Why is Google Sky Map the only app that shows the eclipse that occured Atlanta 8-7-17 9:15PM EST?

a reply to: apdjbs1

So...what do you think it all means?
Is the Earth flat?

a reply to: Phage

Give this info to the flat Earthers and see what they think.

a reply to: apdjbs1

Ok.

Be right back.

Or not.


I asked you. What do you think it means?

a reply to: Phage

Now that I think of it, I'd rather just have mods delete this thread. I'm done ever discussing it again. Thank you everyone for your time.

a reply to: apdjbs1

Now that I think of it, I'd rather just have mods delete this thread.

Nah. They won't do that.

You joined ATS (with a series of meaningless posts and no introduction post) to start a thread about something you seem to find worthy of discussion, if not suspicious. You post it in the General Conspiracies forum, implying there is a conspiracy involved. You don't get anyone (at all) to say "Hmmm, yeah. How weird." When asked, you won't say what you find suspicious about it.

And you bail.

See ya.

originally posted by: Phage

You joined ATS (with a series of meaningless posts and no introduction post) to start a thread about something you seem to find worthy of discussion, if not suspicious. You post it in the General Conspiracies forum, implying there is a conspiracy involved. You don't get anyone (at all) to say "Hmmm, yeah. How weird." When asked, you won't say what you find suspicious about it.

My issue with the OP's is that he seems to be misreading the conditions for a lunar eclipse to occur, and then seems to be using his misinterpretation as evidence of a conspiracy.

The OP says that in Atlanta at 9:15 PM on August 7 2017, a lunar eclipse should have been visible because Google Sky shows that the full Moon was near the node where it crosses the ecliptic, and that when full moons cross the ecliptic (or when the ecliptic runs through part of the Full Moon), there should be a lunar eclipse.

He would be right, but his mistake is that the Moon was no longer full at 9:15 PM in Atlanta. It was several hours past full by that time -- which is long enough for the eclipse to have eneded.

The actual times and locations that the eclipse would be visible is described in sources such as this one:
Source for Eclipse Times

....And (as far as I know) the eclipse as described by that source was what was seen by the millions of people and thousands of amateur astronomers who watched the eclipse -- it started and ended excactly when and where the modern astronomical calculations of the event had predicted. As far as I know, there was noboby in (say, for example) Western Europe who, while witnessing the end of the eclipse, noted that the eclipse lasted several hours longer than expected -- which would have needed to be the case for it to be seen in Atlanta.

So, what exactly is the conspiracy connected with this event? The OP has not demonstrated one. It seems that the the eclipse occurred exactly as predicted by modern calculations (at least there were no reports to the contrary).

originally posted by: apdjbs1
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Thank you for pointing out that it was 9:15PM EDaylightT and not Eastern"Standard"Time.
Very tricky stuff so attention to detail is important.

My turn to correct you again... So if you're admitting it was a full moon in Atlanta at 2, then just apply the math from the following statement and you can easily get the extra hours needed especially if you add in the extra penumbra time:

"Each partial (lunar eclipse)phase consumes at least one hour, and totality can last as long as one hour and 40 minutes".
Bare in mind "totality" doesn't have to exist in the perfect sense, as you can easily envision a shadow falling on the bottom right part, then covering most of the side, and later on over the top. Still would be the same time. So if it can be in "totality" in the perfect sense for 1hr and40min then I think most people would find it not so hard to believe that 7hrs after shadow was on bottom edge that it would then be leaving the top edge of the moon. That's what we saw, and that's what Google Sky Maps indicates.

The primary shadow (the umbra) of that partial eclipse did not move from the top edge of the Moon to the bottom edge. It only moved across the "bottom" (south) part of the Moon, moving west to east across the southern limb of the Moon, as shown in this image below (or, to be more precise, as the Moon itself moved through Earth's shadow).

The secondary shadow (penumbra) would have appeared to move across the moon from west to east, and is also shown in the image below. This image shows what was predcited, and as far as I know, there were no reports to the contrary that this is what was actually seen:


Image source, which includes other information about the eclipse

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Well if mods will not delete my thread here then I might as well defend my logic given.

