NavList:

   

Reply

Hewitt, you wrote:
"It seems to me the thing about watching the sun from the North Pole is its 
altitude is the same as its declination. That is, on the say of the summer 
solstice the sun's altitude would be 23.45�. It would circle the horizon at 
that altitude, gradually declining day by day till the equinox when its 
altitude would be 0�. That would be sunset. (Obviously, I'm ignoring 
refraction)."

Yes, and so the Moon could never be seen there in that orientation either. 
It's intriguing to me that people happily forwarded this to one another 
without ever considering WHY they think it shows the North Pole. I suppose 
most people are under the impression that the view from exactly at the pole 
must be unique, eery, or at least unusual. BTW, where's the workshop? Behind 
the photographer? 

And:
"The moon being so large and the reflection in the water (ice?) indicate it's 
a composite, but it is beautiful."

Not even a composite. It's a pure digital fantasy. But here's an interesting 
challenge: the next time the crescent moon is very close to a bright planet, 
I propose attempting a real photo that duplicates as nearly as possible the 
appearance of this digital image. Then we start a new email forwarding game 
and see how many people happily assure us that, "as everybody knows," it's 
not a real photo. For starters, what's the range of latitude where the horns 
of the crescent moon can be exactly horizontal?

-FER




--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Navigation List archive: www.fer3.com/arc
To post, email NavList@fer3.com
To , email NavList-@fer3.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

   

Reply