Full Moon Handheld

In article ,
He's So Funny! wrote:

LOL
[...]
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[...]
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[...]
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[...]
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[...]
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Did you make all those up yourself?

Mike Beede

wrote:

One doesn't need to look carefully to see the
dark spots on the moon (all on the lit side)
where the dust has been scraped off of the
surface.

The dark spots are not exposed bedrock. There is lunar
dust everywhere created by small meteor impacts, and
is called a regolith. The dark areas (mare) are different in
composition and generally are relatively younger basalt
flows that erupted after the large impact basins were formed.
The lighter areas are called highlands because they generally
are higher. The mare basalts contain more pyroxene (a dark
mineral with lots of iron, thus called mafic), and the
highlands contain relatively more feldspar (a light
mineral with little iron).

And, as the recent large asteroids have hit,
you can easily see where some of the dust
has been re-deposited. (star-like patterns)

Yes, they are called crater rays. Rays are lighter in
both the darker mare and the lighter highlands mainly due
to the fine particle size of the smashed up rocks.

Roger

On 27 Oct, 15:27, He's So Funny! wrote:
On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 08:15:42 -0700, Dr Hfuhruhurr
wrote:





On 27 Oct, 15:29, Marty Fremen wrote:
"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)"
wrote:

I finally had a night with a steady atmosphere, so I
tried imaging the full moon handheld at 1000 mm (real focal length):

http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries.../web/moon.rncl
ark.handheld.c10.25.2007.jz3f6583f-8s-800.html

This was done standing up with no supports and not leaning against
anything. The full resolution image can be seen from the above page.

Big deal, even a point and shoot can photograph the moon. I took this
whilst looking out of the window the other day, handheld, no supports:http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/9...uh0.jpgEatyour hearts
out, DSLR users!

Incidentally, this is the same view using max. digital zoom and
deconvolution filter to overcome diffraction limit and atmospheric
distortion:http://img517.imageshack.us/img517/8...closeupcg8.jpg

LOLOLOLOL
I almost took that as an instant dig.
That was teh funny.

Doc

But you missed the funniest part about this of all!

He's so threatened by the superior images being posted all over the internet by
P&S camera owners that he even had to bother to try this kindergartner's level
of attempt to discredit P&S cameras.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I love it! Keep posting your proof of your being threatened by P&S cameras!! If
you didn't think they were a rival you wouldn't even bother.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Awww... what's the matter little moron, is the realization of how much money you
wasted on those piece of **** DSLRs finally sinking into that only brain-cell
you've ever had?

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!-

::blank sta:

Whooooooossh!!

You totally missed that one didn't you?!

Doc

acl wrote:
On Oct 28, 2:23 am, Joe Miller wrote:

Don't read this if you are not interested in astronomical phenonmena.
I don't want to waste your time.

If one looks carefully near the bottom of the picture,the southern
edge, one sees that the craters there and only there have shadows in
them. How can that be? Ususally the shadowed craters run along a line
that goes north-south. The moon's orbital plane is tilted with respect
to the earth's orbital plane. This means that the direction the sun's
rays shine toward the moon and the direction from which we view the
moon are not exactly the same at full moon unless there is a
perfectly-centered eclipse of the moon and we are in the exact right
place. In this image there is a significant difference between the
direction the sun's rays are hitting the moon and how we view it, but
in a north-south direction, so the shadowed craters are near the south
pole. We get to see "under" the south pole compared to how the sun
"sees" the moon. It's not exactly a north-south tilt, but pretty
close. That's not often recorded so nicely in pictures. The moon
missed getting eclipsed pretty far this month.

Very nice picture.

Joe

Joe,
Good observation. The sun-earth-moon angle was 176 degrees,
The image was obtained only 1.2 hours from full moon.
So the shadows are from the sun being only about 4 degrees
off of direct illumination. (This 4 degrees is called the
phase angle.)

The shadows at the south pole do not result from the fact that the phase
was not exactly full. The phase angle isn't the critical thing here.
Thee fact that the moon is well off the ecliptic is the important thing
that allows us to see around to the "dark side of the moon" under the
south pole. Even if the picture were taken at exactly full moon (phase
angle 180 degrees), with this geometry you would have still seen the
shadows at the south pole. The fundamental point I was making was that
those south-pole shadows were not the result of the phase of the moon in
the normal sense. Indeed, the moon being at perigee help at a tiny bit,
and if the picture had been taken from the south pole of the earth, it
would have revealed a tiny bit more of the "dark side." Would you mind
if I showed this picture to my astronomy classes? Explaining the shadows
would be a good exam question, but maybe too hard for an elementary
class of non-scientists who think arithmetic is higher math.



But wouldn't it actually be a good question because it doesn't need
anything except a) a rough mental image of the relative positions of
the earth, the sun and the moon and b) some pictorial thinking (well,
also knowledge that light travels in straight lines!)? I mean, what's
the best way to test if they actually listened to what was being
taught than asking them to do some (perhaps directed) thinking about
it and conclude something interesting?

Those that can't do it, well, let natural selection take its course!


That's just the kind I like to give on my exams. If you really
understand the basic underlying principles, you can figure something out
you didn't know before. It teaches students that scientific
understanding can lead to new knowledge, to the ability to understand
something not seen before. My exams are open book and open notes. I'm
not the least bit interested in anyone memorizing anything. It's just
that the geometrical thinking in this problem might be a bit much for
most, but not all a my students during an exam. It would be better as a
homework problem.

Joe

You still do not understand my basic point. If the moon were exactly
full, with "full" properly defined, you would still have seen shadows at
the south pole. That's all I was trying to say. Think about it. In my
haste I used "phase angle" differently from you and the accepted
definition. I simply meant the fraction of a lunation that the moon had
undergone expressed in angular terms. I used "off the ecilptic" as
shorthand for the fact that that there was a signicant angle between the
line of sight from your camera to the moon and the line defined by the
center of the earth's shadow, which always lies on the ecliptic. I guess
I was being too abstract or indirect here. The line defined by the
center of the earth's shadow is extremely close to parallel to the line
going from the sun to the moon, the direction of illumination of the
sun's rays on the moon. We see the moon at a slightly different
direction from the way the sun illuminates it. The point is that the
plane of the moons's orbit is quite tilted with respect to the ecliptic
plane. But I'm done with this. If you think those shadows at the south
pole are caused by the moon not quite being full, you are wrong. If it
were just a case of the moon not being full, how can the shadowed
craters extended both east and west of the south pole? Sorry you don't
quite get what I am talking about. Enough of this.

Joe

An extreme example of this effect was shown by a picture of Saturn on
APOD. From earth, Saturn is essentially always "full." The picture there
showed Saturn at something like half-illumination, immediately telling
one that it was not taken from earth. The picture was taken from a
direction very far from being parallel to the sun-Saturn direction.By
being far enough off the sun-moon line, as you were when you took your
picture, you could "see" around the south pole to the dark side. Where
you are compared to how the sun illuminates things is critical. I don't
know how to make it clearer without a diagram.

On Oct 29, 11:56 pm, Joseph Miller wrote:
acl wrote:
On Oct 28, 2:23 am, Joe Miller wrote:

Don't read this if you are not interested in astronomical phenonmena.
I don't want to waste your time.

If one looks carefully near the bottom of the picture,the southern
edge, one sees that the craters there and only there have shadows in
them. How can that be? Ususally the shadowed craters run along a line
that goes north-south. The moon's orbital plane is tilted with respect
to the earth's orbital plane. This means that the direction the sun's
rays shine toward the moon and the direction from which we view the
moon are not exactly the same at full moon unless there is a
perfectly-centered eclipse of the moon and we are in the exact right
place. In this image there is a significant difference between the
direction the sun's rays are hitting the moon and how we view it, but
in a north-south direction, so the shadowed craters are near the south
pole. We get to see "under" the south pole compared to how the sun
"sees" the moon. It's not exactly a north-south tilt, but pretty
close. That's not often recorded so nicely in pictures. The moon
missed getting eclipsed pretty far this month.

Very nice picture.

Joe

Joe,
Good observation. The sun-earth-moon angle was 176 degrees,
The image was obtained only 1.2 hours from full moon.
So the shadows are from the sun being only about 4 degrees
off of direct illumination. (This 4 degrees is called the
phase angle.)

The shadows at the south pole do not result from the fact that the phase
was not exactly full. The phase angle isn't the critical thing here.
Thee fact that the moon is well off the ecliptic is the important thing
that allows us to see around to the "dark side of the moon" under the
south pole. Even if the picture were taken at exactly full moon (phase
angle 180 degrees), with this geometry you would have still seen the
shadows at the south pole. The fundamental point I was making was that
those south-pole shadows were not the result of the phase of the moon in
the normal sense. Indeed, the moon being at perigee help at a tiny bit,
and if the picture had been taken from the south pole of the earth, it
would have revealed a tiny bit more of the "dark side." Would you mind
if I showed this picture to my astronomy classes? Explaining the shadows
would be a good exam question, but maybe too hard for an elementary
class of non-scientists who think arithmetic is higher math.

But wouldn't it actually be a good question because it doesn't need
anything except a) a rough mental image of the relative positions of
the earth, the sun and the moon and b) some pictorial thinking (well,
also knowledge that light travels in straight lines!)? I mean, what's
the best way to test if they actually listened to what was being
taught than asking them to do some (perhaps directed) thinking about
it and conclude something interesting?

Those that can't do it, well, let natural selection take its course!

That's just the kind I like to give on my exams. If you really
understand the basic underlying principles, you can figure something out
you didn't know before.

Yes, that's the point isn't it. Most of them won't like it probably
(but then again, they probably shouldn't be there in that case).

It teaches students that scientific
understanding can lead to new knowledge, to the ability to understand
something not seen before. My exams are open book and open notes. I'm
not the least bit interested in anyone memorizing anything. It's just
that the geometrical thinking in this problem might be a bit much for
most, but not all a my students during an exam. It would be better as a
homework problem.

Joe

Joseph Miller wrote:

First I apologize for adding an "e" to your name. I don't know why I did
that.

Second, with a little more time to read things, I realized that I was
putting words in your mouth. You never did say that the shadows at the
south pole were only a result of the moon not being full. I was mislead
by your making a point out the fact that the phase was not exactly full.
The fundamental trap I fell into was interchanging phase angle (a
technical term with a precise definition) and angle of phase- the
sun-earth-moon angle. The fundamental point remains. When you took your
picture the phase angle was well off zero, with a lot of it in a
north-south direction. The phase angle at full moon will be effectively
zero when the full moon is on the ecliptic (and an eclipse takes place),
but if the fulll moon is far from the ecliptic, a significant
north-south phase angle can be observed.

Joe

Then began 'He's So Funny! ' to curse and to swear:

Note: Vulgar posting not quoted.

This is a family news group in which children and young adults read. It is *your* social responsibility as an adult to demonstrate proper Usenet etiquette.

Please refrain from cursing and swearing.
--
Gabriel Gowdel

Then began 'He's So Funny! ' to curse and to swear:

Note: Vulgar posting not quoted.

This is a family news group in which children and young adults read. It is *your* social responsibility as an adult to demonstrate proper Usenet etiquette.

Please refrain from cursing and swearing.
--
Gabriel Gowdel

Then began 'He's So Funny! ' to curse and to swear:

Note: Vulgar posting not quoted.

This is a family news group in which children and young adults read. It is *your* social responsibility as an adult to demonstrate proper Usenet etiquette.

Please refrain from cursing and swearing.
--
Gabriel Gowdel