[Tom Bishop]

Ok, so it's definitely a shadow object. An object that casts a shadow. An unknown, never directly observed planet that has never been seen blocking the view of any other object in the sky, including the sun which it orbits. Where is your empirical evidence? Beyond just a shadow.

The shadow is direct evidence that an object was somewhere between the path of the sun and the moon. This is direct evidence of an object in RET or FET.

There are a number of conclusion which follow from this in the Flat Earth model; such as since, during the eclipse, there are no visible celestial bodies at night on a path to the sun, that celestial body must be on the day side of the earth.

You say it would be visible if transiting the sun. When has this been recorded?

The shadow object is rotating around the sun from the sun's side, at a slightly off tilt plane. We only see a limited range of the sun's underside, and never see the sun from its side, as discussed in my posts on the previous page, and so we should never expect it to transit for us.

Mercury and Venus can be seen in transit with a filter. Post/pre transit, perhaps not. But they are also visible before sunrise and after sunset. Why is this not the case with the shadow object/planet.

Mercury and Venus are traveling along the underside of the sun, not the sun's side.

The order I learned was sun, Mercury, Venus, Earth. Where does the shadow planet orbit, within the orbit of Mercury or between the Earth and Venus. Does it orbit on the same plane as the other inner planets?

We have deduced that the Shadow Object is slightly off tilt with the plane of the sun, but not much is known about its distance from the sun.

[Tom Bishop]

We can see Venus transiting the sun - a simple, improvised pinhole camera allows you to see Venus as a black dot in front of the sun.

Venus only is seen during its transit. Anywhere else in the sun's vicinity, it is invisible.

Google the phrase: "stars visible during 2017 eclipse" - and you'll see approximately half a million hits - mostly from the estimated 5 million people who saw it -

A Google Image search with that phrase shows no such pictures of a starry skyscape taken during the eclipse.

and some large number of people who are eclipse experts explaining what would be seen during the eclipse.  Yeah - stars and planets are quite visible during the minutes of totality of a total eclipse.   In fact, the famous first ever confirmation of Einsteins' theory of relativity came from measuring the position of a star during a total eclipse.

Who saw all the stars?

If stars were "missing" that would be expected to be visible - you could be REALLY sure that an astronomer or someone else who was familiar with the skies would have mentioned it during one of the 635 total eclipses that have happened over the past thousand years.

Please produce records that every star appeared in the sky during every eclipse.

If that had happened then the existence of the shadow object would be an accepted part of mainstream science...but it's not.

You are assuming that there are people looking for every star during the moment of the eclipse.

There appears to be no record of anyone seeing this immense, mysterious dark circle hiding the stars.

Yet again, you are just making up things up. Can you show that there are teams of people around the world looking for every star in the sky during the moment of the eclipse?

Why does the shadow object need to be huge.  Well, as anyone who has seen a lunar eclipse will tell you, you see the edge of an obviously large shadow being cast over the moon.  You can see from the evident curvature of the shadow that it's MUCH bigger than the moon.  Now, if (as you claim) the shadow object is close to the sun then it has to be larger than the sun in order to cast a fairly hard-edged "umbral" shadow that's larger than the moon.  If the shadow object was smaller, it would need to be much closer to the moon than it is to the sun (as indeed it is in RET).  A small shadow caster, close to the sun would produce a VERY soft penumbral shadow...and that's not what we see.

You are making certain assumptions about how light emanates from the sun, and that would require knowledge of the nature of the sun. If the sun projects its light outwards like a point light source then a body smaller than the sun can cast a large shadow.

And if the sun's light does not emanate like a point light source, then the shadow object needs only to be a little bigger than the sun to cast large shadows, not "a huge sphere 300 to 500 miles across".

Well, the sun, moon and shadow object have to be in an almost exact straight line in order for a lunar eclipse to happen - and if that is the case then any single planet forms a plane with those three objects lying on one edge and the planet defining the orientation of the plane.   So, yeah - they're all in the same plane - by definition. Again, I don't see the relevance of that comment.

The relevance of the comment is that if the planets are on a different plane than the sun and the Shadow Object, the shadow object will have a hard time casting a shadow on them.

And while you're pondering those:

f) Why does the moon turn that gorgeous shade of orange/red as it approaches totality in a lunar eclipse?

