The Lunar Eclipse. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .A Lunar Eclipse occurs about twice a year when a satellite of the sun passes between the sun and moon.
This satellite is called the Shadow Object. Its orbital plane is tilted at an angle of about 5°10' to the sun's orbital plane[1], making eclipses possible only when the three bodies (Sun, Object, and Moon) are aligned and when the moon is crossing the sun's orbital plane (at a point called the node). . . . . . . . A lunar eclipse can be seen from the entire half of the earth beneath the moon at that time. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The shadow object is never seen because it orbits close to the sun.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .It is estimated that the Shadow Object is around five to ten miles in diameter. Since it is somewhat close to the sun the manifestation of its penumbra upon the moon appears as a magnified projection. This is similar to how during a shadow puppet show your hand's shadow can make a large magnified projection upon your bedroom wall as you move it closer to the flashlight.
From The Lunar Eclipse (http://wiki.tfes.org/The_Lunar_Eclipse)
I have posted essentially the same material numerous times here and on The Flat Earth Society, Forum (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/) and I have never had a satisfactory answer.
This is what "the Wiki" says (bits about solar eclipse etc, removed for brevity):Quote from: The WikiThe Lunar Eclipse. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .A Lunar Eclipse occurs about twice a year when a satellite of the sun passes between the sun and moon.
This satellite is called the Shadow Object. Its orbital plane is tilted at an angle of about 5°10' to the sun's orbital plane[1], making eclipses possible only when the three bodies (Sun, Object, and Moon) are aligned and when the moon is crossing the sun's orbital plane (at a point called the node). . . . . . . . A lunar eclipse can be seen from the entire half of the earth beneath the moon at that time. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The shadow object is never seen because it orbits close to the sun.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .It is estimated that the Shadow Object is around five to ten miles in diameter. Since it is somewhat close to the sun the manifestation of its penumbra upon the moon appears as a magnified projection. This is similar to how during a shadow puppet show your hand's shadow can make a large magnified projection upon your bedroom wall as you move it closer to the flashlight.
From The Lunar Eclipse (http://wiki.tfes.org/The_Lunar_Eclipse)
This is my interpretation of that geometry. In this diagram the size of the objects has been enlarged (or they would be almost invisible), but the locations are approximately to scale:(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Astronomy/Flat%20Earth%20Sun%20Lunar%20Eclipse_zpsmjltzrtj.png)
With the "shadow object" so small, it is quite impossible for the it to cast any significant shadow on the moon. Almost all of the sunlight will shine around it.
If my interpretation of the geometry or light paths is incorrect, I would love to be informed, but please no massive refraction or magnification in the atmoplane, there is no atmoplane 5,000 km up!So, I claim that "the Wiki" explanation of the Lunar Eclipse is completely incorrect, so what is the true cause of a Lunar Eclipse.
Some will I ask why I am asking the same question over and over. The answer to that is simple - it has not yet been answered.
[1] If the "shadow object" can never be seen, how was the inclination of its orbit determined, for we are told "Its orbital plane is tilted at an angle of about 5°10' to the sun's orbital plane"?
I can guess, that's simply been "borrowed" from the measured orbital inclination of the moon by astronomers!
Assuming the flat earth moon is 32 miles in diameter and the dark or shadow object is 5 to 10 miles in diameter, would it be possible to view the transit of this dark or shadow object across the face of the flat earth sun as have the transits of Mercury and Venus have been viewed on the round earth sun?Well, in the real world Mercury is 1/285 the size of the sun, and we can see Mercury transits just fine. In the FE world, the 'shadow object' is 1/6 to 1/3 the size of the sun, and yet somehow nobody has ever seen it...
Well, in the real world Mercury is 1/285 the size of the sun, and we can see Mercury transits just fine. In the FE world, the 'shadow object' is 1/6 to 1/3 the size of the sun, and yet somehow nobody has ever seen it...Yet this shadow object can cast a shadow (the umbra) that is around four times the moon's apparent diameter.
Whatever happened to giving FEers a week to answer? ;DWell, once the discussion began there was no point waiting...
Whatever happened to giving FEers a week to answer? ;DWell, once the discussion began there was no point waiting...
