Eclipses?

  • 83 Replies
  • 16054 Views
?

PinkIsCool

  • 11
  • +0/-0
Eclipses?
« on: August 28, 2007, 07:51:42 PM »
Well FE'ers... how did this morning's Lunar eclipse take place?

*

Jimmy Crackhorn

  • 545
  • +0/-0
  • Not the Physics Wiz everyone else seems to be here
Re: Eclipses?
« Reply #1 on: August 28, 2007, 07:52:16 PM »
Quick, someone get the Tom Whistle!

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • +1/-1
  • Extra Racist
Re: Eclipses?
« Reply #2 on: August 28, 2007, 08:16:45 PM »
Well FE'ers... how did this morning's Lunar eclipse take place?
Dude you don't want to know. 


A giant object moved in front of the moon.  Its called,  wait for it, the shadow object. 
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

?

Gulliver

  • 3804
  • +0/-0
Re: Eclipses?
« Reply #3 on: August 28, 2007, 08:26:32 PM »
Well FE'ers... how did this morning's Lunar eclipse take place?
Dude you don't want to know. 


A giant object moved in front of the moon.  Its called,  wait for it, the shadow object. 
It, amazingly, orbits the Moon, invisibly--expect during the eclipses. It happens to distort its shape enough to explain the reason that the eclipse looks different from different parts of the Earth too--probably a trailing lens or such.

Oh, Rowbotham uses the RE, that's right: The Round Earth theory, to predict lunar eclipses in EnaG. It's like he couldn't come up with his own answer and decided to copy off of a classmate's test.

*

CommonCents

  • 1779
  • +0/-0
  • ^_^
Re: Eclipses?
« Reply #4 on: August 28, 2007, 08:28:51 PM »
OMG!

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 26966
  • +0/-0
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Eclipses?
« Reply #5 on: August 28, 2007, 08:45:30 PM »
Well FE'ers... how did this morning's Lunar eclipse take place?
Dude you don't want to know. 


A giant object moved in front of the moon.  Its called,  wait for it, the shadow object. 
It, amazingly, orbits the Moon, invisibly--expect during the eclipses. It happens to distort its shape enough to explain the reason that the eclipse looks different from different parts of the Earth too--probably a trailing lens or such.

Oh, Rowbotham uses the RE, that's right: The Round Earth theory, to predict lunar eclipses in EnaG. It's like he couldn't come up with his own answer and decided to copy off of a classmate's test.

Do you have any evidence to support your outlandish claim?
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

?

Marinade

  • 406
  • +0/-0
  • FE is for laughing at... not with.
Re: Eclipses?
« Reply #6 on: August 28, 2007, 08:57:40 PM »
Do you have any evidence to support your outlandish claim?

Reference E:NaG.  ;D
Haha Tom is so funny. He can't be serious, no one is that stubborn or dumb.

?

WorkOverTime

  • 166
  • +0/-0
  • Emperor of The Conspiracy®
Re: Eclipses?
« Reply #7 on: August 28, 2007, 09:25:56 PM »
Well FE'ers... how did this morning's Lunar eclipse take place?

From what I've heard, the moon dematerializes in a perfect arc shape until the whole moon is gone, then it rematerializes perfectly, so it looks like the lunar eclipses described by the RE model, but it's not.
People with poor depth perception tend to go the extra mile.

Picture taken from deep space!

?

Gulliver

  • 3804
  • +0/-0
Re: Eclipses?
« Reply #8 on: August 28, 2007, 09:27:48 PM »
Well FE'ers... how did this morning's Lunar eclipse take place?

From what I've heard, the moon dematerializes in a perfect arc shape until the whole moon is gone, then it rematerializes perfectly, so it looks like the lunar eclipses described by the RE model, but it's not.
Fortunately the shadow object, lurking just behind the Moon, prevents you from seeing anything behind the Moon while it's gone.

?

roundearth4lyf

  • 43
  • +0/-0
  • The world is obviously flat, horizon = conspiracy
Re: Eclipses?
« Reply #9 on: August 29, 2007, 03:28:46 AM »
if you think the world it flat how did the moon get blocked out?
The world is obviously flat, horizon = conspiracy

*

Username

  • President of The Flat Earth Society
  • Administrator
  • 18223
  • +41/-81
  • Most Accurate Scientist Ever
Re: Eclipses?
« Reply #10 on: August 29, 2007, 05:48:06 AM »
It actually has to do with mechanism that replaces the spotlights bulb.
if you can't argue both sides, you underst!and neither

?

cyrusx99

  • 84
  • +0/-0
Re: Eclipses?
« Reply #11 on: August 29, 2007, 08:04:23 AM »
So where the heck is TomB when you need a good laugh?
I am really starting to see why no one takes Tom seriously....

*

Ulrichomega

  • 736
  • +0/-0
  • Bring it Bishop.
Re: Eclipses?
« Reply #12 on: August 29, 2007, 10:23:34 AM »
Why? We have this total and complete moron right here to laugh at. The little idiot...
I'm so tempted to put a scratch and sniff at the bottom of a pool and see what you do...

Avert your eyes, this is too awesome for them...

?

cyrusx99

  • 84
  • +0/-0
Re: Eclipses?
« Reply #13 on: August 29, 2007, 11:26:54 AM »
very true
I am really starting to see why no one takes Tom seriously....

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: Eclipses?
« Reply #14 on: August 29, 2007, 12:01:27 PM »
Well FE'ers... how did this morning's Lunar eclipse take place?

In FE there are three celestial bodies which inhabit the skies. The Sun, the Moon, and its satellite the Shadow Object.

The Shadow Object does not block out the stars because the Moon and its satellite are at an altitude higher than the stars. We can infer this by studying the accounts of astronomers who claim to have seen stars pass through the moon as if it were transparent. Both fixed stars and planetoids have been seen to glide over a considerable part of the moon's substance, as proved by the following quotations:

"On the 15th of March, when the moon was seven and a half days old, I never saw her unillumined disc so beautifully. . . . On my first looking into the telescope a star of about the 7th magnitude was some minutes of a degree distant from the moon's dark limb. I saw that its occultation by the moon was inevitable. . . . The star, instead of disappearing the moment the moon's edge came in contact with it, apparently glided on the moon's dark face, as if it had been seen through a transparent moon; or, as if a star were between me and the moon. . . . [paragraph continues] I have seen a similar apparent projection several times. . . . The cause of this phenomenon is involved in impenetrable mystery."

"Occultation of Jupiter by the moon, on the 24th of May, by Thomas Gaunt, Esq. 'I send you the following account as seen by me at Stoke Newington. The observation was made with an achromatic of 3.3 inches aperture, 50 inches focus; the immersion with a power of 50, and the emersion with a power of 70. At the immersion I could not see the dark limb of the moon until the planet appeared to touch it, and then only to the extent of the diameter of the planet; but what I was most struck with was the appearance on the moon as it passed over the planet. It appeared as though the planet was a dark object, and glided on to the moon instead of behind it; and the appearance continued until the planet was hid, when I suddenly lost the dark limb of the moon altogether.'"

"Occultation of Jupiter by the moon, May 24, observed by T. W. Burr, Esq., at Highbury. The planet's first limb disappeared at 8h. 44m. 6.7s., the second limb disappeared at 8h. 45m. 4.9s. local sidereal time, on the moon's dark limb. The planet's first limb reappeared at 9h. 55m. 48s.; the second limb reappeared at 9h. 56m. 44.7s., at the bright limb. The planet was well seen, notwithstanding the strong sunlight (4h. 34m. Greenwich mean time), but of course without any belts. The moon's dark limb could not be detected until it touched the planet, when it was seen very sharply defined and black; and as it passed the disc of Jupiter in front appeared to brighten. So that the moon's limb was preceded by a bright band of light, doubtless an effect of contrast."

"Occultation of the Pleiades, December 8, observed at the Royal Observatory, Greenwich; communicated by the Astronomer Royal. Observed by Mr. Dunkin with the alt-azimuth, the disappearance of 27 Tauri was a most singular phenomenon; the star appeared to move a considerable time along the moon's limb, and disappeared behind a prominence at the first time noted (5h. 34m.); in a few seconds it re-appeared, and finally disappeared at the second time noted (5h. 35m.)."

"Observed by Mr. Criswich, with the north equatorial, 27 Tauri was not occulted at all, though it passed so close to some of the illuminated peaks of the dark limb as hardly to be distinguished from them."

In the "Philosophical Transactions" it is stated:--

"Three persons in Norwich, and one in London, saw a star on the evening of March 7th, in the dark part of the moon, which had not then attained the first quadrature; and from the representations which are given the star must have appeared very far advanced upon the disc. On the same evening there was an occultation of Aldebaran, which Dr. Maskelyne thought a singular coincidence, but which would now be acknowledged as the cause of the phenomenon."
« Last Edit: August 29, 2007, 12:26:59 PM by Tom Bishop »

?

Agent_0042

  • 1419
  • +0/-0
Re: Eclipses?
« Reply #15 on: August 29, 2007, 12:37:03 PM »
And, once again, Tom changes the FE universe to meet his demands. ::)

Good job, Tom Bishop God.

Quote
Can the FAQ...
Yes, it can.

?

Gulliver

  • 3804
  • +0/-0
Re: Eclipses?
« Reply #16 on: August 29, 2007, 12:42:36 PM »
Well FE'ers... how did this morning's Lunar eclipse take place?

In FE there are three celestial bodies which inhabit the skies. The Sun, the Moon, and its satellite the Shadow Object.

The Shadow Object does not block out the stars because the Moon and its satellite are at an altitude higher than the stars. We can infer this by studying the accounts of astronomers who claim to have seen stars pass through the moon as if it were transparent. Both fixed stars and planetoids have been seen to glide over a considerable part of the moon's substance, as proved by the following quotations:

"On the 15th of March, when the moon was seven and a half days old, I never saw her unillumined disc so beautifully. . . . On my first looking into the telescope a star of about the 7th magnitude was some minutes of a degree distant from the moon's dark limb. I saw that its occultation by the moon was inevitable. . . . The star, instead of disappearing the moment the moon's edge came in contact with it, apparently glided on the moon's dark face, as if it had been seen through a transparent moon; or, as if a star were between me and the moon. . . . [paragraph continues] I have seen a similar apparent projection several times. . . . The cause of this phenomenon is involved in impenetrable mystery."

"Occultation of Jupiter by the moon, on the 24th of May, by Thomas Gaunt, Esq. 'I send you the following account as seen by me at Stoke Newington. The observation was made with an achromatic of 3.3 inches aperture, 50 inches focus; the immersion with a power of 50, and the emersion with a power of 70. At the immersion I could not see the dark limb of the moon until the planet appeared to touch it, and then only to the extent of the diameter of the planet; but what I was most struck with was the appearance on the moon as it passed over the planet. It appeared as though the planet was a dark object, and glided on to the moon instead of behind it; and the appearance continued until the planet was hid, when I suddenly lost the dark limb of the moon altogether.'"

"Occultation of Jupiter by the moon, May 24, observed by T. W. Burr, Esq., at Highbury. The planet's first limb disappeared at 8h. 44m. 6.7s., the second limb disappeared at 8h. 45m. 4.9s. local sidereal time, on the moon's dark limb. The planet's first limb reappeared at 9h. 55m. 48s.; the second limb reappeared at 9h. 56m. 44.7s., at the bright limb. The planet was well seen, notwithstanding the strong sunlight (4h. 34m. Greenwich mean time), but of course without any belts. The moon's dark limb could not be detected until it touched the planet, when it was seen very sharply defined and black; and as it passed the disc of Jupiter in front appeared to brighten. So that the moon's limb was preceded by a bright band of light, doubtless an effect of contrast."

"Occultation of the Pleiades, December 8, observed at the Royal Observatory, Greenwich; communicated by the Astronomer Royal. Observed by Mr. Dunkin with the alt-azimuth, the disappearance of 27 Tauri was a most singular phenomenon; the star appeared to move a considerable time along the moon's limb, and disappeared behind a prominence at the first time noted (5h. 34m.); in a few seconds it re-appeared, and finally disappeared at the second time noted (5h. 35m.)."

