If the earth is round.

It seems you are having a really hard time understanding my metaphor. So I suppose I will spoon feed you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eclipse_cycle

Quote from: FlatAllTheWay on August 02, 2014, 01:01:35 PM

The point is that RE theory predicts eclipses perfectly every time.  FE theory cannot predict eclipses, can it?

And who makes these predictions?

It doesn't matter "who" makes the predictions.  The point is that the predictions rely on the assumption that the earth is round.  Any person or any computer that does these round-earth-based calculations will get the same result about the dates and times of eclipses, and those predictions are always true. 

Quote from: flatulence on August 02, 2014, 01:03:45 PM

Quote from: FlatAllTheWay on August 02, 2014, 01:01:35 PM

The point is that RE theory predicts eclipses perfectly every time.  FE theory cannot predict eclipses, can it?

And who makes these predictions?

It doesn't matter "who" makes the predictions.  The point is that the predictions rely on the assumption that the earth is round.  Any person or any computer that does these round-earth-based calculations will get the same result about the dates and times of eclipses, and those predictions are always true.

Actually, as I just pointed out, One only needs to have a record of previous eclipses. Once you have that, only then can you make a round earth model that accounts for the cycles that actually take place.

Does a flat earth model account for the apparent retro motion in planets orbits as seen from earth?

Does a flat earth model account for the apparent retro motion in planets orbits as seen from earth?

Perhaps you should make a topic about that in Q&A instead of continuing to derail my thread.

I'm just saying that if fe cannot accurately explain all celestial movements it obviously can't be a correct theory.

I'm just saying that if fe cannot accurately explain all celestial movements it obviously can't be a correct theory.

I understand what you are saying and I'd be happy to talk about that when you make a thread about it. This thread is not about that.

Well you started talking about celestial bodies. Hear we are talking about celestial bodies.

Vauxhall returns.

Well you started talking about celestial bodies. Hear we are talking about celestial bodies.

I started talking about celestial bodies and the pictures of them and whether those pictures are real or not. Since you were not able to prove that they are you tried to make this thread be about predictive data. I didn't mind in the first instance when were talking about the eclipses so I answered that and told you how it is actually done using the astronomical record. Since you failed there again you continued to try and derail it by bringing up retrograde. It is simply the last straw for this thread as my the point in my op clearly stands. Furthermore, I'm willing to discuss other matters with you if you want to make a new thread. So again, if that is your wish then please do so.

I have to prove the pictures are real?

Surely you have to prove they are not?

If you don't have to prove that they are real then earlier in this thread I proved that unicorns are real. Can we agree that unicorns are real?

No because no evidence has ever been presented for them. I don't use photos as evidence I use photos as representations of what I can see with my own eyes. May not in the same detail or clarity but I have seen a lot of these things myself.

You have seen the roundness of earth with your own eyes?

Yes in the shadows on the moon during a lunar eclipse.

How does that prove the earth isn't flat?

On its own it does not conclusively but for such an event to happen the sun needs to be behind a round earth to project a round shadow

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap080820.html

Explain how what you can see in this picture is the case. Baring in mind the picture isn't evidence it's an example of what I have seen with my own eyes. As I am sure many others have.

On its own it does not conclusively but for such an event to happen the sun needs to be behind a round earth to project a round shadow

So assumptive. It is also possible that the sun or some other light source is behind a circle and we are seeing that shadow on the moon. Given that the earth is flat, it is more likely that you are wrong.

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap080820.html

Explain how what you can see in this picture is the case. Baring in mind the picture isn't evidence it's an example of what I have seen with my own eyes. As I am sure many others have.

I think I know what the problem is. You think that I use the same model as the rest of the flat earth community.

You see now you have to start inventing other light sources or objects to explain what I can with one simple fact. The earth is round. No magic anti sun needed no moon shrimps. No bendy light. Just one simple fact. The earth is round.

You see now you have to start inventing other light sources or objects to explain what I can with one simple fact. The earth is round. No magic anti sun needed no moon shrimps. No bendy light. Just one simple fact. The earth is round.

You have not even given me a chance to talk about my model nor have you established any facts so stop kidding yourself. You don't have to invent anything. If you are here later I'll talk more about it but I am dozing off right now and that's why posts have been getting shorter. Time for a nap.

Well the floor is yours. We await your model.

If you are suggesting that images of earth from outerspace are not composites then it would be you that is having difficulty telling the difference between a composite/non-composite image.

Your comment regarding the nebula shows that you can't even comprehend high-def infrared telescope imagery.  It's widely known that most FE'rs dont (or pretend not to) understand photography anyway.  They don't understand the differences between zoom, wide-angle, and fisheye photography, exposure, or how zoom/actual camera distance can affect objects comparable sizes in photographs.
 

I am saying that they all are.

Say it all you want, it doesn't make you right.

As far as reading information, my claim is that that information is fraudulent. I have already said as much, or do you not bother with reading the post you are responding to?

In the post I was responding to, you posted a mosaic image and talked about how easily they can deceive the brain (which the image in question does not, at least for most of us).  You then only mention a diversion.  Anyway, if they show a composite or mosaic, and label it as such, then how is the information fraudulent?

Quote from: flatulence on August 02, 2014, 10:44:53 AM

If you are suggesting that images of earth from outerspace are not composites then it would be you that is having difficulty telling the difference between a composite/non-composite image.

Your comment regarding the nebula shows that you can't even comprehend high-def infrared telescope imagery.  It's widely known that most FE'rs dont (or pretend not to) understand photography anyway.  They don't understand the differences between zoom, wide-angle, and fisheye photography, exposure, or how zoom/actual camera distance can affect objects comparable sizes in photographs.
 

Quote

I am saying that they all are.

Say it all you want, it doesn't make you right.

Quote

As far as reading information, my claim is that that information is fraudulent. I have already said as much, or do you not bother with reading the post you are responding to?

In the post I was responding to, you posted a mosaic image and talked about how easily they can deceive the brain (which the image in question does not, at least for most of us).  You then only mention a diversion.  Anyway, if they show a composite or mosaic, and label it as such, then how is the information fraudulent?

You don't seen to understand why I posted the mosaic. It is obviously not intended to be thought of as real but still, despite that we can see how it is taking the of the alleged round earth. This is just how indoctrinated we are. We can make out a shape of something which does not even exist. I went on to say that one can only imagine how much more convinced we would be if the source images were of a higher quality and if they were of the features that the conspiring agency is trying to pass them off to be.

By the way have you had time to present us with your model yet?

By the way have you had time to present us with your model yet?

It is still in development. Please be patient.

Okey fair enough.

You don't seen to understand why I posted the mosaic. It is obviously not intended to be thought of as real but still, despite that we can see how it is taking the of the alleged round earth. This is just how indoctrinated we are. We can make out a shape of something which does not even exist. I went on to say that one can only imagine how much more convinced we would be if the source images were of a higher quality and if they were of the features that the conspiring agency is trying to pass them off to be.

So do you have an example of one of those real looking fake pictures in particular that is labeled as 'real'?

Quote from: flatulence on August 03, 2014, 10:03:22 AM

You don't seen to understand why I posted the mosaic. It is obviously not intended to be thought of as real but still, despite that we can see how it is taking the of the alleged round earth. This is just how indoctrinated we are. We can make out a shape of something which does not even exist. I went on to say that one can only imagine how much more convinced we would be if the source images were of a higher quality and if they were of the features that the conspiring agency is trying to pass them off to be.

So do you have an example of one of those real looking fake pictures in particular that is labeled as 'real'?

I feel like I've repeated myself enough in this thread. Please reread it.