A question regarding eclipses

  • 25 Replies
  • 1850 Views
A question regarding eclipses
« on: December 28, 2016, 03:06:54 PM »
As so many others, I have recently gained a lot of interest in the flat Earth hypothesis. This seems to be a place where people are free to ask those who believe in a flat Earth model, so I'm gonna try my luck here. Now, I do have to ask that trolls stay clear of the reply button; I'm not really interested in answers that contain less than 3 sentences ("Thanks for asking", "You're condecending and close minded", "No shit, Sherlock" and the like).


After watching countless videos and reading dozens of articles from both people who believe the Earth is round and flat, there is one thing that kind of sticks out. Neither the "round Earth theory" or the "flat Earth hypothesis" can be proven as fact. Your belief in either one seems to be driven by what seems easier, more logical, more natural or less problematic. To put it simply; if one sounds too ridiculous to be true, you believe the other one.


I am going to make a statement. There is one problem with the "round Earth theory". There are an insane amount of problems with the "flat Earth hypothesis".


Therefore, obviously, I believe the Earth is round. I cannot prove that it is, but out of all available models, this is the one that is easiest, most logical, most natural and by far least problematic.


The problem with the "round Earth theory" is actually dark matter. This is the only thing in the entire model of the universe that defies common sense. For those who do not know, dark matter is a bit of a wildcard that scientists use to explain why the universe is expanding faster now than it has previously. If you pop a balloon, the air inside will rush out quickly at first, and then gradually slow down as the pressure is equalized between the air that was outside, and the air that was inside the balloon. What we are seeing out there in the heavens, is that galaxies are actually accelerating away from each other at a growing speed. Since the Big Bang can be seen as a balloon popping, one would assume that the speed of the expansion would decay over time, until a point where it is overcome by the gravity of mass of the universe. From there, things would reverse. All galaxies would pull on each other, until they all crash into one single point in space (The Big Crunch). The problem is that we can clearly see that the galaxies are doing the opposite; they are picking up more speed outwards. What force is driving this action? That is what we call dark matter. It is "a something" that for whatever reason is pushing everything further appart. The idea itself is not that hard to grasp; it is a directional force like any other force we have observed; it is simply a problem of us being unable to find and examine a piece of dark matter. Until we can actually point at such a piece and say "this is dark matter and this is why it is increasing the expansion of our universe", this will for me remain a logical problem. But like I said, the force is linear and similar to any other force we can observe. I would argue, and I will, that such a force is a lot easier to accept than most of the "flat Earth model" hypotheses regarding gravity, the motion of the sun and moon and so on.


Someone will probably at this point be thinking "hold on there, are you seriously suggesting that there is only ONE thing we don't understand in our current model of the universe?" and well - no, there are more. Lots more. However, there are several good hypotheses that can answer for everything else, and better yet - they can be tested and verified. This is not conclusive evidence of course, but there are at least ways to test that the logic is sound. This is how real science works, after all. And when I say everything, I do mean everything. Feel free to ask me specific questions if there are some phenomenon that you want explained by the "round Earth model". Things like infinity. Gravity. Light. Relativity. They are hard to grasp, and I can to some extent understand that people would refute them as "too ridiculous", but most of these hypotheses actually go both ways. Light rays that are bending over the horizon vs. light rays that are bending upwards so that you can't see the end of the flat World from anywhere. Same basic principle, when you think about it.


I'm not going to go through all the holes in the "flat Earth hypothesis"; that would take way too long, and as many "believers" have said - it is not a unified hypothesis, like the "round Earth theory" is. I'm sure someone will find a way to argue with this statement too because there are things out there that scientists disagree on, but compared to the "flat Earth hypothesis", it is pretty much unified. What I mean is that there is a general concensus as to where certain objects are, where they are going, why they are going, what forces and particles are real and so on.


Instead, I have selected one fundemental problem with the "flat Earth hypothesis", that I cannot explain by any logic. I can follow you if you say the Earth is a disk, that there is a conspiracy going on, that gravity is not real and whatever - all of these things can actually in my mind be true. However, there is one well known and well documented phenomenon that does not fit the "flat Earth model" in any way, shape or form.


It has been questioned before, but all questions I have read fail to account for all the different hypotheses regarding the "flat Earth model". The problem is eclipses.


"Not this again!". I can hear people sighing, but stay with me.


(Most of) the "flat Earth model(s)" say that the Earth is flat and the sun and moon are objects very close to us, that are going around in circles. They always stay in front of the Earth's plane, and the reason we can't always see them is that they get too small (perspective) and the sun shines like a spotlight, not an omnidirectional light source.


To explain why the sun shines like a spotlight, we have two possibilities. The sun could shaped in such a way that light only ever escapes in a very specific direction. Think of it like a huge rock with a hole in it, and a molten core that emmits light. The light from the core would only escape through the hole, and thus it shines like a spotlight. This idea would be very similar to how a volcano on Earth works, in the sense that we have a light emmiting, molten core that "shines" through the Earth's surface in some specific places. Lava is not quite as bright as the sun, but it might still be possible.


The problem with this model is that we can actually see that the sun emmits light in all directions. If the surface of the sun was 80% non-light emmitting material, then we would not be able to see stars in close proximity to the sun, as they would have been blocked by this "rock-like" material. I mean, the material blocks sunlight, so obviously it would also block starlight. Unless you are suggesting that there are more than one type of light, which again is way too problematic to be plausible. If you think of the sun as an actual spotlight, it is simply not possible that you won't see any of the non-light emmitting spotlight material at any given time, when the sun is rising or setting. It cannot be aimed at the whole Earth at once, so somewhere, someone would have noticed that the sun has "dark spots" where it is not emmitting any light.


The other possibility, is that something else is blocking the sunlight. The "flat Earth model" refers to a sort of invisible vortex that lies somewhere up in the heavens, and it is riddeled with holes. The material itself does not allow light to pass through it. Thus, the holes in the material is what causes the sunlight to act as a spotlight. It is the same basic principle as what I said earlier, but in this scenario the sun itself is an omnidirectional light source (which is what we see when we look at it).


And this is where we arrive at the problem with eclipses. In the "round Earth model", and eclipse is explained as a phenomenon where the Earth and moon are blocking each others line of sight to the sun. All objects involved in this process are moving at a (sort of) fixed tradjectory, and there is no random, magical force that somehow puts this in motion. Using this model, we can predict when and where it will happen, and it has never once been wrong.


In the "flat Earth model", this phenomenon is not really explained. A solar eclipse is easy enough, the moon blocks the sun. End of story. There is still the monumental problem of explaining the relative size and position of the sun and moon to make this happen, but that's not what I'm interested in (but do draw me a picture, if you think you can).


