Moon Phase and Libration, from the Other Side

This will drive Gerald crazy...

http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/details.cgi?aid=4253

.... but it is really a cool and unusual perspective.

\Paul A

On Thu, 5 Feb 2015 16:06:22 -0800 (PST), palsing
wrote:

This will drive Gerald crazy...

A little late to be worrying about that.

http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/details.cgi?aid=4253

... but it is really a cool and unusual perspective.

That is a nice presentation.

On Thursday, February 5, 2015 at 4:23:26 PM UTC-8, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 5 Feb 2015 16:06:22 -0800 (PST), palsing
wrote:

This will drive Gerald crazy...

A little late to be worrying about that.

http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/details.cgi?aid=4253

... but it is really a cool and unusual perspective.

That is a nice presentation.

I was surprised that, from that POV, the librations are as big as they are. I always thought they would be bit more subtle... the Earth really swings more than I thought.

On Friday, February 6, 2015 at 12:06:25 AM UTC, palsing wrote:
This will drive Gerald crazy...

http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/details.cgi?aid=4253

... but it is really a cool and unusual perspective.

\Paul A

I guess I can become a movie critic for this thread and considering the valuable information it contains it would be 2 stars out of 5 and one of those stars is due to the fact that it didn't mention a mindnumbing lunar rotation. It is all very giddy with a whirling Earth in the background along with a low luminosity Sun so there is nothing for the viewer to focus on.

I go my own way with information so if you assume there is an exercise in trying to convince people, and especially people who imagines the moon spins as it makes a circuit of the Earth, then you have misunderstood me as you have everything else. People have already grown up and can put the circle of illumination of an orbiting celestial object in context whether it is a planet around the Sun or a moon around a planet as a secondary orbit.

Planets rotate as a property of their orbital motion around the Sun whereas moons do not rotate either intrinsically or orbitally as they circle a planet. The idea is to pick a spot on the Earth's surface that doesn't pass through the circle of illumination each day and then consider how that surface point will move as the Earth moves through space and around the Sun. The entire planet will turn slowly and unevenly,something like this -

https://londonastronomer.files.wordp..._2001-2007.jpg


If these NASA guys can create graphics about the moon there is no reason they can't tackle the surface rotation arising from the orbital behavior of the Earth. It is not you Alsing or anyone else here that irritates me but the fact that the tools are available and nobody wants to use them even though some people have adapted images of the phases of Venus for proper purpose.

On Thursday, February 5, 2015 at 8:14:41 PM UTC-5, palsing wrote:
On Thursday, February 5, 2015 at 4:23:26 PM UTC-8, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 5 Feb 2015 16:06:22 -0800 (PST), palsing
wrote:

This will drive Gerald crazy...

A little late to be worrying about that.

http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/details.cgi?aid=4253

... but it is really a cool and unusual perspective.

That is a nice presentation.

I was surprised that, from that POV, the librations are as big as they are. I
always thought they would be bit more subtle... the Earth really swings more
than I thought.

If you spent any time actually observing you would already know how UNsubtle the Moon's librations are. (And the Earth doesn't "swing", it's the Moon that "swings"...)

BTW, you still owe me an apology for calling me a liar.

On Friday, February 6, 2015 at 1:14:41 AM UTC, palsing wrote:
On Thursday, February 5, 2015 at 4:23:26 PM UTC-8, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 5 Feb 2015 16:06:22 -0800 (PST), palsing
wrote:

This will drive Gerald crazy...

A little late to be worrying about that.

http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/details.cgi?aid=4253

... but it is really a cool and unusual perspective.

That is a nice presentation.

I was surprised that, from that POV, the librations are as big as they are. I always thought they would be bit more subtle... the Earth really swings more than I thought.

Look, I know what you meant that the moon swings more than you thought and don't hold you to an error I make now and again myself, one thing I appreciate about Collins is that he doesn't exploit a poorly written sentence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2uhAp3mHqk

Kepler considered the moon's orbital motion around the Earth like an Olympic hammer thrower and this is where Newton and his followers tripped up as Kepler's language is awkward when it comes to 'revolution' in terms of its orbital motion as the moon swings around the Earth -

http://books.google.ie/books?id=OdCJ...ge&q&f=fa lse


Kepler didn't write any orbital laws of motion, he believe that the rotation of a larger object imparts orbital motion on a smaller object and this idea was retained all the way up to Wallis in his letter to Boyle on planetary dynamics and 'laws'.

"The Sun and the moon rotate on their own axes...The purpose of this motion is to confer motion on the planets located around them;on the six primary planets in the case of the Sun,and on the moon in the case of the Earth.On the other hand the moon does not rotate on the axis of its own body,as its spots prove " Kepler

The idea here is not to convince you that the moon doesn't rotate nor the source of that notion but rather to distinguish the orbital behavior of the Earth around the Sun from lunar motion around the Earth.

Thanks for bringing up the topic anyway.

On Friday, February 6, 2015 at 1:14:41 AM UTC, palsing wrote:
On Thursday, February 5, 2015 at 4:23:26 PM UTC-8, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 5 Feb 2015 16:06:22 -0800 (PST), palsing
wrote:

This will drive Gerald crazy...

A little late to be worrying about that.

http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/details.cgi?aid=4253

... but it is really a cool and unusual perspective.

That is a nice presentation.

I was surprised that, from that POV, the librations are as big as they are. I always thought they would be bit more subtle... the Earth really swings more than I thought.

Look, I know what you meant that the moon swings more than you thought and don't hold you to an error I make now and again myself, one thing I appreciate about Collins is that he doesn't exploit a poorly written sentence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2uhAp3mHqk

Kepler considered the moon's orbital motion around the Earth like an Olympic hammer thrower and this is where Newton and his followers tripped up as Kepler's language is awkward when it comes to 'revolution' in terms of its orbital motion as the moon swings around the Earth -

http://books.google.ie/books?id=OdCJ...ge&q&f=fa lse


Kepler didn't write any orbital laws of motion, he believe that the rotation of a larger object imparts orbital motion on a smaller object and this idea was retained all the way up to Wallis in his letter to Boyle on planetary dynamics and 'laws'.

"The Sun and the Earth rotate on their own axes...The purpose of this motion is to confer motion on the planets located around them;on the six primary planets in the case of the Sun,and on the moon in the case of the Earth.On the other hand the moon does not rotate on the axis of its own body,as its spots prove " Kepler

The idea here is not to convince you that the moon doesn't rotate nor the source of that notion but rather to distinguish the orbital behavior of the Earth around the Sun from lunar motion around the Earth.

Thanks for bringing up the topic anyway.

You can be 100% that nothing you post is ever going to be taken seriously. If you had any genuine insight into astronomy that all the rest of us had missed you would explain your discovery far more clearly and answer questions about it with honesty and enthusiasm.

But you don't! Has your total failure over the last 10 years taught you nothing!

On Friday, February 6, 2015 at 2:17:56 AM UTC-8, wrote:

BTW, you still owe me an apology for calling me a liar.

You owe me something first, you coward.

On Friday, February 6, 2015 at 12:08:42 PM UTC-5, palsing wrote:
On Friday, February 6, 2015 at 2:17:56 AM UTC-8, wsne... wrote:

BTW, you still owe me an apology for calling me a liar.

You owe me something first, you coward.

I owe you nothing. YOU owe me an apology. You aren't man enough to offer it.