Mick wrote:

"Alexander Avtanski" wrote in message
...

Stephen Tonkin wrote:


Mick wrote:


What I mean is, at 100 X's Mars is to appear as the moon does unaided.
The two are supposedly equivalent. (1/2 degree) Now, if you up the
anti to 200, Mars should be equivalent of what the moon would appear
to be at 100 X's....in the EP.


No it shouldn't. What others have said to you is correct. Read and
understand it; don't just dismiss it because you don't like it. It is a
tad disrespectful to ask a question then just dismiss the responses you
get in this manner. Restating your original error in different words
will not make it correct, no matter how many times you do it.

At x200 Mars will have an apparent diameter of about a degree. At x100
the Moon will have an apparent diameter of about 50 degrees. There is
exactly no way in which these can be equivalent.

Best,
Stephen


Mick,

I think I see where wour error comes from. Somehow it seems to me that
you *add* and *subtract* magnification numbers instead of *multiplying*
and *dividing*. When you bring the magnification from 100x to 200x
the things will get twice bigger, not 100 times bigger.

- Alex



Ya..this implies 2X's bigger...ie. twice..no?

Yes. Twice the naked-eye moon. I.e. the moon with 2X magnification.

- Alex