The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Tom Bishop on July 06, 2014, 01:49:13 AM
-
In RET a Lunar Eclipse occurs when the moon, earth, and sun perfectly align to cast a shadow of the earth upon the moon. However, there exists what are known as Selenelions, where both the moon and sun have been seen above the horizon during a Lunar Eclipse. Observations of seeing both the sun and moon in the sky during a Lunar Eclipse has been recorded as far back as Tycho Brahe. This event should be impossible under the Round Earth model.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIyw6xuEJxk#
Take a look at this Selenelion, for example. The moon is in front of the camera, the sun is rising behind the camera, and the earth is below. Firstly, during a lunar eclipse the moon should be well below the horizon line when the sun is rising up from the horizon. This is an impossibility in the Round Earth model.
Secondly, in the video the shadow of the earth is obscuring the moon from the top down rather than the bottom up, contrary to what would be expected when the earth is passing between the moon and sun. The sun's light should be peeking over the earth's horizon and hitting the moon from the top down.
Are we to believe that "refraction" has not only placed the moon that far above the earth's surface, but has moved the shadow the wrong way to boot?
(http://i49.tinypic.com/121zm7m.png)
Please explain.
-
In RET a Lunar Eclipse occurs when the moon, earth, and sun perfectly align to cast a shadow of the earth upon the moon.
That's wrong.
That would be a "total lunar eclipse" but there are "partial eclipses" too, where the earth only projects a shadow over a smaller zone of the Moon's surface. In addition, eclipses can be due to the object being in the umbra, penumbra or antumbra.
Other than that, you really have a huge lack of knowledge to continue discussing in this forum about astronomy, optics, physics, etc...
Your diagram is terribly wrong, awful, fake, horrible and lacking any kind of trustable information. Stop posting data that is false or based on your missinformation, please.
It should be like this one:
(http://s27.postimg.org/3su9rrlrn/Selenehelion.png)
So I hope you understand now how a round planet can explain a selenehelion, while a flat planet model can't.
-
Tom Bishop: please note how when (in this case) refraction is invoked for us RE'rs, that refraction, as used here, does in fact work in a way that is consistent with the laws of refraction.
-
(http://imageshack.us/a/img843/9813/eio6.png)
-
In RET a Lunar Eclipse occurs when the moon, earth, and sun perfectly align to cast a shadow of the earth upon the moon.
That's wrong.
That would be a "total lunar eclipse" but there are "partial eclipses" too, where the earth only projects a shadow over a smaller zone of the Moon's surface. In addition, eclipses can be due to the object being in the umbra, penumbra or antumbra.
Other than that, you really have a huge lack of knowledge to continue discussing in this forum about astronomy, optics, physics, etc...
Your diagram is terribly wrong, awful, fake, horrible and lacking any kind of trustable information. Stop posting data that is false or based on your missinformation, please.
It should be like this one:
(http://s27.postimg.org/3su9rrlrn/Selenehelion.png)
So I hope you understand now how a round planet can explain a selenehelion, while a flat planet model can't.
The image is invalid for the following reasons:
1. The little man is over 1/4th the size of the earth's diameter, standing 2000 miles tall, and is able to see over the curvature of the earth to see the sun and moon simultaneously.
2. The sun is correctly lighting the moon from the top down in your image, as it peeks over the horizon. In the video the sun is lighting the moon from the bottom up as it rises. This remains unexplained.
-
1. The little man is over 1/4th the size of the earth's diameter, standing 2000 miles tall, and is able to see over the curvature of the earth to see the sun and moon simultaneously.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-dvnAqrY1a4I/U6ccFtw0_NI/AAAAAAAAqx8/u6tBnLf6r0Q/w627-h263-no/Diagram+Titan.jpg)
2. The sun is correctly lighting the moon from the top down in your image, as it peeks over the horizon. In the video the sun is lighting the moon from the bottom up as it rises. This remains unexplained.
The sun is correctly lighting the moon top down in my image? I wasn't aware that either image was an animation.
-
Tom Bishop: please note how when (in this case) refraction is invoked for us RE'rs, that refraction, as used here, does in fact work in a way that is consistent with the laws of refraction.
(http://imageshack.us/a/img843/9813/eio6.png)
Even if there was some sort of extreme refraction in the atmosphere was the case, where the moon could be over 30 degrees above the horizon, that would mean that the position of all celestial bodies anywhere near the horizon is unpredictable in the Round Earth model using astronomical models based on spherical geometry, which do not take refraction into account. I keep hearing from you guys that we can predict moon set, moon rise, etc under those models as a proof of RET.
Why is it that all mirages in the atmosphere are inconsistent and indistinct while this mirage is perfect and distinct for a long period of time?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJc3kOxiV6c
Have you ever seen a tree or a boat floating in the sky through a mirage? It is not distinct at all.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epeOGJcR2dE
-
30°?
The video you posted couldn't possibly be 30°.
Also a celestial body like the moon goes through much more atmosphere than something like a ship and its transition from one medium to another is much more extreme so it only follows that the refraction would be more dramatic than a ship that is very near to the surface.
Why is it that all mirages in the atmosphere are inconsistent and indistinct while this mirage is perfect and distinct for a long period of time?
Yes, the video of your ship is indistinct and the mountain being further away as a little less indistinct. Imagine how much more difficult it would be to observe the indistinct quality of a moon image if that image is 250,000 miles away?
-
The image is invalid for the following reasons:
1. The little man is over 1/4th the size of the earth's diameter, standing 2000 miles tall, and is able to see over the curvature of the earth to see the sun and moon simultaneously.
That's correct, and that is why everyone knows that the earth is a sphere not a flat disk.
2. The sun is correctly lighting the moon from the top down in your image, as it peeks over the horizon. In the video the sun is lighting the moon from the bottom up as it rises. This remains unexplained.
The video is fake, since you cannot see the curvature of the earth, as I stated before.
-
The image is invalid for the following reasons:
1. The little man is over 1/4th the size of the earth's diameter, standing 2000 miles tall, and is able to see over the curvature of the earth to see the sun and moon simultaneously.
That's correct, and that is why everyone knows that the earth is a sphere not a flat disk.
2. The sun is correctly lighting the moon from the top down in your image, as it peeks over the horizon. In the video the sun is lighting the moon from the bottom up as it rises. This remains unexplained.
The video is fake, since you cannot see the curvature of the earth, as I stated before.
I actually don't think it is fake. You can just do a search a for selenelion on youtube and find several videos of the same phenomenon where the sun is also observed. I just think that the scientific explanation is sound.
-
The image is invalid for the following reasons:
1. The little man is over 1/4th the size of the earth's diameter, standing 2000 miles tall, and is able to see over the curvature of the earth to see the sun and moon simultaneously.
That's correct, and that is why everyone knows that the earth is a sphere not a flat disk.
2. The sun is correctly lighting the moon from the top down in your image, as it peeks over the horizon. In the video the sun is lighting the moon from the bottom up as it rises. This remains unexplained.
The video is fake, since you cannot see the curvature of the earth, as I stated before.
I actually don't think it is fake. You can just do a search a for selenelion on youtube and find several videos of the same phenomenon where the sun is also observed. I just think that the scientific explanation is sound.
Do you know what irony is?
-
The image is invalid for the following reasons:
1. The little man is over 1/4th the size of the earth's diameter, standing 2000 miles tall, and is able to see over the curvature of the earth to see the sun and moon simultaneously.
That's correct, and that is why everyone knows that the earth is a sphere not a flat disk.
2. The sun is correctly lighting the moon from the top down in your image, as it peeks over the horizon. In the video the sun is lighting the moon from the bottom up as it rises. This remains unexplained.
The video is fake, since you cannot see the curvature of the earth, as I stated before.
I actually don't think it is fake. You can just do a search a for selenelion on youtube and find several videos of the same phenomenon where the sun is also observed. I just think that the scientific explanation is sound.
Do you know what irony is?
Well, now that you mention I can see your sarcasm. I didn't pick up on it, although now it does seem obvious. Whoops.
I'm pretty sure that you edited your original post that made it obvious that you were being sarcastic and that when I did respond, I didn't notice your edits. I don't think your original response mentioned the curvature of the earth and I recall that you said something about a fake conspiracy company.
-
The image is invalid for the following reasons:
1. The little man is over 1/4th the size of the earth's diameter, standing 2000 miles tall, and is able to see over the curvature of the earth to see the sun and moon simultaneously.
Tom, how is:
(http://i49.tinypic.com/121zm7m.png)
any more valid that this?
(http://s27.postimg.org/3su9rrlrn/Selenehelion.png)
???
2. The sun is correctly lighting the moon from the top down in your image, as it peeks over the horizon. In the video the sun is lighting the moon from the bottom up as it rises. This remains unexplained.
The moon going into an eclipse is lit opposite of the moon coming out of eclipse.
-
In RET a Lunar Eclipse occurs when the moon, earth, and sun perfectly align to cast a shadow of the earth upon the moon. However, there exists what are known as Selenelions, where both the moon and sun have been seen above the horizon during a Lunar Eclipse. Observations of seeing both the sun and moon in the sky during a Lunar Eclipse has been recorded as far back as Tycho Brahe. This event should be impossible under the Round Earth model...
Please explain.
Please tell me why you think that "this event" should be impossible under the RE model. No REer contends that, so you attack a straw man.
"Outer" shadows of any object under the shine of a large light source are larger than the object, especially as distant from the object in the direction of illuminating light grows. So you are making up your story rather poorly.
So... That's just not even a start of a concern.
-
Please tell me why you think that "this event" should be impossible under the RE model. No REer contends that, so you attack a straw man.
"Outer" shadows of any object under the shine of a large light source are larger than the object, especially as distant from the object in the direction of illuminating light grows. So you are making up your story rather poorly.
So... That's just not even a start of a concern.
An illustration will make him easy to understand:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2e/Diagram_of_umbra,_penumbra_%26_antumbra.png)
-
I believe that what he is concerned about is that the observer "on top" of the earth can see both the moon in front of him and the sun behind them and that while this is true, the moon has it's shadow on the top relative to the observer, when Tom expects the shadow to be on the bottom relative to the observer.
Like I said, there is refraction going on but I also did not consider that it is not only the moon that appears higher than it actually is, but the sun also appears higher than it actually is.
-
I believe that what he is concerned about is that the observer "on top" of the earth can see both the moon in front of him and the sun behind them and that while this is true, the moon has it's shadow on the top relative to the observer, when Tom expects the shadow to be on the bottom relative to the observer.
My diagram is a top-down view of the sun, earth and moon.
The man is standing on the equator, not on the pole.
Also note the red arrow showing the rotation direction of the earth.
Now answering your question:
the Moon seems to rotate from east to west around the earth, so it more or less follows the same movement as the Sun, which also comes from the east and goes to west.
Now, imagine a situation like in the diagram i posted before. The little man is in New Mexico, but instead being the dawn, it is the dusk.
The dusk means that the Sun is moving down towards the horizon.
And as we know now, the moon follows the same east-west movement as the sun (but at different speed), so the moon will also look like moving down into the horizon.
So, in the video, the sun has set some hours ago, and since the moon moves slower, it is also moving down in the horizon, but still is visible after the sun has been set that day.
I hope it's clear now how the thing works.
If not, I would call Diagram Titan to aid us in the explanation.
-
In RET a Lunar Eclipse occurs when the moon, earth, and sun perfectly align to cast a shadow of the earth upon the moon. However, there exists what are known as Selenelions, where both the moon and sun have been seen above the horizon during a Lunar Eclipse. Observations of seeing both the sun and moon in the sky during a Lunar Eclipse has been recorded as far back as Tycho Brahe. This event should be impossible under the Round Earth model...
Please explain.
Please tell me why you think that "this event" should be impossible under the RE model. No REer contends that, so you attack a straw man.
"Outer" shadows of any object under the shine of a large light source are larger than the object, especially as distant from the object in the direction of illuminating light grows. So you are making up your story rather poorly.
So... That's just not even a start of a concern.
Observer is located where the horizon and earth meet.
(http://i61.tinypic.com/6yzdjs.png)
(http://i60.tinypic.com/2vdqq8z.png)
-
Please tell me why you think that "this event" should be impossible under the RE model. No REer contends that, so you attack a straw man.
"Outer" shadows of any object under the shine of a large light source are larger than the object, especially as distant from the object in the direction of illuminating light grows. So you are making up your story rather poorly.
So... That's just not even a start of a concern.
An illustration will make him easy to understand:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2e/Diagram_of_umbra,_penumbra_%26_antumbra.png)
Except that the horizon is straight line as in my images. A man would need to be towering thousands of miles tall with his head into orbit to see around the curve of the earth to see an eclipse and the sun simultaneously. Your images neglect the horizon entirely.
Please show me, in my images, how both the sun and moon could be above the horizon line, simultaneously.
-
The image is invalid for the following reasons:
1. The little man is over 1/4th the size of the earth's diameter, standing 2000 miles tall, and is able to see over the curvature of the earth to see the sun and moon simultaneously.
Tom, how is:
(http://i49.tinypic.com/121zm7m.png)
any more valid that this?
(http://s27.postimg.org/3su9rrlrn/Selenehelion.png)
???
One image depicts a man who is 2000+ miles tall, looking around the curvature of the earth, and the other does not.
