Flat Earth Discussion Boards > Flat Earth General

Selenelion Eclipse proves Flat Earth

<< < (3/5) > >>

sceptimatic:

--- Quote from: Adsolution on October 09, 2014, 10:20:04 AM ---
--- Quote from: sceptimatic on October 09, 2014, 09:23:14 AM ---Yes, refraction when it suits.
--- End quote ---
Refraction always exists, it doesn't pick and choose when it wants to come into effect. Selenelion occurs for the same reason the sky appears blue in the day and orange at sunset, unless you have a better explanation for that as well. You can essentially replicate a crude version of atmospheric refraction at home with a bottle of water, or precisely in calculated raytracing software that functions for both skylight and selenelion.

--- End quote ---
Yes I'm well aware that refraction exists, it's why you have a sky full of pretty lights, including the sun and moon, etc, from reflection and refraction.

Adsolution:

--- Quote from: jroa on October 09, 2014, 10:22:06 AM ---Yes, unless you are trying to explain why FET does not work.  Then refraction is slipped under the rug.
--- End quote ---
I was using it to disprove the notion that a selenelion eclipse 'proves' FET, I wasn't disproving FET in my post.


--- Quote from: iWitness on October 09, 2014, 08:21:29 AM ---Now what I find interesting, is Round-Earth Theory proponents will often resort to "Bendy Light" and "Perspective Distortion" when it comes to anomalies in their models; implying that you are not seeing what you see and are being deceived by your own eyes.
--- End quote ---
No, our eyes aren't deceiving us, they're taking in light normally. 'Bendy light' is refraction; it isn't used as a 'God of the Gaps' answer (as you put it, to explain 'anomalies'), it's a parameter that's always being taken into account in nearly every physical calculation. Light, sound, or any other waves are by no means exempt from interacting with other physical elements in the atmosphere, be it water vapour or whatever. A sniper bullet curving through the air due to wind, while not meeting the technical definition for refraction, is still abiding by the same principal.

This is obviously a trivial description, but I gather you seem to think that light lives on some existential plane of existence where it doesn't come into contact with any physical particles, simply zooms past them traveling in a straight, unwavering trajectory, and our eyes somehow react to that and 'deceive' us even though the light, by your logic, would have never reached us, so our eyes/mind wouldn't even have any trigger that tells them when to start doing that.

Alpha2Omega:

--- Quote from: iWitness on October 09, 2014, 08:21:29 AM ---The Selenelion Eclipse that took place yesterday, Wednesday 8 2014 is proof the earth is flat and that the Shadow of the earth is not covering the moon.

If you are not familiar with a "Selenelion eclipse", it is when a Lunar eclipse is visible while the sun is above the Horizon. It is impossible for this to happen in the heliocentric model, and the explanation given is due to "atmospheric refraction".

Here is a video of a Selenelion Eclipse from December 2011:



Now what I find interesting, is Round-Earth Theory proponents will often resort to "Bendy Light" and "Perspective Distortion" when it comes to anomalies in their models; implying that you are not seeing what you see and are being deceived by your own eyes.

Humans have known for many thousands of years that "dark heavenly bodies" exist and are the likely explanation for these eclipses. Also, keep in mind the moon turns RED when fully eclipsed and does not make any sense if it were caused by a shadow.

Chalk another one up for FET, what's the score like 5000/2?

Come on People... atmospheric refraction? If that much refraction was going on the sky would look seriously distorted.

--- End quote ---
Cool video!

Do you know how to calculate the amount of atmospheric refraction it takes to see both an eclipsed moon and the Sun at the same time?

In case you don't, here's how it's done:

The apparent diameters of our Sun and Moon are both very close to 1/2 degree, so let's use that. This means that if the Moon were exactly opposite the Sun, it would take 1/4 degree of atmospheric refraction for both to be fully visible, but touching the ideal horizon when viewed from ground level (ideal as in no topography at all). Why 1/4 degree? If there were no refraction and their centers were exactly opposite, from our viewpoint, their lower limbs would be 1/4 degree below the horizon when their centers were on it. In order to see each one fully, each needs to appear 1/4 degree higher than it is geometrically.

Now, what is the actual amount of atmospheric refraction? For objects outside the atmosphere, when viewed from near sea level, it's very close to 1/2 degree at the horizon. That's more than enough to make the Sun and Moon both visible at the same time when directly opposite each other geometrically. Atmospheric refraction is greatest right at the horizon and diminishes fairly rapidly at higher elevations, to the point that for most purposes it can be neglected entirely by 20 or so degrees above the horizon and higher.

Going back to the video, the last time we were shown the Moon was at the 3:19 mark (7:08 AM according to the narrator). Its lower limb was about half its own diameter, or 1/4 degree, above the horizon. About that time the Sun just began to show its upper limb at the opposite horizon. In one minute, the center of the Sun should be exactly on the horizon (earth rotates at 4 min/degree, so 1/4 degree per minute, and half the diameter of the Sun is 1/4 degree) and the lower limb of the Moon will be very close to the horizon. So at, call it 7:09 AM, the center of the Sun is on the horizon, and the center of the Moon is (approximately) 1/4 degree above the opposite horizon. This is only 1/4 degree. It should be more! What gives?

At the 3:19 mark, the Moon was still only about half into shadow. The narrator's explanation of the relative motions of the Sun, Moon, and Earth, while somewhat confusing, was correct; in the video the moon is slowly moving in its orbit upward toward the shadow (remember the top half of the moon was in shadow) at the same time the much faster, but unrelated, rotation of the earth is making it move downward in the frame. The moon is actually lower than it would be at greatest eclipse, where it would be closest to exactly opposite the Sun. 7:09 is almost exactly 1 hour before greatest eclipse according to this. The Moon moves almost exactly its own diameter along its orbit (1/2 degree from our vantage point) in an hour, so the moon is about 1/2 degree lower (in the frame) than the antisolar point. This puts the antisolar point 3/4 degree above the horizon when the center of the Sun is on the horizon in the opposite direction. Pretty close to expected, especially considering the actual horizon isn't perfectly ideal, some slop in the timing, and somewhat crude estimate of the moon's apparent elevation in that last frame.

Atmospheric refraction isn't an anomaly. It's well understood and is a complication that must be dealt with in some cases but can be ignored in others. It's nothing like the "bendy light" in magnitude (many tens of degrees) and nature (it's the opposite direction and has a known cause) required to have sunsets at all in most (all?) flat-earth models. Not sure what you're referring to with "perspective distortion".

The red color of the Moon in eclipse is merely another facet of this same effect (refraction) combined with scattering and absorption of light by the atmosphere. Shorter wavelengths of light are scattered much more easily by the molecules of air in our atmosphere than longer wavelengths. That's the reason the sky is blue and the Sun golden (slightly yellowish). The Sun is actually what we perceive as white, but since some of the energy from the blue (shorter-wavelength) end of the spectrum has been scattered all over the sky, the sunlight that gets directly to our eyes is biased slightly to the red (longer-wavelength) end of the spectrum, thus it appears slightly yellow. In addition to this, dust and particulates in the air also absorb and scatter shorter wavelengths of light more effectively than the longer wavelengths. As the Sun approaches the horizon, the amount of air (and dust, etc.) we have to look through increases rapidly, so sunlight is more and more effectively filtered; it appears distinctly red by the time it meets the horizon most of the time. From the Moon during a Lunar Eclipse, the dark earth is surrounded by a bright red halo that is every sunrise and sunset on earth at the same time. This is the red light we see reflected back to us from the eclipsed moon.

There's no need to make up obviously phony numbers to support your argument. Doing so makes your arguments that much weaker, and they don't need any help in that regard. Seriously - where are you alone in the last few days? 0/3 now? Or is it 0/4 counting the Selenelion eclipse and red moon as two different "proofs"?

"seriously distorted." How much is "seriously"? How much distortion we see depends, of course, on how much refraction there is. You can see distortion caused by the refraction we do have. The Sun or Moon just touching the horizon looks distinctly oval, with its height squashed relative to its width. This happens because the bottom limb is refracted upward more than its top limb. This does not affect left and right, so the apparent width is unaffected while up and down are squished.

- Several other replies as I was composing (some may suggest "composting" :P) this. This was in reply to the OP only.

Rama Set:
I recommend reading this thread from the other site.  It is discussed pretty technically and eventually shown to be possible.

Adsolution:

--- Quote from: Tom Bishop ---I don't see anything scientific about blaming this inexplicable event on an optical illusion. What scientific studies have demonstrated this mysterious illusion? Where are the mechanics of this illusion explained?
--- End quote ---

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page