Notices
Results 1 to 26 of 26

Thread: why the full moon isnt as rare as eclipses?

  1. #1 why the full moon isnt as rare as eclipses? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    893
    i was researching the wikipedia on antisolar point and full moon when i discover it said full moon happens when the moon is above or below the antisolar point

    well this is blatanly false to understand that check this picture:



    when you understand why this picture is a fake youll understand the full moon can only be exactly at the antisolar point, as much as its away from it as much shadow it will have

    well the moon being at the antisolar point is as rare as an eclipse, exactly the same

    therefore if the sky was not a dome we should see a full moon in ocasions as rare as eclipses

    edit the suns inclined 23º while the moon is inclined 5

    this gives a maximum inclination among both of 28º

    ive never ever seen a full moon with 28º of shadow in the top

    always a fully full moon, never with a zenithal shadow

    edit:

    as one of my teachers asked us when i was 6:

    how do you know the moon is not the sun disguised?

    edit:

    googling partial full moon gives no hits

    if the scientific comunity told the truth this should give some hits

    edit:

    from the net:

    he percent of the Moon's surface illuminated is a more refined, quantitative description of the Moon's appearance than is the phase. Considering the Moon as a circular disk, the ratio of the area illuminated by direct sunlight to its total area is the fraction of the Moon's surface illuminated; multiplied by 100, it is the percent illuminated. At New Moon the percent illuminated is 0; at First and Last Quarters it is 50%; and at Full Moon it is 100%.

    this is a lie the moons only illuminated 100% at the antisolar point exactly which is as rare as eclipses

    edit:

    if you think this difference cant be noticed, think you can tell the difference between a full moon and a day before a full moon and thats 1/14*100% difference

    much less thatn what should be observed usually for the moon being above or below the antisolar point


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: why the full moon isnt as rare as eclipses? 
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,205
    Quote Originally Posted by luxtpm

    edit the suns inclined 23º while the moon is inclined 5

    this gives a maximum inclination among both of 28º

    ive never ever seen a full moon with 28º of shadow in the top

    always a fully full moon, never with a zenithal shadow
    This is wrong. The 23 degrees is the axial tilt of the Earth, The 5 degrees is the Moon's inclination to the ecliptic, or the path of the Sun. IOW, the moon's inclination to the Sun is never more than that 5 degrees.

    This means that, even at maximum, only about 1/40th of the top or bottom of the Moon's face would be in shadow. This is way too little to be noticeable by the naked eye. This factors in the fact that the angular size of the Sun itself is 1/2 degree.


    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    893
    what about eclipses, they seem quite unreal:



    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by luxtpm
    what about eclipses, they seem quite unreal:
    They seem unreal to you. That is a reflection of your cognitive state, not of the reality of the eclipse.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    893
    i wonder if this is real since it doesnt have a gradual shadow as it should as in my drawing:


    theres an unbra and a penumbra but not graduality at all

    from black to white theres a bunch of gray
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    And the difference between graduality (sic) and shades of grey is what?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    893
    the shadow of the sun switches from black to white in 0.5º from the origin of the shadow, its angular size

    therefore a moon eclipse should go from black to white gradually in 0.5º angular size, exactly the size of the moon

    seems people think: umbra black penumbra grey and the rest white

    its not like that it should go from black to white smoothly along 0.5º of angular size, all the size of the moon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8 Re: why the full moon isnt as rare as eclipses? 
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by luxtpm
    when you understand why this picture is a fake youll understand the full moon can only be exactly at the antisolar point, as much as its away from it as much shadow it will have
    I don't know where to start except to say that the photo isn't necessarily a fake. Camera's give us the ability to over expose a scene from what our eyes see. I'll bet the illuminated moon is because the earth reflects about 30% the incoming radiation. A long exposure from a camera can see the small amount of light on the moon, reflected from earth. Lens filters chosen to enhance the picture were probaly used. Both spectral, and polarization. I have done several thousand photo's myself, enhancing some just with filters and exposure time. I'll bet I could recreate that shot.

