A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Amateur Astronomy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

For Kids and Grownups -- Exploration3: the Incredible Shrinking Moon



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old March 28th 11, 05:22 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur,sci.physics
Chris.B[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,410
Default 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  
Old March 28th 11, 05:38 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur,sci.physics
oriel36[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,478
Default 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  
Old March 28th 11, 07:58 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur,sci.physics
Ben[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 181
Default 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  
Old March 28th 11, 08:10 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur,sci.physics
Ben[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 181
Default 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  
Old March 29th 11, 06:36 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur,sci.physics
oriel36[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,478
Default 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  
Old March 31st 11, 09:41 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur,sci.physics
Chris.B[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,410
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:42 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.