Starship Asterisk*

Nitpicker wrote:Whilst geck's illustrations, above, help to understand the illuminations in the APOD, the following diagram gives a better sense of the vastness of the Sun-Earth-Moon system, as everything is drawn to scale. (I hope I haven't made any mistakes, apart from drawing the Earth and Moon orbits in the same plane, which is not quite correct. It may help to have two monitors.)

sun_earth_moon.png

It fits very nicely on my 17 1/2 inch screen, with 100% magnification .

Nitpicker wrote:

Ann wrote:Anyone who takes a look at the illustration provided by Nitpicker should not be surprised that the United States has managed to send humans to the Moon, in view of the, comparatively speaking, unimpressive distance between the Earth and the Moon.

Actually, I'm impressed. Most Americans I've met seem to baulk at the 15 hour flight to Australia.

Yes, well... comparatively speaking, I said.

Ann

jambo wrote:Because of the circular design of the clouds, the N/S poles appear to me to be at an 11/5 o'clock orientation. But are you saying the north pole is in the shadow and not visible at all? Is there a continent or anything recognizable through the clouds?

The North Pole is most definitely in shadow and the Earth's axis appears roughly vertical in the APOD (North pointing up and partly away and South pointing down and partly towards the camera). I think we are mainly seeing the South Pacific, but if you follow the "iconic image" link, you'll see a better picture of Earth showing Australia, taken a bit later I think.

Beyond wrote:

Nitpicker wrote:... It may help to have two monitors.)

It fits very nicely on my 17 1/2 inch screen, with 100% magnification.

That would be in Beyonderland. Here, somewhat further north, the image while full width in my 20" monitor is only at 45% magnification. The picture is 3655 pixels wide, and my screen is just 1680 pixels wide. Do you have a Hi-rez screen?

Rob

Czerno o wrote:A nice photograph!
Nitpick: "usually hidden from Earth" (caption). Usually is an (unwelcome) understatement here, isn't it ?

Far be it from me to nitpick, but that depends.

The first atlas of the far side was published in 1960, just a year after it was first photographed. These days, one of the simplest ways to reveal the far side is to google it:
http://www.google.com/moon/

rstevenson wrote:

Beyond wrote:

Nitpicker wrote:... It may help to have two monitors.)

It fits very nicely on my 17 1/2 inch screen, with 100% magnification.

That would be in Beyonderland. Here, somewhat further north, the image while full width in my 20" monitor is only at 45% magnification. The picture is 3655 pixels wide, and my screen is just 1680 pixels wide. Do you have a Hi-rez screen?

Rob

I assume so, but don't really know where to check. I've got an high definition HP All-in-One with windows 8.1 . Oh, it's a 20" screen. I forgot they're measured diagonally.

Rob, I've just discovered that i have a resolution of 1600 x 900.

Beyond wrote:Rob, I've just discovered that i have a resolution of 1600 x 900.

Then if you really are looking at the image at 1:1 pixel scale, I suggest you scroll right to see the Sun. I created the 3655x856 image to fit comfortably on my dual monitor setup of (2x)1920x1200.

I see the whole thing just by clicking on your picture. There are no scroll bars.

Beyond wrote:I see the whole thing just by clicking on your picture. There are no scroll bars.

Then you are looking at it downsampled by more than a factor of two, rather than at full resolution and 1:1 pixel scale. None of the text should be difficult to read at 1:1 pixel scale.

Ann wrote:no one should be surprised that there has been no attempt to send a human to Mars, in view of the fact that Mars, when it is closest to the Earth, is at least half as far away as the distance between the Earth and the Sun

Mars has a perihelion of ~1.38 AU. So, if you time it right, pffft, it is less than half the distance to the Sun, but in the other direction. (Okay, that's pretty nitpicky.)

Nitpicker wrote:

Beyond wrote:I see the whole thing just by clicking on your picture. There are no scroll bars.

Then you are looking at it downsampled by more than a factor of two, rather than at full resolution and 1:1 pixel scale. None of the text should be difficult to read at 1:1 pixel scale.

The text is v-e-r-y small and difficult to read.

Beyond wrote:

Nitpicker wrote:

Beyond wrote:I see the whole thing just by clicking on your picture. There are no scroll bars.

Then you are looking at it downsampled by more than a factor of two, rather than at full resolution and 1:1 pixel scale. None of the text should be difficult to read at 1:1 pixel scale.

The text is v-e-r-y small and difficult to read.

Have you tried turning your computer off?

Nitpicker wrote:Have you tried turning your computer off?

Why would i want to do that?

Beyond wrote:

Nitpicker wrote:Have you tried turning your computer off?

Why would i want to do that?

To remove vexation?

I think he's making a jest out of frustration Beyond.

The Dunning–Kruger effect once again makes an appearance.

geckzilla wrote:The Dunning–Kruger effect once again makes an appearance.

Not at all geck.

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias manifesting in two principal ways: unskilled individuals tend to suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than is accurate, while highly skilled individuals tend to rate their ability lower than is accurate.

I'm pretty well sure I'm not in the second category. And seeing as how i know i don't know a lot of things that others know, I'm not in the first category either. But i do seem to fit into a category that some seem to like to throw darts at. Hey, at least I'm useful.

Demonstrating the Dunning-Kruger effect exhibited by unskilled individuals is one of the few things you do well, Beyond.

Nitpicker wrote:Actually, I'm impressed. Most Americans I've met seem to baulk at the 15 hour flight to Australia.

I'm working on it as quickly as I can! Aiming for October of next year.