The phenomenon, sometimes referred to as false dawn, appears in the western sky shortly after sunset around the vernal equinox, which occurs on March 20, 2018.
This weekend will provide a good chance for onlookers to view the zodiacal light not only because the equinox is only days away, but also because this weekend features a new moon, meaning there will be little natural light pollution for the light to contend with.
All kidding aside, thank you rinselberg, for posting about this phenomenon. I had never heard of it before. I am not sure how far I would have to travel to escape the light pollution, though.
Brian Lada, AccuWeather meteorologist and staff writer. That's the name at the top of the article.
I am not Brian Lada. I just copied and pasted. It's something that caught my eye when I was checking the local weather forecast. I was not trying to explain the science of it. I have seen others--well, one other guy for sure--that has a habit of posting about these sky-related phenomena as they come up through the year, as a heads-up for anyone that would be looking in here, on Totally O/T, and likes to do the stargazing or eclipse watching kind of thing. Meteor showers. What have you.
I doubt I will be seeing this. Unless I change my mind and make a real effort to get away from the city lights, and find a place where the horizon to the West is relatively unobstructed. Although I guess, by the photograph of it, on Accuweather, it extends upwards a ways from the horizon.
The phenomenon, sometimes referred to as false dawn, appears in the western sky shortly after sunset around the vernal equinox, which occurs on March 20, 2018.
This weekend will provide a good chance for onlookers to view the zodiacal light not only because the equinox is only days away, but also because this weekend features a new moon, meaning there will be little natural light pollution for the light to contend with.
"Zodiacal" is just a way of connecting a modern concept with an ancient concept.
The modern concept is the knowledge that the prevailing geometry of the Solar System is planar. As the planets orbit around the sun, they are (for the most part) confined within a single plane, called the "Ecliptic".
The ancient concept is the Zodiac, or the series of Constellations that mark the progression of the Sun as it rises or sets at a different place, over the course of a year, relative to the horizon. The Zodiac, an invention of ancient stargazers and nascent astronomers.
The Zodiac was the confluence of the prevailing planar geometry of the Solar System--the ecliptic--and the Constellations--the arbitrary patterns of stars in the night sky, that were organized into memorable images by the stargazers that observed them.
The so-called "Zodiacal Light" is the reflection of sunlight from small, grain of dust-sized particles in the inner Solar System, closer in to the Sun, than is the Earth. These particles are orbiting around the Sun in the same plane--the Ecliptic--as the Earth and (for the most part) the other planets.
The Zodiacal Light is best observed during the vernal or autumnal Equinoxes. I won't attempt to delve into the geometry behind it, but there are "dots" that can be connected between the science of the Equinoxes and the science of the Ecliptic.
Brian Lada, who is credited with the brief report about the Zodiacal Light for AccuWeather, does not deserve to be called out for engaging in "nutbaggery" [sic] or writing of "drivel." He's offering some kindly stargazing tips for the readers of AccuWeather--nothing more. This isn't Brian Lada as an author or coauthor of a peer-reviewed or professional quality astronomical research article (if such is within his repertoire), and it is regrettable when someone disses his report in such an unthinking way.
Embrace the Zodiacal Light. The one-minute video presentation that was intended to accompany the report from AccuWeather. (Not sure if what was embedded within the article itself actually works as intended.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5Prg0vckY8
Became a Certified Expert on the Zodiac. Study what modern astronomers have to say about it. (Warning: Long article, here. A "big" read, by almost any standard.) http://www.skyscript.co.uk/zodiac.html
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 03-21-2018).]
Someone sent me a PM about it. About why I was being dissed over the word "Zodiacal".
I think it was a diss that was aimed at AccuWeather contributor Brian Lada. But whatever the interpretation--however that diss is parsed--no one can fairly be faulted for using "Zodiacal" in this context. I diss the diss.
I was glad to know that someone else had been looking at this Topic, without having became part of it themselves with a public message or "post".
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 03-27-2018).]
Nothing more than his electronic version of mindlessly picking floating dust motes out of sunbeams or licking the windows while he rides the "short bus".
...............................
