Question: How exactly do eclipses work with a flat earth?

I did read the article this website has about it, but I see flaws on it. Is there any way to illustrate the issue?

The problem is: As the Shadow Body casts shadow on the moon, wouldn't it also cast shadow on Earth and block the Earth's vision of the sun, at least partially?

I did read the article this website has about it, but I see flaws on it. Is there any way to illustrate the issue?

The problem is: As the Shadow Body casts shadow on the moon, wouldn't it also cast shadow on Earth and block the Earth's vision of the sun, at least partially?

That depends where the Shadow Object is. Not all bodies which orbit the sun transit across its surface between the earth and the sun.

How many bodies do orbit the sun Tom.

Quote from: lupadim on January 04, 2015, 05:15:13 PM

I did read the article this website has about it, but I see flaws on it. Is there any way to illustrate the issue?

The problem is: As the Shadow Body casts shadow on the moon, wouldn't it also cast shadow on Earth and block the Earth's vision of the sun, at least partially?

That depends where the Shadow Object is. Not all bodies which orbit the sun transit across its surface between the earth and the sun.

Would you care to show us a diagram of an object capable of casting a shadow on the moon in such an orbit?

How many bodies do orbit the sun Tom.

All the planets and asteroids.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 04, 2015, 06:25:47 PM

Quote from: lupadim on January 04, 2015, 05:15:13 PM

I did read the article this website has about it, but I see flaws on it. Is there any way to illustrate the issue?

The problem is: As the Shadow Body casts shadow on the moon, wouldn't it also cast shadow on Earth and block the Earth's vision of the sun, at least partially?

That depends where the Shadow Object is. Not all bodies which orbit the sun transit across its surface between the earth and the sun.

Would you care to show us a diagram of an object capable of casting a shadow on the moon in such an orbit?

Not really. I'm only passing through.

Quote from: markjo on January 04, 2015, 06:46:51 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 04, 2015, 06:25:47 PM

Quote from: lupadim on January 04, 2015, 05:15:13 PM

I did read the article this website has about it, but I see flaws on it. Is there any way to illustrate the issue?

The problem is: As the Shadow Body casts shadow on the moon, wouldn't it also cast shadow on Earth and block the Earth's vision of the sun, at least partially?

That depends where the Shadow Object is. Not all bodies which orbit the sun transit across its surface between the earth and the sun.

Would you care to show us a diagram of an object capable of casting a shadow on the moon in such an orbit?

Not really. I'm only passing through.

Typical. 

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 04, 2015, 07:29:53 PM

Quote from: markjo on January 04, 2015, 06:46:51 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 04, 2015, 06:25:47 PM

Quote from: lupadim on January 04, 2015, 05:15:13 PM

I did read the article this website has about it, but I see flaws on it. Is there any way to illustrate the issue?

The problem is: As the Shadow Body casts shadow on the moon, wouldn't it also cast shadow on Earth and block the Earth's vision of the sun, at least partially?

That depends where the Shadow Object is. Not all bodies which orbit the sun transit across its surface between the earth and the sun.

Would you care to show us a diagram of an object capable of casting a shadow on the moon in such an orbit?

Not really. I'm only passing through.

Typical. 

Why don't you contribute something to this community for once?

Quote from: markjo on January 04, 2015, 08:10:41 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 04, 2015, 07:29:53 PM

Quote from: markjo on January 04, 2015, 06:46:51 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 04, 2015, 06:25:47 PM

Quote from: lupadim on January 04, 2015, 05:15:13 PM

I did read the article this website has about it, but I see flaws on it. Is there any way to illustrate the issue?

The problem is: As the Shadow Body casts shadow on the moon, wouldn't it also cast shadow on Earth and block the Earth's vision of the sun, at least partially?

That depends where the Shadow Object is. Not all bodies which orbit the sun transit across its surface between the earth and the sun.

