Warum um Himmels Willen war die totale MONDFINSTERNIS gar KEINE TOTALE?

verfasst von RK, 10.11.2003, 20:57

-->Ich meine damit nicht etwa das rötlich-braune Glimmen des Mondes ab 02:06 MEZ Sonntag früh.
Nein, ich meine vielmehr den hellen, weißen Streifen, der noch immer auf der"unteren" bzw."südlichen" Seite des Mondes zu sehen war, wenn man zu ihm hochblickte!

[img][/img]

Es hätte diesen weißen Streifen nicht geben dürfen!

Oder doch?

Gemäß dieser Graphik war es am Südrand des Mondes"knapp", aber gegeben, sich im Kernschatten der Erde zu befinden:
<IMG src="http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/LEplot/LEplot2001/LE2003Nov09T.gif" alt="http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/LEplot/LEplot2001/LE2003Nov09T.gif">


Eine alternative Erklärung wäre folgende:

Wenn aber ein großer Himmelskörper von südlich der Ekliptik nähern sollte, so würde er gravitative Asuwirkungen auf Planeten und Himmelskörper haben.
Nennen wir diesen hypothetischen Himmelskörper Planet-X.
Da Körper mit zunehmender Masse träger sind, ist die Erde träger als ihr Mond.
Der Mond würde von gravitativ"störenden" Himmelskörpern, die sich von südlich der Ekliptik dem Sonnensystem annähern, also leichter abgelenkt werden als die Erde.
Folge wäre, dass eine als total erwartete Mondfinsternis nicht mehr total erscheinen würde, sondern ein schmaler weißer Streifen in dieser Vollmondnacht sichtbar bleibt!

Und GENAU das haben wir gesehen.
Ich persönlich mit eigenen Augen in München in einer sternenklaren Nacht!

Gruß
RK

<IMG src="http://skyandtelescope.com/mm_images/5745.gif" alt="http://skyandtelescope.com/mm_images/5745.gif">


So hätte es"offiziell" sein müssen:

http://www.xs4all.nl/~carlkop/maansverd/leclips2.html:

"At 23:32 UT the Moon begins its entry into the innermost shadow zone, or umbra. For more than an hour a circular shadow creeps across the Moon's face. At 1:06 UT, the Moon will lie completely within Earth's dark shadow. It will then take on an eerie coppery tint that has often been compared with blood.
Without Earth's atmosphere, the Moon would disappear completely once immersed in the umbra. Longer wavelengths of light penetrate Earth's atmosphere better than shorter wavelengths, which is why the rising or setting sun looks reddish. In essence, the ruddy tint of a totally eclipsed moon comes from the ring of atmosphere around Earth's limb that scatters a sunset-like glow into the umbra.
The hue actually changes from one eclipse to another, ranging from a bright coppery orange to brownish. The Moon may darken so much that it becomes all but invisible to the unaided eye. These very dark lunar eclipses often occur after exceptional volcanic eruptions.
Totality will end at 1:31 UT, when the moon's leading edge exits the umbra. The moon will leave the umbra completely at 3:05 UT, and the eclipse will end at 4:22 UT when the moon makes its last contact with the penumbra."


Und das wurde tatsächlich beobachtet:

http://www.zetatalk.com/index/eclipse.htm

During the announced total eclipse of the Moon scheduled for Nov 8, 2003, it was noted that the eclipse was not total.

On Saturday night, November 8-9, the full Moon will pass through the Earth’s shadow for skywatchers throughout the Americas, Europe, Africa, and western and southern Asia. But this eclipse will be unusually brief, remaining total for only 25 minutes as the Moon skims barely inside the southern edge of our planet’s shadow.
Sky and Telescope

But per eyewitness reports and actual photograph series posted on a Netherlands site, the lower edge was illuminated throughout! The Netherlands is squarly within the area scheduled for a total eclipse, and thus anticipated a total eclipse, no exceptions.

The Moon will lie completely within Earth's dark shadow.
Maansverd

Photographic evidence, also from the Netherlands, showed the eclipse, even within the dark area, not total. If the Earth were raised up in its Ecliptic, the Sun shining from the south more than expected, this would be the result!
<IMG src="http://www.zetatalk.com/index/eclipsee.jpg" alt="http://www.zetatalk.com/index/eclipsee.jpg">


Quotes from a message board:

Here in London its 1.20AM, which should be the totality, yet I can still see a thin crescent of full moonlight.

Yes, a brighter crescent on the lower left. I thought totality would mean 100%?

I thought totality meant 100% also. And clearly everyone saw that thin slither at the side, then at the bottom.

I observed the lunar eclipse with my telescope and was noting times with a nuclear clock. I observed on the east coast of the United States and the lunar eclipse never reached totality. This is the third total lunar eclipse that I have observed, and there is no question about it, totality was not reached. I estimate that it only reached 95 % of totality.

The illumination on the lower limb shows the lack of totality. I have observed total lunar eclipses before and during totality the entire disk is dark with zero illumination.

Thread gesperrt

 

gesamter Thread:

• Warum um Himmels Willen war die totale MONDFINSTERNIS gar KEINE TOTALE? - RK, 10.11.2003, 20:57
  • Schaut Euch diesen TRAILER an! Die Systemfuzzis lassen durchblicken, was kommt! - RK, 10.11.2003, 22:04
    • muss natürlich heißen:"Trailer-Stopp" (sorry!) (owT) - RK, 10.11.2003, 22:07
      • Very Serious Up-Dates - RK, 10.11.2003, 22:15
        • The entire Triple Doctorate Disclosure - RK, 10.11.2003, 22:28
          • Re: Zusammenfassung sofern richtig verstanden. - ocjm, 11.11.2003, 01:23
    • 10000 years ago a storm changed the face of our planet. May28 it´ll happen again - RK, 10.11.2003, 22:46
  • Re: Danke! Habe das gleiche beobachtet = keine totale Finsternis. Seltsam... - Silver_Bullet, 10.11.2003, 22:27