posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 10:34 AM
reply to post by ngchunter
Just to add some more fuel to the fire that the moon's where it should be to within the limit of the eye and telescopes, I'll repeat what I
previously posted about having measured the moon's position astrometrically. I took a frame of the moon from a video I recorded of it on October 2nd
right as I disengaged the drive system at 10:29:00 PM eastern time (00:58:03 on this recording: www.ustream.tv...
). I then
determined where the center of the moon should was based on the curvature of the moon's limb. In this particular image (having expanded the canvas
size to 1100x960) the center was at 528x500:
I then took the frame immediately after re-engaging the drive system at 10:38:45 eastern time and put it in the same position. Since 585 seconds had
passed between drive disengagement and drive re-engagement (meaning the telescope was not moving at all during this time), the stars should progress
through the field of view by 586.6 arcseconds (a sidereal day is shorter than a solar day, making a solar day about 1.0027 times longer). Given that
the moon's coordinates at drive disengagement should have been 17h 41m 53.91s, -23d 05' 33.1", the previously determined center point of the moon
should now correspond to the following coordinates:
17h 51m 40.51s -23d 05' 33.1"
Overlaying the Palomar Sky Survey image corresponding to those coordinates centered on the 528x500 point corresponding to the previous position of the
moon's center point finds a match with the stars from the video at the moment the drives were re-engaged 585 seconds after disengagement:
In other words, the stars that were present at that point reveal that the moon was right where it should have been relative to the stars.
Automated astrometry confirmed these measurements:
The coordinates for where the moon's center point had been in the image were 17h 51m 40s, -23d 05' 33" right where it should be:
The moon is exactly where it should be in the sky, to within the resolution of my scope, which was 2.21 arcseconds/pixel in the configuration used to
acquire these images. That's orders of magnitude greater than the resolution of the human eye, so it's right where it should be to within a
resolution far greater than what you can perceive.