[Curious Squirrel]

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.

[George Jetson]

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”

[Curious Squirrel]

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.

[Max_Almond]

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!


https://www.google.com/search?q=solar+eclipse+moon+earthshine

[sandokhan]

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

[George Jetson]

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...

[stack]

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:

[George Jetson]

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:

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.

[stack]

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:

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.

[George Jetson]

Video footage of the 2010 solar eclipse from Easter Island during which that photo was taken.

[Max_Almond]

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.

[stack]

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.

[Max_Almond]

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.

[Bobby Shafto]

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:

[sandokhan]

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:





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.



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:



Dr. Stuart D. Bale, UC Berkeley

[stack]

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:

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…"

[Spingo]

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

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.

[stack]

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?

[sandokhan]

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:



Group 0, line 0: NEWTONIUM

Group 0, line 1: CORONIUM



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:



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.

[stack]

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.