Essentially this is what is being claimed against me:

"The OP says that in Atlanta at 9:15 PM on August 7 2017, a lunar eclipse should have been visible because Google Sky shows that the full Moon was near the node where it crosses the ecliptic, and that when full moons cross the ecliptic (or when the ecliptic runs through part of the Full Moon), there should be a lunar eclipse.

He would be right, but his mistake is that the Moon was no longer full at 9:15 PM in Atlanta. It was several hours past full by that time -- which is long enough for the eclipse to have eneded."

First, I didn't say this: "Google Sky shows that the full Moon was near the node where it crosses the ecliptic". Nothing about "near", see for yourself the ecliptic cut straight through it.

Second, let's look at this part now: "He would be right, but his mistake is that the Moon was no longer full at 9:15 PM in Atlanta. It was several hours past full by that time"

I see where many sources claim a full moon "technically" last only one second. By that logic, yes, a lunar eclipse can only technically last one second. Yet that's not how it works. I don't know why there is conflicting facts about length of time of eclipses and full moons, but it's there for the world to see.

I also don't know if cloud cover could be generated or predicted to cover the eclipse, or even "why" a cover up, but it's not something I wish to pursue further. Just delete the damn thread already.

originally posted by: apdjbs1
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Well if mods will not delete my thread here then I might as well defend my logic given.

Essentially this is what is being claimed against me:

"The OP says that in Atlanta at 9:15 PM on August 7 2017, a lunar eclipse should have been visible because Google Sky shows that the full Moon was near the node where it crosses the ecliptic, and that when full moons cross the ecliptic (or when the ecliptic runs through part of the Full Moon), there should be a lunar eclipse.

He would be right, but his mistake is that the Moon was no longer full at 9:15 PM in Atlanta. It was several hours past full by that time -- which is long enough for the eclipse to have eneded."

First, I didn't say this: "Google Sky shows that the full Moon was near the node where it crosses the ecliptic". Nothing about "near", see for yourself the ecliptic cut straight through it.

Second, let's look at this part now: "He would be right, but his mistake is that the Moon was no longer full at 9:15 PM in Atlanta. It was several hours past full by that time"

I see where many sources claim a full moon "technically" last only one second. By that logic, yes, a lunar eclipse can only technically last one second. Yet that's not how it works. I don't know why there is conflicting facts about length of time of eclipses and full moons, but it's there for the world to see.

There is no way this particular partial lunar eclipse -- or even a full lunar eclipse -- would still be visible for 7 hours after reaching its maximum. If you think about it, if it were visible for 7 hours after reaching maximum, then it should have been visible for about 7 hours before maximum as well, meaning (according to you) the eclipse would have lasted 14 hours. That is not possible, especially with a partial eclipse such as this one.

The Moon cross the ecliptic plane twice every month. However, there are not eclipses twice a month. For the lunar eclipse to occur, the Moon needs to be full (or close enough to full) when it crosses the ecliptic or is near to the ecliptic. That's the only way it would be aligned properly to cross the earth's shadow (Earth's shadow, by the way, follows along the ecliptic).

However, that "fullness" only lasts a relatively short amount of time. A Moon that is slightly past full, or slightly prior to being full -- even by only several hours -- may cross the ecliptic without passing through Earth's shadow.

On August 7 2017 the Moon was near enough to "Full" between the times of 15:50 UTC and 20:50 UTC for the moon to pass though the earth's shadow and for the eclipse to be visible. Not before that time, and not after that time -- even though the Moon "appeared" to look full before and after those times.

That time for the eclipse would have been between times of 11:50 in the morning and 4:50 in the afternoon in Atlanta. At those times, the Moon was below the horizon for Atlanta, so the eclipse would NOT be visible from Atlanta. By the time the Moon did rise later that day (as you indicated, by 9:15 PM it had risen), the eclipse had ended.

This is important to realize...People in Europe saw the eclipse end HOURS before the Moon rose for you in Atlanta. So I'm not sure what you think you should have seen at 9:15 PM in Atlanta.

I also don't know if cloud cover could be generated or predicted to cover the eclipse, or even "why" a cover up, but it's not something I wish to pursue further. Just delete the damn thread already.

Are you saying the entire world was under cloud cover at 9:15 PM in Atlanta (1:15 AM the next day UTC), so the entire world could not see this "extended eclipse" that you believe occurred at that time? I'm thinking somewhere in the world they were able to see the Moon emerge out of the partial shadow of the Earth (which would have occurred hours earlier than you say), marking the end of the eclipse.

Here is a time lapse of the eclipse as seen from Germany. As this video shows, the end of the eclipse could be seen from Germany. This end of the eclipse that we see here would have occurred before the Moon rose in Atlanta:

EDIT TO ADD:
By the way, the darkest shadow we see in this video is the umbra. The umbra shadow could be seen on the moon until 19:18 UTC, which would have been 3:18 PM in Atlanta -- again, long before the Moon had risen in Atlanta.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Why do you repeat this statement: "People in Europe saw the eclipse end HOURS before the Moon rose for you in Atlanta. "
Because that even contradicts what other people in your group are saying. Most people in your "nonbeliever group" at least admit the eclipse was visible on the east side off South America. Ok, so you go against both them and me now.

I mean, you can't claim Europe seen it end many hours before parts of South America saw it end. You can't even say Europe saw it end even one second before South America saw it end. Well, I guess you can say that, but it doesn't make it true.

Just delete the thread. Don't worry, nobody will consider it a martyr. Nobody cares.

a reply to: apdjbs1

I don't have any reason to doubt that it was at least partially visible in Eastern Brazil -- definitely the penumbra and maybe the umbra. You won't get an argument from me there.

However, that has mothing to do with the idea that the eclipse had already ended (and people in Europe and even in Eastern Brazil apparently saw it end) before the Moon even rose in Atlanta.

The people who could see the eclipse saw it end at well before Moonrise in Atlanta...That is to say, there were no reports from skywatchers who saw the eclipse from parts of South America (for example) at the same time the Moon was visible above the Atlanta horizon.



By the way, could you post screen shots of the Google Sky Map App you were talking about that show the ecliptic running through the moon? Is that an app running on an android device (android tablet)? Or is that something that could be used on a PC as well?

I may be just thick-headed, but it was not obvious to me how to use my Google Earth/Sky to see past astronomical events the same way I could when using Stellarium.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Ok first you said:
"People in Europe saw the eclipse end HOURS before the Moon rose for you in Atlanta. "
And:
"As this video shows, the end of the eclipse could be seen from Germany."

But now you say:
"I don't have any reason to doubt that it was at least partially visible in Eastern Brazil"

For some reason I'm unable to post pics, which is why I urged people to do their own research from the beginning. Google Sky Map is on my android phone. It has been around for some years. Use the time travel option, plug in my given time date location and find the full moon heavily sliced by the ecliptical line. In this app it never shows the crescents or shadows so don't expect to see that. You will see the ecliptical line labeled and you can visually understand the east/west horizon line.

originally posted by: apdjbs1
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Ok first you said:
"People in Europe saw the eclipse end HOURS before the Moon rose for you in Atlanta. "
And:
"As this video shows, the end of the eclipse could be seen from Germany."

But now you say:
"I don't have any reason to doubt that it was at least partially visible in Eastern Brazil"

There is no reason that the moon would not be able to be seen in Germany and in Brazil at the same time. It may have been rising in eastern Brazil while it was high in the sky or heading toward moonset in Germany.

I mean, it could be daylight in both places at the same time, right? For example, Local Time in Germany in August is UTC +2 hours. Local Time in Eastern Brazil in August is UTC -3 hours. Therefore the difference in time is 5 hours -- e.g., 3:00 in the afternoon in Germany would be 10:00 in the morning in Eastern Brazil.

If the difference is 5 hours in August, then why couldn't the Moon also be visible in both places at the same time?

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

I don't care much for the confusions of the time zones etc, so I'll just point out that if you claim the eclipse in Germany can be seen at the same time as eastern South America, you might as well realize the moon eclipses when it crosses the ecliptical at night and above horizon, as displayed in Google Sky Maps for Atlanta.

You claiming that Brazil could see a lunar eclipse at 10AM is not possible by definition and is a distraction.

originally posted by: apdjbs1
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

I don't care much for the confusions of the time zones etc, so I'll just point out that if you claim the eclipse in Germany can be seen at the same time as eastern South America, you might as well realize the moon eclipses when it crosses the ecliptical at night and above horizon, as displayed in Google Sky Maps for Atlanta.

You claiming that Brazil could see a lunar eclipse at 10AM is not possible by definition and is a distraction.

The "10:00 AM in Brazil" was just an example to show that if the Sun could be visible in Brazil and Germany at the exact same time (which they can because they are only 5 hours apart time-wise), the it stands to reason that the Moon could be visible in Brazil and Germany at the exact same time.

The point is that at the exact same moment that people in Germany were watching the eclipse come to an end, people in Brazil could watch the exact same eclipse come to the exact same end....

...HOWEVER, that eclipse still ended before the Moon had risen in Atlanta. By the time the Moon was up above the horizon in Atlanta, the lunar eclipse had ended. And it most certainly had ended prior to 9:15 PM.


As I indicated before, when I look at Stellarium for August 7 at 9:15 as seen from Atlanta, I agree with you that the Moon was near enough to the ecliptic at 9:15 PM that if the Moon were full at the time -- or very close to full, then it should have still been at least partially eclipsed by Earth's shadow. You are right about that.

However, what you are wrong about is that it was still full or near enough to being full; it wasn't. The reason it was NO LONGER being eclipsed is that the Full Moon had happened 7 hour previously. The moon was too far past the full phase to still be eclipsed, even partially.


The Moon crosses the ecplitic twice every month. However, the only times we see a lunar eclipse is when the Moon is full is very nearly full at the time the Moon is near or on the eclptic. If it isn't very nearly full when the ecliptic and the moon cross, then no eclipse will occur...

...And the Moon was too far past the full phase at 9:15 PM in Atlanta on August 7 to be an eclipse.

To add to my post above,...



I'm not sure why you can't grasp this idea that Eclipses cannot last for 7 hours after the Moon is full. How long past the full moon is "close enough" for the eclipse to still be seen?

Two hours? I'd say yes.
Three Hours? Maybe.
Four hours? Maybe for a total lunar eclipse, including the penumbra
Seven hours? No, but you seem to think so

...And if you think seven works, then why not eight? or what about ten hours? Maybe 16 hours? The Moon looks still nearly full 16 hours later, so why not?

I'll tell you why not.

The Moon in the sky is 30 arc-minutes in diameter. It's apparent motion in the sky is also about 30 arc-minutes per hour -- i.e., it moves EASTWARD (the opposite apparent direction that the rest of the sky moves, which is westward) 30 arc minutes, or about one Moon diameter, every hour.

This eastward movement is due to the direction and speed of the Moon's orbit around the Earth. As the Moon moves in it's orbit, the Sun and Earth may align in a certain way that the Earth's shadow (which is always being cast somewhere) may fall upon the orbital path of the Moon. Of the Moon hits that shadow, the voila, we get an lunar eclipse.

By the way, that Earth's shadow itself is moving, but it's moving slowly enough compared to the Moon that we will ignore the shadow's movement for this exercise.

The diameter of the darkest pat of Earth's shadow (the umbra) at the distance of the Moon is about 1° + 20 arc-minutes (80 arc-minutes). The secondary shadow (the penumbra) is a little less than double that, and could be about 2.5° (about 150 arc-minutes).

So (as mentioned above) if the Moon 's apparent speed as we see it in the sky is 30 arc-minutes per hour, and is 30 arc-minutes in diameter. That would mean that for a full lunar eclipse, it would take the moon about 3.5 hours (and even slightly longer depending on other variables) for move toatlly acorss the umbra. Includige the Moon's motion acros theh PeNunbra, It could take maybe 8 hours for the entire total lunar eclipse to start and end.

But again, that's for a total lunar eclipse. The eclipse in question was a partial eclipse. In this case, the Moon took about 2 hours to cross the UMbra and about 5 hours to cross the Penumbra -- meanin the entire eclipse lasted 5 hours. If it began at 15:50 UTC (11:50 AM local Atlanta time), then it would have been over by 4:50 local Atlamta time -- well before the 9:15 PM you mentioned.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

"I'm not sure why you can't grasp this idea that Eclipses cannot last for 7 hours after the Moon is full. How long past the full moon is "close enough" for the eclipse to still be seen? "

Now you're cornered. One moment while I get the evidence...

Coastal city in Brazil: Full moon: Aug 7 13:10
That's an hour earlier than Atlanta Full moon start time, and as you agreed they saw eclipse... just like I did in Atlanta.

a reply to: apdjbs1


You may have missed this from my earlier post

While the Great American Eclipse is the one everyone in the United States is talking about, those living in Europe, Africa, Asia and Australia had a show in the sky all their own.

So why didn’t the U.S. see the lunar eclipse? It actually took place while the Western Hemisphere was turned away from the moon and was in the height of day.

Now does that make it simple enough to understand

a reply to: wmd_2008

I knew this would ultimately end with you quoting the very thing I was using astronomy to debate against. It doesn't matter how many times I beg you to see for yourself, you are just going to be a copy/paste Google jockey to the bitter end.

Interestingly your source claims that east coast Brazil penumbral eclipse was visible until 5:50pm(their local time) yet twilight ended a full hour later.
www.timeanddate.com...

Oh, and btw, according to your source, they saw the eclipse at the top of moon, not the bottom.
www.timeanddate.com...

Or, also from your source, very perplexingly it shows even greater eclipse a bit further west in Brazil in Bahia Salvador:
www.timeanddate.com...
Have fun with that.

originally posted by: apdjbs1
a reply to: wmd_2008

I knew this would ultimately end with you quoting the very thing I was using astronomy to debate against. It doesn't matter how many times I beg you to see for yourself, you are just going to be a copy/paste Google jockey to the bitter end.

Interestingly your source claims that east coast Brazil penumbral eclipse was visible until 5:50pm(their local time) yet twilight ended a full hour later.
www.timeanddate.com...

So maybe my time zones were off. I was correcting for "Daylight Time" in Rio De Jenero and Germany, and maybe I should not have. The point is that no matter whose time we use (yours or mine), the eclipse had already ended before 9:15 PM in Atlanta.

Oh, and btw, according to your source, they saw the eclipse at the top of moon, not the bottom.
www.timeanddate.com...

The Moon's orientation looks different for different people due to a few factors:

1. The Observer's latitude. A person in the Southern Hemisphere would see the Moon slightly "upside down" compared to someone in the Northern Hemisphere. That effect is great the great the difference in latitudes. The image below demonstrates this concept.

Example: Brazil (say Salvador) is at about 13 degrees south latitude. Italy (say Rome) is at about 42 degrees North latitude. That's a difference of about than 55 degrees, which would result in the Moon appearing to be rotated about 55 degrees as seen from Salvador as compared to Rome.


2. The Moon appears to "pivot" as it moves across the sky from Moonrise to Moonset, as shown in the diagram below (The diagram below would be as seen from mid-latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere, but the concept applies elsewhere, too.):

Or also from your source, very perplexingly it shows even greater eclipse a bit further west in Brazil in Bahia Salvador:
www.timeanddate.com...
Have fun with that.

I don't understand the issue here. I think Salvador still qualifies as "Eastern Brazil".




You have yet to demonstrate WHY you think the eclipse should have still been happening in Atlanta at 9:15 PM so long after (7 hours) the maximum eclipse was being seen elsewhere, and more than 9 hours after the other people in the world saw it begin. You have yet to demontrate the magical reason that an ecplise could last so long.

Sure, you have pointed out that the ecliptic was crossing the moon at 9:15 PM, and if it were full, it should have created an eclipse -- anyd you are right about that.

However, the problenm is the Moon was no longer full; the fullness ended 7 hours earlier.

My question to you would be this: At what point past the official time of Full Moon do you still count the Moon as "Full Enough" to be part of your criteria for an eclipse that you pasted back on page 1:

originally posted by: apdjbs1
...For an eclipse or partial eclipse to occur: it has to be a full moon phase (check, it was), and has to be above horizon (check, it was), and moon has to be cut by ecliptical (check, it was).

Your criteria above are correct, expect the Moon was too far past full for the eclipse to continue intil 9:15 PM Atlanta time.