SELENELION

  • 72 Replies
  • 2176 Views
*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 18744
  • Backstage
SELENELION
« on: October 06, 2019, 11:40:12 PM »


I agree with sandokhan on this subject. Considering the position of the sun and moon, the shadow should be located below, not above.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2208296#msg2208296





Lets dance.



Simply ignored: mjohn61 (age)



http://www.unz.com/article/the-moon-landing

*

Stash

  • 3472
Re: SELENELION
« Reply #1 on: October 07, 2019, 12:19:42 AM »


For instance, because of the globe, the shadow is observed on different parts of the moon dependent upon the viewer's location.




Re: SELENELION
« Reply #2 on: October 07, 2019, 12:21:35 AM »

I agree with sandokhan on this subject. Considering the position of the sun and moon, the shadow should be located below, not above.
Based upon where the horizon is in that image, the shadow should appear on the top for an observer.
In effect, the image is upside down.

The top of the image is towards the observers feet, i.e. for the observer it is down.
The top of the moon in that image is illuminated, which corresponds to being down for the observer.
That means the observer should see the bottom of the moon illuminated with the top in darkness.
Someone viewing it from the other side of Earth will see the opposite.

*

Bullwinkle

  • Flat Earth Curator
  • 17145
  • "Umm, WTF ???"
Re: SELENELION
« Reply #3 on: October 07, 2019, 12:39:07 AM »

I agree with sandokhan on this subject. Considering the position of the sun and moon, the shadow should be located below, not above.








So, once the moon enters the shadow of Earth it can never escape?







RE can never win this argument.
FE can't be disproved.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4805
Re: SELENELION
« Reply #4 on: October 07, 2019, 12:48:15 AM »
The graphics put up by the RE are useless.

Virtually the only choice they have is to argue that the shadow on top comes from the bottom of the Earth, and herein is the problem, it ISN'T.

Another huge problem is the atmospheric refraction argument: it cannot be true at all.

Most heliocentrists have no idea of the research that has been carried out for the past 100 years regarding the lunar eclipses.


https://newtonphysics.on.ca/astronomy/index.html

Enlargement of the Earth's Shadow on the Moon: An Optical Illusion

Dr. Marmet proves that the usual explanation accepted by modern science for the 2% Earth's larger umbra during a lunar eclipse, namely atmospheric absorption, cannot be true.

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).

http://vixra.org/pdf/1311.0156v1.pdf

Lunar eclipses and the Allais effect

A beautiful exposition of the history of the anomalies observed through the centuries during the lunar eclipse.

"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."

It has systematically been found that the shadow of the Earth seems to be 2% larger
than what is expected from geometrical predictions.

For his part, in an analysis of 57 eclipses over a period of 150 years, Link (1969) found an enlargement of the shadow of 2.3% on average. Furthermore, schedules inputs and outputs of the crater through the umbra for four lunar eclipses from 1972 to 1982 strongly support the Chauvenet value of 2%.

The increase of the Earth`s umbral shadow during eclipses of the Moon is the
classical value of 2% (the rule of the fiftieth) used in most calculations of lunar eclipses.

J. Meeus, Nouvelles brèves : L’accroissement du diamètre de l’ombre de la Terre lors des éclipses de Lune, Ciel et Terre, Vol. 88, p. 491 (1972)

As the author demonstrates in his paper, the only possible explanation is a variation of the gravitational potential, a lunar eclipse Allais effect.

Just like in the case of the solar Allais effect, this variation of the gravitational potential means that the heavenly body which causes the lunar eclipse cannot be the Earth.


Believe or not, heliocentrists have given up on the atmospheric refraction argument for the umbral shadow; now, they resort to x-ray bombardment from outer space to put up any kind of a debate regarding this issue.


There is only one possible explanation, given the LUNAR ALLAIS EFFECT: the heavenly body which does cause the lunar eclipse selenelion is not the Earth at all.

*

Stash

  • 3472
Re: SELENELION
« Reply #5 on: October 07, 2019, 01:13:28 AM »
The graphics put up by the RE are useless.

Virtually the only choice they have is to argue that the shadow on top comes from the bottom of the Earth, and herein is the problem, it ISN'T.

On a globe, the shadow appears on different areas of the moon dependent upon the viewer's location. This is what is observed. Look up images of an eclipse from different locations around the planet. There's really no denying this. (See second graphic). And it's actually more evidence the earth is a globe. These observations wouldn't occur on a flat earth. And they are, in fact, observations.

There is only one possible explanation, given the LUNAR ALLAIS EFFECT: the heavenly body which does cause the lunar eclipse selenelion is not the Earth at all.

Actually, the jury is still out in regard to the Allais Effect. As in some cases it appears measurable in many others it doesn't appear to be present at all.

Additionally, no one has ever observed or detected this mysterious other 'heavenly body' you refer to. And none of the papers/articles you cite refer to any such thing as an explanation.

Re: SELENELION
« Reply #6 on: October 07, 2019, 01:34:42 AM »
The graphics put up by the RE are useless.
Why? Just because they can actually address the issue?

It is quite simple, during a lunar eclipse, the moon will pass through Earth's shadow.
Depending upon which side of Earth you are on it will either appear to get dark from the bottom as it enters Earth's shadow which is below you, and then leave getting bright from the bottom; or the opposite, getting dark (and then light) from the top.

Earth's umbra is ~1.3 degrees at the distance to the moon.
Refraction will make objects near the horizon appear slightly more than 0.5 degrees above it.
That means the sun in its entirety can appear above the horizon, with the vast majority of the umbra above the horizon as well.
Then you have the dip angle of the horizon bringing some more in.
And if you are fine with the sun being partially set (or entirely set while being in twilight) you can have the umbra entirely in view (i.e. Earth isn't getting in the way).

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4805
Re: SELENELION
« Reply #7 on: October 07, 2019, 01:36:54 AM »
On a globe, the shadow appears on different areas of the moon dependent upon the viewer's location. This is what is observed. Look up images of an eclipse from different locations around the planet. There's really no denying this. (See second graphic). And it's actually more evidence the earth is a globe. These observations wouldn't occur on a flat earth. And they are, in fact, observations.

You explained nothing at all, just empty words (as they apply to the debate we are having here in this thread).

You still don't seem to get it.

If the Earth is a bit below the line between sun and moon, then Earth's shadow would be casting on the bottom half of the moon. 

So the RE, at first, tried this kind of an argument:

"So when the sun has just appeared to rise, and the moon is close to setting, they are both actually already below the horizon, but the light from them bends back down so we can still see them.  This means Earth could actually be above the sun-moon line, and thus cast its shadow on the top of the moon."

Now, you have a huge problem: the only option left for the RE is this,  that the shadow on top comes from the bottom of the Earth.

But it can't from the bottom of the Earth.

"I can tell you haven't thought about it. Look at the model they say proves this. Then look at the "shadow" of earth on the moon. you really don't see the problem? Saying something you were taught with faith alone does not prove anything. can we agree on this statement?? "Like the sun, we always consider the moon as rising in the east and setting in the west." this statement is fact. So if the moon is traveling to the right, so would the sun.  The shadow is traveling the WRONG way.  Model where the earth is, where the sun is, where the moon is, and how the shadow looks when projected over the moon. The moon is setting to the right, the sun is rising from the left. You can tell this by looking at the moon and seeing where it HAS TO BE in order to be lighting up the face of the moon. The curve is upside down, traveling the wrong way. It's not a projection/mirage because it's clear as day and isn't inverted. The moon image is the correct orientation, everything else is wrong. moon traveling left to right as it sets. Correct? What part of earth would be blocking light from hitting the moon? The top of the earth, correct? Which way would a shadow of the top of the earth move across the moon in that situation? Which way is it traveling, and does it look like the top of a globe? The shadow is coming across the moon the wrong direction and the curve is the wrong way. You see what would be a shadow of the bottom of the earth, traveling downwards. can you REALLY not see that?

Can we agree that to us, the sun and the moon  both are seen to travel overhead in the same direction, rises in the east and sets in the west?
So now you can model this.
Here's why you are wrong, using known facts. If "on a full moon, as was on Dec 11, 2011", the moon sets in the morning, at sunrise. So if the moon is setting in the west in this video as is true, the sun is rising at the same time from the east. Now do you see the problem yet? The shadow is incorrect, the moon isn't flipped over so it cant be from a lensing effect or it would appear upside down. It isn't a mirage because mirages are wavy and not perfectly clear. It's oriented the correct way, yet everything else is wrong. if you can't see it, that's ok... but don't tell people who actually use their brains they are wrong when you didn't and only repeated what you were told. Proof is right there for you to see. You just need to actually do the proof yourself."


Actually, the jury is still out in regard to the Allais Effect.


You want me to hit you with the Allais effect right here to see how real it is?

Re: SELENELION
« Reply #8 on: October 07, 2019, 02:33:36 AM »
If the Earth is a bit below the line between sun and moon, then Earth's shadow would be casting on the bottom half of the moon. 
No, the bottom of a circle representing moon in your picture isn't the bottom of the Moon.



Re: SELENELION
« Reply #9 on: October 07, 2019, 02:48:41 AM »
If the Earth is a bit below the line between sun and moon, then Earth's shadow would be casting on the bottom half of the moon.
And if Earth is a bit above, then it is the other way around. So what?
You are yet to show there is any problem with that.

But it can't from the bottom of the Earth.
Why not?

I just explained how it can be.

*

kopfverderber

  • 440
  • Globularist
Re: SELENELION
« Reply #10 on: October 07, 2019, 03:00:43 AM »
"Above" or "below" are relative to the observer's position.

The moon entered the earth's shadow from west to east. The moon's orientation is not the same for all observers. The earth's rotation causes a "field rotation" effect, which makes the moon  appear rotated left or right depending on location and time.

Once again Sandokhan has no case.



You must gather your party before venturing forth

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4805
Re: SELENELION
« Reply #11 on: October 07, 2019, 03:33:17 AM »
The moon entered the earth's shadow from west to east. The moon's orientation is not the same for all observers. The earth's rotation causes a "field rotation" effect, which makes the moon  appear rotated left or right depending on location and time.

You are assuming that the Moon does indeed rotate around the Earth, and that the Earth does indeed rotate around its own axis.

What if I were to ask for such proofs, how long do you think you'd last in a direct debate with me on such a subject? Not very long.

You are making huge assumptions, which are UNPROVEN to this very day.


Now, you still can't see what is going on, can you?

You have not PROVEN that the Moon received light from the bottom of the Earth.

The video shows something very different: the Moon is setting, the Sun is rising, and then you have a shadow on the top of the Moon, which is impossible on a round earth.

You still don't get it, right?

You, the RE, have been using this kind of an argument as a way out of a debate:

https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/selenelion.jpg

However, any heliocentrist who has indeed studied lunar eclipses will NEVER use the atmospheric refraction as an argument.

Why?

Because of the two HUMONGOUS paradoxes which accompany each and every lunar eclipse: the enlargement of the Earth`s shadow and the excessive clarity of the penumbra.

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."


Now you can see your predicament?

Your usual argument, is no longer true!

"So when the sun has just appeared to rise, and the moon is close to setting, they are both actually already below the horizon, but the light from them bends back down so we can still see them.  This means Earth could actually be above the sun-moon line, and thus cast its shadow on the top of the moon."

You now only have one option left: if the Earth is a bit below the line between sun and moon, then Earth's shadow would be casting on the bottom half of the moon.


The two huge discrepancies, the enlargement of the Earth`s shadow and the excessive clarity of the penumbra, are a fact of science.

They cannot be explained by the RE.

Therefore we are left with the LUNAR ALLAIS EFFECT: these effects are caused by the Shadow Moon, and not by the Earth.

« Last Edit: October 07, 2019, 03:35:46 AM by sandokhan »

Re: SELENELION
« Reply #12 on: October 07, 2019, 03:50:36 AM »
You are assuming that the Moon does indeed rotate around the Earth, and that the Earth does indeed rotate around its own axis.
As you are trying to show a problem with the RE model, there is nothing wrong with that conclusion (or assumption if you want to call it that).
If you need to reject that to try and have your argument work, you are no longer arguing against the currently accepted model of the universe.

The video shows something very different: the Moon is setting, the Sun is rising, and then you have a shadow on the top of the Moon, which is impossible on a round earth.
You are yet to show it is impossible.
So far all we have for that is your assertion, vs my explanation that it should be fine.

However, any heliocentrist who has indeed studied lunar eclipses will NEVER use the atmospheric refraction as an argument.
Why?
Because there is no such thing as a heliocentrist.

Now you can see your predicament?
That you have just made another baseless assertion?

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4805
Re: SELENELION
« Reply #13 on: October 07, 2019, 03:59:28 AM »
All of you here, the RE, still don't get what is going on.

You, the RE, have been using this kind of an argument as a way out of a debate:

https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/selenelion.jpg

However, any RE who has indeed studied lunar eclipses will NEVER use the atmospheric refraction as an argument.

Why?

Because of the two HUMONGOUS paradoxes which accompany each and every lunar eclipse: the enlargement of the Earth`s shadow and the excessive clarity of the penumbra.

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."


Now you can see your predicament?

Your usual argument, is no longer true!

"So when the sun has just appeared to rise, and the moon is close to setting, they are both actually already below the horizon, but the light from them bends back down so we can still see them.  This means Earth could actually be above the sun-moon line, and thus cast its shadow on the top of the moon."

You now only have one option left: if the Earth is a bit below the line between sun and moon, then Earth's shadow would be casting on the bottom half of the moon.


The two huge discrepancies, the enlargement of the Earth`s shadow and the excessive clarity of the penumbra, are a fact of science.

They cannot be explained by the RE.

Therefore we are left with the LUNAR ALLAIS EFFECT: these effects are caused by the Shadow Moon, and not by the Earth.

*

kopfverderber

  • 440
  • Globularist
Re: SELENELION
« Reply #14 on: October 07, 2019, 04:39:35 AM »
You are assuming that the Moon does indeed rotate around the Earth, and that the Earth does indeed rotate around its own axis.

What if I were to ask for such proofs, how long do you think you'd last in a direct debate with me on such a subject? Not very long.

You are making huge assumptions, which are UNPROVEN to this very day.


Now, you still can't see what is going on, can you?

You have not PROVEN that the Moon received light from the bottom of the Earth.

If we are discussing whether the eclipse is consistent with RE, we have to make all RE assumptions, including RE orbits, otherwise what's the point? The pictures of the eclipse are fully consistent with what RE predicts, therefore you have no case.



I'm don't have to prove that " the Moon received light from the bottom of the Earth." as you say, because that's not what is happening. The earth has no "bottom" or "top".

Field rotation will make the the moon appear to enter the earth's shadows from different angles  depending of the observer's position on earth.  You can check that the moon actually appears rotated from different places during the eclipse by looking at the moon surface features.



RE explanation for field rotation is the earth's rotation. I have no clue how FE explains field rotation.
« Last Edit: October 07, 2019, 05:13:17 AM by kopfverderber »
You must gather your party before venturing forth

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4805
Re: SELENELION
« Reply #15 on: October 07, 2019, 06:45:35 AM »
The pictures of the eclipse are fully consistent with what RE predicts

But they are not, this is the entire point of this discussion.

There are plenty of videos on youtube which feature a selenelion posted by the FE, but they are countered immediately with this:

https://flatearth.ws/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/selenelion.jpg

Since both sides have not studied this very specialized field of astrophysics, they are content to leave it as such at this point.

However, atmospheric refraction can no longer be used as an argument by the RE.

Why?

Because of the two HUMONGOUS paradoxes which accompany each and every lunar eclipse: the enlargement of the Earth`s shadow and the excessive clarity of the penumbra.

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."

This usual argument is no longer true!

"So when the sun has just appeared to rise, and the moon is close to setting, they are both actually already below the horizon, but the light from them bends back down so we can still see them.  This means Earth could actually be above the sun-moon line, and thus cast its shadow on the top of the moon."

You now only have one option left: if the Earth is a bit below the line between sun and moon, then Earth's shadow would be casting on the bottom half of the moon.


The two huge discrepancies, the enlargement of the Earth`s shadow and the excessive clarity of the penumbra, are a fact of science.

They cannot be explained by the RE.

Therefore we are left with the LUNAR ALLAIS EFFECT: these effects are caused by the Shadow Moon, and not by the Earth.


*

kopfverderber

  • 440
  • Globularist
Re: SELENELION
« Reply #16 on: October 07, 2019, 11:28:49 AM »
"So when the sun has just appeared to rise, and the moon is close to setting, they are both actually already below the horizon, but the light from them bends back down so we can still see them.  This means Earth could actually be above the sun-moon line, and thus cast its shadow on the top of the moon."


There is no top or down, that's relative to the viewer. The moon is entering earth's shadow from west to east on the south side of the ecliptic plane. But depending on where you are you would see the shadow "moving"on the surface of the moon in one direction or another.


Please stop thinking 2D (up and down) and try to picture the eclipse in 3D. I know it's hard.
You must gather your party before venturing forth

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4805
Re: SELENELION
« Reply #17 on: October 07, 2019, 11:43:50 AM »
You can no longer use atmospheric refraction to explain the selenelion.

Unless you can explain the enlargement of the Earth`s shadow and the excessive clarity of the penumbra, your diagrams can be used as wrapping paper.


*

kopfverderber

  • 440
  • Globularist
Re: SELENELION
« Reply #18 on: October 07, 2019, 12:32:29 PM »
You can no longer use atmospheric refraction to explain the selenelion.

Unless you can explain the enlargement of the Earth`s shadow and the excessive clarity of the penumbra, your diagrams can be used as wrapping paper.

Selenelion. Atmospheric refraction makes the sun and the moon appear higher in the sky than their geometric positions. That means sometimes is possible to observe both at the same time even though they are at opposite points of the sky. If the moon is inside earth's penumbra, then you will see that on one side and the rising or setting sun on the other side. It's not too difficult to understand the concept.

Unless you can provide a way to calculate the exact positions and paths of moon, sun and shadow object for every eclipse and the size of each of them, so that we can check if it's consistent with observations from everywhere on earth, your flat earth advanced research can be safely ignored.
« Last Edit: October 07, 2019, 12:39:52 PM by kopfverderber »
You must gather your party before venturing forth

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4805
Re: SELENELION
« Reply #19 on: October 07, 2019, 12:42:02 PM »
You haven't done your homework on several important subjects discussed here.

Yet here you are acting as the master of ceremonies on selenelions.

Selenelion. Atmospheric refraction makes the sun and the moon appear higher in the sky than their geometric positions.

You can no longer use the atmospheric refraction argument.

Please study this subject, then come back here.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2138487#msg2138487

Each and every lunar eclipse studied since 1830 has exhibited the phenomena I described in my previous messages.

For you to come here and make such a statement (Unless you can provide a way to calculate the exact positions and paths of moon, sun and shadow object for every eclipse so that we can check if it's consistent with observations from everywhere on earth) means you haven't the foggiest idea of what we are talking about here.




*

sokarul

  • 16172
  • Discount Chemist
Re: SELENELION
« Reply #20 on: October 07, 2019, 12:52:56 PM »
Did you research find that every lunar eclipse happened during the full moon phase?

Coincidence?
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Run Sandokhan run

*

kopfverderber

  • 440
  • Globularist
Re: SELENELION
« Reply #21 on: October 07, 2019, 01:02:00 PM »
You haven't done your homework on several important subjects discussed here.


Whatever. You seemed to have some issues understanding what is "up" and "down" on a globe earth and with the way RE explains lunar eclipses, so I clarified that.

RE has no issues with lunar eclipses. In fact the path of the moon across earth's umbra and penumbra and the way it looks from any location is calculated before the eclipses take place and predictions have proven to be quite accurate. Those predictions are done based on round earth, moon and sun. The shadow object is not needed. Please FE keep the shadow object for yourselves, nobody else needs it, thank you very much.

Is this by any chance still your FE map?

Please note that the sun's zenith position close to Brazil and Moon's close to Japan near the start of the eclipse. Where was the shadow object exactly so that the eclipse could be seen from California among other places? Please enlighten us.


Shadow object, where are you??????????
You must gather your party before venturing forth

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4805
Re: SELENELION
« Reply #22 on: October 07, 2019, 01:13:24 PM »
You seemed to have some issues understanding what is "up" and "down" on a globe earth and with the way RE explains lunar eclipses, so I clarified that.

I have just proven to you that there actually is an "up" and "down" when it comes to the selenelions.

RE has no issues with lunar eclipses.

But it does.

And they are huge.

They are: the enlargement of the Earth`s shadow and the excessive clarity of the penumbra.

Modern astrophysics cannot explain them.

Both the FE and RE on youtube have no idea about these issues.

The shadow object is not needed.

Go ahead and explain the two major paradoxes of lunar eclipses: the enlargement of the Earth`s shadow and the excessive clarity of the penumbra.

So you cannot.

Now, it's my turn: we are dealing with the LUNAR ALLAIS EFFECT.

Go ahead and make sure you understand the SOLAR ECLIPSE ALLAIS EFFECT:

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

Where was the shadow object exactly


Exactly passing in front of the Moon.

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.

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 existence of the Shadow Moon was anticipated by the best astronomers of the 19th century.

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

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

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

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

Sir John Herschel admits that:

"Invisible moons exist in the firmament."

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

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

Re: SELENELION
« Reply #23 on: October 07, 2019, 01:32:54 PM »
But they are not, this is the entire point of this discussion.
Yes, that is what you have asserted, and you are yet to justify it in any way.
Refraction allows the entirety of Earth's umbra to be in view while the sun is still partly above the horizon. As such, there is nothing wrong with the dark side of the moon being on either side.

After the sun has set there is certainly no problem at all.

Posting the same quote again and again wont help you.
Repeatedly asserting that there are issues which are completely unrelated to the discussion at hand will not help.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4805
Re: SELENELION
« Reply #24 on: October 07, 2019, 01:39:18 PM »
Refraction allows the entirety of Earth's umbra to be in view while the sun is still partly above the horizon. As such, there is nothing wrong with the dark side of the moon being on either side.

But it cannot.

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."

It has systematically been found that the shadow of the Earth seems to be 2% larger
than what is expected from geometrical predictions.

For his part, in an analysis of 57 eclipses over a period of 150 years, Link (1969) found an enlargement of the shadow of 2.3% on average. Furthermore, schedules inputs and outputs of the crater through the umbra for four lunar eclipses from 1972 to 1982 strongly support the Chauvenet value of 2%.

The increase of the Earth`s umbral shadow during eclipses of the Moon is the
classical value of 2% (the rule of the fiftieth) used in most calculations of lunar eclipses.

J. Meeus, Nouvelles brèves : L’accroissement du diamètre de l’ombre de la Terre lors des éclipses de Lune, Ciel et Terre, Vol. 88, p. 491 (1972)


You can no longer use atmospheric refraction to explain the selenelion.

Unless you can explain the enlargement of the Earth`s shadow and the excessive clarity of the penumbra, then we are left with the LUNAR ALLAIS EFFECT.

*

kopfverderber

  • 440
  • Globularist
Re: SELENELION
« Reply #25 on: October 07, 2019, 01:40:19 PM »
Where was the shadow object exactly


Exactly passing in front of the Moon.


In front of the moon looking from where? Lunar eclipses can be seen at the same time from a lot of places. Like California, Japan and Australia at the same time. How can it be in front of the moon for everyone at the same time?  If it's on one side if the moon, the eclipse wont be seen from the other side. Sorry, it doesn't work.

And what about the sun? The shadow object should be between the sun and the moon, unless you also believe that the moon emits its own light. It must be the moonshrimp then.

A magical shadow object that no one can ever see, that never obscures any star or planet, that sneaks in just in time to cause lunar eclipses only during full moon, exactly when RE predicts. And you think RE has problems because some pendulum anomalies during solar eclipses and something about the size of the shadow? LOL.
« Last Edit: October 07, 2019, 01:45:13 PM by kopfverderber »
You must gather your party before venturing forth

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4805
Re: SELENELION
« Reply #26 on: October 07, 2019, 01:48:24 PM »
unless you also believe that the moon emits its own light

I told you that you must do your homework on this subject.


Despite this reasoning, it has been found that towards the centre the umbra is too bright to be accounted for by refraction of visible sunlight. F. Link proposed that this excess be interpreted as luminescence [23]. He concluded that about 10 percent of the Moon`s optical radiation is caused by luminescence. Observations seem to confirm the existence of lunar luminescence. The term luminescence can be applied to any object that emits light in addition to the usual reflected light [24]. The main characteristic of luminescence is that the emitted light is an attribute of the object itself, and the light emission is stimulated by some internal or external process.


A magical shadow object that no one can ever see, that never obscures any star or planet, that sneaks in just in time to cause lunar eclipses only during full moon, exactly when RE predicts.

Go ahead and explain the two major paradoxes of lunar eclipses: the enlargement of the Earth`s shadow and the excessive clarity of the penumbra.

So you cannot.

Now, it's my turn: we are dealing with the LUNAR ALLAIS EFFECT.

Go ahead and make sure you understand the SOLAR ECLIPSE ALLAIS EFFECT:

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


How can it be in front of the moon for everyone at the same time?

This is where the ether comes in.

Make sure you understand the RUDERFER experiment, the most direct proof of the existence of ether:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1846721#msg1846721

*

kopfverderber

  • 440
  • Globularist
Re: SELENELION
« Reply #27 on: October 07, 2019, 02:09:32 PM »
...
Go ahead and make sure you understand the SOLAR ECLIPSE ALLAIS EFFECT:
...
Make sure you understand the RUDERFER experiment, the most direct proof of the existence of ether:
...

Nevermind, I'm not interested in reading your theories about the allais effect or ether or the other links. Reading your posts is enough. I was the one asking, so I guess it's my fault.
You must gather your party before venturing forth

Re: SELENELION
« Reply #28 on: October 07, 2019, 02:37:52 PM »
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
Which according to your prior claim is the result of an optical illusion based upon perception of bright/dark objects.
Regardless that 2% will not hide the umbra.
As such, it is irrelevant to the discussion on selenelion eclipses.

As such, there is no problem for the eclipses with RE.

Re: SELENELION
« Reply #29 on: October 07, 2019, 02:42:09 PM »
Are the two pictures at the top supposed to be when the sun is above the horizon?

They look like proper nighttime to me.