I Confused about declination, elevation & altitude

AI Thread Summary
Declination, elevation, and altitude are often confused, but they have distinct meanings in astronomy. Declination refers to the latitude on Earth where an astronomical object is at its zenith, while elevation and altitude are generally interchangeable terms related to height above sea level. The discussion highlights a discrepancy in lunar declination measurements due to parallax effects, which cause the Moon to appear in different positions from various locations on Earth. This parallax can lead to observed declinations exceeding the maximum value when viewed from the center of the Earth. Understanding these concepts is crucial for accurately interpreting astronomical observations and their variations based on observer location.
swampwiz
Messages
567
Reaction score
83
They seem to be similar terms, although elevation & altitude seem to be the exact same thing.

AIUI, the declination of astronomical object refers to the latitude on Earth where it is at the celestial zenith - i.e., straight up, along the line from the Earth's center and surface at such zenith, so this point on Earth moves along the latitude line, East to West.

What is confusing me is this Wikipedia article about Lunar Standstill. It says that during the 2006 standstill, the declination of the Moon from Sydney, Australia and London was ~29.5°. However, the Moon only has a maximum declination of 28.725°. Where did this extra 3/4 of a degree come from?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_standstill
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
The 28.725 is the maximum declination as seen from the center of the Earth. The moon is close enough to the Earth that parallax causes the moon to appear in slightly different positions when seen from different locations on the Earth. This is the source of the extra 3/4 degree. Further down in the Wikipedia article you linked, they say:

"The maximum lunar declination, as seen from the centre of the Earth, was at 01:26 on 15 September, when the declination reached +28:43:21.6. The next highest was at 07:36 on 4 April, when it reached +28:42:53.9

However, these dates and times do not represent the maxima and minima for observers on the Earth's surface.

For example, after taking refraction and parallax into account, the observed maximum on 15 September in Sydney, Australia was several hours earlier, and then occurred in daylight. The table shows the major standstills that were actually visible (i.e. not in full daylight, and with the Moon above the horizon) from both London, UK, and Sydney, Australia."
 
  • Like
Likes tech99 and swampwiz
phyzguy said:
The 28.725 is the maximum declination as seen from the center of the Earth. The moon is close enough to the Earth that parallax causes the moon to appear in slightly different positions when seen from different locations on the Earth. This is the source of the extra 3/4 degree. Further down in the Wikipedia article you linked, they say:

"The maximum lunar declination, as seen from the centre of the Earth, was at 01:26 on 15 September, when the declination reached +28:43:21.6. The next highest was at 07:36 on 4 April, when it reached +28:42:53.9

However, these dates and times do not represent the maxima and minima for observers on the Earth's surface.

For example, after taking refraction and parallax into account, the observed maximum on 15 September in Sydney, Australia was several hours earlier, and then occurred in daylight. The table shows the major standstills that were actually visible (i.e. not in full daylight, and with the Moon above the horizon) from both London, UK, and Sydney, Australia."
So what you are saying is that closer the poles, this parallax would be even greater?

I think I can grok this by thinking about satellite dishes around 60° latitude (e.g., Scandinavia, St. Petersburg, Russia) - they are almost parallel the ground, and certainly nowhere near 30° elevation, and this is because the geosynchronous orbit around the equator (i.e., the only orbit in the sky that is viewed from an Earth station as being fixed) is at about 7X the radial distance as the Earth's surface.
 
Well, not necessarily closer to the poles. It depends where the Moon is in its orbit and where you are on the surface of the Earth. Look at this sketch. Observer O1, on a line between the Earth's center and the Moon center, sees the moon in one location, relative to the fixed stars. Observer O2, at a different location, sees the Moon in a slightly different location, relative to the fixed stars. It's the angular distance between O2 and O1 that matters. O1 would be in a location where the moon is directly overhead, which obviously changes through the month and through the day.
Moon_parallax.png
 
TL;DR Summary: In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect alien signals, it will further expand the radius of the so-called silence (or rather, radio silence) of the Universe. Is there any sense in this or is blissful ignorance better? In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect...
Thread 'Could gamma-ray bursts have an intragalactic origin?'
This is indirectly evidenced by a map of the distribution of gamma-ray bursts in the night sky, made in the form of an elongated globe. And also the weakening of gamma radiation by the disk and the center of the Milky Way, which leads to anisotropy in the possibilities of observing gamma-ray bursts. My line of reasoning is as follows: 1. Gamma radiation should be absorbed to some extent by dust and other components of the interstellar medium. As a result, with an extragalactic origin, fewer...
This thread is dedicated to the beauty and awesomeness of our Universe. If you feel like it, please share video clips and photos (or nice animations) of space and objects in space in this thread. Your posts, clips and photos may by all means include scientific information; that does not make it less beautiful to me (n.b. the posts must of course comply with the PF guidelines, i.e. regarding science, only mainstream science is allowed, fringe/pseudoscience is not allowed). n.b. I start this...
Back
Top