Solar Eclipse

I'm sure this must have been asked before, but searching for "eclipse" returns more threads than i can be bothered to look at.

A solar eclipse occurs when the moon passes between the sun and the earth, partially or fully blocking out the sun.

What's the FE explanation for this? As according to FE the moon produces it's own light, so in this event, the moon should still be light and clearly visible?

I'm sure this must have been asked before, but searching for "eclipse" returns more threads than i can be bothered to look at.

Browsing this forum returns more threads than I can be bothered to answer. The debate isn't going to be any briefer this time round, so I suggest you read those threads.

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

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.

If you were to ask me for the RE explanation for it, i'd quite happily explain it to you.

However, as you seem to be unable to explain a satisfactory and universally accepted answer, i am forced to presume there isn't one.

This is a Q&A forum, i can't think of a better place to ask a question like this, as a mod, you should be aware of this, and your replies are both useless, and unhelpful. Why don't you keep useless and unhelpful posts like you have posted in this thread, out of the serious discussion fora

Don't memberate.


I'm simply pointing that you've already found answers that are as good as any you'll get in this thread. It's one thing for an interested newcomer to ask a question, quite another for someone who's been here ages to say "yeah, I found these threads but can't be bothered to read them; please treat me like a baby". I'm always happy to help people out, but you're just being lazy.

No, the point is that i haven't found the answer. If i'd found the answer, why would i waste my time posting these comments?

Clearly you don't have an answer, nor do you have anything useful to contribute here, so why don't you just be quiet?

No, the point is that i haven't found the answer. If i'd found the answer, why would i waste my time posting these comments?

Clearly you don't have an answer, nor do you have anything useful to contribute here, so why don't you just be quiet?

How could you find the answer if you didn't bother to read the threads?

I have read some of the threads. I did not find an answer. So instead of reading them all day long, i posted a thread here, posing the question.

Do you understand?

You said there were other threads you didn't bother to look at. Perhaps you'll find your answer in those threads?

Perhaps i would.

However, as this is a forum for questions to be answered, i didn't think i was out of line by posting this here.

Your inability to answer the question effectively answers the question, as clearly you have no suitable explanation.

Why you couldn't just say that in the first place, i do not know.

I believe it was explained before that solar eclipses are caused by the anti-moon (previously known as the "shadow object") blocking the sun. Others insisted that the moon is simply closer to the Earth.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30841.msg755786#msg755786
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=32119.msg792631#msg792631

Here's one of the other answers:

The solar eclipse occurs on a narrow strip of land because other observers are looking at the sun and moon a a different angle where the two don't line up. It's evidence for a close sun/moon.

Perhaps i would.

However, as this is a forum for questions to be answered, i didn't think i was out of line by posting this here.

Your inability to answer the question effectively answers the question, as clearly you have no suitable explanation.

Why you couldn't just say that in the first place, i do not know.

Because it just comes across as genuinely lazy when someone comes in, tells us they couldn't be bothered to read the threads they found via the search, and then demands an answer. If you were a newcomer it would be one thing, but I know you've been involved in several discussions about the sun and moon (if not specifically about eclipses), so I feel pretty justified in giving you a hard time about it.


You're perfectly within your rights to post this question here, and I never said you weren't. As a moderator I'm obligated to obey and enforce the rules, but I'm perfectly within my rights to call you lazy if you simply can't be bothered to read up on the subject. Sorry, just calling it as I see it.

Jack, if you read the question, you'll see that you haven't answered it.

According to FE, the moon is it's own light source. So when a solar eclipse occurs, and this "anti-moon" blocks out the sun's light, where does the moon go? Why is it not still visible?

According to FE, the moon is it's own light source. So when a solar eclipse occurs, and this "anti-moon" blocks out the sun's light, where does the moon go? Why is it not still visible?

Personally, I don't think the moon emits its own light. However, if the moon does emit its own light, then it probably goes behind the sun while the anti-moon blocks the sun's light.

Because it just comes across as genuinely lazy when someone comes in, tells us they couldn't be bothered to read the threads they found via the search, and then demands an answer.

+1

Those sample answers I gave were on the first page of the search result. It shouldn't take too long to find answers. I understand this is Q&A and we should try answering your questions, but I think you should do your part too (search, lurk, etc).

I have searched. i have lurked. I can't find a satisfactory answer to my question.  The moon goes behind the sun while the antimoon covers them both? That is a guess at best, a rambling at worst.

I don't understand why you don't just say "I don't know" or just don't bother posting in the first place?

I heard it was when god accidentally think it's nap time on earth, so he flicks the light switch.

- The Sun is at 3000 miles in altitude.

- The Moon is below it.

- The Solar Eclipse occurs when the Moon passes in front of the Sun.

- The Solar Eclipse does not occur everywhere on earth at once. It occurs only on a narrow strip of land.

- The people who can see the sun during the event are not located on this narrow strip. They are looking at an angle where the two do not line up.

- The Sun is at 3000 miles in altitude.

- The Moon is below it.

- The Solar Eclipse occurs when the Moon passes in front of the Sun.

Hmm...  I thought that FET says that the sun and moon are at the same altitude above the FE.  How far below the sun is the moon during a solar eclipse?

- The Solar Eclipse does not occur everywhere on earth at once. It occurs only on a narrow strip of land.

- The people who can see the sun during the event are not located on this narrow strip. They are looking at an angle where the two do not line up.

Can FET predict where this narrow strip of land (or ocean) will be for the solar eclipses in 2012?

Hmm...  I thought that FET says that the sun and moon are at the same altitude above the FE.

Where does it say that?

How far below the sun is the moon during a solar eclipse?

Unknown. The diameter of the narrow strip of land where the eclipse is visible might tell us something.

Can FET predict where this narrow strip of land (or ocean) will be for the solar eclipses in 2012?

You just have to use the same ancient pattern charts NASA uses for predicting the eclipses.

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

Quote

Hmm...  I thought that FET says that the sun and moon are at the same altitude above the FE.

Where does it say that?

Haven't you read the FAQ?

Q: "What about the stars, sun and moon and other planets? Are they flat too? What are they made of?"

A1: The sun and moon, each 32 miles in diameter, rotate at a height of 3000 miles above sea level. As they are spotlights, they only illuminate certain places. This explains why there are nights and days on Earth.

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.

Quote

Can FET predict where this narrow strip of land (or ocean) will be for the solar eclipses in 2012?

You just have to use the same ancient cycle charts NASA uses for predicting the eclipses.

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

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

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?

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

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.

- The Sun is at 3000 miles in altitude.

- The Moon is below it.

- The Solar Eclipse occurs when the Moon passes in front of the Sun.

- The Solar Eclipse does not occur everywhere on earth at once. It occurs only on a narrow strip of land.

- The people who can see the sun during the event are not located on this narrow strip. They are looking at an angle where the two do not line up.

Once again, you've missed the point.

Lets assume for a second, that this ridiculous theory is true, why can you not see the moon?

The moon has it's own light source. What happens to this light source when the moon passes in front of the sun? The moon should be clearly visible, lighting up the dark sky.

But it isn't. Could you please explain this for me?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 19, 2009, 07:54:27 PM

- The Sun is at 3000 miles in altitude.

- The Moon is below it.

- The Solar Eclipse occurs when the Moon passes in front of the Sun.

- The Solar Eclipse does not occur everywhere on earth at once. It occurs only on a narrow strip of land.

- The people who can see the sun during the event are not located on this narrow strip. They are looking at an angle where the two do not line up.

Once again, you've missed the point.

Lets assume for a second, that this ridiculous theory is true, why can you not see the moon?

The moon has it's own light source. What happens to this light source when the moon passes in front of the sun? The moon should be clearly visible, lighting up the dark sky.

But it isn't. Could you please explain this for me?

I don't believe the moon has a light source.

I don't believe the moon has a light source.

Tom,

It's encouraging to see that you are starting to disagree with some of Rowbotham's conclusions:

    "It has been shown that the moon is not a reflector of the sun's light, but is self-luminous."

I'm in total agreement with you here: Rowbotham is talking complete nonsense.

So if the moon doesn't have its own light source, how does it appear to be lit up? If it is underneath the sun, the underside of the moon that we see can't possibly be reflecting light from the sun.

Please clarify.

It's encouraging to see that you are starting to disagree with some of Rowbotham's conclusions:

Starting to disagree? I never agreed that the moon had a light source.

If it does have a light source, I have not interpreted enough to conclude that it does.

So if the moon doesn't have its own light source, how does it appear to be lit up? If it is underneath the sun, the underside of the moon that we see can't possibly be reflecting light from the sun.

Please clarify.

Why can't it be lit up by the sun?

The phase always follows the sun's direction.

Because the sun is on the other side, you've just stated the sun is higher above the earth than the moon.

Shine a light onto your hand. Then look at the other side of your hand. Is it lit up? No. So, again, can you explain this? I mean actually explain it, instead of answering with another question?

Do this.

Post less.

Quote

It's encouraging to see that you are starting to disagree with some of Rowbotham's conclusions:

Starting to disagree? I never agreed that the moon had a light source.

So you agree that some of Rowbotham's conclusions are wrong.   Thanks, that's all we needed to know.