SELENELION

  • 72 Replies
  • 4150 Views
?

frenat

  • 3546
Re: SELENELION
« Reply #30 on: October 07, 2019, 05:32:21 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.
Depends on when and where you are observing the moon from and what direction you are facing when doing so (just like how field rotation can make the Moon appear to rotate throughout the night) and from what angle it enters the Earth's shadow. You need to see it in 3D not your 2D simplification.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6034
Re: SELENELION
« Reply #31 on: October 07, 2019, 09:47:38 PM »
The RE still do not understand what is going on.

We have two enormous discrepancies: the enlargement of the Earth`s shadow and the excessive clarity of the penumbra. Since the calculations do not match the astronomical observations there is only one option left: the lunar eclipse is NOT caused by the Earth.

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."


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 #32 on: October 07, 2019, 10:28:09 PM »
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

The 2% enlargement of the earh's shadow is not going to change things much. I still don't know what is the relationship with the selenelion or why is that relevant here. The average enlargement is generally considered when calculating the eclipse.

The allais effect has been reported only for solar eclipses, is that right? we are now dealing with a lunar eclipse. Just because you found some obscure paper by someone called Russell Bagdoo (who is that?)  it doesn't mean the shadow enlargement is caused by the allais effect, that's just what you want.

Scientist have other explanations for the shadow enlargement. Most  widely accepted explanation is that it's caused by the atmosphere, there can be other explanations. Just because something is not fully understood it doesn't mean that you can make any claim.

"Each eclipse can exhibit oblateness variations due in the main to the conditions prevailing in the Earth's atmosphere at the time of the event, particularly when large volcanic eruptions have occurred before the observations are made. It's also possible that large amounts of dust in the troposphere caused by meteor showers could be a probable cause. However it also possible that another major factor effecting the change of the oblatness of the umbra from eclipse to eclipse is the hemisphere through which the Moon passes during the eclipse. " (Journal of the British Astronomical Association, Volume 95, Number 1, p.18)".
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1984JBAA...95...16S

Here's yet another alternative explanation that has nothing to do with the allais effect:
Enlargement of the Earth's Shadow on the Moon: An Optical Illusion
Physics Department, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1N 6N5
https://newtonphysics.on.ca/astronomy/index.html
« Last Edit: October 07, 2019, 10:34:03 PM by kopfverderber »
You must gather your party before venturing forth

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6034
Re: SELENELION
« Reply #33 on: October 07, 2019, 10:40:28 PM »
The 2% enlargement of the earh's shadow is not going to change things much.

It changes EVERYTHING: the RE calculations DO NOT MATCH at all the astronomical observations.

I still don't know what is the relationship with the selenelion or why is that relevant here.

You should.

It means that you cannot use atmospheric refraction as an explanation for the selenelion.

it doesn't mean the shadow enlargement is caused by the allais effect, that's just what you want.

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.

some obscure paper

A beautiful compendium of what is known at the present time regarding this subject matter. It includes a very good list of references.

Most  widely accepted explanation is that it's caused by the atmosphere, there can be other explanations.

But it cannot be caused by the atmosphere.

"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."

particularly when large volcanic eruptions

No volcanic eruptions is responsible for the observed effects.

"Furthermore, the eruption of volcanos cannot explain the larger shadow. According to some, the altitude reached by some material ejected from volcano El Chichon is in the stratosphere, some 26 kilometers (16 miles) above Earth's surface – roughly 50% higher than material from the famous Mount St. Helens [9]. Since the atmosphere does not appear to be responsible for the umbra-penumbra limit displacement of 2% on the Moon, then what is the cause?"




*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6034
Re: SELENELION
« Reply #34 on: October 07, 2019, 10:43:44 PM »
Here's yet another alternative explanation that has nothing to do with the allais effect:
Enlargement of the Earth's Shadow on the Moon: An Optical Illusion
Physics Department, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1N 6N5
https://newtonphysics.on.ca/astronomy/index.html


Is this supposed to be a joke?

That is MY REFERENCE!

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

Paul Marmet and Christine Couture [1], for their part, believe that the actual umbra of the Earth projected on the Moon is not as big as observed, that the sensitivity of the eyes is a factor leading necessarily to an umbral enlargement and that almost the totality of the reported umbra-penumbra limit displacement is an optical effect that has nothing to do with the thickness of the Earth atmosphere.

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.

*

kopfverderber

  • 440
  • Globularist
Re: SELENELION
« Reply #35 on: October 07, 2019, 10:59:18 PM »
Here's yet another alternative explanation that has nothing to do with the allais effect:
Enlargement of the Earth's Shadow on the Moon: An Optical Illusion
Physics Department, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1N 6N5
https://newtonphysics.on.ca/astronomy/index.html


Is this supposed to be a joke?

That is MY REFERENCE!

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

Paul Marmet and Christine Couture [1], for their part, believe that the actual umbra of the Earth projected on the Moon is not as big as observed, that the sensitivity of the eyes is a factor leading necessarily to an umbral enlargement and that almost the totality of the reported umbra-penumbra limit displacement is an optical effect that has nothing to do with the thickness of the Earth atmosphere.

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.

So that's your reference, yet the reference says nothing about the allais effect. You just pick the few sentences  you like from it and ignore the author's conclusion: shadow enlargement caused by optical illusion.

So when was the Allais effect reported in a lunar eclipse? If you have no data, then it's not even worth considering as possible explanation. All you have is speculation.

Lunar eclipses are known be caused by the earth, this is already known by direct observation. A 2% deviation on the shadow's size which might not be fully explained doesn't change that fact.  You like to cite papers so much, please cite paper less than 50 years old that claim lunar eclipses are not caused by the earth. Found any?
You must gather your party before venturing forth

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6034
Re: SELENELION
« Reply #36 on: October 07, 2019, 11:19:34 PM »
Lunar eclipses are known be caused by the earth, this is already known by direct observation. A 2% deviation on the shadow's size which might not be fully explained doesn't change that fact.

