It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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: 7
4
share:

posted on May, 9 2017 @ 11:17 AM

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

Wait a minute, it actually doesn't matter.

I may have calculated for the wrong location but the 2016 total eclipse was visible in Micronesia and the moon and sun distances for that are(off course) the same as in my calculations, so the point still stands, for the 2016 eclipse.

In 2016 the totality lasted for about 2 mins too.

Actually, in this NASA live feed the totality even seems to last for 4 minutes.

www.timeanddate.com...@2081187?month=3&year=2016

The link doesn't work for some reason but,

Distance to sun, from Woleai, Micronesia, March 8, 2016,

148,503,000 km.

Distance to moon,

363,866 km

It's the same numbers that both work out to a 0.54 deg. angular size for Sun and Moon during the total eclipse of 2016.

So there is still no explanation for this totality lasting for minutes.

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

posted on May, 9 2017 @ 11:33 AM
DP.

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

posted on May, 9 2017 @ 12:44 PM
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Other times the Moon looks smaller, so logically totality will never happen, and I suppose the Moon and Sun could appear the EXACT same size, in which case we could use logic to deduce that totality would only last a few moments

I agree completely.

posted on May, 9 2017 @ 03:17 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift

posted on May, 9 2017 @ 04:02 PM
Many people here telling you the same thing. Here, try this little experiment-

1) Pick a sunny day and go outside

2) Find a large tree or even a building and stand in its shadow near one edge (make sure you're completely in the shadow).

3) Can you see the sun? Any of it? No, you can't.

4) Go to the opposite edge of the shadow and repeat. Same result? Yes.

The time the moon "stands still" is the time your body is completely in the shadow cast by the moon as it passes by. You are not going to see any of the sun from anywhere in an object's shadow.

Now, does that make sense?
edit on 5 9 2017 by underpass61 because: sp

posted on May, 9 2017 @ 11:00 PM

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

Wait a minute, it actually doesn't matter.

I may have calculated for the wrong location but the 2016 total eclipse was visible in Micronesia and the moon and sun distances for that are(off course) the same as in my calculations, so the point still stands, for the 2016 eclipse.

In 2016 the totality lasted for about 2 mins too.

Actually, in this NASA live feed the totality even seems to last for 4 minutes.

www.timeanddate.com...@2081187?month=3&year=2016

The link doesn't work for some reason but,

Distance to sun, from Woleai, Micronesia, March 8, 2016,

148,503,000 km.

Distance to moon,

363,866 km

It's the same numbers that both work out to a 0.54 deg. angular size for Sun and Moon during the total eclipse of 2016.

So there is still no explanation for this totality lasting for minutes.

I accessed those pages for Woleai for March 8 2016, and the resultuing angular sizes come up as 0.53732 for the Sun and 0.54734 for the Moon, the difference being 0.01002, resulting in approx 1.2 minutes of totality for Woleai.

I used www.1728.org... for calculations.

So, sorry, the Moon is still shown to have been larger than the Sun on that day.

posted on May, 9 2017 @ 11:21 PM

Pretty sure he was the same guy that started this thread under a new name.

Attack of the flat earth spammers!

posted on May, 10 2017 @ 05:21 AM
The duration of a total solar eclipse depends on the difference in angular size of the Moon and Sun, and the location that you are viewing the eclipse from Earth's surface. The difference in angular size between the Moon and Sun can be as much as 4 arc minutes, and this takes several minutes for the moon to cover (as seen from the Earth's surface). In addition, the Earth is rotating underneath the Moon's shadow, but the speed at which it is moving relative to the Moon depends on where you are observing from. If you are at the equator at noon, you can be travelling at up to a thousand miles per hour, and this rotational speed is effectively subtracted from the Moon's orbital velocity (very roughly two thousand miles per hour), which has to be taken into account when calculating how long the eclipse will last. If you catch an eclipse at sunrise (or sunset), the Moon is moving almost perpendicular to Earth's surface, which means that the Moon will move that full two thousand miles per hour relative to your location, and therefore the eclipse will not last as long (all other things being equal).

posted on May, 11 2017 @ 06:02 AM

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.......

Consider two race cars almost the same size as each other, keeping pace with each other as they go around a track. Are you seriously suggesting that because they are the same size that one must immediately jump ahead of the other to prevent our view of one car from being blocked by the other?

Can you not see that if the apparent size is similar and the rate of transit from our point of view is similar that the time where one car blocks the other car from view can be quite extended?

Is the situation that different from the two apparent sizes being similar and the apparent rate of transit being similar for the Sun and Moon?

edit on 11/5/2017 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 11 2017 @ 08:36 AM
The error in his argument is that he is assuming that the Sun and Moon were exactly the same apparent size in the sky as seen from that location on that date. He is incorrect. Leaving aside the fact that a calculation of 0.54 degree (to two decimal places) is nowhere near accurate enough for this kind of calculation, it is also worth noting that the stated Earth-Sun and Earth-Moon distances are centre to centre. Since observations of eclipses are done from the surface of the Earth, the distance to the Moon will be reduced (for an eclipse reasonably high in the sky) by several thousand kms. That makes a significant difference to the Moon's angular diameter. Of course, it also makes a difference to the Sun's angular diameter aswell, but since the Sun is roughly 400 times further away than the Moon, the difference is negligible in comparison.
edit on 11-5-2017 by Mogget because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 12 2017 @ 05:56 PM

originally posted by: nothingiscoincidence
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

Flat Earther alert prove it wrong

posted on May, 12 2017 @ 10:41 PM

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: nothingiscoincidence
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

Flat Earther alert prove it wrong

Actually, it's pure comedy. That's what you'd expect to hear from a stand-up comedian.

posted on Aug, 8 2017 @ 11:19 PM
I find it interesting that the system within which we are told we live is one that requires us to mistrust our senses, throw out logic, and ignore intuition. Whenever we are faced with an event or property that separates what we experience from what we are told is happening, we are given some overly complicated explanation or impossibly complex equation to "prove" that it is exactly as they say it is. This problem with the eclipse is no different. How is it that the moon has a constant speed as it begins to occult the sun, then appears to stop for a considerable amount of time, then start moving at the original constant speed? This would be impossible in the model they give us. It would be impossible to create an experiment (or even a 3d model in software like Blender or 3dsMax) to recreate this effect given the parameters they are telling us are true. It is a fundamental impossibility, but everyone is scrambling to explain it because they fear the implications of not being able to do so.

As for the validity of the video in question, I have found many total eclipse videos that show the exact same apparent stop at the exact moment of totality. Here is a wonderful 360 degree video that shows this effect.

360º Total Solar Eclipse Experience 4K - Indonesia 2016

At approximately 1:30, the moon begins to occult the sun, until about 2:00 where totality occurs. Then what do we see happen? Well, it just kinda sits there, for about 2 minutes and 45 seconds. Then the moon continues its procession for approximately 30 seconds until the sun is completely visible again. So the moon does indeed appear to stop during totality, at least during some eclipses. As for the explanations, again, none of them actually show how an object known to move at a constant speed could appear to stop for 2+ minutes.

I would like to give all of you a simple test in logic, just to see how far you will go to explain away the impossible. Exhibit A:

Apollo 11 Earth

This is a picture taken directly from the NASA website. It was taken from the moon during the Apollo missions and shows the earth 238,900 miles away. This is an iconic picture and no one will argue its validity.

Exhibit B:

Moon in front of Earth

Now, an image of the moon in front of earth. Again, taken from the NASA website, and said to be from a satellite. Using logic, please tell me what is the issue with these two images. Okay, now that we are all on the same page, please use logic to explain away this little problem. Keep this little test in mind next time you decide to believe everything you are told by authority figures...
edit on 8-8-2017 by FlatEarthVegan because: Youtube video did not embed properly

posted on Aug, 9 2017 @ 04:09 AM

At approximately 1:30, the moon begins to occult the sun, until about 2:00 where totality occurs. Then what do we see happen? Well, it just kinda sits there, for about 2 minutes and 45 seconds. Then the moon continues its procession for approximately 30 seconds until the sun is completely visible again. So the moon does indeed appear to stop during totality, at least during some eclipses.

You are incorrect. The Moon does NOT "just kinda sit there" for 2 minutes and 45 seconds. The reason that it appears to stop moving is because the apparent angular diameter of the Moon during totality is greater than that of the Sun, so it takes a short amount of time for the Sun to become visible again. It would only appear instantly if the apparent sizes of the Sun and Moon were exactly the same. Surely this is obvious?

posted on Aug, 9 2017 @ 04:20 AM

originally posted by: FlatEarthVegan
I find it interesting that the system within which we are told we live is one that requires us to mistrust our senses, throw out logic, and ignore intuition. Whenever we are faced with an event or property that separates what we experience from what we are told is happening, we are given some overly complicated explanation or impossibly complex equation to "prove" that it is exactly as they say it is.

Scientific instruments and methods are an extention of our own senses, logic, and intuition. If we didn't use scientific instruments and methods, we'd be still living in huts or caves and living off of hunting and gathering. Even in ancient times, one guy used his own senses and simple tools to calculate the circumference of Earth. Our understanding of the world advanced quite a lot since then. Too bad you haven't been catching up on that.

This problem with the eclipse is no different. How is it that the moon has a constant speed as it begins to occult the sun, then appears to stop for a considerable amount of time, then start moving at the original constant speed?

But that's not at all what's happening. The Moon is moving slowly and steadily all the time. It only appears to stop if you don't have a zoomed-in view of the eclipse and can't notice how the dark disc of the Moon is slowly moving over the perturbances and the corona. In this thread, I linked a video where this motion is visible.

As for the validity of the video in question, I have found many total eclipse videos that show the exact same apparent stop at the exact moment of totality. Here is a wonderful 360 degree video that shows this effect.

360º Total Solar Eclipse Experience 4K - Indonesia 2016

At approximately 1:30, the moon begins to occult the sun, until about 2:00 where totality occurs. Then what do we see happen? Well, it just kinda sits there, for about 2 minutes and 45 seconds. Then the moon continues its procession for approximately 30 seconds until the sun is completely visible again. So the moon does indeed appear to stop during totality, at least during some eclipses. As for the explanations, again, none of them actually show how an object known to move at a constant speed could appear to stop for 2+ minutes.

The explanation is that that video is extremely wide-angle (i.e. zoomed out) and you simply cannot see the Moon's slow motion from such perspective. To really see what's happening, you need a telescope or telephoto lens.

(it's sped up x16 from real-time)

I would like to give all of you a simple test in logic, just to see how far you will go to explain away the impossible. Exhibit A:

Apollo 11 Earth

This is a picture taken directly from the NASA website. It was taken from the moon during the Apollo missions and shows the earth 238,900 miles away. This is an iconic picture and no one will argue its validity.

Exhibit B:

Moon in front of Earth

Now, an image of the moon in front of earth. Again, taken from the NASA website, and said to be from a satellite. Using logic, please tell me what is the issue with these two images. Okay, now that we are all on the same page, please use logic to explain away this little problem. Keep this little test in mind next time you decide to believe everything you are told by authority figures...

The issue with these two images is very different focal length of the cameras used, as well as the location of the camera.

For the Apollo 11 photo, they used a 250mm lens, which is a fairly regular telephoto lens. They were also very near the Moon, which would obviously fill a lot of the frame compared to Earth. You can do a simple experiment to replicate this. Take an apple (or some other round object that would fit in the palm of your hand). You know that the apple is quite small compared to distant objects like houses or mountains. Now, bring the apple very close to one of your eyes (shut the other eye) and look over the top of the apple toward those distant houses or mountains. The apple will looks just as big or even bigger than those distant objects. So, relative distance to objects plays a role here, too.

For the "Moon in front of Earth" satellite photo, an 11.8-inch telescope was used, with focal length of 282cm (2,820mm). This is extremely long focal length (providing an angle of view of just 0.62 degrees) so that even from 1 million miles away from Earth, our planet fills almost the entire frame. With such long focal length and such a great distance, the Earth and the Moon appear close to each other and their true relative sizes.

edit on 9-8-2017 by wildespace because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 9 2017 @ 05:03 AM
oh FFS - another thread of utter scientific illiteracy

to answer the OPs question :

long answer NO , because conservation of mommentum

hint - how much energy is needed to " stop " the earth or moon - in the given timeframe - then " restart " them ?

and bonus hilarity - where does this energy come from ?

posted on Aug, 9 2017 @ 05:12 AM

2 simple questions :

what is the distance of :

A the earth to the sun

B the earth to the moon

next using these values - explain solar AND lunar eclipses in " flat earth cosmology "

and it goes without saying - your " explination " must explain your alledged " moon stopping "

posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 09:28 AM

The Moon appearing to stop is due to the speed of the objects relative to each other ie the Sun, Moon & Earth that's what causes it.

As for how objects look in picture that depends a lot on focal length the format of the film used or now the size of the digital sensor and the distance of the objects from each other.

Here is a quick example.

So what do you think moved the Statue or the church

edit on 10-8-2017 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 10:07 AM

Your entire argument is "I don't understand it so it's fake" you're going to need to try much harder.

posted on Aug, 10 2017 @ 10:50 AM

originally posted by: FlatEarthVegan

I would like to give all of you a simple test in logic, just to see how far you will go to explain away the impossible. Exhibit A:

Apollo 11 Earth

This is a picture taken directly from the NASA website. It was taken from the moon during the Apollo missions and shows the earth 238,900 miles away. This is an iconic picture and no one will argue its validity.

Exhibit B:

Moon in front of Earth

Now, an image of the moon in front of earth. Again, taken from the NASA website, and said to be from a satellite. Using logic, please tell me what is the issue with these two images. Okay, now that we are all on the same page, please use logic to explain away this little problem. Keep this little test in mind next time you decide to believe everything you are told by authority figures...

If I put my thumb in front of my eye, my thumb can cover an entire mountain in front of me. However, if I hold my thumb out at arm's length, the mountain now looks larger than my thumb.

Is that enough logic? Oh -- and no authority figure had to tell me that my thumb would look larger closer to my eye than it would at arm's length; I figured that one out all by myself.

I'm not sure why you feel an authority figure would be required to explain that if you were an Apollo astronaut orbiting the Moon, the Moon would look larger than Earth, but from a spacecraft farther away from the moon, the Earth would look larger than the Moon.

I mean, really...can't you figure that out yourself?

edit on 10/8/2017 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

4