Planet X: SLOWING Rotation 1
Nancy Lieder
wrote:
> josX writes:
>> Thought I might repost this, it shows the earth rotation
>> is /slowing/ now already !!!.
>
> Tidal interaction has been slowing the rotation of the Earth
> for billions of years. Not only is it an expected phenomenon,
> it is a measured one. The day in year 2000 is about 2
> milliseconds longer than the day was in year 1900.
Josh is right again, and David faithfully reporting the establishment
line, again.
The US Navy sets the clocks of the world, synching computers worldwide
in the wee hours of the mornings so that a gradual slowing is
disguised. All sing the same tune! But the Moon is not dialing up the
US Navy clock in the middle of the night, to sync, so it stands as a
TRUE indicator of the rate of slowing as we approach 2003. Per my 1991
book, The Solar System, a Practical Guide, "the time between successive
full moons, known as the synodic moon, is 29.53 days long". But per the
statistics reported by none other than the US Navy, this has MOVED from
29.53 days to become 29.53916 in 1999 to 29.55375 in 2000!
Must be those heavy tides, huh, Dave.
Full Moon, in UT, per Statistics as a link from
(http://aa.usno.navy.mil/AA/data/docs/RS_OneDay.html)
Jan 2, 1999 2:49 AM
Jan 31, 1999 4:06 PM (29 days 12 hr 55 min)
Mar 2, 1999 6:58 AM (29 days 14 hr 52 min)
Mar 31, 1999 10:49 PM (29 days 15 hr 51 min)
Apr 30, 1999 2:55 PM (29 days 14 hr 6 min)
May 30, 1999 6:40 AM (29 days 14 hr 45 min)
Jun 28, 1999 9:37 PM (29 days 14 hr 57 min)
Jul 28, 1999 11:25 AM (29 days 13 hr 48 min)
Aug 26, 1999 11:49 PM (29 days 12 hr 24 min)
Sep 25, 1999 10:51 AM (29 days 11 hr 3 min)
Oct 24, 1999 9:02 PM (29 days 10 hr 11 min)
Nov 23, 1999 7:04 AM (29 days 10 hr 2 min)
Dec 22, 1999 5:31 PM (29 days 10 hr 27 min)
1999 Average 29 days 12.94 hr/mo = 29.53916
Jan 21, 2000 4:40 AM (29 days 11 hr 9 min)
Feb 19, 2000 4:27 PM (29 days 11 hr 47 min)
Mar 20, 2000 4:41 AM (29 days 12 hr 14 min)
Apr 18, 2000 5:41 PM (29 days 13 hr 0 min)
May 18, 2000 7:34 AM (29 days 13 hr 53 min)
Jun 16, 2000 10:27 PM (29 days 14 hr 53 min)
Jul 16, 2000 1:55 PM (29 days 15 hr 28 min)
Aug 15, 2000 5:13 AM (29 days 15 hr 18 min)
Sep 13, 2000 7:37 PM (29 days 14 hr 24 min)
Oct 13, 2000 8:53 AM (29 days 13 hr 16 min)
Nov 11, 2000 9:15 PM (29 days 12 hr 22 min)
Dec 11, 2000 9:03 AM (29 days 11 hr 48 min)
2000 Average 29 days 13.29 hr/mo = 29.55375
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
First MI Last
A LUNAR-TIC!
Nancy Lieder <zeta...@zetatalk.com> wrote in message
news:3B182A2F...@zetatalk.com...
tho...@antispam.ham
>> josX writes:
>>> Thought I might repost this, it shows the earth rotation
>>> is /slowing/ now already !!!.
>> Tidal interaction has been slowing the rotation of the Earth
>> for billions of years. Not only is it an expected phenomenon,
>> it is a measured one. The day in year 2000 is about 2
>> milliseconds longer than the day was in year 1900.
> Josh is right again,
Why do you say "again"?
> and David faithfully reporting the establishment line, again.
On the contrary, I am reporting the truth, not some "establishnment
line".
> The US Navy sets the clocks of the world, synching computers worldwide
> in the wee hours of the mornings so that a gradual slowing is
> disguised.
Incorrect; indeed, news about the insertion of leap seconds is widely
disseminated, not disguised! They are published in IAU Circulars,
and the Astronomical Almanac, for example. And sometimes the media
will even make a story of it. I was interview by a local television
station some years ago when a leap second was scheduled to occur.
By the way, the decision of when to insert a leap second is made by
the International Earth Rotation Service, not the U.S. Navy.
> But the Moon is not dialing up the US Navy clock in the middle of the
> night, to sync,
Irrelevant, given that it doesn't need to.
> so it stands as a TRUE indicator of the rate of slowing as we approach
> 2003.
On the contrary, it's the rotation of the Earth that stands as a true
indicator of the rate of slowing.
> Per my 1991
> book, The Solar System, a Practical Guide, "the time between successive
> full moons, known as the synodic moon, is 29.53 days long". But per the
> statistics reported by none other than the US Navy, this has MOVED from
> 29.53 days to become 29.53916 in 1999 to 29.55375 in 2000!
The synodic month is not the rotation rate of the Earth. Furthermore,
the interval between successive full Moons is not a constant, because
the Moon's orbit is elliptical, and full Moon does not occur at the
same longitude each time.
> Must be those heavy tides, huh, Dave.
No, it must be the eccentricity of the Moon's orbit.
John Popelish
(snip)
Nancy, does it bother you that you are obsessing over annual average
period changes on the order of .015 day which equals about 1300
seconds but that you are getting this value by averaging 12 samples
that vary individually by as much as about 21,000 seconds (29 days 10
hr 2 min versus 29 days 15 hr 51 min) within the same year)?
Since the monthly variations you show are mostly the result of the non
circular orbit of the moon with a tiny (one might say, invisible in
this data over a 1 year time scale) tidal slowing, and the wave in the
data is not synchronized with the year that you are using for your
average, it is not surprising that when you average different
fractions of that wave, you get different results. This is sort of
like taking the average noon temperature of the air behind your house
for various 9 month periods, without being concerned with when in the
year the 9 month periods begin.
There may well be government conspiracies to mislead you about various
things, but this isn't one of them.
--
John Popelish
josX
In article <3B182A2F...@zetatalk.com>, Nancy Lieder wrote:
>In Article <43TR6.4321$Ke.8...@typhoon.hawaii.rr.com> David Tholen
>wrote:
>> josX writes:
>>> Thought I might repost this, it shows the earth rotation
>>> is /slowing/ now already !!!.
>>
>> Tidal interaction has been slowing the rotation of the Earth
>> for billions of years. Not only is it an expected phenomenon,
>> it is a measured one. The day in year 2000 is about 2
>> milliseconds longer than the day was in year 1900.
>
>Josh is right again, and David faithfully reporting the establishment
>line, again.
>
>The US Navy sets the clocks of the world, synching computers worldwide
>in the wee hours of the mornings so that a gradual slowing is
>disguised. All sing the same tune! But the Moon is not dialing up the
>US Navy clock in the middle of the night, to sync, so it stands as a
>TRUE indicator of the rate of slowing as we approach 2003. Per my 1991
>book, The Solar System, a Practical Guide, "the time between successive
>full moons, known as the synodic moon, is 29.53 days long". But per the
>statistics reported by none other than the US Navy, this has MOVED from
>29.53 days to become 29.53916 in 1999 to 29.55375 in 2000!
That is 34 minutes and 12 seconds slower rotation PER FULL MOON ???
hmmm, seems much: let's check...
>1999 Average 29 days 12.94 hr/mo = 29.53916
>2000 Average 29 days 13.29 hr/mo = 29.55375
29.53916 - 29.55375 = 0.02215 days, is 0.5315 hours, is 31 minutes 53.76 sec.
difference.
That is 1 minute 4 seconds per day over the moon-cycle. If this is
the moon slowing, I guess we have ourselves a moon-landing before we can
check on P-X flyby...!
It is ofcourse the average, but 13 mooncycles in a year makes a nice sample
nevertheless, and these numbers are pretty grave.
If it wasn't for the math, I had trouble believing my eyes ;-).
--
Nancy Lieder
wrote:
>> The US Navy sets the clocks of the world, synching
>> computers worldwide in the wee hours of the mornings
>> so that a gradual slowing is disguised.
>
> is widely disseminated, not disguised!
We’re not talking SECONDS here!
And a failure to insert leap seconds (which would call attention to the
slowing) would only result is a later dawn, the sun at high noon a bit
off center, a longer sunset - all hard for folks to notice as the Sun
does not wink on or off at a precise SECOND, dawn and sunset are
gradual.
In Article <9fachr$k5d$3...@news1.xs4all.nl> Josh wrote:
>> 1999 Average 29 days 12.94 hr/mo = 29.53916
>> 2000 Average 29 days 13.29 hr/mo = 29.55375
>
> 29.53916 - 29.55375 = 0.02215 days, is 0.5315 hours,
> is 31 minutes 53.76 sec. difference.
> That is 1 minute 4 seconds per day over the moon-cycle.
And add that to the prior year’s delay, and you get an HOUR of slowing.
Nancy Lieder
> Furthermore, the interval between successive full Moons
> is not a constant, because the Moon's orbit is elliptical,
> and full Moon does not occur at the same longitude each
> time.
I included the statistics from which I ran my numbers, and this shows
the “interval between successive full Moons” to be “not a constant”.
Didn’t you look at the table I included? The days between full moons
are consistently 29 days, but the hours range from 10 hours to 15 hours.
And the Navy statistics are gathered from a consistent latitude, UT, to
be as precise as possible I presume. If they keep the clocks, do you
think they’d be sloppy?
You’re not that dumb, Dave, to be missing the point. If the face of the
full moon is appearing to take longer and longer to arrive, it means one
of two things:
1. the Moon is slowing down in its rotation, to arrive LATER
2. the Earth is rotating under the Moon more slowly, so
arrives at the full moon viewing point LATER
Nancy Lieder
> is made by the International Earth Rotation Service, not
> the U.S. Navy.
The Navy seems to be very much in charge, and wanting to get rid of this
issue lately, too. This way, when the dawn starts coming later and
later, they can shoo people away from their door. Not my problem, etc.
Dear Colleague,
It has been proposed to change the definition of
Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) regarding the
insertion of leap-seconds, possibly even eliminating
their use. Leap seconds are introduced so as to keep
UTC synchronized (within 0.9s) to the time scale
determined from the Earth's rotation.
Should no new leap seconds be inserted, solar time
will diverge from atomic time at the rate of about
2 seconds every 3 years, and after about a century
|UT1-UTC| would exceed 1 minute. Although no
fundamental problems are anticipated, it is very
likely that Y2K-like problems may result in
software that assumes UT1=UTC, or |UT1-UTC|
some value, or whose input/output records use a
field size that can only accommodate |UT1-UTC|
values up to one second.
To gather information, an URSI Commission J
Working Group was formed, consisting of Don
Backer, Wim. N. Brouw, Barry Clark, Irwin
Shapiro, Ir. E. Van Lil, and myself.
We would like to ask you to consult with the
members of your institute who currently deal
with UT1-UTC, and give us a considered response
to the following two questions:
A. If the appropriate international bodies decide
to eliminate the insertion of new leap seconds,
would you foresee any practical problems for
your institution/instrument/observations?
B. Would you be in favor of such a proposal?
C. Is there anyone else you would recommend
we contact? (feel free to forward this eamil
directly)
I would appreciate your assistance, and a response
by January 15 [2,000] to d...@orion.usno.navy.mil.
I am attaching a list of institutions and persons
contacted, except for 931 institutions whose
emails were obtained from the AAS. I would like
to apologize to anyone contacted twice, but also
appreciate it if you would forward this email to
anyone we have missed. Also, if you are an
URSI Commission J national chair, we would
appreciate your forwarding this email to your
complete membership and in particular to the
directors of observatories.
Sincerely,
Demetrios Matsakis,
Director, Time Service Department,
U. S. Naval Observatory
Nov 16, 1999
Nancy Lieder
http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/MoonPhase.html
They also PROJECT when the full moon will appear up until 2005. Should
be interesting to see if this sticks, or comes late.
tho...@antispam.ham
>>> The US Navy sets the clocks of the world, synching
>>> computers worldwide in the wee hours of the mornings
>>> so that a gradual slowing is disguised.
>> Incorrect; indeed, news about the insertion of leap seconds
>> is widely disseminated, not disguised!
> We’re not talking SECONDS here!
Yes, we are.
> And a failure to insert leap seconds (which would call attention to the
> slowing)
Incorrect; most people wouldn't notice the difference of one minute
that has accumulated.
> would only result is a later dawn, the sun at high noon a bit
> off center, a longer sunset - all hard for folks to notice as the Sun
> does not wink on or off at a precise SECOND, dawn and sunset are
> gradual.
However, stars do transit at a precise second. That's how it's
measured.
> And add that to the prior year’s delay, and you get an HOUR of slowing.
Incorrect; go outside at midnight on December 21 of each of those years
and note the position of the constellation Orion. Such an amount of
slowing would be OBVIOUS to even you.
tho...@antispam.ham
>> The synodic month is not the rotation rate of the Earth.
>> Furthermore, the interval between successive full Moons
>> is not a constant, because the Moon's orbit is elliptical,
>> and full Moon does not occur at the same longitude each
>> time.
> I included the statistics from which I ran my numbers,
Thereby demonstrating your lack of understanding.
> and this shows the “interval between successive full Moons” to be
> “not a constant”.
So what? Nobody ever claimed that it was a constant. Nor should
it be.
> Didn’t you look at the table I included?
Yes, which is why I was able to diagnose your problem so easily.
> The days between full moons are consistently 29 days, but the
> hours range from 10 hours to 15 hours.
So what? It has nothing to do with the rotation of the Earth and
everything to do with the non-circular orbit of the Moon.
> And the Navy statistics are gathered from a consistent latitude, UT, to
> be as precise as possible I presume.
So what? The Navy's statistics weren't gathered from an observatory
on the Moon.
> If they keep the clocks, do you think they’d be sloppy?
They weren't.
> You’re not that dumb, Dave, to be missing the point.
But you are deumb enough to not understand the correct explanation.
> If the face of the full moon is appearing to take longer and longer
> to arrive,
It's not. Keep doing your experiment for year after year after
year after year, and you'll notice it getting shorter as often
as you notice it getting longer, assuming you do the math
correctly.
> it means one of two things:
> 1. the Moon is slowing down in its rotation, to arrive LATER
Incorrect.
> 2. the Earth is rotating under the Moon more slowly, so
> arrives at the full moon viewing point LATER
Also incorrect.
What it really means is:
3. Nancy Lieder doesn't understand celestial mechanics, particularly
Kepler's laws.
tho...@antispam.ham
>> By the way, the decision of when to insert a leap second
>> is made by the International Earth Rotation Service, not
>> the U.S. Navy.
> The Navy seems to be very much in charge,
What seems to you is irrelevant.
> and wanting to get rid of this issue lately, too.
The proposal isn't strictly from the U.S. Navy, but rather an
IAU Working Group.
Whether leap seconds are inserted or not won't change the fact
that the Earth's rotation is slowing down due to tidal effects.
It does affect how civil timekeeping is kept sychronized with
the celestial events on which it has been historically based.
tho...@antispam.ham
> Note: the Navy web page where I got my full moon statistics from it at
> http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/MoonPhase.html
So what?
> They also PROJECT when the full moon will appear up until 2005.
Well get out your calculator and do the experiment.
> Should be interesting to see if this sticks, or comes late.
Should be interesting to see your reaction to the evidence that you
are, once again, wrong.
Nancy Lieder
wrote:
> Nancy Lieder writes:
>> The US Navy sets the clocks of the world, synching
>> computers worldwide in the wee hours of the mornings
>>
>> would only result in a later dawn, the sun at high noon
>> a bit off center, a longer sunset - all hard for folks to
>> notice as the Sun does not wink on or off at a precise
>> SECOND, dawn and sunset are gradual.
>
> each of those years and note the position of the
> constellation Orion. Such an amount of slowing
> would be OBVIOUS to even you.
You gave me pause there for a moment, Dave, but I think the Zetas have a
proper response to this.
Oh, the populace could go out on December 21st and
find Orion in the proper position, this is not the issue.
