|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
For Kids and Grownups -- Exploration3: the Incredible Shrinking Moon
In Orible O'Kelleher's case we should be discussing libation.
For him, "nodding and wobbling" are just more of his symptoms. His idea of showing the far side is turning the other cheek. Though, god knows, of late there hasn't been much of that! :-) |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
For Kids and Grownups -- Exploration3: the Incredible Shrinking Moon
On Mar 28, 12:02*pm, Ben wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon : "Libration also changes the angle from which the Moon is seen, allowing about 59% of its surface to be seen from the Earth". I don't know whether that figure, dominantly at least due to apparent "side to side" motion caused by eccentricity, includes the apparent "nodding" motion due to tilts, or the extra half a degree all round due to parallax and the size of the Earth. There are three classes of libration, optical, physical and topocentric. *Jean Meuss in 'Astronomical Algorithms' states: * * * * However, apparent oscillations known as *optical librations* which are due * * * * to variations in the geometric position of the Earth.......allow about 59% * * * * of the surface to be observed from the Earth. (p.371) He goes on to say that *physical libration* can never be larger than 0.04 degree in both latitude and longitude. Well that's not very much and would be observable only under the most rigorous conditions. But concerning *topocentric librations* he states that the geocentric values of the librations and the position angle of axis should be reduced to the values at the place of the observer on the surface of the Earth. *"For the librations the values may reach 1 degree and have important effects on limb contour." So by shifting one's position around the Earth, say from Hudson Bay to Tierra del Fuego one could see perhaps 60% of the Moon's surface? * I don't know. *I've always held the 59% factor as an adequate estimate. The moon does not rotate hence librations,and I haven't even given it consideration yet are products of the moon's orbital circuit of the Earth and the Earth's orbital circuit of the Sun.You can't even begin to consider lunar behavior without first considering the Earth's orbital characteristic and specifically the single orbital daylight/ darkness cycle arising solely from the slow and uneven turning of the Earth to the central Sun about a traveling axis stretching through the center of the Earth from Arctic to Antarctic circles. Sorry that none of you appear to have the talent to consider the physical considerations involved in the observation,considering that your minds are rotted by the 'no center/no circumference' ideology I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for an interpretation of lunar and planetary motion which generates the libration observation,no harm trying like Isaac did but 'lunar rotation'!,my astronomical ancestors wouldn't believe people would ever conclude such drivel. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
For Kids and Grownups -- Exploration3: the Incredible Shrinking Moon
Hey Gerald, do you know how to determine the accuracy of a
calculator? You give it the *27 squares test* Take the number 1.000 0001 and square it (multiply it by itself) 27 times. The number you arrive at must be 674 530.4707. The calculator in Windows will give you that plus many more significant decimal places. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
For Kids and Grownups -- Exploration3: the Incredible Shrinking Moon
Hey Gerald, do you know how you can determine the accuracy
of a calculator? You give it the *27 squares test*. Take 1.000 0001 and square it (i.e. multiply it by itself) 27 times. The result to 10 significant figures should be 674 530.4707 The calculators in Windows will return that and even more significant figures. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
For Kids and Grownups -- Exploration3: the Incredible Shrinking Moon
On Mar 28, 9:10*pm, Ben wrote:
Hey Gerald, do you know how you can determine the accuracy of a calculator? *You give it the *27 squares test*. Take 1.000 0001 and square it (i.e. multiply it by itself) 27 times. *The result to 10 significant figures should be * * * * * * * * *674 530.4707 The calculators in Windows will return that and even more significant figures. It is nothing so crude as to disprove the so-called Plank length,the non-periodic sequence of digits reflecting the correspondence between the diameter and circumference of a circle mirrors a different and more elaborate balance between random and periodic,in this case the pure geometry of non-periodic tiling - http://www.maths.usyd.edu.au/gal/don/Penrose.gif Over 20 years ago I discovered a balance between pentagonal and hexagonal geometries which remains my most loved work and in fact constitutes one of my first postings to the Usenet about 15 years ago,although a private work now,it does act as a kind of foundation for many areas related to Phi and these turn up everywhere,I found it most valuable in stellar evolutionary processes as interpreting the natural efficiencies related to Phi in nature,I had no problem adjusting to stellar processes.Although I did copyright a work in 1990 relating to stellar evolution where density/volume ratios in stars as they turn Supernova could be best expressed as two large external rings with a smaller internal ring which proved to be very satisfying 4 years later when the images of SN1987a showed up.No conclusions other than it appears that a supernova event is not the death of a star but merely a transformation hence there is a possibility that the higher elements that comprise everything we see arose from our own Sun. Like non-periodicty,there is always rooms for change,being wrong,balancing interpretation with speculation while retaining geometry all the while instead of trying to obliterate it with mathematical notation.A genuine empiricist would have picked up on an adjustment to stellar evolution a long time ago but in an era where geometry is so disrespected and especially astronomy,you and everyone else pays for that disrespect.No doubt there will always be wistful tv programs about the toxic strain of empiricism but real astronomy has been done here for ages and well away from the wider public,it is thrilling and everything is up for discussion regardless of how much acid is thrown in my direction. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
For Kids and Grownups -- Exploration3: the Incredible Shrinking Moon
On Mar 29, 7:36*pm, 0rible 0'Kelleher mumbled:
acid is thrown in my direction. That's no acid! Those are just the fire hoses to save you from total meltdown. If you go through the floor nobody can save you from your natural destiny: To live forever amongst your own, personal demons. Your toxicity may be growing but we still have you safely under control. Shame about the lack of lights though. Those medieval, rush lights suck, don't they. ;-) |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NASA - See the Incredible Shrinking Planet | Nick | UK Astronomy | 1 | February 22nd 06 11:24 AM |
Kids, the moon and some torches | Pete Lawrence | UK Astronomy | 9 | June 20th 05 06:41 PM |
Kids and the moon | CLT | UK Astronomy | 1 | April 25th 04 11:59 AM |
Is the moon leaving, or are we shrinking by 38 mm/year | OM | History | 11 | December 15th 03 08:38 PM |
Is the moon leaving, or are we shrinking by 38 mm/year | Marvin | Astronomy Misc | 7 | December 15th 03 08:38 PM |