The Moon Is Upsidedown Tonight ! Las Vegas, Nevada

Originally posted by CherubBaby
What do you think science and observation have in common?

Science starts with observation.

But then, so do old wives tales, and love affairs.

reply to post by Uncinus


Typical you will blow the basic principal of science off when it doesnt suit you. So all your comments are in the catagory of old wives tails and love affairs by your own admission.

Originally posted by CherubBaby
reply to post by Uncinus

 

Typical you will blow the basic principal of science off when it doesnt suit you. So all your comments are in the catagory of old wives tails and love affairs by your own admission.

edit on 14-12-2011 by CherubBaby because: (no reason given)

well such would depend on the person...if they are able to observe with out their desires or fears getting in the way of what they are observing.

reply to post by LeoVirgo


Thats right so who is to say who feels what ? Why does a person feel in the first place. What makes someone want to observe? Why are there telescopes? Why are there observation posts? Is that someones agenda from a personal issue? You tell me what the rules are regarding observation.

Originally posted by CherubBaby
reply to post by Uncinus

 

Typical you will blow the basic principal of science off when it doesnt suit you.

That's really rich coming from you. I'm still waiting for you to explain my observations from the other night...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by ngchunter


I have to say I have no idea what your pics and that video have to do with what I am saying. They may say that the two are alike which means nothing in regards to what I am talking about.

Originally posted by CherubBaby
reply to post by ngchunter

 

I have to say I have no idea what your pics and that video have to do with what I am saying. They may say that the two are alike which means nothing in regards to what I am talking about.

"The two" are alike? What are you talking about? The still pictures? No kidding, I was just posting two stills in alt-az for the sake of reinforcing the point. It's really simple; from an altitude-azimuth perspective, the way you see the moon when you look up in the sky, it looked like a "boat moon" with the shadow on the top despite the fact that I don't live at the equator. From a polar aligned perspective (the video from the telescope which was shot at the same time), however, the moon was vertical with the shadow on the side just as it should be. The only reason it looks like a boat moon from an alt-az perspective is because of field rotation.

Originally posted by Uncinus

Originally posted by CherubBaby
What do you think science and observation have in common?

Science starts with observation.

But then, so do old wives tales, and love affairs.

Yep. You are exactly right.

There have also been MANY incorrect conclusions that were drawn, completely based on observation. By scientists.

Observations are important, but often don't give the complete picture.

Originally posted by CherubBaby
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

 

Well it hasn't set yet. In fact its far from setting. But do you mind commenting on my PS question? What do you think science and observation have in common? I am just curious if you need to look that up or do you already have an answer?

Science makes observations, then attempts to explain those observations in a manner that is repeatable and/or predictable.

In this case, if a person can understand the relationship among the Moon, the Earth's tilt, and the location on Earth of the observer, then that person can repeatedly predict how the Moon will look to an observer anywhere on earth at any given moment.

In addition, science's understanding of these things -- the Moon's orbit and the Earth's tilt -- were also known through observations, thousands of years of observations.

And science in this case CAN repeatedly predict what the moon will look like from a given location on Earth on a given day. The science to predict this has been known for hundreds of years. Science 100 years ago had all of the knowledge necessary to predict that the Moon would look about 15+ degrees away from being horizontal while it was setting as seen from the location of Las Vegas on November 4, 2011.



...and while we are answering questions, you never answered my question based on this graphic (this is not the same graphic I used before to ask the question; it has been changed a bit):


As shown on this graphic, the equator on a November night can be tilted about 20° southward BELOW the ecliptic. Therefore, the moon at night would NOT look perfectly horizontal from the equator, but rather from a point about 20° NORTH of the equator (at 20° north latitude), since that is the part of the Earth that would be aligned with the ecliptic.

Here is my question: If the Moon can look perfectly horizontal from about 20° north latitude (about the location of Mexico City) on a November night, then why can't it look like your picture in the OP (tilted about 15°+ away from being horizontal), which was taken from 36° north latitude -- the location of Las Vegas?

disclaimer:
My graphic above is simplified for the purposes of this discussion. In reality, the Moon does not lie exactly along the ecliptic plane. However, this is accurate enough to serve as an adequate "proof of concept".

The way I have always understood it, and the way this graphic shows it, the setting crescent Moon when seen at night would look tilted (right side lower than the left) when viewed from the equator starting in November and through the winter, would look horizontal from a point North of the equator as far north as at least 20° North latitude (and even a bit farther North than that).

Here's the question again, but worded a bit differently:
If you agree that it is normal for the Moon at times to look horizontal when viewed from 20° North latitude, then doesn't it seem logical that 16° farther north than 20° (at 36° North latitude), the Moon could look heavily tilted -- say about 16°+/- away from being horizontal, like in your OP photo?

If you disagree with the idea that it is normal for the Moon to be perfectly horizontal at times when seen from 20° north latitude, or disagree with my graphic, then please explain your disagreement.

Originally posted by GeorgiaGirl

There have also been MANY incorrect conclusions that were drawn, completely based on observation. By scientists.

Observations are important, but often don't give the complete picture.

Okay, so what else, besides observations, are the non-scientists brining to this thread?

reply to post by CherubBaby
I have read through a lot in this thread and don't mean to cut in,as I see you have a battle on your hands.Numerous people have reported seeing anomalies concerning the moon and I do believe they have seen what they said,it just can't be explained yet.Could it be possible that what you and other have seen is a hologram?I mean lets face it you live in the land of weird sightings,and if this technology exist to me it's a possibility grant it it's a far out theory but one I thought I would throw out there.

reply to post by TWILITE22

So you don't think it is ever normal to see the Moon tilted at Moon-set, when viewed from the mid-latitudes (such as in the OP's November 4th picture from Las Vegas)?

I think the Moon looks completely normal, and I'm not just basing that on my life-long observations, but rather I am basing that on the long-held scientific and textbook understanding of the relationship between the orbit of the Moon and a person observing the Moon on a tilted Earth.

I'm not saying it's normal to look tilted just because I see it looking tilted now. I say it could look tilted because the long-held scientific knowledge of the observation of moon phases from different parts of the Earth mathematically predicts that it could look tilted.

That's what science does. It makes predictions based on knowledge, and science predicts the Moon can look tilted at times from the mid-latitudes....

...In fact, science would have been able to predict this 50 years ago, 100 years ago, or even longer ago, based on the knowledge science had back then. 100 years ago, if you asked a scientist who understood how the phases of the moon would look at various locations on Earth, he would have the knowledge to predict that the setting Moon when viewed from the location of Las Vegas on November 4, 2011 would look like it does in the OP's picture.

reply to post by Uncinus


More on science and observation:


Throughout the history of science, observations have led scientists to draw inaccurate conclusions, leading them down the wrong paths over and over, until NEW observations caused them to change their thinking (generally, as technology improved and allowed them to make different types of observations).

For example:
*Before we knew about how diseases were spread, people thought you got malaria from swampy water. People had observed that when you went around this swampy water, you would often get sick.
*Everyone believed that the earth was flat because it appears to spread out around us.
*Once we realized the earth was round, all scientists believed that the heavens rotated around the earth. It appeared to do that, based upon their observations.
*Doctors believed the body needed to maintain balance of certain fluids (the 4 "humors), so, for example, they would use leeches to remove blood in order to cure someone. They had observed these 4 fluids being out of balance in the sick, so their conclusions made sense at the time.
*If you read any book about the solar system, check out how many moons, for example, the book says Jupiter has. Books with an older copyright date will show fewer moons. That is because not all had been observed by publication. Scientists are always revising the number upward.

How do scientists use observations?

Scientists' observations directly tell them how things work (i.e., knowledge is "read off" nature, not built). Because science relies on observation and because the process of science is unfamiliar to many, it may seem as though scientists build knowledge directly through observation. Observation is critical in science, but scientists often make inferences about what those observations mean. Observations are part of a complex process that involves coming up with ideas about how the natural world works and seeing if observations back those explanations up. Learning about the inner workings of the natural world is less like reading a book and more like writing a non-fiction book — trying out different ideas, rephrasing, running drafts by other people, and modifying text in order to present the clearest and most accurate explanations for what we observe in the natural world. To learn more about how scientific knowledge is built, visit our section How science works.

undsci.berkeley.edu...

reply to post by GeorgiaGirl


Right.

I can understand why ancient man thought the Sun revolved around the Earth. It's because when they observed it, it certainly looked like it did...

...although they were mistaken, and fooled by their observation.

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back ,we see your intelligence.I was proposing an alternative theory nothing more...I believe there is enough Einsteins in this thread.

Originally posted by TWILITE22
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

 

Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back ,we see your intelligence.I was proposing an alternative theory nothing more...I believe there is enough Einsteins in this thread.

I don't understand your response.

I asked you if you thought if it is ever normal to see the Moon tilted at Moon-set, when viewed from the mid-latitudes (such as in the OP's November 4th picture from Las Vegas)?

And then I went on to say what I understood about the way the Moon could appear, and also how science can predict the Moon's look based on long, long understood knowledge of the Moon.

Could you please clarify your response about "patting myself on the back" and the Einstein comment? I'm not trying to show you my intelligence -- I'm just trying to explain that the Moon hasn't changed that much in the hundreds and hundreds of years science has been observing it.

reply to post by TWILITE22


Don't you have to laugh. We have people in this thread using terms like "So what are non scientists bringing to the table" etc. I would like to see a show of hands of those people who "ARE SCIENTISTS" rather than those who try to act like scientists and act like experts on the subject of who is "Worthy" to make an observation.

So far afield and so self centered... You add the whole groups opnions up together and you don't have more to offer or conclude than one person, namely "Me". Like it or not , I have a right to my opinions and observations and all the complaining and agreeing amongst yourselves wont change it. As if they have the right not to mention the credentials to dictate who is allowed to see and say what.

Originally posted by CherubBaby
reply to post by TWILITE22

 

I would like to see a show of hands of those people who "ARE SCIENTISTS"

*Raises hand*

rather than those who try to act like scientists and act like experts on the subject of who is "Worthy" to make an observation.

There are people here who understand this subject very well, far better than you apparently do, and they have been trying to explain it to you. It's one thing to make an observation, it's another thing to understand it. No one is disputing that you made an observation, what we dispute is your lack of understanding. This lack of understanding is precisely why you do not understand and cannot explain my observations of the moon from a polar aligned perspective.

CherubBaby --

Let's start from the beginning so we all understand our positions...

1. What is the range of latitudes that you say it would be normal to see a perfectly horizontal Moon?

2. What times of the year do you say it is normal to see the perfectly horizontal Moon from those various latitude ranges?


p.s. I'm not a scientist, but I don't need to be to understand the various ways the Moon could look depending on the location of the observer and the tilt of the Earth.

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
CherubBaby --

Let's start from the beginning so we all understand our positions...

Oh sweet Jeebus, no. Please no.

2nd.