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
Established Member
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
Established Member
ok, I should be here. I may be a few minutes late....
Regards
Krill
Established Member
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']
Established Member
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:
my equivalent is this (sorry about the background being unsuitable - I'll try to fix that and edit later) (edit - now fixed):
Regards
Krill
(edited to fix background on my diagram)
Established Member
don't worry about it too much :wink:Originally Posted by Grand Vizier
it's not like it changes the answer - the only thing that we need to discuss here are observational data...
Regards
Krill
Established Member
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.
Established Member
Agreed. And my correction wasn't even real, really. What an anti-climax...
G'night all. Yawn.
Established Member
see ya tomorrow. Oh, I forgot - how was the curry?Agreed. And my correction wasn't even real, really. What an anti-climax...
G'night all. Yawn.
Regards
Krill
Established Member
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
Established Member
Lamb Stew. It was totally excellent. See BABBling for recipe. I will be adding tweaks. Sleep well, BHK.see ya tomorrow. Oh, I forgot - how was the curry?
Regards
Krill
Established Member
I will look at it in a little while.
Established Member
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.I will look at it in a little while.
Regards
Krill
Established Member
Omitted
Established Member
do you have a response to my post above? I think that you have the Earth orbiting in the wrong direction.
Regards
Krill
Established Member
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.
Established Member
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
Established Member
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.
Established Member
that's very commendable. Kudos for admitting the error.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.
How do you want to proceed from here?
Regards
Krill
Established Member
And that should be spelled 'flak' by the way. Catch you later.
Established Member
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..
Established Member
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
Established Member
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.
Established Member
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
Order of Kilopi
Tis is not a NASA sponsored site. Its a BA sponsored site with some adds by google.
Established Member
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?
Established Member
No that was Circuit Breaker reporting the Moon being high, the report came from Wisconsin.
Established Member
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?
Established Member
Who were the 'they' in this sentence?
Established Member
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.
Established Member
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
Posting Permissions
