Anybody into the eclipse?

[Dave in Tenn]

Monday August 21 cutting a narrow path across the US from Northwest to Southeast, the first Total eclipse of the sun visible in the US in 99 years.

Anybody in the path, or making plans to get there?

We're hoping to get to the Paducah KY area, though we'll be watching the weather closely.  I checked motel rooms in and near Paducah, but there's not a room available.  Air BnB asking rates for a room or a whole house the night before are in the hundreds if not thousands of dollars.  Thankfully, we're not all that far, and if the weather holds and the crowds coming from the south are not too huge, I hope we can get there early enough.

[Musterseed]

I would love to be able to see it,we won't get much here . I hope it all works out for you, I'll be
waiting to hear the stories of all who see it. 😎

[Dennis Vogel]

I saw one years ago in central Alabama.

Pick you spot carefully. Even half a mile off makes a difference in totality.

[indianabob]

Thanks Dennis,
My daughter has invited us down to Clinton, TN to observe. We will see how far off that is...

So many on the internet and in news media seem to see this as a threat of some impending doom for mankind.
So little trust and confidence in the creator of all things.
I see it and my children agree, as an attention getting sign from our God that He is still in charge and has the earth's operations well in hand. 
It is such a relief and a welcome feeling of peacefulness to communicate with people of faith who put their full trust in God.

Indiana Bob

[Dave in Tenn]

Dennis, what you saw was probably an "annular eclipse" (or even a partial e eclipse).  An "annular" eclipse is when the apparent size of the moon (because in it's elliptical orbit, it is farther from earth) is slightly smaller than the apparent size of the sun.  This year's Eclipse is a true "Total" eclipse because the apparent size of the moon is slightly larger than the sun's and will completely block it out, assuming you are in the right spot.  This hasn't happened in the US in almost a century.

My sister sent me a video about a guy who wrote a smart-phone app that would tell you by geo-location what to expect as the eclipse happens.  They tested it on a church parking lot in Tennessee.  From one end of the lot the eclipse was Total, and from the other end it wasn't, though it would come very close, obviously.  With these things, however, for the full effect, close still only counts in hand-grenades and horseshoes.  Within the band of "totality", the thing to watch for is how long the Totality lasts.  It can last from a few seconds to something like 2 minutes 40 seconds depending on how close you are to the "center" of the track, and where in the track you are.

The "show" is supposed to last about 2 1/2 minutes in Paducah. 

Bob, here's the best website I've found on the subject of "where to go/be".

http://xjubier.free.fr/en/site_pages/solar_eclipses/TSE_2017_GoogleMapFull.html?Lat=36.87083&Lng=-87.49512&Zoom=8&LC=1

Find your sister's city (there's a search box at the top of the site), click on it, and you can determine with a little looking around whether it is "total" and how long it will last.  If I'm reading it right, you'll need to go south for "totality".

I don't let people on the internet bother me too much with their portents.  Instead, I look at it this way:  Most of the time the cosmos we're accustomed to seems to click along normally.  Though this phenomenon--rare as it may be at any one place on the earth--can be predicted with amazing accuracy, so with Faith can we predict the outcome of His plan for the world.  And from time to time, in one place or another, in the fullness of time, he gives us the opportunity to see something remarkable. 

With "Totality" you see the sun's corona, something which is hidden in the bright light of a full sun, and for a moment things around you look quite different.  Doesn't scare me. 

[Extol]

I plan to go to Columbia, MO and be in the path of totality. 

[indianabob]

Hi Jesse,
Hope your trip is fun and eventful.
Like to hear more about what you have experienced when you return home.

Regards, Indiana Bob

[cherokee]

97.711% so guess I will stay home and watch it. 

[Tim Krantz]

    I bought a welding lens to view it thru. We aren't in a prime area, so it won't be as special as the prime areas.

[Dennis Vogel]

You can safely look at it's reflection in a black frying pan filled with water.

[indianabob]

For Eclipse watchers here is a short video illustrating how the whole system works.
It also explains why we seem to be standing still while the sun passes overhead or revolves around us.
enjoy. Indiana bob


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKpIr_w5gL0

[Dave in Tenn]

I'll be an eclipse watcher, assuming I make it.  And I'm satisfied with the current understanding of science on the matter, scientifically, observationally and scripturally.

Here's Ray on the subject.

Dear Readers and Members of the Forum:

Somehow I got pulled into this Joshua's long day debate.  I think it is fine to disagree on such matters, but it is not fine to resort to name-calling and suggesting that someone is an heretic or blaspheming God by having an opposing view.  It has been suggested by one that there are a plethora of Scientific proofs that the earth does not move, and only a few indications that it may possibly move.  I think I can say for certain that it is just the opposite:  there are a few indications that the earth is stationary, but multiple scientific experiments and observations that show that the earth revolves around our sun.

When I was a youngster of about 14, we visited the Franklin Institute in Philadelphia, Pa.
They had there a tall winding staircase with a large metal ball hung on a cable suspended a few inches over the floor.  From the top of the staircase you could see the metal ball very slowly swing back and forth. This is known as Foucault's Pendulum (named after its French inventor). The floor had a sort of North-South/East-West pattern painted on it to help one orientate the swing of the ball.  This we were told was proof that the earth underneath the ball is moving.

There appear to be many more complicated and mathematically challenging proofs that our earth moves within the solar system, and that the solar system moves within one of the outer arms of the Milky Way Galaxy.  Although to be fair, there are elements of both a geocentric and heliocentric universe that can be supported by known data.  But whether the earth actually moves or not, I believe there is little doubt  I searched the Scriptures to see if I could find another example of something that has been found to contradict science.  Well I found one such amazing example.  I'll present it at the bottom of this email. Below are some examples supporting a moving earth and the earth orbiting the sun rather than the sun orbiting the earth.

From:  http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=190

Isaac Newton has stated:  If gravity works, Earth and other planets have to go around the Sun, because it is much heavier.
-----------------------
There was no straightforward proof for the motion of Earth until 1725 when James Bradley discovered stellar aberration. This is the (apparent) yearly change in positions of all stars in the sky due to Earth's own motion. Aberration arises due to adding up of the speed of light coming from the star and Earth's own speed. This is a very complex phenomenon and its description requires some math.
-----------------------
Another, much simpler, consequence of the Earth's motion is stellar parallax. If the Earth changes its position relative to the stars, than the stars should appear to change position in the course of the year.

A common experiment illustrating parallax is just looking at a close object (a finger, a pencil etc) with one eye at the time. When you switch from one to the other eye, the object will appear to move against the background. The closer the object is to your eyes, the more pronounced the effect is.
Parallax should not be confused with aberration: parallax arises from the change of Earth's position and depends on the distance to the star, while aberration is caused by Earth's great speed and does not depend on how far the star is.
Parallax of a star was first measured by Bessel in 1838. It was not measured before because this change of a star's apparent position is very small (the stars are very far from us). This was a very important discovery because Aristotle himself mentioned the lack of observable stellar parallax as the proof that the Earth is not moving (he didn't have a telescope and didn't know that the stars are so distant).
--------------------------
A third discovery proving Earth's motion was that of Doppler effect. Wavelength of the light that we receive from objects moving relative to us becomes a little shorter (i.e. bluer) when we approach the source and becomes longer (i.e. redder) when we move away from the source. When the Earth moves toward a star, the star will appear slightly bluer (only high-tech instruments can measure this) while it will appear redder when Earth is on the other side of the orbit and moves in the opposite direction. This effect proves that Earth has a velocity relative to the stars, similar to aberration.
--------------------------
So, aberration (slight change in stellar positions due to Earth's speed), parallax (slight change in stellar positions due to Earth's changing position) and Doppler effect (slight change in color of stars due to Earth's speed) all prove that Earth is moving around the Sun, and not the other way round.
-----------------------------
From: http://en.allexperts.com/q/Astronomy-1360/2010/4/earth-moves-round-sun-2.htm
The solar system is Heliocentric. The Sun is at the center. Most of the disproved alternate theories have the Earth as the center of the solar system, where the Sun orbits the Earth.

If I ever doubted the accepted scientific definition of the Heliocentric Solar System with the sun being the center and the planets revolving around the sun and the moons of a planet circling the planets, I would have been convinced of this truth by an exercise I did in the mid 1980's.

