12 o'clock high

A long long long time ago I read a book called 'The Inner Game of Tennis.' The basic concept was the same as 'let go; let God' except that it had to do with the body. It was saying that our body knows exactly when and how to hit the ball for the desired result. It was saying that there is no thought process required and that the thought process actually gets in the way of this deadly accurate in-place system. It was saying that we already know how many feet or inches or whatever it is to the umpteenth fraction.

The past two nights I've been looking at the sky. I was looking at a couple of planets, Jupiter and Venus, setting, and the angle was very very steep. It was like they were setting off a cliff. I searched for the moon and finally found it directly overhead. As I was looking at it I thought something is very wrong. And then I realized that I had to crane my neck back all the way to see it and this doesn't happen on the 37th parallel.

Tonight it's just getting beyond the last phase of twilight, the 11th hour twilight, and the same thing is going on. The moon is headed for directly overhead and the planets are falling off a cliff to set.

Anybody else noticing this sort of stuff?

So are you saying that things in the sky don't seem to be where they should?

reply to post by mastersmurfie

Yes...Orion is too high. The first night I saw it (before it was too hazy to see) I thought the moon was going to wind up in Orion. But it turned out the moon and the planets were even higher - overhead in fact. It's not looking or feeling right to me.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by mastersmurfie

 

Yes...Orion is too high. The first night I saw it (before it was too hazy to see) I thought the moon was going to wind up in Orion. But it turned out the moon and the planets were even higher - overhead in fact. It's not looking or feeling right to me.

Good. Then it's not just me Up until a few nights ago, I could go out my back door, and look SSW and see Orion. The last couple of nights, I have been mixfused...because I couldn't find it right away. It has moved much further towards the west of me. I am almost smack dab in the middle of the US, by the way, if that makes any difference...

Now, maybe it's because I really haven't paid attention to the sky for the last few years...but I remember that Orion stayed "where it was" for seemingly a lot longer...

Tonight, Jupiter and Venus were almost in a straight perpendicular line with my horizon. I thought this was a little different, as I don't think they were like this last night...

I tend to look at them around 8ish Central Time, and look for Orion around 10ish...

I'm at the 36 parallel, and I can tell you that I've seen the moon almost directly overhead many, many, many times.

I even watched a lunar eclipse here in 1993 and it was directly over head.

I've been a amateur astronomer with my own telescopes for several decades now. I own several telescopes both old and new. The old ones require a polar alignment in order to "dial in" both Right Ascension and Declination to center on faint, deep space objects. The new scopes I have use a computerized "Go To" feature, however, even with the "Go To" feature, you still have to point at two different objects in the sky and tell the system what they are (I normally uses Polaris as one of these objects), and then the system can align itself.

The point I'm making is this: if our world were to be "off" on it's axis, then when I do these alignments, and then dial in the coordinates of a faint object, like say the Ringed Nebula, when I look in my telescope, it wouldn't be there. I would have to adjust the RA and Dec, and I, to this day do not have to do this. Everything is still in the correct place.

Better yet, another reason I do the polar alignments is so that I can track these objects to do astrophotography with my telescopes. If they did not align correctly, NONE of my shots would turn out, and would be smeared or streaked.

So I'm not sure what you think your eyes are telling you, however I can tell you that mine are showing the night sky, just as it has been for several decades now.

And yes, the moon can be almost over head where we are. I have spent many a night with my telescope pointed almost over head, but while the telescope LOOKS like it is, it's never directly at 90 for that.

In other words: craning your neck and looking up is not exactly a good way to measure something. No mater how well you might hit a baseball.

reply to post by eriktheawful

In other words: craning your neck and looking up is not exactly a good way to measure something. No mater how well you might hit a baseball.

So I'm not sure what you think your eyes are telling you, however I can tell you that mine are showing the night sky, just as it has been for several decades now.

It's about hitting a tennis ball, not a baseball although I think the same principle would apply. It's like the body knows exactly how to do it without thought. So using that system, craning your neck and then stopping to notice how far it's bent can be more accurate than the most precise instruments. So when I realized that things were wrong because I don't usually have to do that (crane my neck at that angle) - the moon and the stars that surround it are usually at a much easier angle in the sky - I stopped a moment just to try to pinpoint what was wrong.

An no the moon is not overhead here - not directly overhead like that - not 90 degrees. And since my semi-permanent home has been at 35-36-37-38 degrees north latitude for a number of years, I should know what it's supposed to look like. However, I wasn't using sight to judge this but rather the neck angle thing and what kind of an angle I had to make to see it. It was an angle that was totally unfamiliar given the circumstances.

The very steep angle that Jupiter and Venus made when setting was a sight thing. Also Orion being too high was a sight thing. The moon was a craning the neck thing.

Originally posted by eriktheawful
I've been a amateur astronomer with my own telescopes for several decades now. I own several telescopes both old and new. The old ones require a polar alignment in order to "dial in" both Right Ascension and Declination to center on faint, deep space objects. The new scopes I have use a computerized "Go To" feature, however, even with the "Go To" feature, you still have to point at two different objects in the sky and tell the system what they are (I normally uses Polaris as one of these objects), and then the system can align itself.

The point I'm making is this: if our world were to be "off" on it's axis, then when I do these alignments, and then dial in the coordinates of a faint object, like say the Ringed Nebula, when I look in my telescope, it wouldn't be there. I would have to adjust the RA and Dec, and I, to this day do not have to do this. Everything is still in the correct place.

Thank you for this. I have always wanted to learn about astronomy, just never got around to it...that being said, I personally didn't say anything about being "off of it's axis"...wasn't really thinking that...till now

So I'm not sure what you think your eyes are telling you, however I can tell you that mine are showing the night sky, just as it has been for several decades now.

My eyes seem to be telling me that things are progressing faster than they have before. Again, my eyes. I have thought this about the daytime sun position as well. Within the past couple of weeks, (I look at a tree where I work to see where the sun is...) it has gone from almost the middle top of the tree, to being well above the top of said tree. Again, this may be normal, and I just haven't paid attention til now...

reply to post by luxordelphi


Well I'm sorry that they look wrong to you, but my star charts and tables both books that were published years ago that take planetary positions up to the year 2035, are saying the same thing as my software on my computer, with the exact same RA and Dec coordinates.

And when I go outside to use my equipment, those coordinates work just fine. If they were off by even 1/4 of a degree, I (and hundreds of millions of other amateur astronomers) would have noticed this.

Things are moving, but not in an unusual way. For example, older telescopes for doing polar alignment, have a reticule in them that accounts for the Earth's natural polar progression. Polaris moving since the Earth's axis is wobbling. However, that movement is only seen when using an eye piece in a telescope, and takes several years to progress.

Orion is one of the most well known northern constellations in our night sky, and for the last twenty years for me, it appears in the same place, and then moves with the seasons (it's also considered a "winter" constellation). However, it's declination has not changed in those 20 years that I have been observing it. Betelgeuse is (Orion's arm pit) still located at RA 05h 55m 10.3 Dec +07° 24′ 25.4.

Has your landscape around you changed? Trees cut down? Buildings removed? Or the other way, trees bigger, new buildings in place, etc. If you horizon view has changed over the years, it could make it seem to your eyes that it seems higher in the sky than you remember.

Originally posted by eriktheawful
I'm at the 36 parallel, and I can tell you that I've seen the moon almost directly overhead many, many, many times.

I even watched a lunar eclipse here in 1993 and it was directly over head.

I've been a amateur astronomer with my own telescopes for several decades now. I own several telescopes both old and new. The old ones require a polar alignment in order to "dial in" both Right Ascension and Declination to center on faint, deep space objects. The new scopes I have use a computerized "Go To" feature, however, even with the "Go To" feature, you still have to point at two different objects in the sky and tell the system what they are (I normally uses Polaris as one of these objects), and then the system can align itself.

The point I'm making is this: if our world were to be "off" on it's axis, then when I do these alignments, and then dial in the coordinates of a faint object, like say the Ringed Nebula, when I look in my telescope, it wouldn't be there. I would have to adjust the RA and Dec, and I, to this day do not have to do this. Everything is still in the correct place.

Better yet, another reason I do the polar alignments is so that I can track these objects to do astrophotography with my telescopes. If they did not align correctly, NONE of my shots would turn out, and would be smeared or streaked.

So I'm not sure what you think your eyes are telling you, however I can tell you that mine are showing the night sky, just as it has been for several decades now.

And yes, the moon can be almost over head where we are. I have spent many a night with my telescope pointed almost over head, but while the telescope LOOKS like it is, it's never directly at 90 for that.

In other words: craning your neck and looking up is not exactly a good way to measure something. No mater how well you might hit a baseball.

edit on 31-3-2012 by eriktheawful because: spelling

oh really. Tell me then because i must be confused. When i was young the stars/planets out there, looked white. So tell me what is that big bright orange light in the sky and it is the only orange one out there,but don't believe me go look for yourself. In MN at about12 to 1 am , i look up in the sky and there it is, the only orange light in the sky.

Originally posted by mastersmurfie

Originally posted by eriktheawful
I've been a amateur astronomer with my own telescopes for several decades now. I own several telescopes both old and new. The old ones require a polar alignment in order to "dial in" both Right Ascension and Declination to center on faint, deep space objects. The new scopes I have use a computerized "Go To" feature, however, even with the "Go To" feature, you still have to point at two different objects in the sky and tell the system what they are (I normally uses Polaris as one of these objects), and then the system can align itself.

The point I'm making is this: if our world were to be "off" on it's axis, then when I do these alignments, and then dial in the coordinates of a faint object, like say the Ringed Nebula, when I look in my telescope, it wouldn't be there. I would have to adjust the RA and Dec, and I, to this day do not have to do this. Everything is still in the correct place.

Thank you for this. I have always wanted to learn about astronomy, just never got around to it...that being said, I personally didn't say anything about being "off of it's axis"...wasn't really thinking that...till now

So I'm not sure what you think your eyes are telling you, however I can tell you that mine are showing the night sky, just as it has been for several decades now.

My eyes seem to be telling me that things are progressing faster than they have before. Again, my eyes. I have thought this about the daytime sun position as well. Within the past couple of weeks, (I look at a tree where I work to see where the sun is...) it has gone from almost the middle top of the tree, to being well above the top of said tree. Again, this may be normal, and I just haven't paid attention til now...

Wanted to reply to this quickly before I head to bed (it's 1 am here).

You are using a tree for reference, and that's not too bad in the short term. In the long term however, just keep in mind this: trees grow. Heh.

There's a good reason that the ancients used huge rocks for their references to the stars in the night sky. They don't grow, get cut down, or blown over in a storm.

I had a friend using his house roof edge. He got very excited one night and dragged me over. When I looked, I had to admit something was wrong. After a few days of thinking about it, I went back to his house with a very large level.
Turns out his foundation had settled on one end. Not by much, but enough so that his reference was thrown off.

He ended up owing me a case of beer because of that.

Anyways, keep in mind that terrestrial reference are good, but they need to be static objects: rocks, towers, buildings (who's foundations have not settled, hehe), mountains.
Again, trees can work, but only for the short term since they grow. I've got oaks here where I live in the country that are huge now compared to what they looked like just 10 years ago.

Originally posted by cloaked4u

Originally posted by eriktheawful
I'm at the 36 parallel, and I can tell you that I've seen the moon almost directly overhead many, many, many times.

I even watched a lunar eclipse here in 1993 and it was directly over head.

I've been a amateur astronomer with my own telescopes for several decades now. I own several telescopes both old and new. The old ones require a polar alignment in order to "dial in" both Right Ascension and Declination to center on faint, deep space objects. The new scopes I have use a computerized "Go To" feature, however, even with the "Go To" feature, you still have to point at two different objects in the sky and tell the system what they are (I normally uses Polaris as one of these objects), and then the system can align itself.

The point I'm making is this: if our world were to be "off" on it's axis, then when I do these alignments, and then dial in the coordinates of a faint object, like say the Ringed Nebula, when I look in my telescope, it wouldn't be there. I would have to adjust the RA and Dec, and I, to this day do not have to do this. Everything is still in the correct place.

Better yet, another reason I do the polar alignments is so that I can track these objects to do astrophotography with my telescopes. If they did not align correctly, NONE of my shots would turn out, and would be smeared or streaked.

So I'm not sure what you think your eyes are telling you, however I can tell you that mine are showing the night sky, just as it has been for several decades now.

And yes, the moon can be almost over head where we are. I have spent many a night with my telescope pointed almost over head, but while the telescope LOOKS like it is, it's never directly at 90 for that.

In other words: craning your neck and looking up is not exactly a good way to measure something. No mater how well you might hit a baseball.

edit on 31-3-2012 by eriktheawful because: spelling

oh really. Tell me then because i must be confused. When i was young the stars/planets out there, looked white. So tell me what is that big bright orange light in the sky and it is the only orange one out there,but don't believe me go look for yourself. In MN at about12 to 1 am , i look up in the sky and there it is, the only orange light in the sky.

If you're talking about the nice bright orange, non-twinkling looking star, then I can tell you what it is:

Mars

If you have a telescope, go look at it. You'll even see it's polar caps. Pretty cool too.

reply to post by eriktheawful

If you horizon view has changed over the years, it could make it seem to your eyes that it seems higher in the sky than you remember.

What it is actually is that I have to have my neck at such an unnatural angle in order to see the moon. This is different from before. I'm sure you have many memories of watching the moon on a summer evening which it's basically been summer here - 86 degrees yesterday. And never having to bend your neck like that to see it. That's what's going on here.

The moon and the familiar stars used to make a lower, gentler arc across the sky. For this current situation you'd almost have to be a contortionist to sit and enjoy the moon. It's kind of bizarre.

reply to post by mastersmurfie


No it's not just you. I could go on and on about the "Problems in The Heavens" but not at this time. I will say this. It's hard to have an ongoing ( day to day ) perspective to allow comparison in a consistent way because the skies are constantly being sprayed with jet trails. It's no accident that this is going on either.

reply to post by eriktheawful


Hi . I was just curious about your comment on the 1993 eclipse

I'm at the 36 parallel, and I can tell you that I've seen the moon almost directly overhead many, many, many times.

I even watched a lunar eclipse here in 1993 and it was directly over head.

This eclipse in 1993 , are you referring to the eclipse around the time of "Hale-Bopp" ?

reply to post by luxordelphi

Just wanted to say thanks for the thread Luxor. You always put a great deal into your online communication. I'm surprised more people don't notice.

reply to post by eriktheawful


I agree My Ra and Dec have not changed a bit that I am aware of. I'm still tracking the same and have noticed no difference. Also as you said, many other amatuer astronomers like us would have noticed it. Exspecially you guys with the computerized rigs. I hope to get one soon but i wanted to learn the old fashioned way first.

Also OP, you must remember that the moon moves up and down on it's orbital plane as it orbits the planet. I can't think of the term off hand but it is the reason that there is not a lunar eclipse every month at the same time. I believe it works much in the same manner as how our solar system moves up and down or north and south along the galactic plane as our system orbits the Milky Way Galaxy. I will see if I can find a diagram to explain it better than my freakish mind can.

Ok here is a little Lunar Info and A diagram to help better understand the orbital carachteristics. I don't know if this will help. This may or may not explain it. Things haven't looked out of place to me here at the 42 parallell, but that doesn't nessasarily mean I'm right either. Anyway just some ideas that came to mind when I read your post.

en.wikipedia.org...

The properties of the orbit described in this section are approximations. The Moon's orbit around the Earth has many irregularities (perturbations), whose study (lunar theory) has a long history.[8]

[edit] Elliptic shape

The orbit of the Moon is distinctly elliptical with an average eccentricity of 0.0549. The non-circular form of the lunar orbit causes variations in the Moon's angular speed and apparent size as it moves towards and away from an observer on Earth. The mean angular daily movement relative to an imaginary observer at the barycentre is 13.176° to the east (Julian Day 2000.0 rate).

[edit] Line of apsides

The orientation of the orbit is not fixed in space, but precesses over time. The nearest and farthest points in the orbit are the perigee and apogee respectively. The line joining these two points (the line of apsides) rotates slowly in the same direction as the Moon itself (direct motion), making one complete revolution in 3232.6054 days or about 8.85 solar orbits.

[edit] Elongation

The Moon's elongation is its angular distance east of the Sun at any time. At new moon it is zero and the Moon is said to be in conjunction. At full moon the elongation is 180° and it is said to be in opposition. In both cases the Moon is in syzygy, that is, the Sun, Moon and Earth are nearly aligned. When elongation is either 90° or 270° the Moon is said to be in quadrature.

Originally posted by CherubBaby
reply to post by eriktheawful

 

Hi . I was just curious about your comment on the 1993 eclipse

I'm at the 36 parallel, and I can tell you that I've seen the moon almost directly overhead many, many, many times.

I even watched a lunar eclipse here in 1993 and it was directly over head.

This eclipse in 1993 , are you referring to the eclipse around the time of "Hale-Bopp" ?

No. Hale-Bopp was at it's closest to Earth in 1997.

I was talking about a simple Lunar Eclipse (where the moon moves directly into the Earth's shadow) back in 1992 or 1993 (sorry, can't remember the exact year, been too long).

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by eriktheawful

 

If you horizon view has changed over the years, it could make it seem to your eyes that it seems higher in the sky than you remember.

What it is actually is that I have to have my neck at such an unnatural angle in order to see the moon. This is different from before. I'm sure you have many memories of watching the moon on a summer evening which it's basically been summer here - 86 degrees yesterday. And never having to bend your neck like that to see it. That's what's going on here.

The moon and the familiar stars used to make a lower, gentler arc across the sky. For this current situation you'd almost have to be a contortionist to sit and enjoy the moon. It's kind of bizarre.

As pointed out by usmc0311, the moon moves in it's orbit, by a small amount. But that small amount is more than enough to make the moon seem to move a large difference to your eye. Take a look at this picture from the Wikipedia. It demonstrates the scale quite effectively:



Source

Our moon has a inclination of 18.29 to 28.58 degrees. That's almost 10 degrees.
For an object that is just over 1,500 miles wide, and at a quarter of a million miles away, 10 degrees of inclination can make the apparent view change quite a lot.

You can do the same thing at home using simple Trigonometry. Get a basket ball and hold it out about 3 feet from you. move it up 10 degrees.
The sine of 10 degrees is 0.1736. So 3 x 0.1736 = 0.5208, so the basket ball will seem to move about 6 inches up.

Now, change that distance to 50 feet. Move it up 10 degrees again:

50 x 0.1736 = 8.68

So now the basket ball has moved 8.68 feet at that distance showing us that the further the object is away from us the greater that 10 degrees of movement will appear.

reply to post by usmc0311

Also OP, you must remember that the moon moves up and down on it's orbital plane as it orbits the planet.

Actually this was not about whether or not the moon moves up and down or looks big or small. It was about 12 o'clock. I was out watching Jupiter and Venus getting ready to set near to the end of twilight. They were setting at a really steep angle. It was like they were coming straight down from a great height. It looked strange.

I looked around for the moon. It wasn't readily available. Then I looked straight up, at 12 o'clock, and there it was. It wasn't a pleasant angle for my neck. It wasn't the way I remember viewing the moon.