Disprove RET

Correct -- the sun would have as low as the moon is high.  The article clearly states the sun and moon were both visible at the same time during this occasion. The moon is roughly three degrees above the horizon in this particular photo. Since Markjo alleges a half a degree of refraction to atmosphere, globularists must now explain the remaining two and a half degrees.

Both the sun and moon take up .5 degrees of the sky. This will tell you how many degrees the moon is above the horizon in that photograph.

Guys, as I've just shown in my previous post, this picture (in Ski's post) is easily explainable in the RE model.

First of all, notice something: the darker portion of the Moon is not completely black, but obviously dimmer.

Now look at this picture regarding the RE model again:



Note that there is a shadow cast on the Moon (in the leftmost and rightmost positions) which covers only a portion of it. Notice also that the Moon is being shadowed by the Earth and is in the penumbra, not the umbra. The difference is that the umbra is completely dark (a total Lunar eclipse) and the penumbra is only slightly - but noticeably - darkened. Finally, note that in Ski's nice picture (and the article), both the Moon and the Sun are visible. Observe (from the above diagram of the RE model) that this is exactly what is predicted.
Both the Sun and the partially-obscured Moon should be (and are) visible in the RE model.


I'll take a moment on this comment now:

If that's the shadow of the earth on the moon, then the sun must be an equal distance below the horizon as the moon is above the horizon. Hence, since it is not pitch dark, this clearly cannot be true. A stunning disproof of RET.

This is what I wanted to dispel at the top of my post.
In order for the Earth to cast a shadow on the Moon, it is not necessary that the Sun be directly opposite the Moon, as you say.
However, I think what you meant to say is that the Sun must be directly opposite the Moon (with the Earth in between) if the Moon is to be completely dark, which is what we know as a Lunar eclipse. That is, of course, very true - and you can even see it in the picture I included above.
However, one can plainly see that a partial shadow in the penumbra is possible in the RE model with the Sun not directly opposite the Moon - which is what is called selenelion and is observed in Ski's picture.


Thanks, I hope that helped.
be cool

EDIT: edited for clarity.

Both the sun and moon take up .5 degrees of the sky. This will tell you how many degrees the moon is above the horizon in that photograph.

Also, Tom, why the hell are you now talking about "degrees above the horizon", when the midnight sun should be ~12^o above the horizon on a flat earth ?


Sorry to go off topic on this one, but when Tom starts talking about the degrees above the horizon, he is unwittingly abandoning the FE "perspective" explanation.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Article/201009115862788

Recent enough?

It is clear the moon is well above the horizon, not touching it. There is simply no way that the earth is causing this eclipse. Nor does your alleged "half a degree of refraction" come close to explaining the observed. The selenhelion lasted well over an hour; it was not a "fleeting moment".

Check me if I'm wrong, but the moon is not totally eclipsed in that photograph.

They will argue "but where is the sun in that picture?"

Good point, Tom.  What evidence do you have that the sun was above the horizon when that photograph was taken?

Now look at this picture regarding the RE model again:



Observe (from the above diagram of the RE model) that this is exactly what is predicted.
Both the Sun and the partially-obscured Moon should be (and are) visible in the RE model.

Are you suggesting that ludicrous picture depicts the RE solar system to scale?  Have you considered what the picture would look like to scale?
[/quote]

Quote from: Ski on July 06, 2011, 11:03:40 AM

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Article/201009115862788

Check me if I'm wrong, but the moon is not totally eclipsed in that photograph.

If the earth's shadow was causing this, the sun would have to be atleast 3 degrees below the horizon and only the top of the moon would be visible. This is obviously not the case.

Ski is correct. The sun would need to be as far below the horizon as the moon is above the horizon.

Ski is also correct that the eclipse should be straight up and down, not coming from the side or at an angle.

Are you suggesting that ludicrous picture depicts the RE solar system to scale?  Have you considered what the picture would look like to scale?

Have you considered that a picture can demonstrate a concept without being to scale? Are you suggesting that eclipses are not characterized by an Umbra and Penumbra?

Quote from: markjo on July 06, 2011, 12:49:16 PM

Quote from: Ski on July 06, 2011, 11:03:40 AM

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Article/201009115862788

Check me if I'm wrong, but the moon is not totally eclipsed in that photograph.

If the earth's shadow was causing this, the sun would have to be atleast 3 degrees below the horizon and only the top of the moon would be visible. This is obviously not the case.

Since the exact time and location of this photo are not available, it's impossible to know for sure if the sun is supposed to be above or below the horizon.  The combination of early morning twilight, long exposure and snow covered foreground (well, it looks snow covered to me) could easily make the photograph appear much brighter than it really was.

Quote from: Ski on July 06, 2011, 01:39:38 PM

Quote from: markjo on July 06, 2011, 12:49:16 PM

Quote from: Ski on July 06, 2011, 11:03:40 AM

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Article/201009115862788

Check me if I'm wrong, but the moon is not totally eclipsed in that photograph.

If the earth's shadow was causing this, the sun would have to be atleast 3 degrees below the horizon and only the top of the moon would be visible. This is obviously not the case.

Since the exact time and location of this photo are not available, it's impossible to know for sure if the sun is supposed to be above or below the horizon.  The combination of early morning twilight, long exposure and snow covered foreground (well, it looks snow covered to me) could easily make the photograph appear much brighter than it really was.

Do you really propose that the scene would be that bright if the sun were as far below the horizon as the moon is above it? That's absurd.

Quote from: markjo on July 06, 2011, 03:56:06 PM

Quote from: Ski on July 06, 2011, 01:39:38 PM

Quote from: markjo on July 06, 2011, 12:49:16 PM

Quote from: Ski on July 06, 2011, 11:03:40 AM

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Article/201009115862788

Check me if I'm wrong, but the moon is not totally eclipsed in that photograph.

If the earth's shadow was causing this, the sun would have to be atleast 3 degrees below the horizon and only the top of the moon would be visible. This is obviously not the case.

Since the exact time and location of this photo are not available, it's impossible to know for sure if the sun is supposed to be above or below the horizon.  The combination of early morning twilight, long exposure and snow covered foreground (well, it looks snow covered to me) could easily make the photograph appear much brighter than it really was.

Do you really propose that the scene would be that bright if the sun were as far below the horizon as the moon is above it? That's absurd.

Again, without knowing the specifics, it's hard to say for sure.  Remember that the moon is not fully eclipsed, so the sun and moon are not exactly 180 degrees apart.

Quote from: markjo on July 06, 2011, 03:56:06 PM

Quote from: Ski on July 06, 2011, 01:39:38 PM

Quote from: markjo on July 06, 2011, 12:49:16 PM

Quote from: Ski on July 06, 2011, 11:03:40 AM

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Article/201009115862788

Check me if I'm wrong, but the moon is not totally eclipsed in that photograph.

If the earth's shadow was causing this, the sun would have to be atleast 3 degrees below the horizon and only the top of the moon would be visible. This is obviously not the case.

Since the exact time and location of this photo are not available, it's impossible to know for sure if the sun is supposed to be above or below the horizon.  The combination of early morning twilight, long exposure and snow covered foreground (well, it looks snow covered to me) could easily make the photograph appear much brighter than it really was.

Do you really propose that the scene would be that bright if the sun were as far below the horizon as the moon is above it? That's absurd.

Its important to remember that Bob Bishop knows NOTHING about photography. He has repeatedly demosntrated this, but to a marvellous degree here where he totally fails to understand the concept of what things look like with long exposures. I have personally taken photos in dark twilight that look brighter than this. As you can clearly see in the photograph, the entire moon is not eclipsed, and if I had to hazard a guess how long it would be before the moon entered total eclipse I'd say probably at least another half hour. Plenty of time for the sun to be above the horizon, except it isnt. How do I know this? Because the trees and landscape would be illuminated by direct sunlight and they arent. Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of What Things Look Like At Sunset can work this out.
Bishop, you are a towel.

Quote from: Ski on July 06, 2011, 01:39:38 PM

Are you suggesting that ludicrous picture depicts the RE solar system to scale?  Have you considered what the picture would look like to scale?

Have you considered that a picture can demonstrate a concept without being to scale? Are you suggesting that eclipses are not characterized by an Umbra and Penumbra?

I am suggesting that a scale picture would show you why there would be no penumbra.

It's not very zetetic of Tom to draw conclusions about the photo like that. Just another example of his kind only adhering to the principles of zeteticism when it is convenient to their point.

Quote from: General Disarray on July 06, 2011, 03:47:08 PM

Quote from: Ski on July 06, 2011, 01:39:38 PM

Are you suggesting that ludicrous picture depicts the RE solar system to scale?  Have you considered what the picture would look like to scale?

Have you considered that a picture can demonstrate a concept without being to scale? Are you suggesting that eclipses are not characterized by an Umbra and Penumbra?

I am suggesting that a scale picture would show you why there would be no penumbra.

That would be incorrect, as shown in this scale diagram:

From the same article, here is another picture of the same eclipse (21/12/2010, England), taken by a 10 year old:



It is perfectly possible that the other picture has used a more advanced method of exposure (HDR?) in order to capture the landscape in addition to the moon.

Without more details of the landscape picture, we simply don't know.  Tom's argument is bunk.

Ski is correct. The sun would need to be as far below the horizon as the moon is above the horizon.

Ski is also correct that the eclipse should be straight up and down, not coming from the side or at an angle.

Please see my post above for an explanation of why this is not true, thanks.

Just an excerpt...

In order for the Earth to cast a shadow on the Moon, it is not necessary that the Sun be directly opposite the Moon, as you say.
However, I think what you meant to say is that the Sun must be directly opposite the Moon (with the Earth in between) if the Moon is to be completely dark, which is what we know as a Lunar eclipse. That is, of course, very true - and you can even see it in the picture I included above.
However, one can plainly see that a partial shadow in the penumbra is possible in the RE model with the Sun not directly opposite the Moon - which is what is called selenelion and is observed in Ski's picture.

Quote from: Tausami on June 26, 2011, 02:25:35 PM

Quote from: RoundEarths on June 26, 2011, 01:19:31 PM

Since we round earthers tend to disprove many of flat earthen theory i would like to give them a chance to disprove RET. Please post evidence that the earth cannot be round for (insert reason here). Mind you these reasons must be able to be fact checked and not some magic equation you wrote down while watching opera.

Sure.

1) Look out your window

2) The Bedford Level Experiment.

1) well that's faulty logic. if you lived on top of a mountain and looked outside your window, you'd think that the world descends in all directions. it's the bigger picture that's important. and the bigger picture shows it's rounded.

2) that experiment's error is well known to be due to refraction within the atmosphere. is this finding incorrect? if so, how?

He's trolling you, bro. He can't disprove RET because he's a round earther..

Since we round earthers tend to disprove many of flat earthen theory i would like to give them a chance to disprove RET. Please post evidence that the earth cannot be round for (insert reason here). Mind you these reasons must be able to be fact checked and not some magic equation you wrote down while watching opera.

Simple travel to rock city, chattanooga, TN.  From there not only can you see further than you should on a RE, but also it has been mapped very extensively so one can verify that gravitational pull does not diminish with altitude when one takes into account the pull of the heavens and local geography.

Quote from: RoundEarths on June 26, 2011, 01:19:31 PM

Since we round earthers tend to disprove many of flat earthen theory i would like to give them a chance to disprove RET. Please post evidence that the earth cannot be round for (insert reason here). Mind you these reasons must be able to be fact checked and not some magic equation you wrote down while watching opera.

Simple travel to rock city, chattanooga, TN.  From there not only can you see further than you should on a RE, but also it has been mapped very extensively so one can verify that gravitational pull does not diminish with altitude when one takes into account the pull of the heavens and local geography.

The idea that climbing up a mountain you will get less gravitational pull is a good initial hypothesis for a 19th century scientist and geology explorer. But we now know a lot more than that.

Actually, the gravitational pull from the mountain itself makes the gravitational pull from the top of high mountains stronger than from the base of the mountain. Several characteristics of the place have an effect on the gravitational pull, including: latitude, altitude, nearby mountains, nearby lakes and oceans, underground geology, and pull from the heavens.

But wait, John, it is not the pull you are saying. It is the pull from the Sun and Moon, which is not constant. And from other celestial bodies, but it is so small that is is not even measurable.

Trying to uncover the secrets of geological gravimetry from one measurement on Chattanooga is like looking at one ant and explaining from that observation alone the whole world of the insects.

I offered to do the calculations for John Davis' theory of celestial gravity one time and he never got back to me on it. Apparently if variables are present in the calculations, then we may as well not even bother.