My beef is with lunar eclipses. Like I have explained, there is talk of a material out there that is causing the sun to act like a spotlight. It does not allow light to pass through it, but it does have holes in it. My best guess would be that lunar eclipses happen when the moon is supposed to be visible, but this material in the sky is somehow not properly aligned. It is partially blocking our view of the moon, bending the light to make it red. Well - why does this effect only happen during an eclipse, and not every single time the moon is covered, partially or otherwise, during the day? Many sources also claim the moon is a light source of it's own, which only serves to make this problem bigger. The sun glows red when it sets and rises, but the moon never does. The moon is only red during an eclipse. Another thing I have to point out is that the "flat Earth model" cannot predict when a solar or lunar eclipse happens. With the model that I believe in, I can make accurate predictions from now until the end of time, but no one can actually use the "flat Earth model" to do the same. If, for some reason, the "flat Earth model" happens to fit, if the invisible vortex in the sky has holes that make everything line up the way we actually see it, then yes - it could be true - but you still would not be able to make any predictions, because you cannot measure that this vortex is present.


But disregarding all that, the main problem and question is still present; if the moonlight is blocked both at regular daytime, nighttime (partially) and during an eclipse (completely), why does the light only bend during the eclipse? Why isn't the moon red more often?


And yes, I did say that I can follow you if you say the Earth is a disk and gravity is not real - and maybe even that there is a dome over our heads - but if you seriously suggest that the sun and moon are merely holographic projections created by the goverment, you might just be too dumb to deserve life. (Did I say that out loud?)
Presented in stereo where available.

*

dans

  • 156
Re: A question regarding eclipses
« Reply #1 on: December 28, 2016, 04:52:53 PM »
As so many others, I have recently gained a lot of interest in the flat Earth hypothesis. This seems to be a place where people are free to ask those who believe in a flat Earth model, so I'm gonna try my luck here. Now, I do have to ask that trolls stay clear of the reply button; I'm not really interested in answers that contain less than 3 sentences ("Thanks for asking", "You're condecending and close minded", "No shit, Sherlock" and the like).


After watching countless videos and reading dozens of articles from both people who believe the Earth is round and flat, there is one thing that kind of sticks out. Neither the "round Earth theory" or the "flat Earth hypothesis" can be proven as fact. Your belief in either one seems to be driven by what seems easier, more logical, more natural or less problematic. To put it simply; if one sounds too ridiculous to be true, you believe the other one.


I am going to make a statement. There is one problem with the "round Earth theory". There are an insane amount of problems with the "flat Earth hypothesis".


Therefore, obviously, I believe the Earth is round. I cannot prove that it is, but out of all available models, this is the one that is easiest, most logical, most natural and by far least problematic.


The problem with the "round Earth theory" is actually dark matter. This is the only thing in the entire model of the universe that defies common sense. For those who do not know, dark matter is a bit of a wildcard that scientists use to explain why the universe is expanding faster now than it has previously. If you pop a balloon, the air inside will rush out quickly at first, and then gradually slow down as the pressure is equalized between the air that was outside, and the air that was inside the balloon. What we are seeing out there in the heavens, is that galaxies are actually accelerating away from each other at a growing speed. Since the Big Bang can be seen as a balloon popping, one would assume that the speed of the expansion would decay over time, until a point where it is overcome by the gravity of mass of the universe. From there, things would reverse. All galaxies would pull on each other, until they all crash into one single point in space (The Big Crunch). The problem is that we can clearly see that the galaxies are doing the opposite; they are picking up more speed outwards. What force is driving this action? That is what we call dark matter. It is "a something" that for whatever reason is pushing everything further appart. The idea itself is not that hard to grasp; it is a directional force like any other force we have observed; it is simply a problem of us being unable to find and examine a piece of dark matter. Until we can actually point at such a piece and say "this is dark matter and this is why it is increasing the expansion of our universe", this will for me remain a logical problem. But like I said, the force is linear and similar to any other force we can observe. I would argue, and I will, that such a force is a lot easier to accept than most of the "flat Earth model" hypotheses regarding gravity, the motion of the sun and moon and so on.


Someone will probably at this point be thinking "hold on there, are you seriously suggesting that there is only ONE thing we don't understand in our current model of the universe?" and well - no, there are more. Lots more. However, there are several good hypotheses that can answer for everything else, and better yet - they can be tested and verified. This is not conclusive evidence of course, but there are at least ways to test that the logic is sound. This is how real science works, after all. And when I say everything, I do mean everything. Feel free to ask me specific questions if there are some phenomenon that you want explained by the "round Earth model". Things like infinity. Gravity. Light. Relativity. They are hard to grasp, and I can to some extent understand that people would refute them as "too ridiculous", but most of these hypotheses actually go both ways. Light rays that are bending over the horizon vs. light rays that are bending upwards so that you can't see the end of the flat World from anywhere. Same basic principle, when you think about it.


I'm not going to go through all the holes in the "flat Earth hypothesis"; that would take way too long, and as many "believers" have said - it is not a unified hypothesis, like the "round Earth theory" is. I'm sure someone will find a way to argue with this statement too because there are things out there that scientists disagree on, but compared to the "flat Earth hypothesis", it is pretty much unified. What I mean is that there is a general concensus as to where certain objects are, where they are going, why they are going, what forces and particles are real and so on.


Instead, I have selected one fundemental problem with the "flat Earth hypothesis", that I cannot explain by any logic. I can follow you if you say the Earth is a disk, that there is a conspiracy going on, that gravity is not real and whatever - all of these things can actually in my mind be true. However, there is one well known and well documented phenomenon that does not fit the "flat Earth model" in any way, shape or form.


It has been questioned before, but all questions I have read fail to account for all the different hypotheses regarding the "flat Earth model". The problem is eclipses.


"Not this again!". I can hear people sighing, but stay with me.


(Most of) the "flat Earth model(s)" say that the Earth is flat and the sun and moon are objects very close to us, that are going around in circles. They always stay in front of the Earth's plane, and the reason we can't always see them is that they get too small (perspective) and the sun shines like a spotlight, not an omnidirectional light source.


To explain why the sun shines like a spotlight, we have two possibilities. The sun could shaped in such a way that light only ever escapes in a very specific direction. Think of it like a huge rock with a hole in it, and a molten core that emmits light. The light from the core would only escape through the hole, and thus it shines like a spotlight. This idea would be very similar to how a volcano on Earth works, in the sense that we have a light emmiting, molten core that "shines" through the Earth's surface in some specific places. Lava is not quite as bright as the sun, but it might still be possible.


