Due South (Low Altitude of the Moon)

[Grant]

If the anomoly is small, you need more precise equipment to measure the anomoly. I would think you would want measurements as precisely as possible; rather than relying on measurements that are imprecise in the extreme.


You are making excuses, the anomaly is large enough for manual methods to pick it up and we do not have access to observatories.
If it's large enough for manual methods to pick up, then how is it that go-to scopes don't seem to be picking it up (when they're more accurate)? Why don't people here that do have access to observatories pick this up? Why are you the only one here (amongst a group of keen astronomers, professional and amateur) that seems to be finding such anomalies? If such anomalies cannot be explained and can be proven, why are you dodging our questions and explanations that disprove such anomalies exist?

Who on this forum is going to report a small anomaly and be labeled a PX er? No one.

Go To scopes track, they are not use for finding altitudes. Why are you so afraid to measure the angle of the Moon with traditional equipment?

[Grant]

Jonathon has asked you many times what would convince you that you are wrong. I now think that the answer is nothing. You'll not even accept it in ten years when PX still hasn't turned up, and the axis shift still hasn't happened. I think that's sad. You do have a lot of potential, but you are wasting it in this way. Still, again it's your choice.

Take the time to measure the altitude of the Moon during daylight hours in the US and post your results here.

[Grant]

Hello,

This post is designed, a bit, to be the 'last word;' that if Grant doesn't answer the points and questions contained herein, it should serve well as a epitaph to this particular thread. I hope it succeeds in this rather daunting task.

Grant wrote:

I said I don't have time to make constant observations, but that does not discount my 30-degree observation.

Unfortunately: yes, it does. You claim a thirty degree unpredicted motion in the Moon. And yet, when the tools designed to measure such movements very precisely are employed, no such anomalous movement can be detected. No other astronomer notices this amazing movement. How do you explain this?

Which is it, Grant? Is the movement subtle, or is it thirty degrees? Again, those claims seem to be mutually exclusive; particularly when using equipment designed to measure such things to single degrees, and some even to fractions thereof.



Jonathan, when the original claim was made you and others said the Moon was not low and one of your supporters stated it was 30 degrees in Wisconsin, but unknown to you until Krill pointed it out The Navy produced an angle of 18 degrees. Now I ask you did you measure, no you have just assumed because your goto scope tracks.

[Grant]

But those tables are unnecessary. It doesn't matter what the tables say; at least as far as my experiment is concerned.

This says it all when astronomical data coming fromthe government US Navy castes doubt on a position ignore it. They get their data from NASA.

[Grant]

Finally, Grant, I don't understand why you keep referring to the USNO as some sort of "authority" for lunar predictions, but there are a lot of other ways to check the figures, and not just different web sites. Download one of the many available programs (some of them are free) and put it on a computer which isn't connected to the net - that way nobody can "tamper" with it. It will give you predictions for the Moon's rising, setting, culmination - anything you could want to know in fact.


They are responsible for all astronomical data in the US including the atomic clock, they are the authority.

[BoredHugeKrill]

Hello,

This post is designed, a bit, to be the 'last word;' that if Grant doesn't answer the points and questions contained herein, it should serve well as a epitaph to this particular thread. I hope it succeeds in this rather daunting task.

Grant wrote:

I said I don't have time to make constant observations, but that does not discount my 30-degree observation.

Unfortunately: yes, it does. You claim a thirty degree unpredicted motion in the Moon. And yet, when the tools designed to measure such movements very precisely are employed, no such anomalous movement can be detected. No other astronomer notices this amazing movement. How do you explain this?

Which is it, Grant? Is the movement subtle, or is it thirty degrees? Again, those claims seem to be mutually exclusive; particularly when using equipment designed to measure such things to single degrees, and some even to fractions thereof.



Jonathan, when the original claim was made you and others said the Moon was not low and one of your supporters stated it was 30 degrees in Wisconsin, but unknown to you until Krill pointed it out The Navy produced an angle of 18 degrees. Now I ask you did you measure, no you have just assumed because your goto scope tracks.

Grant,
firstly, you did not state your observation as being a 30 degree altitude. Your report was that the Moon was "just above the trees" and agree in your referenced web page that this is consistent with the 18.7 degree prediction. Your premise was that the Moon was "too low" according to predictions, and indeed, that is reflected in your chosen title for this thread. Now you are saying that the measured altitude was 30 degrees (that is, it is too *high* relative to prediction) and citing some other anonymous and unreferenced source (whose location we do not know) and appear to be adopting that observation as your own. Exactly what is it that you are stating as recorded observation here? Is the Moon too low or too high?

Secondly, I have never referenced the Naval observatory as you state. My initial reference was the ephemerides at skyviewcafe.com, and when you requested details of the calculations, I provided another reference to a web page including a javascript Moon ephemeris, for which you could look at the source code

Regards
Krill

[Grant]

show me what you would calculate for that date and your latitude

Regards
Krill

Do you have the deviation of the Moon to the ecliptic for that date?

no, but you can find it yourself easily enough. In any event, your observation on that date was approximate - you said that you saw the Moon "just above the trees". So ignore the deviation from the ecliptic for now and just calculate a rough answer.

Remember that this started because you asserted that the Moon should not be low in the first quarter around the autumnal equinox. You presented your reasoning (the very first post on this thread) and the flaw in it has been pointed out.

If the approximations that you made in your first post of this thread were good enough for you then, why aren't they good enough now?

Regards
Krill

Krill do you know the difference between 18 and 30 degrees?

[Grant]

Well, I see this thread didn't get anywhere much after I had to go. But it does epitomise up one of the things I love about astronomy - it is so easy to verify its foundations. I count two experiments that were actually performed in the course of the thread, dummy's and Phantomwolf's. And many other citations for possible observations and past verification (An astrolabe, Jonathan? You realise that you are employing the Mystic Lore of The Ancients™ :) )

Grant - you, on the other hand, have only cited one rather inexact experiment or observation, and have not even firmly proposed to make any others. That makes it about 20-1 to BABB already. And taking onboard Sarah Mc's point about Goto scopes and Yahoo forums, that would make it about 6,000-1 to the wider net astro community.

I'm sure we can expect this thread to continue, but I predict the results will always be the same.

[Edited, because he did cite one very limited observation]
It is funny here that not one of you are willing to take a manaul measurement although you are all authorities, why?

[BoredHugeKrill]

Finally, Grant, I don't understand why you keep referring to the USNO as some sort of "authority" for lunar predictions, but there are a lot of other ways to check the figures, and not just different web sites. Download one of the many available programs (some of them are free) and put it on a computer which isn't connected to the net - that way nobody can "tamper" with it. It will give you predictions for the Moon's rising, setting, culmination - anything you could want to know in fact.


They are responsible for all astronomical data in the US including the atomic clock, they are the authority.

they are *an* authority. I'm pretty sure they didn't come up with any Moon ephemerides on their own. Buy an old book and read it. That way you can be sure the Navy hasn't "tampered" with it. By the way, the book I use is this one:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0521356997/qid=1097901106/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/002-3602979-2333629?v=glance&s=books

I strongly recommend you get a copy. It's a great overview of common ephemerides and coordinate systems.

Also, the US Navy is not the body most would consider "the authority" for maintaining UT. Try here:

http://www.bipm.org/fr/practical_info/time_server.html

or are the French in on the conspiracy too?

Regards
Krill

[Grant]

Grant did make one observation - which turns out to be consistent with his own predictions in the page referenced in his opening post on this thread, once corrected for the error which we all agree on.

In fact, we don't have a single observation which isn't consistent with Grant's predictions (or mine). Whew. That's a relief.

The best observation of all will be coming up later this month... I'm hoping it isn't cloudy 8)


Yeah, I know. I edited my post (before you posted) to reflect that. Yes, I would wish to focus on the eclipse, which he keeps evading. But if he's doing a bait and switch, he will just insist on going on about the Earth's axial tilt, since changing that would not affect eclipse timing at all. I think it will be important to stress not merely eclipse timing, but that the Moon is where it should be in the sky at the time - and seen as being so by millions of people.

Don't worry, there're bound to be clear skies somewhere. (Though not here, I'll bet :( )

Did I not say the eclipse is a different paper, I will answer your question in my own time, but I will answer it.

[BoredHugeKrill]

show me what you would calculate for that date and your latitude

Regards
Krill

Do you have the deviation of the Moon to the ecliptic for that date?

no, but you can find it yourself easily enough. In any event, your observation on that date was approximate - you said that you saw the Moon "just above the trees". So ignore the deviation from the ecliptic for now and just calculate a rough answer.

Remember that this started because you asserted that the Moon should not be low in the first quarter around the autumnal equinox. You presented your reasoning (the very first post on this thread) and the flaw in it has been pointed out.

If the approximations that you made in your first post of this thread were good enough for you then, why aren't they good enough now?

Regards
Krill

Krill do you know the difference between 18 and 30 degrees?

I don't understand. Are you saying that "just above the trees" now means 30 degrees, or the 18 or so degrees you claimed earlier?

Regards
Krill

[BoredHugeKrill]

Grant did make one observation - which turns out to be consistent with his own predictions in the page referenced in his opening post on this thread, once corrected for the error which we all agree on.

In fact, we don't have a single observation which isn't consistent with Grant's predictions (or mine). Whew. That's a relief.

The best observation of all will be coming up later this month... I'm hoping it isn't cloudy 8)


Yeah, I know. I edited my post (before you posted) to reflect that. Yes, I would wish to focus on the eclipse, which he keeps evading. But if he's doing a bait and switch, he will just insist on going on about the Earth's axial tilt, since changing that would not affect eclipse timing at all. I think it will be important to stress not merely eclipse timing, but that the Moon is where it should be in the sky at the time - and seen as being so by millions of people.

Don't worry, there're bound to be clear skies somewhere. (Though not here, I'll bet :( )

Did I not say the eclipse is a different paper, I will answer your question in my own time, but I will answer it.

ok, we'll wait.

Regards
Krill

[Grant]

You claim a thirty degree unpredicted motion in the Moon.
Just to clarify, here's what Grant's actually saying (from his "paper"):


Due South[/i],]What is odd is that most tables related to the altitude of the moon for this date did have 18.7 degrees but observation coming in from different parts of the country with a similar latitude recorded approximately 30 degrees.
So, Grant seems to believe the deviation is roughly 12 degrees. That's still pretty large and noticable, though.

Notice how he also claims "observation[sic] coming in from different parts of the country", but once again fails to prove any source for this. What about the rest of the world, Grant?

Grant never stated 30 degrees himself - originally he stated that the "Navy" number of 18.something degrees must have been tampered with.

If somebody claimed on GLP that the Moon was at 30 degrees and were in Wisconsin, I don't know who they are...

Regards
Krill

You were present on the GLP post, what now that glp history is gone you have amnesia?

[BoredHugeKrill]

Well, I see this thread didn't get anywhere much after I had to go. But it does epitomise up one of the things I love about astronomy - it is so easy to verify its foundations. I count two experiments that were actually performed in the course of the thread, dummy's and Phantomwolf's. And many other citations for possible observations and past verification (An astrolabe, Jonathan? You realise that you are employing the Mystic Lore of The Ancients™ :) )

Grant - you, on the other hand, have only cited one rather inexact experiment or observation, and have not even firmly proposed to make any others. That makes it about 20-1 to BABB already. And taking onboard Sarah Mc's point about Goto scopes and Yahoo forums, that would make it about 6,000-1 to the wider net astro community.

I'm sure we can expect this thread to continue, but I predict the results will always be the same.

[Edited, because he did cite one very limited observation]
It is funny here that not one of you are willing to take a manaul measurement although you are all authorities, why?

by "manual measurement", you mean by hand spanning?

If so, I'll be happy to do it as soon as the Moon is at a suitable phase to view it adequately. Ok? I still don't understand why you think this will be more accurate than an actual measuring device.

Also, since I don't have a GoTo scope, how about I make a measurement using the setting rings on my GEM? Would that count as a "manual measurement"?

Regards
Krill

[Grant]

stopping at page 8
Kiwi
Bad Intern


Joined: 19 Aug 2002
Posts: 217
Location: New Zealand

Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2004 11:18 am Post subject:

I will resume later.

[BoredHugeKrill]

You claim a thirty degree unpredicted motion in the Moon.
Just to clarify, here's what Grant's actually saying (from his "paper"):


Due South[/i],]What is odd is that most tables related to the altitude of the moon for this date did have 18.7 degrees but observation coming in from different parts of the country with a similar latitude recorded approximately 30 degrees.
So, Grant seems to believe the deviation is roughly 12 degrees. That's still pretty large and noticable, though.

Notice how he also claims "observation[sic] coming in from different parts of the country", but once again fails to prove any source for this. What about the rest of the world, Grant?

Grant never stated 30 degrees himself - originally he stated that the "Navy" number of 18.something degrees must have been tampered with.

If somebody claimed on GLP that the Moon was at 30 degrees and were in Wisconsin, I don't know who they are...

Regards
Krill

You were present on the GLP post, what now that glp history is gone you have amnesia?

the only poster I saw claiming that the Moon was at 30 degrees said they were in Florida, not Wisconsin. In any case, I still don't know who they are, and presumably neither do you. Why do you trust their observations over anybody else's, including your own?

Regards
Krill

[Grant]

Krill I am sorry I am busy, next session I will answer you real time only while addressing past posts.
Grant out

[BoredHugeKrill]

Krill I am sorry I am busy, next session I will answer you real time only while addressing past posts.
Grant out

ok, no problem, we can discuss then

Regards
Krill

[PhantomWolf]

edited because it became irrellevant

[Kesh]

Grant, other posters in this thread have done manual measurements, even using ancient techniques. Why doe those measurements not satisfy you?

[trebob]

You have already admitted that you have done little or no field research.
Don't tell other people what the results will be when you have not done the test yourself.

OK you have a point; I will take time to do more research, because unless I do it you will not. I will discuss the measuring techniques up front so as to eliminate your excuses, consider it done.

You still are missing the point. I have done the research. I do it at least every week in front of others, and will be agian tomorrow night at a local star party. Many others here have done so as well. Our only excuse is that all the observed evidence indicates that all is where it should be in the night sky, yet you continue to ignore this, which leads me back to the questions that I have already asked you several times:

You come in here making it clear for all to see that you are now posting on badastronomy.com, say that the moon is not where it should be, state that checking will only prove you right, brush off all evidence and ideas that could prove your theory wrong, then admit you have done little or no field research. 2 Questions.

1) How is this considered science?

2) How does this help you prove your case?

In addition:


Grant, other posters in this thread have done manual measurements, even using ancient techniques. Why doe those measurements not satisfy you?


Where did this 'wild fluctuations' come from concerning compasses?

What wild fluctuations?

And last but most certianly not least....


As I see it, if Grant is right, and the Moon is out of place, there can only be two possible explanations:

1) The Moon is physically in the wrong place.

2) The Earth's tilt has changed.

There are two trivial ways to test this:

1) If the Moon is in the wrong place in space, then the lunar eclipse on October 27th will not occur as predicted (see the Sky and Telescope article (http://skyandtelescope.com/observing/objects/eclipses/article_1340_1.asp) for more info).

Also, on the 13th there will be a solar eclipse for certain parts of the world, too. That has far more stringent location requirements. It's also in three days, so we need not wait that long. If the Moon is not in the right place, the solar eclipse will not happen as scheduled.

2) If the Earth's tilt has changed, then Polaris is no longer the pole star. By Grant's reckoning, it should be off by 30 degrees. This is easily testable. Instead of being near the pole all the time, Polaris should make a 30 degree circle in the sky over the course of 24 hours.

Grant, do you agree with these conclusions? I will once again remind you that this is not GLP. Wild claims need to be backed up.

[Meteora]

Okay, this was four pages ago, but....

Just so you'll know - this year was forecast to be a busy year for North Atlantic hurricanes. It was, but the only thing truly unusual was that four hurricanes happened to cross some part of Florida. (Bad) Luck of the draw, plain and simple. That's a geographical issue, not a meteorological one. (And, coincidentally, my degree is in geography and I'm a meteorologist.) The actual number of hurricanes and tropical storms so far is high, but not extreme.

In fact, in early August, the (USA) Climate Prediction Center said:


The outlook calls for 12-15 tropical storms, with 6-8 becoming hurricanes, and 2-4 of these becoming major hurricanes.

(Reference: http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/outlooks/hurricane.html)

So far, I think we've had 14 named storms, and the season is winding down.

You claim we are not at an extreme, but we are. This is the first time Florida has been hit with 4 major storms in over century. This is the highest number of cat 3 + storms in a year tied with 2 others. We just broke the record for total tornadoes for the year. Now as for severe storms 2004 is the worst.

This is sort of off-topic, so I'll keep my comments brief. The Florida thing is a GEOGRAPHY issue, not an extreme-weather issue.

Visit NHC's FAQ (http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/E10.html) on storm records (first row in the table) and reconsider what you've said. The number of tropical storms and hurricanes is above average, but not even a record for the 35-year period covered. The number varies from year to year, and variation by this amount is well within expected values. As we say in Oklahoma, "normal" weather isn't normal. Granted, the number of "strong" hurricanes is quite high, but again within the realm of "to be expected at some point, and 2004 may as well be that point."

As for the tornadoes, we don't know how many of them occur out over the ocean during hurricanes. Since Florida happened to be in the path of four of them this year, and tornado reporting in general (on land) is better than it has ever been before, the number of hurricane-induced tornadoes was a record.

Okay, I've already said too much. Shutting up. :-#

[dummy]

First off. Grant, you ignored my two questions twice on pages 6 and 7 so I'm going to ask them again:



In your paper you explain that the Moon's position in the sky is incorrect. From this thread you have bought up two possiblities. Firstly that the Moon has been moved into a new position and the Earth left alone. Secondly that the Earth's rotational axis has tilted slightly.

1) In an experiment I tried tonight, I aligned a go-to telescope (and tested that the alignment was successful) and then asked the telescope to point at the moon. If the telescope correctly aligned the moon in the centre eyepiece, would you consider it proof that the Moon has not moved position in space? If not, why not?

2) If we assume that the Earth has tilted, how would you explain that mine (and many other people's) go-to telescopes still align correctly? How would you explain that (without realignment over the course of several hours) the telescope used in the experiment above successfully followed the path of several objects across a sky (which you claim to have changed due to tilt)?

Ok now that's out of the way:



Go To scopes track, they are not use for finding altitudes. Why are you so afraid to measure the angle of the Moon with traditional equipment?
You can measure altitude with most telescopes as many of their handsets give manual readings (and if it hadn't been cloudy the past week I would have gone back out and done so), but like I said before; If the telescope finds the Moon, it doesn't matter what reading it gives. The telescope finding the Moon correctly proves it's in the right place. Your explanation that 'it finds it as the telescope is going from the reference of two other stars' is not valid. If the Earth had shifted, the telescope would fail to align as Polaris would not be the sky's centre of rotation anymore. If the moon had shifted, the telescope would not find the Moon when being told to.

You have also failed repeatedly to mention exactly what equipment we are supposed to use (or which equipment you used).



Take the time to measure the altitude of the Moon during daylight hours in the US and post your results here.
Why would US daylight hours make any difference? Are you seriously saying that variations in the Moon's height only occur during US daytime? Exactly what timezone and what hours do you consider daytime?



Grant, other posters in this thread have done manual measurements, even using ancient techniques. Why do those measurements not satisfy you?
I don't think anything will satisfy him. This is probably the last post I'm going to make in this thread for now as I don't see any point in continuing. It's pretty obvious that Grant sees what he wants to see, changes his stories when they contradict with evidence and ignores questions (he has ignored 9 of mine from pages 6-8 alone) that have answers logically disproving it. His refusal to read the whole thread before answering new questions is also starting to frustrate me and I suspect he is using it as a dodge technique to avoid answering old questions asked.

[Meteora]

Why would US daylight hours make any difference? Are you seriously saying that variations in the Moon's height only occur during US daytime? Exactly what timezone and what hours do you consider daytime?

Well, technically, the moon is currently above the horizon only during daytime (it's a "near the new moon" thing, you know!) - any (earth's surface) location's daytime.

Somehow, though, I doubt that's what he had in mind....

Shutting up again. :-# :-#

[Maksutov]

Why would US daylight hours make any difference? Are you seriously saying that variations in the Moon's height only occur during US daytime? Exactly what timezone and what hours do you consider daytime?

Well, technically, the moon is currently above the horizon only during daytime (it's a "near the new moon" thing, you know!) - any (earth's surface) location's daytime.

Somehow, though, I doubt that's what he had in mind....

Shutting up again. :-# :-#

Grant made this amusing (and technically meaningless) statement


The key to finding a quick answer is to observe the Moon in the daytime when the variations in tilt occur.

on October 10th, when the Moon was 4 days past last quarter, at which point it was still visible in the night sky before sunrise and invisible a few hours before sunset (since the Moon has already set for the daytime observer).

Re


Somehow, though, I doubt that's what he had in mind....

Same here. If we look at your conditions for the Moon being above the horizon only during the daytime, then try observing the Moon for these "variations in tilt". It can't be done due to the glare of the Sun.

The more I read Grant's material, more it becomes obvious that, given all the fundamental mistakes and misconceptions, he is not that familiar with actual observational astronomy.

Also the more I read his material, with its repetitions, unfounded claims, and uncorrected mistakes, the more bored I get. It's not remarkable this thread has gone nowhere, due the unwillingness of the OPer to accept objective evidence. What is remarkable is that it has taken eleven pages to do so.

Time to move on to interesting threads.

[Kaptain K]

Also, since I don't have a GoTo scope, how about I make a measurement using the setting rings on my GEM? Would that count as a "manual measurement"?
Just so Grant can't accuse you of throwing
technical jargon" at him:

German Equatorial Mount

[Meteora]

Time to move on to interesting threads.

Sounds like a good plan.

[BoredHugeKrill]

Also, since I don't have a GoTo scope, how about I make a measurement using the setting rings on my GEM? Would that count as a "manual measurement"?
Just so Grant can't accuse you of throwing
technical jargon" at him:

German Equatorial Mount

sorry :-? <slaps self on wrist for using undocumented acronym>

Regards
Krill

[Grand Vizier]

You have already admitted that you have done little or no field research.
Don't tell other people what the results will be when you have not done the test yourself.

OK you have a point; I will take time to do more research, because unless I do it you will not. I will discuss the measuring techniques up front so as to eliminate your excuses, consider it done.

Can't consider it done, because you haven't demonstrated you have done anything of note. And you have no cause to use that tone with dummy, who has posted observations made in the course of this thread even, while you've offered almost nothing.

I agree with others there seems little point to this thread. But (Columbo-mode), I hate to go without leaving questions:



What did you use to make this observation?
Sighting scope in a level field
Where were you at the time, Latitude and Longitude?
Observations were made between 7:30 and 10 pm 09/22/04 EST
What was the exact time?
What calculations did you use to deterimine the angle?
Trig and direct measure
What did you compare said angle with t determine if it was out?
Done


1. A 'sighting scope'? Which of these kinds of sighting scope did you mean?:

Sighting scopes (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=sighting+scope&btnG=Google+Search)

As you can see, a sighting scope is generally a sight for a weapon, though it can refer to the optics for a theodolite. And did you use a stand of some sort, or was it hand-held?

2. What is this about:? 'Where were you at the time, Latitude and Longitude? Observations were made between 7:30 and 10 pm 09/22/04 EST'.

You were asked for your latitude and longitude, not timing, though the latter is not unwelcome and is asked in the next question.

3. 'What calculations did you use to deterimine the angle?
Trig and direct measure'

That is insufficiently detailed. Can you present your calculations, please?

4. 'What did you compare said angle with t determine if it was out?
Done'

What does that mean? You were asked what you had compared it with. 'Done' is no kind of answer. Was that just miscomprehension or an attempt at evasion?

(Marks homework 2/10, throws it to floor and stamps on it.)

Finally:


Take the time to measure the altitude of the Moon during daylight hours in the US and post your results here.


Let's have this clarified. Are you saying that this anomaly will only show in observations taken from the USA, and that it will only show in daylight? If that is not what you are saying here, what are you saying?

[edited to include last point - it was in the original, but I lost it somehow.]

[BoredHugeKrill]

I said I don't have time to make constant observations, but that does not discount my 30-degree observation.

What did you use to make this observation?
Where were you at the time, Latitude and Longitude?
What was the exact time?
What calculations did you use to deterimine the angle?
What did you compare said angle with t determine if it was out?

What did you use to make this observation?
Sighting scope in a level field
Where were you at the time, Latitude and Longitude?
Observations were made between 7:30 and 10 pm 09/22/04 EST
What was the exact time?
What calculations did you use to deterimine the angle?
Trig and direct measure
What did you compare said angle with t determine if it was out?
Done

waitaminute....

the date you give here corresponds to that on which you previously stated that the Moon was "just above the trees" and "too low".

Over the last few pages you've now slowly transitioned into claiming that you actually measured it at 30 degrees, on the same date, and now claim that it was actually "too high"?

Just how high were the trees at the edge of the "level field" you mention?

Regards
Krill

[BoredHugeKrill]

for reference, this is the first paragraph from Grant's web page:


This Paper, Due South was first released as a test thread on a certain forum stating that the arc track of the moon was very low or abnormal across the night sky. Immediately, there was stiff opposition in the main from amateur and professional debunkers who countered the information. The first reaction was all is normal the moon is tracking normally, high in the night sky with the usual reference to the GoTo scopes. This continued until they found the US Naval Astronomical Applications Dept website for moon altitude. [Table 1 at the end the paper] Then this certain group flipped positions and used the government website data as evidence that the Moon should have a maximum height of 18 degrees above horizon at 180 degrees east of north or due south thus agreeing with I first reported as normal, but is it?

The track of the Moon across as first reported in the Grant Chronicles in the Low Arc of the Moon has become apparent. As one looked into the southern sky during the Fall Equinox on September 22, the point of the Moon’s zenith should have been near 67.6 degrees at latitude 43o18’ North plus or minus 5 8’ degrees after taking into account the sinusoidal decrease of 2.9 degrees (Math) from the reference 23.5 degree for the 11degree orbital movement towards the full position. The tilt of the Earth is at its maximum toward the moon in the first quarter position, which occurred on September 21 8:54 a.m. What is odd is that most tables related to the altitude of the moon for this date did have 18.7 degrees but observation coming in from different parts of the country with a similar latitude recorded approximately 30 degrees.

Regards
Krill

[Grant]

You are asking us to do manual checks -- how about describing to us exactly the method you used to gauge the altitude of the moon on the evening you decided it was incorrect. And please cite properly the people who are claiming that the moon has not been in the forecast positions so that we can examine their "evidence."

Here are the results of a simple manual check for you. The sky has been overcast here for most of the last week, but this afternoon I got a glimpse of the sun at 1:55pm. Using my hands only at arm's length, I measured that the sun was just over two handspans and a fist above the horizon, and just over one handspan west of true north.

I live at 40 degrees 18 minutes 12 seconds south and 175 degrees 14 minutes 43 seconds east, two metres above sea level. The time was 1:55 pm, Sunday 10 October 2004 (New Zealand Daylight Saving Time, 13 hours ahead of UT).

From the above details you can check the following: A few minutes ago I opened my astronomy program, SkyMap Pro version 7, written in 2000 and obtained from the free CD-ROM that came with NZ PC World magazine, June 2001. The program has not been updated in any way. It gave the following figures for the sun for the above time and location:
Altitude: 54° 40' 1"
Azimuth: 338° 39' 15"

This closely agrees with my rough measurements, my splayed hand spanning approximately 21 degrees of sky and my fist 10 degrees. Again, had the earth's axis changed, the sun would not have been in the position stated in the four-year-old SkyMap program.

By the way, my compass has not shown any "wild fluctuations." It still shows magnetic north to be just over 21 degrees east of true north, pretty much the same place it was in January 2003.

You have made a start, but use real measurements instead of your hands and then com e back with the results.

[Grant]

Do you not tweak the accuracy, the star is in the field of view but it is not centered.
The key to finding a quick answer is to observe the Moon in the daytime when the variations in tilt occur.

Well, that's interesting. Because the one 'observation' you have described on this thread is as follows:

Anomaly in NY state (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=16867&postdays=0&postorder=asc&sta rt=25)


The Moon was not at 18 degrees on the night of Sept. 22 in NY.

1) Though this lacks detail, you are claiming that there was an anomaly at night. But now you imply that 'variations in tilt' only occur during the daytime. So can we now see details of your daytime observations? Also does this mean that you concede that your nighttime observation was spurious?

2) I trust that you realise that you have now put Syracuse, NY in a very privileged position. (You are, I hope, aware that 50% of our planet is in dark and 50% in sunlight at any one time?) You are now proposing a mysterious effect that wobbles the Earth's axis around only when it is dark in your home town.

Here we have a case of accept what falls in your favor and discard anything that goes against you.

Kiwi used her hand for an observation, but you took as gospel. While I measured what gives here?

[Grant]

PS I hear that GLP is back up. Maybe, you should go back there, where you don't have to back up your fantasies with facts and your sockpuppets can chime in on your behalf!

Why, so I have to deal with the insults fromthe AC's, no thanks.

[Kaptain K]

You have made a start, but use real measurements instead of your hands and then com e back with the results.
HUH! :o When people show results of measurements using instruments, you asked for manual measurements. Now somebody makes a manual measurement and you say that it's not good enough!

You can't have it both ways!

[Meteora]

Just for the heck of it, I "guesstimated" the azimuth and altitude of the moon this evening (Oklahoma City, about 7:15 p.m. CDT - or 0015 UTC), about 20 minutes after sunset. My guess was approx. 230-235 degrees azimuth, 10-15 degrees altitude (I've done a lot of weather observing, so I'm not exactly unskilled with guessing angles, percentages, directions, and such in the sky). According to my PDA copy of Planetarium (downloaded several weeks ago), the moon's actual position at that time was 229 degrees azimuth and 12 degrees in altitude. Seems to be about where it should be, don't you think?

1 "manual" observation complete. Situation normal. 8)

[PhantomWolf]

How about we try a little experiment?

On the 20th-21th there will be the first quarter moon and so this will be an excellent time to test Grant's theory that it is to low. Everyone who is interested and has fine weather, can take a measurement at about 4-10pm local time and then post their recorded results how they achieved it, their absolute error, their longatude and latitude, and what the result for that place should be. We can then compare the recorded values and the expected values, and if we can get people from all about the planet we can nearly cover the full 24 hour period. I'm sure that Grant will even be able to join in.

Is that a fair experiment Grant? Would you be willing to accept the results of said experiment? Since with people all about the world there would be results from all the way during the US day and night that should cover any variations that might happen only at certain times.

So there you are, are you willing to accept this experiment and that it's results as fair, or is it another, not good enough result, just like everything else?

[Wolverine]

And if something goes awry (no pun intended), the eclipse is right around the corner. Can't get any more definitive than that. ;)

[Excelsior]

*grabs popcorn*

This is fun !.

[Kiwi]

You have made a start, but use real measurements instead of your hands and then come back with the results.

Umm, how exactly do you propose that I take "real measurements" instead of using my hands? You earlier said that a GoTo scope was unacceptable and asked for manual measurements, which I did. Now, apparently, that's not good enough.

As previously stated I don't have a telescope, and I'm an invalid who is very much near the bottom of the socio-economic heap. Should I go out and buy or hire some sort of instrument in order to satisfy you? What exactly? I have protractors and rulers, if they are any use. A ruler with 1-centimetre divisions held 57.3 cm from one's eye is fairly accurate at measuring full degrees.

Having had cataract surgery I cannot focus my eyes. Perhaps you could suggest the right instrument that I could use.

I note that while I have explained my workings and they are not good enough for you, you still have to give us a proper run-down on how you took your own measurements. "Just above the trees" and "too low" are even less precise than mine.

In any case, here's another moon observation for you.

Today (Sunday 17 October) was the first fine, cloudless day here since 1 October. At 11:55am I looked for the moon and using the handspan method again, figured that it was at about 44 degrees elevation and 5 degrees north of east.

I also checked my compass and there was no sign of any "wild" fluctuation. Magnetic north 21 degrees east of true north as usual, and the moon at about 85 degrees azimuth.

Checking later, SkyMap said the moon should have been at 41 degrees, 10 minutes 32 seconds elevation and 85 degrees, 41 minutes, 8 seconds azimuth.

Again, taking into account that using hands to measure degrees is imprecise and can give an error of up to about 10%, I'd say that the moon was right in the place where, four years ago, it was predicted that it would be. Certainly not out of place by ten degrees or more.

The sky clouded over before sunset, so I wasn't able to compare the moon's position with the stars.

Details as before: Location 40 degrees 18 minutes 12 seconds south, 175 degrees 14 minutes 43 seconds east, two metres above sea level. Time 11:55 am, Sunday 17 October 2004 (New Zealand Daylight Saving Time, 13 hours ahead of UT).


Kiwi used her hand for an observation
I'm a Kiwi bloke.

[molesworth]

How about we try a little experiment?

On the 20th-21th there will be the first quarter moon and so this will be an excellent time to test Grant's theory that it is to low. Everyone who is interested and has fine weather, can take a measurement at about 4-10pm local time and then post their recorded results how they achieved it, their absolute error, their longatude and latitude, and what the result for that place should be.

That sounds like an excellent suggestion. I'll get my protractor-taped-to-ruler-with-thread-and-weight measuring device (patent pending) that I made for the GLP "earth swaying" observations out again :)

[BoredHugeKrill]

How about we try a little experiment?

On the 20th-21th there will be the first quarter moon and so this will be an excellent time to test Grant's theory that it is to low. Everyone who is interested and has fine weather, can take a measurement at about 4-10pm local time and then post their recorded results how they achieved it, their absolute error, their longatude and latitude, and what the result for that place should be.

That sounds like an excellent suggestion. I'll get my protractor-taped-to-ruler-with-thread-and-weight measuring device (patent pending) that I made for the GLP "earth swaying" observations out again :)

sounds like a plan to me.

Grant,
you seem to be contradicting yourself (if I read correctly) about exactly what form of measurement is "acceptable" to you. You haven't specified what is acceptable as "manual", having rejected GoTo telescopes as unacceptable, but also reject hand spanning as unacceptable. I presume using setting circles on an equatorial mount is ok?

While we're about it, I'm still very confused about the method you claim to have used on the 22nd, especially since you didn't mention any of this at the time:


What did you use to make this observation?
Sighting scope in a level field
Where were you at the time, Latitude and Longitude?
Observations were made between 7:30 and 10 pm 09/22/04 EST
What was the exact time?
What calculations did you use to deterimine the angle?
Trig and direct measure
What did you compare said angle with t determine if it was out?
Done

what is a "sighting scope" and how was it mounted? Also, I have no idea how you would use "trig" to work out the angle in this case.

Just to remove any confusion, I propose an extension to PhantomWolf's proposed experiment: we all take, in advance, a photograph of the equipment we plan to use for the experiment, and post our respective photos on the web so they can be linked from here. That way, everybody can see what everybody else is using, and there won't be any confusion.

If anybody doesn't have a website on which to host the picture, they can email it to me and I'll put it up on my website so it can be linked.

How does that sound?

Regards
Krill

[Robert Andersson]

Also, I have no idea how you would use "trig" to work out the angle in this case.
He talked about "above the trees". He could have estimated the trees' height and their distance to calculate the altitude (=atan(h/d)), although I doubt it...

[tmosher]

Ok, here's an incredibly simple and cheap device to build to measure the altitude of the moon.

http://www.exploratorium.edu/math_explorer/howHigh_makeInclino.html

Of course, you could substitute a store bought protractor for the printed one (the one on page has a resolution of only 5°).

Tom

[molesworth]

Ok, here's an incredibly simple and cheap device to build to measure the altitude of the moon.

http://www.exploratorium.edu/math_explorer/howHigh_makeInclino.html

Of course, you could substitute a store bought protractor for the printed one (the one on page has a resolution of only 5°).

Tom

That's pretty much what I've made, although I used a piece of card with a hole at the eye end and a cocktail stick at the other to make a "sight". the rolled up tube of paper's even better, so I'll probably modify mine to use that as well. My protractor is a plastic one with 1 degree divisions, and when I used it before was giving measurements to within a couple of degrees. the biggest problem is wind moving the thread, even with a resonably heavy weight.

(Probably no need to take a photo of it then, since I can just say it's as shown on that site :) )

[Kiwi]

The Moon was not at 18 degrees on the night of Sept. 22 in NY.


1) Though this lacks detail, you are claiming that there was an anomaly at night. But now you imply that 'variations in tilt' only occur during the daytime. So can we now see details of your daytime observations? Also does this mean that you concede that your nighttime observation was spurious?

2) I trust that you realise that you have now put Syracuse, NY in a very privileged position. (You are, I hope, aware that 50% of our planet is in dark and 50% in sunlight at any one time?) You are now proposing a mysterious effect that wobbles the Earth's axis around only when it is dark in your home town.


Here we have a case of accept what falls in your favor and discard anything that goes against you.

Grant: This is the silliest answer I have seen on this board for a long time and it is both inappropriate and unacceptable. Your refusal to answer questions and your evasive one-liner answers to sensible questions are examples of how things are not done here, and if you wish to continue with such behaviour then I suggest you leave and go to a forum where it is acceptable. It is not welcome here.

Grand Vizier has not at all done what you claimed he has. His points and questions are perfectly legitimate in the face of your numerous failings to form a proper argument, and I, for one, am very keen to hear your detailed answers to every one of them.

I respectfully suggest that you shape up, get rid of your bad attitude and stop acting so arrogantly and childishly, or ship out and stop wasting our time.

[Grant]

Here are the results of a simple manual check for you. The sky has been overcast here for most of the last week, but this afternoon I got a glimpse of the sun at 1:55pm. Using my hands only at arm's length, I measured that the sun was just over two handspans and a fist above the horizon, and just over one handspan west of true north.

I live at 40 degrees 18 minutes 12 seconds south and 175 degrees 14 minutes 43 seconds east, two metres above sea level. The time was 1:55 pm, Sunday 10 October 2004 (New Zealand Daylight Saving Time, 13 hours ahead of UT).

From the above details you can check the following: A few minutes ago I opened my astronomy program, SkyMap Pro version 7, written in 2000 and obtained from the free CD-ROM that came with NZ PC World magazine, June 2001. The program has not been updated in any way. It gave the following figures for the sun for the above time and location:
Altitude: 54° 40' 1"
Azimuth: 338° 39' 15"

This closely agrees with my rough measurements, my splayed hand spanning approximately 21 degrees of sky and my fist 10 degrees. Again, had the earth's axis changed, the sun would not have been in the position stated in the four-year-old SkyMap program.

By the way, my compass has not shown any "wild fluctuations." It still shows magnetic north to be just over 21 degrees east of true north, pretty much the same place it was in January 2003.

Grant: This is the silliest answer I have seen on this board for a long time and it is both inappropriate and unacceptable. Your refusal to answer questions and your evasive one-liner answers to sensible questions are examples of how things are not done here, and if you wish to continue with such behaviour then I suggest you leave and go to a forum where it is acceptable. It is not welcome here.

Grand Vizier has not at all done what you claimed he has. His points and questions are perfectly legitimate in the face of your numerous failings to form a proper argument, and I, for one, am very keen to hear your detailed answers to every one of them.

I respectfully suggest that you shape up, get rid of your bad attitude and stop acting so arrogantly and childishly, or ship out and stop wasting our time.

Is it? No You expect details, how did I measure, did I have a back up, what scope, what angle, what time. Yes your example had details on location, but to use your fist to approximate an angle. I don’t think so and then Grand backs it as if it was fact, no. If you are to question everything I say, I have the right to question your approach where sight and a fist was used to come to a conclusion not a direct measurement. Second you are measuring the Sun and the tilt is undergoing a wobble and this occurs as the Atlantic Ridge passes in front of the Sun. If you are to pick up an anomaly adjust your observation during that time period.

[BoredHugeKrill]

Do you not tweak the accuracy, the star is in the field of view but it is not centered.
The key to finding a quick answer is to observe the Moon in the daytime when the variations in tilt occur.

Well, that's interesting. Because the one 'observation' you have described on this thread is as follows:

Anomaly in NY state (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=16867&postdays=0&postorder=asc&sta rt=25)


The Moon was not at 18 degrees on the night of Sept. 22 in NY.

1) Though this lacks detail, you are claiming that there was an anomaly at night. But now you imply that 'variations in tilt' only occur during the daytime. So can we now see details of your daytime observations? Also does this mean that you concede that your nighttime observation was spurious?

2) I trust that you realise that you have now put Syracuse, NY in a very privileged position. (You are, I hope, aware that 50% of our planet is in dark and 50% in sunlight at any one time?) You are now proposing a mysterious effect that wobbles the Earth's axis around only when it is dark in your home town.

Here we have a case of accept what falls in your favor and discard anything that goes against you.

Kiwi used her hand for an observation, but you took as gospel. While I measured what gives here?

what gives, Grant, is that you're not being consistent about what you claim to have observed. You started off saying that the Moon was "just above the trees" on that date, and didn't describe any actual measurement that you made other than that statement.

Then you rely on somebody else claiming to have made a different measurement at the same latitude (and you seemed to concede at the same time, which doesn't make any sense).

You then move to adopt that measurement as your own, disclaim your earlier statement, and claim that you measured the altitude at 30 degrees yourself. None of which is consistent with earlier statements.

Now you say that we should look at the Moon during the daytime to observe any anomaly.

Just what is it that you measured and/or observed, and when?

Meanwhile, you reject any and all measurements and observations made by anybody else, *especially* when they use instruments specifically designed to make such measurements.

It isn't anybody else who is being selective about observational data. Sorry Grant, but it's you.

There only seems to be one way forwards from here, and it has already been proposed. Let's specify a future date on which we can all make our predictions of where the Moon will be, stating how we arrived at that conclusion, and state how we all plan to measure it. As I proposed earlier, I suggest that we all post photographs, in advance, of our chosen measurement equipment and how we might document the observation. Then we can come back and be sure about what we all saw.

How about it?

Regards
Krill

[Grant]

Let us be clear on these points:

1) You have offered no evidence of abnormal movement. Which leads us to point number....
Grant: I made a statement on the position of the Moon and offered offical measurements , which donot match. Your counter was erverything is allright our scopes are working.

2) When asked for evidence, you tell everyone else to go look for themselves. We have. Which leads us to point number....
Grant: I asked for everyone to look in the hope that some, and I stress some will find something wrong. If they do, they will investigate further, but will keep their mouths shut for fear of being attacked.
3) You have refused to examine evidence which indicates you could be wrong. Which leads us to point number....
Grant: I say there are flaws in the GO TO system, but I will accept a manual measurement.
4) You been asked the same direct questions, and dodged them, over and over agian. Which leads us to point number....
Grant: I am answering, but you don’t like my answers. What is wrong with a group of people putting to rest a debate with manual measurements where there leaves no doubt for all?
5) You have admitted to doing little or no field research on your own.
Grant: This is true, but I have addressed this and it will change.

You have failed to offer proof, dodged direct questions, ignored evidence brought by others, and admitted to not doing research on your own. Why should we take your claims seriously?
Grant: Seriously do my actions make sense? Why have I stayed around and most of all why would I come here where I know this forum with all of its talented people are going to knock me down. I am no fool, although most here think I am. OK things are not moving at a rapid pace, but events have some people nervous and just maybe the impossible should be considered now as a possible chance.

And you have also yet to answer my previous 2 questions:

1) How is this considered science?

2) How does this help you prove your case?

[Grant]

In your paper you explain that the Moon's position in the sky is incorrect. From this thread you have bought up two possiblities. Firstly that the Moon has been moved into a new position and the Earth left alone. Secondly that the Earth's rotational axis has tilted slightly.

1) In an experiment I tried tonight, I aligned a go-to telescope (and tested that the alignment was successful) and then asked the telescope to point at the moon. If the telescope correctly aligned the moon in the centre eyepiece, would you consider it proof that the Moon has not moved position in space? If not, why not?

2) If we assume that the Earth has tilted, how would you explain that mine (and many other people's) go-to telescopes still align correctly? How would you explain that (without realignment over the course of several hours) the telescope used in the experiment above successfully followed the path of several objects across a sky (which you claim to have changed due to tilt)?

If you want to do some research check out the Sun and Moon rise positions by compass and compare them to established charts.

[BoredHugeKrill]

In your paper you explain that the Moon's position in the sky is incorrect. From this thread you have bought up two possiblities. Firstly that the Moon has been moved into a new position and the Earth left alone. Secondly that the Earth's rotational axis has tilted slightly.

1) In an experiment I tried tonight, I aligned a go-to telescope (and tested that the alignment was successful) and then asked the telescope to point at the moon. If the telescope correctly aligned the moon in the centre eyepiece, would you consider it proof that the Moon has not moved position in space? If not, why not?

2) If we assume that the Earth has tilted, how would you explain that mine (and many other people's) go-to telescopes still align correctly? How would you explain that (without realignment over the course of several hours) the telescope used in the experiment above successfully followed the path of several objects across a sky (which you claim to have changed due to tilt)?

If you want to do some research check out the Sun and Moon rise positions by compass and compare them to established charts.

why have you now moved on to the rise/set points of the Sun and Moon? This thread, which you started, was supposed to be about the Moon being low in the sky (or too high, as I believe you're now asserting). How about answering some of the questions on that, rather than changing the subject?

Regards
Krill

[Grant]

Grant,

You want us to do our own measurements. Tell you what, how about you post the method you used in taking your measurements (it has been asked a number of times on this thread and you still have not answered) and state whether you double checked your numbers, when you took your measurements. You seem to discount other peoples measurements/experiments, so how about you clearly explain your methodology in measuring the angle on Sept 22.

The tripod used to mount the measuring device was on level ground. First the distance between the legs were equalized and the equilateral triangle formed was measured for a center and marked. Then a plumb line and target weight was hung from the center of the tripod and the height of the legs was adjusted until the weight centered over the marked middle of the triangle assuring a level platform.

[Grant]

Did I, or did I not warn you people.... :)

Grant is a troll, plain and simple. It is remarkable, because he puts so much time and effort into it. I just don't see the upside, but whatever.

MolBasser

Patience Molbasser there is a light at the end of this tunnel.

[BoredHugeKrill]

Did I, or did I not warn you people.... :)

Grant is a troll, plain and simple. It is remarkable, because he puts so much time and effort into it. I just don't see the upside, but whatever.

MolBasser

Patience Molbasser there is a light at the end of this tunnel.

I see it too. However, I'm suspicious that it might turn out to be an oncoming train :wink:

Regards
Krill

[Grant]

I agree. Grant's behavior is troll-like. He has ignored questions, and answered others indifferently or incompletely. Interestingly, though, in this case we have a definite claim with definite predictions.

As I see it, if Grant is right, and the Moon is out of place, there can only be two possible explanations:

1) The Moon is physically in the wrong place.

2) The Earth's tilt has changed.

There are two trivial ways to test this:

1) If the Moon is in the wrong place in space, then the lunar eclipse on October 27th will not occur as predicted (see the Sky and Telescope article (http://skyandtelescope.com/observing/objects/eclipses/article_1340_1.asp) for more info).

Also, on the 13th there will be a solar eclipse for certain parts of the world, too. That has far more stringent location requirements. It's also in three days, so we need not wait that long. If the Moon is not in the right place, the solar eclipse will not happen as scheduled.

2) If the Earth's tilt has changed, then Polaris is no longer the pole star. By Grant's reckoning, it should be off by 30 degrees. This is easily testable. Instead of being near the pole all the time, Polaris should make a 30 degree circle in the sky over the course of 24 hours.

Grant, do you agree with these conclusions? I will once again remind you that this is not GLP. Wild claims need to be backed up.

No I do not agree with your conclusions. In the case with the eclipse several factors come into play. Lets look at what remains the same even in a halted orbit. First the procession of the nodes is not affected by the incoming anomaly; second the line between the Sun and Earth has not changed. Third now that the 12th planet has moved into the ecliptic the Earth has moved back into old ecliptic position instead of being pushed up. Now comes the tricky part the Moon moves out of place greatest when it has a 5 percent deviation to the ecliptic plane when at or near 0 degrees and variance in tilt will go unnoticed.

Question 2 Where do you get 30 degrees please explain?

[Grant]

why have you now moved on to the rise/set points of the Sun and Moon? This thread, which you started, was supposed to be about the Moon being low in the sky (or too high, as I believe you're now asserting). How about answering some of the questions on that, rather than changing the subject?

Regards
Krill

People are looking for proof and the quickest way to get their attention is a discrepancy even if its 5 degrees

[BoredHugeKrill]

I agree. Grant's behavior is troll-like. He has ignored questions, and answered others indifferently or incompletely. Interestingly, though, in this case we have a definite claim with definite predictions.

As I see it, if Grant is right, and the Moon is out of place, there can only be two possible explanations:

1) The Moon is physically in the wrong place.

2) The Earth's tilt has changed.

There are two trivial ways to test this:

1) If the Moon is in the wrong place in space, then the lunar eclipse on October 27th will not occur as predicted (see the Sky and Telescope article (http://skyandtelescope.com/observing/objects/eclipses/article_1340_1.asp) for more info).

Also, on the 13th there will be a solar eclipse for certain parts of the world, too. That has far more stringent location requirements. It's also in three days, so we need not wait that long. If the Moon is not in the right place, the solar eclipse will not happen as scheduled.

2) If the Earth's tilt has changed, then Polaris is no longer the pole star. By Grant's reckoning, it should be off by 30 degrees. This is easily testable. Instead of being near the pole all the time, Polaris should make a 30 degree circle in the sky over the course of 24 hours.

Grant, do you agree with these conclusions? I will once again remind you that this is not GLP. Wild claims need to be backed up.

No I do not agree with your conclusions. In the case with the eclipse several factors come into play. Lets look at what remains the same even in a halted orbit. First the procession of the nodes is not affected by the incoming anomaly; second the line between the Sun and Earth has not changed. Third now that the 12th planet has moved into the ecliptic the Earth has moved back into old ecliptic position instead of being pushed up. Now comes the tricky part the Moon moves out of place greatest when it has a 5 percent deviation to the ecliptic plane when at or near 0 degrees and variance in tilt will go unnoticed.

Question 2 Where do you get 30 degrees please explain?

uh oh. Are we back to this "halted orbit" hypothesis again? I thought we already demonstrated the fallacy of that one.

Just for reference, the planetary ephemeris I wrote to demonstrate why this cannot be so is still up on my website here:

http://www.boredhugekrill.com/ephemeris/index.htm

it shows the placement of the visible planets and the Sun against a star chart projected onto cartersian RA/Dec coordinates. You can animate the view by pressing the "play" button, or move the slider to any date you want.

Now check and uncheck the "Earth halted" checkbox to see what would happen if the Earth had indeed halted on the date specified in the date spinner box. Note particularly the location of the Sun, and what that implies about which stars should be on the meridian at midnight. You can use this to compare against observations. Guess which date you have to enter to see the stars as they are observed today?

By the way, I've added some new features. You can switch labels on and off (the "i" buttons on the left for each view) and zoom in and out of the two views independently. In the RA/Dec chart, you can click and drag to pan the view when zoomed in.

Regards
Krill

[BoredHugeKrill]

why have you now moved on to the rise/set points of the Sun and Moon? This thread, which you started, was supposed to be about the Moon being low in the sky (or too high, as I believe you're now asserting). How about answering some of the questions on that, rather than changing the subject?

Regards
Krill

People are looking for proof and the quickest way to get their attention is a discrepancy even if its 5 degrees

why is it only now the best method? You started this thread, remember? Now you can't decide whether the Moon is too low or too high, and you want to change the subject to talking about rise/set compass positions? Please stick to the subject that you selected yourself in the first place.

Regards
Krill

[NGR]

No I do not agree with your conclusions. In the case with the eclipse several factors come into play. Lets look at what remains the same even in a halted orbit. First the procession of the nodes is not affected by the incoming anomaly; second the line between the Sun and Earth has not changed. Third now that the 12th planet has moved into the ecliptic the Earth has moved back into old ecliptic position instead of being pushed up. Now comes the tricky part the Moon moves out of place greatest when it has a 5 percent deviation to the ecliptic plane when at or near 0 degrees and variance in tilt will go unnoticed.


This seems like nonsenes to me. Incidently how come the seasons proceed as usual if the earth has halted in its orbit.

[Kiwi]

Question 2 Where do you get 30 degrees please explain?

Sigh! How about your own statements, here (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=344922#344922):
I did not predict it at 18 degrees, low but not that low, again most will pass this off as an observation error with only 12 degrees between official numbers and mine.

Or here (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=344927#344927):
You and I know the difference between 18 and 30 degrees,the common would not even notice.

Eighteen plus 12 equalled 30 last time I checked.

Don't you even know what you have written previously?

[PhantomWolf]

No I do not agree with your conclusions. In the case with the eclipse several factors come into play. Lets look at what remains the same even in a halted orbit.
If the Earth had halted in its orbit there would be no possible way that the eclipse would occur. Why? Because the moon wouldn't be there, we wouldn't be able to see it. The moon is accelerating twice as fast towards the Sun as it is the Earth which means that if the Earth stopped, the moon -WOULDN'T- it would carry on in its own orbit about the sun. That this hasn't happened proves that the Earth has not stopped (part from all the other proofs that show it just as well but which Grant has never seemed to understand. By the way Grant, Why can't we see Orion during the night during the Northern Summer?)

If we go with the second idea, that the moon was stopped with the Earth, then we should not see a phase change as the moon would not move in respect to the Earth. Obviously this hasn't happened either.

The final thing that might possibly occur is for the laws of physics to suddenly be thrown away and for the Moon to suddenly be more attracted to the Earth than the Sun and then have a force applied to it that is not applied to the Earth so that it goes into a orbit that is exactly perfect to what it would have appeared as should both have continued on. I guess this is the one that the Zeta's and Grant go for. :roll:

[LTC8K6]

Just a reminder of a few more upcoming proofs that the moon is where it should be.

http://www.lunar-occultations.com/iota/2004planets/planets.htm

[latimer]

Hello,

I have little to add to what's being said; but I thought I might point out a few non-answer answers from Grant...

Grant wrote:

Jonathan, when the original claim was made you and others said the Moon was not low and one of your supporters stated it was 30 degrees in Wisconsin, but unknown to you until Krill pointed it out The Navy produced an angle of 18 degrees. Now I ask you did you measure, no you have just assumed because your goto scope tracks.

Yes. Since my telescopes only have their own unaltered databases to go on; and there is no way with 'the powers that be' to mess with them without breaking into my house; and since the scope itself has no way to adapt to unpredictably moving skies: one can only conclude that the telescope can ONLY track objects if said objects are precisely where they are predicted to be.

Which they are.

That is an observation that is in STARK contrast to your claims of Earth halting, or any astronomical object being out of its claimed position. If it WERE out of its claimed position, it would be IMPOSSIBLE for my telescopes to track them. QED.


This says it all when astronomical data coming fromthe government US Navy castes doubt on a position ignore it. They get their data from NASA.

Not at all, When I said it was unecesssary; it is just that: unecessary. You are erecting a strawman; as what the Navy says is irrelevant to the observations and information I have provided. The telescopes work, regardless of what the Navy webpage says or not. That they work belies the claim of unpredictable movement of the heavens. QED again.

Now, as for the *vast* majority of my post, which you seem to have ignored:

I recently took a lunar sighting off of an sixty-year old sextant; and, lo and behold, it is revealing my correct latitude. It would fail at this if the Moon were as little as a single degree, let alone thirty, out of place. Does that prove it to your satisfaction? Why not?

My friend, John, (who even posted later in this very thread!) has an old, old Astrolabe: Using the stars and Sun, it revealed he was standing exactly where he was, exactly as predicted by mundane science, using ancient Greek technology. Does that prove it to your satisfaction? Why not?

The tides continue to rise and fall precisely as predicted, even from old charts. Does that prove it to your satisfaction? Why not?

My Mariner's compass is deviating its usual 9 degrees from True North. It hasn't moved in nine years. Does that prove it to your satisfaction? Why not?


"I did not compute the fiquires for that date , how could I, I am too busy answering your questions."

Then, by all means, stop answering questions, and compute away. I would like to see specific, testable predictions from you; at least three, if you please.

For example: Please predict precisely where the Moon will rise, and how your prediction differs from how it should come up, according to mundane science. Describe a way to experimentally verify that you are correct; and how the mundane approach is wrong; and how one could measure or quantify your claim of error. Do it a couple of days in advance, so anyone can test your claim with their own equipment. Describe what mechanism could allow both you, and equipment designed only to measure mundane movement, to both be correct. If you cannot, the mundane equipment must fail, in order for you to be correct.

Deal? Or will you ignore this challenge, as well?

It will be a few days, but I will remain hopeful that upon my return, I may find complete answers to both my, and several others' questions above.

Thank you,

Jonathan
-It doesn't matter what I believe. What matters is what I can prove.-

[Kiwi]

Here's another moon observation at 7:57pm NZDST Monday 18 October 2004, other details as before:

Combination of eyeballing and handspan, fist and finger measurements:
48 degrees elevation
275 degrees azimuth

SkyMap figures:
48 degrees 14 minutes 9 seconds elevation
273 degrees 46 minutes 5 seconds azimuth

Grant seems to have qualms about me using such measurements. I'd say that when they prove to be well within the deviation he claims and within 1 degree 14 minutes of the predicted figure, then there isn't much of a problem.

It is my opinion that Grant isn't at all serious about the claims he has made on this thread -- he likes the attention and is just having "fun" spouting a lot of nonsense. Let's face it, if he was sincere he would give far better answers to the many questions he has been asked and he wouldn't have completely ignored some of them as he has.

[JFM]

I note there is NO real discussion about Grants claims, only arguments about how everyone else arrives at their conclusions!!!

This has happened tens of times at GLP, always the same folks involved.

I'm not sure who's dafter here, Grant or those that respond to his trolling. :roll:

Edit to add:

Sorry, I'm just a little grumpy having read yet another Grant thread. I know I'm making no sense! :evil:

[LTC8K6]

Well, when Grant keeps moving the goalposts, it's hard to score.

This does serve as a record of Grant's tactics, though.

It's not like the regulars here aren't aware of this, JFM.

My argument is usually that there are always new people reading up who might listen to Grant and others like him if we don't counter Grant's assertions.

[JFM]

Well, when Grant keeps moving the goalposts, it's hard to score.

This does serve as a record of Grant's tactics, though.

It's not like the regulars here aren't aware of this, JFM.

My argument is usually that there are always new people reading up who might listen to Grant and others like him if we don't counter Grant's assertions.



As I say, I'm just a little grumpy. Grant threads do that to me. Sorry #-o

[sts60]

Second you are measuring the Sun and the tilt is undergoing a wobble and this occurs as the Atlantic Ridge passes in front of the Sun.
1. What tilt is undergoing a "wobble"? The Eart's axial tilt?
2. If so, exactly what is the magnitude of the wobble, and its period? Hint: according to the above quote, there's only one answer.
3. If the Earth is "wobbling" as you seem to propose, no fixed telescope on Earth would track properly.. Many, many such telescopes exist both in professional and amateur observatories. Yet no such problems have occurred.
4. Such a daily wobble would throw off every geosynchronous satellite, not to mention screw up the GPS system, etc. However, there have been no such problems.

Third now that the 12th planet has moved into the ecliptic the Earth has moved back into old ecliptic position instead of being pushed up.
5. Where is this "12th planet", exactly? What are its coordinates and visual magnitude? How large is it? What's its composition? What are its orbital elements?
6. You seem to be claiming the Earth translated significantly perpendicular to its orbital plane, or that the inclination of the orbit itself changed temporarily. Which is it?
6a. If you're claiming the former, you can't just say it moved up but stayed in the same orbital inclination. That's unphysical for a central force like gravity. So, either way, the orbital inclination of the Earth would have to change. This also would render every fixed telescope on Earth useless - unable to track any star, planet, or the Sun.
6b. We'd also immediately notice that the sunrise and sunset times, etc., were wrong.
6c. Either would be an awfully energetic event. Where did all that energy go?
7. If this "12th planet" is big enough and close enough to push/pull the Earth around in such a fashion, why is the Moon still in orbit? Why is Mars still in its orbit? Why did Cassini arrive exactly as targeted at Saturn, or Genesis make it back to Earth?

Your assertions that the Earth has tilted, or moved up or down out of its orbital plane, or that its orbital plane has shifted, are falsified by the lack of any of the above consequences being observed.

[Grand Vizier]

Like everyone else, I am bored with posing questions that Grant is not going to answer (except with belittling rejoinders that are devoid of informational value.) Though I note with amusement that not only does he not address his implication that lunar anomalies only happen when it is daytime in Syracuse, NY, he manages to repost it in a quote. So are you really saying that orbital/rotational anomalies only happen during the day, Grant? Curses, I repeated a question...

Never mind. I think on a positive note, this scheme of Phantomwolf's (see below) is a great idea, which I will duly sign up for, weather permitting. Not for Grant's sake, but because I think it would be a good exercise. I'm now off to check the Met Office's prognosis and scour my desk drawers for an old protractor.

(Since Molesworth is in Edinburgh, perhaps the two of us could follow it up with a repeat of Eratosthenes' measurement of the Earth's diameter - next time there is fine daytime weather in both cities - April 2005 probably.)


How about we try a little experiment?

On the 20th-21th there will be the first quarter moon and so this will be an excellent time to test Grant's theory that it is to low. Everyone who is interested and has fine weather, can take a measurement at about 4-10pm local time and then post their recorded results how they achieved it, their absolute error, their longatude and latitude, and what the result for that place should be. We can then compare the recorded values and the expected values, and if we can get people from all about the planet we can nearly cover the full 24 hour period. I'm sure that Grant will even be able to join in.

Is that a fair experiment Grant? Would you be willing to accept the results of said experiment? Since with people all about the world there would be results from all the way during the US day and night that should cover any variations that might happen only at certain times.

So there you are, are you willing to accept this experiment and that it's results as fair, or is it another, not good enough result, just like everything else?

[...and noted that Grant has not accepted the experimental conditions. But let's do it anyway.]

[molesworth]

Since Molesworth is in Edinburgh, perhaps the two of us could follow it up with a repeat of Eratosthenes' measurement of the Earth's diameter - next time there is fine daytime weather in both cities - April 2005 probably.

I'm not in Edinburgh these days - I moved out into the country (to Perthshire) to get nice dark skies. It's great to be able to see the Milky Way from your garden :D

These kinds of practical experiments are always worth doing to keep in touch with the basics of astronomy. I think we get spoiled with all the high-tech toys we have these days, and a step back in time to using simple instruments can be enjoyable and educational.

If the skies ever do clear, we should try to organise to do this. What day is summer to be next year? :)

[Grand Vizier]

Since Molesworth is in Edinburgh, perhaps the two of us could follow it up with a repeat of Eratosthenes' measurement of the Earth's diameter - next time there is fine daytime weather in both cities - April 2005 probably.

I'm not in Edinburgh these days - I moved out into the country (to Perthshire) to get nice dark skies. It's great to be able to see the Milky Way from your garden :D


Oh, sorry. I thought I remembered that from a recent post - maybe was thinking about someone else. (Perthshire would add a bit more latitude for the Eratosthenes thing, though.) Agreed - I've always said that the one thing that might just, conceivably, maybe, get me to move out of London was to get back to proper night skies.



These kinds of practical experiments are always worth doing to keep in touch with the basics of astronomy. I think we get spoiled with all the high-tech toys we have these days, and a step back in time to using simple instruments can be enjoyable and educational.

If the skies ever do clear, we should try to organise to do this. What day is summer to be next year? :)

Heh. Summer. Don't even mention the concept. You'll jinx it.

Incidentally, the Met Office has the night of 20-21 as clear in London and in Perth. So maybe we're in luck on this one.

[BoredHugeKrill]

Heh. Summer. Don't even mention the concept. You'll jinx it.

Incidentally, the Met Office has the night of 20-21 as clear in London and in Perth. So maybe we're in luck on this one.

20-21st is predicted to be clear here too:

http://www.cleardarksky.com/c/PortORkey.html

fingers crossed...

Regards
Krill

[Grand Vizier]

Heh. Summer. Don't even mention the concept. You'll jinx it.

Incidentally, the Met Office has the night of 20-21 as clear in London and in Perth. So maybe we're in luck on this one.

20-21st is predicted to be clear here too:

http://www.cleardarksky.com/c/PortORkey.html


That Clear Sky Clock is cool. But is the seeing in Oregon really predictable to the hour like that? Here in London, I don't even fully trust the Met Office's low-resolution predictions - though they do get better all the time.

[BoredHugeKrill]

Heh. Summer. Don't even mention the concept. You'll jinx it.

Incidentally, the Met Office has the night of 20-21 as clear in London and in Perth. So maybe we're in luck on this one.

20-21st is predicted to be clear here too:

http://www.cleardarksky.com/c/PortORkey.html


That Clear Sky Clock is cool. But is the seeing in Oregon really predictable to the hour like that? Here in London, I don't even fully trust the Met Office's low-resolution predictions - though they do get better all the time.

I haven't really studied it to see how predictable is it and with what resolution... I tend to look at it as a predictor or roughly what to expect on any given day one or two days in advance. Hopefully it'll be right this time :-)

Regards
Krill

[Kiwi]

It's great to be able to see the Milky Way from your garden

Ah, but it's even better to be able to see the Milky Way, Omega Centauri, the LMC, the SMC and (previously) Supernova 1987A -- all naked-eye sights -- from your garden. Who needs a Pole Star -- even if it is now wobbling erratically around the North Celestial Pole -- when you've got sights like that?

[Pokes out tongue, ducks and runs.]



My argument is usually that there are always new people reading up who might listen to Grant and others like him if we don't counter Grant's assertions.

Yes, we may as well give up trying to convince Grant of anything because he's done the same to us by making silly statements and not backing them up with evidence. It's better to just counter his mental meanderings for the sake of the lurkers. I wonder if he realises what would happen if I did take "real" measurements -- that the greater accuracy would prove that his claims are completely false.

[Grant]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


I can't believe you all missed this.


The key to finding a quick answer is to observe the Moon in the daytime when the variations in tilt occur.

Exphasis added.

I nearly fell off my chair. Grant seems to have forgotten that no matter where you are on the planet, somewhere else is having night while you're having daytime, lol.

Like I don't know that , but my main audience is in the US plain and simple.

[Grant]

I don't have a camera that would let me take a long enough exposure to do that, but I did just do something similar (but for the first point, of the Moon being physically moved out of position). I just used night mode on my digital camera to take a picture East out the window. It's only a 4 second exposure but it was enough to make out Venus, the Moon, Regulus and Algieba. Next I loaded up a piece of software called Stellerium and performed a screen capture: http://img46.exs.cx/img46/7/Photo-Stellarium2.jpg

I then rotated the photograph slightly and scaled it uniformly so that Venus, Regulus and Algieba overlapped the Stellarium screengrab as best they can. A small animation fading between the two shows the results: http://img46.exs.cx/img46/8816/Photo-Stellarium2.gif (160kb).

Whilst it's not an accurate enough picture to prove that the Moon hasn't subtly moved position, it is sufficient to prove it hasn't moved off by 30 degrees that Grant claims.

Dummy I will excuse your mistake this time as an error. The Moon is not off by 30 degrees, but that number corresponds to its altitude. The differential is 12 degrees, 30 on my part, 18 on the US Navy’s part.

[Grant]

Aw, you guys had all the fun, and I missed it. Oh well, I guess I didn't miss much.

It's interesting to compare this debate with the other thread; once again, a large part of the disagreement comes from a difference in terminology. Grant isn't talking about an axis shift, he's talking about an orbital shift. The confusion comes from his use of [i]tilt[/b] to describe the phenomenon. This seems logical if you choose a frame of reference where the Earth's rotational axis is vertical; in such a frame, it's not the axis that's tilted, it's the orbital plane!
.

Now where did you get that, if the orbital plane tilted it would move all objects within the plane and if the tilt of the plane matched what occurs here naturally no one would be the wiser.

[Grant]

1) A change in the orbital period, or semimajor axis of the orbit. At first, this would go undetected. There is already some variation in where the Sun is at a given time of day (see below), but this would introduce a gradual drift until the changes became impossible to ignore. Night would literally become day, at least as the clocks would show it.

.

Smurf,
I give you credit for trying, but you have ignored basic astrophysics. The primary cause for the changes from day to night is the rotation of the Earth about its axis and this has not changed much. So your assumption of day to night is incorrect, but the anomaly of late and early sunrise and sunset times would be a factor, which is occurring now.