The Shadow Object is not sufficiently dense: https://wiki.tfes.org/Why_the_Lunar_Eclipse_is_Red

I would like you to tell me how the sun can shine through the 100 mile tall slimmer of atmosphere around the earth and widen out the light to fill the entire 2,159 mile diameter of the moon if the sun is not a point light source in the Round Earth model.

[DuniyaGolHai]

Ok, so it's definitely a shadow object. An object that casts a shadow. An unknown, never directly observed planet that has never been seen blocking the view of any other object in the sky, including the sun which it orbits. Where is your empirical evidence? Beyond just a shadow.

The shadow is direct evidence that an object was somewhere between the path of the sun and the moon. This is direct evidence of an object in RET or FET.

There are a number of conclusion which follow from this in the Flat Earth model; such as since, during the eclipse, there are no visible celestial bodies at night on a path to the sun, that celestial body must be on the day side of the earth.

You say it would be visible if transiting the sun. When has this been recorded?

The shadow object is rotating around the sun from the sun's side, at a slightly off tilt plane. We only see a limited range of the sun's underside, and never see the sun from its side, as discussed in my posts on the previous page, and so we should never expect it to transit for us.

Mercury and Venus can be seen in transit with a filter. Post/pre transit, perhaps not. But they are also visible before sunrise and after sunset. Why is this not the case with the shadow object/planet.

Mercury and Venus are traveling along the underside of the sun, not the sun's side.

The order I learned was sun, Mercury, Venus, Earth. Where does the shadow planet orbit, within the orbit of Mercury or between the Earth and Venus. Does it orbit on the same plane as the other inner planets?

We have deduced that the Shadow Object is slightly off tilt with the plane of the sun, but not much is known about its distance from the sun.

Hey Tom can you share diagram with the details you have mentioned... terms like 'Slightly off tilt' seems vague as always in your posts... give us exact numbers... degree-angle, distance-miles !!!

[3DGeek]

So to shorten your response to my early questions - you're denying that ANYONE can ever see stars during the daytime during a solar eclipse?

That would be a surprisingly dumb thing to claim.

Ordinary people didn't photograph stars because cheap cameras can't capture stars when there is light from around the edges of the sun...the contrast goes to hell (same reason that there aren't stars in photos taken on the moon during the Apollo missions).

But with the right kind of camera - you certainly can capture stars in daylight at the eclipse...and plenty of people have.

But you're seriously claiming that not a single person saw stars?   Despite HALF A MILLION web pages that say that either they did or that they would?

If you want PROOF that stars can be seen in the middle of the day during a total solar eclipse, here is the famous photo taken by Sir Arthur Eddington on Principe Island during the May 29th 1919 total eclipse - that trip was done precisely BECAUSE astronomers know that stars are visible close to the sun's disk during an eclipse.  Other observers at locations in Brazil and Sao Tome (West Africa) reproduced that observation.



Those experiments (which DEPEND on stars being visible in daytime) have been repeated in 1922, 1953 and most recently, in 1973 by a team at the University of Texas. (You can read their paper here: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1976AJ.....81..452T ).

It's hard (even for you) to deny that stars are visible during a solar eclipse.   Yet you are saying that nobody - in NONE of the 600 solar eclipses during the last 1000 years ever once thought to mention that they saw a circular patch of stars (at least as big as the sun - and much larger in my estimation) being blotted out?

Why does the shadow object need to be huge.  Well, as anyone who has seen a lunar eclipse will tell you, you see the edge of an obviously large shadow being cast over the moon.  You can see from the evident curvature of the shadow that it's MUCH bigger than the moon.  Now, if (as you claim) the shadow object is close to the sun then it has to be larger than the sun in order to cast a fairly hard-edged "umbral" shadow that's larger than the moon.  If the shadow object was smaller, it would need to be much closer to the moon than it is to the sun (as indeed it is in RET).  A small shadow caster, close to the sun would produce a VERY soft penumbral shadow...and that's not what we see.

You are making certain assumptions about how light emanates from the sun, and that would require knowledge of the nature of the sun. If the sun projects its light outwards like a point light source then a body smaller than the sun can cast a large shadow.

And if the sun's light does not emanate like a point light source, then the shadow object needs only to be a little bigger than the sun to cast large shadows, not "a huge sphere 300 to 500 miles across".

I think you got confused midway through that!   IF the sun was a true point source THEN the shadow object could be quite small...that's true...but it's not, so this isn't relevant.

Because the sun is NOT a point source, the shadow object hast to be LARGER than the sun.  How much larger depends on how close to the sun it is...but if you figure the math then for the angle subtended by the umbral and penumbral shadows on the moon to be as they are - and the sun and moon to be around 12,000 miles apart (maybe) when the lunar eclipse happens around midnight - then the shadow object has to be considerably larger than the sun...not just a little bit larger.

Well, the sun, moon and shadow object have to be in an almost exact straight line in order for a lunar eclipse to happen - and if that is the case then any single planet forms a plane with those three objects lying on one edge and the planet defining the orientation of the plane.   So, yeah - they're all in the same plane - by definition. Again, I don't see the relevance of that comment.

The relevance of the comment is that if the planets are on a different plane than the sun and the Shadow Object, the shadow object will have a hard time casting a shadow on them.

OK - but I already explained that they ARE all in the same plane (although I still don't see why that matters)...please read my paragraph quoted just above yours.

And while you're pondering those:

f) Why does the moon turn that gorgeous shade of orange/red as it approaches totality in a lunar eclipse?

The Shadow Object is not sufficiently dense: https://wiki.tfes.org/Why_the_Lunar_Eclipse_is_Red

I would like you to tell me how the sun can shine through the 100 mile tall slimmer of atmosphere around the earth and widen out the light to fill the entire 2,159 mile diameter of the moon if the sun is not a point light source in the Round Earth model.

Oh - it's not obvious?   OK...well, here is the RET explanation:

Imagine you are standing on the (RET) moon during an eclipse.   From the perspective of that person, the Earth would be moving in front of the sun.  So when there is a "lunar eclipse" here on Earth - it is a "solar eclipse" if you're standing on the moon.  Unlike a solar eclipse here on Earth, where the moon is just about the right size to accurately cover the sun - a solar eclipse seen from the moon would have the MUCH larger Earth covering the sun...also, the Earth has an atmosphere.

During the first moments of totality - when the Earth has just covered up the sun - the person on the moon can look at the edge of the Earth that just covered the sun and they'll be looking at a tangent to the Earth's surface towards the (just hidden) limb of the sun.

What they are seeing is a sunset (or maybe sunrise) happening on Earth...and as we all well know - you can still see orange skies for quite a long time after the sun has set.

So the moon is being lit by: "all of the Earth's sunrises and sunsets at once"...I think that's a rather poetic thing...but then I'm an RE'er.

Since the light at sunrise/sunset is filtered through all that atmosphere - the only light the moon is still getting is a rich orangey-red.

And *THAT* is why the moon looks that color during a lunar eclipse.

By then, the Earth is blotting out all of the direct sunlight - but all of those sunrises and sunsets produces enough light to make the moon visible against a very dark sky.

However, having watched several lunar eclipses - the red/orange moon effect only exists soon after and just before the end of totality - when the moon is completely covered.   Over the next few minutes, the color fades from red/orange to black.

That effect wouldn't happen with your shadow object though...right?

[mtnman]

Ok, so it's definitely a shadow object. An object that casts a shadow. An unknown, never directly observed planet that has never been seen blocking the view of any other object in the sky, including the sun which it orbits. Where is your empirical evidence? Beyond just a shadow.

The shadow is direct evidence that an object was somewhere between the path of the sun and the moon. This is direct evidence of an object in RET or FET.

There are a number of conclusion which follow from this in the Flat Earth model; such as since, during the eclipse, there are no visible celestial bodies at night on a path to the sun, that celestial body must be on the day side of the earth.

You say it would be visible if transiting the sun. When has this been recorded?

The shadow object is rotating around the sun from the sun's side, at a slightly off tilt plane. We only see a limited range of the sun's underside, and never see the sun from its side, as discussed in my posts on the previous page, and so we should never expect it to transit for us.

Mercury and Venus can be seen in transit with a filter. Post/pre transit, perhaps not. But they are also visible before sunrise and after sunset. Why is this not the case with the shadow object/planet.

Mercury and Venus are traveling along the underside of the sun, not the sun's side.

The order I learned was sun, Mercury, Venus, Earth. Where does the shadow planet orbit, within the orbit of Mercury or between the Earth and Venus. Does it orbit on the same plane as the other inner planets?

We have deduced that the Shadow Object is slightly off tilt with the plane of the sun, but not much is known about its distance from the sun.

There is an old saying that once you find you are digging yourself into a hole, the first course of action is to stop digging. Just a thought for you Tom.

Now, where to start...

In your proposed theory, there is a planet orbiting the sun that causes lunar eclipses. I'm using the word planet here since that's what a large satellite of the sun is called. And you, Tom, the man that demands evidence for items of commonly held, everyday knowledge, claim the existence of this planet based only on it's shadow. If there were such an item, how could it never be observed in any other respect. It never reflects the sun's light. It never blocks the view of other stars or planets. It exerts no gravitational influence. Thru Earth based telescopes we can see all the other planets, the rings of some planets, the moons of some planets, asteroids, and comets. But not your shadow object. Why? (Spoiler alert, it doesn't exist).

As to the distance, FE makes claims about the distance to the sun and the moon as they orbit the north pole. You can find numerous example pictures of the shadow crossing the moon. Shouldn't FE experts be able to extrapolate at least a relationship between the size of the body and it's position?

Please define the "day side of the earth". I know what that phrase would mean in RE science, but the meaning in FE terms is not clear to me.

You claim that Mercury and Venus are

traveling along the underside of the sun

. So they don't revolve around the sun as every astronomer in the world, and your wiki claim? What is the center of the mid point of their round travelling pattern?

Why do you think the shadow object only causes lunar eclipses during a full moon?

[mtnman]

The shadow object is rotating around the sun from the sun's side, at a slightly off tilt plane. We only see a limited range of the sun's underside, and never see the sun from its side, as discussed in my posts on the previous page, and so we should never expect it to transit for us.

Just one more thing... If we see the underside of the sun and never from the side, how do you explain the pattern of sun spots that we observe from Earth? I've seen time lapse videos showing sun spots moving across the face of the sun. The patterns I recall seeing look how I would expect the view should look when viewed from the side.

Was your belief of seeing the underside confirmed? I assume that if this was the case there would be patterns of spots near the sun's south pole moving in a circle or ellipse, in constant view.

[mtnman]

To the original poster, you probably won't see any further responses. Too many questions that FE can't answer. So the post will go dormant. But I thank you for the question and hope you found the discussion interesting.

[juner]

To the original poster, you probably won't see any further responses. Too many questions that FE can't answer. So the post will go dormant. But I thank you for the question and hope you found the discussion interesting.

There is no reason to make this post. If you want to complain that people don't answer posts in a timeframe acceptable to you, take it the AR forum. Since you are already on 3 warnings, have a few days off to review the rules.

[devils advocate]

Things have got pretty desperate when you have to make up whole new celestial bodies just to maintain the illusion of a flat earth. Round Earth has answers that fit with empirical observations, flat earth responses merely beg more questions, the answers to which cannot be supported by ANY evidence. Its all getting a bit silly now 

[Tom Bishop]

Hey Tom can you share diagram with the details you have mentioned... terms like 'Slightly off tilt' seems vague as always in your posts... give us exact numbers... degree-angle, distance-miles !!!

An angle for the tilt is mentioned in our Shadow Object wiki page mentioned on the previous page. Per its distance from the sun, as I have mentioned, that is unknown.

So to shorten your response to my early questions - you're denying that ANYONE can ever see stars during the daytime during a solar eclipse?

Where did I say that?

But with the right kind of camera - you certainly can capture stars in daylight at the eclipse...and plenty of people have.

Can we see some pictures showing that all stars in the sky appear during the eclipse?

But you're seriously claiming that not a single person saw stars?   Despite HALF A MILLION web pages that say that either they did or that they would?

Did they see all stars? Source?

If you want PROOF that stars can be seen in the middle of the day during a total solar eclipse, here is the famous photo taken by Sir Arthur Eddington on Principe Island during the May 29th 1919 total eclipse

I only see a few stars there, certainly not all stars.

It's hard (even for you) to deny that stars are visible during a solar eclipse. 

Why are you putting words in my mouth? Can't you read that I am questioning whether ALL stars appear?