Take a look at how you are using words in order to justify, in any way possible, the fact that the geometrical considerations do not match the astronomical observatinos.

A 2% deviation MEANS THAT THE LUNAR ECLIPSE IS NOT CAUSED BY THE EARTH.

The direct observation shows a SHADOW object: both the enlargement of the Earth`s shadow and the excessive clarity of the penumbra observations prove that the Earth cannot be the cause of the lunar eclipses.

So when was the Allais effect reported in a lunar eclipse?

DURING EACH AND EVERY LUNAR ECLIPSE RECORDED FOR THE PAST 180 YEARS.

Each time you deal with the enlargement of the Earth`s shadow and the excessive clarity of the penumbra observations you are looking at the LUNAR ALLAIS EFFECT.

If you disagree, please explain these two humongous discrepancies.

and ignore the author's conclusion: shadow enlargement caused by optical illusion.

The author does not address/explain the SECOND discrepancy: the excessive clarity of the penumbra.

No optical illusion there.

Both observations prove the LUNAR ALLAIS EFFECT.

You like to cite papers so much, please cite paper less than 50 years old that claim lunar eclipses are not caused by the earth. Found any?

The list of references provided in that paper show extensively that the enlargement of the Earth`s shadow and the excessive clarity of the penumbra observations cannot be explained by current science.

It is the SHADOW MOON which causes the lunar eclipses, not the Earth.

*

Stash

  • 4814
Re: SELENELION
« Reply #37 on: October 07, 2019, 11:41:18 PM »
Lunar eclipses are known be caused by the earth, this is already known by direct observation. A 2% deviation on the shadow's size which might not be fully explained doesn't change that fact.

Take a look at how you are using words in order to justify, in any way possible, the fact that the geometrical considerations do not match the astronomical observatinos.

A 2% deviation MEANS THAT THE LUNAR ECLIPSE IS NOT CAUSED BY THE EARTH.

You are the one actually misrepresenting the contents of various articles you're using to try and justify your position.

You wrote earlier:

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%.

That's a direct quote from "Five Millennium Canon of Lunar Eclipses [Espenak and Meeus]"
https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/LEcat5/shadow.html

You left off the next sentence: "From a physical point of view, there is no abrupt boundary between the umbra and penumbra. The shadow density actually varies continuously as a function of radial distance from the central axis out to the extreme edge of the penumbra."

As well, you left off the conclusion of the paper:

"Practically speaking, the faint and indistinct edge of the penumbral shadow makes the penumbral eclipse contacts (P1 and P4) completely unobservable. So the small magnitude differences discussed here are only of academic interest...Other sources using Danjon's method include Meeus and Mucke (1979), Espenak (2006) and Connaissance des Temps. Several sources using Chauvenet's method are Espenak (1989), Liu and Fiala (1992), and Astronomical Almanac."

In essence, the 2% is generally inconsequential and not much of a mystery, as we'll see in a moment using your citation.

As well, you cited:

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.

No where in the above paper/article does it mention the Allais Effect. In fact, the article opens with this:

"THE INCREASE OF THE DIAMETER OF THE SHADOW OF EARTH DURING MOON ECLIPSES
One of the most useful and feasible programs for amateurs at a lunar eclipse consists in measuring the moments at which various craters penetrate into the shadow of the Earth or come out of it. These moments can be analyzed to deduce the shape and dimensions of the Earth's shadow at the distance of the Moon. The Earth being flattened, its shadow is not circular. We can easily demonstrate that it is an ellipse that is a little flatter than the globe itself. In addition observation has shown that the atmosphere plays the role of an opaque mattress around the Earth, whose effect is to increase the apparent radius of the shadow by about one-fiftieth (at the distance of the Moon)."

You claimed the author demonstrated the only possible explanation is a lunar eclipse Allais effect yet he references atmospheric effects and never mentions Allais. So what are you talking about exactly?

In short none of the papers state at all what you claim (No Allais Effect mentioned) and in fact, state the opposite, atmospheric properties that lend to the 2% size. Not to mention the fact that nowhere does anyone come to a conclusion that the earth is not creating the shadow. No one.

I suggest you get your house in order when it comes to citations and what they refer to and what they don't.
No. That sudden lurch forwards is the atmospheric slosh effect.

*

kopfverderber

  • 440
  • Globularist
Re: SELENELION
« Reply #38 on: October 07, 2019, 11:53:53 PM »
DURING EACH AND EVERY LUNAR ECLIPSE RECORDED FOR THE PAST 180 YEARS.

Each time you deal with the enlargement of the Earth`s shadow and the excessive clarity of the penumbra observations you are looking at the LUNAR ALLAIS EFFECT.

If you disagree, please explain these two humongous discrepancies.

and ignore the author's conclusion: shadow enlargement caused by optical illusion.

The author does not address/explain the SECOND discrepancy: the excessive clarity of the penumbra.

No optical illusion there.

Both observations prove the LUNAR ALLAIS EFFECT.


That's just your speculation. There are other more pausible explanations.

Fact: you have shown no experimental data of the allais effect during a lunar eclipse. Only speculation.

Fact: none of the papers you are citing claim that lunar eclipses are not caused by the earth.

Once again you are just cherry picking quotes from different authors, ignoring the parts that don't suit you and building your own story, a fantasy story.
You must gather your party before venturing forth

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6034
Re: SELENELION
« Reply #39 on: October 08, 2019, 12:09:21 AM »
You are employing your USUAL method of bullshitting your readers.

They will not forgive you for what you tried here:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82434.msg2201983#msg2201983

You tried to claim that Toronto was under water.

You took that as far as you could, while claiming all the while that you are "concerned".

Just like you are doing now.

Your gig is over.

You can only do this ONCE, now you've blown your cover already.


"From a physical point of view, there is no abrupt boundary between the umbra and penumbra. The shadow density actually varies continuously as a function of radial distance from the central axis out to the extreme edge of the penumbra."

You still don't get it.

