what's the new answer for the lunar eclipse?

  • 99 Replies
  • 4528 Views
Re: what's the new answer for the lunar eclipse?
« Reply #60 on: October 11, 2016, 08:01:17 PM »
:D I think it's funny that you say they can't interfere because the sun exhibits a black body curve (which doesn't really make sense anyway) and then go on to post the normalized graph showing that both moonlight and sunlight follow essentially share the same Plank curve and Fraunhofer lines. Good times.
that's because the moon literally reflects the sun's light.
I wonder how obnoxious I can make my signature?
Please give me ideas.

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8505
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: what's the new answer for the lunar eclipse?
« Reply #61 on: October 11, 2016, 08:04:09 PM »
at the rediculously high frequencies such as light and infrared, the interference is so small it is almost unnoticable unless you are actually trying to notice them.
For uncollimated light, that is basically true. Not small, per se (though it frequently would be, it depends on amplitudes involved.), but over extremely short, variable periods of time.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39617
Re: what's the new answer for the lunar eclipse?
« Reply #62 on: October 11, 2016, 08:54:32 PM »
Quote
Moonlight is almost exactly the same colour as sunlight.
Yes, and any waves with almost exactly the same frequency will interact to create interference.
Here's a fun experiment to try: take 2 white LED flashlights and shine them on the same spot to see if you can get them to cancel each other out.
First, interference is taking place anywhere those flashlight beams are interacting.  It is simply not stable and occurs variably way too fast for you to observe. Some of that interference will be destructive. Some of it constructive.
So then you're saying that all of that interference averages out to being equivalent to no interference at all?  Good to know.

Second, unless we have a means of taking the flashlights extraordinary distances, we're not dealing with collimated light, so your experiment is fundamentally flawed. ::)
Then use laser pointers instead of flashlights.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8505
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: what's the new answer for the lunar eclipse?
« Reply #63 on: October 11, 2016, 09:31:34 PM »
So then you're saying that all of that interference averages out to being equivalent to no interference at all?  Good to know.
It results in traveling wave patterns that you are incapable of distinguishing because of the speed of light.

Quote
Then use laser pointers instead of flashlights.
That was already demonstrated almost fifty years ago  :-\
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39617
Re: what's the new answer for the lunar eclipse?
« Reply #64 on: October 11, 2016, 09:53:30 PM »
Ski, just out of curiosity, why are we even discussing interference patterns in collimated light?  Are you suggesting that the interference patterns are responsible for lunar eclipses, or is this just a typical unnecessary derailment?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 17929
  • Or should I?
Re: what's the new answer for the lunar eclipse?
« Reply #65 on: October 11, 2016, 10:04:50 PM »
I thought he was suggesting a possible different explanation for the lunar eclipse, probably one of the better alternative explanations I've heard.

Not a big fan of the shadow object.
I do like the idea of moonshramp but feel it's a bit far fetched.
BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

Re: what's the new answer for the lunar eclipse?
« Reply #66 on: October 12, 2016, 12:07:43 AM »
I'll say it again

it's our shadow, tracking them, following them, it's very basic

funny how Ski didn't answer 'that' question, AGAIN

instead he runs around with long words

Ski, with your infinite wisdom, do you know how SHADOWS work?
The lunar eclipse is a shadow, its so obvious, it ONLY happens when the sun is at the opposite side of the globe

stop trying to overcomplicate something very simple

and I'll say it again, because you always pretend I've not said it 'if you're using Eric Dubay's explanation, you need to re-answer the sunset/sunrise question'

amateur

*

rabinoz

  • 26376
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: what's the new answer for the lunar eclipse?
« Reply #67 on: October 12, 2016, 03:49:04 AM »
I do believe I could say:
Do you, per chance, actually read my posts, Ski? Or do you just copy and paste the same stuff over and over and act surprised that I don't follow you around to answer the questions I've already answered?