With the "shadow object" so small, it is quite impossible for the it to cast any significant shadow on the moon. Almost all of the sunlight will shine around it.
Do I really have to draw a picture? Your sun and moon are each some 32 miles in diameter and the "Shadow Object is around five to ten miles in diameter".With the "shadow object" so small, it is quite impossible for the it to cast any significant shadow on the moon. Almost all of the sunlight will shine around it.
Please explain how and why sunlight would "shine around it" in space.
With the "shadow object" so small, it is quite impossible for the it to cast any significant shadow on the moon. Almost all of the sunlight will shine around it.
Please explain how and why sunlight would "shine around it" in space.
I tried explain a lot of things yet I am sure that the lunar eclipse is caused the globe shadow.
I do believe lunar eclipse caused by the shadow from Globe earth, by I do believe the earth to be very vivid and change phases from Concavity to flat(very short time of the year) to sphere. The best map I know today is to take google map or other projection and put the west as north and vice versa.I tried explain a lot of things yet I am sure that the lunar eclipse is caused the globe shadow.
Then you believe that the earth is a globe and a lunar eclipse is not caused by some "shadow object" ?
Do I really have to draw a picture? Your sun and moon are each some 32 miles in diameter and the "Shadow Object is around five to ten miles in diameter".With the "shadow object" so small, it is quite impossible for the it to cast any significant shadow on the moon. Almost all of the sunlight will shine around it.
Please explain how and why sunlight would "shine around it" in space.
Please explain how a 10 mile diameter object can block all the light from a 32 mile diameter sun from a 32 mile diameter moon.
It does no matter where the shadow object is located, it cannot block much light.
I do believe that we have infinite options of traveling in our planet the gateway is the poles, they have strange mechanism how they work and in short time of the year the "Phantom" islands of the north pole could be really true continents.I do believe lunar eclipse caused by the shadow from Globe earth, by I do believe the earth to be very vivid and change phases from Concavity to flat(very short time of the year) to sphere. The best map I know today is to take google map or other projection and put the west as north and vice versa.I tried explain a lot of things yet I am sure that the lunar eclipse is caused the globe shadow.
Then you believe that the earth is a globe and a lunar eclipse is not caused by some "shadow object" ?
Do I really have to draw a picture? Your sun and moon are each some 32 miles in diameter and the "Shadow Object is around five to ten miles in diameter".With the "shadow object" so small, it is quite impossible for the it to cast any significant shadow on the moon. Almost all of the sunlight will shine around it.
Please explain how and why sunlight would "shine around it" in space.
Please explain how a 10 mile diameter object can block all the light from a 32 mile diameter sun from a 32 mile diameter moon.
It does no matter where the shadow object is located, it cannot block much light.
With the "shadow object" so small, it is quite impossible for the it to cast any significant shadow on the moon. Almost all of the sunlight will shine around it.
Please explain how and why sunlight would "shine around it" in space.
Here is an experiment you can observe. Get a spotlight with a 3" face. Draw a 3" circle on the wall. Position the light so it is fully illuminating the circle on the wall. Try to block all the light from reaching the circle with a quarter. Or your thumb. You can block some of the light but certainly not all of it. If the center of your beam is aimed directly at the circle you can hardly even notice the effect of the quarter or thumb no matter where you place it.
With the "shadow object" so small, it is quite impossible for the it to cast any significant shadow on the moon. Almost all of the sunlight will shine around it.
Please explain how and why sunlight would "shine around it" in space.
Here is an experiment you can observe. Get a spotlight with a 3" face. Draw a 3" circle on the wall. Position the light so it is fully illuminating the circle on the wall. Try to block all the light from reaching the circle with a quarter. Or your thumb. You can block some of the light but certainly not all of it. If the center of your beam is aimed directly at the circle you can hardly even notice the effect of the quarter or thumb no matter where you place it.
If you had a spotlight and a quarter you could position the quarter to where it is making a shadow with a much larger diameter than the quarter.
In space there is no atmosphere to reflect or diffuse light, and so blur would not occur.
So you're saying that if we had a spot light, it's impossible to make shadows with anything smaller than the diameter of the spotlight?No. We're saying that if the following are true:
That is not the argument at all that was presented to me, or in this thread. It was alleged that the sunlight would "bend" around the shadow object and it would cast no shadow.
