Lunar eclipses

This may or may not have been mentioned before, but how does a LUNAR eclipse occur on FE?

keep in mind that the lunar eclipse is the shadow of the earth covering the moon. If the sun circles with the moon ABOVE  the earth, how is the moon covered by the earths shadow which by simple logic would not exist?

I would like to add as well, A shadow object is not feasible so dont even try to tell me that.

Is that a serious question? or are you mocking tom?

Anyway, a floating shadow object would obscure certain stars at certain times. Also, if we can see the sun and moon at day, why not a big black disk? sounds pretty far-fetched to me.

Is that a serious question? or are you mocking tom?

Anyway, a floating shadow object would obscure certain stars at certain times. Also, if we can see the sun and moon at day, why not a big black disk? sounds pretty far-fetched to me.

Don't you mean serious answer?

Quote from: Pablo the Incredible on March 05, 2007, 08:20:52 AM

Is that a serious question? or are you mocking tom?

Anyway, a floating shadow object would obscure certain stars at certain times. Also, if we can see the sun and moon at day, why not a big black disk? sounds pretty far-fetched to me.

Don't you mean serious answer?

no, he definately asked a question.

Why isn't a shadow object feasible?

Woot hate on Tom Bitchop, the more the merrier

Ned's animations own.

Ned's animations own.

Well rock on Ned Kelly

Quote from: EIRD on March 05, 2007, 11:04:26 AM

Ned's animations own.

Well rock on Ned Kelly

Indeed.

This may or may not have been mentioned before, but how does a LUNAR eclipse occur on FE?

keep in mind that the lunar eclipse is the shadow of the earth covering the moon. If the sun circles with the moon ABOVE  the earth, how is the moon covered by the earths shadow which by simple logic would not exist?

I would like to add as well, A shadow object is not feasible so dont even try to tell me that.

Refer to FAQ for the love of reality.

HAHAHAHA THAT TOM BISHOP PICTURE HAHAHAHAHAH LMAO

Quote from: Pablo the Incredible on March 05, 2007, 07:52:47 AM

This may or may not have been mentioned before, but how does a LUNAR eclipse occur on FE?

keep in mind that the lunar eclipse is the shadow of the earth covering the moon. If the sun circles with the moon ABOVE  the earth, how is the moon covered by the earths shadow which by simple logic would not exist?

I would like to add as well, A shadow object is not feasible so dont even try to tell me that.

Refer to FAQ for the love of reality.

I'm sick and tired of hearing that from every freakin FE'er out there. Ive read the damn FAQ so many times it's making me crazy. If you want to make people believe what you believe, give us proof instead of snappy one-liners like:"a shadow object, read the FAQ" Explain the shadow object if its so obvious and not insane.

I'm sick and tired of hearing that from every freakin FE'er out there. Ive read the damn FAQ so many times it's making me crazy. If you want to make people believe what you believe, give us proof instead of snappy one-liners like:"a shadow object, read the FAQ" Explain the shadow object if its so obvious and not insane.

When a Flat Earth Proponent directs your attention towards the FAQ, he is asking you to read it and all of the instructions and links contained within. If you had bothered to read the FAQ you would have noticed that the cause of the Lunar Eclipse is accurately described in Chapter 11 of the book Earth Not a Globe.

See: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za29.htm

Tom have you actually read any of the rubbish you link to?

The sun's light is warm, drying, and preservative, or antiseptic; animal and vegetable substances exposed to it soon dry, coagulate, shrink, and lose their tendency to decompose and become putrid. Hence grapes and other fruits by long exposure to sunlight become solid, and partially candied and preserved; as instanced in raisins, prunes, dates, and ordinary grocers' currants. Hence, too, fish and flesh by similar exposure lose their gaseous and other volatile constituents and by coagulation of their albuminous and other compounds become firm and dry, and less liable to decay; in this way various kinds of fish and flesh well known to travellers are preserved for use.

The light of the moon is damp, cold, and powerfully septic; and animal and nitrogenous vegetable substances. exposed to it soon show symptoms of putrefaction. Even living creatures by long exposure to the moon's rays, become morbidly affected. It is a common thing on board vessels going through tropical regions, for written or printed notices to be issued, prohibiting persons from sleeping on deck exposed to full moonlight, experience having proved that such exposure is often followed by injurious consequences.

From the facts and phenomena already advanced, we cannot draw any other conclusion than that the moon is obscured by some kind of semi-transparent body passing before it; and through which the luminous surface is visible: the luminosity changed in colour by the density

p. 139

of the intervening object. This conclusion is forced upon, us by the evidence; but it involves the admission that the moon shines with light of its own--that it is not a reflector of the sun's light, but absolutely self-luminous. Although this admission is logically compulsory, it will be useful and strictly Zetetic to collect all the evidence possible which bears upon it.

1st. A reflector is a plane or concave surface, which gives off or returns what it receives:--

If a piece of red hot metal or any other heated object is placed before a plane or concave surface, heat is reflected.

If snow or ice, or any artificial freezing mixture is similarly placed, cold will be reflected.

If light of any given colour is placed in the same way, the same colour of light will be reflected.

If a given sound is produced, the same tone or pitch will be reflected.

A reflector will not throw off cold when heat is placed before it; nor heat when cold is presented. If a red light is received, red light will be returned, not blue or yellow. If the note C is sounded upon any musical instrument, a reflector will not return the note D or G, but precisely the same note, altered only in degree or intensity.

If the moon is a reflector of the sun's light, she could not radiate or throw down upon the earth any other light than such as she first receives from the sun. No difference could exist in the quality or character of the light; and it

p. 140

could not possibly differ in any other respect than that of intensity or quantity. It has been asserted in opposition to the above, that the moon might absorb some of the rays of light from the sun and reflect only the remaining rays. To this it is replied that absorption means speedy saturation: a piece of blotting paper, or a lump of hard sugar, or a sponge when brought into contact with any fluid or gaseous substance, would only absorb for a short time; it would quickly become saturated, filled to repletion, and from that moment would cease to absorb, and ever afterwards could only reflect or throw back whatever was projected upon it. So the moon, if an object without light of her own, might at the beginning of her existence absorb the sun's ray's, and, fixing some, might return the others; but as already shown, she could only absorb to saturation, which would occur in a very short time; and from this point of saturation to the present moment she could not have been other than a reflector--a reflector, too, of all which she receives.

It is a well known fact, that if the sun is allowed to shine strongly upon a common coal, coke, wood, or charcoal fire, the combustion is greatly diminished; and often the fire is extinguished. It is not an uncommon thing for cooks, housewives, and others to draw down the blinds in summer time to prevent their fires being put out by the continued stream of sun-light pouring through the windows. Many philosophers have recently attempted to deny and ridicule this fact, but they are met, not only by the common sense and every-day experience of very practical people, but by the results of specially instituted experiments.

It is not so well known perhaps, but it is an equally decided fact, that when the light of the moon is allowed to play upon a common carbonaceous fire, the action is increased, the fire burns more vividly, and the fuel is more rapidly consumed.

In sun-light a thermometer stands higher than a similar thermometer placed in the shade. In the full moon-light, a thermometer stands lower than a similar instrument in the shade.

In winter when ice and snow are on the ground, it is patent to every boy seeking amusement by skating or snow-balling, that in the sun light both ice and snow are softer and sooner thaw than that behind a wall, or in the shade. It is equally well known that when, in frosty weather, the night is far advanced, and the full moon has been shining for some hours, the snow and ice exposed to the moon-light are hard and crisp, while in the shade, or behind any object which intercepts the moon's rays it is warmer, and the ice and snow are softer and less compact. Snow will melt sooner in sun-light than in the shade; but sooner in the shade than when exposed to the light of the moon.

6th. The light of the sun reflected from the surface of a pool of water, or from the surface of ice, may be collected in a large lens, and thrown to a point or focus, when the heat will be found to be considerable; but neither from the light of the moon reflected in a similar way, nor direct from the moon itself, can a heat-giving focus be obtained.

7th. The sun's light, when concentrated by a number of plane or concave mirrors throwing the light to the same point; or by a large burning lens, produces a black or non-luminous focus, in which the heat is so intense that metallic and alkaline substances are quickly fused; earthy and mineral compounds almost immediately vitrified; and all animal and vegetable structures in a few seconds decomposed, burned up and destroyed.