The issue is that December 21st would have MOVED
to be LATER than if all the clocks were ticking along
as designed, 24 hours a day, and leap seconds only
inserted every few decades. Where the master clock is
in the hands of the US Navy, which has been in the
center of the secrecy over Planet X and related matters
for almost half a century, this is not a difficult feat.
ALL computers in the world, ultimately, sync with the
US Navy master clock, most by dialing in during the
night and adjusting. A second here, a second there,
and it is always assumed to be the peripheral computers
that are off, a bit, when an adjustment is made! Unless
an individual is astute, and notices the increased
adjustments required to their watches and clocks, they
assume THEY are the problem, not the master clocks
that run the world.
ZetaTalk
And a quote from an astute individual who DID notice :-)
When daylight savings time ended on the 26 Oct 97,
while changing my clocks, I suddenly realized, that
my digital clocks are now running about 1 minute
faster over a 6 month period of time as compared to
4-5 years ago. One of my watches I have had almost
10 years. For the first 5 years it was about 20 to 30
sec fast each six months now it’s 1 min 33 sec fast
over the last six months. But then my second watch
is showing the same extra additional approximately
1 min fast. I began to question could a battery operated
digital quartz watch run faster with time (which I
doubt), was this a battery worn out phonemena
(didn’t happen in the past years) or was I beginning
to measure the gradual slowing of the planet. I began
to think back for the last few years, - remembered
each year the majority of my clocks were running fast.
Ah, but the MOON, now there's a clock we can count on! Refuses to be
tweaked! Perhaps in NASA were to set little jets on its frontside, and
PUSH, it would slow down on command. That rebel Moon!
First MI Last
> in the hands of the US Navy, which has been in the
> center of the secrecy over Planet X and related matters
> for almost half a century, this is not a difficult feat.
The Naval observatory is charged, and has been, with the responsibility of
keeping accurate time records for the purpose of Naval Navigation. Yes.
For a ship to accurately know where it is (pre GPS) it has to know what time
it is, accurately.
>
> Unless
> an individual is astute, and notices the increased
> adjustments required to their watches and clocks, they
> assume THEY are the problem, not the master clocks
> that run the world.
> ZetaTalk
Zeta BS. To think that any production clock anywhere in the world is going
to keep time accurately enough is to believe in the tooth fairy.
>
> And a quote from an astute individual who DID notice :-)
>
> When daylight savings time ended on the 26 Oct 97,
> while changing my clocks, I suddenly realized, that
> my digital clocks are now running about 1 minute
> faster over a 6 month period of time as compared to
> 4-5 years ago.
Almost all digital clocks use the power grid for their frequency standard, a
few use crystals. The power grid is known for some small variation, which
motors and light bulbs could care less about. Individual crystals can vary
considerably, and still be within their frequency tolerance. Battery
operation is not an answer either, they can vary in output when first taken
out of the package. And again, with digital clocks, watches, etc., one is
speaking of consumer commodities, meaning accurate enough for daily life,
but far from lab standards. Any comparison is more BS.
> Ah, but the MOON, now there's a clock we can count on! Refuses to be
> tweaked! Perhaps in NASA were to set little jets on its frontside, and
> PUSH, it would slow down on command. That rebel Moon!
>
Suggest you get a book and do some reading, and I don't mean your "zeta
spew". You might find that the moon orbits something other than the earth
as it's primary. Like, maybe, the sun.
Bill Nelson
: ALL computers in the world, ultimately, sync with the
: US Navy master clock, most by dialing in during the
: night and adjusting. A second here, a second there,
: and it is always assumed to be the peripheral computers
: that are off, a bit, when an adjustment is made! Unless
: an individual is astute, and notices the increased
: adjustments required to their watches and clocks, they
: assume THEY are the problem, not the master clocks
: that run the world.
That is a pretty sweeping claim. Neither my computer here at
home, or my computer at work, has the capability of "dialing
in during the night and adjusting". Nor can they do so at
any other time.
By the way - ALL computer clocks will be somewhat inaccurate.
They are controlled by a crystal oscillator - which is not only
temperature sensitive, but the resonant frequency of the crystal
also will change over time. This change in resonant frequency
can be in either direction.
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
E. Robert Tisdale
George Dishman
news:3B19A739...@netwood.net...
Yet another stand-alone post with no attribution. Remember
a large part of the usenet community does _not_ use Netscrape.
Welcome to my personal blacklist.
Plonk!
--
Give me a small laser and I'll move the sun.
Weep not for those who were, rather for those who may never be.
Seti: 2.7!#@3.0*#
tho...@antispam.ham
>>> The US Navy sets the clocks of the world, synching
>>> computers worldwide in the wee hours of the mornings
>>> so that a gradual slowing is disguised. ...
>>>
>>> would only result in a later dawn, the sun at high noon
>>> a bit off center, a longer sunset - all hard for folks to
>>> notice as the Sun does not wink on or off at a precise
>>> SECOND, dawn and sunset are gradual.
>> Incorrect; go outside at midnight on December 21 of
>> each of those years and note the position of the
>> constellation Orion. Such an amount of slowing
>> would be OBVIOUS to even you.
> You gave me pause there for a moment, Dave, but I think the Zetas
> have a proper response to this.
What you think is irrelevant; the fact is that the response is not
"proper".
> Oh, the populace could go out on December 21st and
> find Orion in the proper position,
Hence the rotation of the Earth would not have noticeably
changed.
> this is not the issue.
On the contrary, the positions of the constellations in the sky
at any given date and time are dependent on the rotation of the
Earth. If you spin around in a room with one door and find that
you're directly facing that door every minute on the minute, and
then slowed down your rotation rate by 10 percent, then you would
no longer be directly facing that door every minute on the minute.
> The issue is that December 21st would have MOVED
> to be LATER than if all the clocks were ticking along
> as designed, 24 hours a day, and leap seconds only
> inserted every few decades.
Illogical; what days would fill the void created by the movement
of one day to a later time?
> Where the master clock is
> in the hands of the US Navy, which has been in the
> center of the secrecy over Planet X and related matters
> for almost half a century, this is not a difficult feat.
Incorrect; there are master clocks around the world in a variety
of countries. Furthermore, GPS broadcasts atomic time
continuously, and you can monitor it yourself with an
expensive GPS receiver. I suggest you buy one and keep your
eyes on the display for the next fifty years to watch out for
those leap seconds.
> ALL computers in the world, ultimately, sync with the
> US Navy master clock,
Incorrect; I have a couple of computers that do not.
> most by dialing in during the night and adjusting.
A couple of mine don't.
> A second here, a second there, and it is always assumed to be
> the peripheral computers that are off, a bit, when an
> adjustment is made!
Buy a GPS receiver and keep your eye on the display to discover
one of those allegedly secret adjustments.
> Unless an individual is astute, and notices the increased
> adjustments required to their watches and clocks, they
> assume THEY are the problem, not the master clocks that
> run the world.
I am quite astute, and my watch has not required any increased
adjustment.
> And a quote from an astute individual who DID notice :-)
Just because a clock has a digital display doesn't mean it
keeps time any more accurately.
> Ah, but the MOON, now there's a clock we can count on!
Sure, if you know how to use it right. Using the time of full
Moon is the wrong way, due to Kepler's second law. Have you
finished doing the calculations up to 2050 yet?
Nancy Lieder
the Navy database of dates/times for this or that, and something very
interesting has emerged! The Navy has, it appears, manipulated their
data in the area of Equinox and Full Moon. Bear with me, as I’ve got
the graphs that were produced from the data. The message from the
individual who gen’d these graphs is at the bottom of this post. If you
think the Navy is precise, this guy is Mister Precision (he is the same
individual who noted that his watches and clocks were running fasters by
a minute and some seconds per year recently, and who the heck notices
that!). http://www.zetatalk.com/usenet/use00840.htm
1. It seems the days/hours between Full Moons not only moves
about within a year (I noticed a long swing between 10 and
15 hours within a year) but over years also. This is related
to a longer or shorter perihelion for the Earth, I gather.
Please note on the PERIHELION CHART
http://www.zetatalk.com/theword/tword17y.gif
that there are regular peaks of long perihelion years in 1994,
1997, 2000. Thus, the increase in time between full moons
I noted from 1998 to 2000 was just the normal variable.
Stay tuned ...
2. If the days between perihelion are longer, then it would stand
that equinox and full moon days for the year would likewise
be longer. How do you have a longer perihelion year but the
days between equinox or full moon over that year get shorter?
But please note the EQUINOX CHART goes bloopy around
the 1994 time frame. Why?
http://www.zetatalk.com/theword/tword17z.gif
3. Now the full moon days likewise should grow longer and
shorter along with the perihelion days for the year, but this
likewise goes bloopy not only around 1994 but 1997, big time!
Why?
http://www.zetatalk.com/theword/tword17x.htm
Below, the quoted message:
Well I have good news and bad news.
The good news is I was able to verify Nancy's numbers for the
average, 1999, and 2000. I got real close to the same thing at
least the same first 4 significant figures.
I used the data at site:
http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/MoonPhase.html
and put the full moon date and time in a spread sheet for the
years from 1990 to 2001. I used the first full moon of each
year and counted up the number of full moons during the
year. Subtracted the Jan current year from Jan full moon
date-time next year to get number of days-fractions then
divided by number of full moons for the year to get
an average. The calculations took into to account leap
years by adding an extra day as needed.
The bad news is I don't see the same slowing down trend
when taking into account all the years 1990 to 2001. In
fact the trend is a bit toward shorter time. See the
following chart:
[http://www.zetatalk.com/theword/tword17x.gif]
I then thought about finding some data on the earths
rotation around the sun and plotting it to see if it would
show the same result. I found the data at site:
http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/EarthSeasons.html
This time I plotted the time between Perihelion date and
time each year in chart:
[http://www.zetatalk.com/theword/tword17y.gif]
and then plotted the time between Equinoxes of each
year see chart:
[http://www.zetatalk.com/theword/tword17z.gif]
Bottom Line: Nothing is showing anything very definite
as far as I can tell.
One thing I don't know is - How often is the date on
the aa.usno.navy.mil site in these tables updated to reflect
actual measurements (if it ever really is) rather than
predictions.
Nancy Lieder
someone in the Navy, at least that’s what he claimed.
(http://www.zetatalk.com/theword/tword17n.htm) He was implying that the
Navy statistics were OUT OF SYNC with the actual full moon face. Am I
understanding correctly that 98% Gibbous means 98% full? He is saying
that the Navy statistics give a nice proper day/time period between full
moons, 29.5 days apx between a full moon on Jan 1, 1999 PM to Jan 31,
1999 AM.
But then on Feb 28th there is a full moon! ONLY 28 DAYS AT MAX.
A short month? The statistics from the Navy data base show that the
full moons range between 29.50 and 29.55 or so, NOT 28 days to the AM of
Feb 28th, or 28.5 days to the PM of Feb 28th, or 28.75 to midnight of
the 28th (Frank did not indicate the time of the 98% Gibbous moon).
U.S. Naval Observatory
Astronomical Applications Department
Sun and Moon Data for One Day
The following information is provided for Las Vegas, Clark
County, Nevada
(longitude W115.2, latitude N36.2)
Friday
1 January 1999 Pacific Standard Time
SUN
Begin civil twilight 6:23 a.m.
Sunrise 6:52 a.m.
Sun transit 11:44 a.m.
Sunset 4:37 p.m.
End civil twilight 5:05 p.m.
MOON
Moonrise 3:41 p.m. on preceding day
Moonset 6:12 a.m.
Moonrise 4:39 p.m.
Moon transit 11:55 p.m.
Moonset 7:11 a.m. on following day
Full Moon on 1 January 1999 at 6:51 p.m. Pacific Standard Time.
U.S. Naval Observatory
Astronomical Applications Department
Sun and Moon Data for One Day
The following information is provided for Las Vegas, Clark
County, Nevada
(longitude W115.2, latitude N36.2):
Sunday
31 January 1999 Pacific Standard Time
SUN
Begin civil twilight 6:16 a.m.
Sunrise 6:43 a.m.
Sun transit 11:54 a.m.
Sunset 5:06 p.m.
End civil twilight 5:33 p.m.
MOON
Moonrise 4:25 p.m. on preceding day
Moonset 6:39 a.m.
Moonrise 5:27 p.m.
Moon transit 12:28 a.m. on following day
Moonset 7:22 a.m. on following day
Full Moon on 31 January 1999 at 8:08 a.m. Pacific Standard Time.
U.S. Naval Observatory
Astronomical Applications Department
Sun and Moon Data for One Day
The following information is provided for Las Vegas, Clark
County, Nevada
(longitude W115.2, latitude N36.2):
Sunday
28 February 1999 Pacific Standard Time
SUN
Begin civil twilight 5:47 a.m.
Sunrise 6:13 a.m.
Sun transit 11:53 a.m.
Sunset 5:34 p.m.
End civil twilight 6:00 p.m.
MOON
Moonrise 3:14 p.m. on preceding day
Moonset 5:17 a.m.
Moonrise 4:15 p.m.
Moon transit 11:09 p.m.
Moonset 5:56 a.m. on following day
Phase of the Moon on 28 February: waxing gibbous with 98%
of the Moon's visible disk illuminated. Not sure where this
info may be applied but trust your judgement.
Thanks, Frank
Courtesy, U.S. Naval Observatory
http://aa.usno.navy.mil/AA/data/docs/RS_OneDay.html
Nancy Lieder
tell us what time it is! If one goes to their web site
(http://tycho.usno.navy.mil) one can get the exact moment displayed,
according to time zone, and instructions on how to network servers can
dial in daily to sync up with the Navy clocks. So theoretically, if the
earth were slowing in rotation due to increased core swirling as Planet
X approaches, and this did NOT change perihelion (based on orbit time)
but DID change equinox and full moon time (based on rotation time), what
changes in the info they give out would need to be made, to disguise
this?
1. leaps seconds would be inserted into daily time syncing,
so the worlds network computers all gave the same message.
Humm .. must be my darn watch again!
2. as the slowing Earth takes more hours to position to face a
full moon, the database will get out of sync with what the
public is observing unless hours are added to the data.
Since the public is more likely to look to the FUTURE
for information, and scrutiny going into 2003 could be
anticipated, these changes were done early so to avoid
scrutiny of the manipulation. Thus the Equinox and Full
Moon Navy stats being out of sync with the Perihelion
Navy stats (my other post).
Humm .. the orbit takes longer but the seasons and
months are shorter.
In Article <thj4j9p...@corp.supernews.com> First MI Last wrote:
> The Naval observatory is charged, and has been, with the
> responsibility of keeping accurate time records for the
> purpose of Naval Navigation. Yes. For a ship to
> accurately know where it is (pre GPS) it has to know
> what time it is, accurately.
In Article <thj4j9p...@corp.supernews.com> First MI Last wrote:
> Almost all digital clocks use the power grid for their
> frequency standard, a few use crystals. The power grid
> is known for some small variation, which motors and
> light bulbs could care less about. Individual crystals
> can vary considerably, and still be within their
> frequency tolerance. Battery operation is not an answer
> either, they can vary in output when first taken out
> of the package. And again, with digital clocks,
> watches, etc., one is speaking of consumer
> commodities, meaning accurate enough for daily
> life, but far from lab standards.
In Article <9fcao5$s5m$3...@bashir.peak.org> Bill Nelson wrote:
> ALL computer clocks will be somewhat inaccurate.
> They are controlled by a crystal oscillator - which is
> not only temperature sensitive, but the resonant
> frequency of the crystal also will change over time.
> This change in resonant frequency can be in either
> direction.
tho...@antispam.ham
> So, due to the (relative) imprecision of clocks, we all rely on the Navy
> tell us what time it is!
Incorrect; if you had bothered to comprehend what I had already told
you, there are atomic clock in many different countries, all of which
can provide the time, therefore we need not rely on any one organization.
tho...@antispam.ham
> He is saying that the Navy statistics give a nice proper day/time
> period between full moons, 29.5 days apx between a full moon on
> Jan 1, 1999 PM to Jan 31, 1999 AM.
>
> But then on Feb 28th there is a full moon!
Incorrect; can't you read what it says? It specifically states
"waxing gibbous", not "full". In reality, full Moon was on March 2 UT
(March 1 PST).
