What about the Solar eclipse?

Two different methods of visual angles and radar easily put the moon grater than 150,000 miles from earth even if you think in your delusion there is ridiculous error.

Both those methods do not take into consideration the existence of the ether dome, which provides a massive, abrupt change in the speed of light.

Here I have proven that we are looking at the Sun through a prism:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2252015#msg2252015

Remember what Hubble was saying:

" … the results do not establish the expansion as the only possible interpretation of redshifts. Other data are available which, at the moment, seem to point in another direction."

" … redshifts are evidence either of an expanding universe or of some hitherto unknown principle of nature …

That "hitherto unknown principle of nature" is the ether dome. It cancels out any red shifts, parallax angles and radar signals to the moon.

That is an image of the path of the Moon's shadow, on this orthographic projection. Notice how it is a straight line, just as we would expect?
You imbecile, that is my reference

I know it is your reference. That was the point.
It is a reference which shows you are spouting pure BS.
It shows that the path on the fundamental plane is a straight line.
It also shows that this fundamental plane is an orthographic projection of the RE.

It is NOT a FE method like you have continually lied by claiming.

That's not a straight line you moron: THAT IS THE ARC ON THE SURFACE OF THE GLOBE!

No, it is a straight line in the fundamental plane.
That is then transferred to the surface of a rotating round Earth, which creates the arc.
And the arc you are appealing to in that diagram is from a projection of that straight line in the fundamental plane onto the surface of the round Earth, and then from that onto a plane perpendicular to the axis of Earth.
There is nothing about that which indicates it is a FE model. But plenty that shows it is not.

IN PLAIN VIEW, EVERYTHING IS TRANSFERRED from the northern hemisphere to the FLAT EARTH PLANE, THE BESSEL FUNDAMENTAL PLANE, THE AZIMUTHAL PLANE, the one used by Oppolzer.

So what you are saying now is that they start with a sphere, and then transfer it to a plane?
You are no longer saying they start with a plane?

See how easy it is to defeat you?

You mean yourself, as you have just directly contradicted yourself?

NOW FOR THE FINISHING TOUCHES:

Where you continue to spout the same refuted BS.

YOU GET THE DISTORTED SINE WAVE WITH AN INFLECTION POINT.

Which you are yet to demonstrate is a problem.

More references.

Yes, more references which show you are lying to everyone.

The method you are appealing to is fundamentally a HC, RE model.
It is NOT a FE model.

You are the lying scum.

If that was true, you would honestly deal with what I have said, rather than continue to lie.
You would also directly answer the questions that have been asked.

But because you are lying scum, and you know these questions expose your lies, you flee like the lying coward you are.

When you get to the globe, you get a distorted sine wave with an inflection point, a disaster.

A disaster for you.

You lose, as always.

You mean you lose, and just lie about it, as your ass gets repeatedly handed to you.
As always.

You lousy moron, the ortographic projection is an azimuthal projection of the globe onto a plane:

Which is NOT the plane being used.

Again, the reference makes it clear what orthographic projection is being used.
Again, from your reference:
"The fundamental plane crosses the centre of the Earth and is perpendicular to the axis of the shadow cone"

Notice how it does NOT say that it is perpendicular to the axis of Earth?
In the diagrams you provided, it clearly shows the plane intersecting the equator.

You are lying yet again.

How many more times do your lies need to be exposed until you flee like the coward you are?

Where do you draw your eclipses? Yes, on the fundamental plane with a radius of 6,363.63 km. That's the plane where Oppolzer drew his arcs of the eclipses also.

Again, the references clearly demonstrate that in the fundamental plane there is no significant cuvrature, i.e. the path is basically a straight line.
Oppolzer drew his arcs in a fundamentally different plane.

You are lying through your teeth as always.

That's the FE map, it is also geocentric. What were you smoking to write drivel like that?

You should be asking yourself that question.
There is NOTHING to indicate any of that BS you just spouted.

It is NOT the FE map.
It is a plane passing through the equatorial plane of a round Earth.
That is not FE.

And as already shown by the reference, it is sun centred.
"In this method the observer is supposed to be stationed in the sun and to look down on the rotating earth while the moon with its concentric umbra and penumbra is moving across it."

Again, YOU ARE LYING!
Continuing to lie, after your lies have been exposed just shows everyone that you are lying scum with no regard for the truth at all.

That's a distorted sine curve with an inflection point.

Just as you would expect from a rotating round Earth, and it accurately matched what was observed in reality.

That is not what we saw in the sky:

You are yet to explain why you should.
Again, most observed who observe totality will see the moon appear to move in basically a straight line as it passes the sun.

RE context: distorted sine curves, not what we see in the sky
FE setting: smooth arcs/curves, the Bessel fundamental plane projection method

Repeating the same lies will not help you.
Here is a correction:
RE context: smooth arcs/curves, the Bessel fundamental plane projection method
FE setting: Pathetic lies to avoid admitting they have no explanation at all.

Continuing to lie about this, after your lies have been exposed countless times, just further demonstrates your dishonesty.

Why don't you try answering a few questions about your delusional fantasy:
During this recent eclipse, what were the altitudes of the sun and moon?
Considering you are clinging to a unipolar model for this, what were the radii of their paths?
And how quickly (either linear or angular velocity) where they moving?

Can you answer that?

You mean straight lines like these?



This pic is from my reference:



It shows the first contact of the shadow, the northern and the southern limits of the shadow. ALL OF THEM CURVES ON THE SPHERE. Even if that's the fundamental plane projection (the ambiguity in the drawing can be excused since in 1918 they had no CAD), it still features curves (paths of the shadows): the only straight lines are the north/south directions.

Then, the fundamental plane is also depicted with no projection on it.


The fundamental plane can have no straight lines (the paths of the shadows of the moon).

Proof:

From Buchanan's treatise:

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

These kinds of curves/arcs:



That's the fundamental plane, geocentric and flat, used by Oppolzer to map out the paths/arcs.

The same plane captures the shadows of the "moon". It has a radius of 6,363.63 km, and you are telling your readers they are not the same or that it is not the FE map? Everyone is laughing at you here.


And the arc you are appealing to in that diagram is from a projection of that straight line in the fundamental plane onto the surface of the round Earth, and then from that onto a plane perpendicular to the axis of Earth.


There are no straight lines in the fundamental plane as it pertains to the paths of the shadows.

This alone disqualifies your analysis.


"In this method the observer is supposed to be stationed in the sun and to look down on the rotating earth while the moon with its concentric umbra and penumbra is moving across it."

The Bessel fundamental plane is GEOCENTRIC. FIXED. STATIONARY. You can't have the fundamental plane rotating.

Again, you disqualify your own analysis, I don't have to do anything.




The fundamental plane is a flat surface, geocentric as well, on which the shadows of the "moon" are drawn. Same azimuthal map as that of Oppolzer: he drew the paths right there on that same map.

How many times do we have to go through this?

Both those methods do not take into consideration the existence of the ether dome,

Which doesn’t exist.

With everything from the ISS and satellites providing services that you can see with own eyes.  Satellites placed in orbit visibly changing the night sky.

With you sandokhan, playing the coward.  Where you will not give any statement on how far the moon is from the earth for the FE delusion.  You claim FE is a model, yet you can’t model anything resembling reality with it.


See your still ignoring this…

Again…




sandokhan, was the sun someplace other than directly above the area of Mexico as indicated for the map above for 3pm USA eastern standard time?   The only place totality could have been seen in your delusion for flat earth is in the area of Mexico, yet at 3pm local time the shadow of totality fell on the Midwest of the USA.

That is the azimuthal Bessel fundamental geocentric plane method.

I tried to do my own with the crapy,  crude, and vague information from FE posts.

This is what I got…




With this explanation

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

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

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

sandokhan, provide the data to prove this wrong. 

You mean straight lines like these?



This pic is from my reference:



It shows the first contact of the shadow, the northern and the southern limits of the shadow. ALL OF THEM CURVES ON THE SPHERE.

Then, the fundamental plane is also depicted with no projection on it.


So you lied to your readers.


The fundamental plane can have no straight lines (the paths of the shadows of the moon).

Proof:

From Buchanan's treatise:

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

These kinds of curves/arcs:



That's the fundamental plane, geocentric and flat, used by Oppolzer to map out the paths/arcs.

The same plane captures the shadows of the "moon". It has a radius of 6,363.63 km, and you are telling your readers they are not the same or that it is not the FE map? Everyone is laughing at you here.


And the arc you are appealing to in that diagram is from a projection of that straight line in the fundamental plane onto the surface of the round Earth, and then from that onto a plane perpendicular to the axis of Earth.


Have you lost your mind jackblack? There are no straight lines in the fundamental plane as it pertains to the paths of the shadows.

This alone disqualifies your analysis.


"In this method the observer is supposed to be stationed in the sun and to look down on the rotating earth while the moon with its concentric umbra and penumbra is moving across it."

Again, have your lost your mind? The Bessel fundamental plane is GEOCENTRIC. FIXED. STATIONARY. You can't have the fundamental plane rotating.

Again, you disqualify your own analysis, I don't have to do anything.




The fundamental plane is a flat surface, geocentric as well, on which the shadows of the "moon" are drawn. Same azimuthal map as that of Oppolzer: he drew the paths right there on that same map.

How many times do we have to go through this?

Lets stick to the facts.

Fact 1 a large number of solar eclipses have been predicted by conventional science which all matched with the reality of the events.

That fact is beyond dispute such as the solar eclipse of April 8th. It happened exactly as predicted despite your mad ravings.

Fact 2 the methodology and data used to make these accurate predictions prove beyond any doubt that the nature of the solar system matches that of conventional science and not with your mad  beliefs.

While you are no doubt capable of producing irrelevant diagrams,  what you will never be capable of is producing an accurate prediction of a solar eclipse using your mad flat earth ideas.

 Your mad flat earth ideas are just what they are; mad ideas .

That "hitherto unknown principle of nature" is the ether dome. It cancels out any red shifts, parallax angles and radar signals to the moon.

You didn’t address the ignorance of your argument.

The radar suffers from the same kind of problem once it reaches the ether dome.

The radar single wouldn’t return in the same clean frequency. 

Yet the radar single bounced off the moon didn’t suffer from a frequency change nor noise making the single unusable.

FE is stupid. 

here's some satellite imagery of eclipse. yeah, yeah dismissed as fake by fe folks
https://phys.org/news/2024-04-video-total-solar-eclipse-space.html

So explain in your diagram why is states " C2 Shadow projection on surface" on the round surface of the earth?

Surpriseingly unsurpriseingly

Sando know ls his map doesnt show south america souther africa or south arctic.
He wont admit what map he likes because he is a pos.


Sando
Are you a pos?

You mean straight lines like these?

Again, provide an orthographic projection, without showing the effect of rotation.
Can you do that? Or can you only lying like the lying scum you are?

This pic is from my reference:

Yes. Notice how it shows an orthographic projection of the round Earth where it does not consider rotation.
Notice how in this projection, the path of the shadow is a straight line?

Here is a zoomed in portion just so you can really focus:


Notice how the path of the shadow of the moon is a straight line in this orthographic projection of the round Earth?

Yes, when you map this to the surface of the round Earth it is a curve.
When you account for the rotation of Earth, and how this mapping has to change with time to account for that rotation, you can get much more complex curves.

But again, the important point is that in this fundamental plane, the path of the shadow is basically a straight line.

The reference makes it clear, the curvature is insignificant.

That azimuthal projection you are appealing to is NOT the fundamental plane.
So if you are saying the fundamental plane is a FE map, then you are saying the FE should have a straight line for the eclipse.
Is that what you want to say? Because that is saying the FE is entirely wrong.

The fundamental plane can have no straight lines (the paths of the shadows of the moon).
Proof:
From Buchanan's treatise:
The line connecting these latter points is the path of the centre of the shadow across the fundamental plane. This line is a curve, but of very slight curvature.

You mean proof you are lying scum?
That quote is saying that technically it is curved, but the curve is so slight it is basically a straight line.

Compare that to your arcs, which have obvious and significant curvature.
Compare that to your reference, which has similar arcs in figure 3, which is clearly described as a projection of a portion of the northern hemisphere (note RE again) on a plane which is perpendicular to the Earth's axis.

That's the fundamental plane

No, it isn't.
Again, it is trivial to see that it is not by comparing it to the quote describing the fundamental plane, and by the quote above which shows clearly that such curves are not expected in the fundamental plane.

It has a radius of 6,363.63 km, and you are telling your readers they are not the same or that it is not the FE map?

Yes, because they are not.

Conversely, you, being the lying scum you are, are telling everyone they are the same.
What is your basis for saying they are the same? The word "plane"
I guess you think the Mercator projection is also the FE map, because it is a projection onto a plane.

The problem with such delusional BS, is that it would produce multiple contradictory maps, which can't all be true.

There are no straight lines in the fundamental plane as it pertains to the paths of the shadows.

Again, your own reference clearly indicates that the curvature is insigifnicant.
So this BS of yours disqualifies your analysis, not mine.

"In this method the observer is supposed to be stationed in the sun and to look down on the rotating earth while the moon with its concentric umbra and penumbra is moving across it."
The Bessel fundamental plane is GEOCENTRIC. FIXED. STATIONARY. You can't have the fundamental plane rotating.

Yet here we have the quote from the reference clearly indicating the observed is stationed in the sun.
That does not sound geocentric at all.

As for rotating, again, the fundamental plane doesn't rotate. The apply the effect of rotation at a later stage.

The first stage is to construct the fundamental plane. You then plot the path of the eclipse on that fundamental plane.
You then project that onto the surface of a round rotating Earth, including taking the rotation into consideration which means the time of the moon's shadow being in a certain location needs to be taken into account.

Again, you disqualify your own analysis, I don't have to do anything.

You mean you just repeatedly lie, while entirely ignoring the quotes from the references which show you are lying.

You cannot show any fault with my analysis so you resort to these pathetic lies.
Likewise, you refuse to answer my questions because they so clearly show you are lying scum.

The fundamental plane is a flat surface, geocentric as well, on which the shadows of the "moon" are drawn. Same azimuthal map as that of Oppolzer

Repeating this lie will not save you.
It just further demonstrates your dishonesty.

Again, the image you are appealing to shows you are lying to everyone.
It clearly shows this fundamental plane based upon a RE, passing through the centre of Earth and crossing the equatorial plane.
If it was a FE model, with the fundamental plane being the FE map, it would have that fundamental plane be the equatorial plane, not at an angle to it.

Yet again, your own reference shows you are lying to everyone.

How many times do we have to go through this?

No one is asking you to repeat the same refuted BS.

What you actually need to do is try to justify your BS.
Can you find a single reference which describes the map of Oppolzer, or a comparable map as the fundamental plane?
NO!
Can you find a single reference discussing this clearly RE method, as a FE method? And no, your own dishonest ramblings is not a reference.
Can you find a single reference claiming this fundamental plane is perpendicular to the north pole or Earth's axis or parallel to the equatorial plane?
Can you find a single reference clearly describing the path of an eclipse in the fundamental plane and ideally showing its path. So far the best you have appears to show it is a straight line, or a line with insignificant curvature.

Or, can you actually answer the question you continue to avoid because you know answering them will make it trivial to show everyone you are lying scum by showing what is actually expected for the FE model?

Either way, stop thinking of this as "how many times to go through this". Stop spamming the same refuted BS. Actually start dealing with what has been said.

von Oppolzer used the fundamental plane (azimuthal north pole projection) to map out the shadows of the "moon".

References:

https://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?bibcode=1926PA.....34...78R&db_key=AST&page_ind=1&plate_select=NO&data_type=GIF&type=SCREEN_GIF&classic=YES

"Oppolzer's charts are drawn on a north polar projection."

https://www.mreclipse.com/pubs/images/5MKLE2-Preface.pdf

The Besselian elements used in Oppolzer's maps.

https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/danny-faulkner/2023/09/27/how-are-eclipses-predicted-so-precisely/

Theodor von Oppolzer oversaw the calculation of a vast number of eclipses using the modern method.

For solar eclipses, the method begins by defining the fundamental plane, the plane passing through the earth perpendicular to the line between the earth’s center and the sun.


An orthographic projection IS an azimuthal projection, by definition.


This is the end result:



Exactly the arcs described here:

From Buchanan's treatise:

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


The Oppolzer azimuthal plane is the fundamental geocentric flat earth surface map.


Once we transfer the data to the globe you get the distorted sine wave with an inflection point. That is not what we see in the sky.


This subject matter is way beyond your abilities.

Astoubding

Wheres aregntina?
Melborune?
South africa?
Antarctic?!

von Oppolzer used the fundamental plane

Repeating this same lie will not help you.
If you want to claim to have a reference, you need a reference which states that explicitly.

Notice what your reference says:
"Oppolzer's charts are drawn on a north polar projection."
That is NOT saying it is the fundamental plane.

So yet again, you are blatantly lying to everyone.

Do you have a reference which calls this the fundamental plane?
NO!
Because it is not. It is a blatant lie you keep making to pretend the eclipse works in your delusional fantasy.

Oppolzer used a RE, HC method to determine 3 points for the eclipse, and drew an arc to join them.

For solar eclipses, the method begins by defining the fundamental plane, the plane passing through the earth perpendicular to the line between the earth’s center and the sun.

i.e. NOT the surface of a flat Earth.

An orthographic projection IS an azimuthal projection, by definition.

And there are countless different projections of Earth. Including different azimuthal projections.
Not all are centred on the north pole.
Not all match your delusional fantasy.

But more importantly, an azimuthal projection is NOT necessarily an orthographic projection.
You can have an azimuthal projection which is not orthographic. Such as the one used by Oppolzer.
Do you know the easy way to tell?
It is centred on the north pole and goes past the equator. An orthographic projection can't.

The 2 words are not interchangable.
Yet again, you are lying to everyone when you pretend the end result of Oppolzer's incorrect arcs are the fundamental plane. They are not. That plane is NOT the fundamental plane.

Stop repeating the same refuted lies.

This is the end result:

Yes, the END result.
Not the start using the fundamental plane.
Instead, the result of first taking that fundamental plane, showing the path of the moon, basically a straight line; projecting that onto the surface of a round, rotating Earth; and then projecting it onto a plane perpendicular to Earth's axis.

That is not a FE method.
It relies upon the fact that Earth is round.

Repeatedly lying just shows your dishonesty.

Exactly the arcs described here:
From Buchanan's treatise:
The line connecting these latter points is the path of the centre of the shadow across the fundamental plane. This line is a curve, but of very slight curvature.

Again, notice the key part, emphaised above.
It is saying there is no significant curve.

STOP LYING TO EVERYONE!

Once we transfer the data to the globe you get the distorted sine wave with an inflection point.

i.e. an accurate representation of reality.

This subject matter is way beyond your abilities.

Then why is it trivial for me to expose your lies, and impossible for you to answer simple questions which expose your lies nor any find any reference to back up your lies?

Again:
Can you find a single reference which describes the map of Oppolzer, or a comparable map as the fundamental plane?
NO!

Can you find a single reference discussing this clearly RE method, as a FE method? And no, your own dishonest ramblings is not a reference.
NO!

Can you find a single reference claiming this fundamental plane is perpendicular to the north pole or Earth's axis or parallel to the equatorial plane?
NO!

Can you find a single reference clearly describing the path of an eclipse in the fundamental plane and ideally showing its path. So far the best you have appears to show it is a straight line, or a line with insignificant curvature.
Yes, the one I already provided clearly showing the path is basically a straight line in this fundamental plane, which results in a curve on the surface of the round Earth, and a more complex curve on the surface of a rotating round Earth. Clearly refuting your claim, and showing everyone that you are lying scum with no concern for the truth.

And try answering some simple questions:
During this recent eclipse, what were the altitudes of the sun and moon?
Considering you are clinging to a unipolar model for this, what were the radii of their paths?
And how quickly (either linear or angular velocity) where they moving?

"moon".

With you sandokhan, playing the coward.  Where you will not give any statement on how far the moon is from the earth for the FE delusion.  You claim FE is a model, yet you can’t model anything resembling reality with it.


See your still ignoring this…

Again…




sandokhan, was the sun someplace other than directly above the area of Mexico as indicated for the map above for 3pm USA eastern standard time?   The only place totality could have been seen in your delusion for flat earth is in the area of Mexico, yet at 3pm local time the shadow of totality fell on the Midwest of the USA.

jack, slow down and better start thinking about what you are proposing here.

"Theodor von Oppolzer’s 1887 Canon der Finsternisse (Canon of Eclipses) stands as one of the greatest accomplishments in computational astronomy of the 19th century. It contains the elements of all 8,000 solar eclipses (and 5,200 lunar eclipses) occurring between the years –1207 and +2161 (1208 BCE and 2161 CE, respectively), together with maps showing the approximate positions of the central lines."

That's a total of 13,200 eclipses.

What you are saying is that von Oppolzer would draw those eclipses TWICE, once on a FE map, and once on the fundamental plane.

Those planes are the same, same radius, same features. If you draw the shadow of one eclipse on the fundamental plane, it would show up EXACTLY in the same area on the azimuthal map. Same distances, same curvature.

As difficult as it was to spend all those years creating the maps, what you are suggesting is that von Oppolzer had spent TWICE THE AMOUNT OF TIME drawing the very same shadows of the eclipses on two identical maps.

Nobody's buying your story jack.

In fact, I have the references to prove my point.

https://www.mreclipse.com/pubs/images/5MKLE2-Preface.pdf

The Besselian elements used in Oppolzer's maps.

https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/danny-faulkner/2023/09/27/how-are-eclipses-predicted-so-precisely/

Theodor von Oppolzer oversaw the calculation of a vast number of eclipses using the modern method.

For solar eclipses, the method begins by defining the fundamental plane, the plane passing through the earth perpendicular to the line between the earth’s center and the sun.


https://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?bibcode=1926PA.....34...78R&db_key=AST&page_ind=1&plate_select=NO&data_type=GIF&type=SCREEN_GIF&classic=YES

"Oppolzer's charts are drawn on a north polar projection."


One and the same. Same radius, same features, in fact the shadows would appear right in the very same area of the map. Please get out of here with your preposterous suggestions that he would spend TWICE THE TIME REQUIRED TO FINISH THE BOOK in order to satisfy your lunacy.


Here are the slight curvatures of the shadows, exactly as proven in Buchanan's treatise:



The Oppolzer azimuthal plane is the fundamental geocentric flat earth surface map.


Once we transfer the data to the globe you get the distorted sine wave with an inflection point. That is not what we see in the sky.


This subject matter is way beyond your pay grade.



dataflows2022, I have already solved the distance to the Moon, based on the parallax angle, mystery: we are looking at the Sun through a prism, a massive/abrupt change in the speed of light. That is why the measurements regarding the distance to the Moon are so bogus. All I have to do is prove that the speed of light is variable.

jack,

All you have is the butchered version of someone else’s work, lie about a well understood heliocentric phenomenon, have to use imaginary objects to try to make FE work.  And you will not list the sizes of the sun and moon, their distances from earth, nor list their positions by latitude and longitude.  And FE doesn’t explain how the size of the totality shadow remains a constant size. 

And you ignore where totality should have been if there was any truth to flat earth.





sandokhan, was the sun someplace other than directly above the area of Mexico as indicated for the map above for 3pm USA eastern standard time?   The only place totality could have been seen in your delusion for flat earth is in the area of Mexico, yet at 3pm local time the shadow of totality fell on the Midwest of the USA.

jack, slow down and better start thinking about what you are proposing here.

I have.
Perhaps you should follow your own advice.

You saw the word plane, and instantly jumped to the false conclusion that it is a FE method.

What you are saying is that von Oppolzer would draw those eclipses TWICE, once on a FE map, and once on the fundamental plane.

No, once on the fundamental plane, which was then transferred to an azimuthal projection of the round Earth.

Those planes are the same

No, they aren't.
The fundamental plane you appeal to is at an angle relative to the equator and is bound by the equatorial plane.
Yet the eclipse map you appeal to extends beyond the equator.

Do you have anything at all to show they are the same plane? NO!
You have literally nothing.
You are just desperate to lie to everyone by claiming they are the same so you can pretend your delusional BS works.

Again, repeating the same pathetic lies after they have already been refuted doesn't help your case.

If you draw the shadow of one eclipse on the fundamental plane, it would show up EXACTLY in the same area on the azimuthal map. Same distances, same curvature.

Given the planes are vastly different, it would not be the same distance or curvature.

Again, we see that quite clearly by comparing that map to the quote.
The path of the shadow on the fundamental plane has insignificant curvature.

As difficult as it was to spend all those years creating the maps, what you are suggesting is that von Oppolzer had spent TWICE THE AMOUNT OF TIME drawing the very same shadows of the eclipses on two identical maps.

No.
You use the fundamental plane to get the path on the azimuthal projection.
That is where the hard work is.

In fact, I have the references to prove my point.

Yet you refuse to provide any and instead you provide references which show you are lying.

Where is a single reference which refers the the north pole centred projection used by Oppolzer as the fundamental plane? NO WHERE!
Again, you are lying to everyone.

https://www.mreclipse.com/pubs/images/5MKLE2-Preface.pdf

No where in this reference does it say anything about the fundamental plane.

answersingenesis.org

Religious BS is not a reference, try again.
But even with that, what does it say?

For solar eclipses, the method begins by defining the fundamental plane, the plane passing through the earth perpendicular to the line between the earth’s center and the sun.

i.e. not the plane of Oppolzer, not the plane of the FE.
Instead, a plane PASSING THROUGH EARTH!
Do you understand that?
Yet again, your own reference demonstrates you are lying to everyone.

https://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?bibcode=1926PA.....34...78R&db_key=AST&page_ind=1&plate_select=NO&data_type=GIF&type=SCREEN_GIF&classic=YES
"Oppolzer's charts are drawn on a north polar projection."

i.e. NOT the fundamental plane.

Again, YOU HAVE NOTHING!
Not a single reference backs up your blatant lie.

Again, the fundamental plane is shown here:


And as an expansion, does this line look like the arc you are appealing to, or does it look like a straight line?


Again, every time you repeat these same pathetic refuted lies, you just show everyone that you are lying scum that doesn't care about the truth at all.

Here are the slight curvatures of the shadows

No, that is above.
What you are showing now has quite substantial curvature.

Once we transfer the data to the globe you get the distorted sine wave with an inflection point

i.e. something that matches reality which you are yet to show a fault with.

This subject matter is way beyond your pay grade.

Then why am I able to continually expose your lies?
Why you are unable to offer anything honest to counter them?
Why do you blatantly lie by claiming you have references which support your lies, when they do nothing of the sort?

Why do you continually refuse to answer questions which would so easily expose your lies?

Again:
Can you find a single reference which describes the map of Oppolzer, or a comparable map as the fundamental plane?
NO!

Can you find a single reference discussing this clearly RE method, as a FE method? And no, your own dishonest ramblings is not a reference.
NO!

Can you find a single reference claiming this fundamental plane is perpendicular to the north pole or Earth's axis or parallel to the equatorial plane?
NO!

Can you find a single reference clearly describing the path of an eclipse in the fundamental plane and ideally showing its path. So far the best you have appears to show it is a straight line, or a line with insignificant curvature.
Yes, the one I already provided clearly showing the path is basically a straight line in this fundamental plane, which results in a curve on the surface of the round Earth, and a more complex curve on the surface of a rotating round Earth. Clearly refuting your claim, and showing everyone that you are lying scum with no concern for the truth.

