Offline Icarus

  • *
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
Moon Eclipse last night
« on: September 28, 2015, 11:26:55 AM »
Hello,
I'm new here and I'm always interested about the explanation based on common sense that you develop here.
I was wondering if you have a model that can explain what happen last night at the moon. I was looking everywhere and I could not find anything that the 3 balls perfectly (miraculously?) aligned to explain it.

If you have drawing that shows the shadow of the earth (disque) on the moon that will help me to understand how that works.

Thanks

Icarus

Re: Moon Eclipse last night
« Reply #1 on: September 28, 2015, 03:12:43 PM »
The official FES faq does not explain anything re: the shadow moon.

However, you will find the correct explanation in my messages (orbital distance, origin of the shadow moon, composition, size/diameter).


For starters, let us examine the two anomalies observed during the lunar eclipses.

During a lunar eclipse, it has been observed that the Earth's shadow (official science theory) is 2% larger than what is expected from geometrical considerations and it is believed that the Earth's atmosphere is responsible for the extent of the enlargement, but it is realized that the atmospheric absorption cannot explain light absorption at a height as high as 90 km above the Earth, as required by this hypothesis (as several authors have noted).

"It was also argued that the irradiation of the Moon in the Earth's shadow during the eclipse is caused by the refraction of sunlight in the upper regions of the Earth's atmosphere. However, the shade toward the center is too bright to be accounted for by refraction of visible sunlight.

That is, the pronounced red colour in the inner portions of the umbra during an eclipse of the Moon is caused by refraction of sunlight through the upper regions of the Earth's atmosphere, but the umbral shadow towards the centre is too bright to be accounted for by refraction of visible sunlight."


The reason for the perfect alignment is that the Shadow Moon has exactly the same diameter as that of the Moon itself.


The Moon could not possibly cause the solar eclipse.

"During the total eclipses of the sun on June 30, 1954, and October 22, 1959, quite analogous deviations of the plane of oscillation of the paraconical pendulum were observed..." - Maurice Allais, 1988 Nobel autobiographical lecture.

In a marathon experiment, Maurice Allais released a Foucault pendulum every 14 minutes - for 30 days and nights -without missing a data point. He recorded the direction of rotation (in degrees) at his Paris laboratory. This energetic show of human endurance happened to overlap with the 1954 solar eclipse. During the eclipse, the pendulum took an unexpected turn, changing its angle of rotation by 13.5 degrees.

Allais' pendulum experiments earned him the 1959 Galabert Prize of the French Astronautical Society, and in 1959 he was made a laureate of the United States Gravity Research Foundation.

Dr. Maurice Allais:  Should the laws of gravitation be reconsidered?

http://allais.maurice.free.fr/English/media10-12.htm

In the present status of the discussion, the abnormalities observed can be accounted for only by considering the existence of a new field. (page 12)



CONFIRMATION OF THE ALLAIS EFFECT DURING THE 2003 SOLAR ECLIPSE:

http://www.acad.ro/sectii2002/proceedings/doc3_2004/03_Mihaila.pdf

(it also shows that the effect was confirmed during the August 1999 solar eclipse)


CONFIRMATION OF THE ALLAIS EFFECT DURING THE SEPT. 2006 SOLAR ECLIPSE:

http://www.hessdalen.org/sse/program/Articol.pdf


CONFIRMATION OF THE ALLAIS EFFECT DURING THE 2008 SOLAR ECLIPSE:

http://stoner.phys.uaic.ro/jarp/index.php/jarp/article/viewFile/40/22


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.



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!”


Dr. Erwin Saxl, "1970 Solar Eclipse as 'Seen' by a Torsion Pendulum"

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!

This would be on the order of one hundred thousand (100,000) times greater than any possible "gravitational tidal effects" Saxl and Allen calculated (using Newtonian Gravitational Theory/ Relativity Theory) for even the 180-degree, "opposite" alignment of the sun and moon ... which, as previously noted, was also directly measured via the torsion pendulum (dasned green line - above) two weeks after the March 7 eclipse!



The existence of the shadow moon was discussed/predicted by the most eminent astronomers of the 19th century:

That many such bodies exist in the firmament is almost a matter of certainty; and that one such as that which eclipses the moon exists at no great distance above the earth's surface, is a matter admitted by many of the leading astronomers of the day. In the report of the council of the Royal Astronomical Society, for June 1850, it is said:--

"We may well doubt whether that body which we call the moon is the only satellite of the earth."

In the report of the Academy of Sciences for October 12th, 1846, and again for August, 1847, the director of one of the French observatories gives a number of observations and calculations which have led him to conclude that,--

"There is at least one non-luminous body of considerable magnitude which is attached as a satellite to this earth."

Sir John Herschel admits that:--

"Invisible moons exist in the firmament."

Sir John Lubbock is of the same opinion, and gives rules and formulæ for calculating their distances, periods.

Lambert in his cosmological letters admits the existence of "dark cosmical bodies of great size."


Why is it called the Shadow Moon?

