my relative sent me another one..

[suntrack2]

what would be the result if we do the astronomical anatomy of this photo.

please give your detail analysis now.


sunil

[Moose]

Eh? It's a rendering. Speculative Planetscapes is a whole class of artform. I wish I could remember who did it, but I have such a planetscape, done by a BAUTer, on my work computer right now. It's absolutely lovely.

[Dr Nigel]

It's a view of Enceladus from Titan - proof that NASA has covered up the alien life on Titan with that thick, smoggy atmosphere. This should be under conspiracy theories!!

[JohnD]

Suntrack,
Are you asking if this view is possible?
Could such a view exist?

The viewer is on a body with an atmosphere. The mountains, water waves and tree size indicate an Earth sized planet. The body seen in the sky appears to lack an atmosphere (markings, and very sharp horizon). So it is likely to be a satellite, either small and very close or large and far away. Though for something as large as this might be, the question of which is the satellite and which the primary becomes semantic. An estimate of the angle subtended by that orb would give a range of possibilities.

However, no sign on the shore line of any tide marks. Could a small, close satellite, or an enormous, far away one, cause minimal tides?

Would a satellite as big as this in the sky be near or beyond the Roche limit?
Anyone who can do celestial mechanics to take this further?
John

[Chuck]

Maybe a telephoto lens could be used to achieve this effect. Build a small diorama of some terrain and put it far enough from the camera that it has the same apparent width as the full moon. When the moon rises behind it take the picture using a telephoto lens so that the diorama and moon fill the picture.

For an even more impressive effect, get a much more powerful telephoto lense, put the diorama even farther way, and wait until Mars rises behind it.

[hhEb09'1]

The viewer is on a body with an atmosphere. The mountains, water waves and tree size indicate an Earth sized planet. The body seen in the sky appears to lack an atmosphere (markings, and very sharp horizon).

I'm not so sure that that is another body in the sky there. It appears that you can see the clouds through it. Maybe it's a dust cloud (hey, those tree tops in the foreground don't look like our tree tops, either )

[suntrack2]

just kept for your analysis.


sunil

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I'm not so sure that that is another body in the sky there. It appears that you can see the clouds through it.

Wouldn't that be the expected effect if viewing an object outside the atmosphere? It's not that you're seeing the clouds through that object, but that the clouds are in the foreground.

Also, looking toward the horizon, it's the clouds that appear to get thicker, while the object does not.

[hhEb09'1]

Also, looking toward the horizon, it's the clouds that appear to get thicker, while the object does not.

The object gets brighter, though the clouds get thicker? Looking at the clouds in the right hand side of the image, they look pretty dense. Maybe it's a biodome?

[Nereid]

It's pure algorithms (IMHO), fractals and such, used to generate, on a computer, an image file, containing various (fractal) objects - 'trees', 'clouds', a particularly steep 'mountain', 'the orb', ... Most impressive, to me, is the 'water' - the 'waves' look very good, and the ray tracing needed to get the reflections of 'the orb' right would have taken quite a long time to write the code for (if done from scratch).