Lunar Eclipse proves Heliocentric Model to be false

  • 152 Replies
  • 40913 Views
?

Apokalypt

  • 153
  • +0/-0
Re: Lunar Eclipse proves Heliocentric Model to be false
« Reply #30 on: July 06, 2017, 12:10:02 AM »
wow...

 I almost fell off my seat your the first person to agree with me on this so called Flat Earth Society Forum.
There are a few more over here that also laugh about the inserted ''magic'' of refraction, looming, lensing, light bending caused by the gravitational field of earth's mass, mirages and superiour mirages to explain observations that go against the current heliocentric model by extreme margins.
And the list of fancy phenomena is only growing to explain away those things out of reach for normal refraction values.... ;D ;D ;D

Well, to be fair, flat earthers are the ones who believe in aether and such things...
So, I would not laugh...
Aether was scientifically proven by Georges Sagnac over a hundred years ago.
 :o

And gravity not? And most of the evidence for round-earth? Oh wait, they are...

Theorys that have never been verified

Oh oh, but aether of course, is verified etc. Oh oh I get it. Lol.
And unicorns exist, it was verified in Harry Potter.

*

neutrino

  • 635
  • +0/-0
  • FET is a religion. You can't fight faith.
Re: Lunar Eclipse proves Heliocentric Model to be false
« Reply #31 on: July 06, 2017, 12:11:39 AM »
unless they are pink fluffy unicorns that dance on a rainbow.
FET is religion. No evidence will convince a FE-er. It would be easier to convince Muslims they are wrong.

Re: Lunar Eclipse proves Heliocentric Model to be false
« Reply #32 on: July 06, 2017, 01:53:49 AM »
wow...

 I almost fell off my seat your the first person to agree with me on this so called Flat Earth Society Forum.
There are a few more over here that also laugh about the inserted ''magic'' of refraction, looming, lensing, light bending caused by the gravitational field of earth's mass, mirages and superiour mirages to explain observations that go against the current heliocentric model by extreme margins.
And the list of fancy phenomena is only growing to explain away those things out of reach for normal refraction values.... ;D ;D ;D

Well, to be fair, flat earthers are the ones who believe in aether and such things...
So, I would not laugh...
Aether was scientifically proven by Georges Sagnac over a hundred years ago.
 :o

And gravity not? And most of the evidence for round-earth? Oh wait, they are...

Theorys that have never been verified

Oh oh, but aether of course, is verified etc. Oh oh I get it. Lol.
And unicorns exist, it was verified in Harry Potter.

The only place your Heliocentric Religions theorys have been verified is on Star Trek.

Gravity still can't be measured so Gravity has never verified.

https://cosmosmagazine.com/physics/measuring-gravity-have-we-finally-cracked-it

The big G.

Lol.

To be fair the space footage on Star Trek looks a lot more believable than that shit NASA provide.
« Last Edit: July 06, 2017, 01:59:02 AM by Resistance.is.Futile »

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • +0/-0
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Lunar Eclipse proves Heliocentric Model to be false
« Reply #33 on: July 06, 2017, 05:08:58 AM »
Gravity still can't be measured so Gravity has never verified.
Why do you keep telling lies even though you have been told the truth so many times?

The term Gravity means the local gravitational field, and varies a little with location and altitude (up to 0.5%) and it is comapritively easy to measure.

So your claim that "Gravity still can't be measured so Gravity has never verified" is totally incorrect and ridiculous.
All you need is a Gravimeter as in
Quote from: Wikipedia
Gravimeter



A gravimeter is an instrument used in gravimetry for measuring the local gravitational field of the Earth. A gravimeter is a type of accelerometer, specialized for measuring the constant downward acceleration of gravity, which varies by about 0.5% over the surface of the Earth. Though the essential principle of design is the same as in other accelerometers, gravimeters are typically designed to be much more sensitive in order to measure very tiny fractional changes within the Earth's gravity of 1 g, caused by nearby geologic structures or the shape of the Earth and by temporal tidal variations. This sensitivity means that gravimeters are susceptible to extraneous vibrations including noise that tend to cause oscillatory accelerations. In practice this is counteracted by integral vibration isolation and signal processing. The constraints on temporal resolution are usually less for gravimeters, so that resolution can be increased by processing the output with a longer time constant. Gravimeters display their measurements in units of gals (cm/s2), instead of more common units of acceleration.

Gravimeters are used for petroleum and mineral prospecting, seismology, geodesy, geophysical surveys and other geophysical research, and for metrology.
     
An Autograv CG-5 gravimeter being operated

But when you, so ignorantly, claim that "Gravity still can't be measured so Gravity has never verified."
You are really claiming the the Universal Gravitational Constant, G still can't be measured.
This claim of yours is not only wrong, but deceptive and
totally dishonest as you have been informed numerous times that such measurements have been performed numerous times.

Accurate measurements are still not easy, but here are some reports of modern experiments in the lab:
Scientific American, Puzzling Measurement of "Big G" Gravitational Constant Ignites Debate [Slide Show]
Phys.org, New measure of gravitational constant higher than expected
Nature, Precision measurement of the Newtonian gravitational constant using cold atoms - and not always will heavy lead balls!

