Show me ONE, please...

  • 77 Replies
  • 6081 Views
?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Show me ONE, please...
« on: July 29, 2016, 02:07:02 PM »
Yeah...

Show me ONE solar eclipse diagram that's drawn to scale please.

Just the ONE...

None of these suffice:

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=solar+eclipse+diagram&biw=1024&bih=643&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=0ahUKEwjo4N7iyJnOAhUrD8AKHb7ODBwQ_AUIBigB

Oh, & when you're done with that, show me all the videos of solar eclipses taken from the ISS...

Thank you please!
I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

*

sokarul

  • 16777
  • Discount Chemist
Re: Show me ONE, please...
« Reply #1 on: July 29, 2016, 02:09:43 PM »
Show me one solar eclipse that happened when the moon wasn't in the new moon phase.
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Run Sandokhan run

Re: Show me ONE, please...
« Reply #2 on: July 29, 2016, 02:18:06 PM »
I wonder how obnoxious I can make my signature?
Please give me ideas.

?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: Show me ONE, please...
« Reply #3 on: July 29, 2016, 02:24:24 PM »
'We represent the moon as a small styrofoam ball... For the sun, we use the actual object'...

LOL!!!

Any chance of fucking off & stopping wasting my time with bullshit?

Also reported btw.

I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

Re: Show me ONE, please...
« Reply #4 on: July 29, 2016, 02:29:17 PM »
Oh. Do you want a FULL SCALE model? Oh then on September 1st, go to southern africa.
I wonder how obnoxious I can make my signature?
Please give me ideas.

?

Woody

  • 1144
Re: Show me ONE, please...
« Reply #5 on: July 29, 2016, 02:51:22 PM »
Problem with that is the distances and size of objects involved.

The reason you do not see diagrams to scale is something would be left out or objects would be so small they would be too hard to see.

Here is an example of what I am talking about:

http://joshworth.com/dev/pixelspace/pixelspace_solarsystem.html

That is a scale representation of our solar system.  Notice how large the diagram needs to be just going from the Sun to our Moon.  In this diagram the moon is represented as one pixel. So the smallest scale that can be used so the moon is visible.

Hit the arrow towards the top right to speed things up.

*

rabinoz

  • 24888
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Show me ONE, please...
« Reply #6 on: July 29, 2016, 07:31:01 PM »
Yeah...
Show me ONE solar eclipse diagram that's drawn to scale please.
Just the ONE...

None of these suffice:
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=solar+eclipse+diagram&biw=1024&bih=643&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=0ahUKEwjo4N7iyJnOAhUrD8AKHb7ODBwQ_AUIBigB
Oh, & when you're done with that, show me all the videos of solar eclipses taken from the ISS...
Thank you please!

With the distances (and sizes involved) you can't easily get a "scale diagram", certainly not with the sun in it. Here is my rough attempt.


Solar Eclipse Earth and Moon to scale

This is just the earth part enlarged a bit.

Solar Eclipse, Earth part only

The Earth part could easily be scaled up more, or the latitude on earth changed.

Re: Show me ONE, please...
« Reply #7 on: July 29, 2016, 10:06:05 PM »
I think when he said "scale model" he meant "full scale model" because he didn't like my answer, which was a perfect scale model.

SO SHILL, WHERE IS YOUR FULL SCALE MODEL? A FEW PIXELS ON A SCREEN ARE BULLSHIT. FUCKING SHILL.
I wonder how obnoxious I can make my signature?
Please give me ideas.

*

ChildofFather

  • 31
  • If you only knew :-p
To love is to feel pain.

Re: Show me ONE, please...
« Reply #9 on: July 30, 2016, 01:47:25 AM »
why?

the solar eclipse works on both models

the lunar eclipse however, no FE explanation stands up to testing

*

Pezevenk

  • 14004
  • Militant aporfyrodrakonist
Re: Show me ONE, please...
« Reply #10 on: July 30, 2016, 06:29:17 AM »
"the solar eclipse works on both models"


The solar eclipse doesn't really work on an FE model, but at least it's somewhat explained.

Anyway, what kind of dumb fucking trick question is this Legba?
It is not a scientific fact, it is a scientific fuck!
-Intikam

Who wants to be a firefly and who wants to be a blue whale?
-Sceptimatic

Please do not jizz to win an argument.
-Crutonius

Read a bit psicology and stick your imo to where it comes from.
-Inty (again)

Re: Show me ONE, please...
« Reply #11 on: July 30, 2016, 06:40:06 AM »
"the solar eclipse works on both models"


The solar eclipse doesn't really work on an FE model, but at least it's somewhat explained.

Anyway, what kind of dumb fucking trick question is this Legba?

well yeah its just the moon going in front of the sun on both models

but yeah, asking for a scale model of a solar eclipse has got to be one of the most ridiculous requests I've ever heard

?

Woody

  • 1144
Re: Show me ONE, please...
« Reply #12 on: July 30, 2016, 09:45:52 AM »
"the solar eclipse works on both models"


The solar eclipse doesn't really work on an FE model, but at least it's somewhat explained.

Anyway, what kind of dumb fucking trick question is this Legba?

He was banned again. 

I think he is trying to disprove space flight since he believes the Earth is round.  That is why he is asking for pictures or videos from the ISS of a solar eclipse.

*

iWitness

  • 1173
  • If the earth is round then what is your problem?
Re: Show me ONE, please...
« Reply #13 on: July 30, 2016, 10:19:14 AM »
Heliocentric model seems rather impossible, if not miraculous..... that the earth's shadow at those distances would perfectly fit over the Moon.
Disclaimer: I am confused. Everything I say is speculative and not admissible in a court of law; however, I am neither insane nor a threat to myself or others. I am simply curious about everything in life and enjoy talking about crazy shit. Oh, & btw I like turtles.

?

frenat

  • 3497
Re: Show me ONE, please...
« Reply #14 on: July 30, 2016, 10:23:46 AM »
Heliocentric model seems rather impossible, if not miraculous..... that the earth's shadow at those distances would perfectly fit over the Moon.

the only time the Earth's shadow is on the Moon is during a lunar eclipse.  And the Earth's shadow is far bigger than the moon so it is far from perfect.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4904
Re: Show me ONE, please...
« Reply #15 on: July 30, 2016, 10:45:56 AM »
None of the top RE scientists believe the official theory re: solar eclipses.

The Moon has astonishing synchronicity with the Sun. When the Sun is at its lowest and weakest in mid-winter, the Moon is at its highest and brightest, and the reverse occurs in mid-summer. Both set at the same point on the horizon at the equinoxes and at the opposite point at the solstices. What are the chances that the Moon would naturally find an orbit so perfect that it would cover the Sun at an eclipse and appear from Earth to be the same size? What are chances that the alignments would be so perfect at the equinoxes and solstices?

    Farouk El Baz,
    NASA


"If the precise and stationary orbit of the Moon is seen as sheer coincidence, is it also coincidence that the Moon is at just the right distance from the Earth to completely cover the Sun during an eclipse? While the diameter of the Moon is a mere 2,160 miles against the Sun’s gigantic 864,000 miles, it is nevertheless in just the proper position to block out all but the Sun’s flaming corona when it moves between the Sun and the Earth. Asimov explained: “There is no astronomical reason why the Moon and the Sun should fit so well. It is the sheerest of coincidences, and only the Earth among all the planets is blessed in this fashion.” "


If anybody here accepts the official chronology of history, then he/she will also have to accept this fact:

From America, Christopher Columbus also wrote to the king and the queen of Spain about the simultaneous eclipses:

This that I have said is what I have heard. What I know is that the year 94 I sailed in 24 degrees to the west in 9 hours, and it could not be mistake because there were eclipses: the sun was in Libra and the moon in Ariete.

https://web.archive.org/web/20160330014321/http://mgar.net/docs/colon4.htm

Esto que yo he dicho es lo que he oído. Lo que yo sé es que el ańo de 94 navegué en 24° al Poniente en término de nueve horas, y no pudo haber yerro porque hubo eclipses: el sol estaba en Libra y la luna en Ariete.


Now, "Columbus" is NOT describing a selenelion (both the Sun and the eclipsed Moon can be observed at the same time in the RE theory): he used the words "hubo eclipses" (were eclipses), there were a solar and a lunar eclipse occurring at the same time.




The ISS shuts down its camera during the March 20, 2015 total solar eclipse:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1786946#msg1786946
« Last Edit: July 30, 2016, 11:04:13 AM by sandokhan »

?

frenat

  • 3497
Re: Show me ONE, please...
« Reply #16 on: July 30, 2016, 11:48:18 AM »
None of the top RE scientists believe the official theory re: solar eclipses.

The Moon has astonishing synchronicity with the Sun. When the Sun is at its lowest and weakest in mid-winter, the Moon is at its highest and brightest, and the reverse occurs in mid-summer.
not true.  The moon goes from its highest to lowest point and back EACH MONTH.

Both set at the same point on the horizon at the equinoxes and at the opposite point at the solstices. What are the chances that the Moon would naturally find an orbit so perfect that it would cover the Sun at an eclipse and appear from Earth to be the same size? What are chances that the alignments would be so perfect at the equinoxes and solstices?

    Farouk El Baz,
    NASA

also not true.  The Moon does not necessarily set or rise at the same point as the sun on the equinoxes nor is it opposite on the solstices.  Its rise and set points vary from furthest north to furthest south and back throughout each month.  For what you claim to be true it would have to be on the exact same phase on the equinoxes and solstices each year.  It is not.

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/46-our-solar-system/the-moon/observing-the-moon/128-how-does-the-position-of-moonrise-and-moonset-change-intermediate

At BEST the full Moon is close to the same rise and set locations in the same season but since the full moon is not always on the equinoxes then it is not true  that it sets at the same point as the Sun on the equinoxes.

Re: Show me ONE, please...
« Reply #17 on: July 30, 2016, 12:23:53 PM »
I agree, the perfect fit during a solar eclipse has always interested me, huge coincidence..

so there's plenty of theories about the moon, from it being artificial, to being a spaceship, all sorts

in no way does it imply that the earth is flat though, no matter what it is or where it came from

a LUNAR eclipse proves we're a globe 100%


Re: Show me ONE, please...
« Reply #19 on: July 30, 2016, 12:51:23 PM »
I don't like homework. Please explain to us simple-minded.
I wonder how obnoxious I can make my signature?
Please give me ideas.

?

frenat

  • 3497
Re: Show me ONE, please...
« Reply #20 on: July 30, 2016, 01:23:43 PM »
When are you going to learn to do your homework?

http://cosmoquest.org/forum/archive/index.php/t-70861.html
Note that your reference says FULL Moon.  You in your previous post just said Moon.  Your own reference show you are wrong.

https://books.google.ro/books?id=vxf_CgAAQBAJ&pg=PA276&lpg=PA276&dq=moon+sun+same+point+horizon++equinoxes&source=bl&ots=0SQs1OKer9&sig=kuVYeDiqOknhkPWNMgmYc1vATYY&hl=ro&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjAkdqG95vOAhVE1hQKHUpGDuk4FBDoAQguMAE#v=onepage&q=moon%20sun%20same%20point%20horizon%20%20equinoxes&f=false
Also says FULL moon for the height.  It is wrong about the rise and set points. 
The Moon on the upcoming autumnal equinox will be close to last quarter for the phase and
from here
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/46-our-solar-system/the-moon/observing-the-moon/128-how-does-the-position-of-moonrise-and-moonset-change-intermediate
the last quarter phase in autumn rises and sets in the NorthEast and NorthWest.
AGAIN only the full Moon rise and set location in sutumn is similar.  Since it is NOT a full Moon on the upcoming equinox, it will NOT rise and set in the same location as the Sun.

you can check the location it will set here
http://www.heavens-above.com/moon.aspx
Set to September 22, 2016 (aka the equinox) and you'll see it does not rise at 90 degrees and does not set at 270 degrees.  In fact it varies some depending on the location you are at.



Perhaps you would like me to bring into our discussion the Allais effect...
That has nothing to do with you being wrong here. 
« Last Edit: July 30, 2016, 01:43:44 PM by frenat »

?

frenat

  • 3497
Re: Show me ONE, please...
« Reply #21 on: July 30, 2016, 01:24:34 PM »
I agree, the perfect fit during a solar eclipse has always interested me, huge coincidence..

so there's plenty of theories about the moon, from it being artificial, to being a spaceship, all sorts

in no way does it imply that the earth is flat though, no matter what it is or where it came from

a LUNAR eclipse proves we're a globe 100%
Except it isn't always perfect.  The majority of eclipses are annular eclipses where the Moon doesn't completely cover the Sun.


*

getrealzommb

  • 894
  • We do actually live on a ball: But who cares?
Re: Show me ONE, please...
« Reply #23 on: July 30, 2016, 04:45:16 PM »
I get the feeling we are about to indulge in plenty of pasta. Not just any pasta, but sandokhan's special Copy 'N' Pasta

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 16810
  • Or should I?
Re: Show me ONE, please...
« Reply #24 on: July 30, 2016, 05:00:57 PM »
mmmmmm copy pasta.

Is Papa arguing FET now?

This is awesome Woody
http://joshworth.com/dev/pixelspace/pixelspace_solarsystem.html
For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4904
Re: Show me ONE, please...
« Reply #25 on: July 30, 2016, 10:15:04 PM »
frenat, you seem not to understand what is going on.

The references I brought to your attention are RE references, they are not mine: none other than Farouk El-Baz perhaps the most important scientist who took part in the Apollo 11 mission calculations and the works published by the University of Michigan.


Your reference does not address the points you are trying to raise at all.

Indeed, it could NOT do so, since then we would have TWO DIFFERENT RE theories on the rising/setting vernal points of the Sun/Moon, published by two different universities, competing with each other.

Again, these references are totally RE: not mine at all.

If you have an issue with them, go ahead and write to your local university, and see the response you will get; until then, the information I posted stands correct.

*

rabinoz

  • 24888
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Show me ONE, please...
« Reply #26 on: July 31, 2016, 05:37:27 AM »
Heliocentric model seems rather impossible, if not miraculous..... that the earth's shadow at those distances would perfectly fit over the Moon.
The earth's moon is NOT a "perfect fit" with the sun by any means. In particular, the apparent size of moon varies quite considerably.
Here are photos of the moon at its closest (left) and farthest (right) distances from earth:


The apparent size of the sun varies over a year from 0.5242° to 0.5422°
and the apparent size of the moon varies over a month from 0.4923° to 0.5548°.

So the ratio of (sun size apparent)/(moon apparent size) varies from 94% to 110%. Quite a significant difference.

So, do you still think it is such a coincidence, and even if they were the same apparent size, how is that an argument in favour of a flat earth?


?

frenat

  • 3497
Re: Show me ONE, please...
« Reply #27 on: July 31, 2016, 05:51:27 AM »
frenat, you seem not to understand what is going on.

The references I brought to your attention are RE references, they are not mine: none other than Farouk El-Baz perhaps the most important scientist who took part in the Apollo 11 mission calculations and the works published by the University of Michigan.


Your reference does not address the points you are trying to raise at all.

Indeed, it could NOT do so, since then we would have TWO DIFFERENT RE theories on the rising/setting vernal points of the Sun/Moon, published by two different universities, competing with each other.

Again, these references are totally RE: not mine at all.

If you have an issue with them, go ahead and write to your local university, and see the response you will get; until then, the information I posted stands correct.
And you prove you didn't even bother to check where the Moon will rise and set on the next equinox.  I dare you to check the second link I posted and see for yourself where the Moon rise and set location will be for yourself and then verify on the equinox.  And the other reference I posted DOES address my points as at the end of the article it mentions the approimate rise/set locations for the Moon according to phase and season.  Again since the equinoxes and solstices do not always occur on the same phases of the Moon they cannot always have the same Moon rise/set locations.

Your reference agreed with me in the that, the FULL moon (as I said) and not the Moon in general (as you said), is high when the sun is low and vice versa.  I showed it is wrong about the rise and set locations on the equinoxes.  All you have to do is look.  How sad that you could not.  The moon rise and set locations is NOT a consequence of a round Earth.  There is nothing that says the Moon should rise and set at certain specific locations on the equinoxes or solstices nor should there be.  I explained that by the fact that the Moon goes from its furthest North to its furthest South and back over he course of a month.  If he had said that the Full Moon in those seasons rose and set in those locations then he would be correct and that may be what he was trying to say but he did not.

As for Farouk El-Baz, he had a Bachelor's, Master's, and a PhD in Geology and his involvement with NASA was in selection of landing sites and training astronauts in photography.  I would not expect him to be an expert on astronomy and as I showed, he was wrong regarding the rise and set locations of the Moon.  Educated people are wrong sometimes, especially when they stray from their area of expertise. 

But it again has nothing to do with round Earth as nothing in round Earth says the Moon has to rise or set in a certain location.  The specifics of the Moon's orbit set that.

quoted again to preserve references so all can see for themselves.
When are you going to learn to do your homework?

http://cosmoquest.org/forum/archive/index.php/t-70861.html
Note that your reference says FULL Moon.  You in your previous post just said Moon.  Your own reference show you are wrong.

https://books.google.ro/books?id=vxf_CgAAQBAJ&pg=PA276&lpg=PA276&dq=moon+sun+same+point+horizon++equinoxes&source=bl&ots=0SQs1OKer9&sig=kuVYeDiqOknhkPWNMgmYc1vATYY&hl=ro&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjAkdqG95vOAhVE1hQKHUpGDuk4FBDoAQguMAE#v=onepage&q=moon%20sun%20same%20point%20horizon%20%20equinoxes&f=false
Also says FULL moon for the height.  It is wrong about the rise and set points. 
The Moon on the upcoming autumnal equinox will be close to last quarter for the phase and
from here
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/46-our-solar-system/the-moon/observing-the-moon/128-how-does-the-position-of-moonrise-and-moonset-change-intermediate
the last quarter phase in autumn rises and sets in the NorthEast and NorthWest.
AGAIN only the full Moon rise and set location in sutumn is similar.  Since it is NOT a full Moon on the upcoming equinox, it will NOT rise and set in the same location as the Sun.

you can check the location it will set here
http://www.heavens-above.com/moon.aspx
Set to September 22, 2016 (aka the equinox) and you'll see it does not rise at 90 degrees and does not set at 270 degrees.  In fact it varies some depending on the location you are at.

« Last Edit: July 31, 2016, 05:53:14 AM by frenat »

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 4904
Re: Show me ONE, please...
« Reply #28 on: July 31, 2016, 07:32:46 AM »
You have totally missed the moral of the story: both Farouk El-Baz and Isaac Asimov do not believe in the official theory which tells us that the Sun being covered by the Moon to the centimeter, during a solar eclipse, is just a coincidence.

What are the chances that the Moon would naturally find an orbit so perfect that it would cover the Sun at an eclipse and appear from Earth to be the same size?

There is no astronomical reason why the Moon and the Sun should fit so well. It is the sheerest of coincidences, and only the Earth among all the planets is blessed in this fashion.



Let us now get to back to the simultaneous eclipses described by Columbus.

From America, Christopher Columbus also wrote to the king and the queen of Spain about the simultaneous eclipses:

This that I have said is what I have heard. What I know is that the year 94 I sailed in 24 degrees to the west in 9 hours, and it could not be mistake because there were eclipses: the sun was in Libra and the moon in Ariete.

https://web.archive.org/web/20160330014321/http://mgar.net/docs/colon4.htm

Esto que yo he dicho es lo que he oído. Lo que yo sé es que el ańo de 94 navegué en 24° al Poniente en término de nueve horas, y no pudo haber yerro porque hubo eclipses: el sol estaba en Libra y la luna en Ariete.


Now, "Columbus" is NOT describing a selenelion (both the Sun and the eclipsed Moon can be observed at the same time in the RE theory): he used the words "hubo eclipses" (were eclipses), there were a solar and a lunar eclipse occurring at the same time.




You do realize that now you have a big problem.

NO ONE in the official chronology of history, not the Inquisition, not the Catholic royalty of Spain, not any of the scientists at that time, complains about these facts.

Columbus could never claim that the Earth is round, while at the same time he would be describing an astronomical event which nullifies the RE scenario.
« Last Edit: July 31, 2016, 07:34:22 AM by sandokhan »

Re: Show me ONE, please...
« Reply #29 on: July 31, 2016, 08:57:38 AM »
but there's no chance columbus was wrong? Instead its hundreds and thousands of scientists?

..jus sayin'