Solar Eclipse

Still would never get a full moon with the sun above it as you say it is.

Quote

Hmm...  I just noticed that the FAQ didn't bother answering the parts about whether or not the sun, moon and planets were flat or not, or what they're made of.  Tsk, tsk.

Where did the FAQ get that from?

I didn't write the FAQ.  Ask the people that did.

Rowbotham says nothing about the exact height of the moon in ENAG. 

Are you suggesting that Rowbotham and ENaG are the final authority on FET?

Quote

Umm...  That's how RET predicts where eclipses will be visible.  I asked how FET predicts where eclipses will be visible.

You can use the same ancient cycle charts. It's just a a pattern which recurs in the sky.

So FET can't predict where solar eclipses will be visible.  Thanks for clearing that up, Tom.

Still would never get a full moon with the sun above it as you say it is.

Do this.

Post less.

Are you suggesting that Rowbotham and ENaG are the final authority on FET?

He's the first authority of FET.

So FET can't predict where solar eclipses will be visible.  Thanks for clearing that up, Tom.

I told you, we use the same patterns the Greeks have used to predict the Solar Eclipse for thousands of years into the future. The charts can tell us the Time, Magnitude, and Duration of the Lunar or Solar eclipse.

It's just a pattern which recurs in the sky.

I told you, we use the same patterns the Greeks have used to predict the Solar Eclipse for thousands of years into the future. The charts can tell us the Time, Magnitude, and Duration of the Lunar or Solar eclipse.

It's just a pattern which recurs in the sky.

I've still not seen these charts.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 20, 2009, 06:00:52 PM

I told you, we use the same patterns the Greeks have used to predict the Solar Eclipse for thousands of years into the future. The charts can tell us the Time, Magnitude, and Duration of the Lunar or Solar eclipse.

It's just a pattern which recurs in the sky.

I've still not seen these charts.

Check out NASA's website.

http://www.screencast.com/users/tbishop/folders/Jing/media/5fdaffdc-ba0f-45a2-b895-4026b6a5951f

Do this.

Post less.

Lovely, please keep contentless posting out of the serious fora.

You have no answer to the question, yet you lack the ability and humility to admit you are beat. So you post petty, childish insults.

Your mother must be very proud of you.

Now why don't you post a useful reply to the question you seem currently unable to answer, or, follow your own advice and post less, since clearly, you have no idea what you're talking about here.

Quote

Are you suggesting that Rowbotham and ENaG are the final authority on FET?

He's the first authority of FET.

Thanks for admitting that your model is wrong.  I'm glad we cleared that up.

Quote

So FET can't predict where solar eclipses will be visible.  Thanks for clearing that up, Tom.

I told you, we use the same patterns the Greeks have used to predict the Solar Eclipse for thousands of years into the future. The charts can tell us the Time, Magnitude, and Duration of the Lunar or Solar eclipse.

It's just a pattern which recurs in the sky.

But the pattern doesn't reoccur in the same place in the sky every time.  Can the cycle predict if a solar eclipse will be total or annular?  Could the Greeks predict solar eclipses that only occur in the southern hemisphere?

Quote from: Crustinator on November 20, 2009, 06:11:28 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 20, 2009, 06:00:52 PM

I told you, we use the same patterns the Greeks have used to predict the Solar Eclipse for thousands of years into the future. The charts can tell us the Time, Magnitude, and Duration of the Lunar or Solar eclipse.

It's just a pattern which recurs in the sky.

I've still not seen these charts.

Check out NASA's website.

http://www.screencast.com/users/tbishop/folders/Jing/media/5fdaffdc-ba0f-45a2-b895-4026b6a5951f

That's a NASA website not an ancient Greek chart. There are no ancient Greek eclipse-predicting charts on that site.

Do this.

Post less.

Did that.

This satellite is called the Shadow Object. Its orbital plane is tilted at an angle of about 5?10' to the sun's orbital plane, making eclipses possible only when the three bodies (Sun, Object, and Moon) are aligned and when the moon is crossing the sun's orbital plane (at a point called the node). Within a given year, considering the orbitals of these celestial bodies, a maximum of three lunar eclipses can occur.

The lunar phases vary cyclically according to the changing geometry of the Moon and Sun, which are constantly wobbling up and down and exchange altitudes as they rotate around the North Pole.

Since this object can cast a shadow upon the moon, shouldn't it cast a shadow upon the earth as well? Completely independent of being obscured by the sun scattering light it should cast a visible shadow across the earth.

Is the sun orbiting in a plane or do the sun and moon now have 3d "orbits"?

How can the sun illuminate the moon when they are at the same altitude and the sun is a "spotlight" shining toward earth?

Spotlight effect
The Sun's area of light is limited to a circular area of light upon the earth much like the light of a lighthouse is limited to a circular area. This means that only certain portions of the Earth are lightened at a time. It also describes how night and day arise in Flat Earth. The apparent view of rising and setting are caused by perspective, just as the light on a lighthouse will set or rise when you move towards or away from it.

When the moon and sun are at the same altitude one half of the lunar surface is illuminated and pointing towards the sun, This is called the First Quarter Moon. When the observer looks up he will see a shadow cutting the moon in half. The boundary between the illuminated and unilluminated hemispheres is called the terminator

There seem to be obvious flaws in these mutually exclusive options, especially with your disagreement with portions of ENAG.

No the Solar Eclipse is not evidence that the Earth is round

Presumably the moon would produce substantially less light than the sun if it were a light source, and would therefore look black against the sun whether it was a light source or not, so this argument is not sufficient to use to attack the Flat Earth Society's position.

However, the Lunar Eclipse is a colossal piece of evidence for the Earth being round that Aristotle shows us. This was later completely accepted by medieval theologians and scholars (the idea that medieval Christians thought the world was flat is the second greatest error in the history of primary school education in England) and Thomas Aquinas and even Dante Alighieri's great work The Divine Comedy present a spherical Earth completely compliant and even entirely necessary to the Christian doctrines. The idea that the Earth is flat is an older pagan idea and is completely anti-Christian and heretical, even contradicting scripture several times. There is neither a scriptural nor a rational basis upon which to argue that the Earth is flat.

Aristotle saw that during a Lunar Eclipse, these celestial bodies align in this order:

SUN>EARTH>MOON

When this occurs, a perfect round silhouette is cast against the surface of the moon in a bald and completely uncompromising verification that the object we know as the Earth WILL CAST A CIRCULAR SHADOW against the moon, even if the position of the ground we are standing on appears to be at 30% to its face. If the Earth was a flat surface that is always at 90% to our own posture when we are standing, then the shape cast on the moon should look like a contracted ellipse, not a perfect circle (the lunar eclipse occurring whilst the  moon's face is very close to the horizon). The pizza-earth argument has no conceivable answer to this as they would have to then move to the impotent conclusion that the moon must be directly in the center of the sky at the time in order for a pizza to cast a perfectly circular shadow. This is simply not necessary, the earth casts a circular shadow all the time, and the only object that can do this is a sphere. There is simply no other answer to this, and there is neither religious nor scientific basis at all, even from the great Medieval theologians, to support the pizza-earth theory.

I would like to add that flying in an aircraft at high altitude also allows you to see the curve of the Earth with your own naked eye. How do you explain the masts of a ship gradually emerging over the horizon? This is easily observable in normal mundane observation of events on Earth. There is a hundred ways to see the Earth is round just on Earth, you don't need to be an astronaut. The sea does not have hills tall enough to hide an entire ship so there must be an inherent curvature of the SEA. The sea is not flat. Just get a high-altitude flight and take a look out the window and you will be able to see the curvature of the Earth's surface with your own eyes.

The mundane experiences of the average Joe on the street completely defeats your arguments in terms of its bald undeniable evidence. If you guys just lived a normal life you would see that actually you live in a real world, not a fantasy. You probably think that you are getting power or creating a new religious movement, but actually you are an embarrassment to the Christian religion and a total parody that any Christian should be ashamed of. I wouldn't be surprised if you are secretly the agents of a government secularisation program that wants to reduce Christianity to ridicule through such insane associations because you stand alone completely against the vast majority of Christians and are not doing your religion any favours. And if you really are the nutters that I don't actually believe you are, since you have too much of a specific agenda, I would like to suggest you step outside, take a deep breath and get some oxygen in your brain.

But according to FE, the moon does provide it's own light source. When you see the moon at night, and it's white and bright, apparently, according to FE, that is the moons own light, not a reflection of sunlight.

So how do you explain it's invisibility during a solar eclipse?

In addition, the nuclear strategies of world superpowers have been completely dependent on the spherical shape of the Earth in order to hit their targets. In addition the satellite-based technologies we have would be both unnecessary and impossible if the earth was pizza shaped. You have whole global super-powers' entire defensive and technological might bearing down against your argument, and these superpowers were also sworn enemies yet they both upheld this fact that you are trying to cloud. The Japanese Pacific strategy in World War 2 and the Battle of the Atlantic would have been entirely unnecessary if your map of the Earth were accurate, because those oceans are reduced to such geopolitical irrelevance on your map of the Earth. Once again, millions of men shed their blood for Christianity based upon strategies that relied on the Earth being round in order to have any plausibility, and yet you still think you're protecting Christianity by disseminating this total fart of an idea that we live on some kind of pizza modeled in the likeness of the UN's flag. People such as you are testimony to how cynical [some] people can be and how they can exploit the ignorance or poor education of people. You depend entirely on people's lack of knowledge and yet you consider your assertions to provide valid insights.

But according to FE, the moon does provide it's own light source. When you see the moon at night, and it's white and bright, apparently, according to FE, that is the moons own light, not a reflection of sunlight.

So how do you explain it's invisibility during a solar eclipse?

You are thinking of Lunar Eclipse. A solar eclipse is when the moon moves between ourselves and the sun like so SUN>MOON>EARTH. This causes the moon to eclipse the sun and block it. Were the moon to be a light source, a valid answer would be that it is a DIMMER light source than the sun. But the moon is not a light source. This we see in the Lunar Eclipse, when A ROUND SHADOW of the earth goes on the moon. The fact this shadow is possible to be completely black on the moon is both proof that the moon is not producing its own light and proof overall that the Earth is always casting a round shadow wherever its shadow might be visible on a celestial object. The only shape that can do this must be spherical. If the Earth were pizza-shape, we would see an elliptical shadow not a perfect ball shadow all the time. Aristotle figured this out in Ancient Greece thousands of years ago, one of the greatest thinkers of all time. This was accepted by the Church into Christianity and upheld even in the Middle Ages. The FE argument is even in denial of St Thomas Aquinas and all of the greatest Christian figures in history, never mind all of the scientific community. Their argument has absolutely no intellectual basis in Theology, Cosmology, Astronomy or Geophysics and is against the fundamental laws of the universe even from an evangelical position, it is therefore against God and trying to spread denial of God's creation. It is baby-puke and deserves to be treated as the laughing stock it was obviously deliberately set up to be. This is a secularist group not an evangelising group, as it completely ridicules Christianity.

http://www.space.com/images/lunar_eclipse_diagram_030425_03.gif

Try reading the thread.

I'm well aware what a solar eclipse is. When the moon is between the sun, and the earth, it gets dark outside, yeah?

However, according to FE, the moon has it's own light source, so according to FE, it shouldn't be dark out, the moon should be bright, and clearly visible.

I'm asking a FE'er to explain this discrepancy. Do you understand?

Try reading the thread.

I'm well aware what a solar eclipse is. When the moon is between the sun, and the earth, it gets dark outside, yeah?

However, according to FE, the moon has it's own light source, so according to FE, it shouldn't be dark out, the moon should be bright, and clearly visible.

I'm asking a FE'er to explain this discrepancy. Do you understand?

Then I must support the Flat Earth Society's argument against you, that what you are saying is a irrelevance and in fact has nothing to do with any of the Flat Earth Society's assertions at all, it ignores some very simple facts. Just because an object looks black when it is in front of the sun does not mean it is not a light source. if you put any light source that is substantially dimmer than another, such as an LED in front of a very bright torch, you will see that it looks darker because it is dimmer, it blacks out the brighter light source. Sun spots do this. They look black against the sun's surface simply because they are slightly colder zones. They are still millions upon millions of times hotter than anything on Earth yet they look completely black to the observer. I assume what you are saying is that a light source going in front of another light source will make the two both blend into each other and be indiscernible from each other, but that is not true. As I say above, if any object goes in front of the sun even if it is glowing, it will still look black against the sun. So the Solar Eclipse is not any basis at all for proof that the moon is not a source of light. The whole use of this as an argument altogether and therefore the whole thread is simply misleading people into irrelevances. Once again I say, DURING a LUNAR ECLIPSE, THE EARTH'S SHADOW IS CAST ON THE MOON AND THE FACT THERE IS A SHADOW ON IT IS PROOF THAT THE MOON IS NOT GLOWING ON ITS OWN, AND IS IN FACT REFLECTING SUNLIGHT. THE FACT THE EARTH'S SHADOW CAN BLOCK THE LIGHT COMING FROM THE MOON BY BLOCKING THE PASSAGE OF THE SUN'S LIGHT TO THE MOON IS PROOF IT IS REFLECTING IT. In comparison the SOLAR ECLIPSE is simply to do with the moon blocking the sun's light. That is true whether it was producing light itself or not. Either way the light coming to the earth would be dimmer if the moon was dimmer than the sun. And the moon is quite dimmer than the sun, believe me, otherwise it would be daylight whenever there was a full moon...

Once again i say, you aren't reading the thread properly.

If you had a very bright torch, and completely obscured it with a much dimmer torch, you're telling me you wouldn't see any light?

FE or RE, you're just defying the laws of physics right there.

Why don't you go and get a clue, then come back.

I have a dim flashlight and a flashlight with a fresh 6 volt battery at home. I should experiment?

The bottom line is that your argument is not over whether the moon is a light source or not, it is whether it is transparent or not. The answer to this is no, otherwise the stars' light would come through it. Since it blocks the stars it is clearly an opaque object. If it is a light source, it is an opaque light source. This makes it not comparable with a light bulb or a naked flame but more with a ball that has been painted with glow-in-the-dark paint, or a translucent object like a translucent plastic orb with some kind of light bulb inside it. Either way, the fact it is opaque means that it is going to block the sun's rays when it moves in front of it. The sun's rays blocked, it will appear black because the solar eclipse does not entirely block the sun, a small amount of the rays still come from around the moon. The fact those rays will be so much brighter than the dim glow of the moon would automatically mean that the moon looks black. But you won't have read this anyway through fear of the terrible revelation that you are an idiot and this thread is as idiotic as asking if a feather can rescue you from a sinking ship because it floats and is very light-weight. You'll simply skip to the bit where you say:

"please read the thread again""please read the thread again""please read the thread again""please read the thread again""please read the thread again""please read the thread again""please read the thread again""please read the thread again""please read the thread again""please read the thread again""please read the thread again""please read the thread again""please read the thread again""please read the thread again""please read the thread again""please read the thread again""please read the thread again""please read the thread again""please read the thread again""please read the thread again"

If you want to test the theory with an experiment in your room, take your computer screen to be representing the moon's glow since this is an opaque light source, then take the desk lamp and stare at the naked bulb, which imitates staring at the sun, and impose the latter half behind your screen so that the rays from  both the lamp and the screen are coming into your eye and your eye-ball must interpret an image from this. The pupil shrinks when more intense light comes into it, as will occur when the bulb is shining into your eye. When it is shrunken so, it does not recognise a dimmer light source and all dimmer light sources become obscured. The sun is so bright that, for just a small amount of its rays to still be coming at you, any object as close as being directly between it and your eye will look black. In your experiment you will see that at the threshold of the screen and the bulb, the part of the screen closest is pitch black like a silhouette, whereas when the lamp is gone, it had been perfectly visible.

This whole thread is a STRAW MAN with the precise intention of drawing the anti-FES people into a failed argument that they never even thought of, because the FES already prescribed it for them so they would look like failures.

Thinking about Lunar eclipses, surely the shadow cast on it by whatever it is disproves the "glowing moon" theory?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 20, 2009, 04:44:12 AM

Do this.

Post less.

Did that.

Quote

This satellite is called the Shadow Object. Its orbital plane is tilted at an angle of about 5?10' to the sun's orbital plane, making eclipses possible only when the three bodies (Sun, Object, and Moon) are aligned and when the moon is crossing the sun's orbital plane (at a point called the node). Within a given year, considering the orbitals of these celestial bodies, a maximum of three lunar eclipses can occur.

Quote

The lunar phases vary cyclically according to the changing geometry of the Moon and Sun, which are constantly wobbling up and down and exchange altitudes as they rotate around the North Pole.

Since this object can cast a shadow upon the moon, shouldn't it cast a shadow upon the earth as well? Completely independent of being obscured by the sun scattering light it should cast a visible shadow across the earth.

Is the sun orbiting in a plane or do the sun and moon now have 3d "orbits"?

How can the sun illuminate the moon when they are at the same altitude and the sun is a "spotlight" shining toward earth?

Quote

Spotlight effect
The Sun's area of light is limited to a circular area of light upon the earth much like the light of a lighthouse is limited to a circular area. This means that only certain portions of the Earth are lightened at a time. It also describes how night and day arise in Flat Earth. The apparent view of rising and setting are caused by perspective, just as the light on a lighthouse will set or rise when you move towards or away from it.

Quote

When the moon and sun are at the same altitude one half of the lunar surface is illuminated and pointing towards the sun, This is called the First Quarter Moon. When the observer looks up he will see a shadow cutting the moon in half. The boundary between the illuminated and unilluminated hemispheres is called the terminator

There seem to be obvious flaws in these mutually exclusive options, especially with your disagreement with portions of ENAG.

More FE fail.

Once again i say, you aren't reading the thread properly.

If you had a very bright torch, and completely obscured it with a much dimmer torch, you're telling me you wouldn't see any light?

FE or RE, you're just defying the laws of physics right there.

Why don't you go and get a clue, then come back.

1.) An eclipse is a silhouette.

2.) A silhouette is the human eye's reaction when faced with something very bright and a less luminescent object comes between itself and the eye. The sun is very bright and no brighter object is visible to us at any time. It is so bright that we cannot look directly at it. Therefore, anything getting in its way is going to be a silhouette.

3.) Yes your eye may pick up very faint rays from the object that is casting the silhouette, but not nearly the intensity of the rays it gets from the brighter object.

4.) When the eye is faced with an object of extreme brightness and an object of less brightness, how is the pupil going to respond? It's going to shrink in response to the brighter source, in order to minimise the intensity of the light coming in from the brightest source and therefore minimise injury to the eye. This is experienced by the eye if you shine a very bright light into your eye and all other objects in the room, luminescent themselves or not, become very dim or even black in comparison.

5.) And in minimising the intensity of the brighter source's rays coming into the eye, the dimmer source's rays are not going to be detectable by the eye at all, now that the pupil has shrank, in order to minimise overall intensity of rays coming onto receptor cells. Final result: only the intense rays are detected and therefore the image only contains a dimmed image of the most intense light. All other rays are undetectable and will be received as black. The result is an image where the very bright rays are very much received by the eye, but it does not receive any other rays, sending only the brightest part of the image to your brain for you to interpret, and all other parts of this image will appear black, whereas the brightest source will appear very bright.

Once again i say, you aren't reading the thread properly.

If you had a very bright torch, and completely obscured it with a much dimmer torch, you're telling me you wouldn't see any light?

FE or RE, you're just defying the laws of physics right there.

Why don't you go and get a clue, then come back.

I would also like to say it is you who doesn't have a clue, the eye's interpretation of light rays is not in the field of physics at all, it is in the field of biology because it deals exclusively with one organ, the human eye. We are not talking about IR scans or the physical diagrammatic assessment of light rays, we are talking about the naked human eye's interpretation of those rays and you need to read a little about the human eye and the way that these images actually come into your brain, rather than assuming that everything you see is a perfect representation of what is there, which is like thinking you would be able to see a candle three thousand miles away against the sun purely on the basis that it exists, rather than considering the limitations and weaknesses of the human eye.

If you want to get this argument somewhere properly I have a better idea, an IR camera could see that no light is coming from the moon during a solar eclipse and this would be certain evidence as it is more reliable than the human eye, but this isn't what you've been arguing so far. You're arguing that the naked human eye is all that is needed for this, and that is plainly incorrect for a normal human eye. If you have super-human eyeballs that instantaneously adjust brightness and contrast, and can detect the faintest levels of light, and change to heat vision, then that is you, but don't expect everyone to have this ability as my eyes certainly do not and a very bright light tends to dazzle me anyway.

http://abdulhafiiz.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/total_solar_eclipse_20061.jpg

Thinking about Lunar eclipses, surely the shadow cast on it by whatever it is disproves the "glowing moon" theory?

Not only this but it is a double-kill argument since it also disproves the whole idea the earth is flat, in that an obviously round object (our planet!!!) is casting that shadow on the moon anyway.

Quote from: d00gz on November 19, 2009, 02:26:35 AM

Since you don't have an answer, i'll just take it that there is no satisfactory answer.

We have plenty of answers; it's just that you can't be bothered to read them. Given that, why you expect us to be bothered repeating them is beyond me.

Other forums generally lock repeated threads and have a link to the appropriate discussion, topic, nude pics, etc...
Instead of having to read close to 8000 threads in order to not repeat a question why not do some house cleaning.
Thank-you Lord, Lunites rule!

Because most RE'ers refuse to even read the FAQ, never mind every other thread. Besides, this is a discussion forum, not a library. It's for discussion.

Because most RE'ers refuse to even read the FAQ, never mind every other thread. Besides, this is a discussion forum, not a library. It's for discussion.

Sorry I thought you were the administrator. Would you like to discuss my last two questions in "the anti-moon" or should I return to end endless library of unanswered questions.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on January 06, 2010, 08:09:05 PM

Because most RE'ers refuse to even read the FAQ, never mind every other thread. Besides, this is a discussion forum, not a library. It's for discussion.

Sorry I thought you were the administrator. Would you like to discuss my last two questions in "the anti-moon" or should I return to end endless library of unanswered questions.

Just because he helps run this board, that doesn't necessarily mean that he's obligated to debate every noob that comes around.

Quote from: d00gz on December 02, 2009, 07:41:20 AM

Once again i say, you aren't reading the thread properly.

If you had a very bright torch, and completely obscured it with a much dimmer torch, you're telling me you wouldn't see any light?

FE or RE, you're just defying the laws of physics right there.

Why don't you go and get a clue, then come back.

I would also like to say it is you who doesn't have a clue, the eye's interpretation of light rays is not in the field of physics at all, it is in the field of biology because it deals exclusively with one organ, the human eye. We are not talking about IR scans or the physical diagrammatic assessment of light rays, we are talking about the naked human eye's interpretation of those rays and you need to read a little about the human eye and the way that these images actually come into your brain, rather than assuming that everything you see is a perfect representation of what is there, which is like thinking you would be able to see a candle three thousand miles away against the sun purely on the basis that it exists, rather than considering the limitations and weaknesses of the human eye.

If you want to get this argument somewhere properly I have a better idea, an IR camera could see that no light is coming from the moon during a solar eclipse and this would be certain evidence as it is more reliable than the human eye, but this isn't what you've been arguing so far. You're arguing that the naked human eye is all that is needed for this, and that is plainly incorrect for a normal human eye. If you have super-human eyeballs that instantaneously adjust brightness and contrast, and can detect the faintest levels of light, and change to heat vision, then that is you, but don't expect everyone to have this ability as my eyes certainly do not and a very bright light tends to dazzle me anyway.

http://abdulhafiiz.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/total_solar_eclipse_20061.jpg

Em, no we're not. I created the thread, and asked the question, and that wasn't it. Nor at any point did i insunuate that the moon may be transparent. This is why i keep asking you to read the thread, because you're pulling facts and references out of thin air.

The fact remains that if the FE theory, as detailed in the Q&A page was true, in the event of a solar eclipse, we would not all be plunged into darkness, the moon would still be visible, and lit, as it appears at night.

However, we know this does not happen, so why don't you take your "interpretation" and ram it?

Cheers.

Because most RE'ers refuse to even read the FAQ, never mind every other thread. Besides, this is a discussion forum, not a library. It's for discussion.

And when we do read it and question it and its inconsistencies we get some line about how the FAQ does not represent true FET, nor is it complete, nor is it accurate. 

I also think I remember something about redundancy.....

  December 03, 2009, 11:22:45 AM
 
mortimercelestial
 
 
you are merely a govt shill. ie "millions of men died for Christianity" in the nwo/illuminati wars. What a joke - millions were slaughtered as sacrifices to the "god of this world" as states the BIBLE, moron.
As well, the BIBLE states God says "earth is IMMOVABLE". Try reading the BIBLE, nasa shill.