How about a synopsis before I click on something you saw on the interweb.
How about a synopsis before I click on something you saw on the interweb.
It's certainly some whack-job flatwad fucktard kunspeerisah video....
How about a synopsis before I click on something you saw on the interweb.
It's certainly some whack-job flatwad fucktard kunspeerisah video....
Don't quote me if you are just going to be a mouthy piece of shit ass hole.
When you take into account the velocity of the earths rotation, the velocity of the moon's orbit and the velocity of the earth-moon around the sun...the eclipse goes west to east. Almost always.
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/4390
Mike
When you take into account the velocity of the earths rotation, the velocity of the moon's orbit and the velocity of the earth-moon around the sun...the eclipse goes west to east. Almost always.
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/4390
Mike
Care to explain the size of the moon's shadow on the earth? How is that possible.
When you take into account the velocity of the earths rotation, the velocity of the moon's orbit and the velocity of the earth-moon around the sun...the eclipse goes west to east. Almost always.
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/4390
Mike
Care to explain the size of the moon's shadow on the earth? How is that possible.
Sigh! ... Draw or find a diagram of the Earth/Moon/Sun to scale and you'll understand.
https://tomroelandts.com/articles/earth-moon-system-to-scale
If you want to explore the entire solar system at true scale..
http://joshworth.com/dev/pixelspace/pixelspace_solarsystem.html
When you take into account the velocity of the earths rotation, the velocity of the moon's orbit and the velocity of the earth-moon around the sun...the eclipse goes west to east. Almost always.
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/4390
Mike
Care to explain the size of the moon's shadow on the earth? How is that possible.
Sigh! ... Draw or find a diagram of the Earth/Moon/Sun to scale and you'll understand.
https://tomroelandts.com/articles/earth-moon-system-to-scale
If you want to explore the entire solar system at true scale..
http://joshworth.com/dev/pixelspace/pixelspace_solarsystem.html
Oh please. How bout we look at some 'Official Time Lapse Photos' of the 2016 eclipse. I do not see how that animation can be reconciled with these photos.
http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/goes/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/1750x2750_AHIM08_B1_NHS_animated_2016068_233000_86_2016069_043000_86_X.mp4
https://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/87000/87675/eclipse_epc_2016068.gif
/edit
Not to mention that animation does not even make sense. Are people who believe this stuff on drugs?
When you take into account the velocity of the earths rotation, the velocity of the moon's orbit and the velocity of the earth-moon around the sun...the eclipse goes west to east. Almost always.
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/4390
Mike
Care to explain the size of the moon's shadow on the earth? How is that possible.
Sigh! ... Draw or find a diagram of the Earth/Moon/Sun to scale and you'll understand.
https://tomroelandts.com/articles/earth-moon-system-to-scale
If you want to explore the entire solar system at true scale..
http://joshworth.com/dev/pixelspace/pixelspace_solarsystem.html
Oh please. How bout we look at some 'Official Time Lapse Photos' of the 2016 eclipse. I do not see how that animation can be reconciled with these photos.
http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/goes/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/1750x2750_AHIM08_B1_NHS_animated_2016068_233000_86_2016069_043000_86_X.mp4
https://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/87000/87675/eclipse_epc_2016068.gif
/edit
Not to mention that animation does not even make sense. Are people who believe this stuff on drugs?
They look fine to me, what do you think doesn't make sense?
They look fine to me, what do you think doesn't make sense?
The penumbra is massive in the animation, it's not in the photos. In globe theory, the penumbra would have to be still larger. But we see an even smaller shadow in reality of course because the earth is not a globe.
But he''s quite incorrect, as are all the videos you dredge up from out of the trash-can.
How will this Eclipse be possible on your Heliocentric model ?
The producer in this video gives a detailed description of how and why the upcoming solar Eclipse is impossibe on the Heliocentric Globe Model.
How Long Will the 2017 Solar Eclipse Last?
The umbral shadow is projected out into space by the moon and is shaped like a long, tapering cone. That shadow cone is about 235,000 miles (378,000 kilometers) long. But the moon's average distance from Earth is about 239,000 miles (385,000 km).
So, in order for the umbra to touch the Earth, it must be closer than the average Earth-moon distance. But even when the moon is at the closest point to Earth in its elliptical orbit, the umbra is but a dark "dot" measuring no more than 170 miles (274 km) across. And many times, the shadow width is considerably smaller than that. During the Aug. 21 total solar eclipse, for example, the shadow will average only about 68 miles (109 km) wide.
The other thing to take under consideration is the speed of the shadow. During its orbit around Earth from west to east, the moon moves at an average speed of 2,288 mph (3,683 km/h). Because the natural satellite is traveling in an elliptical orbit, the moon's speed is not constant; the object moves faster when it's closer to Earth.
The moon's shadow moves at the same speed as the moon itself. So one might think that during a solar eclipse, the speed of the moon's umbra on the Earth would average close to 2,300 mph (3,700 km/h).
From: Space.com, How Long Will the 2017 Solar Eclipse Last? Depends Where You Are (https://www.space.com/36388-total-solar-eclipse-2017-duration.html)
You FE-ers like to make your own observations, right?...right!...
How will this Eclipse be possible on your Heliocentric model ?
The producer in this video gives a detailed description of how and why the upcoming solar Eclipse is impossibe on the Heliocentric Globe Model.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
"Seek and ye shall find" flattards.You mean this false representation of reality from NASA ?
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/4579
"Attempting to use my brain is futile" proves the earth is a globe again.
When you take into account the velocity of the earths rotation, the velocity of the moon's orbit and the velocity of the earth-moon around the sun...the eclipse goes west to east. Almost always.
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/4390
Mike
Care to explain the size of the moon's shadow on the earth? How is that possible.
Sigh! ... Draw or find a diagram of the Earth/Moon/Sun to scale and you'll understand.
https://tomroelandts.com/articles/earth-moon-system-to-scale
If you want to explore the entire solar system at true scale..
http://joshworth.com/dev/pixelspace/pixelspace_solarsystem.html
Oh please. How bout we look at some 'Official Time Lapse Photos' of the 2016 eclipse. I do not see how that animation can be reconciled with these photos.
http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/goes/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/1750x2750_AHIM08_B1_NHS_animated_2016068_233000_86_2016069_043000_86_X.mp4
https://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/87000/87675/eclipse_epc_2016068.gif
/edit
Not to mention that animation does not even make sense. Are people who believe this stuff on drugs?
They look fine to me, what do you think doesn't make sense?
The penumbra is massive in the animation, it's not in the photos. In globe theory, the penumbra would have to be still larger. But we see an even smaller shadow in reality of course because the earth is not a globe.
"Seek and ye shall find" flattards.You mean this false representation of reality from NASA ?
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/4579
"Attempting to use my brain is futile" proves the earth is a globe again.
In this animation the outer carriage (moon) overtakes the inner circle earth ( see the way the shadow travels from east to west )
Even when the earth rotated 27 times slower and the relative position between the moon and earth would be in perfect sync like a caroussel the casted shadow would have been freezed in the same spot without moving !!!
In your heliocentric model the centre earth overtakes the moon by a huge margin of 27 times.
So what magical shadow is able to show the opposite, as if the moon overtakes the centre ?
"Seek and ye shall find" flattards.You mean this false representation of reality from NASA ?
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/4579
"Attempting to use my brain is futile" proves the earth is a globe again.
In this animation the outer carriage (moon) overtakes the inner circle earth ( see the way the shadow travels from east to west )
Even when the earth rotated 27 times slower and the relative position between the moon and earth would be in perfect sync like a caroussel the casted shadow would have been freezed in the same spot without moving !!!
In your heliocentric model the centre earth overtakes the moon by a huge margin of 27 times.
So what magical shadow is able to show the opposite, as if the moon overtakes the centre ?
Are you serious? Or was that just trolling....
But he''s quite incorrect, as are all the videos you dredge up from out of the trash-can.
How will this Eclipse be possible on your Heliocentric model ?
The producer in this video gives a detailed description of how and why the upcoming solar Eclipse is impossibe on the Heliocentric Globe Model.
The shadow moves from west to east because the moon is travelling faster than the surface of the earth.Quote from: Joe RaoHow Long Will the 2017 Solar Eclipse Last?
The umbral shadow is projected out into space by the moon and is shaped like a long, tapering cone. That shadow cone is about 235,000 miles (378,000 kilometers) long. But the moon's average distance from Earth is about 239,000 miles (385,000 km).
So, in order for the umbra to touch the Earth, it must be closer than the average Earth-moon distance. But even when the moon is at the closest point to Earth in its elliptical orbit, the umbra is but a dark "dot" measuring no more than 170 miles (274 km) across. And many times, the shadow width is considerably smaller than that. During the Aug. 21 total solar eclipse, for example, the shadow will average only about 68 miles (109 km) wide.
The other thing to take under consideration is the speed of the shadow. During its orbit around Earth from west to east, the moon moves at an average speed of 2,288 mph (3,683 km/h). Because the natural satellite is traveling in an elliptical orbit, the moon's speed is not constant; the object moves faster when it's closer to Earth.
The moon's shadow moves at the same speed as the moon itself. So one might think that during a solar eclipse, the speed of the moon's umbra on the Earth would average close to 2,300 mph (3,700 km/h).
From: Space.com, How Long Will the 2017 Solar Eclipse Last? Depends Where You Are (https://www.space.com/36388-total-solar-eclipse-2017-duration.html)
But he''s quite incorrect, as are all the videos you dredge up from out of the trash-can.
How will this Eclipse be possible on your Heliocentric model ?
The producer in this video gives a detailed description of how and why the upcoming solar Eclipse is impossibe on the Heliocentric Globe Model.
The shadow moves from west to east because the moon is travelling faster than the surface of the earth.Quote from: Joe RaoHow Long Will the 2017 Solar Eclipse Last?
The umbral shadow is projected out into space by the moon and is shaped like a long, tapering cone. That shadow cone is about 235,000 miles (378,000 kilometers) long. But the moon's average distance from Earth is about 239,000 miles (385,000 km).
So, in order for the umbra to touch the Earth, it must be closer than the average Earth-moon distance. But even when the moon is at the closest point to Earth in its elliptical orbit, the umbra is but a dark "dot" measuring no more than 170 miles (274 km) across. And many times, the shadow width is considerably smaller than that. During the Aug. 21 total solar eclipse, for example, the shadow will average only about 68 miles (109 km) wide.
The other thing to take under consideration is the speed of the shadow. During its orbit around Earth from west to east, the moon moves at an average speed of 2,288 mph (3,683 km/h). Because the natural satellite is traveling in an elliptical orbit, the moon's speed is not constant; the object moves faster when it's closer to Earth.
The moon's shadow moves at the same speed as the moon itself. So one might think that during a solar eclipse, the speed of the moon's umbra on the Earth would average close to 2,300 mph (3,700 km/h).
From: Space.com, How Long Will the 2017 Solar Eclipse Last? Depends Where You Are (https://www.space.com/36388-total-solar-eclipse-2017-duration.html)
No you are INCORRECT.
The Moon on your model takes 27 days to orbit the earth .
The Earth takes 24 hours per revolution.
I ask you again .
How is the Solar Eclipse on the 21.08.17 possible on your model.?
Is the Earth going to start spinning the other way ;D
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
But he''s quite incorrect, as are all the videos you dredge up from out of the trash-can.
How will this Eclipse be possible on your Heliocentric model ?
The producer in this video gives a detailed description of how and why the upcoming solar Eclipse is impossibe on the Heliocentric Globe Model.
The shadow moves from west to east because the moon is travelling faster than the surface of the earth.Quote from: Joe RaoHow Long Will the 2017 Solar Eclipse Last?
The umbral shadow is projected out into space by the moon and is shaped like a long, tapering cone. That shadow cone is about 235,000 miles (378,000 kilometers) long. But the moon's average distance from Earth is about 239,000 miles (385,000 km).
So, in order for the umbra to touch the Earth, it must be closer than the average Earth-moon distance. But even when the moon is at the closest point to Earth in its elliptical orbit, the umbra is but a dark "dot" measuring no more than 170 miles (274 km) across. And many times, the shadow width is considerably smaller than that. During the Aug. 21 total solar eclipse, for example, the shadow will average only about 68 miles (109 km) wide.
The other thing to take under consideration is the speed of the shadow. During its orbit around Earth from west to east, the moon moves at an average speed of 2,288 mph (3,683 km/h). Because the natural satellite is traveling in an elliptical orbit, the moon's speed is not constant; the object moves faster when it's closer to Earth.
The moon's shadow moves at the same speed as the moon itself. So one might think that during a solar eclipse, the speed of the moon's umbra on the Earth would average close to 2,300 mph (3,700 km/h).
From: Space.com, How Long Will the 2017 Solar Eclipse Last? Depends Where You Are (https://www.space.com/36388-total-solar-eclipse-2017-duration.html)
No you are INCORRECT.
The Moon on your model takes 27 days to orbit the earth .
The Earth takes 24 hours per revolution.
I ask you again .
How is the Solar Eclipse on the 21.08.17 possible on your model.?
Is the Earth going to start spinning the other way ;D
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
It's quite simple. The link in my first post has a video model that a child could understand. Your inability to grasp the velocity of the moon's orbit exceeding the earth's rotation is of no consequence to the fact the moon's umbra moves from West to East. It makes perfect sense to those of us with functioning brains. Watch the video over and over and try and turn your brain on. (I'll help you a little, as you seem to be struggling. The moon is a long way from the earth in our model - the correct model😉)
No you are INCORRECT.Seen from Earth, the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, because of the rotation of the Earth is Counter Clockwise and 24 hours
The Moon on your model takes 27 days to orbit the earth .
The Earth takes 24 hours per revolution.
I ask you again .
How is the Solar Eclipse on the 21.08.17 possible on your model.?
Is the Earth going to start spinning the other way ;D
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
But he''s quite incorrect, as are all the videos you dredge up from out of the trash-can.
How will this Eclipse be possible on your Heliocentric model ?
The producer in this video gives a detailed description of how and why the upcoming solar Eclipse is impossibe on the Heliocentric Globe Model.
The shadow moves from west to east because the moon is travelling faster than the surface of the earth.Quote from: Joe RaoHow Long Will the 2017 Solar Eclipse Last?
The umbral shadow is projected out into space by the moon and is shaped like a long, tapering cone. That shadow cone is about 235,000 miles (378,000 kilometers) long. But the moon's average distance from Earth is about 239,000 miles (385,000 km).
So, in order for the umbra to touch the Earth, it must be closer than the average Earth-moon distance. But even when the moon is at the closest point to Earth in its elliptical orbit, the umbra is but a dark "dot" measuring no more than 170 miles (274 km) across. And many times, the shadow width is considerably smaller than that. During the Aug. 21 total solar eclipse, for example, the shadow will average only about 68 miles (109 km) wide.
The other thing to take under consideration is the speed of the shadow. During its orbit around Earth from west to east, the moon moves at an average speed of 2,288 mph (3,683 km/h). Because the natural satellite is traveling in an elliptical orbit, the moon's speed is not constant; the object moves faster when it's closer to Earth.
The moon's shadow moves at the same speed as the moon itself. So one might think that during a solar eclipse, the speed of the moon's umbra on the Earth would average close to 2,300 mph (3,700 km/h).
From: Space.com, How Long Will the 2017 Solar Eclipse Last? Depends Where You Are (https://www.space.com/36388-total-solar-eclipse-2017-duration.html)
No you are INCORRECT.
The Moon on your model takes 27 days to orbit the earth .
The Earth takes 24 hours per revolution.
I ask you again .
How is the Solar Eclipse on the 21.08.17 possible on your model.?
Is the Earth going to start spinning the other way ;D
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
It's quite simple. The link in my first post has a video model that a child could understand. Your inability to grasp the velocity of the moon's orbit exceeding the earth's rotation is of no consequence to the fact the moon's umbra moves from West to East. It makes perfect sense to those of us with functioning brains. Watch the video over and over and try and turn your brain on. (I'll help you a little, as you seem to be struggling. The moon is a long way from the earth in our model - the correct model😉)
That is Heliocentric nonsense.
It is impossible for the moon's orbit velocity to exceed that of the Earth's rotatation.
The rotation of the Earth is 27 times faster than the Moon's orbit on your model.
Quote explaining the Moon's alleged orbit.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon
Quote explaining The Earth's alleged rotatation.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_rotation
The Earth allegedly rotates anticlockwise.
How is it possible for the Total Eclipse to start in the west and finish in the East as it will in reality on the 21.08.17
This Solar Eclipse Debunks your Heliocentric Globe Fairytale.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile link=topic=71435.msg1935363#msg1935363No you are INCORRECT.Seen from Earth, the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, because of the rotation of the Earth is Counter Clockwise and 24 hours
The Moon on your model takes 27 days to orbit the earth .
The Earth takes 24 hours per revolution.
I ask you again .
How is the Solar Eclipse on the 21.08.17 possible on your model.?
Is the Earth going to start spinning the other way ;D
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
The moons rotation is also counter clockwise but roughly 27 days.
So, seen from Earth, the moon also rises from the east and sets in the west.
nothing special there. Nevertheless if you look at the sun during solar eclipse you will see that the moon will aproach and pass the sun from west to east. thefore, its shadow will also travel from west to east.
it really is not that difficult.
But he''s quite incorrect, as are all the videos you dredge up from out of the trash-can.
How will this Eclipse be possible on your Heliocentric model ?
The producer in this video gives a detailed description of how and why the upcoming solar Eclipse is impossibe on the Heliocentric Globe Model.
The shadow moves from west to east because the moon is travelling faster than the surface of the earth.Quote from: Joe RaoHow Long Will the 2017 Solar Eclipse Last?
The umbral shadow is projected out into space by the moon and is shaped like a long, tapering cone. That shadow cone is about 235,000 miles (378,000 kilometers) long. But the moon's average distance from Earth is about 239,000 miles (385,000 km).
So, in order for the umbra to touch the Earth, it must be closer than the average Earth-moon distance. But even when the moon is at the closest point to Earth in its elliptical orbit, the umbra is but a dark "dot" measuring no more than 170 miles (274 km) across. And many times, the shadow width is considerably smaller than that. During the Aug. 21 total solar eclipse, for example, the shadow will average only about 68 miles (109 km) wide.
The other thing to take under consideration is the speed of the shadow. During its orbit around Earth from west to east, the moon moves at an average speed of 2,288 mph (3,683 km/h). Because the natural satellite is traveling in an elliptical orbit, the moon's speed is not constant; the object moves faster when it's closer to Earth.
The moon's shadow moves at the same speed as the moon itself. So one might think that during a solar eclipse, the speed of the moon's umbra on the Earth would average close to 2,300 mph (3,700 km/h).
From: Space.com, How Long Will the 2017 Solar Eclipse Last? Depends Where You Are (https://www.space.com/36388-total-solar-eclipse-2017-duration.html)
No you are INCORRECT.
The Moon on your model takes 27 days to orbit the earth .
The Earth takes 24 hours per revolution.
I ask you again .
How is the Solar Eclipse on the 21.08.17 possible on your model.?
Is the Earth going to start spinning the other way ;D
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
It's quite simple. The link in my first post has a video model that a child could understand. Your inability to grasp the velocity of the moon's orbit exceeding the earth's rotation is of no consequence to the fact the moon's umbra moves from West to East. It makes perfect sense to those of us with functioning brains. Watch the video over and over and try and turn your brain on. (I'll help you a little, as you seem to be struggling. The moon is a long way from the earth in our model - the correct model😉)
That is Heliocentric nonsense.
It is impossible for the moon's orbit velocity to exceed that of the Earth's rotatation.
The rotation of the Earth is 27 times faster than the Moon's orbit on your model.
Quote explaining the Moon's alleged orbit.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon
Quote explaining The Earth's alleged rotatation.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_rotation
The Earth allegedly rotates anticlockwise.
How is it possible for the Total Eclipse to start in the west and finish in the East as it will in reality on the 21.08.17
This Solar Eclipse Debunks your Heliocentric Globe Fairytale.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
My God you're stupid. You can't even read your own links.
From your first link on the moon's orbit:
"With a mean orbital velocity of 1.022 km/s (2,290 mph)"
From your second link on the earth's rotational speed:
" Multiplying the value in rad/s by Earth's equatorial radius of 6,378,137 m (WGS84 ellipsoid) (factors of 2π radians needed by both cancel) yields an equatorial speed of 465.1 m (1,526 ft) per second, or 1,674.4 km (1,040.4 mi) per hour."
So the moon's orbital velocity exceeds the earth's maximum rotational speed (at the equator). As I said. As your links agree with. You're confusing angular velocity with the only relevant thing in terms of the moon's umbra on the earth during eclipse - the relative absolute velocities of the moon's orbit vs the earth's rotation. The moon's orbital velocity far exceeds the earth's rotational velocity, and therefore the moon's umbra moves from West to East AS EXPECTED.
Where is 'your' proven model?Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile link=topic=71435.msg1935363#msg1935363No you are INCORRECT.Seen from Earth, the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, because of the rotation of the Earth is Counter Clockwise and 24 hours
The Moon on your model takes 27 days to orbit the earth .
The Earth takes 24 hours per revolution.
I ask you again .
How is the Solar Eclipse on the 21.08.17 possible on your model.?
Is the Earth going to start spinning the other way ;D
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
The moons rotation is also counter clockwise but roughly 27 days.
So, seen from Earth, the moon also rises from the east and sets in the west.
nothing special there. Nevertheless if you look at the sun during solar eclipse you will see that the moon will aproach and pass the sun from west to east. thefore, its shadow will also travel from west to east.
it really is not that difficult.
Stop talking nonsense.
For that to be possible on your model the Moon's orbit velocity would have to be greater than the velocity of the Earths rotation.
As explained and proved above with the quotes provided , the moon's orbit velocity is some 27 times slower than the velocity of the rotation of the earth, so it would be impossible for the Total Eclipse to be visable from west to east on your model as it will be in reality on the 21.08.17.
This because your Heliocentric Globe is a fairytale.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
But he''s quite incorrect, as are all the videos you dredge up from out of the trash-can.
How will this Eclipse be possible on your Heliocentric model ?
The producer in this video gives a detailed description of how and why the upcoming solar Eclipse is impossibe on the Heliocentric Globe Model.
The shadow moves from west to east because the moon is travelling faster than the surface of the earth.Quote from: Joe RaoHow Long Will the 2017 Solar Eclipse Last?
The umbral shadow is projected out into space by the moon and is shaped like a long, tapering cone. That shadow cone is about 235,000 miles (378,000 kilometers) long. But the moon's average distance from Earth is about 239,000 miles (385,000 km).
So, in order for the umbra to touch the Earth, it must be closer than the average Earth-moon distance. But even when the moon is at the closest point to Earth in its elliptical orbit, the umbra is but a dark "dot" measuring no more than 170 miles (274 km) across. And many times, the shadow width is considerably smaller than that. During the Aug. 21 total solar eclipse, for example, the shadow will average only about 68 miles (109 km) wide.
The other thing to take under consideration is the speed of the shadow. During its orbit around Earth from west to east, the moon moves at an average speed of 2,288 mph (3,683 km/h). Because the natural satellite is traveling in an elliptical orbit, the moon's speed is not constant; the object moves faster when it's closer to Earth.
The moon's shadow moves at the same speed as the moon itself. So one might think that during a solar eclipse, the speed of the moon's umbra on the Earth would average close to 2,300 mph (3,700 km/h).
From: Space.com, How Long Will the 2017 Solar Eclipse Last? Depends Where You Are (https://www.space.com/36388-total-solar-eclipse-2017-duration.html)
No you are INCORRECT.
The Moon on your model takes 27 days to orbit the earth .
The Earth takes 24 hours per revolution.
I ask you again .
How is the Solar Eclipse on the 21.08.17 possible on your model.?
Is the Earth going to start spinning the other way ;D
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
It's quite simple. The link in my first post has a video model that a child could understand. Your inability to grasp the velocity of the moon's orbit exceeding the earth's rotation is of no consequence to the fact the moon's umbra moves from West to East. It makes perfect sense to those of us with functioning brains. Watch the video over and over and try and turn your brain on. (I'll help you a little, as you seem to be struggling. The moon is a long way from the earth in our model - the correct model😉)
That is Heliocentric nonsense.
It is impossible for the moon's orbit velocity to exceed that of the Earth's rotatation.
The rotation of the Earth is 27 times faster than the Moon's orbit on your model.
Quote explaining the Moon's alleged orbit.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon
Quote explaining The Earth's alleged rotatation.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_rotation
The Earth allegedly rotates anticlockwise.
How is it possible for the Total Eclipse to start in the west and finish in the East as it will in reality on the 21.08.17
This Solar Eclipse Debunks your Heliocentric Globe Fairytale.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
My God you're stupid. You can't even read your own links.
From your first link on the moon's orbit:
"With a mean orbital velocity of 1.022 km/s (2,290 mph)"
From your second link on the earth's rotational speed:
" Multiplying the value in rad/s by Earth's equatorial radius of 6,378,137 m (WGS84 ellipsoid) (factors of 2π radians needed by both cancel) yields an equatorial speed of 465.1 m (1,526 ft) per second, or 1,674.4 km (1,040.4 mi) per hour."
So the moon's orbital velocity exceeds the earth's maximum rotational speed (at the equator). As I said. As your links agree with. You're confusing angular velocity with the only relevant thing in terms of the moon's umbra on the earth during eclipse - the relative absolute velocities of the moon's orbit vs the earth's rotation. The moon's orbital velocity far exceeds the earth's rotational velocity, and therefore the moon's umbra moves from West to East AS EXPECTED.
Stop talking nonsense.
The links provided quite clearly says the Moon takes 27 days to orbit the Earth on your model.
Are you claiming the Moon orbits the Earth more than twice a day ?
The Earth does a full revolution in 24 hours so as I said it is IMPOSSIBLE for the Moon's orbit velocity to be greater than that of the rotation of the Earth.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False. .
Ok, I understand it is a bit too complicated for you....so, let's tear the model down and look at it in smaller pieces...hopefully you will understand then.Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile link=topic=71435.msg1935363#msg1935363No you are INCORRECT.Seen from Earth, the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, because of the rotation of the Earth is Counter Clockwise and 24 hours
The Moon on your model takes 27 days to orbit the earth .
The Earth takes 24 hours per revolution.
I ask you again .
How is the Solar Eclipse on the 21.08.17 possible on your model.?
Is the Earth going to start spinning the other way ;D
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
The moons rotation is also counter clockwise but roughly 27 days.
So, seen from Earth, the moon also rises from the east and sets in the west.
nothing special there. Nevertheless if you look at the sun during solar eclipse you will see that the moon will aproach and pass the sun from west to east. thefore, its shadow will also travel from west to east.
it really is not that difficult.
Stop talking nonsense.
For that to be possible on your model the Moon's orbit velocity would have to be greater than the velocity of the Earths rotation.
As explained and proved above with the quotes provided , the moon's orbit velocity is some 27 times slower than the velocity of the rotation of the earth, so it would be impossible for the Total Eclipse to be visable from west to east on your model as it will be in reality on the 21.08.17.
This because your Heliocentric Globe is a fairytale.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
No, Mr Resistance.is.Futile, I am quite correct!No you are INCORRECT.But he''s quite incorrect, as are all the videos you dredge up from out of the trash-can.
How will this Eclipse be possible on your Heliocentric model ?
The producer in this video gives a detailed description of how and why the upcoming solar Eclipse is impossibe on the Heliocentric Globe Model.
The shadow moves from west to east because the moon is travelling faster than the surface of the earth.Quote from: Joe RaoHow Long Will the 2017 Solar Eclipse Last?
The umbral shadow is projected out into space by the moon and is shaped like a long, tapering cone. That shadow cone is about 235,000 miles (378,000 kilometers) long. But the moon's average distance from Earth is about 239,000 miles (385,000 km).
So, in order for the umbra to touch the Earth, it must be closer than the average Earth-moon distance. But even when the moon is at the closest point to Earth in its elliptical orbit, the umbra is but a dark "dot" measuring no more than 170 miles (274 km) across. And many times, the shadow width is considerably smaller than that. During the Aug. 21 total solar eclipse, for example, the shadow will average only about 68 miles (109 km) wide.
The other thing to take under consideration is the speed of the shadow. During its orbit around Earth from west to east, the moon moves at an average speed of 2,288 mph (3,683 km/h). Because the natural satellite is traveling in an elliptical orbit, the moon's speed is not constant; the object moves faster when it's closer to Earth.
The moon's shadow moves at the same speed as the moon itself. So one might think that during a solar eclipse, the speed of the moon's umbra on the Earth would average close to 2,300 mph (3,700 km/h).
From: Space.com, How Long Will the 2017 Solar Eclipse Last? Depends Where You Are (https://www.space.com/36388-total-solar-eclipse-2017-duration.html)
.Roughly, though relative to tne sun the moon takes nearer to 29 days to orbit the earth.
The Moon on your model takes 27 days to orbit the earth .
The Earth takes 24 hours per revolution.
I ask you again .Quite easily, no problem at all. It is exactly as explained in my post, including the quote from Space.com.
How is the Solar Eclipse on the 21.08.17 possible on your model.?
Is the Earth going to start spinning the other way ;DNo. There is no need for that!
Intelligence.is.Futile at it again. :PIt's quite entertaining to watch. It's like a child repeatedly yelling 2+2=5 whilst all the adults try to explain the error to no avail. Flat earthers simply don't appear to be able to visualise a 3D Universe! Maybe their brains are flat as well?
As FE'ers like to constantly remind us, the earth is rotating at 1100 mph at the equator.But he''s quite incorrect, as are all the videos you dredge up from out of the trash-can.
How will this Eclipse be possible on your Heliocentric model ?
The producer in this video gives a detailed description of how and why the upcoming solar Eclipse is impossibe on the Heliocentric Globe Model.
The shadow moves from west to east because the moon is travelling faster than the surface of the earth.Quote from: Joe RaoHow Long Will the 2017 Solar Eclipse Last?
The umbral shadow is projected out into space by the moon and is shaped like a long, tapering cone. That shadow cone is about 235,000 miles (378,000 kilometers) long. But the moon's average distance from Earth is about 239,000 miles (385,000 km).
So, in order for the umbra to touch the Earth, it must be closer than the average Earth-moon distance. But even when the moon is at the closest point to Earth in its elliptical orbit, the umbra is but a dark "dot" measuring no more than 170 miles (274 km) across. And many times, the shadow width is considerably smaller than that. During the Aug. 21 total solar eclipse, for example, the shadow will average only about 68 miles (109 km) wide.
The other thing to take under consideration is the speed of the shadow. During its orbit around Earth from west to east, the moon moves at an average speed of 2,288 mph (3,683 km/h). Because the natural satellite is traveling in an elliptical orbit, the moon's speed is not constant; the object moves faster when it's closer to Earth.
The moon's shadow moves at the same speed as the moon itself. So one might think that during a solar eclipse, the speed of the moon's umbra on the Earth would average close to 2,300 mph (3,700 km/h).
From: Space.com, How Long Will the 2017 Solar Eclipse Last? Depends Where You Are (https://www.space.com/36388-total-solar-eclipse-2017-duration.html)
No you are INCORRECT.
The Moon on your model takes 27 days to orbit the earth .
The Earth takes 24 hours per revolution.
I ask you again .
How is the Solar Eclipse on the 21.08.17 possible on your model.?
Is the Earth going to start spinning the other way ;D
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Intelligence.is.Futile at it again. :PIt's quite entertaining to watch. It's like a child repeatedly yelling 2+2=5 whilst all the adults try to explain the error to no avail. Flat earthers simply don't appear to be able to visualise a 3D Universe! Maybe their brains are flat as well?
Intelligence.is.Futile at it again. :PIt's quite entertaining to watch. It's like a child repeatedly yelling 2+2=5 whilst all the adults try to explain the error to no avail. Flat earthers simply don't appear to be able to visualise a 3D Universe! Maybe their brains are flat as well?
Intelligence.is.Futile at it again. :PIt's quite entertaining to watch. It's like a child repeatedly yelling 2+2=5 whilst all the adults try to explain the error to no avail. Flat earthers simply don't appear to be able to visualise a 3D Universe! Maybe their brains are flat as well?
The moon rises in the East and sets in the West.
This proves the Earth allegedly Rotates faster than the Moon orbits the Earth on your heliocentric model.
It is not possible for the Moon to rise in the east and set in the west
if the Moon's orbit is faster than that of the rotation of the Earth.
As proven already according to your model the Moon takes 27 days to orbit the earth.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon
So your claim that the Moon's velocity is greater than the Earth's rotation is irrelevant regarding the Solar Eclipse.
As the Moon orbits anti clockwise around the Earth.
If the Moon's orbit is faster than the rotation of the earth the Moon would rise in the West and set in the East.
As anyone can see your explanation is nonsense.
I will tell you again it is impossible for the Total Eclipse to move across the Earth from West to East in the opposite direction to the Moon as it will in reality on 21.08.17 on your Heliocentric model.
As your Heliocentric model doesn't match reality it is obviously a fairytale and as such your Heliocentric Globe model will be officially DEBUNKED.
It Goes The Wrong Way!
So much for how eclipses happen — but one question that often comes up is, why does the eclipse go from West to East, when the Sun and Moon go the other way?
Well, the movement of the Moon — from East to West — is, in fact, an illusion caused by the Earth's rotation. As a matter of fact, the Moon orbits in the same direction that the Earth rotates; anticlockwise, as seen from above the North pole. But whereas the Earth takes just 24 hours to do one rotation, the Moon takes a month to go round the Earth (actually, the Moon takes 27.32 days to orbit the Earth).
This diagram illustrates the situation — but remember that it's not even remotely to scale!
(http://moonblink.info/File/Graphics/diagrams/Rotations.png)
In other words, if the Earth was sitting still, the Moon would cross the sky from West to East. It would take 14 days to cross from horizon to horizon, and another 14 days to come around into view again. But the Earth doesn't sit still — it rotates, every 24 hours, which is significantly faster than this. It's like if you're driving a car and overtake a jogger, they seem to be going backwards relative to you; the Earth rotates faster than the Moon's orbit, so the Moon seems to be going backwards, when it's actually going the same way.
So what happens to "fix" things during an eclipse? Well, the Moon orbits the Earth once a month; but the distance that it travels in that month is a whopping 2,415,256km! This means that it's moving really fast. By contrast, the Earth is a tiny 12,000km across; so for the Moon to cross in front of the Earth — for its shadow to cross the Earth — doesn't take long at all; the Moon moves 12,000km in just 3 hours. (The exact time for the eclipse to cross the Earth depends on whether the Moon is crossing over the centre of the Earth or off-centre, and on what part of its elliptical orbit the Moon is in.) So the shadow zips across much faster than the Earth's rotation, which makes its real direction apparent.
To put it another way, the Moon only has to cross a tiny part of the sky — a small fraction of its total orbit — for its shadow to cross the Earth completely. This means that for an eclipse, the Moon's own "real" movement is the main cause of its movement; so the shadow goes West-to-East.
Intelligence.is.Futile at it again. :PIt's quite entertaining to watch. It's like a child repeatedly yelling 2+2=5 whilst all the adults try to explain the error to no avail. Flat earthers simply don't appear to be able to visualise a 3D Universe! Maybe their brains are flat as well?Intelligence.is.Futile at it again. :PIt's quite entertaining to watch. It's like a child repeatedly yelling 2+2=5 whilst all the adults try to explain the error to no avail. Flat earthers simply don't appear to be able to visualise a 3D Universe! Maybe their brains are flat as well?
It is quite entertaining to read the nonsense you Heliocentrics come out with.
The moon rises in the East and sets in the West.
This proves the Earth allegedly Rotates faster than the Moon orbits the Earth on your heliocentric model.
It is not possible for the Moon to rise in the east and set in the west if the Moon's orbit is faster than that of the rotation of the Earth.
As proven already according to your model the Moon takes 27 days to orbit the earth.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon
So your claim that the Moon's velocity is greater than the Earth's rotation is irrelevant regarding the Solar Eclipse.
As the Moon orbits anti clockwise around the Earth.
If the Moon's orbit is faster than the rotation of the earth the Moon would rise in the West and set in the East.
As anyone can see your explanation is nonsense.
I will tell you again it is impossible for the Total Eclipse to move across the Earth from West to East in the opposite direction to the Moon as it will in reality on 21.08.17 on your Heliocentric model.
As your Heliocentric model doesn't match reality it is obviously a fairytale and as such your Heliocentric Globe model will be officially DEBUNKED.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
I love how flat earthers can't understand this simple model...To be fair, I do think that the idea of one object having a faster angular velocity than another object yet a slower surface speed at the same time can seem a bit counter-intuitive at first.
I love how flat earthers can't understand this simple model...To be fair, I do think that the idea of one object having a faster angular velocity than another object yet a slower surface speed at the same time can seem a bit counter-intuitive at first.
It probably doesn't help that the sun/earth/moon system is rarely ever shown at actual scale.
Ide just like to point out that those defending the silly globe Earth religion seem to constantly attack the intelligence of those merely pointing out errors they see. Calling them flattards (retards), lacking brain cells, dumber than a 4 year old, simpletons, trolls, etc.
Resistance.is.futile does not do that in every damn post.
Who needs to grow up here?
I think its obvious.
Earth is flat.
People are waking up.
[I'd] stop your silly charade if I were you, shills.
Ide just like to point out that those defending the silly globe Earth religion seem to constantly attack the intelligence of those merely pointing out errors they see. Calling them flattards (retards), lacking brain cells, dumber than a 4 year old, simpletons, trolls, etc.
Resistance.is.futile does not do that in every damn post.
Who needs to grow up here?
I think its obvious.
Earth is flat.
People are waking up.
Ide stop your silly charade if I were you, shills.
Sure I have evidence that Earth is flat.
Go outside.
Its flat.
Ide just like to point out that those defending the silly globe Earth religion seem to constantly attack the intelligence of those merely pointing out errors they see. Calling them flattards (retards), lacking brain cells, dumber than a 4 year old, simpletons, trolls, etc.
Resistance.is.futile does not do that in every damn post.
Who needs to grow up here?
I think its obvious.
Earth is flat.
People are waking up.
Ide stop your silly charade if I were you, shills.
What on earth does "Ide" mean. Damn you flattards are fools! :P
Honestly though, you can't seriously suggest resistance is futile has not been guilty of repeated ad hominem. As for flat earthers pointing out "errors" in the heliocentric reality, as is patently clear in this thread those "errors" are almost always flat earthers inability to comprehend the 3D movements of the earth, moon and sun.
Can you also not see the hypocrisy of your own post. On one hand claiming we are attacking flattards, and on the other calling the heliocentric model "silly Globe earth religion" and all defenders of it "shills"?
Grow up yourself.
Yes, you are becoming depserate, ide say.Beware the ides of Arealhumanbeing.
Sure I have evidence that Earth is flat.
Go outside.
Its flat.
That may appear like evidence, though only to a simpleton with half a brain.....
Sure I have evidence that Earth is flat.
Go outside.
Its flat.
That may appear like evidence, though only to a simpleton with half a brain.....
Aww cute.
Your cognitive dissonance must be a joy to live with.
Keep dreamin, space boy!
Maybe if you drop enough enema bags on your bosses desk and act insane NASA will hire you to be an astronaut! Wow! Just like Pete Conrad. ;)
Sure I have evidence that Earth is flat.
Go outside.
Its flat.
You need NASA and the government to tell you its a big floating ball.
Go ahead, respond with your tirade about how any "simpleton with half a brain" could deduce that it is a ball without the government, but thats just rubbish.
Proof? Evidence? Models?
I live in reality.
And reality says Earth is flat.
I love how flat earthers can't understand this simple model, so I'll leave a very simple analogy. Thinking.is.futile won't understand it, but some flat earthers may.Let's use a real scale model.
Imagine a carousel with a 100m circumference in the middle of a circular racetrack with a 400m circumference. There is a bright light due North. You stand on the edge of the carousel which is rotating anticlockwise once every 10 seconds. A car is going around the racetrack anticlockwise once every 20 seconds.
Simple maths. The car must be travelling twice as fast as you (absolute velocity), as it covers 400m in 20 seconds vs 100m in 10 seconds.
You, however, are doing a full rotation at twice the rate of the car (this is angular velocity, not absolute velocity) so the car always appears to move from your left to your right as you pass it.
Now let's simulate the eclipse.
You pass the car during one of your rotations just as it moves in front of the bright light due north. As usual, the car seems to move from your left to your right, as you are rotating at double the angular velocity. But as the car is travelling twice as fast as the edge of the carousel, the shadow it forms on the carousel moves from the carousels right to its left from the perspective of any fixed point on the edge of the carousel.
This is a fact, and follows simple math. This model is what will occur during the eclipse in August. It is predictable, and people with brains can see it confirms the heliocentric model.
I love how flat earthers can't understand this simple model, so I'll leave a very simple analogy. Thinking.is.futile won't understand it, but some flat earthers may.Let's use a real scale model.
Imagine a carousel with a 100m circumference in the middle of a circular racetrack with a 400m circumference. There is a bright light due North. You stand on the edge of the carousel which is rotating anticlockwise once every 10 seconds. A car is going around the racetrack anticlockwise once every 20 seconds.
Simple maths. The car must be travelling twice as fast as you (absolute velocity), as it covers 400m in 20 seconds vs 100m in 10 seconds.
You, however, are doing a full rotation at twice the rate of the car (this is angular velocity, not absolute velocity) so the car always appears to move from your left to your right as you pass it.
Now let's simulate the eclipse.
You pass the car during one of your rotations just as it moves in front of the bright light due north. As usual, the car seems to move from your left to your right, as you are rotating at double the angular velocity. But as the car is travelling twice as fast as the edge of the carousel, the shadow it forms on the carousel moves from the carousels right to its left from the perspective of any fixed point on the edge of the carousel.
This is a fact, and follows simple math. This model is what will occur during the eclipse in August. It is predictable, and people with brains can see it confirms the heliocentric model.
The earth becomes a child's globe with a diameter of 30cm.
The real 2.4 million km moon orbit becomes a scaled down orbit of 60 m
The distance from the scale moon to the scale globeearth is roughly 9 meter.
The sun is at 3.75 km in this scale set up.
When the globe has made a single revolution the scalemoon has traveled 2.2meters.
The earth has covered 94.2 cm.
So the moon does indeed go faster in the same amount of time (2.2 m vs 94.2 cm)
You can even do this set up in your own garden, if you have one of course,......(apart from the scale sun).
When you increase the actuall speed of the moon/ earth the problem becomes visible.
There shouldn't be the slightest objection as long as the scale is maintained correctly.
The globe earth has made ONE revolution allready, whereas the scale moon has covered 2.2 meters.
I cannot phantom how that could ever lead to a shadow that travels east to west !!
Contrary to the extremely offending comments of yours , please an answer that i could preferably check in my own garden , with models/ flashlights or whatever.
You should be pleased with critical thinking.
The moment we try to do that, we receive lots of contempt, but like many globers state
, "the educational system has failed", because we have abbondonad real science, testing and questioning ( Neil deGrasse Tyson)
I couldn't care less, i only started to read about it the day before yesterday and have allready more questions than your average student who is simply spoonfed.
So what is it ? Can we ask questions about your allmighty model or not, without receiveing your wrath ?
And yes, i am smart enough to realise that those working with the heliocentric model have managed to answer everything in their model.
You should wellcome every remark from flatearthers , so you are able to answer them, each and every time.
Or do you want to maintain the spoonfed educational system and make sure your reducile prevents any questions ?
So please, a real answer is very wellcome USING my correct scale model !!!!!
Yes sorry Typo !!!! I will correct my post !I love how flat earthers can't understand this simple model, so I'll leave a very simple analogy. Thinking.is.futile won't understand it, but some flat earthers may.Let's use a real scale model.
Imagine a carousel with a 100m circumference in the middle of a circular racetrack with a 400m circumference. There is a bright light due North. You stand on the edge of the carousel which is rotating anticlockwise once every 10 seconds. A car is going around the racetrack anticlockwise once every 20 seconds.
Simple maths. The car must be travelling twice as fast as you (absolute velocity), as it covers 400m in 20 seconds vs 100m in 10 seconds.
You, however, are doing a full rotation at twice the rate of the car (this is angular velocity, not absolute velocity) so the car always appears to move from your left to your right as you pass it.
Now let's simulate the eclipse.
You pass the car during one of your rotations just as it moves in front of the bright light due north. As usual, the car seems to move from your left to your right, as you are rotating at double the angular velocity. But as the car is travelling twice as fast as the edge of the carousel, the shadow it forms on the carousel moves from the carousels right to its left from the perspective of any fixed point on the edge of the carousel.
This is a fact, and follows simple math. This model is what will occur during the eclipse in August. It is predictable, and people with brains can see it confirms the heliocentric model.
The earth becomes a child's globe with a diameter of 30cm.
The real 2.4 million km moon orbit becomes a scaled down orbit of 60 m
The distance from the scale moon to the scale globeearth is roughly 9 meter.
The sun is at 3.75 km in this scale set up.
When the globe has made a single revolution the scalemoon has traveled 2.2meters.
The earth has covered 94.2 cm.
So the moon does indeed go faster in the same amount of time (2.2 m vs 94.2 cm)
You can even do this set up in your own garden, if you have one of course,......(apart from the scale sun).
When you increase the actuall speed of the moon/ earth the problem becomes visible.
There shouldn't be the slightest objection as long as the scale is maintained correctly.
The globe earth has made ONE revolution allready, whereas the scale moon has covered 2.2 meters.
I cannot phantom how that could ever lead to a shadow that travels east to west !!
Contrary to the extremely offending comments of yours , please an answer that i could preferably check in my own garden , with models/ flashlights or whatever.
You should be pleased with critical thinking.
The moment we try to do that, we receive lots of contempt, but like many globers state
, "the educational system has failed", because we have abbondonad real science, testing and questioning ( Neil deGrasse Tyson)
I couldn't care less, i only started to read about it the day before yesterday and have allready more questions than your average student who is simply spoonfed.
So what is it ? Can we ask questions about your allmighty model or not, without receiveing your wrath ?
And yes, i am smart enough to realise that those working with the heliocentric model have managed to answer everything in their model.
You should wellcome every remark from flatearthers , so you are able to answer them, each and every time.
Or do you want to maintain the spoonfed educational system and make sure your reducile prevents any questions ?
So please, a real answer is very wellcome USING my correct scale model !!!!!
Have you been following this thread? The shadow doesn't travel East to West. It travels West to East as everyone (RE and FE) have been saying all along.
The moon rises in the East and sets in the West.Agreed
It must since the earth rotates, relative to the sun, once in 24 hours and the moon orbits the earth, relative to the sun, once in 29.53 days or 708.7 hours.
This proves the EarthallegedlyRotates faster than the Moon orbits the Earth on your heliocentric model.
The angular velocity of the Moon's orbit is not faster than the angular velocity of the rotation of the Earth
It is not possible for the Moon to rise in the east and set in the west if the Moon's orbit is faster than that of the rotation of the Earth.
Yes, though, relative to the sun, the moon orbits the earth once in 29.53 days or 708.7 hours.
As proven already according to your model the Moon takes 27 days to orbit the earth.
There are several different periods associated with the lunar orbit. The sidereal month is the time it takes to make one complete orbit around Earth with respect to the fixed stars. It is about 27.32 days. The synodic month is the time it takes the Moon to reach the same visual phase. This varies notably throughout the year,[14] but averages around 29.53 days. The synodic period is longer than the sidereal period because the Earth–Moon system moves in its orbit around the Sun during each sidereal month, hence a longer period is required to achieve a similar alignment of Earth, the Sun, and the Moon.
From: Wikipedia, Orbit of the Moon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon)[/url]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_MoonNo, who said that? But you cannot compare velocity (a linear measure if unqualified) and rotation (an angular measure).
So your claim that the Moon's velocity is greater than the Earth's rotation is irrelevant regarding the Solar Eclipse.
As the Moon orbits anti-clockwise around the Earth.Yes, "the Moon orbits anti-clockwise around the Earth".
If the Moon's orbit is faster than the rotation of the earth the Moon would rise in the West and set in the East.Yes, but that not the only issue.
As anyone can see your explanation is nonsense.No they cannot, the explanation given in numerous places is quite correct.
I will tell you again it is impossible for the Total Eclipse to move across the Earth from West to East in the opposite direction to the Moon as it will in reality on 21.08.17 on your Heliocentric model.As I have carefully explained, you are totally incorrect!
As your Heliocentric model doesn't match reality it is obviously a fairytale and as such your Heliocentric Globe model will be officially DEBUNKED.Nope! The Heliocentric Globe model matches reality very well and you have ptoven nothing.
Question
Why does a solar eclipse move from west to east, while the sun moves from east to west?
Asked by: David Weissenberger
Answer
The Moon orbits the Earth from west to east. If you want to verify this, watch Moonrise on successive nights and you'll see that it rises later each day as the Earth's rotation needs more time to 'catch up' with the Moon in its orbit.
The Moon's orbital velocity is about 1 km/sec, so its shadow travels at that same velocity. While the Earth's rotation also proceeds from west to east, the FASTEST motion generated by that rotation is at the equator and works out to less than .5 km/sec. So the Moon's shadow moves eastward at a velocity greater than the Earth's rotational velocity at any location or time, causing it to travel west to east across the Earth's surface.
PhysLink.com, Physics & Astronomy Online. (http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae88.cfm)
Yes sorry Typo !!!! I will correct my post !I love how flat earthers can't understand this simple model, so I'll leave a very simple analogy. Thinking.is.futile won't understand it, but some flat earthers may.Let's use a real scale model.
Imagine a carousel with a 100m circumference in the middle of a circular racetrack with a 400m circumference. There is a bright light due North. You stand on the edge of the carousel which is rotating anticlockwise once every 10 seconds. A car is going around the racetrack anticlockwise once every 20 seconds.
Simple maths. The car must be travelling twice as fast as you (absolute velocity), as it covers 400m in 20 seconds vs 100m in 10 seconds.
You, however, are doing a full rotation at twice the rate of the car (this is angular velocity, not absolute velocity) so the car always appears to move from your left to your right as you pass it.
Now let's simulate the eclipse.
You pass the car during one of your rotations just as it moves in front of the bright light due north. As usual, the car seems to move from your left to your right, as you are rotating at double the angular velocity. But as the car is travelling twice as fast as the edge of the carousel, the shadow it forms on the carousel moves from the carousels right to its left from the perspective of any fixed point on the edge of the carousel.
This is a fact, and follows simple math. This model is what will occur during the eclipse in August. It is predictable, and people with brains can see it confirms the heliocentric model.
The earth becomes a child's globe with a diameter of 30cm.
The real 2.4 million km moon orbit becomes a scaled down orbit of 60 m
The distance from the scale moon to the scale globeearth is roughly 9 meter.
The sun is at 3.75 km in this scale set up.
When the globe has made a single revolution the scalemoon has traveled 2.2meters.
The earth has covered 94.2 cm.
So the moon does indeed go faster in the same amount of time (2.2 m vs 94.2 cm)
You can even do this set up in your own garden, if you have one of course,......(apart from the scale sun).
When you increase the actuall speed of the moon/ earth the problem becomes visible.
There shouldn't be the slightest objection as long as the scale is maintained correctly.
The globe earth has made ONE revolution allready, whereas the scale moon has covered 2.2 meters.
I cannot phantom how that could ever lead to a shadow that travels east to west !!
Contrary to the extremely offending comments of yours , please an answer that i could preferably check in my own garden , with models/ flashlights or whatever.
You should be pleased with critical thinking.
The moment we try to do that, we receive lots of contempt, but like many globers state
, "the educational system has failed", because we have abbondonad real science, testing and questioning ( Neil deGrasse Tyson)
I couldn't care less, i only started to read about it the day before yesterday and have allready more questions than your average student who is simply spoonfed.
So what is it ? Can we ask questions about your allmighty model or not, without receiveing your wrath ?
And yes, i am smart enough to realise that those working with the heliocentric model have managed to answer everything in their model.
You should wellcome every remark from flatearthers , so you are able to answer them, each and every time.
Or do you want to maintain the spoonfed educational system and make sure your reducile prevents any questions ?
So please, a real answer is very wellcome USING my correct scale model !!!!!
Have you been following this thread? The shadow doesn't travel East to West. It travels West to East as everyone (RE and FE) have been saying all along.
Now please answer !!
It's already been answered multiple times by myself and others on this thread. It's also clearly shown in the video linked in my first reply to this thread (watch the video for a real scale answer to your question if you don't like the carousel analogy). That you and others like RIF cannot "phantom" it is of no consequence. The reality remains, the model makes sense to those that can visualise the scale and the difference between angular velocity/orbital speed, and my simple analogy of the carousel holds. Again, you may as well jump up and down challenging me to disprove 2+2=5. If you don't believe 2+2=4, nothing I can say will change your mind.Ah, as expected !!
It's already been answered multiple times by myself and others on this thread. It's also clearly shown in the video linked in my first reply to this thread (watch the video for a real scale answer to your question if you don't like the carousel analogy). That you and others like RIF cannot "phantom" it is of no consequence. The reality remains, the model makes sense to those that can visualise the scale and the difference between angular velocity/orbital speed, and my simple analogy of the carousel holds. Again, you may as well jump up and down challenging me to disprove 2+2=5. If you don't believe 2+2=4, nothing I can say will change your mind.Ah, as expected !!
Your globe has made a 15 degree turn over the course of only ONE hour.
Do you understand the position of North America after ONE hour ?
It has moved 15 degrees of a full 360 degrees rotation.
The moon only has completed 0.55 degrees of it's orbit.
Your spinning globe becomes your enemy, because even a 15 degree rotation is way to much.....
Now either mock me with your 2+2=5 comments, or show me why my thoughts are wrong.
Quote from: Resistance.is.Futilehttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_MoonNo, who said that? But you cannot compare velocity (a linear measure if unqualified) and rotation (an angular measure).
So your claim that the Moon's velocity is greater than the Earth's rotation is irrelevant regarding the Solar Eclipse.
And this is the crux of the whole matter. At the latitude of the eclipse in August, the surface velocity of the earth is about 766 mph.
But the moon's radius will be about 231,700 miles on Aug 21 so, while it is rotating at a lower angular velocity, it's linear velocity, of about 2054 mph, is quite a lot faster than the earth's surface velocity.
So, the velocity of the moon's shadow across USA will be roughly 2054 - 766 mph (1288 mph) west to east.
What distance does 15 degrees of the earth's rotation cause the ground to move? Try around 1280 km.It's already been answered multiple times by myself and others on this thread. It's also clearly shown in the video linked in my first reply to this thread (watch the video for a real scale answer to your question if you don't like the carousel analogy). That you and others like RIF cannot "phantom" it is of no consequence. The reality remains, the model makes sense to those that can visualise the scale and the difference between angular velocity/orbital speed, and my simple analogy of the carousel holds. Again, you may as well jump up and down challenging me to disprove 2+2=5. If you don't believe 2+2=4, nothing I can say will change your mind.Ah, as expected !!
Your globe has made a 15 degree turn over the course of only ONE hour.
Do you understand the position of North America after ONE hour ?
It has moved 15 degrees of a full 360 degrees rotation.
The moon only has completed 0.55 degrees of it's orbit.What distance does 0.55 degrees of the moon's orbit cause the shadow to move? Try around 3700 km.
Your spinning globe becomes your enemy, because even a 15 degree rotation is way to much.....Nope, our spinning globe does not becomes my enemy!
Now either mock me with your 2+2=5 comments, or show me why my thoughts are wrong.
As I've pointed out, it can be somewhat counter-intuitive to understand how comparing the angular velocities and surface velocities of 2 objects can provide very different results.It's already been answered multiple times by myself and others on this thread. It's also clearly shown in the video linked in my first reply to this thread (watch the video for a real scale answer to your question if you don't like the carousel analogy). That you and others like RIF cannot "phantom" it is of no consequence. The reality remains, the model makes sense to those that can visualise the scale and the difference between angular velocity/orbital speed, and my simple analogy of the carousel holds. Again, you may as well jump up and down challenging me to disprove 2+2=5. If you don't believe 2+2=4, nothing I can say will change your mind.Ah, as expected !!
Your globe has made a 15 degree turn over the course of only ONE hour.
Do you understand the position of North America after ONE hour ?
It has moved 15 degrees of a full 360 degrees rotation.
The moon only has completed 0.55 degrees of it's orbit.
Your spinning globe becomes your enemy, because even a 15 degree rotation is way to much.....
Now either mock me with your 2+2=5 comments, or show me why my thoughts are wrong.
Nope, our spinning globe does not becomes my enemy!
So, no problem at all - it happens just as NASA and all the references say.
In physics, the angular velocity of a body is the rate of change of its angular displacement with respect to time, and in three-dimensional space is a pseudovector quantity that specifies the rotational speed of an object and the orientation of the rotating.
A number of quantities in physics behave as pseudovectors rather than polar vectors, including magnetic field and angular velocity.
In physics and mathematics, a pseudovector (or axial vector) is a quantity that transforms like a vector under a proper rotation, but in three dimensions gains an additional sign flip under an improper rotation such as a reflection. Geometrically it is the opposite, of equal magnitude but in the opposite direction, of its mirror image.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_velocity
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudovector
Look up angular velocity
That's grammar school stuff, really...
"It was like eight days in a garbage can." Conrad [The astronaut] remembers.
http://articles.latimes.com/1996-02-11/news/ls-35175_1_lunar-surface/2
They also continually badger people for not knowing the difference between angular and surface velocity, and instead of kindly explaining the differences, they simply call people "simpletons and flattards"
Look up angular velocity
That's grammar school stuff, really...
Wow! Sentinel your grammer school must have been really advanced.
Why dont you solve the N-Body problem for us all?
Y'know the one that calculates the movement of 3 celestial bodies!
Because its still unsolved, and youde do mankind a big favor in being able to calculate lightspeed without zooming into a planet.
It's already been answered multiple times by myself and others on this thread. It's also clearly shown in the video linked in my first reply to this thread (watch the video for a real scale answer to your question if you don't like the carousel analogy). That you and others like RIF cannot "phantom" it is of no consequence. The reality remains, the model makes sense to those that can visualise the scale and the difference between angular velocity/orbital speed, and my simple analogy of the carousel holds. Again, you may as well jump up and down challenging me to disprove 2+2=5. If you don't believe 2+2=4, nothing I can say will change your mind.Ah, as expected !!
Your globe has made a 15 degree turn over the course of only ONE hour.
Do you understand the position of North America after ONE hour ?
It has moved 15 degrees of a full 360 degrees rotation.
The moon only has completed 0.55 degrees of it's orbit.
Your spinning globe becomes your enemy, because even a 15 degree rotation is way to much.....
Now either mock me with your 2+2=5 cyomments, or show me why my thoughts are wrong.
Thanks for the replies, but i am still waiting for my answer.I could not care less about your model - stick to real life.
Now that could be totally on me and my invalid ways of expressing me.
From the start of the topic i can understand the differences be angular velocity and linear velocity, that was and is not the point.
I want to know how i can test it in a scale model as i have shown in a previous post.
What i don't understand is how this could work in your model.
the moon's umbra moves from west to east.
After 6 hours (moon's umbra generous duration due to it's slightly oval path ?)
6 x 0.55° = 3.3° moon's completed part of it's orbit
6 x 15° = 90° earth's completed part of it's orbit
Thanks for the replies, but i am still waiting for my answer.
Now that could be totally on me and my invalid ways of expressing me.
From the start of the topic i can understand the differences be angular velocity and linear velocity, that was and is not the point.
I want to know how i can test it in a scale model as i have shown in a previous post.
What i don't understand is how this could work in your model.
the moon's umbra moves from west to east.
After 6 hours (moon's umbra generous duration due to it's slightly oval path ?)
6 x 0.55° = 3.3° moon's completed part of it's orbit
6 x 15° = 90° earth's completed part of it's orbit
So when i start in my model globe-moon-sun set up.....(earth 30cm diameter , moon 9,5m away, and 60m orbit around the miniature globe, sun 3.5km away)
The moon's umbra is pointed towards the pacific.
After 6 hours the earth has made a 90° turn.
The moon has moved 3.3° from it's orbit.
In my garden set up i would have to turn the globe and the pacific ocean is now placed 90° counterclockwise. (23,5 cm)
The moon would have been 55 cm further on it's 60m orbit (2,33 times faster)
what do i have to do to make sure the umbra is ahead of earth's spin after 6 hours (or insert the corrected lenght of the duration of the eclips when needed)
Because when i see the scale model and the sun 3.5 km away and the movent at the beginning and the end of the eclipse in my garden model there is no way at all that the moon's umbra can travel west to east.
Please an answer in relation to my garden model !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And please not a ''highschool related answer please'' ::) ::) ::)
How does my garden set up look like at the beginning of the eclipse
How does my set up look like after 6 hours.
Explaining so that everyone understands it is the real task.
So please explain my scale set up, at the beginning and the end of the eclipse !!
Thanks for the replies, but i am still waiting for my answer.Well, you could try building your scale model and see what happens when you test it.
Now that could be totally on me and my invalid ways of expressing me.
From the start of the topic i can understand the differences be angular velocity and linear velocity, that was and is not the point.
I want to know how i can test it in a scale model as i have shown in a previous post.
What i don't understand is how this could work in your model.By Jove, I think that you might be getting it.
the moon's umbra moves from west to east.
After 6 hours (moon's umbra generous duration due to it's slightly oval path ?)
6 x 0.55° = 3.3° moon's completed part of it's orbit
6 x 15° = 90° earth's completed part of it's orbit
In my garden set up i would have to turn the globe and the pacific ocean is now placed 90° counterclockwise. (23,5 cm)
The moon would have been 55 cm further on it's 60m orbit (2,33 times faster)
what do i have to do to make sure the umbra is ahead of earth's spin after 6 hours (or insert the corrected lenght of the duration of the eclips when needed)Draw a line from your earth to your sun.
Because when i see the scale model and the sun 3.5 km away and the movent at the beginning and the end of the eclips in my garden model there is no way at all that the moon's umbra can travel west to east.
Please an answer in relation to my garden model !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And please not a ''highschool related answer please'' ::) ::) ::)
How does my garden set up look like at the beginning of the eclipse
How does my set up look like after 6 hours.
Let's try again.
How will this Eclipse be possible on your Heliocentric model?
The producer in this video gives a detailed description of how and why the upcoming solar Eclipse is impossibe on the Heliocentric Globe Model.
Let's try again.
How will this Eclipse be possible on your Heliocentric model?
The producer in this video gives a detailed description of how and why the upcoming solar Eclipse is impossibe on the Heliocentric Globe Model.
You ask "How will this Eclipse be possible on your Heliocentric model?"
Maybe you can only understand pictures, so try this.
Flat Earth: Eclipse Special, Sly Sparkane
Look up angular velocity
That's grammar school stuff, really...
Wow! Sentinel your grammer school must have been really advanced.
Why dont you solve the N-Body problem for us all?
Y'know the one that calculates the movement of 3 celestial bodies!
Because its still unsolved, and youde do mankind a big favor in being able to calculate lightspeed without zooming into a planet.
I'm well aware of the N-body problem, but why do come up with that for the task at hand as it doesn't bear any significance for an solar eclipse when the three bodies involved are well within a defined, measured and predictable set of movement relative to each other?
Do you even know what that problem is about for real? ???
Thanks to those taking the time to explain the eclips from a heliocentric perspective.While you're pondering, perhaps you should look into how FET would explain a solar eclipse with as much detail as you've been given about RET solar eclipses.
Am i convinced ? Not really, but i understand now that the eclips ''works'' in the current heliocentric model, althaugh it has still many questions that i am getting into. The excessive 6 hours timespan instead of four, the shape and size of the shadow etc.
But since i did not consider eclipses important, i really did not look into the phenomena before this topic started.
Again thanks for putting in time and effort to explain it to me !!!!
How will this Eclipse be possible on your Heliocentric model ?
The producer in this video gives a detailed description of how and why the upcoming solar Eclipse is impossibe on the Heliocentric Globe Model.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Thanks to those taking the time to explain the eclips from a heliocentric perspective.
Am i convinced ? Not really, but i understand now that the eclips ''works'' in the current heliocentric model, althaugh it has still many questions that i am getting into. The excessive 6 hours timespan instead of four, the shape and size of the shadow etc.
But since i did not consider eclipses important, i really did not look into the phenomena before this topic started.
Again thanks for putting in time and effort to explain it to me !!!!
Thanks to those taking the time to explain the eclips from a heliocentric perspective.
Am i convinced ? Not really, but i understand now that the eclips ''works'' in the current heliocentric model, althaugh it has still many questions that i am getting into. The excessive 6 hours timespan instead of four, the shape and size of the shadow etc.
But since i did not consider eclipses important, i really did not look into the phenomena before this topic started.
Again thanks for putting in time and effort to explain it to me !!!!
Thanks to those taking the time to explain the eclips from a heliocentric perspective.
Am i convinced ? Not really, but i understand now that the eclips ''works'' in the current heliocentric model, althaugh it has still many questions that i am getting into. The excessive 6 hours timespan instead of four, the shape and size of the shadow etc.
But since i did not consider eclipses important, i really did not look into the phenomena before this topic started.
Again thanks for putting in time and effort to explain it to me !!!!
Thanks to those taking the time to explain the eclips from a heliocentric perspective.
Am i convinced ? Not really, but i understand now that the eclips ''works'' in the current heliocentric model, althaugh it has still many questions that i am getting into. The excessive 6 hours timespan instead of four, the shape and size of the shadow etc.
But since i did not consider eclipses important, i really did not look into the phenomena before this topic started.
Again thanks for putting in time and effort to explain it to me !!!!
The Eclipse of 21.08.17 is expected to have a shadow width 68 miles as in this quote. Quote But even when the moon is at the closest point to Earth in its elliptical orbit, the umbra is but a dark "dot" measuring no more than 170 miles (274 km) across. And many times, the shadow width is considerably smaller than that. During the Aug. 21 total solar eclipse, for example, the shadow will average only about 68 miles (109 km) wide. Now, I wonder if you could explain how a moon about 32 miles in diameter could cast a 68 mile diameter shadow from a 32 mile diameter sun. From what I can see the geometry would be something like the diagram on the right. It would seem to that there is no possibly way for the umbra for exceed the the size of the moon. And it's not just the 68 mile width of shadow for this eclipse, but eclipses can have the umbra up to 170 miles (274 km) across. | (https://www.dropbox.com/s/rgg7akwx7nncrsa/Flat%20Earth%20Sun%20Moon%20Solar%20Eclipse.png?dl=1) |
Another question is how an observer within the umbra could witness the sun's corona when the sun and moon are the same size and relatively close together? It looks like annular eclipses are pretty much out of the question.Thanks to those taking the time to explain the eclips from a heliocentric perspective.
Am i convinced ? Not really, but i understand now that the eclips ''works'' in the current heliocentric model, althaugh it has still many questions that i am getting into. The excessive 6 hours timespan instead of four, the shape and size of the shadow etc.
But since i did not consider eclipses important, i really did not look into the phenomena before this topic started.
Again thanks for putting in time and effort to explain it to me !!!!
The Eclipse of 21.08.17 is expected to have a shadow width 68 miles as in this quote.QuoteBut even when the moon is at the closest point to Earth in its elliptical orbit, the umbra is but a dark "dot" measuring no more than 170 miles (274 km) across. And many times, the shadow width is considerably smaller than that. During the Aug. 21 total solar eclipse, for example, the shadow will average only about 68 miles (109 km) wide.
From: How Long Will the 2017 Solar Eclipse Last? (https://www.space.com/36388-total-solar-eclipse-2017-duration.html)
Now, I wonder if you could explain how a moon about 32 miles in diameter could cast a 68 mile diameter shadow from a 32 mile diameter sun.
From what I can see the geometry would be something like the diagram on the right.
It would seem to that there is no possibly way for the umbra for exceed the the size of the moon.
And it's not just the 68 mile width of shadow for this eclipse, but eclipses can have the umbra up to 170 miles (274 km) across.(https://www.dropbox.com/s/rgg7akwx7nncrsa/Flat%20Earth%20Sun%20Moon%20Solar%20Eclipse.png?dl=1)
So, please put as much thought into the weaknesses in your flat earth model as you put into trying to refute the Globe.
Even Jarenism gets it.
"Seek and ye shall find" flattards.You mean this false representation of reality from NASA ?
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/4579
"Attempting to use my brain is futile" proves the earth is a globe again.
In this animation the outer carriage (moon) overtakes the inner circle earth ( see the way the shadow travels from east to west )
Even when the earth rotated 27 times slower and the relative position between the moon and earth would be in perfect sync like a caroussel the casted shadow would have been freezed in the same spot without moving !!!
In your heliocentric model the centre earth overtakes the moon by a huge margin of 27 times.
So what magical shadow is able to show the opposite, as if the moon overtakes the centre ?
I see you Heliocentrics are still living the delusion.
Can you please say hello to Santa and the Toothfairy for me whilst your residing in your dream world.
I'm going to post part 2 to the original video hope you enjoy.
This video explains in great detail why the upcoming Solar Eclipse on 21.08.17 is impossible on your Heliocentric model.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False. .
I see you Heliocentrics are still living the delusion.
Can you please say hello to Santa and the Toothfairy for me whilst your residing in your dream world.
I'm going to post part 2 to the original video hope you enjoy.
This video explains in great detail why the upcoming Solar Eclipse on 21.08.17 is impossible on your Heliocentric model.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False. .
I see you Heliocentrics are still living the delusion.
Can you please say hello to Santa and the Toothfairy for me whilst your residing in your dream world.
I'm going to post part 2 to the original video hope you enjoy.
This video explains in great detail why the upcoming Solar Eclipse on 21.08.17 is impossible on your Heliocentric model.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False. .
So you have not been that active around here for over a week, and all that you could come up with now is that crap video debunking absolutely nothing?
Credibility.is.Futile at it again... :-\
I see you Heliocentrics are still living the delusion.Does that video show the sun-earth-moon system to proper scale?
Can you please say hello to Santa and the Toothfairy for me whilst your residing in your dream world.
I'm going to post part 2 to the original video hope you enjoy.
This video explains in great detail why the upcoming Solar Eclipse on 21.08.17 is impossible on your Heliocentric model.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False. .
Yes, watching that video I do get a "sick feeling in the stomach", but simply because I find it so hard, [Mr Ignorance.is.Futile,
I'm going to post part 2 to the original video hope you enjoy.
This video explains in great detail why the upcoming Solar Eclipse on 21.08.17 is impossible on your Heliocentric model.
Any " normal " person can see that both the videos debunk your Heliocentric fairytale.
Please find me some "normal peoplel" that are convinced by those videos.
I see you Heliocentrics are still living the delusion.
Can you please say hello to Santa and the Toothfairy for me whilst your residing in your dream world.
I'm going to post part 2 to the original video hope you enjoy.
This video explains in great detail why the upcoming Solar Eclipse on 21.08.17 is impossible on your Heliocentric model.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False. .
So you have not been that active around here for over a week, and all that you could come up with now is that crap video debunking absolutely nothing?
Credibility.is.Futile at it again... :-\
Any " normal " person can see that both the videos debunk your Heliocentric fairytale.
Enjoy your delusion :)
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Neither video debunks a single thing. The clear explanations given by multiple people in this thread of the predictable West to East direction of the moon's shadow have even convinced Dutchy! I wouldn't expect "Using my Brain is Futile" to understand, though. It does require some effort. Enjoy your ignorance :)If Jeranism is convinced that "The Globe Model Works. Solar Eclipse Has Been Modeled" then what more can I say?
Neither video debunks a single thing. The clear explanations given by multiple people in this thread of the predictable West to East direction of the moon's shadow have even convinced Dutchy! I wouldn't expect "Using my Brain is Futile" to understand, though. It does require some effort. Enjoy your ignorance :)If Jeranism is convinced that "The Globe Model Works. Solar Eclipse Has Been Modeled" then what more can I say?
The Globe Model Works. Solar Eclipse Has Been Modeled - Video Soon, jeranism
And the long, long video where he "models" it jeranism LIVE #14 - Solar Eclipse Modeled and More. jeranism (http://)
Not impossible at all, the shadow simply moves faster from west to east than the earth moves - simple!You are fooling no one with your heliocentric nonsense.Neither video debunks a single thing. The clear explanations given by multiple people in this thread of the predictable West to East direction of the moon's shadow have even convinced Dutchy! I wouldn't expect "Using my Brain is Futile" to understand, though. It does require some effort. Enjoy your ignorance :)If Jeranism is convinced that "The Globe Model Works. Solar Eclipse Has Been Modeled" then what more can I say?
The Globe Model Works. Solar Eclipse Has Been Modeled - Video Soon, jeranism
And the long, long video where he "models" it jeranism LIVE #14 - Solar Eclipse Modeled and More. jeranism (http://)
It is impossible for the path of the solar eclipse to move in completely the opposite direction to the moon.
The moon rises in the East and sets in th west.Yes
The Solar Eclipse starts in the west and finishes if the East.Yes.
The Earth's angular velocity which Is one rotation every 24 hrs is 27 times faster than the Moon's (angular) velocity.Yes.
This is why the moon allegedly rises in the east and sets in the west.
If the Moon's (angular) velocity was greater than the angular velocity of the earth the Moon would rise in the West and set in the East it would also have to orbit the earth more than once every 24 hours to achieve this.Yes,
Here is a description of a solar eclipse on your model. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_eclipseI know that quite well, thank you and it fits what we see. I can't help yor inability to understand it.
Not impossible at all, the shadow simply moves faster from west to east than the earth moves - simple!You are fooling no one with your heliocentric nonsense.Neither video debunks a single thing. The clear explanations given by multiple people in this thread of the predictable West to East direction of the moon's shadow have even convinced Dutchy! I wouldn't expect "Using my Brain is Futile" to understand, though. It does require some effort. Enjoy your ignorance :)If Jeranism is convinced that "The Globe Model Works. Solar Eclipse Has Been Modeled" then what more can I say?
The Globe Model Works. Solar Eclipse Has Been Modeled - Video Soon, jeranism
And the long, long video where he "models" it jeranism LIVE #14 - Solar Eclipse Modeled and More. jeranism (http://)
It is impossible for the path of the solar eclipse to move in completely the opposite direction to the moon.Quote from: Resistance.is.FutileThe moon rises in the East and sets in th west.YesQuote from: Resistance.is.FutileThe Solar Eclipse starts in the west and finishes if the East.Yes.
It's funny that almost everyone, including the ultimate flat earther, jersnism is convinced that the explanation of the solar eclipse on the Heliocentric Globe is correct - except poor Ignorance.is.Wonderful.Quote from: Resistance.is.FutileThe Earth's angular velocity which Is one rotation every 24 hrs is 27 times faster than the Moon's (angular) velocity.Yes.
This is why the moon allegedly rises in the east and sets in the west.Quote from: Resistance.is.FutileIf the Moon's (angular) velocity was greater than the angular velocity of the earth the Moon would rise in the West and set in the East it would also have to orbit the earth more than once every 24 hours to achieve this.Yes,
but it is not angular velocity that matters here but the surface velocity of the earth, about 1380 km/hr and the linear velocity of the moon, about 3,700 km/h.
The moons shadow travels west to east much faster than the surface velocity of the earth - and that is the explanation everyone gives, except for a few totally deluded flat earthers.
End of story.Quote from: Resistance.is.FutileHere is a description of a solar eclipse on your model. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_eclipseI know that quite well, thank you and it fits what we see. I can't help yor inability to understand it.
You have had the correct reason explained numerous times.
Bye bye.
Not impossible at all, the shadow simply moves faster from west to east than the earth moves - simple!You are fooling no one with your heliocentric nonsense.Neither video debunks a single thing. The clear explanations given by multiple people in this thread of the predictable West to East direction of the moon's shadow have even convinced Dutchy! I wouldn't expect "Using my Brain is Futile" to understand, though. It does require some effort. Enjoy your ignorance :)If Jeranism is convinced that "The Globe Model Works. Solar Eclipse Has Been Modeled" then what more can I say?
The Globe Model Works. Solar Eclipse Has Been Modeled - Video Soon, jeranism
And the long, long video where he "models" it jeranism LIVE #14 - Solar Eclipse Modeled and More. jeranism (http://)
It is impossible for the path of the solar eclipse to move in completely the opposite direction to the moon.Quote from: Resistance.is.FutileThe moon rises in the East and sets in th west.YesQuote from: Resistance.is.FutileThe Solar Eclipse starts in the west and finishes if the East.Yes.
It's funny that almost everyone, including the ultimate flat earther, jersnism is convinced that the explanation of the solar eclipse on the Heliocentric Globe is correct - except poor Ignorance.is.Wonderful.Quote from: Resistance.is.FutileThe Earth's angular velocity which Is one rotation every 24 hrs is 27 times faster than the Moon's (angular) velocity.Yes.
This is why the moon allegedly rises in the east and sets in the west.Quote from: Resistance.is.FutileIf the Moon's (angular) velocity was greater than the angular velocity of the earth the Moon would rise in the West and set in the East it would also have to orbit the earth more than once every 24 hours to achieve this.Yes,
but it is not angular velocity that matters here but the surface velocity of the earth, about 1380 km/hr and the linear velocity of the moon, about 3,700 km/h.
The moons shadow travels west to east much faster than the surface velocity of the earth - and that is the explanation everyone gives, except for a few totally deluded flat earthers.
End of story.Quote from: Resistance.is.FutileHere is a description of a solar eclipse on your model. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_eclipseI know that quite well, thank you and it fits what we see. I can't help yor inability to understand it.
You have had the correct reason explained numerous times.
Bye bye.
That is nonsense the only thing relevant in regard to our view of the sky is the Earth's angular velocity.
This is what causes the sun and moon to rise and set on your model.
The moon's actually velocity is irrelevant regarding the Solar eclipse as it is so far away.
You have not explained how it is possible for the moon's shadow to move in the opposite direction to the Moon when the light source which is the Sun remains in a relatively stationary position at the centre of the solar system.
You have not explined this because you can't.
The upcoming Solar Eclipse is impossible on your model.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False. .
That is nonsense the only thing relevant in regard to our view of the sky is the Earth's angular velocity.Still just as incorrect.
This is what causes the sun and moon to rise and set on your model.
The moon's actually velocity is irrelevant regarding the Solar eclipse as it is so far away.
That is nonsense the only thing relevant in regard to our view of the sky is the Earth's angular velocity.Still just as incorrect.
This is what causes the sun and moon to rise and set on your model.
The moon's actually velocity is irrelevant regarding the Solar eclipse as it is so far away.
Because the sun to moon distance is so much greater than the moon to earth distance, about 394 times, the moon's shadow moves at a most the same velocity as the moon.
So, it is the linear velocity that matters, even though the moon is about 380,000 km away.
It's funny that dutchy and jeranism, both "dyed-in-the-wool" flat earthers can see that this explanation is correct for the globe but poor Ignorance.is.Wonderful still can't see it.
I'm totally convinced that some poor benighted people simply cannot visualise anything in 3-D and so many of these turn into fflat-earthers. .
We've already been through this.Neither video debunks a single thing. The clear explanations given by multiple people in this thread of the predictable West to East direction of the moon's shadow have even convinced Dutchy! I wouldn't expect "Using my Brain is Futile" to understand, though. It does require some effort. Enjoy your ignorance :)If Jeranism is convinced that "The Globe Model Works. Solar Eclipse Has Been Modeled" then what more can I say?
The Globe Model Works. Solar Eclipse Has Been Modeled - Video Soon, jeranism
And the long, long video where he "models" it jeranism LIVE #14 - Solar Eclipse Modeled and More. jeranism (http://)
You are fooling no one with your heliocentric nonsense.
It is impossible for the path of the solar eclipse to move in completely the opposite direction to the moon.
The moon rises in the East and sets in th west.
The Solar Eclipse starts in the west and finishes if the East.
The Earth's angular velocity which Is one rotation every 24 hrs is 27 times faster than the Moon's velocity.
This is why the moon allegedly rises in the east and sets in the west.
Yadda, yadda, yadda.
We've already been through this.Neither video debunks a single thing. The clear explanations given by multiple people in this thread of the predictable West to East direction of the moon's shadow have even convinced Dutchy! I wouldn't expect "Using my Brain is Futile" to understand, though. It does require some effort. Enjoy your ignorance :)If Jeranism is convinced that "The Globe Model Works. Solar Eclipse Has Been Modeled" then what more can I say?
The Globe Model Works. Solar Eclipse Has Been Modeled - Video Soon, jeranism
And the long, long video where he "models" it jeranism LIVE #14 - Solar Eclipse Modeled and More. jeranism (http://)
You are fooling no one with your heliocentric nonsense.
It is impossible for the path of the solar eclipse to move in completely the opposite direction to the moon.
The moon rises in the East and sets in th west.
The Solar Eclipse starts in the west and finishes if the East.
The Earth's angular velocity which Is one rotation every 24 hrs is 27 times faster than the Moon's velocity.
This is why the moon allegedly rises in the east and sets in the west.
Yadda, yadda, yadda.
Read the thread from the beginning and watch the Jeranism video.
Eclipses are somewhat counterintuituve, but they work fine once you can wrap your head around the true scale of the sun-earth-moon system.
Then again, getting you to wrap your head around anything is probably too much to ask.
Yeah. Seems like Evidence.is.Futile is at it again... :-\
Yeah. Seems like Evidence.is.Futile is at it again... :-\
At what exactly?
Defending my position when all you Heliocentrics bring to the discussion are insults and nonsense .
There is no real evidence that the Earth is a Globe.
Have you seen the GLOBE?
I have not seen the Globe.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Yeah. Seems like Evidence.is.Futile is at it again... :-\
At what exactly?
Defending my position when all you Heliocentrics bring to the discussion are insults and nonsense .
There is no real evidence that the Earth is a Globe.
Have you seen the GLOBE?
I have not seen the Globe.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Regarding the solar eclipse that ship has sailed already, and as for other topics you as well don't seem to hold your ground well at all.
Why are you here then, anyway? You should've noticed already that you become more and more a laughing stock for the FET... :-\
Angular velocity does not equal orbital velocity. the moon's orbital velocity>earth's rotational velocity
The Earth's alleged angular velocity is 27 times greater than the Moon's orbital velocity.
Oh, this is truly fascinating. Such a simple concept. Angular velocity = degrees travelled per unit time. Linear velocity = distance travelled per unit time. "Using my brain is futile" cannot seem to separate the two. 😂😂😂
Angular velocity does not equal orbital velocity. the moon's orbital velocity>earth's rotational velocity
The Earth's alleged angular velocity is 27 times greater than the Moon's orbital velocity.
I'm here because this site is called THE FLAT EARTH SOCIETY and I want to discuss the Flat Earth Model why are you here ?If you want to discuss the flat earth model, then why are you bringing up the RE explanation of a solar eclipse?
Thanks for posting vids RIF. How about you REtards explain why the the moon is casting such a small shadow during the eclipse.
Thanks for posting vids RIF. How about you REtards explain why the the moon is casting such a small shadow during the eclipse.Because geometry.
Thanks for posting vids RIF. How about you REtards explain why the the moon is casting such a small shadow during the eclipse.
Okay. How does flat earth explain the eclipse?Neither video debunks a single thing. The clear explanations given by multiple people in this thread of the predictable West to East direction of the moon's shadow have even convinced Dutchy! I wouldn't expect "Using my Brain is Futile" to understand, though. It does require some effort. Enjoy your ignorance :)If Jeranism is convinced that "The Globe Model Works. Solar Eclipse Has Been Modeled" then what more can I say?
The Globe Model Works. Solar Eclipse Has Been Modeled - Video Soon, jeranism
And the long, long video where he "models" it jeranism LIVE #14 - Solar Eclipse Modeled and More. jeranism (http://)
You are fooling no one with your heliocentric nonsense.
It is impossible for the path of the solar eclipse to move in completely the opposite direction to the moon.
The moon rises in the East and sets in th west.
The Solar Eclipse starts in the west and finishes if the East.
The Earth's angular velocity which Is one rotation every 24 hrs is 27 times faster than the Moon's velocity.
This is why the moon allegedly rises in the east and sets in the west.
If the Moon's velocity was greater than the angular velocity of the earth the Moon would rise in the West and set in the East it would also have to orbit the earth more than once every 24 hours to achieve this.
Here is a description of a solar eclipse on your model.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_eclipse
It clearly says the eclipse is caused when the moon passes in front of the sun.
The moon takes 27 days to orbit the earth.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon
On your model the Sun is stationary regarding it's position to the earth and the moon
.http://kidseclipse.com/sun-earth-moon-move/
I choose this link so you Stupid and gullable Heliocentric's can try to understand how and why the upcoming Solar Eclipse is impossible on your model.
It is impossible for an objects shadow to move in the opposite direction to the said object when the light source is stationary.
The only way this would be possible on your model would be if the Sun was moving millions of miles in relation to the earth and did not maintain it's alleged position in the centre of the solar system.
https://www.quora.com/Is-the-sun-the-center-of-the-solar-system-Why
So I will tell you again it is impossible for the Solar Eclipse to move across the Earth west to East which is the opposite direction to the moon on your Heliocentric model.
Your Heliocentric model does not match reality as such your Heliocentric model is false.
Part one
Part two
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
I'm here because this site is called THE FLAT EARTH SOCIETY and I want to discuss the Flat Earth Model why are you here ?If you want to discuss the flat earth model, then why are you bringing up the RE explanation of a solar eclipse?
Why don't you tell us how the FE model explains the upcoming solar eclipse better than RET?
Thanks for posting vids RIF. How about you REtards explain why the the moon is casting such a small shadow during the eclipse.
Thanks for posting vids RIF. How about you REtards explain why the the moon is casting such a small shadow during the eclipse.
Thanks for posting vids RIF. How about you REtards explain why the the moon is casting such a small shadow during the eclipse.That's easy to explain. And you can test it in your own backyard. Take a ball outside, draw a circle of the same diameter as the ball on anything, and try to get that shadow to fit into that circle.
Thanks for posting vids RIF. How about you REtards explain why the the moon is casting such a small shadow during the eclipse.
...You mean the shadow that will cover nearly the ENTIRE CONTINENTAL USA?
Thanks for posting vids RIF. How about you REtards explain why the the moon is casting such a small shadow during the eclipse.That's easy to explain. And you can test it in your own backyard. Take a ball outside, draw a circle of the same diameter as the ball on anything, and try to get that shadow to fit into that circle.
Further, this link has all the data tables and equations that accurately predict eclipses for the next thousand years. It will predict the path and width of totality. If you could debunk this you'd have all the ammo you need.
Mike
How does an object 200000 miles away cast a shadow that is some 24 times smaller than itself.
But the RE model can and does explain eclipses quite nicely, regardless of your ability to comprehend it.I'm here because this site is called THE FLAT EARTH SOCIETY and I want to discuss the Flat Earth Model why are you here ?If you want to discuss the flat earth model, then why are you bringing up the RE explanation of a solar eclipse?
Why don't you tell us how the FE model explains the upcoming solar eclipse better than RET?
I'm discussing the Heliocentric model to show the readers that it is nonsense and that your Heliocentric model can't explain the upcoming solar Eclipse as the Moon's shadow moves in the opposite direction to the Moon.
It would seem you Heliocentrics rely upon the fact that the readers will not be able to understand the difference between actual velocity and angular velocity.No, it relies in the ability for readers to understand the difference between angular velocity and linear surface velocity. Obviously you don't.
The fact of the matter is that the readers can obviously understand that the angular velocity of the earth is far greater than the actual velocity of the moon as the moon rises in the east and sets in the west.Yes, that much is true. That's why the moon appears to rise in the east and set in the west even though it's traveling in the same direction as the earth's rotation.
If the Moon's actual velocity is greater than the Earth's angular velocity the Moon would rise in the West and set in the East. " END OF."But no one said that the moon's orbital velocity is faster than the earth's angular velocity. We're saying that the moon's orbital velocity is faster than the earth's rotational velocity.
As such your explanation on your model for the upcoming solar Eclipse is nonsense and your Heliocentric fairytale does not match reality as the Moon's shadow moves in the opposite direction to the Moon.It does, but you just can't wrap your head around the different concepts involved.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False. .And your ignorant ranting is tedious.
But the RE model can and does explain eclipses quite nicely, regardless of your ability to comprehend it.I'm here because this site is called THE FLAT EARTH SOCIETY and I want to discuss the Flat Earth Model why are you here ?If you want to discuss the flat earth model, then why are you bringing up the RE explanation of a solar eclipse?
Why don't you tell us how the FE model explains the upcoming solar eclipse better than RET?
I'm discussing the Heliocentric model to show the readers that it is nonsense and that your Heliocentric model can't explain the upcoming solar Eclipse as the Moon's shadow moves in the opposite direction to the Moon.
Even hardcore FE'er Jeranism admits that the RE model is solid.
However, whether or not the RE model reflects reality is a completely different matter.It would seem you Heliocentrics rely upon the fact that the readers will not be able to understand the difference between actual velocity and angular velocity.No, it relies in the ability for readers to understand the difference between angular velocity and linear surface velocity. Obviously you don't.
It also relies on the reader understanding the true scale of the sun-earth-moon system. Sadly, most don't because almost none of the illustrations are to that correct scale.The fact of the matter is that the readers can obviously understand that the angular velocity of the earth is far greater than the actual velocity of the moon as the moon rises in the east and sets in the west.Yes, that much is true. That's why the moon appears to rise in the east and set in the west even though it's traveling in the same direction as the earth's rotation.If the Moon's actual velocity is greater than the Earth's angular velocity the Moon would rise in the West and set in the East. " END OF."But no one said that the moon's orbital velocity is faster than the earth's angular velocity. We're saying that the moon's orbital velocity is faster than the earth's rotational velocity.
FE'ers are fond of pointing out that the round earth allegedly spins at 1000 mph at the equator. Well, the moon orbits the earth at a speed of about 2300 mph.
That's how the moon's shadow can move from west to east.As such your explanation on your model for the upcoming solar Eclipse is nonsense and your Heliocentric fairytale does not match reality as the Moon's shadow moves in the opposite direction to the Moon.It does, but you just can't wrap your head around the different concepts involved.Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False. .And your ignorant ranting is tedious.
Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile link=topic=71435.msg1938895#msg1938895
How does an object 200000 miles away cast a shadow that is some 24 times smaller than itself.
Because the object causing it to cast the shadow is much bigger.
It's really not difficult.
The Earth's angular velocity is 27 times greater than the Moon's actual velocity which is why it allegedly rises in the east and sets in the west.
It is impossible for the moon's shadow to move in the opposite direction to the moon itself.
It is impossibe for the moon to cast a shadow that is 24 times smaller than itself.
If the heliocentric model does not work, then why does everyone accept it? Because flat earth is dumb, duh!
The Earth's angular velocity is 27 times greater than the Moon's actual velocity which is why it allegedly rises in the east and sets in the west.
It is impossible for the moon's shadow to move in the opposite direction to the moon itself.
You do not understand what you are seeing. The moon orbits the Earth in an anti-clockwise path when viewed from above the north pole.
The shadow movement on the globe of the eclipse is entirely consistent with that.QuoteIt is impossibe for the moon to cast a shadow that is 24 times smaller than itself.
It is not. If you measure the width of the shadow, including the penumbra (I'll assume you know what that is) it is entirely consistent with the moon's diameter. Try it, prove me wrong.
The fact that there is a penumbra is perfectly easy to grasp. Here is the shadow being cast by small wooden disk on a globe of the moon, with the disk held under a small bedside lamp.
You can see there is a dark central spot and a lighter shadow around it.
(http://i.imgur.com/9wVeIcx.jpg)
R.i.F
Do you accept that there will be an eclipse on august 21st?
If yes, how do you think we know, and how were the path, shadow width, timings etc calculated?
I've spent lots of dosh on flights, car hire, campsites in Wyoming etc so I jolly well hope they've got it right!
Which bit of "The moon is not casting a shadow 24 times smaller than itself is causing you a problem?
The only one claiming that is you, and you're wrong. Measure the shadow, you'll find it's entirely consistent with the moon's diameter. The line on Google Earth there is the diameter of the moon. Compare it with the complete shadow.
(http://i.imgur.com/BGHHe1I.jpg)
The photo I provided was to demonstrate that a solid object does not need to have a solid shadow. You continue to fail to comprehend what is being shown to you. If you think my model is flawed, do your own.
Oh, and I guess you're conceding that the shadow is going in the right direction.
That is irrelevant.
The Ancient Chinese could predict eclipses on their Flat model.
https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/solar-eclipse-history.html
I believe the Heliocentric's have retrofitted their mathematics to work with the Ancient Chinese/ Babylonian Flat Model.
Although early eclipse pioneers, including Chinese astronomer Liu Hsiang, Greek philosopher Plutarch, and Byzantine historian Leo Diaconus tried to describe and explain solar eclipses and their features, it was not until 1605 that astronomer Johannes Kepler gave a scientific description of a total solar eclipse.
More than a century later, Edmund Halley, who the famous Halley's comet is named after, predicted the timing and path of the total solar eclipse on May 3, 1715. His calculations were only 4 minutes and about 30 km (18 mi) off from the actual timing and path of the eclipse.
Ok you won't accept the explanation for how this works on a round earth. Explain how it works on a flat one.Which bit of "The moon is not casting a shadow 24 times smaller than itself is causing you a problem?
The only one claiming that is you, and you're wrong. Measure the shadow, you'll find it's entirely consistent with the moon's diameter. The line on Google Earth there is the diameter of the moon. Compare it with the complete shadow.
(http://i.imgur.com/BGHHe1I.jpg)
The photo I provided was to demonstrate that a solid object does not need to have a solid shadow. You continue to fail to comprehend what is being shown to you. If you think my model is flawed, do your own.
Oh, and I guess you're conceding that the shadow is going in the right direction.
You are incorrect yet again.
Sorry to have to tell you this but Google earth is not real it is CGI.
;D
It says here the Eclispe totality is only 70 miles.
https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/7/25/15925410/total-solar-eclipse-2017-explained
The eclipse is caused by the Moon passing between the Earth and the Sun so the Shadow should be much greater in size than the Moon as on your model the Moon is some 200000 miles away and the Sun is millions of miles away from that.
Your model does not match reality and as such is false.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
That is irrelevant.
The Ancient Chinese could predict eclipses on their Flat model.
https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/solar-eclipse-history.html
I believe the Heliocentric's have retrofitted their mathematics to work with the Ancient Chinese/ Babylonian Flat Model.
Did you actually read any of the article in that link?QuoteAlthough early eclipse pioneers, including Chinese astronomer Liu Hsiang, Greek philosopher Plutarch, and Byzantine historian Leo Diaconus tried to describe and explain solar eclipses and their features, it was not until 1605 that astronomer Johannes Kepler gave a scientific description of a total solar eclipse.
More than a century later, Edmund Halley, who the famous Halley's comet is named after, predicted the timing and path of the total solar eclipse on May 3, 1715. His calculations were only 4 minutes and about 30 km (18 mi) off from the actual timing and path of the eclipse.
I wonder what model Kepler and Halley used?
You still haven't answered how the eclipse itself works on a flat earth. Why do you keep dodging this question?
That is irrelevant.
The Ancient Chinese could predict eclipses on their Flat model.
https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/solar-eclipse-history.html
I believe the Heliocentric's have retrofitted their mathematics to work with the Ancient Chinese/ Babylonian Flat Model.
Did you actually read any of the article in that link?QuoteAlthough early eclipse pioneers, including Chinese astronomer Liu Hsiang, Greek philosopher Plutarch, and Byzantine historian Leo Diaconus tried to describe and explain solar eclipses and their features, it was not until 1605 that astronomer Johannes Kepler gave a scientific description of a total solar eclipse.
More than a century later, Edmund Halley, who the famous Halley's comet is named after, predicted the timing and path of the total solar eclipse on May 3, 1715. His calculations were only 4 minutes and about 30 km (18 mi) off from the actual timing and path of the eclipse.
I wonder what model Kepler and Halley used?
OK try this one.
https://explorable.com/chinese-astronomy
As it says a false prediction was punishable by death.
The Chinese where accurately predicting eclispes when westerners where still living in caves ; sharing their women and having sex with apes.
Like I said the Heliocentric's have retrofitted their mathematics to fit the ancient Chinese /Babylonian flat model.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
OK try this one.
https://explorable.com/chinese-astronomy
As it says a false prediction was punishable by death.
The Chinese where accurately predicting eclispes when westerners where still living in caves ; sharing their women and having sex with apes.
Like I said the Heliocentric's have retrofitted their mathematics to fit the ancient Chinese /Babylonian flat model.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
RIFQuote
OK try this one.
https://explorable.com/chinese-astronomy
As it says a false prediction was punishable by death.
The Chinese where accurately predicting eclispes when westerners where still living in caves ; sharing their women and having sex with apes.
Like I said the Heliocentric's have retrofitted their mathematics to fit the ancient Chinese /Babylonian flat model.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Interesting article. It doesn't say they were using a flat earth model though and states they were more interested in observation and record keeping rather than developing theories and models. The eclipses they were trying to predict were lunar rather than solar. As the earth is so much larger than the moon I guess this would not require so much accuracy.
Can you link to any working FE model for predicting eclipses? This surely must exist if heliocentrics have "retrofitted" their mathematics.
You still haven't answered how the eclipse itself works on a flat earth. Why do you keep dodging this question?
That is irrelevant.
The Ancient Chinese could predict eclipses on their Flat model.
https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/solar-eclipse-history.html
I believe the Heliocentric's have retrofitted their mathematics to work with the Ancient Chinese/ Babylonian Flat Model.
Did you actually read any of the article in that link?QuoteAlthough early eclipse pioneers, including Chinese astronomer Liu Hsiang, Greek philosopher Plutarch, and Byzantine historian Leo Diaconus tried to describe and explain solar eclipses and their features, it was not until 1605 that astronomer Johannes Kepler gave a scientific description of a total solar eclipse.
More than a century later, Edmund Halley, who the famous Halley's comet is named after, predicted the timing and path of the total solar eclipse on May 3, 1715. His calculations were only 4 minutes and about 30 km (18 mi) off from the actual timing and path of the eclipse.
I wonder what model Kepler and Halley used?
OK try this one.
https://explorable.com/chinese-astronomy
As it says a false prediction was punishable by death.
The Chinese where accurately predicting eclispes when westerners where still living in caves ; sharing their women and having sex with apes.
Like I said the Heliocentric's have retrofitted their mathematics to fit the ancient Chinese /Babylonian flat model.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
I apologize for the missing link but here it is. All the equations, assumptions, data tables, paths of totality, etc. is contained in the document.Thanks for posting vids RIF. How about you REtards explain why the the moon is casting such a small shadow during the eclipse.That's easy to explain. And you can test it in your own backyard. Take a ball outside, draw a circle of the same diameter as the ball on anything, and try to get that shadow to fit into that circle.
Further, this link has all the data tables and equations that accurately predict eclipses for the next thousand years. It will predict the path and width of totality. If you could debunk this you'd have all the ammo you need.
Mike
More of your nonsense ::)
It is impossible for an objects shadow to be 24 times smaller than the object.
Your Heliocentric model is even more ridiculous because the Moon is 200000 miles away from the Earth on your heliocentric model.
How does an object 200000 miles away cast a shadow that is some 24 times smaller than itself.
Lol......
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
So no you can't show how it would work on a flat earth. Ok.You still haven't answered how the eclipse itself works on a flat earth. Why do you keep dodging this question?
That is irrelevant.
The Ancient Chinese could predict eclipses on their Flat model.
https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/solar-eclipse-history.html
I believe the Heliocentric's have retrofitted their mathematics to work with the Ancient Chinese/ Babylonian Flat Model.
Did you actually read any of the article in that link?QuoteAlthough early eclipse pioneers, including Chinese astronomer Liu Hsiang, Greek philosopher Plutarch, and Byzantine historian Leo Diaconus tried to describe and explain solar eclipses and their features, it was not until 1605 that astronomer Johannes Kepler gave a scientific description of a total solar eclipse.
More than a century later, Edmund Halley, who the famous Halley's comet is named after, predicted the timing and path of the total solar eclipse on May 3, 1715. His calculations were only 4 minutes and about 30 km (18 mi) off from the actual timing and path of the eclipse.
I wonder what model Kepler and Halley used?
OK try this one.
https://explorable.com/chinese-astronomy
As it says a false prediction was punishable by death.
The Chinese where accurately predicting eclispes when westerners where still living in caves ; sharing their women and having sex with apes.
Like I said the Heliocentric's have retrofitted their mathematics to fit the ancient Chinese /Babylonian flat model.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
It is irrelevant if I answer your question or not this thread is called Eclispe on 21.08.17 will debunk the Globe "NOT"
Solar Eclipses on Flat Earth explained .
I suggest you do your own research.
I have proved that the Solar Eclispe on the 21.08.17 will debunk your Heliocentric Globe model.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile link=topic=71435.msg1938895#msg1938895
How does an object 200000 miles away cast a shadow that is some 24 times smaller than itself.
Because the object causing it to cast the shadow is much bigger.
It's really not difficult.
Incorrect.
It is ridiculous that you expect people to believe that the Moon which is allegedly 200000 miles away can cast a shadow that is " 24 " times smaller than the moon .
<description of a poorly-designed experiment>
Does your tennis ball cast a shadow that is 24 times smaller than the tennis ball on your football.
The soccer ball used in professional leagues and in the FIFA World Cup is called “size 5”. The following are the specifications of an official size 5 soccer ball:
Circumference: 27 to 28 inches (69 to 71 cm)
...
Kids’ & youth soccer ball circumference
U-6, U-7, & U-8: Size 3 is the official soccer ball for toddlers and young children. It has a circumference of 23-24 inches... Size 3 is the smallest official ball.
U-9, U-10, & U-11: Size 4 is the standard soccer ball for kids aged between nine and 11 years old. It has a circumference of 25-26 inches...
Does the shadow on your football move in the opposite direction to your tennis ball you should pay particular attention to the fact that the Sun light source is 50 m directly behind your tennis ball.
I will save you the time in performing this experiment.
The conclusion is No No and No your heliocentric model is ridiculous and doesn't match reality.
Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile link=topic=71435.msg1938895#msg1938895
How does an object 200000 miles away cast a shadow that is some 24 times smaller than itself.
Because the object causing it to cast the shadow is much bigger.
It's really not difficult.
Incorrect.
It is ridiculous that you expect people to believe that the Moon which is allegedly 200000 miles away can cast a shadow that is " 24 " times smaller than the moon .
Why the " quote marks " around 24, and why the extra space before the period ?
The moon is roughly 240,000 miles from earth. If you're going to demand people do things to scale, might as well get the dimensions right.
You certainly seem to work extra hard to avoid understanding this even though it's a relatively simple concept.Quote
<description of a poorly-designed experiment>
Does your tennis ball cast a shadow that is 24 times smaller than the tennis ball on your football.
Let's see. According to your recipe:
You will need a light source that ... is the same size as the average house
You will need a child size football (soccer ball for yanks)
You will need a tennis ball
Now, since "the same size as the average house" is kind of vague, and there is more than one definition of a "child size foorball", that leaves us with the tennis ball as a scale. The diameter of a tennis ball (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennis_ball#Specifications) is about 6.7 cm. Since the moon's diameter is about 27% the earth's diameter, to the same scale, earth would need to be just under 25 cm diameter. Now, soccer ball sizes are officially specified by circumference in inches, so, for our scaled earth, circumference is 78 cm, or 30.7 inches. A regulation-size ball for professional play is smaller than that.Quote from: https://www.football-bible.com/soccer-info/soccer-ball-sizes.htmlThe soccer ball used in professional leagues and in the FIFA World Cup is called “size 5”. The following are the specifications of an official size 5 soccer ball:
Circumference: 27 to 28 inches (69 to 71 cm)
...
Kids’ & youth soccer ball circumference
U-6, U-7, & U-8: Size 3 is the official soccer ball for toddlers and young children. It has a circumference of 23-24 inches... Size 3 is the smallest official ball.
U-9, U-10, & U-11: Size 4 is the standard soccer ball for kids aged between nine and 11 years old. It has a circumference of 25-26 inches...
I'm not sure why you specifically call for a child's ball, but that seems to be incorrect if you want to maintain scale.
Anyway, the sun's diameter is approximately 109 times greater than earth's, so your sun should be about 27 meters across (25 cm * 109 = 2700 cm). That's a pretty big house!
Anyway, continuing...
Place your tennis ball 50 m or 60 yards away from your Sun.
Place your child size football 1 m or 1.1 yards away from your tennis ball.
The distance from earth to moon is roughly 30 times the diameter of the earth, so our scaled moon should be 7.5 meters from the earth to match the scale. How did you come up with 1 meter? Similarly, the sun is about 375 times as far from the earth as the moon is, not the 51 times you call for.
Even though your proposal is obviously sloppily designed, let's continue with it, anyway. We will start by solving for the poorly-specified diameter of the sun based on the dimensions of your moon, the distances you provide, and the desired shadow size.
Diameter of the shadow (umbra, I presume) 1m away from our tennis-ball moon is "24 times smaller" than the tennis ball, so 1m is the distance from the tennis ball to 1/24 of the way from the end of its umbra, or 23/24 of the length of the umbra.
This means the umbra ends at a distance:
d = 1m / (23/24)
= 24 * 1m / 23
d = 1.043m
This means that the tennis ball exactly obscures our scaled sun 1.043 meters on the far side of the tennis ball. So how big must the sun be at this scale?
The sun is (50m + 1.043m)/1.043m = 48.9 times times as far away from the end of the umbra as the tennis ball is, so it must be 48.9 times times larger than the tennis ball.
Dsun = 48.9 * 6.7 cm
= 328 cm
Dsun = 3.3m
3.3 meters across is a pretty small house.Quote
Does the shadow on your football move in the opposite direction to your tennis ball you should pay particular attention to the fact that the Sun light source is 50 m directly behind your tennis ball.
That distance isn't really long enough, but the shadow moves in the same direction as the tennis ball. If the linear movements are done to scale and the correct direction, the shadow moves from right to left (ccw about the soccer ball, as viewed from above) faster than a point on the surface of the soccer ball rotates ccw about the center, also from right to left by about a factor of two, so the shadow would move across the surface from west to east, exactly as expected.QuoteI will save you the time in performing this experiment.
Good idea! It terribly flawed and won't work at all as designed.QuoteThe conclusion is No No and No your heliocentric model is ridiculous and doesn't match reality.
No, it's much simpler than that. Your understanding doesn't match reality.
That post was a joke ::)This should help you figure out the direction the moon and it's shadow travel. No magic just basic trigonometry and relative motion.
I was making fun at just how ridiculous your Heliocentric model is.
It is impossible for the Moon's shadow to move the opposite way to the Moon itself when the earth's angular velocity is allegedly 27 times greater than the Moon's alleged actual velocity.
It is impossible for any object to cast a shadow 24 times smaller than itself.
THE END.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
I apologize for the missing link but here it is. All the equations, assumptions, data tables, paths of totality, etc. is contained in the document.Thanks for posting vids RIF. How about you REtards explain why the the moon is casting such a small shadow during the eclipse.That's easy to explain. And you can test it in your own backyard. Take a ball outside, draw a circle of the same diameter as the ball on anything, and try to get that shadow to fit into that circle.
Further, this link has all the data tables and equations that accurately predict eclipses for the next thousand years. It will predict the path and width of totality. If you could debunk this you'd have all the ammo you need.
Mike
More of your nonsense ::)
It is impossible for an objects shadow to be 24 times smaller than the object.
Your Heliocentric model is even more ridiculous because the Moon is 200000 miles away from the Earth on your heliocentric model.
How does an object 200000 miles away cast a shadow that is some 24 times smaller than itself.
Lol......
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
You may want to call it nonsense but it all works and is based on a spherical/celestial coordinate system. It fits all past observations and accurately predicts future event for the next thousand years.
BTW, you can actually test this outside. All you need is a ball, a piece of paper with a circle the same diameter as the ball, and a nice sunny day. Try to fill the circle with the shadow of the ball. Unless you put it in contact with the surface you can't do it. You can actually calculate the shadow size based on the size of the moon, the size of the sun, and it's and it's distance from the earth. It's not magic just simple math and a basic understanding of optics you can get from any high school text book. Umbra & Penumbra! You can't change or ignore the laws physics just to suit your views.
https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/5MCLE/5MKLE-214173.pdf
Mike
irrelevant!R.i.FThat is irrelevant.
Do you accept that there will be an eclipse on august 21st?
If yes, how do you think we know, and how were the path, shadow width, timings etc calculated?
I've spent lots of dosh on flights, car hire, campsites in Wyoming etc so I jolly well hope they've got it right!
The Ancient Chinese could predict eclipses on their Flat model.
https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/solar-eclipse-history.html
| (https://www.dropbox.com/s/3oimjvxqs2d3bix/Off%20with%20their%20heads.jpeg?dl=1) Off with their heads! | Quote Predicting the Emperor's Future |
I believe the Heliocentric's have retrofitted their mathematics to work with the Ancient Chinese/ Babylonian Flat Model.And you believe incorrectly, but even if it were,
That post was a joke ::)This should help you figure out the direction the moon and it's shadow travel. No magic just basic trigonometry and relative motion.
I was making fun at just how ridiculous your Heliocentric model is.
It is impossible for the Moon's shadow to move the opposite way to the Moon itself when the earth's angular velocity is allegedly 27 times greater than the Moon's alleged actual velocity.
It is impossible for any object to cast a shadow 24 times smaller than itself.
THE END.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Further, see my previous post. It will straighten out your misconceptions on the size of the moons shadow.
Mike
I guess the laws of physics are different in your universe. So you’re unable to refute anything I’ve posted so you’ll just throw up some youtube videos. The first is all opinion and conjecture without a single support analytical method to, well...show anything.I apologize for the missing link but here it is. All the equations, assumptions, data tables, paths of totality, etc. is contained in the document.
You may want to call it nonsense but it all works and is based on a spherical/celestial coordinate system. It fits all past observations and accurately predicts future event for the next thousand years.
BTW, you can actually test this outside. All you need is a ball, a piece of paper with a circle the same diameter as the ball, and a nice sunny day. Try to fill the circle with the shadow of the ball. Unless you put it in contact with the surface you can't do it. You can actually calculate the shadow size based on the size of the moon, the size of the sun, and it's and it's distance from the earth. It's not magic just simple math and a basic understanding of optics you can get from any high school text book. Umbra & Penumbra! You can't change or ignore the laws physics just to suit your views.
https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/5MCLE/5MKLE-214173.pdf
Mike
It seems you Heliocentrics know no bounds when it come to defending your religion.
What absolute nonsense.
I hope this link helps you to understand how shadows work.
http://www.peachpit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=486505&seqNum=4
I hope this video helps you understand how shadows work.
As you will probobly have trouble comprehending that videoand the website I linked I will link this one that is for children.
You should pay particular attention to how the mandarins shadow increases in size the further it is moved away from the surface it's shadow is projected on.
Can you now please explain to me how the Moon can cast a shadow that is some 24 times smaller than itself.
According to the laws of physics this is impossible.
As your Heliocentric model doesn't match reality and true verified science it must be FALSE.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
I guess the laws of physics are different in your universe. So you’re unable to refute anything I’ve posted so you’ll just throw up some youtube videos. The first is all opinion and conjecture without a single support analytical method to, well...show anything.I apologize for the missing link but here it is. All the equations, assumptions, data tables, paths of totality, etc. is contained in the document.
You may want to call it nonsense but it all works and is based on a spherical/celestial coordinate system. It fits all past observations and accurately predicts future event for the next thousand years.
BTW, you can actually test this outside. All you need is a ball, a piece of paper with a circle the same diameter as the ball, and a nice sunny day. Try to fill the circle with the shadow of the ball. Unless you put it in contact with the surface you can't do it. You can actually calculate the shadow size based on the size of the moon, the size of the sun, and it's and it's distance from the earth. It's not magic just simple math and a basic understanding of optics you can get from any high school text book. Umbra & Penumbra! You can't change or ignore the laws physics just to suit your views.
https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/5MCLE/5MKLE-214173.pdf
Mike
It seems you Heliocentrics know no bounds when it come to defending your religion.
What absolute nonsense.
I hope this link helps you to understand how shadows work.
http://www.peachpit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=486505&seqNum=4
I hope this video helps you understand how shadows work.
As you will probobly have trouble comprehending that videoand the website I linked I will link this one that is for children.
You should pay particular attention to how the mandarins shadow increases in size the further it is moved away from the surface it's shadow is projected on.
Can you now please explain to me how the Moon can cast a shadow that is some 24 times smaller than itself.
According to the laws of physics this is impossible.
As your Heliocentric model doesn't match reality and true verified science it must be FALSE.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
The second video where child is being home schooled...interesting. If you actually watched it you'd notice the shadow is smaller than the orange with a diffuse shadow area around the dark shadow. Kinda like the description of the moon shadow.
I’ve provided you with a link to all the math and data. All you had to do was show why it doesn’t work.
I provided you with an easy experiment. One that, if you’re right should disprove, will disprove the moon shadow size so why are you afraid to try it?
You seem to just dismiss everything without even attempting to debunk it. You provide links to other peoples junk science without citing any real physics or math in support. Not much of an actual discussion. What's factually incorrect with what I posted? How about we start there.
Mike
You guys should know by now that debating with Ignorance.is.Bliss is in fact futile... :-\
You guys should know by now that debating with Ignorance.is.Bliss is in fact futile... :-\
<snip>This statement is false. AAMOF, I provided you with a link.
All you and your brethren have to offer is contradictory videos and explanations in a desperate attempt to try and get your model to work.
<snip>
You have claimed a great many things but you have shown nothing.I guess the laws of physics are different in your universe. So you’re unable to refute anything I’ve posted so you’ll just throw up some youtube videos. The first is all opinion and conjecture without a single support analytical method to, well...show anything.I apologize for the missing link but here it is. All the equations, assumptions, data tables, paths of totality, etc. is contained in the document.
You may want to call it nonsense but it all works and is based on a spherical/celestial coordinate system. It fits all past observations and accurately predicts future event for the next thousand years.
BTW, you can actually test this outside. All you need is a ball, a piece of paper with a circle the same diameter as the ball, and a nice sunny day. Try to fill the circle with the shadow of the ball. Unless you put it in contact with the surface you can't do it. You can actually calculate the shadow size based on the size of the moon, the size of the sun, and it's and it's distance from the earth. It's not magic just simple math and a basic understanding of optics you can get from any high school text book. Umbra & Penumbra! You can't change or ignore the laws physics just to suit your views.
https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/5MCLE/5MKLE-214173.pdf
Mike
It seems you Heliocentrics know no bounds when it come to defending your religion.
What absolute nonsense.
I hope this link helps you to understand how shadows work.
http://www.peachpit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=486505&seqNum=4
I hope this video helps you understand how shadows work.
As you will probobly have trouble comprehending that videoand the website I linked I will link this one that is for children.
You should pay particular attention to how the mandarins shadow increases in size the further it is moved away from the surface it's shadow is projected on.
Can you now please explain to me how the Moon can cast a shadow that is some 24 times smaller than itself.
According to the laws of physics this is impossible.
As your Heliocentric model doesn't match reality and true verified science it must be FALSE.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
The second video where child is being home schooled...interesting. If you actually watched it you'd notice the shadow is smaller than the orange with a diffuse shadow area around the dark shadow. Kinda like the description of the moon shadow.
I’ve provided you with a link to all the math and data. All you had to do was show why it doesn’t work.
I provided you with an easy experiment. One that, if you’re right should disprove, will disprove the moon shadow size so why are you afraid to try it?
You seem to just dismiss everything without even attempting to debunk it. You provide links to other peoples junk science without citing any real physics or math in support. Not much of an actual discussion. What's factually incorrect with what I posted? How about we start there.
Mike
How about showing us how the eclipse works in your model?
You live in delusion.
The child's video debunked your home experiment.
I have explained numerous times how the earth's alleged angular velocity is greater than the Moon's alleged actual velocity.
I have explained how this can be verified as the Moon rises in the East everyday and sets in the west every day.
I have also explained that if the Moon's actual velocity was greater than the Earth's angular velocity that the moon would rise in the West and set in the East.
I have also explained that if this was the case the Moon would have to orbit the earth more than once a day not the 27 day orbit that your heliocentric model claims.
I have explained how the earth's rotational velocity does not determine what we see in the sky ;
I even gave an example that can be verified which was the north pole where the alleged rotational velocity is negligible the luminaries still do a full rotation everyday.
I have explained how shadows work .
I have given a child's video as an example to prove that it is impossible for any object to project a shadow that is 24 times smaller than itself on another object as the Moon allegedly will do on the 21.08.17 on your false heliocentric model regarding the upcoming solar eclispe.
I have explained how it is impossible for the moon to project it's shadow in the opposite direction to what it moves in the sky as the sun is relatively stationary to the earth so the moon's shadow will have to be directly under the moon as the eclispe is caused when the moon passes between the Sun and the Earth.
I have debunked your Globe model regarding the Solar Eclispe in every aspect possible.
You are not fooling anyone with your nonsense that goes against the laws of real verified physics and explanations and videos that contradict your heliocentric model.
The readers will make their own minds up.
All you and your brethren have to offer is contradictory videos and explanations in a desperate attempt to try and get your model to work.
It does not work.
The End.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
<snip>This statement is false. AAMOF, I provided you with a link.
All you and your brethren have to offer is contradictory videos and explanations in a desperate attempt to try and get your model to work.
<snip>
A link that contained every assumption, data, and complete analytical solution to a heliocentric model of eclipses.
A link that to a document that if debunked would be the Holy Grail to Flat Earth Theory.
A chance to show that the heliocentric model does not and cannot work as described.
So, I have to wonder. Why would you completely ignore you chance to burn the heliocentric model to the ground?
https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/5MCLE/5MKLE-214173.pdf
Mike
You haven't burned anything to the ground. I haven't seen a single concrete fact, no analytical model, not even an single equation. Nothing the explains the observed solar/lunar eclipses. All I have I've seen on the subject of eclipses is conjecture and assumption. And, it seem to me that's all you bring to the discussion.<snip>This statement is false. AAMOF, I provided you with a link.
All you and your brethren have to offer is contradictory videos and explanations in a desperate attempt to try and get your model to work.
<snip>
A link that contained every assumption, data, and complete analytical solution to a heliocentric model of eclipses.
A link that to a document that if debunked would be the Holy Grail to Flat Earth Theory.
A chance to show that the heliocentric model does not and cannot work as described.
So, I have to wonder. Why would you completely ignore you chance to burn the heliocentric model to the ground?
https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/5MCLE/5MKLE-214173.pdf
Mike
I already have burned your Heliocentric model to the ground.
I have already debunked your heliocentric model.
It makes no difference to you Heliocentrics because you live a delusion.
To normal people it does make a difference .
After the upcoming solar eclipse don't be surprised when normal people will pass off everything your brethren say as fake news.
In the UK we have had various stories from the lesser newspapers regarding Alien life.
Guess what ?
Hardly anyone believes it apart from those weirdos who masterbate over NASA and the alleged Moon landings ect.
Telling a Heliocentric such as yourself that the Globe doesn't exist is like telling a child Santa doesn't exist shortly after they have just sat on his knee.
;D
Personally from the reaction of some of your brethren when confronted with the flat earth I would say they know the truth.
The readers can try this for themselves just see how they react and your suspicions will be verified.
The trouble for you and your brethren is:
People are easy to read.
I personally find heliocentric's easier to read as they consider themselves superior and underestimate the intelligence of others.
This attitude is what got you and your brethren here in the first place.
To most normal people it is telling that you Heliocentric's have been systematically manipulated from an early age and are quite simply just robots programmed to take orders.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is Finished.
<snip>This statement is false. AAMOF, I provided you with a link.
All you and your brethren have to offer is contradictory videos and explanations in a desperate attempt to try and get your model to work.
<snip>
A link that contained every assumption, data, and complete analytical solution to a heliocentric model of eclipses.
A link that to a document that if debunked would be the Holy Grail to Flat Earth Theory.
A chance to show that the heliocentric model does not and cannot work as described.
So, I have to wonder. Why would you completely ignore you chance to burn the heliocentric model to the ground?
https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/5MCLE/5MKLE-214173.pdf
Mike
I already have burned your Heliocentric model to the ground.
I have already debunked your heliocentric model.
It makes no difference to you Heliocentrics because you live a delusion.
To normal people it does make a difference .
After the upcoming solar eclipse don't be surprised when normal people will pass off everything your brethren say as fake news.
In the UK we have had various stories from the lesser newspapers regarding Alien life.
Guess what ?
Hardly anyone believes it apart from those weirdos who masterbate over NASA and the alleged Moon landings ect.
Telling a Heliocentric such as yourself that the Globe doesn't exist is like telling a child Santa doesn't exist shortly after they have just sat on his knee.
;D
Personally from the reaction of some of your brethren when confronted with the flat earth I would say they know the truth.
The readers can try this for themselves just see how they react and your suspicions will be verified.
The trouble for you and your brethren is:
People are easy to read.
I personally find heliocentric's easier to read as they consider themselves superior and underestimate the intelligence of others.
This attitude is what got you and your brethren here in the first place.
To most normal people it is telling that you Heliocentric's have been systematically manipulated from an early age and are quite simply just robots programmed to take orders.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is Finished.
I already have burned your Heliocentric model to the ground.No, you have only debunked your alleged understanding of the heliocentric model.
I have already debunked your heliocentric model.
You Heliocentrics are fooling no one with your nonsense and contradictory explanations.
Here are the two videos.
I suggest you watch them again.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
You Heliocentrics are fooling no one with your nonsense and contradictory explanations.
Here are the two videos.
I suggest you watch them again.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Yeah, they're still crap and reveal all the same intellectual restrictions that afflict you.
Nope. The only shadow movement on the heliocentric reality that makes sense is West to East. It's both predictable and perfectly understandable to those with brains.
You Heliocentrics are fooling no one with your nonsense and contradictory explanations.So you got nothin'
Here are the two videos.
I suggest you watch them again. ;)
You Heliocentrics will never accept the truth .
The readers will make their own minds up.
The more you talk nonsense and contradict yourselves the weaker your model becomes.
Thank you for your help.
Keep up the good work!
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
You Heliocentrics are fooling no one with your nonsense and contradictory explanations.
Here are the two videos.
I suggest you watch them again.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Yeah, they're still crap and reveal all the same intellectual restrictions that afflict you.
Nope. The only shadow movement on the heliocentric reality that makes sense is West to East. It's both predictable and perfectly understandable to those with brains.
Lol.
A shadow that moves in the opposite direction to the object casting it when the light source is stationary.
Carry on please.
Lol.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
You Heliocentrics are fooling no one with your nonsense and contradictory explanations.
Here are the two videos.
I suggest you watch them again.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Yeah, they're still crap and reveal all the same intellectual restrictions that afflict you.
Nope. The only shadow movement on the heliocentric reality that makes sense is West to East. It's both predictable and perfectly understandable to those with brains.
Lol.
A shadow that moves in the opposite direction to the object casting it when the light source is stationary.
Carry on please.
Lol.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Lol
Fool doesn't even know which direction the moon is moving in front of the sun.
;D ;D ;D
Lol
I tried to point that out earlier but he didn't seem to notice or maybe he didn't care.You Heliocentrics are fooling no one with your nonsense and contradictory explanations.
Here are the two videos.
I suggest you watch them again.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Yeah, they're still crap and reveal all the same intellectual restrictions that afflict you.
Nope. The only shadow movement on the heliocentric reality that makes sense is West to East. It's both predictable and perfectly understandable to those with brains.
Lol.
A shadow that moves in the opposite direction to the object casting it when the light source is stationary.
Carry on please.
Lol.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Lol
Fool doesn't even know which direction the moon is moving in front of the sun.
;D ;D ;D
Lol
You Heliocentrics are fooling no one with your nonsense and contradictory explanations.
Here are the two videos.
I suggest you watch them again.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Yeah, they're still crap and reveal all the same intellectual restrictions that afflict you.
Nope. The only shadow movement on the heliocentric reality that makes sense is West to East. It's both predictable and perfectly understandable to those with brains.
Lol.
A shadow that moves in the opposite direction to the object casting it when the light source is stationary.
Carry on please.
Lol.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Lol
Fool doesn't even know which direction the moon is moving in front of the sun.
;D ;D ;D
Lol
What are you talking about?
The earth's angular velocity is 27 times greater than the Moon's actual velocity this is why the moon rises in the east and sets in the west.
The moon's shadow on the 21.08.17 solar eclispe will move west to east across the earth which is the opposite direction to the moon anyone can verify this no cgi needed.
;D
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
I tried to point that out earlier but he didn't seem to notice or maybe he didn't care.You Heliocentrics are fooling no one with your nonsense and contradictory explanations.
Here are the two videos.
I suggest you watch them again.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Yeah, they're still crap and reveal all the same intellectual restrictions that afflict you.
Nope. The only shadow movement on the heliocentric reality that makes sense is West to East. It's both predictable and perfectly understandable to those with brains.
Lol.
A shadow that moves in the opposite direction to the object casting it when the light source is stationary.
Carry on please.
Lol.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Lol
Fool doesn't even know which direction the moon is moving in front of the sun.
;D ;D ;D
Lol
Mike
You Heliocentrics are fooling no one with your nonsense and contradictory explanations.
Here are the two videos.
I suggest you watch them again.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Yeah, they're still crap and reveal all the same intellectual restrictions that afflict you.
Nope. The only shadow movement on the heliocentric reality that makes sense is West to East. It's both predictable and perfectly understandable to those with brains.
Lol.
A shadow that moves in the opposite direction to the object casting it when the light source is stationary.
Carry on please.
Lol.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Lol
Fool doesn't even know which direction the moon is moving in front of the sun.
;D ;D ;D
Lol
I tried to point that out earlier but he didn't seem to notice or maybe he didn't care.You Heliocentrics are fooling no one with your nonsense and contradictory explanations.
Here are the two videos.
I suggest you watch them again.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Yeah, they're still crap and reveal all the same intellectual restrictions that afflict you.
Nope. The only shadow movement on the heliocentric reality that makes sense is West to East. It's both predictable and perfectly understandable to those with brains.
Lol.
A shadow that moves in the opposite direction to the object casting it when the light source is stationary.
Carry on please.
Lol.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Lol
Fool doesn't even know which direction the moon is moving in front of the sun.
;D ;D ;D
Lol
Mike
You Heliocentrics are fooling no one with your nonsense and contradictory explanations.
Here are the two videos.
I suggest you watch them again.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Yeah, they're still crap and reveal all the same intellectual restrictions that afflict you.
Nope. The only shadow movement on the heliocentric reality that makes sense is West to East. It's both predictable and perfectly understandable to those with brains.
Lol.
A shadow that moves in the opposite direction to the object casting it when the light source is stationary.
Carry on please.
Lol.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Lol
Fool doesn't even know which direction the moon is moving in front of the sun.
;D ;D ;D
Lol
What are you talking about?
The earth's angular velocity is 27 times greater than the Moon's actual velocity this is why the moon rises in the east and sets in the west.
The moon's shadow on the 21.08.17 solar eclispe will move west to east across the earth which is the opposite direction to the moon anyone can verify this no cgi needed.
;D
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Yes, yes, yes, as you've repeated as naseum this thread, constantly revealing you still can't get your little brain around the difference between the moon's angular velocity and its linear velocity and direction.
Your strange flattard religion is false.
Nope. It rises in the east and sets in the west. However, the moon orbits in the same direction as the rotation of the earth.I tried to point that out earlier but he didn't seem to notice or maybe he didn't care.You Heliocentrics are fooling no one with your nonsense and contradictory explanations.
Here are the two videos.
I suggest you watch them again.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Yeah, they're still crap and reveal all the same intellectual restrictions that afflict you.
Nope. The only shadow movement on the heliocentric reality that makes sense is West to East. It's both predictable and perfectly understandable to those with brains.
Lol.
A shadow that moves in the opposite direction to the object casting it when the light source is stationary.
Carry on please.
Lol.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Lol
Fool doesn't even know which direction the moon is moving in front of the sun.
;D ;D ;D
Lol
MikeYou Heliocentrics are fooling no one with your nonsense and contradictory explanations.
Here are the two videos.
I suggest you watch them again.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Yeah, they're still crap and reveal all the same intellectual restrictions that afflict you.
Nope. The only shadow movement on the heliocentric reality that makes sense is West to East. It's both predictable and perfectly understandable to those with brains.
Lol.
A shadow that moves in the opposite direction to the object casting it when the light source is stationary.
Carry on please.
Lol.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Lol
Fool doesn't even know which direction the moon is moving in front of the sun.
;D ;D ;D
Lol
What are you talking about?
Are you trying to tell me the moon rises in the west and sets in the east.?
The earth's angular velocity is 27 times greater than the Moon's actual velocity this is why the moon rises in the east and sets in the west.
The moon's shadow on the 21.08.17 solar eclispe will move west to east across the earth which is the opposite direction to the moon anyone can verify this no cgi needed.
;D
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
You Heliocentrics are fooling no one with your nonsense and contradictory explanations.
Here are the two videos.
I suggest you watch them again.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Yeah, they're still crap and reveal all the same intellectual restrictions that afflict you.
Nope. The only shadow movement on the heliocentric reality that makes sense is West to East. It's both predictable and perfectly understandable to those with brains.
Lol.
A shadow that moves in the opposite direction to the object casting it when the light source is stationary.
Carry on please.
Lol.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Lol
Fool doesn't even know which direction the moon is moving in front of the sun.
;D ;D ;D
Lol
What are you talking about?
The earth's angular velocity is 27 times greater than the Moon's actual velocity this is why the moon rises in the east and sets in the west.
The moon's shadow on the 21.08.17 solar eclispe will move west to east across the earth which is the opposite direction to the moon anyone can verify this no cgi needed.
;D
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Yes, yes, yes, as you've repeated as naseum this thread, constantly revealing you still can't get your little brain around the difference between the moon's angular velocity and its linear velocity and direction.
Your strange flattard religion is false.
Stop talking nonsense.
Their is nothing to get my head around.
The moon takes 27 days to orbit the Earth.
FACT.
The moon rises and sets everyday.
The Earth's angular velocity is 27 times greater than the Moon's actual velocity.
This can be verified by watching the Moon rise in the east and set in the west.
It is impossible for the Moon to cast a shadow that is 24 times smaller than itself that travels in the opposite direction to itself.
It is you that can't understand the difference between angular velocity and actual velocity.
If the Moon's actual velocity is greater than the angular velocity of the earth then why does the moon rise in the east and set in the west is it magic.?
Lol.
Lol.
Thank you for your help ;)
The End.
The videos again ;)
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Nope. It rises in the east and sets in the west. However, the moon orbits in the same direction as the rotation of the earth.I tried to point that out earlier but he didn't seem to notice or maybe he didn't care.You Heliocentrics are fooling no one with your nonsense and contradictory explanations.
Here are the two videos.
I suggest you watch them again.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Yeah, they're still crap and reveal all the same intellectual restrictions that afflict you.
Nope. The only shadow movement on the heliocentric reality that makes sense is West to East. It's both predictable and perfectly understandable to those with brains.
Lol.
A shadow that moves in the opposite direction to the object casting it when the light source is stationary.
Carry on please.
Lol.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Lol
Fool doesn't even know which direction the moon is moving in front of the sun.
;D ;D ;D
Lol
MikeYou Heliocentrics are fooling no one with your nonsense and contradictory explanations.
Here are the two videos.
I suggest you watch them again.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Yeah, they're still crap and reveal all the same intellectual restrictions that afflict you.
Nope. The only shadow movement on the heliocentric reality that makes sense is West to East. It's both predictable and perfectly understandable to those with brains.
Lol.
A shadow that moves in the opposite direction to the object casting it when the light source is stationary.
Carry on please.
Lol.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Lol
Fool doesn't even know which direction the moon is moving in front of the sun.
;D ;D ;D
Lol
What are you talking about?
Are you trying to tell me the moon rises in the west and sets in the east.?
The earth's angular velocity is 27 times greater than the Moon's actual velocity this is why the moon rises in the east and sets in the west.
The moon's shadow on the 21.08.17 solar eclispe will move west to east across the earth which is the opposite direction to the moon anyone can verify this no cgi needed.
;D
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Mike
I cannot imagine anyone being so ignorant of the geometry of shadows you ever even think that!That post was a joke ::)
I was making fun at just how ridiculous your Heliocentric model is.
It is impossible for the Moon's shadow to move the opposite way to the Moon itself when the earth's angular velocity is allegedly 27 times greater than the Moon's alleged actual velocity.
It is impossible for any object to cast a shadow 24 times smaller than itself.
I haven't found the bit where "It claims the Earth's angular velocity is up to 79 times greater than the Moon's actual velocity".Quote from: MicroBetaNo, that video is nonsense and contradictory.
This should help you figure out the direction the moon and it's shadow travel. No magic just basic trigonometry and relative motion.Flat Earth: Eclipse Special, Sly Sparkane (http://)Further, see my previous post. It will straighten out your misconceptions on the size of the moons shadow.
Mike
It claims the Earth's angular velocity is up to 79 times greater than the Moon's actual velocity.
Then at the end it claims the Moon's velocity is greater than the Earth's angular velocity using a video from NASA .No it doesn't! You simply cannot compare the Moon's velocity with the Earth's angular velocity.
Everyone can verify that the earth's angular velocity is greater than the Moon's actual velocity as the Moon rises in the East and sets in the west every day.You cannot compare angular velocity with actual velocity - they are "different animals"!
Most people can verify that the Earth's actual rotational velocity does not determine what we see in the sky as in the north pole where the rotational velocity is negligible on your heliocentric model; the moon the sun and the stars still do a full rotation " EVERY DAY "Are you daft? It is the angular velocity that determines what we see "in the sky", but the moon's shadow is not something that is seen "in the sky"!
Your Heliocentric model does not match reality and as such is FALSE.So the Heliocentric Globe fits precisely what we see in reality!
For the 1000 time it is because the earth's angular velocity is 27 times greater than the Moon's actual velocity that the Moon rises in the east and sets in the west.NO! You simply cannot compare the earth's angular velocity with Moon's actual velocity - it is totally meaningless!
I cannot imagine anyone being so ignorant of the geometry of shadows you ever even think that!That post was a joke ::)
I was making fun at just how ridiculous your Heliocentric model is.
It is impossible for the Moon's shadow to move the opposite way to the Moon itself when the earth's angular velocity is allegedly 27 times greater than the Moon's alleged actual velocity.
It is impossible for any object to cast a shadow 24 times smaller than itself.
Look at this diagram:(https://www.dropbox.com/s/ojc6vktk196cvgh/Shadow%20sizes.png?dl=1)That should make it completely obvious that
- if the light source size is greater than the size of the object, then the umbra is smaller than the size of your object,
- if the light source size is equal in size to the object, then the umbra is equal in size to the object and
- if the light source size is less than the size of the object, then the umbra is greater than the size of the object.
I haven't found the bit where "It claims the Earth's angular velocity is up to 79 times greater than the Moon's actual velocity".Quote from: MicroBetaNo, that video is nonsense and contradictory.
This should help you figure out the direction the moon and it's shadow travel. No magic just basic trigonometry and relative motion.Flat Earth: Eclipse Special, Sly Sparkane (http://)Further, see my previous post. It will straighten out your misconceptions on the size of the moons shadow.
Mike
It claims the Earth's angular velocity is up to 79 times greater than the Moon's actual velocity.
Then at the end it claims the Moon's velocity is greater than the Earth's angular velocity using a video from NASA .No it doesn't! You simply cannot compare the Moon's velocity with the Earth's angular velocity.
Everyone can verify that the earth's angular velocity is greater than the Moon's actual velocity as the Moon rises in the East and sets in the west every day.You cannot compare angular velocity with actual velocity - they are "different animals"!
Most people can verify that the Earth's actual rotational velocity does not determine what we see in the sky as in the north pole where the rotational velocity is negligible on your heliocentric model; the moon the sun and the stars still do a full rotation " EVERY DAY "Are you daft? It is the angular velocity that determines what we see "in the sky", but the moon's shadow is not something that is seen "in the sky"!
Your Heliocentric model does not match reality and as such is FALSE.So the Heliocentric Globe fits precisely what we see in reality!
Yes just as I have said in previous posts many times and your point is........You have an issue with scale. None of that matters. You haven't shown anybody what's wrong with their info and haven't pro.....oh bother
For the 1000 time it is because the earth's angular velocity is 27 times greater than the Moon's actual velocity that the Moon rises in the east and sets in the west.
And as I have said as the Moon's shadow will move across the Earth from west to east and the moon moves across the earth from east to west the moon's shadow moves in the opposite direction to the moon.
Are you struggling to understand your own model ?
Thank you keep up the good work.
You can believe what you want it doesn' bother me what you believe.
The readers are capable of making their own minds up.
;)
The End.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Yes just as I have said in previous posts many times and your point is........You have an issue with scale. None of that matters. You haven't shown anybody what's wrong with their info and haven't pro.....oh bother
For the 1000 time it is because the earth's angular velocity is 27 times greater than the Moon's actual velocity that the Moon rises in the east and sets in the west.
And as I have said as the Moon's shadow will move across the Earth from west to east and the moon moves across the earth from east to west the moon's shadow moves in the opposite direction to the moon.
Are you struggling to understand your own model ?
Thank you keep up the good work.
You can believe what you want it doesn' bother me what you believe.
The readers are capable of making their own minds up.
;)
The End.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
The earth's angular velocity is 27 times greater than the angular velocity of the Moon'sFixed that for you.actual velocityangular velocity around the earth, this is why the moon rises in the east and sets in the west.
The moon's shadow on the 21.08.17 solar eclispe will move west to east across the earth which is the opposite direction to the moon anyone can verify this no cgi needed.The earth rotates at 1000 mph and the moon orbits the earth at 2300 mph.
;D
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.Your understanding of the heliocentric model is flawed.
The earth's angular velocity is 27 times greater than the angular velocity of the Moon'sFixed that for you.actual velocityangular velocity around the earth, this is why the moon rises in the east and sets in the west.The moon's shadow on the 21.08.17 solar eclispe will move west to east across the earth which is the opposite direction to the moon anyone can verify this no cgi needed.The earth rotates at 1000 mph and the moon orbits the earth at 2300 mph.
;DYour Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.Your understanding of the heliocentric model is flawed.
The moon on your model is 200000 miles away so its actual velocity is irrelevant.Incorrect. The actual velocity and angular velocity are intimately related.
Tho only thing that determines what we see in the sky on the Heliocentric model is the Earth's angular velocity.Except that the moon's shadow is being projected onto the earth, so what we see in the sky isn't necessarily relevant.
Are you claiming the moon rises in the west and sets in the east because the moon's actual velocity is greater than the rotational velocity of the Earth.No, that isn't what I'm claiming.
If not what is your point?My point is that some aspects of heliocentricity seem counter-intuitive, and this is one of them.
The conclusion is No No and No your heliocentric model is ridiculous and doesn't match reality.
No, it's much simpler than that. Your understanding doesn't match reality.
That post was a joke ::)
I was making fun at just how ridiculous your Heliocentric model is.
It is impossible for the Moon's shadow to move the opposite way to the Moon itself when the earth's angular velocity is allegedly 27 times greater than the Moon's alleged actual velocity.
It is impossible for any object to cast a shadow 24 times smaller than itself.
THE END.
The moon on your model is 200000 miles away so its actual velocity is irrelevant.Incorrect, the moon is not "200000 miles away " and Incorrect, "its actual velocity is" completely relevant.
Tho only thing that determines what we see in the sky on the Heliocentric model is the Earth's angular velocity.Totally incorrect again! It is the velocity of the shadow and the surface velocity of the earth that determine the apparent movement of the umbra shadow.
Are you claiming the moon rises in the west and sets in the east because the moon's actual velocity is greater than the rotational velocity of the Earth.No ,the moon rises in the east and sets in the west because the moon's angular velocity is less than the angular velocity of the Earth.
If not what is your point?The point is to try to hammer into your head that
<< We've seen that rubbish too many times, thanks! >>Those videos have been proven wrong numerous times but you will listen to no-one other than your
Why do you even argue with these trolls?:D :D :D And you don't like poking sticks into hornets nests? :D :D :D
The moon on your model is 200000 miles away so its actual velocity is irrelevant.Incorrect, the moon is not "200000 miles away " and Incorrect, "its actual velocity is" completely relevant.Quote from: Resistance.is.FutileTho only thing that determines what we see in the sky on the Heliocentric model is the Earth's angular velocity.Totally incorrect again! It is the velocity of the shadow and the surface velocity of the earth that determine the apparent movement of the umbra shadow.Quote from: Resistance.is.FutileAre you claiming the moon rises in the west and sets in the east because the moon's actual velocity is greater than the rotational velocity of the Earth.No ,the moon rises in the east and sets in the west because the moon's angular velocity is less than the angular velocity of the Earth.
It's so simple a child can understand it, but apparently not Mr Ignorance.is.Wonderful!Quote from: Resistance.is.FutileIf not what is your point?The point is to try to hammer into your head thatIt is the velocity of the shadow and the surface velocity of the earth that determine the apparent movement of the umbra shadow.Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile<< We've seen that rubbish too many times, thanks! >>Those videos have been proven wrong numerous times but you will listen to no-one other than yourHigh Priests of this stupid neo-Flat Earthism is Religion.You have proven over and over that your simply are not capable of any thoughts of own, outside your indoctrination.
What is your obsession with using angular velocity for Earth's rotation, and orbital velocity for moon's orbit? Earth rotates a little over a thousand mph at the equator. Less at the latitude the eclipse will be viewed at. The moon orbits at a little over 2000mph. So guess what speed the shadow moves across the surface.
So I will tell you again it is impossible ................
If you have all the answers then you should easily be able to show what exactly is "nonsense" with my link...or don't you actually know?I apologize for the missing link but here it is. All the equations, assumptions, data tables, paths of totality, etc. is contained in the document.Thanks for posting vids RIF. How about you REtards explain why the the moon is casting such a small shadow during the eclipse.That's easy to explain. And you can test it in your own backyard. Take a ball outside, draw a circle of the same diameter as the ball on anything, and try to get that shadow to fit into that circle.
Further, this link has all the data tables and equations that accurately predict eclipses for the next thousand years. It will predict the path and width of totality. If you could debunk this you'd have all the ammo you need.
Mike
More of your nonsense ::)
It is impossible for an objects shadow to be 24 times smaller than the object.
Your Heliocentric model is even more ridiculous because the Moon is 200000 miles away from the Earth on your heliocentric model.
How does an object 200000 miles away cast a shadow that is some 24 times smaller than itself.
Lol......
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
You may want to call it nonsense but it all works and is based on a spherical/celestial coordinate system. It fits all past observations and accurately predicts future event for the next thousand years.
BTW, you can actually test this outside. All you need is a ball, a piece of paper with a circle the same diameter as the ball, and a nice sunny day. Try to fill the circle with the shadow of the ball. Unless you put it in contact with the surface you can't do it. You can actually calculate the shadow size based on the size of the moon, the size of the sun, and it's and it's distance from the earth. It's not magic just simple math and a basic understanding of optics you can get from any high school text book. Umbra & Penumbra! You can't change or ignore the laws physics just to suit your views.
https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/5MCLE/5MKLE-214173.pdf
Mike
It seems you Heliocentrics know no bounds when it come to defending your religion.
What absolute nonsense.
I hope this link helps you to understand how shadows work.
http://www.peachpit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=486505&seqNum=4
I hope this video helps you understand how shadows work.
As you will probobly have trouble comprehending that videoand the website I linked I will link this one that is for children.
You should pay particular attention to how the mandarins shadow increases in size the further it is moved away from the surface it's shadow is projected on.
Can you now please explain to me how the Moon can cast a shadow that is some 24 times smaller than itself.
According to the laws of physics this is impossible.
As your Heliocentric model doesn't match reality and true verified science it must be FALSE.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
It is impossible for an objects shadow to move in the opposite direction to the said object when the light source is stationary.Maybe it is, but the shadow does move in the same direction as the moon moves, west to east.
The only way this would be possible on your model would be if the Sun was moving millions of miles in relation to the earth and did not maintain it's alleged position in the centre of the solar system.Incorrect!
https://www.quora.com/Is-the-sun-the-center-of-the-solar-system-Why:D :D No problem! :D :D
So I will tell you again it is impossible for the Solar Eclipse to move across the Earth west to East which is the opposite direction to the moon on your Heliocentric model.Tell me as many times as you like and you'll be still just as wrong!
Your Heliocentric model does not match reality as such your Heliocentric model is false.Nope! The (not my) Heliocentric Globe fits the observations very well, thank you.
It's quite hilarious that you, Mr Ignorance.is.Bliss can't understand something as simple as this,<<< Stop repeating that rubbish! An oft repeated untruth is still just as untrue! >>>
It is impossible for an objects shadow to move in the opposite direction to the said object when the light source is stationary.Maybe it is, but the shadow does move in the same direction as the moon moves, west to east.
But, the moon's appearing to rise in the east
is because the earth's angular velocity (one revolution per day, relative to the sun)
is greater the moon's angular velocity (one revolution per 29.531 days, relative to the sun).Quote from: Ignorance.is.BlissThe only way this would be possible on your model would be if the Sun was moving millions of miles in relation to the earth and did not maintain it's alleged position in the centre of the solar system.Incorrect!Quote from: Ignorance.is.Blisshttps://www.quora.com/Is-the-sun-the-center-of-the-solar-system-Why:D :D No problem! :D :DQuote from: Ignorance.is.BlissSo I will tell you again it is impossible for the Solar Eclipse to move across the Earth west to East which is the opposite direction to the moon on your Heliocentric model.Tell me as many times as you like and you'll be still just as wrong!Quote from: Ignorance.is.BlissYour Heliocentric model does not match reality as such your Heliocentric model is false.Nope! The (not my) Heliocentric Globe fits the observations very well, thank you.Quote from: Ignorance.is.BlissIt's quite hilarious that you, Mr Ignorance.is.Bliss can't understand something as simple as this,<<< Stop repeating that rubbish! An oft repeated untruth is still just as untrue! >>>when everyone else, incudling dutchy and jeranism seem to find the explanation quite reasonable.
Everybody has done their best to explain this to you, so if you can't understand it yet, you only have yourself to blame.
But, please, oh please, never decide that you think that the Heliocentric Globe is correct, it couldn't take it and would fall flat!
Yes, they will, won't they Mr Ignorance.is.Bliss, but I haven't see too many rushing to you aid.
The readers will make their own minds up ;)
Given that the prediction of a solar eclipse is supposedly impossible using the heliocentric model and a spherical earth and moon it's pretty amazing that they are predicted with incredible accuracy using exactly that model.
And once again, the moon's shadow is not 24 times smaller, it is exactly the right size, and you've even had pretty pictures illustrating why.
Your inability to use a signature is irritating.
Yes, they will, won't they Mr Ignorance.is.Bliss, but I haven't see too many rushing to you aid.Given that the prediction of a solar eclipse is supposedly impossible using the heliocentric model and a spherical earth and moon it's pretty amazing that they are predicted with incredible accuracy using exactly that model.
And once again, the moon's shadow is not 24 times smaller, it is exactly the right size, and you've even had pretty pictures illustrating why.
Your inability to use a signature is irritating.
The readers will make their own minds up ;)
So I will tell you again it is impossible for the Solar Eclipse to move across the Earth west to East which is the opposite direction to the moon on your Heliocentric model.Actually, the moon is orbiting the earth from west to east.
Still explaination of how it could work on a flat earth. Why is that?Given that the prediction of a solar eclipse is supposedly impossible using the heliocentric model and a spherical earth and moon it's pretty amazing that they are predicted with incredible accuracy using exactly that model.
And once again, the moon's shadow is not 24 times smaller, it is exactly the right size, and you've even had pretty pictures illustrating why.
Your inability to use a signature is irritating.
No incorrect
The moon's shadow will only be 70 miles wide on the 21.08.17 Solar Eclipse.
It should be at least 2400 miles wide.
Light travels in straight lines .
The Eclispe is caused by the moon passing between the sun and the earth.
The Sun has to be directly behind the Moon and the Earth has to be directly in front of the Moon.
An object shadow will follow the object when the light source is directly behind it.
You are now claiming the Moon moves in the opposite direction to what is observed this would be the only possible way that the Moon's shadow can move west to East when the light source which is the Sun is directly behind it.
http://www.livephysics.com/physical-constants/mechanics-pc/angular-speed-earth/
You are fooling no one with your heliocentric nonsense.
It is impossible for the path of the solar eclipse to move in completely the opposite direction to the moon.
The moon rises in the East and sets in th west.
The Solar Eclipse starts in the west and finishes if the East.
The Earth's angular velocity which Is one rotation every 24 hrs is 27 times faster than the Moon's velocity.
This is why the moon allegedly rises in the east and sets in the west.
If the Moon's velocity was greater than the angular velocity of the earth the Moon would rise in the West and set in the East it would also have to orbit the earth more than once every 24 hours to achieve this.
Here is a description of a solar eclipse on your model.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_eclipse
It clearly says the eclipse is caused when the moon passes in front of the sun.
The moon takes 27 days to orbit the earth.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon
On your model the Sun is stationary regarding it's position to the earth and the moon
.http://kidseclipse.com/sun-earth-moon-move/
I choose this link so you Stupid and gullable Heliocentric's can try to understand how and why the upcoming Solar Eclipse is impossible on your model.
It is impossible for an objects shadow to move in the opposite direction to the said object when the light source is stationary.
The only way this would be possible on your model would be if the Sun was moving millions of miles in relation to the earth and did not maintain it's alleged position in the centre of the solar system.
https://www.quora.com/Is-the-sun-the-center-of-the-solar-system-Why
So I will tell you again it is impossible for the Moon to cast a shadow on the Earth that is 24 times smaller than itself.
So I will tell you again it is impossible for the Solar Eclipse to move across the Earth west to East which is the opposite direction to the moon on your Heliocentric model.
Your Heliocentric model does not match reality as such your Heliocentric model is false.
Part one
Part two
The readers will make their own minds up .
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
The apparent motion of all solar objects, sun, moon, planets, and stars; Is due to the rotation of earth.Here is the real kicker the stars.
There are other motions to be considered.
1) All the planets orbit around the sun, Earth being one of them.
2) The moon orbiting the Earth in a counterclockwise motion.
3) The Earth rotation in a counterclockwise rotation.
The counter clockwise rotation of Earth Is why we have the appearance of the sun and moon rising in the east. When you compare the motion of the Sun and Moon, you will see that the moon moves from west to east, you ask how was this? Pick a time, anytime, Mark the Moon location, in 24 hours, once again mark the Moon location, repeat the process; and you will note the moon moves from west to east on a daily basis. With a waning moon, it will be seen during the day, coming close to a new moon, the solar eclipse, happens at the new moon. with the moon moving from west to east, for that short time the shadow crosses the earth, as the moon moves to the east. the rotation of the earth, only changes the time and location of where the shadow is cast. This is the results of all the numbers, that have been stated before and elsewhere, if I were to try to put the numbers in they just would cloud the issue.
In 14 days this eclipse will be over, and its motion will be seen as predicted, proving that the earth is a globe. and I am sure that you will be able to find a live broadcast, on TV, cable or the Internet.
This makes sense in a heliocentric, round earth model.The apparent motion of all solar objects, sun, moon, planets, and stars; Is due to the rotation of earth.Here is the real kicker the stars.
There are other motions to be considered.
1) All the planets orbit around the sun, Earth being one of them.
2) The moon orbiting the Earth in a counterclockwise motion.
3) The Earth rotation in a counterclockwise rotation.
The counter clockwise rotation of Earth Is why we have the appearance of the sun and moon rising in the east. When you compare the motion of the Sun and Moon, you will see that the moon moves from west to east, you ask how was this? Pick a time, anytime, Mark the Moon location, in 24 hours, once again mark the Moon location, repeat the process; and you will note the moon moves from west to east on a daily basis. With a waning moon, it will be seen during the day, coming close to a new moon, the solar eclipse, happens at the new moon. with the moon moving from west to east, for that short time the shadow crosses the earth, as the moon moves to the east. the rotation of the earth, only changes the time and location of where the shadow is cast. This is the results of all the numbers, that have been stated before and elsewhere, if I were to try to put the numbers in they just would cloud the issue.
In 14 days this eclipse will be over, and its motion will be seen as predicted, proving that the earth is a globe. and I am sure that you will be able to find a live broadcast, on TV, cable or the Internet.
“This eclipse will give you a fine opportunity to gauge the brightness of the sky, because during totality observers will be able to briefly see the stars and constellations that are visible at night during the opposite season – that is, late February.
Indeed, stretched across the western and southwestern sky will be the bright stars of the winter season: Orion and his retinue, Canis Major and Minor, Gemini, Auriga, and Taurus. Each of these constellations contains at least one star of magnitude 1 or greater. However, August can be rather hazy, especially over the southeast U.S. If this is the case, the sky background may be quite bright even at mid-totality, and Venus may be the only visible object.”
[The Brightest Stars in the Sky: A Starry Countdown] “ https://www.space.com/36721-stars-planets-visible-during-solar-eclipse.html
The moon's shadow will only be 70 miles wide on the 21.08.17 Solar Eclipse.
It should be at least 2400 miles wide.
Light travels in straight lines .
The Eclispe is caused by the moon passing between the sun and the earth.
The Sun has to be directly behind the Moon and the Earth has to be directly in front of the Moon.
An object shadow will follow the object when the light source is directly behind it.
You are now claiming the Moon moves in the opposite direction to what is observed
this would be the only possible way that the Moon's shadow can move west to East when the light source which is the Sun is directly behind it.
<description of earth's angular speed of rotation, which is not an issue> (http://www.livephysics.com/physical-constants/mechanics-pc/angular-speed-earth/)
You are fooling no one with your heliocentricnonsensemodel.
It is impossible for the path of the solar eclipse to move in completely the opposite direction to the moon.
The moon rises in the East and sets in th[e] west.
The Solar Eclipse starts in the west and finishes if the East.
The Earth's angular velocity which Is one rotation every 24 hrs is 27 times faster than the Moon's velocity.
This is why the moon allegedly rises in the east and sets in the west.
If the Moon's [angular] velocity was greater than the angular velocity of the earth the Moon would rise in the West and set in the East it would also have to orbit the earth more than once every 24 hours to achieve this.
Here is a description of a solar eclipse on your model.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_eclipse
It clearly says the eclipse is caused when the moon passes in front of the sun.
The moon takes 27 days to orbit the earth.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon
On your model the Sun is stationary regarding it's position to the earth and the moon
.http://kidseclipse.com/sun-earth-moon-move/
I choose this link so you Stupid and gullable Heliocentric's can try to understand how and why the upcoming Solar Eclipse is impossible on your model.
It is impossible for an objects shadow to move in the opposite direction to the said object when the light source is stationary.
The only way this would be possible on your model would be if the Sun was moving millions of miles in relation to the earth and did not maintain it's alleged position in the centre of the solar system.
<irrelevant link> (https://www.quora.com/Is-the-sun-the-center-of-the-solar-system-Why)
So I will tell you again it is impossible for the Moon to cast a shadow on the Earth that is 24 times smaller than itself.
So I will tell you again it is impossible for the Solar Eclipse to move across the Earth west to East which is the opposite direction to the moon on your Heliocentric model.
Your Heliocentric model does not match reality as such your Heliocentric model is false.
<links to youtube videos>
The readers will make their own minds up .
Yes, they will, won't they Mr Ignorance.is.Bliss, but I haven't see too many rushing to you aid.Given that the prediction of a solar eclipse is supposedly impossible using the heliocentric model and a spherical earth and moon it's pretty amazing that they are predicted with incredible accuracy using exactly that model.
And once again, the moon's shadow is not 24 times smaller, it is exactly the right size, and you've even had pretty pictures illustrating why.
Your inability to use a signature is irritating.
The readers will make their own minds up ;)
Now, I assume that you have a perfect flat earth theory explaining solar eclipse.
So please, if you wish to retain a trace of credibility,you will immediately present your perfect flat earth theory of solar eclipses.Or you will have proved yourself a total hypocrit!
Bye bye, I do hope that you enjoy living in such ignorance, following all you are taught by your High Priests of neo-Flat Earthism Religion
Saros cycles can predict WHEN an eclipse may occur, but WHERE one will occur like us "heliocentric high priests" can. Exactly when and where I should say.
Once again...The moon's shadow will only be 70 miles wide on the 21.08.17 Solar Eclipse.
That's about right.QuoteIt should be at least 2400 miles wide.
Nope. The umbra should be roughly 70 miles wide where it intersects the surface of the earth. This has been explained in detail many times.
Someone else posted that the penumbra will be more than 6000 miles wide. That sounds about right. Do you know the difference between the umbra and penumbra?QuoteLight travels in straight lines .
That's correct, but not all flat-earthers believe it. Some rely on "bendy light" to cause sunsets and other ordinary phenomena more simply and elegantly explained by a rotating spherical earth and light traveling in straight lines.QuoteThe Eclispe is caused by the moon passing between the sun and the earth.
The Sun has to be directly behind the Moon and the Earth has to be directly in front of the Moon.
Yes, but that second sentence is simply a less-clear restatement of the first.QuoteAn object shadow will follow the object when the light source is directly behind it.
Sure does. Remember this fact.QuoteYou are now claiming the Moon moves in the opposite direction to what is observed
No one is claiming that. The moon moves from west to east with respect to the sun. Because of this, it moves across the sky a little more slowly than the sun.Quotethis would be the only possible way that the Moon's shadow can move west to East when the light source which is the Sun is directly behind it.
The moon moves from west to east with respect to the sun. Because, as you just noted, "an object shadow will follow the object when the light source is directly behind it", the moon's shadow crossing the earth also moves from west to east.Quote<description of earth's angular speed of rotation, which is not an issue> (http://www.livephysics.com/physical-constants/mechanics-pc/angular-speed-earth/)
You are fooling no one with your heliocentricnonsensemodel.
Nope. No foolin' at all. Just the facts.QuoteIt is impossible for the path of the solar eclipse to move in completely the opposite direction to the moon.
This is correct.QuoteThe moon rises in the East and sets in th[e] west.
The Solar Eclipse starts in the west and finishes if the East.
Both of those statements are right. The first occurs because the earth rotates from west to east. The second because the moon crosses in front of the sun from west to east, and the linear velocity of the shadow is roughly 2000 miles/hr from west to east (same direction as the moon is traveling) while points on the surface are rotating from west to east no faster than about 1000 miles/hr.
QuoteThe Earth's angular velocity which Is one rotation every 24 hrs is 27 times faster than the Moon's velocity.
This is why the moon allegedly rises in the east and sets in the west.
Allegedly? You haven't noticed this for yourself?
Since the moon moves about 1/27 of its orbit in a day, in the same time the earth makes a complete rotation, it takes about 1/27 of a day longer (about 50 minutes) between meridian transits of the moon than meridian transits of the sun. This is well known and easy to see for yourself; note when the moon rises one evening, then see if it rises about 50 minutes later each successive evening.QuoteIf the Moon's [angular] velocity was greater than the angular velocity of the earth the Moon would rise in the West and set in the East it would also have to orbit the earth more than once every 24 hours to achieve this.
True, as corrected. I suspect this is where your argument is going off the rails, though. You insist on comparing the moon's tangential velocity (distance per unit time) with earth's angular velocity (change of angle per unit time). These are different types of quantities and cannot be compared. Are you doing this intentionally to mislead people, or are you just confused?QuoteHere is a description of a solar eclipse on your model.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_eclipse
It clearly says the eclipse is caused when the moon passes in front of the sun.
The moon takes 27 days to orbit the earth.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon
On your model the Sun is stationary regarding it's position to the earth and the moon
.http://kidseclipse.com/sun-earth-moon-move/
I choose this link so you Stupid and gullable Heliocentric's can try to understand how and why the upcoming Solar Eclipse is impossible on your model.
Very thoughtful of you, but it's not working well, even after pausing Ghostery (tracker blocker) and enabling flash. It has lots of broken links, too.QuoteIt is impossible for an objects shadow to move in the opposite direction to the said object when the light source is stationary.
Yes, you already said that. As far as I know, no one disagrees. Maybe some of the flat earthers disagree; there's no telling what some of them will believe.QuoteThe only way this would be possible on your model would be if the Sun was moving millions of miles in relation to the earth and did not maintain it's alleged position in the centre of the solar system.
<irrelevant link> (https://www.quora.com/Is-the-sun-the-center-of-the-solar-system-Why)
Nope. All it takes is for the moon to be orbit in the same direction as the earth is rotating, but more slowly.QuoteSo I will tell you again it is impossible for the Moon to cast a shadow on the Earth that is 24 times smaller than itself.
So I will tell you again it is impossible for the Solar Eclipse to move across the Earth west to East which is the opposite direction to the moon on your Heliocentric model.
So you think repeating something wrong often enough will make it right? It doesn't work that way, and only makes your posts tiresome.QuoteYour Heliocentric model does not match reality as such your Heliocentric model is false.
Nope. The heliocentric model of the solar system matches reality quite well. It's your strawman argument that is false.Quote<links to youtube videos>
The readers will make their own minds up .
Perhaps. That's why someone always bothers to give rational replies to your incorrect ideas.
But they could not predict WHERE it will occur, as us globers can to a very precise degree.
IIUC, the Saros cycle can predict the time by not the location with any accuracy. A heliocentric model is used for that.Saros cycles can predict WHEN an eclipse may occur, but WHERE one will occur like us "heliocentric high priests" can. Exactly when and where I should say.
Incorrect
The Ancient Babylonian Saros cycle can predict an Eclipse all they need to know is when the last eclipse took place.
IT is the model your Heliocentric mathematics is retrofitted to.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Can the Saros cycle predict the size of the moon's shadow?Saros cycles can predict WHEN an eclipse may occur, but WHERE one will occur like us "heliocentric high priests" can. Exactly when and where I should say.
Incorrect
The Ancient Babylonian Saros cycle can predict an Eclipse all they need to know is when the last eclipse took place.
IT is the model your Heliocentric mathematics is retrofitted to.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
You explanation is contradictory and nonsensical.No, just a bit counterintuitive.
You accept that the Moon takes 27 days to orbit the Earth.Yes.
You accept that the Sun is relatively stationary and that an eclipse is caused by the Moon" passing" between the Sun and the Earth.Yes. How long do you suppose that takes?
You also except that light travels in straight lines so the only place the Moon's Shadow could be is underneath it.Behind actually, but close enough.
The USA is nearly 3000 miles wide and the Moon takes 27 days to orbit the Earth .You guess wrong. I've already pointed out that the moon travels in its orbit at about 2300 mph, so it would take about an hour and a half.
So at a rough guess I would say that the Moon would take over 3 days to cross the USA .
The problem is that the Moon's Shadow which has to be directly below the Moon travels across the USA in a few hours.Why is that a problem?
I haven't even factored in the earth's angular velocity yet which makes your model even more impossible and ridiculous.Maybe you should factor in the earth's rotational velocity as well as the size of the moon's orbit and its orbital velocity.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is Finished.Your deliberate obtuseness is tedious.
You explanation is contradictory and nonsensical.No, just a bit counterintuitive.You accept that the Moon takes 27 days to orbit the Earth.Yes.You accept that the Sun is relatively stationary and that an eclipse is caused by the Moon" passing" between the Sun and the Earth.Yes. How long do you suppose that takes?You also except that light travels in straight lines so the only place the Moon's Shadow could be is underneath it.Behind actually, but close enough.The USA is nearly 3000 miles wide and the Moon takes 27 days to orbit the Earth .You guess wrong. I've already pointed out that the moon travels in its orbit at about 2300 mph, so it would take about an hour and a half.
So at a rough guess I would say that the Moon would take over 3 days to cross the USA .The problem is that the Moon's Shadow which has to be directly below the Moon travels across the USA in a few hours.Why is that a problem?I haven't even factored in the earth's angular velocity yet which makes your model even more impossible and ridiculous.Maybe you should factor in the earth's rotational velocity as well as the size of the moon's orbit and its orbital velocity.
It might begin to make sense if you factor in all of the relevant parameters, not just the ones that you want to cherry pick.Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is Finished.Your deliberate obtuseness is tedious.
This is the problem with you Heliocentrics you struggle to understand your own model.
You have said you agree that the Moon takes 27 days to orbit the Earth.
You then say that the Moon will move across the USA in 90 minutes.
If the Moon was moving at that actual velocity it would orbit the Earth in 12 hours and NOT 27 days.
It is impossible for the Moon to take 27 days to orbit the Earth AND then be able to cross the USA which is nearly 3000 miles wide in 90 minutes.
Your explanation is cotradictory and nonsensical.
If we factor in the fact that the Earth's angular velocity is 27 times greater than the actual velocity of the Moon which causes the Moon to move East to West not West to East your explanation becomes even more ridiculous.
Rotational velocity is not a relevant factor for what can be observed in the Sky whether that is an Eclipsed Sun Moon or Stars for example at the North pole the rotational velocity is near zero but The Sun Moon and Stars still do a full rotation everyday.
Here is a link that will help you understand how angular velocity and rotational velocity work when different distances and view points are involved.
https://www.quora.com/Given-that-the-earth-is-rotating-at-great-velocity-how-is-it-that-we-can-see-stars-and-planets-as-if-we-are-watching-them-from-a-stationary-object
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
The time needed for the stars is based on how fast the Earth rotates.
The moon's orbit is around 1,500,000 miles long. A simple calculation shows the moon is travelling at around 2200 miles per hour in its orbit, which is much faster than Earth's angular velocity of around 1000 miles per hour.
Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile link=topic=71435.msg1939416#msg1939416This is the problem with you Heliocentrics you struggle to understand your own model.
You have said you agree that the Moon takes 27 days to orbit the Earth.
You then say that the Moon will move across the USA in 90 minutes.
The moon's shadow from the eclipse.Quote
If the Moon was moving at that actual velocity it would orbit the Earth in 12 hours and NOT 27 days.
It is impossible for the Moon to take 27 days to orbit the Earth AND then be able to cross the USA which is nearly 3000 miles wide in 90 minutes.
Your explanation is cotradictory and nonsensical.
Your understanding of what has been said is both badly spelled and completely inadequate.QuoteIf we factor in the fact that the Earth's angular velocity is 27 times greater than the actual velocity of the Moon which causes the Moon to move East to West not West to East your explanation becomes even more ridiculous.
Rotational velocity is not a relevant factor for what can be observed in the Sky whether that is an Eclipsed Sun Moon or Stars for example at the North pole the rotational velocity is near zero but The Sun Moon and Stars still do a full rotation everyday.
Here is a link that will help you understand how angular velocity and rotational velocity work when different distances and view points are involved.
https://www.quora.com/Given-that-the-earth-is-rotating-at-great-velocity-how-is-it-that-we-can-see-stars-and-planets-as-if-we-are-watching-them-from-a-stationary-object
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
You do know that link proves you wrong? From it:QuoteThe time needed for the stars is based on how fast the Earth rotates.
Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile link=topic=71435.msg1939416#msg1939416This is the problem with you Heliocentrics you struggle to understand your own model.
You have said you agree that the Moon takes 27 days to orbit the Earth.
You then say that the Moon will move across the USA in 90 minutes.
The moon's shadow from the eclipse.Quote
If the Moon was moving at that actual velocity it would orbit the Earth in 12 hours and NOT 27 days.
It is impossible for the Moon to take 27 days to orbit the Earth AND then be able to cross the USA which is nearly 3000 miles wide in 90 minutes.
Your explanation is cotradictory and nonsensical.
Your understanding of what has been said is both badly spelled and completely inadequate.QuoteIf we factor in the fact that the Earth's angular velocity is 27 times greater than the actual velocity of the Moon which causes the Moon to move East to West not West to East your explanation becomes even more ridiculous.
Rotational velocity is not a relevant factor for what can be observed in the Sky whether that is an Eclipsed Sun Moon or Stars for example at the North pole the rotational velocity is near zero but The Sun Moon and Stars still do a full rotation everyday.
Here is a link that will help you understand how angular velocity and rotational velocity work when different distances and view points are involved.
https://www.quora.com/Given-that-the-earth-is-rotating-at-great-velocity-how-is-it-that-we-can-see-stars-and-planets-as-if-we-are-watching-them-from-a-stationary-object
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
You do know that link proves you wrong? From it:QuoteThe time needed for the stars is based on how fast the Earth rotates.
You are fooling no one.
How is it possible for the Moon to take 27 days to Orbit the Earth and at the same time only take 90 minutes to cross the USA when the USA is 3000 miles wide.?
I tell you that it is impossible.
You are incorrect the link will help you dense heliocentric's to understand your broken tired old Heliocentric model.
Keep up the good work. ;)
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is Finished. ;D ;D ;D
You explanation is contradictory and nonsensical.
You accept that the Moon takes 27 days to orbit the Earth.
You accept that the Sun is relatively stationary and that an eclipse is caused by the Moon" passing" between the Sun and the Earth.
You also except that light travels in straight lines so the only place the Moon's Shadow could be is underneath it.
The USA is nearly 3000 miles wide and the Moon takes 27 days to orbit the Earth .
So at a rough guess I would say that the Moon would take over 3 days to cross the USA .
The problem is that the Moon's Shadow which has to be directly below the Moon travels across the USA in a few hours.
I haven't even factored in the earth's angular velocity yet which makes your model even more impossible and ridiculous.
Easy. USA is 3000 miles wide. Moon travels at around 2200 miles per hour. Therefore it takes an hour and half for the moon to cross the USA.My four year old said you need to subtract the linear speed of the earth where the shadow is forming from the moon's linear velocity, so a little over 2 hours 😉
Easy. USA is 3000 miles wide. Moon travels at around 2200 miles per hour. Therefore it takes an hour and half for the moon to cross the USA.My four year old said you need to subtract the linear speed of the earth where the shadow is forming from the moon's linear velocity, so a little over 2 hours 😉
How is it possible for the Moon to take 27 days to Orbit the Earth and at the same time only take 90 minutes to cross the USA when the USA is 3000 miles wide.?
I allready dislike this kid,.....shame on me !!!Easy. USA is 3000 miles wide. Moon travels at around 2200 miles per hour. Therefore it takes an hour and half for the moon to cross the USA.My four year old said you need to subtract the linear speed of the earth where the shadow is forming from the moon's linear velocity, so a little over 2 hours 😉
I allready dislike this kid,.....shame on me !!!Easy. USA is 3000 miles wide. Moon travels at around 2200 miles per hour. Therefore it takes an hour and half for the moon to cross the USA.My four year old said you need to subtract the linear speed of the earth where the shadow is forming from the moon's linear velocity, so a little over 2 hours 😉
No, you're the one who is confused.The moon's orbit is around 1,500,000 miles long. A simple calculation shows the moon is travelling at around 2200 miles per hour in its orbit, which is much faster than Earth's angular velocity of around 1000 miles per hour.
Yet again you Heliocentrics fail to understand your own model.
You have rotational velocity and angular velocity confused.Nope. That's you again.
The Earth's alleged rotational velocity at the equator is 1000 mph and drops down to a negligable amount at the North pole.Yup.
The Earth's Angular velocity is constant no matter what the POV is on Earth.Two for two.
It is the Earth's angular velocity that determines what we see in the skyIn part, yes.
Watch the stars for an hour and it should be pretty evident that something isn't stationary.Umm... If you say so.
Go stand 6 feet from a motorway and watch the cars pass you at 60 mph. Then look up at an airliner at 33000 feet as it passes you at 550 mph. Why does the airplane appear so much slower than the cars?Be careful, I think that you've just debunked your own argument right there.
The answer is that the farther away something is, the farther it has to travel to cover the same angle of your vision. An object will thus appear slower if its apparent angular speed is less - regardless of true velocity.BINGO!! The moon is so far away that it appears to be orbiting backwards, even though it's orbiting faster than the earth is rotating.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.Truth is stranger than fiction because fiction has to make sense.
Well, nobody likes a smart ass, so... :PI allready dislike this kid,.....shame on me !!!Easy. USA is 3000 miles wide. Moon travels at around 2200 miles per hour. Therefore it takes an hour and half for the moon to cross the USA.My four year old said you need to subtract the linear speed of the earth where the shadow is forming from the moon's linear velocity, so a little over 2 hours 😉
Easy. USA is 3000 miles wide. Moon travels at around 2200 miles per hour. Therefore it takes an hour and half for the moon to cross the USA.My four year old said you need to subtract the linear speed of the earth where the shadow is forming from the moon's linear velocity, so a little over 2 hours 😉
I was just giving Futile something more to ramble on about lol.
<< irrelevant rubbish deleted >>I assume that you have a perfect flat earth theory explaining solar eclipse.
Wow Rabinoz, your replies are on steroids lately, surpassing your normal level of disdain towards flatearthers. Are there some unwanted expenses that need some financial input ? i am sure 'they' will take notice all the hard work you're putting in. 8)No, not to Flat Earthers in general, but just to 3 or 4 who never seem to have any logical argument and just keep repeating the same old trash.
It must hurt to twist the clear testimonies of astronauts in a way to hold it together as a unity.Wow Rabinoz, your replies are on steroids lately, surpassing your normal level of disdain towards flatearthers. Are there some unwanted expenses that need some financial input ? i am sure 'they' will take notice all the hard work you're putting in. 8)No, not to Flat Earthers in general, but just to 3 or 4 who never seem to have any logical argument and just keep repeating the same old trash.
You can work out who I mean, though of course, Ignorance.is.Bliss and one with implanted NASAphobic lenses get on.
Why am I doing this again?
How will this Eclipse be possible on your Heliocentric model ?
The producer in this video gives a detailed description of how and why the upcoming solar Eclipse is impossibe on the Heliocentric Globe Model.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Wow, those NASAphobic implants are sure effective, but what about something on topic.It must hurt to twist the clear testimonies of astronauts in a way to hold it together as a unity.Wow Rabinoz, your replies are on steroids lately, surpassing your normal level of disdain towards flatearthers. Are there some unwanted expenses that need some financial input ? i am sure 'they' will take notice all the hard work you're putting in. 8)No, not to Flat Earthers in general, but just to 3 or 4 who never seem to have any logical argument and just keep repeating the same old trash.
You can work out who I mean, though of course, Ignorance.is.Bliss and one with implanted NASAphobic lenses get on.
Long live our youtube temple in which we could see for ourselves what the liars have testified during the last decades.
Your cowardly replies cannot glue it back together.
Thanks Resistance.is.futile for keeping this topic alive !!!!You mean other than the heliocentric based analytical solution the accurately predicts the time and place of every eclipse, solar & lunar, for the next thousand years? Yeah, other than that we got nothin'
It gave me the oppertunity to examine most claims and it is impossible for the globe community to insert the reality of all observable phenomena of the eclips into a hypothetical model that explains it correctly.
Some parts can work , buit others fail miserably !
But also thanks again my globe ''breathren'', because it took some time and now i am fully convinced it cannot possibly work with all the hypothetical data compared to wath we will actually wittiness during the eclips !
Thanks Resistance.is.futile for keeping this topic alive !!!!OK, please list these "parts" that "fail miserably" and explain in your own words just why they "fail miserably".
It gave me the oppertunity to examine most claims and it is impossible for the globe community to insert the reality of all observable phenomena of the eclips into a hypothetical model that explains it correctly.
Some parts can work , buit others fail miserably!
But also thanks again my globe ''breathren'', because it took some time and now i am fully convinced it cannot possibly work with all the hypothetical data compared to wath we will actually wittiness during the eclips !You just might get horribly embarrassed when you find that your favourite organisation got it right again.
Wow Rabinoz, your replies are on steroids lately, surpassing your normal level of disdain towards flatearthers. Are there some unwanted expenses that need some financial input ? i am sure 'they' will take notice all the hard work you're putting in. 8)And yet none of you have posted working model for the eclipse on a flat earth.
<< irrelevant rubbish deleted >>I assume that you have a perfect flat earth theory explaining solar eclipse.
Please, if you wish to retain a trace of credibility,you will immediately present your perfect flat earth theory of solar eclipses.Or you will have proved yourself a total hypocrit!
Your silly Pizza Pie Earth never was - even the ancient Mesopotamians, Chinese and Greeks were much smarter than you!
They knew the real explanation for eclipses and was the same as the current Heliocentric Globe explanation.Put that in your smoke and pipe it Mr Ignorance.is Bliss, the useless time-waster.
You must of missed this my decrepit friend. ;)I don’t believe it has. There isn’t a single proof, equation, or analytical solution of any kind. Hand waving and making unverifiable statements doesn’t disprove anything.
What are you talking about?
This is my thread.
The thread is called :
Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the Globe. (And it has)
It is NOT called.It certainly is based on the concepts of the Saros cycle. NASA says so in the Five Millennium Canon of Solar Eclipses so I’m not sure why you think it’s such a big deal. While Saros & Inex cycles provide a basis for an understanding of the periodicity/frequency of events, the current NASA analytical solutions use much more accurate numeric modeling based on the following:
Solar Eclipse explained on Flat Model.
As I have said before this will be an entirely different thread and will warrant more of my time.
You should do your own research if you are actually interested in the Flat Earth Model.
As you're Old I will give you a heads up :)
Are you familiar with the Ancient Babylonian Saros cycle ;)
This is the model that your Heliocentric brethren have retrofitted their mathematics to.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
You must of missed this my decrepit friend. ;)I don’t believe it has. There isn’t a single proof, equation, or analytical solution of any kind. Hand waving and making unverifiable statements doesn’t disprove anything.
What are you talking about?
This is my thread.
The thread is called :
Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the Globe. (And it has)It is NOT called.It certainly is based on the concepts of the Saros cycle. NASA says so in the Five Millennium Canon of Solar Eclipses so I’m not sure why you think it’s such a big dea. While Saros & Inex cycles provide a basis for an understanding of the periodicity/frequency of events, the current NASA analytical solutions use much more accurate numeric modeling based on the following:
Solar Eclipse explained on Flat Model.
As I have said before this will be an entirely different thread and will warrant more of my time.
You should do your own research if you are actually interested in the Flat Earth Model.
As you're Old I will give you a heads up :)
Are you familiar with the Ancient Babylonian Saros cycle ;)
This is the model that your Heliocentric brethren have retrofitted their mathematics to.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
“Based on modern theories of the Sun and the Moon constructed at the Bureau des Longitudes of Paris rather than the older Newcomb and Brown ephemerides.
Ephemerides and eclipse predictions performed in Terrestrial Dynamical Time.
Covers historical period of eclipses, as well as one millennium into the future.
Global maps for each eclipse depict the actual northern and southern limits of the Moon’s penumbral and umbral or antumbral shadows, as well as the sunrise and sunset curves.
Maps include curve of eclipse magnitude 0.5.
Maps include continental outlines with contemporary political boundaries and are large enough to identify geographic regions of eclipse visibility.
Maps are based of the most current determination of the historical values of ΔT.
Estimates of eclipse path accuracy based on the uncertainty in the value of ΔT (i.e., standard error in ΔT)”
All of which is contained in this Link (https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/5MCSE/5MCSE-Text11.pdf).
You have shown NOTHING that contradicts this document so how can you say that the eclipse of 2017 debunks anything let alone the globe?
So when the eclipse comes off exactly as described by NASA using the methodology presented in Five Millennium Canon of Solar Eclipses, you will have proved nothing.
Debunk the Canon if you can. The math in the Canon is well understood, has accurately predicted eclipses over and over again, and its results are repeatable. This Canon contains all the assumptions, data tables, and equations. It is the basis for predicting not only the upcoming eclipse all eclipses for a thousand years. Posting YouTube videos or hand waving descriptions isn’t going to cut it. You have to attack the assumptions and the math. Otherwise, your outta gas.
Mike
OK, please list these "parts" that "fail miserably" and explain in your own words just why they "fail miserably".The shadow of the eclips is projected on a globe from the side of the globe.
And don't forget to presentDo you have some sort of personal quest with Resistance.is.futile Rabinoz ?a flat earth theory for the solar eclipse that can cause a 114 km wide umbra shadow from your 50 km diameter moon.
All that proves nothing. If you had actually read the Canon you'd know the Saros cycle is only the basis for modeling the period and Not used actually calculating it.You must of missed this my decrepit friend. ;)I don’t believe it has. There isn’t a single proof, equation, or analytical solution of any kind. Hand waving and making unverifiable statements doesn’t disprove anything.
What are you talking about?
This is my thread.
The thread is called :
Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the Globe. (And it has)It is NOT called.It certainly is based on the concepts of the Saros cycle. NASA says so in the Five Millennium Canon of Solar Eclipses so I’m not sure why you think it’s such a big dea. While Saros & Inex cycles provide a basis for an understanding of the periodicity/frequency of events, the current NASA analytical solutions use much more accurate numeric modeling based on the following:
Solar Eclipse explained on Flat Model.
As I have said before this will be an entirely different thread and will warrant more of my time.
You should do your own research if you are actually interested in the Flat Earth Model.
As you're Old I will give you a heads up :)
Are you familiar with the Ancient Babylonian Saros cycle ;)
This is the model that your Heliocentric brethren have retrofitted their mathematics to.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
“Based on modern theories of the Sun and the Moon constructed at the Bureau des Longitudes of Paris rather than the older Newcomb and Brown ephemerides.
Ephemerides and eclipse predictions performed in Terrestrial Dynamical Time.
Covers historical period of eclipses, as well as one millennium into the future.
Global maps for each eclipse depict the actual northern and southern limits of the Moon’s penumbral and umbral or antumbral shadows, as well as the sunrise and sunset curves.
Maps include curve of eclipse magnitude 0.5.
Maps include continental outlines with contemporary political boundaries and are large enough to identify geographic regions of eclipse visibility.
Maps are based of the most current determination of the historical values of ΔT.
Estimates of eclipse path accuracy based on the uncertainty in the value of ΔT (i.e., standard error in ΔT)”
All of which is contained in this Link (https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/5MCSE/5MCSE-Text11.pdf).
You have shown NOTHING that contradicts this document so how can you say that the eclipse of 2017 debunks anything let alone the globe?
So when the eclipse comes off exactly as described by NASA using the methodology presented in Five Millennium Canon of Solar Eclipses, you will have proved nothing.
Debunk the Canon if you can. The math in the Canon is well understood, has accurately predicted eclipses over and over again, and its results are repeatable. This Canon contains all the assumptions, data tables, and equations. It is the basis for predicting not only the upcoming eclipse all eclipses for a thousand years. Posting YouTube videos or hand waving descriptions isn’t going to cut it. You have to attack the assumptions and the math. Otherwise, your outta gas.
Mike
It is a big deal; the ancient Babylonian's knew the Earth was Flat just like NASA do.
This is why as you said NASA use their model.
NASA do not have their own model because:
The Universe
The Globe
The Heliocentric model.
In reality doesn't exist it's all a fairytale.
This is why NASA have to use a 4000 year old model.
Lol.
Lol.
It is not for you to decide what " Cuts it "
I also do not care what you believe as you are not a normal person who can understand logical explanations that can be verified by anyone
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False..
Actually since a global earth explains all of the observations and nothing you have shown proves otherwise, really the only to use the eclipse as proof would be to show how it works on a flat earth and how that model explains something RE does not.<< irrelevant rubbish deleted >>I assume that you have a perfect flat earth theory explaining solar eclipse.
Please, if you wish to retain a trace of credibility,you will immediately present your perfect flat earth theory of solar eclipses.Or you will have proved yourself a total hypocrit!
Your silly Pizza Pie Earth never was - even the ancient Mesopotamians, Chinese and Greeks were much smarter than you!
They knew the real explanation for eclipses and was the same as the current Heliocentric Globe explanation.Put that in your smoke and pipe it Mr Ignorance.is Bliss, the useless time-waster.
You must of missed this my decrepit friend. ;)
What are you talking about?
This is my thread.
The thread is called :
Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the Globe. (And it has)
It is NOT called.
Solar Eclipse explained on Flat Model.
As I have said before this will be an entirely different thread and will warrant more of my time.
You should do your own research if you are actually interested in the Flat Earth Model.
As you're Old I will give you a heads up :)
Are you familiar with the Ancient Babylonian Saros cycle ;)
This is the model that your Heliocentric brethren have retrofitted their mathematics to.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
OK, please list these "parts" that "fail miserably" and explain in your own words just why they "fail miserably".The shadow of the eclips is projected on a globe from the side of the globe.
Just like how the curvature doesn't drop in a slope, but in increasingly growing numbers the more distance you cover, so must the speed of the umbra vary dramatically when projected from ONE side upon earth's globular surface.
Better said,......in the beginning and the end the shadow is striking Earth at a very oblique angle.
And therefore the speed of the shadow is much faster at the beginning and at the end.
BUT THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT !!!!!
At the beginning of the eclips the shadow is much slower than the earth's huge relative rotation at that specific point
The shadow should move very fast from east to west before slowing down and reverse it's projected path to east to west.
We should see A REVERSED SHADOW TRAVELING FROM EAST TO WEST, because right at the beginning the relative rotation of earth is much greater/'' faster'' than the steady speed of the shadow.
You can simply check it with rotating a model globe and a light source.
(http://l450v.alamy.com/450v/j5a924/blue-marble-north-america-with-clouds-j5a924.jpg)
In the beginning the shadow is much slower than earth's relative rotation in the specific rotational direction of earth's spin (moving uphill)
In the middle (''uphill'') the shadow is faster than earth's spin like we see in most animations.
It becomes infinite faster at the end (downhill) of the eclips before it ends.
What we should see is an umbra travelling west to east at the very beginning because earth's relative rotation compared to the shadow coming in from the side is at that point much greater than the steady velocity of the umbra ,.....
Very soon the shadow is catching up with earth's rotational speed and begins to overtake earth's rotational speed.
''uphill in the middle of the globe'' the shadow's speed is faster than the earth's spin.
The speed of the umbra reaches the extremes before leaving earth's globular surface.
Yep that is how a globe works when a shadow from the sides is cast towards a globe.
It doesn't matter that the moon moves itself for the same optical phenomena.
At the start of the eclips we should see an umbra from east to west,very soon fixed on the earth's surface, then moving west to east, reaching extreme speeds before it leaves the surface....
What great difference does a few days of thinking make ::)QuoteAnd don't forget to presentDo you have some sort of personal quest with Resistance.is.futile Rabinoz ?a flat earth theory for the solar eclipse that can cause a 114 km wide umbra shadow from your 50 km diameter moon.
Resistance.is.futile repeatedly said this is his topic about debunking ''the globe and the August eclipse'',.....not ''show us a flatearth model that works''.
Call it a form of civilisation or forum etiquette to comply.
No, you're the one who is confused.The moon's orbit is around 1,500,000 miles long. A simple calculation shows the moon is travelling at around 2200 miles per hour in its orbit, which is much faster than Earth's angular velocity of around 1000 miles per hour.
Yet again you Heliocentrics fail to understand your own model.You have rotational velocity and angular velocity confused.Nope. That's you again.The Earth's alleged rotational velocity at the equator is 1000 mph and drops down to a negligable amount at the North pole.Yup.The Earth's Angular velocity is constant no matter what the POV is on Earth.Two for two.It is the Earth's angular velocity that determines what we see in the skyIn part, yes.Watch the stars for an hour and it should be pretty evident that something isn't stationary.Umm... If you say so.Go stand 6 feet from a motorway and watch the cars pass you at 60 mph. Then look up at an airliner at 33000 feet as it passes you at 550 mph. Why does the airplane appear so much slower than the cars?Be careful, I think that you've just debunked your own argument right there.The answer is that the farther away something is, the farther it has to travel to cover the same angle of your vision. An object will thus appear slower if its apparent angular speed is less - regardless of true velocity.BINGO!! The moon is so far away that it appears to be orbiting backwards, even though it's orbiting faster than the earth is rotating.Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.Truth is stranger than fiction because fiction has to make sense.Well, nobody likes a smart ass, so... :PI allready dislike this kid,.....shame on me !!!Easy. USA is 3000 miles wide. Moon travels at around 2200 miles per hour. Therefore it takes an hour and half for the moon to cross the USA.My four year old said you need to subtract the linear speed of the earth where the shadow is forming from the moon's linear velocity, so a little over 2 hours 😉
This reads like a post a wasted sandokhan would make. Try again when you're sober, right now I have no idea what you're talking about.I understand it, that's what matters and it is as clear as anything !
The Earth is orbiting the sun in an anti-clockwise direction.
The moon is orbiting the Earth in an anti-clockwise direction.
The eclipse shadow follows an anti-clockwise direction.
The reason the moon rises in the east and sets in the west is because the Earth rotates underneath it. Anti-clockwise.
The eclipse shadow is the correct size.
I'd say an idiot could understand it, but it appears not.
The shadow of the eclips is projected on a globe from the side of the globe.
Just like how the curvature doesn't drop in a slope, but in increasingly growing numbers the more distance you cover, so must the speed of the umbra vary dramatically when projected from ONE side upon earth's globular surface.
Better said,......in the beginning and the end the shadow is striking Earth at a very oblique angle.
And therefore the speed of the shadow is much faster at the beginning and at the end.
BUT THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT !!!!!
At the beginning of the eclips the shadow is much slower than the earth's huge relative rotation at that specific point
The shadow should move very fast from east to west before slowing down and reverse it's projected path to east to west.
We should see A REVERSED SHADOW TRAVELING FROM EAST TO WEST, because right at the beginning the relative rotation of earth is much greater/'' faster'' than the steady speed of the shadow.
You can simply check it with rotating a model globe and a light source.
In the beginning the shadow is much slower than earth's relative rotation in the specific rotational direction of earth's spin (moving uphill)
In the middle (''uphill'') the shadow is faster than earth's spin like we see in most animations.
It becomes infinite faster at the end (downhill) of the eclips before it ends.
What we should see is an umbra travelling east to west at the very beginning because earth's relative rotation compared to the shadow coming in from the side is at that point much greater than the steady velocity of the umbra ,.....
Very soon the shadow is catching up with earth's rotational speed and begins to overtake earth's rotational speed.
''uphill in the middle of the globe'' the shadow's speed is faster than the earth's spin.
The speed of the umbra reaches the extremes before leaving earth's globular surface.
Yep that is how a globe works when a shadow from the sides is cast towards a globe.
It doesn't matter that the moon moves itself for the same optical phenomena.
At the start of the eclips we should see an umbra from east to west,very soon fixed on the earth's surface, then moving west to east, reaching extreme speeds before it leaves the surface....
What great difference does a few days of thinking make ::)
It is now the right time to address theFor the same reason that you can't see a new moon.
"Elephant in the Room"
During a Solar Eclipse why is it not possible to see the Moon pass in front of the Sun ?
Everyone has seen the Moon in the sky in the day .Have you seen a new moon in the sky in the day?
I have not once seen the Moon pass in front of the Sun during a Solar Eclipse.Then what do you suppose is passing in front of the sun if not the moon?
All that proves nothing. If you had actually read the Canon you'd know the Saros cycle is only the basis for modeling the period and Not used actually calculating it.You must of missed this my decrepit friend. ;)I don’t believe it has. There isn’t a single proof, equation, or analytical solution of any kind. Hand waving and making unverifiable statements doesn’t disprove anything.
What are you talking about?
This is my thread.
The thread is called :
Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the Globe. (And it has)It is NOT called.It certainly is based on the concepts of the Saros cycle. NASA says so in the Five Millennium Canon of Solar Eclipses so I’m not sure why you think it’s such a big dea. While Saros & Inex cycles provide a basis for an understanding of the periodicity/frequency of events, the current NASA analytical solutions use much more accurate numeric modeling based on the following:
Solar Eclipse explained on Flat Model.
As I have said before this will be an entirely different thread and will warrant more of my time.
You should do your own research if you are actually interested in the Flat Earth Model.
As you're Old I will give you a heads up :)
Are you familiar with the Ancient Babylonian Saros cycle ;)
This is the model that your Heliocentric brethren have retrofitted their mathematics to.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
“Based on modern theories of the Sun and the Moon constructed at the Bureau des Longitudes of Paris rather than the older Newcomb and Brown ephemerides.
Ephemerides and eclipse predictions performed in Terrestrial Dynamical Time.
Covers historical period of eclipses, as well as one millennium into the future.
Global maps for each eclipse depict the actual northern and southern limits of the Moon’s penumbral and umbral or antumbral shadows, as well as the sunrise and sunset curves.
Maps include curve of eclipse magnitude 0.5.
Maps include continental outlines with contemporary political boundaries and are large enough to identify geographic regions of eclipse visibility.
Maps are based of the most current determination of the historical values of ΔT.
Estimates of eclipse path accuracy based on the uncertainty in the value of ΔT (i.e., standard error in ΔT)”
All of which is contained in this Link (https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/5MCSE/5MCSE-Text11.pdf).
You have shown NOTHING that contradicts this document so how can you say that the eclipse of 2017 debunks anything let alone the globe?
So when the eclipse comes off exactly as described by NASA using the methodology presented in Five Millennium Canon of Solar Eclipses, you will have proved nothing.
Debunk the Canon if you can. The math in the Canon is well understood, has accurately predicted eclipses over and over again, and its results are repeatable. This Canon contains all the assumptions, data tables, and equations. It is the basis for predicting not only the upcoming eclipse all eclipses for a thousand years. Posting YouTube videos or hand waving descriptions isn’t going to cut it. You have to attack the assumptions and the math. Otherwise, your outta gas.
Mike
It is a big deal; the ancient Babylonian's knew the Earth was Flat just like NASA do.
This is why as you said NASA use their model.
NASA do not have their own model because:
The Universe
The Globe
The Heliocentric model.
In reality doesn't exist it's all a fairytale.
This is why NASA have to use a 4000 year old model.
Lol.
Lol.
It is not for you to decide what " Cuts it "
I also do not care what you believe as you are not a normal person who can understand logical explanations that can be verified by anyone
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False..
If you had actually read the Canon you'd also know that everything else is based on more modern models and concepts not known to the Babylonian's...like the earth is a heliocentric globe.
If you had actually read the Canon you'd, again would know that using the Saros cycle to invalidate the methodology is just plain silly...unless of course you don't understand how it works.
Mike
It is now the right time to address theFor the same reason that you can't see a new moon.
"Elephant in the Room"
During a Solar Eclipse why is it not possible to see the Moon pass in front of the Sun ?
You're looking at the unlit (dark) side of the moon.Everyone has seen the Moon in the sky in the day .Have you seen a new moon in the sky in the day?I have not once seen the Moon pass in front of the Sun during a Solar Eclipse.Then what do you suppose is passing in front of the sun if not the moon?
The shadow of the eclips is projected on a globe from the side of the globe.
Just like how the curvature doesn't drop in a slope, but in increasingly growing numbers the more distance you cover, so must the speed of the umbra vary dramatically when projected from ONE side upon earth's globular surface.
Better said,......in the beginning and the end the shadow is striking Earth at a very oblique angle.
And therefore the speed of the shadow is much faster at the beginning and at the end.
BUT THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT !!!!!
At the beginning of the eclips the shadow is much slower than the earth's huge relative rotation at that specific point
The shadow should move very fast from east to west before slowing down and reverse it's projected path to east to west.
We should see A REVERSED SHADOW TRAVELING FROM EAST TO WEST, because right at the beginning the relative rotation of earth is much greater/'' faster'' than the steady speed of the shadow.
You can simply check it with rotating a model globe and a light source.
(http://l450v.alamy.com/450v/j5a924/blue-marble-north-america-with-clouds-j5a924.jpg)
In the beginning the shadow is much slower than earth's relative rotation in the specific rotational direction of earth's spin (moving uphill)
In the middle (''uphill'') the shadow is faster than earth's spin like we see in most animations.
It becomes infinite faster at the end (downhill) of the eclips before it ends.
What we should see is an umbra travelling east to west at the very beginning because earth's relative rotation compared to the shadow coming in from the side is at that point much greater than the steady velocity of the umbra ,.....
Very soon the shadow is catching up with earth's rotational speed and begins to overtake earth's rotational speed.
''uphill in the middle of the globe'' the shadow's speed is faster than the earth's spin.
The speed of the umbra reaches the extremes before leaving earth's globular surface.
Yep that is how a globe works when a shadow from the sides is cast towards a globe.
It doesn't matter that the moon moves itself for the same optical phenomena.
At the start of the eclips we should see an umbra from east to west,very soon fixed on the earth's surface, then moving west to east, reaching extreme speeds before it leaves the surface....
What great difference does a few days of thinking make ::)
I do not get confused like you Heliocentrics.No, you appear to get confused like an FE'er.
You have an inability to understand simple explanations or you are deceitful.You appear to be both.
And if you read your post you will see you have rotational velocity and angular velocity confused as you claimed the angular velocity of the Earth is a 1000 mph.Oh? How so?
You have debunked your own explanation.
Any normal person can understand that as the moon's total orbital path is 27 to 29 days and 1.5 million miles it would have to travel at least a 190000 miles to cross the USA west to east because it is 200000 miles away on your Heliocentric model and in reality the USA is nearly 3000 miles wide so we could say that is roughly 12.5% of the alleged circumfrence of your imaginary Globe which to keep it simple represents roughly 12.5% of the Moons orbital path.Would you care to show the math that proves what you say?
In reality any normal person will know it is impossible for the Moons shadow to travel west to east as they see the Moon rise in the East and set in the West EVERYDAY.Well, I guess that makes me smarter than a normal person.
It is also impossible as shown in the first video I posted at the start of the thread because the earth's angular velocity on your model is 27 times greater than the Moon's actual velocity.And you can't seem to understand that comparing the earth's angular velocity to the moon's orbital velocity is a fallacy.
You have failed to take into account that the Solar Eclipse is visable in the Sky and it is the Earth's alleged angular Velocity as you and your colleague's have agreed that determines what we see in the sky.We see the moon transit the sun in the sky, but the moon's shadow is being cast on the earth.
A video that describes the orbit of the Moon on your Heliocentric model.*yawn* Yet another YouTuber that doesn't understand how orbits and circular motion work.
Light travels in straight lines .*yawn* Getting too tired to respond to the rest of your tripe.
The Eclispe is caused by the moon passing between the sun and the earth.
The Sun has to be directly behind the Moon and the Earth has to be directly in front of the Moon.
An object shadow will follow the object when the light source is directly behind it.
You are now claiming the Moon moves in the opposite direction to what is observed this would be the only possible way that the Moon's shadow can move west to East when the light source which is the Sun is directly behind it.
He asked about the new moonIt is now the right time to address theFor the same reason that you can't see a new moon.
"Elephant in the Room"
During a Solar Eclipse why is it not possible to see the Moon pass in front of the Sun ?
You're looking at the unlit (dark) side of the moon.Everyone has seen the Moon in the sky in the day .Have you seen a new moon in the sky in the day?I have not once seen the Moon pass in front of the Sun during a Solar Eclipse.Then what do you suppose is passing in front of the sun if not the moon?
Yes I have seen a full moon in the Sky in the day.
Are you saying the Moon is invisible in the day ?
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is Finished.
Are you saying that a solar eclipse can happen during a full moon?It is now the right time to address theFor the same reason that you can't see a new moon.
"Elephant in the Room"
During a Solar Eclipse why is it not possible to see the Moon pass in front of the Sun ?
You're looking at the unlit (dark) side of the moon.Everyone has seen the Moon in the sky in the day .Have you seen a new moon in the sky in the day?I have not once seen the Moon pass in front of the Sun during a Solar Eclipse.Then what do you suppose is passing in front of the sun if not the moon?
Yes I have seen a full moon in the Sky in the day.
Are you saying the Moon is invisible in the day ?
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is Finished.
I do not get confused like you Heliocentrics.No, you appear to get confused like an FE'er.You have an inability to understand simple explanations or you are deceitful.You appear to be both.And if you read your post you will see you have rotational velocity and angular velocity confused as you claimed the angular velocity of the Earth is a 1000 mph.Oh? How so?
You have debunked your own explanation.Any normal person can understand that as the moon's total orbital path is 27 to 29 days and 1.5 million miles it would have to travel at least a 190000 miles to cross the USA west to east because it is 200000 miles away on your Heliocentric model and in reality the USA is nearly 3000 miles wide so we could say that is roughly 12.5% of the alleged circumfrence of your imaginary Globe which to keep it simple represents roughly 12.5% of the Moons orbital path.Would you care to show the math that proves what you say?In reality any normal person will know it is impossible for the Moons shadow to travel west to east as they see the Moon rise in the East and set in the West EVERYDAY.Well, I guess that makes me smarter than a normal person.It is also impossible as shown in the first video I posted at the start of the thread because the earth's angular velocity on your model is 27 times greater than the Moon's actual velocity.And you can't seem to understand that comparing the earth's angular velocity to the moon's orbital velocity is a fallacy.You have failed to take into account that the Solar Eclipse is visable in the Sky and it is the Earth's alleged angular Velocity as you and your colleague's have agreed that determines what we see in the sky.We see the moon transit the sun in the sky, but the moon's shadow is being cast on the earth.A video that describes the orbit of the Moon on your Heliocentric model.*yawn* Yet another YouTuber that doesn't understand how orbits and circular motion work.Light travels in straight lines .*yawn* Getting too tired to respond to the rest of your tripe.
The Eclispe is caused by the moon passing between the sun and the earth.
The Sun has to be directly behind the Moon and the Earth has to be directly in front of the Moon.
An object shadow will follow the object when the light source is directly behind it.
You are now claiming the Moon moves in the opposite direction to what is observed this would be the only possible way that the Moon's shadow can move west to East when the light source which is the Sun is directly behind it.
I'll just leave you with this to ponder:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ad/Solar_eclipse_visualisation.svg/512px-Solar_eclipse_visualisation.svg.png)
You will need to stare directly at the sun without any type of filters or lenses....
Be sure to stare for the entire duration.
You're too funny. Your just repeating yourself without anything to back it up.All that proves nothing. If you had actually read the Canon you'd know the Saros cycle is only the basis for modeling the period and Not used actually calculating it.You must of missed this my decrepit friend. ;)I don’t believe it has. There isn’t a single proof, equation, or analytical solution of any kind. Hand waving and making unverifiable statements doesn’t disprove anything.
What are you talking about?
This is my thread.
The thread is called :
Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the Globe. (And it has)It is NOT called.It certainly is based on the concepts of the Saros cycle. NASA says so in the Five Millennium Canon of Solar Eclipses so I’m not sure why you think it’s such a big dea. While Saros & Inex cycles provide a basis for an understanding of the periodicity/frequency of events, the current NASA analytical solutions use much more accurate numeric modeling based on the following:
Solar Eclipse explained on Flat Model.
As I have said before this will be an entirely different thread and will warrant more of my time.
You should do your own research if you are actually interested in the Flat Earth Model.
As you're Old I will give you a heads up :)
Are you familiar with the Ancient Babylonian Saros cycle ;)
This is the model that your Heliocentric brethren have retrofitted their mathematics to.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
“Based on modern theories of the Sun and the Moon constructed at the Bureau des Longitudes of Paris rather than the older Newcomb and Brown ephemerides.
Ephemerides and eclipse predictions performed in Terrestrial Dynamical Time.
Covers historical period of eclipses, as well as one millennium into the future.
Global maps for each eclipse depict the actual northern and southern limits of the Moon’s penumbral and umbral or antumbral shadows, as well as the sunrise and sunset curves.
Maps include curve of eclipse magnitude 0.5.
Maps include continental outlines with contemporary political boundaries and are large enough to identify geographic regions of eclipse visibility.
Maps are based of the most current determination of the historical values of ΔT.
Estimates of eclipse path accuracy based on the uncertainty in the value of ΔT (i.e., standard error in ΔT)”
All of which is contained in this Link (https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/5MCSE/5MCSE-Text11.pdf).
You have shown NOTHING that contradicts this document so how can you say that the eclipse of 2017 debunks anything let alone the globe?
So when the eclipse comes off exactly as described by NASA using the methodology presented in Five Millennium Canon of Solar Eclipses, you will have proved nothing.
Debunk the Canon if you can. The math in the Canon is well understood, has accurately predicted eclipses over and over again, and its results are repeatable. This Canon contains all the assumptions, data tables, and equations. It is the basis for predicting not only the upcoming eclipse all eclipses for a thousand years. Posting YouTube videos or hand waving descriptions isn’t going to cut it. You have to attack the assumptions and the math. Otherwise, your outta gas.
Mike
It is a big deal; the ancient Babylonian's knew the Earth was Flat just like NASA do.
This is why as you said NASA use their model.
NASA do not have their own model because:
The Universe
The Globe
The Heliocentric model.
In reality doesn't exist it's all a fairytale.
This is why NASA have to use a 4000 year old model.
Lol.
Lol.
It is not for you to decide what " Cuts it "
I also do not care what you believe as you are not a normal person who can understand logical explanations that can be verified by anyone
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False..
If you had actually read the Canon you'd also know that everything else is based on more modern models and concepts not known to the Babylonian's...like the earth is a heliocentric globe.
If you had actually read the Canon you'd, again would know that using the Saros cycle to invalidate the methodology is just plain silly...unless of course you don't understand how it works.
Mike
Stop talking nonsense the Ancient Babylonian Saros cycle can accurately predict Eclipses.
Your Heliocentric matamatics are retrofitted to this 4000 year old model.
Lol.
Lol.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is Finished.
You Heliocentrics are very strange you post some form of nonsense then ask me to argue about it.You're too funny. Your just repeating yourself without anything to back it up.All that proves nothing. If you had actually read the Canon you'd know the Saros cycle is only the basis for modeling the period and Not used actually calculating it.You must of missed this my decrepit friend. ;)I don’t believe it has. There isn’t a single proof, equation, or analytical solution of any kind. Hand waving and making unverifiable statements doesn’t disprove anything.
What are you talking about?
This is my thread.
The thread is called :
Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the Globe. (And it has)It is NOT called.It certainly is based on the concepts of the Saros cycle. NASA says so in the Five Millennium Canon of Solar Eclipses so I’m not sure why you think it’s such a big dea. While Saros & Inex cycles provide a basis for an understanding of the periodicity/frequency of events, the current NASA analytical solutions use much more accurate numeric modeling based on the following:
Solar Eclipse explained on Flat Model.
As I have said before this will be an entirely different thread and will warrant more of my time.
You should do your own research if you are actually interested in the Flat Earth Model.
As you're Old I will give you a heads up :)
Are you familiar with the Ancient Babylonian Saros cycle ;)
This is the model that your Heliocentric brethren have retrofitted their mathematics to.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
“Based on modern theories of the Sun and the Moon constructed at the Bureau des Longitudes of Paris rather than the older Newcomb and Brown ephemerides.
Ephemerides and eclipse predictions performed in Terrestrial Dynamical Time.
Covers historical period of eclipses, as well as one millennium into the future.
Global maps for each eclipse depict the actual northern and southern limits of the Moon’s penumbral and umbral or antumbral shadows, as well as the sunrise and sunset curves.
Maps include curve of eclipse magnitude 0.5.
Maps include continental outlines with contemporary political boundaries and are large enough to identify geographic regions of eclipse visibility.
Maps are based of the most current determination of the historical values of ΔT.
Estimates of eclipse path accuracy based on the uncertainty in the value of ΔT (i.e., standard error in ΔT)”
All of which is contained in this Link (https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/5MCSE/5MCSE-Text11.pdf).
You have shown NOTHING that contradicts this document so how can you say that the eclipse of 2017 debunks anything let alone the globe?
So when the eclipse comes off exactly as described by NASA using the methodology presented in Five Millennium Canon of Solar Eclipses, you will have proved nothing.
Debunk the Canon if you can. The math in the Canon is well understood, has accurately predicted eclipses over and over again, and its results are repeatable. This Canon contains all the assumptions, data tables, and equations. It is the basis for predicting not only the upcoming eclipse all eclipses for a thousand years. Posting YouTube videos or hand waving descriptions isn’t going to cut it. You have to attack the assumptions and the math. Otherwise, your outta gas.
Mike
It is a big deal; the ancient Babylonian's knew the Earth was Flat just like NASA do.
This is why as you said NASA use their model.
NASA do not have their own model because:
The Universe
The Globe
The Heliocentric model.
In reality doesn't exist it's all a fairytale.
This is why NASA have to use a 4000 year old model.
Lol.
Lol.
It is not for you to decide what " Cuts it "
I also do not care what you believe as you are not a normal person who can understand logical explanations that can be verified by anyone
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False..
If you had actually read the Canon you'd also know that everything else is based on more modern models and concepts not known to the Babylonian's...like the earth is a heliocentric globe.
If you had actually read the Canon you'd, again would know that using the Saros cycle to invalidate the methodology is just plain silly...unless of course you don't understand how it works.
Mike
Stop talking nonsense the Ancient Babylonian Saros cycle can accurately predict Eclipses.
Your Heliocentric matamatics are retrofitted to this 4000 year old model.
Lol.
Lol.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is Finished.
It's obvious you haven't read the document because it completely contradicts your comments.
How can you have any credibility of you can't even be bothered to fake
it and make you claims match the Canon.
You just keep up with the hand waving because it seems that's all you're willing to do.
Mike
I don't know what you think that video proves but it certainly doesn't debunk round earth or the reason for eclipses.You Heliocentrics are very strange you post some form of nonsense then ask me to argue about it.You're too funny. Your just repeating yourself without anything to back it up.All that proves nothing. If you had actually read the Canon you'd know the Saros cycle is only the basis for modeling the period and Not used actually calculating it.You must of missed this my decrepit friend. ;)I don’t believe it has. There isn’t a single proof, equation, or analytical solution of any kind. Hand waving and making unverifiable statements doesn’t disprove anything.
What are you talking about?
This is my thread.
The thread is called :
Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the Globe. (And it has)It is NOT called.It certainly is based on the concepts of the Saros cycle. NASA says so in the Five Millennium Canon of Solar Eclipses so I’m not sure why you think it’s such a big dea. While Saros & Inex cycles provide a basis for an understanding of the periodicity/frequency of events, the current NASA analytical solutions use much more accurate numeric modeling based on the following:
Solar Eclipse explained on Flat Model.
As I have said before this will be an entirely different thread and will warrant more of my time.
You should do your own research if you are actually interested in the Flat Earth Model.
As you're Old I will give you a heads up :)
Are you familiar with the Ancient Babylonian Saros cycle ;)
This is the model that your Heliocentric brethren have retrofitted their mathematics to.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
“Based on modern theories of the Sun and the Moon constructed at the Bureau des Longitudes of Paris rather than the older Newcomb and Brown ephemerides.
Ephemerides and eclipse predictions performed in Terrestrial Dynamical Time.
Covers historical period of eclipses, as well as one millennium into the future.
Global maps for each eclipse depict the actual northern and southern limits of the Moon’s penumbral and umbral or antumbral shadows, as well as the sunrise and sunset curves.
Maps include curve of eclipse magnitude 0.5.
Maps include continental outlines with contemporary political boundaries and are large enough to identify geographic regions of eclipse visibility.
Maps are based of the most current determination of the historical values of ΔT.
Estimates of eclipse path accuracy based on the uncertainty in the value of ΔT (i.e., standard error in ΔT)”
All of which is contained in this Link (https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/5MCSE/5MCSE-Text11.pdf).
You have shown NOTHING that contradicts this document so how can you say that the eclipse of 2017 debunks anything let alone the globe?
So when the eclipse comes off exactly as described by NASA using the methodology presented in Five Millennium Canon of Solar Eclipses, you will have proved nothing.
Debunk the Canon if you can. The math in the Canon is well understood, has accurately predicted eclipses over and over again, and its results are repeatable. This Canon contains all the assumptions, data tables, and equations. It is the basis for predicting not only the upcoming eclipse all eclipses for a thousand years. Posting YouTube videos or hand waving descriptions isn’t going to cut it. You have to attack the assumptions and the math. Otherwise, your outta gas.
Mike
It is a big deal; the ancient Babylonian's knew the Earth was Flat just like NASA do.
This is why as you said NASA use their model.
NASA do not have their own model because:
The Universe
The Globe
The Heliocentric model.
In reality doesn't exist it's all a fairytale.
This is why NASA have to use a 4000 year old model.
Lol.
Lol.
It is not for you to decide what " Cuts it "
I also do not care what you believe as you are not a normal person who can understand logical explanations that can be verified by anyone
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False..
If you had actually read the Canon you'd also know that everything else is based on more modern models and concepts not known to the Babylonian's...like the earth is a heliocentric globe.
If you had actually read the Canon you'd, again would know that using the Saros cycle to invalidate the methodology is just plain silly...unless of course you don't understand how it works.
Mike
Stop talking nonsense the Ancient Babylonian Saros cycle can accurately predict Eclipses.
Your Heliocentric matamatics are retrofitted to this 4000 year old model.
Lol.
Lol.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is Finished.
It's obvious you haven't read the document because it completely contradicts your comments.
How can you have any credibility of you can't even be bothered to fake
it and make you claims match the Canon.
You just keep up with the hand waving because it seems that's all you're willing to do.
Mike
Why should I make my claims match the Canon?
The Ancient Babylonian Saros cycle.
The Ancient Babylonian's could predict Eclispes to the second.
The Ancient Babylonian's could predict the exact location of an Eclipse.
The Ancient Babylonian's could predict Eclipses thousands of years into their future.
The Ancient Babylonian's knew the Earth was Flat.
The Ancient Babylonian's existed overy 4000 years ago.
You have admitted yourself that NASA use this Saros cycle.
This is because NASA know the Earth is Flat just as the Babylonian's did.
http://members.bitstream.net/bunlion/bpi/EclSaros.html
As I have said I will cover this in great detail shortly in the future when I have the time.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
I do not get confused like you Heliocentrics.No, you appear to get confused like an FE'er.You have an inability to understand simple explanations or you are deceitful.You appear to be both.And if you read your post you will see you have rotational velocity and angular velocity confused as you claimed the angular velocity of the Earth is a 1000 mph.Oh? How so?
You have debunked your own explanation.Any normal person can understand that as the moon's total orbital path is 27 to 29 days and 1.5 million miles it would have to travel at least a 190000 miles to cross the USA west to east because it is 200000 miles away on your Heliocentric model and in reality the USA is nearly 3000 miles wide so we could say that is roughly 12.5% of the alleged circumfrence of your imaginary Globe which to keep it simple represents roughly 12.5% of the Moons orbital path.Would you care to show the math that proves what you say?In reality any normal person will know it is impossible for the Moons shadow to travel west to east as they see the Moon rise in the East and set in the West EVERYDAY.Well, I guess that makes me smarter than a normal person.It is also impossible as shown in the first video I posted at the start of the thread because the earth's angular velocity on your model is 27 times greater than the Moon's actual velocity.And you can't seem to understand that comparing the earth's angular velocity to the moon's orbital velocity is a fallacy.You have failed to take into account that the Solar Eclipse is visable in the Sky and it is the Earth's alleged angular Velocity as you and your colleague's have agreed that determines what we see in the sky.We see the moon transit the sun in the sky, but the moon's shadow is being cast on the earth.A video that describes the orbit of the Moon on your Heliocentric model.*yawn* Yet another YouTuber that doesn't understand how orbits and circular motion work.Light travels in straight lines .*yawn* Getting too tired to respond to the rest of your tripe.
The Eclispe is caused by the moon passing between the sun and the earth.
The Sun has to be directly behind the Moon and the Earth has to be directly in front of the Moon.
An object shadow will follow the object when the light source is directly behind it.
You are now claiming the Moon moves in the opposite direction to what is observed this would be the only possible way that the Moon's shadow can move west to East when the light source which is the Sun is directly behind it.
I'll just leave you with this to ponder:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ad/Solar_eclipse_visualisation.svg/512px-Solar_eclipse_visualisation.svg.png)
I do not get confused like you Heliocentrics.No, you appear to get confused like an FE'er.You have an inability to understand simple explanations or you are deceitful.You appear to be both.And if you read your post you will see you have rotational velocity and angular velocity confused as you claimed the angular velocity of the Earth is a 1000 mph.Oh? How so?
You have debunked your own explanation.Any normal person can understand that as the moon's total orbital path is 27 to 29 days and 1.5 million miles it would have to travel at least a 190000 miles to cross the USA west to east because it is 200000 miles away on your Heliocentric model and in reality the USA is nearly 3000 miles wide so we could say that is roughly 12.5% of the alleged circumfrence of your imaginary Globe which to keep it simple represents roughly 12.5% of the Moons orbital path.Would you care to show the math that proves what you say?In reality any normal person will know it is impossible for the Moons shadow to travel west to east as they see the Moon rise in the East and set in the West EVERYDAY.Well, I guess that makes me smarter than a normal person.It is also impossible as shown in the first video I posted at the start of the thread because the earth's angular velocity on your model is 27 times greater than the Moon's actual velocity.And you can't seem to understand that comparing the earth's angular velocity to the moon's orbital velocity is a fallacy.You have failed to take into account that the Solar Eclipse is visable in the Sky and it is the Earth's alleged angular Velocity as you and your colleague's have agreed that determines what we see in the sky.We see the moon transit the sun in the sky, but the moon's shadow is being cast on the earth.A video that describes the orbit of the Moon on your Heliocentric model.*yawn* Yet another YouTuber that doesn't understand how orbits and circular motion work.Light travels in straight lines .*yawn* Getting too tired to respond to the rest of your tripe.
The Eclispe is caused by the moon passing between the sun and the earth.
The Sun has to be directly behind the Moon and the Earth has to be directly in front of the Moon.
An object shadow will follow the object when the light source is directly behind it.
You are now claiming the Moon moves in the opposite direction to what is observed this would be the only possible way that the Moon's shadow can move west to East when the light source which is the Sun is directly behind it.
I'll just leave you with this to ponder:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ad/Solar_eclipse_visualisation.svg/512px-Solar_eclipse_visualisation.svg.png)
You are not very intelligent are you?
All you had to do is admit you made a mistake.
It would seem you Heliocentrics are incapable of doing this.
You and your Heliocentric brethren have said the angular velocity of the earth is a 1000 mph .
This can be verified by the readers in the qoute above.
Angular velocity is measured in radians.
http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/angular-velocity-rotational-velocity
It is you and your brethren that are confused.
I do not get confused like you Heliocentrics.
You have an inability to understand simple explanations or you are deceitful.
And if you read your post you will see you have rotational velocity and angular velocity confused as you claimed the angular velocity of the Earth is a 1000 mph.
You have debunked your own explanation.
Any normal person can understand that as the moon's total orbital path is 27 to 29 days and 1.5 million miles it would have to travel at least a 190000 miles to cross the USA west to east because it is 200000 miles away on your Heliocentric model and in reality the USA is nearly 3000 miles wide so we could say that is roughly 12.5% of the alleged circumfrence of your imaginary Globe which to keep it simple represents roughly 12.5% of the Moons orbital path.
In reality any normal person will know it is impossible for the Moons shadow to travel west to east as they see the Moon rise in the East and set in the West EVERYDAY.
It is also impossible as shown in the first video I posted at the start of the thread because the earth's angular velocity on your model is 27 times greater than the Moon's actual velocity.
You have failed to take into account that the Solar Eclipse is visable in the Sky and it is the Earth's alleged angular Velocity as you and your colleague's have agreed that determines what we see in the sky.
A video that describes the orbit of the Moon on your Heliocentric model.
Light travels in straight lines .
The Eclispe is caused by the moon passing between the sun and the earth.
The Sun has to be directly behind the Moon and the Earth has to be directly in front of the Moon.
An object shadow will follow the object when the light source is directly behind it.
You are now claiming the Moon moves in the opposite direction to what is observed this would be the only possible way that the Moon's shadow can move west to East when the light source which is the Sun is directly behind it.
http://www.livephysics.com/physical-constants/mechanics-pc/angular-speed-earth/
You are fooling no one with your heliocentric nonsense.
It is impossible for the path of the solar eclipse to move in completely the opposite direction to the moon.
The moon rises in the East and sets in th west.
The Solar Eclipse starts in the west and finishes if the East.
The Earth's angular velocity which Is one rotation every 24 hrs is 27 times faster than the Moon's velocity.
This is why the moon allegedly rises in the east and sets in the west.
If the Moon's velocity was greater than the angular velocity of the earth the Moon would rise in the West and set in the East it would also have to orbit the earth more than once every 24 hours to achieve this.
Here is a description of a solar eclipse on your model.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_eclipse
It clearly says the eclipse is caused when the moon passes in front of the sun.
The moon takes 27 days to orbit the earth.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon
On your model the Sun is stationary regarding it's position to the earth and the moon
.http://kidseclipse.com/sun-earth-moon-move/
I choose this link so you Stupid and gullable Heliocentric's can try to understand how and why the upcoming Solar Eclipse is impossible on your model.
It is impossible for an objects shadow to move in the opposite direction to the said object when the light source is stationary.
The only way this would be possible on your model would be if the Sun was moving millions of miles in relation to the earth and did not maintain it's alleged position in the centre of the solar system.
https://www.quora.com/Is-the-sun-the-center-of-the-solar-system-Why
So I will tell you again it is impossible for the Moon to cast a shadow on the Earth that is 24 times smaller than itself.
So I will tell you again it is impossible for the Solar Eclipse to move across the Earth west to East which is the opposite direction to the moon on your Heliocentric model.
Your Heliocentric model does not match reality as such your Heliocentric model is false.
Part one
Part two
The readers will make their own minds up .
Jerimiah 5 : 21
Hear this, you foolish and senseless people, who have eyes but do not see, who have ears but do not hear:
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is Finished.
;D ;D ;D
You Heliocentrics are very strange you post some form of nonsense then ask me to argue about it.Well, it’s apparent that you don’t know the Saros cycle very well.
Why should I make my claims match the Canon?
The Ancient Babylonian Saros cycle.
The Ancient Babylonian's could predict Eclispes to the second.
The Ancient Babylonian's could predict the exact location of an Eclipse.
The Ancient Babylonian's could predict Eclipses thousands of years into their future.
The Ancient Babylonian's knew the Earth was Flat.
The Ancient Babylonian's existed overy 4000 years ago.
You have admitted yourself that NASA use this Saros cycle.
This is because NASA know the Earth is Flat just as the Babylonian's did.
http://members.bitstream.net/bunlion/bpi/EclSaros.html
As I have said I will cover this in great detail shortly in the future when I have the time.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
The Ancient Babylonian Saros cycle.Rubbish! The Ancient Babylonian's could not even measure time to the second! You do spout heaps of unfounded garbage.
The Ancient Babylonian's could predictEclispesEclipses to the second.
The Ancient Babylonian's could predict the exact location of an Eclipse.Please prove both of those statements!
The Ancient Babylonian's could predict Eclipses thousands of years into their future.
The Ancient Babylonian's knew the Earth was Flat.They did, but their cosmological model was nothing like your neo-Flat Earthism Religion's cosmological model!
Babylonian astronomy, Cosmology
In Babylonian cosmology, the Earth and the heavens were depicted as a "spatial whole, even one of round shape" with references to "the circumference of heaven and earth" and "the totality of heaven and earth". Their worldview was not exactly geocentric either. The idea of geocentrism, where the center of the Earth is the exact center of the universe, did not yet exist in Babylonian cosmology, but was established later by the Greek philosopher Aristotle's On the Heavens. In contrast, Babylonian cosmology suggested that the cosmos revolved around circularly with the heavens and the earth being equal and joined as a whole. The Babylonians and their predecessors, the Sumerians, also believed in a plurality of heavens and earths. This idea dates back to Sumerian incantations of the 2nd millennium BC, which refers to there being seven heavens and seven earths, linked possibly chronologically to the creation by seven generations of Gods
From: Babylonian astronomy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_astronomy#Old_Babylonian_astronomy)
The Ancient Babylonian's existed over 4000 years ago.Sure, so what!
You have admitted yourself that NASA use this Saros cycle.
This is because NASA know the Earth is Flat just as the Babylonian's did.It is a total lie that "NASA know the Earth is Flat", and you know it!
http://members.bitstream.net/bunlion/bpi/EclSaros.htmlDid you even read that?
Eclipses and the Saros CycleThe exact Saros Cycles created by the Babylonians do not hold for all time.
Why do these Saros Families Evolve over time?
If these 3 cycles repeated exactly every 6585.322 days, eclipses would repeat perfectly every Saros Cycle. However, these cycles are slightly out of sync with each other, causing the geometry of one eclipse to change slightly when its "Saros buddy" comes around 18+ years later. In particular, notice that 19 Draconic Years minus 223 Synodic Months is about 11 hours. This 11 hour gap is the key to explaining why Saros Families evolve over time.
As I have said I will cover this in great detail shortly in the future when I have the time.You do that, but your neo-Flat Earthism Religion's model simply cannot explain the eclipses that have been and will be observed!
Look at this diagram:Then look at past eclipses:(https://www.dropbox.com/s/ojc6vktk196cvgh/Shadow%20sizes.png?dl=1)That should make it completely obvious that
- if the light source size is greater than the size of the object, then the umbra is smaller than the size of your object,
- if the light source size is equal in size to the object, then the umbra is equal in size to the object and
- if the light source size is less than the size of the object, then the umbra is greater than the size of the object.
Date | Eclipse Type | Path Width | ||
2001 Jun 21 | Total central | 200.0 km | ||
2002 Jun 10 | Annular central | 13.5 km | ||
2003 Nov 23 | Total central | 495.5 km |
You and your Heliocentric brethren have said the angular velocity of the earth is a 1000 mph .No, I'm pretty sure that I've been saying rotational velocity all along. You're the one who keep bringing up angular velocity.
This can be verified by the readers in the qoute above.Would you care to point it out, because I can't find it.
In reality any normal person will know it is impossible for the Moons shadow to travel west to east as they see the Moon rise in the East and set in the West EVERYDAY.In what direction does the moon orbit the earth?
The Ancient Babylonian Saros cycle.Could the Ancient Babylonians predict eclipses in North America?
The Ancient Babylonian's could predict Eclispes to the second.
The Ancient Babylonian's could predict the exact location of an Eclipse.
The Ancient Babylonian's could predict Eclipses thousands of years into their future.
The Ancient Babylonian's knew the Earth was Flat.
The Ancient Babylonian's existed overy 4000 years ago.
The only way this would be possible on your model would be if the Sun was moving millions of miles in relation to the earth and did not maintain it's alleged position in the centre of the solar system.
Sorry, but this is BS. Earth rotation remains constant, same goes for the lateral moving umbra/penumbra by the Moon. But since it's projected on a sphere it actually travels much faster on it's path when entering or leaving the sphere because of the curvature, and furthermore any point on the radius on a revolving Earth would reach it's peak lateral velocity when being directly aligned to any reference point (like the Sun) and the slowest (zero lateral velocity, actually) when being perpendicular, so you got that all wrong again.
Look at this:
(https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEanimate/SEanimate2001/SE2012Nov13T.GIF)
and the blue cosinus animation here:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3b/Circle_cos_sin.gif)
Now think again. ::)
Quote
The only way this would be possible on your model would be if the Sun was moving millions of miles in relation to the earth and did not maintain it's alleged position in the centre of the solar system.
You may not realize it, but you are so close to getting it here. In a sense, this is what is happening.
No, of course the sun is not moving millions of miles in relation to the earth--but it appears to from the perspective of a point on the earth. And this is key to the whole thing. The sun appears to revolve westward above our heads, as does the moon.
It's the shadow we're concerned with, not the moon itself. Remember that the shadow cast by an object is not just dictated by the location of the object, but by the location of the light source as well. As the light source gets lower in the West, it will cast a shadow at an increasing angle to the East. There is no contradiction here with the moon rising in the East and setting in the West.
You and your Heliocentric brethren have said the angular velocity of the earth is a 1000 mph.
In reality any normal person will know it is impossible for the Moons shadow to travel west to east as they see the Moon rise in the East and set in the West EVERYDAY.
Any normal person can understand that as the moon's total orbital path is 27 to 29 days and 1.5 million miles it would have to travel at least a 190000 miles to cross the USA west to east because it is 200000 miles away on your Heliocentric model and in reality the USA is nearly 3000 miles wide so we could say that is roughly 12.5% of the alleged circumfrence of your imaginary Globe which to keep it simple represents roughly 12.5% of the Moons orbital path.
In reality any normal person will know it is impossible for the Moons shadow to travel west to east as they see the Moon rise in the East and set in the West EVERYDAY.
9 pages of repeatedly dumbed-down explanations and you still don't get it. Damn.
He gets it. He's just a psychopathic troll who can't live without the attention.Yes, I know, but it's so much fun insulting his troll. ;D
What the hell happenend to dutchy though? It's like he abandoned this thread after gushing so hard in the first place... :-\He reluctantly agreed that the RE model does indeed explain the west to east movement of the eclipse shadow.
What the hell happenend to dutchy though? It's like he abandoned this thread after gushing so hard in the first place... :-\He reluctantly agreed that the RE model does indeed explain the west to east movement of the eclipse shadow.
Now if only he would explain it to RiF in a way that an FE'er could understand.
QuoteAny normal person can understand that as the moon's total orbital path is 27 to 29 days and 1.5 million miles it would have to travel at least a 190000 miles to cross the USA west to east because it is 200000 miles away on your Heliocentric model and in reality the USA is nearly 3000 miles wide so we could say that is roughly 12.5% of the alleged circumfrence of your imaginary Globe which to keep it simple represents roughly 12.5% of the Moons orbital path.
RIF, with respect this is plain wrong. The moon does not have to be overhead to cast a shadow. For a shadow to traverse a certain distance on the earth, the object casting the shadow only has to move the same actual distance, NOT the same number of degrees.
Try this way of thinking about it.....
Do you accept that the speed of a shadow on the ground cast by an aircraft at say 3000ft is essentially the same as the speed of the aircraft? Can you then see that the distance travelled by the shadow in a given timespan is the same as the distance travelled by the aircraft in the same timespan?
If the light source is a long way away, do you accept that this is true regardless of the altitude of the aircraft?
If the aircraft/object was at say 300,000km and the light source a LOT further away do you accept that the speed of the shadow across the ground would be the same as the speed of the object?
If the ground was then also moving with respect to the light source, and moving in the same direction as the object, can you see that the speed of the shadow across the ground is the difference between 2 speeds? So in our case the speed of the shadow is the speed of the moon minus the speed of the ground.
As the speed of the moon is faster than the speed of the ground, the shadow will still go west to east in this case. For the shadow to travel 3000 miles across the continent the moon also only has to travel 3000 miles.
I really can't make it any simpler than that.
What the hell happenend to dutchy though? It's like he abandoned this thread after gushing so hard in the first place... :-\He reluctantly agreed that the RE model does indeed explain the west to east movement of the eclipse shadow.
Now if only he would explain it to RiF in a way that an FE'er could understand.
Good one. That's outright impossible on something dense like Ignorance.is.Bliss... :-\
It is impossible for an objects shadow to move in the opposite direction to the said object when the light source is stationary.
Why are you so intensely against a global earth. You astound me with petty reasons and no proof. What is your agenda friend. And what does it have to do with reality.
What exactly is your criteria for globe earth evidence?Why are you so intensely against a global earth. You astound me with petty reasons and no proof. What is your agenda friend. And what does it have to do with reality.
It not possible to be against Global Earth.
I have yet to see any evidence that has met my criteria and that I find acceptable that proves the Globe exists.
Luke 8:17
For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open.
Your explanation is Not Acceptable.
Your explanation is absolute nonsense you have failed to take into account the angular velocity of the Earth.
An Airplane flying above the Earth on your Model allegedly moves round with the Earth's rotation.
The Moon however does not move with the Earth's rotation.
So to use an Airplane as example is a nonsense.
Any normal person can understand that as the moon's total orbital path is 27 to 29 days and 1.5 million miles it would have to travel at least a 190000 miles to cross the USA west to east because it is 200000 miles away on your Heliocentric model and in reality the USA is nearly 3000 miles wide so we could say that is roughly 12.5% of the alleged circumfrence of your imaginary Globe which to keep it simple represents roughly 12.5% of the Moons orbital path.
In reality any normal person will know it is impossible for the Moons shadow to travel west to east as they see the Moon rise in the East and set in the West EVERYDAY.
It is also impossible as shown in the first video I posted at the start of the thread because the earth's angular velocity on your model is 27 times greater than the Moon's actual velocity.
You have failed to take into account that the Solar Eclipse is visable in the Sky and it is the Earth's alleged angular Velocity as you and your colleague's have agreed that determines what we see in the sky.
A video that describes the orbit of the Moon on your Heliocentric model.
Light travels in straight lines .
The Eclispe is caused by the moon passing between the sun and the earth.
The Sun has to be directly behind the Moon and the Earth has to be directly in front of the Moon.
An object shadow will follow the object when the light source is directly behind it.
You are now claiming the Moon moves in the opposite direction to what is observed this would be the only possible way that the Moon's shadow can move west to East when the light source which is the Sun is directly behind it.
http://www.livephysics.com/physical-constants/mechanics-pc/angular-speed-earth/
You are fooling no one with your heliocentric nonsense.
It is impossible for the path of the solar eclipse to move in completely the opposite direction to the moon.
The moon rises in the East and sets in th west.
The Solar Eclipse starts in the west and finishes if the East.
The Earth's angular velocity which Is one rotation every 24 hrs is 27 times faster than the Moon's velocity.
This is why the moon allegedly rises in the east and sets in the west.
If the Moon's velocity was greater than the angular velocity of the earth the Moon would rise in the West and set in the East it would also have to orbit the earth more than once every 24 hours to achieve this.
Here is a description of a solar eclipse on your model.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_eclipse
It clearly says the eclipse is caused when the moon passes in front of the sun.
The moon takes 27 days to orbit the earth.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon
On your model the Sun is stationary regarding it's position to the earth and the moon
.http://kidseclipse.com/sun-earth-moon-move/
I choose this link so you Stupid and gullable Heliocentric's can try to understand how and why the upcoming Solar Eclipse is impossible on your model.
It is impossible for an objects shadow to move in the opposite direction to the said object when the light source is stationary.
The only way this would be possible on your model would be if the Sun was moving millions of miles in relation to the earth and did not maintain it's alleged position in the centre of the solar system.
https://www.quora.com/Is-the-sun-the-center-of-the-solar-system-Why
So I will tell you again it is impossible for the Moon to cast a shadow on the Earth that is 24 times smaller than itself.
So I will tell you again it is impossible for the Solar Eclipse to move across the Earth west to East which is the opposite direction to the moon on your Heliocentric model.
Your Heliocentric model does not match reality as such your Heliocentric model is false.
Part one
Part two
The readers will make their own minds up .
Luke 8:17
For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is Finished.
;D ;D ;D
The Moon however does not move with the Earth's rotation.The moon's orbit is eccentric, so these are just average values.
Any normal person can understand that as the moon's total orbital path is 27 to 29 days and 1.5 million miles it would have to travel at least a 190000 miles to cross the USA west to east because it is 200000 miles away on your Heliocentric model and in reality the USA is nearly 3000 miles wide so we could say that is roughly 12.5% of the alleged circumfrence of your imaginary Globe which to keep it simple represents roughly 12.5% of the Moons orbital path.
In reality any normal person will know it is impossible for the Moons shadow to travel west to east as they see the Moon rise in the East and set in the West EVERYDAY.Of course it does and nobody is doubting that, but that is where we see the moon in the sky, not the sun-moon-earth shadow line. that determines the path of the eclipse.
It is also impossible as shown in the first video I posted at the start of the thread because the earth's angular velocity on your model is 27 times greater than the Moon's actual velocity.NO! Your video is quite incorrect and the earth's angular velocity on your model is 29.53 times greater than the Moon's angular velocity.
A video that describes the orbit of the Moon on your Heliocentric model.Stop trying to palm off crap from the trash can of your neo-Flat Earthism Cult's Temple as facts about the heliocentric model.
Light travels in straight lines .Apart from very slight refraction, that is agreed, just you remember that little fact!
The Eclispe(sic) is caused by the moon passing between the sun and the earth.The moon's shadow moves from west-to-east because the moon moves from west-to-east,
The Sun has to be directly behind the Moon and the Earth has to be directly in front of the Moon.
An object shadow will follow the object when the light source is directly behind it.
You are now claiming the Moon moves in the opposite direction to what is observed this would be the only possible way that the Moon's shadow can move west to East when the light source which is the Sun is directly behind it.
http://www.livephysics.com/physical-constants/mechanics-pc/angular-speed-earth/Yes, I think we have shown that we are quite aware of that, thank you.
<< lot's of irrelevant rantings and ravings omitted >>Have you ever wondered why
Why are you so intensely against a global earth. You astound me with petty reasons and no proof. What is your agenda friend. And what does it have to do with reality.
It not possible to be against Global Earth.
I have yet to see any evidence that has met my criteria and that I find acceptable that proves the Globe exists.
I enjoy arguing and debating and listening to people's point of view.
If someone attacks my position in an argument or debate I will defend it.
If this makes me a troll then so be it.
I have provided evidence in this thread that everyone will understand.
The only way you can prove your Globe is with CGI and your retrofitted mathematics.
I have NO agenda.
It has nothing to do with my reality.
Which is why I find it interesting that it seems to anger and frustrate some of you.
It is also interesting that some of you try and project an image of an expert.
The reality is you don't even know the basics of your own Heliocentric model.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
In reality any normal person will know it is impossible for the Moons shadow to travel west to east as they see the Moon rise in the East and set in the West EVERYDAY.
Yup, a one trick pony with nothing to back it up.In reality any normal person will know it is impossible for the Moons shadow to travel west to east as they see the Moon rise in the East and set in the West EVERYDAY.
"Hmmm maybe if I say it again, it will finally become true. Yeah I'll say it again."
Yup, a one trick pony with nothing to back it up.In reality any normal person will know it is impossible for the Moons shadow to travel west to east as they see the Moon rise in the East and set in the West EVERYDAY.
"Hmmm maybe if I say it again, it will finally become true. Yeah I'll say it again."
Mike
Montana State University is preparing a space baloon to televise the eclipse from a height above the clouds, calculated to be at the edge of space, nearly 19 miles above the earth - a height from which, the project director claims, THE CURVATURE OF THE EARTH WILL BE VISIBLE.
The baloon image will be available at:
http://eclipse.stream.live/ (http://eclipse.stream.live/)
Montana State University is preparing a space baloon to televise the eclipse from a height above the clouds, calculated to be at the edge of space, nearly 19 miles above the earth - a height from which, the project director claims, THE CURVATURE OF THE EARTH WILL BE VISIBLE.
The baloon image will be available at:
http://eclipse.stream.live/ (http://eclipse.stream.live/)
Your explanation is absolute nonsense you have failed to take into account the angular velocity of the Earth.And you refuse to take into account the rotational velocity of the earth.
In reality any normal person will know it is impossible for the Moons shadow to travel west to east as they see the Moon rise in the East and set in the West EVERYDAY.
It is also impossible as shown in the first video I posted at the start of the thread because the earth's angular velocity on your model is 27 times greater than the Moon's actual velocity.Comparing the earth's angular velocity to the moon's orbital velocity is not a valid comparison, no matter how many times you bring it up.
The moon rises in the East and sets in th west.It seems to me that it's a contradiction regardless of which model you support.
The Solar Eclipse starts in the west and finishes if the East.
Yes, but if you use a little critical thinking skills, and understand barrel distortion, when the horizon is at the vertical center of the frame it is un-distorted.Montana State University is preparing a space baloon to televise the eclipse from a height above the clouds, calculated to be at the edge of space, nearly 19 miles above the earth - a height from which, the project director claims, THE CURVATURE OF THE EARTH WILL BE VISIBLE.
The baloon image will be available at:
http://eclipse.stream.live/ (http://eclipse.stream.live/)
Incorrect " Here to be useless."
No they will use a fish eye lense that is how they fake the Earth's curvature.
Fish eye lenses are real .
The readers can verify the effect a fish eye lense has on an image all they have to do is buy a Go Pro Camera.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.A lie, like "Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False".oft repeated ", does not magical become true,
The earth is spherically shaped. I addressed this question to all flat earthers in the world :
Dear flat earthers, tell me the name of one (JUST ONE) prominent western scientist (who was born in the last 2500 years) who believed that the earth is flat? Can you imagine conspiracy of that scale? Is the conspiracy of such magnitude even possible, what do you think? You see, if you are ignorant you don't have to be stupid, also...wake up...the earth is round and motionless...
Aviation and gyros still bother me, but the evidence in favor of the round earth is overwhelming...
However, the earth is at rest, no doubts about that!
Yup, a one trick pony with nothing to back it up.In reality any normal person will know it is impossible for the Moons shadow to travel west to east as they see the Moon rise in the East and set in the West EVERYDAY.
"Hmmm maybe if I say it again, it will finally become true. Yeah I'll say it again."
Mike
No Incorrect
Luke 8:17
For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open.
Your explanation is Not Acceptable.
Your explanation is absolute nonsense you have failed to take into account the angular velocity of the Earth.
An Airplane flying above the Earth on your Model allegedly moves round with the Earth's rotation.
The Moon however does not move with the Earth's rotation.
So to use an Airplane as example is a nonsense.
Any normal person can understand that as the moon's total orbital path is 27 to 29 days and 1.5 million miles it would have to travel at least a 190000 miles to cross the USA west to east because it is 200000 miles away on your Heliocentric model and in reality the USA is nearly 3000 miles wide so we could say that is roughly 12.5% of the alleged circumfrence of your imaginary Globe which to keep it simple represents roughly 12.5% of the Moons orbital path.
In reality any normal person will know it is impossible for the Moons shadow to travel west to east as they see the Moon rise in the East and set in the West EVERYDAY.
It is also impossible as shown in the first video I posted at the start of the thread because the earth's angular velocity on your model is 27 times greater than the Moon's actual velocity.
You have failed to take into account that the Solar Eclipse is visable in the Sky and it is the Earth's alleged angular Velocity as you and your colleague's have agreed that determines what we see in the sky.
A video that describes the orbit of the Moon on your Heliocentric model.
Light travels in straight lines .
The Eclispe is caused by the moon passing between the sun and the earth.
The Sun has to be directly behind the Moon and the Earth has to be directly in front of the Moon.
An object shadow will follow the object when the light source is directly behind it.
You are now claiming the Moon moves in the opposite direction to what is observed this would be the only possible way that the Moon's shadow can move west to East when the light source which is the Sun is directly behind it.
http://www.livephysics.com/physical-constants/mechanics-pc/angular-speed-earth/
You are fooling no one with your heliocentric nonsense.
It is impossible for the path of the solar eclipse to move in completely the opposite direction to the moon.
The moon rises in the East and sets in th west.
The Solar Eclipse starts in the west and finishes if the East.
The Earth's angular velocity which Is one rotation every 24 hrs is 27 times faster than the Moon's velocity.
This is why the moon allegedly rises in the east and sets in the west.
If the Moon's velocity was greater than the angular velocity of the earth the Moon would rise in the West and set in the East it would also have to orbit the earth more than once every 24 hours to achieve this.
Here is a description of a solar eclipse on your model.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_eclipse
It clearly says the eclipse is caused when the moon passes in front of the sun.
The moon takes 27 days to orbit the earth.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon
On your model the Sun is stationary regarding it's position to the earth and the moon
.http://kidseclipse.com/sun-earth-moon-move/
I choose this link so you Stupid and gullable Heliocentric's can try to understand how and why the upcoming Solar Eclipse is impossible on your model.
It is impossible for an objects shadow to move in the opposite direction to the said object when the light source is stationary.
The only way this would be possible on your model would be if the Sun was moving millions of miles in relation to the earth and did not maintain it's alleged position in the centre of the solar system.
https://www.quora.com/Is-the-sun-the-center-of-the-solar-system-Why
So I will tell you again it is impossible for the Moon to cast a shadow on the Earth that is 24 times smaller than itself.
So I will tell you again it is impossible for the Solar Eclipse to move across the Earth west to East which is the opposite direction to the moon on your Heliocentric model.
Your Heliocentric model does not match reality as such your Heliocentric model is false.
Part one
Part two
The readers will make their own minds up .
Luke 8:17
For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is Finished.
;D ;D ;D
Man, you all should let this thread die already.
Its been 11 pages already of the exact same people repeating the same things over and over and over again.
Man, you all should let this thread die already.
Its been 11 pages already of the exact same people repeating the same things over and over and over again.
Yeah, that's why I introduced Luke's can of tuna.
Your fairytale is over in nine days time no one will believe in your Heliocentric model.And still no alternate explaination from you. It's almost like you have no idea what you are talking about. Until you can explain how it works on a flat earth you have nothing at all.
Luke 8:17
For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open.
Your explanation is Not Acceptable.
Your explanation is absolute nonsense you have failed to take into account the angular velocity of the Earth.
An Airplane flying above the Earth on your Model allegedly moves round with the Earth's rotation.
The Moon however does not move with the Earth's rotation.
So to use an Airplane as example is a nonsense.
Any normal person can understand that as the moon's total orbital path is 27 to 29 days and 1.5 million miles it would have to travel at least a 190000 miles to cross the USA west to east because it is 200000 miles away on your Heliocentric model and in reality the USA is nearly 3000 miles wide so we could say that is roughly 12.5% of the alleged circumfrence of your imaginary Globe which to keep it simple represents roughly 12.5% of the Moons orbital path.
In reality any normal person will know it is impossible for the Moons shadow to travel west to east as they see the Moon rise in the East and set in the West EVERYDAY.
It is also impossible as shown in the first video I posted at the start of the thread because the earth's angular velocity on your model is 27 times greater than the Moon's actual velocity.
You have failed to take into account that the Solar Eclipse is visable in the Sky and it is the Earth's alleged angular Velocity as you and your colleague's have agreed that determines what we see in the sky.
A video that describes the orbit of the Moon on your Heliocentric model.
Light travels in straight lines .
The Eclispe is caused by the moon passing between the sun and the earth.
The Sun has to be directly behind the Moon and the Earth has to be directly in front of the Moon.
An object shadow will follow the object when the light source is directly behind it.
You are now claiming the Moon moves in the opposite direction to what is observed this would be the only possible way that the Moon's shadow can move west to East when the light source which is the Sun is directly behind it.
http://www.livephysics.com/physical-constants/mechanics-pc/angular-speed-earth/
You are fooling no one with your heliocentric nonsense.
It is impossible for the path of the solar eclipse to move in completely the opposite direction to the moon.
The moon rises in the East and sets in th west.
The Solar Eclipse starts in the west and finishes if the East.
The Earth's angular velocity which Is one rotation every 24 hrs is 27 times faster than the Moon's velocity.
This is why the moon allegedly rises in the east and sets in the west.
If the Moon's velocity was greater than the angular velocity of the earth the Moon would rise in the West and set in the East it would also have to orbit the earth more than once every 24 hours to achieve this.
Here is a description of a solar eclipse on your model.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_eclipse
It clearly says the eclipse is caused when the moon passes in front of the sun.
The moon takes 27 days to orbit the earth.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon
On your model the Sun is stationary regarding it's position to the earth and the moon
.http://kidseclipse.com/sun-earth-moon-move/
I choose this link so you Stupid and gullable Heliocentric's can try to understand how and why the upcoming Solar Eclipse is impossible on your model.
It is impossible for an objects shadow to move in the opposite direction to the said object when the light source is stationary.
The only way this would be possible on your model would be if the Sun was moving millions of miles in relation to the earth and did not maintain it's alleged position in the centre of the solar system.
https://www.quora.com/Is-the-sun-the-center-of-the-solar-system-Why
So I will tell you again it is impossible for the Moon to cast a shadow on the Earth that is 24 times smaller than itself.
So I will tell you again it is impossible for the Solar Eclipse to move across the Earth west to East which is the opposite direction to the moon on your Heliocentric model.
Your Heliocentric model does not match reality as such your Heliocentric model is false.
Part one
Part two
The readers will make their own minds up .
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is Finished.
;D ;D ;D
Your fairytale is over in nine days time no one will believe in your Heliocentric model.
You are now claiming the Moon moves in the opposite direction to what is observed this would be the only possible way that the Moon's shadow can move west to East when the light source which is the Sun is directly behind it.
It is impossible for the path of the solar eclipse to move in completely the opposite direction to the moon.
The moon rises in the East and sets in th west.
It is impossible for an objects shadow to move in the opposite direction to the said object when the light source is stationary.
So I will tell you again it is impossible for the Moon to cast a shadow on the Earth that is 24 times smaller than itself.
So I will tell you again it is impossible for the Solar Eclipse to move across the Earth west to East which is the opposite direction to the moon.
Your fairytale is over in nine days time no one will believe in your Heliocentric model.Umm... You do realize that solar eclipses happen almost every year, don't you?
Your fairytale is over in nine days time no one will believe in your Heliocentric model.Umm... You do realize that solar eclipses happen almost every year, don't you?
In fact, there have been a total of 25 solar eclipses since 2000, including an annular eclipse that occurred in February.
What's so special about this one?
The heliocentric model hasn't changed.
The path of the sun and moon hasn't changed.
The path of the eclipse shadow hasn't changed.
Why will this eclipse kill the heliocentric model then none of the previous ones have?
The vast majority of people have been aware of the true shape of the earth for many decades.
It's well established.
What do you imagine will eclipse the Sun, if not the Moon?
The vast majority of people have been aware of the true shape of the earth for many decades.
It's well established.
What do you imagine will eclipse the Sun, if not the Moon?
The Black Sun.
It is impossible for the Moon to Eclispe the Sun as the Moon is vis able during the day.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is Finished.
The vast majority of people have been aware of the true shape of the earth for many decades.
It's well established.
What do you imagine will eclipse the Sun, if not the Moon?
The Black Sun.
It is impossible for the Moon to Eclispe the Sun as the Moon is vis able during the day.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is Finished.
...and where is this "black sun" right now?
The vast majority of people have been aware of the true shape of the earth for many decades.
It's well established.
What do you imagine will eclipse the Sun, if not the Moon?
The Black Sun.
It is impossible for the Moon to Eclispe the Sun as the Moon is vis able during the day.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is Finished.
...and where is this "black sun" right now?
It is only visable when it passes in front of the Sun dum dum
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is Finished.
The vast majority of people have been aware of the true shape of the earth for many decades.
It's well established.
What do you imagine will eclipse the Sun, if not the Moon?
The Black Sun.
It is impossible for the Moon to Eclispe the Sun as the Moon is vis able during the day.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is Finished.
...and where is this "black sun" right now?
It is only visable when it passes in front of the Sun dum dum
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is Finished.
In a Heliocentric model, the Moon visible during the day would be a requirement for the Moon to eclipse the Sun.The vast majority of people have been aware of the true shape of the earth for many decades.
It's well established.
What do you imagine will eclipse the Sun, if not the Moon?
The Black Sun.
It is impossible for the Moon to Eclispe the Sun as the Moon is vis able during the day.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is Finished.
Just out of curiosity, will this black sun be exactly where the heliocentric model predicts the moon is supposed to be during the eclipse?The vast majority of people have been aware of the true shape of the earth for many decades.
It's well established.
What do you imagine will eclipse the Sun, if not the Moon?
The Black Sun.
It is impossible for the Moon to Eclispe the Sun as the Moon is vis able during the day.Umm... The new moon phase is just barely visible during the day.
And do you expect anyone to believe the your fictitious black sun can totally block full sunlight,
The Black Sun.
It is only visable when it passes in front of the Sun dum dum
And do you expect anyone to believe the your fictitious black sun can totally block full sunlight,
The Black Sun.
It is only visable when it passes in front of the Sun dum dumyet be invisible to radar and not even block radio astronomy signals fro near the sun. Pull the other one!You've lost you mind now, dum dum!
But, in the meantime the Heliocentric Globe spins happily along and perfectly explains solar and lunar eclipses and lunar phases.
They are things that your Pathetic Pepperoni Pizza Planet can never do!
But, strangely enough, the flat earth model of those smart old Babylonians did explain these things fairly well.
I wonder where you went so wrong? I don't really, but that's for me to know and you to find out Mr Ignorance.is.Bliss!
Your strange Flat Earthism Religion never was.
And do you expect anyone to believe the your fictitious black sun can totally block full sunlight,
The Black Sun.
It is only visable when it passes in front of the Sun dum dumyet be invisible to radar and not even block radio astronomy signals fro near the sun. Pull the other one!You've lost you mind now, dum dum!
But, in the meantime the Heliocentric Globe spins happily along and perfectly explains solar and lunar eclipses and lunar phases.
They are things that your Pathetic Pepperoni Pizza Planet can never do!
But, strangely enough, the flat earth model of those smart old Babylonians did explain these things fairly well.
I wonder where you went so wrong? I don't really, but that's for me to know and you to find out Mr Ignorance.is.Bliss!
Your strange Flat Earthism Religion never was.
No I do not expected anyone to take my word .
This is the difference between someone normal like me and you Strange Heliocentric 's.
This I why I'm giving you a count down you now have eight days left.
Eight days until a video from a high altitude weather balloon shows the Moon is not eclipsing the Sun.
As I have said numerous times it is impossible for the Moon to be Eclispsing the Sun as the shadow moves the wrong way during the eclipse (west to east)the Moon is also visable during the day and we would also see the Moon moving across the Sun.
@markjo
The Moon is in the wrong place during this Eclispe on the 21.08.17 the only logical explanation is something else is Eclispes the Sun.
This will be proven on the 21 st.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is Finished.
@markjo
The Moon is in the wrong place during this Eclispe on the 21.08.17 the only logical explanation is something else is Eclispes the Sun.
This will be proven on the 21 st.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is Finished.
@markjo
The Moon is in the wrong place during this Eclispe on the 21.08.17 the only logical explanation is something else is Eclispes the Sun.
This will be proven on the 21 st.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is Finished.
The last full Moon was on August 7th, and the next new Moon will be on August 21th, the eclipse day. Notice the timespan of 14 days, being the half of 28 days needed by the Moon for a full revolution in Earths orbit by some weird coincidence...
::)
We so need a facepalm emoji, though.
@markjo
The Moon is in the wrong place during this Eclispe on the 21.08.17 the only logical explanation is something else is Eclispes the Sun.
This will be proven on the 21 st.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is Finished.
The last full Moon was on August 7th, and the next new Moon will be on August 21th, the eclipse day. Notice the timespan of 14 days, being the half of 28 days needed by the Moon for a full revolution in Earths orbit by some weird coincidence...
::)
We so need a facepalm emoji, though.
In Eight days we will be able to see for ourselves.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
@markjo
The Moon is in the wrong place during this Eclispe on the 21.08.17 the only logical explanation is something else is Eclispes the Sun.
This will be proven on the 21 st.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is Finished.
The last full Moon was on August 7th, and the next new Moon will be on August 21th, the eclipse day. Notice the timespan of 14 days, being the half of 28 days needed by the Moon for a full revolution in Earths orbit by some weird coincidence...
::)
We so need a facepalm emoji, though.
In Eight days we will be able to see for ourselves.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
In Eight days we will be able to see for ourselves.We will won't we! Now your ever helpful NASA presents in great detail exactly when and where the eclipse will be seen.
The Moon is in the wrong place during this Eclispe(sic) on the 21.08.17 the only logical explanation is something else is Eclispes(sic) the Sun.
This will be proven on the 21 st.
As I have said numerous times it is impossible for the Moon to be Eclispsing(sic) the Sun as the shadow moves the wrong way during the eclipse (west to east) the Moon is also visable(sic) during the day and we would also see the Moon moving across the Sun.Yes, I know YOU "said numerous times", but your saying it does not make it true!
The moon will be very close to the sun
<snip>What is the basis of the comment that the moon will be in the wrong place?
The Moon is in the wrong place during this Eclispe on the 21.08.17 the only logical explanation is something else is Eclispes the Sun.
<snip>
In altitude and azimuth angles you dimwit! If you had learnt to read and understand English instead of Voodoo you might understand!The moon will be very close to the sun
O rly?
In altitude and elevation angles you dimwit! If you had learnt to read and understand English instead of Voodoo you might understand!The moon will be very close to the sun
O rly?
I'm pretty sure he meant azimuth and elevation.In altitude and elevation angles you dimwit! If you had learnt to read and understand English instead of Voodoo you might understand!The moon will be very close to the sun
O rly?
So teh Munn will be close to the sun in altitude now?
Are they both within the atmosphere then?
You really have turned into a flat Earther haven't you?
Lulz!!!
In altitude and elevation angles you dimwit! If you had learnt to read and understand English instead of Voodoo you might understand!The moon will be very close to the sun
O rly?
So teh Munn will be close to the sun in altitude now?
Are they both within the atmosphere then?
You really have turned into a flat Earther haven't you?
Lulz!!!
In Eight days we will be able to see for ourselves.We will won't we! Now your ever helpful NASA presents in great detail exactly when and where the eclipse will be seen.
Have a look at the detail here: NASA, PATH OF THE TOTAL SOLAR ECLIPSE OF 2017 AUG 21. (https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEpath/SEpath2001/SE2017Aug21Tpath.html)
Please tell us which Saros cycle this eclipse wiil be and how that can predict this amount of detail.
And I do believe that you claimed that:The Moon is in the wrong place during this Eclispe(sic) on the 21.08.17 the only logical explanation is something else is Eclispes(sic) the Sun.
This will be proven on the 21 st.
Well, the NASA site predicts that the eclipse will be centred over Lat 43° 13' 42"N, Long 108° 28' 30"W at 17:40 UTC.
This is a spot in Wyoming and at this time and location
the location of the sun is Alt = 52.30°, Elev = 138.95° (from Suncalc.org (https://www.suncalc.org/#/43.2283,-108.475,5/2017.08.21/11:40/1/0)) and
the location of the moon is Alt = 52.31°, Elev = 138.96° (from Mooncalc.org (https://www.mooncalc.org/#/43.2283,-108.475,9/2017.08.21/11:40/1/0)).
The sun and moon altitudes and elevations are predicted to be within 0.01° of each other at that time (17:40 UTC or 11:40 Wyoming time).
Anf you Mr Ignorance.is.Bliss claim that the moon will be in the ;D ;D wrong place at that time! ;D ;D.
Please explain how you came up with that stupid idea.
And you made the totally incorrect claimAs I have said numerous times it is impossible for the Moon to be Eclispsing(sic) the Sun as the shadow moves the wrong way during the eclipse (west to east) the Moon is also visable(sic) during the day and we would also see the Moon moving across the Sun.Yes, I know YOU "said numerous times", but your saying it does not make it true!
And you claim "the Moon is also visable(sic) during the day".
The moon will be very close to the sun, BUT it will NOT be visible until it starts to block the sun. The thin crescent of the new moon is too close to the bright sun to be seen.
Of course, observers will "also see the Moon moving across the Sun" - that is what a solar eclipse is!
Those ancient Babylonians knew it, the old Greeks knew it, but poor old Mr Ignorance.is.Bliss still doesn't.
But, Mr Ignorance.is.Bliss, I find it impossible to believe that you are a real person. No real person could possibly as stubbornly ignorant as you.
This is especially obvious with what must a completely deliberate confusion of angular velocity and linear velocity - I refuse to believe that any real person can be as ignorant as you.You are nothing more than a useless troll, probably out to make the whole flat earth idea look ridiculous - and boy are you succeeding!
I'm pretty sure he meant azimuth and elevation.In altitude and elevation angles you dimwit! If you had learnt to read and understand English instead of Voodoo you might understand!The moon will be very close to the sun
O rly?
So teh Munn will be close to the sun in altitude now?
Are they both within the atmosphere then?
You really have turned into a flat Earther haven't you?
Lulz!!!
<snip>What is the basis of the comment that the moon will be in the wrong place?
The Moon is in the wrong place during this Eclispe on the 21.08.17 the only logical explanation is something else is Eclispes the Sun.
<snip>
Mike
Again, a whole lot of hand waving without a cogent argument and no analytical solution. You post is a bunch of your interpretation and opinion..nothing more.<snip>What is the basis of the comment that the moon will be in the wrong place?
The Moon is in the wrong place during this Eclispe on the 21.08.17 the only logical explanation is something else is Eclispes the Sun.
<snip>
Mike
Are you for real?
The last 12 pages of this thread have consisted of me constantly repeating the facts telling you and your Heliocentric brethren the Moon is in the wrong place on your model to Eclispe the Sun and to cause the shadow to move west to east rather than east to west.
I suggest you read the information below and watch the videos rather than just spamming my thread with nonsense when you haven't even read and watched the content that is being debated.
Luke 8:17
For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open.
Your explanation is Not Acceptable.
Your explanation is absolute nonsense you have failed to take into account the angular velocity of the Earth.
An Airplane flying above the Earth on your Model allegedly moves round with the Earth's rotation.
The Moon however does not move with the Earth's rotation.
So to use an Airplane as example is a nonsense.
Any normal person can understand that as the moon's total orbital path is 27 to 29 days and 1.5 million miles it would have to travel at least a 190000 miles to cross the USA west to east because it is 200000 miles away on your Heliocentric model and in reality the USA is nearly 3000 miles wide so we could say that is roughly 12.5% of the alleged circumfrence of your imaginary Globe which to keep it simple represents roughly 12.5% of the Moons orbital path.
In reality any normal person will know it is impossible for the Moons shadow to travel west to east as they see the Moon rise in the East and set in the West EVERYDAY.
It is also impossible as shown in the first video I posted at the start of the thread because the earth's angular velocity on your model is 27 times greater than the Moon's actual velocity.
You have failed to take into account that the Solar Eclipse is visable in the Sky and it is the Earth's alleged angular Velocity as you and your colleague's have agreed that determines what we see in the sky.
A video that describes the orbit of the Moon on your Heliocentric model.
Light travels in straight lines .
The Eclispe is caused by the moon passing between the sun and the earth.
The Sun has to be directly behind the Moon and the Earth has to be directly in front of the Moon.
An object shadow will follow the object when the light source is directly behind it.
You are now claiming the Moon moves in the opposite direction to what is observed this would be the only possible way that the Moon's shadow can move west to East when the light source which is the Sun is directly behind it.
http://www.livephysics.com/physical-constants/mechanics-pc/angular-speed-earth/
You are fooling no one with your heliocentric nonsense.
It is impossible for the path of the solar eclipse to move in completely the opposite direction to the moon.
The moon rises in the East and sets in th west.
The Solar Eclipse starts in the west and finishes if the East.
The Earth's angular velocity which Is one rotation every 24 hrs is 27 times faster than the Moon's velocity.
This is why the moon allegedly rises in the east and sets in the west.
If the Moon's velocity was greater than the angular velocity of the earth the Moon would rise in the West and set in the East it would also have to orbit the earth more than once every 24 hours to achieve this.
Here is a description of a solar eclipse on your model.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_eclipse
It clearly says the eclipse is caused when the moon passes in front of the sun.
The moon takes 27 days to orbit the earth.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon
On your model the Sun is stationary regarding it's position to the earth and the moon
.http://kidseclipse.com/sun-earth-moon-move/
I choose this link so you Stupid and gullable Heliocentric's can try to understand how and why the upcoming Solar Eclipse is impossible on your model.
It is impossible for an objects shadow to move in the opposite direction to the said object when the light source is stationary.
The only way this would be possible on your model would be if the Sun was moving millions of miles in relation to the earth and did not maintain it's alleged position in the centre of the solar system.
https://www.quora.com/Is-the-sun-the-center-of-the-solar-system-Why
So I will tell you again it is impossible for the Moon to cast a shadow on the Earth that is 24 times smaller than itself.
So I will tell you again it is impossible for the Solar Eclipse to move across the Earth west to East which is the opposite direction to the moon on your Heliocentric model.
Your Heliocentric model does not match reality as such your Heliocentric model is false.
Part one
Part two
The readers will make their own minds up .
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is Finished.
;D ;D ;D
Again, a whole lot of hand waving without a cogent argument and no analytical solution. You post is a bunch of your interpretation and opinion..nothing more.<snip>What is the basis of the comment that the moon will be in the wrong place?
The Moon is in the wrong place during this Eclispe on the 21.08.17 the only logical explanation is something else is Eclispes the Sun.
<snip>
Mike
Are you for real?
The last 12 pages of this thread have consisted of me constantly repeating the facts telling you and your Heliocentric brethren the Moon is in the wrong place on your model to Eclispe the Sun and to cause the shadow to move west to east rather than east to west.
I suggest you read the information below and watch the videos rather than just spamming my thread with nonsense when you haven't even read and watched the content that is being debated.
Luke 8:17
For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open.
Your explanation is Not Acceptable.
Your explanation is absolute nonsense you have failed to take into account the angular velocity of the Earth.
An Airplane flying above the Earth on your Model allegedly moves round with the Earth's rotation.
The Moon however does not move with the Earth's rotation.
So to use an Airplane as example is a nonsense.
Any normal person can understand that as the moon's total orbital path is 27 to 29 days and 1.5 million miles it would have to travel at least a 190000 miles to cross the USA west to east because it is 200000 miles away on your Heliocentric model and in reality the USA is nearly 3000 miles wide so we could say that is roughly 12.5% of the alleged circumfrence of your imaginary Globe which to keep it simple represents roughly 12.5% of the Moons orbital path.
In reality any normal person will know it is impossible for the Moons shadow to travel west to east as they see the Moon rise in the East and set in the West EVERYDAY.
It is also impossible as shown in the first video I posted at the start of the thread because the earth's angular velocity on your model is 27 times greater than the Moon's actual velocity.
You have failed to take into account that the Solar Eclipse is visable in the Sky and it is the Earth's alleged angular Velocity as you and your colleague's have agreed that determines what we see in the sky.
A video that describes the orbit of the Moon on your Heliocentric model.
Light travels in straight lines .
The Eclispe is caused by the moon passing between the sun and the earth.
The Sun has to be directly behind the Moon and the Earth has to be directly in front of the Moon.
An object shadow will follow the object when the light source is directly behind it.
You are now claiming the Moon moves in the opposite direction to what is observed this would be the only possible way that the Moon's shadow can move west to East when the light source which is the Sun is directly behind it.
http://www.livephysics.com/physical-constants/mechanics-pc/angular-speed-earth/
You are fooling no one with your heliocentric nonsense.
It is impossible for the path of the solar eclipse to move in completely the opposite direction to the moon.
The moon rises in the East and sets in th west.
The Solar Eclipse starts in the west and finishes if the East.
The Earth's angular velocity which Is one rotation every 24 hrs is 27 times faster than the Moon's velocity.
This is why the moon allegedly rises in the east and sets in the west.
If the Moon's velocity was greater than the angular velocity of the earth the Moon would rise in the West and set in the East it would also have to orbit the earth more than once every 24 hours to achieve this.
Here is a description of a solar eclipse on your model.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_eclipse
It clearly says the eclipse is caused when the moon passes in front of the sun.
The moon takes 27 days to orbit the earth.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon
On your model the Sun is stationary regarding it's position to the earth and the moon
.http://kidseclipse.com/sun-earth-moon-move/
I choose this link so you Stupid and gullable Heliocentric's can try to understand how and why the upcoming Solar Eclipse is impossible on your model.
It is impossible for an objects shadow to move in the opposite direction to the said object when the light source is stationary.
The only way this would be possible on your model would be if the Sun was moving millions of miles in relation to the earth and did not maintain it's alleged position in the centre of the solar system.
https://www.quora.com/Is-the-sun-the-center-of-the-solar-system-Why
So I will tell you again it is impossible for the Moon to cast a shadow on the Earth that is 24 times smaller than itself.
So I will tell you again it is impossible for the Solar Eclipse to move across the Earth west to East which is the opposite direction to the moon on your Heliocentric model.
Your Heliocentric model does not match reality as such your Heliocentric model is false.
Part one
Part two
The readers will make their own minds up .
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is Finished.
;D ;D ;D
Mike
I certainly did not say thst, and your whole argument was based on the confusion over angular and linear velocities.
It is not me that has angular velocity and linear velocity confused.
I'm the one that highlighted the fact that some of your Heliocentric brethren think angular velocity can be measured in mph when in actual fact angular velocity is measured in radians and it is linear velocity that can be measured in mph.
This proves the Earth allegedly Rotates faster than the Moon orbits the Earth on your heliocentric model.Where you confuse the "Moon's velocity" with the "Earth's rotation" and that is the crux of the whole problem.
It is not possible for the Moon to rise in the east and set in the west if the Moon's orbit is faster than that of the rotation of the Earth.
As proven already according to your model the Moon takes 27 days to orbit the earth.
. . . . . . ..
So your claim that the Moon's velocity is greater than the Earth's rotation is irrelevant regarding the Solar Eclipse.
Yes, Papa, I did mistakenly put "altitude" instead "azimuth". Thank you for so graciously pointing it out.I'm pretty sure he meant azimuth and elevation.I'm pretty sure he said altitude.
I do believe that apart from a mix up between "altitude" and "azimuth" I showed that the moon will be in exactly the right location to be the cause of the eclipse.<snip>What is the basis of the comment that the moon will be in the wrong place?
The Moon is in the wrong place during this Eclispe on the 21.08.17 the only logical explanation is something else is Eclispes the Sun.
<snip>
Mike
Are you for real?
I certainly did not say thst, and your whole argument was based on the confusion over angular and linear velocities.
It is not me that has angular velocity and linear velocity confused.
I'm the one that highlighted the fact that some of your Heliocentric brethren think angular velocity can be measured in mph when in actual fact angular velocity is measured in radians and it is linear velocity that can be measured in mph.
And you repeatedly make statements likeQuoteThis proves the Earth allegedly Rotates faster than the Moon orbits the Earth on your heliocentric model.Where you confuse the "Moon's velocity" with the "Earth's rotation" and that is the crux of the whole problem.
It is not possible for the Moon to rise in the east and set in the west if the Moon's orbit is faster than that of the rotation of the Earth.
As proven already according to your model the Moon takes 27 days to orbit the earth.
. . . . . . ..
So your claim that the Moon's velocity is greater than the Earth's rotation is irrelevant regarding the Solar Eclipse.
The important issue is the the velocity of the shadow is over twice as fast as the surface velocity of the earth.
Lets bet!
If Resistance.Is.Futile is right, he can:
1.- Laugh
2.- Use an exaggerated version of Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False™
3.- We, "Angry Strange Globalist Heliocentric High Priests of the church of the the holy Universe and his prophet Galileo Galilei™" will have to
say "Our Strange Heliocentric Religion is False" at the end of a reply for 1 week.
4.- He will make a thread called "HELIOCENTRIC MODEL DEBUNKED!!!" or something like that and he will mock us "Angry REtards™" forever.
5.- We will have to reconsider joining the flat earthers.
If we win we will:
1.- Laugh A F*CKIN LOT
2.- Mr Resistance.Is.Futile will have to change his "Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False" to "Your Beautiful Correct and Scientific Heliocentric Model of The Universe, Was, Is and Will Always be Right"
3.- Mr Resistance.Is.Futile will severely question his belief of a flat earth and geocentrism, he will seriously consider joining us Strange Heliocentrics™.
4.- I will make a thread called "Eclipse 21.8.2017 debunked Ignorance.Is.Bliss" 8)
5.- NEVER take him seriously again.
--------------------------------
If anyone, from both sides, wants to add something, reply to this, i will think about it and add itor not
The only thing you've proven is you don't understand how an eclipse works.Lets bet!
If Resistance.Is.Futile is right, he can:
1.- Laugh
2.- Use an exaggerated version of Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False™
3.- We, "Angry Strange Globalist Heliocentric High Priests of the church of the the holy Universe and his prophet Galileo Galilei™" will have to
say "Our Strange Heliocentric Religion is False" at the end of a reply for 1 week.
4.- He will make a thread called "HELIOCENTRIC MODEL DEBUNKED!!!" or something like that and he will mock us "Angry REtards™" forever.
5.- We will have to reconsider joining the flat earthers.
If we win we will:
1.- Laugh A F*CKIN LOT
2.- Mr Resistance.Is.Futile will have to change his "Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False" to "Your Beautiful Correct and Scientific Heliocentric Model of The Universe, Was, Is and Will Always be Right"
3.- Mr Resistance.Is.Futile will severely question his belief of a flat earth and geocentrism, he will seriously consider joining us Strange Heliocentrics™.
4.- I will make a thread called "Eclipse 21.8.2017 debunked Ignorance.Is.Bliss" 8)
5.- NEVER take him seriously again.
--------------------------------
If anyone, from both sides, wants to add something, reply to this, i will think about it and add itor not
I do not find this acceptable.
You have failed to lay down any criteria regarding what will be considered as proof.
This criteria will have to be agreed upon by both parties in order for it to be considered satisfactory.
I have already proved the Solar Eclipse doesn't work on your model all you Heliocentrics do is unconvincingly try and explain it away with nonsense.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
I do not find this acceptable.
I have never claimed that "the Moons Shadow . . . moves in the opposite direction to the Moon."The important issue is the the velocity of the shadow is over twice as fast as the surface velocity of the earth.
There is no problem .
It is impossible for the Moons Shadow to move in the opposite direction to the Moon.
The fact of the matter is that the readers can obviously understand that the angular velocity of the earth is far greater than the actual velocity of the moon as the moon rises in the east and sets in the west.and you keep on with silly confusion of "angular velocity" and "actual velocity"
If the Moon's actual velocity is greater than the Earth's angular velocity the Moon would rise in the West and set in the East. " END OF."
The earth's angular velocity is 27 times greater than the Moon's actual velocity this is why the moon rises in the east and sets in the west.You are the one causing total confusion by never defining what you really mean by "actual velocity".
.. . . . . . . . .Since the shadow velocity from west-to-east is greate than the earth's surface velocity the shadow should appear to move from west-to-east.
What you must compare is the surface velocity of the earth where the eclipse will pass with the velocity of the moon's shadow.
And tangential (or surface velocity) = angular velocity (in radians/second) times the radius!
The radius of the earth at 40° latitude = cos(40°) x 6.366 x 106 = 4.876 x 106 m.
The angular velocity of the earth = (2 x π)/86400 = 7.272 x 10-5 radians/sec.
So the earth's surface velocity (in the middle of USA) is 4.876 x 106 x 7.272 x 10-5 = 356 m/s.
The radius of the moon's orbit averages 3.850 x 1008 m.
So angular velocity of the moon afound its orbit is (earths angular velocity/29.5306) = 2.463 x 10-6 radians/sec.
And the orbital velocity of the moon is 3.850 x 1008 x 2.463 x 10-6 = 948 m/s.
So even though the moon's angular velocity is much less than the angular velocity of the earth,
the moon's orbital velocity is somewhat more than the surface velocity of the earth.
The moon's shadow travels very slightly faster (about 0.25%) than the moon's orbital velocity.
And the speed of the shadow from west to east is just the shadow's velocity less the surface velocity of the earth.
Which will be proven in eight days time.Yes, Mr Resistance.is.Futile, it will be proven in eight days time that NASA and all the other Heliocentric Globe predictions were all correct.
Here's an interesting math challenge about high-speed trains.the question Analysis
Train A passes point A traveling towards Train B, which is already in motion at a distance of 2,436 miles away.
Train A will take 77 minutes to travel from point A to the point where it meets Train B, which is traveling at 1037 MPH.
How far does Train A travel from point A to the point where it meets Train B?
How fast is Train A traveling?
;D ;D ;D
5.- NEVER take him seriously again.
5.- NEVER take him seriously again.
"Again"??
I have never claimed that "the Moons Shadow . . . moves in the opposite direction to the Moon."The important issue is the the velocity of the shadow is over twice as fast as the surface velocity of the earth.
There is no problem .
It is impossible for the Moons Shadow to move in the opposite direction to the Moon.
The moon orbits the earth from west-to-east, the moon's shadow moves from west-to-east and the earth rotates from west-to-east.
So, no problem .
But right from the beginning you've proven that you try to confuse "actual" velocity and "angular velocity " as inThe fact of the matter is that the readers can obviously understand that the angular velocity of the earth is far greater than the actual velocity of the moon as the moon rises in the east and sets in the west.and you keep on with silly confusion of "angular velocity" and "actual velocity"
If the Moon's actual velocity is greater than the Earth's angular velocity the Moon would rise in the West and set in the East. " END OF."The earth's angular velocity is 27 times greater than the Moon's actual velocity this is why the moon rises in the east and sets in the west.You are the one causing total confusion by never defining what you really mean by "actual velocity".
By "actual velocity" do you mean "angular velocity" or do you mean "linear or tangential velocity", beause your wording "actual velocity" is ambiguous and possibly intentionally so.And hence, I insist that you immediatly clarify this issue.
What you must compare is the velocity of the shadow, on the earth's surface, and the surface velocity of the earth.
I calculster those velocities in.. . . . . . . . .Since the shadow velocity from west-to-east is greate than the earth's surface velocity the shadow should appear to move from west-to-east.
What you must compare is the surface velocity of the earth where the eclipse will pass with the velocity of the moon's shadow.
And tangential (or surface velocity) = angular velocity (in radians/second) times the radius!
The radius of the earth at 40° latitude = cos(40°) x 6.366 x 106 = 4.876 x 106 m.
The angular velocity of the earth = (2 x π)/86400 = 7.272 x 10-5 radians/sec.
So the earth's surface velocity (in the middle of USA) is 4.876 x 106 x 7.272 x 10-5 = 356 m/s.
The radius of the moon's orbit averages 3.850 x 1008 m.
So angular velocity of the moon afound its orbit is (earths angular velocity/29.5306) = 2.463 x 10-6 radians/sec.
And the orbital velocity of the moon is 3.850 x 1008 x 2.463 x 10-6 = 948 m/s.
So even though the moon's angular velocity is much less than the angular velocity of the earth,
the moon's orbital velocity is somewhat more than the surface velocity of the earth.
The moon's shadow travels very slightly faster (about 0.25%) than the moon's orbital velocity.
And the speed of the shadow from west to east is just the shadow's velocity less the surface velocity of the earth.
Now answer that Mr Resistance.is.Futile.Quote from: Resistance.is.FutileWhich will be proven in eight days time.Yes, Mr Resistance.is.Futile, it will be proven in eight days time that NASA and all the other Heliocentric Globe predictions were all correct.
End of story!
I disagree, using "angular" in one place and "actual" in the other is simply confusing, but whatever.What you must compare is the velocity of the shadow, on the earth's surface, and the surface velocity of the earth.
I calculated those velocities in.. . . . . . . . .
What you must compare is the surface velocity of the earth where the eclipse will pass with the velocity of the moon's shadow.
And tangential (or surface velocity) = angular velocity (in radians/second) times the radius!
The radius of the earth at 40° latitude = cos(40°) x 6.366 x 106 = 4.876 x 106 m.
The angular velocity of the earth = (2 x π)/86400 = 7.272 x 10-5 radians/sec.
So the earth's surface velocity (in the middle of USA) is 4.876 x 106 x 7.272 x 10-5 = 356 m/s.
The radius of the moon's orbit averages 3.850 x 1008 m.
So angular velocity of the moon afound its orbit is (earths angular velocity/29.5306) = 2.463 x 10-6 radians/sec.
And the orbital velocity of the moon is 3.850 x 1008 x 2.463 x 10-6 = 948 m/s.
So even though the moon's angular velocity is much less than the angular velocity of the earth,
the moon's orbital velocity is somewhat more than the surface velocity of the earth.
The moon's shadow travels very slightly faster (about 0.25%) than the moon's orbital velocity.
And the speed of the shadow from west to east is just the shadow's velocity less the surface velocity of the earth.
There is nothing ambiguous about the word actual when someone has wrote the words actual and angular in the same paragraph describing to different types of motion it is obvious to any normal person what they mean.
Any normal person can understand that as the moon's total orbital path is 27 to 29 days and 1.5 million miles it would have to travel at least a 190000 miles to cross the USA west to east because it is 200000 miles away on your Heliocentric model and in reality the USA is nearly 3000 miles wide so we could say that is roughly 12.5% of the alleged circumfrence of your imaginary Globe which to keep it simple represents roughly 12.5% of the Moons orbital path.This is where you are totally wrong! Since the sun is so far away from the moon (about 150,000,000 km)
In reality any normal person will know it is impossible for the Moons shadow to travel west to east as they see the Moon rise in the East and set in the West EVERYDAY.Untrue! The moon does rise in the east and set in the west, but that is due to the earth's angular velocity being greater than the moon's angular velocity.
Of course "the Solar Eclipse is visible in the sky"!
It is also impossible as shown in the first video I posted at the start of the thread because the earth's angular velocity on your model is 27 times greater than the Moon's actual velocity.
You have failed to take into account that the Solar Eclipse is visable in the Sky
I don't know what you claim this "colleague" said, but what you say is quite wrong.
and it is the Earth's alleged angular Velocity as you and your colleague's have agreed that determines what we see in the sky.
A video that describes the orbit of the Moon on your Heliocentric model.That video claims that "The Moon's orbit around the Earth is not possible" and is totally wrong.
Light travels in straight lines .Agreed, agreed, agreed!
The Eclispe is caused by the moon passing between the sun and the earth.
The Sun has to be directly behind the Moon and the Earth has to be directly in front of the Moon.
An object shadow will follow the object when the light source is directly behind it.Yes, and the moon moves from west-to-east around the earth.
You are now claiming the Moon moves in the opposite direction to what is observed this would be the only possible way that the Moon's shadow can move west to East when the light source which is the Sun is directly behind it.Yes, the light source (the sun) is directly behind the moon (about 150,000,000 km behind) and the moon moves from west-to-east so the shadow moves from west-to-east! How many time must I say the same thing?
http://www.livephysics.com/physical-constants/mechanics-pc/angular-speed-earth/Fine, that all looks good to me.
It is impossible for the path of the solar eclipse to move in completely the opposite direction to the moon.OK, but the moon moves from west-to-east,
The moon rises in the East and sets in th west.Stop saying the same thing over and over and over! We all know that "the moon rises in the East and sets in the west"!
The Solar Eclipse starts in the west and finishes if the East.Stop saying the same thing over and over and over! We all know that "the Solar Eclipse starts in the west and finishes in the East"!
The Earth's angular velocity which Is one rotation every 24 hrs is 27 times faster than the Moon's velocity.Stop saying the same thing over and over and over! We all know that "The Earth's angular velocity which Is one rotation every 24 hrs is 27 times faster than the Moon's velocity."!
This is why the moon allegedly rises in the east and sets in the west.It is NOT "allegedly rises in the east and sets in the west". We all know that "rises in the east and sets in the west."
If the Moon's velocity was greater than the angular velocity of the earth the Moon would rise in the West and set in the East it would also have to orbit the earth more than once every 24 hours to achieve this.No! If the If the Moon's angular velocity was greater than the angular velocity of the earth etc, etc.
Here is a description of a solar eclipse on your model. Wikipedia,You did? Just who is stupid and gullible for believing the rubbish out of the trash-can of your neo-Flat Earthism Cult's Temple.
Solar eclipse (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_eclipse)
It clearly says the eclipse is caused when the moon passes in front of the sun.
The moon takes 27 days to orbit the earth.
Wikipedia, Orbit of the Moon (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon)
On your model the Sun is stationary regarding it's position to the earth and the moon
How do the Sun, The Earth, and the Moon move?
(http://kidseclipse.com/sun-earth-moon-move/)
I choose this link so you Stupid and gullable Heliocentric's can try to understand how and why the upcoming Solar Eclipse is impossible on your model.
It is impossible for an objects shadow to move in the opposite direction to the said object when the light source is stationary.Stop saying the same thing over and over and over! We all know that "It is impossible for an object's shadow to move in the opposite direction to the said object when the light source is stationary."!
The only way this would be possible on your model would be if the Sun was moving millions of miles in relation to the earth and did not maintain it's alleged position in the centre of the solar system.Totally incorrect! I have already explained many many times that
https://www.quora.com/Is-the-sun-the-center-of-the-solar-system-WhyI couldn't care less how many times you "will tell you again it is impossible" you are still just as incorrect.
So I will tell you again it is impossible for the Moon to cast a shadow on the Earth that is 24 times smaller than itself.
So I will tell you again it is impossible for the Solar Eclipse to move across the Earth west to East which is the opposite direction to the moon on your Heliocentric model.
Your Heliocentric model does not match reality as such your Heliocentric model is false.Rubbish, the heliocentric Globe model explains solar eclipses, lunar eclipses, sun rises, sunsets, etc, etc very well.
Part one, Part twoRun away with your silly trash-can videos! Most other people have realised that they are wrong!
The readers will make their own minds up.Yes they will Mr Resistance.is.Futile!
I disagree, using "angular" in one place and "actual" in the other is simply confusing, but whatever.What you must compare is the velocity of the shadow, on the earth's surface, and the surface velocity of the earth.
I calculated those velocities in.. . . . . . . . .
What you must compare is the surface velocity of the earth where the eclipse will pass with the velocity of the moon's shadow.
And tangential (or surface velocity) = angular velocity (in radians/second) times the radius!
The radius of the earth at 40° latitude = cos(40°) x 6.366 x 106 = 4.876 x 106 m.
The angular velocity of the earth = (2 x π)/86400 = 7.272 x 10-5 radians/sec.
So the earth's surface velocity (in the middle of USA) is 4.876 x 106 x 7.272 x 10-5 = 356 m/s.
The radius of the moon's orbit averages 3.850 x 1008 m.
So angular velocity of the moon afound its orbit is (earths angular velocity/29.5306) = 2.463 x 10-6 radians/sec.
And the orbital velocity of the moon is 3.850 x 1008 x 2.463 x 10-6 = 948 m/s.
So even though the moon's angular velocity is much less than the angular velocity of the earth,
the moon's orbital velocity is somewhat more than the surface velocity of the earth.
The moon's shadow travels very slightly faster (about 0.25%) than the moon's orbital velocity.
And the speed of the shadow from west to east is just the shadow's velocity less the surface velocity of the earth.
There is nothing ambiguous about the word actual when someone has wrote the words actual and angular in the same paragraph describing to different types of motion it is obvious to any normal person what they mean.Quote from: Resistance.is.FutileAny normal person can understand that as the moon's total orbital path is 27 to 29 days and 1.5 million miles it would have to travel at least a 190000 miles to cross the USA west to east because it is 200000 miles away on your Heliocentric model and in reality the USA is nearly 3000 miles wide so we could say that is roughly 12.5% of the alleged circumfrence of your imaginary Globe which to keep it simple represents roughly 12.5% of the Moons orbital path.This is where you are totally wrong! Since the sun is so far away from the moon (about 150,000,000 km)the shadow of the moon on the earth moves at almost the same linear velocity as the linear (or tangential) velocity of the moon.See in this diagram:(https://www.dropbox.com/s/0tphbu4201n7mxo/20160730%20-%20Solar%20Eclipse%20Scale%20Globe%20Earth%20and%20Moon.png?dl=1)if the moon moves up, the shadow moves up by almost (about 0.25% more) the same distance, not angle!
This linear tangential velocity of the moon is about 948 m/s (from above) or 3410 km/hr
and the surface velocity of the earth (in the middle of USA) is about 356 m/s (from above) or 1282km/hr.
So the shadow moves from west-to-east at about 3410 km/hr but the earth is also moving west-to-east at about 1282km/hr.
Hence, the nett velocity of the shadow relative to a position in its path is about 2130 km/hr from west-to-east!
The width of USA along the path of the eclipse is just over 4000 km.Quote from: Resistance.is.FutileIn reality any normal person will know it is impossible for the Moons shadow to travel west to east as they see the Moon rise in the East and set in the West EVERYDAY.Untrue! The moon does rise in the east and set in the west, but that is due to the earth's angular velocity being greater than the moon's angular velocity.Quote from: Resistance.is.FutileOf course "the Solar Eclipse is visible in the sky"!
It is also impossible as shown in the first video I posted at the start of the thread because the earth's angular velocity on your model is 27 times greater than the Moon's actual velocity.
You have failed to take into account that the Solar Eclipse is visable in the SkyQuote from: Resistance.is.FutileI don't know what you claim this "colleague" said, but what you say is quite wrong.
and it is the Earth's alleged angular Velocity as you and your colleague's have agreed that determines what we see in the sky.Quote from: Resistance.is.FutileA video that describes the orbit of the Moon on your Heliocentric model.That video claims that "The Moon's orbit around the Earth is not possible" and is totally wrong.
You are still totally wrong because you still insist in dredging up rubbish for the trash-can of your neo-Flat Earthism Cult's Temple.Quote from: Resistance.is.FutileLight travels in straight lines .Agreed, agreed, agreed!
The Eclispe is caused by the moon passing between the sun and the earth.
The Sun has to be directly behind the Moon and the Earth has to be directly in front of the Moon.Quote from: Resistance.is.FutileAn object shadow will follow the object when the light source is directly behind it.Yes, and the moon moves from west-to-east around the earth.
We see the moon rise in the east simply because the angular velocity of the earth's rotation is faster than the angular velocity on the moon in its orbit.Quote from: Resistance.is.FutileYou are now claiming the Moon moves in the opposite direction to what is observed this would be the only possible way that the Moon's shadow can move west to East when the light source which is the Sun is directly behind it.Yes, the light source (the sun) is directly behind the moon (about 150,000,000 km behind) and the moon moves from west-to-east so the shadow moves from west-to-east! How many time must I say the same thing?Quote from: Resistance.is.Futilehttp://www.livephysics.com/physical-constants/mechanics-pc/angular-speed-earth/Fine, that all looks good to me.
You are fooling no one with your pathetic flat earth nonsense.Quote from: Resistance.is.FutileIt is impossible for the path of the solar eclipse to move in completely the opposite direction to the moon.OK, but the moon moves from west-to-east,
the moon's shadow moves from west-to-east faster than the earth's surface moves from west-to-east and so
the eclipse moves from west-to-east on the earth's surface.Quote from: Resistance.is.FutileThe moon rises in the East and sets in th west.Stop saying the same thing over and over and over! We all know that "the moon rises in the East and sets in the west"!Quote from: Resistance.is.FutileThe Solar Eclipse starts in the west and finishes if the East.Stop saying the same thing over and over and over! We all know that "the Solar Eclipse starts in the west and finishes in the East"!Quote from: Resistance.is.FutileThe Earth's angular velocity which Is one rotation every 24 hrs is 27 times faster than the Moon's velocity.Stop saying the same thing over and over and over! We all know that "The Earth's angular velocity which Is one rotation every 24 hrs is 27 times faster than the Moon's velocity."!Quote from: Resistance.is.FutileThis is why the moon allegedly rises in the east and sets in the west.It is NOT "allegedly rises in the east and sets in the west". We all know that "rises in the east and sets in the west."Quote from: Resistance.is.FutileIf the Moon's velocity was greater than the angular velocity of the earth the Moon would rise in the West and set in the East it would also have to orbit the earth more than once every 24 hours to achieve this.No! If the If the Moon's angular velocity was greater than the angular velocity of the earth etc, etc.
But no-one is claiming that it is! I am saying that the linear (or tangential) velocity of the moon (which determines the shadow;s velocity) is faster the linear (or surface) velocity of the earth!
And that is quite a different kettle of fish - as it were!Quote from: Resistance.is.FutileHere is a description of a solar eclipse on your model. Wikipedia,You did? Just who is stupid and gullible for believing the rubbish out of the trash-can of your neo-Flat Earthism Cult's Temple.
Solar eclipse (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_eclipse)
It clearly says the eclipse is caused when the moon passes in front of the sun.
The moon takes 27 days to orbit the earth.
Wikipedia, Orbit of the Moon (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon)
On your model the Sun is stationary regarding it's position to the earth and the moon
How do the Sun, The Earth, and the Moon move?
(http://kidseclipse.com/sun-earth-moon-move/)
I choose this link so you Stupid and gullable Heliocentric's can try to understand how and why the upcoming Solar Eclipse is impossible on your model.Quote from: Resistance.is.FutileIt is impossible for an objects shadow to move in the opposite direction to the said object when the light source is stationary.Stop saying the same thing over and over and over! We all know that "It is impossible for an object's shadow to move in the opposite direction to the said object when the light source is stationary."!Quote from: Resistance.is.FutileThe only way this would be possible on your model would be if the Sun was moving millions of miles in relation to the earth and did not maintain it's alleged position in the centre of the solar system.Totally incorrect! I have already explained many many times that
the moon moves at about 3410 km/hr from west-to-east and hence
the moon's shadow moves at about 3410 km/hr from west-to-east.Quote from: Resistance.is.Futilehttps://www.quora.com/Is-the-sun-the-center-of-the-solar-system-WhyI couldn't care less how many times you "will tell you again it is impossible" you are still just as incorrect.
So I will tell you again it is impossible for the Moon to cast a shadow on the Earth that is 24 times smaller than itself.
So I will tell you again it is impossible for the Solar Eclipse to move across the Earth west to East which is the opposite direction to the moon on your Heliocentric model.Quote from: Resistance.is.FutileYour Heliocentric model does not match reality as such your Heliocentric model is false.Rubbish, the heliocentric Globe model explains solar eclipses, lunar eclipses, sun rises, sunsets, etc, etc very well.
Far better than the model you claim to support!
You are still just as wrong as in the first post of this silly thread!Quote from: Resistance.is.FutilePart one, Part twoRun away with your silly trash-can videos! Most other people have realised that they are wrong!
These are just a few at "random", not necessarily the best:
Why the Moon's Shadow Moves West to East During a Solar Eclipse, Steven Baumann (http://)
Flat Earth: Eclipse Debunks the Globe Earth? Let's make a model. Heath Carmody (http://)
Flat Earth: Solar Eclipse Ends Globe? Busted! (Debunk This)
I QUIT FLAT EARTH (http://)
Flat Earth: Eclipse Special, Sly Sparkane, (http://)
The Globe Model Works. Solar Eclipse Has Been Modeled - Video Soon jeranism (http://) Not about Eclipse.
jeranism LIVE #14 - Solar Eclipse Modeled and More, jeranism (http://) Massive thing as are most jeranism's.Quote from: Resistance.is.FutileThe readers will make their own minds up.Yes they will Mr Resistance.is.Futile!
Yes you keep repeating it. It's still wrong. You claim the moon is in the wrong place. That's it, just a claim. You claim there are lots of examples of solar eclipses with sun and moon in opposite positions in the sky.<snip>What is the basis of the comment that the moon will be in the wrong place?
The Moon is in the wrong place during this Eclispe on the 21.08.17 the only logical explanation is something else is Eclispes the Sun.
<snip>
Mike
Are you for real?
The last 12 pages of this thread have consisted of me constantly repeating the facts telling you and your Heliocentric brethren the Moon is in the wrong place on your model to Eclispe the Sun and to cause the shadow to move west to east rather than east to west.
I suggest you read the information below and watch the videos rather than just spamming my thread with nonsense when you haven't even read and watched the content that is being debated.
Luke 8:17
For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open.
Your explanations are NOT Acceptable.
Any normal person can understand that as the moon's total orbital path is 27 to 29 days and 1.5 million miles it would have to travel at least a 190000 miles to cross the USA west to east because it is 200000 miles away on your Heliocentric model and in reality the USA is nearly 3000 miles wide so we could say that is roughly 12.5% of the alleged circumfrence of your imaginary Globe which to keep it simple represents roughly 12.5% of the Moons orbital path.
In reality any normal person will know it is impossible for the Moons shadow to travel west to east as they see the Moon rise in the East and set in the West EVERYDAY.
It is also impossible as shown in the first video I posted at the start of the thread because the earth's angular velocity on your model is 27 times greater than the Moon's actual velocity.
You have failed to take into account that the Solar Eclipse is visable in the Sky and it is the Earth's alleged angular Velocity as you and your colleague's have agreed that determines what we see in the sky.
A video that describes the orbit of the Moon on your Heliocentric model.
Light travels in straight lines .
The Eclispe is caused by the moon passing between the sun and the earth.
The Sun has to be directly behind the Moon and the Earth has to be directly in front of the Moon.
An object shadow will follow the object when the light source is directly behind it.
You are now claiming the Moon moves in the opposite direction to what is observed this would be the only possible way that the Moon's shadow can move west to East when the light source which is the Sun is directly behind it.
http://www.livephysics.com/physical-constants/mechanics-pc/angular-speed-earth/
You are fooling no one with your heliocentric nonsense.
It is impossible for the path of the solar eclipse to move in completely the opposite direction to the moon.
The moon rises in the East and sets in th west.
The Solar Eclipse starts in the west and finishes if the East.
The Earth's angular velocity which Is one rotation every 24 hrs is 27 times faster than the Moon's velocity.
This is why the moon allegedly rises in the east and sets in the west.
If the Moon's velocity was greater than the angular velocity of the earth the Moon would rise in the West and set in the East it would also have to orbit the earth more than once every 24 hours to achieve this.
Here is a description of a solar eclipse on your model.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_eclipse
It clearly says the eclipse is caused when the moon passes in front of the sun.
The moon takes 27 days to orbit the earth.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon
On your model the Sun is stationary regarding it's position to the earth and the moon
.http://kidseclipse.com/sun-earth-moon-move/
I choose this link so you Stupid and gullable Heliocentric's can try to understand how and why the upcoming Solar Eclipse is impossible on your model.
It is impossible for an objects shadow to move in the opposite direction to the said object when the light source is stationary.
The only way this would be possible on your model would be if the Sun was moving millions of miles in relation to the earth and did not maintain it's alleged position in the centre of the solar system.
https://www.quora.com/Is-the-sun-the-center-of-the-solar-system-Why
So I will tell you again it is impossible for the Moon to cast a shadow on the Earth that is 24 times smaller than itself.
So I will tell you again it is impossible for the Solar Eclipse to move across the Earth west to East which is the opposite direction to the moon on your Heliocentric model.
Your Heliocentric model does not match reality as such your Heliocentric model is false.
Part one
Part two
The readers will make their own minds up .
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is Finished.
;D ;D ;D
Nobody [believes] your BS anymore[. Like] I said in the other thread[,] your Heliocentric model is as tired and worn out as you.
...
You should read this again .
Nobody believe's your BS anymore like I said in the other thread your Heliocentric model is as tiredif the earth was a Heliocentric Globe in the past it still is a Heliocentric Globe - your ramblings don't alter anything!
and worn out as you.My being worn out or not has nothing to do with the case. Attacking me won't make your your Pancake Planet fair-Tails into true facts!
I think the issue is that it was fabricated hundreds of years ago and just doesn't match the reality that can be observed by everyone.We have read is again and again and again and it is still just as much wrong as the first time you spewed it out!
You should read this again .
*garbage*
Resistance.is.futile
I still have not recognize a response to my explanation here it is again please address it directly.
let us take another look at it.
The apparent motion of all solar objects, sun, moon, planets, and stars; Is due to the rotation of earth. There are other motions to be considered.
all the planets orbit around the sun, Earth being one of them.
The moon orbiting the Earth in a counterclockwise motion.
The Earth rotation in a counterclockwise rotation.
The counter clockwise rotation of Earth Is why we have the appearance of the sun and moon rising in the east. When you compare the motion of the Sun and Moon, you will see that the moon moves from west to east, you ask how was this? Pick a time, anytime, Mark the Moon location, in 24 hours, once again mark the Moon location, repeat the process; and you will note the moon moves from west to east on a daily basis.
with a waning moon, it will be seen during the day, coming close to a new moon, the solar eclipse, happens at the new moon. with the moon moving from west to east, for that short time the shadow crosses the earth, as the moon moves to the east. the rotation of the earth, only changes the time and location of where the shadow is cast. This is the results of all the numbers, that have been stated before and elsewhere, if I were to try to put the numbers in they just would cloud the issue.
In 5 days this eclipse will be over, and its motion will be as predicted, proving that the earth is a globe. and I am sure that you will be able to find a live broadcast, on TV or cable or Internet.
Here is the real kicker the stars
“This eclipse will give you a fine opportunity to gauge the brightness of the sky, because during totality observers will be able to briefly see the stars and constellations that are visible at night during the opposite season – that is, late February.
Indeed, stretched across the western and southwestern sky will be the bright stars of the winter season: Orion and his retinue, Canis Major and Minor, Gemini, Auriga, and Taurus. Each of these constellations contains at least one star of magnitude 1 or greater. However, August can be rather hazy, especially over the southeast U.S. If this is the case, the sky background may be quite bright even at mid-totality, and Venus may be the only visible object.”
It is too bad that your location doesn't allow you to see it.
After my cataract surgery I won't be able to see much either.
There are no such thing as planets.If that's what you want to believe, don't let me stop you.
There is no such thing as a solar system.That's a bit hard to deny! There is at least the sun, earth and moon.
There is no such thing as the Globe.If you want to live in a pizza, that's OK by me.
These are are just different aspects of your Heliocentric fairytale.And aspects of the true shape of the earth, but stick to your pizza planet if you want to.
The Moon rises in roughly the same place every nightOnly very, very roughly! The direction the moon rises varies over about the same range as the the sun, but the direction goes through the cycle over the lunar month, not the year as with sunrise.
The Moon rise changes by 50 minutes every night.Yes, it rises on average about 49 minutes later each day.
This does not prove your imaginary globe.Who claims that is does, except that on your flat earth there is
This does not prove the Moon orbits your imaginary globe.Maybe it doesn't prove it, but those facts do indicate that your flat earth model is incorrect.
The firmament rotates around the Flat Earth .Maybe you mean that on your model "the Sun and moon circle above the Flat Earth.", but this is incompatible with the sun and moon rising and setting.
The Sun and moon rotate around the Flat Earth.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.A "Heliocentric Religion" might be "strange and false" but the Heliocentric Globe is not a religion as it is based, not on faith alone, but on evidence and observation.
The Moon rises in roughly the same place every nightNo.
There are no such thing as planets.
There is no such thing as a solar system.
There is no such thing as the Globe.
These are are just different aspects of your Heliocentric fairytale.
The Moon rises in roughly the same place every night
The Moon rise changes by 50 minutes every night.
This does not prove your imaginary globe.
This does not prove the Moon orbits your imaginary globe.
The firmament rotates around the Flat Earth .
The Sun and moon rotate around the Flat Earth.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Why didn't previous eclipses "debunk the globe"?
Mike
I will be sad on Tuesday, when this resistance dude goes into hiding...
Since 1900 they have been no less than 15 total eclipses visible from North America. The last was in 1991. There were five with a path of totality over the US in the last century, the last being in in 1979.Why didn't previous eclipses "debunk the globe"?
Mike
There hasn't been a total Eclipse in America or the west in general since the true shape of the Earth has been known by the general public.
The people of America can afford to send thousands of High Altitude weather balloons up into the atmosphere it will only take one of them to catch some decent footage to debunk your IMAGINARY GLOBE.
I don't believe you Heliocentrics will accept it; as always you will just hope that not many people will see the said footage or you will try and explain it away with yet more nonsense.
I think the majority already know anyway ; but I do think there will come a time when the only people who believe or say they believe in the Globe will be the people involved in the conspiracy that is of course if we are not at that point already.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
I will be sad on Tuesday, when this resistance dude goes into hiding...It's a setup. He already has it planned out. Something liked we didn't actually see if it was the moon at the point of totality...or some such crap.
I will be sad on Tuesday, when this resistance dude goes into hiding...It's a setup. He already has it planned out. Something liked we didn't actually see if it was the moon at the point of totality...or some such crap.
You wait.
Mike
I will be sad on Tuesday, when this resistance dude goes into hiding...
There will be plenty of chances for him to try again. You can't fix stupid.
(http://planetolog.com/maps/map-world/big/SEatlas2021.gif)
If you are an example they are much more easily brainwashed. Look at how you leap to flat earth with no evidence at all.I will be sad on Tuesday, when this resistance dude goes into hiding...It's a setup. He already has it planned out. Something liked we didn't actually see if it was the moon at the point of totality...or some such crap.
You wait.
Mike
You fail to understand.
Did people have the Internet in 1979 ?
Did the general public have access to minature light weight camera's in 1979 ?
Your Heliocentric brethren controlled the vast majority of information available in the public domain.
The Internet has changed this ; now anyone can express an opinion to the world which is what has caused your downfall.
It is possible to see the Moon in the day.
I personally witnessed the solar eclipse in the UK in 1999 and there was no sign of the Moon blocking the Sun.
There was no sign of the moon at all.
Your model simply doesn't work for so many reasons .
Your brethren put this down to magic light/image bending.
All you are doing is telling us to ignore our own observations and take your word that your Heliocentric model is correct.
This generation of people are not so easily brain washed as the older generations and without proper proof such as decent HD video your Heliocentric religions CGI and shit pictures are just not acceptable.
I'm afraid it's now too late because our technology now allows us to create real looking animations .
So it will go down in his-story that the only real images we have of this IMAGINARY GLOBE are CGI and shit fake pictures even in 2017.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
So what will you flattards do on the 22nd when nothing changes? Are you going to cry? commit suicide? If you flatties are so sure the world will change after the eclipse lets set up some form of paypal or bitcoin situation and then you can put your money where your belief is?
You can see the moon during the eclipse. It's a phenomenon called earthshine. If there are any FEer's in the path of totality you can get a picture of it with you camera. It's a well documented phenomenon and anyone who cares to can get a picture of it. It's a goal of eclipse followers to get a picture of the earthshine moon during totality. All you need is a decent camera you can get the picture.I will be sad on Tuesday, when this resistance dude goes into hiding...It's a setup. He already has it planned out. Something liked we didn't actually see if it was the moon at the point of totality...or some such crap.
You wait.
Mike
You fail to understand.
Did people have the Internet in 1979 ?
Did the general public have access to minature light weight camera's in 1979 ?
Your Heliocentric brethren controlled the vast majority of information available in the public domain.
The Internet has changed this ; now anyone can express an opinion to the world which is what has caused your downfall.
It is possible to see the Moon in the day.
I personally witnessed the solar eclipse in the UK in 1999 and there was no sign of the Moon blocking the Sun.
There was no sign of the moon at all.
Your model simply doesn't work for so many reasons .
Your brethren put this down to magic light/image bending.
All you are doing is telling us to ignore our own observations and take your word that your Heliocentric model is correct.
This generation of people are not so easily brain washed as the older generations and without proper proof such as decent HD video your Heliocentric religions CGI and shit pictures are just not acceptable.
I'm afraid it's now too late because our technology now allows us to create real looking animations .
So it will go down in his-story that the only real images we have of this IMAGINARY GLOBE are CGI and shit fake pictures even in 2017.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
You can see the moon during the eclipse. It's a phenomenon called earthshine. If there are any FEer's in the path of totality you can get a picture of it with you camera. It's a well documented phenomenon and anyone who cares to can get a picture of it. It's a goal of eclipse followers to get a picture of the earthshine moon during totality. All you need is a decent camera you can get the picture.I will be sad on Tuesday, when this resistance dude goes into hiding...It's a setup. He already has it planned out. Something liked we didn't actually see if it was the moon at the point of totality...or some such crap.
You wait.
Mike
You fail to understand.
Did people have the Internet in 1979 ?
Did the general public have access to minature light weight camera's in 1979 ?
Your Heliocentric brethren controlled the vast majority of information available in the public domain.
The Internet has changed this ; now anyone can express an opinion to the world which is what has caused your downfall.
It is possible to see the Moon in the day.
I personally witnessed the solar eclipse in the UK in 1999 and there was no sign of the Moon blocking the Sun.
There was no sign of the moon at all.
Your model simply doesn't work for so many reasons .
Your brethren put this down to magic light/image bending.
All you are doing is telling us to ignore our own observations and take your word that your Heliocentric model is correct.
This generation of people are not so easily brain washed as the older generations and without proper proof such as decent HD video your Heliocentric religions CGI and shit pictures are just not acceptable.
I'm afraid it's now too late because our technology now allows us to create real looking animations .
So it will go down in his-story that the only real images we have of this IMAGINARY GLOBE are CGI and shit fake pictures even in 2017.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
So let's think about this for a second. You'll be able to see the moon in the sky in the hours before and after the eclipse. You can actually see the features of the moon when you're in the path of totality. Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it must be the moon.
Here's some links. The last link is a photography site where there is some discussion on how to shoot earthshine.
https://dyer.vanderbilt.edu/solar-eclipse/
http://www.skyandtelescope.com/online-gallery/solar-corona-march-9-2016-total-solar-eclipse/
http://www.diffractionlimited.com/doug/eclipse.html
http://eclipsetours.com/resources/see-eclipse/
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4106610?page=3
Mike
So what will you flattards do on the 22nd when nothing changes? Are you going to cry? commit suicide? If you flatties are so sure the world will change after the eclipse lets set up some form of paypal or bitcoin situation and then you can put your money where your belief is?
You don't get it. This is testable by FETer's. No one would make up something like this, put it in books, and plaster it all over the internet all the while knowing it's testable by anyone who cares to try and therefore easily debunked.You can see the moon during the eclipse. It's a phenomenon called earthshine. If there are any FEer's in the path of totality you can get a picture of it with you camera. It's a well documented phenomenon and anyone who cares to can get a picture of it. It's a goal of eclipse followers to get a picture of the earthshine moon during totality. All you need is a decent camera you can get the picture.I will be sad on Tuesday, when this resistance dude goes into hiding...It's a setup. He already has it planned out. Something liked we didn't actually see if it was the moon at the point of totality...or some such crap.
You wait.
Mike
You fail to understand.
Did people have the Internet in 1979 ?
Did the general public have access to minature light weight camera's in 1979 ?
Your Heliocentric brethren controlled the vast majority of information available in the public domain.
The Internet has changed this ; now anyone can express an opinion to the world which is what has caused your downfall.
It is possible to see the Moon in the day.
I personally witnessed the solar eclipse in the UK in 1999 and there was no sign of the Moon blocking the Sun.
There was no sign of the moon at all.
Your model simply doesn't work for so many reasons .
Your brethren put this down to magic light/image bending.
All you are doing is telling us to ignore our own observations and take your word that your Heliocentric model is correct.
This generation of people are not so easily brain washed as the older generations and without proper proof such as decent HD video your Heliocentric religions CGI and shit pictures are just not acceptable.
I'm afraid it's now too late because our technology now allows us to create real looking animations .
So it will go down in his-story that the only real images we have of this IMAGINARY GLOBE are CGI and shit fake pictures even in 2017.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
So let's think about this for a second. You'll be able to see the moon in the sky in the hours before and after the eclipse. You can actually see the features of the moon when you're in the path of totality. Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it must be the moon.
Here's some links. The last link is a photography site where there is some discussion on how to shoot earthshine.
https://dyer.vanderbilt.edu/solar-eclipse/
http://www.skyandtelescope.com/online-gallery/solar-corona-march-9-2016-total-solar-eclipse/
http://www.diffractionlimited.com/doug/eclipse.html
http://eclipsetours.com/resources/see-eclipse/
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4106610?page=3
Mike
Earthshine phenomenon
Lol.
Lol.
You Heliocentrics must be desperate.
We will see what the "authentic " footage shows.
This is some genuine footage from the 1999 Total Eclipse in the UK.
As we can verify for ourselves there is none of this Earthshine you speak of.
So your cunning plan is to release fake pictures of this earthshine to prove it is the moon and not the Black Sun that is the cause of the Eclipse.
Nice try but you have and will fail.
There will be so much genuine footage showing the Black Sun in front of the Sun you will be fooling no one but yourselves and maybe a few school children.
Lol.
Lol.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
You don't get it. This is testable by FETer's. No one would make up something like this, put it in books, and plaster it all over the internet all the while knowing it's testable by anyone who cares to try and therefore easily debunked.You can see the moon during the eclipse. It's a phenomenon called earthshine. If there are any FEer's in the path of totality you can get a picture of it with you camera. It's a well documented phenomenon and anyone who cares to can get a picture of it. It's a goal of eclipse followers to get a picture of the earthshine moon during totality. All you need is a decent camera you can get the picture.I will be sad on Tuesday, when this resistance dude goes into hiding...It's a setup. He already has it planned out. Something liked we didn't actually see if it was the moon at the point of totality...or some such crap.
You wait.
Mike
You fail to understand.
Did people have the Internet in 1979 ?
Did the general public have access to minature light weight camera's in 1979 ?
Your Heliocentric brethren controlled the vast majority of information available in the public domain.
The Internet has changed this ; now anyone can express an opinion to the world which is what has caused your downfall.
It is possible to see the Moon in the day.
I personally witnessed the solar eclipse in the UK in 1999 and there was no sign of the Moon blocking the Sun.
There was no sign of the moon at all.
Your model simply doesn't work for so many reasons .
Your brethren put this down to magic light/image bending.
All you are doing is telling us to ignore our own observations and take your word that your Heliocentric model is correct.
This generation of people are not so easily brain washed as the older generations and without proper proof such as decent HD video your Heliocentric religions CGI and shit pictures are just not acceptable.
I'm afraid it's now too late because our technology now allows us to create real looking animations .
So it will go down in his-story that the only real images we have of this IMAGINARY GLOBE are CGI and shit fake pictures even in 2017.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
So let's think about this for a second. You'll be able to see the moon in the sky in the hours before and after the eclipse. You can actually see the features of the moon when you're in the path of totality. Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it must be the moon.
Here's some links. The last link is a photography site where there is some discussion on how to shoot earthshine.
https://dyer.vanderbilt.edu/solar-eclipse/
http://www.skyandtelescope.com/online-gallery/solar-corona-march-9-2016-total-solar-eclipse/
http://www.diffractionlimited.com/doug/eclipse.html
http://eclipsetours.com/resources/see-eclipse/
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4106610?page=3
Mike
Earthshine phenomenon
Lol.
Lol.
You Heliocentrics must be desperate.
We will see what the "authentic " footage shows.
This is some genuine footage from the 1999 Total Eclipse in the UK.
As we can verify for ourselves there is none of this Earthshine you speak of.
So your cunning plan is to release fake pictures of this earthshine to prove it is the moon and not the Black Sun that is the cause of the Eclipse.
Nice try but you have and will fail.
There will be so much genuine footage showing the Black Sun in front of the Sun you will be fooling no one but yourselves and maybe a few school children.
Lol.
Lol.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
However, your response may be telling. It seems to me one of three things is true.
You really don't understand the implications of being handed something, that if you're right, could potentially debunk the globe earth once and for all.
Or
You don't want to to try to see if it's true because it may prove to everyone you're wrong and it is the moon that causes an eclipse.Or
Or
You don't really believe in the flat earth and are only interesting in playing the troll.
Why else would you just completely dismiss something like this? I guess there could be a fourth reason. You're too closed minded to consider the possibility.
BTW, it's not something you can catch on video. You need a decent SLR where you can precisely control the aperture, shutter speed, and ISO settings. It would be easier to use a tracking tripod but it can be done with a stationary one too.
BBTW, earthshine is also why you can get better images of features on the moon. That's why it's better to view with a telescope a few days after the new moon. Much less glare which doesn't drown out fine details.
Also something easily testable...if you care about being objective that is. I'll never understand why FET believers don't actually try to test things like this. Every time you do it's possible to shoot a hole in RET and potentially kill it altogether.
Mike
You can see the moon during the eclipse. It's a phenomenon called earthshine. If there are any FEer's in the path of totality you can get a picture of it with you camera. It's a well documented phenomenon and anyone who cares to can get a picture of it. It's a goal of eclipse followers to get a picture of the earthshine moon during totality. All you need is a decent camera you can get the picture.I will be sad on Tuesday, when this resistance dude goes into hiding...It's a setup. He already has it planned out. Something liked we didn't actually see if it was the moon at the point of totality...or some such crap.
You wait.
Mike
You fail to understand.
Did people have the Internet in 1979 ?
Did the general public have access to minature light weight camera's in 1979 ?
Your Heliocentric brethren controlled the vast majority of information available in the public domain.
The Internet has changed this ; now anyone can express an opinion to the world which is what has caused your downfall.
It is possible to see the Moon in the day.
I personally witnessed the solar eclipse in the UK in 1999 and there was no sign of the Moon blocking the Sun.
There was no sign of the moon at all.
Your model simply doesn't work for so many reasons .
Your brethren put this down to magic light/image bending.
All you are doing is telling us to ignore our own observations and take your word that your Heliocentric model is correct.
This generation of people are not so easily brain washed as the older generations and without proper proof such as decent HD video your Heliocentric religions CGI and shit pictures are just not acceptable.
I'm afraid it's now too late because our technology now allows us to create real looking animations .
So it will go down in his-story that the only real images we have of this IMAGINARY GLOBE are CGI and shit fake pictures even in 2017.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
So let's think about this for a second. You'll be able to see the moon in the sky in the hours before and after the eclipse. You can actually see the features of the moon when you're in the path of totality. Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it must be the moon.
Here's some links. The last link is a photography site where there is some discussion on how to shoot earthshine.
https://dyer.vanderbilt.edu/solar-eclipse/
http://www.skyandtelescope.com/online-gallery/solar-corona-march-9-2016-total-solar-eclipse/
http://www.diffractionlimited.com/doug/eclipse.html
http://eclipsetours.com/resources/see-eclipse/
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4106610?page=3
Mike
Earthshine phenomenon
Lol.
Lol.
You Heliocentrics must be desperate.
We will see what the "authentic " footage shows.
This is some genuine footage from the 1999 Total Eclipse in the UK.
As we can verify for ourselves there is none of this Earthshine you speak of.
So your cunning plan is to release fake pictures of this earthshine to prove it is the moon and not the Black Sun that is the cause of the Eclipse.
Nice try but you have and will fail.
There will be so much genuine footage showing the Black Sun in front of the Sun you will be fooling no one but yourselves and maybe a few school children.
Lol.
Lol.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
You can see the moon during the eclipse. It's a phenomenon called earthshine. If there are any FEer's in the path of totality you can get a picture of it with you camera. It's a well documented phenomenon and anyone who cares to can get a picture of it. It's a goal of eclipse followers to get a picture of the earthshine moon during totality. All you need is a decent camera you can get the picture.I will be sad on Tuesday, when this resistance dude goes into hiding...It's a setup. He already has it planned out. Something liked we didn't actually see if it was the moon at the point of totality...or some such crap.
You wait.
Mike
You fail to understand.
Did people have the Internet in 1979 ?
Did the general public have access to minature light weight camera's in 1979 ?
Your Heliocentric brethren controlled the vast majority of information available in the public domain.
The Internet has changed this ; now anyone can express an opinion to the world which is what has caused your downfall.
It is possible to see the Moon in the day.
I personally witnessed the solar eclipse in the UK in 1999 and there was no sign of the Moon blocking the Sun.
There was no sign of the moon at all.
Your model simply doesn't work for so many reasons .
Your brethren put this down to magic light/image bending.
All you are doing is telling us to ignore our own observations and take your word that your Heliocentric model is correct.
This generation of people are not so easily brain washed as the older generations and without proper proof such as decent HD video your Heliocentric religions CGI and shit pictures are just not acceptable.
I'm afraid it's now too late because our technology now allows us to create real looking animations .
So it will go down in his-story that the only real images we have of this IMAGINARY GLOBE are CGI and shit fake pictures even in 2017.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
So let's think about this for a second. You'll be able to see the moon in the sky in the hours before and after the eclipse. You can actually see the features of the moon when you're in the path of totality. Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it must be the moon.
Here's some links. The last link is a photography site where there is some discussion on how to shoot earthshine.
https://dyer.vanderbilt.edu/solar-eclipse/
http://www.skyandtelescope.com/online-gallery/solar-corona-march-9-2016-total-solar-eclipse/
http://www.diffractionlimited.com/doug/eclipse.html
http://eclipsetours.com/resources/see-eclipse/
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4106610?page=3
Mike
Earthshine phenomenon
Lol.
Lol.
You Heliocentrics must be desperate.
We will see what the "authentic " footage shows.
This is some genuine footage from the 1999 Total Eclipse in the UK.
As we can verify for ourselves there is none of this Earthshine you speak of.
So your cunning plan is to release fake pictures of this earthshine to prove it is the moon and not the Black Sun that is the cause of the Eclipse.
Nice try but you have and will fail.
There will be so much genuine footage showing the Black Sun in front of the Sun you will be fooling no one but yourselves and maybe a few school children.
Lol.
Lol.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
The moon isnt completely black during a total solar eclipse, thats one of the most common misconceptions about it, its just very hard to see the earthshine because of the much, MUCH brighter corona of the sun.
I did some research and i found that capturing the earthshine during a total solar eclipses, is one of the challenges for the photographers, it would take all the following to see the earthshine:
- Fairly dark adapted eyes
- Narrow field of view & tracking mount (to keep the inner corona/prominences outside of the FOV)
- Magnification >120x
- High contrast optics
- Large aperture
- Very clear skies
- Binocular vision
https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/581814-earthshine-during-totality/
http://www.eclipse2017.org/2017/photographing.HTM
http://www.astropix.com/html/i_astrop/2017_eclipse/Eclipse_2017.html#Earthshine
As you can see, seeing the earthshine is pretty hard, but is not impossible though, there are some sites that not only show pictures of the earthshine, but also show how they were able to capture it:
(http://www.diffractionlimited.com/doug/MidEclipseEarthshineSmall.jpg)
Source: http://www.diffractionlimited.com/doug/eclipse.html
(http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2002dec04/4254_earthshine.jpg)
Source: http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2002dec04/
(http://www91.sakura.ne.jp/~kay2/egypt/egypt-eclipse/mini-borg/a1-compo-base-hp.jpg)
(http://www91.sakura.ne.jp/~kay2/egypt/egypt-eclipse/video/ea-sh-compo2Bgamma112-s.jpg)
Source: http://www91.sakura.ne.jp/~kay2/egypt/egypt-eclipse/mini-borg/egypt-eclipse-3e.htm
(http://www.eclipsechaser.com/eclink/image/ecimg94/erthsh94.jpg)
Source: http://www.eclipsechaser.com/eclink/image/total94.htm
(http://www.tomvictor.com/images/sun/Solar%20eclipse%202006/earthshine.jpg)
Source: http://www.tomvictor.com/eclipse2006.htm
Fred Espenak also captured the earthshine in the 1999 eclipse:
(http://en.es-static.us/upl/2013/06/eclipse-total-August-1999.jpg)
So yeah, the moon can be seen during the total solar eclipse, its just very hard and you need to have the right equipment, that doesnt make it less true though.
You seem very knowledgeable for a 14 year old child.
You seem very knowledgeable for a 14 year old child.
You forgot one of the settings for your camera.
" Magic "
Wow. You’re not even going to fake being objective. That narrows the choices quite a bit.You don't get it. This is testable by FETer's. No one would make up something like this, put it in books, and plaster it all over the internet all the while knowing it's testable by anyone who cares to try and therefore easily debunked.
However, your response may be telling. It seems to me one of three things is true.
You really don't understand the implications of being handed something, that if you're right, could potentially debunk the globe earth once and for all.
Or
You don't want to to try to see if it's true because it may prove to everyone you're wrong and it is the moon that causes an eclipse.Or
Or
You don't really believe in the flat earth and are only interesting in playing the troll.
Why else would you just completely dismiss something like this? I guess there could be a fourth reason. You're too closed minded to consider the possibility.
BTW, it's not something you can catch on video. You need a decent SLR where you can precisely control the aperture, shutter speed, and ISO settings. It would be easier to use a tracking tripod but it can be done with a stationary one too.
BBTW, earthshine is also why you can get better images of features on the moon. That's why it's better to view with a telescope a few days after the new moon. Much less glare which doesn't drown out fine details.
Also something easily testable...if you care about being objective that is. I'll never understand why FET believers don't actually try to test things like this. Every time you do it's possible to shoot a hole in RET and potentially kill it altogether.
Mike
Are you for real ?
You Heliocentrics must think people are stupid.
Totality lasts a few minutes.
You need a SLR set up to exactly the correct specification to catch this magic earthshine phenomena you speak of.
You will be telling me I can take pictures of the tooth fairy next with the right settings on a SLR.
Lol.
It's not something you can "catch" on video.
Lol.
Lol.
There is more chance of me catching the tooth fairy than this magic earth shine you speak of.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Yes, MicroBeta is "for real" and the rest of us, Heliocentrics are "for real".Are you for real ?
BBTW, earthshine is also why you can get better images of features on the moon. That's why it's better to view with a telescope a few days after the new moon. Much less glare which doesn't drown out fine details.
Also something easily testable...if you care about being objective that is. I'll never understand why FET believers don't actually try to test things like this. Every time you do it's possible to shoot a hole in RET and potentially kill it altogether.
Mike
You Heliocentrics must think people are stupid.Yes, we know that you and your kind are . . .
Totality lasts a few minutes.A few minutes is plenty of time to take a video a few minutes long.
What is earthshine?
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/kpv0m27qa8j9lla/What%20is%20earthshine%2C%20By%20EarthSky%20in%20ASTRONOMY%20ESSENTIALS.jpg?dl=1)
Aqilla Othman at Port Dickson, Negeri Sembilan, Malaysia caught the March 29, 2017 young moon.
The pale glow on the dark part of the moon is light from a nearly full Earth, seen from the Earth-facing side of the moon.
Thank you, Aqilla.
When you look at a crescent moon shortly after sunset or before sunrise, you can sometimes see not only the bright crescent of the moon, but also the rest of the moon as a dark disk. That pale glow on the unlit part of a crescent moon is light reflected from Earth. It’s called earthshine.
To understand earthshine, remember that the moon is globe, just as Earth is, and that the globe of the moon is always half-illuminated by sunlight. When we see a crescent moon in the west after sunset, or in the east before dawn, we’re seeing just a sliver of the moon’s lighted half.
Now think about seeing a full moon from Earth’s surface. Bright moonlight can illuminate an earthly landscape on nights when the moon is full.
Likewise, whenever we see a crescent moon, a nearly full Earth appears in the moon’s night sky. The full Earth illuminates the lunar landscape. And that is earthshine. It’s light from the nearly full Earth shining on the moon.
So next time you see a crescent moon, expand your thinking – to include the Earth under your feet.
See the glow on the unlit portion of the moon for what it really is – sunlight reflected from the nearly full Earth shining in the moon’s sky.
From: What is earthshine? By EarthSky in ASTRONOMY ESSENTIALS (http://earthsky.org/astronomy-essentials/what-is-earthshine)
You need a SLR set up to exactly the correct specification to catch this magic earthshine phenomena you speak of.Judging by your ignorance about photography, I doubt you could take a photo on a bright sunny day.
You will be telling me I can take pictures of the tooth fairy next with the right settings on a SLR.
| (https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1429114964p2/9810.jpg) | .... | “Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.” |
There hasn't been a total Eclipse in America or the west in general since the true shape of the Earth has been known by the general public.Total garbage, like everything else that you say!
The people of America can afford to send thousands of High Altitude weather balloons up into the atmosphere it will only take one of them to catch some decent footage to debunk your IMAGINARY GLOBE.
| (https://www.dropbox.com/s/yjun4rk3u6xgccw/Solar%20eclipses%20visible%20from%20the%20United%20States%201901%20to%201950.png?dl=1) | (https://www.dropbox.com/s/4lj1cbeo70a2f77/Solar%20eclipses%20visible%20from%20the%20United%20States%201951%20to%202000.png?dl=1) | (https://www.dropbox.com/s/2zaw7f123o6td4t/Solar%20eclipses%20visible%20from%20the%20United%20States%202001%20to%202050.png?dl=1) |
| This? (https://www.dropbox.com/s/lgk7p91e4nr7wg7/Flat%20Earth%20Ice-wall%20map.png?dl=1) FE Ice Wall Map Generally redarded as the "Accepted" map. | Or maybe this? (https://www.dropbox.com/s/5110wqptw5dnq1s/Flat%20Earth%20Bi-polar%20map%20-%201272.png?dl=1) FE Bipolar Map (0°, 0°) centred AEP | Or maybe this? (http://www.livescience.com/images/i/000/017/494/original/flat-earth-map-02.jpg) 1893 map by Orlando Ferguson. Credit: Don Homuth |
| Or maybe this for the Northern Hemisphere? (https://www.dropbox.com/s/5x9b1gq3l18h1u9/Azimuthal%20Map%20Northern%20Hemiplane.png?dl=1) Map Northern Hemiplane, DET | and this for the Southern Hemisphere? (https://www.dropbox.com/s/ys43mw3xhg6xgor/Azimuthal%20Map%20Southern%20Hemiplane.png?dl=1) Map Southern Hemiplane | Or maybe this? (https://www.dropbox.com/s/pyviizp8ta99mui/Sandokhan%27s%20True%20Flat%20Earth%20Map.png?dl=1) Sandokhan "True" Flat Earth Map |
I will be sad on Tuesday, when this resistance dude goes into hiding...Don't worry he'll find some other goofy ideas to keep us entertained.
This just goes to show how far removed from society you Heliocentrics are. ;DSame response. Unobjective and closed minded. You probably should do a little research before you post so you don't look so silly.
Do you really think that anyone will believe this magic earthshine you speak of.
This magic earthshine that can not be "caught" on video.
This magic earthshine that can not be seen with the naked eye.
The only place this magic earthshine exists is in photoshop.
Lol.
Lol.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
This just goes to show how far removed from society you Heliocentrics are. ;DSame response. Unobjective and closed minded. You probably should do a little research before you post so you don't look so silly.
Do you really think that anyone will believe this magic earthshine you speak of.
This magic earthshine that can not be "caught" on video.
This magic earthshine that can not be seen with the naked eye.
The only place this magic earthshine exists is in photoshop.
Lol.
Lol.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Mike
What are you talking about?
You flattards know no bounds when it comes to defending your idiotic cult.
Any normal person knows that there is no "Black Sun".
Every solar eclipse you claim to have seen is a result of the moon getting between your eye and the sun... Claiming otherwise is a bold face LIE!
Your Infantile Arguments are Entertaining!
Thank you for your response.Resistance.is.futile
I still have not recognize a response to my explanation here it is again please address it directly.
let us take another look at it.
The apparent motion of all solar objects, sun, moon, planets, and stars; Is due to the rotation of earth. There are other motions to be considered.
all the planets orbit around the sun, Earth being one of them.
The moon orbiting the Earth in a counterclockwise motion.
The Earth rotation in a counterclockwise rotation.
The counter clockwise rotation of Earth Is why we have the appearance of the sun and moon rising in the east. When you compare the motion of the Sun and Moon, you will see that the moon moves from west to east, you ask how was this? Pick a time, anytime, Mark the Moon location, in 24 hours, once again mark the Moon location, repeat the process; and you will note the moon moves from west to east on a daily basis.
with a waning moon, it will be seen during the day, coming close to a new moon, the solar eclipse, happens at the new moon. with the moon moving from west to east, for that short time the shadow crosses the earth, as the moon moves to the east. the rotation of the earth, only changes the time and location of where the shadow is cast. This is the results of all the numbers, that have been stated before and elsewhere, if I were to try to put the numbers in they just would cloud the issue.
In 5 days this eclipse will be over, and its motion will be as predicted, proving that the earth is a globe. and I am sure that you will be able to find a live broadcast, on TV or cable or Internet.
Here is the real kicker the stars
“This eclipse will give you a fine opportunity to gauge the brightness of the sky, because during totality observers will be able to briefly see the stars and constellations that are visible at night during the opposite season – that is, late February.
Indeed, stretched across the western and southwestern sky will be the bright stars of the winter season: Orion and his retinue, Canis Major and Minor, Gemini, Auriga, and Taurus. Each of these constellations contains at least one star of magnitude 1 or greater. However, August can be rather hazy, especially over the southeast U.S. If this is the case, the sky background may be quite bright even at mid-totality, and Venus may be the only visible object.”
It is too bad that your location doesn't allow you to see it.
After my cataract surgery I won't be able to see much either.
There are no such thing as planets.
There is no such thing as a solar system.
There is no such thing as the Globe.
These are are just different aspects of your Heliocentric fairytale.
The Moon rises in roughly the same place every night
The Moon rise changes by 50 minutes every night.
This does not prove your imaginary globe.
This does not prove the Moon orbits your imaginary globe.
The firmament rotates around the Flat Earth .
The Sun and moon rotate around the Flat Earth.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
What are you talking about?
You flattards know no bounds when it comes to defending your idiotic cult.
Any normal person knows that there is no "Black Sun".
Every solar eclipse you claim to have seen is a result of the moon getting between your eye and the sun... Claiming otherwise is a bold face LIE!
Your Infantile Arguments are Entertaining!
Your emulation of I is quite flattering; it confirms I must have at least a reasonable amount of success.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
What are you talking about?
You flattards know no bounds when it comes to defending your idiotic cult.
Any normal person knows that there is no "Black Sun".
Every solar eclipse you claim to have seen is a result of the moon getting between your eye and the sun... Claiming otherwise is a bold face LIE!
Your Infantile Arguments are Entertaining!
Your emulation of I is quite flattering; it confirms I must have at least a reasonable amount of success.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
None at all, actually...
I kinda hoped you'd realize how desperately pathetic you sound on every single post you make.
Just bad,
At least dutchy throws some misguided data out there in a failed attempt at intelligence.
You are nothing more than an ignorant troll.
The only thing that was visable on the Sun was a black object.
Hey Pot, meet Kettle...What are you talking about?
You flattards know no bounds when it comes to defending your idiotic cult.
Any normal person knows that there is no "Black Sun".
Every solar eclipse you claim to have seen is a result of the moon getting between your eye and the sun... Claiming otherwise is a bold face LIE!
Your Infantile Arguments are Entertaining!
Your emulation of I is quite flattering; it confirms I must have at least a reasonable amount of success.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
None at all, actually...
I kinda hoped you'd realize how desperately pathetic you sound on every single post you make.
Just bad,
At least dutchy throws some misguided data out there in a failed attempt at intelligence.
You are nothing more than an ignorant troll.
What do you do ?
This is a Flat Earth forum and I bring my ideas and opinions on the Flat Earth and other truths and post videos I've found on the internet that other Flat Earthers will find interesting.
You are heliocentric NASA cock jockey who comes here to laugh at flat earthers.
You are delusional and your a hypocrite.
You lack the intelligence and maturity to debate so you just spam your nonsense and empty words on any thread that goes against your Strange religion.
YOU ARE THE TROLL.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
I didn't need backup. I provided links. I can't help you didn't read them...Pitt couldn't understand them. One or the other.This just goes to show how far removed from society you Heliocentrics are. ;DSame response. Unobjective and closed minded. You probably should do a little research before you post so you don't look so silly.
Do you really think that anyone will believe this magic earthshine you speak of.
This magic earthshine that can not be "caught" on video.
This magic earthshine that can not be seen with the naked eye.
The only place this magic earthshine exists is in photoshop.
Lol.
Lol.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Mike
Really ?
I look silly.
Your the one who has needed back up from your colleague's to try and reinforce this fantasy earthshine you speak of.
I have seen a total eclipse.
The Moon was nowhere in sight.
The Moon is visable in the day.
The only thing that was visable on the Sun was a black object.
The readers will be able to verify this for themselves by watching the eclipse with the naked eye or watching the video footage taken of the eclipse on Monday.
Nobody believe's in your CGI.
Nobody believe's in your photo shopped fake pictures.
You have failed in your mission to deceive which speaks volumes .
So you yet again want people to ignore their own observations and videos and believe in your photoshopped fake pictures and CGI.
Give it up !
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
The only thing that was visable on the Sun was a black object.
Umm... Do you understand the concept of backlighting?
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_4gREfILKw2Y/TRy1C9TavkI/AAAAAAAAANc/ZgzTeYwK7QI/s1600/tumblr_le8tozJYZE1qcualgo1_500_thumb.jpg)
I didn't need backup. I provided links. I can't help you didn't read them...Pitt couldn't understand them. One or three other.This just goes to show how far removed from society you Heliocentrics are. ;DSame response. Unobjective and closed minded. You probably should do a little research before you post so you don't look so silly.
Do you really think that anyone will believe this magic earthshine you speak of.
This magic earthshine that can not be "caught" on video.
This magic earthshine that can not be seen with the naked eye.
The only place this magic earthshine exists is in photoshop.
Lol.
Lol.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Mike
Really ?
I look silly.
Your the one who has needed back up from your colleague's to try and reinforce this fantasy earthshine you speak of.
I have seen a total eclipse.
The Moon was nowhere in sight.
The Moon is visable in the day.
The only thing that was visable on the Sun was a black object.
The readers will be able to verify this for themselves by watching the eclipse with the naked eye or watching the video footage taken of the eclipse on Monday.
Nobody believe's in your CGI.
Nobody believe's in your photo shopped fake pictures.
You have failed in your mission to deceive which speaks volumes .
So you yet again want people to ignore their own observations and videos and believe in your photoshopped fake pictures and CGI.
Give it up !
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Mike
Youtube disagrees with you - . I dsagree also because I've seen it with naked eye.
Earthshine can't be "caught" on video.
Earthshine can't be seen with the naked eye.
<< More incorrect rubbish deleted >>You lack the intelligence and maturity to debate
Hey Pot, meet Kettle...What are you talking about?
You flattards know no bounds when it comes to defending your idiotic cult.
Any normal person knows that there is no "Black Sun".
Every solar eclipse you claim to have seen is a result of the moon getting between your eye and the sun... Claiming otherwise is a bold face LIE!
Your Infantile Arguments are Entertaining!
Your emulation of I is quite flattering; it confirms I must have at least a reasonable amount of success.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
None at all, actually...
I kinda hoped you'd realize how desperately pathetic you sound on every single post you make.
Just bad,
At least dutchy throws some misguided data out there in a failed attempt at intelligence.
You are nothing more than an ignorant troll.
What do you do ?
This is a Flat Earth forum and I bring my ideas and opinions on the Flat Earth and other truths and post videos I've found on the internet that other Flat Earthers will find interesting.
You are heliocentric NASA cock jockey who comes here to laugh at flat earthers.
You are delusional and your a hypocrite.
You lack the intelligence and maturity to debate so you just spam your nonsense and empty words on any thread that goes against your Strange religion.
YOU ARE THE TROLL.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
<< More incorrect rubbish deleted >>You lack the intelligence and maturity to debateso you just spam your nonsense and empty words on any thread that goes against your Strange Flat Earthism Religion.Mr Resistance.is.Futile look at this video and learn how to do it![youtube][/youtube]Yjen you might watch:
Solar Eclipse Math: Umbra/Penumbra Spreadsheet (Flat Earth + Globe Earth), Flat Earth Math[youtube][/youtube]Etc, etc.
What are umbra and penumbra? (Flat Earth + Globe Earth) Flat Earth Math
If you want to bolster your own distorted views, take a look atThe Great Umbra Penumbra Conundrum - The Globe Is Slippin', jeranism (http://)But make sure that you also read the comments by Flat Earth Math.Look, listen and learn!
You Heliocentrics are scared that the masses now know the truth.I find it amusing that you think so. Flat earthers have propagated/distributed their truth more than ten years now but they are still where they began. No evidence, no proof, no explanations.
RIF, please give me this data on the Black Sun:
-spectroscopic analysis
-chemical make up
-density
-size
-magnetic field(if applicable)
-reason for non-illumination
-rate of rotation
-duration and length of orbit
Are you sure about that?The only thing that was visable on the Sun was a black object.
Umm... Do you understand the concept of backlighting?
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_4gREfILKw2Y/TRy1C9TavkI/AAAAAAAAANc/ZgzTeYwK7QI/s1600/tumblr_le8tozJYZE1qcualgo1_500_thumb.jpg)
Umm....
Do you understand the concept that an image taken from a camera is different to what is observed with the naked eye.
For example if the above image was observed with the naked eye the woman would NOT appear as a silhouette.
You Heliocentrics are scared that the masses now know the truth.I find it amusing that you think so. Flat earthers have propagated/distributed their truth more than ten years now but they are still where they began. No evidence, no proof, no explanations.
Are you sure about that?The only thing that was visable on the Sun was a black object.
Umm... Do you understand the concept of backlighting?
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_4gREfILKw2Y/TRy1C9TavkI/AAAAAAAAANc/ZgzTeYwK7QI/s1600/tumblr_le8tozJYZE1qcualgo1_500_thumb.jpg)
Umm....
Do you understand the concept that an image taken from a camera is different to what is observed with the naked eye.
For example if the above image was observed with the naked eye the woman would NOT appear as a silhouette.
The naked eye is pretty easy to fool.
RIF, please give me this data on the Black Sun:
-spectroscopic analysis
-chemical make up
-density
-size
-magnetic field(if applicable)
-reason for non-illumination
-rate of rotation
-duration and length of orbit
Albert
Please give me the data on gravity.
What is it ?
Where does it come from ?
What causes it to be constant ?
How can we measure it accurately?
How did it form your Heliocentric universe ?
How is it powerful enough to stop our pressurised atmosphere from escaping into the alleged infinite vacuum of space but weak enough let a boing 747 take off near its alleged point of origin ?
How do we prove it exists?
You and your brethren have had a near infinite amount of resources and hundreds of years to establish these facts you have even had one of your Gods Einstein fabricate the unverified theory of relativity to try and make it work.
We do not live on a Globe so nothing orbits around anything.
Nothing rotates.
The readers can verify this for themselves we always see the same side of the Moon no matter what time of day or night.
This is because the dark side of the moon doesn't exist it's just another aspect of this Heliocentric fairytale.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Where is the moon during the solar eclipse?
Earthshine can't be seen with the naked eye.Yes, earthshine is very faint compared to the solar corona and that makes it very difficult to see with the unaided eye,
Earthshine can only be caught on a magic SLR camera that can counteract the back lighting but can't be seen with the naked eye.
| (https://blogs-images.forbes.com/startswithabang/files/2017/07/Tse2010t_rc1.jpg?width=960) With the reflected light from Earth striking the Moon's surface, a long-exposure photograph is able to reveal the faintly illuminated features on the Moon. Images were taken in 2010 from Tatakoto Atoll in French Polynesia. |
Evident;y everyone but you. ::)Are you sure about that?The only thing that was visable on the Sun was a black object.
Umm... Do you understand the concept of backlighting?
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_4gREfILKw2Y/TRy1C9TavkI/AAAAAAAAANc/ZgzTeYwK7QI/s1600/tumblr_le8tozJYZE1qcualgo1_500_thumb.jpg)
Umm....
Do you understand the concept that an image taken from a camera is different to what is observed with the naked eye.
For example if the above image was observed with the naked eye the woman would NOT appear as a silhouette.
The naked eye is pretty easy to fool.
Yes I'm sure everyone who reads that statement will know it to be correct .
Maybe you Heliocentric snowflakes have inferior eyesight aswell as being socially inept.I don't need to post any illusions because you can test it for yourself.
Don't bother posting one of your optical illusions as it will have nothing to do with the image above.
That's funny! Everyone else claims that at the time of the total eclipse the elevation and azimuth of the sun and moon are identical.Where is the moon during the solar eclipse?
It's not in front of the Sun ;D
Earthshine can't be seen with the naked eye.Yes, earthshine is very faint compared to the solar corona and that makes it very difficult to see with the unaided eye,
Earthshine can only be caught on a magic SLR camera that can counteract the back lighting but can't be seen with the naked eye.
but it is still real and proves that the eclipse is caused by the moon and not any black sun.And, yes Mr Resistance.is.Futile it is "long exposure" photo - big deal.© Miloslav Drucksmiller, Martin Dietzel, Shadia Habbal, Vojtech Rusin.
(https://blogs-images.forbes.com/startswithabang/files/2017/07/Tse2010t_rc1.jpg?width=960)
With the reflected light from Earth striking the Moon's surface,
a long-exposure photograph is able to reveal the faintly illuminated features on the Moon.
Images were taken in 2010 from Tatakoto Atoll in French Polynesia.
The features on the "eclipsing object" certainly look like the moon and not any black sun - it simply is not black!So stop trying to fool everyone with your sill "black sun" nonsense!
That's funny! Everyone else claims that at the time of the total eclipse the elevation and azimuth of the sun and moon are identical.Where is the moon during the solar eclipse?
It's not in front of the Sun ;DYou must still be digging up your information from the trash-can in you Temple of the neo-Flat Earthism Cult of YouTube.
The only place earthshine exists is on photoshop.
Earthshine can't be "caught" on video.
Earthshine can't be seen with the naked eye.
Earthshine can only be caught on a magic SLR camera that can counteract the back lighting but can't be seen with the naked eye.
You are incorrect.
I have witnessed a total Eclipse.
Millions of people will witness the solar eclipse on the 21.08.17.
Millions of people will be able to verify for themselves that you Heliocentrics speak nonsense when they see the Sun turn black during totality and do not witness this magical earthshine you speak of.
No, there aren't millions. I still find it amusing that you believe it. And even if more people believe it will not make it true as it is seen with the god thingy. Also the coming solar eclipse is not anything special. It has happened many times in same way already.You Heliocentrics are scared that the masses now know the truth.I find it amusing that you think so. Flat earthers have propagated/distributed their truth more than ten years now but they are still where they began. No evidence, no proof, no explanations.
You talk nonsense 10 years ago a few thousand people believed in the Flat Earth.
There are now millions of people who believe in flat earth and there are many evidences the upcoming solar eclipse on th 22.08.17 being one of many.
Big deal!Earthshine can't be seen with the naked eye.Yes, earthshine is very faint compared to the solar corona and that makes it very difficult to see with the unaided eye,
Earthshine can only be caught on a magic SLR camera that can counteract the back lighting but can't be seen with the naked eye.
but it is still real and proves that the eclipse is caused by the moon and not any black sun.And, yes Mr Resistance.is.Futile it is "long exposure" photo - big deal.© Miloslav Drucksmiller, Martin Dietzel, Shadia Habbal, Vojtech Rusin.
(https://blogs-images.forbes.com/startswithabang/files/2017/07/Tse2010t_rc1.jpg?width=960)
With the reflected light from Earth striking the Moon's surface,
a long-exposure photograph is able to reveal the faintly illuminated features on the Moon.
Images were taken in 2010 from Tatakoto Atoll in French Polynesia.
The features on the "eclipsing object" certainly look like the moon and not any black sun - it simply is not black!So stop trying to fool everyone with your sill "black sun" nonsense!
I have witnessed a total Eclipse.
| (https://www.dropbox.com/s/ke4ikj2whrmxyyc/Moon%27s%20surface%20being%20illuminated%20by%20Earthshine%20from%20www.alsonwongastro.com%20-%202015-05-03_5545c267d5ff6_DSC_131713241331ePS2_1000%20-%20grey.jpg?dl=1) | Photographer Alson Wong rasvp@yahoo.com Location of photo Weizixia, China Date/Time of photo August 1, 2008 Equipment Borg 77mm ED refractor, Kenko Sky Memo mount, Nikon D300. Stack of three 2-second exposures at ISO 200. Description This image shows the Moon's surface being illuminated by Earthshine during a total solar eclipse. Many surface features are visible, including maria, craters, and the ray systems centered on the craters Tycho and Copernicus. Website www.alsonwongastro.com (http://www.alsonwongastro.com) |
No, there aren't millions. I still find it amusing that you believe it. And even if more people believe it will not make it true as it is seen with the god thingy. Also the coming solar eclipse is not anything special. It has happened many times in same way already.You Heliocentrics are scared that the masses now know the truth.I find it amusing that you think so. Flat earthers have propagated/distributed their truth more than ten years now but they are still where they began. No evidence, no proof, no explanations.
You talk nonsense 10 years ago a few thousand people believed in the Flat Earth.
There are now millions of people who believe in flat earth and there are many evidences the upcoming solar eclipse on th 22.08.17 being one of many.
This video shows that the Black Sun Eclipses the Sun and not the Moon.No it doesn't. It's mainly about the lunar eclipse, but doesn't prove anything about that either.
There is genuine video footage that shows this.It might be a genuine video recording, but it does not prove anything of the sort.
This video also explains how the Moon debunks the Heliocentric Globe.No, it proves nothing of the sort, it just makes some incorrect statements.The True Cause Of Eclipses; Real Footage - Flat Earth (http://)
there are many evidences the upcoming solar eclipse on th 22.08.17 being one of many.What does that gobbledegook mean?
I know. There really aren't so many people who believe flat earth. Number may rise sometimes and then it falls again but flat earth idea does not have absolutely no influence on world everyday life. Life goes on depending for round earth every day. Ten years ago they didn't have nothing and they will not have ten years from now. I am not rich guy but I can bet my one month pay that there never gonna be any undeniable/verifiable evidence for flat earth.No, there aren't millions. I still find it amusing that you believe it. And even if more people believe it will not make it true as it is seen with the god thingy. Also the coming solar eclipse is not anything special. It has happened many times in same way already.You Heliocentrics are scared that the masses now know the truth.I find it amusing that you think so. Flat earthers have propagated/distributed their truth more than ten years now but they are still where they began. No evidence, no proof, no explanations.
You talk nonsense 10 years ago a few thousand people believed in the Flat Earth.
There are now millions of people who believe in flat earth and there are many evidences the upcoming solar eclipse on th 22.08.17 being one of many.
How do you know ?
I know. There really aren't so many people who believe flat earth. Number may rise sometimes and then it falls again but flat earth idea does not have absolutely no influence on world everyday life. Life goes on depending for round earth every day. Ten years ago they didn't have nothing and they will not have ten years from now. I am not rich guy but I can bet my one month pay that there never gonna be any undeniable/verifiable evidence for flat earth.No, there aren't millions. I still find it amusing that you believe it. And even if more people believe it will not make it true as it is seen with the god thingy. Also the coming solar eclipse is not anything special. It has happened many times in same way already.You Heliocentrics are scared that the masses now know the truth.I find it amusing that you think so. Flat earthers have propagated/distributed their truth more than ten years now but they are still where they began. No evidence, no proof, no explanations.
You talk nonsense 10 years ago a few thousand people believed in the Flat Earth.
There are now millions of people who believe in flat earth and there are many evidences the upcoming solar eclipse on th 22.08.17 being one of many.
How do you know ?
Once you have seen flat there is no going back.Sure, but for now there isn't anyone who can show that "flat". As I said, I can offer my month salary(its not about sum itself but what it means to me. Its quite a setback for me and I must struggle for a while to make it even), if there is ever gonna be any verifiable and scientifically explained evidence for flat earth the next ten years to come. Can you make similar offer? If it does appear then I pay, if it does not appear then you pay?
Once you have seen flat there is no going back.Sure, but for now there isn't anyone who can show that "flat". As I said, I can offer my month salary(its not about sum itself but what it means to me. Its quite a setback for me and I must struggle for a while to make it even), if there is ever gonna be any verifiable and scientifically explained evidence for flat earth the next ten years to come. Can you make similar offer? If it does appear then I pay, if it does not appear then you pay?
This is the long distance photography world record these mountains are visable from 443 km away.Height is absolutely relevant and this image is possible on round earth. Nothing weird about that and your inability to comprehend that does not make any difference.
That means that this image has managed to bend round over 51000 ft of curvature which is impossible.
I have not calculated the height the image was taking at; but that is irrelevant this image is impossible on your Heliocentric Globe fairytale.
What proof do you have of your Heliocentric fairytale CGI , photoshop and images taken with a fish eye lense.
This is the long distance photography world record these mountains are visable from 443 km away.Height is absolutely relevant and this image is possible on round earth. Nothing weird about that and your inability to comprehend that does not make any difference.
That means that this image has managed to bend round over 51000 ft of curvature which is impossible.
I have not calculated the height the image was taking at; but that is irrelevant this image is impossible on your Heliocentric Globe fairytale.What proof do you have of your Heliocentric fairytale CGI , photoshop and images taken with a fish eye lense.
I have sunset for example. That it happens as it happens out there and all things you can observe at sunset. Its totally impossible on flat earth. And of course math and geometry and physics and other sciences which you just ignore. Also CGI and photoshop claims are just lies and libel. There isn't any technical proof that there is CGI or images are photoshopped any more than usual processing, brightness, levels, compression or other similar stuff to make image more attractive. There are also raw images and data available but flat earthers ignore them because if they should analyze these then they lose they argument.
This is the long distance photography world record these mountains are visable from 443 km away.
That means that this image has managed to bend round over 51000 ft of curvature which is impossible.
I have not calculated the height the image was taking at; but that is irrelevant this image is impossible on your Heliocentric Globe fairytale.
This is the long distance photography world record these mountains are visable from 443 km away.
That means that this image has managed to bend round over 51000 ft of curvature which is impossible.
I have not calculated the height the image was taking at; but that is irrelevant this image is impossible on your Heliocentric Globe fairytale.
No need for calculations, the photgrapher himself stated he took the picture from a height of 2820 meters.
https://beyondhorizons.eu/2016/08/03/pic-de-finestrelles-pic-gaspard-ecrins-443-km/ (https://beyondhorizons.eu/2016/08/03/pic-de-finestrelles-pic-gaspard-ecrins-443-km/)
This is the long distance photography world record these mountains are visable from 443 km away.
That means that this image has managed to bend round over 51000 ft of curvature which is impossible.
I have not calculated the height the image was taking at; but that is irrelevant this image is impossible on your Heliocentric Globe fairytale.
No need for calculations, the photgrapher himself stated he took the picture from a height of 2820 meters.
https://beyondhorizons.eu/2016/08/03/pic-de-finestrelles-pic-gaspard-ecrins-443-km/ (https://beyondhorizons.eu/2016/08/03/pic-de-finestrelles-pic-gaspard-ecrins-443-km/)
And your point is ...... ?
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
This is the long distance photography world record these mountains are visable from 443 km away.
That means that this image has managed to bend round over 51000 ft of curvature which is impossible.
I have not calculated the height the image was taking at; but that is irrelevant this image is impossible on your Heliocentric Globe fairytale.
No need for calculations, the photgrapher himself stated he took the picture from a height of 2820 meters.
https://beyondhorizons.eu/2016/08/03/pic-de-finestrelles-pic-gaspard-ecrins-443-km/ (https://beyondhorizons.eu/2016/08/03/pic-de-finestrelles-pic-gaspard-ecrins-443-km/)
And your point is ...... ?
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
You tell me, I merely provided you with the information about the height of which the photograph was taken since you obviously wasn't aware of.
Wonder if the curvature drop will then sink significantly though... ;D
I have provided verifiable photographic evidence of the flat earth.You have provided photo which does not prove flat earth in any way. https://www.metabunk.org/explained-443-km-distance-mountains-visible.t8980/ is discussion about that. If earth would be flat then the entire mountains would be seen not just upper parts. So you should be lucky not to have made bet because this more of evidence for round earth than flat one. And I said verifiable and scientifically explained evidence. You just threw me some picture which can be explained on round earth and you didn't explain how this works on flat earth. Where is the calculator for flat earth where I can input distance, my observation height and maybe something else and which says how much of some tall object I can maybe see?
No. Your rebuttal of the reality of a round Earth is just pathetic and horribly flawed.This is the long distance photography world record these mountains are visable from 443 km away.
That means that this image has managed to bend round over 51000 ft of curvature which is impossible.
I have not calculated the height the image was taking at; but that is irrelevant this image is impossible on your Heliocentric Globe fairytale.
No need for calculations, the photgrapher himself stated he took the picture from a height of 2820 meters.
https://beyondhorizons.eu/2016/08/03/pic-de-finestrelles-pic-gaspard-ecrins-443-km/ (https://beyondhorizons.eu/2016/08/03/pic-de-finestrelles-pic-gaspard-ecrins-443-km/)
And your point is ...... ?
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
No. Your rebuttal of the reality of a round Earth is just pathetic and horribly flawed.This is the long distance photography world record these mountains are visable from 443 km away.
That means that this image has managed to bend round over 51000 ft of curvature which is impossible.
I have not calculated the height the image was taking at; but that is irrelevant this image is impossible on your Heliocentric Globe fairytale.
No need for calculations, the photgrapher himself stated he took the picture from a height of 2820 meters.
https://beyondhorizons.eu/2016/08/03/pic-de-finestrelles-pic-gaspard-ecrins-443-km/ (https://beyondhorizons.eu/2016/08/03/pic-de-finestrelles-pic-gaspard-ecrins-443-km/)
And your point is ...... ?
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Why would it need to magically bend around 51000 ft of curvature?
That would only apply if you were taking a picture of something 443 km away over a level surface. That is not the case here. Instead you have mountain ranges, with observer and target at great heights.
So noting that the observer is at a height of 2820 m, the amount hidden by curvature (ignoring refraction) drops to a mere 5038 m.
The mountain it was viewing was 3867 m high. That puts the amount that refraction would need to bend the light to a mere 1171 m. Not much when you consider just how far away the object is.
At 443 km, that works out to be roughly 0.15 degrees. So quite plausible.
If Earth was flat, why is any hidden?
As for your picture of the sun below the clouds, thanks for providing more evidence against the FE.
The sun is meant to appear below clouds early in the morning or late in the afternoon (around sun rise and sun set), but only for the RE model.
With the FE model, the sun is meant to be much much higher and should NEVER appear below the clouds.
A magic image that can bend over a " mere" 4000 ft of curvature by your own calculations.No magic required.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.No, your FE cult is false, as shown by the bottom of the mountains being hidden, which confirms RE.
A magic image that can bend over a " mere" 4000 ft of curvature by your own calculations.No magic required.
Refraction (as in standard refraction from the atmosphere, no special conditions required) can result in objects appearing over 0.5 degrees higher than they actually are when close to the horizon.
All it needs is a mere 0.15 degrees.
So no magic, just simple physics.Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.No, your FE cult is false, as shown by the bottom of the mountains being hidden, which confirms RE.
RE is not strange, nor is it a religion, it is a fact.
what does zooming in have to do with a horizon hiding the bottom of mountains? why just the bottom of the mountains, why do they appear to be behind the horizon?A magic image that can bend over a " mere" 4000 ft of curvature by your own calculations.No magic required.
Refraction (as in standard refraction from the atmosphere, no special conditions required) can result in objects appearing over 0.5 degrees higher than they actually are when close to the horizon.
All it needs is a mere 0.15 degrees.
So no magic, just simple physics.Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.No, your FE cult is false, as shown by the bottom of the mountains being hidden, which confirms RE.
RE is not strange, nor is it a religion, it is a fact.
Bottom of the mountains are hidden because of the zoom .
1 km of magic image bending .
Lol
Lol
Do you believe in Santa and the Tooth fairy aswell?
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Bottom of the mountains are hidden because of the zoom .Nope. There appears to be Earth in the way.
1 km of magic image bending .Nope. 0.15 degrees of completely real refraction.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.You keep repeating this line as if it should be taken seriously, yet you are unable to provide a single rational thing to back it up.
Here is a nice video of the Sun below the clouds ;)What a ridiculous claim that "I witnessed the most mysterious thing ever - ??? Plane flying THROUGH the Sun ??? "!I witnessed the most mysterious thing ever - Plane flying THROUGH the Sun, Shahzwar Bugti (http://)
Present your evidence for your beloved Globe please. ;DBut, you video does not provide he slightest bit of evidence for a flat earth and in fact it proves that your idea of a flat earth is totally false.
Your words are not acceptable evidence.
, Here is a video where the full moon can be seen below eyelevel out the right hand side of a plane and sun can be seen below eyelevel out the left hand side of the plane at the same time.[youtube][/youtube]In strange flat earth religion the sun and moon being about 5000 km high makes this quite impossible on your flat earth.
Flat Earth vs Globe - Sunset and Full Moon Rise both below eye level at 45,000 ft. Wolfie6020.
So, this is one more bit of evidence for the Globe.
Are you really trying to prove that any idea of a flat is totally ridiculous? Whether or not, you are very successfully doing it!
Thanks for the help in proving the Heliocentric Globe, much appreciated.
Maybe its his new theory that zooming in on something hides its bottom. Actually you can verify it with camera. Take a camera, point it at nearby object and zoom in. And if you have placed camera correctly then you notice that as you zoom in the bottom of the object disappears from the view.Bottom of the mountains are hidden because of the zoom .what does zooming in have to do with a horizon hiding the bottom of mountains?
Your explanations are NOT Acceptable.[youtube][/youtube]
Any normal person can understand that as the moon's total orbital path is 27 to 29 days and 1.5 million miles it would have to travel at least a 190000 miles to cross the USA west to east because it is 200000 miles away on your Heliocentric model and in reality the USA is nearly 3000 miles wide so we could say that is roughly 12.5% of the alleged circumfrence of your imaginary Globe which to keep it simple represents roughly 12.5% of the Moons orbital path.
In reality any normal person will know it is impossible for the Moons shadow to travel west to east as they see the Moon rise in the East and set in the West EVERYDAY.
It is also impossible as shown in the first video I posted at the start of the thread because the earth's angular velocity on your model is 27 times greater than the Moon's actual velocity.
You have failed to take into account that the Solar Eclipse is visable in the Sky and it is the Earth's alleged angular Velocity as you and your colleague's have agreed that determines what we see in the sky.
A video that describes the orbit of the Moon on your Heliocentric model.
Maybe its his new theory that zooming in on something hides its bottom. Actually you can verify it with camera. Take a camera, point it at nearby object and zoom in. And if you have placed camera correctly then you notice that as you zoom in the bottom of the object disappears from the view.Bottom of the mountains are hidden because of the zoom .what does zooming in have to do with a horizon hiding the bottom of mountains?
That's funny! Everyone else claims that at the time of the total eclipse the elevation and azimuth of the sun and moon are identical.Where is the moon during the solar eclipse?
It's not in front of the Sun ;DYou must still be digging up your information from the trash-can in you Temple of the neo-Flat Earthism Cult of YouTube.
You should of said your Heliocentric Brethren say the elevation and azimuth of the sun and moon are identical.
That's funny! Everyone else claims that at the time of the total eclipse the elevation and azimuth of the sun and moon are identical.Where is the moon during the solar eclipse?
It's not in front of the Sun ;DYou must still be digging up your information from the trash-can in you Temple of the neo-Flat Earthism Cult of YouTube.
You should of said your Heliocentric Brethren say the elevation and azimuth of the sun and moon are identical.Well, exactly where will the moon be at the time of the eclipse and your words will not be accepted as evidence!
I guess by that you mean that once you are infected by the flat earth virus that the your disease is incurable.
Once you have seen flat there is no going back.
Quite unacceptable.That's funny! Everyone else claims that at the time of the total eclipse the elevation and azimuth of the sun and moon are identical.Where is the moon during the solar eclipse?
It's not in front of the Sun ;DYou must still be digging up your information from the trash-can in you Temple of the neo-Flat Earthism Cult of YouTube.
You should of said your Heliocentric Brethren say the elevation and azimuth of the sun and moon are identical.Well, exactly where will the moon be at the time of the eclipse and your words will not be accepted as evidence!
Not in front of the Sun !
Your explanations and videos are NOT Acceptable.
As you have tried to derail my thread you can take this.
Any normal person can understand that as the moon's total orbital path is 27 to 29 days and 1.5 million miles it would have to travel at least a 190000 miles to cross the USA west to east because it is 200000 miles away on your Heliocentric model and in reality the USA is nearly 3000 miles wide so we could say that is roughly 12.5% of the alleged circumfrence of your imaginary Globe which to keep it simple represents roughly 12.5% of the Moons orbital path.
In reality any normal person will know it is impossible for the Moons shadow to travel west to east as they see the Moon rise in the East and set in the West EVERYDAY.
It is also impossible as shown in the first video I posted at the start of the thread because the earth's angular velocity on your model is 27 times greater than the Moon's actual velocity.
You have failed to take into account that the Solar Eclipse is visable in the Sky and it is the Earth's alleged angular Velocity as you and your colleague's have agreed that determines what we see in the sky.
A video that describes the orbit of the Moon on your Heliocentric model.
Light travels in straight lines .
The Eclispe is caused by the moon passing between the sun and the earth.
The Sun has to be directly behind the Moon and the Earth has to be directly in front of the Moon.
An object shadow will follow the object when the light source is directly behind it.
You are now claiming the Moon moves in the opposite direction to what is observed this would be the only possible way that the Moon's shadow can move west to East when the light source which is the Sun is directly behind it.
http://www.livephysics.com/physical-constants/mechanics-pc/angular-speed-earth/
You are fooling no one with your heliocentric nonsense.
It is impossible for the path of the solar eclipse to move in completely the opposite direction to the moon.
The moon rises in the East and sets in th west.
The Solar Eclipse starts in the west and finishes if the East.
The Earth's angular velocity which Is one rotation every 24 hrs is 27 times faster than the Moon's velocity.
This is why the moon allegedly rises in the east and sets in the west.
If the Moon's velocity was greater than the angular velocity of the earth the Moon would rise in the West and set in the East it would also have to orbit the earth more than once every 24 hours to achieve this.
Here is a description of a solar eclipse on your model.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_eclipse
It clearly says the eclipse is caused when the moon passes in front of the sun.
The moon takes 27 days to orbit the earth.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon
On your model the Sun is stationary regarding it's position to the earth and the moon
.http://kidseclipse.com/sun-earth-moon-move/
I choose this link so you Stupid and gullable Heliocentric's can try to understand how and why the upcoming Solar Eclipse is impossible on your model.
It is impossible for an objects shadow to move in the opposite direction to the said object when the light source is stationary.
The only way this would be possible on your model would be if the Sun was moving millions of miles in relation to the earth and did not maintain it's alleged position in the centre of the solar system.
https://www.quora.com/Is-the-sun-the-center-of-the-solar-system-Why
So I will tell you again it is impossible for the Moon to cast a shadow on the Earth that is 24 times smaller than itself.
So I will tell you again it is impossible for the Solar Eclipse to move across the Earth west to East which is the opposite direction to the moon on your Heliocentric model.
Your Heliocentric model does not match reality as such your Heliocentric model is false.
Part one
Part two
The readers will make their own minds up .
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is Finished.
;D ;D ;D
Welcome to the La La Land that is the brain of Ignorance.Is.Bliss... :PHow come I described our "mutual friend" using almost the same words at the same time?
Quite unacceptable.That's funny! Everyone else claims that at the time of the total eclipse the elevation and azimuth of the sun and moon are identical.Where is the moon during the solar eclipse?
It's not in front of the Sun ;DYou must still be digging up your information from the trash-can in you Temple of the neo-Flat Earthism Cult of YouTube.
You should of said your Heliocentric Brethren say the elevation and azimuth of the sun and moon are identical.Well, exactly where will the moon be at the time of the eclipse and your words will not be accepted as evidence!
Not in front of the Sun !
I did not ask where it wasn't, I askedExactly where will the moon be at the time of the eclipse and your words will not be accepted as evidence!I guess you haven't a clue.
Here you might learn something from this[youtube][/youtube]Then you could finish up with this for dessert: Eclipse 2017: Flat Earther Proves FE Model Is BS, GreaterSapien (http://)
2017 Eclipse Proves Flat Earthers Small Thinking, GreaterSapienTry to do better next time!
Zooming in does make you lose the bottom and top of the image anyone can verify this at home with their smart phone camera.You are wrong, just verified it and I only lost bottom. Top stayed. So the earth can't be flat anymore.
You speak nonsense the said image is 443 km away it is Not close by so this effect would have been amplified.No, said image is about a meter away from my eyes. Again, the earth can't be flat anymore.
After the upcoming solar eclipse don't be surprised when normal people will pass off everything your brethren say as fake news.
When the Yanks witness this solar eclipse your Heliocentric religion will be on its last legs.
Or you could observe it over a period of time, noting where it is and extrapolate from there. Or you could check out an app or website that predicts where it will be and the verify that by going outside and looking up. Again, do this over time. If the program is consistently right then you can trust it. But you won't do any of these because you are either delusional and can't stand the thought of something proving you wrong, or you are just a dishonest troll.
The only way to determine where the Moon will be in reality is to observe where it is via a high altitude weather balloon during the eclipse.
I could use one of the Apps fabricated by your heliocentric brethren which is used to reinforce this deception of the moon eclipsing the sun but it will not reflect reality.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
QuoteOr you could observe it over a period of time, noting where it is and extrapolate from there. Or you could check out an app or website that predicts where it will be and the verify that by going outside and looking up. Again, do this over time. If the program is consistently right then you can trust it. But you won't do any of these because you are either delusional and can't stand the thought of something proving you wrong, or you are just a dishonest troll.
The only way to determine where the Moon will be in reality is to observe where it is via a high altitude weather balloon during the eclipse.
I could use one of the Apps fabricated by your heliocentric brethren which is used to reinforce this deception of the moon eclipsing the sun but it will not reflect reality.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
So which is it? Verify the position and movement of the moon or delusional, or lying troll?
You haven't proven anything. What was wrong with my suggestions about the moon? It would give you all the proof you need. Why won't you do it?QuoteOr you could observe it over a period of time, noting where it is and extrapolate from there. Or you could check out an app or website that predicts where it will be and the verify that by going outside and looking up. Again, do this over time. If the program is consistently right then you can trust it. But you won't do any of these because you are either delusional and can't stand the thought of something proving you wrong, or you are just a dishonest troll.
The only way to determine where the Moon will be in reality is to observe where it is via a high altitude weather balloon during the eclipse.
I could use one of the Apps fabricated by your heliocentric brethren which is used to reinforce this deception of the moon eclipsing the sun but it will not reflect reality.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
So which is it? Verify the position and movement of the moon or delusional, or lying troll?
You are delusional.
You are the liar.
I have proven you to be a deceitful liar twice on this forum if you deny it I will post the evidence so everyone can see .
How do you expect people to believe your stories about meeting astronots when you are a proven liar your word is worthless.
How can anyone argue with me saying that a high altitude weather balloon will detrmine the position of the Moon during the eclipse.
Are you saying the high altitude weather balloon won't be able to verify the position of the moon during the eclipse.
Can you explain why I'm a liar and also provide evidence.
This is why you are a liar.
The link provided proves Badxtosser is a deceitful liar .
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71631.msg1944076#msg1944076
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
You haven't proven anything. What was wrong with my suggestions about the moon? It would give you all the proof you need. Why won't you do it?QuoteOr you could observe it over a period of time, noting where it is and extrapolate from there. Or you could check out an app or website that predicts where it will be and the verify that by going outside and looking up. Again, do this over time. If the program is consistently right then you can trust it. But you won't do any of these because you are either delusional and can't stand the thought of something proving you wrong, or you are just a dishonest troll.
The only way to determine where the Moon will be in reality is to observe where it is via a high altitude weather balloon during the eclipse.
I could use one of the Apps fabricated by your heliocentric brethren which is used to reinforce this deception of the moon eclipsing the sun but it will not reflect reality.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
So which is it? Verify the position and movement of the moon or delusional, or lying troll?
You are delusional.
You are the liar.
I have proven you to be a deceitful liar twice on this forum if you deny it I will post the evidence so everyone can see .
How do you expect people to believe your stories about meeting astronots when you are a proven liar your word is worthless.
How can anyone argue with me saying that a high altitude weather balloon will detrmine the position of the Moon during the eclipse.
Are you saying the high altitude weather balloon won't be able to verify the position of the moon during the eclipse.
Can you explain why I'm a liar and also provide evidence.
This is why you are a liar.
The link provided proves Badxtosser is a deceitful liar .
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71631.msg1944076#msg1944076
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
But I did back up my words. Can't you read? Now about the suggestions on tracking the moon. Why do you keep avoiding this. If you are right it would prove it.You haven't proven anything. What was wrong with my suggestions about the moon? It would give you all the proof you need. Why won't you do it?QuoteOr you could observe it over a period of time, noting where it is and extrapolate from there. Or you could check out an app or website that predicts where it will be and the verify that by going outside and looking up. Again, do this over time. If the program is consistently right then you can trust it. But you won't do any of these because you are either delusional and can't stand the thought of something proving you wrong, or you are just a dishonest troll.
The only way to determine where the Moon will be in reality is to observe where it is via a high altitude weather balloon during the eclipse.
I could use one of the Apps fabricated by your heliocentric brethren which is used to reinforce this deception of the moon eclipsing the sun but it will not reflect reality.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
So which is it? Verify the position and movement of the moon or delusional, or lying troll?
You are delusional.
You are the liar.
I have proven you to be a deceitful liar twice on this forum if you deny it I will post the evidence so everyone can see .
How do you expect people to believe your stories about meeting astronots when you are a proven liar your word is worthless.
How can anyone argue with me saying that a high altitude weather balloon will detrmine the position of the Moon during the eclipse.
Are you saying the high altitude weather balloon won't be able to verify the position of the moon during the eclipse.
Can you explain why I'm a liar and also provide evidence.
This is why you are a liar.
The link provided proves Badxtosser is a deceitful liar .
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71631.msg1944076#msg1944076
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
You have called me a liar sir.
Calling someone like myself a liar is a serious accusation.
Now back up your words with evidence.
This is why your a liar.
You are delusional.
You are the liar.
I have proven you to be a deceitful liar twice on this forum if you deny it I will post the evidence so everyone can see .
How do you expect people to believe your stories about meeting astronots when you are a proven liar your word is worthless.
How can anyone argue with me saying that a high altitude weather balloon will detrmine the position of the Moon during the eclipse.
Are you saying the high altitude weather balloon won't be able to verify the position of the moon during the eclipse.
Can you explain why I'm a liar and also provide evidence.
This is why you are a liar.
The link provided proves Badxtosser is a deceitful liar .
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71631.msg1944076#msg1944076
This is another thread where I proven you to be a liar.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71286.30
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Your explanations and videos are NOT Acceptable.
blah blah blah stuff.
Well, exactly where will the moon be at the time of the eclipse and your words will not be accepted as evidence!Quote from: Resistance.is.FutileQuite unacceptable.
Not in front of the Sun !
I did not ask where it wasn't, I askedExactly where will the moon be at the time of the eclipse and your words will not be accepted as evidence!I guess you haven't a clue.
Here you might learn something from this[youtube][/youtube]Then you could finish up with this for dessert: Eclipse 2017: Flat Earther Proves FE Model Is BS, GreaterSapien (http://)
2017 Eclipse Proves Flat Earthers Small Thinking, GreaterSapien
The only way to determine where the Moon will be in reality is to observe where it is via a high altitude weather balloon during the eclipse.I asked you
I could use one of the Apps fabricated by your heliocentric brethren which is used to reinforce this deception of the moon eclipsing the sun but it will not reflect reality.
So if you know that it is not in front of the Sun!, you presumably must know where it will be, so I repeat:Not in front of the Sun !
Telepathy hah. Reported for alts.Welcome to the La La Land that is the brain of Ignorance.Is.Bliss... :PHow come I described our "mutual friend" using almost the same words at the same time?
A case of "telepathy", "great minds think alike" or "fools . . . . . . ."?
But I did back up my words. Can't you read? Now about the suggestions on tracking the moon. Why do you keep avoiding this. If you are right it would prove it.You haven't proven anything. What was wrong with my suggestions about the moon? It would give you all the proof you need. Why won't you do it?QuoteOr you could observe it over a period of time, noting where it is and extrapolate from there. Or you could check out an app or website that predicts where it will be and the verify that by going outside and looking up. Again, do this over time. If the program is consistently right then you can trust it. But you won't do any of these because you are either delusional and can't stand the thought of something proving you wrong, or you are just a dishonest troll.
The only way to determine where the Moon will be in reality is to observe where it is via a high altitude weather balloon during the eclipse.
I could use one of the Apps fabricated by your heliocentric brethren which is used to reinforce this deception of the moon eclipsing the sun but it will not reflect reality.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
So which is it? Verify the position and movement of the moon or delusional, or lying troll?
You are delusional.
You are the liar.
I have proven you to be a deceitful liar twice on this forum if you deny it I will post the evidence so everyone can see .
How do you expect people to believe your stories about meeting astronots when you are a proven liar your word is worthless.
How can anyone argue with me saying that a high altitude weather balloon will detrmine the position of the Moon during the eclipse.
Are you saying the high altitude weather balloon won't be able to verify the position of the moon during the eclipse.
Can you explain why I'm a liar and also provide evidence.
This is why you are a liar.
The link provided proves Badxtosser is a deceitful liar .
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71631.msg1944076#msg1944076
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
You have called me a liar sir.
Calling someone like myself a liar is a serious accusation.
Now back up your words with evidence.
This is why your a liar.
You are delusional.
You are the liar.
I have proven you to be a deceitful liar twice on this forum if you deny it I will post the evidence so everyone can see .
How do you expect people to believe your stories about meeting astronots when you are a proven liar your word is worthless.
How can anyone argue with me saying that a high altitude weather balloon will detrmine the position of the Moon during the eclipse.
Are you saying the high altitude weather balloon won't be able to verify the position of the moon during the eclipse.
Can you explain why I'm a liar and also provide evidence.
This is why you are a liar.
The link provided proves Badxtosser is a deceitful liar .
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71631.msg1944076#msg1944076
This is another thread where I proven you to be a liar.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71286.30
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Regardless, he'll come back swearing it wasn't the moon, all video/photos are fake, and he was right and the globe is debunked.Quote from: Education.is.FutileAfter the upcoming solar eclipse don't be surprised when normal people will pass off everything your brethren say as fake news.QuoteWhen the Yanks witness this solar eclipse your Heliocentric religion will be on its last legs.
Care to make a bet on that?
I will donate $100 to this website if your prediction comes true.
Will you donate $100 to this website if NASA's and all the scientists' predictions prove accurate?
Or will you
1. Flee this thread as all your brethren have?
2. Claim that the millions of eclipse selfies posted online are faked at the request of NASA and tens of millions of people are now added to The Grand Conspiracy?
3. Ignore it like you have all the evidence that counter your outdated religious beliefs?
Put your money where you mouth is.
If you're not a coward this website you enjoy so much will benifit no matter what happens tomorrow.
Unlike your "arguments" you can't lose!
How can anyone argue with me saying that a high altitude weather balloon will detrmine(sic) the position of the Moon during the eclipse.Easily!
Are you saying the high altitude weather balloon won't be able to verify the position of the moon during the eclipse.I am saying that YOU have no idea HOW
Incredible Eclipse Video, Taken from 120,000+ Feet!There will be many more balloons for this eclipse,
Stop whatever you’re doing and watch this video: Taken from a high-altitude balloon, it shows Australia’s Nov. 14, 2012 total solar eclipse as seen from 37,000 meters (120,000+ feet, nearly 23 miles) above the Earth![youtube][/youtube]Holy wow! The part that amazes me the most—besides the fact that anyone can do this at all—is seeing the shadow of the Moon on the Earth below. Let me explain. …
By a cosmic coincidence, the Moon and Sun appear to be about the same size in our sky. Not only that, it so happens that as the Moon orbits the Earth, every now and again it can pass directly in front of the Sun, blocking it, causing a total solar eclipse. To us standing on Earth, we see the Sun slowly disappear as it’s covered by the dark disk of the Moon. (See more pictures and another video of this in my earlier post covering this eclipse.)
But if you were to look down on the Earth from a height, what you would see is the shadow of the Moon sweeping around the Earth, traveling at very roughly one kilometer per second (about half a mile per second). The Moon’s shadow is round, but can be stretched into an ellipse due to the curvature of the Earth (just like casting a shadow onto a slanted surface distorts the length of the shadow).
(http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/Authors/phil_plait-authorbio.png)
Phil Plait writes Slate’s Bad
Astronomy blog and is an
astronomer, public speaker,
science evangelizer, and author
of Death From the Skies!
From: Incredible Eclipse Video, Taken from 120,000+ Feet! (http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2012/11/29/australia_s_2012_total_solar_eclipse_video_from_a_balloon_at_120_000_feet.html)
Telepathy hah. Reported for alts.Should be reported for repeated false accusations. But I'll let you off because poor hoppy does it out of pure ignorance!
How can anyone argue with me saying that a high altitude weather balloon will detrmine(sic) the position of the Moon during the eclipse.Easily!Quote from: Resistance.is.FutileAre you saying the high altitude weather balloon won't be able to verify the position of the moon during the eclipse.I am saying that YOU have no idea HOW"high altitude weather balloon won't be able to verify the position of the moon during the eclipse".Here are couple of links for you:
NASA Total Eclipse August 2017, Eclipse Ballooning Project, Nationwide Eclipse Ballooning (https://eclipse2017.nasa.gov/eclipse-ballooning-project)
Forbes, Watch This Live Aerial Science Experiment Of The Solar Eclipse With Balloons And Jets (https://www.forbes.com/sites/jenniferhicks/2017/08/18/watch-this-live-aerial-science-experiment-of-the-solar-eclipse-with-balloons-and-jets/#2e47e0ea3d8d)
The balloons will be looking at the shadow on the ground and only specifically at the sun. Also they will have no ability to make any accurate measurements. Look at this earlier example where it was done in 2012 over Australia:Quote from: Phil PlaitIncredible Eclipse Video, Taken from 120,000+ Feet!There will be many more balloons for this eclipse,
Stop whatever you’re doing and watch this video: Taken from a high-altitude balloon, it shows Australia’s Nov. 14, 2012 total solar eclipse as seen from 37,000 meters (120,000+ feet, nearly 23 miles) above the Earth![youtube][/youtube]Holy wow! The part that amazes me the most—besides the fact that anyone can do this at all—is seeing the shadow of the Moon on the Earth below. Let me explain. …
By a cosmic coincidence, the Moon and Sun appear to be about the same size in our sky. Not only that, it so happens that as the Moon orbits the Earth, every now and again it can pass directly in front of the Sun, blocking it, causing a total solar eclipse. To us standing on Earth, we see the Sun slowly disappear as it’s covered by the dark disk of the Moon. (See more pictures and another video of this in my earlier post covering this eclipse.)
But if you were to look down on the Earth from a height, what you would see is the shadow of the Moon sweeping around the Earth, traveling at very roughly one kilometer per second (about half a mile per second). The Moon’s shadow is round, but can be stretched into an ellipse due to the curvature of the Earth (just like casting a shadow onto a slanted surface distorts the length of the shadow).
(http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/Authors/phil_plait-authorbio.png)
Phil Plait writes Slate’s Bad
Astronomy blog and is an
astronomer, public speaker,
science evangelizer, and author
of Death From the Skies!
From: Incredible Eclipse Video, Taken from 120,000+ Feet! (http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2012/11/29/australia_s_2012_total_solar_eclipse_video_from_a_balloon_at_120_000_feet.html)but again they will be tracing the shadow's path and will prove that NASA's predictions are quite accurate.So, please explain how "a high altitude weather balloon will detrmine(sic) the position of the Moon" any better than telescopes on the ground?
Thanks for proving my point that you are the liar.
Te he he
I now have a signature
;D ;D ;D
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
QuoteThanks for proving my point that you are the liar.
Te he he
I now have a signature
;D ;D ;D
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Why do you keep running away from my suggestions about tracking the moon? Why are you derailing the thread?
Are you afraid? Is that it?
Are you a coward as well as a liar?
Say it isn't so.
But if you don't actually address those suggestions everyone will know you are coward and your signature holds the proof that you are a liar.
Ok so now we see that you are a coward as well as a liar.QuoteThanks for proving my point that you are the liar.
Te he he
I now have a signature
;D ;D ;D
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Why do you keep running away from my suggestions about tracking the moon? Why are you derailing the thread?
Are you afraid? Is that it?
Are you a coward as well as a liar?
Say it isn't so.
But if you don't actually address those suggestions everyone will know you are coward and your signature holds the proof that you are a liar.
Are you still here ?
Lol.
Lol.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Ok so now we see that you are a coward as well as a liar.QuoteThanks for proving my point that you are the liar.
Te he he
I now have a signature
;D ;D ;D
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Why do you keep running away from my suggestions about tracking the moon? Why are you derailing the thread?
Are you afraid? Is that it?
Are you a coward as well as a liar?
Say it isn't so.
But if you don't actually address those suggestions everyone will know you are coward and your signature holds the proof that you are a liar.
Are you still here ?
Lol.
Lol.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
You talk about speed of orbit etc but you could actually verify the movement and position of the moon if you simply put in a little effort. You verify the accuracy of any program or app you like simply by checking and going outside and looking up. You won't. Why not?
Could it be because you are afraid of what you will find? Are you really that afraid?
Actually I don't think that's the case. I think you're just a lying troll.
Prove me wrong, do any of the things I mentioned to find the path of the moon.
I dare you.
Any normal person can understand that as the moon's total orbital path is 27 to 29 days and 1.5 million miles it would have to travel at least a 190000 miles to cross the USA west to east because it is 200000 miles away on your Heliocentric model and in reality the USA is nearly 3000 miles wide so we could say that is roughly 12.5% of the alleged circumfrence of your imaginary Globe which to keep it simple represents roughly 12.5% of the Moons orbital path.Actually, a normal person would make a scale drawing and do the relevant maths to figure out exactly what's happening.
In reality any normal person will know it is impossible for the Moons shadow to travel west to east as they see the Moon rise in the East and set in the West EVERYDAY.
Zooming in does make you lose the bottom and top of the image anyone can verify this at home with their smart phone camera.But that is not what is happening here.
You speak nonsense the said image is 443 km away it is Not close by so this effect would have been amplified.Why would it be amplified as it is further away? That is just nonsense. As it is further away, it would appear smaller and thus be affected less. You would need to zoom in a lot more to have the top and bottom removed.
Here is a video that describes in great detail the atmospheric lense effect that also adds to this image distortion.No, it spouts pure bullshit, requiring the atmosphere to be magic.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.Again, you keep repeating the same bullshit but you are yet to back it up in any rational manner.
Your explanations and videos are NOT Acceptable.No, that would be yours. There is nothing wrong with ours.
As you have tried to derail my thread you can take this.Are you sure that wasn't you.
Any normal person can understand that as the moon's total orbital path is 27 to 29 days and 1.5 million miles it would have to travel at least a 190000 miles to cross the USA west to east because it is 200000 miles away on your Heliocentric model and in reality the USA is nearly 3000 miles wide so we could say that is roughly 12.5% of the alleged circumfrence of your imaginary Globe which to keep it simple represents roughly 12.5% of the Moons orbital path.No. Any normal can understand it doesn't work like that at all.
In reality any normal person will know it is impossible for the Moons shadow to travel west to east as they see the Moon rise in the East and set in the West EVERYDAY.Only a fool that hasn't thought about it.
It is also impossible as shown in the first video I posted at the start of the thread because the earth's angular velocity on your model is 27 times greater than the Moon's actual velocity.So?
You have failed to take into account that the Solar Eclipse is visable in the Sky and it is the Earth's alleged angular Velocity as you and your colleague's have agreed that determines what we see in the sky.Yes, it is visible in the sky, but it is not an object in the sky. It is a shadow on Earth.
A video that describes the orbit of the Moon on your Heliocentric model.You mean a video claiming the orbit is impossible, which has basically nothing to do with the topic at hand?
An object shadow will follow the object when the light source is directly behind it.Yes, the moon moves in a direction opposite its apparent motion.
You are now claiming the Moon moves in the opposite direction to what is observed this would be the only possible way that the Moon's shadow can move west to East when the light source which is the Sun is directly behind it.
You are fooling no one with your heliocentric nonsense.You are the one trying to fool here, spouting pure nonsense, setting up a bunch of pathetic strawmen.
It is impossible for the path of the solar eclipse to move in completely the opposite direction to the moon.It doesn't.
The moon rises in the East and sets in th west.Which is not indicative of the moon's motion. That is a result of Earth's motion.
I choose this link so you Stupid and gullable Heliocentric's can try to understand how and why the upcoming Solar Eclipse is impossible on your model.Except we understand that it is completely possible.
It is impossible for an objects shadow to move in the opposite direction to the said object when the light source is stationary.And you have already admitted that the moon is moving east to west and it is just Earth's rotation that causes it to appear to move the other way.
The Earth's angular velocity which Is one rotation every 24 hrs is 27 times faster than the Moon's velocity.See, fully accepting the moon is moving west to east and is just appearing to move east to west.
This is why the moon allegedly rises in the east and sets in the west.
If the Moon's velocity was greater than the angular velocity of the earth the Moon would rise in the West and set in the East it would also have to orbit the earth more than once every 24 hours to achieve this.
So I will tell you again it is impossible for the Moon to cast a shadow on the Earth that is 24 times smaller than itself.You can tell us all you want. It won't make it any less of pure bullshit.
So I will tell you again it is impossible for the Solar Eclipse to move across the Earth west to East which is the opposite direction to the moon on your Heliocentric model.
Your Heliocentric model does not match reality as such your Heliocentric model is false.Except it does. You are yet to show an actual flaw. Instead you just spout pure bullshit about it, setting up pathetic strawmen to pretend it is false.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is Finished.It isn't a religion, it is fact, and it is far from finished.
The only way to determine where the Moon will be in reality is to observe where it is via a high altitude weather balloon during the eclipse.Or observe it on Earth and note that for those in the path of totality, it is right where the sun is (except distance which they can't determine just from one observation), almost like it is the moon that is blocking out the light of the sun.
Are you saying the high altitude weather balloon won't be able to verify the position of the moon during the eclipse.He didn't. He just gave alternatives. Remember, you claimed that the only way to do it was via balloons.
Can you explain why I'm a liar and also provide evidence.Perhaps because you are blatantly lying about people and the HC model, such as claiming that the moon would need to travel 12.5% of its orbit instead of 0.2-0.3%?
This is why you are a liar.No, they don't.
The link provided proves Badxtosser is a deceitful liar .
The videos by the genuine normal people from high altitude weather balloons will look like this genuine video that shows the Black Sun eclipsing the Sun during the solar eclipse.You meant the moon?
Actually, a normal person would make a scale drawing and do the relevant maths to figure out exactly what's happening.Not really. A scale drawing for something like this is quite insane.
Any normal person can understand that as the moon's total orbital path is 27 to 29 days and 1.5 million miles it would have to travel at least a 190000 miles to cross the USA west to east because it is 200000 miles away on your Heliocentric model and in reality the USA is nearly 3000 miles wide so we could say that is roughly 12.5% of the alleged circumfrence of your imaginary Globe which to keep it simple represents roughly 12.5% of the Moons orbital path.Actually, a normal person would make a scale drawing and do the relevant maths to figure out exactly what's happening.
In reality any normal person will know it is impossible for the Moons shadow to travel west to east as they see the Moon rise in the East and set in the West EVERYDAY.
Since you refuse to do this, you clearly demonstrate that you aren't a normal person.
it would have to travel at least a 190000 miles to cross the USA west to east because it is 200000 miles away on your Heliocentric model and in reality the USA is nearly 3000 miles wide so we could say that is roughly 12.5% of the alleged circumfrence of your imaginary Globe which to keep it simple represents roughly 12.5% of the Moons orbital path.
Light travels in straight lines .The above two quotes are contradictory. Light does travel in straight lines. So the Moon would only have to travel 3,000 miles to have its shadow cross the US. The Moon only has to travel through 0.2% of its orbit for its shadow to cross the US. Not accounting for rotation of course. But still far less than your figures.
If you assume that sun rays are nearly parallel, then a scale drawing of just the earth and moon it's too tough.Actually, a normal person would make a scale drawing and do the relevant maths to figure out exactly what's happening.Not really. A scale drawing for something like this is quite insane.
What mathematics have been fabricated?Any normal person can understand that as the moon's total orbital path is 27 to 29 days and 1.5 million miles it would have to travel at least a 190000 miles to cross the USA west to east because it is 200000 miles away on your Heliocentric model and in reality the USA is nearly 3000 miles wide so we could say that is roughly 12.5% of the alleged circumfrence of your imaginary Globe which to keep it simple represents roughly 12.5% of the Moons orbital path.Actually, a normal person would make a scale drawing and do the relevant maths to figure out exactly what's happening.
In reality any normal person will know it is impossible for the Moons shadow to travel west to east as they see the Moon rise in the East and set in the West EVERYDAY.
Since you refuse to do this, you clearly demonstrate that you aren't a normal person.
Are you for real ?
Why would any normal person use mathematics that has been fabricated to reinforce your Heliocentric deception.
It is obvious to even a child that the solar eclipse is not possible on your model because the totality travels the oppisite way to the moon.
Again you Strange
What mathematics have been fabricated?Any normal person can understand that as the moon's total orbital path is 27 to 29 days and 1.5 million miles it would have to travel at least a 190000 miles to cross the USA west to east because it is 200000 miles away on your Heliocentric model and in reality the USA is nearly 3000 miles wide so we could say that is roughly 12.5% of the alleged circumfrence of your imaginary Globe which to keep it simple represents roughly 12.5% of the Moons orbital path.Actually, a normal person would make a scale drawing and do the relevant maths to figure out exactly what's happening.
In reality any normal person will know it is impossible for the Moons shadow to travel west to east as they see the Moon rise in the East and set in the West EVERYDAY.
Since you refuse to do this, you clearly demonstrate that you aren't a normal person.
Are you for real ?
Why would any normal person use mathematics that has been fabricated to reinforce your Heliocentric deception.
It is obvious to even a child that the solar eclipse is not possible on your model because the totality travels the oppisite way to the moon.
Again you Strange
Angular and linear velocities are pretty straightforward, well understood and incredibly useful in various industries. For example, any lathe operator worth their salt would need to have an intimate understanding of the relationship between the angular and surface speeds of various sized objects.
Trust me, those numbers aren't that complicated. RiF's problem is that those numbers just don't conform to his narrative.What mathematics have been fabricated?Any normal person can understand that as the moon's total orbital path is 27 to 29 days and 1.5 million miles it would have to travel at least a 190000 miles to cross the USA west to east because it is 200000 miles away on your Heliocentric model and in reality the USA is nearly 3000 miles wide so we could say that is roughly 12.5% of the alleged circumfrence of your imaginary Globe which to keep it simple represents roughly 12.5% of the Moons orbital path.Actually, a normal person would make a scale drawing and do the relevant maths to figure out exactly what's happening.
In reality any normal person will know it is impossible for the Moons shadow to travel west to east as they see the Moon rise in the East and set in the West EVERYDAY.
Since you refuse to do this, you clearly demonstrate that you aren't a normal person.
Are you for real ?
Why would any normal person use mathematics that has been fabricated to reinforce your Heliocentric deception.
It is obvious to even a child that the solar eclipse is not possible on your model because the totality travels the oppisite way to the moon.
Again you Strange
Angular and linear velocities are pretty straightforward, well understood and incredibly useful in various industries. For example, any lathe operator worth their salt would need to have an intimate understanding of the relationship between the angular and surface speeds of various sized objects.
When "Using my Brain is Futile" says fabricated mathematics, what he actually means is "All those complicated numbers and stuff I don't understand".
Why would any normal person use mathematics that has been fabricated to reinforce your Heliocentric deception.If they want to try to understand the model and see if the model's predictions match reality they would use math based upon that model to determine what that model predicts and see if it matches reality.
It is obvious to even a child that the solar eclipse is not possible on your model because the totality travels the oppisite way to the moon.No, not to a child, to a complete moron that doesn't understand the model at all.
Again you Strange Heliocentrics want us to ignore our own observations and accept your fabricated mathematics.No, us completely normal people want you to analyse your own observations rather than just jumping to conclusions.
Te he he
I now have a signature
;D ;D ;D
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Regardless, he'll come back swearing it wasn't the moon, all video/photos are fake, and he was right and the globe is debunked.Quote from: Education.is.FutileAfter the upcoming solar eclipse don't be surprised when normal people will pass off everything your brethren say as fake news.QuoteWhen the Yanks witness this solar eclipse your Heliocentric religion will be on its last legs.
Care to make a bet on that?
I will donate $100 to this website if your prediction comes true.
Will you donate $100 to this website if NASA's and all the scientists' predictions prove accurate?
Or will you
1. Flee this thread as all your brethren have?
2. Claim that the millions of eclipse selfies posted online are faked at the request of NASA and tens of millions of people are now added to The Grand Conspiracy?
3. Ignore it like you have all the evidence that counter your outdated religious beliefs?
Put your money where you mouth is.
If you're not a coward this website you enjoy so much will benifit no matter what happens tomorrow.
Unlike your "arguments" you can't lose!
He'll keep up with the same dismissive crap. He's not interested in actual discussion so I'm sure why anyone is still posting.
Mike
Trust me, those numbers aren't that complicated. RiF's problem is that those numbers just don't conform to his narrative.What mathematics have been fabricated?Any normal person can understand that as the moon's total orbital path is 27 to 29 days and 1.5 million miles it would have to travel at least a 190000 miles to cross the USA west to east because it is 200000 miles away on your Heliocentric model and in reality the USA is nearly 3000 miles wide so we could say that is roughly 12.5% of the alleged circumfrence of your imaginary Globe which to keep it simple represents roughly 12.5% of the Moons orbital path.Actually, a normal person would make a scale drawing and do the relevant maths to figure out exactly what's happening.
In reality any normal person will know it is impossible for the Moons shadow to travel west to east as they see the Moon rise in the East and set in the West EVERYDAY.
Since you refuse to do this, you clearly demonstrate that you aren't a normal person.
Are you for real ?
Why would any normal person use mathematics that has been fabricated to reinforce your Heliocentric deception.
It is obvious to even a child that the solar eclipse is not possible on your model because the totality travels the oppisite way to the moon.
Again you Strange
Angular and linear velocities are pretty straightforward, well understood and incredibly useful in various industries. For example, any lathe operator worth their salt would need to have an intimate understanding of the relationship between the angular and surface speeds of various sized objects.
When "Using my Brain is Futile" says fabricated mathematics, what he actually means is "All those complicated numbers and stuff I don't understand".
So you agree that such programs can accurately show the moons position. But suddenly this one day they won't?Ok so now we see that you are a coward as well as a liar.QuoteThanks for proving my point that you are the liar.
Te he he
I now have a signature
;D ;D ;D
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Why do you keep running away from my suggestions about tracking the moon? Why are you derailing the thread?
Are you afraid? Is that it?
Are you a coward as well as a liar?
Say it isn't so.
But if you don't actually address those suggestions everyone will know you are coward and your signature holds the proof that you are a liar.
Are you still here ?
Lol.
Lol.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
You talk about speed of orbit etc but you could actually verify the movement and position of the moon if you simply put in a little effort. You verify the accuracy of any program or app you like simply by checking and going outside and looking up. You won't. Why not?
Could it be because you are afraid of what you will find? Are you really that afraid?
Actually I don't think that's the case. I think you're just a lying troll.
Prove me wrong, do any of the things I mentioned to find the path of the moon.
I dare you.
This thread is called Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the globe.
Now I'm not disputing that these apps can't determine the position of the moon on a average day.
I have said already that on the day of the eclipse that these apps will be used to reinforce your heliocentric model and will not reflect reality.
I also then explained that because of this the only way to determine the true position of the moon on the day of the said eclipse would be to use a high altitude weather balloon with a camera.
It would seem that everyone understood this apart from you.
You are a delusional stupid deceitful liar this thread and the two threads linked in my signature prove this.
You live in some sort of self concocted fantasy dream world claiming to have had meetings with astronots you are a ridiculous embarrassment to all of your Heliocentric brethren.
Heliocentric's like you do a good job of helping people realise the truth of the flat earth.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
It's not fabricated if and only if it correctly describes whatever model it was calculated to describe. Say what you want but if it works then it's not fabricated and it is correct...unless you can prove otherwise then you're wrong.Any normal person can understand that as the moon's total orbital path is 27 to 29 days and 1.5 million miles it would have to travel at least a 190000 miles to cross the USA west to east because it is 200000 miles away on your Heliocentric model and in reality the USA is nearly 3000 miles wide so we could say that is roughly 12.5% of the alleged circumfrence of your imaginary Globe which to keep it simple represents roughly 12.5% of the Moons orbital path.Actually, a normal person would make a scale drawing and do the relevant maths to figure out exactly what's happening.
In reality any normal person will know it is impossible for the Moons shadow to travel west to east as they see the Moon rise in the East and set in the West EVERYDAY.
Since you refuse to do this, you clearly demonstrate that you aren't a normal person.
Are you for real ?
Why would any normal person use mathematics that has been fabricated to reinforce your Heliocentric deception.
It is obvious to even a child that the solar eclipse is not possible on your model because the totality travels the oppisite way to the moon.
Again you Strange Heliocentrics want us to ignore our own observations and accept your fabricated mathematics.
Those days are over.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
You should look at your video from 12:58 as inThere will be many more balloons for this eclipse,You are incorrect.but again they will be tracing the shadow's path and will prove that NASA's predictions are quite accurate.So, please explain how "a high altitude weather balloon will detrmine(sic) the position of the Moon" any better than telescopes on the ground?
Your video was not acceptable.
The videos by the genuine normal people from high altitude weather balloons will look like this genuine video that shows the Black Sun eclipsing the Sun during the solar eclipse.The True Cause Of Eclipses; Real Footage - Flat Earth Flat Water (http://)
12:58 First a reflector is a plane or a concave surface which gives off or returns what it receives.Down to here he is reasonably correct, though he takes a long time to say very little.
If a piece or red-hot metal or any other heated object is placed before a plane or a concave surface, heat is reflected.
12:13 If snow or ice or any artificial freezing mixture is similarly placed cold will be reflected.
12:20 If light of any given colour is placed in the same way the same colour of light will be reflected.
If a given sound is produced, the same tone or pitch will be reflected.
13:30 A reflector will not throw off cold when heat is placed before it nor heat when cold is presented.
13:37 If a red light is received, then red light will be returned, not blue or yellow.
If the note C is sounded upon any musical instrument, a reflector will not return the note D or G, but only the precise not altered only in degree or intensity.
13:55 If the moon is a reflector of the sun’s light she could she could not radiate or throw down upon the earth any other than such as she first receives from the sun.
No difference could exist in the quality or character of the light and it could not possibly differ in any other respect that of intensity or quantity.
14:15 It has been asserted in opposition to the above that the moon might absorb some of the rays of light from the sun and reflect only the remaining rays.
14:23 To this, it means that absorption means speedy saturation. A piece of blotter paper, a lump of hard sugar or a sponge, when brought into contact with any fluid or gaseous substance, would only absorb for a short time. It would quickly become saturated, filled to repletion and from that moment would cease to absorb and forever afterward would fully reflect or throw back whatever was projected upon it.But here is totally wrong! His analogy is completely inapplicable - light and heat radiation are not ink!
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/82/2011-08-11_22-12-47-moonlight.jpg/585px-2011-08-11_22-12-47-moonlight.jpg) A photograph taken by moonlight with an exposure time of fifty minutes. The naturalness of this photo and the similarity of the spectra with its absorption lines certainly seems to show that moonlight is reflected sunlight. | (http://i.stack.imgur.com/72dkh.png) From: Why does moonlight have a lower color temperature? (http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/244922/why-does-moonlight-have-a-lower-color-temperature/244929) |
Moonlight has a color temperature of 4100K, while sunlight has a higher color temperature of more than 5000K.
From: Why does moonlight have a lower color temperature? (https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/244922/why-does-moonlight-have-a-lower-color-temperature)
Trust me, those numbers aren't that complicated. RiF's problem is that those numbers just don't conform to his narrative.I think that anything more with numbers over 10 is too much for him.
Unless the number is 2 x 3 x 111 = ???.Trust me, those numbers aren't that complicated. RiF's problem is that those numbers just don't conform to his narrative.I think that anything more with numbers over 10 is too much for him.
It is indeed a good find, it is taking the REtards more than 2 hours to find some kind of poo to throw on this. Tick tock, tick tock.
RiF has rekt the globers.Ah hoppy, the Oscar Wilde of the flat earth movement.
As i understand correctly every glober thinks that resitance is futile is a simplemind in a league of his own.
But the neutral will understand he is on his own and adequately driving you nuts !!!
Rabinoz is working around the clock like never before to post the exact eclips info, precise details, pictures, diagrams and accompanying math.......
Resistance is futile owns you completely.......please continue it is better than satire !!
Oh, NOOOOOO....
The globe is being debunked as we speak!
I am anti violence so i am not joining the party.Oh, NOOOOOO....
The globe is being debunked as we speak!
It won't be long before millions of Americans storm NASA facilities nationwide pitchfork and torches in hand!
The only decent one I have found is in Wyoming where there is a 360 VR cameraHold on a second.
The Moon is nowhere in sight.
Which proves the eclipse is caused by the black sun as the moon is visable during the day.
The only decent one I have found is in Wyoming where there is a 360 VR cameraHold on a second.
The Moon is nowhere in sight.
Which proves the eclipse is caused by the black sun as the moon is visable during the day.
You said that the moon is nowhere in sight, but the moon is visible during the day.
So where the Th*rk is the moon if it's supposed to be visible?
It is obviously not in front of the sun.
On the other side of the world above Asia REtard where it is the middle of the night.
What's happening right now, I'm watching a partial from my location is exactly as predicted. You look up where the moon is supposed to be at any give time and it's pretty accurate.I am anti violence so i am not joining the party.Oh, NOOOOOO....
The globe is being debunked as we speak!
It won't be long before millions of Americans storm NASA facilities nationwide pitchfork and torches in hand!
But do i feel for NASA when that happens ? No not at all, they have lied and deceived the public by pretending they went to the moon and back.
Instead of a national coming out and humbly ask for forgiveness, they went to Mars ( formerly known as Devon Island) to steal more money from the American taxpayer.
I hope that
the columns of power abuse
The doorway to deceit
The gallery of fake achievements
The unity through ducttape
And the foundations of nazism will be gone some day.
Like Ronald Reagan said during his visit to West Berlin :
"Mister Gorbatsjov tear down this wall ""
I hope the public will say
" Mister Trump tear down these walls "
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
No, you said that the moon is visible during the day.The only decent one I have found is in Wyoming where there is a 360 VR cameraHold on a second.
The Moon is nowhere in sight.
Which proves the eclipse is caused by the black sun as the moon is visable during the day.
You said that the moon is nowhere in sight, but the moon is visible during the day.
So where the Th*rk is the moon if it's supposed to be visible?
It is obviously not in front of the sun.
On the other side of the world above Asia REtard where it is the middle of the night.
No, you said that the moon is visible during the day.The only decent one I have found is in Wyoming where there is a 360 VR cameraHold on a second.
The Moon is nowhere in sight.
Which proves the eclipse is caused by the black sun as the moon is visable during the day.
You said that the moon is nowhere in sight, but the moon is visible during the day.
So where the Th*rk is the moon if it's supposed to be visible?
It is obviously not in front of the sun.
On the other side of the world above Asia REtard where it is the middle of the night.
It's during the day.
Where is the moon?
The middle of the night in Asia is not the same as visible during the day.
Why would you see it? The sun is lighting up the other side. You don't see the new moon because there is no light reflecting our direction.No, you said that the moon is visible during the day.The only decent one I have found is in Wyoming where there is a 360 VR cameraHold on a second.
The Moon is nowhere in sight.
Which proves the eclipse is caused by the black sun as the moon is visable during the day.
You said that the moon is nowhere in sight, but the moon is visible during the day.
So where the Th*rk is the moon if it's supposed to be visible?
It is obviously not in front of the sun.
On the other side of the world above Asia REtard where it is the middle of the night.
It's during the day.
Where is the moon?
The middle of the night in Asia is not the same as visible during the day.
You don't get it do you.
If the Moon was a eclipsing the sun we would see it.
The reality is the Moon is above Asia where it is the middle of the night ; end of.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Yes, we do see it as a black disc covering the sun.No, you said that the moon is visible during the day.The only decent one I have found is in Wyoming where there is a 360 VR cameraHold on a second.
The Moon is nowhere in sight.
Which proves the eclipse is caused by the black sun as the moon is visable during the day.
You said that the moon is nowhere in sight, but the moon is visible during the day.
So where the Th*rk is the moon if it's supposed to be visible?
It is obviously not in front of the sun.
On the other side of the world above Asia REtard where it is the middle of the night.
It's during the day.
Where is the moon?
The middle of the night in Asia is not the same as visible during the day.
You don't get it do you.
If the Moon was a eclipsing the sun we would see it.
The reality is the Moon is above Asia where it is the middle of the night ; end of.Do you have any evidence to support this claim?
Yes, we do see it as a black disc covering the sun.No, you said that the moon is visible during the day.The only decent one I have found is in Wyoming where there is a 360 VR cameraHold on a second.
The Moon is nowhere in sight.
Which proves the eclipse is caused by the black sun as the moon is visable during the day.
You said that the moon is nowhere in sight, but the moon is visible during the day.
So where the Th*rk is the moon if it's supposed to be visible?
It is obviously not in front of the sun.
On the other side of the world above Asia REtard where it is the middle of the night.
It's during the day.
Where is the moon?
The middle of the night in Asia is not the same as visible during the day.
You don't get it do you.
If the Moon was a eclipsing the sun we would see it.The reality is the Moon is above Asia where it is the middle of the night ; end of.Do you have any evidence to support this claim?
Are there any live webcams pointing at the moon in Asia?
Have you spoken to any witnesses in Asia looking at the moon right now?
Why will the moon be visible in North America around this time tomorrow but not today?
You are now claiming the Moon will be visable midday tomorrow in the states .Barely visible, but yes.
This may have been the most incredible thing I've ever seen. I still feel weak
It is obviously not in front of the sun.
On the other side of the world above Asia REtard where it is the middle of the night.
I wonder if RIF understands that half of the time the moon is out during the day....
It will happen again in 2024. Starting in the South West US (Texas I think) and going North East this time. There's an area in Southern Illinois that where the 2017 & 2024 paths will cross. Interesting claim to fame.This may have been the most incredible thing I've ever seen. I still feel weak
I wish I could have seen totality, but alas I have to work and couldn't travel. I kept going out every so often and peek at it for a minute in between customers.
I wonder if RIF understands that half of the time the moon is out during the day....I've mentioned it before, but you know how impervious he is to new ideas.
This may have been the most incredible thing I've ever seen. I still feel weak
I wish I could have seen totality, but alas I have to work and couldn't travel. I kept going out every so often and peek at it for a minute in between customers.
It will happen again in 2024. Starting in the South West US (Texas I think) and going North East this time. There's an area in Southern Illinois that where the 2017 & 2024 paths will cross. Interesting claim to fame.
Mike
You won't have to travel very far and you will have plenty of time to prepare. I'm gonna find a place to go for totality for that one.This may have been the most incredible thing I've ever seen. I still feel weak
I wish I could have seen totality, but alas I have to work and couldn't travel. I kept going out every so often and peek at it for a minute in between customers.
It will happen again in 2024. Starting in the South West US (Texas I think) and going North East this time. There's an area in Southern Illinois that where the 2017 & 2024 paths will cross. Interesting claim to fame.
Mike
Looks like my town will be in about the same percentage of coverage as this one.(Meridian, MS)
What's happening right now is that you have confirmed that you never read the posts of other posters over here........ again !What's happening right now, I'm watching a partial from my location is exactly as predicted. You look up where the moon is supposed to be at any give time and it's pretty accurate.I am anti violence so i am not joining the party.Oh, NOOOOOO....
The globe is being debunked as we speak!
It won't be long before millions of Americans storm NASA facilities nationwide pitchfork and torches in hand!
But do i feel for NASA when that happens ? No not at all, they have lied and deceived the public by pretending they went to the moon and back.
Instead of a national coming out and humbly ask for forgiveness, they went to Mars ( formerly known as Devon Island) to steal more money from the American taxpayer.
I hope that
the columns of power abuse
The doorway to deceit
The gallery of fake achievements
The unity through ducttape
And the foundations of nazism will be gone some day.
Like Ronald Reagan said during his visit to West Berlin :
"Mister Gorbatsjov tear down this wall ""
I hope the public will say
" Mister Trump tear down these walls "
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Where is the deceit?
You are now claiming the Moon will be visable midday tomorrow in the states .Barely visible, but yes.
In fact, the moon will still be visible for several hours today after the eclipse is finished.
The new moon phase is generally visible during daylight hours.
Why? When is the new moon phase visible on your world?
I told everyone RIF would claim victory no matter what happens. He won't need any proof he just want's to claim it's the "black sun". I'm pretty sure he doesn't even believe what he's saying and he's just a troll.This is exactly what a low level shill would say. No experience or acumen to make a scathing rebuttal. Perhaps your handlers will take this into consideration when they try to fire you.
Lol.The black sun is the moon! You can't see the moon because it is in Front of the sun.
I have just witnessed the amazing footage from NASA of the solar eclipse.
It was comparable to one of my brethren holding a torch and putting a black piece of card board the same size as the said torch in front of it.
There are still live feeds on the Internet.
The only decent one I have found is in Wyoming where there is a 360 VR camera
The Moon is nowhere in sight.
Which proves the eclipse is caused by the black sun as the moon is visable during the day.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
That's too funny...as if you have some sort of " low level shill" operating manual that has a list of responses or something?I told everyone RIF would claim victory no matter what happens. He won't need any proof he just want's to claim it's the "black sun". I'm pretty sure he doesn't even believe what he's saying and he's just a troll.This is exactly what a low level shill would say. No experience or acumen to make a scathing rebuttal. Perhaps your handlers will take this into consideration when they try to fire you.
Yes, it should look something like this:You are now claiming the Moon will be visable midday tomorrow in the states .Barely visible, but yes.
In fact, the moon will still be visible for several hours today after the eclipse is finished.
The new moon phase is generally visible during daylight hours.
Why? When is the new moon phase visible on your world?
You have just debunked your own model.
You claim the moon will be visable tomorrow at midday but it wasn't visable today within 49 minutes of midday ?
And it wasn't visable today as it allegedly passed in front of the Sun.It was visible as a black disc as it passed the sun. You simply chose to call it the black sun, but it's really the moon.
It wasn't visable because the moon travels east to west.The moon's direction of travel has nothing to do with its visibility.
It wasn't visable because the Black Sun eclipses the Sun not the moon and this is why totality travels west to east.Do you have any Asian sources to back up your claim that the moon is visible there?
Boy those guys at NASA sure are quick with photoshop!
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DHxaM8rXcAAruvK?format=jpg&name=small)
https://www.cnet.com/google-amp/news/nasa-iss-solar-eclipse-space-station-transit-photo-image/
Then why are you posting on a thread about the eclipse?What's happening right now is that you have confirmed that you never read the posts of other posters over here........ again !What's happening right now, I'm watching a partial from my location is exactly as predicted. You look up where the moon is supposed to be at any give time and it's pretty accurate.I am anti violence so i am not joining the party.Oh, NOOOOOO....
The globe is being debunked as we speak!
It won't be long before millions of Americans storm NASA facilities nationwide pitchfork and torches in hand!
But do i feel for NASA when that happens ? No not at all, they have lied and deceived the public by pretending they went to the moon and back.
Instead of a national coming out and humbly ask for forgiveness, they went to Mars ( formerly known as Devon Island) to steal more money from the American taxpayer.
I hope that
the columns of power abuse
The doorway to deceit
The gallery of fake achievements
The unity through ducttape
And the foundations of nazism will be gone some day.
Like Ronald Reagan said during his visit to West Berlin :
"Mister Gorbatsjov tear down this wall ""
I hope the public will say
" Mister Trump tear down these walls "
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Where is the deceit?
I don't care for your shitty eclips that seem to rouse so many million Americans and their pets.
As if they go to fucking Disneyland with their moronic glasses.
I was talking of course about the munlundings and the rover on Devon Island.
Please remember this post, because i know you think you can prove to me something about the eclips in the aftermath.
The eclips doesn't have my attention, only the munlundings and the flatearth !!
Understood ??
I was talking of course about the munlundings and the rover on Devon Island.It looks like your NASAphobic Implants have destroyed your ability even to read!
Please remember this post, because i know you think you can prove to me something about the eclips in the aftermath.
The eclips doesn't have my attention, only the munlundings and the flatearth !!
Understood ??
Your presence at the flatearth forums is the biggest derailment of all.... a severe mental one !!I was talking of course about the munlundings and the rover on Devon Island.It looks like your NASAphobic Implants have destroyed your ability even to read!
Please remember this post, because i know you think you can prove to me something about the eclips in the aftermath.
The eclips doesn't have my attention, only the munlundings and the flatearth !!
Understood ??This thread "Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the Globe" is silly enough already without your derailing attempts.
As i understand correctly every glober thinks that resitance is futile is a simplemind in a league of his own.
But the neutral will understand he is on his own and adequately driving you nuts !!!
Rabinoz is working around the clock like never before to post the exact eclips info, precise details, pictures, diagrams and accompanying math.......
Resistance is futile owns you completely.......please continue it is better than satire !!
Yes, it should look something like this:You are now claiming the Moon will be visable midday tomorrow in the states .Barely visible, but yes.
In fact, the moon will still be visible for several hours today after the eclipse is finished.
The new moon phase is generally visible during daylight hours.
Why? When is the new moon phase visible on your world?
You have just debunked your own model.
You claim the moon will be visable tomorrow at midday but it wasn't visable today within 49 minutes of midday ?
(http://astrobob.areavoices.com/files/2012/08/Venus-crescent-moon-daytime-Aug13_2012-1024x623.jpg)And it wasn't visable today as it allegedly passed in front of the Sun.It was visible as a black disc as it passed the sun. You simply chose to call it the black sun, but it's really the moon.It wasn't visable because the moon travels east to west.The moon's direction of travel has nothing to do with its visibility.It wasn't visable because the Black Sun eclipses the Sun not the moon and this is why totality travels west to east.Do you have any Asian sources to back up your claim that the moon is visible there?
Absolutely a troll.Yes, it should look something like this:You are now claiming the Moon will be visable midday tomorrow in the states .Barely visible, but yes.
In fact, the moon will still be visible for several hours today after the eclipse is finished.
The new moon phase is generally visible during daylight hours.
Why? When is the new moon phase visible on your world?
You have just debunked your own model.
You claim the moon will be visable tomorrow at midday but it wasn't visable today within 49 minutes of midday ?
(http://astrobob.areavoices.com/files/2012/08/Venus-crescent-moon-daytime-Aug13_2012-1024x623.jpg)And it wasn't visable today as it allegedly passed in front of the Sun.It was visible as a black disc as it passed the sun. You simply chose to call it the black sun, but it's really the moon.It wasn't visable because the moon travels east to west.The moon's direction of travel has nothing to do with its visibility.It wasn't visable because the Black Sun eclipses the Sun not the moon and this is why totality travels west to east.Do you have any Asian sources to back up your claim that the moon is visible there?
I do find your explanation acceptable.
You are also incorrect.
You claim the Moon will be visible tomorrow in the states at midday.
If your model is correct it should of been visible today within 49 minutes of midday.
You claim it was visible today as it passed it front of the Sun; that is incorrect the black sun is the cause of eclipses not the moon.
You speak nonsense.
You claim the Moon's direction of travel has nothing to do with it's visibility anyone can verify for themselves that the Moon travels east to west ; the earth is Flat and stationary.
If the moon is a sphere as you Heliocentrics claim and it reflected the sun's light as you Heliocentrics claim it would be impossible for it to reflect the suns light in a uniform consistent manor this is only possible with a flat disc.
You expect people to believe that the Moon rotates even though we consistently only see one side of the moon regardless of the time of day or night and we consistently see exactly the same elevation for however long the moon is visible.
You expect people to believe that the Moon only appears to be the same size as the sun as the moon is 400 times closer than the sun and the sun is 400 bigger than the moon.
You expect people to believe that the Moon eclipses the Sun on a solar eclipse even though it is not visible at all for hours before or hours after the eclipse.
You then claim that the moon will be visible at the same time as the solar eclipse the following day.
You expect people to believe that the Sun illuminates the Moon even when on a full Moon at midnight when the Moon is at it's highest point in sky the Sun on your model is on the opposite side of your imaginary Globe and as such the moon would be in the earth's shadow.
This is all too much for any normal person who looks into your heliocentric deception to believe.
The black Sun is the cause of eclipses and not the Moon.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
The Moon is nowhere in sight.You mean the moon cannot be seen by the camera.
Which proves the eclipse is caused by the black sun as the moon is visable during the day.
It is obviously not in front of the sun.Nope. That is where all predictions indicate it should be.
On the other side of the world above Asia REtard where it is the middle of the night.Nope. That would be for a full moon. It is meant to be a new moon now, so it is meant to be out now, basically right where the sun is, just at a different angle of elevation depending upon your location, and a slight change in azimuth.
As the footage available on the Internet was just not acceptable considering it is 2017.Why not?
I also did not see any stars in the sky from the live feed in Wyoming as one of your Heliocentric brethren claimed.Did he claim your eyes could see it, or a camera?
You Strange people live in a fantasy dream world if you think normal people are going to accept your unconvincing deception.So far you are the deceptive one here, now us roundies.
If the Moon was a eclipsing the sun we would see it.Not really. The massive brightness of the sun can make it somewhat difficult to see. You would need a FOV which removes the brightness of the sun to be able to see the very faint moon which would be illuminated from light reflected from Earth.
The reality is the Moon is above Asia where it is the middle of the night ; end of.No. It is a new moon today. That means it would be out during the day, not at night. It was also not observed at night. So no, it is out during the day. END OF!
Incorrect that is the Black Sun that eclipses the Sun not the moon.No, that is the moon. It is right where the moon is predicted to be.
You are now claiming the Moon will be visable midday tomorrow in the states .If observed correctly, YES!
As soon as someone looks into your heliocentric model they will see it to be false.No. If they rationally analyse it they see nothing wrong with it.
If your model is correct it should of been visible today within 49 minutes of midday.And if you had the tools to observe it properly, it would be.
You claim it was visible today as it passed it front of the Sun; that is incorrect the black sun is the cause of eclipses not the moon.You keep spouting this same bullshit, yet you are completely unable to back it up.
You claim the Moon's direction of travel has nothing to do with it's visibility anyone can verify for themselves that the Moon travels east to west ; the earth is Flat and stationary.No, they can't.
If the moon is a sphere as you Heliocentrics claim and it reflected the sun's light as you Heliocentrics claim it would be impossible for it to reflect the suns light in a uniform consistent manor this is only possible with a flat disc.Good thing it isn't consistent then. Instead it varies quite dramatically. In some cases it is a crescent, in some cases it is half, in some cases it is a gibbous and in some cases it is full or new.
You expect people to believe that the Moon rotates even though we consistently only see one side of the moon regardless of the time of day or night and we consistently see exactly the same elevation for however long the moon is visible.No, you see a slightly different view depending upon where you view it from, and the time as it does wobble. Also it changes elevation dramatically.
You expect people to believe that the Moon only appears to be the same size as the sun as the moon is 400 times closer than the sun and the sun is 400 bigger than the moon.Yes, because that is what the evidence shows.
You expect people to believe that the Sun illuminates the Moon even when on a full Moon at midnight when the Moon is at it's highest point in sky the Sun on your model is on the opposite side of your imaginary Globe and as such the moon would be in the earth's shadow.But it isn't directly opposite.
This is all too much for any normal person who looks into your heliocentric deception to believe.You mean it is too much for a complete imbecile to understand?
It isn't for him. It is for any fool that might come past and see his bullshit and accept it.As i understand correctly every glober thinks that resitance is futile is a simplemind in a league of his own.
But the neutral will understand he is on his own and adequately driving you nuts !!!
Rabinoz is working around the clock like never before to post the exact eclips info, precise details, pictures, diagrams and accompanying math.......
Resistance is futile owns you completely.......please continue it is better than satire !!
Whilst he initially came across as a truly cretinous believer of the highest calibre, he has now become such an absurd caricature of a flat earther that it boggles the mind that some still insist on taking him seriously.
I don't know which is sadder.
The Moon is nowhere in sight.You mean the moon cannot be seen by the camera.
Which proves the eclipse is caused by the black sun as the moon is visable during the day.
Do you know what else couldn't be seen? This black sun.
Instead something seems to come out of no where to block the sun, almost like the moon was there the entire time and just couldn't be seen.
What does the moon typically look like during the day? Can you see the entire surface, or just the section lit by the sun?
If you don't want to go down that path of rational thought, here is another one for you to try:
You have a full 360 degree view. The moon is meant to be out during the day, as it is a new moon and that is what happens during a new moon.
You said you can see the moon during the day. So where is the moon?It is obviously not in front of the sun.Nope. That is where all predictions indicate it should be.On the other side of the world above Asia REtard where it is the middle of the night.Nope. That would be for a full moon. It is meant to be a new moon now, so it is meant to be out now, basically right where the sun is, just at a different angle of elevation depending upon your location, and a slight change in azimuth.As the footage available on the Internet was just not acceptable considering it is 2017.Why not?I also did not see any stars in the sky from the live feed in Wyoming as one of your Heliocentric brethren claimed.Did he claim your eyes could see it, or a camera?
Your eyes typically have a greater dynamic range than a camera.You Strange people live in a fantasy dream world if you think normal people are going to accept your unconvincing deception.So far you are the deceptive one here, now us roundies.If the Moon was a eclipsing the sun we would see it.Not really. The massive brightness of the sun can make it somewhat difficult to see. You would need a FOV which removes the brightness of the sun to be able to see the very faint moon which would be illuminated from light reflected from Earth.
Why do you think we should see it.The reality is the Moon is above Asia where it is the middle of the night ; end of.No. It is a new moon today. That means it would be out during the day, not at night. It was also not observed at night. So no, it is out during the day. END OF!
Now where is it?Incorrect that is the Black Sun that eclipses the Sun not the moon.No, that is the moon. It is right where the moon is predicted to be.
There is no evidence of any black sun existing. It only ever seems to appear right when the moon is meant to get in the way of the sun, almost like it is just what you want to call the moon during an eclipse.You are now claiming the Moon will be visable midday tomorrow in the states .If observed correctly, YES!
Do you know when it won't be visible? At night, because it is a new moon.As soon as someone looks into your heliocentric model they will see it to be false.No. If they rationally analyse it they see nothing wrong with it.
So far you have been completely unable to point out a single thing wrong with it. Instead you have just spouted childish bullshit which even an intelligent child could refute.If your model is correct it should of been visible today within 49 minutes of midday.And if you had the tools to observe it properly, it would be.
It wouldn't likely be visible with the naked eye as it is right where the sun is, so you need to be able to deal with the massive brightness from the sun and still detect the extremely faint moon illuminated only by light reflected from Earth.
If you ignore that reflected light from Earth, then during a solar eclipse, the moon should not be visible as it is illuminated by the sun. It's illuminated is facing the sun, directly away from us.
As such, you would not see it, instead you would just see its silhouette, i.e. a black disc, covering the sun.
The prior and following day, it would now have a somewhat significant angular separation from the sun and thus a portion of its illuminated surface will be facing us and we can see it.You claim it was visible today as it passed it front of the Sun; that is incorrect the black sun is the cause of eclipses not the moon.You keep spouting this same bullshit, yet you are completely unable to back it up.You claim the Moon's direction of travel has nothing to do with it's visibility anyone can verify for themselves that the Moon travels east to west ; the earth is Flat and stationary.No, they can't.
Instead, they can verify for themselves that the moon appears to travel east to west, slightly slower than the sun. Using the right equipment (e.g. laser ring gyroscopes), they will be able to determine that Earth is rotation, not stationary and thus correct for this rotation of Earth and note that the moon is actually moving west to east. There are also numerous ways they can determine Earth is round.If the moon is a sphere as you Heliocentrics claim and it reflected the sun's light as you Heliocentrics claim it would be impossible for it to reflect the suns light in a uniform consistent manor this is only possible with a flat disc.Good thing it isn't consistent then. Instead it varies quite dramatically. In some cases it is a crescent, in some cases it is half, in some cases it is a gibbous and in some cases it is full or new.
It is illuminated in just the way you would expect for a spherical moon illuminated by the sun.
It is nothing like what you would expect for a flat disc. If it was a flat disc, then it would either be entirely illuminated by the sun (unless something is obstructing it), or not illuminated at all. So all you would expect to see if the moon was a disc is a full moon or a new moon, no other phases.
Only a round moon explains the phases of the moon.You expect people to believe that the Moon rotates even though we consistently only see one side of the moon regardless of the time of day or night and we consistently see exactly the same elevation for however long the moon is visible.No, you see a slightly different view depending upon where you view it from, and the time as it does wobble. Also it changes elevation dramatically.
But it is tidally locked, so for the most part (or on average), it rotates at the same speed it orbits, meaning you will mainly see the same parts of the moon.You expect people to believe that the Moon only appears to be the same size as the sun as the moon is 400 times closer than the sun and the sun is 400 bigger than the moon.Yes, because that is what the evidence shows.You expect people to believe that the Sun illuminates the Moon even when on a full Moon at midnight when the Moon is at it's highest point in sky the Sun on your model is on the opposite side of your imaginary Globe and as such the moon would be in the earth's shadow.But it isn't directly opposite.
Remember, Earth is only roughly 13 000 km wide. The moon's orbit is roughly 400 000 km, and is not in the same plane as Earth's orbit.
Instead, it is inclined. So when it is a full moon it is typically slightly north or south of Earth (orbital north and south).
It doesn't take much to not be in Earth's shadow.
A mere 2 degrees would put the centre of the moon over 14000 km away from the centre of Earth. That would put it well outside Earth's shadow.This is all too much for any normal person who looks into your heliocentric deception to believe.You mean it is too much for a complete imbecile to understand?
The earth on your model is also four times bigger than the sun so when the moon is at it's highest elevation possible at midnight the sun would be illuminating the opposite side of your imaginary Globe.
For example all three spheres are in line ; with the earth between the Sun and moon so regardless of the distances involved as light travels in straight lines the moon would be in the earth's shadow and therfore would not be illuminated.
On your heliocentric model you claim the moon rotates.
Everyone can verify for themselves that we only ever see one side of the moon regardless of the time of day or night it is visible.
Good vids RiF, thanks for posting.
You are not a nice person, not humble, not funny, not warm and somehow you think ''co readers'' of the flatearth forums will hear the truth from a person posting in the wrong forum.
Your nonsense insults people's intelligence.;D ;D ;D That is what you are doing all the time! ;D ;D ;D
You expect people to believe an extraordinary amount of coincidences to make your heliocentric deception viable.What "extraordinary amount of coincidences"?
Everyone has seen the waxing crescent moon in the sky in the daytime in direct line of the sun just as the new moon will be in the states tomorrow several hours after midday.Surely even you know better than that! As you very well knos the eclipse occurred at the time of a "perfect" new moon and the next full moon will not be seen till Sept 6!
If your model was correct and not a deception the whole moon ( full moon )would be illuminated by the Sun's light and as such the full moon would be visable.
Everyone can verify for themselves that when the full moon is visible that the light it provides is uniformly consistent on it's entire visible surface which would be impossible if it was a sphere reflecting the sun's light as your heliocentric brethren claim ; it is only possible for a flat disc to reflect light in such a manor and not a sphere that is covered in dust.What on earth are you talking about? What you claim is totally incorrect! The moon's surface is not a flat shhet reflector but a sphere of rocks and dust and so sends light in all directions, just as mountains and deserts do on earth.
The earth on your model is also four times bigger than the sun so when the moon is at it's highest elevation possible at midnight the sun would be illuminating the opposite side of your imaginary Globe.Stop piling stupidity on top of stupidity! But:
For example all three spheres are in line ; with the earth between the Sun and moon so regardless of the distances involved as light travels in straight lines the moon would be in the earth's shadow and therfore would not be illuminated.
On your heliocentric model you claim the moon rotates.Yes, it rotates once on its axis for each orbit around the earth.
Everyone can verify for themselves that we only ever see one side of the moon regardless of the time of day or night it is visible.Incorrect! Astronauts in missions from Apollo 8 ti Apollo 17 saw the othe side of the moon, but
No one has " EVER " seen the alleged dark side of the moon and no one " EVER " will this is because it is a fabrication used to reinforce your Heliocentric deception and it doesn't exist.
Totally unacceptable.Your Heliocentric model is fabrication and a deception and does not reflect what is observed in reality and as such is false.
This video describes how and why the moon is just a luminary.(http://)
This video describes how and why the Moon proves the Heliocentric model to be false.No it doesn't! For a start I wouldn't accept much of what Eric Dubay says. Not when you look at his silly "200 proofs".(http://)
You live a delusion if you think people are going to believe your lies and deception in this day and age with the amount of information available that debunks your imaginary Globe.I don't post any "lies and deception", I don't need to your post enough deceptive rubbish.
old Rab is no match for me and you will learn like Rab that debating your old tired worn out heliocentric model with me is pure folly.And just what have I learnt from all your tripe?
Mark 4:19 And jesus said, “He who has ears to hear, let him hear.”Try again
Mark 4:99And he said unto them, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.and I do not believe He was talking about the shape of the earth.
How will this Eclipse be possible on your Heliocentric model ?
The producer in this video gives a detailed description of how and why the upcoming solar Eclipse is impossibe on the Heliocentric Globe Model.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Your aggressive style and dedain in every post made me change my approach. Which is a pity , because i much prefer a warm and civilised conversation.You are not a nice person, not humble, not funny, not warm and somehow you think ''co readers'' of the flatearth forums will hear the truth from a person posting in the wrong forum.:P :P :P So you claim that you are a "nice person", "humble", "funny" and "warm"? :P :P :PAnd you should run off and join a forum that vainly tries to debunk all of NASA'a achievements.
This, dutchy, is The Flat Earth Society and not the Anti-NASA Society.I have debunked all your falsehoods starting with the Greeks and their 'shipmasts' and measuring shadows in Alexandria.
Time and again, I try to get you to show the connection between NASA, established in 1958, and the shape of the earth, but you refuse.
Almost 2500 years ago the Globe was the accepted shape of the earth among many thinking people and
around 300 to 400 years ago the Heliocentric Globe was seen as the model that best fit all the observations.
But you persist in bringing your Nemesis NASA into even a thread like "Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the Globe".Nothing of the sorts !! I did not partake in this topic, but had to after my name was mentioned in this topic to redicule me. So please allow me to clear my name and debunk false accusations with a little background info.
As i understand correctly every glober thinks that resitance is futile is a simplemind in a league of his own.:D :D Really, you don't know half of what I have put into PM's about Resistance.is.Futile. :D :D
But the neutral will understand he is on his own and adequately driving you nuts !!!I have wondered whether Resistance.is.Futile is really a flat earther, he's much too smart to be fooled be the stuff he posts.
Rabinoz is working around the clock like never before to post the exact eclips info, precise details, pictures, diagrams and accompanying math.......
Resistance is futile owns you completely.......please continue it is better than satire !!
You spread so much hatred about NASA,Your aggressive style and dedain in every post made me change my approach. Which is a pity , because i much prefer a warm and civilised conversation.You are not a nice person, not humble, not funny, not warm and somehow you think ''co readers'' of the flatearth forums will hear the truth from a person posting in the wrong forum.:P :P :P So you claim that you are a "nice person", "humble", "funny" and "warm"? :P :P :PAnd you should run off and join a forum that vainly tries to debunk all of NASA'a achievements.
No i can't take much more ,.... this defies the laws of sanity. You mean resistance is futile is a glober in disquise and you know because there is some ongoing traffic in the PM that confirms the smart person behind the troll resistance is futile ?As i understand correctly every glober thinks that resitance is futile is a simplemind in a league of his own.:D :D Really, you don't know half of what I have put into PM's about Resistance.is.Futile. :D :D
We've got to keep our favorite troll well fed, or he might go cold on us.Quote from: dutchyBut the neutral will understand he is on his own and adequately driving you nuts !!!I have wondered whether Resistance.is.Futile is really a flat earther, he's much too smart to be fooled be the stuff he posts.
Rabinoz is working around the clock like never before to post the exact eclips info, precise details, pictures, diagrams and accompanying math.......
Resistance is futile owns you completely.......please continue it is better than satire !!
The real satire just might be for you to find out whose ;D ;D alt Resistance.is.Futile really i's. ;D ;D
And if i have to leave this place,..... say so Mister Rabinoz.I can't make anyone do anything, but
Your explanation is not satisfactory.There is nothing unsatisfactory about my explanation, at least not to any honest, rational, intelligent person.
Your nonsense insults people's intelligence.Nope, that would be yours.
Everyone has seen the waxing crescent moon in the sky in the daytime in direct line of the sun just as the new moon will be in the states tomorrow several hours after midday.No they haven't. If it was in the direct line of the sun, it would block out the sun resulting in an eclipse. Not everyone has seen that.
If your model was correct and not a deception the whole moon ( full moon )would be illuminated by the Sun's light and as such the full moon would be visable.No, that would be your deception regarding the HC model, or if the moon was a flat disc (where either it would be entirely illuminated as a circle/ellipse or it would be entirely dark.
Everyone can verify for themselves that when the full moon is visible that the light it provides is uniformly consistent on it's entire visible surface which would be impossible if it was a sphere reflecting the sun's light as your heliocentric brethren claim ; it is only possible for a flat disc to reflect light in such a manor and not a sphere that is covered in dust.Nope. That only applies if it is a specular reflection. It is not, or if the light source is very close to the sphere making the path lengths significantly different
The earth on your model is also four times bigger than the sun so when the moon is at it's highest elevation possible at midnight the sun would be illuminating the opposite side of your imaginary Globe.Only during a perfect alignment, which results in a lunar eclipse.
On your heliocentric model you claim the moon rotates.And it does.
Everyone can verify for themselves that we only ever see one side of the moon regardless of the time of day or night it is visible.BULLSHIT!
No one has " EVER " seen the alleged dark side of the moon and no one " EVER " will this is because it is a fabrication used to reinforce your Heliocentric deception and it doesn't exist.Yes they have.
This video describes how and why the moon is just a luminary.Put in the effort and provide the argument here, or I will just dismiss as it childish nonsense which you can't even be bothered wasting your time on.
You are no better than old Rab and old Rab is no match for me and you will learn like Rab that debating your old tired worn out heliocentric model with me is pure folly.Really? Because I seem to be wiping the floor with you, with you just spouting childish crap any intelligent child could refute. So if Rab is better than me, I would hate to image what he does to you.
Mark 4:19So now resorting to more delusional bullshit?
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.But you think your strange blood cult of Christianity is true, even though it contradicts itself and reality?
I have debunked all your falsehoods starting with the Greeks and their 'shipmasts' and measuring shadows in Alexandria.Really? I am yet to see you debunk a thing. I have seen you repeatedly fail at trying to debunk things, but no actual debunking.
But your broken reccord of globular propaganda is unstoppable.
And you let no other info get in the way of your boring mantra's
Nothing of the sorts !! I did not partake in this topic, but had to after my name was mentioned in this topic to redicule me. So please allow me to clear my name and debunk false accusations with a little background info.You mean with blatant lies?
I have debunked all your falsehoods starting with the Greeks and their 'shipmasts'My falsehoods? Where have I presented any "falsehoods starting with the Greeks and their 'shipmasts"?
and measuring shadows in Alexandria.A simple extension of "those shadows" virtually proves that the earth is a Globe, so you attack Erastosthanes at your own risk.
But your broken reccord of globular propaganda is unstoppable.My boring mantras! You say that after Resistance.is.Futile posts the same old boring claim at the end of every post!.
And you let no other info get in the way of your boring mantra's
...
Please be gentile with me when mentioning my name to the CIA,...... i've got three lovely kids >:(
And if i have to leave this place,..... say so Mister Rabinoz.
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/4579
No i can't take much more ,.... this defies the laws of sanity. You mean resistance is futile is a glober in disquise and you know because there is some ongoing traffic in the PM that confirms the smart person behind the troll resistance is futile ?As i understand correctly every glober thinks that resitance is futile is a simplemind in a league of his own.:D :D Really, you don't know half of what I have put into PM's about Resistance.is.Futile. :D :D
We've got to keep our favorite troll well fed, or he might go cold on us.Quote from: dutchyBut the neutral will understand he is on his own and adequately driving you nuts !!!I have wondered whether Resistance.is.Futile is really a flat earther, he's much too smart to be fooled be the stuff he posts.
Rabinoz is working around the clock like never before to post the exact eclips info, precise details, pictures, diagrams and accompanying math.......
Resistance is futile owns you completely.......please continue it is better than satire !!
The real satire just might be for you to find out whose ;D ;D alt Resistance.is.Futile really i's. ;D ;D
Without a clear indication of the author's intent, it is difficult or impossible to tell the difference between an expression of sincere extremism and a parody of extremism.
Ahhhhh it is getting worse......
Please be gentile with me when mentioning my name to the CIA,...... i've got three lovely kids >:(
And if i have to leave this place,..... say so Mister Rabinoz.
you have kids?
i really hope you do not teach the you idiotic believes.
The one thinking I do believe is family is off limits in a discussion like this.Ahhhhh it is getting worse......
Please be gentile with me when mentioning my name to the CIA,...... i've got three lovely kids >:(
And if i have to leave this place,..... say so Mister Rabinoz.
you have kids?
i really hope you do not teach the you idiotic believes.
Like a topic at these forums showed, most globers would either fire 'flatearthers' or silence them in a working/social environment.
You are not the first to make comments about my children in relation to my conviction.
What's next ? Flatearthers can't make babies ?
And then send them to a reeducation camp ?
I am sure that NASA has not destroyed all blueprints and some archived data about nazi camps (all rehabilitated rocket scientists) are known and could come in handy to reeducate flatearthers before they inject their venom into the next globe generation. ;D
My children know nothing about my convictions, apart from the faked moonlandings and the 9/11 inside job by the neo cons (Rumsfeld and Cheney).
They don't find it particular interresting, but they certainly see it as a genuine possibility that America faked the moonlandings and far over half of the population believes that America was responsable for 9/11 in the worst case scenario but most believe that the secret services were well aware of the attack but looked the other way.
My eldest son is an historian and he knows a lot about modern history and a faked moonlanding fits the Nixon administration perfectly and so does 9/11 and the neo con agenda.
In Europe we don't cry and feel fuzzy when we see the 'stars and stripes' we shake our heads in disbelieve.
But flatearth is something they have to discover on their own .....or not.......and i wouldn't want it any other way.
My eldest son is an historian and he knows a lot about modern history and a faked moonlanding fits the Nixon administration perfectly and so does 9/11 and the neo con agenda.Perhaps you should have your son explain to you how the moon landings were Kennedy's idea.
Your autobot replies mean zero,..... let's see if i can have a normal discussion with you.... not presenting your archived trash.I have debunked all your falsehoods starting with the Greeks and their 'shipmasts'My falsehoods? Where have I presented any "falsehoods starting with the Greeks and their 'shipmasts"?
You have debunked them? I must have missed that, please show where you managed to do that.[youtube][/youtube]
:D Those masts and sails sure seem to disappear :D
You smoke too mich weed, dutchy.Dutch peolpe do not smoke weed, foreigners do who think Amsterdam is Sodom.
So if anyone would conclude on eyesight that the earth was flat it must have been the Greeks.Actually, the sinking ship phenomenon was only one of several parts to the Ancient Greek belief of a round earth.
No optics, no modern tools, small ships with tiny masts compared the the sailboats of the 17the century.
Don't you really understand what you are doing ?So if anyone would conclude on eyesight that the earth was flat it must have been the Greeks.Actually, the sinking ship phenomenon was only one of several parts to the Ancient Greek belief of a round earth.
No optics, no modern tools, small ships with tiny masts compared the the sailboats of the 17the century.
There was the changing elevation of Polaris and the constellations as you move north and south.
There was also the round shadow on the moon during a lunar eclipse.
But most of all, there were philosophers who were willing to spend more than just a few minutes to think a problem through.
Here is a pretty good history of the development of RET.
http://www.arvindguptatoys.com/arvindgupta/earthpix.pdf
So if anyone would conclude on eyesight that the earth was flat it must have been the Greeks.According to this logic (you are dutch if I understood correctly?) you can also claim that dutch people don't understand even now that earth is round. Am I correct?
No optics, no modern tools, small ships with tiny masts compared the the sailboats of the 17the century.
Little education, extreme supersticion and more.
And you keep coming back as if the Greeks understood the earth to be a globe !
The heliocentric model needs strong and solid roots to convince modern men of those things he can't observe himself. It sounds convincing that we know the earth to be a sphere for 2400 years. "Even the Greeks knew that....."The heliocentric model is strong enough to predict the path of totality of yesterday's eclipse with enough accuracy that people had made hotel reservations years ahead of time to watch the eclipse. Do you have any idea of how many people would have been highly pissed off if that prediction was wrong?
Do you suppose that anyone will ever have enough confidence in FET's ability to predict the path of the 2024 eclipse (which the RET model says should be less than 100 miles from where I live)?Sure. In the footsteps of John Davis - It happens on 2024 with the predetermined path.
So what will you flattards do on the 22nd when nothing changes? Are you going to cry? commit suicide? If you flatties are so sure the world will change after the eclipse lets set up some form of paypal or bitcoin situation and then you can put your money where your belief is?
But you can observe it. The ship over the horizon is one way. Sunrise and set is another. The fact that the sun can shine upwards under clouds is another. These are observable and not possible on a flat earth.Don't you really understand what you are doing ?So if anyone would conclude on eyesight that the earth was flat it must have been the Greeks.Actually, the sinking ship phenomenon was only one of several parts to the Ancient Greek belief of a round earth.
No optics, no modern tools, small ships with tiny masts compared the the sailboats of the 17the century.
There was the changing elevation of Polaris and the constellations as you move north and south.
There was also the round shadow on the moon during a lunar eclipse.
But most of all, there were philosophers who were willing to spend more than just a few minutes to think a problem through.
Here is a pretty good history of the development of RET.
http://www.arvindguptatoys.com/arvindgupta/earthpix.pdf
I am aware of the origans of the supposed globe.
What i did was to abbandon the 'wiki copy paiste logic' that varifies whatever you like.
History is extremely delicate.
The only thing i tried to do is show you how absurd it is to acknowledge that in modern times the earth looks flat because it is sooooo big and in backwards times they didn't bother how it looked because they knew it was curved because they understood the implication of sinking masts and other info !
Far more logical is :
The globeearth hypothetical believes were the fabrication of some ancient intellectuals that had nothing to do (like the biblical Paul says) then to think of something new, for the sake of thinking about something new.
The notion that the Greeks ( what an exotic exaggeration) understood the earth to be a globe is false.
The notion that some intellectuals who had enough time and money to fantasise about new ideas concerning men, the gods and the heavens is way more probable.
The heliocentric model needs strong and solid roots to convince modern men of those things he can't observe himself. It sounds convincing that we know the earth to be a sphere for 2400 years. "Even the Greeks knew that....."
I am afraid that creative thinking and an open mind is something the average glober isn't capable of.
Copying the works of others is the end of all discussions.
A shame really !
But you can observe it. The ship over the horizon is one way. Sunrise and set is another. The fact that the sun can shine upwards under clouds is another. These are observable and not possible on a flat earth.That is not what this is about. You could be very right !! But that is another discussion.
But you can observe it. The ship over the horizon is one way. Sunrise and set is another. The fact that the sun can shine upwards under clouds is another. These are observable and not possible on a flat earth.That is not what this is about. You could be very right !! But that is another discussion.
My point us that most globers and the clear front runner Rabinoz rely on secondary info.
Great !! But the moment i ask for even the most simple open discussion a sort of brain freeze occurs.
I am able to do a google search myself and every globular explanation is one page 1-3 of a google query.
But somehow the only thing i receive is some data i can look up myself after 10 minutes.
I want an openminded discussion not a link exchange.
I pointed out to Rabinoz that "the Greeks knew the earth was a globe" is simply an invalid claim on all accounts.
He and some others frequently use secondary info to show me why i am wrong and
why they are right.
The same happened in the other topic..... nobody seems to be able to speak from his own mind and heart. As if the authenticity and autonomous human ability to have an unique thought no longer exist.
It seems most can only repeat the work of others or in case of most flatearthers a link to other's video's.
As if it is a crime to say something stupid. I rather claim something really stupid than being the moutpiece of authorities that did all the work and thinking.
I have experienced myself to what extend this is happening...... i am really surprised that people are extremely scared to have an unique opinion of their own.
With all of that in mind i simply wanted to state that if we are told that the earth looks flat because it is sooooooo big that we do not detect any curvature on first sight, that the ancient Greeks did not collectively knew the earth to be a globe...... that notion is absolutely insane. A few elite Greeks may have thought that the earth was a globe, but surely your average fishermen did not .
Therefor the generalisations about the Greeks are a sign on the wall. It seems such claims are only made because it is convinient.
When people are using that sort of generalisations ( the Greeks knew the earth was a sphere) you can be certain someone is wrong...
The Jews killed Jesus Christ
The Romans invented the fictional character of JC
Muslims want a worldwide sharia
The Russians would have said something if America faked the moonlandings
These are more extreme examples of course, but it doesn't take much to understand why such generalisations about whole nations are dubious.
With all of that in mind i simply wanted to state that if we are told that the earth looks flat because it is sooooooo big that we do not detect any curvature on first sight, that the ancient Greeks did not collectively knew the earth to be a globe...... that notion is absolutely insane. A few elite Greeks may have thought that the earth was a globe, but surely your average fishermen did not .*sigh*
With all of that in mind i simply wanted to state that if we are told that the earth looks flat because it is sooooooo big that we do not detect any curvature on first sight, that the ancient Greeks did not collectively knew the earth to be a globe...... that notion is absolutely insane. A few elite Greeks may have thought that the earth was a globe, but surely your average fishermen did not
Dutchy, what do you expect from brainwashed drones, something more than google links?A lot of those google links have real testable science in them. Some you can even do in your own home. Maybe you should read 'em and then test 'em. If you're right then you would have debunked half the arguments right in your own home.
They do not think for themselves, regurgitate google answers, appeals to popular thought. If something doesn't line up to preconceived ideas, it is wrong and you are stupid and or crazy. This has been going on for years on this website. I love it when a new member pops up just in time to ridicule FE when the longtime members are having trouble with a particular member or subject.
Dutchy, what do you expect from brainwashed drones, something more than google links?Yes it is bizare, but i am afraid i have truly underestimated the amount of brainwashing present among the 'globe' posters over here.
They do not think for themselves, regurgitate google answers, appeals to popular thought. If something doesn't line up to preconceived ideas, it is wrong and you are stupid and or crazy. This has been going on for years on this website. I love it when a new member pops up just in time to ridicule FE when the longtime members are having trouble with a particular member or subject.
The first time i read about flatearth was 7 years ago and i thought, that can't be....... nobody is that stupid.
But there were a few points that i couldn't answer. Things about the solar system hurling through space in a vortex path and the atmosphere not leaking into the largest vacuum ever.
Science is a bitch. It has a way of making fools out of flat earth peeps. You can't be serious in this pursuit as you clearly use science in trying to deny it. Your computers are a good example. Any medication you take, and I'm sure it's a lot, is made through scientific means. But of course those scientific examples are ok. It's just those pesky astronomers and physicists that muck things up. If you took any classes, and that's a big IF, you wouldn't be here. Reading is wonderful. Get your head out of your flat earth and read real science because it's protecting even now as you waste time here.Another person who wants to display his arrogance over at the flatearth forums.
I see that you have not realized that you have walked into Plato's cave where the flat Earth is playing. And now have taken a seat, and will defended to the hilt. It is the flat earth, that leaves me with questions that are unanswerable, and why I chose to walk back out of the cave, into the light of the globe Earth. To one of your questions, it is gravity that holds the atmosphere, to the earth.Dutchy, what do you expect from brainwashed drones, something more than google links?Yes it is bizare, but i am afraid i have truly underestimated the amount of brainwashing present among the 'globe' posters over here.
They do not think for themselves, regurgitate google answers, appeals to popular thought. If something doesn't line up to preconceived ideas, it is wrong and you are stupid and or crazy. This has been going on for years on this website. I love it when a new member pops up just in time to ridicule FE when the longtime members are having trouble with a particular member or subject.
It's like i am talking to internet bots instead of real human beings.like the 'borg' has taken over earth.
The first time i read about flatearth was 7 years ago and i thought, that can't be....... nobody is that stupid.
But there were a few points that i couldn't answer. Things about the solar system hurling through space in a vortex path and the atmosphere not leaking into the largest vacuum ever.
I did not feel any aversion, but curiousity only.
It took me sometime to adapt to the idea of a flatearth, but it made more sense as the months/ years passed by.
The aggressive methods used by the globe gang are frightening and telling.
They are not able to discuss this with an open mind, as i have realised now.
They only know one way and that is their way....... the globe.
Proof for that is that even the tiniest part is non- negotiable about everything.
The globe community is indeed a brainwashed flog and any discussion about the flatearth is futile in every thinkable way.
It is their 'copy paiste internet' way, or no way !
The independent mind seems to be in the minority these days and that's a huge understatement.
My eldest son is an historian and he knows a lot about modern history and a faked moonlanding fits the Nixon administration perfectly and so does 9/11 and the neo con agenda.He may be a historian, but he is clearly quite ignorant when it comes to science and the history of science.
On the otherhand the ancient Greeks seem to understand the earth is a globe by looking to tiny ships they thought had sinking masts over a curvature.No it wouldn't, as they couldn't see all the Isles, and the amount visible would be dependent upon the observers height.
Neither did they have camera's like in your example
Greece has also hundreds of isles that can be seen in good weather over long distances, so a flatearth assumption would be the only logical thing.
So if anyone would conclude on eyesight that the earth was flat it must have been the Greeks.No. They had optics. They had tools. They had large ships.
No optics, no modern tools, small ships with tiny masts compared the the sailboats of the 17the century.
Little education, extreme supersticion and more.
While modern men still see the earth as flat because it is to big to really see why it is a globe.Because they don't bother looking and more importantly THINKING about things.
But to conclude that 'the Greeks' knew the earth was a sphere is the dumbest thing i've ever heardThen you clearly haven't been listening to yourself.
I am afraid that creative thinking and an open mind is something the average glober isn't capable of.That would primarily be the FEers, although they can come up with some crazy creative crap to pretend Earth is flat.
Copying the works of others is the end of all discussions.
Great !! But the moment i ask for even the most simple open discussion a sort of brain freeze occurs.Perhaps you should try having one rather than spouting a bunch of crap then?
I am able to do a google search myself and every globular explanation is one page 1-3 of a google query.
But somehow the only thing i receive is some data i can look up myself after 10 minutes.
I want an openminded discussion not a link exchange.
I pointed out to Rabinoz that "the Greeks knew the earth was a globe" is simply an invalid claim on all accounts.No, you didn't, you just spouted a bunch of crap about it.
As if it is a crime to say something stupid.No. It's only a "crime" to repeatedly say quite similar stupid crap when it has already been refuted, with you just ignoring that refutation.
i am really surprised that people are extremely scared to have an unique opinion of their ownWe aren't. The truth is not unique to each individual. There is only one Earth with one shape. All the evidence indicates it is round.
With all of that in mind i simply wanted to state that if we are told that the earth looks flat because it is sooooooo big that we do not detect any curvature on first sight, that the ancient Greeks did not collectively knew the earth to be a globe...... that notion is absolutely insane.Yes, that notion is absolutely insane. The ancient Greeks didn't just get one look at the globe.
A few elite Greeks may have thought that the earth was a globe, but surely your average fishermen did not .The average farmer might not have, but the average fisherman, that goes out on the sea likely would have.
Therefor the generalisations about the Greeks are a sign on the wall. It seems such claims are only made because it is convinient.No, it is to show that you don't need any fancy modern technology like satellites or GPS or the like to figure out Earth is round. It is to point out that even people in Ancient times could figure it out.
These are more extreme examples of course, but it doesn't take much to understand why such generalisations about whole nations are dubious.Except they aren't generalisations. They (or at least most) aren't claiming all would do that, just that some did/would.
But there were a few points that i couldn't answer. Things about the solar system hurling through space in a vortex path and the atmosphere not leaking into the largest vacuum ever.Then perhaps you should have tried actually thinking about them or asking people who might know, rather than dismissing a round Earth.
They are not able to discuss this with an open mind, as i have realised now.Again, that is the FEers. There are plenty of REers that are quite capable of discussing it with an open mind.
Proof for that is that even the tiniest part is non- negotiable about everything.Why would reality be negotiable?
The globe community is indeed a brainwashed flog and any discussion about the flatearth is futile in every thinkable way.Once again, you are describing the FEers.
The earth is round and that's that.
Ok you made some fair points. Perhaps your average Greek did not think the world was a globe, although I would submit that sailors/fishermen would be more likely.But you can observe it. The ship over the horizon is one way. Sunrise and set is another. The fact that the sun can shine upwards under clouds is another. These are observable and not possible on a flat earth.That is not what this is about. You could be very right !! But that is another discussion.
My point us that most globers and the clear front runner Rabinoz rely on secondary info.
Great !! But the moment i ask for even the most simple open discussion a sort of brain freeze occurs.
I am able to do a google search myself and every globular explanation is one page 1-3 of a google query.
But somehow the only thing i receive is some data i can look up myself after 10 minutes.
I want an openminded discussion not a link exchange.
I pointed out to Rabinoz that "the Greeks knew the earth was a globe" is simply an invalid claim on all accounts.
He and some others frequently use secondary info to show me why i am wrong and
why they are right.
The same happened in the other topic..... nobody seems to be able to speak from his own mind and heart. As if the authenticity and autonomous human ability to have an unique thought no longer exist.
It seems most can only repeat the work of others or in case of most flatearthers a link to other's video's.
As if it is a crime to say something stupid. I rather claim something really stupid than being the moutpiece of authorities that did all the work and thinking.
I have experienced myself to what extend this is happening...... i am really surprised that people are extremely scared to have an unique opinion of their own.
With all of that in mind i simply wanted to state that if we are told that the earth looks flat because it is sooooooo big that we do not detect any curvature on first sight, that the ancient Greeks did not collectively knew the earth to be a globe...... that notion is absolutely insane. A few elite Greeks may have thought that the earth was a globe, but surely your average fishermen did not .
Therefor the generalisations about the Greeks are a sign on the wall. It seems such claims are only made because it is convinient.
When people are using that sort of generalisations ( the Greeks knew the earth was a sphere) you can be certain someone is wrong...
The Jews killed Jesus Christ
The Romans invented the fictional character of JC
Muslims want a worldwide sharia
The Russians would have said something if America faked the moonlandings
These are more extreme examples of course, but it doesn't take much to understand why such generalisations about whole nations are dubious.
Hardly seems the way to start "normal discussion with you.... not presenting your archived trash".Your autobot replies mean zero,..... let's see if i can have a normal discussion with you.... not presenting your archived trash.I have debunked all your falsehoods starting with the Greeks and their 'shipmasts'My falsehoods? Where have I presented any "falsehoods starting with the Greeks and their 'shipmasts"?
You have debunked them? I must have missed that, please show where you managed to do that.[youtube][/youtube]
:D Those masts and sails sure seem to disappear :D
Many globular spokesmen claim that the earth LOOKS flat because it is so big !Sure, "the earth LOOKS flat because it is so big", though there's a lot more to it than that.
You have to go really high to see something of a curve.
This is brought up many times to convince flatearthers their eyes deceive them and they don't understand how big the globe really is.
On the otherhand the ancient Greeks seem to understand the earth is a globe by looking to tiny ships they thought had sinking masts over a curvature.Tiny ships might disappear sooner, but
Neither did they have camera's like in your exampleWhat has "not having cameras" got to do with it and what height are those islands above sea level?
Greece has also hundreds of isles that can be seen in good weather over long distances, so a flatearth assumption would be the only logical thing.
So if anyone would conclude on eyesight that the earth was flat it must have been the Greeks.Not at all, those Greeks had much more evidence than just "small ships with tiny masts".
No optics, no modern tools, small ships with tiny masts compared the sailboats of the 17the century.
Little education, extreme supersticion and more.I wouldn't criticise the education of those early Greeks or even the Babylonians, who gave us the basis for astronomy and much of our mathematics.
And you keep coming back as if the Greeks understood the earth to be a globe !Only because those early Greeks laid the foundations of the Globe, the sizes of earth and moon, and even the distance to the moon and a rough "estimate" of the distance to the sun.
While modern men still see the earth as flat because it is to big to really see why it is a globe.No, a few flat earthers "see the earth as flat".
Therefor your absolute gibberish about the Greeks is not only annoying, it is false, far fetched and who the hell are the Greeks ?So sorry about "absolute gibberish about the Greeks . . . . . annoying" you, but it is neither false, nor far fetched and who the Greeks were an important part of history - even if you don't accept their findings!
Besides a few mythical figures you know nothing about them...... and neither do i.
But to conclude that 'the Greeks' knew the earth was a sphere is the dumbest thing i've ever heard......and a handfull of elite induviduals do not account for 'the Greeks'So that is what you call a civilised discussion, claiming you are "afraid it is simply beyond" me "to even comprehend this grounded logic"?
I am afraid it is simply beyond you to even comprehend this grounded logic.
The earth is round and that's that.
Then your work here is done. What group will you go attack next?
I still dont understand why Resistance.Is.Futile tried so hard to prove this "black sun" caused solar eclipses, other flat earthers seemed fine with the fact that the moon caused of solar eclipses.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71690.0
I still dont understand why Resistance.Is.Futile tried so hard to prove this "black sun" caused solar eclipses, other flat earthers seemed fine with the fact that the moon caused of solar eclipses.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71690.0
Um, maybe it's because he's a troll?
BTW, your annoying signature takes up most of the screen, do you really need that big of a pyramid? Cheops look out.
Your explanation is not satisfactory.There is nothing unsatisfactory about my explanation, at least not to any honest, rational, intelligent person.
If you think there is something wrong with it, quote the part you think is wrong and explain why it is wrong.
Stop just repeating the same refuted BS.Your nonsense insults people's intelligence.Nope, that would be yours.
I'm not the one spouting nonsense.Everyone has seen the waxing crescent moon in the sky in the daytime in direct line of the sun just as the new moon will be in the states tomorrow several hours after midday.No they haven't. If it was in the direct line of the sun, it would block out the sun resulting in an eclipse. Not everyone has seen that.
Instead what they have seen is the moon close to the sun as a crescent moon, with the crescent getting smaller as it gets closer to the sun, exactly as you would expect for a RE.If your model was correct and not a deception the whole moon ( full moon )would be illuminated by the Sun's light and as such the full moon would be visable.No, that would be your deception regarding the HC model, or if the moon was a flat disc (where either it would be entirely illuminated as a circle/ellipse or it would be entirely dark.
In the HC model, as the sun is very far away, 400 times further than the moon (roughly), one hemisphere would be illumined, the hemisphere which faces the sun.
As the moon gets closer and closer to a new moon (i.e. closer and closer to the sun), this hemisphere is pointing more and more away from us (and towards the sun). At a perfect new moon (i.e. solar eclipse), it is facing directly away, and thus the moon is not illuminated (except by reflection from Earth).
So no, if the HC model was correct (which it is, at least when discussing just the solar system), then you would only expect a full moon when the moon is on the opposite side of Earth, such that from the moon the sun and Earth are in the same direction.Everyone can verify for themselves that when the full moon is visible that the light it provides is uniformly consistent on it's entire visible surface which would be impossible if it was a sphere reflecting the sun's light as your heliocentric brethren claim ; it is only possible for a flat disc to reflect light in such a manor and not a sphere that is covered in dust.Nope. That only applies if it is a specular reflection. It is not, or if the light source is very close to the sphere making the path lengths significantly different
Instead it is diffuse reflection or scattering from distant light so the path length difference is negligible. When a sphere scatters light like that it is uniform in all directions, for example, this styrofoam ball presumably illuminated by sunlight:
https://www.dhresource.com/webp/m/albu_1023834140_00-1.0x0/wholesale-we-have-all-different-sized-styrofoam.jpg
Where even the scattered light from the atmosphere and ground make it difficult to detect the bottom is darker.The earth on your model is also four times bigger than the sun so when the moon is at it's highest elevation possible at midnight the sun would be illuminating the opposite side of your imaginary Globe.Only during a perfect alignment, which results in a lunar eclipse.
With imperfect alignment, even only slight, as I showed before, the moon is well out of Earth's shadow.On your heliocentric model you claim the moon rotates.And it does.Everyone can verify for themselves that we only ever see one side of the moon regardless of the time of day or night it is visible.BULLSHIT!
Everyone can verify for themselves, by taking photos of the moon as the month progresses, that it wobbles.
Regardless, as the moon is in a different position, the only way to see the same side is if it rotates to keep the same side facing us.
So even if they did verify that we always see the same side, they would be verifying that it rotates.No one has " EVER " seen the alleged dark side of the moon and no one " EVER " will this is because it is a fabrication used to reinforce your Heliocentric deception and it doesn't exist.Yes they have.
And it isn't the dark side, just the far side.This video describes how and why the moon is just a luminary.Put in the effort and provide the argument here, or I will just dismiss as it childish nonsense which you can't even be bothered wasting your time on.You are no better than old Rab and old Rab is no match for me and you will learn like Rab that debating your old tired worn out heliocentric model with me is pure folly.Really? Because I seem to be wiping the floor with you, with you just spouting childish crap any intelligent child could refute. So if Rab is better than me, I would hate to image what he does to you.Mark 4:19So now resorting to more delusional bullshit?Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.But you think your strange blood cult of Christianity is true, even though it contradicts itself and reality?
<snip>
It is impossible for the Moon to rotate once a month and for the same side of the moon to be visible all the time.
<snip>
<snip>
It is impossible for the Moon to rotate once a month and for the same side of the moon to be visible all the time.
<snip>
What makes that impossible?
Assume for arguments sake that it does rotate around a globe earth. Why would a rotation that keeps the same side towards the earth be impossible?
Mike
They are not able to discuss this with an open mind, as i have realised now.I see that you are praising yourself for independend and open mind. How ironic. Because all I see here is your fixation with one idea and refusal to accept anything that shows otherwise. And straight denial of everything that is out there. The round earth and all details are available for discussion if you are just able to open your mind to something else. For now all discussion go in predermined way - you start with the predetermined position that something is true(earth is flat/moonlandings were faked) and you defend your position i nevery way, not discussing it. And if anyone tries to show otherwise then they are close minded because they refuse to accept you "open minded" fixation.
They only know one way and that is their way....... the globe.
Proof for that is that even the tiniest part is non- negotiable about everything.
He may be a historian, but he is clearly quite ignorant when it comes to science and the history of science.Like i clearly said he isn't interrested much !
There is no rational reason to think the moon landings were faked. The technical requirements to pull of a con like that would make it harder than going to the moon.
So thanks for admitting you have already damages your children's ability to think critically
No it wouldn't, as they couldn't see all the Isles, and the amount visible would be dependent upon the observers height.Ah .....you are not familiar with ordinary people are you ? No problem.... but i grew up in the fishermen's town Katwijk in the Netherlands. The locals used to have their own harbor at the mouth of the old Rijn river. Because of a modern canal the fleet of fisher boats was relocated to IJmuiden a good 50 km up North. We were part of the locals as a family and i never heard anyone talking about the globe ever, but what i did hear on quite a few occasions that people during extremely good weather saw large seaships nearing the Pier of IJmuiden.
No. They had optics. They had tools. They had large ships.I didn't realise the Nikon P900 was that old ::)
So no, they could have easily realised Earth was round
Because they don't bother looking and more importantly THINKING about things.False !!!! Everyone is an extremely limited group of people who hardly go outside to chat with the locals.
Anyone who bothers thinking about things and combining it with a bit of observation can easily realise Earth is round.
You also seem to be ignoring the other bits of evidence.
Perhaps you should try having one rather than spouting a bunch of crap then?You are in denial about the very basics, what makes you think you would be open minded about complicatet things like the flatearth eclips ? The Apollo topic is 15 pages of proof that even the hardcore written testimonies of spokesmen and astronauts seem all nice and dandy for globers , while they are conficting as much as possible.
Perhaps you can try to explain the eclipse using a FE model, and not just this eclipse, eclipses in general, including both total and annular ones.
No. It's only a "crime" to repeatedly say quite similar stupid crap when it has already been refuted, with you just ignoring that refutation.I don't know what 'they' did to you, but you of all peolle and the limes of Rabinoz haven't refuted anything.
We aren't. The truth is not unique to each individual. There is only one Earth with one shape. All the evidence indicates it is round.Ah.... you don't seem to understand 'evidence and indication'
We don't all think that because we are scared to have an opinion of our own. We think that because we care about the truth and it is what all the evidence indicates.
The atmosphere does leak to space to some extent, but we are also being bombarded with solar wind from the sun.you don't have to go on 'autobot'. I used those examples only to indicate where i was at the time when i first discovered flatearth.
I'm sorry but how does that have anything to do with rotation rate of the moon? In a heliocentric model the rotation rate of the moon would have nothing to do with whether or not it comes between the sun and the earth.<snip>
It is impossible for the Moon to rotate once a month and for the same side of the moon to be visible all the time.
<snip>
What makes that impossible?
Assume for arguments sake that it does rotate around a globe earth. Why would a rotation that keeps the same side towards the earth be impossible?
Mike
Lol.
Because on your Strange Heliocentric model the lunar eclipse only occurs when all three spheres are in line.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
I'm sorry but how does that have anything to do with rotation rate of the moon? In a heliocentric model the rotation rate of the moon would have nothing to do with whether or not it comes between the sun and the earth.<snip>
It is impossible for the Moon to rotate once a month and for the same side of the moon to be visible all the time.
<snip>
What makes that impossible?
Assume for arguments sake that it does rotate around a globe earth. Why would a rotation that keeps the same side towards the earth be impossible?
Mike
Lol.
Because on your Strange Heliocentric model the lunar eclipse only occurs when all three spheres are in line.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
So, I'll ask again, he says knowing he won't get an answer, assuming a heliocentric model, why would a rotation that keeps the same side towards the earth be impossible?
Mike
I have discussed the moonlandings to the extremes, but if you are not even willing to acknowledge that some claims are indeed conflicting what else is there to discuss ?They are not able to discuss this with an open mind, as i have realised now.I see that you are praising yourself for independend and open mind. How ironic. Because all I see here is your fixation with one idea and refusal to accept anything that shows otherwise. And straight denial of everything that is out there. The round earth and all details are available for discussion if you are just able to open your mind to something else. For now all discussion go in predermined way - you start with the predetermined position that something is true(earth is flat/moonlandings were faked) and you defend your position i nevery way, not discussing it. And if anyone tries to show otherwise then they are close minded because they refuse to accept you "open minded" fixation.
They only know one way and that is their way....... the globe.
Proof for that is that even the tiniest part is non- negotiable about everything.
I have discussed the moonlandings to the extremes, but if you are not even willing to acknowledge that some claims are indeed conflicting what else is there to discuss ?And I have said that if claims are conflicting then that doesn't mean that they can't be both true which you just can't understand. I don't get why.
I also suggested to ask people who aren't involved, but you have only one option...... your way.No, I don't have may way. I look things presented to me and make decisions based on them. But when asked from you or flat earthers about facts you don't get them, You get opinions and speculations. And sometimes straight lies, like sun getting smaller when it sets. Or that crepuscular rays show that sun is near above the clouds.
If you disagree with the flatearth, simply leave or have the decency to openly engage in the discussion as the invited party...... something i would do if i joined a forum that spreads a conviction i do not support.I don't disagree with the flat earth. I usually just want some reasonable evidence and proof for that but... no one has even presented something that has reasonable explanations and is shown to work on flat earth and not in round earth.
You are so closed minded that even this doesn't make sense to you.Here we go again. Open to other ideas means close minded and when you refuse all evidence and are fixated to one idea then it means open minded.
You know very well my description regarding the waxing crescent moon was not about the solar eclipse.I don't care what it was about, it was bullshit, and I pointed out why.
Again you Heliocentrics have to employ the use of misdirection.Well thanks for indirectly admitting you are not telling the truth nor do you think you are.
Anyone that is telling the truth or even " thinks " they are telling the truth have no need to employ such methods.
You also say that people can verify the wobble of the moon and that this wobble proves the moon rotates; this is nonsense we always see the same elevation of the moon.I was using it to show the moon is a ball, and refute your claim that the same side always faces us.
You then say that people can constantly observe one side of the moon and that this proves it's rotation.No, I say for the most part they do, and that is because it does prove rotation. Can you explain why it doesn't? Perhaps explain how you can view something from multiple angles, and see the same side of it, without it turning.
It is impossible for the Moon to rotate once a month and for the same side of the moon to be visible all the time.Why?
You should pay particular attention to the fact that the moon rises at different times of the day and night and not all lunar orbits are 27 days on your model but your magic moon is said to rotate every 27 days on it's axis.No lunar orbit is 27 days.
You claim to have wiped the floor with me ; you are incorrect.No, I am correct. If you designed to have the floor wiped with you then you are just admitting you are a troll. You have repeatedly failed to mount any rational defence and instead just repeat the same refuted BS.
You have arrived at the destination that I have designed. ;)
Let's talk about the Lunar eclipse ;DWhere you just repeat the same refuted BS?
You claim that on your Strange Heliocentric model for the lunar eclipse to occur that the sun earth and moon are in line.There is nothing strange about the model.
So therfore the moon is directly behind the earth.And from the above, NO IT IS NOT.
How is it that the moon is still easily observed during the lunar eclipse because if your model was correct the earth would be blocking the sun's light that you claim illuminates the Moon making it visible so it would be impossible to see the moon.Because Earth has an atmosphere that scatters light. This is also why the moon appears red and why the sky appears blue normally and red at low angles to the sun (e.g. during sunrise and sunset)
If this was the case the selenelion would also be even more impossible.Again, it isn't the case.
A selenelion is where the sun and moon are visible in the sky at the same time during a lunar eclipse which completely debunks your imaginary Globe.Nope. Not in the slightest.
It is impossible for light to bend all the way round your imaginary Globe as light travels in straight lines; not even a child would believe such nonsense.No, a child would believe things like light only travels in straight lines.
Here is a video of the selenelion lunar eclipse.No, that is a video of a bunch of ignorant crap.
I will also point out that you have named this impossible lunar eclipse after one of your gods.I have no god.
Luke 8:17You keep repeating that line, but you are yet to show it is a religion nor are you able to show it is false.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Nixon would lie about everything so that's a given.No, he wouldn't. Like all politicians, he would lie about loads of things, but not everything, and not everything he says will be a lie.
The moonlanding footage looks so cheap and fake it isn't even funny in 2017.Yes, comparing the moon landing footage to what we have now, it looks cheap and fake.
I can't help you that your human abilities to descern reality from fakery are totally absent.I can. There is nothing from the moon landings to indicate it is fake.
We were part of the locals as a family and i never heard anyone talking about the globe everPerhaps because they didn't realise there were morons that thought Earth was flat.
but what i did hear on quite a few occasions that people during extremely good weather saw large seaships nearing the Pier of IJmuiden.You mean on rare occasions where you get serious issues with refraction like looming?
The curvature calculator proofs this is impossibleNo it doesn't.
The normal Greeks ( 99% of the population) would have thought the earth to be flat !!PROVE IT!
I didn't realise the Nikon P900 was that old ::)Did I say they had modern cameras? No.
Nope. Completely true.QuoteBecause they don't bother looking and more importantly THINKING about things.False !!!! Everyone is an extremely limited group of people who hardly go outside to chat with the locals.
Anyone who bothers thinking about things and combining it with a bit of observation can easily realise Earth is round.
You also seem to be ignoring the other bits of evidence.
You are in denial about the very basics, what makes you think you would be open minded about complicatet things like the flatearth eclips ?No, I'm not. That would be you, denying even basic things like the Greeks having optics.
The Apollo topic is 15 pages of proof that even the hardcore written testimonies of spokesmen and astronauts seem all nice and dandy for globers , while they are conficting as much as possible.Are you trying to discsuss the moon landings or the shape of Earth?
An openminded discussion with globers is impossible on all accounts.Yes, because you aren't interested in having one as it may require you to admit you were wrong and that Earth is in fact round.
I don't know what 'they' did to you, but you of all peolle and the limes of Rabinoz haven't refuted anything.I have refuted pretty much every FE argument I have seen here.
To refute an argument you have to engage in a discussion, something you aren't able to do.Not really.
There is only one option, 'flathead read this link and accept'.
Ah.... you don't seem to understand 'evidence and indication'No, I do.
Let me as foreigner explain your language to you.Not really. Rational people don't need proof. No "fact" is completely indisputable. This universe existing in reality is not even indisputable fact. It is based upon assumption that it isn't an hallucination or dream or matrix like environment.
Absolute proof is when evidence and indication become indisputable facts.
So were is the proof of your globe ? Because that is what matters.
you don't have to go on 'autobot'. I used those examples only to indicate where i was at the time when i first discovered flatearth.I didn't. But I notice you just ignore it.
This 'explaination' proofs what i have said many times.If I didn't answer it you likely would have just asserted that I ignored it because I was unable to answer it.
You are unable to discuss things in a normal way, only to go in 'autobot' mode.
My example doesn't need an explaination, it was an example of a specific moment in time in relation to what i encountered back then.
That's incorrect. You made a lot of statements about the moon, its wobble, it's rotation, etc. Making a statement doesn't explain anything. In particular your comment in italics above, while factually correct, is misleading. It’s meant to imply that since its orbital period isn’t exact every month that it can’t possibly keep the same face towards.I'm sorry but how does that have anything to do with rotation rate of the moon? In a heliocentric model the rotation rate of the moon would have nothing to do with whether or not it comes between the sun and the earth.<snip>
It is impossible for the Moon to rotate once a month and for the same side of the moon to be visible all the time.
<snip>
What makes that impossible?
Assume for arguments sake that it does rotate around a globe earth. Why would a rotation that keeps the same side towards the earth be impossible?
Mike
Lol.
Because on your Strange Heliocentric model the lunar eclipse only occurs when all three spheres are in line.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
So, I'll ask again, he says knowing he won't get an answer, assuming a heliocentric model, why would a rotation that keeps the same side towards the earth be impossible?
Mike
I didn't even bother to read your post.
I have already explained this quite clearly.
It is impossible for the Moon to rotate once a month and for the same side of the moon to be visible all the time.
You should pay particular attention to the fact that the moon rises at different times of the day and night and not all lunar orbits are 27 days on your model but your magic moon is said to rotate every 27 days on it's axis.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
In particular your comment in italics above, while factually correct, is misleading. It’s meant to imply that since its orbital period isn’t exact every month that it can’t possibly keep the same face towards.I think it is more playing on the fact that some times a new moon is 30 "days" after the last one while at other times it is only 29 "days", ignoring the partial days skewing it, and ignoring the changing speed of Earth's orbit and its effect on the phases of the moon, and trying to use confusion about different ways to measure the orbital period.
It is impossible for the Moon to rotate once a month and for the same side of the moon to be visible all the time.Why should tidal locking be impossible? ???
You should pay particular attention to the fact that the moon rises at different times of the day and night and not all lunar orbits are 27 days on your model but your magic moon is said to rotate every 27 days on it's axis.That's because it's rounded down from 27.3217 days. Again, tidal locking is actually fairly common in the solar system.
Again, tidal locking is actually fairly common in the solar system.You mean between Pluto and Charon ?
I'm not sure about Pluto but Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune have tidal locked satellites. If you care to spend the time and have a decent telescope you can verify this for yourself.Again, tidal locking is actually fairly common in the solar system.You mean between Pluto and Charon ?
(https://i0.wp.com/www.scientias.nl/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/pluto-groot.jpg?resize=750%2C466)
This is the first real color photograph made by the new horizons probe...look at all those details ,yes clearly tidally locked ::) ::) ::)
Again, tidal locking is actually fairly common in the solar system.You mean between Pluto and Charon ?
(https://i0.wp.com/www.scientias.nl/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/pluto-groot.jpg?resize=750%2C466)
This is the first real color photograph made by the new horizons probe...look at all those details ,yes clearly tidally locked ::) ::) ::)
How will this Eclipse be possible on your Heliocentric model ?
And do you expect anyone to believe the your fictitious black sun can totally block full sunlight,yet be invisible to radar and not even block radio astronomy signals fro near the sun. Pull the other one!
No I do not expected anyone to take my word .
This is the difference between someone normal like me and you Strange Heliocentric 's.
This I why I'm giving you a count down you now have eight days left.
Eight days until a video from a high altitude weather balloon shows the Moon is not eclipsing the Sun.
As I have said numerous times it is impossible for the Moon to be Eclispsing the Sun as the shadow moves the wrong way during the eclipse (west to east)the Moon is also visable during the day and we would also see the Moon moving across the Sun.
@markjo
The Moon is in the wrong place during this Eclispe on the 21.08.17 the only logical explanation is something else is Eclispes the Sun.
This will be proven on the 21 st.
Where is the moon during the solar eclipse?
It's not in front of the Sun ;D
We will see from some of the high altitude weather balloon footage provided by genuine honest people.
The only way to determine where the Moon will be in reality is to observe where it is via a high altitude weather balloon during the eclipse.
You talk about speed of orbit etc but you could actually verify the movement and position of the moon if you simply put in a little effort. You verify the accuracy of any program or app you like simply by checking and going outside and looking up. You won't. Why not?This thread is called Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the globe.
Could it be because you are afraid of what you will find? Are you really that afraid?
Actually I don't think that's the case. I think you're just a lying troll.
Prove me wrong, do any of the things I mentioned to find the path of the moon.
I dare you.
Now I'm not disputing that these apps can't determine the position of the moon on a average day.
I also then explained that because of this the only way to determine the true position of the moon on the day of the said eclipse would be to use a high altitude weather balloon with a camera.
It would seem that everyone understood this apart from you.
You are a delusional stupid deceitful liar this thread and the two threads linked in my signature prove this.
You live in some sort of self concocted fantasy dream world claiming to have had meetings with astronots you are a ridiculous embarrassment to all of your Heliocentric brethren.
Heliocentric's like you do a good job of helping people realise the truth of the flat earth.
The only decent one I have found is in Wyoming where there is a 360 VR cameraHold on a second.
The Moon is nowhere in sight.
Which proves the eclipse is caused by the black sun as the moon is visable during the day.
You said that the moon is nowhere in sight, but the moon is visible during the day.
So where the Th*rk is the moon if it's supposed to be visible?
It is obviously not in front of the sun.
On the other side of the world above Asia REtard where it is the middle of the night.
I'm looking forward to the videos from the flat earthers high altitude weather balloons.
As the footage available on the Internet was just not acceptable considering it is 2017.
I also did not see any stars in the sky from the live feed in Wyoming as one of your Heliocentric brethren claimed.
If the Moon wasaeclipsing the sun we would see it.
The reality is the Moon is above Asia where it is the middle of the night ; end of.
Let's talk about the Lunar eclipse ;D
This thread is called Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the globe.
You'd be better off just letting this thread slide into oblivion.
I've been on the road for a few days and there has been quite a bit of chatter in this thread, so I may have missed something related to the original topic, so a quick recap may be in order:
Opening post:
How will this Eclipse be possible on your Heliocentric model ?
<lots of good explanations showing exactly how this eclipse is possible>And do you expect anyone to believe the your fictitious black sun can totally block full sunlight,yet be invisible to radar and not even block radio astronomy signals fro near the sun. Pull the other one!
No I do not expected anyone to take my word .
This is the difference between someone normal like me and you Strange Heliocentric 's.
This I why I'm giving you a count down you now have eight days left.
Eight days until a video from a high altitude weather balloon shows the Moon is not eclipsing the Sun.
As I have said numerous times it is impossible for the Moon to be Eclispsing the Sun as the shadow moves the wrong way during the eclipse (west to east)the Moon is also visable during the day and we would also see the Moon moving across the Sun.
@markjo
The Moon is in the wrong place during this Eclispe on the 21.08.17 the only logical explanation is something else is Eclispes the Sun.
This will be proven on the 21 st.
It's now the 23rd. We're still waiting for that "proof".Where is the moon during the solar eclipse?
It's not in front of the Sun ;D
We will see from some of the high altitude weather balloon footage provided by genuine honest people.The only way to determine where the Moon will be in reality is to observe where it is via a high altitude weather balloon during the eclipse.You talk about speed of orbit etc but you could actually verify the movement and position of the moon if you simply put in a little effort. You verify the accuracy of any program or app you like simply by checking and going outside and looking up. You won't. Why not?This thread is called Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the globe.
Could it be because you are afraid of what you will find? Are you really that afraid?
Actually I don't think that's the case. I think you're just a lying troll.
Prove me wrong, do any of the things I mentioned to find the path of the moon.
I dare you.
Now I'm not disputing that these apps can't determine the position of the moon on a average day.
They work well anytime except during an eclipse? Ooookayyy... ::)
You're clutching at straws.QuoteI also then explained that because of this the only way to determine the true position of the moon on the day of the said eclipse would be to use a high altitude weather balloon with a camera.
You didn't explain anything. You asserted that.QuoteIt would seem that everyone understood this apart from you.
You are a delusional stupid deceitful liar this thread and the two threads linked in my signature prove this.
You live in some sort of self concocted fantasy dream world claiming to have had meetings with astronots you are a ridiculous embarrassment to all of your Heliocentric brethren.
Heliocentric's like you do a good job of helping people realise the truth of the flat earth.
Nice rant. The eclipse occurred exactly as predicted. Things not going your way?
So... any videos from those high-altitude balloons lofted by flat-earthers yet? What did they show?
Did they show the moon over Asia at the time of the eclipse? How come we haven't heard reports from Asia that the moon was high in their sky as the eclipse was commencing?
Wouldn't it seem like the eclipse happening exactly as predicted by geodesy and the heliocentric solar system support those models, not debunk them? It would to any rational person.The only decent one I have found is in Wyoming where there is a 360 VR cameraHold on a second.
The Moon is nowhere in sight.
Which proves the eclipse is caused by the black sun as the moon is visable during the day.
You said that the moon is nowhere in sight, but the moon is visible during the day.
So where the Th*rk is the moon if it's supposed to be visible?
It is obviously not in front of the sun.
On the other side of the world above Asia REtard where it is the middle of the night.
Contradict yourself much?QuoteI'm looking forward to the videos from the flat earthers high altitude weather balloons.
Me, too. Problem is, those videos don't exist. Even if they did exist, they wouldn't show what you want to see. That's because what you want to see doesn't happen.QuoteAs the footage available on the Internet was just not acceptable considering it is 2017.
Poor baby. So go out and look for yourself next opportunity. Take your own video. Fat chance that happening, though, since that requires more effort than sitting at a keyboard and whining about other people not dishing up what you demand.QuoteI also did not see any stars in the sky from the live feed in Wyoming as one of your Heliocentric brethren claimed.
Who claimed you'd be able to see stars on that particular feed? What were you expecting to see on a live internet feed? Why? What were the exposure parameters of the feed you were watching? How much compression was applied? Would they have been sufficient to show even the brightest stars in the night sky? If you don't know, then please stop bitching about things not meeting your wants.If the Moon wasaeclipsing the sun we would see it.
... and we do. What do you think the moon eclipsing the sun would look like?QuoteThe reality is the Moon is above Asia where it is the middle of the night ; end of.
Did your balloon videos show this? Can we see the one(s) you think conclusively show this? What about people on the ground in Asia? Did they see the moon high in their sky as the eclipse was occurring?Let's talk about the Lunar eclipse ;D
Your prediction that the solar eclipse would debunk known science failed. In fact, since the eclipse occurred exactly as predicted by science, it strongly supports the heliocentric solar system and geoidal earth models as being accurate. This would be obvious to everyone but you and a handful of others who believe what they want despite obvious facts to the contrary.
Now you want to talk about something else. Good idea. Maybe it should be another thread since...This thread is called Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the globe.
You'd be better off just letting this thread slide into oblivion.
The only reason NASA could predict the eclipse is because they have learnt how to use the 4000 year old Ancient Babylonian Saros Cycle.Sure it has. People even build mechanical devices which show when eclipse happens and where.
Predicting the Eclipse Has nothing at all to do with your Heliocentric fairytale.
Either you’re lying or don’t just plain don’t understand the Saros-Inex cycle. As has already been brought it’s a time cycle predicting the periodicity of an eclipse in a given area.
You are delusional.
Your explanation is pure fantasy.
The only reason NASA could predict the eclipse is because they have learnt how to use the 4000 year old Ancient Babylonian Saros Cycle.
Predicting the Eclipse Has nothing at all to do with your Heliocentric fairytale.
From some of the footage online I would say their timing was out aswell.
Their are many people online asking where the Moon was so I think you and your brethren are in for a surprise.
Flat earthers are not professional's so it will take them a while to edit and compile their footage.
There are few videos out already ; I'm going to wait so I can pick.
I notice your sticking up for your boyfriend the Badxtosser it's too late to save him I have already destroyed him and his reputation.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Predicting the Eclipse Has nothing at all to do with your Heliocentric fairytale.So you're saying that the geometry and movements of the earth/moon/sun system have nothing to with predicting eclipses? ???
Your prediction that the solar eclipse would debunk known science failed. In fact, since the eclipse occurred exactly as predicted by science, it strongly supports the heliocentric solar system and geoidal earth models as being accurate. This would be obvious to everyone but you and a handful of others who believe what they want despite obvious facts to the contrary.
Now you want to talk about something else. Good idea. Maybe it should be another thread since...This thread is called Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the globe.
You'd be better off just letting this thread slide into oblivion.
You are delusional.
Your explanation is pure fantasy.
The only reason NASA could predict the eclipse is because they have learnt how to use the 4000 year old Ancient Babylonian Saros Cycle.
The Saros is a period of approximately 223 synodic months (approximately 6585.3211 days, or 18 years, 11 days, 8 hours), that can be used to predict eclipses of the Sun and Moon. One saros period after an eclipse, the Sun, Earth, and Moon return to approximately the same relative geometry, a near straight line, and a nearly identical eclipse will occur, in what is referred to as an eclipse cycle. A sar is one half of a saros.
The saros is not an integer number of days, but contains the fraction of 1⁄3 of a day. Thus each successive eclipse in a saros series occurs about 8 hours later in the day. In the case of an eclipse of the Sun, this means that the region of visibility will shift westward about 120°, or about one third of the way around the globe, and the two eclipses will thus not be visible from the same place on Earth. In the case of an eclipse of the Moon, the next eclipse might still be visible from the same location as long as the Moon is above the horizon. Given three saros eclipse intervals, the local time of day of an eclipse will be nearly the same. This three saros interval (19,755.96 days) is known as a triple saros or exeligmos (Greek: "turn of the wheel") cycle.
Each saros series starts with a partial eclipse (Sun first enters the end of the node), and each successive saros the path of the Moon is shifted either northward (when near the descending node) or southward (when near the ascending node) due to the fact that the saros is not an exact integer of draconic months (about one hour short).
Predicting the Eclipse Has nothing at all to do with your Heliocentric fairytale.
From some of the footage online I would say their timing was out aswell.
Their are many people online asking where the Moon was so I think you and your brethren are in for a surprise.
Flat earthers are not professional's so it will take them a while to edit and compile their footage.
This is the difference between someone normal like me and you Strange Heliocentric 's.
This I why I'm giving you a count down you now have eight days left.
Eight days until a video from a high altitude weather balloon shows the Moon is not eclipsing the Sun.
There are few videos out already ; I'm going to wait so I can pick.
I notice your sticking up for your boyfriend the Badxtosser it's too late to save him I have already destroyed him and his reputation.
Your prediction that the solar eclipse would debunk known science failed. In fact, since the eclipse occurred exactly as predicted by science, it strongly supports the heliocentric solar system and geoidal earth models as being accurate. This would be obvious to everyone but you and a handful of others who believe what they want despite obvious facts to the contrary.
Now you want to talk about something else. Good idea. Maybe it should be another thread since...This thread is called Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the globe.
You'd be better off just letting this thread slide into oblivion.
You are delusional.
Your explanation is pure fantasy.
The only reason NASA could predict the eclipse is because they have learnt how to use the 4000 year old Ancient Babylonian Saros Cycle.
You're getting cause and effect reversed. We can explain why a Saros cycle happens using the modern (i.e. last few centuries) models of the earth and solar system. Without a better understanding than:Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saros_(astronomy)The Saros is a period of approximately 223 synodic months (approximately 6585.3211 days, or 18 years, 11 days, 8 hours), that can be used to predict eclipses of the Sun and Moon. One saros period after an eclipse, the Sun, Earth, and Moon return to approximately the same relative geometry, a near straight line, and a nearly identical eclipse will occur, in what is referred to as an eclipse cycle. A sar is one half of a saros.Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saros_(astronomy)#DescriptionThe saros is not an integer number of days, but contains the fraction of 1⁄3 of a day. Thus each successive eclipse in a saros series occurs about 8 hours later in the day. In the case of an eclipse of the Sun, this means that the region of visibility will shift westward about 120°, or about one third of the way around the globe, and the two eclipses will thus not be visible from the same place on Earth. In the case of an eclipse of the Moon, the next eclipse might still be visible from the same location as long as the Moon is above the horizon. Given three saros eclipse intervals, the local time of day of an eclipse will be nearly the same. This three saros interval (19,755.96 days) is known as a triple saros or exeligmos (Greek: "turn of the wheel") cycle.Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saros_(astronomy)#Saros_seriesEach saros series starts with a partial eclipse (Sun first enters the end of the node), and each successive saros the path of the Moon is shifted either northward (when near the descending node) or southward (when near the ascending node) due to the fact that the saros is not an exact integer of draconic months (about one hour short).
[Emphasis added]
there's no way to predict where a total solar eclipse will be visible with any real accuracy.
The upshot is that, from some point on earth, if there was a lunar eclipse, another lunar eclipse would be highly likely at the same point three Saros cycles (about 54 years), later. Similarly, if there was a solar eclipse, another was likely (but not certain) at the same place a similar period later. There was a better than even chance that two lunar eclipses in a row would be visible one Saros cycle (about 18 years) apart.
Considering that modern predictions are accurate to about a second (uncertainty depending mostly on the topography of the lunar limb) and the edges of totality on the order of a km or so (for the same reason), predictions based on Saros alone are way too crude to be considered useful. In fact, identification of the Saros cycle a particular eclipse is part of is simply an interesting side note. The predictions come from the numerical model of the (heliocentric) solar system (including perturbations to the orbits of the earth and moon due to other solar system objects) and geoidal model of the earth's shape - and, in the highest-precision cases, ground topography.
Saros alone provides a reasonably good prediction that an eclipse will be visible at all from a particular place on a particular day or night. Little more.QuotePredicting the Eclipse Has nothing at all to do with your Heliocentric fairytale.
You wish!QuoteFrom some of the footage online I would say their timing was out aswell.
Do tell! Details in the form of facts and numbers, please.
In other words, how do you know anything about the timing of "footage online" and its veracity?QuoteTheir are many people online asking where the Moon was so I think you and your brethren are in for a surprise.
Yeah, sure. There are many people online wondering what the Kardashians are doing right now. So?QuoteFlat earthers are not professional's so it will take them a while to edit and compile their footage.
Edited? How about some raw footage? If true, this would literally be earth-changing! Or do they have to gin something up to make it say what they want it to say? If that's it, they should have started ahead of time in order to deliver on your promise.This is the difference between someone normal like me and you Strange Heliocentric 's.
This I why I'm giving you a count down you now have eight days left.
Eight days until a video from a high altitude weather balloon shows the Moon is not eclipsing the Sun.
So far, it's been more than ten days since you started that eight-day countdown. Still no video(s), still nothing "debunking the globe" [topic].QuoteThere are few videos out already ; I'm going to wait so I can pick.
Yeah... sure. ::)
So far we have only your word for that. Call me a skeptic.QuoteI notice your sticking up for your boyfriend the Badxtosser it's too late to save him I have already destroyed him and his reputation.
Why not save the comic routine and armchair psychology for the times you're looking in the mirror and spare the rest of us; it's not a good shtick. Instead, pony up some actual data to back your claims if you have any - I bet you have none? Let's see... from this post alone you've claimed you have evidence for:
"Timing is out" based on online video. Can you show how you've verified what you hope you see is accurate?
Videos from high-altitude balloons that show... something... "proving" that the moon is not what is between earth and sun?
All we get from you is bluster. No data, no facts.
Two days overdue and counting. We're waiting. I predict a very long wait.
[Edit] Punctuation.
NASA did not predict the eclipse correctly.
NASA’S timing was out.
NASA’S methodology and math's is incorrect.
NASA use the SAROS Cycle to predict eclipses.
This is why [their] timing was out.
This is a UK government site:
http://astro.ukho.gov.uk/old/saros_cycle.htm
Eclipses of the Sun and Moon occur in a pattern that repeats itself every 6585.32 days (just over 18 years), a fact that has been known since ancient times. This period is called the 'saros', a term first used by Edmund Halley which he took from a Babylonian word.
This is an independent site:
http://members.bitstream.net/bunlion/bpi/EclSaros.html
If these 3 cycles repeated exactly every 6585.322 days, eclipses would repeat perfectly every Saros Cycle. However, these cycles are slightly out of sync with each other, causing the geometry of one eclipse to change slightly when its "Saros buddy" comes around 18+ years later. In particular, notice that 19 Draconic Years minus 223 Synodic Months is about 11 hours. This 11 hour gap is the key to explaining why Saros Families evolve over time.
You are incorrect.What complete nonsense. The time of greatest eclipse was off by ≈0.2 seconds and Lat/Long are off by a few arc seconds. Pretty danged accurate.
You speak nonsense.
NASA did not predict the eclipse correctly.
NASA’S timing was out.
NASA’S methodology and math's is incorrect.First, NASAs prediction were accurate to within mere fractions of a percent. IOW, very accurate.
NASA use the SAROS Cycle to predict eclipses.
This is why there timing was out.
This is a UK government site:
http://astro.ukho.gov.uk/old/saros_cycle.htm
This is an independent site:
http://members.bitstream.net/bunlion/bpi/EclSaros.html
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
This is an independent site:You did read your "independent site?
http://members.bitstream.net/bunlion/bpi/EclSaros.html
Eclipses and the Saros CycleThe do really seem to think that the moon causes solar eclipses.
So to predict future eclipses, we need to understand 3 interlocking cycles, namely:
The period of time from one new or full moon to the next. Astronomers call this the "Synodic Month" and have measured its average length as 29.53059 days.
The period of time it takes the Sun to travel from the Moon's North (or South) Node around the zodiac and back, called the "Draconic Year". Because the Moon's Nodes move backwards 19-20 degrees a year, the Draconic Year is shorter than the usual calendar year by several weeks. It's average length is 346.62005 days.
The period of time from perigee to perigee in the Moon's orbit, called the "Anomalistic Month". This period averages 27.55455 days.
From:Eclipses and the Saros Cycle (http://members.bitstream.net/bunlion/bpi/EclSaros.html)
The time of greatest eclipse was off by≈58.368.3 seconds and Lat/Long within half a degree. Pretty danged accurate.
Maximum eclipse :
Predicted time of greatest eclipse - 18:26:40.3
Actual time of greatest eclipse - 18:25:32.0
Source:
https://eclipse2017.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/interactive_map/index.html
https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEplot/SEplot2001/SE2017Aug21T.GIF
are you seriously linking an astrology site for information about predicting eclipses.
Yup. I was wrong. I was in a hurry and my wife was trying to talk to at the same time. The half degree was me being lazy but you're right I mixed the times.The time of greatest eclipse was off by≈58.368.3 seconds and Lat/Long within half a degree. Pretty danged accurate.
Maximum eclipse :
Predicted time of greatest eclipse - 18:26:40.3
Actual time of greatest eclipse - 18:25:32.0
Source:
https://eclipse2017.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/interactive_map/index.html
https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEplot/SEplot2001/SE2017Aug21T.GIF
??? Huh?
The interactive map (first of those links) shows Greatest Eclipse as: 36.9664° N (36° 57.98' N), 87.6709° W (87° 40.254' W) 18:25:32.0 UT. Circumstances at Greatest Eclipse from the gif (second link) shows 36° 58.0' N, 87° 40.3' W, 18:25:31.8 UT for circumstances at GE.
The locations are identical to the tenth of a minute precision provided in the gif, and the times agree to 0.2 seconds. Disagreement by half a degree in location and more than one minute of time between predicted and actual would be terrible!
Perhaps you were reading TD from one and UT from another, and comparing the location of Greatest Duration with Greatest Eclipse?
UT and DT differ by (wait for it...) 68 seconds!Quoteare you seriously linking an astrology site for information about predicting eclipses.
He wouldn't be the first. Some data from astrological sites is actually correct. Much is either nonsense, obsolete, or both. "Readings" of the data are uniformly balderdash.
You are incorrect.You are yet to prove that.
You speak nonsense.Nope. That would be you, like your nonsense about how an object can move around you with you looking at it at different angles and seeing the same face, without it rotating, which is pure nonsense.
NASA did not predict the eclipse correctly.They did.
NASA’S timing was out.
NASA’S methodology and math's is incorrect.Prove it.
Time for more shill-triggering...
This is interesting:
https://www.freelists.org/post/geocentrism/solar-eclipse-explanation-failure
But this is much more interesting in terms of mad REtard cosmology:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/vision/isql.html
Yeah, might wanna think about that last one!
How will this Eclipse be possible on your Heliocentric model ?
But this is much more interesting in terms of mad REtard cosmology:No, I don't want to think about it. Maybe you can explain it in laymans term what this link is supposed to tell us. Or you just saw some fancy diagram there.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/vision/isql.html
Yeah, might wanna think about that last one!
That link only applies if taken out of context and has nothing to do with Monday's eclipse.But this is much more interesting in terms of mad REtard cosmology:No, I don't want to think about it. Maybe you can explain it in laymans term what this link is supposed to tell us. Or you just saw some fancy diagram there.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/vision/isql.html
Yeah, might wanna think about that last one!
But this is much more interesting in terms of mad REtard cosmology:No, I don't want to think about it.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/vision/isql.html
Yeah, might wanna think about that last one!
All zork wanted was a layman's explanation of what the website meant.But this is much more interesting in terms of mad REtard cosmology:No, I don't want to think about it.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/vision/isql.html
Yeah, might wanna think about that last one!
I bet you don't...
Because if you did, your entire mad REtard cosmology would fall apart instantly.
Thanks for confirming you're not here to Think, anyhoo...
Let's see exactly who you are again:
https://theethicalskeptic.com/2012/05/01/what-is-social-skepticism/
Yeah - that sums you up perfectly...
No, it would not fall apart. I don't want to think about it because I am lazy and I wanted you to explain it in layman terms. But as you failed to explain it then its confirmed that you saw some nice diagram there and didn't understand a thing about it. If you can't explain it then why did you put this link even here?But this is much more interesting in terms of mad REtard cosmology:No, I don't want to think about it.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/vision/isql.html
Yeah, might wanna think about that last one!
I bet you don't...
Because if you did, your entire mad REtard cosmology would fall apart instantly.
Said it yourself - you're lazy and you don't want to think about it...And you can't explain it. Explain and I will think about it. But... you can't. I don't even say what it says about you.
Prove it?I didn't say link to crap. I said prove it. Are you capable of that?
Okay:
You are incorrect.You are yet to prove that.
You haven't even come close.You speak nonsense.Nope. That would be you, like your nonsense about how an object can move around you with you looking at it at different angles and seeing the same face, without it rotating, which is pure nonsense.NASA did not predict the eclipse correctly.They did.
NASA’S timing was out.
The "live" broadcasts, just like all "live" broadcasts are slightly delayed. Some by 30 seconds or over a minute.NASA’S methodology and math's is incorrect.Prove it.
anyone that looks into the heliocentric model regarding the moon will see it is false and rely's upon magical gravity fairies to make it viableI like to point out that flat earth has their equivalent magical fairies to keep things on ground. You are no better.
...
anyone that looks into the heliocentric model regarding the moon will see it is false and rely's upon magical gravity fairies to make it viable as I have already explained.
...
anyone that looks into the heliocentric model regarding the moon will see it is false and rely's upon magical gravity fairies to make it viableI like to point out that flat earth has their equivalent magical fairies to keep things on ground. You are no better.
Time for more shill-triggering...
This is interesting:
https://www.freelists.org/post/geocentrism/solar-eclipse-explanation-failure
But this is much more interesting in terms of mad REtard cosmology:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/vision/isql.html
Yeah, might wanna think about that last one!
Anyhoo, seems you state the sun has to be moving in order for your model of an eclipse to work, so thanks for confirming geocentricity for me...If you really want to oversimplify a solar eclipse, then the moon is the only object that needs to move (aside from the earth rotating in its axis). For all intents and purposes, the earth and sun could be considered stationary for a few hours.
But like I said, actually THINKING about the inverse square law of light destroys your model completely...It does? ???
Anyhoo, seems you state the sun has to be moving in order for your model of an eclipse to work, so thanks for confirming geocentricity for me...If you really want to oversimplify a solar eclipse, then the moon is the only object that needs to move (aside from the earth rotating in its axis). For all intents and purposes, the earth and sun could be considered stationary for a few hours.But like I said, actually THINKING about the inverse square law of light destroys your model completely...It does? ???
How?
Anyhoo, seems you state the sun has to be moving in order for your model of an eclipse to work, so thanks for confirming geocentricity for me...If you really want to oversimplify a solar eclipse, then the moon is the only object that needs to move (aside from the earth rotating in its axis). For all intents and purposes, the earth and sun could be considered stationary for a few hours.But like I said, actually THINKING about the inverse square law of light destroys your model completely...It does? ???
How?
Anyhoo, seems you state the sun has to be moving in order for your model of an eclipse to work, so thanks for confirming geocentricity for me...If you really want to oversimplify a solar eclipse, then the moon is the only object that needs to move (aside from the earth rotating in its axis). For all intents and purposes, the earth and sun could be considered stationary for a few hours.But like I said, actually THINKING about the inverse square law of light destroys your model completely...It does? ???
How?
I think it's time it could be time for me to have a new signiture. 8)
Lol.
Lol.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
But like I said, actually THINKING about the inverse square law of light destroys your model completely...No it doesn't. I got over my laziness and thought about it. Nothing wrong with it.
Anyhoo, seems you state the sun has to be moving in order for your model of an eclipse to work, so thanks for confirming geocentricity for me...If you really want to oversimplify a solar eclipse, then the moon is the only object that needs to move (aside from the earth rotating in its axis). For all intents and purposes, the earth and sun could be considered stationary for a few hours.But like I said, actually THINKING about the inverse square law of light destroys your model completely...It does? ???
How?
I think it's time it could be time for me to have a new signiture. 8)
Lol.
Lol.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
i know one:
Resistance.is.Futile = the person with an IQ below room temperature
Nope, that isn't what I said.Anyhoo, seems you state the sun has to be moving in order for your model of an eclipse to work, so thanks for confirming geocentricity for me...If you really want to oversimplify a solar eclipse, then the moon is the only object that needs to move (aside from the earth rotating in its axis). For all intents and purposes, the earth and sun could be considered stationary for a few hours.But like I said, actually THINKING about the inverse square law of light destroys your model completely...It does? ???
How?
LMFAO!!!
So the sun & the Earth both stand still to keep your mad cosmology working?
Nope, that isn't what I said.Anyhoo, seems you state the sun has to be moving in order for your model of an eclipse to work, so thanks for confirming geocentricity for me...If you really want to oversimplify a solar eclipse, then the moon is the only object that needs to move (aside from the earth rotating in its axis). For all intents and purposes, the earth and sun could be considered stationary for a few hours.But like I said, actually THINKING about the inverse square law of light destroys your model completely...It does? ???
How?
LMFAO!!!
So the sun & the Earth both stand still to keep your mad cosmology working?
Obviously you missed the part where I said "If you really want to oversimplify".
That means that I'm leaving out some details to make the basic principle easier to understand.
Plus, you still cannot think about how this destroys your mad cosmological model:I have a theory. Legba climaxed during thinking about inverse law and got some vision about how it destroys current cosmological model but he can't put it in words. And now he wants others also to think about it hoping that others have also similar experience.
hyperphysics.phyastr.gsu.edu/hbase-/vision/isql.html
Plus, you still cannot think about how this destroys your mad cosmological model:I have a theory. Legba climaxed during thinking about inverse law and got some vision about how it destroys current cosmological model but he can't put it in words. And now he wants others also to think about it hoping that others have also similar experience.
hyperphysics.phyastr.gsu.edu/hbase-/vision/isql.html
Only one terrified seems to be you. Every time you are asked to explain what to you mean about inverse law destroying our cosmology you change the topic or insult others. So, what it is you are so afraid of and can't put it in words?Plus, you still cannot think about how this destroys your mad cosmological model:I have a theory. Legba climaxed during thinking about inverse law and got some vision about how it destroys current cosmological model but he can't put it in words. And now he wants others also to think about it hoping that others have also similar experience.
hyperphysics.phyastr.gsu.edu/hbase-/vision/isql.html
I have a theory. You are terrified of certain topics and seek to harm those who bring them up...
Your still speaking nonsense.Nope. That would still be you.
I said no such thing about " an object "You did. The "object" in question, is the moon.
anyone that looks into the heliocentric model regarding the moon will see it is false and rely's upon magical gravity fairies to make it viable as I have already explained.
I was referring to the live broadcast I watched from Wyoming the Live VR one, they had a countdown timer on screen and the totality was out with what was observed so your 30 seconds out live broadcast time delay storie is irrelevant.And what did they use to set the timer?
As I have said numerous times and explained numerous times the solar eclipse on the 21.08.17 was impossible on your model.No, you haven't.
The inverse square law of light destroys all current cosmology...
Your still speaking nonsense.Nope. That would still be you.I said no such thing about " an object "You did. The "object" in question, is the moon.
anyone that looks into the heliocentric model regarding the moon will see it is false and rely's upon magical gravity fairies to make it viable as I have already explained.
This is something which moves around, with you looking at it from different angles, yet it always appears the same (pretty much). That is only possible if it rotates.
You haven't explained anything. You have just asserted a bunch of childish crap which has been refuted, which anyone that looks into it honestly and rationally will realise is a load of crap.
And no, we don't need magic gravity fairies. We just need real, observed gravity, unlike FE, which has no basis for why things fall, unless they go to an infinite FE with gravity.I was referring to the live broadcast I watched from Wyoming the Live VR one, they had a countdown timer on screen and the totality was out with what was observed so your 30 seconds out live broadcast time delay storie is irrelevant.And what did they use to set the timer?
Did they have NASA come and set it up making sure it was accurate, or did they just get what time it was meant to be at some point near there and then stick it in?
Oh look, it wasn't even a real clock.
It was a digital one they added into the VR footage.
So how did they synchronise it?
And it appears to be from Time, not NASA.
So is what you really meant to say is Time fucked up?
So your argument is even more pathetic than before. Good job.As I have said numerous times and explained numerous times the solar eclipse on the 21.08.17 was impossible on your model.No, you haven't.
You have said it numerous times but you have repeatedly failed to explain it.
Are you going to try to explain why it is impossible?
On the other hand, we have explained how it is possible, and you have been unable to refute it.
From this moron's link:
The fact that light from a point source obeys the inverse square law is used to advantage in measuring astronomical distances.
Amazing
I was referring to the live broadcast I watched from Wyoming the Live VR one, they had a countdown timer on screen and the totality was out with what was observed so your 30 seconds out live broadcast time delay storie is irrelevant.
So none of you want to think about the above?So I take it you completely ignored what I said? How I pointed out it is still spouting the same ignorant crap as has been spouted before and been refuted before?
Anyhoo, seems you state the sun has to be moving in order for your model of an eclipse to work, so thanks for confirming geocentricity for me...Nope. In that regard you cannot distinguish between GC and HC. The 2 are related by a simple rotation.
But like I said, actually THINKING about the inverse square law of light destroys your model completely...No. You have the FE and RE models confused.
Good thing you've also stated you are not here to think, then, ain't it?It seems to be you that doesn't want to do any thinking and instead just want to spout childish crap.
So - you have admitted to being geocentricists who are not here to think...
What, then, ARE you here for, precisely?
I didn't want to oversimplify...Except that is exactly what your link did, to the point of pure stupidity.
You did.
Plus, you still cannot think about how this destroys your mad cosmological model:Perhaps that is because it doesn't?
hyperphysics.phyastr.gsu.edu/hbase-/vision/isql.html
Yeah, we get it - you refuse to think about alternative viewpoints, cannot extrapolate from known physical laws to observed phenomena, hate all science that challenges your beliefs, and are full of mad quivering paedo virgin-rage for all who are not as autistic & hate-filled as yourself...Good job describing yourself.
You are a weaponised idiot, nothing more...
Now stop wasting my time and fuck off.
"The moon can only appear the same to an observer on the ground if it rotates"...Absolutely nothing.
Wtf is wrong with you to say such a thing?
It is the exact opposite of observable reality...No, that is observable reality.
Why are you so mental?Once again, describing yourself. Why don't you follow your own advice?
Just give this shit up & admit you have no idea what the stupid moon is or how it works & it doesn't matter a single jot that you don't...
Join the rest of humanity ffs!
That statement is bullshit...PROVE IT!
If you had the ability to think you'd know that...No, you wouldn't.
Now fuck off.Again, follow your own advice.
So none of you want to think about the above?So I take it you completely ignored what I said? How I pointed out it is still spouting the same ignorant crap as has been spouted before and been refuted before?
How I even explained simply why it is wrong?Anyhoo, seems you state the sun has to be moving in order for your model of an eclipse to work, so thanks for confirming geocentricity for me...Nope. In that regard you cannot distinguish between GC and HC. The 2 are related by a simple rotation.
If the observation works in the GC model, it works in the HC model.
So no, the sun doesn't have to move.
The sun's apparent motion being greater (by a decent amount, I haven't checked to see at what point it beats the rotation of Earth) than the moon's apparent motion indicates the shadow will move west to east.
This is just relative motion.
It doesn't matter if Earth is fixed with the sun and moon both circling around us.
It doesn't matter if Earth rotates with a fixed moon and circling sun.
It doesn't matter if Earth rotates with a fixed sun and moon circling backwards.
It doesn't matter if Earth rotates, and orbits the sun, with the moon orbiting with Earth around the sun with the moon also orbiting Earth.
It doesn't matter if that entire system is moving around the galaxy.
The results are all identical and related by simple rotations and translations of the entire system and thus all observations of relative positions will be the same in these models.
Here is a diagram which helps to explain it (note: It is corrected for the orbital motion of the Earth-Moon system, so Earth stays in the same spot):
(http://i.imgur.com/vIpuP52.png)
The sun is on the left. The moon is in the middle, and Earth is to the right.
They start all nicely aligned (including the observation point on Earth).
Then after some time, they are no longer so nicely aligned.
The moon has moved a bit along its orbit, an angle θM, making its shadow move through an angle of Earth of θS.
Earth has rotated, an angle θR, counteracting some of the motion of the shadow, reducing it to θs.
So no, the argument you linked is pure bullshit based upon childish ignorance.But like I said, actually THINKING about the inverse square law of light destroys your model completely...No. You have the FE and RE models confused.
Stars have roughly the same intensity regardless of where you are (as long as you can see them and they are a decent amount above the horizon so atmospheric scattering isn't an issue). If they followed an inverse square law, their intensity would drop massively.
So FE models with stars sitting just above Earth get destroyed completely by that inverse square law.
Meanwhile the RE model is just fine.
And before you say anything, the difference in our orbit is rather insignificant when it comes to how hot or cold Earth is in comparison to the much greater effect of axial tilt.Good thing you've also stated you are not here to think, then, ain't it?It seems to be you that doesn't want to do any thinking and instead just want to spout childish crap.
So - you have admitted to being geocentricists who are not here to think...
What, then, ARE you here for, precisely?I didn't want to oversimplify...Except that is exactly what your link did, to the point of pure stupidity.
You did.
It was akin to saying "The moon appears to move west so the shadow must as well", completely ignoring how shadows work and the relative motions of the moon and sun.Plus, you still cannot think about how this destroys your mad cosmological model:Perhaps that is because it doesn't?
hyperphysics.phyastr.gsu.edu/hbase-/vision/isql.html
In fact, that address doesn't even exist.
Did you mean this one:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/vision/isql.html
Where it talks about the inverse square law, which destroys the FE entirely?
You seem to like asserting pure bullshit repeatedly without backing any of it up.Yeah, we get it - you refuse to think about alternative viewpoints, cannot extrapolate from known physical laws to observed phenomena, hate all science that challenges your beliefs, and are full of mad quivering paedo virgin-rage for all who are not as autistic & hate-filled as yourself...Good job describing yourself.
You are a weaponised idiot, nothing more...
Now stop wasting my time and fuck off.
Now how about you stop wasting everyone's time and either fuck of or start justifying the pure bullshit you have been spouting."The moon can only appear the same to an observer on the ground if it rotates"...Absolutely nothing.
Wtf is wrong with you to say such a thing?
Do you know why?
Because it is a simple fact of reality.
Try viewing an object from various angles, without it rotating, and seeing if it looks the same.
You can either move the object around you (ensuring it always faces the same direction, so your movement is just translation, not rotation), or you can walk around it.
Either way, without it rotating you will see different sides.
Here is a video, maybe that will help you understand:It is the exact opposite of observable reality...No, that is observable reality.
It might be different to your acid trip, but not to reality.Why are you so mental?Once again, describing yourself. Why don't you follow your own advice?
Just give this shit up & admit you have no idea what the stupid moon is or how it works & it doesn't matter a single jot that you don't...
Join the rest of humanity ffs!That statement is bullshit...PROVE IT!If you had the ability to think you'd know that...No, you wouldn't.
If you had the ability to think and chose to do so and looked at it honestly and rationally you would find no problem with it.Now fuck off.Again, follow your own advice.
Still as eloquent as ever papa...!
Btw if an object revolves around another object it was show different sides unless it rotates at the same angular rate. The eccentricity of the moons orbit and the subsequent liberation proves this....
LMFAO!!!I.e. you have no rational argument to provide and thus will just resort to your typical pathetic childish insults as it is all you are capable of.
Not one word of that made sense...
You are deranged.
The moon always shows the same side because it is fixed in place you fucking REtard...Because it makes basically no sense at all.
Why do you nutcases always avoid the obvious answers?
Now read this and kiss goodbye to your big mad fucking bang baloney:Again, reading that doesn't refute anything about the currently accepted model.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/vision/isql.html
Why do you keep linking to a page about point sources of light?
LMFAO!!!I.e. you have no rational argument to provide and thus will just resort to your typical pathetic childish insults as it is all you are capable of.
Not one word of that made sense...
You are deranged.The moon always shows the same side because it is fixed in place you fucking REtard...Because it makes basically no sense at all.
Why do you nutcases always avoid the obvious answers?
You have the moon and Earth fixed in place, with Earth rotating to cause the apparent motion of the moon, and then massive motion of the stars and planets along some completely insane paths.
What fixes the moon in place such that everything is moving relative to it in such strange paths?
Why do you always avoid the obvious answers?Now read this and kiss goodbye to your big mad fucking bang baloney:Again, reading that doesn't refute anything about the currently accepted model.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/vision/isql.html
Grow up.
See the weaponised idiot deploy its idiotic weaponry...
Watch as it tries to blame its refusal to think on me...
The inverse square law of light destroys all current cosmology...
If you are able to THINK about it:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/vision/isql.html
Non-thinkers please do not reply, thank you please!
How do you know the intrinsic brightness of an object allegedly billions of miles away that you have never visited in person in order to measure, REtard?
Do you own a fucking spaceship?
If you cannot see that they are making assumptions about the brightness of stars at source, then retrofitting bogus math to that in order to support their mad cosmology, you are insane...
Or more likely one of these:
https://theethicalskeptic.com/2012/05/01/what-is-social-skepticism/
So smart, science is unnecessary!
So you can know the source strength of an object billions of miles away without visiting it in order to actually measure it at source?
Sound oxymoronic to me, if not outright bullshit...
But hey, you'll be claiming you own a spaceship soon I bet, as your insane arrogance clearly knows no bounds...
Here you are again:
https://theethicalskeptic.com/2012/05/01/what-is-social-skepticism/
So smart, science is unnecessary!
So you can know the source strength of an object billions of miles away without visiting it in order to actually measure it at source?
Sound oxymoronic to me, if not outright bullshit...
But hey, you'll be claiming you own a spaceship soon I bet, as your insane arrogance clearly knows no bounds...
Here you are again:
https://theethicalskeptic.com/2012/05/01/what-is-social-skepticism/
So smart, science is unnecessary!
So you can know the source strength of an object billions of miles away without visiting it in order to actually measure it at source?And now who can't do the THINKING. Of course you can know. Why in the hell must any reasonably thinking person visit source billion miles away when he can do it here. Silly boy.
no you are speaking nonsense because you claims make no sense and there is not one proven evidence that support your claims
You speak absolute nonsense.
one almost correct statment, only it word your is wrong it should be: the
On your heliocentric model the Sun is relatively stationary regarding the Earth.
it is one revolution per year, wow: that is slow
On your heliocentric model the earth travels at 67000 mph :o
On your heliocentric model the earth spins at 1000 mph at the equator.it is one revolution per day, a little bit fast but also not really fast
On your heliocentric model the earth is never stationary.again: one almost correct statment, only it word your is wrong it should be: the
As I have said numerous times and explained numerous times the solar eclipse on the 21.08.17 was impossible on your model.you have never shown an explanation and a proof for that claim.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
He can't show because he just imagines it to be impossible. I am starting to wonder if RiF and PL are same because both of them can only imagine things but can't explain them afterwards. And they use quite similar language when answering posts.As I have said numerous times and explained numerous times the solar eclipse on the 21.08.17 was impossible on your model.you have never shown an explanation and a proof for that claim.
Just listen to your mad selves desperately spamming wiki-shit...
Do you not realise how insane you sound?
Talking about things allegedly billions of miles away as if you'd visited them personally and measured their every aspect.
However, we've already established 'definitely not markjo' owns a REtardis, so he can go anywhere in time and space in order to verify his fantastical ravings...
Back to this:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/vision/isql.html
Anybody actually capable of thinking about it will have an "Oh shit!" moment...
Anybody who isn't is one of these:
https://theethicalskeptic.com/2012/05/01/what-is-social-skepticism/
So smart that science is unnecessary...
Lol.
Toodle-pip, REtards!
Can I ask, why do you use the REtards insult, when you've stated that you are NOT a flat earther?
Just listen to your mad selves desperately spamming wiki-shit...
Do you not realise how insane you sound?
Talking about things allegedly billions of miles away as if you'd visited them personally and measured their every aspect.
However, we've already established 'definitely not markjo' owns a REtardis, so he can go anywhere in time and space in order to verify his fantastical ravings...
Back to this:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/vision/isql.html
Anybody actually capable of thinking about it will have an "Oh shit!" moment...
Anybody who isn't is one of these:
https://theethicalskeptic.com/2012/05/01/what-is-social-skepticism/
So smart that science is unnecessary...
Lol.
Toodle-pip, REtards!
Been reading through this thread, but I have to ask. Exactly how does the Inverse-Square Law factor into this? You appear to be making the claim that we cannot possibly know the absolute luminosity of something. The site you link to however mentions no less than 2 methods scientists have used to determine the luminosity of other stars to help create a baseline, through both the Cepheid variable stars, and the Type-1a supernovae. The precise page you link to even states the Law is used to help calculate star distances. So please, help me understand. What exactly are you suggesting from this? Because what you seem to be suggesting is disproven elsewhere on the site you linked to.
You are a stupid fuck, that much is clear....
Just listen to your mad selves desperately spamming wiki-shit...
Do you not realise how insane you sound?
Talking about things allegedly billions of miles away as if you'd visited them personally and measured their every aspect.
However, we've already established 'definitely not markjo' owns a REtardis, so he can go anywhere in time and space in order to verify his fantastical ravings...
Back to this:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/vision/isql.html
Anybody actually capable of thinking about it will have an "Oh shit!" moment...
Anybody who isn't is one of these:
https://theethicalskeptic.com/2012/05/01/what-is-social-skepticism/
So smart that science is unnecessary...
Lol.
Toodle-pip, REtards!
Been reading through this thread, but I have to ask. Exactly how does the Inverse-Square Law factor into this? You appear to be making the claim that we cannot possibly know the absolute luminosity of something. The site you link to however mentions no less than 2 methods scientists have used to determine the luminosity of other stars to help create a baseline, through both the Cepheid variable stars, and the Type-1a supernovae. The precise page you link to even states the Law is used to help calculate star distances. So please, help me understand. What exactly are you suggesting from this? Because what you seem to be suggesting is disproven elsewhere on the site you linked to.
No, I am stating for a FACT that we cannot possibly know the luminosity of an object billions and billions of miles away AT SOURCE because we have no means of getting to it AT SOURCE in order to measure it AT SOURCE...
Wtf is wrong with you that you cannot understand this?
Oh, that's right, you are these weaponised idiots:
https://theethicalskeptic.com/2012/05/01/what-is-social-skepticism/
Fire away, idiots!
All I get from your tl;dr gibberish is "I LUV THEH SIENZETIZTZ DEY IZ ORL COOL N GOTT BIGG NUMBAZ N TEL EECH UDDER THEYZ ORL COOL N SHIT N I LUV SIENZE N I AM SIENZE N U IZ NOTT SIENZE NO UBADD MANNN GO WAY BADD MANN GO WAYYY!!!"
Oh, and the idea that one man cannot know everything is bullshit spread by your insane pseudoscientist priest caste...
Because there really isn't that much to know when it comes down to it.
Hiding this FACT is the main aim of these people:
https://theethicalskeptic.com/2012/05/01/what-is-social-skepticism/
Any chance of fucking off and leaving me alone now, psycho?
Lol no - weaponised idiots never give up!
All I get from your tl;dr gibberish is "I LUV THEH SIENZETIZTZ DEY IZ ORL COOL N GOTT BIGG NUMBAZ N TEL EECH UDDER THEYZ ORL COOL N SHIT N I LUV SIENZE N I AM SIENZE N U IZ NOTT SIENZE NO UBADD MANNN GO WAY BADD MANN GO WAYYY!!!"
Oh, and the idea that one man cannot know everything is bullshit spread by your insane pseudoscientist priest caste...
Because there really isn't that much to know when it comes down to it.
Hiding this FACT is the main aim of these people:
https://theethicalskeptic.com/2012/05/01/what-is-social-skepticism/
Any chance of fucking off and leaving me alone now, psycho?
Lol no - weaponised idiots never give up!
All I get from your tl;dr gibberish is "I LUV THEH SIENZETIZTZ DEY IZ ORL COOL N GOTT BIGG NUMBAZ N TEL EECH UDDER THEYZ ORL COOL N SHIT N I LUV SIENZE N I AM SIENZE N U IZ NOTT SIENZE NO UBADD MANNN GO WAY BADD MANN GO WAYYY!!!"
Oh, and the idea that one man cannot know everything is bullshit spread by your insane pseudoscientist priest caste...
Because there really isn't that much to know when it comes down to it.
Hiding this FACT is the main aim of these people:
https://theethicalskeptic.com/2012/05/01/what-is-social-skepticism/
Any chance of fucking off and leaving me alone now, psycho?
Lol no - weaponised idiots never give up!
we are not holding you here, if you don't like that we do not agree with you you can leave any time.
for us it is fun to poke the Baby Legba, and as more angry you get and as more insults you spit out the more fun it is.
All I get from your tl;dr gibberish is "I LUV THEH SIENZETIZTZ DEY IZ ORL COOL N GOTT BIGG NUMBAZ N TEL EECH UDDER THEYZ ORL COOL N SHIT N I LUV SIENZE N I AM SIENZE N U IZ NOTT SIENZE NO UBADD MANNN GO WAY BADD MANN GO WAYYY!!!"
Oh, and the idea that one man cannot know everything is bullshit spread by your insane pseudoscientist priest caste...
Because there really isn't that much to know when it comes down to it.
Hiding this FACT is the main aim of these people:
https://theethicalskeptic.com/2012/05/01/what-is-social-skepticism/
Any chance of fucking off and leaving me alone now, psycho?
Lol no - weaponised idiots never give up!
Wow, such hostility from simple honest questions and a suggestion. O.o Yeah, I can see the psycho here and it isn't me. I'll remember to ignore you in the future since you've made it clear the link you keep posting applies more to yourself than anyone else here. Take care, and I hope you can get over whatever issue has happened in your life that makes you feel like you need to lash out like this and love yourself.
All I get from your tl;dr gibberish is "I LUV THEH SIENZETIZTZ DEY IZ ORL COOL N GOTT BIGG NUMBAZ N TEL EECH UDDER THEYZ ORL COOL N SHIT N I LUV SIENZE N I AM SIENZE N U IZ NOTT SIENZE NO UBADD MANNN GO WAY BADD MANN GO WAYYY!!!"
Oh, and the idea that one man cannot know everything is bullshit spread by your insane pseudoscientist priest caste...
Because there really isn't that much to know when it comes down to it.
Hiding this FACT is the main aim of these people:
https://theethicalskeptic.com/2012/05/01/what-is-social-skepticism/
Any chance of fucking off and leaving me alone now, psycho?
Lol no - weaponised idiots never give up!
we are not holding you here, if you don't like that we do not agree with you you can leave any time.
for us it is fun to poke the Baby Legba, and as more angry you get and as more insults you spit out the more fun it is.
LOL!!!
Retards are so arrogant they think this is THEIR forum!
How much proof do you need this shithole is run by shills?
...
Talking about things allegedly billions of miles away as if you'd visited them personally and measured their every aspect.Anybody actually capable of thinking and not just imaging things like you do won't have any "oh shit!" moment. And they don't have to visit things billion miles away. Really? Only the fact that in your mind someone must go there shows clearly that you don't THINK. You IMAGINE. And as you don't have anything to offer here then... go and do what The Mooch said that Steve Bannon did.
Back to this:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/vision/isql.html
Anybody actually capable of thinking about it will have an "Oh shit!" moment...
You know very well my description regarding the waxing crescent moon was not about the solar eclipse.I don't care what it was about, it was bullshit, and I pointed out why.Again you Heliocentrics have to employ the use of misdirection.Well thanks for indirectly admitting you are not telling the truth nor do you think you are.
Anyone that is telling the truth or even " thinks " they are telling the truth have no need to employ such methods.
You are the one using misdirection here, not me, for example:You also say that people can verify the wobble of the moon and that this wobble proves the moon rotates; this is nonsense we always see the same elevation of the moon.I was using it to show the moon is a ball, and refute your claim that the same side always faces us.
And no, it isn't nonsense, we do not always see the same "elevation" (whatever you are trying to mean by that) of the moon.
Here is an example:
(http://www.pixheaven.net/geant/0505-0704_64.gif)You then say that people can constantly observe one side of the moon and that this proves it's rotation.No, I say for the most part they do, and that is because it does prove rotation. Can you explain why it doesn't? Perhaps explain how you can view something from multiple angles, and see the same side of it, without it turning.It is impossible for the Moon to rotate once a month and for the same side of the moon to be visible all the time.Why?
It is circling us.
Try having someone start facing something off in the distance, and then walk around you. Have them keep facing the same way though, so some times they will be walking forwards, sometimes backwards, sometimes sideways or at an angle.
Do you only see one side of them? No. Instead you see them from all angles (in 2D).
Now try it again, this time have them turn as they walk around, so they are always walking forwards.
Now do you only see one side of them? Pretty much.
You can also try it yourself, with a stationary object. Look at this object from different angles, without turning it. Do you see the same side? No.
It is impossible for an object to circle you or for you to circle the object and you to only see the one side, UNLESS IT ROTATES!!! Do you understand that?You should pay particular attention to the fact that the moon rises at different times of the day and night and not all lunar orbits are 27 days on your model but your magic moon is said to rotate every 27 days on it's axis.No lunar orbit is 27 days.
The length will vary depending upon how you measure it.
It's orbit is closer to 27.321661 days.
However, due to the motion of Earth along its orbit, this isn't a full "cycle" of the moon. Instead, it needs to travel a bit further, so its synodic period is roughly (or on average) 29.530589 days. This will vary due to Earth's varying orbital speed.
The reason this makes lunar months appear to be different lengths is that we assign a day to the start or end of a lunar month, such as based upon when the moon will be full. (this can also cause variations between different locations on Earth).
If you have a new moon just after midnight, the new lunar month starts then. 29 days later, you will get another new moon, except instead of at mid night it is roughly at mid day, making the lunar month appear to be 29 days long. But then after another 29.5 days (I know, it is slightly longer), you will get another new moon. This will put it into the next day, making that lunar month appear to be 30 days long.
For example, if you look at the dates of the new moons for 2017, they average roughly 29.5 days.
So no, all lunar orbits are the same length in the HC model, at least to any reasonable error.
And why would them rising and setting at different times be a problem? Remember, that is a key reason why you are full of shit regarding your "analysis" of the expected direction of the path of the eclipse.You claim to have wiped the floor with me ; you are incorrect.No, I am correct. If you designed to have the floor wiped with you then you are just admitting you are a troll. You have repeatedly failed to mount any rational defence and instead just repeat the same refuted BS.
You have arrived at the destination that I have designed. ;)Let's talk about the Lunar eclipse ;DWhere you just repeat the same refuted BS?
How about you first go back and read what i have already said.You claim that on your Strange Heliocentric model for the lunar eclipse to occur that the sun earth and moon are in line.There is nothing strange about the model.
That also isn't what it says. The sun, Earth and moon do not need to be in perfect alignment. All it requires is that the moon is in the shadow of Earth.
At the distance of the moon, the Earth's shadow is significantly larger than the moon.
Remember, the light from the sun is almost a straight line, and the sun has an angular diameter of roughly 0.5 degrees. That means the umbra shrinks with a slope of 0.5 degrees.
That means for every km out, the umbra shrinks by roughly 8.7 m on each side. So by the time the shadow gets to the moon, some 400 000 km away (approx), it will have shrunk by roughly 3491 km.
As we are just looking at one side, the simplest thing to compare this to is the radius.
The radius of Earth is 6371 km. That means the radius of the shadow would shrink to 2880 km. The radius of the moon is 1737 km. So the shadow is roughly 1.7 times as large (in width) than the moon.
So it doesn't require perfect alignment.So therfore the moon is directly behind the earth.And from the above, NO IT IS NOT.
They are not directly aligned.How is it that the moon is still easily observed during the lunar eclipse because if your model was correct the earth would be blocking the sun's light that you claim illuminates the Moon making it visible so it would be impossible to see the moon.Because Earth has an atmosphere that scatters light. This is also why the moon appears red and why the sky appears blue normally and red at low angles to the sun (e.g. during sunrise and sunset)
The atmosphere scatters blue light a lot and red light not so much. This produces an effect similar to bending a small amount of red light around Earth so it lights up the moon.If this was the case the selenelion would also be even more impossible.Again, it isn't the case.A selenelion is where the sun and moon are visible in the sky at the same time during a lunar eclipse which completely debunks your imaginary Globe.Nope. Not in the slightest.
This was already explained before.
There are several factors which contribute it. The first is refraction, which alone allows you to see them.It is impossible for light to bend all the way round your imaginary Globe as light travels in straight lines; not even a child would believe such nonsense.No, a child would believe things like light only travels in straight lines.
Anyone that has looked at an object in water or through a lens will know that is wrong.
Light can bend due to refraction.
Almost everyone knows that.Here is a video of the selenelion lunar eclipse.No, that is a video of a bunch of ignorant crap.
It doesn't even show a true selenelion eclipse.
You cannot see both the fully eclipsed moon and the sun at the same time.
Instead you just get the sky starting to light up from the sun.
Try again.
Regardless, they just lend further weight to the RE/HC model.
If Earth was flat, and the lunar eclipse had nothing to do with going into Earth's shadow, why can't we see lunar eclipses when both the sun and moon are high in the sky?
Why do we only ever get them with full moons and only just get to see them both at the same time, if you are in the right spot?I will also point out that you have named this impossible lunar eclipse after one of your gods.I have no god.Luke 8:17You keep repeating that line, but you are yet to show it is a religion nor are you able to show it is false.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
And yet you think your strange blood cult is true and leads credibility to your argument.
Grow up.
You need to take a step back and calm down. You said you know for a fact that years of math and study are wrong. I suggested, if what you say is true, write up the proof and submit it. Show why the math and theory is wrong. You've responded by calling me an idiotic shill. That doesn't seem like a healthy mindset to assume anyone who even mildly disagrees with you is a paid shill. I would love to see you show them their science and math are wrong, because that's how science advances. But simply saying it's incorrect is like me telling the actor not to open the door in a horror movie. It doesn't do anything.All I get from your tl;dr gibberish is "I LUV THEH SIENZETIZTZ DEY IZ ORL COOL N GOTT BIGG NUMBAZ N TEL EECH UDDER THEYZ ORL COOL N SHIT N I LUV SIENZE N I AM SIENZE N U IZ NOTT SIENZE NO UBADD MANNN GO WAY BADD MANN GO WAYYY!!!"
Oh, and the idea that one man cannot know everything is bullshit spread by your insane pseudoscientist priest caste...
Because there really isn't that much to know when it comes down to it.
Hiding this FACT is the main aim of these people:
https://theethicalskeptic.com/2012/05/01/what-is-social-skepticism/
Any chance of fucking off and leaving me alone now, psycho?
Lol no - weaponised idiots never give up!
Wow, such hostility from simple honest questions and a suggestion. O.o Yeah, I can see the psycho here and it isn't me. I'll remember to ignore you in the future since you've made it clear the link you keep posting applies more to yourself than anyone else here. Take care, and I hope you can get over whatever issue has happened in your life that makes you feel like you need to lash out like this and love yourself.
LOL!!!
They don't even try to hide their sockpuppeting and gaslighting of every thought criminal they lure here!
Weaponised idiots ftw!!
This forum is run by these people - FACT:
http://bolenreport.com/category/organizedenemy/skeptics/
You need to take a step back and calm down. You said you know for a fact that years of math and study are wrong. I suggested, if what you say is true, write up the proof and submit it. Show why the math and theory is wrong. You've responded by calling me an idiotic shill. That doesn't seem like a healthy mindset to assume anyone who even mildly disagrees with you is a paid shill. I would love to see you show them their science and math are wrong, because that's how science advances. But simply saying it's incorrect is like me telling the actor not to open the door in a horror movie. It doesn't do anything.All I get from your tl;dr gibberish is "I LUV THEH SIENZETIZTZ DEY IZ ORL COOL N GOTT BIGG NUMBAZ N TEL EECH UDDER THEYZ ORL COOL N SHIT N I LUV SIENZE N I AM SIENZE N U IZ NOTT SIENZE NO UBADD MANNN GO WAY BADD MANN GO WAYYY!!!"
Oh, and the idea that one man cannot know everything is bullshit spread by your insane pseudoscientist priest caste...
Because there really isn't that much to know when it comes down to it.
Hiding this FACT is the main aim of these people:
https://theethicalskeptic.com/2012/05/01/what-is-social-skepticism/
Any chance of fucking off and leaving me alone now, psycho?
Lol no - weaponised idiots never give up!
Wow, such hostility from simple honest questions and a suggestion. O.o Yeah, I can see the psycho here and it isn't me. I'll remember to ignore you in the future since you've made it clear the link you keep posting applies more to yourself than anyone else here. Take care, and I hope you can get over whatever issue has happened in your life that makes you feel like you need to lash out like this and love yourself.
LOL!!!
They don't even try to hide their sockpuppeting and gaslighting of every thought criminal they lure here!
Weaponised idiots ftw!!
This forum is run by these people - FACT:
http://bolenreport.com/category/organizedenemy/skeptics/
Correct. But if we know the inverse square law, and we can measure a noted, regular shift in somethings brightness, we can use that to calculate the brightness at it's source. That's what the math, study, and theory show. If you can show what is incorrect in any of the above, you will have done a great service and helped move science forward. As for what is wrong with me, nothing I assure you. I'm attempting to civilly explain to you that simply typing in caps and 'shouting' will get your position no where, as all it does is discredit it. I'm attempting to have something approaching an honest discussion with you, but you instead resort to insults and name calling. By all logic this suggests there is something wrong with you good sir. Hypocrisy if nothing else. I've explained my position. Yours so far seems to amount to "If I say it enough it will be true, and I'll show them how right I was" instead of anything informed by facts. If you can back up your assertions with actual, provable facts (such as proving the equations used in these calculations are incorrect) then feel free to keep shouting them and I'll join you even. But if all you have is words and bluster, then it sounds like you're here to find someone to stroke your ego and tell you how smart you are, rather than engage in any kind of debate or discussion.You need to take a step back and calm down. You said you know for a fact that years of math and study are wrong. I suggested, if what you say is true, write up the proof and submit it. Show why the math and theory is wrong. You've responded by calling me an idiotic shill. That doesn't seem like a healthy mindset to assume anyone who even mildly disagrees with you is a paid shill. I would love to see you show them their science and math are wrong, because that's how science advances. But simply saying it's incorrect is like me telling the actor not to open the door in a horror movie. It doesn't do anything.All I get from your tl;dr gibberish is "I LUV THEH SIENZETIZTZ DEY IZ ORL COOL N GOTT BIGG NUMBAZ N TEL EECH UDDER THEYZ ORL COOL N SHIT N I LUV SIENZE N I AM SIENZE N U IZ NOTT SIENZE NO UBADD MANNN GO WAY BADD MANN GO WAYYY!!!"
Oh, and the idea that one man cannot know everything is bullshit spread by your insane pseudoscientist priest caste...
Because there really isn't that much to know when it comes down to it.
Hiding this FACT is the main aim of these people:
https://theethicalskeptic.com/2012/05/01/what-is-social-skepticism/
Any chance of fucking off and leaving me alone now, psycho?
Lol no - weaponised idiots never give up!
Wow, such hostility from simple honest questions and a suggestion. O.o Yeah, I can see the psycho here and it isn't me. I'll remember to ignore you in the future since you've made it clear the link you keep posting applies more to yourself than anyone else here. Take care, and I hope you can get over whatever issue has happened in your life that makes you feel like you need to lash out like this and love yourself.
LOL!!!
They don't even try to hide their sockpuppeting and gaslighting of every thought criminal they lure here!
Weaponised idiots ftw!!
This forum is run by these people - FACT:
http://bolenreport.com/category/organizedenemy/skeptics/
There's years of math alright but there's not one single second of genuine study because it is impossible for us to measure the brightness of a star AT SOURCE, you mental motherfucker...
Because it is IMPOSSIBLE, you mental motherfucker...
Hence the years of mental motherfucking mathemagical masturbation required to make this whole Harry Potter bullshit cosmology of yours work at all...
You MENTAL MOTHERFUCKER!!!
Wtf is WRONG with you?
https://theethicalskeptic.com/2012/05/01/what-is-social-skepticism/
So smart, science is unnecessary!
NO U!!! OH U!!! YES U!!!
So you think science is possible without accurate, empirically derived measurements?You really are amazing (not in a good way). Person who really and honestly thinks that all measurements can be done only at the source. Its clear that you don't need the science at all. Imagination is all you have.
So you think science is possible without accurate, empirically derived measurements?You really are amazing (not in a good way). Person who really and honestly thinks that all measurements can be done only at the source. Its clear that you don't need the science at all. Imagination is all you have.
I think measurements can be done only with measuring instruments you mental motherfucker...All measurements are not done with instruments. Some results you calculate. But you really like to demonstrate your ignorance in math. And you haven't evolved past measurement tape. Amazing.
And as you don't have a tape measure long enough to reach a star I'll continue to think you are full of shit...
So you think science is possible without accurate, empirically derived measurements?You really are amazing (not in a good way). Person who really and honestly thinks that all measurements can be done only at the source. Its clear that you don't need the science at all. Imagination is all you have.
LMFAO!!!
I think measurements can be done only with measuring instruments you mental motherfucker...
And as you don't have a tape measure long enough to reach a star I'll continue to think you are full of shit...
You mental motherfucker.
Again, here you are:
https://theethicalskeptic.com/2012/05/01/what-is-social-skepticism/
So smart, science is unnecessary!
Why do you keep lying about the moon spinning when it's never been observed to do so?Because it does spin, unless you can explain what keeps it magically fixed in place with us moving around to match it. (and note that that requires throwing away your GC bullshit anyway).
It's clearly fixed & immobile, you can watch it being so...No, you can't. I already proved that. You can observe it appear to move and wobble.
Now this, as you fear it so much:The only person to fear it is you. And again you sent the wrong link.
hyperphysics.phyastr.gsu.edu/hbase-/vision/isql.html
Do you detect the deliberate mistake in the text?Can you show it is deliberate or a mistake?
You are a psychopath if you believe current cosmology is an obvious answer to anything you observe in the sky...No, it just means I am rational.
How do you know the intrinsic brightness of an object allegedly billions of miles away that you have never visited in person in order to measure, REtard?So is that your problem? You don't understand it so you reject it like an ignorant moron?
So smart, science is unnecessary!Is that your problem? You think you are so smart that science isn't necessary for a retard like you?
So you can know the source strength of an object billions of miles away without visiting it in order to actually measure it at source?Yes, by using the inverse square law and the distance to it.
Talking about things allegedly billions of miles away as if you'd visited them personally and measured their every aspect.Nope. That would just be your pathetic strawman.
Jerimiah 5 : 21You can keep your religious BS to yourself.
I do not find your nonesensical explanation satisfactory.And I don't give a shit what you "find".
Let's look at the facts:Except these aren't facts at all.
No one has ever seen the dark side of the Moon.
No one will ever see the dark side of the moon.
No one has ever seen the moon rotate.
No one will ever see the moon rotate.
This is because the dark side of the moon does not exist and this is because the moon does not rotate.
You expect people to believe your nonsensical fabrications that reinforce your heliocentric deception and ignore their own observations when you have no evidence that prove the above.No, that would be you. You spout pure bullshit without any evidence at all.
Here is a description of the lunar eclipse on your model.That would be during a new moon, not a full moon.
How is it possible as you claim ; for the light reflected from the earth to illuminate the Moon ?
The Sun is illuminating the opposite side of the earth regarding the position of the moon this can be verified as the lunar eclipse happens during the" night "of the full moon.It is also "illuminating" the air, which scatters light, including towards the moon.
You claim the selenelion eclipse in the video I linked was not a real selenelion eclipse.No, it is clear it is not a selenelion eclipse.
However :
It is clear that you are a liar and know no bounds when it comes to defending your Strange Heliocentric Religion.
How is it possible for this selenelion eclipse to take place on your heliocentric model when the readers can observe from the video footage that the sun is visible in the Sky at the same time as the moon so there is definitely NO syzygy.I already explained that. Why should I repeat myself when you just ignore it.
Your model does not reflect what is observed in reality and as such it is incorrect and therefore not acceptable.No, the currently accepted model does accurately reflect reality. Your pathetic strawmen of it don't.
The Lunar eclipse is caused by an object the ancients called Ketu .No, the lunar eclipse is caused by Earth's shadow, the solar eclipse is caused by the moon's shadow.
The Solar eclipse is caused by an object the ancients called Rahu.
There's years of math alright but there's not one single second of genuine study because it is impossible for us to measure the brightness of a star AT SOURCE.But anyone with a brain and a bit of background in physics (lets you and I out I guess) can calculate it to reasonable accuracy.
Because it is IMPOSSIBLE.For an ignorant Voodoo Priest, I guess it is impossible!
So smart, science is unnecessary!Nope, smart, science is very necessary!
Energy from the SunYou can take it from here.
ACS Climate Science Toolkit | Energy Balance
Although much hotter on the inside, we can closely approximate the surface of the sun, from which its emission occurs, as a black body at a temperature of about 5800 K. The Stefan-Boltzmann equation then gives the energy flux emitted at the sun’s surface.SS = (5.67 × 10–8 W·m–2·K–4)(5800 K)4 = 63 × 106 W·m–2
The surface area of a sphere with a radius r is 4πr2. If rS is the radius of the Sun, the total energy it emits is SS4πrs2.
Read the rest in: ACS Climate Science Toolkit, Energy from the Sun (https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/energybalance/energyfromsun.html)
How is it possible for this selenelion eclipse to take place on your heliocentric model when the readers can observe from the video footage that the sun is visible in the Sky at the same time as the moon so there is definitely NO syzygy.Totally incorrect, as this scale diagram of the earth-moon part of a selenelion eclipse shows:
Your model does not reflect what is observed in reality and as such it is incorrect and therefore not acceptable.Quite untrue!
And I don't give a shit what you "find".
You are unable to point out a single thing wrong with my explanation.
Except these aren't facts at all.
People have seen the dark side of the moon and people have seen the far side of the moon and people have seen the moon rotate.
There is a dark side and the moon does rotate.
No, that would be you. You spout pure bullshit without any evidence at all.
It is light scattered by the atmosphere that illuminates the moon during a lunar eclipse, which is also why it is red.
It is also "illuminating" the air, which scatters light, including towards the moon.
No, it is clear it is not a selenelion eclipse.
You cannot observe the fully eclipsed moon and fully rising sun at the same time.
Instead you get the fully eclipsed moon as the sky starts lighting up from the sun's light.
I have pointed out lots of things wrong with your explanation .No you haven't. You are yet to point out a single error.
Do you mean dark or far? The 2 are different.Except these aren't facts at all.Who exactly has seen the dark side of the moon ?
People have seen the dark side of the moon and people have seen the far side of the moon and people have seen the moon rotate.
There is a dark side and the moon does rotate.
Who exactly has seen the moon rotate ?Everyone that has ever observed it for any decent period of time.
Have you got any video evidence to support this Heliocentric fantasy you speak of ?No, I'm not the one living in a fantasy world, that would be you.
You are ridiculous and delusional you have provided no evidence whatsoever .Except I did, when I repeatedly refuted your claims by providing the math and explanations of why they were wrong.
There is no light in the atmosphere.Yes there is. That is why the atmosphere appears blue most of the day and red near sunrise/sunset.
Lunar eclipses take place at night.Only for some parts of the world. At other parts it is day and they miss it, but for a small amount of Earth, it is a selenelion eclipse, at the edge of day and night where they sky is lit up before the sun has risen, while the moon is still visible. It is the atmosphere here in this ring which is scattering light which goes to the moon.
The light in the atmosphere is on the other side of your imaginary Globe on your heliocentric model.Stop acting like there are only 2 points.
For a Lunar eclipse to be possible on your heliocentric model syzygy must take place.Not a perfect alignment.
This means the Sun is on the opposite side of your imaginary Globe illuminating the opposite side of the world .Yes, this also means there is a ring of atmosphere where the sun and moon are both visible, which allows the sun's light to be scattered to reach the moon.
When the Sun's rays illuminate the earth it is day.
When the Sun's rays " DO NOT " illuminate the earth it is night.
No, that would be you.No, it is clear it is not a selenelion eclipse.You are a liar.
You cannot observe the fully eclipsed moon and fully rising sun at the same time.
Instead you get the fully eclipsed moon as the sky starts lighting up from the sun's light.
The Heliocentric experts at space.com quite clearly say it was a selenelion eclipse.Really? Where in sapce.com did it say this video contains a selenelion eclipse?
So either you are lying or they are lying which one is it?
The real experts on your heliocentric model at space.com say the selenelion eclipse took place on 14.10.14 which is the same date as the video I provided showing the said selenelion eclipse.What type of eclipse it is varies from location to location. A large portion of the world got a total eclipse.
I have proven you to be a liar.No you haven't.
Weaponised idiot JackBlack thinks that science is possible without starting from accurate measurements...No.
Weaponised idiot JackBlack thinks that science is possible without starting from accurate measurements...So, you have a quite a high tower(surely over 50 meters) and you have your measurement tape. How do you measure height of the tower? Climbing on it and moving your measurement tape up lenght by lenght? You realize that this is definitely idiots way and all who see it are ROFL'ing
Weaponised idiot JackBlack thinks that science is possible without starting from accurate measurements...No.
Rational sane human being JackBlack KNOWS that science is possible by starting from rough measurements and improving upon them.
All Papa Retard seems to be able to do is insult people and spout crap.
Weaponised idiot JackBlack thinks that science is possible without starting from accurate measurements...So, you have a quite a high tower(surely over 50 meters) and you have your measurement tape. How do you measure height of the tower? Climbing on it and moving your measurement tape up lenght by lenght? You realize that this is definitely idiots way and all who see it are ROFL'ing
Also, they are not experts. They are journalists.
I have already pointed out other errors by them.
Except these aren't facts at all.
People have seen the dark side of the moon and people have seen the far side of the moon and people have seen the moon rotate.
There is a dark side and the moon does rotate.
Everyone that has ever observed it for any decent period of time.
Have you got any video evidence to support this Heliocentric fantasy you speak of ?
No, I'm not the one living in a fantasy world, that would be you.
So you DO have a tape measure long enough to reach a star, do you?Why would we need one.
Cos if you don't then you're just making mad shit up about tiny lights in the sky nobody normal gives a fuck about, aintcha, weaponised idiot REtard?Or I am a rational person that realises a measuring tape isn't the only way to measure something.
Don't let me and my logical conclusions get in the way!I am yet to see you provide anything remotely resembling logic, so it would be pretty hard for your non-existent logical conclusions to get in the way.
You realise everyone who has ever built anything in real life is wondering wtf you are blabbing about, right?No, they are wondering what you are going on about.
It is obvious to any normal person that you are a liar.No you haven't.
I have highlighted and provided links in my last post to prove where you are lying regarding the video of the selenelion Lunar Eclipse I posted.
What qualifications or authority do you have that supersedes space.comIf you want to make an appeal to authority then you have already lost. What qualifications or authority do you have to go against all the worlds scientists and various organisations which claim Earth is round and provide evidence and arguments for that?
I have already asked you" who " exactly has seen the alleged dark side of the moon and you refuse to answer.No I didn't. I wanted you to clarify. Did you mean the dark side or the far side? They are 2 very different things but people will often use them interchangeably.
I have already asked you to provide video footage of the alleged dark side of the moon and you refuse to comply .When did I say there was video footage?
You now claim that anyone that has observed the moon for a " decent " period of time has seen the Moon rotate.That will depend upon how much you want to be able to see it rotate.
Can you please specify what a " decent " period of time is.
Can you please provide some video evidence of the moon rotating for a " decent " period of time to back up your fantastic claims so the readers can verify this alleged Moon rotation you speak of.Again, I'm not the one making fantastic claims. That would be you.
You will not be able to provide any video evidence of this Moon rotation you speak of.Except I already did remember, in the form of a gif, which you just ignored.
So yet again you are refusing to provide any evidence whatsoever to back up your fantastic claims that have never been verified.Again, I'm not the one making fantastic unverified claims.
Your Heliocentric model does not reflect what can be observed in reality and as such it is not acceptable.Again, it is your pathetic strawman of the HC model which doesn't reflect reality.
No, they aren't. Challenge is still on, how do you measure the height of the tower? With your measurement tape?Weaponised idiot JackBlack thinks that science is possible without starting from accurate measurements...So, you have a quite a high tower(surely over 50 meters) and you have your measurement tape. How do you measure height of the tower? Climbing on it and moving your measurement tape up lenght by lenght? You realize that this is definitely idiots way and all who see it are ROFL'ing
You realise everyone who has ever built anything in real life is wondering wtf you are blabbing about, right?
So you DO have a tape measure long enough to reach a star, do you?Why would we need one.Cos if you don't then you're just making mad shit up about tiny lights in the sky nobody normal gives a fuck about, aintcha, weaponised idiot REtard?Or I am a rational person that realises a measuring tape isn't the only way to measure something.Don't let me and my logical conclusions get in the way!I am yet to see you provide anything remotely resembling logic, so it would be pretty hard for your non-existent logical conclusions to get in the way.You realise everyone who has ever built anything in real life is wondering wtf you are blabbing about, right?No, they are wondering what you are going on about.
Almost everyone that has built things in real life, at least large scale things, isn't using a tape measure to measure everything. Only a complete retard would try that.
Almost everyone that has built things in real life, at least large scale things, isn't using a tape measure to measure everything. Only a complete retard would try that.
No, I am stating for a FACT that we cannot possibly know the luminosity of an object billions and billions of miles away AT SOURCE because we have no means of getting to it AT SOURCE in order to measure it AT SOURCE...
No, I am stating for a FACT that we cannot possibly know the luminosity of an object billions and billions of miles away AT SOURCE because we have no means of getting to it AT SOURCE in order to measure it AT SOURCE...
Lol. I just posted a load of unprovable mathemagical bullshit some autist pulled out his arse. Lol.
Lol. Fixed that for you. Lol<< Irrelevant garbage deleted >><< Irrelevant garbage deleted >>Lol. I just posted how you can tell the absolute luminosity of Cepheid variables. Lol.
No, they aren't. Challenge is still on, how do you measure the height of the tower? With your measurement tape?Weaponised idiot JackBlack thinks that science is possible without starting from accurate measurements...So, you have a quite a high tower(surely over 50 meters) and you have your measurement tape. How do you measure height of the tower? Climbing on it and moving your measurement tape up lenght by lenght? You realize that this is definitely idiots way and all who see it are ROFL'ing
You realise everyone who has ever built anything in real life is wondering wtf you are blabbing about, right?
Every individual piece of the tower would be individually measured to the millimetre during construction in order for it to comply with the design specification.I asked how do you measure the tower which is already built and you don't have any info about its height. But as you go in that way that we already have info about height of every building then lets take some high tree. Or some other high object which is not built by man. You climb up on it and measure it with measuring tape? And are you Legba's sockpuppet that you are answering instead of him? Or is there really a reason to notify mods that RiF and PL and same person.
We now have a fully verified measurement that is exact to the millimetre.
No, I am stating for a FACT that we cannot possibly know the luminosity of an object billions and billions of miles away AT SOURCE because we have no means of getting to it AT SOURCE in order to measure it AT SOURCE...
Lol. I just posted a load of unprovable mathemagical bullshit some autist pulled out his arse. Lol.
Lol. Fixed that for you. Lol
No, I am stating for a FACT that we cannot possibly know the luminosity of an object billions and billions of miles away AT SOURCE because we have no means of getting to it AT SOURCE in order to measure it AT SOURCE...
Lol. I just posted a load of unprovable mathemagical bullshit some autist pulled out his arse. Lol.
Lol. Fixed that for you. Lol
Lol. It didn't contain any math at all. But no math at all probably is still too much math for you to undestand. Lol.
No, I am stating for a FACT that we cannot possibly know the luminosity of an object billions and billions of miles away AT SOURCE because we have no means of getting to it AT SOURCE in order to measure it AT SOURCE...
Lol. I just posted a load of unprovable mathemagical bullshit some autist pulled out his arse. Lol.
Lol. Fixed that for you. Lol
Lol. It didn't contain any math at all. But no math at all probably is still too much math for you to undestand. Lol.
Definitely Not Disputeone ::)
Every individual piece of the tower would be individually measured to the millimetre during construction in order for it to comply with the design specification.I asked how do you measure the tower which is already built and you don't have any info about its height. But as you go in that way that we already have info about height of every building then lets take some high tree. Or some other high object which is not built by man. You climb up on it and measure it with measuring tape? And are you Legba's sockpuppet that you are answering instead of him? Or is there really a reason to noify mods that RiF and PL and same person.
We now have a fully verified measurement that is exact to the millimetre.
Every individual piece of the tower would be individually measured to the millimetre during construction in order for it to comply with the design specification.I asked how do you measure the tower which is already built and you don't have any info about its height. But as you go in that way that we already have info about height of every building then lets take some high tree. Or some other high object which is not built by man. You climb up on it and measure it with measuring tape? And are you Legba's sockpuppet that you are answering instead of him? Or is there really a reason to notify mods that RiF and PL and same person.
We now have a fully verified measurement that is exact to the millimetre.
It is obvious to anyone that reads this that has experience or is educated in manufacturing or engineering and construction that you are a delusional liar.No, it isn't.
In reality everything is measured to the millimetre you liar.
No. I will not provide evidence for your pathetic strawman.Almost everyone that has built things in real life, at least large scale things, isn't using a tape measure to measure everything. Only a complete retard would try that.This statement is a complete nonsense REtard it would seem you are an expert on everything this is because you suffer from delusion's of grandeur.
Can you provide evidence that proves this fantastic claim that things that are built on a large scale are not measured?
Where is the REtard liar known as Jack Black ?I have wiped the floor with you, repeatedly.
Jack Black who has delusion's of grandeur.
Jack Black who is a proven liar.
Jack Black who said he would wipe the floor with me.
Jack Black who is an expert on everything.
Before manufacture every piece of the tower would be designed to the millimetre.Firstly, you are wrong. You don't have a measure that is exact to the millimetre.
The different pieces of the tower would be added together during design so an overall height could be determined.
Every piece of the tower would be fabricated to the millimetre.
Every individual piece of the tower would be individually measured to the millimetre during construction in order for it to comply with the design specification.
We now have a fully verified measurement that is exact to the millimetre.
You are lying the readers can verify by reading the quote in my post and by reading your post that you asked how to measure a tower.Nope. By viewing the quote and following it back to the original question it is clear that the tower is already in existence and not one that is being constructed.
I explained how this would be achieved.
Are you on about this shit, REtard?Yes, that is one thing we are on about, using angles and known distances to determine a length, a method of determining a length that doesn't require a tape measure.
http://www.instructables.com/id/Using-a-clinometer-to-measure-height/
Cos if you are, you'll notice that you need to know your distance from the object before its height can be calculated...Unfortunately it seems that way.
And how do you find that distance?
That's right, with a TAPE MEASURE!
So we're right back where we started ain't we?
Do you have a tape measure long enough to reach a star?No, We don't need one.
Where is the REtard liar known as Jack Black ?Learning to spell and to use proper grammar would make your posts look a little less as though they were written by the village idiot. Try:
Jack Black who has delusion's of grandeur.
Jack Black who is a proven liar.
You are nothing but a fatasist who tells lies to justify his religion.
Psychology Of Hatred Part II: Projection & Projective IdentificationLiars And Cheaters Worry The Most About Being Lied To And Cheated On (http://elitedaily.com/dating/liars-and-cheaters-worry-most/1053920/)
But in the real world, the defense mechanisms are a little more elaborate. For another example of a defense , let's look at "projection," and we are all familiar with this.
1) The angry person accuses someone else being angry
2) A liar accuses others of lying
3) The cheater accuses others of cheating
4) The thief accuses others of stealing (Notice how the thief is not accusing others of lying? No he's obsessed with only his own sins.)
From: Psychology Of Hatred Part II: Projection & Projective Identification (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/5/12/1187645/-Psychology-Of-Hatred-Part-II-Projection-Projective-Identification)
How about a synopsis before I click on something you saw on the interweb.
It's certainly some whack-job flatwad fucktard kunspeerisah video....
I have yet to se ANY logical flat earth explanation for a solar eclpse... At least not one that doesn't blow big holes in some other flattie model.
http://www.instructables.com/id/Using-a-clinometer-to-measure-height/That is irrelevant. You don't use tape measure for height. You calculate it. And you claimed that you must measure all things on source. As your example shows you don't. And before you say anything, I can measure the distance to the object also without measuring it with tape measure using analogous triangle method. I can also measure the distance from me to the top of the tower. That means I can measure all things I want without going at the source. Case closed. Go and simulate Steve Bannon quietly. Or noisily.
Cos if you are, you'll notice that you need to know your distance from the object before its height can be calculated...
And how do you find that distance?
That's right, with a TAPE MEASURE!
Yes, a tower. Which stands there. And its 100% sure that you didn't built it because its already there and you see it first time. This "... which you didn't built" is silently included and it does not need to be specified specifically.Every individual piece of the tower would be individually measured to the millimetre during construction in order for it to comply with the design specification.I asked how do you measure the tower which is already built and you don't have any info about its height. But as you go in that way that we already have info about height of every building then lets take some high tree. Or some other high object which is not built by man. You climb up on it and measure it with measuring tape? And are you Legba's sockpuppet that you are answering instead of him? Or is there really a reason to noify mods that RiF and PL and same person.
We now have a fully verified measurement that is exact to the millimetre.
You are lying the readers can verify by reading the quote in my post and by reading your post that you asked how to measure a tower.
I explained how this would be achieved.No, you didn't. You said that you are going to build a tower and in process of that you measure it. I said that there is already a tower and asked how are you going to measure it. You left this question unanswered.
No, you didn't. You said that you are going to build a tower and in process of that you measure it. I said that there is already a tower and asked how are you going to measure it. You left this question unanswered.Maybe you should have asked him how to measure the height of a mountain above sea level.
It is obvious to anyone that reads this that has experience or is educated in manufacturing or engineering and construction that you are a delusional liar.No, it isn't.
In reality everything is measured to the millimetre you liar.
For some things 1mm would be far too much error.
For others, it wouldn't matter at all.
Different things have different tolerances.
But most importantly, you ignore the key point:
NOT EVERYTHING IS MEASURED WITH A TAPE MEASURE!!!
Do you understand that?
Everyone that has any decent experience in manufacturing or engineering or has any real education on them know this.No. I will not provide evidence for your pathetic strawman.Almost everyone that has built things in real life, at least large scale things, isn't using a tape measure to measure everything. Only a complete retard would try that.This statement is a complete nonsense REtard it would seem you are an expert on everything this is because you suffer from delusion's of grandeur.
Can you provide evidence that proves this fantastic claim that things that are built on a large scale are not measured?
I said they are not measured with a measuring tape. That is quite a different claim to they are not measured.
Do you understand the difference?
We have different tools at our disposal.
A tape is not the only tool.
Quite often in modern construction they will use lasers to measure distances and angles.Where is the REtard liar known as Jack Black ?I have wiped the floor with you, repeatedly.
Jack Black who has delusion's of grandeur.
Jack Black who is a proven liar.
Jack Black who said he would wipe the floor with me.
Jack Black who is an expert on everything.
You are yet to prove anything except that you are a pathetic, ignorant troll.Before manufacture every piece of the tower would be designed to the millimetre.Firstly, you are wrong. You don't have a measure that is exact to the millimetre.
The different pieces of the tower would be added together during design so an overall height could be determined.
Every piece of the tower would be fabricated to the millimetre.
Every individual piece of the tower would be individually measured to the millimetre during construction in order for it to comply with the design specification.
We now have a fully verified measurement that is exact to the millimetre.
If you have an error of 0.5 mm in each piece and you have 100 pieces, then the error would be 50 mm in total.
Regardless, you have just shown that the tower does not need to be measured with a measuring tape to know its height. Instead you can use something else as a method of measure.You are lying the readers can verify by reading the quote in my post and by reading your post that you asked how to measure a tower.Nope. By viewing the quote and following it back to the original question it is clear that the tower is already in existence and not one that is being constructed.
I explained how this would be achieved.
The question is how you measure the height of a tower, not how do you confirm the height of a tower as it is constructed.
So no, they can see you are the liar here, just like most times.
Quite often in modern construction they will use lasers to measure distances and angles.
Almost everyone that has built things in real life, at least large scale things, isn't using a tape measure to measure everything. Only a complete retard would try that.
No. I will not provide evidence for your pathetic strawman.
I have wiped the floor with you, repeatedly.
So no, they can see you are the liar here, just like most times
<snip>Commercial laser equipment is accurate to ±1.0 mm over a range of 300 m and angles at ±5 arc seconds over a range of 274 m. Very accurate and these are not even the best there is.
This is a lie.
Anyone that has worked in construction will know lasers only provide a rough measurement.
Anyone that has worked in construction knows lasers are used for a guide for example to use as a straight edge or as a level.
You talk nonsense.
<snip>
Jerimiah 5 : 21You can keep your religious BS to yourself.I do not find your nonesensical explanation satisfactory.And I don't give a shit what you "find".
You are unable to point out a single thing wrong with my explanation.Let's look at the facts:Except these aren't facts at all.
No one has ever seen the dark side of the Moon.
No one will ever see the dark side of the moon.
No one has ever seen the moon rotate.
No one will ever see the moon rotate.
This is because the dark side of the moon does not exist and this is because the moon does not rotate.
People have seen the dark side of the moon and people have seen the far side of the moon and people have seen the moon rotate.
There is a dark side and the moon does rotate.You expect people to believe your nonsensical fabrications that reinforce your heliocentric deception and ignore their own observations when you have no evidence that prove the above.No, that would be you. You spout pure bullshit without any evidence at all.Here is a description of the lunar eclipse on your model.That would be during a new moon, not a full moon.
How is it possible as you claim ; for the light reflected from the earth to illuminate the Moon ?
It is light scattered by the atmosphere that illuminates the moon during a lunar eclipse, which is also why it is red.The Sun is illuminating the opposite side of the earth regarding the position of the moon this can be verified as the lunar eclipse happens during the" night "of the full moon.It is also "illuminating" the air, which scatters light, including towards the moon.You claim the selenelion eclipse in the video I linked was not a real selenelion eclipse.No, it is clear it is not a selenelion eclipse.
However :
It is clear that you are a liar and know no bounds when it comes to defending your Strange Heliocentric Religion.
You cannot observe the fully eclipsed moon and fully rising sun at the same time.
Instead you get the fully eclipsed moon as the sky starts lighting up from the sun's light.How is it possible for this selenelion eclipse to take place on your heliocentric model when the readers can observe from the video footage that the sun is visible in the Sky at the same time as the moon so there is definitely NO syzygy.I already explained that. Why should I repeat myself when you just ignore it.Your model does not reflect what is observed in reality and as such it is incorrect and therefore not acceptable.No, the currently accepted model does accurately reflect reality. Your pathetic strawmen of it don't.The Lunar eclipse is caused by an object the ancients called Ketu .No, the lunar eclipse is caused by Earth's shadow, the solar eclipse is caused by the moon's shadow.
The Solar eclipse is caused by an object the ancients called Rahu.
Except these aren't facts at all.
People have seen the dark side of the moon and people have seen the far side of the moon and people have seen the moon rotate.
There is a dark side and the moon does rotate.
No, it is clear it is not a selenelion eclipse.
No, the currently accepted model does accurately reflect reality. Your pathetic strawmen of it don't.
You claim people have seen the dark side of the moon.The moon is currently in its waxing gibbous phase. That means that all anyone needs to do is look at the crescent moon to see part of its dark side.
I have asked you repeatedly exactly who has seen the dark side of the moon and you can't provide any evidence.
<snip>Commercial laser equipment is accurate to ±1.0 mm over a range of 300 m and angles at ±5 arc seconds over a range of 274 m. Very accurate and these are not even the best there is.
This is a lie.
Anyone that has worked in construction will know lasers only provide a rough measurement.
Anyone that has worked in construction knows lasers are used for a guide for example to use as a straight edge or as a level.
You talk nonsense.
<snip>
http://www.engineersupply.com/LaserLine-Quad-1000-Precision-Zenith-Plumb-Laser.aspx
http://www.engineersupply.com/Leica-DISTO-S910-and-TRI-200-Pro-Pack-6010741.aspx
So, either you’re the liar or incompetent at research.
Mike
You claim people have seen the moon rotate I have asked you repeatedly exactly who has seen the moon rotate and you can't provide any evidence.
I have asked you repeatedly exactly who has seen the dark side of the moon and you can't provide any evidence.
It is now 2017.
In 2017 we expect to see video evidence.
<snip>Commercial laser equipment is accurate to ±1.0 mm over a range of 300 m and angles at ±5 arc seconds over a range of 274 m. Very accurate and these are not even the best there is.
This is a lie.
Anyone that has worked in construction will know lasers only provide a rough measurement.
Anyone that has worked in construction knows lasers are used for a guide for example to use as a straight edge or as a level.
You talk nonsense.
<snip>
http://www.engineersupply.com/LaserLine-Quad-1000-Precision-Zenith-Plumb-Laser.aspx
http://www.engineersupply.com/Leica-DISTO-S910-and-TRI-200-Pro-Pack-6010741.aspx
So, either you’re the liar or incompetent at research.
Mike
Research ?
I have worked in construction you liar.
Have you worked in construction and used a laser instead of a tape measure?
As I have said you can say and claim what you want but anyone who has worked in construction will know that you and your colleugues are lying and just repeat what you have been told from the position of an expert.
You have been proven to be wrong in your claimed specialist field of communications so why should anyone take your word on something you have no experience of.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
You claim people have seen the dark side of the moon.The moon is currently in its waxing gibbous phase. That means that all anyone needs to do is look at the crescent moon to see part of its dark side.
I have asked you repeatedly exactly who has seen the dark side of the moon and you can't provide any evidence.
That means that all anyone needs to do is look at the crescent moon to see part of its dark side.
You do not see surveyors using tape measures, now it's GPS and lasers.<snip>Commercial laser equipment is accurate to ±1.0 mm over a range of 300 m and angles at ±5 arc seconds over a range of 274 m. Very accurate and these are not even the best there is.
This is a lie.
Anyone that has worked in construction will know lasers only provide a rough measurement.
Anyone that has worked in construction knows lasers are used for a guide for example to use as a straight edge or as a level.
You talk nonsense.
<snip>
http://www.engineersupply.com/LaserLine-Quad-1000-Precision-Zenith-Plumb-Laser.aspx
http://www.engineersupply.com/Leica-DISTO-S910-and-TRI-200-Pro-Pack-6010741.aspx
So, either you’re the liar or incompetent at research.
Mike
Research ?
I have worked in construction you liar.
Have you worked in construction and used a laser instead of a tape measure?
As I have said you can say and claim what you want but anyone who has worked in construction will know that you and your colleugues are lying and just repeat what you have been told from the position of an expert.
You have been proven to be wrong in your claimed specialist field of communications so why should anyone take your word on something you have no experience of.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
You claim people have seen the moon rotate I have asked you repeatedly exactly who has seen the moon rotate and you can't provide any evidence.
Apparently you can't count to one.
I have asked you repeatedly exactly who has seen the dark side of the moon and you can't provide any evidence.
It is now 2017.
In 2017 we expect to see video evidence.
(http://i.imgur.com/gLG480B.jpg)
You do not see surveyors using tape measures, now it's GPS and lasers.<snip>Commercial laser equipment is accurate to ±1.0 mm over a range of 300 m and angles at ±5 arc seconds over a range of 274 m. Very accurate and these are not even the best there is.
This is a lie.
Anyone that has worked in construction will know lasers only provide a rough measurement.
Anyone that has worked in construction knows lasers are used for a guide for example to use as a straight edge or as a level.
You talk nonsense.
<snip>
http://www.engineersupply.com/LaserLine-Quad-1000-Precision-Zenith-Plumb-Laser.aspx
http://www.engineersupply.com/Leica-DISTO-S910-and-TRI-200-Pro-Pack-6010741.aspx
So, either you’re the liar or incompetent at research.
Mike
Research ?
I have worked in construction you liar.
Have you worked in construction and used a laser instead of a tape measure?
As I have said you can say and claim what you want but anyone who has worked in construction will know that you and your colleugues are lying and just repeat what you have been told from the position of an expert.
You have been proven to be wrong in your claimed specialist field of communications so why should anyone take your word on something you have no experience of.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
You keep saying that “anyone who has worked in construction will know” what the truth is when it comes to using lasers in construction. Yet, you provide nothing to back up any of those claims and call anyone who says anything contrary a liar even when they provides corroborating links.<snip>Commercial laser equipment is accurate to ±1.0 mm over a range of 300 m and angles at ±5 arc seconds over a range of 274 m. Very accurate and these are not even the best there is.
This is a lie.
Anyone that has worked in construction will know lasers only provide a rough measurement.
Anyone that has worked in construction knows lasers are used for a guide for example to use as a straight edge or as a level.
You talk nonsense.
<snip>
http://www.engineersupply.com/LaserLine-Quad-1000-Precision-Zenith-Plumb-Laser.aspx
http://www.engineersupply.com/Leica-DISTO-S910-and-TRI-200-Pro-Pack-6010741.aspx
So, either you’re the liar or incompetent at research.
Mike
Research ?
I have worked in construction you liar.
Have you worked in construction and used a laser instead of a tape measure?
As I have said you can say and claim what you want but anyone who has worked in construction will know that you and your colleugues are lying and just repeat what you have been told from the position of an expert.
You have been proven to be wrong in your claimed specialist field of communications so why should anyone take your word on something you have no experience of.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
So is this thread still about I.i.B. desperately trying to debunk the Globe by the most recent eclipse?
As of now the only evidence in here is about his ability of moving goalposts, why the hell are we discussing tape measures now? :-\
Because these REtards speak from the position of an expert in regard to any subject.I am really glad that you acknowledge this fact.
You keep saying that “anyone who has worked in construction will know” what the truth is when it comes to using lasers in construction. Yet, you provide nothing to back up any of those claims and call anyone who says anything contrary a liar even when they provides corroborating links.<snip>Commercial laser equipment is accurate to ±1.0 mm over a range of 300 m and angles at ±5 arc seconds over a range of 274 m. Very accurate and these are not even the best there is.
This is a lie.
Anyone that has worked in construction will know lasers only provide a rough measurement.
Anyone that has worked in construction knows lasers are used for a guide for example to use as a straight edge or as a level.
You talk nonsense.
<snip>
http://www.engineersupply.com/LaserLine-Quad-1000-Precision-Zenith-Plumb-Laser.aspx
http://www.engineersupply.com/Leica-DISTO-S910-and-TRI-200-Pro-Pack-6010741.aspx
So, either you’re the liar or incompetent at research.
Mike
Research ?
I have worked in construction you liar.
Have you worked in construction and used a laser instead of a tape measure?
As I have said you can say and claim what you want but anyone who has worked in construction will know that you and your colleugues are lying and just repeat what you have been told from the position of an expert.
You have been proven to be wrong in your claimed specialist field of communications so why should anyone take your word on something you have no experience of.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
However, I am familiar with using precision laser measuring equipment in a certain type of construction. This type of equipment is in use all over the world in construction of sea going vessels and aircraft.
Here are a few examples. Every one of these links shows how laser systems are used in precision linear and angle measurements and 3d modeling even over long distances.
http://www.oasisalignment.com/shipbuilding-and-naval-architecture/
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/1016801.pdf
https://eastcoastmetrology.com/industry-applications/shipbuilding/
https://www.spar3d.com/news/related-new-technologies/shipbuilding-3d-laser-scanning-for-acquisition-maintenance-modernization-damage-assessment/
https://pinpointlaser.com/industries/
Now, unless you can show some up to date contradictory information, I have provided proof that these systems are very accurate and are in use in large scale industrial settings. Continue to call me a liar but everyone here knows the truth. All they have to do is see who is willing to back up their comments.
Mike
I provided links showing lasers are used in precision construction. You provide no proof for your claims, no proof of inaccuracies, no corroboration what so ever and yet call me a liar. Interesting.You keep saying that “anyone who has worked in construction will know” what the truth is when it comes to using lasers in construction. Yet, you provide nothing to back up any of those claims and call anyone who says anything contrary a liar even when they provides corroborating links.<snip>Commercial laser equipment is accurate to ±1.0 mm over a range of 300 m and angles at ±5 arc seconds over a range of 274 m. Very accurate and these are not even the best there is.
This is a lie.
Anyone that has worked in construction will know lasers only provide a rough measurement.
Anyone that has worked in construction knows lasers are used for a guide for example to use as a straight edge or as a level.
You talk nonsense.
<snip>
http://www.engineersupply.com/LaserLine-Quad-1000-Precision-Zenith-Plumb-Laser.aspx
http://www.engineersupply.com/Leica-DISTO-S910-and-TRI-200-Pro-Pack-6010741.aspx
So, either you’re the liar or incompetent at research.
Mike
Research ?
I have worked in construction you liar.
Have you worked in construction and used a laser instead of a tape measure?
As I have said you can say and claim what you want but anyone who has worked in construction will know that you and your colleugues are lying and just repeat what you have been told from the position of an expert.
You have been proven to be wrong in your claimed specialist field of communications so why should anyone take your word on something you have no experience of.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
However, I am familiar with using precision laser measuring equipment in a certain type of construction. This type of equipment is in use all over the world in construction of sea going vessels and aircraft.
Here are a few examples. Every one of these links shows how laser systems are used in precision linear and angle measurements and 3d modeling even over long distances.
http://www.oasisalignment.com/shipbuilding-and-naval-architecture/
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/1016801.pdf
https://eastcoastmetrology.com/industry-applications/shipbuilding/
https://www.spar3d.com/news/related-new-technologies/shipbuilding-3d-laser-scanning-for-acquisition-maintenance-modernization-damage-assessment/
https://pinpointlaser.com/industries/
Now, unless you can show some up to date contradictory information, I have provided proof that these systems are very accurate and are in use in large scale industrial settings. Continue to call me a liar but everyone here knows the truth. All they have to do is see who is willing to back up their comments.
Mike
I do not need to provide any proof .
As I have said anyone that has worked in construction will know I'm telling the truth and that you are not.
I have nothing to prove if the readers choose to believe you then so be it.
The fact of the matter is that anyone who has experience in this field or that has reas the thread on satellites will know you are a liar.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
When you find yourself in a hole, you should stop digging.You keep saying that “anyone who has worked in construction will know” what the truth is when it comes to using lasers in construction. Yet, you provide nothing to back up any of those claims and call anyone who says anything contrary a liar even when they provides corroborating links.<snip>Commercial laser equipment is accurate to ±1.0 mm over a range of 300 m and angles at ±5 arc seconds over a range of 274 m. Very accurate and these are not even the best there is.
This is a lie.
Anyone that has worked in construction will know lasers only provide a rough measurement.
Anyone that has worked in construction knows lasers are used for a guide for example to use as a straight edge or as a level.
You talk nonsense.
<snip>
http://www.engineersupply.com/LaserLine-Quad-1000-Precision-Zenith-Plumb-Laser.aspx
http://www.engineersupply.com/Leica-DISTO-S910-and-TRI-200-Pro-Pack-6010741.aspx
So, either you’re the liar or incompetent at research.
Mike
Research ?
I have worked in construction you liar.
Have you worked in construction and used a laser instead of a tape measure?
As I have said you can say and claim what you want but anyone who has worked in construction will know that you and your colleugues are lying and just repeat what you have been told from the position of an expert.
You have been proven to be wrong in your claimed specialist field of communications so why should anyone take your word on something you have no experience of.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
However, I am familiar with using precision laser measuring equipment in a certain type of construction. This type of equipment is in use all over the world in construction of sea going vessels and aircraft.
Here are a few examples. Every one of these links shows how laser systems are used in precision linear and angle measurements and 3d modeling even over long distances.
http://www.oasisalignment.com/shipbuilding-and-naval-architecture/
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/1016801.pdf
https://eastcoastmetrology.com/industry-applications/shipbuilding/
https://www.spar3d.com/news/related-new-technologies/shipbuilding-3d-laser-scanning-for-acquisition-maintenance-modernization-damage-assessment/
https://pinpointlaser.com/industries/
Now, unless you can show some up to date contradictory information, I have provided proof that these systems are very accurate and are in use in large scale industrial settings. Continue to call me a liar but everyone here knows the truth. All they have to do is see who is willing to back up their comments.
Mike
I do not need to provide any proof .
As I have said anyone that has worked in construction will know I'm telling the truth and that you are not.
I have nothing to prove if the readers choose to believe you then so be it.
The fact of the matter is that anyone who has experience in this field or that has reas the thread on satellites will know you are a liar.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
When you find yourself in a hole, you should stop digging.You keep saying that “anyone who has worked in construction will know” what the truth is when it comes to using lasers in construction. Yet, you provide nothing to back up any of those claims and call anyone who says anything contrary a liar even when they provides corroborating links.<snip>Commercial laser equipment is accurate to ±1.0 mm over a range of 300 m and angles at ±5 arc seconds over a range of 274 m. Very accurate and these are not even the best there is.
This is a lie.
Anyone that has worked in construction will know lasers only provide a rough measurement.
Anyone that has worked in construction knows lasers are used for a guide for example to use as a straight edge or as a level.
You talk nonsense.
<snip>
http://www.engineersupply.com/LaserLine-Quad-1000-Precision-Zenith-Plumb-Laser.aspx
http://www.engineersupply.com/Leica-DISTO-S910-and-TRI-200-Pro-Pack-6010741.aspx
So, either you’re the liar or incompetent at research.
Mike
Research ?
I have worked in construction you liar.
Have you worked in construction and used a laser instead of a tape measure?
As I have said you can say and claim what you want but anyone who has worked in construction will know that you and your colleugues are lying and just repeat what you have been told from the position of an expert.
You have been proven to be wrong in your claimed specialist field of communications so why should anyone take your word on something you have no experience of.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
However, I am familiar with using precision laser measuring equipment in a certain type of construction. This type of equipment is in use all over the world in construction of sea going vessels and aircraft.
Here are a few examples. Every one of these links shows how laser systems are used in precision linear and angle measurements and 3d modeling even over long distances.
http://www.oasisalignment.com/shipbuilding-and-naval-architecture/
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/1016801.pdf
https://eastcoastmetrology.com/industry-applications/shipbuilding/
https://www.spar3d.com/news/related-new-technologies/shipbuilding-3d-laser-scanning-for-acquisition-maintenance-modernization-damage-assessment/
https://pinpointlaser.com/industries/
Now, unless you can show some up to date contradictory information, I have provided proof that these systems are very accurate and are in use in large scale industrial settings. Continue to call me a liar but everyone here knows the truth. All they have to do is see who is willing to back up their comments.
Mike
I do not need to provide any proof .
As I have said anyone that has worked in construction will know I'm telling the truth and that you are not.
I have nothing to prove if the readers choose to believe you then so be it.
The fact of the matter is that anyone who has experience in this field or that has reas the thread on satellites will know you are a liar.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Mike proved your statement about using lasers to measure wrong, no question about it. Of course you ignore his proof because it disagrees with you and you cannot possibly be wrong.
But do you back off even a little? No you double down and say you don't need proof because everyone knows... whatever it is your trying to convey there.
Truly great stuff. Good trolling. Have a cookie.
The Globe has been debunked end of.
Jerimiah 5 : 21You can keep your religious BS to yourself.I do not find your nonesensical explanation satisfactory.And I don't give a shit what you "find".
You are unable to point out a single thing wrong with my explanation.Let's look at the facts:Except these aren't facts at all.
No one has ever seen the dark side of the Moon.
No one will ever see the dark side of the moon.
No one has ever seen the moon rotate.
No one will ever see the moon rotate.
This is because the dark side of the moon does not exist and this is because the moon does not rotate.
People have seen the dark side of the moon and people have seen the far side of the moon and people have seen the moon rotate.
There is a dark side and the moon does rotate.You expect people to believe your nonsensical fabrications that reinforce your heliocentric deception and ignore their own observations when you have no evidence that prove the above.No, that would be you. You spout pure bullshit without any evidence at all.Here is a description of the lunar eclipse on your model.That would be during a new moon, not a full moon.
How is it possible as you claim ; for the light reflected from the earth to illuminate the Moon ?
It is light scattered by the atmosphere that illuminates the moon during a lunar eclipse, which is also why it is red.The Sun is illuminating the opposite side of the earth regarding the position of the moon this can be verified as the lunar eclipse happens during the" night "of the full moon.It is also "illuminating" the air, which scatters light, including towards the moon.You claim the selenelion eclipse in the video I linked was not a real selenelion eclipse.No, it is clear it is not a selenelion eclipse.
However :
It is clear that you are a liar and know no bounds when it comes to defending your Strange Heliocentric Religion.
You cannot observe the fully eclipsed moon and fully rising sun at the same time.
Instead you get the fully eclipsed moon as the sky starts lighting up from the sun's light.How is it possible for this selenelion eclipse to take place on your heliocentric model when the readers can observe from the video footage that the sun is visible in the Sky at the same time as the moon so there is definitely NO syzygy.I already explained that. Why should I repeat myself when you just ignore it.Your model does not reflect what is observed in reality and as such it is incorrect and therefore not acceptable.No, the currently accepted model does accurately reflect reality. Your pathetic strawmen of it don't.The Lunar eclipse is caused by an object the ancients called Ketu .No, the lunar eclipse is caused by Earth's shadow, the solar eclipse is caused by the moon's shadow.
The Solar eclipse is caused by an object the ancients called Rahu.
Except these aren't facts at all.
People have seen the dark side of the moon and people have seen the far side of the moon and people have seen the moon rotate.
There is a dark side and the moon does rotate.
No, it is clear it is not a selenelion eclipse.
No, the currently accepted model does accurately reflect reality. Your pathetic strawmen of it don't.
Lasers used for levelling as a start.When you find yourself in a hole, you should stop digging.You keep saying that “anyone who has worked in construction will know” what the truth is when it comes to using lasers in construction. Yet, you provide nothing to back up any of those claims and call anyone who says anything contrary a liar even when they provides corroborating links.<snip>Commercial laser equipment is accurate to ±1.0 mm over a range of 300 m and angles at ±5 arc seconds over a range of 274 m. Very accurate and these are not even the best there is.
This is a lie.
Anyone that has worked in construction will know lasers only provide a rough measurement.
Anyone that has worked in construction knows lasers are used for a guide for example to use as a straight edge or as a level.
You talk nonsense.
<snip>
http://www.engineersupply.com/LaserLine-Quad-1000-Precision-Zenith-Plumb-Laser.aspx
http://www.engineersupply.com/Leica-DISTO-S910-and-TRI-200-Pro-Pack-6010741.aspx
So, either you’re the liar or incompetent at research.
Mike
Research ?
I have worked in construction you liar.
Have you worked in construction and used a laser instead of a tape measure?
As I have said you can say and claim what you want but anyone who has worked in construction will know that you and your colleugues are lying and just repeat what you have been told from the position of an expert.
You have been proven to be wrong in your claimed specialist field of communications so why should anyone take your word on something you have no experience of.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
However, I am familiar with using precision laser measuring equipment in a certain type of construction. This type of equipment is in use all over the world in construction of sea going vessels and aircraft.
Here are a few examples. Every one of these links shows how laser systems are used in precision linear and angle measurements and 3d modeling even over long distances.
http://www.oasisalignment.com/shipbuilding-and-naval-architecture/
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/1016801.pdf
https://eastcoastmetrology.com/industry-applications/shipbuilding/
https://www.spar3d.com/news/related-new-technologies/shipbuilding-3d-laser-scanning-for-acquisition-maintenance-modernization-damage-assessment/
https://pinpointlaser.com/industries/
Now, unless you can show some up to date contradictory information, I have provided proof that these systems are very accurate and are in use in large scale industrial settings. Continue to call me a liar but everyone here knows the truth. All they have to do is see who is willing to back up their comments.
Mike
I do not need to provide any proof .
As I have said anyone that has worked in construction will know I'm telling the truth and that you are not.
I have nothing to prove if the readers choose to believe you then so be it.
The fact of the matter is that anyone who has experience in this field or that has reas the thread on satellites will know you are a liar.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Mike proved your statement about using lasers to measure wrong, no question about it. Of course you ignore his proof because it disagrees with you and you cannot possibly be wrong.
But do you back off even a little? No you double down and say you don't need proof because everyone knows... whatever it is your trying to convey there.
Truly great stuff. Good trolling. Have a cookie.
What are you talking about ?
I suggest you go to a building site and ask the people who work in construction there how many of them use a laser for their measurements.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Apparently you don't know what evidence is REtard.
I think that any number of firefighters (especially ones fighting wildfires) would disagree with that video's assertion that sunlight diminishes bonfires.You claim people have seen the dark side of the moon.The moon is currently in its waxing gibbous phase. That means that all anyone needs to do is look at the crescent moon to see part of its dark side.
I have asked you repeatedly exactly who has seen the dark side of the moon and you can't provide any evidence.
No you speak nonsense and are incorrect Paul.
It is not the dark side of the moon that is observed ; it is the sky.
The video's below illustrates this fact.
No. The reason that it's called the "dark side" is because too many people did too many drugs while listening to Pink Floyd.
That means that all anyone needs to do is look at the crescent moon to see part of its dark side.
This statement is a contradiction in it's own rite .
The reason it is referred to as the dark side of the moon is because it is not visible.
So it is not possible to observe this alleged dark side you speak of.The "dark side" that I refer to is the part of the moon that is not illuminated and is observed by anyone willing to look at the moon. The "dark side" that most people refer to is more properly called the "far side" and has been personally observed by the astronauts of Apollo 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17. It has also been extensively photographed and mapped by a number of lunar orbiters.
You are incorrect and you speak nonsense.You keep asserting that kind of BS, but have been unable to prove any of it.
You are a liar.
Are you an expert in construction now as well?
Nope. That is complete factual truth, something you seem to be unable to provide.Quite often in modern construction they will use lasers to measure distances and angles.This is a lie.
Anyone that has worked in construction will know lasers only provide a rough measurement.
Anyone that has worked in construction knows lasers are used for a guide for example to use as a straight edge or as a level.
You talk nonsense.
You don't speak from experience.
You just make things up.Yes, I could just make things up, like you clearly are.
If you can't tell the truth on simple things why do expect anyone to believe anything else you say ?
No, it isn't. It is a true factual statement.Almost everyone that has built things in real life, at least large scale things, isn't using a tape measure to measure everything. Only a complete retard would try that.This is a complete lie you are a fantasist who claims to be an expert on everything.
No. You are the liar. You are the one making things up.No. I will not provide evidence for your pathetic strawman.You can't provide any evidence because you are a liar and make things up.
Except I have, remember the diagrams I provided and the explanations which showed you to be full of shit?I have wiped the floor with you, repeatedly.You are fantasist.
You have not provided any evidence whatsoever.
Please provide evidence or highlight exactly where I have lied as I have with you RETARD.Except you are yet to provide evidence or indicate actual lies from me. Each time you have been lying so you can just dismiss my arguments rather than admit you were wrong.
You explanation is not acceptable you have no evidence whatsoever to back up your fantastic claims.You are unable to point out a single thing wrong with it. As such, you have no basis to claim they are not acceptable.
You claim people have seen the dark side of the moon.Again, do you mean the dark side or the far side. They are 2 different things, and people will often get them mixed up.
I have asked you repeatedly exactly who has seen the dark side of the moon and you can't provide any evidence.
It is now 2017.I don't give a shit what you expect. Unless you want to pay for that video evidence you have no right to demand it unless people are claiming it exists.
In 2017 we expect to see video evidence.
You claim people have seen the moon rotate I have asked you repeatedly exactly who has seen the moon rotate and you can't provide any evidence.I told you who, and I provided evidence before, which you just ignored.
And there you go describing yourself again.No, it is clear it is not a selenelion eclipse.This again highlights your mental disability.
You suffer from delusions of grandeur.
In your self concocted fantasy you believe you are more knowledgeable than space.com who say the said eclipse was a selenelion at the times and location shown in the video I posted earlier.
And there you go spouting off a load of bullshit, yet again.No, the currently accepted model does accurately reflect reality. Your pathetic strawmen of it don't.You are delusional ; you are also a liar.
No one has seen the Globe orbit the Sun.
No one will ever see the Globe orbit the Sun.
No one has seen the Globe.
No one will ever see the Globe.
No one has been in space.
No one will ever go to space.
No one has seen the dark side of the moon.
No one will ever see the dark side of the moon.
No one has seen the moon rotate.
No one will ever see the moon rotate.
If no one has ever seen any of the above and you have no video evidence illustrating these fantastic claims how can your model reflect reality?
The above are all fundermental aspects of your Heliocentric model.
It is 2017 and there is NO video evidence that illustrates any of the above.
This is because all of the above has been fabricated to reinforce your Heliocentric deception.
As the reader can verify for themselves from the videos I posted earlier regarding the Solar eclipse and the Lunar eclipse the videos clearly demonstrate why these events are impossible on your heliocentric model.No, they can see pathetic garbage which has already been refuted, where you simple ignore the refutations.
Research ?And that is likely just another lie from you.
I have worked in construction you liar.
Have you worked in construction and used a laser instead of a tape measure?
As I have said you can say and claim what you want but anyone who has worked in construction will know that you and your colleugues are lying and just repeat what you have been told from the position of an expert.No, they wont.
No you speak nonsense and are incorrect Paul.Stop just providing links to crap.
It is not the dark side of the moon that is observed ; it is the sky.
The video's below illustrates this fact.
This statement is a contradiction in it's own rite .No, the reason it is referred to as the dark side is because it is dark, or because it is really the far side and people get confused with terminology.
The reason it is referred to as the dark side of the moon is because it is not visible.
So it is not possible to observe this alleged dark side you speak of.
Because these REtards speak from the position of an expert in regard to any subject.No they don't. They just point out all your bullshit.
I'm making the readers aware that they are liars and have no real life experience of the subjects they are discussing.No, you are just blatantly lying about it so you can dismiss what they say.
The Globe has been debunked end of.No it hasn't. You are yet to provide any sound argument against it.
I do not need to provide any proof .Yes you do. You are making numerous claims. As such, you need to back them up.
As I have said anyone that has worked in construction will know I'm telling the truth and that you are not.Again, this is just another baseless claim.
I have nothing to prove if the readers choose to believe you then so be it.Well thanks for admitting that you are full of pure bullshit and have absolutely nothing to back up any of the bullshit you say.
Almost everyone that has built things in real life, at least large scale things, isn't using a tape measure to measure everything. Only a complete retard would try that.
Anyone that has worked in construction will know lasers only provide a rough measurement.
Anyone that has worked in construction knows lasers are used for a guide for example to use as a straight edge or as a level.
I have seen entire structures built not using a spirit level at all. Instead a laser level was used.
Sure, you could consider lasers as a "rough" measurement.
No, I'm not an expert in construction, but I have ordered parts before and made things before, and constructed buildings before (I had a job to pay off my uni fees during uni).
No, the currently accepted model does accurately reflect reality. Your pathetic strawmen of it don't.You are delusional ; you are also a liar.
No one has seen the Globe orbit the Sun.
No one will ever see the Globe orbit the Sun.
No one has seen the Globe.
No one will ever see the Globe.
No one has been in space.
No one will ever go to space.
No one has seen the dark side of the moon.
No one will ever see the dark side of the moon.
No one has seen the moon rotate.
No one will ever see the moon rotate.
If no one has ever seen any of the above and you have no video evidence illustrating these fantastic claims how can your model reflect reality?
The above are all fundermental aspects of your Heliocentric model.
It is 2017 and there is NO video evidence that illustrates any of the above.
This is because all of the above has been fabricated to reinforce your Heliocentric deception.
And there you go spouting off a load of bullshit, yet again.
Prove each and every one of them.
Jack Black is a liar and a fantasist who believes he is an expert at everything this is very apparent when reading his posts.You really are a nasty little twit aren't you! But you do know what those that insist on calling others liars usually are! Read this:
See yourself described here?
From my experience it's those calling others stupid typically are the dumbest ones. Such as a cheater calling everyone else cheaters, liars calling everyone else liar, losers calling everyone else a loser etc etc etc...
It's name is deflection....
OK with professional laser levels?
http://content.fluke.com/promotions/promo-LL/eu/IG-EU-LL-2016-Laser-Levels-NPI-UKEN.html?gclid=Cj0KCQjw_o7NBRDgARIsAKvAgt2PfDAreRU_ovdIfUNM5FhmsEiCd3tI4zyXWGG9QiRrubSeBHWVNSQaAiWCEALw_wcB
and
https://shop.bosch-professional.com/gb/en/product/laser-measure-glm-250-vf--23314
Anyone that has worked in construction will know lasers only provide a rough measurement.
Anyone that has worked in construction knows lasers are used for a guide for example to use as a straight edge or as a level.
'Rough' meaning?OK with professional laser levels?
http://content.fluke.com/promotions/promo-LL/eu/IG-EU-LL-2016-Laser-Levels-NPI-UKEN.html?gclid=Cj0KCQjw_o7NBRDgARIsAKvAgt2PfDAreRU_ovdIfUNM5FhmsEiCd3tI4zyXWGG9QiRrubSeBHWVNSQaAiWCEALw_wcB
and
https://shop.bosch-professional.com/gb/en/product/laser-measure-glm-250-vf--23314
I have not said lasers don't exist REtard.
If you read my post I have said that in construction they are used for :
" rough measurements "
" As a Straight edge "
" For a level "
Anyone that has worked in construction will know lasers only provide a rough measurement.
Anyone that has worked in construction knows lasers are used for a guide for example to use as a straight edge or as a level.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
The burden of proof is on you ; to prove your heliocentric model matches reality and matches what can be observed.Totally untrue!
No one will ever see the Globe orbit the Sun.Incorrect!
No one has seen the Globe. No one will ever see the Globe.Both Incorrect.
No one has been in space. No one will ever go to space.Totally incorrect.
No one has seen the dark side of the moon. No one will ever see the dark side of the moon.Totally incorrect. We see part of the dark side of the moon whenever we look at the moon when it is other than full!
No one has seen the moon rotate. No one will ever see the moon rotate.Totally incorrect. We see the moon rotating as it moves across the night night sky relative to the star background!
Jack Black is a liar and a fantasist who believes he is an expert at everything this is very apparent when reading his posts.
You really are a nasty little twit aren't you! But you do know what those that insist on calling others liars usually are!
See yourself described here?
From my experience it's those calling others stupid typically are the dumbest ones. Such as a cheater calling everyone else cheaters, liars calling everyone else liar, losers calling everyone else a loser etc etc etc...
It's name is deflection....
I do not find your attack acceptable.Tough cheese! You are the one calling others liars and that is so often evidence that that the perpetrator, YOU, is guilty of that same offense!
Psychology Of Hatred Part II: Projection & Projective IdentificationLiars And Cheaters Worry The Most About Being Lied To And Cheated On (http://elitedaily.com/dating/liars-and-cheaters-worry-most/1053920/)
But in the real world, the defense mechanisms are a little more elaborate. For another example of a defense , let's look at "projection," and we are all familiar with this.
1) The angry person accuses someone else being angry
2) A liar accuses others of lying
3) The cheater accuses others of cheating
4) The thief accuses others of stealing (Notice how the thief is not accusing others of lying? No he's obsessed with only his own sins.)
From: Psychology Of Hatred Part II: Projection & Projective Identification (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/5/12/1187645/-Psychology-Of-Hatred-Part-II-Projection-Projective-Identification)
Yes, Babyhighspeed says essentially the same as my quote above.From my experience it's those calling others stupid typically are the dumbest ones. Such as a cheater calling everyone else cheaters, liars calling everyone else liar, losers calling everyone else a loser etc etc etc...See yourself described here?
It's name is deflection....
What has other people telling lies have to do with me telling the truth?Maybe they are not telling lies and maybe what you claim is not THE TRUTH, but no more than your misguided opinion!
Just because other pepole employ these methods does not mean that I do .You keep presenting what is simply your false opinions and claim they are THE TRUTH, well I disagree with them and I will support others that disagree with you.
Quite often in modern construction they will use lasers to measure distances and angles.This is a lie.
Anyone that has worked in construction will know lasers only provide a rough measurement.
Anyone that has worked in construction knows lasers are used for a guide for example to use as a straight edge or as a level.
You talk nonsense.
You don't speak from experience.
My bad, I misread what you wrote, and I put in the quote in context.I have seen entire structures built not using a spirit level at all. Instead a laser level was used.So now you have realised the readers can see you talk out of your arse you are copying what I said two days ago.
No, I haven't.Sure, you could consider lasers as a "rough" measurement.Again ; now you have been exposed as a liar it seems you are now in agreement with me to try and win back some credibility.
No. It was a job I had during breaks.No, I'm not an expert in construction, but I have ordered parts before and made things before, and constructed buildings before (I had a job to pay off my uni fees during uni).You are now claiming you have constructed buildings and been studying at university at the same time.
Wow ;D
You are truly delusional if you think anyone will believe that bullshit.
A normal person would of just said they did some labouring on a building site whilst they was at university.Why?
In what capacity did you construct these buildings you speak of whilst you was at university?A variety of capacities, including using lasers for measurement of angles, i.e. if something was level.
I can't wait for your next amazing story.And I can't wait for you to cut out all the bullshit and admit you were wrong.
If you read my post I have said that in construction they are used for :And in construction, neither of those are rough measurements.
" rough measurements "
" As a Straight edge "
" For a level "
Laser rangefinders are also used in several industries like construction, renovation and real estate as an alternative to a tape measure
It is 2017 and you and your Heliocentric brethren have " NO " video evidence that illustrates these fundermental aspects of your Heliocentric deception.You do understand that there's a difference between having no evidence and having no evidence that you would accept, don't you?
It is 2017 and you and your Heliocentric brethren have " NO " video evidence that illustrates these fundermental aspects of your Heliocentric deception.
<moot argument and repeats>
This is a flat earth forum.
This is my thread that is called Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the Globe.
I have proved the said eclipse like all eclipses doesn't work on your model.
The burden of proof is on you ; to prove your heliocentric model matches reality and matches what can be observed.
No, it's not. But please consider Exhibit 'E': Last week's solar eclipse happening exactly as predicted by the heliocentric model of the solar system.
Because the readers can verify for themselves that it does not.
<junk>
Please provide video evidence of these fundermental aspects of your Heliocentric religion.
You can not provide any video evidence for the above because your Heliocentric model is bullshit and doesn't exist in reality.
As you can't provide any video evidence your Heliocentric model is false and just a deception.
<snip>Okay. If the burden of proof is on us, then here it is. Keeping in mind I’ve already posted this...as did others for that matter.
This is my thread that is called Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the Globe.
I have proved the said eclipse like all eclipses doesn't work on your model.
The burden of proof is on you ; to prove your heliocentric model matches reality and matches what can be observed.
Because the readers can verify for themselves that it does not.
<snip>
I'm just going to skip your repeated bullshit (like your repeatedly lies about me being a liar) and cut to the chase.
This will be my last post on your construction rabbit hole. It is way past time to get back to your failings on the eclipse.
Are you planning on justifying your BS claims? Like showing how the shadow went the wrong way? I already pointed out your claims were BS, and explained why.
Or perhaps you will finally act like an honest, rational human being for once in your pathetic existence and admit you were wrong and that the eclipse is not a problem for HC.Quite often in modern construction they will use lasers to measure distances and angles.This is a lie.
Anyone that has worked in construction will know lasers only provide a rough measurement.
Anyone that has worked in construction knows lasers are used for a guide for example to use as a straight edge or as a level.
You talk nonsense.
You don't speak from experience.My bad, I misread what you wrote, and I put in the quote in context.I have seen entire structures built not using a spirit level at all. Instead a laser level was used.So now you have realised the readers can see you talk out of your arse you are copying what I said two days ago.
I thought you said they don't use then as anything except a guide and would use a straight edge or a level.
This was because you said it was a lie that they use them for measuring angles.
Do you know what a laser level does? Measure angles.
We already established that we can use angles to measure distances.
So you have now completely contradicted yourself.
Good job.No, I haven't.Sure, you could consider lasers as a "rough" measurement.Again ; now you have been exposed as a liar it seems you are now in agreement with me to try and win back some credibility.
Did you notice the quote marks?
That was indicating that calling it rough is BS. In reality, modern laser instruments are some of the most accurate ones we have (especially when just considering most construction).
They are rough compared to electron microscopes, but extremely accurate by any sane standards.
I even explained what that roughness was, which of course, you ignored, and instead tried to quote mine me to pretend I said something completely different. So there you go showing your dishonesty again.No. It was a job I had during breaks.No, I'm not an expert in construction, but I have ordered parts before and made things before, and constructed buildings before (I had a job to pay off my uni fees during uni).You are now claiming you have constructed buildings and been studying at university at the same time.
Wow ;D
You are truly delusional if you think anyone will believe that bullshit.
Do you really think everyone in construction are university graduates with degrees in engineering?
A lot are simply labourers without degrees.A normal person would of just said they did some labouring on a building site whilst they was at university.Why?
Why wouldn't a normal person have said they were constructing buildings/constructed buildings?In what capacity did you construct these buildings you speak of whilst you was at university?A variety of capacities, including using lasers for measurement of angles, i.e. if something was level.
At other times with other sites they weren't used and instead string lines were used. Only rarely were spirit levels used.I can't wait for your next amazing story.And I can't wait for you to cut out all the bullshit and admit you were wrong.If you read my post I have said that in construction they are used for :And in construction, neither of those are rough measurements.
" rough measurements "
" As a Straight edge "
" For a level "
If you want a rough measurement of a straight line or if something is level you just use your eyesight.
If you want to be more accurate with level you can put a ball on and see if it rolls, or use a spirit level.
Lasers are used for highly accurate measurements.
If you would like some more evidence you are full of shit, how about we use what most "normal" people would?
Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_rangefinder#Laser_measuring_toolsQuoteLaser rangefinders are also used in several industries like construction, renovation and real estate as an alternative to a tape measure
Yes, rangefinders aren't always as accurate, but when you instead measure angles to determine distance, they are very accurate, or when you use much more expensive ones.
I have seen entire structures built not using a spirit level at all. Instead a laser level was used.
Do you really think everyone in construction are university graduates with degrees in engineering?
A lot are simply labourers without degrees.
If you read my post I have said that in construction they are used for :
" rough measurements "
" As a Straight edge "
" For a level "
And in construction, neither of those are rough measurements.
If you want a rough measurement of a straight line or if something is level you just use your eyesight.
If you want to be more accurate with level you can put a ball on and see if it rolls, or use a spirit level.
Yes, rangefinders aren't always as accurate, but when you instead measure angles to determine distance, they are very accurate, or when you use much more expensive ones.
Interesting R.I.F, so whats your 'trade' then, what qualifications do you have other than being a professional fuck witHe said he studied Electrical Engineering "to the degree level"...what ever that means. So, apparently he's an EE.
Interesting R.I.F, so whats your 'trade' then, what qualifications do you have other than being a professional fuck wit
Interesting R.I.F, so whats your 'trade' then, what qualifications do you have other than being a professional fuck wit
My Trade / profession is irrelevant .
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
TRADESMEN need qualifications and are not labourers you delusional liar.What sort of qualifications do tradesmen need?
TRADESMEN serve apprenticeship's which are normally atleast four years long you delusional liar.
RiF - I see laser and GPS equipment used for both surveying and marking out building sites.
and:RiF - I see laser and GPS equipment used for both surveying and marking out building sites.
but he is not the guy how would do this.
he is a tradesman, that means he is the one that uses the markings of the foreman (that used laser and GPS equipment) to build a construction according to drawings on that markings. these drawings are made most times by an engineer. and if there are some issues he has to consult his foreman to get these issues clarified.
TRADESMEN need qualifications and are not labourers you delusional liar.What sort of qualifications do tradesmen need?
TRADESMEN serve apprenticeship's which are normally atleast four years long you delusional liar.
I'll give you a hint.
You don't need to go to university get them.
I'm absolutely wiping the floor with him.
Lol.
Lol.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
I'm absolutely wiping the floor with him.
Lol.
Lol.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Really? Can't wait to see that. Point me in the direction where you are wiping the floor with him.
I'm absolutely wiping the floor with him.
Lol.
Lol.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Really? Can't wait to see that. Point me in the direction where you are wiping the floor with him.
That's because your blind REtard.
I have established you Heliocentrics are not normal this becomes more apparent the more I converse with you freaks.
The readers will be able to see this aswell.
The more you stick up for the liar the more obvious it is that something is going off here.
Lol.
Lol.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
I'm absolutely wiping the floor with him.
Lol.
Lol.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Really? Can't wait to see that. Point me in the direction where you are wiping the floor with him.
That's because your blind REtard.
I have established you Heliocentrics are not normal this becomes more apparent the more I converse with you freaks.
The readers will be able to see this aswell.
The more you stick up for the liar the more obvious it is that something is going off here.
Lol.
Lol.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Why the insults? I just asked a simple question to where you were wiping the floor with him? I never said I was Heliocentric, so I don't understand why you are calling me a freak.
I'm absolutely wiping the floor with him.
Lol.
Lol.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Really? Can't wait to see that. Point me in the direction where you are wiping the floor with him.
That's because your blind REtard.
I have established you Heliocentrics are not normal this becomes more apparent the more I converse with you freaks.
The readers will be able to see this aswell.
The more you stick up for the liar the more obvious it is that something is going off here.
Lol.
Lol.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Why the insults? I just asked a simple question to where you were wiping the floor with him? I never said I was Heliocentric, so I don't understand why you are calling me a freak.
You must be a freak to not see he is getting destroyed by me.
You must be a heliocentric to be so far up Jack Black's arse.
;D
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
I'm absolutely wiping the floor with him.
Lol.
Lol.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Really? Can't wait to see that. Point me in the direction where you are wiping the floor with him.
That's because your blind REtard.
I have established you Heliocentrics are not normal this becomes more apparent the more I converse with you freaks.
The readers will be able to see this aswell.
The more you stick up for the liar the more obvious it is that something is going off here.
Lol.
Lol.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Why the insults? I just asked a simple question to where you were wiping the floor with him? I never said I was Heliocentric, so I don't understand why you are calling me a freak.
You must be a freak to not see he is getting destroyed by me.
You must be a heliocentric to be so far up Jack Black's arse.
;D
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Ok then, point out to an actual post where you are wiping the floor with him. Should be really easy to do, not sure why you won't just to it...
I'm absolutely wiping the floor with him.Is that why you need to continually change the topic rather than focusing on one area and why you need to continually lie and dismiss things?
I'm absolutely wiping the floor with him.
Lol.
Lol.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Really? Can't wait to see that. Point me in the direction where you are wiping the floor with him.
That's because your blind REtard.
I have established you Heliocentrics are not normal this becomes more apparent the more I converse with you freaks.
The readers will be able to see this aswell.
The more you stick up for the liar the more obvious it is that something is going off here.
Lol.
Lol.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Why the insults? I just asked a simple question to where you were wiping the floor with him? I never said I was Heliocentric, so I don't understand why you are calling me a freak.
You must be a freak to not see he is getting destroyed by me.
You must be a heliocentric to be so far up Jack Black's arse.
;D
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Ok then, point out to an actual post where you are wiping the floor with him. Should be really easy to do, not sure why you won't just to it...
Yawn .
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
This is the difference between someone normal like me and you Strange Heliocentric 's.
This I why I'm giving you a count down you now have eight days left.
Eight days until a video from a high altitude weather balloon shows the Moon is not eclipsing the Sun.
So far, it's been more than ten days since you started that eight-day countdown. Still no video(s), still nothing "debunking the globe" [topic].
I'm absolutely wiping the floor with him.
Lol.
Lol.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Really? Can't wait to see that. Point me in the direction where you are wiping the floor with him.
That's because your blind REtard.
I have established you Heliocentrics are not normal this becomes more apparent the more I converse with you freaks.
The readers will be able to see this aswell.
The more you stick up for the liar the more obvious it is that something is going off here.
Lol.
Lol.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False. Its not a religion.
[/quote
The vast majority of people KNOW the earth is a sphere. The vast majority of people ARE normal, the vast majority of readers will see that you do not represent normal, You are not capable of working simple things out, you lie, mislead, insult, deny, contradict yourself, offer no proof, misrepresent, divert and spout nonsensical rubbish left right and centre, you understand very little yet think you know it all, your the guy in the pub who states answers to questions are wrong because you lost, you were the boy in the playground who made everyone else move away, your the bloke at work who eats his lunch on his own. You couldn't wipe your arse ever mind Him.
Lol. Lol.What have you been drinking to come up with an idea like that?
I'm absolutely wiping the floor with him.
Lol. Lol.
No. I'm saying that, depending on the trade, tradesmen are skilled laborers, but not necessarily highly skilled laborers.TRADESMEN need qualifications and are not labourers you delusional liar.What sort of qualifications do tradesmen need?
TRADESMEN serve apprenticeship's which are normally atleast four years long you delusional liar.
I'll give you a hint.
You don't need to go to university get them.
Stop talking nonsense REtard.
What are you trying to say ?
Are you implying Tradesmen are labourers like the delusional freak known as Jack Black.
I'd also be interested in you linking to posts where you "destroy" people. I must have missed those as all I've seen is people effortlessly swatting you about like a fly.Me too. I only see him lying and never have seen him provide ounce of evidence for his claims. And never seen him destroy anyone.
You asked for proof and I provided it this morning. You choose too ignore it. Because, you can't refute it.So is this thread still about I.i.B. desperately trying to debunk the Globe by the most recent eclipse?
As of now the only evidence in here is about his ability of moving goalposts, why the hell are we discussing tape measures now? :-\
Because these REtards speak from the position of an expert in regard to any subject.
I'm making the readers aware that they are liars and have no real life experience of the subjects they are discussing.
The Globe has been debunked end of.
You Heliocentrics are fantasists anyone that looks into your imaginary Globe will soon be aware of this deception.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
No. I'm saying that, depending on the trade, tradesmen are skilled laborers, but not necessarily highly skilled laborers.TRADESMEN need qualifications and are not labourers you delusional liar.What sort of qualifications do tradesmen need?
TRADESMEN serve apprenticeship's which are normally atleast four years long you delusional liar.
I'll give you a hint.
You don't need to go to university get them.
Stop talking nonsense REtard.
What are you trying to say ?
Are you implying Tradesmen are labourers like the delusional freak known as Jack Black.
Much of their training is done on the job rather than in the classroom.
As I said, I'm done with your pathetic distractions and lies regarding construction.
So how about you try and get back on topic?
You claimed that the eclipse will debunk the globe (but really meant the HC model).
You are yet to substantiate this claim.
In a pathetic attempt to, you claimed the HC model predicts the eclipse would go in the opposite direction.
I explained why this was wrong, even using a diagram, thus refuting your claim.
So are you going to back up your claim or admit you were wrong?
Or are you going to continue to act like a pathetic sack of shit doing whatever you can to pretend you are right?I'm absolutely wiping the floor with him.Is that why you need to continually change the topic rather than focusing on one area and why you need to continually lie and dismiss things?
Because you sure seem to be pathetically flailing around like a fish out of water.
<<< repeatedly debunked garbage deleted >>>As I told your mate dutchy repeating rubbish just makes a bigger trash-pile.
You are nothing but a delusional liar.Again, QUIT WITH YOUR BS DISTRACTIONS!!!
You accuse me of lying about construction when you claim to be a labourer that constructs buildings.
You claim people use balls to level things.
You claim people use their eyes to measure things.
You have never heard of tradesmen and think everyone on site is a labourer
.
I have asked you repeatedly in what capacity you where constructing buildings as a labourer and you have refused to answer .
This because you are a liar and you make things up.
If you can't be trusted to tell the truth on something simple like construction that you claim to be an expert on .
How can anyone believe what you say on something you have never seen.
Any way I'm done with you regarding construction I have proven you to be a liar and humiliated you which is why you do not want to continue this argument.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Any normal person can understand that as the moon's total orbital path is 27 to 29 days ...You already said all this bullshit back here:
Any normal person can understand that as the moon's total orbital path is 27 to 29 days and 1.5 million miles it would have to travel at least a 190000 miles to cross the USA west to east because it is 200000 miles away on your Heliocentric model and in reality the USA is nearly 3000 miles wide so we could say that is roughly 12.5% of the alleged circumfrence of your imaginary Globe which to keep it simple represents roughly 12.5% of the Moons orbital path.No. Any normal can understand it doesn't work like that at all.
Due to its significant distance it would not need to travel 12.5% of its path to cross the US. It wouldn't need to travel from where it is directly above one point to directly above another point. The solar eclipse is not always straight up. It starts crossing the US in Oregon at roughly 40 degrees. It finishes crossing in South Carolina at 60 degrees the other way.
So your "keep it simple" is pure bullshit.
Instead, to "keep it simple" you have a very distant light source and an object (the moon) obstructing that and causing a shadow to go across Earth. Thus the moon needs to move the distance of the US, and an additional amount to compensate for the rotation of Earth.
So that means nearly 3000 miles, and then as it starts at 17:16 and finishes at 18:47 it goes for 1.5 hours, and thus has to account for a 22.5 degree rotation of Earth, just using numbers from the equator (because I'm too lazy to get the real numbers) it would be an extra 1500 miles, so a total of 4500 miles.
That ignores the fact that it will actually need less due to crossing north of the equator and the fact that the sun is not infinitely far away which again means it needs to move less.
So 4500 miles, out of your 1.5 million miles, that is roughly 0.3 %. With the orbital path being 27 days, over that 1.5 hours you would expect the moon to travel 0.23 % of its path.
Given the approximations used, that sounds quite reasonable, and shows that your analysis is pure bullshit.In reality any normal person will know it is impossible for the Moons shadow to travel west to east as they see the Moon rise in the East and set in the West EVERYDAY.Only a fool that hasn't thought about it.
If they think about it they would realise that the sun appears to travel faster and thus as the light source "passes" (from our perspective) the moon, the shadow will be travelling in the opposite direction.It is also impossible as shown in the first video I posted at the start of the thread because the earth's angular velocity on your model is 27 times greater than the Moon's actual velocity.So?You have failed to take into account that the Solar Eclipse is visable in the Sky and it is the Earth's alleged angular Velocity as you and your colleague's have agreed that determines what we see in the sky.Yes, it is visible in the sky, but it is not an object in the sky. It is a shadow on Earth.
If you follow the sun or the moon, objects in the sky, they will still appear to move west, with the moon being slightly slower than the sun.
It is the shadow on Earth which moves east, due to the moons real motion.A video that describes the orbit of the Moon on your Heliocentric model.You mean a video claiming the orbit is impossible, which has basically nothing to do with the topic at hand?An object shadow will follow the object when the light source is directly behind it.Yes, the moon moves in a direction opposite its apparent motion.
You are now claiming the Moon moves in the opposite direction to what is observed this would be the only possible way that the Moon's shadow can move west to East when the light source which is the Sun is directly behind it.
That is because the majority of its apparent motion is due to the rotation of Earth.
If you notice, unlike the sun, the moon does not complete 1 revolution per day. Instead it lags behind, such that after 27 days or so it has lost an entire day.
As the day and the apparent motion of the sun is caused by Earth's rotation, that means the moon is moving in the opposite direction to what it appears to be.You are fooling no one with your heliocentric nonsense.You are the one trying to fool here, spouting pure nonsense, setting up a bunch of pathetic strawmen.It is impossible for the path of the solar eclipse to move in completely the opposite direction to the moon.It doesn't.
The moon orbits around Earth from west to east. The path of the solar eclipse moves along Earth from west to east.The moon rises in the East and sets in th west.Which is not indicative of the moon's motion. That is a result of Earth's motion.I choose this link so you Stupid and gullable Heliocentric's can try to understand how and why the upcoming Solar Eclipse is impossible on your model.Except we understand that it is completely possible.It is impossible for an objects shadow to move in the opposite direction to the said object when the light source is stationary.And you have already admitted that the moon is moving east to west and it is just Earth's rotation that causes it to appear to move the other way.
Here it is in case you forgot:The Earth's angular velocity which Is one rotation every 24 hrs is 27 times faster than the Moon's velocity.See, fully accepting the moon is moving west to east and is just appearing to move east to west.
This is why the moon allegedly rises in the east and sets in the west.
If the Moon's velocity was greater than the angular velocity of the earth the Moon would rise in the West and set in the East it would also have to orbit the earth more than once every 24 hours to achieve this.So I will tell you again it is impossible for the Moon to cast a shadow on the Earth that is 24 times smaller than itself.You can tell us all you want. It won't make it any less of pure bullshit.
So I will tell you again it is impossible for the Solar Eclipse to move across the Earth west to East which is the opposite direction to the moon on your Heliocentric model.Your Heliocentric model does not match reality as such your Heliocentric model is false.Except it does. You are yet to show an actual flaw. Instead you just spout pure bullshit about it, setting up pathetic strawmen to pretend it is false.Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is Finished.It isn't a religion, it is fact, and it is far from finished.
You are nothing but a delusional liar.I do believe that it's time to remind you of this again:
Psychology Of Hatred Part II: Projection & Projective IdentificationLiars And Cheaters Worry The Most About Being Lied To And Cheated On (http://elitedaily.com/dating/liars-and-cheaters-worry-most/1053920/)
But in the real world, the defense mechanisms are a little more elaborate. For another example of a defense , let's look at "projection," and we are all familiar with this.
1) The angry person accuses someone else being angry
2) A liar accuses others of lying
3) The cheater accuses others of cheating
4) The thief accuses others of stealing (Notice how the thief is not accusing others of lying? No he's obsessed with only his own sins.)
From: Psychology Of Hatred Part II: Projection & Projective Identification (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/5/12/1187645/-Psychology-Of-Hatred-Part-II-Projection-Projective-Identification)
You are nothing but a delusional liar.I do believe that it's time to remind you of this again:
THE SOCIOPATH WILL ALWAYS ACCUSE YOU OF WHAT THEY ARE GUILTY OF THEMSELF (https://datingasociopath.com/2013/06/08/the-sociopath-will-always-accuse-you-of-what-they-are-guilty-of-themself/)Quote from: By Bernard PliersPsychology Of Hatred Part II: Projection & Projective IdentificationLiars And Cheaters Worry The Most About Being Lied To And Cheated On (http://elitedaily.com/dating/liars-and-cheaters-worry-most/1053920/)
But in the real world, the defense mechanisms are a little more elaborate. For another example of a defense , let's look at "projection," and we are all familiar with this.
1) The angry person accuses someone else being angry
2) A liar accuses others of lying
3) The cheater accuses others of cheating
4) The thief accuses others of stealing (Notice how the thief is not accusing others of lying? No he's obsessed with only his own sins.)
From: Psychology Of Hatred Part II: Projection & Projective Identification (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/5/12/1187645/-Psychology-Of-Hatred-Part-II-Projection-Projective-Identification)
How to Deal With Someone Who Accuses You of Being a Liar. (http://oureverydaylife.com/deal-someone-accuses-being-liar-30334.html)And those are not my words, Mr Resistance.is.Futile, it is well known in psychological circles.I am not accusing you of being a liar, but of behaving in a way that a psychologist might deem sociopathic.
But, once someone starts accusing others of being liars
for simply having differing beliefs, presenting unwelcome evidence or even making a few innocent mistakes (and I make plenty),
we start asking who the real liar is!
Tradesmen are Tradesmen .So you're saying that tradesmen don't perform labor?
Labourers are Labourers .
Tradesmen have qualifications in their associated trade.What makes you think that all tradesmen need, or even want, to go the guild or union route?
Normally a NVQ at the designated level most tradesmen will have a level 3 which A level equivalent .
http://www.cityandguilds.com/qualifications-and-apprenticeships/qualifications-explained/qualification-comparisons
Some people that work on site for example electrical and mechanical engineers have degree equivalent qualifications or a degree.And some people that work on site are undocumented immigrants with no formal training in any field. It's amazing some of the skills you can pick up just working on the job.
Are you going to answer or prove any of your claims? All you do is spout gibberish and BS, call people names, get really angry and act like a child. What about your claims of "Eight days until a video from a high altitude weather balloon shows the Moon is not eclipsing the Sun." Where is the video? You are the one spouting off wild claims, but you don't show anything. You claim normal people can see it your way, but over 99% knows the earth is round, so, um, you an idiot! And to be honest, I am not sure of the other 1%, probably know the earth is round and claim it is flat just for laughs. The other option would be just for a philosophical experiment.You are nothing but a delusional liar.I do believe that it's time to remind you of this again:
THE SOCIOPATH WILL ALWAYS ACCUSE YOU OF WHAT THEY ARE GUILTY OF THEMSELF (https://datingasociopath.com/2013/06/08/the-sociopath-will-always-accuse-you-of-what-they-are-guilty-of-themself/)Quote from: By Bernard PliersPsychology Of Hatred Part II: Projection & Projective IdentificationLiars And Cheaters Worry The Most About Being Lied To And Cheated On (http://elitedaily.com/dating/liars-and-cheaters-worry-most/1053920/)
But in the real world, the defense mechanisms are a little more elaborate. For another example of a defense , let's look at "projection," and we are all familiar with this.
1) The angry person accuses someone else being angry
2) A liar accuses others of lying
3) The cheater accuses others of cheating
4) The thief accuses others of stealing (Notice how the thief is not accusing others of lying? No he's obsessed with only his own sins.)
From: Psychology Of Hatred Part II: Projection & Projective Identification (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/5/12/1187645/-Psychology-Of-Hatred-Part-II-Projection-Projective-Identification)
How to Deal With Someone Who Accuses You of Being a Liar. (http://oureverydaylife.com/deal-someone-accuses-being-liar-30334.html)And those are not my words, Mr Resistance.is.Futile, it is well known in psychological circles.I am not accusing you of being a liar, but of behaving in a way that a psychologist might deem sociopathic.
But, once someone starts accusing others of being liars
for simply having differing beliefs, presenting unwelcome evidence or even making a few innocent mistakes (and I make plenty),
we start asking who the real liar is!
Stop talking nonsense old man.
Using your logic anyone that calls someone a liar is a liar that's just ridiculous .
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Are you going to answer or prove any of your claims? All you do is spout gibberish and BS, call people names, get really angry and act like a child. What about your claims of "Eight days until a video from a high altitude weather balloon shows the Moon is not eclipsing the Sun." Where is the video? You are the one spouting off wild claims, but you don't show anything. You claim normal people can see it your way, but over 99% knows the earth is round, so, um, you an idiot! And to be honest, I am not sure of the other 1%, probably know the earth is round and claim it is flat just for laughs. The other option would be just for a philosophical experiment.You are nothing but a delusional liar.I do believe that it's time to remind you of this again:
THE SOCIOPATH WILL ALWAYS ACCUSE YOU OF WHAT THEY ARE GUILTY OF THEMSELF (https://datingasociopath.com/2013/06/08/the-sociopath-will-always-accuse-you-of-what-they-are-guilty-of-themself/)Quote from: By Bernard PliersPsychology Of Hatred Part II: Projection & Projective IdentificationLiars And Cheaters Worry The Most About Being Lied To And Cheated On (http://elitedaily.com/dating/liars-and-cheaters-worry-most/1053920/)
But in the real world, the defense mechanisms are a little more elaborate. For another example of a defense , let's look at "projection," and we are all familiar with this.
1) The angry person accuses someone else being angry
2) A liar accuses others of lying
3) The cheater accuses others of cheating
4) The thief accuses others of stealing (Notice how the thief is not accusing others of lying? No he's obsessed with only his own sins.)
From: Psychology Of Hatred Part II: Projection & Projective Identification (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/5/12/1187645/-Psychology-Of-Hatred-Part-II-Projection-Projective-Identification)
How to Deal With Someone Who Accuses You of Being a Liar. (http://oureverydaylife.com/deal-someone-accuses-being-liar-30334.html)And those are not my words, Mr Resistance.is.Futile, it is well known in psychological circles.I am not accusing you of being a liar, but of behaving in a way that a psychologist might deem sociopathic.
But, once someone starts accusing others of being liars
for simply having differing beliefs, presenting unwelcome evidence or even making a few innocent mistakes (and I make plenty),
we start asking who the real liar is!
Stop talking nonsense old man.
Using your logic anyone that calls someone a liar is a liar that's just ridiculous .
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
To be honest, I think you are just angry because you didn't get more votes in who is the biggest troll thread in The Lounge.
<confirmation that I am a troll>Thanks for the confirmation. Again, no reply to where the videos are, no claims. And no, you don't debate. Debating brings something to the table that has substance and that the debater can actually logically back up. You fail to do that. You make up wild crap and claim it as fact. ::)
Using your logic anyone that calls someone a liar is a liar that's just ridiculous .No, it is how you repeatedly resort to calling people liars to dismiss their arguments and ignore what they say rather than trying any rational response.
I come on here because I like to debate / argue.Argue, definitely; debate, hell no.
I think this because you people are stupid and gullable and tell lots of lies so it is easy to catch you out.Except you have been unable to do so.
I don't get angry .Then why do you call people who disagree with you "REtards"?
I'm not bothered what shape people think the Earth is.
Any normal person can understand that as the moon's total orbital path is 27 to 29 days and 1.5 million miles it would have to travel at least a 190000 miles to cross the USA west to east because it is 200000 miles away on your Heliocentric model and in reality the USA is nearly 3000 miles wide so we could say that is roughly 12.5% of the alleged circumfrence of your imaginary Globe which to keep it simple represents roughly 12.5% of the Moons orbital path.
In reality any normal person will know it is impossible for the Moons shadow to travel west to east as they see the Moon rise in the East and set in the West EVERYDAY.
It is also impossible as shown in the first video I posted at the start of the thread because the earth's angular velocity on your model is 27 times greater than the Moon's actual velocity.
You have failed to take into account that the Solar Eclipse is visable in the Sky and it is the Earth's alleged angular Velocity as you and your colleague's have agreed that determines what we see in the sky.
A video that describes the orbit of the Moon on your Heliocentric model.
Light travels in straight lines .
The Eclispe is caused by the moon passing between the sun and the earth.
The Sun has to be directly behind the Moon and the Earth has to be directly in front of the Moon.
An object shadow will follow the object when the light source is directly behind it.
You are now claiming the Moon moves in the opposite direction to what is observed this would be the only possible way that the Moon's shadow can move west to East when the light source which is the Sun is directly behind it.
http://www.livephysics.com/physical-constants/mechanics-pc/angular-speed-earth/
You are fooling no one with your heliocentric nonsense.
It is impossible for the path of the solar eclipse to move in completely the opposite direction to the moon.
The moon rises in the East and sets in th west.
The Solar Eclipse starts in the west and finishes if the East.
The Earth's angular velocity which Is one rotation every 24 hrs is 27 times faster than the Moon's velocity.
This is why the moon allegedly rises in the east and sets in the west.
If the Moon's velocity was greater than the angular velocity of the earth the Moon would rise in the West and set in the East it would also have to orbit the earth more than once every 24 hours to achieve this.
Here is a description of a solar eclipse on your model.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_eclipse
It clearly says the eclipse is caused when the moon passes in front of the sun.
The moon takes 27 days to orbit the earth.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon
On your model the Sun is stationary regarding it's position to the earth and the moon
.http://kidseclipse.com/sun-earth-moon-move/
I choose this link so you Stupid and gullable Heliocentric's can try to understand how and why the upcoming Solar Eclipse is impossible on your model.
It is impossible for an objects shadow to move in the opposite direction to the said object when the light source is stationary.
The only way this would be possible on your model would be if the Sun was moving millions of miles in relation to the earth and did not maintain it's alleged position in the centre of the solar system.
https://www.quora.com/Is-the-sun-the-center-of-the-solar-system-Why
So I will tell you again it is impossible for the Moon to cast a shadow on the Earth that is 24 times smaller than itself.
So I will tell you again it is impossible for the Solar Eclipse to move across the Earth west to East which is the opposite direction to the moon on your Heliocentric model.
Your Heliocentric model does not match reality as such your Heliocentric model is false.
Part one
Part two
The readers will make their own minds up .
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is Finished.
;D ;D ;D
<confirmation that I am a troll>Thanks for the confirmation. Again, no reply to where the videos are, no claims. And no, you don't debate. Debating brings something to the table that has substance and that the debater can actually logically back up. You fail to do that. You make up wild crap and claim it as fact. ::)
...
I come on here because I like to debate / argue.
...
How it works on the Heliocentric model was explained to you no less than a half dozen times. It's no ones fault but your own that you couldn't grasp the idea of the moon only needing to go the distance of the US in order to ecplise the US because the sun doesn't move. The moon doesn't have to go the arc length of the US, just the distance, which it easily manages faster than the globe spins since it's lateral speed is roughly twice that of Earth's rotational speed at the equator. Linking over and over to the same videos which make the same mistakes means nothing other than you don't appear able to articulate your point on your own, and you continue to not grasp that simple concept.<confirmation that I am a troll>Thanks for the confirmation. Again, no reply to where the videos are, no claims. And no, you don't debate. Debating brings something to the table that has substance and that the debater can actually logically back up. You fail to do that. You make up wild crap and claim it as fact. ::)
No you are just stupid and gullable so you just believe what you have been told.
I have provided explanations and videos that explain exactly why the eclipse is impossible on your heliocentric model.
Your people haven't even provided a to scale animation showing how the eclipse was possible on your heliocentric model.
Your people get at least 52 million dollars a day and they can't provide one animation that's to scale that shows this impossible eclipse on your model.
That's because if they did a child would see that the solar eclipse is not possible on your model.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
So much debunking....
So much!
No you are just stupid and gullable so you just believe what you have been told.I was told that high altitude balloons were going to show that the moon was somewhere other than in front of the moon during the eclipse.
Your people haven't even provided a to scale animation showing how the eclipse was possible on your heliocentric model.Why animation when people build mechanical devices like that
Your people haven't even provided a to scale animation showing how the eclipse was possible on your heliocentric model.Nonsense.
Orbit Tellurium 2
(https://www.wardsci.com/stibo/low_res/std.lang.all/28/43/10152843.jpg)
Demonstrate night and day, the seasons, phases of the moon, and eclipses with this robust and flexible model. More accurate demonstrations are made possible with two different sizes of Earth and Moon setups, and geared manual rotation system. In the large–scale setup, a powerful light casts visible shadows onto the 4" Earth. The smaller version demonstrates the phases of the moon and frequency of solar and lunar eclipses as the moon rotates on an inclined orbit. Power: 120 VAC. Size: 25"L x 9 7/8".
So much debunking....
So much!
Debunking out the arse. Endlessly out the arse. Like an infinite shit.
So much debunking....
So much!
Debunking out the arse. Endlessly out the arse. Like an infinite shit.
I have debunked you imaginary Globe .
If you are a professor which I doubt.
You know and I know that anyone that watches those videos with an average intelligence or above will not believe in your false religion anymore.
Lol.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Your people haven't even provided a to scale animation showing how the eclipse was possible on your heliocentric model.Why animation when people build mechanical devices like that
Any mechanical one for flat earth which predicts lunar and solar eclipses?
Your people haven't even provided a to scale animation showing how the eclipse was possible on your heliocentric model.Nonsense.
Where is the FE equivalent of this:Quote from: https://www.wardsci.com/store/catalog/product.jsp?catalog_number=808209Orbit Tellurium 2
(https://www.wardsci.com/stibo/low_res/std.lang.all/28/43/10152843.jpg)
Demonstrate night and day, the seasons, phases of the moon, and eclipses with this robust and flexible model. More accurate demonstrations are made possible with two different sizes of Earth and Moon setups, and geared manual rotation system. In the large–scale setup, a powerful light casts visible shadows onto the 4" Earth. The smaller version demonstrates the phases of the moon and frequency of solar and lunar eclipses as the moon rotates on an inclined orbit. Power: 120 VAC. Size: 25"L x 9 7/8".
So much debunking....
So much!
Debunking out the arse. Endlessly out the arse. Like an infinite shit.
I have debunked you imaginary Globe .
If you are a professor which I doubt.
You know and I know that anyone that watches those videos with an average intelligence or above will not believe in your false religion anymore.
Lol.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
so you only get your knowledge from these videos and not from people that have real knowledge about that topic.
if you are sick, where do you go to? to a medical trained person or to a priest?
And? Scale is irrelevant here. It predicts eclipses and show how they happen. Sufficiently accurately. Can you provide any similar model for flat earth, even not in scale? With eclipse prediction capabilities? Why not?Your people haven't even provided a to scale animation showing how the eclipse was possible on your heliocentric model.Why animation when people build mechanical devices like that
Any mechanical one for flat earth which predicts lunar and solar eclipses?
That is not scale REtard.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
No you are just stupid and gullable so you just believe what you have been told.I was told that high altitude balloons were going to show that the moon was somewhere other than in front of the moon during the eclipse.
I guess it's a good thing that I don't believe everything that I'm told.
They do? Where? Please show us!No you are just stupid and gullable so you just believe what you have been told.I was told that high altitude balloons were going to show that the moon was somewhere other than in front of the moon during the eclipse.
I guess it's a good thing that I don't believe everything that I'm told.
The high altitude weather balloons show that the Moon is not in front of the sun.
The high altitude weather balloons show the moon is nowhere in site this is because the eclipse is caused by the black sun and not the moon.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
So, what "experts" do you trust?So much debunking....
So much!
Debunking out the arse. Endlessly out the arse. Like an infinite shit.
I have debunked you imaginary Globe .
If you are a professor which I doubt.
You know and I know that anyone that watches those videos with an average intelligence or above will not believe in your false religion anymore.
Lol.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
so you only get your knowledge from these videos and not from people that have real knowledge about that topic.
if you are sick, where do you go to? to a medical trained person or to a priest?
No I don't trust these so called experts because they are liars the earth is flat.
When I'm sick which fortunately is not often I don't bother with the doctors as it's a waste of time in the UK.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
It's a damned sight better than anything FET has.Your people haven't even provided a to scale animation showing how the eclipse was possible on your heliocentric model.Nonsense.
Where is the FE equivalent of this:Quote from: https://www.wardsci.com/store/catalog/product.jsp?catalog_number=808209Orbit Tellurium 2
(https://www.wardsci.com/stibo/low_res/std.lang.all/28/43/10152843.jpg)
Demonstrate night and day, the seasons, phases of the moon, and eclipses with this robust and flexible model. More accurate demonstrations are made possible with two different sizes of Earth and Moon setups, and geared manual rotation system. In the large–scale setup, a powerful light casts visible shadows onto the 4" Earth. The smaller version demonstrates the phases of the moon and frequency of solar and lunar eclipses as the moon rotates on an inclined orbit. Power: 120 VAC. Size: 25"L x 9 7/8".
Lol.
Lol.
Not bad.
But you said the moon would be visible in a different part of the sky didn't you?No you are just stupid and gullable so you just believe what you have been told.I was told that high altitude balloons were going to show that the moon was somewhere other than in front of the moon during the eclipse.
I guess it's a good thing that I don't believe everything that I'm told.
The high altitude weather balloons show that the Moon is not in front of the sun.
The high altitude weather balloons show the moon is nowhere in site this is because the eclipse is caused by the black sun and not the moon.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
So much debunking....
So much!
Debunking out the arse. Endlessly out the arse. Like an infinite shit.
I have debunked you imaginary Globe .
If you are a professor which I doubt.
You know and I know that anyone that watches those videos with an average intelligence or above will not believe in your false religion anymore.
Lol.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
so you only get your knowledge from these videos and not from people that have real knowledge about that topic.
if you are sick, where do you go to? to a medical trained person or to a priest?
No I don't trust these so called experts because they are liars the earth is flat.
When I'm sick which fortunately is not often I don't bother with the doctors as it's a waste of time in the UK.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
The moon is the black sun, and the cause of the eclipse.No you are just stupid and gullable so you just believe what you have been told.I was told that high altitude balloons were going to show that the moon was somewhere other than in front of the moon during the eclipse.
I guess it's a good thing that I don't believe everything that I'm told.
The high altitude weather balloons show that the Moon is not in front of the sun.
The high altitude weather balloons show the moon is nowhere in site this is because the eclipse is caused by the black sun and not the moon.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
I have provided explanations and videos that explain exactly why the eclipse is impossible on your heliocentric model.No you haven't. You have provided pathetic refuted crap.
Your people haven't even provided a to scale animation showing how the eclipse was possible on your heliocentric model.And we have told you why. Because scale models like that are insane.
Your people get at least 52 million dollars a day and they can't provide one animation that's to scale that shows this impossible eclipse on your model.You mean they haven't bothered producing a completely useless animation.
That's because if they did a child would see that the solar eclipse is not possible on your model.No, that is because if they did, no one would be able to see any detail, or would completely lose the big picture and have no better than just being on Earth watching it.
I have debunked your imaginary Globe .You have debunked nothing.
You know and I know that anyone that watches those videos with an average intelligence or above will not believe in your false religion anymore.Average intelligence maybe, but they are typically quite stupid.
The high altitude weather balloons show that the Moon is not in front of the sun.The regular sun or the eclipsed sun?
The high altitude weather balloons show the moon is nowhere in site this is because the eclipse is caused by the black sun and not the moon.i.e. they show the moon in front of the sun, you just want to call it the black sun.
Where are the photos of the moon over Asia during the eclipse?No you are just stupid and gullable so you just believe what you have been told.I was told that high altitude balloons were going to show that the moon was somewhere other than in front of the moon during the eclipse.
I guess it's a good thing that I don't believe everything that I'm told.
The high altitude weather balloons show that the Moon is not in front of the sun.
The high altitude weather balloons show the moon is nowhere in site this is because the eclipse is caused by the black sun and not the moon.
I have debunked your imaginary Globe .
If you are a professor which I doubt.
You know and I know that anyone that watches those videos with an average intelligence or above will not believe in your false religion anymore.
Lol.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
I have debunked your imaginary Globe .
If you are a professor which I doubt.
You know and I know that anyone that watches those videos with an average intelligence or above will not believe in your false religion anymore.
Lol.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
And just like explosive diarrhea posts like these keep on coming... This thread is like a 3rd world toilet in the aftermath. Medic!
I'd really like to see something more than childish comments coming from the glob--globuralists? That's not a word. Globalists is something else. Hmm. I find the "science defender" team lacks gravitas lately. Flat Earth vs. Globe Earth is sort-of like Trump vs. Hillary. Flat Earth Crew has all the mojo right now. Globe Earth Crew, let's see you step it up in next round.I think you'll find plenty of globularist's posts containing all the gravitas, maths, physics and astronomy in the earlier in this thread.
It's a damned sight better than anything FET has.Your people haven't even provided a to scale animation showing how the eclipse was possible on your heliocentric model.Nonsense.
Where is the FE equivalent of this:Quote from: https://www.wardsci.com/store/catalog/product.jsp?catalog_number=808209Orbit Tellurium 2
(https://www.wardsci.com/stibo/low_res/std.lang.all/28/43/10152843.jpg)
Demonstrate night and day, the seasons, phases of the moon, and eclipses with this robust and flexible model. More accurate demonstrations are made possible with two different sizes of Earth and Moon setups, and geared manual rotation system. In the large–scale setup, a powerful light casts visible shadows onto the 4" Earth. The smaller version demonstrates the phases of the moon and frequency of solar and lunar eclipses as the moon rotates on an inclined orbit. Power: 120 VAC. Size: 25"L x 9 7/8".
Lol.
Lol.
Not bad.
Flat Earth Crew has all the mojo right now. Globe Earth Crew, let's see you step it up in next round.No. They just have mountains of bullshit, bullshit which has already been refuted.
Incorrect.No, that would be you.
Are you capable of any rational thought at all?
I tried to post some decent proof of a heliocentric eclipse.
I have debunked your imaginary Globe .
If you are a professor which I doubt.
You know and I know that anyone that watches those videos with an average intelligence or above will not believe in your false religion anymore.
Lol.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
And just like explosive diarrhea posts like these keep on coming... This thread is like a 3rd world toilet in the aftermath. Medic!
I thought that was a pretty good post, very interesting assertations. The catchphrase "Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False" is funny.
We've all seen the YouTube videos, we've all witnessed the eclipse and drawn our own conclusions about "what is really happening".
I'd really like to see something more than childish comments coming from the glob--globuralists? That's not a word. Globalists is something else. Hmm. I find the "science defender" team lacks gravitas lately. Flat Earth vs. Globe Earth is sort-of like Trump vs. Hillary. Flat Earth Crew has all the mojo right now. Globe Earth Crew, let's see you step it up in next round.
Okay. If the burden of proof is on us, then here it is. Keeping in mind I’ve already posted this...as did others for that matter.
The path of the eclipse is calculated using Besselian elements. Besselian elements calculate the local circumstances of an observer on the surface of the earth.
To prove that this the method use and that it matches reality, here are the calculations related to the Aug 21, 2017 eclipse that predicted the path of to within several arc seconds of latitude/longitude and was based on a spherical earth in a heliocentric system.
https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEbeselm/SEbeselm2001/SE2017Aug21Tbeselm.html
Easily verifiable by anyone who cares to do the calculations.
I’ve provided the proof of the calculations for everyone to verify. The math works.
The path of an eclipse is based on a heliocentric, spherical earth model. QED!
Debunk it if you can.
Mike
Here's a photo of earthshine from Monday's eclipse. It's from a family website. No affiliation FE, RE, NASA, or anything that could be considered a "shill". Just a guy into his family and photography.
http://smithplanet.com/archives/the-great-american-eclipse
There are other examples for anyone who cares to search.
Mike
I tried to post some decent proof of a heliocentric eclipse.
I have debunked your imaginary Globe .
If you are a professor which I doubt.
You know and I know that anyone that watches those videos with an average intelligence or above will not believe in your false religion anymore.
Lol.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
And just like explosive diarrhea posts like these keep on coming... This thread is like a 3rd world toilet in the aftermath. Medic!
I thought that was a pretty good post, very interesting assertations. The catchphrase "Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False" is funny.
We've all seen the YouTube videos, we've all witnessed the eclipse and drawn our own conclusions about "what is really happening".
I'd really like to see something more than childish comments coming from the glob--globuralists? That's not a word. Globalists is something else. Hmm. I find the "science defender" team lacks gravitas lately. Flat Earth vs. Globe Earth is sort-of like Trump vs. Hillary. Flat Earth Crew has all the mojo right now. Globe Earth Crew, let's see you step it up in next round.
This post shows the math used to calculate the path that turned out to be very accurate.Okay. If the burden of proof is on us, then here it is. Keeping in mind I’ve already posted this...as did others for that matter.
The path of the eclipse is calculated using Besselian elements. Besselian elements calculate the local circumstances of an observer on the surface of the earth.
To prove that this the method use and that it matches reality, here are the calculations related to the Aug 21, 2017 eclipse that predicted the path of to within several arc seconds of latitude/longitude and was based on a spherical earth in a heliocentric system.
https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEbeselm/SEbeselm2001/SE2017Aug21Tbeselm.html
Easily verifiable by anyone who cares to do the calculations.
I’ve provided the proof of the calculations for everyone to verify. The math works.
The path of an eclipse is based on a heliocentric, spherical earth model. QED!
Debunk it if you can.
Mike
This post shows the moon in front of the sun during the eclipse. The website and photos are from someone not involved in FE/RE at all. Just a family webpage and a guy who's hobby is photography.
IMHO, these are reasonable evidence of a round earth.Here's a photo of earthshine from Monday's eclipse. It's from a family website. No affiliation FE, RE, NASA, or anything that could be considered a "shill". Just a guy into his family and photography.
http://smithplanet.com/archives/the-great-american-eclipse
There are other examples for anyone who cares to search.
Mike
I tried to post some decent proof of a heliocentric eclipse.
I have debunked your imaginary Globe .
If you are a professor which I doubt.
You know and I know that anyone that watches those videos with an average intelligence or above will not believe in your false religion anymore.
Lol.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
And just like explosive diarrhea posts like these keep on coming... This thread is like a 3rd world toilet in the aftermath. Medic!
I thought that was a pretty good post, very interesting assertations. The catchphrase "Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False" is funny.
We've all seen the YouTube videos, we've all witnessed the eclipse and drawn our own conclusions about "what is really happening".
I'd really like to see something more than childish comments coming from the glob--globuralists? That's not a word. Globalists is something else. Hmm. I find the "science defender" team lacks gravitas lately. Flat Earth vs. Globe Earth is sort-of like Trump vs. Hillary. Flat Earth Crew has all the mojo right now. Globe Earth Crew, let's see you step it up in next round.
This post shows the math used to calculate the path that turned out to be very accurate.Okay. If the burden of proof is on us, then here it is. Keeping in mind I’ve already posted this...as did others for that matter.
The path of the eclipse is calculated using Besselian elements. Besselian elements calculate the local circumstances of an observer on the surface of the earth.
To prove that this the method use and that it matches reality, here are the calculations related to the Aug 21, 2017 eclipse that predicted the path of to within several arc seconds of latitude/longitude and was based on a spherical earth in a heliocentric system.
https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEbeselm/SEbeselm2001/SE2017Aug21Tbeselm.html
Easily verifiable by anyone who cares to do the calculations.
I’ve provided the proof of the calculations for everyone to verify. The math works.
The path of an eclipse is based on a heliocentric, spherical earth model. QED!
Debunk it if you can.
Mike
This post shows the moon in front of the sun during the eclipse. The website and photos are from someone not involved in FE/RE at all. Just a family webpage and a guy who's hobby is photography.
IMHO, these are reasonable evidence of a round earth.Here's a photo of earthshine from Monday's eclipse. It's from a family website. No affiliation FE, RE, NASA, or anything that could be considered a "shill". Just a guy into his family and photography.
http://smithplanet.com/archives/the-great-american-eclipse
There are other examples for anyone who cares to search.
Mike
IMHO it is just evidence of photoshop.
Lol.
No one could see the moon at the time of the eclipse.
The Solar Eclipse is caused by the Black Sun.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
What is your opinion that it is photoshoped based on?I tried to post some decent proof of a heliocentric eclipse.
I have debunked your imaginary Globe .
If you are a professor which I doubt.
You know and I know that anyone that watches those videos with an average intelligence or above will not believe in your false religion anymore.
Lol.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
And just like explosive diarrhea posts like these keep on coming... This thread is like a 3rd world toilet in the aftermath. Medic!
I thought that was a pretty good post, very interesting assertations. The catchphrase "Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False" is funny.
We've all seen the YouTube videos, we've all witnessed the eclipse and drawn our own conclusions about "what is really happening".
I'd really like to see something more than childish comments coming from the glob--globuralists? That's not a word. Globalists is something else. Hmm. I find the "science defender" team lacks gravitas lately. Flat Earth vs. Globe Earth is sort-of like Trump vs. Hillary. Flat Earth Crew has all the mojo right now. Globe Earth Crew, let's see you step it up in next round.
This post shows the math used to calculate the path that turned out to be very accurate.Okay. If the burden of proof is on us, then here it is. Keeping in mind I’ve already posted this...as did others for that matter.
The path of the eclipse is calculated using Besselian elements. Besselian elements calculate the local circumstances of an observer on the surface of the earth.
To prove that this the method use and that it matches reality, here are the calculations related to the Aug 21, 2017 eclipse that predicted the path of to within several arc seconds of latitude/longitude and was based on a spherical earth in a heliocentric system.
https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEbeselm/SEbeselm2001/SE2017Aug21Tbeselm.html
Easily verifiable by anyone who cares to do the calculations.
I’ve provided the proof of the calculations for everyone to verify. The math works.
The path of an eclipse is based on a heliocentric, spherical earth model. QED!
Debunk it if you can.
Mike
This post shows the moon in front of the sun during the eclipse. The website and photos are from someone not involved in FE/RE at all. Just a family webpage and a guy who's hobby is photography.
IMHO, these are reasonable evidence of a round earth.Here's a photo of earthshine from Monday's eclipse. It's from a family website. No affiliation FE, RE, NASA, or anything that could be considered a "shill". Just a guy into his family and photography.
http://smithplanet.com/archives/the-great-american-eclipse
There are other examples for anyone who cares to search.
Mike
IMHO it is just evidence of photoshop.
Lol.
No one could see the moon at the time of the eclipse.
The Solar Eclipse is caused by the Black Sun.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Incorrect.No, that would be you.Are you capable of any rational thought at all?
Are you only capable of linking to crap?
The video has a bunch of pathetic, baseless lies.
There is no indication the ground there is flat.
There is no justification for why we wouldn't see Mercury.
And then the typical BS about the curvature.
What is your opinion that it is photoshoped based on?I tried to post some decent proof of a heliocentric eclipse.
I have debunked your imaginary Globe .
If you are a professor which I doubt.
You know and I know that anyone that watches those videos with an average intelligence or above will not believe in your false religion anymore.
Lol.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
And just like explosive diarrhea posts like these keep on coming... This thread is like a 3rd world toilet in the aftermath. Medic!
I thought that was a pretty good post, very interesting assertations. The catchphrase "Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False" is funny.
We've all seen the YouTube videos, we've all witnessed the eclipse and drawn our own conclusions about "what is really happening".
I'd really like to see something more than childish comments coming from the glob--globuralists? That's not a word. Globalists is something else. Hmm. I find the "science defender" team lacks gravitas lately. Flat Earth vs. Globe Earth is sort-of like Trump vs. Hillary. Flat Earth Crew has all the mojo right now. Globe Earth Crew, let's see you step it up in next round.
This post shows the math used to calculate the path that turned out to be very accurate.Okay. If the burden of proof is on us, then here it is. Keeping in mind I’ve already posted this...as did others for that matter.
The path of the eclipse is calculated using Besselian elements. Besselian elements calculate the local circumstances of an observer on the surface of the earth.
To prove that this the method use and that it matches reality, here are the calculations related to the Aug 21, 2017 eclipse that predicted the path of to within several arc seconds of latitude/longitude and was based on a spherical earth in a heliocentric system.
https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEbeselm/SEbeselm2001/SE2017Aug21Tbeselm.html
Easily verifiable by anyone who cares to do the calculations.
I’ve provided the proof of the calculations for everyone to verify. The math works.
The path of an eclipse is based on a heliocentric, spherical earth model. QED!
Debunk it if you can.
Mike
This post shows the moon in front of the sun during the eclipse. The website and photos are from someone not involved in FE/RE at all. Just a family webpage and a guy who's hobby is photography.
IMHO, these are reasonable evidence of a round earth.Here's a photo of earthshine from Monday's eclipse. It's from a family website. No affiliation FE, RE, NASA, or anything that could be considered a "shill". Just a guy into his family and photography.
http://smithplanet.com/archives/the-great-american-eclipse
There are other examples for anyone who cares to search.
Mike
IMHO it is just evidence of photoshop.
Lol.
No one could see the moon at the time of the eclipse.
The Solar Eclipse is caused by the Black Sun.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Mike
Incorrect.No, that would be you.Are you capable of any rational thought at all?
Are you only capable of linking to crap?
The video has a bunch of pathetic, baseless lies.
There is no indication the ground there is flat.
There is no justification for why we wouldn't see Mercury.
And then the typical BS about the curvature.
Did you actually watch the video REtard. ?
Anyone that does will see what a load of shit your old tired out Heliocentric model is.
😆
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
No one could see the moon at the time of the eclipse.I thought that you said that people in Asia could see the moon during the eclipse.
I'm sorry, but I didn't see a flat earth model of the sun/earth/moon system anywhere in that video.It's a damned sight better than anything FET has.
Incorrect.
Or they could realize that Jack Black is correct in his assessment. there is no justification for why we wouldn't see Mercury. And the same BS about curvature. They spend a significant amount of time complaining about the "missing" 32 feet of curvature but never figured out what it should be with the elevation of the observer that is clearly there.Incorrect.No, that would be you.Are you capable of any rational thought at all?
Are you only capable of linking to crap?
The video has a bunch of pathetic, baseless lies.
There is no indication the ground there is flat.
There is no justification for why we wouldn't see Mercury.
And then the typical BS about the curvature.
Did you actually watch the video REtard. ?
Anyone that does will see what a load of shit your old tired out Heliocentric model is.
😆
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
No one could see the moon at the time of the eclipse.I thought that you said that people in Asia could see the moon during the eclipse.
Is there any chance that you will ever provide some evidence for that claim?
No, I didn't think so.
Are all flat earthers genetically defective in that they don't have the slightest concept of relative values?[youtube][/youtube]
Then how would you know that the moon would be over Asia at the said time?No one could see the moon at the time of the eclipse.I thought that you said that people in Asia could see the moon during the eclipse.
Is there any chance that you will ever provide some evidence for that claim?
No, I didn't think so.
No one who was watching the Eclipse REtard.
I live in the UK how would I get a picture of the Moon in Asia at the said time?
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Then how would you know that the moon would be over Asia at the said time?No one could see the moon at the time of the eclipse.I thought that you said that people in Asia could see the moon during the eclipse.
Is there any chance that you will ever provide some evidence for that claim?
No, I didn't think so.
No one who was watching the Eclipse REtard.
I live in the UK how would I get a picture of the Moon in Asia at the said time?
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Do you even know how the phases of the moon work?
Then how would you know that the moon would be over Asia at the said time?No one could see the moon at the time of the eclipse.I thought that you said that people in Asia could see the moon during the eclipse.
Is there any chance that you will ever provide some evidence for that claim?
No, I didn't think so.
No one who was watching the Eclipse REtard.
I live in the UK how would I get a picture of the Moon in Asia at the said time?
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Do you even know how the phases of the moon work?
Yes I know how the phases of the Moon work these can be verified by anyone.
The Moon does not eclipse the Sun during a Solar eclipse.
The Black Sun Eclipses the Sun during a Solar eclipse.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
You keep saying that, but have yet to show any evidence of it. You claim the moon is over Asia at that time. Well where are the pictures from Asia? You claim FE weather balloons show this. Well where's the videos you've promised and earlier even said you were 'picking between'? So far it's been nothing but hot air from you. Care to share actual evidence for your claims other than a gross misunderstanding of the difference between rotational arc velocity, rotation speed, and orbital speed? Not to mention not understanding what it means for the sun to be a point source for this.Then how would you know that the moon would be over Asia at the said time?No one could see the moon at the time of the eclipse.I thought that you said that people in Asia could see the moon during the eclipse.
Is there any chance that you will ever provide some evidence for that claim?
No, I didn't think so.
No one who was watching the Eclipse REtard.
I live in the UK how would I get a picture of the Moon in Asia at the said time?
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Do you even know how the phases of the moon work?
Yes I know how the phases of the Moon work these can be verified by anyone.
The Moon does not eclipse the Sun during a Solar eclipse.
The Black Sun Eclipses the Sun during a Solar eclipse.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Yes I know how the phases of the Moon work these can be verified by anyone.Then you admit that the moon is near the sun when in its new phase instead of over Asia like you claimed.
Yes I know how the phases of the Moon work these can be verified by anyone.Then you admit that the moon is near the sun when in its new phase instead of over Asia like you claimed.
Nice to see that we're making progress.
Then where was the moon?Yes I know how the phases of the Moon work these can be verified by anyone.Then you admit that the moon is near the sun when in its new phase instead of over Asia like you claimed.
Nice to see that we're making progress.
The Moon is nowhere near the Sun during the Solar Eclipse.
Then where was the moon?Yes I know how the phases of the Moon work these can be verified by anyone.Then you admit that the moon is near the sun when in its new phase instead of over Asia like you claimed.
Nice to see that we're making progress.
The Moon is nowhere near the Sun during the Solar Eclipse.
You said that you know how the phases of the moon work and that anyone can verify it
According to the way lunar phases work, the new moon is near the sun.
Are you saying that the solar eclipse didn't happen during a new moon?
The Moon is nowhere near the Sun during the Solar Eclipse.
The Moon doesn't eclipse the Sun during the solar eclipse.
\Yes I know how the phases of the Moon work these can be verified by anyone.Then you admit that the moon is near the sun when in its new phase instead of over Asia like you claimed.
Nice to see that we're making progress.
The Moon is nowhere near the Sun during the Solar Eclipse.
The Moon doesn't eclipse the Sun during the solar eclipse.
The Black Sun eclipses the Sun during the Solar eclipse as can be seen in the video below.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Then where was the moon?Yes I know how the phases of the Moon work these can be verified by anyone.Then you admit that the moon is near the sun when in its new phase instead of over Asia like you claimed.
Nice to see that we're making progress.
The Moon is nowhere near the Sun during the Solar Eclipse.
You said that you know how the phases of the moon work and that anyone can verify it
According to the way lunar phases work, the new moon is near the sun.
Are you saying that the solar eclipse didn't happen during a new moon?
No I'm saying as is clearly illustrated by the video I provided the moon did not pass in front of the Sun.
The moon is nowhere in sight.
This is clearly illustrated by the video I provided.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
This is because as the video clearly illustrates the Black Sun Eclipses the Sun not the Moon.
Yes I know how the phases of the Moon work these can be verified by anyone.Then you admit that the moon is near the sun when in its new phase instead of over Asia like you claimed.
Nice to see that we're making progress.
The Moon is nowhere near the Sun during the Solar Eclipse.
The Moon doesn't eclipse the Sun during the solar eclipse.
The Black Sun eclipses the Sun during the Solar eclipse as can be seen in the video below.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Again guys, give up with this guy, he is mental.
Now's your chance Mr Futile, what is the black sun, where is the black sun when (allegedly) it is not in front of the sun. Who first discovered it, any scientific proof of it, any text anywhere in history, so whilst it is the 'black sun' is over the sun, where, exactly, is the moon.
all we see in this poorly executed video is something black going over it - what ever it is will be 'dark' or 'black' because the sun is incredibly bright and it would wash out anything in front of it. You said you watched the eclipse in the UK in 99 and you did not see the moon pass in front, whereas millions did. your certainly one of a kind.
You are the one who made the claim can you not back it up?No one could see the moon at the time of the eclipse.I thought that you said that people in Asia could see the moon during the eclipse.
Is there any chance that you will ever provide some evidence for that claim?
No, I didn't think so.
No one who was watching the Eclipse REtard.
I live in the UK how would I get a picture of the Moon in Asia at the said time?
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Then where was the moon?Yes I know how the phases of the Moon work these can be verified by anyone.Then you admit that the moon is near the sun when in its new phase instead of over Asia like you claimed.
Nice to see that we're making progress.
The Moon is nowhere near the Sun during the Solar Eclipse.
You said that you know how the phases of the moon work and that anyone can verify it
According to the way lunar phases work, the new moon is near the sun.
Are you saying that the solar eclipse didn't happen during a new moon?
No I'm saying as is clearly illustrated by the video I provided the moon did not pass in front of the Sun.
The moon is nowhere in sight.
This is clearly illustrated by the video I provided.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
This is because as the video clearly illustrates the Black Sun Eclipses the Sun not the Moon.
Remember your claim that the moon would be visible somewhere down in asia during the eclipse? Where's the evidence for that?
If you can't provide that evidence you're a proved liar, simple as that. :-\
Then how do you explain the fact that the "black sun" was exactly where and when RET predicted that the moon should be during the eclipse?Then where was the moon?Yes I know how the phases of the Moon work these can be verified by anyone.Then you admit that the moon is near the sun when in its new phase instead of over Asia like you claimed.
Nice to see that we're making progress.
The Moon is nowhere near the Sun during the Solar Eclipse.
You said that you know how the phases of the moon work and that anyone can verify it
According to the way lunar phases work, the new moon is near the sun.
Are you saying that the solar eclipse didn't happen during a new moon?
No I'm saying as is clearly illustrated by the video I provided the moon did not pass in front of the Sun.
The moon is nowhere in sight.
This is clearly illustrated by the video I provided.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
This is because as the video clearly illustrates the Black Sun Eclipses the Sun not the Moon.
Then how do you explain the fact that the "black sun" was exactly where and when RET predicted that the moon should be during the eclipse?Then where was the moon?Yes I know how the phases of the Moon work these can be verified by anyone.Then you admit that the moon is near the sun when in its new phase instead of over Asia like you claimed.
Nice to see that we're making progress.
The Moon is nowhere near the Sun during the Solar Eclipse.
You said that you know how the phases of the moon work and that anyone can verify it
According to the way lunar phases work, the new moon is near the sun.
Are you saying that the solar eclipse didn't happen during a new moon?
No I'm saying as is clearly illustrated by the video I provided the moon did not pass in front of the Sun.
The moon is nowhere in sight.
This is clearly illustrated by the video I provided.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
This is because as the video clearly illustrates the Black Sun Eclipses the Sun not the Moon.
Apparently you still can't grasp the concept that severely backlit objects appear black.
On your heliocentric model you claim the Moon is illuminated by the Sun.I can see how you would get to this conclusion, even if it's incorrect. In order for the moon to be seen during the night which is outside the new moon phase, it's illuminated by the sun (sunlight bouncing directly off the moon) and as we all know highly visible. During a new moon, the moon is competing in the sky with the sun for brightness, which greatly lowers it's ability to be seen. In addition to that, while sunlight is indeed bouncing off the Earth, what is hitting the moon isn't what we see, because the light has to bounce off the moon again. Well, the difference in brightness between the sun and moon is obvious. So that's a large amount of luminosity being lost. While the Earth reflects more light than the moon, what's reflected is reduced by that same factor. Thus, a new moon is all but invisible against the sky. If you know just where to look you can maybe see it with an unaided eye.
For example the dusty Moon is able to illuminate the earth using light reflected from the Sun.
If this is correct then the much larger much more reflective earth should of illuminated the Moon with the Sun's reflected light making it possible to see the moon right throughout the day during the eclipse.
On your heliocentric model you claim the Moon is illuminated by the Sun.I can see how you would get to this conclusion, even if it's incorrect. In order for the moon to be seen during the night which is outside the new moon phase, it's illuminated by the sun (sunlight bouncing directly off the moon) and as we all know highly visible. During a new moon, the moon is competing in the sky with the sun for brightness, which greatly lowers it's ability to be seen. In addition to that, while sunlight is indeed bouncing off the Earth, what is hitting the moon isn't what we see, because the light has to bounce off the moon again. Well, the difference in brightness between the sun and moon is obvious. So that's a large amount of luminosity being lost. While the Earth reflects more light than the moon, what's reflected is reduced by that same factor. Thus, a new moon is all but invisible against the sky. If you know just where to look you can maybe see it with an unaided eye.
For example the dusty Moon is able to illuminate the earth using light reflected from the Sun.
If this is correct then the much larger much more reflective earth should of illuminated the Moon with the Sun's reflected light making it possible to see the moon right throughout the day during the eclipse.
and you did not see the moon at night, at that date was a new moonOn your heliocentric model you claim the Moon is illuminated by the Sun.I can see how you would get to this conclusion, even if it's incorrect. In order for the moon to be seen during the night which is outside the new moon phase, it's illuminated by the sun (sunlight bouncing directly off the moon) and as we all know highly visible. During a new moon, the moon is competing in the sky with the sun for brightness, which greatly lowers it's ability to be seen. In addition to that, while sunlight is indeed bouncing off the Earth, what is hitting the moon isn't what we see, because the light has to bounce off the moon again. Well, the difference in brightness between the sun and moon is obvious. So that's a large amount of luminosity being lost. While the Earth reflects more light than the moon, what's reflected is reduced by that same factor. Thus, a new moon is all but invisible against the sky. If you know just where to look you can maybe see it with an unaided eye.
For example the dusty Moon is able to illuminate the earth using light reflected from the Sun.
If this is correct then the much larger much more reflective earth should of illuminated the Moon with the Sun's reflected light making it possible to see the moon right throughout the day during the eclipse.
The Moon is visible in the day I have seen it roughly 90 degrees away from the Sun.
I do not find your explanation acceptable.
When I witnessed the eclipse in the UK in 1999 I did not see the Moon all day .
except at the time of new moon
Let's look at the facts :
The Moon is visible during the day.
The Moon is not visible during the Eclipse.as it is every time exact at new moon
that is proven to be wrong and you know it
The Moon does not cause the Solar Eclipse.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
When I witnessed the eclipse in the UK in 1999 I did not see the Moon all day .
You didn't actually read a word I said did you? The day of a new moon, the moon is not visible during the day for all intents and purposes. Because there's no sunlight bouncing off the visible side, and Earthshine isn't anywhere near bright enough to light up the moon with the sun in the sky. If you know exactly where the moon is, I would suspect there's a chance you could see it with the naked eye, if you had very good eyesight. But see, you don't see the moon in the sky during the day every single month for the day of the new moon. To declare otherwise is simply lying. We've got another new moon coming up next month. Go out and try to find it. If you can't are you going to claim it's above Asia for a day then as well?On your heliocentric model you claim the Moon is illuminated by the Sun.I can see how you would get to this conclusion, even if it's incorrect. In order for the moon to be seen during the night which is outside the new moon phase, it's illuminated by the sun (sunlight bouncing directly off the moon) and as we all know highly visible. During a new moon, the moon is competing in the sky with the sun for brightness, which greatly lowers it's ability to be seen. In addition to that, while sunlight is indeed bouncing off the Earth, what is hitting the moon isn't what we see, because the light has to bounce off the moon again. Well, the difference in brightness between the sun and moon is obvious. So that's a large amount of luminosity being lost. While the Earth reflects more light than the moon, what's reflected is reduced by that same factor. Thus, a new moon is all but invisible against the sky. If you know just where to look you can maybe see it with an unaided eye.
For example the dusty Moon is able to illuminate the earth using light reflected from the Sun.
If this is correct then the much larger much more reflective earth should of illuminated the Moon with the Sun's reflected light making it possible to see the moon right throughout the day during the eclipse.
The Moon is visible in the day I have seen it roughly 90 degrees away from the Sun.
I do not find your explanation acceptable.
When I witnessed the eclipse in the UK in 1999 I did not see the Moon all day .
Let's look at the facts :
The Moon is visible during the day.
The Moon is not visible during the Eclipse.
The Moon does not cause the Solar Eclipse.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
You didn't actually read a word I said did you? The day of a new moon, the moon is not visible during the day for all intents and purposes. Because there's no sunlight bouncing off the visible side, and Earthshine isn't anywhere near bright enough to light up the moon with the sun in the sky. If you know exactly where the moon is, I would suspect there's a chance you could see it with the naked eye, if you had very good eyesight. But see, you don't see the moon in the sky during the day every single month for the day of the new moon. To declare otherwise is simply lying. We've got another new moon coming up next month. Go out and try to find it. If you can't are you going to claim it's above Asia for a day then as well?On your heliocentric model you claim the Moon is illuminated by the Sun.I can see how you would get to this conclusion, even if it's incorrect. In order for the moon to be seen during the night which is outside the new moon phase, it's illuminated by the sun (sunlight bouncing directly off the moon) and as we all know highly visible. During a new moon, the moon is competing in the sky with the sun for brightness, which greatly lowers it's ability to be seen. In addition to that, while sunlight is indeed bouncing off the Earth, what is hitting the moon isn't what we see, because the light has to bounce off the moon again. Well, the difference in brightness between the sun and moon is obvious. So that's a large amount of luminosity being lost. While the Earth reflects more light than the moon, what's reflected is reduced by that same factor. Thus, a new moon is all but invisible against the sky. If you know just where to look you can maybe see it with an unaided eye.
For example the dusty Moon is able to illuminate the earth using light reflected from the Sun.
If this is correct then the much larger much more reflective earth should of illuminated the Moon with the Sun's reflected light making it possible to see the moon right throughout the day during the eclipse.
The Moon is visible in the day I have seen it roughly 90 degrees away from the Sun.
I do not find your explanation acceptable.
When I witnessed the eclipse in the UK in 1999 I did not see the Moon all day .
Let's look at the facts :
The Moon is visible during the day.
The Moon is not visible during the Eclipse.
The Moon does not cause the Solar Eclipse.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
You didn't actually read a word I said did you? The day of a new moon, the moon is not visible during the day for all intents and purposes. Because there's no sunlight bouncing off the visible side, and Earthshine isn't anywhere near bright enough to light up the moon with the sun in the sky. If you know exactly where the moon is, I would suspect there's a chance you could see it with the naked eye, if you had very good eyesight. But see, you don't see the moon in the sky during the day every single month for the day of the new moon. To declare otherwise is simply lying. We've got another new moon coming up next month. Go out and try to find it. If you can't are you going to claim it's above Asia for a day then as well?On your heliocentric model you claim the Moon is illuminated by the Sun.I can see how you would get to this conclusion, even if it's incorrect. In order for the moon to be seen during the night which is outside the new moon phase, it's illuminated by the sun (sunlight bouncing directly off the moon) and as we all know highly visible. During a new moon, the moon is competing in the sky with the sun for brightness, which greatly lowers it's ability to be seen. In addition to that, while sunlight is indeed bouncing off the Earth, what is hitting the moon isn't what we see, because the light has to bounce off the moon again. Well, the difference in brightness between the sun and moon is obvious. So that's a large amount of luminosity being lost. While the Earth reflects more light than the moon, what's reflected is reduced by that same factor. Thus, a new moon is all but invisible against the sky. If you know just where to look you can maybe see it with an unaided eye.
For example the dusty Moon is able to illuminate the earth using light reflected from the Sun.
If this is correct then the much larger much more reflective earth should of illuminated the Moon with the Sun's reflected light making it possible to see the moon right throughout the day during the eclipse.
The Moon is visible in the day I have seen it roughly 90 degrees away from the Sun.
I do not find your explanation acceptable.
When I witnessed the eclipse in the UK in 1999 I did not see the Moon all day .
Let's look at the facts :
The Moon is visible during the day.
The Moon is not visible during the Eclipse.
The Moon does not cause the Solar Eclipse.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
The Moon does not eclipse the Sun .
The Black Sun eclipses the Sun.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
The Black Sun was where your brethren said the Moon would be and your point is ..... They are bound to say that as this reinforces your heliocentric deception.Or, because what you call the "black sun" really is the moon.
The Moon is visible in the day.Yes, the new moon is just barely visible during the day, if you know where to look for it.
The Moon was not visible during the eclipse as it allegedly approached the Sun or retreated from the Sun.How do you know that for sure?
This is because as the video I provided illustrated the Black Sun eclipses the Sun not the Moon.How long before the eclipse did that video look for the moon?
Back lit objects only appear black to cameras not the naked eye.Incorrect. Hold up a small object in front of a bright light bulb and tell me what color it looks.
On your heliocentric model you claim the Moon is illuminated by the Sun.Yes.
For example the dusty Moon is able to illuminate the earth using light reflected from the Sun.That would depend on the phase of the moon. A full moon can provide a good bit of illumination, but a crescent moon will provide very little.
If this is correct then the much larger much more reflective earth should of illuminated the Moon with the Sun's reflected light making it possible to see the moon right throughout the day during the eclipse.Earthshine is pretty much the only reason that a new moon is visible (if just barely) during the daytime, but it still pales in comparison to the sun's brightness.
You can't have it both ways.If both ways are true, then why not?
Fucking what mate? Didn't even mention the eclipse. Repeating your mantra doesn't make it any more true, but it's obvious attempting to talk with you is more futile than Tom, a feat I didn't think possible. When you decide to stop abusing your C and V keys we can talk. Until then, take care.You didn't actually read a word I said did you? The day of a new moon, the moon is not visible during the day for all intents and purposes. Because there's no sunlight bouncing off the visible side, and Earthshine isn't anywhere near bright enough to light up the moon with the sun in the sky. If you know exactly where the moon is, I would suspect there's a chance you could see it with the naked eye, if you had very good eyesight. But see, you don't see the moon in the sky during the day every single month for the day of the new moon. To declare otherwise is simply lying. We've got another new moon coming up next month. Go out and try to find it. If you can't are you going to claim it's above Asia for a day then as well?On your heliocentric model you claim the Moon is illuminated by the Sun.I can see how you would get to this conclusion, even if it's incorrect. In order for the moon to be seen during the night which is outside the new moon phase, it's illuminated by the sun (sunlight bouncing directly off the moon) and as we all know highly visible. During a new moon, the moon is competing in the sky with the sun for brightness, which greatly lowers it's ability to be seen. In addition to that, while sunlight is indeed bouncing off the Earth, what is hitting the moon isn't what we see, because the light has to bounce off the moon again. Well, the difference in brightness between the sun and moon is obvious. So that's a large amount of luminosity being lost. While the Earth reflects more light than the moon, what's reflected is reduced by that same factor. Thus, a new moon is all but invisible against the sky. If you know just where to look you can maybe see it with an unaided eye.
For example the dusty Moon is able to illuminate the earth using light reflected from the Sun.
If this is correct then the much larger much more reflective earth should of illuminated the Moon with the Sun's reflected light making it possible to see the moon right throughout the day during the eclipse.
The Moon is visible in the day I have seen it roughly 90 degrees away from the Sun.
I do not find your explanation acceptable.
When I witnessed the eclipse in the UK in 1999 I did not see the Moon all day .
Let's look at the facts :
The Moon is visible during the day.
The Moon is not visible during the Eclipse.
The Moon does not cause the Solar Eclipse.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
The Moon does not eclipse the Sun .
The Black Sun eclipses the Sun.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
C,Mon, Mr I am futile, admit it your winding us up, throughout this thread the only thing you (unwittingly) prove is that your a Mr know it all who knows bugger all, your a fool, we all think you are 1st class nutjob with honours, give up while you can. If you were in a pub talking your shot it would empty soon as you open your mouth. I don't know why people are taking time to actually give you backed up facts because it is just wasted on you. I consider you a fool of the 1st order. You seem to be the only person on this planet who knows about a 'black Sun's and it is just laughable. No doubt you will give me some textual earache, but that will just fuel the fire.
Your a fool Mr on my own again and futile, got to bed and don't wet it.
No one could see the moon at the time of the eclipse.Stop calling the moon the black sun.
The Solar Eclipse is caused by the Black Sun.
Did you actually watch the video REtard. ?I don't know what retard you are talking to, but I watched it.
Anyone that does will see what a load of shit your old tired out Heliocentric model is.Nope. They will just see the same BS lies repeated about it.
I witnessed the eclipse myself in the UK in 1999.Sure, instead of the moon passing in front of the sun you see it magically vanish and be replaced by the black sun, which then magically vanishes to be replaced by the moon.
I did not see the moon pass in front of the Sun.
Your picture does not reflect what is observed in reality as such it is false.
The Moon is nowhere near the Sun during the Solar Eclipse.Again, if it isn't, where is it?
The Black Sun eclipses the Sun during the Solar eclipse as can be seen in the video below.Nope. We see the moon going in front of the sun.
No they just think they saw the Moon because your Heliocentric brethren told them that .No. If they actually thought about it they would realise that for the most part (i.e. ignoring the part lit up by Earth Shine), the amount of the moon visible during the day (assuming it is above the horizon) would shrink as it gets closer and closer to a new moon, eventually becoming nothing at all during a perfect new moon.
The reality is if they actually thought about it they would realise that it isn't the Moon because the Moon is visible in the day.
Fortunately we now have access to the Internet and the truth so we don't have to accept your lies anymore.You mean access to loads and loads of pure bullshit, so you can happily accept those lies.
Back lit objects only appear black to cameras not the naked eye.That depends upon how opaque they are, and the various intensities of the light.
If this is correct then the much larger much more reflective earth should of illuminated the Moon with the Sun's reflected light making it possible to see the moon right throughout the day during the eclipse.Not when it is right next to the eclipse. The range required would be far too great.
The Moon is visible in the day I have seen it roughly 90 degrees away from the Sun.So when it is still quite lit up.
When I witnessed the eclipse in the UK in 1999 I did not see the Moon all day .You saw its silhouette.
less posting, more slapping....I'm not pathetic or retarded enough to slap myself because you tell me to.
This is a flat earth forum and I come here to discuss different aspects of the heliocentric model.
Then where was the moon?Yes I know how the phases of the Moon work these can be verified by anyone.Then you admit that the moon is near the sun when in its new phase instead of over Asia like you claimed.
Nice to see that we're making progress.
The Moon is nowhere near the Sun during the Solar Eclipse.
You said that you know how the phases of the moon work and that anyone can verify it
According to the way lunar phases work, the new moon is near the sun.
Are you saying that the solar eclipse didn't happen during a new moon?
No I'm saying as is clearly illustrated by the video I provided the moon did not pass in front of the Sun.
The moon is nowhere in sight.
This is clearly illustrated by the video I provided.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
This is because as the video clearly illustrates the Black Sun Eclipses the Sun not the Moon.
Remember your claim that the moon would be visible somewhere down in asia during the eclipse? Where's the evidence for that?
If you can't provide that evidence you're a proved liar, simple as that. :-\
Incorrect.
Lack of evidence does not prove guilt.
Evidence proves guilt REtard.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
The Black Sun was where your brethren said the Moon would be and your point is ..... They are bound to say that as this reinforces your heliocentric deception.
The Moon is visible in the day.
The Moon was not visible during the eclipse as it allegedly approached the Sun or retreated from the Sun.
This is because as the video I provided illustrated the Black Sun eclipses the Sun not the Moon.
Back lit objects only appear black to cameras not the naked eye.
On your heliocentric model you claim the Moon is illuminated by the Sun.
For example the dusty Moon is able to illuminate the earth using light reflected from the Sun.
If this is correct then the much larger much more reflective earth
should of illuminated the Moon with the Sun's reflected light making it possible to see the moon right throughout the day during the eclipse.
You can't have it both ways.
The Black Sun was where your brethren said the Moon would be and your point is ..... They are bound to say that as this reinforces your heliocentric deception.
Or... the simpler explanation is that your "black sun" is the moon. How does your "black sun" fare in the "duck test"[nb]If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.[/nb]?
It's exactly where the moon is.
It's exactly the same apparent size as the moon.
Its edge profile is exactly the same as the moon's.
It's probably the moon. This also avoids the bother of temporarily stashing the moon somewhere else during the eclipse (Asia?) and conjuring up a new object, then restoring the moon and disposing of the new object.QuoteThe Moon is visible in the day.
Sometimes, yes.QuoteThe Moon was not visible during the eclipse as it allegedly approached the Sun or retreated from the Sun.
It's an exceedingly thin crescent that's lost in the glare of the sun as it approaches and retreats. Once it starts blocking the sun, it's visible in silhouette.QuoteThis is because as the video I provided illustrated the Black Sun eclipses the Sun not the Moon.
Which video? Did you provide one from a high-altitude weather balloon you say shows this? I must have missed it.QuoteBack lit objects only appear black to cameras not the naked eye.
Not necessarily. It depends on how much additional light is falling on the side that's not directly illuminated, exposure settings, and a host of other things.QuoteOn your heliocentric model you claim the Moon is illuminated by the Sun.
Very good. Although it's more than a "claim".QuoteFor example the dusty Moon is able to illuminate the earth using light reflected from the Sun.
The average albedo of the moon is about 12%. That mean it reflects about 12% of the light that falls on its surface. At times near full moon, its reflected light does provide enough light for dark-adapted eyes to see reasonably well with. The range of light levels a healthy human eye can see in is pretty impressive, really!QuoteIf this is correct then the much larger much more reflective earth
The apparent size of the earth from the moon is about four times larger than the moon appears from the earth, so the subtended solid angle is sixteen times larger. Earth's albedo is about 30%, about 2.5 times greater than the moon's, so a full earth would provide about 40 times as much light to the moon than a full moon provides to the earth.
The sunlight reflected by the full moon onto the Earth is about 250,000 times dimmer than the light we get directly from the Sun in the daytime[nb]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_photography#Moonlight_photography[/nb] (18 f-stops in photography). That means the sunlight reflected by the full earth onto the moon is more than 6,000 times dimmer than light reaching the moon directly from the sun (13 f-stops).Quoteshould of illuminated the Moon with the Sun's reflected light making it possible to see the moon right throughout the day during the eclipse.
That would depend on how bright the part of the moon illuminated by earthshine alone is and how bright the atmosphere is. For a few days after new moon, it's indeed possible (even easy) to see "the old moon in the new moon's arms" after sunset (or the new moon in the old moon's arms before sunrise a few days before a new moon, but it seems unlikely that you would be interested in that). When the sun is up, the sky is normally too bright to see this, but you've been shown pictures of the moon illuminated by earthshine during total eclipse but chose to ignore those. Why?
This is the same reason you don't see even the brightest stars or planets during daytime; they're there, but the sky itself is simply too bright to be able to see them under normal conditions.QuoteYou can't have it both ways.
No need to "have it both ways." What matters is whether the earthshine-only lit part of the moon is bright enough to see against the scattered light of the atmosphere. You seem unfamiliar with technical aspects of photography, but a difference of even 10 f-stops is a lot!
You are Incorrect.Repeating the same BS wont make it true.
It looks like the Black Sun .
It is the Black Sun.
The Moon is visible in the day.
The Moon is not visible throughout the eclipse.
It is not the Moon .
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
You are Incorrect.Repeating the same BS wont make it true.
It looks like the Black Sun .
It is the Black Sun.
The Moon is visible in the day.
The Moon is not visible throughout the eclipse.
It is not the Moon .
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
The only time we "see" your black sun is during the eclipse. So you cannot honestly say it looks like the black sun.
Your black sun is the moon.
The amount you see varies depending upon the lighting and what you are looking at it with.
Again, it was a new moon. That means the moon is out during the day.
So if the moon MUST be visible during the day, the black sun was visible, and there was no other object akin to the moon, then the black sun MUST be the moon.
When I witnessed the eclipse I observed a black disc passing in front of the sun.
You are Incorrect.
It looks like the Black Sun .
It is the Black Sun.
The Moon is visible in the day.
The Moon is not visible throughout the eclipse.
It is not the Moon .
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
I do not believe your BS .That would be your BS. You are the one with the moon magically disappearing and reappearing later.
I have never seen any real time video evidence of this magic moon that dissappears and reappears during the eclipse.
When I witnessed the eclipse I observed a black disc passing in front of the sun.i.e. you witnessed the moon pass in front of the sun and saw the dark side of the moon (the actual dark side, not the far side), appearing as a black disc.
The can remember thinking at the time something didn't seem right.It was your thinking about it.
I now realise the Moon was missing.Nope. Not missing. You just decided to call it the black sun.
Then where was the moon?Yes I know how the phases of the Moon work these can be verified by anyone.Then you admit that the moon is near the sun when in its new phase instead of over Asia like you claimed.
Nice to see that we're making progress.
The Moon is nowhere near the Sun during the Solar Eclipse.
You said that you know how the phases of the moon work and that anyone can verify it
According to the way lunar phases work, the new moon is near the sun.
Are you saying that the solar eclipse didn't happen during a new moon?
No I'm saying as is clearly illustrated by the video I provided the moon did not pass in front of the Sun.
The moon is nowhere in sight.
This is clearly illustrated by the video I provided.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
This is because as the video clearly illustrates the Black Sun Eclipses the Sun not the Moon.
Remember your claim that the moon would be visible somewhere down in asia during the eclipse? Where's the evidence for that?
If you can't provide that evidence you're a proved liar, simple as that. :-\
Incorrect.
Lack of evidence does not prove guilt.
Evidence proves guilt REtard.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
I have never seen any real time video evidence of this magic moon that dissappears and reappears during the eclipse.Have you ever seen the new moon when it's near the sun?
This is because as the video I provided illustrated the Black Sun eclipses the Sun not the Moon.
Which video? Did you provide one from a high-altitude weather balloon you say shows this? I must have missed it.
This is the difference between someone normal like me and you Strange Heliocentric 's.
This I why I'm giving you a count down you now have eight days left.
Eight days until a video from a high altitude weather balloon shows the Moon is not eclipsing the Sun.
This is because as the video I provided illustrated the Black Sun eclipses the Sun not the Moon.
Which video? Did you provide one from a high-altitude weather balloon you say shows this? I must have missed it.
You never addressed this. Have you found a video from a high altitude weather balloon that supports your point yet? I didn't think so.This is the difference between someone normal like me and you Strange Heliocentric 's.
This I why I'm giving you a count down you now have eight days left.
Eight days until a video from a high altitude weather balloon shows the Moon is not eclipsing the Sun.
It's been nineteen days since you announced "eight days until a video from a high altitude weather balloon shows the Moon is not eclipsing the Sun." The eclipse occurred on schedule eight days after that announcement, exactly as predicted by the moon's motion. Where's the "video from a high altitude weather balloon shows the Moon is not eclipsing the Sun"? Can't find one?
This is because as the video I provided illustrated the Black Sun eclipses the Sun not the Moon.
Which video? Did you provide one from a high-altitude weather balloon you say shows this? I must have missed it.
You never addressed this. Have you found a video from a high altitude weather balloon that supports your point yet? I didn't think so.This is the difference between someone normal like me and you Strange Heliocentric 's.
This I why I'm giving you a count down you now have eight days left.
Eight days until a video from a high altitude weather balloon shows the Moon is not eclipsing the Sun.
It's been nineteen days since you announced "eight days until a video from a high altitude weather balloon shows the Moon is not eclipsing the Sun." The eclipse occurred on schedule eight days after that announcement, exactly as predicted by the moon's motion. Where's the "video from a high altitude weather balloon shows the Moon is not eclipsing the Sun"? Can't find one?
I have posted a video that shows that the Moon does not exlipse the Sun.
The video clearly shows the Black Sun which was known as Rahu to the ancients eclipsing the sun.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
I believe he's referring to https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71435.msg1948557#msg1948557 this post. I didn't bother watching the whole thing, as the first 6 or so minutes has nothing to do with either solar eclipses, or what is being shown in the video. A little ways down Canadabear comments on it with the following though:This is because as the video I provided illustrated the Black Sun eclipses the Sun not the Moon.
Which video? Did you provide one from a high-altitude weather balloon you say shows this? I must have missed it.
You never addressed this. Have you found a video from a high altitude weather balloon that supports your point yet? I didn't think so.This is the difference between someone normal like me and you Strange Heliocentric 's.
This I why I'm giving you a count down you now have eight days left.
Eight days until a video from a high altitude weather balloon shows the Moon is not eclipsing the Sun.
It's been nineteen days since you announced "eight days until a video from a high altitude weather balloon shows the Moon is not eclipsing the Sun." The eclipse occurred on schedule eight days after that announcement, exactly as predicted by the moon's motion. Where's the "video from a high altitude weather balloon shows the Moon is not eclipsing the Sun"? Can't find one?
I have posted a video that shows that the Moon does not exlipse the Sun.
The video clearly shows the Black Sun which was known as Rahu to the ancients eclipsing the sun.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Where?
This is because as the video I provided illustrated the Black Sun eclipses the Sun not the Moon.
Which video? Did you provide one from a high-altitude weather balloon you say shows this? I must have missed it.
You never addressed this. Have you found a video from a high altitude weather balloon that supports your point yet? I didn't think so.This is the difference between someone normal like me and you Strange Heliocentric 's.
This I why I'm giving you a count down you now have eight days left.
Eight days until a video from a high altitude weather balloon shows the Moon is not eclipsing the Sun.
It's been nineteen days since you announced "eight days until a video from a high altitude weather balloon shows the Moon is not eclipsing the Sun." The eclipse occurred on schedule eight days after that announcement, exactly as predicted by the moon's motion. Where's the "video from a high altitude weather balloon shows the Moon is not eclipsing the Sun"? Can't find one?
I have posted a video that shows that the Moon does not exlipse the Sun.
The video clearly shows the Black Sun which was known as Rahu to the ancients eclipsing the sun.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
This is because as the video I provided illustrated the Black Sun eclipses the Sun not the Moon.
Which video? Did you provide one from a high-altitude weather balloon you say shows this? I must have missed it.
That other video is a confused mess. Can you explain coherently in any detail what you think it's saying?
You never addressed this. Have you found a video from a high altitude weather balloon that supports your point yet? I didn't think so.This is the difference between someone normal like me and you Strange Heliocentric 's.
This I why I'm giving you a count down you now have eight days left.
Eight days until a video from a high altitude weather balloon shows the Moon is not eclipsing the Sun.
It's been nineteen days since you announced "eight days until a video from a high altitude weather balloon shows the Moon is not eclipsing the Sun." The eclipse occurred on schedule eight days after that announcement, exactly as predicted by the moon's motion. Where's the "video from a high altitude weather balloon shows the Moon is not eclipsing the Sun"? Can't find one?
I have posted a video that shows that the Moon does not exlipse the Sun.
The video clearly shows the Black Sun which was known as Rahu to the ancients eclipsing the sun.
I have posted a video that shows that the Moon does not exlipse the Sun.No. You posted a video which shows a circular silhouette eclipsing the sun.
The video clearly shows the Black Sun which was known as Rahu to the ancients eclipsing the sun.
Follow your own advice sometime? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯How about a synopsis before I click on something you saw on the interweb.
It's certainly some whack-job flatwad fucktard kunspeerisah video....
Don't quote me if you are just going to be a mouthy piece of shit ass hole.
I have posted a video that shows that the Moon does not exlipse the Sun.No. You posted a video which shows a circular silhouette eclipsing the sun.
The video clearly shows the Black Sun which was known as Rahu to the ancients eclipsing the sun.
That video doesn't have enough info to show if it is the moon or something else, however if you do the math, that round object is where the moon should be.
As such, that black sun is the moon. I don't care if the ancients called in Rahu. We call it the moon.
No point having multiple names for the same thing.
In order to show the moon not eclipsing the sun you need to show us a video of the eclipse where you can still see the moon. Especially as the moon should be quite close to the sun in apparent position as it is a new moon.
I have posted a video that shows that the Moon does not exlipse the Sun.No. You posted a video which shows a circular silhouette eclipsing the sun.
The video clearly shows the Black Sun which was known as Rahu to the ancients eclipsing the sun.
That video doesn't have enough info to show if it is the moon or something else, however if you do the math, that round object is where the moon should be.
As such, that black sun is the moon. I don't care if the ancients called in Rahu. We call it the moon.
No point having multiple names for the same thing.
In order to show the moon not eclipsing the sun you need to show us a video of the eclipse where you can still see the moon. Especially as the moon should be quite close to the sun in apparent position as it is a new moon.
I do not find your criteria for evidence regarding the existence of the Black Sun acceptable.
Anyone that has observed the total eclipse can verify that it is not the Moon .
One would expect to see Earth shine because of the earth's high albedo.
Earth shine has never been observed with the naked eye .
When the eclipse is observed with the naked eye a black object is observed eclipsing the Sun.
When the eclipse is observed with the naked eye the moon is not visible.
The video below demonstrates that it was not the moon eclipsing the Sun ( 30 seconds - 4:00
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
The video below demonstrates that it was not the moon eclipsing the Sun ( 30 seconds - 4:00How does it demonstrate that? A bunch of footage taken by people who can't figure out how it works. That guy at 4:50 is hilarious.... "It's an hour off!" Or maybe you confused the time of totality with the time the moon starts eclipsing the sun.
I have posted a video that shows that the Moon does not exlipse the Sun.No. You posted a video which shows a circular silhouette eclipsing the sun.
The video clearly shows the Black Sun which was known as Rahu to the ancients eclipsing the sun.
That video doesn't have enough info to show if it is the moon or something else, however if you do the math, that round object is where the moon should be.
As such, that black sun is the moon. I don't care if the ancients called in Rahu. We call it the moon.
No point having multiple names for the same thing.
In order to show the moon not eclipsing the sun you need to show us a video of the eclipse where you can still see the moon. Especially as the moon should be quite close to the sun in apparent position as it is a new moon.
I do not find your criteria for evidence regarding the existence of the Black Sun acceptable.
Anyone that has observed the total eclipse can verify that it is not the Moon .
One would expect to see Earth shine because of the earth's high albedo.
Earth shine has never been observed with the naked eye .
When the eclipse is observed with the naked eye a black object is observed eclipsing the Sun.
When the eclipse is observed with the naked eye the moon is not visible.QuoteThe video below demonstrates that it was not the moon eclipsing the Sun ( 30 seconds - 4:00
Um, no... it's visible in silhouette.
<worthless video> (http://)
I do not find your criteria for evidence regarding the existence of the Black Sun acceptable.Of course you don't, because it means your videos showing the moon eclipsing the sun wouldn't back up your delusional fantasies.
Anyone that has observed the total eclipse can verify that it is not the Moon .No, they can't.
One would expect to see Earth shine because of the earth's high albedo.No. If one was on the near side of the moon they would expect to see it.
When the eclipse is observed with the naked eye a black object is observed eclipsing the Sun.No. You cannot tell the colour of the object. All you have is a silhouette.
When the eclipse is observed with the naked eye the moon is not visible.Because the moon is lit from the other side, so you see the silhouette of the moon instead.
The video below demonstrates that it was not the moon eclipsing the Sun ( 30 seconds - 4:00Nope. Once again, all this video shows is that there is a round object eclipsing the sun.
Nobody ever said you could see it with the naked eye. AAMOF, I told you that you need to take a photograph. You can do a long exposure to see the details of the moon.
I do not find your criteria for evidence regarding the existence of the Black Sun acceptable.
Anyone that has observed the total eclipse can verify that it is not the Moon .
One would expect to see Earth shine because of the earth's high albedo.
Earth shine has never been observed with the naked eye .
When the eclipse is observed with the naked eye a black object is observed eclipsing the Sun.You linked video proves nothing. You’re just obfuscating what really happens with a miss direction...a very poor strawman. Why not actually try to debunk the earthshine photos? You’re afraid to because you know you can’t so you’ll just dismiss/ignore them and throw up strawman arguments to misdirect from the truth.
When the eclipse is observed with the naked eye the moon is not visible.
The video below demonstrates that it was not the moon eclipsing the Sun ( 30 seconds - 4:00
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
I have posted a video that shows that the Moon does not exlipse the Sun.No. You posted a video which shows a circular silhouette eclipsing the sun.
The video clearly shows the Black Sun which was known as Rahu to the ancients eclipsing the sun.
That video doesn't have enough info to show if it is the moon or something else, however if you do the math, that round object is where the moon should be.
As such, that black sun is the moon. I don't care if the ancients called in Rahu. We call it the moon.
No point having multiple names for the same thing.
In order to show the moon not eclipsing the sun you need to show us a video of the eclipse where you can still see the moon. Especially as the moon should be quite close to the sun in apparent position as it is a new moon.
I do not find your criteria for evidence regarding the existence of the Black Sun acceptable.
That statement is just as meaningful as your other mantra, which is to say, not meaningful at all.QuoteAnyone that has observed the total eclipse can verify that it is not the Moon .
Yeah, sure... ::)QuoteOne would expect to see Earth shine because of the earth's high albedo.
Just because you expect to see something doesn't mean it's actually possible to see it. Have you calculated how bright the earth-lit side of the moon would is when viewed from earth? Have you compared that to how bright the sun's inner corona and prominences are? If you haven't done that, you're just guessing whether it should be visible or not. If you have calculated this, let's see your data.QuoteEarth shine has never been observed with the naked eye .
It's easily seen with the naked eye after sunset for several days after the new moon, and before sunrise for several days before a new moon. It used to be called "the old moon in the new moon's arms" and has been known since long before photography was invented. Whether you've seen it or not is irrelevant.QuoteWhen the eclipse is observed with the naked eye a black object is observed eclipsing the Sun.
Yes. It's the non-sunlit side of the moon. It's much darker than the sun is, so it appears black by comparison.QuoteWhen the eclipse is observed with the naked eye the moon is not visible.QuoteThe video below demonstrates that it was not the moon eclipsing the Sun ( 30 seconds - 4:00
Um, no... it's visible in silhouette.
<worthless video> (http://)
In the segment referenced, the narrator intones about "spectrum analyzing" some images in photoshop (whatever the hell that means - I think he's comparing the brightness of the part of the image where the sun is visible to the parts where it's not), and seems to be perplexed because "there's nothing there" where the moon is blocking the direct sunlight. "Nothing there", as in, no direct sunlight? Well, duh!
After cranking the gain way up, the part of the images nearest the sun does show a low-level of light that decreases away from the unobscured sun. Big surprise there, too: real optical systems aren't perfect and scatter some light. Also, there was something about chemtrails, an image created by some instrument he says he doesn't understand, and "top people" working on whatever "issues" he seems to think exist in those images. [Pro Tip] If you're going to be doing radiometric measurements from images, don't use compressed images like jpegs.
The scene following 4:00 has a couple of rubes declaiming that "shadows are in the wrong place" without any information about where they are compared to where they "should be" and why they're expected to be somewhere else. I
Based on the part I saw, I give that video one and one-half stars for production value, but zero stars for content. I quit watching at about 4:45 since it was another obvious waste of time.
Have you found any of the high-altitude balloon videos you asserted "will debunk the Globe" yet? If so, where are those? We're still waiting for them.
I do not find your criteria for evidence regarding the existence of the Black Sun acceptable.I do not find your criteria for evidence regarding the existence of the Black Sun acceptable.
Anyone that has observed the total eclipse can verify that it is not the Moon .No they can't. They see an object starting to block the light from the sun in exactly the location the moon would be expected at that time.
One would expect to see Earth shine because of the earth's high albedo.No one would not. With such a narrow umbra the Earthshine is just too little to show against of sun's corona.
Earth shine has never been observed with the naked eye .Prove that "earth shine has never been observed with the naked eye".
When the eclipse is observed with the naked eye a black object is observed eclipsing the Sun.Sure, and that object that looks black is the moon.
When the eclipse is observed with the naked eye the moon is not visible.The moon can be seen blocking the light from the sun and you have never given any logical reason for the object blocking the sun's light being any other object.
The video below demonstrates that it was not the moon eclipsing the Sun ( 30 seconds - 4:00No it doesn't! But, what a rubbish video! With no solar filter, all that can be seen before totality is just glare from the sun swamping everything.[youtube][/youtube]
I like how Science says the Earth (water) isn't reflective, but the moon (gray dirt) is.Where does "Science" say "the Earth (water) isn't reflective"?
Object | Albedo | ||
Venus | 0.84 | ||
Earth | 0.37 | ||
Moon | 0.11 | ||
Mars | 0.15 |
One would expect to see Earth shine because of the earth's high albedo.Why would one expect that?
Earth shine has never been observed with the naked eye .Actually, it has been by just about every astronaut who went to LEO or the moon.
When the eclipse is observed with the naked eye a black object is observed eclipsing the Sun.Which is consistent with a severely back lit moon.
When the eclipse is observed with the naked eye the moon is not visible.When the eclipse is observed with the naked eye, people tend to burn out their retinas.
I like how Science says the Earth (water) isn't reflective, but the moon (gray dirt) is.Where does "Science" say "the Earth (water) isn't reflective"?
"Albedo" is a term astronomers ("star" scientists) give to the amount of light reflected by a body compared to the incident light.Venus is covered in a thick cloud layer that reflects light very well in all directions.
Earth is covered in a mixture of land that does not reflect very well, clouds and then oceans that might reflect much more light, but much of it away from the observer.
The moon is covered in dull brownish grey dusty rock that does not reflect light well at all, but what it does reflect goes in all directions almost equally.
Then Mars is similar to the moon, but the soil and rocks are no quite so dark.
A very relevant point here is the comparison of the types of refraction from water and a surface like the moon.
There is a "lesson" on this in Reflection and the Ray Model of Light - Lesson 1 - Reflection and its Importance, Specular vs. Diffuse Reflection (http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/refln/Lesson-1/Specular-vs-Diffuse-Reflection) and here are a couple of disgrams from that:(http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/refln/u13l1d3.gif)Smooth surfaces such as a mirror or the surface of still water cause what we call a Specular Reflection where an incoming ray of light is reflected in a single direction.
Roughened surfaces such as a rough rock or soil cause what we call a DiffuseReflection where an incoming ray of light is reflected in almost equally in all directions.
The surface of rough water has some of the properties of each as the waves cause reflections in many directions. Usually, some specular reflection is observed as a "hot spot" at the expected reflection point.
This hot spot is seen on some satellite photos of earth and some photos from aircraft and is the cause of the "stairway to the sun or moon" effect.
What is more reflective, water or chalky powder?It isn't. And you said that Science says that water does not reflect. Where does anyone say that?
It really is that simple. ;D
When you attempt to educate me as if a child, it doesn't bring more people to your side.When you make a childish unsubstantiated post like
What is more reflective, water or chalky powder?
It really is that simple. ;D
I like how Science says the Earth (water) isn't reflective, but the moon (gray dirt) is.I figure you need a bit of explanation, but I don't see why you say that was an "attempt to educate me as if a child".
You must realize that when a simple offhand comment commands a multi-paragraphical retort, with illustrations, it doesn't so much discredit the aforementioned comment's point as it does validate it.No, it shows your point to be wrong.
What is more reflective, water or chalky powder?What kind of reflection?
It really is that simple. ;D
I do not find your criteria for evidence regarding the existence of the Black Sun acceptable.Of course you don't, because it means your videos showing the moon eclipsing the sun wouldn't back up your delusional fantasies.
I don't care what you do and don't find acceptable as you have clearly shown that entirely depends on if it backs up or refutes your fantasy or not.
That is not an honest or rational standard to apply.Anyone that has observed the total eclipse can verify that it is not the Moon .No, they can't.One would expect to see Earth shine because of the earth's high albedo.No. If one was on the near side of the moon they would expect to see it.
You would not expect to see Earth-shine with the naked eye.
Instead of being lit directly by the sun, the moon would be lit by light reflected/scattered off Earth, which then in turn reflects/scatters off the moon to come back to us.
That alone would make it quite hard to see, and then to make it worse for the eclipse, you have the massively bright sun right behind it.When the eclipse is observed with the naked eye a black object is observed eclipsing the Sun.No. You cannot tell the colour of the object. All you have is a silhouette.When the eclipse is observed with the naked eye the moon is not visible.Because the moon is lit from the other side, so you see the silhouette of the moon instead.
Remember, according to you, the moon should be visible during the day.
The solar eclipse occurs during a new moon, so the moon is out during the day.
The only option left to be the moon is the object blocking the light from the sun.The video below demonstrates that it was not the moon eclipsing the Sun ( 30 seconds - 4:00Nope. Once again, all this video shows is that there is a round object eclipsing the sun.
The only way to show it is not the moon eclipsing the sun is to show us where the moon is.
If you can't show us where the moon was when it was meant to be eclipsing the sun, then all the evidence indicates that it is the moon eclipsing the sun and thus all rational people will conclude the moon eclipsed the sun.
We have all observed how the moon moves across the sky ; in an hour it moves roughly 15 degrees to the observer on the ground.Yes, but how fast does the moon move relative to the sun (which also moves 15 degrees per hour)?
We have all observed how the moon moves across the sky ; in an hour it moves roughly 15 degrees to the observer on the ground.Yes, but how fast does the moon move relative to the sun (which also moves 15 degrees per hour)?
Yes, but how much faster?We have all observed how the moon moves across the sky ; in an hour it moves roughly 15 degrees to the observer on the ground.Yes, but how fast does the moon move relative to the sun (which also moves 15 degrees per hour)?
No you are incorrect.
The Moon moves faster through the sky than the Sun .
No you are incorrect.I am also interested how fast sun and moon move? How much kilometers per hour? Or miles if you don't like km's.
The Moon moves faster through the sky than the Sun .
No you are incorrect.I am also interested how fast sun and moon move? How much kilometers per hour? Or miles if you don't like km's.
The Moon moves faster through the sky than the Sun .
In other words, you don't know.No you are incorrect.I am also interested how fast sun and moon move? How much kilometers per hour? Or miles if you don't like km's.
The Moon moves faster through the sky than the Sun .
Are you familiar with an App called Google ?
It's full of your Heliocentric diarrhea .
In other words, you don't know.No you are incorrect.I am also interested how fast sun and moon move? How much kilometers per hour? Or miles if you don't like km's.
The Moon moves faster through the sky than the Sun .
Are you familiar with an App called Google ?
It's full of your Heliocentric diarrhea .
Well, the moon moves about 1/2 degree per hour faster than the sun.
That's why a solar eclipse takes about an hour from first contact to totality.
It's also why you wouldn't expect to see the moon several hours before or after a solar eclipse.
Incorrect.I think they will have some ''Heliocentric diarrhea'' up their sleeves to explain every possible inconsistancy ;D ;D ;D
Totality lasts a few minutes .
So as you have just said ;) the Moon moves 0.5 degrees an hour as such the Solar eclipse is impossible on your model.
Your model doesn't match reality .
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
::)In other words, you don't know.No you are incorrect.I am also interested how fast sun and moon move? How much kilometers per hour? Or miles if you don't like km's.
The Moon moves faster through the sky than the Sun .
Are you familiar with an App called Google ?
It's full of your Heliocentric diarrhea .
Well, the moon moves about 1/2 degree per hour faster than the sun.
That's why a solar eclipse takes about an hour from first contact to totality.
It's also why you wouldn't expect to see the moon several hours before or after a solar eclipse.
Incorrect.
Totality lasts a few minutes .
So as you have just said ;) the Moon moves 0.5 degrees an hour as such the Solar eclipse is impossible on your model.
I thought we are talking about flat earth here. Or you have turned and believe now round earth? As you talk how you know how fast sun and moon move around round earth.No you are incorrect.I am also interested how fast sun and moon move? How much kilometers per hour? Or miles if you don't like km's.
The Moon moves faster through the sky than the Sun .
Are you familiar with an App called Google ?
The Moon does not have to be visible elsewhere in the sky whilst the Black Sun is eclipsing the Sun.
You said that the moon is nowhere in sight, but the moon is visible during the day.
So where the Th*rk is the moon if it's supposed to be visible?
It is obviously not in front of the sun.
On the other side of the world above Asia REtard where it is the middle of the night.
Lol.
The video below [?] clearly shows that the Moon is not in front of the Sun.
The spectrum analyser shows the Sun is giving it's light off as expected for an object that shape, if the Moon was eclipsing the sun as you Heliocentrics claim there would not be an even distribution of light around the Sun .
You and your brethren can not explain the evenly distributed light around the Sun regarding the video footage taken of the eclipse provided .
After cranking the gain way up, the part of the images nearest the sun does show a low-level of light that decreases away from the unobscured sun. Big surprise there, too: real optical systems aren't perfect and scatter some light.
The evenly distributed light shown by the spectrum analysers show there is NO solid object in front of the Sun .
The video also highlighted how NASA got their timing wrong .
We have all observed how the moon moves across the sky ; in an hour it moves roughly 15 degrees to the observer on the ground.
The Moon moves faster through the sky than the Sun .
At 13:30 on the video an hour before NASA predicted the eclipse we can observe from the video footage that the Black Sun has already started interfering with the Sun.
The above would be impossible if it was the Moon eclipsing the Sun as the Moon would be an estimated few degrees away to the observer at 13:30.
The Heliocentric model does not match the reality that has been observed and verified as such it is not acceptable .
I'm looking forward to the videos from the flat earthers high altitude weather balloons.
As the footage available on the Internet was just not acceptable considering it is 2017.
Totality lasts a few minutes .
So as you have just said ;) the Moon moves 0.5 degrees an hour as such the Solar eclipse is impossible on your model.
Your model doesn't match reality .
I'm looking forward to the videos from the flat earthers high altitude weather balloons.
As the footage available on the Internet was just not acceptable considering it is 2017.
You speak absolute nonsense.Projecting again I see.
The Moon does not have to be visible elsewhere in the sky whilst the Black Sun is eclipsing the Sun.If you wish to claim the black sun is not the moon, then yes it does.
It is not up to you to determine the criteria of satisfactory evidence regarding the Black Sun eclipsing the Sun.It isn't up to you.
The video below clearly shows that the Moon is not in front of the Sun.No it doesn't. (I assume you mean the video you previously linked)
The spectrum analyser shows the Sun is giving it's light off as expected for an object that shape, if the Moon was eclipsing the sun as you Heliocentrics claim there would not be an even distribution of light around the Sun .You mean as an object that is a crescent?
You and your brethren can not explain the evenly distributed light around the Sun regarding the video footage taken of the eclipse provided .Is that because that claim is pure bullshit and the light is not evenly distributed?
The video also highlighted how NASA got their timing wrong .You mean baselessly claimed it?
We have all observed how the moon moves across the sky ; in an hour it moves roughly 15 degrees to the observer on the ground.Yes, it has an apparent motion of very roughly 15 degrees. Less roughly it would be closer to 14.5 degrees, with the sun moving 15 degrees.
At 13:30 on the video an hour before NASA predicted the eclipse we can observe from the video footage that the Black Sun has already started interfering with the Sun.You mean before they predicted totality?
The above would be impossible if it was the Moon eclipsing the Sun as the Moon would be an estimated few degrees away to the observer at 13:30 .No. This is exactly what is expected in the HC model.
The Heliocentric model does not match the reality that has been observed and verified as such it is not acceptable .
How can he be incorrect when he just asked a question?No you are incorrect.We have all observed how the moon moves across the sky ; in an hour it moves roughly 15 degrees to the observer on the ground.Yes, but how fast does the moon move relative to the sun (which also moves 15 degrees per hour)?
The Moon moves faster through the sky than the Sun .No. The sun appears to move faster than the moon.
Are you familiar with an App called Google ?Yes, we are, and we find numbers that match reality and support the HC model.
Incorrect.He did not say how long totality lasts.
Totality lasts a few minutes .
So as you have just said ;) the Moon moves 0.5 degrees an hour as such the Solar eclipse is impossible on your model.Why does that make the solar eclipse impossible?
Your model doesn't match reality .
The Moon does not have to be visible elsewhere in the sky whilst the Black Sun is eclipsing the Sun.
You said it was over Asia during the eclipse.You said that the moon is nowhere in sight, but the moon is visible during the day.
So where the Th*rk is the moon if it's supposed to be visible?
It is obviously not in front of the sun.
On the other side of the world above Asia REtard where it is the middle of the night.
Lol.
Lol, indeed.The video below [?] clearly shows that the Moon is not in front of the Sun.
The spectrum analyser shows the Sun is giving it's light off as expected for an object that shape, if the Moon was eclipsing the sun as you Heliocentrics claim there would not be an even distribution of light around the Sun .
You and your brethren can not explain the evenly distributed light around the Sun regarding the video footage taken of the eclipse provided .
Wrong.
You mean this?
(http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c118/FromVegaButNotVegan/EclipseBackgroundVariation_zps4d2fllxk.png)
1. That low-level light is hardly "evenly distributed" around the sun.
2. It was explained here:After cranking the gain way up, the part of the images nearest the sun does show a low-level of light that decreases away from the unobscured sun. Big surprise there, too: real optical systems aren't perfect and scatter some light.
There also appears to be some vignetting in the optical system - this makes the corners darker than the center of the image.QuoteThe evenly distributed light shown by the spectrum analysers show there is NO solid object in front of the Sun .
No, it shows the narrator simply doesn't know what he's talking about, but you want to believe him anyway.
Assuming you mean "image brightness" when you say "spectrum", it shows an abrupt change from the very bright visible part of the sun to the rest of the image, which is almost perfectly black. The fact that the part of the image is not perfectly black where the sun isn't visible is due to very low levels of scattered light. Nothing more.QuoteThe video also highlighted how NASA got their timing wrong .
We have all observed how the moon moves across the sky ; in an hour it moves roughly 15 degrees to the observer on the ground.
"Roughly 15 degrees" isn't the same as "15 degrees". On average, in an hour the moon moves 14.5° across the sky, although this can vary through the day due to parallax, and can reach up to about 14.75° per hour under certain circumstances. On average, the sun moves exactly 15° across the sky and doesn't vary from that by more than one part in about 1 in 3000. That overall quarter to half-degree per hour difference is substantial.The Moon moves faster through the sky than the Sun .
No, that's incorrect. The moon moves eastward against the background stars faster than the sun does, but moves more slowly in its diurnal motion (because it's moving faster in the same direction as the earth rotates).QuoteAt 13:30 on the video an hour before NASA predicted the eclipse we can observe from the video footage that the Black Sun has already started interfering with the Sun.
Do you mean at about 4:54 in the video? There a commentator says "it's 1:30 here in Cincinnati and this is supposed to happen at 2:30" (with ominous background sounds added to the soundtrack), followed by a title slide "THIS GUY NOTICED THE TIME WAS OFF." Cincinnati, Ohio is on Eastern Daylight Time, so he must be talking about 13:30 EDT. Instead of "at 13:30 on the video" you must have meant "at 13:30 EDT from Cincinnati, Ohio." Sloppy.
"This Guy" doesn't say what "this" refers to, but the time of maximum eclipse in downtown Cincinnati was 18:29 UT. That's 14:29 EDT since EDT is 4 hours behind UT (2:29 PM EDT, obviously "This Guy's" 2:30 when "it" is supposed to happen). The beginning of the partial eclipse was almost 1.5 hours earlier, 17:01 UT (1:01 PM EDT) in Cincinnati, so it was already well along at 1:26 EDT, when the first comments about the timing being off were made by "This Guy" in the video.
And, instead of "an hour before NASA predicted the eclipse we can observe from the video footage that the Black Sun has already started interfering with the Sun", what actually happened was: an hour before NASA predicted the middle of the eclipse we can observe from the video footage that the moon has already started blocking the sun. The latter, unfortunately for you and the producer of the video, is exactly what was expected (ominous soundtrack notwithstanding).
At 4:52, "This Guy" said "I don't understand." He got that part right! The producer of the video doesn't understand, either, but doesn't explicitly admit it.QuoteThe above would be impossible if it was the Moon eclipsing the Sun as the Moon would be an estimated few degrees away to the observer at 13:30.
Well, instead of just making bold assertions and handwaving, why don't we see?
The apparent size of both moon and sun are both close to 0.5°, and the moon moves eastward with respect to the sun at 0.5° per hour on average over a year.
If they were perfectly aligned, that is, the center of the moon passed directly in front of the center of the sun, the edge of the moon would start to encroach on the edge of the sun (first contact) while the center of the moon was 0.5° from the center of the sun. Absent other factors, and if those 0.5° approximations were exact (the sizes are close), this would be exactly 1 hour before mid-eclipse.
But there is another significant factor: the earth rotates. At Cincy's latitude (39.1° N), it is moving toward the east at about 800 miles/hour. In the 1.5 hours between first contact (1:01 PM EDT) and mid-eclipse (2:29) our observer has moved about 1200 miles eastward. 1200 miles of lateral movement relative to the distance to the moon, 240,000 miles, causes about 0.25° parallax, "slowing down" the relative movement between sun and moon, so there's another half hour between first contact and mid-eclipse. Note that this is the vestige of cikljamas' "zig-zag" movement of the moon. It never reverses direction as he insists it "should", but the moon, since it's relatively close to the earth, does speed up and slow down slightly, but in a measurable amount, in its apparent motion across the sky over the course of a day.
The eclipse wasn't perfectly aligned when viewed from Cincinnati, and those three half-degree values, while close approximations, aren't exact, but this back of an envelope calculation is right in line with what was actually predicted and observed.
Nothing to see here, folks, except yet another bogus flat-earth video. Not only is what was observed and commented on not impossible, it's exactly what the model predicts.QuoteThe Heliocentric model does not match the reality that has been observed and verified as such it is not acceptable .
Nah... it's your understanding of what's happening that doesn't match the reality that has been observed and verified. If you think that's acceptable, then that's your problem.I'm looking forward to the videos from the flat earthers high altitude weather balloons.
As the footage available on the Internet was just not acceptable considering it is 2017.
Have you found any of the high-altitude balloon videos you asserted "will debunk the Globe" yet? If so, where are those? We're still waiting for them.
You mean this?
1. That low-level light is hardly "evenly distributed" around the sun.
(http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c118/FromVegaButNotVegan/EclipseBackgroundVariation_zps4d2fllxk.png)
The video shows there is no sign of your invisible disappearing and reappearing Magic Moon .Perhaps not, but it is consistent with a severely back lit moon as a silhouette.
So which is it? Is there no object or is there an object called the black sun?The Moon does not have to be visible elsewhere in the sky whilst the Black Sun is eclipsing the Sun.
You said it was over Asia during the eclipse.You said that the moon is nowhere in sight, but the moon is visible during the day.
So where the Th*rk is the moon if it's supposed to be visible?
It is obviously not in front of the sun.
On the other side of the world above Asia REtard where it is the middle of the night.
Lol.
Lol, indeed.The video below [?] clearly shows that the Moon is not in front of the Sun.
The spectrum analyser shows the Sun is giving it's light off as expected for an object that shape, if the Moon was eclipsing the sun as you Heliocentrics claim there would not be an even distribution of light around the Sun .
You and your brethren can not explain the evenly distributed light around the Sun regarding the video footage taken of the eclipse provided .
Wrong.
You mean this?
(http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c118/FromVegaButNotVegan/EclipseBackgroundVariation_zps4d2fllxk.png)
1. That low-level light is hardly "evenly distributed" around the sun.
2. It was explained here:After cranking the gain way up, the part of the images nearest the sun does show a low-level of light that decreases away from the unobscured sun. Big surprise there, too: real optical systems aren't perfect and scatter some light.
There also appears to be some vignetting in the optical system - this makes the corners darker than the center of the image.QuoteThe evenly distributed light shown by the spectrum analysers show there is NO solid object in front of the Sun .
No, it shows the narrator simply doesn't know what he's talking about, but you want to believe him anyway.
Assuming you mean "image brightness" when you say "spectrum", it shows an abrupt change from the very bright visible part of the sun to the rest of the image, which is almost perfectly black. The fact that the part of the image is not perfectly black where the sun isn't visible is due to very low levels of scattered light. Nothing more.QuoteThe video also highlighted how NASA got their timing wrong .
We have all observed how the moon moves across the sky ; in an hour it moves roughly 15 degrees to the observer on the ground.
"Roughly 15 degrees" isn't the same as "15 degrees". On average, in an hour the moon moves 14.5° across the sky, although this can vary through the day due to parallax, and can reach up to about 14.75° per hour under certain circumstances. On average, the sun moves exactly 15° across the sky and doesn't vary from that by more than one part in about 1 in 3000. That overall quarter to half-degree per hour difference is substantial.The Moon moves faster through the sky than the Sun .
No, that's incorrect. The moon moves eastward against the background stars faster than the sun does, but moves more slowly in its diurnal motion (because it's moving faster in the same direction as the earth rotates).QuoteAt 13:30 on the video an hour before NASA predicted the eclipse we can observe from the video footage that the Black Sun has already started interfering with the Sun.
Do you mean at about 4:54 in the video? There a commentator says "it's 1:30 here in Cincinnati and this is supposed to happen at 2:30" (with ominous background sounds added to the soundtrack), followed by a title slide "THIS GUY NOTICED THE TIME WAS OFF." Cincinnati, Ohio is on Eastern Daylight Time, so he must be talking about 13:30 EDT. Instead of "at 13:30 on the video" you must have meant "at 13:30 EDT from Cincinnati, Ohio." Sloppy.
"This Guy" doesn't say what "this" refers to, but the time of maximum eclipse in downtown Cincinnati was 18:29 UT. That's 14:29 EDT since EDT is 4 hours behind UT (2:29 PM EDT, obviously "This Guy's" 2:30 when "it" is supposed to happen). The beginning of the partial eclipse was almost 1.5 hours earlier, 17:01 UT (1:01 PM EDT) in Cincinnati, so it was already well along at 1:26 EDT, when the first comments about the timing being off were made by "This Guy" in the video.
And, instead of "an hour before NASA predicted the eclipse we can observe from the video footage that the Black Sun has already started interfering with the Sun", what actually happened was: an hour before NASA predicted the middle of the eclipse we can observe from the video footage that the moon has already started blocking the sun. The latter, unfortunately for you and the producer of the video, is exactly what was expected (ominous soundtrack notwithstanding).
At 4:52, "This Guy" said "I don't understand." He got that part right! The producer of the video doesn't understand, either, but doesn't explicitly admit it.QuoteThe above would be impossible if it was the Moon eclipsing the Sun as the Moon would be an estimated few degrees away to the observer at 13:30.
Well, instead of just making bold assertions and handwaving, why don't we see?
The apparent size of both moon and sun are both close to 0.5°, and the moon moves eastward with respect to the sun at 0.5° per hour on average over a year.
If they were perfectly aligned, that is, the center of the moon passed directly in front of the center of the sun, the edge of the moon would start to encroach on the edge of the sun (first contact) while the center of the moon was 0.5° from the center of the sun. Absent other factors, and if those 0.5° approximations were exact (the sizes are close), this would be exactly 1 hour before mid-eclipse.
But there is another significant factor: the earth rotates. At Cincy's latitude (39.1° N), it is moving toward the east at about 800 miles/hour. In the 1.5 hours between first contact (1:01 PM EDT) and mid-eclipse (2:29) our observer has moved about 1200 miles eastward. 1200 miles of lateral movement relative to the distance to the moon, 240,000 miles, causes about 0.25° parallax, "slowing down" the relative movement between sun and moon, so there's another half hour between first contact and mid-eclipse. Note that this is the vestige of cikljamas' "zig-zag" movement of the moon. It never reverses direction as he insists it "should", but the moon, since it's relatively close to the earth, does speed up and slow down slightly, but in a measurable amount, in its apparent motion across the sky over the course of a day.
The eclipse wasn't perfectly aligned when viewed from Cincinnati, and those three half-degree values, while close approximations, aren't exact, but this back of an envelope calculation is right in line with what was actually predicted and observed.
Nothing to see here, folks, except yet another bogus flat-earth video. Not only is what was observed and commented on not impossible, it's exactly what the model predicts.QuoteThe Heliocentric model does not match the reality that has been observed and verified as such it is not acceptable .
Nah... it's your understanding of what's happening that doesn't match the reality that has been observed and verified. If you think that's acceptable, then that's your problem.I'm looking forward to the videos from the flat earthers high altitude weather balloons.
As the footage available on the Internet was just not acceptable considering it is 2017.
Have you found any of the high-altitude balloon videos you asserted "will debunk the Globe" yet? If so, where are those? We're still waiting for them.
I do not find your explanation acceptable.
The image demonstrates that the light is clearly evenly distributed around the Sun and that there is no object such as the Moon in front of the sun .
The pattern demonstrated on the image provided shows what would be expected if the sun was that shape .
You mean this?
1. That low-level light is hardly "evenly distributed" around the sun.
(http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c118/FromVegaButNotVegan/EclipseBackgroundVariation_zps4d2fllxk.png)
Are you blind mate ?
The image demonstrates that the light is clearly evenly distributed around the Sun and that there is no object such as the Moon in front of the sun .
The pattern demonstrated on the image provided shows what would be expected if the sun was that shape .
The video shows there is no sign of your invisible disappearing and reappearing Magic Moon .
The Heliocentric model does not match the reality that has been observed and verified as such it is not acceptable .
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
I do not find your explanation acceptable.
The image demonstrates that the light is clearly evenly distributed around the Sun and that there is no object such as the Moon in front of the sun .
The pattern demonstrated on the image provided shows what would be expected if the sun was that shape .
You mean this?
1. That low-level light is hardly "evenly distributed" around the sun.
(http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c118/FromVegaButNotVegan/EclipseBackgroundVariation_zps4d2fllxk.png)
Are you blind mate ?
The image demonstrates that the light is clearly evenly distributed around the Sun and that there is no object such as the Moon in front of the sun .
The pattern demonstrated on the image provided shows what would be expected if the sun was that shape .
The video shows there is no sign of your invisible disappearing and reappearing Magic Moon .
The Heliocentric model does not match the reality that has been observed and verified as such it is not acceptable .
I'm looking forward to the videos from the flat earthers high altitude weather balloons.
As the footage available on the Internet was just not acceptable considering it is 2017.
I do not find your explanation acceptable.Again, I already know that. You won't find it acceptable because it doesn't agree with your delusions.
The image demonstrates that the light is clearly evenly distributed around the Sun and that there is no object such as the Moon in front of the sun .No it doesn't.
The pattern demonstrated on the image provided shows what would be expected if the sun was that shape .So are you claiming that during a solar eclipse the sun changes shape? That it changes shape, getting a circular cutout until it disappears and reappears on the other side with the circular cutout being removed? If so, that goes completely against your claim of a black sun obstructing the light from the sun. It also goes directly against the observations of countless others that only saw a partial eclipse or no eclipse.
No. Are you blind?You mean this?Are you blind mate ?
1. That low-level light is hardly "evenly distributed" around the sun.
(http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c118/FromVegaButNotVegan/EclipseBackgroundVariation_zps4d2fllxk.png)
The image demonstrates that the light is clearly evenly distributed around the Sun and that there is no object such as the Moon in front of the sun .
The pattern demonstrated on the image provided shows what would be expected if the sun was that shape .
The video shows there is no sign of your invisible disappearing and reappearing Magic Moon .No. It isn't our moon which is magic, it is yours.
The Heliocentric model does not match the reality that has been observed and verified as such it is not acceptable .No. The HC model does match reality (at least when discussing the solar system). This has been observed and verified.
I do not find your explanation acceptable.What you find unacceptable is of no consequence!
The image demonstrates that the light is clearly evenly distributed around the Sun and that there is no object such as the Moon in front of the sun .Rubbish, it proves nothing of the sort.
The pattern demonstrated on the image provided shows what would be expected if the sun was that shape .You mean this?Are you blind mate ?
1. That low-level light is hardly "evenly distributed" around the sun.
(http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c118/FromVegaButNotVegan/EclipseBackgroundVariation_zps4d2fllxk.png)
The image demonstrates that the light is clearly evenly distributed around the Sun and that there is no object such as the Moon in front of the sun .
Why would you expect the unlit side of the moon to be seen when it is an unlit object, and hence black, against a black background?
The pattern demonstrated on the image provided shows what would be expected if the sun was that shape .
The video shows there is no sign of your invisible disappearing and reappearing Magic Moon .
The Heliocentric model does not match the reality that has been observed and verified as such it is not acceptable .So you say! But you've been proven wrong so many time before that we have learned to take no notice or your words.
I do not find your explanation acceptable.
Too bad. We've tried to help you understand. You either still don't understand, or refuse to admit that you do understand and were wrong. So be it; that's your problem.QuoteThe image demonstrates that the light is clearly evenly distributed around the Sun and that there is no object such as the Moon in front of the sun .
The pattern demonstrated on the image provided shows what would be expected if the sun was that shape .
You mean this?
1. That low-level light is hardly "evenly distributed" around the sun.
(http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c118/FromVegaButNotVegan/EclipseBackgroundVariation_zps4d2fllxk.png)
Are you blind mate ?
No.QuoteThe image demonstrates that the light is clearly evenly distributed around the Sun and that there is no object such as the Moon in front of the sun .
The image shows some scattered light around the sun, but it's anything but evenly distributed. The scattering says nothing about the sun or moon other than they're further away from whatever it is that causing the scattering - in this case, it's the optical system, atmosphere, or both, which most of us already knew.QuoteThe pattern demonstrated on the image provided shows what would be expected if the sun was that shape .
Well, the part we can see is that shape because part of the sun's disk is blocked by the moon, so we see what is expected. What's your point?QuoteThe video shows there is no sign of your invisible disappearing and reappearing Magic Moon .
The missing circular section of the sun's disk is a good sign. If the moon were invisible, that part wouldn't be missing.QuoteThe Heliocentric model does not match the reality that has been observed and verified as such it is not acceptable .
That repetition is getting a bit tedious. Do you have anything rational to back that statement up? Sayin' it don't make it so.I'm looking forward to the videos from the flat earthers high altitude weather balloons.
As the footage available on the Internet was just not acceptable considering it is 2017.
Have you found any of the high-altitude balloon videos you asserted "will debunk the Globe" yet? If so, where are those? We're still waiting for them.
Does your current tack mean you've given up on your assertion that videos from the flat earthers' high altitude weather balloons would "debunk the globe", and are now reduced to making noise? Should I stop asking about them?
The image shows some scattered light around the sun, but it's anything but evenly distributed. The scattering says nothing about the sun or moon other than they're further away from whatever it is that causing the scattering - in this case, it's the optical system, atmosphere, or both, which most of us already knew.
Well, the part we can see is that shape because part of the sun's disk is blocked by the moon, so we see what is expected. What's your point?
I do not find your explanation acceptable.
Too bad. We've tried to help you understand. You either still don't understand, or refuse to admit that you do understand and were wrong. So be it; that's your problem.QuoteThe image demonstrates that the light is clearly evenly distributed around the Sun and that there is no object such as the Moon in front of the sun .
The pattern demonstrated on the image provided shows what would be expected if the sun was that shape .
You mean this?
1. That low-level light is hardly "evenly distributed" around the sun.
(http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c118/FromVegaButNotVegan/EclipseBackgroundVariation_zps4d2fllxk.png)
Are you blind mate ?
No.QuoteThe image demonstrates that the light is clearly evenly distributed around the Sun and that there is no object such as the Moon in front of the sun .
The image shows some scattered light around the sun, but it's anything but evenly distributed. The scattering says nothing about the sun or moon other than they're further away from whatever it is that causing the scattering - in this case, it's the optical system, atmosphere, or both, which most of us already knew.QuoteThe pattern demonstrated on the image provided shows what would be expected if the sun was that shape .
Well, the part we can see is that shape because part of the sun's disk is blocked by the moon, so we see what is expected. What's your point?QuoteThe video shows there is no sign of your invisible disappearing and reappearing Magic Moon .
The missing circular section of the sun's disk is a good sign. If the moon were invisible, that part wouldn't be missing.QuoteThe Heliocentric model does not match the reality that has been observed and verified as such it is not acceptable .
That repetition is getting a bit tedious. Do you have anything rational to back that statement up? Sayin' it don't make it so.I'm looking forward to the videos from the flat earthers high altitude weather balloons.
As the footage available on the Internet was just not acceptable considering it is 2017.
Have you found any of the high-altitude balloon videos you asserted "will debunk the Globe" yet? If so, where are those? We're still waiting for them.
Does your current tack mean you've given up on your assertion that videos from the flat earthers' high altitude weather balloons would "debunk the globe", and are now reduced to making noise? Should I stop asking about them?
I find your explanation unsatisfactory.
The image shows some scattered light around the sun, but it's anything but evenly distributed. The scattering says nothing about the sun or moon other than they're further away from whatever it is that causing the scattering - in this case, it's the optical system, atmosphere, or both, which most of us already knew.
You speak nonsense .
The image provided shows the light to be evenly distributed around the Sun .
The image shows that the light is not scattered because it shows the same pattern and density all around the Eclipsed Sun .
The deviation from the perfect circle of light around the Sun is what should be expected as the Sun was a waning crescent at the time of the said image that was taken from the video provided .
If a solid object such as the Moon was obstructing the Sun during the Solar Eclipse there would be little to no light coming from the Sun on the side of the said obstruction .
The image provided doesn't show this as it shows an even distribution of light all around the Sun .
It would also be an impossible coincidence for this scattered light that you speak of to form the correct pattern of evenly distributed light for the Eclipsed Sun as demonstrated in the video provided .
Well, the part we can see is that shape because part of the sun's disk is blocked by the moon, so we see what is expected. What's your point?
Incorrect .
If the Moon was blocking the Sun we would not see that shape we would see little to no visible light on the side of the said obstruction .
The Heliocentric model does not match the reality that has been observed and verified as such it is not acceptable .
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
The deviation from the perfect circle of light around the Sun is what should be expected as the Sun was a waning crescent at the time of the said image that was taken from the video provided .But it isn't a waning crescent. At the time of the eclipse other people saw the sun as a circle.
If a solid object such as the Moon was obstructing the Sun during the Solar Eclipse there would be little to no light coming from the Sun on the side of the said obstruction .No. You need to understand what is producing this light.
It would also be an impossible coincidence for this scattered light that you speak of to form the correct pattern of evenly distributed light for the Eclipsed Sun as demonstrated in the video provided .No, it would be exactly as expected.
The Heliocentric model does not match the reality that has been observed and verified as such it is not acceptable .No. It does match reality (for the solar system anyway). All you have is pathetic crap which you spout to pretend it doesn't.
The image demonstrates that the light is clearly evenly distributed around the Sun and that there is no object such as the Moon in front of the sun .
The pattern demonstrated on the image provided shows what would be expected if the sun was that shape .
You mean this?
1. That low-level light is hardly "evenly distributed" around the sun.
(http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c118/FromVegaButNotVegan/EclipseBackgroundVariation_zps4d2fllxk.png)
I find your explanation unsatisfactory.
The image shows some scattered light around the sun, but it's anything but evenly distributed. The scattering says nothing about the sun or moon other than they're further away from whatever it is that causing the scattering - in this case, it's the optical system, atmosphere, or both, which most of us already knew.You speak nonsense .
The image provided shows the light to be evenly distributed around the Sun .
The image shows that the light is not scattered because it shows the same pattern and density all around the Eclipsed Sun .
The deviation from the perfect circle of light around the Sun is what should be expected as the Sun was a waning crescent at the time of the said image that was taken from the video provided .
If a solid object such as the Moon was obstructing the Sun during the Solar Eclipse there would be little to no light coming from the Sun on the side of the said obstruction .
The image provided doesn't show this as it shows an even distribution of light all around the Sun .
It would also be an impossible coincidence for this scattered light that you speak of to form the correct pattern of evenly distributed light for the Eclipsed Sun as demonstrated in the video provided .
Well, the part we can see is that shape because part of the sun's disk is blocked by the moon, so we see what is expected. What's your point?Incorrect .
If the Moon was blocking the Sun we would not see that shape we would see little to no visible light on the side of the said obstruction .
The Heliocentric model does not match the reality that has been observed and verified as such it is not acceptable .
I'm looking forward to the videos from the flat earthers high altitude weather balloons.
As the footage available on the Internet was just not acceptable considering it is 2017.
If the Moon was blocking the Sun we would not see that shape we would see little to no visible light on the side of the said obstruction .Totally incorrect conclusion!
<< incorrect alternat-facts deleted >>Hence: The Heliocentric model perfectly matches the reality that has been observed and verified as such it is true and correct.
| Earlier you claimed that "The video also highlighted how NASA got their timing wrong." So, please document exactly where "NASA got their timing wrong". Simple meaningless words from a totally biased video are not acceptable. You show exactly where the timing was wrong. But from what I could find the timing of the eclipse maximum was within a few seconds and the location was within a few minutes of arc. Now, just to prove that you are not a totally useless bag of hot air show your predictions of the exact location and timing of the peak of the eclipse from any of:
But, this eclipse has again proven that The Heliocentric Globe accurately matches the reality that has been observed and again verifies it as the only acceptable model. |
If the Moon was blocking the Sun we would not see that shape we would see little to no visible light on the side of the said obstruction .Totally incorrect conclusion!
Since the scattering of the sun's light is in the atmosphere it would make no difference if:Though in the latter case we might expect to see fang marks!
- the sun was crescent shaped,
- part of the sun was blocked by the moon or
- even part of the sun was eaten by your favourite sky serpent.
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/kz5apgmfw7rb9ol/FAKE%20ECLIPSE%20August%2021%202017%20-%20Something%20went%20very%20Wrong.jpg?dl=1)
FAKE ECLIPSE August 21 2017 - Something went Very Wrong:P :P Though if you look carefully at my totally unPhotoshopped[1] "original" there are signs of Rahu's involvement. :P :P
But, seriously, your claim "If the Moon was blocking the Sun we would not see that shape we would see little to no visible light on the side of the said obstruction." is totally incorrect.
Since the atmosphere is on the viewer's side of both the sun and the moonthere would be scattering of the bright light of the sun equally all around the crescent shape of the part hidden sun and that is what we see.
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/hvhk5h79dkmy1nv/FAKE%20ECLIPSE%20August%2021%202017%20-%20Enhanced%20Dark%20Areas.jpg?dl=1)
ECLIPSE August 21 2017 - Enhanced Dark AreasQuote from: Resistance.is.Futile<< incorrect alternat-facts deleted >>Hence: The Heliocentric model perfectly matches the reality that has been observed and verified as such it is true and correct.
You and your trashy YouTube makers are proof that there is a total lack of knowledge in even basic physics, optics and astronomy in so many people.
So, I suppose you are unwittingly performing a useful service.
PS I asked you some questions, please answer them!
Earlier you claimed that "The video also highlighted how NASA got their timing wrong."
So, please document exactly where "NASA got their timing wrong". Simple meaningless words from a totally biased video are not acceptable.
You show exactly where the timing was wrong.
But from what I could find the timing of the eclipse maximum was within a few seconds and the location was within a few minutes of arc.
Now, just to prove that you are not a totally useless bag of hot air show your predictions of the exact location and timing of the peak of the eclipse from any of:If you cannot show how better predictions can be obtained for one or more of these sources we'll know that you are the fake.
- Saros cycles,
- The movement of your fictitious Rahu or
- The "HOLOGRAPHIC SKY" explanation.
But, this eclipse has again proven thatThe Heliocentric Globe accurately matches the reality that has been observed and again verifies it as the only acceptable model.
PPS You are just as much a troll as our dearly departed Troll god.
[1] :P I don't use Photoshop; I use the cheapie CorelPaintShopPro or sometimes Corel PhotoPaint :P.
Since the scattering of the sun's light is in the atmosphere it would make no difference if:Though in the latter case we might expect to see fang marks!
- the sun was crescent shaped,
- part of the sun was blocked by the moon or
- even part of the sun was eaten by your favourite sky serpent.
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/kz5apgmfw7rb9ol/FAKE%20ECLIPSE%20August%2021%202017%20-%20Something%20went%20very%20Wrong.jpg?dl=1)
FAKE ECLIPSE August 21 2017 - Something went Very Wrong:P :P Though if you look carefully at my totally unPhotoshopped[1] "original" there are signs of Rahu's involvement. :P :P
You should watch the video again old man put your spectacles on and make sure you have your hearing aid turned to maximum the eclipse started an hour early in the said video .
Earlier you claimed that "The video also highlighted how NASA got their timing wrong."
So, please document exactly where "NASA got their timing wrong". Simple meaningless words from a totally biased video are not acceptable.
You show exactly where the timing was wrong.
Now, just to prove that you are not a totally useless bag of hot air show your predictions of the exact location and timing of the peak of the eclipse from any of:If you cannot show how better predictions can be obtained for one or more of these sources we'll know that you are the fake.
- Saros cycles,
- The movement of your fictitious Rahu or
- The "HOLOGRAPHIC SKY" explanation.
PPS You are just as much a troll as our dearly departed Troll god.
If you cannot show how better predictions can be obtained for one or more of these sources we'll know that you are the fake.
Great post,....you have certainly gained a supporter !!!If the Moon was blocking the Sun we would not see that shape we would see little to no visible light on the side of the said obstruction .Totally incorrect conclusion!
Since the scattering of the sun's light is in the atmosphere it would make no difference if:Though in the latter case we might expect to see fang marks!
- the sun was crescent shaped,
- part of the sun was blocked by the moon or
- even part of the sun was eaten by your favourite sky serpent.
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/kz5apgmfw7rb9ol/FAKE%20ECLIPSE%20August%2021%202017%20-%20Something%20went%20very%20Wrong.jpg?dl=1)
FAKE ECLIPSE August 21 2017 - Something went Very Wrong:P :P Though if you look carefully at my totally unPhotoshopped[1] "original" there are signs of Rahu's involvement. :P :P
But, seriously, your claim "If the Moon was blocking the Sun we would not see that shape we would see little to no visible light on the side of the said obstruction." is totally incorrect.
Since the atmosphere is on the viewer's side of both the sun and the moonthere would be scattering of the bright light of the sun equally all around the crescent shape of the part hidden sun and that is what we see.
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/hvhk5h79dkmy1nv/FAKE%20ECLIPSE%20August%2021%202017%20-%20Enhanced%20Dark%20Areas.jpg?dl=1)
ECLIPSE August 21 2017 - Enhanced Dark AreasQuote from: Resistance.is.Futile<< incorrect alternat-facts deleted >>Hence: The Heliocentric model perfectly matches the reality that has been observed and verified as such it is true and correct.
You and your trashy YouTube makers are proof that there is a total lack of knowledge in even basic physics, optics and astronomy in so many people.
So, I suppose you are unwittingly performing a useful service.
PS I asked you some questions, please answer them!
Earlier you claimed that "The video also highlighted how NASA got their timing wrong."
So, please document exactly where "NASA got their timing wrong". Simple meaningless words from a totally biased video are not acceptable.
You show exactly where the timing was wrong.
But from what I could find the timing of the eclipse maximum was within a few seconds and the location was within a few minutes of arc.
Now, just to prove that you are not a totally useless bag of hot air show your predictions of the exact location and timing of the peak of the eclipse from any of:If you cannot show how better predictions can be obtained for one or more of these sources we'll know that you are the fake.
- Saros cycles,
- The movement of your fictitious Rahu or
- The "HOLOGRAPHIC SKY" explanation.
But, this eclipse has again proven thatThe Heliocentric Globe accurately matches the reality that has been observed and again verifies it as the only acceptable model.
PPS You are just as much a troll as our dearly departed Troll god.
[1] :P I don't use Photoshop; I use the cheapie CorelPaintShopPro or sometimes Corel PhotoPaint :P.
I do not find your explanation acceptable.
Since the scattering of the sun's light is in the atmosphere it would make no difference if:Though in the latter case we might expect to see fang marks!
- the sun was crescent shaped,
- part of the sun was blocked by the moon or
- even part of the sun was eaten by your favourite sky serpent.
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/kz5apgmfw7rb9ol/FAKE%20ECLIPSE%20August%2021%202017%20-%20Something%20went%20very%20Wrong.jpg?dl=1)
FAKE ECLIPSE August 21 2017 - Something went Very Wrong:P :P Though if you look carefully at my totally unPhotoshopped[1] "original" there are signs of Rahu's involvement. :P :P
You speak nonsense .
Regarding the Heliocentric model you and your brethren claim the eclipse is caused by the Moon obstructing the Sun .
You claim that the alleged 2000 mile wide Moon casts a 70 mile Shadow ::)
You now claim that because the scattering of light is in the atmosphere it doesn't matter what shape the Sun is regarding the distribution of light .
This is impossible .
On your heliocentric model the light is allegedly scattered in space and the Shadow is caused by your Magic Moon .
As light in space travels in straight lines we would not be able to observe the pattern of light demonstrated in the video provided earlier if your heliocentric model is correct .
I have now found another video that goes into great detail regarding the Solar eclipse.
The video provided also shows pictures taken during the eclipse that show very strange orb like shadows .
The narrator has determined that this is down to the black hole Sun obstructing the Sun .
He also claims that these small orbs that the black hole Sun is constructed of is what is causing the strange shadows that have been photographed during the eclipse and shown in the video .
He also constructs a 3D model using a simulation that displays what we should of observed during the Eclipse if your Heliocentric model is correct .
There is a huge difference between what was observed during the eclipse and what should of been observed if your heliocentric model was correct .
The new video :You should watch the video again old man put your spectacles on and make sure you have your hearing aid turned to maximum the eclipse started an hour early in the said video .
Earlier you claimed that "The video also highlighted how NASA got their timing wrong."
So, please document exactly where "NASA got their timing wrong". Simple meaningless words from a totally biased video are not acceptable.
You show exactly where the timing was wrong.
Now, just to prove that you are not a totally useless bag of hot air show your predictions of the exact location and timing of the peak of the eclipse from any of:If you cannot show how better predictions can be obtained for one or more of these sources we'll know that you are the fake.
- Saros cycles,
- The movement of your fictitious Rahu or
- The "HOLOGRAPHIC SKY" explanation.
This is my thread .
The thread is called :
Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the globe .
Which it has .
In more than one aspect .
It is NOT called Saros cycle explained and used to calculate the next eclipse .
It is NOT called movement of the Black Hole Sun explained .
PPS You are just as much a troll as our dearly departed Troll god.
This site is called :
The Flat Earth Society .
It is not called :
The NASA heliocentric model appreciation society for the delusional and socially inept .
You are the troll .
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False .[/td][/tr][/table]
I do not find your explanation acceptable.Stop just spouting crap. If you don't find an explanation acceptable, point out exactly why, otherwise all rational people will just conclude that you don't find it acceptable because it shows you to be full of shit.
You speak nonsense .
Regarding the Heliocentric model you and your brethren claim the eclipse is caused by the Moon obstructing the Sun .No. That isn't what we claim.
You claim that the alleged 2000 mile wide Moon casts a 70 mile Shadow ::)
You now claim that because the scattering of light is in the atmosphere it doesn't matter what shape the Sun is regarding the distribution of light .
This is impossible .
On your heliocentric model the light is allegedly scattered in space and the Shadow is caused by your Magic Moon .No it isn't.
As light in space travels in straight lines we would not be able to observe the pattern of light demonstrated in the video provided earlier if your heliocentric model is correct .No, if your pathetic strawman is correct.
I have now found another video that goes into great detail regarding the Solar eclipse.You mean he baselessly spouts more and more crap?
The video provided also shows pictures taken during the eclipse that show very strange orb like shadows .
The narrator has determined that this is down to the black hole Sun obstructing the Sun .
He also claims that these small orbs that the black hole Sun is constructed of is what is causing the strange shadows that have been photographed during the eclipse and shown in the video .
He also constructs a 3D model using a simulation that displays what we should of observed during the Eclipse if your Heliocentric model is correct .
There is a huge difference between what was observed during the eclipse and what should of been observed if your heliocentric model was correct .
The new video :
You should watch the video again old man put your spectacles on and make sure you have your hearing aid turned to maximum the eclipse started an hour early in the said video .You mean the partial eclipse started 1 hour earlier than totality, what you would expect given the HC model.
This is my thread .And you are yet to back up that load of crap in any rational way.
The thread is called :
Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the globe .
Which it has .No it hasn't. It hasn't even come close. You spouted a bunch of pathetic crap and repeatedly got your ass handed to you. The best you could do in response was assert that you didn't find our explanation acceptable. You weren't able to point out anything wrong with the explanation, you just asserted that they were unacceptable. Rather than trying to address that, you just kept bringing up more and more crap.
In more than one aspect .
This site is called :So perhaps you should stop lying about models which can accurately predict observed reality (the HC model), and instead focus on the FE model and explain how eclipses work there?
The Flat Earth Society .
It is not called :
The NASA heliocentric model appreciation society for the delusional and socially inept .
Great post,....you have certainly gained a supporter !!!If by "great" you mean a great pile of crap, then you are right.
I have shown and explained how and why the Solar Eclipse is impossible on your model numerous times .Great post,....you have certainly gained a supporter !!!If by "great" you mean a great pile of crap, then you are right.
If you mean intelligent, rational or honest, then you are completely wrong.
But as a pile of crap matches what you typically provide it isn't surprising you find it great.
As he has continually failed to show how the eclipse is impossible on a HC model, or any problem with it, perhaps you can help him out?
Where are the pictures from rockets that will show the earth is flat?
Where are the pictures from rockets that will show the earth is flat?
Have you not seen the high altitude weather balloon videos I posted on another thread that show the flat earth ?
Where are the pictures from rockets that will show the earth is flat?
Have you not seen the high altitude weather balloon videos I posted on another thread that show the flat earth ?
No. Were those the ones taken during the eclipse you were promising?
Incorrect! The moon and Globe still look and rotate like:
I have debunked your Imaginary Globe numerous times already .
Where are the pictures from rockets that will show the earth is flat?
Have you not seen the high altitude weather balloon videos I posted on another thread that show the flat earth ?
No. Were those the ones taken during the eclipse you were promising?
I do not need them .
I have debunked your Imaginary Globe numerous times already .
This my thread I determine what I post.
I refuse to be manipulated by you Strange people .
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Regarding the Heliocentric model you and your brethren claim the eclipse is caused by the Moon obstructing the Sun .Yes, why not? I cannot help it if you can't understand simply optics. The sun is much larger than the moon so the "total eclipse" part of thr shadow, the umbra" is smaller than the moon, as in:
You claim that the alleged 2000 mile wide Moon casts a 70 mile Shadow ::)
You now claim that because the scattering of light is in the atmosphere it doesn't matter what shape the Sun is regarding the distribution of light .Of course "the scattering of light is in the atmosphere"! Where else could it be?
Since the scattering of the sun's light is in the atmosphere it would make no difference if:It would make no difference to what caused the shape.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
- the sun was crescent shaped,
- part of the sun was blocked by the moon or
- even part of the sun was eaten by your favourite sky serpent.
Your claim "If the Moon was blocking the Sun we would not see that shape we would see little to no visible light on the side of the said obstruction." is totally incorrect.
Since the atmosphere is on the viewer's side of both the sun and the moonthere would be scattering of the bright light of the sun equally all around the crescent shape of the part hidden sun and that is what we see.
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/hvhk5h79dkmy1nv/FAKE%20ECLIPSE%20August%2021%202017%20-%20Enhanced%20Dark%20Areas.jpg?dl=1)
ECLIPSE August 21 2017 - Enhanced Dark Areas
This is impossible .Rubbish! Here we go with more of your dishonest straw-man arguments!
On your heliocentric model the light is allegedly scattered in space and the Shadow is caused by your Magic Moon .
As light in space travels in straight lines we would not be able to observe the pattern of light demonstrated in the video provided earlier if your heliocentric model is correct .Totally false as we are not seeing the eclipse "in space" we are within the atmosphere, well I am,
I have now found another video that goes into great detail regarding the Solar eclipse.I'm not interested in 36 minutes more of your trashy videos. Talk about unjustified meaningless Photoshopping!
The video provided also shows pictures taken during the eclipse that show very strange orb like shadows .
The narrator has determined that this is down to the black hole Sun obstructing the Sun .
He also claims that these small orbs that the black hole Sun is constructed of is what is causing the strange shadows that have been photographed during the eclipse and shown in the video .
He also constructs a 3D model using a simulation that displays what we should of observed during the Eclipse if your Heliocentric model is correct .
There is a huge difference between what was observed during the eclipse and what should of been observed if your heliocentric model was correct .
The new video: Flat Earth Eclipse - What Really Blocked Out The Sun? GLOBEBUSTERS
(http://)
Not acceptable! I said You show exactly where the timing was wrong. And if I'm old man that needs spectacles and a hearing aid, you at 124 years old must be positive in you dotage.You should watch the video again old man put your spectacles on and make sure you have your hearing aid turned to maximum the eclipse started an hour early in the said video .
Earlier you claimed that "The video also highlighted how NASA got their timing wrong."
So, please document exactly where "NASA got their timing wrong". Simple meaningless words from a totally biased video are not acceptable.
You show exactly where the timing was wrong.
:D Only in your dreams. ;) In other words, you think you have managed to "debunk the globe" only because you totally fail to properly understand it.Now, just to prove that you are not a totally useless bag of hot air show your predictions of the exact location and timing of the peak of the eclipse from any of:This is my thread .If you cannot show how better predictions can be obtained for one or more of these sources we'll know that you are the fake.
- Saros cycles,
- The movement of your fictitious Rahu or
- The "HOLOGRAPHIC SKY" explanation.
The thread is called : Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the globe.Which it has. In more than one aspect .
It is NOT called Saros cycle explained and used to calculate the next eclipse .Since you have totally failed to debunk the correct explanation of the Heliocentric Globe, I was giving you a chance to explain the well-known observations with your own theories, what ever they might be.
It is NOT called movement of the Black Hole Sun explained .
This site is called :I'm afraid you are showing your total ignorance and bias again.
The Flat Earth Society .
It is not called :
The NASA heliocentric model appreciation society for the delusional and socially inept .
You should take an extensive course in photoshop, because that grey ball crossing an earth cartoon looks like shit.Incorrect! The moon and Globe still look and rotate like:
I have debunked your Imaginary Globe numerous times already .(https://www.dropbox.com/s/bnqzm0bwiktghg4/dscovrepicmoontransitfull%20-%20reduced.gif?dl=1)If you don't like it, tough luck. Dem''s da fax, all da fax an' nuttin' but da fax, so you'll just haf'ta lumpit!
Your stuck-in-the-mud pancake earth is nothing but your dreaming, wake up and look around at the Great Gigantic Glorious Globe!
No need for "an extensive course in photoshop" as it never entered the mix.The moon and Globe still look and rotate like:You should take an extensive course in photoshop, because that grey ball crossing an earth cartoon looks like shit.(https://www.dropbox.com/s/bnqzm0bwiktghg4/dscovrepicmoontransitfull%20-%20reduced.gif?dl=1)If you don't like it, tough luck. Dem''s da fax, all da fax an' nuttin' but da fax, so you'll just haf'ta lumpit!
Your stuck-in-the-mud pancake earth is nothing but your dreaming, wake up and look around at the Great Gigantic Glorious Globe!
Instead of annoying flatearthers you could have improved your photoshop skills in your precious time.So sorry, but I don't even use Photoshop and I have very limited skills in that direction, but it looks like I'm doing something right!
And the SF you present would look a whole lot more realistic.
Everytime you post that grey thing in front of that cartoon i laugh. It's 2017 not 1999 ;D ;D.... photoshop. has come a long way since then......iow i suggest to update your cartoons before you post them over here.No, I didn't "update" those "cartoons before I posted them over here."
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/08sp0gkdwx2kk5m/20170731%20-%20MSG-3_first_image_crop.png?dl=1) MSG-3 captured its first image of the Earth | (https://www.dropbox.com/s/lp60myxsgo0xmj8/20160727%20-%20Russian%20Satellite%20Photo%20around%20midday%20-%20December%202015.png?dl=1) Russian Satellite Photo around midday in Dec 2015 | (https://www.dropbox.com/s/a0zesphkha3fj1r/20160726%20-%20Himawari-8%2020160705120000fd.png?dl=1) Himawari-8 20160705120000fd |
I have shown and explained how and why the Solar Eclipse is impossible on your model numerous times .No you haven't.
I have continually pulled apart every explanation you and your brethren have defecated.
I have provided proof and explanations ; you and your brethren choose to ignore them as they destroy your Strange religion .
I have already proven you to be a liar earlier on in the thread ; remember when you claimed to be a labourer who constructs buildings , why should anyone believe your stories now ?
You fool NO ONE .
You have not addressed any of the points I raised in my last post.
Simply saying " the Heliocentric model is correct " is not acceptable you are not helping your religion.
Your worn out heliocentric model is ridiculous anyone that looks into it will see it for the nonsense it truly is .
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
You should take an extensive course in photoshop, because that grey ball crossing an earth cartoon looks like shit.Unlike you, we care more about the truth, so we won't Photoshop something to make it look nice. We will stick to the real pictures.
Instead of annoying flatearthers you could have improved your photoshop skills in your precious time.
And the SF you present would look a whole lot more realistic.
Everytime you post that grey thing in front of that cartoon i laugh. It's 2017 not 1999 ;D ;D.... photoshop. has come a long way since then......iow i suggest to update your cartoons before you post them over here.
Wuzzzz ?? Do i hear you say that grey ball crossing cartoon earth is a real picture taken from 1 million miles away ?You should take an extensive course in photoshop, because that grey ball crossing an earth cartoon looks like shit.Unlike you, we care more about the truth, so we won't Photoshop something to make it look nice. We will stick to the real pictures.
Instead of annoying flatearthers you could have improved your photoshop skills in your precious time.
And the SF you present would look a whole lot more realistic.
Everytime you post that grey thing in front of that cartoon i laugh. It's 2017 not 1999 ;D ;D.... photoshop. has come a long way since then......iow i suggest to update your cartoons before you post them over here.
I’ve tried to stay out of this but you write crap like this as if it really happened. You haven’t proved anything. You’ve provided conjecture without a single shred of evidence.I have shown and explained how and why the Solar Eclipse is impossible on your model numerous times .Great post,....you have certainly gained a supporter !!!If by "great" you mean a great pile of crap, then you are right.
If you mean intelligent, rational or honest, then you are completely wrong.
But as a pile of crap matches what you typically provide it isn't surprising you find it great.
As he has continually failed to show how the eclipse is impossible on a HC model, or any problem with it, perhaps you can help him out?
I have continually pulled apart every explanation you and your brethren have defecated.
I have provided proof and explanations ; you and your brethren choose to ignore them as they destroy your Strange religion .
I have already proven you to be a liar earlier on in the thread ; remember when you claimed to be a labourer who constructs buildings , why should anyone believe your stories now ?Every piece of evidence you’ve provided is conjecture, fabrication, and completely unsupportable. I provided you with a working analytical, heliocentric based model and not once did you show it doesn’t work. If nothing else, NASA’s model is mathematical proof that a solar eclipse is possible in a heliocentric model. If an eclipse was really impossible in a heliocentric model you could have easily proved it by debunking the analytical model. If it’s impossible the math can’t work but you’re afraid of it because you can’t prove it’s wrong.
You fool NO ONE .
You have not addressed any of the points I raised in my last post.
Simply saying " the Heliocentric model is correct " is not acceptable you are not helping your religion.
Your worn out heliocentric model is ridiculous anyone that looks into it will see it for the nonsense it truly is .
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Wuzzzz ?? Do i hear you say that grey ball crossing cartoon earth is a real picture taken from 1 million miles away ?Do you have anything at all to indicate it is photoshopped?
Please tell me that you don't.......
He does not have. He is like RiF - I do not find it acceptable.Wuzzzz ?? Do i hear you say that grey ball crossing cartoon earth is a real picture taken from 1 million miles away ?Do you have anything at all to indicate it is photoshopped?
Please tell me that you don't.......
No.
I have shown and explained how and why the Solar Eclipse is impossible on your model numerous times .No you haven't.
I have continually pulled apart every explanation you and your brethren have defecated.
I have provided proof and explanations ; you and your brethren choose to ignore them as they destroy your Strange religion .
I have already proven you to be a liar earlier on in the thread ; remember when you claimed to be a labourer who constructs buildings , why should anyone believe your stories now ?
You fool NO ONE .
You have not addressed any of the points I raised in my last post.
Simply saying " the Heliocentric model is correct " is not acceptable you are not helping your religion.
Your worn out heliocentric model is ridiculous anyone that looks into it will see it for the nonsense it truly is .
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
You have repeatedly asserted crap which was torn to shreds.
You have now even started describing yourself.
Here is how this discussion has went:
You assert pure bullshit.
We point out exactly what is wrong with that and what the correct analysis of the model shows by doing the analysis.
You claim that isn't acceptable, without pointing out a single thing wrong and then assert more shit.
This repeats for a bit and then you start trying to go off on tangents to avoid defeat before you start bringing up the same refute shit.
You claim we haven't addressed the points you raised and that we are just saying the HC model is correct.
But that isn't what is happening at all.
We address your points.
We point out what is wrong with them.
You are the one ignoring all the points.
You are the one simply dismissing it entirely as unacceptable and then asserting the HC model is false.
So thanks for pointing out that what you are doing proves nothing.
So no, you have failed to prove anything except that you lack honesty and integrity.
You realize your argument essentially comes down to, your evidence proves me wrong so it must be fake.You should take an extensive course in photoshop, because that grey ball crossing an earth cartoon looks like shit.Incorrect! The moon and Globe still look and rotate like:
I have debunked your Imaginary Globe numerous times already .(https://www.dropbox.com/s/bnqzm0bwiktghg4/dscovrepicmoontransitfull%20-%20reduced.gif?dl=1)If you don't like it, tough luck. Dem''s da fax, all da fax an' nuttin' but da fax, so you'll just haf'ta lumpit!
Your stuck-in-the-mud pancake earth is nothing but your dreaming, wake up and look around at the Great Gigantic Glorious Globe!
Instead of annoying flatearthers you could have improved your photoshop skills in your precious time.
And the SF you present would look a whole lot more realistic.
Everytime you post that grey thing in front of that cartoon i laugh. It's 2017 not 1999 ;D ;D.... photoshop. has come a long way since then......iow i suggest to update your cartoons before you post them over here.
Incorrect.
I start every post with a dismissal of your defecated explanation .
I then give an explanation and occasionally provide videos regarding your verbal diarrhea .
Exactly what points have you addressed that where raised in my last post ?
The Black hole Sun ?
The photograph shown in the video that shows millions of little projected orbs on the ground ?
The way the light simulation in the video contradicts your Heliocentric model ?
Your explanation has not addressed these points whatsoever and as such is not acceptable.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Incorrect.
I start every post with a dismissal of your defecated explanation .
I then give an explanation and occasionally provide videos regarding your verbal diarrhea .
Exactly what points have you addressed that where raised in my last post ?
The Black hole Sun ?
The photograph shown in the video that shows millions of little projected orbs on the ground ?
The way the light simulation in the video contradicts your Heliocentric model ?
Your explanation has not addressed these points whatsoever and as such is not acceptable.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
You are correct, you start just about every post with a dismissal of his explanation. With no regard to any explanation on your part to why you dismis his claim, though. You just say his claim (or anybody's claim) is unacceptable, say you have proven them wrong, but I can't find any proof. All I find is assertions of your claim. Just because you say something, that is not evidence. Just because you don't understand how something works, doesn't make it a lie. I have gone through your posts and can't find any claim you make that is backed by any real science. How in the world do you expect flat earth to be taken serious by anybody with an IQ of 60 or above that doesn't have any scientific basis? Your arrogance and ignorance astounds me. You must be doing this just for laughs, because I don't think anybody can be a dumb as you are. Well, maybe dutchy... But I know, I am beating a dead horse...
Incorrect.Nope.
I start every post with a dismissal of your defecated explanation .
I then give an explanation and occasionally provide videos regarding your verbal diarrhea .
Exactly what points have you addressed that where raised in my last post ?
The Black hole Sun ?
The photograph shown in the video that shows millions of little projected orbs on the ground ?
The way the light simulation in the video contradicts your Heliocentric model ?
Your explanation has not addressed these points whatsoever and as such is not acceptable.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
No you didn't "hear JackBlack say that grey ball . . . . .", though you might have read it.Wuzzzz ?? Do i hear you say that grey ball crossing cartoon earth is a real picture taken from 1 million miles away ?Everytime you post that grey thing in front of that cartoon i laugh. It's 2017 not 1999 ;D ;D.... photoshop. has come a long way since then......iow i suggest to update your cartoons before you post them over here.Unlike you, we care more about the truth, so we won't Photoshop something to make it look nice. We will stick to the real pictures.
Please tell me that you don't.......
Incorrect.
I start every post with a dismissal of your defecated explanation .
I then give an explanation and occasionally provide videos regarding your verbal diarrhea .
Exactly what points have you addressed that where raised in my last post ?
The Black hole Sun ?
The photograph shown in the video that shows millions of little projected orbs on the ground ?
The way the light simulation in the video contradicts your Heliocentric model ?
Your explanation has not addressed these points whatsoever and as such is not acceptable.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
You are correct, you start just about every post with a dismissal of his explanation. With no regard to any explanation on your part to why you dismis his claim, though. You just say his claim (or anybody's claim) is unacceptable, say you have proven them wrong, but I can't find any proof. All I find is assertions of your claim. Just because you say something, that is not evidence. Just because you don't understand how something works, doesn't make it a lie. I have gone through your posts and can't find any claim you make that is backed by any real science. How in the world do you expect flat earth to be taken serious by anybody with an IQ of 60 or above that doesn't have any scientific basis? Your arrogance and ignorance astounds me. You must be doing this just for laughs, because I don't think anybody can be a dumb as you are. Well, maybe dutchy... But I know, I am beating a dead horse...
NIce try .
We are discussing the video I linked on my last post here is a reminder :
I start every post with a dismissal of your defecated explanation .
I then give an explanation and occasionally provide videos regarding your verbal diarrhea .
Exactly what points have you addressed that where raised in my last post ?
The Black hole Sun ?
The photograph shown in the video that shows millions of little projected orbs on the ground ?
The way the light simulation in the video contradicts your Heliocentric model ?
Your explanation has not addressed these points whatsoever and as such is not acceptable.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
You forgot to mention that you copy/paste the same lame crap over and over and over again for several pages.
Incorrect.
I start every post with a dismissal of your defecated explanation .
I then give an explanation and occasionally provide videos regarding your verbal diarrhea .
Exactly what points have you addressed that where raised in my last post ?
The Black hole Sun ?
The photograph shown in the video that shows millions of little projected orbs on the ground ?
The way the light simulation in the video contradicts your Heliocentric model ?
Your explanation has not addressed these points whatsoever and as such is not acceptable.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
You are correct, you start just about every post with a dismissal of his explanation. With no regard to any explanation on your part to why you dismis his claim, though. You just say his claim (or anybody's claim) is unacceptable, say you have proven them wrong, but I can't find any proof. All I find is assertions of your claim. Just because you say something, that is not evidence. Just because you don't understand how something works, doesn't make it a lie. I have gone through your posts and can't find any claim you make that is backed by any real science. How in the world do you expect flat earth to be taken serious by anybody with an IQ of 60 or above that doesn't have any scientific basis? Your arrogance and ignorance astounds me. You must be doing this just for laughs, because I don't think anybody can be a dumb as you are. Well, maybe dutchy... But I know, I am beating a dead horse...
NIce try .
We are discussing the video I linked on my last post here is a reminder :
I start every post with a dismissal of your defecated explanation .
I then give an explanation and occasionally provide videos regarding your verbal diarrhea .
Exactly what points have you addressed that where raised in my last post ?
The Black hole Sun ?
The photograph shown in the video that shows millions of little projected orbs on the ground ?
The way the light simulation in the video contradicts your Heliocentric model ?
Your explanation has not addressed these points whatsoever and as such is not acceptable.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Everything NASA posts must be real because they CANNOT be liars. It is impossible for a company like that to lie when they are SO CLOSELY involved in public relations! Anyone can do what NASA does!You really need to brush up on your shill skills. NASA is a government agency, not a company. ::)
Everything NASA posts must be real because they CANNOT be liars. It is impossible for a company like that to lie when they are SO CLOSELY involved in public relations! Anyone can do what NASA does!You are right, NASA has presented thousends of photographs from outerspace.
You have failed to see that you're so-called black Sun, is in reality is the new Moon.I have shown and explained how and why the Solar Eclipse is impossible on your model numerous times .No you haven't.
I have continually pulled apart every explanation you and your brethren have defecated.
I have provided proof and explanations ; you and your brethren choose to ignore them as they destroy your Strange religion .
I have already proven you to be a liar earlier on in the thread ; remember when you claimed to be a labourer who constructs buildings , why should anyone believe your stories now ?
You fool NO ONE .
You have not addressed any of the points I raised in my last post.
Simply saying " the Heliocentric model is correct " is not acceptable you are not helping your religion.
Your worn out heliocentric model is ridiculous anyone that looks into it will see it for the nonsense it truly is .
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
You have repeatedly asserted crap which was torn to shreds.
You have now even started describing yourself.
Here is how this discussion has went:
You assert pure bullshit.
We point out exactly what is wrong with that and what the correct analysis of the model shows by doing the analysis.
You claim that isn't acceptable, without pointing out a single thing wrong and then assert more shit.
This repeats for a bit and then you start trying to go off on tangents to avoid defeat before you start bringing up the same refute shit.
You claim we haven't addressed the points you raised and that we are just saying the HC model is correct.
But that isn't what is happening at all.
We address your points.
We point out what is wrong with them.
You are the one ignoring all the points.
You are the one simply dismissing it entirely as unacceptable and then asserting the HC model is false.
So thanks for pointing out that what you are doing proves nothing.
So no, you have failed to prove anything except that you lack honesty and integrity.
Incorrect.
I start every post with a dismissal of your defecated explanation .
I then give an explanation and occasionally provide videos regarding your verbal diarrhea .
Exactly what points have you addressed that where raised in my last post ?
The Black hole Sun ?
The photograph shown in the video that shows millions of little projected orbs on the ground ?You are looking at the shade underneath the tree with the sun shining through the leaves, creating millions of pinhole camera's. That is simple enough, and No big deal, if you just stop and think a little bit. Or am I asking too much.
The way the light simulation in the video contradicts your Heliocentric model ?You need to come out of Plato's cave, and see the world for what it is.
Your explanation has not addressed these points whatsoever and as such is not acceptable.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
:P :P NASA ,.....words fail to describe your pure and noble essence. :P :PYou forgot something - FTFY.
Well despite your claims you have never proved a single bit of fakery or a single lie.Everything NASA posts must be real because they CANNOT be liars. It is impossible for a company like that to lie when they are SO CLOSELY involved in public relations! Anyone can do what NASA does!You are right, NASA has presented thousends of photographs from outerspace.
Never a single attempt of fakery
Forgiving some evil nazi's where others were blinded by revenge
Not covering up their lost treasures, but humbly accepting their losses
Giving humanity countless important inventions derived from outerspace
Some of the most well mannered and humerous scientific spokesmen on the plane(t)
A high succes rate compared to the modest fundings
A dream institute for most young addults
Connecting two worlds in a noble way through the language of music everyone speaks
NASA ,.....words fail to describe your pure and noble essence.
Forgiefe mec, but thou art a doubting Thomas who does not recognise a Daniel come to judgement :(Well despite your claims you have never proved a single bit of fakery or a single lie.Everything NASA posts must be real because they CANNOT be liars. It is impossible for a company like that to lie when they are SO CLOSELY involved in public relations! Anyone can do what NASA does!You are right, NASA has presented thousends of photographs from outerspace.
Never a single attempt of fakery
Forgiving some evil nazi's where others were blinded by revenge
Not covering up their lost treasures, but humbly accepting their losses
Giving humanity countless important inventions derived from outerspace
Some of the most well mannered and humerous scientific spokesmen on the plane(t)
A high succes rate compared to the modest fundings
A dream institute for most young addults
Connecting two worlds in a noble way through the language of music everyone speaks
NASA ,.....words fail to describe your pure and noble essence.
So, there's that
I think you're mixing you metaphors there, but regardless you still have not shown a single fake or lie.Forgiefe mec, but thou art a doubting Thomas who does not recognise a Daniel come to judgement :(Well despite your claims you have never proved a single bit of fakery or a single lie.Everything NASA posts must be real because they CANNOT be liars. It is impossible for a company like that to lie when they are SO CLOSELY involved in public relations! Anyone can do what NASA does!You are right, NASA has presented thousends of photographs from outerspace.
Never a single attempt of fakery
Forgiving some evil nazi's where others were blinded by revenge
Not covering up their lost treasures, but humbly accepting their losses
Giving humanity countless important inventions derived from outerspace
Some of the most well mannered and humerous scientific spokesmen on the plane(t)
A high succes rate compared to the modest fundings
A dream institute for most young addults
Connecting two worlds in a noble way through the language of music everyone speaks
NASA ,.....words fail to describe your pure and noble essence.
So, there's that
Incorrect.Nope.
I start every post with a dismissal of your defecated explanation .
I then give an explanation and occasionally provide videos regarding your verbal diarrhea .
Exactly what points have you addressed that where raised in my last post ?
The Black hole Sun ?
The photograph shown in the video that shows millions of little projected orbs on the ground ?
The way the light simulation in the video contradicts your Heliocentric model ?
Your explanation has not addressed these points whatsoever and as such is not acceptable.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
You do start every post with a dismissal of our sound explanations.
You then go to spout more crap, either entirely ignoring our explanation or just dismissing them and reasserting the same bullshit.
I said I wasn't going to bother with another shitty video from you.
Deal with all the prior crap first.
And that video was not the only thing you discussed in that post.
If you like, admit that all you have said previously is a complete load of crap and you can start anew with the video. Otherwise, deal with all your other bullshit before moving on. You seem to like continually changing the subject to try and escape being wrong and I have had enough. Stick to the one argument. Either back it up and deal with the refutations or admit it is wrong; then we can move on.
I said I wasn't going to bother with another shitty video from you.
Deal with all the prior crap first.
And that video was not the only thing you discussed in that post.
If you like, admit that all you have said previously is a complete load of crap and you can start anew with the video. Otherwise, deal with all your other bullshit before moving on .
You seem to like continually changing the subject
Once again you have failed to see that's your black Sun is the new Moon,Incorrect.Nope.
I start every post with a dismissal of your defecated explanation .
I then give an explanation and occasionally provide videos regarding your verbal diarrhea .
Exactly what points have you addressed that where raised in my last post ?
The Black hole Sun ?
The photograph shown in the video that shows millions of little projected orbs on the ground ?
The way the light simulation in the video contradicts your Heliocentric model ?
Your explanation has not addressed these points whatsoever and as such is not acceptable.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
You do start every post with a dismissal of our sound explanations.
You then go to spout more crap, either entirely ignoring our explanation or just dismissing them and reasserting the same bullshit.
I said I wasn't going to bother with another shitty video from you.
Deal with all the prior crap first.
And that video was not the only thing you discussed in that post.
If you like, admit that all you have said previously is a complete load of crap and you can start anew with the video. Otherwise, deal with all your other bullshit before moving on. You seem to like continually changing the subject to try and escape being wrong and I have had enough. Stick to the one argument. Either back it up and deal with the refutations or admit it is wrong; then we can move on.
What on Earth are you talking about ?
I said I wasn't going to bother with another shitty video from you.
Deal with all the prior crap first.
And that video was not the only thing you discussed in that post.
What you really mean is that you can't come up with any form of viable explanation for the last video I provided.
If you like, admit that all you have said previously is a complete load of crap and you can start anew with the video. Otherwise, deal with all your other bullshit before moving on .
Exactly who do you think you are ?
I see you are still afflicted with delusion's of grandeur.
You are just a pleb who talks out of his arse the vast majority of the time .
NO ONE is able to give me direction regarding my posts.
What other bullshit ?
It is you that is full of shit not me .
You seem to like continually changing the subject
Incorrect.
Everything in this thread apart from your episode where you claimed you had " constructed buildings " has been on subject ; which is the Solar Eclipse.
Now then ..
Answer my questions or fuck off you turd .
Stop posting your irrelevant bullshit ; here's a reminder on what we are discussing .
Exactly what points have you addressed that where raised in my last post ?
The Black hole Sun ?
The photograph shown in the video that shows millions of little projected orbs on the ground ?You are looking at the shadow from under a tree, with the sun showing through, creating pinhole cameras, with a little thought you can see this is true, or am I asking too much.
The way the light simulation in the video contradicts your Heliocentric model ?You're really do need to come out of Plato's cave, and see the real world, as it is a Globe.
Your explanation has not addressed these points whatsoever and as such is not acceptable.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
I’ve tried to stay out of this but you write crap like this as if it really happened. You haven’t proved anything. You’ve provided conjecture without a single shred of evidence.I have shown and explained how and why the Solar Eclipse is impossible on your model numerous times .Great post,....you have certainly gained a supporter !!!If by "great" you mean a great pile of crap, then you are right.
If you mean intelligent, rational or honest, then you are completely wrong.
But as a pile of crap matches what you typically provide it isn't surprising you find it great.
As he has continually failed to show how the eclipse is impossible on a HC model, or any problem with it, perhaps you can help him out?
I have continually pulled apart every explanation you and your brethren have defecated.
I have provided proof and explanations ; you and your brethren choose to ignore them as they destroy your Strange religion .
However, I provided you with all the information, calculations, and assumptions for predicting the path of an eclipse. I even provided the calculations for the path of Aug 21st eclipse. You ignored every post I made where I showed how it was done. We all know it’s because you have no clue how to debunk it.
Of course, you’ll come back with some rubbish about it being unacceptable, incorrect, or some such crap. But, the reality is you have debunked nothing “numerous times”. You don’t even have to balls to prove the math wrong. The links I provided handed you the golden opportunity to show once and for all the math doesn’t work the way NASA says it does and you didn’t even address it...it’s ok, we all know you can’t so that’s why you kept ignoring the links.I have already proven you to be a liar earlier on in the thread ; remember when you claimed to be a labourer who constructs buildings , why should anyone believe your stories now ?Every piece of evidence you’ve provided is conjecture, fabrication, and completely unsupportable. I provided you with a working analytical, heliocentric based model and not once did you show it doesn’t work. If nothing else, NASA’s model is mathematical proof that a solar eclipse is possible in a heliocentric model. If an eclipse was really impossible in a heliocentric model you could have easily proved it by debunking the analytical model. If it’s impossible the math can’t work but you’re afraid of it because you can’t prove it’s wrong.
You fool NO ONE .
You have not addressed any of the points I raised in my last post.
Simply saying " the Heliocentric model is correct " is not acceptable you are not helping your religion.
Your worn out heliocentric model is ridiculous anyone that looks into it will see it for the nonsense it truly is .
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Instead of making up unsupportable crap such as a black sun, how about you show an analytical model that predicts the exact path of any eclipse. There’s one coming in 2024. That would be a perfect place to start. You’re an EE right? You should be able to work through the math and come up with a workable model.
We all know you’ll come back with more hand waving and claims of “not acceptable” or “nonsense” because that’s all you’ve got. That’s all you’ve ever had...made up shit and junk science. All of which is unsupportable.
Mike
Every piece of evidence you’ve provided is conjecture, fabrication, and completely unsupportable. I provided you with a working analytical, heliocentric based model and not once did you show it doesn’t work.
If nothing else, NASA’s model is mathematical proof that a solar eclipse is possible in a heliocentric model.
Forgiefe mec, but thou art a doubting Thomas who does not recognise a Daniel come to judgement :(Wouldn't that be you, doubting that these pictures are real so you can pretend your delusional world view isn't a complete load of crap.
What on Earth are you talking about ?I'm talking about what you do repeatedly.
What you really mean is that you can't come up with any form of viable explanation for the last video I provided.No. What I mean is I am sick of you just trying to change to slightly different bullshit and pretending your previous bullshit hasn't been refuted.
Exactly who do you think you are ?Someone who is growing tired of your bullshit.
I see you are still afflicted with delusion's of grandeur.I see you are talking about yourself again.
You are just a pleb who talks out of his arse the vast majority of the time .
NO ONE is able to give me direction regarding my posts.No. Anyone can. They just can't force you to follow it.
You are aware that the solar eclipse can be broken apart into smaller subjects?You seem to like continually changing the subjectIncorrect.
Everything in this thread apart from your episode where you claimed you had " constructed buildings " has been on subject ; which is the Solar Eclipse.
Now then ..No. You answer my questions. I have already answered the vast majority of yours with you simply dismissing it as unacceptable.
Answer my questions or fuck off you turd .
Stop posting your irrelevant bullshit ; here's a reminder on what we are discussing .
And here is a reminderAnd here is a reminder of that "last post"
Exactly what points have you addressed that where raised in my last post ?
You speak nonsense .
Regarding the Heliocentric model you and your brethren claim the eclipse is caused by the Moon obstructing the Sun .
You claim that the alleged 2000 mile wide Moon casts a 70 mile Shadow ::)
You now claim that because the scattering of light is in the atmosphere it doesn't matter what shape the Sun is regarding the distribution of light .
This is impossible .
On your heliocentric model the light is allegedly scattered in space and the Shadow is caused by your Magic Moon .
As light in space travels in straight lines we would not be able to observe the pattern of light demonstrated in the video provided earlier if your heliocentric model is correct .
Your explanation has not addressed these points whatsoever and as such is not acceptable.My explanation has made no attempt to discuss your latest BS video.
The heliocentric model doesn't work .Again, NO YOU HAVE NOT!
I have proved this on numerous occasions.
The ancient Babylonian's and the ancient Chinese could predict Eclipses just as accurately 4000 years ago they used the Saros Cycle.No. They couldn't.
The Heliocentric mathematics has been retrofitted to the Saros cycle.No. It has been derived independently of the Saros cycle.
<< garbage that has been refuted numerous time deleted >>
Are you on about this shit, REtard?Yes, that is one thing we are on about, using angles and known distances to determine a length, a method of determining a length that doesn't require a tape measure.
http://www.instructables.com/id/Using-a-clinometer-to-measure-height/
But thanks for finally coming here and saying he is wrong and you don't to take a tape measure to something to measure its height.
Instead you can use a known distance and angles.Cos if you are, you'll notice that you need to know your distance from the object before its height can be calculated...Unfortunately it seems that way.
And how do you find that distance?
That's right, with a TAPE MEASURE!
So we're right back where we started ain't we?
Even when you came here and showed that you can measure a length without a tape measure at that length you have gone back to the same bullshit.
Why can't we instead measure that distance using a known length and angles?
Why can't we measure a short distance (which again, doesn't need a tape measure, we can use a laser instead to get a more accurate reading), measure the angles, then do some simple trig to determine the distance to the tower?Do you have a tape measure long enough to reach a star?No, We don't need one.
The distance to the star is the "height" you are calculating.
We just need a known length, say the width of Earth's orbit, and angles.
In the link I provided it states the equipment needed to use a clinometer.Its for making things easier but you can find out distance to the tower without measuring it with tape measure. You just measure other distance which you can measure with tape measure and then calculate distance to the tower. So, there is no need to go to the tower or measure distance directly from you to the tower.
The second item of equipment listed is a TAPE MEASURE.
Because how else are you going to find out what this KNOWN DISTANCE is except by MEASURING IT?
In the link I provided it states the equipment needed to use a clinometer.Its for making things easier but you can find out distance to the tower without measuring it with tape measure. You just measure other distance which you can measure with tape measure and then calculate distance to the tower. So, there is no need to go to the tower or measure distance directly from you to the tower.
The second item of equipment listed is a TAPE MEASURE.
Because how else are you going to find out what this KNOWN DISTANCE is except by MEASURING IT?
You are completely insane.No. That would be you.
In the link I provided it states the equipment needed to use a clinometer.
The second item of equipment listed is a TAPE MEASURE.
Because how else are you going to find out what this KNOWN DISTANCE is except by MEASURING IT?
The fact is that there are NO KNOWN DISTANCES in your mad model...You might want to learn what a fact is.
Because there is no measuring device capable of measuring them.
Nobody normal cares.Well you are right. No one normal cares.
"You just measure other distance which you can measure with tape measure..."Yes, I measure distance which can be measured and calculate which can't be measured directly. But I guess its too complicated for you. Sorry for overloading you tiny brain.
And the circle jerk REtard time wasting begins...So why do you, the retardedest REtard of them all hang around like a bad smell and waste your precious time, time that you could better spend casting Vudu spells.
But i'm sure some fancy satelite (probably from NASA) has captured all the data that shows how all three of them line up in an unique fashion.And the circle jerk REtard time wasting begins...So why do you, the retardedest REtard of them all hang around like a bad smell and waste your precious time, time that you could better spend casting Vudu spells.Or have you been over in Haiti conjuring up Harvey, Irma and Jose - come on 'fess up!
....
Let's face it, REtards, the only way you'll ever get close enough to a star to measure its distance is if you ride my dick there...
Cos that's how long my dick is.
Still wasn't long enough for your momma though....
lol
You REtards will never get to ride my dick to the stars with an attitude like that...
Come on - I know you wanna!
REtard Dickriders... Inn Shpayyyzzzze!!!
Bear in mind you'll need to measure my dick before we set off though...
You'll be needing a few million of these, so start saving up your pocket money right this moment!
http://www.screwfix.com/p/stanley-open-reel-long-tape-measure-30m-100-x-12mm/99741?kpid=99741&gclid=Cj0KCQjwxdPNBRDmARIsAAw-TUlmBtQuP8jPhNP3p95HIqRvQZYHcX1DsXzv-kIQhnNgqoQPQY6cyCQaAt9JEALw_wcB&gclsrc=aw.ds&dclid=COyWuYemm9YCFVeB7QodlX8ADQ
Or just ask your momma for the details?
You will have to wait 30 days for his brilliant reply.Did you condamn him to Davy Jones' locker for 30 days ?
You will have to wait 30 days for his brilliant reply.Did you condamn him to Davy Jones' locker for 30 days ?
A lightyear is 9.5 trillion km.Not cosmological highpriests but ordinary people who have learned more about topic than you. And you are too lazy to learn. But you can go and tell the military that the rangefinders are fantasy tools because they use same principles as astronomers when calulating distances.
Alpha Centauri the nearest star is 41 trillion km away
The furthest observable star is 522500000000000000000 km away !
And our cosmological highpriests have calculated these distances while measuring wavelenghts or whatever fantasy tool they claim to have used.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
When i use your logic i only have to ask one single person to create a nationwide poll about a delicate subject !A lightyear is 9.5 trillion km.Not cosmological highpriests but ordinary people who have learned more about topic than you. And you are too lazy to learn. But you can go and tell the military that the rangefinders are fantasy tools because they use same principles as astronomers when calulating distances.
Alpha Centauri the nearest star is 41 trillion km away
The furthest observable star is 522500000000000000000 km away !
And our cosmological highpriests have calculated these distances while measuring wavelenghts or whatever fantasy tool they claim to have used.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
A lightyear is 9.5 trillion km.And you still have yet to prove one lie or faked picture from them.
Alpha Centauri the nearest star is 41 trillion km away
The furthest observable star is 522500000000000000000 km away !
And our cosmological highpriests have calculated these distances while measuring wavelenghts or whatever fantasy tool they claim to have used.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Seeing a just about every one of his posts belongs in AR, does anyone else think that it might be time to consider putting him in Purgatory for a while instead banning him over and over and over and over again?You will have to wait 30 days for his brilliant reply.Did you condamn him to Davy Jones' locker for 30 days ?
Yes!
You are right i proved multiple lies and numerous false constructed images that fail to mimick reality.A lightyear is 9.5 trillion km.And you still have yet to prove one lie or faked picture from them.
Alpha Centauri the nearest star is 41 trillion km away
The furthest observable star is 522500000000000000000 km away !
And our cosmological highpriests have calculated these distances while measuring wavelenghts or whatever fantasy tool they claim to have used.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
And deminish our numbers even more ?...... i have sore thumbs allready typing from whatever device lying around in my living room ::)Seeing a just about every one of his posts belongs in AR, does anyone else think that it might be time to consider putting him in Purgatory for a while instead banning him over and over and over and over again?You will have to wait 30 days for his brilliant reply.Did you condamn him to Davy Jones' locker for 30 days ?
Yes!
i proved ... numerous false constructed images that fail to mimick reality.Are you referring to the video you posted where they were finding jpeg compressing in low res jpeg images? That doesn't make the images constructed, it makes the analyzer incompetent.
Seeing a just about every one of his posts belongs in AR, does anyone else think that it might be time to consider putting him in Purgatory for a while instead banning him over and over and over and over again?You will have to wait 30 days for his brilliant reply.Did you condamn him to Davy Jones' locker for 30 days ?
Yes!
Of course:But i'm sure some fancy satelite (probably from NASA) has captured all the data that shows how all three of them line up in an unique fashion.And the circle jerk REtard time wasting begins...So why do you, the retardedest REtard of them all hang around like a bad smell and waste your precious time, time that you could better spend casting Vudu spells.Or have you been over in Haiti conjuring up Harvey, Irma and Jose - come on 'fess up!
I am expecting some CGI crap soon that only blinded men mistake for reality. ::)
You are right i proved multiple lies and numerous false constructed images that fail to mimick reality.You did? :D :D Show me yours and I'll show you mine! :D :D
Are you referring to a specific ' grand delusion' or NASA lie ?
You seem to refer a lot to that 'one' proof or lie.
Is their a mother of NASA lies and fabricated imagery underneath the examples i provided ?
You keep telling me it is possible to know a distance without using a measuring device, then describe methods of finding a distance that all use measuring devices...No. We told you that you don't need to take a tape measure to a distant star to measure the distance to the star.
Let's face it, REtards, the only way you'll ever get close enough to a star to measure its distance is if you ride my dick there...See, this is the insanity. You have provided a method for measuring a distance which does not require you to go to the object, yet here you are, acting like you need to go to that object to measure the distance.
A lightyear is 9.5 trillion km.Nope. Not highpriests. And no, not wavelengths.
Alpha Centauri the nearest star is 41 trillion km away
The furthest observable star is 522500000000000000000 km away !
And our cosmological highpriests have calculated these distances while measuring wavelenghts or whatever fantasy tool they claim to have used.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
The only proof is their fantasy space travels,....otherwise all claims fall flat completely.You mean their real space travels.
You are right i proved multiple lies and numerous false constructed images that fail to mimick reality.No. You are yet to prove a single one. Repeatedly asserting it is not proving it.
I'm still waiting for you to prove a single lie or prove a single image faked.You are right i proved multiple lies and numerous false constructed images that fail to mimick reality.A lightyear is 9.5 trillion km.And you still have yet to prove one lie or faked picture from them.
Alpha Centauri the nearest star is 41 trillion km away
The furthest observable star is 522500000000000000000 km away !
And our cosmological highpriests have calculated these distances while measuring wavelenghts or whatever fantasy tool they claim to have used.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Are you referring to a specific ' grand delusion' or NASA lie ?
You seem to refer a lot to that 'one' proof or lie.
Is their a mother of NASA lies and fabricated imagery underneath the examples i provided ?
Ah i understand..... you want me to look even deeper instead of providing the obvious proof as i did and reveal the one ( sounds almost prophetic ;D) that explains all the fakery.
Thanks for the clues, but it could take a while i'm afraid ! ::)
The REtards are so gay, they love dancing for poppa.And deminish our numbers even more ?...... i have sore thumbs allready typing from whatever device lying around in my living room ::)Seeing a just about every one of his posts belongs in AR, does anyone else think that it might be time to consider putting him in Purgatory for a while instead banning him over and over and over and over again?You will have to wait 30 days for his brilliant reply.Did you condamn him to Davy Jones' locker for 30 days ?
Yes!
No Papa is always sounding like the Pied Piper of Hamelin, the globers come crawling out of every corner to answer his music ;D.
I like papa and the spell he seems to have on globers...... they can't resist, can't resist...
Why don't you stop saying this bs, plenty of lies and frauds have been shown to you.I'm still waiting for you to prove a single lie or prove a single image faked.You are right i proved multiple lies and numerous false constructed images that fail to mimick reality.A lightyear is 9.5 trillion km.And you still have yet to prove one lie or faked picture from them.
Alpha Centauri the nearest star is 41 trillion km away
The furthest observable star is 522500000000000000000 km away !
And our cosmological highpriests have calculated these distances while measuring wavelenghts or whatever fantasy tool they claim to have used.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Are you referring to a specific ' grand delusion' or NASA lie ?
You seem to refer a lot to that 'one' proof or lie.
Is their a mother of NASA lies and fabricated imagery underneath the examples i provided ?
Ah i understand..... you want me to look even deeper instead of providing the obvious proof as i did and reveal the one ( sounds almost prophetic ;D) that explains all the fakery.
Thanks for the clues, but it could take a while i'm afraid ! ::)
Let's start with that.
You have claimed there are lies, and claim images are "obvious" fakes, but that's just empty claims.
I'm still waiting for you to prove a single lie or prove a single image faked.Why don't you stop saying this bs, plenty of lies and frauds have been shown to you.
Let's start with that.
You have claimed there are lies, and claim images are "obvious" fakes, but that's just empty claims.
Purgatory is an alternative to banning him. It's simply limiting him to posting only in Angry Ranting and Complete Nonsense where he can be as obnoxious as he wants.And deminish our numbers even more ?...... i have sore thumbs allready typing from whatever device lying around in my living room ::)Seeing a just about every one of his posts belongs in AR, does anyone else think that it might be time to consider putting him in Purgatory for a while instead banning him over and over and over and over again?You will have to wait 30 days for his brilliant reply.Did you condamn him to Davy Jones' locker for 30 days ?
Yes!
No Papa is always sounding like the Pied Piper of Hamelin, the globers come crawling out of every corner to answer his music ;D.Maybe if he wasn't so angry and abusive, maybe he would be able to stick around longer so that he could get his message out to more people.
I like papa and the spell he seems to have on globers...... they can't resist, can't resist...
No, plenty have been claimed. The proof is usually, that looks like cgi to me!Why don't you stop saying this bs, plenty of lies and frauds have been shown to you.I'm still waiting for you to prove a single lie or prove a single image faked.You are right i proved multiple lies and numerous false constructed images that fail to mimick reality.A lightyear is 9.5 trillion km.And you still have yet to prove one lie or faked picture from them.
Alpha Centauri the nearest star is 41 trillion km away
The furthest observable star is 522500000000000000000 km away !
And our cosmological highpriests have calculated these distances while measuring wavelenghts or whatever fantasy tool they claim to have used.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Are you referring to a specific ' grand delusion' or NASA lie ?
You seem to refer a lot to that 'one' proof or lie.
Is their a mother of NASA lies and fabricated imagery underneath the examples i provided ?
Ah i understand..... you want me to look even deeper instead of providing the obvious proof as i did and reveal the one ( sounds almost prophetic ;D) that explains all the fakery.
Thanks for the clues, but it could take a while i'm afraid ! ::)
Let's start with that.
You have claimed there are lies, and claim images are "obvious" fakes, but that's just empty claims.
If there is a consensus among the active mods, then maybe someone could PM John to do it.Seeing a just about every one of his posts belongs in AR, does anyone else think that it might be time to consider putting him in Purgatory for a while instead banning him over and over and over and over again?You will have to wait 30 days for his brilliant reply.Did you condamn him to Davy Jones' locker for 30 days ?
Yes!
I don't have the power to purgatory him, but I wouldn't object to bamming him forever.
I wish people could just ignore him, but I don't see that ever happening.I think it's more for the morbid entertainment value. He's like a horrible train wreck where you just can't look away.
When i use your logic i only have to ask one single person to create a nationwide poll about a delicate subject !A lightyear is 9.5 trillion km.Not cosmological highpriests but ordinary people who have learned more about topic than you. And you are too lazy to learn. But you can go and tell the military that the rangefinders are fantasy tools because they use same principles as astronomers when calulating distances.
Alpha Centauri the nearest star is 41 trillion km away
The furthest observable star is 522500000000000000000 km away !
And our cosmological highpriests have calculated these distances while measuring wavelenghts or whatever fantasy tool they claim to have used.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
The problem is that distances and the speed of light are calculated on tiny earth within specific properties that are incomparable with the supposed vastness of space.
The only proof is their fantasy space travels,....otherwise all claims fall flat completely.
To multiply the measurements on earth with an extravagant factor is simply unheared of with the scientific method in mind.
Why don't you stop saying this bs, plenty of lies and frauds have been shown to you.Lies of FEers for sure.
When i use your logic i only have to ask one single person to create a nationwide poll about a delicate subject !No, the first measurement of the velocity was not "calculated on tiny earth within specific properties that are incomparable with the supposed vastness of space".
The problem is that distances and the speed of light are calculated on tiny earth within specific properties that are incomparable with the supposed vastness of space.
Ole Roemer and the Speed of Light
In 1676, the Danish astronomer Ole Roemer (1644–1710) became the first person to measure the speed of light. Until that time, scientists assumed that the speed of light was either too fast to measure or infinite. The dominant view, vigorously argued by the French philosopher Descartes, favored an infinite speed.
Read the rest in: Profile: Ole Roemer and the Speed of Light (https://www.amnh.org/explore/resource-collections/cosmic-horizons/profile-ole-roemer-and-the-speed-of-light/).
Who determined the speed of light?
In the ensuing centuries, a number of other scientists worked to determine the speed of light and, using improved techniques, came up with increasingly accurate calculations. French physicist Hippolyte Fizeau is credited with making the first non-astronomical measurement, in 1849, using a method that involved sending light through a rotating toothed wheel then reflecting it back with a mirror located a significant distance away. One of the first precise calculations of light’s velocity was made in the 1920s by American physicist Albert Michelson, who carried out his research in the mountains of Southern California using an eight-sided rotating mirror apparatus. In 1983, an international commission on weights and measures set the speed of light in a vacuum at the calculation we use today: 299,792,458 meters per second (186,282 miles per second)—a speed that could circle the equator 7.5 times in a single second.
From: HISTORY STORIES, Who determined the speed of light? (http://www.history.com/news/ask-history/who-determined-the-speed-of-light)
The only proof is their fantasy space travels,....otherwise all claims fall flat completely.I can't fathom what you mean here!
To multiply the measurements on earth with an extravagant factor is simply unheared of with the scientific method in mind.
You are a funny guy at times aren't you ?When i use your logic i only have to ask one single person to create a nationwide poll about a delicate subject !No, the first measurement of the velocity was not "calculated on tiny earth within specific properties that are incomparable with the supposed vastness of space".
The problem is that distances and the speed of light are calculated on tiny earth within specific properties that are incomparable with the supposed vastness of space.
But A) The Earth isn't a perfect sphere. We know that. B) From what I'm aware we have an extremely accurate measurements of the Earth's size and curvature all over. Lemme see if I can dig more up, but this is incredibly important for airlines according to other posts I've read. C) The 'curvature calculator' (by which I'm assuming you mean 'distance to horizon'? If not please clarify) is rough because it can't account for the variability of refraction. It's given as an average of 0.5 degrees as I recall. So it has a fair range that would require testing of the entirety of the atmosphere between you and the object. Something just not generally feasible, and impossible for a simple formula or online calculator to do/know.You are a funny guy at times aren't you ?When i use your logic i only have to ask one single person to create a nationwide poll about a delicate subject !No, the first measurement of the velocity was not "calculated on tiny earth within specific properties that are incomparable with the supposed vastness of space".
The problem is that distances and the speed of light are calculated on tiny earth within specific properties that are incomparable with the supposed vastness of space.
No ? what ''no'' did i assume something ?
You can not transpose things that are measured on earth to the universe and say it is rock solid evidence.
You can grasp at straws all you want but when earth is scaled down to a globe of 30cm then Andromeda is still 650.000 000 000 km away
They can measure the unimaginable and lately even beyond all reason.....a disturbance the size of 1/10.000 of a proton's diameter to proof supposed gravitational waves.
In order to achieve such precision they built a 4 km long head-vaporizing laser with a perfect wavelength detecting sub-proton space-time ripples.
They can calculate the distance to the moon in mm.
But the curvature formula is still flawed and roughly measured !!!
And to built a device that shows the curvature and curving ocean water is still absent in 2017
More and more people dismiss ''your'' hogwash made out of a pendulum, sinking shipmasts, unlimited refractional magic and testimonies from some fantasy figures from Babylon and Greece long gone.
If they can measure their precious gravity waves then asking for an accurate curvature calculator up to at least a mm for a perfect sphere with a circomference of 40.000+ km (all the way around earth ) shouldn't be a problem whatsoever.
I would guess that no scientists has built a device to prove the curvature because no scientists considers it unproven. We have been to space, we have been to the moon and seen it. Just because a few people cry foul with zero evidence doesn't change that.You are a funny guy at times aren't you ?When i use your logic i only have to ask one single person to create a nationwide poll about a delicate subject !No, the first measurement of the velocity was not "calculated on tiny earth within specific properties that are incomparable with the supposed vastness of space".
The problem is that distances and the speed of light are calculated on tiny earth within specific properties that are incomparable with the supposed vastness of space.
No ? what ''no'' did i assume something ?
You can not transpose things that are measured on earth to the universe and say it is rock solid evidence for everything that occurs in the universe.
You can grasp at straws all you want but when earth is scaled down to a globe of 30cm then Andromeda is still 650.000 000 000 km away,....what reasonable proof do they have for anything that can withstand the scientific method ?
They can measure the unimaginable and lately even beyond all reason.....a disturbance the size of 1/10.000 of a proton's diameter to proof supposed gravitational waves.
In order to achieve such precision they built a 4 km long head-vaporizing laser with a perfect wavelength detecting sub-proton space-time ripples.
They can calculate the distance to the moon in mm.
But the curvature formula is still flawed and roughly measured !!!
And to built a device that shows the curvature and curving ocean water is still absent in 2017
More and more people dismiss ''your'' hogwash made out of a pendulum, sinking shipmasts, unlimited refractional magic and testimonies from some fantasy figures from Babylon and Greece long gone.
If they can measure their precious gravity waves then asking for an accurate curvature calculator up to at least a mm for a perfect sphere with a circomference of 40.000+ km (all the way around earth ) shouldn't be a problem whatsoever.
What logic? You refer to some "cosmological highpriests". There are no such people. There are only people who have learned more about that topic. And rangefinders use same principle as astronomers use. This has nothing to do with distances and where speed of light was measured. Only thing you do here with this is saying that you don't comprehend it and because of that it is impossible and other people shouldn't understand it either. You know how ridiculous that is?When i use your logic i only have to ask one single person to create a nationwide poll about a delicate subject !A lightyear is 9.5 trillion km.Not cosmological highpriests but ordinary people who have learned more about topic than you. And you are too lazy to learn. But you can go and tell the military that the rangefinders are fantasy tools because they use same principles as astronomers when calulating distances.
Alpha Centauri the nearest star is 41 trillion km away
The furthest observable star is 522500000000000000000 km away !
And our cosmological highpriests have calculated these distances while measuring wavelenghts or whatever fantasy tool they claim to have used.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
The problem is that distances and the speed of light are calculated on tiny earth within specific properties that are incomparable with the supposed vastness of space.
I would guess that no scientists has built a device to prove the curvature because no scientists considers it unproven.Scientists also think furnature fires caused the symetrical collapse of building 7.
We have been to space, we have been to the moon and seen it.Why are you buying that ''we'' crap ?
Just because a few people cry foul with zero evidence doesn't change that.Untill one of those ''few'' is an astronaut or Russian cosmonaut.
Provide some proof of all the lies from all the space agencies and all the people and all the photos then maybe you have a leg to stand on. But you have yet to do that. You just claim it is fakery and lies.See it as a scientific Disneyland.
Then, for some reason, you feel like scientists should spend time and money proving something that has been proven countless times to people who won't believe them anyway.
It makes no sense.
So aside from all of the dodging and weaving and 911 talk you have still not shown any proof of NASA lies or fake images.I would guess that no scientists has built a device to prove the curvature because no scientists considers it unproven.Scientists also think furnature fires caused the symetrical collapse of building 7.
Is a ''scientist'' exalted above other earthlings ?
I have seen far more ''scientists'' care for their job, family and carere than truth findings lately !!!
And it has been this way in the past too.
I understand that the word ''scientist'' makes you shiver and almost fall on your knees, but i think it isn't healthy for your personal development as a human being.
Most scientists work in a very specific field and have no time to think about earth's shape or the circomstances during 9/11.
That is why it is such a revelation when an induvidual has the guts to think outside the box like general major Albert Stubblebine who listened to his wife...an insignificant civilian and she made him look into it deeper.
He confessed that with his knowledge, position and expertise it was beyond a shadow of a doubt that a missile hit the Pentagon instead of a plane.
But the scientists working at the NIST report are unworthy of their title.
So ....sorry to burst your bubble, but the vast majority of NAZI scientists considered the bonestructure of JEWS proof of their wicked nature !
There are no garantees that scientists are noble men.....to the contrary....knowledge and power corrupts easily.QuoteWe have been to space, we have been to the moon and seen it.Why are you buying that ''we'' crap ?
Did you go to the moon ?
Outerspace ?
When you loose your job there is no ''we'' you are on your own and sort things out all alone.......they only need you to support their little lies and in return you can join the ''we'' club wich is factual incorrect, because you didn't go anywhere. ;D ;D ;D ;DQuoteJust because a few people cry foul with zero evidence doesn't change that.Untill one of those ''few'' is an astronaut or Russian cosmonaut.
Numbers are irrelevant...thruth is !
And Gus Grissom's wife did reveal what scumbags the FBI are, to take away all Gus writings hours after he passed away....his relatives are sure he was killed.
A wife knows her husband and despite Gus probably didn't talk mush about it, she could spot his doubts by a country mile.
You can still choose to join us and expose the liars or maintain part of the corrupt deceivers....I kinda like you and i think you deserve a better perspective.QuoteProvide some proof of all the lies from all the space agencies and all the people and all the photos then maybe you have a leg to stand on. But you have yet to do that. You just claim it is fakery and lies.See it as a scientific Disneyland.
Then, for some reason, you feel like scientists should spend time and money proving something that has been proven countless times to people who won't believe them anyway.
It makes no sense.
We had ''Evoluon'' in the Netherlands where Philips sponsored an exhibition full of cool things to teach a new generation.
It was very nice when i went there as a kid !
Don't you think it would be awesome to show people the curve over 5 miles using a rail or other device instead of looking to a ceiling where a fucking pendulum is attached !
An indoors facility to show the coriolis effect with live demonstrations and participation !
A huge telescope to look at satelites and the ISS orbiting earth !
An artificial mirage that shows objects out of nowhere after some air layers of different temperature are precisely injected at will !
This way Neil deGrasse Tyson has a new generation enthousiastic kids never doubting the scientific facts ever and we will bow our heads and humbly ask for forgiveness when returning to our caves. ::).
You know this will never happen, because they cannot show any curvature because it is absent !
Join us !!
But A) The Earth isn't a perfect sphere. We know that. B) From what I'm aware we have an extremely accurate measurements of the Earth's size and curvature all over. Lemme see if I can dig more up, but this is incredibly important for airlines according to other posts I've read. C) The 'curvature calculator' (by which I'm assuming you mean 'distance to horizon'? If not please clarify) is rough because it can't account for the variability of refraction. It's given as an average of 0.5 degrees as I recall. So it has a fair range that would require testing of the entirety of the atmosphere between you and the object. Something just not generally feasible, and impossible for a simple formula or online calculator to do/know.All the details you provide cannot be checked with the scientific method in mind !
EDIT: Its dimensions are listed below (dimensions are rounded to the nearest whole mile): Polar Diameter: 7,900 miles (12,714 kilometers) Polar Circumference: 24,860 miles (40,008 kilometers) Equatorial Diameter: 7,927 miles (12,757 kilometers) Equatorial Circumference: 24,902 miles (40,076 kilometers) Earth's total surface is an area that measuring 197,000,000 square miles (09,600,000 square kilometers)
But your pictures prove curvature. Do you see the hard edge of the horizon? That doesn't happen on a flat earth. The horizon would fade away to infinity, simply becoming harder to see.But A) The Earth isn't a perfect sphere. We know that. B) From what I'm aware we have an extremely accurate measurements of the Earth's size and curvature all over. Lemme see if I can dig more up, but this is incredibly important for airlines according to other posts I've read. C) The 'curvature calculator' (by which I'm assuming you mean 'distance to horizon'? If not please clarify) is rough because it can't account for the variability of refraction. It's given as an average of 0.5 degrees as I recall. So it has a fair range that would require testing of the entirety of the atmosphere between you and the object. Something just not generally feasible, and impossible for a simple formula or online calculator to do/know.All the details you provide cannot be checked with the scientific method in mind !
EDIT: Its dimensions are listed below (dimensions are rounded to the nearest whole mile): Polar Diameter: 7,900 miles (12,714 kilometers) Polar Circumference: 24,860 miles (40,008 kilometers) Equatorial Diameter: 7,927 miles (12,757 kilometers) Equatorial Circumference: 24,902 miles (40,076 kilometers) Earth's total surface is an area that measuring 197,000,000 square miles (09,600,000 square kilometers)
The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.
You simply need a solid structure along a large body of supposed curved water we all agree about...nothing that couldn't be done with modern techniques and devices.
All claims for the curvature are secondary and flawed.
When we see over the curvature the implementation of refractional ''magic'' has no boundaries as is shown many times when people ''see'' beyond the curvature.
In order to measure any curvature over a larger distance we have to make sure it can be checked, repeated and corrected when needed.
''it is a superiour mirage'' is such a lame excuse that people won't buy for much longer......
I live in one of the ''flattest'' countries in the world (The Netherlands) and have used the online curvature calculator on occasion to check what should be visible, to find out i can see things way beyond the curvature...not only over a body of water with all refraction problems, but also over our flat country that has many large polders (surrounded by dykes) that are flat as a pancake.
When you visit the areas as shown in the pictures, you will be amazed how far you can see on a good day !!
(http://www.dredgingtoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Marker-Wadden.jpg)
(https://images4.persgroep.net/rcs/dMLkL0SEwwKxrO6UOaGdKWjX0q4/diocontent/102406150/_fitwidth/694/?appId=21791a8992982cd8da851550a453bd7f&quality=0.9)
(https://knakkie30.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/tulpenveld-tulpenroute-noordoostpolder-tulpenroute-tulpenfestival-tulpenfestival-noordoostpolder6.jpg)
And believe me (or not) , i am not the only one that has seen way beyond the curvature in the Netherlands.
What do i have to photograph to make you people believe the curvature math is currently incorrect ?
Measured distances and path of the sun prove a round earth.But A) The Earth isn't a perfect sphere. We know that. B) From what I'm aware we have an extremely accurate measurements of the Earth's size and curvature all over. Lemme see if I can dig more up, but this is incredibly important for airlines according to other posts I've read. C) The 'curvature calculator' (by which I'm assuming you mean 'distance to horizon'? If not please clarify) is rough because it can't account for the variability of refraction. It's given as an average of 0.5 degrees as I recall. So it has a fair range that would require testing of the entirety of the atmosphere between you and the object. Something just not generally feasible, and impossible for a simple formula or online calculator to do/know.All the details you provide cannot be checked with the scientific method in mind !
EDIT: Its dimensions are listed below (dimensions are rounded to the nearest whole mile): Polar Diameter: 7,900 miles (12,714 kilometers) Polar Circumference: 24,860 miles (40,008 kilometers) Equatorial Diameter: 7,927 miles (12,757 kilometers) Equatorial Circumference: 24,902 miles (40,076 kilometers) Earth's total surface is an area that measuring 197,000,000 square miles (09,600,000 square kilometers)
The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.
You simply need a solid structure along a large body of supposed curved water we all agree about...nothing that couldn't be done with modern techniques and devices.
All claims for the curvature are secondary and flawed.
When we see over the curvature the implementation of refractional ''magic'' has no boundaries as is shown many times when people ''see'' beyond the curvature.
In order to measure any curvature over a larger distance we have to make sure it can be checked, repeated and corrected when needed.
''it is a superiour mirage'' is such a lame excuse that people won't buy for much longer......
I live in one of the ''flattest'' countries in the world (The Netherlands) and have used the online curvature calculator on occasion to check what should be visible, to find out i can see things way beyond the curvature...not only over a body of water with all refraction problems, but also over our flat country that has many large polders (surrounded by dykes) that are flat as a pancake.
When you visit the areas as shown in the pictures, you will be amazed how far you can see on a good day !!
(http://www.dredgingtoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Marker-Wadden.jpg)
(https://images4.persgroep.net/rcs/dMLkL0SEwwKxrO6UOaGdKWjX0q4/diocontent/102406150/_fitwidth/694/?appId=21791a8992982cd8da851550a453bd7f&quality=0.9)
(https://knakkie30.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/tulpenveld-tulpenroute-noordoostpolder-tulpenroute-tulpenfestival-tulpenfestival-noordoostpolder6.jpg)
And believe me (or not) , i am not the only one that has seen way beyond the curvature in the Netherlands.
What do i have to photograph to make you people believe the curvature math is currently incorrect ?
(https://knakkie30.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/tulpenveld-tulpenroute-noordoostpolder-tulpenroute-tulpenfestival-tulpenfestival-noordoostpolder6.jpg)But you don't see beyond the curvature on this picture. The bottom parts of farther windmills are clearly behind curvature.
And believe me (or not) , i am not the only one that has seen way beyond the curvature in the Netherlands.
But A) The Earth isn't a perfect sphere. We know that. B) From what I'm aware we have an extremely accurate measurements of the Earth's size and curvature all over. Lemme see if I can dig more up, but this is incredibly important for airlines according to other posts I've read. C) The 'curvature calculator' (by which I'm assuming you mean 'distance to horizon'? If not please clarify) is rough because it can't account for the variability of refraction. It's given as an average of 0.5 degrees as I recall. So it has a fair range that would require testing of the entirety of the atmosphere between you and the object. Something just not generally feasible, and impossible for a simple formula or online calculator to do/know.All the details you provide cannot be checked with the scientific method in mind !
EDIT: Its dimensions are listed below (dimensions are rounded to the nearest whole mile): Polar Diameter: 7,900 miles (12,714 kilometers) Polar Circumference: 24,860 miles (40,008 kilometers) Equatorial Diameter: 7,927 miles (12,757 kilometers) Equatorial Circumference: 24,902 miles (40,076 kilometers) Earth's total surface is an area that measuring 197,000,000 square miles (09,600,000 square kilometers)
The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.
You simply need a solid structure along a large body of supposed curved water we all agree about...nothing that couldn't be done with modern techniques and devices.
All claims for the curvature are secondary and flawed.
When we see over the curvature the implementation of refractional ''magic'' has no boundaries as is shown many times when people ''see'' beyond the curvature.
In order to measure any curvature over a larger distance we have to make sure it can be checked, repeated and corrected when needed.
''it is a superiour mirage'' is such a lame excuse that people won't buy for much longer......
I live in one of the ''flattest'' countries in the world (The Netherlands) and have used the online curvature calculator on occasion to check what should be visible, to find out i can see things way beyond the curvature...not only over a body of water with all refraction problems, but also over our flat country that has many large polders (surrounded by dykes) that are flat as a pancake.
When you visit the areas as shown in the pictures, you will be amazed how far you can see on a good day !!
(http://www.dredgingtoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Marker-Wadden.jpg)
(https://images4.persgroep.net/rcs/dMLkL0SEwwKxrO6UOaGdKWjX0q4/diocontent/102406150/_fitwidth/694/?appId=21791a8992982cd8da851550a453bd7f&quality=0.9)
(https://knakkie30.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/tulpenveld-tulpenroute-noordoostpolder-tulpenroute-tulpenfestival-tulpenfestival-noordoostpolder6.jpg)
And believe me (or not) , i am not the only one that has seen way beyond the curvature in the Netherlands.
What do i have to photograph to make you people believe the curvature math is currently incorrect ?
I personally feel this particular phenomenon is one of the weakest points for both. FE doesn't accurately fit how things happen, and the math and more for RE prove problematic. But it's not really conclusive either way. There are much better proofs for an RE. I was simply explaining the problem with your assertions. I'm also not sure why you think the provided details can't be checked? We know distances all across the globe, should be fairly simple to create a 'sphere' using them and figure this out.But A) The Earth isn't a perfect sphere. We know that. B) From what I'm aware we have an extremely accurate measurements of the Earth's size and curvature all over. Lemme see if I can dig more up, but this is incredibly important for airlines according to other posts I've read. C) The 'curvature calculator' (by which I'm assuming you mean 'distance to horizon'? If not please clarify) is rough because it can't account for the variability of refraction. It's given as an average of 0.5 degrees as I recall. So it has a fair range that would require testing of the entirety of the atmosphere between you and the object. Something just not generally feasible, and impossible for a simple formula or online calculator to do/know.All the details you provide cannot be checked with the scientific method in mind !
EDIT: Its dimensions are listed below (dimensions are rounded to the nearest whole mile): Polar Diameter: 7,900 miles (12,714 kilometers) Polar Circumference: 24,860 miles (40,008 kilometers) Equatorial Diameter: 7,927 miles (12,757 kilometers) Equatorial Circumference: 24,902 miles (40,076 kilometers) Earth's total surface is an area that measuring 197,000,000 square miles (09,600,000 square kilometers)
The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.
You simply need a solid structure along a large body of supposed curved water we all agree about...nothing that couldn't be done with modern techniques and devices.
All claims for the curvature are secondary and flawed.
When we see over the curvature the implementation of refractional ''magic'' has no boundaries as is shown many times when people ''see'' beyond the curvature.
In order to measure any curvature over a larger distance we have to make sure it can be checked, repeated and corrected when needed.
''it is a superiour mirage'' is such a lame excuse that people won't buy for much longer......
I live in one of the ''flattest'' countries in the world (The Netherlands) and have used the online curvature calculator on occasion to check what should be visible, to find out i can see things way beyond the curvature...not only over a body of water with all refraction problems, but also over our flat country that has many large polders (surrounded by dykes) that are flat as a pancake.
When you visit the areas as shown in the pictures, you will be amazed how far you can see on a good day !!
(http://www.dredgingtoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Marker-Wadden.jpg)
(https://images4.persgroep.net/rcs/dMLkL0SEwwKxrO6UOaGdKWjX0q4/diocontent/102406150/_fitwidth/694/?appId=21791a8992982cd8da851550a453bd7f&quality=0.9)
(https://knakkie30.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/tulpenveld-tulpenroute-noordoostpolder-tulpenroute-tulpenfestival-tulpenfestival-noordoostpolder6.jpg)
And believe me (or not) , i am not the only one that has seen way beyond the curvature in the Netherlands.
What do i have to photograph to make you people believe the curvature math is currently incorrect ?
i have seen the effect of the curvature of the earth even last weekend as i where again at lake ontario.You are at a lake,....i live in a country that has dykes the length of 32 km and a height of 7.25 meters. Ad my length of 1.86 m then my camera height is at roughly 9 meters !
i clearly could see that the lower buildings where hidden behind the horizon.
and it changed how many level where hidden depending on the vertical distance from the waterlevel of lake ontario.
you look only at a very tiny bit of the earth curvature and simply not able to see the curvature.
you have to look on a bigger scale and with different methods than you do.
you are not able to explain the effect i can see at lake ontario with the flat earth idea.
also you can not explain the sun set and rise we can see each day with the flat earth idea.
and the reason you can not do it is simple: the earth is not flat.
not a single person has ever be able to show any proof that will support the flat earth idea.
i have seen the effect of the curvature of the earth even last weekend as i where again at lake ontario.You are at a lake,....i live in a country that has dykes the length of 32 km and a height of 7.25 meters. Ad my length of 1.86 m then my camera height is at roughly 9 meters !
i clearly could see that the lower buildings where hidden behind the horizon.
and it changed how many level where hidden depending on the vertical distance from the waterlevel of lake ontario.
you look only at a very tiny bit of the earth curvature and simply not able to see the curvature.
you have to look on a bigger scale and with different methods than you do.
you are not able to explain the effect i can see at lake ontario with the flat earth idea.
also you can not explain the sun set and rise we can see each day with the flat earth idea.
and the reason you can not do it is simple: the earth is not flat.
not a single person has ever be able to show any proof that will support the flat earth idea.
Earth's curvature calculator says that over that distance 35.5764 m should be hidden (refraction excluded)
Here a picture of the dyke.
(http://www.devrijewandelaar.nl/wp-content/gallery/afsluitdijk/p1030282-s.jpg)
(http://maritiemnieuws.nl/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Afsluitdijk-Foto-rws.jpg)
This is during bad weather, but you can zoom in at the other side with a Nikkon and see the windmill as shown in the picture on a good day !!
(http://www.energieoverheid.nl/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Afsluitdijk1.jpg)
Do i really have to go there myself and take a picture over a 32 km long dyke to show you enough of the windmill to make a point ?
Or do you not consider this as proof when i precisely handover the exact numbers involved in such photograph ?
the picture does not prove anything because we can not see any reference hight at the far distance.Of course it doesn't proof a thing....a copied them from the internet !!!!
the other 2 pictures are taken from a high level.
why? if there is no curvature why not take the picture from ground level we should see the same according to the flat earth idea.
you only have proven that you can not explain anything.
i ask about the sun set and sun rise, where is explanation for that.
Can i photograph a windmill on a 7.5 m high dyke 32km in the distance without the windmill being obscured ?If you can get picture from 32 km with windmill base visible and this low building beside it visible and this red small tower also entirely visible then I guess you may have something.
Here a better overview to understand what we are dealing with.....
(https://beeldbank.rws.nl/Photos/2948/442205.jpg)
the picture does not prove anything because we can not see any reference hight at the far distance.Of course it doesn't proof a thing....a copied them from the internet !!!!
the other 2 pictures are taken from a high level.
why? if there is no curvature why not take the picture from ground level we should see the same according to the flat earth idea.
you only have proven that you can not explain anything.
i ask about the sun set and sun rise, where is explanation for that.
It was used as a reference for my proposal.
Can i photograph a windmill on a 7.5 m high dyke 32km in the distance without the windmill being obscured ?
If you would consider that as proof i would be willing to go on a nice 150km trip on a good day to photograph that specific windmill.
Here a better overview to understand what we are dealing with.....
(https://beeldbank.rws.nl/Photos/2948/442205.jpg)
What does any of this have to do with the recent eclipse debunking the globe? ???Nothing, but that specific eclipse topic was in a sleep mode......this is a dual catch. The topic stays alive and we discuss other fancy flatearth stuff untill RiF kicks some more ass ...
Interesting. I thought that you already agreed that the eclipse was indeed consistent with the RE model.What does any of this have to do with the recent eclipse debunking the globe? ???Nothing, but that specific eclipse topic was in a sleep mode......this is a dual catch. The topic stays alive and we discuss other fancy flatearth stuff untill RiF kicks some more ass ...
Maybe .....Interesting. I thought that you already agreed that the eclipse was indeed consistent with the RE model.What does any of this have to do with the recent eclipse debunking the globe? ???Nothing, but that specific eclipse topic was in a sleep mode......this is a dual catch. The topic stays alive and we discuss other fancy flatearth stuff untill RiF kicks some more ass ...
I guess that means that you're waiting for RiF to kick your ass too.
Maybe .....Interesting. I thought that you already agreed that the eclipse was indeed consistent with the RE model.What does any of this have to do with the recent eclipse debunking the globe? ???Nothing, but that specific eclipse topic was in a sleep mode......this is a dual catch. The topic stays alive and we discuss other fancy flatearth stuff untill RiF kicks some more ass ...
I guess that means that you're waiting for RiF to kick your ass too.
I will really consider this,....fact is the weather is really bad during this season.......lots of rain and humidity.Color me interested. I have a gut feeling you'll catch the full blades of the windmill, but curious how much further you'll get. This particular curvature things is one of the few things I don't think RE has properly explained/explored. I don't see it as a strong case for FE because the hypothesis has other serious issues, but it's certainly evidence we don't have as great an understanding of our world as some claim.
But i think it will be a very good test and i promise to be as honest as can be !!!
On occasion in october we have those really clear days,.....
I will really consider this,....fact is the weather is really bad during this season.......lots of rain and humidity.Color me interested. I have a gut feeling you'll catch the full blades of the windmill, but curious how much further you'll get. This particular curvature things is one of the few things I don't think RE has properly explained/explored. I don't see it as a strong case for FE because the hypothesis has other serious issues, but it's certainly evidence we don't have as great an understanding of our world as some claim.
But i think it will be a very good test and i promise to be as honest as can be !!!
On occasion in october we have those really clear days,.....
i missed that you agreed that the eclipse (that actually happend) is concistent with the RE Model.I am trying to look at things from the opposite side too.....i think it is the only decent thing to do !
you also agreed that your posted pictures did not prove you claim of a flat earth.
looks you like you are losing your arguments for your believe in a flat earth.
i missed that you agreed that the eclipse (that actually happend) is concistent with the RE Model.I am trying to look at things from the opposite side too.....i think it is the only decent thing to do !
you also agreed that your posted pictures did not prove you claim of a flat earth.
looks you like you are losing your arguments for your believe in a flat earth.
It seems to me it is considered very unique to change your views over here.
I understood the construction behind the heliocentric eclipse, that doesn't mean i believe it to be true !!
The mathematician from Cairo, Mustafa Abdelkader, wrote an essay something like ''the geo cosmos....turning the world inside out'' in which he made a perfect mathematically inversion of all current cosmological observations and hypothesis.
I read it long before i researched flatearth.
It was so incredible fascinating that i wondered why so few had heard about it.
It was the first time i realised that there could be several plausible explainations for the things we observe from earth.
After examining Gemini, Apollo and the post WW2 America and The Sovjet Union, i became convinced that deepspace travel is made out of delusions of grandeur.
That leaves me to observations from earth and modest heights only !
I think it is still a discussion with many things to solve, but a spinning, tilted ball traveling 32 million miles per day through the vastness of space is not one of them anymore.
Each to his own, but the further i went, the more absurd the current cosmological model seems to me.
With it's 99% absent matter and energy and stars with the size of the diameter of Uranus' orbit around the sun.
And every decade it gets weirder and absurder, but cosmologists claim it to be exciting times where they unravel the mysteries of the universe......i think that they built stupidity upon stupidity to mask earlier stupidities.
That doesn't mean i can't validate certain claims in certain hypothetical models like the current dominant one.
And no pun intended.
After examining Gemini, Apollo and the post WW2 America and The Sovjet Union, i became convinced that deepspace travel is made out of delusions of grandeur.What qualifications do you have that convinced you of the "delusions" of deep space travel?
I think it is still a discussion with many things to solve, but a spinning, tilted ball traveling 32 million miles per day through the vastness of space is not one of them anymore.What's wrong? Do big numbers scare you?
You are a funny guy at times aren't you ?You really don't understand do you?
No ? what ''no'' did i assume something ?
You can not transpose things that are measured on earth
to the universe and say it is rock solid evidence for everything that occurs in the universe.The scientific method relies upon a few assumptions. One is that Earth isn't special. Meaning if it works here, it should work elsewhere.
They can measure the unimaginable and lately even beyond all reason.....a disturbance the size of 1/10.000 of a proton's diameter to proof supposed gravitational waves.Science doesn't deal with proof, it deals with evidence.
In order to achieve such precision they built a 4 km long head-vaporizing laser with a perfect wavelength detecting sub-proton space-time ripples.
They can calculate the distance to the moon in mm.Says who?
But the curvature formula is still flawed and roughly measured !!!Do you know why?
And to built a device that shows the curvature and curving ocean water is still absent in 2017No. That has been done long ago. You just reject it.
More and more people dismiss ''your'' hogwash made out of a pendulum, sinking shipmasts, unlimited refractional magic and testimonies from some fantasy figures from Babylon and Greece long gone.You mean reality, which you are unable to refute in any rational, honest way.
If they can measure their precious gravity waves then asking for an accurate curvature calculator up to at least a mm for a perfect sphere with a circomference of 40.000+ km (all the way around earth ) shouldn't be a problem whatsoever.We can do that, quite easily, but EARTH IS NOT A PERFECT SPHERE!!!
Why are you buying that ''we'' crap ?We refers to humanity.
Did you go to the moon ?
Numbers are irrelevant...thruth is !And that is something you seriously lack.
And Gus Grissom's wife did reveal what scumbags the FBI are, to take away all Gus writings hours after he passed away....his relatives are sure he was killed.Sure, they "know" he was killed, without any evidence of that.
You can still choose to join us and expose the liars or maintain part of the corrupt deceivers....I kinda like you and i think you deserve a better perspective.We are exposing the liars. They are the FEers.
Don't you think it would be awesome to show people the curve over 5 miles using a rail or other device instead of looking to a ceiling where a fucking pendulum is attached !Then you go buy the 5 miles of land and the rails and set it up.
An indoors facility to show the coriolis effect with live demonstrations and participation !They have that, just not using Earth.
A huge telescope to look at satelites and the ISS orbiting earth !Again, are you going to pay for this?
An artificial mirage that shows objects out of nowhere after some air layers of different temperature are precisely injected at will !You try injecting air at precise temperatures at will.
You know this will never happen, because they cannot show any curvature or spin, because it is absent !No, it is there, and has been shown.
Join us !!No thanks. I have too great a sense of honesty and rationality to join a bunch of delusional, paranoid nutcases.
I live in one of the ''flattest'' countries in the world (The Netherlands) and have used the online curvature calculator on occasion to check what should be visible, to find out i can see things way beyond the curvature...not only over a body of water with all refraction problems, but also over our flat country that has many large polders (surrounded by dykes) that are flat as a pancake.None of those images showed any missing curvature.
When you visit the areas as shown in the pictures, you will be amazed how far you can see on a good day !!
And believe me (or not) , i am not the only one that has seen way beyond the curvature in the Netherlands.
What do i have to photograph to make you people believe the curvature math is currently incorrect ?
You are at a lake,....i live in a country that has dykes the length of 32 km and a height of 7.25 meters. Ad my length of 1.86 m then my camera height is at roughly 9 meters !Once again, you have shown the curve.
Earth's curvature calculator says that over that distance 35.5764 m should be hidden (refraction excluded)
Here a picture of the dyke.
Do i really have to go there myself and take a picture over a 32 km long dyke to show you enough of the windmill to make a point ?
Or do you not consider this as proof when i precisely handover the exact numbers involved in such photograph ?
Nothing, but that specific eclipse topic was in a sleep mode......this is a dual catch. The topic stays alive and we discuss other fancy flatearth stuff untill RiF kicks some more ass ...The only ass RiF kicked is his own.
The mathematician from Cairo, Mustafa Abdelkader, wrote an essay something like ''the geo cosmos....turning the world inside out'' in which he made a perfect mathematically inversion of all current cosmological observations and hypothesis.The math is fine, the explanation is not.
It was the first time i realised that there could be several plausible explainations for the things we observe from earth.A mathematical model does not make an explanation.
After examining Gemini, Apollo and the post WW2 America and The Sovjet Union, i became convinced that deepspace travel is made out of delusions of grandeur.Why?
I think it is still a discussion with many things to solve, but a spinning, tilted ball traveling 32 million miles per day through the vastness of space is not one of them anymore.WHY?
Each to his own, but the further i went, the more absurd the current cosmological model seems to me.It seeming absurd to you doesn't mean it is wrong.
You really don't understand do you?Within the boundaries of 400km.
They have measured things in space as well.
You mean reality, which you are unable to refute in any rational, honest way.So the hypothetical universe is ''real'' all of a sudden,....based on 1% hardcore evidence.
Also, we aren't the ones with refractional magic. That would be the FEers, making up pure bullshit to explain why the bottom of distant objects are missing, and why the sun appears to set.Ahhh watching some flatearth video's lately ?
We can do that, quite easily, but EARTH IS NOT A PERFECT SPHERE!!!Stop it dude, these kind of reactions show what you are made of.
Do you understand that?
Even if it was a perfect sphere, you still have the atmosphere, which can have numerous different gradients in it (temperature, pressure, water vapour, density, etc) effecting the refractive index of it which can make the curvature appear more or less.In comparison with measuring some ripples that have the lenght of 1/10.000 of the diameter of a proton.....a piece of cake !!!!
You aren't asking for a model of reality.So much time wasted, because you have to interpret flatearther's post in a totally different way than what was written in the first place.
You are asking for a model of a straw man, but here it is:
We refers to humanity.We killed 6.000.000 Jews during WW2,....or was it the Nazi's ?
Sure, they "know" he was killed, without any evidence of that.Because they lived with Gus, and you did not answer that quote....how typical.
In reality, they don't know, they just believe that.
We are exposing the liars. They are the FEers.In order to do that, you should try to understand what they write in the first place instead of typing nonsense about suggestive quotes.
WHY?Stars the size of Uranus'' orbital diameter ?
I am yet to see anyone present any sound argument against it.
It seeming absurd to you doesn't mean it is wrong.So you have convinced yourself that those tiny lights you see are trillion km's away from earth ?
Especially as it is the best model for explaining observations.
Satellite orbits are up to 35 000 kilometers and they measure various parameters looking away from earth. Satellites send back various data, not just images. For example IBEX satellite (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstellar_Boundary_Explorer). Publications based on data from satellite (http://ibex.swri.edu/talksandpapers/ibex_publications.shtml). Yeah, links won't work but if you go to http://science.sciencemag.org/ and search for "Interstellar Boundary Explorer" you see publications. For others without link you can go to http://iopscience.iop.org/ and serach for "doi" which is mentioned for every publication. You can also browse data from satellite which is released to public - http://ibex.swri.edu/researchers/publicdata.shtmlYou really don't understand do you?Within the boundaries of 400km.
They have measured things in space as well.
Please stop continuing with your outerspace fantasy claims and cgi crap,.....it's beyond laughable.
Fact remains you can't use the findings within earth's realm for the rest of the universe since you don't know anyhting about 99% of it's properties.
...
Ahhh watching some flatearth video's lately ?
If you really think i am going to discuss the sunset on a flatearth with you, than you're out of your mind.
.....
Within the boundaries of 400km.Nope. Further out. Thanks for pointing out you don't bother reading anything. The moon alone is around 400 000 km, and people went there and tested some things, but there were others as well.
Please stop continuing with your outerspace fantasy claims and cgi crap,.....it's beyond laughable.No. Your pathetic dismissals are beyond laughable. You are yet to show any of it is fantasy or CGI.
Fact remains you can't use the findings within earth's realm for the rest of the universe since you don't know anyhting about 99% of it's properties.No.
So the hypothetical universe is ''real'' all of a sudden,....based on 1% hardcore evidence.Yes, I dare to talk about rationality and honesty, something you seriously lack.
And you dare to talk about rationality and honesty :o :o :o
Is that because you know it requires refractional magic?QuoteAlso, we aren't the ones with refractional magic. That would be the FEers, making up pure bullshit to explain why the bottom of distant objects are missing, and why the sun appears to set.Ahhh watching some flatearth video's lately ?
If you really think i am going to discuss the sunset on a flatearth with you, than you're out of your mind.
Yes, they show I am getting sick and tired of your crap.QuoteWe can do that, quite easily, but EARTH IS NOT A PERFECT SPHERE!!!Stop it dude, these kind of reactions show what you are made of.
Do you understand that?
Of course it is not a perfect sphere......it is about the flawed formulaIt isn't a flawed formula. It is applying the wrong formula, such as applying a formula for a sphere to a shape which is closer to an oblate spheroid.
It kinda works at short distances, but it becomes inprecise over larger distances up to thousends of km.Do you mean the approximation, which specifically requires h to be small? Of course it gets imprecise. It is an approximation.
So when we would take a hypothetical perfect sphere with a circomference of 40.000 km and slice that in 4000 pieces of 10 km, how would such a piece of 10km look like compared to a perfect straight line of 10km. And i want it correct up to a 1/10.000 of the diameter of a proton not some roughly estimation. ;D (psttt the latter part was a sort of ''proton'' joke to underline my point of view before you waste your time taking it seriously)I can only get it as accurate I can get pi to and it calculates square roots to.
In comparison with measuring some ripples that have the lenght of 1/10.000 of the diameter of a proton.....a piece of cake !!!!You mean measuring them in a carefully controlled environment, which is a vacuum so it doesn't have any atmosphere in there?
So much time wasted, because you have to interpret flatearther's post in a totally different way than what was written in the first place.No, I interpreted it as written.
asking for an accurate curvature calculator up to at least a mm for a perfect sphere with a circomference of 40.000+ km (all the way around earth ) shouldn't be a problemEmphasis added.
That is where RiF kicks your bud all the time.I'm yet to see him kick any one.
Not because he is right and you are wrong, but your reading skills utterly and completely suck.Yes, I fucked up once because he posted a sentence that contradicted itself, so I answered according to one part, not the other part which contradicted the first part.
We killed 6.000.000 Jews during WW2,....or was it the Nazi's ?Yes, we, as humans, kill a lot of humans.
We went to the moon, or was it NASA and their Apollo crew ?
You aren't the smartest now are you ?
Living with him doesn't make them know he was murdered (or didn't you actually mean murdered and just meant he was killed in the fire?).QuoteSure, they "know" he was killed, without any evidence of that.Because they lived with Gus, and you did not answer that quote....how typical.
In reality, they don't know, they just believe that.
Do you really think a wife cannot tell if her husband is confident or getting more and more doubts about the whole Apollo project ?Then how you provide some, preferably with evidence that he was murdered?
You should read into some of her testimonies !!
In order to do that, you should try to understand what they write in the first place instead of typing nonsense about suggestive quotes.Then perhaps they should write what they mean?
Stars the size of Uranus'' orbital diameter ?Your point?
And when you look at the stars wtih a large zoom from earth, there is nothing that indicates the bullshit about stars you seem to support.How about you stop trying to look at it using a simple optical instrument and think of other ways to measure size.
But you can play the refraction card of course.....that explains why we see stars and planets so differently from earth compared to the solid CGI crap from NASA.Again, you are yet to show that it is CGI.
So you have convinced yourself that those tiny lights you see are trillion km's away from earth ?Yes, as they appear to just circle me (or a point along an axis passing through me) regardless of where I am on Earth and there is no detectable change in relative position (except for the sun) throughout the year they must be very far away.
Good job ! And groovy observations bro.....
Thanks for defeating the REtards dutchy ;D :D ;) :)....I only hope they will shut up now.
Thanks for defeating the REtards dutchy ;D :D ;) :)....I only hope they will shut up now.You might want to learn what defeat is.
Thanks for defeating the REtards dutchy ;D :D ;) :)....I only hope they will shut up now.Thanks, but they are drilled to comply with the system and the system urges them to defend their empty shell .....!
If only you could present some evidence to support your positionThanks for defeating the REtards dutchy ;D :D ;) :)....I only hope they will shut up now.Thanks, but they are drilled to comply with the system and the system urges them to defend their empty shell .....!
also dutchy:I think he made a typo in name. I guess the right person should be hollow earth proponent Mostafa Abdelkader.
i still wait for the information of the text you were talking about in a post above.
please let me know where i can find this text.
I've come to the following conclusion, and I'll borrow this from an anonymous scribe with my own spin:Well i can make up my own prose....
"Debating with a flat earther is like playing chess with a pigeon; they knock the pieces over, crap all over the board, and in the end strut around like they won."
I am trying to look at things from the opposite side too.....i think it is the only decent thing to do !This paper mentions Mostafa Abdelkader, Turning the Universe Inside-Out. Ulysses Grant Morrow's Naples Experiment. by Donald E. Simanek (https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/hollow/morrow.htm)
It seems to me it is considered very unique to change your views over here.
I understood the construction behind the heliocentric eclipse, that doesn't mean i believe it to be true !!
The mathematician from Cairo, Mustafa Abdelkader, wrote an essay something like ''the geo cosmos....turning the world inside out'' in which he made a perfect mathematically inversion of all current cosmological observations and hypothesis.
I read it long before i researched flatearth.
It was so incredible fascinating that i wondered why so few had heard about it.
It was the first time i realised that there could be several plausible explainations for the things we observe from earth.
This is mathematically justified, and reminds us that mathematical models are our own invention to describe what we observe in nature, and sometimes several vastly different-appearing models can equally well do the job. But, accepting this, we must realize that this mathematical reconfiguring of the space metric works near the earth's surface also, so the Naples experiment would be doomed to failure even if everything had been done perfectly. Not just light paths are warped in this model, but so are angles. Physically "straight" rulers are warped also and we wouldn't know it.It's not much point in having a "mathematical model" that is perfect, but where the physics does not work.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Any such model may seem simpler if you do only the easy part of the transformations! The fact is that they are simply not capable of reworking the physics that would support their hypothesis.
After examining Gemini, Apollo and the post WW2 America and The Sovjet Union, i became convinced that deepspace travel is made out of delusions of grandeur.All the rest of your post seems to be simply a case of "it doesn't seem right to you, so it can't be right".
That leaves me to observations from earth and modest heights only !
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I've come to the following conclusion, and I'll borrow this from an anonymous scribe with my own spin:Well i can make up my own prose....
"Debating with a flat earther is like playing chess with a pigeon; they knock the pieces over, crap all over the board, and in the end strut around like they won."
''when you are a pawn on a chessboard, the rules forbid you to look behind,......because if you could, you'd be shocked to see who is giving you orders to execute their little games ''
Globers are such indoctrinated pawns that do not understand that others created their artificially constructed reality.
And those ''others'' do not care for you at all, because you ain't part of their private club ....you are just a pawn in a game they invented !!!
Look around in Iraque and ask the locals and understand what could be your destiny sooner than you think.
also dutchy:Couldn't find the whole essay,.....seems to have vanished for the internet.
i still wait for the information of the text you were talking about in a post above.
please let me know where i can find this text.
Globers are such indoctrinated pawns that do not understand that others created their artificially constructed reality.What, now are you saying we are in the Matrix?
And those ''others'' do not care for you at all, because you ain't part of their private club ....you are just a pawn in a game they invented !!!
Look around in Iraque and ask the locals and understand what could be your destiny sooner than you think.
I do not believe in a concave earth, only that different models are hypothetical possible if you skip those laughable moon and mars missions.You mean the missions you are yet to point out anything wrong with.
Then it is to be seen what reality is.Really? I am yet to find any evidence for this missing curve, just repeatedly baseless claims of it, typically accompanied by something showing the curve.
For now i am a flatearther, because the evidence for a missing curve is overwhelming !
(for those FES forum explorers who are limited in English terminology, “Geology” is the study of the shape of the Earth, its properties and in some sense its relation to the rest of the cosmos. Hence the name Geocosmos as in this model the Earth is the boundary of the cosmos) [/i]Or you could just use the more basic etymology, where "geo" means Earth.
Looking at the syntax of your sentence, I'd be more than happy to revisit your writing after you get an education. Until then I'll keep my understanding of the world and you can keep your... whatever the hell it is.Please do !
also dutchy:Couldn't find the whole essay,.....seems to have vanished for the internet.
i still wait for the information of the text you were talking about in a post above.
please let me know where i can find this text.
I read it like i said long ago and to clarify myself :
I do not believe in a concave earth, only that different models are hypothetical possible if you skip those laughable moon and mars missions.
Then it is to be seen what reality is.
For now i am a flatearther, because the evidence for a missing curve is overwhelming !
Zork pointed out my typo...it was Mostafa instead of Mustafa !
In 1981 Mostafa Abdelkader an Egyptian mathematician from Alexandria, revived and expanded upon Karl E Neupert's Geocosmos version of Cyrus' Ideas, from the year 1900. Unlike Cyrus' model which considers the heavenly bodies entirely as optical illusions, Neupert's model inverts the entire known cosmos into the concave model, stating that space shrinks / implodes via non-euclidean geometry, so as to fit an entire Copernican cosmos (C) into the comparatively finite boundary-envelope of the Geocosmos' (G) concave surface. In his paper that he submitted to the Australian science journal; Speculations in Science and Technology, in 1981 (which then gave a serious peer review of his full hypothesis in its 6th volume edition published in 1983), Abdelkader says:
“The enormous galaxies and other remote objects are mapped inside as microscopic objects, and our moon as by far the largest of the celestial objects, all of which revolve daily around the earth's axis. Straight rays of light are mapped as arcs of circles, so that all celestial phenomena appear to inside observers in G just as they do to outside observers in C. We next consider the hypothesis that, conversely, our actual universe is this finite G." (This idea entails the inversion of all known geo/astro physics.)
The main addition to Neupert's concept which Abdelkader addressed, is that light is eventually pulled toward the centre of the cosmos which shrinks inward. The arcs of light which travel toward the surface of the earth are absorbed, and those that are not continue travelling toward the centre of the cosmos as well as around it to the opposite side of the heavens than the sun. However they never illuminate the other side of the earth or its night sky because the wavelengths of light flow in accordance with the volume of space beyond the earth's surface, and are also subject to the black-hole like inertia of the cosmoses infinitesimal centre. Thus as they converge toward the opposite position of the heavens to where the sun is, they are simultaneously pulled in toward the centre.
Therefore the light which circles round to the opposite side of the heavens, never meets the sight of those who have the centre of the cosmos between them and the sun. Therefore an observer on the surface will experience night without a luminous sky, even though rays of light are actually traversing the space they look out into, this being because the rays are only in space and thus are never received directly into the eye.
(for those FES forum explorers who are limited in English terminology, “Geology” is the study of the shape of the Earth, its properties and in some sense its relation to the rest of the cosmos. Hence the name Geocosmos as in this model the Earth is the boundary of the cosmos)
Thanks for defeating the REtards dutchy ;D :D ;) :)....I only hope they will shut up now.If the RE'ers were to shut up, then that would only leave the FE'ers to discuss FET. Then this site would truly die.
Looking at the syntax of your sentence, I'd be more than happy to revisit your writing after you get an education. Until then I'll keep my understanding of the world and you can keep your... whatever the hell it is.Please do !
Maar om even aan te geven wat voor oetlul je bent, schrijf ik even in het Nederlands zonder gevolgen.
Arrogant klein mannetje dat denkt het allemaal te weten.
The fact that you are here at the flatearth forums tells me what kind of person you are...
Globers are such indoctrinated pawns that do not understand that others created their artificially constructed reality.I think you are dreaming!
And those ''others'' do not care for you at all, because you ain't part of their private club ....you are just a pawn in a game they invented !!!
Look around in Iraque and ask the locals and understand what could be your destiny sooner than you think.
No, that is your way of doing things !Globers are such indoctrinated pawns that do not understand that others created their artificially constructed reality.I think you are dreaming!
And those ''others'' do not care for you at all, because you ain't part of their private club ....you are just a pawn in a game they invented !!!
Look around in Iraque and ask the locals and understand what could be your destiny sooner than you think.
You would be a lot more convincing if you or any other flat earther actually had a flat earth model that worked and explained all that we see around us, even just visual observations on and from earth.
But conversely when you can't even adequately describe or model every day observations upon a flat Earth, why should we expect any of your other ideas or theories about the rest of the universe to be true or even plausible? You spout about all of these 'ridiculous' ideas, then claim they are all because of the globe Earth model. Well fine then, guess I'll accept them. They only serve to make the universe a vast and incredibly interesting space that we are just beginning to look at actually exploring. You can't even model the shape of the continents, or explain the distance to the sun. Hell, you basically only have religion to fall back on for the creation of the Earth too for that matter.No, that is your way of doing things !Globers are such indoctrinated pawns that do not understand that others created their artificially constructed reality.I think you are dreaming!
And those ''others'' do not care for you at all, because you ain't part of their private club ....you are just a pawn in a game they invented !!!
Look around in Iraque and ask the locals and understand what could be your destiny sooner than you think.
You would be a lot more convincing if you or any other flat earther actually had a flat earth model that worked and explained all that we see around us, even just visual observations on and from earth.
Mine is to go back to the PROVEN fundamentals of earth not some fantasy cosmology.
And in that proven FLAT reality, no one has ever showed any curvature whatsoever in accordance with the current measurements of the hypothetical ball.
Globers should tell their kids that they take their 30cm globe for a nice fieldtrip in Montana.
And after driving around for days tell them there are stars the size of Montana if earth was only as big as your tiny globe...that is your model of reality !!!
The shape of earth, it's tilt. speed, origans are all part of the same cosmological fairytail.
You can't focuss on just the shape of our world, because according to the current cosmology the shape is a result of all other implemented nonsense....and that includes stars with a
2.400.000.000.km diameter and a volume 5.000.000.000 that of the sun !
The above is all part of your model,....i understand you want to focus on the shape of earth solely, because this way you can ignore the absurdities that are part of your globe, not my flatearth.
You do understand it is like a house of cards, remove one piece and the rest will tumble down eventually.
I really wonder if you support the entire cosmological view that includes the examples i gave....you give some mixed hints at times.
The above is all part of your model,....At least we have a model. What does FET have?
I really wonder if you support the entire cosmological view that includes the examples i gave....you give some mixed hints at times.Believe it or not, it is possible to believe that the earth is round without supporting the rest of the RE cosmological model. RE geocentrists do it all the time (and they have their act together a whole lot better than FE'ers). Even RE scientists will admit that much of their understanding of the universe is incomplete and an educated guess at best. But none of that changes the shape of the earth.
Mine is to go back to the PROVEN fundamentals of earth not some fantasy cosmology.If you take account this square kilometer or couple or little more around you then I guess you can say that you have proven flat reality in your vicinity. But there is absolutely no evidence that entire earth is flat. Also if the flat reality is proven then why it does not have physical representation? For current cosmological model there are thousands, just one site for example - http://www.orrerymaker.com/ . What is wrong with these things? And why can't you put your flat reality in physical model?
And in that proven FLAT reality, no one has ever showed any curvature whatsoever in accordance with the current measurements of the hypothetical ball.
No, that is your way of doing things !Globers are such indoctrinated pawns that do not understand that others created their artificially constructed reality.I think you are dreaming!
And those ''others'' do not care for you at all, because you ain't part of their private club ....you are just a pawn in a game they invented !!!
Look around in Iraque and ask the locals and understand what could be your destiny sooner than you think.
You would be a lot more convincing if you or any other flat earther actually had a flat earth model that worked and explained all that we see around us, even just visual observations on and from earth.
Mine is to go back to the PROVEN fundamentals of earth not some fantasy cosmology.
And in that proven FLAT reality, no one has ever showed any curvature whatsoever in accordance with the current measurements of the hypothetical ball.
Globers should tell their kids that they take their 30cm globe for a nice fieldtrip in Montana.
And after driving around for days tell them there are stars the size of Montana if earth was only as big as your tiny globe...that is your model of reality !!!
The shape of earth, it's tilt. speed, origans are all part of the same cosmological fairytail.
You can't focuss on just the shape of our world, because according to the current cosmology the shape is a result of all other implemented nonsense....and that includes stars with a
2.400.000.000.km diameter and a volume 5.000.000.000 that of the sun !
The above is all part of your model,....i understand you want to focus on the shape of earth solely, because this way you can ignore the absurdities that are part of your globe, not my flatearth.
You do understand it is like a house of cards, remove one piece and the rest will tumble down eventually.
I really wonder if you support the entire cosmological view that includes the examples i gave....you give some mixed hints at times.
also dutchy:Couldn't find the whole essay,.....seems to have vanished for the internet.
i still wait for the information of the text you were talking about in a post above.
please let me know where i can find this text.
I read it like i said long ago and to clarify myself :
I do not believe in a concave earth, only that different models are hypothetical possible if you skip those laughable moon and mars missions.
Then it is to be seen what reality is.
For now i am a flatearther, because the evidence for a missing curve is overwhelming !
Zork pointed out my typo...it was Mostafa instead of Mustafa !
so you do not believe in a hollow earth and the explanations that guy makes in his text.Don't you see how many times i point out that globers jump to conclusions without trying to understand flatearthers ?
but you believe the stuff that he wrote that could fit to the flat earth idea.
but his explanations are done so it does fit for a hollow earth and not for a flat earth.
but anyway, this is only a "thinkmodel" there are no proven evidence that it could be possible.
therefore it is like a religion: its a believe without any proof.
you claim there is no evidence for the curvature of the earth, you are complete ignoring the evidence that was explained to you
(my explanation of the no visible lower lever of Toronto wile looking across lake ontario and the sun set we all can see at each day)
...
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/89/Monument_laagste_punt_van_Nederland.jpg/1200px-Monument_laagste_punt_van_Nederland.jpg)
I myself had done the test long ago if you would give me the money and many flatearthers face the same problems.
We are absolutely sure that the amount of supposed curvature given in the current model is false !!
In the Netherlands we all know we live under sealevel, but we still create these kind of devices, because it's fun to actually see how much beneath sealevel you are.
Confirmed shill tactics.I've come to the following conclusion, and I'll borrow this from an anonymous scribe with my own spin:Well i can make up my own prose....
"Debating with a flat earther is like playing chess with a pigeon; they knock the pieces over, crap all over the board, and in the end strut around like they won."
''when you are a pawn on a chessboard, the rules forbid you to look behind,......because if you could, you'd be shocked to see who is giving you orders to execute their little games ''
Globers are such indoctrinated pawns that do not understand that others created their artificially constructed reality.
And those ''others'' do not care for you at all, because you ain't part of their private club ....you are just a pawn in a game they invented !!!
Look around in Iraque and ask the locals and understand what could be your destiny sooner than you think.
Looking at the syntax of your sentence, I'd be more than happy to revisit your writing after you get an education. Until then I'll keep my understanding of the world and you can keep your... whatever the hell it is.
The only one realising that you need physical proof for the model of the earth is Cyrus Teed who built a rectilliniator.Did you know that there is an entire branch of earth science and applied mathematics dedicated to studying the size, shape and movements of the earth? It's called geodesy and has been around for several hundred years. If honestly think that there is insufficient empirical evidence for the round earth, then maybe you should ask some of these guys:
He did so in a backward time with vague outcomes, but the idea of a physicall structure is extremely appealing.
If they are willing to built facilities like CERN and the latest one to search for gravitational waves then it seems more and more absurd that such curvature structure does not excist.
This is really interesting. Dutchy, how did you measured that you are so much below sea level? Or do you really believe some gadget which was put up by government and built using round earth data?In the Netherlands we all know we live under sealevel, but we still create these kind of devices, because it's fun to actually see how much beneath sealevel you are.
Who actually told you that? The government? How could you be sure this is true?
In the Netherlands we all know we live under sealevel, but we still create these kind of devices, because it's fun to actually see how much beneath sealevel you are.
Who actually told you that? The government? How could you be sure this is true?
This is really interesting. Dutchy, how did you measured that you are so much below sea level? Or do you really believe some gadget which was put up by government and built using round earth data?
To have absolute proof of the curvature through a physicall structure would be awesome.It's only absent because you obviously don't know where to look. Devices like very large linear particle accelerators need to be perfectly straight over several kilometers and do need to take into account the curvature of the earth.
That it is absent today is a smoking gun in favour of flat and concave earth !
(https://www.wired.com/wp-content/uploads/archive/images/slideshow/2008/02/gallery_slac/slac_57_.jpg)
Klystron Gallery
Your microwave oven has a klystron inside, but SLAC has 250 of them, and they each pump roughly 65 megawatts of microwave radiation into the linear accelerator. The klystron gallery sits directly above the linear accelerator, which runs for about 2 miles in a perfectly straight line. When you look down the line of klystrons, the floor appears to slope upwards, but that's an optical illusion -- it's perfectly level. The eye is used to seeing the curvature of the earth at long distances, and because the floor doesn’t curve, your brain interprets that as an upward slope.
I think because we have dozens of large rivers connected with the sea and pratically all land is a flat polder with hundreds of precise water pump stations regulating the incoming polder waters so that there is enough reference with the actual sealevel to place a device that shows how high the land is compared to the known waterlevels.This is really interesting. Dutchy, how did you measured that you are so much below sea level? Or do you really believe some gadget which was put up by government and built using round earth data?In the Netherlands we all know we live under sealevel, but we still create these kind of devices, because it's fun to actually see how much beneath sealevel you are.
Who actually told you that? The government? How could you be sure this is true?
Of course none of that conflicts with the globe earth either.I think because we have dozens of large rivers connected with the sea and pratically all land is a flat polder with hundreds of precise water pump stations regulating the incoming polder waters so that there is enough reference with the actual sealevel to place a device that shows how high the land is compared to the known waterlevels.This is really interesting. Dutchy, how did you measured that you are so much below sea level? Or do you really believe some gadget which was put up by government and built using round earth data?In the Netherlands we all know we live under sealevel, but we still create these kind of devices, because it's fun to actually see how much beneath sealevel you are.
Who actually told you that? The government? How could you be sure this is true?
That is why those devices are placed in water with a known height. Really simple !!!
No globe needed !
So, you don't know and you didn't measure it yourself. You just trust government who put it up and said to you that this is how much you are under sea level.I think because we have dozens of large rivers connected with the sea and pratically all land is a flat polder with hundreds of precise water pump stations regulating the incoming polder waters so that there is enough reference with the actual sealevel to place a device that shows how high the land is compared to the known waterlevels.This is really interesting. Dutchy, how did you measured that you are so much below sea level? Or do you really believe some gadget which was put up by government and built using round earth data?In the Netherlands we all know we live under sealevel, but we still create these kind of devices, because it's fun to actually see how much beneath sealevel you are.
Who actually told you that? The government? How could you be sure this is true?
I don't feel like replying to each one of you,....a bit to much !Ok, umm interesting thought experiment. But one question, one issue. Q: What's the point you're making or attempting to make here? I'm not really seeing it. I: As mentioned the Earth isn't a perfect sphere. So the curve you just had us think about in our heads will not be the nature of the curve seen across the globe. So again I guess. But Y Tho?
But think about the following without immidiatly trying to redicule or debunk my requests.
If the earth is a sphere with a circomference of roughly 40.000 km then i propose the following thought process ! (just for fun )
1 Cut this hypothetical sphere into pie slices each measuring one km wide at the outer edge of the sphere.
2 Compare that slightly bend km with a perfect mathematically straight km. And give the exact amount of how much bending takes place in mm.
3 Place both km (the straight and curved one on top of eachother....the straight one on top)
4 Now precisely calculate the amount of cm that the curved km bends downwards at the beginning and the end of the km (the straight km is a tine bit wider of course)
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-UtRvZu2woBg/UYGeSqcrJhI/AAAAAAAAAVs/gJMtUtqjJqs/s1600/flexion.png)
And the blue one needs te be upside down of course, but you get the idea
5 Now you have the exact curvature present in each and every km of the hypothetical ball with a circomference of 40.000 km.
6 built a straight line as solid structure, water or laser based along the seashore or a huge watertank and start measuring earth's curvature !
So, you don't know and you didn't measure it yourself. You just trust government who put it up and said to you that this is how much you are under sea level.It is easy the Dutch have been doing this for centuries !
So, you don't know and you didn't measure it yourself. You just trust government who put it up and said to you that this is how much you are under sea level.I think because we have dozens of large rivers connected with the sea and pratically all land is a flat polder with hundreds of precise water pump stations regulating the incoming polder waters so that there is enough reference with the actual sealevel to place a device that shows how high the land is compared to the known waterlevels.This is really interesting. Dutchy, how did you measured that you are so much below sea level? Or do you really believe some gadget which was put up by government and built using round earth data?In the Netherlands we all know we live under sealevel, but we still create these kind of devices, because it's fun to actually see how much beneath sealevel you are.
Who actually told you that? The government? How could you be sure this is true?
It is easy the Dutch have been doing this for centuries !
You simple have to follow the canal to the sea and if needed add or deminish the height differences between the sealevel and canal level at the present water pomp station that levels the canal with the sea !So you still didn't do it yourself and just copy paste pictures from somewhere else and just trust government who put it up.
Ok, umm interesting thought experiment. But one question, one issue. Q: What's the point you're making or attempting to make here? I'm not really seeing it. I: As mentioned the Earth isn't a perfect sphere. So the curve you just had us think about in our heads will not be the nature of the curve seen across the globe. So again I guess. But Y Tho?The point is that i have no clue whatsoever how much the bend km in this mathematical perfect sphere would bend in cm at the beginning and the end.
Look it up.Ok, umm interesting thought experiment. But one question, one issue. Q: What's the point you're making or attempting to make here? I'm not really seeing it. I: As mentioned the Earth isn't a perfect sphere. So the curve you just had us think about in our heads will not be the nature of the curve seen across the globe. So again I guess. But Y Tho?The point is that i have no clue whatsoever how much the bend km in this mathematical perfect sphere would bend in cm at the beginning and the end.
Surely someone knows the exact numbers when we can measure 1/10.000 of a proton's diameter to find gravitational waves.
After i receive the exact numbers involved in such bend km derived from a perfect sphere with a circomference of 40.000 km, i at least have a great starting point.
I have many more suggestions, but i truly want to know the amount of bending of this mathematically perfect slice of one km wide derived from a perfect sphere with a circomference of 40.000 km.
I want to know because i really believe that the amount of bending is considerable (at least 10-20 cm over each and every km)
And that is simple that much that it could be used on our not so perfect sphere as a reference to either confirm or exclude any curvature for a ball roughly measuring 40.000 km in circomference.
Again i have no idea what the exact numbers for the hypothetical globe km slice are, my expertise is lacking, therefor i ask you the experts of a globe and it's properties.
Actually i have one in a small canal only 300 meters behind my backyard in the former Floriade exhibit !You simple have to follow the canal to the sea and if needed add or deminish the height differences between the sealevel and canal level at the present water pomp station that levels the canal with the sea !So you still didn't do it yourself and just copy paste pictures from somewhere else and just trust government who put it up.
Could you give me the numbers please ?Look it up.Ok, umm interesting thought experiment. But one question, one issue. Q: What's the point you're making or attempting to make here? I'm not really seeing it. I: As mentioned the Earth isn't a perfect sphere. So the curve you just had us think about in our heads will not be the nature of the curve seen across the globe. So again I guess. But Y Tho?The point is that i have no clue whatsoever how much the bend km in this mathematical perfect sphere would bend in cm at the beginning and the end.
Surely someone knows the exact numbers when we can measure 1/10.000 of a proton's diameter to find gravitational waves.
After i receive the exact numbers involved in such bend km derived from a perfect sphere with a circomference of 40.000 km, i at least have a great starting point.
I have many more suggestions, but i truly want to know the amount of bending of this mathematically perfect slice of one km wide derived from a perfect sphere with a circomference of 40.000 km.
I want to know because i really believe that the amount of bending is considerable (at least 10-20 cm over each and every km)
And that is simple that much that it could be used on our not so perfect sphere as a reference to either confirm or exclude any curvature for a ball roughly measuring 40.000 km in circomference.
Again i have no idea what the exact numbers for the hypothetical globe km slice are, my expertise is lacking, therefor i ask you the experts of a globe and it's properties.
I don't feel like replying to each one of you,....a bit to much !
But think about the following without immidiatly trying to redicule or debunk my requests.
If the earth is a sphere with a circomference of roughly 40.000 km then i propose the following thought process ! (just for fun )
1 Cut this hypothetical sphere into pie slices each measuring one km wide at the outer edge of the sphere.
2 Compare that slightly bend km with a perfect mathematically straight km. And give the exact amount of how much bending takes place in mm.
3 Place both km (the straight and curved one on top of eachother....the straight one on top)
4 Now precisely calculate the amount of cm that the curved km bends downwards at the beginning and the end of the km (the straight km is a tine bit wider of course)
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-UtRvZu2woBg/UYGeSqcrJhI/AAAAAAAAAVs/gJMtUtqjJqs/s1600/flexion.png)
And the blue one needs te be upside down of course, but you get the idea
5 Now you have the exact curvature present in each and every km of the hypothetical ball with a circomference of 40.000 km.
6 built a straight line as solid structure, or laser based along a huge body of water,(the seashore/lake) and start measuring earth's curvature !
Math involved:Ok, umm interesting thought experiment. But one question, one issue. Q: What's the point you're making or attempting to make here? I'm not really seeing it. I: As mentioned the Earth isn't a perfect sphere. So the curve you just had us think about in our heads will not be the nature of the curve seen across the globe. So again I guess. But Y Tho?The point is that i have no clue whatsoever how much the bend km in this mathematical perfect sphere would bend in cm at the beginning and the end.
Surely someone knows the exact numbers when we can measure 1/10.000 of a proton's diameter to find gravitational waves.
After i receive the exact numbers involved in such bend km derived from a perfect sphere with a circomference of 40.000 km, i at least have a great starting point.
I have many more suggestions, but i truly want to know the amount of bending of this mathematically perfect slice of one km wide derived from a perfect sphere with a circomference of 40.000 km.
I want to know because i really believe that the amount of bending is considerable (at least 10-20 cm over each and every km)
And that is simple that much that it could be used on our not so perfect sphere as a reference to either confirm or exclude any curvature for a ball roughly measuring 40.000 km in circomference.
Again i have no idea what the exact numbers for the hypothetical globe km slice are, my expertise is lacking, therefor i ask you the experts of a globe and it's properties.
Could you give me the numbers please ?Look it up.Ok, umm interesting thought experiment. But one question, one issue. Q: What's the point you're making or attempting to make here? I'm not really seeing it. I: As mentioned the Earth isn't a perfect sphere. So the curve you just had us think about in our heads will not be the nature of the curve seen across the globe. So again I guess. But Y Tho?The point is that i have no clue whatsoever how much the bend km in this mathematical perfect sphere would bend in cm at the beginning and the end.
Surely someone knows the exact numbers when we can measure 1/10.000 of a proton's diameter to find gravitational waves.
After i receive the exact numbers involved in such bend km derived from a perfect sphere with a circomference of 40.000 km, i at least have a great starting point.
I have many more suggestions, but i truly want to know the amount of bending of this mathematically perfect slice of one km wide derived from a perfect sphere with a circomference of 40.000 km.
I want to know because i really believe that the amount of bending is considerable (at least 10-20 cm over each and every km)
And that is simple that much that it could be used on our not so perfect sphere as a reference to either confirm or exclude any curvature for a ball roughly measuring 40.000 km in circomference.
Again i have no idea what the exact numbers for the hypothetical globe km slice are, my expertise is lacking, therefor i ask you the experts of a globe and it's properties.
I can follow the canal to the sea (only 15km) and confirm that the measuring tool in this canal fits the sealevel !I don't get it. You get this big gadget on your shoulder like Christ carried his cross and go 15 kilometers to check the sea level? How do you know that the place at the sea is at same level as the place where you came from? You measure the sea level at the place where canal is goint to the sea but my question was how do you measure it 15 kilometers or more away?
Huh ? waterlevel and flat ?I can follow the canal to the sea (only 15km) and confirm that the measuring tool in this canal fits the sealevel !I don't get it. You get this big gadget on your shoulder like Christ carried his cross and go 15 kilometers to check the sea level? How do you know that the place at the sea is at same level as the place where you came from? You measure the sea level at the place where canal is goint to the sea but my question was how do you measure it 15 kilometers or more away?
Huh ? waterlevel and flat ?I can follow the canal to the sea (only 15km) and confirm that the measuring tool in this canal fits the sealevel !I don't get it. You get this big gadget on your shoulder like Christ carried his cross and go 15 kilometers to check the sea level? How do you know that the place at the sea is at same level as the place where you came from? You measure the sea level at the place where canal is goint to the sea but my question was how do you measure it 15 kilometers or more away?
waterlevel is not flat, the waterlevel follows the earth curvature.You don't understand, the question of zork wasn't about that at all, but how i could measure the land level myself without trusting the sneeky government !
I recieve conflicting numbers in my proposal and both are extremely different :
8 cm over 1 km and 0.0009mm over 1 km (the latter says ''can you imagine how you want to measure that?'')
I appreciate your participation , but it seems there is more to it.
Let me rephrase
We know that half the curvature (20.000km) of a globe with a circomference of 40.000 km at least drops 5.000 km at the beginning and end compared to a pefect straight line that crosses that half circle at it's highest point at the top.
So what is the amount of bending in the following slices derived from the hypothetical perfect sphere with a circomference of 40.000 km.
1km wide bended curvature slice compared to a perfect straight line
10km ''
100km ''
1000km ''
10000km ''
You are a funny guy at times aren't you ?You really don't understand do you?
No ? what ''no'' did i assume something ?
You can not transpose things that are measured on earth
They have measured things in space as well.to the universe and say it is rock solid evidence for everything that occurs in the universe.The scientific method relies upon a few assumptions. One is that Earth isn't special. Meaning if it works here, it should work elsewhere.They can measure the unimaginable and lately even beyond all reason.....a disturbance the size of 1/10.000 of a proton's diameter to proof supposed gravitational waves.Science doesn't deal with proof, it deals with evidence.
In order to achieve such precision they built a 4 km long head-vaporizing laser with a perfect wavelength detecting sub-proton space-time ripples.
That is evidence of gravitational waves, regardless of if you like it. Also, it wasn't 1, it was 2 interferometers.They can calculate the distance to the moon in mm.Says who?But the curvature formula is still flawed and roughly measured !!!Do you know why?
The curvature of Earth isn't constant.
It varies from place to place.
The radius at the equator is larger than the radius at the poles.And to built a device that shows the curvature and curving ocean water is still absent in 2017No. That has been done long ago. You just reject it.
We even have photos from space clearly showing the curve, and you just reject it.More and more people dismiss ''your'' hogwash made out of a pendulum, sinking shipmasts, unlimited refractional magic and testimonies from some fantasy figures from Babylon and Greece long gone.You mean reality, which you are unable to refute in any rational, honest way.
Also, we aren't the ones with refractional magic. That would be the FEers, making up pure bullshit to explain why the bottom of distant objects are missing, and why the sun appears to set.If they can measure their precious gravity waves then asking for an accurate curvature calculator up to at least a mm for a perfect sphere with a circomference of 40.000+ km (all the way around earth ) shouldn't be a problem whatsoever.We can do that, quite easily, but EARTH IS NOT A PERFECT SPHERE!!!
Do you understand that?
It also depends upon how you measure the drop and the distance, and requires a perfect measurement of the radius.
Even if it was a perfect sphere, you still have the atmosphere, which can have numerous different gradients in it (temperature, pressure, water vapour, density, etc) effecting the refractive index of it which can make the curvature appear more or less.
You aren't asking for a model of reality.
You are asking for a model of a straw man, but here it is:
So you have your radius sphere of radius R in a perfect vacuum so there is no atmosphere in the way, and it is a perfect sphere so no oblateness, no mountains or valleys, just a perfectly smooth and perfectly symmetrical sphere.
But which way are we going to measure it?
We have 3 options for h and d.
So which would you like:
(https://i.imgur.com/KG51eWw.png)
Fortunately, there are simple formulas you can use.
a=d1/R.
tan(a)=d2/R, sin(a2)=d2/R
Thus a=atan(d2/R), a2=asin(d2/R)
sin(a)=d3/R
Thus a=asin(d3/R).
cos(a)=R/(R+h1)
thus h1=R/cos(a)-R
cos(a2)=(R-h2)/R
h2=R-R*cos(a2)
cos(a)=(R-h3)/R
h3=R-R*cos(a)
And you can also get other relationships:
(h1+R)^2=R^2+d2^2
R^2=(R-h3)^2+d3^2
R^2=(R-h2)^2+d2^2
And you can simplify them all (by taking approximations where a is small as is h compared to R, and that gives you h=d^2/(2*R).Why are you buying that ''we'' crap ?We refers to humanity.
Did you go to the moon ?Numbers are irrelevant...thruth is !And that is something you seriously lack.And Gus Grissom's wife did reveal what scumbags the FBI are, to take away all Gus writings hours after he passed away....his relatives are sure he was killed.Sure, they "know" he was killed, without any evidence of that.
In reality, they don't know, they just believe that.You can still choose to join us and expose the liars or maintain part of the corrupt deceivers....I kinda like you and i think you deserve a better perspective.We are exposing the liars. They are the FEers.Don't you think it would be awesome to show people the curve over 5 miles using a rail or other device instead of looking to a ceiling where a fucking pendulum is attached !Then you go buy the 5 miles of land and the rails and set it up.
And how are you planning on setting it up to show the curve?
How are you planning on verifying a level piece of ground (or other surface) to compare the height of the rails to?
Considering you are a paranoid delusional nutcase, what would it take to convince you?
Would you need to take your own tape measure/ruler to measure each point?
You can't use water because that could be carefully pumped in or out as you moved around, and you clearly aren't going to trust anyone to check it for you.
See, this is a common issue, you will find whatever excuse you can to dismiss it.
The only person that can convince you is you.
You have shown that you are not willing to trust others and will dismiss things they present as fake. As such, if you want something like this to convince you, you need to do it yourself so you can be sure there isn't any trickery going on.An indoors facility to show the coriolis effect with live demonstrations and participation !They have that, just not using Earth.
The effect on Earth is quite small for a small area.
The best you can get for that on Earth is Foucault's pendulum.A huge telescope to look at satelites and the ISS orbiting earth !Again, are you going to pay for this?
If not, people can already go out and buy telescopes or just binoculars to look for them.An artificial mirage that shows objects out of nowhere after some air layers of different temperature are precisely injected at will !You try injecting air at precise temperatures at will.
And how many of these locations do you want set up?You know this will never happen, because they cannot show any curvature or spin, because it is absent !No, it is there, and has been shown.
Just because people like you bury your head in the sand doesn't mean it isn't there.Join us !!No thanks. I have too great a sense of honesty and rationality to join a bunch of delusional, paranoid nutcases.I live in one of the ''flattest'' countries in the world (The Netherlands) and have used the online curvature calculator on occasion to check what should be visible, to find out i can see things way beyond the curvature...not only over a body of water with all refraction problems, but also over our flat country that has many large polders (surrounded by dykes) that are flat as a pancake.None of those images showed any missing curvature.
When you visit the areas as shown in the pictures, you will be amazed how far you can see on a good day !!
And believe me (or not) , i am not the only one that has seen way beyond the curvature in the Netherlands.
What do i have to photograph to make you people believe the curvature math is currently incorrect ?
In fact, unless you have significantly different sized and shaped wind turbines, the last one shows curvature as the bottom of the masts are cut off.
Even without that, you have the horizon. We know the atmosphere doesn't let all the light through. The clear horizon is an edge, and it isn't the edge of a flat disc Earth as that would be too far away. So it must be the edge of a round Earth.
What I want is for you to take a picture from just above a known lake (to get above any waves) of a known city across the lake showing the entirety of the buildings, down to the street level (when a lot should be missing), without any significant distortion (where that distortion would indicate it is a mirage), with evidence that the video is taken from that position.
Can you do that?
And when you do, should I then demand you prove the picture is real and not just shitty CGI or otherwise fake?
What would it take to convince you that Earth is made of cheese, but t is magic cheese which tastes like Dirt.
That is akin to what you are trying to do, convince us of something which all evidence (with can distinguish one way or another) goes against.You are at a lake,....i live in a country that has dykes the length of 32 km and a height of 7.25 meters. Ad my length of 1.86 m then my camera height is at roughly 9 meters !Once again, you have shown the curve.
Earth's curvature calculator says that over that distance 35.5764 m should be hidden (refraction excluded)
Here a picture of the dyke.
Do i really have to go there myself and take a picture over a 32 km long dyke to show you enough of the windmill to make a point ?
Or do you not consider this as proof when i precisely handover the exact numbers involved in such photograph ?
When close to Earth (the first picture) you can't see very far at all.
When you get higher, you can, as the horizon is now further away due to the curve of Earth and your increased elevation.
And of course, you spout pure bullshit with your claims, which anyone with access to google maps (at least on a computer, can verify is pure bullshit.
The straight section of that dyke is only 22 km, not 32.
And that would mean you get 23 m hidden, much less than what you claim.
You can't even see the windmill in that photo.
Also, how tall is the windmill, and more importantly, can you see the bottom?
Just like the above, it would be proof, if you can see the bottom, and you can show that it was taken from that location.
And again, should I just call CGI or fake like you always do?Nothing, but that specific eclipse topic was in a sleep mode......this is a dual catch. The topic stays alive and we discuss other fancy flatearth stuff untill RiF kicks some more ass ...The only ass RiF kicked is his own.The mathematician from Cairo, Mustafa Abdelkader, wrote an essay something like ''the geo cosmos....turning the world inside out'' in which he made a perfect mathematically inversion of all current cosmological observations and hypothesis.The math is fine, the explanation is not.
For a round Earth goestationary model, you need to explain why the sun orbits us and all the planets except Earth orbit the sun, rather than all the planets, including Earth, orbit the sun.
With a flat model you need to explain why light bends and why it warps you when you (or light) go too far south.It was the first time i realised that there could be several plausible explainations for the things we observe from earth.A mathematical model does not make an explanation.
You can do the math to get any arbitrary reference frame.
That doesn't make that reference frame true.
It is akin to centripetal/centrifugal forces.
You can view it as what it is, merely the objects inertia wanting to go in a straight line and the apparatus having to turn it and apply the centripetal force to do so, or you can view it in the non-inertial reference frame and see it as a force pushing the object out.
Both have the math match the observation, but only 1 provides the explanation.After examining Gemini, Apollo and the post WW2 America and The Sovjet Union, i became convinced that deepspace travel is made out of delusions of grandeur.Why?I think it is still a discussion with many things to solve, but a spinning, tilted ball traveling 32 million miles per day through the vastness of space is not one of them anymore.WHY?
I am yet to see anyone present any sound argument against it.Each to his own, but the further i went, the more absurd the current cosmological model seems to me.It seeming absurd to you doesn't mean it is wrong.
Especially as it is the best model for explaining observations.
I recieve conflicting numbers in my proposal and both are extremely different :http://earthcurvature.com/ uses a sphere with a 40,030 km circumference. I would think more than close enough for your desire. Plug in any number you wish.
8 cm over 1 km and 0.0009mm over 1 km (the latter says ''can you imagine how you want to measure that?'')
I appreciate your participation , but it seems there is more to it.
Let me rephrase
We know that half the curvature (20.000km) of a globe with a circomference of 40.000 km at least drops 5.000 km at the beginning and end compared to a pefect straight line that crosses that half circle at it's highest point at the top.
So what is the amount of bending in the following slices derived from the hypothetical perfect sphere with a circomference of 40.000 km.
1km wide bended curvature slice compared to a perfect straight line
10km ''
100km ''
1000km ''
10000km ''
Huh? You have 15 kilometer long waterlevel?Huh ? waterlevel and flat ?I can follow the canal to the sea (only 15km) and confirm that the measuring tool in this canal fits the sealevel !I don't get it. You get this big gadget on your shoulder like Christ carried his cross and go 15 kilometers to check the sea level? How do you know that the place at the sea is at same level as the place where you came from? You measure the sea level at the place where canal is goint to the sea but my question was how do you measure it 15 kilometers or more away?
Thanks !
http://earthcurvature.com/ uses a sphere with a 40,030 km circumference. I would think more than close enough for your desire. Plug in any number you wish.
Thanks !
http://earthcurvature.com/ uses a sphere with a 40,030 km circumference. I would think more than close enough for your desire. Plug in any number you wish.
That shows that over a distance of 5km the bending is roughly 2 meters.(1m at the beginning and 1 m at the end compared to a straight line of 5km)
What happens if i place a precise laser pointer near an extremely flat beach at a height of let's say 80cm and cast a beam towards a specific predetermined point 5 km away on the beach at a height of also 80cm ?
The laser cannot reflect on a specific target over 5km at a height of 80cm , because of the bulge in the middle no matter what the angle of the laser is ?
Is this valid reasoning ?
Unfortunately not, and this is why I personally feel these sorts of experiments aren't good proof one way or another. The numbers being given would be valid in a vacuum. But in the real world (and especially over water) refraction comes into account and can do very odd things. The average (IIRC) is a bend shift of roughly .7 degrees. But that's rather variable and can't be truly relied on.Thanks !
http://earthcurvature.com/ uses a sphere with a 40,030 km circumference. I would think more than close enough for your desire. Plug in any number you wish.
That shows that over a distance of 5km the bending is roughly 2 meters.(1m at the beginning and 1 m at the end compared to a straight line of 5km)
What happens if i place a precise laser pointer near an extremely flat beach at a height of let's say 80cm and cast a beam towards a specific predetermined point 5 km away on the beach at a height of also 80cm ?
The laser cannot reflect on a specific target over 5km at a height of 80cm , because of the bulge in the middle no matter what the angle of the laser is ?
Is this valid reasoning ?
I don't feel like replying to each one of you,....a bit to much !So you don't feel like replying to the fact that geodetic scientists have been actively studying the shape and motions of the earth for hundreds of years?
i would suggest you perform this test and show us the results of this.So you do agree this would be impossible on the globe then ? (if one does this experiment correctly ! )
first ~15 minutesThanks !
http://earthcurvature.com/ uses a sphere with a 40,030 km circumference. I would think more than close enough for your desire. Plug in any number you wish.
That shows that over a distance of 5km the bending is roughly 2 meters.(1m at the beginning and 1 m at the end compared to a straight line of 5km)
What happens if i place a precise laser pointer near an extremely flat beach at a height of let's say 80cm and cast a beam towards a specific predetermined point 5 km away on the beach at a height of also 80cm ?
The laser cannot reflect on a specific target over 5km at a height of 80cm , because of the bulge in the middle no matter what the angle of the laser is ?
Is this valid reasoning ?
No stupid !!, it is asking for understanding that i probably miss certain posts while replying, because it is more than a handfull allready.I don't feel like replying to each one of you,....a bit to much !So you don't feel like replying to the fact that geodetic scientists have been actively studying the shape and motions of the earth for hundreds of years?
Good to know.
You do agree about my test then ?first ~15 minutesThanks !
http://earthcurvature.com/ uses a sphere with a 40,030 km circumference. I would think more than close enough for your desire. Plug in any number you wish.
That shows that over a distance of 5km the bending is roughly 2 meters.(1m at the beginning and 1 m at the end compared to a straight line of 5km)
What happens if i place a precise laser pointer near an extremely flat beach at a height of let's say 80cm and cast a beam towards a specific predetermined point 5 km away on the beach at a height of also 80cm ?
The laser cannot reflect on a specific target over 5km at a height of 80cm , because of the bulge in the middle no matter what the angle of the laser is ?
Is this valid reasoning ?
You do agree about my test then ?first ~15 minutesThanks !
http://earthcurvature.com/ uses a sphere with a 40,030 km circumference. I would think more than close enough for your desire. Plug in any number you wish.
That shows that over a distance of 5km the bending is roughly 2 meters.(1m at the beginning and 1 m at the end compared to a straight line of 5km)
What happens if i place a precise laser pointer near an extremely flat beach at a height of let's say 80cm and cast a beam towards a specific predetermined point 5 km away on the beach at a height of also 80cm ?
The laser cannot reflect on a specific target over 5km at a height of 80cm , because of the bulge in the middle no matter what the angle of the laser is ?
Is this valid reasoning ?
Place a laser 70-90 cm above the ground and point it towards a target on the extremely flat beach in the Netherlands 5 km away (same 70-90 cm height) and if the laser reaches the target the globe is debunked ?
Confirmed shill tactics.I've come to the following conclusion, and I'll borrow this from an anonymous scribe with my own spin:Well i can make up my own prose....
"Debating with a flat earther is like playing chess with a pigeon; they knock the pieces over, crap all over the board, and in the end strut around like they won."
''when you are a pawn on a chessboard, the rules forbid you to look behind,......because if you could, you'd be shocked to see who is giving you orders to execute their little games ''
Globers are such indoctrinated pawns that do not understand that others created their artificially constructed reality.
And those ''others'' do not care for you at all, because you ain't part of their private club ....you are just a pawn in a game they invented !!!
Look around in Iraque and ask the locals and understand what could be your destiny sooner than you think.
Looking at the syntax of your sentence, I'd be more than happy to revisit your writing after you get an education. Until then I'll keep my understanding of the world and you can keep your... whatever the hell it is.
Unfortunately not, and this is why I personally feel these sorts of experiments aren't good proof one way or another. The numbers being given would be valid in a vacuum. But in the real world (and especially over water) refraction comes into account and can do very odd things. The average (IIRC) is a bend shift of roughly .7 degrees. But that's rather variable and can't be truly relied on.But this is the test facility....the water is only used as a reference to the flatness or circomference of earth !
The fact of the matter is, and this is something I've come to just accept, we don't have good models for this for RE. We can give out averages and other things like that, but without knowing the nature of the exact location you're at, and the density information of every square inch of air the light will pass through, it's nearly impossible to be accurate in what should be seen. Rowbotham's experiment is a great example of this, with him claiming one thing, and other's coming along and saying he's wrong by doing things in a slightly different way. These particular experiments have far too many variables to be very good proof for either side.
What I would suspect is your laser wouldn't hit the target at the correct height for either model. Too high for FE, too low for RE. Assuming you placed it on a precise tanget to the water and held up a measuring stick some distance away. At the very least I'm doubtful it would be consistent. It's, imo, one of the biggest weaknesses in the RE model, simply because of the ease of performing the test. But there's really far too many variables to account for when it's not a controlled environment and you're doing things close to the water.
No, its not. You must level the laser at first correctly and you must take account the beam divergence. That means if laser reaches the target then the middle of big circle which you have there must be at same height. And not only just at the end but all the way between also. That means you must measure the height of the center of laser beam at intervals.Lets say about every 500 meters for example.You do agree about my test then ?first ~15 minutesThanks !
http://earthcurvature.com/ uses a sphere with a 40,030 km circumference. I would think more than close enough for your desire. Plug in any number you wish.
That shows that over a distance of 5km the bending is roughly 2 meters.(1m at the beginning and 1 m at the end compared to a straight line of 5km)
What happens if i place a precise laser pointer near an extremely flat beach at a height of let's say 80cm and cast a beam towards a specific predetermined point 5 km away on the beach at a height of also 80cm ?
The laser cannot reflect on a specific target over 5km at a height of 80cm , because of the bulge in the middle no matter what the angle of the laser is ?
Is this valid reasoning ?
Place a laser 70-90 cm above the ground and point it towards a target on the extremely flat beach in the Netherlands 5 km away (same 70-90 cm height) and if the laser reaches the target the globe is debunked ?
A person in Australia can look south at the same time a person in South Africa looks south and they will both see the Southern Cross due south. But no, it's totally flat.Not quite. They will see the southern cross pointing due south. It is not always due south.
You are not above astronomers and astrophysicists. Understand? I want you to confirm you understand you do not know more about space than people who study space for a living.
So you would rather yell at me than address the fact geodetic scientists have been actively studying the shape and motions of the earth for hundreds of years.No stupid !!, it is asking for understanding that i probably miss certain posts while replying, because it is more than a handfull allready.I don't feel like replying to each one of you,....a bit to much !So you don't feel like replying to the fact that geodetic scientists have been actively studying the shape and motions of the earth for hundreds of years?
Good to know.
You deserve the namecalling, ...i know i am on/over the edge several times, but you have never discussed anything over here with a flatearther without your superiourity attentas activated.
It gets so long in the tooth, you really should consider leaving this forum markjo if that's the only flavour you've got !
If my receiving target is placed at the other end of a 5km long testing facility like the flat beaches in the picture at a height of not more than 80cm it doesn't matter how the laser is placed or exhibits modest beam divergences (using a high peformance green laser pointer that can easily go over 10 km) as long as it is placed at a height of 80 cm also !No, its not. You must level the laser at first correctly and you must take account the beam divergence. That means if laser reaches the target then the middle of big circle which you have there must be at same height. And not only just at the end but all the way between also. That means you must measure the height of the center of laser beam at intervals.Lets say about every 500 meters for example.You do agree about my test then ?first ~15 minutesThanks !
http://earthcurvature.com/ uses a sphere with a 40,030 km circumference. I would think more than close enough for your desire. Plug in any number you wish.
That shows that over a distance of 5km the bending is roughly 2 meters.(1m at the beginning and 1 m at the end compared to a straight line of 5km)
What happens if i place a precise laser pointer near an extremely flat beach at a height of let's say 80cm and cast a beam towards a specific predetermined point 5 km away on the beach at a height of also 80cm ?
The laser cannot reflect on a specific target over 5km at a height of 80cm , because of the bulge in the middle no matter what the angle of the laser is ?
Is this valid reasoning ?
Place a laser 70-90 cm above the ground and point it towards a target on the extremely flat beach in the Netherlands 5 km away (same 70-90 cm height) and if the laser reaches the target the globe is debunked ?
And as you are so interested with curvatures then can you really take a look at the http://obeattie.github.io/gmaps-radius and draw some circles with 3000 km or more and let us know if you can measure the radius of 5 km section of that circle on map.
the straight length at a circle section is :s=2*r*sin(angle/2)That is the difference in length from end to end.
If my receiving target is placed at the other end of a 5km long testing facility like the flat beaches in the picture at a height of not more than 80cm it doesn't matter how the laser is placed or exhibits modest beam divergences (using a high peformance green laser pointer that can easily go over 10 km) as long as it is placed at a height of 80 cm also !No, its not. You must level the laser at first correctly and you must take account the beam divergence. That means if laser reaches the target then the middle of big circle which you have there must be at same height. And not only just at the end but all the way between also. That means you must measure the height of the center of laser beam at intervals.Lets say about every 500 meters for example.You do agree about my test then ?first ~15 minutesThanks !
http://earthcurvature.com/ uses a sphere with a 40,030 km circumference. I would think more than close enough for your desire. Plug in any number you wish.
That shows that over a distance of 5km the bending is roughly 2 meters.(1m at the beginning and 1 m at the end compared to a straight line of 5km)
What happens if i place a precise laser pointer near an extremely flat beach at a height of let's say 80cm and cast a beam towards a specific predetermined point 5 km away on the beach at a height of also 80cm ?
The laser cannot reflect on a specific target over 5km at a height of 80cm , because of the bulge in the middle no matter what the angle of the laser is ?
Is this valid reasoning ?
Place a laser 70-90 cm above the ground and point it towards a target on the extremely flat beach in the Netherlands 5 km away (same 70-90 cm height) and if the laser reaches the target the globe is debunked ?
And as you are so interested with curvatures then can you really take a look at the http://obeattie.github.io/gmaps-radius and draw some circles with 3000 km or more and let us know if you can measure the radius of 5 km section of that circle on map.
The bulge in the middle of the flat beach (compared to laser and reciever) that precisley follows sealevel should prevent the light from hitting the target at the other end of the 5km trajectory when the receiver of the laserlight is placed not more than 80 cm of the ground.
The laser can hit some air above the receiving target, but according to the formula over 5km the bend of curvature compared to a straight 5 km line is 2 meters...1 meter at both ends...unless the laserlight curves downwards over such a modest distance the reciever of the incoming laserlight cannot collect the light on a pinpoint target.
For "curvature" calculations I use "Metabunk, Earth's Curve Horizon, Bulge, Drop, and Hidden Calculator" (https://www.metabunk.org/curve/) because it allows the viewer height to be included and also gives extra data like the "dip angle" to the horizon.Thanks !
http://earthcurvature.com/ uses a sphere with a 40,030 km circumference. I would think more than close enough for your desire. Plug in any number you wish.
That shows that over a distance of 5km the bending is roughly 2 meters.(1m at the beginning and 1 m at the end compared to a straight line of 5km)
What happens if i place a precise laser pointer near an extremely flat beach at a height of let's say 80cm and cast a beam towards a specific predetermined point 5 km away on the beach at a height of also 80cm ?No, because the "bulge is only 49 cm. Here are the relevant results from the Metabunk, Earth's Curve Horizon, Bulge, Drop, and Hidden Calculator:
The laser cannot reflect on a specific target over 5km at a height of 80cm , because of the bulge in the middle no matter what the angle of the laser is ?
Is this valid reasoning ?
No, that is your way of doing things !No. It is not his way. It is the rational way. Making a model which can explain observations.
Mine is to go back to the PROVEN fundamentals of earth not some fantasy cosmology.You mean go back to baselessly asserted crap which has not been proven in any way?
And in that proven FLAT reality, no one has ever showed any curvature whatsoever in accordance with the current measurements of the hypothetical ball.There is no proven flat reality. People have shown curvature. No one has ever been able to show it is flat. Instead all results that might indicate that are consistent with both.
The shape of earth, it's tilt. speed, origans are all part of the same cosmological fairytail.You mean all part of the same reality.
You can't focuss on just the shape of our world, because according to the current cosmology the shape is a result of all other implemented nonsenseYou mean implemented explanations which explain reality?
this way you can ignore the absurdities that are part of your globe, not my flatearth.You are yet to show any absurdities with the globe or cosmology. Instead you just repeatedly assert that basically you don't like it.
Don't you see how many times i point out that globers jump to conclusions without trying to understand flatearthers ?Perhaps that is because you are the one jumping to conclusions instead of understanding what people say?
But i said i do not believe in a concave earthAnd who said you did?
Mostafa Abdelkader engaged in a thought process that shows our current ''understanding'' of the universe is a mere choice of directions after standing on a crossroad.Except it isn't. Not in the slightest.
Here are the most important sentences of his essay !I shrunk it down to the more important one.
reduces the earth and the solar system to nothing in comparison; whereas in the latter, the earth’s surface is the finite boundary of the whole universe
The only one realising that you need physical proof for the model of the earth is Cyrus Teed who built a rectilliniator.Except plenty of people already had physical proof.
He did so in a backward time with vague outcomes, but the idea of a physicall structure is extremely appealing.Not to anyone who actually examines it.
If they are willing to built facilities like CERN and the latest one to search for gravitational waves then it seems more and more absurd that such curvature structure does not excist.No it doesn't.
All the lame excuses about that there is enough proof and supporters and understanding of the globe so that such a structure is unwanted is poor reasoning.Why?
In the Netherlands we all know we live under sealevel, but we still create these kind of devices, because it's fun to actually see how much beneath sealevel you are.And what device would that be?
To have absolute proof of the curvature through a physicall structure would be awesome.But it wouldn't be any more proof than all the other stuff we have.
That it is absent today is a smoking gun in favour of flat and concave earth !No it isn't.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/89/Monument_laagste_punt_van_Nederland.jpg/1200px-Monument_laagste_punt_van_Nederland.jpg)So that's your device?
I myself had done the test long ago if you would give me the money and many flatearthers face the same problems.Why should we pay for your paranoia?
We are absolutely sure that the amount of supposed curvature given in the current model is false !!I'm absolutely sure your full of shit and that the amount of curvature in the current model is quite accurate.
But think about the following without immidiatly trying to redicule or debunk my requests.How about you go and respond to where I did something similar for the 10 km?
If the earth is a sphere with a circomference of roughly 40.000 km then i propose the following thought process ! (just for fun )So now you want pi slices, and now you want it centred at the level.
1 Cut this hypothetical sphere into pie slices each measuring one km wide at the outer edge of the sphere.
2 Compare that slightly bend km with a perfect mathematically straight km. And give the exact amount of how much bending takes place in mm.
3 Place both km (the straight and curved one on top of eachother....the straight one on top)
4 Now precisely calculate the amount of cm that the curved km bends downwards at the beginning and the end of the km (the straight km is a tine bit wider of course)
5 Now you have the exact curvature present in each and every km of the hypothetical ball with a circomference of 40.000 km.And due to how curvature works, you can't simply multiply this by the distance.
6 built a straight line as solid structure, or laser based along a huge body of water,(the seashore/lake) and start measuring earth's curvature !Give us the money to do so.
It is easy the Dutch have been doing this for centuries !Except this sign in no way shows that is what sea level is unless you simply trust those who put it up.
You simple have to follow the canal to the sea and if needed add or deminish the height differences between the sealevel and canal level at the present water pomp station that levels the canal with the sea !I take it you don't understand flowing water?
After i receive the exact numbers involved in such bend km derived from a perfect sphere with a circomference of 40.000 km, i at least have a great starting point.You already got the numbers for 10 km and just ignored them.
I have many more suggestions, but i truly want to know the amount of bending of this mathematically perfect slice of one km wide derived from a perfect sphere with a circomference of 40.000 km.
I want to know because i really believe that the amount of bending is considerable (at least 10-20 cm over each and every km)Considering you just ignored the 10 km, I highly doubt you actually want to know.
And that is simple that much that it could be used on our not so perfect sphere as a reference to either confirm or exclude any curvature for a ball roughly measuring 40.000 km in circomference.No it can't, because you then have the issue of building a straight structure over 1 km. Unless you are using data from the curvature of Earth, that will be difficult to verify. Unless you plan on paying for all the vacuum pumps required to maintain a vacuum over this 1 km to be able to pass a light along it without having to worry about refraction, and then also verify that that laser is pointed level and not slightly up or down.
Again i have no idea what the exact numbers for the hypothetical globe km slice are, my expertise is lacking, therefor i ask you the experts of a globe and it's properties.I provided you with a way to work it out, you ignored it.
I can follow the canal to the sea (only 15km) and confirm that the measuring tool in this canal fits the sealevel !And have you done that? No. You just trust the government.
So what is the amount of bending in the following slices derived from the hypothetical perfect sphere with a circomference of 40.000 km.Again, there are several different ways to measure.
1km wide bended curvature slice compared to a perfect straight line
10km ''
100km ''
1000km ''
10000km ''
What happens if i place a precise laser pointer near an extremely flat beach at a height of let's say 80cm and cast a beam towards a specific predetermined point 5 km away on the beach at a height of also 80cm ?Flat or level?
The laser cannot reflect on a specific target over 5km at a height of 80cm , because of the bulge in the middle no matter what the angle of the laser is ?
Dutchy you must have a good point because the shills are out enforce. A laser experiment is tough to do and record. A laser beam diffuses across such distances. It is easier to be far away from the beam and look at the laser from a far distance. Jeranism has such examples on his website.
Dutchy you must have a good point because the shills are out enforce. A laser experiment is tough to do and record. A laser beam diffuses across such distances.Lasers are also vulnerable to atmospheric refraction and therefore can possibly give misleading results if not done carfully.
All the lame excuses about that there is enough proof and supporters and understanding of the globe so that such a structure is unwanted is poor reasoning.
In the Netherlands we all know we live under sealevel, but we still create these kind of devices, because it's fun to actually see how much beneath sealevel you are.
To have absolute proof of the curvature through a physicall structure would be awesome.
That it is absent today is a smoking gun in favour of flat and concave earth !(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/89/Monument_laagste_punt_van_Nederland.jpg/1200px-Monument_laagste_punt_van_Nederland.jpg)I myself had done the test long ago if you would give me the money and many flatearthers face the same problems.
We are absolutely sure that the amount of supposed curvature given in the current model is false !!
There was one particularly amusing part of this bomb test experiment involving a dozen two-mile-long vacuum pipe lines necessary to accurately view the device from far enough away to save the recording equipment from the expected blast.Yes, the 2 miles of carefully "levelled" pipe was "locally levelled", but not straight. In 2 miles there is a "bulge" of 8 inches. Nit much, but enough to stop the gamma rays from reaching the target.
“When six of us young physicists arrived in Bikini several months before the test, but after an immense effort by thousands working for the contractor Holmes and Narver, we found that the gamma rays from a radioactive test source wouldn’t pass through the vacuum pipelines for a distance of two miles.”
After a few of the “juvenile young scientists” straightened one pipe line using a special telescope, Colgate recalls being awakened that night by another still younger engineer, who showed him the corrections.
“I took one look, calculated the geometry, and said out loud so everyone in the tent could hear, ‘Oh my God, they forgot that the earth is round!’ ” he said.
For gamma rays to get through, the pipes had to be straight, not level with the ground. The next day at a management meeting, Colgate reassured everyone that there would be no recriminations, but at the end he joked,
“The one thing we young scientists would like is a small correction . . . . . . ”
From: Meet Dr. Stirling Colgate, Iconic Tech President (http://www.nmt.edu/news/all-news/516-2013/4971-meet-dr-stirling-colgate-iconic-tech-president)
Basic PerspectiveThen we have:
A fact of basic perspective is that the line of the horizon is always at eye level with the observer.
From: The Flat Earth Society Wiki, Basic Perspective (https://theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Basic+Perspective)
TANGENTIAL HORIZON.from Zetetic Astronomy, by 'Parallax' (pseud. Samuel Birley Rowbotham), [1881], TANGENTIAL HORIZON. (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za45.htm)
IF a theodolite is placed on the sea shore, "levelled," and directed towards the sea, the line of the horizon will be a given amount below the cross-hair, and a certain "dip" or inclination from the level position will have to be made to bring the cross-hair and the sea-horizon together. If the theodolite is similarly fixed, but at a greater altitude, the space between the cross-hair and the sea horizon, and the dip of the instrument to bring them together, is also greater. From the above, which is perfectly true, it has been concluded that the surface of the earth is convex, and the line of sight over the sea tangential.
Dutchy you must have a good point because the shills are out enforce. A laser experiment is tough to do and record. A laser beam diffuses across such distances. It is easier to be far away from the beam and look at the laser from a far distance. Jeranism has such examples on his website.We aren't out in force, we are just calling out his bullshit.
Dutchy you must have a good point because the shills are out enforce. A laser experiment is tough to do and record. A laser beam diffuses across such distances. It is easier to be far away from the beam and look at the laser from a far distance. Jeranism has such examples on his website.It seems that the globers claim there is huge amount of rock solid proof for the globe that ''anyone'' can check !.
Well in that case i level my laser with an accurate spirit level (your laser in the diagram is not level) or lower the initial height to about 40cm and the bulge will prevent the laser to shine upon the other end laserlight receiver (come to that later).For "curvature" calculations I use "Metabunk, Earth's Curve Horizon, Bulge, Drop, and Hidden Calculator" (https://www.metabunk.org/curve/) because it allows the viewer height to be included and also gives extra data like the "dip angle" to the horizon.Thanks !
http://earthcurvature.com/ uses a sphere with a 40,030 km circumference. I would think more than close enough for your desire. Plug in any number you wish.
That shows that over a distance of 5km the bending is roughly 2 meters.(1m at the beginning and 1 m at the end compared to a straight line of 5km)
This is a diagram of the curve over 5 km (with the vertical scale grossly exaggerated).(https://www.dropbox.com/s/r5lnyn771c1h173/5%20km%20Curvature.png?dl=1)Quote from: dutchyWhat happens if i place a precise laser pointer near an extremely flat beach at a height of let's say 80cm and cast a beam towards a specific predetermined point 5 km away on the beach at a height of also 80cm ?No, because the "bulge is only 49 cm. Here are the relevant results from the Metabunk, Earth's Curve Horizon, Bulge, Drop, and Hidden Calculator:
The laser cannot reflect on a specific target over 5km at a height of 80cm , because of the bulge in the middle no matter what the angle of the laser is ?
Is this valid reasoning ?
Distance = 5 km, View Height = 0.8 meters Radius = 6371 km.
Results ignoring refraction
Horizon = 3.19 km, Bulge = 0.49 meters
Hidden= 0.26 meters
Horizon Dip = 0.029 Degrees.
Something like this:(https://www.dropbox.com/s/zq84dmlc0lmx2c7/5%20km%20Curvature%20-%2080%20cm%20Viewing%20Height.png?dl=1)
The height hidden is only 26 cm.
One thing to note is that the horizon (at 3.2 km) is only 0.029° below eye-level. Only accurate surveying instruments can detect that.
<< extra diagram added >>
As I at least have mentioned a number of times now, it's not about any testing. It's specifically experiments like this, that end up with too many variables. Refraction is a giant unknown in these cases. Even more so because of how close you are to the water. Now, if you could get a measurement of every square inch the laser was going through in order to measure the correct density and compute the change, that seems very worthwhile. But the difficulty in doing such a task is problematic.Well in that case i level my laser with an accurate spirit level (your laser in the diagram is not level) or lower the initial height to about 40cm and the bulge will prevent the laser to shine upon the other end laserlight receiver (come to that later).For "curvature" calculations I use "Metabunk, Earth's Curve Horizon, Bulge, Drop, and Hidden Calculator" (https://www.metabunk.org/curve/) because it allows the viewer height to be included and also gives extra data like the "dip angle" to the horizon.Thanks !
http://earthcurvature.com/ uses a sphere with a 40,030 km circumference. I would think more than close enough for your desire. Plug in any number you wish.
That shows that over a distance of 5km the bending is roughly 2 meters.(1m at the beginning and 1 m at the end compared to a straight line of 5km)
This is a diagram of the curve over 5 km (with the vertical scale grossly exaggerated).(https://www.dropbox.com/s/r5lnyn771c1h173/5%20km%20Curvature.png?dl=1)Quote from: dutchyWhat happens if i place a precise laser pointer near an extremely flat beach at a height of let's say 80cm and cast a beam towards a specific predetermined point 5 km away on the beach at a height of also 80cm ?No, because the "bulge is only 49 cm. Here are the relevant results from the Metabunk, Earth's Curve Horizon, Bulge, Drop, and Hidden Calculator:
The laser cannot reflect on a specific target over 5km at a height of 80cm , because of the bulge in the middle no matter what the angle of the laser is ?
Is this valid reasoning ?
Distance = 5 km, View Height = 0.8 meters Radius = 6371 km.
Results ignoring refraction
Horizon = 3.19 km, Bulge = 0.49 meters
Hidden= 0.26 meters
Horizon Dip = 0.029 Degrees.
Something like this:(https://www.dropbox.com/s/zq84dmlc0lmx2c7/5%20km%20Curvature%20-%2080%20cm%20Viewing%20Height.png?dl=1)
The height hidden is only 26 cm.
One thing to note is that the horizon (at 3.2 km) is only 0.029° below eye-level. Only accurate surveying instruments can detect that.
<< extra diagram added >>
The question is really simple :
You have seen the flat terrain in the photographs i presented, the curvature numbers are a given ,so what test would proof a flatearth without some lame aftermath ?
I want to know prior to any consideration of outdoors testing what the exact criterea are, instead of finding out it was a waste of time to begin with.
If you are all so sure about your globe then you would be full of confidence !
''show us ''this'' and ''that''....and we accept the earth to be flat''(based on honest and trustworthy numbers)
Why is it so difficult to tell a flatearther what to do to to debunk the current supposed curvature ?
It seems that most gobers hate the idea of any testing.
Even if the REtards agree to an experiment there will be some kind of disagreement to the results, they are brainwashed and cannot fathom a flat result. It simply cannot exist in their minds.
It's difficult to tell anyone how to "debunk" anything that is already proven to be true over and over again, both mathematically and empirically.
Why is it so difficult to tell a flatearther what to do to to debunk the current supposed curvature ?
It seems that most gobers hate the idea of any testing.
Even if the REtards agree to an experiment there will be some kind of disagreement to the results, they are brainwashed and cannot fathom a flat result. It simply cannot exist in their minds.
Are you a flat earther? Have you done any experiments with a result in favour of a flat earth?
I thought you were all just trolls.
Even if the REtards agree to an experiment there will be some kind of disagreement to the results, they are brainwashed and cannot fathom a flat result. It simply cannot exist in their minds.
Are you a flat earther? Have you done any experiments with a result in favour of a flat earth?
I thought you were all just trolls.
not one of the FEIB here have done any experiment or documented research that had an result in proving a flat earth.
either non has ever done a experiment, or the results disproved them and they simply did not tell anybody about the outcomes.
The evidence of the curvature derived form a 40.000km circomference is much harder to obtain than what globers claim !Yes, it is. As I said, measure the curvature of 5 kilometer section of the ring with radius of 3000 km . Tool is here http://obeattie.github.io/gmaps-radius . Draw a circle, zoom in at the edge, get some 5 kilometer section and show me clearly measured curvature. And that is circle with less than twice the earth radius.
Well in that case i level my laser with an accurate spirit levelSpirit levels are not so accurate. If you get even small error then it amplifies with distance. If you get laser even millimeter or half off then at the distance the off part is more than millimeter or half. So, you definitely can't get your laser absolutely level and you must take that in account when looking at results.
As I at least have mentioned a number of times now, it's not about any testing. It's specifically experiments like this, that end up with too many variables. Refraction is a giant unknown in these cases. Even more so because of how close you are to the water. Now, if you could get a measurement of every square inch the laser was going through in order to measure the correct density and compute the change, that seems very worthwhile. But the difficulty in doing such a task is problematic.Thanks, i did pay attention to your first attempt and you make some valid points !!
That being said, even without the measurements, I would expect the experiment to still show certain things. If the laser is placed with a spirit level, and the other end is given ample room so you can find the center, I would expect you to be able to find it. But my suspicion is that it would be lower than the numbers say it should be, but still higher than it should be upon a FE. Alternatively, since it is a man made beach, it could possibly be much closer to a FE result. But I don't know the process used in it's creation. I don't think it's unwise to assume it would have been set up to follow the curve, but that is something I would ask be shown (via records or similar) before the experiment.
Honestly, depending on how difficult it is to do, setting it up within these parameters would be very interesting to see. Especially if you were willing to repeat it daily for a few weeks, with enough accuracy on the measuring end to watch for changes. Or even just weekly or something for a month or two. The idea being to get multiple results for comparison and averages.
Small edit: After re-reading your post, in answer to your question. I would say if every single time you did the experiment, you got a result with the laser at or below the same height as the emitter is, I would concede the Earth must be flat. Presuming of course, you were able to show the beach had in fact been built 'according to the curvature of the Earth' or similar. Without that the results could just as easily be showing they simply made a flat beach. Remember with that said though, accuracy is key. If your laser center is variable by + or - 10 cm or something, it's not all that useful. There is after all only a dip of 40 cm over that distance.
Second edit (these did not end up all that small): Conversely, if these results are compatible with the RE model, will you admit the Earth is round? I see no reason the wager should only be going one way after all.
Of course i would accept a roundearth if a proper test was carried out ....that is the whole idea of testing !Would you need to conduct the test yourself, or would you accept the results of someone else's test?
See, this along with your mention earlier of them being man-made beaches is the only real cause of my hesitation. I would wonder if, being under sea level (and thus largely constructed in some manner? Again, you mentioned the dam things, can't recall the name right now) could have something to do with the flatness you are seeing. I would really want to see more information in regards to how everything was constructed. It seems entirely too plausible it wasn't build with curvature in mind, but rather just to be flat. I struggle some with the way the waves lap, but if it was smoothed or 'flattened' in some manner, would one even be able to see the difference between the waves lapping at one end compared to the other? Standing in the middle of 30 kilo stretch, each end will only be different from yours by less than 20 meters.As I at least have mentioned a number of times now, it's not about any testing. It's specifically experiments like this, that end up with too many variables. Refraction is a giant unknown in these cases. Even more so because of how close you are to the water. Now, if you could get a measurement of every square inch the laser was going through in order to measure the correct density and compute the change, that seems very worthwhile. But the difficulty in doing such a task is problematic.Thanks, i did pay attention to your first attempt and you make some valid points !!
That being said, even without the measurements, I would expect the experiment to still show certain things. If the laser is placed with a spirit level, and the other end is given ample room so you can find the center, I would expect you to be able to find it. But my suspicion is that it would be lower than the numbers say it should be, but still higher than it should be upon a FE. Alternatively, since it is a man made beach, it could possibly be much closer to a FE result. But I don't know the process used in it's creation. I don't think it's unwise to assume it would have been set up to follow the curve, but that is something I would ask be shown (via records or similar) before the experiment.
Honestly, depending on how difficult it is to do, setting it up within these parameters would be very interesting to see. Especially if you were willing to repeat it daily for a few weeks, with enough accuracy on the measuring end to watch for changes. Or even just weekly or something for a month or two. The idea being to get multiple results for comparison and averages.
Small edit: After re-reading your post, in answer to your question. I would say if every single time you did the experiment, you got a result with the laser at or below the same height as the emitter is, I would concede the Earth must be flat. Presuming of course, you were able to show the beach had in fact been built 'according to the curvature of the Earth' or similar. Without that the results could just as easily be showing they simply made a flat beach. Remember with that said though, accuracy is key. If your laser center is variable by + or - 10 cm or something, it's not all that useful. There is after all only a dip of 40 cm over that distance.
Second edit (these did not end up all that small): Conversely, if these results are compatible with the RE model, will you admit the Earth is round? I see no reason the wager should only be going one way after all.
Of course i would accept a roundearth if a proper test was carried out ....that is the whole idea of testing !
But living for 20 years at the beach of the flattest place on earth there is no doubt that the earth is ''flattish''.
I have used the curvature calculator to see if things add up, plus refraction corrections and still i can see way, way further than what i should see.
(https://www.looopings.nl/img/foto/190816summereu1.jpg)
This is the famous Pier in Scheveningen.
The length of the main posts, total height etc are known .
The total Pier is clearly visible through binoculars in towns 20-40 km up North.
The main posts are alway visible at 20km, because the shore gently curves in a way heading North that the ''Pier'' is at an ideal position viewed from the beach up north.
It was the first thing that absolutely didn't make any sense to me when looking into flatearth.
Even at a modest of 20 km distance 18 meters should be hidden and at 40km the total pier should be behind the curvature...even if you add refraction.
I have not much time in daily life, but this is priority one on my list, to take a Nikon P900 and take some nice pictures along the coast....only to confirm my own flatearth bias !
And what you people want to believe, i can not influence of course.....
Even if the REtards agree to an experiment there will be some kind of disagreement to the results, they are brainwashed and cannot fathom a flat result. It simply cannot exist in their minds.No, the REers are not the brainwashed ones. We can easily fathom a flat result, it just wont happen in reality. The best you will get is a result that is incapable of distinguishing between flat and round.
Really? That's a bit sad. I read about a bedford level experiment before I came here but I think it was debunked.When FEers present that experiment they typically only present one set of results (or at most a few that agree with them).
It seems that the globers claim there is huge amount of rock solid proof for the globe that ''anyone'' can check !.Because there is.
But when i show one of the flattest places on earth (artificially created beaches that are as flat as sealevel)You are aware sea level isn't flat? It is level.
and ask what would proof a flatearth it seems extremely hard to proof the very thing they claim is easily proved.No. We discussed proving a round Earth, not a flat Earth. It is impossible to prove a flat Earth as Earth isn't flat.
If the terrain that i have presented and suggested isn't qualified to do a proper curvature test, then we have established at least one thing.No, the terrain wasn't the issue. The air and your misapplied curvature calculation was.
The same applies to photography,.....i am willing to do some test in the future, but i hate the fact that all globular refraction magic will surely manipulate any result i come up with.No, that would be the FEers, using refraction magic and BS atmoplanic lensing to "explain" why the bottom of buildings are missing or why you can't see the bottom of the object.
I think it is wiser to spend my time elsewhere......unless there is a rocksolid agreement prior to a test.We agreed you should do your test. Even if not for us, for yourself.
Well in that case i level my laser with an accurate spirit level (your laser in the diagram is not level) or lower the initial height to about 40cm and the bulge will prevent the laser to shine upon the other end laserlight receiver (come to that later).His diagram is also massively not to scale.
The question is really simple :And you have already been given it.
You have seen the flat terrain in the photographs i presented, the curvature numbers are a given ,so what test would proof a flatearth without some lame aftermath ?
I want to know prior to any consideration of outdoors testing what the exact criterea are, instead of finding out it was a waste of time to begin with.
If you are all so sure about your globe then you would be full of confidence !It isn't. The difficult part seems to be getting flat Earthers to accept that and then go do the test and show the results.
''show us ''this'' and ''that''....and we accept the earth to be flat''(based on honest and trustworthy numbers)
Why is it so difficult to tell a flatearther what to do to to debunk the current supposed curvature ?
But living for 20 years at the beach of the flattest place on earth there is no doubt that the earth is ''flattish''.And you have failed to provide any evidence of this.
I have used the curvature calculator to see if things add up, plus refraction corrections and still i can see way, way further than what i should see.
This is the famous Pier in Scheveningen.And you fail to provide any evidence of this.
The length of the main posts, total height etc are known .
The total Pier is clearly visible through binoculars in towns 20-40 km up North.
The main posts are alway visible at 20km, because the shore gently curves in a way heading North that the ''Pier'' is at an ideal position viewed from the beach up north.
If you are honest and curious enough you would just do the tests.Dutchy you must have a good point because the shills are out enforce. A laser experiment is tough to do and record. A laser beam diffuses across such distances. It is easier to be far away from the beam and look at the laser from a far distance. Jeranism has such examples on his website.It seems that the globers claim there is huge amount of rock solid proof for the globe that ''anyone'' can check !.
But when i show one of the flattest places on earth (artificially created beaches that are as flat as sealevel) and ask what would proof a flatearth it seems extremely hard to proof the very thing they claim is easily proved.
If the terrain that i have presented and suggested isn't qualified to do a proper curvature test, then we have established at least one thing.
The evidence of the curvature derived form a 40.000km circomference is much harder to obtain than what globers claim !
The same applies to photography,.....i am willing to do some test in the future, but i hate the fact that all globular refraction magic will surely manipulate any result i come up with.
I think it is wiser to spend my time elsewhere......unless there is a rocksolid agreement prior to a test.
A bit of both.Of course i would accept a roundearth if a proper test was carried out ....that is the whole idea of testing !Would you need to conduct the test yourself, or would you accept the results of someone else's test?
It is only logical that with far better tools and technology the curvature should be measured, observed and tested with all new technologies at work for a far better result than ''seeing shipmasts disappear'', ''measuring shadows in Cairo with sticks'',''attaching a pendulum to a ceiling'' and more backward attempts that can never have a precise outcome that could be achieved with modern technologies.You mean like it has been with things like theodolites accurately measuring the dip angle to the horizon, and with satellites taking pictures of the curvature from space?
The fact that the far superiour techniques are not used to update the not so precise interpretations of the past is a smoking gun.No. You ignoring them is a smoking gun that you don't care about the truth.
(and also a full north south circomference flight around the poles)Why a flight? Is it because you know a circumnavigation has been done?
And anyone who defends such claims (no further testing of curvature needed) should have a long look in the mirror reflecting the essence of the scientific method.There is a difference between needed and wanted because of delusional nutcases.
It is only logical that with far better tools and technology the curvature should be measured, observed and tested with all new technologies at work for a far better result than ''seeing shipmasts disappear'', ''measuring shadows in Cairo with sticks'',''attaching a pendulum to a ceiling'' and more backward attempts that can never have a precise outcome that could be achieved with modern technologies.So how about we build a particle accelerator that will only function if it is perfectly level over the course of kilometers, and we have to use modern engineering to account for Earth's curvature to build it? Would that be better than ship masts?
There is a difference between needed and wanted because of delusional nutcases.Boehoehoe your precious globe is under attack....you should be proud to show what you've got instead of relying on fake satelite constructs and imaginary cgi.(bundled, photoshopped and interpreted by NASA photoshop personell who have come forward about this. The blue marble is nothing more than a construct according to NASA photoshop artists. And even the ISS timelaps is data gathered from different months/years, glued together, photoshopped and enhanced in every thinkable way ;D)
Do you mind that i raise an eyebrow when they claim to have measured ripples the size of 1/10000 of a proton as indisputable proof for gravitational waves ?It is only logical that with far better tools and technology the curvature should be measured, observed and tested with all new technologies at work for a far better result than ''seeing shipmasts disappear'', ''measuring shadows in Cairo with sticks'',''attaching a pendulum to a ceiling'' and more backward attempts that can never have a precise outcome that could be achieved with modern technologies.So how about we build a particle accelerator that will only function if it is perfectly level over the course of kilometers, and we have to use modern engineering to account for Earth's curvature to build it? Would that be better than ship masts?
Oh wait...we've done that already.
Maybe you could build a particle accelerator designed around a flat earth and see if you can get it to work...
Actually, I was referring to geodetic surveyors. Those are some of the people who actually measure the shape of the earth for a living.A bit of both.Of course i would accept a roundearth if a proper test was carried out ....that is the whole idea of testing !Would you need to conduct the test yourself, or would you accept the results of someone else's test?
You know what i think about Apollo moonlandings and the dozens of anomalies present in the ISS,....i fully dismiss both as pure fantasy and nothing will ever change my mind unless i went to outerspace myself.
But the problems that bedeviled Eupalinus lingered, as surveyors discovered in the 12-mile-long Simplon tunnel in 1901. Surveying by then was a demanding but reliable skill, at least on the earth's surface. Tunnels were different. The Simplon engineers decided to use a sort of gunsight to keep their tunnel headings, which were to be driven straight toward each other, on line. They built two steel frames outside each portal; each of these had a steel plate with a slit in it. They were placed with the utmost care; surveyors measured more than nine hundred angles in setting them. Surveyors could peer from within the tunnel to see if the slits were aligned. This worked well for a while, but the tunnel face, following the earth's curve, appeared to descend 3 feet in each 2-miles. The gunsight had to be moved into the tunnel, and engineers worried that this could cause serious surveying errors.
What i do find laughable is that there is no need for a curvature device or that such a device is non excistent in our modern times with state of the art technologies.I strongly suggest that you have a good, long talk with a professional surveyor sometime and ask them how they deal with the curvature of the earth.
If we can measure 1/10.000 of a proton...I see that you like to bring this up quit a lot. Do you understand how those ultra-precise measurements are made and when they're applicable?
If Cyrus Teed could built a very clever, but somewhat flawed curvature device, surely they could built a proper one now for all to see, test and observe for as long as we ordinary people want.I have no objection to a test. But I also have no need of further proof because it has been proven over and over again in a number of different ways. If you feel those proofs are lacking, then you have every opportunity to actually do the test or tests you want and provide evidence of your own.
The fact that you don't think this is a good idea is telling, because you like to get intimidated by the cosmology club who presents you with placebo proof for the curvature and other outragious claims !
You've been answered by a few others as well, but we have the tools and device to do this. It's used all the time in surveying, which isn't a difficult thing to learn overall. The few I've had a chance to talk to were very happy to discuss what they do and how they do it. But you'll never have an equation or 'universal device' for measuring curvature to those degrees of accuracy, because the Earth isn't a perfect sphere. Add in refraction, which is all but impossible to measure accurately all the time, and it's a pipe dream that no one cares to pursue. There's nothing to be made from doing it. The device isn't going to make you a bunch of money from ordinary people, and surveyors can already do it with their own set of tools I doubt they would be ready to jump on it either.Do you mind that i raise an eyebrow when they claim to have measured ripples the size of 1/10000 of a proton as indisputable proof for gravitational waves ?It is only logical that with far better tools and technology the curvature should be measured, observed and tested with all new technologies at work for a far better result than ''seeing shipmasts disappear'', ''measuring shadows in Cairo with sticks'',''attaching a pendulum to a ceiling'' and more backward attempts that can never have a precise outcome that could be achieved with modern technologies.So how about we build a particle accelerator that will only function if it is perfectly level over the course of kilometers, and we have to use modern engineering to account for Earth's curvature to build it? Would that be better than ship masts?
Oh wait...we've done that already.
Maybe you could build a particle accelerator designed around a flat earth and see if you can get it to work...
Next time they claim to find a ''god particle'', ''string'' and ''dark matter''. :o
Gravitational waves are considered proof for the insiders of the cosmology club !(wonder who dares to disagree though....)
Guess who is funding them ?
Nobody understood at the time that some satelite images of supposed weapons of mass destruction at the disposal of Saddam Hussein were fake as hell.
Did some scientific satelite imagery expert told the media they were fake ?
Did the president tell us they were fake ?
Did the UN tell us they were fake ?
No, no and no.
And there lies the problem,......non of us ordinary men can dispute their cosmological wetdreams.
You can pretend to be more than you are, but i am not buying it for one second.
If Cyrus Teed could built a very clever, but somewhat flawed curvature device, surely they could built a proper one now for all to see, test and observe for as long as we ordinary people want.
The fact that you don't think this is a good idea is telling, because you like to get intimidated by the cosmology club who presents you with placebo proof for the curvature and other outragious claims !
Do you mind that i raise an eyebrow when they claim to have measured ripples the size of 1/10000 of a proton as indisputable proof for gravitational waves ?Whoever claimed that was "indisputable proof for gravitational waves?"
Next time they claim to find a ''god particle'', ''string'' and ''dark matter''. :oWho know?, maybe!
Gravitational waves are considered proof for the insiders of the cosmology club !(wonder who dares to disagree though....)Who claims that? Nothing more than a bit more evidence.
Guess who is funding them ?
Nobody understood at the time that some satelite images of supposed weapons of mass destruction at the disposal of Saddam Hussein were fake as hell.What evidence do you have that "some satelite images of supposed weapons of mass destruction at the disposal of Saddam Hussein were fake as hell"?
Did some scientific satelite imagery expert told the media they were fake ?
Did the president tell us they were fake ?
Did the UN tell us they were fake ?
. . . . . .Here's a pretty complete write-up Turning the Universe Inside-Out. Ulysses Grant Morrow's Naples Experiment.by Donald E. Simanek (https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/hollow/morrow.htm)
If Cyrus Teed could built a very clever, but somewhat flawed curvature device, surely they could built a proper one now for all to see, test and observe for as long as we ordinary people want.
The rectilineator isn't as rigid as it looks.
But there's no such thing as a perfectly rigid body. Bodies flex and warp under load, even under the load of their own weight. A horizontal beam suspended or supported at its center will bend so that the ends droop downward. This can be minimized by suspending or supporting the beam at two points, carefully located. Even then the beam bends somewhat, but in a way that doesn't affect the parallelism at each end. Knowing the materials and the dimensions of the parts, these points can be calculated precisely. Was that done? Morrow doesn't say.
The fact that you don't think this is a good idea is telling,I didn't say it wasn't a good idea, but ideas have to be put into practice. Cyrus Tweed failed and maybe Donald Simanek knows why.
Could the Joshua Nowicki ''superiour mirage'' from the Chicago skyline enter the competition, or was it to much of a ''fata morgana'' to compete in the first place ?Of course the "Joshua Nowicki 'superior mirage' from the Chicago skyline" could "enter the competition", but since it's only 80 km or so he wouldn't bother!
(http://wbnd.images.worldnow.com/images/7602503_G.jpg) Mirage of the Chicago Skyline from Grand Mere State Park | (https://www.dropbox.com/s/yjxzmflh1gtmp1p/01%20-%20Chicago%20from%20New%20Buffalo%2C%20MI%20%2840%20miles%20from%20skyline%29.jpg?dl=1) Chicago from New Buffalo, MI (40 miles from skyline) | (https://www.dropbox.com/s/i9p0yrgjk1yb29a/02%20-%20Chicago%20from%20Michigan%20City%2C%20IN%20%2833%20miles%20from%20skyline%29.jpg?dl=1) Chicago from Michigan City, IN (33 miles from skyline) - the lake ate 1/2 the sun too! |
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/a74zqj83ac2notk/05%20-%20Chicago%20from%20Burns%20Harbor%2C%20IN%20%2826%20miles%20from%20skyline%29.jpg?dl=1) Chicago from Burns Harbor, IN (26 miles from skyline) | (https://www.dropbox.com/s/cjbhblzy89gdvkq/07%20-%20Chicago%20from%20Whiting%2C%20IN%20%2815%20miles%20from%20skyline%29.jpg?dl=1) Chicago from Whiting, IN (15 miles from skyline) | (https://www.dropbox.com/s/288mqa0mef9t4q8/09%20-%20Chicago%20from%20Harold%20Washington%20Park%2C%20IL%20%286%20miles%20from%20skyline%29.jpg?dl=1) Chicago from Harold Washington Park, IL (6 miles from skyline) |
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/qm4wxv0ebm3lj71/Red%20Ship%20with%20Mirage.jpg?dl=1) Red Ship with Mirage | (https://www.dropbox.com/s/0oeff7hm5vflht9/Boats%20disappear%20over%20horizon%20proof%20of%20curvature%20-%20DEBUNKED%2C%20DEBUNKED.jpg?dl=1) Boats disappear over horizon proof of curvature - DEBUNKED, DEBUNKED | (http://www.moillusions.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/floating-Ghost-Boat-580x319.png) And how do you like a :o "flying boat"? :o |
because you like to get intimidated by the cosmology club who presents you with placebo proof for the curvature and other outragious claims !
This is the famous Pier in Scheveningen.I call on your BS. That means the pier should be clearly visible from beach near Haarlem, to be more precise beach next to Zuid-Kennemerland National Park. Maybe you can see a little if you climb on top of some high building/tower but from the ground you definitely don't see it entirely. Its more possible that you don't see it all but maybe in good conditions only the top of it.
The length of the main posts, total height etc are known .
The total Pier is clearly visible through binoculars in towns 20-40 km up North.
Boehoehoe your precious globe is under attackIt isn't mine, it isn't precious, and I wouldn't call throwing shit at it an attack.
you should be proud to show what you've gotWe do, and you just ignore it or dismiss it as fake.
instead of relying on fake satelite constructs and imaginary cgiYou are yet to show it is. So far all the evidence indicates it is real.
(bundled, photoshopped and interpreted by NASA photoshop personell who have come forward about thisIt isn't just NASA. There are numerous space agencies out there.
The blue marble is nothing more than a construct according to NASA photoshop artists.They never claimed it was a single photo of Earth. From the start they indicated it was a collage of multiple pictures.
Why are you so angree that there are people who don't accept this as a presentation of reality ?I'm not angry.
I do have some sympathy for you though,........RiF must have smashed your ego big timeWhy would me continually refuting him have smashed my ego?
Tell me when your anger reaches normal levels again.....My anger is at normal levels.
as indisputable proof for gravitational waves ?Where have they ever claimed it is indisputable proof?
If Cyrus Teed could built a very clever, but somewhat flawed curvature device, surely they could built a proper one now for all to see, test and observe for as long as we ordinary people want.They have. It is called a theolodite. You can even get an app for it on your phone (although that is limited in accuracy).
The fact that you don't think this is a good idea is tellingYes, it is telling that I am a rational human being that realises there will be a significant cost and that people like you will still deny it.
A bit of both.Of course i would accept a roundearth if a proper test was carried out ....that is the whole idea of testing !Would you need to conduct the test yourself, or would you accept the results of someone else's test?
You know what i think about Apollo moonlandings and the dozens of anomalies present in the ISS,....i fully dismiss both as pure fantasy and nothing will ever change my mind unless i went to outerspace myself.
When people have no problem faking just a tiny aspect on some space related occasion, they loose all further credibilty to me !
Without getting into details, trust is extremely delicate, and before i trust any experiment i must understand how it is conducted before i can agree.
...
Funny because the pear shaped spinning earth is a result of ALL the cosmological bullshit you so eagerly try to remove from the discussion !!!
But, to me the cosmology of things far removed from us in distance and time have nothing to do with determining the shape of the earth or whether it rotates. They came long, long before there was any thought of these things.
Just as they came long, long before your nemesis, NASA, was even thought of.
What evidence do you have that "some satelite images of supposed weapons of mass destruction at the disposal of Saddam Hussein were fake as hell"?Exactly ! the whole construct was fake because the photographs could not show non excistent weapons....
If there were any mistakes it would have been in the photo-interpretation. If there was any fakery (not at all unlikely) it was from there to the president, or even . . . . . .
The big problem : The rectilineator isn't as rigid as it looks.I know it, but like always you somehow missed my point.
The thing that flat earth's cannot comprehend is just how small the curvature really is.That is dishonest of you !
you just confirmed that you are extreme intolerant.Only intolerant to proven liars !!
you say nothing will change your believe. with one exception. but this exception will never be happen because even if you would be offered to travel to the ISS, you will refuse with what ever excuse you can up with, i am 100% shure about that.Totally wrong conclusion.
you also said that someone looses credibility when he just lies about a little tiny bit of something.
Than i say that every single person on earth has no credibility. because at one point everyone has lied one time.
Yes i lied and you also lied one time, so did also the person that you believe that tell you that the earth is flat in the first place lied.
So why do you believe other FEIB that has also no credibilities?
I am certain that you will never change your believe, even if you do experiments that shows you that the earth is not flat. you will find excuses to not trust the results.
you do not even have to do experiments, you have simply watch a ship drop below the horizon when it drives away from you or look at a sun set and see how the sun drops below the horizon.
You're being dishonest, whether deliberately or not I don't know. Refraction isn't magic, it's science. You claim that simple evidence like shadow lengths and ship masts aren't sophisticated enough, but evidence that uses more technology is going to depend on science, which you dismiss as "magic".
Your logic is :
There is a curvature line and beyond it buildings, ships will gradually dissapear over the curvature (bottom first)
When people do see far over the curvature some atmospheric magic is responsible for that.
Magic because some images rise for hundreds of meters to allign with the horizon perfectly.
You're being dishonest, whether deliberately or not I don't know. Refraction isn't magic, it's science. You claim that simple evidence like shadow lengths and ship masts aren't sophisticated enough, but evidence that uses more technology is going to depend on science, which you dismiss as "magic".Fail !!!
Funny because the pear shaped spinning earth is a result of ALL the cosmological bullshit you so eagerly try to remove from the discussion !!!
But, to me the cosmology of things far removed from us in distance and time have nothing to do with determining the shape of the earth or whether it rotates. They came long, long before there was any thought of these things.
Just as they came long, long before your nemesis, NASA, was even thought of.
If you are a spinning pear shaped ball believer in the helicentric model then you simple have to swallow all the rest, wether you like to ignore it or not !
Most flatearthers believe in a creator, so the cosmic pea that somehow exploded into a flat universe beyond any comrpehensible size and the rest of the exotic cosmic magic can be dismissed.
I for one trust the biblical accounts and the magic involved in the current cosmological model surpasses the magic needed for a divine creation with ease.QuoteWhat evidence do you have that "some satelite images of supposed weapons of mass destruction at the disposal of Saddam Hussein were fake as hell"?Exactly ! the whole construct was fake because the photographs could not show non excistent weapons....
If there were any mistakes it would have been in the photo-interpretation. If there was any fakery (not at all unlikely) it was from there to the president, or even . . . . . .
It is proof that authorities can fake photographs with ease.
1 Real photographs with deliberate false implications (example : studio photographs they claim are recorded on the moon)
2 Photoshopped photographs with leading assumptions (example : ISS timelaps, blue marble, dark moon crossing earth)
3 Real photographs that helps to clarify a real situation (example : a girl and other victims burned after a US napalm bombardment in 'Nam that shows what is really going on)
NASA, the government, the military hardly ever use the third option,....it's against their nature full of deceit and corruption.
They show photographs to help them carry out their evil agenda's.
My point is ,nobody seemed to have noticed and nobody cared (Saddam photographs)...poor. poor inhabitants of Iraque who had to pay dearly because of it.
The chances that outerspace is a reality as shown by NASA and other space agencies is absolutely zero, when are you finally going to lift the veil of your own mind ??QuoteThe big problem : The rectilineator isn't as rigid as it looks.I know it, but like always you somehow missed my point.
I have never claimed it to be correct or anything, simply stating that Teed put a lot of effort into a clever device that globers did not need, because their magic pendulum had swung and the answer was ''YES'' the earth is a sphere ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;DQuoteThe thing that flat earth's cannot comprehend is just how small the curvature really is.That is dishonest of you !
Globers have claimed for very long to see a curve from an airplane window or the high mountains or even Burj Khalifa !!!
I have told you that before, but you seem to ignore that.
If any group did not understand how small the curvature is, it must have been your average glober not flatearthers.
Most flatearthers undertsand the 8 inches per mile squared from the very beginning.....you should ask the average glober on the streets about that !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And my answer to your photographic evidence is my logic !!
The default situation is we can see far away in the distance...way further than the supposed curvature line.
The amount of moisture in the air , temperature differences etc. are responsible for obscuring or distorting what can be seen on a good day with all sorts of strange results.
Your logic is :
There is a curvature line and beyond it buildings, ships will gradually dissapear over the curvature (bottom first)
When people do see far over the curvature some atmospheric magic is responsible for that.
Magic because some images rise for hundreds of meters to allign with the horizon perfectly.
Here is a very good example of the flip flopping magic you support, or it shows reality albite with a bit distortion because of the distances :
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/GIReYEWWmhs/maxresdefault.jpg)
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/__liPsAYnJs/maxresdefault.jpg)
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/nwGyJioT_xY/hqdefault.jpg)
This is what can be seen more than 30 miles away on a good day !!!!
No amount of refractional magic can make this fit into your globe model.
First of all, you've provided no information about where these photographs were taken and from what height. You claim 30+ miles, but don't substantiate that claim which makes it conveniently difficult for others to try to duplicate the phenomenon.You're being dishonest, whether deliberately or not I don't know. Refraction isn't magic, it's science. You claim that simple evidence like shadow lengths and ship masts aren't sophisticated enough, but evidence that uses more technology is going to depend on science, which you dismiss as "magic".Fail !!!
I believe in refraction,....not in back flip flopping mirages that defy all odds.
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/8HP6piRXKPo/hqdefault.jpg)
This is recorded 30+ miles out....the Rogers centre should be over the curvature in it's totallity when the numbers are inserted into your globe curvature calculator + refraction
you just confirmed that you are extreme intolerant.Only intolerant to proven liars !!Quoteyou say nothing will change your believe. with one exception. but this exception will never be happen because even if you would be offered to travel to the ISS, you will refuse with what ever excuse you can up with, i am 100% shure about that.Totally wrong conclusion.
you also said that someone looses credibility when he just lies about a little tiny bit of something.
Than i say that every single person on earth has no credibility. because at one point everyone has lied one time.
Yes i lied and you also lied one time, so did also the person that you believe that tell you that the earth is flat in the first place lied.
So why do you believe other FEIB that has also no credibilities?
I am certain that you will never change your believe, even if you do experiments that shows you that the earth is not flat. you will find excuses to not trust the results.
you do not even have to do experiments, you have simply watch a ship drop below the horizon when it drives away from you or look at a sun set and see how the sun drops below the horizon.
If one single photograph of the moonlandings was shot in a studio set up without anyone noticing it means :
That we have no certainty whatsoever about all other photographic outerspace evidence.
If one fake moon Apollo photograph could pass the reality test without anyone noticing, all other photographic evidence could be faked too !!!
You do understand this logic,....do you ?
Therefor they have to defend each and every photograph from their huge Apollo and other outerspace arsenal.
Because NASA does understand what it means when ONE single fakery would be revealed !!!
That is what i find so amusing over here, the NASA fanboys have to defend each and every uhh non destroyed photograph ever recorded and label it as genuine, because all of the photographic evidence will collapse like a house of cards if one single photograph was taken in a studio instead of the moon/mars after all.
Therefor they have to defend ALL at all times. ;D
I hope they don't leave to many coke bottles lying around in the studio 8)
The thing is Dutchy they have built such devices you just ignore them or call them fake.Do you mind that i raise an eyebrow when they claim to have measured ripples the size of 1/10000 of a proton as indisputable proof for gravitational waves ?It is only logical that with far better tools and technology the curvature should be measured, observed and tested with all new technologies at work for a far better result than ''seeing shipmasts disappear'', ''measuring shadows in Cairo with sticks'',''attaching a pendulum to a ceiling'' and more backward attempts that can never have a precise outcome that could be achieved with modern technologies.So how about we build a particle accelerator that will only function if it is perfectly level over the course of kilometers, and we have to use modern engineering to account for Earth's curvature to build it? Would that be better than ship masts?
Oh wait...we've done that already.
Maybe you could build a particle accelerator designed around a flat earth and see if you can get it to work...
Next time they claim to find a ''god particle'', ''string'' and ''dark matter''. :o
Gravitational waves are considered proof for the insiders of the cosmology club !(wonder who dares to disagree though....)
Guess who is funding them ?
Nobody understood at the time that some satelite images of supposed weapons of mass destruction at the disposal of Saddam Hussein were fake as hell.
Did some scientific satelite imagery expert told the media they were fake ?
Did the president tell us they were fake ?
Did the UN tell us they were fake ?
No, no and no.
And there lies the problem,......non of us ordinary men can dispute their cosmological wetdreams.
You can pretend to be more than you are, but i am not buying it for one second.
If Cyrus Teed could built a very clever, but somewhat flawed curvature device, surely they could built a proper one now for all to see, test and observe for as long as we ordinary people want.
The fact that you don't think this is a good idea is telling, because you like to get intimidated by the cosmology club who presents you with placebo proof for the curvature and other outragious claims !
I guess that shows exactly how deceitful dutchy is. As with every presentation from flat earthers they must misrepresent something to deceive their viewers and to get desired results.
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/nwGyJioT_xY/hqdefault.jpg)
This is what can be seen more than 30 miles away on a good day !!!!
No amount of refractional magic can make this fit into your globe model.
i live in "close" distance to that point.
you can clearly see that the zoomed in picture is taken not form waterlevel, it is taken from a higher viewpoint.
[youtube][/youtube]I guess that shows exactly how deceitful dutchy is. As with every presentation from flat earthers they must misrepresent something to deceive their viewers and to get desired results.
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/nwGyJioT_xY/hqdefault.jpg)
This is what can be seen more than 30 miles away on a good day !!!!
No amount of refractional magic can make this fit into your globe model.
i live in "close" distance to that point.
you can clearly see that the zoomed in picture is taken not form waterlevel, it is taken from a higher viewpoint.
Umm... You do realize that the video is debunking FE claims, don't you?Yes of course i understand every possible observation fits into your magic model. i have been here long enough to understand that.
Just as an FYI, any time that you see heat shimmers near the horizon, that's a sure sign that some form of atmospheric refraction is present.Umm... You do realize that the video is debunking FE claims, don't you?Yes of course i understand every possible observation fits into your magic model. i have been here long enough to understand that.
The magic ball always prevails !!
[youtube][/youtube]I guess that shows exactly how deceitful dutchy is. As with every presentation from flat earthers they must misrepresent something to deceive their viewers and to get desired results.
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/nwGyJioT_xY/hqdefault.jpg)
This is what can be seen more than 30 miles away on a good day !!!!
No amount of refractional magic can make this fit into your globe model.
i live in "close" distance to that point.
you can clearly see that the zoomed in picture is taken not form waterlevel, it is taken from a higher viewpoint.
I demand an apology from both of you !!!
for what?You can clearly see it's taken from the waterlevel at eyeheight ....contrary to your insinuations.
that you trust pictures without any information from where they were taken and under which circumstances and do not believe somebody that tell you what you can see because that person did see it by himself.
i could more demand an apology for me accusing of lying.
what about the explanations for the videos?
for what?You can clearly see it's taken from the waterlevel at eyeheight ....contrary to your insinuations.
that you trust pictures without any information from where they were taken and under which circumstances and do not believe somebody that tell you what you can see because that person did see it by himself.
i could more demand an apology for me accusing of lying.
what about the explanations for the videos?
The video explains itself perfectly with the required details, if you'd be bothered to watch it when zooming in and out towards Toronto.
Any discussion with you is futile, i might as well skipp the idea of any decent possibility in that direction all together.
Bye !
[youtube][/youtube]I guess that shows exactly how deceitful dutchy is. As with every presentation from flat earthers they must misrepresent something to deceive their viewers and to get desired results.
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/nwGyJioT_xY/hqdefault.jpg)
This is what can be seen more than 30 miles away on a good day !!!!
No amount of refractional magic can make this fit into your globe model.
i live in "close" distance to that point.
you can clearly see that the zoomed in picture is taken not form waterlevel, it is taken from a higher viewpoint.
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/__liPsAYnJs/maxresdefault.jpg)
I demand an apology from both of you !!!
YOU can clearly see it's taken from water level, because that's what you want to see.for what?You can clearly see it's taken from the waterlevel at eyeheight ....contrary to your insinuations.
that you trust pictures without any information from where they were taken and under which circumstances and do not believe somebody that tell you what you can see because that person did see it by himself.
i could more demand an apology for me accusing of lying.
what about the explanations for the videos?
The video explains itself perfectly with the required details, if you'd be bothered to watch it when zooming in and out towards Toronto.
for what?You can clearly see it's taken from the waterlevel at eyeheight ....contrary to your insinuations.
that you trust pictures without any information from where they were taken and under which circumstances and do not believe somebody that tell you what you can see because that person did see it by himself.
i could more demand an apology for me accusing of lying.
what about the explanations for the videos?
The video explains itself perfectly with the required details, if you'd be bothered to watch it when zooming in and out towards Toronto.
Any discussion with you is futile, i might as well skipp the idea of any decent possibility in that direction all together.
Bye !
I know, but thanks anyway....he is a flatearther i always follow !
Here Jeranism is working on a test, showing the parameters and test area. IDK if he has completed the test yet or not, but it looks promising.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/K1gCLhByQH4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
You don't need an online calculator. There is a chart in this link and the formula for calculating it yourself. The REtards even agree it is correct.Samuel Birley Rowbotham was the first one i read about when researching flatearth....even before Eric Dubay took his own direction and started to post video's and accused the flatearth society of being an uncontroled shillfest ;D
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za05.htm
The whole book is on this link.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/
Why is it you believe 77 meters of refraction is not possible? I would like to see whatever it is that has led you to this conclusion.
Accoding to the curvature calculator 127 meters should be hidden behind the curvature if i photograph from IJmuiden from 1.80m eyeheight at the beach.
That means that without taking refraction into consideration the Ferris wheel is not visible by a whopping 77 meters behind the curvature.
If i can somehow record this Ferris wheel from the proposed distance i will show you the results of undeniable proof !
I will have to wait for the dry season, because visuality the coming weeks is extremely poor.
They have the hardcore numbers of their curvature, but always end up by adding truckloads of refraction and other magic to dismiss any evidence.Again, refraction isn't magic, it's science, even when it goes further than you think it ought to for reasons.
I simply have to find out what they consider as indisputable proof.
We'll see when i pan my camera along the entire beach what refraction does........Why is it you believe 77 meters of refraction is not possible? I would like to see whatever it is that has led you to this conclusion.
Accoding to the curvature calculator 127 meters should be hidden behind the curvature if i photograph from IJmuiden from 1.80m eyeheight at the beach.
That means that without taking refraction into consideration the Ferris wheel is not visible by a whopping 77 meters behind the curvature.
If i can somehow record this Ferris wheel from the proposed distance i will show you the results of undeniable proof !
I will have to wait for the dry season, because visuality the coming weeks is extremely poor.
Also, understand that this is an all or nothing proposition for you. Seeing the top of the Ferris Wheel only and not the bottom indicates curvature, even if it's not the curvature that you're calculating. It is not enough to see the Ferris Wheel from "too far away" unless you see the entire pier, without any bulge blocking the bottom. Any part at the bottom not visible is blocked by a curve, proving that the surface is not flat.
Just know that going in.
You don't really know much about vanishing points and perspective do you ?They have the hardcore numbers of their curvature, but always end up by adding truckloads of refraction and other magic to dismiss any evidence.Again, refraction isn't magic, it's science, even when it goes further than you think it ought to for reasons.
I simply have to find out what they consider as indisputable proof.
What you would need for indisputable proof is to show something impossibly far away, by the numbers, that is not occluded at all by a bulge in the Earth. The pictures of Toronto you showed are missing the bottom of the city. What exactly do you think is preventing you from seeing that?
In fact, why stop at a Ferris Wheel? Turn your camera out to sea and give us a picture of England. No curve means there should be an unobstructed view. Don't settle for a 45 km parlor trick when you could deliver something monumental in scope. You show me a picture of England from the Netherlands (subject to authenticity and verification) and you will have my attention.
You don't really know much about vanishing points and perspective do you ?You think you can't see an 1300 km long island across only 300-400 km of ocean because of "vanishing points" and "perspective?????
You cannot see England because of it , unless of course i went to a high altitude !!
Besides that, we have a Maritime climate...dry weather with great visuality isn't as common as in many places of the United States.
For what? You presented above image as both were taken from same place and from same height. They were not.I demand an apology from both of you !!!I guess that shows exactly how deceitful dutchy is. As with every presentation from flat earthers they must misrepresent something to deceive their viewers and to get desired results.
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/nwGyJioT_xY/hqdefault.jpg)
This is what can be seen more than 30 miles away on a good day !!!!
No amount of refractional magic can make this fit into your globe model.
i live in "close" distance to that point.
you can clearly see that the zoomed in picture is taken not form waterlevel, it is taken from a higher viewpoint.
At the risk of derailing this again on another topic, can you explain the exact limits of perspective? Because from my understanding of how FE claims it should work, there should be a set distance you can see and no more. Going higher shouldn't allow you to see further. If you feel there is a lot to this I'd be more than happy to open up another thread, because nothing I've seen about it matches what is taught and there appears to be no consistency to it.You don't really know much about vanishing points and perspective do you ?They have the hardcore numbers of their curvature, but always end up by adding truckloads of refraction and other magic to dismiss any evidence.Again, refraction isn't magic, it's science, even when it goes further than you think it ought to for reasons.
I simply have to find out what they consider as indisputable proof.
What you would need for indisputable proof is to show something impossibly far away, by the numbers, that is not occluded at all by a bulge in the Earth. The pictures of Toronto you showed are missing the bottom of the city. What exactly do you think is preventing you from seeing that?
In fact, why stop at a Ferris Wheel? Turn your camera out to sea and give us a picture of England. No curve means there should be an unobstructed view. Don't settle for a 45 km parlor trick when you could deliver something monumental in scope. You show me a picture of England from the Netherlands (subject to authenticity and verification) and you will have my attention.
You cannot see England because of it , unless of course i went to a high altitude !!
Besides that, we have a Maritime climate...dry weather with great visuality isn't as common as in many places of the United States.
You don't really know much about vanishing points and perspective do you ?They have the hardcore numbers of their curvature, but always end up by adding truckloads of refraction and other magic to dismiss any evidence.Again, refraction isn't magic, it's science, even when it goes further than you think it ought to for reasons.
I simply have to find out what they consider as indisputable proof.
What you would need for indisputable proof is to show something impossibly far away, by the numbers, that is not occluded at all by a bulge in the Earth. The pictures of Toronto you showed are missing the bottom of the city. What exactly do you think is preventing you from seeing that?
In fact, why stop at a Ferris Wheel? Turn your camera out to sea and give us a picture of England. No curve means there should be an unobstructed view. Don't settle for a 45 km parlor trick when you could deliver something monumental in scope. You show me a picture of England from the Netherlands (subject to authenticity and verification) and you will have my attention.
You cannot see England because of it , unless of course i went to a high altitude !!
Besides that, we have a Maritime climate...dry weather with great visuality isn't as common as in many places of the United States.
i know a but about vanishing points and perspective.Of course it is.....objects in the distance are scrambled together at some point.
you can not use that to explain that something that is far away drops below the horizon.
perspective is a tool in drawings to let objects look smaller that are further away.
in this tool of perspective drawing you use a vanishing point to be able to get the correct ratio the objects get smaller according to the distance.
this vanishing point does not exist in the reality.
also in the drawings, the vanishing point is always located in the direction you are looking in the drawing.
if you would look horizontal and parallel to your flat earth, you would look at the far object at the same height as your viewpoint.
than the drawing lines that start below your view point would be drawn upwards.
if you than would zoom in you would be able tho see the whole object and it would never drop below the horizon.
you see that perspective drawing is not usable as an argument for Flat Earth.
...you do not understand perspective.
Of course it is.....objects in the distance are scrambled together at some point.
An 83x zoom is not a magic tool !
(https://www.energieplus.nl/library/news/4124.jpg)
Let say we had a flat surface with 400 km of windmills placed behind eachoter in the exact amount of distance in between,......we reach the point that everything blurs into a vanishing point accordingly when viewed from the ground.
Colours, contrast, sharp edges all dissapear untill it is impossible to distinguish any windmill at all.
If you change the angle by raising your camera considerably we can see further of course.
...
The height of the waves interfering with our line of sight for instance ?...you do not understand perspective.
Of course it is.....objects in the distance are scrambled together at some point.
An 83x zoom is not a magic tool !
(https://www.energieplus.nl/library/news/4124.jpg)
Let say we had a flat surface with 400 km of windmills placed behind eachoter in the exact amount of distance in between,......we reach the point that everything blurs into a vanishing point accordingly when viewed from the ground.
Colours, contrast, sharp edges all dissapear untill it is impossible to distinguish any windmill at all.
If you change the angle by raising your camera considerably we can see further of course.
...
the vanishing point is and imaginary point it does not exist in reality.
why would you be able to see further if you raise you viewpoint?
what is different between 1m high and 10m high?
yes the atmospheric pressure change a little bit, but that changes way more with the weather.Nonsense i went to the euromast several times and was amazed how limited the view was on most occasions do to atmospheric interference.
the only explanation is the earth curvature
You said it yourself that you do not know much about vanishing points and perspective therefore i explained it to you.You did not comment on the photograph though......
Let say we had a flat surface with 400 km of windmills placed behind eachoter in the exact amount of distance in between,......we reach the point that everything blurs into a vanishing point accordingly when viewed from the ground.Sure, if you're looking down a 400 km line of windmills they will fade together like your picture. What if you're not looking down the line? What if the line extends to the left and right instead of moving away from you? Do you honestly believe 400 km of windmills to your left and right will vanish to a single point? You maintain you can see a 50m wide Ferris wheel over a distance nearly 100 times its visible surface, and yet the island of Britain is about 1300 km long and behind almost the entire Netherlands horizon, and it will somehow come to a vanishing point after a distance of less than 0.33 times it's visible edge?
Colours, contrast, sharp edges all dissapear untill it is impossible to distinguish any windmill at all.
Let say we had a flat surface with 400 km of windmills placed behind eachoter in the exact amount of distance in between,......we reach the point that everything blurs into a vanishing point accordingly when viewed from the ground.I will acknowledge that waves could be an issue. It's hard to imagine a wave stretching for the entire 1300 km of Britain, but just in case, I have modified my proposal.
Colours, contrast, sharp edges all dissapear untill it is impossible to distinguish any windmill at all.
If you change the angle by raising your camera considerably we can see further of course.
I commented on someone claiming i should photograph England from eyelevel instead of Scheveningen.
This is impossible the more when you realise that waves (higher than 1.80,...the highest wave measured on the Northsea was a whopping 26 meters) easily interfere with our line of sight in the middle of the Northsea.
Don't tell me you think that photographing England from eyelevel standing on the beach in the Netherlands should be possible if the earth was flat.
How do you think i could see that with a camera ?Camera has better angular resolution than your eyes. Thats why you zee things when you zoom in. But you still don't see bottom part of objects however much you zoom in.
If you are still onto the "pear shaped spinning earth" you're not prepared for any serious debate. I wrote specifically in reply to you about the total dishonesty of using that stupid out of context description to ridicule what you can't understand.But, to me the cosmology of things far removed from us in distance and time have nothing to do with determining the shape of the earth or whether it rotates. They came long, long before there was any thought of these things.Funny because the pear shaped spinning earth is a result of ALL the cosmological bullshit you so eagerly try to remove from the discussion !!!
Just as they came long, long before your nemesis, NASA, was even thought of.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/74188698/NeilTysonOriginsA-Crop_400x400.jpg) | "Earth is not only oblate — wider at the equator than pole-to-pole, but pear shaped — slightly wider just south of the equator. Sep. 19, 2014". In case you cannot understand the words "slightly wider" that means just a little bit wider. Maybe for people like flat-earthers, out to dishonestly trap someone on every word spoken, he might have said "very slightly wider". But, the earth is almost precisely an oblate spheroid (ellipsoid if you like) having a polar diameter of 12,714 km and an equatorial diameter of 12, 756 km, only 0.34% different. And the deviation from this ellipsoid is no more than a couple of hundred metres. You might say "who cares?" and on the surface, it would not seem to matter. The uncorrected GPS altitude, however, is from the "reference ellipsoid" and you would not want that out by a couple of hundred metres. |
If you are a spinning pear shaped ball believer in the helicentric model then you simple have to swallow all the rest, wether you like to ignore it or not !Don't you tell me what I have to swallow!
You flat earthers are a weird mob. You claim that "The earth is at rest, just like you feel it!"
But here we have th3rm0m3t3r0 suggesting that the "entire universe" accelerates upwards at ~9.8 m/s2.The traditional model involves a force known as universal acceleration. This entails the Earth being accelerated "upwards" at ~9.8 m/s2. My idea is that it's not just the Earth doing it, it's the entire universe. This solves and relativistic issues caused by the UA (universal accelerator).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
And the Flat Earth Society has similar ideas,QuoteGravitySo not only do we have the earth accelerating upwards at g, but the Wiki invokes Einstein's Special Relativity to justify part of it!
In the Flat Earth model, 'gravity', rather than being a force, is the upward acceleration of the Earth. The Earth always accelerates upward at 1g, which is equivalent to the gravitational acceleration in the Round Earth model. Like the force of gravity, the Earth's acceleration causes several commonly observed phenomena in our daily lives.
Universal Acceleration' is a theory of gravity within the Flat Earth Model. The traditional theory of gravity (e.g. Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, General Theory of Relativity, etc) is incompatible with the Flat Earth Model because it requires a large, spherical mass pulling objects uniformly toward its center.
Rather than a downward pull due to the presence of mass, the theory of Universal Acceleration asserts that the roughly disk-shaped Earth is accelerating 'upward' at a constant rate of 1g (9.8m/sec^2). This produces the effect commonly referred to as "gravity".
There are two Universal Acceleration models. The first model deals with the Universal Accelerator, which sits underneath the Earth and accelerates anything it touches. The second model deals with Dark Energy, which accelerates all celestial bodies, including the Earth, in the universe. Modern astrophysics accounts that the expansion of the universe is due to Dark Energy.
VELOCITY OF THE EARTH
According to the Special theory of Relativity, the Earth can accelerate forever without reaching or passing the speed of light. Relative to an observer on Earth, the Earth's acceleration will always be 1g. Relative to an inertial observer in the universe, however, the Earth's acceleration decreases as the its velocity approaches c. It all depends on our frame of reference to measure and explain the Earth's motion. Thus, despite what most people think, there is no absolute "speed"; or velocity of the Earth.
Now, dutchy, these are not my words. They are from "the Wiki" and many flat earthers accept this UA idea.
I don't accept this stuff!
My earth is a Globe that rotates sedately at one revolution in about and 23 hours and 54 minutes and orbits the sun in about 365.24 days.
That makes far more sense to me than all this gobbledegook about all the differing explanations of gravity that your mob come up with.
Most flatearthers believe in a creator, so the cosmic pea that somehow exploded into a flat universe beyond any comrpehensible size and the rest of the exotic cosmic magic can be dismissed.But many flatearthers do not believe in a creator and many who believe the earth is a Globe do believe in a creator - that is no argument.
I for one trust the biblical accounts and the magic involved in the current cosmological model surpasses the magic needed for a divine creation with ease.No, you insist that your interpretation of "the biblical accounts" even though many millions disagree with that interpretation.
No, it is an indication that aerial or satellite photos are hard to interpret!QuoteWhat evidence do you have that "some satelite images of supposed weapons of mass destruction at the disposal of Saddam Hussein were fake as hell"?Exactly ! the whole construct was fake because the photographs could not show non excistent weapons....
If there were any mistakes it would have been in the photo-interpretation. If there was any fakery (not at all unlikely) it was from there to the president, or even . . . . . .
It is proof that authorities can fake photographs with ease.
1 Real photographs with deliberate false implications (example : studio photographs they claim are recorded on the moon)Proof thank you! There were numerous photos of mockups and "real" Apollo modules photographed during testing and crew training, so what?
2 Photoshopped photographs with leading assumptions (example : ISS timelaps, blue marble, dark moon crossing earth)What is wrong with ISS time lapses?
3 Real photographs that helps to clarify a real situation (example : a girl and other victims burned after a US napalm bombardment in 'Nam that shows what is really going on)Reprehensible as that is, it is totally irrelevant to NASA or any discussion on the shape of the earth
NASA, the government, the military hardly ever use the third option,....it's against their nature full of deceit and corruption.
They show photographs to help them carry out their evil agenda's.
My point is, nobody seemed to have noticed and nobody cared (Saddam photographs)...poor. poor inhabitants of Iraque who had to pay dearly because of it.
The chances that outerspace is a reality as shown by NASA and other space agencies is absolutely zero, when are you finally going to lift the veil of your own mind ??It would be far more accurate to say
Funny because the pear shaped spinning earth is a result of ALL the cosmological bullshit you so eagerly try to remove from the discussion !!!Again, that is just part of the explanation for why. It isn't needing to show Earth is round.
If you are a spinning pear shaped ball believer in the helicentric model then you simple have to swallow all the rest, wether you like to ignore it or not !
Most flatearthers believe in a creator, so the cosmic pea that somehow exploded into a flat universe beyond any comrpehensible size and the rest of the exotic cosmic magic can be dismissed.Nope. No magic is required in the current cosmological model. Fare more is needed for your biblical bullshit, including the very magic that is needed to have your god exist in the first place.
I for one trust the biblical accounts and the magic involved in the current cosmological model surpasses the magic needed for a divine creation with ease.
Exactly ! the whole construct was fake because the photographs could not show non excistent weapons....Are you capable of providing these photos clearly showing weapons of mass destruction? Until you do, it is not proof of anything.
It is proof that authorities can fake photographs with ease.
NASA, the government, the military hardly ever use the third option,....it's against their nature full of deceit and corruption.Sure they do, such as the countless images from space you just ignore.
They show photographs to help them carry out their evil agenda's.
The chances that outerspace is a reality as shown by NASA and other space agencies is absolutely zero, when are you finally going to lift the veil of your own mind ??Perhaps when you provide proof for your baseless claims?
I have never claimed it to be correct or anything, simply stating that Teed put a lot of effort into a clever device that globers did not needAnd it was not enough to actually get a result. As such it was an entire waste.
their magic pendulum had swung and the answer was ''YES'' the earth is a sphereYou mean the real pendulum based upon real physics that showed Earth was rotating.
And my answer to your photographic evidence is my logic !!Yes, your special logic which is pure bullshit rather than actual logic.
The default situation is we can see far away in the distance...way further than the supposed curvature line.You mean the supposed curvature line for a vacuum and a perfect sphere?
The amount of moisture in the air , temperature differences etc. are responsible for obscuring or distorting what can be seen on a good day with all sorts of strange results.Yes, exactly as you would expect.
This is what can be seen more than 30 miles away on a good day !!!!Still clearly showing a large section of the buildings missing, which would not be the case on a flat Earth. Additionally, there is no indication of height of the observation so no indication that it wouldn't be expected on a round Earth.
Only intolerant to proven liars !!Except you are yet to prove they are liars.
Totally wrong conclusion.And you are yet to show this to be the case.
If one single photograph of the moonlandings was shot in a studio set up without anyone noticing it means :
[youtube][/youtube]Show you just show your own dishonesty, where it wasn't hidden due to the curve, it just appeared too small to see.
I demand an apology from both of you !!!
You don't really know much about vanishing points and perspective do you ?I know a lot about it. You clearly don't.
You cannot see England because of it , unless of course i went to a high altitude !!
Besides that, we have a Maritime climate...dry weather with great visuality isn't as common as in many places of the United States.
Of course it is.....objects in the distance are scrambled together at some point.And by zooming in, they are not.
Don't tell me you think that photographing England from eyelevel standing on the beach in the Netherlands should be possible if the earth was flat.Then go higher. Say 50 m?
I don't know whether he knows much about it or not but it seems like you don't.You don't really know much about vanishing points and perspective do you ?They have the hardcore numbers of their curvature, but always end up by adding truckloads of refraction and other magic to dismiss any evidence.Again, refraction isn't magic, it's science, even when it goes further than you think it ought to for reasons.
I simply have to find out what they consider as indisputable proof.
What you would need for indisputable proof is to show something impossibly far away, by the numbers, that is not occluded at all by a bulge in the Earth. The pictures of Toronto you showed are missing the bottom of the city. What exactly do you think is preventing you from seeing that?
In fact, why stop at a Ferris Wheel? Turn your camera out to sea and give us a picture of England. No curve means there should be an unobstructed view. Don't settle for a 45 km parlor trick when you could deliver something monumental in scope. You show me a picture of England from the Netherlands (subject to authenticity and verification) and you will have my attention.
You cannot see England because of it , unless of course i went to a high altitude !!
Besides that, we have a Maritime climate...dry weather with great visuality isn't as common as in many places of the United States.
I fail to see you point.The big problem : The rectilineator isn't as rigid as it looks.I know it, but like always you somehow missed my point.
I have never claimed it to be correct or anything, simply stating that Teed put a lot of effort into a clever device that globers did not need, because their magic pendulum had swung and the answer was ''YES'' the earth is a sphere ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
You have "told me" lots of things without any basis before, so what? What about a little justification for your claims.QuoteThe thing that flat earthers cannot comprehend is just how small the curvature really is.That is dishonest of you !
Globers have claimed for very long to see a curve from an airplane window or the high mountains or even Burj Khalifa !!!
I have told you that before, but you seem to ignore that.
If any group did not understand how small the curvature is, it must have been your average glober not flatearthers.No most flat earthers completely misunderstand the "8 inches per mile squared" and think it gives the height of the bulge and the hieight hidden.
Most flatearthers undertsand the 8 inches per mile squared from the very beginning.....
you should ask the average glober on the streets about that !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Probably true, sumply because most people don't give the matter much thought. They justs go about their life accepting the "status quo".
And my answer to your photographic evidence is my logic !!Well, it's up to you to prove that is the "default case" then! It is complicated by most of these photographs being over water, where there is often a big difference between the water temperature and the general air temperature.
The default situation is we can see far away in the distance...way further than the supposed curvature line.
The amount of moisture in the air , temperature differences etc. are responsible for obscuring or distorting what can be seen on a good day with all sorts of strange results.I guess so do "align with the horizon perfectly" and some appear even high above the horizon as in
Your logic is :
There is a curvature line and beyond it buildings, ships will gradually dissapear over the curvature (bottom first)
When people do see far over the curvature some atmospheric magic is responsible for that.
Magic because some images rise for hundreds of meters to allign with the horizon perfectly.
Really? You don't believe in mirages!
You don't accept mirages - read: MIRAGES IN FINLAND, You can observe shifting horizons, eerie ships and other mirages along the Finnish coastline. (https://finland.fi/life-society/mirages-in-finland/)Neither does anyone doubt that we sometimes see quite large ships well above the water nor sailing boats flying.No, seeing that sort of thing a few times is evidence of nothing more than uncommon optical effects and they have been observed for centuries,
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/g98t4nz8daf3fc4/Red%20Ship%20with%20Mirage.jpg?dl=1)
The Red Ship Rides above the Ocean!
(http://www.moillusions.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/floating-Ghost-Boat-580x319.png)
And how do you like a :o "flying boat"? :o
;D knew that the earth was a Globe. ;D(https://www.wired.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Superior_mirage_of_the_boats_paintinga.jpg)
This is a drawing, but of a sighting that
may have led to the Flying Dutchman myth
Here is a very good example of the flip flopping magic you supportNo it's not - and I thought that YOU were the expert. A Professor once said to me (just to "cheer me up" when entering an exam room)
, or it shows reality albite with a bit distortion because of the distances :Give me a photo of what "can be seen more than 30 miles away on a good day" and I won't need any "refractional magic". Look at your photos a bit more critically!
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/GIReYEWWmhs/maxresdefault.jpg)
This is what can be seen more than 30 miles away on a good day !!!!(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/nwGyJioT_xY/hqdefault.jpg)
No amount of refractional magic can make this fit into your globe model.
| (https://orchardparkway.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/toronto-at-sunset.jpg?w=640&h=423) Toronto 30 miles across Lake Ontario. The Lewiston GardenFest Comes to a Close, Posted on July 16, 2014 (https://gardenwalkgardentalk.com/2014/07/16/lake-ontario-at-sunset-the-lewiston-gardenfest-comes-to-a-close/) | (https://www.dropbox.com/s/wartlb8qug60wgt/Toronto%2030%20miles%20across%20Lake%20Ontario%20Scazon%2C%20%20c1.staticflickr.com-5-4085-5088326292_0e12a1652e_b.jpg?dl=1) Toronto across Lake Ontario On a clear day, which it was, you can see Toronto across Lake Ontario from Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ontario (it's only about 30 miles or 50 km). A Great Black-backed Gull (Larus marinus) is flying close to shore. |
Sure, the Heliocentric Globe "always prevails" because "every possible observation fitsUmm... You do realize that the video is debunking FE claims, don't you?Yes of course i understand every possible observation fits into your magic model. i have been here long enough to understand that.
The magic ball always prevails !!
| (https://www.dropbox.com/s/abvtouhbm0c2pg4/Scarborough%20Beacon%20on%20Horizon%20-%20str.JPG?dl=1) Scarborough from 50 cm above water, Beacon 2.6 km away on Horizon | (https://www.dropbox.com/s/99tjm0rxoatcm2g/Scarborough%20Horizon%20past%20Beacon.jpg?dl=1) Scarborough from 3 m above water, horizon now well past the beacon. |
And he just brushes all these off, ignores and says - but I can't see the curvature and I can't go and measure it easily with my ruler.
look on a day without waves.The height of the waves interfering with our line of sight for instance ?...you do not understand perspective.
Of course it is.....objects in the distance are scrambled together at some point.
An 83x zoom is not a magic tool !
(https://www.energieplus.nl/library/news/4124.jpg)
Let say we had a flat surface with 400 km of windmills placed behind eachoter in the exact amount of distance in between,......we reach the point that everything blurs into a vanishing point accordingly when viewed from the ground.
Colours, contrast, sharp edges all dissapear untill it is impossible to distinguish any windmill at all.
If you change the angle by raising your camera considerably we can see further of course.
...
the vanishing point is and imaginary point it does not exist in reality.
why would you be able to see further if you raise you viewpoint?
what is different between 1m high and 10m high?
again, you do not realise what i want to say:Quoteyes the atmospheric pressure change a little bit, but that changes way more with the weather.Nonsense i went to the euromast several times and was amazed how limited the view was on most occasions do to atmospheric interference.
the only explanation is the earth curvature
Even your ball should allow from 180 meters a 50 km view !
I never was able to see any further than 25 km do to the atmosphere.
what you described is not the vanishing point, it is the limit of visibility.QuoteYou said it yourself that you do not know much about vanishing points and perspective therefore i explained it to you.You did not comment on the photograph though......
You can clearly see what happens...... the windmills are getting closer to eachother in the distance, up to the point that they scramble together without being able to discern one over the other.
It even happens in the photograph with a modest set of windmills.
If the set of windmills was tripled, you couldn't make out the last one reaching the vanishing point.
And with the ''vanishing point'' i mean that opjects become to small to distinguish but become blurs in the distance where land and the sky meet.
If england had ''New York kinda'' skyscrapers lined up at the cost and you'd remove the atmosphere and waves over 1.50m and gave me a superiour camera then of course i could make a distorted photograph of Egland from eyeheight standing at the beach in the Netherlands.
The Jenna Freda Toronto skyline is a perfect example.
Without a 83 zoom we see noting but water. When zoomed in the skyline (albite distorted) becomes visible.
She perfectly demonstrates this in the video !!
But Toronto has skyscrapers and is only 30 miles away.
England has no skyscrapers at the coast and is 70 miles away from the Netherlands.
How do you think i could see that with a camera ?
Here is another video that is a good compilation of all the contraditions in your ridiculous 160 year old Heliocentric model .I'm not wasting time watching these silly videos you dig up out the discard pile!NASA's Folly [Charlie Horse] (http://)
Here is another video that is a good compilation of all the contraditions in your ridiculous 160 year old Heliocentric model .I'm not wasting time watching these silly videos you dig up out the discard pile!NASA's Folly [Charlie Horse] (http://)
You go through it and list the major arguments and where they are presented in the video and I'll take in from there.
