It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Does the Moon stop moving during Full Solar Eclipse?

page: 6
4
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 8 2017 @ 11:00 PM
link   
Actually, the first video posted is real-time, and also shows the Moon's motion during the totality. You can see how the Moon is covering up the protuberances in front of it and revealing protuberances behind itself.

I've sped that video up by x16 to hpefully help you see it: www.youtube.com...





posted on May, 9 2017 @ 12:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: wildespace

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: WeirdScience



Kid....


Is that you Vegeta? From Dragonball? I used to like that stuff back when I actually was a kid......


Because you ARE a child, who has seen some "flat earther" video and has totally bought the "stupid".

Can we please not get personal with each other? You don't know anything about the person who started this thread, or their intentions. Let's attack the ideas, not the people.


Apologies to all.



posted on May, 9 2017 @ 03:15 AM
link   
a reply to: wildespace
And because he works for this and is an astronomer makes you believe he's right? Come on, use your brain.. this guy tells the same lies like Wikipedia and NASA and ESA and any other wannabe scientist and space agency do.. they keep on telling you this # because otherwise their world picture would get wrecked. So they find it simple to "earn money" by keeping this whole hoax up





posted on May, 9 2017 @ 03:19 AM
link   
a reply to: nothingiscoincidence

Whats your explanation as to why eclipses happen?



posted on May, 9 2017 @ 07:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: nothingiscoincidence
a reply to: wildespace
And because he works for this and is an astronomer makes you believe he's right? Come on, use your brain.. this guy tells the same lies like Wikipedia and NASA and ESA and any other wannabe scientist and space agency do.. they keep on telling you this # because otherwise their world picture would get wrecked. So they find it simple to "earn money" by keeping this whole hoax up

Humans have understood how and why eclipses work for thousands of years before the internet or NASA. Astronomers from as far back as 2300 years ago predicted eclipses by watching how the Sun and Moon move in the sky

As for me, I've understood eclipses long before Wikipedia existed (or the internet, for that matter), and NASA had nothing to do with that understanding of eclipses.

It's more accurate to say that my understanding of eclipses comes from the foundation set by past astronomers over the past couple of thousand of years who observed the Sun and Moon, along with my own simple observations of how the Sun and Moon appear to move in the sky, have led to my understanding of eclipses.


edit on 2017/5/9 by Box of Rain because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2017 @ 07:07 AM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

Your welcome. It seemed the best video I could find to explain this neat occurrence.



posted on May, 9 2017 @ 07:34 AM
link   
i find it funny when people say sun rise, sun set. when really its not the sun, but the earth thats moving.



posted on May, 9 2017 @ 07:44 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 9 2017 @ 07:51 AM
link   
This is pure gold. Keep it coming!!!


edit on 9 5 2017 by D4rk5t4lk3r because: typo



posted on May, 9 2017 @ 07:55 AM
link   
So here's my "BS" resolution to the OP's observation.

If something's traveling laterally to your perspective but in a general arc - then at it's apex it will appear to slow down / stop.

It will appear to move faster on either side of the apex - but at it's furthest point from you it will appear momentarily stationary (then speed up in either direction - with it's fastest rate of travel at 90° to your vantage point).

So there ya go - total BS. I wish you folks were more friendly.




posted on May, 9 2017 @ 07:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: dan121212
i find it funny when people say sun rise, sun set. when really its not the sun, but the earth thats moving.


I simply say "How the Sun and Moon move in the sky", which is accurate, because that describes how they move relative to our sky as seen from Earth. When talking about the movements from the point of view of the Earth, then "sunrise" or "moonrise" are valid.

Everything moves relative to something else, and the Sun and moon have so many other movements that are not mentioned here (such as the solar systems motion through the galaxy) because we are talking about a watching these movements from a relative viewpoint.

Every relative point of view is valid when describing what happens from that point of view. Just ask Einstein about relative points of view (although that's a bit of a tangent, but it is in essence the same idea).


edit on 2017/5/9 by Box of Rain because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2017 @ 08:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Pearj
So here's my "BS" resolution to the OP's observation.

If something's traveling laterally to your perspective but in a general arc - then at it's apex it will appear to slow down / stop.

It will appear to move faster on either side of the apex - but at it's furthest point from you it will appear momentarily stationary (then speed up in either direction - with it's fastest rate of travel at 90° to your vantage point).

So there ya go - total BS. I wish you folks were more friendly.


And yes...as you mentioned that is total BS. I'll give a reason since you didn't explain why it's BS.

The reason is that the Moon is not necessarily at anyone's "apex" during the totality of the eclipse. The moon is simply moving past the Sun from the viewers point of view. The moon's position during totality is not anything special...or I should say it would not be anything special if the Sun did not happen to be behind it from that point of view.

Back to the OP, The moon has no way of knowing or caring that it happens to be blocking the Sun from a specific point of view. There is no reason for the moon to just "stop" because some location on Earth happens to see the moon's normal motion just happen to block the Sun.



edit on 2017/5/9 by Box of Rain because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2017 @ 08:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Box of Rain

Your way off.

Try to visualize the resolution. It's the correct answer.

I'm not going to bother with a mock up, if you can't understand what I said, that's on you.



posted on May, 9 2017 @ 08:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

I would like to chime in here.



The Moon may take a couple of minutes between the leading edge starting totality to the time it takes the trailing edge to end totality (so all would appear black for two minutes, except fore the corona -- and maybe THAT is what you say is when the Moon stops), but the Moon would be in continuous motion and at a constant speed throughout those couple of minutes.





What is happing is that during those total eclipses that totality takes a little while (such as 2 minutes), totality isn't lasting that long because the moon stops, but rather because the moon (having an apparent size that is large than the Sun) takes 2 minutes to between the leading edge covering the sun and the trailing edge uncovering the Sun.


This is the ONLY argument that is relevant here. It is a good argument and it is the only argument that explains why it takes 2 minutes for the sun to appear again on the other side.

The argument is that the apparent diameter of the moon was bigger than the apparent diameter of the sun, on that day, March 8, 2016.

Let's test that hypothesis.

The angular diameter of the sun varies from 0.545 to 0.527 deg.

The angular diameter of the moon varies from 0.56 to 0.49 deg.


The first vid in the OP was shot in Cairns, Queensland, Australia, March 8, 2016.

Let's bring up the data.


Sun,

www.timeanddate.com...

Moon,

www.timeanddate.com...


Distance to sun: 148,503,000 km
Diameter of sun: 1,392,684 km

Using trig, this works out to a 0.54 deg. angular size.

Distance to moon: 363,887 km
Diameter of moon: 3476 km

And this works out to an angle of.......wait for it..........0.54 deg!


So on March 8/9, 2016, the Sun and the Moon had exactly the same size in the sky. You can all go calculate yourself.

This totally annihilates the only explaining argument in this thread that would have made at least some sense.

On March 8/9, 2016, the Sun and the Moon had exactly the same apparent size, so there is no explanation for the fact that totality lasted around two minutes.

The sun should have appeared from the other side of the moon almost immediately. They were the same size.


So the "video is doctored" card has already been used and disproven and the consensus is that totality did last for about two minutes. This is also supported by lots of other videos of this eclipse.

The only other possibly valid explanation, based on a supposed difference in angular size, can now be dismissed too.



So what's next? Only failed explanations so far.......



posted on May, 9 2017 @ 08:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Box of Rain

Here...

www.britannica.com...


In considering the Sun’s motion, Eudoxus’s theory of homocentric spheres ignored the fact that the Sun appears to speed up and slow down in the course of the year as it moves around the zodiac. (This is clear from spring’s being several days longer than fall.) An eccentric (i.e., off-centre) circle can explain this fact. The Sun is still considered to travel at constant speed around a perfect circle, but the centre of the circle is slightly displaced from Earth. When the Sun is closest to Earth, it appears to travel a little more rapidly in the zodiac. When it is farthest away, it appears to travel a little more slowly. As far as is known, Hipparchus was the first to deduce the amount and direction of the off-centredness, basing his calculations on the measured length of the seasons. According to Hipparchus, the off-centredness of the Sun’s circle is about 4 percent of its radius. The eccentric-circle theory was capable of excellent accuracy in accounting for the observed motion of the Sun and remained standard until the 17th century.

The standard theory of the planets involved an eccentric circle, which carried an epicycle. Imagine looking down on the plane of the solar system from above its north pole. The planet moves counterclockwise on its epicycle. Meanwhile, the centre of the epicycle moves counterclockwise around the eccentric circle, which is centred near (but not quite exactly at) Earth. As viewed from Earth, the planet will appear to move backward (that is, go into retrograde motion) when it is at the inner part of the epicycle (closest to Earth), for this is when the westward motion of the planet on the epicycle is more than enough to overcome the eastward motion of the epicycle’s centre forward around the eccentric.


-----

What that says is the same as what I said - only they use the correct term "eccentric-circle" where I used "arc" for simplicity (they're talking about the Earth's orbit, and how that effects the Sun's "speed" - the same orbit affects observation of the "speed" of the Moon too where the Sun is the standard to base the observation off of - the OPs observation of the 'speed' of the Moon relative to the Sun).

No one wants to comment on how ironic it is that an Effected person correctly solved a Flat Earth thread? Or the irony of how plainly stupid ME'ers are - yet we aren't? We simply cannot fathom how stupid we are? Maybe there's more to this ME stuff than you can "fathom"?

You aren't any more likely to accept my experience with ME now though - which is the real irony.


I told you it was the correct resolution - but you've jailed your mind. Now I've proved it. No need to apologize - we're just on different planes.

Now... Who's "bested"?





edit on 9-5-2017 by Pearj because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2017 @ 08:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Pearj
a reply to: Box of Rain

Your way off.

Try to visualize the resolution. It's the correct answer.

I'm not going to bother with a mock up, if you can't understand what I said, that's on you.


No.

The Moon is not at some special unique point in its own motion relative to an observer on earth when it happens to be in front of the Sun from that observer's viewpoint.

The Moon is just moving along the way it always does, and just happens to move in front of the Sun. That point in front of the Sun has no difference in the Moon's movement than it would if the Sun happened to be on the other side of the sky.

The motions of the Sun and moon may vary depending on certain celestial situations, but that is not relevant, and it certainly is not proving that the moon is at an apex during an eclipse.


edit on 2017/5/9 by Box of Rain because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2017 @ 09:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Box of Rain

Yes.

Like I said - past this point, if you don't get it, I can't help you.


edit on 9-5-2017 by Pearj because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2017 @ 09:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Pearj
a reply to: Box of Rain

Yes.

Like I said - past this point, if you don't get it, I can't help you.



Maybe you need to provide clearer explanations.

Even considering the Sun and moon appear to move in an eccentric arc, the apex of that arc is not necessarily where eclipses occur.

It's obvious that due to the Sun and moon sometimes being farther from the earth than other times that the apparent movements of the Sun and Moon as seen from earth could look to move relatively faster or slower, but what does all of that have to do with eclipses?

You haven't even attempted to explain the connection between these differences in the apparent speed of the Sun and Moon across the sky and eclipses. You seem to be saying "movements of the Sun and Moon are eccentric, therefore eclipses". Please explain specifically...what is the connection between eccentricity and eclipses?



posted on May, 9 2017 @ 10:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Lemminggrad
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

I would like to chime in here.



The Moon may take a couple of minutes between the leading edge starting totality to the time it takes the trailing edge to end totality (so all would appear black for two minutes, except fore the corona -- and maybe THAT is what you say is when the Moon stops), but the Moon would be in continuous motion and at a constant speed throughout those couple of minutes.





What is happing is that during those total eclipses that totality takes a little while (such as 2 minutes), totality isn't lasting that long because the moon stops, but rather because the moon (having an apparent size that is large than the Sun) takes 2 minutes to between the leading edge covering the sun and the trailing edge uncovering the Sun.


This is the ONLY argument that is relevant here. It is a good argument and it is the only argument that explains why it takes 2 minutes for the sun to appear again on the other side.

The argument is that the apparent diameter of the moon was bigger than the apparent diameter of the sun, on that day, March 8, 2016.

Wrong year and date. It was Nov 13 2012 en.wikipedia.org...

Using your own values for size, the Sun then was 0.52832 degrees across, and the Moon 0.54731 degrees across, which is a 0.01899 degree difference.

The Moon crosses about 0.00833 degrees of the sky within a minute, meaning that, during that eclipse, the Moon was covering the whole Sun for a little over 2 minutes.



posted on May, 9 2017 @ 10:58 AM
link   
a reply to: wildespace

Crap. You are right about the year. I made an honest mistake, I thought they were both from the 2016 eclipse.

Sorry about this.

However, the sun is "moving" too at another rate if I am not mistaken, so we have to do some more calculations to get it completely right.




edit on 9-5-2017 by Lemminggrad because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join