Would you care to show us a diagram of an object capable of casting a shadow on the moon in such an orbit?

Not really. I'm only passing through.

Typical. 

Why don't you contribute something to this community for once?

Why won't you support your claims with evidence?

Why won't you support your claims with evidence?

But I do. The evidence that there is a body passing between the sun and the moon during a lunar eclipse is that a shadow appears on the moon's surface.

Tom, I have another question for you. According to the TFES wiki, full moon happens when the moon orbit is above the altitude of the sun. My question is why does this Shadow Object only cast its shadow on the moon when the moon is in full phase (full moon) and not in other phases (crescent, 1st/3rd quarter etc)?

Tom, I have another question for you. According to the TFES wiki, full moon happens when the moon orbit is above the altitude of the sun. My question is why does this Shadow Object only cast its shadow on the moon when the moon is in full phase (full moon) and not in other phases (crescent, 1st/3rd quarter etc)?

Some thoughts:

1. As mentioned in the Wik article on the Shadow Objecti, the Shadow Object rotates at an angle to the sun's orbital plane.

2. There is some kind of pattern for the vertical movement of bodies in the cosmos. They rise and fall at the same time independent of the sun. But this is a matter we have not really studied. When the moon is at its highest point, the shadow object is also at its highest point, and are the furthest from the sun. They are most likely to align at this time.

That is because, of two reasons:

1. As mentioned in the Wik articlei, the Shadow Object rotates at an angle to the sun's orbital plane.

I am sorry but that doesn't make sense to me. I still don't understand why the fact that the Shadow Object rotates at an angle to the sun's orbital plane makes it impossible to cast its shadow on the moon when the moon is not orbiting above the sun.

2. There is some kind of pattern for the vertical movement of bodies in the cosmos. They rise and fall at the same time independent of the sun. But this is a matter we have not really studied.

I completely don't get this one Tom

I am sorry but that doesn't make sense to me. I still don't understand why the fact that the Shadow Object rotates at an angle to the sun's orbital plane makes it impossible to cast its shadow on the moon when the moon is not orbiting above the sun.

If the Shadow Object is orbiting the sun at an angle to its plane then there are only limited points where it could align with a third body.

For example, the shadow object wouldn't be spending much time at a location on the exact plane of the sun, always quickly passing through, only there momentarily at two points on its circular path around the sun, so there is less of a chance that it would cast a shadow on an object aligned with the sun's plane. However, as the Shadow Object moves on its upwards path away from the sun it is casting a long sweeping shadow pointing slightly upwards for a long period of time. A high body, such as the moon at its high point, might catch that shadow.

Quote from: Cartesian on January 05, 2015, 02:58:34 AM

I am sorry but that doesn't make sense to me. I still don't understand why the fact that the Shadow Object rotates at an angle to the sun's orbital plane makes it impossible to cast its shadow on the moon when the moon is not orbiting above the sun.

If the Shadow Object is orbiting the sun at an angle to its plane then there are only a few points where it could align with a third body.

For example, the shadow object wouldn't be spending much time at a location on the exact plane of the sun, always quickly passing through, so there is less of a chance that it would cast a shadow on an object on the sun's plane. However, as the Shadow object moves on its upwards path away from the sun it is casting a long sweeping shadow pointing slightly upwards. A high body, such as the moon at its high point, might catch that shadow.

Ideally you should use a diagram to help clarify what you are trying to say. In RE we can easily understand how lunar eclipse occurs and why we don't see lunar eclipse for each full moon. A picture is worth a thousand words.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 05, 2015, 03:11:33 AM

Quote from: Cartesian on January 05, 2015, 02:58:34 AM

I am sorry but that doesn't make sense to me. I still don't understand why the fact that the Shadow Object rotates at an angle to the sun's orbital plane makes it impossible to cast its shadow on the moon when the moon is not orbiting above the sun.

If the Shadow Object is orbiting the sun at an angle to its plane then there are only a few points where it could align with a third body.

For example, the shadow object wouldn't be spending much time at a location on the exact plane of the sun, always quickly passing through, so there is less of a chance that it would cast a shadow on an object on the sun's plane. However, as the Shadow object moves on its upwards path away from the sun it is casting a long sweeping shadow pointing slightly upwards. A high body, such as the moon at its high point, might catch that shadow.

Ideally you should use a diagram to help clarify what you are trying to say. In RE we can easily understand how lunar eclipse occurs and why we don't see lunar eclipse for each full moon. A picture is worth a thousand words.

I am just passing through as a matter of charity. I don't really have the time or inclination. I have stated the matter in simple, plain English words, and that is enough coinage from me.

So we count with a huge coincidence, as in a chance of one in one million, for FE eclipses? But shouldn't the scenario I described in the OP eventually happen thus proving a flat earth? (The Shadow Object being positioned in such a way that would block Earth's vision of the sun at least partially while at the same time causing a lunar eclipse)

Quote from: markjo on January 04, 2015, 09:02:28 PM

Why won't you support your claims with evidence?

But I do. The evidence that there is a body passing between the sun and the moon during a lunar eclipse is that a shadow appears on the moon's surface.

No, that is an assertion.  Evidence would be a photograph of said body or a model showing how that body could cast a shadow on the moon without being visible from earth.

Seriously Tom, if you don't even know the difference between an assertion and evidence, then it's no wonder that FES is synonymous with ignorance.

So we count with a huge coincidence, as in a chance of one in one million, for FE eclipses? But shouldn't the scenario I described in the OP eventually happen thus proving a flat earth? (The Shadow Object being positioned in such a way that would block Earth's vision of the sun at least partially while at the same time causing a lunar eclipse)

That would depend where the Shadow Object is. Not all things that orbit the sun transit its surface.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 04, 2015, 11:25:02 PM

Quote from: markjo on January 04, 2015, 09:02:28 PM

Why won't you support your claims with evidence?

But I do. The evidence that there is a body passing between the sun and the moon during a lunar eclipse is that a shadow appears on the moon's surface.

No, that is an assertion.  Evidence would be a photograph of said body or a model showing how that body could cast a shadow on the moon without being visible from earth.

Seriously Tom, if you don't even know the difference between an assertion and evidence, then it's no wonder that FES is synonymous with ignorance.

It's evidence. The question of why it is not visible in the night sky, what it is, its properties, are separate questions. But the shadow on the moon is direct evidence that a body of some form exists to cast that shadow. Even RET uses this fact to justify the explanation that a body passes between the sun and the moon.

It's evidence. The question of why it is not visible in the night sky, what it is, its properties, are separate questions. But the shadow on the moon is direct evidence that a body of some form exists to cast that shadow. Even RET uses this fact to justify the explanation that a body passes between the sun and the moon.

Yes, RET does claim that a body (the earth) passes between the sun and moon.  However, RET provides evidence in the form of being able to provide a model showing that when the sun and moon are 180 degrees apart (give or take a bit of atomospheric refraction) and on the same orbital plane, the earth is in a position to cast its umbral shadow on the moon causing a total lunar eclipse.  FET has yet to provide an equivalent model.

In fact they have invented a invisible body they cannot prove exists to explain the fe model.  Isn't that what they accuse re of doing with gravity? Although we can prove gravity.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 05, 2015, 08:18:23 AM

It's evidence. The question of why it is not visible in the night sky, what it is, its properties, are separate questions. But the shadow on the moon is direct evidence that a body of some form exists to cast that shadow. Even RET uses this fact to justify the explanation that a body passes between the sun and the moon.

Yes, RET does claim that a body (the earth) passes between the sun and moon.  However, RET provides evidence in the form of being able to provide a model showing that when the sun and moon are 180 degrees apart (give or take a bit of atomospheric refraction) and on the same orbital plane, the earth is in a position to cast its umbral shadow on the moon causing a total lunar eclipse.  FET has yet to provide an equivalent model.

RET uses the Sarros Cycle, an ancient Babylonian method, to predict the Lunar Eclipse. We keep asking for a RET geometric model that has been shown to predict the eclipse, but we keep getting linked to NASA Astrophysicists who use methods created by ancient Flat Earth scientists.

How many times and how many years do we need to ask before we can conclude that this "superior predictive model" of yours does not, in fact, exist?

RET uses the Sarros Cycle, an ancient Babylonian method, to predict the Lunar Eclipse. We keep asking for a RET geometric model that has been shown to predict the eclipse, but we keep getting linked to NASA Astrophysicists who use methods created by ancient Flat Earth scientists.

How many times and how many years do we need to ask before we can conclude that this "superior predictive model" of yours does not, in fact, exist?

Did you miss the part about VSOP87 theory describing planetary motions in the other prediction thread?

The VSOP87 theory and solutions, by Pierre Bretagnon and Gerard Francou of Bureau des Longitudes, are likely the most used and most accurate algorithms available today for determining the positions of the planets without using interpolation. It consists of a large number of periodic terms that are then added up together in a special way to produce the 3-dimensional heliocentric coordinates of any planet at any moment in time for thousands of years into the future and the past. These coordinates can then be converted through a few transformations into geocentric coordinates which can be used to show their position as seen from Earth.

Your turn.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 05, 2015, 09:06:28 AM

RET uses the Sarros Cycle, an ancient Babylonian method, to predict the Lunar Eclipse. We keep asking for a RET geometric model that has been shown to predict the eclipse, but we keep getting linked to NASA Astrophysicists who use methods created by ancient Flat Earth scientists.

How many times and how many years do we need to ask before we can conclude that this "superior predictive model" of yours does not, in fact, exist?

Did you miss the part about VSOP87 theory describing planetary motions in the other prediction thread?

Quote from: http://www.caglow.com/info/compute/vsop87

The VSOP87 theory and solutions, by Pierre Bretagnon and Gerard Francou of Bureau des Longitudes, are likely the most used and most accurate algorithms available today for determining the positions of the planets without using interpolation. It consists of a large number of periodic terms that are then added up together in a special way to produce the 3-dimensional heliocentric coordinates of any planet at any moment in time for thousands of years into the future and the past. These coordinates can then be converted through a few transformations into geocentric coordinates which can be used to show their position as seen from Earth.

Your turn.

There are a lot of little solar system models. Where have the predictions of that model been shown to match reality?

I don't see any section for "experiments or "observations" on that page.

Quote from: markjo on January 05, 2015, 09:35:21 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 05, 2015, 09:06:28 AM

RET uses the Sarros Cycle, an ancient Babylonian method, to predict the Lunar Eclipse. We keep asking for a RET geometric model that has been shown to predict the eclipse, but we keep getting linked to NASA Astrophysicists who use methods created by ancient Flat Earth scientists.

How many times and how many years do we need to ask before we can conclude that this "superior predictive model" of yours does not, in fact, exist?

Did you miss the part about VSOP87 theory describing planetary motions in the other prediction thread?

Quote from: http://www.caglow.com/info/compute/vsop87

The VSOP87 theory and solutions, by Pierre Bretagnon and Gerard Francou of Bureau des Longitudes, are likely the most used and most accurate algorithms available today for determining the positions of the planets without using interpolation. It consists of a large number of periodic terms that are then added up together in a special way to produce the 3-dimensional heliocentric coordinates of any planet at any moment in time for thousands of years into the future and the past. These coordinates can then be converted through a few transformations into geocentric coordinates which can be used to show their position as seen from Earth.

Your turn.

There are a lot of little solar system models. Where have the predictions of that model been shown to match reality?

I don't see any section for "experiments or "observations" on that page.