With the "shadow object" so small, it is quite impossible for .... it to cast any significant shadow on the moon. Almost all of the sunlight will shine around it.
With the "shadow object" so small, it is quite impossible for it to cast any significant shadow on the moon. Almost all of the sunlight will shine past it.
If my interpretation of the geometry or light paths is incorrect, I would love to be informed, but please no massive refraction or magnification in the atmoplane, there is no atmoplane 5,000 km up!So, I claim that "the Wiki" explanation of the Lunar Eclipse is completely incorrect, so what is the true cause of a Lunar Eclipse.
Some will I ask why I am asking the same question over and over. The answer to that is simple - it has not yet been answered.
That is not the argument at all that was presented to me, or in this thread. It was alleged that the sunlight would "bend" around the shadow object and it would cast no shadow.
Nowhere did I say "that the sunlight would 'bend' around the shadow object "
The nearest was where I said "Almost all of the sunlight will shine around it" inQuoteWith the "shadow object" so small, it is quite impossible for .... it to cast any significant shadow on the moon. Almost all of the sunlight will shine around it.
Now my "around" could be a little ambiguous and I would have been better saying "past", but I did not say "bend".
So, what about avoiding the issue and explaining how aQuoteWith the "shadow object" so small, it is quite impossible for it to cast any significant shadow on the moon. Almost all of the sunlight will shine past it.
If my interpretation of the geometry or light paths is incorrect, I would love to be informed, but please no massive refraction or magnification in the atmoplane, there is no atmoplane 5,000 km up!So, I claim that "the Wiki" explanation of the Lunar Eclipse is completely incorrect, so what is the true cause of a Lunar Eclipse.
Some will I ask why I am asking the same question over and over. The answer to that is simple - it has not yet been answered.
I think the only flat earth answer you are ever going to get is "look it up in the wiki or the faq."
Was this "shadow object" one of Rowbotham's inventions or what was the original source for the "shadow object" in relation to the
"lunar eclipse " ?
Besides the above difficulties or incompatibilities, many cases are on record of the sun and moon being eclipsed when both were above the horizon. The sun, the earth, and the moon, not in a straight line, but the earth below the sun and moon--out of the reach or direction of both--and yet a lunar eclipse has occurred! Is it possible that a "shadow" of the earth could be thrown upon the moon, when sun, earth, and moon, were not in the same line?Followed by many cases of "selenelions" - too many to quote here. Then he tries to dismiss refraction with
The only explanation which has been given of this phenomenon is the refraction caused by the earth's atmosphere. This, at first sight, is a plausible and fairly satisfactory solution; but on carefully examining the subject, it is found to be utterly inadequate; and those who have recourse to it cannot be aware that the refraction of an object and that of a shadow are in opposite directions. An object by refraction is bent upwards; but the shadow of any object is bent downwards, as will be seen by the following very simple experiment.which consider quite fallacious.
From the facts and phenomena already advanced, we cannot draw any other conclusion than that the moon is obscured by some kind of semi-transparent body passing before it; and through which the luminous surface is visible: the luminosity changed in colour by the density of the intervening object. This conclusion is forced upon, us by the evidence; but it involves the admission that the moon shines with light of its own--that it is not a reflector of the sun's light, but absolutely self-luminous. Although this admission is logically compulsory, it will be useful and strictly Zetetic to collect all the evidence possible which bears upon it.My bolding.
1st. A reflector is a plane or concave surface, which gives off or returns what it receives:--
If a piece of red hot metal or any other heated object is placed before a plane or concave surface, heat is reflected.
If snow or ice, or any artificial freezing mixture is similarly placed, cold will be reflected.
If light of any given colour is placed in the same way, the same colour of light will be reflected.
If a given sound is produced, the same tone or pitch will be reflected.
In the "Lancet" (Medical Journal), for March 14th, 1856, particulars are given of several experiments which proved that the moon's rays when concentrated, actually reduced the temperature upon a thermometer more than eight degrees.which, sceptic that I am, I find quite impossible to accept.
We have seen that, during a lunar eclipse, the moon's self-luminous surface is covered by a semi-transparent something; that this "something" is a definite mass, because it has a distinct and circular outline, as seen during its first and last contact with the moon. As a solar eclipse occurs from the moon passing before the sun, so, from the evidence above collected, it is evident that a lunar eclipse arises from a similar cause--a body semi-transparent and well-defined passing
I think the only flat earth answer you are ever going to get is "look it up in the wiki or the faq."
Was this "shadow object" one of Rowbotham's inventions or what was the original source for the "shadow object" in relation to the
"lunar eclipse " ?
This post ended up far long, be warned.
The Rowbotham's material on the lunar eclipse is too long to present here, you can read it in:Zetetic Astronomy, by 'Parallax' (pseud. Samuel Birley Rowbotham), [1881], CHAPTER XI. CAUSE OF SOLAR AND LUNAR ECLIPSES. (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za29.htm)
Some quotes might be of interest.QuoteBesides the above difficulties or incompatibilities, many cases are on record of the sun and moon being eclipsed when both were above the horizon. The sun, the earth, and the moon, not in a straight line, but the earth below the sun and moon--out of the reach or direction of both--and yet a lunar eclipse has occurred! Is it possible that a "shadow" of the earth could be thrown upon the moon, when sun, earth, and moon, were not in the same line?Followed by many cases of "selenelions" - too many to quote here. Then he tries to dismiss refraction withQuoteThe only explanation which has been given of this phenomenon is the refraction caused by the earth's atmosphere. This, at first sight, is a plausible and fairly satisfactory solution; but on carefully examining the subject, it is found to be utterly inadequate; and those who have recourse to it cannot be aware that the refraction of an object and that of a shadow are in opposite directions. An object by refraction is bent upwards; but the shadow of any object is bent downwards, as will be seen by the following very simple experiment.which consider quite fallacious.
So he comes to the conclusion that:QuoteFrom the facts and phenomena already advanced, we cannot draw any other conclusion than that the moon is obscured by some kind of semi-transparent body passing before it; and through which the luminous surface is visible: the luminosity changed in colour by the density of the intervening object. This conclusion is forced upon, us by the evidence; but it involves the admission that the moon shines with light of its own--that it is not a reflector of the sun's light, but absolutely self-luminous. Although this admission is logically compulsory, it will be useful and strictly Zetetic to collect all the evidence possible which bears upon it.My bolding.
1st. A reflector is a plane or concave surface, which gives off or returns what it receives:--
If a piece of red hot metal or any other heated object is placed before a plane or concave surface, heat is reflected.
If snow or ice, or any artificial freezing mixture is similarly placed, cold will be reflected.
If light of any given colour is placed in the same way, the same colour of light will be reflected.
If a given sound is produced, the same tone or pitch will be reflected.
What he completely fails to consider is that moonlight is almost exactly the same colour as sunlight, just a little more reddish. I could give comparative spectra, but here is a photo taken under the light of a near full moon. Moonlight certainly has almost the same spectrum as sunlight! Have a look at this:(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Full%20Moon%20Photo%20-%20WA2-0624-083F_zpsolhxzhg8.jpg)Yes, it's a bit grainy and not that sharp, but it was taken hand-held at 2 sec, f 2.8 with a ISO rating of 10,000!. The little bright things in the sky are stars, but the colours are pretty much like sunlight - because moonlight is definitely just sunlight reflected of a big dusty object. I took the photo of our car and caravan in Karijini National Park in Western Australia.
Full Moon Photo
The moon's not reflecting heat is simply that direct sunlight at noon can have a brightness 120,000 lux whereas full Moon on a clear night has a brightness of about 0.25 lux. (From: Wikipedia, Daylight. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daylight)
He then goes on about the perceived differences in qualities on sunlight and moonlight, but you need to accept 19th century superstitions to accept what he says.
He quotesQuoteIn the "Lancet" (Medical Journal), for March 14th, 1856, particulars are given of several experiments which proved that the moon's rays when concentrated, actually reduced the temperature upon a thermometer more than eight degrees.which, sceptic that I am, I find quite impossible to accept.
