[Yamato]

Distance and size to the Moon in your model is wrong. I can prove it and give true information (e.g. anyone can check the validity, and I already did using my own equipment, which I describe below)

Using any stargazer telescope (I own several telescopes of several type), a digital camera and a computer you can easily measure the size of Moon's features like craters, mare, rims, etc...

Let me post a Moon image that I took some some months ago:




In this image, you can see the crater Copernicus, which is a crater that is near the Moon's equator (actually roughtly 150km above the equator). The estimated size of the crater is 93kilometers diameter (is a round crater). There are also other craters, mons and features around, but due to the low budget camera a telescope used, there are plenty of them that can't be seen because they are too small to be seem from this distance with the equipment i describe next. The smaller features that I can see with this telescope and camera is roughtly 4 kilometers diameter. Something smaller will appear only be visible as a very small fuzzy shadow (or light reflection).

You may say that someone made us believe that Copernicus is 93kilometers diameter, or that I'm saying fake information, so let's study the matter to understand if that is true or false:

The image was taken with a galilean telescope (uses lenses) with a focal distance of 1000 milimmeters and an aperture of 100mm.

The image was taken using a digital camera, but let's start supposing we are first looking through that telescope with an eyepiece with a focal lenth of 10 milimeters. (If you don't know what all this means, then please stop reading, since you won't understand a lot of concepts beyond this line)

Now, according to basic optics, using such eyepiece in such telescope, we will be seing objects as if they were 100 times closer to us.
So, focusing the telescope to a tree that is 100 meters away, will look like another tree that is 1 meter away from us.
You can't negate this, since you can check it yourself (I already did, and it is true).

Now, if we focus the telescope to the Moon, if it is 394.400 kilometers away, we will see the moon as if it were at a distance of 3944 kilometers instead of 394.400.

This can't tell us if the Moon if big or small, but just let us measure distances using equivalences when using a digital camera.


Now, let's switch to the camera I used to get the image above. It was a Luna-QHY 5L-II CMOS camera.
This camera has a pixel size of 3.75 microns (squared pixels), a 1/3 inc sensor (8.43 mm squared sensor) and without any binning (binning 1x1 actually)

Now using basic informatics and optics formulae, we got a magnification of x83.58 , and an apparent FOV of 29x29'/pixel.

Now, according to the FE model, the distance Earth-Moon is 15 kilometers and has a 600 meters diameter.
So, if I take a photo with that telescope and that camera, the moon will look as if it were 0.15 kilometers away (150 meters away). As for comparison purposes, if I look at a house that is 150 meters away, I can see every kind of details that are even 1 meter diameter, lets say, a kid playing around. Please, take this into account because it is very important, even when it may seem otherwise.

Now according to RE model, the distance Earth-Moon is 394.400 kilometers and 3475 diameter.
Using the telescope and camera above, it will look like 3944 kilometers away. Now, if I look at a house that is 3944 kilometers away, i can't really see it because it is too small and the distance too big.


But now lets take into account this fact: using that telescope, it is impossible to see craters or features that are roughtly 4 km diameter or less because of the distance and the telescope resolution. This is an evident fact that you can check it's validity if you know a little bit about optics and geometry. But again, doesn't seem to work in your FE model, so in your FE model with a moon at a distance of 15 kilometers, I could see even the american flag or the footsteps of the astronauts, but truth is that I cannot see anything that is smaller than (roughtly) 4 Kilometers.

But when I use any of my high-end telescopes, I can clearly see details from the Moon surface that are even 1 or 2 kilometers size, so not seeing them with the low-budget telescope is not due to the inexistance of such craters features, but due to the lack of telescope quality, while in your FE model, any telescope (even cheap chinese plastic ones) will let us to see moon details that are as small as 1 or 2 meters diameter in size, but this actually doesn't happen.

Conclussion: according to everything exposed and demonstrated previously, the distance from the Earth to the Moon is wrong in your model, as well as its size, since it doesn't match my observation or the observation that anyone can do at their home with the appropriate equipment.

[Gulliver]

The image was taken with a galilean telescope (uses lenses) with a focal distance of 1000 milimmeters and an aperture of 100mm.

Did you make a mistake here? I thought the focal distance was the distance from the subject to the subjective lens, in simple terms of course. Please let me know and I'll continue my review of your long post after I understand what you meant. Thanks.

[Yamato]

The image was taken with a galilean telescope (uses lenses) with a focal distance of 1000 milimmeters and an aperture of 100mm.

Did you make a mistake here? I thought the focal distance was the distance from the subject to the subjective lens, in simple terms of course. Please let me know and I'll continue my review of your long post after I understand what you meant. Thanks.

Focal length.

[Gulliver]

(Remember that I'm an REer, but I do expect that each REer should be reviewing and critiquing all posts.)

I have confirmed your post in several ways. While there are several very minor problems (For example: apparent FOV is usually measured in degrees, or radians.), you have a well-established Internet presence and contemporaneous provenance for the photo.

Your Internet presence has independent accolades. Your peers have reviewed and accepted your work.

You pass all the scrutiny I can muster, with top marks.

Kudos!

Personal request: Please stay active on the site, and post more.

[Yamato]

(Remember that I'm an REer, but I do expect that each REer should be reviewing and critiquing all posts.)

I have confirmed your post in several ways. [...], you have a well-established Internet presence and contemporaneous provenance for the photo.

Your Internet presence has independent accolades. Your peers have reviewed and accepted your work.

You pass all the scrutiny I can muster, with top marks.

I don't know exactly what you are talking about. But it sounds like I won some prize.

While there are several very minor problems (For example: apparent FOV is usually measured in degrees, or radians.)

Can you detail the minor problems, that are not typos?

FOV, for digital cameras used in astrophotography, is measured with Arcsec/pixel (or Arcmin/pixel).
This is not "because yes". The reason is because the number of pixels, as well as their size and shape vary from one camera to another.
Now, knowing the apparent FOV of one pixel will let you know the FOV of the whole sensor, and also letting you to measure the size and distance between two objects in the space, such as binary or multiple star systems.
If you know only the FOV of the whole sensor and you cannot know the FOV of each pixel, you cannot measure anything. (well, actually you can measure time passing).

That's the reason why it's better to know the FOV of each pixel instead of only the FOV of the whole sensor.


For direct viewing through the telescope (this is, using your eyes and an eyepiece instead of a digicam), of course you can't measure the number of pixels in your eye, so you can only measure in Acrsec or Arcmin.

[Gulliver]

(Remember that I'm an REer, but I do expect that each REer should be reviewing and critiquing all posts.)

I have confirmed your post in several ways. [...], you have a well-established Internet presence and contemporaneous provenance for the photo.

Your Internet presence has independent accolades. Your peers have reviewed and accepted your work.

You pass all the scrutiny I can muster, with top marks.

I don't know exactly what you are talking about. But it sounds like I won some prize.

While there are several very minor problems (For example: apparent FOV is usually measured in degrees, or radians.)

Can you detail the minor problems, that are not typos?

FOV, for digital cameras used in astrophotography, is measured with Arcsec/pixel (or Arcmin/pixel).
This is not "because yes". The reason is because the number of pixels, as well as their size and shape vary from one camera to another.
Now, knowing the apparent FOV of one pixel will let you know the FOV of the whole sensor, and also letting you to measure the size and distance between two objects in the space, such as binary or multiple star systems.
If you know only the FOV of the whole sensor and you cannot know the FOV of each pixel, you cannot measure anything. (well, actually you can measure time passing).

That's the reason why it's better to know the FOV of each pixel instead of only the FOV of the whole sensor.


For direct viewing through the telescope (this is, using your eyes and an eyepiece instead of a digicam), of course you can't measure the number of pixels in your eye, so you can only measure in Acrsec or Arcmin.

The Rules prevent me from exposing the praise you've received on other forums in detail, but, yes, your peers there awarded praise for your efforts.

Oh, no! I have to appear tedious to answer your simple (and fair) request.

• I suspect that "FOV" would have been better than "apparent FOV"
• the brand name "Stargazer" is overused in the market. You would do better making your case with the actual model of the scope.
• In general, I recommend inserting more hyperlinks to spec sheets, sources of instructions or formulas, and other references. Remember it a debate, and we battle both simple ignorance and willful ignorance.
• I would encourage "bit-size" attacks. I was encouraged (wisely) to chew through Earth not a Globe in morsels.
• I would encourage you to link to FEers' own claims more often. For example, EnaG argues that the human eye can't discern an object that takes out less than 1^o of the FoV. When you "[h]oist [the FEer]with his owne petar". (Noise included.) Of course, you'll need some experience here to do that well.
• Oddly, you were concerned about Copernicus's latitude, but not the more significant longitude. You really need to speak to both or (my preference) neither. The observation error is greater than the "off-center" effect anyway.
• Finally, and this is really an important style point, avoid unneeded words. "tl;dr" happens way too often here. I even needed a couple of runs at this OP. Telling the reader how many meters in a kilometer, for example, can be removed. But I think you could have done without some of the examples, culling the post down to just two measurements.

All the best.

[Pete Svarrior]

The Rules prevent me from exposing the praise you've received on other forums in detail

Please refrain from lying - even if it's not against The Rules™, that's just poor form!

To clarify: If you want to praise someone, or "expose praise they've received", you're more than welcome to (so long as it doesn't reveal personal information without the target's consent). Just do so in an appropriate board.

[Yamato]

• the brand name "Stargazer" is overused in the market. You would do better making your case with the actual model of the scope.

Stargazer = amateur astronomer. That's the meaning, unless I'm wrong.
And that was exactly what I wanted to mean. Not professional astronomer.

• In general, I recommend inserting more hyperlinks to spec sheets, sources of instructions or formulas, and other references. Remember it a debate, and we battle both simple ignorance and willful ignorance.

Spec sheets:
Telescope: TAL 100RS: http://www.talteleoptics.com/tal100rs.html
Camera: Luna-QHY 5L-II CMOS: http://qhyccd.com/en/left/page3/qhy5-ii-series

Formulae: you will need to study optics and informatics. I'm not here to explain this kind of basic things. Think of it like previous theorical knowledge you must have to discuss.

• I would encourage "bit-size" attacks. I was encouraged (wisely) to chew through Earth not a Globe in morsels.

I don't need to read a book that depicts a reality that can't explain a plethora of events that doesn't have a satisfactory explanation.

• I would encourage you to link to FEers' own claims more often. For example, EnaG argues that the human eye can't discern an object that takes out less than 1^o of the FoV. When you "[h]oist [the FEer]with his owne petar". (Noise included.) Of course, you'll need some experience here to do that well.

Link to the thread please?

• Finally, and this is really an important style point, avoid unneeded words. "tl;dr" happens way too often here. I even needed a couple of runs at this OP. Telling the reader how many meters in a kilometer, for example, can be removed. But I think you could have done without some of the examples, culling the post down to just two measurements.

For me it is easier to understand 150 meters than 0.15 kilometers. But for illustration purposes, I included the measure in kilometers too.
The same as you say "the food is done in 1 minute" rather than "the food is done in 0.000... days".

I can't sumarize it since some things need to be explained and it is required a base for what I wrote there.

[Gulliver]

The Rules prevent me from exposing the praise you've received on other forums in detail

Please refrain from lying - even if it's not against The Rules™, that's just poor form!

To clarify: If you want to praise someone, or "expose praise they've received", you're more than welcome to (so long as it doesn't reveal personal information without the target's consent). Just do so in an appropriate board.

Revealing where Y won the praise would reveal personal information.