The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Ajaycee on December 23, 2014, 09:37:46 PM
-
I've read through the boards and can't find this topic with any refutation so I hope a little resurrection is in order.
If moonlight is reflected sunlight, the models for moonlight don't work for spherical-earth or flat-earth models.
Spherical Earth:
For a full moon; If the moon is held to be on the opposite side of earth from the sun, would that not create a lunar eclipse ?
For a full moon; If the moon is held to be on the same side of earth as the sun, would that not simply be a solar eclipse ?
For a full moon; If the moon is above/below the line of sight would the moon not have a dark edge below/above ?
Bendy light around a spherical object, depending on the surface, might bring the light to a focal point or scatter it as a flare; We see neither.
Conclusion:
The moon is a light source.
Thoughts please - sensible answers only.
-
Modern FET models hold that moonlight is reflected from the sun.
A solar eclipse is created when the moon aligns with the sun and the observer, and only occurs for a strip of land on the earth's surface at a time.
A lunar eclipse occurs for everyone, when a satellite of the sun called the Shadow Object casts a shadow on the moon, obscuring it. This Shadow Object is an undocumented planet circling closely to the sun. It is undocumented because it circles so close to the sun as to only appear in the "day" side of the earth and, therefore, blighted by the sun's brightness, just like all other celestial objects near the sun during the day.
-
Thanks Tom.
I'm really quite cool with the idea of the moon being a source of light; The sun is light source, I don't think the moon being so is any stretch of the imagination.
However, I do have some difficulty accepting an invisible anti-moon that blocks moonlight to cause a lunar eclipse. Is there anything that supports the anti-moon theory ?
-
The Shadow Object is a body which intersects the light between the sun and the moon, and is invisible because it is a satellite of the sun and is always on the day side of the earth. Read through my post again.
It is supported by direct observation. During a Lunar Eclipse it is observed that a shadow of a body is being cast upon the moon. The theory that the body is coming between the observer and the moon is disproven by high resolution and high contrast images showing the unbroken outline of the moon, and unbroken background stars, all throughout the Lunar Eclipse event. Therefore, the shadow is coming from a body between the sun and the moon, not between the observer and the moon. The matter has been investigated to some depth on the .org site to support the sun-as-a-light-source model.
-
OK Tom, Thanks.
I can't speak to your conclusions, I've not come across the photographs you refer to.
-
The Shadow Object is a body which intersects the light between the sun and the moon, and is invisible because it is a satellite of the sun and is always on the day side of the earth. Read through my post again.
It is supported by direct observation. During a Lunar Eclipse it is observed that a shadow of a body is being cast upon the moon. The theory that the body is coming between the observer and the moon is disproven by high resolution and high contrast images showing the unbroken outline of the moon, and unbroken background stars, all throughout the Lunar Eclipse event. Therefore, the shadow is coming from a body between the sun and the moon, not between the observer and the moon. The matter has been investigated to some depth on the .org site to support the sun-as-a-light-source model.
You are claiming to have directly observed the shadow object even though it is invisible? Choose your answer carefully because I am liable to throw it in your face in the Earth's Rotation thread.
-
The Shadow Object is a body which intersects the light between the sun and the moon, and is invisible because it is a satellite of the sun and is always on the day side of the earth. Read through my post again.
It is supported by direct observation. During a Lunar Eclipse it is observed that a shadow of a body is being cast upon the moon. The theory that the body is coming between the observer and the moon is disproven by high resolution and high contrast images showing the unbroken outline of the moon, and unbroken background stars, all throughout the Lunar Eclipse event. Therefore, the shadow is coming from a body between the sun and the moon, not between the observer and the moon. The matter has been investigated to some depth on the .org site to support the sun-as-a-light-source model.
You are claiming to have directly observed the shadow object even though it is invisible? Choose your answer carefully because I am liable to throw it in your face in the Earth's Rotation thread.
I was speaking in reference to the theory the Op brought up that the shadow object (or Anti-Moon) intersects the path of light between the observer and the moon to cause the Lunar Eclipse. There is observational evidence which says otherwise. There are pictures and video which suggest that it is a shadow cast upon the moon from another source.
-
The Shadow Object is a body which intersects the light between the sun and the moon, and is invisible because it is a satellite of the sun and is always on the day side of the earth. Read through my post again.
