That is a FE map, therefore the paths are explained completely.
Repeating the same pathetic lies wont help.
It is an azimuthal equidistant projection. That is NOT a FE map.
On that map, the only accurate points are the start, middle and end. The rest is just arbitrarily drawn in.
But more importantly, there is no explanation at all.
Why should a FE produce those arcs?
As usual, you are just spouting pure BS with no justification at all to pretend your fantasy is true.
Have you lost your freaking mind? Now you want the Earth to be stationary? Don't you understand that you can't have it both ways?
And more dishonest BS from you.
My point is that Earth is rotating.
These paths show not the path of the moon or its shadow, but the path of the moon's shadow on the surface of a rotating Earth.
That rotation of Earth complicates the path.
The rotation changes the reference.
Try removing that rotation to show what the path of the shadow itself is.
That's a FE map you numskull!
Again, lying wont save you. It is a projection of the RE. That does not make it a FE map.
But far more importantly, IT DOES NOT EXPLAIN IT!
WHY SHOULD THE PATHS BE LIKE THAT?
In other words, THERE IS A POINT OF INFLECTION!!!
So what?
Why should that be a problem?
That is how we know the solar eclipses paths are totally false for RET.
No, that is a pathetic excuse you use to reject reality.
Now, take a look at the FE arcs:
Again, they are just drawn as 3 points, which are not accurate, and a FE.
Exactly what you'd expect for the paths of the solar eclipses.
Based on what?
You numskull, the circle is drawn to show the region the reader is supposed to look at.
No, the circle is drawn to pretend to be that path.
Note that it says "The same solar eclipse path".
It is a blatant lie to pretend the FE explains it, when it doesn't.
The paths of the eclipses in FET work out perfectly, the shape of the arcs are correct.
No, they don't.
You are yet to explain anything, and you continually lie and ignore the refutation of those lies.
For RET, the shape of the arcs have two arcs: one is convex, one is concave.
Which you are yet to show a problem with.
THAT PATH FEATURES TWO ARCS, WITH AN INFLECTION POINT! A concave portion, an inflection point, then a convex portion.
Which you are yet to demonstrate is a problem. Again, remove the effect of rotation, use an orthographic projection, and then see what it looks like.
Show the actual path of the shadow, through space, not on the surface of a rotating sphere.