During a lunar eclipse, the sun and moon are exactly 180 degrees apart in the sky.
In an alignment like this (called a “syzygy”), such an observation would seem impossible.
But thanks to Earth’s atmosphere, the images of both the sun and moon are apparently lifted above the horizon by Atmospheric refraction. This allows people on Earth to see the sun for several extra minutes before it actually has risen and the moon for several extra minutes after it has actually set…. thus the opportunity exists to see both the moon and the sun during the Eclipse.
This arrangement has led to the phenomenon being referred to as a horizontal eclipse.
Although the moon is in the Earth’s umbra, the Sun and the eclipsed Moon can both be seen at the same time because the refraction of light through the Earth’s atmosphere causes each of them to appear higher in the sky than their true geometric position ( 1 )
Sighting a Selenelion might be problematic feat.
Twenty-five years ago, in the August 1989 issue of Sky & Telescope, Bradley Schaefer, an astronomer who extensively studied the visibility of the moon when it was low in the sky, noted that the full moon only becomes visible when it is about 2 degrees up and the sun is about 2 degrees below the horizon. So, depending on the clarity of your sky, you might have up to roughly 10 or 15 minutes before sunrise for the sky to still be dark enough, and the moon to be high enough above any horizon haze for it to be clearly visible. And keep in mind that this holds only for the uneclipsed portion of the moon. ( 1 )
Below is a video of this phenomenon.
A few things that i would like to point out.
at 1:49 or on the below left image it can clearly be seen that the shadow is coming over the moon from the top left hand side.
At 1:54 or the below right images the sun is just coming up over the horizon and as can be seen during the video pan, orientated 180 degrees to the moon.
Now as the shadow on the moon during an eclipse is supposed to be the round Earths shadow and keeping in mind that the moon is setting how is it possible to have the shadow coming in from the top?
The shadow should be coming up from the bottom shouldn't it?
The fact that both the sun and moon are in the sky at the same time is an unusual occurrence on its own but the shadow direction seems impossible.
It is said Atmospheric refraction causes each to appear higher but it would not explain why the shadow is on the top.
The Man in the video was trying to explain what he is seeing .
He had to conclude that the suns light is coming up from under the Earth.
Is this possible?
I found a few diagrams tying to explain the Sun and Moon visible above the horizon at the same time.
All show a shadow on the bottom of the Moon as expected.
The below image is explaining the effect of Atmospheric Refraction has on the apparent and actual position of the Sun.
The image on the left shows that "A" is the actual position of the Sun and "B" is the apparent position.
The image on the right shows that "S" is the actual position of the Sun and "S1" is the apparent position.
This effec can be difficult to comprehend as you can see on this video
My reaction is pretty much the same as the reaction in the video.
So Atmospheric Refraction may enable us to see both the Sun and Moon visible at the same time during an eclipse but it still fails to explain how the shadow if coming in from the top.
Is this a one off occurrence or abnormality?
Lets watch the below video.
So it appears that there is more than 1 case of this occurring.
Now as with VIDEO 1 the shadow is coming in from the top but more at the 12 o'clock position. The first thing that i noticed is much higher in the sky compared to video 1.
Towards the end of the video you can see it does get brighter then the below screen shot and both video 1 and 2 are from December 2011
Is this the result of Atmospheric refraction?
The Below image is from the WIKI page explaining the Selenelion.
I would also like to point out that I could find very little information on this subject, it was hard enough to find a description and it was only a part of the WIKI page on a lunar eclipse it didn't have its own explanation.
It shows the Shadow on the bottom as would be expected.
The Selenelion is said to be uncommon but below are just a few recent ones.
August 1989 ( 1 )
December 2011 for the 2 videos i used.
April 15th 2014 . Article Here
October 8th 2014 at 6:25am AUS EST (Australia, western Asia, islands in the Pacific Ocean, and much of North America) for the wiki link picture. info found here and here and Here and i will use this event for analysis.
April 4 and September 28 2015. Article Here
The next series of four consecutive total lunar eclipses will not occur until the year 2032.
below is unsorted
The Selenelion phenomenon is certainly not a new observation.
In 1966 astronomer Antoine-Francois Payen reflected on this phenomenon.
Payen sent a copy of his work via the Royal Society's Secretary, Henry Oldenburg, to the Curator of Experiments, Robert Hooke tilted "Selenelion ou Apparition LuniSolaire" now know as "The 1666 Selenelion".
A PDF version can be downloaded below
Selenelion ou Apparition LuniSolaire.pdf
Size : 131.061 Kb
Type : pdf
According to Pliny the Elder, the phenomenon had been recognized two centuries earlier than his time by Hipparchus ( 1 , 2 , 3) and in the most important discussion of the phenomenon in antiquity the Hellenistic astronomer Cleomedes ( 1 , 2 ) ascribed what he called the ‘paradoxical eclipse’ to atmospheric refraction, whereby the observed altitude of bodies near the horizon exceeds their actual altitude.
The fact of atmospheric refraction itself was well known, and although Ptolemy’s Optics ( 1 , 2 ) remained in manuscript until modern times, its discussion, in the fifth book, of atmospheric refraction influenced medieval students of optics, including Witelo, Roger Bacon and John Pecham, and through them their early-modern successors.
The horizontal eclipse continued to exercise early-modern astronomers. Some simply denied its possibility.
Others supposed it to be due to atmospheric refraction or the operation of vapours rising from the Earth.
Payen asserted that refraction on its own could not account for a selenelion, which was also caused by the phenomenon of horizontal parallax ( 1 , 2 , 3 ), more commonly referred to now as diurnal parallax, caused by the difference between a measurement theoretically taken from the centre of the Earth and one actually taken from its surface and from a given latitude.
This form of parallax can be disregarded when dealing with objects far beyond the solar system, but not with bodies that are comparatively near the Earth, especially the Moon. This emphasis on parallax was not in fact new: Riccioli, for instance, had noted that Cleomedes’s optical explanation was correct, but so too was the admittedly smaller influence of parallax, which Cleomedes had reported but otherwise rejected.
French astronomers were increasingly interested in the problem of solar parallax at this time: it had become obvious that improvements in predictive astronomical theories were dependent on reducing solar parallax ( 1 ,) which was greatly overestimated in contemporary tables.
Payen’s reminder that predicting and observing lunar phenomena likewise involved taking into account the effects of refraction and parallax can be understood as complementing the search for the more fundamental, and much harder to observe, value for solar parallax. This is why the emphasis in Payen’s published works is not simply on eclipses as interesting optical effects, but as means to test and refine contemporary predictive tables.
Size : 277.916 Kb
Type : pdf
seeing earths orbit in stars-Parallax.pdf
Size : 1229.947 Kb
Type : pdf
Lunar Cresent Visibility schaefer_1994.pdf
Size : 1214.161 Kb
Type : pdf
lunar months schaefer_1992.pdf
Size : 621.522 Kb
Type : pdf
referances to one
- A lunar eclipse occurring as the moon sets, simultaneously with sunrise.
- * 2001 , Paul Davies, Duncan Steel, Eclipse: The Celestial Phenomenon That Changed the Course of History (Joseph Henry Press) p. 57
- * 2007 , William Poole, "Antoine-François Payen, the 1666 Selenelion'', and a Rediscovered Letter to Robert Hooke", ''Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London , Vol. 61, No. 3 (Sep. 22, 2007), pp. 251-263 JSTOR
- * 2010', Kelly Beatty, "In Search of '''Selenelion ", ''Sky & Telescope (June 26, 2010) [http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-news/observing-news/in-search-of-selenelion/]
- * 2014', Joe Rao, "Total Lunar Eclipse On Wednesday Will Be a Rare ''Selenelion '" [http://news.yahoo.com/total-lunar-eclipse-wednesday-rare-selenelion-132704595.html]
- * 2014 , Alan MacRobert, "Eclipse of a Large Moon", Sky & Telescope (October 2014) p. 52
ANALYSIS OF OCTOBER 8TH 2014 ECLIPSE
As previously mentioned, Twenty-five years ago, in the August 1989 issue of Sky & Telescope Bradley Schaefer did an study on the visibility of the Selenelion.
On his department page
i found this study for $35 which i think will be the main paper for his article.
We report the results of five Moonwatches, in which more than 2000 observers throughout North America attempted to sight the thin lunar crescent. For each Moonwatch we were able to determine the position of the Lunar Date Line (LDL), the line along which a normal observer has a 50% probability of spotting the Moon. The observational LDLs were then compared with predicted LDLs derived from crescent visibility prediction algorithms. We find that ancient and medieval rules are highly unreliable. More recent empirical criteria, based on the relative altitude and azimuth of the Moon at the time of sunset, have a reasonable accuracy, with the best specific formulation being due to Yallop. The modern theoretical model by Schaefer (based on the physiology of the human eye and the local observing conditions) is found to have the least systematic error, the least average error, and the least maximum error of all models tested. Analysis of the observations also provided information about atmospheric, optical and human factors that affect the observations. We show that observational lunar calendars have a natural bias to begin early.
The cited documents had some interesting titles
This page includes
TRADITIONAL TECHNIQUES FOR COMPUTING THE VISIBILITY OF THE LUNAR CRESCENT
MODERN TECHNIQUES FOR COMPUTING THE VISIBILITY OF THE LUNAR CRESCENT AND OBSERVATIONS OF YOUNG LUNAR CRESCENT
RELEVANT ENTRIES IN THE ENCYCLOPAEDIA OF ISLAM: NEW EDITION (LEIDEN: E.J. BRILL)
WEBSITES ON THE PREDICTION OF THE VISIBILITY OF THE LUNAR CRESCENT
Global maps are provided by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
The Flat Earth Society suggest that Atmospheric refraction is required as the cause for the Selenelion to support a Heliocentric Model and a Spherical Earth
Click Here for One of the Debates
Sky and telescope
programs for pc
As early as the time of Pliny, there are records of lunar eclipses happening while both the Sun and Moon are visible in the sky. The Greenwich Royal Observatory recorded that “during 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 above the horizon.” McCulluch’s Geography recorded that “on September 20th, 1717 and April 20th, 1837 the moon appeared to rise eclipsed before the sun had set.”
Sir Henry Holland also noted in his “Recollections of Past Life” the April 20th, 1837 phenomena where “the moon rose eclipsed before the sun set.” The Daily Telegraph recorded it happening again on January 17th, 1870, then again in July of the same year, and it continues to happen during lunar eclipses to this day. Therefore the eclipsor of the Moon cannot be the Earth/Earth’s shadow and another explanation must be sought. Some olden days flat Earthers posited a third dark body, the same size as the Moon/Sun, and perhaps this passes affront the Moon during lunar eclipses? Could it even be the “mythic” Black Sun?
Only under very special circumstances can both object be visible when they are opposite to each other. At this time for example both touch the horizon at the same time. One rises when the other sets. Then comes our atmosphere. Refraction apparently lifts objects a bit higher. The more the closer the object is to the horizon. At the time of sunset the solar disk is lifted about 30arc minutes (about it’s own diameter). Also if one observes from a very high mountain the apparent horizon is somewhat lower as we observe a bit around the curvature of the earth.
These conditions came together on August 16 1989 when a lunar eclipse happened where the moon passes through the shadow cast into space by the earth. During the partial phase of the eclipse the moon was rising as seen from the top of Mauna Kea on the island of Hawaii. The mountain has an altitude of 4200m and give the impression of rather standing on the edge of the earth than on the surface.
flat earth selenilon
Others from http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62169.0;wap2
Humans have known for many thousands of years that "dark heavenly bodies" exist and are the likely explanation for these eclipses. Also, keep in mind the moon turns RED when fully eclipsed and does not make any sense if it were caused by a shadow.
here is a good page on eclipses from the book Zetetic Astronomy. It's posited that there are non-luminous bodies in the firmament, which makes sense and vindicates the Rahu idea.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7eZGAzN9X_E Perfect video for you question please watch the whole video to understand the whole concept
Do you know how to calculate the amount of atmospheric refraction it takes to see both an eclipsed moon and the Sun at the same time?
In case you don't, here's how it's done:
The apparent diameters of our Sun and Moon are both very close to 1/2 degree, so let's use that. This means that if the Moon were exactly opposite the Sun, it would take 1/4 degree of atmospheric refraction for both to be fully visible, but touching the ideal horizon when viewed from ground level (ideal as in no topography at all). Why 1/4 degree? If there were no refraction and their centers were exactly opposite, from our viewpoint, their lower limbs would be 1/4 degree below the horizon when their centers were on it. In order to see each one fully, each needs to appear 1/4 degree higher than it is geometrically.
Now, what is the actual amount of atmospheric refraction? For objects outside the atmosphere, when viewed from near sea level, it's very close to 1/2 degree at the horizon. That's more than enough to make the Sun and Moon both visible at the same time when directly opposite each other geometrically. Atmospheric refraction is greatest right at the horizon and diminishes fairly rapidly at higher elevations, to the point that for most purposes it can be neglected entirely by 20 or so degrees above the horizon and higher.
Going back to the video, the last time we were shown the Moon was at the 3:19 mark (7:08 AM according to the narrator). Its lower limb was about half its own diameter, or 1/4 degree, above the horizon. About that time the Sun just began to show its upper limb at the opposite horizon. In one minute, the center of the Sun should be exactly on the horizon (earth rotates at 4 min/degree, so 1/4 degree per minute, and half the diameter of the Sun is 1/4 degree) and the lower limb of the Moon will be very close to the horizon. So at, call it 7:09 AM, the center of the Sun is on the horizon, and the center of the Moon is (approximately) 1/4 degree above the opposite horizon. This is only 1/4 degree. It should be more! What gives?
At the 3:19 mark, the Moon was still only about half into shadow. The narrator's explanation of the relative motions of the Sun, Moon, and Earth, while somewhat confusing, was correct; in the video the moon is slowly moving in its orbit upward toward the shadow (remember the top half of the moon was in shadow) at the same time the much faster, but unrelated, rotation of the earth is making it move downward in the frame. The moon is actually lower than it would be at greatest eclipse, where it would be closest to exactly opposite the Sun. 7:09 is almost exactly 1 hour before greatest eclipse according to this. The Moon moves almost exactly its own diameter along its orbit (1/2 degree from our vantage point) in an hour, so the moon is about 1/2 degree lower (in the frame) than the antisolar point. This puts the antisolar point 3/4 degree above the horizon when the center of the Sun is on the horizon in the opposite direction. Pretty close to expected, especially considering the actual horizon isn't perfectly ideal, some slop in the timing, and somewhat crude estimate of the moon's apparent elevation in that last frame.
Atmospheric refraction isn't an anomaly. It's well understood and is a complication that must be dealt with in some cases but can be ignored in others. It's nothing like the "bendy light" in magnitude (many tens of degrees) and nature (it's the opposite direction and has a known cause) required to have sunsets at all in most (all?) flat-earth models. Not sure what you're referring to with "perspective distortion".
The red color of the Moon in eclipse is merely another facet of this same effect (refraction) combined with scattering and absorption of light by the atmosphere. Shorter wavelengths of light are scattered much more easily by the molecules of air in our atmosphere than longer wavelengths. That's the reason the sky is blue and the Sun golden (slightly yellowish). The Sun is actually what we perceive as white, but since some of the energy from the blue (shorter-wavelength) end of the spectrum has been scattered all over the sky, the sunlight that gets directly to our eyes is biased slightly to the red (longer-wavelength) end of the spectrum, thus it appears slightly yellow. In addition to this, dust and particulates in the air also absorb and scatter shorter wavelengths of light more effectively than the longer wavelengths. As the Sun approaches the horizon, the amount of air (and dust, etc.) we have to look through increases rapidly, so sunlight is more and more effectively filtered; it appears distinctly red by the time it meets the horizon most of the time. From the Moon during a Lunar Eclipse, the dark earth is surrounded by a bright red halo that is every sunrise and sunset on earth at the same time. This is the red light we see reflected back to us from the eclipsed moon.
There's no need to make up obviously phony numbers to support your argument. Doing so makes your arguments that much weaker, and they don't need any help in that regard. Seriously - where are you alone in the last few days? 0/3 now? Or is it 0/4 counting the Selenelion eclipse and red moon as two different "proofs"?
"seriously distorted." How much is "seriously"? How much distortion we see depends, of course, on how much refraction there is. You can see distortion caused by the refraction we do have. The Sun or Moon just touching the horizon looks distinctly oval, with its height squashed relative to its width. This happens because the bottom limb is refracted upward more than its top limb. This does not affect left and right, so the apparent width is unaffected while up and down are squished.
- Several other replies as I was composing (some may suggest "composting" :P) this. This was in reply to the OP only.
Gawd, what a train wreck that thread was. A lot of the discussion (on both sides) was just plain wrong. They finally did get it right by the end, though. "Where's the Sun?"
In the OP video, the sky brightens in the dawn as sunrise approaches but the Sun hadn't even risen yet by the end of the video. How can you tell? Watch the water tower in the foreground. It's lit by indirect sky light until the end and just brightens as the sky brightens. The bottom of the bulbous top is in shadow because it's more strongly lit from straight overhead. What's going to happen when even a small portion of the direct rays of the Sun hit it? It'll brighten up immediately compared to the sky, and the shadow will disappear from the bottom since the sun is directly behind the camera. It took something like four pages before someone pointed that out.
I'm not sure if Tom Bishop knew this when he put the video up and made the claim or not. Either way is not flattering, though. If he knew and posted anyway, then he's being disingenuous at the least (outright lying would perhaps be more accurate but less polite). More likely, I think, he makes the same mistake many make by running with something that appears to prove what he wants without checking, which makes him look foolish; while it did take everyone else a while to figure this out, too, it still shows that one of the better-known and respected (among FE'ers) FE proponents aren't immune to "believing what they're told".
measuring the distance to the sun and moon with diurnal parallax
In 2005, at a meeting of the American Astronomical Society in San Diego, California, Schaefer reported on a potential link between the long lost star catalog of Hipparchus and asculpture called The Farnese Atlas, created in the 2nd century, and thus a potential source for antique astronomy. Hipparchus is considered to be one of the greatestastronomers of ancient times, but most of his works are lost to history
- Bradley E. Schaefer, "The epoch of the constellations on the Farnese Atlas and their origins in Hipparchus's lost catalogue"
Analysis of the Farnese Globe
A recent analysis1 of photographs of the Farnese globe by Schaefer concludes that2 The constellations on the Farnese Atlas are based on the now-lost star catalogue of Hipparchus. This is proved by S1.1) the virtually perfect match with the constellation figures used by Hipparchus and only for these, S1.2) the perfect match with the date of Hipparchus (with the exclusion of all other known candidate sources), S1.3) the requirement that the source be a star catalogue such as that compiled by Hipparchus, and S1.4) the many points of consistency with what we know about ancient Greek astronomy. In order to determine whether any of these claims are valid, it will be useful to discuss in turn in the following:
there is also a newyork times article on this http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/18/science/space/visions-of-ancient-night-sky-were-hiding-in-plain-sight-for-centuries.html
See PDF and other wiki sources
is an Alexandrian prose retelling of the mythic origins of stars and constellations, as they were interpreted in Hellenistic culture. The work survives in an epitome assembled at the end of the 1st century CE, based on a lost original with some possible relation to the work ofEratosthenes of Cyrene; thus the author is alluded to as Pseudo-Eratosthenes. The pseudepigraphic attribution to Eratosthenes presumably was meant to bolster the work's credibility, but while the Catasterismi describes constellations, it is more concerned with the mythological narrative attached to each than with the mathematical tradition of astronomy. Although there is no absolute distinction between astronomy and astrology in antiquity, intellectual circles in Alexandria during the 1st BCE began to distinguish between astrology for making predictions and astronomical observation for scientific conjecture.
Myths and legends of the constelations
GPS and NOAA
Their history http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/web/about_ngs/history/milestones.shtml
accused of withholding c,imate change data, operate all the satelites, goud signaks etc and habe the all sseing eye with a triangle on thier flagg'
and space weather monitoring http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/
Also Depatmaent of Commerce (this oranization has some weird content on their page
Main search was "airborne kinematic GPS"
Airborne GPS Kinematic positioning and oceanographic mapping
Ground truth height
elipsoid - clarke elipsoid
CORS - land based GPS i think
also RTIGS which seems to be a predictor for satellite positions. if the sattelites move orbital slots in GOES then how could a sat dish stay in one spot.
azimuth and solar azimutth
Transcontinental Arc of triangulation completed
The transcontinental triangulation and the American arc of the parallel
Wolrld Geodic system WGS
National spacial referance system
types of resarch
- Airborne laser altimetry and laser scanning (LIDAR)
- Global positioning system (GPS)
- Precise point positioning (PPP)
- Long-range kinematic positioning
- Satellite altimetry
found a link to a fe planes used for storm monitoring. why would they have planes like this and even one used for huricanes
and Defense met satelites
National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS) is to replace it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPOESS
called Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS) is the latest generation of U.S. polar-orbiting, non-geosynchronous, environmental satellites. JPSS will provide the global environmental data used in numerical weather prediction models for forecasts, and scientific data used for climate monitoring. JPSS will aid in fulfilling the mission of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), an agency of the Department of Commerce. Data and imagery obtained from the JPSS will increase timeliness and accuracy of public warnings and forecasts of climate and weather events, thus reducing the potential loss of human life and property and advancing the national economy. The JPSS is developed by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), who is responsible for operation of JPSS. Two satellites are planned for the JPSS constellation of satellites. JPSS satellites will be flown and the scientific data from JPSS will be processed by the JPSS - Common Ground System (JPSS-CGS).
aslo foound links or weather modification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_Modification_Operations_and_Research_Board
and articles saying NOAA are altering weather temp readings to alter global warming predictions
mentioned in the Map making PDF along with
The position of the sun