Phys.org, Why do measurements of the gravitational constant vary so much?
And before you go into raptures over the "the gravitational constant varying so much", look at the variation observed:

A set of 13 measurements of G exhibit a 5.9-year periodic oscillation (solid curve) that closely matches the 5.9-year oscillation in LOD
measurements (dashed curve). The two outliers are a 2014 quantum measurement and a 1996 measurement known to suffer from drift.
The green dot is an estimate of the mean value of G after the 5.9-year periodicity is removed.
Credit: J. D. Anderson, et al. ©2015 EPLA

Read more at: Why do measurements of the gravitational constant vary so much?
Can you show us any Flat Earth experiments with accuracy approaching that?

Yes, there is plenty of experimental verification that masses, even single atoms, are attracted to other masses.

And here are the results all the "Cavendish type" measurements up to the year 2000:

Results of gravitational constant measurements till 2000.

Here is a simple demonstration that a force is produced, though no attempt is made to actually measure G, the Universal Gravitational Constant.

There is this article with an explanation of the effect gravitation with a very simple set-up to demonstrate it:
Bending Spacetime in the Basement.
There are four related videos, all are referenced in the arcticle:
[youtube][/youtube]
Bending Spacetime in the Basement: Video 1, John Walker
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Bending Spacetime in the Basement: Video 2, John Walker
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Bending Spacetime in the Basement: Video 3, John Walker
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Bending Spacetime in the Basement: Video 4, John Walker
No attempt is made to measure G with this crude experiment, just to demonstrate that there is a force.

So don't claim anymore that "Gravity still can't be measured so Gravity has never verified."

Gravitation has been verified and measured numerous times and you are being totally dishonest if you claim otherwise!
« Last Edit: September 12, 2017, 11:17:12 PM by rabinoz »

?

Apokalypt

  • 153
  • +0/-0
Re: Lunar Eclipse proves Heliocentric Model to be false
« Reply #34 on: July 06, 2017, 05:13:10 AM »
So why is stuff about Aeather not taught in school and applied in the world but Gravity is, when it is already proofen that long? Are 99% of the world scientists idiots? Or they are probably part of the conspiracy. But then probably about 99% of the population is part of the conspiracy, so why do they need to hide stuff from the minor 1%?

Hell, one guy even said he has proven that vaccines cause autism. Do you believe him? (Also, btw. it came out he lied). A lot of people still believe that bullshit and look how a big impact it has (stupid parents not vaccinating their children and therefore weak children that can`t be vaccinated get diseases that were almost extinct).

The whole thing makes no sense at all. If you believe in flat-earth, you can also believe that the flat world rests on 4 elephants and a giant turtle. That is as much credible.

Re: Lunar Eclipse proves Heliocentric Model to be false
« Reply #35 on: July 06, 2017, 05:35:44 AM »
Gravity still can't be measured so Gravity has never verified.
Why do you keep telling lies even though you have been told the truth so many times?

The term Gravity means the local gravitational field, and varies a little with location and altitude (up to 0.5%) and it is comapritively easy to measure.

So your claim that "Gravity still can't be measured so Gravity has never verified" is totally incorrect and ridiculous.
All you need is a Gravimeter as in
Quote from: Wikipedia
Gravimeter



A gravimeter is an instrument used in gravimetry for measuring the local gravitational field of the Earth. A gravimeter is a type of accelerometer, specialized for measuring the constant downward acceleration of gravity, which varies by about 0.5% over the surface of the Earth. Though the essential principle of design is the same as in other accelerometers, gravimeters are typically designed to be much more sensitive in order to measure very tiny fractional changes within the Earth's gravity of 1 g, caused by nearby geologic structures or the shape of the Earth and by temporal tidal variations. This sensitivity means that gravimeters are susceptible to extraneous vibrations including noise that tend to cause oscillatory accelerations. In practice this is counteracted by integral vibration isolation and signal processing. The constraints on temporal resolution are usually less for gravimeters, so that resolution can be increased by processing the output with a longer time constant. Gravimeters display their measurements in units of gals (cm/s2), instead of more common units of acceleration.

Gravimeters are used for petroleum and mineral prospecting, seismology, geodesy, geophysical surveys and other geophysical research, and for metrology.
     
An Autograv CG-5 gravimeter being operated

But when you, so ignorantly, claim that "Gravity still can't be measured so Gravity has never verified."
You are really claiming the the Universal Gravitational Constant, G still can't be measured.
This claim of yours is not only wrong, but deceptive and
totally dishonest as you have been informed numerous times that such measurements have been performed numerous times.

Accurate measurements are still not easy, but here are some reports of modern experiments in the lab:
Scientific American, Puzzling Measurement of "Big G" Gravitational Constant Ignites Debate [Slide Show]
Phys.org, New measure of gravitational constant higher than expected
Nature, Precision measurement of the Newtonian gravitational constant using cold atoms - and not always will heavy lead balls!

Phys.org, Why do measurements of the gravitational constant vary so much?
And before you go into raptures over the "the gravitational constant varying so much", look at the variation observed:

A set of 13 measurements of G exhibit a 5.9-year periodic oscillation (solid curve) that closely matches the 5.9-year oscillation in LOD
measurements (dashed curve). The two outliers are a 2014 quantum measurement and a 1996 measurement known to suffer from drift.
The green dot is an estimate of the mean value of G after the 5.9-year periodicity is removed.
Credit: J. D. Anderson, et al. ©2015 EPLA

Read more at: Why do measurements of the gravitational constant vary so much?
Can you show us any Flat Earth experiments with accuracy approaching that?

