Moonlight at the South pole

http://www.usap.gov/videoclipsandmaps/spwebcam.cfm

It is a day/night cycle within the polar day/night cycle as the moon acts like a beacon for the orbital surface rotation of the planet. When the moon reaches its orbital point and shows its fully illuminated face to all observers on Earth outside the North pole in a few days time , the South pole will no longer be at the position it was the last time a full moon occurred.

A little sophistication goes some way, after all, people are not naturally brutes and although some are capable of ignoring the dual surface rotations of the Earth corresponding to dual day/night cycles and the seasons, unfamiliarity is generally the major cause why this insight hasn't made it into wider circulation.

The people to produce accurate graphics and visual explanations of what is going on will make history and open up a new approach to observations.

http://www.usap.gov/videoclipsandmaps/spwebcam.cfm

There is something peaceful and calm about the scenery at the South pole and observers can take what they can from the secondary day/night cycle provided by the light of the moon at this time of the year.

That's odd - every time the camera refreshes, the stars appear to move!

What's going on?

On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 2:38:59 PM UTC-6, wrote:
That's odd - every time the camera refreshes, the stars appear to move!

What's going on?

The apparent motions of the stars are due to the Earth's orbital motion.

But then, while the day and night cycle is the secondary annual one, indeed the
stars are still equally affected there by the Earth's daily rotation. So the
observational convenience of sidereal time would still work there.

As long as you don't allow it to *mean* anything, Oriel is OK with that, I
should hope - he has always been willing to save the phenomena.

His concern is not with what we see happening in the sky - everyone should
agree on that, they can hardly help having to do so - but what we choose to
call it, how we choose to understand it.

Hmm. Would "None Dare Call it Rotation" be a good title for a book?

John Savard

Quadibloc wrote:
On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 2:38:59 PM UTC-6, wrote:
That's odd - every time the camera refreshes, the stars appear to move!

What's going on?

The apparent motions of the stars are due to the Earth's orbital motion.

But then, while the day and night cycle is the secondary annual one, indeed the
stars are still equally affected there by the Earth's daily rotation. So the
observational convenience of sidereal time would still work there.

As long as you don't allow it to *mean* anything, Oriel is OK with that, I
should hope - he has always been willing to save the phenomena.

His concern is not with what we see happening in the sky - everyone should
agree on that, they can hardly help having to do so - but what we choose to
call it, how we choose to understand it.

Hmm. Would "None Dare Call it Rotation" be a good title for a book?

John Savard


Unfortunately you're wrong because he refuses to accept that the sun, moon
and stars circle the pole. He's happy with it happening a few kilometres or
a centimetre from the pole but at the pole itself he imagines a strange
discontinuity.

On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 11:03:07 PM UTC+1, Mike Collins wrote:
Quadibloc wrote:
On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 2:38:59 PM UTC-6, wrote:
That's odd - every time the camera refreshes, the stars appear to move!

What's going on?

The apparent motions of the stars are due to the Earth's orbital motion..

But then, while the day and night cycle is the secondary annual one, indeed the
stars are still equally affected there by the Earth's daily rotation. So the
observational convenience of sidereal time would still work there.

As long as you don't allow it to *mean* anything, Oriel is OK with that, I
should hope - he has always been willing to save the phenomena.

His concern is not with what we see happening in the sky - everyone should
agree on that, they can hardly help having to do so - but what we choose to
call it, how we choose to understand it.

Hmm. Would "None Dare Call it Rotation" be a good title for a book?

John Savard


Unfortunately you're wrong because he refuses to accept that the sun, moon
and stars circle the pole.

One of the main points of this astronomical vignette is a day/night cycle (due to the reflected light of the moon) within the polar day/night cycle and with the moon moving to its orbital position furthest from the Sun, it provides a graceful perspective at the South pole denied observers at lower latitudes -

http://www.usap.gov/videoclipsandmaps/spwebcam.cfm

This helps observers to slow things down and get outside the giddy celestial sphere thinking as the moon remains constantly in view at the South pole for a number of weeks as that point on the Earth's surface doesn't rotate as a function of the Earth's daily rotation thereby allowing this perspective.

The rhythms of our bodies respond to the planet's day/night cycle due to a single rotation so your perception is out of kilter with the physical experience over a day cycle as you try to bypass the Sun, appeal to circumpolar motion for a single rotation and then go on to conclude there are more rotations than sunrises/sunsets over the course of a year. If you cannot get the most intimate experience of a single rotation right there is no chance you will get the perspective of that the moon looks like from the South pole as it runs its monthly circuit from March to the September Equinox.

On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 11:03:07 PM UTC+1, Mike Collins wrote:
Quadibloc wrote:
On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 2:38:59 PM UTC-6, wrote:
That's odd - every time the camera refreshes, the stars appear to move!

What's going on?

The apparent motions of the stars are due to the Earth's orbital motion..

But then, while the day and night cycle is the secondary annual one, indeed the
stars are still equally affected there by the Earth's daily rotation. So the
observational convenience of sidereal time would still work there.

As long as you don't allow it to *mean* anything, Oriel is OK with that, I
should hope - he has always been willing to save the phenomena.

His concern is not with what we see happening in the sky - everyone should
agree on that, they can hardly help having to do so - but what we choose to
call it, how we choose to understand it.

Hmm. Would "None Dare Call it Rotation" be a good title for a book?

John Savard


Unfortunately you're wrong because he refuses to accept that the sun, moon
and stars circle the pole. He's happy with it happening a few kilometres or
a centimetre from the pole but at the pole itself he imagines a strange
discontinuity.

The giddy rotating celestial sphere enthusiasts are unlikely to appreciate that their rotating star trails take two separate tracks even though they believe the whole field of stars rotate as a unit therefore a more accurate picture is this one making rubbish of your contention -

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap140620.html


The only worthwhile use of the stars and our planet's dynamic is subtracting circumpolar motion and watching the stars disappear behind the Sun as a twilight appearance and as the Earth moves through space the same stars eventually emerge as a dawn appearance -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeQwYrfmvoQ


Polaris and circumpolar motion lose all significance in this scheme as the reference for daily rotation is the central Sun, the day/night cycle and the passage of a location through and out of the planet's circle of illumination within each 24 hours.

The magnification guys are content to put everything in a spinning celestial sphere and identify objects that way but it is so much less than what the practice of astronomy actually is and the nimble thinking which allows insights to flourish. Attaching dynamical significance to circumpolar motion is therefore an awful waste of the nearest references for daily and orbital motions and especially if the day/night cycle is sacrificed in the hideous assertion of 1465 rotations in 1461 days.