Quote
Moonlight is almost exactly the same colour as sunlight.
Yes, and any waves with almost exactly the same frequency will interact to create interference.
No, waves of "almost exactly the same frequency will" NOT  "interact to create interference" - it is not possible.
:-\
Uhm, waves of any frequency will interact. That is what "interference" is.
But waves of just any frequency cannot cause constructive or destructive interference with waves of another frequency.
Solar radiation is close to the sum of the black body radiation from a number of sources at different temperatures. Most of the light comes from the roughly 500 km thick Photosphere with different temperatures at different depths.

Black body radiation is a random or stochastic process, and does not produce any periodic waveform. It can be filtered, say with a prism and slit, to produce something closer to a single frequency.

Quote from: Ski
Quote
For waves to cause destructive interference they most be of the same frequency and for complete cancellation exactly 180 out of phase.
This is essentially correct.

Quote
You really need to learn a bit of simple physics before boxing yourself into a corner you can't get out of!
Physician,  heal thyself
No, I need no healing on this matter. I honestly believe that what I am explaining to you is correct.
Quote from: Ski
Quote from: Gibson Notes, 5.1 General Properties of Waves
5.1 General Properties of Waves
As it turns out, when waves are at the same place at the same time, the amplitudes of the waves simply add together and this is really all we need to know!
Tadaa!

Stop being such a smart alec! Sunlight cannot be looked on as a simple wave that can add to or sub or subtract delayed versions of itself. Up to that point Gibson''s notes have been referring only to simply sine waves, not complex waves like black body radiation!
It would have been wise to read a bit further! "Although this statement is easy to make, that two waves in the same space at the same time simply add together, actually calculating the effects of this can be quite tricky. A number of unusual things can happen because of this property of waves, and are generally called interference effects. We will explore several consequences of interference in the next few sections."

Quote from: Ski
Quote
But, please don't pretend that you know something of this topic, I can clearly see that you don't.
I think you simply think you know more than you do.
No, i don't believe so. I already said that Physics was not may "major" area, but I have been in a related area for long enough to know what I am talking about!

Quote from: Ski
Quote
So no, destructive interference between sunlight and another light source (or a reflected version of itself)
This will be of great interest to Thomas Young who gave birth to the twin-slit experiment demonstrating interference using... sunlight...   ::)

No, no problem for Thomas Young, you did understand what he did, I hope.
Quote from: Wikipedia
Young's interference experiment
"In order that the effects of two portions of light may be thus combined, it is necessary that they be derived from the same origin, and that they arrive at the same point by different paths, in directions not much deviating from each other. This deviation may be produced in one or both of the portions by diffraction, by reflection, by refraction, or by any of these effects combined; but the simplest case appears to be, when a beam of homogeneous light falls on a screen in which there are two very small holes or slits, which may be considered as centres of divergence, from whence the light is diffracted in every direction."

In Young's experiment the two light sources were "derived from the same origin" and and traveled "in directions not much deviating from each other". The two beams were from the same source and travelled almost exactly the same distance.

You might note that modern versions of the experiment often use light filtered by a prism and a single slit or they use a laser light source that produces almost coherent light.

But the same conditions do not hold for sunlight and moonlight, whether or not moonlight is reflected sunlight or from some other source.
Lunar eclipses cannot be caused be "destructive interference" with sunlight.

Yes, I do know what I am talking about, and no smart "Tadaa!" on your part changes that.
I am not looking to score points or sound smart as you seem to be trying to do. I am simply pointing out a few basic points of Physics.


*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8505
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: what's the new answer for the lunar eclipse?
« Reply #68 on: October 12, 2016, 11:55:35 AM »
Quote from: rab
But waves of just any frequency cannot cause constructive or destructive interference with waves of another frequency.
Uhm, first, that is not what we are talking about here, and second, that isn't true. You could still have nodal points, conceivably even lines over a large enough medium. If you set two or more objects bobbing in a tank of water at different frequencies, you will still see constructive and destructive interference taking place. You might conceivably even see nodal points or lines. But again, we are talking about waves with the same frequencies and very similar amplitudes. This is verified by the nice overlay you provided of the Plank curves.


