U - moon ("laid back" crescent) shows that position of Sun Earth and Moon has changed- update 2012: PROOF!!!! on page 6, new info on page11

Each time there's a Cheshire moon we see the same threads over and over again.

I'm simply plugging the holes in my old posts from where GLP Video went poof. Don't like it? Too bad. I notice you have nothing to say about what this video shows from 9 minutes on:
[link to www.twitch.tv]
And once more, the moon in 1971:
[link to apollomissionphotos.com]
Whoops, the OP is dead wrong!

So you have a Right-facing Moon Face, don't suppose you care to see it tonight. It's Left facing now tonight where I am.

(Psst! Guess what? You're debunking, or trying to anyway.)

I'm not debunking anything new, I'm restoring information lost due to the loss of glp video. (Psst, the illuminated side of the moon depends on its phase and is a completely different matter. Try actually watching the video for more than 30 seconds).

Last Edited by Astromut on 11/26/2012 09:21 AM

You're so FOS! How many sides of the Moon do we Today get illuminated?

Learn to speak English, your question is unclear. And for fuck's sake, get a real account so I can answer your questions by pm. You don't even know how moon phases work.

At :40-45


[link to www.youtube.com]

Cute. I get it now, you're trying to distract from my previous post since I debunked the "U-moon" nonsense above. Debunked it ages ago as well, but with my new video in place it's once again debunked on this thread.

Last Edited by Astromut on 11/26/2012 10:15 AM

I'm not familiar with the ins and outs of this particular thread, nor your participation in such. But I'm sure you did your Best in your debunkerish pursuits.

You were citing a vid- You called my attention to it. There are explanations in response to that vid. I'm asking you to STAY with the conversation about the vid YOU posted. How is that "derailing" the conversation?

"Unusual", in that it's not ALWAYS a certain way? Well, yes, but "unusual" in that it is not SUPPOSED to ever be that way? Not at all. A "U" moon is not a sign that there is something wrong with the orbits of Earth or Moon or Sun. It is a NORMAL orientation of the moon in the sky.

There are apparently a number of people who's "intuition" is pretty faulty.

What you are worried about "derailing" is your CONCLUSION that something is wrong with the way the moon is appearing. That CONCLUSION is erroneous, as is your CONCLUSION about what the vid you cited shows.

There are questions and points of discussion before you. We await your responses on them.

Once again Astromut has made you look like a complete FOOL, lol....

Dr. Astro,
1. you claim above , that "field rotation is why the moon looked like a "u," not libration"
I found the definition of field rotation, and it says:
"Field rotation is the apparent rotation of a celestial object in the field of view of a telescope during the course of the night. All objects in the eyepiece field or on the camera’s image will move in arcs. It’s usually either ignored or not noticed for visual observations, but cannot be ignored for photography." [link to www.celestron.com]
That is FIELD ROTATION refers to viewing an object in a TELESCOPE. Our observations of the U-MOON made directly, with naked eyes, no telescope. The animation, that we compare our observations to also simulates a naked eye observation. That concludes you cannot explain the U-Moon by Field Rotation.
2. I watched your video, but your verbal notes offered no explanation HOW the field rotation effects the phenomenon we are talking about.

Last Edited by emerald_glow on 11/28/2012 03:31 PM

Wrong. You do not understand field rotation. Field rotation occurs in ANY non-polar aligned perspective, whether with a telescope or not. A telescope does not magically cause field rotation to appear, but a polar aligned telescope can eliminate field rotation as I already proved above. And as I already prove above, a telescope in not necessary to witness field rotation; the field rotated view was from a standard camcorder on a standard camera tripod, not a telescope.

And will therefore be subject to field rotation; you are not viewing from a polar aligned perspective.

No, it does not. It simulates the effect of phases and libration, that's it, it does not take into account field rotation since that depends on your location on the ground. It's impossible to simulate it simultaneously for everyone.

Yes, I can, and I already did.

I explained it clearly. Clearly you do not understand field rotation since you think it requires a telescope. Field rotation causes the apparent "u-moon" phenomenon. I showed it back to back both from your normal non-polar aligned "naked eye" perspective, and from a polar aligned perspective sans field rotation. It doesn't get any clearer than that.

On layman's terms field rotation is the virtual rotating movement of the whole sky, due to Earth's rotation.
For the naked eye this movement is too slow to notice. When observing an object with naked eye, we simply follow that tiny movement with turning our head.

No matter how I hard try to agree with Mr Astro, I just cannot find any connection...

Then I guess you never watched a sunrise or sunset. Diurnal rotation, which is what you just described, can be noticed in short time intervals by naked eye observations with an appropriate fixed reference point. Furthermore, observing the moon by naked eye when it is rising or setting will show a noticeable amount of field rotation from non-polar locations compared to its orientation at the meridian (what would generally be considered the "normal" view by most laymen).

Which is an altitude-azimuth perspective, and is therefore subject to field rotation. It's the same for all non-polar aligned perspectives, including those of the siderostat and heliostat.
[link to adsabs.harvard.edu]
The only difference between that and a naked eye field rotation is that it is the diurnal rotation of the apparent field of the eye, rather than the optical field of an instrument. There is no substantive difference in the outcome, which is a moon showing an apparent rotation which you characterized as a "U - moon" and "laid back" crescent, which as I already showed above, is due to field rotation and is eliminated in a simultaneous polar aligned view.