[Grant]

Whew! Just finished reading all 9 pages. What a busy weekend! That'll teach me to go away. :D


So Grant, please make a prediction from your calculations and specify how you want the measurements done. We should also specify the Moon's position from other source (you can use your Navy predictions if you want). Weather permitting, I'll make the measurement and then we can see if Old Luna is bouncing around the sky or following her usual course.

Sound fair?

We won't make predictions, but I will give a standard for measurements, and of course with consulting the forum first so that all are in agreement.

[Grant]

Hmmm... Where's Grant. It's been over a day and a half since his last post! 8)

I am busy, but I do show up here to answer your questions. Slow, but sure.

[Grant]

Hmmm... Where's Grant. It's been over a day and a half since his last post! 8)

Maybe the timing was right for him to leave (You know, since GLP is back?).

You would wish it was that easy GLP will be use only as a first option to release political & spiritual opinions, which are not allowed here.

[Grant]

Maybe he's fixing the myriad of mistakes at his "Due South" site.



Maksutov you did a good job

[Grant]

How productive of increased communications if he used the same terminology that astronomers (and a lot of the rest of us) use. One hallmark of a woowoo is the creation of a special codified language only understood by those "in the know".

However, the objective evidence still shows that the Earth's orbit describes the same ecliptical plane as it always has. One variable eliminated. That leaves tilt of the Earth's axis relative to the plane of the ecliptic. Objective evidence shows that hasn't changed either.

Unless the "change of tilt" was a short-term event, in which case, many other events would have evidenced their effects. If so, when did the "tilt" happen, and when did it return to normal?

Funny, all the folks who know the sky and have looked at it on an almost nightly basis (myself included, for the last 44 years) have not noticed anything out of place.

BTW, do you not find something intrinsically hilarious about a statement such as


The key to finding a quick answer is to observe the Moon in the daytime when the variations in tilt occur...

?

:roll:

Maks where have you been looking?

[Grant]

anyone still unsure of grant should go back to his ` due south ` paper and read the 1st paragraph of text

he now makes some quite [ IMHO ] snide swipes at this forum without having the grace to name it and goes on to misrepresent the views of posters , accussing them of back tracking



The swipes was direct at GLP, I do not like to promote websites.

[Grant]

Yes, we may as well give up trying to convince Grant of anything because he's done the same to us by making silly statements and not backing them up with evidence. It's better to just counter his mental meanderings for the sake of the lurkers. I wonder if he realises what would happen if I did take "real" measurements -- that the greater accuracy would prove that his claims are completely false.

That is what I like about most of you, you make assumptions and so smug about the results without taking a single measurement. At least I took 1 day worth of data, which is better than you. Do us a favor take the measurement and come back here and report and I will do the same?

[BoredHugeKrill]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


I can't believe you all missed this.


The key to finding a quick answer is to observe the Moon in the daytime when the variations in tilt occur.

Exphasis added.

I nearly fell off my chair. Grant seems to have forgotten that no matter where you are on the planet, somewhere else is having night while you're having daytime, lol.

Like I don't know that , but my main audience is in the US plain and simple.

do you want to take a vote?

Regards
Krill

[BoredHugeKrill]

I don't have a camera that would let me take a long enough exposure to do that, but I did just do something similar (but for the first point, of the Moon being physically moved out of position). I just used night mode on my digital camera to take a picture East out the window. It's only a 4 second exposure but it was enough to make out Venus, the Moon, Regulus and Algieba. Next I loaded up a piece of software called Stellerium and performed a screen capture: http://img46.exs.cx/img46/7/Photo-Stellarium2.jpg

I then rotated the photograph slightly and scaled it uniformly so that Venus, Regulus and Algieba overlapped the Stellarium screengrab as best they can. A small animation fading between the two shows the results: http://img46.exs.cx/img46/8816/Photo-Stellarium2.gif (160kb).

Whilst it's not an accurate enough picture to prove that the Moon hasn't subtly moved position, it is sufficient to prove it hasn't moved off by 30 degrees that Grant claims.

Dummy I will excuse your mistake this time as an error. The Moon is not off by 30 degrees, but that number corresponds to its altitude. The differential is 12 degrees, 30 on my part, 18 on the US Navy’s part.

You're completely ducking the issue. The photograph sequence shows clearly the Moon and stars relative to it to be in exactly the position calculated by the ephemeris program. Not off by 30 degrees, or 12 degrees, or any other number.

Regards
Krill

[Grant]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


I can't believe you all missed this.


The key to finding a quick answer is to observe the Moon in the daytime when the variations in tilt occur.

Exphasis added.

I nearly fell off my chair. Grant seems to have forgotten that no matter where you are on the planet, somewhere else is having night while you're having daytime, lol.

Like I don't know that , but my main audience is in the US plain and simple.

do you want to take a vote?

Regards
Krill

Krill,
The majority hits on Grant Chronicles is by far and away the US and I do appreciate the other countries.

[BoredHugeKrill]

Whew! Just finished reading all 9 pages. What a busy weekend! That'll teach me to go away. :D


So Grant, please make a prediction from your calculations and specify how you want the measurements done. We should also specify the Moon's position from other source (you can use your Navy predictions if you want). Weather permitting, I'll make the measurement and then we can see if Old Luna is bouncing around the sky or following her usual course.

Sound fair?

We won't make predictions, but I will give a standard for measurements, and of course with consulting the forum first so that all are in agreement.

ok, so you won't make predictions. How about I make a prediction (and anybody else who feels like it), and we all go out and check whether I'm correct. How about it?

Regards
Krill

[BoredHugeKrill]

Yes, we may as well give up trying to convince Grant of anything because he's done the same to us by making silly statements and not backing them up with evidence. It's better to just counter his mental meanderings for the sake of the lurkers. I wonder if he realises what would happen if I did take "real" measurements -- that the greater accuracy would prove that his claims are completely false.

That is what I like about most of you, you make assumptions and so smug about the results without taking a single measurement. At least I took 1 day worth of data, which is better than you. Do us a favor take the measurement and come back here and report and I will do the same?

no assumptions. Let's all make a prediction and go and measure it.

Regards
Krill

[BoredHugeKrill]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


I can't believe you all missed this.


The key to finding a quick answer is to observe the Moon in the daytime when the variations in tilt occur.

Exphasis added.

I nearly fell off my chair. Grant seems to have forgotten that no matter where you are on the planet, somewhere else is having night while you're having daytime, lol.

Like I don't know that , but my main audience is in the US plain and simple.

do you want to take a vote?

Regards
Krill

Krill,
The majority hits on Grant Chronicles is by far and away the US and I do appreciate the other countries.

The contributors to this discussion are not necessarily resident in the mainland US, however. I am, but Molesworth, Kiwi, PhantomWolf and Latimer aren't, as far as I know.

Regards
Krill

[BoredHugeKrill]

this might make it clearer (link to excellent animation by dummy):

http://img46.exs.cx/img46/8816/Photo-Stellarium2.gif

Regards
Krill

[R.A.F.]

You're completely ducking the issue. The photograph sequence shows clearly the Moon and stars relative to it to be in exactly the position calculated by the ephemeris program. Not off by 30 degrees, or 12 degrees, or any other number.

It's no use Krill...Grant can't hear you. Rationality and reason are lost on him.

[Grant]

We won't make predictions, but I will give a standard for measurements, and of course with consulting the forum first so that all are in agreement.

ok, so you won't make predictions. How about I make a prediction (and anybody else who feels like it), and we all go out and check whether I'm correct. How about it?

Regards
Krill[/quote]

Krill it is not about predictions, lets just concentrate on observing what you have on your plate. The future will be difficult and even test your deepest beliefs, just be prepared. by now you must realize that either I am on to something or just a plain nut, but I give too many details and that will increase shortly, so get ready.

[BoredHugeKrill]

We won't make predictions, but I will give a standard for measurements, and of course with consulting the forum first so that all are in agreement.

ok, so you won't make predictions. How about I make a prediction (and anybody else who feels like it), and we all go out and check whether I'm correct. How about it?

Regards
Krill

Krill it is not about predictions, lets just concentrate on observing what you have on your plate. The future will be difficult and even test your deepest beliefs, just be prepared. by now you must realize that either I am on to something or just a plain nut, but I give too many details and that will increase shortly, so get ready.

Well let's see shall we? If I make a prediction about the declination of the Moon for tomorrow night (weather reports say it should be clear then) will you state whether you expect it to be at that declination or not?

Following that, I'll go and make a measurement, weather permitting, using the setting circles on my telescope mount. Will that do?

Regards
Krill

[Grant]

Krill,
I am facing an almost impossible task, proving that something is wrong that will affect the Earth. Let's look at the facts an advanced civilization has the ability to cloak a planet, to those on Earth it is a laugh. The tilt of the Earth shows intermittent anomalies, but returns to what seems normal another lose situation. Yes there are storms at the extreme, but this can pass as the top of a cycle. You need to grasp the total picture, why are all events happening simultaneously. The changes on Earth will happen with an element of doubt as to not provoke fear in the population, where clear right and wrong choices will be made. I hope you make the right one.
Grant out

[Musashi]

So, you don't want to test Krill's method?

[BoredHugeKrill]

Krill,
I am facing an almost impossible task, proving that something is wrong that will affect the Earth.

yes, you are; the fact is that observational data do not concur with your hypothesis.


Let's look at the facts an advanced civilization has the ability to cloak a planet, to those on Earth it is a laugh.

got me there.



The tilt of the Earth shows intermittent anomalies, but returns to what seems normal another lose situation.

so you keep saying, but I have never seen such an anomaly, despite looking whenever the weather permits. The anomalies you claim to be happening are that the Earth's axis has tilted, the Earth has halted in its orbit and the Moon is out of place. None of those match things I can actually observe. Let's just take the tilted axis hypothesis:

The fact is that if the direction of celestial North had moved at any time relative to Polaris, I would most certainly have noticed, because my equatorial mount wouldn't work any more. Remember that I don't have a fancy GoTo scope, just a dumb lump of cast iron with a constant rate stepper motor. If what you say is true, how could that possibly have continued to work?

I think I've responded to the other two at length already; the conclusion is exactly the same in each case.


Yes there are storms at the extreme, but this can pass as the top of a cycle.

ok, no argument.


You need to grasp the total picture, why are all events happening simultaneously.

what events? The only ones you mention that actually match observations are hurricanes in Florida during a hurricane season, and even you admit that doesn't mean anything.



The changes on Earth will happen with an element of doubt as to not provoke fear in the population, where clear right and wrong choices will be made. I hope you make the right one.
Grant out

uh huh. Wasn't this thread supposed to be about observable data?

Regards
Krill

[BoredHugeKrill]

You're completely ducking the issue. The photograph sequence shows clearly the Moon and stars relative to it to be in exactly the position calculated by the ephemeris program. Not off by 30 degrees, or 12 degrees, or any other number.

It's no use Krill...Grant can't hear you. Rationality and reason are lost on him.

I hear you. But hey, at least Grant provides me with a remider to assume nothing and go and check theoretical predictions against actual observations. I guess on balance, I'll consider it to be a worthwhile exercise, however misguided the original premise...

Regards
Krill

[Ravenwood]

Ok, here's an incredibly simple and cheap device to build to measure the altitude of the moon.

http://www.exploratorium.edu/math_explorer/howHigh_makeInclino.html

Of course, you could substitute a store bought protractor for the printed one (the one on page has a resolution of only 5°).

Tom

That's pretty much what I've made, although I used a piece of card with a hole at the eye end and a cocktail stick at the other to make a "sight". the rolled up tube of paper's even better, so I'll probably modify mine to use that as well. My protractor is a plastic one with 1 degree divisions, and when I used it before was giving measurements to within a couple of degrees. the biggest problem is wind moving the thread, even with a resonably heavy weight.

(Probably no need to take a photo of it then, since I can just say it's as shown on that site :) )
here are the instructions & pictures from the guy who taught me how to make the quadrant I used to take the measurements to compare againt Latimer's GOTO scope. Have fun guys & gals, they are pretty easy to build & no "software" for the NWO to corrupt... :wink:
edited to add the link: http://www.humboldt.edu/~rap1/EarlySciInstSite/Instruments/Quadrant/ESI.Quad.htm

[Bender]

I am coming to this furball late, but a question does come to mind:

Grant, how much "tilt" is required before a GOTO scope will not properly point at the object commanded?

No weasel words, how many degrees?

[Mellow]

Bender,

Grant is convinced that any amount of tilt is irrelevant because all night objects are still in their proper place relative to each other, so GOTO scopes will keep working.

(Sorry if I've paraphrased incorrectly Grant)

I think it shows a misunderstanding of how GOTO's work. IIRC you need to check around page 4 for that bit of the discussion.

BTW, do you know how Flexo and Angeline are getting on?

[AstroSmurf]

So much for trying to read Grant's mind, I guess. Actually, there scenarios I described would work just the way I said, but since they don't match what he's suggesting I'd call the whole thing irrelevant. One thing caught my eye, though (my emphasis):


1) A change in the orbital period, or semimajor axis of the orbit. At first, this would go undetected. There is already some variation in where the Sun is at a given time of day (see below), but this would introduce a gradual drift until the changes became impossible to ignore. Night would literally become day, at least as the clocks would show it.
I give you credit for trying, but you have ignored basic astrophysics. The primary cause for the changes from day to night is the rotation of the Earth about its axis and this has not changed much. So your assumption of day to night is incorrect, but the anomaly of late and early sunrise and sunset times would be a factor, which is occurring now.
'much'? 8-[ I doubt Grant knows just how sensitive the ways we measure time with are. Get this: We add a few leap seconds every century to compensate for the slowing of the Earth's rotation, and every time we do, it ends up in the morning papers. Trying to tinker with that behind the scenes would be nigh impossible.

The changes in sunrise/sunset times would seem more likely to indicate a change in obliquity/eccentricity, as far as I am concerned. If there were any changes, that is. :wink:

[PhantomWolf]

Reading 1

Time: Tue 2004 Oct 19 8:10 UTC
Latitude: 39°S
Longitude: 174°E

Altitude Reading 47±3°
Compass Bearing: 269±2°
Azimult Bearing: 89±2°

[Edited: Originally I had 79° but obviously this was a mistake in my maths. 269° - 180° = 89° not 79°]


Moon's Position according to Yoursky (http://www.fourmilab.ch/cgi-bin/uncgi/Yoursky):

Altitude: 48.556°
Azimult: 90.234°


[edited to add]

I ws going to do a second reading, but it's clouded over so it'll have to wait. Also here is a cruddy picture of the gear I used.

http://lokishammer.dragon-rider.org/images/Gear.gif
Fig 1: Simple altitude meter using protractor and sighting tube with a plumbline to create the angle and a compass.

[Bender]

Mellow,

Flexo and Angeline are getting along well, thank you, they just had their first offspring, a bouncing baby torque wrench... :lol:

On a MUCH more serious note, I wonder what would happen if the tilt was some large number, say 180 degrees. How could a GOTO work then?

But I strongly suspect you are correct, Grant is a bit unclear on how they work, or is just trying to wind people up, in which case he seems to do it quite well... 8)

[Bender]

Mellow,

Flexo and Angeline are getting along well, thank you, they just had their first offspring, a bouncing baby torque wrench... :lol:

On a MUCH more serious note, I wonder what would happen if the tilt was some large number, say 180 degrees. How could a GOTO work then?

But I strongly suspect you are correct, Grant is a bit unclear on how they work, or is just trying to wind people up, in which case he seems to do it quite well... 8)

[Meteora]

The primary cause for the changes from day to night is the rotation of the Earth about its axis and this has not changed much. So your assumption of day to night is incorrect, but the anomaly of late and early sunrise and sunset times would be a factor, which is occurring now.

Are you saying sunrise and sunset times are different than normal? (They're not, by the way - and this is by way of direct observation.)


That is what I like about most of you, you make assumptions and so smug about the results without taking a single measurement. At least I took 1 day worth of data, which is better than you. Do us a favor take the measurement and come back here and report and I will do the same?

:roll: Several of us did take measurements - albeit with varying degrees of precision.


by now you must realize that either I am on to something or just a plain nut, ....

I vote for the latter.


Yes there are storms at the extreme, but this can pass as the top of a cycle. You need to grasp the total picture, why are all events happening simultaneously.

It's not a cycle. Storm quantities do not usually demonstrate cyclical values. They just spike some years and not others. Weather in general is within normal operating parameters.

I'm sure this response will go into the Grant Bit Bucket (TM) just like virtually all the others we've provided. I'm really tired of this. :x

"Meteora out."

[PhantomWolf]

Grant. You claim that this "tilt" happens when the Atlantic Ridge is pointing at PX. Now you also claim that PX is near the sun, so we can say that the "tilt" would occur when the sun was pretty much directly over the Ridge. Now I work out that the Ridge is around 2-3 hours from GMT so that means that the sun would "cross" the trench at about 3-4pm GMT. Would you agree? This means that is I do a star reading about about 4:30am NZDT then the sun would be over the Ridge. So if I take a star siting at that time, it should show up as incorrect to what is predicted?

I'm quite happy to take a reading and post the results. Will you accept them if they prove all is normal and that the stars are where they are meant to be?

[Grand Vizier]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


I can't believe you all missed this.


The key to finding a quick answer is to observe the Moon in the daytime when the variations in tilt occur.

Exphasis added.

I nearly fell off my chair. Grant seems to have forgotten that no matter where you are on the planet, somewhere else is having night while you're having daytime, lol.

Like I don't know that , but my main audience is in the US plain and simple.

Well, your posts are descending into full-on trollery, Grant. I don't have the time for most of them. But I can't let you off the hook on this one.

Firstly it is irrelevant who you say your 'main audience' are, Grant- a fair few people on this thread are not from the US, like myself. And since we are asking you to address the questions posed on this thread, (which you have singularly failed to do), your 'main audience' here is not simply in the US.

But there's a deeper point than that with your 'daytime' suggestions. You are still implying that the anomalies only occur when it is daylight in the US - or even in New York state. Will you confirm that this is what you are saying? If that is not what you are saying, what was the point of the comment above? Are you perhaps implying that the anomalies are only ever visible from the US or just NY state?

[Kiwi]

That is what I like about most of you, you make assumptions and so smug about the results without taking a single measurement. At least I took 1 day worth of data, which is better than you. Do us a favor take the measurement and come back here and report and I will do the same?

Grant: Do you understand anything at all? It is perfectly obvious that you don't understand many of the issues or questions in this thread, hence your inability or unwillingness to give proper, full answers.

You say that I am "so smug… without taking a single measurement." And "At least I took 1 day worth of data, which is better than you."

Oh, really, sir?

In this post:
http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=345392#345392
I gave you a measurement for
1:55 pm, Sunday 10 October 2004 (New Zealand Daylight Saving Time, 13 hours ahead of UT).

In this post:
http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=348998#348998
I gave you another measurement for
11:55 am, Sunday 17 October 2004 (New Zealand Daylight Saving Time, 13 hours ahead of UT).

And in this post:
http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=349333#349333
I gave you another measurement for
7:57pm, Monday 18 October 2004 (New Zealand Daylight Saving Time, 13 hours ahead of UT).

Please correct me if I am mistaken, but I make that three measurements taken in the only way I could at the only times I could over seven days. Had I the ability I would have done better and more often, but as already explained I am an invalid and our weather has been very poor. I also make that out to be somewhat better than the one day's measurements you have provided. I have come back here and reported that I saw nothing amiss. THREE TIMES. Where are your three measurements?

Furthermore, you have expressed dissatisfaction at my measurements but not replied to my enquiry as to what exactly will satisfy you. Nor have you replied to others who have similarly enquired. You're evasive and vague about what measurements should be taken and how. We have the protractor ideas for elevation – what exactly do you recommend for measuring distances between stars and planets? What about azimuths?

I don't at all believe that you are sincere. Can you actually tell us that you are?

I expect an apology for your groundless insult.

[Fixed typos]

[Kiwi]

Time: Tue 2004 Oct 19 8:10 UTC
Latitude: 39°S
Longitude: 174°E

Altitude Reading 47±3°
Compass Bearing: 269±2°
Azimult Bearing: 89±2°

Well done, sir.

My version of SkyMap, for those coordinates (in the sea off New Plymouth :D), gave:
Altitude: 47° 57' 6"
Azimuth: 270° 12' 14"

Can't see anything wrong there, Grant. Can you? Very similar to my hand measurements.

[BoredHugeKrill]

completely overcast right now, looks like it will probably continue tonight. I'll look for a break in the next few nights and report if I can make a measurement

Regards
Krill

[Grand Vizier]

completely overcast right now, looks like it will probably continue tonight. I'll look for a break in the next few nights and report if I can make a measurement

Regards
Krill

100% cloud cover in London too, but that's just what the Met Office predicted for tonight. May not be around to try it on Thursday night early evening, but might be able to try it out late night. If can't will have a go on first available clear night.

[trebob]

Here's my 2 cents....

Time: 8:10pm eastern time
Latitude: 38° North
Longitude: 84° West
Method used: hand span and magnetic compass

Measured position of the Moon
Azimuth: 200°
Altitude: 20°

WinStars says:
Azimuth: 199° 34'
Altitude: 20° 43'

Skymap says:
Azimuth: 199° 33'
Altitude: 20° 43'

Nothing out of place here.

[PhantomWolf]

Reading 2

Local Time - 3:30pm
UT - 2:30am

Altitude Reading - 48±3°
Compass Bearing - 89±2° E
Converting to Azimult - 269±2°

According to Skyviewcafe (http://www.skyviewcafe.com/skyview.php) (Yah it's back!)

Alt - 48°14'34"
Azimult - 268°31'54"

[Meteora]

Storm quantities do not usually demonstrate cyclical values.

#-o

No one caught this? ...Or did you all know what I meant? :D

What I should have said:


Storm quantities do not usually demonstrate cyclical values from year to year.

Obviously, they do have daily and annual cycles.

[PhantomWolf]

Reading 3

Local Time - 10:40pm
UT - 9:40am

Altitude Reading - 39±3°
Compass Bearing - 94±2° W
Converting to Azimult - 86±2°

According to Skyviewcafe (http://www.skyviewcafe.com/skyview.php)

Alt - 42°09'07"
Azimult - 87°28'21"

[edited to add] Since I can't stay up late tonight (busy day tomorrow) I'll take some more moon positions tomorrow as I can and then some star positions Friday morning about 4-4:30am.Weather Permitting.

[Meteora]

Altitude Reading - 39±3°
.
.
.
According to Skyviewcafe (http://www.skyviewcafe.com/skyview.php)

Alt - 42°09'07"

:o

39 + 3 = 42. The Skyviewcafe number is 9 minutes and 7 seconds outside the error bars!!! We're DOOMED!!!!!!

Um....

Sorry....

:-#

[PhantomWolf]

Altitude Reading - 39±3°
.
.
.
According to Skyviewcafe (http://www.skyviewcafe.com/skyview.php)

Alt - 42°09'07"

:o

39 + 3 = 42. The Skyviewcafe number is 9 minutes and 7 seconds outside the error bars!!! We're DOOMED!!!!!!

Um....

Sorry....

:-#

hehe. Well when you consider that my error is fairly arbatory really. The marks are 5° apart, the protactor probably isn't exactly level, the cross hair is hard to see in the dark against a bright moon and I'm having to hope that I get the string locked onto position in the right place, so ±3° is probably being rather generous on my part. I actually took three readings which I would guess were 38°, 40° and 39° so I averaged them to 39°. I would say that it's a lot easiler to use in the daylight and even easier to read when someone else is holding it. ;)

[mickal555]

Hello,

I've Just read all 15 pages arghhhhhh




It's great to be able to see the Milky Way from your garden

Ah, but it's even better to be able to see the Milky Way, Omega Centauri, the LMC, the SMC and (previously) Supernova 1987A -- all naked-eye sights -- from your garden. Who needs a Pole Star -- even if it is now wobbling erratically around the North Celestial Pole -- when you've got sights like that?

[Pokes out tongue, ducks and runs.]



What about 47 tuc, is it naked eye? its very nice anyway.



What I don't get is why the earth axis will change

Plus why mesure the moon i'm sick of the moon why not any old star

edited to add
what exactly douse GLP do exactly what type of forem is it?

[PhantomWolf]

Hello,
Welcome (yeh even Ausies are welcome here. ;))



I've Just read all 15 pages arghhhhhh
Poor you...


What about 47 tuc, is it naked eye? its very nice anyway.

NGC 104 (47 Tucanae) is visible to the naked eye and is one of my favourite views. :)


What I don't get is why the earth axis will change

Grant claims that the magnetic field of PX attracts the magnetic Atlantic Ridge and tips the planet, or something strange like that.


Plus why mesure the moon i'm sick of the moon why not any old star
Yeh well......


edited to add
what exactly douse GLP do exactly what type of forem is it?
GLP = Godlikeproductions. It's a...... alternative (universe?) forum for those that aren't totally connected with reality.

[mickal555]

Thanks,
Sorry i'm a bit behind I don't think I was taking in much i read, I actully reread 2 pages until i relised i've all ready read them. :oops:





What I don't get is why the earth axis will change

Grant claims that the magnetic field of PX attracts the magnetic Atlantic Ridge and tips the planet, or something strange like that.



Ohhhhh Ok then... 8-[ wasn't planet x some thing, that was supposed to come round in nov 2001 or somthing

[Kaptain K]

GLP = Godlikeproductions. It's a...... alternative (universe?) forum for those that aren't totally connected with reality
It's also very entertaining! :roll:

[russ_watters]

I admire your tenacity, guys - I never would have gotten past trying to explain a go-to scope to him, since they are an order of magnitude (or 3?) more precise than hand measurements. I find it incredible that you'd go so far as to do hand measurements to prove this guy wrong (yeah, I know its not that hard).

Since I didn't read the whole thread though, did anyone post an altitude reading from a go-to scope?

[molesworth]

So much for the weather forecasts - it's overcast and drizzling here, so no observations tonight I'm afraid :(

Do you think Grant's going to come back and discuss these anyway?

[trebob]

So much for the weather forecasts - it's overcast and drizzling here, so no observations tonight I'm afraid :(

Do you think Grant's going to come back and discuss these anyway?

I'm sure he'll be back.

Will he restate his disproven claims and tell us we are wrong anyway.... maybe.

Will he change his story and say manual measurements aren't good enough.... maybe.

Will he actually discuss the observations made.... not likely.

[Celestial Mechanic]

I have a feeling he'll be attempting to convince us that the moon is too low in the sky. What is interesting is that no one seems to notice when it is high, only low even though it goes from one to the other over the period of one orbit.

Originally when these claims started it was the full moon that was too low, now it is the first quarter phase. What's funny is that anyone that follows the moon would know that in the Northern Hemisphere during Summer the Full Moon is very low and the New Moon high, that in the spring and Fall they are have moved towards the mid points and the first and last quarter moons are low and high and in winter they switch as the full moon is high and the new moon low. It's pretty basic astronomy, along the lines of celestial rotation, so simple that most of us don't think about it, but a lot of people don't understand it and so when it's brought to their attention, they see something they can't explain and so it's "unusual."


We are also at that part of the 18.6 year cycle in the revolution of the nodes where the extremes of declination are the greatest, that is, where the Moon ranges between over 28.5 degrees north to 28.5 degrees south declination. Thus, our full moons this summer were low, as low as they can be, and we will not see them this low until 2022-3. And as PhantomWolf pointed out, the first quarter moons are now very low, etc.

In this thread, Celestial Mechanic avers the above and makes further predictions:
For the next few months, through January, the full moon will be high for observers in the Northern Hemisphere.
The full moon will be seen rising a little more northerly than usual.
For our Southern Hemisphere observers, they will see the full moon very low.
Likewise, the full moon will be seen rising a little more northerly than usual.
All of this is perfectly normal. All decent ephemerides, astronomy software, and automated telescopes (such as GoTo) correctly predict this. Return your undergarments to the untwisted position! You are free to move about the planet!

[Maksutov]

So much for the weather forecasts - it's overcast and drizzling here, so no observations tonight I'm afraid :(

Do you think Grant's going to come back and discuss these anyway?

I'm sure he'll be back.

Will he restate his disproven claims and tell us we are wrong anyway.... maybe.

Will he change his story and say manual measurements aren't good enough.... maybe.

Will he actually discuss the observations made.... not likely.

Those look like some pretty definite "maybes"! :wink:

BTW, I'm all done with "Grant", since his posts and (still) error-ridden website turned out to be those of just another run-of-the-mill HB.

But the observation stuff here is interesting. What is the exact parameter for the time of the observation, local sunset? Or something else?

[Kiwi]

Last night I watched the sunset. The sun disappeared below a distant low sandhill which was about one-third of a degree above the sea horizon.

Details of location and time:
40 degrees 18 minutes south
175 degrees 14 minutes east
Five metres above sea level
Wednesday 20 October 2004
New Zealand Daylight Saving Time, 13 hours ahead of UT

Measurements:
Sun set behind low sandhill: 7:43:40 pm
Azimuth: 254+/- 3 degrees

SkyMap gave:
Set: 7:44:26
Azimuth: 255 degrees 27 minutes 55 seconds

Again, nothing obviously wrong considering that the time of visual sunset can be affected by atmospheric conditions.

**********

At 1:30am today, Thursday 21 October, I noticed that the moon appeared to be the same distance from both Pi Sagittarri and Zeta Sagittarri. Sky Map gave separations as follows:

Moon to Pi Sagittarri: 7 degrees 34 minutes
Moon to Zeta Sagittarri: 7 degrees 41 minutes

Yet again, if the earth's or the moon's orbits have changed, how could the moon appear in the same place as predicted over four years ago?

You comments, Grant?

[Kiwi]

No one caught this? ...Or did you all know what I meant?

Well, I do recall a slight "Huh?" occurring when I read that, but I carried on with no further thought about it because it was one heck of a lot less confusing than the things Grant has said.

[PhantomWolf]

Reading 4

Local Time - 2:17pm
UT - 11:17pm

Altitude Reading - 21±3°
Compass Bearing - 104±2° W
Converting to Azimult - 284±2°

According to Skyviewcafe (http://www.skyviewcafe.com/skyview.php)

Alt - 22°13'57"
Azimult - 284°40'21"

Since it's cloudy now I can't do another currently. I did find out that ccording to Skyviewcafe the sun is over the Atlantic Ridge at 2:10am local time not 4:30am so I'll hope it has cleared and I can get a star reading off Alnilam in Orion's Belt and another moon reading. (hoping for the clouds to clear. ;))

You know I am starting to sense a pattern. ;)

[Kiwi]

PhantomWolf, are you still rowing out into the Tasman nearly 7km northwest from the end of the breakwater to take your readings? :D

Best to state the date as well and relate it to UT (which you've done), because the date and time shown for the post will vary for viewers depending on their location and individual settings.

This applies for all those making observations because of the many time zones BABBers live in.


Local Time - 2:17pm
UT - 11:17pm

:o UT - 1:17am 21 October 2004?

[Ut]

All the best things are related to me ;)

Be sure to pop in after the eclipse, Grant. I'm lookind forward to a story :)

[PhantomWolf]

PhantomWolf, are you still rowing out into the Tasman nearly 7km northwest from the end of the breakwater to take your readings? :D

Hehe, well at lest that is sea level. ;)

Actually I use the right Long and Lat of 174°04' and 39°03' for getting the info off the net. ;) The difference isn't enough to affect anything considering my measurement error levels though


Best to state the date as well and relate it to UT (which you've done), because the date and time shown for the post will vary for viewers depending on their location and individual settings.

I thought everyone knew that we were first in the world so it is Thurday here when it's Wednesday there. ;)

[Kiwi]

I thought everyone knew that we were first in the world so it is Thurday here when it's Wednesday there. ;)

:o On Deimos?

[mickal555]

My family thinks I have flipped totally, but I don't care, the way I see it I'm performing a service to humanity. I may not even own a telescope, but I can type 60 wpm.
So here goes. And I think we're definitely pushing the envelope here for pHpBB. :D

*******************

GN: Well, originally you were saying that the Planet X would be here on May 15th and a few weeks ago you corrected that by saying it's probably closer now to June first. Are you still sticking with that date?

Nancy: Absolutely, and actually, um, it has always been shortly after May 15th, 2003, and you should be in your safe location by May 15th 2003. When we got close to this date, we, uh--clarification was requested. They have always stated that rotation will be stopped for a week, and that when that happens, there will be so much stress in the crust, and so much confusion in the public, that it will be difficult to travel, uh, and, and, in fact travel may be blocked, so therefore assume that week of rotation stoppage after May 15th. They've recently come out with a statement not after June 1st will the pole shift occur. They are not giving a specific date in that two week period because the Indonesian government, the U.S. military, I mean the U.S. government, would use this to harm the populace and prevent them from leaving many large cities along the coast or where damage could be done because they wish to see the underclass and, um, and, and, what is considered undesireables by them, killed.



So isn't planet x old hat?

[PhantomWolf]

So isn't planet x old hat?
You'd think that wouldn't you. ;)

[Kesh]

So isn't planet x old hat?

We wish. Nancy and others have kept PX alive past date after date.

[mickal555]

:o :o :o :o :o

How? what? did it just decide to turn invisable and virtual or, or somthing

How can you do that. What did she say when it did't turn up

[PhantomWolf]

:o :o :o :o :o

How? what? did it just decide to turn invisable and virtual or, or somthing

How can you do that. What did she say when it did't turn upApparent there was a party at the sun and it was invited, so it decided to hang out there a while. ;)

Apparently the 15th of May 2003 date was a Zeta white lie to confuse "The powers that be." Yeah the same Powers that be that already know all about PX and are hiding it (yet they can't figure out when it'll arrive?) At least Grant's version is a modicum less insane (though only just.)

[mickal555]

:o :o :o :o :o

How? what? did it just decide to turn invisable and virtual or, or somthing

How can you do that. What did she say when it did't turn upApparent there was a party at the sun and it was invited, so it decided to hang out there a while. ;)

Apparently the 15th of May 2003 date was a Zeta white lie to confuse "The powers that be." Yeah the same Powers that be that already know all about PX and are hiding it (yet they can't figure out when it'll arrive?) At least Grant's version is a modicum less insane (though only just.)

ahhhh..... ok then
good thing you put that winking emoticon otherwise I'd have a hard job figuring out whether it was a joke or not.

[Kaptain K]

IIRC, according to Grant and Nancy, Planet X snuck in from behind the Sun and below the ecliptic. When PX got between the Sun and Earth last December :o the Earth stopped dead in its orbit and we've been doing the "PX Tango" ever since!

Dang, now I'm going to have to go wash my hands. Just typing that makes me feel soiled! :-?

[PhantomWolf]

Well after posting 4 sets of data that all confirm the same thing, and I'm hoping for some more that will just prove it all I think that this thread is really done.

Interestingly Grant's claims have changed quite a bit about what occurred on the 22nd September.

At first in a thread on GLP he claimed that the moon was too low, that it was just above the tree line and that it stayed low as it travelled along. As the thread proceeded he was asked where it should have been, he never really answered. Several of us pointed out that it should have been at a max of 18° so it was low, and was meant to be. This proved that the moon should have been where Grant initially claimed it was. You think that would be the end of it right? Well, nope.

So where did the 30° come from? Well one poster, CircuitBreaker said that he had seen the moon quite high, about 50° so he thought IIRC. This is an easy mistake to make as I have found over the past few nights. The moon might -look- to be at round 70° but it's really only abut 45°. Now CB lives in Florida so one would expect it to be higher than in NY, however, his guess caused a problem when another poster pointed put he was wrong and that the moon was only 30° max (Skyviewcafe puts it at about 33°.) CB did say that he'd guessed but this has still lead to these problems.

Unfortunately this thread has been lost because of GLP going down, but I am sure others that were there can confirm these events (and have in this thread.)

So, on to this thread.

Now in this thread Grant's initial claim was that the moon should have been at its peak height on the 22nd September, but wasn't, that it was at 18°. He also claims, incorrectly, that the debunkers argued it was supposed to be higher (again I'll note that CB did say it was higher, but this was for Florida.) This was then proved incorrect and Grant's mistake (which way the Earth orbits bout the Sun) was pointed out. Again most people would have quit here, the mistake was found and things lined up. Yeah right….

Here Grant latches onto the 30° measurement only he now claims that this was taken in Wisconsin (Isn't Nancy in Wisconsin?) It is unfortunate that this thread is gone because this would have shown that this figure was posted in reference to Florida and CB's mistake, not to the Moon seen in Wisconsin.

However things get weirder (yeah they can.)

Later still Grant now claims that -HE- saw the Moon at 30° on the 22nd September. Now since that Altitude is higher then the 18° it was supposed to be, surely the Moon would have been to HIGH, not too low as Grant has been claiming in both his posts. He also changes his story from it being just above the trees to having measured it with a viewing scope and level. See where is starting to not make much sense?

Can it get stranger? Well yeah it could, and does. You see Grant goes on to claim that the 12° difference was because the Earth had tilted on its axis which it does when the Atlantic Ridge points at PX. Of course PX is in front of the sun so basically whenever the sun is above the Atlantic Ridge there is an axis tilt.

So….. When did Grant take his tilted moon view? Well the highest point for the moon, it would have been 7:15pm EST. It would have risen at a little after 3pm. Unfortunately for Grant, the sun would already have been out over the Pacific at this time. It had passed over the Atlantic Ridge at about 9:30am a whole five and a half hours before the moon was visible and would not cross it again until 9:30am the next day a little less than nine hours after the moon had once more set.

This brings up the major question. How could Grant have possible seen a change in the moon's altitude caused by a tilt in the Earth axis when PX was over the Atlantic Trench when the moon wasn't visible from Syracuse NY at that time and wasn't for another FIVE hours????

I guess these and many other questions will remain unanswered, but to me it provides a final proof that Grant is merely making things up as he goes along.

[mickal555]

Well I think he's gone now

[Kiwi]

Thanks for that, PhantomWolf. About 24 hours ago I was thinking I should ask if someone could tell me what Grant is on about. It seems, from one of his petulant responses,

Is it? No You expect details, how did I measure, did I have a back up, what scope, what angle, what time. Yes your example had details on location, but to use your fist to approximate an angle. I don’t think so and then Grand backs it as if it was fact, no. If you are to question everything I say, I have the right to question your approach where sight and a fist was used to come to a conclusion not a direct measurement. Second you are measuring the Sun and the tilt is undergoing a wobble and this occurs as the Atlantic Ridge passes in front of the Sun. If you are to pick up an anomaly adjust your observation during that time period.
that he thinks we shouldn't query him about his beliefs and observations even though this is a scientific forum, and the fact that he has completely ignored questions certainly grates, so I thought that I should ask someone else.

Perhaps you read my mind. Perhaps the Zetas caused you to do that. (Perhaps not. :))

Grant actually mentioned spiritual values, which I believe I have too, but I get a strong feeling that it's all just a lark to him -- a big joke. He certainly doesn't act as if he's genuine. His comments about me

That is what I like about most of you, you make assumptions and so smug about the results without taking a single measurement. At least I took 1 day worth of data, which is better than you. Do us a favor take the measurement and come back here and report and I will do the same?
seemed rather hypocritical and/or ignorant when I'd already given more measurements than Grant or anyone else.

Edited to add:
In the first quote above, is Grant telling me I should take observations of the sun as it passes over the Atlantic Ridge? From here in New Zealand? Yeah, right! No trouble, Grant!

[PhantomWolf]

Reading 5

Location
Latitude - 39°03'S
Longitude - 174°04'E

Local Time - 2:08am 22/10/04
UT - 11:08am

Moon

Altitude Reading - 11±3°
Compass Bearing - 108±2° W
Converting to Azimuth - 72±2°

According to Skyviewcafe (http://www.skyviewcafe.com/skyview.php)

Alt - 13°05'56"
Azimuth - 70°40'50"

Reading 6

Local Time - 2:14am 22/10/04
UT - 11:14am

Alnilam (Middle Star of Orion's Belt)

Altitude Reading - 35±3°
Compass Bearing - 54±2° E
Converting to Azimuth - 234±2°

According to Skyviewcafe (http://www.skyviewcafe.com/skyview.php)

Alt - 36°45'56"
Azimuth - 235°06'27"

Both of these readings were taken during the time that Grant claims there would be a tilt, when the sun was directly over the Atlantic Ridge. That they are both within the measuremental error shows that there is no tilt (especially not one of 10°+.) This has been confirmed using both the Moon and a star, thus one at a vast distance and one closer.

I have presented 6 sets of data taken in both daylight and at night over various times all of which confirm that the Moon is exactly where it is predicted to be. I have done this as scientifically as possible using the equipment I have, which is pretty basic and only once have the results been outside of the very strict error I set for it. Considering that the altitude scope I used should probably have a greater error than just ±3°

I submit to the board my data and conclude that this shows unequivocally that Grant's hypothesis has indeed been totally and utterly falsified.

[Grand Vizier]

I submit to the board my data and conclude that this shows unequivocally that Grant's hypothesis has indeed been totally and utterly falsified.

This member of the board concurs.

You know, if you're going to phrase things this way, then we really need a Chairman of the Board to finally rap the old gavel on the table when all the votes are in, and say something in a solemn voice like:


The board finds that the evidence presented in favour of the alleged lunar anomalies constitutes little more than hearsay and surmise, is inconsistent - not to say self-contradictory - and is unsupported by repeated measurements made by a number of investigators from several disparate locations, using a variety of techniques with varying degrees of precision, some dependent on modern technology, some not.

We therefore consider the claims made by the appellant conclusively falsified.

In the absence of any substantive reasons for proceeding, we feel compelled to advise that further investigations of the alleged phenomenon by the members of this board are likely to prove profitless.

Something like that, anyway... Still going to do the bit with the protractor, though. But looks like it'll have to be the weekend. Bizzy...

[sts60]

Not to mention that Grant's claimed cause for the alleged anomaly - whatever version he settles on, that is - is a demonstrably nonexistent, unphysical, figment of the imagination (the so-called "Planet X" pinballing around the inner solar system).

No physical basis for the claim.
No clear observational evidence for the claim.
Multiple observational and practical lines of evidence directly contradicting the claim.

No amount of handwaving can rescue this one. I wouldn't bother taking the decision to the appellate court...

[Grand Vizier]

Not to mention that Grant's claimed cause for the alleged anomaly - whatever version he settles on, that is - is a demonstrably nonexistent, unphysical, figment of the imagination (the so-called "Planet X" pinballing around the inner solar system).

No physical basis for the claim.
No clear observational evidence for the claim.
Multiple observational and practical lines of evidence directly contradicting the claim.


Quite right, but I think it amused everyone to temporarily ignore known physical principles and proceed with purely observational refutation. And very thorough it was. It has been pointed out, rightly, that the very fact that Go To scopes work just fine shoots Grant's arguments down from word one. But he doesn't seem to understand that, so people have employed a variety of other methods, to which he has offered no coherent rejoinder.



No amount of handwaving can rescue this one. I wouldn't bother taking the decision to the appellate court...

I was kind of designating BABB as the Board of Higher Appeal here. You can guess who I would consider the lower court. A consensus judgement seems to have been found against Grant's case there too. :)

But naturally BABB is not actually the paramount review board. He could always write a Letter to Nature, for example... :wink:

[JFM]

Whispers:


AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHH H!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Grant]

I am sorry have not been around, but I am working on a revision of the gravity & repulsion paper astro09.htm to be released here first and then several hours later GLP. All responses will be taken here only on BABB. I will answer several pages of questions tomorrow evening EST. Also I am happy that some of are taking manual measurements, no matter what is the result of your post.
Grant out

[mickal555]

Michael in 8-[

grant,
Have you read all 16 pages up to here? can you please? because its anoying for you to have "ansered" posts that were made a long time ago. Can you just say that you have, because i am confused :-?


Michael out 8-[

[Kiwi]

It shouldn't affect the observations, but in the interest of complete accuracy:


Reading 2
Local Time - 3:30pm
UT - 2:30am

Reading 3
Local Time - 10:40pm
UT - 9:40am

Correct

But:

Reading 4
Local Time - 2:17pm
UT - 11:17pm 1:17am

Reading 5
Local Time - 2:08am 22/10/04
UT - 11:08am 1:08pm 21/10/04

Reading 6
Local Time - 2:14am 22/10/04
UT - 11:14am 1:14pm 21/10/04

[PhantomWolf]

Time zones always mess me up. :)

[Parrothead]

I am sorry have not been around, but I am working on a revision of the gravity & repulsion paper astro09.htm to be released here first and then several hours later GLP. All responses will be taken here only on BABB. I will answer several pages of questions tomorrow evening EST. Also I am happy that some of are taking manual measurements, no matter what is the result of your post.
Grant out

Surely you mean EDT, not EST. We don't switch back to standard time until the weekend of Oct 30-31. :wink:

[Grant]

Michael in 8-[

grant,
Have you read all 16 pages up to here? can you please? because its anoying for you to have "ansered" posts that were made a long time ago. Can you just say that you have, because i am confused :-?


Michael out 8-[

I have not, but I will make an attempt

[Grand Vizier]

Have you read all 16 pages up to here? can you please? because its anoying for you to have "ansered" posts that were made a long time ago. Can you just say that you have, because i am confused :-?


Mickal, you are offering him an apparent out here. [-X Some of us would quite like him to answer posts made a long time ago, which he has signally failed to do. So it is hardly acceptable for Grant to simply say that he has answered them, because posters on this thread know that he hasn't.

The simple answer to your confusion is that Grant has provided no substantive answers, theories, or properly documented and repeatable observations whatsoever. :)

[Edited to add smileys to take the bad-tempered edge off]

[Grant]

I still dispute Grant's account of the GLP discussion, though. Specifically:

I don't remember anybody asserting that Grant's observation was wrong or that the Moon was not predicted to be low at that time. Rather, he was challenged several times to state what he thought the predicted maximum altitude to be.

I don't remember anybody other than Grant digging up the US Navy as a reference. The reference provided by several people (including me) initially was skyviewcafe. Later on, in response to a request from Grant to show how that was calculated, I found a web page with a Moon ephemeris coded in JavaScript so that one could see the procedure used buried in the page source.

This part is, I think, quite relevant:


evidence that the Moon should have a maximum height of 18 degrees above horizon at 180 degrees east of north or due south thus agreeing with I first reported as normal, but is it?


this seems to agree that his own observation concurs with the 18.7 degrees predicted, but suggests that the ephemeris has been doctored somehow.

What makes this important is that if you take the rest of Grant's reasoning on that page, but fix for the incorrect direction of rotation, you get a predicted altitude at his location of 19.5 degrees plus or minus a few degrees.

Cool 8)

Regards
Krill

Krill,
At the start of the GLP threads you refused to even believe the Moon was low until you presented the US Navy site.

[Grant]

As I noted earlier, the Moon is making greater excursions north and south. Nothing to get one's undergarments bunched up over. Time to move on. I'm looking forward to this month's lunar eclipse, which I expect to be at the same Bat Time and same Bat Place as predicted!


At least you admit it.

[Grant]

This board has responded to your questions. Now you must respond to ours.

The low tech response was a hand measurement, hardly worth the hype you are presenting.

[Grant]

I don't remember anybody other than Grant digging up the US Navy as a reference. The reference provided by several people (including me) initially was skyviewcafe.
Heh, I agree. Grant is pretty much the only one that uses "government" site for his data. Most of those I know use Skyviewcafe, and why not, it's an excellent site. :)

I really wonder why you are now discounting the official government sites backed by NASA?

[Grant]

I was just wondering (consider this an astronomy for dummies question):
if the axis of the Earth would really be tilted by 12 degrees or so (and I don't believe it is :D ), wouldn't one of the easiest ways this was noticed be for people above the Arctic circle (or below the Antarctic of course). Some one expects 15 minutes of 'day' (sunrise to sunset) and gets nothing at all, or vice versa? The same effect of longer/shorter days should happen verywhere on the Earth, but it's a bit harder to spot for the non-trained eye (a 12 hour day or a 12.15 hour day isn't that big a difference).
Please don't mock me if this is ridiculous, I'm just trying to imagine what would happen if the axis tilted, and it seemed to me the length of the day (or the night) changing would be the most obvious thing...

Francis

This is true and there have reports coming from Alaska of late sunsets.

[R.A.F.]

...I'm just trying to imagine what would happen if the axis tilted, and it seemed to me the length of the day (or the night) changing would be the most obvious thing...

This is true and there have reports coming from Alaska of late sunsets.

...And just WHO is reporting these "late sunsets"???

[BoredHugeKrill]

I still dispute Grant's account of the GLP discussion, though. Specifically:

I don't remember anybody asserting that Grant's observation was wrong or that the Moon was not predicted to be low at that time. Rather, he was challenged several times to state what he thought the predicted maximum altitude to be.

I don't remember anybody other than Grant digging up the US Navy as a reference. The reference provided by several people (including me) initially was skyviewcafe. Later on, in response to a request from Grant to show how that was calculated, I found a web page with a Moon ephemeris coded in JavaScript so that one could see the procedure used buried in the page source.

This part is, I think, quite relevant:


evidence that the Moon should have a maximum height of 18 degrees above horizon at 180 degrees east of north or due south thus agreeing with I first reported as normal, but is it?


this seems to agree that his own observation concurs with the 18.7 degrees predicted, but suggests that the ephemeris has been doctored somehow.

What makes this important is that if you take the rest of Grant's reasoning on that page, but fix for the incorrect direction of rotation, you get a predicted altitude at his location of 19.5 degrees plus or minus a few degrees.

Cool 8)

Regards
Krill

Krill,
At the start of the GLP threads you refused to even believe the Moon was low until you presented the US Navy site.

not true, Grant. I never disputed your observation. I instead asked several times where you thought it *should* be, which you declined to answer at the time. Further, I did not cite the US Navy. As far as I remember, you were the first person to raise that source. I referred to skyviewcafe.com as a source when, in response to my request to identify where you expected the Moon to be, you turned it back to me and asked me to provide details

Regards
Krill

[BoredHugeKrill]

I don't remember anybody other than Grant digging up the US Navy as a reference. The reference provided by several people (including me) initially was skyviewcafe.
Heh, I agree. Grant is pretty much the only one that uses "government" site for his data. Most of those I know use Skyviewcafe, and why not, it's an excellent site. :)

I really wonder why you are now discounting the official government sites backed by NASA?

as I've stated several times before, nobody is "discounting" the US Navy. Rather, you're the person who mentioned them first. As I've also stated, the Navy is presumably using the exact same ephemeris as everybody else, so you'd kinf of expect their predictions to concur with everybody else (they do, as far as I can tell)

Regards
Krill

[BoredHugeKrill]

This board has responded to your questions. Now you must respond to ours.

The low tech response was a hand measurement, hardly worth the hype you are presenting.

?????

several people did hand span measurements only because you demanded it, having rejected observations using instruments designed to make such measurements. As such, the point you quote is well made; you insisted on hand span measurements, so people made them. It is hardly unreasonable to ask that you now answer questions, since others have acceded to the demands that you set

Regards
Krill

[Grant]

"...now conditions in the world have not gone in your favor, because Florida is a cakewalk to what is coming. Do you remember you saying the storms are normal a year ago and having said that you want to retract your statement?

I am sorry, but you are incorrect again. I have carefully maintained that I am not a meteorologist; and thus cannot comment intelligently or knowledgeably about the storms in Florida; any more than I could about various seismographs that were presented as evidence of something-or-another some time ago. You claim that it is a 'cakewalk' for what is coming, yet provide no specifics to prove that you are correct; and thus can apply 20-20 hindsight to the problem; and to any natural disaster that occurs.

I, on the other hand, have always maintained that I don't know enough about weather to say one way or another; and that you'd best raise the argument with someone else. I have seen no evidence, other than my own untrained eye, to know one way or the other. Do the hurricanes seem unusual to me? Sure! But so does the fact that flies can walk on my ceiling. And there is a huge gap remaining between any weather claims, and any claims of anomolous movement of the heavens.

Thus: there is no statement for me to retract. I will leave it for you to argue with those who have studied meteorology,....


Okay, this was four pages ago, but....

Just so you'll know - this year was forecast to be a busy year for North Atlantic hurricanes. It was, but the only thing truly unusual was that four hurricanes happened to cross some part of Florida. (Bad) Luck of the draw, plain and simple. That's a geographical issue, not a meteorological one. (And, coincidentally, my degree is in geography and I'm a meteorologist.) The actual number of hurricanes and tropical storms so far is high, but not extreme.

In fact, in early August, the (USA) Climate Prediction Center said:


The outlook calls for 12-15 tropical storms, with 6-8 becoming hurricanes, and 2-4 of these becoming major hurricanes.

(Reference: http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/outlooks/hurricane.html)

So far, I think we've had 14 named storms, and the season is winding down.

Really,
Why don’t you mention that the outlook was scaled back in August? This year set a record for tornadoes, this year set a record for the number of typhoons to hit Japan, This year tied the record for the most category 3+ plus storms in the Atlantic basin.

[BoredHugeKrill]

As I noted earlier, the Moon is making greater excursions north and south. Nothing to get one's undergarments bunched up over. Time to move on. I'm looking forward to this month's lunar eclipse, which I expect to be at the same Bat Time and same Bat Place as predicted!


At least you admit it.

I think you are either misunderstanding or misrepresenting the statement. As previously stated (by me and probably others) the Moon exhibits the greatest variation in declination between first and last quarter at the time of the equinoxes. This is the "excursion" mentioned - it wasn't meant to imply a departure from normal behavior, rather that such a span in deviation is in fact normal behavior

Regards
Krill

[Grant]

Hello,

This post is designed, a bit, to be the 'last word;' that if Grant doesn't answer the points and questions contained herein, it should serve well as a epitaph to this particular thread. I hope it succeeds in this rather daunting task.

Grant wrote:

I said I don't have time to make constant observations, but that does not discount my 30-degree observation.

Unfortunately: yes, it does. You claim a thirty degree unpredicted motion in the Moon. And yet, when the tools designed to measure such movements very precisely are employed, no such anomalous movement can be detected. No other astronomer notices this amazing movement. How do you explain this?

Which is it, Grant? Is the movement subtle, or is it thirty degrees? Again, those claims seem to be mutually exclusive; particularly when using equipment designed to measure such things to single degrees, and some even to fractions thereof.



Jonathan, when the original claim was made you and others said the Moon was not low and one of your supporters stated it was 30 degrees in Wisconsin, but unknown to you until Krill pointed it out The Navy produced an angle of 18 degrees. Now I ask you did you measure, no you have just assumed because your goto scope tracks.

Grant,
firstly, you did not state your observation as being a 30 degree altitude. Your report was that the Moon was "just above the trees" and agree in your referenced web page that this is consistent with the 18.7 degree prediction. Your premise was that the Moon was "too low" according to predictions, and indeed, that is reflected in your chosen title for this thread. Now you are saying that the measured altitude was 30 degrees (that is, it is too *high* relative to prediction) and citing some other anonymous and unreferenced source (whose location we do not know) and appear to be adopting that observation as your own. Exactly what is it that you are stating as recorded observation here? Is the Moon too low or too high?

Secondly, I have never referenced the Naval observatory as you state. My initial reference was the ephemerides at skyviewcafe.com, and when you requested details of the calculations, I provided another reference to a web page including a javascript Moon ephemeris, for which you could look at the source code

Regards
Krill

Krill you were too busy denying the Moon was low and agreeing with CB the Moon was high.

[BoredHugeKrill]

Hello,

This post is designed, a bit, to be the 'last word;' that if Grant doesn't answer the points and questions contained herein, it should serve well as a epitaph to this particular thread. I hope it succeeds in this rather daunting task.

Grant wrote:

I said I don't have time to make constant observations, but that does not discount my 30-degree observation.

Unfortunately: yes, it does. You claim a thirty degree unpredicted motion in the Moon. And yet, when the tools designed to measure such movements very precisely are employed, no such anomalous movement can be detected. No other astronomer notices this amazing movement. How do you explain this?

Which is it, Grant? Is the movement subtle, or is it thirty degrees? Again, those claims seem to be mutually exclusive; particularly when using equipment designed to measure such things to single degrees, and some even to fractions thereof.



Jonathan, when the original claim was made you and others said the Moon was not low and one of your supporters stated it was 30 degrees in Wisconsin, but unknown to you until Krill pointed it out The Navy produced an angle of 18 degrees. Now I ask you did you measure, no you have just assumed because your goto scope tracks.

Grant,
firstly, you did not state your observation as being a 30 degree altitude. Your report was that the Moon was "just above the trees" and agree in your referenced web page that this is consistent with the 18.7 degree prediction. Your premise was that the Moon was "too low" according to predictions, and indeed, that is reflected in your chosen title for this thread. Now you are saying that the measured altitude was 30 degrees (that is, it is too *high* relative to prediction) and citing some other anonymous and unreferenced source (whose location we do not know) and appear to be adopting that observation as your own. Exactly what is it that you are stating as recorded observation here? Is the Moon too low or too high?

Secondly, I have never referenced the Naval observatory as you state. My initial reference was the ephemerides at skyviewcafe.com, and when you requested details of the calculations, I provided another reference to a web page including a javascript Moon ephemeris, for which you could look at the source code

Regards
Krill

Krill you were too busy denying the Moon was low and agreeing with CB the Moon was high.

no, Grant, I said no such thing. See above. My statements at the time were perfectly clear.

I replied to somebody else claiming to be in Florida reporting the Moon being at 30 degrees with an indication that that would be expected at their latitude. I stand by that statement.

Regards
Krill

[Grant]

Hello,

This post is designed, a bit, to be the 'last word;' that if Grant doesn't answer the points and questions contained herein, it should serve well as a epitaph to this particular thread. I hope it succeeds in this rather daunting task.

Grant wrote:

I said I don't have time to make constant observations, but that does not discount my 30-degree observation.

Unfortunately: yes, it does. You claim a thirty degree unpredicted motion in the Moon. And yet, when the tools designed to measure such movements very precisely are employed, no such anomalous movement can be detected. No other astronomer notices this amazing movement. How do you explain this?

Which is it, Grant? Is the movement subtle, or is it thirty degrees? Again, those claims seem to be mutually exclusive; particularly when using equipment designed to measure such things to single degrees, and some even to fractions thereof.



Jonathan, when the original claim was made you and others said the Moon was not low and one of your supporters stated it was 30 degrees in Wisconsin, but unknown to you until Krill pointed it out The Navy produced an angle of 18 degrees. Now I ask you did you measure, no you have just assumed because your goto scope tracks.

Would the angle in your back yard in an urban environment be 30 degrees if the trees are within a 100 feet?

[mickal555]

Have you read all 16 pages up to here? can you please? because its anoying for you to have "ansered" posts that were made a long time ago. Can you just say that you have, because i am confused :-?


Mickal, you are offering him an apparent out here. [-X Some of us would quite like him to answer posts made a long time ago, which he has signally failed to do. So it is hardly acceptable for Grant to simply say that he has answered them, because posters on this thread know that he hasn't.

The simple answer to your confusion is that Grant has provided no substantive answers, theories, or properly documented and repeatable observations whatsoever. :)

[Edited to add smileys to take the bad-tempered edge off]

I am very sorry [hangs head in shame]

I still intended him to anser old posts but just continue to read the new ones to listen to our replys and our updates because he may say somone has not made an obsevation. But they have later on but still several days before todays date.

[Grant]

[
Also, the US Navy is not the body most would consider "the authority" for maintaining UT. Try here:


The stats come from NASA since when are you discounting their data?

[Grant]

Also, since I don't have a GoTo scope, how about I make a measurement using the setting rings on my GEM? Would that count as a "manual measurement"?
Regards
Krill

No Krill use a standard manual measurement, remember the days of the slide ruler? No I don't think so.

[BoredHugeKrill]

[
Also, the US Navy is not the body most would consider "the authority" for maintaining UT. Try here:


The stats come from NASA since when are you discounting their data?

I'm not "discounting" their data - but they are not the authoratative source. They calculate it the same way as everybody else. I also cited the authoratative reference for UT.

Regards
Krill

[Parrothead]

I was just wondering (consider this an astronomy for dummies question):
if the axis of the Earth would really be tilted by 12 degrees or so (and I don't believe it is :D ), wouldn't one of the easiest ways this was noticed be for people above the Arctic circle (or below the Antarctic of course). Some one expects 15 minutes of 'day' (sunrise to sunset) and gets nothing at all, or vice versa? The same effect of longer/shorter days should happen verywhere on the Earth, but it's a bit harder to spot for the non-trained eye (a 12 hour day or a 12.15 hour day isn't that big a difference).
Please don't mock me if this is ridiculous, I'm just trying to imagine what would happen if the axis tilted, and it seemed to me the length of the day (or the night) changing would be the most obvious thing...

Francis

This is true and there have reports coming from Alaska of late sunsets.

Grant: What reports? Where, care to provide a link, to such reports? You still have failed to show any proof that there were measurements showing a discrepancy in the first place. Could it not be that your measurements were flawed to start with? Others have made rough measurements, which are more accurate than yours. Have you made any other measurements since the ones you write about? I know you won't accept this either, but for what it's worth, by stepping back in time (to the night, time and location) of your measurements using Starry Night Pro, the info given at the USNO site stands up well. You don't like "low tech" measurements (your words), you discount GoTo technology. Well, I print star charts using SNP (including printing before travelling some distance), I use an 8-inch LX10 (it's not computerized) and all works well and everything is where it should be. Oh, I live in 43N latitude range too. I'd gladly give you some manual measurements, but it has been rather overcast as of late. I do have a feeling, no matter what we do, you would find it unacceptable. It would still be nice to see any calculations you actually made. Did you think the moon was in the wrong place before measuring or did you make measurements and then compare (if so, why didn't you make other measurements)? Is there any chance of you admitting, that your conclusions (moon at 30 degrees) are wrong or flawed? When the lunar eclipse occurs next week, will the moon have mysteriously moved back to it's proper location (according to your measurements)?

[Grant]

Grant, other posters in this thread have done manual measurements, even using ancient techniques. Why doe those measurements not satisfy you?
No one did measurements here except KIWI and hand approximations don't count.

[BoredHugeKrill]

Grant, other posters in this thread have done manual measurements, even using ancient techniques. Why doe those measurements not satisfy you?
No one did measurements here except KIWI and hand approximations don't count.

excuse me, but what exactly would count? Kiwi submitted hand measurements precisely because you've rejected everything else.

Regards
Krill

[Grant]

You still are missing the point. I have done the research. I do it at least every week in front of others, and will be agian tomorrow night at a local star party. Many others here have done so as well. Our only excuse is that all the observed evidence indicates that all is where it should be in the night sky, yet you continue to ignore this, which leads me back to the questions that I have already asked you several times:

You come in here making it clear for all to see that you are now posting on badastronomy.com, say that the moon is not where it should be, state that checking will only prove you right, brush off all evidence and ideas that could prove your theory wrong, then admit you have done little or no field research. 2 Questions.

1) How is this considered science?

2) How does this help you prove your case?

In addition:



You are repeating yourself

[BoredHugeKrill]

Also, since I don't have a GoTo scope, how about I make a measurement using the setting rings on my GEM? Would that count as a "manual measurement"?
Regards
Krill

No Krill use a standard manual measurement, remember the days of the slide ruler? No I don't think so.

let me get this straight:

a GoTo telescope won't do.
a telescope mounted on a non-computerized mount won't do either.
but... hand measurements won't do either, because they're "not accurate enough"

so what the hell is a "manual measurement"?

incidentally, I do remember slide rules, and yes I can use one - but I've modernized and now use an RPN calculator

Regards
Krill

[Grant]

"I am Meteora, supreme goddess of weather" - Meteora, The Unchained Goddess

One nice thing about being a meteorologist who also likes astronomy is that the sky is always interesting!

Meteora find a new interest.

[R.A.F.]

Grant: What reports? Where, care to provide a link, to such reports?

I asked the same question....I'm still waiting for an answer...

[Celestial Mechanic]

As I noted earlier, the Moon is making greater excursions north and south. Nothing to get one's undergarments bunched up over. Time to move on. I'm looking forward to this month's lunar eclipse, which I expect to be at the same Bat Time and same Bat Place as predicted!
At least you admit it.
Yes, I admit it, but perhaps I have been remiss in not adding that we will reach the maximum excursions and then they will decrease again, reaching a minimum in nine years.

The Sun's apparent path against the background stars, the ecliptic, is inclined at an angle of 23.5 degrees to the equator. The Sun rises and sets at its most northerly point at the June equinox and at its most southerly point at the December equinox.

The orbit of the Moon is inclined at an angle of about 5 degrees to the ecliptic (there is some small periodic variation about this value). The apparent path of the Moon rotates once every 18.6 years. This causes the inclination of the Moon's path with respect to the equator to vary between 18.5 and 28.5 degrees. We are approaching the time of the maximum inclination of the Moon's orbit. In nine years, it will be at its minimum, and so on.

The builders of Stonehenge were aware of this. There are markers for the most northerly and southerly sunrises, sunsets, moonrises, and moonsets.

Be sure to enjoy next week's lunar eclipse (weather permitting). Don't worry, it will be at the time and place predicted many years ago in the ephemerides.

[BoredHugeKrill]

"I am Meteora, supreme goddess of weather" - Meteora, The Unchained Goddess

One nice thing about being a meteorologist who also likes astronomy is that the sky is always interesting!

Meteora find a new interest.

polite suggestion: cut the insults and stick to content

Regards
Krill

[R.A.F.]

"I am Meteora, supreme goddess of weather" - Meteora, The Unchained Goddess

One nice thing about being a meteorologist who also likes astronomy is that the sky is always interesting!

Meteora find a new interest.


Grant, is there a reason why you posted this?? I'm in agreement with Krill...stick to the subject...

[Grant]

You have already admitted that you have done little or no field research.
Don't tell other people what the results will be when you have not done the test yourself.

OK you have a point; I will take time to do more research, because unless I do it you will not. I will discuss the measuring techniques up front so as to eliminate your excuses, consider it done.

Can't consider it done, because you haven't demonstrated you have done anything of note. And you have no cause to use that tone with dummy, who has posted observations made in the course of this thread even, while you've offered almost nothing.

I agree with others there seems little point to this thread. But (Columbo-mode), I hate to go without leaving questions:



What did you use to make this observation?
Sighting scope in a level field
Where were you at the time, Latitude and Longitude?
Observations were made between 7:30 and 10 pm 09/22/04 EST
What was the exact time?
What calculations did you use to deterimine the angle?
Trig and direct measure
What did you compare said angle with t determine if it was out?
Done


1. A 'sighting scope'? Which of these kinds of sighting scope did you mean?:

Sighting scopes (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=sighting+scope&btnG=Google+Search)

As you can see, a sighting scope is generally a sight for a weapon, though it can refer to the optics for a theodolite. And did you use a stand of some sort, or was it hand-held?

2. What is this about:? 'Where were you at the time, Latitude and Longitude? Observations were made between 7:30 and 10 pm 09/22/04 EST'.

You were asked for your latitude and longitude, not timing, though the latter is not unwelcome and is asked in the next question.

3. 'What calculations did you use to deterimine the angle?
Trig and direct measure'

That is insufficiently detailed. Can you present your calculations, please?

4. 'What did you compare said angle with t determine if it was out?
Done'

What does that mean? You were asked what you had compared it with. 'Done' is no kind of answer. Was that just miscomprehension or an attempt at evasion?

(Marks homework 2/10, throws it to floor and stamps on it.)

Finally:


Take the time to measure the altitude of the Moon during daylight hours in the US and post your results here.


Let's have this clarified. Are you saying that this anomaly will only show in observations taken from the USA, and that it will only show in daylight? If that is not what you are saying here, what are you saying?

[edited to include last point - it was in the original, but I lost it somehow.]


3. 'What calculations did you use to deterimine the angle?
Trig and direct measure'

That is insufficiently detailed. Can you present your calculations, please?

What is wrong with you Grand, you now want to explain trig functions like sine, cosine and tangent grow up or go back school.

[Grand Vizier]

Grant, other posters in this thread have done manual measurements, even using ancient techniques. Why doe those measurements not satisfy you?
No one did measurements here except KIWI and hand approximations don't count.
Kiwi, trebob, Phantomwolf and dummy have all placed observations on this thread (If I've left anyone out, sorry). Phantomwolf added a picture of the apparatus he was using - dummy even made observations in a short gap between postings. (Have you read this thread at all?)

You, on the other hand, Grant, have offered nothing but one vaguely handwaved suggestion that the Moon may have been too high or maybe too low, (depending on how your wording can be interpreted) on one specific day of the year and nothing else but a continual stream of insinuations and innuendoes, which some might interpret as coming from one who is a troll.

[Grant]

You have made a start, but use real measurements instead of your hands and then com e back with the results.
HUH! :o When people show results of measurements using instruments, you asked for manual measurements. Now somebody makes a manual measurement and you say that it's not good enough!

You can't have it both ways!

It is not good enough to hand measurements.

[BoredHugeKrill]

You have already admitted that you have done little or no field research.
Don't tell other people what the results will be when you have not done the test yourself.

OK you have a point; I will take time to do more research, because unless I do it you will not. I will discuss the measuring techniques up front so as to eliminate your excuses, consider it done.

Can't consider it done, because you haven't demonstrated you have done anything of note. And you have no cause to use that tone with dummy, who has posted observations made in the course of this thread even, while you've offered almost nothing.

I agree with others there seems little point to this thread. But (Columbo-mode), I hate to go without leaving questions:



What did you use to make this observation?
Sighting scope in a level field
Where were you at the time, Latitude and Longitude?
Observations were made between 7:30 and 10 pm 09/22/04 EST
What was the exact time?
What calculations did you use to deterimine the angle?
Trig and direct measure
What did you compare said angle with t determine if it was out?
Done


1. A 'sighting scope'? Which of these kinds of sighting scope did you mean?:

Sighting scopes (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=sighting+scope&btnG=Google+Search)

As you can see, a sighting scope is generally a sight for a weapon, though it can refer to the optics for a theodolite. And did you use a stand of some sort, or was it hand-held?

2. What is this about:? 'Where were you at the time, Latitude and Longitude? Observations were made between 7:30 and 10 pm 09/22/04 EST'.

You were asked for your latitude and longitude, not timing, though the latter is not unwelcome and is asked in the next question.

3. 'What calculations did you use to deterimine the angle?
Trig and direct measure'

That is insufficiently detailed. Can you present your calculations, please?

4. 'What did you compare said angle with t determine if it was out?
Done'

What does that mean? You were asked what you had compared it with. 'Done' is no kind of answer. Was that just miscomprehension or an attempt at evasion?

(Marks homework 2/10, throws it to floor and stamps on it.)

Finally:


Take the time to measure the altitude of the Moon during daylight hours in the US and post your results here.


Let's have this clarified. Are you saying that this anomaly will only show in observations taken from the USA, and that it will only show in daylight? If that is not what you are saying here, what are you saying?

[edited to include last point - it was in the original, but I lost it somehow.]


3. 'What calculations did you use to deterimine the angle?
Trig and direct measure'

That is insufficiently detailed. Can you present your calculations, please?

What is wrong with you Grand, you now want to explain trig functions like sine, cosine and tangent grow up or go back school.

Grant,
I think we all know what trig functions are. The question wasn't what they are, but how you utilized trigonometry in this specific instance in arriving at your result.

Regards
Krill

[Grant]

How about we try a little experiment?

On the 20th-21th there will be the first quarter moon and so this will be an excellent time to test Grant's theory that it is to low. Everyone who is interested and has fine weather, can take a measurement at about 4-10pm local time and then post their recorded results how they achieved it, their absolute error, their longatude and latitude, and what the result for that place should be. We can then compare the recorded values and the expected values, and if we can get people from all about the planet we can nearly cover the full 24 hour period. I'm sure that Grant will even be able to join in.

Is that a fair experiment Grant? Would you be willing to accept the results of said experiment? Since with people all about the world there would be results from all the way during the US day and night that should cover any variations that might happen only at certain times.

So there you are, are you willing to accept this experiment and that it's results as fair, or is it another, not good enough result, just like everything else?

Yes it is a start, but the experiment must be carried out over several months just to be sure.

[BoredHugeKrill]

You have made a start, but use real measurements instead of your hands and then com e back with the results.
HUH! :o When people show results of measurements using instruments, you asked for manual measurements. Now somebody makes a manual measurement and you say that it's not good enough!

You can't have it both ways!

It is not good enough to hand measurements.

so please, pretty please, specify what would be "good enough" for you.

We have between us proposed the full gamut of methods from GoTo telescopes to non computerized telescope mounts, to hand made sighting instruments using a protractor and plumb line to hand span measurements. You have rejected all of these.

So what would be good enough? Please specify what constitutes a "manual" measurement, and why such measurements have not already been performed

Regards
Krill

[Grant]

You have made a start, but use real measurements instead of your hands and then come back with the results.

Umm, how exactly do you propose that I take "real measurements" instead of using my hands? You earlier said that a GoTo scope was unacceptable and asked for manual measurements, which I did. Now, apparently, that's not good enough.



Really and you call your self an astronomer? I cannot believe I am hearing this from a so-called professional.

[Grant]

Ok, here's an incredibly simple and cheap device to build to measure the altitude of the moon.

http://www.exploratorium.edu/math_explorer/howHigh_makeInclino.html

Of course, you could substitute a store bought protractor for the printed one (the one on page has a resolution of only 5°).

Tom

That's pretty much what I've made, although I used a piece of card with a hole at the eye end and a cocktail stick at the other to make a "sight". the rolled up tube of paper's even better, so I'll probably modify mine to use that as well. My protractor is a plastic one with 1 degree divisions, and when I used it before was giving measurements to within a couple of degrees. the biggest problem is wind moving the thread, even with a resonably heavy weight.

(Probably no need to take a photo of it then, since I can just say it's as shown on that site :) )

MOLE GOOD TO SEE YOU HERE

[BoredHugeKrill]

You have made a start, but use real measurements instead of your hands and then come back with the results.

Umm, how exactly do you propose that I take "real measurements" instead of using my hands? You earlier said that a GoTo scope was unacceptable and asked for manual measurements, which I did. Now, apparently, that's not good enough.



Really and you call your self an astronomer? I cannot believe I am hearing this from a so-called professional.

Stop stalling and answer the question. We have between us proposed pretty much every conceivable measurement method, and you have rejected all of them. You are being asked what exactly would be acceptable.

Replying with an insult and demanding that we divine what you are thinking of is not an acceptable response

Regards
Krill

[R.A.F.]

Grant: What reports? Where, care to provide a link, to such reports?

I asked the same question....I'm still waiting for an answer...

...and I'm still waiting...

Grant, Please provide proof that "reports" have been made about "late sunsets"...that is, if any "reports" exist. This is important...non-responsiveness is not allowed on this board.

[Grand Vizier]

That is insufficiently detailed. Can you present your calculations, please?

What is wrong with you Grand, you now want to explain trig functions like sine, cosine and tangent grow up or go back school.

I think you have it the wrong way round. I want to see that you understand these simple concepts, because I'm not sure you do. I would therefore like to see your detailed workings, please. I marked you down as 2/10 on your earlier homework, remember? Surely you can do better than that?

If you wish, you may explain simple geometry to me, starting with the classic trigonometric ratios. Feel free. I will then know that we have some common basis on which to proceed.

[ Do please remember, and this cannot be said often enough, that you are the one who is trying to prove something here. To do that you need something called evidence. You have not supplied any. ]

[Grant]

The Moon was not at 18 degrees on the night of Sept. 22 in NY.


1) Though this lacks detail, you are claiming that there was an anomaly at night. But now you imply that 'variations in tilt' only occur during the daytime. So can we now see details of your daytime observations? Also does this mean that you concede that your nighttime observation was spurious?

2) I trust that you realise that you have now put Syracuse, NY in a very privileged position. (You are, I hope, aware that 50% of our planet is in dark and 50% in sunlight at any one time?) You are now proposing a mysterious effect that wobbles the Earth's axis around only when it is dark in your home town.


Here we have a case of accept what falls in your favor and discard anything that goes against you.

Grant: This is the silliest answer I have seen on this board for a long time and it is both inappropriate and unacceptable. Your refusal to answer questions and your evasive one-liner answers to sensible questions are examples of how things are not done here, and if you wish to continue with such behaviour then I suggest you leave and go to a forum where it is acceptable. It is not welcome here.

Grand Vizier has not at all done what you claimed he has. His points and questions are perfectly legitimate in the face of your numerous failings to form a proper argument, and I, for one, am very keen to hear your detailed answers to every one of them.

I respectfully suggest that you shape up, get rid of your bad attitude and stop acting so arrogantly and childishly, or ship out and stop wasting our time.

Kiwi,
Are you taking this out of context? I pointed out a flaw, not to put you down, but to open up discussion. If you make a mistake I will point it out, just like others do to me. There is no shame in learning, but there is when you are given a window of opportunity and you don’t take advantage.

[Grant]

Krilll,
I am sorry, I do not have the time to address you tonight, I will make an effort tomorrow.

GRANT OUT

[latimer]

Hello,

Grant, with all due respect, you are being *most* disingenous; and VERY evasive. Your very selective replies reveal volumes.


Now I ask you did you measure, no you have just assumed because your goto scope tracks.

The fact that my GoTo scopes track IS a measurement; and a *very* precise one at that. You have yet to address how a GoTo scope could possibly track an unpredictably moving Moon.

I, along with others, made measurements with both equatorial and GoTo telescopes, which proved the Moon is moving precisely as it is predicted to. You rejected the method, without cause.

The Partial Solar Eclipse happened precisely as predicted, proving the Moon, Sun, and Earth are precisely where they are predicted to be. You ignore the observation, altogether.

Sextants and astrolabes continue to predict properly; regardless that they are ancient technology, and can only work if centuries old predictions are true. You reject the devices, out of hand.

Tides continue to move as predicted. You dismiss this by claiming that fishermen and sailors don't know what they are talking about.

Now, Kiwi. Trebob, Dummy, and PW have provided no less than six different observations; which have been made using what you call 'manual measurement;' including with a protractor and a string, and handspans. You counter with the claim that the Moon is only out of place when over the Atlantic Ridge, or during daytime.

'Atlantic Ridge' observations are then made with the same 'manual measurement' equipment. Your reponse is that it is 'hardly worth the hype,' and that 'hand approximations don't count.'

Holy cow. Telescopes, sextants, astrolabes, compasses, protractors, string, and handspans are now ALL out for purposes of measurement. What, on Earth, is left?

What measurements, using what equipment, DO count? Be *specific.*

Thus: the questions remain, and if you ignore every other bit of my post, I now *demand* an answer for this one.

Detail. What. Observation. Will. Convince. You. That. You. Are. Wrong.

Name it. Name the 'manual measuring' method you will accept. Name what observation can POSSIBLY be made that can POSSIBLY ellicit the repsonse from you: "Well, if that's so, I must be wrong."

Name it. I submit that you will not; or more likely, CAN not. And you will ignore my post again.


"I really wonder why you are now discounting the official government sites backed by NASA?"

And I really wonder why you continue to evade a half-dozen DIRECT observations above; not having anything to do with NASA or the government; which you so openly distrust. Either the Moon is moving predictably, or unpredictably. Measurements have now been made, using 'manual' tools, and those measurements are proving your idea false. Will you *address* these measurements, please?


"This is true and there have reports coming from Alaska of late sunsets."

What possible movement of the Earth do you imagine could result in late sunsets in Alaska, and *nowhere else?* Why aren't there reports of a late *sunrises* somewhere at the same moment? Again, how and why can my telescopes track the Sun?

Why do you accept unconfirmed reports of things going wrong with the heavens, but reject confirmed reports and observations of things going *right* in the heavens, made by the people on this very forum? Why the cherry picking?

Measurements here using just about every tool imaginable have demonstrated, over and over, that the Moon is behaving precisely as it is predicted to. Other measurements, using my GoTos and sundials and sextants and astrolabes and string and sticks and other primitive tools have confirmed that the heavens are moving precisely as predicted.

Will you *ever* address these observations, and the *dozens* made earlier in this thread, and explain how the Moon can *possibly* be moving predictably and unpredicably at the same moment? Those are mutually exclusive observations.


Yes it is a start, but the experiment must be carried out over several months just to be sure.

Sigh. *Precisely how many months?* Be exact. Exactly what observations will convince you to retract your claims; or simply admit that you may have been mistaken?

The upcoming partial Lunar Eclipse will, again, prove that the heavens and Earth are moving predictably. Will you accept this observation? If not, *why not?*

If you will not accept or address this, as well as all of the other observations above; pray what evidence PRECISELY WOULD allow you to come to the conclusion that your initial observations were incorrect? Specifically: ANY at ALL?

Thank you,

Jonathan
-It doesn't matter what I believe. What matters is what I can prove.-

[mickal555]

Krilll,
I am sorry, I do not have the time to address you tonight, I will make an effort tomorrow.

GRANT OUT

yeah whatever :roll:

[latimer]

GRANT OUT

<Strangled Scream of Daffy-Duck-like Frustration Emoticon that doesn't really exist but ought to...>

I'm *always* late to the party, but I tend to think that this is about the end of the conversation; such as it was; anyway.

In response to:

Umm, how exactly do you propose that I take "real measurements" instead of using my hands? You earlier said that a GoTo scope was unacceptable and asked for manual measurements, which I did. Now, apparently, that's not good enough.

Grant replied:

Really and you call your self an astronomer? I cannot believe I am hearing this from a so-called professional.

Hm. That is a non-answer answer, Grant. Thus, I rephrase his question: Detail precisely what measruing method you would ACCEPT as an adequate way of proving or disproving your idea of an unpredictably moving Moon. Be *extremely* detailed, please.

If you cannot do this, along with the twenty-seven other reponses you have failed to deliver; I believe it is safe to conclude that you are not thinking scientifically about the issue; and therefore rational discourse cannot alter your beliefs. I will venture to guess that this is the wrong BBS to be behaving that particular way.

Sigh.

Well, I'll try to tune in again in a couple of days.

Thank you,

Jonathan
-It doesn't matter yadda yadda.-

[R.A.F.]

Krilll,
I am sorry, I do not have the time to address you tonight, I will make an effort tomorrow.

GRANT OUT

How very convenient. :roll:

[Celestial Mechanic]

AHH-OOGA!!! AHH-OOGA!!!
Thread fast approaching lockdown!
AHH-OOGA!!! AHH-OOGA!!!

[R.A.F.]

Krilll,
I am sorry, I do not have the time to address you tonight, I will make an effort tomorrow.

GRANT OUT

How very convenient. :roll:

[Grand Vizier]

GRANT OUT

<Strangled Scream of Daffy-Duck-like Frustration Emoticon that doesn't really exist but ought to...>


Which, I have to say, is the exact sound that trolls love to hear...



I'm *always* late to the party, but I tend to think that this is about the end of the conversation; such as it was; anyway.

[...]

Well, I'll try to tune in again in a couple of days.


He won't be here then, Jonathan. This is basically hit-and-run posting - he only turns up for about an hour around midnight (ET) on Friday (I think he thnks this is a chatroom like the one what Nancy used to have). And I do not see any evidence that Grant has done more than superficially scan any posts after he's left, so I'd guess he doesn't do more than 30mins prep either.

Why am I still here? Argh.

[BoredHugeKrill]

I think it's time to stick a fork in this thread...

[SarahMc]

Yes it is a start, but the experiment must be carried out over several months just to be sure.

But you wrote a "paper" based on one observation, and arrived at conclusions (filled with inaccuracies that I've yet to see you admit to).

You've failed time and time again to respond to legitimate questions posed to you, deciding rather to make non-sequitur remarks on selected posts (and even a sig).

You've provided nothing to support your case, while others have done the measurements using a variety of methods, and checked their results against numerous sources. Nothing out ofthe ordinary was found.

Is your hypothesis "jealous"? Does it only occur when no one else (other than you) is observing? Are the requirements for observing so stringent that no one can observe it, except for the times that you observe it?

I've refrained from posting on this thread, because you failed to provide any test at all for your hypothesis. Observations with precision instruments are disallowed. Measurements made by less accurate instruments are disallowed. Measurements made by approximating degrees of arc by hand are disallowed. The only measurements allowed are your measurements, one set of which is claimed to exist, but no data has been put forth when requested.

You disappear for days on end, only to return and reply to selected posts and selected text, and the vast majority of your 120+ posts have answered or addressed nothing at all. When you do come back, you claim that you're working on some other project, while your first project proposed here is full of errors and flaws, and the one observation you relied upon can't be duplicated by numerous people all over the planet's surface.

I'm curious Gant, why did you even bother to come the BABB at all? It's pretty obvious that you don't want your claims put to the test, you don't want your errors pointed out, and you most certainly don't want to admit that you were wrong. Instead, you opt to post snide remarks and inuendo while obfuscating on your posted commitment - that you would discuss and prove your claims on this forum.

You haven't discussed it, and you haven't proven anything, other than your ability to ignore posts, data and observations.

So, with that said, I'll sit on the side once more, and wait again for you to provide the following:

1) A time when observations and measurements can be made (day and hour in UT)

2) the exact instruments required to make the observation and measurements

3) A prediction based on your hypothesis which indicates both the moon's altitude and azimuth at the date and time previously stated, from a stated latitude.

4) A statement from you that will explain exactly what would be required to show you that there has been no tilt of the Earth's axis, and that the Earth is in the correct orbital position for the date.

[trebob]

You still are missing the point. I have done the research. I do it at least every week in front of others, and will be agian tomorrow night at a local star party. Many others here have done so as well. Our only excuse is that all the observed evidence indicates that all is where it should be in the night sky, yet you continue to ignore this, which leads me back to the questions that I have already asked you several times:

You come in here making it clear for all to see that you are now posting on badastronomy.com, say that the moon is not where it should be, state that checking will only prove you right, brush off all evidence and ideas that could prove your theory wrong, then admit you have done little or no field research. 2 Questions.

1) How is this considered science?

2) How does this help you prove your case?

In addition:



You are repeating yourself

Because you haven't answered the questions, or any of the others that have been asked. In addition data has been provided that disproves your claims.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." - Carl Sagan

You have made the claims here but never offered a single shred of proof for them. You have changed your story several times when the information posted didn't suit you, while still providing no proof for your revised statement. My questions still stand.

1) How is this considered science?

2) How does this help you prove your case?

and now added to the list...

3) What evidence can you think of that would falsify your claims?


I'm curious Gant, why did you even bother to come the BABB at all? It's pretty obvious that you don't want your claims put to the test, you don't want your errors pointed out, and you most certainly don't want to admit that you were wrong. Instead, you opt to post snide remarks and inuendo while obfuscating on your posted commitment - that you would discuss and prove your claims on this forum.

You haven't discussed it, and you haven't proven anything, other than your ability to ignore posts, data and observations.

Because he has yet to learn that this is not GLP and you actually have to answer questions and provide data here.

[trebob]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." - Carl Sagan

In keeping with that idea....

Moon's location

1:40 am EDT
Latitude 38 North
Longitude 84 West

Observed
Azimuth: 238
Altitude: 12

Winstars
Azimuth: 237° 42'
Altitude: 12 ° 14 ' 23.1 ''

Skymap
Azimuth: 237° 42' 4"
Altitude: 12° 14' 23"

Still right where it should be. Darn that pesky moon. :lol:

[PhantomWolf]

Well Grant has shown his true colours and I suspect that he won't be back, even if he wants to be. He hasn't changed his tactics from GLP even though he was warned about it and said he would, so.....

I am very happy that there is nothing wrong with the moon's position. I have done the experiments with my own hands and eyes so I am convinced that it is totally as expected. No one came and told me where it was, and NASA didn't have the MIB's on my doorstep. If there was anything wrong, my experiments would have shown it. The only other thing that they did show was that my equipment was easier to use and that I was far more accurate in the daylight than in the dark, a big surprise, not.

I really don't think that there is much point in continuing this thread, Grant hasn't come up with anything that could counter the observations others and I have made, instead he ignores them. This proves to me that he is nothing other then a troll. He would rather insult people over their sigs than to present real evidence to back up his claims. Even Hoaxland, Sibrel and Kaysing aren't that bad, at least they try and present evidence (even if it is ridiculous stuff) Grant doesn't even do that. It's time to do what all troll should have done to them, and ignore him.

I know that this is dangerous because there may be lurker that fall for his garbage, but there is little point in arguing with him because he will never provide data, give sources, accept observations that oppose his claims, or state what would actually prove him wrong and since I truely cannot believe that anyone on this planet could honestly be that stupid, I have to come to the conclusion that he knows fully well that what he says is rubbish and that he therefore does it to troll.

[Kesh]

Grant, other posters in this thread have done manual measurements, even using ancient techniques. Why doe those measurements not satisfy you?
No one did measurements here except KIWI and hand approximations don't count.

Patently false. I'll assume you just missed it, and give you the most obvious quote:

Page 13:

I recently took a lunar sighting off of an sixty-year old sextant; and, lo and behold, it is revealing my correct latitude. It would fail at this if the Moon were as little as a single degree, let alone thirty, out of place. Does that prove it to your satisfaction? Why not?

My friend, John, (who even posted later in this very thread!) has an old, old Astrolabe: Using the stars and Sun, it revealed he was standing exactly where he was, exactly as predicted by mundane science, using ancient Greek technology. Does that prove it to your satisfaction? Why not?

The question stands. Are these measurements satisfactory, and if not, why?

Finally, you made this statement:


We won't make predictions, but I will give a standard for measurements, and of course with consulting the forum first so that all are in agreement.

As of this post, you still have not provided us with a standard of measurement. Would you please do so, in order that we may continue this discussion in a productive manner?

[Kiwi]

[Really and you call your self an astronomer? I cannot believe I am hearing this from a so-called professional.

No, I do not call myself an astronomer, either amateur or "so-called professional," because I am not. I am a person who has been observing the sky since Halley's comet last came around 18 years ago, but am not and never have been an astronomer. I have already explained that I am an invalid and I don't own a telescope.

So from where did you get the information that I am a professional astronomer?

And why, yet again, did you avoid answering the question and instead reply with another silly insult? It is the same question that I and others have asked numerous times, yet you refuse to answer.

Fixed typo.

[Ut]

[Really and you call your self an astronomer? I cannot believe I am hearing this from a so-called professional.

No, I do not call myself an astronomer, either amateur or "so-called professional," because I am not. I am a person who has been observing the sky since Halley's comet last came around 18 years ago, but am not and never have been an astronomer. I have already explained that I am an invalid and I don't own a telescope.

So from where did you get the information that I am a professional astronomer?

And why, yet again, did you avoid answering the question and instead reply with another silly insult? It is the same question that I and others have asked numerous times, yet you refuse to answer.

Fixed typo.

Ahh, interesting problem, isn't it? If you're a professional astronomer, you're probably in on the coverup. If you're an amature astronomer, there's a chance you're also in on the coverup, or perhaps you're just not good enough at observing. If you're not an astronomer at all, you're completely unqualified to comment...

[Parrothead]

Just a few more measurements to add. I took some "manual" (if Grant accepts as such) of the sun this afternoon. I'll add some measurements of the moon later (if the sky clears, things went back to overcast). My figuring being, if measurements show the sun and moon where they should be, earth (with its 23.5 degree tilt) must be at its proper place, tilted at its known axis. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but it makes sense to me. Now on to the method and tool I used to make my measurements. I took a wooden stake and drove it into the ground. I tied a string to the top end of the stake, made sure the stake was plumb and stretched the other end of the string to the end of the stake's shadow. Holding the string in place, I pulled out a device similar to this (http://roofgenius.com/roofangle.htm) and took a reading. The number I read, subtracted from 90 would give me the sun's altitude. I took a second reading by eyeballing the device at the sun and in all 3 readings had a similar result to that of holding the device to the string. I also ran Starry Night Pro on my computer and wrote down the info given by the program. The results are as follows:

Location: Latitude 43 40 N Longitude 79 22 W

My Measurements Numbers according to SNP

12:20 pm EDT 12:20.xx EDT
Az 170 Az 167 40
angle 57 (90-57= 33 degrees) Altitude 33 50.xx

2:03 pm EDT 2:03.xx EDT
Az 195 Az 197 42
angle 58 (90-58 =32) Alt 32 52.xx

3:15 pm 3:15.xx EDT
Az 220 Az 217 12.094
angle 64 (90-64=26) Alt 26 42.xx

I'm guessing some may know where the stake/string idea came from. Grant: Is this an accepted "manual" method? I'll post my method for moon measurements after I take them. Again, I'm figuring if the sun is where it's supposed to be and the moon is where it is supposed to be, as measured from earth...earth must be where it is supposed to be at its known axial tilt. If I'm in error, please correct me.

*edit to add: sorry about the mess of columns, I'm sure you can make sense of it(hopefully). Grant: While it is not physically possible to travel back in time, it is possible through the use of desktop planetarium programs. I'll state again, I did "travel back" to the night you took your measurements, using SNP. I set the location to Syracuse, NY and I was given moon altitude numbers similar to the ones from the USNO site on your webpage.

[Meteora]

Really,
Why don’t you mention that the outlook was scaled back in August? This year set a record for tornadoes, this year set a record for the number of typhoons to hit Japan, This year tied the record for the most category 3+ plus storms in the Atlantic basin.

I know this is futile, but I just "have" to reply, darn it.

The reference I quoted (and provided a link to) was the only one I saw. The NHC normally only makes one seasonal forecast, and I never heard anything about it being "scaled back." And, as usual, I don't see a reference from you, Grant.

As for the other records, so what? Record weather events happen every single year - many of them each year. Our period of record is so short that it's not difficult to set records. And I already explained why the whole Florida situation isn't a weather issue, but a geographical one. And, if your typhoon comment is true (again, no reference), that's also geographical.


Meteora find a new interest.

:roll: ...As if I don't have a lot of other interests.... :roll:

I'll take that as the insult it was obviously intended to be.

[Kiwi]

I'll take that as the insult it was obviously intended to be.
Yes, Grant is better at insulting people than he is at answering sensible, legitimate points or questions. He doesn't seem to realise that he is going against the spirit of this scientific forum and that one way science is pursued is by the asking and answering of questions and sometimes being extremely pedantic about it.

He said that he would not act the way he did at GLP, but others who are accustomed to his behaviour there say that he is doing exactly that -- behaving like a troll -- and he has certainly given the impression here that that is all he is.

He is really just wasting our time because he doesn't have anything worthwhile to say -- he instead insults members of this forum, mocks their efforts to enlighten him, makes nonsensical claims, provides no evidence, and seems to expect us to believe him.


Ahh, interesting problem, isn't it? If you're a professional astronomer, you're probably in on the coverup. If you're an amature astronomer, there's a chance you're also in on the coverup, or perhaps you're just not good enough at observing. If you're not an astronomer at all, you're completely unqualified to comment...
Fortunately, one doesn't have to be a professional astronomer to see through Grant's "stuff." All one has to do is look at the sun, moon and stars, know exactly what one is seeing, know how to measure it manually and how to compare the measurements with predictions. It's as simple as that.

[SarahMc]

One last post before I abandon this thread forever (or unless Grant decides to provide what was requested of him).

My daughter and I took a little road trip last evening to my sister's house. We did some additional observations (not that any were really needed). Below is a synopsis of what was done.

I installed a demo version of SkyMap Pro 7 (ver7.0.8) from the year 2000, off an old CD. No updates were done on the software. (The first service pack for the software version was released in December of 2000). I then set the latitude and longitude in the software to the nearest second for the observation location, and set the time zone/daylight savings.

This was to be the comparison to the actual observations. The readings from SkyMap were compared to the actual measurements after the observations were complete.

The moon's altitude and azimuth were observed at 7:30 EDT, 8:30 EDT and 9:30 EDT, as well as 9:43 EDT, when the moon was supposed to cross the meridian (according to SkyMap).

Three methods were used for the measurements. The first was a Meade LX90. It was setup with a wedge (in equatorial mode). The time was set from a handheld Garmin Etrex GPS, to the nearest second. The Autostar was set up to nearest minute of latitude and longitude, taken from the GPS. A one star alignment was done, using Altair as the alignment star. No drift or iterative alignment was done.

A Meade ETX125 was setup alongside the LX90, but in alt/az configuration. The same parameters were used, except that a two star alignment was done, using Altair and Mirach.

The GoTo scopes were slewed to the moon a few minutes prior to each designated time, and then then centered on Sinus Medii using a 12mm reticle EP and a variable polarizer. LX90@170x, ETX125@158x The autostars had two different firmware revisions; the LX90 had 32.Ei, and the ETX had 26.Ed

A third scope, a Skywatcher ST80 with 13.8mm wide angle EP (29x, the entire moon was visible in the FOV), was installed on an inexpensive manual GEM, but setup as an alt/az mount (the RA axis was aligned to the zenith using a plumb line/level, and the declination scale was set to 90º) Readings of altitude were taken from the declination scale. Additionally at each reading, a measurement was made using a compass (adjusted for magnetic declination by 14º) for azimuth. The southern horizon was unobstructed from the viewing location.

Each scope was mounted on a portable tripod, the best being the LX90, second the ETX, and a far and distant third was the GEM. All three tripods were leveled prior to mounting the scopes.

Three people were present to take the measurements independently and recorded them separately from each other. No one saw each others measurements until all observations were done. I used my sister's LX90, my daughter used my old ETX125, and my sister did the manual measurements using her ST80 and compass; she as well counted down the time as it approached from the GPS readout. When the mark was reached, my daughter and I read off the readings from the two Autostars, and my sister took the manual measurements. Between measurements, we just observed other objects. The GoTo scopes were not reset from their inital alignments throughout the duration of the observations, and were slewed to numerous objects between lunar observations (all with very good accuracy). The temperature was 41ºF and the winds were very light from the North-Northeast. The sky was clear. Seeing was maybe a 3 out of 5. Limiting visual magnitude was quite poor, possibly 3 at best due to the moon and early evening.

Local position to the nearest minute
42º 58' North, 73º 55' West

All observations were on October 23, 2004. The results follow:

At 7:30 PM EDT
SkyMap prediction
Altitude: 27° 25' 4"
Azimuth: 143° 41' 59"

LX90
Altitude: 27° 23' 22"
Azimuth: 143° 44' 31"

ETX125
Altitude: 27° 22' 8"
Azimuth: 143° 39' 26"

ST80/GEM/compass
Altitude: 26º
Azimuth: 145°
------------------------

At 8:30 PM EDT
SkyMap prediction
Altitude: 32° 46' 13"
Azimuth: 158° 59' 30"

LX90
Altitude: 32° 45' 22"
Azimuth: 158° 58' 34"

ETX125
Altitude: 32° 45' 42"
Azimuth: 158° 58' 52"

ST80/GEM/compass
Altitude 31º
Azimuth 160º
----------------------------

At 9:30PM EDT
SkyMap prediction
Altitude: 35° 20' 38"
Azimuth: 176° 5' 47"

LX90
Altitude 35º 17' 42"
Azimuth 176º 21' 38"

ETX125
Altitude 35º 19' 36"
Azimuth: 176º 18' 9"

ST80/GEM/compass
Altitude 35º
Azimuth 175º
---------------------------

Crossing the meridian at 9:43PM EDT (exact crossing was 9:43:15 PM EDT, to the closest second)
SkyMap prediction
Altitude: 35° 28' 45"
Azimuth: 179° 55' 13"

LX90
Altitude 35º 23' 19"
Azimuth 180º 19' 20"

ETX 125
Altitude 35º 22' 47"
Azimuth 180º 8' 32"

ST80/GEM/compass
Azimuth 180º
Altitude 35º

Lastly, I can safely say that the moon is where it's supposed to be, and most assuredly can state that it's not 12º off it's predicted position made four years ago, in either altitude or azimuth.

[Sammy]

Obviously the work of disinfo agents :P

Or, the software could have been altered by the same Navy Secret Agents who slip into people's homes at night to reset clocks and so disguise the rotational slowdown [-X

[BoredHugeKrill]

Obviously the work of disinfo agents :P

Or, the software could have been altered by the same Navy Secret Agents who slip into people's homes at night to reset clocks and so disguise the rotational slowdown [-X

I don't see why they'd need to. After all, the Zetas can actually move planets around at will to make sure that we don't notice anything wrong. I don't see why putting a holographic cloaking device* over every clock in the world to make them show an arbitrary time should be a stretch... 8-[

Regards
Krill

*substitute your favorite sci-fi techno-** here according to taste :)

[Kiwi]

Excellent, SarahMc! =D> =D> =D>

However, I predict that Grant will say there is something about the way you took the measurements that is not acceptable. You're supposed to take "real" measurements, you know! We have asked him over and over what he considers them to be and he has never answered, preferring instead to insult those who ask.

I also fear that he may not understand your use of "Sinus Medii."

[Sammy]

Obviously the work of disinfo agents :P

Or, the software could have been altered by the same Navy Secret Agents who slip into people's homes at night to reset clocks and so disguise the rotational slowdown [-X

I don't see why they'd need to. After all, the Zetas can actually move planets around at will to make sure that we don't notice anything wrong. I don't see why putting a holographic cloaking device* over every clock in the world to make them show an arbitrary time should be a stretch... 8-[

Regards
Krill

*substitute your favorite sci-fi techno-** here according to taste :)

So, another case of technology-induced unemployment! And cheaper than outsourcing to India.

[Maksutov]

[edit]I'm curious Gant, why did you even bother to come the BABB at all?...
That's what we need here, a Gantt chart, or in this case, a Grantt chart, to exercise some control over this project and demonstrate what progress we've made.

So, to fill this need, there is now a Grantt Chart for Overdue South Project that can be opened by clicking on this icon:


http://img99.exs.cx/img99/931/GranttChart.th.gif (http://img99.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img99&image=GranttChart.gif)

This will be updated if necessary.

[Kaptain K]

=D> =D> Excellent!! =D> =D>

[Morrolan]

:o well, this thread has been most enlightening...

especially when it comes to the excellent (and may i add: patient and polite) way in which people provide information counter to the claim.

=D> thanks all, even if i weren't already, i certainly am convinced now that all is as it should be.

[mickal555]

:( :D I'ts all true but I don't get what the purple lines meen

[Maksutov]

:( :D I'ts all true but I don't get what the purple lines meen
If you're referring to the horizontal bars, those are the task durations.

If you're referring to the lines with arrows that go from one task bar to another, then these indicate there is relationship between the tasks. The second task is dependent upon the first task's completion. The link allows the finish of the first task to drive the start of the second task. These linked tasks enable one to see later how changes in the start, finish, and duration of a task affect other related tasks.

For example, in a project called "Wash the Car", a task called "Day with No Rain" would be linked to "Wash the Car Today" with "Day with No Rain" as the predecessor. "Wash the Car Today" can't happen until "Day with No Rain" is completed.

Then again, statistically, if "meen" means "mean", then it's not the mode or median.

[ignorant_ape]

reading this train wreck of a thread , i can only chuckle and wonder how grants blatent trollishness has escaped lock down

but to put the onuss firmly on grant to ` come up with the goods ` here is my challenge :

grant , please tell me how to measure the moons motions in a manner that you will accept as accurate

i have :

1 astrolable - wwii RN issue
2 sextant -wwii RN issue
3 GPS hand set
4 Leica spotting scope on a pan / tilt mount graduated to 0.5 degrees
5 redshift 3 CD that cannot have been edited since 1999
6 PDA with atom time and calculator and navigation assistant apps
7 surveyors compass and current magnetic correction

lastly :

i can use an OS trig point as an observing platform ensuring my lat / long data is spot on

so given my equipent , please set out a method to take sightings you accept as scientific

you have rejected 6 methods from semi pro astronomer sightings through got to scopes to kiwi and his dead reckoning

and in a display of yo yo logic rejected all for contridictory reasons

so come on tell me what to do , and i will

YRS - APE

[WHarris]

The upcoming partial Lunar Eclipse will, again, prove that the heavens and Earth are moving predictably. Will you accept this observation? If not, *why not?*


Actually, the eclipse Wed. night/Thurs. morning will be a Total Lunar Eclipse, not a partial.

I trust this was just a Freudian slip, since you were talking about that partial Solar Eclipse ealier this month.

[latimer]

Hello,




The upcoming partial Lunar Eclipse will, again, prove that the heavens and Earth are moving predictably. Will you accept this observation? If not, *why not?*


Actually, the eclipse Wed. night/Thurs. morning will be a Total Lunar Eclipse, not a partial.

I trust this was just a Freudian slip, since you were talking about that partial Solar Eclipse ealier this month.

Danke. My bad. :)

Jonathan
-See? Admitting mistakes doesn't hurt at all!-

[Ravenwood]

i have :

1 astrolable - wwii RN issue



Wow! I did not know that the RN produced an astrolabe during WWII. Are they hard to find, & about how much do they cost? (yes, I know, Just what I need-ANOTHER astrolabe.... :lol: )

[ignorant_ape]

ravenwood wrote : " Wow! I did not know that the RN produced an astrolabe during WWII."

nor do I , I appologise I am guilty of assuming its provenance by association

i gained it when my grandfather died , while other relatives fought over his stamps , coins and antique furniture that had obvious monetary value - i was free to pillage his study and attic

i knew he was a lt during WWII , serving on but he never talked about it

this i knew what to look for and bagged his uniforms , medals journals etc and anything else i could carry out


the astrolabe was in a teachest full of wartime kit and papers , much of which had RN chevron ID marks , so despite lack or markings or makers marks [ the box it came in was converted to fit it ] i assumed it was part of the kit he ` inherited ` from the navy

YRS - APE

[Grand Vizier]

ravenwood wrote : " Wow! I did not know that the RN produced an astrolabe during WWII."

nor do I , I appologise I am guilty of assuming its provenance by association

i gained it when my grandfather died , while other relatives fought over his stamps , coins and antique furniture that had obvious monetary value - i was free to pillage his study and attic

i knew he was a lt during WWII , serving on but he never talked about it

this i knew what to look for and bagged his uniforms , medals journals etc and anything else i could carry out


the astrolabe was in a teachest full of wartime kit and papers , much of which had RN chevron ID marks , so despite lack or markings or makers marks [ the box it came in was converted to fit it ] i assumed it was part of the kit he ` inherited ` from the navy

YRS - APE

Compliments on your attitude. I've been in a situation with that unseemly monetary squabbling, and it was ugly. It's the memories that count, in my opinion.

But that's intriguing. Perhaps he was a navigator and used the astrolabe to train others, or built or acquired it out of personal interest? Does it look manufactured or hand-built?

[Eta C]

Are you sure it's an astrolabe? It could be a sextant. These were, and still are, in use for navigation even in this day of GPS. An astrolabe would be a circular device with a pointer running across. The sextant, as the name implies, is one sixth of a circle (60 degrees) with a mirror system used for sighting.

[Ravenwood]

Well Ape, I did some searching & you indeed have a rare find...the only other WWII RN astrolabe I could find is in the RN Museum....Go figure. congratulations on a truly rare scientific instrument, the fact that it was used by your grandfather is even cooler :D

[BoredHugeKrill]

second that - sounds pretty cool. Ape, would it be possible for you to post a picture? I'd love to see it

Regards
Krill

[Kesh]

Since Grant doesn't seem to be posting now, I'll third that. 8)

[BoredHugeKrill]

Since Grant doesn't seem to be posting now, I'll third that. 8)

he says he's working on a new version of his thesis on gravitation. Should be interesting. We discussed this a while back on GLP, but the discussion sort of fizzled out - he didn't respond to my questions on the subject after a while. Of course, I'll be happy to reiterate them. Looking forward to resuming the discussion...

Regards
Krill

[Sigma_Orionis]

Are you sure it's an astrolabe? It could be a sextant. These were, and still are, in use for navigation even in this day of GPS. An astrolabe would be a circular device with a pointer running across. The sextant, as the name implies, is one sixth of a circle (60 degrees) with a mirror system used for sighting.

I never thought an Astrolabe would be useful for marine navigation, since I always figured they were instruments of use to an astronomer (in the old days anyways). However, I found this (http://astrolabes.org/mariner.htm), so it seems that there is an astrolabe (the Mariner's Astrolabe) that can be used as an alternative to a sextant.

[Maksutov]

Since Grant doesn't seem to be posting now, I'll third that. 8)

he says he's working on a new version of his thesis on gravitation.
Thesis, eh? What's it for, his PHD (Practitioner of Hoax Dogma)? Sounds like more pomp and circumstance to describe another half-baked, wildly inaccurate paper.


Should be interesting.
Have to differ with you here. If it's anything like this thread, the only items of interest will be contained in the discussions among the BABB members.


We discussed this a while back on GLP, but the discussion sort of fizzled out - he didn't respond to my questions on the subject after a while.
Gee, where have we seen that before?


Of course, I'll be happy to reiterate them. Looking forward to resuming the discussion...
The discussion among the BABB members? Of course. Who knows, maybe OPer will eventually participate.

BTW, when GLP went down, there was considerable hubbub about his coming here to post. Almost like, here comes a really interesting GLPer who will shake things up and astound us not only with his theories, but with the effective ways by which he defends them.

To say there has been great disappointment with the actual product is putting it mildly. Just another run-of-the-mill HB. http://www.click-smilies.de/sammlung0304/schlafen/sleeping-smiley-012.gif

[BoredHugeKrill]

Since Grant doesn't seem to be posting now, I'll third that. 8)

he says he's working on a new version of his thesis on gravitation.
Thesis, eh? What's it for, his PHD (Practitioner of Hoax Dogma)? Sounds like more pomp and circumstance to describe another half-baked, wildly inaccurate paper.


Should be interesting.
Have to differ with you here. If it's anything like this thread, the only items of interest will be contained in the discussions among the BABB members.


We discussed this a while back on GLP, but the discussion sort of fizzled out - he didn't respond to my questions on the subject after a while.
Gee, where have we seen that before?


Of course, I'll be happy to reiterate them. Looking forward to resuming the discussion...
The discussion among the BABB members? Of course. Who knows, maybe OPer will eventually participate.

BTW, when GLP went down, there was considerable hubbub about his coming here to post. Almost like, here comes a really interesting GLPer who will shake things up and astound us not only with his theories, but with the effective ways by which he defends them.

To say there has been great disappointment with the actual product is putting it mildly. Just another run-of-the-mill HB. http://www.click-smilies.de/sammlung0304/schlafen/sleeping-smiley-012.gif


sorry. should have included more smileys 8-[ .

I don't know if there is one for "sarcasm", though... :)

Regards
Krill

[Maksutov]

[edit]

sorry. should have included more smileys 8-[ .

I don't know if there is one for "sarcasm", though... :)

Regards
Krill

[url=http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/smilie/sarcasm.htm]Here's a page of smilies that are supposed to be "sarcastic".['url] Most are a stretch, but I did like these two:

http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/smilie/deal.gif

http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/smilie/sardonic.gif

Perhaps we need one like this:

http://img19.exs.cx/img19/3024/sarcasm.gif

[Grand Vizier]

Perhaps we need one like this:

http://img19.exs.cx/img19/3024/sarcasm.gif

Deeeply needed. (How to do irony in an emoticon, though? Ruins the whole idea, really.)

But I think we really need one of these more than anything:

http://www.albedo.demon.co.uk/babb/mudbug.gif

(Aw, gee, can I keep him, Dad, can I???)

Though I note that Candy's vote is for:

http://home.att.net/~candy.stair/wave.gif

Way cute, I must admit...

[BoredHugeKrill]

do you think Grant might come back to explain this:

http://www.boredhugekrill.com/moon/eclipse02.jpg

I've only just got back in... this is very rough post-process wise - I just adjusted levels in photoshop from a single 15" exposure at ISO 400. I have a few frames I can stack to try to improve the noise a little. Plus, of course, I scaled the image down somewhat.

So Grant, how about it? What's going on here?

Regards
Krill

[latimer]

Hello,

Grant will likely claim that the eclipse happened....but with anomalies. He will say the shadow wasn't exactly as predicted, or that it moved the wrong way in some slight manner, or some absurd tiny detail that he can't possibly have actually measured; as evidenced by the fact that he won't explain how he measured it. His theories always seem to reside within the margin of error.

That's a guess; but I believe an educated one.

Thank you,

Jonathan
-It doesn't matter what I believe. What matters is what I can prove.-

[BoredHugeKrill]

Hello,

Grant will likely claim that the eclipse happened....but with anomalies. He will say the shadow wasn't exactly as predicted, or that it moved the wrong way in some slight manner, or some absurd tiny detail that he can't possibly have actually measured; as evidenced by the fact that he won't explain how he measured it. His theories always seem to reside within the margin of error.

That's a guess; but I believe an educated one.

Thank you,

Jonathan
-It doesn't matter what I believe. What matters is what I can prove.-

my guess is, he'll just ignore it all and start a new thread claiming something completely different. That's typically his MO. :-?

Meanwhile, I'm just enjoying myself taking pictures :)

Regards
Krill

[Ut]

!!!!!!!!!!
There are no stars in that picture!
The eclipse was faked!

[Wolverine]

Perhaps it could be blamed on those crafty Zetas "maintaining the illusion" for us, as Nancy claimed they did with the Venus transit.

[Maksutov]

do you think Grant might come back to explain this:

[edit]
I've only just got back in... this is very rough post-process wise - I just adjusted levels in photoshop from a single 15" exposure at ISO 400. I have a few frames I can stack to try to improve the noise a little. Plus, of course, I scaled the image down somewhat.
[edit]

Regards
Krill

Beautiful shot! Wonderful rendering of the colors...very accurate compared to what was seen.

Remember that old slogan "Batteries not included"? After taking a few telephoto shots (one posted earlier), the low battery icon came on. Of course I've got plenty of batteries sealed in bags in the fridge. But do you think I had enough of the size I needed? Nope.

So, good thing I had that film. Since it's late, development will be tomorrow. Then negative scans.

Looking forward to seeing more of your photographs. Good job! =D>

[Maksutov]

[edit] His theories always seem to reside within the margin of error...
So, in a way, you could say, he's one of the "Grays". 8)