planet of this size in such a blur, it seems like a joke.
The point was to show the progress of the spacecraft toward the planet. If that doesn't make sense to you, too bad.
You seem blinded by hate, hard to believe that a lover of astronomy can feel satisfied with a photographic material so horrible.
Lovers of astronomy know the limits of optics. You obviously do not. As to being blinded by hatred, take a day or so and try to figure out why so few smart people believe the way you do about missions to the Moon. Then try to work out which, if either of us, is "blinded by hatred."
That is impossible because the image is the hidden side of the Moon, have you forgotten? what that means is the Apollo spacecraft traveling in the opposite direction to Earth, but that possibility does not appear in the NASA flight plan, then?
No, it doesn't mean that. The transearth trajectory is an orbit, one that presents the far side of the Moon to the spacecraft for some time after it is initiated.
-
Okay, let's assume for the moment that NASA lies a lot. Now, that's a claim that requires evidence, but never mind. Purposes of demonstration, here.
You know who lies a lot? My little sister. I think she's a sociopath, and at bare minimum, she's one of the least trustworthy people I've ever known. I haven't spoken to her voluntarily in a little over twenty years now, because I don't want anything to do with her. She's really a terrible person.
Still, when she presents me with something that can easily be checked, it does turn out that she's telling the truth sometimes. Not always. So I still do need to check individual statements (if they're important enough to matter and not just something I can ignore) before deciding that she's lying, because even the worst liar I know doesn't lie a hundred percent of the time.
-
Half of the little land of the moon picture. The giant gif Earth is disproportionate.
You are repeating the same fundamental mistake you made in your very first post on this thread - the same one which people have repeatedly and explicitly explained to you. No, you cannot simply point to a picture taken with one camera and insist that a different exposure taken with an entirely different camera and lens should behave identically. This is a very basic fact of photography, immediately obvious to anyone who has ever used different lenses, or even a single zoom lens. It's astonishing you are unable to understand this.
Worse, though, you aren't even answering the right question, which is a very simple trigonometric problem, set up repeatedly and in the simplest possible terms by Jason and others. The question you are actually being asked is what the relative angular sizes are at different distances, and has nothing whatever to do with cameras. Are you simply unable to comprehend the question? Or are you deliberately ignoring it?
better late than never, right? I have the impression that you are only looking the fight.
Pot, kettle, black. Your very first post on this topic railed about "lies" and "half-wits", and you continually assert that people here simply accept the Apollo record on faith. This is especially amusing, as you have steadfastly refused to do any of the work needed to actually investigate your own claims; you simply throw up random pictures and claim things should be different, based on nothing more than your manifestly ignorant opinion.
As far as "better late than never" - see above; you're stubbornly repeating almost every mistake you've made - and you've made many; yet, you never consider that you might simply be wrong about Apollo. Why is that? If I made so many glaring errors, I'd be embarrassed; I'd stop and think that maybe I needed to learn something before I ran my mouth again. But you don't. Why is that?
I say assume because NASA does not always tell the truth and often says things that make no sense,
You have yet to demonstrate this; in every instance to date when you have claimed this, the fault was simply your lack of understanding.
...but do not be offended because NASA is not God.
Hilarious, coming from someone who refuses to put his own claims to the test. The only one here displaying any kind of faith in any claims is you; everyone else is busy checking the record and doing the actual work of investigation.
And, by the way, I have actual first-hand experience working with NASA personnel on multiple programs at multiple centers. Exactly how many aerospace programs have you worked on, with NASA or any other agency? I want a number.
If the idea is to show how a planet is becoming bigger as time the observer is approaching, why the size of each image is increased until it blurred or pixelated?One is that I bring it now, it makes no sense to show a planet of this size in such a blur, it seems like a joke.
Repeating your "If I ran the zoo" assertions do not make them any more relevant. Bluntly speaking, with your track record of ignorance in this field, your opinion means nothing.
And, by the way, the instrument that took that picture is not NASA's; it was supplied by the Applied Physics Laboratory, which also manages the mission. Minor point, really, but another indicator of how little you understand the things you're railing about.
You can believe what you want, but this is an inexplicable [expletive deleted], it is preferable to see a planet three times smaller and well defined that this crap blurred and out of focus.
Your preference for seeing a dot in a sequence of comparison photos arranged for public consumption is just that - your preference. You can throw a tantrum and use bad words, but no one else is obliged to agree with you.
You seem blinded by hate, hard to believe that a lover of astronomy can feel satisfied with a photographic material so horrible.
First, you are the one who started out slinging pejoratives at NASA, and accusing everyone else of being dupes and stooges of the agency. So your characterization is as hypocritical as it is inaccurate; the emotions associated with reading your extraordinarily obtuse missives are more correctly characterized as "exasperation" and perhaps "pity".
