Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the Globe

  • 1484 Replies
  • 123914 Views
*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the Globe
« Reply #1290 on: September 23, 2017, 06:41:18 PM »
Here is another video that is a good compilation of all the contraditions in your ridiculous 160 year old Heliocentric model .


I'm not wasting time watching these silly videos you dig up out the discard pile!

You go through it and list the major arguments and where they are presented in the video and I'll take in from there.
At least that way we might find out if you have the slightest idea of what it's all about,
          because from we've seen in the past you haven't a clue about either the Heliocentric Globe or the Pizza Planet!

Bye bye time-waster!
I have told you before NO ONE is able to give me direction regarding my posts .
Not only am I "able to give YOU direction regarding YOUR posts", but I DID "give YOU direction regarding YOUR posts"!

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile
You are yet again not able to provide any viable explanation to explain the many contradictions in the said video regarding your ridiculous Heliocentric model.
I can provide plenty of viable explanations, but you'd just ignore them because you, yourself don't understand the video or what is grossly wrong with it.

I did post a couple of comments on YouTube, but the video is so wrong it's not worth wasting time over.

Bye bye time-waster!

Re: Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the Globe
« Reply #1291 on: September 23, 2017, 07:09:16 PM »
You are incorrect.
No. I am correct. You have reapeatedly failed to show anything wrong with any argument that has been presented against you. Instead you just dismiss it as unacceptable.

Go back, read my post regarding the HC model's predictions regarding the eclipse and point out what is wrong with it.

where you humiliated
You and the other FEers have been the only ones humiliated here.


Shadow direction.
Shadow size .
Completely consistent with the HC model.
Completely inexplicable with the FE model.

The distribution of light from the Sun during the Solar eclipse does not match the 3D simulation in the video I posted from globe busters this is because your model is incorrect.
No, it is because your straw man is incorrect.
Use the proper HC model, not a horribly out of scale one.
If you aren't using the actual HC model, then it failing to match reality is just your failure, not a failure of the HC model.

In the last video I posted the video provided by NASA doesn't show the umbra /penumbra it shows one huge shadow crossing the USA.
Again, not an issue with the HC model. Also, are you sure they didn't show the umbra? It would appear as a small point if at all.

This will do for now to keep me entertained for a while.
Again, this isn't for your entertainment.
Provide a rational argument, or just shut up.

These many contradictions show your model is pure fabrication
No, these issues show your straw man, your model, to be fabrication. It is not the HC model that has these issues.

Now then, stop going to your shitty pathetic videos and your shitty pathetic straw men. Discuss the actual HC model, with distances and angles correct.
Until you do, your arguments are just showing yourself to be wrong, not the HC model.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the Globe
« Reply #1292 on: September 24, 2017, 01:28:46 AM »
Here is another video that is a good compilation of all the contraditions in your ridiculous 160 year old Heliocentric model .
Stop your stupid idiotic claims,  the HeliocentricGlobe has been the accepted model for 300 to 400 years, and the real explanation for the solar eclipse known for millenia. You are proving yourself an ignorant troll.

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile

I'm not wasting time watching all these silly videos you dig up out the discard pile!

Bye bye time-waster!

I have told you before NO ONE is able to give me direction regarding my posts .

If you want to disprove the Heliocentric Globe you must present the correct  Heliocentric Globe model instead of lying about it, the auguing against your own lie.
And that is exactly what your trash-can video does. The trouble is that you are too ignorant of the facts, so would not know if the video was deceptive or not.

Right near the start it presents this diagram of the solar eclipse.

Solar Eclipse - out of scale but correct from 0:52 sec
Now it is out-of-scale, but it is completely impossibly to draw to scale. It is however essentially correct and shows the observed umbra and penumbra.

Than at 1:15 sec it shows this still out of scale, but now totally incorrect diagram.

Solar Eclipse - out of scale and totally incorrect from 1:15 sec

That diagram is deceptive in at least two respects!
  • It shows, and the video states that, the sun is the same size as the moon. In reality the moon is almost 3,5 km and the sun about 1.4 million km in diameter.

  • It shows no light from the sun that would cause the penumbra, so go and fix your silly lying video.

Your tactics are as usual more examples of the classic Straw-man argument, so please learn how to debate honestly.

So fix your silly deceptive video and try again.

Bye bye, ignorant deceptive loser.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41774
Re: Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the Globe
« Reply #1293 on: September 24, 2017, 08:11:55 AM »
RiF, instead of obsessing with the scale of the heliocentric model, have you ever tried doing the math with the generally accepted numbers?  The out of scale diagrams are simply for illustrative purposes.  It isn't until you work with the real numbers that you can truly judge the model.  Or are you just one more FE'er who is too intellectually lazy to think that the numbers matter or too intellectually dishonest to admit that FE numbers just don't work, no matter how you manipulate them?
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
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the Globe
« Reply #1294 on: September 25, 2017, 10:44:42 PM »
RiF, instead of obsessing with the scale of the heliocentric model, have you ever tried doing the math with the generally accepted numbers?  The out of scale diagrams are simply for illustrative purposes.  It isn't until you work with the real numbers that you can truly judge the model.  Or are you just one more FE'er who is too intellectually lazy to think that the numbers matter or too intellectually dishonest to admit that FE numbers just don't work, no matter how you manipulate them?
I think the alt we call RiF has gone into hiding for a while while its puppet master gloats some more.
We probably should all do an İntikam on him, sort of send the time-wasting troll to Coventry.

Re: Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the Globe
« Reply #1295 on: September 25, 2017, 11:04:53 PM »
Your explanation is unsatisfactory.



No. I am correct. You have reapeatedly failed to show anything wrong with any argument that has been presented against you. Instead you just dismiss it as unacceptable.


Any normal person can understand that as the moon's total orbital path is 27 to 29 days and 1.5 million miles it would have to travel at least a 190000 miles to cross the USA west to east because it is 200000 miles away on your Heliocentric model and in reality the USA is nearly 3000 miles wide so we could say that is roughly 12.5% of the alleged circumfrence of your imaginary Globe which to keep it simple represents roughly 12.5% of the Moons orbital path.

In reality any normal person will know it is impossible for the Moons shadow to travel west to east as they see the Moon rise in the East and set in the West EVERYDAY.

It is also impossible as shown in the first video I posted at the start of the thread because the earth's angular velocity on your model is 27 times greater than the Moon's actual velocity.

You have failed to take into account that the Solar Eclipse is visable in the Sky and it is the Earth's alleged angular Velocity as you and your colleague's have agreed that determines what we see in the sky.

A video that describes the orbit of the Moon on your Heliocentric model.



Light travels in straight lines .

The Eclispe is caused by the moon passing between the sun and the earth.

The Sun has to be directly behind the Moon and the Earth has to be directly in front of the Moon.

An object shadow will follow the object when the light source is directly behind it.

You are now claiming the Moon moves in the opposite direction to what is observed this would be the only possible way that the Moon's shadow can move west to East when the light source which is the Sun is directly behind it.

http://www.livephysics.com/physical-constants/mechanics-pc/angular-speed-earth/

You are fooling no one with your heliocentric nonsense. It is impossible for the path of the solar eclipse to move in completely the opposite direction to the moon.

The moon rises in the East and sets in th west.

The Solar Eclipse starts in the west and finishes if the East. The Earth's angular velocity which Is one rotation every 24 hrs is 27 times faster than the Moon's velocity.

This is why the moon allegedly rises in the east and sets in the west.

If the Moon's velocity was greater than the angular velocity of the earth the Moon would rise in the West and set in the East it would also have to orbit the earth more than once every 24 hours to achieve this.

Here is a description of a solar eclipse on your model.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_eclipse It clearly says the eclipse is caused when the moon passes in front of the sun.

The moon takes 27 days to orbit the earth.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon

On your model the Sun is stationary regarding it's position to the earth and the moon .

http://kidseclipse.com/sun-earth-moon-move/

I chose this link so you Stupid and gullable Heliocentric's can try to understand how and why the upcoming Solar Eclipse is impossible on your model.

It is impossible for an objects shadow to move in the opposite direction to the said object when the light source is stationary.

The only way this would be possible on your model would be if the Sun was moving millions of miles in relation to the earth and did not maintain it's alleged position in the centre of the solar system.

https://www.quora.com/Is-the-sun-the-center-of-the-solar-system-Why So

I will tell you again it is impossible for the Moon to cast a shadow on the Earth that is 24 times smaller than itself.

So I will tell you again it is impossible for the Solar Eclipse to move across the Earth west to East which is the opposite direction to the moon on your Heliocentric model.

Your Heliocentric model does not match reality as such your Heliocentric model is false.

Part one Part two

Anyone that has observed the total eclipse can verify that it is not the Moon .