The subquarks constantly being supplied to form the telluric currents come in two flavors, as already discussed:

One of the dark bodies which orbit above the Earth emits the laevorotatory subquarks, the antigravitational subquarks, as proven by the Allais effect.

Logically, the invisible moon emits the dextrorotatory subquarks.


http://web.archive.org/web/20080202171235/http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-rpress.asp

In fact, cosmic waves have far greater penetrating power than the man-made gamma radiation, and can even pass through a thickness of two metres of lead. The highest frequency possible, that is, the shortest wavelength limit is equal to the dimension of the unit element making up space-time itself, equal to Planck length, radiating at a frequency of 7.4E42Hz.

As you might be thinking already, the radiation pressure exerted by such high frequency radiation, in the top part of the EM spectrum, would be a perfect candidate for the gravity effect, since such radiation would penetrate ANY matter and act all over its constituent particles, not just its surface. The radiation can be visualised as a shower of high energy EM waves imparting impulses of momentum to all bodies in space. It also explains the great difficulty we have to shield anything from such force. The energy of each individual photon is a crucial component of the momentum necessary to create pressure for gravity to be possible. The shadow of incoming high energy EM wave packets can be pictured as the carriers of the gravitational force, the normal role assigned to the theoretical graviton. Hence, gravitons have been theorised due to the lack of knowledge of radiation pressure and radiation shadowing, and that's why they will never be detected. If photons represent the luminance of electromagnetic radiation, then, gravitons represent the shadowing and can be considered as negative energy waves, lack of photons or photon-holes.


This radiation shadowing is being emitted by the heavenly body which does cause the lunar eclipse: read the phrase - that is why they will never be detected.

"Gravitons represent the shadowing and can be considered as negative energy waves, lack of photons or photon-holes".


The origin of the Black Sun and of the Shadow Moon:

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3203.0
« Last Edit: September 28, 2015, 03:22:18 PM by sandokhan »

Thork

Re: Moon Eclipse last night
« Reply #2 on: September 28, 2015, 08:50:59 PM »
I'm new here and I'm always interested about the explanation based on common sense that you develop here.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za29.htm

Offline Icarus

  • *
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
Re: Moon Eclipse last night
« Reply #3 on: September 29, 2015, 01:04:46 PM »
Interesting literature and somehow outdated.
I’m not able to verify the accuracy of the numbers you mention about the radiation and light distortion. The existence of a dark objet is plausible, however with the flat earth, you could not predict the time of the next eclipse.
On another word: the earth might seem flat, our senses say it is flat, but other experiment and pictures show it round. Based on this model, a lot of prediction has been proven right, which you cannot do with your model.
This is why my question was not about the anomalies that has been pointed out in the last 200 or 2000 years, but about the model that could explain the phenomenon and it can be predictable with the same accuracy that the one based on the round earth.
Source of Wikipedia might not be your favourite, but they listed the eclipses, sun or moon, for the next 200 years, and it will be correct. As they were correct for the last 1000 years (Wikipedia or other sources).

Re: Moon Eclipse last night
« Reply #4 on: September 29, 2015, 03:33:46 PM »
This is why my question was not about the anomalies that has been pointed out in the last 200 or 2000 years, but about the model that could explain the phenomenon and it can be predictable with the same accuracy that the one based on the round earth.
Source of Wikipedia might not be your favourite, but they listed the eclipses, sun or moon, for the next 200 years, and it will be correct. As they were correct for the last 1000 years (Wikipedia or other sources).


The clockwork accuracy which is completely predictable, as it is being applied to celestial mechanics, is a hallmark of the Flat Earth Aether/Ether Mechanics and NOT of the heliocentrical astrophysics.


In the RET model, NOT EVEN the three body problem can be explained/described mathematically by a set of differential equations.

That is, the three body problem cannot be explained using the conventional approach: attractive gravity. A system consisting of a star (Sun), a planet (Earth), and a satellite of the planet (Moon) cannot be described mathematically; this fact was discovered long ago by Henri Poincare, and was hidden from public view:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg987360#msg987360

(KAM theory, homoclinic orbits, Smale horseshoes)


The quote from Henri Poincare, the greatest mathematician in the world at the end of the 19th century (S. Ramanujan was to appear some ten years later on the scene), has been deleted/censored from textbooks on the celestial mechanics at the undergraduate/graduate level.

A differential equation (initial value d.e.) approach to celestial mechanics IS IMPOSSIBLE.

As Poincare experimented, he was relieved to discover that in most of
the situations, the possible orbits varied only slightly from the initial
2-body orbit, and were still stable, but what occurred during further
experimentation was a shock. Poincare discovered that even in some of the
smallest approximations some orbits behaved in an erratic unstable manner. His
calculations showed that even a minute gravitational pull from a third body
might cause a planet to wobble and fly out of orbit all together.


Here is Poincare describing his findings:

While Poincare did not succeed in giving a complete solution, his work was so impressive that he was awarded the prize anyway. The distinguished Weierstrass, who was one of the judges, said, 'this work cannot indeed be considered as furnishing the complete solution of the question proposed, but that it is nevertheless of such importance that its publication will inaugurate a new era in the history of celestial mechanics.' A lively account of this event is given in Newton's Clock: Chaos in the Solar System. To show how visionary Poincare was, it is perhaps best if he described the Hallmark of Chaos - sensitive dependence on initial conditions - in his own words:

'If we knew exactly the laws of nature and the situation of the universe at the initial moment, we could predict exactly the situation of that same universe at a succeeding moment. but even if it were the case that the natural laws had no longer any secret for us, we could still only know the initial situation approximately. If that enabled us to predict the succeeding situation with the same approximation, that is all we require, and we should say that the phenomenon had been predicted, that it is governed by laws. But it is not always so; it may happen that small differences in the initial conditions produce very great ones in the final phenomena. A small error in the former will produce an enormous error in the latter. Prediction becomes impossible, and we have the fortuitous phenomenon.' - in a 1903 essay 'Science and Method'


That is why the conspirators had to invent a very complicated new theory, called chaos theory, with the help of G.D. Birkhoff and N. Levinson; their work was the inspiration for S. Smale's horseshoe map, a very clever way to describe Poincare's original findings as "workable" and "manageable". The formidable implications are, of course, that chaotical motion of the planets predicted by the differential equation approach of the London Royal Society is a thing that could happen ANYTIME, and not just some millions of years in the future, not to mention the sensitive dependence on initial conditions phenomenon.

Even measuring initial conditions of the system to an arbitrarily high, but finite accuracy, we will not be able to describe the system dynamics "at any time in the past or future". To predict the future of a chaotic system for arbitrarily long times, one would need to know the initial conditions with infinite accuracy, and this is by no means possible.

This is why the computer model of Jacques Laskar is pure fantasy, as it is completely detached from reality.


http://ptrow.com/articles/ChaosandSolarSystem5.htm


http://web.archive.org/web/20090108031631/http://essay.studyarea.com/old_essay/science/chaos_theory_explained.htm


And there is more.

HOW EINSTEIN MODIFIED HIS FORMULA RELATING TO MERCURY'S ORBIT IN ORDER TO FIT THE RESULTS:

http://www.gravitywarpdrive.com/Rethinking_Relativity.htm

Fact:  The equation that accounted for Mercury’s orbit had been published 17 years earlier, before Relativity was invented.  The author, Paul Gerber, used the assumption that gravity is not instantaneous, but propagates with the speed of light.  After Einstein published his General Relativity derivation, arriving at the same equation, Gerber’s article was reprinted in *Annalen der Physik* (the journal that had published Einstein’s Relativity papers).  The editors felt that Einstein should have acknowledged Gerber’s priority.  Although Einstein said he had been in the dark, it was pointed out that Gerber’s formula had been published in Mach’s Science of Mechanics, a book that Einstein was known to have studied.  So how did they both arrive at the same formula?

Tom Van Flandern was convinced that Gerber’s assumption (gravity propagates with the speed of light) was wrong.  So he studied the question.  He points out that the formula in question is well known in celestial mechanics.  Consequently, it could be used as a “target” for calculations that were intended to arrive at it.  He saw that Gerber’s method “made no sense, in terms of the principles of celestial mechanics.”  Einstein had also said (in a 1920 newspaper article) that Gerber’s derivation was “wrong through and through.”

So how did Einstein get the same formula?  Van Flandern went through his calculations, and found to his amazement that they had “three separate contributions to the perihelion; two of which add, and one of which cancels part of the other two; and you wind up with just the right multiplier.”  So he asked a colleague at the University of Maryland, who as a young man had overlapped with Einstein at Princeton’s Institute for Advanced Study, how in his opinion Einstein had arrived at the correct multiplier.  This man said it was his impression that, “knowing the answer,” Einstein had “jiggered the arguments until they came out with the right value.”



The existence of ether shows the fallacy of the entire RE celestial mechanics "theory".

Aether = medium through which ETHER flows

Ether = scalar waves consisting of subquarks strings

The density of aether can vary.


RE theory requires a full void, otherwise the equations which "describe" the orbits of the planets will have to include friction terms.


KEPLER MOTION

In an appropriate coordinate system, the motion of a planet around the sun (considered as fixed) with the attractive force being proportional to the inverse square of the distance /z/ of the planet from the sun is given by the solution of the second order conservative system with the potential function -/z/^-1 for z =/0.

A mechanical system without friction can be described in the Hamiltonian formulation.

References for Celestial Mechanics and Hamiltonian mechanics:

V.I. Arnold, Mathematical Methods of Classical Mechanics, Springer-Verlag, 1978

C.L. Siegel and J. Moser, Lectures on Celestial Mechanics, Springer-Verlag, 1971

J. Moser, Stable and Random Motions in Dynamical Systems, Princeton Univ. Press, 1973

Area Preserving Maps, Nonintegrable/Nearly Integrable Hamiltonians, KAM Theory:

http://www.math.rug.nl/~broer/pdf/kolmo100.pdf


« Last Edit: September 29, 2015, 03:37:13 PM by sandokhan »

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 11959
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Moon Eclipse last night
« Reply #5 on: September 29, 2015, 09:15:17 PM »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice