So you jump onto yet another topic.
Someone repeatedly jumping between topics is not someone with a strong argument or who is capable of defeating the opposition.
Instead that is someone who knows they have no case, who has no confidence in their arguments and instead tries to bury their opponent in bovine excrement in the hope it might take too long for them to climb out.
So good job showing yet another argument of yours is a complete failure and that there is absolutely no reason for the REers to be admitting defeat.
How does the Globe Community explain Earth not being eclipsed during each new moon and the moon not being eclipsed at the time of the full moon ?
The mechanics of your moon debunks your theory, right?
No, it doesn't.
During most new moons and full moons, the moon is not entirely new or entirely full.
The moon's orbit is inclined to the ecliptic such that only twice a year is there an alignment to cause eclipses, where the moon literally goes between the Earth and the sun or the sun goes between Earth and the moon.
Earth's radius is roughly 6371 km and it is roughly 150 000 000 km away from the sun.
The moon's radius is roughly 1737 km and it is roughly 385 000 km away from Earth.
The sun's radius is roughly 700 000 km.
So here is a diagram just for you Note: IT IS NOT TOO SCALE!:
In order to avoid eclipses the moon needs to be outside of these orange regions as drawn.
This means the moon needs to be ~1 degree out of alignment to avoid a lunar eclipse and ~1.6 degrees to avoid a solar eclipse.
Meanwhile in reality the Moon's orbit is inclined relative to the ecliptic by 5.145 degrees.
For the majority of the year the moon is not in the required alignment to produce an eclipse. This alignment only occurs twice every year, which corresponds to the same regions of the year when eclipses are observed.
So this works quite well with a RE.
Now I would ask how a FE explains it, but as a FE can't even explain eclipses to begin with, I figure that would be a rather pointless question.
So they made up an incline orbit to solve this problem. Hmm
No, they have an inclined orbit in the model to have it match reality, i.e. the observed sub-lunar points on Earth and have the angles to the moon from other locations match.
It was not made to solve eclipses.
But that does not mean Earth is a sphere.
No one said it did.
You falsely claimed it causes a problem for a RE. It does no such thing.
However, a RE is the only kwown model which can accurately explain the apparent position of the moon and what we observe of it. This a problem you ran away from before.
This does not cause any problems.
Common sense used without indoctrination is all that’s needed to debunk a sphere earth.
Well you seem to severely lack common sense due to so much nonsense you have posted which goes directly against common sense.
What you need to debunk a round Earth is to radically change reality, as so far all the evidence indicates Earth is round, and you are yet to demonstrate any problem with a RE. Instead you just make baseless claims, get them refuted or exposed as entirely baseless, and then run.
This is yet another example of that.
Why do you have a bright sun, surrounded by darkness?
Why did you decide to have that much illuminated?
For the 5.145 degrees out of alignment, the most extreme case, from a front on view, for the region aligned with the sun where you get the maximum overlap, it amounts to all of 0.8% being illuminated.
In your yet another dishonest picture you have the sun being 32 pixels wide.
The moon is roughly the same size as the sun, not much larger as you have drawn it. Do you know how large a region should be lit up for the moon (at least for those sections directly in line with the sun)? 0.256 pixels. Much less than the 3 pixels you have drawn.
This will also be right near the very bright sun, making it quite difficult to see.
This will also be quite different to when the moon is 1 day out of alignment which equates to roughly 13 degrees out of alignment, and that is again different to the image you have provided where it is much more out of alignment.
So once again, no problem for a RE, and just avoidance of all the problems for a FE.
Oh, you need a hell of a lot more than that.
You mean now that you have been shown to be wrong yet again you will move the goalposts yet again.
then you have to explain why the sliver is on the right side of the moon the next night.
As we have already demonstrated with the prior arguments focusing on the moon which you felt the need to avoid, the region which is illuminated will vary depending upon where the moon is viewed.
It will be the side closest to the sun which is illuminated.
As an example, if you follow a hypothetically illuminated object it can appear to rise with the top illuminated.
You then follow it over the course of the time it is visible and see it with the right hand side illuminated. Then you continue to follow it and observe the bottom illuminated.
This apparent rotation is just because you are viewing from a different angle.
So no additional explanation is required.
It is once again you grasping at strawmen to try and save your failed FE by shovelling BS onto the working RE.
You just can't win. It's not possible. There is to many things wrong. Accept it and join the FE community!
You mean there is far too much BS you can come up with and throw at us without finding any actual problem?
Why would we join your side when you need to resort to such tactics?
While you continually avoid the massive problems with a FE, and only come up with lies to try and attack the RE I see absolutely no reason to defect.
I will stick with the side which can actually explain reality.
If you want me to accept defeat come up with an actual problem with a RE, and address the massive shortcomings of a FE.
Explain why/how the sun sets. Explain why/how there are 2 celestial poles always located 180 degrees apart. Explain the apparent the apparent position of celestial objects. Explain why/how everyone on Earth sees basically the same moon, yet in different positions. Explain eclipses. Explain what the motive is for lying about the shape of Earth when it provides no gain at all to the government or those promoting a RE.