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

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by Dashdragon

 

Why is that? I haven't read anything like that at all. If you are saying that the light on the moon tilts a degree for every degree of latitude - you need to supply some sort of a link or something to substantiate that because observation doesn't show that at all. I know someone else said that in this thread but they never supplied anything to back it up.

It's not that the light on the moon tilts...your viewing angle of the moon is changing. Your position on Earth has nothing to do with what part of the moon is lit up, it just changes what part and the angle that you get to see it. And observation clearly does show that this is true from the images supplied in this thread and the others by Cherub.

We have latitude and longitude in degrees for a reason, so yes, it correlates to a direct observable measurement to the angle you view the sky. That is exactly the point of what everyone has been trying to explain and how your angle of viewing the sky changes on a seasonal basis. The orbits and positions of things in space do not change just because you changed where you're looking at them from, however your viewing angle does so their position in the sky as you observe them will change. It's a fairly simple concept.

Again, same as the previous - why would that be? Also, the moon is not currently at 28.5 degrees, it is at 22 degrees and yet the boat moon is being seen at many different latitudes. Poland, for instance, at 54 degrees north latitude shouldn't have anything even slightly resembling a boat, even by your mysterious calculations.

I've not seen an image from Poland in this thread that I can recall. I've seen it mentioned and perhaps there was a link I overlooked, but I don't remember seeing an image. However, Poland ranges from around 49 to 54 degrees north - good job cherry-picking the northern tip of the country there for maximum effect. So that means the crescent moon at the horizon could have as little tilt as 27 - 32 degrees depending on what part of Poland you are looking from.

The Cape photo completely and utterly debunks such a ridiculous claim.

The Cape Canaveral photo is at 28.24 degrees north latitude. The moon can be overhead as far north as 28.5 degrees every 18.6 years. Every 18.6 years, it is possible for this to happen. The last time the moon was that far north was in 2006. Right now the moon is closer to minimum than to maximum so all things should be normal but they are not. The boat moon is being seen at many different northern latitudes. So it debunks nothing and is well within the capabilities of the moon in the 18.6 year cycle. The sun doesn't get that far north ever and, saying that, I guess I should get a 2nd opinion on the photo.

...was able to reach someone to verify the photo - may be a day or two.

edit on 7-3-2012 by luxordelphi because: add last sentence.

Here's the thing...we've already shown that you and Cherub have a very....loose...definition as to what you 'think' is a perfectly horizontal moon. These threads first started with Cherub's picture from Vegas of a moon that was tilted at a very-noticeable 17 degrees that has been exhaustively explained why it was exactly what they should have seen.

You're trying to assert that things aren't normal, but so far everything has shown that they clearly are and you just don't seem to even want to understand why though it seems more like twisting things for some other purpose at this point.

You can say the Cape photo debunks nothing, but it's a photo clearly documented from 1971 where the moon would have been tilted at less than half the amount it was tilted in Cherub's initial photo if viewed from the same location. It's the most perfect 'boat' moon image from a non-equatorial latitude provided in any of these threads you two have been working on and it's over 40 years old.

I mean, do you think moving 10-20 degrees north somehow correlates to a much larger change in observable tilt of the phases of the moon? If so, I think someone needs to work on their basic geometry.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
If you are saying that the light on the moon tilts a degree for every degree of latitude - you need to supply some sort of a link or something to substantiate that because observation doesn't show that at all.

This is just common sense. Here's a little orange fellow standing on the equator at a moment in time when the moon is visible as exactly half illuminated exactly parallel to his horizon:


The red line represents the equator, the green lines represent 10 degree increments of latitude going north, and the blue line is the Earth's axis of rotation going through the poles.

Now, if at the moment in time our orange fellow happened to be at a place exactly 20 degrees north latitude, the moon would look like this:


And at 40 degrees north:


At 60 degrees north:


And at 80 degrees north:


See how the angle of illumination on the moon rotates the exact same amount as the degrees north our little guy moves?

NOTE:

nataylor --
I was in the middle of putting together my own post similar to yours above when you posted. I hope you don't mind if I add my 2 cents, and go ahead and post my similar version of your post above


Luxordelphi --

As Dashdragon and nataylor have said, it's not the lit-up part of the moon that changes when viewed from different points on Earth on a given night, but rather the angle from which the person is viewing the lit-up Moon. This is because the earth is a sphere, and people standing at different locations on that sphere will have a different point-of-view of objects in space, because people's version of "level" changes based on where they stand on that sphere.