The 2% CANNOT BE EXPLAINED BY MODERN SCIENCE.

This is the crucial point you are missing.

Other sources using Danjon's method include Meeus and Mucke (1979)

You haven't done your homework on the subject.

You can't use Danjon's method.

"Table 1-6 lists nine small magnitude penumbral eclipses over a 500-year interval as determined using Chauvenet's method (Liu and Fiala, 1992). When the eclipse predictions are repeated using Danjon's method, no lunar eclipses are found on these dates."

In essence, the 2% is generally inconsequential and not much of a mystery, as we'll see in a moment using your citation.

You are trying to dismiss the 2% difference, just like the authors of the Nasa paper, but it doesn't work like that.

The effect IS REAL, and has been observed with each and every lunar eclipse.

Since the 1830s, crater timing has been used during lunar eclipses to measure
the length of the Earth`s shadow. The method is simple: one takes the timing of lunar features (craters, limbs, ridges, peaks, bright spots) as they enter and exit the umbra. The Sun-EarthMoon geometry being known quite precisely, it is then possible to calculate the size and shape of the Earth`s umbra at the Moon. Measurements that vary from one eclipse to the next can now be made with low-power telescopes or a clock synchronized with radio time signals. However, 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%. Of course, the small magnitude difference between the two methods is difficult to observe because the edge of the umbral shadow is diffuse. From a physical point of view, there is no well defined border between the umbra and the penumbra. The shadow density actually varies continuously as a function of radial distance from the central axis out to the extreme limit of the penumbral shadow. However, the density variation is most rapid near the theoretical edge of the umbra. Kuhl`s (1928) contrast theory demonstrates that the verge of the umbra is perceived at the point of inflexion in the shadow density.

The umbra-penumbra limit appears significantly displaced on the Moon during an eclipse.


WHAT?!

You quoted from the Meeus paper?

In addition observation has shown that the atmosphere plays the role of an opaque mattress around the Earth, whose effect is to increase the apparent radius of the shadow by about one-fiftieth (at the distance of the Moon).

But this is the entire point of the debate: the atmosphere cannot cause the enlargment of the Earth's shadow.

This usual interpretation of the umbral enlargement forces us to believe that the atmosphere is normally opaque up to 92 km or so. But how is this possible when, at this altitude, the air is extremely rarefied?

In fact, according to data [8], the atmospheric pressure at 90 km above sea level is about half a million times smaller than that at sea level. Above 15 km, the atmosphere becomes relatively transparent to light, since 90% of the air and almost all the humidity and pollution are below that level. That makes an enlarged obscuration due to the opacity of the atmosphere of only 0.3% which is much smaller than the 2.0% reported.


This is the reason why the readers trust me, and not you, when it comes to bibliographical references.


Now it's on to the SECOND phenomenon observed: the excessive clarity of the penumbra observations.

It has been said that 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.


Not to mention the fact that nowhere does anyone come to a conclusion that the earth is not creating the shadow. No one.

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.
« Last Edit: October 08, 2019, 12:14:48 AM by sandokhan »

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6034
Re: SELENELION
« Reply #40 on: October 08, 2019, 12:13:46 AM »
you have shown no experimental data of the allais effect during a lunar eclipse. Only speculation.

The Allais effect is very real:

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

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.

The shadow object which does cause the lunar eclipse is the SHADOW MOON, not the Earth: the proofs are very clear. The geometrical considerations, using the accepted values for the Earth, are NOT MATCHED by the astronomical observations.

Re: SELENELION
« Reply #41 on: October 08, 2019, 12:27:02 AM »
The 2% enlargement of the earh's shadow is not going to change things much.
It changes EVERYTHING: the RE calculations DO NOT MATCH at all the astronomical observations.
No, it doesn't.
It doesn't magically mean that the umbra will be out of view.
As such, it is irrelevant.

It means that you cannot use atmospheric refraction as an explanation for the selenelion.
Again, that is nothing more than your baseless claim.

Now, it's my turn: we are dealing with the LUNAR ALLAIS EFFECT.
No we are not. We are discussing selenelion eclipses.

That is MY REFERENCE!
Yes, it is your reference which shows there is no problem for a RE. That this enlargement is due to perception, not reality. That it is an optical illusion. It also implies (via omission) that the Alias effect is not needed to explain it at all. It in no way indicates that refraction cannot explain Selenelion eclipses.

The 2% CANNOT BE EXPLAINED BY MODERN SCIENCE.
Except by the very paper you reference which clearly explains it as an optical illusion.

Now, can you show any actual problem with Selenelion eclipses (as opposed to any alleged problem with eclipses in general)?
If not, can you admit that the occurrence of a Selenelion eclipse with a RE (as opposed to any alleged problem with eclipses in general)?

*

Stash

  • 4814
Re: SELENELION
« Reply #42 on: October 08, 2019, 12:30:23 AM »
Now, it's my turn: we are dealing with the LUNAR ALLAIS EFFECT.

Point of fact, you cited two papers from which you claimed, and I quote you, "As the author demonstrates in his paper, the only possible explanation is a variation of the gravitational potential, a lunar eclipse Allais effect." And nowhere in those papers was Allais Effect ever mentioned and the 2% size differential was explained through atmospheric means, contrary to what you claim, and not considered of any great consequence.

And no one has even come close to mentioning that an eclipse shadow is caused by anything other than the earth.

So like I said, get your source citations house in order and stop claiming there is content in a paper/article that justifies your claims when they, in fact, do not. Being truthful, forthright and integral to your readers is the best service you can offer. In this instance you are doing anything but.
No. That sudden lurch forwards is the atmospheric slosh effect.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6034
Re: SELENELION
« Reply #43 on: October 08, 2019, 12:36:31 AM »
And nowhere in those papers was Allais Effect ever mentioned and the 2% size differential was explained through atmospheric means, contrary to what you claim, and not considered of any great consequence.

But it is of GREAT CONSEQUENCE.

You are trying to dismiss the 2% difference, just like the authors of the Nasa paper, but it doesn't work like that.

The effect IS REAL, and has been observed with each and every lunar eclipse.

Since the 1830s, crater timing has been used during lunar eclipses to measure
the length of the Earth`s shadow. The method is simple: one takes the timing of lunar features (craters, limbs, ridges, peaks, bright spots) as they enter and exit the umbra. The Sun-EarthMoon geometry being known quite precisely, it is then possible to calculate the size and shape of the Earth`s umbra at the Moon. Measurements that vary from one eclipse to the next can now be made with low-power telescopes or a clock synchronized with radio time signals. However, 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%. Of course, the small magnitude difference between the two methods is difficult to observe because the edge of the umbral shadow is diffuse. From a physical point of view, there is no well defined border between the umbra and the penumbra. The shadow density actually varies continuously as a function of radial distance from the central axis out to the extreme limit of the penumbral shadow. However, the density variation is most rapid near the theoretical edge of the umbra. Kuhl`s (1928) contrast theory demonstrates that the verge of the umbra is perceived at the point of inflexion in the shadow density.

The umbra-penumbra limit appears significantly displaced on the Moon during an eclipse.


Then, you have to deal with the second phenomenon: the excessive clarity of the penumbra observations.

It has been said that 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.


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.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6034
Re: SELENELION
« Reply #44 on: October 08, 2019, 12:41:11 AM »
Again, that is nothing more than your baseless claim.

Here are the facts.

Since the 1830s, crater timing has been used during lunar eclipses to measure the length of the Earth`s shadow. The method is simple: one takes the timing of lunar features (craters, limbs, ridges, peaks, bright spots) as they enter and exit the umbra. The Sun-EarthMoon geometry being known quite precisely, it is then possible to calculate the size and shape of the Earth`s umbra at the Moon. Measurements that vary from one eclipse to the next can now be made with low-power telescopes or a clock synchronized with radio time signals. However, 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%. Of course, the small magnitude difference between the two methods is difficult to observe because the edge of the umbral shadow is diffuse. From a physical point of view, there is no well defined border between the umbra and the penumbra. The shadow density actually varies continuously as a function of radial distance from the central axis out to the extreme limit of the penumbral shadow. However, the density variation is most rapid near the theoretical edge of the umbra. Kuhl`s (1928) contrast theory demonstrates that the verge of the umbra is perceived at the point of inflexion in the shadow density.

The umbra-penumbra limit appears significantly displaced on the Moon during an eclipse.


Then, you have to deal with the second phenomenon: the excessive clarity of the penumbra observations.

It has been said that 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.


You simply haven't done your homework on the subject.

These facts are real and cannot be explained by modern science.

The selenelion is a lunar eclipse.

If you cannot explain BOTH  the enlargement of the Earth`s shadow and the excessive clarity of the penumbra, then the Moon does not cause the lunar eclipse and the Earth does not cause the selenelion.


Re: SELENELION
« Reply #45 on: October 08, 2019, 12:49:13 AM »
But it is of GREAT CONSEQUENCE.
Here are the facts.
No, it isn't of great consequence, and here are the actual facts:

According to your reference, it is nothing more than an optical illusions based upon the perception of the varying shadow.
It does absolutely nothing to negate refraction as the reason for why selenelion eclipses occur.
It does nothing to show a problem with the RE model.

Your own paper shows that there is no problem and no extra physics is needed.

This means it is of no great consequence and is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Then, you have to deal with the second phenomenon: the excessive clarity of the penumbra observations.
It has been said that the pronounced red colour in the inner portions of the umbra
No, we don't, as you are yet to justify this problem or show how it impacts a selenelion eclipse (rather than eclipses in general) in any way; and you can't even seem to make up your mind if it is the umbra or the penumbra.

Now, it's my turn: we are dealing with the LUNAR ALLAIS EFFECT.
Again, we are not. We are dealing with selenelion eclipses.
You are yet to show any problem with them.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6034
Re: SELENELION
« Reply #46 on: October 08, 2019, 12:57:03 AM »
You have reached a very low point here.

You are actually using MY REFERENCE.

Don't you understand what you are doing?

Dr. Marmet DEMOLISHES the atmospheric refraction argument you tried to use in your favor.

Yes, he does propose an alternative explanation, but he does not address the SECOND phenomenon being observed.

The second phenomenon, the excessive clarity of the penumbra observations is NOT an optical illusion, thus neither is the first.

I used Dr. Marmet's fantastic reference to prove that the atmosphere has nothing to do with the selenelion.


Take a look at yourself, the fisking, the denials, all under the very permissive watch of the mods, frantically trying to explain the unexplainable.


You simply haven't done your homework on the subject.

These facts are real and cannot be explained by modern science.

The selenelion is a lunar eclipse.

If you cannot explain BOTH  the enlargement of the Earth`s shadow and the excessive clarity of the penumbra, then the Moon does not cause the lunar eclipse and the Earth does not cause the selenelion.

Re: SELENELION
« Reply #47 on: October 08, 2019, 01:14:07 AM »
You are actually using MY REFERENCE.
Yes, I am using your reference which shows you are wrong.
That is how much of a low point you are at.
You are rejecting the findings of your own reference.
You provide a reference only to completely ignore it.

Dr. Marmet DEMOLISHES the atmospheric refraction argument you tried to use in your favor.
Stop lying.
I am using atmospheric refraction to explain why selenelion eclipsese are observed. I am not using it at all in discussion of the apparent increase in the size of the umbra.

The paper you are referencing only rejects the atmosphere for explaining the apparent size and says nothing at all regarding selenelion eclipses.

So the situation is nothing like what you pretend.
The simple reality is the apparent enlargement is nothing more than an optical illusion and refraction easily explains the occurrence of selenelion eclipses.

There is no problem for a RE here.

The second phenomenon, the excessive clarity of the penumbra observations is NOT an optical illusion, thus neither is the first.
That is not how anything works. Just because A doesn't explain C, doesn't mean that A can't explain B.

