How can Lunar Eclipses work within the Flat Earth Model?

Lunar eclipses Flat Earth Model.

I was reading comments from a previous discussion from 2017 regarding theories of how a lunar eclipse can possibly work with a Flat Earth, I see alot of talk about an "SO" (Shadow Object).

1. First, does the moon give off its own light, or not?  From what I have read, if the moon is reflecting the sun's light, the light from both should be the same temperature, but that light would have a different lumens brightness for the moon when compared with the brightness of the sun, right? But, I've also read that the temperature of the light of the sun is actually different from the temperature of the light from the moon, so the moon must give off its own light.  But, if that is the case, why can the moon be darkened during a lunar eclipse? I have a theory that may cause that point to make no difference in the discussion of how a lunar eclipse can work within the Flat Earth Model...

2. I read from flat Earth theory that there must be some mysterious "SO' or "Shaodow Object", but no one seems to know what it could be, other than some pretty strange ideas about an invisible object. But, ther has to be something there, somehow! So, if the "SO" isn't the Earth, what could it be? According to Flat Earth theory, as far as I understand, the magnetic field of the earth is toroidal, or shaped like a donut, with the "donut hole" being at the center, which is commonly called the "North Pole". Not sure what the hole in the center is called, so I will call it "the Center". So, it would seem to me that the strengh of the magnetic field would be significantly stronger in the Center. What effect might that have on light?

2. A lunar eclipse ONLY happens when the sun and moon are directly across from each other, otherwise known as a full moon phase. So, during a lunar eclipse "something" has to come between the two.

3. So, if the moon gives off its own light, why is that light almost completely dimmed during a lunar eclipse? Might the moon be kind of like a flourescent tube bulb that illuminates slightly when exposed to static electricity, or something similar, when it is directly exposed to the light from the sun? Could it be that during a lunar eclipse that something greatly diminishes that static effect because "something" is blocking most of that static energy from the sun? If the electromagnetic field is significantly stronger in the "Center", could that concentrated electromagnetic field be what is blocking most of the static effect from the sun, causing what we call and observe as a "lunar eclipse"? Invisible, not a solid object, not a physical shadow, but an electromagnetic shadow.

1. First, does the moon give off its own light, or not?  From what I have read, if the moon is reflecting the sun's light, the light from both should be the same temperature, but that light would have a different lumens brightness for the moon when compared with the brightness of the sun, right? But, I've also read that the temperature of the light of the sun is actually different from the temperature of the light from the moon, so the moon must give off its own light.  But, if that is the case, why can the moon be darkened during a lunar eclipse? I have a theory that may cause that point to make no difference in the discussion of how a lunar eclipse can work within the Flat Earth Model...

As the moon absorbs some light, its colour (temperature of light) doesn't need to be the same.
The black body radiation it emits certainly wont be the same.
The comments about the temperature being different are more that the night sky is cold and cools objects down, because there isn't the sun pumping in loads of energy.

What effect might that have on light?

Light passes through magnetic fields just fine.

According to Flat Earth theory, as far as I understand, the magnetic field of the earth is toroidal, or shaped like a donut, with the "donut hole" being at the center, which is commonly called the "North Pole". Not sure what the hole in the center is called, so I will call it "the Center". So, it would seem to me that the strengh of the magnetic field would be significantly stronger in the Center.

Actually, if what I remember from high school physics is true, I think that in a toroid, all the magnetic field lines are contained completely inside the donut and the centre of the donut has no magnitude of magnetic field. But there is always some leakage in a non ideal toroid, but even still, with how weak earth's B field is, I doubt you'd have appreciable B field in the centre.

Now in your model, you argue that lunar eclipse are from the natural cooling of the moon

No, I don't.
I was pointing out issues with the argument.
I know lunar eclipses are from Earth's shadow.

Well, the argument itself is flawless because moon does reflect sunlight and does not change its temperature dramatically, so its blackbody radiation does not varies so much

Do you understand the words you are saying, and what you are responding to?

You can talk about the temperature of light. This is the temperature of a black body which will radiate that particular combination of wavelengths at those particular intensities.
These are sometimes even given names, which don't always match.
"Warm white" is for a temperature of around 3000 K. "Cool white" is closer to 7000 K. Which is kind of broken with cool white being hotter than warm white.

A perfect mirror will simply reflect the light which hits it, and so the temperature of that light wont change.

Some people then use that to claim the moon can't be reflecting sunlight because its spectrum is different.
But it isn't a perfect mirror, so there is no need for it to be perfectly the same.
There is no need for the light from the moon to be the same temperature as the light from the sun.

The separate issue, which is far more common for FEers and other conspiracy nuts, is to claim that moonlight cools objects down rather than heats them up, which would mean it would need to be fundamentally different to sunlight. But that is due to poorly controlled experiments where it is actually exposure to the night sky cooling it down.

But since you insist on pretending things are perfect, the rest of your claims are also nonsense.
We don't see the moon completely disappear during a lunar eclipse. We see it turn orange, so there is no need for its surface to cool to 2.83 K.
And baselessly asserting the number with no justification isn't helpful at all.
Especially given the contrast with what we see at night.
Are you suggesting that at night, or in a dark room, or anything like that, where things appear black, that they have magically cooled down to 2.83K? Although I assume with that math of yours, with them being much closer would mean they need to be much colder?

I assume the incorrect math you are using is based upon considering all the light, including IR and radio waves, not just visible light.

And just like all objects without an atmosphere, the temperature of the moon does vary dramatically.
Especially given any point on it will experience roughly 2 weeks of sunlight followed by 2 weeks of no sunlight.
e.g. just reading here:
https://science.nasa.gov/moon/weather-on-the-moon/
It varies from 140 K to 394 K.
I would say a change where it doubles in temperature (or halves, depending on which way you look at it) is quite a dramatic variation.
And that is without going to even darker spots, like inside craters at 27 K.

And you have also contradicted yourself.
If its temperature doesn't change much, and you need it to be 2.83 K to not be visible, why can't we see the portion which isn't illuminated by the sun? Or are you trying to suggest it remains at 2.83 K or below the entire time?

And to cap it off, your claim that the argument is flawless because an alleged conclusion of it is correct, is pure BS.
Even flawed arguments can reach the correct conclusion.

1. 2.83K is calculated by neglecting the influence of the Sun, this is to tell you that lunar eclipse is not caused by the change of blackbody radiation of the moon and solar radiation cannot cool the moon down.

What calculation?
Who said anything about he solar radiation cooling down the moon?
How did you arrive at 2.83 K for this incorrect statement of yours:

for something to totally disappear from our eye at a distance of 3200 miles above, its temperature must reach 2.83 Kelvin

A statement which is quite clearly pure BS.

2. When I say blackbody radiation, I referred to all-wavelength radiation, not just on the visible brand.

We see in the visible, which makes such a statement pointless when trying to claim that it would need to be that cold to not be seen.

3. I never stated that the light temperature from the moon is the same as the Sun, I don't know how did you come up with that conclusion.

The OP did, to which I responded, explaining why it is wrong, to which you just spouted a bunch of crap.

5. Regarding the temperature change, I must tell you that 300K temperature correspond to a max wavelength of microwave, which is not observable by naked eye.

Which does nothing to defend your entirely incorrect claim that the moon doesn't change temperature dramatically.

6. The change of lunar phase is caused by lunar rotation around the Earth, I never said this is caused by the change of temperature.

And I never said you did.
Instead I used it as an example to show your claim that it would need to cool to 2.83 K to not be visible is pure BS, and your claim that the temperature doesn't vary dramatically is pure BS.

And during a lunar eclipse, when it goes into shadow, the temperature also varies dramatically.

9. You are just but a internet joker who refuse to believe in science and try to rebut science by so called "observation" that does not stand the test of logic. When others try to rebut you, you list a bunch of irrelevant words to confuse them and make you look intelligent, which you are not.