Second, I don't accept your self-characterization as a "lover of astronomy". You clearly don't know anything about it, and seem unwilling to learn about even the most basic principles of photography behind the images you mention. Nor are you willing to do any work to actually understand how the images are gathered, and by what missions.
That is impossible because the image is the hidden side of the Moon, have you forgotten? what that means is the Apollo spacecraft traveling in the opposite direction to Earth,
As many people have explained to you, you don't simply point at the Earth and fire the rocket. The trans-Earth injection trajectory takes the vehicle around the Moon. That's not "travelling in the opposite direction to Earth"; you simply have no idea what you are talking about.
but that possibility does not appear in the NASA flight plan, then?
Have you actually looked in an Apollo flight plan? I have. I don't believe you have. Apollo flight plans, and many other analysis and planning documents, detail what Apollo repeatedly did - including the TEI maneuvers - on the far side of the Moon.
As usual, you have no idea what you're talking about, and you didn't even do the most elementary research that could have told you that.
Aren't you even a little embarrassed by your ignorance on a topic you keep ranting about? If not, why not?
And I reiterate my previous questions:
Why don't you ever reconsider your beliefs, given your endless series of mistakes?
And if you won't, why should anyone waste time trying to educate you?
-
The relative sizes of objects depends on their physical size AND their distance from the camera. The field of view is determined by the focal length of the camera.
And by the size of the imager (film frame or electronic sensor).
The main Apollo lunar surface cameras used 60 mm focal length lenses to produce square images on 70mm film. A few on later missions had 500 mm lenses.
Hardly anybody uses film anymore, and the most common digital sensor in semi-pro SLR cameras, APS-C, is about ~62% of the size of a 35mm film frame. So a 50 mm lens on a APS-C camera has a significantly narrower field of view than the same 50 mm lens on a 35mm film camera.
-
The relative sizes of objects depends on their physical size AND their distance from the camera. The field of view is determined by the focal length of the camera.
And by the size of the imager (film frame or electronic sensor).
Ah yes true - I had a single camera in mind so "The relative sizes of objects depends on their physical size AND their distance from the camera. The field of view is determined by the focal length of the lens for a specific camera" would have been better :)
-
The relative sizes of objects depends on their physical size AND their distance from the camera. The field of view is determined by the focal length of the camera.
And by the size of the imager (film frame or electronic sensor).
The main Apollo lunar surface cameras used 60 mm focal length lenses to produce square images on 70mm film. A few on later missions had 500 mm lenses.
Hardly anybody uses film anymore, and the most common digital sensor in semi-pro SLR cameras, APS-C, is about ~62% of the size of a 35mm film frame. So a 50 mm lens on a APS-C camera has a significantly narrower field of view than the same 50 mm lens on a 35mm film camera.
Indeed. I pointed this out earlier in the thread (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=988.msg35083#msg35083).
Focal length will determine image scale on the sensor.
Focal ratio will determine how quickly the sensor wells/film will be exposed. Decreasing the focal ratio by one f-stop will halve the exposure time, all other things being equal.
Sensor size/illuminated circle will determine the final size of the image.
Aperture is relatively insignificant when talking about astrophotography (which is contrary to "normal" daytime terrestrial photography) , except when imaging planets or the Moon, as resolution is linked to aperture (Dawes Limit (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawes'_limit)).
In modern CCD imaging, the pixel size is also relevant, as larger pixels are more sensitive than smaller pixels. It is also important to match the pixel size to the imaging train to ensure that the final image is not under/oversampled.
-
Here's the camera specs:
EPIC is a 10-channel spectroradiometer that uses aCassegrain type telescope, built by SSG Inc.,comprised two filterwheelswith six positions each (the open hole plus five spectral filters). It is a reflecting Ritchey-Chretien design with an aperture diameter of 30.5 cm, f 9.38, a FOV of 0.61° and an angular sampling resolution of 1.07 arcsec. (Once at L1, Earth varies from 0.45° to 0.53° full width.)
It images the irradiance from the sunlit face of Earth on a 2048x2048 pixel CCD (charge-coupled device)
in 10 narrowband channels: 317, 325, 340, 388, 443, 552, 680, 688, 764 and 779 nm. The wavelength
spans ultraviolet and near infrared, and the exposure time for each channel is about 40 ms.
Source: http://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/DSCOVR/pdf/DSCOVR%20-%20EPIC%20Instrument%20Info%20Sheet.pdf (http://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/DSCOVR/pdf/DSCOVR%20-%20EPIC%20Instrument%20Info%20Sheet.pdf)
Two filter wheels eh, have to try that on my setup!
-
The optics sounds like a typical mid-level amateur telescope, e.g., an 8" Meade. Lighter and more solidly built, I'm sure.
