The moon's crookedness is caused by our going toward the center of the galactic plane

NP, will do.

Here it is again, I hope to get more FB, positive/negative, it's all ok to me.



So anyway, let's bring some more truth out about the Moon, shall we? Heck, why not, that's the point of this thread.

I've already laid lots of groundwork to understanding what's going on with the moon, and without this fundamental grasp of the basics, none of this will make any sense to those in traditionally flawed academia thinking.

To just provide a very short recount of those fundamentals:
The Earth has an iron core/The moon does not
The moon orbits the earth being held in said orbit not because of gravity but because of the EM forces, forces that are directly powered by the sun.

While my initial opening post like my thread title drew attention to one certain mechanism in play that brings on our viewable tilt of the moon (being subjected to the high concentrations of energy found in the center plane of our galaxy) which is a direct influence...

Still we mustn't also forget the indirect, secondary cause (if that's an accurate way to describe it, maybe, maybe not) also that brings about a tilting of the moon and that is:

"The almost highly erratic variable magnetic shifting of the Earth"

Thread: 2 Simple reasons why the moon is off

Because even though the moon doesn't have the same iron core as the Earth to be subjected the same way to the galactic plane's extreme amounts of magnetic energy, it's still locked in place to the magnetic field of Earth, so when the Earth's magnetic poles are moving so fast historically nowadays, the moon gets pulled a little more this way and than that way, compared to what it's used to doing. And no one would notice unless, like me, they are used to gazing at the moon and have the experience to know what the usual face of the moon looks like.

And something else that I've mentioned before, worth mentioning again with an additional clarification, is that we also see annular eclipses of the moon in front of the sun which no longer give us a complete solar eclipse, which is something new for us in recent geological terms, just in fact in the last few years, 5 at least, and certainly no more than 10.

Because the Earth travels around the sun in an elliptical orbit, which even mainstream science tells us, because they do tell us that the northern hemisphere, for instance, experiences winter because of its tilt, even though it is in fact closer to the sun during that time.

But as our dear solar system enters this area of intense EM forces and the sun's own EM polarities become increasingly more intense and subjected to irregularities, the Earth can in fact be speeding up as it goes around the sun, providing an even more elongated elliptical orbit. Of course our days can be the same since the speed increases as the orbital path increases, so that it equals out. But in so doing, the moon also has to play a sort of catch-up game with the faster moving Earth, so that we get a much more elliptical path of the Moon too. This means annular eclipses.

Make sense? To some I hope.

It applies to anything you can see in the sky, including the moon. You've already admitted your true intentions, so if you think I'm going to be patient with you the way a kindergarten teacher would, you're going to be sorely disappointed.

IDW, your paranoia knows no bounds. That's not a "puppet," it's just another random poster and it confirms what I've been saying.

Well maybe you can be patient with me just one more time? What are the disadvantages of such an altitude-azimuth telescope compared to an equatorial mount?

I'm flattered you call me him, but you're way behind the times. Even his illustrious followers have discontinued that argument. I haven't nearly the same technical proficiency in astronomical matters as he does. If I did, you could be sure I'd use them, and not ask you these questions, correct?

Field rotation and increased periodic error (two axis tracking so two axes contribute error) are the primary disadvantages. It also requires either manual effort to track the sky or a computerized system. A simple mechanical clock drive can be used with an equatorial mount.

You are, oh sorry, "IDW" is anything but proficient at astronomy. I never assumed you were asking these questions honestly though, I figure you think you have a point you're trying to "guide" me to which in reality will be just another failed attempt to make a point. If not then I guess I over-estimated you.

That seems to be a lot of error, doesn't it? Error that a person has to fix personally? That's the easiest, or this fancy computerized system you say? Imagine that, a fancy computer to get rid of all that error, which we do easily enough by ourselves naturally when we look at the moon.

Unless I'm wrong, and then I'm sure you'll be ever so gracious to correct my misunderstandings.

I think you wrongly did overestimate me.

A casual observer or a planetary observer usually doesn't care about either field rotation or periodic error (do you even know what the latter is?) so there's usually no effort to fix it. That is why idiots seize on videos and pictures of the moon or one of the planets being "tilted" and post it as evidence of an actual tilt rather than the result of field rotation.

It's like you're not even reading my posts. The view you see by eye is the same as the view you see in an altitude-azimuth telescope, so no, "naturally looking at the moon" does not fix field rotation. Periodic error is meaningless at that point, that's a tangent anyway; YOU asked for the various disadvantages of an altitude-azimuth mount so I told you. Those are the disadvantages compared to an equatorial mount which is how you fix those problems, not compared to a "natural naked eye" view. Both the naked eye view and the telescope's altitude-azimuth view suffer from field rotation.

Last Edited by Astromut on 01/08/2013 02:46 PM

Judging by your previous post I had you pegged right. You were trying to lead up to a failed point that somehow these problems would all be fixed by just viewing the sky naked eye. Field rotation still applies, it's still an altitude-azimuth type of view, just not a mechanized one.

And yet the moon used to have the same face night after night, and only would appear to us differently via libration ever so slightly during the course of the month, but now:

BAAM!

It can have an entirely different view to us in the night sky, in the exact same position in the sky, from one month to the next?

Theories are only as good if they correlate to actual observed phenomenon. So you might know a thing or two more than me about looking at the moon in a telescope. I still see what I've seen. As have others.

It's like you're telling me the sun isn't brighter. Or that that sky has never been a deeper blue. It's still bullshit.

I started this thread on december 20 2012....

because of the blue sphere beside the moon....

I agree with you OP, it looks like cosmic energy is blowing over the backside of the moon......

never in my 45 years on this earth have I seen blue beside the moon for 2 weeks straight...dec 20 to jan 4.....

I am a tug boat Captain and watch the moon a lot ....yes I can see it with the naked eye...no need for telescope
here.

Thread: BLUE KACHINA IS HIDING BEHIND THE MOON...GO OUTSIDE AND LOOK

Oh really? Wrong:

Field rotation has always applied to the moon.

The Interdemential DimWit has jumped on the no-field-rotation bandwagon?

But there are only trolls up there.

Cool man, and what month was that picture taken?

It's the hottest topic of the decade, so yeah you're probably right, nothing to see here..move along!

January 1971. Why should that matter to someone who was just claiming that field rotation didn't apply to the moon because it orbits earth? Oh right, you're trolling, you're not interested in the truth.

Wait a darn dangum minute! This is YOUR channel!

Haha this is just too priceless that I could've ever dreamed!

Read my opening post, moron.

Yes, I've read it multiple times, it was a stunning admission of your true motives. I highly recommend everyone read it.
Thread: How to dominate a thread

Of course it's my channel. So what?

Obvious obfuscation is obvious.

hahaha, sorry I said I didn't laugh at anybody in his defeat, but I just can't help myself atm

Again, of course it's my channel, what the fuck is your point?

bahaahahaha omg astro you kill me

Wow, so I guess you don't even have a point.

Let's say a teacher tries to convince you of the moon made of cheese. Then she takes you into the A/V lab and shows you a video of a piece of swiss suspended in the night sky, and you say, "Wow! that shit must be true! Where did you get this video?"

the teacher says: "I made the video!"

It doesn't matter that I made the video; I didn't write the damn book or make up the picture within it. Put up or shut up time; if you're going to imply that I somehow faked the video (which would be really fucking impressive), post your own video showing that that's not what that page of the book looks like (page 25).