The problem with this model is that we can actually see that the sun emmits light in all directions. If the surface of the sun was 80% non-light emmitting material, then we would not be able to see stars in close proximity to the sun, as they would have been blocked by this "rock-like" material. I mean, the material blocks sunlight, so obviously it would also block starlight. Unless you are suggesting that there are more than one type of light, which again is way too problematic to be plausible. If you think of the sun as an actual spotlight, it is simply not possible that you won't see any of the non-light emmitting spotlight material at any given time, when the sun is rising or setting. It cannot be aimed at the whole Earth at once, so somewhere, someone would have noticed that the sun has "dark spots" where it is not emmitting any light.


The other possibility, is that something else is blocking the sunlight. The "flat Earth model" refers to a sort of invisible vortex that lies somewhere up in the heavens, and it is riddeled with holes. The material itself does not allow light to pass through it. Thus, the holes in the material is what causes the sunlight to act as a spotlight. It is the same basic principle as what I said earlier, but in this scenario the sun itself is an omnidirectional light source (which is what we see when we look at it).


And this is where we arrive at the problem with eclipses. In the "round Earth model", and eclipse is explained as a phenomenon where the Earth and moon are blocking each others line of sight to the sun. All objects involved in this process are moving at a (sort of) fixed tradjectory, and there is no random, magical force that somehow puts this in motion. Using this model, we can predict when and where it will happen, and it has never once been wrong.


In the "flat Earth model", this phenomenon is not really explained. A solar eclipse is easy enough, the moon blocks the sun. End of story. There is still the monumental problem of explaining the relative size and position of the sun and moon to make this happen, but that's not what I'm interested in (but do draw me a picture, if you think you can).


My beef is with lunar eclipses. Like I have explained, there is talk of a material out there that is causing the sun to act like a spotlight. It does not allow light to pass through it, but it does have holes in it. My best guess would be that lunar eclipses happen when the moon is supposed to be visible, but this material in the sky is somehow not properly aligned. It is partially blocking our view of the moon, bending the light to make it red. Well - why does this effect only happen during an eclipse, and not every single time the moon is covered, partially or otherwise, during the day? Many sources also claim the moon is a light source of it's own, which only serves to make this problem bigger. The sun glows red when it sets and rises, but the moon never does. The moon is only red during an eclipse. Another thing I have to point out is that the "flat Earth model" cannot predict when a solar or lunar eclipse happens. With the model that I believe in, I can make accurate predictions from now until the end of time, but no one can actually use the "flat Earth model" to do the same. If, for some reason, the "flat Earth model" happens to fit, if the invisible vortex in the sky has holes that make everything line up the way we actually see it, then yes - it could be true - but you still would not be able to make any predictions, because you cannot measure that this vortex is present.


But disregarding all that, the main problem and question is still present; if the moonlight is blocked both at regular daytime, nighttime (partially) and during an eclipse (completely), why does the light only bend during the eclipse? Why isn't the moon red more often?


And yes, I did say that I can follow you if you say the Earth is a disk and gravity is not real - and maybe even that there is a dome over our heads - but if you seriously suggest that the sun and moon are merely holographic projections created by the goverment, you might just be too dumb to deserve life. (Did I say that out loud?)
Hello,

I like to see a well presented argument, there's any FEers who could answer this?

Re: A question regarding eclipses
« Reply #2 on: December 28, 2016, 05:03:22 PM »
You are confusing dark matter and dark energy.

Dark energy is what is claimed to be accelerating the expansion of the universe.
Dark matter is what is proposed to explain the strange velocity-distance curve of galaxies and a few other things.

Regardless, this has no actual bearing on the shape of Earth.

You are also somewhat mistaken regarding balloons.
The pressure inside is inversely proportional to the radius. So as the balloon shrinks as it lets out air, the pressure increases which should expel the air faster. But yes, it should eventually stop as it runs out of air.

The same problem also exists for other forces.
For example, we cannot truly explain why things have a charge. All we can do is push the problem back onto something else.

But the important part is this is what is observed and thus the model fits/works.

Also, due to the ability to transform between coordinate systems, all predictions/models from a round earth model can be transformed to accommodate a flat earth model, with a required manipulation of space.

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 19003
  • Or should I?
Re: A question regarding eclipses
« Reply #3 on: December 28, 2016, 05:19:20 PM »
So there you go we have two problems with the heliocentric model at least, dark matter causing gravity to exert a stronger force than we could predict with a systems visable mass. And dark energy which is causing everything to expand for some reason we are not quite sure of yet. Not to mention QM doesn't fit with GR so there has to be a change in one or both of those theories before we have a chance at a G.U.T.

But like Jack said, it doesn't really have much to do with the shape of the thing we live on.

Also, due to the ability to transform between coordinate systems, all predictions/models from a round earth model can be transformed to accommodate a flat earth model, with a required manipulation of space.

Another victory for the FE?
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: A question regarding eclipses
« Reply #4 on: December 28, 2016, 05:41:41 PM »
Sorry, I did mix up the terms "dark energy" and "dark matter". I was of course talking about dark energy, not dark matter. For the record, there is no logical problem with dark matter. We haven't seen it, but then again, the universe concists of a lot of things that we have not seen. We can still measure and calculate that there is "a something" there. It is affecting the objects that we can see, and therefore it is simply logical to assume that there is "a something". No one has really seen the butt end of a carbon nano tube either, but to deny that it is there would be a bit silly. The properties of dark matter may be unknown, yes, but it is there. That is all I am saying, and it does make sense.

I am however not mistaken in the balloon example; I did not say to let the air out, I said pop the balloon. The balloon is pressurized - not by much, but enough - and popping it would release all that pressure almost immidialtely. Quickly at first, then slower until it is equalized.

Charge is one of those concepts that might be hard to grasp, but there is a very simple model behind it. The fundamental idea is that there are 3 states of charge; negative, neutral and positive. Opposites attract and cancel each other out. That is really all there is to it, and it can be applied to any phenomenon we know of, and it will hold up. Charge and magnetism does not really need any further proofing or testing than this either, since it will be the same in a "flat Earth model". I can say that because compasses do exist, and they do work just fine.

Disputeone, you are using a few abbriviations that I do not understand. If you are referring to quantum mechanics, general relativity and a grand unified theory, then I can simply refer to my original post; yes, there are conflicts in the "round Earth model", but compared to the problems faced by the "flat Earth model" it is as I said, pretty much unified.

[...] due to the ability to transform between coordinate systems, all predictions/models from a round earth model can be transformed to accommodate a flat earth model, with a required manipulation of space.