Quite the opposite.
I am object to jokers like you spouting ignorant crap to pretend you are smarter than others. So great job describing yourself.

Even bringing up entirely irrelevant crap.
I explained mistakes in the OP.
You decided to respond to that by bringing up pure BS, where you claimed 2.83 K is a temperature needed to make it so the moon isn't visible to the eye, when I said nothing like that.
Then to try defending it you bring up even more crap now.

You were so desperate to try and look intelligent you just assumed I must be a flat Earther because I pointed out issues in the OP's claims.

Care to retract or correct your many incorrect statements?

I want to end this response with a quote from Qui-Gon Jinn:
"The ability to speak does not make you intelligent."

And you are a great example of that.
And I bet you will keep digging yourself in deeper and deeper.

Exactly, thank you for saying that 2.83K is BS, that is my whole point

So you admit your whole point is BS?

I am tired of telling you simple fact that a 3 year old understand.

The problem is you are trying to pretend you are better than everyone else and end up saying complete BS.
BS you then have to flee from.

I am done talking with idiots like you now, see ya later uneducated ignorant sucker!

The idiot here is you.
So stupid you repeatedly contradicted yourself and showed everyone you will happily just spout whatever BS you can think of to pretend to be smart.
Good riddance to bad garbage.

http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=flat+earth+dome+model

this might clear things up

Quote from: Polaris5744 on March 29, 2024, 07:05:56 PM

Exactly, thank you for saying that 2.83K is BS, that is my whole point

So you admit your whole point is BS?

Quote from: Polaris5744 on March 29, 2024, 07:05:56 PM

I am tired of telling you simple fact that a 3 year old understand.

The problem is you are trying to pretend you are better than everyone else and end up saying complete BS.
BS you then have to flee from.

Quote from: Polaris5744 on March 29, 2024, 07:29:43 PM

I am done talking with idiots like you now, see ya later uneducated ignorant sucker!

The idiot here is you.
So stupid you repeatedly contradicted yourself and showed everyone you will happily just spout whatever BS you can think of to pretend to be smart.
Good riddance to bad garbage.

Wow, you're as good as driving away round earthers with a case of dunning kruger effect as you are at driving away flat earthers from arguments, props.

Wow, you're as good as driving away round earthers with a case of dunning kruger effect as you are at driving away flat earthers from arguments, props.

There’s the right way.  There’s the wrong way.  Then there’s the cult of JackBlack.

😁

Lunar eclipses Flat Earth Model.

I was reading comments from a previous discussion from 2017 regarding theories of how a lunar eclipse can possibly work with a Flat Earth, I see alot of talk about an "SO" (Shadow Object).

I don't know anything about the flat earth shadow object.  But, I can tell you that if it existed, we would be able to see it.  If it were invisible, it could not cast a shadow.  People can wave all the hands they want, but an invisible object does not cast a shadow, or it would not be invisible.  If nothing else, the moon would not be the only celestial object it would block the view of. 

Do I need to discuss this any further?

1. First, does the moon give off its own light, or not? 

Yes, the moon, like all object radiate electromagnetic energy according to their temperature.  But this radiation is faint for anything that is not rather hot, thousands of degrees hot.  The moon is not hot, it is very cold.  So, the thermal radiation is very slight and at wavelengths far below visible light.  This is what they measure to determine the temperature of light.

The reflected light from the sun has a temperature which corresponds to the heat of the sun.  But, the moon does not reflect all of it.  The materials on the surface of the moon retain some of that light, at specific wavelengths.  This may alter the measured temperature of the light from the moon, a bit.  It should not be appreciable, even if measurable. 

From what I have read, if the moon is reflecting the sun's light, the light from both should be the same temperature, but that light would have a different lumens brightness for the moon when compared with the brightness of the sun, right? But, I've also read that the temperature of the light of the sun is actually different from the temperature of the light from the moon, so the moon must give off its own light. 

Where did you read this?   I'm not sure it matters.  If that temperature is different from the sun light, a reason for that would be required.

But, if that is the case, why can the moon be darkened during a lunar eclipse?

Exactly! 

I have a theory that may cause that point to make no difference in the discussion of how a lunar eclipse can work within the Flat Earth Model...

2. I read from flat Earth theory that there must be some mysterious "SO' or "Shaodow Object", but no one seems to know what it could be, other than some pretty strange ideas about an invisible object.

Of course there's no explanation.  Because it's just made up!  It's not part of science, it's a fairy tale. 

But, ther has to be something there, somehow!

Yes!  A globe earth, with a sphere moon, a sphere sun and sphere planets. 

So, if the "SO" isn't the Earth, what could it be?

 

Why can't it be the earth?

According to Flat Earth theory, as far as I understand, the magnetic field of the earth is toroidal, or shaped like a donut, with the "donut hole" being at the center, which is commonly called the "North Pole". Not sure what the hole in the center is called, so I will call it "the Center". So, it would seem to me that the strengh of the magnetic field would be significantly stronger in the Center. What effect might that have on light?

Picture a bar magnet.  Lines of force run between the north and south poles in curves, all around the bar.  This is what they are calling a torus.  There is no hole.  It's just the center of the field.  The magnetic field is not stronger in the center.

Light is not affected by magnetic fields.

2. A lunar eclipse ONLY happens when the sun and moon are directly across from each other, otherwise known as a full moon phase. So, during a lunar eclipse "something" has to come between the two.

Yes, the earth.

3. So, if the moon gives off its own light, why is that light almost completely dimmed during a lunar eclipse?

It's not, the moon does not give off its own light, other than thermal radiation, which you won't see.

Might the moon be kind of like a flourescent tube bulb that illuminates slightly when exposed to static electricity, or something similar, when it is directly exposed to the light from the sun?

No.

But, if you snap it in half and shake it, it will glow for a few hours.

Could it be that during a lunar eclipse that something greatly diminishes that static effect because "something" is blocking most of that static energy from the sun?

Yes, the earth is blocking the radiation from the sun. 

If the electromagnetic field is significantly stronger in the "Center", could that concentrated electromagnetic field be what is blocking most of the static effect from the sun, causing what we call and observe as a "lunar eclipse"? Invisible, not a solid object, not a physical shadow, but an electromagnetic shadow.

What is making this electromagnetic field?

Actually, I'm more interested in understanding why you are trying to make the flat earth idea work, in this regard.  You do realize, that this is just one of the many, many problems with the flat earth idea, right?

Quote from: muckraker77 on March 25, 2024, 05:22:52 PM

According to Flat Earth theory, as far as I understand, the magnetic field of the earth is toroidal, or shaped like a donut, with the "donut hole" being at the center, which is commonly called the "North Pole". Not sure what the hole in the center is called, so I will call it "the Center". So, it would seem to me that the strengh of the magnetic field would be significantly stronger in the Center.

Actually, if what I remember from high school physics is true, I think that in a toroid, all the magnetic field lines are contained completely inside the donut and the centre of the donut has no magnitude of magnetic field. But there is always some leakage in a non ideal toroid, but even still, with how weak earth's B field is, I doubt you'd have appreciable B field in the centre.

Wrong toroid.  Picture the magnetic field around a bar magnet.

Oh, so they mean like a circular disc magnet? But that still doesn't explain true magnetic north, why the magnetic field flips every some millennias(centuries?) and how the the dip circle works.

Oh, so they mean like a circular disc magnet? But that still doesn't explain true magnetic north, why the magnetic field flips every some millennias(centuries?) and how the the dip circle works.

I misunderstood the original use of the term toroid.  I was thinking of the globe earth.  I'm not sure that a flat earth would have much of a magnetic field.  They speculate the globe earth magnetic field is to do with the core, which is largely iron, spinning. 

The flat earth obviously would not have that, although I've never heard anyone talk about what is on the other side of the flat earth.  Maybe there are massive magnetic engines which both produce the earth's magnetic field and provide the acceleration required to simulate gravity?