The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth General => Topic started by: alex314 on September 16, 2019, 04:17:05 AM
-
What is the flat earth explanation for a lunar eclipse?
A shadow moon which shadows only the moon but not stars (or anything else) ;D?
-
There are some explanations in the Tfes wiki about the so called Shadow Object:
https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Lunar_Eclipse
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 or Antimoon. Its orbital plane is tilted at an angle to the sun's orbital plane, making eclipses possible only when the three bodies (Sun, Object, and Moon) are aligned.
Of course this shadow object has never been seen or detected outside of lunar eclipses, it just happens to be there when needed.
This explanation seems to be at odds with another common FE belief, that the moon has its own light.
-
There are some explanations in the Tfes wiki about the so called Shadow Object:
https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Lunar_Eclipse
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 or Antimoon. Its orbital plane is tilted at an angle to the sun's orbital plane, making eclipses possible only when the three bodies (Sun, Object, and Moon) are aligned.
Of course this shadow object has never been seen or detected outside of lunar eclipses, it just happens to be there when needed.
This explanation seems to be at odds with another common FE belief, that the moon has its own light.
From that description in the Wiki, I picture the geometry of the Sun, shadow object and Moon like this:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/tu3b4kn77zd3407/Flat%20Earth%20Sun%20Lunar%20Eclipse%20-%20Shadow%20Object%20with%20Umbra.png?dl=1)
That would make any shadow on the Moon seem impossible but, so far, no one has suggested any changes apart from the sizes of the Sun and Moon being exaggerated to make the visible.
-
There are some explanations in the Tfes wiki about the so called Shadow Object:
https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Lunar_Eclipse
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 or Antimoon. Its orbital plane is tilted at an angle to the sun's orbital plane, making eclipses possible only when the three bodies (Sun, Object, and Moon) are aligned.
Of course this shadow object has never been seen or detected outside of lunar eclipses, it just happens to be there when needed.
This explanation seems to be at odds with another common FE belief, that the moon has its own light.
From that description in the Wiki, I picture the geometry of the Sun, shadow object and Moon like this:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/tu3b4kn77zd3407/Flat%20Earth%20Sun%20Lunar%20Eclipse%20-%20Shadow%20Object%20with%20Umbra.png?dl=1)
That would make any shadow on the Moon seem impossible but, so far, no one has suggested any changes apart from the sizes of the Sun and Moon being exaggerated to make the visible.
So, as I understand, there is no logical explanation for a flat earth lunar eclipse. Am I correct?
-
That would make any shadow on the Moon seem impossible but, so far, no one has suggested any changes apart from the sizes of the Sun and Moon being exaggerated to make the visible.
So, as I understand, there is no logical explanation for a flat earth lunar eclipse. Am I correct?
Maybe we should give them more time to invent a "logical explanation for a flat earth lunar eclipse".
All I can add is a bit of earlier post I made:The two basic FE mechanisms for the lunar eclipse seem to be - A shadow object as in "the Wiki" here The Lunar Eclipse (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=The+Lunar+Eclipse).
- A self luminous moon, as far as I know originally in Zetetic Astronomy, by Samuel Birley Rowbotham. You need to read a lot of the preceding text, but here is the "crux" of it:
As the moon is self-luminous, her surface could not be darkened or "eclipsed" by a shadow of the earth--supposing such a shadow could be thrown upon it. In such a case, the luminosity instead of being diminished, would increase, and would be greater in proportion to the greater density or darkness of the shadow. As the light in a bull's-eye lantern looks brightest in the darkest places, so would the self-shining surface of the moon be most intense in the umbra or deepest part of the earth's shadow.
. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .
We have seen that, during a lunar eclipse, the moon's self-luminous surface is covered by a semi-transparent something; that this "something" is a definite mass, because it has a distinct and circular outline, as seen during its first and last contact with the moon. As a solar eclipse occurs from the moon passing before the sun, so, from the evidence above collected, it is evident that a lunar eclipse arises from a similar cause--a body semi-transparent and well-defined passing before the moon; or between the moon's surface and the observer on the surface of the earth.
That many such bodies exist in the firmament is almost a matter of certainty; and that one such as that which eclipses the moon exists at no great distance above the earth's surface, is a matter admitted by many of the leading astronomers of the day.
From Zetetic Astronomy, by Samuel Birley Rowbotham), CHAPTER XI. CAUSE OF SOLAR AND LUNAR ECLIPSES. p. 148,149. (http://sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za29.htm)
This "self-luminous moon" gets much (often tongue-in-cheek with ;D moonshramp ;D) coverage in lunar eclipse threads.
As you might imagine, I do not agree in the slightest with either of these explanations.
Best of luck, the Lunar Eclipse seems to be an area where angels fear to tread or maybe it's more like here be dragons for FET.
You will have to hope some Flat Earther will respond. But the topic has been raised numerous times, and never had, in my opinion at least, any feasible answer.
-
Flat earthers: You have nothing to say on this topic? Maybe its inconvenient for you? No verifiable alternative explanation?
Ooooohhhhh.....
-
I'll start a new theory.
The moon is a luminaire but gets shut down for maintenance every so often.
-
I'll start a new theory.
The moon is a luminaire but gets shut down for maintenance every so often.
That is an even better idea than the flat-earth nonsense!
-
I'll start a new theory.
The moon is a luminaire but gets shut down for maintenance every so often.
So - when you walk on the moon, you have to wear special insulated boots so you don't get burnt feet?
-
Since no flat earthers here seem prepared to explain Lunar Eclipses let's see how flat earth expert, Rob Skiba, explains them:
Flat Earth and Lunar Eclipses by Dr. Samuel Rowbotham (1865) by Rob Skiba
or maybe this is preferable?
Lunar Eclipse On Flat Earth by MrThriveAndSurvive
Or maybe they don't know?
-
I'll start a new theory.
The moon is a luminaire but gets shut down for maintenance every so often.
So - when you walk on the moon, you have to wear special insulated boots so you don't get burnt feet?
Look at the boots the astronauts did wear:
(https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5964.jpg)
They look to be special insulated boots so Buzz Aldrin didn't get burnt feet.
By the way, Lunar Landing hoaxers like to claim that there are no stars in the photos on the moon, but here is part of the sky brightened considerably:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/bg6oh3v7hwiuphg/Buzz%20Aldrin%20on%20Moon%20-%20AS11-40-5964HR%20-%20sky%20brightened.jpg?dl=1)
Buzz Aldrin on Moon - AS11-40-5964HR - sky brightened
Are they stars of different colours showing?
-
I'll start a new theory.
The moon is a luminaire but gets shut down for maintenance every so often.
So - when you walk on the moon, you have to wear special insulated boots so you don't get burnt feet?
Look at the boots the astronauts did wear:
(https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5964.jpg)
They look to be special insulated boots so Buzz Aldrin didn't get burnt feet.
By the way, Lunar Landing hoaxers like to claim that there are no stars in the photos on the moon, but here is part of the sky brightened considerably:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/bg6oh3v7hwiuphg/Buzz%20Aldrin%20on%20Moon%20-%20AS11-40-5964HR%20-%20sky%20brightened.jpg?dl=1)
Buzz Aldrin on Moon - AS11-40-5964HR - sky brightened
Are they stars of different colours showing?
That's just CGI. It's CGI I tell you. CGIIIIIII.
-
Exactly! And good job, NASA — you forgot to add stars!
Goddamn reptilians.
-
The oddness is not that there are no stars in the sky, its the inconsistency in stars in the sky vs not. Of course, without an atmosphere, there would be nothing to scatter the light from stars and make them invisible.
-
The oddness is not that there are no stars in the sky, its the inconsistency in stars in the sky vs not. Of course, without an atmosphere, there would be nothing to scatter the light from stars and make them invisible.
If you're near a city or well lit suburb, it isn't the atmosphere scattering the light from stars that makes them difficult to see. Perhaps there's some other explanation for why stars are sometimes difficult to see.
-
The oddness is not that there are no stars in the sky, its the inconsistency in stars in the sky vs not. Of course, without an atmosphere, there would be nothing to scatter the light from stars and make them invisible.
Unless you're exposing for relatively brightly lit objects. How often do you see stars in normal night photos that aren't long exposures?
-
The oddness is not that there are no stars in the sky, its the inconsistency in stars in the sky vs not. Of course, without an atmosphere, there would be nothing to scatter the light from stars and make them invisible.
Ever used a camera?
-
I'm surprised there hasn't been discussion about moonshrimp yet.
-
The oddness is not that there are no stars in the sky, its the inconsistency in stars in the sky vs not. Of course, without an atmosphere, there would be nothing to scatter the light from stars and make them invisible.
Ever used a camera?
I guess no!