The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: wise on October 06, 2019, 11:40:12 PM

Title: SELENELION
Post by: wise on October 06, 2019, 11:40:12 PM
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/OfTMAG.png)

I agree with sandokhan on this subject. Considering the position of the sun and moon, the shadow should be located below, not above.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2208296#msg2208296

(http://www.zullophoto.com/Images/eclipse-2011.jpg)

(https://communicatescience.com/zoonomian/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/IMG_4877_540-1024x682.jpg)

Lets dance.

Title: Re: SELENELION
Post by: Stash on October 07, 2019, 12:19:42 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/AZv2RUk.gif)

For instance, because of the globe, the shadow is observed on different parts of the moon dependent upon the viewer's location.

(https://i.imgur.com/FMv2Iyr.gif)

Title: Re: SELENELION
Post by: JackBlack on October 07, 2019, 12:21:35 AM
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/OfTMAG.png)
I agree with sandokhan on this subject. Considering the position of the sun and moon, the shadow should be located below, not above.
Based upon where the horizon is in that image, the shadow should appear on the top for an observer.
In effect, the image is upside down.

The top of the image is towards the observers feet, i.e. for the observer it is down.
The top of the moon in that image is illuminated, which corresponds to being down for the observer.
That means the observer should see the bottom of the moon illuminated with the top in darkness.
Someone viewing it from the other side of Earth will see the opposite.
Title: Re: SELENELION
Post by: Bullwinkle on October 07, 2019, 12:39:07 AM

I agree with sandokhan on this subject. Considering the position of the sun and moon, the shadow should be located below, not above.








So, once the moon enters the shadow of Earth it can never escape?







Title: Re: SELENELION
Post by: sandokhan on October 07, 2019, 12:48:15 AM
The graphics put up by the RE are useless.

Virtually the only choice they have is to argue that the shadow on top comes from the bottom of the Earth, and herein is the problem, it ISN'T.

Another huge problem is the atmospheric refraction argument: it cannot be true at all.

Most heliocentrists have no idea of the research that has been carried out for the past 100 years regarding the lunar eclipses.


https://newtonphysics.on.ca/astronomy/index.html

Enlargement of the Earth's Shadow on the Moon: An Optical Illusion

Dr. Marmet proves that the usual explanation accepted by modern science for the 2% Earth's larger umbra during a lunar eclipse, namely atmospheric absorption, cannot be true.

During a lunar eclipse, it has been observed that the Earth's shadow (official science theory) is 2% larger than what is expected from geometrical considerations and it is believed that the Earth's atmosphere is responsible for the extent of the enlargement, but it is realized that the atmospheric absorption cannot explain light absorption at a height as high as 90 km above the Earth, as required by this hypothesis (as several authors have noted).

http://vixra.org/pdf/1311.0156v1.pdf

Lunar eclipses and the Allais effect

A beautiful exposition of the history of the anomalies observed through the centuries during the lunar eclipse.

"It was also argued that the irradiation of the Moon in the Earth's shadow during the eclipse is caused by the refraction of sunlight in the upper regions of the Earth's atmosphere. However, the shade toward the center is too bright to be accounted for by refraction of visible sunlight.

That is, the pronounced red colour in the inner portions of the umbra during an eclipse of the Moon is caused by refraction of sunlight through the upper regions of the Earth's atmosphere, but the umbral shadow towards the centre is too bright to be accounted for by refraction of visible sunlight."

It has systematically been found that the shadow of the Earth seems to be 2% larger
than what is expected from geometrical predictions.

For his part, in an analysis of 57 eclipses over a period of 150 years, Link (1969) found an enlargement of the shadow of 2.3% on average. Furthermore, schedules inputs and outputs of the crater through the umbra for four lunar eclipses from 1972 to 1982 strongly support the Chauvenet value of 2%.

The increase of the Earth`s umbral shadow during eclipses of the Moon is the
classical value of 2% (the rule of the fiftieth) used in most calculations of lunar eclipses.

J. Meeus, Nouvelles brèves : L’accroissement du diamètre de l’ombre de la Terre lors des éclipses de Lune, Ciel et Terre, Vol. 88, p. 491 (1972)

As the author demonstrates in his paper, the only possible explanation is a variation of the gravitational potential, a lunar eclipse Allais effect.

Just like in the case of the solar Allais effect, this variation of the gravitational potential means that the heavenly body which causes the lunar eclipse cannot be the Earth.


Believe or not, heliocentrists have given up on the atmospheric refraction argument for the umbral shadow; now, they resort to x-ray bombardment from outer space to put up any kind of a debate regarding this issue.


There is only one possible explanation, given the LUNAR ALLAIS EFFECT: the heavenly body which does cause the lunar eclipse selenelion is not the Earth at all.
Title: Re: SELENELION
Post by: Stash on October 07, 2019, 01:13:28 AM
The graphics put up by the RE are useless.

Virtually the only choice they have is to argue that the shadow on top comes from the bottom of the Earth, and herein is the problem, it ISN'T.

On a globe, the shadow appears on different areas of the moon dependent upon the viewer's location. This is what is observed. Look up images of an eclipse from different locations around the planet. There's really no denying this. (See second graphic). And it's actually more evidence the earth is a globe. These observations wouldn't occur on a flat earth. And they are, in fact, observations.

There is only one possible explanation, given the LUNAR ALLAIS EFFECT: the heavenly body which does cause the lunar eclipse selenelion is not the Earth at all.

Actually, the jury is still out in regard to the Allais Effect. As in some cases it appears measurable in many others it doesn't appear to be present at all.

Additionally, no one has ever observed or detected this mysterious other 'heavenly body' you refer to. And none of the papers/articles you cite refer to any such thing as an explanation.
Title: Re: SELENELION
Post by: JackBlack on October 07, 2019, 01:34:42 AM
The graphics put up by the RE are useless.
Why? Just because they can actually address the issue?

It is quite simple, during a lunar eclipse, the moon will pass through Earth's shadow.
Depending upon which side of Earth you are on it will either appear to get dark from the bottom as it enters Earth's shadow which is below you, and then leave getting bright from the bottom; or the opposite, getting dark (and then light) from the top.

Earth's umbra is ~1.3 degrees at the distance to the moon.
Refraction will make objects near the horizon appear slightly more than 0.5 degrees above it.
That means the sun in its entirety can appear above the horizon, with the vast majority of the umbra above the horizon as well.
Then you have the dip angle of the horizon bringing some more in.
And if you are fine with the sun being partially set (or entirely set while being in twilight) you can have the umbra entirely in view (i.e. Earth isn't getting in the way).
Title: Re: SELENELION
Post by: sandokhan on October 07, 2019, 01:36:54 AM
On a globe, the shadow appears on different areas of the moon dependent upon the viewer's location. This is what is observed. Look up images of an eclipse from different locations around the planet. There's really no denying this. (See second graphic). And it's actually more evidence the earth is a globe. These observations wouldn't occur on a flat earth. And they are, in fact, observations.

You explained nothing at all, just empty words (as they apply to the debate we are having here in this thread).

You still don't seem to get it.

If the Earth is a bit below the line between sun and moon, then Earth's shadow would be casting on the bottom half of the moon. 

So the RE, at first, tried this kind of an argument:

"So when the sun has just appeared to rise, and the moon is close to setting, they are both actually already below the horizon, but the light from them bends back down so we can still see them.  This means Earth could actually be above the sun-moon line, and thus cast its shadow on the top of the moon."

Now, you have a huge problem: the only option left for the RE is this,  that the shadow on top comes from the bottom of the Earth.

But it can't from the bottom of the Earth.

"I can tell you haven't thought about it. Look at the model they say proves this. Then look at the "shadow" of earth on the moon. you really don't see the problem? Saying something you were taught with faith alone does not prove anything. can we agree on this statement?? "Like the sun, we always consider the moon as rising in the east and setting in the west." this statement is fact. So if the moon is traveling to the right, so would the sun.  The shadow is traveling the WRONG way.  Model where the earth is, where the sun is, where the moon is, and how the shadow looks when projected over the moon. The moon is setting to the right, the sun is rising from the left. You can tell this by looking at the moon and seeing where it HAS TO BE in order to be lighting up the face of the moon. The curve is upside down, traveling the wrong way. It's not a projection/mirage because it's clear as day and isn't inverted. The moon image is the correct orientation, everything else is wrong. moon traveling left to right as it sets. Correct? What part of earth would be blocking light from hitting the moon? The top of the earth, correct? Which way would a shadow of the top of the earth move across the moon in that situation? Which way is it traveling, and does it look like the top of a globe? The shadow is coming across the moon the wrong direction and the curve is the wrong way. You see what would be a shadow of the bottom of the earth, traveling downwards. can you REALLY not see that?

Can we agree that to us, the sun and the moon  both are seen to travel overhead in the same direction, rises in the east and sets in the west?
So now you can model this.
Here's why you are wrong, using known facts. If "on a full moon, as was on Dec 11, 2011", the moon sets in the morning, at sunrise. So if the moon is setting in the west in this video as is true, the sun is rising at the same time from the east. Now do you see the problem yet? The shadow is incorrect, the moon isn't flipped over so it cant be from a lensing effect or it would appear upside down. It isn't a mirage because mirages are wavy and not perfectly clear. It's oriented the correct way, yet everything else is wrong. if you can't see it, that's ok... but don't tell people who actually use their brains they are wrong when you didn't and only repeated what you were told. Proof is right there for you to see. You just need to actually do the proof yourself."


Actually, the jury is still out in regard to the Allais Effect.


You want me to hit you with the Allais effect right here to see how real it is?
Title: Re: SELENELION
Post by: wpeszko on October 07, 2019, 02:33:36 AM
If the Earth is a bit below the line between sun and moon, then Earth's shadow would be casting on the bottom half of the moon. 
No, the bottom of a circle representing moon in your picture isn't the bottom of the Moon.


Title: Re: SELENELION
Post by: JackBlack on October 07, 2019, 02:48:41 AM
If the Earth is a bit below the line between sun and moon, then Earth's shadow would be casting on the bottom half of the moon.
And if Earth is a bit above, then it is the other way around. So what?
You are yet to show there is any problem with that.

But it can't from the bottom of the Earth.
Why not?

I just explained how it can be.
Title: Re: SELENELION
Post by: kopfverderber on October 07, 2019, 03:00:43 AM
"Above" or "below" are relative to the observer's position.

The moon entered the earth's shadow from west to east. The moon's orientation is not the same for all observers. The earth's rotation causes a "field rotation" effect, which makes the moon  appear rotated left or right depending on location and time.

Once again Sandokhan has no case.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e1/2011-12-10_Lunar_Eclipse_Sketch.png)

Title: Re: SELENELION
Post by: sandokhan on October 07, 2019, 03:33:17 AM
The moon entered the earth's shadow from west to east. The moon's orientation is not the same for all observers. The earth's rotation causes a "field rotation" effect, which makes the moon  appear rotated left or right depending on location and time.

You are assuming that the Moon does indeed rotate around the Earth, and that the Earth does indeed rotate around its own axis.

What if I were to ask for such proofs, how long do you think you'd last in a direct debate with me on such a subject? Not very long.

You are making huge assumptions, which are UNPROVEN to this very day.


Now, you still can't see what is going on, can you?

You have not PROVEN that the Moon received light from the bottom of the Earth.

The video shows something very different: the Moon is setting, the Sun is rising, and then you have a shadow on the top of the Moon, which is impossible on a round earth.

You still don't get it, right?

You, the RE, have been using this kind of an argument as a way out of a debate:

https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/selenelion.jpg

However, any heliocentrist who has indeed studied lunar eclipses will NEVER use the atmospheric refraction as an argument.

Why?

Because of the two HUMONGOUS paradoxes which accompany each and every lunar eclipse: the enlargement of the Earth`s shadow and the excessive clarity of the penumbra.

During a lunar eclipse, it has been observed that the Earth's shadow (official science theory) is 2% larger than what is expected from geometrical considerations and it is believed that the Earth's atmosphere is responsible for the extent of the enlargement, but it is realized that the atmospheric absorption cannot explain light absorption at a height as high as 90 km above the Earth, as required by this hypothesis (as several authors have noted).

"It was also argued that the irradiation of the Moon in the Earth's shadow during the eclipse is caused by the refraction of sunlight in the upper regions of the Earth's atmosphere. However, the shade toward the center is too bright to be accounted for by refraction of visible sunlight.

That is, the pronounced red colour in the inner portions of the umbra during an eclipse of the Moon is caused by refraction of sunlight through the upper regions of the Earth's atmosphere, but the umbral shadow towards the centre is too bright to be accounted for by refraction of visible sunlight."


Now you can see your predicament?

Your usual argument, is no longer true!

"So when the sun has just appeared to rise, and the moon is close to setting, they are both actually already below the horizon, but the light from them bends back down so we can still see them.  This means Earth could actually be above the sun-moon line, and thus cast its shadow on the top of the moon."

You now only have one option left: if the Earth is a bit below the line between sun and moon, then Earth's shadow would be casting on the bottom half of the moon.


The two huge discrepancies, the enlargement of the Earth`s shadow and the excessive clarity of the penumbra, are a fact of science.

They cannot be explained by the RE.

Therefore we are left with the LUNAR ALLAIS EFFECT: these effects are caused by the Shadow Moon, and not by the Earth.

Title: Re: SELENELION
Post by: JackBlack on October 07, 2019, 03:50:36 AM
You are assuming that the Moon does indeed rotate around the Earth, and that the Earth does indeed rotate around its own axis.
As you are trying to show a problem with the RE model, there is nothing wrong with that conclusion (or assumption if you want to call it that).
If you need to reject that to try and have your argument work, you are no longer arguing against the currently accepted model of the universe.

The video shows something very different: the Moon is setting, the Sun is rising, and then you have a shadow on the top of the Moon, which is impossible on a round earth.
You are yet to show it is impossible.
So far all we have for that is your assertion, vs my explanation that it should be fine.

However, any heliocentrist who has indeed studied lunar eclipses will NEVER use the atmospheric refraction as an argument.
Why?
Because there is no such thing as a heliocentrist.

Now you can see your predicament?
That you have just made another baseless assertion?
Title: Re: SELENELION
Post by: sandokhan on October 07, 2019, 03:59:28 AM
All of you here, the RE, still don't get what is going on.

You, the RE, have been using this kind of an argument as a way out of a debate:

https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/selenelion.jpg

However, any RE who has indeed studied lunar eclipses will NEVER use the atmospheric refraction as an argument.

Why?

Because of the two HUMONGOUS paradoxes which accompany each and every lunar eclipse: the enlargement of the Earth`s shadow and the excessive clarity of the penumbra.

During a lunar eclipse, it has been observed that the Earth's shadow (official science theory) is 2% larger than what is expected from geometrical considerations and it is believed that the Earth's atmosphere is responsible for the extent of the enlargement, but it is realized that the atmospheric absorption cannot explain light absorption at a height as high as 90 km above the Earth, as required by this hypothesis (as several authors have noted).

"It was also argued that the irradiation of the Moon in the Earth's shadow during the eclipse is caused by the refraction of sunlight in the upper regions of the Earth's atmosphere. However, the shade toward the center is too bright to be accounted for by refraction of visible sunlight.

That is, the pronounced red colour in the inner portions of the umbra during an eclipse of the Moon is caused by refraction of sunlight through the upper regions of the Earth's atmosphere, but the umbral shadow towards the centre is too bright to be accounted for by refraction of visible sunlight."


Now you can see your predicament?

Your usual argument, is no longer true!

"So when the sun has just appeared to rise, and the moon is close to setting, they are both actually already below the horizon, but the light from them bends back down so we can still see them.  This means Earth could actually be above the sun-moon line, and thus cast its shadow on the top of the moon."

You now only have one option left: if the Earth is a bit below the line between sun and moon, then Earth's shadow would be casting on the bottom half of the moon.


The two huge discrepancies, the enlargement of the Earth`s shadow and the excessive clarity of the penumbra, are a fact of science.

They cannot be explained by the RE.

Therefore we are left with the LUNAR ALLAIS EFFECT: these effects are caused by the Shadow Moon, and not by the Earth.
Title: Re: SELENELION
Post by: kopfverderber on October 07, 2019, 04:39:35 AM
You are assuming that the Moon does indeed rotate around the Earth, and that the Earth does indeed rotate around its own axis.

What if I were to ask for such proofs, how long do you think you'd last in a direct debate with me on such a subject? Not very long.

You are making huge assumptions, which are UNPROVEN to this very day.


Now, you still can't see what is going on, can you?

You have not PROVEN that the Moon received light from the bottom of the Earth.

If we are discussing whether the eclipse is consistent with RE, we have to make all RE assumptions, including RE orbits, otherwise what's the point? The pictures of the eclipse are fully consistent with what RE predicts, therefore you have no case.

(https://i.imgur.com/BzqpC8e.jpg)

I'm don't have to prove that " the Moon received light from the bottom of the Earth." as you say, because that's not what is happening. The earth has no "bottom" or "top".

Field rotation will make the the moon appear to enter the earth's shadows from different angles  depending of the observer's position on earth.  You can check that the moon actually appears rotated from different places during the eclipse by looking at the moon surface features.

(http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/wu57fbb38c.png)

RE explanation for field rotation is the earth's rotation. I have no clue how FE explains field rotation.
Title: Re: SELENELION
Post by: sandokhan on October 07, 2019, 06:45:35 AM
The pictures of the eclipse are fully consistent with what RE predicts

But they are not, this is the entire point of this discussion.

There are plenty of videos on youtube which feature a selenelion posted by the FE, but they are countered immediately with this:

https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/selenelion.jpg

Since both sides have not studied this very specialized field of astrophysics, they are content to leave it as such at this point.

However, atmospheric refraction can no longer be used as an argument by the RE.

Why?

Because of the two HUMONGOUS paradoxes which accompany each and every lunar eclipse: the enlargement of the Earth`s shadow and the excessive clarity of the penumbra.

During a lunar eclipse, it has been observed that the Earth's shadow (official science theory) is 2% larger than what is expected from geometrical considerations and it is believed that the Earth's atmosphere is responsible for the extent of the enlargement, but it is realized that the atmospheric absorption cannot explain light absorption at a height as high as 90 km above the Earth, as required by this hypothesis (as several authors have noted).

"It was also argued that the irradiation of the Moon in the Earth's shadow during the eclipse is caused by the refraction of sunlight in the upper regions of the Earth's atmosphere. However, the shade toward the center is too bright to be accounted for by refraction of visible sunlight.

That is, the pronounced red colour in the inner portions of the umbra during an eclipse of the Moon is caused by refraction of sunlight through the upper regions of the Earth's atmosphere, but the umbral shadow towards the centre is too bright to be accounted for by refraction of visible sunlight."

This usual argument is no longer true!

"So when the sun has just appeared to rise, and the moon is close to setting, they are both actually already below the horizon, but the light from them bends back down so we can still see them.  This means Earth could actually be above the sun-moon line, and thus cast its shadow on the top of the moon."

You now only have one option left: if the Earth is a bit below the line between sun and moon, then Earth's shadow would be casting on the bottom half of the moon.


The two huge discrepancies, the enlargement of the Earth`s shadow and the excessive clarity of the penumbra, are a fact of science.

They cannot be explained by the RE.

Therefore we are left with the LUNAR ALLAIS EFFECT: these effects are caused by the Shadow Moon, and not by the Earth.

Title: Re: SELENELION
Post by: kopfverderber on October 07, 2019, 11:28:49 AM
"So when the sun has just appeared to rise, and the moon is close to setting, they are both actually already below the horizon, but the light from them bends back down so we can still see them.  This means Earth could actually be above the sun-moon line, and thus cast its shadow on the top of the moon."


There is no top or down, that's relative to the viewer. The moon is entering earth's shadow from west to east on the south side of the ecliptic plane. But depending on where you are you would see the shadow "moving"on the surface of the moon in one direction or another.

(https://i.imgur.com/lhiOaPv.jpg)

Please stop thinking 2D (up and down) and try to picture the eclipse in 3D. I know it's hard.
Title: Re: SELENELION
Post by: sandokhan on October 07, 2019, 11:43:50 AM
You can no longer use atmospheric refraction to explain the selenelion.

Unless you can explain the enlargement of the Earth`s shadow and the excessive clarity of the penumbra, your diagrams can be used as wrapping paper.

Title: Re: SELENELION
Post by: kopfverderber on October 07, 2019, 12:32:29 PM
You can no longer use atmospheric refraction to explain the selenelion.

Unless you can explain the enlargement of the Earth`s shadow and the excessive clarity of the penumbra, your diagrams can be used as wrapping paper.

Selenelion. Atmospheric refraction makes the sun and the moon appear higher in the sky than their geometric positions. That means sometimes is possible to observe both at the same time even though they are at opposite points of the sky. If the moon is inside earth's penumbra, then you will see that on one side and the rising or setting sun on the other side. It's not too difficult to understand the concept.

Unless you can provide a way to calculate the exact positions and paths of moon, sun and shadow object for every eclipse and the size of each of them, so that we can check if it's consistent with observations from everywhere on earth, your flat earth advanced research can be safely ignored.
Title: Re: SELENELION
Post by: sandokhan on October 07, 2019, 12:42:02 PM
You haven't done your homework on several important subjects discussed here.

Yet here you are acting as the master of ceremonies on selenelions.

Selenelion. Atmospheric refraction makes the sun and the moon appear higher in the sky than their geometric positions.

You can no longer use the atmospheric refraction argument.

Please study this subject, then come back here.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2138487#msg2138487

Each and every lunar eclipse studied since 1830 has exhibited the phenomena I described in my previous messages.

For you to come here and make such a statement (Unless you can provide a way to calculate the exact positions and paths of moon, sun and shadow object for every eclipse so that we can check if it's consistent with observations from everywhere on earth) means you haven't the foggiest idea of what we are talking about here.



Title: Re: SELENELION
Post by: sokarul on October 07, 2019, 12:52:56 PM
Did you research find that every lunar eclipse happened during the full moon phase?

Coincidence?
Title: Re: SELENELION
Post by: kopfverderber on October 07, 2019, 01:02:00 PM
You haven't done your homework on several important subjects discussed here.


Whatever. You seemed to have some issues understanding what is "up" and "down" on a globe earth and with the way RE explains lunar eclipses, so I clarified that.

RE has no issues with lunar eclipses. In fact the path of the moon across earth's umbra and penumbra and the way it looks from any location is calculated before the eclipses take place and predictions have proven to be quite accurate. Those predictions are done based on round earth, moon and sun. The shadow object is not needed. Please FE keep the shadow object for yourselves, nobody else needs it, thank you very much.

Is this by any chance still your FE map?

Please note that the sun's zenith position close to Brazil and Moon's close to Japan near the start of the eclipse. Where was the shadow object exactly so that the eclipse could be seen from California among other places? Please enlighten us.

(https://i.imgur.com/LMDsUDy.gif)

Shadow object, where are you??????????
Title: Re: SELENELION
Post by: sandokhan on October 07, 2019, 01:13:24 PM
You seemed to have some issues understanding what is "up" and "down" on a globe earth and with the way RE explains lunar eclipses, so I clarified that.

I have just proven to you that there actually is an "up" and "down" when it comes to the selenelions.

RE has no issues with lunar eclipses.

But it does.

And they are huge.

They are: the enlargement of the Earth`s shadow and the excessive clarity of the penumbra.

Modern astrophysics cannot explain them.

Both the FE and RE on youtube have no idea about these issues.

The shadow object is not needed.

Go ahead and explain the two major paradoxes of lunar eclipses: the enlargement of the Earth`s shadow and the excessive clarity of the penumbra.

So you cannot.

Now, it's my turn: we are dealing with the LUNAR ALLAIS EFFECT.

Go ahead and make sure you understand the SOLAR ECLIPSE ALLAIS EFFECT:

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

Where was the shadow object exactly


Exactly passing in front of the Moon.

One of the dark bodies which orbit above the Earth emits the laevorotatory subquarks, the antigravitational subquarks, as proven by the Allais effect.

Logically, the invisible moon emits the dextrorotatory subquarks.

http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-rpress.asp

In fact, cosmic waves have far greater penetrating power than the man-made gamma radiation, and can even pass through a thickness of two metres of lead. The highest frequency possible, that is, the shortest wavelength limit is equal to the dimension of the unit element making up space-time itself, equal to Planck length, radiating at a frequency of 7.4E42Hz.

As you might be thinking already, the radiation pressure exerted by such high frequency radiation, in the top part of the EM spectrum, would be a perfect candidate for the gravity effect, since such radiation would penetrate ANY matter and act all over its constituent particles, not just its surface. The radiation can be visualised as a shower of high energy EM waves imparting impulses of momentum to all bodies in space. It also explains the great difficulty we have to shield anything from such force. The energy of each individual photon is a crucial component of the momentum necessary to create pressure for gravity to be possible. The shadow of incoming high energy EM wave packets can be pictured as the carriers of the gravitational force, the normal role assigned to the theoretical graviton. Hence, gravitons have been theorised due to the lack of knowledge of radiation pressure and radiation shadowing, and that's why they will never be detected. If photons represent the luminance of electromagnetic radiation, then, gravitons represent the shadowing and can be considered as negative energy waves, lack of photons or photon-holes.

This radiation shadowing is being emitted by the heavenly body which does cause the lunar eclipse: read the phrase - that is why they will never be detected.

"Gravitons represent the shadowing and can be considered as negative energy waves, lack of photons or photon-holes".


The existence of the Shadow Moon was anticipated by the best astronomers of the 19th century.

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. In the report of the council of the Royal Astronomical Society, for June 1850, it is said:

"We may well doubt whether that body which we call the moon is the only satellite of the earth."

In the report of the Academy of Sciences for October 12th, 1846, and again for August, 1847, the director of one of the French observatories gives a number of observations and calculations which have led him to conclude that,

"There is at least one non-luminous body of considerable magnitude which is attached as a satellite to this earth."

Sir John Herschel admits that:

"Invisible moons exist in the firmament."

Sir John Lubbock is of the same opinion, and gives rules and formulæ for calculating their distances, periods.

Lambert in his cosmological letters admits the existence of "dark cosmical bodies of great size."
Title: Re: SELENELION
Post by: JackBlack on October 07, 2019, 01:32:54 PM
But they are not, this is the entire point of this discussion.
Yes, that is what you have asserted, and you are yet to justify it in any way.
Refraction allows the entirety of Earth's umbra to be in view while the sun is still partly above the horizon. As such, there is nothing wrong with the dark side of the moon being on either side.

After the sun has set there is certainly no problem at all.

Posting the same quote again and again wont help you.
Repeatedly asserting that there are issues which are completely unrelated to the discussion at hand will not help.
Title: Re: SELENELION
Post by: sandokhan on October 07, 2019, 01:39:18 PM
Refraction allows the entirety of Earth's umbra to be in view while the sun is still partly above the horizon. As such, there is nothing wrong with the dark side of the moon being on either side.

But it cannot.

During a lunar eclipse, it has been observed that the Earth's shadow (official science theory) is 2% larger than what is expected from geometrical considerations and it is believed that the Earth's atmosphere is responsible for the extent of the enlargement, but it is realized that the atmospheric absorption cannot explain light absorption at a height as high as 90 km above the Earth, as required by this hypothesis (as several authors have noted).

"It was also argued that the irradiation of the Moon in the Earth's shadow during the eclipse is caused by the refraction of sunlight in the upper regions of the Earth's atmosphere. However, the shade toward the center is too bright to be accounted for by refraction of visible sunlight.

That is, the pronounced red colour in the inner portions of the umbra during an eclipse of the Moon is caused by refraction of sunlight through the upper regions of the Earth's atmosphere, but the umbral shadow towards the centre is too bright to be accounted for by refraction of visible sunlight."

It has systematically been found that the shadow of the Earth seems to be 2% larger
than what is expected from geometrical predictions.

For his part, in an analysis of 57 eclipses over a period of 150 years, Link (1969) found an enlargement of the shadow of 2.3% on average. Furthermore, schedules inputs and outputs of the crater through the umbra for four lunar eclipses from 1972 to 1982 strongly support the Chauvenet value of 2%.

The increase of the Earth`s umbral shadow during eclipses of the Moon is the
classical value of 2% (the rule of the fiftieth) used in most calculations of lunar eclipses.

J. Meeus, Nouvelles brèves : L’accroissement du diamètre de l’ombre de la Terre lors des éclipses de Lune, Ciel et Terre, Vol. 88, p. 491 (1972)


You can no longer use atmospheric refraction to explain the selenelion.

Unless you can explain the enlargement of the Earth`s shadow and the excessive clarity of the penumbra, then we are left with the LUNAR ALLAIS EFFECT.
Title: Re: SELENELION
Post by: kopfverderber on October 07, 2019, 01:40:19 PM
Where was the shadow object exactly


Exactly passing in front of the Moon.


In front of the moon looking from where? Lunar eclipses can be seen at the same time from a lot of places. Like California, Japan and Australia at the same time. How can it be in front of the moon for everyone at the same time?  If it's on one side if the moon, the eclipse wont be seen from the other side. Sorry, it doesn't work.

And what about the sun? The shadow object should be between the sun and the moon, unless you also believe that the moon emits its own light. It must be the moonshrimp then.

A magical shadow object that no one can ever see, that never obscures any star or planet, that sneaks in just in time to cause lunar eclipses only during full moon, exactly when RE predicts. And you think RE has problems because some pendulum anomalies during solar eclipses and something about the size of the shadow? LOL.
Title: Re: SELENELION
Post by: sandokhan on October 07, 2019, 01:48:24 PM
unless you also believe that the moon emits its own light

I told you that you must do your homework on this subject.


Despite this reasoning, it has been found that towards the centre the umbra is too bright to be accounted for by refraction of visible sunlight. F. Link proposed that this excess be interpreted as luminescence [23]. He concluded that about 10 percent of the Moon`s optical radiation is caused by luminescence. Observations seem to confirm the existence of lunar luminescence. The term luminescence can be applied to any object that emits light in addition to the usual reflected light [24]. The main characteristic of luminescence is that the emitted light is an attribute of the object itself, and the light emission is stimulated by some internal or external process.


A magical shadow object that no one can ever see, that never obscures any star or planet, that sneaks in just in time to cause lunar eclipses only during full moon, exactly when RE predicts.

Go ahead and explain the two major paradoxes of lunar eclipses: the enlargement of the Earth`s shadow and the excessive clarity of the penumbra.

So you cannot.

Now, it's my turn: we are dealing with the LUNAR ALLAIS EFFECT.

Go ahead and make sure you understand the SOLAR ECLIPSE ALLAIS EFFECT:

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


How can it be in front of the moon for everyone at the same time?

This is where the ether comes in.

Make sure you understand the RUDERFER experiment, the most direct proof of the existence of ether:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1846721#msg1846721
Title: Re: SELENELION
Post by: kopfverderber on October 07, 2019, 02:09:32 PM
...
Go ahead and make sure you understand the SOLAR ECLIPSE ALLAIS EFFECT:
...
Make sure you understand the RUDERFER experiment, the most direct proof of the existence of ether:
...

Nevermind, I'm not interested in reading your theories about the allais effect or ether or the other links. Reading your posts is enough. I was the one asking, so I guess it's my fault.
Title: Re: SELENELION
Post by: JackBlack on October 07, 2019, 02:37:52 PM
During a lunar eclipse, it has been observed that the Earth's shadow (official science theory) is 2% larger than what is expected from geometrical considerations
Which according to your prior claim is the result of an optical illusion based upon perception of bright/dark objects.
Regardless that 2% will not hide the umbra.
As such, it is irrelevant to the discussion on selenelion eclipses.

As such, there is no problem for the eclipses with RE.
Title: Re: SELENELION
Post by: Unconvinced on October 07, 2019, 02:42:09 PM
Are the two pictures at the top supposed to be when the sun is above the horizon?

They look like proper nighttime to me.

Title: Re: SELENELION
Post by: frenat on October 07, 2019, 05:32:21 PM
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/OfTMAG.png)

I agree with sandokhan on this subject. Considering the position of the sun and moon, the shadow should be located below, not above.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2208296#msg2208296

(http://www.zullophoto.com/Images/eclipse-2011.jpg)

(https://communicatescience.com/zoonomian/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/IMG_4877_540-1024x682.jpg)

Lets dance.
Depends on when and where you are observing the moon from and what direction you are facing when doing so (just like how field rotation can make the Moon appear to rotate throughout the night) and from what angle it enters the Earth's shadow. You need to see it in 3D not your 2D simplification.
Title: Re: SELENELION
Post by: sandokhan on October 07, 2019, 09:47:38 PM
The RE still do not understand what is going on.

We have two enormous discrepancies: the enlargement of the Earth`s shadow and the excessive clarity of the penumbra. Since the calculations do not match the astronomical observations there is only one option left: the lunar eclipse is NOT caused by the Earth.

During a lunar eclipse, it has been observed that the Earth's shadow (official science theory) is 2% larger than what is expected from geometrical considerations and it is believed that the Earth's atmosphere is responsible for the extent of the enlargement, but it is realized that the atmospheric absorption cannot explain light absorption at a height as high as 90 km above the Earth, as required by this hypothesis (as several authors have noted).

"It was also argued that the irradiation of the Moon in the Earth's shadow during the eclipse is caused by the refraction of sunlight in the upper regions of the Earth's atmosphere. However, the shade toward the center is too bright to be accounted for by refraction of visible sunlight.

That is, the pronounced red colour in the inner portions of the umbra during an eclipse of the Moon is caused by refraction of sunlight through the upper regions of the Earth's atmosphere, but the umbral shadow towards the centre is too bright to be accounted for by refraction of visible sunlight."


They cannot be explained by the RE.

Therefore we are left with the LUNAR ALLAIS EFFECT: these effects are caused by the Shadow Moon, and not by the Earth.

Title: Re: SELENELION
Post by: kopfverderber on October 07, 2019, 10:28:09 PM
Go ahead and explain the two major paradoxes of lunar eclipses: the enlargement of the Earth`s shadow and the excessive clarity of the penumbra.

So you cannot.

Now, it's my turn: we are dealing with the LUNAR ALLAIS EFFECT.

Go ahead and make sure you understand the SOLAR ECLIPSE ALLAIS EFFECT:

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

The 2% enlargement of the earh's shadow is not going to change things much. I still don't know what is the relationship with the selenelion or why is that relevant here. The average enlargement is generally considered when calculating the eclipse.

The allais effect has been reported only for solar eclipses, is that right? we are now dealing with a lunar eclipse. Just because you found some obscure paper by someone called Russell Bagdoo (who is that?)  it doesn't mean the shadow enlargement is caused by the allais effect, that's just what you want.

Scientist have other explanations for the shadow enlargement. Most  widely accepted explanation is that it's caused by the atmosphere, there can be other explanations. Just because something is not fully understood it doesn't mean that you can make any claim.

"Each eclipse can exhibit oblateness variations due in the main to the conditions prevailing in the Earth's atmosphere at the time of the event, particularly when large volcanic eruptions have occurred before the observations are made. It's also possible that large amounts of dust in the troposphere caused by meteor showers could be a probable cause. However it also possible that another major factor effecting the change of the oblatness of the umbra from eclipse to eclipse is the hemisphere through which the Moon passes during the eclipse. " (Journal of the British Astronomical Association, Volume 95, Number 1, p.18)".
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1984JBAA...95...16S

Here's yet another alternative explanation that has nothing to do with the allais effect:
Enlargement of the Earth's Shadow on the Moon: An Optical Illusion
Physics Department, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1N 6N5
https://newtonphysics.on.ca/astronomy/index.html
Title: Re: SELENELION
Post by: sandokhan on October 07, 2019, 10:40:28 PM
The 2% enlargement of the earh's shadow is not going to change things much.

It changes EVERYTHING: the RE calculations DO NOT MATCH at all the astronomical observations.

I still don't know what is the relationship with the selenelion or why is that relevant here.

You should.

It means that you cannot use atmospheric refraction as an explanation for the selenelion.

it doesn't mean the shadow enlargement is caused by the allais effect, that's just what you want.

Go ahead and explain the two major paradoxes of lunar eclipses: the enlargement of the Earth`s shadow and the excessive clarity of the penumbra.

So you cannot.

Now, it's my turn: we are dealing with the LUNAR ALLAIS EFFECT.

some obscure paper

A beautiful compendium of what is known at the present time regarding this subject matter. It includes a very good list of references.

Most  widely accepted explanation is that it's caused by the atmosphere, there can be other explanations.

But it cannot be caused by the atmosphere.

"It is realized that the atmospheric absorption cannot explain light absorption at a height as high as 90 km above the Earth, as required by this hypothesis."

particularly when large volcanic eruptions

No volcanic eruptions is responsible for the observed effects.

"Furthermore, the eruption of volcanos cannot explain the larger shadow. According to some, the altitude reached by some material ejected from volcano El Chichon is in the stratosphere, some 26 kilometers (16 miles) above Earth's surface – roughly 50% higher than material from the famous Mount St. Helens [9]. Since the atmosphere does not appear to be responsible for the umbra-penumbra limit displacement of 2% on the Moon, then what is the cause?"



Title: Re: SELENELION
Post by: sandokhan on October 07, 2019, 10:43:44 PM
Here's yet another alternative explanation that has nothing to do with the allais effect:
Enlargement of the Earth's Shadow on the Moon: An Optical Illusion
Physics Department, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1N 6N5
https://newtonphysics.on.ca/astronomy/index.html


Is this supposed to be a joke?

That is MY REFERENCE!

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2138487#msg2138487

Paul Marmet and Christine Couture [1], for their part, believe that the actual umbra of the Earth projected on the Moon is not as big as observed, that the sensitivity of the eyes is a factor leading necessarily to an umbral enlargement and that almost the totality of the reported umbra-penumbra limit displacement is an optical effect that has nothing to do with the thickness of the Earth atmosphere.

Dr. Marmet proves that the usual explanation accepted by modern science for the 2% Earth's larger umbra during a lunar eclipse, namely atmospheric absorption, cannot be true.
Title: Re: SELENELION
Post by: kopfverderber on October 07, 2019, 10:59:18 PM
Here's yet another alternative explanation that has nothing to do with the allais effect:
Enlargement of the Earth's Shadow on the Moon: An Optical Illusion
Physics Department, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1N 6N5
https://newtonphysics.on.ca/astronomy/index.html


Is this supposed to be a joke?

That is MY REFERENCE!

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2138487#msg2138487

Paul Marmet and Christine Couture [1], for their part, believe that the actual umbra of the Earth projected on the Moon is not as big as observed, that the sensitivity of the eyes is a factor leading necessarily to an umbral enlargement and that almost the totality of the reported umbra-penumbra limit displacement is an optical effect that has nothing to do with the thickness of the Earth atmosphere.

Dr. Marmet proves that the usual explanation accepted by modern science for the 2% Earth's larger umbra during a lunar eclipse, namely atmospheric absorption, cannot be true.

So that's your reference, yet the reference says nothing about the allais effect. You just pick the few sentences  you like from it and ignore the author's conclusion: shadow enlargement caused by optical illusion.

So when was the Allais effect reported in a lunar eclipse? If you have no data, then it's not even worth considering as possible explanation. All you have is speculation.

Lunar eclipses are known be caused by the earth, this is already known by direct observation. A 2% deviation on the shadow's size which might not be fully explained doesn't change that fact.  You like to cite papers so much, please cite paper less than 50 years old that claim lunar eclipses are not caused by the earth. Found any?
Title: Re: SELENELION
Post by: sandokhan on October 07, 2019, 11:19:34 PM
Lunar eclipses are known be caused by the earth, this is already known by direct observation. A 2% deviation on the shadow's size which might not be fully explained doesn't change that fact.

Take a look at how you are using words in order to justify, in any way possible, the fact that the geometrical considerations do not match the astronomical observatinos.

A 2% deviation MEANS THAT THE LUNAR ECLIPSE IS NOT CAUSED BY THE EARTH.

The direct observation shows a SHADOW object: both the enlargement of the Earth`s shadow and the excessive clarity of the penumbra observations prove that the Earth cannot be the cause of the lunar eclipses.

So when was the Allais effect reported in a lunar eclipse?

DURING EACH AND EVERY LUNAR ECLIPSE RECORDED FOR THE PAST 180 YEARS.

Each time you deal with the enlargement of the Earth`s shadow and the excessive clarity of the penumbra observations you are looking at the LUNAR ALLAIS EFFECT.

If you disagree, please explain these two humongous discrepancies.

and ignore the author's conclusion: shadow enlargement caused by optical illusion.

The author does not address/explain the SECOND discrepancy: the excessive clarity of the penumbra.

No optical illusion there.

Both observations prove the LUNAR ALLAIS EFFECT.

You like to cite papers so much, please cite paper less than 50 years old that claim lunar eclipses are not caused by the earth. Found any?

The list of references provided in that paper show extensively that the enlargement of the Earth`s shadow and the excessive clarity of the penumbra observations cannot be explained by current science.

It is the SHADOW MOON which causes the lunar eclipses, not the Earth.
Title: Re: SELENELION
Post by: Stash on October 07, 2019, 11:41:18 PM
Lunar eclipses are known be caused by the earth, this is already known by direct observation. A 2% deviation on the shadow's size which might not be fully explained doesn't change that fact.

Take a look at how you are using words in order to justify, in any way possible, the fact that the geometrical considerations do not match the astronomical observatinos.

A 2% deviation MEANS THAT THE LUNAR ECLIPSE IS NOT CAUSED BY THE EARTH.

You are the one actually misrepresenting the contents of various articles you're using to try and justify your position.

You wrote earlier:

For his part, in an analysis of 57 eclipses over a period of 150 years, Link (1969) found an enlargement of the shadow of 2.3% on average. Furthermore, schedules inputs and outputs of the crater through the umbra for four lunar eclipses from 1972 to 1982 strongly support the Chauvenet value of 2%.

That's a direct quote from "Five Millennium Canon of Lunar Eclipses [Espenak and Meeus]"
https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/LEcat5/shadow.html

You left off the next sentence: "From a physical point of view, there is no abrupt boundary between the umbra and penumbra. The shadow density actually varies continuously as a function of radial distance from the central axis out to the extreme edge of the penumbra."

As well, you left off the conclusion of the paper:

"Practically speaking, the faint and indistinct edge of the penumbral shadow makes the penumbral eclipse contacts (P1 and P4) completely unobservable. So the small magnitude differences discussed here are only of academic interest...Other sources using Danjon's method include Meeus and Mucke (1979), Espenak (2006) and Connaissance des Temps. Several sources using Chauvenet's method are Espenak (1989), Liu and Fiala (1992), and Astronomical Almanac."

In essence, the 2% is generally inconsequential and not much of a mystery, as we'll see in a moment using your citation.

As well, you cited:

J. Meeus, Nouvelles brèves : L’accroissement du diamètre de l’ombre de la Terre lors des éclipses de Lune, Ciel et Terre, Vol. 88, p. 491 (1972)

As the author demonstrates in his paper, the only possible explanation is a variation of the gravitational potential, a lunar eclipse Allais effect.

Just like in the case of the solar Allais effect, this variation of the gravitational potential means that the heavenly body which causes the lunar eclipse cannot be the Earth.

No where in the above paper/article does it mention the Allais Effect. In fact, the article opens with this:

"THE INCREASE OF THE DIAMETER OF THE SHADOW OF EARTH DURING MOON ECLIPSES
One of the most useful and feasible programs for amateurs at a lunar eclipse consists in measuring the moments at which various craters penetrate into the shadow of the Earth or come out of it. These moments can be analyzed to deduce the shape and dimensions of the Earth's shadow at the distance of the Moon. The Earth being flattened, its shadow is not circular. We can easily demonstrate that it is an ellipse that is a little flatter than the globe itself. In addition observation has shown that the atmosphere plays the role of an opaque mattress around the Earth, whose effect is to increase the apparent radius of the shadow by about one-fiftieth (at the distance of the Moon)."

You claimed the author demonstrated the only possible explanation is a lunar eclipse Allais effect yet he references atmospheric effects and never mentions Allais. So what are you talking about exactly?

In short none of the papers state at all what you claim (No Allais Effect mentioned) and in fact, state the opposite, atmospheric properties that lend to the 2% size. Not to mention the fact that nowhere does anyone come to a conclusion that the earth is not creating the shadow. No one.

I suggest you get your house in order when it comes to citations and what they refer to and what they don't.
Title: Re: SELENELION
Post by: kopfverderber on October 07, 2019, 11:53:53 PM
DURING EACH AND EVERY LUNAR ECLIPSE RECORDED FOR THE PAST 180 YEARS.

Each time you deal with the enlargement of the Earth`s shadow and the excessive clarity of the penumbra observations you are looking at the LUNAR ALLAIS EFFECT.

If you disagree, please explain these two humongous discrepancies.

and ignore the author's conclusion: shadow enlargement caused by optical illusion.

The author does not address/explain the SECOND discrepancy: the excessive clarity of the penumbra.

No optical illusion there.

Both observations prove the LUNAR ALLAIS EFFECT.


That's just your speculation. There are other more pausible explanations.

Fact: you have shown no experimental data of the allais effect during a lunar eclipse. Only speculation.

Fact: none of the papers you are citing claim that lunar eclipses are not caused by the earth.

Once again you are just cherry picking quotes from different authors, ignoring the parts that don't suit you and building your own story, a fantasy story.
Title: Re: SELENELION
Post by: sandokhan on October 08, 2019, 12:09:21 AM
You are employing your USUAL method of bullshitting your readers.

They will not forgive you for what you tried here:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2201983#msg2201983

You tried to claim that Toronto was under water.

You took that as far as you could, while claiming all the while that you are "concerned".

Just like you are doing now.

Your gig is over.

You can only do this ONCE, now you've blown your cover already.


"From a physical point of view, there is no abrupt boundary between the umbra and penumbra. The shadow density actually varies continuously as a function of radial distance from the central axis out to the extreme edge of the penumbra."

You still don't get it.

The 2% CANNOT BE EXPLAINED BY MODERN SCIENCE.

This is the crucial point you are missing.

Other sources using Danjon's method include Meeus and Mucke (1979)

You haven't done your homework on the subject.

You can't use Danjon's method.

"Table 1-6 lists nine small magnitude penumbral eclipses over a 500-year interval as determined using Chauvenet's method (Liu and Fiala, 1992). When the eclipse predictions are repeated using Danjon's method, no lunar eclipses are found on these dates."

In essence, the 2% is generally inconsequential and not much of a mystery, as we'll see in a moment using your citation.

You are trying to dismiss the 2% difference, just like the authors of the Nasa paper, but it doesn't work like that.

The effect IS REAL, and has been observed with each and every lunar eclipse.

Since the 1830s, crater timing has been used during lunar eclipses to measure
the length of the Earth`s shadow. The method is simple: one takes the timing of lunar features (craters, limbs, ridges, peaks, bright spots) as they enter and exit the umbra. The Sun-EarthMoon geometry being known quite precisely, it is then possible to calculate the size and shape of the Earth`s umbra at the Moon. Measurements that vary from one eclipse to the next can now be made with low-power telescopes or a clock synchronized with radio time signals. However, it has systematically been found that the shadow of the Earth seems to be 2% larger than what is expected from geometrical predictions.


For his part, in an analysis of 57 eclipses over a period of 150 years, Link (1969) found an enlargement of the shadow of 2.3% on average. Furthermore, schedules inputs and outputs of the crater through the umbra for four lunar eclipses from 1972 to 1982 strongly support the Chauvenet value of 2%. Of course, the small magnitude difference between the two methods is difficult to observe because the edge of the umbral shadow is diffuse. From a physical point of view, there is no well defined border between the umbra and the penumbra. The shadow density actually varies continuously as a function of radial distance from the central axis out to the extreme limit of the penumbral shadow. However, the density variation is most rapid near the theoretical edge of the umbra. Kuhl`s (1928) contrast theory demonstrates that the verge of the umbra is perceived at the point of inflexion in the shadow density.

The umbra-penumbra limit appears significantly displaced on the Moon during an eclipse.


WHAT?!

You quoted from the Meeus paper?

In addition observation has shown that the atmosphere plays the role of an opaque mattress around the Earth, whose effect is to increase the apparent radius of the shadow by about one-fiftieth (at the distance of the Moon).

But this is the entire point of the debate: the atmosphere cannot cause the enlargment of the Earth's shadow.

This usual interpretation of the umbral enlargement forces us to believe that the atmosphere is normally opaque up to 92 km or so. But how is this possible when, at this altitude, the air is extremely rarefied?

In fact, according to data [8], the atmospheric pressure at 90 km above sea level is about half a million times smaller than that at sea level. Above 15 km, the atmosphere becomes relatively transparent to light, since 90% of the air and almost all the humidity and pollution are below that level. That makes an enlarged obscuration due to the opacity of the atmosphere of only 0.3% which is much smaller than the 2.0% reported.


This is the reason why the readers trust me, and not you, when it comes to bibliographical references.


Now it's on to the SECOND phenomenon observed: the excessive clarity of the penumbra observations.

It has been said that the pronounced red colour in the inner portions of the umbra during an eclipse of the Moon is caused by refraction of sunlight through the upper regions of the Earth`s atmosphere, but the umbral shadow towards the centre is too bright to be accounted for by refraction of visible sunlight.


Not to mention the fact that nowhere does anyone come to a conclusion that the earth is not creating the shadow. No one.

Go ahead and explain the two major paradoxes of lunar eclipses: the enlargement of the Earth`s shadow and the excessive clarity of the penumbra.

So you cannot.

Now, it's my turn: we are dealing with the LUNAR ALLAIS EFFECT.
Title: Re: SELENELION
Post by: sandokhan on October 08, 2019, 12:13:46 AM
you have shown no experimental data of the allais effect during a lunar eclipse. Only speculation.

The Allais effect is very real:

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

Go ahead and explain the two major paradoxes of lunar eclipses: the enlargement of the Earth`s shadow and the excessive clarity of the penumbra.

So you cannot.

Now, it's my turn: we are dealing with the LUNAR ALLAIS EFFECT.

The shadow object which does cause the lunar eclipse is the SHADOW MOON, not the Earth: the proofs are very clear. The geometrical considerations, using the accepted values for the Earth, are NOT MATCHED by the astronomical observations.
Title: Re: SELENELION
Post by: JackBlack on October 08, 2019, 12:27:02 AM
The 2% enlargement of the earh's shadow is not going to change things much.
It changes EVERYTHING: the RE calculations DO NOT MATCH at all the astronomical observations.
No, it doesn't.
It doesn't magically mean that the umbra will be out of view.
As such, it is irrelevant.

It means that you cannot use atmospheric refraction as an explanation for the selenelion.
Again, that is nothing more than your baseless claim.

Now, it's my turn: we are dealing with the LUNAR ALLAIS EFFECT.
No we are not. We are discussing selenelion eclipses.

That is MY REFERENCE!
Yes, it is your reference which shows there is no problem for a RE. That this enlargement is due to perception, not reality. That it is an optical illusion. It also implies (via omission) that the Alias effect is not needed to explain it at all. It in no way indicates that refraction cannot explain Selenelion eclipses.

The 2% CANNOT BE EXPLAINED BY MODERN SCIENCE.
Except by the very paper you reference which clearly explains it as an optical illusion.

Now, can you show any actual problem with Selenelion eclipses (as opposed to any alleged problem with eclipses in general)?
If not, can you admit that the occurrence of a Selenelion eclipse with a RE (as opposed to any alleged problem with eclipses in general)?
Title: Re: SELENELION
Post by: Stash on October 08, 2019, 12:30:23 AM
Now, it's my turn: we are dealing with the LUNAR ALLAIS EFFECT.

Point of fact, you cited two papers from which you claimed, and I quote you, "As the author demonstrates in his paper, the only possible explanation is a variation of the gravitational potential, a lunar eclipse Allais effect." And nowhere in those papers was Allais Effect ever mentioned and the 2% size differential was explained through atmospheric means, contrary to what you claim, and not considered of any great consequence.

And no one has even come close to mentioning that an eclipse shadow is caused by anything other than the earth.

So like I said, get your source citations house in order and stop claiming there is content in a paper/article that justifies your claims when they, in fact, do not. Being truthful, forthright and integral to your readers is the best service you can offer. In this instance you are doing anything but.
Title: Re: SELENELION
Post by: sandokhan on October 08, 2019, 12:36:31 AM
And nowhere in those papers was Allais Effect ever mentioned and the 2% size differential was explained through atmospheric means, contrary to what you claim, and not considered of any great consequence.

But it is of GREAT CONSEQUENCE.

You are trying to dismiss the 2% difference, just like the authors of the Nasa paper, but it doesn't work like that.

The effect IS REAL, and has been observed with each and every lunar eclipse.

Since the 1830s, crater timing has been used during lunar eclipses to measure
the length of the Earth`s shadow. The method is simple: one takes the timing of lunar features (craters, limbs, ridges, peaks, bright spots) as they enter and exit the umbra. The Sun-EarthMoon geometry being known quite precisely, it is then possible to calculate the size and shape of the Earth`s umbra at the Moon. Measurements that vary from one eclipse to the next can now be made with low-power telescopes or a clock synchronized with radio time signals. However, it has systematically been found that the shadow of the Earth seems to be 2% larger than what is expected from geometrical predictions.

For his part, in an analysis of 57 eclipses over a period of 150 years, Link (1969) found an enlargement of the shadow of 2.3% on average. Furthermore, schedules inputs and outputs of the crater through the umbra for four lunar eclipses from 1972 to 1982 strongly support the Chauvenet value of 2%. Of course, the small magnitude difference between the two methods is difficult to observe because the edge of the umbral shadow is diffuse. From a physical point of view, there is no well defined border between the umbra and the penumbra. The shadow density actually varies continuously as a function of radial distance from the central axis out to the extreme limit of the penumbral shadow. However, the density variation is most rapid near the theoretical edge of the umbra. Kuhl`s (1928) contrast theory demonstrates that the verge of the umbra is perceived at the point of inflexion in the shadow density.

The umbra-penumbra limit appears significantly displaced on the Moon during an eclipse.


Then, you have to deal with the second phenomenon: the excessive clarity of the penumbra observations.

It has been said that the pronounced red colour in the inner portions of the umbra during an eclipse of the Moon is caused by refraction of sunlight through the upper regions of the Earth`s atmosphere, but the umbral shadow towards the centre is too bright to be accounted for by refraction of visible sunlight.


Go ahead and explain the two major paradoxes of lunar eclipses: the enlargement of the Earth`s shadow and the excessive clarity of the penumbra.

So you cannot.

Now, it's my turn: we are dealing with the LUNAR ALLAIS EFFECT.
Title: Re: SELENELION
Post by: sandokhan on October 08, 2019, 12:41:11 AM
Again, that is nothing more than your baseless claim.

Here are the facts.

Since the 1830s, crater timing has been used during lunar eclipses to measure the length of the Earth`s shadow. The method is simple: one takes the timing of lunar features (craters, limbs, ridges, peaks, bright spots) as they enter and exit the umbra. The Sun-EarthMoon geometry being known quite precisely, it is then possible to calculate the size and shape of the Earth`s umbra at the Moon. Measurements that vary from one eclipse to the next can now be made with low-power telescopes or a clock synchronized with radio time signals. However, it has systematically been found that the shadow of the Earth seems to be 2% larger than what is expected from geometrical predictions.

For his part, in an analysis of 57 eclipses over a period of 150 years, Link (1969) found an enlargement of the shadow of 2.3% on average. Furthermore, schedules inputs and outputs of the crater through the umbra for four lunar eclipses from 1972 to 1982 strongly support the Chauvenet value of 2%. Of course, the small magnitude difference between the two methods is difficult to observe because the edge of the umbral shadow is diffuse. From a physical point of view, there is no well defined border between the umbra and the penumbra. The shadow density actually varies continuously as a function of radial distance from the central axis out to the extreme limit of the penumbral shadow. However, the density variation is most rapid near the theoretical edge of the umbra. Kuhl`s (1928) contrast theory demonstrates that the verge of the umbra is perceived at the point of inflexion in the shadow density.

The umbra-penumbra limit appears significantly displaced on the Moon during an eclipse.


Then, you have to deal with the second phenomenon: the excessive clarity of the penumbra observations.

It has been said that the pronounced red colour in the inner portions of the umbra during an eclipse of the Moon is caused by refraction of sunlight through the upper regions of the Earth`s atmosphere, but the umbral shadow towards the centre is too bright to be accounted for by refraction of visible sunlight.


You simply haven't done your homework on the subject.

These facts are real and cannot be explained by modern science.

The selenelion is a lunar eclipse.

If you cannot explain BOTH  the enlargement of the Earth`s shadow and the excessive clarity of the penumbra, then the Moon does not cause the lunar eclipse and the Earth does not cause the selenelion.

Title: Re: SELENELION
Post by: JackBlack on October 08, 2019, 12:49:13 AM
But it is of GREAT CONSEQUENCE.
Here are the facts.
No, it isn't of great consequence, and here are the actual facts:

According to your reference, it is nothing more than an optical illusions based upon the perception of the varying shadow.
It does absolutely nothing to negate refraction as the reason for why selenelion eclipses occur.
It does nothing to show a problem with the RE model.

Your own paper shows that there is no problem and no extra physics is needed.

This means it is of no great consequence and is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Then, you have to deal with the second phenomenon: the excessive clarity of the penumbra observations.
It has been said that the pronounced red colour in the inner portions of the umbra
No, we don't, as you are yet to justify this problem or show how it impacts a selenelion eclipse (rather than eclipses in general) in any way; and you can't even seem to make up your mind if it is the umbra or the penumbra.

Now, it's my turn: we are dealing with the LUNAR ALLAIS EFFECT.
Again, we are not. We are dealing with selenelion eclipses.
You are yet to show any problem with them.
Title: Re: SELENELION
Post by: sandokhan on October 08, 2019, 12:57:03 AM
You have reached a very low point here.

You are actually using MY REFERENCE.

Don't you understand what you are doing?

Dr. Marmet DEMOLISHES the atmospheric refraction argument you tried to use in your favor.

Yes, he does propose an alternative explanation, but he does not address the SECOND phenomenon being observed.

The second phenomenon, the excessive clarity of the penumbra observations is NOT an optical illusion, thus neither is the first.

I used Dr. Marmet's fantastic reference to prove that the atmosphere has nothing to do with the selenelion.


Take a look at yourself, the fisking, the denials, all under the very permissive watch of the mods, frantically trying to explain the unexplainable.


You simply haven't done your homework on the subject.

These facts are real and cannot be explained by modern science.

The selenelion is a lunar eclipse.

If you cannot explain BOTH  the enlargement of the Earth`s shadow and the excessive clarity of the penumbra, then the Moon does not cause the lunar eclipse and the Earth does not cause the selenelion.
Title: Re: SELENELION
Post by: JackBlack on October 08, 2019, 01:14:07 AM
You are actually using MY REFERENCE.
Yes, I am using your reference which shows you are wrong.
That is how much of a low point you are at.
You are rejecting the findings of your own reference.
You provide a reference only to completely ignore it.

Dr. Marmet DEMOLISHES the atmospheric refraction argument you tried to use in your favor.
Stop lying.
I am using atmospheric refraction to explain why selenelion eclipsese are observed. I am not using it at all in discussion of the apparent increase in the size of the umbra.

The paper you are referencing only rejects the atmosphere for explaining the apparent size and says nothing at all regarding selenelion eclipses.

So the situation is nothing like what you pretend.
The simple reality is the apparent enlargement is nothing more than an optical illusion and refraction easily explains the occurrence of selenelion eclipses.

There is no problem for a RE here.

The second phenomenon, the excessive clarity of the penumbra observations is NOT an optical illusion, thus neither is the first.
That is not how anything works. Just because A doesn't explain C, doesn't mean that A can't explain B.

You are yet to substantiate your claim that the penumbra is excessively clear or that that is any problem (or what you even mean by it).

I used Dr. Marmet's fantastic reference to prove that the atmosphere has nothing to do with the selenelion.
So you blatantly lied about it and pretended it said/proved something which it didn't even bring up?

Take a look at yourself, the fisking, the denials, all under the very permissive watch of the mods, frantically trying to explain the unexplainable.
Take a look in the mirror, you are describing yourself, like you normally do when you spout garbage like that.

Now, can you address the issue at hand and either explain why refraction can't explain the observation of selenelion eclipses or admit that it can?
Title: Re: SELENELION
Post by: Stash on October 08, 2019, 01:15:28 AM
And nowhere in those papers was Allais Effect ever mentioned and the 2% size differential was explained through atmospheric means, contrary to what you claim, and not considered of any great consequence.

But it is of GREAT CONSEQUENCE.

You are trying to dismiss the 2% difference, just like the authors of the Nasa paper, but it doesn't work like that.

The effect IS REAL, and has been observed with each and every lunar eclipse.

Since the 1830s, crater timing has been used during lunar eclipses to measure
the length of the Earth`s shadow. The method is simple: one takes the timing of lunar features (craters, limbs, ridges, peaks, bright spots) as they enter and exit the umbra. The Sun-EarthMoon geometry being known quite precisely, it is then possible to calculate the size and shape of the Earth`s umbra at the Moon. Measurements that vary from one eclipse to the next can now be made with low-power telescopes or a clock synchronized with radio time signals. However, it has systematically been found that the shadow of the Earth seems to be 2% larger than what is expected from geometrical predictions.