That's Dr. Astro to you. I cannot know for certain whether you're incapable of understanding field rotation, or if you simply refuse to understand it because you would have to admit that there was nothing odd about the apparent orientation of the moon. In any case it doesn't really matter, I'm not trying to convince you, I've already long since written you off. It is entertaining to see your responses though.

You entertain me, too, Mr Astro:-)

If the Moon/Earth/Sun were out of position in any way, why can GOTO telescopes track them without being updated, or their gears changed?

That's probably the biggest bunch of bunk I've ever read in my whole entire life, and that's saying quite a lot, because we're fed so much during our courses, of which you seem to play a substantial part here on this site!

So many things to say. Where should I begin? Well, for one thing, field rotation is flawed in your understanding and application because there's a fundamental difference in applying its concept to stars out there which are not at all fixed in orbit to Earth like the moon is. duh! (If you can't understand this easy enough concept, I can try to explain this better to you subsequently.)

Another thing is that I watched the moon during the whole entire night not a few weeks ago, and at no point did the moon have a different orientation at near the horizon as it did at its highest point in the sky. Theories are only as good as when they can stand under the scrutiny of real observation. And as such, yours Fails.

What's that saying, if you can't wow them with something, dumbfound them with BS? I could probably remember the exact saying, but my brain I think has been reduced a few 10 or 20 points just from reading your post!

Still, it's great to see you back in your full verbose but utterly lacking any real understanding ways. Welcome Back jack.

You are probably the most ignorant poster here, or you're just the biggest troll here, so it's not surprising it went completely over your head.

Field rotation happens regardless of whether the object is orbiting earth or not. Yes, it even happens with ISS:

The moon orbits the earth at a much slower rate than ISS and the effect of its orbital motion on the rate of field rotation is minor. That's why you can track the moon at a sidereal rate and although it will gradually drift out of the field of view, the rate that it will do so is quite slow (I was tracking at the sidereal rate in the video of the moon I linked to in my previous post). There is no fundamental difference; the moon will still rise and set like the stars, it just takes slightly longer than the stars do as it slowly orbits from west to east.

Either you're terrible at observing or you're lying. Either way, your claim fails, I've already proven what I said.

Wrong.
[link to www.twitch.tv]
Real, empirical evidence proves me right and shows your claim to be wrong. Where's your evidence? Oh right, you don't have any, just your word which is worth absolutely shit.

LOL! You wouldn't understand this shit if I strapped you to a chair and gave you a personal one on one lecture. Thank you for showing to everyone how piss poor your understanding of field rotation is. It's fundamentally different for the moon because the moon orbits earth? LMFAO! You're hilarious! It's truly incredible how idiotic you are. I'm not here to change your mind either, I'm here to laugh at your staggering stupidity and hopefully draw my haters out of the woodwork for a little trap... Thank you, you provide endless entertainment, and watching you step in it again is priceless. Yeah, sure, orbiting objects magically don't exhibit field rotation...

Classic kook nutjob nonsense!

Last Edited by Astromut on 11/29/2012 10:49 AM

haha ahhh...how easy it is to irk the irksome with Truth! Just gets under your skin that we don't just swallow your BullSHIT like any good ole doctor would prescribe us, huh? And are you a Doctor? Not in the slightest. How much then do we take your verbosity? yes, with less than a smidgen that we would put a grain of sand into our meal.

The ISS DOES NOT HAVE THE SAME ORBITAL PATTERNS OF THE MOON!

I caps'ed that so you wouldn't miss it, but you probably will in any case. And does your Eye have a video recorder attached to it? What's that? No? Oh, your telescope picked that up, did it? Great.

No one's lying on here, but you Astro.

Yes, I am. The number of things you're wrong about grows...

Right, it orbits closer and faster, making it behave far less like normal stars. The moon orbits much farther away and much slower, so as far as field rotation goes it behaves just like the stars. Both, however, experience field rotation from rising to setting.

You keep shooting yourself in the foot but you don't even realize it. Your stupidity knows no bounds.

Which? ISS or the moon? ISS I shot with the telescope, but if you could see it by eye with that kind of resolution that's exactly what you'd see. The moon I also shot with a standard camcorder on a standard camera tripod, showing what you see by eye. I saw the moon by eye that night the same way the camcorder showed it. It's just a standard altitude-azimuth view, the same view I just showed of ISS which was shot from an altitude-azimuth perspective.

Wrong. I have not only stated the truth, but I proved it as well. Keep up your defamatory remarks, by all means, it really shows everyone what you really are (and it ain't a truth teller).

Yeah, you're defeated, it comes across in your tone. First you were highly belligerent which is a testament to someone who furiously tries to reinstate himself. Now you know you don't have a wooden Ahab or Long John Silver leg to stand on, so you admit defeat in your tone, regardless of how you tried to hide it with your words. I'm good like that. So i'll take pity on you in your Defeat. Because also, well, you didn't say anything of anything there really. Once again, Trumped by Truth, not by Bullshit.

Wow, you wrote an entire paragraph and not once did you say anything of substance. You did, however, fulfill Danth's law.

No substantive rebuttal offered. Noted. Thanks for the help AC! This information will be quite useful to the project...

Don't be such a sore loser!

..for there's no shame in being defeated in something, let's say like chess, by a Fisher or Kasparov.

Danth's law applies once again. So don't worry, I'm not the "sore loser" in this equation.
[link to rationalwiki.org]

The ever ironies of ironies, the good faux doctor out of his element!

to :35. past that, watch as you please, because we know you're smoking some heavy substances to not see what the rest of us plainly do!


[link to www.youtube.com]