"Observed by Mr. Criswich, with the north equatorial, 27 Tauri was not occulted at all, though it passed so close to some of the illuminated peaks of the dark limb as hardly to be distinguished from them."

In the "Philosophical Transactions" it is stated:--

"Three persons in Norwich, and one in London, saw a star on the evening of March 7th, in the dark part of the moon, which had not then attained the first quadrature; and from the representations which are given the star must have appeared very far advanced upon the disc. On the same evening there was an occultation of Aldebaran, which Dr. Maskelyne thought a singular coincidence, but which would now be acknowledged as the cause of the phenomenon."

Balderdash!. Be a real scientist and watch the Moon occult stars for yourself--on any night the Moon and stars are visible. Rowbotham would be ashamed of you for not checking it for yourself--and that's saying something! Even your faked picture of the setting Moon shows no stars in front of the Moon. Geeesh!

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6901
  • +0/-0
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Eclipses?
« Reply #17 on: August 29, 2007, 12:47:23 PM »
Wasn't that rentacow's faked Moon?
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

?

Paradox

  • 167
  • +0/-0
Re: Eclipses?
« Reply #18 on: August 29, 2007, 12:56:42 PM »
bravo Tom. Haven't laughed that hard since I found this site ;D, so do you think that's actually true or are you just having a laugh like everyone else.

P.s. no answer means "yes, and so does my mum"
"keyboard not detected. Press any key to continue"

?

Gulliver

  • 3804
  • +0/-0
Re: Eclipses?
« Reply #19 on: August 29, 2007, 12:58:16 PM »
Wasn't that rentacow's faked Moon?
No, Rentacow did make a parody of TomB's post, however.

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6901
  • +0/-0
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Eclipses?
« Reply #20 on: August 29, 2007, 01:00:02 PM »
Ah, I remembered it as rentacow editing the Moon picture to try and prove wrong. Sadly, editing the picture didn't work at that goal.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • +1/-1
  • Extra Racist
Re: Eclipses?
« Reply #21 on: August 29, 2007, 01:14:33 PM »
Well FE'ers... how did this morning's Lunar eclipse take place?

In FE there are three celestial bodies which inhabit the skies. The Sun, the Moon, and its satellite the Shadow Object.

The Shadow Object does not block out the stars because the Moon and its satellite are at an altitude higher than the stars. We can infer this by studying the accounts of astronomers who claim to have seen stars pass through the moon as if it were transparent. Both fixed stars and planetoids have been seen to glide over a considerable part of the moon's substance, as proved by the following quotations:

"On the 15th of March, when the moon was seven and a half days old, I never saw her unillumined disc so beautifully. . . . On my first looking into the telescope a star of about the 7th magnitude was some minutes of a degree distant from the moon's dark limb. I saw that its occultation by the moon was inevitable. . . . The star, instead of disappearing the moment the moon's edge came in contact with it, apparently glided on the moon's dark face, as if it had been seen through a transparent moon; or, as if a star were between me and the moon. . . . [paragraph continues] I have seen a similar apparent projection several times. . . . The cause of this phenomenon is involved in impenetrable mystery."

"Occultation of Jupiter by the moon, on the 24th of May, by Thomas Gaunt, Esq. 'I send you the following account as seen by me at Stoke Newington. The observation was made with an achromatic of 3.3 inches aperture, 50 inches focus; the immersion with a power of 50, and the emersion with a power of 70. At the immersion I could not see the dark limb of the moon until the planet appeared to touch it, and then only to the extent of the diameter of the planet; but what I was most struck with was the appearance on the moon as it passed over the planet. It appeared as though the planet was a dark object, and glided on to the moon instead of behind it; and the appearance continued until the planet was hid, when I suddenly lost the dark limb of the moon altogether.'"

"Occultation of Jupiter by the moon, May 24, observed by T. W. Burr, Esq., at Highbury. The planet's first limb disappeared at 8h. 44m. 6.7s., the second limb disappeared at 8h. 45m. 4.9s. local sidereal time, on the moon's dark limb. The planet's first limb reappeared at 9h. 55m. 48s.; the second limb reappeared at 9h. 56m. 44.7s., at the bright limb. The planet was well seen, notwithstanding the strong sunlight (4h. 34m. Greenwich mean time), but of course without any belts. The moon's dark limb could not be detected until it touched the planet, when it was seen very sharply defined and black; and as it passed the disc of Jupiter in front appeared to brighten. So that the moon's limb was preceded by a bright band of light, doubtless an effect of contrast."

"Occultation of the Pleiades, December 8, observed at the Royal Observatory, Greenwich; communicated by the Astronomer Royal. Observed by Mr. Dunkin with the alt-azimuth, the disappearance of 27 Tauri was a most singular phenomenon; the star appeared to move a considerable time along the moon's limb, and disappeared behind a prominence at the first time noted (5h. 34m.); in a few seconds it re-appeared, and finally disappeared at the second time noted (5h. 35m.)."

"Observed by Mr. Criswich, with the north equatorial, 27 Tauri was not occulted at all, though it passed so close to some of the illuminated peaks of the dark limb as hardly to be distinguished from them."

In the "Philosophical Transactions" it is stated:--

"Three persons in Norwich, and one in London, saw a star on the evening of March 7th, in the dark part of the moon, which had not then attained the first quadrature; and from the representations which are given the star must have appeared very far advanced upon the disc. On the same evening there was an occultation of Aldebaran, which Dr. Maskelyne thought a singular coincidence, but which would now be acknowledged as the cause of the phenomenon."

Balderdash!. Be a real scientist and watch the Moon occult stars for yourself--on any night the Moon and stars are visible. Rowbotham would be ashamed of you for not checking it for yourself--and that's saying something! Even your faked picture of the setting Moon shows no stars in front of the Moon. Geeesh!
You must remember that Tom has done every experiment in there and other scientists have done them.  And that no one has ever peer reviewed ENAG and that Tom has done some of the experiments. 
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: Eclipses?
« Reply #22 on: August 29, 2007, 04:02:49 PM »
And, once again, Tom changes the FE universe to meet his demands. ::)

Did you read the FAQ?

    "The stars are about as far as San Francisco is from Boston. (3100 miles)"

Quote
You must remember that Tom has done every experiment in there and other scientists have done them.  And that no one has ever peer reviewed ENAG and that Tom has done some of the experiments.

Actually other scientists have done the experiments. You can read about their results in this list of references.

?

Agent_0042

  • 1419
  • +0/-0
Re: Eclipses?
« Reply #23 on: August 29, 2007, 04:12:04 PM »
And, once again, Tom changes the FE universe to meet his demands. ::)

Did you read the FAQ?

"The stars are about as far as San Francisco is from Boston. (3100 miles)"

Did you read the FAQ?

"The sun and moon, each 32 miles in diameter, circle Earth at a height of 3000 miles at its equator"

... the Moon and its satellite are at an altitude higher than the stars.

Cut the crap, Tom.
Quote
Can the FAQ...
Yes, it can.

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • +1/-1
  • Extra Racist
Re: Eclipses?
« Reply #24 on: August 29, 2007, 04:13:21 PM »


Quote
You must remember that Tom has done every experiment in there and other scientists have done them.  And that no one has ever peer reviewed ENAG and that Tom has done some of the experiments.

Actually other scientists have done the experiments. You can read about their results in this list of references.
I was just stating what you have said.  
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: Eclipses?
« Reply #25 on: August 29, 2007, 04:20:49 PM »
Quote
"The sun and moon, each 32 miles in diameter, circle Earth at a height of 3000 miles at its equator"

Read closer. It says that the sun and moon are at a height of 3,000 miles at the equator.

If we look at their respective analenmas we will see that the sun and moon are constantly moving up and down in altitude over the year. This is why there have been different FE reports of the sun's altitude, and why different areas of the earth receive a larger spotlight effect during the sun's winter annulus.



In FE, the sun also moves up and down over the year with a period of 6 months.. Sometimes it is over the stars, sometimes it is under the stars.
« Last Edit: August 29, 2007, 04:24:23 PM by Tom Bishop »

?

Gulliver

  • 3804
  • +0/-0
Re: Eclipses?
« Reply #26 on: August 29, 2007, 04:27:53 PM »
Quote
"The sun and moon, each 32 miles in diameter, circle Earth at a height of 3000 miles at its equator"

Read closer. It says that the sun and moon are at a height of 3,000 miles at the equator.

If we look at their respective analenmas we will see that the sun and moon are constantly moving up and down in altitude. This is why there have been different FE reports of the sun's altitude, and why different areas of the earth receive a larger spotlight effect during the sun's winter annulus.



In FE, the sun also moves up and down over the year with a period of 6 months..
No. You're confused again. You're comparing where the sun appears in the sky at the same time everyday for a year with the height of the Sun. The two aren't related. The Sun moves north and south with the seasons. The Sun rises and sets earlier and later with the seasons.

Provide any experimental proof you have that the Sun's height varies in FE.

FE can't predict the location of the Sun in the sky.

The Moon tonight will appear in the sky in front of the stars.

?

Agent_0042

  • 1419
  • +0/-0
Re: Eclipses?
« Reply #27 on: August 29, 2007, 04:29:50 PM »
Read closer. It says that the sun and moon are at a height of 3,000 miles at the equator.

If we look at their respective analenmas we will see that the sun and moon are constantly moving up and down in altitude over the year. This is why there have been different FE reports of the sun's altitude, and why different areas of the earth receive a larger spotlight effect during the sun's winter annulus.
Right so from 500mi, to 3000mi, to 500mi, to 3000mi. And now to over 3100mi. Details, details.

In FE, the sun also moves up and down over the year with a period of 6 months.. Sometimes it is over the stars, sometimes it is under the stars.
So in Tom's ideal FE, eclipses only happen in the winter. Well, theory dismissed.
Quote
Can the FAQ...
Yes, it can.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: Eclipses?
« Reply #28 on: August 29, 2007, 04:32:53 PM »
Quote
No. You're confused again. You're comparing where the sun appears in the sky at the same time everyday for a year with the height of the Sun. The two aren't related. The Sun moves north and south with the seasons. The Sun rises and sets earlier and later with the seasons.

The analemma of the sun shows its position every day at the same moment (2pm, for example) over the course of a year. Since the sun is moving up and down in the image, this tells us that the sun is either increasing or decreasing its altitude.

If it were a simple case of the sun moving north to south over the year the analemma would be level instead of at an angle.

Quote
Provide any experimental proof you have that the Sun's height varies in FE.

For experimental proof see the analemma of the sun.

Quote
The Moon tonight will appear in the sky in front of the stars.

Yep.

Quote
So in Tom's ideal FE, eclipses only happen in the winter. Well, theory dismissed.

Eclipses happen somewhere on earth about once every 18 months.
« Last Edit: August 29, 2007, 04:37:05 PM by Tom Bishop »

?

Gulliver

  • 3804
  • +0/-0
Re: Eclipses?
« Reply #29 on: August 29, 2007, 04:42:45 PM »
Quote
No. You're confused again. You're comparing where the sun appears in the sky at the same time everyday for a year with the height of the Sun. The two aren't related. The Sun moves north and south with the seasons. The Sun rises and sets earlier and later with the seasons.

The analemma of the sun shows its position every day at the same moment (2pm, for example) over the course of a year. Since the sun is moving up and down in the image, this tells us that the sun is either increasing or decreasing its altitude.

If it were a simple case of the sun moving north to south over the year the analemma would be level instead of at an angle.
Your logic is faulty. Remember you have no reason to conclude that the Sun is at the same relative spot over the Earth at the same time each day, north or south, east or west.
Quote
Quote
Provide any experimental proof you have that the Sun's height varies in FE.

For experimental proof see the analemma of the sun.
A single observation point cannot provide enough data to determine that height of the Sun throughout the year.
Quote
Quote
The Moon tonight will appear in the sky in front of the stars.

Yep.
So when will it appear behind the stars?
Quote
Quote
So in Tom's ideal FE, eclipses only happen in the winter. Well, theory dismissed.

Eclipses happen somewhere on earth about once every 18 months.
So you concede the point! TomB admits he's wrong!