The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: RoundEarths on June 26, 2011, 01:19:31 PM
-
Since we round earthers tend to disprove many of flat earthen theory i would like to give them a chance to disprove RET. Please post evidence that the earth cannot be round for (insert reason here). Mind you these reasons must be able to be fact checked and not some magic equation you wrote down while watching opera.
-
Since we round earthers tend to disprove many of flat earthen theory i would like to give them a chance to disprove RET. Please post evidence that the earth cannot be round for (insert reason here). Mind you these reasons must be able to be fact checked and not some magic equation you wrote down while watching opera.
Sure.
1) Look out your window
2) The Bedford Level Experiment.
-
Since we round earthers tend to disprove many of flat earthen theory i would like to give them a chance to disprove RET. Please post evidence that the earth cannot be round for (insert reason here). Mind you these reasons must be able to be fact checked and not some magic equation you wrote down while watching opera.
Sure.
1) Look out your window
2) The Bedford Level Experiment.
1) well that's faulty logic. if you lived on top of a mountain and looked outside your window, you'd think that the world descends in all directions. it's the bigger picture that's important. and the bigger picture shows it's rounded.
2) that experiment's error is well known to be due to refraction within the atmosphere. is this finding incorrect? if so, how?
-
2) that experiment's error is well known to be due to refraction within the atmosphere. is this finding incorrect? if so, how?
Read Earth Not a Globe.
-
it's the bigger picture that's important. and the bigger picture shows it's rounded.
Please provide evidence.
-
Someone on this very forum repeated the Bedford Level experiment and got a result consistent with a round earth. He even provided photographs to prove it!
-
2) that experiment's error is well known to be due to refraction within the atmosphere. is this finding incorrect? if so, how?
Read Earth Not a Globe.
link it please
Someone on this very forum repeated the Bedford Level experiment and got a result consistent with a round earth. He even provided photographs to prove it!
this
-
2) that experiment's error is well known to be due to refraction within the atmosphere. is this finding incorrect? if so, how?
Read Earth Not a Globe.
link it please
Someone on this very forum repeated the Bedford Level experiment and got a result consistent with a round earth. He even provided photographs to prove it!
this
My pleasure http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/index.htm
-
Bedford has been done SO MANY TIMES and concluded SO MANY DIFFERENT THINGS that it cannot be used. If photos can be doctored and therefore do not count as evidence, an experiment that has also shown the Earth to be round shouldn't count either.
-
Someone on this very forum repeated the Bedford Level experiment and got a result consistent with a round earth. He even provided photographs to prove it!
Someone on this very forum (and I can name him: Daniel) repeated the Bedford level experiment and got a result consistent with a flat Earth. How intriguing!
-
Someone on this very forum repeated the Bedford Level experiment and got a result consistent with a round earth. He even provided photographs to prove it!
Someone on this very forum (and I can name him: Daniel) repeated the Bedford level experiment and got a result consistent with a flat Earth. How intriguing!
no he didn't you stupid little faggot, he posted no conclusions, the thread is incomplete, stop talking out your arse and leave it clean for your boyfriends, you dirty little undecided fag
-
Someone on this very forum repeated the Bedford Level experiment and got a result consistent with a round earth. He even provided photographs to prove it!
Someone on this very forum (and I can name him: Daniel) repeated the Bedford level experiment and got a result consistent with a flat Earth. How intriguing!
no he didn't you stupid little faggot, he posted no conclusions, the thread is incomplete, stop talking out your arse and leave it clean for your boyfriends, you dirty little undecided fag
Please don't post low content insults. This is a warning.
-
Someone on this very forum repeated the Bedford Level experiment and got a result consistent with a round earth. He even provided photographs to prove it!
Someone on this very forum (and I can name him: Daniel) repeated the Bedford level experiment and got a result consistent with a flat Earth. How intriguing!
no he didn't you stupid little faggot, he posted no conclusions, the thread is incomplete, stop talking out your arse and leave it clean for your boyfriends, you dirty little undecided fag
Please don't post low content insults. This is a warning.
fuck you
-
Someone on this very forum (and I can name him: Daniel) repeated the Bedford level experiment and got a result consistent with a flat Earth. How intriguing!
Incorrect.
-
Someone on this very forum repeated the Bedford Level experiment and got a result consistent with a round earth. He even provided photographs to prove it!
Someone on this very forum (and I can name him: Daniel) repeated the Bedford level experiment and got a result consistent with a flat Earth. How intriguing!
Too bad that he never posted his data on this site for peer review.
-
Wasn't it shared in the Wiki?
-
I think that he said that he put it up on the FaceBook page, but I'm not on FB so I couldn't tell.
-
Please don't post low content insults. This is a warning.
Are we allowed high content insults? Can you give an example of a high content insult?
On on the adding of content side.
It would be nice to have A.R.Wallace and Daniel's findings both together to see where the results of the two differed.
Berny
New_Guy may have a point though
-
Someone on this very forum repeated the Bedford Level experiment and got a result consistent with a round earth. He even provided photographs to prove it!
Someone on this very forum (and I can name him: Daniel) repeated the Bedford level experiment and got a result consistent with a flat Earth. How intriguing!
no he didn't you stupid little faggot, he posted no conclusions, the thread is incomplete, stop talking out your arse and leave it clean for your boyfriends, you dirty little undecided fag
Please don't post low content insults. This is a warning.
fuck you
Yay banhammer! Also, I'm curious as to why he was sensitive enough to say 'arse' instead of the obvious, but could still say all the rest.
-
1) Look out your window
Looking out of my window shows a sharp horizon across the sea rather than one that fades away gradually through the atmosphere. That is what I would expect to see on a round earth, not a flat one. Duh.
-
Yay banhammer! Also, I'm curious as to why he was sensitive enough to say 'arse' instead of the obvious, but could still say all the rest.
I don't know, maybe he's British?
-
Yay banhammer! Also, I'm curious as to why he was sensitive enough to say 'arse' instead of the obvious, but could still say all the rest.
I don't know, maybe he's British?
Let's all hope not..
-
Since we round earthers tend to disprove many of flat earthen theory i would like to give them a chance to disprove RET. Please post evidence that the earth cannot be round for (insert reason here). Mind you these reasons must be able to be fact checked and not some magic equation you wrote down while watching opera.
I'd like to be the defender for once. I want a turn at making up shit...
-
I like how my post about Bedford being inconclusive gets ignored all the time by TFES.
-
I like how my post about Bedford being inconclusive gets ignored all the time by TFES.
Because it's incorrect.
-
I like how my post about Bedford being inconclusive gets ignored all the time by TFES.
Because it's incorrect.
Not what the most recent person who conducted it concluded. He was pretty much on an inconclusive answer. Therefore unless you plan on making the experiment yourself you have little to add.
Berny
A.R. Wallace is my hero for the time it takes me to finish a McMini
-
I like how my post about Bedford being inconclusive gets ignored all the time by TFES.
Because it's incorrect.
Not what the most recent person who conducted it concluded. He was pretty much on an inconclusive answer. Therefore unless you plan on making the experiment yourself you have little to add.
Berny
A.R. Wallace is my hero for the time it takes me to finish a McMini
I have performed the experiment myself and my results matched Rowbotham's results.
-
I like how my post about Bedford being inconclusive gets ignored all the time by TFES.
Because it's incorrect.
Not what the most recent person who conducted it concluded. He was pretty much on an inconclusive answer. Therefore unless you plan on making the experiment yourself you have little to add.
Berny
A.R. Wallace is my hero for the time it takes me to finish a McMini
I have performed the experiment myself and my results matched Rowbotham's results.
Good. Do you intend on posting your results for peer review?
-
I like how my post about Bedford being inconclusive gets ignored all the time by TFES.
Because it's incorrect.
Not what the most recent person who conducted it concluded. He was pretty much on an inconclusive answer. Therefore unless you plan on making the experiment yourself you have little to add.
Berny
A.R. Wallace is my hero for the time it takes me to finish a McMini
I have performed the experiment myself and my results matched Rowbotham's results.
One thing, Rowbotham's results were contested and considered inconclusive when done with multiple observers. Nor did he publish pictures. And where are your pictures?
Berny
A picture is worth a thousand words.
-
Good. Do you intend on posting your results for peer review?
I already posted the results.
One thing, Rowbotham's results were contested and considered inconclusive when done with multiple observers. Nor did he publish pictures. And where are your pictures?
Berny
A picture is worth a thousand words.
I didn't say anything about pictures.
-
Good. Do you intend on posting your results for peer review?
I already posted the results.
One thing, Rowbotham's results were contested and considered inconclusive when done with multiple observers. Nor did he publish pictures. And where are your pictures?
Berny
A picture is worth a thousand words.
I didn't say anything about pictures.
No you didn't, you posted your conclusion, but no evidence that you ever even conducted an experiment.
-
I like how my post about Bedford being inconclusive gets ignored all the time by TFES.
Because it's incorrect.
Can you provide something to back that up?
-
I have performed the experiment myself and my results matched Rowbotham's results.
Do you have any evidence to support this outlandish claim?
-
Looking out of my window shows a sharp horizon across the sea rather than one that fades away gradually through the atmosphere. That is what I would expect to see on a round earth, not a flat one. Duh.
How does RET explain the lack of atmosphere? I am breathing air right now.
-
Looking out of my window shows a sharp horizon across the sea rather than one that fades away gradually through the atmosphere. That is what I would expect to see on a round earth, not a flat one. Duh.
How does RET explain the lack of atmosphere? I am breathing air right now.
There is no lack of atmosphere, the atmosphere simply curves down and out of sight instead of being visible as a mist, as FET would suggest
-
There is no lack of atmosphere, the atmosphere simply curves down and out of sight instead of being visible as a mist, as FET would suggest
What?
-
There is no lack of atmosphere, the atmosphere simply curves down and out of sight instead of being visible as a mist, as FET would suggest
What?
Ok, let me put it this way. If this earth is a plane, without obstruction, we should be able to see it in it's entirety. The reason we cannot, according to FET, is because our view of it becomes increasingly obstructed by the atmosphere the further we are from it. The effect, in a sense, would be akin to trying to view an object that is normally in sight on a foggy day, where it is no longer visible. However, when looking at the horizon, this is not the case, as their is a clear line where the sky and the ground meet, and the view of this line is not obstructed.
-
If this earth is a plane, without obstruction, we should be able to see it in it's entirety.
What?
The reason we cannot, according to FET, is because our view of it becomes increasingly obstructed by the atmosphere the further we are from it.
No.
-
If this earth is a plane, without obstruction, we should be able to see it in it's entirety.
What?
Ok sorry, stupid post on my part, we should be able to see much more of it than we can.
The reason we cannot, according to FET, is because our view of it becomes increasingly obstructed by the atmosphere the further we are from it.
No.
Why, then, can we not see many kilometers further than is observed?
-
Ok sorry, stupid post on my part, we should be able to see much more of it than we can.
No, that would be silly.
Why, then, can we not see many kilometers further than is observed?
Because of electromagnetic acceleration.
-
Because of electromagnetic acceleration.
This theory has been disproved, and also has been unable to make accurate predictions, and has no evidence to back it up, http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=45272.0
-
Because of electromagnetic acceleration.
The only reason EM acceleration exists as a theory is to back up FET. So much for the zetetic approach...
-
This theory has been disproved
Nope.
-
This theory has been disproved
Nope.
Well it looks like you will not be convinced, carry on
-
This theory has been disproved
Nope.
Any experiment that you can do or is just more mind games?
Berny
Doesn't know why.
-
Any experiment that you can do or is just more mind games?
To disprove it? Probably not, but people still claim they can.
-
Any experiment that you can do or is just more mind games?
To disprove it? Probably not, but people still claim they can.
How about a replicable experiment where you can observe results that satisfy your idea that light will bend.
Berny
Awaiting the laser light shows and cursing public Library keyboards.
-
This theory has been disproved
Nope.
Ah the usual response to the TRUE STATEMENT that bent light has been disproved... and its ALWAYS Pizza Plant doing the reality denial.
As Pizza Plant knows, bent light has been disproved by the observation that effects it predicts do not happen. This response by me here is, if I can remember correctly, the FOURTH time I have pointed this out to him, and the reason why has been summarized by me twice and by another poster prior to that. I dont wish to explain it again, merely I want to draw attention to Pizza Plants bold faced lie that it has not been disproved. He has yet to refute the disproof. His next move, rather than to refute the disproof which has been posted many times, will be to claim that no such disproof was posted. Ladies and Gentlemen, if you wish to check the veracity of my statement and see that Pizza Plant lies, you have only to look back through my post history to see it. I thank you.
-
This theory has been disproved
Nope.
Ah the usual response to the TRUE STATEMENT that bent light has been disproved... and its ALWAYS Pizza Plant doing the reality denial.
As Pizza Plant knows, bent light has been disproved by the observation that effects it predicts do not happen. This response by me here is, if I can remember correctly, the FOURTH time I have pointed this out to him, and the reason why has been summarized by me twice and by another poster prior to that. I dont wish to explain it again, merely I want to draw attention to Pizza Plants bold faced lie that it has not been disproved. He has yet to refute the disproof. His next move, rather than to refute the disproof which has been posted many times, will be to claim that no such disproof was posted. Ladies and Gentlemen, if you wish to check the veracity of my statement and see that Pizza Plant lies, you have only to look back through my post history to see it. I thank you.
We're well aware of Pizza Planet's blatant lies. In fact, if it weren't for his lies then FET wouldn't exist anymore. It's this perpetual ignorance that keeps these forum-dwellers from coming to grips with having failed science back in school.
-
tl;dr
Where's the disproof?
-
In most Bendy Light threads in this part of the forum. But it'll be too long for you to read so just take our word for it.
-
tl;dr
Where's the disproof?
Read ENaG. Rowbotham disproved bendy light with his Bedford Levels experiment.
-
tl;dr
Where's the disproof?
If you read it, it tells you where to find the disproof. :P
But yeah, if that's too long youll never struggle through the whole disproof and are doomed to live in ignorance until someone translates it into text speak for you.
-
Eclipse
(http://i53.tinypic.com/20h54p4.gif)
Selenelion
(http://i53.tinypic.com/vosp3d.jpg)
During the selenelion, the sun and an eclipsed moon can both be seen at the same time. This is impossible on a round earth, as shown above. Further, the typical diagrams of the earth's umbra and penumbra are not reconcilable with the RE constant assertion that the sun's light arrives in parallel rays because the sun is so distant. This undermines the premise of Eratosthene's famous "proof" that the earth is in fact round. The sooner we wake up to the fact that globularism has its root in the heresies of the Pythagoreans, the better.
-
During the selenelion, the sun and an eclipsed moon can both be seen at the same time. This is impossible on a round earth, as shown above.
You mean like this?...
(http://i51.tinypic.com/2nrd25l.png)
Further, the typical diagrams of the earth's umbra and penumbra are not reconcilable with the RE constant assertion that the sun's light arrives in parallel rays because the sun is so distant. This undermines the premise of Eratosthene's famous "proof" that the earth is in fact round.
You're kinda right... The assumption that the Sun's rays arrive parallel is an approximation. In reality, of course, they don't arrive parallel. But it's a very good assumption for small areas on the Earth's surface (like a city, or small country even).
But when you consider systems like the whole Earth or the Earth-Sun-Moon system, you can't assume they're parallel, which is why you get umbra/penumbra pictures like this:
(http://i56.tinypic.com/20th6k4.jpg)
Another note on how the almost parallel approximation effects Eratosthenes' famous proof:
Eratosthenes assumed that the Sun's rays arrive approximately parallel, but of course they don't. However, this doesn't mean that the entire proof is incorrect. It only means that he was off by a small amount, proportional to the magnitude of the error. And since the error in the assumption is very small (because the Sun is very far away), the error in the result is small.
This is easy to see if you draw it out yourself, which I suggest you do before claiming this is nonsense. I'll put one up if you really don't feel like drawing it, but the best editor I have is MS Paint, so that'll be a pain...
Thanks
-
During the selenelion, the sun and an eclipsed moon can both be seen at the same time. This is impossible on a round earth, as shown above.
You forgot to allow for approximately 1/2 degree of elevation gained by atmospheric refraction. You also forgot that, although possible at every lunar eclipse, a selenelion is rarely seen or documented.
Further, the typical diagrams of the earth's umbra and penumbra are not reconcilable with the RE constant assertion that the sun's light arrives in parallel rays because the sun is so distant. This undermines the premise of Eratosthene's famous "proof" that the earth is in fact round.
Eratosthenes assumed that the sun's rays were essentially parallel, not exactly parallel. Also, it's nice to see that you acknowledge that the roundess of the earth is a fact. ;)
-
During the selenelion, the sun and an eclipsed moon can both be seen at the same time. This is impossible on a round earth, as shown above.
You forgot to allow for approximately 1/2 degree of elevation gained by atmospheric refraction. You also forgot that, although possible at every lunar eclipse, a selenelion is rarely seen or documented.
This is nonsense. Even assuming your (highly-convenient) refraction argument is true, the moon and sun are roughly half a degree wide, this still leaves both the sun and moon half obscured by the horizon, which is not what has been reported.
-
During the selenelion, the sun and an eclipsed moon can both be seen at the same time. This is impossible on a round earth, as shown above.
You forgot to allow for approximately 1/2 degree of elevation gained by atmospheric refraction. You also forgot that, although possible at every lunar eclipse, a selenelion is rarely seen or documented.
This is nonsense. Even assuming your (highly-convenient) refraction argument is true, the moon and sun are roughly half a degree wide, this still leaves both the sun and moon half obscured by the horizon, which is not what has been reported.
That 1/2 degree of refraction is for each the sun and moon, so it is possible.
Do you have any links to documented reports? Remember that a true selenelion (moon in total eclipse and sun both completely above the horizon) is a fleeting event. Even when it is observed, it only lasts for a few moments.
-
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Article/201009115862788
(http://news.sky.com/sky-news/content/StaticFile/jpg/2010/Dec/Week3/15863368.jpg)
Recent enough?
It is clear the moon is well above the horizon, not touching it. There is simply no way that the earth is causing this eclipse. Nor does your alleged "half a degree of refraction" come close to explaining the observed. The selenhelion lasted well over an hour; it was not a "fleeting moment".
-
They will argue "but where is the sun in that picture?"
If that's the shadow of the earth on the moon, then the sun must be an equal distance below the horizon as the moon is above the horizon. Hence, since it is not pitch dark, this clearly cannot be true. A stunning disproof of RET.
-
Correct -- the sun would have as low as the moon is high. The article clearly states the sun and moon were both visible at the same time during this occasion. The moon is roughly three degrees above the horizon in this particular photo. Since Markjo alleges a half a degree of refraction to atmosphere, globularists must now explain the remaining two and a half degrees.
-
Both the sun and moon take up .5 degrees of the sky. This will tell you how many degrees the moon is above the horizon in that photograph.
-
Guys, as I've just shown in my previous post, this picture (in Ski's post) is easily explainable in the RE model.
First of all, notice something: the darker portion of the Moon is not completely black, but obviously dimmer.
Now look at this picture regarding the RE model again:
(http://i51.tinypic.com/2nrd25l.png)
Note that there is a shadow cast on the Moon (in the leftmost and rightmost positions) which covers only a portion of it. Notice also that the Moon is being shadowed by the Earth and is in the penumbra, not the umbra. The difference is that the umbra is completely dark (a total Lunar eclipse) and the penumbra is only slightly - but noticeably - darkened. Finally, note that in Ski's nice picture (and the article), both the Moon and the Sun are visible. Observe (from the above diagram of the RE model) that this is exactly what is predicted.
Both the Sun and the partially-obscured Moon should be (and are) visible in the RE model.
I'll take a moment on this comment now:
If that's the shadow of the earth on the moon, then the sun must be an equal distance below the horizon as the moon is above the horizon. Hence, since it is not pitch dark, this clearly cannot be true. A stunning disproof of RET.
This is what I wanted to dispel at the top of my post.
In order for the Earth to cast a shadow on the Moon, it is not necessary that the Sun be directly opposite the Moon, as you say.
However, I think what you meant to say is that the Sun must be directly opposite the Moon (with the Earth in between) if the Moon is to be completely dark, which is what we know as a Lunar eclipse. That is, of course, very true - and you can even see it in the picture I included above.
However, one can plainly see that a partial shadow in the penumbra is possible in the RE model with the Sun not directly opposite the Moon - which is what is called selenelion and is observed in Ski's picture.
Thanks, I hope that helped.
be cool
EDIT: edited for clarity.
-
Both the sun and moon take up .5 degrees of the sky. This will tell you how many degrees the moon is above the horizon in that photograph.
Also, Tom, why the hell are you now talking about "degrees above the horizon", when the midnight sun should be ~12o above the horizon on a flat earth ?
(http://img814.imageshack.us/img814/4371/sunatmidnight.png)
Sorry to go off topic on this one, but when Tom starts talking about the degrees above the horizon, he is unwittingly abandoning the FE "perspective" explanation.
-
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Article/201009115862788 (http://news.sky.com/skynews/Article/201009115862788)
(http://news.sky.com/sky-news/content/StaticFile/jpg/2010/Dec/Week3/15863368.jpg)
Recent enough?
It is clear the moon is well above the horizon, not touching it. There is simply no way that the earth is causing this eclipse. Nor does your alleged "half a degree of refraction" come close to explaining the observed. The selenhelion lasted well over an hour; it was not a "fleeting moment".
Check me if I'm wrong, but the moon is not totally eclipsed in that photograph.
They will argue "but where is the sun in that picture?"
Good point, Tom. What evidence do you have that the sun was above the horizon when that photograph was taken?
-
Now look at this picture regarding the RE model again:
(http://i51.tinypic.com/2nrd25l.png)
Observe (from the above diagram of the RE model) that this is exactly what is predicted.
Both the Sun and the partially-obscured Moon should be (and are) visible in the RE model.
Are you suggesting that ludicrous picture depicts the RE solar system to scale? Have you considered what the picture would look like to scale?
[/quote]
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Article/201009115862788 (http://news.sky.com/skynews/Article/201009115862788)
(http://news.sky.com/sky-news/content/StaticFile/jpg/2010/Dec/Week3/15863368.jpg)
Check me if I'm wrong, but the moon is not totally eclipsed in that photograph.
If the earth's shadow was causing this, the sun would have to be atleast 3 degrees below the horizon and only the top of the moon would be visible. This is obviously not the case.
-
Ski is correct. The sun would need to be as far below the horizon as the moon is above the horizon.
Ski is also correct that the eclipse should be straight up and down, not coming from the side or at an angle.
-
Are you suggesting that ludicrous picture depicts the RE solar system to scale? Have you considered what the picture would look like to scale?
Have you considered that a picture can demonstrate a concept without being to scale? Are you suggesting that eclipses are not characterized by an Umbra and Penumbra?
-
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Article/201009115862788 (http://news.sky.com/skynews/Article/201009115862788)
(http://news.sky.com/sky-news/content/StaticFile/jpg/2010/Dec/Week3/15863368.jpg)
Check me if I'm wrong, but the moon is not totally eclipsed in that photograph.
If the earth's shadow was causing this, the sun would have to be atleast 3 degrees below the horizon and only the top of the moon would be visible. This is obviously not the case.
Since the exact time and location of this photo are not available, it's impossible to know for sure if the sun is supposed to be above or below the horizon. The combination of early morning twilight, long exposure and snow covered foreground (well, it looks snow covered to me) could easily make the photograph appear much brighter than it really was.
-
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Article/201009115862788 (http://news.sky.com/skynews/Article/201009115862788)
(http://news.sky.com/sky-news/content/StaticFile/jpg/2010/Dec/Week3/15863368.jpg)
Check me if I'm wrong, but the moon is not totally eclipsed in that photograph.
If the earth's shadow was causing this, the sun would have to be atleast 3 degrees below the horizon and only the top of the moon would be visible. This is obviously not the case.
Since the exact time and location of this photo are not available, it's impossible to know for sure if the sun is supposed to be above or below the horizon. The combination of early morning twilight, long exposure and snow covered foreground (well, it looks snow covered to me) could easily make the photograph appear much brighter than it really was.
Do you really propose that the scene would be that bright if the sun were as far below the horizon as the moon is above it? That's absurd.
-
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Article/201009115862788 (http://news.sky.com/skynews/Article/201009115862788)
(http://news.sky.com/sky-news/content/StaticFile/jpg/2010/Dec/Week3/15863368.jpg)
Check me if I'm wrong, but the moon is not totally eclipsed in that photograph.
If the earth's shadow was causing this, the sun would have to be atleast 3 degrees below the horizon and only the top of the moon would be visible. This is obviously not the case.
Since the exact time and location of this photo are not available, it's impossible to know for sure if the sun is supposed to be above or below the horizon. The combination of early morning twilight, long exposure and snow covered foreground (well, it looks snow covered to me) could easily make the photograph appear much brighter than it really was.
Do you really propose that the scene would be that bright if the sun were as far below the horizon as the moon is above it? That's absurd.
Again, without knowing the specifics, it's hard to say for sure. Remember that the moon is not fully eclipsed, so the sun and moon are not exactly 180 degrees apart.
-
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Article/201009115862788 (http://news.sky.com/skynews/Article/201009115862788)
(http://news.sky.com/sky-news/content/StaticFile/jpg/2010/Dec/Week3/15863368.jpg)
Check me if I'm wrong, but the moon is not totally eclipsed in that photograph.
If the earth's shadow was causing this, the sun would have to be atleast 3 degrees below the horizon and only the top of the moon would be visible. This is obviously not the case.
Since the exact time and location of this photo are not available, it's impossible to know for sure if the sun is supposed to be above or below the horizon. The combination of early morning twilight, long exposure and snow covered foreground (well, it looks snow covered to me) could easily make the photograph appear much brighter than it really was.
Do you really propose that the scene would be that bright if the sun were as far below the horizon as the moon is above it? That's absurd.
Its important to remember that Bob Bishop knows NOTHING about photography. He has repeatedly demosntrated this, but to a marvellous degree here where he totally fails to understand the concept of what things look like with long exposures. I have personally taken photos in dark twilight that look brighter than this. As you can clearly see in the photograph, the entire moon is not eclipsed, and if I had to hazard a guess how long it would be before the moon entered total eclipse I'd say probably at least another half hour. Plenty of time for the sun to be above the horizon, except it isnt. How do I know this? Because the trees and landscape would be illuminated by direct sunlight and they arent. Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of What Things Look Like At Sunset can work this out.
Bishop, you are a towel.
-
Are you suggesting that ludicrous picture depicts the RE solar system to scale? Have you considered what the picture would look like to scale?
Have you considered that a picture can demonstrate a concept without being to scale? Are you suggesting that eclipses are not characterized by an Umbra and Penumbra?
I am suggesting that a scale picture would show you why there would be no penumbra.
-
It's not very zetetic of Tom to draw conclusions about the photo like that. Just another example of his kind only adhering to the principles of zeteticism when it is convenient to their point.
-
Are you suggesting that ludicrous picture depicts the RE solar system to scale? Have you considered what the picture would look like to scale?
Have you considered that a picture can demonstrate a concept without being to scale? Are you suggesting that eclipses are not characterized by an Umbra and Penumbra?
I am suggesting that a scale picture would show you why there would be no penumbra.
That would be incorrect, as shown in this scale diagram:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5b/Earth_umbral_cone_%28partial%29.png)
-
From the same article, here is another picture of the same eclipse (21/12/2010, England), taken by a 10 year old:
(http://news.sky.com/sky-news/content/StaticFile/jpg/2010/Dec/Week3/15863366.jpg) (http://news.sky.com/skynews/Article/201009115862788)
It is perfectly possible that the other picture has used a more advanced method of exposure (HDR?) in order to capture the landscape in addition to the moon.
Without more details of the landscape picture, we simply don't know. Tom's argument is bunk.
-
Ski is correct. The sun would need to be as far below the horizon as the moon is above the horizon.
Ski is also correct that the eclipse should be straight up and down, not coming from the side or at an angle.
Please see my post above for an explanation of why this is not true, thanks.
Just an excerpt...
In order for the Earth to cast a shadow on the Moon, it is not necessary that the Sun be directly opposite the Moon, as you say.
However, I think what you meant to say is that the Sun must be directly opposite the Moon (with the Earth in between) if the Moon is to be completely dark, which is what we know as a Lunar eclipse. That is, of course, very true - and you can even see it in the picture I included above.
However, one can plainly see that a partial shadow in the penumbra is possible in the RE model with the Sun not directly opposite the Moon - which is what is called selenelion and is observed in Ski's picture.
-
Since we round earthers tend to disprove many of flat earthen theory i would like to give them a chance to disprove RET. Please post evidence that the earth cannot be round for (insert reason here). Mind you these reasons must be able to be fact checked and not some magic equation you wrote down while watching opera.
Sure.
1) Look out your window
2) The Bedford Level Experiment.
1) well that's faulty logic. if you lived on top of a mountain and looked outside your window, you'd think that the world descends in all directions. it's the bigger picture that's important. and the bigger picture shows it's rounded.
2) that experiment's error is well known to be due to refraction within the atmosphere. is this finding incorrect? if so, how?
He's trolling you, bro. He can't disprove RET because he's a round earther..
-
Since we round earthers tend to disprove many of flat earthen theory i would like to give them a chance to disprove RET. Please post evidence that the earth cannot be round for (insert reason here). Mind you these reasons must be able to be fact checked and not some magic equation you wrote down while watching opera.
Simple travel to rock city, chattanooga, TN. From there not only can you see further than you should on a RE, but also it has been mapped very extensively so one can verify that gravitational pull does not diminish with altitude when one takes into account the pull of the heavens and local geography.
-
Since we round earthers tend to disprove many of flat earthen theory i would like to give them a chance to disprove RET. Please post evidence that the earth cannot be round for (insert reason here). Mind you these reasons must be able to be fact checked and not some magic equation you wrote down while watching opera.
Simple travel to rock city, chattanooga, TN. From there not only can you see further than you should on a RE, but also it has been mapped very extensively so one can verify that gravitational pull does not diminish with altitude when one takes into account the pull of the heavens and local geography.
The idea that climbing up a mountain you will get less gravitational pull is a good initial hypothesis for a 19th century scientist and geology explorer. But we now know a lot more than that.
Actually, the gravitational pull from the mountain itself makes the gravitational pull from the top of high mountains stronger than from the base of the mountain. Several characteristics of the place have an effect on the gravitational pull, including: latitude, altitude, nearby mountains, nearby lakes and oceans, underground geology, and pull from the heavens.
But wait, John, it is not the pull you are saying. It is the pull from the Sun and Moon, which is not constant. And from other celestial bodies, but it is so small that is is not even measurable.
Trying to uncover the secrets of geological gravimetry from one measurement on Chattanooga is like looking at one ant and explaining from that observation alone the whole world of the insects.
-
I offered to do the calculations for John Davis' theory of celestial gravity one time and he never got back to me on it. Apparently if variables are present in the calculations, then we may as well not even bother.