Due South (Low Altitude of the Moon)

[Grant]

For those involved in this discussion the reference paper was just uploaded and located at http://www.grantchronicles.com/astro104.htm I am still watching the debate and will be answering questions at 11 pm EST

[BoredHugeKrill]

ok, I should be here. I may be a few minutes late....

Regards
Krill

[Grand Vizier]

Don't worry, BHK - there now appears to be an hour's grace. During which we can discuss the difference between 'amateur and professional debunkers' (in the 'paper' - so valid.)

[edited to say 'this distinction must be valid' as opposed to 'so valid']

[BoredHugeKrill]

I'll just post a quick reply on my initial thoughts - I'll be back in about half an hour or so.

First off, it's been a while since we spoke. I trust you are well.

On reading your explanation, my initial impression is that we are at least on the same page in terms of the way we are looking at the problem. I think that's a hopeful sign that we can have a fruitful discussion.

In the period since we last spoke, I also prepared my own explanation, and it takes a very similar form to yours. It struck me at the time we last discussed this (and I guess you too) that this would be so much easier with some pictures to illustrate. Mine are up on my website, with my own explanation, here:

http://www.boredhugekrill.com/moon

although we're looking at the problem in the same way, there is one significant difference I can see: your explanation has the Earth orbiting the Sun clockwise (assuming celestial North to be "up" in the picture), not counterclockwise. I believe that is incorrect and why you arrive at the conclusion that the Moon should have been at its highest point in the sky, not its lowest, at the first quarter around the time of the autumnal equinox.

Your diagram is this:

http://www.grantchronicles.com/astro11.jpg

my equivalent is this (sorry about the background being unsuitable - I'll try to fix that and edit later) (edit - now fixed):

http://www.boredhugekrill.com/moon/heliocentricblack.gif

Regards
Krill

(edited to fix background on my diagram)

[BoredHugeKrill]

Don't worry, BHK - there now appears to be an hour's grace. During which we can discuss the difference between 'amateur and professional debunkers' (in the 'paper' - so valid.)

[edited to say 'this distinction must be valid' as opposed to 'so valid']

don't worry about it too much :wink:

it's not like it changes the answer - the only thing that we need to discuss here are observational data...

Regards
Krill

[Grand Vizier]

Grant, I'll throw in this before crashing out: in your opinion, will the total lunar eclipse on October 28 happen or not? Are you willing to be predictive? I'll bet you €10,000 that the eclipse happens (see below), exactly on time. Does your theory predict otherwise?

I'll go with this:


The total lunar eclipse of October 28 2004 will be visible over the Americas, Europe, Africa, and parts of Asia.

The penumbral eclipse -- the least exciting, and hardest to see part -- will begin at 00:05:32 UT and end at 06:02:42 UT. It will be visible from western Asia, Africa and Europe when it begins around Moonset, then North and South America, being finally visible from Alaska and Hawaii as it ends at around Moonrise.

The partial eclipse will begin at 01:14:23 UT and end over 3 hours later at 04:53:42 UT, and will be visible from a slightly smaller area. The total eclipse lasts for over an hour; it begins at 02:23:25 UT and ends at 03:44:41 UT, with the moment of greatest eclipse at 03:04:04 UT. It is visible over most of Africa, Europe and western Russia, and the Americas.

[Grand Vizier]

it's not like it changes the answer - the only thing that we need to discuss here are observational data...

Regards
Krill

Agreed. And my correction wasn't even real, really. What an anti-climax...

G'night all. Yawn.

[BoredHugeKrill]

it's not like it changes the answer - the only thing that we need to discuss here are observational data...

Regards
Krill

Agreed. And my correction wasn't even real, really. What an anti-climax...

G'night all. Yawn.

see ya tomorrow. Oh, I forgot - how was the curry?

:D

Regards
Krill

[Grant]

Grant, I'll throw in this before crashing out: in your opinion, will the total lunar eclipse on October 28 happen or not? Are you willing to be predictive? I'll bet you €10,000 that the eclipse happens (see below), exactly on time. Does your theory predict otherwise?

I'll go with this:


The total lunar eclipse of October 28 2004 will be visible over the Americas, Europe, Africa, and parts of Asia.

The penumbral eclipse -- the least exciting, and hardest to see part -- will begin at 00:05:32 UT and end at 06:02:42 UT. It will be visible from western Asia, Africa and Europe when it begins around Moonset, then North and South America, being finally visible from Alaska and Hawaii as it ends at around Moonrise.

The partial eclipse will begin at 01:14:23 UT and end over 3 hours later at 04:53:42 UT, and will be visible from a slightly smaller area. The total eclipse lasts for over an hour; it begins at 02:23:25 UT and ends at 03:44:41 UT, with the moment of greatest eclipse at 03:04:04 UT. It is visible over most of Africa, Europe and western Russia, and the Americas.

Grand,
You have a problem in front of you now start here, the eclipse is another paper and is already half done and will be released on the chronicles in a timely fashion

[Grand Vizier]

see ya tomorrow. Oh, I forgot - how was the curry?

:D

Regards
Krill

Lamb Stew. It was totally excellent. See BABBling for recipe. I will be adding tweaks. Sleep well, BHK.

[Grant]

In the period since we last spoke, I also prepared my own explanation, and it takes a very similar form to yours. It struck me at the time we last discussed this (and I guess you too) that this would be so much easier with some
pictures to illustrate. Mine are up on my website, with my own explanation, here:

I will look at it in a little while.

[BoredHugeKrill]

In the period since we last spoke, I also prepared my own explanation, and it takes a very similar form to yours. It struck me at the time we last discussed this (and I guess you too) that this would be so much easier with some
pictures to illustrate. Mine are up on my website, with my own explanation, here:

I will look at it in a little while.

ok. I'll probably be around, but it may take me a while to respond back - I'll check back to see what's here every so often.

Regards
Krill

[Grant]

Omitted

[BoredHugeKrill]

Grand,
Have a good sleep and maybe, just maybe you will come back with a rebuttal.

do you have a response to my post above? I think that you have the Earth orbiting in the wrong direction.

Regards
Krill

[Grant]

Krill,
You made a good effort, but when dealing with the public you should leave the frame of reference the same. By shifting the picture 23 degrees the common man loses all reference points.

[BoredHugeKrill]

Krill,
You made a good effort, but when dealing with the public you should leave the frame of reference the same. By shifting the picture 23 degrees the common man loses all reference points. Now as you can see according to my diagrams and official data, we have a problem. Notice how quiet it is out there.

I think the posters here can probably cope with the shift in frame of reference.

But whatever. That doesn't change the result. The problem that I see with your explanation is that I think you have the Earth orbiting in the wrong direction (assuming you have celestial North in the same direction as my picture).

Which way do you think celestial North is in your diagram, and in which direction do you think the Earth orbits the Sun?

Regards
Krill

[Grant]

do you have a response to my post above? I think that you have the Earth orbiting in the wrong direction.

Regards
Krill

Krill,
Yes the diagram is reversed I just noticed. Two weeks of work down the drain. I am conceding to the error, but will stick around to take the flack.

[BoredHugeKrill]

do you have a response to my post above? I think that you have the Earth orbiting in the wrong direction.

Regards
Krill

Krill,
Yes the diagram is reversed I just noticed. Two weeks of work down the drain. I am conceding to the error, but will stick around to take the flack.

that's very commendable. Kudos for admitting the error.

How do you want to proceed from here?

Regards
Krill

[Grand Vizier]

Krill,
Yes the diagram is reversed I just noticed. Two weeks of work down the drain. I am conceding to the error, but will stick around to take the flack.

And that should be spelled 'flak' by the way. Catch you later.

[Grant]

For this forum everyone wants a knockout punch even though the Moon was about 30 degrees up instead of 18 this will not sway a crowd, because the data is within the range of denial..

[BoredHugeKrill]

For this forum everyone wants a knockout punch even though the Moon was about 30 degrees up instead of 18 this will not sway a crowd, because the data is within the range of denial..

as I remember, the person that previously reported, on GLP, the Moon as being at about 30 degrees (measured by handspan) reported being in Florida, which is about correct.

Regards
Krill

[Grant]

I should have known better this was too easy and it just did not seem right that I could come to a NASA sponsored site and drop the bomb. They always said there would have be an element of doubt and that is true.

[BoredHugeKrill]

I should have known better this was too easy and it just did not seem right that I could come to a NASA sponsored site and drop the bomb. They always said there would have be an element of doubt and that is true.

let's stick to a factual discussion. Do you agree that the first quarter of the Moon at a date nearest the autumnal equinox corresponds to the lowest expected altitude?

Regards
Krill

[Humphrey]

Tis is not a NASA sponsored site. Its a BA sponsored site with some adds by google.

[Grand Vizier]

Quite. The world isn't Syracuse NY. The Moon can be at any altitude. The point is that we can consistently predict its altitude at any place, at any time. Grant, can you predict anything - I asked you if you'd put money on stuff earlier - ready to take me up on it?

[Grant]

as I remember, the person that previously reported, on GLP, the Moon as being at about 30 degrees (measured by handspan) reported being in Florida, which is about correct.

Regards
Krill

No that was Circuit Breaker reporting the Moon being high, the report came from Wisconsin.

[dummy]

Well that sucks. I'm out in the cold at 4:30am doing an experiment with my go-to telescope and I come back to find that Grant made a mistake :/ I'm not even sure my results apply to the paper as he repeatadly makes a point that it's only in Syracuse, but since the topic has changed to predicting the Moon's position I'll post what I'd written anyway.

I've read over the paper and it appears that you're saying the Moon is not in the correct place in the sky and your only explanation is that some force has affected the Moon's orbital path whilst Leaving the Earth alone.

Rather than rely on someone else's figures online (as someone could discredit these as inaccurate or false), I figured I could test this myself. I've just set up my go-to telescope outside, and aligned it to Sirius and Rigel (that's what it suggested). To ensure it's aligned correctly I've navigated to Saturn and Venus, Aldebaran, Procyon, Pollux and Deneb and finally M42 (I chose a range of objects that would provide a large span of the sky and varied in size). Each time the telescope correctly centred the object in the eyepiece. I see that as physical proof the go-to telescope is correctly aligned.

If the Moon is not in it's correct, calculated position, then my go-to telescope should fail to find it correctly in the sky. However, each time I have tried it has found the Moon correctly. Do you consider this physical proof that the Moon is indeed in the position we (or the telescope manufactureres) expect it to be?

[Grand Vizier]

They always said there would have be an element of doubt and that is true.

Who were the 'they' in this sentence?

[Grant]

For those who want to see the truth, download the Moon data in advance and save it. Then do a comparison, the results will stir questions.

[BoredHugeKrill]

I'm just hoping that it isn't cloudy here for the Lunar eclipse. Given clear enough skies, I intend to be out taking pictures. I'll put them up on my website and link here, weather willing...

:wink:

Regards
Krill

[BoredHugeKrill]

as I remember, the person that previously reported, on GLP, the Moon as being at about 30 degrees (measured by handspan) reported being in Florida, which is about correct.

Regards
Krill

No that was Circuit Breaker reporting the Moon being high, the report came from Wisconsin.

my observations correspond with yours. How could somebody in Wisconsin see something different to either of us?

Regards
Krill

[Grand Vizier]

For those who want to see the truth, download the Moon data in advance and save it. Then do a comparison, the results will stir questions.

Data only arises from observations. You have been offered some earlier by dummy. Do you have any counter-observations?

[Grant]

If the Moon is not in it's correct, calculated position, then my go-to telescope should fail to find it correctly in the sky. However, each time I have tried it has found the Moon correctly. Do you consider this physical proof that the Moon is indeed in the position we (or the telescope manufactureres) expect it to be?

Why are you using your GOTO scope when a simple measurement would do? Is it so hard to measure the altitude of the Moon at prescribed points and compare it to Navy data?

[BoredHugeKrill]

For those who want to see the truth, download the Moon data in advance and save it. Then do a comparison, the results will stir questions.

I'll take you up on that. How about we post here the predictions for the Moon's location around October 27th/28th and check later?

Regards
Krill

[BoredHugeKrill]

If the Moon is not in it's correct, calculated position, then my go-to telescope should fail to find it correctly in the sky. However, each time I have tried it has found the Moon correctly. Do you consider this physical proof that the Moon is indeed in the position we (or the telescope manufactureres) expect it to be?

Why are you using your GOTO scope when a simple measurement would do? Is it so hard to measure the altitude of the Moon at prescribed points and compare it to Navy data?

Because a GoTo scope is an instument specifically designed to make such observations, and preprogrammed years in advance. Getting out such a telescope and seeing whether it correctly locates the Moon is about as simple a measurement as one could make, no?

Regards
Krill

[dummy]

If the Moon is not in it's correct, calculated position, then my go-to telescope should fail to find it correctly in the sky. However, each time I have tried it has found the Moon correctly. Do you consider this physical proof that the Moon is indeed in the position we (or the telescope manufactureres) expect it to be?

Why are you using your GOTO scope when a simple measurement would do? Is it so hard to measure the altitude of the Moon at prescribed points and compare it to Navy data?
I used my GOTO scope as I can now go outside and use it to look at a few objects in the sky. Regardless what I used, I have just physically proven (to myself at least) that the Moon is positioned in the sky exactly where the telescope company predicted it to be. Do you consider this proof and if not, why not?

[Grant]

my observations correspond with yours. How could somebody in Wisconsin see something different to either of us?

Regards
Krill

[Grand Vizier]

For those who want to see the truth, download the Moon data in advance and save it. Then do a comparison, the results will stir questions.

I'll take you up on that. How about we post here the predictions for the Moon's location around October 27th/28th and check later?

Regards
Krill

I've already offered to put €10,000 on it as a bet, BHK, he hasn't taken it up.

[Grant]

my observations correspond with yours. How could somebody in Wisconsin see something different to either of us?

Regards
Krill

Oregon, Syracuse and Wisconsin are about the same latitude give or take several degrees, but Florida would have seen a higher disc.

[BoredHugeKrill]

my observations correspond with yours. How could somebody in Wisconsin see something different to either of us?

Regards
Krill

Oregon, Syracuse and Wisconsin are about the same latitude give or take several degrees, but Florida would have seen a higher disc.

I completely agree.

But if you and I both saw the Moon at the same altitude, somebody in Wisconsin, looking on the same night, can't possibly have seen anything different, can they? We would all have been looking at the same thing over the same time range.

Regards
Krill

[Grand Vizier]

my observations correspond with yours. How could somebody in Wisconsin see something different to either of us?

Regards
Krill

Oregon, Syracuse and Wisconsin are about the same latitude give or take several degrees, but Florida would have seen a higher disc.

Florida is indeed a southerly state (waits for expression of enlightment to appear - maybe not, decides to crash out after all).

[Grant]

I used my GOTO scope as I can now go outside and use it to look at a few objects in the sky. Regardless what I used, I have just physically proven (to myself at least) that the Moon is positioned in the sky exactly where the telescope company predicted it to be. Do you consider this proof and if not, why not?

