#### Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 9099
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: 2019 Total Lunar Eclipse
« Reply #40 on: January 04, 2019, 12:21:48 AM »
Quote
The shadow object is never seen in the sky because it orbits close to the sun. As the sun's powerful vertical rays hit the atmosphere during the day they will scatter and blot out nearly every single star and celestial body in the sky. We are never given a glimpse of the celestial bodies which appear near the sun during the day - they are completely washed out by the sun's light.
If it's so easily blotted out by the sun, then how can the "shadow object" cast a significant enough shadow to eclipse the moon?  If it can never be seen, then what empirical evidence is there that it even exists?

What makes you think that there is sky between the sun and the moon?
Huh?  What do you mean?

The atmolayer is on the surface of the earth, not in space between the sun and the moon.

#### Curious Squirrel

• 1338
##### Re: 2019 Total Lunar Eclipse
« Reply #41 on: January 04, 2019, 12:37:40 AM »
Take a look at Saros Series 1

https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/LEsaros/LEsaros001.html

The first entry and second entry are 18 years apart from each other in 2570 BC and then 2552 BC. Those eclipses down that list are the ones which repeat.

Look down the Gamma field column. Those numbers gradually lessen in interger. Penn Magg gradually increases in interger. Um. Mag lessens in interger.

To find the pattern in a series of increasing or decreasing numbers like that there are tools to turn it into a polynomial equation.
Yes, the Eclipses that occur under a single Saros Cycle start with a Penumbral Eclipse, progress through partial, total, partial, and back to penumbral ones again before ending the cycle. I've run a number of these through a tool to make them into an equation. They've returned what I would best describe as 'gobbledegook' in terms of an equation. Essentially creating a unique equation specifically to link those points that has little bearing to the equation of any other Saros cycle. The only 'reliable pattern' that I have so far determined is the duration between each eclipse in a cycle. But I have yet to figure out any manner by which to determine something more granular about a specific eclipse outside of this using only information from other eclipses. I also haven't found anything online yet about creating an equation specifically in this manner.

#### Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 9099
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: 2019 Total Lunar Eclipse
« Reply #42 on: January 04, 2019, 12:47:30 AM »
Take a look at Saros Series 1

https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/LEsaros/LEsaros001.html

The first entry and second entry are 18 years apart from each other in 2570 BC and then 2552 BC. Those eclipses down that list are the ones which repeat.

Look down the Gamma field column. Those numbers gradually lessen in interger. Penn Magg gradually increases in interger. Um. Mag lessens in interger.

To find the pattern in a series of increasing or decreasing numbers like that there are tools to turn it into a polynomial equation.
Yes, the Eclipses that occur under a single Saros Cycle start with a Penumbral Eclipse, progress through partial, total, partial, and back to penumbral ones again before ending the cycle. I've run a number of these through a tool to make them into an equation. They've returned what I would best describe as 'gobbledegook' in terms of an equation. Essentially creating a unique equation specifically to link those points that has little bearing to the equation of any other Saros cycle. The only 'reliable pattern' that I have so far determined is the duration between each eclipse in a cycle. But I have yet to figure out any manner by which to determine something more granular about a specific eclipse outside of this using only information from other eclipses. I also haven't found anything online yet about creating an equation specifically in this manner.

The automated tools will usually return gobeldy-gook equations. One would need to interpret it by hand to create better ones.

Per those equations only being applicable to that series it is from, that may be a valid method that is performed.

#### Rama Set

• 8660
• Round and round...
##### Re: 2019 Total Lunar Eclipse
« Reply #43 on: January 04, 2019, 01:17:30 AM »
The atmolayer is on the surface of the earth, not in space between the sun and the moon.

Do you have any evidence we can examine regarding this claim?
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

#### Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 9099
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: 2019 Total Lunar Eclipse
« Reply #44 on: January 04, 2019, 01:25:39 AM »
On the subject of the Solar Eclipse, I find the following to be interesting:

On the globe the paths look rather odd:

http://eclipse-maps.com/Eclipse-Maps/Welcome.html

On the Flat Earth map the paths seem to be perfect arcs:

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/34834/34834-h/34834-h.htm (p. 113)

Fig. 36.—Central eclipses for the first two decades of the twentieth century. Oppolzer.

Text: 71. Future eclipses.—An eclipse map of a different kind is shown in Fig. 36, which represents the shadow paths of[Pg 114] all the central eclipses of the sun, visible during the period 1900-1918 A. D., in those parts of the earth north of the south temperate zone. Each continuous black line shows the path of the shadow in a total eclipse, from its beginning, at sunrise, at the western end of the line to its end, sunset, at the eastern end, the little circle near the middle of the line showing the place at which the eclipse was total at noon. The broken lines represent similar data for the annular eclipses. This map is one of a series prepared by the Austrian astronomer, Oppolzer, showing the path of every such eclipse from the year 1200[Pg 115] B. C. to 2160 A. D., a period of more than three thousand years.

Then there's this meme thing:

« Last Edit: January 04, 2019, 01:56:08 AM by Tom Bishop »

• 219
• Belief does not make something a theory.
##### Re: 2019 Total Lunar Eclipse
« Reply #45 on: January 04, 2019, 01:45:39 AM »
On the subject of the Solar Eclipse, I find the following to be interesting:

On the globe the paths look rather odd:

http://eclipse-maps.com/Eclipse-Maps/Welcome.html

I'll take a wild guess at this, but I welcome a RE expert to chime in and correct my guesses if wrong.  The orange line in the arcs show the path of the total solar eclipse, and the yellow border around it would be the partial eclipse.  As the moon orbits the earth on a different inclination than the earth orbits the sun, the path would not be a perfect arc for the period of the eclipse because the inclinations of the orbits of the moon/earth and earth/sun are different.
« Last Edit: January 04, 2019, 05:08:00 AM by Bad Puppy »
Quote from: Tom Bishop
...circles do not exist and pi is not 3.14159...

Quote from: totallackey
Do you have any evidence of reality?

#### markjo

• Purgatory
• 5875
• Zetetic Council runner-up
##### Re: 2019 Total Lunar Eclipse
« Reply #46 on: January 04, 2019, 01:59:36 AM »
Quote
The shadow object is never seen in the sky because it orbits close to the sun. As the sun's powerful vertical rays hit the atmosphere during the day they will scatter and blot out nearly every single star and celestial body in the sky. We are never given a glimpse of the celestial bodies which appear near the sun during the day - they are completely washed out by the sun's light.
If it's so easily blotted out by the sun, then how can the "shadow object" cast a significant enough shadow to eclipse the moon?  If it can never be seen, then what empirical evidence is there that it even exists?

What makes you think that there is sky between the sun and the moon?
Huh?  What do you mean?

The atmolayer is on the surface of the earth, not in space between the sun and the moon.
I'm sorry, but I don't see how that answers either of my questions.  Please elaborate.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

#firePete

#### Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 9099
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: 2019 Total Lunar Eclipse
« Reply #47 on: January 04, 2019, 02:01:47 AM »
Quote
The shadow object is never seen in the sky because it orbits close to the sun. As the sun's powerful vertical rays hit the atmosphere during the day they will scatter and blot out nearly every single star and celestial body in the sky. We are never given a glimpse of the celestial bodies which appear near the sun during the day - they are completely washed out by the sun's light.
If it's so easily blotted out by the sun, then how can the "shadow object" cast a significant enough shadow to eclipse the moon?  If it can never be seen, then what empirical evidence is there that it even exists?

What makes you think that there is sky between the sun and the moon?
Huh?  What do you mean?

The atmolayer is on the surface of the earth, not in space between the sun and the moon.
I'm sorry, but I don't see how that answers either of my questions.  Please elaborate.

The daylight sky blots out the celestial bodies near the sun during the day, preventing us from seeing any stars or other celestial bodies near the sun. However, there is no sky between the sun and the moon.

#### stack

• 2381
##### Re: 2019 Total Lunar Eclipse
« Reply #48 on: January 04, 2019, 02:07:11 AM »
Quote
The shadow object is never seen in the sky because it orbits close to the sun. As the sun's powerful vertical rays hit the atmosphere during the day they will scatter and blot out nearly every single star and celestial body in the sky. We are never given a glimpse of the celestial bodies which appear near the sun during the day - they are completely washed out by the sun's light.
If it's so easily blotted out by the sun, then how can the "shadow object" cast a significant enough shadow to eclipse the moon?  If it can never be seen, then what empirical evidence is there that it even exists?

What makes you think that there is sky between the sun and the moon?
Huh?  What do you mean?

The atmolayer is on the surface of the earth, not in space between the sun and the moon.
I'm sorry, but I don't see how that answers either of my questions.  Please elaborate.

The daylight sky blots out the celestial bodies near the sun during the day, preventing us from seeing any stars or other celestial bodies near the sun. However, there is no sky between the sun and the moon.

How do we know there's no sky between the moon and the sun on a flat earth?

#### Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 9099
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: 2019 Total Lunar Eclipse
« Reply #49 on: January 04, 2019, 02:16:41 AM »
How do we know there's no sky between the moon and the sun on a flat earth?

Because there is evidence that the atmosphere decreases in pressure with altitude.

#### stack

• 2381
##### Re: 2019 Total Lunar Eclipse
« Reply #50 on: January 04, 2019, 02:36:29 AM »
How do we know there's no sky between the moon and the sun on a flat earth?

Because there is evidence that the atmosphere decreases in pressure with altitude.

But zetetically, according FET, we've never been that high up, or even close to get a reading that atmospheric pressure has, in fact, decreased to the point where it's not longer sky. This seems to fall more in the FET bucket that the answer is unknown.

#### markjo

• Purgatory
• 5875
• Zetetic Council runner-up
##### Re: 2019 Total Lunar Eclipse
« Reply #51 on: January 04, 2019, 03:50:03 AM »
Quote
The shadow object is never seen in the sky because it orbits close to the sun. As the sun's powerful vertical rays hit the atmosphere during the day they will scatter and blot out nearly every single star and celestial body in the sky. We are never given a glimpse of the celestial bodies which appear near the sun during the day - they are completely washed out by the sun's light.
If it's so easily blotted out by the sun, then how can the "shadow object" cast a significant enough shadow to eclipse the moon?  If it can never be seen, then what empirical evidence is there that it even exists?

What makes you think that there is sky between the sun and the moon?
Huh?  What do you mean?

The atmolayer is on the surface of the earth, not in space between the sun and the moon.
I'm sorry, but I don't see how that answers either of my questions.  Please elaborate.

The daylight sky blots out the celestial bodies near the sun during the day, preventing us from seeing any stars or other celestial bodies near the sun. However, there is no sky between the sun and the moon.
Which brings us back to my question: since it can't be seen, what empirical evidence do you have that the shadow object exists and orbits near the sun?
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

#firePete

#### AllAroundTheWorld

• 4962
##### Re: 2019 Total Lunar Eclipse
« Reply #52 on: January 04, 2019, 08:06:09 AM »
On the Flat Earth map the paths seem to be perfect arcs:
What flat earth map? You keep saying there isn't one.
"On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa...Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore
- An excerpt from the account of the Bishop Experiment. My emphasis

#### shootingstar

##### Re: 2019 Total Lunar Eclipse
« Reply #53 on: January 04, 2019, 08:15:30 AM »
Lets just be clear about the difference between the term sky and the term atmosphere as some here seem to be unclear about that difference.

The sky is everything we see above our heads. That means everything which is above the horizon.  The horizon marks the boundary between the sky and the ground.

The atmosphere (or atmoplane, atmolayer if you prefer to call it that) is a layer or several layers of air that exists from the ground level up to about 100,000ft or so.  When we look into the sky we are looking through these layers of air which are transparent. The sky is NOT the same as the atmosphere as some here seem to think.

#### Curious Squirrel

• 1338
##### Re: 2019 Total Lunar Eclipse
« Reply #54 on: January 08, 2019, 02:27:18 PM »
Alright, I've worked the numbers regarding how long the parts of the Lunar Eclipse will last in every way I can, but I can't wring a pattern/equation that will reliably get me close to another series' numbers out of them. I'm neither a supercomputer, nor an expert on the topic, but I fail to see how Tom's claim that the duration of the eclipse is simply derived via working with patterns. I would love to see him validate his own claim however, assuming he even can. For now though as far as I'm concerned that idea is busted.

#### shootingstar

##### Re: 2019 Total Lunar Eclipse
« Reply #55 on: January 08, 2019, 02:38:25 PM »
So you are looking to see how you work out the lengths of the penumbral and umbral parts of a lunar eclipse and also how you work out the length of totality is that right? What figures did Tom quote out of interest?

#### Curious Squirrel

• 1338
##### Re: 2019 Total Lunar Eclipse
« Reply #56 on: January 08, 2019, 02:47:22 PM »
So you are looking to see how you work out the lengths of the penumbral and umbral parts of a lunar eclipse and also how you work out the length of totality is that right? What figures did Tom quote out of interest?
Been trying to find a way to use the duration of the parts of the eclipse to create an equation that would predict the duration of eclipses of other saros cycles (or honestly even just work to predict future ones in that cycle). Either via the lengths of penumbral/etc or via the given durations of the parts of the eclipse. I've just been using the 'raw' eclipse information from the various Saros cycles on NASA's website. f.e. https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/LEsaros/LEsaros001.html this is the relevant info for Saros 001.

#### Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 9099
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: 2019 Total Lunar Eclipse
« Reply #57 on: January 08, 2019, 03:40:09 PM »
It sound like you have admitted that there are patterns in each series to itself, but that you were unable, for whatever the cause, to use that same pattern for another series.

Since you were able to find a pattern in the series, and that each series has patterns that predict what the future will be in that series, it seems to me the claim is verified.

I imagine that a good mathematician could find some sort of pattern between the first entry of series 1, 2, 3, etc, until they repeat again. In fact, since the eclipses repeat, we know that the first entry of series 2 will repeat, if we go through them all in sequential border, so there must be a pattern in some manner.

3.. 78000... 23... 17... 78001... is a pattern.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2019, 04:00:52 PM by Tom Bishop »

#### shootingstar

##### Re: 2019 Total Lunar Eclipse
« Reply #58 on: January 08, 2019, 03:45:17 PM »
I would assume Tom that since lunar eclipses have been happening for a very long time and for the same reasons then each event is going to be very similar.   That qualifies as a form of pattern to me. How that relates to FE theory I'm not sure.

#### Curious Squirrel

• 1338
##### Re: 2019 Total Lunar Eclipse
« Reply #59 on: January 08, 2019, 04:05:48 PM »
It sound like you have admitted that there are patterns in each series to itself, but that you were unable, for whatever the cause, to use that same pattern for another series.

Since you were able to find a pattern in the series, and that each series has patterns that predict what the future will be in that series, it seems to me the claim is verified.

I imagine that a good mathematician could find some sort of pattern between the first entry of series 1, 2, 3, etc, until they repeat again. In fact, since the eclipses repeat, we know that the first entry of series 2 will repeat, if we go through them all in sequential border, so there must be a pattern in some manner.

3.. 78000... 23... 4... 78001... is a pattern.
Incorrect. I was unable to determine a workable pattern even for an individual series either. I.E. I could not find a way to construct an equation using any number of the first half or so of the set, that would then give me the numbers/information for the rest of the set. Is it possible that I would need to use the equation of a set, adjusted for the starting information in another set, and then I might be able to formulate decent ideas for what the rest of that second set contains? Yes. But I have at present been unable to do so. Although I also lack tools that would make that feasible in any kind of shorter time frame, and I'm not going to spend months going over these cycles on the chance I can make something work.