BTW, Brian Lada is NOT a "science reporter" as Ronald claims.
He's a kid with a fairly recent BS degree in "metorology communications" who writes occasional puff pieces for accuweather.
Education : Millersville University of Pennsylvania
Degree Name: Bachelor of Science (B.S.),
Field Of Study: Meteorology - Communications Option
GPA: 3.37
Dates attended or expected graduation: 2008 – 2012
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 03-19-2018).]
I'm not the one who added Weird to this Off Topic topic.
PS. Brian Lade, not a "science reporter". BFD.
Anything to deflect from the actual discussion. Zodiac ... Zodiacal... the plane of the Solar System... the Ecliptic. They have Astronomy-related and Astrophysics segments on the Science and Discovery TV channels all the time. They use that ancient terminology whenever it's appropriate. The Constellations. The Constellations of the Zodiac. It's just a time-honored but not rigorously scientific way of calling out various lines of sight into space, from an observer's perspective on Earth.
That reaction to "Zodiacal" was "Maniacal". But completely expected by now. Because it's all about "the Ronald."
Someone could really benefit from getting an Rx for some kind of "Chill Out" therarpy. Prescription medications. Or Anger Management Therapy. Something.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 03-19-2018).]
Someone could really benefit from getting an Rx for some kind of "Chill Out" therarpy. Prescription medications. Or Anger Management Therapy. Something.
Yes, you would.
Anything that might get your raging, uncontrolled, and obvious Asperger's Syndrome under *any* control would be marvelous.
FFS Ronald, you really can't see that you're going on and on and on trying to defend the word Zodiacal in somebody else's writing AND claiming "you have his back"?...A kid you don't even KNOW?
You really can't see how NUTS that is?
You did the same thing about the goof that wants to drill into the Yellowstone caldera AND the lunatic that wants to spray his magic dust throughout the entire earth's atmosphere...and more nutbaggery.
In each instance you gleefully picked up the "crazy banner" on behalf of those idiots and ran wild on this forum waving it. WTF?
Seriously, get help.
..........
By the way, my original post in this thread didn't have a damn thing to do with you. YOU are the only one that tries to turn every thread into "all about Ronald", so go "diss that diss"...... after you seek help.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 03-19-2018).]
It's not been my practice to play the "Ratings Bar" game. The ratings are no substitute for an active moderator who would uphold the badly beaten up Keep It Civilized rule.
I have noticed that little arrow or pointer device, in my Ratings bar, move a small ways right of center, into the Green zone, in recent weeks. Whereas someone else's has moved in the opposite direction, to the left of center, and into the Red zone.
I care not a whit myself, but I wonder if it is ever going to dawn on someone that whatever it is they're doing here, it isn't garnering any particular support from the forum at large.
It's a trend that I've noticed ever since the "Ray O, Ray O" discussion got started, when someone was revealed more than ever as the dumb-azz that they truly are.
That last message, immediately before this one... just one more briquet on the fire.
No one gets to AccuWeather's Brian Lada without getting past me.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 03-19-2018).]
I don't know about that--from olejoedad--but after checking out YouTube, I think this is the "Bugatti Veyron" of Zodiacal Light video presentations. It's sciencey, but not hard to follow. There are no tiresome equations or arcane algebraic formulas to obstruct the viewer's path towards Enlightenment.
It's a product of the European Southern Observatory, which observes the skies from the Atacama Desert, in the north of Chile. The complete video presentation runs for six minutes and 22 seconds. It's like a bite-sized planetarium show, without the planetarium.
Even if I were of a mind to undertake the considerable trouble of becoming a live observer of 2018's Vernal Equinox Zodiacal Light event, the weather in my area is decidedly inclement for such an enterprise.
The politically anodyne character of the original topic--about as free of politics as anything could be--makes this a very tractable case study of how a stately online conversation can suddenly veer towards the berserk when one member conducts himself like a kitchen blender, filled with digestive waste and set to purée--without the lid on.
According to my TFA (Thread Failure Analysis), this was the message that caused this thread to leave the domain of corrective feedback and go irreversibly out of control: //www.fiero.nl/forum/F...HTML/122285.html#p19
Do "you" have an independent TFA that you would like to share?