I think you got confused midway through that!   IF the sun was a true point source THEN the shadow object could be quite small...that's true...but it's not, so this isn't relevant.

And how, exactly, do you know whether the light that emanates from the sun is not only doing so in an only outwardly direction from its surface?

Because the sun is NOT a point source, the shadow object hast to be LARGER than the sun.  How much larger depends on how close to the sun it is...but if you figure the math then for the angle subtended by the umbral and penumbral shadows on the moon to be as they are - and the sun and moon to be around 12,000 miles apart (maybe) when the lunar eclipse happens around midnight - then the shadow object has to be considerably larger than the sun...not just a little bit larger.

Say that we have a flashlight with an outlet the size of a dime, a penny, and a dime. The penny is slightly larger than a dime and is positioned to be obscuring the light between the flashlight and the dime. Is there a straight line distance between the objects to where the flashlight, a penny, and a dime could be lined up to where the dime is illuminated?

And while you're pondering those:

f) Why does the moon turn that gorgeous shade of orange/red as it approaches totality in a lunar eclipse?

The Shadow Object is not sufficiently dense: https://wiki.tfes.org/Why_the_Lunar_Eclipse_is_Red

I would like you to tell me how the sun can shine through the 100 mile tall slimmer of atmosphere around the earth and widen out the light to fill the entire 2,159 mile diameter of the moon if the sun is not a point light source in the Round Earth model.

Oh - it's not obvious?   OK...well, here is the RET explanation:

Imagine you are standing on the (RET) moon during an eclipse.   From the perspective of that person, the Earth would be moving in front of the sun.  So when there is a "lunar eclipse" here on Earth - it is a "solar eclipse" if you're standing on the moon.  Unlike a solar eclipse here on Earth, where the moon is just about the right size to accurately cover the sun - a solar eclipse seen from the moon would have the MUCH larger Earth covering the sun...also, the Earth has an atmosphere.

During the first moments of totality - when the Earth has just covered up the sun - the person on the moon can look at the edge of the Earth that just covered the sun and they'll be looking at a tangent to the Earth's surface towards the (just hidden) limb of the sun.

What they are seeing is a sunset (or maybe sunrise) happening on Earth...and as we all well know - you can still see orange skies for quite a long time after the sun has set.

So the moon is being lit by: "all of the Earth's sunrises and sunsets at once"...I think that's a rather poetic thing...but then I'm an RE'er.

Since the light at sunrise/sunset is filtered through all that atmosphere - the only light the moon is still getting is a rich orangey-red.

That explanation does not address my question. Since the sun in RET does not propagate in an outwardly-only direction like a point light source, how is it possible to project a 100 mile atmosphere to fill a 2,159 mile moon?

If the sun were projecting light outwards only, it could project the 100 mile atmosphere to fill any larger space.

But since the sun is projecting in every direction, it should cause the shadow of the earth and that 100 miles to shrink with distance not expand with distance.

Take a look at a diagram:



According to this diagram the atmosphere "leaks" to fill in a majority of the umbra, as to cause the moon to appear red.

How does it "leak"?

The physics of that are unexplained.

It is alleged that "refraction" does this, but light moving through a medium should come out the same angle that it came in.

[douglips]

According to this diagram the atmosphere "leaks" to fill in a majority of the umbra, as to cause the moon to appear red.

How does it "leak"?

The physics of that are unexplained.

It is alleged that "refraction" does this, but light moving through a medium should come out the same angle that it came in.

What? How can you say that with a straight face? You are the right age to appreciate Pink Floyd.


Even better:

YOU ARE WEARING GLASSES IN YOUR PROFILE PHOTO.

[TomInAustin]

It's hard (even for you) to deny that stars are visible during a solar eclipse. 

Why are you putting words in my mouth? Can't you read that I am questioning whether ALL stars appear?

Oh, sweet irony.   You accuse someone of putting words in your mouth while questioning "all stars visible" that no one said?

[TomInAustin]

The Solar Eclipse occurs when the Moon passes in front of the Sun and the observer. The Lunar Eclipse occurs when a body known as the Shadow Object passes between the Sun and the Moon.

https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Lunar_Eclipse

Since the shadow object rotates around the sun, should we be able to see it block out the sun?  Like moon phases? The logic does not stand up to any reasoning at all.

[mtnman]

Why does the moon turn that gorgeous shade of orange/red as it approaches totality in a lunar eclipse?

The Shadow Object is not sufficiently dense: https://wiki.tfes.org/Why_the_Lunar_Eclipse_is_Red

So you are saying that the mystery planet isn't dense enough to block all light, but allows the reddish bandwidths to leak through. So that would mean we shouldn't see it completely block out other stars, but that we should see them turn red when it passes in front of the sun or other visible objects. Is that correct?

It is alleged that "refraction" does this, but light moving through a medium should come out the same angle that it came in.

I really don't understand this example. Where are these square objects that refract, then re-refract light onto its original heading?

[douglips]

How do your glasses work, Tom?

[New_In_Town]

Hmm. Before we begin, here are three simple premises to agree upon and keep in mind.

1. I'm new to this FET vs. RET discussion.
2. I don't have all of the answers.
3. Neither do any of you.

In my opinion, unless you have "walked on the moon" and seen first hand that the earth is a ball, it is foolish to accept that as absolute and irrefutable truth. So, for people to heatedly argue and debate things that may or may not be true is quite dumb. Sure you have NASA, but, to quote the song Belief by John Mayer, "when they own the information, they can bend it all they want." You don't know anything for certain. I think the predisposition that the apposing party you are discussing a topic with is wrong is the height of ignorance. It closes you off to reaching any new understanding.

If we are all seeking the truth about what we live on, shouldn't it be a collective effort of presenting and fleshing out topics, arguments and counter-arguments?

Seems primitive to have such an unproductive discussion full of petty jabs and inflated egos.

Also, how hard is it to admit either side doesn't have the answer to everything? Are we that arrogant to think we know how everything works? Data and research are objected to subjective interpretation.

It comes down to a fundamental belief system. Science and logic have been conducted under the premise that the earth is round. All of it will make sense as long as the earth is round. However, IF the earth is flat, science no longer makes sense because it was not conducted under the understanding of a flat earth.

Ultimately, looking in to this FET vs. RET thing shows that there are holes in both theories. Things that neither side can explain beyond a shadow (pun intended) of a doubt.

Anyway, that's just my thoughts and response to this goofy thread. Carry on.

[Roger G]

Hmm. Before we begin, here are three simple premises to agree upon and keep in mind.

1. I'm new to this FET vs. RET discussion.
2. I don't have all of the answers.
3. Neither do any of you.

Ultimately, looking in to this FET vs. RET thing shows that there are holes in both theories. Things that neither side can explain beyond a shadow (pun intended) of a doubt.

Speaking from my position as a round earther, can you elaborate on the above please and give some examples of round earth 'theories' that have holes in that have been put forward on this forum.

Thanks,

[Tom Haws]

You are making certain assumptions about how light emanates from the sun, and that would require knowledge of the nature of the sun. If the sun projects its light outwards like a point light source then a body smaller than the sun can cast a large shadow.

And if the sun's light does not emanate like a point light source, then the shadow object needs only to be a little bigger than the sun to cast large shadows, not "a huge sphere 300 to 500 miles across".

I am currently reviewing https://wiki.tfes.org/Erathostenes_on_Diameter , and so this statement interests me. And I would like to know, as you make this statement, what distance and size your (this site's) FE "theory" (I am still trying to determine whether there is indeed a flat earth theory available here) has for the sun. Can you direct me to the sun model that predicts everything I may see about the sun?

[Tom Haws]

It comes down to a fundamental belief system. Science and logic have been conducted under the premise that the earth is round. All of it will make sense as long as the earth is round.

Actually no. Take the experiment of Eratosthenes for example. He measured the difference of shadow angle in distant cities on the same day of the year. That particular experiment could easily yield an estimate for either of the following:

A. The diameter of a round earth assuming a nearly infinitely distant sun.
B. The distance of the sun from the earth assuming a flat earth.

But when you take both of those answers and "run with them", only the answer to A. ends up making predictions that repeatedly predict and fit other observations.

[Scroogie]

Has it not occurred to anyone here that mankind is today possessed of many more methods of examining celestial objects than through the use of visible light alone? Expand your thinking a bit to include the rest of the electromagnetic spectrum.

This is with regard to the "Shadow Object", not the most recent posts.