-
(https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_width_feature/public/thumbnails/image/7-8-15_pluto_color_new_nasa-jhuapl-swri-tn.jpg?itok=_xgbD3j5)
If the idea is to show how a planet is becoming bigger as time the observer is approaching, why the size of each image is increased until it blurred or pixelated?
One is that I bring it now, it makes no sense to show a planet of this size in such a blur, it seems like a joke.
Dear oh dear, Tarkus. Did you not bother to read my earlier post (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=988.msg34643;topicseen#msg34643) about this???
For reference, that image was taken at a distance of 8 million kilometres by the LORRI imager on New Horizons (http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/Multimedia/Science-Photos/image.php?page=3&gallery_id=2&image_id=205).
LORRI uses a 208mm Ritchey Chrietien with a focal length of 2630mm. The imaging sensor is an array of 1025x1024 pixels using 13 micron square pixels. Pluto's diameter is 2372Km.
Now, given that information, you can calculate the angular diameter of Pluto at a distance of 8 million kilometres. Here's a hint- the necessary equations can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_diameter
One you have the apparent diameter you can then calculate how many pixels that the image of Pluto will occupy on the LORRI sensor (lets assume that the image is taken using 1x1 binning and not the 4x4 binning that LORRI is capable of). Given that you know the pixel size (13 microns) then you will be able to work out the diameter that the image of Pluto took up on the LORRI sensor.
If you can calculate this, then you will have an understanding of why the image looks like it does. I'll give you another hint, especially as I know how many pixels the image covered. The diameter of Pluto's image took up less than a millimetre on the LORRI sensor- Lets see you work out exactly how much it was. I haven't dug into the post-processing techniques that the team used when processing the image, but I am willing to bet that they used a number of deconvolution techniques such as Lucy Richardson or van Cittert or to sharpen the images.
In fact, seeing as how you appear to be an expert, you could always pop over to the Unmanned Spaceflight forum. The guys there have been asked for help to process (http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.php?showtopic=5592) the raw data from various missions. Here's the link to the New Horizon forum:
http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.php?showforum=20
So, in summary, I have given you all the information that you will need to calculate the angular diameter of Pluto at a distance of 8M km. I have given you the specs of the imaging sensor and the LORRI optical characteristics. I am now asking you a few simple questions:
1) What is the angular diameter, in arc-seconds, of Pluto at a distance of 8M Km?
2) What was the diameter of Pluto's image on the LORRI sensor?
3) Assuming a 1x1 binning, how many pixels did the Pluto image cover?
And finally, a bonus question:
Given that you appear to be a bit of an expert in photography, let's see what you make of this set of LORRI raw data (of Ganymede). Please detail the post-processing steps that you undertook:
http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=16366
-
The optics sounds like a typical mid-level amateur telescope, e.g., an 8" Meade. Lighter and more solidly built, I'm sure.
Here's the specs on the New Horizon LORRI instrument:
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CDAQFjACahUKEwiyv6bWq-PIAhXGNhoKHdIKBlM&url=http%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2F0709.4278&usg=AFQjCNEx-b0AjQeFkDG8fVPQusG3eUMpEA&sig2=elcezzr4VImrKg2BW5U4fw&cad=rja
208mm R-C
2630mm focal length (f12.6)
Two filter wheels eh, have to try that on my setup!
Yikes. One of them at a time can be a bit of a PITA...I'd hate to try and use two. Taking flats would become a proper pain in the tonsils!
-
It is growing in size. But if it starts out at 3 pixels wide, how many pixels wide will it have to be before it doesn't look blurry?
(https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_width_feature/public/thumbnails/image/7-8-15_pluto_color_new_nasa-jhuapl-swri-tn.jpg?itok=_xgbD3j5)
If the idea is to show how a planet is becoming bigger as time the observer is approaching, why the size of each image is increased until it blurred or pixelated?
One is that I bring it now, it makes no sense to show a planet of this size in such a blur, it seems like a joke.
Dear oh dear, Tarkus. Did you not bother to read my earlier post (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=988.msg34643;topicseen#msg34643) about this???
For reference, that image was taken at a distance of 8 million kilometres by the LORRI imager on New Horizons (http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/Multimedia/Science-Photos/image.php?page=3&gallery_id=2&image_id=205).
LORRI uses a 208mm Ritchey Chrietien with a focal length of 2630mm. The imaging sensor is an array of 1025x1024 pixels using 13 micron square pixels. Pluto's diameter is 2372Km.
Now, given that information, you can calculate the angular diameter of Pluto at a distance of 8 million kilometres. Here's a hint- the necessary equations can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_diameter
One you have the apparent diameter you can then calculate how many pixels that the image of Pluto will occupy on the LORRI sensor (lets assume that the image is taken using 1x1 binning and not the 4x4 binning that LORRI is capable of). Given that you know the pixel size (13 microns) then you will be able to work out the diameter that the image of Pluto took up on the LORRI sensor.
If you can calculate this, then you will have an understanding of why the image looks like it does. I'll give you another hint, especially as I know how many pixels the image covered. The diameter of Pluto's image took up less than a millimetre on the LORRI sensor- Lets see you work out exactly how much it was. I haven't dug into the post-processing techniques that the team used when processing the image, but I am willing to bet that they used a number of deconvolution techniques such as Lucy Richardson or van Cittert or to sharpen the images.
In fact, seeing as how you appear to be an expert, you could always pop over to the Unmanned Spaceflight forum. The guys there have been asked for help to process (http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.php?showtopic=5592) the raw data from various missions. Here's the link to the New Horizon forum:
http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.php?showforum=20
So, in summary, I have given you all the information that you will need to calculate the angular diameter of Pluto at a distance of 8M km. I have given you the specs of the imaging sensor and the LORRI optical characteristics. I am now asking you a few simple questions:
1) What is the angular diameter, in arc-seconds, of Pluto at a distance of 8M Km?
2) What was the diameter of Pluto's image on the LORRI sensor?
3) Assuming a 1x1 binning, how many pixels did the Pluto image cover?
And finally, a bonus question:
Given that you appear to be a bit of an expert in photography, let's see what you make of this set of LORRI raw data (of Ganymede). Please detail the post-processing steps that you undertook:
http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=16366
[/quote]
it not likely any calculations or answer will be forth coming, judging by past performance.
-
it not likely any calculations or answer will be forth coming, judging by past performance.
I'm nothing if not an optimist! ;D ;D ;D
-
it not likely any calculations or answer will be forth coming, judging by past performance.
I'm nothing if not an optimist! ;D ;D ;D
Best of luck :)
-
Tarkus, If you can't manage to work out the answers to my simple questions, then perhaps you'd care to pop on over to the John Hopkins University webpage where you can find 83 pages of images from the LORRI imaging system.
http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/soc/Pluto-Encounter/index.php
Now these images are not the RAW data from the system, but are pretty high quality JPEG versions. Of course, being JPEGs then there will be some compression artefacts. i personally wouldn't want to stretch the data too much if I was going to process them, and I'd keep the sharpening and deconvolution levels fairly low. Plus the files haven't been calibrated, so the read-out and thermal noise along with any cosmic ray strikes or hot/dead pixels will still be in the images. The final calibrated and processed images will be much higher quality.
Still, I'd be interested to hear your views on them:
Are all 83 pages of images up to your standard?
Are they all fake?
Why would NASA create 83 pages of fakes?
-
better late than never, right? I have the impression that you are only looking the fight.
No one is here looking for a fight, which is rich given the way you opened your first post.
I say assume because NASA does not always tell the truth...
So there we have it in a nutshell, the old NASA are liars argument. So, they told lies that fooled multiple space agencies, a huge number of scientists and journalists on the planet, every single person that worked on project Apollo, their families and friends. You really believe that they could have kept that lie alive for 45 years, yet the US government could not cover up the Iran-Contra affair, Watergate, the Lewinksy affair and numerous other scandals.
and often says things that make no sense, but do not be offended because NASA is not God.
NASA has always made sense to me. Just because things don't make sense to you it does not mean they do not make sense to others.
For the record I do not think they are God. I think you may find that I and others at this board are quite critical of the events that led to Apollo 1 and the Challenger disaster.
-
Tarkus
Since the moon is full or thereabouts, how is it that the detail of the lunar surface is washed out? How is it that no stars are present?
ETA: Taken in the last 10 minutes.
-
And a few minutes later, this one with the very same camera...
-
Tarkus, i am wondering what exactly is your explanation for the differing apparent sizes of the moon? Same camera, same time roughly, but different apparent sizes. Why do you think that is?
-
Tarkus, i am wondering what exactly is your explanation for the differing apparent sizes of the moon? Same camera, same time roughly, but different apparent sizes. Why do you think that is?
Obviously a NASA shill taking fake pictures. ::)
hehe
-
Tarkus
Since the moon is full or thereabouts, how is it that the detail of the lunar surface is washed out? How is it that no stars are present?
ETA: Taken in the last 10 minutes.
This shill can't upload an image from the cell to the forum, but mine looks very similar to the first!
-
Tarkus
Since the moon is full or thereabouts, how is it that the detail of the lunar surface is washed out? How is it that no stars are present?
ETA: Taken in the last 10 minutes.
This shill can't upload an image from the cell to the forum, but mine looks very similar to the first!
Really? Instructions if you wish, it ain't intuitive.
ETA: Not the fault of LO, it is the fault of how the software works.