I don't think I understand your point. I stated that the "flat Earth model" cannot be used to predict eclipses, while the "round Earth model" could. I suppose you could use the round model to make predictions, "translate them" into the flat model (why would you need to do this, though?) and then say with absolute certainty that there will be a lunar eclipse on february 10. 2017. But won't that mean that the round model fits better than the flat one? Could you do it the other way?
« Last Edit: December 28, 2016, 05:43:28 PM by kiwhen »
Presented in stereo where available.

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 19003
  • Or should I?
Re: A question regarding eclipses
« Reply #5 on: December 28, 2016, 05:49:11 PM »
Clearly did understand the abbreviations.

Try to keep it more concise, one point at a time, the last few posts have been a sort of gish gallop.
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

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: A question regarding eclipses
« Reply #6 on: December 28, 2016, 06:04:08 PM »
I won't try to comment on all of it.

The problem with the "round Earth theory" is actually dark matter. This is the only thing in the entire model of the universe that defies common sense. For those who do not know, dark matter is a bit of a wildcard that scientists use to explain why the universe is expanding faster now than it has previously.
No the heliocentric Globe has no problem with "dark matter".
That is just a hypothesis to explain the rotational rates of stars in galaxies far from our solar system.

Quote from: kiwhen
Someone will probably at this point be thinking "hold on there, are you seriously suggesting that there is only ONE thing we don't understand in our current model of the universe?" and well - no, there are more. Lots more. However, there are several good hypotheses that can answer for everything else, and better yet - they can be tested and verified.

Agreed, scientists would be the first to stress that there is much that we don't know and Einstein said:
"The more I learn, the more I realise that I don't know."
I would go so far as to say that the end of the unknowns would mean the end of science.

Quote from: kiwhen
It has been questioned before, but all questions I have read fail to account for all the different hypotheses regarding the "flat Earth model". The problem is eclipses.

"Not this again!". I can hear people sighing, but stay with me.

(Most of) the "flat Earth model(s)" say that the Earth is flat and the sun and moon are objects very close to us, that are going around in circles. They always stay in front of the Earth's plane, and the reason we can't always see them is that they get too small (perspective) and the sun shines like a spotlight, not an omnidirectional light source.

The other possibility is that something else is blocking the sunlight. The "flat Earth model" refers to a sort of invisible vortex that lies somewhere up in the heavens, and it is riddled with holes. The material itself does not allow light to pass through it. Thus, the holes in the material is what causes the sunlight to act as a spotlight. It is the same basic principle as what I said earlier, but in this scenario the sun itself is an omnidirectional light source (which is what we see when we look at it).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
And this is where we arrive at the problem with eclipses. In the "round Earth model", and eclipse is explained as a phenomenon where the Earth and moon are blocking each others line of sight to the sun. All objects involved in this process are moving at a (sort of) fixed trajectory, and there is no random, magical force that somehow puts this in motion. Using this model, we can predict when and where it will happen, and it has never once been wrong.

In the "flat Earth model", this phenomenon is not really explained. A solar eclipse is easy enough, the moon blocks the sun. End of story. There is still the monumental problem of explaining the relative size and position of the sun and moon to make this happen, but that's not what I'm interested in (but do draw me a picture, if you think you can).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
But disregarding all that, the main problem and question is still present; if the moonlight is blocked both at regular daytime, nighttime (partially) and during an eclipse (completely),
I don't quite follow. Lunar eclipses can occasionally be seen right at sunset or sunrise as in
TriValley Stargazers, Lunar eclipse observation during daylight - some photographs worth looking at. These are called "selenelions"

Quote from: kiwhen
why does the light only bend during the eclipse? Why isn't the moon red more often?
Light from the sun and moon is always bent a little by the atmosphere. The amount varies, but on the horizon it is typically refracted downwards by about 0.5°.
This causes the sun and moon to appear to rise a few minutes earlier and set a few minutes later than the geometry of the globe would indicate. It is also the cause of these occasional "selenelions".

Quote from: kiwhen
And yes, I did say that I can follow you if you say the Earth is a disk and gravity is not real - and maybe even that there is a dome over our heads - but if you seriously suggest that the sun and moon are merely holographic projections created by the goverment, you might just be too dumb . . . . . . . . . . << better omit that thought,  ;) eugenics is not permitted here.  ;) >>
The two basic FE mechanisms for the lunar eclipse seem to be
  • A shadow object as in "the Wiki" here The Lunar Eclipse.

  • A self luminous moon, as far as I know originally in Zetetic Astronomy, by Samuel Birley Rowbotham. You need to read a lot of the preceding text, but here is the "crux" of it:
    Quote
    As the moon is self-luminous, her surface could not be darkened or "eclipsed" by a shadow of the earth--supposing such a shadow could be thrown upon it. In such a case, the luminosity instead of being diminished, would increase, and would be greater in proportion to the greater density or darkness of the shadow. As the light in a bull's-eye lantern looks brightest in the darkest places, so would the self-shining surface of the moon be most intense in the umbra or deepest part of the earth's shadow.
    . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .
    We have seen that, during a lunar eclipse, the moon's self-luminous surface is covered by a semi-transparent something; that this "something" is a definite mass, because it has a distinct and circular outline, as seen during its first and last contact with the moon. As a solar eclipse occurs from the moon passing before the sun, so, from the evidence above collected, it is evident that a lunar eclipse arises from a similar cause--a body semi-transparent and well-defined passing before the moon; or between the moon's surface and the observer on the surface of the earth.

    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.

    From Zetetic Astronomy, by Samuel Birley Rowbotham), CHAPTER XI. CAUSE OF SOLAR AND LUNAR ECLIPSES. p. 148,149.

    This "self-luminous moon" gets much (often tongue-in-cheek with  ;D moonshramp  ;D) coverage in lunar eclipse threads.

Best of luck, the Lunar Eclipse seems to be an area where angels fear to tread or maybe it's more like here be dragons for FET.


Re: A question regarding eclipses
« Reply #7 on: December 28, 2016, 07:41:15 PM »
Sorry, I did mix up the terms "dark energy" and "dark matter". I was of course talking about dark energy, not dark matter. For the record, there is no logical problem with dark matter. We haven't seen it, but then again, the universe concists of a lot of things that we have not seen. We can still measure and calculate that there is "a something" there.
The same applies to dark energy.
We can see the effect and calculate that there is a "something" there which is accelerating the expansion of the universe.

