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

Regards
Krill

__________________
To give a satisfactory decision as to the truth it is necessary to be rather an arbitrator than a party to the dispute.
- Aristotle

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

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

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

Regards
Krill

__________________
To give a satisfactory decision as to the truth it is necessary to be rather an arbitrator than a party to the dispute.
- Aristotle

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

Question 2 Where do you get 30 degrees please explain?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards
Krill

__________________
To give a satisfactory decision as to the truth it is necessary to be rather an arbitrator than a party to the dispute.
- Aristotle

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

Regards
Krill

__________________
To give a satisfactory decision as to the truth it is necessary to be rather an arbitrator than a party to the dispute.
- Aristotle

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

Sigh! How about your own statements, here:
I did not predict it at 18 degrees, low but not that low, again most will pass this off as an observation error with only 12 degrees between official numbers and mine.

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

Eighteen plus 12 equalled 30 last time I checked.

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

If the Earth had halted in its orbit there would be no possible way that the eclipse would occur. Why? Because the moon wouldn't be there, we wouldn't be able to see it. The moon is accelerating twice as fast towards the Sun as it is the Earth which means that if the Earth stopped, the moon -WOULDN'T- it would carry on in its own orbit about the sun. That this hasn't happened proves that the Earth has not stopped (part from all the other proofs that show it just as well but which Grant has never seemed to understand. By the way Grant, Why can't we see Orion during the night during the Northern Summer?)

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

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

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

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

http://www.lunar-occultations.com/io...ts/planets.htm

Hello,

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

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

Which they are.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit to add:

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

__________________
What's the youngest you could die of old age?

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

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

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

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

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

__________________
What's the youngest you could die of old age?

1. What tilt is undergoing a "wobble"? The Eart's axial tilt?
2. If so, exactly what is the magnitude of the wobble, and its period? Hint: according to the above quote, there's only one answer.
3. If the Earth is "wobbling" as you seem to propose, no fixed telescope on Earth would track properly.. Many, many such telescopes exist both in professional and amateur observatories. Yet no such problems have occurred.
4. Such a daily wobble would throw off every geosynchronous satellite, not to mention screw up the GPS system, etc. However, there have been no such problems.
5. Where is this "12th planet", exactly? What are its coordinates and visual magnitude? How large is it? What's its composition? What are its orbital elements?
6. You seem to be claiming the Earth translated significantly perpendicular to its orbital plane, or that the inclination of the orbit itself changed temporarily. Which is it?
6a. If you're claiming the former, you can't just say it moved up but stayed in the same orbital inclination. That's unphysical for a central force like gravity. So, either way, the orbital inclination of the Earth would have to change. This also would render every fixed telescope on Earth useless - unable to track any star, planet, or the Sun.
6b. We'd also immediately notice that the sunrise and sunset times, etc., were wrong.
6c. Either would be an awfully energetic event. Where did all that energy go?
7. If this "12th planet" is big enough and close enough to push/pull the Earth around in such a fashion, why is the Moon still in orbit? Why is Mars still in its orbit? Why did Cassini arrive exactly as targeted at Saturn, or Genesis make it back to Earth?

Your assertions that the Earth has tilted, or moved up or down out of its orbital plane, or that its orbital plane has shifted, are f