-
The image is invalid for the following reasons:
1. The little man is over 1/4th the size of the earth's diameter, standing 2000 miles tall, and is able to see over the curvature of the earth to see the sun and moon simultaneously.
Tom, how is:
(http://i49.tinypic.com/121zm7m.png)
any more valid that this?
(http://s27.postimg.org/3su9rrlrn/Selenehelion.png)
???
One image depicts ma man who is 2000+ miles tall, looking around the curvature of the earth, and the other does not.
And the other has the earth several times larger than the sun. So it looks like both images are invalid.
-
Except that the horizon is straight line as in my images. A man would need to be towering thousands of miles tall with his head into orbit to see around the curve of the earth to see an eclipse and the sun simultaneously. Your images neglect the horizon entirely.
Please show me, in my images, how both the sun and moon could be above the horizon line, simultaneously.
None of your images represent the reality.
(http://i60.tinypic.com/2vdqq8z.png)
No, if the Earth mass is almost infinite, the rays of light from the sun will bend towards it, so the Moon won't be illuminated, technically creating an eclipse.
So, impossible is nothing. ;D
-
And the other has the earth several times larger than the sun. So it looks like both images are invalid.
The illustration I provided is from the observer's view, who is located at the point where the horizon line and the earth meet. The moon and sun take up approximately 0.5 degrees of the sky. The scene doesn't become any more possible in the illustration if we were to shrink the moon and sun to their appropriate sizes as seen from earth.
Please show us how it is possible for the moon and sun to be in the sky simultaneously in such a scene.
-
And the other has the earth several times larger than the sun. So it looks like both images are invalid.
The illustration I provided is from the observer's view, who is located at the point where the horizon line and the earth meet. The moon and sun take up approximately 0.5 degrees of the sky. The scene doesn't become any more possible in the illustration if we were to shrink the moon and sun to their appropriate sizes as seen from earth.
Please show us how it is possible for the moon and sun to be in the sky simultaneously in such a scene.
But distances do matter. Please try again, keeping distances to scale. Once you're seen your error,, please do stop back and retract your outlandish claim. Thanks.
-
And the other has the earth several times larger than the sun. So it looks like both images are invalid.
The illustration I provided is from the observer's view, who is located at the point where the horizon line and the earth meet. The moon and sun take up approximately 0.5 degrees of the sky. The scene doesn't become any more possible in the illustration if we were to shrink the moon and sun to their appropriate sizes as seen from earth.
How do you know? Have you tried drawing it to scale?
Please show us how it is possible for the moon and sun to be in the sky simultaneously in such a scene.
If you redraw your picture to scale, add about 1/2 degree of refraction to the elevation of the sun and moon and maybe put the observer on a high hilltop, then you will see for yourself.
-
I thought I already showed you how this is possible with refraction. It is the scientific explanation of a selenelion and the effects are consistent with refraction's laws.
-
And the other has the earth several times larger than the sun. So it looks like both images are invalid.
The illustration I provided is from the observer's view, who is located at the point where the horizon line and the earth meet. The moon and sun take up approximately 0.5 degrees of the sky. The scene doesn't become any more possible in the illustration if we were to shrink the moon and sun to their appropriate sizes as seen from earth.
Please show us how it is possible for the moon and sun to be in the sky simultaneously in such a scene.
Please read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_eclipse#Selenelion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_eclipse#Selenelion)
-
I thought I already showed you how this is possible with refraction. It is the scientific explanation of a selenelion and the effects are consistent with refraction's laws.
I don't see anything scientific about blaming this inexplicable event on an optical illusion. What scientific studies have demonstrated this mysterious illusion? Where are the mechanics of this illusion explained?
I thought astronomical models could predict the setting and rising of the moon, stars, and sun down to the minute? Refraction is not considered in these spherical geometry models. It cannot be simultaneously true that astronomical models can accurately predict the positions of celestial bodies and that massive refraction occurs to bring celestial bodies from below the horizon and up into the sky. Which is true?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_eclipse#Selenelion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_eclipse#Selenelion)
What am I supposed to be looking for? I see a single paragraph on the subject which ends with an assertion that an optical illusion did it.
-
Are you saying that refraction doesn't exist ???
In a selenelion there is refraction on both the source of light and the moon. As a matter of fact I can't think of a more dramatic scenario where refraction would be in play.
-
Refraction is considered for moon rises and sets.
From: http://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/moon/about-moon-calculator.html
The Earth's atmosphere refracts the incoming light from the Moon in such a way that the Moon is visible longer than it would be without an atmosphere. The refraction depends on atmospheric pressure and temperature. Our calculations use the standard atmospheric pressure of 101.325 pascal and temperature of 15°C or 59°F. A higher atmospheric pressure, or lower temperature than the standard, means more refraction and the moonrise will be earlier and moonset later. In most cases, however, this would affect the rising and setting times by less than a minute. Near the North and South Poles this could have greater impact because of low temperatures and the slow rate of the Moon's rising and setting.
I would suspect that if a selenelion is forecasted then they would also account for the expectations there.
-
If refraction would affect the moon so that it is off by less than a minute, then how does that correlate with the video where the moon is many minutes above the horizon line, supposedly put there by refraction?
-
If refraction would affect the moon so that it is off by less than a minute, then how does that correlate with the video where the moon is many minutes above the horizon line, supposedly put there by refraction?
Because during a selenelion the source of light causing the shadow on the moon is also refracted.
Try drawing this to scale if you'd like. Upload as large an image as you'd like as long as you can manage to make it to scale.
-
I thought I already showed you how this is possible with refraction. It is the scientific explanation of a selenelion and the effects are consistent with refraction's laws.
I don't see anything scientific about blaming this inexplicable event on an optical illusion. What scientific studies have demonstrated this mysterious illusion? Where are the mechanics of this illusion explained?
I thought astronomical models could predict the setting and rising of the moon, stars, and sun down to the minute? Refraction is not considered in these spherical geometry models. It cannot be simultaneously true that astronomical models can accurately predict the positions of celestial bodies and that massive refraction occurs to bring celestial bodies from below the horizon and up into the sky. Which is true?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_eclipse#Selenelion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_eclipse#Selenelion)
What am I supposed to be looking for? I see a single paragraph on the subject which ends with an assertion that an optical illusion did it.
Why can't a model include refraction and be accurate? GR relies on it. I suggest that you read about the false dilemma fallacy here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma).
-
How do you know? Have you tried drawing it to scale?
I don't see how a scaled drawing makes the scene any more possible.
(http://i59.tinypic.com/2eg4cj4.png)
vs.
(http://i60.tinypic.com/rh27ut.png)
Drawing source: The Oatmeal
-
How do you know? Have you tried drawing it to scale?
I don't see how a scaled drawing makes the scene any more possible.
(http://i59.tinypic.com/2eg4cj4.png)
vs.
