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

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.

let's stick to a factual discussion. Do you agree that the first quarter of the Moon at a date nearest the autumnal equinox corresponds to the lowest expected altitude?

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

Tis is not a NASA sponsored site. Its a BA sponsored site with some adds by google.

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

No that was Circuit Breaker reporting the Moon being high, the report came from Wisconsin.

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?

Who were the 'they' in this sentence?

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

For those who want to see the truth, download the Moon data in advance and save it. Then do a comparison, the results will stir questions.

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