Mars Magnification

Ok..so I took a toilet paper roll and looked at the waning crescent moon
this morning at 4:30 local time. I could see enough
earth shine to complete the disc...there is NO WAY Mars comes even close at
120 X's magnification to being a comparable
angular diameter in the EP....the math says yes..my eyes say NO! Go
figure...

"Mick" wrote in message
. ..
Ok..so I took a toilet paper roll and looked at the waning crescent moon
this morning at 4:30 local time. I could see enough
earth shine to complete the disc...there is NO WAY Mars comes even close
at
120 X's magnification to being a comparable
angular diameter in the EP....the math says yes..my eyes say NO! Go
figure...

That's why it is concidered an illusion - a direct comparison (the magnified
view of Mars in one eye, the non-magnified view of the Moon in the other)
eliminates the illusion.

Clear Skies,
Magnus

"Magnus Nyborg" wrote in message
...

"Mick" wrote in message
. ..
Ok..so I took a toilet paper roll and looked at the waning crescent moon
this morning at 4:30 local time. I could see enough
earth shine to complete the disc...there is NO WAY Mars comes even close
at
120 X's magnification to being a comparable
angular diameter in the EP....the math says yes..my eyes say NO! Go
figure...

That's why it is concidered an illusion - a direct comparison (the
magnified
view of Mars in one eye, the non-magnified view of the Moon in the other)
eliminates the illusion.


You seem to pass off "illusion" as nothing more than the natural biological
function of taking a leak...
the fact remains that the moon will always appear larger in the sky than
Mars will appear in the EP...
and with no good explanation....math says yes, eyes and brain says NO.....

"Mick" wrote in message
...

"Magnus Nyborg" wrote in message
...

"Mick" wrote in message
. ..
Ok..so I took a toilet paper roll and looked at the waning crescent
moon
this morning at 4:30 local time. I could see enough
earth shine to complete the disc...there is NO WAY Mars comes even
close
at
120 X's magnification to being a comparable
angular diameter in the EP....the math says yes..my eyes say NO! Go
figure...

That's why it is concidered an illusion - a direct comparison (the
magnified
view of Mars in one eye, the non-magnified view of the Moon in the
other)
eliminates the illusion.


You seem to pass off "illusion" as nothing more than the natural
biological
function of taking a leak...

Illusion are just that, very illusory and basic...

the fact remains that the moon will always appear larger in the sky than
Mars will appear in the EP...
and with no good explanation....math says yes, eyes and brain says NO.....

The fact of the matter is, that if you compare the both at the same time,
you will see clearly that Mars (now) at 100x looks bigger than the Moon at
1x. But as soon as you are unable to compare them directly, you will
probably again see what you se now. I have experienced the exact same
myself, and so have others.

Since many people have said the same, and since it can not possibly be like
this, it must be an illusion... Illusions do happen!

Clear Skies,
Magnus

In article , Mick wrote:

"Magnus Nyborg" wrote in message
...

"Mick" wrote in message
. ..
Ok..so I took a toilet paper roll and looked at the waning crescent
moon this morning at 4:30 local time. I could see enough
earth shine to complete the disc...there is NO WAY Mars comes even
close at 120 X's magnification to being a comparable
angular diameter in the EP....the math says yes..my eyes say NO!
Go figure...

That's why it is concidered an illusion - a direct comparison (the
magnified view of Mars in one eye, the non-magnified view of
the Moon in the other) eliminates the illusion.


You seem to pass off "illusion" as nothing more than the natural
biological function of taking a leak... the fact remains that
the moon will always appear larger in the sky than
Mars will appear in the EP...

There *is* the possibility that your "120x" eyepiece isn't really
delivering 120x -- that its focal length is longer than it claims,
or that your telescope's FL is shorter. I say this just to be
contrary :-)

Hmm, how could you measure your 'scope's magnification by looking
through the eyepiece? The only way I can see to do it
would be if you could gauge the apparent angular field (tricky,
but less prone to illusion than looking at tiny objects on the field),
then measure the true field by turning off the clock drive (if any)
and timing passage across the field.

Any better ways?

Stuart Levy

"
Hmm, how could you measure your 'scope's magnification by looking
through the eyepiece? The only way I can see to do it
would be if you could gauge the apparent angular field (tricky,
but less prone to illusion than looking at tiny objects on the field),
then measure the true field by turning off the clock drive (if any)
and timing passage across the field.

Any better ways?

Stuart Levy

The travel across the FOV will work...I will try that. Thanks

"Harald Lang" wrote in message
...

Mick wrote:

Ok..so I took a toilet paper roll and looked at the waning crescent moon
this morning at 4:30 local time. I could see enough
earth shine to complete the disc...there is NO WAY Mars comes even close
at
120 X's magnification to being a comparable
angular diameter in the EP....the math says yes..my eyes say NO! Go
figure...


Maybe you should try *two* toilet paper rolls stacked -- since
one roll magnifies 1X, two must magnify 2X :-).

-- Harald

Yeah..and if she's made of wood, then she must be a witch!...burrrrn
her...burnnn her...

Harald Lang wrote in message ...
Mick wrote:

Ok..so I took a toilet paper roll and looked at the waning crescent moon

Maybe you should try *two* toilet paper rolls stacked -- since
one roll magnifies 1X, two must magnify 2X :-).

Nah, mustn't overdo the magnification with these cheap small-aperture scopes

A papertowel roll should be good for at least 5 x! :-)
TW




Harald Lang wrote in message ...

Mick wrote:


Ok..so I took a toilet paper roll and looked at the waning crescent moon


Maybe you should try *two* toilet paper rolls stacked -- since
one roll magnifies 1X, two must magnify 2X :-).


Nah, mustn't overdo the magnification with these cheap small-aperture scopes