NASA Camera Shows Moon Crossing Face of Earth (Epic Dark Side of Moon images)

why did they go through all the trouble to get real photos instead of just using photoshop?

a reply to: opethPA

I didn't witness the construction of this website, therefore its not real.

Brought to you by the keen minds of the hoaxers (tm).

a reply to: IwillbeHONEST

Work = pressure x change in volume

Is that what YouTube told you? I don't know much about this stuff, but I can read. You seem like a really great person so I'll do what I can to help you.

A specific type of work is known as Pressure-Volume work. This occurs when gases are involved. In this special situation a new formula is utilized: W=−pΔV
In this new equation work is equal to the opposite of the external pressure multiplied by the change in volume of the gas. This change in volume is caused by heat exchange in the system.

... This concept of volume work is applied in car engines. As gas combusts, heat is released.

chemwiki.ucdavis.edu...

I don't think that's how rockets work.

Thrust is the force which moves the rocket through the air, and through space. Thrust is generated by the propulsion system of the rocket through the application of Newton's third law of motion; For every action there is an equal and opposite re-action. In the propulsion system, an engine does work on a gas or liquid, called a working fluid, and accelerates the working fluid through the propulsion system. The re-action to the acceleration of the working fluid produces the thrust force on the engine. The working fluid is expelled from the engine in one direction and the thrust force is applied to the engine in the opposite direction.

exploration.grc.nasa.gov...

What's wrong with that ^^^?

All this angst and gritting about images taken by a spacecraft operated by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (which is an American scientific agency within the United States Department of Commerce)...

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: chrisss
I always give the astronomers grief for spending all the resources on pictures and not putting people on some other planet, but I have to admit, this picture is cool.

Negatively, I do wish we could see America in it.

The west cost of North America is visible.

I guess I must've missed that. Maybe because I didn't see Florida. I don't know. But thanks for not burning me for it.

a reply to: IwillbeHONEST

You seem obsessed with the notion that everyone is insulting you and claiming they are more intelligent than you. This seems to be more an argument about your sense of self worth.

You then post a whole load of arguments that no-one has levelled at you about other topics completely irrelevant to this thread, and infer that other people must believe those arguments without any kind of support for it.

All this without answering a few simple questions that were actually relevant to the discussion.

Why do you think there are only 3 non-terminator image of Earth around? There are many more than that.

Why do you think there the absence of a terminator matters so much? The presence of a terminator is actually much more useful because it helps determine very precisely when a photograph was taken as well as help determine the location of the camera. You don't get to gatekeep and say "only these type of images are acceptable ones" and then automatically denounce them without any kind of rational logic to do so.

Why does the data source automatically mean something isn't genuine? The source is irrelevant, the data are either correct or they are not.

And everyone here is just agog with anticipation for the answer to one really easy one: Where is your proof that counters the supporting material posted by people in this thread?

And now we seem to have moved on to the "rockets can't work in space" nonsense that is infecting the internet right now. I saw a good demonstration of why rockets work the other day. A man on a platform hoisted in the air by a bunch of high pressure water hoses.

Your argument is that it is pushing against a surface. Newtonian physics (proven empirically to be fact for centuries) says it is an equal and opposite reaction to the thrust. They positioned the platform over water in a sea-lock and opened the gate. Your model says he would sink as the water level fell. Newton says he should stay where he is.

Guess what happened.

Rockets work in space. The ISS that passed over my house last night says so.

a reply to: onebigmonkey

Why should we believe Nasa so much?? ??

a reply to: D3AD537

You do know that other people do soace research right?

I find this knee jerk reaction to anything just because it's from NASA as baffling as I do pointless and unfounded.i also get sick of being some sort of NASA fanboy and US apologist - I am neither and it wouldn't prove anything if I was.

I've said it before: fine, have some petty beef against the organisation for no better reason than some youtube loon made some unfounded claim about something. Now disprove the data.

originally posted by: D3AD537
a reply to: onebigmonkey

Why should we believe Nasa so much?? ??

An awful lot of stuff (images and data) about space comes from other sources than NASA. NASA are just an American space agency. There are space agencies in other countries, as well as observatories, institutes, universities, and other kinds of organisations all around the world. Space is out there, just outside the Earth's atmospher, and they have put their money and resources towards studying it. Placing satellites and other kinds of spacecraft into Earth's orbit and beyond offers a good view of our planet as well, which is why it's a great way to study Earth and monitor its processes.

I bet if you were a big business or a government organisation tasked with safety, development, and other things we do here to maintain and improve our modern way of life, you would sponsor these space missions, or at least actively use that data. Even the GPS you use in your car depends on data coming from these satellites.

It's all too easy to discredit NASA and other organisations that do stuff in space, or discredit mainstream science in general... but the truth is, you wouldn't be sitting in front of you computer/iPad/smartphone if it weren't for all the research they've done and are still doing.

a reply to: Bloodydagger
Would seem the moon surface would be far, far brighter than that...The sun is shining on the earth in the picture...When looking at the moon from the earth it is very bright...Seems this moon surface should be even brighter than that ...

originally posted by: Iscool
a reply to: Bloodydagger
Would seem the moon surface would be far, far brighter than that...The sun is shining on the earth in the picture...When looking at the moon from the earth it is very bright...Seems this moon surface should be even brighter than that ...

The Moon has average reflectivity of worn asphalt. It looks very bright when seen against the night sky, but is farly dull when compared to the sunlit Earth. www.universetoday.com...

Fake.

The perspective is wrong, the speed correlation is wrong, the rate of rotation in correlation is wrong.

This is probably the fakest of all fakes NASA has ever released.

a reply to: SONOFTHEMORNING

If you look at what has been posted in this thread you will find out that in fact you are wrong.

Unless of course you can provide some sort of corroborating evidence for your view.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: SONOFTHEMORNING
Unless of course you can provide some sort of corroborating evidence for your view.

Don't be silly.

originally posted by: SONOFTHEMORNING
Fake.

The perspective is wrong

The craft that took this series of magnified images from out at the L1 Lagrange point.

the speed correlation is wrong

Speed of what? This is several still images put together to show a time-lapse.
What speed should a time-lapse be?

the rate of rotation in correlation is wrong.

Relative to what?

Awful lot of people seem to be registering these days just to troll. . .

originally posted by: jaffo
Awful lot of people seem to be registering these days just to troll. . .

Yep. And even the genuine conspiracy/anti-mainstream believers forget that this photo is just a cool PR byproduct of the commercial satellite that is out there to do real work and improve our safety and modern way of life. Next time your business gets destoyed by a hurricane or some other natural or man-made disaster, you'll be applying to use their data like never before.

originally posted by: jaffo
Awful lot of people seem to be registering these days just to troll. . .

Keep in mind that about 25% of the US and UK population thinks the sun revolves around the Earth, so there's plenty of room for genuine ignorance in the general population without any trolling.

I have no reason to doubt the image but when we see something from a perspective we're not used to seeing, of course it's going to look different, and it does! Of course some of us know that "different" doesn't mean "wrong", while others need more time to figure that out.

I saw someone on another website do a really bad gif claiming the moon didn't rotate the amount it should.

So here's a better one:



It's not full because the last frame misses off part of the moon and it looked untidy, hence the crop.

a reply to: Another_Nut

The camera captures Red, Green , Blue wavelengths and combines them.

EPIC’s “natural color” images of Earth are generated by combining three separate monochrome exposures taken by the camera in quick succession. EPIC takes a series of 10 images using different narrowband spectral filters -- from ultraviolet to near infrared -- to produce a variety of science products. The red, green and blue channel images are used in these color images.