Solar Eclipse 21st August

Quote from: Sentinel on June 26, 2017, 07:14:47 AM

That's not what the FET states, and it would be impossible for the umbra to change size if the Sun and Moon are of the same size. The only thing that might theoratically change size is the penumbra when strictly following the postulations by FET.

FET states they're approximately the same size, not exactly. That's all I'm using. (And even that can vary between models). Given that the Sun's path varies in radius, altering its height doesn't seem too much of a stretch, that gets you annular eclipses too. The size of the Sun and moon is not the only factor in the size on an eclipse, you've got to deal with the distance between them too.
You've got a working answer, what is it you're complaining about?

That doesn't work like that either on FET and a given size for both Sun and Moon as every eclipse would have be annular when the Moon is smaller and every eclipse would have to be total when the Moon is larger than the Sun (and vice versa), regardless of their respective altitude and relative distance, and we already know both total and annular eclipses have occured in the past. It would only work if at least one of them changes their physical size.

regardless of their respective altitude and relative distance

This is just wrong. I don't know what else you expect me to say.

Quote from: Sentinel on June 26, 2017, 07:43:03 AM

regardless of their respective altitude and relative distance

This is just wrong. I don't know what else you expect me to say.

You're actually right, I have to apologize for that. Total and annular eclipses would be possible on FET when the Moon is smaller than the Sun, and the annual one would never occur when both are the same sizes or the Moon is bigger.
When taken that into consideration it still leaves the fact that the Sun has to be much bigger than postulated in FET so far to effectively draw an umbra of the Moon of 70 miles (it's even been told that the umbra could reach sizes as big as 200 miles across and more) as it is expected in the upcoming eclipse, and for that reason the height above the ground has to be much bigger as well to maintain the observable size which doesn't seem to change that much at all. I do know it does by a tiny fraction because the Earths trajectory around Sun is elliptic.
Another problem here would be the relative distance of the Moon to the Sun during an eclipse as it has to change accordingly over quite some distance whether annual or total eclipse is observed, and considering how little the apparent size of the Moon changes by already recorded observations it leaves some big question marks as well.

When taken that into consideration it still leaves the fact that the Sun has to be much bigger than postulated in FET so far to effectively draw an umbra of the Moon of 70 miles (it's even been told that the umbra could reach sizes as big as 200 miles across and more) as it is expected in the upcoming eclipse,

Again, that is plain not true. If the moon is no smaller than the Sun then you can easily get an umbra of indefinite size. Just have it close to the Sun and it covers all possible light. Getting a large umbra is not a problem; to reduce it, just bring the moon lower or the Sun higher. For a spotlight Sun as primarily used in FET, there is no problem.

Another problem here would be the relative distance of the Moon to the Sun during an eclipse as it has to change accordingly over quite some distance whether annual or total eclipse is observed, and considering how little the apparent size of the Moon changes by already recorded observations it leaves some big question marks as well.

Not sure what your argument here is, the distance between the moon and Sun wouldn't change substantially in either model over the course of an eclipse. If you mean the distance between the sun/moon and Earth and how that ought to result in variations in apparent size then sure, but that's an argument independent of eclipses.

Quote from: rabinoz on June 25, 2017, 07:27:46 PM

Please explain either
         where I am wrong, or
         how this flat earth model is even possible.
As I said before, THINK!

I notice you're ignoring the D in your calculation. What you're saying isn't a response, it's just ignoring what I said.

No, it was a response. You are the one ignoring what is being said.
The D doesn't matter. What matters is the relative sizes.

Quote from: neutrino on June 26, 2017, 01:06:09 AM

1) In FET it is IMPOSSIBLE TO EXPLAIN SHAPE AND SIZE OF SHADOW OF MOON DURING ECLIPSES

1 is just wrong as has been covered several times already.

No. It is correct and has been shown to be correct several times and you are yet to refute it.

Which is your problem, not mine. Have the radius of the moon be larger than the Sun, you get total eclipses just fine. Have the altitude of the Sun not be fixed, you get an annular eclipse just fine.

No. You don't.
The ONLY way to get an annular eclipse is with the moon being smaller than the sun.
The only way to get a total eclipse larger than the moon is with the moon being larger than the sun.

This is your problem, not ours.

Again, if the moon is close to the Sun it could theoretically block off all light from it. Lower it, you'd get a smaller and smaller region of darkness until it's your 31.07 miles. Somewhere between the two, you get 70 miles.

Yes, only if it is larger. But that then makes annular eclipses impossible.

Quote from: Sentinel on June 26, 2017, 11:21:42 AM

When taken that into consideration it still leaves the fact that the Sun has to be much bigger than postulated in FET so far to effectively draw an umbra of the Moon of 70 miles (it's even been told that the umbra could reach sizes as big as 200 miles across and more) as it is expected in the upcoming eclipse,

Again, that is plain not true. If the moon is no smaller than the Sun then you can easily get an umbra of indefinite size. Just have it close to the Sun and it covers all possible light. Getting a large umbra is not a problem; to reduce it, just bring the moon lower or the Sun higher. For a spotlight Sun as primarily used in FET, there is no problem.

Addendum, not sure what I was thinking for my visualisation, apologies. This bit is true, though for an annular eclipse you would need a moon smaller than the Sun, I was thinking in terms of a specific model this wouldn't be generally true. just another of those instances of FET having good answers for individual situations, but not being able to reconcile them with one another.
You can get a total eclipse with an umbra as large as you'd like, but I was wrong about the annular case.

Then again, I guess it's as good a time as any to appeal to the old standby of bendy light if you want a better FE answer.

Quote from: rabinoz on June 26, 2017, 06:01:05 AM

It is not that I ignored that ignored the D_s-m, but that D_s-m does not enter into the logic of my claim.

Which is your problem, not mine.

No, not my problem at all! Omitting the sun to moon distance, D_s-m was not an accidental omission at all. So long as flat earthers insist on a close sun and moon the actual distance does no enter into the logic of what I was claiming.

Have the radius of the moon be larger than the Sun, you get total eclipses just fine. Have the altitude of the Sun not be fixed, you get an annular eclipse just fine. You aren't explaining your problem with this, you're just insisting it won't work. I don't want you to 'spell it out in such painful detail,' I want you to spell it out in any detail.

Sure "Have the radius of the moon be larger than the Sun, you get total eclipses just fine" but
do what you like with the "altitude of the Sun" will not "get an annular eclipse".
I would have thought that anyone could see that at a glance from any of the diagrams, mine or Wikipedia's.

That is the crux of what I have been asserting all along.

Annular eclipses do occur and eclipses with quite wide umbras occur.

Solar eclipse, Path
The width of the track of a central eclipse varies according to the relative apparent diameters of the Sun and Moon. In the most favourable circumstances, when a total eclipse occurs very close to perigee, the track can be up to 267 km (166 mi) wide and the duration of totality may be over 7 minutes.

Repeating part of the earlier post.

Eclipse, Umbra, penumbra and antumbra

For spherical bodies, when the occulting object (the moon) is smaller¹ than the star (the sun), the length (L) of the umbra's cone-shaped shadow is given by:
          L = (D_s-m . R_moon)/(R_sun - R_moon)
where R_sun is the radius of the sun, R_moon is the moon's radius, and D_s-m is the distance from the sun to the moon.

Modified from: Eclipse, Umbra, penumbra and antumbra

From this
          if (R_sun - R_moon) > 0 then L > 0, the umbral cone is converging and the umbral width is less than the moon's diameter.
and
          if (R_sun - R_moon) < 0 then L < 0, the umbral cone is diverging and the umbral width is greater than the moon's diameter.
D_s-m does not enter into it!

So please check exactly what I say! Annular eclipses, as in to right of the diagram, certainly do occur - agreed yes or no? For an annular eclipse the umbral cone must be converging - agreed yes or no? If the the umbral cone is converging           the moon's diameter must be less than the sun's diameter, or (Rmoon < Rsun) - agreed yes or no? Eclipses also occur where the umbral width is "up to 267 km (166 mi) wide" - agreed yes or no? Note that this is some three times the claimed diameter of the moon. For an umbral width greater than the moon's diameter, the umbral cone must be diverging - agreed yes or no? For the the umbral cone to be diverging           the moon's diameter must be less than the sun's diameter, or (Rmoon > Rsun) - agreed yes or no?

Sun-moon configurations that produce a total (A), annular (B), and partial (C) solar eclipse

Summarising!
          For an annular eclipse (R_moon < R_sun) and
          For an umbral width greater than the moon's diameter (R_moon > R_sun).
Which are contradictory statements.
To my simple mind, it would appear that the sun and moon sizes and heights usually accepted simply cannot come close to explaining what is observed. The sun to moon distance, D_s-m does enter into calculating the size uf the umbra, but simply does not enter into the above discussion.

The only possibility that I can see is for the sun and moon to be much larger than 267 km (166 mi) and correspondingly much higher.

But then, you are changing the whole model of sun and moon sizes and heights, which changes the observed elevation angles of the sun and moon -  but so what! They are wrong anyway  .
You cannot simply change part of a model to fit one set of observation, but then find that it does not fit others.

Now, instead of just saying it might be this and it might be that, present something constructive and show some sizes and distances that could work.

Quote from: Jane on June 26, 2017, 12:40:02 PM

Quote from: Sentinel on June 26, 2017, 11:21:42 AM

When taken that into consideration it still leaves the fact that the Sun has to be much bigger than postulated in FET so far to effectively draw an umbra of the Moon of 70 miles (it's even been told that the umbra could reach sizes as big as 200 miles across and more) as it is expected in the upcoming eclipse,

Again, that is plain not true. If the moon is no smaller than the Sun then you can easily get an umbra of indefinite size. Just have it close to the Sun and it covers all possible light. Getting a large umbra is not a problem; to reduce it, just bring the moon lower or the Sun higher. For a spotlight Sun as primarily used in FET, there is no problem.

Addendum, not sure what I was thinking for my visualisation, apologies. This bit is true, though for an annular eclipse you would need a moon smaller than the Sun, I was thinking in terms of a specific model this wouldn't be generally true. just another of those instances of FET having good answers for individual situations, but not being able to reconcile them with one another.
You can get a total eclipse with an umbra as large as you'd like, but I was wrong about the annular case.

No, you cannot "get a total eclipse with an umbra as large as you'd like".
You cannot get an umbra larger than the moon's diameter unless the moon is larger than the sun and
you finally admit that "for an annular eclipse you would need a moon smaller than the Sun".

I guess that's something.

Then again, I guess it's as good a time as any to appeal to the old standby of bendy light if you want a better FE answer.

Yes, you finally concede that the flat earth requires outlandish assumptions!

But, please in future if you are trying to prop up the flat earth, at least use logical arguments.

Yes, you finally concede that the flat earth requires outlandish assumptions!

But, please in future if you are trying to prop up the flat earth, at least use logical arguments.

Yep, I'll admit when I make a mistake. It's nicer when the mistake gets explained rather than asserted, but honestly at this stage I'm happy to blame sleep deprivation on my part and move on. Thanks for your latest post at any rate, confirming the issue that I'd noticed.
Most of my arguments were logical, it's just this one specific issue of the several topics in this thread where I was giving two valid responses without noticing they couldn't be reconciled. I'll be the first one to admit I make mistakes.

Addendum, not sure what I was thinking for my visualisation, apologies. This bit is true, though for an annular eclipse you would need a moon smaller than the Sun, I was thinking in terms of a specific model this wouldn't be generally true. just another of those instances of FET having good answers for individual situations, but not being able to reconcile them with one another.
You can get a total eclipse with an umbra as large as you'd like, but I was wrong about the annular case.

Then again, I guess it's as good a time as any to appeal to the old standby of bendy light if you want a better FE answer.

Thankyou.
So that means without bendy light, FE doesn't have an answer for solar eclipses in general.
Instead they have 2 contradictory answers for 2 kinds of eclipses.

This is one of the issues I have with it being called a theory. It isn't even a single model, it is numerous contradictory claims.

Quote from: rabinoz on June 26, 2017, 05:25:24 PM

Yes, you finally concede that the flat earth requires outlandish assumptions!

But, please in future if you are trying to prop up the flat earth, at least use logical arguments.

Yep, I'll admit when I make a mistake. It's nicer when the mistake gets explained rather than asserted, but honestly at this stage I'm happy to blame sleep deprivation on my part and move on. Thanks for your latest post at any rate, confirming the issue that I'd noticed.
Most of my arguments were logical, it's just this one specific issue of the several topics in this thread where I was giving two valid responses without noticing they couldn't be reconciled. I'll be the first one to admit I make mistakes.

Thanks and I hope that you did not find my own error, before I corrected it, in swapped "<" and ">" in one earlier post.

The following is just a general comment, not directed at you at all.
But what bothers me is that no flat earther has ever really really checked so much of the "accepted Flat Earth Theory".

Obvious topics are

• "Solar eclipses" as we have seen here, the flat earth explanation is quite impossible.
  
  
• "sun height" from sun elevations. Flat Earthers claim the height from 45° latitude is correct, yet other latitudes give quite different answers.
  
  
• "lunar phases an eclipses" are just as impossible with the Flat Earth explanation, though all sorts of other explanations are often offered.  These include a "self luminous moon", which really explains nothing.
  

And much more.

Much of "Flat Earth Theory" on the sun moon and planets is just borrowed from Globe ideas, modified a bit to sort of fit a "Flat Earth".

The problem is that in many cases, as we have seen for the Solar Eclipse, it does not "come out right".

WOW! We got to the conclusion! This is really rare thing here on FET forum. But yeah, no Flat Earther was involved in the discussion. So it's like we were talking to ourselves, oh I mean to Jane

But what bothers me is that no flat earther has ever really really checked so much of the "accepted Flat Earth Theory".

When it turns into an argument rather than a discussion, no one wants to admit they made a mistake. That's why I try to argue against bad REer arguments too; when the good's mixed in with the bad, people who disagree will easily recognise the bad and even if they can't think of a response to the good, why would they put in the effort to consider it in any especial detail when poor arguments get delivered with the same conviction?
Maybe not perfect logic, but it's how humans act.

"Solar eclipses" as we have seen here, the flat earth explanation is quite impossible.

Well, it is possible, you just need poorly defined, borderline ad hoc concepts like bendy light. So possible, just not scientific until it's defined well enough to test.

WOW! We got to the conclusion! This is really rare thing here on FET forum. But yeah, no Flat Earther was involved in the discussion. So it's like we were talking to ourselves, oh I mean to Jane

I'm still sticking to what I was saying in response to your posts 

Jane, the database of this forum will now blow up 

Actually if you agree that eclipses are not explainable in FET this satisfies me. Leave that argument of the map.

Dunno, Jane, but I do think we all here figured that one out together pretty neatly by using basic maths, some visualization and the observable reality.
The concept of light bending to fit the amendments required for a coherent FET concept about solar eclipses is probably much more advanced, and I for myself are willing to step back happily on that subject and let the FET geniuses have a say on that.