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

reply to post by Nobama

so if you are saying that a University is supplying wrong information, than please explain.

It wouldn't be the first time that a University got something wrong. However, to explain my comment, the drawing that is on this page is clearly that of a waxing Moon and not of a waning Moon as they seem to indicate in their questions. The only thing I can think of is that they were referring to the drawing from the previous page found here. Of coarse that is a waning crescent Moon as seen from the northern hemisphere, which they don't indicate being north or south. So either way the site is quite ambiguous and, because of that, is not a very good teaching tool in my opinion.

reply to post by CherubBaby


OP: here are some links in support of the boat moon at the equator. Now there are boats galore in diverse places. Boats appearing far north of where the moon or sun should ever appear overhead - what's it all about?

www.straightdope.com...

If you're near the equator, the sun sets more or less straight down, so the crescent does the same--that is, it looks like a dish.

answers.yahoo.com...

The orientation of the Moon's crescent also depends on the latitude of the observation site. Close to the equator, an observer can see a boat Moon.[

www.astro.uu.nl...

The line that connects the two points of the crescent Moon is always almost at right angles to the path of the Moon along the sky. If the Moon goes up almost straight from the horizon (as it does when seen from the equator), then the crescent appears horizontal. If the Moon rises at a shallow angle (as seen far from the equator), then it moves as well along the horizon towards the west, and then the crescent is mostly vertical. The Moon rises almost vertically as seen from the equator because the orbit of the Moon stands approximately above the equator.

en.allexperts.com...

You mean a crescent moon with the cusp points pointing straight up? Happens almost all the time down near the equator.

www.math.nus.edu.sg...

In the northern hemisphere, a waxing crescent will be a right crescent while an waning crescent will be left crescent. In the southern hemisphere a waxing crescent will be a left crescent while a waning crescent will be a right crescent. In the northern hemisphere the Moon moves clockwise across the sky, while in the southern hemisphere it moves counterclockwise across the sky. So what happens near the equator? The Moon will move in a straight line when seen from above, or straight up and down along an east to west line when seen from the ground. So both the waning and the waxing crescent will be a bottom crescent! In order to tell them apart, you have to think about whether the Moon is in the east or the west and what time it is. Notice that the crescent faces the Sun, so there can never be a top crescent. Notice that this only applies to crescents near the horizon. If the crescent is higher in the sky, there is no natural way to define left or right.

brandon-merkl.blogspot.com...

On my recent trip to Singapore, I noted that the moon looked vastly different than I was used to seeing it. On the northern hemisphere, from which I am accustomed to seeing the moon, the crescent (waning or waxing) moon usually appears to be angled as the moon either rises or sets relative to the horizon. That is to say, when the moon is rising or setting the line that would connect the two points of the cusps of the crescent would be neither horizontal nor vertical, but rather some angle in between. When I was in Singapore (1 degree north of the equator), the moon set and the line connecting the cusps of the crescent appeared roughly horizontal, parallel with the horizon during moon-set. The appearance immediately is a foreign sight to us northerners (in the broadest possible sense), as the moon cusps appear as the bow and stern of a ship rising out of the sea.

reply to post by CherubBaby


We can see by the ground lights in that photo the moon is close setting. Things tip over in the night sky, and so does the Milky Way and all of what we see because the earth rotates around its axis, at a 23.5 angle.

reply to post by ColAngus


I don't know but I would sure like to be in Bali.......

I am kind of starting to wonder if cherubaby isn't trying to tell everyone they aren't where they think they are.....Or what's "out there" isn't what you've been allowed to see.....

reply to post by 2Isee3rd

Maybe the closer we get to the "galaxial equator" the more unstable our gravitation field with the sun becomes.
It is my understanding the we are practically smack dab in the middle of it.

Current estimations put us far off from the galactic plane, if I remember correctly, and moving further away as time progresses. We have yet to come to the crest or top of this wave and then begin moving back towards the center of galactic plane again. In other words in 2012 we will not be anywhere near passing through the galactic plane and I would think that anything claiming otherwise is 2012 propaganda that is not based on scientific observations. If there is any evidence showing that this is wrong I would be very interested in reading about it.

Just did a search and found this explanation.

We are currently 'above' the plane (to the galactic North) by about 75 to 101 light years. Some researchers have suggested that when the Sun ends up above the disk of the galaxy, that we will not be as well protected by the magnetic field of the galaxy itself, and would therefore be exposed to more intense cosmic radiation. Based on the period of oscillation this would not appear to be due for another 10 million years or so.

2012HOAX.org

reply to post by CherubBaby

Right.. This is Las Vegas's moon below.

And, as pointed out in your other (identical) thread, the moon is not "looking exactly like a horizontal bowl."

At the time of moonrise, the ecliptic (the path the Sun follows through the sky, you can see it in Stellarium) was close to perpendicular to the horizon at the time you took the picture. It was actually at about 78º. So if the Moon were on the ecliptic, its terminator would have a tilt of 12º relative to the horizon. But the Moon was not on the ecliptic, it was about 5º to the south of it so we have to add that to the tilt of the ecliptic. Do that and we get a total of 17º.

Here's your picture.

The Moon looked exactly as it was supposed to look.

reply to post by Phage


Here angle this if you will taken 3/8/2008 from Kansas. The story is even called crescent moon alert. From NASA
38 degrees approx above the equator but an equatorial moon.

BTW the 17 degrees was more like 7 degrees by the time the moon set in my pic. I just didnt snap another picture.

science.nasa.gov...

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by CherubBaby

 

Right.. This is Las Vegas's moon below.

And, as pointed out in your other (identical) thread, the moon is not "looking exactly like a horizontal bowl."

At the time of moonrise, the ecliptic (the path the Sun follows through the sky, you can see it in Stellarium) was close to perpendicular to the horizon at the time you took the picture. It was actually at about 78º. So if the Moon were on the ecliptic, its terminator would have a tilt of 12º relative to the horizon. But the Moon was not on the ecliptic, it was about 5º to the south of it so we have to add that to the tilt of the ecliptic. Do that and we get a total of 17º.

Here's your picture.

The Moon looked exactly as it was supposed to look.

And this also works mathematically with what I said. According to the math, the perfectly horizontal "boat" Moon should be seen at night at around 20° North latitude in December (and NOT the equator). Las Vegas is at about 36° N latitude.

This figure of about 20° N latitude where the Moon should look most horizontal takes into account the tilt of the Earth, the time of day the Moon is being viewed (deep into the night time), and the tilt of the Moon's orbital plane.

Therefore:

36° - 20 ° = 16°

Which is close close enough to your measurement of 17° (considering that I'm working with rough values). Luckily, the Moon is looking exactly like the math and logic tells us it is supposed to look.

Originally posted by CherubBaby
reply to post by Phage

 

The story is even called crescent moon alert.

Here's a pollen alert from NASA: science.nasa.gov...

Here's an aurora alert from NASA: science.nasa.gov...

Here's a radio meteor alert from NASA: science.nasa.gov...

What exactly about NASA calling this an "alert" makes it nefarious? More like "Hey everyone, check this out!"

Well troll or not to troll that is not the question. I knew I was right from the beginning. I have the links and the pictures now that prove it. I will be taking more pictures of the Equatorial Moon here in Vegas soon.

Here below is a picture from stellarium of the moon at 0 degrees. Thats 0 meaning the equator. Do you notice anything similar to mine? Here is stellariums




Here is mine taken with my camera in Las Vegaas. And it was not even set yet. It was more boat as it set.





Or how about this one below. taken from the sate of Kansas. Anyone want to do the angle on this one below?

reply to post by luxordelphi


Your last source indicates this writer has firm grasp of the situation and understands things the way they should be understood...

On my recent trip to Singapore, I noted that the moon looked vastly different than I was used to seeing it. On the northern hemisphere, from which I am accustomed to seeing to seeing the moon, the crescent (waning or waxing) moon usually appears to be angled as the moon either rises or sets relative to the horizon. That is to say, when the moon is rising or setting the line that would connect the two points of the cusps of the crescent would be neither horizontal nor vertical, but rather some angle in between.

In other words, what you are seeing is normal and has been normal for as long as we have seen the Moon...

Now we are using the average joe to make what point.? He says,

On my recent trip to Singapore, I noted that the moon looked vastly different than I was used to seeing it. On the northern hemisphere, from which I am accustomed to seeing to seeing the moon, the crescent (waning or waxing) moon usually appears to be angled as the moon either rises or sets relative to the horizon. That is to say, when the moon is rising or setting the line that would connect the two points of the cusps of the crescent would be neither horizontal nor vertical, but rather some angle in between.

Which could simply mean this below because he is not talking about the boat in your use of the example he states above.




The examples above are common place at the 36th parallel. But not the boat moon. shown below.



But it is happening and its happening in Las Vegas.

Maybe I missed it from one of the other "moon is wonky" threads, but did one of youse guys put this together?

www.youtube.com...

Witchcraft!

reply to post by CherubBaby

Yes. I notice that neither the image from Stellarium or yours show the Moon at an angle of 0º. Do you think the Moon should always be at 0º at the equator? It isn't. It only happens when its offset from the ecliptic is equal to the slope of the ecliptic at moonrise/moonset. Because the equator is tilted relative to the ecliptic and the Moon's orbit is tilted relative to the Earth's equator it happens pretty often near the equator but not every night. The fellow in Singapore happened to catch it during a period when it did.

The trouble with your picture here is that we can't see the horizon or any other reference (like the house in your previous one) so there is nothing to guage the tilt of the Moon by.

Kansas... At moonset in Topeka on March 8, 2008 the ecliptic was at an angle of 14º from vertical. The Moon was just about 3º north (not south as is it was in your picture) so we subtract (instead of adding) and we get 11º. With such a new moon the horns taper to very fine points but I measure the tilt to be about 7º or 8º. We seem to be off by only 3º or 4º. When you look at the horizon in the full image you can see that it has a slight tilt to it. I think, being a professional photographer, Mr. Zubenel used a bit of artistic license in composing his shot by tilting his camera a bit. But the Moon in his picture is not horizontal (even with his help). It's pretty much as it should have been.

reply to post by Phage


Tilted his camera a bit? And you would know this because ........... ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

You were there ?
You spoke to the Photographer Personally?
Or you had the photograph analyzed?
Or is this what it "Must Be" because it shouldnt be "The Other" ......... ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

I just have to say it makes me wonder why NASA would call a "Crescent Moon Alert" if it is something that is normally seen .. Doesn't seem to make sense. Kinda like a "Tsunami Alert" that no one has to pay attention to, because it happens all the time. Hmmmmm Gonna think about this ........ Ok I thought about it.

Wrong Phage !!!!!!.

reply to post by CherubBaby

Did you miss this? You definitely missed the part where I said "I think".

When you look at the horizon in the full image you can see that it has a slight tilt to it.

Originally posted by CherubBaby

I just have to say it makes me wonder why NASA would call a "Crescent Moon Alert" if it is something that is normally seen .. Doesn't seem to make sense. Kinda like a "Tsunami Alert" that no one has to pay attention to, because it happens all the time. Hmmmmm Gonna think about this ........ Ok I thought about it.

I guess I must be on some "ignore list" since my previous posts are, well, getting ignored. Makes me proud though.

If one bothers to read things carefully maybe one would get one's answers.

This perilous scene is about to repeat itself—three times.

First – On Sunday evening, April 6th, a 2% crescent moon emerges from the glare of the sun like the wry smile of a Cheshire cat beaming through the tawny-orange sunset. Finding this delicate sliver may require some careful scanning of the western horizon and it would be wise to exit the car (or at least brake) before looking. The next night is easier.

Silly NASA. Posting disturbing anamolies as if they were normal, albeit infrequent, occurrences.

reply to post by CherubBaby

I just have to say it makes me wonder why NASA would call a "Crescent Moon Alert" if it is something that is normally seen ..

It is uncommon but not abnormal.

science.nasa.gov...
www.mreclipse.com...
astronomovie.com...

Yes, it was perilous for the photographer....humor.

The date was March 8th, less than a month ago. In a remote corner of Kansas, the sun was going down and the deepening twilight beckoned to photographer Doug Zubenel driving through the countryside. Something photogenic, he knew, was about to happen.

He turned his car onto an unfamiliar dirt road and proceeded into the sunset. "The brilliant sun did not allow me to see the cement railings on a bridge over a small creek. The next thing I knew, I had totaled my car!"

Originally posted by ColAngus

Originally posted by CherubBaby
reply to post by Phage

 

The story is even called crescent moon alert.

Here's a pollen alert from NASA: science.nasa.gov...

Here's an aurora alert from NASA: science.nasa.gov...

Here's a radio meteor alert from NASA: science.nasa.gov...

What exactly about NASA calling this an "alert" makes it nefarious? More like "Hey everyone, check this out!"

I'd star you if I could, dear Colonel.