Brane Space

Tuesday, February 5, 2019

As Before, No One With A Brain Ought To Waste Their Time Tonight On Trump's Hog Swill

"Oink, Oink! Now I got the whole country as my captive audience and I can tell 'em anything I want."

"With near-certainty, Trump will utter repeatedly debunked lies, lots of them. He’ll talk about national unity but take no responsibility for the deep divisions he has caused nor for the racism and hatefulness he has exhibited. He’ll make a slew of unfounded foreign policy pronouncements attributing newfound (and nonexistent) respect in the world to his own brilliance. (He seems not to notice that he is the subject of international derision and an endless source of frustration to allies.)

At least with a teleprompter, he can avoid the kind of word salads — or as Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) calls them, “word vomit” — he tossed up in his interview with CBS’s Margaret Brennan" - Jennifer Rubin, 'Can We Skip To The State Of The Union Response', Washington Post yesterday.

Fellow citizens, the state of our Union is currently foul and riven by divisions. We know this because the human swine occupying the seat of power is the source of the pestilence and division. With every byte of effluent he spouts or tweets the corruption eating away at the body politic increases. Therefore, we know that the stage of the State of the Union tonight will only be used to further the pestilence by spreading more lies, discord and fear. No one with a mind or what the theologians call "soul" needs to watch his performance to confirm that.

Look, Trump, aka Dotard, is a DNA fusion of swine and human slime, a liar and common thug running a criminal and treasonous enterprise from the White House. Now...think I am suffering from "outrage fatigue" like too many screen -addicted Americans these days? Think again! I wake up every morning outraged at the spectacle of a bipedal maggot, barely human in any reasonable sense, fouling the People's house every day he exists, breathes and spouts more venom, lies and braggadocio. I don't do small screens, nor am I hostage to Twitter, so I can devote my attention to many other more useful things, as well as reading.

And the more I read about Trump's planned State of the Union spiel tonight, the more I realize it will be more lying, more grandstanding to again try to make a specious case for his mythical wall. And bear in mind this was never ever real, it was designed as a mnemonic. The fact is we now know the "wall" was invented by Trump's then advisers as a memory image for when he was planning his campaign run. They needed some quick and dirty device to keep Trump's diminished and demented brain focused on immigration and figured a "wall" was the best bet. "Just keep repeating 'wall, wall' wall'...". See e.g.

How the Border Wall Is Boxing Trump In

Trump's defenders - even the semi-clever ones like Peggy Noonan - don't seem to get this. In her last column ('Mr.President, Tear Down That Word', Feb. 2-3, p. A15) Noonan seems on the surface to grasp that Trump is boxed in by his own fetishistic obsession with the word "wall" - which initially he didn't seem to care how defined ("They can even call it peaches!") But then she resorts to taking backhanded slaps at both Pelosi ('What if a Prada bag with a gun in it became a person?') and the Dems in general ("The Democrats must defeat the president on that one word"). Failing to comprehend it isn't the word but rather the fact if the Dems cave to the Swine-in- chief's extortion he will use it again and again to try and get what he wants. This we cannot allow, not the Dems nor any upstanding citizens who declare they are genuine patriots - not paper patriots.

But this is exactly why Trump is now salivating for the chance to spew his lies about his mythical "wall" on the grand stage tonight, to try to appeal to lower IQ people to back his spurious case that "we need it".

Why should Trump lie? Why wouldn't he, especially after being afforded a grand stage, which personally I don't think ought to have been offered until and unless the government was fully open. Not like it is now, with a Dotard Damocles' shutdown sword hanging over it if the man baby doesn't like what the bipartisan conference come up with - threatening daily to order a "national emergency". So all that's happened is that the extortionist has been given a national megaphone to renew threats and recycle his lies and fear mongering. No one with a functioning brain deserves that. No one with even a half-functioning brain ought to subject it to such toxic twaddle.

There is now indeed even more reason to dodge this farce given we know how much time this fool is wasting in office, thanks to Axios. They got hold of his schedule and published it on their website - with the orange spaces all denoting "executive time", i.e. wasted time.

Since the mid terms that translates into 60 percent of his time in office being "unstructured". The details include:

"Trump, an early riser, usually spends the first 5 hours of the day in "Executive Time". Each day's schedule places Trump in "Location: Oval Office" from 8 to 11 a.m.

