Photograph by Ken Lord.
Photography contest, Honorable Mention.
Waxing crescent moon, February 2, 2010, Pitt Meadows, B.C. Mr. Lord assures us, "It's the moon, it's cosmological! The picture was captured with a Canon T1i DSLR camera at prime focus on a 10-in Meade SN-10AT telescope from my back yard. 1/800 s, ISO 400. 5 exposures of the full view of the moon were stacked together (not a mosaic) in Registax to reduce noise and distortions, producing a sharper final image."
Did you know that the moon used to be a powerful argument for an earth-centered cosmos? It was thought that if the earth moved, we'd leave the moon behind. That argument was demolished by Galileo's discovery that Jupiter had moons and somehow managed not to lose them. After Isaac Newton explained that gravity works "out there" too, no one ever mentioned the moon argument again, so it's not much remembered these days.
Gabriel Hanna · 10 January 2011
A digital camera with a big lens can take really good pictures of the moon, especially if you use Registax.
Just Bob · 10 January 2011
And all those craters are the result of the war between God and Satan, right?
The Curmudgeon said:
Did you know that the moon used to be a powerful argument for an earth-centered cosmos? It was thought that if the earth moved, we'd leave the moon behind. That argument was demolished by Galileo's discovery that Jupiter had moons and somehow managed not to lose them. After Isaac Newton explained that gravity works "out there" too, no one ever mentioned the moon argument again, so it's not much remembered these days.
Geocentrists also claimed that if Earth rotated, birds would have their tree branches whipped out from under them. Newton's law of inertia blew that argument away too.
The account in Joshua of stopping the Sun and the Moon so the Hebrews could have more time to slaughter Canaanites is also falsified by modern astronomny and physics. Yet Bible-thumpers scream about evolution?
http://circleh.wordpress.com/2009/05/18/its-not-just-evolution-that-discredits-genesis/
Dale Husband said:
At what point does a crescent moon become a first quarter moon?
It begins as a waxing crescent. when the shadow terminator splits the moon's orb in half. After that it is a waxing gibbous until it reaches full moon, then the phases referse, waning gibbous, 3rd quarter, waning crescent, new moon.
Dale Husband said:
At what point does a crescent moon become a first quarter moon?
Sorry, I should have said when the shadow terminator splits the orb in half, it is the first quarter moon.
It begins as a waxing crescent. when the shadow terminator splits the moon's orb in half. After that it is a waxing gibbous until it reaches full moon, then the phases referse, waning gibbous, 3rd quarter, waning crescent, new moon.
Thank you for viewing my moon photo ... My Meade SN-10AT telescope was actually a dud. Astigmatism, could never really focus properly even with a nice aftermarket focuser. It took me awhile to realize because I also damaged the scope by dropping it. Eventually the damage I caused was fixed by a telescope shop, but the astigmatism remained, apparently due to an improperly ground mirror. I don't think I'll buy another Meade.
I traded it in for a 7.5" Skywatcher Maksutov Newtonian which definitely has better optics:
Dale Husband said:
At what point does a crescent moon become a first quarter moon?
When the shadow terminator splits the orb in half, it is the first quarter moon.
It begins as a waxing crescent. when the shadow terminator splits the moon's orb in half. After that it is a waxing gibbous until it reaches full moon, then the phases referse, waning gibbous, 3rd quarter, waning crescent, new moon.
I guess my actual point was a bit too subtil. I was mocking the creationists who say, "When does an ape become human, or when does a reptile become a bird, etc.?" I looked at that pic and saw immediately a transitional form between a waxing crescent and a first quarter moon. If we can see transitional forms on the moon, why not in fossils?
mrg · 11 January 2011
Dale Husband said:
If we can see transitional forms on the moon, why not in fossils?
"There ARE no transitional lunar phases!"
Henry J · 11 January 2011
So it's either wax on or wax off, but not both?
mrg · 11 January 2011
Keep it clean, HJ.
SWT · 11 January 2011
mrg said:
Keep it clean, HJ.
Clearly your sense of humor is waning.
mrg · 11 January 2011
SWT said:
Clearly your sense of humor is waning.
Is it just me, or am I being mooned here?
SWT · 11 January 2011
mrg said:
SWT said:
Clearly your sense of humor is waning.
Is it just me, or am I being mooned here?
Sorry about that. It must be a phase I'm going through ...
Shebardigan · 12 January 2011
Ken said:
Eventually the damage I caused was fixed by a telescope shop, but the astigmatism remained, apparently due to an improperly ground mirror. I don't think I'll buy another Meade.
The newest Meade I have is an eleven-year-old ETX-125, together with an older ETX-90 and a -60 of uncertain vintage. The optics in all of those are superb, so either Meade has entered into a bit of a decline or you have experienced a serious anomaly.
http://www.uncommonlydense.com/iridumsunrise3.jpg was taken as a single image through the 125 from the front yard back in 2001 with a primitve digital camera and an eyepiece adaptor.
John Kwok · 18 January 2011
Nikon promos said:
I cannot belive all the nikon cameras they are coming out with
I prefer using Zeiss lenses on those Nikon cameras myself, once I start getting some. Meanwhile I am more than satisfied with the Zeiss lenses on my Contax SLR and G rangefinder cameras and the relatively new Zeiss ZM lenses for my Leica M rangefinder cameras.
19 Comments
Dale Husband · 10 January 2011
At what point does a crescent moon become a first quarter moon?
The Curmudgeon · 10 January 2011
Did you know that the moon used to be a powerful argument for an earth-centered cosmos? It was thought that if the earth moved, we'd leave the moon behind. That argument was demolished by Galileo's discovery that Jupiter had moons and somehow managed not to lose them. After Isaac Newton explained that gravity works "out there" too, no one ever mentioned the moon argument again, so it's not much remembered these days.
Gabriel Hanna · 10 January 2011
A digital camera with a big lens can take really good pictures of the moon, especially if you use Registax.
Just Bob · 10 January 2011
And all those craters are the result of the war between God and Satan, right?
Reed A. Cartwright · 10 January 2011
I think I see some whalers.
Dale Husband · 10 January 2011
DavidK · 10 January 2011
DavidK · 10 January 2011
Ken · 11 January 2011
Thank you for viewing my moon photo ... My Meade SN-10AT telescope was actually a dud. Astigmatism, could never really focus properly even with a nice aftermarket focuser. It took me awhile to realize because I also damaged the scope by dropping it. Eventually the damage I caused was fixed by a telescope shop, but the astigmatism remained, apparently due to an improperly ground mirror. I don't think I'll buy another Meade.
I traded it in for a 7.5" Skywatcher Maksutov Newtonian which definitely has better optics:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/suraky/5195988539/in/set-72157623056052482/
Now if only the bad Vancouver winter weather would pass ...
stevaroni · 11 January 2011
Dale Husband · 11 January 2011
mrg · 11 January 2011
Henry J · 11 January 2011
So it's either wax on or wax off, but not both?
mrg · 11 January 2011
Keep it clean, HJ.
SWT · 11 January 2011
mrg · 11 January 2011
SWT · 11 January 2011
Shebardigan · 12 January 2011
John Kwok · 18 January 2011