The proof was my visual observation of the moons of Jupiter. It was a long but worthwhile experiment. I found and plotted the motions of the four largest moons of Jupiter to see if I could reconcile the data with known information.

I was playing "Galileo" in order to see if I could get the feeling of being a discoverer. [Galileo was the original discoverer of the four big moons of Jupiter]. This is proof by way of observation. I took no pictures, but I did sketch everything. I was able to determine orbital periods, elongation dates and many other things about the four moons. I could find no way to explain this except to accept the fact that the solar system is as described in modern day, Sun centered, Heliocentric.

Here you have a person that has actually proved to himself that the Earth revolves around the sun. In this Jupiter moon study mentioned above, there were several times that the moons circling Jupiter would enter and exit from the planet's shadow as they orbited around the far side.

The times of the occurrences matched predicted timings. They coincided with the accepted view of Copernicus' layout of the solar system, with the sun being at the center of gravity, and the Earth and Jupiter circling the sun and the four moons of Jupiter circling that planet.

All this data observed also pointed to the fact that the Earth and Jupiter circled the Sun in specific time periods at predictable distances.
-------------------------------
From:  http://en.allexperts.com/q/Astronomy-1360/earth-revolves-around-sun.htm

If the Earth revolves around the Sun - and is not static in space - then it must be true that over the course of a year say, we observe differences - for example in:

i) the stars that appear at the same time in the night sky

ii) the altitude and azimuth (position with respect to the horizon's N, S points) of the Sun.

The first is easily verified, say over the course of obseving the night sky at the same time (say, 8 p.m. local time) each night. You will therefore see a procession of different stars, objects as time goes by.

This is the first indicator that Earth must be moving through space and not stationary.

A further observation to reinforce this is *revolution* and not merely linear displacement is obtained by repeating said observations *year after year* and making notes of the objects seen.

In the same 6-month period, therefore, you ought to see the same objects in the night sky at the same time.

This implies repetitive motion, and hence that the Earth is not merely linearly moving in space, but returning time and again to the same relative position in space (e.g. in it s orbit)
-----------------------------------

There are numerous Internet sites which support a motionless earth.

Some of the "Motionless Earth" societies quote Psalm 93:1 as proof that the earth cannot
possible orbit the sun because it says the earth cannot "be moved."

Psalm 93:1  "The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, wherewith He hath girded Himself: the world also is established, that it cannot be moved. "

Is this verse a scientific statement of fact that proves the Earth does absolutely does not move?  The Hebrew word translated "moved" is mot, and is defined by Dr. Strong:  "waver; by implication to slip, shake, fall: - be carried, cast, be out of course, be fallen in decay, X exceedingly, fall (-ing down), be (re-) moved, be ready shake, slide, slip."

God said that the earth cannot 'BE moved," or "caused to slip, shake, fall, be carried, be out of course, be fallen," etc., not that it doesn't move under God's direction.  And, of course, it is man that does not have the ability to move the earth.  God can and does.

Someone on the Forum suggested that God would not make us believe that the Sun
moves, if indeed it does not.   First of all, Joshua's long day is not written for our scientific enlightenment.  God is not teaching in these verses that the earth is stationary in space, and the sun  orbits  around the earth.  But God does at times do things that cause men to believe things that are not true.   It was God Who authorized the "lying spirit" to deceive.  It is God who sends "strong delusion that they should believe A LIE" (II Thes. 2:11).  And remember Jesus on the road to Emmaus where we read this:  "And they drew night unto the village, whither they went: and He [Jesus] MADE AS THOUGH He would have gone further" (Luke 24:26).  Jesus made them think that He was going to travel down the road further, but all the while, He knew that He wouldn't.

To say that the sun rises and the sun sets,  even if it can be proven scientifically that it is the earth that rotates which causes the appearance of the sun moving across our sky. is nonetheless perfectly justifiable.  From our perspective, that is exactly what it does--it rises above the eastern horizon in the morning and moves across the sky until it disappears below the western horizon in the evening.  To this day we refer to "sunrise" and "sunset" millions of times a day around the world.  Question:  Just how would the weatherman say "sunset this evening will be at 6:15,"  without using the word "sunset? He would have to say something like:  "This evening at 6:15 pm the sun will appear to go down over the horizon, but this perceived movement really is caused by the earth rotating on its axis toward the east that only makes it appear as though the sun is moving below the horizon in the west."  Let me know if someone has a shorter version in replacing "sunset?"

To state that the sun rises and sets or stating that "the sun stood still" does not in any way contradict science.  The sun appears to rise and set, and the sun appeared to "stand still" in Joshua's day.  And to report what they SAW is not a lie.  At evening in Key West many tourists gather at the pier to watch the beautiful sunsets.  They watch THE SUN SET!  I personally watched with them on many occasions and saw with my own eyes, THE SUN SET.  Now then, for those who like to argue over accuracy saying that the sun does not rise or set and the sun could not have stood still in Joshua's day, please answer me this:  If I didn't watch the sun SET, you tell me what I did see?  No seriously, tell me--what did I SEE?  All elements of a statement do not always have to be scientifically correct in order for the statement itself to be true.

If we say a certain perfume makes someone smell great, is that a scientifically accurate statement?  Scientifically, is it the person that smells great or the perfume that smells great?  A dress or article of clothing may indeed, scientifically, cause a woman to "look" better, but a perfume does not necessary cause a woman to "smell" better.  I remember once when someone said to me: "You smell great, Ray," I kiddingly responded by saying: "Well thank you, but it's not me but my cologne."  Is that the way we must always talk in order to be "scientifically" correct?  Nonsense. 

Now for another example of the Scriptures making unscientific statements:

Gen. 1:26--"And God made two great LIGHTS; the greater light to rule the day [this has to be the sun], and the lesser light to rule the night [this has to be the moon, because next we read...]...He made the stars ALSO."  So the "lesser LIGHT" can only be the moon.  But notice that God calls it "a LIGHT."

   Isa 13:10  "For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine."

   Eze 32:7  "And when I shall put thee out, I will cover the heaven, and make the stars thereof dark; I will cover the sun with a cloud, and the moon shall not give her light."

Mar 13:24  "But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light."

Now then, is the moon really a "light?"  Does the moon produce its own light?  Does even God Himself believe that the moon has its own source of light?  Well, there are those in the "Motionless Earth" groups that do indeed teach that according to the Bible, the moon has its own light source, and they believe it!  Amazing.  No, the moon does not have its own light source.  It is, in fact, a mirror for the light of the sun.  So is the Bible wrong and  unscientific?  Imagine God having His Word read:  "And God made one light and one reflector of light; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser reflector of sunlight to rule the night."  Or imagine Jesus saying, "Immediately after the tribulation of those days, shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not reflect the light from the sun...."

Maybe God should have inspired Isaiah to say:  "For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause the light from the sun which shines on its surface to be reflected."

What in the world would the readers of Scripture have thought of such verses before enough scientific knowledge came to light so as to understand the reality of these things.  What pray tell would the phrase "reflected light" of the moon have meant to early readers of Scripture?  These things are accurately stated in Scripture.  If the sun did NOT "stand still" over Gibeon that fateful day back in Israel, you tell me just what did the sun do that day?  It matters not that the earth rotates causing the appearance of the sun moving across the sky, when that rotation stopped, THE SUN STOOD STILL OVER GIDEON!!

The sun stood still in relation to it's position in the SKY from the viewing point of THE EARTH.  The moon most assuredly gives off light regardless of the fact that it is reflected light from the sun, and it is right and proper to state it as such. 


One last observation concerning the little matter of gravity:

It does not seem conceivable that the tiny insignificant gravitational pull of the earth
could possibly hold the huge mass of the sun (93 million miles away) in orbit!  Listen:  The sun would have to travel at approximately 24,000,000 miles a hour (400,000 miles a minute) to circle the earth in 24 hours.  How pray tell could our tiny earth hold the giant sun travelling at 24 million miles an hour from flying out into space at that phenomenal speed?    Obviously the sun has many times more gravitational pull on our tiny earth than our tiny earth has on the sun.

Try this silly little experiment:  Tie a medicine ball to a string long enough that you can swirl the ball in a circle over your head.  You remain stationary while the ball swirls round and round.  Question:  If the tiny gravity of the tiny earth can hold the huge sun in orbit, why is it that when you swirl the medicine ball on the string that instead of the ball orbiting your body why doesn't your body orbit the ball!  your body may be only ten times heavier than the ball, whereas the sun is 300,000 times heavier than the earth.  Anyway, to me it seems almost silly to believe that our huge heavy sun could travel at 24,000,000 miles an hour, 93 million miles away, could be held in its orbit by the small gravitational pull of our tiny planet.

Now let me get back to more important things.
God be with you all,
Ray

[Dennis Vogel]

For Eclipse watchers here is a short video illustrating how the whole system works.
It also explains why we seem to be standing still while the sun passes overhead or revolves around us.
enjoy. Indiana bob


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKpIr_w5gL0

Is this a joke Bob? You don't really believe this do you?

[indianabob]

No I don't. I just thought the mechanism was interesting.
The whole sky rotating around the earth which is standing still.
So how does the moon get in front of the Sun to block its light?
The miracle of the moon being exactly 1/400 the size of ole Sol
and Sol being 400 times the distance from the earth as designed
by the Great mathematician.
That I took as sarcasm by the author. Did I miss something?
Seems that lots of nice folks have forgotten their high school physics class.
Part of the misunderstanding may be the result of living in smog ridden cities
where the night sky filled with stars is no longer visible.
I am reminded of the story of the tail wagging the dog, which is from the
perspective of the flea on the dogs tail. 

Thanks for the caution and please moderate as needed.
Indiana Bob

[Dave in Tenn]

Sorry for assuming, Bob.  Did somebody actually use this little corner of the forum for the purpose it was intended?   

Still, I have encountered individuals (including one or two I've been in "direct" contact with) who wouldn't see any "irony" in either the post or the content of the link, so it's probably good for the sake of readers (new and old) to put Ray's perspective out there in here.

Might have more to say on that later, but:

For now, the total eclipse was quite a sight and quite an experience.  I'd studied up to be aware of how this thing presented itself, and wasn't disappointed in the least.

What I was unprepared for (mostly) was the look of things in the atmosphere and on the ground as darkness grew, slowly at first, then suddenly. and then began to recede.  We all have seen a portion of direct light at dawn and dusk, and how that light works on air and objects differently than full sunshine.  But to see a small fraction of the light of the sun light the sky and earth from nearly directly above would have to be described by an artist.  I've never seen "light" or "lighting" like that, and I don't think words can describe it.

There were a few clouds that got in the way during the partial eclipse, but by the time the "totality" occurred, it was clear beneath the sun. 
   

[indianabob]

Friend Dave and Dennis,

After thinking about it I am sort of pleased that I posted that article since it elicited the response from Dave and that great quote from Ray Smith. The detail and the reasoned logic is to my mind irrefutable and I would not have otherwise seen it and known those facts.
In any case I shall endeavor to be more careful of what I submit in future.
Thank you both for your concerns.
Indiana bob

[octoberose]

I wish I had paid enough attention to this before the eclipse and read your posts!
We live in Colorado so our nearest zone of totality was Wyoming.  We couldn't find a room in WY for the Sunday night before, so we stayed in Northern CO and just drove in to WY on Monday morning. I have never seen so many cars on the road at 4 in the morning!  But my husband was great with the traffic and we got to our target place in time for breakfast at 6 AM.  Then we figured we could do better and started driving a bit, found trucks and RV's in a BLM spot of land (bureau of land management ) and parked. I was grateful see it and had asked the Lord to get us there if He would .  After all the reading I did about it I'm not sure what I expected. I didn't see the shadow at the end or the Bailey's Beads - not everyone does even in the zone. What I was struck with was the elegance and beauty of it. And that even though darkness overcame light, in just a little while light overcame darkness . And crickets a half hour or so before Totality because they thought it was evening!  I didn't hear one dog bark and  people were mostly hushed.
Someone was complaining about a guy on TV talking about  what a day for science. How do you see that and not see the Creation of God? Oh, and and the moon with the sun behind it looks like an Eye in the sky. I never got that from seeing pictures of it but that's what I perceived when I saw it in person.

[indianabob]

Thanks for sharing Rose,

Even the dogs knew something special was happening.
The whole pack of people and pack of dogs was in awe of God's power.

We are most blessed above all peoples of the earth to have true knowledge.

indiana bob