The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: FlatAllTheWay on December 10, 2014, 09:08:54 AM

Title: About that shadow object
Post by: FlatAllTheWay on December 10, 2014, 09:08:54 AM
Flat earthers claim the existence of a "Shadow Object" to explain eclipses.  I would like to understand some details of this part of flat earth theory.  Please answer any or all of the following:

1.  Is the Shadow Object (SO) disk-shaped, nominally spherical, or some other shape?
2.  What are the SO's approximate dimensions?
3.  What is the SO made of?
4.  Why can't we see the SO directly, rather than inferring its existence when we see an eclipse?
5.  What natural force is responsible for the SO's movement in the sky?
6.  Where is the SO when it is not causing eclipses?  For example, where is it today, Dec. 10, 2014?
7.  When it is not eclipsing the Sun or Moon, shouldn't it be blocking some other part of the sky which we could verify?
8.  How far from Earth is the SO?
9.  Keeping in mind that the existence of eclipses does not prove the SO exists (since round earth theory can also explain eclipses without conjuring a shadow object), what evidence do you have that the SO exists?
Title: Re: About that shadow object
Post by: theearthisrounddealwithit on December 10, 2014, 09:49:46 AM
Flat earthers claim the existence of a "Shadow Object" to explain eclipses.  I would like to understand some details of this part of flat earth theory.  Please answer any or all of the following:

1.  Is the Shadow Object (SO) disk-shaped, nominally spherical, or some other shape?
2.  What are the SO's approximate dimensions?
3.  What is the SO made of?
4.  Why can't we see the SO directly, rather than inferring its existence when we see an eclipse?
5.  What natural force is responsible for the SO's movement in the sky?
6.  Where is the SO when it is not causing eclipses?  For example, where is it today, Dec. 10, 2014?
7.  When it is not eclipsing the Sun or Moon, shouldn't it be blocking some other part of the sky which we could verify?
8.  How far from Earth is the SO?
9.  Keeping in mind that the existence of eclipses does not prove the SO exists (since round earth theory can also explain eclipses without conjuring a shadow object), what evidence do you have that the SO exists?

I have already tried in vain to get details about this magical thing that is the shadow object. I hope you get more luck than me.
Title: Re: About that shadow object
Post by: macrohard on December 10, 2014, 11:22:02 AM
My biggest issue with the SO is that it never obstructs any starts.  It only applies to the moon.

Moreover, when the SO blocks the moon, the portions of the moon behind the SO can still be seen with sensitive enough equipment.

Zetetic observation leads me to believe that one of the following must be true:
1) The SO is a thin, polarized screen that transmits starlight (earthly reflections?) while at the same time blocking 99.9% of light from the moon.
2) The SO doesn't exist.
Title: Re: About that shadow object
Post by: FlatAllTheWay on December 12, 2014, 07:21:48 AM
Two days and counting, and no response whatsoever from flat earthers.  Do you guys really think you can get away with proposing a bizarre theory -- in this case, a "shadow object" -- and not be expected to back it up with details and evidence?
Title: Re: About that shadow object
Post by: Son of Orospu on December 12, 2014, 07:42:53 AM
Has it occurred to you that the few FE'ers who supported the "Shadow Object" theory no longer frequent the forum? 
Title: Re: About that shadow object
Post by: FlatAllTheWay on December 12, 2014, 02:17:16 PM
Has it occurred to you that the few FE'ers who supported the "Shadow Object" theory no longer frequent the forum?

So you are disavowing the Shadow Object theory?  How, then, do you explain eclipses?
Title: Re: About that shadow object
Post by: Misero on December 12, 2014, 05:46:23 PM


Let me guess. Jroa will give a terrible explanation involving the lunar winds blowing the self illuminating dust with no chemical signature that conveniently is untouchable by humans risking death across the flat lunar disk close with magical suction keeping said dust on, and later deny this, further proving that jroa is not to be taken seriously.
Honestly, you'll run out of lame excuses one day. Just say "I don't know" for once. We can't possibly think less of you. In fact, we'll think more of you. I'm not being hostile here. Just say that you don't know. Rather than saying "It wouldn't be a good conspiracy if there was evidence everywhere.", say "I don't know what there is to gain from this.". Please jroa. You one day will cave and say that you don't know. Or not. It wouldn't be flat earth wild guess if there was logic laying around everywhere.
Title: Re: About that shadow object
Post by: robintex on December 12, 2014, 05:58:44 PM
Has it occurred to you that the few FE'ers who supported the "Shadow Object" theory no longer frequent the forum?

If it isn't "The Shadow Object Theory", then what is the Flat Earth Theory for the eclipse ?
Title: Re: About that shadow object
Post by: ausGeoff on December 14, 2014, 01:30:10 AM
Has it occurred to you that the few FE'ers who supported the "Shadow Object" theory no longer frequent the forum?

Do you not accept the "shadow object" theory as clearly explained in your own Flat earth Wiki jroa?

As per:

•   A Lunar Eclipse occurs about twice a year when a satellite of the sun passes between the sun and moon. This satellite is called the Shadow Object.
•   The shadow object is never seen because it orbits close to the sun.
•   It is estimated that the Shadow Object is around five to ten miles in diameter.

Assuming you don't agree with the above, what then is your personal theory about eclipses?  And which other facts from your FEW do you disagree with?  Only a couple (such as this) or many?  Or even all of them?
Title: Re: About that shadow object
Post by: Pongo on December 14, 2014, 08:13:22 PM
I attribute it to lunar life forms.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=42779.0#.VI5fOZY8Lv4 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=42779.0#.VI5fOZY8Lv4)
Title: Re: About that shadow object
Post by: FlatAllTheWay on December 14, 2014, 08:33:07 PM
I attribute it to lunar life forms.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=42779.0#.VI5fOZY8Lv4 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=42779.0#.VI5fOZY8Lv4)

In that thread, you start by saying "It is well accepted that light from the moon is a result of biolumonence; probably fungus or bacteria."  Please show one link to a single person anywhere in the world that believes this.  Given that this theory is "well accepted", you should be able to find a lot of scientists who agree with you, but for starters, just name one.
Title: Re: About that shadow object
Post by: guv on December 14, 2014, 08:38:51 PM
When I was a little kid the old man showed me the man on the moon chopping firewood. I used to wonder what would happen if his fire went out.
Title: Re: About that shadow object
Post by: Son of Orospu on December 15, 2014, 06:15:26 AM
Has it occurred to you that the few FE'ers who supported the "Shadow Object" theory no longer frequent the forum?

Do you not accept the "shadow object" theory as clearly explained in your own Flat earth Wiki jroa?

As per:

•   A Lunar Eclipse occurs about twice a year when a satellite of the sun passes between the sun and moon. This satellite is called the Shadow Object.
•   The shadow object is never seen because it orbits close to the sun.
•   It is estimated that the Shadow Object is around five to ten miles in diameter.

Assuming you don't agree with the above, what then is your personal theory about eclipses?  And which other facts from your FEW do you disagree with?  Only a couple (such as this) or many?  Or even all of them?

When have I stated that I believe in everything the wiki says?  Aren't I the one who encourages people to think for themselves?  Why would I then just believe what the wiki says without thinking for myself?  The wiki is a good starting point, but it is not the end-all source of information. 
Title: Re: About that shadow object
Post by: FlatAllTheWay on December 15, 2014, 06:31:25 AM
When have I stated that I believe in everything the wiki says?  Aren't I the one who encourages people to think for themselves?  Why would I then just believe what the wiki says without thinking for myself?  The wiki is a good starting point, but it is not the end-all source of information.

Ok, then once again: how do you explain eclipses if you don't believe in the shadow object?
Title: Re: About that shadow object
Post by: guv on December 15, 2014, 06:37:15 AM
The sun and moon get lost in space,how easy.
Title: Re: About that shadow object
Post by: Son of Orospu on December 15, 2014, 06:38:37 AM
When have I stated that I believe in everything the wiki says?  Aren't I the one who encourages people to think for themselves?  Why would I then just believe what the wiki says without thinking for myself?  The wiki is a good starting point, but it is not the end-all source of information.

Ok, then once again: how do you explain eclipses if you don't believe in the shadow object?

Eclipses occur when the moon gets in between the sun and your point of view.  No shadow object needed. 
Title: Re: About that shadow object
Post by: guv on December 15, 2014, 06:45:51 AM
Ok now try a solar eclipse.
Title: Re: About that shadow object
Post by: Son of Orospu on December 15, 2014, 06:50:07 AM
Ok now try a solar eclipse.


What do you mean?  I thought I did. 
Title: Re: About that shadow object
Post by: guv on December 15, 2014, 06:55:53 AM
When I first came to this site you were babbling about how eclipse's did not happen. Different bottle of rum tonight?.
Title: Re: About that shadow object
Post by: Son of Orospu on December 15, 2014, 06:57:57 AM
I just explained that a solar eclipse is simply when the moon gets in between the sun and the observer.  What else would you like of me to say? 
Title: Re: About that shadow object
Post by: FlatAllTheWay on December 15, 2014, 07:07:36 AM
I just explained that a solar eclipse is simply when the moon gets in between the sun and the observer.  What else would you like of me to say?

Yes, you just described a solar eclipse, and RE theory and FE theory agree on this explanation.  Now please explain the lunar eclipse.  Round earth theory says that's when the earth passes between the Sun and the Moon.  This doesn't seem possible if the earth is flat and the Sun and Moon are always on the same side of the earth.
Title: Re: About that shadow object
Post by: guv on December 15, 2014, 07:12:14 AM
Tell us all about a lunar eclipse. 
Title: Re: About that shadow object
Post by: Son of Orospu on December 15, 2014, 07:13:29 AM
Personally, I have never seen a lunar eclipse.  I cannot comment for sure on what it is, nor can I even say it even exists.  From what I understand, the moon simply turns red for a short period of time as seen from a small area of the Earth.  Could atmoplanic conditions not do this as well? 
Title: Re: About that shadow object
Post by: ItMustBeRound on December 15, 2014, 07:18:27 AM
Personally, I have never seen a lunar eclipse.  I cannot comment for sure on what it is, nor can I even say it even exists.  From what I understand, the moon simply turns red for a short period of time as seen from a small area of the Earth.  Could atmoplanic conditions not do this as well?

Googlewhack!

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=atmoplanic+conditions&oq=atmoplanic+conditions&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8#q=%22atmoplanic+conditions%22 (https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=atmoplanic+conditions&oq=atmoplanic+conditions&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8#q=%22atmoplanic+conditions%22)

Edit: Posted to soon. please define the above as nobody seems to every have heard of / detailed this before...

Thanks
Title: Re: About that shadow object
Post by: Son of Orospu on December 15, 2014, 07:22:35 AM
Personally, I have never seen a lunar eclipse.  I cannot comment for sure on what it is, nor can I even say it even exists.  From what I understand, the moon simply turns red for a short period of time as seen from a small area of the Earth.  Could atmoplanic conditions not do this as well?

Googlewhack!

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=atmoplanic+conditions&oq=atmoplanic+conditions&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8#q=%22atmoplanic+conditions%22 (https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=atmoplanic+conditions&oq=atmoplanic+conditions&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8#q=%22atmoplanic+conditions%22)

Edit: Posted to soon. please define the above as nobody seems to every have heard of / detailed this before...

Thanks

You have never heard of the atmoplane?  How long have you been here? 
Title: Re: About that shadow object
Post by: ausGeoff on December 15, 2014, 07:29:18 AM
When have I stated that I believe in everything the wiki says?  Aren't I the one who encourages people to think for themselves?  Why would I then just believe what the wiki says without thinking for myself?  The wiki is a good starting point, but it is not the end-all source of information.

You've now said on several occasions that you don't accept some specific point or other in the Flat Earth Wiki jroa.

Considering that the FEW is often cited as the flat earthers' "bible", are you now claiming that much of its content is erroneous?  Or, how much, in percentage terms, would you say is wrong?

Also, how do you explain that newbie round earthers to the forum are usually and firstly referred to the FEW—if many parts of it don't represent the overall opinions of the flat earth community?  How then does that newbie differentiate fact from outdated data?  Shouldn't the FEW be periodically updated and/or amended to reflect the current flat earth hypotheses?

It seems to me that you—and several other flat earthers—pick and choose when to cite the FEW and when not to, in order to suit your argument at the time.  Is my view on this wrong?
Title: Re: About that shadow object
Post by: Son of Orospu on December 15, 2014, 07:33:59 AM
I said I do not agree with everything in the wiki.  In several articles, two or three different explanations are given.  I could not possibly think that all of the explanations could all possibly be true.  However, the wiki does do, for the most part, a good job of admitting that there are several different beliefs, and that is why it offers more than one explanation.  What exactly is your problem with this?  I can tell you are trying to bait me into something. 

Title: Re: About that shadow object
Post by: ItMustBeRound on December 15, 2014, 07:39:04 AM
Personally, I have never seen a lunar eclipse.  I cannot comment for sure on what it is, nor can I even say it even exists.  From what I understand, the moon simply turns red for a short period of time as seen from a small area of the Earth.  Could atmoplanic conditions not do this as well?

Googlewhack!

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=atmoplanic+conditions&oq=atmoplanic+conditions&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8#q=%22atmoplanic+conditions%22 (https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=atmoplanic+conditions&oq=atmoplanic+conditions&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8#q=%22atmoplanic+conditions%22)

Edit: Posted to soon. please define the above as nobody seems to every have heard of / detailed this before...

Thanks

You have never heard of the atmoplane?  How long have you been here?

You're missing the point, that point being, of the billions of people who use the internet on a daily basis, nobody, and I mean literally nobody outside of one search result has ever written anything about "Atmoplanic Conditions". On the other hand, a quick search for the  exact term "mechanics of a lunar eclipses" reveals over 19 thousand sources to read up from.

I'm quite happy actually, this is the first Googlewhack I've ever found.
Title: Re: About that shadow object
Post by: Son of Orospu on December 15, 2014, 07:46:20 AM
Argumentum ad numerum is not a valid form of debating.  If the best you can do is throw around some numbers, then you will probably not make it very far here. 
Title: Re: About that shadow object
Post by: ItMustBeRound on December 15, 2014, 08:08:51 AM
Argumentum ad numerum is not a valid form of debating.  If the best you can do is throw around some numbers, then you will probably not make it very far here.

I'm sorry, but when I'm thrown terms or concepts that I've got little to no insight in I tend to look for sources where I can read up on those things. Atmoplanic Conditions is one of those things and as such, I thought I'd do a little of my own research. Turns out there's so little written about Atmoplanic Conditions that I'm just expected to take your word for it. No citations, no reference materials, not an image or diagram in sight that would support or detract from Atmoplanic Conditions.

This to me has the same value as someone saying "because I said so". It never worked for my parents and it certainly won't work for you. If, on the other hand, you can point to other sources then please, enlighten me, otherwise, I shall withdraw for now and leave you to explain your version of a Lunar Eclipse through fantasy while I continue to be satisfied with the answers provided by the masses.

In some cases, the numbers really do matter when debating.
Thanks
Title: Re: About that shadow object
Post by: ausGeoff on December 15, 2014, 08:09:14 AM
I said I do not agree with everything in the wiki.  In several articles, two or three different explanations are given.  I could not possibly think that all of the explanations could all possibly be true.  However, the wiki does do, for the most part, a good job of admitting that there are several different beliefs, and that is why it offers more than one explanation.  What exactly is your problem with this?  I can tell you are trying to bait me into something.
So you're now agreeing—in effect—that rather than being a collection of empirical scientific truths, your FEW is simply a collection of different people's opinions?  And that some are correct, whilst others are not?  And that the FEW only does a "good" job of explaining flat earth science, but not an exemplary one—as do all the "round earth" science text books.  Millions of them propose the round earth theories in total agreement; from thousands of scientists across hundreds of countries, whereas only one book of doubtful factual correctness exists to support the flat earth model.

And it's not me that has any "problem" with the FEW jroa;  it seems to me to be a problem for you.    ::)

Finally, if your FEW is such an important document for flat earth theory, why is it that I can't find it in my council library?  Why is it not also in the Library of Congress catalogue (http://1.usa.gov/1mL9vL0) if it's so important?
Title: Re: About that shadow object
Post by: ausGeoff on December 15, 2014, 08:17:11 AM
Argumentum ad numerum is not a valid form of debating.

Totally agree jroa..... IF the numbers were 5,000 versus 500, but in the round earth v. flat earth scenario, they're 7,000,000,000 versus 500.

Can you not see the obvious difference?  Or do you seriously believe that every one of those 7 billion people is wrong?

Title: Re: About that shadow object
Post by: Son of Orospu on December 15, 2014, 08:25:57 AM
Do you not understand that the majority of people can be wrong, and in fact, have historically been wrong in the past? 
Title: Re: About that shadow object
Post by: inquisitive on December 15, 2014, 08:32:47 AM
Do you not understand that the majority of people can be wrong, and in fact, have historically been wrong in the past?
That does not prove the minority view is always right.
Title: Re: About that shadow object
Post by: Son of Orospu on December 15, 2014, 08:41:19 AM
Do you not understand that the majority of people can be wrong, and in fact, have historically been wrong in the past?
That does not prove the minority view is always right.

No, just as the numbers do not prove the majority right, either.  Do you not understand the words that you are reading? 
Title: Re: About that shadow object
Post by: ausGeoff on December 15, 2014, 08:50:02 AM
Do you not understand that the majority of people can be wrong, and in fact, have historically been wrong in the past?

Well, this is a bold move jroa...

You're now apparently claiming that all those 7 billion people who accept the spherical earth model could be wrong?  You see it as a distinct possibility do you?  But doesn't that seem extremely illogical to you, even considering Occam's Razor for example.

Could you also cite references to support your claim that the vast majority have been wrong in the past?  I don't doubt it for a moment, but I'd be interested to see what examples you come up with.
Title: Re: About that shadow object
Post by: Son of Orospu on December 15, 2014, 08:56:28 AM
The majority of Romans were fine with slavery.  Did that make slavery right in their time?

The majority of Germans pre-WWII thought Nazism was right and that the Jews were destroying the country.  Does that mean that they were right?

A few hundred years ago, the majority of people believed that blood letting could balance the humors and cure all kinds of sicknesses.  Does that mean they were right? 

The ancient Greeks thought that maggots spontaneously emerged from rotten meat.  Does that mean that they were right?

Should I go on? 
Title: Re: About that shadow object
Post by: inquisitive on December 15, 2014, 09:08:00 AM
The majority of Romans were fine with slavery.  Did that make slavery right in their time?

The majority of Germans pre-WWII thought Nazism was right and that the Jews were destroying the country.  Does that mean that they were right?

A few hundred years ago, the majority of people believed that blood letting could balance the humors and cure all kinds of sicknesses.  Does that mean they were right? 

The ancient Greeks thought that maggots spontaneously emerged from rotten meat.  Does that mean that they were right?

Should I go on?
We get your point, but that does nothing to prove a flat earth with zero evidence.  A good start would be a map with verified distances.
Title: Re: About that shadow object
Post by: Son of Orospu on December 15, 2014, 09:17:05 AM
Would you please, inquisitive, stop trying to change every topic into one about distances and satellites?  We have plenty of those.  Thanks. 
Title: Re: About that shadow object
Post by: FlatAllTheWay on December 15, 2014, 09:49:49 AM
Personally, I have never seen a lunar eclipse.  I cannot comment for sure on what it is, nor can I even say it even exists.  From what I understand, the moon simply turns red for a short period of time as seen from a small area of the Earth.  Could atmoplanic conditions not do this as well?

There was a lunar eclipse on Oct. 8, 2014 that I and millions of other people saw.  The moon turned reddish as you point out.  This eclipse was predicted well in advance, and there was no mention of using "atmoplanic conditions" to predict it.  A Google search for "atmoplanic conditions" turns up exactly one result, and it's from this forum, and even there it is not explained.  So please explain what this term means and how it can account for lunar eclipses.
Title: Re: About that shadow object
Post by: Son of Orospu on December 15, 2014, 09:53:20 AM
I was all ready to see a lunar eclipse back in April.  All I saw were the clouds turning red.  I see red clouds occasionally in the morning or evening, so what does that prove? 
Title: Re: About that shadow object
Post by: ausGeoff on December 15, 2014, 09:58:00 AM
I was all ready to see a lunar eclipse back in April.  All I saw were the clouds turning red.  I see red clouds occasionally in the morning or evening, so what does that prove?

It proves that  "Rayleigh Scattering" (http://bit.ly/1uOmJMj)  is occurring.
Title: Re: About that shadow object
Post by: FlatAllTheWay on December 15, 2014, 10:16:58 AM
I was all ready to see a lunar eclipse back in April.  All I saw were the clouds turning red.  I see red clouds occasionally in the morning or evening, so what does that prove?

You are avoiding the issue again.  You already admitted that during a lunar eclipse the moon appears to turn a reddish color.  So the fact that you did not see this happen during the time of a particular eclipse is irrelevant.  Millions of people saw this happen on October 8th. 

So please explain your atmoplane theory.


Title: Re: About that shadow object
Post by: Son of Orospu on December 15, 2014, 10:19:23 AM
I also said that I see the clouds turn red occasionally during the morning and evening.  What are you having a problem understanding? 

Title: Re: About that shadow object
Post by: FlatAllTheWay on December 15, 2014, 11:47:13 AM
I also said that I see the clouds turn red occasionally during the morning and evening.  What are you having a problem understanding?

Let's try it this way:  all of the world's astronomers (and I challenge you to provide a counter-example) agree that the reddish color we see during a lunar eclipse is due to the Earth passing temporarily between the Sun and Moon.  This is inconsistent with flat earth theory.  You claim that lunar eclipses can be explained by something you call "atmoplane conditions".  I am asking you to elaborate on the term "atmoplane conditions" and to explain how it is responsible for lunar eclipses.
Title: Re: About that shadow object
Post by: Alpha2Omega on December 15, 2014, 09:51:35 PM
I also said that I see the clouds turn red occasionally during the morning and evening.  What are you having a problem understanding?
This is germaine in a way. During a total eclipse the direct illumination of the Moon by the Sun is blocked by the Earth. The same phenomenon that makes the Sun appear red near the horizon continues to illuminate the atmosphere above you after it sets for you, so shortly after sunset or before sunrise, even though the Sun is blocked by your horizon at the surface, clouds at higher altitude are still lighted by the reddened sun and appear reddish.

During an eclipse the Moon is illuminated by every sunrise and sunset on Earth at the same time. The only sunlight that gets there has passed through the thickest part of earth's atmosphere and has been filtered to pass the redder end of the spectrum, and refracted and scattered so it can still get to the Moon even though the direct path has been blocked. 

So the same phenomenon that makes clouds appear red to you around sunset also make the Moon appear red during an eclipse. Cool, eh?
Title: Re: About that shadow object
Post by: FlatAllTheWay on December 17, 2014, 05:20:36 PM
Still waiting for jroa to explain what "atmoplane conditions" means and how this explains lunar eclipses.
Title: Re: About that shadow object
Post by: Dinosaur Neil on December 18, 2014, 03:09:29 PM
I was all ready to see a lunar eclipse back in April.  All I saw were the clouds turning red.  I see red clouds occasionally in the morning or evening, so what does that prove?

If you mean you saw clouds turning red with the moon shining behind them, then you're lying.
The brightness of an eclipsed moon is insufficient to shine through even a fairly thin layer of cloud. If you could see clouds being illuminated by it, they'd have been thin enough to observe the face of the moon itself.
If you mean you saw red clouds in any other part of the sky, then your post is a non sequitur as they were unconnected with the eclipse.
Title: Re: About that shadow object
Post by: FlatAllTheWay on December 21, 2014, 07:39:09 PM
Personally, I have never seen a lunar eclipse.  I cannot comment for sure on what it is, nor can I even say it even exists.  From what I understand, the moon simply turns red for a short period of time as seen from a small area of the Earth.  Could atmoplanic conditions not do this as well?

JROA, it's now been 6 days since you posted the timid response above.  I say "timid", because you have so little belief in your own hypothesis that you posed it as a question.  And despite repeated requests for you to elaborate on how "atmoplanic conditions" could explain lunar eclipses, you have gone silent.  Are you ready to admit that there is no way to explain lunar eclipses with flat earth theory?
Title: Re: About that shadow object
Post by: Son of Orospu on December 22, 2014, 07:37:37 AM
Personally, I have never seen a lunar eclipse.  I cannot comment for sure on what it is, nor can I even say it even exists.  From what I understand, the moon simply turns red for a short period of time as seen from a small area of the Earth.  Could atmoplanic conditions not do this as well?

JROA, it's now been 6 days since you posted the timid response above.  I say "timid", because you have so little belief in your own hypothesis that you posed it as a question.  And despite repeated requests for you to elaborate on how "atmoplanic conditions" could explain lunar eclipses, you have gone silent.  Are you ready to admit that there is no way to explain lunar eclipses with flat earth theory?

If the atmoplane is the air and other matter above the Earth, then what exactly are you having trouble understanding about "atmoplanic conditions"?  Are you really that confused, or are you just bored? 
Title: Re: About that shadow object
Post by: robintex on December 22, 2014, 11:47:35 AM
The question that has been asked is simply ?

What ARE these "atmoplanic conditions" ?

Please give jroa some more time to come up with some more flat earth fantasy and fiction.

You have to realize that "atmoplane" and "atmoplanic" are just some more words in the flat earther fiction dictionary. Naturally a flat earther can't use "atmosphere" or "atmospheric" because in their own little fantasy world you can't use the word "sphere."

But it is interesting to see what they are going to come up with next.
We await them.
Title: Re: About that shadow object
Post by: Son of Orospu on December 22, 2014, 12:44:52 PM
What ARE these "atmoplanic conditions" ?

Pressure, temperature, pollen, smog, etc. etc.  Is this the first time you have heard of these things?  You people are really scraping the bottom of the barrel to make posts like this in the debate section.  If you have been beat, then just concede.  I know not all of you have the ability to make a proper debate, but you don't need to waste the rest of our time by asking questions that you already know the answers to. 
Title: Re: About that shadow object
Post by: mikeman7918 on December 22, 2014, 01:16:16 PM
I just explained that a solar eclipse is simply when the moon gets in between the sun and the observer.  What else would you like of me to say?
What is a lunar eclipse in FET?
Title: Re: About that shadow object
Post by: macrohard on December 22, 2014, 02:16:00 PM
I just explained that a solar eclipse is simply when the moon gets in between the sun and the observer.  What else would you like of me to say?
What is a lunar eclipse in FET?

He answered this already:

Lunar eclipses as we know them do not exist.  The darkening and reddening we observe is explained by pollen and smog conditions which are unique and predictable hundreds of years in advance.

Case closed!
Title: Re: About that shadow object
Post by: Battery72 on December 22, 2014, 02:49:25 PM
What ARE these "atmoplanic conditions" ?

Pressure, temperature, pollen, smog, etc. etc.  Is this the first time you have heard of these things?  You people are really scraping the bottom of the barrel to make posts like this in the debate section.  If you have been beat, then just concede.  I know not all of you have the ability to make a proper debate, but you don't need to waste the rest of our time by asking questions that you already know the answers to.

So this is predictable hundreds of years in advance jroa?
Title: Re: About that shadow object
Post by: mikeman7918 on December 22, 2014, 05:51:42 PM
What ARE these "atmoplanic conditions" ?

Pressure, temperature, pollen, smog, etc. etc.  Is this the first time you have heard of these things?  You people are really scraping the bottom of the barrel to make posts like this in the debate section.  If you have been beat, then just concede.  I know not all of you have the ability to make a proper debate, but you don't need to waste the rest of our time by asking questions that you already know the answers to.
So lunar eclipses are the result of atmospheric conditions that happen everywhere in the world at the same time and they are also dependent on the positions of the sun and the moon and can be predicted using newtonian laws of gravity?  The atmosphere is one of the hardest to predict things that we know of second only to quanton randomness and it can even be altered hugely by something as small as a butterfly flapping it's wings, if you are right then lunar eclipses would be almost impossible to predict and yet that's not the case.

I don't think that the round earthers are the ones that are desperate because your nonsense is so easy to disprove.
Title: Re: About that shadow object
Post by: Son of Orospu on December 22, 2014, 06:26:45 PM
Why would I be using Newtonian Laws of Physics?  They were proven wrong a long time ago. 
Title: Re: About that shadow object
Post by: robintex on December 22, 2014, 06:59:50 PM
And all this time I thought it was just the migrations of the moon  shrimp. ???
Title: Re: About that shadow object
Post by: Battery72 on December 22, 2014, 07:05:51 PM
JROA, how is it then that round earth predictions can be made with all eclipses so far in advance?
Title: Re: About that shadow object
Post by: Son of Orospu on December 22, 2014, 07:11:34 PM
JROA, how is it then that round earth predictions can be made with all eclipses so far in advance?

Predicting the future from the past? 
Title: Re: About that shadow object
Post by: sokarul on December 22, 2014, 07:28:37 PM
Did anyone ask why eclipses only happen on full and new moons?
Title: Re: About that shadow object
Post by: Battery72 on December 23, 2014, 02:52:34 AM
JROA, how is it then that round earth predictions can be made with all eclipses so far in advance?

Predicting the future from the past?

 So you are saying that worldtime.com can predict the right atmospheric conditions to make the moon look red based on the past?
Title: Re: About that shadow object
Post by: mikeman7918 on December 23, 2014, 10:45:29 AM
Why would I be using Newtonian Laws of Physics?  They were proven wrong a long time ago.
How about you go jump off a cliff and you will be fine if objects in motion don't tend to stay in motion.
Title: Re: About that shadow object
Post by: FlatAllTheWay on December 23, 2014, 06:29:51 PM
JROA, how is it then that round earth predictions can be made with all eclipses so far in advance?

Predicting the future from the past?

JROA, your habit of meekly asking a question in response to a challenge is really quite sad.  If you have a theory, tell us what it is, and provide enough detail so it can be debated.

You claim that air pressure, temperature, pollen, etc. can explain lunar eclipses.  Yet lunar eclipses can and are predicted years in advance, and everyone knows that meteorological phenomena such as air temperature and pressure cannot be accurately predicted more than a few days in advance, even by the best meteorologists using the best available computer models. 

So you need to explain which atmospheric variable causes lunar eclipses and how that variable's value can be predicted years in advance.  You also need to explain how that thing can cause the Moon to appear red.  For example, how can a change in air temperature, pressure or pollen count make the Moon look red?  I eagerly await your response or your admission that lunar eclipses are yet another nail in the FE coffin.

Title: Re: About that shadow object
Post by: robintex on December 23, 2014, 08:02:06 PM
Why would I be using Newtonian Laws of Physics?  They were proven wrong a long time ago.
How about you go jump off a cliff and you will be fine if objects in motion don't tend to stay in motion.

What's the problem ? The earth is accelerating upward and if you jump off the cliff, won't the bottom  just come up to meet you ?
Title: Re: About that shadow object
Post by: ausGeoff on December 24, 2014, 07:40:22 AM
What ARE these "atmoplanic conditions" ?
Pressure, temperature, pollen, smog, etc. etc.  Is this the first time you have heard of these things?  You people are really scraping the bottom of the barrel to make posts like this in the debate section.  If you have been beat, then just concede.  I know not all of you have the ability to make a proper debate, but you don't need to waste the rest of our time by asking questions that you already know the answers to.

Are you seriously claiming that round earthers have never heard of these sorts of things jroa?  I hope not LOL.

And why do you waste the rest of our time by repeatedly posting these obviously disingenuous comments?  You claim that we (round earthers) don't have the "answers" to what causes lunar and solar eclipses, when in fact we've posted numerous references to their astrodynamics.

To refresh your memory:  Types of Solar and Lunar Eclipses (http://bit.ly/13EAeY2).

And your explanation?  Two words:  "atmoplane conditions".  What does that phrase even mean?  Do you really believe that pressure and temperature (both non-visible entities) have anything at all to do with eclipses?  How exactly does pollen change the colour of the moon?  Why does the colour of the moon change in rural areas (such as where I live) that has zero evidence of smog?

And as I understand it, the FE term "atmoplane" is used simply to avoid using the recognised RE term atmosphere.  Which is actually just a wee bit childish don't you think?  After all, both terms apparently describe the same thing don't they?  Or are you claiming that your atmoplane's physical properties differ in some marked way from the properties of the RE atmosphere?  And if so, what specifically are those properties?
Title: Re: About that shadow object
Post by: Misero on December 25, 2014, 07:11:14 AM
Why would I be using Newtonian Laws of Physics?  They were proven wrong a long time ago.
How about you go jump off a cliff and you will be fine if objects in motion don't tend to stay in motion.

What's the problem ? The earth is accelerating upward and if you jump off the cliff, won't the bottom  just come up to meet you ?
I believe the AE defy the Laws of Physics, paraphrasing a bit, Infinite Energy is not possible. Or will the earth just eventually stop and float there? Will this be before or after the magic Phlogiston runs out?
Title: Re: About that shadow object
Post by: FlatAllTheWay on December 31, 2014, 12:57:06 PM
JROA, we are still waiting for you to explain how air pressure, temperature or pollen can explain lunar eclipses.
Title: Re: About that shadow object
Post by: ausGeoff on December 31, 2014, 11:37:32 PM
JROA, we are still waiting for you to explain how air pressure, temperature or pollen can explain lunar eclipses.

Yes; I asked those questions of jroa more than a week ago too.  I asked in response to his posting:

Quote
Pressure, temperature, pollen, smog, etc. etc.  Is this the first time you have heard of these things?  You people are really scraping the bottom of the barrel to make posts like this in the debate section.

So... jroa.  How's about an answer?

(And please refrain from using those disingenuous put-downs.)
Title: Re: About that shadow object
Post by: FlatAllTheWay on January 07, 2015, 02:13:12 PM
This topic has been around for quite a while now, and we still have no explanation from flat earthers about how lunar eclipses work.  (I am disregarding Pongo's theory about "lunar life forms".)  All we have is JROA'S extremely brief response that "pressure, temperature, pollen, smog, etc." might cause lunar eclipses.  JROA: either provide enough detail for your theory so that we can debate it, or admit that FE theory has no way to explain lunar eclipses.
Title: Re: About that shadow object
Post by: ausGeoff on January 07, 2015, 08:11:36 PM
I'm still awaiting a response from jroa too.

It's not really satisfactory to simply claim that lunar eclipses are caused by air pressure, temperature or pollen etc—and leave it at that—without providing some supportive evidence.  I claim that a lunar eclipse occurs when the moon passes directly behind the earth into its umbra.  And this is my evidence—which is the current scientific status quo:

(http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/time/lunar_eclipse.jpg)

[Department of Physics & Astronomy University of Tennessee]


Now let's see jroa's proof of his claim.
Title: Re: About that shadow object
Post by: FlatAllTheWay on January 09, 2015, 03:10:18 PM
Two more days have now passed and jroa and company still can't explain how pressure, temperature, pollen, smog, or anything else can explain lunar eclipses. Oh wait, I just thought of something: if the Earth were spherical and orbited the Sun, while the spherical Moon orbits the Earth, that would explain it perfectly!  But I guess we'll have to reserve judgment until jroa gives us some details on his Pressure/Temperature/Pollen/Smog theory, hereafter known as the PTPS Theory.
Title: Re: About that shadow object
Post by: gpssjim on January 09, 2015, 03:18:59 PM
I'm still awaiting a response from jroa too.

It's not really satisfactory to simply claim that lunar eclipses are caused by air pressure, temperature or pollen etc—and leave it at that—without providing some supportive evidence.  I claim that a lunar eclipse occurs when the moon passes directly behind the earth into its umbra.  And this is my evidence—which is the current scientific status quo:

(http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/time/lunar_eclipse.jpg)

[Department of Physics & Astronomy University of Tennessee]


Now let's see jroa's proof of his claim.
Hey, wait a minute.  If the moon in that diagram was on the other side of the earth, then it would block the light from the Sun. 
Title: Re: About that shadow object
Post by: robintex on January 09, 2015, 03:36:15 PM
I'm still awaiting a response from jroa too.

It's not really satisfactory to simply claim that lunar eclipses are caused by air pressure, temperature or pollen etc—and leave it at that—without providing some supportive evidence.  I claim that a lunar eclipse occurs when the moon passes directly behind the earth into its umbra.  And this is my evidence—which is the current scientific status quo:

(http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/time/lunar_eclipse.jpg)

[Department of Physics & Astronomy University of Tennessee]

Now let's see jroa's proof of his claim.
Hey, wait a minute.  If the moon in that diagram was on the other side of the earth, then it would block the light from the Sun.

What is shown is a lunar eclipse when the earth is blocking the light from the  sun to the moon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_eclipse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_eclipse)

If the moon was on the other side of the earth the moon would  be blocking the light from the sun to the earth and that is a solar eclispe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_eclipse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_eclipse)

ausGeoff :  Do you have a similar diagram to illustrate a solar eclipse ?
Title: Re: About that shadow object
Post by: Lemmiwinks on January 09, 2015, 03:41:20 PM
I'm still awaiting a response from jroa too.

It's not really satisfactory to simply claim that lunar eclipses are caused by air pressure, temperature or pollen etc—and leave it at that—without providing some supportive evidence.  I claim that a lunar eclipse occurs when the moon passes directly behind the earth into its umbra.  And this is my evidence—which is the current scientific status quo:

(http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/time/lunar_eclipse.jpg)

[Department of Physics & Astronomy University of Tennessee]


Now let's see jroa's proof of his claim.

Where's the shadowy object?
Title: Re: About that shadow object
Post by: robintex on January 09, 2015, 04:03:30 PM
 ???
Two more days have now passed and jroa and company still can't explain how pressure, temperature, pollen, smog, or anything else can explain lunar eclipses. Oh wait, I just thought of something: if the Earth were spherical and orbited the Sun, while the spherical Moon orbits the Earth, that would explain it perfectly!  But I guess we'll have to reserve judgment until jroa gives us some details on his Pressure/Temperature/Pollen/Smog theory, hereafter known as the PTPS Theory.

Still waiting for an answer about the horizon on the flat earth also. No answers there either.
Has the Flat Earth Society departed from the Flat Earth Society Forum  ???
Title: Re: About that shadow object
Post by: gpssjim on January 09, 2015, 04:04:17 PM
I'm still awaiting a response from jroa too.

It's not really satisfactory to simply claim that lunar eclipses are caused by air pressure, temperature or pollen etc—and leave it at that—without providing some supportive evidence.  I claim that a lunar eclipse occurs when the moon passes directly behind the earth into its umbra.  And this is my evidence—which is the current scientific status quo:

(http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/time/lunar_eclipse.jpg)

[Department of Physics & Astronomy University of Tennessee]


Now let's see jroa's proof of his claim.

Where's the shadowy object?
It is right there behind the earth marked as 'Shadow', don't you see it?  Haha.
Add the tilt of the earths rotation axis and this one simple diagram explains so much:
Length of day
Sunset/Sunrise
Motion of stars
Solar eclipse
Lunar eclipse
The earths shadow as observed on the planes from high atop the rocky mountains
Seasons
Ocean tides
Consistent distance between points on the earth
Well known meteor showers
-- add the magnetic field
The ionosphere
Auroras
Radio interference after solar CMEs
Radio wave bounces

and so forth.  Each little addition fits snugly in as if it were pieces to a puzzle.
Title: Re: About that shadow object
Post by: guv on January 09, 2015, 04:05:51 PM
Two more days have now passed and jroa and company still can't explain how pressure, temperature, pollen, smog, or anything else can explain lunar eclipses. Oh wait, I just thought of something: if the Earth were spherical and orbited the Sun, while the spherical Moon orbits the Earth, that would explain it perfectly!  But I guess we'll have to reserve judgment until jroa gives us some details on his Pressure/Temperature/Pollen/Smog theory, hereafter known as the PTPS Theory.

Imagine having this on your gravestone.  Le=P/T+{Po+S}   Slightly better than F+fv+EV/DM*M     Both share at least one point, random lunacy.
Title: Re: About that shadow object
Post by: gpssjim on January 09, 2015, 04:09:30 PM
Oh, and here is a cool observation that can be made this time of year.  Note that in winter the full moon follows the same path across the sky as sun does in the middle of summer.  Any FETers care to guess what is going on?  The revers is true in summer, the full moon in summer follows the suns winter path.  Neat!
Title: Re: About that shadow object
Post by: robintex on January 09, 2015, 04:11:53 PM
Two more days have now passed and jroa and company still can't explain how pressure, temperature, pollen, smog, or anything else can explain lunar eclipses. Oh wait, I just thought of something: if the Earth were spherical and orbited the Sun, while the spherical Moon orbits the Earth, that would explain it perfectly!  But I guess we'll have to reserve judgment until jroa gives us some details on his Pressure/Temperature/Pollen/Smog theory, hereafter known as the PTPS Theory.

Imagine having this on your gravestone.  Le=P/T+{Po+S}   Slightly better than F+fv+EV/DM*M     Both share at least one point, random lunacy.


Wouldn't be any worse than a certain party who had "PhD" and "MD" on his gravestone?
 ???
Title: Re: About that shadow object
Post by: robintex on January 09, 2015, 04:16:59 PM


Let me guess. Jroa will give a terrible explanation involving the lunar winds blowing the self illuminating dust with no chemical signature that conveniently is untouchable by humans risking death across the flat lunar disk close with magical suction keeping said dust on, and later deny this, further proving that jroa is not to be taken seriously.
Honestly, you'll run out of lame excuses one day. Just say "I don't know" for once. We can't possibly think less of you. In fact, we'll think more of you. I'm not being hostile here. Just say that you don't know. Rather than saying "It wouldn't be a good conspiracy if there was evidence everywhere.", say "I don't know what there is to gain from this.". Please jroa. You one day will cave and say that you don't know. Or not. It wouldn't be flat earth wild guess if there was logic laying around everywhere.

Let me try another guess.: The phases of the moon are caused by the solar winds blowing dust in the noses of the moon shrimp, which in turn causes the moon shrimp to sneeze and move across the moon's disc, which in turn cause the phases of the moon. QED and elementary, my dear Watson !
Title: Re: About that shadow object
Post by: Son of Orospu on January 09, 2015, 05:08:52 PM
I'm still awaiting a response from jroa too.

It's not really satisfactory to simply claim that lunar eclipses are caused by air pressure, temperature or pollen etc—and leave it at that—without providing some supportive evidence.  I claim that a lunar eclipse occurs when the moon passes directly behind the earth into its umbra.  And this is my evidence—which is the current scientific status quo:

(http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/time/lunar_eclipse.jpg)

[Department of Physics & Astronomy University of Tennessee]


Now let's see jroa's proof of his claim.
If that diagram was correct, we should have a lunar eclipse every month.  ::)
Title: Re: About that shadow object
Post by: guv on January 09, 2015, 05:27:36 PM
To predict eclipses, knowledge of two other cycles is required. One of these -- the length of the lunar month -- is easily determined. It is simply the number of days between one full Moon and the next. This cycle of 29-1/2 days is marked at Stonehenge by two rings of 29 and 30 holes, which together average 29.5. The other cycle, however, is of an altogether different character: it is a cycle of rotation of two invisible points in space. The evidence shows that the builders of Stonehenge probably discovered this cycle and could have used it to predict eclipses.

http://www.math.nus.edu.sg/aslaksen/gem-projects/hm/0102-1-stonehenge/eclipses.htm (http://www.math.nus.edu.sg/aslaksen/gem-projects/hm/0102-1-stonehenge/eclipses.htm)


I don't know if these guys were RE or fe but they might have got it right.
Title: Re: About that shadow object
Post by: FlatAllTheWay on January 09, 2015, 06:11:55 PM
I'm still awaiting a response from jroa too.

It's not really satisfactory to simply claim that lunar eclipses are caused by air pressure, temperature or pollen etc—and leave it at that—without providing some supportive evidence.  I claim that a lunar eclipse occurs when the moon passes directly behind the earth into its umbra.  And this is my evidence—which is the current scientific status quo:

(http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/time/lunar_eclipse.jpg)

[Department of Physics & Astronomy University of Tennessee]


Now let's see jroa's proof of his claim.
If that diagram was correct, we should have a lunar eclipse every month.  ::)

Incorrect.  If the plane of the Earth's orbit around the Sun was parallel to the plane of the Moon's orbit around the Earth, you would be correct.  But those two planes are not parallel.

So now that you have once again chimed in on this topic, please elaborate on your theory that temperature, pressure, smog or pollen is the true cause of lunar eclipses.
Title: Re: About that shadow object
Post by: ausGeoff on January 10, 2015, 01:26:47 AM
So now that you have once again chimed in on this topic, please elaborate on your theory that temperature, pressure, smog or pollen is the true cause of lunar eclipses.

It's of interest that—once again—jroa has avoided addressing a perfectly legitimate question fro the round earthers here.

His non-answer was:  "If that diagram was correct, we should have a lunar eclipse every month" which means he simply doesn't understand that the plane of the moon's orbit around the earth is not coplanar with the ecliptic plane.

And this sort of basic astrophysical knowledge is really high-school science stuff LOL.


(http://www.asi.org/images/asi199600028.gif)



And for the earlier request, a representation of a solar eclipse:

(http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/time/solar_eclipse2.jpg)



So again jroa... your explanation about temperature, pressure, smog or pollen causing eclipses is?


Title: Re: About that shadow object
Post by: Dinosaur Neil on January 10, 2015, 04:29:19 AM
I'm still awaiting a response from jroa too.

It's not really satisfactory to simply claim that lunar eclipses are caused by air pressure, temperature or pollen etc—and leave it at that—without providing some supportive evidence.  I claim that a lunar eclipse occurs when the moon passes directly behind the earth into its umbra.  And this is my evidence—which is the current scientific status quo:

(http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/time/lunar_eclipse.jpg)

[Department of Physics & Astronomy University of Tennessee]


Now let's see jroa's proof of his claim.
If that diagram was correct, we should have a lunar eclipse every month.  ::)

Disingenuous post. Reported. Jroa is perfectly aware the diagram is simplified.
Title: Re: About that shadow object
Post by: FlatAllTheWay on January 13, 2015, 02:57:12 PM
So we are still waiting for jroa to tell us whether lunar eclipses are caused by:

a) temperature
b) pressure
c) smog
d) pollen

jroa, do you really think an intelligent way to debate is to give 4 possible answers to a question, not indicate which you actually believe, and not give any detail about any of them?
Title: Re: About that shadow object
Post by: FlatAllTheWay on January 15, 2015, 06:47:20 PM
So we are still waiting for jroa to tell us whether lunar eclipses are caused by:

a) temperature
b) pressure
c) smog
d) pollen

jroa, do you really think an intelligent way to debate is to give 4 possible answers to a question, not indicate which you actually believe, and not give any detail about any of them?

Another 2 days, and still no explanation for how pollen causes lunar eclipses. Oh wait, it's not pollen -- it's smog.  Or is it temperature or pressure?  Only jroa can tell us, since it's his theory!  jroa, either admit that flat earth theory has no explanation for lunar eclipses, or tell us the explanation.
Title: Re: About that shadow object
Post by: ausGeoff on January 16, 2015, 09:29:08 AM
Another 2 days, and still no explanation for how pollen causes lunar eclipses. Oh wait, it's not pollen -- it's smog.  Or is it temperature or pressure?  Only jroa can tell us, since it's his theory!  jroa, either admit that flat earth theory has no explanation for lunar eclipses, or tell us the explanation.

jroa was on the boards today at 09:04AM so I'm not sure why he's obviously avoiding addressing this question.  I could possibly understand the localised effects of humidity and/or atmospheric pollution conceivably affecting the terrestrial observation of eclipses, but there's no way I can see barometric pressure or temperature affecting it.  At any rate, telescopes are effectively seeing "through" any particulate matter in the earth's atmosphere;  the naked eye may see its effects though.

To refresh peoples' memories, three weeks ago jroa was asked—quite reasonably—"what are these atmoplanic conditions" and his response was "Pressure, temperature, pollen, smog, etc.  Is this the first time you have heard of these things?" as though it was all self-explanatory.  Which is not the case, obviously.


Title: Re: About that shadow object
Post by: mikeman7918 on January 16, 2015, 09:56:49 AM
Another 2 days, and still no explanation for how pollen causes lunar eclipses. Oh wait, it's not pollen -- it's smog.  Or is it temperature or pressure?  Only jroa can tell us, since it's his theory!  jroa, either admit that flat earth theory has no explanation for lunar eclipses, or tell us the explanation.

jroa was on the boards today at 09:04AM so I'm not sure why he's obviously avoiding addressing this question.  I could possibly understand the localised effects of humidity and/or atmospheric pollution conceivably affecting the terrestrial observation of eclipses, but there's no way I can see barometric pressure or temperature affecting it.  At any rate, telescopes are effectively seeing "through" any particulate matter in the earth's atmosphere;  the naked eye may see its effects though.

To refresh peoples' memories, three weeks ago jroa was asked—quite reasonably—"what are these atmoplanic conditions" and his response was "Pressure, temperature, pollen, smog, etc.  Is this the first time you have heard of these things?" as though it was all self-explanatory.  Which is not the case, obviously.

Obviously us round earthers are too stupid and indoctrinated to understand it.