    As for a full moon every 28 (29?) days, the eclipse is rare because the moons orbit is not in plane with the earths orbit.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by luxtpm
    the shadow of the sun switches from black to white in 0.5º from the origin of the shadow, its angular size

    therefore a moon eclipse should go from black to white gradually in 0.5º angular size, exactly the size of the moon

    seems people think: umbra black penumbra grey and the rest white

    its not like that it should go from black to white smoothly along 0.5º of angular size, all the size of the moon
    You don't see a progressive shading from grey to black in the photograph?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    893
    how about this as an undeniable scientific evidence:


    an invisible border of the umbra and a huge uniformly variable penumbra:

    now the lunar eclipses you can see are totally unnatural since the border of the umbra are two sharpe and the gray varying shading should be huge and smooth

    ive seen the moon in ooposite position as it should be to the tide

    ive seen the sun and the moon offset 60º when they should have been offset 90º, i checke it afterwards with live net data

    i measured myself earth radius with an extreamly simple method not avaliable in the net and obtained a radius for the earth of 500 km

    i could ignore all this data, little details and few and prefer to believe millions of data that say the opposite but unverified by me

    and trust me when im sane i ignore all litle details

    so i dont know whats scares me more to be too sane or to be to insane

    i try to be in the midle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    893
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by luxtpm
    Yes, but not in the way you imagined.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    luxtpm, you haven't responded to previous comments yet you're plowing on with your claims. Defend your claims from criticism or this is nothing more than soapboxing. I'm a bit confused as to whether you're making a point about lunar or solar eclipses, since you've shown us images representing features of both. I'm also not grasping what overall point you're trying to make here? Are you suggesting some trickery or deception is at play?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    893
    oh yes i admit i was wron on the moon issue

    but the eclipse is different

    if you look at my picture of my shadow and a building an eclipse should be the same

    it isnt

    edit:

    my main point is we cant trust science data blindly since is not something verified personally

    for what i know time travellers could be staging the world or this be a virtual reality or be truman and shakespeare would have been right when he said all the wolrd is a staged
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by luxtpm
    my main point is we cant trust science data blindly since is not something verified personally
    It's not practical to personally verify everything anymore than it is practical for one to personally learn how to do all tasks required to keep society running. We have division of labour for this very reason. That said, we of course should never blindly trust any assertion nor any method of acquiring knowledge. Nobody is suggesting that we should. But the reason that we trust science is not on the basis of blind faith. Science, and by extension empiricism in general, is a broadly applicable method. We can apply it to that which we can personally verify and observe that this application works. We can then make a logical inference that knowledge acquired in fields with which we are unfamiliar is trustworthy with caveats, if it has been acquired using the same broad methodology as that which we use ourselves.

    That should include competion/peer review, which will tend to act against collusion or conspiracy. If one wishes to suggest that conspiracy is at play, it helps to have a plausible motive. For example, under-reporting of negative clinical trials has the obvious motive of concealing the faults in an expensive commercial product. What motive would scientists have to decieve people about the nature of things like the sun and moon?

    Quote Originally Posted by luxtpm
    for what i know time travellers could be staging the world or this be a virtual reality or be truman and shakespeare would have been right when he said all the wolrd is a staged
    And what do you gain by assuming the untestable to be true? If the world appears entirely as if it follows some given rules, then what is the relevance if on some utterly unobservable, unverifiable level, it is something other? In other words, a difference that makes no difference is no difference.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    893
    i think you are right you cant go against mainstream unless you have a monumental prove and what i mentioned is very minor

    still i try to be open and not fall inot a scientific fanatism the opposite of total delusion of believing every conspiracy

    lets suppose for exmaple time travel is posible, this is scientific

    then fiction would pale in front of reality and this could be very well a deceiving orwellian state

    for me theres nothing healthier than questioning things, absolute conviction=delusion

    so im not saying the sky isnt real im saying theres absolutly no way to prove it may be not real so its pointless to have an absolute conviction it is
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by luxtpm
    i think you are right you cant go against mainstream unless you have a monumental prove and what i mentioned is very minor
    Read my last post again. This is not the point I'm trying to make at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by luxtpm
    still i try to be open and not fall inot a scientific fanatism the opposite of total delusion of believing every conspiracy
    Scientific fanaticism would be some sort of acceptance on authority. I'm sure there are those who do so, but it would be ridiculous to suggest that the acceptance of very basic and mundane scientific knowledge, on authority or otherwise, is "fanaticism".

