[sandokhan]

But it does matter, in fact it is crucial.

The Newtonium radiation is assumed to be emitted by the Sun. Notwithstanding the fact that an element lighter than Hydrogen is not subject to the law of attractive gravitation and thus its presence near the solar corona is a total defiance of Newtonian gravitation, you have to deal with the Allais effect which does prove that the radiation seen in the photographs is emitted by a different heavenly body than either the Sun or the Moon. The antigravitational effect of the Allais experiments prove that the radiation is emitted by the Black Sun: the lunisolar components of Newtonian gravitation have already been accounted for.



Dr. Maurice Allais:

In both cases, with the experiments with the anisotropic
support and with those with the isotropic support, it is found
that the amplitudes of the periodic effects are considerably
greater than those calculated according to the law of gravitation,
whether or not completed by the theory of relativity.
In the case of the anisotropic support, the amplitude of
the luni-solar component of 24h 50m is about twenty million
times greater than the amplitude calculated by the theory of
universal gravitation.

In the case of the paraconical pendulum with isotropic
support, this relation is about a hundred million.

We know for sure the identity of two of the heavenly bodies which take part in a total solar eclipse: the Earth and the Sun.

The calculations done by Dr. Allais show that the third body cannot be the Moon: the amplitudes are TWENTY MILLION TIMES LARGER THAN the luni-solar component for the anisotropic support, and ONE HUNDRED MILLION TIMES larger than the luni-solar component for the isotropic support.


This is how we know that the Earth shine total solar eclipses photos were faked.


For example, for the 2008 total solar eclipse:

CONFIRMATION OF THE ALLAIS EFFECT DURING THE 2008 SOLAR ECLIPSE:

http://ivanik3.narod.ru/Astrophiz/AnomSunEclip/pugarticleGoodey.pdf

Published in the Journal of Advanced Research in Physics


Given the above, the authors consider that it is an inescapable conclusion from our experiments that after the end of the visible eclipse, as the Moon departed the angular vicinity of the Sun, some influence exerted itself upon the Eastern European region containing our three sets of equipment, extending over a field at least hundreds of kilometers in width.

The nature of this common influence is unknown, but plainly it cannot be considered as gravitational in the usually accepted sense of Newtonian or Einsteinian gravitation.


We therefore are compelled to the opinion that some currently unknown physical influence was at work.


AN UNKNOWN PHYSICAL INFLUENCE WAS AT WORK.

This is the influence of the BLACK SUN passing in front of the visible Sun.

[Bobby Shafto]

But it does matter, in fact it is crucial...

What does anything that followed that opening statement have to do with whether or not the moon is transparent?

Edit: Is it in response to the question about if you believe the moon is transparent how do you explain solar eclipses? Answer being, moon isn't what eclipses the sun?

[markjo]

It is emitted by the Black Sun/Rahu.

Why is the new moon near the sun just a regular new moon, but when the new moon eclipses the sun it's the black sun?

[Max_Almond]

Sandokhan, you tried this line of reasoning before. It doesn't work.

http://www.rufon.org/forum/general-ufo-discussions/allais-effect-vril-of-the-black-sun/

https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=17028

https://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=282058

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=68045.60

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65462.90

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=61876.60

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=73943.120#msg2012536

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67119.210#msg1797388

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.0

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70078.30

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=124478

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4836.msg94467#msg94467

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3475.msg78131#msg78131

The simple fact is that any one with a camera and a finger can take a photo of the moon as it passes in front of the sun and see it for themselves.

[sandokhan]

but when the new moon eclipses the sun it's the black sun?

Because you have to deal with the unavoidable calculations of the Allais effect.


you tried this line of reasoning before. It doesn't work.

But it does work, since you are unable to explain the Allais effect and you also have to rely on the outrageous hypothesis that the temperature of the solar corona two million degrees Celsius.

Here are the precise calculations of the Allais effect:



Dr. Maurice Allais:

In both cases, with the experiments with the anisotropic
support and with those with the isotropic support, it is found
that the amplitudes of the periodic effects are considerably
greater than those calculated according to the law of gravitation,
whether or not completed by the theory of relativity.
In the case of the anisotropic support, the amplitude of
the luni-solar component of 24h 50m is about twenty million
times greater than the amplitude calculated by the theory of
universal gravitation.

In the case of the paraconical pendulum with isotropic
support, this relation is about a hundred million.

We know for sure the identity of two of the heavenly bodies which take part in a total solar eclipse: the Earth and the Sun.

The calculations done by Dr. Allais show that the third body cannot be the Moon: the amplitudes are TWENTY MILLION TIMES LARGER THAN the luni-solar component for the anisotropic support, and ONE HUNDRED MILLION TIMES larger than the luni-solar component for the isotropic support.

Here are the calculations for the Allais effect measured by Saxl and Allen, published in the Physical Review D:





Saxl and Allen went on to note that to explain these remarkable eclipse observations, according to "conventional Newtonian/Einsteinian gravitational theory," an increase in the weight of the pendumum bob itself on the order of ~5% would be required ... amounting to (for the ~51.5-lb pendulum bob in the experiment) an increase of ~2.64 lbs!

The simple fact is that any one with a camera and a finger can take a photo of the moon as it passes in front of the sun and see it for themselves.

None of the hundreds of photographs and videos show the Moon at all.

It is only in the age of the Photoshop that the pictures featuring the Moon in front of the Sun have appeared.

However, this images are shown to be utterly false, since they cannot explain the Allais effect.



"This normal, downward-sloping trend is abruptly REVERSED!

From there, things rapidly got even more bizarre--

As the pendulum’s azimuth motion continues in an accelerating, COUNTER-clockwise direction … for the next 45 minutes; then, after peaking, the pendulum motion REVERSES direction (moving clockwise again …), only to reverse BACK again (counterclockwise!) … briefly [as the Moon reaches “mid-eclipse” (the central green line)] -- before abruptly reversing once more, accelerating again in a CLOCKWISE direction … before eventually “bottoming out” … parallel to the ORIGINAL “Foucault/Earth rotation” downward-sloping trend line!"


Dr. Maurice Allais:

“… the current theory of gravitation (being the result of the application, within the current theory of relative motions, of the principles of inertia and universal gravitation to any one of the Galilean spaces) complemented or not by the corrections suggested by the theory of relativity, leads to orders of magnitude [many factors of ten] for lunar and solar action (which are strictly not to be perceived experimentally) of some 100 million times less than the effects noted [during the eclipse] ... [emphasis added].”

In other words, the pendulum motions Allais observed during his two eclipses – 1954 and 1959 -- were physically IMPOSSIBLE … according to all known “textbook physics!”

Allais’ ultimate “physical explanation” for the dramatic and totally anomalous paraconical pendulum behavior he observed, is summed up thus (below):




LIVE BLACK SUN SOLAR ECLIPSE EVENT:



UK Solar Eclipse - BBC - 11 August 1999

Without the Photoshop, you get the Black Sun in front the visible Sun.

Remember, you ALWAYS have to deal with/explain the Allais effect; unless you can do so, the Moon does not cause the solar eclipse at all.

[sandokhan]

None other than a hero of the RE clearly states that the Moon does not cause the solar eclipse.

SIMULTANEOUS SOLAR/LUNAR ECLIPSES



From America, Christopher Columbus also wrote to the king and the queen of Spain about the simultaneous eclipses:

This that I have said is what I have heard. What I know is that the year 94 I sailed in 24 degrees to the west in 9 hours, and it could not be mistake because there were eclipses: the sun was in Libra and the moon in Ariete.

http://www.mgar.net/docs/colon4.htm

Esto que yo he dicho es lo que he oído. Lo que yo sé es que el ańo de 94 navegué en 24° al Poniente en término de nueve horas, y no pudo haber yerro porque hubo eclipses: el sol estaba en Libra y la luna en Ariete.


Now, "Columbus" is NOT describing a selenelion (both the Sun and the eclipsed Moon can be observed at the same time in the RE theory): he used the words "hubo eclipses" (were eclipses), there were a solar and a lunar eclipse occurring at the same time.

[markjo]

but when the new moon eclipses the sun it's the black sun?

Because you have to deal with the unavoidable calculations of the Allais effect.

