Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Feb 5, 2006 19:07:55 GMT -4
4. The following formula gives the angular width, A, of your thumb: A = (360/pi)*arctan(W/L) degrees The circle will appear just over 1/2 degree wide. [ width in degrees = 2*180/pi*arctan ((9/16")/120") ] Just to clarify, the 180/pi term is needed if you are working in radians, such as in a spreadsheet program like Excel. If you are using a pocket calculator you are probably already in degrees, so you don’t need the 180/pi. Also, sts60, I think formula is wrong. You want to take the 2 times the arctangent of one-half the width of your thumb, or the radius of the circle (not diameter). For instance, your thumb is 1” wide and your arm length is 28”, thus GOOD: 2*arctan(0.5/28) = 2.046 degrees BAD: 2*arctan(1/28) = 4.091 degrees Therefore, a 9/16” circle will appear 1/2 degree wide at 5 feet distance. Alternatively, at 10 feet distance the circle will need to be about 1-1/16” in diameter.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Feb 5, 2006 19:21:26 GMT -4
The Moon's radius is 1,738 km and its average distance from Earth is 384,403 km. That's correct but to be exact we have to measure the exact disctance at the time, it does make a difference. The Moon's distance varies by as much as plus or minus 5.49%. I have no idea when this Armstrong quote was supposed to have happened, but just for your information, the Earth-Moon distance at the time of Armstrong's first step on the Moon was about 388,100 km.
|
|
|
Post by twinstead on Feb 5, 2006 19:33:54 GMT -4
This stuff is only fishy if you want it to be. It appears that to stargazer, pretty much everything that ever happens at any time can be fishy if he wants it to.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Feb 5, 2006 19:49:39 GMT -4
Now, if the "astronaut's" glove is really 1,5'' (3,81 cm) that is enough to blot out the earth. So there is no point here, I admit that.
Give the man a medal! You just went up a notch on the credibility scale.
Nevertheless I find Armstrong's quote suspicious because of the "tiny pea".
Asked and answered.
I'm still curious what Hufschmid is up to.
I'm not. If he's going to play games, he doesn't deserve anyone's attention.
Does anybody have all of Armstrong's words on the "moon"?
Everything he said into the microphone is on the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal. Anything he might have said privately we don't have.
|
|
|
Post by stargazer on Feb 5, 2006 19:50:26 GMT -4
This stuff is only fishy if you want it to be. It appears that to stargazer, pretty much everything that ever happens at any time can be fishy if he wants it to. Of course and even more when I have a bet over 100.000 € on the question.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Feb 5, 2006 19:54:00 GMT -4
As far as the 'tiny pea' statement goes, wouldn't you think it was comparatively tiny, having spent your life so close to it that you can't even see that it is spherical? Remember, every astronaut that went to the Moon in Apollo had progressed from where we spend our lives to flying at altitude regularly, on to orbit so they could see the curve of the Earth, and then on to a voyage where the curve of the Earth in their window eventually became so pronounced it folded back on itself and they could see the entire planet in their field of view. And yet it continued to get smaller and smaller. By the time they were on the Moon the Earth, which always seems so huge to everyone on its surface, was so small they could blot it out with an outstretched thumb. That, to me, is tiny. Not in comparison with the Moon as we see it from here, but in comparison with all but a select group of people's impressions of the Earth itself.
|
|
|
Post by twinstead on Feb 5, 2006 20:01:05 GMT -4
It appears that to stargazer, pretty much everything that ever happens at any time can be fishy if he wants it to. Of course and even more when I have a bet over 100.000 € on the question. Dude. In in all seriousness and due respect I think you are totally wrong in every single argument and observation you have offered. Every single one. There are literally dozens of lurkers reading every word of discourse on this thread and forum. Here's a test: if any of you lurkers out there seriously think Stargazer has presented enough evidence to give you doubt the moon landings ever took place let us know.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Feb 5, 2006 20:26:02 GMT -4
Also, sts60, I think formula is wrong. You want to take the 2 times the arctangent of one-half the width of your thumb, or the radius of the circle (not diameter).Bob, of course, is correct. I should have written "W/2", and '(9/16")/2'. I had the diagram right in my head, and while punching numbers uncounsciously avoided the problem, either dividing by 2 or failing to multiply by 2 later without realizing it. As token of apology, I offer this quick empirical exercise.
|
|
|
Post by Van Rijn on Feb 5, 2006 21:15:15 GMT -4
Of course and even more when I have a bet over 100.000 € on the question. Dude. In in all seriousness and due respect I think you are totally wrong in every single argument and observation you have offered. Every single one. There are literally dozens of lurkers reading every word of discourse on this thread and forum. Here's a test: if any of you lurkers out there seriously think Stargazer has presented enough evidence to give you doubt the moon landings ever took place let us know. I think it is a very amusing argument. I especially liked the bit about the USSR working with the US during the Cold War because "of course" the landings were fake. I keep watching to see what new gems he'll come up with next. By the way, I'd be surprised if he took High School physics.
|
|
|
Post by stargazer on Feb 5, 2006 21:25:13 GMT -4
I think it is a very amusing argument. I especially liked the bit about the USSR working with the US during the Cold War because "of course" the landings were fake.
That's again not exactly what I said. I said that on the highest levels of government there is cooperation. For those people there is no such thing as West vs. East, capitalism vs. communism, etc. it's just the haves vs. the (relative) have nots. If you want to learn about this read e.g. Prof. Antony Suttons Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development where he proves that the U.S. built up the Soviet industry in the first place. And there's much more.
By the way, I'd be surprised if he took High School physics.
Ok, you're on, how about a 10.000$ bet?
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Feb 5, 2006 21:39:57 GMT -4
Van Rijn can speak for himself; personally, I've made no claim as to whether you took high school physics or not. High school physics, however, is all that's required to refute many if not most HB claims.
Anyway, the consensus here is that you do not have a bachelor's degree in physics from an accredited university.
|
|
|
Post by stargazer on Feb 5, 2006 21:46:38 GMT -4
Anyway, the consensus here is that you do not have a bachelor's degree in physics from an accredited university.
Should I care about what people think who believe or pretend to believe in the Apollo moon landings? Good one, hahaha...
|
|
|
Post by Retrograde on Feb 5, 2006 21:53:31 GMT -4
Should I care about what people think who believe or pretend to believe in the Apollo moon landings? And yet, he keeps posting here...
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Feb 5, 2006 21:54:29 GMT -4
You were the one who claimed you had a physics degree.
I have $US 100 here that says you don't.
|
|
|
Post by Halcyon Dayz, FCD on Feb 5, 2006 21:58:32 GMT -4
And in what phase was Earth?
Thumbs are a lot longer then they are wide.
|
|