What is the FEH explanation for lunar eclipses?

I'm sure you have an explanation, I'm just not sure what it is (this time).  I could do a search, but that would only yield what you guys thought lunar eclipses were 5 months ago.  I'd like the current model if possible.

Lunar eclipses are caused by periodic agitation in the life forms that reside upon the moon. It is similar to this, simply on a much larger and more noticeable scale. The periods between such happenings can be predicted based on the position of the Sun relative to the position of the Moon. The exact cause is unknown.

Lunar eclipses are caused by periodic agitation in the life forms that reside upon the moon. It is similar to this, simply on a much larger and more noticeable scale. The periods between such happenings can be predicted based on the position of the Sun relative to the position of the Moon. The exact cause is unknown.

is there an atmosphere, or water on the moon that can support the life you're talking about?  How far away is the moon?  with a telescope wouldn't you be able to get a pretty clear picture of this "lifeform" you're talking about?


You really are a terrible troll.  You've got to come up with something better than "impossible life form moving impossibly fast, in an impossibly organized manner".  Seriously, go back to 9gag and practice trolling more, you're awful at it.

is there an atmosphere, or water on the moon that can support the life you're talking about? 

No, but I don't see how that is relevant. Neither an atmosphere nor water is necessary for life.

How far away is the moon?  with a telescope wouldn't you be able to get a pretty clear picture of this "lifeform" you're talking about?

A telescope is not capable of seeing any fauna on the Moon at any significant amount of detail. You can google how far away the moon is.

You really are a terrible troll.  You've got to come up with something better than "impossible life form moving impossibly fast, in an impossibly organized manner".  Seriously, go back to 9gag and practice trolling more, you're awful at it.

Please do not post personal attacks.

Quote from: tunu on August 15, 2012, 01:37:40 PM

is there an atmosphere, or water on the moon that can support the life you're talking about? 

No, but I don't see how that is relevant. Neither an atmosphere nor water is necessary for life.

Aren't you the one that was criticizing people for posting in the vein of "it could be, therefor it is"

Show me evidence of this life, or you're just making stuff up. 

Quote from: tunu on August 15, 2012, 01:37:40 PM

How far away is the moon?  with a telescope wouldn't you be able to get a pretty clear picture of this "lifeform" you're talking about?

A telescope is not capable of seeing any fauna on the Moon at any significant amount of detail. You can google how far away the moon is.

why not? why wouldn't a telescope be able to see this lifeform that is SO LUMINESCENT that we can see it with the naked eye?  Also, wouldn't the "googled distance" of the moon make it impossibly far away from a flat earth?  If I accept that distance wouldn't it disprove the Flat Earth Hypothesis?

Quote from: tunu on August 15, 2012, 01:37:40 PM

You really are a terrible troll.  You've got to come up with something better than "impossible life form moving impossibly fast, in an impossibly organized manner".  Seriously, go back to 9gag and practice trolling more, you're awful at it.

Please do not post personal attacks.

That wasn't a personal attack, that was a zetetic observation and some advice.  If you don't want to continue your career as an internet troll that's fine.  If however, you want to get better, the folks over at 9gag are a good roll model.


Calling a skunk a skunk isn't a personal attack.  You're an internet troll, identifying you isn't a personal attack.  I was just trying to help.


Also, please defend your impossible life forms moving impossibly fast in an impossibly  organized manner.  I'm not going to let you dodge the issue that easily

Aren't you the one that was criticizing people for posting in the vein of "it could be, therefor it is"

Show me evidence of this life, or you're just making stuff up.

James has been in telepathic contact with the life forms. You can read his posts in the Flat Earth Believer's forum. 

why not? why wouldn't a telescope be able to see this lifeform that is SO LUMINESCENT that we can see it with the naked eye?  Also, wouldn't the "googled distance" of the moon make it impossibly far away from a flat earth?  If I accept that distance wouldn't it disprove the Flat Earth Hypothesis?

The bacteria life forms are simply too small for a telescope to see in great detail. The distance google states for the moon is generally accepted. Some FE'ers believe the Moon to be much closer and smaller. I believe it to be the scientific distance. If you have any problems you would like to point out, please do so.

Quote from: tunu on August 15, 2012, 01:50:48 PM

Aren't you the one that was criticizing people for posting in the vein of "it could be, therefor it is"

Show me evidence of this life, or you're just making stuff up.

James has been in telepathic contact with the life forms. You can read his posts in the Flat Earth Believer's forum. 

