ZetaTalk LIVE Chat May 15

[link to www.zetatalk.com]
Moon FACTS are that the Moon will appear to be upside down if viewed from the S. Pole vs the N. Pole, and every change in latitude skews this view. But the view for any given latitude should vary only by 7° 7 minutes, a movement called Lunar Libration, equivalent to the hour hand of a clock moving a mere 1/2 hour.

lived same place, for many years

this time of year, it always shines thru my bedroom window

is no where near my house now, NO WHERE NEAR IT!

No, Nancy. You are misstating the definition of "libration". It has nothing to do with the phenomenon of apparent rotation. Take any sky program which shows the moon in detail. It will appear to 'rotate' as you run time forward. You are simply wrong, nancy.

can you give me the coordinates for planet x?

Last Edited by White Dragon on 05/15/2010 09:36 PM

Why don't octopi fly to the moon?

Nancy, if the sky really moved in an oval, all astrophotograpy would be impossible. No telescopes would be able to find anything in the sky, much less track them.

Nancy, this has NOTHING to do with libration. You obviously don't even know what the definition is. Our point of view changes nearly 180 degrees as the earth rotates. That's why Orion rises in the east on his left side and rotates with him standing almost upright in the south and on his right side by the time it sets in the west. The moon does the same thing.

Can't you understand something this simple?

Libration has to do with the moon appearing to rock back and forth as it orbits in its elliptical orbit. It has nothing to do with the moon normal apparent rotation as it moves acorss the sky.

Its a time-lapse image. It recorded stars you can't see naked-eye. That's what I meant by visible.

Okay, let's back up. I was saying that when a time-lapse of the Pole Star is taken, it should show the Pole Star (very bright, by the way, compared to most near it) and nothing in the centre of its circle-sweep. When you said what you said about "visible" I thought you meant that of course there are other stars beyond the Pole Star which would be nearer the Pole, but they would be invisible in time-lapse, not showing in the centre of the photo sweep by the 1-degree-off Pole Star.

As to all of the "invisible" stars being visble in time-lapse: no. You could get a very sensitive film and it might register some stars that you hadn't noticed. But time-laspse doesn't refer to the sensitivity of the film. The point I think you're making is that if you have a long-term exposure of a stationary object with very low light, you will pick up more details on it, yes. And to some degree this is true of stars too, as they will be able to get more light onto the film before they've moved somewhat. Yes, you would thus pick up more stars than the eye would notice, but not by much unless you had excellent film.

Anyway,
In the photo I linked to, the Pole Star is the brightest one. Yet the circle-sweep is of many stars to its left. In any time-lapse the Pole Star would be obvious because it is by far the brightest in the direct region of the Pole. And it normally leaves a blank black space circle (with perhaps some very far-away faint traces in the middle from nearby stars, as you mentioned).

Either way, it is basically the centre of the sweep (or rather its circle is). It is not the centre circle, not even close by quite a margin, in this photo.

But in a norma time-lapse photo, or for navigation, Polaris sweeps around an "empty" circle near the centre of true North, thus it is the centre (center, for Americans) circle in the photo, and all other visible stars will become circle rings around that centre circle by Polaris, whose own centre is empty.


Who told you that? How many long exposures of Polaris have you done?

Actually you can look it up on Astronomy pages about Polaris and time-lapse. I did once, but all it takes is applied brain (applied science). It is at the centre, almost, so its sweep will be almost the centre of the whole (and if a very faint faraway star were visible on the time-lapse it would be even closer to the Pole and make a tinier sweep, but inside the 1-degree-away-from North circle of the much more obvious Pole Star circle.

And yes, I've done photography, but it's moot here. We all can figure out where circles should be. Spin around the Pole, with the 1-degree slightly off-Pole Pole Star, and even more off-pole other stars, and you will have concentric circles. This photo shows the beginnings of the concentric circles but the brightest dot in the immediate region of the North Pole (the Pole Star) is not the centre circle by a long shot. Now, it is possible that the shot is of another star there, but where is the very bright Pole Star then? Just sayin.

I don't for sure know it is Polaris, but Polaris would be bright and near the centre of the sweep. The implication by Wikipedia is this is the Pole Star, too.

Good night.

Mewow, you're rants are becoming tiresome.

I had a similar dream about five years ago; everybody was wet and aid workers were attempting to get able-bodied people to move, in line, to another, safer location. Only a few people were making an effort at comfort and aid. Most people sat numb, staring straight ahead, or just slumped down and whimpering. People were not freezing, but were cold because they were wet and there was no way to get dry. There was nothing to burn for a fire. This single file march of wet and cold people went on and on, all night in my dream. I never knew where they were being sent, it was supposed to be a safer place.

No, there are MILLIONS of stars which become visible during longer exposures.



Of course it doesn't. It refers to the exposure time, which means that the light from dimmer stars becomes strong enough to register on the film. Nothing else has changed.



See above. The film doesn't have to change. The amount of light did. Try it.



You know this, how?



What do you mean by "left"? There are star tracks all over the image.



How many times do I have to ask you what the scale of that image is? How do you know that is Polaris? Maybe the image is showing less than 3/4 of a degree.

By the way.. what is the origin of that image and what is all that red stuff in it? That is a really crappy and questionable image. You can get any number of better shots of Polaris. Why are you obsessed with this one?



You are contradicting yourself. Either it should be blank inside Polaris, or it should not. Make up your mind. Truth is, you really don't know.

Eit
\

GADS, man!! What is the friggin' SCALE of the image?? You DON'T KNOW... GET IT???



Read this sllloooowwwwwlllyyy.. WHAT.... IS.... THE....SCALE... OF.....THAT.... IMAGE...??????



Read this sllloooowwwwwlllyyy.. WHAT.... IS.... THE....SCALE... OF.....THAT.... IMAGE...??????



Read this sllloooowwwwwlllyyy.. WHAT.... IS.... THE....SCALE... OF.....THAT.... IMAGE...??????

Why don't you back up and answer this?

By the way... Nancy claims that Earth is WOBBLING, not that there has been some consistent deviation of the NCP. That image you are touting shows no such thing.

Oh... you ran away before I could respond. How typical.

Thread: A GRIM look at our future, using Timewave Zero. Dates to look out for.

You're don't have one bit of evidence to prove that statement.

You are so full of shit it's laughable.

When my daughter and I first moved into this apartment building in the spring of 1989, we immediately began marking where the sunlight fell throughout the day. It was our intention to plant a large flower bed and we needed to understand where the sun would be brightest and if the building would make a shadow. We were immensely pleased over the months of study that our two-story building didn't cast much of a shadow at all.

Our first flower bed covered half of the END of the building. There was absolutely nothing nearby to cast a shadow, with one exception. In the late afternoon, the building caused some shadow. However during the day, that area was bathed in glorious sunshine, so we planted flowers which needed full sun.

That bed (#1) flourished with minimal care until 2004, when I was too ill to plant. My daughter eventually bought five flowering shrubs for that space. We have taken down the decorative fence that enclosed that space...the space that was carefully blocked out in 1989 to get maximum sun most of the day.

Flower bed (#2) wasn't planted until late May 1990 because we took extra time to study our yard. We used stakes and the sun itself to determine where to dig. The area had never been dug up before and we anticipated finding construction debris, clay and lots of rocks. We marked off the area and took our time removing soil down to a predetermined depth.

During that period we were both outside in the sun and we looked up at various times to note where the sun was in relation to our prestaked corners. It was hot and tiring work, so from time to time we stopped to hydrate ourselves. We sat on the stone steps, often leaning on the metal railing, while we rested and drank fluids.

We often sat and ate our dinner while watching the sun go down between two low, distant hills. It pleased us to see that the chosen area was bathed in sunshine until the very last rays of sun disappeared from view. It was also apparent that the sun tracked over us and a bit to the northern part of the nearby town.

It was the habit of several of the tenants in my building to sit outside in the sunshine on MY SIDE of the building. They usually sat on the cement sidewalk or patio area near my flower bed. They told me how they looked forward to watching the sun go down in the evening, since the sunset was often quite beautiful.

We all had an unobstructed view of the sun as it set. The sun moved a bit left or right, but it always was bracketed by those two distant hills. There is a radio tower quite a distance to the left of those hills. At no time during the growing season did the sun ever go near that radio tower.

In 2004 I was too ill to plant or maintain the #2 flower bed. In 2005, as my daughter began to loosen the soil for planting we noticed a change in the track of the sun. Bercause we were cautious, we went back to checking if the bed would have enough sunlight. We took a chance and put full sun flowers in the bed. They didn't thrive as in previous years. We put in plants that were not full sun and they thrived.

I noticed right away that the sun wasn't following its usual route. Over that growing season I made daily observations of where the sun was located and where sunset took place. I had to be out walking and picking up trash anyway, so the observations came as a bonus at first.

After I discovered Zetatalk I started a practice of deliberately observing, weather permitting. As I posted before, in order to view a sunset, I have to leave the property and walk quite a distance. No body sits outside my building to watch the sunset any more. Those same individuals have taken their lawn chairs to another location down near the other end of the apartment complex...but on the OTHER SIDE of that building.

Practically every day, I purposely go outside and I stand briefly where I USED to watch the sunset. Then I laugh and walk around my building and off the property until I see the sun. It sets so far from those two distant hills that Stevie Wonder could see the distance.

Remember that tall, distant radio tower that used to be to the left of the hills and the original sunset? Well, it's now to the right of the "new" sunset. When I first noticed the change in 2005, the radio tower was equidistant between the original sunset position and the "new" sunset position. Once in a while, the sunset takes place closer to the radio tower, but it has never passed back to the original location. That "jump" in location was interesting.

I realize that my observations mean nothing to many of you. So be it. I don't need to to care or believe. I was taught to observe in my science classes. I trust my eyes over a stranger's comments.

Hi, Menow. I made a comment by the end of the exchange, which indicated that I don't know for sure the scale of the image, and you could be right, that the bright star is not Polaris. However, a) the implication is that it is, and was what I was going on. However, you could be right and all is normal. But then we have to account for the image's scale and what that bright star would be.

b) When I said that the space inside the Polaris circle sweep would be a black void, I did not contradict myself by admitting also your point that some stars very nearby could be inside its sweep. They would still be far less bright (bright objects sweeping will outshine even the newly visible dimmer objects which show up even more because of the time-lapse). Well, unless you let the image burn "forever", in which case both an originally bright object and a not-so-bright one (or naked-eye invisible one) would come to be equal eventually on the film. (But this extreme is a picayune argument, as you know, so I'll just leave that situation aside.)



Yes. Dealt with above. We do need scale.



I already said I agree. BUT strong starlight (from the Pole Star) would be much more evident than other stars which were not even naked-eye-visible to start with.



Agreed.



I have conceded I do not know for certain but it is the implication of the use of that photo in Wikipedia.



Imagine the sweeps (with their direction arcs) closing a circle (a full polar rotation). Then you will see that the bright star is way to the right of the centre of the pole (centre of all implied circle-sweeps).

... Now, I agree, as I've said, we have to be certain that the bright star is the Pole Star. The scale would be important (or a comparative star-map). I don't have the time resource to check that out in detail of comparing to find "landmarks" (skymarks! ha ha) between visible and less-visible stars which we could use to figure out the scale. (By less visible, I mean stars which are not visible naked-eye but could be visible on film in shorter time-lapse, such as this photo.)

... And I agree, given the "appearance" of "new" stars, ones not otherwise visible, when conducting time-lapse photography, we would have to determine not only the scale, but if we found that that bright star IS the Pole Star, we'd have to determine if it was too far away from the centre. Usually, Polaris is the only star near the Pole even in time-lapse. There are only a few suggestions usually of other stars inside the much brighter little circle of Polaris, so I called it "black". There was a link once on this, from an astronomy class, which I found. But I was surfing and :( don't know it. Anyway, someone could figure out scale.


Obsessed? Because if that big star is Polaris, you have here an off-kilter Earth. It would be a test.

But of course we have to know the scale.

The origin of the image is, as you know if you are Wikipedia-savvy, available in the embedded link under the image. I gave that link. But here it is again (the image Wikipedia page, not the Pole Star Wikipedia page): [link to en.wikipedia.org] -- and here is the actual source, which that page will give you, if you find yourself too busy to bother with clicking: [link to www.jelder.com] ... but actually it's now forbidden. I used to be able to access it. Weird. Cover-up? Dunno.



Dealt with above. Depends on the length of the exposure AND the F-stop AND the film, actually. Normally the Pole Star is not close-up so in fact its one-degree-off circle really does leave bare space in the film, not really suggestions of other stars inside.



I actually like you Menow. And I do get it. I am not stupid. Nor am I an acolyte but I do like testing things and also not jumping on mistakes; we can sort this out about Planet X. We can ask good questions, do our best to sort out mistakes from striking good facts/predictions from the ZetaTalk chats, and many other sources. And I'm not a man. :) But thanks, since men aren't (all) bad! Lol.

1. That the image "shows no such thing" is not yet determined, Menow. We were DETERMINING IT TOGETHER, as far as I could see, in our debate here. And really, btw, we cannot fully determine it without star-maps to, as you so rightly pointed out, determine scale. However, I was right that the Pole Star circle is blank and small at or if very blown up, would show other stars faintly inside, for it is much brighter than the others which are invisible right at the Pole, to show up INSIDE the Pole Star's time-lapse circle, and show if it's a close-up: for the circle of the Pole Star is only from being 1 degree off, and makes a relatively small circle for any other, usually invisible stars to show up in, nearer to the Pole.

2. I suppose you really feel people are stupid or cowards and hey, some are. Some also get exasperated with you as you do with them; and some are justified just as you are sometimes (not always) justified.

I had already written "good night" because some things happened and I thought I had to go away from the computer for a long while. I was actually trying to be very fair and civil and show you that even if you had good points (ah ha! I am not scared of good points) I was not running from them, but had to go.

However, fyi, I came back to see if you were still there, and you had replied. Sorry, btw, about that one post where the quotations messed up. It all became same-type, and looked messy-horrible as to which comments were yours and which were mine!

If you're still on, hope you post. But then I gotta do some stuff and go off line. :)

(Corny, but nice.)

P.S. I can understand why you assumed I'd split and run, not merely split. You get that a lot. However, you do jump too quickly with animosity sometimes, not merely with reason. As you can probably tell, I am very reasonable -- though I have my emotions too, of course. Anyway, ttywyp (talk to you when you post)! Ha ha!

A reminder of the many uses for a good tarp. Compact, light and importantly water proof. Can be converted to poncho, tent, ground cover or even used to collect dew for a morning drink.

This should read: I don't need you to care or believe.

Which leads us right back to this: You can get any number of better shots of Polaris.

And no... just because that BRIGHT star is Polaris, that does not mean there is anything wrong with Earth. You are grasping at the flimsiest of straws!

The second long-exposure image was taken with a camera that has a fish-eye lens. A fish-eye lens distorts images.

No, you missed the point. Nancy claims a WOBBLE, not a new NCP. That image does not show any wobble. What you claim it shows does NOT support Nancy's claims.



And?



Understood. Thanks for being willing to have a discussion. that is VERY unusual for Nancy's followers.



Care to comment on Nancy's tirade about how the moon should not appear to rotate as we watch it cross the sky?

By the way, I suppose you believe that all the world's astronomers are in on a coverup or are afraid to talk? That would have to be the case if what you think that image shows was true.

Yeah, I know, but why bother asking Nancy why the entire sky is warped, there? She denies the obvious, no matter what. Gawd... if Earth really was careening around like that, we would all be dead within an hour!

Time-lapse photography? You're using the wrong term. Time-lapse photography involves taking multiple images of the same object at set intervals (i.e., one exposure every minute).

Your use of the term "time lapse photography" tells me that you don't know much about photography.

The correct term is long-exposure photography where you set the camera to "bulb" and keep the shutter open for an extended time be it minutes or hours.

Then why are you posting about it?

By the way... there are damn few astronomers who could tell if things are out of place in the sky simply by looking, yet you think YOU can! Now THAT'S an ego!

I have come to the conclusion that you might be right, but without scale we won't know. That much is clear.

On the other hand, and probably SEEMING to be a deflection from this one issue, but I don't intend it as such, there is much more to the PX story than this.

Nancy/Zetas and all others who talk of an extra-wild wobble from PX could be wrong about this. We know NL is wrong about several things over time, and that's okay. If she's for real with the Zetas, then as we determine that hypothesis, we'd have to say, she could be for real about this and still get wrong messages, lying messages, or misunderstand the messages. So ... to continue with you on this, let's say the Pole Star is fine. I am not sure of the scale of this image and it might be that our Pole is fine.

And I'm sure you'd love to leave it there. "The rest is nonsense too," I'm sure you'd say. But detectives have been wrong about one lead and still the gang they originally suspected turns out to be the culprit; it was a misleading lead! So ...

In fact, the other evidence for a possible PX is far stronger: a torque-looking action on our Chandler Wobble in 2005-6, which wen tbackward and forward (not a small side step or different-sized circle). Could that be "just" a movement backward? I'd say possibly, except I don't actually know if it would even be possble: these are massive forces of our, shall we say, gyroscopic Earth; something gripping it with a magnetic-cum-gravitic tug would maybe over a few months actually pull on it.

Then there's the bee-line of the North Magnetic Pole out of Canada quite rapidly.

Now, I know these things look like "mere lines" on paper: oh it moves this way or that ...

No. These are forces, and to find them not only acting in striking ways together, but also certain TYPES of things going seemingly weird in certain relationships to each other, this is what is odd.

This post is getting long. I'll stop here or we could talk all night of PX putative evidence and hypothetical interrelationships (... "hypothetical" here not meaning mere "notional" interrelationships, a "lark", but meaning "suppositional interrelationships, which we must look at for the purpose of seeing the argument through fully and fairly").

Good night Me, now. :) I gotta go soon. If you post again I'll try to reply, but I'm not sure how much longer I'll be around tonight. You? How long are you gonna be on?

And do you receive a notice if I reply? Or have you been diligently checking back all this time, like me?

:)

Oops! That post above I forgot to put in my moniker. (I can't get my password to work and I can't get the renewal to work either!! So right now I've been typing it in, and forgot. Sorry, Menow.)

Clare