We Look Forward To Bruce's Humble Apology For Being Rude While Being Wrong
in [UK Photography]
|
Prev: We Look Forward To Bruce's Humble Apology For Being Rude While BeingWrong
Next: External optical Viewfinder
From: Gabriel Murray on 15 Feb 2010 07:59 On Feb 15, 12:45 pm, Fleetie <flee...(a)fleetie.demon.co.uk> wrote: > Bruce wrote: > > On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 20:00:29 +0000, Fleetie > > <flee...(a)fleetie.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >> Bruce wrote: > >>> On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 17:23:42 +0000, Richard Cole > >>> <ispc...(a)hotmail.com.invalid> wrote: > > >>>> Michael . > > >>>> An example of a half moon (f5.6 1/80th ISO 200) > >>>>http://www.rcole.org/Images/DSC_3191.JPG. > > >>>> A full moon is much brighter. > > >>> The illumination of the lit surface of the moon is exactly the same. > >>> Whether some of it is obscured by the earth, or not, makes no > >>> difference whatsoever to the level of illumination of the part that is > >>> lit by the sun. > > >> Sorry, Bruce. > > >> You're wrong on that. > > > Then prove it. > > > You obviously haven't ever photographed the moon, because you quite > > clearly haven't the faintest idea what you are talking about. > > Bruce, there's no need to be rude - especially when you are wrong, and will look even > sillier later because of your rudeness. > > Here is the proof you requested. > > http://jeff.medkeff.com/astro/lunar/obs_tech/albedo.htm > > http://the-moon.wikispaces.com/opposition+surge > > Please note, that there are not just one, but at least TWO DIFFERENT > reasons why what you claim is untrue: > > 1) Shadow hiding > > 2) Retroreflection of light through spheroidal lunar "dust" particles - the > effect similar to that by which roadsigns and car registration plates retroreflect > very brightly BACK IN THE DIRECTION OF LIGHT ILLUMINATING THEM. > > When we see the full Moon, we are seeing it illuminated from nearly the same > direction as that along which we are looking, i.e. the illuminating sunlight is > coming from very nearly the same direction as we're looking along. So the light > is reflected much more brightly back towards us than it is when the Moon is not > full. > > It's a shame you were so rude, because now you really do look silly. I guess > the lesson here is not to pontificate about physical phenomena about which you > are not even aware. > > In summary: the full Moon *has* to look brighter per unit area - for at least > TWO very well-understood physical reasons. > > I look forward to your apology, and I hope this information helps. > > Martin- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Michael says he felt it in his bones that Martin had something special, and, yes, now that it has been explained I too have to agree . Martin makes it look so obvious. Sorry, Bruce, I can't get you out of this, you're snookered, you'll have to grovel, I'm afraid ..... Oh how the Mighty Pro's are fallen !
From: Gabriel Murray on 15 Feb 2010 08:03 On Feb 15, 12:59 pm, Gabriel Murray <gabriellomorri...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 15, 12:45 pm, Fleetie <flee...(a)fleetie.demon.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > > > Bruce wrote: > > > On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 20:00:29 +0000, Fleetie > > > <flee...(a)fleetie.demon.co.uk> wrote: > > >> Bruce wrote: > > >>> On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 17:23:42 +0000, Richard Cole > > >>> <ispc...(a)hotmail.com.invalid> wrote: > > > >>>> Michael . > > > >>>> An example of a half moon (f5.6 1/80th ISO 200) > > >>>>http://www.rcole.org/Images/DSC_3191.JPG. > > > >>>> A full moon is much brighter. > > > >>> The illumination of the lit surface of the moon is exactly the same.. > > >>> Whether some of it is obscured by the earth, or not, makes no > > >>> difference whatsoever to the level of illumination of the part that is > > >>> lit by the sun. > > > >> Sorry, Bruce. > > > >> You're wrong on that. > > > > Then prove it. > > > > You obviously haven't ever photographed the moon, because you quite > > > clearly haven't the faintest idea what you are talking about. > > > Bruce, there's no need to be rude - especially when you are wrong, and will look even > > sillier later because of your rudeness. > > > Here is the proof you requested. > > >http://jeff.medkeff.com/astro/lunar/obs_tech/albedo.htm > > >http://the-moon.wikispaces.com/opposition+surge > > > Please note, that there are