At least that way we might find out if you have the slightest idea of what it's all about,
because from we've seen in the past you haven't a clue about either the Heliocentric Globe or the Pizza Planet!
Bye bye time-waster!
Another video presented by someone clearly lacking in understanding of the sizes and distances involved in our solar system.
It starts off claiming that, because all the diagrams of the eclipse aren't to scale, that NASA is lying to "us", and hiding the true cause of this celestial phenomenon.
As we can all see you REtards still refuse to answer my questions regarding the Black hole Sun being the cause of solar eclipses.You mean we refuse to let you change the subject to avoid admitting your defeat?
This because I'm correct and you Heliocentrics can not provide an answer that is satisfactory.No, it is because we are sick of you changing the subject to avoid discussing an issue or accepting a refutation.
Here is another video that is a good compilation of all the contraditions in your ridiculous 160 year old Heliocentric model .Again, stop changing the subject. First, go back and read through what has been said regarding the eclipse on a RE model. See if you have any issues with it, and if so, clearly explain what the issue is. No crap of just saying you find it unacceptable.
The Heliocentric model does not match the reality that has been observed and verified as such it is unsatisfactory.Except it does match reality. We have explained that. All you have done to counter it is say you don't find our explanation acceptable.
You are yet again not able to provide any viable explanation to explain the many contradictions in the said video regarding your ridiculous Heliocentric model.How about this then:
I hope your inferior colleugue "Jack the Twat" will entertain me for a while; that being said I doubt he wants me to humiliate him again; he still hasn't answered my questions regarding black hole Sun being the cause of solar eclipses.The only twat here is you. I am not here to entertain you, I am here to point out your bullshit, which I have done repeatedly.
As we can all see you REtards still refuse to answer my questions regarding the Black hole Sun being the cause of solar eclipses.You mean we refuse to let you change the subject to avoid admitting your defeat?
Meanwhile, you have refused to answer so many questions it isn't funny.This because I'm correct and you Heliocentrics can not provide an answer that is satisfactory.No, it is because we are sick of you changing the subject to avoid discussing an issue or accepting a refutation.Here is another video that is a good compilation of all the contraditions in your ridiculous 160 year old Heliocentric model .Again, stop changing the subject. First, go back and read through what has been said regarding the eclipse on a RE model. See if you have any issues with it, and if so, clearly explain what the issue is. No crap of just saying you find it unacceptable.The Heliocentric model does not match the reality that has been observed and verified as such it is unsatisfactory.Except it does match reality. We have explained that. All you have done to counter it is say you don't find our explanation acceptable.
You are yet to provide a single issue where it doesn't match.You are yet again not able to provide any viable explanation to explain the many contradictions in the said video regarding your ridiculous Heliocentric model.How about this then:
Your video is a load of crap which does not contain any contradictions regarding the HC model. Instead it just presents numerous strawmen.
If you think it has an actual contradiction, then provide it here, in text form, as a single argument.
If you are unable to do that, then it means you are unable to provide any actual contradiction.
I know, lets start with your claims regarding the apparent motion of the lunar eclipse.
The HC explanation (the actual explanation, not your pathetic strawman) has been provided in a prior post. Go back, read it, and then point out what is actually wrong with it.
If you are unable to, then admit you were wrong and we can move on.I hope your inferior colleugue "Jack the Twat" will entertain me for a while; that being said I doubt he wants me to humiliate him again; he still hasn't answered my questions regarding black hole Sun being the cause of solar eclipses.The only twat here is you. I am not here to entertain you, I am here to point out your bullshit, which I have done repeatedly.
The only people you have humiliated is yourself and all others that subscribe to your nonsense of a FE.
You have repeatedly had your ass handed to you and have just tried to change the subject to avoid it.
You, of course, are wrong about pretty much everything.As we can all see you REtards still refuse to answer my questions regarding the Black hole Sun being the cause of solar eclipses.You mean we refuse to let you change the subject to avoid admitting your defeat?
Meanwhile, you have refused to answer so many questions it isn't funny.This because I'm correct and you Heliocentrics can not provide an answer that is satisfactory.No, it is because we are sick of you changing the subject to avoid discussing an issue or accepting a refutation.Here is another video that is a good compilation of all the contraditions in your ridiculous 160 year old Heliocentric model .Again, stop changing the subject. First, go back and read through what has been said regarding the eclipse on a RE model. See if you have any issues with it, and if so, clearly explain what the issue is. No crap of just saying you find it unacceptable.The Heliocentric model does not match the reality that has been observed and verified as such it is unsatisfactory.Except it does match reality. We have explained that. All you have done to counter it is say you don't find our explanation acceptable.
You are yet to provide a single issue where it doesn't match.You are yet again not able to provide any viable explanation to explain the many contradictions in the said video regarding your ridiculous Heliocentric model.How about this then:
Your video is a load of crap which does not contain any contradictions regarding the HC model. Instead it just presents numerous strawmen.
If you think it has an actual contradiction, then provide it here, in text form, as a single argument.
If you are unable to do that, then it means you are unable to provide any actual contradiction.
I know, lets start with your claims regarding the apparent motion of the lunar eclipse.
The HC explanation (the actual explanation, not your pathetic strawman) has been provided in a prior post. Go back, read it, and then point out what is actually wrong with it.
If you are unable to, then admit you were wrong and we can move on.I hope your inferior colleugue "Jack the Twat" will entertain me for a while; that being said I doubt he wants me to humiliate him again; he still hasn't answered my questions regarding black hole Sun being the cause of solar eclipses.The only twat here is you. I am not here to entertain you, I am here to point out your bullshit, which I have done repeatedly.
The only people you have humiliated is yourself and all others that subscribe to your nonsense of a FE.
You have repeatedly had your ass handed to you and have just tried to change the subject to avoid it.
You are incorrect.
Here is a quick summary :
I have constantly only spoke about the solar eclipse apart from our construction episode where you humiliated yourself when you claimed to have constructed buildings as a labourer with a ball as a level.
;D
Shadow direction.
Shadow size .
Small orb like projections cast on the ground by the small orbs that the black hole Sun is constructed of.
The distribution of light from the Sun during the Solar eclipse does not match the 3D simulation in the video I posted from globe busters this is because your model is incorrect.
In the last video I posted the video provided by NASA doesn't show the umbra /penumbra it shows one huge shadow crossing the USA.
The alleged shadow cast on Jupiter shown in the video is about the same size as the imaginary Globe and NOT 70 miles wide .
This will do for now to keep me entertained for a while.
These many contradictions show your model is pure fabrication and doesn't match the reality that has been observed and verified as such your ridiculous Heliocentric model is both unsatisfactory and impossible.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Not only am I "able to give YOU direction regarding YOUR posts", but I DID "give YOU direction regarding YOUR posts"!I have told you before NO ONE is able to give me direction regarding my posts .Here is another video that is a good compilation of all the contraditions in your ridiculous 160 year old Heliocentric model .I'm not wasting time watching these silly videos you dig up out the discard pile!NASA's Folly [Charlie Horse] (http://)
You go through it and list the major arguments and where they are presented in the video and I'll take in from there.
At least that way we might find out if you have the slightest idea of what it's all about,
because from we've seen in the past you haven't a clue about either the Heliocentric Globe or the Pizza Planet!
Bye bye time-waster!
You are yet again not able to provide any viable explanation to explain the many contradictions in the said video regarding your ridiculous Heliocentric model.I can provide plenty of viable explanations, but you'd just ignore them because you, yourself don't understand the video or what is grossly wrong with it.
You are incorrect.No. I am correct. You have reapeatedly failed to show anything wrong with any argument that has been presented against you. Instead you just dismiss it as unacceptable.
where you humiliatedYou and the other FEers have been the only ones humiliated here.
Shadow direction.Completely consistent with the HC model.
Shadow size .
The distribution of light from the Sun during the Solar eclipse does not match the 3D simulation in the video I posted from globe busters this is because your model is incorrect.No, it is because your straw man is incorrect.
In the last video I posted the video provided by NASA doesn't show the umbra /penumbra it shows one huge shadow crossing the USA.Again, not an issue with the HC model. Also, are you sure they didn't show the umbra? It would appear as a small point if at all.
This will do for now to keep me entertained for a while.Again, this isn't for your entertainment.
These many contradictions show your model is pure fabricationNo, these issues show your straw man, your model, to be fabrication. It is not the HC model that has these issues.
If you want to disprove the Heliocentric Globe you must present the correct Heliocentric Globe model instead of lying about it, the auguing against your own lie.Here is another video that is a good compilation of all the contraditions in your ridiculous 160 year old Heliocentric model .Stop your stupid idiotic claims, the HeliocentricGlobe has been the accepted model for 300 to 400 years, and the real explanation for the solar eclipse known for millenia. You are proving yourself an ignorant troll.Quote from: Resistance.is.FutileI'm not wasting time watching all these silly videos you dig up out the discard pile!NASA's Folly [Charlie Horse] (http://)
Bye bye time-waster!
I have told you before NO ONE is able to give me direction regarding my posts .
RiF, instead of obsessing with the scale of the heliocentric model, have you ever tried doing the math with the generally accepted numbers? The out of scale diagrams are simply for illustrative purposes. It isn't until you work with the real numbers that you can truly judge the model. Or are you just one more FE'er who is too intellectually lazy to think that the numbers matter or too intellectually dishonest to admit that FE numbers just don't work, no matter how you manipulate them?I think the alt we call RiF has gone into hiding for a while while its puppet master gloats some more.
No. I am correct. You have reapeatedly failed to show anything wrong with any argument that has been presented against you. Instead you just dismiss it as unacceptable.
Your explanation is unsatisfactory.And you are yet to explain why.
You have already said all this BS way back here:Any normal person can understand that as the moon's total orbital path is [SNIP to the already refuted BS]
No. I am correct. You have reapeatedly failed to show anything wrong with any argument that has been presented against you. Instead you just dismiss it as unacceptable.
No. I am correct. You have reapeatedly failed to show anything wrong with any argument that has been presented against you. Instead you just dismiss it as unacceptable.
...
Your explanation is unsatisfactory.If you think it is unsatisfactory, then go back and read it and quote the specific part you think is wrong explaining why you think it is wrong.
No. I am correct. You have reapeatedly failed to show anything wrong with any argument that has been presented against you. Instead you just dismiss it as unacceptable.
...
<< Totally ridiculous garbage deleted >>Of course the "shadow it is certainly bigger than 70 miles wide"!
In the image below provided by NASA it doesn't show the umbra /penumbra it shows one huge shadow it is certainly bigger than 70 miles wide.
:(https://www.dropbox.com/s/k0puori7rfe55sy/eclipse_epc_2016068.gif?dl=1)
This image from NASA proves your Heliocentric model doesn't match reality.Total rubbish, you have no idea what you are talking about - as usual The geometry it totally different. Anyone with a trace of knowledge about the topic would know that.
The alleged shadow cast on Jupiter shown in the video below is about the same size as your imaginary Globe and NOT 70 miles wide .
The video below also highlights some of the many contradictions regarding the Heliocentric model.No it does not show "some of the many contradictions regarding the Heliocentric model"! There are no "contradictions regarding the Heliocentric model".[youtube][/youtube]
Charlie Horse's Massive Folly
The alleged ability of the Heliocentric model to predict eclipses is NO form of validation for the said model as the Ancient Babylonian's believed in the same flat Earth model that is generally accepted today and could accurately predict eclipses using the Saros cycle as NASA still do to this day.Total rubbish! The above stupid rubbish that you swallow proves that you have no idea what you are talking about.
NASA have retrofitted their mathematics to the Saros cycle so they can claim it is unique to them.
These many contradictions show your model is pure fabrication and doesn't match the reality that has been observed and verified as such your ridiculous Heliocentric model is both unacceptable and impossible.
The Black Hole Sun is the cause of the Solar Eclipse and not the Moon.Look Mr Deception.is Futile we've had enough of your deceptive YouTube videos.
I'm still looking where to sign up for that Round Earth Pay Check...You'll need to get your Shill Registration ID (SRID) from your local freemason leader. Then get in contact with your local government to get the checks going. The bureaucracy is a nightmare though, so get started soon as you can't count any time spent prior to starting the process!
Anybody have the latest on the Round Earth Salary?
Is it by government, or do I contact the World Government?
Once you're on the payroll, those checks are NEVER late!
Once you're on the payroll, those checks are NEVER late!
😂😂Once you're on the payroll, those checks are NEVER late!
And don't forget to mention, free coupons for that McPlace sposored by the NWO.
(http://i.imgur.com/TqrKa8K.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/Ocw6f.jpg)
And the stuff they put into that arificcial burgers makes you understand the universe once and for all....... ;D
(http://static2.businessinsider.com/image/54611bb4ecad04be4c672bf2/neil-degrasse-tyson-gives-the-science-of-interstellar-a-surprisingly-good-review.jpg)
Once you're on the payroll, those checks are NEVER late!
And don't forget to mention, free coupons for that McPlace sposored by the NWO.
And the stuff they put into that arificcial burgers makes you understand the universe once and for all....... ;D
Your explanation is unsatisfactory.Again, if that was the case you would be able to point out exactly what is wrong with my explanation and why.
Any normal person can understand that as the moon's total orbital path is 27 to 29 days and 1.5 million miles it would have to travel at least a 190000 miles to cross the USA west to east because it is 200000 miles away on your Heliocentric model and in reality the USA is nearly 3000 miles wide so we could say that is roughly 12.5% of the alleged circumfrence of your imaginary Globe which to keep it simple represents roughly 12.5% of the Moons orbital path.This would only apply if the apparent position of the moon from the start of the eclipse was the same as that for the end. It isn't. The moon doesn't start off directly above the west cost and finish directly above the east cost (or it could start and end at say the eastern horizon or some other fixed position).
In reality any normal person will know it is impossible for the Moons shadow to travel west to east as they see the Moon rise in the East and set in the West EVERYDAY.No, any normal person with decent spatial reasoning skills will realise it is quite possible.
Your explanation is unsatisfactory.Again, if that was the case you would be able to point out exactly what is wrong with my explanation and why.
You are yet to do that, which indicates there is nothing wrong with my explanation and you are just forced to reject it to stick to your delusions.
Here is an example of what you need to do if you want anyone to take your BS claim that my "explanation is unsatisfactory" seriously:Any normal person can understand that as the moon's total orbital path is 27 to 29 days and 1.5 million miles it would have to travel at least a 190000 miles to cross the USA west to east because it is 200000 miles away on your Heliocentric model and in reality the USA is nearly 3000 miles wide so we could say that is roughly 12.5% of the alleged circumfrence of your imaginary Globe which to keep it simple represents roughly 12.5% of the Moons orbital path.This would only apply if the apparent position of the moon from the start of the eclipse was the same as that for the end. It isn't. The moon doesn't start off directly above the west cost and finish directly above the east cost (or it could start and end at say the eastern horizon or some other fixed position).
Instead, at the start of the eclipse, the moon starts off right on the east horizon as a rising moon (before the eclipse reaches the US).
As the eclipse progresses, it continues to make its way across the sky and then the eclipse finishes (east of the US) with the moon on the western horizon.
As such, it only needs to travel a fraction of its orbital path to cross the US.
In fact, as the sun is so far away that the light is effectively coming in parallel, and it needs to travel through such a small amount of its orbit, in order to cross the US, it needs to travel roughly 3000 miles, plus an additional amount to compensate for the rotation of Earth. If I recall correctly, it works out to be a total of 4500 miles, or roughly 0.3% of the orbital path of the moon, which matches fairly well (given it is a rough estimate) to the portion of the moon's orbit, of roughly 0.23%.
Here is a NOT TO SCALE picture to help illustrate that:
(https://i.imgur.com/vIpuP52.png)
The sun is the red circle on the left. Earth is the blue circle on the right.
The moon is the circle in the middle.
The line going from the centre of the sun, through the centre of the moon and to Earth shows the point of greatest eclipse on Earth, the centre of the eclipse.
Notice how by the moon moving a small angle, θM, the centre of the eclipse on Earth moves a lot more (θS)?
So your claim that the moon would need to move a massive 12.5% of its orbital path for the eclipse to cross the US is pure garbage.
Now then, did you notice what I did?
I quoted the section I found unsatisfactory. I pointed out exactly which part I found unsatisfactory, and most importantly, I explained why it was wrong, and thus any rational person reading the comment will understand that your claim is false.
You need to do something similar, quoting the section of mine you think is wrong and show why it is wrong. That is how debate works. You don't just dismiss your opponents arguments as unsatisfactory and repeat the same refuted crap.
Here is another example, this time drawing from personal experience:In reality any normal person will know it is impossible for the Moons shadow to travel west to east as they see the Moon rise in the East and set in the West EVERYDAY.No, any normal person with decent spatial reasoning skills will realise it is quite possible.
The apparent east to west motion of the moon (and all celestial objects) is due to the rotation of Earth.
This is similar to looking out at the surroundings when you are on a merry go round, and watching Earth appear to rotate (much faster than it actually is rotating), or akin to having Earth look like it is flying past backwards when you are driving along a highway.
Objects can then move around as well adding to that motion.
For example, someone can walk around the merry go round or be in a car driving along beside you. Depending upon how quickly they are going, they can appear to move in the same direction as Earth but slower or faster, or if they are going fast enough the right way, they can appear to remain stationary or go against Earth.
The moon orbiting us west to east is akin to someone slowly walking around a merry go round in the same direction the merry go round is turning, or someone driving quite slowly on the road beside you in the same direction as you. They appear to move backwards, (going east to west), even though they are actually going forwards.
As such, it is easy for normal people to understand (by drawing on their personal experience), that an object can be moving one way (e.g. west to east), while appearing to move the other (e.g. east to west).
Once that is out of the way the rest just falls into place. If the moon is moving west to east, then the shadow (ignoring the rotation of Earth), will move west to east.
Then it depends upon speed yet again. Appealing to the picture above, for a small motion of the moon, θM, its shadow will move θS. If Earth rotates at just the right speed such that in this time it has moved just the right angular amount, θS, then the shadow will appear to remain on the same spot on Earth.
If Earth rotates faster (which it doesn't), the shadow will appear to move east to west. If Earth rotates slower (which it does), then the shadow appears to move west to east, as is observed in reality.
So no, it is quite possible for the shadow of the moon to move west to east while the moon appears to move east to west.
Again, notice what I did? I quoted the section I had an issue with and explained why it is wrong, providing enough information to convince any rational person beyond a reasonable doubt.
That is what you need to do.
Dismissing my explanations as unacceptable or unsatisfactory or the like just because they don't agree with your delusions is not how debate works and is not how you convince any rational person.
You need to show what is wrong with my explanations/arguments.
If you are unable to then it shows that you are simply rejecting them because they don't align with your beliefs and that there is likely nothing wrong with them.
So are you going to try and show what is wrong with my explanations, or do you know there is nothing wrong?
Again, if that was the case you would be able to point out exactly what is wrong with my explanation and why.
No. I am correct. You have reapeatedly failed to show anything wrong with any argument that has been presented against you. Instead you just dismiss it as unacceptable.
Your explanation is nonsense.Again, if you think it is nonsense, then quote the exact part you think is nonsense and explain why.
The said spherical object is 200 metres away from the carousel.Why 200 m?
One can imagine a spherical ball of fire (that burns in a vacuum)I take it this is meant to be the sun? If so, no, it isn't a ball of fire. It is a ball of plasma. It isn't heated by combustion (burning), it is heated by nuclear fusion.
One can imagine the shadow cast by the said spherical object with a diameter of 3 metres onto the carousel .Firstly, this isn't explaining what is wrong with my explanation. My explanation (in the post above) didn't discuss the size of the shadow. This isn't even explaining why that is wrong, it is just asserting that it is wrong. It provides no justification at all, instead just claiming that it is impossible for any object to cast a shadow smaller than itself.
The shadow would be atleast the same size as the said spherical object as it is impossible for any object to cast a shadow smaller than itself.
As the carousel only takes one hour to do a full revolution and the said spherical object takes 27 hours to do one full orbit of the carousel it is impossible for the shadow cast by the said spherical object to move faster than the carousel is revolving.Again, this is not an explanation, it is a baseless assertion.
As such your out of scale diagrams and explanations are a nonsense designed to fool stupid gullable inferior people like yourself.No, that is what your baseless assertions are for. My out of scale diagrams and explanations are tools to help people understand the truth. As I wasn't conned by your pathetic lies I am clearly not inferior.
Any normal person with half a brain that thinks about this will see your model is false .No they wont. They will see that there is nothing wrong with my claims (and the HC model) which are backed by explanations and math, unlike yours which are backed by baseless assertions and dismissal.
You have not a addressed the many points raised in my last post regarding your ridiculous Heliocentric model so I will be forced to repost until these points are addressed by you or one of your colleagues.They have all been addressed. How about you stop repeating the same refuted crap and instead go over the explanations and explain exactly what is wrong with them. Don't just assert a part is wrong, explain why it is wrong, proving it beyond any reasonable doubt.
Your explanation is nonsense.Again, if you think it is nonsense, then quote the exact part you think is nonsense and explain why.
If you are unable to then it shows that you have no basis to claim my explanation is nonesnse.The said spherical object is 200 metres away from the carousel.Why 200 m?
You had your merry go round (presumable representing Earth) have a diameter of 12 m. That means each m corresponds to roughly 1 000 km. This also matches your 150 000 m=150 000 000 km for the sun.
If that is the case the moon, which is ~400 000 km should be 400 m distant, not 200.
So once again, you are objecting to a not to scale model.One can imagine a spherical ball of fire (that burns in a vacuum)I take it this is meant to be the sun? If so, no, it isn't a ball of fire. It is a ball of plasma. It isn't heated by combustion (burning), it is heated by nuclear fusion.One can imagine the shadow cast by the said spherical object with a diameter of 3 metres onto the carousel .Firstly, this isn't explaining what is wrong with my explanation. My explanation (in the post above) didn't discuss the size of the shadow. This isn't even explaining why that is wrong, it is just asserting that it is wrong. It provides no justification at all, instead just claiming that it is impossible for any object to cast a shadow smaller than itself.
The shadow would be atleast the same size as the said spherical object as it is impossible for any object to cast a shadow smaller than itself.
But it is completely wrong, one would realise that the shadow is more complex than the simple idea of a shadow. There are multiple regions of the shadow. In general, there are 3, the umbra, the antumbra and the penumbra.
The antumbra is the region in which all light from the source is blocked. This means that people inside the umbra are unable to see any of the light source.
The antumbra is an extension of the umbra beyond the point where the 2 objects are the same size. In the antumbra part of the centre of the light source is blocked, while there is a ring of light around the obstruction. This would be akin to a fly on your screen.
The penumbra is any other region of shadow. That is where part of the light source is visible, but part of the side is obstructed.
If the object is larger than the light source, the antumbra does not exist, and both the penumbra and umbra diverge, that is they grow larger and larger as you get further away.
This would be akin to placing your hand over a small torch. It doesn't matter how far away you go, your hand is always going to appear larger than the light source.
But if the object is smaller than the light source, the antumbra does exist, the penumbra still diverges, but the umbra converges. That is the region of totality will shrink.
This is now more akin to putting your hand in front of your face.
Now, your hand can block out quite a lot of light, coming in from a very large angle.
This allows you to completely stop the light coming in from many light sources, including things like a computer screen, but only for a small area.
If you don't believe me, try it, put your hand right in front of your face (or if you want something more comparable with others and a more suitable shape, use a playing card, much smaller than the screen, and see if it can shadow the computer screen from you. If it can then hold the playing card/hand 1 m away from the screen. Now move back (your eye) until the card/hand just blocks the screen.
Now, if you move left or right (a small amount, smaller than the playing card), you will see part of the screen. This shows the umbra (or "shadow") (the region of totality) is smaller than the object casting the shadow. If you move back, you can see the playing card only blocking part of the screen and you are in the antumbra.
Another simple way is by viewing the shadow of an object above the ground, like this video:
The shadow is quite sharp near the ground, but as the object gets higher, the shadow becomes fuzzy, there is a dark central region (umbra) and a light outer region (penumbra). Once it is high enough, this dark central region disappears entirely and the light outer region gets light enough to not be distinguished from the rest of the ground.
In that video, when the quad is close to the ground, its landing gear is quite clearly visible, but when it is higher, the shadow umbra has shrunk so much and the penumbra is so light that that part of the shadow is missing.
If you wish to discuss the shadow size of the moon during the lunar eclipse, it was just the umbra that was smaller than the moon. The penumbra, that is the region of the partial solar eclipse was much larger, it covered almost the entire US, Mexico and Canada.
A simple way to measure the size is to see when the eclipse finishes for one person and starts for another.
Madras has the eclipse end at 11:41 PDT, which corresponds to 2:41 EDT. But the eclipse started at 1:13 EDT for Columbia. That puts the eclipse as much wider than the US. The penumbra, that is the partial shadow, is wider than the US. That means it is wider than the moon.
So what is the problem meant to be?As the carousel only takes one hour to do a full revolution and the said spherical object takes 27 hours to do one full orbit of the carousel it is impossible for the shadow cast by the said spherical object to move faster than the carousel is revolving.Again, this is not an explanation, it is a baseless assertion.
Do the math.
Here is the simple version, which underestimates how much the shadow moves. Because the shadow is further away from the moon, if the moon moves 1 m, the shadow has to move more than 1 m but this is simpler, where we assume this extra bit is negligible so if the moon moves 1 m, the shadow does as well.
The moon, over the course of 1 hour (reality, not your model) has moved ~3600 km. As this is a very small portion of its orbit, by the small angle approximation this corresponds to the linear distance the moon has moved. Thus the shadow will have moved 3600 km to the east.
Meanwhile, Earth below (with its equator moving at ~1600 km per hour) will be turning such that the equator, the part which moves the most, will have moved 1600 km (and this is now a more significant portion of its circular path and thus this will be more of an over estimate than the 3600 km for the moon).
This means relative to a person on the surface of Earth, who has moved 1600 km while the moon's shadow moved 3600 km, both to the east, the moon's shadow will appear to have moved 2000 km to the east.
As such, YOU ARE COMPLETELY WRONG!
It is quite possible for the shadow of the moon to move west to east.
Now then, like I said, can you actually show what is wrong with my explanation?
How about this, you do the math and show that it is impossible for the moon's shadow to move west to east. So far all you have done is asserted it.As such your out of scale diagrams and explanations are a nonsense designed to fool stupid gullable inferior people like yourself.No, that is what your baseless assertions are for. My out of scale diagrams and explanations are tools to help people understand the truth. As I wasn't conned by your pathetic lies I am clearly not inferior.Any normal person with half a brain that thinks about this will see your model is false .No they wont. They will see that there is nothing wrong with my claims (and the HC model) which are backed by explanations and math, unlike yours which are backed by baseless assertions and dismissal.You have not a addressed the many points raised in my last post regarding your ridiculous Heliocentric model so I will be forced to repost until these points are addressed by you or one of your colleagues.They have all been addressed. How about you stop repeating the same refuted crap and instead go over the explanations and explain exactly what is wrong with them. Don't just assert a part is wrong, explain why it is wrong, proving it beyond any reasonable doubt.
And like I said, when it does come time for a new argument, introduce them one at a time, don't just bring up a bunch of crap which is solely designed to try and bury your opponent in BS to make it take far too much effort for them to refute.
And if you do want to continue, pick one thing to discuss. Do you want to discuss the size of the shadow, or the apparent motion of the shadow?
Why 200 m?
One can imagine the shadow cast by the said spherical object with a diameter of 3 metres onto the carousel .
The shadow would be atleast the same size as the said spherical object as it is impossible for any object to cast a shadow smaller than itself.
Firstly, this isn't explaining what is wrong with my explanation.
But it is completely wrong, one would realise that the shadow is more complex than the simple idea of a shadow.
The antumbra is the region in which all light from the source is blocked.
Another simple way is by viewing the shadow of an object above the ground, like this video:
The shadow is quite sharp near the ground, but as the object gets higher, the shadow becomes fuzzy, there is a dark central region (umbra) and a light outer region (penumbra). Once it is high enough, this dark central region disappears entirely and the light outer region gets light enough to not be distinguished from the rest of the ground.
In that video, when the quad is close to the ground, its landing gear is quite clearly visible, but when it is higher, the shadow umbra has shrunk so much and the penumbra is so light that that part of the shadow is missing.
...
Why 200 m?
Why not ?
The model provided was only used as an illustration.
...
If the edge of the carousel is 40 feet from the center, and takes one hour to do a revolution, than it is moving at 80*pi (about 250) feet per hour.
I will reiterate the fact regarding my last post that :
As the carousel only takes one hour to do a full revolution and the said spherical object takes 27 hours to do one full orbit of the carousel it is impossible for the shadow cast by the said spherical object to move faster than the carousel is revolving.
No. I am correct. You have reapeatedly failed to show anything wrong with any argument that has been presented against you. Instead you just dismiss it as unacceptable.
If the edge of the carousel is 40 feet from the center, and takes one hour to do a revolution, than it is moving at 80*pi (about 250) feet per hour.
I will reiterate the fact regarding my last post that :
As the carousel only takes one hour to do a full revolution and the said spherical object takes 27 hours to do one full orbit of the carousel it is impossible for the shadow cast by the said spherical object to move faster than the carousel is revolving.
If the spherical object is 2400 feet from the center of the carousel, and takes 27 hours to do one full orbit, then it is traveling 4600*pi (about 14,450) feet every 27 hours. Divide the distance traveled (14,450) by the amount of hours (27) to get it's speed of 535 feet per hour.
Which is faster, 250 feet per hour, or 535 feet per hour?
Please answer the question RiF.If the edge of the carousel is 40 feet from the center, and takes one hour to do a revolution, than it is moving at 80*pi (about 250) feet per hour.
I will reiterate the fact regarding my last post that :
As the carousel only takes one hour to do a full revolution and the said spherical object takes 27 hours to do one full orbit of the carousel it is impossible for the shadow cast by the said spherical object to move faster than the carousel is revolving.
If the spherical object is 2400 feet from the center of the carousel, and takes 27 hours to do one full orbit, then it is traveling 4600*pi (about 14,450) feet every 27 hours. Divide the distance traveled (14,450) by the amount of hours (27) to get it's speed of 535 feet per hour.
Which is faster, 250 feet per hour, or 535 feet per hour?
Please answer the question RiF.If the edge of the carousel is 40 feet from the center, and takes one hour to do a revolution, than it is moving at 80*pi (about 250) feet per hour.
I will reiterate the fact regarding my last post that :
As the carousel only takes one hour to do a full revolution and the said spherical object takes 27 hours to do one full orbit of the carousel it is impossible for the shadow cast by the said spherical object to move faster than the carousel is revolving.
If the spherical object is 2400 feet from the center of the carousel, and takes 27 hours to do one full orbit, then it is traveling 4600*pi (about 14,450) feet every 27 hours. Divide the distance traveled (14,450) by the amount of hours (27) to get it's speed of 535 feet per hour.
Which is faster, 250 feet per hour, or 535 feet per hour?
Please answer the question RiF.If the edge of the carousel is 40 feet from the center, and takes one hour to do a revolution, than it is moving at 80*pi (about 250) feet per hour.
I will reiterate the fact regarding my last post that :
As the carousel only takes one hour to do a full revolution and the said spherical object takes 27 hours to do one full orbit of the carousel it is impossible for the shadow cast by the said spherical object to move faster than the carousel is revolving.
If the spherical object is 2400 feet from the center of the carousel, and takes 27 hours to do one full orbit, then it is traveling 4600*pi (about 14,450) feet every 27 hours. Divide the distance traveled (14,450) by the amount of hours (27) to get it's speed of 535 feet per hour.
Which is faster, 250 feet per hour, or 535 feet per hour?
The fact of the matter is that the said spherical object used in the model provided as an illustration is 200 m away from the carousel so anyone with half a brain can detemine that the actuAl velocity of the said spherical object is irrelevant regarding the rotational velocity of the said carousel.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Why would you use a 200 m distance instead of between 360 m and 400 m? The Moon's orbit is between 360,000 km and 400,000 km. The Earth's diameter is about 12,000 km. If your carousel has a diameter of 12 m, then the object orbiting it should be between 360 m and 400 m away to keep the model to scale? What did you say earlier? Oh, right...Please answer the question RiF.If the edge of the carousel is 40 feet from the center, and takes one hour to do a revolution, than it is moving at 80*pi (about 250) feet per hour.
I will reiterate the fact regarding my last post that :
As the carousel only takes one hour to do a full revolution and the said spherical object takes 27 hours to do one full orbit of the carousel it is impossible for the shadow cast by the said spherical object to move faster than the carousel is revolving.
If the spherical object is 2400 feet from the center of the carousel, and takes 27 hours to do one full orbit, then it is traveling 4600*pi (about 14,450) feet every 27 hours. Divide the distance traveled (14,450) by the amount of hours (27) to get it's speed of 535 feet per hour.
Which is faster, 250 feet per hour, or 535 feet per hour?
The fact of the matter is that the said spherical object used in the model provided as an illustration is 200 m away from the carousel so anyone with half a brain can detemine that the actuAl velocity of the said spherical object is irrelevant regarding the rotational velocity of the said carousel.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Your qoute is taken out of context and as such is just designed to confuse the stupid gullable and inferior.
Anyone that is telling the truth or even thinks they are telling the truth have no need to employ the methods of misdirection.
Just a hilarious sidebar, even if the moon were half as far as it is, and we used the 200 m in your model for no apparent reason, it would cover 1250 m in 27 hours, for a speed of 46 meters per hour, which is STILL faster than the 38 meters per hour of your carousel. You can't even win when you cheat lol!
...the actual velocity of the said spherical object is irrelevant...Except when you are making claims about which is faster, at which point actual velocity is pretty relevant.
...the actual velocity of the said spherical object is irrelevant...Except when you are making claims about which is faster, at which point actual velocity is pretty relevant.
No. I am correct. You have reapeatedly failed to show anything wrong with any argument that has been presented against you. Instead you just dismiss it as unacceptable.
You used the word "faster" because you were claiming the Earth spins faster than the Moon orbits. The Moon, however, travels at approximately 3600 kph, while the Earth (at the equator) is toddling along at a mere 1600 kph....the actual velocity of the said spherical object is irrelevant...Except when you are making claims about which is faster, at which point actual velocity is pretty relevant.
I used the word faster to simplify my explanation.
Your explanation is unsatisfactory.The above contradict each other. The Moon only has to travel about 3,000 miles for its shadow to cross the USA. If you were correct about it having to travel 190,000 miles then the shadow would be coming from different angles. But I'm betting you know that and are just trolling.
No. I am correct. You have reapeatedly failed to show anything wrong with any argument that has been presented against you. Instead you just dismiss it as unacceptable.
Any normal person can understand that as the moon's total orbital path is 27 to 29 days and 1.5 million miles it would have to travel at least a 190000 miles to cross the USA west to east because it is 200000 miles away on your Heliocentric model and in reality the USA is nearly 3000 miles wide so we could say that is roughly 12.5% of the alleged circumfrence of your imaginary Globe which to keep it simple represents roughly 12.5% of the Moons orbital path.
Light travels in straight lines .
<Repeating an excessively long, but trite, post again and again doesn't make it true. Are you trying to emulate sandokhan? It doesn't work for him, either.>
This I why I'm giving you a count down you now have eight days left.
Eight days until a video from a high altitude weather balloon shows the Moon is not eclipsing the Sun.
Your explanation is unsatisfactory.Tough luck, nobody cares what you find is unsatisfactory!
Oops sorry, there's nothing left after your repeatedly disproven rubbish has been omitted - too bad, at least it saves time.No. I am correct. You have reapeatedly failed to show anything wrong with any argument that has been presented against you. Instead you just dismiss it as unacceptable.<< repeatedly disproven rubbish omitted >>
Your explanation is a nonsense.No it isn't. And again, STOP JUST SAYING THAT!
Why not ?I explained why not.
The model provided was only used as an illustration.
You might want to learn what an explanation is.One can imagine the shadow cast by the said spherical object with a diameter of 3 metres onto the carousel .
The shadow would be atleast the same size as the said spherical object as it is impossible for any object to cast a shadow smaller than itself.Firstly, this isn't explaining what is wrong with my explanation.Yes it is ; you Heliocentrics claim that the shadow obsered in reality is 32 times smaller than the object that you claim is casting the said shadow.
This is absolute bollocks anyone that has seen a shadow will be able to verify that the shadow is consistent in the fact that it represents the object blocking the light.Represents to some regard, not perfectly.
My bad, that was meant to say umbra, not antumbra.The antumbra is the region in which all light from the source is blocked.So on your model you claim that only 3% of the objects size is blocking the light as the alleged antumbra is only 70 miles.
This is ridiculous and impossible.Yes, your strawman is ridiculous and impossible. If the object is opaque, then far more than 3% will be blocking the light.
Anyone that can be arsed to watch your video of the drone or has observed a shadow in reality will be able to determine that these antumbra umbra and penumbra that you speak of are absolute bollocks.And there you go again with pathetic dismissals rather than an actual explanation.
As the carousel only takes one hour to do a full revolution and the said spherical object takes 27 hours to do one full orbit of the carousel it is impossible for the shadow cast by the said spherical object to appear to move faster than the carousel is revolving.I have already addressed this, NUMEROUS TIMES!!
No, the quote is taken in context with an explanation showing why you are wrong.If the edge of the carousel is 40 feet from the center, and takes one hour to do a revolution, than it is moving at 80*pi (about 250) feet per hour.
I will reiterate the fact regarding my last post that :
As the carousel only takes one hour to do a full revolution and the said spherical object takes 27 hours to do one full orbit of the carousel it is impossible for the shadow cast by the said spherical object to move faster than the carousel is revolving.
If the spherical object is 2400 feet from the center of the carousel, and takes 27 hours to do one full orbit, then it is traveling 4600*pi (about 14,450) feet every 27 hours. Divide the distance traveled (14,450) by the amount of hours (27) to get it's speed of 535 feet per hour.
Which is faster, 250 feet per hour, or 535 feet per hour?
Your qoute is taken out of context and as such is just designed to confuse the stupid gullable and inferior.
Anyone that is telling the truth or even thinks they are telling the truth have no need to employ the methods of misdirection.
The fact of the matter is that the said spherical object used in the model provided as an illustration is 200 m away from the carousel so anyone with half a brain can detemine that the actuAl velocity of the said spherical object is irrelevant regarding the rotational velocity of the said carousel.But that is not the issue. The issue is the velocity of its shadow (including the velocity relative to it). That will depend upon its velocity.
The said spherical object in the illustration provided is 200 metres away so the actual velocity of the said spherical object is irrelevant as the angular velocity of the said carousel is 27 times greater than the said spherical object meaning in simple terms that the carousel will revolve 27 times in the time it takes the said spherical object to do one revolution around the carousel.And this tells us nothing about the speed of the shadow, which is what is important.
<Repeating an excessively long, but trite, post again and again doesn't make it true. Are you trying to emulate sandokhan? It doesn't work for him, either.>This I why I'm giving you a count down you now have eight days left.
Eight days until a video from a high altitude weather balloon shows the Moon is not eclipsing the Sun.
That "eight days left" expired more than five weeks ago when the eclipse happened exactly as predicted by the heliocentric solar system and ellipsoidal earth models.
Have you found any of these threatened [::)] high altitude weather balloon videos showing the moon is not eclipsing the sun yet?
No. I am correct. You have reapeatedly failed to show anything wrong with any argument that has been presented against you. Instead you just dismiss it as unacceptable.
You REtards do not have the ability to address the points raised in this post because they are true.We have addressed your points. You are the one failing to address ours and feeling the need to repeatedly ignore our points and just repeat the same bulslhit again and again.
And you will look just as deceptive and stupid as you do trying to describe the west to east motion of the shadow cast by the Black whole Sun during the Solar Eclipse.You mean the expected west to east motion of the shadow of the moon, moving as the HC model predicts?
Your explanation is unsatisfactory.No it wasn't. If it was you would have clearly explained what is wrong with it. Instead all you can do is repeatedly assert the same baseless bullshit ignoring the arguments presented.
No. I am correct. You have reapeatedly failed to show anything wrong with any argument that has been presented against you. Instead you just dismiss it as unacceptable.
Repeatedly posting the same debunked rubbish is a waste of time.Have you found any of these threatened [::)] high altitude weather balloon videos showing the moon is not eclipsing the sun yet?<< try again >>
<< incorrect rubbish deleted >>Your response in unsatisfactory.
No. I am correct. You have reapeatedly failed to show anything wrong with any argument that has been presented against you. Instead you just dismiss it as unacceptable.
<< incorrect rubbish deleted >>
Repeatedly posting the same debunked rubbish is a waste of time.Have you found any of these threatened [::)] high altitude weather balloon videos showing the moon is not eclipsing the sun yet?<< try again >>
But it is totally untrue to claim that the exact timing and path of an eclipse can be determined only from saris cycles.
If you think you can, please show exactly how that has been done for the most recent eclipse.If you cannot do this we will know you have been deceiving us all along with totally false claims.
No. I am correct. You have reapeatedly failed to show anything wrong with any argument that has been presented against you. Instead you just dismiss it as unacceptable.
Your explanation is unsatisfactory.Again, show how it is unsatisfactory.
Is spamming not against forum rules here? Seriously?Just possibly Deception.is.Futile's puppet master is immune from such mundane things as rules.
Your explanation is unsatisfactory.Again, show how it is unsatisfactory.
Show exactly what is wrong with it.
And stop repeating the same refuted BS.
If it is getting to hard we can try and simplify it for you and discuss one issue at a time, bit by bit.
What do you want to start with?
The size of the umbra, or the motion of the shadow?
I have already debunked this nonsense you speak of.No you haven't, and I explained why you didn't.
Any points you have raised have been explained logically, but you have just ignored all the correct explanations.You have not debated my thread with any form of viable logical explanation.Repeatedly posting the same debunked rubbish is a waste of time.Have you found any of these threatened [::)] high altitude weather balloon videos showing the moon is not eclipsing the sun yet?<< try again >>
But it is totally untrue to claim that the exact timing and path of an eclipse can be determined only from saris cycles.
If you think you can, please show exactly how that has been done for the most recent eclipse.If you cannot do this we will know you have been deceiving us all along with totally false claims.
You have yet to address the points raised regarding the Black whole Sun.What on earth is the "Black whole Sun"?
Is spamming not against forum rules here? Seriously?Just possibly Deception.is.Futile's puppet master is immune from such mundane things as rules.
Any points you have raised have been explained logically, but you have just ignored all the correct explanations.You have not debated my thread with any form of viable logical explanation.Repeatedly posting the same debunked rubbish is a waste of time.Have you found any of these threatened [::)] high altitude weather balloon videos showing the moon is not eclipsing the sun yet?<< try again >>
But it is totally untrue to claim that the exact timing and path of an eclipse can be determined only from saris cycles.
If you think you can, please show exactly how that has been done for the most recent eclipse.If you cannot do this we will know you have been deceiving us all along with totally false claims.Quote from: Resistance.is.FutileYou have yet to address the points raised regarding the Black whole Sun.What on earth is the "Black whole Sun"?
You have never raised any points "regarding the Black whole Sun" and there is no such thing as "the Black whole Sun".
Now that we have disposed of your rubbish, i asked youfor something.
But it is totally untrue to claim that the exact timing and path of an eclipse can be determined only from saris cycles.
If you think you can, please show exactly how that has been done for the most recent eclipse.If you cannot do this we will know you have been deceiving us all along with totally false claims.
Bye bye!
No. I am correct. You have reapeatedly failed to show anything wrong with any argument that has been presented against you. Instead you just dismiss it as unacceptable.
Is spamming not against forum rules here? Seriously?Just possibly Deception.is.Futile's puppet master is immune from such mundane things as rules.
Rules do not apply to me .
Rules are for plebs such as you Heliocentrics.
I do what I feel is good.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
I have told you before that I will not take direction from you Heliocentric plebs.Well, little man, I don't take rubbish from you!
This is my thread.Big deal, so what!
The thread is called Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the Globe which it has.Incorrect and you know it!
It is not called Saros cycle explained and calculated to determine the next eclipse.I couldn't care less what you claim its called! You can't wriggle out of your numerous Saros Cycle claims that easily!
The Saros cycle was originally calculated by the ancient Babylonian's who like all civilisations knew the earth was flat.
NASA still use the SAROS cycle to this day.
You speak nonsense.
Eclipse predictions have nothing to do with the shape of the earth.
NASA use the 4000 year old Ancient Babylonian Saros Cycle.
The Ancient Babylonian's new thetrueshape of the earth to be flat.
The only reason NASA could predict the eclipse is because they have learnt how to use the 4000 year old Ancient Babylonian Saros Cycle.
Predicting the Eclipse Has nothing at all to do with your Heliocentric fairytale.
NASA use the SAROS Cycle to predict eclipses.
The ancient Babylonian's and the ancient Chinese could predict Eclipses just as accurately 4000 years ago they used the Saros Cycle.
The Heliocentric mathematics has been retrofitted to the Saros cycle.
The alleged ability of the Heliocentric model to predict eclipses is NO form of validation for the said model as the Ancient Babylonian's believed in the same flat Earth model that is generally accepted todayThat is an outright lie! The "the Ancient Babylonians" did not believe in the same flat Earth model that is generally accepted today". It was different in at least one very vital way!
and could accurately predict eclipses using the Saros cycle as NASA still do to this day.
NASA have retrofitted their mathematics to the Saros cycle so they can claim it is unique to them.
The alleged ability of the Heliocentric model to predict eclipses is NO form of validation for the said model as the Ancient Babylonian's believed in the same flat Earth model that is generally accepted today and could accurately predict eclipses using the Saros cycle as NASA still do to this day.
NASA have retrofitted their mathematics to the Saros cycle so they can claim it is unique to them.
The alleged ability of the Heliocentric model to predict eclipses is NO form of validation for the said model as the Ancient Babylonian's believed in the same flat Earth model that is generally accepted today and could accurately predict eclipses using the Saros cycle as NASA still do to this day.
NASA have retrofitted their mathematics to the Saros cycle so they can claim it is unique to them.
Is spamming not against forum rules here? Seriously?Just possibly Deception.is.Futile's puppet master is immune from such mundane things as rules.
Rules do not apply to me .
Rules are for plebs such as you Heliocentrics.
I do what I feel is good.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
<Repeating an excessively long, but trite, post again and again doesn't make it true. Are you trying to emulate sandokhan? It doesn't work for him, either.>This I why I'm giving you a count down you now have eight days left.
Eight days until a video from a high altitude weather balloon shows the Moon is not eclipsing the Sun.
That "eight days left" expired more than five weeks ago when the eclipse happened exactly as predicted by the heliocentric solar system and ellipsoidal earth models.
Have you found any of these threatened [::)] high altitude weather balloon videos showing the moon is not eclipsing the sun yet?
I suggest you read this post again.
You should pay particular attention to the part that says " the said image was taken from a high altitude aircraft "
Is spamming not against forum rules here? Seriously?Just possibly Deception.is.Futile's puppet master is immune from such mundane things as rules.
Rules do not apply to me .
Rules are for plebs such as you Heliocentrics.
I do what I feel is good.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Reported to moderators
RIs spamming not against forum rules here? Seriously?Just possibly Deception.is.Futile's puppet master is immune from such mundane things as rules.
Rules do not apply to me .
Rules are for plebs such as you Heliocentrics.
I do what I feel is good.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Reported to moderators
Rejected.
RIs spamming not against forum rules here? Seriously?Just possibly Deception.is.Futile's puppet master is immune from such mundane things as rules.
Rules do not apply to me .
Rules are for plebs such as you Heliocentrics.
I do what I feel is good.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Reported to moderators
Rejected.
RI'm still fairly new here, so could you explain? Is spamming allowed or not allowed?Is spamming not against forum rules here? Seriously?Just possibly Deception.is.Futile's puppet master is immune from such mundane things as rules.
Rules do not apply to me .
Rules are for plebs such as you Heliocentrics.
I do what I feel is good.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Reported to moderators
Rejected.
RIs spamming not against forum rules here? Seriously?Just possibly Deception.is.Futile's puppet master is immune from such mundane things as rules.
Rules do not apply to me .
Rules are for plebs such as you Heliocentrics.
I do what I feel is good.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Reported to moderators
Rejected.
in german we have a good phrase for that:
eine Kraehe hakt der andere kein Auge aus.
we all know that people get treated here with differently depending of their beliefs
RIs spamming not against forum rules here? Seriously?Just possibly Deception.is.Futile's puppet master is immune from such mundane things as rules.
Rules do not apply to me .
Rules are for plebs such as you Heliocentrics.
I do what I feel is good.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Reported to moderators
Rejected.
in german we have a good phrase for that:
eine Kraehe hakt der andere kein Auge aus.
we all know that people get treated here with differently depending of their beliefs
"Krähe" "hackt" "anderen"
You're welcome.
If only i could report NASA for deliberate ongoing fakery, but for the real impotant matters in life there is no international moderation out there.......the father of all fakeries can continue so it seems, without reprimands and extreme funding cuts.
P.s. who can contain himself right now after so much outragious and scandalous anti NASA claims.......keep your outcries coming guys,Not really a outcry but there seems to be developing a picture of pathological liar about you.
If only i could report NASA for deliberate ongoing fakery, but for the real impotant matters in life there is no international moderation out there.......the father of all fakeries can continue so it seems, without reprimands and extreme funding cuts.
I am going to watch a couple of ISS fake shows to keep the spirit alive.
Long live youtube !!
;D ;D ;D
P.s. who can contain himself right now after so much outragious and scandalous anti NASA claims.......keep your outcries coming guys, i deserve it ! ::)
And of course all credits to Resistance is Futile who keeps his own in the middle of a very hostile environment.
But what do you expect,....it's the flatearth forums after all........
Wait a minute ???
I am really sorry, but i think i should not comment on that.....sorryIf only i could report NASA for deliberate ongoing fakery, but for the real impotant matters in life there is no international moderation out there.......the father of all fakeries can continue so it seems, without reprimands and extreme funding cuts.
What about Japan and the amazing Himawari 8 satellite that sends back Images of the Earth every 10 minutes from it's perspective?
are you going to talk to them about fakery?
At least one who tries to insert some form of humor here and there,.......a word that you are totally unfamiliar with, like most roundies over here. ;DP.s. who can contain himself right now after so much outragious and scandalous anti NASA claims.......keep your outcries coming guys,Not really a outcry but there seems to be developing a picture of pathological liar about you.
At least one who tries to insert some form of humor here and there,.......a word that you are totally unfamiliar with, like most roundies over here. ;DP.s. who can contain himself right now after so much outragious and scandalous anti NASA claims.......keep your outcries coming guys,Not really a outcry but there seems to be developing a picture of pathological liar about you.
Your libel, false statements and constant need to lie about NASA is not humor. Maybe it is funny at first to someone when he sees you to write it but not after third, forth... tenth and more times. Then its clearly pathological and not funny anymore.At least one who tries to insert some form of humor here and there,.......a word that you are totally unfamiliar with, like most roundies over here. ;DP.s. who can contain himself right now after so much outragious and scandalous anti NASA claims.......keep your outcries coming guys,Not really a outcry but there seems to be developing a picture of pathological liar about you.
;D ;D ;DAt least one who tries to insert some form of humor here and there,.......a word that you are totally unfamiliar with, like most roundies over here. ;DP.s. who can contain himself right now after so much outragious and scandalous anti NASA claims.......keep your outcries coming guys,Not really a outcry but there seems to be developing a picture of pathological liar about you.
i can say that i have a lot of humor and you are also provide me with a lot of joke material.
i think i could stand a stand up comedy show with all your crazy claims. ;D
Your libel, false statements and constant need to lie about NASA is not humor. Maybe it is funny at first to someone when he sees you to write it but not after third, forth... tenth and more times. Then its clearly pathological and not funny anymore.I object zork !
didn't you say you had a guitar to practice?I allready played the piano for two hours !
That's not true. You have cherry picked the things that fit your view and ignored the ones that did not. You haven't even remotely used all recorded info about them, so that's a lie.Your libel, false statements and constant need to lie about NASA is not humor. Maybe it is funny at first to someone when he sees you to write it but not after third, forth... tenth and more times. Then its clearly pathological and not funny anymore.I object zork !
I have never lied about NASA, you may find my conclusions offending, false or farfetched (now i am talking about NASA again....when will i ever learn... ::), but i have to stand up to false accusations....sorry Rabinoz)
I have written down all that was said by astronauts and spokesmen, not adding one single phrase or deliberately altering some little things in the process to make a point.
I have used all recorded info by Werner von Braun and James van Allen about future space explorations to proof the impossibilties of Apollo.
I have shown my expertise in the field of music, mixing and production to expose the ISS live event (a clear attempt from fakers based on the initial interview between ISS and earth)
I have also openly stated i understood why the west-east umbra could work in the heliocentric model (not that i agree )
I also do not make strong claims in many specific topics i don't truly understand and make things up as i go to mask my failing understanding of a subject.......which does mean i could be very wrong from time to time when i do participate in a topic.
What and where did i specifically lied about, could you elaborate and point out my wrongdoings instead of disagreeing with my conclusions which seem fair of course ?
Aren't you accusing me somewhat falsly ?
I have told you before that I will not take direction from you Heliocentric plebs.Well, little man, I don't take rubbish from you!Quote from: Resistance.is.FutileThis is my thread.Big deal, so what!Quote from: Resistance.is.FutileThe thread is called Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the Globe which it has.Incorrect and you know it!Quote from: Resistance.is.FutileIt is not called Saros cycle explained and calculated to determine the next eclipse.I couldn't care less what you claim its called! You can't wriggle out of your numerous Saros Cycle claims that easily!
You are the one that brought up the Saros Cycles, so you have to justify your claims, or admit that it was all totally fabricated rubbish.
But it is totally untrue to claim that the exact timing and path of an eclipse can be determined only from saris cycles.
If you think you can, please show exactly how that has been done for the most recent eclipse.
If you cannot do this we will know you have been deceiving us all along with totally false claims.So, by you refusal to answer my simple request you have admitted that you have been deceiving us all along!Run away and waste someone else's time!
Look at the times you dragged these Saros Cycles into the argument, now you want to wriggle out - not on your Nellie!The Saros cycle was originally calculated by the ancient Babylonian's who like all civilisations knew the earth was flat.
NASA still use the SAROS cycle to this day.You speak nonsense.
Eclipse predictions have nothing to do with the shape of the earth.
NASA use the 4000 year old Ancient Babylonian Saros Cycle.
The Ancient Babylonian's new thetrueshape of the earth to be flat.The only reason NASA could predict the eclipse is because they have learnt how to use the 4000 year old Ancient Babylonian Saros Cycle.
Predicting the Eclipse Has nothing at all to do with your Heliocentric fairytale.NASA use the SAROS Cycle to predict eclipses.The ancient Babylonian's and the ancient Chinese could predict Eclipses just as accurately 4000 years ago they used the Saros Cycle.
The Heliocentric mathematics has been retrofitted to the Saros cycle.The alleged ability of the Heliocentric model to predict eclipses is NO form of validation for the said model as the Ancient Babylonian's believed in the same flat Earth model that is generally accepted todayThat is an outright lie! The "the Ancient Babylonians" did not believe in the same flat Earth model that is generally accepted today". It was different in at least one very vital way!Quote from: Resistance.is.Futiland could accurately predict eclipses using the Saros cycle as NASA still do to this day.
NASA have retrofitted their mathematics to the Saros cycle so they can claim it is unique to them.The alleged ability of the Heliocentric model to predict eclipses is NO form of validation for the said model as the Ancient Babylonian's believed in the same flat Earth model that is generally accepted today and could accurately predict eclipses using the Saros cycle as NASA still do to this day.
NASA have retrofitted their mathematics to the Saros cycle so they can claim it is unique to them.The alleged ability of the Heliocentric model to predict eclipses is NO form of validation for the said model as the Ancient Babylonian's believed in the same flat Earth model that is generally accepted today and could accurately predict eclipses using the Saros cycle as NASA still do to this day.
NASA have retrofitted their mathematics to the Saros cycle so they can claim it is unique to them.
Now, you claim so often that "NASA have retrofitted their mathematics to the Saros cycle so they can claim it is unique to them"So now, prove that statement or admit that you have lied to us all along.We are sick of ypur deception and it is time for you to prove all you have been claiminging!
No. I am correct. You have reapeatedly failed to show anything wrong with any argument that has been presented against you. Instead you just dismiss it as unacceptable.
That's not true. You have cherry picked the things that fit your view and ignored the ones that did not. You haven't even remotely used all recorded info about them, so that's a lie.Not true !
And you have shown your ignorance, not your expertise when it comes to audio engineering, though I consider that more a Dunning Kruger thing than a lie.I disagree
Which you, once again, never proved was actually advertised to be a live show. That was your take on the matter. Your opinion. Many options for how they did it were presented, quite a few I recall you even agreeing as possible to plausible. I can't stop others from bringing it up, but at least be honest about it not being a live show other than in your opinion (unless you can actually bring out evidence that's what it was advertised as, and not just starting banter for show).And you have shown your ignorance, not your expertise when it comes to audio engineering, though I consider that more a Dunning Kruger thing than a lie.I disagree
I have talked to several festival and theatre engeneres and asked them about the recording, sound and video to verify my take or debunk it.
They all agree,.....a clear studio production, because of what you hear and see the moment the musical video is played.
So who did you contemplate ?
Thanks for your relentless but great efforts !!!I have told you before that I will not take direction from you Heliocentric plebs.Well, little man, I don't take rubbish from you!Quote from: Resistance.is.FutileThis is my thread.Big deal, so what!Quote from: Resistance.is.FutileThe thread is called Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the Globe which it has.Incorrect and you know it!Quote from: Resistance.is.FutileIt is not called Saros cycle explained and calculated to determine the next eclipse.I couldn't care less what you claim its called! You can't wriggle out of your numerous Saros Cycle claims that easily!
You are the one that brought up the Saros Cycles, so you have to justify your claims, or admit that it was all totally fabricated rubbish.
But it is totally untrue to claim that the exact timing and path of an eclipse can be determined only from saris cycles.
If you think you can, please show exactly how that has been done for the most recent eclipse.
If you cannot do this we will know you have been deceiving us all along with totally false claims.So, by you refusal to answer my simple request you have admitted that you have been deceiving us all along!Run away and waste someone else's time!
Look at the times you dragged these Saros Cycles into the argument, now you want to wriggle out - not on your Nellie!The Saros cycle was originally calculated by the ancient Babylonian's who like all civilisations knew the earth was flat.
NASA still use the SAROS cycle to this day.You speak nonsense.
Eclipse predictions have nothing to do with the shape of the earth.
NASA use the 4000 year old Ancient Babylonian Saros Cycle.
The Ancient Babylonian's new thetrueshape of the earth to be flat.The only reason NASA could predict the eclipse is because they have learnt how to use the 4000 year old Ancient Babylonian Saros Cycle.
Predicting the Eclipse Has nothing at all to do with your Heliocentric fairytale.NASA use the SAROS Cycle to predict eclipses.The ancient Babylonian's and the ancient Chinese could predict Eclipses just as accurately 4000 years ago they used the Saros Cycle.
The Heliocentric mathematics has been retrofitted to the Saros cycle.The alleged ability of the Heliocentric model to predict eclipses is NO form of validation for the said model as the Ancient Babylonian's believed in the same flat Earth model that is generally accepted todayThat is an outright lie! The "the Ancient Babylonians" did not believe in the same flat Earth model that is generally accepted today". It was different in at least one very vital way!Quote from: Resistance.is.Futiland could accurately predict eclipses using the Saros cycle as NASA still do to this day.
NASA have retrofitted their mathematics to the Saros cycle so they can claim it is unique to them.The alleged ability of the Heliocentric model to predict eclipses is NO form of validation for the said model as the Ancient Babylonian's believed in the same flat Earth model that is generally accepted today and could accurately predict eclipses using the Saros cycle as NASA still do to this day.
NASA have retrofitted their mathematics to the Saros cycle so they can claim it is unique to them.The alleged ability of the Heliocentric model to predict eclipses is NO form of validation for the said model as the Ancient Babylonian's believed in the same flat Earth model that is generally accepted today and could accurately predict eclipses using the Saros cycle as NASA still do to this day.
NASA have retrofitted their mathematics to the Saros cycle so they can claim it is unique to them.
Now, you claim so often that "NASA have retrofitted their mathematics to the Saros cycle so they can claim it is unique to them"So now, prove that statement or admit that you have lied to us all along.We are sick of ypur deception and it is time for you to prove all you have been claiminging!
As this is my thread and this thread is about the eclipse I will not allow you to change the subject old man.
You are just trying to avoid addressing the points I raised about the Black hole Sun.
It is obvious to anyone who has observed the photographic evidence and "REAL" video footage I have provided that the Black hole Sun is responsible for the Solar eclipse and NOT the dissappearing and reappearing Magic Moon.
I will accept the refusal of you and your colleagues to answer the points raised on the said object as an admission that I'm correct and that your Heliocentric model is a ridiculous fabrication that was concocted in the 19 th century which explains why it is so easily pulled apart by any person of average intelligence and above.
You fool NO one with your nonsensical explanations out of scale diagrams and shit CGI.
As you will come to realise I'm a man of my word and as I said I will keep posting the thread below until you address the points raised.
Your explanation is unsatisfactory.
No. I am correct. You have reapeatedly failed to show anything wrong with any argument that has been presented against you. Instead you just dismiss it as unacceptable.
Any normal person can understand that as the moon's total orbital path is 27 to 29 days and 1.5 million miles it would have to travel at least a 190000 miles to cross the USA west to east because it is 200000 miles away on your Heliocentric model and in reality the USA is nearly 3000 miles wide so we could say that is roughly 12.5% of the alleged circumfrence of your imaginary Globe which to keep it simple represents roughly 12.5% of the Moons orbital path.
In reality any normal person will know it is impossible for the Moons shadow to travel west to east as they see the Moon rise in the East and set in the West EVERYDAY.
It is also impossible as shown in the first video I posted at the start of the thread because the earth's angular velocity on your model is 27 times greater than the Moon's actual velocity.
You have failed to take into account that the Solar Eclipse is visable in the Sky and it is the Earth's alleged angular Velocity as you and your colleague's have agreed that determines what we see in the sky.
A video that describes the orbit of the Moon on your Heliocentric model.
Light travels in straight lines .
The Eclispe is caused by the moon passing between the sun and the earth.
The Sun has to be directly behind the Moon and the Earth has to be directly in front of the Moon.
An object shadow will follow the object when the light source is directly behind it.
You are now claiming the Moon moves in the opposite direction to what is observed this would be the only possible way that the Moon's shadow can move west to East when the light source which is the Sun is directly behind it.
http://www.livephysics.com/physical-constants/mechanics-pc/angular-speed-earth/
You are fooling no one with your heliocentric nonsense. It is impossible for the path of the solar eclipse to move in completely the opposite direction to the moon.
The moon rises in the East and sets in th west.
The Solar Eclipse starts in the west and finishes if the East. The Earth's angular velocity which Is one rotation every 24 hrs is 27 times faster than the Moon's velocity.
This is why the moon allegedly rises in the east and sets in the west.
If the Moon's velocity was greater than the angular velocity of the earth the Moon would rise in the West and set in the East it would also have to orbit the earth more than once every 24 hours to achieve this.
Here is a description of a solar eclipse on your model.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_eclipse It clearly says the eclipse is caused when the moon passes in front of the sun.
The moon takes 27 days to orbit the earth.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon
On your model the Sun is stationary regarding it's position to the earth and the moon .
http://kidseclipse.com/sun-earth-moon-move/
I chose this link so you Stupid and gullable Heliocentric's can try to understand how and why the upcoming Solar Eclipse is impossible on your model.
It is impossible for an objects shadow to move in the opposite direction to the said object when the light source is stationary.
The only way this would be possible on your model would be if the Sun was moving millions of miles in relation to the earth and did not maintain it's alleged position in the centre of the solar system.
https://www.quora.com/Is-the-sun-the-center-of-the-solar-system-Why So
I will tell you again it is impossible for the Moon to cast a shadow on the Earth that is 24 times smaller than itself.
So I will tell you again it is impossible for the Solar Eclipse to move across the Earth west to East which is the opposite direction to the moon on your Heliocentric model.
Your Heliocentric model does not match reality as such your Heliocentric model is false.
Part one Part two
Anyone that has observed the total eclipse can verify that it is not the Moon .
One would expect to see Earth shine because of the earth's high albedo.
Earth shine has never been observed with the naked eye .
When the eclipse is observed with the naked eye a black object is observed eclipsing the Sun.
When the eclipse is observed with the naked eye the moon is not visible.
The video below demonstrates that it was not the moon eclipsing the Sun ( 30 seconds - 4:00
The Moon does not have to be visible elsewhere in the sky whilst the Black Sun is eclipsing the Sun.
It is not up to you to determine the criteria of satisfactory evidence regarding the Black Sun eclipsing the Sun.
The video above clearly shows that the Moon is not in front of the Sun.
The spectrum analyser shows the Sun is giving it's light off as expected for an object that shape, if the Moon was eclipsing the sun as you Heliocentrics claim there would not be an even distribution of light around the Sun .
You and your brethren can not explain the evenly distributed light around the Sun regarding the video footage taken of the eclipse provided .
The evenly distributed light shown by the spectrum analysers show there is NO solid object in front of the Sun .
The video also highlighted how NASA got their timing wrong .
We have all observed how the moon moves across the sky ; in an hour it moves roughly 15 degrees to the observer on the ground.
At 13:30 on the video an hour before NASA predicted the eclipse we can observe from the video footage that the Black Sun has already started interfering with the Sun.
The above would be impossible if it was the Moon eclipsing the Sun as the Moon would be an estimated few degrees away to the observer at 13:30 .
(http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c118/FromVegaButNotVegan/EclipseBackgroundVariation_zps4d2fllxk.png)
The image demonstrates that the light is clearly evenly distributed around the Sun and that there is no object such as the Moon in front of the sun .
The pattern demonstrated on the image provided shows what would be expected if the sun was that shape .
The video shows there is no sign of your invisible disappearing and reappearing Magic Moon .
The deviation from the perfect circle of light around the Sun is what should be expected as the Sun was a waning crescent at the time of the said image that was taken from the video provided .
If a solid object such as the Moon was obstructing the Sun during the Solar Eclipse there would be little to no light coming from the Sun on the side of the said obstruction .
The image provided doesn't show this as it shows an even distribution of light all around the Sun .
It would also be an impossible coincidence for scattered light to form the correct pattern of evenly distributed light for the Eclipsed Sun as demonstrated in the video provided .
On your heliocentric model the light is allegedly scattered in space and the Shadow is caused by your Magic Moon .
As light in space travels in straight lines we would not be able to observe the pattern of light demonstrated in the video provided earlier if your heliocentric model is correct .
Here is another video that goes into great detail regarding the Solar eclipse.
The video provided also shows pictures taken during the eclipse that show very strange orb like shadows .
The narrator has determined that this is down to the black hole Sun obstructing the Sun .
He also claims that these small orbs that the black hole Sun is constructed of is what is causing the strange shadows that have been photographed during the eclipse and shown in the video .
He also constructs a 3D model using a simulation that displays what we should of observed during the Eclipse if your Heliocentric model is correct .
There is a huge difference between what was observed during the eclipse and what should of been observed if your heliocentric model was correct .
The video :
The video below shows the small orbs that the Black Hole Sun is constructed of in front of the Sun ; the said image was taken from a high altitude aircraft and it also shows these orbs projected onto the ground the said image was taken from eye level about 180 cm the two images combined verify that these small orbs cause the Solar Eclipse and that these small orbs amalgamate to form the Black Hole Sun.
The images where taken from an high altitude aircraft this video proves it is not the Moon that eclipses the Sun it is the Black Hole Sun.
The video's:
In the image below provided by NASA it doesn't show the umbra /penumbra it shows one huge shadow it is certainly bigger than 70 miles wide.
:(https://www.dropbox.com/s/k0puori7rfe55sy/eclipse_epc_2016068.gif?dl=1)
This image from NASA proves your Heliocentric model doesn't match reality.
The alleged shadow cast on Jupiter shown in the video below is about the same size as your imaginary Globe and NOT 70 miles wide .
The video below also highlights some of the many contradictions regarding the Heliocentric model.
The alleged ability of the Heliocentric model to predict eclipses is NO form of validation for the said model as the Ancient Babylonian's believed in the same flat Earth model that is generally accepted today and could accurately predict eclipses using the Saros cycle as NASA still do to this day.
NASA have retrofitted their mathematics to the Saros cycle so they can claim it is unique to them.
These many contradictions show your model is pure fabrication and doesn't match the reality that has been observed and verified as such your ridiculous Heliocentric model is both unacceptable and impossible.
The Black Hole Sun is the cause of the Solar Eclipse and not the Moon.
Heliocentric's are delusional and inferior to debate your ridiculous model with me is pure folly.
I hope you all enjoy this Flat Earth nursery rhyme it is one of my favourites twinkle twinkle little star.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Have you watched the initial interview between earth and the ISS right before kick off ?Which you, once again, never proved was actually advertised to be a live show. That was your take on the matter. Your opinion. Many options for how they did it were presented, quite a few I recall you even agreeing as possible to plausible. I can't stop others from bringing it up, but at least be honest about it not being a live show other than in your opinion (unless you can actually bring out evidence that's what it was advertised as, and not just starting banter for show).And you have shown your ignorance, not your expertise when it comes to audio engineering, though I consider that more a Dunning Kruger thing than a lie.I disagree
I have talked to several festival and theatre engeneres and asked them about the recording, sound and video to verify my take or debunk it.
They all agree,.....a clear studio production, because of what you hear and see the moment the musical video is played.
So who did you contemplate ?
So was this a live interview between Al and Snoop?Have you watched the initial interview between earth and the ISS right before kick off ?Which you, once again, never proved was actually advertised to be a live show. That was your take on the matter. Your opinion. Many options for how they did it were presented, quite a few I recall you even agreeing as possible to plausible. I can't stop others from bringing it up, but at least be honest about it not being a live show other than in your opinion (unless you can actually bring out evidence that's what it was advertised as, and not just starting banter for show).And you have shown your ignorance, not your expertise when it comes to audio engineering, though I consider that more a Dunning Kruger thing than a lie.I disagree
I have talked to several festival and theatre engeneres and asked them about the recording, sound and video to verify my take or debunk it.
They all agree,.....a clear studio production, because of what you hear and see the moment the musical video is played.
So who did you contemplate ?
If that doesn't count for a legimite claim of a coming live event you really need to understand more about how humans interact and what they mean while behaving in a certain way.
They fully meant it to sell it as a live event,...every word from the ''do you have your trusty guitar pick ?'', ''are you ready to do this'' ?, every sentence is proof of a supposed live event in the initial converstaion between ISS and earth.
I am very polite, but i think it is a waste of time when talking to people who deliberately ignore the very obvious time and time again !
If Trump implicate certain things like that. the media would be all over him and rightfully so, but in this particular case the excuses are beyond pathetic.
It looks like it was a show set up to entertain. Mocking up the appearance of a live concert (just like Al's live interview) is certainly entertaining. Of course you try and 'sell' it as a live event, that's the essence of entertainment. Helping your audience in their suspension of disbelief, and it was done beautifully. I would say the fact you've bought into it so hard is good evidence of that. Without a specific reference to this being a live event, it looks completely like a studio-made entertainment piece, and you've said the audio even backs that up.Ahh, so who determines that ''outerspace events'' can participate in a show set up to entertain ?
Why do you insist NASA had anything to do with it?It looks like it was a show set up to entertain. Mocking up the appearance of a live concert (just like Al's live interview) is certainly entertaining. Of course you try and 'sell' it as a live event, that's the essence of entertainment. Helping your audience in their suspension of disbelief, and it was done beautifully. I would say the fact you've bought into it so hard is good evidence of that. Without a specific reference to this being a live event, it looks completely like a studio-made entertainment piece, and you've said the audio even backs that up.Ahh, so who determines that ''outerspace events'' can participate in a show set up to entertain ?
What else was mere entertainment ?......playing with water bubbles int he middle of delicate electric equipment, that was augmented reality to entertain after all ?
Doing backflips with visual errased wires that was part of ''space entertainment'' ?
Is there a list from NASA where they claim what is part of ''space entertainment'' and what was related to ''scientific research'' and micro gravity show off's ?
You smell the problems here,...don't you ?
I repeat: You claim so often that "NASA has retrofitted their mathematics to the Saros cycle so they can claim it is unique to them"<< Silly repeated rubbish deleted >>I have told you before that I will not take direction from you Heliocentric plebs.Well, little man, I don't take rubbish from you!Quote from: Resistance.is.FutileThis is my thread.Big deal, so what!Quote from: Resistance.is.FutileThe thread is called Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the Globe which it has.Incorrect and you know it!Quote from: Resistance.is.FutileIt is not called Saros cycle explained and calculated to determine the next eclipse.I couldn't care less what you claim its called! You can't wriggle out of your numerous Saros Cycle claims that easily!
You are the one that brought up the Saros Cycles, so you have to justify your claims, or admit that it was all totally fabricated rubbish.
But it is totally untrue to claim that the exact timing and path of an eclipse can be determined only from Saros Cycles.
If you think you can, please show exactly how that has been done for the most recent eclipse.
If you cannot do this we will know you have been deceiving us all along with totally false claims.So, by you refusal to answer my simple request you have admitted that you have been deceiving us all along!Run away and waste someone else's time!
Now, you claim so often that "NASA has retrofitted their mathematics to the Saros cycle so they can claim it is unique to them"So now, prove that statement or admit that you have lied to us all along.We are sick of your deception and it is time for you to prove all you have been claiming!
Yes, you appear to have a hard time understanding the difference between things when it comes to anything to do with NASA. Not sure what exactly you're attempting to say with that first question. I'm not speaking to anything beyond this specific example that you set forth. I see no reason to believe it was a full live event.It looks like it was a show set up to entertain. Mocking up the appearance of a live concert (just like Al's live interview) is certainly entertaining. Of course you try and 'sell' it as a live event, that's the essence of entertainment. Helping your audience in their suspension of disbelief, and it was done beautifully. I would say the fact you've bought into it so hard is good evidence of that. Without a specific reference to this being a live event, it looks completely like a studio-made entertainment piece, and you've said the audio even backs that up.Ahh, so who determines that ''outerspace events'' can participate in a show set up to entertain ?
What else was mere entertainment ?......playing with water bubbles int he middle of delicate electric equipment, that was augmented reality to entertain after all ?
Doing backflips with visual errased wires that was part of ''space entertainment'' ?
Is there a list from NASA where they claim what is part of ''space entertainment'' and what was related to ''scientific research'' and micro gravity show off's ?
You smell the problems here,...don't you ?
If only i could report NASA for deliberate ongoing fakery, but for the real impotant matters in life there is no international moderation out there.......the father of all fakeries can continue so it seems, without reprimands and extreme funding cuts.In case you have forgotten how to read the thread is "Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the Globe".
I am going to watch a couple of ISS fake shows to keep the spirit alive.
Long live youtube !!
;D ;D ;D
P.s. who can contain himself right now after so much outragious and scandalous anti NASA claims.......keep your outcries coming guys, i deserve it ! ::)
And of course all credits to Resistance is Futile who keeps his own in the middle of a very hostile environment.
But what do you expect,....it's the flatearth forums after all........
Wait a minute ???
Fred Espenak
Fred Espenak is a retired emeritus American astrophysicist. He worked at the Goddard Space Flight Center. He is best known for his work on eclipse predictions.
He became interested in astronomy when he was 7–8 years old, and had his first telescope when he was around 9–10 years old. Espenak earned a bachelor's degree in physics from Wagner College, Staten Island, where he worked in the planetarium. His master's degree is from the University of Toledo, based on studies he did at Kitt Peak Observatory of eruptive and flare stars among red dwarfs.
He was employed at Goddard Space Flight Center, where he used infrared spectrometers to measure the atmosphere of planets in the Solar System. He provided NASA's eclipse bulletins since 1978. He is the author of several canonical works on eclipse predictions, such as the Fifty Year Canon of Solar Eclipses: 1986–2035 and Fifty Year Canon of Lunar Eclipses: 1986–2035,[1] both of which are standard references on eclipses. The first eclipse he saw was the solar eclipse of March 7, 1970, which sparked his interest in eclipses,[3] and he has since seen over 20 eclipses. He is co-author with Jean Meeus of Five Millennium Canon of Solar Eclipses, which covers all types of solar eclipses (partial, total, annular, or hybrid) from 2000 BC to AD 3000.
From: Fred Espenak (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Espenak)
Occupation: Astrophysicist
Years active: 1978–2009
Website: mreclipse.com (http://mreclipse.com/)
Thanks for your relentless but great efforts !!!Since you chip in and RiF refuses to answer, I must assume that you are offering to explain:
| It is totally untrue to claim that the exact timing and path of an eclipse can be determined only from Saros Cycles. If you think you can, please show exactly how that has been done for the most recent eclipse. If you cannot do this we will know RiF has been deceiving us all along with totally false claims. |
The Total EclipseEven The Flat Earth Society Wiki seems to agree
The Earth and moon orbit the sun as a pair with the moon orbiting the earth.
The moons orbit around Earth is 5° off the ecliptic .
The motion of the Moon is from below the ecliptic to above the ecliptic casting a shadow.
The solar eclipse occurs when the moon passes through the ecliptic during the new moon.
And the earth passes through the shadow of the Moon
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AVisualizing_the_2017_All-American_Eclipse.webm
And this is what happened.
A Solar Eclipse occurs when the moon passes in front of the sun..
The Lunar Eclipse, duh (https://theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=The+Lunar+Eclipse)
Aryabhata, Eclipses
Eclipses
Solar and lunar eclipses were scientifically explained by Aryabhata. He states that the Moon and planets shine by reflected sunlight. Instead of the prevailing cosmogony in which eclipses were caused by Rahu and Ketu (identified as the pseudo-planetary lunar nodes), he explains eclipses in terms of shadows cast by and falling on Earth. Thus, the lunar eclipse occurs when the moon enters into the Earth's shadow (verse gola.37). He discusses at length the size and extent of the Earth's shadow (verses gola.38–48) and then provides the computation and the size of the eclipsed part during an eclipse. Later Indian astronomers improved on the calculations, but Aryabhata's methods provided the core. His computational paradigm was so accurate that 18th-century scientist Guillaume Le Gentil, during a visit to Pondicherry, India, found the Indian computations of the duration of the lunar eclipse of 30 August 1765 to be short by 41 seconds, whereas his charts (by Tobias Mayer, 1752) were long by 68 seconds.
Sidereal periods
Considered in modern English units of time, Aryabhata calculated the sidereal rotation (the rotation of the earth referencing the fixed stars) as 23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4.1 seconds;[30] the modern value is 23:56:4.091. Similarly, his value for the length of the sidereal year at 365 days, 6 hours, 12 minutes, and 30 seconds (365.25858 days)[31] is an error of 3 minutes and 20 seconds over the length of a year (365.25636 days).
Heliocentrism
As mentioned, Aryabhata advocated an astronomical model in which the Earth turns on its own axis. . . . . . . . . . The general consensus is that a synodic anomaly (depending on the position of the sun) does not imply a physically heliocentric orbit (such corrections being also present in late Babylonian astronomical texts), and that Aryabhata's system was not explicitly heliocentric.
From: Aryabhata, Eclipses. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryabhata#Eclipses)
That's not true. You have cherry picked the things that fit your view and ignored the ones that did not. You haven't even remotely used all recorded info about them, so that's a lie.Not true !
I have meticulously written all comments about seeing stars from the lunar surface and outerspace that were available on the www.
From Neil Armstrong, Edgar Mitchell and Neil deGrasse Tyson.
I have written them all, not altering one word !
I did not comment on many subjects, as you prefectly know, but the visabilty of stars was as accurate and honest as possible.
I expect a bit more from you after all this time,.....i never claimed about other subjects. I have sticked to very specific ones and addressed them accordingly.QuoteAnd you have shown your ignorance, not your expertise when it comes to audio engineering, though I consider that more a Dunning Kruger thing than a lie.I disagree
I have talked to several festival and theatre engeneres and asked them about the recording, sound and video to verify my take or debunk it.
They all agree,.....a clear studio production, because of what you hear and see the moment the musical video is played.
So who did you contemplate ?
As this is my thread and this thread is about the eclipse I will not allow you to change the subject old man.
<link to video:
How will this Eclipse be possible on your Heliocentric model ?
The producer in this video gives a detailed description of how and why the upcoming solar Eclipse is impossibe on the Heliocentric Globe Model.
Eight days until a video from a high altitude weather balloon shows the Moon is not eclipsing the Sun.
Ok now you are admitting you cherry picked. You originally said you posted all comments by them. You did not. You posted the ones that fit your view.That's not true. You have cherry picked the things that fit your view and ignored the ones that did not. You haven't even remotely used all recorded info about them, so that's a lie.Not true !
I have meticulously written all comments about seeing stars from the lunar surface and outerspace that were available on the www.
From Neil Armstrong, Edgar Mitchell and Neil deGrasse Tyson.
I have written them all, not altering one word !
I did not comment on many subjects, as you prefectly know, but the visabilty of stars was as accurate and honest as possible.
I expect a bit more from you after all this time,.....i never claimed about other subjects. I have sticked to very specific ones and addressed them accordingly.QuoteAnd you have shown your ignorance, not your expertise when it comes to audio engineering, though I consider that more a Dunning Kruger thing than a lie.I disagree
I have talked to several festival and theatre engeneres and asked them about the recording, sound and video to verify my take or debunk it.
They all agree,.....a clear studio production, because of what you hear and see the moment the musical video is played.
So who did you contemplate ?
You have watched this on stars on the moon?That's not true. You have cherry picked the things that fit your view and ignored the ones that did not. You haven't even remotely used all recorded info about them, so that's a lie.Not true !
I have meticulously written all comments about seeing stars from the lunar surface and outerspace that were available on the www.
As this is my thread and this thread is about the eclipse I will not allow you to change the subject old man.
I'm all for that, but best of luck enforcing it.
A good start, and something under your own control, would for you to cease spamming your own thread with acres of tripe. Maybe you could politely ask your pal dutchy to do the same, as a favor to you.<link to video:
How will this Eclipse be possible on your Heliocentric model ?
Thoroughly explained in the first dozen and more pages of this thread.QuoteThe producer in this video gives a detailed description of how and why the upcoming solar Eclipse is impossibe on the Heliocentric Globe Model.
The relative motions of the moon and earth in that video are not to scale; that's all. It's wrong. It may be detailed, but it's incorrect. There's lots of stuff like that that out there, which is why you shouldn't rely on videos like this to try to illustrate your point. They just lead you to the wrong conclusion.Eight days until a video from a high altitude weather balloon shows the Moon is not eclipsing the Sun.
Have you even found any high-altitude balloon video of the eclipse yet, much less one that provides some semblance of evidence you might be right? It's been well over a month. We're still waiting.
Have you even found any high-altitude balloon video of the eclipse yet, much less one that provides some semblance of evidence you might be right? It's been well over a month. We're still waiting.
No. I am correct. You have reapeatedly failed to show anything wrong with any argument that has been presented against you. Instead you just dismiss it as unacceptable.
And you write deceptive rubbish.As this is my thread and this thread is about the eclipse I will not allow you to change the subject old man.I'm all for that, but best of luck enforcing it.
A good start, and something under your own control, would for you to cease spamming your own thread with acres of tripe. Maybe you could politely ask your pal dutchy to do the same, as a favor to you.<link to video:
How will this Eclipse be possible on your Heliocentric model ?
Thoroughly explained in the first dozen and more pages of this thread.QuoteThe producer in this video gives a detailed description of how and why the upcoming solar Eclipse is impossibe on the Heliocentric Globe Model.
The relative motions of the moon and earth in that video are not to scale; that's all. It's wrong. It may be detailed, but it's incorrect. There's lots of stuff like that that out there, which is why you shouldn't rely on videos like this to try to illustrate your point. They just lead you to the wrong conclusion.Eight days until a video from a high altitude weather balloon shows the Moon is not eclipsing the Sun.
Have you even found any high-altitude balloon video of the eclipse yet, much less one that provides some semblance of evidence you might be right? It's been well over a month. We're still waiting.
You speak nonsense.
Another lie, unless by "the Black hole Sun." you mean the moon, that everybody but a few FE retards know causes the solar eclipse.
Have you even found any high-altitude balloon video of the eclipse yet, much less one that provides some semblance of evidence you might be right? It's been well over a month. We're still waiting.
This is the second time I have addressed this you REtard.
I have provided two videos that have video footage from high altitude proving it is not the Moon that causes the solar eclipse it is the the black whole Sun that is constructed of many small orbs; the photographic evidence and the video footage in the two videos prove this and as I said it has most definitely debunked your Imaginary Globe.
You are just trying to avoid addressing the points I raised about the Black hole Sun.
It is obvious to anyone who has observed the photographic evidence and "REAL" video footage I have provided that the Black hole Sun is responsible for the Solar eclipse and NOT the dissappearing and reappearing Magic Moon.You mean that you will keep posting your deceptive rubbish!
I will accept the refusal of you and your colleagues to answer the points raised on the said object as an admission that I'm correct and that your Heliocentric model is a ridiculous fabrication that was concocted in the 19 th century which explains why it is so easily pulled apart by any person of average intelligence and above.
You fool NO one with your nonsensical explanations out of scale diagrams and shit CGI.
As you will come to realise I'm a man of my word and as I said I will keep posting the thread below until you address the points raised.
Your explanation is unsatisfactory.In other words you don't have the brains to understand that Jack black is perfectly correct! So stop this repeated deception.
No. I am correct. You have reapeatedly failed to show anything wrong with any argument that has been presented against you. Instead you just dismiss it as unacceptable.
<< repeatedly debunked garbage deleted >>
I'm still fairly new here, so could you explain? Is spamming allowed or not allowed?If you are a FEer, yes.
If only i could report NASA for deliberate ongoing fakeryYou mean slander them for continued baseless claims of fakery which you are yet to substantiate?
I have never lied about NASA, you may find my conclusions offending, false or farfetchedYes, your conclusions are false, farfetched and offensive.
I have used all recorded info by Werner von Braun and James van Allen about future space explorations to proof the impossibilties of Apollo.You mean difficulties, especially regarding electronics which didn't exist back then and a route which was not used, which has no bearing on the Apollo missions.
I have shown my expertise in the field of music, mixing and production to expose the ISS live event (a clear attempt from fakers based on the initial interview between ISS and earth)You mean where you couldn't understand how they managed to sing together, even though the ping to the ISS was quite small and nothing like what you suggested it should be?
What and where did i specifically lied about, could you elaborate and point out my wrongdoings instead of disagreeing with my conclusions which seem fair of course ?Well, how about the lies you made in that post, claiming that the footage indicates Apollo was impossible or your lies about the live event?
Aren't you accusing me somewhat falsly ?
As this is my thread and this thread is about the eclipse I will not allow you to change the subject old man.Sure, only you get to change the subject to avoid addressing the points that have been raised.
You are just trying to avoid addressing the points I raised about the Black hole Sun.
I think that the identity of RiF's puppet master is the real question. RiF was created on May 19, 2017 just to "play with" these "Heliocentrics".I'm still fairly new here, so could you explain? Is spamming allowed or not allowed?If you are a FEer, yes.
If you are a REer, no.
If only i could report NASA for deliberate ongoing fakery, but for the real impotant matters in life there is no international moderation out there.......the father of all fakeries can continue so it seems, without reprimands and extreme funding cuts.I honestly wish there was somewhere you could go to get your delusion cleared up.
I am going to watch a couple of ISS fake shows to keep the spirit alive.Yes, it must be hard keeping all that hatred alive, maybe these will help:
These many contradictions show your model is pure fabrication and doesn't match the reality that has been observed and verified as such your ridiculous Heliocentric model is both unacceptable and impossible.You claimed that the moon would be somewhere over Asia during the solar eclipse.
The Black Hole Sun is the cause of the Solar Eclipse and not the Moon.
When should we expect you to provide some evidence to support that claim?
Have you even found any high-altitude balloon video of the eclipse yet, much less one that provides some semblance of evidence you might be right? It's been well over a month. We're still waiting.
Who will be launching these balloons and why?I would love to see some photographs from planes of this upcoming eclipse, to check the size of the shadow on the ground. Hopefully someone will take some (unaltered) ones that we can all look at afterwards.What makes anyone think that planes fly enough to see the entire shadow? ???
Planes possibly not .
The thousands of high altitude weather balloons that will be launched will.
There are millions of people in the States who know the " True" shape of the Earth.
Thousands of these people will be launching high altitude weather Balloons on the 21.08.17.
The footage from the said Balloons will show an Eclipsed Sun it will also show the Moon 180 degrees away from the Eclisped Sun.
Enjoy your deception why you still can you have 12 days left.
You are just trying to avoid addressing the points I raised about the Black hole Sun.
It is obvious to anyone who has observed the photographic evidence and "REAL" video footage I have provided that the Black hole Sun is responsible for the Solar eclipse and NOT the dissappearing and reappearing Magic Moon.
I will accept the refusal of you and your colleagues to answer the points raised on the said object as an admission that I'm correct and that your Heliocentric model is a ridiculous fabrication that was concocted in the 19 th century which explains why it is so easily pulled apart by any person of average intelligence and above.
You fool NO one with your nonsensical explanations out of scale diagrams and shit CGI.
As you will come to realise I'm a man of my word
and as I said I will keep posting the thread below until you address the points raised.
...
As this is my thread and this thread is about the eclipse I will not allow you to change the subject old man.Sure, only you get to change the subject to avoid addressing the points that have been raised.
You are just trying to avoid addressing the points I raised about the Black hole Sun.
Again, saying an explanation is unacceptable doesn't disprove it in the slightest.
You need to show what is wrong with our explanations and you are yet to do that.
So again, what is wrong with my explanation of why the shadow moves west to east?
Did you need it in full, without the assumption?
Well, here it is, from where I did it for pajama boy before, so it used 5 minutes as the time period:
(http://i.imgur.com/vIpuP52.png)
You are correct that the rotation of Earth will result in the shadow apparently moving in that direction, by 1.25 degrees for those 5 minutes.
This is indicated by θR.
However, the moon also moves, a small distance d, or an angle θM (0.04 degrees). θd is the angle measured from the sun for this motion.
θS shows the result of this motion on the position of the shadow. θs then corrects this for the rotation of Earth (θR).
One thing I noted was not on my diagram, which I shall call b, basically where h intersects the purple line, measured from the centre of Earth.
So, THE MATH:
tan(θM)=d/R=>d=R*tan(θM).
tan(θd)=d/(S-R)=h/(S-b)=>h=d(S-b)/(S-R)=>R*tan(θM)(S-b)/(S-R)
sin(θS)=h/r=R*tan(θM)(S-b)/r(S-R)
θs=θS-θR=asin(R*tan(θM)(S-b)/r(S-R))-θR.
Now, the easiest way to simplify this is to note that S is 150 000 000, R is 400 000 and b is less than 6371, thus S-R=149600000, and S-b~= (technically, slightly greater than)149993629.
These are both effectively the same as S and thus you can simplify S-b and S-R to S. This gives you:
θs=asin(R*tan(θM)(S)/r(S))-θR.
=asin(R*tan(θM)/r)-θR.
=asin(400 000 * tan(0.04) / 6371) - 1.25=1.26218495 degrees.
If you instead (i.e. don't make the simplifications above) simplify b=r, it is more complex and gives you:
=asin(400 000 * tan(0.04) *149993629 / (6371*149600000)) - 1.25=1.268799292 degrees.
The other option is to figure out b or h:
First, we need the total length of the pink line from the sun to Earth, which I shall call a.
Now r^2=a^2+S^2-2*a*S*cos(θd)
0=a^2-2*a*S*cos(θd)-r^2+S^2
For θd, we know:
tan(θd)=d/(S-R)=R*tan(θM)/(S-R)
Thus θd=0.000106952 deg
Thus we can sub some things in the above (more sig figs carried over in real calcs):
0=a^2-2*a*S*cos(θd)-r^2+S^2
0=a^2-a*2*150000000*cos(0.000106952 deg) - 6371^2+150000000^2
0=a^2-300000000*a+2.25E+16
Thus a=(300000000+-sqrt((300000000)^2-4*2.25E+16))/2
a=(300000000+-12729.68813)/2
a=150006364.8 or 149993635.2
Now, we can tell that a<S, and thus we pick the smaller one so a=149993635.2.
Now then, to find h we have:
sin(θd)=h/a
Thus h=a*sin(θd)
=149993635.2*sin(0.000106952 deg)=279.9875097
Compare this to d:
tan(θM)=d/R
d=R*tan(θM)=400000*tan(0.04 deg)=279.2527257.
So the shadow has moved more than the size of the moon.
Now sin(θS)=h/r
so θS=asin(h/r)=asin(279.9785097/6371)=2.518799395
θs=θS-θR=2.518799395-1.25=1.268799395 degrees.
So what is the issue with it?
Why does it produce a result you think is wrong?
Have you even found any high-altitude balloon video of the eclipse yet, much less one that provides some semblance of evidence you might be right? It's been well over a month. We're still waiting.
I have provided two videos that have video footage from high altitude proving it is not the Moon that causes the solar eclipse it is the the black whole Sun that is constructed of many small orbs; the photographic evidence and the video footage in the two videos prove this and as I said it has most definitely debunked your Imaginary Globe.
Who will be launching these balloons and why?I would love to see some photographs from planes of this upcoming eclipse, to check the size of the shadow on the ground. Hopefully someone will take some (unaltered) ones that we can all look at afterwards.What makes anyone think that planes fly enough to see the entire shadow? ???
Planes possibly not .
The thousands of high altitude weather balloons that will be launched will.
There are millions of people in the States who know the " True" shape of the Earth.
Thousands of these people will be launching high altitude weather Balloons on the 21.08.17.
The footage from the said Balloons will show an Eclipsed Sun it will also show the Moon 180 degrees away from the Eclisped Sun.
Enjoy your deception why you still can you have 12 days left.
You are just trying to avoid addressing the points I raised about the Black hole Sun.
It is obvious to anyone who has observed the photographic evidence and "REAL" video footage I have provided that the Black hole Sun is responsible for the Solar eclipse and NOT the dissappearing and reappearing Magic Moon.
I will accept the refusal of you and your colleagues to answer the points raised on the said object as an admission that I'm correct and that your Heliocentric model is a ridiculous fabrication that was concocted in the 19 th century which explains why it is so easily pulled apart by any person of average intelligence and above.
You fool NO one with your nonsensical explanations out of scale diagrams and shit CGI.
As you will come to realise I'm a man of my word
and as I said I will keep posting the thread below until you address the points raised.
...
No. I am correct. You have reapeatedly failed to show anything wrong with any argument that has been presented against you. Instead you just dismiss it as unacceptable.
You really need to stop confusing angular speed and lateral velocity and their relation to one another in this.As this is my thread and this thread is about the eclipse I will not allow you to change the subject old man.Sure, only you get to change the subject to avoid addressing the points that have been raised.
You are just trying to avoid addressing the points I raised about the Black hole Sun.
Again, saying an explanation is unacceptable doesn't disprove it in the slightest.
You need to show what is wrong with our explanations and you are yet to do that.
So again, what is wrong with my explanation of why the shadow moves west to east?
Did you need it in full, without the assumption?
Well, here it is, from where I did it for pajama boy before, so it used 5 minutes as the time period:
(http://i.imgur.com/vIpuP52.png)
You are correct that the rotation of Earth will result in the shadow apparently moving in that direction, by 1.25 degrees for those 5 minutes.
This is indicated by θR.
However, the moon also moves, a small distance d, or an angle θM (0.04 degrees). θd is the angle measured from the sun for this motion.
θS shows the result of this motion on the position of the shadow. θs then corrects this for the rotation of Earth (θR).
One thing I noted was not on my diagram, which I shall call b, basically where h intersects the purple line, measured from the centre of Earth.
So, THE MATH:
tan(θM)=d/R=>d=R*tan(θM).
tan(θd)=d/(S-R)=h/(S-b)=>h=d(S-b)/(S-R)=>R*tan(θM)(S-b)/(S-R)
sin(θS)=h/r=R*tan(θM)(S-b)/r(S-R)
θs=θS-θR=asin(R*tan(θM)(S-b)/r(S-R))-θR.
Now, the easiest way to simplify this is to note that S is 150 000 000, R is 400 000 and b is less than 6371, thus S-R=149600000, and S-b~= (technically, slightly greater than)149993629.
These are both effectively the same as S and thus you can simplify S-b and S-R to S. This gives you:
θs=asin(R*tan(θM)(S)/r(S))-θR.
=asin(R*tan(θM)/r)-θR.
=asin(400 000 * tan(0.04) / 6371) - 1.25=1.26218495 degrees.
If you instead (i.e. don't make the simplifications above) simplify b=r, it is more complex and gives you:
=asin(400 000 * tan(0.04) *149993629 / (6371*149600000)) - 1.25=1.268799292 degrees.
The other option is to figure out b or h:
First, we need the total length of the pink line from the sun to Earth, which I shall call a.
Now r^2=a^2+S^2-2*a*S*cos(θd)
0=a^2-2*a*S*cos(θd)-r^2+S^2
For θd, we know:
tan(θd)=d/(S-R)=R*tan(θM)/(S-R)
Thus θd=0.000106952 deg
Thus we can sub some things in the above (more sig figs carried over in real calcs):
0=a^2-2*a*S*cos(θd)-r^2+S^2
0=a^2-a*2*150000000*cos(0.000106952 deg) - 6371^2+150000000^2
0=a^2-300000000*a+2.25E+16
Thus a=(300000000+-sqrt((300000000)^2-4*2.25E+16))/2
a=(300000000+-12729.68813)/2
a=150006364.8 or 149993635.2
Now, we can tell that a<S, and thus we pick the smaller one so a=149993635.2.
Now then, to find h we have:
sin(θd)=h/a
Thus h=a*sin(θd)
=149993635.2*sin(0.000106952 deg)=279.9875097
Compare this to d:
tan(θM)=d/R
d=R*tan(θM)=400000*tan(0.04 deg)=279.2527257.
So the shadow has moved more than the size of the moon.
Now sin(θS)=h/r
so θS=asin(h/r)=asin(279.9785097/6371)=2.518799395
θs=θS-θR=2.518799395-1.25=1.268799395 degrees.
So what is the issue with it?
Why does it produce a result you think is wrong?
More of your Heliocentric nonsense.
Are you familiar with the phrase " bullshit baffles brains "
The only relevant digits regarding the Heliocentric model and the solar eclipse are the earth's rotation and the Moon's orbit ; in the five minutes the earth's rotation being 1.25 degrees and the the Moon's orbit around the Earth ( I used 27 days for simplicity )in the said five minutes which is 0.0462 degrees .
We all know the Sun is stationary in relation to the earth and the Moon ; as on your HC model it is in the centre of the alleged solar system.
With that said the light source which is the Sun is directly in front of the Moon and the Earth is directly behind the Moon on your HC model.
With that said the Moon's shadow would be cast directly behind it.
https://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/k-4/stories/solar-eclipse-diagram
So therefore the Moon's shadow would only move 0.0462 degrees in the said five minutes in the same time the earth would have rotated 1.25 degrees equating to a difference of 1.2038.
As the earth allegedly rotates anticlockwise on your HC model this would cause the shadow to move east to west and NOT west to east as is observed in reality.
The Heliocentric model does not reflect what has been observed and verified in reality as such it is false.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
So therefore the Moon's shadow would only move 0.0462 degrees in the said five minutes in the same time the earth would have rotated 1.25 degrees equating to a difference of 1.2038.How many miles of rotation does that work out to for the earth and moon?
You really need to stop confusing angular speed and lateral velocity....
If you are visually impaired and are unable to see the photographic evidence and video footage I provided in the videos it is not my problem.
No one has addressed the points I have raised regarding the many orbs that the Black hole Sun is constructed of.
The Black hole Sun is the cause of the eclipse and not the Moon.
More of your Heliocentric nonsense.Again, if it was nonsense you would be able to show exactly what is wrong with it.
The only relevant digits regarding the Heliocentric model and the solar eclipse are the earth's rotation and the Moon's orbit ; in the five minutes the earth's rotation being 1.25 degrees and the the Moon's orbit around the Earth ( I used 27 days for simplicity )in the said five minutes which is 0.0462 degrees .No they aren't.
We all know the Sun is stationary in relation to the earth and the Moon ; as on your HC model it is in the centre of the alleged solar system.And with that we completely discard the angular motions as they become useless to describe it.
With that said the light source which is the Sun is directly in front of the Moon and the Earth is directly behind the Moon on your HC model.
With that said the Moon's shadow would be cast directly behind it.
So therefore the Moon's shadow would only move 0.0462 degrees in the said five minutesNo it wouldn't.
The Heliocentric model does not reflect what has been observed and verified in reality as such it is false.As shown by me, it DOES reflect what has been observed.
You fool NO one with your nonsensical explanations out of scale diagrams and shit CGI.You mean with our completely rational explanations which make perfect sense which you are simply unable to refute?
As you will come to realise I'm a man of my word and as I said I will keep posting the thread below until you address the points raised.You mean you will keep spamming the same refuted nonsense while being completely unable to refute the arguments made by us?
So basically, you don't know how to resize an image, and this makes you credible somehow?And who is that meant to be addressed to, me or RiF?
You're asking me if I would prefer something that is the exact same size of the thing I suggested you shrink?No, I'm asking you if you would prefer something which is significantly smaller.
Do you have a rational objection to the argument at hand, or are you just capable of bitching about the image itself?No, your image was perfect.
So I take it that means you accept that RiF was wrong and that the HC model does correctly predict the west to east motion of the moon's shadow?Do you have a rational objection to the argument at hand, or are you just capable of bitching about the image itself?No, your image was perfect.
You really need to stop confusing angular speed and lateral velocity and their relation to one another in this.As this is my thread and this thread is about the eclipse I will not allow you to change the subject old man.Sure, only you get to change the subject to avoid addressing the points that have been raised.
You are just trying to avoid addressing the points I raised about the Black hole Sun.
Again, saying an explanation is unacceptable doesn't disprove it in the slightest.
You need to show what is wrong with our explanations and you are yet to do that.
So again, what is wrong with my explanation of why the shadow moves west to east?
Did you need it in full, without the assumption?
Well, here it is, from where I did it for pajama boy before, so it used 5 minutes as the time period:
(http://i.imgur.com/vIpuP52.png)
You are correct that the rotation of Earth will result in the shadow apparently moving in that direction, by 1.25 degrees for those 5 minutes.
This is indicated by θR.
However, the moon also moves, a small distance d, or an angle θM (0.04 degrees). θd is the angle measured from the sun for this motion.
θS shows the result of this motion on the position of the shadow. θs then corrects this for the rotation of Earth (θR).
One thing I noted was not on my diagram, which I shall call b, basically where h intersects the purple line, measured from the centre of Earth.
So, THE MATH:
tan(θM)=d/R=>d=R*tan(θM).
tan(θd)=d/(S-R)=h/(S-b)=>h=d(S-b)/(S-R)=>R*tan(θM)(S-b)/(S-R)
sin(θS)=h/r=R*tan(θM)(S-b)/r(S-R)
θs=θS-θR=asin(R*tan(θM)(S-b)/r(S-R))-θR.
Now, the easiest way to simplify this is to note that S is 150 000 000, R is 400 000 and b is less than 6371, thus S-R=149600000, and S-b~= (technically, slightly greater than)149993629.
These are both effectively the same as S and thus you can simplify S-b and S-R to S. This gives you:
θs=asin(R*tan(θM)(S)/r(S))-θR.
=asin(R*tan(θM)/r)-θR.
=asin(400 000 * tan(0.04) / 6371) - 1.25=1.26218495 degrees.
If you instead (i.e. don't make the simplifications above) simplify b=r, it is more complex and gives you:
=asin(400 000 * tan(0.04) *149993629 / (6371*149600000)) - 1.25=1.268799292 degrees.
The other option is to figure out b or h:
First, we need the total length of the pink line from the sun to Earth, which I shall call a.
Now r^2=a^2+S^2-2*a*S*cos(θd)
0=a^2-2*a*S*cos(θd)-r^2+S^2
For θd, we know:
tan(θd)=d/(S-R)=R*tan(θM)/(S-R)
Thus θd=0.000106952 deg
Thus we can sub some things in the above (more sig figs carried over in real calcs):
0=a^2-2*a*S*cos(θd)-r^2+S^2
0=a^2-a*2*150000000*cos(0.000106952 deg) - 6371^2+150000000^2
0=a^2-300000000*a+2.25E+16
Thus a=(300000000+-sqrt((300000000)^2-4*2.25E+16))/2
a=(300000000+-12729.68813)/2
a=150006364.8 or 149993635.2
Now, we can tell that a<S, and thus we pick the smaller one so a=149993635.2.
Now then, to find h we have:
sin(θd)=h/a
Thus h=a*sin(θd)
=149993635.2*sin(0.000106952 deg)=279.9875097
Compare this to d:
tan(θM)=d/R
d=R*tan(θM)=400000*tan(0.04 deg)=279.2527257.
So the shadow has moved more than the size of the moon.
Now sin(θS)=h/r
so θS=asin(h/r)=asin(279.9785097/6371)=2.518799395
θs=θS-θR=2.518799395-1.25=1.268799395 degrees.
So what is the issue with it?
Why does it produce a result you think is wrong?
More of your Heliocentric nonsense.
Are you familiar with the phrase " bullshit baffles brains "
The only relevant digits regarding the Heliocentric model and the solar eclipse are the earth's rotation and the Moon's orbit ; in the five minutes the earth's rotation being 1.25 degrees and the the Moon's orbit around the Earth ( I used 27 days for simplicity )in the said five minutes which is 0.0462 degrees .
We all know the Sun is stationary in relation to the earth and the Moon ; as on your HC model it is in the centre of the alleged solar system.
With that said the light source which is the Sun is directly in front of the Moon and the Earth is directly behind the Moon on your HC model.
With that said the Moon's shadow would be cast directly behind it.
https://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/k-4/stories/solar-eclipse-diagram
So therefore the Moon's shadow would only move 0.0462 degrees in the said five minutes in the same time the earth would have rotated 1.25 degrees equating to a difference of 1.2038.
As the earth allegedly rotates anticlockwise on your HC model this would cause the shadow to move east to west and NOT west to east as is observed in reality.
The Heliocentric model does not reflect what has been observed and verified in reality as such it is false.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Disclaimer: The following diagram is not directly to scale, and is meant to convey an idea, not show exactly what is going on.
(https://i.imgur.com/uuiaC9S.png)
The moon doesn't need to move the same amount of angular distance. Not even close. It only has to cover the lateral distance from one side of the sun to the other. Shown here as distance X. This is roughly the distance of the Earth's diameter, or 7900 miles. This is made even less by only having to cover a distance within that section equal to where it's on the ground, but let's start with 7900 miles.
It needs to cover that distance faster than the rotation of the Earth. The moon moves at about 2290 mph. The Earth rotates at about 1037 mph. This means the moons shadow will move at about 1000 mph across the surface of the Earth. As well, it will take just a bit under 3.5 hours to get across the whole Earth. Allow a bit of extra time since the Moon isn't a point source, and is itself approx. 2000 miles across, and that would bring us up to right around the 4-4.5 hour mark for how long the shadow will be on Earth. Which is right in the ballpark for how long the eclipse was.
My numbers could be better, but I'm just trying to show it's not a comparison of angular speed here. It's Earths rotational speed, vs. the moons lateral speed, over a short distance. The sun doesn't move, so stop pretending it does, as that is what comparing the angular speed is predicated upon. The moon only needs to move about 8000 miles out of it's orbit distance of about 239.000 miles.
If you are visually impaired and are unable to see the photographic evidence and video footage I provided in the videos it is not my problem.
Photographic evidence? Do you mean this?
(https://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c118/FromVegaButNotVegan/EclipseBackgroundVariation_zps4d2fllxk.png)
There's no evidence there. That image shows a little light bit of light scattered away from the visible part of the sun, as expected. There's not enough data to conclude more than that.
Can you specify which video footage (which URLs and the times of the relevant parts) that you think provide the high-altitude footage you claim to be evidence? You've posted dozens of videos, few worth watching. None seem to show what you claim, but I was off grid for a couple of weeks; perhaps I missed the key videos amidst your oft-repeated long spammy post. Was this footage (if any) from any of those thousands of high-altitude weather balloons you said would be lofted for the eclipse? You never answered that. Are you avoiding the question because you were mistaken (or lying) about those "thousands of high-altitude weather balloons" and don't want to admit it? Exercising Hanlon's Razor, we can presume "mistaken" for the time being.QuoteNo one has addressed the points I have raised regarding the many orbs that the Black hole Sun is constructed of.
Yeah, we have. There's only one orb. It's the moon.QuoteThe Black hole Sun is the cause of the eclipse and not the Moon.
You keep asserting that. We're still waiting for evidence, not empty assertions based on mistaken conjecture.
No. I am correct. You have reapeatedly failed to show anything wrong with any argument that has been presented against you. Instead you just dismiss it as unacceptable.
The shadow would be at least the same size as the said spherical object as it is impossible for any object to cast a shadow smaller than itself.Incorrect!
You REtards can not even understand primary school geometry.
Which part of the Moon is allegedly 200000 miles away on your ridiculous Heliocentric model do you not understand.
As the moon is allegedly so far away the distance it travels and it's actual velocity are insignificant iN relation to the earth's alleged angular velocity.
Watch this again:
You fool NO one with your nonsense.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
You REtards can not even understand primary school geometry.
Which part of the Moon is allegedly 200000 miles away on your ridiculous Heliocentric model do you not understand.
As the moon is allegedly so far away the distance it travels and it's actual velocity are insignificant iN relation to the earth's alleged angular velocity.
Watch this again:
You fool NO one with your nonsense.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
As you claim to have so much more knowledge as other ones, why do you not generate a computer model of a flat earth in the software blender?
That way you could easily prove your ideas and show us all that you are right.
Why is that not be done by a FEIB before.
There must be one under the FEIB that have enough knowledge of blender to do so.
I have provided lots of evidenceSure, you have provided lots of evidence in shape of videos about yuor ignorance. Nothing more. So its quite understandable that you are getting picked on.
I have provided lots of evidenceSure, you have provided lots of evidence in shape of videos about yuor ignorance. Nothing more. So its quite understandable that you are getting picked on.
You REtards can not even understand primary school geometry.Nope, it seems to be you failing to understand.
Which part of the Moon is allegedly 200000 miles away on your ridiculous Heliocentric model do you not understand.
As the moon is allegedly so far away the distance it travels and it's actual velocity are insignificant iN relation to the earth's alleged angular velocity.
Watch this again:No!
You REtards can not even understand primary school geometry.Nope, it seems to be you failing to understand.
Which part of the Moon is allegedly 200000 miles away on your ridiculous Heliocentric model do you not understand.
As the moon is allegedly so far away the distance it travels and it's actual velocity are insignificant iN relation to the earth's alleged angular velocity.
The moon is quite far away, around 360 000 - 400 000 km.
That means it's quite insignificant angular motion amounts to a very large linear motion.
That makes its shadow move quite a lot.
Again, here is a TO SCALE diagram to show that:
(https://i.imgur.com/EbUcj0a.png)
Notice how the moon, even though it moves just a tiny angular amount, due to its vast distance, has moved quite some translational amount and thus its shadow has as well.
This is the HC model you are lying about.Watch this again:No!
Deal with your lies about the HC model first.
Once you either show that the HC model predicts that the moon's shadow should move east to west or you admit that the HC model correctly predicts that the moon's shadow moves west to east we can move on.
Until then, STOP TRYING TO CHANGE THE SUBJECT!
Explain what is wrong with my explanation.
Do the math yourself and prove that the moon's shadow should move east to west.
If you are unable to do so then just admit you were wrong.
No. I am correct. You have reapeatedly failed to show anything wrong with any argument that has been presented against you. Instead you just dismiss it as unacceptable.
I have explained many times what is wrong with your explanation .No you haven't.
One aspect of this is it does not account correctly for the angular velocity of your imaginary Globe.No, it doesn't deal with any imaginary globes.
You REtards should also read this:You have already said all this crap, and it was pointed out to be crap, including the reason why.
One can imagine a carousel /merry go round that has a diameter of 12 metres.And here you are again, bitching about out of scale diagrams, when you provide an out of scale model.
[snip]
The said spherical object is 200 metres away from the carousel.
[snip]
As such your out of scale diagrams and explanations are a nonsense designed to fool stupid gullable inferior people like yourself.
I have provided lots of evidenceSure, you have provided lots of evidence in shape of videos about yuor ignorance. Nothing more. So its quite understandable that you are getting picked on.
Me
Picked on ?
Lol.
Lol.
Don't be silly.
I destroy you REtards.
This video illustrates me vs all of you REtards.
I'm Darth Vader and you Heliocentrics are the inferior cattle like pleb soldiers that follow orders.
Lol.
Lol.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
I destroy you REtards.<laugh behind the scenes>. As I said, you have only provided evidence for your ignorance and you have not destroyed anyone. But I guess you soon destroy forum if your every post is going to be so ridiculously long and contain same content always.
The shadow would be at least the same size as the said spherical object as it is impossible for any object to cast a shadow smaller than itself.Incorrect!(https://www.dropbox.com/s/ojc6vktk196cvgh/Shadow%20sizes.png?dl=1)It is easy for the umbra to be smaller than the object!
Read: Eclipses of the Sun & Moon (http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast161/Unit2/eclipses.html) and
Umbra, penumbra and antumbra (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umbra,_penumbra_and_antumbra) and the best till last
Diagram of Umbra and Penumbra (https://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/k-4/stories/umbra-and-penumbra)
Bye bye, Mr Ignorance.is.Bliss.
If you are visually impaired and are unable to see the photographic evidence and video footage I provided in the videos it is not my problem.
Photographic evidence? Do you mean this?
(https://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c118/FromVegaButNotVegan/EclipseBackgroundVariation_zps4d2fllxk.png)
There's no evidence there. That image shows a little light bit of light scattered away from the visible part of the sun, as expected. There's not enough data to conclude more than that.
Can you specify which video footage (which URLs and the times of the relevant parts) that you think provide the high-altitude footage you claim to be evidence? You've posted dozens of videos, few worth watching. None seem to show what you claim, but I was off grid for a couple of weeks; perhaps I missed the key videos amidst your oft-repeated long spammy post. Was this footage (if any) from any of those thousands of high-altitude weather balloons you said would be lofted for the eclipse? You never answered that. Are you avoiding the question because you were mistaken (or lying) about those "thousands of high-altitude weather balloons" and don't want to admit it? Exercising Hanlon's Razor, we can presume "mistaken" for the time being.QuoteNo one has addressed the points I have raised regarding the many orbs that the Black hole Sun is constructed of.
Yeah, we have. There's only one orb. It's the moon.QuoteThe Black hole Sun is the cause of the eclipse and not the Moon.
You keep asserting that. We're still waiting for evidence, not empty assertions based on mistaken conjecture.
If you are visually impaired and are unable to see the photographic evidence and video footage I provided in the videos it is not my problem.
Photographic evidence? Do you mean this?
(https://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c118/FromVegaButNotVegan/EclipseBackgroundVariation_zps4d2fllxk.png)
There's no evidence there. That image shows a little light bit of light scattered away from the visible part of the sun, as expected. There's not enough data to conclude more than that.
Can you specify which video footage (which URLs and the times of the relevant parts) that you think provide the high-altitude footage you claim to be evidence? You've posted dozens of videos, few worth watching. None seem to show what you claim, but I was off grid for a couple of weeks; perhaps I missed the key videos amidst your oft-repeated long spammy post. Was this footage (if any) from any of those thousands of high-altitude weather balloons you said would be lofted for the eclipse? You never answered that. Are you avoiding the question because you were mistaken (or lying) about those "thousands of high-altitude weather balloons" and don't want to admit it? Exercising Hanlon's Razor, we can presume "mistaken" for the time being.QuoteNo one has addressed the points I have raised regarding the many orbs that the Black hole Sun is constructed of.
Yeah, we have. There's only one orb. It's the moon.QuoteThe Black hole Sun is the cause of the eclipse and not the Moon.
You keep asserting that. We're still waiting for evidence, not empty assertions based on mistaken conjecture.
I'm still waiting pizza face.
These videos :
For making me go over the same basic principles again and again ...you can enjoy this :
The latest from Dubay .
Lol.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
I'm still waiting pizza face.We are still waiting for you.
I see nothing in the gobbledegook of that video the "that DESTROYS Heliocentric Model".
PROOF That DESTROYS Heliocentric Model Part 2 Cosmology Hoax Evidence 2017 and Flat Earth Model-Sun
For making me go over the same basic principles again and again ...you can enjoy this :The only times you "go over the same basic principles again and again" you present totally incorrect and illogical explanations that have been proven wrong dozens of times.
Mr Ignorance.is.Bliss, read this:The latest from Dubay .
You Matter, Eric Dubay
The Atlantean Conspiracy, Flat Earth Society is Controlled Opposition!. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Flat Earth Society is a controlled opposition group that mixes truth with lies and satire to discredit genuine flat Earth research, a job they have been doing for a long time now. Founded in 1970 by Leo Ferrari, a suspected Freemason and philosophy professor at St. Thomas' University, Leo spent his life making a mockery of the legitimate subject of our flat Earth. Though he passed away in 2010, his Flat Earth Society still exists today online as a website/forum which, still true to form, purports several false flat-Earth arguments and treats the entire subject as a dead-pan joke.
In 1956 a genuine truth-seeker and flat-Earth researcher, Samuel Shenton, had started the IFERS (International Flat Earth Research Society) and was making quite an impact with his publications and interviews, revealing the truth of our flat Earth to the masses. The globalists attempted to ignore the threat posed by Shenton for over a decade before finally creating their competing, farcical controlled opposition FES (Flat Earth Society) which has spent the past 45 years steering all flat-Earth inquiry into the realms of satire and sarcasm.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
In a famous 1971 CBC interview Ferrari was asked, "how do you explain the fact that the Earth appears round in the pictures taken from space by the astronauts?" Instead of answering and addressing the clear photo-trickery involved, Ferrari replied, "Simple. No doubt you're familiar with Einstein's theory of the curvature of space. If space is curved - and modern physics is based on that assumption - the Earth, from space, would appear circular. It's a simple optical illusion." This convoluted, pandering answer really is no answer at all and serves only to make the listener cock their head and raise an eyebrow.(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-se8EKp2tVyA/VPRguYNq2pI/AAAAAAAAPrE/KpxJUYDfwOs/s1600/flat-earth-society.jpg)
He then goes on saying "the effects of gravity, I feel, could be simulated by the disc Earth moving upwards, accelerating upwards at 9.8 meters per second, would have the same effects of what people traditionally think of as gravity." This ridiculous false flat-Earth argument also appears on Wikipedia and the FES homepage. It is provably wrong as the "upwards accelerating disc" would smash into all helicopters, planes and hot-air balloons making sustained flight of any kind impossible[1], but they purposely promote these strawman arguments so flat Earth neophytes will rightly laugh off their dumb explanations, and then following suit, write off the entire subject.
From The Atlantean Conspiracy, The Flat Earth Society is Controlled Opposition! (http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/03/flat-earth-society-controlled-op.html)
I'm still waiting pizza face.We are still waiting for you.
I'm waiting for you to explain what is wrong with this to-scale diagram which clearly shows that even with the moon's orbital angular velocity being much less than Earth's rotational angular velocity, the moon's shadow still moves west-to-east, as the massive distance between Earth and the moon makes that tiny angular velocity turn into quite a large translation (or to admit that you were wrong and that the HC model does correctly predict the west-to-east motion of the moon's shadow).
Here is the diagram for you again:
(https://i.imgur.com/EbUcj0a.png)
So can you explain (not just baselessly assert crap, provide an actual explanation) what is wrong with it?
If not, are you going to admit you were wrong?
No. I am correct. You have reapeatedly failed to show anything wrong with any argument that has been presented against you. Instead you just dismiss it as unacceptable.
The shadow would be at least the same size as the said spherical object as it is impossible for any object to cast a shadow smaller than itself.Incorrect!
I have explained many times what is wrong with your nonsensical explanations and shit deceptive diagrams you have not explained once why the orbs that the black sun is constructed of do not cause the eclipse or how or why my real life video and photographic evidence that clearly show the moon doesn't eclipse the sun is false.No you haven't.
I have explained many times what is wrong with your nonsensical explanations and shit deceptive diagrams you have not explained once why the orbs that the black sun is constructed of do not cause the eclipse or how or why my real life video and photographic evidence that clearly show the moon doesn't eclipse the sun is false.No you haven't.
You have repeatedly dismissed the explanation and baselessly asserted that because the moon's orbital angular velocity is much less than Earth's rotational angular velocity the moon's shadow should move much less than Earth.
However I have repeatedly refute that baseless claim of yours and demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt that that claim is false.
First I provided a not-to-scale diagram showing how that is possible, how an object can have its shadow move significantly more in terms of angle on the surface of a planet than it moves in its orbit.
I then provided the math which shows this to be the case for the moon, showing that the moon's shadow moves significantly more than a point on the surface of Earth rotating with Earth.
I have even provided a to-scale diagram to remove any possible objections you could have.
All you could do in response was just dismiss my explanation (without any rational justification) and assert the same nonsense yet again.
So no, you are yet to explain what is wrong with my perfectly rational explanation nor my to-scale diagram.
As for your magic orbs, like I said, STOP TRYING TO CHANGE THE SUBJECT!
Deal with this first, either explaining exactly what is wrong with it, such as by providing a to-scale diagram yourself, or doing the math (with explanation of the math) to show how much the moon's shadow moves on Earth; or admit you were wrong and that the HC model correctly predicts the west-to-east motion of the moon's shadow.
Until you have done one of them I will keep on bringing this point up and ignoring any other crap you try and use to change the subject.
And once you do one of them, you can pick a single new thing to discuss rather than trying to have loads of points which you switch back and forth between to ignore admitting you are wrong. You are clearly incapable of discussing more than a single (or few) points at a time, so stick to one point (and until we are done with the direction of the moon's shadow, that is the point we are sticking to).
Here is the diagram for you again:
(https://i.imgur.com/EbUcj0a.png)
No. I am correct. You have reapeatedly failed to show anything wrong with any argument that has been presented against you. Instead you just dismiss it as unacceptable.
I have explained many times what is wrong with your nonsensical explanations and shit deceptive diagrams you have not explained once why the orbs that the black sun is constructed of do not cause the eclipse or how or why my real life video and photographic evidence that clearly show the moon doesn't eclipse the sun is false.Repeating the same bullshit again and again won't make it any more true.
I have explained many times what is wrong with your nonsensical explanations andI have explained many timesNo you haven't.
<< repeatedly debunked rubbish deleted >>
You have repeatedly dismissed the explanation and baselessly asserted that because the moon's orbital angular velocity is much less than Earth's rotational angular velocity the moon's shadow should move much less than Earth.
However I have repeatedly refute that baseless claim of yours and demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt that that claim is false.
First I provided a not-to-scale diagram showing how that is possible, how an object can have its shadow move significantly more in terms of angle on the surface of a planet than it moves in its orbit.
I then provided the math which shows this to be the case for the moon, showing that the moon's shadow moves significantly more than a point on the surface of Earth rotating with Earth.
I have even provided a to-scale diagram to remove any possible objections you could have.
All you could do in response was just dismiss my explanation (without any rational justification) and assert the same nonsense yet again.
So no, you are yet to explain what is wrong with my perfectly rational explanation nor my to-scale diagram.
As for your magic orbs, like I said, STOP TRYING TO CHANGE THE SUBJECT!
Deal with this first, either explaining exactly what is wrong with it, such as by providing a to-scale diagram yourself, or doing the math (with explanation of the math) to show how much the moon's shadow moves on Earth; or admit you were wrong and that the HC model correctly predicts the west-to-east motion of the moon's shadow.
Until you have done one of them I will keep on bringing this point up and ignoring any other crap you try and use to change the subject.
And once you do one of them, you can pick a single new thing to discuss rather than trying to have loads of points which you switch back and forth between to ignore admitting you are wrong. You are clearly incapable of discussing more than a single (or few) points at a time, so stick to one point (and until we are done with the direction of the moon's shadow, that is the point we are sticking to).
Here is the diagram for you again:
(https://i.imgur.com/EbUcj0a.png)
I'm still waiting Old Man.And I'm still waiting for you to provide some evidence that the new moon was seen anywhere other than where RET predicted it would be during the eclipse.
Not more of your antumbra umbra penumbra bollocks.
No one that lives in the real world has ever observed an objects umbra 30 times smaller than the said object.
If you believe this nonsense to be true please provide a real life example such as a video so we can all observe this magic umbra / shadow that you speak of.
I await your video evidence with great anticipation.
If you are visually impaired and are unable to see the photographic evidence and video footage I provided in the videos it is not my problem.
Photographic evidence? Do you mean this?
(https://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c118/FromVegaButNotVegan/EclipseBackgroundVariation_zps4d2fllxk.png)
There's no evidence there. That image shows a little light bit of light scattered away from the visible part of the sun, as expected. There's not enough data to conclude more than that.
Can you specify which video footage (which URLs and the times of the relevant parts) that you think provide the high-altitude footage you claim to be evidence? You've posted dozens of videos, few worth watching. None seem to show what you claim, but I was off grid for a couple of weeks; perhaps I missed the key videos amidst your oft-repeated long spammy post. Was this footage (if any) from any of those thousands of high-altitude weather balloons you said would be lofted for the eclipse? You never answered that. Are you avoiding the question because you were mistaken (or lying) about those "thousands of high-altitude weather balloons" and don't want to admit it? Exercising Hanlon's Razor, we can presume "mistaken" for the time being.QuoteNo one has addressed the points I have raised regarding the many orbs that the Black hole Sun is constructed of.
Yeah, we have. There's only one orb. It's the moon.QuoteThe Black hole Sun is the cause of the eclipse and not the Moon.
You keep asserting that. We're still waiting for evidence, not empty assertions based on mistaken conjecture.
I'm still waiting Old Man.And I'm still waiting for you to provide some evidence that the new moon was seen anywhere other than where RET predicted it would be during the eclipse.
Not more of your antumbra umbra penumbra bollocks.
No one that lives in the real world has ever observed an objects umbra 30 times smaller than the said object.
If you believe this nonsense to be true please provide a real life example such as a video so we can all observe this magic umbra / shadow that you speak of.
I await your video evidence with great anticipation.
The shadow would be at least the same size as the said spherical object as it is impossible for any object to cast a shadow smaller than itself.Incorrect!(https://www.dropbox.com/s/ojc6vktk196cvgh/Shadow%20sizes.png?dl=1)It is easy for the umbra to be smaller than the object!
Read: Eclipses of the Sun & Moon (http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast161/Unit2/eclipses.html) and
Umbra, penumbra and antumbra (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umbra,_penumbra_and_antumbra) and the best till last
Diagram of Umbra and Penumbra (https://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/k-4/stories/umbra-and-penumbra)
Bye bye, Mr Ignorance.is.Bliss.
I didn't ask about the black sun. I asked about the new moon which you claimed would be somewhere over Asia at the time of the eclipse.I'm still waiting Old Man.And I'm still waiting for you to provide some evidence that the new moon was seen anywhere other than where RET predicted it would be during the eclipse.
Not more of your antumbra umbra penumbra bollocks.
No one that lives in the real world has ever observed an objects umbra 30 times smaller than the said object.
If you believe this nonsense to be true please provide a real life example such as a video so we can all observe this magic umbra / shadow that you speak of.
I await your video evidence with great anticipation.
See the post addressed to pizza face.
There is plenty of video and photographic evidence that shows the Black hole Sun in front of the Sun.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
I'm still waiting
you pizza face mother [EXPLETIVE DELETED].
These videos :
<
<
For making me go over the same basic principles again and again ...you can enjoy this :
<
The latest from Dubay .
Lol.
The main reason why the Arago spot [Poisson spot] is hard to observe in circular shadows from conventional light sources is that such light sources are bad approximations of point sources.
I'm still waitingAnd we are still waiting.
My diagrams are correct and rely only on light travelling in straight lines.<< rubbish deleted >>The shadow would be at least the same size as the said spherical object as it is impossible for any object to cast a shadow smaller than itself.Incorrect!(https://www.dropbox.com/s/ojc6vktk196cvgh/Shadow%20sizes.png?dl=1)It is easy for the umbra to be smaller than the object!
Read: Eclipses of the Sun & Moon (http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast161/Unit2/eclipses.html) and
Umbra, penumbra and antumbra (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umbra,_penumbra_and_antumbra) and the best till last
Diagram of Umbra and Penumbra (https://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/k-4/stories/umbra-and-penumbra)
Bye bye, Mr Ignorance.is.Bliss.
Thank you so much for doing this, I was about to try and slog through this video myself but even the opening of it had me concerned about some things like what you pointed out. I just wanted to point out, videos like these that have closed captions added to them, have had a transcript added manually. You can see it by selecting it after turning on the closed captions. 'Show transcript' or similar is an option under the '...' more menu. From that transcript his actual words on Mr. Monk are as follows:I'm still waiting-snipped to keep my post reply short-
See the earth and moon as one big cosmic caroussel in the ''globe reality''.
Althaugh the outer carriages on a normal caroussel go much faster than the centre of the caroussel, they maintain their relative position towards one another.
If you would record the speed, the outer carriages go much faster than the inner centre.
What NASA and globers want you to believe is that althaugh both the moon and earth move in the same direction, the moon goes much faster.
Moon orbital speed = 3.683 km per hour
Earth's rotational speed = 1670 km per hour near the equator
By claiming that the moon goes much faster than earth's rotation and the casted shadow is therefor going east to west is a pseudo explaination for the moving eclipse from Oregon to South Carolina
The caroussel analogy clearly explains the problem.
Althaugh the carriages on the outside go faster they never are able to overtake the slower centre.
The maintain their relative position towards one another.
The moon supposedly travels faster than earth, but the fact of the matter is the moon is relatively much slower.
The earth takes 24 hours to make one revolution whereas the moon takes more than 27 days to go around earth.
With that in mind and a cosmic caroussel where the moon is the much faster outer carriage and the earth the slower centre.
Relatively the centre is even faster than the outside because it spins around it axes faster than that the moon goes around earth.
How do we visualise this ?
Enter a huge caroussel and take a position in the centre.
Now make a full turn...you will notice that you actually seem to have overtaken the outside carriages ??
But when you would measure the actuall speed, the outside carriages would go faster than my measerable slow revolution in the centre.
Let alone 27 revolutions in the centre compared to ONE revolution of the outside !
This eclipse cannot occur from East to West in North America, no matter what the actuall speed of the moon is.
The earth's rotation is to fast for the moon the play catch up and the eclips could only occur the other way around !No matter what shadow was cast.
Good find !!!
I'm still waiting
...
you pizza face mother [EXPLETIVE DELETED].
Ooohhh, my goodness... such an insult! Are you still in seventh grade?
I'm still waiting
...
you pizza face mother [EXPLETIVE DELETED].
Ooohhh, my goodness... such an insult! Are you still in seventh grade?
It's been ten days since the two videos produced and narrated by "Mr. Thrive and Survive" were shown, with examples, to be nothing more than 32 minutes of utter and complete balderdash (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71435.msg1963606#msg1963606).
Mr. Futile hasn't been heard from since, and this thread had already faded to page three of the forum index. Maybe he's too busy to post here because he's in a futile search for videos (that don't exist) from the "thousands of high-altitude weather balloons" he expected would be launched (but weren't, actually) for the August eclipse? Could he have finally decided that desperately trying to defend his bold predictions, especially after they were easily seen to be wrong, was futile?
We may never know, and this thread, whose title boldly predicted, but failed to deliver, "Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the Globe" will sink into the obscurity it deserves, joining all those other failed and forgettable "debunkings of the globe" and incorrect predictions based on flat earth in a geocentric universe.
Oh, well... it was fun for a few weeks.
I'm still waiting
...
you pizza face mother [EXPLETIVE DELETED].
Ooohhh, my goodness... such an insult! Are you still in seventh grade?
It's been ten days since the two videos produced and narrated by "Mr. Thrive and Survive" were shown, with examples, to be nothing more than 32 minutes of utter and complete balderdash (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71435.msg1963606#msg1963606).
Mr. Futile hasn't been heard from since, and this thread had already faded to page three of the forum index. Maybe he's too busy to post here because he's in a futile search for videos (that don't exist) from the "thousands of high-altitude weather balloons" he expected would be launched (but weren't, actually) for the August eclipse? Could he have finally decided that desperately trying to defend his bold predictions, especially after they were easily seen to be wrong, was futile?
We may never know, and this thread, whose title boldly predicted, but failed to deliver, "Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the Globe" will sink into the obscurity it deserves, joining all those other failed and forgettable "debunkings of the globe" and incorrect predictions based on flat earth in a geocentric universe.
Oh, well... it was fun for a few weeks.
Do you honestly not realise how utterly unhinged you come across as when you write crazed shit like the above?
Who do you think you're impressing, exactly?
Cos I guarantee it ain't normal, sane people...
They'll think you're mental.
Wtf is wrong with you?
I'm still waiting
...
you pizza face mother [EXPLETIVE DELETED].
Ooohhh, my goodness... such an insult! Are you still in seventh grade?
It's been ten days since the two videos produced and narrated by "Mr. Thrive and Survive" were shown, with examples, to be nothing more than 32 minutes of utter and complete balderdash (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71435.msg1963606#msg1963606).
Mr. Futile hasn't been heard from since, and this thread had already faded to page three of the forum index. Maybe he's too busy to post here because he's in a futile search for videos (that don't exist) from the "thousands of high-altitude weather balloons" he expected would be launched (but weren't, actually) for the August eclipse? Could he have finally decided that desperately trying to defend his bold predictions, especially after they were easily seen to be wrong, was futile?
We may never know, and this thread, whose title boldly predicted, but failed to deliver, "Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the Globe" will sink into the obscurity it deserves, joining all those other failed and forgettable "debunkings of the globe" and incorrect predictions based on flat earth in a geocentric universe.
Oh, well... it was fun for a few weeks.
Do you honestly not realise how utterly unhinged you come across as when you write crazed shit like the above?
Who do you think you're impressing, exactly?
Cos I guarantee it ain't normal, sane people...
They'll think you're mental.
Wtf is wrong with you?
Yes, this guy is my favorite FE'r
He's impervious enough to reason that he might just as well be an FE'er.I'm still waiting
...
you pizza face mother [EXPLETIVE DELETED].
Ooohhh, my goodness... such an insult! Are you still in seventh grade?
It's been ten days since the two videos produced and narrated by "Mr. Thrive and Survive" were shown, with examples, to be nothing more than 32 minutes of utter and complete balderdash (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71435.msg1963606#msg1963606).
Mr. Futile hasn't been heard from since, and this thread had already faded to page three of the forum index. Maybe he's too busy to post here because he's in a futile search for videos (that don't exist) from the "thousands of high-altitude weather balloons" he expected would be launched (but weren't, actually) for the August eclipse? Could he have finally decided that desperately trying to defend his bold predictions, especially after they were easily seen to be wrong, was futile?
We may never know, and this thread, whose title boldly predicted, but failed to deliver, "Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the Globe" will sink into the obscurity it deserves, joining all those other failed and forgettable "debunkings of the globe" and incorrect predictions based on flat earth in a geocentric universe.
Oh, well... it was fun for a few weeks.
Do you honestly not realise how utterly unhinged you come across as when you write crazed shit like the above?
Who do you think you're impressing, exactly?
Cos I guarantee it ain't normal, sane people...
They'll think you're mental.
Wtf is wrong with you?
Yes, this guy is my favorite FE'r
Nope, he's one of yours.
Do you honestly not realise how utterly unhinged you come across as when you write crazed shit like the above?
Who do you think you're impressing, exactly?
Cos I guarantee it ain't normal, sane people...
They'll think you're mental.
Wtf is wrong with you?
I am not here to 'respond'.
Cos I am not here to respond, or debate, or any other thing you want me to do.
Do you honestly not realise how utterly unhinged you come across as when you write crazed shit like the above?
Who do you think you're impressing, exactly?
Cos I guarantee it ain't normal, sane people...
They'll think you're mental.
Wtf is wrong with you?
I see there's still no reason to stop ignoring PL's posts.
Just a reminder, here's his attitude:I am not here to 'respond'.Cos I am not here to respond, or debate, or any other thing you want me to do.
Since he's not going to discuss ideas, ignore him.
Do you honestly not realise how utterly unhinged you come across as when you write crazed shit like the above?
Who do you think you're impressing, exactly?
Cos I guarantee it ain't normal, sane people...
They'll think you're mental.
Wtf is wrong with you?
I see there's still no reason to stop ignoring PL's posts.
Just a reminder, here's his attitude:I am not here to 'respond'.Cos I am not here to respond, or debate, or any other thing you want me to do.
Since he's not going to discuss ideas, ignore him.
Ignore me by digging up posts from two and a half years ago?
Are you fucking serious?
Here's an idea I want to discuss: why are you so mental?
I see there's still no reason to stop ignoring PL's posts.Ignore me by digging up posts from two and a half years ago?
Just a reminder, here's his attitude:I am not here to 'respond'.Cos I am not here to respond, or debate, or any other thing you want me to do.
Since he's not going to discuss ideas, ignore him.
Quote... why are you so mental?
No you are INCORRECT.
The Moon on your model takes 27 days to orbit the earth .
The Earth takes 24 hours per revolution.
I ask you again .
How is the Solar Eclipse on the 21.08.17 possible on your model.?
Is the Earth going to start spinning the other way ;D
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
He won't explain anything. He'll dismiss your question, tell you are wrong, and then make some claim about an object that is both invisible and blocks out light that he will use later to say he proved you wrong and call you a liar.
No you are INCORRECT.
The Moon on your model takes 27 days to orbit the earth .
The Earth takes 24 hours per revolution.
I ask you again .
How is the Solar Eclipse on the 21.08.17 possible on your model.?
Is the Earth going to start spinning the other way ;D
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Explain this one for us, Homeslice... Go find out the frequency in which a solar eclipse occurs somewhere on earth. *hint* You can Google it... then, explain how that time sequence fits within the FlatHead model of a earth shaped like a chode.
No I do not expected anyone to take my word .
This is the difference between someone normal like me and you Strange Heliocentric 's.
This I why I'm giving you a count down you now have eight days left.
Eight days until a video from a high altitude weather balloon shows the Moon is not eclipsing the Sun.
As I have said numerous times it is impossible for the Moon to be Eclispsing the Sun as the shadow moves the wrong way during the eclipse (west to east)the Moon is also visable during the day and we would also see the Moon moving across the Sun.
@markjo
The Moon is in the wrong place during this Eclispe on the 21.08.17 the only logical explanation is something else is Eclispes the Sun.
This will be proven on the 21 st.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is Finished.