Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: The Moon's Phases in the Real (spheroid) Earth World  (Read 12212 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: The Moon's Phases in the Real (spheroid) Earth World
« Reply #25 on: April 05, 2018, 06:08:59 AM »
"...a lunar eclipse arises from... a body semi-transparent and well-defined passing before the moon; or between the moon's surface and the observer on the surface of the earth.

That many such bodies exist in the firmament is almost a matter of certainty; and that one such as that which

p. 149

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." 1

Sir John Lubbock is of the same opinion, and gives rules and formulæ for calculating their distances, periods, &c. 2

At the meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, in 1850, the president stated that,---

"The opinion was gaining ground, that many of the fixed stars were accompanied by companions emitting no light."

"The 'changeable stars' which disappear for a time, or are eclipsed, have been supposed to have very large opaque bodies revolving about or near to them, so as to obscure them when they come in conjunction with us." 3

p. 150

"Bessel, the greatest astronomer of our time, in a letter to myself, in July 1844, said, 'I do indeed continue in the belief that Procyon and Sirius are both true double stars, each consisting of one visible, and one invisible star.' . . A laborious inquiry just completed by Peters at Königsberg; and a similar one by Schubert, the calculator employed on the North American Nautical Almanack, support Bessel." 1

"The belief in the existence of non-luminous stars was prevalent in Grecian antiquity, and especially in the early times of Christianity. It was assumed that 'among the fiery stars which are nourished by vapours, there move other earthy bodies, which remain invisible to us!' Origenes." 2

"Stars that are invisible and consequently have no name move in space together with those that are visible." Diogenes of Appollonica. 3

Lambert in his cosmological letters admits the existence of "dark cosmical bodies of great size." 4

We have now seen that the existence of dark bodies revolving about the luminous objects in the firmament has been admitted by practical observers from the earliest ages; and that in our own day such a mass of evidence has accuмulated on the subject, that astronomers are compelled to admit that not only dark bodies which occasionally obscure the luminous stars when in conjunction, but that cosmical bodies of large size exist, and that "one at least is attached as a satellite to this earth." It is this dark or "non-luminous satellite," which when in conjunction,

p. 151

or in a line with the moon and an observer on earth, IS THE IMMEDIATE CAUSE OF A LUNAR ECLIPSE."

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

Re: The Moon's Phases in the Real (spheroid) Earth World
« Reply #26 on: April 05, 2018, 07:31:52 PM »
.
No, it is YOU who don't understand the (you say "Round") spheroid earth model correctly.
.
The only ones using "The Round Earth Model" (in quotes, no less) are ignorant flat-earthers, such as YOU.
.
Nobody is obliged to conform to your erroneous fantasy.
.
You are the one in error, and you are obliged to pay attention and learn.
.


No, I don't think you understand "The Round Earth Model" correctly.  The Moon's orbit is supposed to be at a tilt of 5 degrees, which allows the sunlight to hit the Moon.  However, during an eclipse, as I understand it, the orbit is supposed to be at 0 degrees.  

If the Moon is smaller, than the Earth and relatively close to the Earth, then it doesn't matter how much bigger the Sun is than the Earth.

See, in the rough diagram here from Hong Kong observatory, not drawn to scale, but it still illustrates the point, sunlight must travel past or somehow through the Earth to make the Moon appear "full."  Hence, the 5 degree tilt of the Moon's orbit, which changes to 0 degrees in an eclipse, in the round earth model.  So, somehow it has to change its orbit, which the claim is it does, with clock like precision, hence it is predictable.  Of course, the Chinese with their flat earth model didn't have any problem predicting eclipses either.  Still, eclipses seem pretty tough for pretty much everyone to explain!   :laugh1:
.
How many ways can you go wrong? I guess the estimate would be "infinite." You make one mistake after another.
Then you accuse me of not understanding your misunderstanding. Why should I try to accept your incorrect axioms and presuppositions?
.
You are wrong from the start.
.
You can't represent the orbit of the moon on a 2-dimensional diagram and expect to see how eclipses occur.
.
The moon's orbit doesn't change in order for eclipses to occur. It's the same orbit, under different time frames, when the path of the moon coincides with the shadow of the earth. The path of the moon varies every day, which you can see if you bother to look at the moon every day. Its elevation above the horizon is different day by day. But its orbit is consistent -- that is, consistent enough to explain why eclipses occur as they do. There are minuscule changes in the moon's orbit but those are not enough to make an eclipse happen or make one not happen that was going to before.
.
"If the Moon is smaller, [sic] than the Earth and relatively close to the Earth, then it doesn't matter how much bigger the Sun is than the Earth."
.
Your comma after "smaller" is inappropriate. Another example, from which there are so many to choose, of your being wrong.
.
If the moon is smaller than the earth and relatively close to the earth (compared to its distance to the sun) then it absolutely DOES matter how much bigger the sun is than the earth. If the sun were the same size as the earth but at the same distance it now is, we would be getting solar AND lunar eclipses a LOT more often and they would last A LOT LONGER.
.
Sunlight doesn't travel "through" the earth to make the moon appear "full." The darkest part of the earth's shadow (umbra) misses the moon most of the time, and only in rare instances does the umbra fall on the moon. The size of the earth's umbra hitting the moon is smaller than the earth, and it is a consequence of the relative diameters of the earth and sun and the relative distances between sun, earth and moon. Similarly, during a solar eclipse, the size of the moon's umbra hitting the earth (30 miles dia.) is much smaller than the moon (about 2,160 miles diameter).
.

.
In this comparison of the size of the United States to a full moon, recall the size of the umbra crossing the States this past August.
.

.
Not to scale:

.

.
However, the penumbra of the earth's shadow falls much more often on the moon even while that isn't something that is obvious from earth, any more than the penumbra of the moon's shadow falling on earth is obvious for someone outside the path of totality. If you have paid attention to a solar eclipse when you are located where the eclipse is PARTIAL (in the penumbra), you might have noticed that the appearance of the sun's daylight doesn't change all that much. When you find yourself in the outer limits of the penumbra, unless you use some projection device or optical filter device, you wouldn't notice there is an eclipse going on at all, unless you knew how to observe the shape of the shadows under trees or shining through other small apertures.
.
I know this is the case because I have gone out in public with projection devices and have found that most people at large are not only unaware of the eclipse in progress, they don't care that it's happening when I have told them about it.
.
Therefore the indifference of flat-earthers to the reality of our world is not unusual. Most people don't care, nor do they want to learn how to care when someone offers them the experience.
.
Tell me, for example, what were you doing this past August 21st during the total solar eclipse, the Great American Eclipse of the Sun?
.


Re: The Moon's Phases in the Real (spheroid) Earth World
« Reply #27 on: April 05, 2018, 08:43:40 PM »
.
In the past, flat-earthers have complained that the diagrams offered for their edification are of no use because they are "not to scale," and that this not being to scale is a matter of great anxiety for them. They presuppose that someone is trying to deceive them by using untruthful diagrams or whatever.
.
The fact of the matter is, a diagram that is to scale showing these things is a diagram that cannot be seen on you computer screen, because the images of the sun and planets and especially the moon are too small to be noticeable, that is, they would be smaller than one pixel. Well, the sun might be two or three pixels. But it would nonetheless be something that doesn't show up obviously.
.
Here is a good attempt to depict the difficulty. The picture shows three scales. 
The whole point is for these bodies to be VISIBLE to the viewer, that means YOU.
.
The scale on top (first panel) shows a large blue earth and a smaller yellow moon at its relative distance and diameter, to scale.
They're blue and yellow, not green, therefore they are to scale, as the header describes.
.
That's it for diameters being to scale! 
The second panel shows the sun's diameter to scale but not the planets. 
The third panel has only DISTANCE to scale. Even the sun is a green dot.
The reason for that is, if the diameters were to scale (in the second and third panels) the planets and moons would not be visible because they would be too small.
If they were to show the sun to scale with the top panel, the sun would be the size of a basketball, unable to fit on the page.
.
The scale in the middle (second panel) shows the sun to scale and then enlarged dots for the planets Mercury, Venus and Earth, all at their relative distances to scale from the sun. The planets are enlarged because if their diameters were to scale also, they would be too small, smaller than one pixel, and therefore would not be visible in this format. Notice the two moons of Mars are not visible, as they are much too small. Also, they have "Moon" labeled near Earth but it's too small to be obvious. I tried greatly enlarging this from the source page image, and found there is a sort of shadowy green blur on the right side of Earth which is likely their moon image. In other words, even when they attempt to depict the Moon with a green dot it's not really visible. But again, remember the scale distance and diameter of Earth--Moon is depicted TO SCALE in the first panel, directly above the second panel.
.
Finally, the bottom picture shows a smaller distance scale with all bodies enlarged (even the sun!) so you can see them in one screen width. Notice that from Saturn to Uranus is as far as from Sun to Saturn, and from Uranus to Neptune is further still. Pluto is not shown at all because it would be so very far out the label names wouldn't fit on the page. As it is, the names of Mercury, Venus and Earth are missing in the third panel.
.
The point is, if the second and third panels had everything to scale all you would see is the sun, because the planets would be too small to see, except for Jupiter and perhaps Saturn, which would be about one pixel in diameter (smaller than a speck of dust on your screen). 
.
Then the overly-anxious flat-earthers could complain that they could only see a black rectangle with a yellow dot at one end.
.
Source
Scale Model of the Solar System
In the following diagrams, all sizes and distances to scale, unless an object
is too small to be visible, in which case a green dot is used.
[/pre]
.

Re: The Moon's Phases in the Real (spheroid) Earth World
« Reply #28 on: April 05, 2018, 11:17:33 PM »
.
The entire thread speaks for itself. I don't have to repeat it. Are you deaf or blind or just insolent? Loser.
.
Your shrill whining only makes you look worse, if that were possible.
You have to repeat yourself Neil Obstat. Please try to bend the horizontal horizon while your at it.

Re: The Moon's Phases in the Real (spheroid) Earth World
« Reply #29 on: April 06, 2018, 12:02:02 AM »
.
Flat-earthers have nothing to fear but sphere itself.       :incense:
.