[AlexandrKushnirtshuk (OP)]

I did not post this information in the "Ask a question" section, because it is impossible to add photos there, without which the questions would be incomprehensible.

1) First question.

It is comet NEOWISE on both STEREOs and SOHOs photos. Here is a link to the article with confirmation of this fact: The tale of a comet's tail http://www.stce.be/news/489/welcome.html [nofollow] But how is it possible considering the SOHOs and STEREOs  interposition (location in space) an their fields of view?





2) Second question.

Why there is no Moon near the Earth on the STEREOs photos? Considering that Mercury is clearly visible in the same photos, the Moon should be seen at least as a bright bulge on the side of the Earth. The Moon cannot completely merge with the Earth into one round point. Diameters for better representation of ratios: Mercury - 4.8; Moon - 3.5; Earth - 12.7.



How is it possible that there is a Moon near the Earth on MESSENGERs photos, but no Moon near the Earth on STEREOs photos?

[Bored chemist]

The Moon cannot completely merge with the Earth into one round point.

Why not?
Why couldn't the moon be "hidden" behind the Earth?

[AlexandrKushnirtshuk (OP)]

The Moon cannot completely merge with the Earth into one round point.
Why not?

Because of: 1) the ratio Earth - 12.7, Moon - 3.5; 2) The distance between Earth and Moon is 384 000 kilometers.

Why couldn't the moon be "hidden" behind the Earth?

Photo animation for 8 days, during which the Moon cannot hide behind the Earth or be all this time in front of the Earth.

Link to STEREO photo archive: https://stereo-ssc.nascom.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/images [nofollow]

[Halc]

Why there is no Moon near the Earth on the STEREOs photos?

I don't know how the images are generated, but they do not appear to be photos.  A stereoscopic sensory system generates a 3D maps of a region, not a photo, which would only be 2D.
It is possible that the image is generated as a 2D slice of that 3D map along the orbital plane.  It may be that the moon is well outside that plane, and being so close, it not in the cross section at all.

My argument does not explain the funny curved part that seems to intersect the sun, and the blank 'shadow' region off to the right, nor the fact that Venus seems to track almost straight toward's Earth during the 1-week animation.  Also, Mars is portrayed as being inside the orbit of Earth, which implies more of a point-of view choice (from well to the side, but again in the orbital plane) from which the 2D image is created from the 3D map.  The image point of view might have been chosen in this case to put the comet in the cross section generated.

Just some thoughts. As I said, I don't know how the images are generated from the data gathered by the STEREO probes.

[AlexandrKushnirtshuk (OP)]

I don't know how the images are generated, but they do not appear to be photos.  A stereoscopic sensory system generates a 3D maps of a region, not a photo, which would only be 2D.

STEREO HI-1 and HI-2 - Heliospheric Imagers - are simple visible light cameras placed inside deep optical baffles.

A heliospheric imager is a wide-field camera that is designed to image the solar wind in interplanetary space, far from the Sun itself. The solar wind is composed of plasma and contains both ions and free electrons. The electrons, in particular, scatter incident sunlight via Thomson scattering, and clouds of plasma can therefore be photographed using visible light. Heliospheric imagers are simple in principle - they are simple visible light cameras placed inside deep optical baffles.

Heliospheric imager: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliospheric_imager [nofollow]

[Bored chemist]

STEREO HI-1 and HI-2 - Heliospheric Imagers - are simple visible light cameras placed inside deep optical baffles.

But just looking at the pictures makes it clear that we are not seeing a simple photograph, are we?
The images are obviously processed and , since we don't know what processing has been done, we can't really comment on what might have happened.

But. if the Moon wasn't there, and it should have been, don't you think the scientists on the project would have noticed?

[AlexandrKushnirtshuk (OP)]

Quote from: AlexandrKushnirtshuk on Today at 18:45:35
STEREO HI-1 and HI-2 - Heliospheric Imagers - are simple visible light cameras placed inside deep optical baffles.

But just looking at the pictures makes it clear that we are not seeing a simple photograph, are we? The images are obviously processed and, since we don't know what processing has been done, we can't really comment on what might have happened.

Since STEREO images are photos - not 2D slices of 3D map of region, post-processing can only be in the form of color filters, and can in no way affect objects (adding or erasing) and their relative position to each other.

[AlexandrKushnirtshuk (OP)]

But. if the Moon wasn't there, and it should have been, don't you think the scientists on the project would have noticed?

