What are the holes in RET?

Seriously. I saw the imperfect ocean claim that's also being discussed right now, but it isn't very compelling since the oceans are in constant motion through undersea heat currents anyway.

I understand there are books, regarding the holes in RET, but wouldn't it be simpler for everybody if the most glaring holes in RET were presented all in one place? Here in this topic, for example.

If there are any more like that, where the FET explanation is actually simpler and not far-fetched, then RET should be somewhat diminished. So are there any others?

Quote from: theguyontheleft on April 27, 2009, 09:08:36 PM

If there are any more like that, where the FET explanation is actually simpler and not far-fetched, then RET should be somewhat diminished. So are there any others?

The daytime lunar eclipse is physically impossible in the Round Earth model.

How would a full eclipse of the moon happen during the daytime? Has this ever been observed?

[Five years ago in] France. Also another in France 16 May 2003. Several well documented cases exist, including two by Payen and one by Hevelius.

read this provided online article written about Payen:
http://direct.bl.uk/bld/PlaceOrder.do?UIN=214123926&ETOC=RN&from=searchengine

Other works by Antoine-Francois Payen you may find at a university library:
Payen, A. F., *Aenigma astronomicon adulterium solis & lunae visibile in hemispherio
parisiensi a 1666 (Paris, 1666); or Extrait d’une lettre [...] contenant l’observation de l’eclipse de
soleil arrivée le 2 juillet 1666 (Paris, 1666); or Selenelion, ou apparition luni-solaire en l’isle de
Gorgone (Paris, 1666).

All these works were held by contemporary Henry Oldenburg. Oldenburg basically created the process of peer review.

Seriously. I saw the imperfect ocean claim that's also being discussed right now, but it isn't very compelling since the oceans are in constant motion through undersea heat currents anyway.

I understand there are books, regarding the holes in RET, but wouldn't it be simpler for everybody if the most glaring holes in RET were presented all in one place? Here in this topic, for example.

I can tell you what the holes are in FET.

There are none.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on April 27, 2009, 11:32:20 PM

I can tell you what the holes are in FET.

There are none.

What about the Zacat?n cenote?

Quote from: Anteater7171 on April 27, 2009, 11:36:45 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on April 27, 2009, 11:32:20 PM

I can tell you what the holes are in FET.

There are none.

What about the Zacat?n cenote?

That's a hole in the Earth, not a hole in FET.

Quote from: theguyontheleft on April 27, 2009, 09:08:36 PM

If there are any more like that, where the FET explanation is actually simpler and not far-fetched, then RET should be somewhat diminished. So are there any others?

The daytime total lunar eclipse for more than a few minutes is physically impossible in the Round Earth model.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=21553.msg432821#msg432821

I can tell you what the holes are in FET.

There are none.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on April 27, 2009, 11:32:20 PM

I can tell you what the holes are in FET.

There are none.

How about the fact that you guys have no images or evidence or anything.

We have plenty of images that show that the Earth is flat.

Fixed.  Depending on its degree, a partial lunar eclipse is perfectly reasonable during early morning or late evening and, due to atmospheric refraction, a total lunar eclipse can be visible for a few minutes at sunrise or sunset.  Now please provide evidence that a total lunar eclipse has been observed for more than a few minutes during the daytime.

Quote from: theguyontheleft on April 27, 2009, 09:36:09 PM

How would a full eclipse of the moon happen during the daytime? Has this ever been observed?

Quote from: Ski on June 26, 2008, 11:38:40 PM

[Five years ago in] France. Also another in France 16 May 2003. Several well documented cases exist, including two by Payen and one by Hevelius.

Quote from: Ski on June 27, 2008, 01:38:19 PM

read this provided online article written about Payen:
http://direct.bl.uk/bld/PlaceOrder.do?UIN=214123926&ETOC=RN&from=searchengine

Other works by Antoine-Francois Payen you may find at a university library:
Payen, A. F., *Aenigma astronomicon adulterium solis & lunae visibile in hemispherio
parisiensi a 1666 (Paris, 1666); or Extrait d’une lettre [...] contenant l’observation de l’eclipse de
soleil arrivée le 2 juillet 1666 (Paris, 1666); or Selenelion, ou apparition luni-solaire en l’isle de
Gorgone (Paris, 1666).

All these works were held by contemporary Henry Oldenburg. Oldenburg basically created the process of peer review.

Quote from: markjo on April 28, 2009, 10:00:14 AM

Fixed.  Depending on its degree, a partial lunar eclipse is perfectly reasonable during early morning or late evening and, due to atmospheric refraction, a total lunar eclipse can be visible for a few minutes at sunrise or sunset.  Now please provide evidence that a total lunar eclipse has been observed for more than a few minutes during the daytime.

Oh right, tremendous "atmospheric refraction" caused both moon and sun to be bent up from underneath the horizon of the earth and into the sky. Which explanation is the more complicated explanation again?

And you've provided no evidence that these daytime lunar eclipses are happening near the horizon at all.

http://direct.bl.uk/bld/PlaceOrder.do?UIN=214123926&ETOC=RN&from=searchengine

I am actually looking at this article right now with access from my university.  I would quote sections from the article, but I don't want to violate any copyright stuff.  What do the mods say?

This note concerns the horizontal eclipse of 16 June 1666, and the Avignon jurisconsult and astronomer Antoine-Fran?ois Payen's reflections upon it, his Selenelion ou Apparition Luni-Solaire (Paris, 1666). Payen argued that observation of a horizontal eclipse had to take into account the effects of both atmospheric refraction and diurnal parallax. Payen sent a copy of his work via the Royal Society's Secretary, Henry Oldenburg, to the Curator of Experiments, Robert Hooke. This hitherto lost gift can be identified as Bodleian Library 4? W 27 (14) Jur, and it still bears Payen's autograph letter of presentation. It reached the Bodleian through Sir Hans Sloane, who acquired some of Hooke's books after the latter's death and who subsequently donated well over 1000 of his duplicates to the Bodleian in the early eighteenth century. Payen's Selenelion was included in Sloane's shipments by oversight, as it seems to have been Sloane's only copy. A text and translation of Payen's recovered letter to Hooke are provided, as well as a list of further Sloanian books in the Bodleian formerly owned by Hooke.

A horizontal eclipse of the Moon takes place when both the Sun and the eclipsed Moon are visible for a short time above the horizon. According to Pliny the Elder, the phenomenon had been recognized two centuries earlier than his time by Hipparchus; and in the most important discussion of the phenomenon in antiquity the Hellenistic astronomer Cleomedes correctly ascribed what he called the ?paradoxical eclipse? to atmospheric refraction, whereby the observed altitude of bodies near the horizon exceeds their actual altitude.1 The fact of atmospheric refraction itself was well known, and although Ptolemy's Optics remained in manuscript until modern times, its discussion, in the fifth book, of atmospheric refraction influenced medieval students of optics, including Witelo, Roger Bacon and John Pecham, and through them their early-modern successors.2

The horizontal eclipse continued to exercise early-modern astronomers. Some simply denied its possibility.3 Others supposed it to be due to atmospheric refraction or the operation of vapours rising from the Earth.4 Kepler's teacher Michael M?stlin claimed to have observed a horizontal eclipse in 1590, and Kepler recalled this observation in his 1604 Ad Vitellionem Paralipomena in the context of his own discussions of the refractive properties of the atmosphere.5 Kepler himself apparently managed to observe a horizontal eclipse in Linz on 26 August 1616, and Pierre Gassendi was frustrated three times by bad weather between 1643 and 1648, before a domestic servant of his caught sight of one at sunrise on the plain of Avignon.6 By the mid-century, therefore, three horizontal eclipses had been recorded as observed, and the emphasis now shifted to explanation.

Thus it was in 1666, when it was known that a potential horizontal eclipse would take place on 16 June (new style), that the eclipse fanatic and Avignon jurisconsult Antoine-Fran?ois Payen ascended to the highest point of Montmartre in Paris with some scientific colleagues, among them Henri Justel and Isma?l Boulliau. Very little is currently known about Payen, who was born in about 1610 in Avignon. A civil lawyer and zealous Bartolist, Payen published some scholarly legal as well as astronomical works, and as a young man he seems to have been relatively close to Athanasius Kircher. Payen was responsible for seeing through the press the Jesuit polymath's Primiti? Gnomonic? Catoptric? (Avignon, 1635), for which he also supplied some liminary verse. Payen and Kircher corresponded on the sunflower seeds that Kircher used for his heliotropic clocks. He also corresponded with Pierre Gassendi and Gabriel Naud?.7 Unfortunately, three decades later the Sun was to fail Payen on the morning that he, Boulliau and Justel ascended Montmartre, for the weather was cloudy and their expedition to observe a horizontal eclipse was in vain. However, Payen knew that in Italy Prince Leopold of Florence had sent out three groups of men simultaneously to verify whether the phenomenon reported by M?stlin actually existed in nature. Two groups were foiled by bad weather, like all those situated in other Italian and French locations, but those who had voyaged to the tiny island of Gorgona, 30 miles out at sea from Livorno, were not disappointed, despite the near-disaster of an unwelcome cloud. Shortly afterwards, Payen received the Tuscan account of the observations made by the Florentine academician Alessandro Segni, translated it into French and added his own commentary. This he immediately published, under the title of Selenelion ou Apparition Luni-Solaire. The coinage ?selenelion? (a coalescence of the Greek nouns for the Moon and the Sun, terminated as a neuter singular) was his own, and is still in occasional use. Payen offered qualified praise to the Tuscans but regretted their lack of precise measurements other than the data provided by their pendulum.

More importantly, Payen asserted that refraction on its own could not account for a selenelion, which was also caused by the phenomenon of horizontal parallax, more commonly referred to now as diurnal parallax, caused by the difference between a measurement theoretically taken from the centre of the Earth and one actually taken from its surface and from a given latitude. This form of parallax can be disregarded when dealing with objects far beyond the solar system, but not with bodies that are comparatively near the Earth, especially the Moon.8 This emphasis on parallax was not in fact new: Riccioli, for instance, had noted that Cleomedes's optical explanation was correct, but so too was the admittedly smaller influence of parallax, which Cleomedes had reported but otherwise rejected.9 French astronomers were increasingly interested in the problem of solar parallax at this time: it had become obvious that improvements in predictive astronomical theories were dependent on reducing solar parallax, which was greatly overestimated in contemporary tables.10 Payen's reminder that predicting and observing lunar phenomena likewise involved taking into account the effects of refraction and parallax can be understood as complementing the search for the more fundamental, and much harder to observe, value for solar parallax. This is why the emphasis in Payen's published works is not simply on eclipses as interesting optical effects, but as means to test and refine contemporary predictive tables.

I never claimed that daytime lunar eclipses have ever been observed, only that partial lunar eclipses are possible near sunrise and/or sunset.  I'm not sure if this image was taken before or after sunset, but it looks like it was certainly no later than civil twilight.

A horizontal eclipse of the Moon takes place when both the Sun and the eclipsed Moon are visible for a short time above the horizon.

Quote

I never claimed that daytime lunar eclipses have ever been observed, only that partial lunar eclipses are possible near sunrise and/or sunset.  I'm not sure if this image was taken before or after sunset, but it looks like it was certainly no later than civil twilight.

I don't know, that refraction seems a little suspicious to me.

Quote from: Euclid on April 28, 2009, 04:17:36 PM

A horizontal eclipse of the Moon takes place when both the Sun and the eclipsed Moon are visible for a short time above the horizon.

Are those Payen's words, or the editor's? Does Payen tell us the position of the sun and moon during the eclipse?

These daytime eclipses don't appear anywhere near the horizon:

http://www.spaceweather.com/eclipses/15may03b/vsoske1.jpg

http://www.spaceweather.com/eclipses/15may03a/Rollwagen1.gif

Well, in essence, "gravity" and "dark energy" are the exact same thing: names for an effect that has been observed, but isn't fully understood and has no proven source. The source for gravity is mass, but how mass creates the force is beyond reckoning, and the source for dark energy is for lack of a better term, magic.

Quote from: theguyontheleft on April 27, 2009, 04:52:33 PM

Well, in essence, "gravity" and "dark energy" are the exact same thing: names for an effect that has been observed, but isn't fully understood and has no proven source. The source for gravity is mass, but how mass creates the force is beyond reckoning, and the source for dark energy is for lack of a better term, magic.

Which is the simpler explanation? A force which attracts everything to everything - pushing all mass in all directions simultaneously, with force varying based on distance and mass - or a force which pushes everything in one direction at a constant acceleration?

Consider the forces you encounter in your every-day life. Electromagnetism exhibits similar properties to gravity, yet its tendencies are easily explained with sub-atomic observations. Naturally, atoms tend towards their most stable state. However, gravity pulls mass towards a less stable state. In theory, if the universe truly contracts to a point, all mass will have tended towards a high energy state - high enough to create the universe anew.

On the other hand, a force with constant acceleration pushing in one direction is easily observable. Surely you have been in a car or aeroplane which accelerated its contents at a constant rate over some period of time.

We have plenty of images that show that the Earth is flat.

As far as evidence, I haven't seen anything conclusive from your side either, so I'll continue assuming the shape that I can see with my eyes, thank you very much.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on April 28, 2009, 02:48:52 PM

We have plenty of images that show that the Earth is flat.

Then show me one.  Just one.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on April 28, 2009, 02:48:52 PM

As far as evidence, I haven't seen anything conclusive from your side either, so I'll continue assuming the shape that I can see with my eyes, thank you very much.