FAR SIDE OF THE MOON

[Zakalwe]

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:




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:
"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.

[Jason Thompson]

Tarkus,

Here is a simple graphical representation of the relationship between sizes and observer distance.



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.

[Abaddon]

Yeah, right, I'm calling obvious troll. Nobody could be this daft.

[frenat]

Yeah, right, I'm calling obvious troll. Nobody could be this daft.

Reminds me of Jack White

[bknight]

Yeah, right, I'm calling obvious troll. Nobody could be this daft.

Reminds me of Jack White

Reminds me of insert name of choice

[frenat]

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.

[bknight]

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

[JayUtah]

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.

[tarkus]

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!!!!!

Make a small effort, go and read something about astrophotography ... you'll find out the use of a symbol on some cameras, looks good:



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.

[bknight]

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!!!!!

Make a small effort, go and read something about astrophotography ... you'll find out the use of a symbol on some cameras, looks good:



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.

[Zakalwe]

Make a small effort, go and read something about astrophotography ... you'll find out the use of a symbol on some cameras, looks good:



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

[Paul]

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]

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:




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:
"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.

[Zakalwe]

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?

[Paul]

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).