[markjo]

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?

[rottingroom]

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.

[rottingroom]

For example watch this video of a sunrise. Daylight is present long before the sun is visible.

[Yamato]

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:




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.

[Gulliver]

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.

[Yamato]

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

In fact, a Selenehelion can't happen if the eclipse is from the Umbra because then the sunlight can't reach the moon.

[Gulliver]

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

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.

[rottingroom]

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

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?

[Yamato]

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:



instead of




Hope this solves the problem.

[markjo]

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.

[rottingroom]

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:



instead of




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.

[markjo]

Here is a video that better documents a selenelion:

[markjo]

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:

[Rama Set]

Here is a video that better documents a selenelion:

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

[rottingroom]

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?"

[Rama Set]

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.

[rottingroom]

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.

[Gulliver]

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.

[rottingroom]

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.

[Tom Bishop]

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.