Lunar Eclipse Observation

Total Lunar Eclipse
8 Oct. 2014
S.E. Montana
Naked-eye and
20x80 Binoculars
10:50 - 12:30 UT

Totality:
I caught a few decent views on occasions when clouds moved away from my line of sight. Using handheld 20x80s the full moon was fairly bright for being entirely within Earth's umbra. It was mostly orange in color with a lighter yellow-orange northern limb. A quick sketch was made of the moon and surrounding 'stars' including blue-green Uranus which was about one lunar diameter from the moon's south-eastern limb. When clouds passed in front of the moon I took advantage of the opportunity and caught nice views of the Pleiades and Orion Nebula.

Partial Phase:
The naked-eye view of the partial eclipse was particularly good when Earth's umbra covered nearly half the lunar disk. The curvature of Earth's shadow was very clearly seen. I was reminded of how (at least a few) people over 2,000 years ago were able to deduce that our planet was not only round in silhouette, but spherical in 3-D based on observations of lunar eclipses and ships sailing over the horizon. Our friend, Eratosthenes, even calculated a reasonable value for Earth's circumference.

Morning TV news:
Before the partial phase had ended a news/weather person showed a picture of totality stating: "In case you missed LAST NIGHT'S eclipse . . ."

.. . . and then I was off to other responsibilities before I could type up a report.

Sketcher,
To sketch is to see.

On Thursday, October 9, 2014 2:51:37 AM UTC+1, Sketcher wrote:

The naked-eye view of the partial eclipse was particularly good when Earth's umbra covered nearly half the lunar disk. The curvature of Earth's shadow was very clearly seen. I was reminded of how (at least a few) people over 2,000 years ago were able to deduce that our planet was not only round in silhouette, but spherical in 3-D based on observations of lunar eclipses and ships sailing over the horizon.

You acquired an academic view of astronomy which doesn't stray past the Greeks hence your almost useless overview of the expansive technical and historical nature of astronomy is myopic. Astronomical insights can be lost such as happened with the discovery of the Earth's motions using planetary retrogrades where ,in the late 17th century, they adopted an exceptionally poor resolution that doesn't fit with the antecedent version known to the original heliocentric astronomers -

"For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes
stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are
always seen direct,..." Newton

The point is that there is a 'use it or lose it' factor to astronomy otherwise the discipline will fall into an evolutionary scheme which begins with the Greeks and ends with the empirical mess that we inherited. This era, for all its magnification and technological prowess, represents the dark ages of astronomy more than any other for no person on society that ever set foot on this amazing planet ever considered the moon to spin. Even showing where this notion of a 'spinning moon' comes from distracts contemporaries from following the same individual above who made that useless comment on retrogrades above by a misreading of Kepler -

http://books.google.ie/books?id=OdCJ...4C&pg=PA80&lpg

Even demonstrating that Kepler wasn't discussing a spinning moon doesn't sway this mesmerized view mathematicians have of Sir Isaac -

"The Sun and the moon rotate on their own axes...The purpose of this motion is to confer motion on the planets located around them;on the six primary planets in the case of the Sun,and on the moon in the case of the Earth.On the other hand the moon does not rotate on the axis of its own body,as its spots prove " Kepler

As much as the technical issues need to be addressed, the historical issues are just as important but where the men needed to discuss these things are going to come from to release astronomy out of the fiction created around it by empiricists who imagine themselves as modern Greeks I do not know. The standard for astronomy is presently so low that it may as well not exist at all but what makes it even worse is that I haven't seen the slightest indication that observers actually see the capabilities provided by modern tools so they can become free from the notion of a mechanical universe and the empirical ideology which created that horror.

