goto scopes and PX. check this for errors please

[trebob]

Ok. Heres the story. There is an ongoing debate at GLP about wether or not "goto scopes" actually work because of "Planet X pushing the Earth out of its orbit." Mine still works fine. I was going to post my reasoning as to why this is the case, but I thought I would let you guys look it over just once to make sure that I've got my facts straight, and to make sure I'm being as friendly as possible. The last things I want to be accused of are being rude when I use the same screen name everywhere I post, and posting... well... bad astronomy. It is not corrected for spelling yet, but here it is.


"Perhaps this will shed some light on the whole "goto scope" issue. My hometown in Kentucky is practicly right on the 38th parallel. To be specific Lat: 37.99N, Lon: 84.18W. The functions of a goto scope depend on Polaris remaining in a fixed position in the sky. Because I have the latitude manually and permanently set on my scope, it is already set to track Polaris. All thats left to me is to point it in that general direction, which involves nothing more than rotating the base of the scope left or right. If the the Earth had been moved out of it's orbit, I would have to completely redo my latitude setings to account for the repositioning of Polaris in the night sky. Because I have not needed to do this yet I know that Earth is right where it is supposed to be. Here is a link to an astronomy club close to me.

http://www.ms.uky.edu/~bgaac/

I'm sure that where ever you live you will be able to find similar groups. Feel free to print this post and take it with you to any astronomy club in your area. I'm sure they will be able and willing to give you a demonstration and walk you through the setup procedure I have listed above. It's not as complicated as it sounds, and requires very little or no re-adjusting after setup the first time out. Happy hunting."


So what do you think? Am I one the right track here or should I just hush before I confuse someone even more? I'm open to suggestions and corrections so feel free.

[LTC8K6]

It won't work. Nancy says your scope and your clocks were reset in the night by the U.S. Navy time gnomes.

You can tell they have visited because you will have odd socks in the laundry.

Ordinarily, the fact that goto scopes still "goto" things properly would convince a person, but you're talking about GLP and Liederites......

[tngolfplayer]

She is just plain confused on this thread. She has confused a goto scope with an equatorial mount, argued about nothing, and,my favorite quote of the day from her.

"Try this. Leave the lens cap on the GoTo scope and see what it does. Finally comes up with a message, blinking red, or some such, right?"

No joke, that is her words exactly as read. :roll:

The whole thread in its entire lunacy can be read here

[trebob]

I'm not sure I even know what I'm doing now. I just went out to try and look at Saturn... and... well...

1. Because of all the light polution I couldn't find Polaris so I had to use my best guess.

2. Cop pulled up and wondered what I was doing in an unlit church parking lot at 9 pm on a Monday night.

3. After he was convinced I was not breaking any laws I went back to work, only to realize that I could not find Saturn agian.

4. After finding Saturn, I dropped my camera and the mount it was attached to, breaking the threads used to attach it.

So after this one night I lost a planet, a $300 camera, a $40 dollar mount, and my sanity, so I'm just going to quit while I'm still alive.

[tngolfplayer]

Ouch, I have had nights like that. After using a pentax on my ETX 90 one night, the ETX broke under the weight of the camera. I was scopeless for 4 months waiting on a replacement part. I got my new scope a month before my parts arrived. Welcome to the joyful world of astronomy.

[BoredHugeKrill]

Here's my explanation. The subject seems to have died down over there for now, but this is the explanation I had intended to post if it comes back:


It's very simple. Forget about go-to scopes, forget about equatorial mounts. Just imagine you have an altazimuth scope with accurate scales on both axes, so you can read out to extreme precision which way it's pointing, at least relative to your last measurement.

Now imagine you have a man in a windowless room with a set of star charts and a watch. He doesn't know anything about which direction your scope is pointing, except what you tell him. He also knows about celestial mechanics and is very good at math.

Let's suppose we set up the scope and then tell him:
"If I point my scope at Polaris, the readings are alt1, az1" (substitute whatever numbers you want for this example).
"If I point my scope at Vega, the readings are alt2, az2"
"If I point my scope at Arcturus, the readings are alt3, az3" (yes, I'm assuming for the purposes of this example that it's summer in the Northern hemisphere).

Now I ask him "what alt, az settings do I need to be looking at Albireo?"
No problem. From the data you gave him, he knows your latitude and the orientation of the scope, and he can calculate an answer for you.

Now here's the important part: ask him the same question HALF AN HOUR LATER. Now he has to look at his watch to know the elapsed time since you gave him the reference data. He knows that the stars appear to rotate just over 15 degrees every hour (I assume he knows the exact number) and **he knows that they appear to rotate around a specific point near Polaris**. Given that, he can apply corrections for the rotation and give you the right answer.

If, however, the Earth's axis isn't pointing in the same direction as he thinks it is, he'll compute the rotational movement incorrectly, and give you the wrong answer. If the axis were ten degrees off, an elapsed time of half an hour would be all you need for the answer to be very obviously wrong.


Now back to the go-to scope. This has a digital incarnation of a smart guy sitting in a windowless room with a set of starcharts and a watch. If the axis had really moved, it would start getting wrong answers shortly after you set it up. Setting it up correctly doesn't help, because it would drift out of alignment again very quickly. This doesn't happen. Go-to scopes still track correctly. The only way this can be the case is if the Earth's axis is still pointing in the same direction, and rotating at the same speed.

Regards
Krill

[Charlie in Dayton]

Sorry to hear you had such an expensive night, trebob...but as my wise uncle once more or less said, "Life is just a cr@p sandwich, and some days there just ain't no bread...".

Your explanation of why things aren't as Her Liedership says is dead-on accurate for you and for any other permanently mounted scope on the face of planet earth. Once it's been aligned properly, the readouts (be they electronic or just good old fashioned setting circles) need not be changed to any large degree ever again. Now, that's not to say that the occasional recheck-and-tweak might be needed (after all, there is such a thing as slop in any gear train), but the more accurate the instrument to start with, the smaller the tweak is gonna be.

Nancy&Co just don't get it...

Sorry to hear you had such an expensive night, trebob...but as my wise uncle once more or less said, "Life is just a cr@p sandwich, and some days there just ain't no bread...".

Your explanation of why things aren't as Her Liedership says is dead-on accurate for you and for any other permanently mounted scope on the face of planet earth. Once it's been aligned properly, the readouts (be they electronic or just good old fashioned setting circles) need not be changed to any large degree ever again. Now, that's not to say that the occasional recheck-and-tweak might be needed (after all, there is such a thing as slop in any gear train), but the more accurate the instrument to start with, the smaller the tweak is gonna be.

Nancy&Co just don't get it...

Anytime you want to see if the Earth's axis is still pointing at Polaris just
- go to www.nightskylive.net
- select an observatory in the northern hemisphere
- select "archive" for that observatory
- select a recent date (today if the sun has been up for an hour already at the site, otherwise last night)
- at the top is a link that will show you a movie of the night. You will see the sky nicely rotating around Polaris
An example at the Canary Islands site is:
http://concam.net/ci/ci040113.html

After I beat this into Lieder's head she started talking about the Earth having jumped in "its ecliptic" (while keeping the pole aligned with Polaris). That would, of course, change sunrise/sunset times etc. and she has dozens of people who think such changes have, in fact, occurred. Each time they e-mail me to say such changes have occurred I ask where they live and offer to point them to printed books that will give them accurate predictions for their locations. They have never responded.

IMO FODS #831

[Charlie in Dayton]

For anyone who lives in the US and Canada, a copy of The Old Farmer's Almanac will give predicted sun/moon rise/set times for major cities. It takes a bit of addition and/or subtraction to get these times, as they're all listed for Boston, and you have to figure for your location, but anyone who passed third grade arithmetic should be able to do this without breaking a sweat. I will resist the temptation to comment on Her Liedership's followers and which part of the previous they don't qualify under...

Who wants to break it to her that the Earth doesn't have its own ecliptic, but the Solar System does? Who wants to break it to her that so far, she's received a grade of F in Astronomy, Physics, and Interplanetary Relationships? She keeps this up, she'll have to repeat that third grade...

[Stylesjl]

She will have to repeat kindergarten

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

Preschool ...

[BAroxMysox]

I think she'd frighten all the children with her Planet X nonsense. Although I'm sure even they'd have her all figured out.

[latimer]

Hello,

Well, I tried explaining Nancy's missteps with my patent-pending-Jonathan-patient-nice-guy technique; we'll see how it goes. Here's a copy of the post, cleaned up to use the keen features of this board.

------BEGIN POST-----

Hello,

Nancy wrote:

"Are you suggesting the SUN has moved from its normal position? That has never been the assertion. Perhaps you meant, FROM THE VIEWPOINT OF THOSE ON EARTH, the Sun appears to be too far south, from both hemispheres."

Sigh. *ALL* the obsevations are, obviously, taken from the Earth. You are claiming that Earth has moved "up" (I assume directly North by our polar reckoning, which is off by 25 degrees or so to Ecliptic North: Another point you fail to address). So, of course, the Sun should move "down" or ´too far South.´ Yet, if this had actually occured, every planet we could observe would ALSO appear be out of the ecliptic, as perceived by Earth. GoTo telescopes would be unable to track them. Since GoTos can still track the stars, the planets, the Moon, and the Sun; since *everything* we can observe is in the place starcharts and GoTos predict them to be, then *we* must be where *we* are predicted to be. QED.

"And the Moon is SOOOOO easy. Its been all over the map. Phase wrong, but in particular, ORBIT whacked out from time to time."

I am sorry, but you are incorrect, otherwise, again, my GoTo (and every other)telescope would be unable to track the Moon. Once again, once the telescope has the time, date, and the observer has centered it on a pair of stars, not only can it automatically slew and track the Moon; it can slew onto certain *places* on the Moon. The fact that it is so accurate belies the Moon being out of place at all; or do you claim that the Moon is out of place only when not observed by skeptics and astronomers? If so, that´s SOME power skeptics wield.

"I suspect as the Earth bobbles around, it appears to be out of place, then finds its spot around our middle. A N/S Moon in December noted, for instance"

There are thousands of amateur astronomer all over the world, at every hour of the night and all of them, at one time or another, look at the Moon. Every one of them must have been extremely lucky; in that they all happened to observe the Moon at the predicted time and in its predicted place.

That seems rather far fetched, so I will venture to suggest that your observations are mistaken; and that the Moon continues to move predictably, despite your claims to the contrary. Your evidence in unverifiable hearsay and anecdote. My evidence is the performance every GoTo and equatorial telescope on the face of this planet.

"Tilt yes, orbit rise or halt, no. With a tilt, the scope’s intelligence would expect YOU to be traveling East, say, but if you are traveling ESE instead, it would drift. What does the scope do then, beep? Refuse to work? Have a fuzzy overlay of descriptions on the star chart? Blow up? How many hours are you UP on that hill top, guzzling beer, that you would notice?"

Ad Hominem noted. As an aside; I haven´t tasted alcohol, ever. I´m too busy exploring this reality to explore any alternate ones.

If you lie to the telescope about where you are, or give it the improper time, it will attempt aligning anyway. It slews to where a bright star is, say Arcturus, and beeps when it should be centered. Using your little controls, you can move it around to center Arcutus, but since you have lied to the telescope, you can´t center it.

However, let´s say you fiddle for awhile and, even though you don´t have Arcturus centered, you say you do and press enter. It now slews around to a second star and you repeat the process.

Now, once you have centered in the second star, which also isn´t centered because you have lied to the scope, you center in on nothing, and press enter again. SOMETIMES the telescope will catch you; saying that it is unable to align because the information you have given it is outside error parameters; and you´d have to start over, now NOT lying to the telescope.

If you sucesfully fooled the scope, it will now track any object, except it won´t, because it will slew in on precisely the wrong place. No object will be where the scope thinks it ought to be.

This is why it doesn´t matter if the lenscap is on the telescope or not. It just relies on those initial two observations. If those observations are good, you will be able to track any object in the database all night and all day long. If you don´t align properly, nothing will track. Garbage in, garbage out.

You are claiming that the Earth ha moved unpredictably. If this is so, that unpredictable movement will throw off every scope, because the scope assumes very predictable movement of everything. The scopes track. Everything is in place. QED yet again.

Let us use good old Joe Astronaut to see if I can explain what WOULD be seen if, in fact, Earth was moving in unpredictable ways.

Scenario One: Earth moves Solar North by a few degrees.

In this case, Earth is moving "up" in relation to the *Sun´s* North, which is quite a bit different than *Earth´s* North. If that happened, Joe would see that the Sun has, indeed, risen and set in the wrong places at the wrong times consistently. The Moon would be in the wrong phase, and rising and setting in the wrong place. Sundials would no longer function at all. Earth´s pole would no longer line up with the North Star, so *every* star would appear to be out of place. The planets would appear to move out of the ecliptic altogether. Lunar and Solar eclipses would not occur on time, or at all.

Joe notices that much of this has demonstrably not occured, so he shrugs. We can safely say that scenario one is incorrect.

Scenario Two: Earth AND the Moon moves Galactic North by a few degrees.

In this case, Earth is moving "up" in relation to the *Sun´s* North, which is still quite a bit different than *Earth´s* North. The Moon magically tags along. If that happened, Joe would see that the Sun has, indeed, risen and set in the wrong places at the wrong times consistently. Sundials would no longer work at all. The Moon would be in the right place in our sky, but phase might alter a bit. Earth´s pole would no longer line up with the North Star, so every star would appear to be out of place. The planets would appear to move out of the ecliptic altogether. Lunar and Solar eclipses would not occur on time, or at all.

Since much of this has demonstrably not occured, (Joe points out that the Pole Star still is in the center of the great sky wheel,and does not move in a strange way) we can safely say that scenario two is incorrect.

Scenario Three: Earth AND the Moon moves Terrestrial North by a few degrees; maintaining the polar alignement (amazingly) relative to the North Star.

All right. If this happened, Joe can see that the stars would roughly maintain their positions in our sky relative to us because of their vast distance. The Sun would rise and set too far South. Temperatures would RADICALLY alter, becaue Earth is not only moving "up," it is changing its *distance* relative to the Sun to maintain alignement with the pole star. The Moon, because it has moved with us, would maintain its position roughly. Phases would be altered some. Earth´s pole would continue to line up with the North Star, so every star would be roughly in place. However, the planets would *still* appear to move out of the ecliptic; the inner ones VASTLY; because EARTH has moved out of the ecliptic. All the planets would rise and set at the wrong times, and would not travel through the constellations they are predicted to. Lunar and Solar eclipses would not occur on time or at all. Every GoTo telescope on this planet would be unable to track any object within the Solar System, or do long exposure photgraphy, of any object within our Solar System: INCLUDING THE SUN.

Since GoTo telescopes demonstrably track, and the planets move precisely where predicted in the ecliptic as seem by Earth, as demonstrated by any astrophotography of any planet, or the ability to see any asteroid where predicted, Joe concludes scenario three is incorrect.

Scenario Four: Earth has maintained is position relative to everything else, and continues to move in its predictable normal ways.

If this happens, the stars stay where predicted. The Moon rises and sets where predicted. The Sun continues its slow trek toward the summer Solstice. Planets can be tracked and photographed. Goto telescopes continue to function as normal.

Given the evidence, Joe looks up and nods. Scenario Four is the only one that holds water. We are precisely where and when we are predicted to be and, as of yet, there has been no evidence that can be replicated that demonstrates unpredicable movement of our little planet.

"In any case, the most I’ve heard that the TILT is off was 3.5 degrees, on one occasion, so I don’t think the tilt is the big issue. It is the orbit UP or slowed."

If the tilt was off by 3.5 degrees, EVERY star would be off by 3.5 degrees. Every Equatorial Mount of any telescope would be off by the same amount. Permanent mounts would be useless. Goto´s, once aligned, would slowly lose track because of this new, unpredictable, movement. 3.5 degrees is HUGE when measured in arc SECONDS.

I believe Joe covered the orbit moving ´up´ above. Thanks, Joe!

If the Earth slowed in its orbit around the Sun, forgetting Kepler for a moment, then the other planets would be demonstrably in the wrong place, relative to us. All the charts depicting movement of the heavens rely on a constant rotational velocity of the Earth´s axis, and a known velocity around the Earth´s Sun. If either of these values are off, then the planets will move out of their predicted places, relative to us. Since they are IN their predicted places, relative to us, then WE must be in OUR predicted place. QED again.

"I do recall him restting his scope at times. But the MAIN issue here, which I’ve been repeating, is that the STARS will not be out of alignment if the Orbit has risen or halted!"

If the orbit has HALTED, then the Sunrises and sets will not vary at ALL from day to day. Forgeting Kepler AGAIN, the other planets are now FAR out of their places in the ecliptic as they are now THOUSANDS of miles from where we have predicted them to be. Their velocity is now *unbelivably* greater than ours: Imagine a horserace around a track, with the horses is close proximity. When a horse passes you, on your horse, it is going just a few miles an hour faster, relative to you. Now imagine instead, that just as another horse is going to pass you, your horse *stops.* The other horses will ZOOM past you.

Since the planets have not altered from their predicted places in the sky, and (having reactivated Kepler)we haven´t plunged into the Sun, it seems certain that our velocity around the Sun has been maintained.

"You stand, looking at a distance mountain range. You move 3" to the left. Your VIEW has not changed!"

If you have a 1000x telescope zoomed in and centered on a little golf flag on that mountain and you move three inches guess what is no longer centered in the viewer? That´s why we use tools; to improve our perceptions and make them more precise.

Your word problem that follows assumes that Z doesn´t have any equipment to measure his own movemnt 6" away from his initial spot. However, if he is using Surveyor´s equipment, the move will be measurable, and Z will conclude he DID move.

"Such is your logic!"

Rather than commenting on the amazing irony of your using the word logic in support of anything you say, I will merely state ad Hominem noted.

And, just for the record, sunrise here this morning was exactly when it was supposed to be, and where is was supposed to be.

Thank you,

------END POST-----

Well, what do you think? I believe I got some of the technical terminology wrong; but I was trying as best I could to esplain things so that the total layman would understand. I think I had to make up terms like 'ecliptic North.' But it was the best I could do on short notice.

Let me know what you all think. Constructive criticisms always welcome.

Jonathan
-It doesn´t matter what I believe. What matters is what I can prove.-


P.S. *DARN* does this BBS system have nicer features or WHAT?!?!?!

[tngolfplayer]

Looks good. It has been explained to her overand over and over.......
](*,)

Hello,
Well, I tried explaining Nancy's missteps with my patent-pending-Jonathan-patient-nice-guy technique; we'll see how it goes. Here's a copy of the post, cleaned up to use the keen features of this board.

... post deleted to save room ...

You did pretty well. If you have a chance to continue a dialog with Lieder I suggest that you focus on the effect of a shift up or down on where we would see Mars or Venus. They are relatively close to us and their positions would change noticably relative to the background stars if the Earth were actually bobbling as she claims (you touched on this but I think it is a key flaw in her current reasoning).

She does actually listen to some comments. I claim credit for proving to her that the tilt was not changing by my repeated reference to the Night Sky Live/Concam images and that was when she shifted to this jump in the ecliptic business. It will be fun to see what she comes up with if you can press the point about the change in direction to Mars and Venus. (In fact, my guess is that she will say that Mars and Venus are jumping up/down simultaneously with Earth.)

IMO FODS #831

Hello,
Well, I tried explaining Nancy's missteps with my patent-pending-Jonathan-patient-nice-guy technique; we'll see how it goes. Here's a copy of the post, cleaned up to use the keen features of this board.

... post deleted to save room ...

You did pretty well. If you have a chance to continue a dialog with Lieder I suggest that you focus on the effect of a shift up or down on where we would see Mars or Venus. They are relatively close to us and their positions would change noticably relative to the background stars if the Earth were actually bobbling as she claims (you touched on this but I think it is a key flaw in her current reasoning).

She does actually listen to some comments. I claim credit for proving to her that the tilt was not changing by my repeated reference to the Night Sky Live/Concam images and that was when she shifted to this jump in the ecliptic business. It will be fun to see what she comes up with if you can press the point about the change in direction to Mars and Venus. (In fact, my guess is that she will say that Mars and Venus are jumping up/down simultaneously with Earth.)

IMO FODS #831

Further thot in case you follow up on this. The sun is, of course, 1 AU from us. Venus, when it is well away from the sun (as it is right now at sunset), is also about 1 AU away. Any change in the Earth's position that makes a noticable change in the direction to the sun (and hence in sunrise/set times) will also make a noticable change in the direction to Venus.

Two nights ago I was testing a new camera mount on our telescope and I clicked "Venus" on the control program window ... the scope went whirrr whirrr whirrr and there was Venus, nicely centered. The Earth is definately right where it is supposed to be.

IMO FODS #831

[BoredHugeKrill]

Nancy is never going to reply to any questions that might expose the falsehood of her statements.

I have a set of brief questions that I post on her thread once or twice a day, asking her what constellation each of the planets should appear in. I think she is fully aware from it being repeatedly explained that if the Earth had "moved out of orbit" then the planets would be seen to be in different positions relative to the stars. I think she finally gets that.

My questions are, of course, ignored completely every time.

Regards
Krill

[latimer]

Hello,

Thanks, TNGolfplayer.

IMO -- Good points; I have been trying to incorporate some of those ideas into my arguments, particularly regarding hte fact that GoTo's work so well. Thnaks for your posts; as I may try to rephrase to make myself more clear.

BoredHugeKrill -- I have seen your *excellent,* and yet so simple, questions ignored time and again. Fascinating; the selectivness of the believer; I wish I understood it better. I *really* like your posts; I think you explain things better that I can. Deep thanks.

Clear skies,

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

[BoredHugeKrill]

Jonathan,
many thanks - appreciated. I'm not sure that my explanations are better than yours, though - and I always enjoy reading your posts.

As you say, it's amazing how the true believers can selectively ignore things right in front of their face, no matter how simple and obvious.

I think it's a good indication that they're no longer able to deal with your questions and/or explanations when they start acusing you of working for the CIA. I've had that several times now, plus a few more indicating that they're "watching me" to see what times I post and see if any "sinister patterns" emerge. This, of course, is a substitute for considering the questions or answers I post. By classifing me as being "one of the bad guys" (that was another post) it removes the need for them to consider any information.

Amazing how that works. When asking a question such as "so which constellation is Mars in right now?" elicits a response such as "I don't need to think about that because you obviously work for the CIA" you just know that there is a problem...

Regards
Krill

[WolfKC]

"I don't need to think about that because you obviously work for the CIA"

That's so wrong, especially since I know you work for the NSA not the CIA!!! :P :^o

[BoredHugeKrill]

That's so wrong, especially since I know you work for the NSA not the CIA!!!

damn. How did you know?

Krill

[Farmer Tim]

To Jonathan & Krill.

I have to congratulate you both on your patience in providing simple, easy-to-understand posts on GLP explaining how easy it is to disprove NL's claim that the earth has somehow changed its orbit. I am a frequent visitor to GLP posting under the username Ahmed Boumedienne. I made a New Year's resolution to no longer respond to any of the PX stuff. It has become obvious to me, that NL will NEVER admit that the "Zetas" could be wrong. I think you two are close to swaying a couple of believers.

[latimer]

Hello,

BoredHugeKrill and Wolfie:

Darn. And I do this posting stuff for *free.* How do I break into the NSA disinfomration purveyor market?

Farmer Tim:

Thank you *very* much. I am *thrilled* when my explanations can help out anyone; and I appreciated your comment here very, very much. Don't hesitate to ask any other questions you might have, either: I am a firm believer in the quote 'The only stupid quesiton is the one that goes unasked.'

At any rate: Positively ecstatic that I could help in any small way. Helps me justify my own existence on our pale blue dot.

Thank you,

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