Yes, there is plenty of experimental verification that masses, even single atoms, are attracted to other masses.

And here are the results all the "Cavendish type" measurements up to the year 2000:

Results of gravitational constant measurements till 2000.

Here is a simple demonstration that a force is produced, though no attempt is made to actually measure G, the Universal Gravitational Constant.

There is this article with an explanation of the effect gravitation with a very simple set-up to demonstrate it:
Bending Spacetime in the Basement.
There are four related videos, all are referenced in the arcticle:
Bending Spacetime in the Basement: Video 1, John Walker
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Bending Spacetime in the Basement: Video 2, John Walker
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Bending Spacetime in the Basement: Video 3, John Walker
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Bending Spacetime in the Basement: Video 4, John Walker
No attempt is made to measure G with this crude experiment, just to demonstrate that there is a force.

So don't claim any more that "Gravity still can't be measured so Gravity has never verified."

Gravitation has been verified and measured numerous times and you are being totally dishonest if you claim otherwise!

Do you think people are stupid.

Though the essential principle of design is the same as in other accelerometers, gravimeters are typically designed to be much more sensitive in order to measure very tiny fractional changes within the Earth's gravity of 1 g, 

It's an accelerometer   ;D

1G

Lol.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45160
  • +98/-136
Re: Lunar Eclipse proves Heliocentric Model to be false
« Reply #36 on: July 06, 2017, 05:40:28 AM »
Quote from: FUTILE
Give it up Rab the liar.

More lies lies .


Don't bother wasting you time your character has been damaged beyond repair.

Why don't you come back with a different name Old Man ?
When flat earther runs out of his nonsense arguments and cannot generate any more garbage he says that.
I call it an ad hominem transfer maneuver.  It's when someone uses personal attacks to change the subject.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45160
  • +98/-136
Re: Lunar Eclipse proves Heliocentric Model to be false
« Reply #37 on: July 06, 2017, 05:42:48 AM »
wow...

 I almost fell off my seat your the first person to agree with me on this so called Flat Earth Society Forum.
There are a few more over here that also laugh about the inserted ''magic'' of refraction, looming, lensing, light bending caused by the gravitational field of earth's mass, mirages and superiour mirages to explain observations that go against the current heliocentric model by extreme margins.
And the list of fancy phenomena is only growing to explain away those things out of reach for normal refraction values.... ;D ;D ;D

Well, to be fair, flat earthers are the ones who believe in aether and such things...
So, I would not laugh...
Aether was scientifically proven by Georges Sagnac over a hundred years ago.
 :o
But did you personally verify those results, or are you just going to take Sagnac's word for it? 

Do you have a decent video showing the results?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • +1/-1
  • Extra Racist
Re: Lunar Eclipse proves Heliocentric Model to be false
« Reply #38 on: July 06, 2017, 06:17:55 AM »
Still wondering why there are no lunar eclipses at 3pm? Does the shadow object only work nights?
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45160
  • +98/-136
Re: Lunar Eclipse proves Heliocentric Model to be false
« Reply #39 on: July 06, 2017, 06:43:55 AM »
Why no lunar eclipses at any phase other than full moon?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

Alpha2Omega

  • 4107
  • +1/-1
Re: Lunar Eclipse proves Heliocentric Model to be false
« Reply #40 on: July 06, 2017, 09:00:00 PM »
The footage in this video of a Lunar Eclipse contradicts your model and proves that your model is incorrect.

Explain this :

It is a video of a lunar eclipse that contradicts your Religious Doctrine.

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><link to another bogus video>

Quote from: Narrator
The sun and the moon are both above the horizon.



Nope. The sun isn't up yet even though the sky isn't completely black.  If it were, the sky would be brighter, the mountains better lit, and there would be distinct shadows. Have you ever heard the term dawn (or morning twilight)? Have you ever been outside a little before sunrise or soon after sunset?

The partially-eclipsed moon wouldn't appear as high in the sky, either, if the sun were up - that's another way to tell.

Quote
Proof the heliocentric Globe Religion is false.

This is evidence that you believe (or say you believe) whatever you want to hear. Nothing more.

Quote
@Rab the Racist.

And don't  say it's refraction as your really wearing that word out now.

Before refraction is even an issue, you need to provide some solid evidence that the sun is actually above the horizon when the narrator said it was. What the narrator (who is apparently not the photographer, and seems to be saying whatever he wants you to believe) claims is not sufficient. Good luck!

The narrator's whole "the top is dark but should be light" nonsense was also completely bollixed up, too, BTW. Whether the "top" or "bottom" of the moon is in shadow when the moon is setting depends only on how far along the eclipse is when the moon sets. In this case, the eclipse hadn't reached totality when the moon set. Further west it would have been total while setting. Even further west, the "top" of the moon would have emerged into sunlight by the time it set.

The still image, from 2:06 into the video, above, is about as far into the video as I could stand. There was, no doubt, more bullshit commentary that followed, but this was enough to see how useless the whole production was.

Weren't you the guy who claims he doesn't believe anything he can't personally verify? If so, it appears that a breathless video by someone who claims the earth is flat counts as "personally verifying". To paraphrase our esteemed president: "Sad."

[Edit] typo.
« Last Edit: July 06, 2017, 09:02:47 PM by Alpha2Omega »
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

?

Zammo

  • 276
  • +0/-0
Re: Lunar Eclipse proves Heliocentric Model to be false
« Reply #41 on: July 06, 2017, 09:17:01 PM »
The footage in this video of a Lunar Eclipse contradicts your model and proves that your model is incorrect.

Explain this :

It is a video of a lunar eclipse that contradicts your Religious Doctrine.





Proof the heliocentric Globe Religion is false.

@Rab the Racist.

And don't  say it's refraction as your really wearing that word out now.


Racist lol I'm of Dual Heritage. It's obvious he doesn't understand what is being said.
That's not surprising with the trash that you post.

What an excellent video proving the heliocentric model. The video footage of the eclipse of the setting moon just as the sun is rising is exactly as expected for a selenelion. That you can't understand the basic physics is of no consequence. Show me a lunar eclipse at midday and I'll change my belief. All selenelions (and all nonsense FE videos misinterpreting them) occur as the moon is approaching the horizon and the sun just rising. All of them. As expected. The earth is a sphere.

I love the last sentence by the way. So endemic of the dishonesty of Flat Earthers. A straight pencil looks bent when you place it half way in a glass of water. Why is this so? And don't say refraction!!!😂😂😂Must be magic hey?
« Last Edit: July 06, 2017, 10:43:30 PM by Zammo »
If I'm a complete Idiot for not believing in your Heliocentric fairytale then so be it.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • +0/-0
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Lunar Eclipse proves Heliocentric Model to be false
« Reply #42 on: July 06, 2017, 10:41:32 PM »
Do you think people are stupid.
You have answered you own question - look in a mirror.

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile
Though the essential principle of design is the same as in other accelerometers, gravimeters are typically designed to be much more sensitive in order to measure very tiny fractional changes within the Earth's gravity of 1 g,
Please explain what is wrong with that statement? It's not my statement anyway.
Your problem is that you are trying to debunk science matters and you wouldn't know science if it bit you on the nose.
It is completely obvious that you have no idea what is the difference between gravity and gravitation.

Gravity is a measure of the effective force that the earth's gravitation causes on one unit mass.
Its units are either an acceleration, eg m.s-2 or the force per unit mass, eg N.kg-1 - they amount to the same thing.

So gravity is easy to measure. Just weigh a unit mass on very precise scales and on the earth's surface.
The answer should be in the range:
          9.7639 m/s2 on Mount Nevado Huascarán in Peru to
          9.8337 m/s2 at the surface of the Arctic Ocean.
Though to get results to that precision you need a high class gravimeter.

The effective gravity on earth also includes a reduction due to rotation at all locations except at either pole.

Of course the term gravity does get used loosely to apply the acceleration due to gravitation in other places, such as the moon, Mars or even on the ISS.

On the other hand gravitation is a general term and knowing the mass and radius of a planet
we can calculate it's gravity from g = G.M/r2
where g is the "surface gravity",
           G is the Universal Gravitational Constant,
           M is the planet's mass and
           r is the planet's radius.
In practice, the planet's is often known first.

 ;D But of course, you are au fait with all this elementary stuff already.  ;D

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • +0/-0
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Lunar Eclipse proves Heliocentric Model to be false
« Reply #43 on: July 06, 2017, 10:55:23 PM »
Aether was scientifically proven by Georges Sagnac over a hundred years ago.
 :o
Incorrect!
Quote
Consequences for Aether drag hypothesis
Because differing ideas of "aether drag" existed, the interpretation of all aether drag experiments can be done in the context of each version of the hypothesis.
Read up on it in: Hammar Experiment
These experiments taken together prove that there is no aether.

The original Michelson–Morley experiment was not sensitive enough to provide conclusive evidence, but combined with Hammar's Experiment and many more recent Michelson–Morley type experiments quite settles that part.

The trouble is Mr Resistance.is.Futile is that I am sure that you don't have the slightest idea what this is all about.

So, all you do is repeat the words you see and hear from your High Priests of the neo-Flat Earthism Religion in these videos you find in your Temple of YouTube.
« Last Edit: November 01, 2017, 07:50:55 PM by rabinoz »

Re: Lunar Eclipse proves Heliocentric Model to be false
« Reply #44 on: July 07, 2017, 04:32:56 AM »
The footage in this video of a Lunar Eclipse contradicts your model and proves that your model is incorrect.

Explain this :

It is a video of a lunar eclipse that contradicts your Religious Doctrine.

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><link to another bogus video>

Quote from: Narrator
The sun and the moon are both above the horizon.



Nope. The sun isn't up yet even though the sky isn't completely black.  If it were, the sky would be brighter, the mountains better lit, and there would be distinct shadows. Have you ever heard the term dawn (or morning twilight)? Have you ever been outside a little before sunrise or soon after sunset?

The partially-eclipsed moon wouldn't appear as high in the sky, either, if the sun were up - that's another way to tell.

Quote
Proof the heliocentric Globe Religion is false.

This is evidence that you believe (or say you believe) whatever you want to hear. Nothing more.

Quote
@Rab the Racist.

And don't  say it's refraction as your really wearing that word out now.

Before refraction is even an issue, you need to provide some solid evidence that the sun is actually above the horizon when the narrator said it was. What the narrator (who is apparently not the photographer, and seems to be saying whatever he wants you to believe) claims is not sufficient. Good luck!

The narrator's whole "the top is dark but should be light" nonsense was also completely bollixed up, too, BTW. Whether the "top" or "bottom" of the moon is in shadow when the moon is setting depends only on how far along the eclipse is when the moon sets. In this case, the eclipse hadn't reached totality when the moon set. Further west it would have been total while setting. Even further west, the "top" of the moon would have emerged into sunlight by the time it set.

The still image, from 2:06 into the video, above, is about as far into the video as I could stand. There was, no doubt, more bullshit commentary that followed, but this was enough to see how useless the whole production was.

Weren't you the guy who claims he doesn't believe anything he can't personally verify? If so, it appears that a breathless video by someone who claims the earth is flat counts as "personally verifying". To paraphrase our esteemed president: "Sad."

[Edit] typo.

Your post is nonsense you should have watched the whole video it is clear to see to anyone that watched the video the Sun and the Moon are above the horizon at the same time.


It Would seem that you Heliocentric's can't agree on your Model because your colleague's and Space.com put this "OPTICAL ILLUSION"   ::) down to magic image bending. (Refraction )

I personally put it down to you Heliocentric's retro fitting an explanation to suit your model.

Thank you keep up the good work sites like this create thousands more sceptics everyday and is the reason why the Flat Earth is becoming so popular.

Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.

No attempt is made to measure G with this crude experiment, just to demonstrate that there is a force.

So don't claim any more that "Gravity still can't be measured so Gravity can't be verified.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2017, 04:35:26 AM by Resistance.is.Futile »

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45160
  • +98/-136
Re: Lunar Eclipse proves Heliocentric Model to be false
« Reply #45 on: July 07, 2017, 05:30:35 AM »
Your post is nonsense you should have watched the whole video it is clear to see to anyone that watched the video the Sun and the Moon are above the horizon at the same time.
Did you watch the original video that shows that the sun didn't actually rise above the horizon until the moon was fully eclipsed and just starting to set?


It Would seem that you Heliocentric's can't agree on your Model because your colleague's and Space.com put this "OPTICAL ILLUSION"   ::) down to magic image bending. (Refraction )
To what disagreement are you referring? 

What's magical about refraction? ???

I personally put it down to you Heliocentric's retro fitting an explanation to suit your model.
Since the model and explanation both match what we observe, why would that be a problem? ???

Thank you keep up the good work sites like this create thousands more sceptics everyday and is the reason why the Flat Earth is becoming so popular.
Sadly, I think that this is simply a situation where the collective intelligence of the world is a constant, but the population growing.  :(

Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
It only seems strange if you don't understand it.

No attempt is made to measure G with this crude experiment, just to demonstrate that there is a force.

So don't claim any more that "Gravity still can't be measured so Gravity can't be verified.
lrn2sig ::)
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • +0/-0
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Lunar Eclipse proves Heliocentric Model to be false
« Reply #46 on: July 07, 2017, 05:31:56 AM »
@Rab the Racist.
That lie is wearing a little thin now. I said wrote nothing racist. It doesn't bother me that you might be dual heritage.
When I wrote "
Racist lol I'm of Dual Heritage. It's obvious he doesn't understand what is being said.
That's not surprising with the trash that you post."
I meant nothing more nor less than
      "It's obvious he doesn't understand what is being said" because of the "trash that you post."
If your posts made the slightest bit of sense it would make all the difference, but I guess that's beyond your capability.

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile
And don't  say it's refraction as your really wearing that word out now.
If it is caused by refraction, and it partly is, I'll say it's refraction! I won't be deterred from telling it how it is because of anything you say.

Now, would you be good enough to explain how that or any lunar eclipse could possibly occur on your flat earth?

And remember that the lunar eclipse looks the same to anyone who has the moon in the sky at the time of the eclipse. The only difference is that in the southern hemisphere the moon looks upside down, look at any of my moon photos.
Here is the Wiki explanation of the lunar eclipse The Flat Earth Society Wiki, The Lunar Eclipse



*

onebigmonkey

  • 1623
  • +0/-0
  • You. Yes you. Stand still laddie.
Re: Lunar Eclipse proves Heliocentric Model to be false
« Reply #47 on: July 07, 2017, 05:38:20 AM »

Your post is nonsense you should have watched the whole video it is clear to see to anyone that watched the video the Sun and the Moon are above the horizon at the same time.

Indeed they are. I've looked in Stellarium to see and yes, that's what happens. And?

Quote
It Would seem that you Heliocentric's can't agree on your Model because your colleague's and Space.com put this "OPTICAL ILLUSION"   ::) down to magic image bending. (Refraction )

I personally put it down to you Heliocentric's retro fitting an explanation to suit your model.

Thank you keep up the good work sites like this create thousands more sceptics everyday and is the reason why the Flat Earth is becoming so popular.

Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.

So, provide for us another explanation as to how else it could work.

I am particularly interested to hear your explanation as to how the sun can be in the sky, shining directly at the moon, and yet only the bottom portion of the moon is lit. Not the side, not the full face, the bottom portion.

Any time you're ready.
Facts won't do what I want them to.

We went from a round Earth to a round Moon: http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/apollo.html

?

dutchy

  • 2366
  • +0/-0
Re: Lunar Eclipse proves Heliocentric Model to be false
« Reply #48 on: July 07, 2017, 07:25:33 AM »
Once upon a time there was a cosmic miniature pea with an infinite dense structure that exploded wothout cause or any particular reason
Everything inside this little pea was shattered into nothingness
The nothingness inflated to huge proportions
The rest debri of the initial pea started to feel lonely
Althaugh flashing away from the point zero they found eachother somehow
They started to gather in large assemblees and finally became shiny stars and orbiting planets
Together they formed large local groups such as our milkyway
In the process a magical force emerged called gravity
It was a kinda of there to make sure the induvidual cosmic dust particles glued together in the first place
But more important it appeared after the pieces made it to collossal balls of matter and energy
One can only hounor and admire such dualistic form of magic
To form cosmic balls it was needed , and because of cosmic balls it was activated into the force we all know so well on a daily bases.

Oh mighty gravity , will i ever understand your misteries and depts?
Who is men to deserve to be gentily hold to a spinning ball ?
If it wasn't for you we were all floating in the darkness of everlasting emptyness.

Please make sure to reward your servants over here, defending all your mystical properties and quantities.



?

simba

  • 227
  • +0/-0
Re: Lunar Eclipse proves Heliocentric Model to be false
« Reply #49 on: July 07, 2017, 08:01:36 AM »
wow...

 I almost fell off my seat your the first person to agree with me on this so called Flat Earth Society Forum.
There are a few more over here that also laugh about the inserted ''magic'' of refraction, looming, lensing, light bending caused by the gravitational field of earth's mass, mirages and superiour mirages to explain observations that go against the current heliocentric model by extreme margins.
And the list of fancy phenomena is only growing to explain away those things out of reach for normal refraction values.... ;D ;D ;D

Well, to be fair, flat earthers are the ones who believe in aether and such things...
So, I would not laugh...
Aether was scientifically proven by Georges Sagnac over a hundred years ago.
 :o

And gravity not? And most of the evidence for round-earth? Oh wait, they are...

Theorys that have never been verified

Go bungee jumping without a bungee rope, if you survive, you have verified gravity

?

simba

  • 227
  • +0/-0
Re: Lunar Eclipse proves Heliocentric Model to be false
« Reply #50 on: July 07, 2017, 08:06:38 AM »
wow...

 I almost fell off my seat your the first person to agree with me on this so called Flat Earth Society Forum.
There are a few more over here that also laugh about the inserted ''magic'' of refraction, looming, lensing, light bending caused by the gravitational field of earth's mass, mirages and superiour mirages to explain observations that go against the current heliocentric model by extreme margins.
And the list of fancy phenomena is only growing to explain away those things out of reach for normal refraction values.... ;D ;D ;D

Well, to be fair, flat earthers are the ones who believe in aether and such things...
So, I would not laugh...
Aether was scientifically proven by Georges Sagnac over a hundred years ago.
 :o
But did you personally verify those results, or are you just going to take Sagnac's word for it? 

Do you have a decent video showing the results?

You know that he won't answer that, right?

?

simba

  • 227
  • +0/-0
Re: Lunar Eclipse proves Heliocentric Model to be false
« Reply #51 on: July 07, 2017, 08:12:12 AM »
If a Lunar Eclipse proves a model wrong, it would be de Flat model.

Don't get how you people engage in a conversation with a guy that just keeps confusing religion and science and contradicting himself

?

Alpha2Omega

  • 4107
  • +1/-1
Re: Lunar Eclipse proves Heliocentric Model to be false
« Reply #52 on: July 07, 2017, 11:14:44 AM »
The footage in this video of a Lunar Eclipse contradicts your model and proves that your model is incorrect.

Explain this :

It is a video of a lunar eclipse that contradicts your Religious Doctrine.

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><link to another bogus video>

Quote from: Narrator
The sun and the moon are both above the horizon.



Nope. The sun isn't up yet even though the sky isn't completely black.  If it were, the sky would be brighter, the mountains better lit, and there would be distinct shadows. Have you ever heard the term dawn (or morning twilight)? Have you ever been outside a little before sunrise or soon after sunset?

The partially-eclipsed moon wouldn't appear as high in the sky, either, if the sun were up - that's another way to tell.

Quote
Proof the heliocentric Globe Religion is false.

This is evidence that you believe (or say you believe) whatever you want to hear. Nothing more.

Quote
@Rab the Racist.

And don't  say it's refraction as your really wearing that word out now.

Before refraction is even an issue, you need to provide some solid evidence that the sun is actually above the horizon when the narrator said it was. What the narrator (who is apparently not the photographer, and seems to be saying whatever he wants you to believe) claims is not sufficient. Good luck!

The narrator's whole "the top is dark but should be light" nonsense was also completely bollixed up, too, BTW. Whether the "top" or "bottom" of the moon is in shadow when the moon is setting depends only on how far along the eclipse is when the moon sets. In this case, the eclipse hadn't reached totality when the moon set. Further west it would have been total while setting. Even further west, the "top" of the moon would have emerged into sunlight by the time it set.

The still image, from 2:06 into the video, above, is about as far into the video as I could stand. There was, no doubt, more bullshit commentary that followed, but this was enough to see how useless the whole production was.

Weren't you the guy who claims he doesn't believe anything he can't personally verify? If so, it appears that a breathless video by someone who claims the earth is flat counts as "personally verifying". To paraphrase our esteemed president: "Sad."

[Edit] typo.
Your post is nonsense you should have watched the whole video it is clear to see to anyone that watched the video the Sun and the Moon are above the horizon at the same time.

Even a minute in the video after the narrator claims that both the sun and moon are above the horizon - which is longer in real time since it's a time lapse - it's clear that the sun still isn't up yet.



You can tell it's getting closer to sunrise since the sky has brightened some and the contrast between the lights of the town and the mountains behind decreases, but there's no direct sunlight yet; direct sunlight would be significantly brighter, illuminate the tops of the mountains first, and create distinct shadows.

Besides, the author of " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">the original video, Michael Zeiter, even tells you that in his description as "a near selenelion event" and what that means. This is included in the derived video. Oops!



The sun isn't up yet when that Mr. Zeiter's video ends. Period.

You've been snookered.

The next scene features " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">a different video of the same eclipse from further east, near St. Louis. I'd suggest watching the full original footage without the added bloviating and incorrect commentary. It does turn the camera from time to time to show when the sun has actually broken the horizon and started to rise, but by that point, near the end of that video about 3:36 in, the moon is just barely above the horizon at all, which is easily explained by the small but well-known phenomenon of atmospheric refraction.

Quote
It Would seem that you Heliocentric's can't agree on your Model because your colleague's and Space.com put this "OPTICAL ILLUSION"   ::) down to magic image bending. (Refraction )

There's no disagreement. You're being conned into thinking that the sun is up while the eclipsed moon is substantially higher in the sky than what actually happens, and that the shadow is on the wrong side.

Quote
I personally put it down to you Heliocentric's retro fitting an explanation to suit your model.

The explanations simply correspond with what is observed, and are consistent with other independent measurements. No inconsistency, no magic needed. You may take issue with them, but that's your problem.

Quote
Thank you keep up the good work sites like this create thousands more sceptics everyday and is the reason why the Flat Earth is becoming so popular.

Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.

You sound like you're trying to convince yourself.

BTW, you never answered this:

"Weren't you the guy who claims he doesn't believe anything he can't personally verify?"

You should go outside sometimes and watch the sky change brightness after sunset and as sunrise approaches (if you can put in the effort to get up that early). That might cure you of believing "the sun must be up because the sky is blue" simply because a con man tells you that.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Lunar Eclipse proves Heliocentric Model to be false
« Reply #53 on: July 07, 2017, 11:19:40 AM »
If a Lunar Eclipse proves a model wrong, it would be de Flat model.

Don't get how you people engage in a conversation with a guy that just keeps confusing religion and science and contradicting himself

You Heliocentrics really are a different breed.

You defend the Globe even though you have never seen it.

You are stupid and gullable enough to believe anything you are told by your masters.

Enjoy it why you can because if
nothing happens very soon regarding manned space exploration  (and we all know it wont ;)) your whole Strange Heliocentric Religion will come crashing down.

 ;D
« Last Edit: July 07, 2017, 11:27:00 AM by Resistance.is.Futile »

?

simba

  • 227
  • +0/-0
Re: Lunar Eclipse proves Heliocentric Model to be false
« Reply #54 on: July 07, 2017, 11:32:59 AM »
If a Lunar Eclipse proves a model wrong, it would be de Flat model.

Don't get how you people engage in a conversation with a guy that just keeps confusing religion and science and contradicting himself

You Heliocentrics really are a different breed.

You defend the Globe even though you have never seen it.

You are stupid and gullable enough to believe anything you are told by your masters.

Enjoy it why you can because if
nothing happens very soon regarding manned space exploration  (and we all know it wont ;)) your whole Strange Heliocentric Religion will come crashing down.

 ;D

What does space travel has to do with the shape of the Earth?
In wich way are they correlated?

 ???

Re: Lunar Eclipse proves Heliocentric Model to be false
« Reply #55 on: July 07, 2017, 01:57:39 PM »
If a Lunar Eclipse proves a model wrong, it would be de Flat model.

Don't get how you people engage in a conversation with a guy that just keeps confusing religion and science and contradicting himself

You Heliocentrics really are a different breed.

You defend the Globe even though you have never seen it.

You are stupid and gullable enough to believe anything you are told by your masters.

Enjoy it why you can because if
nothing happens very soon regarding manned space exploration  (and we all know it wont ;)) your whole Strange Heliocentric Religion will come crashing down.

 ;D

What does space travel has to do with the shape of the Earth?
In wich way are they correlated?

 ???

If you can't make that connection it is easy to see why you believe whatever your masters tell you.

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • +1/-1
  • Extra Racist
Re: Lunar Eclipse proves Heliocentric Model to be false
« Reply #56 on: July 07, 2017, 02:19:33 PM »
Still wondering why there are no lunar eclipses at 3pm? Does the shadow object only work nights?
Why no lunar eclipses at any phase other than full moon?
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • +0/-0
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Lunar Eclipse proves Heliocentric Model to be false
« Reply #57 on: July 07, 2017, 02:29:02 PM »
If you can't make that connection it is easy to see why you believe whatever your masters tell you.

You are the one "that just keeps confusing religion and science".

You are the one with no ideas of your own and insist that we must learn this
neo-Flat Earthism Religious Dogma from the High Priests of the neo-Flat Earthism Religion in the Temple of the YouTube.
Don't talk to us about masters, we don't have masters. You have proved that so often.
All you do is parrot the words you see and hear from
your High Priests of the neo-Flat Earthism Religion in these videos you find in your Temple of YouTube.

By the way, have you forgotten that I asked YOU for an explanation?

Now, would you be good enough to explain how that or any lunar eclipse could possibly occur on your flat earth?

And remember that the lunar eclipse looks the same to anyone who has the moon in the sky at the time of the eclipse. The only difference is that in the southern hemisphere the moon looks upside down, look at any of my moon photos.
Here is the Wiki explanation of the lunar eclipse The Flat Earth Society Wiki, The Lunar Eclipse

So front up with your explanation of how a lunar eclipse could possibly occur on your flat earth.
An NO, a video borrowed from your neo-Flat Earthism Religion Temple of the YouTube will NOT do! Explain it in YOUR words.
Or just admit what we all know already - you have no idea what you are talking about.
I don't really expect a sensible answer as it is quite impossible for the lunar eclipse we see to occur on YOUR flat earth.

By the way your neo-Flat Earthism Religion has only been around for 150 years or so!
The Globe has been working very well as the true shape of the earth for over 2 millennia before that!

So, it's up to you, the new kid on the block, to prove your case and show us a flat earth that "works" - so far NONE do.


?

dutchy

  • 2366
  • +0/-0
Re: Lunar Eclipse proves Heliocentric Model to be false
« Reply #58 on: July 07, 2017, 03:24:55 PM »
neo-Flat Earthism Religious Dogma from the High Priests of the neo-Flat Earthism Religion in the Temple of the YouTube.
Don't talk to us about masters, we don't have masters. You have proved that so often.
All you do is parrot the words you see and hear from
your High Priests of the neo-Flat Earthism Religion in these videos you find in your Temple of YouTube.
Leonard Kleinrock and many others after him materialised the internet, email and finally youtube.
We are talking about those from the same scientic branch you rabinoz seem to validate so much.
The end result is what we have today.

So could you please make a list what you consider as reliable sources ?
We know you hate youtube .... ;D
Wiki....is that reliable ?

Why don't you scan real scientific papers or real books and use them as reference, because you yourself have the smell of false prophet ''internet copy paiste'' surrounding you.
Having said that, could you give us a list of the superiour search engines and wiki and youtube equivalents ?
You are so confusing at times.......

Re: Lunar Eclipse proves Heliocentric Model to be false
« Reply #59 on: July 07, 2017, 04:01:17 PM »
If you can't make that connection it is easy to see why you believe whatever your masters tell you.

You are the one "that just keeps confusing religion and science".

You are the one with no ideas of your own and insist that we must learn this
neo-Flat Earthism Religious Dogma from the High Priests of the neo-Flat Earthism Religion in the Temple of the YouTube.
Don't talk to us about masters, we don't have masters. You have proved that so often.
All you do is parrot the words you see and hear from
your High Priests of the neo-Flat Earthism Religion in these videos you find in your Temple of YouTube.

By the way, have you forgotten that I asked YOU for an explanation?

Now, would you be good enough to explain how that or any lunar eclipse could possibly occur on your flat earth?

And remember that the lunar eclipse looks the same to anyone who has the moon in the sky at the time of the eclipse. The only difference is that in the southern hemisphere the moon looks upside down, look at any of my moon photos.
Here is the Wiki explanation of the lunar eclipse The Flat Earth Society Wiki, The Lunar Eclipse

So front up with your explanation of how a lunar eclipse could possibly occur on your flat earth.
An NO, a video borrowed from your neo-Flat Earthism Religion Temple of the YouTube will NOT do! Explain it in YOUR words.
Or just admit what we all know already - you have no idea what you are talking about.
I don't really expect a sensible answer as it is quite impossible for the lunar eclipse we see to occur on YOUR flat earth.

By the way your neo-Flat Earthism Religion has only been around for 150 years or so!
The Globe has been working very well as the true shape of the earth for over 2 millennia before that!

So, it's up to you, the new kid on the block, to prove your case and show us a flat earth that "works" - so far NONE do.

Are you still spouting this nonsense the ancient Chinese had a fully working Flat Earth Model they mapped the stars and could accurately predict Solar and Lunar eclipses.

Copernicus was the first God of your religion nobody believed the beta Greek Eratosthenes  the loser who was always second. (Because he was wrong).

Why would I waste my time discussing a model with you Strange Heliocentric's I might aswell try and  convince a Muslim or a Jewish person to eat Pork.

It's not difficult to get you to conform just keep up the good work. :P

Here's a video you will like  :D



 ;D