Here are some graphics that illustrate this. Please note that in all of these images, I ignored the tilt of the Earth, which changes seasonally relative to the Moon throughout the year. For the sake of this illustration, it is easier to ignore the tilt and instead concentrate on the basic concept.

In this first graphic, we see two people viewing the Moon -- one person at 45° North latitude, and one person at the Equator (0° latitude). Both of these people, as you can see, are standing on the "side" of the Earth, although the person is turned more sideways (at a different angle relative to the Moon) than the other person. Because they are both standing sideways at different angles from each other, what they would call a "level" point-of-view would be different based on their different positions on the "side" of the Earth.

(Also, please note that this is a 2-D representation of a 3-D scene. Imagine that Moon to be in the background -- beyond the Earth -- and Person #1 and Person #2 are viewing it as it sets in the West)





Now, if we turn the our view of the Earth (and the whole graphic) so that the person at 45° North latitude is standing vertical (so his eyes are level), we can now see the Moon as that person at 45° North latitude would see it. The Moon would look titled about 45°, Like this:





If we turn the our view of the Earth (and the whole graphic) again so that the person at the Equator (0° latitude) is standing vertical (so his eyes are level), we can now see the Moon as that person at the Equator would see it. The Moon would look horizontal, Like this:


The important thing to get out of this is that it is not the lit part of the Moon that is tilting, but the way that the Moon is seen from various location on the Sphere that is the Earth. The part of the Moon that is lit will NOT change for these two people, but what WILL change is the way their heads are tilted (due to standing on a sphere sphere),and their point-of-view when viewing that Moon will also change.

reply to post by nataylor

This is just common sense.

Do tell. Where's the substantiation for the scenario you put up? Where does it say how many degrees the light on the moon tilts for every degree of latitude? And where's the sun? Is the moon plugged in to an outlet? Does it get switched on?

Your 60 degrees north is about normal for Las Vegas. Las Vegas is at 36 degrees north. Where's the common sense in that? What latitude are the sun and moon at for your diagrams? Is that common sense too? Common nonsense - seen a lot of it in this thread.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
Do tell. Where's the substantiation for the scenario you put up? Where does it say how many degrees the light on the moon tilts for every degree of latitude? And where's the sun? Is the moon plugged in to an outlet? Does it get switched on?

Your 60 degrees north is about normal for Las Vegas. Las Vegas is at 36 degrees north. Where's the common sense in that? What latitude are the sun and moon at for your diagrams? Is that common sense too? Common nonsense - seen a lot of it in this thread.

The substantiation is right there in the visual images. I'm telling you that each degree north the viewer moves increases the apparent rotation of the moon by a degree. If you'd like to get out a protractor and verify that, be my guest. Where the sun is doesn't matter. We're talking about a specific instance in time with the moon half illuminated.

What do you mean my 60 degrees north is "about normal" for Las Vegas? In Las Vegas, the apparent angle of illumination of any particular phase of the moon varies by +/-~65 degrees, depending on the time of year, as illustrated below:



"Normal" for Las Vegas, or any other location, encompass a range, not a single value. As for the latitude of the moon, as I said it is directly over the equator, which puts it at a latitude of 0 degrees at the particular instance in time illustrated in the diagram. Where the sun is isn't important to the illustration. All that's important is see that as you move north, the angle of illumination on the moon relative to the local horizon changes by exactly the number of degrees north you have moved.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
Where's the substantiation for the scenario you put up?

Why is substantiation important all of sudden? Your entire position to this point has been centered on "observation" and "memory," whether it's yours, the Muslims, the Mormons, etc.

On another note, I know you see me as a simpleton, but maybe you could educate me on those questions I keep asking and you keep avoiding. *nudge* *nudge* * wink* *wink*

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by nataylor

 

This is just common sense.

Do tell. Where's the substantiation for the scenario you put up? Where does it say how many degrees the light on the moon tilts for every degree of latitude? And where's the sun? Is the moon plugged in to an outlet? Does it get switched on?

Your 60 degrees north is about normal for Las Vegas. Las Vegas is at 36 degrees north. Where's the common sense in that? What latitude are the sun and moon at for your diagrams? Is that common sense too? Common nonsense - seen a lot of it in this thread.

