Totality Exposed

On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 14:08:21 GMT, Helen Deborah Vecht
wrote:

My partner took this shot from the back garden.

http://www.davidarditti.co.uk/luneclipse07.html

Magnificent picture. A question for the experts: why was there a
bright white sliver on the top left-hand edge of the moon during
totality? On David's picture, it extends from about 10 o'clock to
almost the top of the picture (excuse the technical language!) but, on
some others, it extends clockwise to about 1 o'clock. It was clearly
visible to the naked eye and I'm curious why it wasn't reddish, like
the rest of the image.

Mike.

--
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem

On Mar 4, 9:22 pm, Mike wrote:
On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 14:08:21 GMT, Helen Deborah Vecht

wrote:
My partner took this shot from the back garden.

http://www.davidarditti.co.uk/luneclipse07.html

Magnificent picture. A question for the experts: why was there a
bright white sliver on the top left-hand edge of the moon during
totality? On David's picture, it extends from about 10 o'clock to
almost the top of the picture (excuse the technical language!) but, on
some others, it extends clockwise to about 1 o'clock. It was clearly
visible to the naked eye and I'm curious why it wasn't reddish, like
the rest of the image.

Mike.

--
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem

The reply of the experts is going to be fun,I know,the Earth casts a
shadow or something like that.

Look,do this the other way around and figure it out for yourself.

Here is the moon shielding the Earth from direct solar radiation at a
solar eclipse -

http://cseligman.com/text/planets/eclipse99mir.jpg

The bright part of the moon that is not shielded by the Earth shows
up as direct solar radiation received by the moon.

Look,an astronomer takes lots and lots of things into account and can
stand back every so often and enjoy the spectacle.Everybody is an
astronomer insofar as they live by the motions of the Earth in terms
of sleeping waking habits,by the annual cycle in various different
ways but a good astronomer takes more and more details on board and
applies them with equal amounts of curiousity and common sense.

Most here unwittingly take part in an exercise that destroys the
neccessary intutive intelligence required to work with the motions of
the Earth and when common sense should intervene and correct wayward
notions,no such authority exists.HGo ahead and work things out for
yourself and you will be repaid a thousansd times the initial effort.

On Mar 4, 1:50 am, Anthony Ayiomamitis
wrote:
Dear Friends,

The Greek gods expressed their anger this weekend in the most
categorical way and adversely affected the first lunar total eclipse in
three years and the first of two such eclipses during 2007 with a
plethora of clouds (thin and thick depending on their mood during the
course of the eclipse).

For an image taken during totality and which includes 56 Leonis to the
bottom right of the moon, I kindly direct you tohttp://www.perseus.gr/Astro-Eclipses-2007-03-03.htm.

Europe has been hammered this winter and particularly this weekend where
bad weather was common throughout the continent.

Best wishes from (cloudy) Greece!

Anthony.

PS. I have over 100 images to examine and will send a follow-up email if
I have something of greater interest.

Lovely picture,shame that your astronomical explanation of the event
is stupid.

The lunar eclipse is due to the absence of solar radiation and Not,do
you hear this Tony ,Not because the moon is hidden in the Earth's
shadow as you state.

The reason these events are astronomically important is that you infer
valuable information about the orbital motion and path of the Earth -

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...easonearth.png

Most of you have no feel for these events other than an exercise in
self-congratulation be it a lunar eclipse or the event with Mercury a
number of months ago,the event has passed for you and now you await
something else prescribed by your calendrically driven 'predictions'.

Real astronomers would take as much information as possible from these
events and apply it to terrestrial sciences such as
climatology,geology and indeed all existence which is made possible
through the motions of the Earth around the central Sun.

You want the moon to be hidden in the Earth's shadow then good for
you,I would say that is about right for your kind who really have no
feel for what is occuring.

The lunar eclipse is due to the absence of solar radiation and Not,do
you hear this Tony ,Not because the moon is hidden in the Earth's
shadow as you state.

Thanks for posting Oriel. The laughter boost went nice with the
coffee.

If there was an absence of solar radiation, how then was Tony able to
get a picture of it?

Errol

Starboard wrote:
The lunar eclipse is due to the absence of solar radiation and Not,do
you hear this Tony ,Not because the moon is hidden in the Earth's
shadow as you state.


Thanks for posting Oriel. The laughter boost went nice with the
coffee.

Awesome!


If there was an absence of solar radiation, how then was Tony able to
get a picture of it?

Only Ariel knows.

Anthony.


Errol

On Mar 4, 4:31 pm, "Starboard" wrote:
The lunar eclipse is due to the absence of solar radiation and Not,do
you hear this Tony ,Not because the moon is hidden in the Earth's
shadow as you state.

Thanks for posting Oriel. The laughter boost went nice with the
coffee.

If there was an absence of solar radiation, how then was Tony able to
get a picture of it?

Errol

Tell me how far out into space the Earth's shadow extends to ?.That's
right,it is ridiculous hence the moon does not hide in the Earth's
shadow as the astrophotographer thinks but rather it is the absence
of direct solar radiation that causes the affect.

To think that this was once the heritage of Copernicus and Kepler and
now reduced to an exercise in photographic self-congratulation,a
careless bunch who will make up whatever story in neccessary and all
in the name of astronomy.

It is not the presence of astrophotographers interested in
magnification that is the problem ,it is the absence of real
astronomers who have a working knowledge of planetary motions and can
use observational data to good effect.You lot can afford to be
careless and make up whatever stories you need without little regard
for physical considerations and that cannot be the act of an astronomy
and astronomy -

"And though some disparate astronomical hypotheses may provide
exactly
the same results in astronomy, as Rothmann claimed in his letters to
Lord Tycho of his own mutation of the Copernican system,nevertheless
there is often a difference between the conclusions because of some
physical consideration [causa alicujus considerationis physicae]....
But practitioners are not always in the habit of taking account of
that diversity in physical matters [in physicisvarietas], . . "
Kepler

The physical considerations in generating the eclipse events and the
seasons are due to the orbital motion of the Earth and considering
that not one person here has affirmed the original Copernican insight
that we see orbital motions around the Sun from an orbitally moving
Earth thereby resolving apparent retrogrades makes this a dark,dark
astronomical era.

Thank God I never had to suffer a life of carelessness nor could
easily vandalise some of the greatest known astronomical achievements
which occured through the carelessness of late 17th century
numbskulls.

On Mar 4, 3:56�pm, "oriel36" wrote:
On Mar 4, 4:31 pm, "Starboard" wrote:

The *lunar eclipse is due to the absence of solar radiation and Not,do
you hear this Tony ,Not because the moon is hidden in the Earth's
shadow as you state.

Thanks for posting Oriel. The laughter boost went nice with the
coffee.

If there was an absence of solar radiation, how then was Tony able to
get a picture of it?

Errol

Tell me how far out into space the Earth's shadow extends to ?.That's
right,it is ridiculous hence the moon does not hide in the Earth's
shadow *as the astrophotographer thinks but rather it is the absence
of direct solar radiation that causes the affect.

To think that this was once the heritage of Copernicus and Kepler and
now reduced to an exercise in photographic *self-congratulation,a
careless bunch who will make up whatever story in neccessary and all
in the name of astronomy.

It is not the presence of astrophotographers interested in
magnification that is the problem ,it is the absence of *real
astronomers who have a working knowledge of planetary motions and can
use observational data to good effect.You lot can afford to be
careless and make up whatever stories you need without little regard
for physical considerations and that cannot be the act of an astronomy
and astronomy -

"And though some disparate astronomical hypotheses may provide
exactly
the same results in astronomy, as Rothmann claimed in his letters to
Lord Tycho of his own mutation of the Copernican system,nevertheless
there is often a difference between the conclusions because of some
physical consideration [causa alicujus considerationis physicae]....
But practitioners are not always in the habit of taking account of
that diversity in physical matters [in physicisvarietas], . . "
Kepler

The physical considerations in generating the eclipse events and the
seasons are due to the orbital motion of the Earth *and considering
that not one person here *has affirmed the original Copernican insight
that we see orbital motions around the Sun from an orbitally moving
Earth thereby resolving apparent retrogrades makes this a dark,dark
astronomical era.

Thank God I never had to suffer a life of carelessness nor could
easily vandalise some of the greatest known astronomical achievements
which occured through the carelessness of late *17th century
numbskulls.

oriel36 wrote:
[snip]
Lovely picture,shame that your astronomical explanation of the event
is stupid.

The lunar eclipse is due to the absence of solar radiation and Not,do
you hear this Tony ,Not because the moon is hidden in the Earth's
shadow as you state.

I knew you were baking mad, but this takes the biscuit.

I could do with a laugh. What, exactly, is causing the absence of solar
radiation hitting the moon if not the presence of the Earth between the
sun and moon blocking the light? Did the sun just switch off for a
couple of hours, to take a break from being the centre of the universe
and the only acceptable frame of reference? I mean, that's pretty heavy
responsibility for an unremarkable star drifting around a backwater of
an unremarkable spiral galaxy. I'd need a break every now and then too.


Tim

On Mar 4, 11:30 am, Tim Auton wrote:
oriel36 wrote:

[snip]

Lovely picture,shame that your astronomical explanation of the event
is stupid.

The lunar eclipse is due to the absence of solar radiation and Not,do
you hear this Tony ,Not because the moon is hidden in the Earth's
shadow as you state.

I knew you were baking mad, but this takes the biscuit.

I could do with a laugh. What, exactly, is causing the absence of solar
radiation hitting the moon if not the presence of the Earth between the
sun and moon blocking the light? Did the sun just switch off for a
couple of hours, to take a break from being the centre of the universe
and the only acceptable frame of reference? I mean, that's pretty heavy
responsibility for an unremarkable star drifting around a backwater of
an unremarkable spiral galaxy. I'd need a break every now and then too.

Tim

Tim,
Don't waste such erudition on Oriole. It's out of its cage
again and fluttering about the and net making tacky remarks.

If Errol and I can catch him we'll drag him back to
sci.astro.amateur.

Regards,
Ben
90.126 n 35.539

Tim Auton wrote:

oriel36 wrote:
[snip]

Lovely picture,shame that your astronomical explanation of the event
is stupid.

The lunar eclipse is due to the absence of solar radiation and Not,do
you hear this Tony ,Not because the moon is hidden in the Earth's
shadow as you state.


I knew you were baking mad, but this takes the biscuit.

I could do with a laugh. What, exactly, is causing the absence of solar
radiation hitting the moon if not the presence of the Earth between the
sun and moon blocking the light? Did the sun just switch off for a
couple of hours, to take a break from being the centre of the universe
and the only acceptable frame of reference? I mean, that's pretty heavy
responsibility for an unremarkable star drifting around a backwater of
an unremarkable spiral galaxy. I'd need a break every now and then too.

Tim, I could not have said it better myself. Anyway, let's not pick on
Oriel too much ... I do enjoy the twisted humour which is not intended
on his side.

Anthony.



Tim