All this culminates inQuoteWe have seen that, during a lunar eclipse, the moon's self-luminous surface is covered by a semi-transparent something; that this "something" is a definite mass, because it has a distinct and circular outline, as seen during its first and last contact with the moon. As a solar eclipse occurs from the moon passing before the sun, so, from the evidence above collected, it is evident that a lunar eclipse arises from a similar cause--a body semi-transparent and well-defined passing
Rowbotham argues for a "the moon's self-luminous surface is covered by a semi-transparent something" quite different from "the Wiki" explanation.
But you need to read this for yourself to see that Rowbotham's ideas are so coloured by 19th century half-truths and superstitions.
A lot has been learnt about these things in the intervening 150 years or so.
With the "shadow object" so small, it is quite impossible for the it to cast any significant shadow on the moon. Almost all of the sunlight will shine around it.
Please explain how and why sunlight would "shine around it" in space.
Here is an experiment you can observe. Get a spotlight with a 3" face. Draw a 3" circle on the wall. Position the light so it is fully illuminating the circle on the wall. Try to block all the light from reaching the circle with a quarter. Or your thumb. You can block some of the light but certainly not all of it. If the center of your beam is aimed directly at the circle you can hardly even notice the effect of the quarter or thumb no matter where you place it.
If you had a spotlight and a quarter you could position the quarter to where it is making a shadow with a much larger diameter than the quarter.
In space there is no atmosphere to reflect or diffuse light, and so blur would not occur.
First hand observations are evidence.
With the "shadow object" so small, it is quite impossible for the it to cast any significant shadow on the moon. Almost all of the sunlight will shine around it.
Please explain how and why sunlight would "shine around it" in space.
Here is an experiment you can observe. Get a spotlight with a 3" face. Draw a 3" circle on the wall. Position the light so it is fully illuminating the circle on the wall. Try to block all the light from reaching the circle with a quarter. Or your thumb. You can block some of the light but certainly not all of it. If the center of your beam is aimed directly at the circle you can hardly even notice the effect of the quarter or thumb no matter where you place it.
If you had a spotlight and a quarter you could position the quarter to where it is making a shadow with a much larger diameter than the quarter.
In space there is no atmosphere to reflect or diffuse light, and so blur would not occur.
I want to pursue this a little farther. I actually did the experiment and got exactly the results posted above. (BTW If I had gotten different results I would gladly have posted them and challenged Rab to explain why I got results that were inconsistent with his claim. If I have a bias it is toward finding out how things really work. And you can't do that by posting false results just to prove a point.) Anyway, I did the experiment, so I can confirm first hand what the results of the experiment were. And I know you accept first hand observations as evidence because:First hand observations are evidence.
So it appears to me the only issue here is your claim that in space you would get a different result because "there is no atmosphere to reflect or diffuse light." If I had access to a vacuum chamber I would test this immediately. I am not able to do that, at least not yet. However, I want to confirm that if the same experiment were done in a vacuum and produced the same results, you would agree that "With the "shadow object" so small, it is quite impossible for the it to cast any significant shadow on the moon. Almost all of the sunlight will shine around it."If you have other objections that is fine. I would just like to know what they are before proceeding.
Just an ides.
If you put that "shadow object" almost on or very close to the surface of the moon, you might get a shadow about the size of the "shadow object."
But if the sun is a spot light and just shines down on the earth , how is the sun going to shine on the moon ?
Seems as if one flat earth idea cancels out the other.
Looks like the moonshrimp idea was better. LOL.
With the "shadow object" so small, it is quite impossible for the it to cast any significant shadow on the moon. Almost all of the sunlight will shine around it.
Please explain how and why sunlight would "shine around it" in space.
Here is an experiment you can observe. Get a spotlight with a 3" face. Draw a 3" circle on the wall. Position the light so it is fully illuminating the circle on the wall. Try to block all the light from reaching the circle with a quarter. Or your thumb. You can block some of the light but certainly not all of it. If the center of your beam is aimed directly at the circle you can hardly even notice the effect of the quarter or thumb no matter where you place it.
If you had a spotlight and a quarter you could position the quarter to where it is making a shadow with a much larger diameter than the quarter.
In space there is no atmosphere to reflect or diffuse light, and so blur would not occur.