What does the location of the Sun have anything to do with the concept of why the Moon at a given phase and on a given day will have different tilts when seen from different latitudes on Earth?

Sure -- the location of the Sun relative to the Earth and Moon does make a difference in which part of the moon is lit when seen from earth, but it has nothing at all to do with what we are discussing here -- and that is "why does the Moon's tilt look different from when viewed at the same time form different latitudes on Earth?"

Could you please explain why it is important to know where the Sun is in these illustrations? The Sun is NOT what makes the Moon's tilt look different when viewed at the same time from different latitudes on Earth.


By the way, not that it matters to the topic at hand, but FYI:
In my illustrations the Moon is shown in 1st quarter phase, so the Sun could only be in one possible location. It is at point that would create a 90° angle if the angle is drawn from the Moon, through the Earth, then to the Sun.

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


I think it's fair to say that in this world, there are some people who are simply incapable of thinking in three dimensions.

Spatial orientation abilities are not always innate, especially in matters beyond normal down-to-Earth experiences that define most people's existence.

Luxordelphi --

Let me try a new approach at explaining this:

If you tilt your head when looking at the Moon, the tilt of the Moon will look different to you than if you did NOT tilt your head. The perceived tilt of the Moon will change by 1° for each degree your head is tilted. Can we agree on that?

Well, people standing on the spherical Earth at 45° North Latitude have their heads tilted (their whole bodies tilted, actually) at a 45° angle relative to the people standing at the equator.

Therefore, the people at 45° N will see the Moon with a different tilt (45° different) than the people at the Equator for the exact same reason that the Moon's tilt changes when you tilt your head.

It's that simple, really.

reply to post by Dashdragon

I mean, do you think moving 10-20 degrees north somehow correlates to a much larger change in observable tilt of the phases of the moon?

There are two simple ways to debunk this thread:
1. Show substantiation for how many degrees the light on the moon tilts for every degree of latitude one is away from the moon overhead.
2. Show links to photos of the boat moon at diverse latitudes prior to 1990.

There is no substantiation for the Cape Canaveral photo in the photo archives from NASA. The only place that photo appears is on the website selling it. Photos like that are selling for $400 elsewhere but on this website they are selling for $6 and $7. If you scroll down the Apollo 14 archive photos to KSC-71PC-70 you'll see a color photo from Jan. 31, 1971 without any moon. The photo in question that your compadres put up is labelled KSC-71P-74 dated Jan. 30, 1971 and yet in that series there is a photo labelled KSC-71P-73 which is dated Jan. 31, 1971.

www.apolloarchive.com...

On Jan. 30, 1971, the moon was a crescent because it was new on Jan. 26. The maximum variance for the moon was already reached in 1968-69 so it's not at 28.5 degrees north latitude anymore. The sun is just off its' winter solstice which places it overhead near 23.5 degrees south latitude. So the sun is overhead a total of 52 degrees away from Cape Canaveral. And the moon is on its' way back down. Truly, I don't even know why I'm telling you this because the technical aspects of latitudinal viewing mean nothing to this crowd. And I'm getting a little bit burned out with the pack mentallity and the gang behavior.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
...The sun is just off its' winter solstice which places it overhead near 23.5 degrees south latitude. So the sun is overhead a total of 52 degrees away from Cape Canaveral. And the moon is on its' way back down....

Don't forget that while DAY side of the Earth (facing the Sun) would have had the Northern Hemisphere tilted toward the South at that time (near the winter solstice), the NIGHT side of the earth would have had the Northern hemisphere tilted toward the North around the time of the winter solstice.

Originally posted by luxordelphi

reply to post by Dashdragon

 

I mean, do you think moving 10-20 degrees north somehow correlates to a much larger change in observable tilt of the phases of the moon?

There are two simple ways to debunk this thread:
1. Show substantiation for how many degrees the light on the moon tilts for every degree of latitude one is away from the moon overhead.

Here's the problem...you ask for substantiation for the measurement that is the substantiation to begin with. Latitudinal degrees are degrees of rotation on the Earth. It's not a distance measurement, though they may create a grid that can be viewed as such since the Earth is spherical.

This is why, when using latitude, it is simply a matter of addition or subtraction when speaking of the viewing angles of the sky. If you rotate the Earth 20 degrees, the sky changes by 20 degrees. If a person looking at the sky is 20 degrees further north than another, then they will also see the same 20 degree difference in angle. It's not really a mathematical calculation...it's what the degree of measurement is designed to represent in the first place.

Also, again, the light on the moon does not change. The angle you are viewing it does. What is lit up on the moon is determined by the sun. The phase and angle it appears is dependent on the position of the observer.

2. Show links to photos of the boat moon at diverse latitudes prior to 1990.

There is no substantiation for the Cape Canaveral photo in the photo archives from NASA. The only place that photo appears is on the website selling it. Photos like that are selling for $400 elsewhere but on this website they are selling for $6 and $7. If you scroll down the Apollo 14 archive photos to KSC-71PC-70 you'll see a color photo from Jan. 31, 1971 without any moon. The photo in question that your compadres put up is labelled KSC-71P-74 dated Jan. 30, 1971 and yet in that series there is a photo labelled KSC-71P-73 which is dated Jan. 31, 1971.

www.apolloarchive.com...

On Jan. 30, 1971, the moon was a crescent because it was new on Jan. 26. The maximum variance for the moon was already reached in 1968-69 so it's not at 28.5 degrees north latitude anymore. The sun is just off its' winter solstice which places it overhead near 23.5 degrees south latitude. So the sun is overhead a total of 52 degrees away from Cape Canaveral. And the moon is on its' way back down. Truly, I don't even know why I'm telling you this because the technical aspects of latitudinal viewing mean nothing to this crowd. And I'm getting a little bit burned out with the pack mentallity and the gang behavior.

The moon in that photo is within 2 years of it's 'maximum' variance, as you put it. That means the moon's orbit is probably somewhere between 26-27 degrees instead of 28.5 since it has a whole 18.6 years to its full cycle. At 28.24 degrees north, that means the moon may be have as little as 1-2 degrees tilt from perfectly horizontal...which is way too close for me to judge by eye I can tell you right now.

The sun being around 51-52 degrees further south than the Cape during the day means that the ecliptic, on the night side of the planet would be around 22-23 degrees north, or only 5 degrees south of the Cape...which the moon offsets rather neatly since it's currently 3-4 degrees above the ecliptic (the 26-27 degrees I estimated to begin with). That takes me right back to my quoted 1-2 degrees from perfectly horizontal for the crescent moon on the horizon.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
2. Show links to photos of the boat moon at diverse latitudes prior to 1990.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Why are you moving this back to 1990 now? I thought this just started last decade? Are you saying you have no memory of this having occurred between 1990 and 2003, or you didn't notice it?

I'll take that as a concession to your observation and memory being faulty.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
Saw it OP!! Last night and the night before. This flipping moon stuff has been going on since 2003. Anyway that's when I first noticed it. In New Mexico. Have seen it in SO CA too. Killer pic. Only supposed to look like that at 5 or 10 degrees plus/minus to the equator. Las Vegas is 36 degrees from the equator.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by ColAngus

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Why are you moving this back to 1990 now? I thought this just started last decade? Are you saying you have no memory of this having occurred between 1990 and 2003, or you didn't notice it?

No. I'm taking 1983, the year everyone woke up one morning and decided to search for Planet X, as the first year anything was known. Something at that time was instrument perceptible but not eye.

reply to post by luxordelphi


Thank you for at least acknowledging that this entire kerfuffle is about a rogue mass causing the alleged anamolies.

I feel vindicated yet still annoyed that you can't admit you're wrong.

reply to post by Dashdragon

The sun being around 51-52 degrees further south than the Cape during the day means that the ecliptic, on the night side of the planet would be around 22-23 degrees north, or only 5 degrees south of the Cape

No. You haven't verified the photo. And no the ecliptic is always the same in relationship to the equator. And no, the crescent is first visible at twilight - not day and not night.

I'm sensing the 'core' argument/ (debate) [debatable], IS THAT there is some kind of force exerted on us from some massive celestial body.

Lets just pursue that idea for a moment. Wouldn't that be more of an effect on earth than the moon? Oh no, in lala land anything can happen, and a group of uneducated can discover what has escaped the world's accumulative 'eyes'.

You buy that?

OK, fine, absolutely no calculative or visual, or spectrographic evidence of that happening right now, or anything unusual.

"The Dream" of an ELE is just the salvation 'pseudo-science' people dream of, like they would survive an ELE, (by definition suggests not).

So I plea once again that BS threads like this get months of 'liberation', while threads like I start pointing out the 'pseudo-science' of a lost sole telling people of fantasies, gets deleted, should have more discerning attitude.

Exposing Alex Collier is a grade school project, a laughable endeavor if anyone serious would do such a thing, he uses no basis of science, just ;his word'.

Now I thought the 'theme' here is to 'Deny Ignorance".

Laws should be exercised by now. We all know the players by now.

This thread no longer belongs in the Space Exploration Forum. It belongs somewhere else.

Take this out already. It is an embarrassment!.

reply to post by Illustronic

So I plea once again that BS threads like this get months of 'liberation', while threads like I start pointing out the 'pseudo-science' of a lost sole telling people of fantasies, gets deleted.

Dear Rant: there is a place for you. It's called the Rant Forum. Sorry your thread went nowhere. Maybe others are not as enamoured with you as you are of yourself. What does this have to do with the boat moon?

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by Dashdragon

 

The sun being around 51-52 degrees further south than the Cape during the day means that the ecliptic, on the night side of the planet would be around 22-23 degrees north, or only 5 degrees south of the Cape

No. You haven't verified the photo. And no the ecliptic is always the same in relationship to the equator. And no, the crescent is first visible at twilight - not day and not night.

What in the hell are you talking about?

Are you seriously STILL not understanding the elementary concept of how the seasons work with the Earth's tilt as far as day and night? What do you think I said changed? I gave an estimate for where the ecliptic would be on the night side of the planet given where you stated it was on the day side with the sun's latitudinal position. Do you not think the ecliptic makes a straight line through the center of the Earth? Does it curve??

If the sun, during the winter, (this is the day side of the planet), is 51-52 degrees below the Cape (51-28=23 estimations of course, but basically it shows we're still pretty close to 23.5 degrees) that means the ecliptic is above 23 degrees south on the day side of Earth.

Now, we're talking past the winter solstice...that means we're past the point in our 365.24 day orbit when the Earth's axial tilt has us leaning directly away from the sun, so things are going to be starting to shift back towards spring/summer with the days getting longer (because we aren't tilted as much away from the sun)

That means the sun will start to move further north in the sky during the day and the path of the ecliptic on the night side will shift south at the exact same rate.

Seasonal Animation (watch this over and over again until what we're explaining sinks in because you're evidently missing something very crucial here)

The line of ecliptic, on the opposite side of the planet...known as the night side...could not pass through the same degree of latitude as the day side in winter. The two times of year when it does is called the equinox and they are the only times during the year that it does. That's when, if you look at the animation, when the tilt of the Earth is neither pointed towards nor away from the sun.

Draw a line around an orange...lean the orange at an angle and then cut straight through the middle of it. Then tell me if one part of the cut isn't above that line while the other is about equal below. It's a poor example, but lord...if after all the diagrams we've thrown at you and you still can't get it, I don't know what to say.

These are things that man figured out from observation over thousands of years. Even when they didn't understand why they happened, they still knew when things were going to be visible and where in the sky. Stonehenge is a good lasting example of this.

I truly can't fathom from what I've read of your posts that you could still not understand this luxor. That leads me to one of 2 conclusions. Either you realized you were wrong a long time ago and would rather try and fight it out until we give up just so you can achieve some twisted false victory rather than just let this silently drop and admit you were wrong...

Or you have another agenda to try and convince people of something else that you want to use this as a lead-in to and your intention was purely for deception and disinfo from the start

That is why Illustronic is frustrated and 'ranting' about this thread (and the others you two have 'contributed' of this nature) as you put it. This thread is a model of blatant ignorance that ATS is supposed to stand against and instead of denying it, it's attempting to convince people to not only embrace, but further expand their ignorance.

reply to post by luxordelphi


Are you trying to tell us the axial tilt of the earth has changed or the orbital ecliptic of the moon has changed and science hasn't acknowledged this? We need to get this sort of observation from your pseudo-science links?

Sorry, I'll side with established confirmed observational analyses from peer reviewed sources and assume the others just come to realize something they never knew before.

BTW my thread proved its point quite conclusively from the start, it didn't need 18 pages of crap.