If the tilt of the Earth is the cause of the anomalies your GOTO scope will pick up nothing, because you are referencing stars that changed position as a group. The stars and the Moon are in the same positions relative to each other but the observer’s position has changed. This allows the Moon to be out of position, but still puts a GOTO scope on target due to programming.

[Grand Vizier]

If the tilt of the Earth is the cause of the anomalies...



What anomalies? This is simply begging the question.

[dummy]

I used my GOTO scope as I can now go outside and use it to look at a few objects in the sky. Regardless what I used, I have just physically proven (to myself at least) that the Moon is positioned in the sky exactly where the telescope company predicted it to be. Do you consider this proof and if not, why not?

If the tilt of the Earth is the cause of the anomalies your GOTO scope will pick up nothing, because you are referencing stars that changed position as a group. The stars and the Moon are in the same positions relative to each other but the observer’s position has changed. This allows the Moon to be out of position, but still puts a GOTO scope on target due to programming.

We are not discussing whether the Earth is tilted in this thread. We are discussing whether the Moon's position in the sky is incorrect. I'll ask again; If my aligned go-to telescope has just correctly found the moon, do you consider this proof that the Moon is in the correct position?

[trebob]

If the Moon is not in it's correct, calculated position, then my go-to telescope should fail to find it correctly in the sky. However, each time I have tried it has found the Moon correctly. Do you consider this physical proof that the Moon is indeed in the position we (or the telescope manufactureres) expect it to be?

Why are you using your GOTO scope when a simple measurement would do? Is it so hard to measure the altitude of the Moon at prescribed points and compare it to Navy data?

While simple handspan measurements and good astronomy programs (even those from 1997) are more than adequate for showing nothing is out of place, a goto does the math on its own with no way to account for unpredictable motions of the earth, moon, planets, or stars. Some one you should be familiar with has already taken the time to explain this and his explanation can be found here. (http://home.insightbb.com/~trebob/GoTos.htm)

[Grant]

I completely agree.

But if you and I both saw the Moon at the same altitude, somebody in Wisconsin, looking on the same night, can't possibly have seen anything different, can they? We would all have been looking at the same thing over the same time range.

Regards
Krill

When I posted the Moon had moved from its peak which for me was around 7:30 the debate got hot a couple of hours later which would allow all to see the same thing as the time zones moved into a peak appearance of the Moon.

[Grant]

What anomalies? This is simply begging the question.

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

[BoredHugeKrill]

I used my GOTO scope as I can now go outside and use it to look at a few objects in the sky. Regardless what I used, I have just physically proven (to myself at least) that the Moon is positioned in the sky exactly where the telescope company predicted it to be. Do you consider this proof and if not, why not?

If the tilt of the Earth is the cause of the anomalies your GOTO scope will pick up nothing, because you are referencing stars that changed position as a group. The stars and the Moon are in the same positions relative to each other but the observer’s position has changed. This allows the Moon to be out of position, but still puts a GOTO scope on target due to programming.

here is the central point:

you started by suggesting that the Moon was in the wrong position, as predicted by your calculations, and as observed by you. I do not dispute your observations, but I dispute your (original) calculations as to where the Moon should be. When you correct your own reasoning for the error which you made (and accept), your own reasoning predicts the Moon to be in the same position in which you actually observed it

Regards
Krill

[Grand Vizier]

When I posted the Moon had moved from its peak which for me was around 7:30 the debate got hot a couple of hours later which would allow all to see the same thing as the time zones moved into a peak appearance of the Moon.

Please I don't know what you mean exactly it all runs together because I think you have not added any punctuation.

[Grand Vizier]

What anomalies? This is simply begging the question.

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

Please cite.

[BoredHugeKrill]

What anomalies? This is simply begging the question.

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

you said that the Moon was "just above the trees" at your location. How did you measure the angle?

Regards
Krill

[Grant]

I'll ask again; If my aligned go-to telescope has just correctly found the moon, do you consider this proof that the Moon is in the correct position?

Again the Moon and your 2 reference stars do not change position relative to each other, but the whole grid of the sky can move as one and your GOTO scope will see nothing wrong, because the reference stars once position will focus on the same spot where the Moon should be.

[Tensor]

I used my GOTO scope as I can now go outside and use it to look at a few objects in the sky. Regardless what I used, I have just physically proven (to myself at least) that the Moon is positioned in the sky exactly where the telescope company predicted it to be. Do you consider this proof and if not, why not?

If the tilt of the Earth is the cause of the anomalies your GOTO scope will pick up nothing, because you are referencing stars that changed position as a group. The stars and the Moon are in the same positions relative to each other but the observer’s position has changed. This allows the Moon to be out of position, but still puts a GOTO scope on target due to programming.

Sorry Grant, that explanation won't fly. A member of our astronomy club set the polar altitude on his pier mount (with a go-to) several years ago (when he built his observatory building). If the tilt of the earth has changed since, the goto would not work because the altitude (of the polar location) would be different. But, as of last Saturday, his go-to's were spot on. Indicating the tilt of the earth hasn't changed.

[Grand Vizier]

You are claiming to have made observations, Grant. Why will you not answer questions about them, viz:




What anomalies? This is simply begging the question.

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

you said that the Moon was "just above the trees" at your location. How did you measure the angle?

Regards
Krill

[Grant]

When you correct your own reasoning for the error which you made (and accept), your own reasoning predicts the Moon to be in the same position in which you actually observed it

Regards
Krill

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.

[dummy]

I'll ask again; If my aligned go-to telescope has just correctly found the moon, do you consider this proof that the Moon is in the correct position?

Again the Moon and your 2 reference stars do not change position relative to each other, but the whole grid of the sky can move as one and your GOTO scope will see nothing wrong, because the reference stars once position will focus on the same spot where the Moon should be.
I suggest you read the link Trebob posted on how GOTO telescopes function.



While simple handspan measurements and good astronomy programs (even those from 1997) are more than adequate for showing nothing is out of place, a goto does the math on its own with no way to account for unpredictable motions of the earth, moon, planets, or stars. Some one you should be familiar with has already taken the time to explain this and his explanation can be found here. (http://home.insightbb.com/~trebob/GoTos.htm)
That was my understanding of my go-to scope, and the reason I tried the experiment. It would have provided me with physical proof that the Moon was in a different place to where it was predicted. The telescope shows the Moon to be in the correct place (in relation to the stars used to align) and I would like to know if Grant considers this proof that the Moon is in the predicted position and if not why not.




I used my GOTO scope as I can now go outside and use it to look at a few objects in the sky. Regardless what I used, I have just physically proven (to myself at least) that the Moon is positioned in the sky exactly where the telescope company predicted it to be. Do you consider this proof and if not, why not?

If the tilt of the Earth is the cause of the anomalies your GOTO scope will pick up nothing, because you are referencing stars that changed position as a group. The stars and the Moon are in the same positions relative to each other but the observer’s position has changed. This allows the Moon to be out of position, but still puts a GOTO scope on target due to programming.

here is the central point:

you started by suggesting that the Moon was in the wrong position, as predicted by your calculations, and as observed by you. I do not dispute your observations, but I dispute your (original) calculations as to where the Moon should be. When you correct your own reasoning for the error which you made (and accept), your own reasoning predicts the Moon to be in the same position in which you actually observed it

Regards
Krill
Also that go-to link brings up the fact that if the Earth had been tilted then the North star would have moved, rendering the go-to scope useless (as they are preprogrammed to assume it to be statically positioned). This would mean that the results from my go-to telescope prove that either of Grant's predictions are incorrect.

Grant. Please could you explain:

Edited to rephrase the first question
1) If the Moon's position in the Solar System has been affected by a force, why does my go-to telescope still find it perfectly.

2) If the Earth has tilted, how can I still successfully align my go-to telescope.

Regardless of your answers (and if for some reason my go-to telescope can still be aligned with a tilted Earth) the fact that it finds all the stars, planets and the Moon correctly is physical proof that they are all in the correct positions (relative to one another). Therefore your conclusion on your paper that the Moon's orbit/position has been affected by some unknown force can be proven incorrect. That is what this thread is about, and as you said before:


You have a problem in front of you now start here

[BoredHugeKrill]

When you correct your own reasoning for the error which you made (and accept), your own reasoning predicts the Moon to be in the same position in which you actually observed it

Regards
Krill

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.

at what altitude do you predict it to have been observed? Use the reasoning that you posted on your wesite, and show what the result would be

Regards
Krill

[Grant]

Sorry Grant, that explanation won't fly. A member of our astronomy club set the polar altitude on his pier mount (with a go-to) several years ago (when he built his observatory building). If the tilt of the earth has changed since, the goto would not work because the altitude (of the polar location) would be different. But, as of last Saturday, his go-to's were spot on. Indicating the tilt of the earth hasn't changed.

Your GOTO scope is referencing a changing sky now, it uses the same technology to predict paths

[Grand Vizier]

Your GOTO scope is referencing a changing sky now, it uses the same technology to predict paths

What observations have you made that establish that the sky is 'changing?'

[Grant]

at what altitude do you predict it to have been observed? Use the reasoning that you posted on your wesite, and show what the result would be

Regards
Krill

You and I know the difference between 18 and 30 degrees,the common would not even notice.

Krilll there is and easy way, track the Moon and compare it to the Navy site.

[Tensor]

Sorry Grant, that explanation won't fly. A member of our astronomy club set the polar altitude on his pier mount (with a go-to) several years ago (when he built his observatory building). If the tilt of the earth has changed since, the goto would not work because the altitude (of the polar location) would be different. But, as of last Saturday, his go-to's were spot on. Indicating the tilt of the earth hasn't changed.

Your GOTO scope is referencing a changing sky now, it uses the same technology to predict paths

Nope, the angle to polar north, on that scope, has not changed. If it had, the go-to's would not work as the go-to would start from the wrong initial position (not to mention the polar position would not appear in the same place, which is does, in the polar scope).

[dummy]

Your GOTO scope is referencing a changing sky now, it uses the same technology to predict paths

What observations have you made that establish that the sky is 'changing?'
I think I can supply some observations that establish that it's not.
I've just gone back out with my previously aligned go-to telescope. Without realigning it I made it track down to Venus, then up to Saturn then back down to the Moon (It's getting cloudy right now and the stars I did before are currently covered). It successfully found them (even though they've moved across the sky).

If the Earth had tilted and the sky had changed, would the go-to scope not fail to find them without realignment? Wouldn't a different tilt on the Earth cause objects in the sky to follow a different curved path?

[Grand Vizier]

at what altitude do you predict it to have been observed? Use the reasoning that you posted on your wesite, and show what the result would be

Regards
Krill

You and I know the difference between 18 and 30 degrees,the common would not even notice.

Krilll there is and easy way, track the Moon and compare it to the Navy site.

Who is 'the common' and why the obsession with the Navy (which Navy?). How about you explain your observations from the latitude of Syracuse NY and how they obviate everything we know about Newtonian mechanics?

[Grant]

Also that go-to link brings up the fact that if the Earth had been tilted then the North star would have moved, rendering the go-to scope useless (as they are preprogrammed to assume it to be statically positioned). This would mean that the results from my go-to telescope prove that either of Grant's predictions are incorrect.


If the tilt was off, nearby objects would affected, but objects far away would hardly move and most would just tweak the scope and pay it no mind if a slight adjusment was needed.

[dummy]

Also that go-to link brings up the fact that if the Earth had been tilted then the North star would have moved, rendering the go-to scope useless (as they are preprogrammed to assume it to be statically positioned). This would mean that the results from my go-to telescope prove that either of Grant's predictions are incorrect.


If the tilt was off, nearby objects would affected, but objects far away would hardly move and most would just tweak the scope and pay it no mind if a slight adjusment was needed.
If the tilt was off, my scope would fail to align at all. Please could you answer my two previously asked questions?

[Grand Vizier]

Your GOTO scope is referencing a changing sky now, it uses the same technology to predict paths

What observations have you made that establish that the sky is 'changing?'
I think I can supply some observations that establish that it's not.
[...]


You're doing friendly fire here...

[dummy]

Your GOTO scope is referencing a changing sky now, it uses the same technology to predict paths

What observations have you made that establish that the sky is 'changing?'
I think I can supply some observations that establish that it's not.
[...]


You're doing friendly fire here...
I wasn't trying to. From my understanding if the sky had changed (due to an Earth tilt which I think Grant is getting at) wouldn't objects track across the sky slightly differently, due to a new angle of rotation? My go-to scope still working correctly without being realigned over the past couple hours shows that the movement of those 3 objects is as the telescope manufacturer predicted.

[BoredHugeKrill]

Also that go-to link brings up the fact that if the Earth had been tilted then the North star would have moved, rendering the go-to scope useless (as they are preprogrammed to assume it to be statically positioned). This would mean that the results from my go-to telescope prove that either of Grant's predictions are incorrect.


If the tilt was off, nearby objects would affected, but objects far away would hardly move and most would just tweak the scope and pay it no mind if a slight adjusment was needed.

you've already supplied the necesary reasoning to determine precisely where the Moon should have been on the date you observed it.

What is your calculation, based on that reasoning (correcting for the Earth orbiting in the correct direction) for the Moon's maximum altitude on the date on which you observed it?

Regards
Krill

[Grand Vizier]

I wasn't trying to. From my understanding if the sky had changed (due to an Earth tilt which I think Grant is getting at) wouldn't objects track across the sky slightly differently, due to a new angle of rotation? My go-to scope still working correctly without being realigned over the past couple hours shows that the movement of those 3 objects is as the telescope manufacturer predicted.

I am so totally totally with you. No problem. But check the thread out.

[SarahMc]

I'm curious here Grant. Are you saying that on Oct 22nd (or thereabouts) we should be able to measure the moon at an altitude higher (or lower, I didn't see your actual measurement) than what is predicted by both our software and the USNO?

If so, I'll be more than happy to measure the moon's altitude as it crosses the merdian on the 22nd/23rd (weather permitting). Just for reference, here's the data ahead of time for those dates (for my location):

22 Oct 2004 8:54:22 PM
(Julian day number 2453301.53775)
Right ascension: 22h 5m 42.90s
Declination: -17° 39' 22.4"
Constellation: Aquarius
Altitude: 29° 33' 49"
Azimuth: 180° 1' 10"
Rise: 15h 54m 37s
Transit: 20h 54m 17s
Set: 0h 47m 43s

And for the 23rd:

23 Oct 2004 9:43:22 PM
(Julian day number 2453302.57178)
Right ascension: 22h 58m 45.12s
Declination: -11° 43' 58.6"
Constellation: Aquarius
Altitude: 35° 28' 51"
Azimuth: 180° 2' 0"
Rise: 16h 20m 19s
Transit: 21h 43m 14s
Set: 2h 3m 44s


Now, since I can easily track the moon (having two driven mounts and a number of scopes), and I can also digitally read out altitude and azimuth of any object centered in an astrometric reticle at any instant (within a few arcminutes of accuracy), as well as Right Ascension and Declination, I shouldn't have any problem verifying your claim, correct? One scope has a permanent pier in 2 tons of concrete, the other is mounted on a portable tripod - both are equatorial mounts.

Or, was this a one time instance of the moon being at the wrong altitude? I find it a little hard to accept since you're making a claim based on a passed date (we can't go back in time to take measurements to verify or disprove). If your assumption is correct, any date should do - should it not? That by the way, also includes the upcoming eclipse on the 28th.

And for additional reference Grant, I'm very close to your latitude (here in New York as well - only hundred miles or so to the East). So, I'd appreciate a prediction (based on your work) as to what altitude the moon will be when it crosses the meridian on Oct 22nd or 23rd. I'll be more than happy to take measurements.

So, could we get a prediction based on your theory that we can take measurements on in the future, rather than argue about undocumented data from yourself refering to a passed date?

[Grand Vizier]

dummy, my:


What observations have you made that establish that the sky is 'changing?'

was aimed at grant, not you.

[I also realise that I misread your post, I'm sorry. Especially because you've been out all night doing real astronomy.]

[edited to include apology]

[Grant]

Grant. Please could you explain:


2) If the Earth has tilted, how can I still successfully align my go-to telescope.



You are using reference points that have changed to the observer on Earth, but not to each other. If Vega was 2 degrees to the nnw of the Moon and Sirius 5 degrees to the east of the Moon, which was located at 18 degrees above the horizon due south and an outside force affected the tilt of the Earth. The Moon moves to 25 degrees due SW Vega would still be 2 degrees to the nnw and Sirius 5 degrees to the east of the Moon. Now you come along none the wiser turn on your GoTO scope focus in on Vega and Sirius and the Scope moves to a position 5 degrees west of Sirius and 2 degrees sse of Vega and finds the Moon, all is normal.

[Grant]

Who is 'the common' and why the obsession with the Navy (which Navy?). How about you explain your observations from the latitude of Syracuse NY and how they obviate everything we know about Newtonian mechanics?

Common Man

US Navy Astronomical Applications Dept.

[Grant]

Wouldn't a different tilt on the Earth cause objects in the sky to follow a different curved path?

The with referencing the sky changes all the the time, remember the seasons and your scope works.

[Grand Vizier]

You are using reference points that have changed to the observer on Earth, but not to each other. If Vega was 2 degrees to the nnw of the Moon and Sirius 5 degrees to the east of the Moon, which was located at 18 degrees above the horizon due south and an outside force affected the tilt of the Earth. The Moon moves to 25 degrees due SW Vega would still be 2 degrees to the nnw and Sirius 5 degrees to the east of the Moon. Now you come along none the wiser turn on your GoTO scope focus in on Vega and Sirius and the Scope moves to a position 5 degrees west of Sirius and 2 degrees sse of Vega and finds the Moon, all is normal.

Ooof. I don't have a go-to scope. But are you saying that they have this kind of in-built urge to find the moon? That's some kind of weird tech, don't you think?

[Grand Vizier]

Who is 'the common' and why the obsession with the Navy (which Navy?). How about you explain your observations from the latitude of Syracuse NY and how they obviate everything we know about Newtonian mechanics?

Common Man


What a give-away...

[Grant]

How about you explain your observations from the latitude of Syracuse NY and how they obviate everything we know about Newtonian mechanics?

Do you know if Newtonian Mechaniics is completely correct or is he just providing a step to the next level?

[dummy]

dummy, my:

What observations have you made that establish that the sky is 'changing?'
was aimed at grant, not you.
Ack my mistake. At the time I was dilly-dallying between the telescope and the computer so I figured you were asking for observations of either.





Grant. Please could you explain:


2) If the Earth has tilted, how can I still successfully align my go-to telescope.



You are using reference points that have changed to the observer on Earth, but not to each other. If Vega was 2 degrees to the nnw of the Moon and Sirius 5 degrees to the east of the Moon, which was located at 18 degrees above the horizon due south and an outside force affected the tilt of the Earth. The Moon moves to 25 degrees due SW Vega would still be 2 degrees to the nnw and Sirius 5 degrees to the east of the Moon. Now you come along none the wiser turn on your GoTO scope focus in on Vega and Sirius and the Scope moves to a position 5 degrees west of Sirius and 2 degrees sse of Vega and finds the Moon, all is normal.
That doesn't answer the question. If the Earth has tilted then the predictable point that the sky would turn around would be different. The telescope mount depends on a preprogrammed predictable point and it would fail to function, regardless if the reference points have not changed to one another.

You also seem to have missed my first question, so I'll ask them both again (slightly rephrased to keep up to date with the thread).

1) If your paper points to the Moon's position in the Solar System having been affected by a force, why does my go-to telescope still find it perfectly.

2) If your paper points to an unexplained tilt in the Earth's axis causing the Moon to be off-position, how can I still successfully align my go-to telescope that relies on a precalculated rotational origin in the sky.

[AliCali]

Forgive me for jumping in, but, Grant,

You replied to dummy:



Also that go-to link brings up the fact that if the Earth had been tilted then the North star would have moved, rendering the go-to scope useless (as they are preprogrammed to assume it to be statically positioned). This would mean that the results from my go-to telescope prove that either of Grant's predictions are incorrect.


If the tilt was off, nearby objects would affected, but objects far away would hardly move and most would just tweak the scope and pay it no mind if a slight adjusment was needed.

This means the North Star (Polaris) will not change its altitude relative to the horizon because it's far away?

Then later, you said:





Grant. Please could you explain:


2) If the Earth has tilted, how can I still successfully align my go-to telescope.



You are using reference points that have changed to the observer on Earth, but not to each other. If Vega was 2 degrees to the nnw of the Moon and Sirius 5 degrees to the east of the Moon, which was located at 18 degrees above the horizon due south and an outside force affected the tilt of the Earth. The Moon moves to 25 degrees due SW Vega would still be 2 degrees to the nnw and Sirius 5 degrees to the east of the Moon. Now you come along none the wiser turn on your GoTO scope focus in on Vega and Sirius and the Scope moves to a position 5 degrees west of Sirius and 2 degrees sse of Vega and finds the Moon, all is normal.

This means the OTHER stars DO change their position? Does this seem like a contradiction, or did I not understand?

[Grant]

What is your calculation, based on that reasoning (correcting for the Earth orbiting in the correct direction) for the Moon's maximum altitude on the date on which you observed it?

Regards
Krill

I would need the deviation of the Moon to the ecliptic for that date to give you an answer and I do not have it now.

[Grant]

I'm curious here Grant. Are you saying that on Oct 22nd (or thereabouts) we should be able to measure the moon at an altitude higher (or lower, I didn't see your actual measurement) than what is predicted by both our software and the USNO?

If so, I'll be more than happy to measure the moon's altitude as it crosses the merdian on the 22nd/23rd (weather permitting). Just for reference, here's the data ahead of time for those dates (for my location):

That is good, but what I would really want is for you and others to post data on Moon phase peaks so we can all compare the altitude readings.

[Grant]

[quote=Grant]Ooof. I don't have a go-to scope. But are you saying that they have this kind of in-built urge to find the moon? That's some kind of weird tech, don't you think?

Try again and this time try understaning what is said.

[Grand Vizier]

That is good, but what I would really want is for you and others to post data on Moon phase peaks so we can all compare the altitude readings.

I think you misunderstand. People here are waiting for you to supply observational data. Not the other way round.

[Grant]

That doesn't answer the question. If the Earth has tilted then the predictable point that the sky would turn around would be different. The telescope mount depends on a preprogrammed predictable point and it would fail to function, regardless if the reference points have not changed to one another.

You also seem to have missed my first question, so I'll ask them both again (slightly rephrased to keep up to date with the thread).

You act like the tillt of the Earth does not change normally and it does. Your telescope functions just fine or are you making expections just to fit your answers?

[PhantomWolf]

Hey Grant.

I almost didn't bother coming in on this post because I didn't think I could add much, however...

I see that you still don't seem to understand how a GoTo Scope works. I'll try and make it simple.

The scope is aimed towards north, aligned by a compass, GPS, or for those in the Northern Hemisphere, towards the North Star. It then asks for the users position by longitude and latitude and what the time is. Using a basic algorithm, it then moves the scope a number of degrees based on where its program says the object should be.

Calibration is merely to correct for the user not placing it perfectly to the north, not to align the scope itself. Pointing it North does that automatically because that is all the scope needs.

Now let's consider what would happen if the axis of the Earth titled?

If you tilt the Earth by 10° -ALL- of the stars will move by 10° it MUST happen. This means that when the Telescope user attempts to calibrate the scope, IT WON'T WORK. The first star they try to lock onto will not be there because the scope will be out by 10°

Okay, so let's assume that the user then realigns the scope to see the correct star. They now attempt to find the second. This won't work either.

Why? Because the scope's program makes the assumption that the sky would have been circling about the Celestial North Pole (or South down here.) if the axis was moved by 10° then it would be circling about a point 10° away from the position we think of as Celestial North. This means that the way the stars would move would be totally different to what is expected.

You can do this as an experiment for yourself. Get a circle of cardboard and cut a hole in it about halfway from the center and the edge. Place it on a piece of paper and put a pin in the center (this pin is going to be our Celestial North.) Now use a pen to mark the paper under the hole. Rotate the circle about by 90° and mark the paper through the hole again. This is where the "star" will have moved assuming a normal CN. A GoTo Scope would move to there to find the star. Now turn the circle back to the original position. Take the pin and place it somewhere else (other than the center) it doesn't really matter where, though a few centimetres at least would be good. Now rotate the circle by 90° again and mark the new position. This would be where the star is assuming a different CN.

You will see that both marks are in totally different places. This is the reason way a GoTo Scope cannot function unless the sky is EXACTLY as the programmer assumed that it would be. Any change, and the scope fails.

When you understand this you might uderstand why Nancy is so verment that GoTo Scopes won't work and that anyone saying they do is lying. She understands that for them to work means that the skies are the same as normal which destroys her claims, and so she attacks those that claim they are. The funny thing here is that she is understanding it all better that you.

[edited to add a number of missing a's and o's that ran away]

[Musashi]

The tilt of the earth changes?

[latimer]

Hello,

Grant wrote:

"If the tilt of the Earth is the cause of the anomalies your GOTO scope will pick up nothing, because you are referencing stars that changed position as a group. The stars and the Moon are in the same positions relative to each other but the observer’s position has changed. This allows the Moon to be out of position, but still puts a GOTO scope on target due to programming.

This is completely wrong. If the Earth has tilted unpredictably, then the point about which spin ALL the stars has moved as well; and thus nothing will move predictably. Thus, a GoTo will 'know' the locations of stars vis-a-vie each other; but only at the moment it was aligned. If you were correct, Grant, as the night progressed, the stars, Moon, and planets would all move in unpredictable ways; because one of the initial assumptions the telescope is making is now incorrect; and the telescope has no way to compensate. None.

If the Earth is tilting unpredictably, the center of the sky wheel MUST tilt as well. No GoTo, nor even my simple starwheel, has any means of compensating. Thus, if they are working, the Earth must *not* have tilted.

My old experiment should address this nicely. To wit:

INITIAL CLAIM: That the Moon's arc, rise, or set is not at the place predicted, or the time predicted, or that its motion in the sky is somehow wrong. Remember that if the Moon is in the wrong place overhead from any point of view, it should be at the wrong place at moonrise and moonset somewhere else in the world at the same moment.

POSSIBLE CAUSES:
1) Unpredcited Motion of the Earth.
2) Unpredicted Motion of Moon
3) Observational Error

TOOLS TO TEST AND MEASURE CLAIM: Goto or Equatorial Mounted Scope; Solar Filter; an electronic database to eliminate ´human fudging´; good weather.

EXPERIMENTS TO TEST CLAIM:

Experiment 1 - Using a telescope with any electronic database; although the older the better, align on two stars, and then pick a pair of target stars. Test ability of the telescope to lock in on those same stars at least four times over a few hour period. Repeat on a couple of different nights. If the telescope succeeds in doing this without further alignments, Possible Cause 1 is eliminated: there is no unpredicted motion of Earth.

Experiment 2 - Using a telescope with any electronic database; although the older the better, align on two stars about an hour before Moonrise. Test ability of telescope to lock in on the Moon at Moonrise. Without changing any settings, make six observations over the course of the evening, confirming that the telescope is properly tracking the Moon. Check the telescope's accuracy at tracking the Moon at moonset. Repeat on a couple of differnt days. If the telescope succeeds in doing this without further alignments, Possible Cause 2 is eliminated: there is no unpredicted motion of the Moon. **You may need to use a solar filter when tracking the Moon during the day; so strong caution is advised!**

That will leave Observational Error as the most likely explanation of the Initial Claim, and prove the Initial Claim false.

All right. The Moon is predicted to rise locally at about 1:30, the morning of the eighth. If I align my telescopes at about 12:45AM; aligning on two stars, and around 1:15 have my telescope lock onto the Moon (which should still be lower than the horizon). If the Moon is moving any way other than predicted by mundane science, the telescope should be unable to track the Moon.

Now, in advance, do you agree with this experiment? And, if the telescope is able to track the Moon, will that be sufficient evidence to convince you that the Moon is, in fact, behaving precisely as predicted by mundane science? Will tracking it through to dawn be enough?

If it is not, what would be sufficient evidence? And if nothing; no observation, no fact, no evidence whatsoever; can convince you at all, will you please just admit it? Or spell out what evidence WOULD change your mind?

Thank you,

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


Edit - I see PhantomWolf posted an explanation as well. Hope they both help out.

[Grant]

[quote="AliCali"]Forgive me for jumping in, but, Grant,

No Problem



This means the North Star (Polaris) will not change its altitude relative to the horizon because it's far away?

What I am saying is that if adjustments are made to the tilt of the Earth a reference point very far away such as the North Star would shift slightly and most astronomers would just tweak their scopes to zero in. But objects nearby would show a different story.

[SarahMc]

You are using reference points that have changed to the observer on Earth, but not to each other. If Vega was 2 degrees to the nnw of the Moon and Sirius 5 degrees to the east of the Moon, which was located at 18 degrees above the horizon due south and an outside force affected the tilt of the Earth. The Moon moves to 25 degrees due SW Vega would still be 2 degrees to the nnw and Sirius 5 degrees to the east of the Moon. Now you come along none the wiser turn on your GoTO scope focus in on Vega and Sirius and the Scope moves to a position 5 degrees west of Sirius and 2 degrees sse of Vega and finds the Moon, all is normal.

That explaination won't fly with an equatorially mounted GoTo scope, Grant. Those mounts rely on the RA axis being pointed directly at the NCP (or South). If the Earth's tilt had changed, those mounts would not function properly. They would not track (the RA axis is the only one driven) and stars would creep up or down in the eyepeice or CCD. Pointing errors would also be drasticly affected. Not only that, but most scopes are equiped with manual setting circles as well as digital readouts. If the two jived, there'd be screams of firmware bugs all over the internet.

Neither has occured. AFAIK, no one I know has complained that their autoguiders on permanent piers will no longer track a star for more than a minute or two before it flies out of the FOV. No one I know that images on a regular basis has complained about trailing stars, field rotation or incorrect coordinates.

[BoredHugeKrill]

What is your calculation, based on that reasoning (correcting for the Earth orbiting in the correct direction) for the Moon's maximum altitude on the date on which you observed it?

Regards
Krill

I would need the deviation of the Moon to the ecliptic for that date to give you an answer and I do not have it now.

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

Regards
Krill

[SarahMc]

I'm curious here Grant. Are you saying that on Oct 22nd (or thereabouts) we should be able to measure the moon at an altitude higher (or lower, I didn't see your actual measurement) than what is predicted by both our software and the USNO?

If so, I'll be more than happy to measure the moon's altitude as it crosses the merdian on the 22nd/23rd (weather permitting). Just for reference, here's the data ahead of time for those dates (for my location):

That is good, but what I would really want is for you and others to post data on Moon phase peaks so we can all compare the altitude readings.

No Grant, you misunderstand.

You have a theory that needs to be tested. I'm willing to do some research to either prove or disprove your theory.

Besides, what's a "moon phase peak" anyhow? And, why can't you provide data as well?

[Grant]

That is good, but what I would really want is for you and others to post data on Moon phase peaks so we can all compare the altitude readings.

I think you misunderstand. People here are waiting for you to supply observational data. Not the other way round.

What is it about 30 degrees above the horizon that you do not understand?

[Grant]

Hey Grant.

I almost didn't bother coming in on this post because I didn't think I could add much, however...

I see that you still don't seem to understand how a GoTo Scope works. I'll try and make it simple.

The scope is aimed towards north, aligned by a compass, GPS,

Well phan if you used a compass to align your scope you would be on the other side of this debate.

[Grant]

Besides, what's a "moon phase peak" anyhow? And, why can't you provide data as well?

The closest reading you can take nearest to the peak of one of the 4 phases of the Moon

[PhantomWolf]

What I am saying is that if adjustments are made to the tilt of the Earth a reference point very far away such as the North Star would shift slightly and most astronomers would just tweak their scopes to zero in. But objects nearby would show a different story.

However you are wrong. Any shift in the Earth's axis results in a corresponding shift of a equal number of degrees in the star's positions. What you are claiming is like telling someone that if they face a distance mountain that it they then turn 10° to the right that while the nearby tree with move a lot, the mountain will appear to stay in almost exactly the same place in their field of view. Nonsense.

[AliCali]

Forgive me for jumping in, but, Grant,

No Problem



This means the North Star (Polaris) will not change its altitude relative to the horizon because it's far away?

What I am saying is that if adjustments are made to the tilt of the Earth a reference point very far away such as the North Star would shift slightly and most astronomers would just tweak their scopes to zero in. But objects nearby would show a different story.

Okay, so you're saying that the tilt of the Earth would cause a very far away object, such as the North Star, to move very slightly. However, objects nearby would move a lot. Is this correct? When you talk about objects nearby, do you mean the moon? Is this why you're saying the moon should be out of position?

If so, then why do you say all the other stars will be in the same position relative to the moon? Aren't all the other stars very far away, too?


For the others, I've never used a GoTo scope (I just star-hop with my binoculars), but these explanations make a lot of sense. I'm even given my own experiments to verify the claims independently (repeatable experiment). Very cool.

(Edited to fix quoting problem)

[PhantomWolf]

Well phan if you used a compass to align your scope you would be on the other side of this debate.

Actaully Grant, I use a compass when I do my moon position checks when I'm out moon gazing. So far I haven't found anything wrong.

[Grant]

If you were correct, Grant, as the night progressed, the stars, Moon, and planets would all move in unpredictable ways; because one of the initial assumptions the telescope is making is now incorrect; and the telescope has no way to compensate. None.

Jonathan.
I see you made it. You seem to think that the anomaly is large, it is not. The planets would not move in unpredictable ways, because the movement of the stars thru the sky is based on the rotation of the Earth and that has not changed.

[dummy]

What I am saying is that if adjustments are made to the tilt of the Earth a reference point very far away such as the North Star would shift slightly and most astronomers would just tweak their scopes to zero in. But objects nearby would show a different story.

However you are wrong. Any shift in the Earth's axis results in a corresponding shift of a equal number of degrees in the star's positions. What you are claiming is like telling someone that if they face a distance mountain that it they then turn 10° to the right that while the nearby tree with move a lot, the mountain will appear to stay in almost exactly the same place in their field of view. Nonsense.
I think Grant's remembered that perspective will cause close objects to shift a tad more than farther ones (when we compare the object's new positions in the sky), but is forgetting that everything will also shift in the opposite direction of the tilt.

[trebob]

Hey Grant.

I almost didn't bother coming in on this post because I didn't think I could add much, however...

I see that you still don't seem to understand how a GoTo Scope works. I'll try and make it simple.

The scope is aimed towards north, aligned by a compass, GPS,

Well phan if you used a compass to align your scope you would be on the other side of this debate.

I have a Celestron Nexstar 114GT that I align to North by compass and it has no problem tracking at all. A problem should have shown itself by now considering that I run college level observations in the area at least every other week.

It might be helpful for you to review how a goto tracks. An explanation of this process can be found here (http://home.insightbb.com/~trebob/GoTos.htm).

[Grant]

Jonathan,
Leave the telescope alone, just go out amd measure the Moon's altitude, its direction with a compass and the time and then compare to the US Navy database.

[SarahMc]

Besides, what's a "moon phase peak" anyhow? And, why can't you provide data as well?

The closest reading you can take nearest to the peak of one of the 4 phases of the Moon

Based on what data? The USNO? Aren't you claiming their data is incorrect?

OK, so the first quarter occurs at 21:59 UT on the 20th. For my location, that would correlate to

20 Oct 2004 5:59:00 PM
(Julian day number 2453299.41597)
Right ascension: 20h 5m 16.95s
Declination: -26° 39' 32.8"
Constellation: Sagittarius
Altitude: 19° 4' 11"
Azimuth: 165° 4' 42"
Rise: 14h 42m 33s
Transit: 19h 3m 55s
Set: 23h 30m 58s
Phase: 0.501
Phase angle: 89.9°
Elongation: 90.0°

So, your altitude prediction for that date is what, based on your theory? I only ask so that I can check my observation against your prediction (again, weather permitting - and yes, I can do it in daylight).

You see Grant, what it comes down to is this, "What data can your theory predict?", *not* "What data can we find that fits the theory?".

So, a prediction for lunar altitude on the 20th at 21:59UT is within reason, and within your parameters, is it not?

[Grant]

That explaination won't fly with an equatorially mounted GoTo scope, Grant. Those mounts rely on the RA axis being pointed directly at the NCP (or South). If the Earth's tilt had changed, those mounts would not function properly. They would not track (the RA axis is the only one driven) and stars would creep up or down in the eyepeice or CCD. Pointing errors would also be drasticly affected. Not only that, but most scopes are equiped with manual setting circles as well as digital readouts. If the two jived, there'd be screams of firmware bugs all over the internet.

Neither has occured. AFAIK, no one I know has complained that their autoguiders on permanent piers will no longer track a star for more than a minute or two before it flies out of the FOV. No one I know that images on a regular basis has complained about trailing stars, field rotation or incorrect coordinates.

There complaints coming in from all over the world with the GoTo scopes, but everyone discounts it, the user is new, he or she calibrated wrong, excuses. The shift in the sky is subtle just enough for you to make that slight adjustment and you do every time, but you write off as a normal adjustment.

Take some advice go back to basics and just look.

[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?

[PhantomWolf]

I think Grant's remembered that perspective will cause close objects to shift a tad more than farther ones (when we compare the object's new positions in the sky), but is forgetting that everything will also shift in the opposite direction of the tilt.

I think you are right, but Parallax isn't the thing that changes the positions. Parallex would be an effect if you walked 50m away from your starting position, but that isn't the affect of what Grant is talking about. If the axis of the planet tilted unexpectedly then it would be the same as turning on the spot, not actually changing positions and so Parallex is not relevant in the situation.

[Grant]

You have a theory that needs to be tested. I'm willing to do some research to either prove or disprove your theory.

Besides, what's a "moon phase peak" anyhow? And, why can't you provide data as well?

If you are going to test the theories do it manually, and why don't I provide data? Insufficient time, my field research is very limited.

[PhantomWolf]

There complaints coming in from all over the world with the GoTo scopes, but everyone discounts it, the user is new, he or she calibrated wrong, excuses. The shift in the sky is subtle just enough for you to make that slight adjustment and you do every time, but you write off as a normal adjustment.

Take some advice go back to basics and just look.

Well Grant, I can tell you that many top Astronomers from all over the world come to this site (I've been talking to them about bringing Phil to NZ and so I'm learning exactly how famous he is in thise circles) and there is not one, zero, nada, nil, zlitch, none, a total absence of posts on this board claiming that their GoTo won't work. Why is that? In fact of all the sites I have been on the only one where I saw anyone state it was GLP and when YFH (usually) offered to help if they gave more details, they mysteriously disappeared. So, here's the test to back your claim. Find one (we just need one) claim on a genuine Astronomy forum of a GoTo Scope that isn't working because of something that can't be explained in a mudane way.

[Grant]

However you are wrong. Any shift in the Earth's axis results in a corresponding shift of a equal number of degrees in the star's positions. What you are claiming is like telling someone that if they face a distance mountain that it they then turn 10° to the right that while the nearby tree with move a lot, the mountain will appear to stay in almost exactly the same place in their field of view. Nonsense.

Really Phan,

If two mountain peaks lined up by sight one 20 miles away and the other 25 miles away and you shifted 100 yards to the right the mountains would still be align, but any object that lined up in the near field would shift.

[dummy]

If you were correct, Grant, as the night progressed, the stars, Moon, and planets would all move in unpredictable ways; because one of the initial assumptions the telescope is making is now incorrect; and the telescope has no way to compensate. None.

Jonathan.
I see you made it. You seem to think that the anomaly is large, it is not. The planets would not move in unpredictable ways, because the movement of the stars thru the sky is based on the rotation of the Earth and that has not changed.
If the Earth tilt changed they would be moving in an unpredicted manner as the calculations used to predict their movement through the sky (as seen from Earth) rely on the axis that the Earth rotates around.


Jonathan,
Leave the telescope alone, just go out amd measure the Moon's altitude, its direction with a compass and the time and then compare to the US Navy database.

What difference does it make if someone uses a go-to telescope to measure the Moon's altitude or if they use another instrument. An instrument is an instrument and has no bearing on the results.


There complaints coming in from all over the world with the GoTo scopes, but everyone discounts it, the user is new, he or she calibrated wrong, excuses. The shift in the sky is subtle just enough for you to make that slight adjustment and you do every time, but you write off as a normal adjustment.

Take some advice go back to basics and just look.

Can you provide links or evidence of complaints from all over the world? I have certainly never heard any that haven't been down to user error or faulty equipment. Any shift in the sky would cause the telescope to become pretty much useless as objects would not track correctly.

You have also still failed to answer my two questions. I'll rephrase them so that you don't have to admit your ideas are incorreect and see if that helps:

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)?

[trebob]

That explaination won't fly with an equatorially mounted GoTo scope, Grant. Those mounts rely on the RA axis being pointed directly at the NCP (or South). If the Earth's tilt had changed, those mounts would not function properly. They would not track (the RA axis is the only one driven) and stars would creep up or down in the eyepeice or CCD. Pointing errors would also be drasticly affected. Not only that, but most scopes are equiped with manual setting circles as well as digital readouts. If the two jived, there'd be screams of firmware bugs all over the internet.

Neither has occured. AFAIK, no one I know has complained that their autoguiders on permanent piers will no longer track a star for more than a minute or two before it flies out of the FOV. No one I know that images on a regular basis has complained about trailing stars, field rotation or incorrect coordinates.

There complaints coming in from all over the world with the GoTo scope

From where? Be specific.


but everyone discounts it, the user is new, he or she calibrated wrong, excuses.

I had problems with mine starting out. Turns out it was user error.


The shift in the sky is subtle just enough for you to make that slight adjustment and you do every time, but you write off as a normal adjustment.

I have to make no adjustments on either of my scopes.


Take some advice go back to basics and just look.

I couldn't agree more. I do this myself almost every night. Moon, planets, stars.... all right where they should be. Every astronomy program I have matches the current night sky perfectly. Tonight is cloudy or I would give some specific examples.

[dummy]

However you are wrong. Any shift in the Earth's axis results in a corresponding shift of a equal number of degrees in the star's positions. What you are claiming is like telling someone that if they face a distance mountain that it they then turn 10° to the right that while the nearby tree with move a lot, the mountain will appear to stay in almost exactly the same place in their field of view. Nonsense.

Really Phan,

If two mountain peaks lined up by sight one 20 miles away and the other 25 miles away and you shifted 100 yards to the right the mountains would still be align, but any object that lined up in the near field would shift.
If you're looking at two mountains behind a close object, as explained above, and then (without moving) rotate right by 20 degrees, do the three objects unalign? That's exactly what would happen if the Earth had tilted. Everything would appear to be 20 degrees to your left, but would still be aligned.

[PhantomWolf]

why don't I provide data? Insufficient time, my field research is very limited.

This seems to be your problem Grant. If you actually went out in the field and studied the situation you'd learn something. You are trying to tell people who do go out and stand in the weather and make observations all the time that what they are observing is wrng, and you have no data to back up you claims. Why should they believe what you claim without any data (or understanding of basic science) to back you up, over what they are observing with their own eyes and instruments?

[Grant]

If so, then why do you say all the other stars will be in the same position relative to the moon? Aren't all the other stars very far away, too?


When tracking the Moon does it not take up a large field of view in a telescope in comparison to a star? An anomaly with the Moon position is easily forgiven if it is still in that field of view.

[latimer]

Hello,

Grant wrote:

Jonathan,
Leave the telescope alone, just go out amd measure the Moon's altitude, its direction with a compass and the time and then compare to the US Navy database.

With all due respect: No. It is precisely the right tool to precisely measure the movements you are talking about. Unlike the Navy database, it can't have been 'manipulated by the powers that be,' as you and Nancy have claimed in the past. Compasses have magnetic deviation; again *reducing* accuracy. The gaps in accuracy are where your theories have a tendency to live; and the functioning of GoTo and equatorially mounted scopes worldwide reduces that real estate to near nothing. Remember, in order for your theory to be correct, *no GoTo or equatorial telescope tracking could function.* Not a single one.


You seem to think that the anomaly is large, it is not. The planets would not move in unpredictable ways, because the movement of the stars thru the sky is based on the rotation of the Earth and that has not changed.

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.

The movements of the stars through the sky is not based on the rotation of the Earth alone; but also its orbit about the Sun, and its polar alignment. As said above, for every degree the pole was off, so everything else would be off as well. Again, the point about which all stars spin would be different; and thus, in the long run, nothing would be able to track properly; for nothing would be movign predictably.

You can't have it both ways. Either heavenly objects are moving predictably, or they are not. My telescopes' performance, as well as thousands of others worldwide, proves that they are.


"If two mountain peaks lined up by sight one 20 miles away and the other 25 miles away and you shifted 100 yards to the right the mountains would still be align, but any object that lined up in the near field would shift."

If you were using, say, surveyor's equipment, the shift would be *most* noticible. That is why we use these tools; they are specifically designed to measure these things precisely.

My equipment is specifically designed to observe the heavens carefully and precisely. Were the claims of an unpredictably moving Moon true, there is no way that movement could be compensated for by my equipment. That my equipment does work properly belies your claim.

Now, would you please return to my experiment, and carefully explain where and how you think it would go wrong?

Thank you,

Jonathan
-It doesn't matter yadda yadda-

[PhantomWolf]

However you are wrong. Any shift in the Earth's axis results in a corresponding shift of a equal number of degrees in the star's positions. What you are claiming is like telling someone that if they face a distance mountain that it they then turn 10° to the right that while the nearby tree with move a lot, the mountain will appear to stay in almost exactly the same place in their field of view. Nonsense.

Really Phan,

If two mountain peaks lined up by sight one 20 miles away and the other 25 miles away and you shifted 100 yards to the right the mountains would still be align, but any object that lined up in the near field would shift.

Ahhhh, so this proves my post earlier, you are assuming Parallax, but what you are talking about, an axis shift, would not produce a Parallax effect. Tilting the axis of the Earth is the same as you turning to your left (or right) not to you walking 100 metres to one side. Moving 100 metres to one side would be the same as shunting the Earth in its orbit, either back of forwards slightly. This effect would also be noticable to astronomers, but it isn't as pronounced as an axis shift would be.

[Grant]

Actaully Grant, I use a compass when I do my moon position checks when I'm out moon gazing. So far I haven't found anything wrong.

So I guess your compass is immune from all those wild fluctuations being reported?

[dummy]

Actaully Grant, I use a compass when I do my moon position checks when I'm out moon gazing. So far I haven't found anything wrong.

So I guess your compass is immune from all those wild fluctuations being reported?
The only thing thats ever wildly fluctuated a compass I've used is a magnet. Can you provide links to respectable sources that are claiming this fluctuation?

Also, if there is such fluctuation, why did you tell us earlier to go out and use a compass rather than a go-to scope. Are you not contradicting yourself?

[SarahMc]

There complaints coming in from all over the world with the GoTo scopes, but everyone discounts it, the user is new, he or she calibrated wrong, excuses. The shift in the sky is subtle just enough for you to make that slight adjustment and you do every time, but you write off as a normal adjustment.

Take some advice go back to basics and just look.

Why do I get the feeling that you don't *want* anyone to check your theory with precision optics, worm drives and digital setting circles? "Just look"?

Grant, I belong to four Yahoo groups that are specific to certain models of GoTo scopes, each group a different model. Between the groups, there's almost 6,000 members. I own two GoTo scopes, and my sister owns two as well. Well three actually, but one was dismantled to use as a guide scope on a larger instrument

Not one person has made any statement similar to the above. Yes, there are occasional new user problems. Most people that have bought GoTo scopes are new to the technology, such as yourself. Those owners who have owned GoTo's for a numbers of years have no problems, including those that have permanent piers with an equatorial mount. Some of those scopes are well over a decade old now. For the tens of thousands of GoTo scopes around the world, a few of them with mechanical or new user problems is quite acceptable. It in no way supports a "tilted Earth" theory.

In fact, a quick search in Outlook comes up with no pointing or tracking errors since last March in one group, over 4,000 messages archived since last spring. Members over 2,000, all over the world. A few mechanical problems here and there, two new user questions about alignment - not problems, just questions. In fact, there isn't much discussion at all about tracking and pointing - most is about imaging, CCD's, care and maintenance, and accessories that are available or that have been reviewed. And of course, current astronomy events. Most of it is "how do I" and "How good is this" type of questions.

And Grant, I *do* look. Every night that the weather allows, and that amounts to just under a hundred nights a year, and I have been doing so for well over two decades. The only reason I'm posting right now is because it's cloudy outside, otherwise I'd be out there as usual.

[Grant]

I have a Celestron Nexstar 114GT that I align to North by compass and it has no problem tracking at all. A problem should have shown itself by now considering that I run college level observations in the area at least every other week.

It might be helpful for you to review how a goto tracks. An explanation of this process can be found here (http://home.insightbb.com/~trebob/GoTos.htm).

Next you want to print an explanation use the manual instead of latimer.
Now ask yourself why a a celestron make you use a compass when you can lock onto the North star?

[PhantomWolf]

If so, then why do you say all the other stars will be in the same position relative to the moon? Aren't all the other stars very far away, too?


When tracking the Moon does it not take up a large field of view in a telescope in comparison to a star? An anomaly with the Moon position is easily forgiven if it is still in that field of view.


Actually it depends entirely on the eyepiece of the Telescope.

[trebob]

You have a theory that needs to be tested. I'm willing to do some research to either prove or disprove your theory.

Besides, what's a "moon phase peak" anyhow? And, why can't you provide data as well?

If you are going to test the theories do it manually, and why don't I provide data? Insufficient time, my field research is very limited.

So 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?

[dummy]

I have a Celestron Nexstar 114GT that I align to North by compass and it has no problem tracking at all. A problem should have shown itself by now considering that I run college level observations in the area at least every other week.

It might be helpful for you to review how a goto tracks. An explanation of this process can be found here (http://home.insightbb.com/~trebob/GoTos.htm).

Next you want to print an explanation use the manual instead of latimer.
Now ask yourself why a a celestron make you use a compass when you can lock onto the North star?
I also own a Celestron 114GT and they don't make you use one. You can align the telescope perfectly well by simply pointing it roughly level at the North star and then doing small corrections as you use it. It's just generally more accurate and requires less tinkering later on in the night to use a compass and then align with two stars.

[Grant]

So, a prediction for lunar altitude on the 20th at 21:59UT is within reason, and within your parameters, is it not?

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

[PhantomWolf]

Actaully Grant, I use a compass when I do my moon position checks when I'm out moon gazing. So far I haven't found anything wrong.

So I guess your compass is immune from all those wild fluctuations being reported?

I have the said compass sitting right next to me and it hasn't had any "wild fluctuations" at all (well except when I sit it near my monitor and I wouldn't call that a wild fluctuation, it merely makes the needle turn towards the magnetics in the moniter.)

Again, instead of making Wild Claims, how about providing some proof. Show me one news article, or post in a reputable board with an astronomer, tramper, ship pilot, pilot, soldier, or boy scout where they claim that their compass is suffering from "wild fluctuations." This isn't GLP Grant, if you are going to make a claim, you need to back it up with proof.

[Grant]

[quote=Grant]

Well Grant, I can tell you that many top Astronomers from all over the world come to this site

And guess what that is why I am here. Now your task will not be as easy as it may seem. There are no AC's here or people spouting just pure nonsense, so we shall see how things proceed.

[SarahMc]

So, a prediction for lunar altitude on the 20th at 21:59UT is within reason, and within your parameters, is it not?

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

Well, maybe it would be a good idea to stop posting, and start formulating some predictions for two weeks from now, based upon your theory.

I'm sure everyone posting here tonight would agree to give you time to compute some altitude figures for the 1st quarter that we can check and report back on. If your theory is sound, the observations should support it.

[JFM]

Grant said:


There are no AC's here or people spouting just pure nonsense, so we shall see how things proceed

Really?

[Grant]

Dummy,
How many times does an explanation have to be repeated to you? The tilt of the Earth changes and your Go To scope does work and tracks. Lose them go back the manual methods it is the only way to be sure or are you afraid you might find a result that will make you nervous?

[trebob]

I have a Celestron Nexstar 114GT that I align to North by compass and it has no problem tracking at all. A problem should have shown itself by now considering that I run college level observations in the area at least every other week.

It might be helpful for you to review how a goto tracks. An explanation of this process can be found here (http://home.insightbb.com/~trebob/GoTos.htm).

Next you want to print an explanation use the manual instead of latimer.
Now ask yourself why a a celestron make you use a compass when you can lock onto the North star?

Why do I use a compass? Simple. Because the scope itself has no way of geting input from the outside world. I start the process by pointing the tube of the scope to magnetic north and level. Polaris is roughly 38 degrees up form this position (right where it should be for 38 degrees north latitude. Then based on that, my latitude, date, and time it picks out where it thinks 2 fairly bright stars are at. Not only does it point where the database tells it to, it finds these stars everytime. After askign me to verify through the hand control that it has found those stars, all the computer does is math and the basic assumptions of the goto scope apply through the time I turn it on to the time I turn it off and go back inside.

Nice try though.

[dummy]

Dummy,
How many times does an explanation have to be repeated to you? The tilt of the Earth changes and your Go To scope does work and tracks. Lose them go back the manual methods it is the only way to be sure or are you afraid you might find a result that will make you nervous?
And how many times (and by how many people) do you have to be told that your explanations are wrong and hold no ground. Go-to telescopes require a precalculated fixed point in the sky. Changing that point (by a tilt) will cause correct alignment and tracking to be impossible. This can be proven by reading the explanation of how the go-to systems work.

You have also yet again failed to answer my questions.



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)?

[Grant]

I have to make no adjustments on either of my scopes.

All instruments need adjustments, I am afraid your statement does not ring with much truth.

[PhantomWolf]

And guess what that is why I am here. Now your task will not be as easy as it may seem. There are no AC's here or people spouting just pure nonsense, so we shall see how things proceed.

You are quite right Grant, there are no AC's here and the only one so far spouting nonsense is you. Currently not one person who has entered this discussion has come close to agreeing with your theories. In fact they have pointed out why your are wrng, nd numerous times. In reponse all you have done is made unsupported claims and dodge questions. I suggest you change your way of doing things. Bring data, bring evidence and answer people's questins, because BA has a thing about people not doing so, and I'm still sort of hopeful that you might actually learn something here, so personally I don't want to see you banned, you are heading that way however.

[Grant]

If you're looking at two mountains behind a close object, as explained above, and then (without moving) rotate right by 20 degrees, do the three objects unalign? That's exactly what would happen if the Earth had tilted. Everything would appear to be 20 degrees to your left, but would still be aligned.

DUMMY,
Your first task, look up the word subtle and then rephrase your question.

[MolBasser]

Grant,

I can see that you have not changed your ways. Too bad, I was hoping for a more scientific argument on your part tonight.

Oh well.

So far I have seen nothing on your part to convince anyone that anything is out of place. Again.

I will sleep soundly once more this evening, resting with the knowledge that the heavens are just fine.

MolBasser

[trebob]

Dummy,
How many times does an explanation have to be repeated to you? The tilt of the Earth changes and your Go To scope does work and tracks. Lose them go back the manual methods it is the only way to be sure or are you afraid you might find a result that will make you nervous?

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.

[Grant]

This seems to be your problem Grant. If you actually went out in the field and studied the situation you'd learn something. You are trying to tell people who do go out and stand in the weather and make observations all the time that what they are observing is wrng, and you have no data to back up you claims. Why should they believe what you claim without any data (or understanding of basic science) to back you up, over what they are observing with their own eyes and instruments?

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

[SarahMc]

I for one, will wait until he provides some testable predictions, until then, I'll be on the sidelines.

Until he does, I see this thread going nowhere.

[PhantomWolf]

Dummy,
How many times does an explanation have to be repeated to you? The tilt of the Earth changes and your Go To scope does work and tracks.

Grant,
How many times does a explanation have to be repeated to you? If The tilt of the Earth changes, the stars all move because of it and no GoTo Scope would work or track.

[MolBasser]

I for one, will wait until he provides some testable predictions, until then, I'll be on the sidelines.

Plan on waiting a while...

MolBasser

[dummy]

If you're looking at two mountains behind a close object, as explained above, and then (without moving) rotate right by 20 degrees, do the three objects unalign? That's exactly what would happen if the Earth had tilted. Everything would appear to be 20 degrees to your left, but would still be aligned.

DUMMY,
Your first task, look up the word subtle and then rephrase your question.


sub·tle Audio pronunciation of "subtle" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (stl)
adj. sub·tler, sub·tlest

1.
1. So slight as to be difficult to detect or describe; elusive: a subtle smile.
2. Difficult to understand; abstruse: an argument whose subtle point was lost on her opponent.
2. Able to make fine distinctions: a subtle mind.
3.
1. Characterized by skill or ingenuity; clever.
2. Crafty or sly; devious.
3. Operating in a hidden, usually injurious way; insidious: a subtle poison.

I fail to see what that that has to do with the question you quoted, but I'll try rephrasing it anyway.

You take a camera that has the point of rotation origin passing right through the lense. You place it so that it is aligned with two mountains and a sign. You then turn the camera 20 degrees around its vertical rotational axis. Do the three objects become unaligned (even subtly)?

[Parrothead]

Just curious Grant, how did you come to your conclusions and how was it measured?

[SarahMc]

Plan on waiting a while...

MolBasser

I have lots of patience. :D

[PhantomWolf]

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?

[JFM]

Plan on waiting a while...

MolBasser

I have lots of patience. :D

You are going to find out what eternity feels like! :o

[SarahMc]

You are going to find out what eternity feels like! :o

Been there, done that. I'm still waiting for Nancy Lieder to provide a glimmer of evidence for her "Planet X".

Besides, there's lots of things you can do while you're waiting for eternity :lol:

[Grant]

With all due respect: No. It is precisely the right tool to precisely measure the movements you are talking about. Unlike the Navy database, it can't have been 'manipulated by the powers that be,' as you and Nancy have claimed in the past. Compasses have magnetic deviation; again *reducing* accuracy. The gaps in accuracy are where your theories have a tendency to live; and the functioning of GoTo and equatorially mounted scopes worldwide reduces that real estate to near nothing. Remember, in order for your theory to be correct, *no GoTo or equatorial telescope tracking could function.* Not a single one.

Now Jonathan if you find out that the tables of the US Navy are doctored then you have a problem, 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? You must be able to prove your point by manual methods.

[dummy]

With all due respect: No. It is precisely the right tool to precisely measure the movements you are talking about. Unlike the Navy database, it can't have been 'manipulated by the powers that be,' as you and Nancy have claimed in the past. Compasses have magnetic deviation; again *reducing* accuracy. The gaps in accuracy are where your theories have a tendency to live; and the functioning of GoTo and equatorially mounted scopes worldwide reduces that real estate to near nothing. Remember, in order for your theory to be correct, *no GoTo or equatorial telescope tracking could function.* Not a single one.

Now Jonathan if you find out that the tables of the US Navy are doctored then you have a problem, 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? You must be able to prove your point by manual methods.

I think you're beginning to wander off topic slightly. It would be nice if you could address the various questions asked in the thread.


You have a problem in front of you now start here

[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.

[trebob]

Grant,

I can see that you have not changed your ways. Too bad, I was hoping for a more scientific argument on your part tonight.

Oh well.

So far I have seen nothing on your part to convince anyone that anything is out of place. Again.

I will sleep soundly once more this evening, resting with the knowledge that the heavens are just fine.

MolBasser

As will I.

[Grant]

The movements of the stars through the sky is not based on the rotation of the Earth alone; but also its orbit about the Sun, and its polar alignment. As said above, for every degree the pole was off, so everything else would be off as well. Again, the point about which all stars spin would be different; and thus, in the long run, nothing would be able to track properly; for nothing would be movign predictably.

You can't have it both ways. Either heavenly objects are moving predictably, or they are not. My telescopes' performance, as well as thousands of others worldwide, proves that they are.

but also its orbit about the Sun
We went over this that is the seasonal tilt
and its polar alignment
We went over this also and I said it was subtle.

Prove it manually.

[Grant]

If you were using, say, surveyor's equipment, the shift would be *most* noticible. That is why we use these tools; they are specifically designed to measure these things precisely.

and I am sure we would see a shift in stars if we used the Hubble vs. your telescope. The reference was eyesight.

[dummy]

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?

[Grant]

Can you provide links to respectable sources that are claiming this fluctuation?


Do you read the papers or realize the core is diffusing.

[Grant]

I am retiring, I will answer more later.

leaving off at

SarahMc
Posted: Sat Oct 09, 2004 6:55 am
page 5

[PhantomWolf]

Well I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, but see that you have remained true to form Grant. I actually had hoped that you might have been willing to stick to the topic and actually provide something testable, I guess it shows that anyone can be silly at times.

There has been enough evidence and explanation given in this thread that a 5-year old could explain it all, and so all I can assume from your responses is that you aren't going to ever accept real science, nor real scientific method. I'm going to read the rest of the site now, I might be back to glance over the dregs of this topic, but unless you come up with even a shred of proof or a testable claim I can only figure that you are so totally entrenched in your Bunker that no evidence will ever move you from your beliefs. I think that's a little sad because it means that you refuse to actually learn and that causes stagnation of the brain. Still that is your choice.

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.

Post some real data and I'll be back to discuss it, but wild claims, specultions and "because I said"s just don't cut it here.

[dummy]

Can you provide links to respectable sources that are claiming this fluctuation?


Do you read the papers or realize the core is diffusing.
Do you consider papers to be a respectable source of information? I asked you provide a source. If the papers have covered it, it would not have been hard to find a respectable source online.

Also, another page has passed and you have failed to address my two questions from page 3.



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)?

[MolBasser]

Prove it manually.


No Grant, you show your data in detail. And then propose testable hypothesise that we can observe in the future to verify/disprove your theories.

You are taking the same troll slant here that you did at GLP.

Answer questions posed to you. Be succinct and clear. Propose testable hypothesise. That is how it works on this SCIENCE oriented forum.

You can't hide behind your obfuscations here Grant.

MolBasser

[latimer]

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.


Now Jonathan if you find out that the tables of the US Navy are doctored then you have a problem...

But those tables are unnecessary. It doesn't matter what the tables say; at least as far as my experiment is concerned. The reason why the experiment works is because there can be no remote doctoring of the tools involved in measuring; destroying that particular conspiracy theory. The U.S. Navy tables are, in this case, an obfuscation from this simple fact: telescopes continue to track; therefore nothing can be moving unpredictably.

The only thing the tables would do, is this particular situation, is further muddy the waters. Also, why are you suddenly trusting government sources? Any time they happen to disprove an idea of yours, you claim they have been doctored. Do you trust them or not? Which is it?


"...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; and I will stick to the fields that I feel more confident and well-versed in: astronomy, a little navigation, some basic physics, and a few other odds and ends. And with that, I shall drag the thread back onto topic: The Moon is behaving predictably, as it rose exactly on time and exactly as predicted as I was writing some of this very post.


"You must be able to prove your point by manual methods.

Why? What 'manual methods' would you accept? What possible difference could it make? What flaw, specifically, do you see in my 'non-manual' methods, outlined so carefully in my experiment above? I'd really like to know; and please be as specific as possible.

That said, fine.

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, 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?


"Well phan if you used a compass to align your scope you would be on the other side of this debate."

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?


You are making excuses, the anomaly is large enough for manual methods to pick it up and we do not have access to observatories.

Precisely who is making excuses? Observatories would be unnecessary to measure the anomaly you are describing; and many amateurs own scopes that rival some of the professionals in performance; and particularly for proving something as mundane as the heavens correctly circling the North Star. If there is an error of thirty degrees, that is truly humongous. The North Star is, obviously, not thirty degrees off its usual spot; or the center of spin would be thirty degrees away from it, rather than the usual just-shy-of-a-degree. If that kind of motion were actually occurring: again, all GoTos, Equatorials, Starwheels, and anything else mapping mundane astronomical movement, must fail. That they have not failed belies your claim. Do you understand?

How could such an anomaly be measurable using sticks and rulers; but disappear as soon as using precision equipment? As I have asked before, would you rather your house be built by the carpenter who uses levels, squares, and tape measures, or the carpenter who judges it all by eye?


We went over this that is the seasonal tilt

Which, coincidentally, is also still precisely as predicted, as evidenced by the constellations rising and setting precisely as predicted...


...and its polar alignment, We went over this also and I said it was subtle.

That's irrelevant. You are claiming that the Moon is, somehow, thirty degrees from where it ought to be. That isn't subtle. And yet, you can't describe a mechanism on how the Moon could be thirty degrees off course, and yet perfectly predictable in is rising, setting, and tracking across the sky. The error can't be subtle and gross at the same time.


...and I am sure we would see a shift in stars if we used the Hubble vs. your telescope. The reference was eyesight.

Sigh. Attempt at obfuscation noted. You are claiming a difference of thirty degrees; and yet you'd need the Hubble telescope to notice this? Grant, it is a difference of more than eight percent of the sky! And you are somehow claiming that amateurs wouldn't notice this; nor notice that the point at which all scopes assume the heavens will revolve is now in a completely different and unpredictable spot?


Prove it manually.

What, precisely, does that mean? What 'manual' measurement would you accept?

If I align a pair of sticks on the North Star, and they still line up in three months, is that enough to prove it to you?

Will the astrolabe?

The sextant?

The performance of telescopes, manual or otherwise?

Dummy's simple, yet fabulous, experiments?



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)?


Or perhaps my experiment, reprinted for your convenience?

INITIAL CLAIM: That the Moon's arc, rise, or set is not at the place predicted, or the time predicted, or that its motion in the sky is somehow wrong. Remember that if the Moon is in the wrong place overhead from any point of view, it should be at the wrong place at moonrise and moonset somewhere else in the world at the same moment.

POSSIBLE CAUSES:
1) Unpredicted Motion of the Earth.
2) Unpredicted Motion of Moon
3) Observational Error

TOOLS TO TEST AND MEASURE CLAIM: Goto or Equatorial Mounted Scope; Solar Filter; an electronic database to eliminate ´human fudging´; good weather.

EXPERIMENTS TO TEST CLAIM:

Experiment 1 - Using a telescope with any electronic database; although the older the better, align on two stars, and then pick a pair of target stars. Test ability of the telescope to lock in on those same stars at least four times over a few hour period. Repeat on a couple of different nights. If the telescope succeeds in doing this without further alignments, Possible Cause 1 is eliminated: there is no unpredicted motion of Earth.

Experiment 2 - Using a telescope with any electronic database; although the older the better, align on two stars about an hour before Moonrise. Test ability of telescope to lock in on the Moon at Moonrise. Without changing any settings, make six observations over the course of the evening, confirming that the telescope is properly tracking the Moon. Check the telescope's accuracy at tracking the Moon at moonset. Repeat on a couple of different days. If the telescope succeeds in doing this without further alignments, Possible Cause 2 is eliminated: there is no unpredicted motion of the Moon. **You may need to use a solar filter when tracking the Moon during the day; so strong caution is advised!**

That will leave Observational Error as the most likely explanation of the Initial Claim, and prove the Initial Claim false.

Now, in advance, do you agree with this experiment? And, if the telescope is able to track the Moon, will that be sufficient evidence to convince you that the Moon is, in fact, behaving precisely as predicted by mundane science? Will tracking it through to dawn be enough?

If it is not, what would be sufficient evidence? And if nothing; no observation, no fact, no evidence whatsoever; can convince you at all, will you please just admit it? Or spell out precisely what evidence WOULD change your mind?

Describe an experiment or observation that could possibly convince you that you are incorrect. What could do it? Name it!

If the answer is nothing at all, that's fine, too: just please admit it. Now, will you attempt to do this, or will your obfuscations continue?

I am looking forward to your answers. Please don't disappoint me.

Thank you,

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

[molesworth]

Looks like I've missed the "big debate" :-?

There's not much I can add to this, except to say that non-GOTO telescopes are also working exactly as expected, which they wouldn't if the Earth's axis had tilted.

My scope is on a basic equatorial mount, and once it's polar aligned will track correctly all night.

More importantly, the main scope at my local observatory is a beautiful Victorian instrument, with a clockwork drive, which also tracks very precisely. The mount hasn't been adjusted for as long as I've been going there, and there are probably only half a dozen people in the country who'd be trusted just to take the cover off to clean the drive mechanism, never mind make any kind of changes to it.

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.

Better still, get a copy of one of Jean Meeus' books on astronomical calculations, and do your own predictions on a pocket calculator. (I even found a downloadable spreadsheet version on a site here (http://www.xylem.f2s.com/kepler/moon3.html) which saves you the hard work.)

[PhantomWolf]

Well not the moon, but I just (3:30am local) went out and took a bearing on Orion's belt, specifically Alnilam. My Compass bearing was 27±1° E

Okay so what is that as an Azimuth angle?

First. Magnetic Deviation = 20° 19' E

so my reading is now:

27 + 20 = 47±1°

To get into an Azimuth Angle I need to add 180° so:

47 + 180 = 227±1°


Accrding to Skyviewcafe.com (http://www.skyviewcafe.com/skyview.php) Alnilam should be at:

227° 43' 20"


I'd say that shows two things. Firstly my compass is working fine, and secondly, the stars are exactly were they should be.

[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

[BoredHugeKrill]

If you were using, say, surveyor's equipment, the shift would be *most* noticible. That is why we use these tools; they are specifically designed to measure these things precisely.

and I am sure we would see a shift in stars if we used the Hubble vs. your telescope. The reference was eyesight.

why exactly are you "sure"? You have only conducted one experiment so far - and the observation agrees with your very own reasoning in your paper, once corrected for the error that we discussed on the first page, within the accuracy of which your experiment is capable.

Therefore your experiment does not result in any evidence that the Moon is out of place. Why are you "sure" that some other experiment will produce such evidence?

Regards
Krill

[Grand Vizier]

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]

[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]

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)

Regards
Krill

[Grand Vizier]

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 :( )

[BoredHugeKrill]

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

yeah, but I'll be annoyed if it's cloudy here - I want to get some pictures myself...

Regards
Krill

[Cl1mh4224rd]

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?

[Grand Vizier]

So, Grant seems to believe the deviation is roughly 12 degrees. That's still pretty large and noticable, though.


I'm not sure that Grant is aware that the angular displacements he is proposing are enormous in astronomical terms.

[Ravenwood]

My equipment is specifically designed to observe the heavens carefully and precisely. Were the claims of an unpredictably moving Moon true, there is no way that movement could be compensated for by my equipment. That my equipment does work properly belies your claim.

Now, would you please return to my experiment, and carefully explain where and how you think it would go wrong?

Thank you,

Jonathan
-It doesn't matter yadda yadda-
Also, Latimer's equipment & experiment are backed up by my Astrolabe, Cross Staff & Quadrant, of which have NO software to fool & were built back in the early eighties (who says the SCA is all about fighting & partying...)
edited to add: Damn! I'm late on this one...thanks Latimer, I was gonna ask him about my "analog" technology & why it still works too... note to self:read whole thread before replying...

[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

[PhantomWolf]

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

Only one I recall was CB and he's in Florida.

[Grant]

So 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?

How is it not? I am asking you to manually measure the altitude of the Moon in stead of saying my scope can find it. Is it so hard for you to use basic scientific research?

[Grant]

I also own a Celestron 114GT and they don't make you use one. You can align the telescope perfectly well by simply pointing it roughly level at the North star and then doing small corrections as you use it. It's just generally more accurate and requires less tinkering later on in the night to use a compass and then align with two stars.

You just back up what I have been saying all night. Does everybody see how he aligns his scope and the flaw in it?

[Kaptain K]

Until he does, I see this thread going nowhere.
Oh, it's going somewhere alright! Unless Grant drops his GLP tactics :roll: , it's going to be locked! :o

[dummy]

So 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?

How is it not? I am asking you to manually measure the altitude of the Moon in stead of saying my scope can find it. Is it so hard for you to use basic scientific research?
What does it matter if it is measured? If the scope can find it, it's in the right place. What is your reasoning behind invalidating the results from a telescope and what instruments do you suggest are used to measure the altitude?



I also own a Celestron 114GT and they don't make you use one. You can align the telescope perfectly well by simply pointing it roughly level at the North star and then doing small corrections as you use it. It's just generally more accurate and requires less tinkering later on in the night to use a compass and then align with two stars.

You just back up what I have been saying all night. Does everybody see how he aligns his scope and the flaw in it?
Exactly what flaw do you see?

[Grant]

Again, instead of making Wild Claims, how about providing some proof. Show me one news article, or post in a reputable board with an astronomer, tramper, ship pilot, pilot, soldier, or boy scout where they claim that their compass is suffering from "wild fluctuations." This isn't GLP Grant, if you are going to make a claim, you need to back it up with proof.

Phan,
There are articles everywhere, this is the same technique you used when I stated the increase of severe storms where's the proof you and several others cried, I don't see a change now in retrospect take a look at Florida.

[Kaptain K]

There are no AC's here or people spouting just pure nonsense
Excepting yourself! :roll:

[Grant]

[quote="SarahMc"]Why do I get the feeling that you don't *want* anyone to check your theory with precision optics, worm drives and digital setting circles? "Just look"? /quote]

We are trying to measure the altitude and direction so why are you pushing a goto scope will it measure the altitude and give a magnetic direction? Why won't use manual methods if only as a back up?

[PhantomWolf]

Again, instead of making Wild Claims, how about providing some proof. Show me one news article, or post in a reputable board with an astronomer, tramper, ship pilot, pilot, soldier, or boy scout where they claim that their compass is suffering from "wild fluctuations." This isn't GLP Grant, if you are going to make a claim, you need to back it up with proof.

Phan,
There are articles everywhere, this is the same technique you used when I stated the increase of severe storms where's the proof you and several others cried, I don't see a change now in retrospect take a look at Florida.
If there are articles everywhere, why don't you cite some?

[tmosher]

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

What wild fluctuations?

Tom

[dummy]

Grant, it would be helpful if you'd read all the posts up to this current page and then write a new reply that deals with them all. That way you're not replying to issues that are four pages old whilst we bring up new ones.




Why do I get the feeling that you don't *want* anyone to check your theory with precision optics, worm drives and digital setting circles? "Just look"?

We are trying to measure the altitude and direction so why are you pushing a goto scope will it measure the altitude and give a magnetic direction? Why won't use manual methods if only as a back up?
Yes it is possible to retrieve measurements from the telescope, but could you please explain why it matters that measurements are taken? If it's possible to align the go-to scope, and it's possible to target the Moon then the Moon is in the correct place, regardless of its angle and altitude.

A crappy every day example of what you're doing:

Grant: "It's just gone 9pm!"
Person: "The news at 10 just started on TV. Therefore it must have just gone 10pm"
Grant: "No it didn't!"
Person: "Yes it did! The news at 10 just started less than a minute ago"
Grant: "No it didn't! Why don't you look at the clock"
Person: "I don't need to. The news at 10 starts at 10pm and it just started"
Grant: "Why don't you go back to basic methods"
Person: "Why do I need to"
Grant: "The news gives no measurement!"
Person: "But it starts at 10pm"
and so on...

Regardless if I go take a measurement from the clock, The news at 10 (which we know to start at 10pm) just starting on TV proves that it has just gone 10pm. I do not need to go and take measurements. If the news at 10 is on, it's just gone 10pm. If my go-to scope (along with other people's) finds the Moon in the correct place, the Moon is in the correct place.

[trebob]

So 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?

How is it not? I am asking you to manually measure the altitude of the Moon in stead of saying my scope can find it. Is it so hard for you to use basic scientific research?

Grant,
You have already admittied that you have not done much research yourself, and yet you demand that I do it for you. I manually measure the altitude of the moon (phase permitting) atleast once per week, and compare this to programs going as far back as 1997 which have not been updated since I got them. I have not seen anything to suggest it is out of place.

As for why your ideas here are not scientific in nature, I would refer you to any website or textbook which explains the scientific method in detail. Here would be a good place to start. (http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html)

In short, we have done the basic scientific research. You have already admitted that you have not.

The questions above still stand.

I will respectfully remind you (agian) that this is not GLP. The tactics you used there will not work here.

[Kiwi]

Grant:

Does everybody see how he aligns his scope and the flaw in it?

No, even though I don't own a telescope and have never aligned one I do know a little about it, and don't see a flaw in what Dummy said. What is the flaw that you see?

I do know that by aligning the the scope as described, it would not track objects properly if the earth's axis had tilted. Please describe the problem you "see."

I wonder if you even understand that a metal part of the telescope mount must be perfectly aligned with the earth's axis for the telescope to accurately track. Pointing that part at the North star would not work if the earth's axis had changed.

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.

[Grand Vizier]

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.


Quite. It's funny how this point has got lost somewhere on the thread. It should be stressed over and over again. Grant, several people have explained their observations, which show no unusual displacements, in great detail, including Kiwi's very simple hand-span method - which he is not claiming to be very exact, but which agrees quite well with expected values.

You, on the other hand, have not offered any significant detail on your observational methodology. Unless you can offer at least one significant counter-observation, you do not have an argument to start with.



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."

Yep. Reputable citations might just allay the absence of observational detail. Can you provide any, Grant?

[Grant]

Well, maybe it would be a good idea to stop posting, and start formulating some predictions for two weeks from now, based upon your theory.

I'm sure everyone posting here tonight would agree to give you time to compute some altitude figures for the 1st quarter that we can check and report back on. If your theory is sound, the observations should support it.

Those who doubt should do their own measurements not depending on others. They have the Naval Charts and most know how to measure an angle and read a compass. Thus there would be no doubt in their mind. For others they can choose to ignore and continue observing with there Go To scopes.

[Grand Vizier]

Those who doubt should do their own measurements not depending on others. They have the Naval Charts and most know how to measure an angle and read a compass. Thus there would be no doubt in their mind. For others they can choose to ignore and continue observing with there Go To scopes.

Kiwi has given you an example of what you call 'manual' method (literally, in fact - using handspans). You now refuse to address it and all other observations made in the course of this thread. Could we now see a detailed account of your observations, please, before you continue to demand that others make observations for you?

[Grant]

Why do I use a compass? Simple. Because the scope itself has no way of geting input from the outside world. I start the process by pointing the tube of the scope to magnetic north and level. Polaris is roughly 38 degrees up form this position (right where it should be for 38 degrees north latitude. Then based on that, my latitude, date, and time it picks out where it thinks 2 fairly bright stars are at. Not only does it point where the database tells it to, it finds these stars everytime. After askign me to verify through the hand control that it has found those stars, all the computer does is math and the basic assumptions of the goto scope apply through the time I turn it on to the time I turn it off and go back inside.
Nice try though.

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.

[Grand Vizier]

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.

[Kaptain K]

Well, maybe it would be a good idea to stop posting, and start formulating some predictions for two weeks from now, based upon your theory.

I'm sure everyone posting here tonight would agree to give you time to compute some altitude figures for the 1st quarter that we can check and report back on. If your theory is sound, the observations should support it.

Those who doubt should do their own measurements not depending on others. They have the Naval Charts and most know how to measure an angle and read a compass. Thus there would be no doubt in their mind. For others they can choose to ignore and continue observing with there Go To scopes.
Grant, this is not GLP. Here, the burden of proof is on you (or anyone else who puts forth a hypothesis).

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!

[trebob]

Why do I use a compass? Simple. Because the scope itself has no way of geting input from the outside world. I start the process by pointing the tube of the scope to magnetic north and level. Polaris is roughly 38 degrees up form this position (right where it should be for 38 degrees north latitude. Then based on that, my latitude, date, and time it picks out where it thinks 2 fairly bright stars are at. Not only does it point where the database tells it to, it finds these stars everytime. After askign me to verify through the hand control that it has found those stars, all the computer does is math and the basic assumptions of the goto scope apply through the time I turn it on to the time I turn it off and go back inside.
Nice try though.

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.

The fact that it finds anything at all is proof enough that there are no unpredictable movements going on. This is the point that has been made to you several times.

Goto scopes and astronomy programs both use the same basic assumptions:

1) The Earth moves at a predictable rate around its axis.

2) The Earth moves at a predictable rate around the Sun.

3) The Pole lines up with the North Star.

4) The planets have predictable orbits around the Sun.

Because goto's continue to function and the night sky matches computer generated charts perfectly, we can safely assume that those 4 assumptions are still true today.

Let us be clear on these points:

1) You have offered no evidence of abnormal movement. Which leads us to point number....

2) When asked for evidence, you tell everyone else to go look for themselves. We have. Which leads us to point number....

3) You have refused to examine evidence which indicates you could be wrong. Which leads us to point number....

4) You been asked the same direct questions, and dodged them, over and over agian. Which leads us to point number....

5) You have admitted to doing little or no field research on your own.

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?

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?

[dummy]

Why do I use a compass? Simple. Because the scope itself has no way of geting input from the outside world. I start the process by pointing the tube of the scope to magnetic north and level. Polaris is roughly 38 degrees up form this position (right where it should be for 38 degrees north latitude. Then based on that, my latitude, date, and time it picks out where it thinks 2 fairly bright stars are at. Not only does it point where the database tells it to, it finds these stars everytime. After askign me to verify through the hand control that it has found those stars, all the computer does is math and the basic assumptions of the goto scope apply through the time I turn it on to the time I turn it off and go back inside.
Nice try though.

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.
Nice try, but whilst I can't speak for Trebob, I can tell you that my telescope did centre everything in the field of view perfectly when I performed the experiments. The objects were also perfectly aligned in the Finderscope (which has an accurate illuminated red dot for targetting). I also think you'll find that I pointed this out in my original description of the experiment.

Rather than rely on someone else's figures online (as someone could discredit these as inaccurate or false), I figured I could test this myself. I've just set up my go-to telescope outside, and aligned it to Sirius and Rigel (that's what it suggested). To ensure it's aligned correctly I've navigated to Saturn and Venus, Aldebaran, Procyon, Pollux and Deneb and finally M42 (I chose a range of objects that would provide a large span of the sky and varied in size). Each time the telescope correctly centred the object in the eyepiece. I see that as physical proof the go-to telescope is correctly aligned.
Also, its been pointed out above, but in daytime (when the stars to align scopes conveniently disappear) to who exactly? There's this small problem that when it's daytime for someone in the US, it's not always daytime for someone who's not, and vice versa. If such tilts do occur during the daytime, people on Earth who were currently experiencing night time would again notice the off-point North star causing their telescope alignment to fail. Please post links to sources that show this to be.

Also from your last few posts it is apparant that you have (or are about to) skim over my questions again, so I'll post them here to remind you of them. It would be nice if you would address them as I have been asking you for straight answers to these questions for something like 5 pages now:

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)?

[latimer]

Hello,

It seems that my post, and the questions therein, too, are also only worthy of indifference from Grant; just as happened over on the GLP boards, when I was politely asking similar questions and making similar observations. Grant doesn't seem to understand the nature of science; where an idea must either adapt to contrary obervations, or be discarded.

So now, I, and the ideas I have put forth so carefully, are merely ignored by Grant; who seems to somehow consider this a strengthening of his own ideas.

Sigh.

Well, if I am to be among the ignored; at least I can say I am in remarkable company.

Thank you,

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

[Parrothead]

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.

[Grand Vizier]

Well, if I am to be among the ignored; at least I can say I am in remarkable company.

Thank you,

Jonathan


Only ignored by Grant. I think your point that a high degree of accuracy is attainable with pre-telescopic instruments is well taken. That the Ancient Greeks could easily falsify Grant's theories is quite satisfying. (Wonder if there are any usable mural quadrants anywhere? Halley's quadrant at Greenwich, near to where I live, is a display item.)

[MolBasser]

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

[Grand Vizier]

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.


Hey, don't worry. No BABB posters have been injured in the making of this thread :)

[ktesibios]

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.


Hey, don't worry. No BABB posters have been injured in the making of this thread :)

And, before I read this thread, I had no idea that there were people not only making medieval astronomical/navigational instruments like the astrolabe, cross-staff etc. but using them as well.

Now that's really neat. :D

[The Bad Astronomer]

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.

[tmosher]

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.


Hey, don't worry. No BABB posters have been injured in the making of this thread :)

And, before I read this thread, I had no idea that there were people not only making medieval astronomical/navigational instruments like the astrolabe, cross-staff etc. but using them as well.

Now that's really neat. :D

I found this site....some of the astrolabes that people have made are quite elegant.

http://www.astrolabes.org/

Tom

[NGR]

How about someone zipping out and taking a star-trail photo of the polar region so Grant can compare that to an earlier photo of the same region.I know a truckload of evidence has already been presented refuting Grants claim but perhaps a photo would make it even easier for Grant to understand.

[dummy]

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.

[PhantomWolf]

: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.

[dummy]

: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.
Not all of us missed it :P. I was more shocked at lack of common sense than amused though #-o

[Charlie in Dayton]

I found this site....some of the astrolabes that people have made are quite elegant.

http://www.astrolabes.org/

Tom

I can attest to the contents of the above site. Not only is the program 'The Electric Astrolabe' (works just fine on win2k and XP machines in my personal experience) intensely educational (plots positions of stars, Moon, Planets, Sun -- and stock up the printer, the instruction manual is very detailed and somewhat lengthy), the offer from Mr. Morrison of an astrolabe (laser printed, plastic laminated) for your specific geographic location will get you a usable instrument. I know, I have two of them -- he offers two styles. Check the website. For someone interested in time and the heavens, this is an interesting tchotchke to show you what our scientific ancestors came up with.

Oh, by the way...once you learn how to use them (which oughtta take maybe half an hour), these reproduction instruments are dead on accurate.

Imagine that...

[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.


We didn't miss it (hilarious, though, innit?). But I think that we now have such a goodly pile of unanswered questions and demonstrable absurdities that it is easy to miss things. A moratorium on further questions until Grant returns and answers a couple might be an idea, but something to do with hell freezing over comes to mind...

[AstroSmurf]

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!

So, what we're talking about is if *something* gave the Earth a change in velocity at some point of its orbit, making it move slightly different than normal. In that hypothetical scenario, the effects would be rather subtle, yes. However, they could be detected with a bit of work. The changes come in three flavours, so let's look at them one at a time (even though a change would probably incorporate all three):

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.

2) A change in the orientation of the orbital plane, or the obliquity of the orbit. I think this is what Grant is concerned about. This is a more subtle effect, but could be detected, since due to the angle between the sun's position in the sky and the celestial equator, the sun doesn't always "travel" the same angular difference in the sky during 24 hours. The relationship is known as the Equation of Time, and the major component of this relation comes from the obliquity (the smaller part is from eccentricity). I'm not certain how big a change we're talking about, but you could probably also see discrepancies in where the planets are. The Moon seems to tag along in Grant's scenario, so changes in eclipse times would be expected.

2) A change in eccentricity. The effects would be much the same as above, only more subtle.

To summarise, a change to ONLY obliquity and/or eccentricity would be a neat trick to happen by chance; any effects to orbital period would become noticeable after a few months even if noone ever looked at the sky. The other effects would have drastic impact on eclipses, and probably be fairly obvious when studying the planets' locations.


PS: Those astrolabes were pretty neat. Now, if I wasn't such a klutz when it comes to craftsmanship...

[Hamlet]

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

Everyone has been very patient with Grant's obfuscation and evasion. I find it amusing that he has latched onto GoTo scopes as some kind of "magic bullet" when it's obvious he doesn't understand how they work and why they refute his arguments. I'd like to add that I live about 75 miles from Syracuse and am at the same latitude and I have noticed nothing abnormal about the position of the Moon. It's always right where it's predicted to be.

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?

[TriangleMan]

That'll teach me to go away.
Me too. I thought at first that this was some old thread that got bumped up. Go away for a couple of days and a 9 page thread appears!

[Grand Vizier]

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

Well, the foundations of astronomical science have not been rocked, that's for sure.



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.


With respect, I'm not sure I'd say it mostly comes from a mere difference in terminology. The fact is that Grant has failed to supply proper observational data and hasn't really elucidated any theory to the point where we can establish a terminological difference. On his web page, the nearest thing to a conclusion to his one unsupported sighting is:



What type of a force would be needed to move the orbital path of the Moon yet the Earth seems unaffected?


...implying that he surmises that the Moon's orbit only has been altered.

But that's one interpretation - as you can see from the BA's post, we have a choice of flavours (both of which can be falsified by the upcoming eclipses.)



[...]
In that hypothetical scenario, the effects would be rather subtle, yes.

I'm not sure I'd consider the effects you describe subtle, exactly - but I guess the term is relative :)

[edited to read 'proper observational data']

[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.

=D> =D> =D> =D> =D>

wow. That's really cool. I missed this the first time I read over the last few pages...

Regards
Krill

[Kaptain K]

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

[Mellow]

Absence of Grant....

[wishful thinking]Perhaps Grant in observing. Then calculating. To produce a prediction for us to test against.[/wishful thinking]

Hmmmmm

[Musashi]

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?).

[Kaptain K]

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?).
Haven't seen him there either!

[BoredHugeKrill]

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?).

I haven't seen him over there either, though

Regards
Krill

[dummy]

...Grant isn't talking about an axis shift, he's talking about an orbital shift...
I'm not so sure he is. Theres lots of comments such as:

The key to finding a quick answer is to observe the Moon in the daytime when the variations in tilt occur.and
The tilt of the Earth changes and your Go To scope does work and tracks.that point to an axis tilt rather than an orbital shift. Also, he hasn't attempted to correct any of us either when we've clearly been talking about a shift in the rotational axis of Earth.



Absence of Grant....
Maybe he's out gathering evidence with his unspecified instruments (which I'm pretty convinced are his eyes and an over-active imagination) for his paper on the eclipse.

[Grand Vizier]

Dash and blast it, dummy! Been looking for a new sig and there's a perfectly good one right before my eyes. Ah well - finders, keepers...

[Maksutov]

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


I'll just post a quick reply on my initial thoughts - I'll be back in about half an hour or so.

First off, it's been a while since we spoke. I trust you are well.

On reading your explanation, my initial impression is that we are at least on the same page in terms of the way we are looking at the problem. I think that's a hopeful sign that we can have a fruitful discussion.

In the period since we last spoke, I also prepared my own explanation, and it takes a very similar form to yours. It struck me at the time we last discussed this (and I guess you too) that this would be so much easier with some pictures to illustrate. Mine are up on my website, with my own explanation, here:

http://www.boredhugekrill.com/moon

although we're looking at the problem in the same way, there is one significant difference I can see: your explanation has the Earth orbiting the Sun clockwise (assuming celestial North to be "up" in the picture), not counterclockwise. I believe that is incorrect and why you arrive at the conclusion that the Moon should have been at its highest point in the sky, not its lowest, at the first quarter around the time of the autumnal equinox.

Your diagram is this:

http://www.grantchronicles.com/astro11.jpg

my equivalent is this (sorry about the background being unsuitable - I'll try to fix that and edit later) (edit - now fixed):

http://www.boredhugekrill.com/moon/heliocentricblack.gif

Regards
Krill

(edited to fix background on my diagram)


don't worry about it too much

it's not like it changes the answer - the only thing that we need to discuss here are observational data...

Regards
Krill

If that last sentence was in regard to Grant's mistakes with his Earth orbit chart, then, instead, yes, it changes the answer.

At his "Due South" site Grant wrote:


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.

This is wrong. The Earth's axis is tilted away from the Moon at its maximum angle.

Just to clarify his chart I've made the words legible:

http://img68.exs.cx/img68/9563/grant-astro11-1.jpg

Now, when the orbital direction and seasons are corrected, in a diagram similar to yours, you get:

http://img28.exs.cx/img28/382/Earthseasons.gif

The significant thing here is that this correction has an impact on Grant's next illustration:

http://img59.exs.cx/img59/6978/grant-astro12-1.gif

The Earth's axis is shown tilted toward the Moon. Instead, at the autumnal equinox under the stated conditions, the axis is tilted away from the Moon. Here's what the illustration should look like:

http://img55.exs.cx/img55/581/grant-astro12-corrected.gif

As a result of these corrections, it can be seen that the ecliptic is going to be at a completely different elevation. The following illustration shows the elevation of the ecliptic for the conditions and location in the example:

http://img57.exs.cx/img57/1316/Eclipticaltitude-autumnalequinox4318N1.gif

At his "Due South" site, Grant wrote


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 43 [degrees] 18’ 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.

As the illustration above shows, this is completely wrong. That includes the "sinusoidal tolerance" which, if it refers to the change in the Earth's axial tilt as seen from the Sun, is off by >99% of its entire value. The apparent tilt of the Earth's axis isn't going to change by 2.9 degrees in 36 hours. Since the Moon was in this vicinity when observed, in general its elevation will have been that of the ecliptic corrected by the amount of the Moon's displacement off the ecliptic. See the next paragraph.

If "sinusoidal tolerance" refers to the Moon's relation to the ecliptic, then there's no +/- 5 degrees 8' involved. Instead this value can be specified as a single set of coordinates, down to seconds of arc, given the year, day, and time.

I will work out an example of how to accurately calculate the change of the apparent axial tilt, and apply the corrections to Grant's number(s), but first I need to go over his data very carefully, since there are many errors, including factual ones.

For example, in the "Math Derivation for Tilt Reduction" the autumnal equinox is listed as having occurred at 9:30 AM on September 22. I take it this means EDT and 2004. The autumnal equinox actually occurred at 12:30 PM EDT, September 22, 2004, so all the figures on the "Math Derivation for Tilt Reduction" page based on the erroneous time value are incorrect.

One other thing, there appears to be no information of the methods used to determine the claimed 30 degree elevation observation(s). Accuracy depends on proper instrumentation and expertise in using these instruments. This affects the reliability of the 30 degree figure.

About the only thing that's accurate on the entire "Due South" page is the copied and pasted U.S. Naval Observatory Moon Altitude/Azimuth Table.

[BoredHugeKrill]

BoredHugeKrill wrote:

don't worry about it too much

it's not like it changes the answer - the only thing that we need to discuss here are observational data...

Regards
Krill


If that last sentence was in regard to Grant's mistakes with his Earth orbit chart, then, instead, yes, it changes the answer.

no, it wasn't. It was in reply to somebody else commenting on Grant's assertion that he was being replied to by "professional debunkers", or something like that, IIRC.

And yes, it does completely change the result, and explains the expected Moon altitude (it actually corresponds to Grant's original reported observation, but he didn't quite go as far as admitting that).

He did admit that he had the orbit reversed, but didn't state the implications.

The implications are, as you state, that the resoning is reversed in its entirety.

Regards
Krill

[Maksutov]

BoredHugeKrill wrote:

don't worry about it too much

it's not like it changes the answer - the only thing that we need to discuss here are observational data...

Regards
Krill


If that last sentence was in regard to Grant's mistakes with his Earth orbit chart, then, instead, yes, it changes the answer.

no, it wasn't. It was in reply to somebody else commenting on Grant's assertion that he was being replied to by "professional debunkers", or something like that, IIRC.[edit]



Thanks for the clarification.

Where does one sign up to become a professional debunker? Or does Randi have the market cornered? :D

[BoredHugeKrill]

BoredHugeKrill wrote:

don't worry about it too much

it's not like it changes the answer - the only thing that we need to discuss here are observational data...

Regards
Krill


If that last sentence was in regard to Grant's mistakes with his Earth orbit chart, then, instead, yes, it changes the answer.

no, it wasn't. It was in reply to somebody else commenting on Grant's assertion that he was being replied to by "professional debunkers", or something like that, IIRC.[edit]



Thanks for the clarification.

Where does one sign up to become a professional debunker? Or does Randi have the market cornered? :D

if you ever find out where I can get my check, do be sure to let me know :)

Regards
Krill

[AstroSmurf]

...Grant isn't talking about an axis shift, he's talking about an orbital shift...
I'm not so sure he is. Theres lots of comments such as:

The key to finding a quick answer is to observe the Moon in the daytime when the variations in tilt occur.
[...]
The tilt of the Earth changes and your Go To scope does work and tracks.
You're missing the point. In Grant's terminology, that's an orbital tilt, not an axis tilt. Yes, it sounds strange to me too, but follows logically when viewed in a frame where the rotational axis is "true" vertical.

[Maksutov]

...Grant isn't talking about an axis shift, he's talking about an orbital shift...
I'm not so sure he is. Theres lots of comments such as:

The key to finding a quick answer is to observe the Moon in the daytime when the variations in tilt occur.
[...]
The tilt of the Earth changes and your Go To scope does work and tracks.
You're missing the point. In Grant's terminology, that's an orbital tilt, not an axis tilt. Yes, it sounds strange to me too, but follows logically when viewed in a frame where the rotational axis is "true" vertical.

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:

[AstroSmurf]

You're missing the point. In Grant's terminology, that's an orbital tilt, not an axis tilt. Yes, it sounds strange to me too, but follows logically when viewed in a frame where the rotational axis is "true" vertical.
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".
I noticed something similar in the other thread on rotation ... he was arguing tthat the moon doesn't rotate around its axis, because, in a rotating frame of reference, it doesn't. #-o (Of course, he never said the frame was rotating, but it was obvious from his definition)

Anyway, I was merely making sure that people were talking about the same thing. It seems to me that Grant isn't here any longer, so I guess my effort was wasted. Oh well.


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...?
Yeah, it's on a level with the rest of the ZetaNonsense(tm).

[ignorant_ape]

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

i am not smart enough to second guess the BA but i privately reckon that that passage would earn a locked thread or even ban if posted here

YRS - APE

PS , the text i refer too - just incase it gets edited again :

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?

[dummy]

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

i am not smart enough to second guess the BA but i privately reckon that that passage would earn a locked thread or even ban if posted here

YRS - APE

PS , the text i refer too - just incase it gets edited again :

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?

I did find it interesting how he updated the page with that comment, yet failed to fix the error of his Earth rotating the wrong way around the Sun. Does anyone still have the actual original paper cached that they could archive and post somewhere?

[BoredHugeKrill]

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

i am not smart enough to second guess the BA but i privately reckon that that passage would earn a locked thread or even ban if posted here

YRS - APE

PS , the text i refer too - just incase it gets edited again :

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?

I did find it interesting how he updated the page with that comment, yet failed to fix the error of his Earth rotating the wrong way around the Sun. Does anyone still have the actual original paper cached that they could archive and post somewhere?

I don't think it's been edited since the start of this thread. My reading is that the "certain forum" referred to is GLP, not BABB. There was a thread on this over at GLP just prior to the temporary disappearance of GLP. It ended with Grant indicating that he was going off to write a "new paper" which is this one. In the meantime, I took the opportunity to go and do a write-up of my own of the same issues, which is here:

http://www.boredhugekrill.com/moon

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

[Grand Vizier]

I don't think it's been edited since the start of this thread. My reading is that the "certain forum" referred to is GLP, not BABB. There was a thread on this over at GLP just prior to the temporary disappearance of GLP.

Yes, I remember that. And, if my memory serves me well, the intro para cited was already present when he posted the link at the start of this thread (will remember to archive next time). Benefit of the doubt, at the very least.

[BoredHugeKrill]

I don't think it's been edited since the start of this thread. My reading is that the "certain forum" referred to is GLP, not BABB. There was a thread on this over at GLP just prior to the temporary disappearance of GLP.

Yes, I remember that. And, if my memory serves me well, the intro para cited was already present when he posted the link at the start of this thread (will remember to archive next time). Benefit of the doubt, at the very least.

yes, I remember reading that paragraph when I first looked at the page, and I don't think it's changed since then. I think it's a misrepresentation, but I don't think it's changed or added

Regards
Krill

[Grant]

I will be responding to questions Thursday night and answering posts starting at page 6.

Grant

[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.[Snip!]

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.
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!

Na-na na-na na-na na-na,
Na-na na-na na-na na-na,
Batman!
:D

[Grand Vizier]

I will be responding to questions Thursday night and answering posts starting at page 6.

Grant

Excellent. Page 6 is just fine - there are plenty of questions on this thread for you to answer after that point. But please do bear in mind that not only have people gone to the trouble to respond in detail to your posts, several people have taken the trouble to go and make - and describe in detail - actual observations, in some cases during the course of the discussion, using both 'low-tech' and 'hi-tech' equipment. None of these observations, so far, support any of your assertions.

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

[PhantomWolf]

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. :)

[Kaptain K]

This board has responded to your questions. Now you must respond to ours.
Wanna bet? :o

[Fram]

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

[BoredHugeKrill]

I will be responding to questions Thursday night and answering posts starting at page 6.

Grant


I'll look forward to resuming the discussion.

I won't be around until late Thursday, possibly Friday morning. I'll be on a plane until about 10pm PDT

Regards
Krill

[Laser Jock]

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

No mocking here -- I think that you are correct. Someone may correct us both though 8-[ . I think that the most obvious thing would be that Polaris would seem to move during the night since the axis is no longer pointing at it.

[TriangleMan]

No mocking here -- I think that you are correct. Someone may correct us both though 8-[ . I think that the most obvious thing would be that Polaris would seem to move during the night since the axis is no longer pointing at it.
And the fact that people would see new stars/constellations on the horizon that they haven't seen in the past. :)

[Grand Vizier]

This board has responded to your questions. Now you must respond to ours.
Wanna bet? :o

Ho ho - no way. I actually meant to say, 'it would be only fair if you responded to our questions', which is a pious hope rather than an imperative, but it came out all wrong.

[edited for spelling]

[Wolverine]

And the fact that people would see new stars/constellations on the horizon that they haven't seen in the past. :)

Bah, who would ever notice such a thing. :D

[Kaptain K]

Gotta go to work. I'll be back early Fri. a.m. Leave some for me! :wink:

[Grant]

I am very sorry, but I have to pospone until tomorrow night. I am looking foward to confronting your opinions and questions.
Grant out

[Maksutov]

I am very sorry, but I have to pospone until tomorrow night. I am looking foward to confronting your opinions and questions.
Grant out

How about "confronting" our objective evidence based on observational data?

[dummy]

I am very sorry, but I have to pospone until tomorrow night. I am looking foward to confronting your opinions and questions.
Grant out
It would be helpful if you were to read from page 6 to page 10 before making another post. That way we won't be asking new questions whilst you trail behind on old ones.

[Meteora]

"...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.

[Grant]

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.

[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.

[dummy]

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.
Is it just me who finds this post patronising?

[Grant]

If you're looking at two mountains behind a close object, as explained above, and then (without moving) rotate right by 20 degrees, do the three objects unalign? That's exactly what would happen if the Earth had tilted. Everything would appear to be 20 degrees to your left, but would still be aligned.

DUMMY,
Your first task, look up the word subtle and then rephrase your question.


sub·tle Audio pronunciation of "subtle" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (stl)
adj. sub·tler, sub·tlest

1.
1. So slight as to be difficult to detect or describe; elusive: a subtle smile.
2. Difficult to understand; abstruse: an argument whose subtle point was lost on her opponent.
2. Able to make fine distinctions: a subtle mind.
3.
1. Characterized by skill or ingenuity; clever.
2. Crafty or sly; devious.
3. Operating in a hidden, usually injurious way; insidious: a subtle poison.

I fail to see what that that has to do with the question you quoted, but I'll try rephrasing it anyway.

You take a camera that has the point of rotation origin passing right through the lense. You place it so that it is aligned with two mountains and a sign. You then turn the camera 20 degrees around its vertical rotational axis. Do the three objects become unaligned (even subtly)?

No, because your position in reference to the two mountains has not change, you have just rotated the field of view.

[Grant]

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