(http://i60.tinypic.com/rh27ut.png)
I don't see how it doesn't. We aren't invoking refraction improperly.
-
How do you know? Have you tried drawing it to scale?
I don't see how a scaled drawing makes the scene any more possible.
(http://i59.tinypic.com/2eg4cj4.png)
vs.
(http://i60.tinypic.com/rh27ut.png)
Did you add 1/2 degree of atmospheric refraction like I asked you to? Also, how did you determine the elevation of the sun and moon in your diagram? You may also want to make it a proper ray diagram so that you can see just where the umbra and penumbra are.
-
That's 1/2 ° for both the sun and the moon by the way. Its not as simple as showing positions and claiming impossible. You have to show the refraction as well. Show lines representing the normal, the atmosphere, etc...
-
Did you add 1/2 degree of atmospheric refraction like I asked you to? Also, how did you determine the elevation of the sun and moon in your diagram? You may also want to make it a proper ray diagram so that you can see just where the umbra and penumbra are.
This is what 0.5 degrees looks like.
(http://i59.tinypic.com/24erxja.png)
That's 1/2 ° for both the sun and the moon by the way. Its not as simple as showing positions and claiming impossible. You have to show the refraction as well. Show lines representing the normal, the atmosphere, etc...
An additional 0.5 degrees doesn't get you to where you need it to be.
-
Why do you have the blue line coming from the moon heading toward a point so far away from the observer? You point it to where it needs to be above the observer, where that ray of light enters a denser medium. You don't really have any conception of what is going on do you?
-
Did you add 1/2 degree of atmospheric refraction like I asked you to? Also, how did you determine the elevation of the sun and moon in your diagram? You may also want to make it a proper ray diagram so that you can see just where the umbra and penumbra are.
This is what 0.5 degrees looks like.
(http://i59.tinypic.com/24erxja.png)
That's 1/2 ° for both the sun and the moon by the way. Its not as simple as showing positions and claiming impossible. You have to show the refraction as well. Show lines representing the normal, the atmosphere, etc...
An additional 0.5 degrees doesn't get you to where you need it to be.
Tom, you have to add .5 degrees to both the sun's elevation and the moon's elevation. Also, please make it a ray diagram so that you can see where the umbra and penumbra are (adjusted for refraction).
-
Seriously your diagram is depicting what a ray of light from the moon is doing as observed for someone when the moon is directly overhead. Not someone who is seeing it shorty before the end of or shortly after the beginning of an eclipse.
-
Seriously your diagram is depicting what a ray of light from the moon is doing as observed for someone when the moon is directly overhead. Not someone who is seeing it shorty before the end of or shortly after the beginning of an eclipse.
That's why I keep asking him to show the umbra and penumbra. The moon can stay totally eclipsed for an hour or more at a time.
-
Why do you have the blue line coming from the moon heading toward a point so far away from the observer? You point it to where it needs to be above the observer, where that ray of light enters a denser medium. You don't really have any conception of what is going on do you?
Do you mean, like this?
(http://i60.tinypic.com/vigs2e.png)
Tom, you have to add .5 degrees to both the sun's elevation and the moon's elevation. Also, please make it a ray diagram so that you can see where the umbra and penumbra are (adjusted for refraction).
0.5 degrees doesn't help you and 1 degree doesn't help you.
In the video from the first post of this thread the moon is several moon-diameters above the horizon line. It is common knowledge that the moon takes up 0.5 degrees of the sky. So we can already see that the optical illusion explanation is bunk.
-
Why do you have the blue line coming from the moon heading toward a point so far away from the observer? You point it to where it needs to be above the observer, where that ray of light enters a denser medium. You don't really have any conception of what is going on do you?
Do you mean, like this?
(http://i60.tinypic.com/vigs2e.png)
Tom, you have to add .5 degrees to both the sun's elevation and the moon's elevation. Also, please make it a ray diagram so that you can see where the umbra and penumbra are (adjusted for refraction).
0.5 degrees doesn't help you and 1 degree doesn't help you.
In the video the moon is several moon-diameters above the horizon line. It is common knowledge that the moon takes up 0.5 degrees of the sky. So we can already see that your "refraction" optical illusion is bunk.
No that is not what I mean. For purposes of making the diagram easier to understand you should start by making the observer on top of the earth especially since your refracted ray of light is being depicted from the side. This means we are talking about a ray of light coming from the moon (out of the rays that are coming from many directions from the moon) that is above the observer. It seems you don't get it so I will make you a proper diagram when I get the time.
-
Seriously your diagram is depicting what a ray of light from the moon is doing as observed for someone when the moon is directly overhead. Not someone who is seeing it shorty before the end of or shortly after the beginning of an eclipse.
That's why I keep asking him to show the umbra and penumbra. The moon can stay totally eclipsed for an hour or more at a time.
That doesn't really help us, the shadow in the video is on the top which means that in this whole scenario the moon is slightly below the blue line that tom made. The error he is making is his peculiar choice for where he put the blue line. That is 1 ray of light that exists, but it isn't the ray of light that an observer experiencing a moon near the horizon is seeing unless he is showing a top down view, which is a peculiar choice for a diagram where we are trying to show refraction. 2d refraction diagrams are shown from the side. I don't think he did that though because he put the horizon on the top side of earth, so again, where is the ray of light that goes from the moon toward the earths top side?
-
Without being to scale, this is what I mean:
(http://imageshack.us/a/img819/4649/thfv.png)
We need to use the appropriate ray of light.
Mine isn't to scale but I'm just trying to get the concept across for you.
-
To make matters even more strange, look at my diagram again. Some of the light from the sun that hits the moon is being refracted by the atmosphere on the bottom side of earth. Then the rays of light from the moon are refracted by the atmosphere on the top side of earth. Finally, the rays from the sun toward earth are also refracted by atmosphere on the top side too.
I'm actually pretty overwhelmed by how complicated this scenario is.
-
Actually, after looking at your corrected digram it does seem that you understand now. I was confused by your bigger circle (which is for measuring degrees) around your blue earth.
In any case your diagram didn't really demonstrate what happens to that refracted .5° ray of light when it enters the atmosphere. You'd need to zoom in.
I see claiming it doesn't work but not demonstrating it. At least we are making the large scale diagram correctly now but without a zoom here I don't see what this demonstrates.
-
Someone needs to stop this.
The amount of nonsense by Sir Bishop is reaching epic heights
The astronomical refraction is about 1 minute of arc when the object observed is in a heigh far from the horizon, for example, the zenit.
When the object observed is near the horizon, the refraction can come up to 30 minutes of arc (0.5º). This is the "optimal" situation, since there are many factors than can make the refraction to change, such as pollution, humidity, and others. In a normal situation, you can estimate around 40 or 50 minutes of arc, and in worst conditions, you can expect up to 60 or 70 minutes of arc
In the video you show us, the moon seems pretty close to the horizon, the pollution is quite high, so it is perfectly possible that the moon has already been set minutes ago, so those 0.5 degrees that you think are nothing, are in fact a noticeable amount.
And if you want to know more about this: http://mintaka.sdsu.edu/GF/explain/atmos_refr/terrestrial.html (http://mintaka.sdsu.edu/GF/explain/atmos_refr/terrestrial.html)
-
Another note. Refraction occurs when a ray of light goes from one medium to another. In this scenario the line that is separating the two mediums is curved and the point where it enters is far away from the observer on the horizon. This means that that line is not parallel with the earth underneath the observer. Because of this, the calculated half degree would need to be based off of whatever angle the ray of light from the moon hits the new medium as it enters. This makes it a lot more feasible for that half degree.
-
Without being to scale, this is what I mean:
(http://imageshack.us/a/img819/4649/thfv.png)
We need to use the appropriate ray of light.
Mine isn't to scale but I'm just trying to get the concept across for you.
Another note. Refraction occurs when a ray of light goes from one medium to another. In this scenario the line that is separating the two mediums is curved and the point where it enters is far away from the observer on the horizon. This means that that line is not parallel with the earth underneath the observer. Because of this, the calculated half degree would need to be based off of whatever angle the ray of light from the moon hits the new medium as it enters. This makes it a lot more feasible for that half degree.
But the refraction you need is way more than 0.5 degrees.
Extending your refraction with a red line:
(http://i59.tinypic.com/2wlsgpi.png)
Adding protractor:
(http://i59.tinypic.com/2d0ifeq.png)
-
I see that you used my drawing where I did not make this to scale. If you would like to show the curved point in the imaginary line that separates the denser medium and the lighter medium of air then be my guest. I at least know that these calculations are far from simple. Not to mention that it isn't merely a case of two mediums. You are going from space into the atmosphere which gets progressively more dense as you get closer to the surface.
The part of the atmosphere where these rays enter the atmosphere is very far away too. Much further away than the horizon since it is some 80 miles or so above the surface of earth.
And again, remember the light we are seeing from the moon is the result of refracted light from the opposite side of the earth from the observer as well. This means that the moons position itself is also highly suspect.
-
Tom, if you look at your video again, you will notice that the lunar eclipse clearly begins at night and continues into the predawn twilight. What evidence do you have that the sun is indeed above the horizon while the moon is significantly above the horizon?
-
I see that you used my drawing where I did not make this to scale. If you would like to show the curved point in the imaginary line that separates the denser medium and the lighter medium of air then be my guest. I at least know that these calculations are far from simple. Not to mention that it isn't merely a case of two mediums. You are going from space into the atmosphere which gets progressively more dense as you get closer to the surface.
The part of the atmosphere where these rays enter the atmosphere is very far away too. Much further away than the horizon since it is some 80 miles or so above the surface of earth.
And again, remember the light we are seeing from the moon is the result of refracted light from the opposite side of the earth from the observer as well. This means that the moons position itself is also highly suspect.
Here's a scaled model from http://andrewsteele.co.uk/physics/senseofscale/
"This image shows the Earth–Moon system to scale, with every pixel on the full-size image representing about 220 km."
(http://andrewsteele.co.uk/physics/senseofscale/moon-scale.png)
Applying protractor we see that we require over 1 degree just to get to the horizon, let alone several moon diameters into the sky as seen in the video.
(http://i60.tinypic.com/2q09cmg.png)
Not only that, the moon would have to be positioned a bit lower than it is in this image in order to get the shadows to match up and be lit from the bottom, as seen in the video.
We can clearly see that over 0.5 degrees is required, whichever way we put it.
Nor does it matter if this angle of refraction happens in the atmosphere "80 miles from the surface of the earth". The closer the starting point of the protractor gets to the moon, the bigger the angle will be.
-
I see that you used my drawing where I did not make this to scale. If you would like to show the curved point in the imaginary line that separates the denser medium and the lighter medium of air then be my guest. I at least know that these calculations are far from simple. Not to mention that it isn't merely a case of two mediums. You are going from space into the atmosphere which gets progressively more dense as you get closer to the surface.
The part of the atmosphere where these rays enter the atmosphere is very far away too. Much further away than the horizon since it is some 80 miles or so above the surface of earth.
And again, remember the light we are seeing from the moon is the result of refracted light from the opposite side of the earth from the observer as well. This means that the moons position itself is also highly suspect.
Here's a scaled model from http://andrewsteele.co.uk/physics/senseofscale/
"This image shows the Earth–Moon system to scale, with every pixel on the full-size image representing about 220 km."
(http://andrewsteele.co.uk/physics/senseofscale/moon-scale.png)
Applying protractor we see that we require over 1 degree just to get to the horizon, let alone several moon diameters into the sky as seen in the video.
(http://i60.tinypic.com/2q09cmg.png)
Not only that, the moon would have to be positioned a bit lower than in this image in order to get the shadows to match up and be lit from the bottom, as you demonstrated in your video.
We can clearly see that over 0.5 degrees is required.
Your argument relies on assumed position of the moon based on your best guess and the same for the sun which we do not see in the video. I do agree that your contentions are seemingly impossible if we assume what you've laid out in the op. But like markjo said, you've presented no evidence about where the sun is.
Please discover the definitions of dawn and dusk.
-
Your argument relies on assumed position of the moon based on your best guess and the same for the sun which we do not see in the video. I do agree that your contentions are seemingly impossible if we assume what you've laid out in the op. But like markjo said, you've presented no evidence about where the sun is.
Please discover the definitions of dawn and dusk.
We know where the sun is when the moon is fully eclipsed... it's directly behind the earth, lined up with the earth and moon.
Excuses that the sun is "also" refracted 0.5 degrees into the air are meaningless when we see that the required angles of refraction must be significantly more than a 0.5 degrees here and there for any of this to occur.
-
Your argument relies on assumed position of the moon based on your best guess and the same for the sun which we do not see in the video. I do agree that your contentions are seemingly impossible if we assume what you've laid out in the op. But like markjo said, you've presented no evidence about where the sun is.
Please discover the definitions of dawn and dusk.
We know where the sun is when the moon is fully eclipsed... it's directly behind the earth, lined up with the earth and moon.
Excuses that the sun is "also" refracted 0.5 degrees into the air are meaningless when we see that the required angles of refraction must be significantly more than a 0.5 degrees here and there for any of this to occur.
Oh, so you don't think this video depicts a selenelion?
I'm not making excuses, I've been hammering on about all the things that you haven't considered before you drew your initial conclusions in the op. If the moon is as high as it is in the video and if the sun hasn't even risen yet until the moon is much closer to the horizon toward the end of the video, then I don't see the problem. Since there is no evidence of what is going on with the apparent position of the sun other than the fact that it looks like dawn, then what else can be said?
-
Does anyone know if a Selenelion is defined as the moon being completely obscured by the horizon? Or can half the moon be behind the horizon? I ask, because that would also reduce the minimum refraction needed.
-
Your argument relies on assumed position of the moon based on your best guess and the same for the sun which we do not see in the video. I do agree that your contentions are seemingly impossible if we assume what you've laid out in the op. But like markjo said, you've presented no evidence about where the sun is.
Please discover the definitions of dawn and dusk.
We know where the sun is when the moon is fully eclipsed... it's directly behind the earth, lined up with the earth and moon.
Excuses that the sun is "also" refracted 0.5 degrees into the air are meaningless when we see that the required angles of refraction must be significantly more than a 0.5 degrees here and there for any of this to occur.
Oh, so you don't think this video depicts a selenelion?
I'm not making excuses, I've been hammering on about all the things that you haven't considered before you drew your initial conclusions in the op. If the moon is as high as it is in the video and if the sun hasn't even risen yet until the moon is much closer to the horizon toward the end of the video, then I don't see the problem. Since there is no evidence of what is going on with the apparent position of the sun other than the fact that it looks like dawn, then what else can be said?
We don't need to know the position of the sun behind the camera for this.
When the moon is eclipsed we know that the sun, earth, and moon are completely aligned. At this moment in the video we can see that the moon is several moon-diameters above the horizon line. I estimate over 4.5 moon diameters with a ruler. Knowing that the moon takes up 0.5 degrees of the sky, we can compute (0.5 x 4.5) that moon is over 2.25 degrees above the horizon.
Thinking back to the scaled model; if it takes over 1 degree of refraction just to get the moon to the horizon, and it must take an additional 2.25 degrees to get into its position into the sky, the moon must therefore be refracted at least 3.25 degrees to be where it is.
This is ignoring that the moon must be even lower than the last scaled model I posted depicts, beneath the earth's shadow, to account for it being lit from the bottom up.
Altogether, we see that the scenario is plainly impossible.
-
Why would it take something 0.5 degrees in diameter 1 degree to get to the horizon. It would obviously take 0.5 degrees.
-
We know where the sun is when the moon is fully eclipsed... it's directly behind the earth, lined up with the earth and moon.
But we don't know where the sun is in that video.
Excuses that the sun is "also" refracted 0.5 degrees into the air are meaningless when we see that the required angles of refraction must be significantly more than a 0.5 degrees here and there for any of this to occur.
Tom, you do understand what twilight is, don't you?
-
Your argument relies on assumed position of the moon based on your best guess and the same for the sun which we do not see in the video. I do agree that your contentions are seemingly impossible if we assume what you've laid out in the op. But like markjo said, you've presented no evidence about where the sun is.
Please discover the definitions of dawn and dusk.
We know where the sun is when the moon is fully eclipsed... it's directly behind the earth, lined up with the earth and moon.
Excuses that the sun is "also" refracted 0.5 degrees into the air are meaningless when we see that the required angles of refraction must be significantly more than a 0.5 degrees here and there for any of this to occur.
Oh, so you don't think this video depicts a selenelion?
I'm not making excuses, I've been hammering on about all the things that you haven't considered before you drew your initial conclusions in the op. If the moon is as high as it is in the video and if the sun hasn't even risen yet until the moon is much closer to the horizon toward the end of the video, then I don't see the problem. Since there is no evidence of what is going on with the apparent position of the sun other than the fact that it looks like dawn, then what else can be said?
We don't need to know the position of the sun behind the camera for this.
When the moon is eclipsed we know that the sun, earth, and moon are completely aligned. At this moment in the video we can see that the moon is several moon-diameters above the horizon line. I estimate over 4.5 moon diameters with a ruler. Knowing that the moon takes up 0.5 degrees of the sky, we can compute (0.5 x 4.5) that moon is over 2.25 degrees above the horizon.
Thinking back to the scaled model; if it takes over 1 degree of refraction just to get the moon to the horizon, and it must take an additional 2.25 degrees to get into its position into the sky, the moon must therefore be refracted at least 3.25 degrees to be where it is.
This is ignoring that the moon must be even lower than the last scaled model I posted depicts, beneath the earth's shadow, to account for it being lit from the bottom up.
Altogether, we see that the scenario is plainly impossible.
Of course we want to know where the sun is. If it isn't visible, then it isn't a selenelion.
My guess is that the video does depict a selenelion but that it doesn't actually "begin" until the end of the video when the moon is closer to the horizon.
-
For example watch this video of a sunrise. Daylight is present long before the sun is visible.
http://youtu.be/2eDW7W_au6Y
-
Please:
[...]
If the moon is as high as it is in the video and if the sun hasn't even risen yet until the moon is much closer to the horizon toward the end of the video, then I don't see the problem. Since there is no evidence of what is going on with the apparent position of the sun other than the fact that it looks like dawn, then what else can be said?
In the OP video is becoming night because both the Moon and Sun follow the same direction, so if the Moon is coming closer to the horizon, then the Sun is going to set or is already set. It is impossible that it is becoming day.
Maybe this is the problem why Tom Bishop doesn't understand a shit? I really don't understand...
BTW, for a Lunar eclipse, there is no need that the moon is just behind the earth in the umbra part. If the Moon is in the penumbra, it will be a partial eclipse.
I think I posted this image 10000 times already:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2e/Diagram_of_umbra%2C_penumbra_%26_antumbra.png)
In the video, the Moon can be in the penumbra and we got an eclypse. Tom Bishop talks about 0.5 degrees, but 0.5 degrees of atmosferic refraction is very little and in the most optimal conditions. In normal conditions can vary significatively from 0.6 to 2, 3 or even 4.
Other than that, we don't know the exact angle in the vide, so a error of 0.5 in any estimation is a lot.
-
When the moon is eclipsed we know that the sun, earth, and moon are completely aligned.
False. They are only completely aligned during a minute time period during totality (and then only rarely and from a very small area of observation). All the video shows is a partial eclipse. You fail.
-
When the moon is eclipsed we know that the sun, earth, and moon are completely aligned.
False. They are only completely aligned during a minute time period during totality (and then only rarely and from a very small area of observation). All the video shows is a partial eclipse. You fail.
That's why I posted this illustration:
http://s27.postimg.org/3su9rrlrn/Selenehelion.png (http://s27.postimg.org/3su9rrlrn/Selenehelion.png)
In fact, a Selenehelion can't happen if the eclipse is from the Umbra because then the sunlight can't reach the moon.
-
When the moon is eclipsed we know that the sun, earth, and moon are completely aligned.
False. They are only completely aligned during a minute time period during totality (and then only rarely and from a very small area of observation). All the video shows is a partial eclipse. You fail.