Of course they are aware of this, and I'm sure they have a "well-reasoned" "explanation" for this discrepancy. But the most important thing - scientists on the project - is a narrow circle of well-paid people from society, in which, moreover, there should be information of different levels of access and a nondisclosure subscription with very harsh sanctions for violation.

[Bored chemist]

post-processing can only be in the form of color filters, and can in no way affect objects (adding or erasing) and their relative position to each other.

Nonsense.
Have you ever seen photoshop?

[Bored chemist]

in which, moreover, there should be information of different levels of access and a nondisclosure subscription with very harsh sanctions for violation.

Why should there be?
Why not just make the information available to anyone?
After all, the taxpayers funded it.

[AlexandrKushnirtshuk (OP)]

post-processing can only be in the form of color filters, and can in no way affect objects (adding or erasing) and their relative position to each other.

Nonsense.
Have you ever seen photoshop?

If STEREOs, SOHOs and other space photos are photoshopped, moreover with the addition, removal or displacement of space objects in these photos, then welcome to my New model of the Universe, which you praised so much in the first commentary to it: "Wow! Someone found a way to make the flat earthers look sensible."

[Halc]

Since STEREO images are photos - not 2D slices of 3D map of region, post-processing can only be in the form of color filters, and can in no way affect objects (adding or erasing) and their relative position to each other.

They are not photos, since the cameras are nowhere near the point of view presented (which is something like Jupiter, depending on where in its orbit that is).

I notice that the image you post is about 300 pixels across, and with Earth in the center, perhaps 150-180 pixels between Earth and the sun.  Earth, Venus, Mercury, and even the comet seem to consume several pixels, meaning the image does not have these object focused down to their actual size.

The moon is a light-second away and the sun is about 500 seconds away, making the moon about a 3rd of a pixel from Earth.  That means it isn't in the picture because it's too close to distinguish the two at the resolution presented.

[Bored chemist]

post-processing can only be in the form of color filters, and can in no way affect objects (adding or erasing) and their relative position to each other.

Nonsense.
Have you ever seen photoshop?

If STEREOs, SOHOs and other space photos are photoshopped, moreover with the addition, removal or displacement of space objects in these photos, then welcome to my New model of the Universe, which you praised so much in the first commentary to it: "Wow! Someone found a way to make the flat earthers look sensible."

Are you saying that, with photoshop, we could get the real world to look like your "model"?
That seems an odd point to make.

[AlexandrKushnirtshuk (OP)]

Are you saying that, with photoshop, we could get the real world to look like your "model"?
That seems an odd point to make.

Official space photos are photoshopped.
My model of the Universe has more logic and better argumentation than official one.

[Bored chemist]

My model of the Universe have more logic and better argumentation than official one.

Well... if it has, why didn't you present it here rather than the stuff you have posted?

[AlexandrKushnirtshuk (OP)]

I notice that the image you post is about 300 pixels across, and with Earth in the center, perhaps 150-180 pixels between Earth and the sun.  Earth, Venus, Mercury, and even the comet seem to consume several pixels, meaning the image does not have these object focused down to their actual size.

The moon is a light-second away and the sun is about 500 seconds away, making the moon about a 3rd of a pixel from Earth.  That means it isn't in the picture because it's too close to distinguish the two at the resolution presented.

Link to STEREO photo archive with images up to 2048*2048 resolution:
https://stereo-ssc.nascom.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/images [nofollow]

[AlexandrKushnirtshuk (OP)]

[Petrochemicals]

Since STEREO images are photos - not 2D slices of 3D map of region, post-processing can only be in the form of color filters, and can in no way affect objects (adding or erasing) and their relative position to each other.

They are not photos, since the cameras are nowhere near the point of view presented (which is something like Jupiter, depending on where in its orbit that is).

I notice that the image you post is about 300 pixels across, and with Earth in the center, perhaps 150-180 pixels between Earth and the sun.  Earth, Venus, Mercury, and even the comet seem to consume several pixels, meaning the image does not have these object focused down to their actual size.

The moon is a light-second away and the sun is about 500 seconds away, making the moon about a 3rd of a pixel from Earth.  That means it isn't in the picture because it's too close to distinguish the two at the resolution presented.

Yep.

Is there any shading on the earth?

[evan_au]

you praised so much in the first commentary to it: "Wow! Someone found a way to make the flat earthers look sensible."

I think it was very faint praise.
See: https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=761004524793441&set=gm.3746532775368424
Ok, lets call it sarcasm.