The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: LoveScience on December 10, 2018, 08:39:48 PM
-
In the transparent moon accounts various stars have been seen to occult (pass in front of) the moon. This is completely impossible in the Round Earth model. Such observations remain a mystery to this very day
Lunar occultations are a common event where the Moon moves between the Earth and a background star or planet which is in the same line of sight. I have often seen these myself and occultations of Saturn or Jupiter are especially fascinating to watch. Sometime a star or planet just grazes the limb of the Moon in which case you can see the star or planet passing between the undulating surface of the Moon.
The only thing that can ever pass in front of the Moon are satellites and there are a LOT of images of the ISS passing in silhouette across the disk of the Moon (and the Sun). Takes less than a second and this is known as a transit event rather than an occulation.
If we look further out we can also observe occultations and transits of the satellites of Jupiter. Again I have seen many of these myself over the years. Just before and just after opposition you can even see the shadow of the transiting satellite on the disk of Jupiter. These are called not surprisingly, shadow transits.
The idea of a transparent Moon on the other hand is interesting but completely wrong. Another FE Wiki special!
https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=moon+saturn+grazing+occultation&FORM=HDRSC2
Regarding the quote contained in the link featured in the same Wiki page
"During a partial solar eclipse the sun's outline has many times been seen through the body of the moon" …. Someone has got something very wrong there.
-
Someone has got something very wrong there.
Read the sources linked. It was was traditional astronomers who were claiming to see stars occulting the moon.
https://wiki.tfes.org/Moon_Transparency
In Earth Not a Globe a semi-transparent moon is suggested based on astronomical observations. While a semi-transparent moon is no longer supported by the current incarnation of the Flat Earth Society, it is important to keep compiled evidence of such phenomena for posterity.
In the transparent moon accounts various stars have been seen to occult (pass in front of) the moon. This is completely impossible in the Round Earth model. Such observations remain a mystery to this very day. It has been suggested that the moon is semi-transparent. However, an alternate explanation for these observations might be that the moon is not semi-transparent and some (but not all) of the stars are simply below the altitude of the moon, therefore able to pass in front of it. This is possible in the Flat Earth models where the sun, moon, and stars are all at similar altitudes.
See the chapter on Moon Transparency in Earth Not a Globe: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za63.htm
More on Moon Transparency: http://books.google.com/books?id=s1tEN8zza6gC&pg=PA86&lpg=PA86&dq=%22transparent+moon%22+stars&source=web&ots=T7Aj41j1CH&sig=icm_LQkaSyK-I-_gxpadvXBSSBM#PPA86,M1
Unfortunately the second link seems to be dead now, but there was discussion of these observations there as well.
-
They might well have been seeing stars Tom but they were definitely not occulting the Moon. At least not the type of stars I am talking about. A little bit of common sense should tell you that surely!
-
Another observation here:
https://books.google.com/books?id=FHEYAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA389#v=onepage&q&f=false
(https://i.imgur.com/Oufx6lL.png)
It is not us claiming these observations. This is what astronomers have reported.
-
Interesting read Tom. So the star remained visible for about 2 seconds after it apparently made contact with the lunar limb and then disappeared. What does that tell you? The average duration of a lunar occultation by the way is a lot longer than 2 seconds in case you didn't know.
Fascinating book by the way...
Here is another link about exactly what I am talking about.
https://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/~barnes/ASTR110L_F03/lunaroccultation.html
-
I don't believe it was stated that it happens to all stars.
The Royal Astronomical Society reports this event (https://books.google.com/books?id=Mo_nAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA373-IA23&lpg=PA373-IA23&source=bl&ots=NOLPVSnWRS&sig=fUDPQj1tZ11J4kEn3lw21k9-Gqs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj0mrajnZbfAhW8HDQIHcqQCngQ6AEwAXoECBwQAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false):
(https://i.imgur.com/34isEhc.png)
Jupiter reported to occult the moon (https://books.google.com/books?id=vOPNAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA373-IA124&lpg=PA373-IA124&source=bl&ots=hyXjayktkW&sig=t2pXFC_RLdBDZmAtvBBjg-dAeY4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj1x_rrnpbfAhX1OX0KHcOuChoQ6AEwAXoECBcQAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false):
(https://i.imgur.com/SfsT8Xq.png)
Even Nature has mentions (https://books.google.com/books?id=NthGAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA10#v=onepage&q&f=false) of the stars in front of the moon:
(https://i.imgur.com/MErI91V.png)
The above article is talking about how it is curious that Jupiter's moon sometimes pass in front of Jupiter when it should be going behind it.
-
Here's an amazing one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7fwcy-W4hE
-
I don't believe it was stated that it happens to all stars.
The Royal Astronomical Society reports this event (https://books.google.com/books?id=Mo_nAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA373-IA23&lpg=PA373-IA23&source=bl&ots=NOLPVSnWRS&sig=fUDPQj1tZ11J4kEn3lw21k9-Gqs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj0mrajnZbfAhW8HDQIHcqQCngQ6AEwAXoECBwQAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false):
(https://i.imgur.com/34isEhc.png)
Jupiter reported to occult the moon (https://books.google.com/books?id=vOPNAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA373-IA124&lpg=PA373-IA124&source=bl&ots=hyXjayktkW&sig=t2pXFC_RLdBDZmAtvBBjg-dAeY4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj1x_rrnpbfAhX1OX0KHcOuChoQ6AEwAXoECBcQAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false):
(https://i.imgur.com/SfsT8Xq.png)
Even Nature has mentions (https://books.google.com/books?id=NthGAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA10#v=onepage&q&f=false) of the stars in front of the moon:
(https://i.imgur.com/MErI91V.png)
Above article is talking about how it is curious that Jupiter's moon sometimes pass in front of Jupiter.
As far as the lunar occultations mentioned, aren't they referring to a grazing occultation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWhShTzqPo8
-
That is interesting. However, it is stated that it does not happen every time.
Here is an observation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9s85-BlcoY
Perhaps a plane?
-
Tough call. I have no idea.
I guess logically, if the moon were translucent, we would see stars shining through it all of the time.
