FAR SIDE OF THE MOON

[Jason Thompson]

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?

[bknight]

Tarkus. Try this: Get a piece of paper. Draw a triangle -

I think you lost him about there.

snicker.

[Paul]

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%).

[Zakalwe]

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.

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).

 

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? 

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....

[Allan F]

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.

[smartcooky]

Oh for Christ's sake Tarkus, this is just stupidity in the extreme...


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



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!!!!! 

[bknight]

Spatially challenged.

[JayUtah]

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.

[JayUtah]

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.

[nomuse]

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.

[smartcooky]

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.

[JayUtah]

(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.

[bknight]

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.

[smartcooky]

(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!

[JayUtah]

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.