Under the title "pure bullshit"

Quote from: tunu on August 15, 2012, 01:50:48 PM

Aren't you the one that was criticizing people for posting in the vein of "it could be, therefor it is"

Show me evidence of this life, or you're just making stuff up.

James has been in telepathic contact with the life forms. You can read his posts in the Flat Earth Believer's forum. 

Quote from: tunu on August 15, 2012, 01:50:48 PM

why not? why wouldn't a telescope be able to see this lifeform that is SO LUMINESCENT that we can see it with the naked eye?  Also, wouldn't the "googled distance" of the moon make it impossibly far away from a flat earth?  If I accept that distance wouldn't it disprove the Flat Earth Hypothesis?

The bacteria life forms are simply too small for a telescope to see in great detail. The distance google states for the moon is generally accepted. Some FE'ers believe the Moon to be much closer and smaller. I believe it to be the scientific distance. If you have any problems you would like to point out, please do so.

It has yet to be demonstrated how the moonshrimps could:
– live on a dead stellar object
– reproduce perfectly, thousand years after thousand years, including the eclipses, the lighting of the Moon.

Conclusion: non zetetic and absolutely ludicrous.

my problem is still with your impossible life form moving impossibly quick in an impossibly organized fashion. 

if you can explain these away, there will only be a few hundred reason left why the flat earth hypothesis is false.

Quote from: tunu on August 15, 2012, 01:37:40 PM

You really are a terrible troll.  You've got to come up with something better than "impossible life form moving impossibly fast, in an impossibly organized manner".  Seriously, go back to 9gag and practice trolling more, you're awful at it.

Please do not post personal attacks.

That's not a personal attack, it's a bang on accurate description of you. If you went up to a mass murderer and said "you're a mass murderer" it's not a personal attack. Similarly if you tell a terrible troll that they are a terrible troll, the same principle applies. Saying that you post interesting, relevant, logical stuff would be a lie of such magnitude that the universe would probably implode.

James has been in telepathic contact with the life forms. You can read his posts in the Flat Earth Believer's forum. 

Till James gets back from his Schizophrenia test, prove telepathy?

Quote from: tunu on August 15, 2012, 01:50:48 PM

Aren't you the one that was criticizing people for posting in the vein of "it could be, therefor it is"

Show me evidence of this life, or you're just making stuff up.

James has been in telepathic contact with the life forms. You can read his posts in the Flat Earth Believer's forum. 

Quote from: tunu on August 15, 2012, 01:50:48 PM

why not? why wouldn't a telescope be able to see this lifeform that is SO LUMINESCENT that we can see it with the naked eye?  Also, wouldn't the "googled distance" of the moon make it impossibly far away from a flat earth?  If I accept that distance wouldn't it disprove the Flat Earth Hypothesis?

The bacteria life forms are simply too small for a telescope to see in great detail. The distance google states for the moon is generally accepted. Some FE'ers believe the Moon to be much closer and smaller. I believe it to be the scientific distance. If you have any problems you would like to point out, please do so.

This answer is one of the best  FEer responses I have ever seen.

He isn't even attempting to rationalize a reason for this response, or achieve the minimum level of  logic  that  a sentence is required to have in order to make any sense. It sounds like he is just putting random words in a bowl and picking it up and writing in the very same order he gets it.

Quote from: tunu on August 15, 2012, 01:50:48 PM

Aren't you the one that was criticizing people for posting in the vein of "it could be, therefor it is"

Show me evidence of this life, or you're just making stuff up.

James has been in telepathic contact with the life forms. You can read his posts in the Flat Earth Believer's forum. 

Quote from: tunu on August 15, 2012, 01:50:48 PM

why not? why wouldn't a telescope be able to see this lifeform that is SO LUMINESCENT that we can see it with the naked eye?  Also, wouldn't the "googled distance" of the moon make it impossibly far away from a flat earth?  If I accept that distance wouldn't it disprove the Flat Earth Hypothesis?

The bacteria life forms are simply too small for a telescope to see in great detail. The distance google states for the moon is generally accepted. Some FE'ers believe the Moon to be much closer and smaller. I believe it to be the scientific distance. If you have any problems you would like to point out, please do so.

Do they breed? How does the increasing population effect the migration? Surely one day it would alter the migration times wouldn't it?

I think the moon may have some sort of radioluminescence; bioluminescence seems to me highly unlikely. At anyrate, we know that moonlight and sunlight are similar in wavelength. Under rare circumstances moonlight and the light reflected from the earth superimpose directly out of phase. The resulting wave interference is the cause of the eclipse.
As to the red colour of the eclipse, I attribute it to Rayleigh scattering. Certain wavelengths will not fully nullify themselves because of this scattering. It's important to note the moon does not become completely dark. The strength of the moonlight is sufficient to overcome the diluted, filtered light reflected off the earth and through it's atmosphere.
If the sun were as far away as posited by RE theory, and the sizes and shapes of the earth and moon were as assumed by RET the moon would be completely darkened as the stars would prove insufficient to even dimly light the moon.
We know lunar eclipses have also occurred where the sun and moon are both visible at the same time. This also argues strongly against a RE explanation for lunar eclipses -- indeed it seems impossible.
Far from the assumed "proof" of the earth's rotundity as commonly stated, I find the lunar eclipse one of weaker areas of predictive power of RE -- strongly contradicting the assumed model.

Far from the assumed "proof" of the earth's rotundity as commonly stated, I find the lunar eclipse one of weaker areas of predictive power of RE -- strongly contradicting the assumed model.

How?

If the sun were as far away as posited by RE theory, and the sizes and shapes of the earth and moon were as assumed by RET the moon would be completely darkened as the stars would prove insufficient to even dimly light the moon.
We know lunar eclipses have also occurred where the sun and moon are both visible at the same time. This also argues strongly against a RE explanation for lunar eclipses -- indeed it seems impossible.
Far from the assumed "proof" of the earth's rotundity as commonly stated, I find the lunar eclipse one of weaker areas of predictive power of RE -- strongly contradicting the assumed model.

Do you actually read the entirety of the posts you're quoting, or do you just skip that part in your desperate effort to "add something" to the conversation?

We know lunar eclipses have also occurred where the sun and moon are both visible at the same time.
Do you actually read the entirety of the posts you're quoting, or do you just skip that part in your desperate effort to "add something" to the conversation?

A lunar eclispse with the Moon visible?

I'm sure you have an explanation, I'm just not sure what it is (this time).  I could do a search, but that would only yield what you guys thought lunar eclipses were 5 months ago.  I'd like the current model if possible.

Put "anti moon" into the search engine.

It is possible that both the sun and the moon are sometimes eclipsed by, as yet, unidentified planetary bodies.

Mizuki x

Quote from: tunu on August 15, 2012, 01:14:58 PM

I'm sure you have an explanation, I'm just not sure what it is (this time).  I could do a search, but that would only yield what you guys thought lunar eclipses were 5 months ago.  I'd like the current model if possible.

Put "anti moon" into the search engine.

It is possible that both the sun and the moon are sometimes eclipsed by, as yet, unidentified planetary bodies.

Mizuki x

It is impossible; it would have been detected by now.

Quote from: Mizuki on August 16, 2012, 02:53:09 AM

Quote from: tunu on August 15, 2012, 01:14:58 PM

I'm sure you have an explanation, I'm just not sure what it is (this time).  I could do a search, but that would only yield what you guys thought lunar eclipses were 5 months ago.  I'd like the current model if possible.

Put "anti moon" into the search engine.

It is possible that both the sun and the moon are sometimes eclipsed by, as yet, unidentified planetary bodies.

Mizuki x

It is impossible; it would have been detected by now.

I salute your faith in the men of modern science and their techmological wizardry!

Mizuki x

Quote from: EmperorZhark on August 16, 2012, 03:08:24 AM

Quote from: Mizuki on August 16, 2012, 02:53:09 AM

Quote from: tunu on August 15, 2012, 01:14:58 PM

I'm sure you have an explanation, I'm just not sure what it is (this time).  I could do a search, but that would only yield what you guys thought lunar eclipses were 5 months ago.  I'd like the current model if possible.

Put "anti moon" into the search engine.

It is possible that both the sun and the moon are sometimes eclipsed by, as yet, unidentified planetary bodies.

Mizuki x

It is impossible; it would have been detected by now.

I salute your faith in the men of modern science and their techmological wizardry!

Mizuki x

Much better than pure speculations on an object in the sky which would sometimes obscure the Sun or the Moon, but never the stars.

Lunar Eclipses always occur at night. The sun is not visible at night. Just as solar eclipses always occur during the day. If similar light wavelengths canceled (or phased) each other out, as you suggest, then shining two flashlights at one another at the same exact angle would produce not light and shadow behind each flashlight. And, of course the light from the sun is a similar wavelength to moonlight. For one, the light from the moon is light reflected off of it's surface from the sun. For two, all visible light is a similar wavelength.

We know lunar eclipses have also occurred where the sun and moon are both visible at the same time. This also argues strongly against a RE explanation for lunar eclipses -- indeed it seems impossible.

All this shows is that you don't understand refraction.
In order for this to be "impossible", refraction of light through air would have to not happen. It not only happens, but it's measurable. It can be seen without any equipment but the human eye, in the form of mirages, heat haze and so on. You are denying its existence, which only goes to show you have about as much scientific credibility as Kermit The Frog.

Lunar Eclipses always occur at night. The sun is not visible at night. Just as solar eclipses always occur during the day. If similar light wavelengths canceled (or phased) each other out, as you suggest, then shining two flashlights at one another at the same exact angle would produce not light and shadow behind each flashlight. And, of course the light from the sun is a similar wavelength to moonlight. For one, the light from the moon is light reflected off of it's surface from the sun. For two, all visible light is a similar wavelength.

He's referring to cases where the eclipse happens just as the sun is setting and the moon is rising, where both objects are above the horizon due to refraction through the atmosphere. Without the atmosphere, this could not happen.

Quote from: ThinkingMan on August 16, 2012, 11:33:32 AM

Lunar Eclipses always occur at night. The sun is not visible at night. Just as solar eclipses always occur during the day. If similar light wavelengths canceled (or phased) each other out, as you suggest, then shining two flashlights at one another at the same exact angle would produce not light and shadow behind each flashlight. And, of course the light from the sun is a similar wavelength to moonlight. For one, the light from the moon is light reflected off of it's surface from the sun. For two, all visible light is a similar wavelength.

He's referring to cases where the eclipse happens just as the sun is setting and the moon is rising, where both objects are above the horizon due to refraction through the atmosphere. Without the atmosphere, this could not happen.

This must be a rare occurrence-I've never seen it.

Quote from: The Knowledge on August 16, 2012, 11:49:15 AM

Quote from: ThinkingMan on August 16, 2012, 11:33:32 AM

Lunar Eclipses always occur at night. The sun is not visible at night. Just as solar eclipses always occur during the day. If similar light wavelengths canceled (or phased) each other out, as you suggest, then shining two flashlights at one another at the same exact angle would produce not light and shadow behind each flashlight. And, of course the light from the sun is a similar wavelength to moonlight. For one, the light from the moon is light reflected off of it's surface from the sun. For two, all visible light is a similar wavelength.

He's referring to cases where the eclipse happens just as the sun is setting and the moon is rising, where both objects are above the horizon due to refraction through the atmosphere. Without the atmosphere, this could not happen.

This must be a rare occurrence-I've never seen it.

It's actually not rare at all, you just have to be in a location where you can see a clear eastern and western horizon at the same time, such as at sea. If you think about it, at any moment during a lunar eclipse there is somewhere in the world where the moon will just be peeking above the horizon. And because the sun has to be opposite the moon during a lunar eclipse, at that location the sun will be just about to disappear beneath the horizon. The sun and moon are actually displaced upwards when they are below the horizon, so they appear higher than they really are, by an amount approximately the width of their own disc. When you watch a sunset and see the sun's lower edge touch the horizon, if there was no atmosphere the sun would just have finished sinking below it.

Quote from: ThinkingMan on August 16, 2012, 11:53:33 AM

Quote from: The Knowledge on August 16, 2012, 11:49:15 AM

Quote from: ThinkingMan on August 16, 2012, 11:33:32 AM

Lunar Eclipses always occur at night. The sun is not visible at night. Just as solar eclipses always occur during the day. If similar light wavelengths canceled (or phased) each other out, as you suggest, then shining two flashlights at one another at the same exact angle would produce not light and shadow behind each flashlight. And, of course the light from the sun is a similar wavelength to moonlight. For one, the light from the moon is light reflected off of it's surface from the sun. For two, all visible light is a similar wavelength.

He's referring to cases where the eclipse happens just as the sun is setting and the moon is rising, where both objects are above the horizon due to refraction through the atmosphere. Without the atmosphere, this could not happen.

This must be a rare occurrence-I've never seen it.

It's actually not rare at all, you just have to be in a location where you can see a clear eastern and western horizon at the same time, such as at sea. If you think about it, at any moment during a lunar eclipse there is somewhere in the world where the moon will just be peeking above the horizon. And because the sun has to be opposite the moon during a lunar eclipse, at that location the sun will be just about to disappear beneath the horizon. The sun and moon are actually displaced upwards when they are below the horizon, so they appear higher than they really are, by an amount approximately the width of their own disc. When you watch a sunset and see the sun's lower edge touch the horizon, if there was no atmosphere the sun would just have finished sinking below it.

Very good, I'm assuming the North Eastern US (New England) is not a prime location for that.

Quote from: The Knowledge on August 16, 2012, 12:00:48 PM

Quote from: ThinkingMan on August 16, 2012, 11:53:33 AM

Quote from: The Knowledge on August 16, 2012, 11:49:15 AM

Quote from: ThinkingMan on August 16, 2012, 11:33:32 AM

Lunar Eclipses always occur at night. The sun is not visible at night. Just as solar eclipses always occur during the day. If similar light wavelengths canceled (or phased) each other out, as you suggest, then shining two flashlights at one another at the same exact angle would produce not light and shadow behind each flashlight. And, of course the light from the sun is a similar wavelength to moonlight. For one, the light from the moon is light reflected off of it's surface from the sun. For two, all visible light is a similar wavelength.

He's referring to cases where the eclipse happens just as the sun is setting and the moon is rising, where both objects are above the horizon due to refraction through the atmosphere. Without the atmosphere, this could not happen.

This must be a rare occurrence-I've never seen it.

It's actually not rare at all, you just have to be in a location where you can see a clear eastern and western horizon at the same time, such as at sea. If you think about it, at any moment during a lunar eclipse there is somewhere in the world where the moon will just be peeking above the horizon. And because the sun has to be opposite the moon during a lunar eclipse, at that location the sun will be just about to disappear beneath the horizon. The sun and moon are actually displaced upwards when they are below the horizon, so they appear higher than they really are, by an amount approximately the width of their own disc. When you watch a sunset and see the sun's lower edge touch the horizon, if there was no atmosphere the sun would just have finished sinking below it.

Very good, I'm assuming the North Eastern US (New England) is not a prime location for that.

New England doesn't have very many big flat areas of clear horizon, so probably not. Maybe a bit too hilly.

Quote from: ThinkingMan on August 16, 2012, 12:03:51 PM

Quote from: The Knowledge on August 16, 2012, 12:00:48 PM

Quote from: ThinkingMan on August 16, 2012, 11:53:33 AM

Quote from: The Knowledge on August 16, 2012, 11:49:15 AM

Quote from: ThinkingMan on August 16, 2012, 11:33:32 AM

Lunar Eclipses always occur at night. The sun is not visible at night. Just as solar eclipses always occur during the day. If similar light wavelengths canceled (or phased) each other out, as you suggest, then shining two flashlights at one another at the same exact angle would produce not light and shadow behind each flashlight. And, of course the light from the sun is a similar wavelength to moonlight. For one, the light from the moon is light reflected off of it's surface from the sun. For two, all visible light is a similar wavelength.

He's referring to cases where the eclipse happens just as the sun is setting and the moon is rising, where both objects are above the horizon due to refraction through the atmosphere. Without the atmosphere, this could not happen.

This must be a rare occurrence-I've never seen it.

It's actually not rare at all, you just have to be in a location where you can see a clear eastern and western horizon at the same time, such as at sea. If you think about it, at any moment during a lunar eclipse there is somewhere in the world where the moon will just be peeking above the horizon. And because the sun has to be opposite the moon during a lunar eclipse, at that location the sun will be just about to disappear beneath the horizon. The sun and moon are actually displaced upwards when they are below the horizon, so they appear higher than they really are, by an amount approximately the width of their own disc. When you watch a sunset and see the sun's lower edge touch the horizon, if there was no atmosphere the sun would just have finished sinking below it.

Very good, I'm assuming the North Eastern US (New England) is not a prime location for that.

New England doesn't have very many big flat areas of clear horizon, so probably not. Maybe a bit too hilly.

Oh I know, I live there. There's a few hills east of me, and the Appalachian Mountain Range to my west.

A lunar eclispse with the Moon visible?

Good God, man. Again? In the same damn post?

It's important to note the moon does not become completely dark.

Beyond that a lunar eclipse need not be total. I am completely done with you.

Lunar Eclipses always occur at night. The sun is not visible at night. Just as solar eclipses always occur during the day. If similar light wavelengths canceled (or phased) each other out, as you suggest, then shining two flashlights at one another at the same exact angle would produce not light and shadow behind each flashlight. And, of course the light from the sun is a similar wavelength to moonlight. For one, the light from the moon is light reflected off of it's surface from the sun. For two, all visible light is a similar wavelength.

I have seen the selenelion with my own eyes. I assure you it very much exists. Clearly the two light waves from your flashlights are not exactly half-out of phase then. If they were it would be dark. This is simple physics.