You are yet to substantiate your claim that the penumbra is excessively clear or that that is any problem (or what you even mean by it).

I used Dr. Marmet's fantastic reference to prove that the atmosphere has nothing to do with the selenelion.
So you blatantly lied about it and pretended it said/proved something which it didn't even bring up?

Take a look at yourself, the fisking, the denials, all under the very permissive watch of the mods, frantically trying to explain the unexplainable.
Take a look in the mirror, you are describing yourself, like you normally do when you spout garbage like that.

Now, can you address the issue at hand and either explain why refraction can't explain the observation of selenelion eclipses or admit that it can?

*

Stash

  • 4814
Re: SELENELION
« Reply #48 on: October 08, 2019, 01:15:28 AM »
And nowhere in those papers was Allais Effect ever mentioned and the 2% size differential was explained through atmospheric means, contrary to what you claim, and not considered of any great consequence.

But it is of GREAT CONSEQUENCE.

You are trying to dismiss the 2% difference, just like the authors of the Nasa paper, but it doesn't work like that.

The effect IS REAL, and has been observed with each and every lunar eclipse.

Since the 1830s, crater timing has been used during lunar eclipses to measure
the length of the Earth`s shadow. The method is simple: one takes the timing of lunar features (craters, limbs, ridges, peaks, bright spots) as they enter and exit the umbra. The Sun-EarthMoon geometry being known quite precisely, it is then possible to calculate the size and shape of the Earth`s umbra at the Moon. Measurements that vary from one eclipse to the next can now be made with low-power telescopes or a clock synchronized with radio time signals. However, it has systematically been found that the shadow of the Earth seems to be 2% larger than what is expected from geometrical predictions.

The above is a direct quote from Paul Marmet's paper entitled, "Enlargement of the Earth's Shadow on the Moon: An Optical Illusion"

Using an overhead projector to simulate the Sun and cardboard cut-outs fo the Moon and Earth for their experimentation his determination was that the 2% is not due to atmospheric effects but to the human eye. From the paper you cited:

"3-  On the Threshold of Sensitivity of the Eye.
        There is an important fact that has been overlooked to explain the umbral enlargement on the moon. It is linked to the sensitivity of the eyes. It is commonly known that under a certain threshold of light intensity, light cannot be detected by the eye. This limiting threshold is quite general and must be applied especially when observing a dark limit during a lunar eclipse.
"
https://newtonphysics.on.ca/astronomy/index.html

No Allais Effect, no shadow object, just an optical illusion. Again, you are misrepresenting the content of a source citation as it in no way justifies your claims.

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%. Of course, the small magnitude difference between the two methods is difficult to observe because the edge of the umbral shadow is diffuse. From a physical point of view, there is no well defined border between the umbra and the penumbra. The shadow density actually varies continuously as a function of radial distance from the central axis out to the extreme limit of the penumbral shadow. However, the density variation is most rapid near the theoretical edge of the umbra. Kuhl`s (1928) contrast theory demonstrates that the verge of the umbra is perceived at the point of inflexion in the shadow density.

Again, the above is from "Five Millennium Canon of Lunar Eclipses [Espenak and Meeus]" and again, their conclusion is contrary to yours:

"Practically speaking, the faint and indistinct edge of the penumbral shadow makes the penumbral eclipse contacts (P1 and P4) completely unobservable. So the small magnitude differences discussed here are only of academic interest."
https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/LEcat5/shadow.html


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

Again, so you say, but have not shown. You keep misquoting papers that actually show conclusions contrary to yours. And again, no one is even coming close to suggesting that there is something causing the eclipse shadow other than the earth. No one. So that whole shadow object thing is all yours and not supported at all academically nor scientifically by anyone and certainly not by the references you have cited.
No. That sudden lurch forwards is the atmospheric slosh effect.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6034
Re: SELENELION
« Reply #49 on: October 08, 2019, 02:04:05 AM »
Both of your have run out of steam.

Your hilarious denials are of no help to your cause.

Here are the undeniable facts concerning the excessive clarity of the penumbra.

It was suggested that the brightness anomaly of the umbral region during an eclipse of the Moon would be caused by refraction of sunlight through the upper regions of the Earth`s atmosphere. The red coloring arises because, they say, sunlight reaching the Moon must pass through a long and dense layer of the Earth`s atmosphere, where it is scattered. Shorter wavelengths are more likely to be scattered by the small particles and so, by the time the light has passed through the atmosphere, the longer wavelengths dominate. This resulting light we perceive as red. The amount of refracted light depends on the amount of dust or clouds in the atmosphere; this also controls how much light is scattered. In general, the dustier the atmosphere, the more that other wavelengths of light will be removed (compared to red light), leaving the resulting light a deeper red color [22].

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.


This is NO OPTICAL ILLUSION.

Both phenomena are absolutely correlated, they occur during lunar eclipses.


Dr. Marmet does not address the second issue: therefore the explanation according to which the first phenomenon is an optical illusion does not stand scrutiny. What Dr. Marmet does is to demolish the atmospheric refraction argument used by the RE.

 We know that astronomical data give us accurate values of the radii of the Sun, the Earth and the Moon. Furthermore the knowledge of their relative distances gives us accurate predictions of the exact instant when the umbra-penumbra limit sweeps some specific crater on the moon during lunar eclipses.
        However, numerous reports show that the umbra-penumbra limit appears significantly displaced on the moon during an eclipse. It is believed that the thickness of the Earth atmosphere is responsible for that displacement. The article of Roger W. Sinnott ("Readers Gauge the Umbra Again", in Sky & Telescope, April 1983, p. 387) illustrates this interpretation of the shadow's enlargement in his statement: "It [the atmosphere] always increases slightly the silhouette of our globe in forming the sharply defined central region of the shadow called the umbra." Similar conclusions are also presented by Sinnott in "A Tale of Two Eclipses" (Sky & Telescope, December 1992, p. 678). Therefore, it could be implied that crater timings during full lunar eclipses can be used as a tool to evaluate the degree of pollution of our atmosphere.
        A similar result has also been claimed by Byron W. Soulsby in "Lunar Eclipse Crater Timing Programme" (Journal of the British Astronomical Association, Volume 95, Number 1, p.18) where he writes:

"Each eclipse can exhibit oblateness variations due in the main to the conditions prevailing in the Earth's atmosphere at the time of the event, particularly when large volcanic eruptions have occurred before the observations are made."
        In order to study more deeply that phenomenon, it is important to evaluate if the reported increase of 2% of the Earth's shadow at the Moon corresponds to a reasonable value of the height at which the atmosphere is opaque. Calculations give that this amount corresponds to an altitude of 92 km on the Earth.
        This usual interpretation of the umbral enlargement forces us to believe that the atmosphere is normally opaque up to 92 km or so. But how can that be when at that altitude, the air is so extremely rarefied? It is near the altitude at which a satellite can orbit around the Earth.
        In fact, according to "Astrophysical Data: Planets and Stars" (Kenneth R. Lang, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1992, p. 36), the atmospheric pressure at 90 km above sea level is about half a million times smaller than that at sea level. Above 15 km, the atmosphere becomes relatively transparent to light, since 90% of the air and almost all the humidity and pollution are below that level. That makes an umbral enlargement due to the opacity of the atmosphere of only 0.3% which is much smaller than the 2.0 % reported.
        Furthermore, the eruption of volcanos cannot explain the umbral enlargement. According to Patrick McCormick (Sky & Telescope, October 1982, p.390), the altitude reached by some material ejected from volcano El Chichon "is in the stratosphere, some 26 kilometers (16 miles) above Earth's surface - roughly 50 percent higher than material from even the famous Mount St. Helens.". So since the atmosphere does not appear to be responsible for the umbra-penumbra limit displacement of 2% on the moon, then what causes it?


THE ATMOSPHERE DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE UMBRA-PENUMBRA LIMIT DISPLACEMENT OF 2% ON THE MOON.

I am using atmospheric refraction to explain why selenelion eclipsese are observed. I am not using it at all in discussion of the apparent increase in the size of the umbra.

The viewers/readers are observing your devious tricks and are not amused by them. My reference destroys your main contention point, yet you are not aware even of this detail.

You have just been shown that the atmosphere is not related at all to the lunar eclipse phenomenon: it does not cause the 2% displacement, therefore it is not related at all to the entire phenomenon. You can't use atmospheric refraction and then ignore the fact that is has nothing to do with the most crucial aspect of this subject matter.

That is why it is hilarious to watch you use my reference as defense.


"Practically speaking, the faint and indistinct edge of the penumbral shadow makes the penumbral eclipse contacts (P1 and P4) completely unobservable. So the small magnitude differences discussed here are only of academic interest."

But they cannot reach this conclusion, not while they claim that the atmosphere causes the 2% enlargement.

Here is what the Nasa paper says:

"This point appears to be equivalent to a layer in Earth's atmosphere at an altitude of about 120 to 150 km. The net enlargement of Earth's radius of 1.9% to 2.4% corresponds to an umbral shadow enlargement of 1.5% to 1.9%, in reasonably good agreement with the conventional value."


So they are using the atmosphere as a possible argument, all the while denying that it is a significant effect.

Dr. Marmet proved that the atmosphere is not related to the entire phenomenon.

Therefore, Nasa's conclusion is catastrophically wrong.

It does matter and they cannot explain it.

Neither can you, the RE.


Since you cannot explain these phenomena, now it is my turn: the shadow object cannot possibly be the Earth.

« Last Edit: October 08, 2019, 02:39:33 AM by sandokhan »

*

kopfverderber

  • 440
  • Globularist
Re: SELENELION
« Reply #50 on: October 08, 2019, 02:15:17 AM »
you have shown no experimental data of the allais effect during a lunar eclipse. Only speculation.

The Allais effect is very real:

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


Lunar eclipses , we are now dealing with lunar eclipses. Aren't all those allais effect experiments in your link solar eclipses?

Is there experimental data of the allais effect during a lunar eclipse yes or no?
You must gather your party before venturing forth

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6034
Re: SELENELION
« Reply #51 on: October 08, 2019, 02:16:52 AM »
Is there experimental data of the allais effect during a lunar eclipse yes or no?

Of course: the enlargement of the Earth`s shadow and the excessive clarity of the penumbra. Since the calculations do not match the astronomical observations there is only one option left: the lunar eclipse is NOT caused by the Earth.

*

kopfverderber

  • 440
  • Globularist
Re: SELENELION
« Reply #52 on: October 08, 2019, 02:43:04 AM »
Is there experimental data of the allais effect during a lunar eclipse yes or no?

Of course: the enlargement of the Earth`s shadow and the excessive clarity of the penumbra. Since the calculations do not match the astronomical observations there is only one option left: the lunar eclipse is NOT caused by the Earth.

That doesn't equal an Allais effect experiment. Please be serious.

Allais effect experiments involve pendulums. I'm sure you know this.

Has the Allais effect ever been observed in a pendulum during a lunar eclipse? lacking that you have no data. You are making your claim without any data to back it.

You whole point is that according to you scientist can't explain a deviation in the shadow size of 2%. Then you claim that must be Allais effect with no data to back it up and from there you automatically jump to "it must be shadow object", as if that would make any sense or explain anything.
You must gather your party before venturing forth

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6034
Re: SELENELION
« Reply #53 on: October 08, 2019, 02:56:16 AM »
The pendulum or the torsind is on the receiving end of an antigravitational wave of energy during the solar eclipses.

The phenomenon exists irrespective of the pendulum in action.

The enlargement of the Earth's shadow and the excessive clarity of the penumbra prove at once that the Earth does not and cannot cause the lunar eclipse.

The anti-gravity on the Moon caused by the shadow object is manifested through a deviation of light.

That is, the Shadow Moon causes a variation of the gravitational potential.

"The excess of luminescence would be the imprint left on the light by the intramolecular oscillation of the atoms constituting the molecules of the lunar soil which spreads it. A Raman effect caused by an Allais effect."

Re: SELENELION
« Reply #54 on: October 08, 2019, 04:08:02 AM »
Both of your have run out of steam.
Your hilarious denials are of no help to your cause.
That is still you projecting.
Your own reference shows you are wrong, yet you refuse to admit it and pretend some other magical phenomenon is required.

Here are the undeniable facts concerning the excessive clarity of the penumbra.
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
Do you mean the umbra or the penumbra?
You should really make up your mind and stick to it.
However so far you have provided absolutely nothing to back up that claim of yours.

Dr. Marmet does not address the second issue: therefore the explanation according to which the first phenomenon is an optical illusion does not stand scrutiny. What Dr. Marmet does is to demolish the atmospheric refraction argument used by the RE.
Pure nonsense.
You are yet to show that the second issue is an issue at all.
As explained before, not addressing that issue doesn't mean the explanation for the first issue is wrong. There is no connection between them.
And again, you are blatantly lying about your reference, just like you so often do.
Dr Marmet does not destroy the reality of refraction causing selenion eclipses in the slightest.

The viewers/readers are observing your devious tricks and are not amused by them. My reference destroys your main contention point, yet you are not aware even of this detail.
Again, you are projecting your own idaquecies onto others.
I am not the one using tricks here.
You are.
You are blatantly lying about what your references show.
You take a reference which is only addressing the apparent size of the umbra and pretend it is saying something completely different.

But they cannot reach this conclusion, not while they claim that the atmosphere causes the 2% enlargement.
But they aren't.
It says it is equivalent to, not caused by.

Dr. Marmet proved that the atmosphere is not related to the entire phenomenon.
Again, that is a blatant lie.
All Dr Marmet proved was that the atmosphere blocking light doesn't cause the 2% enlargement.
They said nothing at all about selenelion eclipses.

This is what was said about the atmosphere that is relevant:
Quote
There is another factor about the atmosphere that has not been discussed. Light rays passing through the atmosphere are naturally bent because the atmosphere acts like a prism. This is why, during an eclipse, the Moon surface is never completely black but reddish: the red part of the solar spectrum passing through the low atmosphere is the only part scattered on the Moon in the region of totality before being reflected back to us on Earth.
So they sure seem to be indicating the atmosphere is involved.

Is there experimental data of the allais effect during a lunar eclipse yes or no?
Of course: the enlargement of the Earth`s shadow and the excessive clarity of the penumbra.
Pure nonsense.
Again, your own reference indicates it is an optical illusion.
There is no connection to your alleged Allais effect, unless you just want to throw every phenomena into it.

Now then,
stop lying about your references.
stop running off on tangents.
Address the topic at hand.
You have provided absolutely nothing that poses any challenge to the reality of selenelion eclipses on the very real round Earth.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6034
Re: SELENELION
« Reply #55 on: October 08, 2019, 04:22:01 AM »
This thread must have really touched a raw nerve.

Again, jackblack is denying reality.

It was suggested that the brightness anomaly of the umbral region during an eclipse of the Moon would be caused by refraction of sunlight through the upper regions of the Earth`s atmosphere. The red coloring arises because, they say, sunlight reaching the Moon must pass through a long and dense layer of the Earth`s atmosphere, where it is scattered. Shorter wavelengths are more likely to be scattered by the small particles and so, by the time the light has passed through the atmosphere, the longer wavelengths dominate. This resulting light we perceive as red. The amount of refracted light depends on the amount of dust or clouds in the atmosphere; this also controls how much light is scattered. In general, the dustier the atmosphere, the more that other wavelengths of light will be removed (compared to red light), leaving the resulting light a deeper red color [22].

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.


This is NO OPTICAL ILLUSION.

Both phenomena are absolutely correlated, they occur during lunar eclipses.


Dr. Marmet does not address the second issue: therefore the explanation according to which the first phenomenon is an optical illusion does not stand scrutiny. What Dr. Marmet does is to demolish the atmospheric refraction argument used by the RE.

Dr. Marmet again:

 We know that astronomical data give us accurate values of the radii of the Sun, the Earth and the Moon. Furthermore the knowledge of their relative distances gives us accurate predictions of the exact instant when the umbra-penumbra limit sweeps some specific crater on the moon during lunar eclipses.
        However, numerous reports show that the umbra-penumbra limit appears significantly displaced on the moon during an eclipse. It is believed that the thickness of the Earth atmosphere is responsible for that displacement. The article of Roger W. Sinnott ("Readers Gauge the Umbra Again", in Sky & Telescope, April 1983, p. 387) illustrates this interpretation of the shadow's enlargement in his statement: "It [the atmosphere] always increases slightly the silhouette of our globe in forming the sharply defined central region of the shadow called the umbra." Similar conclusions are also presented by Sinnott in "A Tale of Two Eclipses" (Sky & Telescope, December 1992, p. 678). Therefore, it could be implied that crater timings during full lunar eclipses can be used as a tool to evaluate the degree of pollution of our atmosphere.
        A similar result has also been claimed by Byron W. Soulsby in "Lunar Eclipse Crater Timing Programme" (Journal of the British Astronomical Association, Volume 95, Number 1, p.18) where he writes:

"Each eclipse can exhibit oblateness variations due in the main to the conditions prevailing in the Earth's atmosphere at the time of the event, particularly when large volcanic eruptions have occurred before the observations are made."
        In order to study more deeply that phenomenon, it is important to evaluate if the reported increase of 2% of the Earth's shadow at the Moon corresponds to a reasonable value of the height at which the atmosphere is opaque. Calculations give that this amount corresponds to an altitude of 92 km on the Earth.
        This usual interpretation of the umbral enlargement forces us to believe that the atmosphere is normally opaque up to 92 km or so. But how can that be when at that altitude, the air is so extremely rarefied? It is near the altitude at which a satellite can orbit around the Earth.
        In fact, according to "Astrophysical Data: Planets and Stars" (Kenneth R. Lang, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1992, p. 36), the atmospheric pressure at 90 km above sea level is about half a million times smaller than that at sea level. Above 15 km, the atmosphere becomes relatively transparent to light, since 90% of the air and almost all the humidity and pollution are below that level. That makes an umbral enlargement due to the opacity of the atmosphere of only 0.3% which is much smaller than the 2.0 % reported.
        Furthermore, the eruption of volcanos cannot explain the umbral enlargement. According to Patrick McCormick (Sky & Telescope, October 1982, p.390), the altitude reached by some material ejected from volcano El Chichon "is in the stratosphere, some 26 kilometers (16 miles) above Earth's surface - roughly 50 percent higher than material from even the famous Mount St. Helens.". So since the atmosphere does not appear to be responsible for the umbra-penumbra limit displacement of 2% on the moon, then what causes it?


THE ATMOSPHERE DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE UMBRA-PENUMBRA LIMIT DISPLACEMENT OF 2% ON THE MOON.


You have just been shown that the atmosphere is not related at all to the lunar eclipse phenomenon: it does not cause the 2% displacement, therefore it is not related at all to the entire phenomenon. You can't use atmospheric refraction and then ignore the fact that is has nothing to do with the most crucial aspect of this subject matter.


Your tricks do not work with me.

Here is the ENTIRE QUOTE:

There is another factor about the atmosphere that has not been discussed. Light rays passing through the atmosphere are naturally bent because the atmosphere acts like a prism. This is why, during an eclipse, the Moon surface is never completely black but reddish: the red part of the solar spectrum passing through the low atmosphere is the only part scattered on the Moon in the region of totality before being reflected back to us on Earth.
        An hypothetical observer located on the Moon would see those rays being refracted by the Earth atmosphere and the Sun would appear bigger. Consequently, this second effect makes the Sun rays converge due to a lensing effect of our atmosphere. Therefore, due to that lensing effect, the umbra projected on the Moon would be smaller. This refraction by the Earth atmosphere gives an effect that is contrary to the observations claiming that the Earth's shadow must be larger due to the thickness of the atmosphere.


READ AGAIN:

This refraction by the Earth atmosphere gives an effect that is contrary to the observations claiming that the Earth's shadow must be larger due to the thickness of the atmosphere.

Dr. Marmet is DEMOLISHING the RE claim that refraction has anything to do with the selenelion/lunar eclipse.

We are done here.

*

sokarul

  • 17500
  • Discount Chemist
Re: SELENELION
« Reply #56 on: October 08, 2019, 04:28:48 AM »
“ Dr. Marmet again:

 We know that astronomical data give us accurate values of the radii of the Sun, the Earth and the Moon. ”

Yes we are done.
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Run Sandokhan run

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6034
Re: SELENELION
« Reply #57 on: October 08, 2019, 04:49:18 AM »
Use CN for your messages.

Dr. Marmet is writing an introduction to the paper, listing the official science prerogatives.

Then, he DEMOLISHES those claims:

However, numerous reports show that the umbra-penumbra limit appears significantly displaced on the moon during an eclipse.

There is another factor about the atmosphere that has not been discussed. Light rays passing through the atmosphere are naturally bent because the atmosphere acts like a prism. This is why, during an eclipse, the Moon surface is never completely black but reddish: the red part of the solar spectrum passing through the low atmosphere is the only part scattered on the Moon in the region of totality before being reflected back to us on Earth.
        An hypothetical observer located on the Moon would see those rays being refracted by the Earth atmosphere and the Sun would appear bigger. Consequently, this second effect makes the Sun rays converge due to a lensing effect of our atmosphere. Therefore, due to that lensing effect, the umbra projected on the Moon would be smaller. This refraction by the Earth atmosphere gives an effect that is contrary to the observations claiming that the Earth's shadow must be larger due to the thickness of the atmosphere.

Re: SELENELION
« Reply #58 on: October 08, 2019, 05:54:47 AM »
Can we have a citation for the existence of this “shadow object” then?

Re: SELENELION
« Reply #59 on: October 08, 2019, 08:49:39 AM »
Lunar eclipses are known be caused by the earth, this is already known by direct observation. A 2% deviation on the shadow's size which might not be fully explained doesn't change that fact.

Take a look at how you are using words in order to justify, in any way possible, the fact that the geometrical considerations do not match the astronomical observatinos.

A 2% deviation MEANS THAT THE LUNAR ECLIPSE IS NOT CAUSED BY THE EARTH.

The direct observation shows a SHADOW object: both the enlargement of the Earth`s shadow and the excessive clarity of the penumbra observations prove that the Earth cannot be the cause of the lunar eclipses.

So when was the Allais effect reported in a lunar eclipse?

DURING EACH AND EVERY LUNAR ECLIPSE RECORDED FOR THE PAST 180 YEARS.

Each time you deal with the enlargement of the Earth`s shadow and the excessive clarity of the penumbra observations you are looking at the LUNAR ALLAIS EFFECT.

If you disagree, please explain these two humongous discrepancies.

and ignore the author's conclusion: shadow enlargement caused by optical illusion.

The author does not address/explain the SECOND discrepancy: the excessive clarity of the penumbra.

No optical illusion there.

Both observations prove the LUNAR ALLAIS EFFECT.

You like to cite papers so much, please cite paper less than 50 years old that claim lunar eclipses are not caused by the earth. Found any?

The list of references provided in that paper show extensively that the enlargement of the Earth`s shadow and the excessive clarity of the penumbra observations cannot be explained by current science.

It is the SHADOW MOON which causes the lunar eclipses, not the Earth.
Please explain,
why the shadow moon object
is invisible to radar?
has no gravitational effects?
appears only during lunar eclipse?
Intel you can explain, the answer to the questions, such an object can not be considered.
The the universe has no obligation to makes sense to you.
The earth is a globe.