> ONLY 28 DAYS AT MAX.
Incorrect; every four years February has 29 days.
> A short month?
No; a problem with your reading comprehension.
> The statistics from the Navy data base show that the
> full moons range between 29.50 and 29.55 or so, NOT 28 days to the AM of
> Feb 28th, or 28.5 days to the PM of Feb 28th, or 28.75 to midnight of
> the 28th (Frank did not indicate the time of the 98% Gibbous moon).
Irrelevant, given that you're looking for the time of full Moon.
> Full Moon on 31 January 1999 at 8:08 a.m. Pacific Standard Time.
> Phase of the Moon on 28 February: waxing gibbous with 98%
tho...@antispam.ham
> 1. It seems the days/hours between Full Moons not only moves
> about within a year (I noticed a long swing between 10 and
> 15 hours within a year) but over years also. This is related
> to a longer or shorter perihelion for the Earth, I gather.
If you knew anything about celestial mechanics, this wouldn't seem
so mysterious. The time of full Moon depends on when the Sun, Earth,
and Moon all line up. Due to Kepler's second law, both the Earth
and the Moon will speed up and slow down during various part of
their orbits because their orbits are not circular. Thus the times
between full Moons will vary depending on time of sidereal year (due
to the Earth) and on time of sidereal month (due to the Moon).
Bennett Standeven
You're blacklisting everyone? I suppose that saves a lot of time...
Bill Nelson
: full moon, the database will get out of sync with what the
: public is observing unless hours are added to the data.
: Since the public is more likely to look to the FUTURE
: for information, and scrutiny going into 2003 could be
: anticipated, these changes were done early so to avoid
: scrutiny of the manipulation. Thus the Equinox and Full
: Moon Navy stats being out of sync with the Perihelion
: Navy stats (my other post).
: Humm .. the orbit takes longer but the seasons and
: months are shorter.
Won't work, Nancy. I just bought a calendar this year. It covers
a two year period. All the full moons for 2001-2002 are printed
on the calendar.
There are other sources that list the full moons for years in
advance. There are also sources that list the solar eclipses
(new moons obviously) for at least 10 years into the future, and
show the ground tracks that the eclipses will cover.
If anything at all happened to cause the Earth's rotation rate to
slow down, these predictions would be wrong. There would also not
be any way to hide such a change.
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
Nancy Lieder
> In sci.astro Nancy Lieder <zeta...@zetatalk.com> wrote:
>> 2. as the slowing Earth takes more hours to position to
>> face a full moon, the database will get out of sync with
>> what the public is observing unless hours are added to
>> the data. Since the public is more likely to look to the
>> FUTURE for information, and scrutiny going into
>> 2003 could be anticipated, these changes were done
>> early so to avoid scrutiny of the manipulation.
>
> covers a two year period. All the full moons for
> 2001-2002 are printed on the calendar.
>
> There are other sources that list the full moons for years
> in advance. There are also sources that list the solar
> eclipses (new moons obviously) for at least 10 years into
> the future, and show the ground tracks that the eclipses
> will cover.
Boy, you've got a very valid point, Bill. I'm wondering why that Navy
guy called our attention to the fact that the Navy stats were out of
sync with the actual full moon, and why the Full Moon and Equinox graphs
were so out of sync with the Perihelion graph, all based on these same
Navy stats. Going to ask the Zetas, as they are pressing to address
this issue.
Indeed, it is the existence of these very publications,
which likewise rely on the Navy (the offical time-keeper
of the world in practice) that forced the Navy to make
early adjustments for the lagging rotation of the Earth.
When Planet X was located in 1983 by the IRAS team,
various scenarios were played out in think-tanks,
covering a multitude of aspects. As the time-keepers
of the world, the Navy had already noticed a slowing
rotation, so slight as to pass notice by the general public.
Tasked with keeping the public unaware of the approach
of Planet X for as long as possible, the Navy determined:
1. to inject leap-seconds surreptitiously via its master
clock. Since the Internet and networking computer
systems synchronize with this master clock, most
often on an automated basis, daily, these adjustments
would be slight and pass notice.
2. to defer scrutiny of this activity by setting aside the
OFFICIAL leap-second insertion practice. This
deferral was requested by the Navy but did not get
broad support from its member community.
3. to adjust predicted dates and times for the Moon and
related Eclipses FORWARD so that by the time alarm
over the potential of a Planet X approach was under
discussion around the world, the relationship of the
Moon to the Earth would seem to dispel the notion
that the Earth was slowing.
Thus, they changed their predicted data to ASSUME a
slowing Earth, and hoped their calculations on the rate
of slowing were correct. Of key importance were
publications that put out 5 year or 1 year forward stats
on phases of the moon and eclipses. These publications
plan their printed matter at least a full year ahead,
updating with the very latest data from the Navy
projections during that year. Thus, when anticipating the
worst of the slowing to occur in 2002, and assuming a 5
year forward publication to be the most broadly accessed
after a yearly calendar, and adding that extra year for
publication preparation, and considering that 5 year
forward publications for 2002 would start at the first of
the year, they calculated that changes to their stats needed
to be done BY THE END OF 1994. These manipulations
did two very obvious things to their stats:
1. the actual phases of the Moon were out of sync with
their stats during 1995 and for the immediate years
following. However, since the public in general refers
to printed matter that had been printed much earlier,
and was based on Navy stats gathered prior to the
manipulation, this would likely not be noticed by the public.
2. the Navy stats related to the rotation of the Earth (the
phases of the Moon and Earth Seasons), would be out
of sync with past data, should someone run these
numbers.
And someone DID!
ZetaTalk
Nancy Lieder
wrote:
> Nancy Lieder writes:
>> 1. It seems the days/hours between Full Moons not only moves
>> about within a year (I noticed a long swing between 10 and
>> 15 hours within a year) but over years also. This is related
>> to a longer or shorter perihelion for the Earth, I gather.
>
> and Moon all line up. Due to Kepler's second law, both the
> Earth and the Moon will speed up and slow down during various
> part of their orbits because their orbits are not circular. Thus the
> year (due to the Earth) and on time of sidereal month (due to the
> Moon).
Yes, and if the orbit were LONGER (days from one perihelion to another)
during that year, then the sum of the days between full moons or
equinoxes would likewise be LONGER, right? I'm picturing a couple,
twirling on the dance floor. If they are moving down the dance floor
away from me, it will take longer for the woman's face to appear full as
they are covering more distance while moving away. But if they are
twirling toward and past me, then her face would appear full at a
relatively faster rate. Is this correct? The full moon would take
LONGER during that part of the orbit when the Earth is pulling away from
the Sun in it's not-quite-circular orbit, right?
Nancy Lieder
wrote:
> Nancy Lieder writes:
>> He is saying that the Navy statistics give a nice proper
>> day/time period between full moons, 29.5 days apx
>> between a full moon on Jan 1, 1999 PM to
>> Jan 31, 1999 AM.
>>
>> But then on Feb 28th there is a full moon!
>
> Incorrect; can't you read what it says? It specifically
> states "waxing gibbous", not "full". In reality, full
> Moon was on March 2 UT (March 1 PST).
Gibbous, per Webster, is "of the moon or a planet: seen with more than
half but not all of the apparent disk illuminated". So 98% Gibbous is
essentially a full moon. This man is saying that the full moon is
coming EARLY here, not according to the Navy stats, so that something is
wrong with the stats.
In Article <7dwS6.4837$Ke.8...@typhoon.hawaii.rr.com> David Tholen
wrote:
>> ONLY 28 DAYS AT MAX. ...
>> A short month?
>
> Incorrect; every four years February has 29 days. ...
> a problem with your reading comprehension
You must have been scratching your nose there, Dave, and not paying
attention. My reference to 28 DAYS AT MAX is that is this man's
statement about "98% waxing gibbous" could not be more than 28 days, not
29, certainly not the 29.53 that is the average spread between full
moons.
Bob May
books (or even on the web) rather than wonder like an idiot. The
explaination is simple and if you look at multiyear times you will see why
those times are so apparently variable.
--
Bob May
Remember that computers do exactly what you tell them to do, not what you
think you told them to do.
tho...@antispam.ham
>>> 1. It seems the days/hours between Full Moons not only moves
>>> about within a year (I noticed a long swing between 10 and
>>> 15 hours within a year) but over years also. This is related
>>> to a longer or shorter perihelion for the Earth, I gather.
>> The time of full Moon depends on when the Sun, Earth,
>> and Moon all line up. Due to Kepler's second law, both the
>> Earth and the Moon will speed up and slow down during various
>> part of their orbits because their orbits are not circular. Thus the
>> times between full Moons will vary depending on time of sidereal
>> year (due to the Earth) and on time of sidereal month (due to the
>> Moon).
> Yes, and if the orbit were LONGER (days from one perihelion to another)
> during that year, then the sum of the days between full moons or
> equinoxes would likewise be LONGER, right?
Unfortunately for your argument, the interval gets longer, then shorter,
then longer, then shorter. Have you finished your homework assignment
to extend your table to 2050?
tho...@antispam.ham
>>> He is saying that the Navy statistics give a nice proper
>>> day/time period between full moons, 29.5 days apx
>>> between a full moon on Jan 1, 1999 PM to
>>> Jan 31, 1999 AM.
>>>
>>> But then on Feb 28th there is a full moon!
>> Incorrect; can't you read what it says? It specifically
>> states "waxing gibbous", not "full". In reality, full
>> Moon was on March 2 UT (March 1 PST).
> Gibbous, per Webster, is "of the moon or a planet: seen with more than
> half but not all of the apparent disk illuminated".
Note: "not all", meaning "not full".
> So 98% Gibbous is essentially a full moon.
The issue is when full Moon occurred. You cannot measure the interval
between full Moons by using 99.9 percent for one and 98 percent for
the next. You will get inconsistent results that way.
> This man is saying that the full moon is coming EARLY here,
Incorrect; you are saying that. You could have just as easily said
it came late, by using the 98 percent illumination that occurred on
March 3. Remember, according to you, 98 percent is "essentially"
full.
> not according to the Navy stats, so that something is
> wrong with the stats.
On the contrary, there's nothing wrong with the stats. What is wrong
is your interpretation of them.
>>> ONLY 28 DAYS AT MAX. ...
>>> A short month?
>> Incorrect; every four years February has 29 days. ...
>> a problem with your reading comprehension
> You must have been scratching your nose there, Dave,
Also incorrect.
> and not paying attention.
On the contrary, I was paying particular attention to your "MAX".
> My reference to 28 DAYS AT MAX is that is this man's statement
> about "98% waxing gibbous" could not be more than 28 days, not
> 29, certainly not the 29.53 that is the average spread between full
> moons.
Unfortunately for your argument, you're not dealing with the spread
between full Moons. You're looking at one full Moon and a 98 percent
Moon.
tho...@antispam.ham
> Bill Nelson wrote:
>> Nancy Lieder wrote:
>>> 2. as the slowing Earth takes more hours to position to
>>> face a full moon, the database will get out of sync with
>>> what the public is observing unless hours are added to
>>> the data. Since the public is more likely to look to the
>>> FUTURE for information, and scrutiny going into
>>> 2003 could be anticipated, these changes were done
>>> early so to avoid scrutiny of the manipulation.
>> Won't work, Nancy. I just bought a calendar this year. It
>> covers a two year period. All the full moons for
>> 2001-2002 are printed on the calendar.
>>
>> There are other sources that list the full moons for years
>> in advance. There are also sources that list the solar
>> eclipses (new moons obviously) for at least 10 years into
>> the future, and show the ground tracks that the eclipses
>> will cover.
> Boy, you've got a very valid point, Bill. I'm wondering why that Navy
> guy called our attention to the fact that the Navy stats were out of
> sync with the actual full moon, and why the Full Moon and Equinox graphs
> were so out of sync with the Perihelion graph, all based on these same
> Navy stats.
The stats are not out of sync. The problem is your interpretation.
Bill Nelson
:> There are other sources that list the full moons for years
:> in advance. There are also sources that list the solar
:> eclipses (new moons obviously) for at least 10 years into
:> the future, and show the ground tracks that the eclipses
:> will cover.
: Boy, you've got a very valid point, Bill. I'm wondering why that Navy
: guy called our attention to the fact that the Navy stats were out of
: sync with the actual full moon, and why the Full Moon and Equinox graphs
: were so out of sync with the Perihelion graph, all based on these same
: Navy stats. Going to ask the Zetas, as they are pressing to address
: this issue.
Where did a Navy authority make such a statement. If you posted it, then
I missed it.
For the reasons already given, it would be silly to expect all full
moons, equinoxes etc to appear exactly the same number of seconds apart
each time. Over a long period, meaning at least decades, the average
times between events will approach an average. Over centuries, this
average will become quite good.
In other words, look at the real time between full moons over the period
of a year, and they will vary around the average for that period quite a
bit. Look at the averages for each of two years, and the averages will
be closer than the individual monthly variabilities. Look at the averages
over each of two decades, and the two averages will be much closer. If
you look at the averages over two centuries - the two averages will be
almost identical.
Add in the average rate of slowing of the Earth's rotation, and the
averages will match almost exactly.
... some silly comments deleted ...
: 3. to adjust predicted dates and times for the Moon and
: related Eclipses FORWARD so that by the time alarm
: over the potential of a Planet X approach was under
: discussion around the world, the relationship of the
: Moon to the Earth would seem to dispel the notion
: that the Earth was slowing.
There are many publications from at least 40 years ago, that predicted
the solar eclipses through the year 2100. As far as I know, the predicted
times have not changed more than a few seconds since then.
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
Nancy Lieder
> There are many publications from at least 40 years
> ago, that predicted the solar eclipses through the year
> 2100. As far as I know, the predicted times have not
> changed more than a few seconds since then.
Oh? But the Navy recently changed how the Equinox date in computed in
their Almanac.
(http://aa.usno.navy.mil/publications/docs/almanacs.html#astalm).
The Formula for computing the Equinox changed, which formula is
dependent upon the "ascending node of the Moon"
(http://aa.usno.navy.mil/publications/docs/update.asa01.html
Astronomical Almanac 2001
Updates and Corrections.
TIME SCALES AND COORDINATE SYSTEMS,
Section B
Page B6, The equation of the equinoxes and the
paragraph following should read:
equation of equinoxes = 1/15(Dy cose + 0."002
64 sin W + 0."000
063
sin 2W)
where Dy is the total nutation in longitude,
e is the mean obliquity of the ecliptic and
W is the mean longitude of the ascending node of the
Moon. The equation of the equinoxes is tabulated
on pages B8-B15 at 0hUT for each day and
should be interpolated to the required time if full
precision is required.
Note that Dy and e and W are shown as symbols on the web page.
Nancy Lieder
>> Boy, you've got a very valid point, Bill. I'm wondering why
>> that Navy guy called our attention to the fact that the Navy
>> stats were out of sync with the actual full moon
>
> posted it, then I missed it.
Article <3B1A6125...@zetatalk.com> posted last Sunday. You can
find this on my web site at
http://www.zetatalk.com/usenet/use00844.htm. Frank signs his name,
saying
Courtesy, U.S. Naval Observatory
http://aa.usno.navy.mil/AA/data/docs/RS_OneDay.html
But this could also be taken as saying he got the data from the Navy
site, not that he works for the US Naval Observatory. He's stating that
where there was a full moon on January 31, 8:08 AM, it appeared 98%
Gibbous on February 28th, at most 28.75 days past the last full moon,
with an average between full moons no less than 29.5+ He's saying he
"observed" it to be EARLY, a heads up to something fishy going on, etc.
Nancy Lieder
> In sci.astro Nancy Lieder <zeta...@zetatalk.com> wrote:
>> related Eclipses FORWARD so that by the time alarm
>> over the potential of a Planet X approach was under
>> discussion around the world, the relationship of the
>> Moon to the Earth would seem to dispel the notion
>> that the Earth was slowing.
A member of our Troubled Times group has gone back a bit futher into the
Navy database
(http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/MoonPhase.html)
as a basis of comparison to the data for 1990-2000, going back this time
to 1980.
When he charted the Perihelion date <= PERIHELION
(http://www.zetatalk.com/theword/tword17y.gif)
we saw a regular peak in 2000, 1997, 1994 for long perihelion years, and
this looks like a very regular wave. So these long perihelion years
are:
2000, 1997, 1994, 1991, 1988, 1985, 1982, etc.
The long perihelion years shows up on the full moon graph
for the past two decades too <= FULL MOON 2 DECADES
(http://www.zetatalk.com/usenet/use00850.gif)
2000 1991-2 1983
with about an 8.5 year cycle from peak to low. In 1980, the control
decade in this discussion, it dips down and then up in a fairly regular
manner during this 8.5 year period. But in the decade of change, 1990
to 2000, it goes bloopy, taking a second dip, for a second year of short
or EARLY full moons in year 1997, for instance.
Note the charts for the
decade of the 1990s <= FULL MOON 90’s DECADE
(http://www.zetatalk.com/theword/tword17x.gif)
show a dramatic short full moon month trend, the full moon coming
EARLY. But in the chart for two decades it shows this same trend but
less so as it is absorbing the trend from the 1990’s. My guess is that
the 1980’s alone would have no such short month trend.
This puts the analysis of the Navy data, above, in sync with
what Frank stated, <= FRANK’S STATEMENT
(http://www.zetatalk.com/usenet/use00844.htm)
that the stats had been manipulated so that the full moon was coming
EARLY, per the stats, so the fact that it was coming LATER as we
approached 2003 would not be so noticeable!
tho...@antispam.ham
> But the Navy recently changed how the Equinox date in computed in
> their Almanac.
And do you know how much a change they made?
tho...@antispam.ham
> He's stating that where there was a full moon on January 31, 8:08 AM,
> it appeared 98% Gibbous on February 28th, at most 28.75 days past the
> last full moon, with an average between full moons no less than 29.5+
A 98 percent gibbous Moon is not a full Moon.
tho...@antispam.ham
> A member of our Troubled Times group has gone back a bit futher into the
> Navy database
> (http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/MoonPhase.html)
> as a basis of comparison to the data for 1990-2000, going back this time
> to 1980.
It's truly amazing that you would know about and use this database, and
yet ignore what it's telling you. For example, you called a 98 percent
gibbous Moon "essentially full" to try and show "28 days MAX" since the
1999 January 31 full Moon. Yet here's an excerpt from that table:
NEW MOON FIRST QUARTER FULL MOON LAST QUARTER
d h m d h m d h m d h m
JAN. 17 15 46 JAN. 24 19 15 JAN. 31 16 06 FEB. 8 11 58
FEB. 16 06 39 FEB. 23 02 43 MAR. 2 06 58 MAR. 10 08 40
Note how it confirms the January 31 full Moon, but also notes that
the following full Moon was on March 2, which agrees with what I
said previously. Thus your 98 percent gibbous on February 28 and
"essentially full" are nothing more than diversionary red herrings.
Bill Nelson
:> There are many publications from at least 40 years
:> ago, that predicted the solar eclipses through the year
:> 2100. As far as I know, the predicted times have not
:> changed more than a few seconds since then.
: Oh? But the Navy recently changed how the Equinox date in computed in
: their Almanac.
: (http://aa.usno.navy.mil/publications/docs/almanacs.html#astalm).
: The Formula for computing the Equinox changed, which formula is
: dependent upon the "ascending node of the Moon"
: (http://aa.usno.navy.mil/publications/docs/update.asa01.html
So what? Change the formula, and the day may change. That does not
invalidate anything I wrote.
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
Bill Nelson
:> Where did a Navy authority make such a statement. If you
:> posted it, then I missed it.
: Article <3B1A6125...@zetatalk.com> posted last Sunday. You can
: find this on my web site at
: http://www.zetatalk.com/usenet/use00844.htm. Frank signs his name,
: saying
: Courtesy, U.S. Naval Observatory
: http://aa.usno.navy.mil/AA/data/docs/RS_OneDay.html
: But this could also be taken as saying he got the data from the Navy
: site, not that he works for the US Naval Observatory. He's stating that
: where there was a full moon on January 31, 8:08 AM, it appeared 98%
: Gibbous on February 28th, at most 28.75 days past the last full moon,
: with an average between full moons no less than 29.5+ He's saying he
: "observed" it to be EARLY, a heads up to something fishy going on, etc.
That is exactly what the post means.
Your misinterpreting the data has been addressed before. "98% gibbeous"
is not full. Full moon occurs some time later.
It has also been noted that, although full moons average about 29.5 days
apart, some occur over a shorter period of time and some occur over a
longer period of time. After all, that is the meaning of "average".
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
Bob May
between 98% and 100%.
Bob May
it wasn't enough and we need to use Einstien's modifications of Newton's
theories in some cases.
You're mixing up the concept of changing to something completely different
to a slight improvement of accuracy changes in the formula. A common
mistake for those who really don't understand what they are talking about.
Nancy Lieder
wrote:
> you called a 98 percent gibbous Moon "essentially
> full" to try and show "28 days MAX" since the 1999
> January 31 full Moon. Yet here's an excerpt from
> that table:
>
> d h m d h m d h
m d h m
> JAN. 17 15 46 JAN. 24 19 15 JAN. 31 16 06 FEB. 8 11 58
> FEB. 16 06 39 FEB. 23 02 43 MAR. 2 06 58 MAR. 10 08 40
>
> Note how it confirms the January 31 full Moon, but also
> agrees with what I said previously. Thus your 98 percent
> gibbous on February 28 and "essentially full" are nothing
> more than diversionary red herrings.
All right, David, instead of clucking about on this matter, tell me what
"98% gibbous" means to you. If Webser's says that it means more than a
half face, but not yet full, then we're dealing with (for an average of
29.53 days between full moons and not less than 29.51) a period of
14.755 at least. 98% of that lesser number is 14.46 days, so we're .295
days from the full moon, right? How ELSE do you interpret 98% gibbous?
You tell me, please, so we can stop ponging back and forth on this
issue. Of course, this is for UT and Frank was writing from Nevada, some
hours later, but lets just take UT (several hours east of Nevada) for
this discussion. I'll give you that, (though I think it's a solid 7
hours later than UT).
Now, unless you come back with some SOLID clarification of 98% gibbous
(which I know you're capable of, David), this is saying to me that with
only 2% of the gibbous phase to go, On Feb 28th in Nevada (some unknown
time, so let's assume 11:59 PM for the sake of argument) to Mar 2 at
6:58 AM (the time of the next full moon at UT, per the Navy database),
we are on Feb 28th in 1999 some 31 hours from the full moon.
31 HOURS AND .295 DAYS DO NOT MATCH
This 98% gibbous, full moon, is coming EARLY, as the trend line on the
1990 manipulated statistics shows! Early, by MORE than a day! Which
lines up with what the Zetas said about manipulation in 1994 of the Navy
database stats!
Nancy Lieder
In sci.astro Nancy Lieder <zeta...@zetatalk.com> wrote:
>> Oh? But the Navy recently changed how the Equinox
>> date in computed in their Almanac.
>> (http://aa.usno.navy.mil/publications/docs/almanacs.html#astalm).
>>
>> The Formula for computing the Equinox changed, which
>> formula is dependent upon the "ascending node of the
>> Moon"
>> (http://aa.usno.navy.mil/publications/docs/update.asa01.html
>
> So what? Change the formula, and the day may change. That
> does not invalidate anything I wrote.
If the Earth is slowing down in rotation, and the Moon is the only thing
that refuses to be manipulated to effect a cover-up of this fact for the
time being, then sooner or later folks on Earth will notice this
discrepancy. The Moon takes on 29.53 days to arrive at the point where
folks on Earth see it as a full moon face, but since the Earth is
rotating more slowly, it takes LESS than 29.53 days to get to that
point. Is the Moon going faster? Nope, the Earth is going round more
slowly. The phases of the Moon were apparently manipulated in the Navy
database, to pre-set the full moon face to be EARLY so that about now,
when alarm may be on the rise (about weather and volcanic increases and
rotation slowing and increasing magnetic diffusion and related earth
changes), the predicted full moon will be less out of sync with the
actual full moon face, splashing cold water into the face of those about
to go into a panic, hopefully.
If the Earth is slowing and this required manipulation of moon phase
data, it would also affect the equinox data. Equinox is calculated at
midnight, I believe.
You know, it would be VERY interesting to line up OLD data on
predictions for full moons, etc., 10-20 years old, and compare it to the
Navy stats. If the Earth is only slowing leap seconds every few years,
then it should not be far off, right? Not hours, or days, surely.
Bill Nelson
:> Note how it confirms the January 31 full Moon, but also
:> otes that the following full Moon was on March 2, which
:> agrees with what I said previously. Thus your 98 percent
:> gibbous on February 28 and "essentially full" are nothing
:> more than diversionary red herrings.
: All right, David, instead of clucking about on this matter, tell me what
: "98% gibbous" means to you. If Webser's says that it means more than a
: half face, but not yet full, then we're dealing with (for an average of
: 29.53 days between full moons and not less than 29.51) a period of
: 14.755 at least. 98% of that lesser number is 14.46 days, so we're .295
: days from the full moon, right? How ELSE do you interpret 98% gibbous?
I am not David, but maybe the two of us can clarify your confusion.
My interpretation would be - 98% of the visible face is illuminated. I
don't see how any other interpretation is possible.
But 98% full does NOT equate to 98% of the time it takes to get to full
moon from new moon.
: Now, unless you come back with some SOLID clarification of 98% gibbous
: (which I know you're capable of, David), this is saying to me that with
: only 2% of the gibbous phase to go, On Feb 28th in Nevada (some unknown
: time, so let's assume 11:59 PM for the sake of argument) to Mar 2 at
: 6:58 AM (the time of the next full moon at UT, per the Navy database),
: we are on Feb 28th in 1999 some 31 hours from the full moon.
: 31 HOURS AND .295 DAYS DO NOT MATCH
Of course not. You are trying to compare apples to oranges - see above.
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
Bill Nelson
: If the Earth is slowing down in rotation, and the Moon is the only thing
Yes, the Earth is slowing down - very slightly. This amounts to needing
to add a second to our clocks every year or so. At most, this would
amount to about 1 minute over 100 years.
: that refuses to be manipulated to effect a cover-up of this fact for the
: time being, then sooner or later folks on Earth will notice this
: discrepancy. The Moon takes on 29.53 days to arrive at the point where
: folks on Earth see it as a full moon face, but since the Earth is
: rotating more slowly, it takes LESS than 29.53 days to get to that
: point. Is the Moon going faster? Nope, the Earth is going round more
Look at all the lunar statistics, not just a few that fit your preconceptions.
You will find that it just as often takes more than 29.53 days for a full
lunar cycle.
: If the Earth is slowing and this required manipulation of moon phase
: data, it would also affect the equinox data. Equinox is calculated at
: midnight, I believe.
The average rate of slowing is known, and is already figured into the
forecasts of equinoxes, full moons, solar/lunar eclipses etc. It may
be necessary, on occasion, to make a second or two adjustment to fully
adjust for atmospheric effects - but such adjustments are expected.
: You know, it would be VERY interesting to line up OLD data on
: predictions for full moons, etc., 10-20 years old, and compare it to the
: Navy stats. If the Earth is only slowing leap seconds every few years,
: then it should not be far off, right? Not hours, or days, surely.
Why don't you do that? All you have to do is dig a bit. The information
is readily available. You will be disappointed.
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
tho...@antispam.ham
>> you called a 98 percent gibbous Moon "essentially
>> full" to try and show "28 days MAX" since the 1999
>> January 31 full Moon. Yet here's an excerpt from
>> that table:
>>
>> NEW MOON FIRST QTR FULL MOON LAST QUARTER
>> d h m d h m d h m d h m
>> JAN. 17 15 46 JAN. 24 19 15 JAN. 31 16 06 FEB. 08 11 58
>> FEB. 16 06 39 FEB. 23 02 43 MAR. 2 06 58 MAR. 10 08 40
>>
>> Note how it confirms the January 31 full Moon, but also
>> notes that the following full Moon was on March 2, which
>> agrees with what I said previously. Thus your 98 percent
>> gibbous on February 28 and "essentially full" are nothing
>> more than diversionary red herrings.
> All right, David, instead of clucking about on this matter, tell me what
> "98% gibbous" means to you.
It means "not full" to me, unlike for you, who considers it to be
"essentially full" and therefore a satisfactory time to use for
computing your full Moon intervals. No wonder you get such bad
results.
> If Webser's says that it means more than a half face, but not yet full,
Then it means NOT "essentially full" the way you erroneously considered
it.
> then we're dealing with (for an average of 29.53 days between full moons
> and not less than 29.51) a period of 14.755 at least.
Webster's doesn't define "98% gibbous". That is considerably more
specific than simply "gibbous".
> 98% of that lesser number is 14.46 days, so we're .295
> days from the full moon, right?
Wrong; see the table above. Full Moon was 2 days later.
The fraction of illumination is not a linear function of time.
Consider the following actual fractions of illumination:
2001 June 06 00:51 UT 99.971%
2001 June 07 00:51 UT 98.970% change -1.001%
2001 June 08 00:51 UT 96.072% change -2.898%
2001 June 09 00:51 UT 91.492% change -4.580%
2001 June 10 00:51 UT 85.471% change -6.021%
2001 June 11 00:51 UT 78.255% change -7.216%
2001 June 12 00:51 UT 70.085% change -8.170%
2001 June 13 00:51 UT 61.197% change -8.888%
2001 June 14 00:51 UT 51.827% change -9.370%
Imagine that; exactly one day between each entry in the table above,
yet the change in the percent of illumination is not exactly the same.
Obviously it's not linear, so why did you assume a linear function in
your computation?
Because you don't know what you're talking about.
> How ELSE do you interpret 98% gibbous?
As "not full", contrary to your "essentially full" interpretation
so that you could use a wrong date for computing the interval
between full Moons.
> You tell me, please, so we can stop ponging back and forth on this
> issue.
I already have, but that hasn't stopped you from making your
ridiculous claims about the interval between full Moons.
> Of course, this is for UT and Frank was writing from Nevada, some
> hours later,
UT is the same for everyone, regardless of location. That's why
astronomers use it for such tables.
> but lets just take UT (several hours east of Nevada) for
> this discussion. I'll give you that, (though I think it's a solid 7
> hours later than UT).
Play with time zones all you want; you won't get full Moon to occur
on 1999 February 28.
> Now, unless you come back with some SOLID clarification of 98% gibbous
I already have.
> (which I know you're capable of, David),
Because you've already seen me do it.
> this is saying to me that with only 2% of the gibbous phase to go,
> On Feb 28th in Nevada (some unknown time, so let's assume 11:59 PM
> for the sake of argument) to Mar 2 at 6:58 AM (the time of the next
> full moon at UT, per the Navy database), we are on Feb 28th in 1999
> some 31 hours from the full moon.
>
> 31 HOURS AND .295 DAYS DO NOT MATCH
Of course not; that's because your .295 calculation is wrong, for
the reason given above.
> This 98% gibbous, full moon, is coming EARLY,
Incorrect; it's coming right when it's supposed to be.
> as the trend line on the 1990 manipulated statistics shows!
What alleged "manipulated statistics"? That's rather ironic, coming
from someone who has manipulated some statistics.
> Early, by MORE than a day!
Incorrect; it's coming right when it's supposed to be.
tho...@antispam.ham
> If the Earth is slowing down in rotation, and the Moon is the only thing
> that refuses to be manipulated to effect a cover-up of this fact
You're erroneously presupposing some "cover-up".
> for the time being, then sooner or later folks on Earth will notice this
> discrepancy.
Folks don't live long enough to notice the tiny change.
> The Moon takes on 29.53 days to arrive at the point where
> folks on Earth see it as a full moon face, but since the Earth is
> rotating more slowly, it takes LESS than 29.53 days to get to that
> point.
> The phases of the Moon were apparently manipulated in the Navy database,
Wrong.
> You know, it would be VERY interesting to line up OLD data on
> predictions for full moons, etc., 10-20 years old, and compare it to the
> Navy stats.
You won't find any significant difference.
> If the Earth is only slowing leap seconds every few years,
Right now we're averaging one leap second every 18 months.
> then it should not be far off, right?
And it isn't.
> Not hours, or days, surely.
Feel free to find any such discrepancy that large, if you think you can.