The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: JRoweSkeptic on January 24, 2018, 04:09:49 PM

Title: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on January 24, 2018, 04:09:49 PM
Step one. Calculate the proportional sizes of the Sun and moon during an annular eclipse. You'll find the Sun appears to be approximately 1.3 times the size of the moon, it will vary depending on which eclipse.

Step two. Create two isoceles triangles, one giving the angular distance of the Sun in the sky, one giving the angular distance of the moon. We can fill in these values.
We want the angles to be equal, to give the situation of a total eclipse. The angular distance of both objects will be the same. So in both triangles, the angle will be x. The side opposite this angle will have length M (the apparent size of the moon) in the moon triangle, and 1.3 M in the Sun triangle.
The remaining two sides will be k in the Sun triangle, and k+c in the moon triangle. k is the distance to the Sun. c is unknown, defined to just be the difference between the distance to the Sun and the distance to the moon. It will likely be negative.

Step three. Use the cosine rule to come up with a quadratic formula relating c and k.

Step four. Solve for c. If you don't know how to solve a quadratic equation, I can't help you.

I cannot write math into the forum, but I expect any capable reader will be able to run through and verify the calculations for themselves. Using p as the proportion (given as 1.3 above, but left open so that you may test with your own).
You will find that the distance to the moon, k+c, is k/p times the square root of (2-p2)
Certainly, there is some error in this calculation. According to RET the precise distances to the Sun and moon vary, as does p, but using p=1.3 and k as the distance to the Sun google gives me the distance to the moon as 64 million km. This is substantially different to the value RET gives.


For those interested in the theory behind this calculation, we begin by finding a proportion relating the Sun and moon. We then create, essentially, one large triangle. At one point is the observer, who looks up during a total eclipse to see the Sun and moon with the same angular size. They are different distances away however, so this triangle (currently a V, with the observer looking up) will have two lines opposite the angle, at varying distances away. One is the moon, the further is the Sun. Thus, there are two triangles in this one, the only differences being a) the size of the object, b) the distance to the object.
We can then use the proportion to relate the two distances, so b is the only unknown left to find. The distance to the Sun gives us the distance to the moon, and vice versa.

The RE values are dramatically far from what it is RET states.


Edit: Breakdown to demonstrate how many of the responses are either evasion or misunderstanding.

During a total eclipse, we can calculate the distance from the moon to the Earth in terms of their relative sizes, and the distance from the Sun to the Earth.
Their relative sizes stay the same during an annular eclipse. Only the distances change.
Calculate their relative sizes with pixel measurements of a photo during an annular eclipse, say, or whichever kind of measurement you prefer.
Use this knowledge to remove that unknown during a (limiting) total eclipse, where the Sun and moon appear the same size. You now have a gauge of distance to the moon in terms of distance to the Sun.

None of this relies on any assumptions, beyond the basic assumptions of math and logic. It applies to both FET and RET, but if we apply it to the RE numbers, they fail.
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: EvolvedMantisShrimp on January 24, 2018, 04:16:42 PM
The problem with this is: a sun 64 million km away would indeed cause some problems with our current understanding of distances in the Solar System if it were true. But it would confirm that the Earth is round. Larger, but still round. It would however completely refute Flat Earth.

If it were true.
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on January 24, 2018, 04:24:21 PM
The problem with this is: a sun 64 million km away would indeed cause some problems with our current understanding of distances in the Solar System if it were true. But it would confirm that the Earth is round. Larger, but still round. It would however completely refute Flat Earth.

If it were true.
The proportion is far more in line with what FET states about the distances to the Sun and moon. The millions figure is relevant only to RET.

It does however thoroughly discredit RET, especially areas such as tides which rely on a nearby moon.
If it is not true, you are welcome to demonstrate it.
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: MicroBeta on January 24, 2018, 04:36:24 PM
I disagree.  It fully supports RET.  As does this...

https://www.space.com/39458-super-blue-blood-moon-eclipse-best-viewing.html

Mike
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: EvolvedMantisShrimp on January 24, 2018, 04:37:52 PM
The problem with this is: a sun 64 million km away would indeed cause some problems with our current understanding of distances in the Solar System if it were true. But it would confirm that the Earth is round. Larger, but still round. It would however completely refute Flat Earth.

If it were true.
The proportion is far more in line with what FET states about the distances to the Sun and moon. The millions figure is relevant only to RET.

It does however thoroughly discredit RET, especially areas such as tides which rely on a nearby moon.
If it is not true, you are welcome to demonstrate it.

All you need to do is measure the angle of elevation and azimuth of the Sun or Moon at a specific time then determine the distance to the zenith location at that time. If the Earth is flat, that information would give you the distance from the Earth to the Sun or Moon. But if that distance is known to be wrong as your calculations claim, then the only rational explanation why is because the surface of the Earth is curved.
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on January 24, 2018, 04:44:59 PM
It really speaks volumes that you would all rather ignore the calculations presented and try desperately to distract than face up to the simple fact RET does not work.
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: rabinoz on January 24, 2018, 05:13:07 PM
Step one. Calculate the proportional sizes of the Sun and moon during an annular eclipse. You'll find the Sun appears to be approximately 1.3 times the size of the moon, it will vary depending on which eclipse.
Yes, with an annular eclipse the sun has a larger angular size than the moon.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic
Step two. Create two isoceles triangles, one giving the angular distance of the Sun in the sky, one giving the angular distance of the moon. We can fill in these values.
We want the angles to be equal, to give the situation of a total eclipse. The angular distance of both objects will be the same. So in both triangles, the angle will be x.
The angles are only equal for the limiting case of a total eclipse, not an annular eclipse.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic

The side opposite this angle will have length M (the apparent size of the moon) in the moon triangle, and 1.3 M in the Sun triangle.
The remaining two sides will be k in the Sun triangle, and k+c in the moon triangle. k is the distance to the Sun. c is unknown, defined to just be the difference between the distance to the Sun and the distance to the moon. It will likely be negative.
So you are heading off on with totally incorrect premise.
For an annular eclipse the apparent size of the moon < apparent size of the sun
(http://www.math.nus.edu.sg/aslaksen/gem-projects/hm/0304-1-08-eclipse/Types%20of%20Solar%20Eclipse_files/image011.jpg)
Annular Eclipse
for the limiting total eclipse the apparent size of the moon = apparent size of the sun and
for most total eclipses  the apparent size of the moon > apparent size of the sun.
(http://www.math.nus.edu.sg/aslaksen/gem-projects/hm/0304-1-08-eclipse/Types%20of%20Solar%20Eclipse_files/image019.jpg)
Total Solar Eclipse

So I suggest that you start again.
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on January 24, 2018, 05:18:18 PM
Quote
So I suggest that you start again.
Why? Limiting total eclipses exist.
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: EvolvedMantisShrimp on January 24, 2018, 05:23:36 PM
It really speaks volumes that you would all rather ignore the calculations presented and try desperately to distract than face up to the simple fact RET does not work.

On the contrary, you just showed that the Earth must be round. You just showed that the Earth cannot be flat. The only thing we have left to debate is size.
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on January 24, 2018, 05:26:00 PM
It really speaks volumes that you would all rather ignore the calculations presented and try desperately to distract than face up to the simple fact RET does not work.

On the contrary, you just showed that the Earth must be round. You just showed that the Earth cannot be flat. The only thing we have left to debate is size.
No, I did not. I wrote out calculations about the proportion of the Sun and moon that you refuse to address, then used the RE figures to demonstrate a contradiction inherent in RET. Those figures are demonstrably not accurate.
At no point in the calculations is anything about the shape of the Earth assumed.

Stop evading the problem. Your model has been refuted and you'd rather change the topic than respond.
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: Sam Hill on January 24, 2018, 05:31:51 PM
It really speaks volumes that you would all rather ignore the calculations presented and try desperately to distract than face up to the simple fact RET does not work.

The calculations presented are based on incorrect assumptions, which makes it all wrong.  You are making the unfounded assumption that the sun and moon are the same distance from earth, roughly.  When you only know the angular measurement, you cannot make that assumption.  It has been shown over and over that the Eratosthenes method that gives you a distance of 3000 miles only works from exactly two carefully chosen cities (and by the way, it gives the same value for the moon)

Here are three competing scenarios that each give a moon that covers the sun during a total eclipse, and covers 76% of the sun during a 1.3x annular eclipse:

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/tkswCb6AO5hTuYATD2rTUnFCcaR5ZnULOZ4aJ_XeJik85VoI519yhaQ2RXGOB8d4a1pI-sFZznp1JywHiwnExD4jf5X5ol6wOszi1Feqbx2pC60Ha-4hCTPsU-1ymmueciZIZb_mYTrVQWHOCXO3hsj7yhe9-84PXWaK7RagBmGJUisx-PJeeGYBA_06nkAGO35B8IJAxyp7MF_hJEcDwULHFE7njfpvn69OL1c6UhhQEH236UMRmuxVFxxioCLEkaxRu5FWz1fG7PEfcCx8WgbNS8aA6uunj0FhQ-k-PLMyBZnHld8J5mIrhMrqh65sdfjRHzUBm-c6GRFUQcr2GmIibfkT-UBRuHa2L9kvdRLHO7vVeEKA1GEBRSY87ENqs1OadPHPWLcsYaR5O_nL7d4ageD3yZsuywEpsLL8t2AL0Ec6ujDcYER6b8asoBWOf5zT9dhiIGN1U-Uzv7RrBZYyLMzccPxKMJPTjl_c1onjPouh-cphUqHzlWr6qJmVTWGKXCUwX0wrlseLuL9HsUI-h6SMpv9VXOYeS7c78qrQvkmuu-UOWE8hPXJpLKxbo6MrIt392hFXoPf0wnrPKeq8UlrcZ8Ub735KBoyDnge9KJH-__ezHuRX9soSUDb38ggfg369RTCIFo75EZITcfmbta0V756Myg=w960-h720-no)


Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on January 24, 2018, 05:33:54 PM
Quote
You are making the unfounded assumption that the sun and moon are the same distance from earth, roughly.
At no point do I make that assumption.
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: Copper Knickers on January 24, 2018, 05:35:26 PM
Step one. Calculate the proportional sizes of the Sun and moon during an annular eclipse. You'll find the Sun appears to be approximately 1.3 times the size of the moon, it will vary depending on which eclipse.

Assuming you mean the apparent sizes here, then the angular sizes will be in the same proportion, i.e. 1.3:1

Step two. Create two isoceles triangles, one giving the angular distance of the Sun in the sky, one giving the angular distance of the moon. We can fill in these values.
We want the angles to be equal, to give the situation of a total eclipse. The angular distance of both objects will be the same. So in both triangles, the angle will be x.

Hang on. We seem to have gone from an annular eclipse to a total eclipse. Why is that?

Anyway, the apparent size ratio is now 1:1 as per the angular size, agreed?

The side opposite this angle will have length M (the apparent size of the moon) in the moon triangle, and 1.3 M in the Sun triangle.

Er, no. The ratio is now 1:1. The 1.3:1 was for the annular eclipse, remember?

The remaining two sides will be k in the Sun triangle, and k+c in the moon triangle. k is the distance to the Sun. c is unknown, defined to just be the difference between the distance to the Sun and the distance to the moon. It will likely be negative.

You can't say anything about the distances to the sun and moon at this point because your only inputs are the apparent sizes which have a dependency on those distances. So the remainder of your calculations are moot.

In short, the apparent sizes tell you nothing about the distances unless you have some idea of the actual sizes and vice-versa.

<-- insert Father Ted clip here -->
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: EvolvedMantisShrimp on January 24, 2018, 05:37:46 PM
It really speaks volumes that you would all rather ignore the calculations presented and try desperately to distract than face up to the simple fact RET does not work.

On the contrary, you just showed that the Earth must be round. You just showed that the Earth cannot be flat. The only thing we have left to debate is size.
No, I did not. I wrote out calculations about the proportion of the Sun and moon that you refuse to address, then used the RE figures to demonstrate a contradiction inherent in RET. Those figures are demonstrably not accurate.
At no point in the calculations is anything about the shape of the Earth assumed.

Stop evading the problem. Your model has been refuted and you'd rather change the topic than respond.

I don't know what to tell you. You refuted the wrong model.  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on January 24, 2018, 05:39:25 PM
Quote
Hang on. We seem to have gone from an annular eclipse to a total eclipse. Why is that?
The total eclipse gives us the distance to one in terms of both the distance to the other, and their relative sizes. The annular eclipse lets us remove one of those unknowns giving us something workable.

Quote
Er, no. The ratio is now 1:1. The 1.3:1 was for the annular eclipse, remember?
Yes, which is why I calculated what would be required for that ratio to hold.

Quote
I don't know what to tell you. You refuted the wrong model.  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I am still waiting for you to tell me how at any part of the calculation I assumed RET. The only time it ever got brought up was after all the calculations were done, to demonstrate the numbers don't work. You evidently have absolutely no understanding of what my post says.
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: EvolvedMantisShrimp on January 24, 2018, 05:46:20 PM
Quote
Hang on. We seem to have gone from an annular eclipse to a total eclipse. Why is that?
The total eclipse gives us the distance to one in terms of both the distance to the other, and their relative sizes. The annular eclipse lets us remove one of those unknowns giving us something workable.

Quote
Er, no. The ratio is now 1:1. The 1.3:1 was for the annular eclipse, remember?
Yes, which is why I calculated what would be required for that ratio to hold.

Quote
I don't know what to tell you. You refuted the wrong model.  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I am still waiting for you to tell me how at any part of the calculation I assumed RET. The only time it ever got brought up was after all the calculations were done, to demonstrate the numbers don't work. You evidently have absolutely no understanding of what my post says.

Then how far are the sun and moon?
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on January 24, 2018, 05:47:32 PM
Quote
Hang on. We seem to have gone from an annular eclipse to a total eclipse. Why is that?
The total eclipse gives us the distance to one in terms of both the distance to the other, and their relative sizes. The annular eclipse lets us remove one of those unknowns giving us something workable.

Quote
Er, no. The ratio is now 1:1. The 1.3:1 was for the annular eclipse, remember?
Yes, which is why I calculated what would be required for that ratio to hold.

Quote
I don't know what to tell you. You refuted the wrong model.  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I am still waiting for you to tell me how at any part of the calculation I assumed RET. The only time it ever got brought up was after all the calculations were done, to demonstrate the numbers don't work. You evidently have absolutely no understanding of what my post says.

Then how far are the sun and moon?

That's a far trickier question to answer under DET, and it is also irrelevant. The true distance to the Sun does not matter when I am demonstrating that the RE distances cannot coexist. Stop distracting.
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: rabinoz on January 24, 2018, 05:52:04 PM
Quote
So I suggest that you start again.
Why? Limiting total eclipses exist.
All I meant by a "limiting total eclipse" is where the apparent moon size is exactly the same as the apparent moon size.

In that case, the umbral width is zero and your isosceles triangle have equal angles.

So for the Globe sizes and distances.
The sun's average distance is about 150,000,000 km and it's diameter is about 1,400,000 km (both rounded somewhat) and the moon's is about 3470 km.

So the typical angular size of the sun is 0.0093 radians (0.53° if you prefer).
For this limiting total eclipse, the moon must be: 3474/0.0093 = 371,786 km away, which is nicely above the closest approach of the moon, about 356,500 km.
As the moon becomes closer, we get total eclipses with larger and larger umbral widths and further away, we get annular eclipses.

Of course, the sun's distance varies a little too, but only about 3.5%.

The Globe distances and sizes seem to fit quite well.
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: EvolvedMantisShrimp on January 24, 2018, 05:53:30 PM
Quote
Hang on. We seem to have gone from an annular eclipse to a total eclipse. Why is that?
The total eclipse gives us the distance to one in terms of both the distance to the other, and their relative sizes. The annular eclipse lets us remove one of those unknowns giving us something workable.

Quote
Er, no. The ratio is now 1:1. The 1.3:1 was for the annular eclipse, remember?
Yes, which is why I calculated what would be required for that ratio to hold.

Quote
I don't know what to tell you. You refuted the wrong model.  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I am still waiting for you to tell me how at any part of the calculation I assumed RET. The only time it ever got brought up was after all the calculations were done, to demonstrate the numbers don't work. You evidently have absolutely no understanding of what my post says.

Then how far are the sun and moon?

That's a far trickier question to answer under DET, and it is also irrelevant. The true distance to the Sun does not matter when I am demonstrating that the RE distances cannot coexist. Stop distracting.

So you think your proof refuted a Sun with a radius of 695700 km at a distance of 149600000 km cannot be occluded by a Moon with a radius of 1797 km at a distance of 405,000 km?

Because I bet if you did the math with those numbers, the angles would be almost perfect.
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: Sam Hill on January 24, 2018, 05:55:14 PM
Quote
You are making the unfounded assumption that the sun and moon are the same distance from earth, roughly.
At no point do I make that assumption.

Maybe if you present a diagram, I wouldn't misunderstand you.
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: rabinoz on January 24, 2018, 05:56:15 PM
The true distance to the Sun does not matter when I am demonstrating that the RE distances cannot coexist. Stop distracting.
I'd say that if you don't have a more accurate explanation, it is certainly relevant.

All flat earthers seem to do is attempt to "tear the Globe apart", with no better hypothesis to replace it.
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on January 24, 2018, 05:58:41 PM
In that case, the umbral width is zero and your isosceles triangle have equal angles.
The triangle only exists in a workable fashion for a limiting total eclipse. It is why I specifically said I was dealing with the case where they appear to be the same size. I suggest you go back and reread as you clearly didn't take the time to understand what I said.

Quote
So for the Globe sizes and distances.
The sun's average distance is about 150,000,000 km and it's diameter is about 1,400,000 km (both rounded somewhat) and the moon's is about 3470 km.

So the typical angular size of the sun is 0.0093 radians (0.53° if you prefer).
For this limiting total eclipse, the moon must be: 3474/0.0093 = 371,786 km away, which is nicely above the closest approach of the moon, about 356,500 km.
Instead of taking the figures you are given and are told work, do the calculations for yourself, as I did.


Quote
So you think your proof refuted a Sun with a radius of 695700 km at a distance of 149600000 km cannot be occluded by a Moon with a radius of 1797 km at a distance of 405,000 km?

Because I bet if you did the math with those numbers, the angles would be almost perfect.
I disproved the notion that the moon we observe during annular eclipses can be as far away from the Sun during total eclipses as RET predicts. If you disagree, I am still waiting for you to provide a problem with the proof.


Quote
Maybe if you present a diagram, I wouldn't misunderstand you.
Or you could pay attention to the calculation.

Quote
I'd say that if you don't have a more accurate explanation, it is certainly relevant.

All flat earthers seem to do is attempt to "tear the Globe apart", with no better hypothesis to replace it.
I have a better model to replace it, I link to DET in my sig in every post I make. I will also not put up with your blatant cowardice and attempts to run away and distract from the point here.
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: EvolvedMantisShrimp on January 24, 2018, 06:02:56 PM
I disproved the notion that the moon we observe during annular eclipses can be as far away from the Sun during total eclipses as RET predicts. If you disagree, I am still waiting for you to provide a problem with the proof.

I just did. Check the numbers.
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on January 24, 2018, 06:04:55 PM
I disproved the notion that the moon we observe during annular eclipses can be as far away from the Sun during total eclipses as RET predicts. If you disagree, I am still waiting for you to provide a problem with the proof.

I just did. Check the numbers.
No you didn't, you threw out a bunch of random numbers that you want to insist work. I have already shown that, even if they do, they are not the numbers we observe in the real world as the proportion is entirely wrong.

I suggest you at least try to actually read my post.
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: EvolvedMantisShrimp on January 24, 2018, 06:08:35 PM
I disproved the notion that the moon we observe during annular eclipses can be as far away from the Sun during total eclipses as RET predicts. If you disagree, I am still waiting for you to provide a problem with the proof.

I just did. Check the numbers.
No you didn't, you threw out a bunch of random numbers that you want to insist work. I have already shown that, even if they do, they are not the numbers we observe in the real world as the proportion is entirely wrong.

I suggest you at least try to actually read my post.

They aren't random. They are the actual numbers. Check them. See if they work. See if they produce an annular eclipse. If they don't, then we'll go from there.
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: robintex on January 24, 2018, 06:08:51 PM
The point to consider is to do a little research to find out  why eclipses appear as they do.
It has to do with the sizes of the earth, the moon and the sun and the distances between them.
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on January 24, 2018, 06:10:21 PM
I disproved the notion that the moon we observe during annular eclipses can be as far away from the Sun during total eclipses as RET predicts. If you disagree, I am still waiting for you to provide a problem with the proof.

I just did. Check the numbers.
No you didn't, you threw out a bunch of random numbers that you want to insist work. I have already shown that, even if they do, they are not the numbers we observe in the real world as the proportion is entirely wrong.

I suggest you at least try to actually read my post.

They aren't random. They are the actual numbers. Check them. See if they work. See if they produce an annular eclipse. If they don't, then we'll go from there.

They cannot produce both an annular and total eclipse, because I have already proven the proportions necessary do not work for RET. If you disagree I am waiting for you to stop being such a fucking coward and address the proof.


Quote
The point to consider is to do a liitle research to find out  why eclipses appear as they do.
It has to do with the sizes of the earth, the moon and the sun and the distances between them.
I know, which is why I used that knowledge in constructing the post, and demonstrating that the distances between them are not in line with RET.
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: EvolvedMantisShrimp on January 24, 2018, 06:21:34 PM
I disproved the notion that the moon we observe during annular eclipses can be as far away from the Sun during total eclipses as RET predicts. If you disagree, I am still waiting for you to provide a problem with the proof.

I just did. Check the numbers.
No you didn't, you threw out a bunch of random numbers that you want to insist work. I have already shown that, even if they do, they are not the numbers we observe in the real world as the proportion is entirely wrong.

I suggest you at least try to actually read my post.

They aren't random. They are the actual numbers. Check them. See if they work. See if they produce an annular eclipse. If they don't, then we'll go from there.

They cannot produce both an annular and total eclipse, because I have already proven the proportions necessary do not work for RET. If you disagree I am waiting for you to stop being such a fucking coward and address the proof.


Quote
The point to consider is to do a liitle research to find out  why eclipses appear as they do.
It has to do with the sizes of the earth, the moon and the sun and the distances between them.
I know, which is why I used that knowledge in constructing the post, and demonstrating that the distances between them are not in line with RET.

Your "proof" is fatally flawed. The real  numbers work.
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on January 24, 2018, 06:23:07 PM
They cannot produce both an annular and total eclipse, because I have already proven the proportions necessary do not work for RET. If you disagree I am waiting for you to stop being such a fucking coward and address the proof.

Your "proof is fatally flawed." I let it slide because you also proved that the Earth can't be flat. The numbers I gave produce an annular eclipse. If you want a total eclipse, use any number between 362600 and 380000 km. It is primarily the difference between the Moon's perigee(362600) and apogee(405400) that determines whether an eclipse is total or annular.

Check the numbers.
If it's flawed then show the flaw. Randomly giving a set of numbers without appealing any real world facts, as I did, is meaningless, all the more so because one set of numbers cannot explain both total and annular eclipses. If you want to know what relationship numbers need in order to explain both then READ MY FUCKING POST ALREADY.
If you are just going to repeat that lie, then you have no understanding of what it says. The shape of the Earth never enters into it. I could have made the entire post and never mentioned it once. RET is brought up only to demonstrate the numbers do not work. They are far more in line with what FET predicts about the nearby nature of the Sun and moon. You have demonstrated yourself to be nothing but an evasive, lying coward.
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: EvolvedMantisShrimp on January 24, 2018, 06:27:34 PM
They cannot produce both an annular and total eclipse, because I have already proven the proportions necessary do not work for RET. If you disagree I am waiting for you to stop being such a fucking coward and address the proof.

Your "proof is fatally flawed." I let it slide because you also proved that the Earth can't be flat. The numbers I gave produce an annular eclipse. If you want a total eclipse, use any number between 362600 and 380000 km. It is primarily the difference between the Moon's perigee(362600) and apogee(405400) that determines whether an eclipse is total or annular.

Check the numbers.
If it's flawed then show the flaw. Randomly giving a set of numbers without appealing any real world facts, as I did, is meaningless, all the more so because one set of numbers cannot explain both total and annular eclipses. If you want to know what relationship numbers need in order to explain both then READ MY FUCKING POST ALREADY.
If you are just going to repeat that lie, then you have no understanding of what it says. The shape of the Earth never enters into it. I could have made the entire post and never mentioned it once. RET is brought up only to demonstrate the numbers do not work. They are far more in line with what FET predicts about the nearby nature of the Sun and moon. You have demonstrated yourself to be nothing but an evasive, lying coward.

You have already been shown the flaw in this thread. Want to see your fatal flaw with your own eyes? On the next sunny day, block the Sun with you hand.

And stop calling me a coward, you fucking imbecile.
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on January 24, 2018, 06:32:58 PM
They cannot produce both an annular and total eclipse, because I have already proven the proportions necessary do not work for RET. If you disagree I am waiting for you to stop being such a fucking coward and address the proof.

Your "proof is fatally flawed." I let it slide because you also proved that the Earth can't be flat. The numbers I gave produce an annular eclipse. If you want a total eclipse, use any number between 362600 and 380000 km. It is primarily the difference between the Moon's perigee(362600) and apogee(405400) that determines whether an eclipse is total or annular.

Check the numbers.
If it's flawed then show the flaw. Randomly giving a set of numbers without appealing any real world facts, as I did, is meaningless, all the more so because one set of numbers cannot explain both total and annular eclipses. If you want to know what relationship numbers need in order to explain both then READ MY FUCKING POST ALREADY.
If you are just going to repeat that lie, then you have no understanding of what it says. The shape of the Earth never enters into it. I could have made the entire post and never mentioned it once. RET is brought up only to demonstrate the numbers do not work. They are far more in line with what FET predicts about the nearby nature of the Sun and moon. You have demonstrated yourself to be nothing but an evasive, lying coward.

You have already been shown the flaw in this these. Want to see your fatal flaw with your own eyes? On the next sunny day, block the Sun with you hand.

And stop calling me a coward, you fucking imbecile.

You are a coward. You are refusing to read, refusing to respond. You think repeating bullshit over and over makes it true.
You have not presented any flaw, you have presented denial. You have presented the RE numbers with the insistence that they work, and refused to address the proof that they don't. You are blindly saying it doesn't work, but are unable to say why or how. All you are doing is insisting that what you want to be the case is true, despite your total inability to justify it or deal with anything contrary.
That's the resort of a coward, clinging desperately to fantasy rather than face reality.

I have proven myself. I await any REer to do the same.
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: EvolvedMantisShrimp on January 24, 2018, 06:41:31 PM
They cannot produce both an annular and total eclipse, because I have already proven the proportions necessary do not work for RET. If you disagree I am waiting for you to stop being such a fucking coward and address the proof.

Your "proof is fatally flawed." I let it slide because you also proved that the Earth can't be flat. The numbers I gave produce an annular eclipse. If you want a total eclipse, use any number between 362600 and 380000 km. It is primarily the difference between the Moon's perigee(362600) and apogee(405400) that determines whether an eclipse is total or annular.

Check the numbers.
If it's flawed then show the flaw. Randomly giving a set of numbers without appealing any real world facts, as I did, is meaningless, all the more so because one set of numbers cannot explain both total and annular eclipses. If you want to know what relationship numbers need in order to explain both then READ MY FUCKING POST ALREADY.
If you are just going to repeat that lie, then you have no understanding of what it says. The shape of the Earth never enters into it. I could have made the entire post and never mentioned it once. RET is brought up only to demonstrate the numbers do not work. They are far more in line with what FET predicts about the nearby nature of the Sun and moon. You have demonstrated yourself to be nothing but an evasive, lying coward.

You have already been shown the flaw in this these. Want to see your fatal flaw with your own eyes? On the next sunny day, block the Sun with you hand.

And stop calling me a coward, you fucking imbecile.

You are a coward. You are refusing to read, refusing to respond. You think repeating bullshit over and over makes it true.
You have not presented any flaw, you have presented denial. You have presented the RE numbers with the insistence that they work, and refused to address the proof that they don't. You are blindly saying it doesn't work, but are unable to say why or how. All you are doing is insisting that what you want to be the case is true, despite your total inability to justify it or deal with anything contrary.
That's the resort of a coward, clinging desperately to fantasy rather than face reality.

I have proven myself. I await any REer to do the same.

You have proven yourself to be a fucking imbecile.
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on January 24, 2018, 06:42:21 PM
They cannot produce both an annular and total eclipse, because I have already proven the proportions necessary do not work for RET. If you disagree I am waiting for you to stop being such a fucking coward and address the proof.

Your "proof is fatally flawed." I let it slide because you also proved that the Earth can't be flat. The numbers I gave produce an annular eclipse. If you want a total eclipse, use any number between 362600 and 380000 km. It is primarily the difference between the Moon's perigee(362600) and apogee(405400) that determines whether an eclipse is total or annular.

Check the numbers.
If it's flawed then show the flaw. Randomly giving a set of numbers without appealing any real world facts, as I did, is meaningless, all the more so because one set of numbers cannot explain both total and annular eclipses. If you want to know what relationship numbers need in order to explain both then READ MY FUCKING POST ALREADY.
If you are just going to repeat that lie, then you have no understanding of what it says. The shape of the Earth never enters into it. I could have made the entire post and never mentioned it once. RET is brought up only to demonstrate the numbers do not work. They are far more in line with what FET predicts about the nearby nature of the Sun and moon. You have demonstrated yourself to be nothing but an evasive, lying coward.

You have already been shown the flaw in this these. Want to see your fatal flaw with your own eyes? On the next sunny day, block the Sun with you hand.

And stop calling me a coward, you fucking imbecile.

You are a coward. You are refusing to read, refusing to respond. You think repeating bullshit over and over makes it true.
You have not presented any flaw, you have presented denial. You have presented the RE numbers with the insistence that they work, and refused to address the proof that they don't. You are blindly saying it doesn't work, but are unable to say why or how. All you are doing is insisting that what you want to be the case is true, despite your total inability to justify it or deal with anything contrary.
That's the resort of a coward, clinging desperately to fantasy rather than face reality.

I have proven myself. I await any REer to do the same.

You have proven yourself to be a fucking imbecile.

When you can point out any problem in the proof and justify yourself with more than empty denial, I will care about your opinion.
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: EvolvedMantisShrimp on January 24, 2018, 06:45:37 PM
They cannot produce both an annular and total eclipse, because I have already proven the proportions necessary do not work for RET. If you disagree I am waiting for you to stop being such a fucking coward and address the proof.

Your "proof is fatally flawed." I let it slide because you also proved that the Earth can't be flat. The numbers I gave produce an annular eclipse. If you want a total eclipse, use any number between 362600 and 380000 km. It is primarily the difference between the Moon's perigee(362600) and apogee(405400) that determines whether an eclipse is total or annular.

Check the numbers.
If it's flawed then show the flaw. Randomly giving a set of numbers without appealing any real world facts, as I did, is meaningless, all the more so because one set of numbers cannot explain both total and annular eclipses. If you want to know what relationship numbers need in order to explain both then READ MY FUCKING POST ALREADY.
If you are just going to repeat that lie, then you have no understanding of what it says. The shape of the Earth never enters into it. I could have made the entire post and never mentioned it once. RET is brought up only to demonstrate the numbers do not work. They are far more in line with what FET predicts about the nearby nature of the Sun and moon. You have demonstrated yourself to be nothing but an evasive, lying coward.

You have already been shown the flaw in this these. Want to see your fatal flaw with your own eyes? On the next sunny day, block the Sun with you hand.

And stop calling me a coward, you fucking imbecile.

You are a coward. You are refusing to read, refusing to respond. You think repeating bullshit over and over makes it true.
You have not presented any flaw, you have presented denial. You have presented the RE numbers with the insistence that they work, and refused to address the proof that they don't. You are blindly saying it doesn't work, but are unable to say why or how. All you are doing is insisting that what you want to be the case is true, despite your total inability to justify it or deal with anything contrary.
That's the resort of a coward, clinging desperately to fantasy rather than face reality.

I have proven myself. I await any REer to do the same.
j

You have proven yourself to be a fucking imbecile.

When you can point out any problem in the proof and justify yourself with more than empty denial, I will care about your opinion.

I already have. Other people already have. A much smaller moon much closer can produce the same eclipse as a larger moon further away. Your entire "proof" is fundamentally flawed. Anybody who ever owned a baseball cap can figure that out.
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on January 24, 2018, 06:49:03 PM
Quote
I already have. Other people already have. A much smaller moon much closer can produce the same eclipse as a larger moon further away. Your entire "proof" is fundamentally flawed. Anybody who ever owned a baseball cap can figure that out.
Which, still, is empty denial.
I have proven that the proportions necessary do not exist under RET. Get that through your thick skull already. No matter how much you want to insist that it works, YOU HAVE TO FUCKING SHOW HOW IT COULD GIVEN WHAT I HAVE PROVEN

What is the magical fundamental flaw you keep appealing to? Where is it? All I see if you insisting that the conclusion is wrong, which can't be the case if all the reasoning stands.
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: EvolvedMantisShrimp on January 24, 2018, 06:56:28 PM
Quote
I already have. Other people already have. A much smaller moon much closer can produce the same eclipse as a larger moon further away. Your entire "proof" is fundamentally flawed. Anybody who ever owned a baseball cap can figure that out.
Which, still, is empty denial.
I have proven that the proportions necessary do not exist under RET. Get that through your thick skull already. No matter how much you want to insist that it works, YOU HAVE TO FUCKING SHOW HOW IT COULD GIVEN WHAT I HAVE PROVEN

What is the magical fundamental flaw you keep appealing to? Where is it? All I see if you insisting that the conclusion is wrong, which can't be the case if all the reasoning stands.

...how the hell are you able to function?
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on January 24, 2018, 06:58:31 PM
Quote
I already have. Other people already have. A much smaller moon much closer can produce the same eclipse as a larger moon further away. Your entire "proof" is fundamentally flawed. Anybody who ever owned a baseball cap can figure that out.
Which, still, is empty denial.
I have proven that the proportions necessary do not exist under RET. Get that through your thick skull already. No matter how much you want to insist that it works, YOU HAVE TO FUCKING SHOW HOW IT COULD GIVEN WHAT I HAVE PROVEN

What is the magical fundamental flaw you keep appealing to? Where is it? All I see if you insisting that the conclusion is wrong, which can't be the case if all the reasoning stands.

...how the hell are you able to function?
I will now ignore all your posts in this thread until you are able to point out where the reasoning in my original post failed.
No handwaving, no insisting RET has to work because it just has to! No stupid and irrelevant situations. No open lies about what my argument stated.

I await this evidence you so-clearly have.
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: sokarul on January 24, 2018, 07:17:15 PM
Have you teleported to the USS Enterprise yet?
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: rabinoz on January 24, 2018, 07:19:37 PM
You say that you "will now ignore all your posts in this thread until you are able to point out where the reasoning in my original post failed."

Well, here is my reasoning again!

Step one. Calculate the proportional sizes of the Sun and moon during an annular eclipse. You'll find the Sun appears to be approximately 1.3 times the size of the moon, it will vary depending on which eclipse.
Remember that you said, "Calculate the proportional sizes of the Sun and moon during an annular eclipse".

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic
Step two. Create two isoceles triangles, one giving the angular distance of the Sun in the sky, one giving the angular distance of the moon. We can fill in these values.
We want the angles to be equal, to give the situation of a total eclipse.
No, no, no!
You already said that, "during an annular eclipse. You'll find the Sun appears to be approximately 1.3 times the size of the moon".
Now you are saying, "We want the angles to be equal, to give the situation of a total eclipse." You can't have it both ways!.

An annular eclipse is not the same as a total eclipse! Go and read, Types of Solar Eclipse (http://www.math.nus.edu.sg/aslaksen/gem-projects/hm/0304-1-08-eclipse/Types%20of%20Solar%20Eclipse.htm).

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic
The angular distance of both objects will be the same. So in both triangles, the angle will be x. The side opposite this angle will have length M (the apparent size of the moon) in the moon triangle, and 1.3 M in the Sun triangle.
By saying that "the Sun appears to be approximately 1.3 times the size of the moon" you have already said that "angular distance of both objects" can not "be the same".

So I'm not being cowardly or anything like that, I'm simply saying the if the apparent size of the sun is 1.3 times the apparent size of the moon the angles are not the same.

That is why I will not carry on with the rest - as I said in the first place, you are starting from an incorrect premise.
Quote from: JRoweSkeptic
The RE values are dramatically far from what it is RET states.
So you have proved nothing. If you think I am wrong, do what others have asked and draw some diagrams.
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on January 24, 2018, 07:21:47 PM
Quote
An annular eclipse is not the same as a total eclipse!
I KNOW. THAT WAS CENTRAL TO MY WORKINGS.
The sizes of the Sun and moon are not going to magically change between the two though.
Stop acting like you've somehow won when you haven't even understood the basics of how math works.

We calculate the proportion, then determine how far one has to be shifted in order for the angles to be the same.
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on January 24, 2018, 07:24:00 PM
And that's me signing off. Forty posts and everything can be responded to with the OP. Round earthers and all their usual ignorance and total lack of understanding.

Not that any of you are ever going to admit anything. The fact you repeat your bullshit for this long is something you'll take as a victory, I've seen it. Oh, the thread went on over a page, that dumb FEer must have been refuted in that time. It's not like all REers do is repeat the same handful of things and whine like a baby whenever anything goes past that. It's not like you always rely on bullshit.

I win. Again. Goodbye.
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: Alpha2Omega on January 24, 2018, 07:31:52 PM
Step one. Calculate the proportional sizes of the Sun and moon during an annular eclipse. You'll find the Sun appears to be approximately 1.3 times the size of the moon, it will vary depending on which eclipse.

1.3 is much larger than what ever actually happens, but, for the sake of discussion, OK.
 
Quote
Step two. Create two isoceles triangles, one giving the angular distance size of the Sun in the sky, one giving the angular distance size of the moon. We can fill in these values.

If we want the angles to be equal, to give the situation of a total eclipse[, the] angular distance size of both objects will be the same. So in both triangles, the angle will be x.

The side opposite this angle will have length M (the apparent size of the moon) in the moon triangle, and [in the case of the annular eclipse] 1.3 M in the Sun triangle if they were at the same distance.
 
The remaining two sides will be k in the Sun triangle, and k+c in the moon triangle. k is the distance to the Sun. c is unknown, defined to just be the difference between the distance to the Sun and the distance to the moon. It will likely be negative.

Step three. Use the cosine rule to come up with a quadratic formula relating c and k.

Step four. Solve for c. If you don't know how to solve a quadratic equation, I can't help you.

Some attempts at clarification have been applied to your text. If you think these are incorrect, please discuss.

Solving a quadratic equation: for an equation in the form

A x2 + B x + C = 0

two answers for the value of x will satisfy the equation:

x = (-B + sqrt( B2 - 4 A C )) / (2 A), and

x = (-B - sqrt( B2 - 4 A C )) / (2 A)

sqrt(Q) is the square root of Q. If B2 - 4 A C = 0 (i.e. if B = 2 and A times C = 1), both values for x will be the same, and there is a single solution. Sometimes the solutions will be imaginary.

But none of this matters since it's irrelevant to the problem.

Quote
I cannot write math into the forum, but I expect any capable reader will be able to run through and verify the calculations for themselves. Using p as the proportion (given as 1.3 above, but left open so that you may test with your own).

You will find that the distance to the moon, k+c, is k/p times the square root of (2-p2)

This is not correct.

Quote
Certainly, there is some error in this calculation. According to RET the precise distances to the Sun and moon vary, as does p, but using p=1.3 and k as the distance to the Sun google gives me the distance to the moon as 64 million km. This is substantially different to the value RET gives.

You're right that it's substantially different. It's a clue that your technique is wrong.

Quote
For those interested in the theory behind this calculation, we begin by finding a proportion relating the Sun and moon. We then create, essentially, one large triangle.

There are two different, but similar (in the geometric sense - similar triangles have the same angles, but not necessarily the same side lengths) isosceles triangles. One with its opposite side with a length equal to the diameter of the moon, the other with the opposite side the length of the diameter of the sun.

Quote
At one point is the observer, who looks up during a total eclipse to see the Sun and moon with the same angular size. They are different distances away however, so this triangle (currently a V, with the observer looking up) will have two lines opposite the angle, at varying distances away. One is the moon, the further is the Sun. Thus, there are two triangles in this one, the only differences being a) the size of the object, b) the distance to the object.
We can then use the proportion to relate the two distances, so b is the only unknown left to find. The distance to the Sun gives us the distance to the moon, and vice versa.

No, you can't, law of cosines won't help unless you know the length of at least one side of each of the triangles. Even if you know the distance to the sun but not the moon, you still need to know the size of the moon to determine its distance.

Quote
The RE values are dramatically far from what it is RET states.

No, your calculated values are dramatically wrong because your math is wrong. Your answer is not the "RET" value.

Using numbers provided by Google:

Diameter of sun: 864,575.9 miles.
Diameter of moon: 2,159 miles.

If they have the same apparent size, the sun must be (864,575.9 mi / 2,159 mi) = 400.45 times further away. Call it 400.

Mean distance to sun: call it 93,000,000 miles.

93,000,000 miles / 400 = 232,000 miles.

That sounds about right.

If the moon appears 30% smaller than at mean, it must be about 30% further away. As mentioned earlier, though, the magnitude of an annular eclipse (ratio of apparent diameters) is never as small as 0.77 (30% smaller).

Note: putting these replies together takes time and effort. If you've really already "checked out" of the thread by the time this is posted and won't respond, well, too bad for you!
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on January 24, 2018, 07:43:38 PM
Quote
This is not correct.
You're right that it's substantially different. It's a clue that your technique is wrong.
If you had an argument, you ought to be able to give it without multiple lines of pure assertion. This was pointless.

Quote
No, you can't, law of cosines won't help unless you know the length of at least one side of each of the triangles. Even if you know the distance to the sun but not the moon, you still need to know the size of the moon to determine its distance.
We have this. The size of the moon, M, and the relative size of the Sun.
The size of the Sun and the size of the moon are constant throughout eclipses.

Quote
That sounds about right.
That was also entirely circular. You took the RE measurements, assumed they were accurate, and worked backwards to determine the numbers you started with were accurate. That proves nothing. Yes, if you assume the Sun is that much further than the moon, your results will give you that, it is not in line with observable reality.

I will give you the 30% point, I chose the best possible value for you but many photos of annular eclispes are not of a perfect annulus. Shrinking p does not help you, you are welcome to do so.


Or, another chance:
We can calculate the relative distance to the moon in terms of the distance to the Sun (or vice versa) by taking two instances of them being in alignment.
That is mathematical fact. It gives us all the data we need.
If I did not successfully do it, what way would work?
No more circular arguments. You have a total eclipse and an annular eclipse. That's all. if what I did failed, how would you calculate the relative distances?
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: EvolvedMantisShrimp on January 24, 2018, 07:54:31 PM
Quote
This is not correct.
You're right that it's substantially different. It's a clue that your technique is wrong.
If you had an argument, you ought to be able to give it without multiple lines of pure assertion. This was pointless.

Quote
No, you can't, law of cosines won't help unless you know the length of at least one side of each of the triangles. Even if you know the distance to the sun but not the moon, you still need to know the size of the moon to determine its distance.
We have this. The size of the moon, M, and the relative size of the Sun.
The size of the Sun and the size of the moon are constant throughout eclipses.

Quote
That sounds about right.
j
That was also entirely circular. You took the RE measurements, assumed they were accurate, and worked backwards to determine the numbers you started with were accurate. That proves nothing. Yes, if you assume the Sun is that much further than the moon, your results will give you that, it is not in line with observable reality.

I will give you the 30% point, I chose the best possible value for you but many photos of annular eclispes are not of a perfect annulus. Shrinking p does not help you, you are welcome to do so.


Or, another chance:
We can calculate the relative distance to the moon in terms of the distance to the Sun (or vice versa) by taking two instances of them being in alignment.
That is mathematical fact. It gives us all the data we need.
If I did not successfully do it, what way would work?
No more circular arguments. You have a total eclipse and an annular eclipse. That's all. if what I did failed, how would you calculate the relative distances?

You would either need to know the actual relative sizes to determine the relative distances, or there is a parallax technique that would work without that information if you measured the time and angles of the eclipse from two different locations.
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: Curiouser and Curiouser on January 24, 2018, 08:13:10 PM
Step one. Calculate the proportional sizes of the Sun and moon during an annular eclipse. You'll find the Sun appears to be approximately 1.3 times the size of the moon, it will vary depending on which eclipse.
Premise denied.
Please provide reference to an observation of an annular eclipse where the angular size of the Sun is ~1.3 times the angular size of the Moon.

I'll wait.
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: Alpha2Omega on January 24, 2018, 08:42:35 PM
Quote
This is not correct.
You're right that it's substantially different. It's a clue that your technique is wrong.
If you had an argument, you ought to be able to give it without multiple lines of pure assertion. This was pointless.

Instead of simply claiming "pure assertion", can we see what you think is baseless? Specifically.

Quote
Quote
No, you can't, law of cosines won't help unless you know the length of at least one side of each of the triangles. Even if you know the distance to the sun but not the moon, you still need to know the size of the moon to determine its distance.
We have this. The size of the moon, M, and the relative size of the Sun.
The size of the Sun and the size of the moon are constant throughout eclipses.

Right. And in a total eclipse, their apparent sizes are the same. Therefore the ratio of their distances must be the same as their ratio of diameters. No need to solve quadratics or invoke the law of cosines.
 
Quote
Quote
That sounds about right.
That was also entirely circular. You took the RE measurements, assumed they were accurate, and worked backwards to determine the numbers you started with were accurate. That proves nothing. Yes, if you assume the Sun is that much further than the moon, your results will give you that, it is not in line with observable reality.

Observable reality tells us the sun is much further than the moon. You accepted the "distance to the Sun google gives me", so that's apparently a given. What distance did you use? Can you show how you calculated "the distance to the moon as 64 million km" from that?

If the moon were 64 million km away, it would have to be about half a million km in diameter to have its apparent size. Measurements of parallax relative to stars make it clear that it's neither that large nor that far away. In fact, they give us a very accurate measure of both its distance and can distinguish surface variations to a few dozen meters.

Quote
I will give you the 30% point, I chose the best possible value for you but many photos of annular eclispes are not of a perfect annulus. Shrinking p does not help you, you are welcome to do so.

Or, another chance:
We can calculate the relative distance to the moon in terms of the distance to the Sun (or vice versa) by taking two instances of them being in alignment.
That is mathematical fact. It gives us all the data we need.

No, it's not. You need the ratio of their sizes and one of the distances to do so. There is no suggestion that you know or have considered the actual sizes in your exercise. If you had, and they were reasonably correct, you should have come up with a reasonably close answer, unless your procedure was wrong.

Quote
If I did not successfully do it, what way would work?
No more circular arguments. You have a total eclipse and an annular eclipse. That's all. if what I did failed, how would you calculate the relative distances?

You need their relative sizes. Your exercise with annular eclipses (with whatever magnitude) only shows a proportional change in the ratio of distances, not the distances themselves, without additional data (like actual sizes). [EMS beat me to this obvious answer.]
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: Curiouser and Curiouser on January 24, 2018, 09:03:43 PM
Step two. Create two isoceles triangles, one giving the angular distance of the Sun in the sky, one giving the angular distance of the moon. We can fill in these values.
We want the angles to be equal, to give the situation of a total eclipse. The angular distance of both objects will be the same. So in both triangles, the angle will be x. The side opposite this angle will have length M (the apparent size of the moon) in the moon triangle, and 1.3 M in the Sun triangle.
I read ahead. My bad.

If the apex angle is x, for the Moon triangle the side opposite this angle is length M. This is not the apparent size of the Moon, it is the actual size of the Moon. There is no basis to then say in the Sun triangle that the side opposite angle x is 1.3M. The side opposite angle x is length S.

The ratio of M:S will be equal to the ratio of k+c:k (distance to Moon:distance to Sun) for your limiting case eclipse.

There is no reason to postulate S=1.3M

Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: rabinoz on January 24, 2018, 09:56:31 PM
Quote
An annular eclipse is not the same as a total eclipse!
I KNOW. THAT WAS CENTRAL TO MY WORKINGS.
The sizes of the Sun and moon are not going to magically change between the two though.
True, "the sizes of the Sun and moon are not going to magically change between the two" but the distances do change.
Even the flat earth, the Sun and possobly the moon change height. Here from "the FAQ"
Quote
What About Seasons?
The radius of the sun's orbit around the Earth's axis symmetry varies throughout the year, being smallest when summer is in the northern annulus and largest when it is summer in the southern annulus. Additionally it also raises and lowers. This causes the effect of the sun appearing to move in a figure eight throughout a year.
On the Globe the distance
        from the earth to the sun ranges from 146 million km to 152 million km and
        from the earth to the sun ranges from 356,500 km at the perigee to 406,700 km.
Quote from: JRoweSkeptic
Stop acting like you've somehow won when you haven't even understood the basics of how math works.
I do believe I have a smattering, but maybe not quite up to the Major General's level:
"I’m very well acquainted, too, with matters mathematical,
I understand equations, both the simple and quadratical,
About binomial theorem I’m teeming with a lot o’ news –
With many cheerful facts about the square of the hypotenuse.
and
I’m very good at integral and differential calculus."
Well, not "very good"!
Quote from: JRoweSkeptic
We calculate the proportion, then determine how far one has to be shifted in order for the angles to be the same.
OK, the distances must change - that's what the Globe model claims, big deal - as I said, you've proven nothing!

Now, run off and try again!
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: JackBlack on January 24, 2018, 10:34:31 PM
Step one. Calculate the proportional sizes of the Sun and moon during an annular eclipse. You'll find the Sun appears to be approximately 1.3 times the size of the moon, it will vary depending on which eclipse.
Citation needed.
I am yet to hear anyone ever claim such a thing, nor have I ever seen a picture which shows that.

Until you substantiate that the rest of your argument is pure garbage.

But what I will do is see what the maximum ratio could be if HC theory is correct (not RET, as that is separate, and a problem like this would completely destroy FET more so than the existence of annular and total solar eclipse with a shadow larger than the alleged size of the moon).
At apogee, the furthest the moon is from Earth and thus the smallest angular diameter, the moon is 405 400 km away with a mean radius of 1737.1 km, giving an angular size of 0.49 degrees.
Meanwhile, the Earth at perihelion (where it is closest to the sun to give the largest apparent size of the sun) is roughly 147 095 000 km, with the sun having a mean radius of 695 700 km, giving an apparent size of 0.54 degrees, 1.10 times that of the moon.
In the opposite situation, the sun would be 0.96 times that of the moon.

And rather than bother going through all the math your way, I can tell you by using simple trig, with a right angle triangle and tan, to have the sun appear 1.3 times the size of the moon (at perihelion), the moon only needs to be 476 995 km away from Earth, no where near your 64 million.
Likewise, I can tell you that if the moon was 64 million km away it would have an angular size of only 0.003110266 degrees, making the sun around 170 times as large.

So as per usual, you are full of shit.
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: JackBlack on January 24, 2018, 11:04:31 PM
To deal with it in more detail:
Step two. Create two isoceles triangles, one giving the angular distance of the Sun in the sky, one giving the angular distance of the moon. We can fill in these values.
We want the angles to be equal, to give the situation of a total eclipse. The angular distance of both objects will be the same. So in both triangles, the angle will be x. The side opposite this angle will have length M (the apparent size of the moon) in the moon triangle, and 1.3 M in the Sun triangle.
This makes no sense at all.

What you are actually doing here is merely making the sun 1.3 times the distance to the moon, and 1.3 times the size of the moon.
What you actually need to do is have 2 angles, one will be x, the angular size of the moon, and the other will be p x, the angular size of the sun.
This ratio is a ratio of the angles, not a ratio of the sizes of the lines.
The sizes of the lines can be 2M, the diameter of the moon and 2S, the diameter of the sun.

We can also break it into 2 simple right angle triangles rather than 2 isosceles triangles which massively simplifies the math (but means we use x/2 and p x/2 for the angles)

I cannot write math into the forum
So you know it's full of shit and are trying to hide it?

but I expect any capable reader will be able to run through and verify the calculations for themselves.
They sure as hell can verify that what you are saying is pure nonsense.
You don't even need to be good at math to realise what you are saying is crap.
You are trying to determine the distance between 2 objects to give them a ratio of angular size, with no indication of the size of either object (or their relative size).

You will find that the distance to the moon, k+c, is k/p times the square root of (2-p2)
But just to check the math, doing what you actually asked for, where you have the moon and the sun being the same angular size (x), with the sun having a diameter p times that of the moon (which itself is M), where the distance along the diagonal to the moon is c, and to the sun is c+k, using the cosine rule (c^2=a^2+b^2-2*a*b*cos(C), which for an isosceles triangle can be simplified to c^2=a^2+a^2-2*a*acos(C)=2*a^2-2*a^2*cos(C)=2*a^2*(1-cos(C), which can be further simplified to c=2*a*sqrt(1-cos(C))

For the moon we get the equation:
M=2*c*sqrt(1-cos(x))
Which can be rearranged to give:
sqrt(1-cos(x))=M/2c
For the sun we get the equation:
p*M=2*(c+k)*sqrt(1-cos(x))
Subbing in the rearranged equation from the moon we get:
p*M=2*(c+k)*M/2c
Which is simplified to:
p=(c+k)/c
and rearranged to:
c+k=c p

Thus the distance to the sun (c+k), is simply c times p, which you could have easily gotten via rules regarding similar triangles.

But notice how this doesn't match your math?

So even with all the prior false claims, you are still wrong here again.

Doing it properly, where you note the sun is roughly 400 times the size of the moon, this means the sun needs to be roughly 400 times further away. So using the approximate distance of 150 million km to the sun, this would put the moon 375 000 km from Earth.

Certainly, there is some error in this calculation.
Well that is one thing you got right. There is so much error it isn't funny. As some would say "it isn't even wrong."

The RE values are dramatically far from what it is RET states.
No, it is dramatically different from what you state, which is nothing like what RET nor HC theory state.


Edit: Breakdown to demonstrate how many of the responses are either evasion or misunderstanding.
Your entire OP seems to be misunderstanding and evasion.

Their relative sizes stay the same during an annular eclipse. Only the distances change.
Yes, their relative sizes remain the same, with the sun remaining roughly 400 times the size of the moon.
Notice how 400 is nothing like your 1.3?

None of this relies on any assumptions, beyond the basic assumptions of math and logic. It applies to both FET and RET, but if we apply it to the RE numbers, they fail.
You mean except discarding basic math and logic.

And that's me signing off. Forty posts and everything can be responded to with the OP. Round earthers and all their usual ignorance and total lack of understanding.

Not that any of you are ever going to admit anything. The fact you repeat your bullshit for this long is something you'll take as a victory, I've seen it. Oh, the thread went on over a page, that dumb FEer must have been refuted in that time. It's not like all REers do is repeat the same handful of things and whine like a baby whenever anything goes past that. It's not like you always rely on bullshit.

I win. Again. Goodbye.
You mean that's you running away because you have been refuted yet again.
You are the one displaying ignorance and a total lack of understand. You lose yet again.
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: NAZA on January 25, 2018, 12:50:09 AM
Not a good week for the Flatters.
First Lackey provides proof that the surface of Lake Pontchartrain is curved, and now another prima donna helps prove the large and distant sun and moon.
Coming soon:  Hoppy discuss satellite TV.

You delusionists should stick to "it looks flat"
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: sandokhan on January 25, 2018, 01:45:42 AM
We want the angles to be equal, to give the situation of a total eclipse. The angular distance of both objects will be the same. So in both triangles, the angle will be x. The side opposite this angle will have length M (the apparent size of the moon) in the moon triangle, and 1.3 M in the Sun triangle.
The remaining two sides will be k in the Sun triangle, and k+c in the moon triangle. k is the distance to the Sun. c is unknown, defined to just be the difference between the distance to the Sun and the distance to the moon. It will likely be negative.




But just to check the math, doing what you actually asked for, where you have the moon and the sun being the same angular size (x), with the sun having a diameter p times that of the moon (which itself is M), where the distance along the diagonal to the moon is c, and to the sun is c+k,


In the first paragraph k denotes the DIRECT DISTANCE TO THE SUN, not the diagonal.

In the second paragraph c becomes the DISTANCE ALONG THE DIAGONAL to the moon, and we add k to it, c + k, as the distance along to the diagonal to the sun.


TWO DIFFERENT SCENARIOS.


However, I see a discrepancy in the defined values, in paragraph 1.

The remaining two sides will be k in the Sun triangle, and k+c in the moon triangle. k is the distance to the Sun. c is unknown, defined to just be the difference between the distance to the Sun and the distance to the moon.

If k is the distance to the Sun, then you cannot have k + c as the distance to the moon: k - c would be the correct value (c is the difference between the distance to the Sun and the distance to the moon).

Yes, it is stated that c might be negative, but it makes more sense to define k (dist. to the sun) and (k - c) (dist. the moon).


Let's do the calculations for both versions.


1.

We have two right triangles.

The subtended angle for both is x/2.

For the triangle involving the moon, we have side 1 = M/2 and side 2 = k - c

For the triangle involving the sun, we have side 1 = pM/2 and side 2 = k

Using the tangent function for angle x, we get:

k/p = (k - c)

If p = 4/3, and k = 150,000,000 km, then (k - c) = 112,500,000 km


2. Now the distance along the diagonal to the sun is k, and the distance to the moon, along the diagonal becomes (k - c), where c is the difference.

Two right triangles.

angle x/2 and side 1 = pM/2, hypothenuse = k for the sun

angle x/2 and side 1 = M/2, hypothenuse = (k - c)

Using the sine function for angle x, we get:

(k - c) = k/p


So comments like the following, simply have no place here at all.

Your entire OP seems to be misunderstanding and evasion.

There is so much error it isn't funny. As some would say "it isn't even wrong."

You mean except discarding basic math and logic.

You mean that's you running away because you have been refuted yet again.
You are the one displaying ignorance and a total lack of understand. You lose yet again.



Doing it properly, where you note the sun is roughly 400 times the size of the moon, this means the sun needs to be roughly 400 times further away. So using the approximate distance of 150 million km to the sun, this would put the moon 375 000 km from Earth.

That is just the hypothesis pur forward by modern science.


However, some of the brightest minds have emitted not only wonder but also doubt towards these numbers.

The Moon has astonishing synchronicity with the Sun. When the Sun is at its lowest and weakest in mid-winter, the Moon is at its highest and brightest, and the reverse occurs in mid-summer. Both set at the same point on the horizon at the equinoxes and at the opposite point at the solstices. What are the chances that the Moon would naturally find an orbit so perfect that it would cover the Sun at an eclipse and appear from Earth to be the same size? What are chances that the alignments would be so perfect at the equinoxes and solstices?

    Farouk El Baz,
    NASA


As for the “capture” theory, even scientist Isaac Asimov, well known for his works of fiction, has written, “It’s too big to have been captured by the Earth. The chances of such a capture having been effected and the Moon then having taken up nearly circular orbit around our Earth are too small to make such an eventuality credible.”


It seems impossible that such an oddity could naturally fall into such a precise and circular orbit. It is a fascinating conundrum as articulated by science writer William Roy Shelton, who wrote, “It is important to remember that something had to put the Moon at or near its present circular pattern around the Earth. Just as an Apollo spacecraft circling the Earth every 90 minutes while 100 miles high has to have a velocity of roughly 18,000 miles per hour to stay in orbit, so something had to give the Moon the precisely required velocity for its weight and altitude … The point—and it is one seldom noted in considering the origin of the Moon — is that it is extremely unlikely that any object would just stumble into the right combination of factors required to stay in orbit. ‘Something’ had to put the Moon at its altitude, on its course and at its speed. The question is: what was that ‘something’?”

If the precise and stationary orbit of the Moon is seen as sheer coincidence, is it also coincidence that the Moon is at just the right distance from the Earth to completely cover the Sun during an eclipse? While the diameter of the Moon is a mere 2,160 miles against the Sun’s gigantic 864,000 miles, it is nevertheless in just the proper position to block out all but the Sun’s flaming corona when it moves between the Sun and the Earth. Asimov explained: “There is no astronomical reason why the Moon and the Sun should fit so well. It is the sheerest of coincidences, and only the Earth among all the planets is blessed in this fashion.”
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: Copper Knickers on January 25, 2018, 01:55:59 AM
However, some of the brightest minds have emitted not only wonder but also doubt towards these numbers.

The Moon has astonishing synchronicity with the Sun. When the Sun is at its lowest and weakest in mid-winter, the Moon is at its highest and brightest, and the reverse occurs in mid-summer. Both set at the same point on the horizon at the equinoxes and at the opposite point at the solstices. What are the chances that the Moon would naturally find an orbit so perfect that it would cover the Sun at an eclipse and appear from Earth to be the same size? What are chances that the alignments would be so perfect at the equinoxes and solstices?

    Farouk El Baz,
    NASA

Do you have a reliable source linking Dr. El-Baz to that quote?
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: sandokhan on January 25, 2018, 02:03:49 AM
https://www.quora.com/Were-there-any-scientists-that-doubt-the-moon-to-be-natural

Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: JackBlack on January 25, 2018, 02:13:55 AM
In the first paragraph k denotes the DIRECT DISTANCE TO THE SUN, not the diagonal.
What? Didn't get enough of an ass beating in the last thread so now you come here to get some more.

He is making an isosceles triangle.
There is no line representing the direct distance to the sun there, just the diagonal. i.e. the distance to the sun along the diagonal.

But thanks to this I have noticed another massive problem with his nonsense, he has the moon triangle be bigger than the one for the sun, which makes no sense at all.
Of course, this was just a typo on his part, he just meant it the other way around.

Let's do the calculations for both versions.
How about before doing them you see if they make any sense.

So comments like the following, simply have no place here at all.
No they do, and it applies to you as well.
You seem to not understand at all and only seem capable of just plugging in numbers rather than thinking if the math would apply at all.
Perhaps that explain your extreme ignorance and stupidity regarding the Sagnac effect?

That is just the hypothesis pur forward by modern science.
No, it is what all the evidence points to. It isn't a hypothesis.

However, some of the brightest minds have emitted not only wonder but also doubt towards these numbers.
Nope.
Regardless, this has nothing at all to do with showing that the OP is pure BS.

The Moon has astonishing synchronicity with the Sun
And there you go running off on a tangent. If you want to start a discussion on that topic, do so elsewhere.

Deal with the complete failure of the OP or get lost.
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: JackBlack on January 25, 2018, 02:16:35 AM
https://www.quora.com/Were-there-any-scientists-that-doubt-the-moon-to-be-natural
So that's a no.
You have random guy, but they don't even back you up.
If you notice, the quote is preceeded by who said it.
Your quote wasn't said by NASA, it was said by Christopher Knight and Alan Bulter
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: Copper Knickers on January 25, 2018, 02:17:07 AM
https://www.quora.com/Were-there-any-scientists-that-doubt-the-moon-to-be-natural

Okay, so from that source, your quote is from the book Who Built the Moon by Christopher Knight and Alan Bulter.

Your link cites Farouk El-Baz with the following quote:
"If water vapour is coming from the Moon’s interior is this serious. It means that there is a drastic distinction between the different phases of the lunar interior – that the interior is quite different from what we have seen on the surface."

I trust you won't associate Dr. El-Baz with your quote again.
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: MicroBeta on January 25, 2018, 02:20:53 AM
I disproved the notion that the moon we observe during annular eclipses can be as far away from the Sun during total eclipses as RET predicts. If you disagree, I am still waiting for you to provide a problem with the proof.

I just did. Check the numbers.
No you didn't, you threw out a bunch of random numbers that you want to insist work. I have already shown that, even if they do, they are not the numbers we observe in the real world as the proportion is entirely wrong.

I suggest you at least try to actually read my post.

They aren't random. They are the actual numbers. Check them. See if they work. See if they produce an annular eclipse. If they don't, then we'll go from there.

They cannot produce both an annular and total eclipse, because I have already proven the proportions necessary do not work for RET. If you disagree I am waiting for you to stop being such a fucking coward and address the proof.


Quote
The point to consider is to do a liitle research to find out  why eclipses appear as they do.
It has to do with the sizes of the earth, the moon and the sun and the distances between them.
I know, which is why I used that knowledge in constructing the post, and demonstrating that the distances between them are not in line with RET.
Do you seriously believe you've proven something about the proportions of the sun and moon that nobody in human history has figured out...something every physicist, cosmologist, and astronomer got wrong?  Not only did they get it wrong but they got it wrong exactly the same way.

Logically it just doesn't hold water.  However, if you think you've discovered something unique then by all means, submit it for peer review.

Mike
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: sandokhan on January 25, 2018, 02:25:09 AM
But thanks to this I have noticed another massive problem with his nonsense, he has the moon triangle be bigger than the one for the sun, which makes no sense at all.

But he does not. He stated that c might be negative in value.

It is YOU who has committed a tremendous error, by assuming that the direct distance to the sun, explicitly stated as such in the first paragraphs of the thread, is the same as the diagonal distance.

Both sets of calculations lead to the same conclusion.


So, the following, then, applies only to you, doesn't it?

Your entire OP seems to be misunderstanding and evasion.

There is so much error it isn't funny. As some would say "it isn't even wrong."

You mean except discarding basic math and logic.

You mean that's you running away because you have been refuted yet again.
You are the one displaying ignorance and a total lack of understand. You lose yet again.



The most extraordinary fact is that if THE SUN AND THE MOON HAVE THE SAME DIAMETER, then p = 1 and k is the same for both the Sun and the Moon.


More quotes relating to the solar eclipse.

To be precise, the Moon is 400 times smaller than the star at the centre of our solar system, yet it is also just 1/400th of the distance between the Earth and the Sun.

Whilst the surprisingly neat number of 400 for relative size and distance is apparently an amusing coincidence of the decimal counting system, the odds against this optical illusion happening at all are huge. Experts are deeply puzzled by the phenomenon. Isaac Asimov, the respected scientist and science-fiction guru, described this perfect visual alignment as being ‘the most unlikely coincidence imaginable’.

C. Knight and A. Butler (Who Built the Moon)




Your quote wasn't said by NASA, it was said by Christopher Knight and Alan Bulter

Here is the entire book by Knight/Butler:

https://contraeducacao.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/who-built-the-moon_-knight-christopher.pdf

Do a search with the word astonishing, three occurrences, none of which match the quote.

The quote is from Dr. Farouk El-Baz. The website (quora) simply misplaced the names of the authors.
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: Ising on January 25, 2018, 03:45:19 AM

However, some of the brightest minds have emitted not only wonder but also doubt towards these numbers.

The Moon has astonishing synchronicity with the Sun. When the Sun is at its lowest and weakest in mid-winter, the Moon is at its highest and brightest, and the reverse occurs in mid-summer. Both set at the same point on the horizon at the equinoxes and at the opposite point at the solstices. What are the chances that the Moon would naturally find an orbit so perfect that it would cover the Sun at an eclipse and appear from Earth to be the same size? What are chances that the alignments would be so perfect at the equinoxes and solstices?

    Farouk El Baz,
    NASA


More to the point : so what ? Why should this mean the Moon has been crafted by man ? People used to wonder at the fact the Moon only ever present one face to the Earth, and to conclude that it couldn't possibly be a coincidence, only to later find out that it indeed wasn't, and that it was due to the mutual interaction between Earth and Moon. Likewise, maybe someone will find an explanation to the alignements to which you refer. Until then, no conclusion can be drawn.
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: Copper Knickers on January 25, 2018, 03:49:00 AM
Here is the entire book by Knight/Butler:

https://contraeducacao.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/who-built-the-moon_-knight-christopher.pdf

Do a search with the word astonishing, three occurrences, none of which match the quote.

The quote is from Dr. Farouk El-Baz. The website (quora) simply misplaced the names of the authors.

You're correct that the quote in your source doesn't appear verbatim in the pdf of the book you link. Parts of it do though:

p 31: "... when the Sun is at its lowest and weakest in midwinter, the [full] Moon is at its highest and brightest, and ..."
p 32: "... both [go down] at the same point on the horizon at the equinoxes ..."

It's possible it was referring to a different edition but it's much more likely that the quora 'quote' was paraphrasing - note that it doesn't use quotation marks on this citation, whereas it does on the others.

Further, the quote about water vapour that the quora link ascribes to Dr. El-Baz is also ascribed to him elsewhere, for instance Cosmological Ice Ages, Henry Kroll, p177:

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=WbyM56LFkzsC&lpg=PA177&vq=baz&pg=PA177#v=onepage&q&f=false

Do you still maintain your source was wrong? If so, no worries, we can go back to my original question: Do you have a reliable source linking Dr. El-Baz to your quote?
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: JackBlack on January 25, 2018, 04:51:00 AM
It is YOU who has committed a tremendous error, by assuming that the direct distance to the sun, explicitly stated as such in the first paragraphs of the thread, is the same as the diagonal distance.
Nope.
He said it was the side of the triangle, that means it has to be the diagonal distance.
So no, YOU have committed a tremendous error by changing it to a right angle triangle.

Both sets of calculations lead to the same conclusion.
And as both are based upon the same BS, both amount to nothing.

But no, they don't lead to the same conclusion.
There is his set of calcs, based upon nothing and just baselessly asserting a value for no reason.
Then there is the calcs I provided based upon the triangles he made up, which then produce a value equivalent to what you had, which disagrees with his claim.

So, the following, then, applies only to you, doesn't it?
Nope, still applies to you and JRowe.

You have both completely failed to show any issue with RET.

The most extraordinary fact is that if THE SUN AND THE MOON HAVE THE SAME DIAMETER
Who gives a shit about that purely fictitious example?
The sun and moon do not have the same diameter, and going down this delusional path doesn't get you any closer to finding a problem with RET.

The OP for some reason (apparently out of complete ignorance and misunderstanding) assumed the sun was 1.3 times the size of the moon.

As that is not RET, anything following from that nonsensical claim doesn't disprove RET.

Here is the entire book by Knight/Butler:
https://contraeducacao.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/who-built-the-moon_-knight-christopher.pdf
Do a search with the word astonishing, three occurrences, none of which match the quote.
So you are now saying you own source is BS and you have no source.

The quote is from Dr. Farouk El-Baz. The website (quora) simply misplaced the names of the authors.
Not quite, they just got the quote wrong, but it is in the book.
Try this one:
Quote
So, when the Sun is at its lowest
and weakest in midwinter, the full
Moon is at its highest and brightest, and
in midsummer, when the Sun is at its
highest and brightest, the Moon is at its
weakest.
If you want to understand how
extraordinary this doppelgänger effect
is, stand on a hilltop or an open plain
and film the Sun at midwinter sunset
(its most southerly point on the
horizon), at the spring equinox, again at
midsummer and again at the autumn
equinox. Then on those same dates film
the Moon setting and you will see that
they both go down at the same point on
the horizon at the equinoxes (March
21
st and September 21
st) but the Moon
will have the opposite setting point to
the Sun at solstices in December and
June.
2

This just shows the problem with using the internet to find quotes.
Some moron claims it and other morons repeat it and then just link to other morons claiming it, with no original source.
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: sandokhan on January 25, 2018, 05:22:10 AM
He said it was the side of the triangle, that means it has to be the diagonal distance.


The remaining two sides will be k in the Sun triangle, and k+c in the moon triangle. k is the distance to the Sun. c is unknown, defined to just be the difference between the distance to the Sun and the distance to the moon. It will likely be negative.

You used the diagonal distance, which means you had no idea about the subject of this thread.

Then there is the calcs I provided based upon the triangles he made up, which then produce a value equivalent to what you had, which disagrees with his claim.

If we use the correct value for the distances, the calculations provide the very same answer.


The sun and moon do not have the same diameter, and going down this delusional path doesn't get you any closer to finding a problem with RET.


But they do.

The calculations provided in this thread prove directly that the official figures are totally wrong, and moreover, the ONLY set of values which produce meaningful results are p =1 and k the same for both the sun and the moon.

It is very easy to prove this assertion.

K being the same would mean of course that both the sun and the moon are disks, and not spheres.

Here is the proof that the shape of the sun is discoidal and not spherical:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1939765#msg1939765

You provided this quote from the book:

"So, when the Sun is at its lowest
and weakest in midwinter, the full
Moon is at its highest and brightest, and
in midsummer, when the Sun is at its
highest and brightest, the Moon is at its
weakest.
If you want to understand how
extraordinary this doppelgänger effect
is, stand on a hilltop or an open plain
and film the Sun at midwinter sunset
(its most southerly point on the
horizon), at the spring equinox, again at
midsummer and again at the autumn
equinox. Then on those same dates film
the Moon setting and you will see that
they both go down at the same point on
the horizon at the equinoxes (March
21
st and September 21
st) but the Moon
will have the opposite setting point to
the Sun at solstices in December and
June."


Here is the quote published by Dr. El-Baz:

The Moon has astonishing synchronicity with the Sun. When the Sun is at its lowest and weakest in mid-winter, the Moon is at its highest and brightest, and the reverse occurs in mid-summer. Both set at the same point on the horizon at the equinoxes and at the opposite point at the solstices. What are the chances that the Moon would naturally find an orbit so perfect that it would cover the Sun at an eclipse and appear from Earth to be the same size? What are chances that the alignments would be so perfect at the equinoxes and solstices?

