[Tom Bishop]

So you're saying that if we had a spot light, it's impossible to make shadows with anything smaller than the diameter of the spotlight?

That is obviously incorrect. It is very possible to make shadows with smaller objects. In space, without diffusion of the atmosphere, any object blocking the rays would make a crisp and clean shadow.

[Rounder]

So you're saying that if we had a spot light, it's impossible to make shadows with anything smaller than the diameter of the spotlight?

No.  We're saying that if the following are true:

• IF the sunrise/sunset is partially explained by envisioning the sun as a spotlight, instead of a naked unblocked 360° light source
• IF that spotlight shines only downward in a cone-like pattern directed at the earth's surface
• IF that spotlight does not shine outside that cone

In that case these conclusions follow:

• There is no sunlight shining sideways at the moon
• Nothing between sun and moon could cast a shadow on the moon.

[Tom Bishop]

That is not the argument at all that was presented to me, or in this thread. It was alleged that the sunlight would "bend" around the shadow object and it would cast no shadow.

[geckothegeek]

I have just about given up on FE discussions.
The earth is a globe and you are never going to change their minds anyway.
So why bother ?
I still like this website strictly for the entertainment. If you don't take flat earth seriously. LOL.

[rabinoz]

That is not the argument at all that was presented to me, or in this thread. It was alleged that the sunlight would "bend" around the shadow object and it would cast no shadow.

Nowhere did I say "that the sunlight would 'bend' around the shadow object "

The nearest was where I said "Almost all of the sunlight will shine around it" in

With the "shadow object" so small, it is quite impossible for .... it to cast any significant shadow on the moon. Almost all of the sunlight will shine around it.

Now my "around" could be a little ambiguous and I would have been better saying "past", but I did not say "bend".

So, what about avoiding the issue and explaining how a

With the "shadow object" so small, it is quite impossible for it to cast any significant shadow on the moon. Almost all of the sunlight will shine past it.

If my interpretation of the geometry or light paths is incorrect, I would love to be informed, but please no massive refraction or magnification in the atmoplane, there is no atmoplane 5,000 km up!

So, I claim that "the Wiki" explanation of the Lunar Eclipse is completely incorrect, so what is the true cause of a Lunar Eclipse.

Some will I ask why I am asking the same question over and over. The answer to that is simple - it has not yet been answered.

[geckothegeek]

That is not the argument at all that was presented to me, or in this thread. It was alleged that the sunlight would "bend" around the shadow object and it would cast no shadow.

Nowhere did I say "that the sunlight would 'bend' around the shadow object "

The nearest was where I said "Almost all of the sunlight will shine around it" in

With the "shadow object" so small, it is quite impossible for .... it to cast any significant shadow on the moon. Almost all of the sunlight will shine around it.

Now my "around" could be a little ambiguous and I would have been better saying "past", but I did not say "bend".

So, what about avoiding the issue and explaining how a

With the "shadow object" so small, it is quite impossible for it to cast any significant shadow on the moon. Almost all of the sunlight will shine past it.

If my interpretation of the geometry or light paths is incorrect, I would love to be informed, but please no massive refraction or magnification in the atmoplane, there is no atmoplane 5,000 km up!

So, I claim that "the Wiki" explanation of the Lunar Eclipse is completely incorrect, so what is the true cause of a Lunar Eclipse.

Some will I ask why I am asking the same question over and over. The answer to that is simple - it has not yet been answered.

I think the only flat earth answer you are ever going to get is "look it up in the wiki or the faq."
Was this "shadow object" one of Rowbotham's inventions or what was the original source for the "shadow object" in relation to the
"lunar eclipse " ?

[rabinoz]

I think the only flat earth answer you are ever going to get is "look it up in the wiki or the faq."
Was this "shadow object" one of Rowbotham's inventions or what was the original source for the "shadow object" in relation to the
"lunar eclipse " ?

This post ended up far long, be warned.

The Rowbotham's material on the lunar eclipse is too long to present here, you can read it in:

Zetetic Astronomy, by 'Parallax' (pseud. Samuel Birley Rowbotham), [1881], CHAPTER XI. CAUSE OF SOLAR AND LUNAR ECLIPSES.

Some quotes might be of interest.

Besides the above difficulties or incompatibilities, many cases are on record of the sun and moon being eclipsed when both were above the horizon. The sun, the earth, and the moon, not in a straight line, but the earth below the sun and moon--out of the reach or direction of both--and yet a lunar eclipse has occurred! Is it possible that a "shadow" of the earth could be thrown upon the moon, when sun, earth, and moon, were not in the same line?

Followed by many cases of "selenelions" - too many to quote here. Then he tries to dismiss refraction with

The only explanation which has been given of this phenomenon is the refraction caused by the earth's atmosphere. This, at first sight, is a plausible and fairly satisfactory solution; but on carefully examining the subject, it is found to be utterly inadequate; and those who have recourse to it cannot be aware that the refraction of an object and that of a shadow are in opposite directions. An object by refraction is bent upwards; but the shadow of any object is bent downwards, as will be seen by the following very simple experiment.

which consider quite fallacious.

So he comes to the conclusion that:

From the facts and phenomena already advanced, we cannot draw any other conclusion than that the moon is obscured by some kind of semi-transparent body passing before it; and through which the luminous surface is visible: the luminosity changed in colour by the density of the intervening object. This conclusion is forced upon, us by the evidence; but it involves the admission that the moon shines with light of its own--that it is not a reflector of the sun's light, but absolutely self-luminous. Although this admission is logically compulsory, it will be useful and strictly Zetetic to collect all the evidence possible which bears upon it.
1st. A reflector is a plane or concave surface, which gives off or returns what it receives:--
       If a piece of red hot metal or any other heated object is placed before a plane or concave surface, heat is reflected.
       If snow or ice, or any artificial freezing mixture is similarly placed, cold will be reflected.
       If light of any given colour is placed in the same way, the same colour of light will be reflected.
       If a given sound is produced, the same tone or pitch will be reflected.

My bolding.

What he completely fails to consider is that moonlight is almost exactly the same colour as sunlight, just a little more reddish. I could give comparative spectra, but here is a photo taken under the light of a near full moon. Moonlight certainly has almost the same spectrum as sunlight! Have a look at this:

Full Moon Photo

Yes, it's a bit grainy and not that sharp, but it was taken hand-held at 2 sec, f 2.8 with a ISO rating of 10,000!. The little bright things in the sky are stars, but the colours are pretty much like sunlight - because moonlight is definitely just sunlight reflected of a big dusty object. I took the photo of our car and caravan in Karijini National Park in Western Australia.

The moon's not reflecting heat is simply that direct sunlight at noon can have a brightness 120,000 lux whereas full Moon on a clear night has a brightness of about 0.25 lux. (From: Wikipedia, Daylight.

He then goes on about the perceived differences in qualities on sunlight and moonlight, but you need to accept 19th century superstitions to accept what he says.

He quotes

In the "Lancet" (Medical Journal), for March 14th, 1856, particulars are given of several experiments which proved that the moon's rays when concentrated, actually reduced the temperature upon a thermometer more than eight degrees.

which, sceptic that I am, I find quite impossible to accept.

All this culminates in

We have seen that, during a lunar eclipse, the moon's self-luminous surface is covered by a semi-transparent something; that this "something" is a definite mass, because it has a distinct and circular outline, as seen during its first and last contact with the moon. As a solar eclipse occurs from the moon passing before the sun, so, from the evidence above collected, it is evident that a lunar eclipse arises from a similar cause--a body semi-transparent and well-defined passing

Rowbotham argues for a "the moon's self-luminous surface is covered by a semi-transparent something" quite different from "the Wiki" explanation.

But you need to read this for yourself to see that Rowbotham's ideas are so coloured by 19th century half-truths and superstitions.

A lot has been learnt about these things in the intervening 150 years or so.

[geckothegeek]

I think the only flat earth answer you are ever going to get is "look it up in the wiki or the faq."
Was this "shadow object" one of Rowbotham's inventions or what was the original source for the "shadow object" in relation to the
"lunar eclipse " ?

This post ended up far long, be warned.

The Rowbotham's material on the lunar eclipse is too long to present here, you can read it in:

Zetetic Astronomy, by 'Parallax' (pseud. Samuel Birley Rowbotham), [1881], CHAPTER XI. CAUSE OF SOLAR AND LUNAR ECLIPSES.

Some quotes might be of interest.

Besides the above difficulties or incompatibilities, many cases are on record of the sun and moon being eclipsed when both were above the horizon. The sun, the earth, and the moon, not in a straight line, but the earth below the sun and moon--out of the reach or direction of both--and yet a lunar eclipse has occurred! Is it possible that a "shadow" of the earth could be thrown upon the moon, when sun, earth, and moon, were not in the same line?