The above is a direct quote from Paul Marmet's paper entitled, "Enlargement of the Earth's Shadow on the Moon: An Optical Illusion"

Using an overhead projector to simulate the Sun and cardboard cut-outs fo the Moon and Earth for their experimentation his determination was that the 2% is not due to atmospheric effects but to the human eye. From the paper you cited:

"3-  On the Threshold of Sensitivity of the Eye.
        There is an important fact that has been overlooked to explain the umbral enlargement on the moon. It is linked to the sensitivity of the eyes. It is commonly known that under a certain threshold of light intensity, light cannot be detected by the eye. This limiting threshold is quite general and must be applied especially when observing a dark limit during a lunar eclipse.
"
https://newtonphysics.on.ca/astronomy/index.html

No Allais Effect, no shadow object, just an optical illusion. Again, you are misrepresenting the content of a source citation as it in no way justifies your claims.

For his part, in an analysis of 57 eclipses over a period of 150 years, Link (1969) found an enlargement of the shadow of 2.3% on average. Furthermore, schedules inputs and outputs of the crater through the umbra for four lunar eclipses from 1972 to 1982 strongly support the Chauvenet value of 2%. Of course, the small magnitude difference between the two methods is difficult to observe because the edge of the umbral shadow is diffuse. From a physical point of view, there is no well defined border between the umbra and the penumbra. The shadow density actually varies continuously as a function of radial distance from the central axis out to the extreme limit of the penumbral shadow. However, the density variation is most rapid near the theoretical edge of the umbra. Kuhl`s (1928) contrast theory demonstrates that the verge of the umbra is perceived at the point of inflexion in the shadow density.

Again, the above is from "Five Millennium Canon of Lunar Eclipses [Espenak and Meeus]" and again, their conclusion is contrary to yours:

"Practically speaking, the faint and indistinct edge of the penumbral shadow makes the penumbral eclipse contacts (P1 and P4) completely unobservable. So the small magnitude differences discussed here are only of academic interest."
https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/LEcat5/shadow.html


Now, it's my turn: we are dealing with the LUNAR ALLAIS EFFECT.

Again, so you say, but have not shown. You keep misquoting papers that actually show conclusions contrary to yours. And again, no one is even coming close to suggesting that there is something causing the eclipse shadow other than the earth. No one. So that whole shadow object thing is all yours and not supported at all academically nor scientifically by anyone and certainly not by the references you have cited.
Title: Re: SELENELION
Post by: sandokhan on October 08, 2019, 02:04:05 AM
Both of your have run out of steam.

Your hilarious denials are of no help to your cause.

Here are the undeniable facts concerning the excessive clarity of the penumbra.

It was suggested that the brightness anomaly of the umbral region during an eclipse of the Moon would be caused by refraction of sunlight through the upper regions of the Earth`s atmosphere. The red coloring arises because, they say, sunlight reaching the Moon must pass through a long and dense layer of the Earth`s atmosphere, where it is scattered. Shorter wavelengths are more likely to be scattered by the small particles and so, by the time the light has passed through the atmosphere, the longer wavelengths dominate. This resulting light we perceive as red. The amount of refracted light depends on the amount of dust or clouds in the atmosphere; this also controls how much light is scattered. In general, the dustier the atmosphere, the more that other wavelengths of light will be removed (compared to red light), leaving the resulting light a deeper red color [22].

Despite this reasoning, it has been found that towards the centre the umbra is too bright to be accounted for by refraction of visible sunlight.


This is NO OPTICAL ILLUSION.

Both phenomena are absolutely correlated, they occur during lunar eclipses.


Dr. Marmet does not address the second issue: therefore the explanation according to which the first phenomenon is an optical illusion does not stand scrutiny. What Dr. Marmet does is to demolish the atmospheric refraction argument used by the RE.

 We know that astronomical data give us accurate values of the radii of the Sun, the Earth and the Moon. Furthermore the knowledge of their relative distances gives us accurate predictions of the exact instant when the umbra-penumbra limit sweeps some specific crater on the moon during lunar eclipses.
        However, numerous reports show that the umbra-penumbra limit appears significantly displaced on the moon during an eclipse. It is believed that the thickness of the Earth atmosphere is responsible for that displacement. The article of Roger W. Sinnott ("Readers Gauge the Umbra Again", in Sky & Telescope, April 1983, p. 387) illustrates this interpretation of the shadow's enlargement in his statement: "It [the atmosphere] always increases slightly the silhouette of our globe in forming the sharply defined central region of the shadow called the umbra." Similar conclusions are also presented by Sinnott in "A Tale of Two Eclipses" (Sky & Telescope, December 1992, p. 678). Therefore, it could be implied that crater timings during full lunar eclipses can be used as a tool to evaluate the degree of pollution of our atmosphere.
        A similar result has also been claimed by Byron W. Soulsby in "Lunar Eclipse Crater Timing Programme" (Journal of the British Astronomical Association, Volume 95, Number 1, p.18) where he writes:

"Each eclipse can exhibit oblateness variations due in the main to the conditions prevailing in the Earth's atmosphere at the time of the event, particularly when large volcanic eruptions have occurred before the observations are made."
        In order to study more deeply that phenomenon, it is important to evaluate if the reported increase of 2% of the Earth's shadow at the Moon corresponds to a reasonable value of the height at which the atmosphere is opaque. Calculations give that this amount corresponds to an altitude of 92 km on the Earth.
        This usual interpretation of the umbral enlargement forces us to believe that the atmosphere is normally opaque up to 92 km or so. But how can that be when at that altitude, the air is so extremely rarefied? It is near the altitude at which a satellite can orbit around the Earth.
        In fact, according to "Astrophysical Data: Planets and Stars" (Kenneth R. Lang, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1992, p. 36), the atmospheric pressure at 90 km above sea level is about half a million times smaller than that at sea level. Above 15 km, the atmosphere becomes relatively transparent to light, since 90% of the air and almost all the humidity and pollution are below that level. That makes an umbral enlargement due to the opacity of the atmosphere of only 0.3% which is much smaller than the 2.0 % reported.
        Furthermore, the eruption of volcanos cannot explain the umbral enlargement. According to Patrick McCormick (Sky & Telescope, October 1982, p.390), the altitude reached by some material ejected from volcano El Chichon "is in the stratosphere, some 26 kilometers (16 miles) above Earth's surface - roughly 50 percent higher than material from even the famous Mount St. Helens.". So since the atmosphere does not appear to be responsible for the umbra-penumbra limit displacement of 2% on the moon, then what causes it?


THE ATMOSPHERE DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE UMBRA-PENUMBRA LIMIT DISPLACEMENT OF 2% ON THE MOON.

I am using atmospheric refraction to explain why selenelion eclipsese are observed. I am not using it at all in discussion of the apparent increase in the size of the umbra.

The viewers/readers are observing your devious tricks and are not amused by them. My reference destroys your main contention point, yet you are not aware even of this detail.

You have just been shown that the atmosphere is not related at all to the lunar eclipse phenomenon: it does not cause the 2% displacement, therefore it is not related at all to the entire phenomenon. You can't use atmospheric refraction and then ignore the fact that is has nothing to do with the most crucial aspect of this subject matter.

That is why it is hilarious to watch you use my reference as defense.


"Practically speaking, the faint and indistinct edge of the penumbral shadow makes the penumbral eclipse contacts (P1 and P4) completely unobservable. So the small magnitude differences discussed here are only of academic interest."

But they cannot reach this conclusion, not while they claim that the atmosphere causes the 2% enlargement.

Here is what the Nasa paper says:

"This point appears to be equivalent to a layer in Earth's atmosphere at an altitude of about 120 to 150 km. The net enlargement of Earth's radius of 1.9% to 2.4% corresponds to an umbral shadow enlargement of 1.5% to 1.9%, in reasonably good agreement with the conventional value."


So they are using the atmosphere as a possible argument, all the while denying that it is a significant effect.

Dr. Marmet proved that the atmosphere is not related to the entire phenomenon.

Therefore, Nasa's conclusion is catastrophically wrong.

It does matter and they cannot explain it.

Neither can you, the RE.


Since you cannot explain these phenomena, now it is my turn: the shadow object cannot possibly be the Earth.

Title: Re: SELENELION
Post by: kopfverderber on October 08, 2019, 02:15:17 AM
you have shown no experimental data of the allais effect during a lunar eclipse. Only speculation.

The Allais effect is very real:

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


Lunar eclipses , we are now dealing with lunar eclipses. Aren't all those allais effect experiments in your link solar eclipses?

Is there experimental data of the allais effect during a lunar eclipse yes or no?
Title: Re: SELENELION
Post by: sandokhan on October 08, 2019, 02:16:52 AM
Is there experimental data of the allais effect during a lunar eclipse yes or no?

Of course: the enlargement of the Earth`s shadow and the excessive clarity of the penumbra. Since the calculations do not match the astronomical observations there is only one option left: the lunar eclipse is NOT caused by the Earth.
Title: Re: SELENELION
Post by: kopfverderber on October 08, 2019, 02:43:04 AM
Is there experimental data of the allais effect during a lunar eclipse yes or no?

Of course: the enlargement of the Earth`s shadow and the excessive clarity of the penumbra. Since the calculations do not match the astronomical observations there is only one option left: the lunar eclipse is NOT caused by the Earth.

That doesn't equal an Allais effect experiment. Please be serious.

Allais effect experiments involve pendulums. I'm sure you know this.

Has the Allais effect ever been observed in a pendulum during a lunar eclipse? lacking that you have no data. You are making your claim without any data to back it.

You whole point is that according to you scientist can't explain a deviation in the shadow size of 2%. Then you claim that must be Allais effect with no data to back it up and from there you automatically jump to "it must be shadow object", as if that would make any sense or explain anything.
Title: Re: SELENELION
Post by: sandokhan on October 08, 2019, 02:56:16 AM
The pendulum or the torsind is on the receiving end of an antigravitational wave of energy during the solar eclipses.

The phenomenon exists irrespective of the pendulum in action.

The enlargement of the Earth's shadow and the excessive clarity of the penumbra prove at once that the Earth does not and cannot cause the lunar eclipse.

The anti-gravity on the Moon caused by the shadow object is manifested through a deviation of light.

That is, the Shadow Moon causes a variation of the gravitational potential.

"The excess of luminescence would be the imprint left on the light by the intramolecular oscillation of the atoms constituting the molecules of the lunar soil which spreads it. A Raman effect caused by an Allais effect."
Title: Re: SELENELION
Post by: JackBlack on October 08, 2019, 04:08:02 AM
Both of your have run out of steam.
Your hilarious denials are of no help to your cause.
That is still you projecting.
Your own reference shows you are wrong, yet you refuse to admit it and pretend some other magical phenomenon is required.

Here are the undeniable facts concerning the excessive clarity of the penumbra.
Despite this reasoning, it has been found that towards the centre the umbra is too bright to be accounted for by refraction of visible sunlight
Do you mean the umbra or the penumbra?
You should really make up your mind and stick to it.
However so far you have provided absolutely nothing to back up that claim of yours.

Dr. Marmet does not address the second issue: therefore the explanation according to which the first phenomenon is an optical illusion does not stand scrutiny. What Dr. Marmet does is to demolish the atmospheric refraction argument used by the RE.
Pure nonsense.
You are yet to show that the second issue is an issue at all.
As explained before, not addressing that issue doesn't mean the explanation for the first issue is wrong. There is no connection between them.
And again, you are blatantly lying about your reference, just like you so often do.
Dr Marmet does not destroy the reality of refraction causing selenion eclipses in the slightest.

The viewers/readers are observing your devious tricks and are not amused by them. My reference destroys your main contention point, yet you are not aware even of this detail.
Again, you are projecting your own idaquecies onto others.
I am not the one using tricks here.
You are.
You are blatantly lying about what your references show.
You take a reference which is only addressing the apparent size of the umbra and pretend it is saying something completely different.

But they cannot reach this conclusion, not while they claim that the atmosphere causes the 2% enlargement.
But they aren't.
It says it is equivalent to, not caused by.

Dr. Marmet proved that the atmosphere is not related to the entire phenomenon.
Again, that is a blatant lie.
All Dr Marmet proved was that the atmosphere blocking light doesn't cause the 2% enlargement.
They said nothing at all about selenelion eclipses.

This is what was said about the atmosphere that is relevant:
Quote
There is another factor about the atmosphere that has not been discussed. Light rays passing through the atmosphere are naturally bent because the atmosphere acts like a prism. This is why, during an eclipse, the Moon surface is never completely black but reddish: the red part of the solar spectrum passing through the low atmosphere is the only part scattered on the Moon in the region of totality before being reflected back to us on Earth.
So they sure seem to be indicating the atmosphere is involved.

Is there experimental data of the allais effect during a lunar eclipse yes or no?
Of course: the enlargement of the Earth`s shadow and the excessive clarity of the penumbra.
Pure nonsense.
Again, your own reference indicates it is an optical illusion.
There is no connection to your alleged Allais effect, unless you just want to throw every phenomena into it.

Now then,
stop lying about your references.
stop running off on tangents.
Address the topic at hand.
You have provided absolutely nothing that poses any challenge to the reality of selenelion eclipses on the very real round Earth.
Title: Re: SELENELION
Post by: sandokhan on October 08, 2019, 04:22:01 AM
This thread must have really touched a raw nerve.

Again, jackblack is denying reality.

It was suggested that the brightness anomaly of the umbral region during an eclipse of the Moon would be caused by refraction of sunlight through the upper regions of the Earth`s atmosphere. The red coloring arises because, they say, sunlight reaching the Moon must pass through a long and dense layer of the Earth`s atmosphere, where it is scattered. Shorter wavelengths are more likely to be scattered by the small particles and so, by the time the light has passed through the atmosphere, the longer wavelengths dominate. This resulting light we perceive as red. The amount of refracted light depends on the amount of dust or clouds in the atmosphere; this also controls how much light is scattered. In general, the dustier the atmosphere, the more that other wavelengths of light will be removed (compared to red light), leaving the resulting light a deeper red color [22].

Despite this reasoning, it has been found that towards the centre the umbra is too bright to be accounted for by refraction of visible sunlight.


This is NO OPTICAL ILLUSION.

Both phenomena are absolutely correlated, they occur during lunar eclipses.


Dr. Marmet does not address the second issue: therefore the explanation according to which the first phenomenon is an optical illusion does not stand scrutiny. What Dr. Marmet does is to demolish the atmospheric refraction argument used by the RE.

Dr. Marmet again:

 We know that astronomical data give us accurate values of the radii of the Sun, the Earth and the Moon. Furthermore the knowledge of their relative distances gives us accurate predictions of the exact instant when the umbra-penumbra limit sweeps some specific crater on the moon during lunar eclipses.
        However, numerous reports show that the umbra-penumbra limit appears significantly displaced on the moon during an eclipse. It is believed that the thickness of the Earth atmosphere is responsible for that displacement. The article of Roger W. Sinnott ("Readers Gauge the Umbra Again", in Sky & Telescope, April 1983, p. 387) illustrates this interpretation of the shadow's enlargement in his statement: "It [the atmosphere] always increases slightly the silhouette of our globe in forming the sharply defined central region of the shadow called the umbra." Similar conclusions are also presented by Sinnott in "A Tale of Two Eclipses" (Sky & Telescope, December 1992, p. 678). Therefore, it could be implied that crater timings during full lunar eclipses can be used as a tool to evaluate the degree of pollution of our atmosphere.
        A similar result has also been claimed by Byron W. Soulsby in "Lunar Eclipse Crater Timing Programme" (Journal of the British Astronomical Association, Volume 95, Number 1, p.18) where he writes:

"Each eclipse can exhibit oblateness variations due in the main to the conditions prevailing in the Earth's atmosphere at the time of the event, particularly when large volcanic eruptions have occurred before the observations are made."
        In order to study more deeply that phenomenon, it is important to evaluate if the reported increase of 2% of the Earth's shadow at the Moon corresponds to a reasonable value of the height at which the atmosphere is opaque. Calculations give that this amount corresponds to an altitude of 92 km on the Earth.
        This usual interpretation of the umbral enlargement forces us to believe that the atmosphere is normally opaque up to 92 km or so. But how can that be when at that altitude, the air is so extremely rarefied? It is near the altitude at which a satellite can orbit around the Earth.
        In fact, according to "Astrophysical Data: Planets and Stars" (Kenneth R. Lang, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1992, p. 36), the atmospheric pressure at 90 km above sea level is about half a million times smaller than that at sea level. Above 15 km, the atmosphere becomes relatively transparent to light, since 90% of the air and almost all the humidity and pollution are below that level. That makes an umbral enlargement due to the opacity of the atmosphere of only 0.3% which is much smaller than the 2.0 % reported.
        Furthermore, the eruption of volcanos cannot explain the umbral enlargement. According to Patrick McCormick (Sky & Telescope, October 1982, p.390), the altitude reached by some material ejected from volcano El Chichon "is in the stratosphere, some 26 kilometers (16 miles) above Earth's surface - roughly 50 percent higher than material from even the famous Mount St. Helens.". So since the atmosphere does not appear to be responsible for the umbra-penumbra limit displacement of 2% on the moon, then what causes it?


THE ATMOSPHERE DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE UMBRA-PENUMBRA LIMIT DISPLACEMENT OF 2% ON THE MOON.


You have just been shown that the atmosphere is not related at all to the lunar eclipse phenomenon: it does not cause the 2% displacement, therefore it is not related at all to the entire phenomenon. You can't use atmospheric refraction and then ignore the fact that is has nothing to do with the most crucial aspect of this subject matter.


Your tricks do not work with me.

Here is the ENTIRE QUOTE:

There is another factor about the atmosphere that has not been discussed. Light rays passing through the atmosphere are naturally bent because the atmosphere acts like a prism. This is why, during an eclipse, the Moon surface is never completely black but reddish: the red part of the solar spectrum passing through the low atmosphere is the only part scattered on the Moon in the region of totality before being reflected back to us on Earth.
        An hypothetical observer located on the Moon would see those rays being refracted by the Earth atmosphere and the Sun would appear bigger. Consequently, this second effect makes the Sun rays converge due to a lensing effect of our atmosphere. Therefore, due to that lensing effect, the umbra projected on the Moon would be smaller. This refraction by the Earth atmosphere gives an effect that is contrary to the observations claiming that the Earth's shadow must be larger due to the thickness of the atmosphere.


READ AGAIN:

This refraction by the Earth atmosphere gives an effect that is contrary to the observations claiming that the Earth's shadow must be larger due to the thickness of the atmosphere.

Dr. Marmet is DEMOLISHING the RE claim that refraction has anything to do with the selenelion/lunar eclipse.

We are done here.
Title: Re: SELENELION
Post by: sokarul on October 08, 2019, 04:28:48 AM
“ Dr. Marmet again:

 We know that astronomical data give us accurate values of the radii of the Sun, the Earth and the Moon. ”

Yes we are done.
Title: Re: SELENELION
Post by: sandokhan on October 08, 2019, 04:49:18 AM
Use CN for your messages.

Dr. Marmet is writing an introduction to the paper, listing the official science prerogatives.

Then, he DEMOLISHES those claims:

However, numerous reports show that the umbra-penumbra limit appears significantly displaced on the moon during an eclipse.

There is another factor about the atmosphere that has not been discussed. Light rays passing through the atmosphere are naturally bent because the atmosphere acts like a prism. This is why, during an eclipse, the Moon surface is never completely black but reddish: the red part of the solar spectrum passing through the low atmosphere is the only part scattered on the Moon in the region of totality before being reflected back to us on Earth.
        An hypothetical observer located on the Moon would see those rays being refracted by the Earth atmosphere and the Sun would appear bigger. Consequently, this second effect makes the Sun rays converge due to a lensing effect of our atmosphere. Therefore, due to that lensing effect, the umbra projected on the Moon would be smaller. This refraction by the Earth atmosphere gives an effect that is contrary to the observations claiming that the Earth's shadow must be larger due to the thickness of the atmosphere.
Title: Re: SELENELION
Post by: Unconvinced on October 08, 2019, 05:54:47 AM
Can we have a citation for the existence of this “shadow object” then?
Title: Re: SELENELION
Post by: MouseWalker on October 08, 2019, 08:49:39 AM
Lunar eclipses are known be caused by the earth, this is already known by direct observation. A 2% deviation on the shadow's size which might not be fully explained doesn't change that fact.

Take a look at how you are using words in order to justify, in any way possible, the fact that the geometrical considerations do not match the astronomical observatinos.

A 2% deviation MEANS THAT THE LUNAR ECLIPSE IS NOT CAUSED BY THE EARTH.

The direct observation shows a SHADOW object: both the enlargement of the Earth`s shadow and the excessive clarity of the penumbra observations prove that the Earth cannot be the cause of the lunar eclipses.

So when was the Allais effect reported in a lunar eclipse?

DURING EACH AND EVERY LUNAR ECLIPSE RECORDED FOR THE PAST 180 YEARS.

Each time you deal with the enlargement of the Earth`s shadow and the excessive clarity of the penumbra observations you are looking at the LUNAR ALLAIS EFFECT.

If you disagree, please explain these two humongous discrepancies.

and ignore the author's conclusion: shadow enlargement caused by optical illusion.

The author does not address/explain the SECOND discrepancy: the excessive clarity of the penumbra.

No optical illusion there.

Both observations prove the LUNAR ALLAIS EFFECT.

You like to cite papers so much, please cite paper less than 50 years old that claim lunar eclipses are not caused by the earth. Found any?

The list of references provided in that paper show extensively that the enlargement of the Earth`s shadow and the excessive clarity of the penumbra observations cannot be explained by current science.

It is the SHADOW MOON which causes the lunar eclipses, not the Earth.
Please explain,
why the shadow moon object
is invisible to radar?
has no gravitational effects?
appears only during lunar eclipse?
Intel you can explain, the answer to the questions, such an object can not be considered.
Title: Re: SELENELION
Post by: EvolvedMantisShrimp on October 08, 2019, 09:00:53 AM
Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of planets? The Shadow Moon knows!
Title: Re: SELENELION
Post by: kopfverderber on October 08, 2019, 09:27:48 AM
Use CN for your messages.

Dr. Marmet is writing an introduction to the paper, listing the official science prerogatives.

Then, he DEMOLISHES those claims:

However, numerous reports show that the umbra-penumbra limit appears significantly displaced on the moon during an eclipse.

There is another factor about the atmosphere that has not been discussed. Light rays passing through the atmosphere are naturally bent because the atmosphere acts like a prism. This is why, during an eclipse, the Moon surface is never completely black but reddish: the red part of the solar spectrum passing through the low atmosphere is the only part scattered on the Moon in the region of totality before being reflected back to us on Earth.
        An hypothetical observer located on the Moon would see those rays being refracted by the Earth atmosphere and the Sun would appear bigger. Consequently, this second effect makes the Sun rays converge due to a lensing effect of our atmosphere. Therefore, due to that lensing effect, the umbra projected on the Moon would be smaller. This refraction by the Earth atmosphere gives an effect that is contrary to the observations claiming that the Earth's shadow must be larger due to the thickness of the atmosphere.

The green to violet light of the spectrum is scattered by the atmosphere before reaching the moon,  that's why we see the moon red. Refraction makes the moon look reddish, it doesn't make the umbra any smaller. An observer on the moon would see a red ring around the earth, like shown in the last video here https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/4356.

The edge of the umbral shadow is diffuse rather than sharp, that is caused by the earth's atmosphere. A shadow object without atmosphere would cause a sharper edge.
Title: Re: SELENELION
Post by: Unconvinced on October 08, 2019, 10:29:38 AM
Surely even the blackest black shadow object should occasionally get between us and some stars occasionally.

Too much to hope that flat earthers have worked out where it should be, considering they can’t even work out where the sun and moon should be.
Title: Re: SELENELION
Post by: MouseWalker on October 08, 2019, 12:18:50 PM
You have reached a very low point here.

You are actually using MY REFERENCE.

Don't you understand what you are doing?

Dr. Marmet DEMOLISHES the atmospheric refraction argument you tried to use in your favor.

Yes, he does propose an alternative explanation, but he does not address the SECOND phenomenon being observed.

The second phenomenon, the excessive clarity of the penumbra observations is NOT an optical illusion, thus neither is the first.

I used Dr. Marmet's fantastic reference to prove that the atmosphere has nothing to do with the selenelion.


Take a look at yourself, the fisking, the denials, all under the very permissive watch of the mods, frantically trying to explain the unexplainable.


You simply haven't done your homework on the subject.

These facts are real and cannot be explained by modern science.

The selenelion is a lunar eclipse.

If you cannot explain BOTH  the enlargement of the Earth`s shadow and the excessive clarity of the penumbra, then the Moon does not cause the lunar eclipse and the Earth does not cause the selenelion.
Your inability to, to use quote function makes it extremely difficult to separate " from what you are saying put  " Marks what you quoting if you can't figure out how to use quote function
( [ quote ] remove spaces to start quote )
( [ / quote ] remove spaces to end quote )
use preview to see what it looks like be for post
thank you.
Title: Re: SELENELION
Post by: kopfverderber on October 08, 2019, 12:48:39 PM
A more recent and extensive publication on the topic is Celestial Shadows: Eclipses, Transits, and Occultations.  By John Westfall, William Sheehan, 2015, Springer Verlag.

Espenak suggested that enlargement is caused by a layer of meteoric dust at an altitude of about 120-150 km (Espenak 1989: 206), but the fact that the amount of umbral enlargement varies among Eclipses implies that such layer cannot be the only factor (Karkoschka 1996: 98).

There appears to be a significant effect on umbral size due to the ozone layer in Earth's stratosphere, which is particularly effective in absorbing red light - just the opposite of the troposphere, where blue light is absorved- but o average enlarging the umbra by about 90km, in agreement with observations. (Karkoschka 1996: 99/100).

(https://i.imgur.com/CxEqrTh.jpg)

Without disrespecting the work of Dr Marmet,  it seems that he is not addressing any of the above points and the earth's atmosphere is still the most convincing explanation.

What Dr Marmet is offering as evidence is:
- A calculation of terrestrial atmosphere from"Astrophysical Data: Planets and Stars" (Kenneth R. Lang, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1992, p. 36):
(https://i.imgur.com/jhxyFd6.jpg)
- Some measurements from materials ejected by volcano El Chichon from Patrick McCormick (Sky & Telescope, October 1982, p.390).

We can see that Dr. Marmet is not really addressing the refraction caused by meteoric dust or ozone.

The claim the atmosphere would be too thin is a lot older and it's based on an outdated understanding of earth's atmosphere. Dr. Marmet's is using  Seeliger's idea from 1896:
Hugo Hans von Seeliger (1849-1924) concluded that the atmosphere would be so thin at such heights that significant absorption would be impossible, the implication being that the apparent enlargement must be a mere contrast effect of about 52 arc sec (Seeliger 1896:44)
Title: Re: SELENELION
Post by: JackBlack on October 08, 2019, 01:39:06 PM
Again, jackblack is denying reality.
Again, projecting will not help you.
Not only are you denying reality, you are also denying the very references you are trying to use to support your lies.

That does seem to be your usual debate tactic though. You find whatever references you can cherry pick to pretend they support your claim.

Both phenomena are absolutely correlated, they occur during lunar eclipses.
Both occurring during a lunar eclipse does not mean they are the same phenomenon or that they have the same cause.
As such, the second, which you are yet to substantiate, is completely irrelevant to the first. There is literally no justification at all for pretending the 2 are connected anymore than both having something to do with the moon.

So the apparent increase in the size of the umbra remains as nothing more than an optical illusion.

THE ATMOSPHERE DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE UMBRA-PENUMBRA LIMIT DISPLACEMENT OF 2% ON THE MOON.
Which is not a problem at all and means absolutely nothing in terms of refraction explaining selenelion eclipses.

You have just been shown that the atmosphere is not related at all to the lunar eclipse phenomenon
Stop lying.
You have shown nothing of the sort.
All that quote states is that the atmosphere doesn't cause the enlargement of the umbra.
Again, the same paper clearly indicates the atmosphere is responsible for the red appearance of the lunar eclipse.

You blatantly lying about your own reference will not change what it says.
All it does is show you have no concern for the truth/reality and have no integrity at all and instead you are willing to blatantly lie to pretend there is a problem with a RE.

Dr. Marmet is DEMOLISHING the RE claim that refraction has anything to do with the selenelion/lunar eclipse.
Again, a blatant lie.
Dr Marmet is saying absolutely nothing about the selenelion eclipse, nor are they saying that refraction has nothing to do with eclipses in general.

We are done here.
Yes, we are.
You have shown yet again, that you have no interest in the truth and are just blatantly lying about your own references to pretend they support your outlandish claims.

You have failed to show any problem with the RE explanation for Selenelion eclipses or RE in general.
Instead of trying to establish any problem through rational means, you just repeat the same lies again and again and blatantly lie about your own references.

As such, this discussion (if it could be called one in the first place due to your unwillingness to participate in any form of rational discourse) is over. You lose, yet again.

If you would like to continue (or really begin) a discussion, then clearly explain a problem with the RE explanation of Selenelion eclipses, with a valid reference which actually discusses Selenelion eclipses, or with a valid argument which does not appeal to references with nothing to do with it.
Title: Re: SELENELION
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 20, 2019, 07:50:55 AM
Astronomical refraction refraction only lifts a body upwards about 0.5 degrees near the horizon in RET. It is nowhere enough to explain the selenelion where the shadow of the moon is moving in the wrong direction significantly above the horizon.
Title: Re: SELENELION
Post by: sokarul on October 20, 2019, 11:09:32 AM
The direction of the shadow was already explained to you.
Title: Re: SELENELION
Post by: Alpha2Omega on October 20, 2019, 11:54:06 AM
Astronomical refraction refraction only lifts a body upwards about 0.5 degrees near the horizon in RET.

"Only".

How much do you think is needed to observe a selenelion? Don't forget that the apparent sizes of the moon (and sun) are - wait for it - both about 0.5 degrees, so the half degree of refraction alone is sufficient to explain being able to see the whole disk of the sun and the whole disk of a totally-eclipsed moon at the same time. Further, I've never seen a requirement that the moon must be totally eclipsed during the phenomenon, nor for the moon or sun to be fully above the horizon, for it to be considered a selenelion. In the absence of such requirements, you've got more than an additional degree to work with.

At least you now seem to agree that atmospheric refraction makes bodies appear higher than they really are, so that's progress.

Quote
It is nowhere enough to explain the selenelion where the shadow of the moon is moving in the wrong direction significantly above the horizon.

The shadow is not "moving in the wrong direction" as has already been explained in detail. It's not always easy to visualize the geometry, but there is no actual problem with the relative motion of the earth's shadow, moon, and horizon even if you can't or don't want to understand what is happening.
Title: Re: SELENELION
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 20, 2019, 01:11:10 PM
It's not always easy to visualize the geometry

Why should anyone, for a minute, believe in your word descriptions, your assurances that "everything works, just an illusion!" and the geometry that you can't visualize?
Title: Re: SELENELION
Post by: JackBlack on October 20, 2019, 01:29:08 PM
Astronomical refraction refraction only lifts a body upwards about 0.5 degrees near the horizon in RET. It is nowhere enough to explain the selenelion where the shadow of the moon is moving in the wrong direction significantly above the horizon.
Except as already explained in this thread.

No one has been able to show the shadow moving in the wrong direction.
While refraction puts the moon only 0.5 degrees higher, it also puts the sun 0.5 degrees higher, meaning a total of 1 degree.

And during these occurrences, you typically see the sun and/or moon rising/setting (i.e. partially obscured by the horizon) or not during the complete eclipse.

But plenty of examples provided don't show the sun at all and appear to be after the sun has set/before it has risen but during twilight. One photo even appears to be taken at night.

No one has been able to provide an occurrence which was actually impossible on a RE.

Why should anyone, for a minute, believe in your word descriptions, your assurances that "everything works, just an illusion!"
And why should anyone believe your baseless assertion that the shadow is going the wrong way or that these can't happen on a RE?
Title: Re: SELENELION
Post by: markjo on October 20, 2019, 08:28:52 PM
It's not always easy to visualize the geometry

Why should anyone, for a minute, believe in your word descriptions, your assurances that "everything works, just an illusion!" and the geometry that you can't visualize?
Probably for the same reason that anyone should believe your word descriptions and assurances that "everything works" when no one has ever shown that the geometry of a lunar eclipse works or that the shadow moves in the right direction on a flat earth model.
Title: Re: SELENELION
Post by: Alpha2Omega on October 20, 2019, 10:34:10 PM
It's not always easy to visualize the geometry

Why should anyone, for a minute, believe in your word descriptions...

Because they match what is observed and can be verified personally during lunar eclipses. How zetetic is that?

Meanwhile you have made nothing but claims but have not demonstrated anything to the contrary.

Quote
... your assurances that "everything works, just an illusion!" and the geometry that you can't visualize?

Here's what I actually said:
The shadow is not "moving in the wrong direction" as has already been explained in detail. It's not always easy to visualize the geometry, but there is no actual problem with the relative motion of the earth's shadow, moon, and horizon even if you can't or don't want to understand what is happening.

Where did I say this was "just an illusion"?

Also, please note I didn't say "geometry that you can't visualize". I said "It's not always easy to visualize the geometry". These are not the same unless "not always easy" is the same as "impossible" to you. If so, that's your problem, not anyone else's.

Can you provide an example that can be verified of the earth's shadow on the moon moving in the wrong direction?

As I recall, you made a bit of a to-do over this video of the Dec 2011 from southern NM on the other flat-earth website a while ago. Is this what you're thinking of?



Here's the data for that eclipse:

https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/OH/OHfigures/OH2011-Fig06.pdf

Of note in that page is the U2 line (second umbral contact, i.e. beginning of totality) running diagonally through New Mexico from the SW corner. Since most of southern NM is east of the U2 line, that means that the moon set while the moon was still entering the umbra in most of southern NM.

The table lists U2 as 14:06:16 UT (7:06:16 AM MST).

The US Naval Observatory Astronomical Applications department gives this data for Las Cruces in south central NM on Saturday, Dec 10, 2011 (https://aa.usno.navy.mil/rstt/onedaytable?ID=AA&year=2011&month=12&day=10&state=NM&place=Las+Cruces) (all times MST) [see note below]:

Beginning of civil twilight 6:30 AM
Sunrise 6:57 AM
Moonset 6:59 AM

Here's the meaning of "civil twilight" (and, for good measure, "nautical twilight" which precedes it in the morning)

Quote from: USNO
Civil twilight is defined to begin in the morning, and to end in the evening when the center of the Sun is geometrically 6 degrees below the horizon. This is the limit at which twilight illumination is sufficient, under good weather conditions, for terrestrial objects to be clearly distinguished; at the beginning of morning civil twilight, or end of evening civil twilight, the horizon is clearly defined and the brightest stars are visible under good atmospheric conditions in the absence of moonlight or other illumination. In the morning before the beginning of civil twilight and in the evening after the end of civil twilight, artificial illumination is normally required to carry on ordinary outdoor activities.

Nautical twilight is defined to begin in the morning, and to end in the evening, when the center of the sun is geometrically 12 degrees below the horizon. At the beginning or end of nautical twilight, under good atmospheric conditions and in the absence of other illumination, general outlines of ground objects may be distinguishable, but detailed outdoor operations are not possible. During nautical twilight the illumination level is such that the horizon is still visible even on a Moonless night allowing mariners to take reliable star sights for navigational purposes, hence the name.

Twilight, sunrise, and moonset times will vary by nearly the same amount, which depends on your location, from about 15 minutes earlier at the eastern state line to about 10 minutes later at the western state line.

The upshot is, as can bee seen in the video, the moon was moving into the umbra from west to east as it was setting in the west in the morning twilight. The umbra darkens the eastern part of the moon (the top, from the videographer's vantage point, since it was setting) while the western part of the moon (bottom) is still receiving at least some direct sunlight while deep in the penumbra. This is consistent with what the video shows and also consistent with the eclipse circumstances.

There is no evidence that the sun had risen yet at the time the dim, mostly-eclipsed moon is lost in the brightening dawn sky at the end of the video. The lack of distinct shadows suggests that the sun had not risen yet. Based on the progress of the partial eclipse and distinct horizon at the start of the video and the bright sky but lack of shadows at the end, the video shown was all shot in the morning twilight.

There is no problem here, Tom. Were you thinking of a different example? If so, let's see it!

[Note] Be advised that the USNO has announced that its website will be offline for several months starting Thursday, Oct 24 (4 days from now) so that link will not work for the duration. Even after it returns to service that link may or may not work.