-
Yes Tom, the satellites of Jupiter (Io, Ganymede, Callisto and Europa) do pass in front of Jupiter. I mentioned about transits and shadow transits. These are a well documented phenomenon and you can find predictions of their occurrence in many astronomical journals. These are possible because the satellites are much smaller than Jupiter and so appear star like through telescopes. Against the disk of Jupiter they can appear like pale dots with a dark shadow either following them or preceding them during a shadow transit.
What cannot happen, for what I would hope are obvious reasons to you, is a star being visible through the Moon. You can post as many extracts from as many books as you wish (preferably more recently than the mid 19th century). All are subjective to what the observer perceived at the time and I can tell you now that a lot of observational accounts from the 19th century and earlier are not entirely accurate down to the relatively poor quality of optics that was available then. Galileo for example saw that there was something unusual about Saturn when he observed it through his telescopes but he could not tell that he was seeing rings around the planet.
When the Moon is a cresent you very often see the outline of the full Moon very faintly illuminated. You have probably noticed it yourself. We call it Earthshine because it is due to sunlight reflected off the Earth onto the part of the Moons surface which is in darkness. Since the Moon is moving east with respect to the stars, when the Moon is at waxing cresent phase just after new Moon, you will see the star disappear behind the dark part of the Moons disk. If it happens to be a grazing occultation with initial disappearance on the dark side of the Moons disk, as the star pops in and out of ravenes and valleys against an invisible or nearly invisible limb, it may well give the impression that the star is actually shining through the Moon. That occured to me in the first extract you posted.
As for the videos posted, the first shows a very typical gazing occultation which is not uncommon for Aldebaran. As for the second one. No idea what the blinking white spec is. Probably a small internal reflection going on somewhere in the optical system. It definitely isn't a star though. I didn't think FES took much notice of videos/photos anyway for the reasons stated in the evidence page. For an experienced observer it is quite easy to tell which ones have been faked and which are genuine.
-
Perhaps a plane?
Good call. I think you're spot on with that one Tom. :)
-
The low resolution of the video makes it hard to see clearly. I can only see a flickering while dot which would suggest not a plane. Also unless moving towards or away from the camera a plane would be moving quicker. Same would apply to a satellite which is why a lens flare/internal reflection is more likely in my opinion.
-
I would guess that it's most likely an object that passed in front of the moon and being reflected off the sun. The sky really doesn't seem dark enough for a single star to be seen through a semi-transparent moon yet no other stars anywhere else in the sky.
-
The low resolution of the video makes it hard to see clearly. I can only see a flickering white dot which would suggest not a plane. Also unless moving towards or away from the camera a plane would be moving quicker.
Planes have blinking lights. And there's no reason why it couldn't be moving towards or away from the camera.
I think Tom's right with this one. :)
-
Here are some more interesting planes. Runtime 1m30s:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Cp-kIHUTUY
-
That is interesting!
I suppose it would be pretty easy to identify which stars they are? I.e., when the moon moves out of the way, the stars will still be there, right?
And are we 100% sure that his images haven't been faked?
I wonder how transparent moon believers explain the lack of sunlight coming through it during a solar eclipse?
-
I wonder how transparent moon believers explain the lack of sunlight coming through it during a solar eclipse?
I'm no transparent moon believer (mark me down as a transparent moon agnostic) but many Flat Earthers believe that solar eclipses are caused by a black disc (known as Rahu in Ancient Indian astronomy) passing in front of the sun.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ILkHoaySeY
-
Yep. It's written in the Vedas. They also believe the moon is actually way bigger than the sun, and much, much further away.
That you can take pictures during a solar eclipse and confirm that it is indeed the moon that's blocking the sun doesn't seem to hold much weight with them.
Apparently scriptures trump their own eyes, if you can believe that.
Entertaining discussion about it here: https://krishna.org/astronomy-debunked-solar-eclipses-are-not-caused-by-the-moon/
-
That you can take pictures during a solar eclipse and confirm that it is indeed the moon that's blocking the sun doesn't seem to hold much weight with them.
How so? The two explanations for solar eclipses would look identical as long as Rahu is presumed to have the same angular size as the moon.
-
That you can take pictures during a solar eclipse and confirm that it is indeed the moon that's blocking the sun doesn't seem to hold much weight with them.
How so? The two explanations for solar eclipses would look identical as long as Rahu is presumed to have the same angular size as the moon.
Because you would have to account for the moon being invisible during the eclipse. As well you would need to account for Earthshine images allowing you to see the features of the moon during the eclipse. Quite the coincidence if 'Rahu' both looked exactly like the moon, AND hid the moon somehow.
-
Because you would have to account for the moon being invisible during the eclipse. As well you would need to account for Earthshine images allowing you to see the features of the moon during the eclipse. Quite the coincidence if 'Rahu' both looked exactly like the moon, AND hid the moon somehow.
“According to the globular theory, a lunar eclipse occurs when the sun, earth, and moon are in a direct line; but it is on record that since about the fifteenth century over fifty eclipses have occurred while both sun and moon have been visible above the horizon.” -F.H. Cook, “The Terrestrial Plane”
-
Because you would have to account for the moon being invisible during the eclipse. As well you would need to account for Earthshine images allowing you to see the features of the moon during the eclipse. Quite the coincidence if 'Rahu' both looked exactly like the moon, AND hid the moon somehow.
“According to the globular theory, a lunar eclipse occurs when the sun, earth, and moon are in a direct line; but it is on record that since about the fifteenth century over fifty eclipses have occurred while both sun and moon have been visible above the horizon.” -F.H. Cook, “The Terrestrial Plane”
I'm sorry, but what do lunar eclipses have to do with this? We're discussing solar eclipses are we not? This certainly doesn't appear to be a rebuttal to the fact the Rahu idea must vanish the moon and look exactly like the moon as well.
-
How so? The two explanations for solar eclipses would look identical as long as Rahu is presumed to have the same angular size as the moon.
Not quite. The Rahu explanation would show a black disk in front of the sun, while the moon explanation would show the moon in front of the sun.
You can take photos of a solar eclipse and, by playing with the exposure setting on your camera, confirm that it is indeed the moon that is in front of the sun. The moon's surface is lit by the sun's light reflecting from the Earth. This is called Earthshine. It's not very powerful, but with a bit of fiddling, it's powerful enough.
I'd never heard of it either, until the recent solar eclipse in the US. Pretty cool! :)
(http://www.astropix.com/eclipse/Lodriguss_Total_Solar_Eclipse_Earthshine.jpg)
https://www.google.com/search?q=solar+eclipse+moon+earthshine
-
http://www.astropix.com/eclipse/Lodriguss_Total_Solar_Eclipse_Earthshine.jpg
You tried this line of reasoning before, it doesn't work:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9797.msg154268#msg154268
-
Because you would have to account for the moon being invisible during the eclipse. As well you would need to account for Earthshine images allowing you to see the features of the moon during the eclipse. Quite the coincidence if 'Rahu' both looked exactly like the moon, AND hid the moon somehow.
“According to the globular theory, a lunar eclipse occurs when the sun, earth, and moon are in a direct line; but it is on record that since about the fifteenth century over fifty eclipses have occurred while both sun and moon have been visible above the horizon.” -F.H. Cook, “The Terrestrial Plane”
I'm sorry, but what do lunar eclipses have to do with this? We're discussing solar eclipses are we not? This certainly doesn't appear to be a rebuttal to the fact the Rahu idea must vanish the moon and look exactly like the moon as well.
Good catch, I misread the quote in my haste.
Thanks for the info on those earthshine photos.
http://www.astropix.com/eclipse/Lodriguss_Total_Solar_Eclipse_Earthshine.jpg
You tried this line of reasoning before, it doesn't work:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9797.msg154268#msg154268
Very interesting...
-
I googled "eclipse photos" via the images tab. Randomly selected an eclipse photo that came from here:
https://www.skyandtelescope.com/2017-total-solar-eclipse/eclipse-events-roundup/
I opened the image in Photoshop, and adjusted the levels. That's all I did. Granted, a sample size of 1 so far, but I did select it completely at random. You be the judge:
(https://i.imgur.com/363Tl9c.jpg)
-
I googled "eclipse photos" via the images tab. Randomly selected an eclipse photo that came from here:
https://www.skyandtelescope.com/2017-total-solar-eclipse/eclipse-events-roundup/
I opened the image in Photoshop, and adjusted the levels. That's all I did. Granted, a sample size of 1 so far, but I did select it completely at random. You be the judge:
(https://i.imgur.com/363Tl9c.jpg)
I don't know whether or not the photo is faked but I can clearly see the moon blemishes without the Photoshop (and I bet most people could too) so this doesn't really effect Sandokhan's thesis...it isn't as if the undoctored photo looks absolutely dark and you need to adjust it to see the moon spots which would have called into question why somebody would doctor a photograph in such a way that the effect of the doctoring couldn't even be noticed unless somebody happened to decide to look at in Photoshop.
-
I googled "eclipse photos" via the images tab. Randomly selected an eclipse photo that came from here:
https://www.skyandtelescope.com/2017-total-solar-eclipse/eclipse-events-roundup/
I opened the image in Photoshop, and adjusted the levels. That's all I did. Granted, a sample size of 1 so far, but I did select it completely at random. You be the judge:
(https://i.imgur.com/363Tl9c.jpg)
I don't know whether or not the photo is faked but I can clearly see the moon blemishes without the Photoshop (and I bet most people could too) so this doesn't really effect Sandokhan's thesis...it isn't as if the undoctored photo looks absolutely dark and you need to adjust it to see the moon spots which would have called into question why somebody would doctor a photograph in such a way that the effect of the doctoring couldn't even be noticed unless somebody happened to decide to look at in Photoshop.
I can see some darker areas/patches in the original as well. But I certainly wouldn't be able even remotely say they match features of the moon without the levels adjustments I made. It's hard to retrieve contrasting elements from a pitch black image and even harder from a blown out image. That's why lots of people, when shooting an eclipse, bracket (multiple shots in rapid succession at varying exposure levels/durations.) Then you stack them so you have multiple layers of the varying exposures in the final image. People bracket for all kinds of reasons, like creating HDR images. In the film days you would bracket just to be safe with your exposure b/c you wouldn't find out how your pictures came out until you picked them up from the photomat a week later.
Like I said, a random sample size of 1. Odds seem exceedingly low that the random one I picked out with no mention of earthshine just so happened to be faked in case someone like me came along and examined it in photoshop. It's an eclipse image like millions of others.
I'm sure people have some RAW image files out there from the 2017 eclipse where, given the nature of greater information captured than jpeg, you could probably be able to level out moon features from what appears to be a very black image. Just haven't had the time to look.
Personally, a translucent moon with Rahu hiding behind it and then sneaking out and causing an eclipse and somehow hiding the moon in the process from everyone on earth just seems too metaphysical and complicated. But that's just me.
-
Video footage of the 2010 solar eclipse from Easter Island during which that photo was taken.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8okYw8IfYw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8dFOmoPxRA
-
I googled "eclipse photos" via the images tab. Randomly selected an eclipse photo that came from here:
https://www.skyandtelescope.com/2017-total-solar-eclipse/eclipse-events-roundup/
My first impression: that photo has already been processed.
If you do some reading about earthshine pics you'll find that: a) the setting of the camera is important (eg, exposure level); b) they're usually (always?) several identical images 'stacked' on one another; and c) then the levels are played with.
Obviously reality deniers have their hackles raised by anything to do with photoshop, so there's not much point labouring the issue: they either get it or they don't.
Here's the photographer, Dennis Di Cicco talking about how he captured the photographs that make up that particular image:
https://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-resources/astrophotography-tips/rethinking-solar-eclipse-photography/
And here's the chap who took Di Cicco's raw photographs and combined them to produce your image:
https://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-resources/astrophotography-tips/improving-eclipse-photos/
Personally, a translucent moon with Rahu hiding behind it and then sneaking out and causing an eclipse and somehow hiding the moon in the process from everyone on earth just seems too metaphysical and complicated. But that's just me.
Nope. It's not just you. ;)
-
Fair point, probably a stacked/composite image to begin with. At the end of the day, they are multiple exposures of the same event. Nothing nefarious about it. Just how we photographers make for pretty images.
-
Fair point, probably a stacked/composite image to begin with.
No probably about it: the links I posted make it very clear that it's made by 'stacking' (36 images at, I think, 4 different exposure settings).
At the end of the day, they are multiple exposures of the same event. Nothing nefarious about it.
Exactly. Though I guarantee not everyone will think so. ;)
-
If you do some reading about earthshine pics you'll find that: a) the setting of the camera is important (eg, exposure level); b) they're usually (always?) several identical images 'stacked' on one another; and c) then the ]
Maybe off topic, but I'd been wanting to capture an earthshine photo for some time, and finally learned how/when. This required no photoshop. Just the right exposure settings, right phase and a slight adjustment to contrast in post:
(http://oi63.tinypic.com/nyvbbn.jpg)
-
The main contention of the RE and UAFE (they also claim the solar eclipse is caused by the Moon) is that the Moon interposes itself between the Earth and the Sun during a solar eclipse.
Then, they are going to have to explain this:
(http://wwwcdn.skyandtelescope.com/wp-content/uploads/2017-08-25_59a052d4a22b7_infrared_lores.jpg)
(https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/images/707001main_20121113-eclipse-full.jpg)
This is Newtonium, the first element in Mendeleev's periodic table of elements (much lighter than Hydrogen):
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2045088#msg2045088
It is emitted by the Black Sun/Rahu.
Of course, the RE/UAFE will claim that this radiation is being emitted by the Sun (Fe X).
However, this requires temperatures well in excess of 1 million degrees Celsius to be present in the solar corona.
The hypothesis regarding the very hot temperature of the solar corona originated with B. Edlen's analysis of the unusual spectral features.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fspas.2018.00009/full
He was faced with a basic choice: either accept that at least two lighter than hydrogen elements are emitted by the Sun (even though Newtonium is released by the Black Sun), or put forth an outrageous hypothesis where the temperature of the solar corona becomes at least 400 times hotter than the temperature of the photosphere (even though the reverse temperature gradient of the Sun contradicts every original expectation of the thermonuclear model). This implausible supposition had to be accompanied by an even more outlandish explanation: magnetic reconnection.
(https://rnumata.org/research/img/recon_schematic_e.png)
Now scientists think that the temperature of the solar corona can exceed even the temperature of the core itself:
https://web.archive.org/web/20080625183153/http://rocinante.colorado.edu/~mnowak/PR/text.html
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/asna.200710803
In 1949, H. Friedman put forth another related hypothesis: that solar x-rays emissions had a thermal origin.
However, x-rays from the Sun are not generated thermally, electromagnetic particles are being accelerated through the Sun's own ether field to create x-rays. The cause of the solar x-rays is electrical, not thermal.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2057945#msg2057945 (Koronium and articles on the magnetic merging pseudo-science)
Within the context of a gaseous solar model, it is not surprising that extreme temperatures must be invoked. A gaseous Sun has no other means of producing highly ionized species.
"Since the corona must be excessively hot to produce such
ions in a gaseous context, the continuous spectrum of the K-corona
has been dismissed as a strange artifact, produced
by electronic scattering of photospheric light. Otherwise,
the coronal continuous spectrum would be indicating
that apparent coronal temperatures are no warmer than those
of the photosphere. It would be impossible for the gaseous
models to account for the presence of highly ionized
species within the outer solar atmosphere.
Current temperature estimates are
flirting with violations of both the first and second laws of
thermodynamics: it is difficult to conceive that localized temperatures
within flares and the corona could greatly exceed
the temperature of the solar core."
P.M. Robitaille
'MAGNETIC MERGING' THEORIES
What we have found means that we can describe plasma phenomena inside a finite volume only if no electric current crosses the surface. In the terminology of the magnetic field description, this means we can describe plasma phenomena inside a finite volume only if the perpendicular component of the curl is zero at every point of the surface. All theories of 'magnetic merging' (or 'field line reconnection') which do not satisfy this criterion are misleading or erroneous, and deserve no attention.
Dr. Hannes Alfven, Cosmic Plasma
https://web.archive.org/web/20130204074026/http://plasma.colorado.edu/phys7810/articles/Alfven_FieldLines_1976.pdf
On Frozen-In Lines and Field-Line Reconnection
Dr. Hannes Alfven
https://web.archive.org/web/20130204074019/http://plasma.colorado.edu/phys7810/articles/Falthammar_MovingFieldLines_2007.pdf
On the Concept of Moving Magnetic Field Lines
C.G. Falthammar
The criticism of the magnetic reconnection hypothesis was removed by Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Magnetic_reconnection&oldid=419843114#Criticism_of_the_reconnection_concept
Dr. W. Heikkila has analysed the dayside reconnection and nightside reconnection problems:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1988Ap%26SS.144...85H (pg. 90 - 94)
However, none of the astrophysicists involved in the study of magnetic reconnection have taken into consideration the fact that the magnetic field consists of TWO STREAMS OF PARTICLES, North - South and also South - North.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2009680#msg2009680
The modern study of the magnetic field/electromagnetism ONLY includes the South to North flow.
Yet, there are TWO continuous streams of different particles.
Whittaker proved that the potential consists of pairs of bidirectional longitudinal scalar waves, and that the same equation governs both gravity and magnetism.
The second flow/stream of particles IS THE GRAVITATIONAL WAVE, which has a dextrorotatory spin. Both flows/streams form the ELECTROGRAVITATIONAL FIELD.
That is, magnetic reconnection HAS TO BE ACCOMPANIED BY gravitational reconnection as well.
Magnetic reconnection refers to the breaking and reconnecting of oppositely directed magnetic field lines in a plasma.
However, the breaking of the magnetic field lines (South to North lines) would ALSO mean the breaking of the gravitational field lines (North to South lines).
At this point, the solar corona would become a gigantic gas centrifuge, with no outer casing and zero g force.
"The Sun is a giant ball of hot plasma held together by its gravity."
http://www.igpp.ucla.edu/public/mkivelso/refs/PUBLICATIONS/high_beta-shibasaki.pdf
The key to understanding the fallacy of the magnetic reconnection hypothesis is to understand that Whittaker proved the existence of the potential scalar waves, a bidirectional flow of magnetism/electricity and gravity: magnetic reconnection has to be accompanied by gravitational reconnection. The breaking of the magnetic lines also means the breaking of the gravitational lines, rendering that portion of the solar corona with zero g force.
A rare admission from modern astronomy:
(https://image.ibb.co/ncz5dT/comle2.jpg)
Dr. Stuart D. Bale, UC Berkeley
-
The main contention of the RE and UAFE (they also claim the solar eclipse is caused by the Moon) is that the Moon interposes itself between the Earth and the Sun during a solar eclipse.
Then, they are going to have to explain this:
(http://wwwcdn.skyandtelescope.com/wp-content/uploads/2017-08-25_59a052d4a22b7_infrared_lores.jpg)
I can explain it this way using your quote:
"You know these are days of photoshop and people will do anything to get an award winning photograph. It should look like this and any thoughtful person knows it should look like this so the temptation may be there to use photoshop to make it look like this…"
-
I’m surprised Sandokhan takes notice of any of the scientists he quotes. Take the last one for example Stuart Bale;
http://physics.berkeley.edu/people/faculty/stuart-bale (http://physics.berkeley.edu/people/faculty/stuart-bale)
He specialises in Astrophysics and gets a great deal of his data, like many who study the sun, from STEREO, a dual solar observatory launched in 2006. I don’t think Sandokhan believes in space travel! or anything else Dr. Bale believes in, so why quote him?
Dr. Bale, if you read his website would disagree with almost everything Sandokhan believes in. Why doesn’t Sandokhan quote flat earth astrophysics?...........
The thing that puzzles me is none of the scientists he quotes belive in a flat earth, small near sun, transparent moon or none of the other things that Sandokhan obviously believes in.
His belief in elements lighter than hydrogen! .....I think we can put that one down to an overactive imagination.
-
It is emitted by the Black Sun/Rahu.
More specifically, no, it is not.
The first image you posted comes from here:
http://wwwcdn.skyandtelescope.com/wp-content/uploads/2017-08-25_59a052d4a22b7_infrared_lores.jpg
It's simply an infrared capture of the 2017 eclipse. No black sun/Rahu stuff, just an infrared photo. Here are the details:
Photographer
scmenasian
Email
scm@menasians.com
Location of photo
Shawnee National Forest, 37 deg 34' 50.85" N, 88 deg 52' 41.21" W
Date/Time of photo
8/21/2017 approx 18:23:10 UT
Equipment
Infrared converted Canon 10D, Canon EF 300mm f4.0 L lens with 1.4x teleconverter
Description
Infrared image of 2017 Total Solar eclipse about 20 seconds prior to the end of totality
https://www.skyandtelescope.com/online-gallery/infrared-image-of-2017-total-solar-eclipse-near-end-of-totality/
The second image you posted is similar, but from NASA. Yes, that NASA. And we all know they can't be trusted.
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/images/707001main_20121113-eclipse-full.jpg
So what's your point, again?
-
It's simply an infrared capture of the 2017 eclipse.
My previous message was very clear.
The scientist who discovered this radiation (either Newtonium or Fe X), during the solar eclipse, had two basic choices at his disposal: either accept that at least two elements lighter than Hydrogen exist, or invent in an ad-hoc manner an outrageous hypothesis which says that the temperature of the solar corona is well above 1 million degrees Celsius.
He practically threw aside any concern for true science and put forth a hypothesis for which he had no proof, and which defies basic logic.
Mainstream science, faced with the same basic choice, had to invent magnetic reconnection, in order to account for the unimaginably high temperatures of the solar corona.
But magnetic reconnection is pseudo-science, so says and proves the Nobel prize winner Dr. Hannes Alfven.
So, if the RE say that the Moon causes the solar eclipse, they are going to have to explain the concept of magnetic reconnection.
Here is Mendeleev's ORIGINAL periodic table of elements:
(http://rusphysics.ru/picture/img/mendeleev_big.jpg)
Group 0, line 0: NEWTONIUM
Group 0, line 1: CORONIUM
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a5/Mendeleev_Table_1905.png)
Hydrogen has 18 subquarks (nine laevorotatory, which form one proton, and nine dextrorotatory, which make up the electron).
An element lighter than Hydrogen simply has a smaller number of subquarks: baryons (nine subquarks), mesons (six subquarks), quarks (three subquarks).
Newtonium is the subquark itself.
Double Layers in Astrophysics (NASA Conference Publication 2469)
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19870013880.pdf
Magnetic Merging -- A Pseudo-Science
Since then I have stressed in a large number of papers the danger of using the frozen-in concept. For example, in a paper "Electric Current Structure of the Magnetosphere" (Alfven, 1975), I made a table showing the difference between the real plasma and "a fictitious medium" called "the pseudo-plasma," the latter having frozenin magnetic field lines moving with the plasma. The most important criticism of the "merging" mechanism of energy transfer is due to Heikkila (1973) who with increasing strength has demonstrated that it is wrong. In spite of all this, we have witnessed at the same time an enormously voluminous formalism building up based on this obviously erroneous concept. Indeed, we have been burdened with a gigantic pseudo-science which penetrates large parts of cosmic plasma physics. The monograph CP treats the field-line reconnection (merging) concept in I. 3, II. 3, and I1.5. We may conclude that anyone who uses the merging concepts states by implication that no double layers exist.
A new epoch in magnetospheric physics was inaugurated by L. Lyons and D. Williams' monograph (1985). They treat magnetospheric phenomena systematically by the particle approach and demonstrate that the fluid dynamic approach gives erroneous results. The error of the latter approach is of a basic character. Of course there can be no magnetic merging energy transfer.
I was naive enough to believe that such a pseudo-science would die by itself in the scientific community, and I concentrated my work on more pleasant problems. To my great surprise the opposite has occurred; the "merging" pseudo-science seems to be increasingly powerful. Magnetospheric physics and solar wind physics today are no doubt in a chaotic state, and a major reason for this is that some of the published papers are science and part pseudoscience, perhaps even with a majority for the latter group.
In those parts of solar physics which do not deal with the interior of the Sun and the dense photospheric region (fields where the frozen-in concept may be valid), the state is even worse. It is difficult to find theoretical papers on the low density regions which are correct. The present state of plasma astrophysics seems to be almost completely isolated from the new concepts of plasma which the in situ measurements on space plasma have made necessary (see Section VIII).
I sincerely hope that the increased interest in the study of double layers -- which is fatal to this pseudoscience -- will change the situation. Whenever we find a double layer (or any other Ell ≠ 0) we hammer a nail into the coffin of the "merging" pseudo-science.
Dr. Hannes Alfven, Nobel prize laureate
Without magnetic reconnection, the RE are going to have to accept the second of Dr. Stuart Bale's possible alternatives:
(https://image.ibb.co/ncz5dT/comle2.jpg)
Then, the Moon does not cause the solar eclipse, but a different heavenly body does so: the Black Sun which does emit the Newtonium radiation.
-
My previous message was very clear.
The scientist who discovered this radiation (either Newtonium or Fe X), during the solar eclipse, had two basic choices at his disposal: either accept that at least two elements lighter than Hydrogen exist, or invent in an ad-hoc manner an outrageous hypothesis which says that the temperature of the solar corona is well above 1 million degrees Celsius...
...Then, the Moon does not cause the solar eclipse, but a different heavenly body does so: the Black Sun which does emit the Newtonium radiation.
All these words and and you're completely missing the point. It matters not what passes in front of the sun during an eclipse in regard to the heat of the corona. The corona is there all the time, eclipse or no eclipse. It's just easier to observe during an eclipse. So if you want to have a discussion as to why the corona is hotter than the sun's thermosphere, cool. But that has nothing to do with moon transparency, earthshine or eclipses.
-
But it does matter, in fact it is crucial.
The Newtonium radiation is assumed to be emitted by the Sun. Notwithstanding the fact that an element lighter than Hydrogen is not subject to the law of attractive gravitation and thus its presence near the solar corona is a total defiance of Newtonian gravitation, you have to deal with the Allais effect which does prove that the radiation seen in the photographs is emitted by a different heavenly body than either the Sun or the Moon. The antigravitational effect of the Allais experiments prove that the radiation is emitted by the Black Sun: the lunisolar components of Newtonian gravitation have already been accounted for.
(https://image.ibb.co/bNG9mJ/Capture_zpskd3rcykr.jpg)
Dr. Maurice Allais:
In both cases, with the experiments with the anisotropic
support and with those with the isotropic support, it is found
that the amplitudes of the periodic effects are considerably
greater than those calculated according to the law of gravitation,
whether or not completed by the theory of relativity.
In the case of the anisotropic support, the amplitude of
the luni-solar component of 24h 50m is about twenty million
times greater than the amplitude calculated by the theory of
universal gravitation.
In the case of the paraconical pendulum with isotropic
support, this relation is about a hundred million.
We know for sure the identity of two of the heavenly bodies which take part in a total solar eclipse: the Earth and the Sun.
The calculations done by Dr. Allais show that the third body cannot be the Moon: the amplitudes are TWENTY MILLION TIMES LARGER THAN the luni-solar component for the anisotropic support, and ONE HUNDRED MILLION TIMES larger than the luni-solar component for the isotropic support.
This is how we know that the Earth shine total solar eclipses photos were faked.
For example, for the 2008 total solar eclipse:
CONFIRMATION OF THE ALLAIS EFFECT DURING THE 2008 SOLAR ECLIPSE:
http://ivanik3.narod.ru/Astrophiz/AnomSunEclip/pugarticleGoodey.pdf
Published in the Journal of Advanced Research in Physics
Given the above, the authors consider that it is an inescapable conclusion from our experiments that after the end of the visible eclipse, as the Moon departed the angular vicinity of the Sun, some influence exerted itself upon the Eastern European region containing our three sets of equipment, extending over a field at least hundreds of kilometers in width.
The nature of this common influence is unknown, but plainly it cannot be considered as gravitational in the usually accepted sense of Newtonian or Einsteinian gravitation.
We therefore are compelled to the opinion that some currently unknown physical influence was at work.
AN UNKNOWN PHYSICAL INFLUENCE WAS AT WORK.
This is the influence of the BLACK SUN passing in front of the visible Sun.
-
But it does matter, in fact it is crucial...
What does anything that followed that opening statement have to do with whether or not the moon is transparent?
Edit: Is it in response to the question about if you believe the moon is transparent how do you explain solar eclipses? Answer being, moon isn't what eclipses the sun?
-
It is emitted by the Black Sun/Rahu.
Why is the new moon near the sun just a regular new moon, but when the new moon eclipses the sun it's the black sun?
(https://astrobob.areavoices.com/astrobob/images/New_moon_panel_1.jpg)
-
Sandokhan, you tried this line of reasoning before. It doesn't work.
http://www.rufon.org/forum/general-ufo-discussions/allais-effect-vril-of-the-black-sun/
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=17028
https://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=282058
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=68045.60
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65462.90
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=61876.60
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=73943.120#msg2012536
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67119.210#msg1797388
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.0
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70078.30
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=124478
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4836.msg94467#msg94467
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3475.msg78131#msg78131
The simple fact is that any one with a camera and a finger can take a photo of the moon as it passes in front of the sun and see it for themselves.
-
but when the new moon eclipses the sun it's the black sun?
Because you have to deal with the unavoidable calculations of the Allais effect.
you tried this line of reasoning before. It doesn't work.
But it does work, since you are unable to explain the Allais effect and you also have to rely on the outrageous hypothesis that the temperature of the solar corona two million degrees Celsius.
Here are the precise calculations of the Allais effect:
(https://image.ibb.co/bNG9mJ/Capture_zpskd3rcykr.jpg)
Dr. Maurice Allais:
In both cases, with the experiments with the anisotropic
support and with those with the isotropic support, it is found
that the amplitudes of the periodic effects are considerably
greater than those calculated according to the law of gravitation,
whether or not completed by the theory of relativity.
In the case of the anisotropic support, the amplitude of
the luni-solar component of 24h 50m is about twenty million
times greater than the amplitude calculated by the theory of
universal gravitation.
In the case of the paraconical pendulum with isotropic
support, this relation is about a hundred million.
We know for sure the identity of two of the heavenly bodies which take part in a total solar eclipse: the Earth and the Sun.
The calculations done by Dr. Allais show that the third body cannot be the Moon: the amplitudes are TWENTY MILLION TIMES LARGER THAN the luni-solar component for the anisotropic support, and ONE HUNDRED MILLION TIMES larger than the luni-solar component for the isotropic support.
Here are the calculations for the Allais effect measured by Saxl and Allen, published in the Physical Review D:
(https://i.ibb.co/cg8bBmN/saxl1-zps070aa4af.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/BtWcp0X/saxl2-zps0b759d09.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/fxWtLh5/saxl3-zpsaf4b573b.jpg)
Saxl and Allen went on to note that to explain these remarkable eclipse observations, according to "conventional Newtonian/Einsteinian gravitational theory," an increase in the weight of the pendumum bob itself on the order of ~5% would be required ... amounting to (for the ~51.5-lb pendulum bob in the experiment) an increase of ~2.64 lbs!
The simple fact is that any one with a camera and a finger can take a photo of the moon as it passes in front of the sun and see it for themselves.
None of the hundreds of photographs and videos show the Moon at all.
It is only in the age of the Photoshop that the pictures featuring the Moon in front of the Sun have appeared.
However, this images are shown to be utterly false, since they cannot explain the Allais effect.
(http://www.enterprisemission.com/Eclipse-Allais-Pendulum-motions.jpg)
"This normal, downward-sloping trend is abruptly REVERSED!
From there, things rapidly got even more bizarre--
As the pendulum’s azimuth motion continues in an accelerating, COUNTER-clockwise direction … for the next 45 minutes; then, after peaking, the pendulum motion REVERSES direction (moving clockwise again …), only to reverse BACK again (counterclockwise!) … briefly [as the Moon reaches “mid-eclipse” (the central green line)] -- before abruptly reversing once more, accelerating again in a CLOCKWISE direction … before eventually “bottoming out” … parallel to the ORIGINAL “Foucault/Earth rotation” downward-sloping trend line!"
Dr. Maurice Allais:
“… the current theory of gravitation (being the result of the application, within the current theory of relative motions, of the principles of inertia and universal gravitation to any one of the Galilean spaces) complemented or not by the corrections suggested by the theory of relativity, leads to orders of magnitude [many factors of ten] for lunar and solar action (which are strictly not to be perceived experimentally) of some 100 million times less than the effects noted [during the eclipse] ... [emphasis added].”
In other words, the pendulum motions Allais observed during his two eclipses – 1954 and 1959 -- were physically IMPOSSIBLE … according to all known “textbook physics!”
Allais’ ultimate “physical explanation” for the dramatic and totally anomalous paraconical pendulum behavior he observed, is summed up thus (below):
(http://www.enterprisemission.com/Eclipse-Allais-explanation.jpg)
LIVE BLACK SUN SOLAR ECLIPSE EVENT:
https://youtu.be/WBIyYCdwX1k
UK Solar Eclipse - BBC - 11 August 1999
Without the Photoshop, you get the Black Sun in front the visible Sun.
Remember, you ALWAYS have to deal with/explain the Allais effect; unless you can do so, the Moon does not cause the solar eclipse at all.
-
None other than a hero of the RE clearly states that the Moon does not cause the solar eclipse.
SIMULTANEOUS SOLAR/LUNAR ECLIPSES
(https://web.archive.org/web/20060210162648im_/http://geocities.com/jesuselcristos/sunmoon180.gif)
From America, Christopher Columbus also wrote to the king and the queen of Spain about the simultaneous eclipses:
This that I have said is what I have heard. What I know is that the year 94 I sailed in 24 degrees to the west in 9 hours, and it could not be mistake because there were eclipses: the sun was in Libra and the moon in Ariete.
http://www.mgar.net/docs/colon4.htm
Esto que yo he dicho es lo que he oído. Lo que yo sé es que el ańo de 94 navegué en 24° al Poniente en término de nueve horas, y no pudo haber yerro porque hubo eclipses: el sol estaba en Libra y la luna en Ariete.
Now, "Columbus" is NOT describing a selenelion (both the Sun and the eclipsed Moon can be observed at the same time in the RE theory): he used the words "hubo eclipses" (were eclipses), there were a solar and a lunar eclipse occurring at the same time.
-
but when the new moon eclipses the sun it's the black sun?
Because you have to deal with the unavoidable calculations of the Allais effect.
But how do you deal with the absolutely predictable nature of the moon's motions through the sky? At what point does the black sun switch places with the new moon and when do they switch back?
-
But how do you deal with the absolutely predictable nature of the moon's motions through the sky? At what point does the black sun switch places with the new moon and when do they switch back?
In order to answer your question, we have to go back to the year 1662 AD:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1851060#msg1851060
Then, you'll understand the nature of the orbits of the Moon (new Moon) and of the Black Sun:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1628430#msg1628430
-
But how do you deal with the absolutely predictable nature of the moon's motions through the sky? At what point does the black sun switch places with the new moon and when do they switch back?
In order to answer your question, we have to go back to the year 1662 AD:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1851060#msg1851060
Then, you'll understand the nature of the orbits of the Moon (new Moon) and of the Black Sun:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1628430#msg1628430
Is there any chance that you can give me the abridged version?
-
As the OP for this thread I have to say I am quite amazed at how complicated and complex (as well as off topic) some the answers have become to what I thought was a simple question.
Not sure where this 'black sun' idea has stemmed from. Surely it is common knowledge these days that there can be no such thing as a black star (brown dwarf yes but def not black). The collapse of a supermassive star can result in a black hole but that is hardly a 'star' as such. When we see a total solar eclipse we are seeing the new Moon silhouetted against the solar corona. Equally it is common knowledge (at least it is now) that the Moon is no more transparent than the Earth is.
-
Here are some cool older earthshines, most claim no photoshop. I'm guessing they are all liars:
(http://www.eclipsechaser.com/eclink/image/ecimg95/e95eshns.jpg)
Long Exposures of Corona and Earthshine
The left image is scanned from a machine print of a one second exposure on Kodachrome 64 film. Earthshine on the moon is detectable in the right image, which is from the same slide. The original slide was printed directly onto black and white paper in order to gain contrast, then the resulting negative print was photographed with slide film and printed onto black and white paper to produce a positive. An original image having four times as much exposure would clearly show earthshine without any manipulation. I did not take such a long exposure due to the lack of a clock drive and the relative brevity of totality."
http://www.eclipsechaser.com/eclink/image/total95.htm
(http://www.eclipsechaser.com/eclink/image/ecimg17/e17es94.jpg)
L: Digital camera artifacts around highlights. R: Earthshine on Moon during 1994 eclipse.
LEFT: Manifestation of anticipated orthogonal red digital camera artifacts in image of "diamond ring" at 21 August 2017 total solar eclipse. Camera is an Olympus E-P3, which has a Bayer array image sensor. The 4.3 micron pixel interval of the E-P3 is a little larger than the 3.8 micron interval of the Panasonic GX7 used for one of the tests above, so the artifacts are not as strong. The iris in the 250mm lens has 8 blades, but the red color clearly favors orthogonal over diagonal directions.
RIGHT: This image of the 3 Nov. 1994 total solar eclipse was taken with a Vernonscope 94mm f/7 refractor telescope and a Nikon N2020 film camera. It is a 3 second exposure at f/7 on Kodachrome 64 Professional film (Kodachrome is no longer available). This simple system (triplet objective and film camera) captured a fairly clean, though underexposed, image of earthshine on the moon during totality. The original was printed on black and white photo paper to brighten the lunar image. Excessive artifacts from lenses or digital camera sensors can spoil a picture like this.
http://www.eclipsechaser.com/
(http://www.eclipsechaser.com/eclink/image/ecimg94/erthsh94.jpg)
Earthshine on Moon from Above 3 Second @ f/7 Corona Photo (1994)
The original film was printed directly onto black and white paper. Very little dodging was necessary. The only digital processing was to burn in the limb area about 12 percent.
http://www.eclipsechaser.com/eclink/image/total94.htm
(https://stevezigler.files.wordpress.com/2017/08/dsc8013-fb.jpg)
"Personally, I could not see the face of the moon with my naked eye, even through binoculars. It was only revealed to me later in this four-second exposure, which was taken about half way through totality. The long exposure causes the corona to be overexposed, but the face of the “man in the moon” is easily visible. Just in case you’re suspicious, I did not create this image in Photoshop by overlaying a picture of a full moon on top of the total eclipse. Note that you can also see the bright star Regulus as a small dot on the far left side of the frame. Some pink portions of the chromosphere are also visible around the edge of the moon in a couple of places.”
http://www.stevezigler.com/solar-eclipse-2017.html
(http://www.alsonwongastro.com/images/Solar_System/2001Eclipse4sec400pw.jpg)
The phase of the Earth as seen from the Moon is exactly opposite the phase of the Moon as seen from Earth, so that the new Moon is lit by a fully sunlit Earth. Normally the new Moon is invisible because it is lost in the glare of the Sun. During a total solar eclipse, however, it is possible to photograph the Earthlit lunar surface. In this image the lunar maria can be seen.
Instrument: Vixen 102-ED
F-ratio: f/6.5
Exposure: 4 seconds
Film: E200
Date: June 21, 2001
Location: Chisamba, Zambia
http://www.alsonwongastro.com/20011.htm
Non-Composite
(http://www.mreclipse.com/SEphoto/TSE2006/image/T06-2040+41w.JPG)
Far Outer Corona and Moon (T06-2040+41w)
Long streamers can be seen in a long exposure (2 seconds) of the corona. As a consequence, the inner and middle corona are completely overexposed.Also visible are the Moon's dark mare and rayed craters which are illuminated in bright earthshine (sunlight reflected from Earth).
Total Solar Eclipse of 2006 March 29 (Jalu, LIBYA)
Nikon D200 and TeleVue Ranger 70mm f/6.8 Refractor, 2 seconds
Photo ©2006 by Fred Espenak
http://www.mreclipse.com/SEphoto/TSE2006/TSE2006galleryA.html
2006
(http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2006mar29/earthshine.jpg)
"Despite dusty conditions, the Moon's face can be seen via Earthshine in a deep exposure.”
http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2006mar29/index.html
-
Those are some nice pictures, and good to see some that are single images rather than 'stacked'.
Can you add links to the sources please?
-
Those are some nice pictures, and good to see some that are single images rather than 'stacked'.
Can you add links to the sources please?
Yeah, they are not easy to find. You need just the right long exposure to get them without blowing out the entire image.
I added in the links.
-
What if that isn't earthshine, but sunlight filtering through the semi-transparent moon?
-
What if that isn't earthshine, but sunlight filtering through the semi-transparent moon?
I suppose it could be. But then the moon would be perpetually barely transparent which kind of defeats the theory of the moon being transparent to begin with - being that the sun can barely shine through it. Which I guess leads to why Rowbotham claimed a transparent moon. So he could claim it was self luminous and get out of the jam of the RE explanation of the moon phases. Then that doesn't cover off on eclipses so you heave a sneaky unobserved 3rd dark body into the mix and voila! FE moon phases and eclipses, check!
A nearly opaque moon doesn't really help with self luminosity unless the moonshrimp are much, much brighter than the sun.
-
How does unknown physical influence = a black sun passing in front of the visible sun? Where is this black sun the rest of the time, and where is its influence at other times? What is its distance from the earth, and its size? Evidence, please.
-
After the 'black sun' passes in front of the sun it will have absorbed a lot of heat. Probably it would be glowing red because it has to be close. Why can't you see it as a glowing red ball after it passes away from the sun?
-
None other than a hero of the RE clearly states that the Moon does not cause the solar eclipse. From America, Christopher Columbus also wrote to the king and the queen of Spain about the simultaneous eclipses:
This that I have said is what I have heard. What I know is that the year 94 I sailed in 24 degrees to the west in 9 hours, and it could not be mistake because there were eclipses: the sun was in Libra and the moon in Ariete.
http://www.mgar.net/docs/colon4.htm
Not sure why you think Columbus is a "round earth hero". He might be a hero of exploration to some, but he's no more a round earth hero than anyone else who has travelled from Europe to the Americas. Plus, he was quite (and obstinately) wrong about the size of the globe.
Reading the whole passage, it's clear that Google Translate is struggling with it; it's a long stream of gibberish. But better translations have been done:
https://books.google.es/books?id=ZftqV0XJcu4C&pg=PA176&lpg=PA176&dq=columbus+eclipse+libra+aries&source=bl&ots=CSqwh3bWMk&sig=OAQvBt0XR1U8vRfw4hk6RJSubig&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjB7-fRsKvfAhWI4YUKHdWVCGEQ6AEwHXoECAsQAQ#v=onepage&q=columbus%20eclipse%20libra%20aries&f=false
The eclipse he was talking about occurred on Ocober 15th, 1502, at 2307UTC.
Maybe someone else can show that, as Columbus wrote, "the sun was in Libra and the moon in Aries."