Originally posted by FreakyKBHReally big. If the moon is some hundred thousand miles from earth, then why does it appear to be so much closer in the video? And why not show a broader view so we can see the moon circling around the earth? Is NASA hiding something?
On another thread, a particularly persistent poster perpetually pesters, pleading my response to the question: [b]how far is the moon from the earth?
For my response, I will defer to the eminently-more-qualified experts at NASA and more specifically, to their outstanding presentation of the moon juxtaposing that oblate spheroid, our home sweet home, ...[text shortened]... represent in that sky above the cat on the moon?
Things that make you go: "Meeeowwww!"[/b]
I haven't read the rest of this thread yet so maybe these questions were already addressed.
Originally posted by josephwYou really need to read more. The moon is a quarter MILLION miles from Earth, not 100K. The photo was clearly taken with a telephoto lens which is why it shows the sizes you see. Earth was 1 million miles from the probe and so the moon was about 3/4 million miles from the probe so the perspective was not what you would have seen if your eyes were looking out a space craft window.
Really big. If the moon is some hundred thousand miles from earth, then why does it appear to be so much closer in the video? And why not show a broader view so we can see the moon circling around the earth? Is NASA hiding something?
I haven't read the rest of this thread yet so maybe these questions were already addressed.
It just goes to show how easily people can be fooled, especially if they want to be.
Originally posted by sonhouseYou didn't really say much that makes sense except the last line.
You really need to read more. The moon is a quarter MILLION miles from Earth, not 100K. The photo was clearly taken with a telephoto lens which is why it shows the sizes you see. Earth was 1 million miles from the probe and so the moon was about 3/4 million miles from the probe so the perspective was not what you would have seen if your eyes were looking ou ...[text shortened]... window.
It just goes to show how easily people can be fooled, especially if they want to be.
The video imagery isn't very good. With a camera a million miles away one would expect to see a much broader panorama showing the arc of the moon circling the earth. Instead all I saw was two perfectly round orbs with one passing from left to right in a direct line in front of the other. Very poor quality picture considering how many billions was spent and launched into space.
Something's not right. Maybe it's me. Maybe it's NASA. Maybe it's both. Either way it's a waste of resources that would be better spent and distributed right here were we live.
Originally posted by sonhouseThat's just nonsense.
You really need to read more. The moon is a quarter MILLION miles from Earth, not 100K. The photo was clearly taken with a telephoto lens which is why it shows the sizes you see. Earth was 1 million miles from the probe and so the moon was about 3/4 million miles from the probe so the perspective was not what you would have seen if your eyes were looking ou ...[text shortened]... window.
It just goes to show how easily people can be fooled, especially if they want to be.
A very trusted, very knowledgeable source told me that from the vacuum of space, we can expect to see literally ZERO distortion on account of a complete lack of atmosphere.
Take it from him, he ought to know: he glued buttons on radios when NASA really, really needed radios during the golden heydays of the very legitimate space program of the 1969's and 1970's.
Originally posted by josephwDo you actually know what a telephoto lens is? One with magnification? Do you think that imager was a 35 mm camera with a fisheye lens? You have to be more sophisticated than that. A zoom lens gives magnification, I have no idea what mag they used but it could have been 20X 30X, 50X, I have no idea but it was some kind of magnifier.
You didn't really say much that makes sense except the last line.
The video imagery isn't very good. With a camera a million miles away one would expect to see a much broader panorama showing the arc of the moon circling the earth. Instead all I saw was two perfectly round orbs with one passing from left to right in a direct line in front of the other. Ve ...[text shortened]... ay it's a waste of resources that would be better spent and distributed right here were we live.
I gather you don't do much photography.
I have a high end point and shoot with a 20 power optical zoom and more in digital. It has a Leica lens, a high end lens I can tell you and it may have taken an image somewhat like that one you saw.
The camera was not a video cam, it took a series of stills as fast as it could which had some delay between shots. They have to make spacecraft as energy efficient as possible so the amount of energy allotted to that camera maybe was only a couple of watts, like the Curiosity rover on Mars, it has a power supply for the whole deal that is only a couple hundred watts so it can't move more than a few inches per second flat out. That kind of thing you have to take into account in the design phase of such equipment and the people have to live with it. The designer is told, ok, John, you have 3 watts total to work with, now give me a frigging high mag high res camera.....
Originally posted by sonhouseDo you really think I believe you know what you're talking about?
Do you actually know what a telephoto lens is? One with magnification? Do you think that imager was a 35 mm camera with a fisheye lens? You have to be more sophisticated than that. A zoom lens gives magnification, I have no idea what mag they used but it could have been 20X 30X, 50X, I have no idea but it was some kind of magnifier.
I gather you don't d ...[text shortened]... John, you have 3 watts total to work with, now give me a frigging high mag high res camera.....
Do you mean to tell me all they have is 3 watts to use for all the billions they spent sending that camera into space a million miles away? Doesn't add up.
Hell, they have video of the astronauts dancing on the moon from decades ago and all we get now for all that money is distortion and a few snapshots?
Originally posted by SeitseThose places can be scary places to navigate, what with all the hand and foot signals.
Nah, their type is like that. They claim to be keepers of the One
True Knowledge, then solicit male escorts in airport bathrooms.
Go in the middle stall thinking you're ordering an asparagus milk shake, crawl out with a foot long.
It's good of him to lend a hand or two.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHHere is an interesting quote attributed to Aristotle, born in 384 BC:
Those places can be scary places to navigate, what with all the hand and foot signals.
Go in the middle stall thinking you're ordering an asparagus milk shake, crawl out with a foot long.
It's good of him to lend a hand or two.
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
Originally posted by sonhouseOoøœ... you have a Leica™ telephonic whatchamacallit?
Do you actually know what a telephoto lens is? One with magnification? Do you think that imager was a 35 mm camera with a fisheye lens? You have to be more sophisticated than that. A zoom lens gives magnification, I have no idea what mag they used but it could have been 20X 30X, 50X, I have no idea but it was some kind of magnifier.
I gather you don't d ...[text shortened]... John, you have 3 watts total to work with, now give me a frigging high mag high res camera.....
I had no idea I was dealing with a true per fessional, one who really knows his chit.
I guess the gig is up!
Now, did you have any takes on Mr. Kitty and how big that earth looks to him?
Before you answer, keep in mind he doesn't carry anything bigger than a Nikon D3200, so don't think he really knows what he's doing, photographically-speaking.
He probably thinks aperture means something unrelated to film!
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou have proved the inverse of that saying many times. You don't even bother to go over the logic of what I say, you just come back with some scoff meds and say answer the questions I already answered.
Something you've demonstrated a complete aversion to from the word go.
But who needs dead old guys, right?
For instance, you cannot come up with a scenario where the magnetic field of Earth would be the same in the north pole and that field distributed around the edge of our so-called flat planet.
You never said a word about that and just more scoffing at the Coriolis effect and for some reason your flat Earth cannot be spinning so there would be no such effect since Coriolis is ALL about a spinning Earth.
Your answer: A long rolled out scoff fest. No real answers at all, just variations on scoff.
The magnetic argument which BTW is MY own words, I didn't have to google anything or cut and paste anything, I thought that one up all by my sorry 74 year old ass. And it is above your pay grade to be able to answer, mainly because no other Flatassearther can answer that one either. In your fantasy world, the lines of force cannot be the same strength in the north pole as in the what you would call the edge of the world. And you would not even be able to rationalize how a magnetic field could form on a flat Earth either and I doubt you even have a CLUE as to why Earth has a magnetic field in the first place. Unless you want to deny Earth even HAS a magnetic field. That would make the objection go away in your limited brain though wouldn't it?
You don't think the speed of light is what they say it is, you think somehow its a variable, you don't think about the fact there is no peeking over the horizon of a planet without an atmosphere, you think the sun is a few thousand miles away in space and the moon therefore must be even close since even YOU know there are lunar eclipses where the moon goes in front of the sun, so denying magnetic energy wouldn't be such a stretch for you either now would it?
Also, I could put my words and analysis to independent analysis and compare that analysis to your responses and we can see who has the most intelligent arguments.
Originally posted by sonhouseYour Coriolis Effect proved to be more of a detriment than a support.
You have proved the inverse of that saying many times. You don't even bother to go over the logic of what I say, you just come back with some scoff meds and say answer the questions I already answered.
For instance, you cannot come up with a scenario where the magnetic field of Earth would be the same in the north pole and that field distributed around ...[text shortened]... d compare that analysis to your responses and we can see who has the most intelligent arguments.
And you still cannot answer two very simple questions.
Hell, one of them is as simple as providing a photograph!
How hard can that be??