Quote
No, I need no healing on this matter. I honestly believe that what I am explaining to you is correct.
I know you do. I have no doubt that you believe that you are right.

Quote
Quote from: Ski
Quote from: Gibson Notes, 5.1 General Properties of Waves
5.1 General Properties of Waves
As it turns out, when waves are at the same place at the same time, the amplitudes of the waves simply add together and this is really all we need to know!
Tadaa!

Stop being such a smart alec! Sunlight cannot be looked on as a simple wave that can add to or sub or subtract delayed versions of itself.
"Sunlight" is simply the sum of many different waves at many different frequencies. We can limit ourselves to the visual spectrum for this purpose. We can (and should) treat the sunlight as the sum of many different beams of different frequencies of visible light from the same source. "Moonlight", similarly, is the sum of many different beams of of different visible light. These frequencies have variable amplitude, as shown by the Plank curve. It is simple math to add (or in the case of out of phase waves subtract, ie add a negative) the amplitudes of the two different beams. In this case,  it is the delta-A of the two beams of any given frequency. As you can see the amplitudes are remarkably similar across the visual light spectrum for either the sun or moon. This means the result of out of phase sunlight and moon light is a very small amplitude of light. Consistent with observation.  The largest (in amplitude) component of the sum occurs in the red section of the visible light spectrum. This is also consistent with observation.


Quote
I am simply pointing out a few basic points of Physics.

Except you are taking basic examples from text books as "a few basic points of Physics" ignoring the reality that the examples (like same frequency interference) are chosen precisely because they are simple, and not because interference is limited to the same frequencies.
Second, in a basic failure of fundamentals, you keep saying that visible sunlight and moon light are different frequencies,  which is ridiculously false, because we are talking about multiple frequencies across a small spectrum (visible light, 430-770THz) of which both beams have an (meaningfully similar) amplitude (see graph you keep posting as somehow evidence of opposite)
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

Re: what's the new answer for the lunar eclipse?
« Reply #69 on: October 12, 2016, 12:52:37 PM »
As you can see the amplitudes are remarkably similar across the visual light spectrum for either the sun or moon. This means the result of out of phase sunlight and moon light is a very small amplitude of light.

You are assuming that destructive interference will predominate over constructive interference. What makes you assume this? Both seem equally likely given light coming from two different directions, random phases, and a wide range of frequencies.

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8505
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: what's the new answer for the lunar eclipse?
« Reply #70 on: October 12, 2016, 01:39:43 PM »
As you can see the amplitudes are remarkably similar across the visual light spectrum for either the sun or moon. This means the result of out of phase sunlight and moon light is a very small amplitude of light.

You are assuming that destructive interference will predominate over constructive interference. What makes you assume this? Both seem equally likely given light coming from two different directions, random phases, and a wide range of frequencies.

Only in those relatively small areas and times where the collimated light is precisely out of phase.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

Re: what's the new answer for the lunar eclipse?
« Reply #71 on: October 12, 2016, 01:51:49 PM »
As you can see the amplitudes are remarkably similar across the visual light spectrum for either the sun or moon. This means the result of out of phase sunlight and moon light is a very small amplitude of light.

You are assuming that destructive interference will predominate over constructive interference. What makes you assume this? Both seem equally likely given light coming from two different directions, random phases, and a wide range of frequencies.

Only in those relatively small areas and times where the collimated light is precisely out of phase.

Under what circumstances would the light be collimated and precisely out of phase?

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8505
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: what's the new answer for the lunar eclipse?
« Reply #72 on: October 12, 2016, 02:01:05 PM »
Quote from:
Under rare circumstances moonlight and the light reflected from the earth superimpose directly out of phase.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

?

narcberry

  • 5566
  • Reason > RET
Re: what's the new answer for the lunar eclipse?
« Reply #73 on: October 12, 2016, 02:02:43 PM »
I think this thread has been resolved and can be closed now.

Thanks everyone for your contributions, this thread chalks up in favor of FET. Lets keep quality questions like this coming!

Re: what's the new answer for the lunar eclipse?
« Reply #74 on: October 12, 2016, 02:04:10 PM »
As you can see the amplitudes are remarkably similar across the visual light spectrum for either the sun or moon. This means the result of out of phase sunlight and moon light is a very small amplitude of light.

You are assuming that destructive interference will predominate over constructive interference. What makes you assume this? Both seem equally likely given light coming from two different directions, random phases, and a wide range of frequencies.

Only in those relatively small areas and times where the collimated light is precisely out of phase.

Under what circumstances would the light be collimated and precisely out of phase?

Ok, I am going to preempt the inevitable "during a lunar eclipse" response.

Think about the position of the sun and moon during a lunar eclipse. In the flat earth model, they are (probably?) on opposite sides of their orbit over the earth. Under these circumstances, would you really expect the light moving from the moon to your eyes to be collimated with the light from the sun? It seems more likely that the light from the sun would be perpendicular to the light coming from the moon.

(dang it, I wasn't fast enough...)

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8505
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: what's the new answer for the lunar eclipse?
« Reply #75 on: October 12, 2016, 07:56:20 PM »
What I think we are really looking for is the relationship of the sunlight "earthshine" reflecting off the moon to the observer and the moon beam itself.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

Re: what's the new answer for the lunar eclipse?
« Reply #76 on: October 12, 2016, 08:05:29 PM »
I think this thread has been resolved and can be closed now.

Thanks everyone for your contributions, this thread chalks up in favor of FET. Lets keep quality questions like this coming!
No, not so fast..
You claim the sun is a mere convex mirror reflecting the light of the stars.
Is this the FE consensus? Do they all agree here? If not, well, case back open..

Re: what's the new answer for the lunar eclipse?
« Reply #77 on: October 12, 2016, 08:13:41 PM »
What I think we are really looking for is the relationship of the sunlight "earthshine" reflecting off the moon to the observer and the moon beam itself.

Ok, let me make sure I understood this correctly. The light going from...

Sun->earth->moon->us

is interfering with the light going from

Sun->moon->us

What logical reason is there for the phases of this light to ever be lined up? Destructively or otherwise?

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8505
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: what's the new answer for the lunar eclipse?
« Reply #78 on: October 12, 2016, 09:40:44 PM »
What logical reason is there for the phases of light to never align?
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

Re: what's the new answer for the lunar eclipse?
« Reply #79 on: October 12, 2016, 09:51:14 PM »
What logical reason is there for the phases of light to never align?

Probability? We are talking about massive numbers of photons with random phases here. Some of them will interfere destructively, just by chance. Some will interfere constructively, just by chance. Some won't interfere at all. Statistically speaking, there is no reason why destructive interference should be favored over constructive interference. Assuming the phases are random.

What I am asking, is there any reason to believe the phases AREN'T random? Is there any logical mechanism that would cause them to line up on a recurring, predictable basis?

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8505
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: what's the new answer for the lunar eclipse?
« Reply #80 on: October 12, 2016, 11:00:55 PM »
I don't think it would be random.  It would depend on different factors,  like distance traveled for example.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

Re: what's the new answer for the lunar eclipse?
« Reply #81 on: October 12, 2016, 11:52:47 PM »
I don't think it would be random.  It would depend on different factors,  like distance traveled for example.

Yes, distance effects the phase. Excellent, now we are getting somewhere.

Let's simplify things a bit. Assume that two photons are emitted. Both start at the same frequency and phase. One goes towards the moon, then bounces towards your eye. The other towards the earth, then to the moon, then to your eye.

Under what conditions would they destructively interfere?

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 17929
  • Or should I?
Re: what's the new answer for the lunar eclipse?
« Reply #82 on: October 13, 2016, 12:05:02 AM »
I'm enjoying this thread, I always learn something cool when Ski and Totes debate.
BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8505
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: what's the new answer for the lunar eclipse?
« Reply #83 on: October 13, 2016, 12:24:36 AM »
Whenever the distance (d) of one is essentially .5 or 1.5 or 2.5, et al of the other, Totes.