But Trump, who often wakes before 6 a.m., is never in the Oval during those hours, according to six sources with direct knowledge.
Instead, he spends his mornings in the residence, watching TV, reading the funny papers, and responding to what he sees and reads by phoning aides, and tweeting about those who upset him."

"He's always calling people, talking to people," a senior White House official told Axios. "He's always up to something; it's just not what you would consider typical structure."

But why be surprised? We've known since Day One that Trump can't handle the job. Recall the guy has never really worked at a real job outside of his family branding business, being a part time reality TV prop and a real estate weasel and con man. In the latter capacity he used bankruptcy (of multiple casinos) to make $$$ including off state governments as well as marks to whom he owed millions. This according to author and Trump specialist David Cay Johnston. The little orange bitch even bawled that the presidency had turned out to be too much for him to deal with. Too many details, too much stuff to master and nowhere near the brain power for the task. Hell, he refused to even read his daily briefs! Hence, his penchant for becoming a cable TV and tweet addict. See e.g.

http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/donald-trump-stunned-to-learn-presidency-is-an-actual-j-1792215349

Excerpt:

“Being president is harder than Donald Trump thought,” begins the article, neatly capturing the blithe, criminal ignorance that characterizes both Trump himself and the many dozens of millions of morons who thought he should be the leader of the free world. Yes, being the president is a harder job than Donald Trump would expect, because Donald Trump had never previously held an actual job, because actually, spending your inheritance on a succession of failed cons is not an actual job."

Now, given all this why on earth should any sensible person - far less responsible citizen- let this grandstanding buffoon con him or her out of their time as well?

This is why wifey and I plan to forego the SOTU to instead watch the next to last episode of 'Counterpart' . After which we will likely tune back in to MSNBC, after the dais has presumably been fumigated, to watch Stacy Abrams' response to Dotard's word vomit. This will be worth watching given we know Ms. Abrams can separate fact from fiction and BS.

Monday, February 4, 2019

Why January's "Best Stock Performance in 30 Years" Is A Mirage

The WSJ font page article Friday ('Stocks Post Best January In 30 Years'.) babbled shamelessly:

"Banks and smaller companies propelled stocks to their best January in 30 years, a sign investors are favoring sectors tied to the U.S. economy....The Fed's statement Wednesday that interest rate increases are on hold helped ease investors' worries that higher rates would lead to higher borrowing costs and curtail corporate profits."

Well, of course the Federal Reserve's statement would do that, given - god forbid - it doesn't want to halt the cheap money bandwagon. Or, for that matter, toss cold water on the manic leverage that now dominates stock purchases as well as corporate expansions. It seems every manjack now wants to go into debt to achieve a gain - and of course at the hoi polloi's expense. Because they are the ones that will have to do the bailing out. (Think of the AIG bailout in 2008, and Long Term Capital Management before that.)

Off the financial media's radar is the other part of the cheap money equation: quantitative easing ("QE") which has undergone several iterations since the credit crisis. Most ordinary people are not even aware of the amount, the magnitude - of the crutches the Fed has provided to prop up the markets. Most investors, ignorant though they may be, have been beneficiaries of the Fed's infusion of "crack" in the form of QE cheap money "crack". Notice especially how the DOW stopped dropping once the buzz began about QE3 (following QE1 and QE2) - back in 2012- which have together infused $4.3 TRILLION in bond purchases.

But at some point, the cheap money flow has to stop and we know even if it's done slowly Maul Street will respond hysterically. This is what has prompted discussion of how large a future correction will be But let's get back to the Journal's blabber - woky of the greatest January in 30 tears. We agree the Fed deciding not to raise interest rates is part of it - but the other part ("that which must not be mentioned") is the quantitative easing - and rolling it back to get the Street off its addiction.

Flash now to an article on the same day (p. B12, Heard on the Street, 'The Fed's Balance Sheet Needs Taming') whereupon we learned:

"The famously plain-spoken Mr. Powell left the market with little doubt that the probability of tightening has shifted, noting on Wednesday that the 'case for raising rates has weakened'. But policy rates are only part of the story.

Since the financial crisis the Fed has used its balance sheet as a powerful tool, buying bonds to affect the yield curve. Since late 2016, it had begun to slowly unwind those purchases, most recently at a pace of $50 billion a month. The Fed's balance sheet has shrunk by only 10 percent."

Okay, let's do the math: if the original balance was $4.3 trillion and the QE balance sheet has shrunk by only ten percent - according to the WSJ - then than means only about $430b has been removed. That leaves $3.87 trillion still to be unwound. Now, at the rate of $50 b a month how long will it take to remove all that excess crack?

Again, we can do the math:

Y = $387 trillion/ ($50 b x 12) = 6.45 years

And that only holds up if we don't get yet another recession.

And this may well be lowballed because "the actual amounts have been closer to $40 billion in recent months" (WSJ, January 29, ibid.).

How is this unwinding happening? Well, by allowing the purchased Treasury and mortgage securities to mature without replacing them. But even this tortoise -paced process has some prominent investors rattled, such as Stanley Druckenmiller who claims it's "a big factor behind the return of market volatility". ('Fed: Stock Swings Not Tied To Bond Moves', p. A2, WSJ, January 29).

Now, let's back up and process what the yield curve means and how the Fed's QE policy is affecting it and how it could lead to a new recession. As noted in my post of December 5th: the U.S. Treasury yield curve is the spread between the 2- and 10-year Treasury bond yields. It is taken to be a predictor for recession especially if it becomes "inverted". (See e.g. 'Fear Of Inverted Yield Curve Stalks Markets', Jan. 10, p. A2)

Prior to that inversion, it becomes "flattened" in other words, the difference between the 2 and 10 year bond yields is minimized. Specifically, recessions tend to occur once the "flat" yield curve becomes "inverted" - with short term (e.g. 2 -year) bond rates now higher than long term (e.g. 10 year) rates. As a recent (December, 2018) T. Rowe Price Investor Bulletin noted (p. 4)

"The yield curve is not flat yet ...but it could be by next March if the Fed maintains its 0.25 percent per quarter pace of rate hikes and the 10-year Treasury continues to meet resistance above the 3.0 percent level. Starting the historical average 16-month clock from the spring of 2019 would raise the specter of a major downturn by 2020."

But ok, you say, the Fed is no longer going to increase interest rates, so we dodged a bullet. Not so fast. There's still that huge balance sheet. To make this clearer let's understand that the QE balances are really an alternative to printing more money. (Which we understood used to be done in the old days, or more recently by the last government of Barbados to try to pay all its obligations.)

According to one technical financial paper

Monetary easing is the Fed’s way of putting in more money into circulation in the economy....and it does not involve the printing of new banknotes

True, but still it effects the yield curve. How? According to the same Market Research paper:

The Fed’s QE initiatives have successfully shifted the yield curve downward, that is, lowered the Treasury yields across maturities.

In other words, shifted down as in flattened the yield curve. More worrisome - from the earlier cited WSJ article on the Fed's balance sheet needing taming:

"Moreover, he (Powell) raised the possibility that the balance sheet could be an 'active tool' if warranted. In other words more bond purchases if markets or the economy cry out for more help."

In other words, merely postponing the 'big one' while other recessionary signs build - and the "insurance" of QE itself becomes a ticking time bomb.

What are those other recessionary pressures? From a separate WSJ article ('Chances of Recession are Rising') they include:

- Another shutdown following the one for over 4 weeks which sapped GDP at the rate of 0.1 % per week. That initial "partial" shutdown already hurt "sentiment measures: - but these ought to rebound provided there are no further shutdowns. But given the bombastic fool holding office, who can say? We know he will likely try to make another specious case for his ignorant 'wall' tomorrow night. Another reason not to waste one's gray matter or time tuning in to Dotard's lies, bragging and babble.

- "The tight labor market is another reason the recession chances have risen" i.e. in models including from JP Morgan. Most economists in addition believe the current rate is unsustainable.

A further cautionary take has been offered by James Mackintosh (WSJ, Jan. 30, p. B1) who notes there is clear evidence the Phillips curve (the statistical link between inflation and unemployment has "broken down". Mackintosh adds:

"If the relationship is finished economists will need to build new models of how the economy works. Investors should applaud such a change if it shows that higher wages tempt people back into the workforce. That would demonstrate more spare capacity than thought, so the economy could grow without sparking inflation" - and presumably inciting a Fed reaction like more QE!

Where the biggest risk lies is perhaps in a confluence of factors. That is, the Fed is reducing its bond portfolio at the same time the Treasury is issuing more bonds to fund large federal budget deficits - crowding out capital for other types of investment. This is the same type of risk I forecast after the Trump - GOP tax cuts were implemented. Basically, a systemic instability triggered by unnecessary deficits from a stimulus not needed when the economy was already humming - thanks to Obama's wise moves in holding deficit spending down. (As finance specialist Steve Rattner aptly pointed out this a.m. on 'Morning Joe')

Watch for what transpires in the next two weeks and whether Dotard calls for another shutdown. If he does, and renews his temper tantrum, the probability of a recession increase to more than 90 percent. Especially as over 4 million federal contractors are still trying to financially recover from the last debacle!

Thoughts On One Of The Lamest Super Bowls Ever - And Why Tom Brady Is Not "The Greatest of All Time"

Tom Brady and the NFL's best offense await the Raiders south of the border. (AP Photo/Michael Dwyer)

Brady hyping it up as he leads his Patsies down the field in SB LIII

I confess that, initially, wifey and I had no intention of watching the travesty that passed for a Superbowl game yesterday. We were still enraged at the New Orleans Saints being denied their rightful appearance in the 'show'. Saints' QB Drew Brees 3rd down incomplete pass ought to have been flagged for blatant, BLATANT - as in 'in your face'-- pass interference, e.g.

Image result for image of ref and no call vs. Saints

But wasn't as the ref (left) just stood there gawking like a drooling, recently lobotomized zombie as Rams's cornerback Robey-Coleman committed the mugging on receiver Tommylee Lewis. Even admitting with a smirk he expected a flag but the "football gods" let him get away with it. No the football gods did no such thing! A cowardly, two-bit weasel of an official did that. Many pundits have called it "mistake" or "missed" call, but it was clear to me it was plain, yellow -bellied cowardice.

Look, when you have the Rams' gangsta corner (Nickell Robey-Coleman) even chuckling about it in the aftermath you know it's a game time crime - that effectively decided which team got to the Super Bowl. In this case, the inferior team, as we beheld yesterday - with an inexperienced 3rd year QB (Jared Goff) and his equally inexperienced head coach (Sean McVay) exposed as pretenders on the nation's biggest sports stage. But more on this in a bit, as I argue the Saints would have beaten the Patsies and handed Brady his 4th SB loss - given they'd be fielding a QB every bit as talented and experienced (Brees) and a savvy coach in Sean Payton - already a Superbowl winner too.

Clear as an asteroid crash, no doubts and no ambiguity - pass interference on a Richter '10' scale. Call the damned penalty - at least throw the red flag - and N. O. has first down on the 10 with time to run down the clock and score with a FG at least. That gives the the NFC championship and a Super Bowl berth with two confirmed stars: Brees vs. Brady. But what really happened here? The ref saw the penalty as clearly as the rest of us but opted not to call it because he feared allowing the game outcome to depend on it. His febrile brain probably rationalized along the lines of "Well, even if I don't call it the Saints' still have the chance to pull it out!"

But he didn't reckon in the devastating effect on the Saints' offense of having essentially been denied prime field position, a first down and the chance to put the game away. Also, the defense - already running on fumes - would have been deflated on realizing they'd have to go back out again, and then again (in overtime) when they didn't need to.

There were a litany of pundit excuses and blather in the aftermath, all of which had Janice ready to blow her top. (She's been particularly irate about the no call, almost as if it had happened to her Ravens.) The excuses included: "the refs are only human and make errors", "the Saints had plenty of time to come back", "the defense just didn't get it done", and (from Shannon Sharpe) "they should have just done run plays, no pass plays to run off clock".

But the dumbest ever rationalization came out of SI (Scorecard, Jan. 28-Feb. 4, p. 14) from a Michael Rosenberg who actually argued the poor referees are now like "being stuck in a marriage with 100 million angry spouses." And why is this? Because we now have HDTV and can spot every tiny little blemish, every flaw, ever ref miscue. Yeah, right, like anyone needed HDTV to see the outrageous no call committed by the gutless zebra - more worried about the game being determined by a flag than having the right team represent the NFC in the Superbowl.

The result? A team of inferior offense was exposed on the big stage, with the young, inexperienced Goff looking like a flag football QB suddenly thrust into the tackle game --- in the Super Bowl. I think Janice and I counted 8 successive Ram punts before we went to get our chili and garlic bread dishes, nachos. My argument? Interject Brees and the Saints and you have a highly competitive Super Bowl with the Saints winning it in the end - Sean Payton having two weeks to prepare really good D-schemes. The result? Brady is 5-4 in Super Bowls and we cease hearing this infernal nonsense about him being the "greatest quarterback ever". NO - he is not!

How can I say this? In a separate SI piece it was noted how the game has "evolved" in the past thirty years or so with defenses declawed and offenses now replete with star boy QBs - almost like China dolls. They can no longer be leveled by linebackers in the style of Deacon Jones, Ray Nitschke and Lawrence Taylor. (Google Lawrence Taylor's hit on Joe Theismann. E.g.

Lawrence Taylor Hit - YouTube

In other words, Brady's SB wins must be taken in the context of the defensive rules that have been essentially neutered. As even one SI piece admitted (as the likely consequence if the same NFL defenses existed now as 30 years ago): "Would you really want backup quarterbacks like Deshon Kizer getting more game time than stars like Tom Brady, Aaron Rogers or Drew Brees.?

Well no, but we would want more honesty in acknowledging that today's star QBs play in a weakened defensive rules era - designed to highlight offense and the passing game. That means the QBs of old - like Joe Montana and Terry Bradshaw - who had to play against the likes of Lawrence Taylor or Mike Singletary, merit vastly more consideration in the G.O.A.T game.    Indeed, by my reckoning, both Bradshaw and Montana (with 4-0 SB records) merit more consideration as G.O.A.T. than Brady - who'd be 5-4 had the Patriots played the Saints instead of the LA Shams.

The presence of the Saints would also have meant a much more competitive and entertaining game as opposed to the schlock that passed for a Superbowl yesterday.   At least in New Orleans they could properly celebrate in their own way knowing deep down they were the rightful winners, and the NFC team that played were a bunch of pretenders dubbed the "Shams" by N.O fans.

Lastly. even if the Saints had played the Patsies and somehow lost that would not mean Brady is the "greatest of all time". As noted in a piece in today's USAToday,

https://ftw.usatoday.com/2019/02/super-bowl-bill-belichick-mvp-patriots

the game showed Bellichick never needed Brady to win a Super Bowl and indeed may not have needed Brady to win any. That means that while Bellichick may well be the "greatest NFL coach of all time", Tom Brady is not the greatest QB. If he was, he'd be indispensable to Bellichick's (and offensive coordinator Josh McDonald's) offensive plans.

See also:

Super Bowl ratings plummet as Who Dats strike back

The NFL got the matchup they wanted -- and the game got the viewership Saints fans think it deserved.

And:
Saints would’ve spiced up bland Super Bowl 53

Friday, February 1, 2019

Selected Questions- Answers From All Experts Astronomy Forum (Spherical Astronomy)

Question: I am a recent (2014) Mathematics graduate and would like to learn more about spherical astronomy. What exactly is it? How does it work, i.e. what sort of computations and what objectives? And what are the best texts to get to learn more? - Mason Dix, Louisville, KY

Answer: According to author W.M. Smart ('Textbook On Spherical Astronomy', Cambridge University Press, 1931): Spherical Astronomy:

"is concerned essentially with the directions in which stars are viewed, and it is convenient to define these directions in terms of the positions on the surface of a sphere - the celestial sphere - in which straight lines joining the observer to the stars intersect the surface."

This is probably as complete a definition as one will find without going into much more details. But at the very least it's clear one requires a spherical geometry. This isn't difficult to grasp when one realizes a spherical geometry essentially was obvious from antiquity to anyone who looked up at the stars, e.g.
No photo description available.

So what the observer would detect appeared to be on the inner surface of an immense sphere. The earliest spherical analog then was based on the central observer looking outward as if to a dome. It then was later tweaked and refined and became know as the horizon system - marked by the cardinal directions of the compass (N, S, E,W) and measuring altitude and azimuth.

The next step was for ancient observers to recognize the need for an independent spherical system with which the star positions could be pinpointed. This then introduced the celestial sphere concept:

Thus, the north pole is projected to the North Celestial Pole, the equator is projected to the celestial equator, and all latitude lines are projected to become declination lines, while longitude lines become Right Ascension lines. Thus, just as every geographical location on Earth has a latitude and longitude so also every sky location has a declination and Right Ascension. The "vernal equinox" position, for example, is at 0 degrees Declination and 0 hours RA. (The vernal equinox marks the first day of spring.)

The red circle projected onto the celestial sphere defines the ecliptic or the projected (apparent) path of the Sun onto the celestial sphere through the year. If we follow the red circle - the ecliptic - UP from the vernal equinox we come to the northernmost point at +23.5 degrees declination and 6h RA. This coincides with the summer solstice - or when the Sun appears over that latitude on Earth. This marks the longest day of the year in the northern hemisphere.

So inevitably the next logical step became how to compute star positions on this sphere (which had the designated coordinates of R.A. and declination) and also how to transform between coordinate systems, say between the horizon system and the celestial sphere system.

This is critical given each such coordinate system is defined by a different set of poles and equator. For example, the coordinate system depicted in the color graphic above - the equatorial system - is based on the projections of the Earth's own equator and N. and S. poles onto the sky sphere. The poles then become the North and South Celestial poles, and the equator becomes the celestial equator. If these poles are defined respectively at +90 degrees (NCP) and -90 degrees (SCP) and the celestial equator at 0 degrees, then a system of celestial latitude can be constructed.

Once the vernal equinox position is fixed at 0 hours R.A. then the celestial longitude emerges and spans 24 hours across the same celestial sphere. (Refer again to color graphic for direction of celestial longitude circles.) These can be used in conjunction with celestial latitude (declination) to locate any celestial object. It is then possible to make computations translating one system's coordinates to those of others (horizon, ecliptic etc.)

Consider this example which seeks to find the star’s declination.

The altitude of a star as it transits your meridian is found to be 45 deg along a vertical circle at azimuth 180 deg, the south point. Find the declination d of the star.

Since this was designed for students at latitude 13 degrees north, the key to the solution rests on the recognition that z, the zenith distance is negative. From the geometry of Fig. 3 one sees that:

90^o= z + a or z = 90^o - a = 90^o – 45 ^o = 45 ^o

But since we require: z = φ (latitude) = 13 ^o

Then z must have a negative value, or: (-45 ^o), since:

d = z + φ = (-45 ^o) + 13 ^o = -32 ^o

This makes sense, since by examining the right side of Fig. 2., the zenith distance z, plus altitude (a) must equal 90 degrees and we know CE (celestial equator) defines 0 degrees declination, then a star’s altitude of a = 45 ^o shows it to be SOUTH of CE. How much? Ans. 90 ^o - 45 ^o = 45 ^o.

But, this is still 32 ^o south of CE, and hence must be negative in value.

Another wide application of spherical astronomy is to find the azimuth of the Sun for particular dates, and locations. In general:

cos (A) = sin(d)/ cos (φ)

where A is the azimuth of the Sun, d denotes its declination, and φ is the observer’s latitude. (Note that d may be obtained from a table but can also be estimated from the equinox/solstice positions, i.e. +23 ½ ^o at solstices, 0 degrees at equinoxes.

Example: φ = 51.5 degrees N, for London. Now, for the December (winter) Solstice the Sun is directly over the Tropic of Capricorn (φ = 23.5 S) therefore we do know its declination is - 23.^o5. We have then for the Sun's azimuth at sunrise on Dec. 21:

cos (A) = sin (-23.^o 5)/ cos (51.^o 5)

which gives approximately, 130 ^o.

Where is this on our directional reference circle for azimuth? We know that 180 degrees is due South so that this must be:

40 degrees SOUTH of due East. (90^o + 40^o = 130^o)

Now, on the longest day of the year (say June 21), the Sun is over the Tropic of Cancer at 23.5 N latitude, so the Sun's declination is + 23.^o 5 . Then the azimuth for that date is:

cos (A) = sin (23.^o 5)/ cos (51.^o5)

And A = 50 ^o

This puts the Sun's rising position North of due E. or specifically 40 degrees North of due East.

Now, we can again use Fig. 3, for a celestial sphere application, in which we use the spherical trig relations to obtain an astronomical measurement, say for declination of an object.

Using the angles shown in Fig. 3 each of the angles for the law of cosines (given above) can be found. They are as follows:

cos a = cos (90^o - d)

where d = declination

cos b = cos (90^o - Lat)

Where 'Lat' denotes the latitude of the observer. Further:

cos c = cos z

where z here is the zenith distance.

sin b = sin (90 deg - Lat)

sin c = sin z

and finally,

cos A = cos A

Where A is the azimuth.

Let's say we wish to find the declination of a star observed by an observer at latitude 45^o N. The azimuth of the star is measured to be 60^o, and its zenith distance z = 30^o. Then one would solve for cos a:

cos a = cos (90^o - d)=

cos (90^o - Lat) cos z + sin (90^o - Lat) sin z cos (A)

cos (90^o - d) = cos (90^o - 45^o) cos 30^o

+ sin (90^o - 45^o) sin 30^o cos 60^o

And:

cos (90^o - d) = cos (45^o) cos 30^o

+ sin (45^o) sin 30^o cos 60^o

We know, or can use tables or calculator to find:

cos 45^o = Ö2 / 2

cos 30^o = Ö3/ 2

sin 45^o = Ö2/ 2

sin 30^o = ½

cos 60^o = ½

Then:

cos (90 - d)= {(Ö2/ 2 )( Ö3/ 2)} + {Ö2/ 2} Ö (½) }

cos (90 - d)= Ö6/ 4 + Ö2/ 8 = {2Ö6 + Ö2}/ 8

cos (90 - d) = 0.789

arc cos (90 - d)= 37.^o9

Then:

d = 90 ^o - 37.^o 9 = 52.^o 1

Or, in more technical terms:

d (star) = + 52.1 degrees

Hopefully, this gives some small insight into the sort of computations used in spherical astronomy. As for one of the best books, you can't surpass this textbook:
Image may contain: text

When I took Spherical Astronomy & Geodesy at USF.

The problem is the book is now out of print though I suspect copies are available at university libraries. The next best option is to get hold of W. M. Smart's monograph:

Go through the text methodically, working as many problems as you can, and you will master spherical astronomy.

Why Starbucks' Howard Schultz Has Zero Chance Of Getting Elected - Only Getting Dotard Re-elected

Amazingly, Americans continue to be enchanted with third party candidates and their chances of reaching the presidency despite the fact our voting system virtually renders it an impossibility. WSJ columnist William Galston, for example, observed in his recent column (Jan. 30, p. A17):

"Last September, I and two other members of the bipartisan Voter Study Group assessed voters' appetite for an alternative to the two established parties. Though 68 percent said they'd like another option, they didn't agree on what it should be."

In other words, the choices split to the left (of the Dems) and to the right (of the Republicans), as well as the perceived dead center, i.e. between left and right "extremes". Most interesting, Galston adds:

"Support for a candidacy of the center amonnted to about 22 percent of the electorate. not enough to carry a single state."

This is sobering and shows the immense difficulty of electing a third party candidate - whether of more left, center, or more right, gaining any traction in the U.S. electoral system. One reason for that is that our system of voting is skewed toward a majority of votes for the winner. This is in turn skewed by the Electoral College - where a minority popular vote winner can still claim top prize as Trump did in 2016. (Based on snaring 77,000 votes in 3 key states: WI, MI and PA).

The usual reason offered for the existence of the Electoral College is to give smaller, less populous states some leverage in national elections. The real reason is that the Founders designed it to protect slave -owning states from having their will thwarted by more populous non-slave states. The issue ought to have been settled in the Civil War, but the Electoral College continued as the anachronism it is today. (Of course some Founders, like Alexander Hamilton, argued for the Electoral College to be the final barrier against a populist demagogue becoming president. Well, we saw how that worked out.)

Anyway, it is clear or should be that the only way a third party candidate would stand a chance is to adopt a preferential voting system that departs from binary (A or B) choices. Instead, one has a ranked system such as illustrated below, which we also use in Mensa to elect officers. It is also used in one form or other in other nations. As my late German friend Kurt Braun explained to me in 1985, "The Greens in Germany would never have stood a chance of seating so many in the Reichstag" i.e. without preference voting.

This ballot example (from Wikipedia) shows five choices - which could be five presidential candidates in a primary. The voter - instead of being asked to vote one OR another, is asked to rank 3 in the order of preference. When all votes are finally tallied - say 100,000 - the candidate registering the highest frequency, highest rank (or 2nd highest in 2nd rank if tied for first) is declared the winner. In such an election scenario it is possible to conceive of a third party candidate (say Mary Hill) at least gaining enough leverage to take an election. (E.g. John Citizen: 25,000 "1's, 33, 000 "2's, 42,000 "3's"; Mary Hill: 25,000 "1's", 45,000 "2's", 30,000 "3's".) Mary Hill is awarded the victory because though tied with John Citizen for No. 1 rank, she bested him with 12,000 more 2nd rank votes.

I believe it is fairly easy to also see that such a voting method would also essentially eliminate "tied" election results such as we have seen in assorted national elections and ever since Bush v. Gore in 2000. Thus, the No. 2 rank higher frequency emerges as an automatic tiebreaker. No need for recounts- hand or machine, hanging chads or screaming mobs outside of voting stations while recounts are performed. Easy peasy.

So why isn't this more rational system employed? Because - the argument goes - it would be too costly and complicated to overhaul the existing binary, winner take all system.

All of this is relevant now as former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz has announced his third party candidacy and the Dems are livid, as they should be. As William Galston put it (ibid.):

"Starbucks former CEO has no shot at the presidency and could help Trump win."

Indeed, he could well do that just as Jill Stein did in 2016 when she siphoned just enough votes off from Hillary Clinton in three states (Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania) to enable Trump to grab 77,000 for an electoral college win. This despite Dan Henninger's codswallop (Jan. 31, p. 17, 'The State of Trump's Union'):

"He (Trump) won in 2016 in part because so many people voted against Hillary Clinton."

Actually, Henny, nearly THREE million more voted for Hillary than Dotard. What really happened is that too many nincompoops decided to toss their franchise away in the three "Brexit" states by voting for Jill Stein. Not that Jill isn't a proper firebrand and amiable - but she didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning given our current binary voting system.

Henninger, in his inimitable distorting style, then goes on to bloviate about Democrats and the Left in "hysteria over an outlier like Howard Schultz." No, not because Schultz is an outlier - like Jill Stein was- but because like Ms. Stein he could siphon just enough moderate Dem votes to get the piece of filth and traitor re-elected. Which would be a national catastrophe. But, of course, Henninger is such a DOtard suckup it's doubtful this aspect would register. Presumably he'd be just fine with 4 more years of Trump's antic, including" shutdowns if he doesn't get his way, hobnobbing in secret meets with Vlad, and dissing his own intelligence agencies. (Why Sen. Chuck Schumer recently called for an "intervention" by the intel group.)

Worse, as NY Times columnist Michelle Goldberg noted three nights ago on 'All In' Schultz doesn't even have a platform, a stance or an agenda. He just wants to be the "third choice" and maybe the "anti- Dem" - so like too many rich guys on the right with more ego than brains - wants to stir up a shitstorm against Medicare for All and higher taxes. . (The proposed program now facing a propaganda blitz in the reactionary media and also the corporate owned set.)

The best advice for Schultzy? Don;t event think of carrying through with this farce, and forever being labeled an accessory after the fact if this traitor Trump is re-elected. As Mr. Galston put it in his "open letter" to Schultz:

"Even if you could win, there's no reason to believe you would be an effective president."

But as I wrote, Schultz won't win - there's no universe in which he does- especially with a binary winner take all system. But he could and very well might be the unknown that get Traitor Trump re-elected, with all that implies.

See also:

Howard Schultz

Howard Schultz Is a Presidential Candidate Only Late Capitalism Could Produce

And:

The Disaster of Howard Schultz

by Robert Reich | January 31, 2019 - 7:31am | permalink

Excerpt:

"His message is without substance (he uses empty catchphrases like “silent majority” and “common sense solutions”) and his policy proposals are zilch. When asked by John Dickerson on CBS This Morning what his “big idea” was, Schultz declared: “The big idea is very simple: to unite the country. For us to come together. To do everything we can to realize that the promise of America is for everyone.” To the extent Schultz has defined his candidacy, it’s focused on what he’s against—for example, Democratic proposals to raise taxes and provide Medicare for All .