SELENELION

  • 72 Replies
  • 3473 Views
*

EvolvedMantisShrimp

  • 911
  • Physical Comedian
Re: SELENELION
« Reply #60 on: October 08, 2019, 09:00:53 AM »
Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of planets? The Shadow Moon knows!
Nullius in Verba

*

kopfverderber

  • 440
  • Globularist
Re: SELENELION
« Reply #61 on: October 08, 2019, 09:27:48 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.

The green to violet light of the spectrum is scattered by the atmosphere before reaching the moon,  that's why we see the moon red. Refraction makes the moon look reddish, it doesn't make the umbra any smaller. An observer on the moon would see a red ring around the earth, like shown in the last video here https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/4356.

The edge of the umbral shadow is diffuse rather than sharp, that is caused by the earth's atmosphere. A shadow object without atmosphere would cause a sharper edge.
« Last Edit: October 08, 2019, 09:39:10 AM by kopfverderber »
You must gather your party before venturing forth

Re: SELENELION
« Reply #62 on: October 08, 2019, 10:29:38 AM »
Surely even the blackest black shadow object should occasionally get between us and some stars occasionally.

Too much to hope that flat earthers have worked out where it should be, considering they canít even work out where the sun and moon should be.

Re: SELENELION
« Reply #63 on: October 08, 2019, 12:18:50 PM »
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.
Your inability to, to use quote function makes it extremely difficult to separate " from what you are saying put  " Marks what you quoting if you can't figure out how to use quote function
( [ quote ] remove spaces to start quote )
( [ / quote ] remove spaces to end quote )
use preview to see what it looks like be for post
thank you.
The the universe has no obligation to makes sense to you.
The earth is a globe.

*

kopfverderber

  • 440
  • Globularist
Re: SELENELION
« Reply #64 on: October 08, 2019, 12:48:39 PM »
A more recent and extensive publication on the topic is Celestial Shadows: Eclipses, Transits, and Occultations.  By John Westfall, William Sheehan, 2015, Springer Verlag.

Espenak suggested that enlargement is caused by a layer of meteoric dust at an altitude of about 120-150 km (Espenak 1989: 206), but the fact that the amount of umbral enlargement varies among Eclipses implies that such layer cannot be the only factor (Karkoschka 1996: 98).

There appears to be a significant effect on umbral size due to the ozone layer in Earth's stratosphere, which is particularly effective in absorbing red light - just the opposite of the troposphere, where blue light is absorved- but o average enlarging the umbra by about 90km, in agreement with observations. (Karkoschka 1996: 99/100).


Without disrespecting the work of Dr Marmet,  it seems that he is not addressing any of the above points and the earth's atmosphere is still the most convincing explanation.

What Dr Marmet is offering as evidence is:
- A calculation of terrestrial atmosphere from"Astrophysical Data: Planets and Stars" (Kenneth R. Lang, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1992, p. 36):
- Some measurements from materials ejected by volcano El Chichon from Patrick McCormick (Sky & Telescope, October 1982, p.390).

We can see that Dr. Marmet is not really addressing the refraction caused by meteoric dust or ozone.

The claim the atmosphere would be too thin is a lot older and it's based on an outdated understanding of earth's atmosphere. Dr. Marmet's is using  Seeliger's idea from 1896:
Hugo Hans von Seeliger (1849-1924) concluded that the atmosphere would be so thin at such heights that significant absorption would be impossible, the implication being that the apparent enlargement must be a mere contrast effect of about 52 arc sec (Seeliger 1896:44)
« Last Edit: October 08, 2019, 02:47:06 PM by kopfverderber »
You must gather your party before venturing forth

Re: SELENELION
« Reply #65 on: October 08, 2019, 01:39:06 PM »
Again, jackblack is denying reality.
Again, projecting will not help you.
Not only are you denying reality, you are also denying the very references you are trying to use to support your lies.

That does seem to be your usual debate tactic though. You find whatever references you can cherry pick to pretend they support your claim.

Both phenomena are absolutely correlated, they occur during lunar eclipses.
Both occurring during a lunar eclipse does not mean they are the same phenomenon or that they have the same cause.
As such, the second, which you are yet to substantiate, is completely irrelevant to the first. There is literally no justification at all for pretending the 2 are connected anymore than both having something to do with the moon.

So the apparent increase in the size of the umbra remains as nothing more than an optical illusion.

THE ATMOSPHERE DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE UMBRA-PENUMBRA LIMIT DISPLACEMENT OF 2% ON THE MOON.
Which is not a problem at all and means absolutely nothing in terms of refraction explaining selenelion eclipses.

You have just been shown that the atmosphere is not related at all to the lunar eclipse phenomenon
Stop lying.
You have shown nothing of the sort.
All that quote states is that the atmosphere doesn't cause the enlargement of the umbra.
Again, the same paper clearly indicates the atmosphere is responsible for the red appearance of the lunar eclipse.

You blatantly lying about your own reference will not change what it says.
All it does is show you have no concern for the truth/reality and have no integrity at all and instead you are willing to blatantly lie to pretend there is a problem with a RE.

Dr. Marmet is DEMOLISHING the RE claim that refraction has anything to do with the selenelion/lunar eclipse.
Again, a blatant lie.
Dr Marmet is saying absolutely nothing about the selenelion eclipse, nor are they saying that refraction has nothing to do with eclipses in general.

We are done here.
Yes, we are.
You have shown yet again, that you have no interest in the truth and are just blatantly lying about your own references to pretend they support your outlandish claims.

You have failed to show any problem with the RE explanation for Selenelion eclipses or RE in general.
Instead of trying to establish any problem through rational means, you just repeat the same lies again and again and blatantly lie about your own references.

As such, this discussion (if it could be called one in the first place due to your unwillingness to participate in any form of rational discourse) is over. You lose, yet again.

If you would like to continue (or really begin) a discussion, then clearly explain a problem with the RE explanation of Selenelion eclipses, with a valid reference which actually discusses Selenelion eclipses, or with a valid argument which does not appeal to references with nothing to do with it.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17521
Re: SELENELION
« Reply #66 on: October 20, 2019, 07:50:55 AM »
Astronomical refraction refraction only lifts a body upwards about 0.5 degrees near the horizon in RET. It is nowhere enough to explain the selenelion where the shadow of the moon is moving in the wrong direction significantly above the horizon.

*

sokarul

  • 16721
  • Discount Chemist
Re: SELENELION
« Reply #67 on: October 20, 2019, 11:09:32 AM »
The direction of the shadow was already explained to you.
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Run Sandokhan run

Re: SELENELION
« Reply #68 on: October 20, 2019, 11:54:06 AM »
Astronomical refraction refraction only lifts a body upwards about 0.5 degrees near the horizon in RET.

"Only".

How much do you think is needed to observe a selenelion? Don't forget that the apparent sizes of the moon (and sun) are - wait for it - both about 0.5 degrees, so the half degree of refraction alone is sufficient to explain being able to see the whole disk of the sun and the whole disk of a totally-eclipsed moon at the same time. Further, I've never seen a requirement that the moon must be totally eclipsed during the phenomenon, nor for the moon or sun to be fully above the horizon, for it to be considered a selenelion. In the absence of such requirements, you've got more than an additional degree to work with.

At least you now seem to agree that atmospheric refraction makes bodies appear higher than they really are, so that's progress.

Quote
It is nowhere enough to explain the selenelion where the shadow of the moon is moving in the wrong direction significantly above the horizon.

The shadow is not "moving in the wrong direction" as has already been explained in detail. It's not always easy to visualize the geometry, but there is no actual problem with the relative motion of the earth's shadow, moon, and horizon even if you can't or don't want to understand what is happening.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17521
Re: SELENELION
« Reply #69 on: October 20, 2019, 01:11:10 PM »
It's not always easy to visualize the geometry

Why should anyone, for a minute, believe in your word descriptions, your assurances that "everything works, just an illusion!" and the geometry that you can't visualize?

Re: SELENELION
« Reply #70 on: October 20, 2019, 01:29:08 PM »
Astronomical refraction refraction only lifts a body upwards about 0.5 degrees near the horizon in RET. It is nowhere enough to explain the selenelion where the shadow of the moon is moving in the wrong direction significantly above the horizon.
Except as already explained in this thread.

No one has been able to show the shadow moving in the wrong direction.
While refraction puts the moon only 0.5 degrees higher, it also puts the sun 0.5 degrees higher, meaning a total of 1 degree.

And during these occurrences, you typically see the sun and/or moon rising/setting (i.e. partially obscured by the horizon) or not during the complete eclipse.

But plenty of examples provided don't show the sun at all and appear to be after the sun has set/before it has risen but during twilight. One photo even appears to be taken at night.

No one has been able to provide an occurrence which was actually impossible on a RE.

Why should anyone, for a minute, believe in your word descriptions, your assurances that "everything works, just an illusion!"
And why should anyone believe your baseless assertion that the shadow is going the wrong way or that these can't happen on a RE?

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39053
Re: SELENELION
« Reply #71 on: October 20, 2019, 08:28:52 PM »
It's not always easy to visualize the geometry

Why should anyone, for a minute, believe in your word descriptions, your assurances that "everything works, just an illusion!" and the geometry that you can't visualize?
Probably for the same reason that anyone should believe your word descriptions and assurances that "everything works" when no one has ever shown that the geometry of a lunar eclipse works or that the shadow moves in the right direction on a flat earth model.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: SELENELION
« Reply #72 on: October 20, 2019, 10:34:10 PM »
It's not always easy to visualize the geometry

Why should anyone, for a minute, believe in your word descriptions...

Because they match what is observed and can be verified personally during lunar eclipses. How zetetic is that?

Meanwhile you have made nothing but claims but have not demonstrated anything to the contrary.

Quote
... your assurances that "everything works, just an illusion!" and the geometry that you can't visualize?

Here's what I actually said:
The shadow is not "moving in the wrong direction" as has already been explained in detail. It's not always easy to visualize the geometry, but there is no actual problem with the relative motion of the earth's shadow, moon, and horizon even if you can't or don't want to understand what is happening.

Where did I say this was "just an illusion"?

Also, please note I didn't say "geometry that you can't visualize". I said "It's not always easy to visualize the geometry". These are not the same unless "not always easy" is the same as "impossible" to you. If so, that's your problem, not anyone else's.

Can you provide an example that can be verified of the earth's shadow on the moon moving in the wrong direction?

As I recall, you made a bit of a to-do over this video of the Dec 2011 from southern NM on the other flat-earth website a while ago. Is this what you're thinking of?



Here's the data for that eclipse:

https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/OH/OHfigures/OH2011-Fig06.pdf

Of note in that page is the U2 line (second umbral contact, i.e. beginning of totality) running diagonally through New Mexico from the SW corner. Since most of southern NM is east of the U2 line, that means that the moon set while the moon was still entering the umbra in most of southern NM.

The table lists U2 as 14:06:16 UT (7:06:16 AM MST).

The US Naval Observatory Astronomical Applications department gives this data for Las Cruces in south central NM on Saturday, Dec 10, 2011 (all times MST) [see note below]:

Beginning of civil twilight 6:30 AM
Sunrise 6:57 AM
Moonset 6:59 AM

Here's the meaning of "civil twilight" (and, for good measure, "nautical twilight" which precedes it in the morning)

Quote from: USNO
Civil twilight is defined to begin in the morning, and to end in the evening when the center of the Sun is geometrically 6 degrees below the horizon. This is the limit at which twilight illumination is sufficient, under good weather conditions, for terrestrial objects to be clearly distinguished; at the beginning of morning civil twilight, or end of evening civil twilight, the horizon is clearly defined and the brightest stars are visible under good atmospheric conditions in the absence of moonlight or other illumination. In the morning before the beginning of civil twilight and in the evening after the end of civil twilight, artificial illumination is normally required to carry on ordinary outdoor activities.

Nautical twilight is defined to begin in the morning, and to end in the evening, when the center of the sun is geometrically 12 degrees below the horizon. At the beginning or end of nautical twilight, under good atmospheric conditions and in the absence of other illumination, general outlines of ground objects may be distinguishable, but detailed outdoor operations are not possible. During nautical twilight the illumination level is such that the horizon is still visible even on a Moonless night allowing mariners to take reliable star sights for navigational purposes, hence the name.

Twilight, sunrise, and moonset times will vary by nearly the same amount, which depends on your location, from about 15 minutes earlier at the eastern state line to about 10 minutes later at the western state line.

The upshot is, as can bee seen in the video, the moon was moving into the umbra from west to east as it was setting in the west in the morning twilight. The umbra darkens the eastern part of the moon (the top, from the videographer's vantage point, since it was setting) while the western part of the moon (bottom) is still receiving at least some direct sunlight while deep in the penumbra. This is consistent with what the video shows and also consistent with the eclipse circumstances.

There is no evidence that the sun had risen yet at the time the dim, mostly-eclipsed moon is lost in the brightening dawn sky at the end of the video. The lack of distinct shadows suggests that the sun had not risen yet. Based on the progress of the partial eclipse and distinct horizon at the start of the video and the bright sky but lack of shadows at the end, the video shown was all shot in the morning twilight.

There is no problem here, Tom. Were you thinking of a different example? If so, let's see it!

[Note] Be advised that the USNO has announced that its website will be offline for several months starting Thursday, Oct 24 (4 days from now) so that link will not work for the duration. Even after it returns to service that link may or may not work.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan