I heard some... Disturbing rumors yesterday. I would like some input on them, before I feel smug in not believing them:

Planet X destroyed a bunch of stuff ten thousand years ago. It's coming back to our solar system and will come close enough to the Earth to tilt it's axis by 90 degrees. All current life will end. Apparently, next year. Also, it's the size of Jupiter...

The moon tilted its axis by 90 degrees in 2007.

Finally, there are warm spots where life is possible at both poles. The Government doesn't allow flight there.

I know it's all bunk. The guy said he "did research", but I highly doubt it. Any thought or input?

So.. something the size of Jupiter is on approach to the Solar system and is going to swing by earth in such a way as to tilt our axis but won't destabilize our orbit?

Warm spots at the poles but the governments are stopping trips there? Well let's crack open Google earth and fin these paradises we can start a new Utopia for disenfranchised citizens! If the government tries to stop mass Migration then the world will know!


If the moon's axis shifted 90 degrees, why is it still presenting the same face? Seriously grab a ball and rotate it 90 degrees in ANY direction, tell me it still presenting the same face in the same orientation.

Also about the Jupiter sized Planet x... If it's so far away we can't see it, how do they know? IF it's close enough we can see it, why can't they show it... How long until it get's here? Because that sucker must be moving fast. Also how nice and convenient, I hope they rotate our axis to match the moons 90 degrees, and stabilize that damn wobble tilt we have so we can stop discussing the various "Ages"

Planet X? Heretic! It's Planet Y, and don't let anyone tell you different!

Wuffy wrote:So.. something the size of Jupiter is on approach to the Solar system and is going to swing by earth in such a way as to tilt our axis but won't destabilize our orbit?

Warm spots at the poles but the governments are stopping trips there? Well let's crack open Google earth and fin these paradises we can start a new Utopia for disenfranchised citizens! If the government tries to stop mass Migration then the world will know!


If the moon's axis shifted 90 degrees, why is it still presenting the same face? Seriously grab a ball and rotate it 90 degrees in ANY direction, tell me it still presenting the same face in the same orientation.

Hi Wuffy, whats about a rotation about a radial line from you to the ball? Same face, possibly different angle, but still the whole thing is such a sad commentary on the deplorable ignorance of even most educated people about such basic science shit like whether the moon got rotated. We all know the aliens at area 51 wouldn't let that happen.

crank wrote:

Wuffy wrote:So.. something the size of Jupiter is on approach to the Solar system and is going to swing by earth in such a way as to tilt our axis but won't destabilize our orbit?

Warm spots at the poles but the governments are stopping trips there? Well let's crack open Google earth and fin these paradises we can start a new Utopia for disenfranchised citizens! If the government tries to stop mass Migration then the world will know!


If the moon's axis shifted 90 degrees, why is it still presenting the same face? Seriously grab a ball and rotate it 90 degrees in ANY direction, tell me it still presenting the same face in the same orientation.

Hi Wuffy, whats about a rotation about a radial line from you to the ball? Same face, possibly different angle, but still the whole thing is such a sad commentary on the deplorable ignorance of even most educated people about such basic science shit like whether the moon got rotated. We all know the aliens at area 51 wouldn't let that happen.

I tried to Express that when I said Orientation, but yes it is terrible. Those guys have been a font for modern technology, I mean why would they let us down now.

falconjudge wrote:The Government doesn't allow flight there.

Ignoring all the plain old crazy shit, and just focusing on a common element of many a crackpot conspiracy theory.
Which government?
Because if it's say the USA gov, you don't think the Russians or the Japanese or the Chinese or whatever would be there? You can't hide shit like that anymore. Too many people have satellites.

falconjudge wrote:IPlanet X destroyed a bunch of stuff ten thousand years ago. It's coming back to our solar system and will come close enough to the Earth to tilt it's axis by 90 degrees. All current life will end. Apparently, next year. Also, it's the size of Jupiter...

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/pl ... shell.html

falconjudge wrote:The moon tilted its axis by 90 degrees in 2007.

No, we still see the same side of the moon as we always have. Unless of course those millions of amateur astronomers are in on the deadly plot as well. Including me! Oh shit!

falconjudge wrote:Finally, there are warm spots where life is possible at both poles. The Government doesn't allow flight there.

No government has jurisdiction over the poles and they are very cold for good reason; lack of energy from the sun (due to a couple of different factors, all to do with geographical location). So where is all this energy coming from to heat these areas to sufficient levels?