-
Tarkus
Since the moon is full or thereabouts, how is it that the detail of the lunar surface is washed out? How is it that no stars are present?u
ETA: Taken in the last 10 minutes.
This shill can't upload an image from the cell to the forum, but mine looks very similar to the first!
Really? Instructions if you wish, it ain't intuitive.
ETA: Not the fault of LO, it is the fault of how the software works.
File is too large
-
Tarkus
Since the moon is full or thereabouts, how is it that the detail of the lunar surface is washed out? How is it that no stars are present?u
ETA: Taken in the last 10 minutes.
This shill can't upload an image from the cell to the forum, but mine looks very similar to the first!
Really? Instructions if you wish, it ain't intuitive.
ETA: Not the fault of LO, it is the fault of how the software works.
File is too large
Which means you need to resize the image, if you are taking it directly off of your phone its probably gonna be at full resolution for the phone's camera, which is freaking huge for posting to the web (ie unless you have a monitor the size of a big screen TV you will only see a fraction of it, and its a big file too). The Phone's gallery app probably has the option of saving the image at a size suitable for posting for the web or you can open it up in an image editor (if you have Windows then Paint is sufficent unless you have something better) and resize it there, somewhere in the order of a thousand pixels at the longest dimension is usually a decent size for posting
-
Two filter wheels eh, have to try that on my setup!
[thread drift]
You'll love this guys work ;)
http://stargazerslounge.com/topic/221601-sct-modifications-filter-wheelcamera-rotate-and-focus/#entry2382540
(http://stargazerslounge.com/uploads/monthly_07_2014/post-2084-0-81383000-1406404121.jpg)
And this one:
http://stargazerslounge.com/topic/238180-quad-multi-lens-imaging-camera/page-5
(http://stargazerslounge.com/uploads/monthly_04_2015/post-2084-0-93610900-1430069908.jpg)
[/thread drift]
-
Hi Tarkus,
Sorry it’s taken so long to write back. I’ve got a 7 year-old who is VERY excited by Halloween. :)
You are correct that most of the far side of the Moon was in shadow at the time AS16-M-3021 was taken:
(http://i66.tinypic.com/20ud6q1.png)
However, look at this polar view:
(http://i65.tinypic.com/i69pwh.png)
Everything above the red line is technically the far side.
The orange line shows the longitude (103.7° East) that Apollo 16 was over at the time the photo was taken.
As you can see, part of the far side was still in daylight, and that is the part that Apollo 16 was over. Apollo 16 wasn’t behind the Moon at the time; it was off to one side – but it could see part of the far side (it could also see the Earth from where it was).
Now then, projecting a 3D situation onto a 2D monitor causes problems. In this case, the circumference of the Moon in the polar view, above, is the equator (0° latitude) and Apollo 16 was over 12° North at this time, so to show this in the above picture the right end of the orange line should be ~1cm above the surface of your monitor.
If you don’t mind, I’m going to tilt the point of view so that the plane of Apollo 16’s orbit matches the plane of your monitor, and rotate it so that the line to the spacecraft is level, because believe me, drawing these things with MS Paint is a real bitch.
(http://i66.tinypic.com/2itm1if.png)
There. Now you can see the path Apollo 16 took after the Trans-Earth Injection (TEI) burn that sent them home. At the time AS16-M-3021 was taken, Apollo 16 was ~1,200km above the surface of the Moon (I think someone asked that a few pages ago).
As I explained in my previous post, from this close to the Moon, the horizon is much closer so that, although you see the Moon as a sphere, you don’t see an entire hemisphere. You can test this for yourself by holding a fútbol at arm’s length, and then bring it closer to your eye. For a regulation FIFA fútbol, your eye would have to be ~7.5cm from the surface of the ball to correctly model the distance from Apollo 16 to the Moon’s surface.
In the above illustration, only that portion of the Moon inside the orange triangle can be seen in AS16-M-3021, and (as you can see) most of that is in daylight.
The illustration below re-centers the point of view over 12° North, 103.7° East, the spot Apollo 16 was over:
(http://i67.tinypic.com/2q08qom.png)
On the left is the ~orthographic view, showing the whole hemisphere centered on 12° North, 103.7° East. Because of the shortened horizon, only the area within the orange circle could be seen – and most of this is in daylight. The right-hand image is the view from 1,200km above the surface, and it matches AS16-M-3021.
(http://i66.tinypic.com/21kkrq0.jpg)
Note that in this picture, I’ve drawn the 90° East longitude line (Please excuse the crude-ness - it's hand-drawn with MS Paint, but is accurate to within a few pixels). To the left of it is the near side visible from Earth. To the right of it is the far side.
So, in summary:
- Most of the far side was in shadow, but not all of it.
- Apollo 16 was not behind the Moon at the time AS16-M-3021 was taken, but rather was off to one side.
- Apollo 16 was over a part of the Moon that was still in daylight.
- From where it was, Apollo 16 could see parts of both the near side and the far side of the Moon.
If any of this is confusing, just look at the pictures again. Hope this helps. Cheers!
-
Two filter wheels eh, have to try that on my setup!
[thread drift]
You'll love this guys work ;)
http://stargazerslounge.com/topic/221601-sct-modifications-filter-wheelcamera-rotate-and-focus/#entry2382540
(http://stargazerslounge.com/uploads/monthly_07_2014/post-2084-0-81383000-1406404121.jpg)
And this one:
http://stargazerslounge.com/topic/238180-quad-multi-lens-imaging-camera/page-5
(http://stargazerslounge.com/uploads/monthly_04_2015/post-2084-0-93610900-1430069908.jpg)
[/thread drift]
Wow, proper engineering!
-
Which means you need to resize the image, if you are taking it directly off of your phone its probably gonna be at full resolution for the phone's camera, which is freaking huge for posting to the web (ie unless you have a monitor the size of a big screen TV you will only see a fraction of it, and its a big file too). The Phone's gallery app probably has the option of saving the image at a size suitable for posting for the web or you can open it up in an image editor (if you have Windows then Paint is sufficent unless you have something better) and resize it there, somewhere in the order of a thousand pixels at the longest dimension is usually a decent size for posting
Size I know, not sure about the gallery app which is why it wasn't posted.
ETA Android, Gallery I don't observe a function to save as? Any help would be appreciated.
-
snip...
(http://i65.tinypic.com/i69pwh.png)
more snip...
These are great - what package are you using to get the images?
-
These are great - what package are you using to get the images?
This web site: Earth and Moon Viewer (http://www.fourmilab.ch/earthview/vplanet.html)
Great site. I was able to determine the location of Apollo 16 just by tweaking the latitude, longitude & altitude until it matched the photo, then checked the photo info to see if I was right. Score! :)
-
Tarkus
Since the moon is full or thereabouts, how is it that the detail of the lunar surface is washed out? How is it that no stars are present?
ETA: Taken in the last 10 minutes.
This shill can't upload an image from the cell to the forum, but mine looks very similar to the first!
https://imageresizer.codeplex.com/ handy quick resizing tool
-
...
Original deleted will try tonight.
-
...
Original deleted will try tonight.
OK. It is pretty straightforward. Plug phone into PC via USB. Copy offending image from phone to PC (some folder, make one that you can find afterwards). Use the resizer tool to make it small. Attach the reduced file to a post that you make.
Now, there are a few potholes which will possibly put an onion in your ointment. Go the easy way and let us deal with those as they arise.
-
These are great - what package are you using to get the images?
This web site: Earth and Moon Viewer (http://www.fourmilab.ch/earthview/vplanet.html)
Great site. I was able to determine the location of Apollo 16 just by tweaking the latitude, longitude & altitude until it matched the photo, then checked the photo info to see if I was right. Score! :)
I thought it looked familiar! I've used it myself but not tried changing the viewing perspective befiore :)
Great post btw!
-
Wow - look at all this technical information about DSCOVR and the EPIC camera on-board.
CCD has 15 μm pixels (big!), nominal operating temperature -40C (wish my CCD was in space, mine is set for -10C...).
(http://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/Image_004.jpg)
(http://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/Image_006.jpg)
http://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/epic.html (http://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/epic.html)
http://avdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/pub/DSCOVR/DSCOVR-EPIC-Description.pdf (http://avdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/pub/DSCOVR/DSCOVR-EPIC-Description.pdf)
Great stuff 8)
-
(Please excuse the crude-ness - it's hand-drawn with MS Paint, but is accurate to within a few pixels)
You get the Dr. Emmett Brown award for humility on this one. That was a superb explanation.
-
Tarkus, do you UNDERSTAND Count Zero's explanation at Reply #399 ??
If not, don't post anything else, just state why.
If you DO understand it, do you now understand why you were mistaken earlier, in Reply #328 ?
-
<snip>
Excellent work Count Zero, and easy to understand.
For fun, here is an on board view of a rocket launch, a sideways view demonstratng the way that the visible horizon increases with altitude, a visual confirmation of your 4th diagram.
sideways video starts at around 2:51
-
You'll love this guys work ;)
http://stargazerslounge.com/topic/221601-sct-modifications-filter-wheelcamera-rotate-and-focus/#entry2382540
(http://stargazerslounge.com/uploads/monthly_07_2014/post-2084-0-81383000-1406404121.jpg)
And this one:
http://stargazerslounge.com/topic/238180-quad-multi-lens-imaging-camera/page-5
(http://stargazerslounge.com/uploads/monthly_04_2015/post-2084-0-93610900-1430069908.jpg)
[/thread drift]
Now that is some serious precision engineering, right there!!
