ok, I should be here. I may be a few minutes late....

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

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']

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

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

don't worry about it too much :wink:

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:

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

Agreed. And my correction wasn't even real, really. What an anti-climax...

G'night all. Yawn.

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

see ya tomorrow. Oh, I forgot - how was the curry?



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

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

Lamb Stew. It was totally excellent. See BABBling for recipe. I will be adding tweaks. Sleep well, BHK.

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

I will look at it in a little while.

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.

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

Omitted

do you have a response to my post above? I think that you have the Earth orbiting in the wrong direction.

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

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.

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

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

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.

that's very commendable. Kudos for admitting the error.

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

And that should be spelled 'flak' by the way. Catch you later.

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

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..

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

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