The moon's light concentrated in the above manner produces a focus so brilliant and luminous that it is difficult to look upon it; yet there is no increase of temperature. In the focus of sun-light there is great heat but no light. In that of the moon's light there is great light but no heat. That the light of the moon is without heat, is fully verified by the following quotations:---

The facts now placed in contrast make it impossible to conclude otherwise than that the moon does not shine by reflection, but by a light peculiar to herself--that she is in short self-luminous. This conclusion is confirmed by the following consideration. The moon is said by the Newtonian philosophers to be a sphere. If so, its surface could not possibly reflect; a reflector must be concave or plane, so that the rays of light may have an "angle of incidence." If the surface is convex, every ray of light falls upon it in a line direct with radius, or perpendicular to the surface. Hence there cannot be an angle of incidence and therefore none of reflection. If the moon's surface were a mass of highly polished silver, it could not reflect from more than a mere point. Let a silvered glass ball of considerable size be held before a lamp or fire of any magnitude, and it will be seen that instead of the whole surface reflecting light there will only be a very small portion illuminated. But during full moon the whole disc shines intensely, an effect which from a spherical surface is impossible. If the surface of the moon were opaque and earthy instead of polished like a mirror, it might be seen simply illuminated like a dead wall, or the face of a distant sandstone rock, or chalky cliff, but it could not shine intensely from every part, radiating brilliant light and brightly illuminating the objects around it, as the moon does so beautifully when full and in a clear firmament. If the earth were admitted to be globular, and to move, and to be capable of throwing a shadow by intercepting the sun's light, it would be impossible for a lunar eclipse to occur thereby, unless, at the same time, the moon is proved to be non-luminous, and to shine only by reflection. But this is not proved; it is only assumed as an essential part of a theory. The contrary is capable of proof. That the moon is self-luminous, or shines with her own light, independently. The very name and the nature of a reflector demand certain well-defined conditions. The moon does not manifest these necessary conditions, and therefore it must be concluded, of necessity, that she is not a reflector, but a self-luminous body. That she shines with her own light independently of the sun, thus admits of direct demonstration.

Well I've been converted I must say. The moon simply can't be reflecting the sun's rays!! 

There's a huge problem with the Zetetic method of explaining Lunar Eclipses (i've also noticed that since the other night, you no longer are spouting the Shadow Object's existence).

If the Zetetic method were supposedly true, what's the method of predicting the eclipses to the exact second? I distinctly remember all the data given for all the eclipses I've ever seen to be HIGHLY accurate, and all based on the RET model of predicting them. In fact, the most recent one from two nights ago was also highly concurrent with the given data, which is also based on RET type observations.

So that you know, here's some data on the next Total Lunar Eclipse, predicted on August 28th, 2007:


Also, this eclipse is going to be of the type observed in the Zetetic text:

"On the 20th of April, 1837, the moon appeared to rise eclipsed before the sun had set. The same phenomenon was observed on the 20th of September, 1717." 2

"In the lunar eclipses of July 17th, 1590; November 3rd, 1648; June 16th, 1666; and May 26th, 1668; the moon rose eclipsed whilst the sun was still apparently above the horizon. Those horizontal eclipses were noticed as early as the time of Pliny." 3

On the 17th of January, 1870, a similar phenomenon occurred; .and again in July of the same year"

This is given by the data supplied by http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/RS_OneDay.html for my area in which I live:


That clearly shows the data matching in a similar matter to the observations given by the Zetetic text. The only difference is that the eclipse is to happen roughly 1 hour before sunrise. And remember: It's all RET that predicts the eclipses.

So please explain the method for predicting an eclipse in FET. And you're even free to explain how to predict an eclipse which involves an object (that you yourself claimed, Tom) that has yet to be proven to exist. Because if the object has yet to be proven to exist... how can you predict eclipses which seem to require it's existence?

Please explain.

Tom have you actually read any of the rubbish you link to?

Quote

The sun's light is warm, drying, and preservative, or antiseptic; animal and vegetable substances exposed to it soon dry, coagulate, shrink, and lose their tendency to decompose and become putrid. Hence grapes and other fruits by long exposure to sunlight become solid, and partially candied and preserved; as instanced in raisins, prunes, dates, and ordinary grocers' currants. Hence, too, fish and flesh by similar exposure lose their gaseous and other volatile constituents and by coagulation of their albuminous and other compounds become firm and dry, and less liable to decay; in this way various kinds of fish and flesh well known to travellers are preserved for use.

Quote

The light of the moon is damp, cold, and powerfully septic; and animal and nitrogenous vegetable substances. exposed to it soon show symptoms of putrefaction. Even living creatures by long exposure to the moon's rays, become morbidly affected. It is a common thing on board vessels going through tropical regions, for written or printed notices to be issued, prohibiting persons from sleeping on deck exposed to full moonlight, experience having proved that such exposure is often followed by injurious consequences.

Quote

From the facts and phenomena already advanced, we cannot draw any other conclusion than that the moon is obscured by some kind of semi-transparent body passing before it; and through which the luminous surface is visible: the luminosity changed in colour by the density

p. 139

of the intervening object. This conclusion is forced upon, us by the evidence; but it involves the admission that the moon shines with light of its own--that it is not a reflector of the sun's light, but absolutely self-luminous. Although this admission is logically compulsory, it will be useful and strictly Zetetic to collect all the evidence possible which bears upon it.

1st. A reflector is a plane or concave surface, which gives off or returns what it receives:--

If a piece of red hot metal or any other heated object is placed before a plane or concave surface, heat is reflected.

If snow or ice, or any artificial freezing mixture is similarly placed, cold will be reflected.

If light of any given colour is placed in the same way, the same colour of light will be reflected.

If a given sound is produced, the same tone or pitch will be reflected.

A reflector will not throw off cold when heat is placed before it; nor heat when cold is presented. If a red light is received, red light will be returned, not blue or yellow. If the note C is sounded upon any musical instrument, a reflector will not return the note D or G, but precisely the same note, altered only in degree or intensity.

If the moon is a reflector of the sun's light, she could not radiate or throw down upon the earth any other light than such as she first receives from the sun. No difference could exist in the quality or character of the light; and it

p. 140

could not possibly differ in any other respect than that of intensity or quantity. It has been asserted in opposition to the above, that the moon might absorb some of the rays of light from the sun and reflect only the remaining rays. To this it is replied that absorption means speedy saturation: a piece of blotting paper, or a lump of hard sugar, or a sponge when brought into contact with any fluid or gaseous substance, would only absorb for a short time; it would quickly become saturated, filled to repletion, and from that moment would cease to absorb, and ever afterwards could only reflect or throw back whatever was projected upon it. So the moon, if an object without light of her own, might at the beginning of her existence absorb the sun's ray's, and, fixing some, might return the others; but as already shown, she could only absorb to saturation, which would occur in a very short time; and from this point of saturation to the present moment she could not have been other than a reflector--a reflector, too, of all which she receives.

Quote

It is a well known fact, that if the sun is allowed to shine strongly upon a common coal, coke, wood, or charcoal fire, the combustion is greatly diminished; and often the fire is extinguished. It is not an uncommon thing for cooks, housewives, and others to draw down the blinds in summer time to prevent their fires being put out by the continued stream of sun-light pouring through the windows. Many philosophers have recently attempted to deny and ridicule this fact, but they are met, not only by the common sense and every-day experience of very practical people, but by the results of specially instituted experiments.

It is not so well known perhaps, but it is an equally decided fact, that when the light of the moon is allowed to play upon a common carbonaceous fire, the action is increased, the fire burns more vividly, and the fuel is more rapidly consumed.

Quote

In sun-light a thermometer stands higher than a similar thermometer placed in the shade. In the full moon-light, a thermometer stands lower than a similar instrument in the shade.

Quote

In winter when ice and snow are on the ground, it is patent to every boy seeking amusement by skating or snow-balling, that in the sun light both ice and snow are softer and sooner thaw than that behind a wall, or in the shade. It is equally well known that when, in frosty weather, the night is far advanced, and the full moon has been shining for some hours, the snow and ice exposed to the moon-light are hard and crisp, while in the shade, or behind any object which intercepts the moon's rays it is warmer, and the ice and snow are softer and less compact. Snow will melt sooner in sun-light than in the shade; but sooner in the shade than when exposed to the light of the moon.

Quote

6th. The light of the sun reflected from the surface of a pool of water, or from the surface of ice, may be collected in a large lens, and thrown to a point or focus, when the heat will be found to be considerable; but neither from the light of the moon reflected in a similar way, nor direct from the moon itself, can a heat-giving focus be obtained.

7th. The sun's light, when concentrated by a number of plane or concave mirrors throwing the light to the same point; or by a large burning lens, produces a black or non-luminous focus, in which the heat is so intense that metallic and alkaline substances are quickly fused; earthy and mineral compounds almost immediately vitrified; and all animal and vegetable structures in a few seconds decomposed, burned up and destroyed.