I am however not mistaken in the balloon example; I did not say to let the air out, I said pop the balloon. The balloon is pressurized - not by much, but enough - and popping it would release all that pressure almost immidialtely. Quickly at first, then slower until it is equalized.
My bad, I misunderstood what you meant.
Yes, popping the balloon would result in a pressure differential causing it to expand, but slowly slow down the expansion.
One issue with that is that you are popping a balloon into air.
If you do it into a perfect vacuum to simulate the big bang, then the particles that make up the air inside the balloon act more like particles than as a gas and thus the expansion is slowed down a lot less.

Charge is one of those concepts that might be hard to grasp, but there is a very simple model behind it. The fundamental idea is that there are 3 states of charge; negative, neutral and positive. Opposites attract and cancel each other out. That is really all there is to it, and it can be applied to any phenomenon we know of, and it will hold up. Charge and magnetism does not really need any further proofing or testing than this either, since it will be the same in a "flat Earth model". I can say that because compasses do exist, and they do work just fine.
My point was that they don't truly have an explanation for why these things are charged (akin to an explanation for why the expansion of the universe is accelerating). Any attempt at an explanation is merely pushing the problem back.

[...] due to the ability to transform between coordinate systems, all predictions/models from a round earth model can be transformed to accommodate a flat earth model, with a required manipulation of space.
I don't think I understand your point. I stated that the "flat Earth model" cannot be used to predict eclipses, while the "round Earth model" could. I suppose you could use the round model to make predictions, "translate them" into the flat model (why would you need to do this, though?) and then say with absolute certainty that there will be a lunar eclipse on february 10. 2017. But won't that mean that the round model fits better than the flat one? Could you do it the other way?
It all depends on what flat Earth model you use.

You can translate the round Earth model into a flat Earth one with strange space that bends light and allows the sun and moon to be an omnidirectional light source, and be capable of accurately predicting the apparent path of the sun and moon and thus when eclipses would occur.

But yes, that would mean that the round Earth model would be simpler and thus more likely to be correct.

And yes, hypothetically you could also do it the other way.

Re: A question regarding eclipses
« Reply #8 on: December 28, 2016, 11:42:33 PM »
WOW you went afar a field away from eclipses; I have a crude model that you can try out, that explains what you see.
At night.
On a soccer field, place a lantern on top of a ladder that is about head high in the center of the field. You as the planet earth, we'll start at the sideline, facing the lantern will be noon, turning in place making a complete circle, will be a day. Now for the moon, hold a soccer ball at arms length, movie it so that it is in front of the lantern, this will be a solar eclipse. Moving from right to left, you can watch the faces of the moon on the soccer ball, there will be a place where your head cast a shadow on the ball,(the size of the shadow maybe wrong but you get my drift). As you move around in a circle, each time you face away from the lantern, you will see that you are facing different bleachers, the changing of the night sky.

Now for the flat Earth I lay myself down the center of the field, facing upwards, from there I am lost, I need a flat Earthere to finish the model.
The the universe has no obligation to makes sense to you.
The earth is a globe.

Re: A question regarding eclipses
« Reply #9 on: December 29, 2016, 02:02:58 AM »
He realises the round Earth model can explain it just fine.

It is a flat Earth model which isn't merely a transformation of a round Earth model that is unable to explain it.

*

Pezevenk

  • 14992
  • Militant aporfyrodrakonist
Re: A question regarding eclipses
« Reply #10 on: December 29, 2016, 07:17:42 AM »
Dark matter is not something that has to do with the roundness of earth, and it has nothing to do with the rate of expansion of the universe, you're thinking of dark energy. We also know forms of dark matter that we have observed, it's not some magical stuff that we have no idea what it could ever be. It could be an issue with our perception of the universe and the current state of physics, but it is not related to the shape of the earth.

The shape of the earth has been determined as a fact from very direct observations and not just induction decades ago. It's just that some people want to believe it's a conspiracy.
Member of the BOTD for Anti Fascism and Racism

It is not a scientific fact, it is a scientific fuck!
-Intikam

Read a bit psicology and stick your imo to where it comes from
-Intikam (again)

Re: A question regarding eclipses
« Reply #11 on: December 29, 2016, 07:45:51 AM »
[...]
Lunar eclipses can occasionally be seen right at sunset or sunrise as in
TriValley Stargazers, Lunar eclipse observation during daylight - some photographs worth looking at. These are called "selenelions"
[...]
Light from the sun and moon is always bent a little by the atmosphere. [...] This causes the sun and moon to appear to rise a few minutes earlier and set a few minutes later than the geometry of the globe would indicate. It is also the cause of these occasional "selenelions".
[...]
The two basic FE mechanisms for the lunar eclipse seem to be
  • A self luminous moon [...]
[/q]Best of luck, the Lunar Eclipse seems to be an area where angels fear to tread or maybe it's more like here be dragons for FET.[/size]

Just to be clear, what I said was that it is strange how the light from the moon does not appear to bend into the red spectrum more often than it does. I have no problem with the light bending a couple of degrees to alter the time and place of sun/moon -sets and -rises. The pictures you provided of these selenelions are very interesting for several reasons. The most prominent one is that it is one hell of a coincidence that the moon is partially eclipsed just as the sunlight passes over the mountain on Earth. In the "round Earth model", we would simply explain this eclipse by stating that the sunlight hits the mountain on Earth, gets bent slightly, and then shines on the moon, creating a red and yellow effect. In the "flat Earth model" this cannot be the case, since both the sun and the moon is above the Earths plane, meaning that the mountain on Earth can not possible cast shadows on the moon. Therefore, the shadow on the moon must be caused by one of these "somethings" that float around up there.

We can only discuss evidence that we as individuals can easily produce - pictures and videos can be faked. However, I am able to see that during a sunset, the sun is never once eclipsed by anthing from the top down, only bottom up (that is what the horizon does). Also, as I said in my original post, I can see that the sun is an omnidirectional light source (coronal mass ejections can be observed at any time in any direction). Using a fast mean of transport, you can actually "race" the sunset as well, yet you will never once see the sun being eclipsed from the top down. The point of this is that the sun is definetly shining in the direction of the moon at all times. Because of the proposed distance between the sun, the moon and the Earth' surface, the sunlight would most definetly be able to hit the moon as well. This means that rabinoz's first item on the list must be true, regardless. There has to be a shadow object of some kind, blocking out sunlight from the moon. This does not refute item number 2 however; the moon could still be self illuminated.

Now, the problem with item number 1 is the same as my question in the original post. If there is a shadow object and the moon is not self illuminated, why then does the moon not shine only in the red light spectrum more often than it does? If there was an invisible, undetectable object capable of eclipsing the moon, then every time it transitioned accross the line of sight between the sun and the moon, you would see this red effect.

In other words; a blood moon should occur several times every single day. That is simply not what we see up there. From my point of view in the world, it actually never happens outside of a lunar eclipse.

And no, you can not argue that the light only bends during a lunar eclipse because that is caused by some other object; the laws of physics would still apply, and we can easily test that light does in fact bend around the edges of objects, especially planets (or planes) that has an atmosphere. Arguing for this sort of thing, as I said, would indicate that light somehow has a mind of it's own, or that there are several different types of light. Again, this will boil down to the issue of what's easier to believe; one type of light that we can see, measure and test - or at least two different types of light, one of which we have never ever seen, observed and cannot test.

This being the case, item number 2 must be the solution. The moon is glowing, and another shadow object is partially obscuring the moons light at times. But the same exact problem arises again; if the moon is being eclipsed partially every single night except for when there is a full moon, why does the light not bend around the shadow object to create a red light? It does appear to happen every single time the moon is eclipsed as defined by the "round Earth model", so why doesn't it happen in the "flat Earth model"?

Like I said, there are many holes in the "flat Earth hypothisis", but this one has struck me as the one thing that is very easy to test by anyone, any place in the world, every single day of the year. Why is the crescent moon not red?
Presented in stereo where available.

Re: A question regarding eclipses
« Reply #12 on: December 29, 2016, 01:14:44 PM »
Okay, after thinking about it some, here is a system which somewhat works for a flat Earth:
The space we are in is non-euclidean space.
The light from the sun travels in straight lines in this non-euclidean space, resulting in appearing to follow bent paths.
We normally observe the moon by it reflecting light from the sun.
During a lunar eclipse, the light that would hit the moon, due to its bent path, needs to pass through Earth.

Re: A question regarding eclipses
« Reply #13 on: December 29, 2016, 04:11:07 PM »
Why is it that only the light rays get bent, and not everything else (including the Earth)?
Presented in stereo where available.

Re: A question regarding eclipses
« Reply #14 on: December 29, 2016, 06:30:07 PM »
Why is it that only the light rays get bent, and not everything else (including the Earth)?
It is because of how the space works.
Basically Earth is a plane, and then there are infinite straight lines running perpendicular to the plane of Earth.
But any other line would bend.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: A question regarding eclipses
« Reply #15 on: December 29, 2016, 06:51:44 PM »
[...]
Lunar eclipses can occasionally be seen right at sunset or sunrise as in
TriValley Stargazers, Lunar eclipse observation during daylight - some photographs worth looking at. These are called "selenelions"
[...]
Light from the sun and moon is always bent a little by the atmosphere. [...] This causes the sun and moon to appear to rise a few minutes earlier and set a few minutes later than the geometry of the globe would indicate. It is also the cause of these occasional "selenelions".
[...]
The two basic FE mechanisms for the lunar eclipse seem to be
  • A self luminous moon [...]/size]
[/q]Best of luck, the Lunar Eclipse seems to be an area where angels fear to tread or maybe it's more like here be dragons for FET.

Just to be clear, what I said was that it is strange how the light from the moon does not appear to bend into the red spectrum more often than it does.
The red of the moon during a lunar eclipse is not from light being bent "into the red spectrum" as in a prism.
It happens because the only light on the moon during a total lunar eclipse has passed through a lot of atmosphere (about twice as much as during a sunset). This filters out most if the blue and green light (the technical name is Rayleigh Scattering, - that's a link to an explanation.)

Quote from: kiwhen
I have no problem with the light bending a couple of degrees to alter the time and place of sun/moon -sets and -rises.
While there have been occasional reports of atmospheric refraction up to about 2°, the typical value is around 0.5°.
Of course there are occasionally mirages involving extreme conditions and sometimes total reflection - this could happen on a Globe or a flat earth.

Quote from: kiwhen
The pictures you provided of these selenelions are very interesting for several reasons. The most prominent one is that it is one hell of a coincidence that the moon is partially eclipsed just as the sunlight passes over the mountain on Earth. In the "round Earth model", we would simply explain this eclipse by stating that the sunlight hits the mountain on Earth, gets bent slightly, and then shines on the moon, creating a red and yellow effect.
I don't know why you keep saying "the mountain on Earth". Do you just mean "the curve of the earth"?

Agreed "it is one hell of a coincidence that the moon is partially eclipsed just as the sunlight passes over the" curve of the  "Earth". That's why they are quite rare and it is just possible to "glimpse" a total eclipse, just as the sun sets.

Quote from: kiwhen
In the "flat Earth model" this cannot be the case, since both the sun and the moon is above the Earths plane, meaning that the mountain on Earth can not possibly cast shadows on the moon. Therefore, the shadow on the moon must be caused by one of these "somethings" that float around up there.

We can only discuss evidence that we as individuals can easily produce - pictures and videos can be faked. However, I am able to see that during a sunset, the sun is never once eclipsed by anything from the top down, only bottom up (that is what the horizon does).
Yes, it is good to get what evidence you can personally. The earth, however, is much too large and there is too much involved for one person to gather all the information needed.
So we do have to rely on evidence that others have collected, but you can often see if it agrees or conflicts with tour own observations.
What you do have to be careful of is to dismiss evidence simply because it disagrees, not with your own personal evidence, but with your personal prejudices, or even your beliefs - they might be wrong.

If someone tells me that in December the sun will rise towards the North East when I know from personal experience that it rises closer to the South East. I strongly suspect that they are mistaken and will doubt that they have a correct explanation for the sun's motion.
<< I'll leave someone else comment most of the rest >>
Quote from: kiwhen
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Like I said, there are many holes in the "flat Earth hypothesis", but this one has struck me as the one thing that is very easy to test by anyone, any place in the world, every single day of the year. Why is the crescent moon not red?

You pose the question "Why is the crescent moon not red?", but I don't know why you would expect this on any model.

With the Globe earth, "unlit part" of the crescent moon has some light reflected back from the earth.  This is obviously called "earthshine" and is much brighter than moonshine on earth, as the earth has a much bigger area and is a much better reflector (a higher "albedo").
This means that the dark part of the moon is not completely dark as in this photo

Photo via Flickr user jurvetson
From EarthSky, What is earthshine?
Ths link EarthSky, What is earthshine? gives the explaination.

There is no reason for this light to be red as its path includes only a relatively short distance through the atmosphere - effectively 15 to 20 km.

But like you, I would like to see a plausible explanation for a lunar eclipse with any flat earth model - even lunar phases would be a start!

<< There are probably still mistakes in this! >>

Re: A question regarding eclipses
« Reply #16 on: December 29, 2016, 07:01:07 PM »
As for the blood moon, the earth has an atmosphere, which acts as a lens, bending the red light onto the moon.
All other phases of the Moon, are by direct lighting from the sun, but We observe it from an angle.
Look to the model I proposed in my previous post. Hold the soccer ball out at full length of your arm and rotated it around your head, watch the lighting on the ball as it goes through the phases, like the Moon.
 
The the universe has no obligation to makes sense to you.
The earth is a globe.

Re: A question regarding eclipses
« Reply #17 on: December 29, 2016, 07:22:58 PM »

First, I would like to say that I do know about light scattering, but I referred to it as "bending" on purpose. The simple reason is that I talk about light rays, and not light particles. Particles scatter, rays bend. This isn't important because it doesn't change anything, I just wanted to clarify it.


Secondly, I am talking about the "mountain on the Earth" because I am referring to that actual huge mountain that you can see in the provided pictures. As the shadow is a triangle and the clouds on the sides are illuminated, that is clearly not a shadow caused by the Earth's curvature. So yes, the mountain is not a metaphor for curvature, it is just a tall mountain casting shadows on the moon. That would make sense if the Earth was round, not so much if it was flat.


Now, on to the point:


I think you misunderstand my question. The reason why I ask about red moons (or blood moons) in particular is because of it's relation to eclipses. As predicted by the "round Earth model", I have seen many lunar eclipses in my life. All of them have had a very clear red color band. I do know why this is happening, and it makes perfect sense - in the "round Earth model".


The reason is ask about this is because of the problem that occurs when it is applied to the "flat Earth model". We know that the moon is only red during some extraordinary, rare event (not using the term "eclipse"). On most other, non-rare nights, it is the standard bright, yellow/blue-ish color. Not a single trace of a stronger, red element. Sure, you can achieve the red effect by standing in a huge dust bowl somewhere on Earth, but that effect is local, and the rest of the world (at least any part of it that has clean air) will percieve the moon as standard colored, not red.


This is important when you bring in the "flat Earth model", and look at how the sun and moon is explained there. If the Earth was flat, illumination from the sun and moon would be detectable (maybe not visible, but certainly detectable) pretty much from anywhere on Earth at any time. We do not detect direct sunlight at night, so therefore it is explained that the sun works like a flashlight. I have presented my thoughts on how this can be possible, and what it basically means is that there are eclipses going on every single day. Both solar and lunar. Be aware that this may not be eclipses caused by the sun and moon themselves, it is more probably caused by another invisible, yet undetectable stellar object that is referred to as a "shadow object".


This is why the color of the moon does not add up. Why are some eclipses red, and the rest of them not? And if eclipsing do not happen every day, then why do we not detect light from both these objects at all times, seeing as they would be in line of sight to the entire Earth at all times?
Presented in stereo where available.

Re: A question regarding eclipses
« Reply #18 on: December 29, 2016, 08:40:48 PM »

First, I would like to say that I do know about light scattering, but I referred to it as "bending" on purpose. The simple reason is that I talk about light rays, and not light particles. Particles scatter, rays bend. This isn't important because it doesn't change anything, I just wanted to clarify it.


Secondly, I am talking about the "mountain on the Earth" because I am referring to that actual huge mountain that you can see in the provided pictures. As the shadow is a triangle and the clouds on the sides are illuminated, that is clearly not a shadow caused by the Earth's curvature. So yes, the mountain is not a metaphor for curvature, it is just a tall mountain casting shadows on the moon. That would make sense if the Earth was round, not so much if it was flat.


Now, on to the point:


I think you misunderstand my question. The reason why I ask about red moons (or blood moons) in particular is because of it's relation to eclipses. As predicted by the "round Earth model", I have seen many lunar eclipses in my life. All of them have had a very clear red color band. I do know why this is happening, and it makes perfect sense - in the "round Earth model".


The reason is ask about this is because of the problem that occurs when it is applied to the "flat Earth model". We know that the moon is only red during some extraordinary, rare event (not using the term "eclipse"). On most other, non-rare nights, it is the standard bright, yellow/blue-ish color. Not a single trace of a stronger, red element. Sure, you can achieve the red effect by standing in a huge dust bowl somewhere on Earth, but that effect is local, and the rest of the world (at least any part of it that has clean air) will percieve the moon as standard colored, not red.


This is important when you bring in the "flat Earth model", and look at how the sun and moon is explained there. If the Earth was flat, illumination from the sun and moon would be detectable (maybe not visible, but certainly detectable) pretty much from anywhere on Earth at any time. We do not detect direct sunlight at night, so therefore it is explained that the sun works like a flashlight. I have presented my thoughts on how this can be possible, and what it basically means is that there are eclipses going on every single day. Both solar and lunar. Be aware that this may not be eclipses caused by the sun and moon themselves, it is more probably caused by another invisible, yet undetectable stellar object that is referred to as a "shadow object".


This is why the color of the moon does not add up. Why are some eclipses red, and the rest of them not? And if eclipsing do not happen every day, then why do we not detect light from both these objects at all times, seeing as they would be in line of sight to the entire Earth at all times?

Search as you may, you will not find an answer in the flat Earth, as there is none.
To me the answer is simple, the earth is a Globe. There is no flat earth model that works, we have satellites, the ISS is one of them, and we have walked on the moon( oh no it is all a conspiracy) is the only answer the flat Earth have to that. With only incoherent evidence.
You have the questions without answers, yet you apparently can't see the one that works, join me in the knowledge that the Earth is a globe, and have fun watching the flat earthers, squirm and Hollering otherwise.
The the universe has no obligation to makes sense to you.
The earth is a globe.

Re: A question regarding eclipses
« Reply #19 on: December 29, 2016, 09:21:09 PM »
I have previously ignored your answers MouseWalker, because you have not read my original post thoroughly.
I quote: "Therefore, obviously, I believe the Earth is round".


I need not join in the knowledge that the Earth is a globe, I never left. The only reason I raise my question is that someone have come up with a hypothesis that contradicts my beliefs. For me, any such hypothesis is possible until proven otherwise. There are hundreds of phenomenon that I know of, that are in conflict with this model if we ignore the conspiracy. The conspiracy is probably the most essential part of the "flat Earth hypothesis", and because of it, we can really only discuss the parts that I can observe and test by myself. This is where the color of the moon comes up. That is a well know, easily observable and easily testable fact that still is in direct conflict with the model.
« Last Edit: December 29, 2016, 09:22:48 PM by kiwhen »
Presented in stereo where available.

Re: A question regarding eclipses
« Reply #20 on: December 31, 2016, 08:20:04 PM »
I have previously ignored your answers MouseWalker, because you have not read my original post thoroughly.
I quote: "Therefore, obviously, I believe the Earth is round".


I need not join in the knowledge that the Earth is a globe, I never left. The only reason I raise my question is that someone have come up with a hypothesis that contradicts my beliefs. For me, any such hypothesis is possible until proven otherwise. There are hundreds of phenomenon that I know of, that are in conflict with this model if we ignore the conspiracy. The conspiracy is probably the most essential part of the "flat Earth hypothesis", and because of it, we can really only discuss the parts that I can observe and test by myself. This is where the color of the moon comes up. That is a well know, easily observable and easily testable fact that still is in direct conflict with the model.
Please accept my apologies,
But my exclamation; for a globe Earth blood moon, still stands. The flat Earth, have nothing but nonsense and not worth, your efforts of examination.
The the universe has no obligation to makes sense to you.
The earth is a globe.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: A question regarding eclipses
« Reply #21 on: December 31, 2016, 09:49:34 PM »
First, I would like to say that I do know about light scattering, but I referred to it as "bending" on purpose. The simple reason is that I talk about light rays, and not light particles. Particles scatter, rays bend. This isn't important because it doesn't change anything, I just wanted to clarify it.
I was looking back over this and this post (I guess New Year etc, got in the way).

On scattering, light can certainly be scattered by very small particles such as fine dust, flour, tiny water droplets (in clouds) and even air molecules. It could be looked on as the particles being illuminated and reflecting some of  the light in random directions.

Particles larger than the wavelength of light scatter all light wavelengths fairly equally (maybe coloured by the colour of the particles),
but particles smaller than the wavelength of light scatter all shorter light wavelengths more than the longer wavelengths.

The scattering of light by particles smaller than the light's wavelength is known as "Rayleigh Scattering" and is the cause of the blue sky, red sunsets, blood moons and the red moon during a total lunar eclipse. Though sunsets and occasionally the moon's colour can be "enhanced" by volcanic dust and smoke in the air.

You should read up on in say Hyperphysics, Blue Sky.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: A question regarding eclipses
« Reply #22 on: December 31, 2016, 10:13:02 PM »
Secondly, I am talking about the "mountain on the Earth" because I am referring to that actual huge mountain that you can see in the provided pictures. As the shadow is a triangle and the clouds on the sides are illuminated, that is clearly not a shadow caused by the Earth's curvature. So yes, the mountain is not a metaphor for curvature, it is just a tall mountain casting shadows on the moon. That would make sense if the Earth was round, not so much if it was flat.

Yes, about the "mountain on the Earth" I had not given a thought to the mountain "Mauna Kea on the island of Hawaii", because that shadow is quite irrelevant to the eclipse. The shadow of the earth at the moon is a disk roughly the diameter of the earth, and Mauna Kea is quite an insignificant part of that.
Quote
These conditions came together on August 16 1989 when a lunar eclipse happened where the moon passes through the shadow cast into space by the earth. During the partial phase of the eclipse the moon was rising as seen from the top of Mauna Kea on the island of Hawaii. The mountain has an altitude of 4200m and give the impression of rather standing on the edge of the earth than on the surface.

The following images show the setting sun and the rising partially eclipsed moon. On the image showing the moon the sun light on the cloud tops can be seen. Also very impressive is the shadow of the mountain acting as a pointer to show the opposite direction of the setting sun.
The shadow of Mauna Kea does show the sun's light shining up to the peak.

So, no the triangular shadow has nothing to do with the eclipse, by the time it reached the moon it would lost in "the blur", the "penumbra" part of the shadow.

?

Twerp

  • Gutter Sniper
  • Flat Earth Almost Believer
  • 6539
Re: A question regarding eclipses
« Reply #23 on: January 01, 2017, 12:39:00 AM »
Is agreeing in the slightest better or worse than not agreeing at all?
“Heaven is being governed by Devil nowadays..” - Wise

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: A question regarding eclipses
« Reply #24 on: January 01, 2017, 02:45:14 AM »
Is agreeing in the slightest better or worse than not agreeing at all?
Or could it the mistake it was.

But of course, I never make mysteaks, not beef ones anyway.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: A question regarding eclipses
« Reply #25 on: January 01, 2017, 02:49:47 AM »

Now, on to the point:

I think you misunderstand my question. The reason why I ask about red moons (or blood moons) in particular is because of it's relation to eclipses. As predicted by the "round Earth model", I have seen many lunar eclipses in my life. All of them have had a very clear red color band. I do know why this is happening, and it makes perfect sense - in the "round Earth model".

The reason is ask about this is because of the problem that occurs when it is applied to the "flat Earth model". We know that the moon is only red during some extraordinary, rare event (not using the term "eclipse"). On most other, non-rare nights, it is the standard bright, yellow/blue-ish color. Not a single trace of a stronger, red element.
Here beginneth the third (and last) installment.

When it comes to any sort of explanation of the lunar eclipse on the Flat Earth, all I can do is present the bit from my first post:

The two basic FE mechanisms for the lunar eclipse seem to be
  • A shadow object as in "the Wiki" here The Lunar Eclipse.

  • A self luminous moon, as far as I know originally in Zetetic Astronomy, by Samuel Birley Rowbotham. You need to read a lot of the preceding text, but here is the "crux" of it:
    Quote
    As the moon is self-luminous, her surface could not be darkened or "eclipsed" by a shadow of the earth--supposing such a shadow could be thrown upon it. In such a case, the luminosity instead of being diminished, would increase, and would be greater in proportion to the greater density or darkness of the shadow. As the light in a bull's-eye lantern looks brightest in the darkest places, so would the self-shining surface of the moon be most intense in the umbra or deepest part of the earth's shadow.
    . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .
    We have seen that, during a lunar eclipse, the moon's self-luminous surface is covered by a semi-transparent something; that this "something" is a definite mass, because it has a distinct and circular outline, as seen during its first and last contact with the moon. As a solar eclipse occurs from the moon passing before the sun, so, from the evidence above collected, it is evident that a lunar eclipse arises from a similar cause--a body semi-transparent and well-defined passing before the moon; or between the moon's surface and the observer on the surface of the earth.

    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.

    From Zetetic Astronomy, by Samuel Birley Rowbotham), CHAPTER XI. CAUSE OF SOLAR AND LUNAR ECLIPSES. p. 148,149.

    This "self-luminous moon" gets much (often tongue-in-cheek with  ;D moonshramp  ;D) coverage in lunar eclipse threads.

As you might imagine, I do not agree in the slightest with either of these explanations.

Best of luck, the Lunar Eclipse seems to be an area where angels fear to tread or maybe it's more like here be dragons for FET.

You will have to hope some Flat Earther will respond. But the topic has been raised numerous times, and never had, in my opinion at least, any feasible answer.