What about the Solar eclipse?

  • 204 Replies
  • 2540 Views
What about the Solar eclipse?
« on: April 08, 2024, 05:05:33 AM »
Hi!

I'm new to this forum.
I wouldn't say I'm a believer in Flat Earth but nor a non-believer. I'm a questioner.

Lot of people are waiting for a total Solar eclipse today. According to them, this is another proof that Earth is round. Also, as they say (not the exact words but something like: ), "In science, a theory is as good as its ability to predict the future". So if a solar eclipse actually happens, they will take it as another proof of the round Earth.

But I'm wondering what do Flat Earth believers think about it.

What do you think about the Solar eclipse?
How do you interprete this phenomenon (assuming it will actually happen, which we'll be able to see in a few hours)?
What are the scientific assumptions or explanations (in Flat Earth domain) that could fit with this phenomenon?

Thanks!

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17693
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: What about the Solar eclipse?
« Reply #1 on: April 08, 2024, 05:17:26 AM »
The fact of the matter is that predicting eclipses is independent of theory and a mere matter of tabulation. Consider the number of ancient cultures that believed in a flat earth yet were able to predict to a great degree of certainty numerous celestial phenomena.
The illusion is shattered if we ask what goes on behind the scenes.

Re: What about the Solar eclipse?
« Reply #2 on: April 08, 2024, 05:40:28 AM »
The fact of the matter is that predicting eclipses is independent of theory and a mere matter of tabulation. Consider the number of ancient cultures that believed in a flat earth yet were able to predict to a great degree of certainty numerous celestial phenomena.

Have an example?


Re: What about the Solar eclipse?
« Reply #3 on: April 08, 2024, 06:04:28 AM »

 Consider the number of ancient cultures that believed in a flat earth

We can use a modern example

Quote
Before the advent of computers or even a working theory of the solar system, the ancients predicted solar eclipses. How did they do it?

https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-news/how-did-the-ancients-predicted-eclipses-the-saros-cycle/




How does the position of the moon and sun for a flat earth explain the 1937 June 8th shadow path of the eclipse? 

Re: What about the Solar eclipse?
« Reply #4 on: April 08, 2024, 07:31:13 AM »

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7138
Re: What about the Solar eclipse?
« Reply #5 on: April 08, 2024, 11:17:40 AM »
Hi!

I'm new to this forum.
I wouldn't say I'm a believer in Flat Earth but nor a non-believer. I'm a questioner.

Lot of people are waiting for a total Solar eclipse today. According to them, this is another proof that Earth is round. Also, as they say (not the exact words but something like: ), "In science, a theory is as good as its ability to predict the future". So if a solar eclipse actually happens, they will take it as another proof of the round Earth.

But I'm wondering what do Flat Earth believers think about it.

What do you think about the Solar eclipse?
How do you interprete this phenomenon (assuming it will actually happen, which we'll be able to see in a few hours)?
What are the scientific assumptions or explanations (in Flat Earth domain) that could fit with this phenomenon?

Thanks!

Let me address first the April 8, 2024 solar eclipse. Nothing out of the ordinary would happen unless the summer solstice falls on April 9, 2024 (the summer solstice is not a date, but the position of the Sun in the sky). Also, planet Garuda/Vulcan might be seen next to the Sun.

In addition, regarding the comet 12P/Pons-Brooks (which is actually comet C/1811 F1 Aquila), nothing is going to happen unless and until there is a tidal disruption event.

How does a solar eclipse work in FET?

The Moon orbits behind the Sun, while the dark body is orbiting in front of the Sun, so it's like a double eclipse.

The RE cannot explain the solar eclipse, the Allais effect completely destroys any and all of their failed arguments.

Here is the fantastic Allais effect (Dr. Maurice Allais, Nobel prize winner):

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg760382#msg760382

All of the other RE, especially jackblack, just shit their pants when they hear the name Allais. And this is the reason why:

Dr. Maurice Allais:

In both cases, with the experiments with the anisotropic
support and with those with the isotropic support, it is found
that the amplitudes of the periodic effects are considerably
greater than those calculated according to the law of gravitation,
whether or not completed by the theory of relativity.
In the case of the anisotropic support, the amplitude of
the luni-solar component of 24h 50m is about twenty million
times greater than the amplitude calculated by the theory of
universal gravitation.

In the case of the paraconical pendulum with isotropic
support, this relation is about a hundred million.


In other words, the pendulum motions Allais observed during his two eclipses – 1954 and 1959 -- were physically IMPOSSIBLE … according to all known “textbook physics!”


CONFIRMATION OF THE ALLAIS EFFECT DURING THE 2008 SOLAR ECLIPSE:

http://ivanik3.narod.ru/Astrophiz/AnomSunEclip/pugarticleGoodey.pdf

Published in the Journal of Advanced Research in Physics


Given the above, the authors consider that it is an inescapable conclusion from our experiments that after the end of the visible eclipse, as the Moon departed the angular vicinity of the Sun, some influence exerted itself upon the Eastern European region containing our three sets of equipment, extending over a field at least hundreds of kilometers in width.

The nature of this common influence is unknown, but plainly it cannot be considered as gravitational in the usually accepted sense of Newtonian or Einsteinian gravitation.


We therefore are compelled to the opinion that some currently unknown physical influence was at work.


This is the real size of the Sun, some 636 meters in diameters, photograph taken in November 2003, in Antarctica, by one of the greatest photographers, Fred Bruenjes:

https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0805/antarcticeclipse_bruenjes_big.jpg



The dark body which marks the solar eclipse by passing in front of the Sun has about the same diameters as that of the Sun itself.

Re: What about the Solar eclipse?
« Reply #6 on: April 08, 2024, 12:54:39 PM »

The Moon orbits behind the Sun, while the dark body is orbiting in front of the Sun, so it's like a double eclipse.

What dark body that never blocks stars from view on a normal night?  Or the planets? 

So a “dark” body that only exists in your delusion.

Quote
How to Photograph a Total Solar Eclipse




https://www.photographingspace.com/photograph-total-solar-eclipse/


Yeap. The moon in front of the sun for a solar eclipse with no evidence of some other “dark” body blocking the stars, the moon, or the planet as it zooms around in your head. 

Re: What about the Solar eclipse?
« Reply #7 on: April 08, 2024, 01:14:28 PM »


 one of the greatest photographers, Fred Bruenjes



This guy you just legitimized?

Quote
Solar Eclipses seen by Fred Bruenjes

One of my hobbies is astronomy, a branch of which is chasing solar eclipses. Solar eclipses occur when the Moon passes in front of the Sun in the course of its orbit. About once or twice a year there is a narrow strip across the Earth where an eclipse is visible. For more information about eclipses in general, please visit Fred Espenak's Mr. Eclipse website. Below is a table of solar eclipses I have observed, attempted to observe, or plan to observe. Links to full reports are available.
NEW: My software for controlling cameras during an eclipse is now available.

http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/eclipses.html

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7138
Re: What about the Solar eclipse?
« Reply #8 on: April 08, 2024, 01:29:47 PM »
The Earthshine pic has been debunked a long time ago.



That's a real image.

Now, take a look at this, the most famous earthshine pic of them all:

https://web.archive.org/web/20180415201409/http://www.astropix.com/eclipse/2017_Total_Solar_Eclipse_Earthshine.html

The corona of the Sun is not that bright, yet the features of the "moon" are visible.

"Because these photos of moon in front of the earth are only a recent phenomenon, they have only appeared within the past 10 years or so. Astronomers have been photographing eclipses for a hundred years now. So why has this just appeared in the past 10 years. Could it have something to do with Photoshop?"

Now, let us compare the before/after the photoshop feature is used.

Here is the fake photograph:

https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/upload_2017-8-22_12-8-34-png.28426/

Here is the real image:

https://www.reddit.com/r/woahdude/comments/6wssg9/i_combined_12_exposures_to_capture_the_suns/

Here is the comparison (fake vs real):

https://www.google.ro/search?hl=en&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1024&bih=626&ei=zMUTXN6ZMMSalwSk0qroCQ&q=dennis+sprinkle+solar+eclipse&oq=dennis+sprinkle+solar+eclipse&gs_l=img.3...448.5790..6304...2.0..0.137.2934.21j10......0....1..gws-wiz-img.....0..0j0i8i30j0i30j0i24.c4Nf_UmAENg

Here is what a solar eclipse really looks like:

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0805/antarcticeclipse_bruenjes_big.jpg



http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/CRW_4623.jpg

http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/composite2.jpg


It can't be the Moon passing in front of the Sun.

The Allais effect proves it must be a dark body which is causing the solar eclipse.


https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg760382#msg760382

All of the other RE, especially jackblack, just shit their pants when they hear the name Allais. And this is the reason why:

Dr. Maurice Allais:

In both cases, with the experiments with the anisotropic
support and with those with the isotropic support, it is found
that the amplitudes of the periodic effects are considerably
greater than those calculated according to the law of gravitation,
whether or not completed by the theory of relativity.
In the case of the anisotropic support, the amplitude of
the luni-solar component of 24h 50m is about twenty million
times greater than the amplitude calculated by the theory of
universal gravitation.

In the case of the paraconical pendulum with isotropic
support, this relation is about a hundred million.

In other words, the pendulum motions Allais observed during his two eclipses – 1954 and 1959 -- were physically IMPOSSIBLE … according to all known “textbook physics!”


CONFIRMATION OF THE ALLAIS EFFECT DURING THE 2008 SOLAR ECLIPSE:

http://ivanik3.narod.ru/Astrophiz/AnomSunEclip/pugarticleGoodey.pdf

Published in the Journal of Advanced Research in Physics


Given the above, the authors consider that it is an inescapable conclusion from our experiments that after the end of the visible eclipse, as the Moon departed the angular vicinity of the Sun, some influence exerted itself upon the Eastern European region containing our three sets of equipment, extending over a field at least hundreds of kilometers in width.

The nature of this common influence is unknown, but plainly it cannot be considered as gravitational in the usually accepted sense of Newtonian or Einsteinian gravitation.


We therefore are compelled to the opinion that some currently unknown physical influence was at work.


Can you read English?

Given the above, the authors consider that it is an inescapable conclusion from our experiments that after the end of the visible eclipse, as the Moon departed the angular vicinity of the Sun, some influence exerted itself upon the Eastern European region containing our three sets of equipment, extending over a field at least hundreds of kilometers in width.

The nature of this common influence is unknown, but plainly it cannot be considered as gravitational in the usually accepted sense of Newtonian or Einsteinian gravitation.


We therefore are compelled to the opinion that some currently unknown physical influence was at work.


The dark body absorbs all visible light that is why it cannot be seen unless it passes in front of the Sun.

Re: What about the Solar eclipse?
« Reply #9 on: April 08, 2024, 01:50:31 PM »

That's a real image.

And this is documented as a real picture too.

Quote
How to Photograph a Total Solar Eclipse




https://www.photographingspace.com/photograph-total-solar-eclipse/

Again?

The guy you legitimised..


Quote
Solar Eclipses seen by Fred Bruenjes

One of my hobbies is astronomy, a branch of which is chasing solar eclipses. Solar eclipses occur when the Moon passes in front of the Sun in the course of its orbit. About once or twice a year there is a narrow strip across the Earth where an eclipse is visible. For more information about eclipses in general, please visit Fred Espenak's Mr. Eclipse website. Below is a table of solar eclipses I have observed, attempted to observe, or plan to observe. Links to full reports are available.
NEW: My software for controlling cameras during an eclipse is now available.

http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/eclipses.html


Post about the moon being in from of the sun..




http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/antarctica_book_hi.pdf


How real are his pictures? Or authentic?


http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/composite_photo.html



With no evidence of a “dark” object that would block stars, the planets, and the moon from view as it zoomed anywhere else than your delusions.





Re: What about the Solar eclipse?
« Reply #10 on: April 08, 2024, 02:13:02 PM »
The Earthshine pic has been debunked a long time ago.



That's a real image.

Now, take a look at this, the most famous earthshine pic of them all:

https://web.archive.org/web/20180415201409/http://www.astropix.com/eclipse/2017_Total_Solar_Eclipse_Earthshine.html

The corona of the Sun is not that bright, yet the features of the "moon" are visible.

"Because these photos of moon in front of the earth are only a recent phenomenon, they have only appeared within the past 10 years or so. Astronomers have been photographing eclipses for a hundred years now. So why has this just appeared in the past 10 years. Could it have something to do with Photoshop?"

Now, let us compare the before/after the photoshop feature is used.

Here is the fake photograph:

https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/upload_2017-8-22_12-8-34-png.28426/

Here is the real image:

https://www.reddit.com/r/woahdude/comments/6wssg9/i_combined_12_exposures_to_capture_the_suns/

Here is the comparison (fake vs real):

https://www.google.ro/search?hl=en&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1024&bih=626&ei=zMUTXN6ZMMSalwSk0qroCQ&q=dennis+sprinkle+solar+eclipse&oq=dennis+sprinkle+solar+eclipse&gs_l=img.3...448.5790..6304...2.0..0.137.2934.21j10......0....1..gws-wiz-img.....0..0j0i8i30j0i30j0i24.c4Nf_UmAENg

Here is what a solar eclipse really looks like:

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0805/antarcticeclipse_bruenjes_big.jpg



http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/CRW_4623.jpg

http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/composite2.jpg


It can't be the Moon passing in front of the Sun.

The Allais effect proves it must be a dark body which is causing the solar eclipse.


https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg760382#msg760382

All of the other RE, especially jackblack, just shit their pants when they hear the name Allais. And this is the reason why:

Dr. Maurice Allais:

In both cases, with the experiments with the anisotropic
support and with those with the isotropic support, it is found
that the amplitudes of the periodic effects are considerably
greater than those calculated according to the law of gravitation,
whether or not completed by the theory of relativity.
In the case of the anisotropic support, the amplitude of
the luni-solar component of 24h 50m is about twenty million
times greater than the amplitude calculated by the theory of
universal gravitation.

In the case of the paraconical pendulum with isotropic
support, this relation is about a hundred million.

In other words, the pendulum motions Allais observed during his two eclipses – 1954 and 1959 -- were physically IMPOSSIBLE … according to all known “textbook physics!”


CONFIRMATION OF THE ALLAIS EFFECT DURING THE 2008 SOLAR ECLIPSE:

http://ivanik3.narod.ru/Astrophiz/AnomSunEclip/pugarticleGoodey.pdf

Published in the Journal of Advanced Research in Physics


Given the above, the authors consider that it is an inescapable conclusion from our experiments that after the end of the visible eclipse, as the Moon departed the angular vicinity of the Sun, some influence exerted itself upon the Eastern European region containing our three sets of equipment, extending over a field at least hundreds of kilometers in width.

The nature of this common influence is unknown, but plainly it cannot be considered as gravitational in the usually accepted sense of Newtonian or Einsteinian gravitation.


We therefore are compelled to the opinion that some currently unknown physical influence was at work.


Can you read English?

Given the above, the authors consider that it is an inescapable conclusion from our experiments that after the end of the visible eclipse, as the Moon departed the angular vicinity of the Sun, some influence exerted itself upon the Eastern European region containing our three sets of equipment, extending over a field at least hundreds of kilometers in width.

The nature of this common influence is unknown, but plainly it cannot be considered as gravitational in the usually accepted sense of Newtonian or Einsteinian gravitation.


We therefore are compelled to the opinion that some currently unknown physical influence was at work.


The dark body absorbs all visible light that is why it cannot be seen unless it passes in front of the Sun.

humm: When the sun shins on the back side of the moon, it is a dark body as we see it.
your fictional dark body never blocks light from stars why? The moon does block stars.
The the universe has no obligation to makes sense to you.
The earth is a globe.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7138
Re: What about the Solar eclipse?
« Reply #11 on: April 08, 2024, 02:16:27 PM »
There's too much crap stuffed down your larynx dataflows2022.

That is why you are not thinking clearly.

Not my fantasies, here are the bibliographical references:

ALLAIS EFFECT

REFERENCE #1

CONFIRMATION OF THE ALLAIS EFFECT DURING THE 2003 SOLAR ECLIPSE:

http://www.acad.ro/sectii2002/proceedings/doc3_2004/03_Mihaila.pdf

(it also shows that the effect was confirmed during the August 1999 solar eclipse)


The title of the paper is as follows:

A NEW CONFIRMATION OF THE ALLAIS EFFECT
DURING THE SOLAR ECLIPSE OF 31 MAY 2003

"During the total solar eclipse of 11 August 1999, the existence of the Allais effect was confirmed."

The authors indicate that more measurements/experiments have to be undertaken during future solar eclipses.


REFERENCE #2

CONFIRMATION OF THE ALLAIS EFFECT DURING THE SEPT. 2006 SOLAR ECLIPSE:

http://www.hessdalen.org/sse/program/Articol.pdf

The title of the article is as follows:

A confirmation of the Allais and Jeverdan-Rusu-Antonescu effects
during the solar eclipse from 22 September 2006 , and the quantization
of behaviour of pendulum


"The experiments made with a paraconical pendulum during annular solar eclipse from 22 September 2006 confirm once again the existence of the Allais effect."


REFERENCE #3

CONFIRMATION OF THE ALLAIS EFFECT DURING THE 2008 SOLAR ECLIPSE:

http://ivanik3.narod.ru/Astrophiz/AnomSunEclip/pugarticleGoodey.pdf

Published in the Journal of Advanced Research in Physics


Given the above, the authors consider that it is an inescapable conclusion from our experiments that after the end of the visible eclipse, as the Moon departed the angular vicinity of the Sun, some influence exerted itself upon the Eastern European region containing our three sets of equipment, extending over a field at least hundreds of kilometers in width.

The nature of this common influence is unknown, but plainly it cannot be considered as gravitational in the usually accepted sense of Newtonian or Einsteinian gravitation.


We therefore are compelled to the opinion that some currently unknown physical influence was at work.


REFERENCE #4

The Allais pendulum effect confirmed in an experiment performed in 1961:

http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf074/sf074a05.htm


REFERENCE #5

Observations of Correlated Behavior of Two Light Torsion Balances and a Paraconical Pendulum in Separate Locations during the Solar Eclipse of January 26th, 2009:


http://www.researchgate.net/publication/235701910_Observations_of_Correlated_Behavior_of_Two_Light_TorsionBalances_and_a_Paraconical_Pendulum_in_Separate_Locationsduring_the_Solar_Eclipse_of_January_26th_2009

http://www.hindawi.com/journals/aa/2012/263818/

Published in the Advances in Astronomy Journal

Another independent confirmation has been obtained of the previously established fact that at the time of solar eclipses, a specific reaction of the torsion balance can be observed. During a solar eclipse, the readings of two neighboring TBs seem to be correlated. This fact demonstrates the nonaleatory character of the reactions of TBs. Consequently, the reaction of these devices is deterministic, not random. A solar eclipse is such a determinant, since upon termination of a solar eclipse, the correlation becomes insignificant. This conclusion is supported by the PP observations. The PP graph and the TB graphs showed obvious similarity, with the coefficient of correlation of these two independent curves being close to 1.

In particular, we wonder how any physical momentum can be transferred to our instrument during a solar eclipse. Gravity can hardly suffice as an explanation even for understanding the results of the PP measurements. The gravitational potential grows slowly and smoothly over a number of days before eclipse and then declines smoothly afterwards without any sudden variations, but we see relatively short-term events. Moreover, gravity is certainly not applicable to the explanation of the results of the TB observations, since the TB is not sensitive to changes in gravitational potential.

The cause of the time lag between the response of the device in Suceava and the reactions of the devices in Kiev also remains unknown. What can be this force which acts so selectively in space and time?

The anomalies found, that defy understanding in terms of modern physics, are in line with other anomalies, described in a recently published compendium “Should the Laws of Gravitation be reconsidered?” [14].


REFERENCE #6

Precise Underground Observations of the Partial Solar Eclipse of 1 June 2011 Using a Foucault Pendulum and a Very Light Torsion Balance

Published in the International Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics Journal


http://www.researchgate.net/publication/235701885_Precise_Underground_Observations_of_the_Partial_Solar_Eclipse_of_1_June_2011_Using_a_Foucault_Pendulum_and_a_Very_Light_Torsion_Balance

http://file.scirp.org/Html/3-4500094_26045.htm

http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=26045


Simultaneous observations of the solar eclipse on 06/01/2011 were carried out using a Foucault pendulum and a torsion balance. The instruments were installed in a salt mine, where the interference was minimal. Both instruments clearly reacted to the eclipse. We conclude that these reactions should not be considered as being gravitational effects.

REFERENCE #7

Dr. Erwin Saxl experiment (1970)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1629054#msg1629054

Published in the Physical Review Journal

Saxl and Allen went on to note that to explain these remarkable eclipse observations, according to "conventional Newtonian/Einsteinian gravitational theory," an increase in the weight of the pendumum bob itself on the order of ~5% would be required ... amounting to (for the ~51.5-lb pendulum bob in the experiment) an increase of ~2.64 lbs!

This would be on the order of one hundred thousand (100,000) times greater than any possible "gravitational tidal effects" Saxl and Allen calculated (using Newtonian Gravitational Theory/ Relativity Theory).



A TOTAL DEFIANCE OF NEWTONIAN MECHANICS.

For the same masses/corresponding distances of the Earth, Sun and the Moon, during the Allais experiment, the pendulum's direction of rotation changed from clockwise to counterclockwise, at the end of the eclipse it resumed its normal direction of rotation.

In order to arrive at an explanation, M. Allais considered a wide range
of known periodic phenomena, including the terrestrial tides, variations in
the intensity of gravity, thermal or barometric effects, magnetic variations,
microseismic effects, cosmic rays, and the periodic character of human
activity. Yet, on close examination, the very peculiar nature of the
periodicity shown by the change in azimuth of the pendulum forced the
elimination of all of these as cause.


Dr. Maurice Allais:

In both cases, with the experiments with the anisotropic
support and with those with the isotropic support, it is found
that the amplitudes of the periodic effects are considerably
greater than those calculated according to the law of gravitation,
whether or not completed by the theory of relativity.
In the case of the anisotropic support, the amplitude of
the luni-solar component of 24h 50m is about twenty million
times greater than the amplitude calculated by the theory of
universal gravitation.

In the case of the paraconical pendulum with isotropic
support, this relation is about a hundred million.


In other words, the pendulum motions Allais observed during his two eclipses – 1954 and 1959 -- were physically IMPOSSIBLE … according to all known “textbook physics!”


"Allais used the phrase “a brutal displacement” … to describe the “sudden, extraordinary backwards movement” of the pendulum his laboratory chief had seen (and carefully recorded!), even while not knowing its “mysterious” cause ... until later that same afternoon.

Here (below) is what those “anomalous eclipse motions” in Allias’ pendulum looked like; this graphic, adapted from Scientific American, depicts the mechanical arrangement of Allais’ unique paraconical pendulum (below – left).

The three vertical panels to its right illustrate the pendulum’s “highly anomalous motions” -- recorded during two partial solar eclipses to cross Allais’ Paris laboratory in the 1950’s (the first in 1954, the second in 1959); the phase of each eclipse that corresponded with these “anomalous motions,” is depicted in the last three vertical strips (far right)."




"This normal, downward-sloping trend is abruptly REVERSED!

From there, things rapidly got even more bizarre--

As the pendulum’s azimuth motion continues in an accelerating, COUNTER-clockwise direction … for the next 45 minutes; then, after peaking, the pendulum motion REVERSES direction (moving clockwise again …), only to reverse BACK again (counterclockwise!) … briefly [as the Moon reaches “mid-eclipse” (the central green line)] -- before abruptly reversing once more, accelerating again in a CLOCKWISE direction … before eventually “bottoming out” … parallel to the ORIGINAL “Foucault/Earth rotation” downward-sloping trend line!"

HERE ARE THE PRECISE CALCULATIONS INVOLVING THE ALLAIS EFFECT:



https://image.ibb.co/bNG9mJ/Capture_zpskd3rcykr.jpg


Dr. Maurice Allais:

With regard to the validity of my experiments, it seems
best to reproduce here the testimony of General Paul Bergeron,
ex-president of the Committee for Scientific Activities for
National Defense, in his letter of May 1959 to Werner von
Braun:

"Before writing to you, I considered it necessary to
visit the two laboratories of Professor Allais (one 60
meters underground), in the company of eminent
specialists – including two professors at the Ecole
Polytechnique. During several hours of discussion, we
could find no source of significant error, nor did any
attempt at explanation survive analysis.

"I should also tell you that during the last two years,
more than ten members of the Academy of Sciences and
more than thirty eminent personalities, specialists in
various aspects of gravitation, have visited both his
laboratory at Saint-Germain, and his underground
laboratory at Bougival.

"Deep discussions took place, not only on these
occasions, but many times in various scientific contexts,
notably at the Academy of Sciences and the National
Center for Scientific Research. None of these discussions
could evolve any explanation within the framework of
currently accepted theories."


This letter confirms clearly the fact that was finally
admitted at the time - the total impossibility of explaining the
perceived anomalies within the framework of currently
accepted theory.


As for the photograph, it wasn't modified in any way by Fred Bruenjes. In fact he clearly spells out everything:

I have increased the color saturation slightly to better show the green thru red corona colors, otherwise the image is truthful.

Here is the UNPROCESSED IMAGE:



That's not the Moon! Exactly as proven by Dr. Allais.

« Last Edit: April 08, 2024, 02:18:16 PM by sandokhan »

*

JackBlack

  • 21893
Re: What about the Solar eclipse?
« Reply #12 on: April 08, 2024, 02:17:13 PM »
The RE cannot explain the solar eclipse
The RE, HC model explains it trivially.
And it provides an accurate prediction of the path and timing.

just shit their pants when they hear the name Allais
You mean we call you out on your pathetic BS, and don't play your games?


This is the real size of the Sun, some 636 meters in diameters
That would make it absolutely tiny, and dramatically vary in size between observers and throughout the day.
This does not happen.

"Because these photos of moon in front of the earth are only a recent phenomenon, they have only appeared within the past 10 years or so. Astronomers have been photographing eclipses for a hundred years now. So why has this just appeared in the past 10 years. Could it have something to do with Photoshop?"
What do you mean photos of the moon in front of Earth?
Don't you mean photos of the moon in front of the sun?
Your claim is also factually incorrect.
e.g.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-Moon-in-a-morning-of-September-1999-displaying-its-crescent-ie-the-sunlit-part_fig1_1896030
That is from 1999.


Here is the real image:
So the image, which literally states it is a combination of 12 exposures is magically the "real image"?

Here is what a solar eclipse really looks like:
Which in no way matches what you claim is the "real image".

It can't be the Moon passing in front of the Sun.
Why?
You aren't even making a coherent argument.
You are just asserting it isn't.
What do you think these photos show?
Other than your inability to comprehend the effects of different exposures.
If you want to see the moon lit up by Earth, you need a long exposure time.
The image you dismiss as fake, used a refractor telescope with a 6 second exposure time. Take away the telescope and you will need an even greater exposure time.
This also tells you why it is rare, you need to have the camera pointed at it for a long period of time.
As it is moving through the sky at a rate of roughly 15 degrees per hour.
With an angular size of roughly 0.5 degrees, that means it moves its entire angular size every 2 minutes. So over the 6 seconds used above, it will have moved 5% of its diameter, meaning you likely need to track it.
If you are trying it with just a camera, it will be even harder as you will need a longer exposure.

Or you need a lens that can take in a very large amount of light, which most people aren't using.

The dark body absorbs all visible light that is why it cannot be seen unless it passes in front of the Sun.
And would cause a dark patch in the sky, where it blocks the light to anything behind it.

It should also mean you can get a solar eclipse at times other than a new moon.

As for the photograph, it wasn't modified in any way by Fred Bruenjes. In fact he clearly spells out everything:
They do spell out everything:
Quote
This particular webpage shows how the image was made, and how it differs from reality. Let me start by saying that the image is a composite of four photos
Quote
The images were then blended together by masking out the overexposed and underexposed regions in each image and stacking them.
Quote
painted out the bright blue artifact at the 8 o'clock position on the Sun
So it has been modified.
You sure do love lying.

That black outline we see is not physically there. It has been masked out.
A longer exposure shows brightness there, which has been masked out.
The image you are appealing to is a composite image which has had portions painted over.

What would a longer exposure reveal?
The moon.


Now care to stop spamming BS and explain how the FE can predict and explain an eclipse?
« Last Edit: April 08, 2024, 02:23:50 PM by JackBlack »

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7138
Re: What about the Solar eclipse?
« Reply #13 on: April 08, 2024, 02:22:07 PM »
In front of the Earth, as in the Moon in the sky in front of the Earth. But you already knew all of this.

You are crapping in your pants jackblack, full of stains.

Here, let me destroy your sanity.

ALLAIS EFFECT

REFERENCE #1

CONFIRMATION OF THE ALLAIS EFFECT DURING THE 2003 SOLAR ECLIPSE:

http://www.acad.ro/sectii2002/proceedings/doc3_2004/03_Mihaila.pdf

(it also shows that the effect was confirmed during the August 1999 solar eclipse)


The title of the paper is as follows:

A NEW CONFIRMATION OF THE ALLAIS EFFECT
DURING THE SOLAR ECLIPSE OF 31 MAY 2003

"During the total solar eclipse of 11 August 1999, the existence of the Allais effect was confirmed."

The authors indicate that more measurements/experiments have to be undertaken during future solar eclipses.


REFERENCE #2

CONFIRMATION OF THE ALLAIS EFFECT DURING THE SEPT. 2006 SOLAR ECLIPSE:

http://www.hessdalen.org/sse/program/Articol.pdf

The title of the article is as follows:

A confirmation of the Allais and Jeverdan-Rusu-Antonescu effects
during the solar eclipse from 22 September 2006 , and the quantization
of behaviour of pendulum


"The experiments made with a paraconical pendulum during annular solar eclipse from 22 September 2006 confirm once again the existence of the Allais effect."


REFERENCE #3

CONFIRMATION OF THE ALLAIS EFFECT DURING THE 2008 SOLAR ECLIPSE:

http://ivanik3.narod.ru/Astrophiz/AnomSunEclip/pugarticleGoodey.pdf

Published in the Journal of Advanced Research in Physics


Given the above, the authors consider that it is an inescapable conclusion from our experiments that after the end of the visible eclipse, as the Moon departed the angular vicinity of the Sun, some influence exerted itself upon the Eastern European region containing our three sets of equipment, extending over a field at least hundreds of kilometers in width.

The nature of this common influence is unknown, but plainly it cannot be considered as gravitational in the usually accepted sense of Newtonian or Einsteinian gravitation.


We therefore are compelled to the opinion that some currently unknown physical influence was at work.


REFERENCE #4

The Allais pendulum effect confirmed in an experiment performed in 1961:

http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf074/sf074a05.htm


REFERENCE #5

Observations of Correlated Behavior of Two Light Torsion Balances and a Paraconical Pendulum in Separate Locations during the Solar Eclipse of January 26th, 2009:


http://www.researchgate.net/publication/235701910_Observations_of_Correlated_Behavior_of_Two_Light_TorsionBalances_and_a_Paraconical_Pendulum_in_Separate_Locationsduring_the_Solar_Eclipse_of_January_26th_2009

http://www.hindawi.com/journals/aa/2012/263818/

Published in the Advances in Astronomy Journal

Another independent confirmation has been obtained of the previously established fact that at the time of solar eclipses, a specific reaction of the torsion balance can be observed. During a solar eclipse, the readings of two neighboring TBs seem to be correlated. This fact demonstrates the nonaleatory character of the reactions of TBs. Consequently, the reaction of these devices is deterministic, not random. A solar eclipse is such a determinant, since upon termination of a solar eclipse, the correlation becomes insignificant. This conclusion is supported by the PP observations. The PP graph and the TB graphs showed obvious similarity, with the coefficient of correlation of these two independent curves being close to 1.

In particular, we wonder how any physical momentum can be transferred to our instrument during a solar eclipse. Gravity can hardly suffice as an explanation even for understanding the results of the PP measurements. The gravitational potential grows slowly and smoothly over a number of days before eclipse and then declines smoothly afterwards without any sudden variations, but we see relatively short-term events. Moreover, gravity is certainly not applicable to the explanation of the results of the TB observations, since the TB is not sensitive to changes in gravitational potential.

The cause of the time lag between the response of the device in Suceava and the reactions of the devices in Kiev also remains unknown. What can be this force which acts so selectively in space and time?

The anomalies found, that defy understanding in terms of modern physics, are in line with other anomalies, described in a recently published compendium “Should the Laws of Gravitation be reconsidered?” [14].


REFERENCE #6

Precise Underground Observations of the Partial Solar Eclipse of 1 June 2011 Using a Foucault Pendulum and a Very Light Torsion Balance

Published in the International Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics Journal


http://www.researchgate.net/publication/235701885_Precise_Underground_Observations_of_the_Partial_Solar_Eclipse_of_1_June_2011_Using_a_Foucault_Pendulum_and_a_Very_Light_Torsion_Balance

http://file.scirp.org/Html/3-4500094_26045.htm

http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=26045


Simultaneous observations of the solar eclipse on 06/01/2011 were carried out using a Foucault pendulum and a torsion balance. The instruments were installed in a salt mine, where the interference was minimal. Both instruments clearly reacted to the eclipse. We conclude that these reactions should not be considered as being gravitational effects.

REFERENCE #7

Dr. Erwin Saxl experiment (1970)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1629054#msg1629054

Published in the Physical Review Journal

Saxl and Allen went on to note that to explain these remarkable eclipse observations, according to "conventional Newtonian/Einsteinian gravitational theory," an increase in the weight of the pendumum bob itself on the order of ~5% would be required ... amounting to (for the ~51.5-lb pendulum bob in the experiment) an increase of ~2.64 lbs!

This would be on the order of one hundred thousand (100,000) times greater than any possible "gravitational tidal effects" Saxl and Allen calculated (using Newtonian Gravitational Theory/ Relativity Theory).



A TOTAL DEFIANCE OF NEWTONIAN MECHANICS.

For the same masses/corresponding distances of the Earth, Sun and the Moon, during the Allais experiment, the pendulum's direction of rotation changed from clockwise to counterclockwise, at the end of the eclipse it resumed its normal direction of rotation.

In order to arrive at an explanation, M. Allais considered a wide range
of known periodic phenomena, including the terrestrial tides, variations in
the intensity of gravity, thermal or barometric effects, magnetic variations,
microseismic effects, cosmic rays, and the periodic character of human
activity. Yet, on close examination, the very peculiar nature of the
periodicity shown by the change in azimuth of the pendulum forced the
elimination of all of these as cause.


Dr. Maurice Allais:

In both cases, with the experiments with the anisotropic
support and with those with the isotropic support, it is found
that the amplitudes of the periodic effects are considerably
greater than those calculated according to the law of gravitation,
whether or not completed by the theory of relativity.
In the case of the anisotropic support, the amplitude of
the luni-solar component of 24h 50m is about twenty million
times greater than the amplitude calculated by the theory of
universal gravitation.

In the case of the paraconical pendulum with isotropic
support, this relation is about a hundred million.


In other words, the pendulum motions Allais observed during his two eclipses – 1954 and 1959 -- were physically IMPOSSIBLE … according to all known “textbook physics!”


"Allais used the phrase “a brutal displacement” … to describe the “sudden, extraordinary backwards movement” of the pendulum his laboratory chief had seen (and carefully recorded!), even while not knowing its “mysterious” cause ... until later that same afternoon.

Here (below) is what those “anomalous eclipse motions” in Allias’ pendulum looked like; this graphic, adapted from Scientific American, depicts the mechanical arrangement of Allais’ unique paraconical pendulum (below – left).

The three vertical panels to its right illustrate the pendulum’s “highly anomalous motions” -- recorded during two partial solar eclipses to cross Allais’ Paris laboratory in the 1950’s (the first in 1954, the second in 1959); the phase of each eclipse that corresponded with these “anomalous motions,” is depicted in the last three vertical strips (far right)."




"This normal, downward-sloping trend is abruptly REVERSED!

From there, things rapidly got even more bizarre--

As the pendulum’s azimuth motion continues in an accelerating, COUNTER-clockwise direction … for the next 45 minutes; then, after peaking, the pendulum motion REVERSES direction (moving clockwise again …), only to reverse BACK again (counterclockwise!) … briefly [as the Moon reaches “mid-eclipse” (the central green line)] -- before abruptly reversing once more, accelerating again in a CLOCKWISE direction … before eventually “bottoming out” … parallel to the ORIGINAL “Foucault/Earth rotation” downward-sloping trend line!"

HERE ARE THE PRECISE CALCULATIONS INVOLVING THE ALLAIS EFFECT:



https://image.ibb.co/bNG9mJ/Capture_zpskd3rcykr.jpg


Dr. Maurice Allais:

With regard to the validity of my experiments, it seems
best to reproduce here the testimony of General Paul Bergeron,
ex-president of the Committee for Scientific Activities for
National Defense, in his letter of May 1959 to Werner von
Braun:

"Before writing to you, I considered it necessary to
visit the two laboratories of Professor Allais (one 60
meters underground), in the company of eminent
specialists – including two professors at the Ecole
Polytechnique. During several hours of discussion, we
could find no source of significant error, nor did any
attempt at explanation survive analysis.

"I should also tell you that during the last two years,
more than ten members of the Academy of Sciences and
more than thirty eminent personalities, specialists in
various aspects of gravitation, have visited both his
laboratory at Saint-Germain, and his underground
laboratory at Bougival.

"Deep discussions took place, not only on these
occasions, but many times in various scientific contexts,
notably at the Academy of Sciences and the National
Center for Scientific Research. None of these discussions
could evolve any explanation within the framework of
currently accepted theories."


This letter confirms clearly the fact that was finally
admitted at the time - the total impossibility of explaining the
perceived anomalies within the framework of currently
accepted theory.


As for the photograph, it wasn't modified in any way by Fred Bruenjes. In fact he clearly spells out everything:

I have increased the color saturation slightly to better show the green thru red corona colors, otherwise the image is truthful.

Here is the UNPROCESSED IMAGE:



That's not the Moon! Exactly as proven by Dr. Allais.


I have destroyed your worthless drivel jack.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7138
Re: What about the Solar eclipse?
« Reply #14 on: April 08, 2024, 02:24:27 PM »
Here are calculations performed by the Nobel prize winner, Dr. Maurice Allais:



Can you the RE read English?

Dr. Maurice Allais:

In both cases, with the experiments with the anisotropic
support and with those with the isotropic support, it is found
that the amplitudes of the periodic effects are considerably
greater than those calculated according to the law of gravitation,
whether or not completed by the theory of relativity.
In the case of the anisotropic support, the amplitude of
the luni-solar component of 24h 50m is about twenty million
times greater than the amplitude calculated by the theory of
universal gravitation.

In the case of the paraconical pendulum with isotropic
support, this relation is about a hundred million.


In other words, the pendulum motions Allais observed during his two eclipses – 1954 and 1959 -- were physically IMPOSSIBLE … according to all known “textbook physics!

*

JackBlack

  • 21893
Re: What about the Solar eclipse?
« Reply #15 on: April 08, 2024, 02:27:01 PM »
Here, let me destroy your sanity.
You mean by repeating the same irrelavent BS again and again, while ignoring the fact it has already been dealt with in prior threads which you have fled from like the lying coward you are?
No thanks. I'll just skip all that delusional BS.

As for the photograph, it wasn't modified in any way by Fred Bruenjes. In fact he clearly spells out everything:
They do spell out everything:
Quote
This particular webpage shows how the image was made, and how it differs from reality. Let me start by saying that the image is a composite of four photos
Quote
The images were then blended together by masking out the overexposed and underexposed regions in each image and stacking them.
Quote
painted out the bright blue artifact at the 8 o'clock position on the Sun
So it has been modified.
You sure do love lying.

That black outline we see is not physically there. It has been masked out.
A longer exposure shows brightness there, which has been masked out.
The image you are appealing to is a composite image which has had portions painted over.

What would a longer exposure reveal?
The moon.

That's not the Moon! Exactly as proven by Dr. Allais.
Even if we accept your delusional BS about the Allais effect that says NOTHING about if the moon is causing the eclipse.
That is why it is entirely irrelevant to this discussion.

All the available evidence shows it is the moon.
But because that means the RE model works so well, you blatantly lie about it, cling to pure fantasy, and reject any evidence that shows you are wrong as fake.


I have destroyed your worthless drivel jack.
No, you haven't even responded to what I said.
You entirely ignored it and spammed a bunch of completely worthless garbage.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7138
Re: What about the Solar eclipse?
« Reply #16 on: April 08, 2024, 02:34:46 PM »
You are uncapable of addressing the scientific proofs I have provided here.

Multiple references which prove that it is not the Moon which is causing the solar eclipse.

You have to explain each and every reference, otherwise you lose.

ALLAIS EFFECT

REFERENCE #1

CONFIRMATION OF THE ALLAIS EFFECT DURING THE 2003 SOLAR ECLIPSE:

http://www.acad.ro/sectii2002/proceedings/doc3_2004/03_Mihaila.pdf

(it also shows that the effect was confirmed during the August 1999 solar eclipse)


The title of the paper is as follows:

A NEW CONFIRMATION OF THE ALLAIS EFFECT
DURING THE SOLAR ECLIPSE OF 31 MAY 2003

"During the total solar eclipse of 11 August 1999, the existence of the Allais effect was confirmed."

The authors indicate that more measurements/experiments have to be undertaken during future solar eclipses.


REFERENCE #2

CONFIRMATION OF THE ALLAIS EFFECT DURING THE SEPT. 2006 SOLAR ECLIPSE:

http://www.hessdalen.org/sse/program/Articol.pdf

The title of the article is as follows:

A confirmation of the Allais and Jeverdan-Rusu-Antonescu effects
during the solar eclipse from 22 September 2006 , and the quantization
of behaviour of pendulum


"The experiments made with a paraconical pendulum during annular solar eclipse from 22 September 2006 confirm once again the existence of the Allais effect."


REFERENCE #3

CONFIRMATION OF THE ALLAIS EFFECT DURING THE 2008 SOLAR ECLIPSE:

http://ivanik3.narod.ru/Astrophiz/AnomSunEclip/pugarticleGoodey.pdf

Published in the Journal of Advanced Research in Physics


Given the above, the authors consider that it is an inescapable conclusion from our experiments that after the end of the visible eclipse, as the Moon departed the angular vicinity of the Sun, some influence exerted itself upon the Eastern European region containing our three sets of equipment, extending over a field at least hundreds of kilometers in width.

The nature of this common influence is unknown, but plainly it cannot be considered as gravitational in the usually accepted sense of Newtonian or Einsteinian gravitation.


We therefore are compelled to the opinion that some currently unknown physical influence was at work.


REFERENCE #4

The Allais pendulum effect confirmed in an experiment performed in 1961:

http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf074/sf074a05.htm


REFERENCE #5

Observations of Correlated Behavior of Two Light Torsion Balances and a Paraconical Pendulum in Separate Locations during the Solar Eclipse of January 26th, 2009:


http://www.researchgate.net/publication/235701910_Observations_of_Correlated_Behavior_of_Two_Light_TorsionBalances_and_a_Paraconical_Pendulum_in_Separate_Locationsduring_the_Solar_Eclipse_of_January_26th_2009

http://www.hindawi.com/journals/aa/2012/263818/

Published in the Advances in Astronomy Journal

Another independent confirmation has been obtained of the previously established fact that at the time of solar eclipses, a specific reaction of the torsion balance can be observed. During a solar eclipse, the readings of two neighboring TBs seem to be correlated. This fact demonstrates the nonaleatory character of the reactions of TBs. Consequently, the reaction of these devices is deterministic, not random. A solar eclipse is such a determinant, since upon termination of a solar eclipse, the correlation becomes insignificant. This conclusion is supported by the PP observations. The PP graph and the TB graphs showed obvious similarity, with the coefficient of correlation of these two independent curves being close to 1.

In particular, we wonder how any physical momentum can be transferred to our instrument during a solar eclipse. Gravity can hardly suffice as an explanation even for understanding the results of the PP measurements. The gravitational potential grows slowly and smoothly over a number of days before eclipse and then declines smoothly afterwards without any sudden variations, but we see relatively short-term events. Moreover, gravity is certainly not applicable to the explanation of the results of the TB observations, since the TB is not sensitive to changes in gravitational potential.

The cause of the time lag between the response of the device in Suceava and the reactions of the devices in Kiev also remains unknown. What can be this force which acts so selectively in space and time?

The anomalies found, that defy understanding in terms of modern physics, are in line with other anomalies, described in a recently published compendium “Should the Laws of Gravitation be reconsidered?” [14].


REFERENCE #6

Precise Underground Observations of the Partial Solar Eclipse of 1 June 2011 Using a Foucault Pendulum and a Very Light Torsion Balance

Published in the International Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics Journal


http://www.researchgate.net/publication/235701885_Precise_Underground_Observations_of_the_Partial_Solar_Eclipse_of_1_June_2011_Using_a_Foucault_Pendulum_and_a_Very_Light_Torsion_Balance

http://file.scirp.org/Html/3-4500094_26045.htm

http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=26045


Simultaneous observations of the solar eclipse on 06/01/2011 were carried out using a Foucault pendulum and a torsion balance. The instruments were installed in a salt mine, where the interference was minimal. Both instruments clearly reacted to the eclipse. We conclude that these reactions should not be considered as being gravitational effects.

REFERENCE #7

Dr. Erwin Saxl experiment (1970)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1629054#msg1629054

Published in the Physical Review Journal

Saxl and Allen went on to note that to explain these remarkable eclipse observations, according to "conventional Newtonian/Einsteinian gravitational theory," an increase in the weight of the pendumum bob itself on the order of ~5% would be required ... amounting to (for the ~51.5-lb pendulum bob in the experiment) an increase of ~2.64 lbs!

This would be on the order of one hundred thousand (100,000) times greater than any possible "gravitational tidal effects" Saxl and Allen calculated (using Newtonian Gravitational Theory/ Relativity Theory).



A TOTAL DEFIANCE OF NEWTONIAN MECHANICS.

For the same masses/corresponding distances of the Earth, Sun and the Moon, during the Allais experiment, the pendulum's direction of rotation changed from clockwise to counterclockwise, at the end of the eclipse it resumed its normal direction of rotation.

In order to arrive at an explanation, M. Allais considered a wide range
of known periodic phenomena, including the terrestrial tides, variations in
the intensity of gravity, thermal or barometric effects, magnetic variations,
microseismic effects, cosmic rays, and the periodic character of human
activity. Yet, on close examination, the very peculiar nature of the
periodicity shown by the change in azimuth of the pendulum forced the
elimination of all of these as cause.


Dr. Maurice Allais:

In both cases, with the experiments with the anisotropic
support and with those with the isotropic support, it is found
that the amplitudes of the periodic effects are considerably
greater than those calculated according to the law of gravitation,
whether or not completed by the theory of relativity.
In the case of the anisotropic support, the amplitude of
the luni-solar component of 24h 50m is about twenty million
times greater than the amplitude calculated by the theory of
universal gravitation.

In the case of the paraconical pendulum with isotropic
support, this relation is about a hundred million.


In other words, the pendulum motions Allais observed during his two eclipses – 1954 and 1959 -- were physically IMPOSSIBLE … according to all known “textbook physics!”


"Allais used the phrase “a brutal displacement” … to describe the “sudden, extraordinary backwards movement” of the pendulum his laboratory chief had seen (and carefully recorded!), even while not knowing its “mysterious” cause ... until later that same afternoon.

Here (below) is what those “anomalous eclipse motions” in Allias’ pendulum looked like; this graphic, adapted from Scientific American, depicts the mechanical arrangement of Allais’ unique paraconical pendulum (below – left).

The three vertical panels to its right illustrate the pendulum’s “highly anomalous motions” -- recorded during two partial solar eclipses to cross Allais’ Paris laboratory in the 1950’s (the first in 1954, the second in 1959); the phase of each eclipse that corresponded with these “anomalous motions,” is depicted in the last three vertical strips (far right)."




"This normal, downward-sloping trend is abruptly REVERSED!

From there, things rapidly got even more bizarre--

As the pendulum’s azimuth motion continues in an accelerating, COUNTER-clockwise direction … for the next 45 minutes; then, after peaking, the pendulum motion REVERSES direction (moving clockwise again …), only to reverse BACK again (counterclockwise!) … briefly [as the Moon reaches “mid-eclipse” (the central green line)] -- before abruptly reversing once more, accelerating again in a CLOCKWISE direction … before eventually “bottoming out” … parallel to the ORIGINAL “Foucault/Earth rotation” downward-sloping trend line!"

HERE ARE THE PRECISE CALCULATIONS INVOLVING THE ALLAIS EFFECT:



https://image.ibb.co/bNG9mJ/Capture_zpskd3rcykr.jpg


Dr. Maurice Allais:

With regard to the validity of my experiments, it seems
best to reproduce here the testimony of General Paul Bergeron,
ex-president of the Committee for Scientific Activities for
National Defense, in his letter of May 1959 to Werner von
Braun:

"Before writing to you, I considered it necessary to
visit the two laboratories of Professor Allais (one 60
meters underground), in the company of eminent
specialists – including two professors at the Ecole
Polytechnique. During several hours of discussion, we
could find no source of significant error, nor did any
attempt at explanation survive analysis.

"I should also tell you that during the last two years,
more than ten members of the Academy of Sciences and
more than thirty eminent personalities, specialists in
various aspects of gravitation, have visited both his
laboratory at Saint-Germain, and his underground
laboratory at Bougival.

"Deep discussions took place, not only on these
occasions, but many times in various scientific contexts,
notably at the Academy of Sciences and the National
Center for Scientific Research. None of these discussions
could evolve any explanation within the framework of
currently accepted theories."


This letter confirms clearly the fact that was finally
admitted at the time - the total impossibility of explaining the
perceived anomalies within the framework of currently
accepted theory.


As for the photograph, it wasn't modified in any way by Fred Bruenjes. In fact he clearly spells out everything:

I have increased the color saturation slightly to better show the green thru red corona colors, otherwise the image is truthful.

Here is the UNPROCESSED IMAGE:



That's not the Moon! Exactly as proven by Dr. Allais.

It is the same as the processed image, same black outline.


Everyone here can see you are science-fiction peddler jack black. I told you, you are full of shit.

Here you are, totally UNABLE TO ADDRESS THE REFERENCES.

Here are calculations performed by the Nobel prize winner, Dr. Maurice Allais:



Can you the RE read English?

Dr. Maurice Allais:

In both cases, with the experiments with the anisotropic
support and with those with the isotropic support, it is found
that the amplitudes of the periodic effects are considerably
greater than those calculated according to the law of gravitation,
whether or not completed by the theory of relativity.
In the case of the anisotropic support, the amplitude of
the luni-solar component of 24h 50m is about twenty million
times greater than the amplitude calculated by the theory of
universal gravitation.

In the case of the paraconical pendulum with isotropic
support, this relation is about a hundred million.


In other words, the pendulum motions Allais observed during his two eclipses – 1954 and 1959 -- were physically IMPOSSIBLE … according to all known “textbook physics!


CONFIRMATION OF THE ALLAIS EFFECT DURING THE 2008 SOLAR ECLIPSE:

http://ivanik3.narod.ru/Astrophiz/AnomSunEclip/pugarticleGoodey.pdf

Published in the Journal of Advanced Research in Physics


Given the above, the authors consider that it is an inescapable conclusion from our experiments that after the end of the visible eclipse, as the Moon departed the angular vicinity of the Sun, some influence exerted itself upon the Eastern European region containing our three sets of equipment, extending over a field at least hundreds of kilometers in width.

The nature of this common influence is unknown, but plainly it cannot be considered as gravitational in the usually accepted sense of Newtonian or Einsteinian gravitation.


We therefore are compelled to the opinion that some currently unknown physical influence was at work.


*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7138
Re: What about the Solar eclipse?
« Reply #17 on: April 08, 2024, 02:45:44 PM »
You the RE have to explain these calculations: they are from the report requested by NASA from Dr. Maurice Allais:



In the case of the anisotropic support, the amplitude of
the luni-solar component of 24h 50m is about twenty million
times greater than the amplitude calculated by the theory of
universal gravitation.

In the case of the paraconical pendulum with isotropic
support, this relation is about a hundred million.



Dr. Erwin Saxl experiment (1970)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1629054#msg1629054

Published in the Physical Review Journal

Saxl and Allen went on to note that to explain these remarkable eclipse observations, according to "conventional Newtonian/Einsteinian gravitational theory," an increase in the weight of the pendumum bob itself on the order of ~5% would be required ... amounting to (for the ~51.5-lb pendulum bob in the experiment) an increase of ~2.64 lbs!

This would be on the order of one hundred thousand (100,000) times greater than any possible "gravitational tidal effects" Saxl and Allen calculated (using Newtonian Gravitational Theory/ Relativity Theory).



A TOTAL DEFIANCE OF NEWTONIAN MECHANICS.

For the same masses/corresponding distances of the Earth, Sun and the Moon, during the Allais experiment, the pendulum's direction of rotation changed from clockwise to counterclockwise, at the end of the eclipse it resumed its normal direction of rotation.


REFERENCE #3

CONFIRMATION OF THE ALLAIS EFFECT DURING THE 2008 SOLAR ECLIPSE:

http://ivanik3.narod.ru/Astrophiz/AnomSunEclip/pugarticleGoodey.pdf

Published in the Journal of Advanced Research in Physics


Given the above, the authors consider that it is an inescapable conclusion from our experiments that after the end of the visible eclipse, as the Moon departed the angular vicinity of the Sun, some influence exerted itself upon the Eastern European region containing our three sets of equipment, extending over a field at least hundreds of kilometers in width.

The nature of this common influence is unknown, but plainly it cannot be considered as gravitational in the usually accepted sense of Newtonian or Einsteinian gravitation.


We therefore are compelled to the opinion that some currently unknown physical influence was at work.


You have to explain these photographs:

UNPROCESSED IMAGE:

http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/CRW_4632a.jpg



Nothing was changed for the final image:

https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0805/antarcticeclipse_bruenjes_big.jpg

*

JackBlack

  • 21893
Re: What about the Solar eclipse?
« Reply #18 on: April 08, 2024, 02:50:17 PM »
You are uncapable of addressing the scientific proofs I have provided here.
And more projection.
You are just continually spamming the same irrelevant BS while ignoring the refutation of the actual relevant things.
If you want to discuss your fascination with the alleged Allais effect, go back to one of the previous threads you fled from.

As pointed out, even if we accept the Allais effect is real, that does NOTHING to address if the moon is the cause of a solar eclipse.
Your argument makes no sense at all.

Notice the end of your claim:
Quote
We therefore are compelled to the opinion that some currently unknown physical influence was at work.
They are saying there is some unknown influence at work. They are NOT saying that the moon is not the cause.
That is just your little fantasy.

They also fully accept the moon is there:
Quote
as the Moon departed the angular vicinity of the Sun

So you can forget about all that delusional BS and try actually responding to what I said rather than spamming the same irrelevant BS again and again.

You the RE
No, we don't need to explain your irrelevant BS.
You, the lying coward FEer, needs to explain how the solar eclipse works in your fantasy.

Nothing was changed for the final image:
I literally just provided quotes from your own reference, showing how that statement of yours is a blatant lie.
Yet here you are, happily repeating it.
Great job showing just how much you are willing to lie to everyone to try to prop up your delusional fantasy.

Re: What about the Solar eclipse?
« Reply #19 on: April 08, 2024, 03:06:01 PM »


The Moon orbits behind the Sun, while the dark body is orbiting in front of the Sun,

Except there is no evidence of this if you actually go look for yourself.

Especially there is no evidence of a dark body that would have to have the same apparent size of the moon and sun.  Why would it be dark.  How would it stay dark in the ever shifting and speeding up of the sun’s orbit with a changing orbital diameter for a flat earth delusion.  Where the dark object would become apparent by blocking items like the stars, the moon, and planets from view. 
« Last Edit: April 08, 2024, 03:11:30 PM by DataOverFlow2022 »

Re: What about the Solar eclipse?
« Reply #20 on: April 08, 2024, 03:19:07 PM »



Here is what a solar eclipse really looks like:

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0805/antarcticeclipse_bruenjes_big.jpg



http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/CRW_4623.jpg



Yet…



Here is the UNPROCESSED IMAGE:






And yet again….



Which is the real imagine? 


With the guy you legitimised clearly stating the moon is in front of the sun.











*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17693
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: What about the Solar eclipse?
« Reply #21 on: April 08, 2024, 10:28:01 PM »
The fact of the matter is that predicting eclipses is independent of theory and a mere matter of tabulation. Consider the number of ancient cultures that believed in a flat earth yet were able to predict to a great degree of certainty numerous celestial phenomena.

Have an example?


I mean, you can read your own books, but the usual __schitck__ you guys spout are the Aztecs. Hey what did we guys do to them?
The illusion is shattered if we ask what goes on behind the scenes.

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17693
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: What about the Solar eclipse?
« Reply #22 on: April 08, 2024, 10:29:37 PM »
The Chinese Taoists did well too, as did most of the east. You seem like you have little to say but a lot to say it against.
The illusion is shattered if we ask what goes on behind the scenes.

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17693
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: What about the Solar eclipse?
« Reply #23 on: April 08, 2024, 10:30:53 PM »
Forgive us if we don't trust knowledge upon the same guys that burned down Aelxandra's Librea
The illusion is shattered if we ask what goes on behind the scenes.

Re: What about the Solar eclipse?
« Reply #24 on: April 09, 2024, 01:46:08 AM »
The Chinese Taoists did well too, as did most of the east. You seem like you have little to say but a lot to say it against.

Quote


https://flatearth.ws/saros-cycle


You didn’t answer the question…


 Consider the number of ancient cultures that believed in a flat earth

We can use a modern example

Quote
Before the advent of computers or even a working theory of the solar system, the ancients predicted solar eclipses. How did they do it?

https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-news/how-did-the-ancients-predicted-eclipses-the-saros-cycle/




How does the position of the moon and sun for a flat earth explain the 1937 June 8th shadow path of the eclipse? 

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17934
Re: What about the Solar eclipse?
« Reply #25 on: April 09, 2024, 04:44:00 AM »
That meme is wrong, the Saros can and does predict down to the second.

Flat Earth explains the Solar Eclipse paths much better than the Round Earth. Consider those paths on a Round Earth. On the maps the Moon is making quite sharp North-South movements over the course of a few hours. The Moon does not orbit the earth in a South-West to North-East angle.

In RE Moon's orbit only deviates by 5 degrees from the plane of the ecliptic, the Sun-Earth plane. It is also only moving slightly slower in the Sun in the sky, setting 50 minutes later each day

https://web.archive.org/web/20190211123505/http://ircamera.as.arizona.edu/Astr2016/lectures/skyappearance.htm



Consider how the above, with a Moon that moves slowly across the sky in comparison to the Sun, can make all of these wild shapes:

http://eclipse-maps.com/Eclipse-Maps/Welcome.html



Curiously, on a Northern Azimuthal FE map, the paths of the Solar Eclipse make symmetrical arcs:

From A Text-Book of Astronomy by George C. Comstock

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/34834/34834-h/34834-h.htm



Quote
Fig. 36.—Central eclipses for the first two decades of the twentieth century. Oppolzer.

Future eclipses.—An eclipse map of a different kind is shown in Fig. 36, which represents the shadow paths of [pg. 114] all the central eclipses of the sun, visible during the period 1900-1918 A. D., in those parts of the earth north of the south temperate zone. Each continuous black line shows the path of the shadow in a total eclipse, from its beginning, at sunrise, at the western end of the line to its end, sunset, at the eastern end, the little circle near the middle of the line showing the place at which the eclipse was total at noon. The broken lines represent similar data for the annular eclipses. This map is one of a series prepared by the Austrian astronomer, Oppolzer, showing the path of every such eclipse from the year 1200 B. C. [pg. 115] to 2160 A. D., a period of more than three thousand years.

Also see this image:

« Last Edit: April 09, 2024, 04:51:44 AM by Tom Bishop »

Re: What about the Solar eclipse?
« Reply #26 on: April 09, 2024, 08:21:33 AM »
That meme is wrong, the Saros can and does predict down to the second.

How would ancient cultures time down to the second?


Flat Earth explains the Solar Eclipse paths much better than the Round Earth.

With or without a dark object?

Is this true?


How does a solar eclipse work in FET?

The Moon orbits behind the Sun, while the dark body is orbiting in front of the Sun, so it's like a double eclipse.



Can you answer the question?


For this example below…

https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-news/how-did-the-ancients-predicted-eclipses-the-saros-cycle/




How does the position of the moon and sun for a flat earth explain the 1937 June 8th shadow path of the eclipse? 


You can even mark the position of the sun and moon in their flat earth orbits using your provided map?  For the 1937 June 8th shadow path of the eclipse? 

« Last Edit: April 09, 2024, 08:25:41 AM by DataOverFlow2022 »

Re: What about the Solar eclipse?
« Reply #27 on: April 09, 2024, 08:44:14 AM »

Flat Earth explains the Solar Eclipse paths

Really.  Wouldn’t you have to know the exact sizes of the sun and the moon, and their exact altitudes above the earth to accurately model their positions.

What are the exact sizes of the sun and moon?  What are their exact altitudes above the flat earth delusion. 

*

Timeisup

  • 3666
  • You still think that. You cannot be serious ?
Re: What about the Solar eclipse?
« Reply #28 on: April 09, 2024, 10:16:11 AM »
The fact of the matter is that predicting eclipses is independent of theory and a mere matter of tabulation. Consider the number of ancient cultures that believed in a flat earth yet were able to predict to a great degree of certainty numerous celestial phenomena.

Despite ancient cultures not knowing very much even they knew the earth was not flat. Lets remember all they had to study the heavens was their unaided eyes and that was it.  Don’t deceive yourself into thinking otherwise. Though what they thought or did not think is pretty much irrelevant here in 2024 what with our land based and space based telescopes that are able to see much more than the narrow spectrum of visible light. We can now look at the heavens using all parts of the electromagnetic spectrum .  The eclipse is handy for studying those parts of the sun like the corona that are normally difficult to see. Of course all this sun study makes it difficult for those of the flat earth persuasion what with its size, temperature and distance which are facts that are all  a bit at odds with the extremely ancient and disproven flat earth belief.
Really…..what a laugh!!!

*

Timeisup

  • 3666
  • You still think that. You cannot be serious ?
Re: What about the Solar eclipse?
« Reply #29 on: April 09, 2024, 11:07:22 AM »
The fact of the matter is that predicting eclipses is independent of theory and a mere matter of tabulation. Consider the number of ancient cultures that believed in a flat earth yet were able to predict to a great degree of certainty numerous celestial phenomena.

Totally not true.

Let’s remember all the ancients had knowledge of was what they could see with the naked eye which was not very much.

Let’s address what you claim.
Firstly ancient peoples were not able to predict eclipses. They knew about them but did not have all the  knowledge to make accurate predictions.
The first know accurate prediction was by Edmond Halley in 1715.
Secondly accurate eclipse predictions requires a number of things that flat earth believers don’t believe in!
If I can quote:-

“Predicting eclipses requires understanding the intricate motions of earth, the moon, and the sun. Astronomers employ Newton's laws and complex equations, inputting current positions and speeds of these celestial bodies into computers to calculate eclipse occurrences accurately”

In a word predicting eclipses requires a whole host of things that flat earth believers actively dispute.

You have claimed to be good at maths so how about you predict using flat earth data the time and location of the next eclipse.


Really…..what a laugh!!!