One would expect to see Earth shine because of the earth's high albedo.

Earth shine has never been observed with the naked eye .

When the eclipse is observed with the naked eye a black object is observed eclipsing the Sun.

When the eclipse is observed with the naked eye the moon is not visible.

The video below demonstrates that it was not the moon eclipsing the Sun ( 30 seconds - 4:00



The Moon does not have to be visible elsewhere in the sky whilst the Black Sun is eclipsing the Sun.

It is not up to you to determine the criteria of satisfactory evidence regarding the Black Sun eclipsing the Sun.

The video above clearly shows that the Moon is not in front of the Sun.

The spectrum analyser shows the Sun is giving it's light off as expected for an object that shape,  if the Moon was eclipsing the sun as you Heliocentrics claim there would not be an even distribution of light around the Sun .

You and your brethren can not explain the evenly distributed light around the Sun regarding the video footage taken of the eclipse provided .

The evenly distributed light shown by the spectrum analysers show there is NO solid object in front of the Sun .

The video also highlighted how NASA got their timing wrong .

We have all observed how the moon moves across the sky ;  in an hour it moves roughly 15 degrees to the observer on the ground.

At 13:30 on the video an hour before NASA predicted the eclipse we can observe from the video footage that the Black Sun has already started interfering with the Sun.

The above would be impossible if it was the Moon eclipsing the Sun as the Moon would be an estimated  few degrees away to the observer at 13:30  .



The image demonstrates that the light is clearly evenly distributed around the Sun and that there is no object such as the Moon in front of the sun .

The pattern demonstrated on the image provided shows what would be expected if the sun was that shape .

The video shows there is no sign of your invisible disappearing and reappearing Magic Moon .

The deviation from the perfect circle of light around the Sun is what should be expected as the Sun was a waning crescent at the time of the said image that was taken from the video provided .

If a solid object such as the Moon was obstructing the Sun during the Solar Eclipse  there would be little to no light coming from the Sun on the side of the said obstruction .

The image provided doesn't show this as it shows an even distribution of light all around the Sun .

It would also be an impossible coincidence for scattered light to form the correct pattern of evenly distributed light for the Eclipsed Sun as demonstrated in the video provided .

On your heliocentric model the light is allegedly scattered in space and the Shadow is caused by your Magic Moon .

As light in space travels in straight lines we would not be able to observe the pattern of light demonstrated in the video provided earlier if your heliocentric model is correct .

Here is another video that goes into great detail regarding the Solar eclipse.

The video provided also shows pictures taken during the eclipse that show very strange orb like shadows .

The narrator has determined that this is down to the black hole Sun obstructing the Sun .

He also claims that these small orbs that the black hole Sun is constructed of is what is causing the strange shadows that have been photographed during the eclipse and shown in the video .

He also constructs a 3D model using a simulation that displays what we should of observed during the Eclipse if your Heliocentric model is correct .

There is a huge difference between what was observed during the eclipse and what should of been observed if your heliocentric model was correct .

The video :





The video below shows the small orbs that the Black Hole Sun is constructed of in front of the Sun ; the said image was taken from a high altitude aircraft and it also shows these orbs projected onto the ground the said image was taken from eye level about 180 cm the two images combined verify that these small orbs cause the Solar Eclipse and that these small orbs amalgamate to form the Black Hole Sun.

The images where taken from an high altitude aircraft  this video proves it is not the Moon that eclipses the Sun it is the Black Hole Sun.

The video's:





In the image below provided by NASA  it doesn't show the umbra /penumbra it shows one huge shadow it is certainly bigger than 70 miles wide.

:

This image from NASA proves your Heliocentric model doesn't match reality.

The alleged shadow cast on Jupiter shown in the video below is about the same size as your imaginary Globe and NOT 70 miles wide .

The video below also highlights some of the many contradictions regarding the Heliocentric model.




The alleged ability of the Heliocentric model to predict eclipses is NO form of validation for the said model as the Ancient Babylonian's believed in the same flat Earth model that is generally accepted today and could accurately predict eclipses using the Saros cycle as NASA still do to this day.

NASA have retrofitted their mathematics to the Saros cycle so they can claim it is unique to them.

These many contradictions show your model is pure fabrication and doesn't match the reality that has been observed and verified as such your ridiculous Heliocentric model is both unacceptable and impossible.


The Black Hole Sun is the cause of the Solar Eclipse and not the Moon.

Heliocentric's are delusional and inferior to debate your ridiculous model with me is pure folly.

I hope you all enjoy this Flat Earth nursery rhyme it is one of my favourites twinkle twinkle little star.



Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.

« Last Edit: September 26, 2017, 02:28:00 AM by Resistance.is.Futile »

?

zork

  • 3319
Re: Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the Globe
« Reply #1296 on: September 26, 2017, 02:10:07 AM »
All your explanations are unsatisfactory. So, can you show any evidence for your claims?
Rowbotham had bad eyesight
-
http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf - Visually discerning the curvature of the Earth
http://thulescientific.com/TurbulentShipWakes_Lynch_AO_2005.pdf - Turbulent ship wakes:further evidence that the Earth is round.

Re: Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the Globe
« Reply #1297 on: September 26, 2017, 03:15:03 AM »
Your explanation is unsatisfactory.
And you are yet to explain why.


No. I am correct. You have reapeatedly failed to show anything wrong with any argument that has been presented against you. Instead you just dismiss it as unacceptable.
Any normal person can understand that as the moon's total orbital path is [SNIP to the already refuted BS]
You have already said all this BS way back here:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71435.msg1947875#msg1947875
and here:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71435.msg1944149#msg1944149

It was already refuted by numerous people, including me here:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71435.msg1947881#msg1947881
and here:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71435.msg1944159#msg1944159

Go back and read those posts and respond to them.
Stop just repeating the same refuted BS.

If you want me to look at something new, first deal with those posts, and then bring up the new thing, without repeating the same refuted BS.

Re: Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the Globe
« Reply #1298 on: September 26, 2017, 04:05:33 AM »
Your explanation is unsatisfactory.



No. I am correct. You have reapeatedly failed to show anything wrong with any argument that has been presented against you. Instead you just dismiss it as unacceptable.


Any normal person can understand that as the moon's total orbital path is 27 to 29 days and 1.5 million miles it would have to travel at least a 190000 miles to cross the USA west to east because it is 200000 miles away on your Heliocentric model and in reality the USA is nearly 3000 miles wide so we could say that is roughly 12.5% of the alleged circumfrence of your imaginary Globe which to keep it simple represents roughly 12.5% of the Moons orbital path.

In reality any normal person will know it is impossible for the Moons shadow to travel west to east as they see the Moon rise in the East and set in the West EVERYDAY.

It is also impossible as shown in the first video I posted at the start of the thread because the earth's angular velocity on your model is 27 times greater than the Moon's actual velocity.

You have failed to take into account that the Solar Eclipse is visable in the Sky and it is the Earth's alleged angular Velocity as you and your colleague's have agreed that determines what we see in the sky.

A video that describes the orbit of the Moon on your Heliocentric model.



Light travels in straight lines .

The Eclispe is caused by the moon passing between the sun and the earth.

The Sun has to be directly behind the Moon and the Earth has to be directly in front of the Moon.

An object shadow will follow the object when the light source is directly behind it.

You are now claiming the Moon moves in the opposite direction to what is observed this would be the only possible way that the Moon's shadow can move west to East when the light source which is the Sun is directly behind it.

http://www.livephysics.com/physical-constants/mechanics-pc/angular-speed-earth/

You are fooling no one with your heliocentric nonsense. It is impossible for the path of the solar eclipse to move in completely the opposite direction to the moon.

The moon rises in the East and sets in th west.

The Solar Eclipse starts in the west and finishes if the East. The Earth's angular velocity which Is one rotation every 24 hrs is 27 times faster than the Moon's velocity.

This is why the moon allegedly rises in the east and sets in the west.

If the Moon's velocity was greater than the angular velocity of the earth the Moon would rise in the West and set in the East it would also have to orbit the earth more than once every 24 hours to achieve this.

Here is a description of a solar eclipse on your model.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_eclipse It clearly says the eclipse is caused when the moon passes in front of the sun.

The moon takes 27 days to orbit the earth.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon

On your model the Sun is stationary regarding it's position to the earth and the moon .

http://kidseclipse.com/sun-earth-moon-move/

I chose this link so you Stupid and gullable Heliocentric's can try to understand how and why the upcoming Solar Eclipse is impossible on your model.

It is impossible for an objects shadow to move in the opposite direction to the said object when the light source is stationary.

