What about the Solar eclipse?

but in the mercator, a view that would be a SIDE projection of a globe, is wrong because there are S curves of moon path?
does he take into account that when viewing from the SIDE, the earth rotation vs sun is tilted?   and the moon's orbit is also tilted?
all three pieces are rotating and orbiting at angle.

You might think that it is the Mercator projection causing the distorted sine wave with an inflection point, right? Wrong.

https://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1918PA.....26...96H

As long as the shadow is projected on a plane everything is fine. Once the shadow path is transferred in the RE setting/context, we get a distorted sine wave with an inflection point.

See also here, the solar eclipse of spring 2042: they start with the  Besselian plane projection, and once they transfer the data to the RE setting, again they get a distorted sine wave with an inflection point:

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/771/1/012039/pdf

You might think

Again..

You’re missing the point.

If I wanted to write a computer program to model the 1937 eclipse.

What latitude and / or longitude would I use for the sun and moon.

What diameters would I use for their orbits.

What sizes would I use for the sun and moon.

What altitudes would I use for the sun and moon.

What map would I use for earth.

 Once the shadow path is transferred in the RE setting/context, we get a distorted sine wave with an inflection point.

Why is that a problem since the earth is spherical, it seems very similar why the inner planets have a retrograde path through the night sky.  For the eclipse it’s how the earth rotates, for the retrograde of the inner planets it’s how the earth circles / orbits the sun. 

And we know the earth is spherical because this simple dial star atlas for the southern hemisphere is accurate.



And we know the earth is spherical because the southern celestial pole can be clearly witnessed and defined, and has meaning in navigation. 

Quote from: Themightykabool on April 10, 2024, 02:08:00 PM

but in the mercator, a view that would be a SIDE projection of a globe, is wrong because there are S curves of moon path?
does he take into account that when viewing from the SIDE, the earth rotation vs sun is tilted?   and the moon's orbit is also tilted?
all three pieces are rotating and orbiting at angle.

You might think that it is the Mercator projection causing the distorted sine wave with an inflection point, right? Wrong.

https://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1918PA.....26...96H

As long as the shadow is projected on a plane everything is fine. Once the shadow path is transferred in the RE setting/context, we get a distorted sine wave with an inflection point.

See also here, the solar eclipse of spring 2042: they start with the  Besselian plane projection, and once they transfer the data to the RE setting, again they get a distorted sine wave with an inflection point:

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/771/1/012039/pdf

No man

My point is mercator doesnt exist for flat earthers

Ffs

jack, you can't remove the rotation.

Are you playing dumb?

I'm not saying Earth is not rotating.
I am saying it is. And that this distorts the apparent path of the shadow of the moon.
To make it simple enough for a child to understand (I know, this still rules you out):
Consider a hypothetical case where the Moon's orbit was inclined 90 degrees to the Earth's orbit around the sun, and there was no axial tilt (i.e. the axis of Earth was 90 degrees relative to its orbit around the sun).
This would mean the moon passes over the north pole and south pole.
The path of the shadow would then be a straight line from the north pole to the south pole.
But if you show the path along the surface of Earth, this will start off going due south, but then straight away start moving to the west as Earth rotates, with a faster and faster apparent westerly speed as you get closer to the equator.
Then after the equator it would have that apparent westerly motion slow down, until it ends up going due south at the pole.
This also means the point it crosses the equator would be an inflection point.

So this inflection point is not an issue, nor does it make my request to remove the effect of Earth's rotation from the path a dumb request.

But your dismissal of such a request just further demonstrates your dishonesty.

As for the unipolar map, yes that's a FE map.

No, it isn't.
It is a projection of the RE.

What you have to explain, and have failed to do so thus far, is why for the FE map the arcs look perfect, while for RE map you have to deal with the concave/convex portions and with an inflection point.

I have explained that.
The rotation of Earth distorts the lines, as does the attempt to project Earth's surface onto a flat plane.
The arcs for the azimuthal equidistant project look "perfect" because they were just drawn in using 3 points, with the actual path of totality ignored.

And you still have nothing to show that is the expected path for a FE.
Instead all you can do is say "hey look how nice it looks on this allegedly FE map, because it looks so nice Earth must be flat".

Can any of the RE help jackblack, since this subject matter is way beyond his pay grade?

Considering the crap you are coming up with, perhaps you should be the one asking for help.
You entirely misrepresent simple requests, and cling to the same refuted lies.

The calculation of the path of the moon's shadow (context is heliocentrism) is based upon the Besselian elements. The central core of this approach is the Bessel fundamental projection plane which is geocentric.

When the shadow of the "moon" is drawn upon this geocentric plane, what you see in the sky is what you get on the map.



As soon as this plane projection is projected onto a surface, all kinds of problems start to appear, for many eclipses you will get a distorted sine curve with an inflection point, that is, what you see in the sky is not at all what you get on the RE map.



References:

The Bessel-Chauvenet method:

https://archive.org/details/amanualspherica06chaugoog/page/n1/mode/1up

The greatest treatise of them all on the shadow of the "moon":

https://archive.org/details/mathematicaltheo00buchuoft/mode/1up

The mathematical theory of eclipses, according to Chauvenet's transformation of Bessel's method explained and illustrated, to which are appended Transits of Mercury and Venus and occultations of fixed stars
by Buchanan, Roberdeau

Geocentric fundamental Bessel plane:

https://acp.copernicus.org/preprints/acp-2020-1172/acp-2020-1172.pdf

https://dbpedia.org/page/Besselian_elements

From Buchanan's treatise:

The line connecting these latter points is the path of the centre of the shadow across the fundamental plane. This line is a curve, but of very slight curvature.

This is the GEOCENTRIC, FLAT EARTH fundamental plane projection. It agrees completely with what can be seen in the sky.


Since jackblack doesn't know dick about the astrophysics of the path of the moon's shadow, he tried to trick his readers into believing that if there was no rotation everything would be fine:

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 09, 2024, 04:44:00 AM

Consider those paths on a Round Earth.

Instead of using these particular views, why don't you show the actual path of the moon creating that shadow?
i.e. remove the rotation of Earth from the equation to show what the path of the shadow through space is.
That would be an honest portrayal.

jackblack was so dumb as to REQUEST the removal of the rotation of the Earth from the analysis, not knowing that the Bessel fundamental geocentric plane does exactly that, and that the entire astrophysics of the analysis of the path of the moon's shadow is based TOTALLY on Bessel's fundamental plane technique.


Not knowing a thing about what we are discussing here, jackblack doubled down on the request to remove the rotation of the Earth:

And while you appeal to strange shapes for a RE, you make no attempt to show the actual path, instead of the path on a rotating body.

Now, seeing what a fool he made of himself, he simply discards the entire matter likeso:

I'm not saying Earth is not rotating.
I am saying it is. And that this distorts the apparent path of the shadow of the moon.

But just yesterday, you REQUESTED we remove the rotation of the Earth from the analysis. You thought that would give some kind of advantage, or simply baffle your readers long enough to bullshit them.

You dummy: if you remove the rotation of the Earth, then you get the Bessel fundamental geocentric plane technique, the very FE arcs that we see on Oppolzer's drawing.

The inflection point is a major issue, since we have something we can compare the RE data with. That something is Oppolzer's FE arcs drawn from Bessel's fundamental plane approach.

In RE the curves are distorted greatly, a distorted sine curve with an inflection point. This is not justified at all by the alleged path of the Moon/Sun/Earth.

In FE the curves/arcs are correctly drawn, evidencing the path of the "Moon"/Sun/Earth in its totality.

T The central core of this approach is the Bessel fundamental projection plane which is geocentric.

When the shadow of the "moon" is drawn upon this geocentric plane,

For what sized moon, in what orbit, at what altitude, on what earth map? 

Again…

Again..

You’re missing the point.

If I wanted to write a computer program to model the 1937 eclipse.

What latitude and / or longitude would I use for the sun and moon.

What diameters would I use for their orbits.

What sizes would I use for the sun and moon.

What altitudes would I use for the sun and moon.

What map would I use for earth.

The lofty inhabitants of REtardia have a huge problem.

Oppolzer drew his map of eclipes (1898-1918) using the Bessel-Chauvenet-Hansen geocentric plane projection:



https://archive.org/details/mathematicaltheo00buchuoft/page/56/mode/1up

So that we now may consider an apparently fixed plane with the shadow moving across it. The earth can readily be referred to this plane.

On this drawing, the eclipses appear to be correctly depicted: what you see in the sky is what you get on the map.

However, for the RE map, everything is distorted in plain view: what you see in the sky is not what you get on the map. This is not justified at all by the alleged path of the Moon/Sun/Earth during a solar eclipse.

The lofty inhabitants of REtardia have a huge problem.

What are you babbling about. There are numerous ways to verify that eclipses do work on a spherical earth with listed sizes and distances for the sun and moon.  With defined orbits.

You sandokhan can’t even provide the most basic data to even model a flat earth eclipse. 

The lofty inhabitants of REtardia have a huge problem.

Flat earther’s claim the sun has to be at an altitude to make the sun set due to perspective.  Then the moon I have read is the same altitude as the sun? Thank your buddy Turbs.  So it makes sense if you want to use the hack explanation the moon sets due to perspective.

So the moon’s shadow wouldn’t fall on a flat earth the size proposed by FE for the area in the ice wall.

So a FE “eclipse” should work like this?



Where the moon and sun are too far above the earth with the sun too close to the moon for the moon to cast a shadow on the known earth.

sandokhan, provide the data to prove this wrong. 

So in summary

The north pole view is best because it centers the rotation if the earth making a clear arc because mercator frame of reference shows the inflection caused by the earth tilt-moon wonky orbit relation.





And
Aaaaaand!!!!


Circling back to johndabis comment about the ankitythera - if the inflection is "proof" to you that a mdoel is wrong, then the earth centric is clearly "worng" and the sun centric is clearly "right".
Because of ibflection of mars



Yes no?

The summary goes like this:

It is impossible to calculate the RE model of the shadow of the moon without first computing the FE geocentric path of the shadows.

When we use the Bessel geocentric plane projection method, everything works out fine. What you see in the sky is exactly what is drawn on the eclipse map.

However, when we attempt to compute the RE model, all we get is a defective final product: a distorted sine wave with an inflection point. Which in no way corresponds to what we see in the sky. This is not justified at all by the alleged path of the Moon/Sun/Earth during a solar eclipse.

In fact Oppolzer himself gave up the daunting task of computing the RE model of the shadows of the moon for the hundreds of eclipses featured in the Canon of Eclipses and simply used the FE model which was much faster to calculate.

The shape of the paths of the shadow of the moon (during a solar eclipse) make no sense in the RE model: nowhere do the orbits of the Moon/Sun/Earth have sudden movements which change the direction at an inflection point.

The shape of the paths of the shadow of the moon can only be justified physically in the FE context, everything works out just fine using Bessel's geocentric plane projection method.

The fact of the matter is that predicting eclipses is independent of theory and a mere matter of tabulation. Consider the number of ancient cultures that believed in a flat earth yet were able to predict to a great degree of certainty numerous celestial phenomena.

This is because flat Earth itself is not simply a theory, but something just as viable with math and science as the so-called proof of RE. You don't need the Earth to be any shape in particular to figure out the intersection of the path of sun and moon.

What's extremely interesting to me is that near Connecticut, some video sites (besides bought-and-paid-for Youtube) mentioned chemtrails. In other words, the powers that be were making sure it was too cloudy to see Jesus appearing (cough) I mean the total eclipse.

My point is mercator doesnt exist for flat earthers

Says you. I use Mercator just fine.

Note that Antarctica appears not as a normal-sized continent but as a bigass mega-continent (or big wall of ice).

The thing about Mercator is that you don't take it literally, but understand that it is a projection. The North Pole is a convergence, and Earth widens out the more south you go. Like this:

It is impossible to calculate the RE model of the shadow of the moon without first computing the FE geocentric path of the shadows.

Which would be wrong because the distances, sizes, and the orbits are well defined in the heliocentric model.  There is no flat earth needed.

Again.  I outlined how a flat earth eclipse should work from the vague and crude descriptions by Flat Earthers. 

Quote from: sandokhan on April 11, 2024, 06:28:19 AM

The lofty inhabitants of REtardia have a huge problem.

Flat earther’s claim the sun has to be at an altitude to make the sun set due to perspective.  Then the moon I have read is the same altitude as the sun? Thank your buddy Turbs.  So it makes sense if you want to use the hack explanation the moon sets due to perspective.

So the moon’s shadow wouldn’t fall on a flat earth the size proposed by FE for the area in the ice wall.

So a FE “eclipse” should work like this?



Where the moon and sun are too far above the earth with the sun too close to the moon for the moon to cast a shadow on the known earth.

sandokhan, provide the data to prove this wrong.

sandokhan, you haven’t provided any data to show my crude modeling is wrong in its basics that the moon’s shadow should consistently fall beyond the known world in your delusion. 

 but something just as viable with math and science as the so-called proof of RE.

Then why does the celestial South Pole meaning something where it would be useless on a flat earth.

Why is the below simple dial star atlas accurate for the southern hemisphere.




People use the heliocentric model because it’s accurate and provides useful predictions. 

FE earth is a useless ad hoc mismatch of magic.

Quote from: sandokhan on April 11, 2024, 07:51:43 AM

It is impossible to calculate the RE model of the shadow of the moon without first computing the FE geocentric path of the shadows.

Which would be wrong because the distances, sizes, and the orbits are well defined in the heliocentric model.  There is no flat earth needed.

Your statement proves your ignorance on the subject matter which is being discussed here. You cannot calculate the RE model of the shadow of the moon without having first compute the FE model which uses the Bessel geocentric plane projection method.

The greatest treatise of them all on the shadow of the "moon":

https://archive.org/details/mathematicaltheo00buchuoft/mode/1up

The mathematical theory of eclipses, according to Chauvenet's transformation of Bessel's method explained and illustrated, to which are appended Transits of Mercury and Venus and occultations of fixed stars
by Buchanan, Roberdeau

This is the method which has been used for the past two hundred years: you first compute the FE model, and then and only then you go for the RE model which has a defective final product (a distorted sine wave with an inflection point which does not correspond to the orbits of the Moon/Sun/Earth).

For you to state that "FE is not needed" means you know nothing about this field of study.


Why would the RE want to touch something related to Mercator?

You cannot calculate the RE model of the shadow of the moon without having first compute the FE model which uses the Bessel geocentric plane projection method.

No.  You can model it straight from a computer model using the heliocentric model. A model with measured distances and sizes of objects.

Making the Map

Michala Garrison, a member of the Scientific Visualization Studio (SVS) at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, applied her background in geography and cartography to design the map, incorporating information from a variety of NASA sources.

Earth elevation information came from the Shuttle Radar Topography Mission, while maps of the Moon’s shape were supplied by Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter. The positions of the Sun, Moon, and Earth were found using software and data from NASA’s Navigation and Ancillary Information Facility. Garrison’s SVS colleague, Ernie Wright, used all of this information to calculate the location and shape of the Moon’s shadow.

NASA’s Blue Marble – a global mosaic of satellite images assembled by the NASA Earth Observatory team – provided color for the land. And one particularly unique feature Garrison thought to add along the path of the 2024 total eclipse was nighttime imagery of Earth from NASA’s Black Marble – which shows city lights on the night side of the planet as imaged by the Suomi NPP spacecraft.

One of Garrison’s goals for the map was to inspire people to get to the paths of the annular and total eclipses, which she didn’t do the last time the Moon’s shadow crossed the continental U.S.

I know the above will be ignored by you.

 But the point is modern science and technology can predict things with computer modeling through enough data.

An example would be if you have data for the solar system of orbits and sizes, a computer can predict eclipse with no data input of past eclipse patterns.

This is why I ask this.

If I wanted to write a computer program to model the 1937 eclipse.

What latitude and / or longitude would I use for the sun and moon.

What diameters would I use for their orbits.

What sizes would I use for the sun and moon.

What altitudes would I use for the sun and moon.

What map would I use for earth.

But is more than that.  Just knowing the relative distances and object sizes would give a quick analysis for a single city if the shadow of the moon would even fall on the city as witnessed on April 8 2024.

But, even with the vagueness and crudeness of the FE model.  And the reluctance of flat earthers to give specific data, somethings can be surmised for a rough model. 


Thus.  The moon’s shadow wouldn’t fall on the known earth at any specific time in the flat earth delusion is a valid model.

Quote from: sandokhan on April 11, 2024, 06:28:19 AM

The lofty inhabitants of REtardia have a huge problem.

Flat earther’s claim the sun has to be at an altitude to make the sun set due to perspective.  Then the moon I have read is the same altitude as the sun? Thank your buddy Turbs.  So it makes sense if you want to use the hack explanation the moon sets due to perspective.

So the moon’s shadow wouldn’t fall on a flat earth the size proposed by FE for the area in the ice wall.

So a FE “eclipse” should work like this?



Where the moon and sun are too far above the earth with the sun too close to the moon for the moon to cast a shadow on the known earth.

sandokhan, provide the data to prove this wrong.

sandokhan, can you provide data to show otherwise?

Bulmanuses mercator just fine

Amazing!

 But the point is modern science and technology can predict things with computer modeling through enough data.

Your prediction ain't worth a penny if the path of the shadow of the moon does not match what we see in the sky.

You cannot model anything pertaining to "moon" shadows without the Bessel geocentric plane projection method which is totally FE.

The FE model matches exactly what we see in the sky during a solar eclipse. Your model might be worth something in the sewer system since it doesn't match anything.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on April 11, 2024, 09:19:00 AM

 But the point is modern science and technology can predict things with computer modeling through enough data.

Your prediction ain't worth a penny if the path of the shadow of the moon does not match what we see in the sky.

You cannot model anything pertaining to "moon" shadows without the Bessel geocentric plane projection method which is totally FE.

The FE model matches exactly what we see in the sky during a solar eclipse. Your model might be worth something in the sewer system since it doesn't match anything.

We can even determine if a shadow should fall on a single city a step farther.

I was able to see totality around 3pm.  We know there are records that show what city /area the sun farther to the west for me was relatively directly over at 3pm my local time. 

That means the moon would have to be on a line between my point and the sun. 

We probably don’t need to know the actual size of the sun, just treat it like a giant powerful single light source for the FE delusion.

To draw a scale drawing if the shadow for me was possible on a flat earth, we just need a flat earther to give the altitude of the sun, the altitude and size of the moon.

Unless you produce the above needed data to show the shadow of totality was possible for me on a FE, I’m sticking with the below for my location of a single city during the eclipse.


Again.  I outlined how a flat earth eclipse should work from the vague and crude descriptions by Flat Earthers.




Where the moon and sun are too far above the earth with the sun too close to the moon’s altitude for the moon to cast a shadow on the known earth.

sandokhan, provide the data to prove this wrong.

You still do not seem to understand what is going on.

Here are two diagrams evidencing the Bessel fundamental plane geocentric projection:





You cannot do anything until and unless you first compute the moon shadow map using the Bessel geocentric fundamental plane projection method.

FE model first. It works perfectly. The arcs match directly what we see in the sky.

Then, a harrowing experience: to compute the RE model which utilizes the FE Bessel plane projection map. The end result: a distorted sine wave with an inflection point. That is not what we see in the heavens during a solar eclipse. Your version of reality is a failure.

Your prediction ain't worth a penny if the path of the shadow of the moon does not match what we see in the sky.

You cannot model anything pertaining to "moon" shadows without the Bessel geocentric plane projection method which is totally FE.

The FE model matches exactly what we see in the sky during a solar eclipse. Your model might be worth something in the sewer system since it doesn't match anything.

Just triple confirming-
"Perfectly predict" using THIS map?

The calculation of the path of the moon's shadow (context is heliocentrism) is based upon the Besselian elements. The central core of this approach is the Bessel fundamental projection plane which is geocentric.

No, the core of that approach is to take a plane passing through the centre of Earth, and the Moon's shadow as a cone, and as implied by the choice of elements used, relies upon the RE, HC model.

Lying wont save you. It just shows how you have absolutely no concern for the truth and are happy to blatantly lie to everyone.

what you see in the sky is what you get on the map.

Again, this map you keep appealing to IS FAKE!
Every time you appeal to it, you show everyone you are lying scum.

Again, you are yet to even attempt to demonstrate that this is the expected result. You are just appealing to it "looking nice" to claim it must be true.

all kinds of problems start to appear

No, they don't.
Instead, we have things you CLAIM are problems, but which you can't actually demonstrate are problems.

I provided a clear explanation of why such a curve would be expected, and what is your response?
Entirely ignore it because you can't refute it, so you just ignore it because you don't give a damn about the truth.

Since jackblack doesn't know dick about the astrophysics of the path of the moon's shadow, he tried to trick his readers into believing that if there was no rotation everything would be fine:

You mean because I easily refuted you you continue to throw this pathetic tantrum.

You know I recognise a key part of why there is such a curved path, so you deflect at all costs, and throw out pathetic insults.

jackblack was so dumb as to REQUEST the removal of the rotation of the Earth from the analysis, not knowing that the Bessel fundamental geocentric plane does exactly that, and that the entire astrophysics of the analysis of the path of the moon's shadow is based TOTALLY on Bessel's fundamental plane technique.

You appear to have ignored the part where add the effect of rotation in, which then "distorts" the path.

You know, the paths shown on the surface of a rotating Earth, where you want to ignore the fact you have just demonstrates such paths are a dishonest representation of the actual path of the moon's shadow?

Great job showing yet again that you are lying scum.

But just yesterday, you REQUESTED we remove the rotation of the Earth from the analysis.

No, I requested you remove the effect of Earth's rotation from the path.
I have explained why.
Including using an example a child could understand.
But here you are still playing dumb.

The inflection point is a major issue

WHY?
Stop just asserting it is and try explaining why these inflection points are an issue.
Especially as I have explained a simple method where you can obtain such inflection points. So simple a child could understand. So impossible to refute you just ignored it.

In RE the curves are distorted greatly, a distorted sine curve with an inflection point. This is not justified at all by the alleged path of the Moon/Sun/Earth.

You mean the path on a rotating round Earth are "distorted", and as I explained above, the rotation of Earth would produce "distortions".
And you cannot show a single fault.

Again, if you want to show an issue, then remove that rotation from the equation, remove the effects of Earth's rotation and show what those paths look like through space.
Because that is what would actually be looking at the result of the path of the sun, moon and Earth.
What you are appealing to with claims of distortion are the result of the path of the sun, moon and Earth and Earth's rotation, and you know that Earth's rotation can distort such paths, as explained in a manner simple enough for a child to understand.

In FE the curves/arcs are correctly drawn, evidencing the path of the "Moon"/Sun/Earth in its totality.

Except you have absolutely no basis for those arcs other than "they look pretty", and as already pointed out, they are not correct.

Oppolzer drew his map of eclipes

Taking 3 points and not showing the actual path of the eclipse.
i.e. that map is wrong.
It doesn't help your case.
Each time you appeal to it you show everyone how much a liar you are.

So that we now may consider an apparently fixed plane with the shadow moving across it. The earth can readily be referred to this plane.

Cherry picking wont save you either.
Here are some other quotes from your source:

t  follows  that  the  motion  of  the  moon's  shadow  is  very  much  slower  than that  of  the  earth's  surface.  It  therefore  happens  that  the  earth  appears  to  run  away from  under  the  moon's  shadow,  or  that  the  moon's  shadow  seems  to  run  over  the earth  from  East  to  West

Notice how it appeals to the motion of Earth?

the  right  ascensions  and  declinations  of  the  sun  and  moon  are  transformed  into  the  right  ascension  and  declination, a  and  d  of  the  point  Z;  and  from these  the  coordinate  axes are  computed,  so  that  we  now  may  consider  an  apparently  fixed  plane with  the  shadow  moving  across  it.  The  earth  can  readily  be  referred to  this  plane

i.e. they take the HC model, and do some maths to transfer it to a simple system, and then use this plane as a reference which they can use to calculate the path over the surface of Earth.
Note this plane is not Earth.
To further emphasise that:

The  primitive  plane of  the  projection  is  here  the  Fundamental  Plane,  and  its  intersection with  the  earth,  ADBC,  the  Primitive  Circle,  and  CD,  the  Principal Meridian

Notice that this plane intersects Earth.

But perhaps the most damming for your dishonest, delusional BS, is this:

This  line  is  a  curve,  but  of very  slight  curvature.

This is saying that while there is a slight curve to the path of the shadow along this fundamental plane, it is a very slight curve.
It would NOT have the arcs you are claiming.

We also see that in this reference of yours:
https://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1918PA.....26...96H
Figure 2 shows the eclipse as pretty much a straight line.
And we then see in subsequent figures how the effect of Earth's rotation and particular choice of projection of this round surface, results in these curves you claim are "distortion"
i.e. the curves on a RE, are what are expected.

On this drawing, the eclipses appear to be correctly depicted

Based on what? Your hopes and dreams?
Based upon actual evidence, including a previous reference you seem to want to ignore, THEY ARE NOT ACCURATE!
They take 3 points, and draw a pretty arc.
https://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1926PA.....34...78R

You ignoring this to repeat the same pathetic lies do not help your case.

Likewise, you continually appealing to this pretty line while refusing to provide an explanation of why it should be like this further shows your dishonesty.

Looking pretty is not a valid justification.

This is because flat Earth itself is not simply a theory

It is not a theory at all.
It is a baseless claim that cannot be supported which is refuted by mountains of evidence.

You don't need the Earth to be any shape in particular to figure out the intersection of the path of sun and moon.

But you do need to know the shape to be able to predict the path of the shadow of the moon on that surface.

Says you. I use Mercator just fine.

When you need to lie about how your fantasy would work.
If Earth was actually flat, you would use a map which showed the correct position and size and shape of continents and would have no need at all to ever use a Mercator projection to explain anything from your fantasy.

The thing about Mercator is that you don't take it literally, but understand that it is a projection.

Yes, the projection of a round Earth, i.e. something you don't believe is real.

Now care to try explaining how the FE produces the observed path of a solar eclipse?

It is impossible to calculate the RE model of the shadow of the moon without first computing the FE geocentric path of the shadows.

No, that is a blatant lie.
The plane used in the calculation is NOT that of your fantasy Earth.

The shape of the paths of the shadow of the moon can only be justified physically in the FE context

Then JUSTIFY THEM!
Explain from first principles, how you get these paths.

everything works out just fine using Bessel's geocentric plane projection method.

So using a RE, HC model, that has the moon and sun both very far away, with sun much much further than the moon?
That is not a FE model at all.

Your statement proves your ignorance on the subject matter which is being discussed here. You cannot calculate the RE model of the shadow of the moon without having first compute the FE model which uses the Bessel geocentric plane projection method.

No, your statement here proves that you are lying scum.
The method you are appealing to is a RE, HC model, which uses a fundamental plane through Earth, which is NOT Earth's surface.
The path of the eclipse on this surface is pretty much a straight line.
It does not produce the arcs you are appealing to.
And it is based entirely upon a RE model.
To get the path on Earth, it uses the fact that Earth is round and rotating.

So you are yet again blatantly lying to everyone to try to prop up your fantasy.

For you to say the FE model is needed, or the FE model is used first, you are blatantly lying to everyone, showing everyone that you do not give a damn about the truth at all.

Your prediction ain't worth a penny if the path of the shadow of the moon does not match what we see in the sky.

Can you clarify what you even mean by this?
Just what on Earth are you expecting to match what is seen in the sky?

You cannot model anything pertaining to "moon" shadows without the Bessel geocentric plane projection method which is totally FE.

And another example of you being lying scum.
The Bessel plane method is totally RE HC, and not FE at all.
It uses the sizes and distances from the RE HC model.
It uses a plane which is based upon the RE HC model, and is NOT the plane of Earth.
It then goes from that plane to the surface of a round rotating Earth to get the path.

Here are two diagrams evidencing the Bessel fundamental plane geocentric projection:

And notice how they directly show that you are lying scum?
The plane is not the surface of Earth.
It is a plane intersecting a round, rotating Earth; which uses distances and angles from the RE HC model.
Notice how it looks nothing like your flat Earth fantasy?

Yet again you have been caught lying to everyone.

When will you stop lying?

You still do not seem to understand what is going on.

That your lying?

A simple 2D map of what the entire shadow coverage was for the earth from my point of totality at around 3pm.  Notice when you include all areas of shadow coverage the whole arc thing goes out the window. It’s a straw man argument.




The map is a 2D representation of the sun and moon at great distances from each other for an instant of a titled rotating earth.  But it does show where the moon and sun are relatively above the earth. If the earth was flat, the shape of the shadow would be different for this one instance.  The area of coverage would be different.

You still do not seem to understand what is going on.

Here are two diagrams evidencing the Bessel fundamental plane geocentric projection:





You cannot do anything until and unless you first compute the moon shadow map using the Bessel geocentric fundamental plane projection method.

FE model first. It works perfectly. The arcs match directly what we see in the sky.

Then, a harrowing experience: to compute the RE model which utilizes the FE Bessel plane projection map. The end result: a distorted sine wave with an inflection point. That is not what we see in the heavens during a solar eclipse. Your version of reality is a failure.

So you agree that round earth model of eclipse is correct? Since your reference is confirming the eclipse of RE , heliocentric model. It happens to explain the projection onto the spherical surface which is not the easiest chunk of algebra.
How ironic you're reference supports Jack's argument.
You Lose!!!

It’s really beyond belief the content of some of the comments. Reality is just out the window and an irrelevance for some. What’s more important to some of the posters is what they themselves believe rather than the facts of the matter which just this week were right in their face in the solar eclipse.

 The fact that the eclipse happened is beyond doubt. That must therefore point to the method used to accurately predict the eclipse along with all the underlying data being correct. After all this is only one of many solar eclipses that have been correctly and accurately predicted. It’s not just the date and time that’s significant but also the location, in the path of the shadow. That calculation is complex and uses data that is at odds with flat earth ideas. If flat earth thinking were used no accurate prediction could ever be made!!!! That fact appears to escape some of the posters on this topic.

https://www.ripublication.com/ijome16/ijomev6n1_02.pdf

The inescapable fact is that flat earth thinking is incapable of predicting anything. Why?
Because any data they used would not reflect reality annd would just be made up  and would in every eventuality return a wrong answer.

Wht people refuse to acknowledge this fact speaks volumes.

Any flat earth thinker is more than welcome to show a calculation using flat earth thinking that gives the timing and location of the solar eclipse we have just experienced.

In reality that would of course be impossible that just goes to prove how crazy the flat earth believers are. We had a cosmic event on the 8th that was accurately predicted and flat earth believers just refuse to accept the reality and the implications of the event.

What that clearly demonstrates is flat earth believers have no interest in reality only self belief.

jackblack, you made these requests, here in front of everyone:

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 09, 2024, 04:44:00 AM

Consider those paths on a Round Earth.

Instead of using these particular views, why don't you show the actual path of the moon creating that shadow?
i.e. remove the rotation of Earth from the equation to show what the path of the shadow through space is.
That would be an honest portrayal.

jackblack was so dumb as to REQUEST the removal of the rotation of the Earth from the analysis, not knowing that the Bessel fundamental geocentric plane does exactly that, and that the entire astrophysics of the analysis of the path of the moon's shadow is based TOTALLY on Bessel's fundamental plane technique.

Not knowing a thing about what we are discussing here, jackblack doubled down on the request to remove the rotation of the Earth:

And while you appeal to strange shapes for a RE, you make no attempt to show the actual path, instead of the path on a rotating body.

Now, seeing what a fool he made of himself, he simply discards the entire matter likeso:

I'm not saying Earth is not rotating.
I am saying it is. And that this distorts the apparent path of the shadow of the moon.

But just yesterday, you REQUESTED we remove the rotation of the Earth from the analysis. You thought that would give some kind of advantage, or simply baffle your readers long enough to bullshit them.


YES, THAT IS THE FE AZIMUTHAL UNIPOLAR MAP!

That IS the Bessel fundamental plane geocentric projection: ON A FLAT PLANE!

None other than the famed astronomer Oppolzer used it:



You MUST use first the FE MAP, otherwise nothing will work. The distances, the size of the heavenly objects do not matter, you need the Bessel fundamental plane first.

Let me prove my assertion.

Here is the direct quote from Oppolzer's Canon of Eclipses:

https://archive.org/details/canonofeclipsesc0000oppo/page/n9/mode/1up?q=azimuthal

Three, and occasionally four, precisely computed points have been plotted on the azimuthal equidistant projection to define the general location of the central eclipse path.

Detailed calculations of modern eclipses, as found in the national “nautical almanacs,” are generally computed by the method of F. W. Bessel. Prof. Oppolzer adopted an alternative method devised by P. A. Hansen. The two systems have certain geometric constructions in common. Both use the line passing through the center of the sun and moon for a fundamental reference axis, and a fundamental plane, perpendicular to the axis, passes through the center of the earth.


THAT FUNDAMENTAL PLANE IS THE SIZE OF FE, AND IT USES AN AZIMUTHAL UNIPOLAR MAP, EXACTLY THE ONE USED BY OPPOLZER. It must have the same size since otherwise the shadow of the eclipses COULD NOT be drawn.

So, who is lying? You, of course.

You requested we eliminate the rotation, not knowing a thing about the Bessel fundamental plane projection method.

You said that there is no FE map involved.

The Bessel fundamental plane IS the FE unipolar map. It is geocentric also. That is, in order to study the shadow of the moon YOU MUST use a geocentric flat earth setting. It cannot be done otherwise.

Do not pretend you do not understand what is being discussed here. The SHAPE of the arcs on the FE map match exactly what is being seen in the sky.

By contrast, the forced RE setting matches nothing at all: all you get is a distorted sine wave with an inflection point. There is no inflection point for the Moon or the Sun in heliocentrism during solar eclipses.

I have proven that you know nothing about this entire discussion on the paths of the shadow of the moon. You doubled down on an embarrassing request to have the rotation eliminated, not having a clue that you were requesting for the Bessel fundamental plane projection method.

Get it straight through your thick skull: THE BESSEL FUNDAMENTAL PLANE PROJECTION MAP IS THE FE UNIPOLAR MAP. IT IS GEOCENTRIC ALSO.

Oppolzer used this very map to draw the eclipses (1898-1918), as proven from the quote from the Canon of Eclipses.

You have proven, yet again, your ignorance on the subject. Study the works I have referenced here and see for yourself that indeed the map used by Oppolzer is the FE unipolar azimuthal map, and that this map is the Bessel fundamental geocentric plane projection.

You still do not seem to understand what is going on.

Here are two diagrams evidencing the Bessel fundamental plane geocentric projection:





You cannot do anything until and unless you first compute the moon shadow map using the Bessel geocentric fundamental plane projection method.

FE model first. It works perfectly. The arcs match directly what we see in the sky.

Then, a harrowing experience: to compute the RE model which utilizes the FE Bessel plane projection map. The end result: a distorted sine wave with an inflection point. That is not what we see in the heavens during a solar eclipse. Your version of reality is a failure.

Are you mad?

The solar eclipse happened as accurately predicted.

That fact is beyond dispute.

Drawing a silly diagram proves nothing.

You are welcome to produce a calculation using flat earth data that would return an accurate result.

You could show your workings here.

Of course you won’t because it’s an impossibility as any data you used would just be made up and would never produce a result that matched the reality of what actually took place.

It is beyond any doubt that the predictions made matched the reality of the solar eclipse that took place on the 8th April.

It is beyond any doubt the data used conflicts with all your beliefs proving all you believe is wrong.

The fact that you continue to cast doubt on an event that took place witnessed by billions is testimony to how out of touch with reality you are.

The world is as it is despite what you care to believe.