Dogmatic Pyrrhonist wrote:

falconjudge wrote:The Government doesn't allow flight there.

Ignoring all the plain old crazy shit, and just focusing on a common element of many a crackpot conspiracy theory.
Which government?

The real government, of course. You know, that New World Ordertm thing.

The crackpots were a lot funnier when they didn't hold the majority of the house.

I've noticed that a lot of folks don't seem to understand the concept of field rotation, so they expect the moon to hold a constant apparent orientation over the course of a night as viewed just by looking up in the sky (essentially an altitude-azimuth perspective). That seems to be the source of a lot of these "moon tilted 90 degrees" claims. In order to demonstrate how field rotation is responsible, and how it is caused by viewing the moon from a non-polar aligned perspective, I recorded the moon with my telescope mounted and tracking in an altitude-azimuth configuration. I then put the telescope on its wedge and polar aligned it to show how the moon's true orientation is normal and stable. Both recordings were made on the same night, with the same telescope, and the same camera.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9lnCVPnt4s[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9lnCVPnt4s

This is also why you can't take any arbitrary image of the moon or a planet and say "look, it's tilted!" You have no way of knowing how field rotation might have affected the apparent orientation, let alone how the camera itself happened to be oriented. Astrometry can solve this problem, but generally there aren't stars available in the same image to solve it. Some widefield moon shots with the moon's daylit side over-exposed can show stars, but rarely does anyone bother to astrometrically solve it, especially if they're prone to claim it "tilted."

Don't forget the fact that the earth is round; therefore someone in the south hemisphere has a different image of the moon as someone in the northern hemisphere. Say a dumbass from Amsterdam flies to Johannesburg and doesn't get that the earth is round, suprise suprise he notices the moon has rotated omg!

For anyone coming from the Northern hemisphere when in the southern hemisphere evrything is odd and back to front.
Just a simple north facing garden is the warmest position. Wierd....

Astromut wrote:I've noticed that a lot of folks don't seem to understand the concept of field rotation, so they expect the moon to hold a constant apparent orientation over the course of a night as viewed just by looking up in the sky (essentially an altitude-azimuth perspective). That seems to be the source of a lot of these "moon tilted 90 degrees" claims. In order to demonstrate how field rotation is responsible, and how it is caused by viewing the moon from a non-polar aligned perspective, I recorded the moon with my telescope mounted and tracking in an altitude-azimuth configuration. I then put the telescope on its wedge and polar aligned it to show how the moon's true orientation is normal and stable. Both recordings were made on the same night, with the same telescope, and the same camera.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9lnCVPnt4s[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9lnCVPnt4s

This is also why you can't take any arbitrary image of the moon or a planet and say "look, it's tilted!" You have no way of knowing how field rotation might have affected the apparent orientation, let alone how the camera itself happened to be oriented. Astrometry can solve this problem, but generally there aren't stars available in the same image to solve it. Some widefield moon shots with the moon's daylit side over-exposed can show stars, but rarely does anyone bother to astrometrically solve it, especially if they're prone to claim it "tilted."

Great videos but can't you explain what's happening more simply? I have no idea what field rotation is (except for growing crops) and can't guess what an altitude-azimuth configuration is. I could spend a couple of hours researching it but that destroys the point of your post - to debunk moon tilting myths. Could you explain it in terms of holding a golfball at arms length or something?

Jehannum wrote:
Great videos but can't you explain what's happening more simply? I have no idea what field rotation is (except for growing crops) and can't guess what an altitude-azimuth configuration is. I could spend a couple of hours researching it but that destroys the point of your post - to debunk moon tilting myths. Could you explain it in terms of holding a golfball at arms length or something?

Hmm, so you want a practical demonstration? Well first let me define some of the terminology. Field rotation is the apparent rotation of the field of view. In other words, it looks like whatever you're looking at is "spinning" or rotating over time. That's what you see in the altitude-azimuth view of the moon I showed, it looks like the moon is rotating clockwise as the telescope tracks it. Altitude-azimuth means to look at the sky in a simple "up-down, left-right" manner. A standard camera tripod works the same way, as does the head resting on your shoulders (though you do have some ability to tilt your head side to side as well). A telescope can be mounted in an altitude-azimuth manner like a camera on a tripod, or it can be mounted in a polar aligned fashion. To polar align a telescopes means that you have mounted it in such a way that it rotates parallel to the earth's axis. In other words, it only has to move in one axis to track the motion of the sky. In the case of my scope, this is done by placing it on a "wedge" that angles the telescope the same number of degrees exactly as my latitude and pointing the telescope's axis of rotation towards the north celestial pole (the northern point of the axis around which all stars appear to revolve over the course of a night).

