Magnetosphere Watch!!!!! Something this way doomy comes??

could it be from cern being turned off for last two years and the frequency changes Trump is doing to raise frequency to make our dna heal

Good, it will make you dumber and easier to own.

I think I do need to get dumber. We might even become best friends afterwards :)

we have had crazy heat and windy here in florida and it was a weird haze Wednesday and today its cold wtf

Nope, I don't make friends with idiots.

[link to poleshift.ning.com]

“ Additional data from April 9-10, 2020 event.
The SWMF 2011+RCM Magnetopause - BATSRUS Z-Cut model below shows a computed location of the dayside magnetopause. Usually about 10 Earth-Radii upstream from Earth, the most sunward boundary position is called the magnetopause stand-off position.
AS can be seen in the GIF below at around the 01:00 UTC (Apr 10) the computed distance of the magnetopause stand-off was cleary blown away from the Earth. Blassted with both magnetons and electrons from the side and from behind pushing the magnetopause towards the direction of the Sun. Noted in the chart topping Magnetopause StandOff Distance of 16+ RE.
~
"Normally, Earth’s magnetosphere extends out a distance of approximately 10 Earth radii toward the Sun and several hundred Earth radii away from the Sun. This is because the Sun’s particle flow compresses the side of Earth’s magnetic field that is facing the Sun and elongates Earth’s magnetic field that faces away. Earth’s magnetic field is actually contained within an inner layer of the magnetosphere called the magnetopause."
[link to poleshift.ning.com]
~
Distances in the magnetosphere are often measured in Earth radii (RE), with one Earth radius amounting to 6371 km or 3960 miles. In these units, the distance from the Earth's center to the "nose" of the magnetosphere is about 10.5 RE and to the flanks abreast of the Earth about 15 RE, while the radius of the distant tail is 25-30 RE. By way of comparison, the moon's average distance is about 60 RE ”

Didn't read all 37 pages, and I assume that somebody resolved this somewhere in the middle, but to keep the new comers to the thread who don't read it all informed, here is the actual explanation for those glitches in the (old) magnetic models where the field appears to get back pressure ....

Suspicious0bservers : Unknown Impact on the Magnetic Field?

[link to www.youtube.com (secure)]

Yeah, that's the ticket, go "learn" from the guy who got banned spamming on YouTube who doesn't even understand something as simple as field rotation, meanwhile I'm the guy who created a spreadsheet that accurately predicts the field rotation of the moon at all points in time.


Last Edited by Astromut on 04/16/2020 09:40 AM

Is it "Donation Time" at the poleshit.ning again?

.

Thanks for this. Makes sense.

This has mildly piqued my interest.

I imagine the ACE spacecraft doesn't store any information locally. So how often does data get corrupted on transmission and what types of fail-safes do they use to prevent data corruption?

something is happening again

burn

[link to ccmc.gsfc.nasa.gov (secure)]


Looks weird.

whatever is happening, it's man made

we have literally a summer night here

BOTTLE SOME WATER, CAUSE SHIT IS FUKT!

Ah yes, let's all listen to the idiot who is obsessing over a glitch in the data that you can clearly see in the raw data that were fed into the model, the idiot who STILL claims even in that video that the moon shouldn't exhibit 180 degrees of field rotation a night even though it very clearly should. I have proven this mathematically.

Take the center point of the moon in equatorial coordinates and add .25 degrees to declination (approximate radius of the moon). This will give you the equatorial coordinates of both the center point of the moon and the north point of the moon on the equatorial grid. Then calculate the position angle of the moon's bright limb relative to the north equatorial point:
x = atan((cos(sun declination)*sin(sun ra - moon ra))/(cos(moon dec)*sin(sun dec) - sin(moon dec)*cos(sun dec)*cos(sun ra - moon ra)))
Then to calculate for field rotation, convert the equatorial coordinates of both the center point and the north point of the moon to horizon coordinates. This is given by the following formulae. For azimuth, the formula is:
tan(az)=(-sin(Hour angle in degrees +delta)*cos(declination))/(sin(declination)*cos(latitude)-cos​(declination)*sin(latitude)*cos(hour angle in degrees+delta))
where delta is:
tan(delta)=(p*cos(theta')*sin(hour angle in degrees))/((distance of moon in km/6378.14)*cos(declination)-p*cos(theta')*cos(hour angle in degrees))
For altitude the formula is:
sin(altitude)=(sin(declination)*sin(latitude))/(cos(declinati​on)*cos(latitude)*cos(hour angle in degrees))
Now once you have converted both the center point and north point to altitude and azimuth, take the difference of each (altitude and azimuth) between the north and center points to find delta alt and delta az. From there, calculate the angle of the line from the center point to north point relative to the horizon:
arctan(delta alt/delta az)
Then add the position angle of the moon. Now by doing this over the course of the moon rising to setting you can see that its apparent orientation SHOULD flip up to about 180 degrees from rising to setting. I created a spreadsheet to predict the position and orientation of the moon based on equations from books that are decades old and it all still works and accurately predicts both the moon's position and orientation:

Whats going on with it now?? Is this still a Glitch? If this is a Glitch it has been glitching for the last few days now.. They can't fix it?

[link to ccmc.gsfc.nasa.gov (secure)]

MagnetoTards

You're pretty snarky for someone who only knows how to observe effects rather than understand causes.

If I only knew how to observe, then how is it I'm able to predict as well? I'm able to predict the orientation of the moon mathematically precisely because I'm able to understand the cause. Thanks for demonstrating Dunning-Kruger for us.

It’s a neutron star incoming. It’s gonna get real.

15 mile wide, cold Neutron Star. yep.

neu·tron star
nounASTRONOMY
plural noun: neutron stars
a celestial object of very small radius (typically 18 miles/30 km) and very high density, composed predominantly of closely packed neutrons. Neutron stars are thought to form by the gravitational collapse of the remnant of a massive star after a supernova explosion, provided that the star is insufficiently massive to produce a black hole.

Oh I love references to the DK effect. It's the Jesus of you skeptics. In that case astrodog, would be so kind as to explain to us the mechanism by which gravity works?

I love watching you dance and try to change the subject. You still haven't explained how I'm able to predict the basic motion and apparent orientation of the moon. You haven't even mastered that so you're definitely not ready for me to start talking to you about how gravity works. So go on answer my question, it was not rhetorical nor was it optional. How am I able to mathematically predict the apparent orientation of the moon?

Last Edited by Astromut on 04/18/2020 07:45 PM

Alright, you got an obvious chip on your shoulder so I'll bite.

You're golden star achievement seems to be tracking the moon's rotation. Congratulations, you've managed to track the largest celestial object in the sky with the most uniform of rotation using modern technology. You've accomplished what others have done in the past using nothing more than a clay pendulum. Hats off to you.

I'm sure you are far too super smart to get drawn into a discussion about the moon using observable facts; such a the moon is either hollow or honeycombed; or that the gravity around the moon is incredibly inconsistent; or that the moon shouldn't even be where it is according to our current understanding of celestial physics. I'm sure any such discussion would be immediately dismissed by you as DK pseudo fringe science because the denial of openly observable facts is what modern science has been reduced to.

No, you much rather sit on your high horse using computing models other people built, that you've just inherited or at best tweaked, and used it to proclaim yourself king of the intellectual castle in this small corner of the internet.

Am I taking away from your technical prowess? No. You clearly have skills in programming and other areas that allow you to do this. So why am I having a go at you? Because you dismiss others you think below you, and you do it in the way most of you normie science geeks do, you blind yourselves to observable evidence and ignore it in favour of models that are full of holes but are so entrenched by the academic authorities that you use their authority to lamblast others who can challenge those models with observable facts. You're the problem with modern science. How does someone being banned from YouTube make them wrong? It doesn't. Something something appeal to authority fallacy. Which I'm sure you'd be all to keen to throw in someone's face in another argument, just not when it's you using it. You refuse to actually try and understand what it is you are studying, you'd rather just use tools and theorems already built that you imbue with sacrosanct value, never looking at what's underneath the hood. That's what I mean when I ask you about causes as opposed to effects.

You can observe effects. Good for you. You use modern computing algorithms, others can use a pendulum made of clay. Do you understand the cause of the effect you're observing? Absolutely not. Your accuracy comes from the calibre of your tools, not the depths of your understand. There is a world of difference there.

Wrong. That is not even what I was asking about. Try again and this time actually read the question. how am I able to mathematically predict the apparent orientation of the moon? It does not require any technology, it's a mathematical prediction which I have verified with observational evidence. It also has nothing to do with any physical rotation of the moon. Thank you for once again demonstrating how perfect an example of the Dunning-Kruger effect you are.

Last Edited by Astromut on 04/18/2020 08:53 PM

I think you've misunderstood me here. At no point am I asking you how you do any of the things that contribute to your superiority complex. The only question I'm asking is if you understand the cause of the phenomenon, rather then the effect. And at each point so far you have not addressed that question. What you have done is continually attacked me as a person and evaded answering my question.

So, once again, do you understand the cause here? If so, care to illuminate us? Or is it your personal trade secret? Would you rather continually dodge the question in favour of shooting off more insults about how no one else but you understands the world around them?