The Problem with Earth's Shadow

Says the creeper...

Argumentum ad nauseam.

I made two posts in this thread.  How is that ad nauseam?  Perhaps you should look up big words before you use them?  Just a suggestion. 

Quote from: ronxyz on December 12, 2015, 04:12:17 PM

It is a simplistic diagram that gives false information.

That's what I just said, innit?

All diagrams showing eclipses are equally bullshit.

Why do lunar eclipses only happen at night and solar eclipses only happen during the day?

Still waiting for that diagram of any kind of eclipse drawn to scale...

Don't tell me you ain't got one!

Says the creeper...

Another ad Hominem.

Those diagrams are ridiculous. The sun's light does not work like that in the ball Earth model. On the ball Earth you can not even see the whole sun. Only that part of light that hits the Earth is seen, about the same size as the Earth coming in at straight line energy. The energy radiates out from the Sun like a radio wave, or rays. It is an ever expanding orb of energy. When it reaches Earth it is a ball 93,000,000 miles in diameter. That part that is not directed at Earth is not visible. You can not see light that is not shinning on you, same for the Earth.

Those diagrams are ridiculous. The sun's light does not work like that in the ball Earth model. On the ball Earth you can not even see the whole sun. Only that part of light that hits the Earth is seen, about the same size as the Earth coming in at straight line energy. The energy radiates out from the Sun like a radio wave, or rays. It is an ever expanding orb of energy. When it reaches Earth it is a ball 93,000,000 miles in diameter. That part that is not directed at Earth is not visible. You can not see light that is not shinning on you, same for the Earth.

*Shining shinning would be involving the shin, which is a human body part. Shining is involving the shine. I'm going to bug you about your grammar/spelling for a long time, aren't I?

Quote from: ronxyz on December 13, 2015, 01:18:37 PM

Those diagrams are ridiculous. The sun's light does not work like that in the ball Earth model. On the ball Earth you can not even see the whole sun. Only that part of light that hits the Earth is seen, about the same size as the Earth coming in at straight line energy. The energy radiates out from the Sun like a radio wave, or rays. It is an ever expanding orb of energy. When it reaches Earth it is a ball 93,000,000 miles in diameter. That part that is not directed at Earth is not visible. You can not see light that is not shinning on you, same for the Earth.

*Shining shinning would be involving the shin, which is a human body part. Shining is involving the shine. I'm going to bug you about your grammar/spelling for a long time, aren't I?

Did you have something to contribute or are you just here to act the fool. Do you even know what sun light is and how it travels? Apparently not.

Ball people show me the ball Earth curve. There is no physical proof of the ball Earth theory, none. No curve not a ball, not a ball you can not call the Earth a sphere. The Earth is and always has been a flat plane.

Those diagrams are ridiculous. The sun's light does not work like that in the ball Earth model. On the ball Earth you can not even see the whole sun. Only that part of light that hits the Earth is seen, about the same size as the Earth coming in at straight line energy. The energy radiates out from the Sun like a radio wave, or rays. It is an ever expanding orb of energy. When it reaches Earth it is a ball 93,000,000 miles in diameter. That part that is not directed at Earth is not visible. You can not see light that is not shinning on you, same for the Earth.

Classical physics disagrees with this statement.

Light does not only travel directly away from the center of the sun or almost any light source in a direct line. Light propagates in all directions from its origin. The origin of light from the sun would be its surface, not its center.

What you are suggesting would result in the sun and all shining objects to only create point sources of light. Everything would act like a laser was pointing at you.

The diagrams seem correct, aside from the obvious issue of scale.

The diagrams seem correct, aside from the obvious issue of scale.

LULZ!!!

Did you really just write that?

You did, didn't you?

You really wrote that!

Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on December 13, 2015, 10:54:43 PM

The diagrams seem correct, aside from the obvious issue of scale.

LULZ!!!

Did you really just write that?

You did, didn't you?

You really wrote that!

and the problem is?

and the problem is?

Obvious...

To anyone who is able to discern Reality from Geometrical Abstractions, that is.

Which clearly isn't you.

So toodle-pip, Mr. 'inquisitive about nothing'.

*Yawn!*

Quote from: ronxyz on December 13, 2015, 01:18:37 PM

Those diagrams are ridiculous. The sun's light does not work like that in the ball Earth model. On the ball Earth you can not even see the whole sun. Only that part of light that hits the Earth is seen, about the same size as the Earth coming in at straight line energy. The energy radiates out from the Sun like a radio wave, or rays. It is an ever expanding orb of energy. When it reaches Earth it is a ball 93,000,000 miles in diameter. That part that is not directed at Earth is not visible. You can not see light that is not shinning on you, same for the Earth.

Classical physics disagrees with this statement.

Light does not only travel directly away from the center of the sun or almost any light source in a direct line. Light propagates in all directions from its origin. The origin of light from the sun would be its surface, not its center.

What you are suggesting would result in the sun and all shining objects to only create point sources of light. Everything would act like a laser was pointing at you.

The diagrams seem correct, aside from the obvious issue of scale.

That was my point in a different thread. The light from the Sun does not come from a single point but from the whole visible surface (that causes penumbras and umbras that we observe/photograph). Ronxyz doesn't get this. He has his bail of hay model of the Sun. If the light came as he suggests, there would not be a penumbra.

FEers, get with the program. Get a telescope and learn astronomy.

Bottom line. FEers don't like the lunar eclipse pictures and the RET explanation. All they can say is it is BS without providing any diagrams of their own. That is silly rebuttal rather than a refutation.

Astrology concepts depend upon the shapes and visuals of the moon. Moon signs are depended on the position of the object in the sky constellation. Yes there would be formulas to derive it but they also define your personality by it. the time when the you born and the position of the moon, sun and planet during the time you born has major aspects on your personality status.

Quote from: sokarul on December 12, 2015, 07:07:49 AM

Quote from: Yendor on December 12, 2015, 06:55:38 AM

If the the shaded area of the Moon is caused by Earth's shadow, why does it appear to be the same diameter as the the Moon? One can clearly see it is. If the Earth is four times the size of the Moon, then the shadow on the Moon should be a much larger diameter. It is not, it looks to the exact diameter as the Moon.

The moon enters the earth's shadow during lunar eclipses only. The normal phases of the moon are not because of the earth's shadow.

Okay, I'll give you that. Here is a picture of a Lunar eclipse of April 2014. I'll ask the same question as before. They both look nearly the same diameter to me, How can this be?

The Sun, despite its large size, is very far away. The Moon is way closer.

Folks, take a moment to look at the dates here. This thread died 6 years ago.