The moon's light concentrated in the above manner produces a focus so brilliant and luminous that it is difficult to look upon it; yet there is no increase of temperature. In the focus of sun-light there is great heat but no light. In that of the moon's light there is great light but no heat. That the light of the moon is without heat, is fully verified by the following quotations:---

Quote

The facts now placed in contrast make it impossible to conclude otherwise than that the moon does not shine by reflection, but by a light peculiar to herself--that she is in short self-luminous. This conclusion is confirmed by the following consideration. The moon is said by the Newtonian philosophers to be a sphere. If so, its surface could not possibly reflect; a reflector must be concave or plane, so that the rays of light may have an "angle of incidence." If the surface is convex, every ray of light falls upon it in a line direct with radius, or perpendicular to the surface. Hence there cannot be an angle of incidence and therefore none of reflection. If the moon's surface were a mass of highly polished silver, it could not reflect from more than a mere point. Let a silvered glass ball of considerable size be held before a lamp or fire of any magnitude, and it will be seen that instead of the whole surface reflecting light there will only be a very small portion illuminated. But during full moon the whole disc shines intensely, an effect which from a spherical surface is impossible. If the surface of the moon were opaque and earthy instead of polished like a mirror, it might be seen simply illuminated like a dead wall, or the face of a distant sandstone rock, or chalky cliff, but it could not shine intensely from every part, radiating brilliant light and brightly illuminating the objects around it, as the moon does so beautifully when full and in a clear firmament. If the earth were admitted to be globular, and to move, and to be capable of throwing a shadow by intercepting the sun's light, it would be impossible for a lunar eclipse to occur thereby, unless, at the same time, the moon is proved to be non-luminous, and to shine only by reflection. But this is not proved; it is only assumed as an essential part of a theory. The contrary is capable of proof. That the moon is self-luminous, or shines with her own light, independently. The very name and the nature of a reflector demand certain well-defined conditions. The moon does not manifest these necessary conditions, and therefore it must be concluded, of necessity, that she is not a reflector, but a self-luminous body. That she shines with her own light independently of the sun, thus admits of direct demonstration.

Well I've been converted I must say. The moon simply can't be reflecting the sun's rays!! 

That is the best science I ever read. If you read it again you may understand.

There's a huge problem with the Zetetic method of explaining Lunar Eclipses (i've also noticed that since the other night, you no longer are spouting the Shadow Object's existence).

If the Zetetic method were supposedly true, what's the method of predicting the eclipses to the exact second? I distinctly remember all the data given for all the eclipses I've ever seen to be HIGHLY accurate, and all based on the RET model of predicting them. In fact, the most recent one from two nights ago was also highly concurrent with the given data, which is also based on RET type observations.

So that you know, here's some data on the next Total Lunar Eclipse, predicted on August 28th, 2007:


Also, this eclipse is going to be of the type observed in the Zetetic text:

Quote

"On the 20th of April, 1837, the moon appeared to rise eclipsed before the sun had set. The same phenomenon was observed on the 20th of September, 1717." 2

"In the lunar eclipses of July 17th, 1590; November 3rd, 1648; June 16th, 1666; and May 26th, 1668; the moon rose eclipsed whilst the sun was still apparently above the horizon. Those horizontal eclipses were noticed as early as the time of Pliny." 3

On the 17th of January, 1870, a similar phenomenon occurred; .and again in July of the same year"

This is given by the data supplied by http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/RS_OneDay.html for my area in which I live:


That clearly shows the data matching in a similar matter to the observations given by the Zetetic text. The only difference is that the eclipse is to happen roughly 1 hour before sunrise. And remember: It's all RET that predicts the eclipses.

So please explain the method for predicting an eclipse in FET. And you're even free to explain how to predict an eclipse which involves an object (that you yourself claimed, Tom) that has yet to be proven to exist. Because if the object has yet to be proven to exist... how can you predict eclipses which seem to require it's existence?

Please explain.

I feel sorry for your mind being controlled by the conspiracy. Refer to the FAQ and stop watching MTV.

Quote from: Ned Kelly on March 05, 2007, 08:16:36 AM

Why isn't a shadow object feasible?

Woot hate on Tom Bitchop, the more the merrier

We need moar animated pictures of Tom Bishop

Quote from: FEers ftl on March 05, 2007, 10:45:24 AM

Quote from: Ned Kelly on March 05, 2007, 08:16:36 AM

Why isn't a shadow object feasible?

Woot hate on Tom Bitchop, the more the merrier

We need moar animated pictures of Tom Bishop

Yom Bishop animations are blasphemy, yet funny.

lmao stop watching mtv hahaha

I have just finished reading ALL of the expiriments described in Earth not a Globe.
They are all inconclusive.
If you look at the diagrams, the round earth results are greatly exaggerated. You can't see the curvature of the earth at eye level. It is simply too massive.
Besides, since photos are not admissable as evidence, why should this 100+ year old book be?

because its 100+ years old and its made by god, reminds me of the bible 

Are you FE or RE?

Are you FE or RE?

He's RE for retarded.