Followed by many cases of "selenelions" - too many to quote here. Then he tries to dismiss refraction with

The only explanation which has been given of this phenomenon is the refraction caused by the earth's atmosphere. This, at first sight, is a plausible and fairly satisfactory solution; but on carefully examining the subject, it is found to be utterly inadequate; and those who have recourse to it cannot be aware that the refraction of an object and that of a shadow are in opposite directions. An object by refraction is bent upwards; but the shadow of any object is bent downwards, as will be seen by the following very simple experiment.

which consider quite fallacious.

So he comes to the conclusion that:

From the facts and phenomena already advanced, we cannot draw any other conclusion than that the moon is obscured by some kind of semi-transparent body passing before it; and through which the luminous surface is visible: the luminosity changed in colour by the density of the intervening object. This conclusion is forced upon, us by the evidence; but it involves the admission that the moon shines with light of its own--that it is not a reflector of the sun's light, but absolutely self-luminous. Although this admission is logically compulsory, it will be useful and strictly Zetetic to collect all the evidence possible which bears upon it.
1st. A reflector is a plane or concave surface, which gives off or returns what it receives:--
       If a piece of red hot metal or any other heated object is placed before a plane or concave surface, heat is reflected.
       If snow or ice, or any artificial freezing mixture is similarly placed, cold will be reflected.
       If light of any given colour is placed in the same way, the same colour of light will be reflected.
       If a given sound is produced, the same tone or pitch will be reflected.

My bolding.

What he completely fails to consider is that moonlight is almost exactly the same colour as sunlight, just a little more reddish. I could give comparative spectra, but here is a photo taken under the light of a near full moon. Moonlight certainly has almost the same spectrum as sunlight! Have a look at this:

Full Moon Photo

Yes, it's a bit grainy and not that sharp, but it was taken hand-held at 2 sec, f 2.8 with a ISO rating of 10,000!. The little bright things in the sky are stars, but the colours are pretty much like sunlight - because moonlight is definitely just sunlight reflected of a big dusty object. I took the photo of our car and caravan in Karijini National Park in Western Australia.

The moon's not reflecting heat is simply that direct sunlight at noon can have a brightness 120,000 lux whereas full Moon on a clear night has a brightness of about 0.25 lux. (From: Wikipedia, Daylight.

He then goes on about the perceived differences in qualities on sunlight and moonlight, but you need to accept 19th century superstitions to accept what he says.

He quotes

In the "Lancet" (Medical Journal), for March 14th, 1856, particulars are given of several experiments which proved that the moon's rays when concentrated, actually reduced the temperature upon a thermometer more than eight degrees.

which, sceptic that I am, I find quite impossible to accept.

All this culminates in

We have seen that, during a lunar eclipse, the moon's self-luminous surface is covered by a semi-transparent something; that this "something" is a definite mass, because it has a distinct and circular outline, as seen during its first and last contact with the moon. As a solar eclipse occurs from the moon passing before the sun, so, from the evidence above collected, it is evident that a lunar eclipse arises from a similar cause--a body semi-transparent and well-defined passing

Rowbotham argues for a "the moon's self-luminous surface is covered by a semi-transparent something" quite different from "the Wiki" explanation.

But you need to read this for yourself to see that Rowbotham's ideas are so coloured by 19th century half-truths and superstitions.

A lot has been learnt about these things in the intervening 150 years or so.

And still, some flat earthers consider Rowbotham's "Earth Not A Globe" and "The Sacred Texts" as their "Bibles"........ in the year 2016. :-(

[Boots]

With the "shadow object" so small, it is quite impossible for the it to cast any significant shadow on the moon. Almost all of the sunlight will shine around it.

Please explain how and why sunlight would "shine around it" in space.

Here is an experiment you can observe. Get a spotlight with a 3" face. Draw a 3" circle on the wall. Position the light so it is fully illuminating the circle on the wall. Try to block all the light from reaching the circle with a quarter. Or your thumb. You can block some of the light but certainly not all of it. If the center of your beam is aimed directly at the circle you can hardly even notice the effect of the quarter or thumb no matter where you place it.

If you had a spotlight and a quarter you could position the quarter to where it is making a shadow with a much larger diameter than the quarter.

In space there is no atmosphere to reflect or diffuse light, and so blur would not occur.

I want to pursue this a little farther. I actually did the experiment and got exactly the results posted above. (BTW If I had gotten different results I would gladly have posted them and challenged Rab to explain why I got results that were inconsistent with his claim. If I have a bias it is toward finding out how things really work. And you can't do that by posting false results just to prove a point.) Anyway, I did the experiment, so I can confirm first hand what the results of the experiment were. And I know you accept first hand observations as evidence because:

First hand observations are evidence.

So it appears to me the only issue here is your claim that in space you would get a different result because "there is no atmosphere to reflect or diffuse light." If I had access to a vacuum chamber I would test this immediately. I am not able to do that, at least not yet. However, I want to confirm that if the same experiment were done in a vacuum and produced the same results, you would agree that "With the "shadow object" so small, it is quite impossible for the it to cast any significant shadow on the moon. Almost all of the sunlight will shine around it."If you have other objections that is fine. I would just like to know what they are before proceeding.

[geckothegeek]

Just an ides.

If you put that "shadow object" almost on or very close to the surface of the moon, you might get a shadow about the size of the "shadow object."

But if the sun is a spot light and just shines down on the earth , how is the sun going to shine on the moon ?

Seems as if one flat earth idea cancels out the other.

Looks like the moonshrimp idea was better. LOL.

[Boots]

With the "shadow object" so small, it is quite impossible for the it to cast any significant shadow on the moon. Almost all of the sunlight will shine around it.

Please explain how and why sunlight would "shine around it" in space.

Here is an experiment you can observe. Get a spotlight with a 3" face. Draw a 3" circle on the wall. Position the light so it is fully illuminating the circle on the wall. Try to block all the light from reaching the circle with a quarter. Or your thumb. You can block some of the light but certainly not all of it. If the center of your beam is aimed directly at the circle you can hardly even notice the effect of the quarter or thumb no matter where you place it.

If you had a spotlight and a quarter you could position the quarter to where it is making a shadow with a much larger diameter than the quarter.

In space there is no atmosphere to reflect or diffuse light, and so blur would not occur.

I want to pursue this a little farther. I actually did the experiment and got exactly the results posted above. (BTW If I had gotten different results I would gladly have posted them and challenged Rab to explain why I got results that were inconsistent with his claim. If I have a bias it is toward finding out how things really work. And you can't do that by posting false results just to prove a point.) Anyway, I did the experiment, so I can confirm first hand what the results of the experiment were. And I know you accept first hand observations as evidence because:

First hand observations are evidence.

So it appears to me the only issue here is your claim that in space you would get a different result because "there is no atmosphere to reflect or diffuse light." If I had access to a vacuum chamber I would test this immediately. I am not able to do that, at least not yet. However, I want to confirm that if the same experiment were done in a vacuum and produced the same results, you would agree that "With the "shadow object" so small, it is quite impossible for the it to cast any significant shadow on the moon. Almost all of the sunlight will shine around it."If you have other objections that is fine. I would just like to know what they are before proceeding.

Tom?

[Tom Bishop]

Just an ides.

If you put that "shadow object" almost on or very close to the surface of the moon, you might get a shadow about the size of the "shadow object."

But if the sun is a spot light and just shines down on the earth , how is the sun going to shine on the moon ?

Seems as if one flat earth idea cancels out the other.

Looks like the moonshrimp idea was better. LOL.

Here's an idea: Read the Wiki, because it says that the sun shines light in all directions. The duration of light is  limited by perspective and opacity of the atmosphere.

[Tom Bishop]

With the "shadow object" so small, it is quite impossible for the it to cast any significant shadow on the moon. Almost all of the sunlight will shine around it.

Please explain how and why sunlight would "shine around it" in space.

Here is an experiment you can observe. Get a spotlight with a 3" face. Draw a 3" circle on the wall. Position the light so it is fully illuminating the circle on the wall. Try to block all the light from reaching the circle with a quarter. Or your thumb. You can block some of the light but certainly not all of it. If the center of your beam is aimed directly at the circle you can hardly even notice the effect of the quarter or thumb no matter where you place it.

If you had a spotlight and a quarter you could position the quarter to where it is making a shadow with a much larger diameter than the quarter.

In space there is no atmosphere to reflect or diffuse light, and so blur would not occur.

I want to pursue this a little farther. I actually did the experiment and got exactly the results posted above. (BTW If I had gotten different results I would gladly have posted them and challenged Rab to explain why I got results that were inconsistent with his claim. If I have a bias it is toward finding out how things really work. And you can't do that by posting false results just to prove a point.) Anyway, I did the experiment, so I can confirm first hand what the results of the experiment were. And I know you accept first hand observations as evidence because:

First hand observations are evidence.

So it appears to me the only issue here is your claim that in space you would get a different result because "there is no atmosphere to reflect or diffuse light." If I had access to a vacuum chamber I would test this immediately. I am not able to do that, at least not yet. However, I want to confirm that if the same experiment were done in a vacuum and produced the same results, you would agree that "With the "shadow object" so small, it is quite impossible for the it to cast any significant shadow on the moon. Almost all of the sunlight will shine around it."If you have other objections that is fine. I would just like to know what they are before proceeding.

Tom?

What am I replying to? Your post makes no sense at all on what experiment you performed and what you found.

[Boots]

With the "shadow object" so small, it is quite impossible for the it to cast any significant shadow on the moon. Almost all of the sunlight will shine around it.

Please explain how and why sunlight would "shine around it" in space.

Here is an experiment you can observe. Get a spotlight with a 3" face. Draw a 3" circle on the wall. Position the light so it is fully illuminating the circle on the wall. Try to block all the light from reaching the circle with a quarter. Or your thumb. You can block some of the light but certainly not all of it. If the center of your beam is aimed directly at the circle you can hardly even notice the effect of the quarter or thumb no matter where you place it.

If you had a spotlight and a quarter you could position the quarter to where it is making a shadow with a much larger diameter than the quarter.

In space there is no atmosphere to reflect or diffuse light, and so blur would not occur.

I want to pursue this a little farther. I actually did the experiment and got exactly the results posted above. (BTW If I had gotten different results I would gladly have posted them and challenged Rab to explain why I got results that were inconsistent with his claim. If I have a bias it is toward finding out how things really work. And you can't do that by posting false results just to prove a point.) Anyway, I did the experiment, so I can confirm first hand what the results of the experiment were. And I know you accept first hand observations as evidence because:

First hand observations are evidence.

So it appears to me the only issue here is your claim that in space you would get a different result because "there is no atmosphere to reflect or diffuse light." If I had access to a vacuum chamber I would test this immediately. I am not able to do that, at least not yet. However, I want to confirm that if the same experiment were done in a vacuum and produced the same results, you would agree that "With the "shadow object" so small, it is quite impossible for the it to cast any significant shadow on the moon. Almost all of the sunlight will shine around it."If you have other objections that is fine. I would just like to know what they are before proceeding.

Tom?

What am I replying to? Your post makes no sense at all on what experiment you performed and what you found.

I am willing to accept that, at least for the moment. The next question I have is obviously why it makes no sense at all?

[Boots]

What am I replying to? Your post makes no sense at all on what experiment you performed and what you found.

You claim that my experiment and what I found makes no sense at all. I have run it past a professor and a knowledgeable (IMO) friend of mine. They suggested a few minor improvements but for the most part they thought it was a valid experiment. Perhaps we are in error. I am completely open to that possibility. I would really like it if you would tell me why it makes no sense at all.

I was able to get the shadow puppet effect but only when blocking much more of the light than was possible with a quarter.

[Boots]

I would still like to know why my post makes no sense at all on what experiment I performed and what I found.

[rabinoz]

I would still like to know why my post makes no sense at all on what experiment I performed and what I found.

It's simple! It doesn't fi with Flat Earth Dogma - QED. 

[geckothegeek]

That is not the argument at all that was presented to me, or in this thread. It was alleged that the sunlight would "bend" around the shadow object and it would cast no shadow.

So we are back to the old "bendy light" thing ?

[juner]

That is not the argument at all that was presented to me, or in this thread. It was alleged that the sunlight would "bend" around the shadow object and it would cast no shadow.

So we are back to the old "bendy light" thing ?

Are you implying that light doesn't bend?

[geckothegeek]

Just an ides.

If you put that "shadow object" almost on or very close to the surface of the moon, you might get a shadow about the size of the "shadow object."

But if the sun is a spot light and just shines down on the earth , how is the sun going to shine on the moon ?

Seems as if one flat earth idea cancels out the other.

Looks like the moonshrimp idea was better. LOL.

Here's an idea: Read the Wiki, because it says that the sun shines light in all directions. The duration of light is  limited by perspective and opacity of the atmosphere.

Sun shines in all directions ? What happened to the spotlight ?