You also missed the reference I provided you for NOVAS used by the USNO.  Not a single mention of the Saros Cycle and can calculate the position of any celestial body displaying parallax to milliarcseconds from multiple frames of reference. 

You are an incredible hypocrite by the way.  You claim on the one-hand that there is no evidence for space-time warping because it has not been directly observed, and then on the other hand, you claim that the shadow object has evidence because you can observe it's shadow.

Quote from: markjo on January 05, 2015, 09:35:21 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 05, 2015, 09:06:28 AM

RET uses the Sarros Cycle, an ancient Babylonian method, to predict the Lunar Eclipse. We keep asking for a RET geometric model that has been shown to predict the eclipse, but we keep getting linked to NASA Astrophysicists who use methods created by ancient Flat Earth scientists.

How many times and how many years do we need to ask before we can conclude that this "superior predictive model" of yours does not, in fact, exist?

Did you miss the part about VSOP87 theory describing planetary motions in the other prediction thread?

Quote from: http://www.caglow.com/info/compute/vsop87

The VSOP87 theory and solutions, by Pierre Bretagnon and Gerard Francou of Bureau des Longitudes, are likely the most used and most accurate algorithms available today for determining the positions of the planets without using interpolation. It consists of a large number of periodic terms that are then added up together in a special way to produce the 3-dimensional heliocentric coordinates of any planet at any moment in time for thousands of years into the future and the past. These coordinates can then be converted through a few transformations into geocentric coordinates which can be used to show their position as seen from Earth.

Your turn.

There are a lot of little solar system models. Where have the predictions of that model been shown to match reality?

I don't see any section for "experiments or "observations" on that page.

It would be quite an event if an eclipse didn't happen exactly as predicted. Have you ever observed an eclipse? Did it happen as expected?

See the last part of this post for other examples of routine predictions and verification based on mathematical solar-system models.

There are a lot of little solar system models. Where have the predictions of that model been shown to match reality?

I don't see any section for "experiments or "observations" on that page.

The predictions are made by the astronomy applications that use the VSOP87 algorithms and the observations are made by the people who use said astronomy applications to help them find the planets in the night sky.

If you like, you can use VSOP87 in your own software and verify the accuracy of the algorithms yourself.
http://www.neoprogrammics.com/vsop87/source_code_generator_tool/
http://www.freevbcode.com/ShowCode.asp?ID=464
http://www.mmto.org/~dclark/Reports/MountDoxygen/html/vsop87_8c_source.html
http://www.moshier.net/

You are an incredible hypocrite by the way.  You claim on the one-hand that there is no evidence for space-time warping because it has not been directly observed, and then on the other hand, you claim that the shadow object has evidence because you can observe it's shadow.

I can explain space-time warping for our buddy Tom.

Space-time warping is assumed to be existent by Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, but was not proven to be a thing. Now, though, we CAN view it by measuring the bending of light around a celestial body. Light gets bent by the gravity wells generated by 'mass'ive objects such as stars and this is a measurable effect. This in turn proves space-time warping as space is the general term for matter, and matter is non-random information particles, but the most important part is the information which subclasses energies of things such as gravity, electricity, magnetism, and excludes gamma radiation from the aforementioned group. Since light is able to reliably transfer information (Fiber optics) and is able to be interacted with (Lasers, generation of electromagnetic fields to bend a beam of light, fiber optics), then it is assumed to be matter - a photon. Since a photon is now shown to be matter, we can extend the laws of General Space and say that the General Space-time theories will apply to a photon, and this is proven to be correct as we can alter the flow of light through a powerful enough electromagnetic field in a laboratory. It's the same idea as using an EMF to bend the flow of water!

Quote from: Cartesian on January 05, 2015, 03:21:49 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 05, 2015, 03:11:33 AM

Quote from: Cartesian on January 05, 2015, 02:58:34 AM

I am sorry but that doesn't make sense to me. I still don't understand why the fact that the Shadow Object rotates at an angle to the sun's orbital plane makes it impossible to cast its shadow on the moon when the moon is not orbiting above the sun.