The only way this would be possible on your model would be if the Sun was moving millions of miles in relation to the earth and did not maintain it's alleged position in the centre of the solar system.

https://www.quora.com/Is-the-sun-the-center-of-the-solar-system-Why So

I will tell you again it is impossible for the Moon to cast a shadow on the Earth that is 24 times smaller than itself.

So I will tell you again it is impossible for the Solar Eclipse to move across the Earth west to East which is the opposite direction to the moon on your Heliocentric model.

Your Heliocentric model does not match reality as such your Heliocentric model is false.

Part one Part two

Anyone that has observed the total eclipse can verify that it is not the Moon .

One would expect to see Earth shine because of the earth's high albedo.

Earth shine has never been observed with the naked eye .

When the eclipse is observed with the naked eye a black object is observed eclipsing the Sun.

When the eclipse is observed with the naked eye the moon is not visible.

The video below demonstrates that it was not the moon eclipsing the Sun ( 30 seconds - 4:00



The Moon does not have to be visible elsewhere in the sky whilst the Black Sun is eclipsing the Sun.

It is not up to you to determine the criteria of satisfactory evidence regarding the Black Sun eclipsing the Sun.

The video above clearly shows that the Moon is not in front of the Sun.

The spectrum analyser shows the Sun is giving it's light off as expected for an object that shape,  if the Moon was eclipsing the sun as you Heliocentrics claim there would not be an even distribution of light around the Sun .

You and your brethren can not explain the evenly distributed light around the Sun regarding the video footage taken of the eclipse provided .

The evenly distributed light shown by the spectrum analysers show there is NO solid object in front of the Sun .

The video also highlighted how NASA got their timing wrong .

We have all observed how the moon moves across the sky ;  in an hour it moves roughly 15 degrees to the observer on the ground.

At 13:30 on the video an hour before NASA predicted the eclipse we can observe from the video footage that the Black Sun has already started interfering with the Sun.

The above would be impossible if it was the Moon eclipsing the Sun as the Moon would be an estimated  few degrees away to the observer at 13:30  .



The image demonstrates that the light is clearly evenly distributed around the Sun and that there is no object such as the Moon in front of the sun .

The pattern demonstrated on the image provided shows what would be expected if the sun was that shape .

The video shows there is no sign of your invisible disappearing and reappearing Magic Moon .

The deviation from the perfect circle of light around the Sun is what should be expected as the Sun was a waning crescent at the time of the said image that was taken from the video provided .

If a solid object such as the Moon was obstructing the Sun during the Solar Eclipse  there would be little to no light coming from the Sun on the side of the said obstruction .

The image provided doesn't show this as it shows an even distribution of light all around the Sun .

It would also be an impossible coincidence for scattered light to form the correct pattern of evenly distributed light for the Eclipsed Sun as demonstrated in the video provided .

On your heliocentric model the light is allegedly scattered in space and the Shadow is caused by your Magic Moon .

As light in space travels in straight lines we would not be able to observe the pattern of light demonstrated in the video provided earlier if your heliocentric model is correct .

Here is another video that goes into great detail regarding the Solar eclipse.

The video provided also shows pictures taken during the eclipse that show very strange orb like shadows .

The narrator has determined that this is down to the black hole Sun obstructing the Sun .

He also claims that these small orbs that the black hole Sun is constructed of is what is causing the strange shadows that have been photographed during the eclipse and shown in the video .

He also constructs a 3D model using a simulation that displays what we should of observed during the Eclipse if your Heliocentric model is correct .

There is a huge difference between what was observed during the eclipse and what should of been observed if your heliocentric model was correct .

The video :





The video below shows the small orbs that the Black Hole Sun is constructed of in front of the Sun ; the said image was taken from a high altitude aircraft and it also shows these orbs projected onto the ground the said image was taken from eye level about 180 cm the two images combined verify that these small orbs cause the Solar Eclipse and that these small orbs amalgamate to form the Black Hole Sun.

The images where taken from an high altitude aircraft  this video proves it is not the Moon that eclipses the Sun it is the Black Hole Sun.

The video's:





In the image below provided by NASA  it doesn't show the umbra /penumbra it shows one huge shadow it is certainly bigger than 70 miles wide.

:

This image from NASA proves your Heliocentric model doesn't match reality.

The alleged shadow cast on Jupiter shown in the video below is about the same size as your imaginary Globe and NOT 70 miles wide .

The video below also highlights some of the many contradictions regarding the Heliocentric model.




The alleged ability of the Heliocentric model to predict eclipses is NO form of validation for the said model as the Ancient Babylonian's believed in the same flat Earth model that is generally accepted today and could accurately predict eclipses using the Saros cycle as NASA still do to this day.

NASA have retrofitted their mathematics to the Saros cycle so they can claim it is unique to them.

These many contradictions show your model is pure fabrication and doesn't match the reality that has been observed and verified as such your ridiculous Heliocentric model is both unacceptable and impossible.


The Black Hole Sun is the cause of the Solar Eclipse and not the Moon.

Heliocentric's are delusional and inferior to debate your ridiculous model with me is pure folly.

I hope you all enjoy this Flat Earth nursery rhyme it is one of my favourites twinkle twinkle little star.



Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.


Re: Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the Globe
« Reply #1299 on: September 26, 2017, 04:23:03 AM »
...

are you the second coming of the Sandokhan?

repeating your Bullshit makes it not more true.

you claim with photoshoped pictures that your idea is true. and at other times you claim that all pictures and videos from NASA are fake and proof that they are wrong.

you have proven a lot of times that you have no knowledge in astrophysics and also the maker of the edited pictures do not have that knowledge.
show us a astrophysicist that backs you up with your claims.


Re: Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the Globe
« Reply #1300 on: September 26, 2017, 05:03:43 AM »
Your explanation is unsatisfactory.
If you think it is unsatisfactory, then go back and read it and quote the specific part you think is wrong explaining why you think it is wrong.
Repeating the same refuted BS won't magically make it correct.

If all you can do is say it is unsatisfactory then it shows you know that my explanation is correct and that there is nothing major wrong with it and that what you are saying is a pile of crap.

So can you show any actual issues with my explanation?
If you can't, then stop saying it is unsatisfactory.

Re: Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the Globe
« Reply #1301 on: September 26, 2017, 05:33:45 AM »
Your explanation is unsatisfactory.



No. I am correct. You have reapeatedly failed to show anything wrong with any argument that has been presented against you. Instead you just dismiss it as unacceptable.


Any normal person can understand that as the moon's total orbital path is 27 to 29 days and 1.5 million miles it would have to travel at least a 190000 miles to cross the USA west to east because it is 200000 miles away on your Heliocentric model and in reality the USA is nearly 3000 miles wide so we could say that is roughly 12.5% of the alleged circumfrence of your imaginary Globe which to keep it simple represents roughly 12.5% of the Moons orbital path.

In reality any normal person will know it is impossible for the Moons shadow to travel west to east as they see the Moon rise in the East and set in the West EVERYDAY.

It is also impossible as shown in the first video I posted at the start of the thread because the earth's angular velocity on your model is 27 times greater than the Moon's actual velocity.

You have failed to take into account that the Solar Eclipse is visable in the Sky and it is the Earth's alleged angular Velocity as you and your colleague's have agreed that determines what we see in the sky.

A video that describes the orbit of the Moon on your Heliocentric model.



Light travels in straight lines .

The Eclispe is caused by the moon passing between the sun and the earth.

The Sun has to be directly behind the Moon and the Earth has to be directly in front of the Moon.

An object shadow will follow the object when the light source is directly behind it.

You are now claiming the Moon moves in the opposite direction to what is observed this would be the only possible way that the Moon's shadow can move west to East when the light source which is the Sun is directly behind it.

http://www.livephysics.com/physical-constants/mechanics-pc/angular-speed-earth/

You are fooling no one with your heliocentric nonsense. It is impossible for the path of the solar eclipse to move in completely the opposite direction to the moon.

The moon rises in the East and sets in th west.

The Solar Eclipse starts in the west and finishes if the East. The Earth's angular velocity which Is one rotation every 24 hrs is 27 times faster than the Moon's velocity.

This is why the moon allegedly rises in the east and sets in the west.

If the Moon's velocity was greater than the angular velocity of the earth the Moon would rise in the West and set in the East it would also have to orbit the earth more than once every 24 hours to achieve this.

Here is a description of a solar eclipse on your model.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_eclipse It clearly says the eclipse is caused when the moon passes in front of the sun.

The moon takes 27 days to orbit the earth.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon

On your model the Sun is stationary regarding it's position to the earth and the moon .

http://kidseclipse.com/sun-earth-moon-move/

I chose this link so you Stupid and gullable Heliocentric's can try to understand how and why the upcoming Solar Eclipse is impossible on your model.

It is impossible for an objects shadow to move in the opposite direction to the said object when the light source is stationary.

The only way this would be possible on your model would be if the Sun was moving millions of miles in relation to the earth and did not maintain it's alleged position in the centre of the solar system.

https://www.quora.com/Is-the-sun-the-center-of-the-solar-system-Why So

I will tell you again it is impossible for the Moon to cast a shadow on the Earth that is 24 times smaller than itself.

So I will tell you again it is impossible for the Solar Eclipse to move across the Earth west to East which is the opposite direction to the moon on your Heliocentric model.

Your Heliocentric model does not match reality as such your Heliocentric model is false.

Part one Part two

Anyone that has observed the total eclipse can verify that it is not the Moon .

One would expect to see Earth shine because of the earth's high albedo.

Earth shine has never been observed with the naked eye .

When the eclipse is observed with the naked eye a black object is observed eclipsing the Sun.

When the eclipse is observed with the naked eye the moon is not visible.

The video below demonstrates that it was not the moon eclipsing the Sun ( 30 seconds - 4:00



The Moon does not have to be visible elsewhere in the sky whilst the Black Sun is eclipsing the Sun.

It is not up to you to determine the criteria of satisfactory evidence regarding the Black Sun eclipsing the Sun.

The video above clearly shows that the Moon is not in front of the Sun.

The spectrum analyser shows the Sun is giving it's light off as expected for an object that shape,  if the Moon was eclipsing the sun as you Heliocentrics claim there would not be an even distribution of light around the Sun .

You and your brethren can not explain the evenly distributed light around the Sun regarding the video footage taken of the eclipse provided .

The evenly distributed light shown by the spectrum analysers show there is NO solid object in front of the Sun .

The video also highlighted how NASA got their timing wrong .

We have all observed how the moon moves across the sky ;  in an hour it moves roughly 15 degrees to the observer on the ground.

At 13:30 on the video an hour before NASA predicted the eclipse we can observe from the video footage that the Black Sun has already started interfering with the Sun.

The above would be impossible if it was the Moon eclipsing the Sun as the Moon would be an estimated  few degrees away to the observer at 13:30  .



The image demonstrates that the light is clearly evenly distributed around the Sun and that there is no object such as the Moon in front of the sun .

The pattern demonstrated on the image provided shows what would be expected if the sun was that shape .

The video shows there is no sign of your invisible disappearing and reappearing Magic Moon .

The deviation from the perfect circle of light around the Sun is what should be expected as the Sun was a waning crescent at the time of the said image that was taken from the video provided .

If a solid object such as the Moon was obstructing the Sun during the Solar Eclipse  there would be little to no light coming from the Sun on the side of the said obstruction .

The image provided doesn't show this as it shows an even distribution of light all around the Sun .

It would also be an impossible coincidence for scattered light to form the correct pattern of evenly distributed light for the Eclipsed Sun as demonstrated in the video provided .

On your heliocentric model the light is allegedly scattered in space and the Shadow is caused by your Magic Moon .

As light in space travels in straight lines we would not be able to observe the pattern of light demonstrated in the video provided earlier if your heliocentric model is correct .

Here is another video that goes into great detail regarding the Solar eclipse.

The video provided also shows pictures taken during the eclipse that show very strange orb like shadows .

The narrator has determined that this is down to the black hole Sun obstructing the Sun .

He also claims that these small orbs that the black hole Sun is constructed of is what is causing the strange shadows that have been photographed during the eclipse and shown in the video .

He also constructs a 3D model using a simulation that displays what we should of observed during the Eclipse if your Heliocentric model is correct .

There is a huge difference between what was observed during the eclipse and what should of been observed if your heliocentric model was correct .

The video :





The video below shows the small orbs that the Black Hole Sun is constructed of in front of the Sun ; the said image was taken from a high altitude aircraft and it also shows these orbs projected onto the ground the said image was taken from eye level about 180 cm the two images combined verify that these small orbs cause the Solar Eclipse and that these small orbs amalgamate to form the Black Hole Sun.

The images where taken from an high altitude aircraft  this video proves it is not the Moon that eclipses the Sun it is the Black Hole Sun.

The video's:





In the image below provided by NASA  it doesn't show the umbra /penumbra it shows one huge shadow it is certainly bigger than 70 miles wide.

:

This image from NASA proves your Heliocentric model doesn't match reality.

The alleged shadow cast on Jupiter shown in the video below is about the same size as your imaginary Globe and NOT 70 miles wide .

The video below also highlights some of the many contradictions regarding the Heliocentric model.




The alleged ability of the Heliocentric model to predict eclipses is NO form of validation for the said model as the Ancient Babylonian's believed in the same flat Earth model that is generally accepted today and could accurately predict eclipses using the Saros cycle as NASA still do to this day.

NASA have retrofitted their mathematics to the Saros cycle so they can claim it is unique to them.

These many contradictions show your model is pure fabrication and doesn't match the reality that has been observed and verified as such your ridiculous Heliocentric model is both unacceptable and impossible.


The Black Hole Sun is the cause of the Solar Eclipse and not the Moon.

Heliocentric's are delusional and inferior to debate your ridiculous model with me is pure folly.

I hope you all enjoy this Flat Earth nursery rhyme it is one of my favourites twinkle twinkle little star.



Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.


Re: Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the Globe
« Reply #1302 on: September 26, 2017, 05:54:37 AM »
...

your explanation is false because you do not take in account that the earth in also moving around the sun.


*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the Globe
« Reply #1303 on: September 26, 2017, 06:33:14 AM »
<< Totally ridiculous garbage deleted >>

In the image below provided by NASA  it doesn't show the umbra /penumbra it shows one huge shadow it is certainly bigger than 70 miles wide.
:
Of course the "shadow it is certainly bigger than 70 miles wide"!
  • It is not the same eclipse!
  • And what you are seeing is both the penumbra and the umbra.
    The umbra is just the tiny solid black bit in the very centre. Surely I shouldn't have explain so simple a thing to you.
    What else would you expect to see? That time lapse fits perfectly with what any reasonable.person would expect to see.
Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile
This image from NASA proves your Heliocentric model doesn't match reality.
The alleged shadow cast on Jupiter shown in the video below is about the same size as your imaginary Globe and NOT 70 miles wide .
Total rubbish, you have no idea what you are talking about - as usual The geometry it totally different. Anyone with a trace of knowledge about the topic would know that.
Jupiter is 778.5 million km from the sun and Io is only 421,700 km from Jupiter - YOU work it out, you claim to be so smart.
That "shadow cast on Jupiter shown in the video below is" NOT "about the same size as your Globe". It is far smaller than the Globe!

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile
The video below also highlights some of the many contradictions regarding the Heliocentric model.
[youtube][/youtube]
Charlie Horse's  Massive Folly
No it does not show "some of the many contradictions regarding the Heliocentric model"! There are no "contradictions regarding the Heliocentric model".

All it shows are that its own lies about the Heliocentric Globe are false.
Look at this right at the beginning!
If you want to disprove the Heliocentric Globe you must present the correct  Heliocentric Globe model instead of lying about it, the arguing against your own lie.
And that is exactly what your trash-can video does. The trouble is that you are too ignorant of the facts, so would not know if the video was deceptive or not.

At 0:35 Shows a visualisation of the total eclipse, but with the sun and moon orbiting backwards.

and at 0:55 he presents this diagram of the solar eclipse.

Solar Eclipse - out of scale but correct
          Now it is out-of-scale, but it is completely impossible to draw to scale. It is however essentially correct and shows the observed umbra and penumbra.

Then at 1:15 sec it shows this still out of scale, but now totally incorrect diagram.

Solar Eclipse - out of scale and totally incorrect from 1:15 sec

That diagram is totally deceptive in at least two respects!
It shows, and the video states that, the sun is the same size as the moon. In reality the moon is almost 3500 km and the sun about 1.4 million km in diameter.

I know that the sun and moon look about the same size, but the sun is roughlu 400 times further away and about 400 time larger.
Your stupid Charlie's Horse (or whatever the horse presenting the video calls itself) says they are look the same the same size, then draws then the same size, but with the sun at least 3 times further away - any child would know that would make the sun look about one third the size of the moon! See why I call your Charlie's Horse stupid !

Your tactics are as usual more examples of the classic Straw-man argument, so please learn how to debate honestly.

So fix your silly deceptive video and try again.

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile
The alleged ability of the Heliocentric model to predict eclipses is NO form of validation for the said model as the Ancient Babylonian's believed in the same flat Earth model that is generally accepted today and could accurately predict eclipses using the Saros cycle as NASA still do to this day.
NASA have retrofitted their mathematics to the Saros cycle so they can claim it is unique to them.
These many contradictions show your model is pure fabrication and doesn't match the reality that has been observed and verified as such your ridiculous Heliocentric model is both unacceptable and impossible.
Total rubbish! The above stupid rubbish that you swallow proves that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile
The Black Hole Sun is the cause of the Solar Eclipse and not the Moon.
Look Mr Deception.is Futile we've had enough of your deceptive YouTube videos.
If you want to debunk the Heliocentric Globe, you MUST use the correct Heliocentric Globe model with the correct dimensions.
Anything else is totally dishonest straw-man tactics, that we see in all you arguments.
So clear out and spend some time learning honest debating tactics.

Re: Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the Globe
« Reply #1304 on: September 26, 2017, 08:46:08 AM »
Ok then, since RIF is incapable of doing anything repeating the same debunked post over and over again, into the bin with you.  I invite others to join me in this.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the Globe
« Reply #1305 on: September 26, 2017, 09:03:44 AM »
Wow, the gang is all here.  Do you guys get paid individually, or collectively? 

*

Sentinel

  • 575
  • Open your eyes...
Re: Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the Globe
« Reply #1306 on: September 26, 2017, 09:37:26 AM »
Dafuq is this thread still going??
"No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible."

Stanislaw Jerzy Lec

*

RocketSauce

  • 1441
  • I kill penguins for fun
Re: Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the Globe
« Reply #1307 on: September 26, 2017, 10:47:38 AM »
I'm still looking where to sign up for that Round Earth Pay Check...

Anybody have the latest on the Round Earth Salary?

Is it by government, or do I contact the World Government?
Quote from: Every FE'r

Please don't mention Himawari 8
Quote from: sceptimatic
Impossible to have the same volume and different density.

*fact*
Extra Virgin Penguin Blood is a natural aphrodisiac

*

Crutchwater

  • 2151
  • Stop Indoctrinating me!
Re: Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the Globe
« Reply #1308 on: September 26, 2017, 11:13:59 AM »
So much debunking....

So much!
I will always be Here To Laugh At You.

Re: Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the Globe
« Reply #1309 on: September 26, 2017, 12:06:56 PM »
I'm still looking where to sign up for that Round Earth Pay Check...

Anybody have the latest on the Round Earth Salary?

Is it by government, or do I contact the World Government?
You'll need to get your Shill Registration ID (SRID) from your local freemason leader. Then get in contact with your local government to get the checks going. The bureaucracy is a nightmare though, so get started soon as you can't count any time spent prior to starting the process!

*

RocketSauce

  • 1441
  • I kill penguins for fun
Re: Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the Globe
« Reply #1310 on: September 26, 2017, 12:08:52 PM »
yeah, but are we talking like... Big Shill Bucks... or is it not even worth it?


I'm not going to go through the process of finding my Local Manson's lodge if I'm only looking at the price of recycled cans...

I mean... If anything, I should be considered the most true believer because I'm doing this for free... As opposed to those Paid off Shills....
Quote from: Every FE'r

Please don't mention Himawari 8
Quote from: sceptimatic
Impossible to have the same volume and different density.

*fact*
Extra Virgin Penguin Blood is a natural aphrodisiac

*

Crutchwater

  • 2151
  • Stop Indoctrinating me!
Re: Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the Globe
« Reply #1311 on: September 26, 2017, 12:20:08 PM »
Once you're on the payroll, those checks are NEVER late!
I will always be Here To Laugh At You.

Re: Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the Globe
« Reply #1312 on: September 26, 2017, 12:26:49 PM »
Once you're on the payroll, those checks are NEVER late!

how can i also get on that payroll?  :D

?

dutchy

  • 2366
Re: Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the Globe
« Reply #1313 on: September 26, 2017, 01:36:26 PM »
Once you're on the payroll, those checks are NEVER late!

And don't forget to mention, free coupons for that McPlace sposored by the NWO.



And the stuff they put into that arificcial burgers makes you understand the universe once and for all....... ;D

Re: Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the Globe
« Reply #1314 on: September 26, 2017, 01:38:06 PM »
Once you're on the payroll, those checks are NEVER late!

And don't forget to mention, free coupons for that McPlace sposored by the NWO.



And the stuff they put into that arificcial burgers makes you understand the universe once and for all....... ;D

😂😂

Re: Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the Globe
« Reply #1315 on: September 26, 2017, 02:10:37 PM »
Once you're on the payroll, those checks are NEVER late!

And don't forget to mention, free coupons for that McPlace sposored by the NWO.

And the stuff they put into that arificcial burgers makes you understand the universe once and for all....... ;D


i could send you mine, i absolutely do not like all these crappy burgerplaces.  :D

Re: Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the Globe
« Reply #1316 on: September 26, 2017, 02:52:15 PM »
Your explanation is unsatisfactory.
Again, if that was the case you would be able to point out exactly what is wrong with my explanation and why.
You are yet to do that, which indicates there is nothing wrong with my explanation and you are just forced to reject it to stick to your delusions.

Here is an example of what you need to do if you want anyone to take your BS claim that my "explanation is unsatisfactory" seriously:
Any normal person can understand that as the moon's total orbital path is 27 to 29 days and 1.5 million miles it would have to travel at least a 190000 miles to cross the USA west to east because it is 200000 miles away on your Heliocentric model and in reality the USA is nearly 3000 miles wide so we could say that is roughly 12.5% of the alleged circumfrence of your imaginary Globe which to keep it simple represents roughly 12.5% of the Moons orbital path.
This would only apply if the apparent position of the moon from the start of the eclipse was the same as that for the end. It isn't. The moon doesn't start off directly above the west cost and finish directly above the east cost (or it could start and end at say the eastern horizon or some other fixed position).

Instead, at the start of the eclipse, the moon starts off right on the east horizon as a rising moon (before the eclipse reaches the US).
As the eclipse progresses, it continues to make its way across the sky and then the eclipse finishes (east of the US) with the moon on the western horizon.
As such, it only needs to travel a fraction of its orbital path to cross the US.

In fact, as the sun is so far away that the light is effectively coming in parallel, and it needs to travel through such a small amount of its orbit, in order to cross the US, it needs to travel roughly 3000 miles, plus an additional amount to compensate for the rotation of Earth. If I recall correctly, it works out to be a total of 4500 miles, or roughly 0.3% of the orbital path of the moon, which matches fairly well (given it is a rough estimate) to the portion of the moon's orbit, of roughly 0.23%.


Here is a NOT TO SCALE picture to help illustrate that:

The sun is the red circle on the left. Earth is the blue circle on the right.
The moon is the circle in the middle.
The line going from the centre of the sun, through the centre of the moon and to Earth shows the point of greatest eclipse on Earth, the centre of the eclipse.

Notice how by the moon moving a small angle, θM, the centre of the eclipse on Earth moves a lot more (θS)?


So your claim that the moon would need to move a massive 12.5% of its orbital path for the eclipse to cross the US is pure garbage.

Now then, did you notice what I did?
I quoted the section I found unsatisfactory. I pointed out exactly which part I found unsatisfactory, and most importantly, I explained why it was wrong, and thus any rational person reading the comment will understand that your claim is false.

You need to do something similar, quoting the section of mine you think is wrong and show why it is wrong. That is how debate works. You don't just dismiss your opponents arguments as unsatisfactory and repeat the same refuted crap.

Here is another example, this time drawing from personal experience:
In reality any normal person will know it is impossible for the Moons shadow to travel west to east as they see the Moon rise in the East and set in the West EVERYDAY.
No, any normal person with decent spatial reasoning skills will realise it is quite possible.
The apparent east to west motion of the moon (and all celestial objects) is due to the rotation of Earth.

This is similar to looking out at the surroundings when you are on a merry go round, and watching Earth appear to rotate (much faster than it actually is rotating), or akin to having Earth look like it is flying past backwards when you are driving along a highway.

Objects can then move around as well adding to that motion.
For example, someone can walk around the merry go round or be in a car driving along beside you. Depending upon how quickly they are going, they can appear to move in the same direction as Earth but slower or faster, or if they are going fast enough the right way, they can appear to remain stationary or go against Earth.

The moon orbiting us west to east is akin to someone slowly walking around a merry go round in the same direction the merry go round is turning, or someone driving quite slowly on the road beside you in the same direction as you. They appear to move backwards, (going east to west), even though they are actually going forwards.

As such, it is easy for normal people to understand (by drawing on their personal experience), that an object can be moving one way (e.g. west to east), while appearing to move the other (e.g. east to west).

Once that is out of the way the rest just falls into place. If the moon is moving west to east, then the shadow (ignoring the rotation of Earth), will move west to east.
Then it depends upon speed yet again. Appealing to the picture above, for a small motion of the moon, θM, its shadow will move θS. If Earth rotates at just the right speed such that in this time it has moved just the right angular amount, θS, then the shadow will appear to remain on the same spot on Earth.
If Earth rotates faster (which it doesn't), the shadow will appear to move east to west. If Earth rotates slower (which it does), then the shadow appears to move west to east, as is observed in reality.

So no, it is quite possible for the shadow of the moon to move west to east while the moon appears to move east to west.


Again, notice what I did? I quoted the section I had an issue with and explained why it is wrong, providing enough information to convince any rational person beyond a reasonable doubt.

That is what you need to do.
Dismissing my explanations as unacceptable or unsatisfactory or the like just because they don't agree with your delusions is not how debate works and is not how you convince any rational person.

You need to show what is wrong with my explanations/arguments.
If you are unable to then it shows that you are simply rejecting them because they don't align with your beliefs and that there is likely nothing wrong with them.

So are you going to try and show what is wrong with my explanations, or do you know there is nothing wrong?

Re: Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the Globe
« Reply #1317 on: September 27, 2017, 02:02:02 PM »
Your explanation is unsatisfactory.
Again, if that was the case you would be able to point out exactly what is wrong with my explanation and why.
You are yet to do that, which indicates there is nothing wrong with my explanation and you are just forced to reject it to stick to your delusions.

Here is an example of what you need to do if you want anyone to take your BS claim that my "explanation is unsatisfactory" seriously:
Any normal person can understand that as the moon's total orbital path is 27 to 29 days and 1.5 million miles it would have to travel at least a 190000 miles to cross the USA west to east because it is 200000 miles away on your Heliocentric model and in reality the USA is nearly 3000 miles wide so we could say that is roughly 12.5% of the alleged circumfrence of your imaginary Globe which to keep it simple represents roughly 12.5% of the Moons orbital path.
This would only apply if the apparent position of the moon from the start of the eclipse was the same as that for the end. It isn't. The moon doesn't start off directly above the west cost and finish directly above the east cost (or it could start and end at say the eastern horizon or some other fixed position).

Instead, at the start of the eclipse, the moon starts off right on the east horizon as a rising moon (before the eclipse reaches the US).
As the eclipse progresses, it continues to make its way across the sky and then the eclipse finishes (east of the US) with the moon on the western horizon.
As such, it only needs to travel a fraction of its orbital path to cross the US.

In fact, as the sun is so far away that the light is effectively coming in parallel, and it needs to travel through such a small amount of its orbit, in order to cross the US, it needs to travel roughly 3000 miles, plus an additional amount to compensate for the rotation of Earth. If I recall correctly, it works out to be a total of 4500 miles, or roughly 0.3% of the orbital path of the moon, which matches fairly well (given it is a rough estimate) to the portion of the moon's orbit, of roughly 0.23%.


Here is a NOT TO SCALE picture to help illustrate that:

The sun is the red circle on the left. Earth is the blue circle on the right.
The moon is the circle in the middle.
The line going from the centre of the sun, through the centre of the moon and to Earth shows the point of greatest eclipse on Earth, the centre of the eclipse.

Notice how by the moon moving a small angle, θM, the centre of the eclipse on Earth moves a lot more (θS)?


So your claim that the moon would need to move a massive 12.5% of its orbital path for the eclipse to cross the US is pure garbage.

Now then, did you notice what I did?
I quoted the section I found unsatisfactory. I pointed out exactly which part I found unsatisfactory, and most importantly, I explained why it was wrong, and thus any rational person reading the comment will understand that your claim is false.

You need to do something similar, quoting the section of mine you think is wrong and show why it is wrong. That is how debate works. You don't just dismiss your opponents arguments as unsatisfactory and repeat the same refuted crap.

Here is another example, this time drawing from personal experience:
In reality any normal person will know it is impossible for the Moons shadow to travel west to east as they see the Moon rise in the East and set in the West EVERYDAY.
No, any normal person with decent spatial reasoning skills will realise it is quite possible.
The apparent east to west motion of the moon (and all celestial objects) is due to the rotation of Earth.

This is similar to looking out at the surroundings when you are on a merry go round, and watching Earth appear to rotate (much faster than it actually is rotating), or akin to having Earth look like it is flying past backwards when you are driving along a highway.

Objects can then move around as well adding to that motion.
For example, someone can walk around the merry go round or be in a car driving along beside you. Depending upon how quickly they are going, they can appear to move in the same direction as Earth but slower or faster, or if they are going fast enough the right way, they can appear to remain stationary or go against Earth.

The moon orbiting us west to east is akin to someone slowly walking around a merry go round in the same direction the merry go round is turning, or someone driving quite slowly on the road beside you in the same direction as you. They appear to move backwards, (going east to west), even though they are actually going forwards.

As such, it is easy for normal people to understand (by drawing on their personal experience), that an object can be moving one way (e.g. west to east), while appearing to move the other (e.g. east to west).

Once that is out of the way the rest just falls into place. If the moon is moving west to east, then the shadow (ignoring the rotation of Earth), will move west to east.
Then it depends upon speed yet again. Appealing to the picture above, for a small motion of the moon, θM, its shadow will move θS. If Earth rotates at just the right speed such that in this time it has moved just the right angular amount, θS, then the shadow will appear to remain on the same spot on Earth.
If Earth rotates faster (which it doesn't), the shadow will appear to move east to west. If Earth rotates slower (which it does), then the shadow appears to move west to east, as is observed in reality.

So no, it is quite possible for the shadow of the moon to move west to east while the moon appears to move east to west.


Again, notice what I did? I quoted the section I had an issue with and explained why it is wrong, providing enough information to convince any rational person beyond a reasonable doubt.

That is what you need to do.
Dismissing my explanations as unacceptable or unsatisfactory or the like just because they don't agree with your delusions is not how debate works and is not how you convince any rational person.

You need to show what is wrong with my explanations/arguments.
If you are unable to then it shows that you are simply rejecting them because they don't align with your beliefs and that there is likely nothing wrong with them.

So are you going to try and show what is wrong with my explanations, or do you know there is nothing wrong?

Your explanation is nonsense.


Again, if that was the case you would be able to point out exactly what is wrong with my explanation and why.


I will gladly oblige.

One can imagine a fair ground.

One can imagine a carousel /merry go round that has a diameter of  12 metres.

The said carousel takes one hour to do a full revolution.

One can imagine a spherical object with a diameter of 3 metres .

The said spherical object takes 27 hours to do one orbit of the carousel.

The said spherical object is 200 metres away from the carousel.

One can imagine a spherical ball of fire (that burns in a vacuum)  ::) with a diameter of 13000 metres

One can imagine that this magic ball of fire that burns in a vacuum ::) is 150000 metres away from the said carousel.

One can imagine the shadow cast by the said spherical object with a diameter of 3 metres onto the carousel .

The shadow would be atleast the same size as the said spherical object as it is impossible for any object to cast a shadow smaller than itself.

The shadow would also be directly behind the said spherical object as the light source being the magic ball of fire (that burns in a vacuum) ::) is directly in front of the said spherical object.

As the carousel only takes one hour to do a full revolution and the said spherical object takes 27 hours to do one full orbit of the carousel it is impossible for the shadow cast by the said spherical object to appear to move faster than the carousel is revolving.

As such your out of scale diagrams and explanations are a nonsense designed to fool stupid gullable inferior people like yourself.

Any normal person with half a brain that thinks about this will see your model is false .

You have not a addressed the many points raised in my last post regarding your ridiculous Heliocentric model so I will be forced to repost until these points are addressed by you or one of your colleagues.

Your explanation is unsatisfactory.



No. I am correct. You have reapeatedly failed to show anything wrong with any argument that has been presented against you. Instead you just dismiss it as unacceptable.


Any normal person can understand that as the moon's total orbital path is 27 to 29 days and 1.5 million miles it would have to travel at least a 190000 miles to cross the USA west to east because it is 200000 miles away on your Heliocentric model and in reality the USA is nearly 3000 miles wide so we could say that is roughly 12.5% of the alleged circumfrence of your imaginary Globe which to keep it simple represents roughly 12.5% of the Moons orbital path.

In reality any normal person will know it is impossible for the Moons shadow to travel west to east as they see the Moon rise in the East and set in the West EVERYDAY.

It is also impossible as shown in the first video I posted at the start of the thread because the earth's angular velocity on your model is 27 times greater than the Moon's actual velocity.

You have failed to take into account that the Solar Eclipse is visable in the Sky and it is the Earth's alleged angular Velocity as you and your colleague's have agreed that determines what we see in the sky.

A video that describes the orbit of the Moon on your Heliocentric model.



Light travels in straight lines .

You strange Heliocentrics claim the Eclispe is caused by the moon passing between the sun and the earth.

The Sun has to be directly in front of the Moon and the Earth has to be directly behind the Moon in relation to the Sun; in order for the eclipse to take place on your ridiculous Heliocentric model.

An object shadow will follow the object when the light source is directly behind it.

You are now claiming the Moon moves in the opposite direction to what is observed this would be the only possible way that the Moon's shadow can move west to East when the light source which is the Sun is directly behind it.

http://www.livephysics.com/physical-constants/mechanics-pc/angular-speed-earth/

You are fooling no one with your heliocentric nonsense. It is impossible for the path of the solar eclipse to move in completely the opposite direction to the moon.

The moon rises in the East and sets in th west.

The Solar Eclipse starts in the west and finishes if the East. The Earth's angular velocity which Is one rotation every 24 hrs is 27 times faster than the Moon's velocity.

This is why the moon allegedly rises in the east and sets in the west.

If the Moon's velocity was greater than the angular velocity of the earth the Moon would rise in the West and set in the East it would also have to orbit the earth more than once every 24 hours to achieve this.

Here is a description of a solar eclipse on your model.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_eclipse It clearly says the eclipse is caused when the moon passes in front of the sun.

The moon takes 27 days to orbit the earth.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon

On your model the Sun is stationary regarding it's position to the earth and the moon .

http://kidseclipse.com/sun-earth-moon-move/

I chose this link so you Stupid and gullable Heliocentric's can try to understand how and why the upcoming Solar Eclipse is impossible on your model.

It is impossible for an objects shadow to move in the opposite direction to the said object when the light source is stationary.

The only way this would be possible on your model would be if the Sun was moving millions of miles in relation to the earth and did not maintain it's alleged position in the centre of the solar system.

https://www.quora.com/Is-the-sun-the-center-of-the-solar-system-Why So

I will tell you again it is impossible for the Moon to cast a shadow on the Earth that is 24 times smaller than itself.

So I will tell you again it is impossible for the Solar Eclipse to move across the Earth west to East which is the opposite direction to the moon on your Heliocentric model.

Your Heliocentric model does not match reality as such your Heliocentric model is false.

Part one Part two

Anyone that has observed the total eclipse can verify that it is not the Moon .

One would expect to see Earth shine because of the earth's high albedo.

Earth shine has never been observed with the naked eye .

When the eclipse is observed with the naked eye a black object is observed eclipsing the Sun.

When the eclipse is observed with the naked eye the moon is not visible.

The video below demonstrates that it was not the moon eclipsing the Sun ( 30 seconds - 4:00



The Moon does not have to be visible elsewhere in the sky whilst the Black Sun is eclipsing the Sun.

It is not up to you to determine the criteria of satisfactory evidence regarding the Black Sun eclipsing the Sun.

The video above clearly shows that the Moon is not in front of the Sun.

The spectrum analyser shows the Sun is giving it's light off as expected for an object that shape,  if the Moon was eclipsing the sun as you Heliocentrics claim there would not be an even distribution of light around the Sun .

You and your brethren can not explain the evenly distributed light around the Sun regarding the video footage taken of the eclipse provided .

The evenly distributed light shown by the spectrum analysers show there is NO solid object in front of the Sun .

The video also highlighted how NASA got their timing wrong .

We have all observed how the moon moves across the sky ;  in an hour it moves roughly 15 degrees to the observer on the ground.

At 13:30 on the video an hour before NASA predicted the eclipse we can observe from the video footage that the Black Sun has already started interfering with the Sun.

The above would be impossible if it was the Moon eclipsing the Sun as the Moon would be an estimated  few degrees away to the observer at 13:30  .



The image demonstrates that the light is clearly evenly distributed around the Sun and that there is no object such as the Moon in front of the sun .

The pattern demonstrated on the image provided shows what would be expected if the sun was that shape .

The video shows there is no sign of your invisible disappearing and reappearing Magic Moon .

The deviation from the perfect circle of light around the Sun is what should be expected as the Sun was a waning crescent at the time of the said image that was taken from the video provided .

If a solid object such as the Moon was obstructing the Sun during the Solar Eclipse  there would be little to no light coming from the Sun on the side of the said obstruction .

The image provided doesn't show this as it shows an even distribution of light all around the Sun .

It would also be an impossible coincidence for scattered light to form the correct pattern of evenly distributed light for the Eclipsed Sun as demonstrated in the video provided .

On your heliocentric model the light is allegedly scattered in space and the Shadow is caused by your Magic Moon .

As light in space travels in straight lines we would not be able to observe the pattern of light demonstrated in the video provided earlier if your heliocentric model is correct .

Here is another video that goes into great detail regarding the Solar eclipse.

The video provided also shows pictures taken during the eclipse that show very strange orb like shadows .

The narrator has determined that this is down to the black hole Sun obstructing the Sun .

He also claims that these small orbs that the black hole Sun is constructed of is what is causing the strange shadows that have been photographed during the eclipse and shown in the video .

He also constructs a 3D model using a simulation that displays what we should of observed during the Eclipse if your Heliocentric model is correct .

There is a huge difference between what was observed during the eclipse and what should of been observed if your heliocentric model was correct .

The video :





The video below shows the small orbs that the Black Hole Sun is constructed of in front of the Sun ; the said image was taken from a high altitude aircraft and it also shows these orbs projected onto the ground the said image was taken from eye level about 180 cm the two images combined verify that these small orbs cause the Solar Eclipse and that these small orbs amalgamate to form the Black Hole Sun.

The images where taken from an high altitude aircraft  this video proves it is not the Moon that eclipses the Sun it is the Black Hole Sun.

The video's:





In the image below provided by NASA  it doesn't show the umbra /penumbra it shows one huge shadow it is certainly bigger than 70 miles wide.

:

This image from NASA proves your Heliocentric model doesn't match reality.

The alleged shadow cast on Jupiter shown in the video below is about the same size as your imaginary Globe and NOT 70 miles wide .

The video below also highlights some of the many contradictions regarding the Heliocentric model.




The alleged ability of the Heliocentric model to predict eclipses is NO form of validation for the said model as the Ancient Babylonian's believed in the same flat Earth model that is generally accepted today and could accurately predict eclipses using the Saros cycle as NASA still do to this day.

NASA have retrofitted their mathematics to the Saros cycle so they can claim it is unique to them.

These many contradictions show your model is pure fabrication and doesn't match the reality that has been observed and verified as such your ridiculous Heliocentric model is both unacceptable and impossible.


The Black Hole Sun is the cause of the Solar Eclipse and not the Moon.

Heliocentric's are delusional and inferior to debate your ridiculous model with me is pure folly.

I hope you all enjoy this Flat Earth nursery rhyme it is one of my favourites twinkle twinkle little star.



Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.

« Last Edit: September 27, 2017, 05:41:19 PM by Resistance.is.Futile »

Re: Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the Globe
« Reply #1318 on: September 27, 2017, 03:07:40 PM »
Your explanation is nonsense.
Again, if you think it is nonsense, then quote the exact part you think is nonsense and explain why.
If you are unable to then it shows that you have no basis to claim my explanation is nonesnse.

The said spherical object is 200 metres away from the carousel.
Why 200 m?

You had your merry go round (presumable representing Earth) have a diameter of 12 m. That means each m corresponds to roughly 1 000 km. This also matches your 150 000 m=150 000 000 km for the sun.
If that is the case the moon, which is ~400 000 km should be 400 m distant, not 200.

So once again, you are objecting to a not to scale model.

One can imagine a spherical ball of fire (that burns in a vacuum)
I take it this is meant to be the sun? If so, no, it isn't a ball of fire. It is a ball of plasma. It isn't heated by combustion (burning), it is heated by nuclear fusion.

One can imagine the shadow cast by the said spherical object with a diameter of 3 metres onto the carousel .
The shadow would be atleast the same size as the said spherical object as it is impossible for any object to cast a shadow smaller than itself.
Firstly, this isn't explaining what is wrong with my explanation. My explanation (in the post above) didn't discuss the size of the shadow. This isn't even explaining why that is wrong, it is just asserting that it is wrong. It provides no justification at all, instead just claiming that it is impossible for any object to cast a shadow smaller than itself.

But it is completely wrong, one would realise that the shadow is more complex than the simple idea of a shadow. There are multiple regions of the shadow. In general, there are 3, the umbra, the antumbra and the penumbra.

The umbra is the region in which all light from the source is blocked. This means that people inside the umbra are unable to see any of the light source.
The antumbra is an extension of the umbra beyond the point where the 2 objects are the same size. In the antumbra part of the centre of the light source is blocked, while there is a ring of light around the obstruction. This would be akin to a fly on your screen.
The penumbra is any other region of shadow. That is where part of the light source is visible, but part of the side is obstructed.

If the object is larger than the light source, the antumbra does not exist, and both the penumbra and umbra diverge, that is they grow larger and larger as you get further away.
This would be akin to placing your hand over a small torch. It doesn't matter how far away you go, your hand is always going to appear larger than the light source.