    Quote Originally Posted by luxtpm
    lets suppose for exmaple time travel is posible, this is scientific

    then fiction would pale in front of reality and this could be very well a deceiving orwellian state
    Or it could be an infinite number of other untestable things. It is not scientific to assume some specific thing to be true in the absence of evidence. That is faith. When a scientist sees a gap in his knowledge, he simply says "I don't know".

    Quote Originally Posted by luxtpm
    for me theres nothing healthier than questioning things, absolute conviction=delusion
    That's a core tenet of science. Ironically, you keep using the word "proof", which is a word typically avoided by scientists on the principle that once you assume something is proven, you stop trying to look deeper.

    Quote Originally Posted by luxtpm
    so im not saying the sky isnt real im saying theres absolutly no way to prove it may be not real so its pointless to have an absolute conviction it is
    Except by say, send a rocket there with people in it? The United States have put people on the moon, they've brought bits of it back. Sooner or later some other country will try to replicate this- probably the Chinese. They've no motive to agree with a US conspiracy (which itself would lack a plausible motive), so this is very much something that is testable.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    893
    yes the states were in the moon and the chinese walked space:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBL98p0wZ7g

    give me a time machine and ill make believe the whole wolrd that frogs grow hair

    if people is brainwashed since childs to dont question authority you can make people believe any bull

    so i should believe usa went to the moon cause theres rocks from there

    well i have some rocks from duckplanet

    oh but thousands of experts say the moon rocks are authentic while its only me who says duck planet rocks are authentic

    of course thats a very solid argument we all know that thousand of million of smokers cant be wrong
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    893
    now set clear that truth is not democratical:

    while strolling the beach i figured out a method to measure suns distance, coincidentally it had been used by erathotesnes and coincideantlly also the conditions at that moment were ideal at that momnet to measure:

    if the sun is as far as they tell us moon and sun would have had an angle of almost 90º it had an angle of 60 which would point to a sun and moon equal far

    i deviced an xtreamly simple method to measure earth radius, coincidentally not avalaible in the net and obtained an earth radius of 500 km

    i saw the moon 90º offset of where it should be to the high tide

    ive evidenced that a penumbra shadow border of a distant object is invisible making lunar eclipses totally unnatural

    now of course this is knowledge i acquired personally and since it contradicts other knowledge of which i have no personal experience so it could perfectly be a lie but is majoritorialwhat should i believe? myself or majority
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by luxtpm
    yes the states were in the moon and the chinese walked space:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBL98p0wZ7g

    give me a time machine and ill make believe the whole wolrd that frogs grow hair
    No idea what you're saying.

    Quote Originally Posted by luxtpm
    if people is brainwashed since childs to dont question authority you can make people believe any bull
    Assuming that's correct, why make them believe people walked on the moon? What's the point? The moon conspiracy thing is such a cliché.

    Quote Originally Posted by luxtpm
    so i should believe usa went to the moon cause theres rocks from there
    Rocks, pictures and video. As well as equipment left behind which can still be detected from Earth. All of which has been independently verified by other scientists, including those from nations who, at the time, were vehemently opposed to the USA. People with a motive to show the USA to be liars if at all possible.

    Quote Originally Posted by luxtpm
    well i have some rocks from duckplanet
    A claim which, though silly sounding, is perfectly verifiable.

    Quote Originally Posted by luxtpm
    oh but thousands of experts say the moon rocks are authentic while its only me who says duck planet rocks are authentic
    Are you actually suggesting that scientific consensus is some straw poll or argument from majority? Or are you even clear what it is you're suggesting?

    Quote Originally Posted by luxtpm
    of course thats a very solid argument we all know that thousand of million of smokers cant be wrong
    I'm sure they can actually, though it is a moot point. After all, millions of people are Muslims, millions are Christians and they can't both be right. But as I say your point is moot since millions of smokers don't deny that smoking is harmful. Who does these days? They merely smoke- which is because of addiction. The scientific consensus agrees with the majority in this case.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by luxtpm
    now set clear that truth is not democratical:

    while strolling the beach i figured out a method to measure suns distance, coincidentally it had been used by erathotesnes and coincideantlly also the conditions at that moment were ideal at that momnet to measure:

    if the sun is as far as they tell us moon and sun would have had an angle of almost 90º it had an angle of 60 which would point to a sun and moon equal far

    i deviced an xtreamly simple method to measure earth radius, coincidentally not avalaible in the net and obtained an earth radius of 500 km

    i saw the moon 90º offset of where it should be to the high tide

    ive evidenced that a penumbra shadow border of a distant object is invisible making lunar eclipses totally unnatural

    now of course this is knowledge i acquired personally and since it contradicts other knowledge of which i have no personal experience so it could perfectly be a lie but is majoritorialwhat should i believe? myself or majority
    Eratosthenes calculated the Earth to be 40,000 km in diameter... which is only slightly larger than it actually is and totally different to your result. Care to share your calculations?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    893


    how can this easy method to calculate earth radius be unavalaible if theres no supression of true info?

    sorry i have not the actual data since photobucket is playing tricks but the point of this method being unavalible remains
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    893
    well im bafled:

    i remember searching and searching and nothing and now as the second hit:

    http://www.karlscalculus.org/measureearth.html

    ill try this though to make sure:

    http://www.darylscience.com/downloads/DblSunset.pdf

    edit:

    now the question is how many people have measured themselves earth radius personally and those who dont bother since they trust blindly

    the ones who dont bother are the % of people who could easily be decieved
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by luxtpm


    how can this easy method to calculate earth radius be unavalaible if theres no supression of true info?

    sorry i have not the actual data since photobucket is playing tricks but the point of this method being unavalible remains
    It took me less than a minute to Google Eratosthenes and find his method, it also appears in numerous books dating back centuries. So much for the suppression of information. Do you honestly think that nobody has actually bothered to do the high school level mathematics required to test the radius of the Earth? All the mathematicians, physicists and planetary geologists over the last 2,200 years since Eratosthenes have either not bothered or are part of some vast conspiracy... to trick people into thinking the world is larger than it is? I can't imagine why they'd bother, or how they could possibly pull it off given how simple it is to personally check the facts.

    So, how about you give full details of when, where and how you took the measurements you used for your test? Show the calculations.

    Quote Originally Posted by luxtpm
    well im bafled:

    i remember searching and searching and nothing and now as the second hit:

    http://www.karlscalculus.org/measureearth.html

    ill try this though to make sure:

    http://www.darylscience.com/downloads/DblSunset.pdf

    edit:

    now the question is how many people have measured themselves earth radius personally and those who dont bother since they trust blindly

    the ones who dont bother are the % of people who could easily be decieved
    So when you used these methods, what answer did you get?

    As for the percentage of people who could be deceived, well sure. We accept the world with which we are presented for the most part. Except that the scientific community is not a block of shadowy manipulators working in unison- they're a bunch of people, fairly normal people, primarily interested in being recognised as the best at whatever they do. That motivates them to contradict one another wherever possible, to show the other guy to be wrong and so take his place as the best. Whenever the consensus can be overturned by evidence, someone in the community will try to do it. If we were in the business of suppressing the truth, conspiring and colluding to maintain the status quo, there would be no progress. We certainly wouldn't be here right now, communicating via a global network the likes of which people two generations ago could hardly have imagined.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    You might also read up on Abu Rayhan Biruni, who used another trigonometric method to measure the circumference of the Earth about 1,000 years ago. Also free available on the internet, despite the best efforts of the vast shadowy cabal of scientists who want you to think the Earth is somewhat bigger than it is for no obvious reason.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    893
    well first i try to use may all the time since i admitt i could be all wrong

    have you got absolute conviction what you say is right, arent you even slightly open to the posibility we didnt go to the moon for example?

    well absolute conviction is actually one of the clearest signs of delusion

    second i dont find difficulty at all in believing half humanity is subjugating the other half and the most evident way to do it is hide the truth first

    so why should i believe in authority when in this world the sickest persons are the ones in power, power greedy

    again i dont propose the sky isnt real i propose the sky MAY not be real

    this is puerly philosofical

    you have the positivist apporach, everything MUSTBE what it seems

    i have the mushroomist aproach things MAYBE not what they seem

    of course i better leave the scientific world and hide as everyone like me in art

    edit:

    actually that arab guy method is identical to my method which actually makes me feel smart and stupid at the same time

    i must have made a huge error measuring the angle, you have to measure a 0.2º angle

    i withdraw my saying earthradius maybe 500 km

    ill measure it again this summer and have a truth i can believe in

    still due to the other mentioned odities i still believe the sky MAY be a dome and true info be easily supressed
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •