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).

__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

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?

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?

__________________
Fin
Skep-ti-cult® member #488-28303-790

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?

You're doing friendly fire here...

__________________
Fin
Skep-ti-cult® member #488-28303-790

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.

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

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

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

__________________
Fin
Skep-ti-cult® member #488-28303-790

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?

dummy, my:

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]

__________________
Fin
Skep-ti-cult® member #488-28303-790

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.

Common Man

US Navy Astronomical Applications Dept.

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

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?

__________________
Fin
Skep-ti-cult® member #488-28303-790

What a give-away...

__________________
Fin
Skep-ti-cult® member #488-28303-790

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

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.

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.

Forgive me for jumping in, but, Grant,

You replied to dummy:

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

Then later, you said: