Welcome to the Equator!! Everywhere on Earth !! USA-UK-Canada

reply to post by ProudBird


PB: what to do with you? One thread has you piloting jets and this one has you teaching astrophysics. My oh my.

Your Cape Canaveral photo is an epic fail. Try again.

I still don't understand why you are fixated on 40 degrees north latitude. What the hey?

As far as Orion sometime later this year being a new constellation for the zodiac - I'm ok with it. In fact, I'm predicting it.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
Truly I know better than to reply to you and encourage your vagaries and yet...tonight, the moon would be a full on boat if it was still a crescent which it is not. Last night it was looking more tilted but not nearly tilted enough. The night before it was a full on boat - in fact I thought it was going to head right on into Orion (it was close!) But we're past that event now for a couple of months. We'll see what the future brings and hey, Ophiuchus got added to the zodiac - why not Orion? In fact, why not include all the constellations in the zodiac as the moon continues to careen across the sky.

Did that answer your question oh innocent one?

No, you danced a sultry waltz all around it without answering it. But I'm going to pretend you acknowledged that the moon isn't ALWAYS a boat moon over Vegas for the sake of my point.

So. If the moon is NOT upside down on a given night, i.e. more of a vertical crescent over you and Cherub sharing ziti at Batista's off the Strip, .....wait for it.....does that mean it's snapped back into its proper place? Is it fluctuating between wonky and normal? What's going on?

reply to post by luxordelphi


Explain this:

Your Cape Canaveral photo is an epic fail. Try again.

What is "fail"?

You can't just dance away. You claim that "my" Cape photo of Apollo 14 is a "fail"? (It isn't "mine", by the way. I did not take the photo).

But, I provided the source of the original image. I explained thoroughly the provenance of that image, and the source kindly had the date and details as well.

However, if a person does not bother to read the links and the proof and evidence provided, then that just makes her look like......well, fill in the blank.


I have an image.....it is a portrait of a person with both fingers in their ears....saying "La, La, La, I can't hear you...."

reply to post by luxordelphi


Ya know, I'm going to skip all your inanities from your reply to me because they have all been addressed many times over and frankly...your self-imposed perception of superiority is rather laughable.

I would caution against insinuating that the people who are correct in this discussion are incompetent just because you can't admit you're wrong though.


You ask why the 40th parallel is being fixated on...yet the images provided as to why this is all so wrong and how the moon is totally jacked up have all been from where? Yea...around 40 degrees north.

You can't brush off the images from the cape either. That's less than 8 degrees south of Las Vegas and only 12 degrees south of the most northern edge of Kansas. The angular orientation of the phases of the moon will be near identical to the naked eye from one location to the other at such a small difference.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by ngchunter

 

It happened in this photo from 1971. Yes, it used to happen, you just didn't notice.

Hey ngchunter...finally an argument - 10 pages later. So what about your Cape Canaveral photo? Cape Canaveral is at 28.24 degrees north latitude and guess what? The moon can be overhead as far north as 28.5 degrees north latitude.

That is why the smile moon is a phenomena of latitude i.e. the equator. Las Vegas is nowhere near the equator.

You just contradicted your entire claim. Now, what do you think it's going to look like on January 30 1971 from 29.5 degrees north? 30.5? 31.5? Etc, at what point will it suddenly be a "vertical" moon not a "horizontal" moon? You could use Stellarium to find out...

The rest of your post is just trolling

No, it's not. You didn't answer my question about how high the sun will get from the tropic of cancer at the northern hemisphere's summer solstice, but it's rather moot since you just contradicted your previous claim. I'd say we're making progress at least.

reply to post by ColAngus

does that mean it's snapped back into its proper place? Is it fluctuating between wonky and normal? What's going on?

Here some insight from a broad spectrum of sources starting with what it isn't and what it's not going to be.
www.popsci.com...

OK, how about if the largest known asteroid, Ceres—which at 600 miles across is roughly the size of California and Nevada combined—did manage to slip out of its place in the asteroid belt and set out on a collision course for the moon?

Hardly a budge, Wynn-Williams says. It’s the equivalent of a four-year-old trying to knock over an NFL lineman.

www.globalpost.com...

An asteroid compared in size to the Rose Bowl has passed within 201,000 miles of Earth — slightly closer than the moon's orbit.

The gravitational influence of the asteroid will have no detectable effect on Earth, including tides and tectonic plates.

A look at some other things that are out of whack or just wacky.
www.csmonitor.com...

Now, with the aid of the Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer (WISE) satellite launched in 2009, astronomers have discovered Earth's first probable Trojan, a rock that spends its time at the sun-Earth L-4 point

"It seems to do things not seen for Trojans before. Still, it had to have some kind of extreme behavior to move it far enough from its Lagrangian point to get within our view."

The fact that 2010 TK7's behavior is chaotic enough to take it quite far from its rather stable Trojan point suggests it is only marginally trapped there, having perhaps only recently been disturbed from its original position.

www.enotes.com...

The Moon's orbit around the Earth has many irregularities (perturbations), and their study (lunar theory) has occupied astronomers over a long history

It has a retrograde motion: for an observer on Earth it rotates westward along the ecliptic with a period of 18.6 years, or 19°21? per year. When viewed from celestial north, the nodes move clockwise around the Earth, opposite the Earth's own spin and its rotation around the Sun. Lunar and solar eclipses can only occur when the line of nodes points toward the Sun, roughly every 5.4 months. The type of the eclipse depends on Moon's orbital position in that time window.

When the ascending node of the moon's orbit coincides with the vernal equinox in the northern hemisphere, the declination of the moon in the sky reaches a maximum at 23°29? + 5°9? or 28°36?. This is called the major standstill. Nine and a half years later, when the descending node has come to the same point, the angle is only 23°28? ? 5°8? or 18°19?, and the declination of the moon is a minimum. This is the minor standstill.

A very recent attempt to find out what's what with the moon.
www.bbc.co.uk...

The US space agency (Nasa) has succeeded in placing two new satellites in orbit around the Moon

The identical Grail twins are to map gravity variations across the lunar body in unprecedented detail.

And she described as "shocking", the continued inability of science to explain why the rugged far-side of the Moon looks so different from that of the nearside with its great swathe of dark volcanic plains, or maria.

Here's more on wierd stuff and what it could be.
www.mikebrownsplanets.com...

The lecture explored what was known about the edge of our main planetary system and the ragged belt of debris called the Kuiper belt that quickly faded to empty space not that much beyond Neptune.

Conveniently, one of my most active areas of research at that time was trying to figure out precisely why this ragged belt of debris had such an edge to it and why there appeared to be nothing at all beyond that edge.

A few weeks later, after confirming that Sedna was real and determining its unprecedentedly strange orbit around the sun

Sedna takes 12,000 years to go around the sun on its elongated orbit, and it never comes close to any of the planets.

Something had to have kicked Sedna to have given it its crazy orbit. But what?

The answer is: something large that is no longer there, or that is there, but we don’t know about yet.

Either something large once passed through the outer parts of our solar system and is now long gone, or something large still lurks in a distant corner out there and we haven’t found it yet.

reply to post by ColAngus

More on what it could be.
www.mikebrownsplanets.com...

Either something large once passed through the outer parts of our solar system and is now long gone, or something large still lurks in a distant corner out there and we haven’t found it yet.

The second possibility that we considered and wrote about was that perhaps a star had passed extremely close to our solar system at some point during the lifetime of the sun.

A star passing by that close would have been brighter than the full moon and would have been the brightest thing in the night sky for hundreds of years. Perhaps our early ancestors even temporarily lived under a dual-star sky.

And more on what it could be.
www.binaryresearchinstitute.org...

The only conclusion is, while the Earth is moving 360 degrees counterclockwise around the Sun in a solar year, the entire solar system (containing the Earth Sun reference frame) is moving clockwise relative to inertial space.

Furthermore, the only way the solar system can be curving through space at a rate of 50 arc seconds per year, is if it were gravitationally affected by another very large mass: a companion star.

In April 2001, Discover Magazine reported that scientists from University of Michigan and University of Arizona found our solar system has a sheer edge meaning matter such as asteroids, ice and other objects of all sizes appears to abruptly end. A single sun system should have a very wide dispersal of matter getting smaller and smaller for billions of miles beyond the Kuiper Belt. To find that all matter seems to end just beyond this Kuiper Belt was unexpected.

Interestingly, a sheer edge is also widely thought to be typical of a binary system. In a binary system, you would expect the two companion stars gravity fields to cause any excess matter to be sheered away (ejected or captured) on a regular basis.

www.netplaces.com...

This means precession appears to be accelerating and decelerating in the same way that it would if the explanation for precession was that the sun were moving in an elliptical orbit typical of binary star systems.

The influence of a binary star would likely create exactly the kind of eccentric orbits found with the newly discovered dwarf planets, Eris and Sedna.

The BRI has calculated that a brown dwarf with a mass 8 percent that of the sun, at a distance of about 800–1,000 astronomical units (the distance from Earth to the sun), would result in a 24,000-year orbit for the sun around the gravitational center of the binary system. A larger companion star further out could produce the same orbital cycle.

And I'll round it off with some ancient prophesy.
www.sacred-texts.com...

And the moon shall alter her order, And not appear at her time.

[And in those days the sun shall be seen and he shall journey in the evening †on the extremity of the great chariot† in the west] And shall shine more brightly than accords with the order of light.

And many chiefs of the stars shall transgress the order (prescribed). And these shall alter their orbits and tasks, And not appear at the seasons prescribed to them.

And the whole order of the stars shall be concealed from the sinners, And the thoughts of those on the earth shall err concerning them, [And they shall be altered from all their ways], Yea, they shall err and take them to be gods.

reply to post by luxordelphi


And ONCE AGAIN it all drifts back to Planet X/Nibiru/Sedna/Tyche/Cybertron/Romulan.

I have to admit I'm pretty awesome at this.

I haven't trawled through every page on this thread, but I'm hoping someone has already pointed out that the moon looking like that is the result of something called earthshine, weekend before last there was a brilliant spectacle just before sunset, with Venus and Jupiter lining up with a crescent moon lit by earthshine.

But yeah, that doesn't really have much to do with bizarre angles or latitude, and it's not had any "artistic license" taken with it either as someone else pointed out.

reply to post by ProudBird

What is "fail"?

It's not the photo, which is killer. It's the fact that Cape Canaveral is at 28.24 north latitude and the moon can be overhead as far north as 28.5 north latitude. So a boat moon is possible here (smile moon, cat moon, all the light at the bottom moon etc.) This is the most northern point in the moons' 18.6 year cycle and last took place in 2006. The moon is currently more than half on its' way to the minimum in that cycle and will not return to that position until 2024-25. As of Feb. 16, 2012, the moon was at -22.11 degrees and +22.05 degrees.

www.umass.edu...

Lol!

Haha, I just read back through the thread - because I thought "oh no, it would be really embarrassing if my response had already been mentioned, and then I'd look like a tool on ATS of all places".

How can you all have such heated debates about Lunar phases, changes in the Earth's tilt etc, and not recognise earthshine when you see it?

reply to post by luxordelphi


NOW, you are back-pedaling furiously.

And, you know full well hat you're up to. Full on.

28° North Latitude versus YOUR location is minimal. You are at 36°. Do the math.

8°.....out of a full 90°, Equator to pole.

Do the math. What percentage of 90 is 8?

Your thread title is a deceit. Earlier, you claimed that a "boat" Moon is "never, EVER" (your words) seen this far North of the Equator....but, only at the Equator.

A difference of only 8° of latitude amounts to an imperceptible variance in the seasonal and cyclical angle of the crescent Moon.

This you also know full well. Being caught making a mistake, by the many who have shown the errors, and not being able to admit it? And to compound it, continuing to repeat and spew the same discredited nonsense? There is a term for that sort of behavior.

Is that how you wish to be viewed? Because, it's happening now.

here is the problem with most of of this is that who here knows the diffurance between Magnetic north and true north ? remeber the stink about all the airports a compas points where ? and depending on where you are at it can be off by a lot as much as 30 deg or more just becouse the junk in your car says west is that way does not make it true west, I can walk out my front door and look directly at polaris the NORTH STAR my hose faces direclty north the sun sets to the north of the west side of my house.

Quote from Wikipedia

Magnetic declination varies both from place to place and with the passage of time. As a traveller cruises the east coast of the United States, for example, the declination varies from 20 degrees west (in Maine) to zero (in Florida), to 10 degrees east (in Texas), meaning a compass adjusted at the beginning of the journey would have a true north error of over 30 degrees if not adjusted for the changing declination. In the UK it is one degree 34 minutes west (London), and as the country is quite small that figure is fairly good for the whole of the country. It is reducing, and in about 2050 it will be zero

reply to post by CherubBaby


Time change to daylight Savings Time at 2AM Sunday the 11th.

We're still wondering why, starting in 2006, it was moved back from the first Sunday in April to the first Sunday in March.
en.wikipedia.org...

I bet it has something to do with the orbit of the Earth being off somehow. Anyone think of that? It's not the orbit of the Moon that's different, and as so many people are so fond of saying "the Sun and stars are right where they should be" - maybe the Earth's orbit has changed slightly. Just enough to give us these odd moon phases at the wrong latitudes. And just enough to throw off the time change somewhat.

However, I have nothing with which to back that up.

reply to post by comppwizz


When we talk about Latitude and Longitude those coordinates are always relative to True North. The imaginary grid lines laid out on the planet are oriented to the geographical axis of the Earth.

For purposes of this discussion the variation due to Magnetic North's position not being co-located with geographical North is irrelevant.

reply to post by Dashdragon

I would caution against insinuating that the people who are correct in this discussion are incompetent just because you can't admit you're wrong though.

Never insinuated anything - whatever I meant to say, I said directly. No one has shown me an error. There's been a lot of talk but very little substance.

You ask why the 40th parallel is being fixated on...yet the images provided as to why this is all so wrong and how the moon is totally jacked up have all been from where? Yea...around 40 degrees north.

Tut tut...links have been provided with photos and there has been witness testimony in this thread from 33 degrees n latitude, 35 degrees n latitude, 36 degrees n latitude, 38.5 degrees n latitude, 39 degrees n latitude, 40 degrees n latitude, 42 degrees n latitude, 47.5 degrees n latitude, 51 degrees n latitude, 53 degrees n latitude, 54 degrees n latitude. There is one entry for 40 degrees n latitude. Let's be precise, shall we?

The angular orientation of the phases of the moon will be near identical to the naked eye from one location to the other at such a small difference.

Prove it. The moon is currently around 22 degrees. That's a difference of 14 degrees to Las Vegas, which is a difference of 966 miles/1554 kilometers. Prove to me that the light on the moon, all the light at the bottom, the boat moon, is the same angle from those two locations. And please, no polar orbits for the moon.

reply to post by ProudBird


it does when people are using magnetic north to prove that every thing is where it should be.
and they are using programs that get updated every other week to correct any number of issues with what ?
omg we totaly got our calculations wrong on where every thing chould be next week we need to send out a update right away so people wont think there is something wrong and start some end of the world crap lol
where do they all get there UPDATED star charts from ? nasa ?

reply to post by ngchunter

You just contradicted your entire claim. Now, what do you think it's going to look like on January 30 1971 from 29.5 degrees north? 30.5? 31.5? Etc, at what point will it suddenly be a "vertical" moon not a "horizontal" moon? You could use Stellarium to find out...

Nothing has been contradicted. Please spare me your stellarium construct. It is clear that stellarium shows the moon where it is and not where it should be. Because the moon is manifesting as all the light at the bottom at diverse mid-latitudes contrary to the way it has always manifested before, a construct showing the moon as it is now proves zip. And your question is a good question, "...at what point..." Where is the answer to that question? Further, that question is historical. Currently the moon is around 22 degrees north and south, so at what point now will it stop its' smile aspect? Will it stop at 36 degrees? How about 40 degrees? How about 54 degrees? Where does it end? The answer is diabolical given the reckless disregard that those in the know have shown in relaying this information.

No, it's not. You didn't answer my question about how high the sun will get from the tropic of cancer at the northern hemisphere's summer solstice, but it's rather moot since you just contradicted your previous claim. I'd say we're making progress at least.

Forgive me for assuming rhetorical. Now hear this: a smile moon, boat moon, all the light at the bottom moon cannot happen where the sun and moon are not overhead. When the ecliptic passes overhead, on your latitude, it makes a vertical situation for the sun/moon on the horizon at setting and viola! the light is on the bottom. This is because the sun and moon appear to travel east to west and NOT north to south. In a polar orbit, the smile moon is possible at diverse mid-latitudes because then it would be a question of longitude. In a latitudinal orbit, this is not possible and hence the smile moon at or near the equator since the ecliptic roughly follows the equator, intersecting it at two points during the year.

I know you made a huge effort to find that Cape Canaveral phot and it was a good effort. In 1971 we might have speculated on how far from the 28.4 degrees n latitude of Cape Canaveral we would see the smile moon, all the light at the bottom. Today, we are not there. The moon is more than 1/2 way to minimum at 22 degrees. All things should be normal. They are not. The boat moon, smile moon, all the light at the bottom moon is being seen as far north as Poland. This doesn't give you even a bit of a chill?

reply to post by ColAngus


I went to a lot of effort to find those easily understood links for you showing what might possibly be causing the boat at diverse mid-latitudes and all you have to say is how awesome you are? Anyway, on to the corrections: Sedna couldn't cause it, not enough mass. Nibiru wasn't mentioned in the links I provided. They were mostly from traditional sources and included Mike Brown, a sort of mouthpiece for NASA when it comes to things Kuiper and Oort. Tyche was not mentioned although it's a personal favorite and Cybertron and Romulan - what??!! So in the future, it's going to be two-liners for you.

reply to post by ProudBird

Is that how you wish to be viewed? Because, it's happening now.

I'm truly sorry that your Cape Canaveral photo was not a prove-all, end-all and I empathize with your frustration. Because you have chosen not to respond to a single point of my previous post to you and instead to lash out once again in personal attacks I can only assume that you have nothing more. And I'm not really surprised because you have contributed almost nothing to this thread.