Earthshine.

  • 13 Replies
  • 1558 Views
Earthshine.
« on: December 18, 2008, 11:36:31 AM »
A while ago, I had the opportunity to observe Earthshine on the crescent moon. It started me thinking on how the FE model explains why the dark side of the Moon appears so dark. Around the time of a crescent Moon, the reflected light from the landmasses, oceans and clouds on most of the day-side part of the planet would be shining on the Moon, and you would expect such a huge area to outshine a small 50 km wide ball of a sun.

?

Cheryl Wiesbaden

  • 603
  • Zeteticist, Moralist, Feminist
Re: Earthshine.
« Reply #1 on: December 18, 2008, 12:09:01 PM »
Have you considered the possible involvement of the Shadow Object?

Re: Earthshine.
« Reply #2 on: December 18, 2008, 01:39:18 PM »
Quote
Have you considered the possible involvement of the Shadow Object?

As it's reportedly between the Sun and Moon, not the Earth and Moon, no, I haven't.

?

Cheryl Wiesbaden

  • 603
  • Zeteticist, Moralist, Feminist
Re: Earthshine.
« Reply #3 on: December 18, 2008, 01:40:53 PM »
Read over the FAQ. There are other theories that account for it.

Re: Earthshine.
« Reply #4 on: December 18, 2008, 01:58:47 PM »
Quote
Read over the FAQ. There are other theories that account for it.

All I see in the FAQ is the shadow object causing Lunar eclipses. The shadow cast on the Moon during a lunar eclipse is a different shape than the dark side of the Moon, and the brightness of the Earthshine varies depending on the phase of the Moon, suggesting that it's not a static object causing it.

?

Robbyj

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 5459
Re: Earthshine.
« Reply #5 on: December 20, 2008, 06:23:57 AM »
Have you considered the possible involvement of the Shadow Object?

Where does Rowbotham mention the Shadow Object in ENAG?

He doesn't.
Why justify an illegitimate attack with a legitimate response?

*

Marcus Aurelius

  • 4546
  • My Alts: Tom Bishop, Gayer, theonlydann
Re: Earthshine.
« Reply #6 on: December 20, 2008, 06:29:54 AM »
I am confused about the shadow object.  Is it responsible for the phases of the moon if FET?  The lunar eclipse?  Or earth shine?

The first of those I find highly unlikely unless the object was actually close to the moon and not the sun.

?

Robbyj

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 5459
Re: Earthshine.
« Reply #7 on: December 20, 2008, 06:35:25 AM »
In fact, Rowbotham believes earthshine to be due to the fact that the moon is partly transparent, doesn't he?

Not really transparent, have luminous and half not.
Why justify an illegitimate attack with a legitimate response?

?

Robbyj

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 5459
Re: Earthshine.
« Reply #8 on: December 20, 2008, 06:38:16 AM »
Nevermind, I see what you are talking about.  Looks like he says both.
Why justify an illegitimate attack with a legitimate response?

*

Johannes

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 2755
Re: Earthshine.
« Reply #9 on: December 20, 2008, 03:21:51 PM »
Rowbotham was not right in all of his explanations. It doesn't help he wrote in victorian english, either.

*

Johannes

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 2755
Re: Earthshine.
« Reply #10 on: December 22, 2008, 10:52:47 PM »
By testing them, of course. Or if it seems improbable, contradictory and untestable I reexamine the problem and forming a theory based on existing physics.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2008, 11:00:10 PM by Johannes Kepler »

*

Perfect Circle

  • 734
  • You are a pirate!
Re: Earthshine.
« Reply #11 on: December 22, 2008, 11:26:25 PM »
By testing them, of course. Or if it seems improbable, contradictory and untestable I reexamine the problem and forming a theory based on existing physics.
And where does existing physics account for the bendy light? Where are your test results?
Like the sun, the stars are also expanding and contracting their diameter as they spin around the hub every six months.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 38218
Re: Earthshine.
« Reply #12 on: December 23, 2008, 06:30:36 AM »
By testing them, of course. Or if it seems improbable, contradictory and untestable I reexamine the problem and forming a theory based on existing physics.
And where does existing physics account for the bendy light? Where are your test results?
Or Rowbotham's misrepresentation of perspective?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: Earthshine.
« Reply #13 on: December 23, 2008, 08:13:42 AM »
By testing them, of course. Or if it seems improbable, contradictory and untestable I reexamine the problem and forming a theory based on existing physics.
And where does existing physics account for the bendy light? Where are your test results?
Or Rowbotham's misrepresentation of perspective?

And how does all this mesh with all the work Johnson did?  I am betting that Shenton and Johnson are rolling over in their graves right about now.
The Earth is Round.