Now with the basic terminology out of the way, here's a basic way to visualize field rotation. Cut out a circular piece of paper. Write the letters "N" and "S" on the 12 o'clock and 6 o'clock positions respectively. Take a golf umbrella and tape the paper to the inside of the opened umbrella. The umbrella represents the celestial sphere, where the handle meets the top of the umbrella represents the north celestial pole. Hold it out from yourself and spin it, keep your eyes fixed on the paper. What happens? The "N" and "S" points will appear to rotate as you spin it. This simulates looking at the sky in a simple "up-down, left-right" alt-az manner. Now hold the umbrella so that the shaft is up against your back and you're looking up into the umbrella at the paper. Now spin with the umbrella keeping your eyes fixed on the paper. Naturally, the paper doesn't appear to rotate, it stays fixed. This simulates rotating with the earth in a polar aligned fashion.

I think I get it now, thank you.

Although I can tell I'll have to read it a few times to remember it.

Scot Dutchy wrote:For anyone coming from the Northern hemisphere when in the southern hemisphere evrything is odd and back to front.
Just a simple north facing garden is the warmest position. Wierd....

Trousers are also worn around the head.

Jehannum wrote:I think I get it now, thank you.

Although I can tell I'll have to read it a few times to remember it.

Many of the worlds largest telescopes these days are mounted on alt-azimuth (alt = altitude or elevation, azimuth = compass bearing) mounts. The reason being is that they are much simpler to deal with mechanically and hence cheaper. The downside is that they suffer from field rotation, so long exposure imaging would be problematic. To get around this they use a device called a field de-rotator which rotates the imaging equipment in the opposite direction, exactly matching and cancelling out the field rotation. In the old days this wasn't feasible but is easy to achieve now with computer controlled servos.

The formula for field rotation is

K × cos(az) / cos(alt)

Where K depends on the latitude of the telescope mount as follows:

K = Sidereal rate of Earth's rotation x cos (latitude)

Observatories located at the North or South pole get a free pass .

Note that during the course of imaging the az and alt are changing continuously and hence the rate of field rotation also changes. That's why you really need a computing device controlling your de-rotation servo. Perceptive readers may have also noticed there is a wee problem when you pass through the zenith .

HughMcB wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:For anyone coming from the Northern hemisphere when in the southern hemisphere evrything is odd and back to front.
Just a simple north facing garden is the warmest position. Wierd....

Trousers are also worn around the head.

Of COURSE they are! Where the hell do you weirdos wear them??

More stuff I heard.

I have a friend that I like to talk to. He helps me hone my debating skills, I think. He believes in aliens, says that they came from far away and think that this earth is their "Holy Land", and try to co-exist without affecting our development.

He told me he met some guys from "Persious" or something like that, from "Orion's Belt". Apparently, their star exploded, so they migrated here and interbred with us humans, and that the radiation from the star exploding gave them funny eyes. My reply went as follows:

"I have some objections. Let me finish. 1, If their star supernova'd, it would mean that it was at least a supergiant. That kind of star couldn't support our kind of life. We couldn't breed. 2, We couldn't breed anyways. They would be from a different biosystem, meaning that our genes would be absolutely incompatible. 3, The mutations from solar hyper-radiation would result in death, not cool changes. 4, If they did evolve in a circumstance enough like ours to produce similarities, they would probably have the instinctive lust for power and bigotry that we do. If they had star travel and a similar attitude as us, they would have enslaved us upon arrival. 5, There is no evidence to suggest that that happened. Aren't those enough to debunk it?"

"... Not really."

Anyways, the conversation then went to Wingmakers.co.nz , which is not affiliated with wingmakers.com, that teaches how to do "dimensional travel" astrally, to teleport, and to make yourself invisible, and the like. I said, "It's funny how you can make yourself hallucinate with the right breathing techniques."

He started talking about his personal experiences, including a mass-psychic thing with his old boss, a strange, an "unexplainable" teleporting incident at work, and the aliens doing some amazing things for him to show that they exist.

Also, he says that he got the "mice are more related to humans than monkeys" thing from a scientific journal, and that one of the evidences is that "We can grow human parts on mice, and take transplants from pigs. This means that they're closer related to us than apes. Plus, they found genetic similarities."

I said, "We know very little about the genetic code. Comparative anatomy is more reliable for determining relation."

Does he have any good points?