Tonight's lunar eclipse..

I don't really come to the upper fora much anymore, however, was outside looking at the lunar eclipse tonight.

Was wondering what the flat earth explanation was for that.. (hoping for an answer from a knowledgeable flat earther like the half man half tiger, wise or ski, but anyone whom may have an answer will be great)

The only thing I remember reading is a dark mass we can not see until it obstructs something.



Took this tonight, downtown Dallas,Tx (to give an idea of location if it matters)

Seeing a sun and a moon opposite each other in the sky should tell you a lot.
It's reflection and angle of it that changes how the reflection is seen through atmosphere.

From my theory anyway.

Seeing a sun and a moon opposite each other in the sky should tell you a lot.
It's reflection and angle of it that changes how the reflection is seen through atmosphere.

From my theory anyway.

Sorry scepti, didn't mean to leave your name out.

So you theory proposes they are exactly opposite to each other at that time and we are see refraction?

Sunsets and sunrises do filter the red last, interesting theory.

It happens in the same way sunrise and sunset does. The light emitted from the sun is blocked by the Earth after refraction at that time.

The only thing I remember reading is a dark mass we can not see until it obstructs something.

I think that particular ad-hoc is called the "shadow object".

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker on January 20, 2019, 11:45:30 PM

The only thing I remember reading is a dark mass we can not see until it obstructs something.

I think that particular ad-hoc is called the "shadow object".

That"s mean.

I'm sure Flat Earthers have been able to accurately chart the size and movement of this "shadow object"  by simply looking at where it obscures the stars, right?

Right?

I don't really come to the upper fora much anymore, however, was outside looking at the lunar eclipse tonight.

Was wondering what the flat earth explanation was for that.. (hoping for an answer from a knowledgeable flat earther like the half man half tiger, wise or ski, but anyone whom may have an answer will be great)

The only thing I remember reading is a dark mass we can not see until it obstructs something.



Took this tonight, downtown Dallas,Tx (to give an idea of location if it matters)

I've noticed this in Istanbul many times but neither NASA, nor our astro insttitudes did not say anything about it. They definitely don't know what happens just estimates. Sometimes they know sometimes do not. All are about statistics, not science.

It is not shadow object. It is the light of the sun was blocked by the flat Earth after refraction. Same way sunrise and sunset happens.

I was about to open a thread on the lunar eclipse myself. Thanks for putting this up.

As for Intikam who seems to see Lunar eclipses in Istanbul on a regular basis, I hope he sees the shadow creep up on the moon and creep out steadily on every occasion in which NASA have used "Statistics" or whatever to regularly give Istanbul a blood moon eclipse.

My point was going to be for those who believe in a self-illuminating moon. How does the red light advance slowly to cover the moon's white light and just as slowly leave the moon on the same night? Moonshramp with indigestion? Or some sort of mating ritual?

I'm putting my support behind the shadow object theory. It sounds very ominous. Maybe even related to the Black Knight.

Seeing a sun and a moon opposite each other in the sky should tell you a lot.
It's reflection and angle of it that changes how the reflection is seen through atmosphere.

From my theory anyway.

I like how your verbage changed from "obviously simple and basic that anyone who believed otherwise is absurd" to include a disclaimer "imo".

It is very important to understand that the lunar eclipse cannot be explained by modern science.

Let us examine the two anomalies observed during the lunar eclipses.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Sir John Herschel admits that:

"Invisible moons exist in the firmament."

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


The Shadow Moon, the source of the dextrorotatory subquarks causes the lunar eclipse.

We know for sure that the Moon does not cause the solar eclipse, here is the Allais effect:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg760382#msg760382



Cosmology of the Desana tribe

(notice, at the bottom of the image, the two heavenly bodies which are responsible for causing the lunar and solar eclipses)

It is very important to understand that the lunar eclipse cannot be explained by modern science.

Let us examine the two anomalies observed during the lunar eclipses.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Sir John Herschel admits that:

"Invisible moons exist in the firmament."

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


The Shadow Moon, the source of the dextrorotatory subquarks causes the lunar eclipse.

We know for sure that the Moon does not cause the solar eclipse, here is the Allais effect:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg760382#msg760382



Cosmology of the Desana tribe

(notice, at the bottom of the image, the two heavenly bodies which are responsible for causing the lunar and solar eclipses)

Aaaah so many words.
Gotta love the cobfident opening.

Pretty sure we (sane people) have veryvery predictable eclipses and moon phases.

So now "magic" refraction at 2% is out of hand?
Wasnt there a post somehwere in ref to the sun being below the clouds?

Why with all our tech, has no one in the yr 2019 found this invisible moon?
You are ref a 200yr old theory.
Try and keep up.

It is very important to understand that the lunar eclipse cannot be explained by modern science.

Let us examine the two anomalies observed during the lunar eclipses.

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

Please show modern references for your claim or admit that it is a heap of garbage like:

• Your 600 m diameter sun 12 to 20 km above the earth and
• Your radical chronology with:
  Christ was crucified at Constantinople some 260 years ago, and the falsification of each and every known religious text begun soon after, in the period 1775-1790 AD.
  The Deluge occurred some 310 years ago; while the dinosaurs were created a few decades earlier, after Adam and Eve joined the one million pairs of humans which already were living beyond the Garden of Eden.

Quote from: sandokhan on January 21, 2019, 12:06:24 PM

It is very important to understand that the lunar eclipse cannot be explained by modern science.

Let us examine the two anomalies observed during the lunar eclipses.

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

Please show modern references for your claim

Truth does not have an expiration date.

Did the two of you have a fight in occakms razor regarding growth and evolution of knowledge?
It was literally just the other day...
Come on johnd.
Spend too much in thenmoonlight?

Quote from: rabinoz on January 21, 2019, 12:20:33 PM

Please show modern references for your claim

Truth does not have an expiration date.

That is if Sandokhan's claim was ever the "Truth".

Truth = a mathematical proof, that is what John was referring to: this truth never expires.

You are simply trolling the upper forums.

Your questions were answered many times before:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=76954.msg2081202#msg2081202

Gauss' Easter formula is the truth: the most accurate astronomical dating available. This formula proves immediately that the official chronology of history has been totally faked/falsified.

You are no stranger to faking the data, are you now? Remember how Kepler fudged all of the figures for Nova Astronomia? Or how Einstein faked the data for the 1919/1922 solar eclipses?


You are yet to explain to your readers how four trillion billion liters of water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere. By magic?

Truth = a mathematical proof, that is what John was referring to: this truth never expires.

I asked you a question. Would you care you answer?

Quote from: sandokhan on January 21, 2019, 12:06:24 PM

It is very important to understand that the lunar eclipse cannot be explained by modern science.

Let us examine the two anomalies observed during the lunar eclipses.

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

Please show modern references for your claim.

And I'll ignore the rest till we sort out that claim. But why do you rely on these old results when there is far better recent information.

I will say this that your claims of 12 to 20 km height for the sun proves that you haven't the slightest understanding of perspective.
If you disagree don't debate it here but make your own thread to treat it properly.

Truth = a mathematical proof, that is what John was referring to: this truth never expires.

You are simply trolling the upper forums.

Your questions were answered many times before:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=76954.msg2081202#msg2081202

Gauss' Easter formula is the truth: the most accurate astronomical dating available. This formula proves immediately that the official chronology of history has been totally faked/falsified.

You are no stranger to faking the data, are you now? Remember how Kepler fudged all of the figures for Nova Astronomia? Or how Einstein faked the data for the 1919/1922 solar eclipses?


You are yet to explain to your readers how four trillion billion liters of water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere. By magic?

No it is called gravity that holds all the water and everything else that is loose to the surface of the sphere called earth, but because you do not understand it, you will continue to call it magic.

Quote from: rabinoz on January 21, 2019, 12:20:33 PM

Quote from: sandokhan on January 21, 2019, 12:06:24 PM

It is very important to understand that the lunar eclipse cannot be explained by modern science.

Let us examine the two anomalies observed during the lunar eclipses.

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

Please show modern references for your claim

Truth does not have an expiration date.

Bullshit does though.

It is very important to understand that the lunar eclipse cannot be explained by modern science.

This might be entertaining...

Let us examine the two anomalies observed during the lunar eclipses.

During a lunar eclipse, it has been observed that the Earth's shadow (official science theory) is 2% larger than what is expected from geometrical considerations ...

Citation needed.

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

Citation needed.

... but the umbral shadow towards the centre is too bright to be accounted for by refraction of visible sunlight."

Citation needed.

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

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

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

OK. so what? That still could be true, but we now know any additional natural satellites of earth would have to be pretty small.

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

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

Got anything newer than that?.

Sir John Herschel admits that:

"Invisible moons exist in the firmament."

Where did he say that? What was the context?

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

That's nice. Got anything newer?

Here's an apt quote:

"What we see depends mainly on what we look for."
 - Sir John Lubbock

That's certainly true in your case!

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

Citation needed.

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

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

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

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

That paper does not include the words "dextrorotatory", "subquark", or even "quark".

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

As you might be thinking already, the radiation pressure exerted by such high frequency radiation, in the top part of the EM spectrum, would be a perfect candidate for the gravity effect ...

Gravity is attractive. Radiation pressure is not. So no, radiation pressure is not even a plausible candidate for the cause of gravity.

I'm not sure what that has to do with the reddish color of the moon during an eclipse, anyway.

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

Sunlight filtered and refracted by the sun is much more likely than your rather bizarre speculation.

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

The Shadow Moon, the source of the dextrorotatory subquarks causes the lunar eclipse.

We know for sure that the Moon does not cause the solar eclipse, here is the Allais effect:

<self reference>

No, you think that the moon does not cause the solar eclipse. We know that the opposite is true, despite your rambling posts. Besides that, this thread is about a lunar eclipse, not solar eclipses.

<graphic model of the textual description in Amazonian Cosmos of the Desana's myth of the origin, structure, and functioning of the cosmos.

Cosmology Mythology of the Desana tribe

(notice, at the bottom of the image, the two heavenly bodies which are responsible for causing the lunar and solar eclipses)

Cute. Wrong, but cute. Where does the sun ("Sun-Father" in the illustration) go during the night?

[Edit] Typo.

Gravity is attractive.

It is?

Then, please explain to your readers (and the for the first time, even to yourself) how four trillion billion liters of water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere.

Even simpler: how does lake Ontario stay in place on the outer surface of the Earth? How does a graviton emitted by the iron/nickel core interact with the gravitons released by lake Ontario?

Care to explain?

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on January 22, 2019, 10:43:33 AM

Gravity is attractive.

It is?

Then, please explain to your readers (and the for the first time, even to yourself) how four trillion billion liters of water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere.

• Please use sensible units, such as kilograms or tonnes, instead of insane things like "trillion billion liters".
  
  
• There isn't four trillion billion liters of water. It's more like 1.35 x 10²¹ kg.
  
  
• The water is not "glued next to the outer surface of a sphere".
  Firstly about 20 × 10¹⁵ kg is in the atmosphere some of it in the liquid form in clouds.
  Take a look at:
  
  Does that look as though the water "stays glued next to the outer surface of a sphere"?
  
  
• So water is not "glued next to the outer surface of a sphere" but gravitation applies a downward force of about 9.81 N on each kilogram of water.

Even simpler: how does lake Ontario stay in place on the outer surface of the Earth?

Sure same answer: gravitation applies a downward force of about 9.81 N on each kilogram of water.

How does a graviton emitted by the iron/nickel core interact with the gravitons released by lake Ontario?

Who claims that "a graviton emitted by the iron/nickel core interact with the gravitons released by Lake Ontario"?

Care to explain?

Done, next question.

The only insane thing going on around here is your belief that four trillion billion liters of water (yes, it is the correct figure) stay glued to the outer surface of a sphere, by pure magic.

You haven't explained anything at all.

What you wrote is this:

Sure same answer: gravitation applies a downward force of about 9.81 N on each kilogram of water.

How does it do that? Care to explain? Because it seems you have no explanation at all to provide to your readers. Then, can we assume it is done by pure magic?

Who claims that "a graviton emitted by the iron/nickel core interact with the gravitons released by Lake Ontario"?

Why, each and every known RE scientist to date.

Would you care to tell us of another possible mechanism?

Here is your chance to explain how lake Ontario stays in place, of all possible locations, on the outer surface of a sphere.

The only insane thing going on around here is your belief that four trillion billion liters of water (yes, it is the correct figure) stay glued to the outer surface of a sphere, by pure magic.

You haven't explained anything at all.

What you wrote is this:

Sure same answer: gravitation applies a downward force of about 9.81 N on each kilogram of water.

How does it do that? Care to explain? Because it seems you have no explanation at all to provide to your readers. Then, can we assume it is done by pure magic?

Who claims that "a graviton emitted by the iron/nickel core interact with the gravitons released by Lake Ontario"?

Why, each and every known RE scientist to date.

Would you care to tell us of another possible mechanism?

Here is your chance to explain how lake Ontario stays in place, of all possible locations, on the outer surface of a sphere.

Gravity.

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on January 22, 2019, 10:43:33 AM

Gravity is attractive.

It is?

Then, please explain to your readers (and the for the first time, even to yourself) how four trillion billion liters of water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere.

Even simpler: how does lake Ontario stay in place on the outer surface of the Earth? How does a graviton emitted by the iron/nickel core interact with the gravitons released by lake Ontario?

Care to explain?

For the 100^th time, the graviton is string theory, not general relativity.

The only insane thing going on around here is your belief that four trillion billion liters of water (yes, it is the correct figure) stay glued to the outer surface of a sphere, by pure magic.

You haven't explained anything at all.
What you wrote is this:

Sure same answer: gravitation applies a downward force of about 9.81 N on each kilogram of water.
How does it do that? Care to explain? Because it seems you have no explanation at all to provide to your readers. Then, can we assume it is done by pure magic?

I don't need to explain. Get a litre of water and a force-guage and measure it yourself. This would do admirably:

Of course any spring scales would do just as well but you'd have to convert kg.force to Newton's.
You can even measure the extremely small force between masses of a kilogram and a few tens of kilograms but that is much more difficult.

We do not need to explain why something happens to accept that it is real, though it is reassuring to have that explanation.

Who claims that "a graviton emitted by the iron/nickel core interact with the gravitons released by Lake Ontario"?
Why, each and every known RE scientist to date.

No they don't not by a long shot.
Gravitons are still just hypothesised as the carriers of the energy of gravitational radiation in the same way that photons are the carriers of the energy of electromagnetic radiation but that is by no means proven.
If that were so then virtual gravitons would explain "static" gravitational fields but all that is just hypothesising for far.
But you can ask quantum gravity scientists for more on that.

Would you care to tell us of another possible mechanism?

Possibly mass causes spacetime to curve towards the mass making the geodesic of an object (the free fall trajectory) curve towards large masses.
But you'd be better learning general relativity from someone more capable than myself.

Here is your chance to explain how lake Ontario stays in place, of all possible locations, on the outer surface of a sphere.

Because gravity tries to pull the water flowing into Lake Ontario to its lowest energy location and it is prevented from going further by the sides and bottom of the lake.

It's exactly the same as the reason that water stays in a glass and doesn't jump out.

But what has this to do with, "Tonight's lunar eclipse"?
If you really want a connection you could calculate the centripetal acceleration to keep the moon in orbit then
compare that with the gravitational acceleration on the equator divided by the distance ratio squared.

I don't need to explain.

But you need to explain, because otherwise we are left with a fairy tale mechanism of attraction which is impossible no matter how much you think about it.

Gravitons are still just hypothesised as the carriers of the energy of gravitational radiation in the same way that photons are the carriers of the energy of electromagnetic radiation but that is by no means proven.

What you are saying is that there no gravitons, therefore there are no gravitational waves as well. Those waves need to interact with matter through particles, the very quantum level components of the wave itself.

Is this your final word on this, no gravitons at all?

Possibly mass causes spacetime to curve towards the mass making the geodesic of an object (the free fall trajectory) curve towards large masses.

There is no such thing as spacetime or general relativity.

Please make sure you understand these crucial facts:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg769750#msg769750

So you have no spacetime curving, and you do not want gravitons.

What you are left is this kind of explanation: PURE MAGIC.

Because gravity tries to pull the water flowing into Lake Ontario to its lowest energy location and it is prevented from going further by the sides and bottom of the lake.

It's exactly the same as the reason that water stays in a glass and doesn't jump out.

We are back to square one.

HOW does gravity try to pull matter? By what possible mechanism? The Earth is not a container with an outer casing, so the water in the glass example is a very poor choice for comparison.


You have provided no explanation at all for your "belief" that gravity is attractive.

None whatsoever.

So, how do four trillion billion liters of water stay glued next to the outer surface of a sphere?

Let us examine the graviton problem. There are only two possible choices: either these gravitons were a one-time emission five billion years ago, or they are being emitted continuously by the iron/nickel core. In both cases the graviton must either consist of two kinds of particles, one which has an emissive vortex, the other one which has a receptive vortex, or a single particle with two ends consisting of an emissive vortex, while the other end has a receptive vortex.

In both cases we are dealing immediately with the defiance of the law of conservation of energy: how in the world can these vortices function after five billion years with no loss of energy?

Moreover, you have another huge problem: each object on the surface of the earth must connect to the gravitons emitted by the iron/nickel core through strings of gravitons which fit neatly and totally to each and every graviton released by the object itself. How then can that object move freely on the surface of the sphere? Obviously the strings of gravitons emitted by the iron/nickel core are not intelligent enough to know the random direction of movement of the object. Are you telling your readers that the strings of the object can slide freely from a static string of gravitons emitted by the iron/nickel core, to another with no loss of energy, not to mention the very mechanism itself?

The gases in the atmosphere do not obey any kind of an attractive law of gravity.

The gravitons cannot be used to explain attractive gravity.

There is no such thing as general relativity, or spacetime continuum.


Please explain to your readers how attractive gravitation functions. If you cannot, then what you are telling yourself and to your readers is that gravity on a spherical earth is governed by pure magic.

Too bad that the original topic is now being avoided. I'd love to read more about your shadow objects in the firmament.