Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Moon though iPhone5 my best yet and some strange stuff

page: 2
23
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by jaffer44
reply to post by Dimens
 


I'v been fine tuning it for about 8 months
The telescope is a 8 inch skywatcher $600 and the mount coust me $200
I made a cradle out of a iphone car holder and a bushbike handle bar light mount.
I use 3 apps-
A cammera app witch lets me manualy set apiture and focus
A slow mo app and stabalizing these help stop the shaking you get with the zoomed in shots just breathing on my wooden balcony will cause voilent shaking when zooming.
You dont need to be in the middle of nowhere to do the moon city is fine you just want a nice stable ground to setup on.
I'm realy looking faword to my next camping trip now the I got the camera mount sorted out i should be able to zoom in closer with clearer qualty once Im off the balcony
If you look though some of my other youtube videos you will see how as Ive gotten the cammera more stable the quality has gotten better


Nice set up! I'm wondering if using an Owle might help a bit? photojojo.com...

I've used an owle, which allows me to use a tripod, and switch lenses on my iphone (Including a nice macro lens). It's allowed me to use my iphone as a professional camera on gigs before....I'm thinking it might easily be adapted to what you are doing as well.
edit on 23-2-2013 by bhornbuckle75 because: Mahabone




posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by jaffer44
Aparently its a whats left after the dust and debry settle.
I know i doesn't make a hole lot of cense to me.
I imagine that is only if a comet hit head on not to mention if there is no gravity on the moon then the debery and dust dhould float into space...


My mind boggles. Year after year I see people make this bizarrely wrong statement. Of course there is gravity on the Moon! What do they think hold rocks & dirt on its surface, velcro? In first grade I learned that lunar gravity is 1/6th of Earth. You can find that in any astronomy text or encyclopedia page or museum exhibit about our Moon. Heck, you can tell that the Moon has gravity from the tides on Earth! Where do people get this notion?


Originally posted by jaffer44
Science said the earth was flat...


No it didn't. Since antiquity astronomers and mariners have known that the Earth was round. Anyone can see this by observing several eclipses of the moon, which happens every year or two. No matter the elevation of the Moon in the sky - whether near the horizon or straight overhead - the shadow of the Earth on the partially-eclipsed Moon is always round. This can only happen if the object casting the shadow (i.e. the Earth) is a sphere.

In the third century BC, Eratosthenes correctly calculated the circumference of the Earth to ~2% of the actual value. In the second century BC, Hipparchus was able to use this information to calculate the distance from the Earth to the Moon.

This idea that "people used to think the Earth was flat" is a modern myth, and has nothing to do with science.


Originally posted by jaffer44
Also that is a very high structure in the midle of that crator. But like I said thoughs are all over the moon so I am desensitised to it the very begining of the video is what I find a little strange


You are correct about this - You see craters with central peaks all over the Moon. As Phage pointed-out, this is caused by the liquified material "bouncing back" like what you see in slow-motion video of water droplets.

Apparently the formation of central peaks is heavily dependent on the size of the impact. In all cases, the impact energy (i.e. the kinetic energy of the rock moving at several km/sec transforming into heat) vaporizes both the meteor and the ground that it hits. A physicist will tell you that when rock converts into vapor, it expands tens of thousands of times. This is a very nerdy way of saying, "MAKE BIG EXPLOSION NOW!"
In smaller impacts, the explosion carries away the debris, leaving a bowl-shaped depression. Bigger impacts, like those that formed Copernicus and Tycho, will generate enough heat to melt the bedrock around the area of the explosion. This pool of lava acts very much like the water in the above-reference video, so it can splash-back and form a central peak. Here's where size matters: The lava is cooling and hardening. Under the right circumstances, the rock will congeal just as the peak is forming, leaving a mountain in the middle of the crater. Note that the rest of the liquid rock in the bottom of the crater hardens to form a flat floor instead of the bowl-shape you see in smaller craters. If the crater stays molten, then the central peak will melt back into the pool of lava at the bottom of the crater. The larger a crater, the longer it stays molten, so the really big ones will have a flat floor with no central peak.

Here is a video from the Japanese Kaguya probe. In it, you can see all three types of craters. At the beginning you can see medium-sized Tycho with a flat floor and central peak. Near the end of the video, you fly over the much larger crater Clavius, which has a flat floor and no central peak. Inside Clavius, you can see several smaller, younger craters that were too small to liquify, and thus have a bowl-shape instead of a flat bottom.

Hope this helps.
edit on 23-2-2013 by Saint Exupery because: improved clarity



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 10:25 PM
link   
reply to post by apokalupsis33vital
 


Sory I'm using my iphone so can't upload pic to ny ats account if it doesn't stand out to you then it's proberbly nothing.
Just stricked me as odd when i viewed it normaly when that happens i adjust brightness and you see it for what it is but that didnot happen eith the 2 crane shaped things st the very begining of video



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by bhornbuckle75
 


That looks great thanks for the tip
With my new camera mount I have no trouble lining it up now i can just turn it out the way to look in eye piece then just spin it back into place now.
My biggest problem now is vibrations when zoomed in i got lots of clear infocused vid but it just so shaky its not worth using.
I'v had lots of difent learning experiences along the way and almost have them all ioned out.
I just need to wait till next camp trip on a cool night and i think i might get crystal clear video at closer distant then tuis one



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Saint Exupery
 


Very good info thanks explains things very simply.
Dont take everything so to heart my writning is just thoughts and theory's
And science IS often wrong so I listen and learn but keep an open mind.



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 10:52 PM
link   
I forgot to mention: The video in your OP is excellent. I want to make a camera mount for my Celestron 8".



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 11:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Saint Exupery
 


Next time I do a video and post it i will show how i made the camera mount.
A good start is get a cheap iphone car mount make sure the first pivet point is a ball type so it can move in spin
All up i have 3 piviting points plus the ball joint an the iphone cradle.
I couldn't do it with less then 3 manly because once you put your barlow lens in it is a much longer distance to the eye piece.
I also found tripods usless because when zooming in the moon move realy fast across the sky so you dont have time to keep the scope focused on a spot while trying to move the tripod
O and thanks for the compliment
edit on 23-2-2013 by jaffer44 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 11:26 PM
link   
On a related note, I love these two LROC images of Tycho's central peak:

Tycho Central Peak Spectacular!
View From The Other Side

If you zoom in on the crater floor, you can see the cracks & lumps in the congealed lava*.


***

*The technical term for this lava is "impact melt", FWIW.



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Saint Exupery
 


Cool thanks will check them out for some reason my phone is not loading the pics so Ill have to wait untill I get home



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 01:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by jaffer44
reply to post by laurentius
 


There are lumps in every second crater I look at on the moon i couldnt believe it at first I amtold they are whats left of the astroid after the impact.
I can see with some that is the case but as for others I'm not so sure like you said some seem to tower over the crater walls and there all so neatly place right in the center wierd hu


I've heard some interesting things about that. I guess since the moon is hollow, its like poking at a basketball or beach ball, the impact would push inwards and then rebound back out to its original shape. And its that rebounding action that rejects a bit of material out of the center. It happens on medium sized impacts I believe. You also have to take into consideration that the heat generated by an impact will liquify the impact zone temporarily, so that may account for how the material is connected to the center of the crater instead of flying out into space. I guess molten rock is like a very very thick gooey heavy substance, so its not gonna splatter out ike water or another thinner liquidwould. God I hate typing on my new HTC incredible 4g LTE... My 3g Incredible 2 didn't have these weird issues... Sigh.

Anyway, I guess another possibility could be that the center of a crater is a great place to build a tower. Some say the deeper craters may have ice in the bottom, and the crater edge could provide shade. And it might give you a little protection...

Another strange thing I read about recently while studying the Saturn Death Cult is that the moon's craters all seem to be from "head on" impacts, or at least a vast majority... creating a near perfect circle... And I'm no astronaut, but, shouldn't the angle of impact be pretty random, and there should not be so many perfect circles, but there should be drag marks from grazed hits and a bunch of odd angled craters with a little bit of a "runway" leading up to a crater that would not have walls on all sides, but actually would only have a wall on 3 sides where the moon material would build up? On earth, we have an atmosphere, so meteors will often burst before they hit the ground and so like the Tunguska event, can leave a somewhat more symmetrical blast radius. But on the moon there's nothing to stop that rock from continuing on uninterrupted until it makes contact. So where's all the odd angled impacts?

Another interesting thing I read once was that there is evidence that the entire moon was flash cooked in the past. Or maybe it was just on one half, I don't remember if it was the whole moon or not. That theory was regarding the sun releasing a killshot of some sort toward the earth. Over the years, while the earth has changed due to weather and natural processes, the moon is basically frozen in its shape until something from outside hits it or otherwise effects it.

The theory talking about the near perfect circle craters was that they are not all impact craters, but spots where an electrical arc of some sort made contact with all these points on the moon. The person proposing the theory said it was from the distant past (70,000 years maybe? Or more?) When the planet's did not have the stable orbits they have today, and they were closer, or at least would pass closer at times... And since the planets all have their own electric charge, when they get close enough, or close to a moon, an electrical arc will form, so the planet's will actually appear to be attacking the earth, or eachother. Supposedly this is where the ancients got Tue idea of "Powerful Gods, battling it out in the skies"...

I think he



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 01:15 AM
link   
Oops. Stupid phone... I was gonna say...

I think he probably got some stuff wrong but it makes for an interesting read..

saturndeathcult.com...



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 02:45 AM
link   
Awesome
I saw your last video this one is much better
Keep up the great work
S&F



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 05:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by 3n19m470
I guess since the moon is hollow...


It's not. This notion was based on laymens' misunderstanding of the results of Apollo-era geology experiments. After the astronauts placed seismometers on the Moon, NASA crashed expended LM ascent modules and S-IVB stages into the Moon to see how shock-waves propagate through the lunar interior (since the mass & velocity of the impactor was known, as well as the location of impact & the sensor measuring them, this was a well-calibrated experiment).
After each impact, the shock-waves echoed through the lunar interior for hours, indicating the Moon was mostly solid, with only a small liquid core. If it had been molten (like the Earth) the shock-waves would have dampened more quickly. If you hit a steel I-beam with a shovel, it goes "clannnnnggg". If you hit a pool of molten metal, it goes "splut".
Here's the thing: In the press releases about the experimental results, they said, "the Moon rang like a bell." This led some non-geologists to believe that the Moon is hollow, like a bell. This is not correct. If the Moon had been hollow and filled with air, the shock-waves would have been much more attenuated because air is much less-dense than rock. Also, the speed of sound in rock is ~10-20 times faster than the speed of sound in air. Even if the lunar seismometers had been sensitive enough to detect the attenuated waves, the delayed echo would have been a dead-giveaway about a large void in lunar interior.

Of course, the gravitational effect of the Moon on the Earth is easily measured, which gives us the overall mass of the Moon. From direct measurements of the size of the Moon, we can calculate its volume & density, and this value is consistent with a solid, rocky body, not a hollow one.


Originally posted by 3n19m470
You also have to take into consideration that the heat generated by an impact will liquify the impact zone temporarily, so that may account for how the material is connected to the center of the crater instead of flying out into space. I guess molten rock is like a very very thick gooey heavy substance, so its not gonna splatter out ike water or another thinner liquid would.


This is essentially correct.


Originally posted by 3n19m470
Anyway, I guess another possibility could be that the center of a crater is a great place to build a tower.


Why? If I wanted to mount something high above the lunar surface, wouldn't putting it on top of a mountain make more sense?


Originally posted by 3n19m470
Some say the deeper craters may have ice in the bottom, and the crater edge could provide shade. And it might give you a little protection...


This is possible, but only for craters near the lunar poles.


Originally posted by 3n19m470
Another strange thing I read about recently while studying the Saturn Death Cult...


Wouldn't reading scientific explanations of crater formations be more relevant & useful?


Originally posted by 3n19m470
... is that the moon's craters all seem to be from "head on" impacts, or at least a vast majority... creating a near perfect circle... And I'm no astronaut, but, shouldn't the angle of impact be pretty random, and there should not be so many perfect circles, but there should be drag marks from grazed hits and a bunch of odd angled craters with a little bit of a "runway" leading up to a crater that would not have walls on all sides, but actually would only have a wall on 3 sides where the moon material would build up? So where's all the odd angled impacts?


This is another misconception based on the simple fact that the speed of meteoric impacts is completely outside our common experience. We have all thrown rocks and dirt-clods into sand and seen how the impact forms a crater who's shape is dependent on the angle-of-impact.

This does not happen with high-speed impacts at meteoric speeds.

As mentioned before, the heat generated from converting the kinetic energy of a meteorite to thermal energy is enough to heat the projectile enough to vaporize it, and this generates an explosion. As a rule of thumb, a collision at 3 kilometers-per-second causes an explosion equivalent to the mass of the projectile in high-explosive (i.e. a 1kg object hitting at 3km/sec will have the same effect as detonating 1kg of C4).

The impact energy goes up as the square of the velocity, thus a 1cm rock hitting the Moon at a shallow angle at typical meteoric velocity of say, 12km/sec will cause an explosion equivalent to a block of C4 5cm on a side. Needless to say, this will not leave a long, narrow gash, but rather a big, circular crater.

Still, low-speed impacts that generate oval craters are not unheard-of; they are just comparatively rare. Here is an example of one.

Hope this helps.



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 07:25 AM
link   
reply to post by jaffer44
 


So how did you do the image stabilisation if you didn't use a computer?

(Not to mention smartphones are computers anyway)



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 11:21 AM
link   
Good post. Star, I'd flag you if I could.
Nice to see some personal effort in a post.



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 11:21 AM
link   
Good post. Star, I'd flag you if I could.
Nice to see some personal effort in a post.



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 11:57 AM
link   
Very impressive use of available technology.

As for the explanation of the central peak- Im aware of that theory, but I think it very unusual that the peak would reach that height and have some sort of spherical 'blob' on top (even though water droplets can and do have such features, these craters are caused by extremely high velocity collisions of solid- not liquid- objects). It seems very tall and thin for this suggestion- even the Moons famous 'Tycho' crater doesnt have such a prominent peak. And without an atmosphere we cant blame erosion for making this bizarre structure.

Still, unless we actually had a rock sample, or were there during its creation, we can only make informed guesses or voice our opinions.



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by ziplock9000
 


SIGH
Some people not happy unless picking the crap out of post
If you bothered reading my posts you would see i used a stabalizing app called stabalizer
As for the pc comment what ever
edit on 24-2-2013 by jaffer44 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Thunda
 


I agree they are proberbly right but as you noted there only therorys and cant be proven as fact so I will keep an open mind on things like this



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by 3n19m470
 


Some good therorys there thanks.
I've often wondered about how there are so many headon impacts also.
Its a shame some many people on this site will asume you must religiously believe the theroy and belightle you for thinking out the box.
They state facts that they copy and past from other websites to show how smart they think they are.






top topics



 
23
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join