Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 1024
  • Path of photon from sun location to eye at sunset?
    • View Profile
    • What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset
Lunar eclipses and the "shadow object"
« on: May 26, 2017, 12:47:54 PM »
The standard FE explanation for eclipses (both solar and lunar) is that a mysterious "shadow object" - which is evidently round and opaque (maybe a disk, maybe a sphere) - gets between the observer and the sun or moon respectively.   This is intended to explain why there is a curved shadow on the moon during a partial lunar eclipse.

In RE terms, the shadow of the curved Earth cast onto the moon explains the curved shadow.

My new problem is how FE'ers can explain why this "Shadow object" or "antimoon" doesn't block out the stars - during a partial lunar eclipse or when moving across the sky between eclipses...that's not explained at all.

In RE theory - the stars are luminous and are clearly visible - even when we see them right next to the semi-eclipsed moon...which we clearly do.

In FE theory, during a partial lunar eclipse, the part of the Shadow object that does not overlay the moon should block starlight from stars in that small region of the sky...but it doesn't.  Furthermore, just before and after the eclipse, we ought to see a circular region of blocked-out stars moving towards and then away from the moon.  No such observations have ever been made...I've watched countless lunar eclipses - and I have not seen a blotting out of the stars close to the moon in the time leading up to, and following the eclipse.

I think FE proponents have to rethink their eclipse ideas...what's there right now doesn't fit with simple naked-eye observations.
Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?

*

Offline TitanicShark

  • *
  • Posts: 42
  • Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
    • View Profile
Re: Lunar eclipses and the "shadow object"
« Reply #1 on: May 26, 2017, 01:07:49 PM »
The standard FE explanation for eclipses (both solar and lunar) is that a mysterious "shadow object" - which is evidently round and opaque (maybe a disk, maybe a sphere) - gets between the observer and the sun or moon respectively.   This is intended to explain why there is a curved shadow on the moon during a partial lunar eclipse.

In RE terms, the shadow of the curved Earth cast onto the moon explains the curved shadow.

My new problem is how FE'ers can explain why this "Shadow object" or "antimoon" doesn't block out the stars - during a partial lunar eclipse or when moving across the sky between eclipses...that's not explained at all.

In RE theory - the stars are luminous and are clearly visible - even when we see them right next to the semi-eclipsed moon...which we clearly do.

In FE theory, during a partial lunar eclipse, the part of the Shadow object that does not overlay the moon should block starlight from stars in that small region of the sky...but it doesn't.  Furthermore, just before and after the eclipse, we ought to see a circular region of blocked-out stars moving towards and then away from the moon.  No such observations have ever been made...I've watched countless lunar eclipses - and I have not seen a blotting out of the stars close to the moon in the time leading up to, and following the eclipse.

I think FE proponents have to rethink their eclipse ideas...what's there right now doesn't fit with simple naked-eye observations.

I can further support this by stating that total solar eclipses would cover more area and why would they change paths?
π•Ώπ–Žπ–™π–†π–“π–Žπ–ˆπ•Ύπ–π–†π–—π–

Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 1024
  • Path of photon from sun location to eye at sunset?
    • View Profile
    • What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset
Re: Lunar eclipses and the "shadow object"
« Reply #2 on: May 26, 2017, 01:19:29 PM »
The standard FE explanation for eclipses (both solar and lunar) is that a mysterious "shadow object" - which is evidently round and opaque (maybe a disk, maybe a sphere) - gets between the observer and the sun or moon respectively.   This is intended to explain why there is a curved shadow on the moon during a partial lunar eclipse.

In RE terms, the shadow of the curved Earth cast onto the moon explains the curved shadow.

My new problem is how FE'ers can explain why this "Shadow object" or "antimoon" doesn't block out the stars - during a partial lunar eclipse or when moving across the sky between eclipses...that's not explained at all.

In RE theory - the stars are luminous and are clearly visible - even when we see them right next to the semi-eclipsed moon...which we clearly do.

In FE theory, during a partial lunar eclipse, the part of the Shadow object that does not overlay the moon should block starlight from stars in that small region of the sky...but it doesn't.  Furthermore, just before and after the eclipse, we ought to see a circular region of blocked-out stars moving towards and then away from the moon.  No such observations have ever been made...I've watched countless lunar eclipses - and I have not seen a blotting out of the stars close to the moon in the time leading up to, and following the eclipse.

I think FE proponents have to rethink their eclipse ideas...what's there right now doesn't fit with simple naked-eye observations.

I can further support this by stating that total solar eclipses would cover more area and why would they change paths?

Perhaps - but I'm guessing the FE'ers would say that the shadow object comes closer to the observer during lunar eclipses than during solar eclipses...this makes little sense - but clearly the complex motions of sun, moon, stars and shadow object are all cunningly designed by "The Creator" to make it look like the world is round.

(I can imagine no other explanations for the astounding series of coincidences that make FE theory produce observations that are so incredibly similar to RE theory).
Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?

*

Offline TomInAustin

  • *
  • Posts: 787
  • Round Duh
    • View Profile
Re: Lunar eclipses and the "shadow object"
« Reply #3 on: May 26, 2017, 02:12:03 PM »
The standard FE explanation for eclipses (both solar and lunar) is that a mysterious "shadow object" - which is evidently round and opaque (maybe a disk, maybe a sphere) - gets between the observer and the sun or moon respectively.   This is intended to explain why there is a curved shadow on the moon during a partial lunar eclipse.

In RE terms, the shadow of the curved Earth cast onto the moon explains the curved shadow.

My new problem is how FE'ers can explain why this "Shadow object" or "antimoon" doesn't block out the stars - during a partial lunar eclipse or when moving across the sky between eclipses...that's not explained at all.

In RE theory - the stars are luminous and are clearly visible - even when we see them right next to the semi-eclipsed moon...which we clearly do.

In FE theory, during a partial lunar eclipse, the part of the Shadow object that does not overlay the moon should block starlight from stars in that small region of the sky...but it doesn't.  Furthermore, just before and after the eclipse, we ought to see a circular region of blocked-out stars moving towards and then away from the moon.  No such observations have ever been made...I've watched countless lunar eclipses - and I have not seen a blotting out of the stars close to the moon in the time leading up to, and following the eclipse.

I think FE proponents have to rethink their eclipse ideas...what's there right now doesn't fit with simple naked-eye observations.

Wait, I thought the sun was a spotlight, so how could it illuminate the moon or cast a shadow?
I don't have to go to the gym, I get all my exercise jumping to conclusions.-sandokhan

Offline Oami

  • *
  • Posts: 88
    • View Profile
Re: Lunar eclipses and the "shadow object"
« Reply #4 on: May 26, 2017, 02:28:48 PM »
Perhaps - but I'm guessing the FE'ers would say that the shadow object comes closer to the observer during lunar eclipses than during solar eclipses...this makes little sense - but clearly the complex motions of sun, moon, stars and shadow object are all cunningly designed by "The Creator" to make it look like the world is round.

(I can imagine no other explanations for the astounding series of coincidences that make FE theory produce observations that are so incredibly similar to RE theory).

In the end, if you believe in Almighty God, you believe in a being who is able to control every single photon in the universe (because that ability is of course a part of his almightiness), up to the point that he is able to create photons right in your eyes, and thus make you see whatever he wants you to see. And so, the laws of physics can be anything and whatever you claim of them can never be disproven, because "unknown are his ways".

Did I already mention that I usually try to not discuss science and religion at the same time? This is why.

*

Offline Rounder

  • *
  • Posts: 779
  • What in the Sam Hill are you people talking about?
    • View Profile
Re: Lunar eclipses and the "shadow object"
« Reply #5 on: May 26, 2017, 04:34:51 PM »
Perhaps - but I'm guessing the FE'ers would say that the shadow object comes closer to the observer during lunar eclipses than during solar eclipses...this makes little sense - but clearly the complex motions of sun, moon, stars and shadow object are all cunningly designed by "The Creator" to make it look like the world is round.

(I can imagine no other explanations for the astounding series of coincidences that make FE theory produce observations that are so incredibly similar to RE theory).

In the end, if you believe in Almighty God, you believe in a being who is able to control every single photon in the universe (because that ability is of course a part of his almightiness), up to the point that he is able to create photons right in your eyes, and thus make you see whatever he wants you to see. And so, the laws of physics can be anything and whatever you claim of them can never be disproven, because "unknown are his ways".

Did I already mention that I usually try to not discuss science and religion at the same time? This is why.

I've always had a problem with the whole "The truth is X, but God makes it appear like Y" argument.  Fossils vs Young Earth, Flat vs Round, etc.  If God actually is what His faithful say he is, He wouldn't fake things!  Look what it says on the topic in His book:

Quote
Numbers 23:19: β€œGod is not a man, that He should lie, nor a son of man, that He should repent. Has He said, and will He not do? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?”

1 Samuel 15:29: β€œAnd also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor relent. For He is not a man, that He should relent.”

Psalm 92:15: β€œTo declare that the Lord is upright; He is my rock, and there is no unrighteousness in Him.”

Titus 1:2: β€œIn hope of eternal life which God, who cannot lie, promised before time began.”

Hebrews 6:18: β€œIt is impossible for God to lie.”

If the evidence appears to conform to round earth predictions, it cannot be because God has arranged a deception to make a flat earth appear round to the heathens, because God doesn't do deception.
Proud member of Δ°ntikam's "Ignore List"
Ok. You proven you are unworthy to unignored. You proven it was a bad idea to unignore you. and it was for me a disgusting experience...Now you are going to place where you deserved and accustomed.
Quote from: SexWarrior
You accuse {FE} people of malice where incompetence suffice

Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 1024
  • Path of photon from sun location to eye at sunset?
    • View Profile
    • What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset
Re: Lunar eclipses and the "shadow object"
« Reply #6 on: May 30, 2017, 09:25:21 PM »

Quote
Numbers 23:19: β€œGod is not a man, that He should lie, nor a son of man, that He should repent. Has He said, and will He not do? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?”

1 Samuel 15:29: β€œAnd also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor relent. For He is not a man, that He should relent.”

Psalm 92:15: β€œTo declare that the Lord is upright; He is my rock, and there is no unrighteousness in Him.”

Titus 1:2: β€œIn hope of eternal life which God, who cannot lie, promised before time began.”

Hebrews 6:18: β€œIt is impossible for God to lie.”

If the evidence appears to conform to round earth predictions, it cannot be because God has arranged a deception to make a flat earth appear round to the heathens, because God doesn't do deception.
[/quote]

But we're told that God caused those words to be written in the bible (by "inspiration" or some such thing).    So is it impossible for a liar to write "I AM NOT A LIAR" in a book?

God is claimed to be omnipotent - he has NO LIMITS WHATEVER to his powers - so if he chooses to lie - he can...no matter what he previously said.

I don't think religion gets you anywhere in this debate.   It's the same with the "Young Earthers" who will sometimes claim that God made the earth *LOOK* like it was a billion years old in order to test the faithful...if that's the tack someone want to take here - then there is no point in debating anything.   All evidence/science-based claims go out the window when there is an infinitely powerful wizard in control of the universe.
Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?

Re: Lunar eclipses and the "shadow object"
« Reply #7 on: June 06, 2017, 05:26:08 PM »
Our thinking is limited. No matter how much science we try to employ, we still end up with speculations. we come up with theories to try and explain everything, because we're too nassistic to accept the fact that we can't comprehend everything. theories keep changing because we haven't found facts yet. we were created to live on earth, not to fully understand how things work the way they do. God is mysterious & that's that.

*

Offline Boodidlie

  • *
  • Posts: 179
  • God is sovereign and I'm just along for the ride
    • View Profile
    • dadmansabode
Re: Lunar eclipses and the "shadow object"
« Reply #8 on: June 06, 2017, 06:00:52 PM »
Our thinking is limited. No matter how much science we try to employ, we still end up with speculations. we come up with theories to try and explain everything, because we're too nassistic to accept the fact that we can't comprehend everything. theories keep changing because we haven't found facts yet. we were created to live on earth, not to fully understand how things work the way they do. God is mysterious & that's that.

Indeed .... Hebrews 11:01-03 .. now faith is the assurance of things hoped for .. the conviction of things not seen .. for by it the men of old gained approval ..
by faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God .. so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible



..................................................... ><> God's ability is according to his will <><

Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 1024
  • Path of photon from sun location to eye at sunset?
    • View Profile
    • What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset
Re: Lunar eclipses and the "shadow object"
« Reply #9 on: June 06, 2017, 06:02:30 PM »
Our thinking is limited. No matter how much science we try to employ, we still end up with speculations. we come up with theories to try and explain everything, because we're too nassistic to accept the fact that we can't comprehend everything. theories keep changing because we haven't found facts yet. we were created to live on earth, not to fully understand how things work the way they do. God is mysterious & that's that.

Hmmm - let me fix that for you:

Our thinking is limited. No matter how much religion we try to employ, we still end up with hard-to-deny facts. we come up with biblical interpretations to try and explain everything, because we're too narcissistic to accept the fact that evidence is everything. Interpretations keep changing because we keep finding annoying contradictions. We have evolved to live on earth, not to fully understand how things work the way they do. Our understanding is incomplete but not often incorrect & that's that.


If you resort to religion - to even slightly admit the existence of an intelligence with literally zero limits to it's powers - then all bets are off.   The omnipotent being can manipulate any experiment, change the contents of books, alter our brains to make us see, hear, think absolutely anything.    They might promise not to do that - but with omnipotence they can ignore that promise.    If religion is true - then there can be no rational, logical deductions about anything.   No conversation produces enlightenment, no experiment produces reliable results, no course of reasoning brings valid conclusions...humanity knows nothing about the universe.

If you resort to science - you must follow where the experimental data and other observations lead you, and adopt some form of formal logic.   The results will often be unexpected and sometimes contradict what your senses tell you.   But if you followed the process - the conclusions are as unassailable as the observations you collected and the axioms of your mathematics.

We've learned (slowly and painfully) to be careful about our observations.   When Sir Isaac Newton came up with his laws of motion, we was only able to test them with objects bigger than an inch and smaller than a solar system...his range of available speeds went from perhaps one inch per hour to the speed of Mercury in it's orbit...he could find no mass bigger than the sun or smaller than a grain of sand.

We called his conclusions "The Laws of Motion".

His claims were necessarily wide of the mark outside of the range of his observations - but remarkably good within that range. (Although he didn't understand Mercury).

Only when we discovered the finite speed of light and that this was a universal constant did Albert Einstein (with enormous reluctance) conclude that Newton was mistaken...Newton had no opportunity to know this.   We do not say "Einsteins Laws of Relativity" - we say "Theory" because we know to exhibit more caution about universal truths.

So now - we test our theories at the limits of what we're able.   We find that a subtle error in Newton's understanding of the precession of the orbit of Mercury is elegantly resolved by relativity.   The LIGO experiment demonstrates that black holes exist and that they sometimes collide and that gravity itself moves no faster than the speed of light - we take this knowledge an slot it carefully into the framework we have - and it's a beautiful and perfect fit.   It adds strength to Einstein's theory - it removes one more place where an error might be revealed.   Over hundreds of thousands of experiments, we fill in more holes - but reveal not one single imperfection.

This is how science proceeds.

We don't know everything - but what we believe we do know is unassailled by contradictions.

If FET wishes to slot a new piece into the puzzle - it has to fit perfectly into what is known and well understood.  If FET cannot explain simple, commonplace observations - then it's WRONG - and can be rejected by reasonable, thinking beings.

« Last Edit: June 06, 2017, 06:06:34 PM by 3DGeek »
Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?

*

Offline Boodidlie

  • *
  • Posts: 179
  • God is sovereign and I'm just along for the ride
    • View Profile
    • dadmansabode
Re: Lunar eclipses and the "shadow object"
« Reply #10 on: June 06, 2017, 07:41:15 PM »
« Last Edit: June 06, 2017, 07:55:13 PM by Boodidlie »
..................................................... ><> God's ability is according to his will <><

*

Offline TomInAustin

  • *
  • Posts: 787
  • Round Duh
    • View Profile
Re: Lunar eclipses and the "shadow object"
« Reply #11 on: June 06, 2017, 09:01:58 PM »
Our thinking is limited. No matter how much science we try to employ, we still end up with speculations. we come up with theories to try and explain everything, because we're too nassistic to accept the fact that we can't comprehend everything. theories keep changing because we haven't found facts yet. we were created to live on earth, not to fully understand how things work the way they do. God is mysterious & that's that.

Which god are you referring to?
I don't have to go to the gym, I get all my exercise jumping to conclusions.-sandokhan