It is supported by direct observation. During a Lunar Eclipse it is observed that a shadow of a body is being cast upon the moon. The theory that the body is coming between the observer and the moon is disproven by high resolution and high contrast images showing the unbroken outline of the moon, and unbroken background stars, all throughout the Lunar Eclipse event. Therefore, the shadow is coming from a body between the sun and the moon, not between the observer and the moon. The matter has been investigated to some depth on the .org site to support the sun-as-a-light-source model.
You are claiming to have directly observed the shadow object even though it is invisible? Choose your answer carefully because I am liable to throw it in your face in the Earth's Rotation thread.
I was speaking in reference to the theory the Op brought up that the shadow object (or Anti-Moon) intersects the path of light between the observer and the moon to cause the Lunar Eclipse. There is observational evidence which says otherwise. There are pictures and video which suggest that it is a shadow cast upon the moon from another source.
So you have no direct observation. Noted (and not surprised). Please do feel free to present any direct, verifiable evidence in any thread at any time.
-
The Shadow Object is a body which intersects the light between the sun and the moon, and is invisible because it is a satellite of the sun and is always on the day side of the earth. Read through my post again.
It is supported by direct observation. During a Lunar Eclipse it is observed that a shadow of a body is being cast upon the moon. The theory that the body is coming between the observer and the moon is disproven by high resolution and high contrast images showing the unbroken outline of the moon, and unbroken background stars, all throughout the Lunar Eclipse event. Therefore, the shadow is coming from a body between the sun and the moon, not between the observer and the moon. The matter has been investigated to some depth on the .org site to support the sun-as-a-light-source model.
You are claiming to have directly observed the shadow object even though it is invisible? Choose your answer carefully because I am liable to throw it in your face in the Earth's Rotation thread.
I was speaking in reference to the theory the Op brought up that the shadow object (or Anti-Moon) intersects the path of light between the observer and the moon to cause the Lunar Eclipse. There is observational evidence which says otherwise. There are pictures and video which suggest that it is a shadow cast upon the moon from another source.
So you haven't directly observed the shadow object. Got it.
-
The shadow object is easily observable on clear nights. You'll see a blotch of stars missing in a circle shape in the night sky.
See for yourself.
-
The shadow object is easily observable on clear nights. You'll see a blotch of stars missing in a circle shape in the night sky.
See for yourself.
I have not seen it in 36 years of life and I like looking at the sky. No astronomers have seen it in hundreds of years of stargazing either. Maybe you can provide coordinates because your opinion of what is easily observable is drastically different than say, the dictionaries would be.
-
The shadow object is easily observable on clear nights. You'll see a blotch of stars missing in a circle shape in the night sky.
See for yourself.
Since you've made your outlandish claim again in this thread, I'll renew my challenge. Please provide evidence (or a citation) for your claim.
-
The shadow object is easily observable on clear nights. You'll see a blotch of stars missing in a circle shape in the night sky.
See for yourself.
Since you've made your outlandish claim again in this thread, I'll renew my challenge. Please provide evidence (or a citation) for your claim.
The whole, you need to provide proof thing because no one else has seen it doesnt work so well with Vaux, they will just personally insult you and disappear. :P
-
So you haven't directly observed the shadow object. Got it.
Since the phases of the moon always follow the general direction of the sun, the Shadow Object would be in a straight line path between the Sun and the Moon. A lot of the logic used for the Shadow Object in FET is the same logic used in RET.
- The Shadow Object is an object in space
- The shadow originates from a body between the sun and moon, not the moon and observer
- The Shadow Object is a planet which revolves around the sun
- The plane of rotation is probably not perfectly aligned with the moon, as the eclipses are not daily
- The Lunar Eclipse occur periodically when the Sun, Shadow Object and Moon perfectly align
The main difference between FET and RET is that RET theorists believe that the Shadow Object is the Earth.
-
Since the phases of the moon always follow the general direction of the sun, the Shadow Object would be in a straight line path between the Sun and the Moon. A lot of the logic used for the Shadow Object in FET is the same logic used in RET.
- The Shadow Object is an object in space
- The shadow originates from a body between the sun and moon, not the moon and observer
- The Shadow Object is a planet which revolves around the sun
- The plane of rotation is probably not perfectly aligned with the moon, as the eclipses are not daily
- The Lunar Eclipse occur periodically when the Sun, Shadow Object and Moon perfectly align
The main difference between FET and RET is that RET theorists believe that the Shadow Object is the Earth.
So you haven't directly observed the shadow object. Got it.
-
I've read through the boards and can't find this topic with any refutation so I hope a little resurrection is in order.
If moonlight is reflected sunlight, the models for moonlight don't work for spherical-earth or flat-earth models.
Spherical Earth:
For a full moon; If the moon is held to be on the opposite side of earth from the sun, would that not create a lunar eclipse ?
When it's orbital plane is lined up with the sun and Earth.
For a full moon; If the moon is held to be on the same side of earth as the sun, would that not simply be a solar eclipse ?
Again when it's orbital plane is lined up with the sun and Earth. This also wouldn't be a full moon.
For a full moon; If the moon is above/below the line of sight would the moon not have a dark edge below/above ?
If the angle is enough, no, but we do end up with partial eclipses if it's not enough.
Bendy light around a spherical object, depending on the surface, might bring the light to a focal point or scatter it as a flare; We see neither.
Conclusion:
The moon is a light source.
Do you have an explanation about the illuminated side always facing the sun?
-
I have personally observed a full moon, at sunrise, where the sun is visible on the eastern horizon, and the moon ~30 degrees above the western (an estimate using they height of my fist at arm's length as ~10 degrees, which I understand is customary among amateur astronomers). RET predicts that a full moon must occur when the angle between the moon and sun in the sky is 180 degrees. I am aware of the alleged atmospheric phenomena that can cause full moon and sun to be visible at the same time, but I do not expect that this would predict the moon appearing 30 degrees above the horizon. There were reasonably tall buildings in that direction; it was above them all.
To this end, I agree that the moon is a source of light in its own right. The nature of this light, and why its cycles seem to follow its position in the sky relative to the sun (but as we see, not always as predicted) I do not know, but I can tell you that based upon this, and several other observations of the moon phases and sun's position not making sense, that it is the situation that makes the most sense to me.
-
I have personally observed a full moon, at sunrise, where the sun is visible on the eastern horizon, and the moon ~30 degrees above the western (an estimate using they height of my fist at arm's length as ~10 degrees, which I understand is customary among amateur astronomers). RET predicts that a full moon must occur when the angle between the moon and sun in the sky is 180 degrees. I am aware of the alleged atmospheric phenomena that can cause full moon and sun to be visible at the same time, but I do not expect that this would predict the moon appearing 30 degrees above the horizon. There were reasonably tall buildings in that direction; it was above them all.
To this end, I agree that the moon is a source of light in its own right. The nature of this light, and why its cycles seem to follow its position in the sky relative to the sun (but as we see, not always as predicted) I do not know, but I can tell you that based upon this, and several other observations of the moon phases and sun's position not making sense, that it is the situation that makes the most sense to me.
A full moon occurs when the ecliptic longitude of the sun and moon are 180 degrees from one another, but their ecliptic latitude can vary, so what you saw was not any sort of violation of the model.
-
I have personally observed a full moon, at sunrise, where the sun is visible on the eastern horizon, and the moon ~30 degrees above the western (an estimate using they height of my fist at arm's length as ~10 degrees, which I understand is customary among amateur astronomers). RET predicts that a full moon must occur when the angle between the moon and sun in the sky is 180 degrees. I am aware of the alleged atmospheric phenomena that can cause full moon and sun to be visible at the same time, but I do not expect that this would predict the moon appearing 30 degrees above the horizon. There were reasonably tall buildings in that direction; it was above them all.
Just out of curiosity, are you sure that it was it the actual day of the full moon? To me, at least, the moon's apparent fullness on the the day before, the day of and the day after the full moon all look pretty much the same.
-
I have personally observed a full moon, at sunrise, where the sun is visible on the eastern horizon, and the moon ~30 degrees above the western (an estimate using they height of my fist at arm's length as ~10 degrees, which I understand is customary among amateur astronomers). RET predicts that a full moon must occur when the angle between the moon and sun in the sky is 180 degrees. I am aware of the alleged atmospheric phenomena that can cause full moon and sun to be visible at the same time, but I do not expect that this would predict the moon appearing 30 degrees above the horizon. There were reasonably tall buildings in that direction; it was above them all.
Just out of curiosity, are you sure that it was it the actual day of the full moon? To me, at least, the moon's apparent fullness on the the day before, the day of and the day after the full moon all look pretty much the same.
Actually Tintagel already noted that his observation was the day after that full moon.