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 03-21-2018).]
Brian Lada's report for AccuWeather begins with this:
quote
The phenomenon, sometimes referred to as false dawn, appears in the western sky shortly after sunset around the vernal equinox, which occurs on March 20, 2018.
This weekend will provide a good chance for onlookers to view the zodiacal light not only because the equinox is only days away, but also because this weekend features a new moon, meaning there will be little natural light pollution for the light to contend with.
The two phenomenological descriptors that are highlighted in bold have a kind of antique quality, and would seem to belong to the lexicon of backyard stargazers and amateur astronomers, rather than the more exacting and disciplined lexicon of full-time or fully-accredited planetary scientists and astrophysicists.
But--and this is a very big "but" in terms of my aforementioned TFA (Thread Failure Analysis)--reference the message immediately before this one--when or why would it be disconcerting or inappropriate in any way for an author to use such informal phenomenological descriptors, if he is only calling them out (à la Brian Lada) as antiquated but familiar colloquialisms that were given as names to this phenomenon, before it was understood in more recent times as the effect of sunlight being reflected by dust particles that are moving within the general orbital plane of the Solar System?
I can think of neither a when or a why that would answer this question in any positive kind of way.
This is like a cut block in football parlance, which effectively takes the legs out from under Message #3 and renders it completely null and void, with respect to the original topic of this thread.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 03-21-2018).]
It's not been my practice to play the "Ratings Bar" game. The ratings are no substitute for an active moderator who would uphold the badly beaten up Keep It Civilized rule.
This delusion is one I find most hilarious. The delusion that you think Cliff or anyone else cares that you think Cliff isn't doing his job or that you want to be a moderator.
Originally posted by jmbishop: This delusion is one I find most hilarious. The delusion that you think Cliff or anyone else cares that you think Cliff isn't doing his job or that you want to be a moderator.
But jmbishop has an appointment that he needs to keep with Al Gore's backside.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 03-26-2018).]
I am trying to have it both ways here, with respect to jmbishop.
Is that too much to ask?
Where's the proportionality? This is a thread where randye seized on some silly little thing about the qualifications of AccuWeather contributor Brian Lada (anyone not already read into this thread from the very start would have to go back and see it all to understand this) and used that artifice to call me a LIAR. He's also twisted some remarks that I made, maybe as long as 6 or 8 months ago, so that he can pretend that I was literally ALL IN for an idea that was reported as media news, to drill into the Yellowstone Park volcano as a way (theoretically) to keep it from erupting and causing a national catastrophe of unprecedented proportions. Etc. Etc. Etc.
What's jmbishop doing here? He's stirring up something from some other thread from towards the end of last year. Maybe I made some "half-baked" remarks about Al Gore and Hillary Clinton, but I still resent the fact that he called me a LIAR about that, instead of stating his disagreement in a more civilized (and more accurate) way. Or maybe there is some undercurrent going on here, from jmbishop, about my part in previous Islam and Muslim-related discussions, of which there were many. It's a topic I have not been particularly trying to reawaken, myself. Not recently.
A "hypocryt"..? I think that's an unfair thing incautious idea for Mr Kania to have put against me, in this very particular context.
It comes just as I was about to try to set up some more entertainment here, with a New Topic. Before I try to do anything more sensible, like pay a bill or some other chore.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 03-21-2018).]
rinse, have you considered a career in California State Politics? I'm referring to Old California, I don't think you would be electable in New California....
A "hypocryt"..? I think that's an unfair thing incautious idea for Mr Kania to have put against me, in this very particular context. ...
Huh? I misspelled something. *shrugs shoulders, rubs balls*
It is absolutely fair considering that you have been speaking of forum rules for the past several days now. I only made an observation. Well within forum rules.
"Incautious"? M,kay. Incautious is sending things through the United States Postal Service of a nocuous nature.
[This message has been edited by Tony Kania (edited 03-21-2018).]
Incautious is sending things through the United States Postal Service of a nocuous nature. 
