How long did umbra travel from coast to coast in America's solar eclipse 2017?

Quote from: Danang on October 29, 2020, 09:05:25 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on October 29, 2020, 12:44:32 PM

Quote from: Danang on October 29, 2020, 04:55:53 AM

"no gif pic is hoax" 

By that I take it you mean you have no refutation to the fact that there is no problem for the RE, HC model?

Words can give gullible, contradictory explanation.

So where's the best gif pic for HC as I requested? Can you show me just one?

'
Use the google and find one to your liking.

They ain't have a model that is conformed by all REers unless it is gullible. Either the moon goes east or west, all are illogical in respect to the umbra pattern. #justsaying

Quote from: Danang on October 29, 2020, 09:05:25 PM

Words can give gullible, contradictory explanation.

And if it was contradictory, you would be able to point out the contradiction.
So why don't you try doing that rather than repeatedly dismissing it?

Quote from: Danang on October 29, 2020, 09:05:25 PM

So where's the best gif pic for HC as I requested? Can you show me just one?

There is no one best gif, as it will heavily depend upon what you want to see.
A big problem with a too scale gif, is the scale involved.
Earth has a radius of 6371 km. The distance to the moon is ~400 000 km.
That means that the radius of Earth is ~0.016 times the size of the moon's orbit.
That means that if you want to fit the moon's orbit as a circle on a 1080p screen, you would have Earth as ~17 pixels.
To give you an idea of what that looks like, it looks like this:


Most people want Earth to be a much larger size so they can see it.
But then you run into the problem of how you scale it so you can see the moon and Earth easily in the one shot.
You need to bring the moon in closer, but then do you keep the linear speed constant, or the angular speed constant?
If you keep the angular speed constant, but bring it in to 40 000 km, the linear speed will be reduced by a factor of 10. This means that with this, not to scale model, the moon will be travelling slower than Earth and thus the shadow will move to the west. If instead you keep the linear speed constant, then the angular speed is multiplied by 10, and thus the moon would orbit Earth in a mere ~3 days and people will claim it is much too fast.

That is why math can work a lot better to tell the story than just proving a crappy image.

Also, I provided you a link to a web app you can use to view it:
https://eyes.jpl.nasa.gov/eyes-on-eclipse-web-app.html
You can set it to a few different views, including the Earth-Moon system. That way you can see it all (apparently) to scale, and see how the moon moves, and how even though Earth rotates, the speed of the moon means the shadow goes to the east.

You didn't show a gif pic as I request. Surely such a gif pic is impossible to make. The moon is supposed to go eastwards and faster than the earth rotation speed. IOW you should adopt (half) geo centrism model, but that even doesn't help as I have shown to you in the previous diagrams coz the sun and moon get separated.

The moon is supposed to go eastwards and faster than the earth rotation speed.

The Moon clearly moves eastwards relative to the stars and Sun each Month. For example at new Moon the elongation angle between the Sun and Moon is zero degrees and hence the times of Moonrise/Moonset and Sunrise/Sunset coincide.

Then a few evenings later the Moon appears as a crescent to the east of the Sun, the elongation increasing each day until about a week later the first quarter Moon is visible in the evening sky 90 degrees to the east of the Sun.  A week later at full Moon the elongation angle has increased to 180 degrees and the Moon rise as the Sun sets.   At this point the Moon has completed half of its orbit around the Earth.  If we could look down on the NP of the Earth we would see the Moon orbiting Earth anticlockwise.

The Earths rotation speed at the equator is just over 1000 mph whereas the Moons orbital speed is 0.635 miles per second.  So there is no 'supposed' about it.  The Moon certainly does orbit the Earth at a faster speed than the Earth rotates.  That is pretty obvious I would have thought.

If we are talking about the rate at which the Moon moves eastwards on the sky relative to the stars, you can't really describe that in terms of mph. A lunar month is 29.5 days from new Moon to new Moon which is 360 degrees on the sky.  360 degrees / 29.5 days gives us the angle on the sky per day that the Moon moves eastwards which works out to just over 12 degrees per day. You can check this by direct observation or by using any planetarium software (stellarium for example), moving time back and forth by daily increments and then using the angle measuring tool.

If we take the Moons orbital speed of 0.635 miles per second that equates to 0.635 x 60 = 2,286 miles per minute or 54,864mph. Given the lunar month of 29.5 days that gives an orbital distance of 1,618,488 miles.  Since C=Pi x diameter if we divide 1,618,488 by pi we get 515,180.7 miles which gives an orbital radius or distance to the Moon of 257, 590 miles.  Which matches what the 'RE' claim of the Moons distance is very nicely.  We generally talk about the Moon being a quarter of a million miles away.

They ain't have a model that is conformed by all REers unless it is gullible. Either the moon goes east or west, all are illogical in respect to the umbra pattern. #justsaying

Except the one you have been provided with which you choose to ignore.

You didn't show a gif pic as I request.

I provided a link to a model, which you can play and change the speed of and so on.
Surely that is better than a crappy gif.

Now can you point out any actual problems with the model, or just continue with the pathetic deflection.

Remember the burden isn't on me to satisfy your every ridiculous demand. It is on you to show just what the problem is.

The moon is supposed to go eastwards and faster than the earth rotation speed.

Stop confusing rotational and linear motion.
Earth rotates faster than the moon orbits, but the linear speed of the moon in its orbit is faster than the surface of the Earth with its rotation.
This means the moon appears to move to the west, while it's shadow appears to move to the east.
You are yet to provide any problem with this.

doesn't help as I have shown to you in the previous diagrams coz the sun and moon get separated.

As they are meant to.
Again, if they didn't we would only ever have a new moon.
Your wild claims about them needing to magically stick together do not match reality.

Quote from: JackBlack on October 29, 2020, 12:44:32 PM

Quote from: Danang on October 29, 2020, 04:55:53 AM

"no gif pic is hoax" 

By that I take it you mean you have no refutation to the fact that there is no problem for the RE, HC model?

Words can give gullible, contradictory explanation.

So where's the best gif pic for HC as I requested? Can you show me just one?

Don't you know that all pictures from "space" are fake?

The moon is supposed to go eastwards and faster than the earth rotation speed.

I don't get why this is such a complicated discussion. To me it's very simple. The sun crosses the sky east to west on average about 15° per hour. The moon crosses the sky east to west on average about 14.5° per hour. The sun therefore catches up with the moon and overtakes it, going east to west, at the rate of (on average) about 0.5° per hour.

Since the sun passes behind the moon, when an eclipse happens, if you are looking at the sun, from that perspective, then the moon crosses the face of the sun from west to east at 0.5° per hour and that means the shadow moves west to east as well.

Quote from: Danang on October 30, 2020, 03:28:26 PM

The moon is supposed to go eastwards and faster than the earth rotation speed.

I don't get why this is such a complicated discussion. To me it's very simple. The sun crosses the sky east to west on average about 15° per hour. The moon crosses the sky east to west on average about 14.5° per hour. The sun therefore catches up with the moon and overtakes it, going east to west, at the rate of (on average) about 0.5° per hour.

Since the sun passes behind the moon, when an eclipse happens, if you are looking at the sun, from that perspective, then the moon crosses the face of the sun from west to east at 0.5° per hour and that means the shadow moves west to east as well.

Yep, it's simple. And that's not Helio Centric model.

The note to consider:
The sun chatching up the moving forward moon will not give such a traveling umbra whose velocity is like the letter "U", i.e. the umbra goes deceleration and then goes acceleration.

It takes a solid body intersecting the sun's path to realize such an umbra pattern in real world, otherwise: the umbra would go zero velocity or go backwards for a while and then go forwards again.

Quote from: robinofloxley on October 31, 2020, 04:57:45 AM

Quote from: Danang on October 30, 2020, 03:28:26 PM

The moon is supposed to go eastwards and faster than the earth rotation speed.

I don't get why this is such a complicated discussion. To me it's very simple. The sun crosses the sky east to west on average about 15° per hour. The moon crosses the sky east to west on average about 14.5° per hour. The sun therefore catches up with the moon and overtakes it, going east to west, at the rate of (on average) about 0.5° per hour.

Since the sun passes behind the moon, when an eclipse happens, if you are looking at the sun, from that perspective, then the moon crosses the face of the sun from west to east at 0.5° per hour and that means the shadow moves west to east as well.

Yep, it's simple. And that's not Helio Centric model.

No idea why you would think that. The earth orbits the sun and at the same time rotates about its axis. The cumulative effect of that is that the sun appears to move east to west at 15° per hour. No problems with that, surely.

The moon orbits the earth and the earth rotates about its axis. The cumulative effect is that the moon appears to move east west at 14.5° per hour. Can't see a problem with that either.

The note to consider:
The sun chatching up the moving forward moon will not give such a traveling umbra whose velocity is like the letter "U", i.e. the umbra goes deceleration and then goes acceleration.

It takes a solid body intersecting the sun's path to realize such an umbra pattern in real world, otherwise: the umbra would go zero velocity or go backwards for a while and then go forwards again.

Sorry, not following that at all. Are you saying the moon is or isn't a solid body? I can stand in the path of totality and watch the moon slide across the face of the sun. I did exactly that in 2017, so I know what I saw.

Quote from: robinofloxley on October 31, 2020, 04:57:45 AM

Quote from: Danang on October 30, 2020, 03:28:26 PM

The moon is supposed to go eastwards and faster than the earth rotation speed.

I don't get why this is such a complicated discussion. To me it's very simple. The sun crosses the sky east to west on average about 15° per hour. The moon crosses the sky east to west on average about 14.5° per hour. The sun therefore catches up with the moon and overtakes it, going east to west, at the rate of (on average) about 0.5° per hour.

Since the sun passes behind the moon, when an eclipse happens, if you are looking at the sun, from that perspective, then the moon crosses the face of the sun from west to east at 0.5° per hour and that means the shadow moves west to east as well.

Yep, it's simple. And that's not Helio Centric model.

The note to consider:
The sun chatching up the moving forward moon will not give such a traveling umbra whose velocity is like the letter "U", i.e. the umbra goes deceleration and then goes acceleration.

It takes a solid body intersecting the sun's path to realize such an umbra pattern in real world, otherwise: the umbra would go zero velocity or go backwards for a while and then go forwards again.

You still seem to fail to understand simple concepts.  The sun does not move in the heliocentric model.   The Moon orbits the Earth, and the Earth orbits the Sun.  It just looks like the Sun is moving.

Try studying the pictures and models some more.

Yep, it's simple. And that's not Helio Centric model.

That is the HC model, if you take that model and rotate it around Earth.
It is the same model, just viewed from a different reference frame.

The note to consider:
The sun chatching up the moving forward moon will not give such a traveling umbra whose velocity is like the letter "U", i.e. the umbra goes deceleration and then goes acceleration.

Why?
Do you have any basis at all for that claim?
To begin with, what velocity are you measuring?
The velocity of the umbra on the surface of Earth?
If so, that is exactly what you would expect.

It has nothing to do with the moon changing speed, but everything to do with Earth being round.
This roundness of Earth has 2 effects. One is that the distance to the moon changes, and the further you are from the moon, the faster the umbra moves.
But the more important point is the change in direction of the surface.

If you have a shadow moving at an angle  to a surface, at some speed v, then the speed of the shadow along that surface v_s we can get this image of how it all looks:

This means the variables will be related as:
cos(a) = v/v_s
Thus v_s = v/cos(a)

So as the umbra passes over Earth, its surface speed will change dramatically.

It starts off at an angle of basically 90 degrees. This means cos(a) is basically 0 and thus v_s is basically infinite.
Then as it goes roughly 1/4 of the way around the surface, it is at 45 degrees, thus cos(a) is 1/sqrt(2) and thus v_s is sqrt(2)v, which is much less than infinite.
But it keeps getting lower. When it is 50% of the way across it is at 0 degrees cos(a) is 1 and thus v_s is v, slower than before.
Now as it moves further the angle goes negative, but cos is still positive.
When it is 3/4 of the way along the surface it is at -45 degrees, thus cos(a) is 1/sqrt(2) and thus v_s is sqrt(2).
Then just before leaving the surface, it is at basically -90 degrees. This means cos(a) is basically 0 and thus v_s is basically infinite.

If you plot this as a function of how it varies as you move along the surface, you get this:

(X axis is a percentage of the way along the surface, y axis is the factor by which v is multiplied.)
Is that enough of a U shape for you?

If instead you want it expressed as a function of time, assuming a constant velocity of the shadow, you have a plot of 1/cos(asin(x/50-1))

(axis as above, but now x is a measure of the time to cross, not the distance along the surface).

This was already explained to you, with numbers provided for you to show that the results match what is observed.

Stop just spouting nonsense and start actually justifying your nonsense, including making reference to what has already been provided which already shows you are wrong.

Nice try guys...

And one thing for sure, 👉
you can eat a good food with meat just by 1$



Try again,
NO! You don't have to try again!

Nice try guys...

Yes, really nice.
We have managed to repeatedly refute your BS, with you unable to come up with any rational objection and instead you just repeat the same false claims which have already been refute.

Now care to try to explain what is actually wrong with the HC model when it comes to eclipses?

I'm feeling bad to unintentionally 'torture' readers here by prolongedly debating something clear.

Earth rotation eastwards = 359° perday.
Moon revolution around earth eastwards = 13.17° perday.
The moon shadow is obviously supposed to GO WEST.

If you cannot present a gif pic in HC version, I'm done here.

Earth rotation eastwards = 359° perday.
Moon revolution around earth eastwards = 13.17° perday.
The moon shadow is obviously supposed to GO WEST.

No, there is nothing obvious about that at all (except that it is obviously wrong).
Yet again it is just you conflating angular speed and linear speed.
That would mean the MOON should appear to go west, not it's shadow.
For the shadow, you need to deal with the linear speed on Earth.

Moon's shadow travels at ~ 1 km / s to the east during the eclipse.
Earth's surface, at a maximum, travels ~ 0.4 km / s to the east.
Moon's shadow wins, and thus the Moon's shadow is obviously supposed to go to the east.

There is no doubt about this, and you are yet to provide anything to challenge it.

Rather than repeatedly demanding a gif, respond to the model I provided, and the math I provided, or provide your own math/model/gif.
Why don't you provide us with a gif of the HC model, to scale?

I'm feeling bad to unintentionally 'torture' readers here by prolongedly debating something clear.

Earth rotation eastwards = 359° perday.

By 359° per day, I assume you mean 24h. That would mean a full 360° would take 24h4m, making that the length of the sidereal day, i.e. take a photo of the night sky and another 24h4m later and they'd be identical.

Well that's wrong for a start, since the sidereal day is 23h56m4.1s. The earth does not rotate 359° in 24h, sorry.

Moon revolution around earth eastwards = 13.17° perday.

Yep, you got that one right, 1 out of 2 so far.

The moon shadow is obviously supposed to GO WEST.

If you cannot present a gif pic in HC version, I'm done here.

The stars appear to move across the night sky westwards at 15.04° per hour, due to the actual eastwards rotation of the earth.

You've rightly said the moon rotates eastwards at 13.17° per day, which is 0.55° per hour. So combine the stars apparent motion of 15.04° westwards with the moon's 0.55° actual eastwards motion and the moon is apparently moving at 14.49° across the sky, westwards.

The sun, we know is faster. 15° per hour westwards. The sun will catch and overtake the moon passing behind it, travelling westwards. The moon will therefore appear to travel in front of the sun moving west to east, relative to the sun. The shadow will self-evidently go the same way, west to east.

You got everything pretty much bang on, but somehow ended up with the wrong conclusion.

Like I said, why don't you?

You are the one claiming there is a massive problem for the RE.
You have been provided with a computer model you can watch yourself, as well as plenty of math showing there is no problem.
To counter this all you have done is repeat the same collection of baseless assertions and demands for a gif.

I see absolutely no point in making a gif for you when you just continually ignore everything which has been provided to you and make up more ridiculous demands.

If you think there is such a big problem and a gif will magically solve it, then YOU produce a gif. Make sure this gif is too scale.

There are either "shy" gif pic (only earth & moon, while he sun ain't show up) or anti HC gif pic (earth rotation goes westwards).

"We are sorry, through out our territory we cannot present a single clear, complete HC gif pic for solar eclipse, because such a pic is impossible" -- Grandpa Google.

There are either "shy" gif pic (only earth & moon, while he sun ain't show up) or anti HC gif pic (earth rotation goes westwards).

"We are sorry, through out our territory we cannot present a single clear, complete HC gif pic for solar eclipse, because such a pic is impossible" -- Grandpa Google.

The problem with a gif showing everything at once is that it really needs to be a scale model because the distances matter.

If we make the moon 1 pixel on the image, then the earth is 3.5 pixels wide, the sun is 400 pixels wide, the earth-moon distance is 110 pixels and the earth-sun distance is 42,000 pixels.