If the Shadow Object is orbiting the sun at an angle to its plane then there are only a few points where it could align with a third body.

For example, the shadow object wouldn't be spending much time at a location on the exact plane of the sun, always quickly passing through, so there is less of a chance that it would cast a shadow on an object on the sun's plane. However, as the Shadow object moves on its upwards path away from the sun it is casting a long sweeping shadow pointing slightly upwards. A high body, such as the moon at its high point, might catch that shadow.

Ideally you should use a diagram to help clarify what you are trying to say. In RE we can easily understand how lunar eclipse occurs and why we don't see lunar eclipse for each full moon. A picture is worth a thousand words.

I am just passing through as a matter of charity. I don't really have the time or inclination. I have stated the matter in simple, plain English words, and that is enough coinage from me.

Oh Tom, thank you soooooo much for the charity. I guess you wont be here long since the scientifically literate here is far far higher than the sheep you have over at tfes?

You also missed the reference I provided you for NOVAS used by the USNO.  Not a single mention of the Saros Cycle and can calculate the position of any celestial body displaying parallax to milliarcseconds from multiple frames of reference.

NOVAS is more like a star chart. The Saros Cycle is exclusive to the lunar eclipse. Some pages of NOVAS claim that it is able to predict the eclipses. But take a look at the eclipse page of the NOVAS software, in the "notes on the data" section:

http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/LunarEclipse.php#notes

More information on eclipses can be found at the USNO Eclipse Portal.

Then, on that portal page:

http://www.eclipse.org.uk/eclbin/query_usno.cgi

You can find information on eclipses for a range of years running from 1501 CE to 2100 CE inclusive. In this interval there are a total of 2881 eclipses made up of 1421 solar and 1460 lunar eclipses.

If this is a geometric model of the solar system that can predict anything, what is the significance of only having lunar eclipses listed for 1501 CE to 2100 CE? It sure sounds like they're using ancient eclipse tables and saros cycle predictions to me.

You are an incredible hypocrite by the way.  You claim on the one-hand that there is no evidence for space-time warping because it has not been directly observed, and then on the other hand, you claim that the shadow object has evidence because you can observe it's shadow.

What is a shadow evidence of?

Quote from: Rama Set on January 05, 2015, 10:08:33 AM

You also missed the reference I provided you for NOVAS used by the USNO.  Not a single mention of the Saros Cycle and can calculate the position of any celestial body displaying parallax to milliarcseconds from multiple frames of reference.

NOVAS is more like a star chart. The Saros Cycle is exclusive to the lunar eclipse. But take a look at the eclipse page of the NOVAS software:

http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/LunarEclipse.php#notes

Quote

More information on eclipses can be found at the USNO Eclipse Portal.

Then, on that page:

http://www.eclipse.org.uk/eclbin/query_usno.cgi

Quote

You can find information on eclipses for a range of years running from 1501 CE to 2100 CE inclusive. In this interval there are a total of 2881 eclipses made up of 1421 solar and 1460 lunar eclipses.

If this is a geometric model of the solar system that can predict anything, what is the significance of only having lunar eclipses listed for 1501 CE to 2100 CE? It sure sounds like they're using ancient eclipse tables and saros cycle predictions to me.

Because they have an extensive chart of eclipses it must be ancient eclipse tables?  You understand how tenuous and grasping this sounds?  You understand that that is also completely contrary to the claims they explicitly make?  please provide some sort of concrete evidence that they are lying if this is what you believe.

Quote

You are an incredible hypocrite by the way.  You claim on the one-hand that there is no evidence for space-time warping because it has not been directly observed, and then on the other hand, you claim that the shadow object has evidence because you can observe it's shadow.

What is a shadow evidence of?

You have not even demonstrated it is a shadow. You are assuming it is.