NavList:

   

Reply

I responded earlier today to Jared's message, but only to him, for some
reason.  It didn't help that I recarved my HD today.  But I did mess up
my reply so this is a chance to set it straight.

Fred


>  those times when the Apparent
> Moon is moving more slowly? Those times are when the Moon is highest
> in the
> sky. If you can answer that question, you have settled the argument.>
> [Geo. Huxtable]
>
>
> Ah, a crux. I'm afraid even I may be understanding this thanks to all
> the patient re-explanations.
>
>
> For the sake of simplicity, I think we can for a moment ignore the
> question of whether/when the moon appears to move more rapidly against
> the stars, and stick to the crux of things.
>
>
> Perhaps we could perform a simple exercise here:
>
>
> Assume that I take a lunar distance measurement at 5:30AM. And then
> again at midnight.
> 1-How long does it take me to take the lunar, i.e. to measure the
> distance from the moon to the other body?
> Is that "instantaneous" observation affected by the speed of the
> moon's motion?

no

>
> 2-Am I doing anything else, which is not "instantaneous", which will
> be affected by the "speed" of the moon?

no

> 3-Bottom line time. Perform the above observations and timings,
> assuming both the fastest and slowest "speed" of the moon for the
> readings when the moon is overhead, and on the horizon. Clear the
> lunars from both times. (Or all three, to use both horizons.) Are the
> results ANY different, allowing for a different speed of the moon?

no

> And if #3 seems unclear, that's because I'm not familiar with the
> mechanics of clearing a lunar, so please feel free to re-structure the
> experiment allowing for the realities of the process. Theories are
> fine, but what are the actual numbers? How does the presumed change in
> lunar "speed" affect readings, if it does at all? To what amount of
> time? Five seconds? One? Just what IS the magnitude of error that we
> are chasing here?

zero

   

Reply