That's why I posted this illustration:
http://s27.postimg.org/3su9rrlrn/Selenehelion.png (http://s27.postimg.org/3su9rrlrn/Selenehelion.png)
In fact, a Selenehelion can't happen if the eclipse is from the Umbra because then the sunlight can't reach the moon.
Tom Bishop is not very bright. We have to find his mistake and point them out to him. Even then, he might just continue to repeat his claim without dealing with the correction. It's one of the moles to whack.
-
When the moon is eclipsed we know that the sun, earth, and moon are completely aligned.
False. They are only completely aligned during a minute time period during totality (and then only rarely and from a very small area of observation). All the video shows is a partial eclipse. You fail.
That's why I posted this illustration:
http://s27.postimg.org/3su9rrlrn/Selenehelion.png (http://s27.postimg.org/3su9rrlrn/Selenehelion.png)
In fact, a Selenehelion can't happen if the eclipse is from the Umbra because then the sunlight can't reach the moon.
Isn't the point here that in the video the shadowed part of the moon is on the top instead of the bottom as it would be to the observer in your diagram?
-
Isn't the point here that in the video the shadowed part of the moon is on the top instead of the bottom as it would be to the observer in your diagram?
Ok, forget my first illustration.
Both the Moon and the Sun move in the same direction, so if the Moon is going down in the video, it means that it is becoming night.
The face of the Moon that is being illuminated is looking down towards the horizon, so the Sun at below the horizon and we can see its light being reflected by the Moon, so the shadowed part of the Moon is correct.
Also it is importand to know the location of the video, which the author says it is mexico. This is important because the Moon orbits roughtly around the Earth Ecuator, not from North to South, so someone in in the Equator will see the Moon in a different possition and rotation than other in Canada, respect the zenit.
For example, someone in Mexico will see the Moon pass almost above their heads, while I see in my city the Moon displaced to the west part of the firmament. Actually, where I live, i see the moon like this:
(http://i.imgur.com/4LAafsQ.png)
instead of
(http://i.imgur.com/9tCQOIW.png)
Hope this solves the problem.
-
Both the Moon and the Sun move in the same direction, so if the Moon is going down in the video, it means that it is becoming night.
No. If the full moon is setting, then the sun is rising. This is clearly demonstrated by the video starting in the dark and ending in light.
-
Isn't the point here that in the video the shadowed part of the moon is on the top instead of the bottom as it would be to the observer in your diagram?
Ok, forget my first illustration.
Both the Moon and the Sun move in the same direction, so if the Moon is going down in the video, it means that it is becoming night.
The face of the Moon that is being illuminated is looking down towards the horizon, so the Sun at below the horizon and we can see its light being reflected by the Moon, so the shadowed part of the Moon is correct.
Also it is importand to know the location of the video, which the author says it is mexico. This is important because the Moon orbits roughtly around the Earth Ecuator, not from North to South, so someone in in the Equator will see the Moon in a different possition and rotation than other in Canada, respect the zenit.
For example, someone in Mexico will see the Moon pass almost above their heads, while I see in my city the Moon displaced to the west part of the firmament. Actually, where I live, i see the moon like this:
(http://i.imgur.com/4LAafsQ.png)
instead of
(http://i.imgur.com/9tCQOIW.png)
Hope this solves the problem.
First of all, it is becoming day. This is a sunrise.
Secondly, whatever the location of the observer is in the video, we know at least that the location is at some place where a sunrise is happening. We aren't really concerned with how much to the left or the right the shadow is. We are, however, concerned with whether the shadow is on the top or the bottom. As you can see from the video, the moon is becoming progressively "more" eclipsed throughout. This means that at the beginning of the video we are seeing the onset of the eclipse. Furthermore, the moon is completely disappearing by the end of the video which tells me that part of the moon is entering the umbra phase of the eclipse.
I don't see any reason to suggest that the reason why the moon is fairly high in the horizon in the beginning of the video is because of the penumbra.
I do see evidence that does work and it is things I've already mentioned. At the beginning of the video, I do not think the sun is over the horizon yet. It appears to be dawn and as such, it is not a selenelion yet until much later in the video when the moon is much closer to the horizon. When the moon is closer to the horizon, the video in general has become brighter and it is at this point that we can say that, yes, the sun is probably visible. At this time (late in the video), both the sun and moon are visible but they are both very close to the horizon which is the definition of a selenelion.
-
Here is a video that better documents a selenelion:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUkjb4bbjpc
-
Also, to demonstrate just how fleeting a selenelion is, here is a sunrise/moonset chart for some of the locations where the Dec, 2012 selenelion was visible:
(http://www.blippitt.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/lunar-eclipse-selenelion-december-2011.jpg)
-
Here is a video that better documents a selenelion:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUkjb4bbjpc
This totally matches all the figures that have been cited in this thread. The moon is at best 0.25 degrees above the horizon when the sun even peaks above the horizon. That means the moon was shifted 0.75 degrees at most, likely less though.
/thread
-
It's funny how easy the answer was. I don't know why it took so long to realize. The original question in regard to the video should have been and still is, "where is the sun?"
-
Yeah. In the video Markjo posted it is very bright outside before the sun crests the horizon. I would guess the sun is behind the horizon for most of Tom's video. Obviously impossible to say conclusively, but in light of the information garnered by the model in existence and what is seen in Markjo's video it seems extremely likely.
-
Tom did say earlier in the thread that we know where the sun is because it is an eclipse, but we aren't really concerned with actual positions of the sun and moon, we are concerned with apparent positions.
-
Tom did say earlier in the thread that we know where the sun is because it is an eclipse, but we aren't really concerned with actual positions of the sun and moon, we are concerned with apparent positions.
Sorry, no. As I recall, you must be concerned with both accurate real and accurate apparent. Note when Tom ran away.
-
Tom did say earlier in the thread that we know where the sun is because it is an eclipse, but we aren't really concerned with actual positions of the sun and moon, we are concerned with apparent positions.
Sorry, no. As I recall, you must be concerned with both accurate real and accurate apparent. Note when Tom ran away.
Agreed.
-
I've already shown via diagram that it's impossible for the moon to be in the sky with the sun, since the angles would need to be in excess of 0.5 degrees. A video showing the sun and moon in the sky simultaneously is dirt in your face.
-
I've already shown via diagram that it's impossible for the moon to be in the sky with the sun, since the angles would need to be in excess of 0.5 degrees. A video showing the sun and moon in the sky simultaneously is dirt in your face.
Would you care to provide such a video? I don't recall seeing the sun in the OP video.
-
I've already shown via diagram that it's impossible for the moon to be in the sky with the sun, since the angles would need to be in excess of 0.5 degrees. A video showing the sun and moon in the sky simultaneously is dirt in your face.
Would you care to provide such a video? I don't recall seeing the sun in the OP video.
I'm referring to the video you posted.
-
I've already shown via diagram that it's impossible for the moon to be in the sky with the sun, since the angles would need to be in excess of 0.5 degrees. A video showing the sun and moon in the sky simultaneously is dirt in your face.
Wrong. Your diagram does NOT show an accurate positions for the Earth, Sun, and Moon. Your diagram shows the configuration during a TOTAL eclipse. Your video shows a PARTIAL eclipse. You fail miserably.
-
I'm referring to the video you posted.
??? Are you sure that you watched the right video? In the one that I provided, the sun didn't rise above the horizon until fully eclipsed moon was starting to set into the horizon.
Also, your diagram was not drawn properly to scale.
-
that video that tom showed was fake. it has to be fake. all the other photos and videos that the RErs posted were fake, so that one has to be too.
-
No, it's real. It just doesn't show what he thinks it shows.
-
that video that tom showed was fake. it has to be fake. all the other photos and videos that the RErs posted were fake, so that one has to be too.
Tom is a FEer.
-
I had been away from TFES for quite a while. I started reading and then made a posts on the old site recently. Then I came to find out about the great Flat Earth Schism. And here I am. :)
Yes everything is always faked. Typical TB reply.
-
The problem with it is that it is presented with illustrations that are only presented in one plane... more flat thinking going on. The earth and the moon exist as spheres in 3d space and are on tilted axis and rotations that can not be easily defined in a simple 2d illustration. Also, refraction bends the light rays of the sun and the moon enabling us to see both for several minutes during the Selenelion. But in general, here is a good explanation from a knowledgeable site (click here)The Moon phases are the same all over the world, both in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres. The same percentage of the Moon will be illuminated no matter where on Earth you are. However, whether the Waxing Crescent Moon looks like a banana, a boat, or even an umbrella, depends on the time, the date, your location, and the Moon's position in the sky.
Exactly which part of the Moon is lit up–the top, bottom, or the side–also depends on how high the Moon is in the sky. The Waxing Crescent Moon is generally higher in the sky in the summer than in the winter.
The line–or curve–dividing the illuminated and dark parts of the Moon is called the terminator. The terminator of a Waxing Crescent Moon can be on the right side, the left, the top, or the bottom.
-
The image is invalid for the following reasons:
1. The little man is over 1/4th the size of the earth's diameter, standing 2000 miles tall, and is able to see over the curvature of the earth to see the sun and moon simultaneously.
Tom, how is:
(http://i49.tinypic.com/121zm7m.png)
any more valid that this?
(http://s27.postimg.org/3su9rrlrn/Selenehelion.png)
???
One image depicts ma man who is 2000+ miles tall, looking around the curvature of the earth, and the other does not.
The Sun, moon and earth are also not literally at those distances or those sizes. It's a diagram for illustration purposes. Don't be so obtuse - like most flat earth theorists, you completely ignore the concept of scale.
-
Did you really feel the need to necro a 2.5 year old thread?
-
Thanks for bumping this thread, it was very informative!
-
The Sun, moon and earth are also not literally at those distances or those sizes. It's a diagram for illustration purposes. Don't be so obtuse - like most flat earth theorists, you completely ignore the concept of scale.
Explain how the "concept of scale," so drastically screws up what should be PARALLEL light rays emitting from the sun?
I do not care how you demonstrate the scale, if there is direct light coming from the Sun, the entire moon would be illuminated in the photo.
-
The Sun, moon and earth are also not literally at those distances or those sizes. It's a diagram for illustration purposes. Don't be so obtuse - like most flat earth theorists, you completely ignore the concept of scale.
If you read the rest of this thread you will find that we discussed an illustrated how an accurate scale would affect the scene.
-
It's important to note the colour of the sky and the colour changes that occur in the original video. Before sunrise there is an atmospheric phenomenon known as "the belt of venus", look it up on wikipedia. Light from the sun causes a sudden change in colour from a pale indigo to an orangeish hue. 100 percent of visible sunrises have a visible belt of venus. In the video there is no indication of a belt of venus descending or even beginning to appear. This means that even at the end of the video the sun is still several degrees (usually 5-10 or more degrees) below the horizon showing that this eclipse is not a true selenelion. To prove that it is possible to witness this stage of a lunar eclipse at this time of day in the established model, let's determined how long before sunrise it is. The belt of Venus usually becomes visible about 20-30 minutes before sunrise so the end of the video is at least 20-30 minutes prior to sunrise. Additionally judging by the contacts (ie stages) of the eclipse the video started at least an hour or more before sunrise. This puts the moon easily within a window to view it entering the penumbra even without considering refraction.
http://epod.usra.edu/SGBeltof%20Venus_MG_0958_1600.jpg
-
Actually, I think I have a possible explanation from a globe perspective for the sliver of light on the underside of the moon, but I haven't thought it through fully yet. Nevertheless, I'll post it here, but first, kudos to Blorgon A173 for that information he/she gave on 5/11/17. Anyway, the moon takes ½ month to make a half-orbit around the earth; whereas the earth takes only 12 hours to make a half-rotation, so, in the video, even though the moon appears to be moving downward, because of the earth's spin, the moon is actually moving upward, but at a slower speed, in the view of someone on the earth, than the earth is spinning, so the moon actually seems to be going down, merely because of the spin of the earth changing the view of the sky faster than the slower motion of the moon going up. In fact, at the same time of evening on the next day, it should be higher in the sky. Because the moon is actually going up, the sliver of light on the bottom of it is obscured by the earth from the top going down. I have tried to make a rudimentary illustration below, but I haven't really bothered with figuring out the scale.
-
Atmospheric refraction of the light from a star is zero in the zenith, less than 1′ (one arc-minute) at 45° apparent altitude, and still only 5.3′ at 10° altitude; it quickly increases as altitude decreases, reaching 9.9′ at 5° altitude, 18.4′ at 2° altitude, and 35.4′ at the horizon; all values are for 10 °C and 1013.25 hPa in the visible part of the spectrum.
(from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction))
This goes for both, Sun and Moon.
At that photo Moon is behind Earth at the bottom edge of the Earth's shadow area.
https://www.space.com/13856-total-lunar-eclipse-rare-senelion.html (https://www.space.com/13856-total-lunar-eclipse-rare-senelion.html)
-
Since more than one person wants to resurrect this, regardless of age of thread, can I ask Tom and other FEers;
If you imagine yourself looking down upon the Earth, Sun and Moon from above, and place an imaginary clockface over the Earth,
would you agree firstly that the situation being discussed, IF we take the textbook description of the Earth/Moon system at face value, has the Moon at 12 and the Sun at 6? i.e. each on directly opposite sides when viewed from above.