I wish to contest the conventional theory.
Roughly speaking, it states that the redness emanates from the Earth's atmosphere.
{Intuition A} However, there is no empirical evidence to back this up. There is no red light emananting from the Earth's atmosphere, when we view the Earth from space.
{Intuition B} So where could the red light be coming from? Well, it just so happens that the majority of nearby stars are red dwarves.
{Intuitive conclusion} The moon's redness during the eclipse is the ambient light of the surrounding stars, condensed, or magnified by the natural geometry of the moon's convex shape.
........................
This is easiest to explain by means of diagrams.
Diagram I
This is the conventional theory. My first problem with this idea is that there is no red 'halo' (my term) visible when we view the Earth from space.
My second problem, is that even if such a 'halo' were evident (which it is not), it would have to be significantly brighter than the lunar eclipse, as the majority of such red light would be reflected into space, and very little of it would be reflected back onto the Earth.
Solution :
This is the inverse geometry of the second diagram. The red light from surrounding red dwarfs (too dim to be seen normally) is condensed by the convex shape of the moon's surface.
.............................
Possible disputing points :
Q: Why do we not see this red light on the dark side during a crescent moon?
A: The Earth reflects a substantial amount of light back onto the dark side of the moon which simply overpowers it.
Q: You are a Philosopher, not a scientist, so just believe what wikipedia says. They know more than you, you buffoon, Poseidon!
A: f#$%#$%$#%#$%!!!!
Q: Why not take this to a science forum, this is not philosophy!
A: Everything is philosophy, and science is so comfortable on the laurels of previous generations, that it has become scientism : IE dogma.
............................