gerrydandridge Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 So in 1997, they took shots from way out, in 2012 they took shots from close, this explains the difference? Or were they taken from the same sort of range but in 2012 they decided to show 50% of the planets diameter.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted December 30, 2015 Author Share Posted December 30, 2015 Gerry, use some maths to work out which answer seems to make more sense. I've now done the maths for a disc 824 km up ... and guess what? The disc size is consistent with the image. Gerry, genuinely try and do the maths to work it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted December 30, 2015 Author Share Posted December 30, 2015 Chinahand, this is unrelated but can you answer a question I'm curious about. Is there always somewhere in the world where it's sunset? Would it be possible to travel in a plane (re-fueling it along the way) and to always follow the sunset? Thanks Hi Aloha Oe, Yes to both your questions, there is always somewhere in the world where it is sunset and you can travel in a jet plane and keep up with the sunset - Brian Cox recently did this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uhtred Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 Gerry, use some maths to work out which answer seems to make more sense. I've now done the maths for a disc 824 km up ... and guess what? The disc size is consistent with the image. Gerry, genuinely try and do the maths to work it out. China, I think we're very close indeed to the time when you need to simply put your feet up, have a cuppa, and just wait for Darwinian principles to apply themselves to others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quilp Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 Chinahand, this is unrelated but can you answer a question I'm curious about. Is there always somewhere in the world where it's sunset? Would it be possible to travel in a plane (re-fueling it along the way) and to always follow the sunset? Thanks Hi Aloha Oe, Yes to both your questions, there is always somewhere in the world where it is sunset and you can travel in a jet plane and keep up with the sunset - Brian Cox recently did this. A round trip, wasn't it ..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alibaba Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 Chinahand, this is unrelated but can you answer a question I'm curious about. Is there always somewhere in the world where it's sunset? Would it be possible to travel in a plane (re-fueling it along the way) and to always follow the sunset? Thanks Hi Aloha Oe, Yes to both your questions, there is always somewhere in the world where it is sunset and you can travel in a jet plane and keep up with the sunset - Brian Cox recently did this. That's actually quite a good question, and I'm sure there would be some maths for someone who isn't drunk on Glogg to work out. Like, if you were on a plane with a massive fuel tank flying at 20000 ft around the equator how fast would you need to go to keep up with the sunset. Or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted December 30, 2015 Author Share Posted December 30, 2015 Gerry, if your picture is a frontal view: This sketch is a side view: In the 2012 picture A is 824 km*, R is 6371 km Can you work out the angle to be found? And then the ratio of the lengths of the two red lines? *Erm ... should I try to find out what altitude the 2007 photo was taken at? Probably should! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dilligaf Posted December 31, 2015 Share Posted December 31, 2015 Gerry, if your picture is a frontal view: This sketch is a side view: field of view3.png In the 2012 picture A is 824 km*, R is 6371 km Can you work out the angle to be found? And then the ratio of the lengths of the two red lines? *Erm ... should I try to find out what altitude the 2007 photo was taken at? Probably should! Even as a total "round earth" fella, I can see something wrong with the 2 globes. No matter what angle or distance to the camera, the 2 would never match. One of them is NOT a photograph. This kind of thing "feeds" people like Gerry and Paul (if they are not one!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted December 31, 2015 Author Share Posted December 31, 2015 I don't quite get you point dilligaf, both these images are totally consistent with each other. It is really interesting but people don't seem to get that the disc that you see IS NOT the diameter of the Earth. You would only see the entire diameter if you were an infinite distance away from the Earth! As you get closer to the Earth the disc you see is a progressively smaller and smaller proportion of the Earth's diameter. As a result the ratio of the size of a feature (such as the distance across the USA) to the size of the disc will change depending upon how far away you are from the earth. Just to say, neither of the images are a single photograph - they are both composite images built up from lots of other images. Here's an interesting article showing how they ... dare I use the word ... "manipulated" ... the images to change the altitude of the image ... from 824 km to 12,743km. NASA totally admits it enhances it public outreach imagery. I don't like this one, for example, as it makes the shadows of the mountains far larger than reality to bring out the relief: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted December 31, 2015 Author Share Posted December 31, 2015 Well I'm going to bed. I presume Gerry isn't doing any maths, but if A = 824, and 6371 then the Angle to be found is 55.38 and the ratio of the two red lines will be 1:80. Gerry, care to measure the ratio of your two red lines - note it won't be exact as the US line isn't exactly symmetrical to the centre line, but that will only make a small difference!! Gerry, do you get the maths needed to get these answers? You just need to work your way around the triangles - genuinely this is maths taught at something like age 13. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quilp Posted December 31, 2015 Share Posted December 31, 2015 Well I'm going to bed. Wan-anh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gerrydandridge Posted December 31, 2015 Share Posted December 31, 2015 I don't like this one, for example, as it makes the shadows of the mountains far larger than reality to bring out the relief: Yeah and the closer you get to the mountains, they appear to get smaller, its a wonderful and magical 2D world of Geometry that you live in Chinahand. Thanks for putting this NASA controversy to bed for most of us here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lisenchuk Posted December 31, 2015 Share Posted December 31, 2015 Viewed from above either north or south poles the planet is round. Viewed from above the equator the planet is round. Doesn't concur too well with a flat earth theory,does it? ETA: viewed from any angle at great distance above, the earth always appears round. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul's got wright Posted January 1, 2016 Share Posted January 1, 2016 I don't like this one, for example, as it makes the shadows of the mountains far larger than reality to bring out the relief: Yeah and the closer you get to the mountains, they appear to get smaller, its a wonderful and magical 2D world of Geometry that you live in Chinahand. Thanks for putting this NASA controversy to bed for most of us here. i actually can't believe what i'm reading! never heard anything so daft in my life. so how is the picture round then?!!! x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dilligaf Posted January 1, 2016 Share Posted January 1, 2016 I don't quite get you point dilligaf, both these images are totally consistent with each other. It is really interesting but people don't seem to get that the disc that you see IS NOT the diameter of the Earth. You would only see the entire diameter if you were an infinite distance away from the Earth! As you get closer to the Earth the disc you see is a progressively smaller and smaller proportion of the Earth's diameter. As a result the ratio of the size of a feature (such as the distance across the USA) to the size of the disc will change depending upon how far away you are from the earth. Just to say, neither of the images are a single photograph - they are both composite images built up from lots of other images. Here's an interesting article showing how they ... dare I use the word ... "manipulated" ... the images to change the altitude of the image ... from 824 km to 12,743km. NASA totally admits it enhances it public outreach imagery. I don't like this one, for example, as it makes the shadows of the mountains far larger than reality to bring out the relief: China, I concede that you are far more intelligent than me, but I am not stupid. Both those "globes" seem to be the same diameter, so spinning the left hand one about 30 - 40 degrees still would not make North America the same size. It does not matter how far away the picture was taken, if the diameter is the same, America has to appear the same size, surely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.