December 21st, 2012 11:11am GMT - Snapshot from Earth and Sun.

reply to post by Phage

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by NewAgeMan

 

That's the point.
I want to check it but I can't make any sense out of what you are saying.

Do the Sun and Moon set at the same point of the horizon on the equinoxes? No. Not often but maybe once in a great while.

Make that the first FULL moonset (sorry again for the lack of proper info) when the moon is full ie: the equinox sunset and FULL moonset are at the same place on the horizon, whereas for the solstices, the full moon-set is swapped to the opposite Dec and June location of sunset. A central fixed point on earth is needed to verify this, not merely the GMT longitudinal meridian.

Full Moon-Set, just to be clear, as viewed from the same point on earth (in the northern hemisphere).

Moon mimics the sun.

Quoted for more context

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by Phage

 

Sorry I meant setting point on the horizon, not rising, my bad.

So if you were to stand on a hilltop or an open plain and film the sun at midwinter sunset (it's most southerly point on the horizon), at the spring equinox, again at midsummer and again at the autumn equinox. Then on those same dates film the moon SETTING and you will see that they both go down at the same point on the horizon at the equinoxes (March 21st and September 21st) but the moon will have the opposite setting point to the Sun at solstices in December and June.

It should have read full moon not just moon.

So in our case, that would be the location of the setting solstice sun next Friday, and the location of the setting full moon on the 28th. If I'm right and you're wrong (hey anything's possible), then the full moon on the 28th will set where the sun did during the SUMMER solstice of 2012 - from the same location on earth in the northern hemisphere.

Check it and see, and please report the data, thanks.

Best Regards,

NAM

P.S. Not that I don't trust Phage's integrity, I do, but is there anyone else with the needed software and skills who could also independently verify, or falsify, with the data given, that would be cool, thanks.

reply to post by NewAgeMan

Make that the first FULL moonset (sorry again for the lack of proper info) when the moon is full ie: the equinox sunset and FULL moonset are at the same place on the horizon

I gave you the website. Why don't you check it yourself before making the claim.

It happens sometimes. It happened last spring with the full Moon on March 8th (not with the one on April 6th). It didn't happen the year before and it won't happen next year.

So what?

reply to post by Phage

Better yet, as a regular predictive tool, I've set up a falsifiable experiment for this Solstice and Full Moon on the 28th - see my edits.

Please check it out and report the data, thanks. This should be interesting..

reply to post by NewAgeMan

Please check it out and report the data, thanks. This should be interesting..

Please do it yourself. I'm taking my dog for a walk.

reply to post by Phage

I don't know how, I could try I guess, but wouldn't it be better if it was yourself or someone with your degree of knowledge and expertise to either verify or falsify it? Is there anyone who could do this for me?

Simple matter of taking any fixed point on earth (in the northern hemisphere) and from there determining the horizon point of the full moon setting on the 28th of December, relative to the horizon point of sunset at Summer Solstice of 2012, from the same location in the northern hemisphere.

Could it be, could Phage be wrong?

reply to post by swan001


who cares whether you like or dislike phage, this thread isn't about how much we like phage

if you have nothing useful to add apart from disagreeing then be gone

reply to post by NewAgeMan

I don't know how

It's a pretty simple website. I think even you could manage it.

Could it be, could Phage be wrong?

Taunting? Isn't that sort of a low vibrational thing for a new age man to engage in?
Moving goal posts? Isn't that sort of a low vibrational thing?
Misquoting? Isn't that sort of a low vibrational thing?
Could it be? Could NewAgeMan be a troll?

reply to post by Phage

Why are you suddenly so evasive and withholding? You were always so quick to make me look foolish and wrong before, I don't understand why you won't run these calcs through your system and prove me wrong once again, I can take it. Isn't this what science is all about?

Here's what I got, but the website seemed to deal in times, not precise locations of the rise and setting point although I could be wrong as I don't fully understand how the degrees work.

www.timeanddate.com...

Greenwich Borough

December 28th, 2012
Moonset @ 7:44am Moonset Azimuth @ 303 degrees (range during December of 235-305)

June 20th
Sunset @ 9:21pm Sunset Azimuth @ 311 degress (range during June of 309-311)

By that it's off by 8 degrees, which although the same general vacinity isn't precisely the same location. I stand corrected.

Sometimes it's bang on, sometimes it's not, as Phage indicated. Guess some of the books I'm reading aren't being entirely up front and precise in every detail..

Edit to add: Would it be fair to say that when the sun is lowest and weakest in midwinter, the full moon is at its highest and brightest, and in midsummer when the sun is at its highest and brightest, the moon is at its weakest?

That's really what I was wanting to describe re: moon mimicking the sun.

reply to post by Phage

I'm the one who gave you a star for that post btw.

But no I'm not a troll. Me I'm trying to build a bridge around a certain royal keystone that we can all walk across (toll free) into a new domain of new possibility and freedom with a better understanding and comprehension of our true place in the grand scheme of things.

reply to post by NewAgeMan

Would it be fair to say that when the sun is lowest and weakest in midwinter, the full moon is at its highest and brightest, and in midsummer when the sun is at its highest and brightest, the moon is at its weakest?

No.

That's really what I was trying to describe.

You don't seem to have any idea of what you are trying to describe except that, for you, there is something spoooooky about it. But what that has to do with 12/21/12, I have no idea.

reply to post by Phage


How can you be so arrogant beats me. everytime i see something posted by you is in full arrogance. people hold ideas and opinions YOU do not own the absolute truth ok? an even if you are correct learn to talk to people in a civilized manner. people are here to exchanged ideas not to be mocked and agressivily addressed by one or the other.

I don't know who you are and I don't care, we are here to echange ideas and talk, just learn to do that

reply to post by NewAgeMan


I have to say that I somewhat doubt that Phage would make that error.

We will not cross the galactic plane for millions of years and I would suggest that Phage would have said the Galactic Equator as we see it. Actually NASA of all people do an excellent piece on the 'end of the world as we know it'

I don't know which software you are using that marks the Galactic Plane, but it is wrong. Here is another description of the Galactic Equator crossing which we make twice every year.


ETA I see he did not make such a statement as I thought.

Originally posted by onequestion
reply to post by dodgygeeza

 

This is the new ATS where we can't discuss conspiracy theories or off the wall subjects without COLLEGE EDUCATED KIDS coming along and proving their superior linear knowledge they read from a book by an author they never met.

Off subject sorry.

With greatest respect my friend there is a deal of difference between discussing a conspiracy theory based on covert but physical evidence that is provable and discussing off the wall theories with no scientific or factual basis at all.

In this instance the OP is not actually discussing a 'conspiracy theory' and erroneously alluded to a statement by Phage, which Phage refuted. Denigrating those who are of a scientific bent because it does not fit with your own views, right or wrong, is very silly. We all need to be aware of the science behind subjects, but that does not prevent/exclude the possibility of a conspiracy theory. You should however make the distinction between a conspiracy theory and patent nonsense with no scientific or factual basis. Even a conspiracy theory requires facts.

reply to post by NewAgeMan

It's us "crazy people" (by their standards) who ultimately move things in favor of new ideas and new conceptions of reality never before considered from the POV of the old paradigms.

Correct indeed and without the 'crazy people' who (I hate this expression) think outside the box little would be discovered BUT as I said that does not mean that one can depart from fact into flights of fancy. The only area where I can see that being of any relevance is in religion since we cannot deal with hard provable facts in that area.

I do not get involved much in threads but i am on above top secret almost every day ,i have always been interested in space and every thing concerned with it unfortunately i do not understand a lot that is involved..So when someone comes along with a scary thread i would panic were it not for phage and some of the other posters.

So keep up the good work phage .......

reply to post by NewAgeMan


It appeared that you linked but the link did not work. Horrible when that happens

Was this the link? January full moon mimics path of July sun

Interesting. I did not know that. Since I can see all settings points of the Sun from my study window I will have to check that out.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


You might possibly find this website of some use. You can put in an exact location of the observer and get the ephemeris details for a given date and time, but the only problem there is knowing exactly what date and time sunrise etc would be at that location so ..... take a look and see if it helps.

reply to post by kobewan69


He wasn't and at no time has he been.

The OP keeps changing his opinion and stance to try and find something of substance to what he's saying, which is actually making no sense to me either.
I'm guessing your also just unhappy when the facts are presented rationally and accurately you take a swing at Phage for the manor he delivered it.....bit sad really. You don't want to learn something either.

The OP's "personal" observations are incorrect and inaccurate as is your opinion.

Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by swan001

 

So where is your evidence that it "WILL NOT EFFECT" these things. We really have no clue of what is going to happen. I can say I am pretty confident that nothing major will be effected but there is no way I can state that it will not effect the poles or our gravity.

It won't. Your confidence would be justified. The Rift is just a zone of higher concentration of interstellar gasses. The Earth already passed through it numbers of times. If its gravitation woulda have change, the catastrophic results would have left marks in the landscape. No such thing has happened, the reason being because the Earth's gravitation or axis is not linked in any way to its position relative to the Rift.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by NewAgeMan

 

It has happened on every winter solstice for many decades and will continue to do so.
It is of zero significance.

edit on 12/15/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Exactly. EVERY OTHER winter solstices the sun is in the same configuration than the one we will have this winter solstice. So far winter solstices did not induced massive catastrophes. Geez, those guys are impossible.