Or, under the right circumstances,  (d) of one is the same as the other or at a distance of x(d), where "x" is a whole number.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

Re: what's the new answer for the lunar eclipse?
« Reply #84 on: October 13, 2016, 12:50:11 AM »
Whenever the distance (d) of one is essentially .5 or 1.5 or 2.5, et al of the other, Totes.

Or, under the right circumstances,  (d) of one is the same as the other or at a distance of x(d), where "x" is a whole number.

You are on the right track, but you forgot to take into account the wavelength.

d2 = d1 + (x + .5)*L    (for destructive interference)
d2 = d1 + x*L             (for constructive interference)

L = wavelength of light
x = some whole number

One of the photons would also have to be emitted later than second, since it has to arrive at the same place at the same time after traveling different distances. One problem at a time though. So under this simple scenario, destructive interference would happen, agreed? (Seriously asking, I would love someone to double check this...)

Ok, next step. How often can we expect the above equation for destructive interference to hold true?
« Last Edit: October 13, 2016, 12:51:46 AM by TotesReptilian »

*

rabinoz

  • 26376
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: what's the new answer for the lunar eclipse?
« Reply #85 on: October 13, 2016, 03:00:12 AM »
What logical reason is there for the phases of light to never align?
For the very logical reason that radiation from the sun is effectively made up of numerous frequencies added in random phase.

Hence it has no definable phase to align except with an exact non-delayed copy of itself.

Laser light can interfere with delayed versions of itself, but even there it is limited by what is called the "coherence distance" (look it up, even Wikipedia isn't too bad).

*

rabinoz

  • 26376
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: what's the new answer for the lunar eclipse?
« Reply #86 on: October 18, 2016, 02:57:29 AM »
What logical reason is there for the phases of light to never align?
For the very logical reason that radiation from the sun is effectively made up of numerous frequencies added in random phase.

Hence it has no definable phase to align except with an exact non-delayed copy of itself.

Laser light can interfere with delayed versions of itself, but even there it is limited by what is called the "coherence distance" (look it up, even Wikipedia isn't too bad).

I think is now safe to say that the Flat Earth has no "new answer for the lunar eclipse" and the old one in "the Wiki" is clearly flawed.
And I don't think anyone but SCG would take moonshramp seriously.

So an obvious victory the Globe!

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8505
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: what's the new answer for the lunar eclipse?
« Reply #87 on: October 18, 2016, 05:47:44 PM »
It was already demonstrated that sunlight exhibits interference, just as any other form of light, over 200 years ago, rab. Try to keep up.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

*

rabinoz

  • 26376
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: what's the new answer for the lunar eclipse?
« Reply #88 on: October 18, 2016, 07:14:14 PM »
It was already demonstrated that sunlight exhibits interference, just as any other form of light, over 200 years ago, rab. Try to keep up.

I believe I am far more "up" than you!

Yes, interference bands can be produced over a very limited region. Please go and learn a bit about "coherence", "coherence distance" and "correlation" and NO, they have nothing to do with "collimation"!

I know about "Young's Double Slit Experiment" that produced an interference pattern over a very limited range, so what! You are postulating destructive interference over a huge region - please give some justification for that.

There is absolutely no way that a broadband source such as sunlight could cause (almost) complete interference over a large area such as the moon.

So please describe, or provide a reliable reference, to your explanation of your "answer for the lunar eclipse", as all I have seen from your is that it "might be" or "sunlight can cause interference", so please put up a coherent (that word again) explanation for the whole process of a lunar eclipse or gracefully bow out!
Please include how the timing does fit exactly with the time of a full moon.
And yes, I know that you will bring up cases of the "Selenelion", but I doubt you will find authenticated cases that occur at other than very close to sunrise and sunset.

Re: what's the new answer for the lunar eclipse?
« Reply #89 on: October 18, 2016, 09:01:36 PM »
It was already demonstrated that sunlight exhibits interference, just as any other form of light, over 200 years ago, rab. Try to keep up.

Ski, I was trying to push you in the direction of actually thinking through your proposed explanation. Why did you give up?