The Shadow Object/Anti-Moon Revealed?

As for the thread I am dismayed how closed minded you are being with Euclid. He makes no wild claims, but merely questions inquisitively. With no evidence you then stomp in with "It cannot be! It isn't, because I wouldn't like that!" You have not offered an alternate explanation. Only rubbished his attempts to make sense of an unexplained phenomenon. I too would like to know what this was about and would prefer sensible suggestions if you can offer them.

I just thought I'd steal your thunder as that wiki link has been trotted out so many times on this site. It was poor form of you to try to use such an underhand tactic, but I did notice EG never fell for it, denying you your little moment.

As for the thread I am dismayed how closed minded you are being with Euclid. He makes no wild claims, but merely questions inquisitively. With no evidence you then stomp in with "It cannot be! It isn't, because I wouldn't like that!" You have not offered an alternate explanation. Only rubbished his attempts to make sense of an unexplained phenomenon. I too would like to know what this was about and would prefer sensible suggestions if you can offer them.

Sean Carroll is a Senior Research Associate in the Department of Physics at the California Institute of Technology. His research interests include theoretical aspects of cosmology, field theory, and gravitation. He is the author of a graduate-level textbook, Spacetime and Geometry: An Introduction to General Relativity, as well as a set of Teaching Company lectures on dark matter and dark energy.

If you'll point out where he made attempts to make sense of an unexplained phenomenon, I'll appreciate it. The comments in Sean's blog are sure direct you to the answers. By the way Sean has awesome credentials:

Quote

Sean Carroll is a Senior Research Associate in the Department of Physics at the California Institute of Technology. His research interests include theoretical aspects of cosmology, field theory, and gravitation. He is the author of a graduate-level textbook, Spacetime and Geometry: An Introduction to General Relativity, as well as a set of Teaching Company lectures on dark matter and dark energy.

Quote from: ClockTower on October 25, 2010, 05:16:19 PM

If you'll point out where he made attempts to make sense of an unexplained phenomenon, I'll appreciate it. The comments in Sean's blog are sure direct you to the answers. By the way Sean has awesome credentials:

Quote

Sean Carroll is a Senior Research Associate in the Department of Physics at the California Institute of Technology. His research interests include theoretical aspects of cosmology, field theory, and gravitation. He is the author of a graduate-level textbook, Spacetime and Geometry: An Introduction to General Relativity, as well as a set of Teaching Company lectures on dark matter and dark energy.

Nope. The comments yielded zero solid answers. It is also nice of you to point out that even a person with such awesome credentials does not know what it is.

Yes, they do. But I guess we know not to trust your judgment since you claim to have photos with laser-wielding dolphins and see polar bears at the rim. Just typical of an FEer to make up fairy tales.

Quote from: Thork on October 25, 2010, 04:49:45 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on October 25, 2010, 04:36:24 PM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on October 25, 2010, 04:32:03 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on October 25, 2010, 04:27:47 PM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on October 25, 2010, 04:23:06 PM

The comments were all speculation, and none of them were sufficient.

In your opinion. When you become respected in the field of optics, I'll care about your opinion on this issue. Until then, the comments of better experts are sufficient.

Blatant ad hominem.

Are you saying that all ad hominem attacks are fallacies?

Says ClockTower with his Wiki link ready.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Quote

The ad hominem is a classic logical fallacy, but it is not always fallacious.

Setting semantics traps to win an earth shape argument is very cheap.

I was never going to state otherwise. I am well aware not all instances of ad hominem is fallacious. However, this instance is.

Also Clocktower, you are yet to prove there are any experts that posted. The guy you quoted stated he is an amateur. Amateur does not = expert.

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on October 25, 2010, 05:02:59 PM

The guy you quoted stated he is an amateur. Amateur does not = expert.

By your logic, all of Flat Earth theory should be discounted, since it is only speculation by amateurs.

No one is saying all issues in FET have all the detailed physics convincingly worked out.

Quote from: ClockTower on October 25, 2010, 08:15:33 PM

Yes, they do. But I guess we know not to trust your judgment since you claim to have photos with laser-wielding dolphins and see polar bears at the rim. Just typical of an FEer to make up fairy tales.

Justify this statement.

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on October 25, 2010, 10:06:13 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on October 25, 2010, 08:15:33 PM

Yes, they do. But I guess we know not to trust your judgment since you claim to have photos with laser-wielding dolphins and see polar bears at the rim. Just typical of an FEer to make up fairy tales.

Justify this statement.

Right after you justify that the photo of the attacking dolphin was genuine.

Quote from: ClockTower on October 25, 2010, 10:45:00 PM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on October 25, 2010, 10:06:13 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on October 25, 2010, 08:15:33 PM

Yes, they do. But I guess we know not to trust your judgment since you claim to have photos with laser-wielding dolphins and see polar bears at the rim. Just typical of an FEer to make up fairy tales.

Justify this statement.

Right after you justify that the photo of the attacking dolphin was genuine.

A deflection? How typical of you. Good to know you cannot support your statements.

26.   Dan Fischer Says:
October 25th, 2010 at 6:34 pm
As this is a physics blog I did … a physics experiment and just shot the waning gibbous Moon a few minutes ago, in very clear skies with a (different) point & shoot camera but also heavily overexposed. My own ‘ghost’ is there as expected, of a different shape and color due to the different zoom optics (and at a different position relative to the Moon in each frame, depending on where the latter was in the field of view). And yes, at the same time I saw a distinct ghost of the Moon with my own naked eyes, too, of the same size as the Moon, much fainter and overlapping. On the 21st, around full moon, such glare effects would have been even more pronounced. Case closed, I’d say.

These pictures look nothing like each other. His results are inconclusive since he failed to reproduce a similar image. Just look at them, in one, the image is quite sharp, in the other extremely fuzzy. In one, the secondary object is higher than the moon, in the other, it is below. In one, the moon is nearly a perfect circle, in the other, the moon is ovular! They are even different colors!

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on October 26, 2010, 12:09:15 AM

Broken photo. Expired Key.

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on October 26, 2010, 12:09:15 AM

These pictures look nothing like each other. His results are inconclusive since he failed to reproduce a similar image. Just look at them, in one, the image is quite sharp, in the other extremely fuzzy. In one, the secondary object is higher than the moon, in the other, it is below. In one, the moon is nearly a perfect circle, in the other, the moon is ovular! They are even different colors!

Where are these pictures from? Why should they look like each other? Why would you expect the same colors? Who is taking these photos? Why would you expect a gibbous Moon to be a circle? Did you fail science?

Quote from: ClockTower on October 26, 2010, 12:45:10 AM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on October 26, 2010, 12:09:15 AM

Broken photo. Expired Key.

Broken? It appears just fine on my computer. I recall a few days ago you were saying how some of the images here were broken until someone told you to change the language. Perhaps there is something else wrong on your computer?

Quote from: ClockTower on October 26, 2010, 12:49:28 AM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on October 26, 2010, 12:09:15 AM

These pictures look nothing like each other. His results are inconclusive since he failed to reproduce a similar image. Just look at them, in one, the image is quite sharp, in the other extremely fuzzy. In one, the secondary object is higher than the moon, in the other, it is below. In one, the moon is nearly a perfect circle, in the other, the moon is ovular! They are even different colors!

Where are these pictures from? Why should they look like each other? Why would you expect the same colors? Who is taking these photos? Why would you expect a gibbous Moon to be a circle? Did you fail science?

They are from the link in the OP.  The first one I merely re-sized because it used to be gigantic. The second is from the person you recently quoted.

I expect them to look alike since you claimed that his response supported that there is a solid answer to why the picture from the OP happened. How can you say he proved how it works if when he tried to reproduce it, it looked nothing alike?

Quote from: ClockTower on October 26, 2010, 01:03:38 AM

Quote from: ClockTower on October 26, 2010, 12:49:28 AM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on October 26, 2010, 12:09:15 AM

These pictures look nothing like each other. His results are inconclusive since he failed to reproduce a similar image. Just look at them, in one, the image is quite sharp, in the other extremely fuzzy. In one, the secondary object is higher than the moon, in the other, it is below. In one, the moon is nearly a perfect circle, in the other, the moon is ovular! They are even different colors!

Where are these pictures from? Why should they look like each other? Why would you expect the same colors? Who is taking these photos? Why would you expect a gibbous Moon to be a circle? Did you fail science?

They are from the link in the OP.  The first one I merely re-sized because it used to be gigantic. The second is from the person you recently quoted.

I expect them to look alike since you claimed that his response supported that there is a solid answer to why the picture from the OP happened. How can you say he proved how it works if when he tried to reproduce it, it looked nothing alike?

So you did expect that a gibbous Moon would be a circle. Just how did you pass grade school? He explains the differences in his post. Do read it. Typical of you to fail to read the analysis that shows you're wrong.

BTW, your machine is relying on its cache. Clear your cache to reproduce the expired key problem. You can also see it by looking at the "&Expires=1288077713" field in the url. I worry that's too technical for you though.

Quote from: ClockTower on October 26, 2010, 01:03:38 AM

Quote from: ClockTower on October 26, 2010, 01:03:38 AM

Quote from: ClockTower on October 26, 2010, 12:49:28 AM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on October 26, 2010, 12:09:15 AM

These pictures look nothing like each other. His results are inconclusive since he failed to reproduce a similar image. Just look at them, in one, the image is quite sharp, in the other extremely fuzzy. In one, the secondary object is higher than the moon, in the other, it is below. In one, the moon is nearly a perfect circle, in the other, the moon is ovular! They are even different colors!

Where are these pictures from? Why should they look like each other? Why would you expect the same colors? Who is taking these photos? Why would you expect a gibbous Moon to be a circle? Did you fail science?

They are from the link in the OP.  The first one I merely re-sized because it used to be gigantic. The second is from the person you recently quoted.

I expect them to look alike since you claimed that his response supported that there is a solid answer to why the picture from the OP happened. How can you say he proved how it works if when he tried to reproduce it, it looked nothing alike?

So you did expect that a gibbous Moon would be a circle. Just how did you pass grade school? He explains the differences in his post. Do read it. Typical of you to fail to read the analysis that shows you're wrong.

The color and shape were completely different due to the zoom? I'm not buying it. Should I find a picture of a polar bear and claim it is actually a grizzly but the zoom is just affecting the photo?

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on October 26, 2010, 01:16:27 AM

Quote from: ClockTower on October 26, 2010, 01:03:38 AM

Quote from: ClockTower on October 26, 2010, 01:03:38 AM

Quote from: ClockTower on October 26, 2010, 12:49:28 AM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on October 26, 2010, 12:09:15 AM

These pictures look nothing like each other. His results are inconclusive since he failed to reproduce a similar image. Just look at them, in one, the image is quite sharp, in the other extremely fuzzy. In one, the secondary object is higher than the moon, in the other, it is below. In one, the moon is nearly a perfect circle, in the other, the moon is ovular! They are even different colors!

Where are these pictures from? Why should they look like each other? Why would you expect the same colors? Who is taking these photos? Why would you expect a gibbous Moon to be a circle? Did you fail science?

They are from the link in the OP.  The first one I merely re-sized because it used to be gigantic. The second is from the person you recently quoted.

I expect them to look alike since you claimed that his response supported that there is a solid answer to why the picture from the OP happened. How can you say he proved how it works if when he tried to reproduce it, it looked nothing alike?

So you did expect that a gibbous Moon would be a circle. Just how did you pass grade school? He explains the differences in his post. Do read it. Typical of you to fail to read the analysis that shows you're wrong.

The color and shape were completely different due to the zoom? I'm not buying it. Should I find a picture of a polar bear and claim it is actually a grizzly but the zoom is just affecting the photo?

I defer to the experts, but I note he didn't claim that it was due to the zoom, rather the optics. Different optics will flare different colors, I believe based on Newton's experiments.

Fake

Quote from: Thork on October 26, 2010, 03:40:38 PM

Fake

And I could equally state the pictures posted "showing" the anti-moon are also fake.. So we are then at square one.

What now?

Quote from: the flying russian on October 26, 2010, 03:43:51 PM

Quote from: Thork on October 26, 2010, 03:40:38 PM

Fake

And I could equally state the pictures posted "showing" the anti-moon are also fake.. So we are then at square one.

What now?

The Earth being flat.

The Round Earth Revealed?



Since pictures are not acceptable when trying to support RET, why should they be acceptable when trying to support FET? (Anti-moon being apart of FET)

Quote from: the flying russian on October 26, 2010, 03:39:42 PM

The Round Earth Revealed?



Since pictures are not acceptable when trying to support RET, why should they be acceptable when trying to support FET? (Anti-moon being apart of FET)

This picture results in a permanent win for the RET as I have verified that it is 100% real.

Quote from: Danukenator123 on October 26, 2010, 05:03:03 PM

Quote from: the flying russian on October 26, 2010, 03:39:42 PM

The Round Earth Revealed?



Since pictures are not acceptable when trying to support RET, why should they be acceptable when trying to support FET? (Anti-moon being apart of FET)

This picture results in a permanent win for the RET as I have verified that it is 100% real.

Considering you're a stick figure, I don't think you have an opinion on what's real or not. 

Since pictures are not acceptable when trying to support RET, why should they be acceptable when trying to support FET? (Anti-moon being apart of FET)