Bad typo -

"The Sun and the Earth rotate on their own axes...The purpose of this motion is to confer motion on the planets located around them;on the six primary planets in the case of the Sun,and on the moon in the case of the Earth.On the other hand the moon does not rotate on the axis of its own body,as its spots prove " Kepler

When people imagine that the moon spins separate to its orbital circuit of the Earth then they may as well forget astronomy and any sense of intelligence. The fact is that it is proposed as a fact by institutions linked to the education system makes this such a dismaying situation -

http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/...y=OverviewLong

Men are supposed to understand that a spinning motion is quite distinct from orbital motion so one does not negate the other as with the Earth and the other planets. Is it not enough that observers can now see where this notion of a 'spinning moon' comes from ?.

On Wed, 8 Oct 2014 18:51:33 -0700 (PDT), Sketcher
wrote this crap:

Total Lunar Eclipse
8 Oct. 2014
S.E. Montana
Naked-eye and
20x80 Binoculars
10:50 - 12:30 UT

Totality:
I caught a few decent views on occasions when clouds
moved away from my line of sight.

Not a bad observation from Montana. I live in Detroit and the eclipse
started just before sunrise. I couldn't see it because the moon was
already far in the West and houses were blocking it. From Montana you
had a better view than me.

This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe

On Wed, 8 Oct 2014 23:36:41 -0700 (PDT), oriel36
wrote this crap:

"For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes
stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are
always seen direct,..." Newton

Well, he was hit on the head by an apple.

where this notion of a 'spinning moon' comes from distracts
contemporaries from following the same individual above
who made that useless comment on retrogrades above
by a misreading of Kepler -

That's a ton of verbiage from someone who doesn't know science. The
moon turns on it's axis every 24 hours. It matches the Earth's
rotation.

This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe

On Wed, 8 Oct 2014 23:46:33 -0700 (PDT), oriel36
wrote this crap:


When people imagine that the moon spins separate to its
orbital circuit of the Earth then they may as well forget
astronomy and any sense of intelligence.

I imagine that you are sitting in a basement somewhere typing this and
you probably have an accordion in the corner.

The simple fact is that the moon rotates one time every 24 hours. I
didn't say that you were wrong, you just could have worded it better.
"Orbital circuit of Earth."? You probably wear a skirt when you go
out.


This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe

On Thursday, October 9, 2014 10:26:21 AM UTC+1, Lord Vath wrote:
On Wed, 8 Oct 2014 23:36:41 -0700 (PDT), oriel36

wrote this crap:



"For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes

stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are

always seen direct,..." Newton



Well, he was hit on the head by an apple.



where this notion of a 'spinning moon' comes from distracts

contemporaries from following the same individual above

who made that useless comment on retrogrades above

by a misreading of Kepler -



That's a ton of verbiage from someone who doesn't know science. The

moon turns on it's axis every 24 hours. It matches the Earth's

rotation.

Good for you in that you will fit in well in this forum with many others including those who get paid to call themselves astronomers. There was a brief spell when some did try to escape the 'spinning moon' of Newton but the background depth of understanding was far too weak to counter people who were and remain mesmerized by a mathematician's take on astronomy -

http://books.google.ie/books?id=MfU3...ge&q&f=fal se


Visual narratives which apply to the motion of the planets and their characteristics don't even apply here for we share the observation that the moon orbits the Earth with all astronomers stretching back to remote antiquity. Given the one fact other than it orbits the Earth is that it doesn't spin yet people can force themselves to believe it does and if that isn't heartbreaking then nothing is, at least from an intelligence point of view.

Again,you will fit right in here among those who must hate astronomy to believe the things they do.

On Thu, 9 Oct 2014 03:47:11 -0700 (PDT), oriel36
wrote this crap:

On Thursday, October 9, 2014 10:26:21 AM UTC+1, Lord Vath wrote:
On Wed, 8 Oct 2014 23:36:41 -0700 (PDT), oriel36

wrote this crap:



"For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes

stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are

always seen direct,..." Newton



Well, he was hit on the head by an apple.



where this notion of a 'spinning moon' comes from distracts

contemporaries from following the same individual above

who made that useless comment on retrogrades above

by a misreading of Kepler -



That's a ton of verbiage from someone who doesn't know science. The

moon turns on it's axis every 24 hours. It matches the Earth's

rotation.

Good for you in that you will fit in well in this forum with many others
including those who get paid to call themselves astronomers.
There was a brief spell when some did try to escape the
'spinning moon' of Newton but the background depth of
understanding was far too weak to counter people who were
and remain mesmerized by a mathematician's take on astronomy -

http://books.google.ie/books?id=MfU3...ge&q&f=fal se


Visual narratives which apply to the motion of the planets and their
characteristics don't even apply here for we share the observation
that the moon orbits the Earth with all astronomers stretching
back to remote antiquity. Given the one fact other than it orbits the
Earth is that it doesn't spin yet people can force themselves to
believe it does and if that isn't heartbreaking then nothing is,
at least from an intelligence point of view.

Again,you will fit right in here among those who must
hate astronomy to believe the things they do.


Can you like put this in less than a hundred words. People liked Bill
Nye the Science Guy because they understood him. People liked Ronald
Reagan because they understood him. I'm going to show up at your
house and stick a pin in your girlfriend and watch her deflate.


This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe

On Thursday, October 9, 2014 2:20:03 PM UTC+1, Lord Vath wrote:
On Thu, 9 Oct 2014 03:47:11 -0700 (PDT), oriel36

wrote this crap:



On Thursday, October 9, 2014 10:26:21 AM UTC+1, Lord Vath wrote:

On Wed, 8 Oct 2014 23:36:41 -0700 (PDT), oriel36



wrote this crap:







"For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes



stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are



always seen direct,..." Newton







Well, he was hit on the head by an apple.







where this notion of a 'spinning moon' comes from distracts



contemporaries from following the same individual above



who made that useless comment on retrogrades above



by a misreading of Kepler -







That's a ton of verbiage from someone who doesn't know science. The



moon turns on it's axis every 24 hours. It matches the Earth's



rotation.



Good for you in that you will fit in well in this forum with many others

including those who get paid to call themselves astronomers.

There was a brief spell when some did try to escape the

'spinning moon' of Newton but the background depth of

understanding was far too weak to counter people who were

and remain mesmerized by a mathematician's take on astronomy -



http://books.google.ie/books?id=MfU3...ge&q&f=fal se





Visual narratives which apply to the motion of the planets and their

characteristics don't even apply here for we share the observation

that the moon orbits the Earth with all astronomers stretching

back to remote antiquity. Given the one fact other than it orbits the

Earth is that it doesn't spin yet people can force themselves to

believe it does and if that isn't heartbreaking then nothing is,

at least from an intelligence point of view.



Again,you will fit right in here among those who must

hate astronomy to believe the things they do.





Can you like put this in less than a hundred words.

An intellectual paralysis spread through the education system moving from one generation to the next and eroding civilization as it does so insofar as getting the moon to spin or believing that humans have control over planetary temperatures amount to one and the same thing.

There is no obverse to believing that the moon spins by virtue as it never begs the question and likewise all the other facts that have fallen victim to a spiritless bunch who have now nothing left to destroy.

I do not stand isolated by virtue that the vast bulk of astronomy through history is based on intricate reasoning if not beautiful observations hence an astronomer worthy of the name could not bear repulsive ideologies taking the name of astronomy and a 'spinning moon' is certainly the most obvious and the lowest form of intellectual paralysis.

At what point humanity fights back I do not know but as it does so it will bring back a worldview that encompasses a true appreciation of this planet and humanity's place in it.

On Thu, 9 Oct 2014 06:39:56 -0700 (PDT), oriel36
wrote this crap:

On Thursday, October 9, 2014 2:20:03 PM UTC+1, Lord Vath wrote:
On Thu, 9 Oct 2014 03:47:11 -0700 (PDT), oriel36

wrote this crap:


Can you like put this in less than a hundred words.

An intellectual paralysis

Yeah. I went to sleep after these first three words. Where do you
live? I'm coming there. And don't try to hit me with your purse,
pussy. It's been tried before.

This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe