FAR SIDE OF THE MOON

[bknight]

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.

[Jason Thompson]

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]

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.

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.

[Abaddon]

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

Turns out I am wrong. Somebody could be this daft.

[Luckmeister]

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.

[JayUtah]

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.

[JayUtah]

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.

[onebigmonkey]

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.

[gillianren]

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.

[Gazpar]

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.

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.

[twik]

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.

[Paul]

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



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.



No-one can argue with that surely

[Andromeda]

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.

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?

[JayUtah]

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.

[JayUtah]

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.