-
<snip>
Excellent work Count Zero, and easy to understand.
For fun, here is an on board view of a rocket launch, a sideways view demonstratng the way that the visible horizon increases with altitude, a visual confirmation of your 4th diagram.
sideways video starts at around 2:51
But where are the stars? [Ducks and runs!]
-
But where are the stars? [Ducks and runs!]
I thought the same! ;D
-
More seriously, what was that godawful feedback sound near apogee? Was that the mike on the camera driving up the gain to try to hear something in the thinning air or some other artifact?
-
More seriously, what was that godawful feedback sound near apogee? Was that the mike on the camera driving up the gain to try to hear something in the thinning air or some other artifact?
The screams of the pilot because they weren't on the video? ;)
-
For fun, here is an on board view of a rocket launch, a sideways view demonstratng the way that the visible horizon increases with altitude, a visual confirmation of your 4th diagram.
sideways video starts at around 2:51
There's no video of a pilot "driving" it, so therefore it MUST be a fake. :o :o
-
Nearly full moon last night
-
Tarkus,
Here's an image of the Moon that I took in late September.
http://www.closr.it/s/nah/
Based on the size of the image, it must be fake? Plus, there's no stars in the background, so that surely confirms that it's fake? Except (the inconvenient truth!), it's not a fake.
Of course, I might just be a paid NASA shill, and as we all know, NASA only tells lies. Plus they are paying me to lurk around on forums to put people like you off the scent and stop the 50-year old lie from being uncovered.
So, either my image is real and your assumptions are wrong, or you are right and my image is fake and i am a paid NASA shill. Which do you think is the more likely scenario?
-
Seems the link isn't working for some (ITS A CONSPIRACY!!! ;) ;) )
Try this one:
www.closr.it/canvas/6878
-
Seems the link isn't working for some (ITS A CONSPIRACY!!! ;) ;) )
Try this one:
www.closr.it/canvas/6878
Adrian and rodent breath are hacking into your system
-
Seems the link isn't working for some (ITS A CONSPIRACY!!! ;) ;) )
Try this one:
www.closr.it/canvas/6878
That is a gorgeous photo. How'd you make it?
-
That is a gorgeous photo. How'd you make it?
Thanks. :)
18 individual panes stitched together. Each pane was something like the best 1000 out of 5000 frames, stacked together (so-called "lucky imaging") using an 11" Schmidt-Cassegrain C11 and a ZWO ASI 174 camera. I can't remember if I used a filter or not, but if I did it would have been a red longpass 610 nanometre or infra-red 742 nanometre filter. Either of those will filter out the shorter wavelengths which tend to get messed about from atmospheric turbulence. The longer wavelengths are much more resistant to the effects of poor seeing.
-
That is a gorgeous photo. How'd you make it?
Thanks. :)
18 individual panes stitched together. Each pane was something like the best 1000 out of 5000 frames, stacked together (so-called "lucky imaging") using an 11" Schmidt-Cassegrain C11 and a ZWO ASI 174 camera. I can't remember if I used a filter or not, but if I did it would have been a red longpass 610 nanometre or infra-red 742 nanometre filter. Either of those will filter out the shorter wavelengths which tend to get messed about from atmospheric turbulence. The longer wavelengths are much more resistant to the effects of poor seeing.
You can see Hadley! And Taurus-Littrow!
-
That is a gorgeous photo. How'd you make it?
Thanks. :)
18 individual panes stitched together. Each pane was something like the best 1000 out of 5000 frames, stacked together (so-called "lucky imaging") using an 11" Schmidt-Cassegrain C11 and a ZWO ASI 174 camera. I can't remember if I used a filter or not, but if I did it would have been a red longpass 610 nanometre or infra-red 742 nanometre filter. Either of those will filter out the shorter wavelengths which tend to get messed about from atmospheric turbulence. The longer wavelengths are much more resistant to the effects of poor seeing.
You can see Hadley! And Taurus-Littrow!
I can see the Hadley mountain range, but not the rill :-[
-
You can see Hadley! And Taurus-Littrow!
[thread drift]
I keep meaning to image the Apollo landing regions, but time, weather and lunar phases always seem to conspire against me. Maybe a project for this winter?
I can get in a bit nearer if I up the focal length by using a Barlow lens. The panes in the big image were captured at 2.8metre focal length.
In good seeing, I can get semi-decent results (I live at sea-level which is about as bad a place to get for this game)...I can just about make out the rille running along Vallis Alpes in this one
(http://astrob.in/166399/0/rawthumb/gallery/get.jpg) (http://astrob.in/full/166399/0/)
In really good seeing I can use a 2.5 Barlow lens to get me to about 7 metres focal length. The small crater on the left-hand wall of Copernicus is just under 3km in diameter.
(http://astrob.in/166397/0/rawthumb/gallery/get.jpg) (http://astrob.in/full/166397/0/)
[/thread drift]
-
Hadley Rille can be seen in this one:
(http://astrob.in/138594/0/rawthumb/gallery/get.jpg) (http://astrob.in/full/138594/0/)
-
Hadley Rille can be seen in this one:
(http://astrob.in/138594/0/rawthumb/gallery/get.jpg) (http://astrob.in/full/138594/0/)
Now that one I am able to see.
-
Fabulous photos!
Oh, and I said I could see Hadley, I never mentioned the rille ;)
-
Beautiful photos
[said it before]
It makes me think 'if the CTs invested their effort in the beauty and reality of Apollo, how richer their lives would be.'
[/said it before]
-
Fabulous photos!
Oh, and I said I could see Hadley, I never mentioned the rille ;)
There is something else besides the rille, named Hadley?
-
Fabulous photos!
Oh, and I said I could see Hadley, I never mentioned the rille ;)
There is something else besides the rille, named Hadley?
Mons :D
@Luke - I have a similar view about aliens, ufos and other such daftness - the universe is amazing enough as it is, I don't need to sprinkle fairy dust on it.
-
@Luke - I have a similar view about aliens, ufos and other such daftness - the universe is amazing enough as it is, I don't need to sprinkle fairy dust on it.
That's a good way of putting it. I never quite understood Ralph Rene and his desire to 'prove' Einstein wrong. The physics of special and general relativity is mind blowing and explains so much of our Universe.
-
@Luke - I have a similar view about aliens, ufos and other such daftness - the universe is amazing enough as it is, I don't need to sprinkle fairy dust on it.
That's a good way of putting it. I never quite understood Ralph Rene and his desire to 'prove' Einstein wrong. The physics of special and general relativity is mind blowing and explains so much of our Universe.
To be great and do great things you not only have to dedicate yourself to education, hard work and critical review by your peers you also have to be intelligent and in Einstein's case, a genius. It's far easier to make up some nonsense and convince a few similarly-minded sycophants. Creating a YouTube video is a darn sight easier than a PHD thesis. Plus, it's a far easier way to make a buck or two. You only have to look at Mormonism, Scientology, Sibrel, Rene, Percy, Marcus Allen, The Blunder and others for evidence of that...
-
To be great and do great things you not only have to dedicate yourself to education, hard work and critical review by your peers you also have to be intelligent and in Einstein's case, a genius. It's far easier to make up some nonsense and convince a few similarly-minded sycophants
Indeed, making videos with the other cute kitty and Charlie biting his brother's finger videos is the quickest path to erudition. It's a cheap and easy way to appear intellectual.
-
It's a cheap and easy way to appear intellectual.
There's a big part of that in their makeup, I believe. Most of the more "dedicated" hoaxies that I have seen appear to be poorly educated or just not very bright, *and they know this*. I think that the hoax belief is a way to compensate for their shortcomings. They envy the achievements of others and holding some "secret" knowledge is a way for them to feel superior. "Even with all your fancy-pants education I know more than you. Not only do I know more, but I am clever enough to see through the lies".
You would think that they would work out that there's not that many smart people that actively support hoax/weird beliefs. Sure, there are some (Edgar Mitchell?) but not many. And then there are some that were smart and appear to have suffered some sort of personal or medical crisis (Neil Baker, John Lear, Dr Tekeli, Anders Bjorkmann)
-
Sorry, I missed this question until now:
And the second question is the same date as Apollo 16 returned just two days later (April 27), but that is impossible, the return can not take less than three days.
You're looking at the calendar date, based on Greenwich Mean Time (GMT or UTC).
Houston time (or Buenos Aires time) Apollo 16 departed lunar orbit on April 24 at 20:18 Central Standard Time for Houston (23:18 Buenos Aires time) and splashed down on April 27 at 13:45 CST (16:45 BA). April 24 to April 27 is three calender days.
The actual flight time from TEI to splashdown for Apollo 16 was 65 hours 27 minutes (all but one of the lunar returns took less than 72 hours, with variations based on the actual distance from the Moon to Earth and the desired splashdown location and time-of-day at that location). During that time, the astronauts had 3 sleep periods of 7.5 to 8.75 hours; so as far as the astronauts, the mission controllers and everyone else in most of the Western Hemisphere were concerned, it was three days.
-
Is it safe to presume, after three days absence, that we have a flounce on our hands?
-
Is it safe to presume, after three days absence, that we have a flounce on our hands?
Hope springs eternal.
-
Is it safe to presume, after three days absence, that we have a flounce on our hands?
(https://imagemacros.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/flounce2.jpg)