not just one, but at least TWO DIFFERENT > > reasons why what you claim is untrue: > > > 1) Shadow hiding > > > 2) Retroreflection of light through spheroidal lunar "dust" particles - the > > effect similar to that by which roadsigns and car registration plates retroreflect > > very brightly BACK IN THE DIRECTION OF LIGHT ILLUMINATING THEM. > > > When we see the full Moon, we are seeing it illuminated from nearly the same > > direction as that along which we are looking, i.e. the illuminating sunlight is > > coming from very nearly the same direction as we're looking along. So the light > > is reflected much more brightly back towards us than it is when the Moon is not > > full. > > > It's a shame you were so rude, because now you really do look silly. I guess > > the lesson here is not to pontificate about physical phenomena about which you > > are not even aware. > > > In summary: the full Moon *has* to look brighter per unit area - for at least > > TWO very well-understood physical reasons. > > > I look forward to your apology, and I hope this information helps. > > > Martin- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Michael says he felt it in his bones that Martin had something > special, and, yes, now that it has been explained I too have to > agree . Martin makes it look so obvious. Sorry, Bruce, I can't get > you out of this, you're snookered, you'll have to grovel, I'm > afraid ..... > > Oh how the Mighty Pro's are fallen !- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - ( Michael is in Dublin on business since early morning, so I'm covering here ) .
From: Bruce on 15 Feb 2010 13:54 On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 12:45:18 +0000, Fleetie <fleetie(a)fleetie.demon.co.uk> wrote: >Bruce wrote: >> >> You obviously haven't ever photographed the moon, because you quite >> clearly haven't the faintest idea what you are talking about. >> > >Bruce, there's no need to be rude The above statement is true. There is not the slightest hint of rudeness. One of us will be buried six feet under before I will apologise to you (or anyone else) for telling the truth, however unpalatable you might find it. But feel free to post a public apology for your gross over-reaction to an entirely truthful statement. Personally, I couldn't care less, one way or the other. ;-)
From: Geoff Berrow on 16 Feb 2010 03:47 On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 18:54:32 +0000, Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>Bruce, there's no need to be rude > > >The above statement is true. There is not the slightest hint of >rudeness. One of us will be buried six feet under before I will >apologise to you (or anyone else) for telling the truth, however >unpalatable you might find it. Aksherley, Bruce's statement "The illumination of the lit surface of the moon is exactly the same. Whether some of it is obscured by the earth, or not, makes no difference whatsoever to the level of illumination of the part that is lit by the sun. " is true as far as it goes because he seems to be talking about eclipses which are completely different to phases of the moon. The light /from/ the moon will vary with the phase. -- Geoff Berrow (Put thecat out to email) It's only Usenet, no one dies. My opinions, not the committee's, mine. Simple RFDs www.4theweb.co.uk/rfdmaker
From: Gabriel Murray on 16 Feb 2010 08:33
On Feb 16, 8:47 am, Geoff Berrow <blthe...(a)ckdog.co.uk> wrote: > On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 18:54:32 +0000, Bruce <docnews2...(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > >>Bruce, there's no need to be rude > > >The above statement is true. There is not the slightest hint of > >rudeness. One of us will be buried six feet under before I will > >apologise to you (or anyone else) for telling the truth, however > >unpalatable you might find it. > > Aksherley, Bruce's statement > > "The illumination of the lit surface of the moon is exactly the same. > Whether some of it is obscured by the earth, or not, makes no > difference whatsoever to the level of illumination of the part that > is lit by the sun. " > > is true as far as it goes because he seems to be talking about > eclipses which are completely different to phases of the moon. > > The light /from/ the moon will vary with the phase. > -- > Geoff Berrow (Put thecat out to email) > It's only Usenet, no one dies. > My opinions, not the committee's, mine. > Simple RFDswww.4theweb.co.uk/rfdmaker Agreed, to all practical purposes . |