To fit in a complete orbit, your image needs to be an absolute minimum of 84,000 x 84,000 pixels in size and on that scale the moon is a single pixel. If you print this at 300dpi you should be able to fit it on a piece of paper 23 feet x 23 feet. The moon will be one dot on this paper.

On that scale you have no chance whatsoever of being able to see what's going on with the shadow of a 1 pixel moon moving across a 3.5 pixel earth.

There are either "shy" gif pic (only earth & moon, while he sun ain't show up)

Again, if you think a gif is really that big of a deal, YOU MAKE ONE!
Go and make a gif, accurately showing the HC model and showing how the eclipse doesn't match what is observed in reality.
Otherwise, you still have nothing more than just another ridiculous demand, and still no problem for the RE or the HC model.

To give you an idea of why, this is a too scale picture of the Earth-Moon system, not even involving the sun:

See how tiny the moon is and the overall image?
Do you really think you are going to have any kind of meaningful display of the path of the shadow, relative to a continent on Earth?

Now here is the Earth Moon Sun system, too scale:


Now, I know you might complain that you can't see the Earth or Moon in that image, but they are both drawn in, too scale.
That is how ridiculous a too-scale diagram is.

To expand a bit on the above math, seeing the moon 1 px wide isn't helpful.
What we really need to see is the umbra, and we need to see its motion, so more than a few pixels.
So lets go with a nice round ~10 pixels wide.
The umbra was roughly 100 km wide.
That means to fit the sun and Earth in, your image would need to be 15 MILLION pixels wide.
If you just want it to be 1 pixel, you are still looking at a 1.5 million pixel wide image.

People have made too-scale models of the solar system, but they are typically a drive along a long road.

But if you don't make it too scale, you will lose significant accuracy.
As already pointed out, there is the question of linear vs rotational speed.

If you make the moon much closer, but keep its angular speed the same to make its apparent motion in the sky roughly the same, the linear speed will be much slower, and as a result, the speed of the shadow will be much smaller, and thus not accurately portrayed by this image.
If instead you make the moon's linear speed the same, the speed of the shadow would be correct, but now the apparent speed of the moon in relation to Earth and its orbital period would be wrong.

One thing for sure "the moon's speed is faster than earth's rotation" will lead you to geocentrism.
HC will be dismissed.

No excuse, scale doesn't matter. Try making just one gif pic.
If that will reveal a contradiction of HC, that's predictable.

One thing for sure "the moon's speed is faster than earth's rotation" will lead you to geocentrism.

Yes because you are still confusing linear speed and rotational speed.
The 2 are significantly different.
Once more, the moon orbits Earth with a slower angular velocity than Earth rotates. That makes the moon appear to move to the west.
But the moon (and thus its shadow) moves with a greater linear speed than a point on Earth's surface. That makes its shadow appear to move to the east.

This is not difficult to understand.

Now stop demanding a gif.
If you think a gif will clearly show a problem or a solution, then YOU MAKE IT!
If you think it will show a massive problem for HC, then you go and make it and make sure it is too scale.
Otherwise that is yet another baseless and basically refuted claim of yours.

You have already been provided with the math which clearly shows no problem for the HC model.
You are now just repeatedly asserting that there is a problem with no sane justification at all.

No excuse, scale doesn't matter.

Again, this shows you don't understand what you are talking about.
SCALE DOES MATTER!

Once more, due to the extreme distance to the moon, even though it travels at a quite low angular velocity, its linear velocity is ~1 000 m/s.
This puts it much faster than the Earth, where even at the equator the linear speed of Earth's surface is ~ 450 m/s.

If you change it so it isn't too scale, such as making it so the moon is only 40 000 km away instead of 400 000 km, and you keep the angular speed the same, the linear speed will drop to 100 m/s.
This means that instead of the shadow travelling at least ~550 m/s faster than the surface of Earth, it will drop to possibly 350 m/s slower.

With such a horribly not-to-scale gif, you could have the moon's shadow start travelling to the east, then as it approaches midday, it slows down, stops and starts travelling to the west, reaching a maximum at midday. Then after midday, it slows down, stops and starts to travel back to the east.

If instead you keep the linear speed constant then the angular speed of the moon is off, and instead of taking roughly 28 days to complete an orbit it would take roughly 3.
You then throw in the extra issue of size and trying to match the size of the umbra and the penumbra

So no, SCALE DOES MATTER!
It is extremely important if you want to have any hope of modelling it accurately enough to get any numbers from it.

Whatever speed the moon is orbiting Earth, will also be almost exactly the same speed the umbra moves across Earth.  Not sure why this is so complicated for some people.

Take it easy...
Let's take a break



Panggung Sandiwara
(Stage of Drama) 

Dunia ini panggung sandiwara
Ceritanya mudah berubah
Kisah Mahabrata atau tragedi dari Yunani
Setiap kita dapat satu peranan
Yang harus kita mainkan
Ada peran wajar dan ada peran berpura-pura
Mengapa kita bersandiwara?
Mengapa kita bersandiwara?
Peran yang kocak bikin kita terbahak-bahak
Peran bercinta bikin orang mabuk kepayang
Dunia ini penuh peranan
Dunia ini bagaikan jembatan kehidupan
Mengapa kita bersandiwara?
Mengapa kita bersandiwara?
Peran yang kocak bikin kita terbahak-bahak
Peran bercinta bikin orang mabuk kepayang
Dunia ini penuh peranan
Dunia ini bagaikan jembatan kehidupan
Mengapa kita bersandiwara?
Mengapa kita bersandiwara?
Mengapa kita bersandiwara?
Mengapa kita bersandiwara?
Mengapa kita bersandiwara?
Mengapa kita bersandiwara?
Mengapa kita bersandiwara?
Mengapa kita bersandiwara?
Mengapa kita bersandiwara?

If you want the translation, please go to https://translate.google.co.id/?sl=id&tl=en&op=translate 👌

There is a little bit careless on that video
 
Actually the lyrics was written by Taufiq Ismail, an Indonesian prominent poet.
Ian Antono wrote only the melody. 

Take it easy...
Let's take a break

Or, as a crazy idea, how about you start trying to back up your wild claims?

Can you show any problem with the HC model, or can you only repeat the same refuted baseless claims and demands?

HC problem is obvious. It will make drawers get dizzy due to HC's impossiblility to make a clear, logical explanation.

Your consistency of arguments is another problem.

I said:
"One thing for sure "the moon's SPEED is faster than earth's rotation" will lead you to geocentrism."

It's the SPEED by perspective AKA 👉 degrees per hour.

Why did you changed this "degrees per hour" as the sacred agreement to be "real speed of the moon" AKA "kilometers per hour" ??
"Degrees" is different from "Kilometers".

Another victory to FE 👌

HC problem is obvious.

Is that why you have been unable to show a single fault with it and instead had your claims repeatedly refuted?
Just what do you think the problem is.

Your consistency of arguments is another problem.

Do you mean how I provided math and logic to show that what is observed in reality matches the HC model, and explained how your claims of scale not mattering is pure nonsense?

I would say that is a problem for you, not me.
As a reminder, you are yet to refute any of those arguments, or even say what you think is wrong with any of them.

I said:
"One thing for sure "the moon's SPEED is faster than earth's rotation" will lead you to geocentrism."
It's the SPEED by perspective AKA 👉 degrees per hour.

So nothing like what anyone is claiming?
Thus nothing to do with defeating HC?

And there is no indication of what is meant by speed in that statement. Why should we think it means degrees per hour?

Why did you changed this "degrees per hour" as the sacred agreement to be "real speed of the moon" AKA "kilometers per hour" ??
"Degrees" is different from "Kilometers".

As already explained repeatedly, because the 2 are fundamentally different and both are involved in a solar eclipse.
The angular velocity of the moon's orbit being slower than Earth's rotational angular velocity means that the moon will appear to move to the west.
But the LINEAR velocity of the moon in its orbit being faster than the linear velocity of a point on the surface of Earth due to Earth's rotation means the Moon's shadow will appear to move to the east.

Meanwhile, you want to completely ignore the linear speed and pretend that that magically means the shadow should magically move west, even though you are yet to provide any justification for why it should.

So perhaps you should stop pretending they are the same and have the same effect? Perhaps you should start acknowledging the differences and acknowledge that the linear speed of the moon being ~ 1000 m/s will make its shadow move to the east, even while the moon appears to move to the west?

It's cozy to see the town's night now.

See you later for the debate.

Especially if you come up with HC gif pic. (Owh... is this a check mate statement!?)