« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down

Eclipses?

  • 83 Replies
  • 16053 Views
*

Max Fagin

  • 695
  • +0/-0
Re: Eclipses?
« Reply #30 on: August 29, 2007, 04:55:45 PM »
Let us assume for a moment that what Tom Bishop is saying is correct (even though it isn't.)

It is easy to show that such an orientation of celestial objects (Stars-Shadow Object-Moon) is impossible:



We know the "shadow object" does not obscure stars during a lunar eclipse.  The only object it obscures is the Moon.  The only way for this to work is for the stars to be in front of the shadow object (as Tom has established.)

But if this were the case, then we would expect to see stars in front of the moon during a lunar eclipse, not just at isolated times in the past as Tom's quotes might indicate.  We should be able to observe this phenomena every time a lunar eclipse occurs.

But this is not what happens, in fact, the exact opposite happens.  Stars can be seen to pass behind the moon during a lunar eclipse.  This observation alone demonstrates that they must be behind the Moon-Shadow Object.

I have personally observed this, it's actually kind of a challenge because the full moon is usually to bright for small telescopes to see stars in the near vicinity (unless of course, the full moon were conveniently dimmed, like during a lunar eclipse!) but you don't have to take my word for it.

The fact remains that since lunar eclipses are highly observed events, it should be possible to find thousands of reports of a star in front of the moon during a lunar eclipse.  Yet I belive many of the quotes Tom have found come from antiquity.  Stars in front of the moon should be a frequently observed event, given the fact that everyone is looking at the moon during an eclipse, yet we never hear these reports, and personal observations exist to contradict the idea.



And of course, the even more important conclusion of Tom's model is that an eclipse should occasionally occur with the stars behind the moon and shadow object.   However, when stars do pass behind the moon during a lunar eclipse, they are never observed to dim in brightness before or after contact due to the shadow object, thus demonstrating that the shadow object's very existence is contradicted by observation.



The moon cannot be behind the stars during an eclipse (or at any other time.)  Such a hypotheses does not mesh with observation.
« Last Edit: August 29, 2007, 05:03:10 PM by Max Fagin »
Logged
"The earth looks flat; therefore it is flat."
-Flat Earthers

"Triangle ABC looks isosceles; therefore . . ."
-3rd grade geometry student
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: Eclipses?
« Reply #31 on: August 29, 2007, 05:26:38 PM »
Quote
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.

The camera in an analemma shot does not move. It is stationary throughout the year, observing a single scene. The sun is the one doing the moving - drifting left and right and up and down.

Quote
A single observation point cannot provide enough data to determine that height of the Sun throughout the year.

Every analemma shot shows the sun moving up and down throughout the year.

Quote
We know the "shadow object" does not obscure stars during a lunar eclipse.  The only object it obscures is the Moon.  The only way for this to work is for the stars to be in front of the shadow object (as Tom has established.)

Why would stars around the moon disappear during a lunar eclipse? The Shadow Object is passing between the moon and sun, not the moon and earth.

Quote
But if this were the case, then we would expect to see stars in front of the moon during a lunar eclipse, not just at isolated times in the past as Tom's quotes might indicate.  We should be able to observe this phenomena every time a lunar eclipse occurs.

The "transparent moon" effect is a widely known astronomical curiosity. Thousands of people have seen stars float in front of the moon.

Quote
But this is not what happens, in fact, the exact opposite happens.  Stars can be seen to pass behind the moon during a lunar eclipse.  This observation alone demonstrates that they must be behind the Moon-Shadow Object.

Some stars might pass behind the moon depending on the altitude of the star and time of the year.

Quote
Stars in front of the moon should be a frequently observed event, given the fact that everyone is looking at the moon during an eclipse, yet we never hear these reports, and personal observations exist to contradict the idea.

It is a frequently observed event. Look at any decent astronomical discrepancy book for further observer reports.

Quote
The moon cannot be behind the stars during an eclipse (or at any other time.)  Such a hypotheses does not mesh with observation.

Observations show that stars pass in front of the moon. How does Round Earth Theory explain those observations?
« Last Edit: August 29, 2007, 05:29:58 PM by Tom Bishop »
Logged
*

Max Fagin

  • 695
  • +0/-0
Re: Eclipses?
« Reply #32 on: August 29, 2007, 05:38:41 PM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 29, 2007, 05:26:38 PM
Quote
I have personally observed this, it's actually kind of a challenge because the full moon is usually to bright for small telescopes to see stars in the near vicinity (unless of course, the full moon were conveniently dimmed, like during a lunar eclipse!) but you don't have to take my word for it.

Well there you go, you've admitted that stars are too dimmed by the brightness of the moon to determine whether or not they've been obscured.

Unless the moon is conveniently in the middle of a lunar eclipse.  In which case occultations of stars are a very easy thing to see.  Read what I said more carefully.


Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 29, 2007, 05:26:38 PM
Quote
Stars in front of the moon should be a frequently observed event, given the fact that everyone is looking at the moon during an eclipse, yet we never hear these reports, and personal observations exist to contradict the idea.

Yep, it's a frequently observed event. I've just shown you quotes showing so. How does Round Earth Theory explain those observations?

I would call these quotes to be either erroneous or fabricated.  However, it is very easy to check.

Could you please provide the quotes with a year, so that they can be check for astronomical accuracy?
« Last Edit: August 29, 2007, 05:40:13 PM by Max Fagin »
Logged
"The earth looks flat; therefore it is flat."
-Flat Earthers

"Triangle ABC looks isosceles; therefore . . ."
-3rd grade geometry student
?

Gulliver

  • 3804
  • +0/-0
Re: Eclipses?
« Reply #33 on: August 29, 2007, 05:44:09 PM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 29, 2007, 05:26:38 PM
Quote
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.

The camera in an analemma shot does not move. It is stationary throughout the year, observing a single scene. The sun is the one doing the moving - drifting left and right and up and down.
You avoid the argument. It is not a single scene! It's many. Sure, the Sun is moving, but you don't have any reason to conclude that it's changed in height.
Quote
Quote
A single observation point cannot provide enough data to determine that height of the Sun throughout the year.

Every analemma shot shows the sun moving up and down throughout the year.
The shot is taken from one observation point. One observation point cannot provide enough data to determine the height of the Sun.
Quote
Quote
We know the "shadow object" does not obscure stars during a lunar eclipse.  The only object it obscures is the Moon.  The only way for this to work is for the stars to be in front of the shadow object (as Tom has established.)

Why would stars around the moon disappear during a lunar eclipse? The Shadow Object is passing between the moon and sun, not the moon and earth.
That make sense only if the Moon does not shine by its own "cold light". If you're giving up on Rowbothaw's claim that the Moon shines by its own light, please let me know.
Quote
Quote
But if this were the case, then we would expect to see stars in front of the moon during a lunar eclipse, not just at isolated times in the past as Tom's quotes might indicate.  We should be able to observe this phenomena every time a lunar eclipse occurs.

The "transparent moon" effect is a widely known astronomical curiosity. Thousands of people have seen stars float in front of the moon.
No. Provide photographic, scientific evidence. Predict when the Moon will next appear behind any star.
Quote
Quote
But this is not what happens, in fact, the exact opposite happens.  Stars can be seen to pass behind the moon during a lunar eclipse.  This observation alone demonstrates that they must be behind the Moon-Shadow Object.

Some stars might pass behind the moon depending on the altitude of the star and time of the year.
Again predict when any star will appear in front of the Moon.
Quote
Quote
Stars in front of the moon should be a frequently observed event, given the fact that everyone is looking at the moon during an eclipse, yet we never hear these reports, and personal observations exist to contradict the idea.

It is a frequently observed event. Look at any decent astronomical discrepancy book for further observer reports.
No. Provide any scientific, photographic data. Predict the next occurrence.
Quote
Quote
The moon cannot be behind the stars during an eclipse (or at any other time.)  Such a hypotheses does not mesh with observation.

Observations show that stars pass in front of the moon. How does Round Earth Theory explain those observations?
RE calls you and your associates out as a liars, again.
Logged
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: Eclipses?
« Reply #34 on: August 29, 2007, 08:30:16 PM »
Quote
I would call these quotes to be either erroneous or fabricated.  However, it is very easy to check.

Could you please provide the quotes with a year, so that they can be check for astronomical accuracy?

I'm getting my information from a book entitled "Mysterious Universe: A Handbook of Astronomical Anomalies" by William R. Coriliss. Here are a couple more references to the occultation anomalies of the Moon:

OPTICAL ILLUSION DURING THE OCCULTATION OF MARS
Thackeray, A. D.; British Astronomical Association, Journal, 48:126-127, 1938

I have received the following observation of the recent occultation of Mars from Colonel C. B. Thackeray, which may be of interest to members of the Association:

"On July 17, while walking down the King's Road, Chelsea, with two others (unaware of the predicted occultation of Mars), we saw the Moon above the house-tops, with a planet in close proximity. We walked to the Embankment, to get a clear view, and watched it for some time with the naked eye. It was evident that an occultation was about to take place. But instead of disappearing at the dark limb of the Moon, the planet appeared to enter the dark field of the Moon's surface and to continue to travel across it, until it vanished on reaching the illuminated age of the Moon. We discussed this mysterious phenomenon as it occurred. It lasted several minutes. We could only account for it by some optical illusion, which we presumed would be a matter of common knowledge and frequent occurrence, to be easily explained by astronomers. Is this a common phenomenon, and how is it accounted for?  There is no doubt whatever about the apparent optical effect produced. It was obvious to the three of us, and it would have no doubt been corroborated by any others witnessing the occultation at the same time from the same place."

I have also heard of two other observations of the same optical illusion. Dr. A. Beer, at Cambridge, observing with the naked eye, noticed it when a telescopic observer could see that the occultation had not begun to take place.

THE PROJECTION OF A STAR UPON THE MOON'S BRIGHT LIMB
Waterfield, R.L.; British Astronomical Association, Journal, 33:250-255, 1923

The occultation of Alderbaran on 1922 November 6 was observed with a 3-1/4-inch retractor x 200 under the most favorable conditions of seeing and transparency. I had expected to see the star disappear at the instant at which its spurious system was precisely bisected by the Moon's limb. Instead, however, the star appeared to pass completely on to the Moon's surface and only disappeared when its first diffraction ring was completely within and, as far as I could judge, just past the internal contact with the bright limb. The disappearance took place instantaneously without any previous diminution in brightness. Immediately afterwards the focus was re-examined on the moon's limb and found to be perfect. Since the radius of the first diffraction ring in a 3-1/4-inch telescope is 1".1, the projection observed was probably about 1".2 on the celestial sphere, or, after being  magnified x200, 4'.0 at the eye. It is interesting to note that the Rev. T. E. R. Phillips observing with a 12-1/4-inch reflector also, at the occultation, observed a projection of the spurious disk and the first diffraction ring.
« Last Edit: August 29, 2007, 08:38:00 PM by Tom Bishop »
Logged
?

Gulliver

  • 3804
  • +0/-0
Re: Eclipses?
« Reply #35 on: August 29, 2007, 08:37:32 PM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 29, 2007, 08:30:16 PM
Quote
I would call these quotes to be either erroneous or fabricated.  However, it is very easy to check.

Could you please provide the quotes with a year, so that they can be check for astronomical accuracy?

I'm getting my information from a book entitled "Mysterious Universe: A Handbook of Astronomical Anomalies" by William R. Coriliss. Here are some additional references to the occultation anomalies of the Moon:

OPTICAL ILLUSION DURING THE OCCULTATION OF MARS
Thackeray, A. D.; British Astronomical Association, Journal, 48:126-127, 1938

I have received the following observation of the recent occultation of Mars from Colonel C. B. Thackeray, which may be of interest to members of the Association:

"On July 17, while walking down the King's Road, Chelsea, with two others (unaware of the predicted occultation of Mars), we saw the Moon above the house-tops, with a planet in close proximity. We walked to the Embankment, to get a clear view, and watched it for some time with the naked eye. It was evident that an occultation was about to take place. But instead of disappearing at the dark limb of the Moon, the planet appeared to ender the dark field of the Moon's surface and to continue to travel across it, until it vanished on reaching the illuminated age of the Moon. We discussed this mysterious phenomenon as it occurred. It lasted several minutes. We could only account for it by some optical illusion, which we presumed would be a matter of common knowledge and frequent occurrence, to be easily explained by astronomers. Is this a common phenomenon, and how is it accounted for?  There is no doubt whatever about the apparent optical effect produced. It was obvious to the three of us, and I have no doubt would have been corroborated by any others witnessing the occultation at the same time from the same place."

I have also heard of two other observations of the same optical illusion. Dr. A. Beer, at Cambridge, observing with the naked eye, noticed it when a telescopic observer could see that the occultation had not begun to take place.

THE PROJECTION OF A STAR UPON THE MOON'S BRIGHT LIMB
Waterfield, R.L.; British Astronomical Association, Journal, 33:250-255, 1923

Part I. The Observation. The occultation of Alderbaran on 1922 November 6 was observed with a 3-1/4-inch retractor x 200 under the most favorable conditions of seeing and transparency. I had expected to see the star disappear at the instant at which its spurious system was precisely bisected by the Moon's limb. Instead, however, the star appeared to pass completely on to the Moon's surface and only disappeared when its first diffraction ring was completely within and, as far as I could judge, just past the internal contact with the bright limb. The disappearance took place instantaneously without any previous diminution in brightness. Immediately afterwards the focus was re-examined on the moon's limb and found to be perfect. Since the radius of the first diffraction ring in a 3-1/4-inch telescope is 1".1, the projection observed was probably about 1".2 on the celestial sphere, or, after being  magnified x200, 4'.) at the eye. It is interesting to note that the Rev. T. E. R. Phillips observing with a 12-1/4-inch reflector also, at the occultation, observed a projection of the spurious disk and the first diffraction ring.
These are reported optical illusions! They are dated. Again, predict the next time we can see a star pass in front of the Moon.
Logged
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: Eclipses?
« Reply #36 on: August 29, 2007, 08:42:11 PM »
Quote
These are reported optical illusions!

While you RE'ers go on screaming "optical illusion", FE takes the common sense stance of the observable and concludes that the stars simply passed in front of the moon.

Quote
Again, predict the next time we can see a star pass in front of the Moon.

Easy. Simply study the analemma of the moon. When the moon is at its highest altitude you will see stars pass in front of the moon.
« Last Edit: August 29, 2007, 08:49:41 PM by Tom Bishop »
Logged
*

Midnight

  • 7669
  • +0/-0
  • RE/FE Apathetic.
Re: Eclipses?
« Reply #37 on: August 29, 2007, 08:46:12 PM »
The vast majority of Tom's posts originate from Random verbosity generators off the web. Someone posted a thread about this a while back, but it is easy to ascertain his bookmarked choices. The man is not educated, not certified in a Science, and has no purpose but to spin insanity and chaos. He simply generates a response based on keywords from a post he chooses to respond to.
Logged
Quote from: Raist on September 06, 2010, 07:48:56 PM
My problem with his ideas is that it is a ridiculous thing.

Genius. PURE, undiluted genius.
?

Gulliver

  • 3804
  • +0/-0
Re: Eclipses?
« Reply #38 on: August 29, 2007, 08:47:02 PM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 29, 2007, 08:42:11 PM
Quote
These are reported optical illusions!

While you RE'ers scream "optical illusion", FE takes the common sense stance that a star simply passed in front of the moon.
No, the article said "optical illusion". No, that is not common sense. Do try to wake up.
Quote
Quote
Again, predict the next time we can see a star pass in front of the Moon.

Easy. Simply study the analemma of the moon. When the moon is in its lowest altitude you will see stars pass in front of the moon.
That's not a prediction! When? Gee, your model can't predict sunrise and can't predict this effect you claim. It must be a really useless theory.
Logged
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: Eclipses?
« Reply #39 on: August 29, 2007, 09:52:19 PM »
Quote
No. Provide any scientific, photographic data. Predict the next occurrence.

Photographic data from an Astronomy Picture of the Day shot: ftp://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/ESC_large_ISS013_ISS013-E-54329.JPG

Prediction of next occurrence: When the moon rises to its highest altitude.
Logged
*

Midnight

  • 7669
  • +0/-0
  • RE/FE Apathetic.
Re: Eclipses?
« Reply #40 on: August 29, 2007, 09:54:48 PM »
Quote from: Midnight on August 29, 2007, 08:46:12 PM
The vast majority of Tom's posts originate from Random verbosity generators off the web. Someone posted a thread about this a while back, but it is easy to ascertain his bookmarked choices. The man is not educated, not certified in a Science, and has no purpose but to spin insanity and chaos. He simply generates a response based on keywords from a post he chooses to respond to.
Logged
Quote from: Raist on September 06, 2010, 07:48:56 PM
My problem with his ideas is that it is a ridiculous thing.

Genius. PURE, undiluted genius.
?

Gulliver

  • 3804
  • +0/-0
Re: Eclipses?
« Reply #41 on: August 29, 2007, 10:00:53 PM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 29, 2007, 09:52:19 PM
Quote
No. Provide any scientific, photographic data. Predict the next occurrence.

Photographic data from an Astronomy Picture of the Day shot: ftp://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/ESC_large_ISS013_ISS013-E-54329.JPG
That's a nice picture from ISS showing the curvature of the Earth. Thanks. I guess you concede that the ISS exists and that the Earth is round.

You still fail to provide scientific, photographic evidence of your claim.
Quote
Prediction of next occurrence: When the moon rises to its highest altitude.
When? Date, time, longitude, latitude. That's the data for a prediction. Do pay attention.
Logged
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: Eclipses?
« Reply #42 on: August 29, 2007, 10:08:11 PM »
Quote
That's a nice picture from ISS showing the curvature of the Earth. Thanks. I guess you concede that the ISS exists and that the Earth is round.

The ISS exists in Flat Earth Theory. All ISS images depict a Flat Earth. Any apparent curvature is a result of looking down at a circle.

This ISS image in particular depicts a star sitting in front of the moon. How does Round Earth Theory explain that?

Quote
When? Date, time, longitude, latitude. That's the data for a prediction. Do pay attention.

The analemma of the moon indicates that it is at its highest altitude during its northern annulus. So feel free to observe the moon then.
« Last Edit: August 29, 2007, 10:16:16 PM by Tom Bishop »
Logged
?

Gulliver

  • 3804
  • +0/-0
Re: Eclipses?
« Reply #43 on: August 29, 2007, 10:17:33 PM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 29, 2007, 10:08:11 PM
Quote
That's a nice picture from ISS showing the curvature of the Earth. Thanks. I guess you concede that the ISS exists and that the Earth is round.

The ISS exists in Flat Earth Theory. However, the ISS does not orbit the earth. Orbit is impossible in Flat Earth Theory.

The ISS image clearly depicts a Flat Earth.
So what does that have to do with providing evidence for your claim? Nothing.
Would you care to tell us how ISS took that picture so far above the atmosphere? It wasn't with its dangling lens was it? There's no flat earth in that picture. But it does demonstrate the height of the photographic platform, much to the chagrin of FE.
Quote
Quote
When? Date, time, longitude, latitude. That's the data for a prediction. Do pay attention.

The analemma of the moon indicates that it is at its highest when it is in its northern annulus. So feel free to observe the moon then.
Nope. Still no prediction. Thanks for documenting your failure.
« Last Edit: August 29, 2007, 10:25:15 PM by Gulliver »
Logged
*

SkyDiver

  • 38
  • +0/-0
Re: Eclipses?
« Reply #44 on: August 29, 2007, 10:18:46 PM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 29, 2007, 08:42:11 PM

While you RE'ers go on screaming "optical illusion", FE takes the common sense stance of the observable and concludes that the stars simply passed in front of the moon.



common sense stance?  so "if" stars are passing in front of the moon, by common sense this would mean the moon is like 40 gazillion times larger then the stars...

Regardless of the distance.  Furthermore, if that were the case and the moon was that size its gravitational pull on Earth would be so immense we would be sucked into a collision.  Most of this entire FE theory can be explained with basic 5th grade physics.   
Logged
Try not to get dizzy as you spin in circles trying to explain a theory that is based on complete stupidity and ZERO FACTS.
*

SkyDiver

  • 38
  • +0/-0
Re: Eclipses?
« Reply #45 on: August 29, 2007, 10:20:20 PM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 29, 2007, 09:52:19 PM
Quote
No. Provide any scientific, photographic data. Predict the next occurrence.

Photographic data from an Astronomy Picture of the Day shot: ftp://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/ESC_large_ISS013_ISS013-E-54329.JPG

Prediction of next occurrence: When the moon rises to its highest altitude.

1st of all, how do you know that isn't an airplane?
Logged
Try not to get dizzy as you spin in circles trying to explain a theory that is based on complete stupidity and ZERO FACTS.
*

Jimmy Crackhorn

  • 545
  • +0/-0
  • Not the Physics Wiz everyone else seems to be here
Re: Eclipses?
« Reply #46 on: August 29, 2007, 10:21:29 PM »
5th Grade Physics? Sadly, no.
Unless you can provide math of the moon's gravitational pull on an FE, please do not post hypothetical suggestions.
Logged
*

SkyDiver

  • 38
  • +0/-0
Re: Eclipses?
« Reply #47 on: August 29, 2007, 10:24:03 PM »
Quote from: Jimmy Crackhorn on August 29, 2007, 10:21:29 PM
5th Grade Physics? Sadly, no.
Unless you can provide math of the moon's gravitational pull on an FE, please do not post hypothetical suggestions.

I substitute your reality and will use my own...pfffftttt

How about you explain the concept of triangulation, and why they need 3 separate satellites to send a signal across the Planet?

If the earth was flat, you'd only need 1.
Logged
Try not to get dizzy as you spin in circles trying to explain a theory that is based on complete stupidity and ZERO FACTS.
*

Jimmy Crackhorn

  • 545
  • +0/-0
  • Not the Physics Wiz everyone else seems to be here
Re: Eclipses?
« Reply #48 on: August 29, 2007, 10:25:27 PM »
Quote from: SkyDiver on August 29, 2007, 10:24:03 PM
Quote from: Jimmy Crackhorn on August 29, 2007, 10:21:29 PM
5th Grade Physics? Sadly, no.
Unless you can provide math of the moon's gravitational pull on an FE, please do not post hypothetical suggestions.

I substitute your reality and will use my own...pfffftttt

How about you explain the concept of triangulation, and why they need 3 separate satellites to send a signal across the Planet?

If the earth was flat, you'd only need 1.
FE does not have satallites.
Logged
*

Max Fagin

  • 695
  • +0/-0
Re: Eclipses?
« Reply #49 on: August 30, 2007, 05:36:50 AM »
Okay, I've checked the two events that Tom gave exact dates for:

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 29, 2007, 08:30:16 PM
OPTICAL ILLUSION DURING THE OCCULTATION OF MARS
Thackeray, A. D.; British Astronomical Association, Journal, 48:126-127, 1938

I have received the following observation of the recent occultation of Mars from Colonel C. B. Thackeray, which may be of interest to members of the Association:

"On July 17, while walking down the King's Road, Chelsea, with two others (unaware of the predicted occultation of Mars), we saw the Moon above the house-tops, with a planet in close proximity. We walked to the Embankment, to get a clear view, and watched it for some time with the naked eye. It was evident that an occultation was about to take place. But instead of disappearing at the dark limb of the Moon, the planet appeared to enter the dark field of the Moon's surface and to continue to travel across it, until it vanished on reaching the illuminated age of the Moon. We discussed this mysterious phenomenon as it occurred. It lasted several minutes. We could only account for it by some optical illusion, which we presumed would be a matter of common knowledge and frequent occurrence, to be easily explained by astronomers. Is this a common phenomenon, and how is it accounted for?  There is no doubt whatever about the apparent optical effect produced. It was obvious to the three of us, and it would have no doubt been corroborated by any others witnessing the occultation at the same time from the same place."

I have also heard of two other observations of the same optical illusion. Dr. A. Beer, at Cambridge, observing with the naked eye, noticed it when a telescopic observer could see that the occultation had not begun to take place.
 

There was no occultation of Mars on July 17th, 1938, or at any time in the preceding or following year.  Indeed, the Moon and Mars were not even close to each other in the sky when this event supposedly took place.  It is possible that the two observers saw a terrestrial object (aircraft) pass in front of the moon, but given the low amount of commercial traffic in 1938, it is much more likely that this report is a forgery.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 29, 2007, 08:30:16 PM
OPTICAL ILLUSION DURING THE OCCULTATION OF MARS THE PROJECTION OF A STAR UPON THE MOON'S BRIGHT LIMB
Waterfield, R.L.; British Astronomical Association, Journal, 33:250-255, 1923

The occultation of Alderbaran on 1922 November 6 was observed with a 3-1/4-inch retractor x 200 under the most favorable conditions of seeing and transparency. I had expected to see the star disappear at the instant at which its spurious system was precisely bisected by the Moon's limb. Instead, however, the star appeared to pass completely on to the Moon's surface and only disappeared when its first diffraction ring was completely within and, as far as I could judge, just past the internal contact with the bright limb. The disappearance took place instantaneously without any previous diminution in brightness. Immediately afterwards the focus was re-examined on the moon's limb and found to be perfect. Since the radius of the first diffraction ring in a 3-1/4-inch telescope is 1".1, the projection observed was probably about 1".2 on the celestial sphere, or, after being  magnified x200, 4'.0 at the eye. It is interesting to note that the Rev. T. E. R. Phillips observing with a 12-1/4-inch reflector also, at the occultation, observed a projection of the spurious disk and the first diffraction ring.

This account appears to be genuine.  There was an occultation of Alderbaran in November 1922, and it was visible from England.

But this account offers no support to the idea that the moon circles at an altitude higher then the stars.  Indeed, since the star passed onto the moon's disk, and then promptly vanished, it would seem to indicate that stars can pass through the moon, which I think both FE'ers and RE'ers can agree is ridiculous.  But I wouldn't advance such an explanation seriously, as there is a much more plausible alternative.

The fact that the observer was using diffraction rings for reference makes me suspicious.  Diffraction rings are an artifact of low quality optics, and astronomers NEVER use them for reference points, because they change from telescope to telescope.  This makes me think that the observer was not a trained astronomer, and that he/she was using a low quality telescope and simply misreported the event.



Could you provide years for the accounts of lunar transits in your first post on this topic?
« Last Edit: August 30, 2007, 05:39:19 AM by Max Fagin »
Logged
"The earth looks flat; therefore it is flat."
-Flat Earthers

"Triangle ABC looks isosceles; therefore . . ."
-3rd grade geometry student
*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • +1/-1
  • Extra Racist
Re: Eclipses?
« Reply #50 on: August 30, 2007, 08:43:34 AM »
Quote from: SkyDiver on August 29, 2007, 10:20:20 PM
Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 29, 2007, 09:52:19 PM
Quote
No. Provide any scientific, photographic data. Predict the next occurrence.

Photographic data from an Astronomy Picture of the Day shot: ftp://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/ESC_large_ISS013_ISS013-E-54329.JPG

Prediction of next occurrence: When the moon rises to its highest altitude.

1st of all, how do you know that isn't an airplane?
Personally I thought that was a known photoshopped picture.  And its not from the ISS. 

Edit: Apparently it is
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=17542
« Last Edit: August 30, 2007, 08:51:20 AM by sokarul »
Logged
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Quote from: Shifter on July 05, 2020, 09:53:30 AM
It's no slur if it's fact.
?

Gulliver

  • 3804
  • +0/-0
Re: Eclipses?
« Reply #51 on: August 30, 2007, 09:49:58 AM »
Quote from: sokarul on August 30, 2007, 08:43:34 AM
Quote from: SkyDiver on August 29, 2007, 10:20:20 PM
Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 29, 2007, 09:52:19 PM
Quote
No. Provide any scientific, photographic data. Predict the next occurrence.

Photographic data from an Astronomy Picture of the Day shot: ftp://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/ESC_large_ISS013_ISS013-E-54329.JPG

Prediction of next occurrence: When the moon rises to its highest altitude.

1st of all, how do you know that isn't an airplane?
Personally I thought that was a known photoshopped picture.  And its not from the ISS. 

Edit: Apparently it is
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=17542
Good work.
Logged
*

Max Fagin

  • 695
  • +0/-0
Re: Eclipses?
« Reply #52 on: August 30, 2007, 09:58:03 AM »
Quote from: Gulliver on August 30, 2007, 09:49:58 AM
Quote from: sokarul on August 30, 2007, 08:43:34 AM
Quote from: SkyDiver on August 29, 2007, 10:20:20 PM
Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 29, 2007, 09:52:19 PM
Quote
No. Provide any scientific, photographic data. Predict the next occurrence.

Photographic data from an Astronomy Picture of the Day shot: ftp://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/ESC_large_ISS013_ISS013-E-54329.JPG

Prediction of next occurrence: When the moon rises to its highest altitude.

1st of all, how do you know that isn't an airplane?
Personally I thought that was a known photoshopped picture.  And its not from the ISS. 

Edit: Apparently it is
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=17542
Good work.

Careful.  Click on that link and follow through to the full rez version.  That white pixel is still infront of the moon.

Mind you, this doesn't prove that it is a star, but it does show that the image is probably not a fake.
« Last Edit: August 30, 2007, 10:05:24 AM by Max Fagin »
Logged
"The earth looks flat; therefore it is flat."
-Flat Earthers

"Triangle ABC looks isosceles; therefore . . ."
-3rd grade geometry student
?

cyrusx99

  • 84
  • +0/-0
Re: Eclipses?
« Reply #53 on: August 30, 2007, 11:45:06 AM »
wow it has been too long since I've checked on this thread and i have seriously got to say that Tom has to be the most retarded person on the planet.
Logged
Quote from: cyrusx99 on August 22, 2007, 09:58:43 AM
I am really starting to see why no one takes Tom seriously....
?

Gulliver

  • 3804
  • +0/-0
Re: Eclipses?
« Reply #54 on: August 30, 2007, 12:28:18 PM »
Quote from: Max Fagin on August 30, 2007, 09:58:03 AM
Quote from: Gulliver on August 30, 2007, 09:49:58 AM
Quote from: sokarul on August 30, 2007, 08:43:34 AM
Quote from: SkyDiver on August 29, 2007, 10:20:20 PM
Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 29, 2007, 09:52:19 PM
Quote
No. Provide any scientific, photographic data. Predict the next occurrence.

Photographic data from an Astronomy Picture of the Day shot: ftp://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/ESC_large_ISS013_ISS013-E-54329.JPG

Prediction of next occurrence: When the moon rises to its highest altitude.
Oh, I didn't even realize that TomB was trying to claim that pixel as a star. We know it isn't by its brightness, of course--along with a dozen other reasons. I never considered TomB to be that lame. I guess I overestimated him--again.

1st of all, how do you know that isn't an airplane?
Personally I thought that was a known photoshopped picture.  And its not from the ISS. 

Edit: Apparently it is
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=17542
Good work.

Careful.  Click on that link and follow through to the full rez version.  That white pixel is still infront of the moon.

Mind you, this doesn't prove that it is a star, but it does show that the image is probably not a fake.
Logged
*

Ulrichomega

  • 736
  • +0/-0
  • Bring it Bishop.
Re: Eclipses?
« Reply #55 on: August 30, 2007, 01:07:23 PM »
Quote from: cyrusx99 on August 30, 2007, 11:45:06 AM
wow it has been too long since I've checked on this thread and i have seriously got to say that Tom has to be the most retarded person on the planet.

It took you this long? He's been changing everything about his theory constantly since even I was here. Every new thread gets a new theory as to what happens.

This one, however, is the stupidest. The Moon changes altitude? He's a moron.
Logged
Quote from: Hara Taiki on August 02, 2007, 10:40:31 AM
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...
*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • +1/-1
  • Extra Racist
Re: Eclipses?
« Reply #56 on: August 30, 2007, 03:38:39 PM »
Sorry my edit was crappy.  I meant that the pic is real and apparently from the ISS.  Not that "apparently it is photoshopped and not from the ISS". 


Anyways the picture does not prove toms point. 
Stars would be able to hit the moon, this has never happened.
For a star to get in front of the moon as seen from earth would require, in the fe, to orbit faster around the hub.  This violates their theory. 

Its simply an optical illusion.  Millions of both professional astronomers and backyard astronomers cannot make such a giant mistake.  Thinking a star is thousands of lightyears away when its only 3000 miles is just not possible.     
Logged
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Quote from: Shifter on July 05, 2020, 09:53:30 AM
It's no slur if it's fact.
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: Eclipses?
« Reply #57 on: August 30, 2007, 06:19:27 PM »
Quote
common sense stance?  so "if" stars are passing in front of the moon, by common sense this would mean the moon is like 40 gazillion times larger then the stars...

Actually the moon is only about 30 miles in diameter, and the stars are even tinier.

Quote
There was no occultation of Mars on July 17th, 1938, or at any time in the preceding or following year.  Indeed, the Moon and Mars were not even close to each other in the sky when this event supposedly took place.  It is possible that the two observers saw a terrestrial object (aircraft) pass in front of the moon, but given the low amount of commercial traffic in 1938, it is much more likely that this report is a forgery.

The data comes directly from an Astronomer of the British Astronomical Association. I'm pretty sure that he of all people would know what Mars looked like. If your computer simulation says that Mars and the Moon shouldn't have been close on that date, it only demonstrates the impreciseness of RE astronomy simulations.

Quote
But this account offers no support to the idea that the moon circles at an altitude higher then the stars.  Indeed, since the star passed onto the moon's disk, and then promptly vanished, it would seem to indicate that stars can pass through the moon, which I think both FE'ers and RE'ers can agree is ridiculous.

The star passed onto the moon's shadowed limb and then seemed to vanish when it passed over the lit part. This is probably due to the brightness of the moon washing out the star. You yourself have commented that stars near the moon are difficult to observe during a full moon.

Quote
But I wouldn't advance such an explanation seriously, as there is a much more plausible alternative.

What plausible alternative? That it was some sort of optical illusion? That the moon is transparent? That there were a series of flares splinting across the moon which simulated a star transit the moment the moon occulted a background star?

Nope. The moon simply passed in front of a star.

Quote
Stars would be able to hit the moon, this has never happened.

What do you think all of those craters on the moon are from?

Quote
Its simply an optical illusion.  Millions of both professional astronomers and backyard astronomers cannot make such a giant mistake.  Thinking a star is thousands of lightyears away when its only 3000 miles is just not possible.


And just how can we tell, from our own back yards, how far away the stars are?
« Last Edit: August 30, 2007, 07:09:51 PM by Tom Bishop »
Logged
?

Marinade

  • 406
  • +0/-0
  • FE is for laughing at... not with.
Re: Eclipses?
« Reply #58 on: August 30, 2007, 06:43:29 PM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 30, 2007, 06:19:27 PM

Quote
There was no occultation of Mars on July 17th, 1938, or at any time in the preceding or following year.  Indeed, the Moon and Mars were not even close to each other in the sky when this event supposedly took place.  It is possible that the two observers saw a terrestrial object (aircraft) pass in front of the moon, but given the low amount of commercial traffic in 1938, it is much more likely that this report is a forgery.

The data comes directly from an Astronomer of the British Astronomical Association. I'm pretty sure that he of all people would know what Mars looked like. If your computer simulation says that Mars and the Moon shouldn't have been close on that date, it only demonstrates the impreciseness of RE astronomy simulations.

So you'll accept an unverifiable source, but ignore the predictions of a model that have been right on everything else? I guess that's why Tom's reasoning seems to sound.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 30, 2007, 06:19:27 PM
Quote
But this account offers no support to the idea that the moon circles at an altitude higher then the stars.  Indeed, since the star passed onto the moon's disk, and then promptly vanished, it would seem to indicate that stars can pass through the moon, which I think both FE'ers and RE'ers can agree is ridiculous.

The star passed onto the moon's shadowed limb and then seemed to vanish when it hit the lit part. This is probably due to the brightness of the moon washing out the star. You yourself have commented that stars near the moon are difficult to observe during a full moon.

Are you still going to ignore that if this were the case we more than likely should have seen a star hit the moon? What about that it would require the moon and stars to orbit the hub at different speeds, which would throw off the specific gravitational vectors holding things in place?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 30, 2007, 06:19:27 PM
Quote
But I wouldn't advance such an explanation seriously, as there is a much more plausible alternative.

What plausible alternative? That it was some sort of optical illusion? That the moon is transparent? That there were a series of flares splinting across the moon which simulated a star transit the moment the moon occulted a background star?

Nope. The moon simply passed in front of a star.

Cause that's hard to observe.  ::)

Actually from your picture optical illusion does seem much more plausible to me. Especially considering the number of problems you're model comes across when dealing with stars not hitting the moon and differences in rotational speeds.

Though I do believe midnight is right, your random text generated responses are so very easy to respond to; yet, you will never stop them because that would be not fun anymore would it?
Logged
Haha Tom is so funny. He can't be serious, no one is that stubborn or dumb.
?

Gulliver

  • 3804
  • +0/-0
Re: Eclipses?
« Reply #59 on: August 30, 2007, 06:56:26 PM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 30, 2007, 06:19:27 PM
...
The data comes directly from an Astronomer of the British Astronomical Association. I'm pretty sure that he of all people would know what Mars looked like. If your computer simulation says that Mars and the Moon shouldn't have been close on that date, it only demonstrates the impreciseness of RE astronomy simulations.
...
No, we don't believe you without a reference.

Oh, and we're still waiting on your prediction for the next time a time will pass in front of the Moon. (Odd, that your model can't do that!)

Oh, and do provide us with the calculations from your model that shows Mars and the Moon in the sky together on the date and time and location you claim.

But don't put yourself out here for us. We're quite used to your inability to substantiate any of your claims. "South Sea Voyages"? Nope. Horizon at eye-level? Nope.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up
« previous next »