    Farouk El Baz,
    NASA

Different wordings, order of sentences, not nearly the same.


Your only excuse would be that you did not have your glasses on.
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: Sam Hill on January 25, 2018, 05:24:48 AM
Yes, if you assume the Sun is that much further than the moon, your results will give you that, it is not in line with observable reality.

We aren’t assuming anything, the distance to the moon has been measured with radar (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1965IAUS...21...81Y), the distance to Venus has been measured with radar (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar_astronomy#History), and the distance to the sun has been calculated from the geometry of the earth-sun-Venus triangle.
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: EvolvedMantisShrimp on January 25, 2018, 05:26:05 AM
He said it was the side of the triangle, that means it has to be the diagonal distance.

Different thread, same lying bastard.

The remaining two sides will be k in the Sun triangle, and k+c in the moon triangle. k is the distance to the Sun. c is unknown, defined to just be the difference between the distance to the Sun and the distance to the moon. It will likely be negative.

You used the diagonal distance, which means you had no idea about the subject of this thread.

Then there is the calcs I provided based upon the triangles he made up, which then produce a value equivalent to what you had, which disagrees with his claim.

If we use the correct value for the distances, the calculations provide the very same answer.


The sun and moon do not have the same diameter, and going down this delusional path doesn't get you any closer to finding a problem with RET.


But they do.

The calculations provided in this thread prove directly that the official figures are totally wrong, and moreover, the ONLY set of values which produce meaningful results are p =1 and k the same for both the sun and the moon.

It is very easy to prove this assertion.

K being the same would mean of course that both the sun and the moon are disks, and not spheres.

Here is the proof that the shape of the sun is discoidal and not spherical:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1939765#msg1939765

You provided this quote from the book:

"So, when the Sun is at its lowest
and weakest in midwinter, the full
Moon is at its highest and brightest, and
in midsummer, when the Sun is at its
highest and brightest, the Moon is at its
weakest.
If you want to understand how
extraordinary this doppelgänger effect
is, stand on a hilltop or an open plain
and film the Sun at midwinter sunset
(its most southerly point on the
horizon), at the spring equinox, again at
midsummer and again at the autumn
equinox. Then on those same dates film
the Moon setting and you will see that
they both go down at the same point on
the horizon at the equinoxes (March
21
st and September 21
st) but the Moon
will have the opposite setting point to
the Sun at solstices in December and
June."


Here is the quote published by Dr. El-Baz:

The Moon has astonishing synchronicity with the Sun. When the Sun is at its lowest and weakest in mid-winter, the Moon is at its highest and brightest, and the reverse occurs in mid-summer. Both set at the same point on the horizon at the equinoxes and at the opposite point at the solstices. What are the chances that the Moon would naturally find an orbit so perfect that it would cover the Sun at an eclipse and appear from Earth to be the same size? What are chances that the alignments would be so perfect at the equinoxes and solstices?

    Farouk El Baz,
    NASA

Different wordings, order of sentences, not nearly the same.


Your only excuse would be that you did not have your glasses on.

How do a Sun and Moon of identical size produce both total and annular eclipses?
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: Sam Hill on January 25, 2018, 05:32:31 AM
How do a Sun and Moon of identical size produce both total and annular eclipses?

The sun has to be slightly larger than the moon in order for annular eclipses to work.  The FE sun and moon are each “about 32 miles across” (emphasis on the “about” term) so if the sun is closer to 35 and the moon closer to 30, then you might have geometry that supports annular eclipses.
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: sandokhan on January 25, 2018, 06:12:23 AM
How do a Sun and Moon of identical size produce both total and annular eclipses?

Very good question.

You will find the answer in the oldest treatise on astronomy, The Book of the Luminaries, chapters 71-77:

http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/enoch.html#Enoch_71

The distance between the Sun and Moon is not constant, it varies slightly.

(https://www.beingintheshadow.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/fig-8-annular-eclipse.jpg)

(https://cnet2.cbsistatic.com/img/pxA8LkekPSDCb40bSqWdQSZ8SC0=/1600x900/2017/08/21/6afb9977-3ca9-4575-a799-a4c0e4f9ba18/nasa-eclipse.jpg)


Here are the photographs which prove that p = 1 and that k is nearly the same:

(http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0805/antarcticeclipse_bruenjes_big.jpg)
(http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/CRW_4623.jpg)
(http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/composite2.jpg)
(http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/CRW_4632a.jpg)(http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/3rdcontact_vidcap.jpg)

http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/

That many such bodies exist in the firmament is almost a matter of certainty; and that one such as that which eclipses the moon exists at no great distance above the earth's surface, is a matter admitted by many of the leading astronomers of the day. In the report of the council of the Royal Astronomical Society, for June 1850, it is said:--

"We may well doubt whether that body which we call the moon is the only satellite of the earth."

In the report of the Academy of Sciences for October 12th, 1846, and again for August, 1847, the director of one of the French observatories gives a number of observations and calculations which have led him to conclude that,--

"There is at least one non-luminous body of considerable magnitude which is attached as a satellite to this earth."

Sir John Herschel admits that:--

"Invisible moons exist in the firmament."

Sir John Lubbock is of the same opinion, and gives rules and formulæ for calculating their distances, periods.

Lambert in his cosmological letters admits the existence of "dark cosmical bodies of great size."
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: EvolvedMantisShrimp on January 25, 2018, 06:19:25 AM
How do a Sun and Moon of identical size produce both total and annular eclipses?

Very good question.

You will find the answer in the oldest treatise on astronomy, The Book of the Luminaries, chapters 71-77:

http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/enoch.html#Enoch_71

The distance between the Sun and Moon is not constant, it varies slightly.

(https://www.beingintheshadow.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/fig-8-annular-eclipse.jpg)

(https://cnet2.cbsistatic.com/img/pxA8LkekPSDCb40bSqWdQSZ8SC0=/1600x900/2017/08/21/6afb9977-3ca9-4575-a799-a4c0e4f9ba18/nasa-eclipse.jpg)


Here are the photographs which prove that p = 1 and that k is nearly the same:

(http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0805/antarcticeclipse_bruenjes_big.jpg)
(http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/CRW_4623.jpg)
(http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/composite2.jpg)
(http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/CRW_4632a.jpg)(http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/3rdcontact_vidcap.jpg)

http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/

That many such bodies exist in the firmament is almost a matter of certainty; and that one such as that which eclipses the moon exists at no great distance above the earth's surface, is a matter admitted by many of the leading astronomers of the day. In the report of the council of the Royal Astronomical Society, for June 1850, it is said:--

"We may well doubt whether that body which we call the moon is the only satellite of the earth."

In the report of the Academy of Sciences for October 12th, 1846, and again for August, 1847, the director of one of the French observatories gives a number of observations and calculations which have led him to conclude that,--

"There is at least one non-luminous body of considerable magnitude which is attached as a satellite to this earth."

Sir John Herschel admits that:--

"Invisible moons exist in the firmament."

Sir John Lubbock is of the same opinion, and gives rules and formulæ for calculating their distances, periods.

Lambert in his cosmological letters admits the existence of "dark cosmical bodies of great size."

So they aren't of identical size then?
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: sandokhan on January 25, 2018, 06:55:05 AM
A similar question came up in the South Celestial Pole thread: the index of refraction of the ether/aether.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67769.msg1813267#msg1813267

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67769.msg1813298#msg1813298

Everything depends on the speed of light through the aether in the comparison for the total eclipse/annular eclipse situations.

Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: EvolvedMantisShrimp on January 25, 2018, 06:57:27 AM
A similar question came up in the South Celestial Pole thread: the index of refraction of the ether/aether.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67769.msg1813267#msg1813267

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67769.msg1813298#msg1813298

Everything depends on the speed of light through the aether in the comparison for the total eclipse/annular eclipse situations.

Side question: what does aether taste like?
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on January 25, 2018, 07:01:03 AM
Chicken, of course.
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: markjo on January 25, 2018, 09:01:36 AM
Quote
I already have. Other people already have. A much smaller moon much closer can produce the same eclipse as a larger moon further away. Your entire "proof" is fundamentally flawed. Anybody who ever owned a baseball cap can figure that out.
Which, still, is empty denial.
I have proven that the proportions necessary do not exist under RET. Get that through your thick skull already. No matter how much you want to insist that it works, YOU HAVE TO FUCKING SHOW HOW IT COULD GIVEN WHAT I HAVE PROVEN
The fact that the sun and moon both have approximately the same angular size proves that the necessary proportions do exist.
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: Jonny B Smart on January 25, 2018, 09:43:20 AM
How do a Sun and Moon of identical size produce both total and annular eclipses?

Very good question.

You will find the answer in the oldest treatise on astronomy, The Book of the Luminaries, chapters 71-77:

http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/enoch.html#Enoch_71

The distance between the Sun and Moon is not constant, it varies slightly.

(https://www.beingintheshadow.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/fig-8-annular-eclipse.jpg)

(https://cnet2.cbsistatic.com/img/pxA8LkekPSDCb40bSqWdQSZ8SC0=/1600x900/2017/08/21/6afb9977-3ca9-4575-a799-a4c0e4f9ba18/nasa-eclipse.jpg)


Here are the photographs which prove that p = 1 and that k is nearly the same:

(http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0805/antarcticeclipse_bruenjes_big.jpg)
(http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/CRW_4623.jpg)
(http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/composite2.jpg)
(http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/CRW_4632a.jpg)(http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/3rdcontact_vidcap.jpg)

http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/

That many such bodies exist in the firmament is almost a matter of certainty; and that one such as that which eclipses the moon exists at no great distance above the earth's surface, is a matter admitted by many of the leading astronomers of the day. In the report of the council of the Royal Astronomical Society, for June 1850, it is said:--

"We may well doubt whether that body which we call the moon is the only satellite of the earth."

In the report of the Academy of Sciences for October 12th, 1846, and again for August, 1847, the director of one of the French observatories gives a number of observations and calculations which have led him to conclude that,--

"There is at least one non-luminous body of considerable magnitude which is attached as a satellite to this earth."

Sir John Herschel admits that:--

"Invisible moons exist in the firmament."

Sir John Lubbock is of the same opinion, and gives rules and formulæ for calculating their distances, periods.

Lambert in his cosmological letters admits the existence of "dark cosmical bodies of great size."

I agree that scientific knowledge from 170 years ago was poor. That’s not news.
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: JackBlack on January 25, 2018, 01:51:02 PM
He said it was the side of the triangle, that means it has to be the diagonal distance.
The remaining two sides will be k in the Sun triangle, and k+c in the moon triangle. k is the distance to the Sun. c is unknown, defined to just be the difference between the distance to the Sun and the distance to the moon. It will likely be negative.
You used the diagonal distance, which means you had no idea about the subject of this thread.
You really do like repeating the same ignorant crap.
Yes, k is the distance to the sun, ALONG THE DIAGONAL!!!
Are you aware that you can measure distances along a diagonal?

Again, you were told to draw an isosceles triangle, with one side p M (used p=1.3 as an example), representing the size of the sun, and the other side being k.
That needs to be a diagonal.
There was no line corresponding to the "direct distance" to the sun.

So no, this just shows that yet again, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Do I need to draw you a picture?

Regardless, this is all just bitching about nothing.
Changing it between diagonal distance and direct distance will have no effect on the argument at hand, because they are directly related, cos(x/2)=direct/diagonal.
But of course, you know you need to grasp at whatever straws you can to pretend you are correct. What a shame it just results in you looking even worse.


Then there is the calcs I provided based upon the triangles he made up, which then produce a value equivalent to what you had, which disagrees with his claim.
If we use the correct value for the distances, the calculations provide the very same answer.
No they don't.
His claim:
You will find that the distance to the moon, k+c, is k/p times the square root of (2-p2)
i.e. (k+c)=(k/p)*sqrt(2-p^2))
Mine:
Thus the distance to the sun (c+k), is simply c times p, which you could have easily gotten via rules regarding similar triangles.
Which when using the same variables as he did (i.e. k for the sun distance, (k+c) for the moon distance, simply gives:
k=(k+c)*p
Or (k+c)=k/p. Notice the factor of sqrt(2-p^2) which is missing?
Your claim:
(k - c) = k/p
Which when adjusted to use the same format as above, you have:
(k+c)=k/p

Again, notice the missing term?

So no, the only time you get the same answer is when you have:
sqrt(2-p^2)=1, i.e. p=1.
This would require the sun and moon to be the same size and the same distance from Earth.
This means during an eclipse they are literally in the same location. You would need the moon to pass through the sun. This is impossible.
This would simply be a collision between the sun and moon.

So no, that isn't possible. Using any other value (which would include the correct value) you get completely different numbers.
For example, using his p=1.3 BS, you get them off by a factor of 0.556776436.
When you use the real values, of p=~400, you get a much bigger problem. You need to find the square root of (2-400^2)=-159998
In fact, you start running into issues as soon as p=sqrt(2).
At p=sqrt(2), you end up with that factor being sqrt(2-2)=0. That would indicate the moon is touching Earth.

The sun and moon do not have the same diameter, and going down this delusional path doesn't get you any closer to finding a problem with RET.

But they do.
No they don't.
The fact that you can get annular eclipses proves quite conclusively that the moon is smaller than the sun.

So going down delusional paths of hypotheticals doesn't get you any closer to a problem with RET. All it does is get you a problem with your delusional strawman.

The calculations provided in this thread prove directly that the official figures are totally wrong, and moreover, the ONLY set of values which produce meaningful results are p =1 and k the same for both the sun and the moon.
No. The calculations provided in this thread proves the figures and calcualtions JRowe gave are totally wrong.

He falsely assumed the sun is only 1.3 times the size of the moon rather than using the figure from reality of roughly 400.
As such, the calculations have nothing to do with RET aka reality.

It is very easy to prove this assertion.
No, it is literally impossible as it is false.
You haven't come close to proving it at all.

K being the same would mean of course that both the sun and the moon are disks, and not spheres.
Nope. Even them being discs don't help. Also, the fact they appear as roughly a circle regardless of viewing position shows quite clearly that they are not discs.
If they were discs then viewing them from any angle except directly along their axis, they would appear as ellipses.

So any alleged proof you have for them being discs is clearly BS.

You provided this quote from the book:
Here is the quote published by Dr. El-Baz:
You are yet to establish that quote is by him.
As such I will take it as people miswording the book, or using some other quote.

It still remains that you are falsely attributing this quote to El-Baz.

All you have done is shown how unreliable it is to use random internet sites to try and find quotes like this.

How do a Sun and Moon of identical size produce both total and annular eclipses?
Very good question.
You will find the answer in the oldest treatise on astronomy, The Book of the Luminaries, chapters 71-77:
i.e. you have no answer and thus need to evade the question.

The distance between the Sun and Moon is not constant, it varies slightly.
Yes, and this allows a moon that is smaller than the sun to produce a total or annular eclipse. It does not allow a moon that is as large as the sun to produce an annular eclipse.

If the moon is larger than the sun then it is impossible for their centres to both lie upon the same line of site with the moon in front and the moon to not completely obstruct the view to the sun.

Here are the photographs which prove that p = 1 and that k is nearly the same:
No, they don't.
They show the apparent angular size is the same. They have no indication on the distance to either of them, nor any indication of the real relative size.

All the apparent angular size being roughly the same shows is that the ratio of the sizes is roughly the same as the ratio of the distances.
This means they could hypothetically be the same size at the same distance (ignoring the physical impossibility of that), the sun could be 1.3 times the size of the moon, and 1.3 times as distant, the sun could be 400 times the size and distance of the moon, or some other factor.

It does not show they are the same size, nor does it show they are the same distance.

The fact that it isn't perfect and varies slightly with sometimes the sun appearing smaller than the moon and sometimes larger just shows they are not the same size and same distance and the distances vary.

As the moon obstructs the sun (to produce an eclipse), this shows the moon is closer to Earth than the sun (and thus smaller than the sun). As you can get annular eclipses, this shows the moon is smaller than the sun.

And I will be ignoring your baseless quotes.
Even if they were said by these people, they just amount to a pathetic appeal to authority to attempt to avoid your failings.
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: sandokhan on January 25, 2018, 02:08:22 PM
This would require the sun and moon to be the same size and the same distance from Earth.
This means during an eclipse they are literally in the same location. You would need the moon to pass through the sun. This is impossible.
This would simply be a collision between the sun and moon.


Not at all.

As shown in the Fred Bruenjes photographs there is a certain distance between the solar/black sun disks.

Your assertion is refuted.


If they were discs then viewing them from any angle except directly along their axis, they would appear as ellipses.

You are a student of conventional physics.


Here are two of greatest physicists of the 20th century telling you that you are wrong:

“What? Do you mean to tell me that I can tell you how
much magnetic field there is inside of here by measuring
currents through here and here – through wires which
are entirely outside – through wires in which there is no
magnetic field... In quantum mechanical interference experiments
there can be situations in which classically there
would be no expected influence whatever. But nevertheless
there is an influence. Is it action at distance? No, A is
as real as B-realer, whatever that means.”

R. Feynman

“throughout most of 20th century the Heaviside-Hertz form of Maxwell’s equations were taught to college students all over the world. The reason is quite obvious: the Heaviside-Hertz form is simpler, and exhibits an appealing near symmetry between E and H. With the widespread use of this vector-potential-less version of Maxwell’s equations, there arouse what amounted to a dogma: that the electromagnetic field resides in E and H. Where both of them vanish, there cannot be any electromagnetic effects on a charged particle. This dogma explains why when the Aharonov-Bohm article was published it met with general disbelief. . . E and H together do not completely describe the electromagnetic field, and. . . the vector potential cannot be totally eliminated in quantum mechanics. . . the field strengths underdescribe electromagnetism.”

C.N. Yang, Nobel prize laureate

“...the vector potential appears to give the most direct description of the physics. This becomes more apparent the more deeply we go into quantum theory. In the general theory of quantum electrodynamics, one takes the vector and scalar potentials as the fundamental quantities in a set of equations that replace the Maxwell equations: E and B are slowly disappearing from the modern expression of physical laws; they are being replaced by A and φ”

(Feynman et al, 1989, chapter 15, section 5, The Feynman Lecture on Physics (Vol. 2), 1989)


You are relying ONLY on the vector fields, which are created by the POTENTIALS.

Potential = ether = longitudinal waves


Again, R. Feynman:

E and B are slowly disappearing from the modern expression of physical laws; they are being replaced by A and φ.

The existence of the ether changes everything.


E.T. Whittaker proved mathematically the existence of the hidden structure of the potential: bidirectional longitudinal waves.


https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1994059#msg1994059

The achievements of the 1903 and 1904 papers published by Whittaker:

A scalar potential is comprised of a lattice of bidirectional longitudinal waves (ether/Tesla strings).

Electromagnetic or gravitational fields and waves can be decomposed into two scalar potential functions.

The unification of quantum mechanics, general relativity, ether theory into one single subject: ELECTROGRAVITY.

How to construct a scalar interferometer: a standing scalar wave structure.

An extended version of the Aharonov-Bohm effect.

The discovery of the fact that internal EM is generally completely inside the scalar potential, existing as “infolded” harmonic sets of EM antiparallel wave/antiwave pairs.   This internal EM was in Maxwell’s original quaternion equations.

The superluminal speed of gravitational waves.


“Whittaker, a leading world-class physicist himself, single-handedly rediscovered the "missing" scalar components of Maxwell's original quaternions, extending their (at the time) unseen implications for finally uniting "gravity" with the more obvious electrical and magnetic components known as "light."

"In 1903-1904 E.T. Whittaker published a fundamental, engineerable theory of electrogravitation (EG) in two profound papers. The first (W-1903) demonstrated a hidden bidirectional EM wave structure in the scalar potential of vacuum, and showed how to produce a standing scalar EM potential wave -- the same wave discovered experimentally four years earlier by Nikola Tesla.

W-1904 shows that all force field EM can be replaced by interferometry of two scalar potentials, anticipating the Aharonov-Bohm effect by 55 years and extending it to the engineerable macroscopic world. W-1903 shows how to turn EM into G-potential and directly engineer the virtual particle flux of ether. W-1904 shows how to turn G-potential back into force-field EM, even at a distance."

E.T. Whittaker, "On the Partial Differential Equations of Mathematical Physics," Math. Ann., Vol. 57, 1903, p. 333-355 (W-1903)

http://www.cheniere.org/misc/Whittak/ORIw1903.pdf

E.T. Whittaker, "On an Expression of the Electromagnetic Field Due to Electrons by Means of Two Scalar Potential Functions," Proc. Lond. Math. Soc., Series 2, Vol.1, 1904, p. 367-372 (W-1904)

http://hemingway.softwarelivre.org/ttsoares/books_papers_patents/books%20papers%20patents%20(scientis/whittaker/whittaker%20et%20-%20on%20an%20expre.pdf

"In his 1903 paper Whittaker showed that a standing scalar potential wave can be decomposed into a special set of bidirectional EM waves that convolute into a standing scalar potential wave.

The very next year, Whittaker's second paper (cited above) showed how to turn such G potential wave energy back into EM energy, even at a distance, by scalar potential interferometry, anticipating and greatly expanding the Aharonov-Bohm effect. Indeed, Whittaker's second paper shows that the entire present force-field electromagnetics can be directly replaced with scalar potential interferometry. In other words, scalar EM includes and extends the present restricted vector subset of Maxwell's original theory.
 
Specifically, any EM force field can be replaced by two scalar potential fields and scalar interferometry. The combination of this paper and the 1903 Mathematische Annalen paper not only includes the Aharonov-Bohm effect, but specifies a testable method for producing a macroscopic and controlled Aharanov-Bohm effect, even at large distances."


The existence of this hidden structure was proven experimentally by the Aharonov-Bohm effect.

“A new generation of physicists, also educated in the grand assumption that "Heaviside's Equations" are actually "Maxwell's," were abruptly brought up short in 1959 with a remarkable and elegant experiment -- which finally demonstrated in the laboratory the stark reality of Maxwell's "pesky scalar potentials" ... those same "mystical" potentials that Heaviside so effectively banished for all time from current (university-taught) EM theory.

In that year two physicists, Yakir Aharonov and David Bohm, conducted a seminal "electrodynamics" laboratory experiment ("Significance of Electromagnetic Potentials in Quantum Theory," The Physical Review, Vol. 115, No. 3, pp. 485-491; August, 1959). Aharonov and Bohm, almost 100 years after Maxwell first predicted their existence, succeeded in actually measuring the "hidden potential" of free space, lurking in Maxwell's original scalar quaternion equations. To do so, they had to cool the experiment to a mere 9 degrees above Absolute Zero, thus creating a total shielding around a superconducting magnetic ring [for a slightly different version of this same experiment; the oscillation of electrical resistance in the ring (bottom graph) is due to the changing electron "wave functions" -- triggered by the "hidden Maxwell scalar potential" created by the shielded magnet].

(http://www.enterprisemission.com/images/hyper/s_a-bohm.gif)

Once having successfully accomplished this non-trivial laboratory set up, they promptly observed an "impossible" phenomenon:

Totally screened, by all measurements, from the magnetic influence of the ring itself, a test beam of electrons fired by Aharonov and Bohm at the superconducting "donut," nonetheless, changed their electronic state ("wave functions") as they passed through the observably "field-free" region of the hole -- indicating they were sensing "something," even though it could NOT be the ring's magnetic field. Confirmed now by decades of other physicists' experiments as a true phenomenon, this "Aharonov-Bohm Effect" provides compelling proof of a deeper "spatial strain" -- a "scalar potential" -- underlying the existence of a so-called magnetic "force-field" itself.”

After the first precise experiment carried out by Tonomura and his team at Hitachi using electron holography followed by more experiments using superconducting shields, the Aharonov-Bohm effect is confirmed and that it is a genuine feature of the standard quantum mechanics.


The Allais effect proves immediately that the solar eclipse is not caused by the moon.

Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: sandokhan on January 25, 2018, 02:15:15 PM
They show the apparent angular size is the same. They have no indication on the distance to either of them, nor any indication of the real relative size.

They show that Armstrong and Aldrin might as well have used as a vehicle to the moon a simple carriage driven by reindeers: the photographs show both the Black Sun and the Sun itself at a distance of less than 1000 km from the photographer.

(http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0805/antarcticeclipse_bruenjes_big.jpg)

No 384,000 km distance to the Moon at all.

Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: Curiouser and Curiouser on January 25, 2018, 02:21:10 PM
You guys are all so adorable!
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: JackBlack on January 25, 2018, 02:33:39 PM
Not at all.
How about you deal with the math provided just above that.
Show what is wrong with it.
Baselessl dismissal doesn't magically make you correct.


As shown in the Fred Bruenjes photographs there is a certain distance between the solar/black sun disks.
Yes, and that shows your claims BS, because your claims require them to be the same distance and same size.

Your assertion is refuted.
Nope, my argument further backed up.

If they were discs then viewing them from any angle except directly along their axis, they would appear as ellipses.
You are a student of conventional physics.
You mean a student of reality.
Regardless, this is going off topic again.
Deal with the failings of the OP. Stop trying to change the subject to avoid your pathetic failures.

Seriously, in that entire post you completely failed to address the arguments regarding the OP except with your pathetic dismissal.

They show that Armstrong and Aldrin might as well have used as a vehicle to the moon a simple carriage driven by raindeer: the photographs show both the Black Sun and the Sun itself at a distance of less than 1000 km from the photographer.
No they don't.
The moon (which you seem to delusionally call the black sun) has no indication of distance in that photo.

If you think it does, explain how.
Or better still, address the failings of the OP and how their baseless garbage doesn't disprove RET at all.
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: sandokhan on January 25, 2018, 02:41:33 PM
because your claims require them to be the same distance and same size.


Yes, the same size.

The distance between the Sun and Moon is not constant, it varies slightly; this distance is infinitesimal compared to the distance between the photographer and the celestial bodies.

If you think it does, explain how.

Sure, here are the ISS/Atlantis solar/lunar transit photographs:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1786946#msg1786946

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1787025#msg1787025

Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: JackBlack on January 25, 2018, 02:56:55 PM
because your claims require them to be the same distance and same size.

Yes, the same size.
Thus p=1, thus they are the same distance.
Hence, your claims require them to be the same distance and size. The simple fact is this is impossible (as previously shown), thus you are wrong.

If you think it does, explain how.
Sure, here are the ISS/Atlantis solar/lunar transit photographs:
That is not that photo. Try again.

And deal with the OP's faillings.
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: Sentinel on January 25, 2018, 03:32:38 PM
Granted I didn't log in here for quite a while, but boy the bitchslapping of poor Sandy by Jack really never gets old.
Wonder if his FE sun still is at merely 20 miles height above the plane and how his precious Aether is holding up so far though.  :P
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: rabinoz on January 25, 2018, 05:44:52 PM
How do a Sun and Moon of identical size produce both total and annular eclipses?

Very good question.
You will find the answer in the oldest treatise on astronomy, The Book of the Luminaries, chapters 71-77:
http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/enoch.html#Enoch_71
Really? Where?
Quote from: sandokhan

The distance between the Sun and Moon is not constant, it varies slightly.
No! The distance between the Sun and Moon not being constant does not explain it!

A Sun and Moon of identical size can produce a total eclipse, but the umbra must always be the same size as the moon (or sun).
BUT a Sun and Moon of identical size cannot produce an annular eclipse - whatever the distances from Earth to the Sun and moon.

I cannot imagine anyone being so ignorant of the geometry of shadows to even think that!

Look at this diagram:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/ojc6vktk196cvgh/Shadow%20sizes.png?dl=1)
That should make it completely obvious that

To get an annular eclipse, the umbral cone must be shorter than the distance from the moon to the earth and so tapering to a point above the earth's surface.

Hence we must have sun's diameter > moon's diameter.

If you disagree, you draw out your diagram, showing how we can get solar eclipses all the way from an annular eclipse to a total eclipse with an umbra ranging up to 150 km wide at the equator to over 1000 km wide at the poles.
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: roy30103 on January 25, 2018, 08:02:40 PM
I disagree with the sun being 1.3 times the angular size of the moon. Where did you get that number?
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: markjo on January 25, 2018, 08:14:49 PM
This would require the sun and moon to be the same size and the same distance from Earth.
This means during an eclipse they are literally in the same location. You would need the moon to pass through the sun. This is impossible.
This would simply be a collision between the sun and moon.


Not at all.

As shown in the Fred Bruenjes photographs there is a certain distance between the solar/black sun disks.
Are you referring to the "black sun disk" that was poorly photoshopped in?
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: roy30103 on January 25, 2018, 08:20:27 PM
I am talking about the post that started this thread.
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: JackBlack on January 25, 2018, 08:22:13 PM
I disagree with the sun being 1.3 times the angular size of the moon. Where did you get that number?
He made it up.
But that is the least of the issues.
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: Sam Hill on January 25, 2018, 10:05:43 PM
I disagree with the sun being 1.3 times the angular size of the moon. Where did you get that number?
He made it up.
But that is the least of the issues.


(http://i.imgur.com/ldWymNK.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/WXW7mox.jpg)

The largest angular size of the sun, divided by the smallest angular size of the moon?  That ratio is only 1.11, not 1.3 as he stated.
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: sandokhan on January 25, 2018, 11:41:13 PM
Thus p=1, thus they are the same distance.
Hence, your claims require them to be the same distance and size.

No! The distance between the Sun and Moon not being constant does not explain it!

A Sun and Moon of identical size can produce a total eclipse, but the umbra must always be the same size as the moon (or sun).
BUT a Sun and Moon of identical size cannot produce an annular eclipse - whatever the distances from Earth to the Sun and moon.


Again, you are dealing with conventional physics.

If we only use VECTOR FIELDS, then you might have a point.

However, vector fields are caused by POTENTIALS.

And the potential has a hidden substructure.

That is why calculating the Earth-Moon distance using ham radio measurements are erroneous: they fail to take into account the density of ether/aether which modifies the speed of light accordingly.


R. Feynman:

E and B are slowly disappearing from the modern expression of physical laws; they are being replaced by A and φ.

The Aharonov-Bohm effect changed everything.

“A new generation of physicists, also educated in the grand assumption that "Heaviside's Equations" are actually "Maxwell's," were abruptly brought up short in 1959 with a remarkable and elegant experiment -- which finally demonstrated in the laboratory the stark reality of Maxwell's "pesky scalar potentials" ... those same "mystical" potentials that Heaviside so effectively banished for all time from current (university-taught) EM theory."

"Totally screened, by all measurements, from the magnetic influence of the ring itself, a test beam of electrons fired by Aharonov and Bohm at the superconducting "donut," nonetheless, changed their electronic state ("wave functions") as they passed through the observably "field-free" region of the hole -- indicating they were sensing "something," even though it could NOT be the ring's magnetic field. Confirmed now by decades of other physicists' experiments as a true phenomenon, this "Aharonov-Bohm Effect" provides compelling proof of a deeper "spatial strain" -- a "scalar potential" -- underlying the existence of a so-called magnetic "force-field" itself.”


(https://s13.postimg.org/k59axlvd3/ton1.jpg)


Even in the absence of force fields (conventional physics), the electron will experience a phase shift caused by the potential.


Here is the Aharonov-Bohm effect applied on a grand, global scale:

(https://s17.postimg.org/ub551gwzz/tung03.jpg)

Curved paths of the ball lightning spheres, where there should be none at all.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1995026#msg1995026


That is why even though p = 1, there can still exist an infinitesimal distance between the Sun and Black Sun, and at the same time have the occurrence of an annular eclipse.

YOU WILL HAVE CURVED PATHS OF LIGHT WHERE THERE SHOULD BE NONE.


The field of mathematics dealing with this kind of situation (nonlinear spherical geometry) is still in its infancy: that is, the mathematical tools needed to describe the phenomenon have not been invented yet.


Both of you are using conventional physics.

But the solar eclipse, as evidenced by the Allais effect, deals only with NONCONVENTIONAL PHYSICS, the physics of the POTENTIAL, and its hidden substructure.


Are you referring to the "black sun disk" that was poorly photoshopped in?

You tried that line of attack before: it won't work now, as it did not at that time.

http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/

Fred Bruenjes, a world-renowned photographer, has explained clearly the photograph.

The distances and the diameters WERE NOT CHANGED AT ALL.

This photograph proves, once and for all, that the "Moon" is not 384,000km away from the Earth.

(http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0805/antarcticeclipse_bruenjes_big.jpg)

The following photographs, taken by another world-renowned photographer, Thierry Legault, prove the same thing:

(http://www.astrophoto.fr/eclipse110104_solar_transit_33.jpg)

THE ISS AND THE "MOON": SAME DISTANCE FROM THE SUN, NO 384,000 KM DISTANCE FROM THE EARTH TO THE MOON.

(http://static.dnaindia.com/sites/default/files/styles/half/public/2016/05/04/456871-planet-space-digital-camera-telescopic-equipment-transit-of-mercury-mercury-india-positional-astronomy-centre-earth-sun-astrology-science-getty-images.jpg?itok=diS-zS7u)

TRANSIT OF MERCURY ACROSS THE SUN


(http://www.twanslist.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/shuttle.jpg)

TRANSIT OF ATLANTIS ACROSS THE SUN


We are told that the Earth-Atlantis distance is some 400 km, while the distance between Earth and Mercury is some 77 million km and the Mercury-Sun distance is some 50 million km.

Yet the photographs show the very same distance.


(http://i.cbc.ca/1.3570790.1462562556!/fileImage/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/original_620/mercury-sun.jpg)

Again, MERCURY TRANSIT ACROSS THE SUN


(http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/files/2009/05/atlantis_hst_2009may13crop.jpg)

ISS/ATLANTIS TRANSIT ACROSS THE SUN: NO 150,000,000 KM DISTANCE AT ALL


These are the real dimensions of our solar system. A much smaller sun, and a much smaller Earth-Sun distance.



The OP of this thread is totally correct.

Either using an angular size of 1.3 (or 1.11), the final formula ( k - c = k/p ) shows that the official data on the solar eclipse is totally false.


And deal with the OP's faillings.

Your friends' alts won't help you.

YOU FAILED TO PROPERLY READ THE OP.

You used the diagonal distance (the hypothenuse), instead of the direct distance (the side of the right triangle).

The calculations are correct.

With an angular size of 1.3 (or 1.11), you will get a final formula of k - c = k/p. If p = 1.3 (or 1.11), with the conventional 150,000,000 distance to the Sun, you will get the WRONG Earth-Moon distance.

The only way out is to see that p = 1, and apply the physics of the Aharonov-Bohm effect to properly describe the entire situation.


Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: JackBlack on January 26, 2018, 04:12:00 AM
Again, you are dealing with conventional physics.
Again, I am dealing with physics based upon reality.
If you want to start a new thread on delusional physics go ahead, but this is not the place for them.

Fred Bruenjes, a world-renowned photographer, has explained clearly the photograph.
The distances and the diameters WERE NOT CHANGED AT ALL.
This photograph proves, once and for all, that the "Moon" is not 384,000km away from the Earth.
The distances are not in the photo. There is no way to tell how far away the moon is in that photo.

Yet the photographs show the very same distance.
No, they don't.
Get this through your thick skull:
SIMPLE PHOTOS LIKE THIS SHOW DIRECTION NOT DISTANCE!!!


The OP of this thread is totally correct.
No, they aren't.
They have baselessly asserted the sun is 1.3 times the size of the moon, and their math was completely wrong.

Either using an angular size of 1.3 (or 1.11), the final formula ( k - c = k/p ) shows that the official data on the solar eclipse is totally false.
No it doesn't.
Using the correct ratio of angular sizes all you get is a ratio of distances, which matches RET.

YOU FAILED TO PROPERLY READ THE OP.
You used the diagonal distance (the hypothenuse), instead of the direct distance (the side of the right triangle).
There you go lying againg.
The triangle representing the sun had 3 sides. One was the sun, with a length of pM, the other 2 were both k.
This is the diagonal distance.

The calculations are correct.
No, they aren't.
He magically got an extra factor of sqrt(2-p^2).

With an angular size of 1.3 (or 1.11), you will get a final formula of k - c = k/p. If p = 1.3 (or 1.11), with the conventional 150,000,000 distance to the Sun, you will get the WRONG Earth-Moon distance.
And you seem to fail to understand yet again.
p is NOT 1.3.
If you want to try comparing it to reality, set p to ~400.
p is not the ratio of angular sizes, itis the ratio of real sizes.

So all you and the OP have shown is that your strawman situation with a sun only 1.3 times the size of the moon doesn't match reality (and that you don't understand the argument at all).

The only way out is to see that p = 1, and apply the physics of the Aharonov-Bohm effect to properly describe the entire situation.
Nope. It works just fine by letting p=400.
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: sandokhan on January 26, 2018, 05:43:03 AM
Again, I am dealing with physics based upon reality.
If you want to start a new thread on delusional physics go ahead, but this is not the place for them.


Question for the moderators: why is this manner of posting allowed here?

He has just called the Aharonov-Bohm effect, "delusional physics".

Let's see how "delusional" it is.

Here is the original paper:

https://journals.aps.org/pr/pdf/10.1103/PhysRev.115.485

The best scientific journals publishing the experimental verification of the Aharonov-Bohm effect:

https://www.nature.com/articles/17755

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3599092/

https://arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0102096.pdf

Confirmation of the Aharonov-Bohm effect:

https://www.physik.uni-muenchen.de/lehre/vorlesungen/wise_09_10/quantum_matter/lecture/Schwarzschild1986.pdf

Neutron Interferometry: the Aharonov-Bohm effect

https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.71.307

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1109.4887.pdf

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1411.3627.pdf

http://www.iaea.org/inis/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/24/003/24003927.pdf

https://authors.library.caltech.edu/7139/1/LEEprl98.pdf

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168900299010384


You should be banned for at least six months for daring to use the word "delusional" in describing the Aharonov-Bohm effect.

"Totally screened, by all measurements, from the magnetic influence of the ring itself, a test beam of electrons fired by Aharonov and Bohm at the superconducting "donut," nonetheless, changed their electronic state ("wave functions") as they passed through the observably "field-free" region of the hole -- indicating they were sensing "something," even though it could NOT be the ring's magnetic field. Confirmed now by decades of other physicists' experiments as a true phenomenon, this "Aharonov-Bohm Effect" provides compelling proof of a deeper "spatial strain" -- a "scalar potential" -- underlying the existence of a so-called magnetic "force-field" itself.”

 “...the vector potential appears to give the most direct description of the physics. This becomes more apparent the more deeply we go into quantum theory. In the general theory of quantum electrodynamics, one takes the vector and scalar potentials as the fundamental quantities in a set of equations that replace the Maxwell equations: E and B are slowly disappearing from the modern expression of physical laws; they are being replaced by A and φ”

(Feynman et al, 1989, chapter 15, section 5, The Feynman Lecture on Physics (Vol. 2), 1989)


This is the delusional world in which you live, a clear and terrible sign of cognitive dissonance.


The triangle representing the sun had 3 sides. One was the sun, with a length of pM, the other 2 were both k.
This is the diagonal distance.


(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/49/Angular_dia_formula.JPG/400px-Angular_dia_formula.JPG)

The sun has a discoidal shape.

The final formulas, for both sets of calculations, lead to the same result.

He magically got an extra factor of sqrt(2-p^2).

For the correct sign of c, you get the correct formula at the end.


p is NOT 1.3.
If you want to try comparing it to reality, set p to ~400.


But it is approximately 1.3, that is the value obtained through direct observation.

Read the OP:

Step one. Calculate the proportional sizes of the Sun and moon during an annular eclipse. You'll find the Sun appears to be approximately 1.3 times the size of the moon, it will vary depending on which eclipse.


The distances are not in the photo. There is no way to tell how far away the moon is in that photo.

The official claim is 384,000 km. However, both Armstrong and Aldrin should have used a sledge driven by reindeers to get to the Moon: the photograph features a distance of approximately 1000 km.

(http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0805/antarcticeclipse_bruenjes_big.jpg)


Nobody has a thicker skull than you: you have just called the Aharonov-Bohm effect as "delusional".

The difference in the Thierry Legault photographs is not measured in the hundreds of kilometers, thousands of kilometers, or even hundreds of thousands of kilometers.

THE DIFFERENCE AMOUNTS TO TENS OF MILLIONS OF KILOMETERS.

(http://static.dnaindia.com/sites/default/files/styles/half/public/2016/05/04/456871-planet-space-digital-camera-telescopic-equipment-transit-of-mercury-mercury-india-positional-astronomy-centre-earth-sun-astrology-science-getty-images.jpg?itok=diS-zS7u)

MERCURY TRANSIT ACROSS THE SUN

Mercury-Sun distance: ~50,000,000 km

Earth-Mercury distance: ~77,000,000 km

TENS OF MILLIONS OF KILOMETERS.


(http://www.twanslist.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/shuttle.jpg)

ATLANTIS TRANSIT ACROSS THE SUN

Atlantis-Sun official distance: 149,999,600 km

Earth-Atlantis official distance: 400 km

Yet, the SAME DISTANCE SEPARATES ATLANTIS FROM THE SUN AS DOES THE MERCURY-SUN DISTANCE.

These are the real dimensions of our solar system. A much smaller sun, and a much smaller Earth-Sun distance.


Nope. It works just fine by letting p=400.

Sorry, you can't use the 400 figure.

Not when, by direct observation during the solar eclipse, in the case of heliocentrism, the angular size of the Sun is 1.3 (or 1.1) times the angular size of the "Moon".



Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: EvolvedMantisShrimp on January 26, 2018, 06:46:28 AM
Thus p=1, thus they are the same distance.
Hence, your claims require them to be the same distance and size.

No! The distance between the Sun and Moon not being constant does not explain it!

A Sun and Moon of identical size can produce a total eclipse, but the umbra must always be the same size as the moon (or sun).
BUT a Sun and Moon of identical size cannot produce an annular eclipse - whatever the distances from Earth to the Sun and moon.


Again, you are dealing with conventional physics.

If we only use VECTOR FIELDS, then you might have a point.

However, vector fields are caused by POTENTIALS.

And the potential has a hidden substructure.

That is why calculating the Earth-Moon distance using ham radio measurements are erroneous: they fail to take into account the density of ether/aether which modifies the speed of light accordingly.


R. Feynman:

E and B are slowly disappearing from the modern expression of physical laws; they are being replaced by A and φ.

The Aharonov-Bohm effect changed everything.

“A new generation of physicists, also educated in the grand assumption that "Heaviside's Equations" are actually "Maxwell's," were abruptly brought up short in 1959 with a remarkable and elegant experiment -- which finally demonstrated in the laboratory the stark reality of Maxwell's "pesky scalar potentials" ... those same "mystical" potentials that Heaviside so effectively banished for all time from current (university-taught) EM theory."

"Totally screened, by all measurements, from the magnetic influence of the ring itself, a test beam of electrons fired by Aharonov and Bohm at the superconducting "donut," nonetheless, changed their electronic state ("wave functions") as they passed through the observably "field-free" region of the hole -- indicating they were sensing "something," even though it could NOT be the ring's magnetic field. Confirmed now by decades of other physicists' experiments as a true phenomenon, this "Aharonov-Bohm Effect" provides compelling proof of a deeper "spatial strain" -- a "scalar potential" -- underlying the existence of a so-called magnetic "force-field" itself.”


(https://s13.postimg.org/k59axlvd3/ton1.jpg)


Even in the absence of force fields (conventional physics), the electron will experience a phase shift caused by the potential.


Here is the Aharonov-Bohm effect applied on a grand, global scale:

(https://s17.postimg.org/ub551gwzz/tung03.jpg)

Curved paths of the ball lightning spheres, where there should be none at all.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1995026#msg1995026


That is why even though p = 1, there can still exist an infinitesimal distance between the Sun and Black Sun, and at the same time have the occurrence of an annular eclipse.

YOU WILL HAVE CURVED PATHS OF LIGHT WHERE THERE SHOULD BE NONE.


The field of mathematics dealing with this kind of situation (nonlinear spherical geometry) is still in its infancy: that is, the mathematical tools needed to describe the phenomenon have not been invented yet.


Both of you are using conventional physics.

But the solar eclipse, as evidenced by the Allais effect, deals only with NONCONVENTIONAL PHYSICS, the physics of the POTENTIAL, and its hidden substructure.


Are you referring to the "black sun disk" that was poorly photoshopped in?

You tried that line of attack before: it won't work now, as it did not at that time.

http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/

Fred Bruenjes, a world-renowned photographer, has explained clearly the photograph.

The distances and the diameters WERE NOT CHANGED AT ALL.

This photograph proves, once and for all, that the "Moon" is not 384,000km away from the Earth.

(http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0805/antarcticeclipse_bruenjes_big.jpg)

The following photographs, taken by another world-renowned photographer, Thierry Legault, prove the same thing:

(http://www.astrophoto.fr/eclipse110104_solar_transit_33.jpg)

THE ISS AND THE "MOON": SAME DISTANCE FROM THE SUN, NO 384,000 KM DISTANCE FROM THE EARTH TO THE MOON.

(http://static.dnaindia.com/sites/default/files/styles/half/public/2016/05/04/456871-planet-space-digital-camera-telescopic-equipment-transit-of-mercury-mercury-india-positional-astronomy-centre-earth-sun-astrology-science-getty-images.jpg?itok=diS-zS7u)

TRANSIT OF MERCURY ACROSS THE SUN


(http://www.twanslist.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/shuttle.jpg)

TRANSIT OF ATLANTIS ACROSS THE SUN


We are told that the Earth-Atlantis distance is some 400 km, while the distance between Earth and Mercury is some 77 million km and the Mercury-Sun distance is some 50 million km.

Yet the photographs show the very same distance.


(http://i.cbc.ca/1.3570790.1462562556!/fileImage/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/original_620/mercury-sun.jpg)

Again, MERCURY TRANSIT ACROSS THE SUN


(http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/files/2009/05/atlantis_hst_2009may13crop.jpg)

ISS/ATLANTIS TRANSIT ACROSS THE SUN: NO 150,000,000 KM DISTANCE AT ALL


These are the real dimensions of our solar system. A much smaller sun, and a much smaller Earth-Sun distance.



The OP of this thread is totally correct.

Either using an angular size of 1.3 (or 1.11), the final formula ( k - c = k/p ) shows that the official data on the solar eclipse is totally false.


And deal with the OP's faillings.

Your friends' alts won't help you.

YOU FAILED TO PROPERLY READ THE OP.

You used the diagonal distance (the hypothenuse), instead of the direct distance (the side of the right triangle).

The calculations are correct.

With an angular size of 1.3 (or 1.11), you will get a final formula of k - c = k/p. If p = 1.3 (or 1.11), with the conventional 150,000,000 distance to the Sun, you will get the WRONG Earth-Moon distance.

The only way out is to see that p = 1, and apply the physics of the Aharonov-Bohm effect to properly describe the entire situation.

Wow! I never realized the space shuttle was so huge! Amazing!  :o
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: sandokhan on January 26, 2018, 07:10:16 AM
A commentary from one of the viewers on youtube:

What else is Suspicious is the fact this thing looks that big against the sun. When you look at comparative models of the earth's size against the size of the sun it is supposedly very very small yet this ISS pictures shows it being massive in size. I know the ISS is closer to earth thus would present as larger. However if its this huge why don't we see it then on a regular basis. According to size presentation here it is MASSIVE. We should see it present against the moon, we don't.


The size of entire solar system is much smaller than we have been led to believe.

For those who still have a hard time believing this, here is the proof that the shape of the Sun cannot be spherical at all:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1939765#msg1939765


Since this is not my cup of tea, I am going to let jrowe take care of business here in this thread.

Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: Jonny B Smart on January 26, 2018, 08:09:54 AM
This OP is ridiculous. I teach math, and the most basic lesson about proportional triangles goes something like this:

“If the triangles are proportional, then corresponding a/b = c/d. If you know a, b, and c, then you can find d.”

And then the OP claims to find 64,000,000 without knowing any of the other measurements.

The solution? “Use cosine and put it all in a quadratic formula.”

Cosine requires a right triangle, but you work with an acute isosceles. Also, cosine requires knowing one angle (two, really—90 and another) as well as one side.

“Cosine of an angle I don’t know times the length of a side I don’t know...[tap tap tap on a calculator]...and then square that...and then square that again just to make it look good [tap tap tap]...and bam! 64,000,000.”

Nonsense.

Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: Curiouser and Curiouser on January 26, 2018, 08:12:28 AM
A commentary from one of the viewers on youtube:

... We should see it present against the moon, we don't.
YouTube viewer unable to search for evidence.

https://petapixel.com/2017/11/06/photographed-iss-crossing-full-moon/
https://www.space.com/38381-space-station-crosses-moon-face-photo.html
https://www.space.com/29889-space-station-crosses-moon-photo.html
https://mashable.com/2017/12/04/international-space-station-and-new-nasa-photo/#w_jg3c9Jhaqx

and, in case you want to confirm yourself, use

https://transit-finder.com/

Just plain lazy.
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: Sam Hill on January 26, 2018, 08:21:04 AM
Flatties who count on curving light beware: if curving light is a thing during an eclipse, it is a thing all the time and invalidates your ‘distance to the sun’ calculations.  Remember that math is based on the quite reasonable assumption that light travels from sun to observer in a straight line.  If it does not, you have no way to know the light’s path, you have know way to calculate the sun’s position.  It could literally be behind you, the light curving past you and back again.

As to the little-known (outside the physics community) quantum effects like Aharonov-Bohm, if that effect had macroscopic, visible effects like wrapping the sun’s light around the moon, it wouldn’t require a difficult experiment to verify, and would be cited as a factor when calculating eclipse shadow paths.  After all, every single time we have a total eclipse, the 1919 observations of gravity warping space (https://www.space.com/37018-solar-eclipse-proved-einstein-relativity-right.html) is brought up.  Why is A-B never mentioned, ever?  Because it is irrelevant, that’s why.
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on January 26, 2018, 08:37:35 AM
The solution? “Use cosine and put it all in a quadratic formula.”
Without my glasses I first read that as "Use cocaine and put it all in a quadratic formula"....which might be closer to what actually happened....
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: sandokhan on January 26, 2018, 08:47:48 AM
After all, every single time we have a total eclipse, the 1919 observations of gravity warping space is brought up.

The data for the 1919/1922 solar eclipses was faked:

The most extraordinary proofs on HOW EINSTEIN FAKED HIS 1919/1922 DATA FOR THE SO CALLED EINSTEIN SHIFT:

http://einstein52.tripod.com/alberteinsteinprophetorplagiarist/id9.html

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/dishones.htm (scroll down to the section: With regard to the politics that led to Einstein's fame Dr. S. Chandrasekhar's article [46] states...)

http://web.archive.org/web/20070202201854/http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/einstein.html


Why is A-B never mentioned, ever?  Because it is irrelevant, that’s why.

There is the LOCAL Aharonov-Bohm effect, the GLOBAL Aharonov-Bohm effect, and the classical equivalent of the A-B effect, the Maxwell-Lodge effect.

The existence of the superpotential (hidden substructure of the potential, which in turn forms the vector fields) was proven by E.T. Whittaker:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1994059#msg1994059

The original set of J.C. Maxwell's equations can explain the Aharonov-Bohm effect, the Heaviside-Lorentz equations cannot.

Here is the BOHREN EXPERIMENT, an extraordinary proof of the existence of the Whittaker potential:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2001816#msg2001816 (two consecutive messages)

Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: markjo on January 26, 2018, 09:30:29 AM
The distances are not in the photo. There is no way to tell how far away the moon is in that photo.

The official claim is 384,000 km. However, both Armstrong and Aldrin should have used a sledge driven by reindeers to get to the Moon: the photograph features a distance of approximately 1000 km.

(http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0805/antarcticeclipse_bruenjes_big.jpg)

Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: EvolvedMantisShrimp on January 26, 2018, 11:30:43 AM
The solution? “Use cosine and put it all in a quadratic formula.”
Without my glasses I first read that as "Use cocaine and put it all in a quadratic formula"....which might be closer to what actually happened....

The plot thinnens!
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: JackBlack on January 26, 2018, 12:52:34 PM
Again, I am dealing with physics based upon reality.
If you want to start a new thread on delusional physics go ahead, but this is not the place for them.

Question for the moderators: why is this manner of posting allowed here?
Because this is a thread for debate, and you seem to continually want to go off topic with irrelevant crap.

If any style of posting isn't allowed it is yours where you continually spam mountains of crap to cover up your ignorance and inability to make a rational argument.

Remember, if you want to make an appeal to authority then you lose, as the authorities all say Earth is round.
You are selectively grabbing little bits and pieces of physics to try and say the majority of physics is wrong.

The triangle representing the sun had 3 sides. One was the sun, with a length of pM, the other 2 were both k.
This is the diagonal distance.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/49/Angular_dia_formula.JPG/400px-Angular_dia_formula.JPG)
Notice the "D", that is the distance you want k to be.
Notice how it isn't part of the isosceles triangle?
Now do you realise your failure?

The final formulas, for both sets of calculations, lead to the same result.
He magically got an extra factor of sqrt(2-p^2).
For the correct sign of c, you get the correct formula at the end.
No they don't.
Changing the sign of c doesn't magically change the formula.
The simple fact is that his formula was off by a factor of sqrt(2-p^2).
The sign of c has no bearing on this at all.
You ignoring it doesn't magically make it go away.

p is NOT 1.3.
If you want to try comparing it to reality, set p to ~400.

But it is approximately 1.3, that is the value obtained through direct observation.
No it isn't. Get this through your thick skull:
Observations of distant objects of "unknown" distance are unable to tell you their relative sizes, only their apparent relative sizes.

Step one. Calculate the proportional sizes of the Sun and moon during an annular eclipse. You'll find the Sun appears to be approximately 1.3 times the size of the moon, it will vary depending on which eclipse.
Notice how it is APPEARS TO BE?

That doesn't mean it is.

The distances are not in the photo. There is no way to tell how far away the moon is in that photo.
The official claim is 384,000 km. However, both Armstrong and Aldrin should have used a sledge driven by reindeers to get to the Moon: the photograph features a distance of approximately 1000 km.
Repeating the same BS doesn't make it true.
That photo has no indication of distance to the sun or moon.

Yet, the SAME DISTANCE SEPARATES ATLANTIS FROM THE SUN AS DOES THE MERCURY-SUN DISTANCE.
Again, there is no measure of distance there.
You have an object passing in front of another object. There is no indication of how much distance is between them.

Nope. It works just fine by letting p=400.
Sorry, you can't use the 400 figure.
Not when, by direct observation during the solar eclipse, in the case of heliocentrism, the angular size of the Sun is 1.3 (or 1.1) times the angular size of the "Moon".
Again, that is the angular size, not the real size.
In his equations, the angular size is taken to be equal, as it is during a total eclipse.
p is the ratio of the size of the moon to the size of the sun.
Simple observations of the ratio of angular sizes cannot determine the ratio of real sizes.
You need to know the distance to each.

2 identically sized objects the same distance away will appear to be the same size.
But so will 2 objects where one is 400 times the size and distance of the other.

Since this is not my cup of tea, I am going to let jrowe take care of business here in this thread.
i.e. you have had your ass handed to you far too many times and have had your complete ignorance on perspective shown to everyone and now are going to run away to avoid further embarrassment?
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: JackBlack on January 26, 2018, 12:55:24 PM
Cosine requires a right triangle, but you work with an acute isosceles. Also, cosine requires knowing one angle (two, really—90 and another) as well as one side.
I assume he was talking about using the cosine rule aka the law of cosines:
c^2=a^2+b^2-2*a*b*cos(C)
Which for an icoscelese triangle where a=b, this simplifies to:
c^2=a^2+a^2-2*a^2*cos(C) or c=2*a*sqrt(1-cos(C))
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: sandokhan on January 26, 2018, 01:29:36 PM
2 identically sized objects the same distance away will appear to be the same size.
But so will 2 objects where one is 400 times the size and distance of the other.


Exactly.

So which one is it?

Finally, you have come to your senses.

I told you that I was going to make a flat earth believer out of you.

Here you are boasting of handing asses, yet you have left the ring on a stretcher each and every time. And it gets worse every time you have the misfortune to debate with me.

This time around you showed everyone here that you do not really care about science.

To dismiss the Aharonov-Bohm effect as "delusional" or "worthless crap" means that the authority you make an appeal to will perceive you not only as a loser, but also as a fraud.

Only a fraud derides the Aharonov-Bohm effect.


You have just stated that there are actually TWO CHOICES involved here: either the diameters of the sun and of the moon are the same, or else one is 400 times the size of the other.

No other choices are possible.

By having stated this, you admit that the formula I derived is correct, and that p = 1 is one of the options.


Let me prove to you just how little you know about science.

"The atmospheric pressure of the sun, instead of being 27.47 times greater than the atmospheric pressure of the earth (as expected because of the gravitational pull of the large solar mass), is much smaller: the pressure there varies according to the layers of the atmosphere from one-tenth to one-thousandth of the barometric pressure on the earth; at the base of the reversing layer the pressure is 0.005 of the atmospheric pressure at sea level on the earth; in the sunspots, the pressure drops to one ten-thousandth of the pressure on the earth.

The pressure of light is sometimes referred to as to explain the low atmospheric pressure on the sun. At the surface of the sun, the pressure of light must be 2.75 milligrams per square centimeter; a cubic centimeter of one gram weight at the surface of the earth would weigh 27.47 grams at the surface of the sun."

(https://s1.postimg.org/4vftttd9b/photo.jpg)

Thus the attraction by the solar mass is 10,000 times greater than the repulsion of the solar light. Recourse is taken to the supposition that if the pull and the pressure are calculated for very small masses, the pressure exceeds the pull, one acting in proportion to the surface, the other in proportion to the volume. But if this is so, why is the lowest pressure of the solar atmosphere observed over the sunspots where the light pressure is least?

Because of its swift rotation, the gaseous sun should have the latitudinal axis greater than the longitudinal, but it does not have it. The sun is one million times larger than the earth, and its day is but twenty-six times longer than the terrestrial day; the swiftness of its rotation at its equator is over 125 km. per minute; at the poles, the velocity approaches zero. Yet the solar disk is not oval but round: the majority of observers even find a small excess in the longitudinal axis of the sun. The planets act in the same manner as the rotation of the sun, imposing a latitudinal pull on the luminary.

Gravitation that acts in all directions equally leaves unexplained the spherical shape of the sun. As we saw in the preceding section, the gases of the solar atmosphere are not under a strong pressure, but under a very weak one. Therefore, the computation, according to which the ellipsoidity of the sun, that is lacking, should be slight, is not correct either. Since the gases are under a very low gravitational pressure, the centrifugal force of rotation must have formed quite a flat sun.

If planets and satellites were once molten masses, as cosmological theories assume, they would not have been able to obtain a spherical form, especially those which do not rotate, as Mercury or the moon (with respect to its primary)."


(https://s1.postimg.org/xx0cozg5r/chromo.jpg)

PRESSURE: 10-13 BAR = 0.0000000000001 BAR

The entire chromosphere will then be subjected to the full centrifugal force of rotation, as will the photosphere itself of course.

Completely unexplained by modern science.

Since the gases are under a very low gravitational pressure, the centrifugal force of rotation must have formed quite a flat sun.

NO further recourse can be made for gravity.

Gravity has already balanced out as much as was possible of the gaseous pressure, and still we are left with A VERY LOW PRESSURE.

Solar gravity has balanced out the thermal pressure.

At this point in time the sun will turn into A HUGE GAS CENTRIFUGE WITH NO OUTER CASING, running at some 1,900 m/s.

That is, the solar gases in the photosphere and cromosphere are just standing there, with no explanation by modern science whatsoever.

As if this wasn't enough, we have the huge centrifugal force factor that is exerted each and every second on the photosphere and the cromosphere.

The centrifugal force would cause the sun to collapse into a disk in no time at all.


"However, the gravity is opposed by the internal pressure of the stellar gas which normally results from heat produced by nuclear reactions. This balance between the forces of gravity and the pressure forces is called hydrostatic equilibrium, and the balance must be exact or the star will quickly respond by expanding or contracting in size. So powerful are the separate forces of gravity and pressure that should such an imbalance occur in the sun, it would be resolved within half an hour."


Then, the heliocentrists have to deal with the Nelson effect:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1645824#msg1645824 (the Nelson effect of all the other planets, pulling constantly on the sun's atmosphere, acting permanently, are added to the centrifugal force)

Recourse can be made to the Clayton model equation or even the Lane-Emden equation in order to show that the value for g (computed using the 10-13 bar value in the chromosphere) is much smaller than the centrifugal acceleration.

The Clayton model provides us with the g value: g = 0,0000507 m/s^2 which is much lower than the centrifugal acceleration figure:

P(r) = 2πgr2a2ρ2ce-x2/3M

where a = (31/2M/21/24πρc)1/3

a = 106,165,932.3

x = r/a

M = 1.989 x 1030 kg
central density = 1.62 x 105 kg/m3

G = gr2/m(r)

m(r) = M(r/R)3(4 - 3r/R); if r = R, then M = m(r)

Using P(700,000,000) = 1.0197 x 10-9 kg/m2 value, we get:


g = 0,0000507 m/s2


RATIO


ac/g = 0.0063/0.0000507 = 124.26


Accuracy of the Clayton model:

(https://s1.postimg.org/1m70jhx6i7/chro1.jpg)

(https://s1.postimg.org/6g8mtsilj3/chro2.jpg)


I have just proven to you, using the official data, that the shape of the sun cannot be spherical at all.


In your version of reality, the diameter of the sun is 400 times larger than the diameter of the moon.

Of course, you need to appeal to the official timeline regarding stellar evolution.

But your version of reality collapses immediately given the faint young sun paradox.

The complete demonstration that the age of the Sun cannot exceed some ten million years (that is, we find ourselves right at the beginning of the main-sequence lifetime of the Sun, when no fluctuations in luminosity could have taken place); over the past 25 years there have been several attempts made to try to explain the paradox, all such efforts have failed, see the six links below.


http://www.clim-past.net/7/203/2011/cp-7-203-2011.pdf (http://www.clim-past.net/7/203/2011/cp-7-203-2011.pdf) (a classic work)

http://creation.com/young-sun-paradox#txtRef15 (http://creation.com/young-sun-paradox#txtRef15) (takes a look at Toon and Wolf's work, it debunks their earlier work in 2010: http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2010/06/03/early-earth-haze-likely-provided-ultraviolet-shield-planet-says-new-cu (http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2010/06/03/early-earth-haze-likely-provided-ultraviolet-shield-planet-says-new-cu) )


“Paradox Solved” – no, hardly, as the estimates for the young Earth CO2 levels were considerably less as pointed out by a recent paper in GRL, and this paper is based upon climate models which are unable to replicate even the Holocene, RWP, MWP, LIA, 20th and 21st centuries.

A recent paper published in Geophysical Research Letters finds that the ‘Faint young Sun problem’ has become “more severe” because to solve the problem using conventional greenhouse theory would require CO2 to comprise 0.4 bar or about 40% of the young Earth atmosphere, far greater than CO2 partial pressures today [0.014 bar or 28 times less] or those estimated for the young Earth [0.06 bar]. According to the authors, “Our results suggest that currently favored greenhouse [gas] solutions could be in conflict with constraints emerging for the middle and late Archean [young Earth].”

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL054381/abstract (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL054381/abstract)



http://www.clim-past.net/7/203/2011/cp-7-203-2011.html (http://www.clim-past.net/7/203/2011/cp-7-203-2011.html)

http://asterisk.apod.com/viewtopic.php?t=19684&p=149581 (http://asterisk.apod.com/viewtopic.php?t=19684&p=149581)

http://asterisk.apod.com/viewtopic.php?t=19684&p=149581#p149562 (http://asterisk.apod.com/viewtopic.php?t=19684&p=149581#p149562)

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/06dat4.htm (http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/06dat4.htm)

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v474/n7349/full/nature09961.html (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v474/n7349/full/nature09961.html)



(excerpts from two works signed Dr. Danny Faulkner and Dr. Jonathan Sarfati)

Supposedly the Sun has been a main-sequence star since its formation about 4.6 billion years ago. This time represents about half the assumed ten-billion-year main-sequence lifetime of the Sun, so the Sun should have used about half its energy store. This means that about half the hydrogen in the core of the Sun has been used up and replaced by helium. This change in chemical composition changes the structure of the core. The overall structure of the Sun would have to change as well, so that today, the Sun should be nearly 40% brighter than it was 4.6 billion years ago.

This obviously has consequences for the temperatures of the planets. It is generally believed that even small fluctuations in the Sun's luminosity would have devastating consequences on Earth's climate. A 40% change in solar luminosity should have produced dramatic climatic changes.


If billions of years were true, the sun would have been much fainter in the past. However, there is no evidence that the sun was fainter at any time in the earth's history. Astronomers call this the faint young sun paradox.

Evolutionists and long-agers believe that life appeared on the earth about 3.8 billion years ago. But if that timescale were true, the sun would be 25% brighter today than it was back then. This implies that the earth would have been frozen at an average temperature of -3 C. However, most paleontologists believe that, if anything, the earth was warmer in the past. The only way around this is to make arbitrary and unrealistic assumptions of a far greater greenhouse effect at that time than exists today, with about 1,000 times more CO2 in the atmosphere than there is today.

The physical principles that cause the early faint Sun paradox are well established, so astrophysicists are confident that the effect is real. Consequently, evolutionists have a choice of two explanations as to how Earth has maintained nearly constant temperature in spite of a steadily increasing influx of energy. In the first alternative, one can believe that through undirected change, the atmosphere has evolved to counteract heating. At best this means that the atmosphere has evolved through a series of states of unstable equilibrium or even non-equilibrium. Individual living organisms do something akin to this, driven by complex instructions encoded into DNA. Death is a process in which the complex chemical reactions of life ceases and cells rapidly approach chemical equilibrium. Short of some guiding intelligence or design, a similar process for the atmosphere seems incredibly improbable. Any sort of symbioses or true feedback with the Sun is entirely out of the question. On the other hand, one can believe that some sort of life force has directed the atmosphere's evolution through this ordeal. Most find the teleological or spiritual implications of this unpalatable, though there is a trend in this direction in physics.

A much higher concentration of carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere has been suggested to maintain a proper temperature. This is an inferrence supported by no geological evidence whatsoever. Studies of iron carbonates by Rye et al. conclusively show that Earth had at most 20 percent the required amount of CO2. We have evidence that Mars also had temperatures suitable for liquid in its distant past. It is unlikely that CO2 would custom-heat both planets.


Conditions on the very early earth that permit the appearance and early evolution of life seem to be achievable without invoking too many improbabilities. As the sun then became hotter, however, we have a problem; if the greenhouse atmosphere is maintained for too long, as the sun brightens, a runaway greenhouse effect may result from positive feedback, creating a Venus-like situation and rendering the earth uninhabitable. A compensating negative feedback is required.

Some geochemical feedback may be possible, but it appears unlikely to be sufficient. Living organisms, too, started converting carbon dioxide into oxygen and organic matter, substantially decreasing the greenhouse effect as soon as photosynthesis got going. There is, however, no obvious reason for this process to keep exactly in step with the sun's increasing luminosity. It may be that we have simply been lucky, but as an explanation that is not entirely satisfactory. If the tuning did need to be very precise, Faulkner would have a point in calling it 'miraculous'.


As a result of a fainter Sun, the temperature on ancient Earth should have been some 25 C lower than today. Such a low temperature should have kept large parts of Earth frozen until about one to two billion years ago. The case for Mars is even more extreme due to its greater distance from the Sun. Yet there is compelling geologic evidence suggesting that liquid water was abundant on both planets three to four billion years ago.

Earth's oldest rocks, which are found in northern Canada and in the southwestern part of Greenland, date back nearly four billion years to the early Archean eon. Within these ancient rock samples are rounded 'pebbles' that appear to be sedimentary, laid down in a liquid-water environment. Rocks as old as 3.2 billion years exhibit mud cracks, ripple marks, and microfossil algae. All of these pieces of evidence indicate that early Earth must have had an abundant supply of liquid water in the form of lakes or oceans.

This apparent contradiction, between the icehouse that one would expect based upon stellar evolution models and the geologic evidence for copious amounts of liquid water, has become known as the 'faint young sun paradox.'


Your false belief that the diameter of the sun is some 400 times larger than the diameter of the moon relies also upon the hypothesis that sun is a nuclear furnace.

CNO CYCLE DEFIES THE SOLAR NUCLEAR FURNACE HYPOTHESIS

An extraordinary look at the CNO cycle:

Observational Confirmation of the Sun's CNO Cycle

https://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0512/0512633.pdf (a must read)

This paper provides the latest proofs which show the following:

Measurements on gamma-rays from a solar flare in Active Region 10039 on 23 July 2002 with the RHESSI spacecraft spectrometer indicate that the CNO cycle occurs at the solar surface, in electrical discharges along closed magnetic loops.

"But the nuclear furnace theory assumes that these nuclear events are separated from surface events by hundreds of thousands of years as the heat from the core slowly percolates through the Sun’s hypothetical “radiative zone”."

A clear debunking of the currently accepted solar model.

"To confirm these surface events Iron Sun proponents point to the telltale signatures of the “CNO cycle” first set forth in the work of Hans Bethe. In 1939 Bethe proposed that the stable mass-12 isotope of Carbon catalyzes a series of atomic reactions in the core of the Sun, resulting in the fusion of hydrogen into helium. This nucleosynthesis, according to Bethe, occurs through a “Carbon-Nitrogen-Oxygen (CNO) cycle,” as helium is constructed from the nuclei of hydrogen atoms—protons—at temperatures ranging from 14 million K to 20 million K.

For some time now, solar scientists have observed the products expected from the CNO cycle, but now they see a relationship of these products’ abundances to sunspot activity. This finding is crucial because the nuclear events that standard theory envisions are separated from surface events by hundreds of thousands of years as the heat from the core slowly percolates through the Sun’s hypothetical “radiative zone”. From this vantage point, a connection between the hidden nuclear furnace and sunspot activity is inconceivable."

Proponents of the Iron Sun, therefore, have posed an issue that could be fatal to the standard model.


http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2005/The_Suns_Origin.pdf

https://web.archive.org/web/20080509075056/http://www.omatumr.com/papers.html

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/060124solar3.htm

https://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/060120solar1.htm


In his autobiography, “Home Is Where the Wind Blows,” Sir Fred Hoyle documents the abrupt, and seemingly inexplicable U-Turn in astronomy, astrophysics, solar physics immediately after “nuclear fires” ended the Second World War:

[Referring to Hoyle’s meeting with Sir Arthur Eddington one spring day in 1940]: “We both believed that the Sun was made mostly of iron, two parts iron to one part of hydrogen, more or less. The spectrum of sunlight, chock-a-block with lines of iron, had made this belief seem natural to astronomers for more than fifty years.” . . . (page 153)


Two other recent papers confirm that the Sun’s energy spectrum varies in the manner expected from a pulsar core that is shielded by turbulent layers of ordinary atomic matter:

_ a.) Judith L. Lean and Matthew T. DeLand, “How Does the Sun’s Spectrum Vary?” Journal of Climate, 25, 2555–2560 (April 2012)


_ b.) C. Martin-Puertas, K. Matthes, A. Brauer, R. Muscheler, F. Hansen, C. Petrick, A. Aldahan, G. Possnert, B. Van Geel, “Regional atmospheric circulation shifts induced by a grand solar minimum,” Nature Geoscience 5 , 397-401 (June 2012)


You are useless here jackblack.

Another huge victory for FE.

Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on January 26, 2018, 01:58:34 PM
This OP is ridiculous. I teach math, and the most basic lesson about proportional triangles goes something like this:

“If the triangles are proportional, then corresponding a/b = c/d. If you know a, b, and c, then you can find d.”

And then the OP claims to find 64,000,000 without knowing any of the other measurements.

The solution? “Use cosine and put it all in a quadratic formula.”

Cosine requires a right triangle, but you work with an acute isosceles. Also, cosine requires knowing one angle (two, really—90 and another) as well as one side.

“Cosine of an angle I don’t know times the length of a side I don’t know...[tap tap tap on a calculator]...and then square that...and then square that again just to make it look good [tap tap tap]...and bam! 64,000,000.”

Nonsense.

Sandokhan's doing a great job, but I just wanted to take a moment to highlight this, because it truly exemplifies the kind of arrogant thinking that sums up round earthers.
He claims to teach math, and simultaneously appears to be unfamiliar with both the cosine rule, and the concept of working with unknowns. He plainly didn't even attempt to verify the math because if he had he would have seen the angles vanish very early on. We work in the situation where they'd be the same, after all.
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: sokarul on January 26, 2018, 02:55:53 PM
...

Another huge victory for FE.
Using round earth science and other science you don't believe in is a victory?
In 1924 they were figuring out the pressure at he suns surface. Check it out
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1924ApJ....59..197R

Did you read how they did it? Spectroscopy. You don't believe in that. One of the pictures has "balmer lines", why don't you tell everyone what those are.
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: JackBlack on January 26, 2018, 07:37:43 PM
2 identically sized objects the same distance away will appear to be the same size.
But so will 2 objects where one is 400 times the size and distance of the other.

Exactly.
So which one is it?
Finally, you have come to your senses.
No, if this could get anyone to come to their sense it would be you.
This shows that you cannot use angular size to determine the relative sizes of objects.
This means you can't say that because the sun appears to be 1.3 times the size of the moon (based upon angular size) the sun is 1.3 times the size of the moon.

This means the OP's argument, which relies upon the sun being 1.3 times the size of the moon, is crap.

I told you that I was going to make a flat earth believer out of you.
And you are yet to do so.
But this does seem to be the best FEers can get, a situation where you cannot tell the difference between the 2.

Note: in this thread I haven't been attempting to prove a RE, I am merely showing that the OP's argument, claiming to refute it, is pure BS which does not refute RET at all.

Your admission that you can have 2 objects appear the same size without being the same size is effectively an admission that the OP is crap.

Here you are boasting of handing asses, yet you have left the ring on a stretcher each and every time. And it gets worse every time you have the misfortune to debate with me.
I am yet to really debate with you. That would require you to actually address what has been said rather than repeatedly and asserting the same shit again and again.
And just like all those times from before, you are the one getting your ass handed to you, not me. You are just making yourself look worse and worse.

You have just stated that there are actually TWO CHOICES involved here: either the diameters of the sun and of the moon are the same, or else one is 400 times the size of the other.
No other choices are possible.
No I haven't. I said that in general 2 objects can have the same angular size with one being 400 times larger than the other, or with the both the same size.
This was to emphasise that they don't need to be the same size to appear the same size.
But they are not the only 2 options. You can also have one be 5 times larger or 10, or a million or basically anything.
All it requires is that the ratio of distances is the same (including directionality) as the ratio of sizes.
i.e. if you have 2 objects, one with a size of M and a distance of (c+k), and the other with a size of pM, at a distance of k, which both have identical angular sizes, then the following expression holds:
k=(c+k)*p
So no, infinitely many options.

But the mere possibility of the option of p=400 shows the OP is wrong.

By having stated this, you admit that the formula I derived is correct, and that p = 1 is one of the options.
There you go with another strawman.
If you bothered reading what I wrote, other than using different variables, we had the same equation.
If the sun is p times the size of the moon, then the sun is p times the distance to the moon.
This was different to the formula derived by JRowe, which claimed it should be p/sqrt(2-p^2)

Let me prove to you just how little you know about science.
You mean go off on another irrelevant tangent to try and avoid your pathetic failings.
No, lets stay on topic.

You are useless here jackblack.
Says the one that feels a need to go off on a massive tangent to avoid failure, and who continually ignores what has been said (on topic).

Another huge victory for FE.
Nope, just another pathetic failure to add to your pathetic existence.
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: JackBlack on January 26, 2018, 07:43:00 PM
Sandokhan's doing a great job
If your aim is to make FE look like a complete joke, then yes, he is doing a great job.
If your aim is to try and rational people, then he is a complete failure.

it truly exemplifies the kind of arrogant thinking that sums up round earthers.
He claims to teach math, and simultaneously appears to be unfamiliar with both the cosine rule, and the concept of working with unknowns. He plainly didn't even attempt to verify the math because if he had he would have seen the angles vanish very early on. We work in the situation where they'd be the same, after all.
No, but your response (including ignoring what has been said) does show the arrogance and stupidity of FEers.
If you bothered trying to go through the math you would realise that it is just a simple linear equation, such as the one he provided:
a/b=c/d.
e.g size/distance=size/distance.
There is no need for any quadratic formula.
And when you actually try and do the math, it turns out your formula is off by a factor of sqrt(2-p^2).

I have shown all this, as has Sandokan (although he just did a different derivation), yet you completely ignore it.
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: Arthur on January 26, 2018, 07:56:12 PM
Let me see if I understand this from the original post.

For those interested in the theory behind this calculation, we begin by finding a proportion relating the Sun and moon. We then create, essentially, one large triangle. At one point is the observer, who looks up during a total eclipse to see the Sun and moon with the same angular size. They are different distances away however, so this triangle (currently a V, with the observer looking up) will have two lines opposite the angle, at varying distances away. One is the moon, the further is the Sun. Thus, there are two triangles in this one, the only differences being a) the size of the object, b) the distance to the object.
We can then use the proportion to relate the two distances, so b is the only unknown left to find. The distance to the Sun gives us the distance to the moon, and vice versa.

The RE values are dramatically far from what it is RET states.


At one point is the observer, who looks up during a total eclipse to see the Sun and moon with the same angular size.

They are different distances away however, so this triangle (currently a V, with the observer looking up) will have two lines opposite the angle, at varying distances away.
One is the moon, (lets call the length of this line Lm and its distance from the observer Dm)
the further is the Sun. (lets call the length of this line Ls and its distance from the observer Ds)

Thus, there are two triangles in this one, the only differences being
a) the size of the object, from google the diameters of the objects are Lm=3,476km and Ls=1,392,000km
b) the distance to the object. again from google the distance to the sun is approximately Ds=150,000,000km

We can then use the proportion to relate the two distances, so b is the only unknown left to find. The distance to the Sun gives us the distance to the moon, and vice versa.
So we have Dm/Lm=Ds/Ls.
Solving for Dm we get Dm= (Ds*Lm)/Ls.
Or Dm = (150,000,000*3476)/1,392,000 or 374,569km
This is within the minimum and maximum distances found on google of 356,500 and 406,700 so I am not sure how this does not match RET
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: sandokhan on January 26, 2018, 09:44:31 PM

it truly exemplifies the kind of arrogant thinking that sums up round earthers.
He claims to teach math, and simultaneously appears to be unfamiliar with both the cosine rule, and the concept of working with unknowns. He plainly didn't even attempt to verify the math because if he had he would have seen the angles vanish very early on. We work in the situation where they'd be the same, after all.


That is not my quote.

Learn how to properly quote the right person who said those words.
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: sandokhan on January 26, 2018, 10:05:40 PM
Because this is a thread for debate

But you are not here to debate.

Every time you have your back to the wall, when you are shown that your arguments are a total piece of crap, you refuse to let go of your cognitive dissonance.

In each and every debate, you lost each and every time.

Perhaps in your mind you are a legend, here you are a total loser.

Make no mistake about it: you lost each and every debate, in a most miserable way.


Take a look at how you dodge the Aharonov-Bohm effect, the Clayton model and the chromosphere pressure data which destroys your beliefs, the faint young sun paradox, the orbital Sagnac calculations done at CalTech which show you are a bumbling fool who has no idea what he is doing.

Your presence here is truly pathetic.

In my previous message I have destroyed your entire position, your entire set of erroneous beliefs.

How do you respond?

You mean go off on another relevant tangent


You mean go off on another relevant tangent

So it is RELEVANT AFTER ALL, isn't it?

If it is RELEVANT, then why do you not accept defeat?

I have proven that the 400 figure is completely wrong: the sun's shape cannot be spherical, its age precludes it from attaining a spherical shape, and the CNO cycle proves that its source of energy is not a nuclear furnace.


Your admission that you can have 2 objects appear the same size without being the same size is effectively an admission that the OP is crap.

Do not play the fool.

You REFUSED to accept that the obvious 1.3 (or 1.11) observational figure for the angular size of the sun was valid.

So, I used a different kind of argument, based on your assertions, to demonstrate that you are wrong.


You picked the 400 figure version.

I proved that you are totally wrong.


But they are not the only 2 options. You can also have one be 5 times larger or 10, or a million or basically anything.

Not when you claim that the Earth-Sun distance is 150,000,000 km.

If you make that claim, you also claim that the 400 figure is the only option available for you.

I claim that p = 1 is the only true option.

In my previous message, which you dodged, I proved that my choice is correct.

The OP stated clearly that the angular size of the sun is 1.3 which you refused to accept: even this value (1.3 or 1.11) definitely invalidates the 400 figure.

That is why I used your quote, in my previous message, to show how wrong you are.


I am yet to really debate with you.

But we have debated, and you lost each and every time.

Your refusal to accept reality is another clear symptom of cognitive dissonance.


Let me prove to you just how little you know about science.

"The atmospheric pressure of the sun, instead of being 27.47 times greater than the atmospheric pressure of the earth (as expected because of the gravitational pull of the large solar mass), is much smaller: the pressure there varies according to the layers of the atmosphere from one-tenth to one-thousandth of the barometric pressure on the earth; at the base of the reversing layer the pressure is 0.005 of the atmospheric pressure at sea level on the earth; in the sunspots, the pressure drops to one ten-thousandth of the pressure on the earth.

The pressure of light is sometimes referred to as to explain the low atmospheric pressure on the sun. At the surface of the sun, the pressure of light must be 2.75 milligrams per square centimeter; a cubic centimeter of one gram weight at the surface of the earth would weigh 27.47 grams at the surface of the sun."

(https://s1.postimg.org/4vftttd9b/photo.jpg)

Thus the attraction by the solar mass is 10,000 times greater than the repulsion of the solar light. Recourse is taken to the supposition that if the pull and the pressure are calculated for very small masses, the pressure exceeds the pull, one acting in proportion to the surface, the other in proportion to the volume. But if this is so, why is the lowest pressure of the solar atmosphere observed over the sunspots where the light pressure is least?

Because of its swift rotation, the gaseous sun should have the latitudinal axis greater than the longitudinal, but it does not have it. The sun is one million times larger than the earth, and its day is but twenty-six times longer than the terrestrial day; the swiftness of its rotation at its equator is over 125 km. per minute; at the poles, the velocity approaches zero. Yet the solar disk is not oval but round: the majority of observers even find a small excess in the longitudinal axis of the sun. The planets act in the same manner as the rotation of the sun, imposing a latitudinal pull on the luminary.

Gravitation that acts in all directions equally leaves unexplained the spherical shape of the sun. As we saw in the preceding section, the gases of the solar atmosphere are not under a strong pressure, but under a very weak one. Therefore, the computation, according to which the ellipsoidity of the sun, that is lacking, should be slight, is not correct either. Since the gases are under a very low gravitational pressure, the centrifugal force of rotation must have formed quite a flat sun.

If planets and satellites were once molten masses, as cosmological theories assume, they would not have been able to obtain a spherical form, especially those which do not rotate, as Mercury or the moon (with respect to its primary)."


(https://s1.postimg.org/xx0cozg5r/chromo.jpg)

PRESSURE: 10-13 BAR = 0.0000000000001 BAR

The entire chromosphere will then be subjected to the full centrifugal force of rotation, as will the photosphere itself of course.

Completely unexplained by modern science.

Since the gases are under a very low gravitational pressure, the centrifugal force of rotation must have formed quite a flat sun.

NO further recourse can be made for gravity.

Gravity has already balanced out as much as was possible of the gaseous pressure, and still we are left with A VERY LOW PRESSURE.

Solar gravity has balanced out the thermal pressure.

At this point in time the sun will turn into A HUGE GAS CENTRIFUGE WITH NO OUTER CASING, running at some 1,900 m/s.

That is, the solar gases in the photosphere and cromosphere are just standing there, with no explanation by modern science whatsoever.

As if this wasn't enough, we have the huge centrifugal force factor that is exerted each and every second on the photosphere and the cromosphere.

The centrifugal force would cause the sun to collapse into a disk in no time at all.


"However, the gravity is opposed by the internal pressure of the stellar gas which normally results from heat produced by nuclear reactions. This balance between the forces of gravity and the pressure forces is called hydrostatic equilibrium, and the balance must be exact or the star will quickly respond by expanding or contracting in size. So powerful are the separate forces of gravity and pressure that should such an imbalance occur in the sun, it would be resolved within half an hour."


Then, the heliocentrists have to deal with the Nelson effect:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1645824#msg1645824 (the Nelson effect of all the other planets, pulling constantly on the sun's atmosphere, acting permanently, are added to the centrifugal force)

Recourse can be made to the Clayton model equation or even the Lane-Emden equation in order to show that the value for g (computed using the 10-13 bar value in the chromosphere) is much smaller than the centrifugal acceleration.

The Clayton model provides us with the g value: g = 0,0000507 m/s^2 which is much lower than the centrifugal acceleration figure:

P(r) = 2πgr2a2ρ2ce-x2/3M

where a = (31/2M/21/24πρc)1/3

a = 106,165,932.3

x = r/a

M = 1.989 x 1030 kg
central density = 1.62 x 105 kg/m3

G = gr2/m(r)

m(r) = M(r/R)3(4 - 3r/R); if r = R, then M = m(r)

Using P(700,000,000) = 1.0197 x 10-9 kg/m2 value, we get:


g = 0,0000507 m/s2


RATIO


ac/g = 0.0063/0.0000507 = 124.26


Accuracy of the Clayton model:

(https://s1.postimg.org/1m70jhx6i7/chro1.jpg)

(https://s1.postimg.org/6g8mtsilj3/chro2.jpg)


I have just proven to you, using the official data, that the shape of the sun cannot be spherical at all.



Question for the moderators:

WHY is jackblack allowed to post in such a manner, where he dodges the arguments presented in front of him?

This happens each and every time he is confronted with reality: he refuses to accept defeat, even though the proofs are undeniable.

He claimed that the Aharonov-Bohm effect is "delusional", even though it is a totally accepted fact of modern physics.

If a user has obvious cognitive dissonance problems, why is this not included in the rules and guidelines for this section of the forum?
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: sandokhan on January 27, 2018, 12:47:10 AM
The forum rules are posted in announcements https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=43826.0

Show me another member who link spams all over the forum without getting bammed. Show me another member who posts nsfw content without getting banned. Show me another member who shitposts all over the upper forums without getting banned. Show me another member who has done all these things, and been given as many chances, and comes back and does the same shit over and over.

Here you go:

Quote
Quote from: JackBlack on May 11, 2017, 04:25:46 AM

Quote from: sandokhan on May 11, 2017, 04:03:14 AM
If Henry VIII and Queen Elizabeth I would be pulling, each located at one end of that rope, would those forces be the same? Certainly not.


For a massless rope, it must be.

If Henry VIII and Elizabeth I would pull on a rope, each standing on a boat on a lake, at each end of the rope, would the force applied be the same? Certainly not.

No two persons in the world could apply the very same force.

By definition the forces applied must be different.

I reminded him that his analysis is simply wrong, here it is:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1905467#msg1905467

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1909690#msg1909690

I even reminded him of the nonsense concerning the "massless rope":

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70349.msg1906736#msg1906736


Quote
Quote from: jroa on November 29, 2017, 03:02:39 AM
Quote from: JackBlack on November 29, 2017, 01:56:22 AM
Quote from: jroa on November 29, 2017, 01:11:28 AM
Quote from: Albert Einstein
According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable

http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Extras/Einstein_ether.html
Got anything more than a quote?
Perhaps address the issues with aether mentioned above?


What issues?  If you think you are smarter than Einstein, then make a real rebuttal to his statement.


Quote
Quote from: JackBlack on November 29, 2017, 12:28:45 PM
Quote from: jroa on November 29, 2017, 03:02:39 AM
What issues?  If you think you are smarter than Einstein, then make a real rebuttal to his statement.
The issues I outlined above, where an aether model requires the aether to be both stationary and moving w.r.t. Earth.

As for a rebuttal, how about this:
The statement is pure bullshit.
As it was asserted without any evidence or backing it can be dismissed as such.
Done.

Pure trolling, here in the FES forum.

No punishment at all, not even a warning.


jackblack has called Einstein's statement on the aether as pure bullshit.

He has called Dr. A.G. Kelly, one of the foremost experts on the Sagnac effect, as a "charlatan".

No such behaviour would be allowed on any other forum.

Is this then not trolling?


He has dismissed the Aharonov-Bohm effect as "DELUSIONAL" and "worthless crap".

Why is this kind of trolling allowed in the upper forums?


He is shown with simple calculations that he cannot substitute the area from an interferometer which features the radii r1 and r2 for the area of an interferometer which has R1 and R2 as radii.

But this constitutes no problem for a person with cognitive dissonance.

Algebraic approach to time-delay data analysis: orbiting case
K Rajesh Nayak and J-Y Vinet

https://www.cosmos.esa.int/documents/946106/1027345/TDI_FOR_.PDF/2bb32fba-1b8a-438d-9e95-bc40c32debbe

This is an IOP article, published by the prestigious journal Classic and Quantum Gravity:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0264-9381/22/10/040/meta

(https://s17.postimg.org/5k11ctxzj/lis4.jpg)

This work is organized as follows: in section 2, we make an estimate of Sagnac phase
for individual laser beams of LISA by taking realistic orbital motion. Here we show that, in general, the residual laser noise because of Sagnac phase is much larger than earlier estimates.

For the LISA geometry, R⊙/L is of the order 30 and the orbital contribution to the Sagnac phase is larger by this factor.


LISA is the largest ever space antenna/satellite in the history of NASA/ESA.

The authors of the paper clearly prove and state that the orbital Sagnac is at least 30 times greater than the rotational Sagnac.


http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/2003papers/paper34.pdf

Dr. Massimo Tinto, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Principal Scientist

In the SSB frame, the differences between back-forth delay times are very much larger than has been previously recognized. The reason is in the aberration due to motion and changes of orientation in the SSB frame. With a velocity V=30 km/s, the light-transit times of light signals in opposing directions (Li, and L’i) will differ by as much as 2VL (a few thousands km).

The kinematics of the LISA  orbit brings in the effects of motion at several orders of magnitude larger than any previous papers on TDI have addressed. The instantaneous rotation axis of LISA swings about the Sun at 30 km/sec, and on any leg the transit times of light signals in opposing directions can differ by as much as 1000 km.

Aberration due to LISA’s orbit about the Sun dominates its instantaneous rotation.

The formula is 2VL/c.

V = RΩ

"In this work, we estimate the effects due to the Sagnac phase by taking the realistic model for LISA orbital motion."

"Earlier results assume a simple module in which LISA rotates only about its own axis!!

In reality the motion of LISA is much more complex and our study shows that the main term for Sagnac effect comes from orbital motion."



Conclusions:

The contribution from the Sagnac effect is much larger than earlier predicted.

Full calculations comparing the rotational Sagnac with the orbital Sagnac lead to the final result:

(https://s18.postimg.org/hjqlasp6x/lisa3.jpg)


Certainly at this point in time, any reasonable debater would give up his argument and understand that it would be pointless to argue further.

But this person does no such thing.

He will continue posting drivel as if nothing happened, all the while calling the authors of the papers he is being confronted with, as charlatans.

This is what we are talking about here: a clear violation of the rules of this forum, where flaming and trolling are expressly forbidden.



https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=11213.0

Trolling will not be tolerated and this forum will be moderated quite strictly.

As such, our Forum Rules are designed to strike a balance between the needs of formal debate, promoting The Flat Earth Society and Flat Earth Theory, and making the forum a fun and enjoyable place.

Finally, please note that the Flat Earth Society Forum reserves the right to remove any and all illegal content, or prevent any and all illegal activity, even if that content/activity is not explicitly forbidden as per the above rules.


We have a user, jackblack, who has a very serious outbreak of cognitive dissonance.

Faced with very obvious proofs, he cannot undergo the pain of accepting reality, and he uses trolling as a basic tool to debate.

And he has employed this strategy with everybody else, please see the quotes I posted earlier right here.

He has been told, quite sensibly, where he went wrong, in whatever argument he is presenting. He cannot face reality, and dismisses any other opinion as pure bullshit.

He has committed glaring errors, these were pointed out right at the beginning of the thread, but he just cannot give up arguing ad nauseam for five, ten, twenty pages, where he dismisses anything that contradicts his version of reality, and then proceeds to impose his will on everybody else, profiting quite easily from the lack of strict moderation.

This is supposed to be a "fun and enjoyable place", right? But this user has imposed his own rules on everybody else, while refusing to accept the definite and clear proofs published by mainstream papers. He calls them "charlatans". How would you, the moderators, deal with this situation?

Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: JackBlack on January 27, 2018, 03:47:03 AM
That is not my quote.

Learn how to properly quote the right person who said those words.
My bad, I didn't change which quote line to copy.

However you should really follow your own advice.
Half the time you don't bother quoting anyone at all and instead just italicise the font or the like.

Then at other times you just lie about quotes and attribute them to others.

Because this is a thread for debate
But you are not here to debate.
The only reason I'm not debating here is because it is a 2 way straight and you don't want to engage in debate as you cannot rationally defend your position.

Every time you have your back to the wall, when you are shown that your arguments are a total piece of crap, you refuse to let go of your cognitive dissonance.
In each and every debate, you lost each and every time.
Perhaps in your mind you are a legend, here you are a total loser.
Make no mistake about it: you lost each and every debate, in a most miserable way.
There you go projecting again.

Take a look at how you dodge the Aharonov-Bohm effect
Don't you mean take a look at how you repeatedly try to change the subject to try and dodge the topic at hand, as you appear to be trying to do yet again.

Are you capable of staying on topic at all?

In my previous message I have destroyed your entire position, your entire set of erroneous beliefs.
No, you did no such thing. You completely ignored my position, set up a pathetic strawman which just served to further prove my point, repeatedly the same lies which had already been refuted and tried to go off on a tangent.

So it is RELEVANT AFTER ALL, isn't it?
My bad, typo (which didn't correct the right way), I'll go fix it up for you.
That would have been clear from the context, if you were capable of understanding English.

But notice how you now go and bitch and moan about this to continue your avoidance of the OP?

I have proven that the 400 figure is completely wrong
No you haven't.
You haven't even come close. You repeat the same delusions about allegedly being able to tell how far away it is from a photo, yet you are completely unable to even explain why you think that.

You seem to lack any understanding of perspective.

(I'm skipping over the irrelevant BS)

You REFUSED to accept that the obvious 1.3 (or 1.11) observational figure for the angular size of the sun was valid.
No, I said 1.3 figure doesn't come from RET and thus an argument based upon it which shows an issue with numbers doesn't refute RET.
From observations and measurements we know that it isn't 1.3, but from simple measurements of the angular size of the 2, you cannot tell.

So, I used a different kind of argument, based on your assertions, to demonstrate that you are wrong.
No. You set up a pathetic strawman and defeated that strawman, proving me correct, accepting the OP is wrong and accepting you are wrong.
This is because you have now admitted you can get the same result with different ratio of sizes by varying the distances.

Not when you claim that the Earth-Sun distance is 150,000,000 km.
If you make that claim, you also claim that the 400 figure is the only option available for you.
Yes, when you have a distance to the sun and moon only 1 ratio fits.

I claim that p = 1 is the only true option.
And you are yet to substantiate that at all. You only seem to be capable of going off on a pointless tangent and spouting mountains of irrelevent BS.

The OP stated clearly that the angular size of the sun is 1.3 which you refused to accept: even this value (1.3 or 1.11) definitely invalidates the 400 figure.
No they didn't. They stated the sun is 1.3 times the size of the moon and can have 1.3 times the angular size.
I objected to the 1.3 claim for the angular sizes as I have never heard that from any reliable source.
I also explained quite clearly why their claim for 1.3 for the actual sizes is pure BS and doesn't come from RET and thus any conclusion they draw from this assumption doesn't magically disprove RET.

They did not invalidate the 400 figure. They just baselessly asserted a different figure.

That is why I used your quote, in my previous message, to show how wrong you are.
Except it didn't show me to be wrong.
You agreeing with it was an admission that you were wrong.

But we have debated, and you lost each and every time.
Nope. You continue spout the same refuted BS again and again, refusing to engage in any form of rational debate.
In order to have a debate with you, you would need to actually read and address what I have said in a rational manner than continually ignoring it.

Let me prove to you just how little you know about science.
So once again you try and go off on an irrelevant tangent.
Deal with the topic at hand or get lost.

WHY is jackblack allowed to post in such a manner, where he dodges the arguments presented in front of him?
This happens each and every time he is confronted with reality: he refuses to accept defeat, even though the proofs are undeniable.
There you go projecting yet again.
If people were going to be banned for continually dodging arguments presented you wouldn't last 5 minutes.

If Henry VIII and Elizabeth I would pull on a rope, each standing on a boat on a lake, at each end of the rope, would the force applied be the same? Certainly not.
And here you go trying to change the topic yet again.
You have already shown everyone that you don't understand simply physics.
Why did you want to bring it up again?
To remind everyone of how ignorant you seem to be of simple physics?

We have a user, jackblack, who has a very serious outbreak of cognitive dissonance.
Faced with very obvious proofs, he cannot undergo the pain of accepting reality, and he uses trolling as a basic tool to debate.
And he has employed this strategy with everybody else, please see the quotes I posted earlier right here.
He has been told, quite sensibly, where he went wrong, in whatever argument he is presenting. He cannot face reality, and dismisses any other opinion as pure bullshit.
He has committed glaring errors, these were pointed out right at the beginning of the thread, but he just cannot give up arguing ad nauseam for five, ten, twenty pages, where he dismisses anything that contradicts his version of reality, and then proceeds to impose his will on everybody else, profiting quite easily from the lack of strict moderation.
This is supposed to be a "fun and enjoyable place", right? But this user has imposed his own rules on everybody else, while refusing to accept the definite and clear proofs published by mainstream papers. He calls them "charlatans". How would you, the moderators, deal with this situation?
And there you go projecting yet again.
You are the one that has been refuted time and time again, yet you continually try and avoid it by spamming and trolling, bringing loads of irrelevant crap up rather than dealing with the topic at hand. You continually baselessly assert BS, being completely unable to back it up. You continually try and make appeals to authority when people show why you are wrong, yet you don't understand what the authority is actually saying and if it applies or not and you reject the authorities when they don't agree with you.

As you seem to want to bring up your lies yet again, how about you do what was asked?

The OP clearly indicating they are using an isosceles triangle. For the sun, 2 of the sides are k, the other is 1.3M which represents the size of the sun.
Draw a diagram to show this, clearly indicating how k is the direct distance to the sun rather than the diagonal.
When you are unable to, then stop lying, admit you were wrong the entire time and that it wasn't my mistake.

Once you have failed to do that and admitted you were wrong, you can then move on to explaining quite clearly how that single photo magically showed the sun is only 10 000 km away, explaining in detail how you can determine it from that single photo.
When you are unable to, then stop lying, admit you were wrong and that you can't tell how far away the sun is from a single photo.

After that failure you can move on to your claims of the 2 formulas being the same, even though they differ by a factor of sqrt(2-p^2).
Explain how sqrt(2-p^2)=1, when p=1.3.
When you are unable to, then stop lying, admit you were wrong and that even you disagree with the formula provided by the OP.

Then once you have had enough of those failings you can deal with the core argument, and explain how the ratio of angular sizes magically changes to the ratio of actual sizes, especially considering you have already admitted it doesn't.
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: Macarios on January 27, 2018, 06:12:23 AM
We can measure distance to the Moon in more than one way.
One is radio waves. At the speed of light they travel to Moon and back for about 2.6 seconds.
Could be used amateur radio at UHF (say, 432 MHz), or radar.
Another is Lunar parallax. It is described here: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=8595.msg139439#msg139439 (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=8595.msg139439#msg139439)
In both cases we get distance of 385 000 km.
Considering angular diameter of Moon, we can calculate linear diameter of 3475 km.

Distance to the Sun can also be measured in more than one way.
One is to wait maximum elongation between Sun and Venus, measure angle, and use radar to measure distance to Venus (look below).
That way distance to Sun was measured as 149 million kilometers.
Considering angular diameter of Sun we measured linear diameter to be 1.39 million kilometers.

Try these measures in your equations.

Venus used to measure distance to Sun:
(from: http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/41-our-solar-system/the-earth/orbit/87-how-do-you-measure-the-distance-between-earth-and-the-sun-intermediate (http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/41-our-solar-system/the-earth/orbit/87-how-do-you-measure-the-distance-between-earth-and-the-sun-intermediate))
(http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/images/earth/Earth_Sun_distance.gif)
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: Papa Legba on January 27, 2018, 06:33:56 AM
The forum rules are posted in announcements https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=43826.0

Show me another member who link spams all over the forum without getting bammed. Show me another member who posts nsfw content without getting banned. Show me another member who shitposts all over the upper forums without getting banned. Show me another member who has done all these things, and been given as many chances, and comes back and does the same shit over and over.

Here you go:

Quote
Quote from: JackBlack on May 11, 2017, 04:25:46 AM

Quote from: sandokhan on May 11, 2017, 04:03:14 AM
If Henry VIII and Queen Elizabeth I would be pulling, each located at one end of that rope, would those forces be the same? Certainly not.


For a massless rope, it must be.

If Henry VIII and Elizabeth I would pull on a rope, each standing on a boat on a lake, at each end of the rope, would the force applied be the same? Certainly not.

No two persons in the world could apply the very same force.

By definition the forces applied must be different.

I reminded him that his analysis is simply wrong, here it is:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1905467#msg1905467

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1909690#msg1909690

I even reminded him of the nonsense concerning the "massless rope":

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70349.msg1906736#msg1906736


Quote
Quote from: jroa on November 29, 2017, 03:02:39 AM
Quote from: JackBlack on November 29, 2017, 01:56:22 AM
Quote from: jroa on November 29, 2017, 01:11:28 AM
Quote from: Albert Einstein
According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable

http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Extras/Einstein_ether.html
Got anything more than a quote?
Perhaps address the issues with aether mentioned above?


What issues?  If you think you are smarter than Einstein, then make a real rebuttal to his statement.


Quote
Quote from: JackBlack on November 29, 2017, 12:28:45 PM
Quote from: jroa on November 29, 2017, 03:02:39 AM
What issues?  If you think you are smarter than Einstein, then make a real rebuttal to his statement.
The issues I outlined above, where an aether model requires the aether to be both stationary and moving w.r.t. Earth.

As for a rebuttal, how about this:
The statement is pure bullshit.
As it was asserted without any evidence or backing it can be dismissed as such.
Done.

Pure trolling, here in the FES forum.

No punishment at all, not even a warning.


jackblack has called Einstein's statement on the aether as pure bullshit.

He has called Dr. A.G. Kelly, one of the foremost experts on the Sagnac effect, as a "charlatan".

No such behaviour would be allowed on any other forum.

Is this then not trolling?


He has dismissed the Aharonov-Bohm effect as "DELUSIONAL" and "worthless crap".

Why is this kind of trolling allowed in the upper forums?


He is shown with simple calculations that he cannot substitute the area from an interferometer which features the radii r1 and r2 for the area of an interferometer which has R1 and R2 as radii.

But this constitutes no problem for a person with cognitive dissonance.

Algebraic approach to time-delay data analysis: orbiting case
K Rajesh Nayak and J-Y Vinet

https://www.cosmos.esa.int/documents/946106/1027345/TDI_FOR_.PDF/2bb32fba-1b8a-438d-9e95-bc40c32debbe

This is an IOP article, published by the prestigious journal Classic and Quantum Gravity:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0264-9381/22/10/040/meta

(https://s17.postimg.org/5k11ctxzj/lis4.jpg)

This work is organized as follows: in section 2, we make an estimate of Sagnac phase
for individual laser beams of LISA by taking realistic orbital motion. Here we show that, in general, the residual laser noise because of Sagnac phase is much larger than earlier estimates.

For the LISA geometry, R⊙/L is of the order 30 and the orbital contribution to the Sagnac phase is larger by this factor.


LISA is the largest ever space antenna/satellite in the history of NASA/ESA.

The authors of the paper clearly prove and state that the orbital Sagnac is at least 30 times greater than the rotational Sagnac.


http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/2003papers/paper34.pdf

Dr. Massimo Tinto, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Principal Scientist

In the SSB frame, the differences between back-forth delay times are very much larger than has been previously recognized. The reason is in the aberration due to motion and changes of orientation in the SSB frame. With a velocity V=30 km/s, the light-transit times of light signals in opposing directions (Li, and L’i) will differ by as much as 2VL (a few thousands km).

The kinematics of the LISA  orbit brings in the effects of motion at several orders of magnitude larger than any previous papers on TDI have addressed. The instantaneous rotation axis of LISA swings about the Sun at 30 km/sec, and on any leg the transit times of light signals in opposing directions can differ by as much as 1000 km.

Aberration due to LISA’s orbit about the Sun dominates its instantaneous rotation.

The formula is 2VL/c.

V = RΩ

"In this work, we estimate the effects due to the Sagnac phase by taking the realistic model for LISA orbital motion."

"Earlier results assume a simple module in which LISA rotates only about its own axis!!

In reality the motion of LISA is much more complex and our study shows that the main term for Sagnac effect comes from orbital motion."



Conclusions:

The contribution from the Sagnac effect is much larger than earlier predicted.

Full calculations comparing the rotational Sagnac with the orbital Sagnac lead to the final result:

(https://s18.postimg.org/hjqlasp6x/lisa3.jpg)


Certainly at this point in time, any reasonable debater would give up his argument and understand that it would be pointless to argue further.

But this person does no such thing.

He will continue posting drivel as if nothing happened, all the while calling the authors of the papers he is being confronted with, as charlatans.

This is what we are talking about here: a clear violation of the rules of this forum, where flaming and trolling are expressly forbidden.



https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=11213.0

Trolling will not be tolerated and this forum will be moderated quite strictly.

As such, our Forum Rules are designed to strike a balance between the needs of formal debate, promoting The Flat Earth Society and Flat Earth Theory, and making the forum a fun and enjoyable place.

Finally, please note that the Flat Earth Society Forum reserves the right to remove any and all illegal content, or prevent any and all illegal activity, even if that content/activity is not explicitly forbidden as per the above rules.


We have a user, jackblack, who has a very serious outbreak of cognitive dissonance.

Faced with very obvious proofs, he cannot undergo the pain of accepting reality, and he uses trolling as a basic tool to debate.

And he has employed this strategy with everybody else, please see the quotes I posted earlier right here.

He has been told, quite sensibly, where he went wrong, in whatever argument he is presenting. He cannot face reality, and dismisses any other opinion as pure bullshit.

He has committed glaring errors, these were pointed out right at the beginning of the thread, but he just cannot give up arguing ad nauseam for five, ten, twenty pages, where he dismisses anything that contradicts his version of reality, and then proceeds to impose his will on everybody else, profiting quite easily from the lack of strict moderation.

This is supposed to be a "fun and enjoyable place", right? But this user has imposed his own rules on everybody else, while refusing to accept the definite and clear proofs published by mainstream papers. He calls them "charlatans". How would you, the moderators, deal with this situation?

Sandokhan, please understand that JackBlack is an AI algorithm and stop responding to it.

It can play games with numbers, as you'd expect of a computer program, but it has no understanding of the simplest physical terms such as force, mass, momentum etc.

I once spent days trying to get it to make a simple free body diagram and it simply could not comply.

Because, as an AI construct, it can not comprehend physical reality.

It also deliberately formats its posts in a way that makes them almost impossible to respond to clearly, as an exercise in calculated time wasting.

Do not let it waste your time further.

Now, as to the sun: the elemental make up and construction of the sun has been empirically known for over 150 years...

And it is not a giant ball of gas.

The truth, however, has been buried in history.

I have no interest in those silly lights in the sky, nor the Pseudoscience of astrophysics, so will speak no further on this subject.

But I thought it may interest you.
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: EvolvedMantisShrimp on January 27, 2018, 06:52:39 AM
Am I a bot? My children really deserve to know.
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: Papa Legba on January 27, 2018, 07:13:46 AM
Am I a bot? My children really deserve to know.

This is exactly the kind of forced, humourless, time wasting shitpost that made all the people I showed this forum to IRL believe that it was overrun by bots.

So yes, you clearly are a bot.

Here is your purpose (1st paragraph then section 12):

http://www.drrobertduncan.com/dr-robert-duncans-neuropsychological-and-electronic-no-touch-torture-report.html

Like I say, outside the goldfish bowl of this toilet, everyone is talking about this subject, and getting pissed off over it...

But hey - not here, eh?

Not in the Kingdom of the bots...

Now AstroTurf this post with yet more random gibberish and prove me right.

More info:

https://medium.com/artificial-intelligence-policy-laws-and-ethics/artificial-intelligence-chatbots-will-overwhelm-human-speech-online-the-rise-of-madcoms-e007818f31a1
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: EvolvedMantisShrimp on January 27, 2018, 07:31:33 AM
Am I a bot? My children really deserve to know.

This is exactly the kind of forced, humourless, time wasting shitpost that made all the people I showed this forum to IRL believe that it was overrun by bots.

So yes, you clearly are a bot.

Here is your purpose (1st paragraph then section 12):

http://www.drrobertduncan.com/dr-robert-duncans-neuropsychological-and-electronic-no-touch-torture-report.html

Like I say, outside the goldfish bowl of this toilet, everyone is talking about this subject, and getting pissed off over it...

But hey - not here, eh?

Not in the Kingdom of the bots...

Now AstroTurf this post with yet more random gibberish and prove me right.

More info:

https://medium.com/artificial-intelligence-policy-laws-and-ethics/artificial-intelligence-chatbots-will-overwhelm-human-speech-online-the-rise-of-madcoms-e007818f31a1

(https://i.imgur.com/GShcOSeh.jpg)
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: Papa Legba on January 27, 2018, 08:59:58 AM
Am I a bot? My children really deserve to know.

This is exactly the kind of forced, humourless, time wasting shitpost that made all the people I showed this forum to IRL believe that it was overrun by bots.

So yes, you clearly are a bot.

Here is your purpose (1st paragraph then section 12):

http://www.drrobertduncan.com/dr-robert-duncans-neuropsychological-and-electronic-no-touch-torture-report.html

Like I say, outside the goldfish bowl of this toilet, everyone is talking about this subject, and getting pissed off over it...

But hey - not here, eh?

Not in the Kingdom of the bots...

Now AstroTurf this post with yet more random gibberish and prove me right.

More info:

https://medium.com/artificial-intelligence-policy-laws-and-ethics/artificial-intelligence-chatbots-will-overwhelm-human-speech-online-the-rise-of-madcoms-e007818f31a1

(https://i.imgur.com/GShcOSeh.jpg)

So that's the kind of thing you think a man with kids does in his spare time?

LOL!!!

And of course there are a tiny handful of real people who run this site behind the scenes and can step in when the bots fail...

I have the name, address and place of work of one of them, and next time I am banned will be contacting the police and his employer to report him for criminal activity:

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/cybercrime-legal-guidance

But the vast majority of the activity on this site is bot generated, like your first post was.

Wasn't it, Paul?

Better hurry up and DELETE EVERYTHING!!!
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: Ising on January 27, 2018, 10:11:51 AM
...

Another huge victory for FE.
Using round earth science and other science you don't believe in is a victory?
In 1924 they were figuring out the pressure at he suns surface. Check it out
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1924ApJ....59..197R

Did you read how they did it? Spectroscopy. You don't believe in that. One of the pictures has "balmer lines", why don't you tell everyone what those are.

Balmer lines ?! I once asked him what a potential was (since he seems to like them a lot), I'm still waiting on the answer !
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: JackBlack on January 27, 2018, 01:00:32 PM
It can play games with numbers, as you'd expect of a computer program, but it has no understanding of the simplest physical terms such as force, mass, momentum etc.
Strange that you say that, when quoting a post where Sandy shows complete ignorance of how force works.

I once spent days trying to get it to make a simple free body diagram and it simply could not comply.
You mean you were provided with one and then kept rejecting it without a valid reason.

Like I say, outside the goldfish bowl of this toilet, everyone is talking about this subject, and getting pissed off over it...
Yes, because they realise FE is complete garbage and get annoyed at the liars trying to pretend it is rational.

I have the name, address and place of work of one of them, and next time I am banned will be contacting the police and his employer to report him for criminal activity:
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/cybercrime-legal-guidance
And just what do you think is criminal activity here?
Other than your repeated defamation?

Now how about you stop the pathetic insults and lies and try to deal with the OP?

Do you think their "proof" is sound? Why or why not?
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: 29silhouette on January 27, 2018, 01:21:37 PM
A commentary from one of the viewers on youtube:

What else is Suspicious is the fact this thing looks that big against the sun. When you look at comparative models of the earth's size against the size of the sun it is supposedly very very small yet this ISS pictures shows it being massive in size. I know the ISS is closer to earth thus would present as larger. However if its this huge why don't we see it then on a regular basis. According to size presentation here it is MASSIVE. We should see it present against the moon, we don't.

Because both you, and the viewer on youtube, have little to no understanding of viewing objects of vastly different sizes with vastly different distances between them, through high-powered magnification.
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: rabinoz on January 27, 2018, 07:12:58 PM
We should see it present against the moon, we don't.
Rubbish!
          
How many (dozen) more do you want?
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: Nightsky on January 28, 2018, 02:06:05 AM
It really speaks volumes that you would all rather ignore the calculations presented and try desperately to distract than face up to the simple fact RET does not work.

On the contrary, you just showed that the Earth must be round. You just showed that the Earth cannot be flat. The only thing we have left to debate is size.
No, I did not. I wrote out calculations about the proportion of the Sun and moon that you refuse to address, then used the RE figures to demonstrate a contradiction inherent in RET. Those figures are demonstrably not accurate.
At no point in the calculations is anything about the shape of the Earth assumed.

Stop evading the problem. Your model has been refuted and you'd rather change the topic than respond.

Ignoring things! Wow you’ve been ignoring facts that don’t suit your crazy ideas for years. Why not go have a look at any of the thousands of images that show the earth is a sphere?
How about you check out some of the daily data from some of the satellites orbiting the sun? All pretty inconvenient for one such as you.
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: totallackey on January 28, 2018, 04:51:31 AM
It really speaks volumes that you would all rather ignore the calculations presented and try desperately to distract than face up to the simple fact RET does not work.

On the contrary, you just showed that the Earth must be round. You just showed that the Earth cannot be flat. The only thing we have left to debate is size.
No, I did not. I wrote out calculations about the proportion of the Sun and moon that you refuse to address, then used the RE figures to demonstrate a contradiction inherent in RET. Those figures are demonstrably not accurate.
At no point in the calculations is anything about the shape of the Earth assumed.

Stop evading the problem. Your model has been refuted and you'd rather change the topic than respond.
Ignoring things! Wow you’ve been ignoring facts that don’t suit your crazy ideas for years...
Have you lived down this thread yet???

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=73908.0 (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=73908.0)

LMMFAO!!!
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: Nightsky on January 28, 2018, 06:57:09 AM
It really speaks volumes that you would all rather ignore the calculations presented and try desperately to distract than face up to the simple fact RET does not work.

On the contrary, you just showed that the Earth must be round. You just showed that the Earth cannot be flat. The only thing we have left to debate is size.
No, I did not. I wrote out calculations about the proportion of the Sun and moon that you refuse to address, then used the RE figures to demonstrate a contradiction inherent in RET. Those figures are demonstrably not accurate.
At no point in the calculations is anything about the shape of the Earth assumed.

Stop evading the problem. Your model has been refuted and you'd rather change the topic than respond.
Ignoring things! Wow you’ve been ignoring facts that don’t suit your crazy ideas for years...
Have you lived down this thread yet???

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=73908.0 (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=73908.0)

LMMFAO!!!

I’m glad you brought that up I couldn’t find it, had to go away for a couple of days.
What’s really hilarious about this thread is the data John quotes comes from an orbital lander, something both you and he deny exist.  Now That is really funny, plus if you care to read the blurb from NASA; an organisation I belive you despise, you will quickly learn that it makes John look an even bigger idiot than he already is, atmosphere gobbling, moon shrimp, now that is funny. What’s your next joke Pal?
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: Nightsky on January 28, 2018, 07:06:11 AM
It really speaks volumes that you would all rather ignore the calculations presented and try desperately to distract than face up to the simple fact RET does not work.

On the contrary, you just showed that the Earth must be round. You just showed that the Earth cannot be flat. The only thing we have left to debate is size.
No, I did not. I wrote out calculations about the proportion of the Sun and moon that you refuse to address, then used the RE figures to demonstrate a contradiction inherent in RET. Those figures are demonstrably not accurate.
At no point in the calculations is anything about the shape of the Earth assumed.

Stop evading the problem. Your model has been refuted and you'd rather change the topic than respond.
Ignoring things! Wow you’ve been ignoring facts that don’t suit your crazy ideas for years...
Have you lived down this thread yet???

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=73908.0 (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=73908.0)

LMMFAO!!!

For those that missed that thread it was truly extraordinary. John was arguing a point about the dietary likes of moonshrimp, I know moonshrimp!  using data from an Appolo moon lander! Something he denies exists. What’s even funnier he didn’t even understand the data or it’s implications, and to top it off he still believes in the existance of carnivorous light emitting moonshrimp, now that is funny!
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: JackBlack on January 28, 2018, 12:01:00 PM
John was arguing a point about the dietary likes of moonshrimp, I know moonshrimp!  using data from an Appolo moon lander! Something he denies exists. What’s even funnier he didn’t even understand the data or it’s implications, and to top it off he still believes in the existance of carnivorous light emitting moonshrimp, now that is funny!
I don't see any of that in that thread.
Got any quotes for it?
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: totallackey on January 28, 2018, 12:17:35 PM
It really speaks volumes that you would all rather ignore the calculations presented and try desperately to distract than face up to the simple fact RET does not work.

On the contrary, you just showed that the Earth must be round. You just showed that the Earth cannot be flat. The only thing we have left to debate is size.
No, I did not. I wrote out calculations about the proportion of the Sun and moon that you refuse to address, then used the RE figures to demonstrate a contradiction inherent in RET. Those figures are demonstrably not accurate.
At no point in the calculations is anything about the shape of the Earth assumed.

Stop evading the problem. Your model has been refuted and you'd rather change the topic than respond.
Ignoring things! Wow you’ve been ignoring facts that don’t suit your crazy ideas for years...
Have you lived down this thread yet???

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=73908.0 (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=73908.0)

LMMFAO!!!

For those that missed that thread it was truly extraordinary. John was arguing a point about the dietary likes of moonshrimp, I know moonshrimp!  using data from an Appolo moon lander! Something he denies exists. What’s even funnier he didn’t even understand the data or it’s implications, and to top it off he still believes in the existance of carnivorous light emitting moonshrimp, now that is funny!
For those that missed that thread, John never fucking wrote the word "moonshrimp." John did write:
I didn't leave that out at all. You are the one that has been going about accusing me of lying (for demonstrable example - this very instance) and not showing that I have.

Shame on you.
If I'm wrong, please let me know why. NASA always puts a bit of truth in theirs lies; if you pay attention.
I'm asking you.

Professor, profess.
What is a 'moonshramp'?
See? This is the kind of round earth malarky we have to deal with every day. "Moonshramp farts."

The fissuring continues and has not diminished as far as records and your theory shows.

Thanks Jane; I'd also love to hear the justification for why its wrong.
Indeed, what a ludicrous claim.

For those that missed the thread, John was quoted (by you) as writing, "The lunar atmosphere consists of Argon, Helium, Neon, Sodium, Potassium, and Hydrogen”- John Davis

You ran off from the thread once you were busted for NOT accepting NASA...

It is you RE-tards that cannot get your story straight...
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: JackBlack on January 28, 2018, 01:05:52 PM
You ran off from the thread once you were busted for NOT accepting NASA...
Like JRowe and Sandy have fled this thread after repeatedly being refuted.
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: sandokhan on January 28, 2018, 02:22:28 PM
We should see it present against the moon, we don't.

That is not my quote.

It is from youtube.

In fact, I was the first to publish the ISS solar/lunar photographs here:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1787025#msg1787025
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: JackBlack on January 28, 2018, 02:25:55 PM
We should see it present against the moon, we don't.
That is not my quote.
It is from youtube.
Was it from a video you presented?
If so, and you knew it was wrong, why present it?

Now again, how about we deal with the OP?
The OP clearly indicating they are using an isosceles triangle. For the sun, 2 of the sides are k, the other is 1.3M which represents the size of the sun.
Draw a diagram to show this, clearly indicating how k is the direct distance to the sun rather than the diagonal.
When you are unable to, then stop lying, admit you were wrong the entire time and that it wasn't my mistake.

Once you have failed to do that and admitted you were wrong, you can then move on to explaining quite clearly how that single photo magically showed the sun is only 10 000 km away, explaining in detail how you can determine it from that single photo.
When you are unable to, then stop lying, admit you were wrong and that you can't tell how far away the sun is from a single photo.

After that failure you can move on to your claims of the 2 formulas being the same, even though they differ by a factor of sqrt(2-p^2).
Explain how sqrt(2-p^2)=1, when p=1.3.
When you are unable to, then stop lying, admit you were wrong and that even you disagree with the formula provided by the OP.

Then once you have had enough of those failings you can deal with the core argument, and explain how the ratio of angular sizes magically changes to the ratio of actual sizes, especially considering you have already admitted it doesn't.
Title: Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
Post by: rabinoz on January 29, 2018, 04:35:11 AM
We should see it present against the moon, we don't.

That is not my quote.

It is from youtube.

In fact, I was the first to publish the ISS solar/lunar photographs here:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1787025#msg1787025
And in that you proved that you have no idea about either photography or perspective.