Also, I've repeatedly pointed out the straw man that FEers sometimes use that the moon orbits in a circle, ignoring Kepler's laws of planetary motion. They've been making that obvious mistake since EnaG.
-
Kepler's laws of planetary motion
The moon is not a planet.
-
Kepler's laws of planetary motion
The moon is not a planet.
Fortunately the title of the laws are not exclusive.
-
Kepler's laws of planetary motion
The moon is not a planet.
Fortunately the title of the laws are not exclusive.
We must be talking about very different things.
In astronomy, Kepler's laws of planetary motion are three scientific laws describing the motion of planets around the Sun.
- The orbit of a planet is an ellipse with the Sun at one of the two foci.
- A line segment joining a planet and the Sun sweeps out equal areas during equal intervals of time.
- The square of the orbital period of a planet is proportional to the cube of the semi-major axis of its orbit.
-
Kepler's laws of planetary motion
The moon is not a planet.
Did you have a point? I never claimed that the moon was a planet. I claimed that FEers too often ignore the Kepler's laws. Do you agree with Tintagel's inane 180o statement or something?
-
Did you have a point? I never claimed that the moon was a planet. I claimed that FEers too often ignore the Kepler's laws.
Ignoring the laws of planetary motion appears to be a sensible approach to things which aren't planetary motion.
-
Did you have a point? I never claimed that the moon was a planet. I claimed that FEers too often ignore the Kepler's laws.
Ignoring the laws of planetary motion appears to be a sensible approach to things which aren't planetary motion.
Nope. Those laws are a great result leading to understanding of the multiple-body problems and solutions. If an FEer wishes to build straw man, he or she should at least understand the basics of orbits instead of making wildly inaccurate claims about 180o and such.
-
Kepler's laws of planetary motion
The moon is not a planet.
Fortunately the title of the laws are not exclusive.
We must be talking about very different things.
In astronomy, Kepler's laws of planetary motion are three scientific laws describing the motion of planets around the Sun.
- The orbit of a planet is an ellipse with the Sun at one of the two foci.
- A line segment joining a planet and the Sun sweeps out equal areas during equal intervals of time.
- The square of the orbital period of a planet is proportional to the cube of the semi-major axis of its orbit.
If you are trying to say that Kepler's laws are not applicable to other celestial bodies, satellites or any orbiting mass, you would be wrong. A brief Internet search provides a number of links to calculators and educational resources on the subject.
-
If you are trying to say that Kepler's laws are not applicable to other celestial bodies, satellites or any orbiting mass, you would be wrong.
I would be absolutely correct, unless you're willing to demonstrate that the moon's orbit is an ellipse with the sun at one of the two foci.
Given that Gulliver's claim is a pedantic attack on the 10% amplitude in the RET moon's orbit's radius (which belongs to the same school of unnecessary points as but FE isn't really flat because hills exist lol! or RE isn't really round because it's actually an oblate spheroid hehehe), it's only fair that we call him out on his "obvious mistakes" too. He needs to learn that he will not be taken seriously if he behaves like this.
I also quite like how he keeps referring to the very non-specific "claims about 180° and such". He's not even capable of repeating what Tintagel said accurately, let alone construct a coherent response.
-
If you are trying to say that Kepler's laws are not applicable to other celestial bodies, satellites or any orbiting mass, you would be wrong.
I would be absolutely correct, unless you're willing to demonstrate that the moon's orbit is an ellipse with the sun at one of the two foci.
Given that Gulliver's claim is a pedantic attack on the 10% amplitude in the RET moon's orbit's radius (which belongs to the same school of unnecessary points as but FE isn't really flat because hills exist lol! or RE isn't really round because it's actually an oblate spheroid hehehe), it's only fair that we call him out on his "obvious mistakes" too. He needs to learn that he will not be taken seriously if he behaves like this.
I also quite like how he keeps referring to the very non-specific "claims about 180° and such". He's not even capable of repeating what Tintagel said accurately, let alone construct a coherent response.
I have no problem calling out other's mistakes but it should be acknowledged that Kepler's laws apply apply to orbits other than planets around the sun. You cannot use the general form of the law of periods but there is s more detailed equation that can and is used for the Earth-Moon orbit.
http://www.idialstars.com/kls.htm
Edit: Added a link to various implementations of Kepler's 3rd Law, including a comparison of the Moon's orbit around the Earth to Io's orbit around Jupiter.
-
Sounds like you're just taking the concept of a Keplerian orbit and insisting that it necessarily requires the invocation of Kepler's 3rd Law of Planetary Motion. It doesn't. The two merely happen to have some overlap.
-
Sounds like you're just taking the concept of a Keplerian orbit and insisting that it necessarily requires the invocation of Kepler's 3rd Law of Planetary Motion. It doesn't. The two merely happen to have some overlap.
What I have clearly been saying is that Kepler's 3rd law can be used to calculate the orbit of celestial bodies other than planets.
-
What I have clearly been saying is that Kepler's 3rd law can be used to calculate the orbit of celestial bodies other than planets.
Yes, erroneously. And I explained to you where the overlapping equations actually come from. You're welcome.
-
What I have clearly been saying is that Kepler's 3rd law can be used to calculate the orbit of celestial bodies other than planets.
Yes, erroneously. And I explained to you where the overlapping equations actually come from. You're welcome.
No no, that is you either ignoring research or not having done research or just basing your conclusion on something other than the math and observations. Kepler's 3rd law in its original and general form requires an extremely large center of mass relative to the orbiting bodies (e.g. The sun and the planets or Jupiter and the Galilean moons. There is a more detailed formula derived using Newton's work which can be applied to more equal masses like the Earth-Moon system.
-
No no, that is you either ignoring research or not having done research or just basing your conclusion on something other than the math and observations.
No, I'm telling you you're using the right maths for RET. You're just calling it the wrong name, because the moons are not planets and the sun isn't the focus you want to use. This isn't hard.
-
No no, that is you either ignoring research or not having done research or just basing your conclusion on something other than the math and observations.
No, I'm telling you you're using the right maths for RET. You're just calling it the wrong name, because the moons are not planets and the sun isn't the focus you want to use. This isn't hard.
It doesn't seem to be anything other than needless pedantry either. I bet that you also like to point out things like Panama hats come from Ecuador.
-
It doesn't seem to be anything other than needless pedantry either.
Recall the original point of my objection.
Given that Gulliver's claim is a pedantic attack on the 10% amplitude in the RET moon's orbit's radius (which belongs to the same school of unnecessary points as but FE isn't really flat because hills exist lol! or RE isn't really round because it's actually an oblate spheroid hehehe), it's only fair that we call him out on his "obvious mistakes" too. He needs to learn that he will not be taken seriously if he behaves like this.
I also quite like how he keeps referring to the very non-specific "claims about 180° and such". He's not even capable of repeating what Tintagel said accurately, let alone construct a coherent response.
And the post that prompted it:
Also, I've repeatedly pointed out the straw man that FEers sometimes use that the moon orbits in a circle, ignoring Kepler's laws of planetary motion. They've been making that obvious mistake since EnaG.
If your side of the debate chooses to reduce a subject to absurdity, please do not act surprised when some of us respond in kind.
-
It doesn't seem to be anything other than needless pedantry either.
Recall the original point of my objection.
Given that Gulliver's claim is a pedantic attack on the 10% amplitude in the RET moon's orbit's radius (which belongs to the same school of unnecessary points as but FE isn't really flat because hills exist lol! or RE isn't really round because it's actually an oblate spheroid hehehe), it's only fair that we call him out on his "obvious mistakes" too. He needs to learn that he will not be taken seriously if he behaves like this.
I also quite like how he keeps referring to the very non-specific "claims about 180° and such". He's not even capable of repeating what Tintagel said accurately, let alone construct a coherent response.
And the post that prompted it:
Also, I've repeatedly pointed out the straw man that FEers sometimes use that the moon orbits in a circle, ignoring Kepler's laws of planetary motion. They've been making that obvious mistake since EnaG.
If your side of the debate chooses to reduce a subject to absurdity, please do not act surprised when some of us respond in kind.
Glad to see you are engaged in mutually assured destruction. You could have done what I did with you which is simply criticize your thinking, but I suppose this is more entertaining.
-
I have personally observed a full moon, at sunrise, where the sun is visible on the eastern horizon, and the moon ~30 degrees above the western (an estimate using they height of my fist at arm's length as ~10 degrees, which I understand is customary among amateur astronomers). RET predicts that a full moon must occur when the angle between the moon and sun in the sky is 180 degrees. I am aware of the alleged atmospheric phenomena that can cause full moon and sun to be visible at the same time, but I do not expect that this would predict the moon appearing 30 degrees above the horizon. There were reasonably tall buildings in that direction; it was above them all.
Just out of curiosity, are you sure that it was it the actual day of the full moon? To me, at least, the moon's apparent fullness on the the day before, the day of and the day after the full moon all look pretty much the same.
Actually Tintagel already noted that his observation was the day after that full moon.
Also, I've repeatedly pointed out the straw man that FEers sometimes use that the moon orbits in a circle, ignoring Kepler's laws of planetary motion. They've been making that obvious mistake since EnaG.
Her observation, in fact.
And yes, it was 24 hours after the actual full moon. I know because the night before was a total lunar eclipse, one of those "rare" ones when the sun and moon are both visible in the sky, another violation of the RET moon model. Moreover, if the moon's orbit subtends an arc of ~30 degrees in the sky in a mere 24 hours, then there should only be ~12 days between moon phases. There are photos elsewhere on the forum of this moon.
-
As I mentioned the only requirement for a full moon is 180 degree difference in their celestial longitude which you appeared to have observed.
-
As I mentioned the only requirement for a full moon is 180 degree difference in their celestial longitude which you appeared to have observed.
There was a lunar eclipse 24 hours prior. How this can happen if the moon is so far away from the plane of the ecliptic? I also doubt the existing model allows for a 30 degree discrepancy, ever.
-
As I mentioned the only requirement for a full moon is 180 degree difference in their celestial longitude which you appeared to have observed.
There was a lunar eclipse 24 hours prior. How this can happen if the moon is so far away from the plane of the ecliptic? I also doubt the existing model allows for a 30 degree discrepancy, ever.
1) You're forgetting that you only approximated the angle of the moon above the horizon.
2) You're forgetting that the 180o only applies to the peak of a full eclipse.
3) You're forgetting that you failed to provide the horizon in the photograph.
4) You're forgetting that you failed to provide time stamps.
5) You're forgetting that you failed to photograph the sun and to estimate how high it was.
6) You also failed to proved latitude and longitude.
Please come back when you learn how to record experimental evidence properly and please stop making conclusion on incomplete data on a RET event that you don't fully understand. Thanks.
-
As I mentioned the only requirement for a full moon is 180 degree difference in their celestial longitude which you appeared to have observed.
There was a lunar eclipse 24 hours prior. How this can happen if the moon is so far away from the plane of the ecliptic? I also doubt the existing model allows for a 30 degree discrepancy, ever.
1) You're forgetting that you only approximated the angle of the moon above the horizon.
2) You're forgetting that the 180o only applies to the peak of a full eclipse.
3) You're forgetting that you failed to provide the horizon in the photograph.
4) You're forgetting that you failed to provide time stamps.
5) You're forgetting that you failed to photograph the sun and to estimate how high it was.
6) You also failed to proved latitude and longitude.
Please come back when you learn how to record experimental evidence properly and please stop making conclusion on incomplete data on a RET event that you don't fully understand. Thanks.
Although this point is a little heavy-handed, I tend to agree. Your observation appears close enough to the model on it's face that I would not be surprised a more technical analysis of what you saw would be able to account for it satisfactorily.
-
As I mentioned the only requirement for a full moon is 180 degree difference in their celestial longitude which you appeared to have observed.
There was a lunar eclipse 24 hours prior. How this can happen if the moon is so far away from the plane of the ecliptic? I also doubt the existing model allows for a 30 degree discrepancy, ever.
1) You're forgetting that you only approximated the angle of the moon above the horizon.
2) You're forgetting that the 180o only applies to the peak of a full eclipse.
3) You're forgetting that you failed to provide the horizon in the photograph.
4) You're forgetting that you failed to provide time stamps.
5) You're forgetting that you failed to photograph the sun and to estimate how high it was.
6) You also failed to proved latitude and longitude.
Please come back when you learn how to record experimental evidence properly and please stop making conclusion on incomplete data on a RET event that you don't fully understand. Thanks.
They were vacation photos; I only realized later what had happened. I wasn't attempting to conduct an experiment. I apologize that I don't vacation with your standards of scientific rigor.
-
As I mentioned the only requirement for a full moon is 180 degree difference in their celestial longitude which you appeared to have observed.
There was a lunar eclipse 24 hours prior. How this can happen if the moon is so far away from the plane of the ecliptic? I also doubt the existing model allows for a 30 degree discrepancy, ever.
1) You're forgetting that you only approximated the angle of the moon above the horizon.
2) You're forgetting that the 180o only applies to the peak of a full eclipse.
3) You're forgetting that you failed to provide the horizon in the photograph.
4) You're forgetting that you failed to provide time stamps.
5) You're forgetting that you failed to photograph the sun and to estimate how high it was.
6) You also failed to proved latitude and longitude.
Please come back when you learn how to record experimental evidence properly and please stop making conclusion on incomplete data on a RET event that you don't fully understand. Thanks.
They were vacation photos; I only realized later what had happened. I wasn't attempting to conduct an experiment. I apologize that I don't vacation with your standards of scientific rigor.
You do need then to stop presenting your evidence as anything close to rigorous. Thank you.
-
As I mentioned the only requirement for a full moon is 180 degree difference in their celestial longitude which you appeared to have observed.
There was a lunar eclipse 24 hours prior. How this can happen if the moon is so far away from the plane of the ecliptic? I also doubt the existing model allows for a 30 degree discrepancy, ever.
1) You're forgetting that you only approximated the angle of the moon above the horizon.
2) You're forgetting that the 180o only applies to the peak of a full eclipse.
3) You're forgetting that you failed to provide the horizon in the photograph.
4) You're forgetting that you failed to provide time stamps.
5) You're forgetting that you failed to photograph the sun and to estimate how high it was.
6) You also failed to proved latitude and longitude.
Please come back when you learn how to record experimental evidence properly and please stop making conclusion on incomplete data on a RET event that you don't fully understand. Thanks.
They were vacation photos; I only realized later what had happened. I wasn't attempting to conduct an experiment. I apologize that I don't vacation with your standards of scientific rigor.
You do need then to stop presenting your evidence as anything close to rigorous. Thank you.
When did I do that? I presented them as vacation photos. I reported observations, which were backed up by photographs. Nothing more. Don't put words in my mouth.
-
As I mentioned the only requirement for a full moon is 180 degree difference in their celestial longitude which you appeared to have observed.
There was a lunar eclipse 24 hours prior. How this can happen if the moon is so far away from the plane of the ecliptic? I also doubt the existing model allows for a 30 degree discrepancy, ever.
1) You're forgetting that you only approximated the angle of the moon above the horizon.
2) You're forgetting that the 180o only applies to the peak of a full eclipse.
3) You're forgetting that you failed to provide the horizon in the photograph.
4) You're forgetting that you failed to provide time stamps.
5) You're forgetting that you failed to photograph the sun and to estimate how high it was.
6) You also failed to proved latitude and longitude.
Please come back when you learn how to record experimental evidence properly and please stop making conclusion on incomplete data on a RET event that you don't fully understand. Thanks.
They were vacation photos; I only realized later what had happened. I wasn't attempting to conduct an experiment. I apologize that I don't vacation with your standards of scientific rigor.
You do need then to stop presenting your evidence as anything close to rigorous. Thank you.
When did I do that? I presented them as vacation photos. I reported observations, which were backed up by photographs. Nothing more. Don't put words in my mouth.
For one example, here:
I have personally observed a full moon, at sunrise, where the sun is visible on the eastern horizon, and the moon ~30 degrees above the western (an estimate using they height of my fist at arm's length as ~10 degrees, which I understand is customary among amateur astronomers). RET predicts that a full moon must occur when the angle between the moon and sun in the sky is 180 degrees. I am aware of the alleged atmospheric phenomena that can cause full moon and sun to be visible at the same time, but I do not expect that this would predict the moon appearing 30 degrees above the horizon. There were reasonably tall buildings in that direction; it was above them all.
That was not a full moon. When you're on vacation, do you expect us to know that you're not being rigorous in your claims?
-
I have personally observed a full moon, at sunrise, where the sun is visible on the eastern horizon, and the moon ~30 degrees above the western (an estimate using they height of my fist at arm's length as ~10 degrees, which I understand is customary among amateur astronomers). RET predicts that a full moon must occur when the angle between the moon and sun in the sky is 180 degrees. I am aware of the alleged atmospheric phenomena that can cause full moon and sun to be visible at the same time, but I do not expect that this would predict the moon appearing 30 degrees above the horizon. There were reasonably tall buildings in that direction; it was above them all.
Just out of curiosity, are you sure that it was it the actual day of the full moon? To me, at least, the moon's apparent fullness on the the day before, the day of and the day after the full moon all look pretty much the same.
Actually Tintagel already noted that his observation was the day after that full moon.
Also, I've repeatedly pointed out the straw man that FEers sometimes use that the moon orbits in a circle, ignoring Kepler's laws of planetary motion. They've been making that obvious mistake since EnaG.
Her observation, in fact.
And yes, it was 24 hours after the actual full moon.
Then it wasn't a full moon that you observed. Technically, the moon is "full" for all of about a minute.
I know because the night before was a total lunar eclipse, one of those "rare" ones when the sun and moon are both visible in the sky, another violation of the RET moon model.
Actually, selenelion occurs every lunar eclipse. However, since it only occurs where the totality of the lunar eclipse is visible at sunrise or sunset, it's rarely observed. Then again, that's another discussion.
Moreover, if the moon's orbit subtends an arc of ~30 degrees in the sky in a mere 24 hours, then there should only be ~12 days between moon phases. There are photos elsewhere on the forum of this moon.
If you look at a moonrise/moonset chart (http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/moonrise.html), you will notice that, from day to day, the time for moonrise will change anywhere from about 45 to 75 minutes or so. Moonrise on the day after the full moon is about 55 minutes later than moonrise on the day of the full moon.
-
As I mentioned the only requirement for a full moon is 180 degree difference in their celestial longitude which you appeared to have observed.
There was a lunar eclipse 24 hours prior. How this can happen if the moon is so far away from the plane of the ecliptic? I also doubt the existing model allows for a 30 degree discrepancy, ever.
1) You're forgetting that you only approximated the angle of the moon above the horizon.
2) You're forgetting that the 180o only applies to the peak of a full eclipse.
3) You're forgetting that you failed to provide the horizon in the photograph.
4) You're forgetting that you failed to provide time stamps.
5) You're forgetting that you failed to photograph the sun and to estimate how high it was.
6) You also failed to proved latitude and longitude.
Please come back when you learn how to record experimental evidence properly and please stop making conclusion on incomplete data on a RET event that you don't fully understand. Thanks.
They were vacation photos; I only realized later what had happened. I wasn't attempting to conduct an experiment. I apologize that I don't vacation with your standards of scientific rigor.
You do need then to stop presenting your evidence as anything close to rigorous. Thank you.
When did I do that? I presented them as vacation photos. I reported observations, which were backed up by photographs. Nothing more. Don't put words in my mouth.
For one example, here:
I have personally observed a full moon, at sunrise, where the sun is visible on the eastern horizon, and the moon ~30 degrees above the western (an estimate using they height of my fist at arm's length as ~10 degrees, which I understand is customary among amateur astronomers). RET predicts that a full moon must occur when the angle between the moon and sun in the sky is 180 degrees. I am aware of the alleged atmospheric phenomena that can cause full moon and sun to be visible at the same time, but I do not expect that this would predict the moon appearing 30 degrees above the horizon. There were reasonably tall buildings in that direction; it was above them all.
That was not a full moon. When you're on vacation, do you expect us to know that you're not being rigorous in your claims?
If the moon is only full for about five minutes, then very few people actually see one, I suppose.
-
If the moon is only full for about five minutes, then very few people actually see one, I suppose.
I guess you're learning. I suppose I should give you some credit.
Here's the big mistake that you've made. You decided that the RET definition of the full moon allowed that you could discern one without consulting a calendar or using a telescope. When you reason from faulty premises and then come up with a conclusion that RET is faulty, you fail.
-
Nonetheless, ignoring simple geometry doesn't advance your case, Gulliver.
-
Nonetheless, ignoring simple geometry doesn't advance your case, Gulliver.
And what simple geometry has anyone ignored?
-
And what simple geometry has anyone ignored?
Trigonometry.
-
And what simple geometry has anyone ignored?
Trigonometry.
So what trigonometry has anyone ignored? Why don't you use quotes to make your case--unless, of course, you don't have one to make?
-
Why don't you use quotes to make your case--unless, of course, you don't have one to make?
I already have. I consider my job here to be done. Whether or not you'll learn from it is entirely up to you.
-
Why don't you use quotes to make your case--unless, of course, you don't have one to make?
I already have. I consider my job here to be done. Whether or not you'll learn from it is entirely up to you.
Come now PP, you know that us poor, ignorant RE'ers need to be spoon fed everything.