I want to pursue this a little farther. I actually did the experiment and got exactly the results posted above. (BTW If I had gotten different results I would gladly have posted them and challenged Rab to explain why I got results that were inconsistent with his claim. If I have a bias it is toward finding out how things really work. And you can't do that by posting false results just to prove a point.) Anyway, I did the experiment, so I can confirm first hand what the results of the experiment were. And I know you accept first hand observations as evidence because:First hand observations are evidence.
So it appears to me the only issue here is your claim that in space you would get a different result because "there is no atmosphere to reflect or diffuse light." If I had access to a vacuum chamber I would test this immediately. I am not able to do that, at least not yet. However, I want to confirm that if the same experiment were done in a vacuum and produced the same results, you would agree that "With the "shadow object" so small, it is quite impossible for the it to cast any significant shadow on the moon. Almost all of the sunlight will shine around it."If you have other objections that is fine. I would just like to know what they are before proceeding.
Tom?
With the "shadow object" so small, it is quite impossible for the it to cast any significant shadow on the moon. Almost all of the sunlight will shine around it.
Please explain how and why sunlight would "shine around it" in space.
Here is an experiment you can observe. Get a spotlight with a 3" face. Draw a 3" circle on the wall. Position the light so it is fully illuminating the circle on the wall. Try to block all the light from reaching the circle with a quarter. Or your thumb. You can block some of the light but certainly not all of it. If the center of your beam is aimed directly at the circle you can hardly even notice the effect of the quarter or thumb no matter where you place it.
If you had a spotlight and a quarter you could position the quarter to where it is making a shadow with a much larger diameter than the quarter.
In space there is no atmosphere to reflect or diffuse light, and so blur would not occur.
I want to pursue this a little farther. I actually did the experiment and got exactly the results posted above. (BTW If I had gotten different results I would gladly have posted them and challenged Rab to explain why I got results that were inconsistent with his claim. If I have a bias it is toward finding out how things really work. And you can't do that by posting false results just to prove a point.) Anyway, I did the experiment, so I can confirm first hand what the results of the experiment were. And I know you accept first hand observations as evidence because:First hand observations are evidence.
So it appears to me the only issue here is your claim that in space you would get a different result because "there is no atmosphere to reflect or diffuse light." If I had access to a vacuum chamber I would test this immediately. I am not able to do that, at least not yet. However, I want to confirm that if the same experiment were done in a vacuum and produced the same results, you would agree that "With the "shadow object" so small, it is quite impossible for the it to cast any significant shadow on the moon. Almost all of the sunlight will shine around it."If you have other objections that is fine. I would just like to know what they are before proceeding.
Tom?
What am I replying to? Your post makes no sense at all on what experiment you performed and what you found.
What am I replying to? Your post makes no sense at all on what experiment you performed and what you found.
I would still like to know why my post makes no sense at all on what experiment I performed and what I found.::) It's simple! It doesn't fi with Flat Earth Dogma - QED. ::)
That is not the argument at all that was presented to me, or in this thread. It was alleged that the sunlight would "bend" around the shadow object and it would cast no shadow.
That is not the argument at all that was presented to me, or in this thread. It was alleged that the sunlight would "bend" around the shadow object and it would cast no shadow.
So we are back to the old "bendy light" thing ?
Just an ides.
If you put that "shadow object" almost on or very close to the surface of the moon, you might get a shadow about the size of the "shadow object."
But if the sun is a spot light and just shines down on the earth , how is the sun going to shine on the moon ?
Seems as if one flat earth idea cancels out the other.
Looks like the moonshrimp idea was better. LOL.
Here's an idea: Read the Wiki, because it says that the sun shines light in all directions. The duration of light is limited by perspective and opacity of the atmosphere.
With the "shadow object" so small, it is quite impossible for the it to cast any significant shadow on the moon. Almost all of the sunlight will shine around it.
Please explain how and why sunlight would "shine around it" in space.
Here is an experiment you can observe. Get a spotlight with a 3" face. Draw a 3" circle on the wall. Position the light so it is fully illuminating the circle on the wall. Try to block all the light from reaching the circle with a quarter. Or your thumb. You can block some of the light but certainly not all of it. If the center of your beam is aimed directly at the circle you can hardly even notice the effect of the quarter or thumb no matter where you place it.
If you had a spotlight and a quarter you could position the quarter to where it is making a shadow with a much larger diameter than the quarter.
In space there is no atmosphere to reflect or diffuse light, and so blur would not occur.
I want to pursue this a little farther. I actually did the experiment and got exactly the results posted above. (BTW If I had gotten different results I would gladly have posted them and challenged Rab to explain why I got results that were inconsistent with his claim. If I have a bias it is toward finding out how things really work. And you can't do that by posting false results just to prove a point.) Anyway, I did the experiment, so I can confirm first hand what the results of the experiment were. And I know you accept first hand observations as evidence because:First hand observations are evidence.
So it appears to me the only issue here is your claim that in space you would get a different result because "there is no atmosphere to reflect or diffuse light." If I had access to a vacuum chamber I would test this immediately. I am not able to do that, at least not yet. However, I want to confirm that if the same experiment were done in a vacuum and produced the same results, you would agree that "With the "shadow object" so small, it is quite impossible for the it to cast any significant shadow on the moon. Almost all of the sunlight will shine around it."If you have other objections that is fine. I would just like to know what they are before proceeding.
Tom?
What am I replying to? Your post makes no sense at all on what experiment you performed and what you found.
You have to explain what experiment you performed. I don't know what I am replying to to. In your last quote tier there are two experiments mentioned, one that you told me to do and one that I told you to do.
You have to explain what experiment you performed. I don't know what I am replying to to. In your last quote tier there are two experiments mentioned, one that you told me to do and one that I told you to do.
Time | Ang Size | |
12:00 | 0.56° |
Here is a sketch I made very quickly. I think it demonstrates how ineffective a 5 to 10 mile diameter Shadow Object would be at blocking all the light from a 32 mile diameter sun from reaching a 32 mile diameter moon.
(https://s12.postimg.org/fe7d5ukh9/14796813792692b.png)
Don't feed them like this. Small-scale experiments such as a spinning wet tennis ball are what started all this flat earth shitWith the "shadow object" so small, it is quite impossible for the it to cast any significant shadow on the moon. Almost all of the sunlight will shine around it.
Please explain how and why sunlight would "shine around it" in space.
Here is an experiment you can observe. Get a spotlight with a 3" face. Draw a 3" circle on the wall. Position the light so it is fully illuminating the circle on the wall. Try to block all the light from reaching the circle with a quarter. Or your thumb. You can block some of the light but certainly not all of it. If the center of your beam is aimed directly at the circle you can hardly even notice the effect of the quarter or thumb no matter where you place it.
Just an ides.
If you put that "shadow object" almost on or very close to the surface of the moon, you might get a shadow about the size of the "shadow object."
But if the sun is a spot light and just shines down on the earth , how is the sun going to shine on the moon ?
Seems as if one flat earth idea cancels out the other.
Looks like the moonshrimp idea was better. LOL.
Here's an idea: Read the Wiki, because it says that the sun shines light in all directions. The duration of light is limited by perspective and opacity of the atmosphere.
Sun shines in all directions ? What happened to the spotlight ?
Just an ides.
If you put that "shadow object" almost on or very close to the surface of the moon, you might get a shadow about the size of the "shadow object."
But if the sun is a spot light and just shines down on the earth , how is the sun going to shine on the moon ?
Seems as if one flat earth idea cancels out the other.
Looks like the moonshrimp idea was better. LOL.
Here's an idea: Read the Wiki, because it says that the sun shines light in all directions. The duration of light is limited by perspective and opacity of the atmosphere.
Sun shines in all directions ? What happened to the spotlight ?
The light creates a spot of light upon the earth, a spotlight. The sun isn't a literal spotlight.
Maybe, but nothing yet explains how the shadow object can possible shade the whole moon.Just an ides.
If you put that "shadow object" almost on or very close to the surface of the moon, you might get a shadow about the size of the "shadow object."
But if the sun is a spot light and just shines down on the earth , how is the sun going to shine on the moon ?
Seems as if one flat earth idea cancels out the other.
Looks like the moonshrimp idea was better. LOL.
Here's an idea: Read the Wiki, because it says that the sun shines light in all directions. The duration of light is limited by perspective and opacity of the atmosphere.
Sun shines in all directions ? What happened to the spotlight ?
The light creates a spot of light upon the earth, a spotlight. The sun isn't a literal spotlight.