But how do you deal with the absolutely predictable nature of the moon's motions through the sky?  At what point does the black sun switch places with the new moon and when do they switch back?

[sandokhan]

But how do you deal with the absolutely predictable nature of the moon's motions through the sky?  At what point does the black sun switch places with the new moon and when do they switch back?

In order to answer your question, we have to go back to the year 1662 AD:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1851060#msg1851060

Then, you'll understand the nature of the orbits of the Moon (new Moon) and of the Black Sun:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1628430#msg1628430

[markjo]

But how do you deal with the absolutely predictable nature of the moon's motions through the sky?  At what point does the black sun switch places with the new moon and when do they switch back?

In order to answer your question, we have to go back to the year 1662 AD:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1851060#msg1851060

Then, you'll understand the nature of the orbits of the Moon (new Moon) and of the Black Sun:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1628430#msg1628430

Is there any chance that you can give me the abridged version?

[LoveScience]

As the OP for this thread I have to say I am quite amazed at how complicated and complex (as well as off topic) some the answers have become to what I thought was a simple question.

Not sure where this 'black sun' idea has stemmed from. Surely it is common knowledge these days that there can be no such thing as a black star (brown dwarf yes but def not black). The collapse of a supermassive star can result in a black hole but that is hardly a 'star' as such. When we see a total solar eclipse we are seeing the new Moon silhouetted against the solar corona. Equally it is common knowledge (at least it is now) that the Moon is no more transparent than the Earth is.

[stack]

Here are some cool older earthshines, most claim no photoshop. I'm guessing they are all liars:


Long Exposures of Corona and Earthshine
The left image is scanned from a machine print of a one second exposure on Kodachrome 64 film. Earthshine on the moon is detectable in the right image, which is from the same slide. The original slide was printed directly onto black and white paper in order to gain contrast, then the resulting negative print was photographed with slide film and printed onto black and white paper to produce a positive. An original image having four times as much exposure would clearly show earthshine without any manipulation. I did not take such a long exposure due to the lack of a clock drive and the relative brevity of totality."

http://www.eclipsechaser.com/eclink/image/total95.htm



L: Digital camera artifacts around highlights. R: Earthshine on Moon during 1994 eclipse.
LEFT: Manifestation of anticipated orthogonal red digital camera artifacts in image of "diamond ring" at 21 August 2017 total solar eclipse. Camera is an Olympus E-P3, which has a Bayer array image sensor. The 4.3 micron pixel interval of the E-P3 is a little larger than the 3.8 micron interval of the Panasonic GX7 used for one of the tests above, so the artifacts are not as strong. The iris in the 250mm lens has 8 blades, but the red color clearly favors orthogonal over diagonal directions.
RIGHT: This image of the 3 Nov. 1994 total solar eclipse was taken with a Vernonscope 94mm f/7 refractor telescope and a Nikon N2020 film camera. It is a 3 second exposure at f/7 on Kodachrome 64 Professional film (Kodachrome is no longer available). This simple system (triplet objective and film camera) captured a fairly clean, though underexposed, image of earthshine on the moon during totality. The original was printed on black and white photo paper to brighten the lunar image. Excessive artifacts from lenses or digital camera sensors can spoil a picture like this.

http://www.eclipsechaser.com/



Earthshine on Moon from Above 3 Second @ f/7 Corona Photo (1994)
The original film was printed directly onto black and white paper. Very little dodging was necessary. The only digital processing was to burn in the limb area about 12 percent.

http://www.eclipsechaser.com/eclink/image/total94.htm



"Personally, I could not see the face of the moon with my naked eye, even through binoculars. It was only revealed to me later in this four-second exposure, which was taken about half way through totality. The long exposure causes the corona to be overexposed, but the face of the “man in the moon” is easily visible. Just in case you’re suspicious, I did not create this image in Photoshop by overlaying a picture of a full moon on top of the total eclipse. Note that you can also see the bright star Regulus as a small dot on the far left side of the frame. Some pink portions of the chromosphere are also visible around the edge of the moon in a couple of places.”

http://www.stevezigler.com/solar-eclipse-2017.html



The phase of the Earth as seen from the Moon is exactly opposite the phase of the Moon as seen from Earth, so that the new Moon is lit by a fully sunlit Earth.  Normally the new Moon is invisible because it is lost in the glare of the Sun.  During a total solar eclipse, however, it is possible to photograph the Earthlit lunar surface.  In this image the lunar maria can be seen.

Instrument:   Vixen 102-ED
F-ratio:  f/6.5
Exposure:  4 seconds
Film:  E200
Date:  June 21, 2001
Location:  Chisamba, Zambia

http://www.alsonwongastro.com/20011.htm


Non-Composite

Far Outer Corona and Moon (T06-2040+41w)
Long streamers can be seen in a long exposure (2 seconds) of the corona. As a consequence, the inner and middle corona are completely overexposed.Also visible are the Moon's dark mare and rayed craters which are illuminated in bright earthshine (sunlight reflected from Earth).

Total Solar Eclipse of 2006 March 29 (Jalu, LIBYA)
Nikon D200 and TeleVue Ranger 70mm f/6.8 Refractor, 2 seconds
Photo ©2006 by Fred Espenak

http://www.mreclipse.com/SEphoto/TSE2006/TSE2006galleryA.html


2006

"Despite dusty conditions, the Moon's face can be seen via Earthshine in a deep exposure.”

http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2006mar29/index.html

[Max_Almond]

Those are some nice pictures, and good to see some that are single images rather than 'stacked'.

Can you add links to the sources please?

[stack]

Those are some nice pictures, and good to see some that are single images rather than 'stacked'.

Can you add links to the sources please?

Yeah, they are not easy to find. You need just the right long exposure to get them without blowing out the entire image.
I added in the links.

[markjo]

What if that isn't earthshine, but sunlight filtering through the semi-transparent moon?

[stack]

What if that isn't earthshine, but sunlight filtering through the semi-transparent moon?

I suppose it could be. But then the moon would be perpetually barely transparent which kind of defeats the theory of the moon being transparent to begin with - being that the sun can barely shine through it. Which I guess leads to why Rowbotham claimed a transparent moon. So he could claim it was self luminous and get out of the jam of the RE explanation of the moon phases. Then that doesn't cover off on eclipses so you heave a sneaky unobserved 3rd dark body into the mix and voila! FE moon phases and eclipses, check!

A nearly opaque moon doesn't really help with self luminosity unless the moonshrimp are much, much brighter than the sun.

[Bad Puppy]

How does unknown physical influence = a black sun passing in front of the visible sun?  Where is this black sun the rest of the time, and where is its influence at other times?  What is its distance from the earth, and its size?  Evidence, please.

[RonJ]

After the 'black sun' passes in front of the sun it will have absorbed a lot of heat.  Probably it would be glowing red because it has to be close.  Why can't you see it as a glowing red ball after it passes away from the sun?

[Max_Almond]

None other than a hero of the RE clearly states that the Moon does not cause the solar eclipse. From America, Christopher Columbus also wrote to the king and the queen of Spain about the simultaneous eclipses:

This that I have said is what I have heard. What I know is that the year 94 I sailed in 24 degrees to the west in 9 hours, and it could not be mistake because there were eclipses: the sun was in Libra and the moon in Ariete.

http://www.mgar.net/docs/colon4.htm

Not sure why you think Columbus is a "round earth hero". He might be a hero of exploration to some, but he's no more a round earth hero than anyone else who has travelled from Europe to the Americas. Plus, he was quite (and obstinately) wrong about the size of the globe.

Reading the whole passage, it's clear that Google Translate is struggling with it; it's a long stream of gibberish. But better translations have been done:

https://books.google.es/books?id=ZftqV0XJcu4C&pg=PA176&lpg=PA176&dq=columbus+eclipse+libra+aries&source=bl&ots=CSqwh3bWMk&sig=OAQvBt0XR1U8vRfw4hk6RJSubig&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjB7-fRsKvfAhWI4YUKHdWVCGEQ6AEwHXoECAsQAQ#v=onepage&q=columbus%20eclipse%20libra%20aries&f=false

The eclipse he was talking about occurred on Ocober 15th, 1502, at 2307UTC.

Maybe someone else can show that, as Columbus wrote, "the sun was in Libra and the moon in Aries."