|
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
| Register | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Mark Forums Read |
![]() |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|||
|
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
|
|
||||
|
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)
__________________
To give a satisfactory decision as to the truth it is necessary to be rather an arbitrator than a party to the dispute. - Aristotle |
|
||||
|
Quote:
it's not like it changes the answer - the only thing that we need to discuss here are observational data... 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 |
|
||||
|
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: Quote:
__________________
Fin Skep-ti-cult® member #488-28303-790 |
|
||||
|
Quote:
G'night all. Yawn.
__________________
Fin Skep-ti-cult® member #488-28303-790 |
|
||||
|
Quote:
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 |
|
|||
|
Quote:
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 |
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
Fin Skep-ti-cult® member #488-28303-790 |
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
||||
|
Quote:
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 |
|
||||
|
Quote:
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 |
|
||||
|
Quote:
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
__________________
To give a satisfactory decision as to the truth it is necessary to be rather an arbitrator than a party to the dispute. - Aristotle |
|
|||
|
Quote:
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. |
|
||||
|
Quote:
How do you want to proceed from here? 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 |
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
Fin Skep-ti-cult® member #488-28303-790 |
|
||||
|
Quote:
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 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.
|
|
||||
|
Quote:
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 |
|
||||
|
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?
__________________
Fin Skep-ti-cult® member #488-28303-790 |
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
|||
|
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? |
|
||||
|
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
__________________
To give a satisfactory decision as to the truth it is necessary to be rather an arbitrator than a party to the dispute. - Aristotle |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|