The anti-moon or "shadow object"

Reading about this fascinating idea in the flat earth wiki I just had to address this...again, in hopes of getting some kind of answer that is not just another question, or beating around the bush.

  According to flat earth wiki, There is a "shadow object" that causes the lunar eclipse about twice a year. According to this wiki, it is around 5 to 10 miles in diameter but cannot be observed since it orbits too close to the sun. So the sun being 32 KM in size, let's go ahead and convert this antimoon's size into KM: 8-16KM that's up to HALF the size of the sun. How would it be not possible to see this thing especially if we consider

A: It is close to the sun in orbit*

and

B: It is between 1/4 to 1/2 the size of the sun?

*By definition, orbit implies gravity, something the FE theory doesn't agree with because we are accelerating upwards through space.
 
Since orbit is clearly mentionned and therefore ACCEPTED in the flat earth wiki and since gravity is an upwards acceleration, how does the FE theory explain the force attributed to orbit if it is not gravity? and what do you FE's call it?

I think most of the FE proponents use "orbit" to mean the Sun and Moon circle along planes above their flat Earth. When airplanes are in a holding pattern above some point on the ground, they are said to be "orbiting", so I think the term can have more than just the "Keplerian Orbit" meaning.

Your question about the geometry of eclipses is a good one, though. I'm interested in the responses, if any.

I think most of the FE proponents use "orbit" to mean the Sun and Moon circle along planes above their flat Earth. When airplanes are in a holding pattern above some point on the ground, they are said to be "orbiting", so I think the term can have more than just the "Keplerian Orbit" meaning.

Your question about the geometry of eclipses is a good one, though. I'm interested in the responses, if any.

Thanks for clarifying the whole orbit thing. Also this shadow object that apparently causes the lunar eclipse orbits the sun. I wonder in what way?

I've asked about this alleged "shadow object" previously, and only got nonsensical responses that went absolutely nowhere as far as defining it.  The flat earthers use it as a means of "explaining" the mechanics of a lunar eclipse—because on their flat earth model it's impossible for the moon to ever fall within the earth's shadow as both the moon and the sun are coplanar and above the earth at all times.

It'll be interesting to see if any flat earther is game to define the shadow object's structure and composition, or its size, and orbit.

—But I'm betting it ain't gonna happen LOL.

I've asked about this alleged "shadow object" previously, and only got nonsensical responses that went absolutely nowhere as far as defining it.  The flat earthers use it as a means of "explaining" the mechanics of a lunar eclipse—because on their flat earth model it's impossible for the moon to ever fall within the earth's shadow as both the moon and the sun are coplanar and above the earth at all times.

It'll be interesting to see if any flat earther is game to define the shadow object's structure and composition, or its size, and orbit.

—But I'm betting it ain't gonna happen LOL.

To tell the truth, I'm not expecting much. I see answers with concrete evidence to support them are hard to come by in these parts.

To tell the truth, I'm not expecting much. I see answers with concrete evidence to support them are hard to come by in these parts.

This sort of deafening silence is typical of what happens on these forums whenever a round earther asks a perfectly reasonable question of the flat earthers.  If they can't answer something, they just ignore the thread and hope it disappears off the radar... oh... they don't believe in radar do they?

It's interesting that the spherical earth, and the orbits of the moon and earth comply exactly with what we see happening with both lunar and solar eclipses.  This is one of the areas where any/all flat earth hypotheses fall down in a major way—they need imaginary "things" such as a shadow object to justify far too many observable events and phenomena in our universe.

So... any flat earthers up to the challenge?

Flat Earth Answer:

The "orbit" is caused by the aetheretic wind which is in turn caused by universal acceleration.

And as I predicted—and despite well over a hundred views—not one flat earther has been game to answer our little challenge.

But as I suggested before, when confronted by the necessity of actually providing some sort of scientifically credible answer, they inevitably chicken out.

It'll be interesting to see if any flat earther is game to define the shadow object's structure and composition, or its size, and orbit.

—But I'm betting it ain't gonna happen LOL.

My earlier assertion has proved to be true:  No flat earther is able to describe the "shadow object".  I wonder why.   

How many times do we have to go through this?

Yes, the official FES faq does not explain anything re: the shadow moon.

However, you will find the correct explanation in my messages (orbital distance, origin of the shadow moon, composition, size/diameter).


For starters, let us examine the two anomalies observed during the lunar eclipses.

During a lunar eclipse, it has been observed that the Earth's shadow (official science theory) is 2% larger than what is expected from geometrical considerations and it is believed that the Earth's atmosphere is responsible for the extent of the enlargement, but it is realized that the atmospheric absorption cannot explain light absorption at a height as high as 90 km above the Earth, as required by this hypothesis (as several authors have noted).

"It was also argued that the irradiation of the Moon in the Earth's shadow during the eclipse is caused by the refraction of sunlight in the upper regions of the Earth's atmosphere. However, the shade toward the center is too bright to be accounted for by refraction of visible sunlight.

That is, the pronounced red colour in the inner portions of the umbra during an eclipse of the Moon is caused by refraction of sunlight through the upper regions of the Earth's atmosphere, but the umbral shadow towards the centre is too bright to be accounted for by refraction of visible sunlight."

How many times do we have to go through this?

Yes, the official FES faq does not explain anything re: the shadow moon.

However, you will find the correct explanation in my messages (orbital distance, origin of the shadow moon, composition, size/diameter).


For starters, let us examine the two anomalies observed during the lunar eclipses.

During a lunar eclipse, it has been observed that the Earth's shadow (official science theory) is 2% larger than what is expected from geometrical considerations and it is believed that the Earth's atmosphere is responsible for the extent of the enlargement, but it is realized that the atmospheric absorption cannot explain light absorption at a height as high as 90 km above the Earth, as required by this hypothesis (as several authors have noted).

"It was also argued that the irradiation of the Moon in the Earth's shadow during the eclipse is caused by the refraction of sunlight in the upper regions of the Earth's atmosphere. However, the shade toward the center is too bright to be accounted for by refraction of visible sunlight.

That is, the pronounced red colour in the inner portions of the umbra during an eclipse of the Moon is caused by refraction of sunlight through the upper regions of the Earth's atmosphere, but the umbral shadow towards the centre is too bright to be accounted for by refraction of visible sunlight."

I simply want to know, based on the dimensions of this thing, why we cannot observe it?

For starters, let us examine the two anomalies observed during the lunar eclipses.

During a lunar eclipse, it has been observed that the Earth's shadow (official science theory) is 2% larger than what is expected from geometrical considerations and it is believed that the Earth's atmosphere is responsible for the extent of the enlargement, but it is realized that the atmospheric absorption cannot explain light absorption at a height as high as 90 km above the Earth, as required by this hypothesis (as several authors have noted).

You spit some text as it was yours. It isn't.
Please refer to the original source here :

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/astronomy/index.html


where you can read :

Since the 1830s, crater timing has been used during lunar eclipses to determine the length of the Earth's shadow. The method is simple: one determines the time when the umbra crosses a feature of the Moon, like a crater or a limb. The Sun-Earth-Moon geometry being known quite precisely, it is then possible to calculate the length of the Earth's umbra at the Moon.
 However, it was noticed consistently that the Earth's umbra seems to be 2% larger than what is expected from geometrical considerations. It is generally believed that the Earth's atmosphere is responsible for this enlargement.

furthermore, you have conveniently skipped the conclusion :

It is perfectly clear that a shadow appears smaller when the amount of light is increased as illustrated on Fig. 4. This is exactly the case for the crater timing on the Moon during a lunar eclipse. The occulting diaphragm in our lab was certainly not surrounded by any atmosphere. However, it seemed that the umbra was about 2 % larger than the real value due to the optical illusion just as in the case of astronomical observations.
        We have seen that the atmosphere may be opaque for 15 km, but certainly not 90 km. We have also proved that the sensitivity of the eyes is a factor leading necessarily to an umbral enlargement. Therefore, the accepted interpretation of umbra-penumbra limit displacement according to which the atmosphere is the major factor is not compatible with the well known phenomenon that characterizes the human eye. We therefore believe that almost the totality of the reported umbra-penumbra limit displacement is an optical effect that has nothing to do with the thickness of the Earth atmosphere.

Can we safely call it selective plagiarism ?

Can we safely call it selective plagiarism ?

If you check back through the various threads, you'll find that plagiarism is a common tool for sandokhan.  Virtually none of what he posts is original thought.  It's usually just a farrago of copypasta and links to dozens of other sites.  He obviously likes to see himself as some sort of deep and meaningful philosopher-type, although you'd think by now he'd notice that very few people take any notice of his pseudo-scientific drivel.

You'll also note that he not-so-subtly sidestepped my question about the composition, dimensions and orbit of the "shadow object".

As have all the other flat earthers LOL.

antonio, you have already been taken out on a strecher before out of the ring...clearly you are unable to discern my bibliographical sources.

In fact, my quotes are not from the website mentioned by you.

The conclusion offered by the author of the article on the newtonphysics site is very premature.

It is obvious that you have no experience whatsoever in properly researching any topic at all.


Had you done that, you would have discovered that the Marmet/Couture article has been debunked (read my source).

In fact, the anomaly described is due to the Allais effect.

https://archive.org/stream/LUNARECLIPSESANDALLAISEFFECT/LUNAR%20ECLIPSES%20AND%20ALLAIS%20EFFECT_djvu.txt

You haven't done  your homework at all, as usual.


Now, the proof that the Moon could not possibly cause the solar eclipse.

"During the total eclipses of the sun on June 30, 1954, and October 22, 1959, quite analogous deviations of the plane of oscillation of the paraconical pendulum were observed..." - Maurice Allais, 1988 Nobel autobiographical lecture.

In a marathon experiment, Maurice Allais released a Foucault pendulum every 14 minutes - for 30 days and nights -without missing a data point. He recorded the direction of rotation (in degrees) at his Paris laboratory. This energetic show of human endurance happened to overlap with the 1954 solar eclipse. During the eclipse, the pendulum took an unexpected turn, changing its angle of rotation by 13.5 degrees.

Allais' pendulum experiments earned him the 1959 Galabert Prize of the French Astronautical Society, and in 1959 he was made a laureate of the United States Gravity Research Foundation.

Dr. Maurice Allais:  Should the laws of gravitation be reconsidered?

http://allais.maurice.free.fr/English/media10-12.htm

In the present status of the discussion, the abnormalities observed can be accounted for only by considering the existence of a new field. (page 12)



CONFIRMATION OF THE ALLAIS EFFECT DURING THE 2003 SOLAR ECLIPSE:

http://www.acad.ro/sectii2002/proceedings/doc3_2004/03_Mihaila.pdf

(it also shows that the effect was confirmed during the August 1999 solar eclipse)


CONFIRMATION OF THE ALLAIS EFFECT DURING THE SEPT. 2006 SOLAR ECLIPSE:

http://www.hessdalen.org/sse/program/Articol.pdf


CONFIRMATION OF THE ALLAIS EFFECT DURING THE 2008 SOLAR ECLIPSE:

http://stoner.phys.uaic.ro/jarp/index.php/jarp/article/viewFile/40/22


Given the above, the authors consider that it is an inescapable conclusion from our experiments that after the end of the visible eclipse, as the Moon departed the angular vicinity of the Sun, some influence exerted itself upon the Eastern European region containing our three sets of equipment, extending over a field at least hundreds of kilometers in width.
The nature of this common influence is unknown, but plainly it cannot be considered as gravitational in the usually
accepted sense of Newtonian or Einsteinian gravitation.


We therefore are compelled to the opinion that some currently unknown physical influence was at work.



Can you read English antonio?


Dr. Maurice Allais:

“… the current theory of gravitation (being the result of the application, within the current theory of relative motions, of the principles of inertia and universal gravitation to any one of the Galilean spaces) complemented or not by the corrections suggested by the theory of relativity, leads to orders of magnitude [many factors of ten] for lunar and solar action (which are strictly not to be perceived experimentally) of some 100 million times less than the effects noted [during the eclipse] ... [emphasis added].”

In other words, the pendulum motions Allais observed during his two eclipses – 1954 and 1959 -- were physically IMPOSSIBLE … according to all known “textbook physics!”


Dr. Erwin Saxl, "1970 Solar Eclipse as 'Seen' by a Torsion Pendulum"

Saxl and Allen went on to note that to explain these remarkable eclipse observations, according to "conventional Newtonian/Einsteinian gravitational theory," an increase in the weight of the pendumum bob itself on the order of ~5% would be required ... amounting to (for the ~51.5-lb pendulum bob in the experiment) an increase of ~2.64 lbs!

This would be on the order of one hundred thousand (100,000) times greater than any possible "gravitational tidal effects" Saxl and Allen calculated (using Newtonian Gravitational Theory/ Relativity Theory) for even the 180-degree, "opposite" alignment of the sun and moon ... which, as previously noted, was also directly measured via the torsion pendulum (dasned green line - above) two weeks after the March 7 eclipse!


ausgeoff...you have never published anything original in your entire life.


My original formulas which are superior to anything published by Euler, the Bernoulli brothers, and others:








By contrast, poor ausgeoff doesn't even know basic trigonometry...

I simply want to know, based on the dimensions of this thing, why we cannot observe it?



Because the Shadow Moon emits the dextrorotatory subquarks which cause the terrestrial gravitation.

By contrast, the Black Sun emits the laevorotatory subquarks; that is why during the Allais effect, we can observe the formidable antigravitational effects as exemplified in my previous message.

I simply want to know, based on the dimensions of this thing, why we cannot observe it?

Because the Shadow Moon emits the dextrorotatory subquarks which cause the terrestrial gravitation.

By contrast, the Black Sun emits the laevorotatory subquarks; that is why during the Allais effect, we can observe the formidable antigravitational effects as exemplified in my previous message.

What can I say?  Other than what a load of unmitigated bovine excrement.  Poor old sandokhan must eat dictionaries for breakfast.   

ausgeoff, let us go back in time:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=61876.60#.VFzgSTSsXJc

Only someone who inherited the IQ of an ape, could use a wikipedia source to debate the Allais effect.

Your crude, brutish understanding of science is truly laughable.

You simply had no idea that the Allais effect has been heavily documented in the years: 1999, 2003, 2006, 2009, 2010, 2011.

In fact, the poor schlemiel (ausgeoff that is) had no knowledge of the work performed during the 2009 solar eclipse:

Observations of Correlated Behavior of Two Light Torsion Balances and a Paraconical Pendulum in Separate Locations during the Solar Eclipse of January 26th, 2009:


http://www.researchgate.net/publication/235701910_Observations_of_Correlated_Behavior_of_Two_Light_TorsionBalances_and_a_Paraconical_Pendulum_in_Separate_Locationsduring_the_Solar_Eclipse_of_January_26th_2009



The Allais effect proves immediately:

The Moon does not cause the solar eclipse.

The antigravitational effect is a splendid exemplification and confirmation of the original set of Maxwell's equations.


Antigravity could only be transmitted through the laevorotatory subquarks emitte by the Black Sun (it has already been proven that the Moon does not cause the solar eclipse).

ausgeoff...do your homework, you might just learn something.

The existence of the shadow moon was discussed/predicted by the most eminent astronomers of the 19th century:

That many such bodies exist in the firmament is almost a matter of certainty; and that one such as that which
eclipses the moon exists at no great distance above the earth's surface, is a matter admitted by many of the leading astronomers of the day. In the report of the council of the Royal Astronomical Society, for June 1850, it is said:--

"We may well doubt whether that body which we call the moon is the only satellite of the earth."

In the report of the Academy of Sciences for October 12th, 1846, and again for August, 1847, the director of one of the French observatories gives a number of observations and calculations which have led him to conclude that,--

"There is at least one non-luminous body of considerable magnitude which is attached as a satellite to this earth."

Sir John Herschel admits that:--

"Invisible moons exist in the firmament."

Sir John Lubbock is of the same opinion, and gives rules and formulæ for calculating their distances, periods.

Lambert in his cosmological letters admits the existence of "dark cosmical bodies of great size."


The subquarks constantly being supplied to form the telluric currents come in two flavors, as already discussed:

One of the dark bodies which orbit above the Earth emits the laevorotatory subquarks, the antigravitational subquarks, as proven by the Allais effect.

Logically, the invisible moon emits the dextrorotatory subquarks: in fact read this extraordinary work:


http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-rpress.asp

In fact, cosmic waves have far greater penetrating power than the man-made gamma radiation, and can even pass through a thickness of two metres of lead. The highest frequency possible, that is, the shortest wavelength limit is equal to the dimension of the unit element making up space-time itself, equal to Planck length, radiating at a frequency of 7.4E42Hz.

As you might be thinking already, the radiation pressure exerted by such high frequency radiation, in the top part of the EM spectrum, would be a perfect candidate for the gravity effect, since such radiation would penetrate ANY matter and act all over its constituent particles, not just its surface. The radiation can be visualised as a shower of high energy EM waves imparting impulses of momentum to all bodies in space. It also explains the great difficulty we have to shield anything from such force. The energy of each individual photon is a crucial component of the momentum necessary to create pressure for gravity to be possible. The shadow of incoming high energy EM wave packets can be pictured as the carriers of the gravitational force, the normal role assigned to the theoretical graviton. Hence, gravitons have been theorised due to the lack of knowledge of radiation pressure and radiation shadowing, and that's why they will never be detected. If photons represent the luminance of electromagnetic radiation, then, gravitons represent the shadowing and can be considered as negative energy waves, lack of photons or photon-holes.



This radiation shadowing is being emitted by the heavenly body which does cause the lunar eclipse: read the phrase - that is why they will never be detected.

"Gravitons represent the shadowing and can be considered as negative energy waves, lack of photons or photon-holes".

wow, it almost looks like some of the above was typed instead of pasted.

wow, it almost looks like some of the above was typed instead of pasted.

What's so funny is that—like most flat earthers—sandokhan relies on the science of 100 or 150 years ago; Lubbock and Herschel talking about "invisible" bodies in the solar system for example.  He probably accepts the silly experiments of the great flat earth hero Samuel Rowbotham as well.

You need to give up the copypasta sandokhan;  all those literary carbs are gonna kill you LOL.

Quote from: sandokhan on November 07, 2014, 05:34:55 AM

I simply want to know, based on the dimensions of this thing, why we cannot observe it?

Because the Shadow Moon emits the dextrorotatory subquarks which cause the terrestrial gravitation.

By contrast, the Black Sun emits the laevorotatory subquarks; that is why during the Allais effect, we can observe the formidable antigravitational effects as exemplified in my previous message.

What can I say?  Other than what a load of unmitigated bovine excrement.  Poor old sandokhan must eat dictionaries for breakfast.   

Or possibly he exists on a strict diet of fettucine, spaghetti, macaroni, et cetera,et cetera and so forth ?

I shall not even attempt to class this is as a theory or hypothesis but as possible explanations for the Moon and the Dark /or/ Shadow Moon.:

The luminance of the moon is due do it being populated by Moon Shrimp.
The darkness of the Dark /or/ Shadow Moon is due to it being populated by Dark Moon Black Adders. Which in turn eat the Moon Shrimp causing the eclipse of the Moon.

Quote from: ausGeoff on November 07, 2014, 07:03:04 AM

Quote from: sandokhan on November 07, 2014, 05:34:55 AM

I simply want to know, based on the dimensions of this thing, why we cannot observe it?

Because the Shadow Moon emits the dextrorotatory subquarks which cause the terrestrial gravitation.

By contrast, the Black Sun emits the laevorotatory subquarks; that is why during the Allais effect, we can observe the formidable antigravitational effects as exemplified in my previous message.

What can I say?  Other than what a load of unmitigated bovine excrement.  Poor old sandokhan must eat dictionaries for breakfast.   

Or possibly he exists on a strict diet of fettucine, spaghetti, macaroni, et cetera,et cetera and so forth ?

I shall not even attempt to class this is as a theory or hypothesis but as possible explanations for the Moon and the Dark /or/ Shadow Moon.:

The luminance of the moon is due do it being populated by Moon Shrimp.
The darkness of the Dark /or/ Shadow Moon is due to it being populated by Dark Moon Black Adders. Which in turn eat the Moon Shrimp causing the eclipse of the Moon.

Thanks for the clarification, I thought Moon Shrimp migrate but I guess I was wrong

Flat earthers: why doesn't the shadow object ever block anything else besides the Sun and Moon?  Why doesn't it ever block our view of Venus, Mars, The Big Dipper, etc.?  Is it hiding in a closet somewhere, waiting to pop out occasionally to block the Sun or Moon, and then, after the job is done, it goes back in its closet?

Flat earthers: why doesn't the shadow object ever block anything else besides the Sun and Moon?  Why doesn't it ever block our view of Venus, Mars, The Big Dipper, etc.?  Is it hiding in a closet somewhere, waiting to pop out occasionally to block the Sun or Moon, and then, after the job is done, it goes back in its closet?

Because the disks that slide along this invisible plane are magic, that's why.

Quote from: Googleotomy on November 07, 2014, 10:03:21 AM

Quote from: ausGeoff on November 07, 2014, 07:03:04 AM

Quote from: sandokhan on November 07, 2014, 05:34:55 AM

I simply want to know, based on the dimensions of this thing, why we cannot observe it?

Because the Shadow Moon emits the dextrorotatory subquarks which cause the terrestrial gravitation.

By contrast, the Black Sun emits the laevorotatory subquarks; that is why during the Allais effect, we can observe the formidable antigravitational effects as exemplified in my previous message.

What can I say?  Other than what a load of unmitigated bovine excrement.  Poor old sandokhan must eat dictionaries for breakfast.   

Or possibly he exists on a strict diet of fettucine, spaghetti, macaroni, et cetera,et cetera and so forth ?

I shall not even attempt to class this is as a theory or hypothesis but as possible explanations for the Moon and the Dark /or/ Shadow Moon.:

The luminance of the moon is due do it being populated by Moon Shrimp.
The darkness of the Dark /or/ Shadow Moon is due to it being populated by Dark Moon Black Adders. Which in turn eat the Moon Shrimp causing the eclipse of the Moon.

Thanks for the clarification, I thought Moon Shrimp migrate but I guess I was wrong

The Moon Shrimp DO migrate. Of course that is what causes the phases of the moon. But somehow they manage to re-populate the moon after the eclipse because the Dark Moon Black Adders missed a few during the eclipse.

It is all very elementary, My Dear Watson ! :
We wouldn't have any moonshine if it wasn't for the Moon Shrimp. We wouldn't have any eclipses of the moon if it wasn't for the Dark Moon Black Adders.

Quote from: theearthisrounddealwithit on November 08, 2014, 05:28:29 AM

Quote from: Googleotomy on November 07, 2014, 10:03:21 AM

Quote from: ausGeoff on November 07, 2014, 07:03:04 AM

Quote from: sandokhan on November 07, 2014, 05:34:55 AM

I simply want to know, based on the dimensions of this thing, why we cannot observe it?

Because the Shadow Moon emits the dextrorotatory subquarks which cause the terrestrial gravitation.

By contrast, the Black Sun emits the laevorotatory subquarks; that is why during the Allais effect, we can observe the formidable antigravitational effects as exemplified in my previous message.

What can I say?  Other than what a load of unmitigated bovine excrement.  Poor old sandokhan must eat dictionaries for breakfast.   

Or possibly he exists on a strict diet of fettucine, spaghetti, macaroni, et cetera,et cetera and so forth ?

I shall not even attempt to class this is as a theory or hypothesis but as possible explanations for the Moon and the Dark /or/ Shadow Moon.:

The luminance of the moon is due do it being populated by Moon Shrimp.
The darkness of the Dark /or/ Shadow Moon is due to it being populated by Dark Moon Black Adders. Which in turn eat the Moon Shrimp causing the eclipse of the Moon.

Thanks for the clarification, I thought Moon Shrimp migrate but I guess I was wrong

The Moon Shrimp DO migrate. Of course that is what causes the phases of the moon. But somehow they manage to re-populate the moon after the eclipse because the Dark Moon Black Adders missed a few during the eclipse.

It is all very elementary, My Dear Watson ! :
We wouldn't have any moonshine if it wasn't for the Moon Shrimp. We wouldn't have any eclipses of the moon if it wasn't for the Dark Moon Black Adders.

I guess so but I still feel sad for the Moon Shrimp. 

Quote from: Googleotomy on November 08, 2014, 10:44:53 AM

Quote from: theearthisrounddealwithit on November 08, 2014, 05:28:29 AM

Quote from: Googleotomy on November 07, 2014, 10:03:21 AM

Quote from: ausGeoff on November 07, 2014, 07:03:04 AM

Quote from: sandokhan on November 07, 2014, 05:34:55 AM

I simply want to know, based on the dimensions of this thing, why we cannot observe it?

Because the Shadow Moon emits the dextrorotatory subquarks which cause the terrestrial gravitation.

By contrast, the Black Sun emits the laevorotatory subquarks; that is why during the Allais effect, we can observe the formidable antigravitational effects as exemplified in my previous message.

What can I say?  Other than what a load of unmitigated bovine excrement.  Poor old sandokhan must eat dictionaries for breakfast.   

Or possibly he exists on a strict diet of fettucine, spaghetti, macaroni, et cetera,et cetera and so forth ?

I shall not even attempt to class this is as a theory or hypothesis but as possible explanations for the Moon and the Dark /or/ Shadow Moon.:

The luminance of the moon is due do it being populated by Moon Shrimp.
The darkness of the Dark /or/ Shadow Moon is due to it being populated by Dark Moon Black Adders. Which in turn eat the Moon Shrimp causing the eclipse of the Moon.

Thanks for the clarification, I thought Moon Shrimp migrate but I guess I was wrong

The Moon Shrimp DO migrate. Of course that is what causes the phases of the moon. But somehow they manage to re-populate the moon after the eclipse because the Dark Moon Black Adders missed a few during the eclipse.

It is all very elementary, My Dear Watson ! :
We wouldn't have any moonshine if it wasn't for the Moon Shrimp. We wouldn't have any eclipses of the moon if it wasn't for the Dark Moon Black Adders.

I guess so but I still feel sad for the Moon Shrimp. 

I guess so, too, but the Moon Shrimp must be able to breed like rabbits ... To keep the Moon shining. I also wonder about the Dark Moon Black Adders. They must get indigestion from eating all those Moon Shrimp.

But this is all just conjecture. A guess at the most . I suppose it is really the Flat Earthers who have the real explanation of the Dark Object....Or what ever it is  that causes the eclipse of the Moon. 

Quote from: FlatAllTheWay on November 08, 2014, 07:02:21 AM

Flat earthers: why doesn't the shadow object ever block anything else besides the Sun and Moon?  Why doesn't it ever block our view of Venus, Mars, The Big Dipper, etc.?  Is it hiding in a closet somewhere, waiting to pop out occasionally to block the Sun or Moon, and then, after the job is done, it goes back in its closet?

Because the disks that slide along this invisible plane are magic, that's why.

Because the disks are controlled by the aether and the UA , that's also why. 

Is this shadow object thing something that more than one or two flat earthers take seriously?

I haven't seen it pointed out here yet, that eclipsed moon for an example is not blocked from view; you can still see it, it's just shaded, and likewise during a solar eclipse you can see that it's the moon that moves in front of the sun. And no, you don't need to 'rely on nasa images' or anything, just look at it when it's happening... How can this at all be a matter of debate??

The flat earthers have yet to explain the dimensions and structure of their "shadow object".  Diameter?  Chemical composition?  Thickness?  Orbit?  Periodicity?  Who discovered it and when?  A citation in any reference books?  Its location on a star map?

C'mon flat earthers... details please.

Also the weather patterns on the moon.