The Shadow Object is a null hypothesis

This argument is raised so often, yet so easily brushed aside.

FE'ers claim that a shadow object, which sometimes obscures the moon, causes lunar eclipses.  RE'ers then ask, "Why doesn't this shadow object ever obscure the stars?"  FE'ers then respond, "Do you watch every star in the sky and see if it has ever blanked out?"

Actually, Yes.  It is estimated that there are more then 100,000 amateur astronomers in America, who spend most of their nights looking up at the sky.  And many of them are looking for exactly this kind of thing.

If a star makes a sudden change in luminosity, it is usually a prelude to a supernova, and many amateurs are engaged in the popular hobby of watching stars and comparing photographs in the hopes to catch one in the act.  It's a fair bet that if any star visible to the naked eye suddenly blinked out of existence, amateur astronomers all over the world would catch it immediately.

I know there are other mechanisms FE's propose to explain Lunar Eclipses that are not dependant on the shadow object, if you ascribe to one of them, this point is mute.  I only want to discus this fact that seems to make the shadow object a null theory.

FE'ers claim that a shadow object...

Only Tom Bishop claims that.

No, I heard this argument before Tom arrived.

I'll admit, I can't find the specific thread that raised the topic in the first place.  But I do remember it was several months ago.

Quote from: Max Fagin on February 23, 2007, 03:13:38 PM

FE'ers claim that a shadow object...

Only Tom Bishop claims that.

Others believe in it other than Tom

Quote from: Max Fagin on February 23, 2007, 03:13:38 PM

FE'ers claim that a shadow object...

Only Tom Bishop claims that.

What do non-Tom's believe to be the cause of Lunar eclipses, then?

Quote from: TheEngineer on February 23, 2007, 03:19:16 PM

Quote from: Max Fagin on February 23, 2007, 03:13:38 PM

FE'ers claim that a shadow object...

Only Tom Bishop claims that.

What do non-Tom's believe to be the cause of Lunar eclipses, then?

Magic.

If you study chapter 9 of Sir Rowbotham's expanded work, you'll find the details of how lunar eclipses work.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za29.htm#page_153
Fortunately, this information is now available online! Amazing, isn't it!

In it's simplest form, Sir Robotham's data reveals that the there are patterns in Lunar Eclipses, repeating every 19 to 20 years. It isn't known how the moon's image is actually blocked, only that there might be some kind of object in association with the moon that does this blocking.

Don't you think the NASA people should be looking for this object? Trying to find the truth? WHY are scientists so interested in war rather than finding the truth?

Don't you think the NASA people should be looking for this object? Trying to find the truth? WHY are scientists so interested in war rather than finding the truth?

But that's just my point.  Most people who watch the night sky are not proffesionals employed by NASA, but amateurs who persue astonomy as a hobby.  And yet none of them have ever caught a star suddenly being obscured by this shadow object.

Quote from: UrcaseRex on February 23, 2007, 05:12:13 PM

Don't you think the NASA people should be looking for this object? Trying to find the truth? WHY are scientists so interested in war rather than finding the truth?

But that's just my point.  Most people who watch the night sky are not proffesionals employed by NASA, but amateurs who persue astonomy as a hobby.  And yet none of them have ever caught a star suddenly being obscured by this shadow object.

That's my point as well! Who goes faster around a track, A NASCAR professional with a real race car, or amateurs driving econoboxes? What chance has some guy with a cardboard tube telescope got against a government funded super telescope? Why are NASA scientists so interested in war and not finding the truth?

Yes because it takes a super telescope to look at stars around the moon? 

Yep, if you don't work for NASA the only way of looking at the heavens is with a cardboard tube.

Exactly! They should let some of these amateurs use the government funded super telescopes, then perhaps they'll find the shadow object.

You don't need "government funded super telescopes."  In terms of mirror area, the majority of telescope power is already in the hands of amateurs.

This argument is raised so often, yet so easily brushed aside.

FE'ers claim that a shadow object, which sometimes obscures the moon, causes lunar eclipses.  RE'ers then ask, "Why doesn't this shadow object ever obscure the stars?"  FE'ers then respond, "Do you watch every star in the sky and see if it has ever blanked out?"

Actually, Yes.  It is estimated that there are more then 100,000 amateur astronomers in America, who spend most of their nights looking up at the sky.  And many of them are looking for exactly this kind of thing.

If a star makes a sudden change in luminosity, it is usually a prelude to a supernova, and many amateurs are engaged in the popular hobby of watching stars and comparing photographs in the hopes to catch one in the act.  It's a fair bet that if any star visible to the naked eye suddenly blinked out of existence, amateur astronomers all over the world would catch it immediately.

I know there are other mechanisms FE's propose to explain Lunar Eclipses that are not dependant on the shadow object, if you ascribe to one of them, this point is mute.  I only want to discus this fact that seems to make the shadow object a null theory.

And another noodle flipping reality:

The light that left those stars that X number of humans are looking at left each particular one of those aforementioned stars before they lived, and in some cases, before man walked this planet. Ergo, it really doesn't matter.

You're both saying the same, and both full of it.

From what I can gather the shadow object is some kind of knee-jerk response. Put foreward without much thought as a quick answer to the whole Earth shadow problem.

Quote from: Max Fagin on February 23, 2007, 03:13:38 PM

This argument is raised so often, yet so easily brushed aside.

FE'ers claim that a shadow object, which sometimes obscures the moon, causes lunar eclipses.  RE'ers then ask, "Why doesn't this shadow object ever obscure the stars?"  FE'ers then respond, "Do you watch every star in the sky and see if it has ever blanked out?"

Actually, Yes.  It is estimated that there are more then 100,000 amateur astronomers in America, who spend most of their nights looking up at the sky.  And many of them are looking for exactly this kind of thing.

If a star makes a sudden change in luminosity, it is usually a prelude to a supernova, and many amateurs are engaged in the popular hobby of watching stars and comparing photographs in the hopes to catch one in the act.  It's a fair bet that if any star visible to the naked eye suddenly blinked out of existence, amateur astronomers all over the world would catch it immediately.

I know there are other mechanisms FE's propose to explain Lunar Eclipses that are not dependant on the shadow object, if you ascribe to one of them, this point is mute.  I only want to discus this fact that seems to make the shadow object a null theory.

And another noodle flipping reality:

The light that left those stars that X number of humans are looking at left each particular one of those aforementioned stars before they lived, and in some cases, before man walked this planet. Ergo, it really doesn't matter.

You're both saying the same, and both full of it.

Remember that in the FE, the stars are only a few thousand miles above the Earth.

From what I can gather the shadow object is some kind of knee-jerk response. Put foreward without much thought as a quick answer to the whole Earth shadow problem.

No, the shadow object was postulated by Sir Rowbotham over 120 years ago. He was well ahead of his time, and will be proven correct!

The shadow object. Hm. Well, where should I start disassembling this one? Not one amature astronomer has ever seen it, nor has anyone ever seen it before or after any eclipse obscure any other stars. Einstein once used the sun during an eclipse to prove his gravitational theory, so that bit is out as well. (If you're not familiar, it involved the gravitational bending of starlight through the sun's massive gravitational field.... something that could well be a proof in it's own right, once I get my numbers in a row. Also to note is the area of effect on a solar/lunar eclipse. If one were to trace the path of light, as one would off of a mirror... (Not hard, given you know the two points, you're just looking for the supposed ground contact point...) and see how reflective that ground is compared to other times, and see if that triggers an eclipse... Also, it's hard to tell, from the luminosity of the moon, but the moon does obscure stars, so we know the stars are behind them. Should you figure out the FE gravity of the moon you can revise your star distances from earth accordingly.

The Shadow object is underneath the Earth when it is not obscuring the Moon. Therefore it is only visible for a short period of time.

The Shadow object is underneath the Earth when it is not obscuring the Moon. Therefore it is only visible for a short period of time.

  That's a new one.  Why?

Quote from: cheesejoff on February 24, 2007, 07:31:55 AM

The Shadow object is underneath the Earth when it is not obscuring the Moon. Therefore it is only visible for a short period of time.

  That's a new one.  Why?

Theyre just trying to patch up the holes in their "theory" with nonsense, by the end it would be something that dosent make sense in any single way.

Theyre just trying to patch up the holes in their "theory" with nonsense, by the end it would be something that dosent make sense in any single way.

And RE scientists don't do this?

The shadow obect is indeed a mysterious thing. Now it can follow the moon obscuring stars in it's path AND be on the other side of the Earth completely unaffaected by the constant acceleration of the planet.

Even if it remained behind the earth, it would be visible upon entering and leaving the path of the moon and the earth. No such object has EVER been observed in the long telescopic study of the moon.

and whoever made the point hat light from stars is being thrown millenia ago doesn't even have a bearing on the point. The light that we see right now didn't cross the area that the shadow object inhabited millenia ago, it crossed it mere seconds before it hit our eyes, and would therefore be affected by whatever it was up there in what you could call 'real-time'. So why aren't these stars tinted red too?

Has anyone documented the periodic movement of the shadow object or any of its distinct features?