I undertstand the un behind the people in the pic creates a shadow or them to go black .....but the sun wasnt behind the moon the whole time so whats the point of this ? after the "moon" went by why didnt the suns light reflect off it ? like it does every day ....day or night
Even if the part that would reflect the sun wasn't so tiny ( we speak about millions of kilometers here) the light of the sun would crush the reflection.
Take a candle, light it. In a dark room, you can see it quite bright. Put a spot behind or near it toward you head. The light of the spot make you unable to see the flame.
It's the same thing here : it's not a photo of the sun, it's a HEAVY filtered photo of the sun...
I dont think that was the moon that was blocking the sun .....there is no video of the moon also when the supposed moon went by it didnt reflect sunlight off it like its supposed to ....and nasa again gets caught photo shopping the Iss into the suns path ...
1.) Why do you not believe that was the Moon? You could easily observe the Moon approaching the Sun on a daily basis until 21 August, and then finally watching it come in front of the Sun. The Moon moves easterly in its orbit and you can confirm that by picking up and noticing the position of the Moon no a full Moon night (it will be easy for you to spot if it's full; try to look for it when it is pretty high in the sky) and also noting the time. Come back again the next day at the exact time and you will notice that the Moon would have moved EASTERLY. Still if you think it was not the Moon then look at post 16 and 20 and you will realize that ANYBODY, even you can do some corrections in the image to obtain the final picture in which the silhouette will reveal the landmarks of the Moon. Thus it is the Moon.
2.) Whenever it's new Moon (astronomically speaking) it takes some days for it to be visible to you because the Moon is almost (during new Moon) and exact (during the eclipse) in front of the Sun. For you to confirm just try to find the Moon when it has disappeared from the sky before new Moon and try to count the days it takes for it to be first visible you will clearly understand what I am saying, although I believe it is easy to comprehend because it is simple.
3.) NASA had nothing to do with the ISS in the video, you tuber smarter every day uploaded this video. You accused NASA of something they did not do without you doing the research, and perhaps this is the reason for your current beliefs about space, NASA etc.
Look science does not work that way, I am very polite with you, I want to help people get out of the flat Earth deception if they want but mate idea of a flat Earth is a blatant lie. Earth is not flat, science tells the facts, science that you can do yourself to find and say aha!!! Earth is not flat. Calculations of a spherical body work exactly the right way. Finally if you want to say that everybody lies and YouTube pays them etc. Then to be extremely kind to you I DO NOT BELIEVE YOU!!! Like the way you think everybody lies I think you are lying and you are creating a misconception and you want to slide wrong beliefs in a scientific class or forums. I am polite (again) but like you I think you are lying. I hope you understand what I am saying.
The Moon isn't visible around the time of the new moon. People figured this out a long time ago. Some religions, most notably Islam, mark the start of a new calendar month only after the crescent moon is actually observed after the new moon. The minimum time this has been observed is 17 hours after the new moon.
2.1 Question: After the Moon Birth, how much time is required for people to sight the New Moon?
Answer: Time passed after New Moon Birth is called the age of the moon. Sighting is possible at different age in different months. So, age cannot be a criterion for sighting. Why is it so? Because, the orbit of the moon is elliptical and in its orbit, the moon moves faster when it is closer to the earth, and slower when it is farther from earth. When it moves faster, the moon becomes visible at smaller age (like 17 hours), and when it moves slower, it becomes visible at larger age (like 23 hours). The main factor that makes the moon visible is the angle between moon-earth-sun. When this angle becomes about 9 degrees, the moon starts to be visible. How much time it takes to get this angle depends upon the speed of the moon in its orbit.
Why dont ask ? do you feel you know everything and that there are no more mysteries or questions at least ? does anything seem strange to you or not fit what we are told ? if so why are you here ?? your done ..you know everything .
There are many mysteries in the universe. I could write a volume worthy of Tolkein just listing all the questions I hope science can answer before I die.
However, endlessly relitigating questions science answered three thousand years ago and has confirmed in so many ways for all of eternity only assures that some of those questions can't get answered in my life, because the person who would have answered it is having the same argument every day of their career. We haven't found an exomoon yet. We don't have good observations of Thorne-Zytkow stars. What's in Europa's ocean? What's it like inside a gas giant? Is there a large rocky planet causing the Kuiper Belt's weird orbital resonances? What happened to Venus and can it ever recover?
Space is weird and wonderous and spending your time asking, "What just blotted out the sun at 2:30 on a Monday afternoon?" only serves to deny yourself that wonder and cheapen existence itself.
I undertstand the un behind the people in the pic creates a shadow or them to go black .....but the sun wasnt behind the moon the whole time so whats the point of this ? after the "moon" went by why didnt the suns light reflect off it ? like it does every day ....day or night
Here someone took a picture during totality with long exposure / high aperture / high ISO, probably with some post-processing.
The result appears to show the 'dark side' of the moon illuminated by earth's daylight side. I don't think it is likely that this is faked but I'm no expert in that respect.
Watching this image more closely, I suspect it may be a combination of two photos, as the bottom part is much less grainy. Or the upper part was much darker originally and was selectively processed.
Here someone took a picture during totality with long exposure / high aperture / high ISO, probably with some post-processing.
The result appears to show the 'dark side' of the moon illuminated by earth's daylight side. I don't think it is likely that this is faked but I'm no expert in that respect.
I like the way they include a satellite image from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter to illustrate their point. So, er, if the moon goes behind the sun and this mysterious dark planet is causing the eclipse, how can a satellite in orbit around the moon see past both the sun and the dark planet to take a photo of Earth?
Ok what about all the other ISS transit pics from amateur observers?
The International Space Station transits the Sun passing by sunspot group AR2585 from Briggs, Texas. Questar 3.5 telescope with Sony a6300 shooting 30 fps 4k video at prime focus. Exposure 1/320 sec at ISO 200. 2016-09-04 19:15 UT. Video frames deconvolved in Lynkeos, then composited and exposure adjusted in Photoshop.
These are only two of many found in a ten minute google. The eclipse was witness by millions, and the ISS transit by thousands. Are ALL amateur astronomers in the pay of NASA. (Think real carefully before you answer)
Soundly, who did the Pontchartrain power line videos showing the curve of the Earth, did a nice timelapse of the eclipse, in which he included some overexposed and boosted shots that show a little detail on the moon.
I don't think so - unless you just mean see its silhouette. You should be able to see it sometimes near sunset and sunrise. However I've only been able to find photos with a thin crescent, so maybe....
The term "dark side" is often used to refer to the far side of the moon. But it's quite reasonable to use it for the actual dark half of the Moon.
Interesting to learn that the "far side" wasn't called the "dark side" because it was turned away from us, but because we didn't know anything about it.
Interesting to learn that the "far side" wasn't called the "dark side" because it was turned away from us, but because we didn't know anything about it.
It was pretty intelligent to call it "far side" because we initially did not know anything about it. Now that we have done, I mean covered most of the topic of eclipse what more can be debunked?
Ok what about all the other ISS transit pics from amateur observers?
The International Space Station transits the Sun passing by sunspot group AR2585 from Briggs, Texas. Questar 3.5 telescope with Sony a6300 shooting 30 fps 4k video at prime focus. Exposure 1/320 sec at ISO 200. 2016-09-04 19:15 UT. Video frames deconvolved in Lynkeos, then composited and exposure adjusted in Photoshop.
These are only two of many found in a ten minute google. The eclipse was witness by millions, and the ISS transit by thousands. Are ALL amateur astronomers in the pay of NASA. (Think real carefully before you answer)
Soundly, who did the Pontchartrain power line videos showing the curve of the Earth, did a nice timelapse of the eclipse, in which he included some overexposed and boosted shots that show a little detail on the moon.
Here's an image of the moon being illuminated by earthshine during a 2008 eclipse in China, taken before the advent of people who thought the moon wasn't really the moon.
Shows you just how on the ball NASA were, that they had people posting images like this a full 9 years ago. Amazing how they can be so smart and yet, at other times, so dumb, getting CGI continent sizes wrong, leaving harnesses on show, and allowing videos showing astronots' air bubbles to go online.
Here is annother earthshine image, taken without using multiple exposures. According to the creator, the setting "was a single 2 second exposure at f/8, iso 400", through a telescope with motorized mount.
There are numerous images where amateurs were able to capture features of the moon surface while it covered the sun during totality, in the latest and in earlier eclipse events.
This debunks the claim that something else than the moon was the cause for these eclipses.
To be honest there will be some people who will believe what you said, but I already gave answer to that in reply to DJC which was: "1.) Why do you not believe that was the Moon? You could easily observe the Moon approaching the Sun on a daily basis until 21 August, and then finally watching it come in front of the Sun. The Moon moves easterly in its orbit and you can confirm that by picking up and noticing the position of the Moon no a full Moon night (it will be easy for you to spot if it's full; try to look for it when it is pretty high in the sky) and also noting the time. Come back again the next day at the exact time and you will notice that the Moon would have moved EASTERLY. Still if you think it was not the Moon then look at post 16 and 20 and you will realize that ANYBODY, even you can do some corrections in the image to obtain the final picture in which the silhouette will reveal the landmarks of the Moon. Thus it is the Moon."
Gosh. There's a tough question. I think there are people who are "serious" that it wasn't the moon - and adamant, too (that Hare Krishna fella I linked to earlier, for example, still thinks it was Rahu, and that the moon was way beyond the sun).
But by your definition of the word "serious"...I doubt it.
Probably not, because as soon as you draw a diagram of the sky showing where the moon was for three days before and three days after the eclipse they you should notice it passes through the sun.
Probably not, because as soon as you draw a diagram of the sky showing where the moon was for three days before and three days after the eclipse they you should notice it passes through the sun.
Depends on the definition of "serious". The Hare Krishna guy claims it was actually planet Rahu. On Twitter, I read the claim that NASA has 'faked' the eclipse.