And try answering some simple questions:
During this recent eclipse, what were the altitudes of the sun and moon?
Considering you are clinging to a unipolar model for this, what were the radii of their paths?
And how quickly (either linear or angular velocity) where they moving?

News from 1860, Austria:

"Theodor von Oppolzer has issued a country wide call for all astronomers and students of astronomy to help him transfer all of the paths of the moon's shadows onto the azimuthal plane. A well known psychic (a very good fortune teller) has informed von Oppolzer that, 150 years into the future, a certain jackblack will require that 8,000 solar eclipses be copied from the fundamental plane to the azimuthal plane".

jack you have become the laughing stock of this forum.


https://www.mreclipse.com/pubs/images/5MKLE2-Preface.pdf

The Besselian elements used in Oppolzer's maps.

https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/danny-faulkner/2023/09/27/how-are-eclipses-predicted-so-precisely/

Theodor von Oppolzer oversaw the calculation of a vast number of eclipses using the modern method.

For solar eclipses, the method begins by defining the fundamental plane, the plane passing through the earth perpendicular to the line between the earth’s center and the sun.


https://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?bibcode=1926PA.....34...78R&db_key=AST&page_ind=1&plate_select=NO&data_type=GIF&type=SCREEN_GIF&classic=YES

"Oppolzer's charts are drawn on a north polar projection."


One and the same. Same radius, same features, in fact the shadows would appear right in the very same area of the map. Please get out of here with your preposterous suggestions that he would spend TWICE THE TIME REQUIRED TO FINISH THE BOOK in order to satisfy your lunacy.


Here are the slight curvatures of the shadows, exactly as proven in Buchanan's treatise:

https://wiki.tfes.org/images/8/85/AE-TwentyYearsOfEclipses.jpg

The Oppolzer azimuthal plane is the fundamental geocentric flat earth surface map.


Once we transfer the data to the rotating globe you get the distorted sine wave with an inflection point. That is not what we see in the sky.

News from 1860, Germany:

Oh.  I see.  You like these long meaningless arguments with JackBlack that misrepresents other people’s work where you don’t have to actually discuss the mechanics of a FE solar eclipse.  Like the distance to the moon and sun, their sizes, and the relative distance between the two.  You know, the actual mechanics that determine where the shadow would fall, with what shadow coverage.  And you ignore the shadow produced would be different for a flat earth since the orbit diameters for the sun is varied in relationship from eclipse to eclipse to the moon’s orbit.  But, yet a consistent shadow area for totality is produced eclipse after eclipse.





sandokhan, was the sun someplace other than directly above the area of Mexico as indicated for the map above for 3pm USA eastern standard time?   The only place totality could have been seen in your delusion for flat earth is in the area of Mexico, yet at 3pm local time the shadow of totality fell on the Midwest of the USA.

jack you have become the laughing stock of this forum.

Because I continually refute your pathetic lies, even though you have no interest in ever admitting you are wrong?

Again, you have nothing supporting your dishonest BS.
Instead you just continually deflect because you are lying scum that has no concern for the truth.
All you care about is pretending Earth is flat at all costs.
You don't care what lies you have to spout in your quest.

You have literally NOTHING supporting you.
Instead you need to lie through your teeth to pretend the fundamental plane is the FE.

Again:
Can you find a single reference which describes the map of Oppolzer, or a comparable map as the fundamental plane?
NO!

Can you find a single reference discussing this clearly RE method, as a FE method? And no, your own dishonest ramblings is not a reference.
NO!

Can you find a single reference claiming this fundamental plane is perpendicular to the north pole or Earth's axis or parallel to the equatorial plane?
NO!

Can you find a single reference clearly describing the path of an eclipse in the fundamental plane and ideally showing its path. So far the best you have appears to show it is a straight line, or a line with insignificant curvature.
Yes, the one I already provided clearly showing the path is basically a straight line in this fundamental plane, which results in a curve on the surface of the round Earth, and a more complex curve on the surface of a rotating round Earth. Clearly refuting your claim, and showing everyone that you are lying scum with no concern for the truth.

And try answering some simple questions:
During this recent eclipse, what were the altitudes of the sun and moon?
Considering you are clinging to a unipolar model for this, what were the radii of their paths?
And how quickly (either linear or angular velocity) where they moving?

Recently, there was a Venezuelan chap in the news who tried to rob a bank in the US using a translator app.

Yeixon Brito-Gonzalez reportedly showed bank tellers in Sandusky his phone, which allegedly read through translation software, “get the money” and “put the money in the bag.”

However, even something like that pales in comparison to what jackblack is trying to do here.

He is requesting (two days after he had no idea what a Bessel fundamental plane is) that von Oppolzer had to copy 8,000 solar eclipses (paths of the "moon"'s shadows). von Oppolzer was alone in his endeavour. Imagine this scene: Oppolzer finishes drawing the 8,000 eclipses on the fundamental plane, but now, thanks to jackblack's request, has to copy all of them on the azimuthal plane (same radius, same features, same shadows). On any other forum, this kind of spamming would have been dealt with severely. But not here.

https://www.mreclipse.com/pubs/images/5MKLE2-Preface.pdf

The Besselian elements used in Oppolzer's maps.

https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/danny-faulkner/2023/09/27/how-are-eclipses-predicted-so-precisely/

Theodor von Oppolzer oversaw the calculation of a vast number of eclipses using the modern method.

For solar eclipses, the method begins by defining the fundamental plane, the plane passing through the earth perpendicular to the line between the earth’s center and the sun.


https://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?bibcode=1926PA.....34...78R&db_key=AST&page_ind=1&plate_select=NO&data_type=GIF&type=SCREEN_GIF&classic=YES

"Oppolzer's charts are drawn on a north polar projection."


One and the same. Same radius, same features, in fact the shadows would appear right in the very same area of the map. Please get out of here with your preposterous suggestions that he would spend TWICE THE TIME REQUIRED TO FINISH THE BOOK in order to satisfy your lunacy.


Here are the slight curvatures of the shadows, exactly as proven in Buchanan's treatise:

https://wiki.tfes.org/images/8/85/AE-TwentyYearsOfEclipses.jpg

The Oppolzer azimuthal plane is the fundamental geocentric flat earth surface map.


Once we transfer the data to the rotating globe you get the distorted sine wave with an inflection point. That is not what we see in the sky.

Recently,

There was an eclipse when at 3pm my local time there was totality in the Midwest.  The sun and moon were directly over the area of Mexico at 3pm my local time.  The sun and moon were to the south west at 3pm for me in the Midwest.

If the earth was flat, why wasn’t  totality in the area of Mexico?

However, even something like that pales in comparison to what jackblack is trying to do here.

No, this is what you are trying to do.
You have literally nothing to justify your BS. Instead, you appeal to some references and try to blatantly misrepresent them to lie to everyone.

He is requesting (two days after he had no idea what a Bessel fundamental plane is) that von Oppolzer had to copy 8,000 solar eclipses (paths of the "moon"'s shadows). von Oppolzer was alone in his endeavour.

This is kind of BS of yours just shows how little you understand.

There are really 2 difficult parts.
1 - Determining the fundamental plane.
Once you have that, the path of the moon is very simple, basically a straight line.
2 - Converting that path from the fundamental plane to the surface of a round rotating Earth or a particular projection of it.

Oppolzer cheaped out on the last part, only getting 3 points.
He then drew an inaccurate arc between those 3 points.

Oppolzer's paths are not accurate paths of solar eclipses.
They are not paths in the fundamental plane.
Again, the paths in the fundamental plane have basically no curvature.

Again, you have literally NOTHING supporting you.
Instead you need to lie through your teeth to pretend the fundamental plane is the FE and is the projection used by Oppolzer.

You even provided which clearly indicate they are NOT the same plane.

Look at just how absolutely pathetic and dishonest you are:

For solar eclipses, the method begins by defining the fundamental plane, the plane passing through the earth perpendicular to the line between the earth’s center and the sun.
"Oppolzer's charts are drawn on a north polar projection."

Fundamentally different descriptions, yet here you are still lying to everyone by pretending these are the same.

Again, every time you pull this shit, you just show everyone you are lying scum with no concern for the truth at all.

Again:
Can you find a single reference which describes the map of Oppolzer, or a comparable map as the fundamental plane?
NO!

Can you find a single reference discussing this clearly RE method, as a FE method? And no, your own dishonest ramblings is not a reference.
NO!

Can you find a single reference claiming this fundamental plane is perpendicular to the north pole or Earth's axis or parallel to the equatorial plane?
NO!

Can you find a single reference clearly describing the path of an eclipse in the fundamental plane and ideally showing its path. So far the best you have appears to show it is a straight line, or a line with insignificant curvature.
Yes, the one I already provided clearly showing the path is basically a straight line in this fundamental plane, which results in a curve on the surface of the round Earth, and a more complex curve on the surface of a rotating round Earth. Clearly refuting your claim, and showing everyone that you are lying scum with no concern for the truth.

And try answering some simple questions:
During this recent eclipse, what were the altitudes of the sun and moon?
Considering you are clinging to a unipolar model for this, what were the radii of their paths?
And how quickly (either linear or angular velocity) where they moving?

What i find more interesting is that you used a map which is clearly a POV from above the north pole ot a globe.
Because it doesnt show south america sother africa or south arctic




Its astoundig