Moon Phase and Libration, from the Other Side

The amazing moon landings are now a distant memory and the younger generation may not sense just how revolutionary the effort was in tandem with the advent of the computer age even though I do.

Nobody who appreciates than men stood on the surface of the object close to our planet could imagine it turning, not even with the greatest effort so that leaves the source for that ideology ,something I have shown consistently.

Setting aside the people who dither around with inanities, there is so much information gained by actually looking at the moon's orbital behavior around the Earth and bounce it off planetary orbital motion. The North/South poles are points on the Earth surface that do not rotate with the planet as a feature of daily rotation as compared to the maximum Equatorial speed yet through an orbital circuit of the Sun these points will turn in a circle as a function of the Earth's orbital motion through space.

On Saturday, February 7, 2015 at 1:50:32 PM UTC-5, palsing wrote:
On Saturday, February 7, 2015 at 4:03:10 AM UTC-8, wrote:
On Friday, February 6, 2015 at 8:34:52 PM UTC-5, palsing wrote:
On Friday, February 6, 2015 at 3:57:14 PM UTC-8, wrote:

I don't owe you anything you little PoS. I can answer or not answer any question I see here. Get it?

Same goes for me, you coward.

You asked "Don't you owe me an apology?"

Just like you, I can answer or not answer any question I see here. Get it?

Neither of us need to answer a question in order for YOU to offer the apology you owe me. Simple.

Ain't gonna happen, you cowardly loser, until you answer my question first.

You aren't man enough to admit your mistake nor man enough to offer the apology you owe. You are a child.

On Monday, February 9, 2015 at 7:24:19 AM UTC-8, wrote:

You aren't man enough to admit your mistake nor man enough to offer the apology you owe. You are a child.

However, you are the only one here whining... nothing new for you...

On Saturday, February 7, 2015 at 12:56:34 PM UTC-7, oriel36 wrote:

Nobody who appreciates than men stood on the surface of the object close to our
planet could imagine it turning, not even with the greatest effort

Why not, since men stand on the surface of this planet, and it turns, whether
once in 23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4 seconds or once in 24 hours as you claim to
believe?

John Savard

The wonderful trick of converting 'average' to 'constant' is just one of a number of steps that go into the creation of human timekeeping, as an analogy, the average flow of water through a pipe substitutes for the constant flow of water through a pipe hence the average 24 hour day substituted for constant rotation at a rate of 15 degrees per hour and no other value.

The Holy season of Lent is designated by two astronomical events - the Moon's orbital position to the Earth and to the Sun and the Earth's orbital position in space. This basically fixes Easter to a date of the first full moon after the Spring Equinox.

Fixing the Earth's orbital position in space using Sirius give us the extra rotation and 24 hours of orbital motion to return the Earth to roughly the same position in space after 4 orbital circuits but that 365 1/4 rotations per orbital circuit is not perfect as the Christian discovered after a thousand years. It is this drift that shows up as the precession of the Equinoxes but such a large modification can't occur when contemporaries can't even appreciate the neat average/constant trick which refers the 24 hour system and the Lat/Long system to the Earth's geometry and rotation.

I will make my traditional 40 day sacrifice this year as usual, something the religious have always understood in terms of self-discipline rather than the denying the body anything. This year involves a slightly different choice but I am sure it will have the usual beneficial effect.

On Monday, February 9, 2015 at 1:47:59 PM UTC-5, palsing wrote:
On Monday, February 9, 2015 at 7:24:19 AM UTC-8, wsne... wrote:

You aren't man enough to admit your mistake nor man enough to offer the apology you owe. You are a child.

However, you are the only one here whining... nothing new for you...

This isn't about me. It's about YOU, your bad behavior, your bad attitude, your hypocrisy, and the fact that you unjustifiably called someone a liar in a public forum.

On Sunday, February 15, 2015 at 9:12:29 AM UTC-7, wrote:

This isn't about me. It's about YOU, your bad behavior, your bad attitude,
your hypocrisy, and the fact that you unjustifiably called someone a liar in
a public forum.

In another thread, I saw your precis of this issue.

You said that he said *something*.

He said that he never said it.

You then quoted him saying that he does accept that global warming is
anthropogenic, and that it is a problem.

Was that indeed the *something* you said he said - or did you say he said
something _more_ than what you proved he did say?

I couldn't tell that from your post, and I don't think I could Google up the
specific posts this controversy relates to.

John Savard

On Sunday, February 15, 2015 at 1:07:05 PM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:
On Sunday, February 15, 2015 at 9:12:29 AM UTC-7, wrote:

This isn't about me. It's about YOU, your bad behavior, your bad attitude,
your hypocrisy, and the fact that you unjustifiably called someone a liar in
a public forum.

In another thread, I saw your precis of this issue.

You said that he said *something*.

He said that he never said it.

He DID say the *something* though and the in the same sentence called ME a liar.

You then quoted him saying that he does accept that global warming is
anthropogenic, and that it is a problem.

Was that indeed the *something* you said he said - or did you say he said
something _more_ than what you proved he did say?

I couldn't tell that from your post, and I don't think I could Google up the
specific posts this controversy relates to.

On Jan 22 in the thread "Amateur astronomers (and real ones)..." palsing wrote:

"I defy you to show exactly where I said that... because I did NOT... now you are a liar!"

in direct response to my statement:

'Your wrote: "I do, however, think there is a problem that will require lower CO2 emissions, per capita." '

the part in double quotes being, in fact, something that palsing had written a few days earlier.

Apology is owed by palsing to me.

On Sunday, February 15, 2015 at 11:39:23 AM UTC-8, wrote:

nothing important

http://blog.mapconsulting.com/wp-con...07/whining.jpg

On Sunday, February 15, 2015 at 2:57:01 PM UTC-5, palsing wrote:

http://historyofjournalism.onmason.c...eech-zone.jpeg

(There ARE however laws against libel.)