But if the object is smaller than the light source, the antumbra does exist, the penumbra still diverges, but the umbra converges. That is the region of totality will shrink.

This is now more akin to putting your hand in front of your face.
Now, your hand can block out quite a lot of light, coming in from a very large angle.
This allows you to completely stop the light coming in from many light sources, including things like a computer screen, but only for a small area.
If you don't believe me, try it, put your hand right in front of your face (or if you want something more comparable with others and a more suitable shape, use a playing card, much smaller than the screen, and see if it can shadow the computer screen from you. If it can then hold the playing card/hand 1 m away from the screen. Now move back (your eye) until the card/hand just blocks the screen.
Now, if you move left or right (a small amount, smaller than the playing card), you will see part of the screen. This shows the umbra (or "shadow") (the region of totality) is smaller than the object casting the shadow. If you move back, you can see the playing card only blocking part of the screen and you are in the antumbra.

Another simple way is by viewing the shadow of an object above the ground, like this video:

The shadow is quite sharp near the ground, but as the object gets higher, the shadow becomes fuzzy, there is a dark central region (umbra) and a light outer region (penumbra). Once it is high enough, this dark central region disappears entirely and the light outer region gets light enough to not be distinguished from the rest of the ground.

In that video, when the quad is close to the ground, its landing gear is quite clearly visible, but when it is higher, the shadow umbra has shrunk so much and the penumbra is so light that that part of the shadow is missing.

If you wish to discuss the shadow size of the moon during the lunar eclipse, it was just the umbra that was smaller than the moon. The penumbra, that is the region of the partial solar eclipse was much larger, it covered almost the entire US, Mexico and Canada.

A simple way to measure the size is to see when the eclipse finishes for one person and starts for another.
Madras has the eclipse end at 11:41 PDT, which corresponds to 2:41 EDT. But the eclipse started at 1:13 EDT for Columbia. That puts the eclipse as much wider than the US. The penumbra, that is the partial shadow, is wider than the US. That means it is wider than the moon.

So what is the problem meant to be?


As the carousel only takes one hour to do a full revolution and the said spherical object takes 27 hours to do one full orbit of the carousel it is impossible for the shadow cast by the said spherical object to move faster than the carousel is revolving.
Again, this is not an explanation, it is a baseless assertion.

Do the math.
Here is the simple version, which underestimates how much the shadow moves. Because the shadow is further away from the moon, if the moon moves 1 m, the shadow has to move more than 1 m but this is simpler, where we assume this extra bit is negligible so if the moon moves 1 m, the shadow does as well.

The moon, over the course of 1 hour (reality, not your model) has moved ~3600 km. As this is a very small portion of its orbit, by the small angle approximation this corresponds to the linear distance the moon has moved. Thus the shadow will have moved 3600 km to the east.
Meanwhile, Earth below (with its equator moving at ~1600 km per hour) will be turning such that the equator, the part which moves the most, will have moved 1600 km (and this is now a more significant portion of its circular path and thus this will be more of an over estimate than the 3600 km for the moon).
This means relative to a person on the surface of Earth, who has moved 1600 km while the moon's shadow moved 3600 km, both to the east, the moon's shadow will appear to have moved 2000 km to the east.

As such, YOU ARE COMPLETELY WRONG!
It is quite possible for the shadow of the moon to move west to east.

Now then, like I said, can you actually show what is wrong with my explanation?

How about this, you do the math and show that it is impossible for the moon's shadow to move west to east. So far all you have done is asserted it.

As such your out of scale diagrams and explanations are a nonsense designed to fool stupid gullable inferior people like yourself.
No, that is what your baseless assertions are for. My out of scale diagrams and explanations are tools to help people understand the truth. As I wasn't conned by your pathetic lies I am clearly not inferior.

Any normal person with half a brain that thinks about this will see your model is false .
No they wont. They will see that there is nothing wrong with my claims (and the HC model) which are backed by explanations and math, unlike yours which are backed by baseless assertions and dismissal.

You have not a addressed the many points raised in my last post regarding your ridiculous Heliocentric model so I will be forced to repost until these points are addressed by you or one of your colleagues.
They have all been addressed. How about you stop repeating the same refuted crap and instead go over the explanations and explain exactly what is wrong with them. Don't just assert a part is wrong, explain why it is wrong, proving it beyond any reasonable doubt.

And like I said, when it does come time for a new argument, introduce them one at a time, don't just bring up a bunch of crap which is solely designed to try and bury your opponent in BS to make it take far too much effort for them to refute.


And if you do want to continue, pick one thing to discuss. Do you want to discuss the size of the shadow, or the apparent motion of the shadow?
« Last Edit: September 28, 2017, 12:15:00 AM by JackBlack »

Re: Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the Globe
« Reply #1319 on: September 27, 2017, 04:59:22 PM »
Your explanation is nonsense.
Again, if you think it is nonsense, then quote the exact part you think is nonsense and explain why.
If you are unable to then it shows that you have no basis to claim my explanation is nonesnse.

The said spherical object is 200 metres away from the carousel.
Why 200 m?

You had your merry go round (presumable representing Earth) have a diameter of 12 m. That means each m corresponds to roughly 1 000 km. This also matches your 150 000 m=150 000 000 km for the sun.
If that is the case the moon, which is ~400 000 km should be 400 m distant, not 200.

So once again, you are objecting to a not to scale model.

One can imagine a spherical ball of fire (that burns in a vacuum)
I take it this is meant to be the sun? If so, no, it isn't a ball of fire. It is a ball of plasma. It isn't heated by combustion (burning), it is heated by nuclear fusion.

One can imagine the shadow cast by the said spherical object with a diameter of 3 metres onto the carousel .
The shadow would be atleast the same size as the said spherical object as it is impossible for any object to cast a shadow smaller than itself.
Firstly, this isn't explaining what is wrong with my explanation. My explanation (in the post above) didn't discuss the size of the shadow. This isn't even explaining why that is wrong, it is just asserting that it is wrong. It provides no justification at all, instead just claiming that it is impossible for any object to cast a shadow smaller than itself.

But it is completely wrong, one would realise that the shadow is more complex than the simple idea of a shadow. There are multiple regions of the shadow. In general, there are 3, the umbra, the antumbra and the penumbra.

The antumbra is the region in which all light from the source is blocked. This means that people inside the umbra are unable to see any of the light source.
The antumbra is an extension of the umbra beyond the point where the 2 objects are the same size. In the antumbra part of the centre of the light source is blocked, while there is a ring of light around the obstruction. This would be akin to a fly on your screen.
The penumbra is any other region of shadow. That is where part of the light source is visible, but part of the side is obstructed.

If the object is larger than the light source, the antumbra does not exist, and both the penumbra and umbra diverge, that is they grow larger and larger as you get further away.
This would be akin to placing your hand over a small torch. It doesn't matter how far away you go, your hand is always going to appear larger than the light source.

But if the object is smaller than the light source, the antumbra does exist, the penumbra still diverges, but the umbra converges. That is the region of totality will shrink.

This is now more akin to putting your hand in front of your face.
Now, your hand can block out quite a lot of light, coming in from a very large angle.
This allows you to completely stop the light coming in from many light sources, including things like a computer screen, but only for a small area.
If you don't believe me, try it, put your hand right in front of your face (or if you want something more comparable with others and a more suitable shape, use a playing card, much smaller than the screen, and see if it can shadow the computer screen from you. If it can then hold the playing card/hand 1 m away from the screen. Now move back (your eye) until the card/hand just blocks the screen.
Now, if you move left or right (a small amount, smaller than the playing card), you will see part of the screen. This shows the umbra (or "shadow") (the region of totality) is smaller than the object casting the shadow. If you move back, you can see the playing card only blocking part of the screen and you are in the antumbra.

Another simple way is by viewing the shadow of an object above the ground, like this video:

The shadow is quite sharp near the ground, but as the object gets higher, the shadow becomes fuzzy, there is a dark central region (umbra) and a light outer region (penumbra). Once it is high enough, this dark central region disappears entirely and the light outer region gets light enough to not be distinguished from the rest of the ground.

In that video, when the quad is close to the ground, its landing gear is quite clearly visible, but when it is higher, the shadow umbra has shrunk so much and the penumbra is so light that that part of the shadow is missing.

If you wish to discuss the shadow size of the moon during the lunar eclipse, it was just the umbra that was smaller than the moon. The penumbra, that is the region of the partial solar eclipse was much larger, it covered almost the entire US, Mexico and Canada.

A simple way to measure the size is to see when the eclipse finishes for one person and starts for another.
Madras has the eclipse end at 11:41 PDT, which corresponds to 2:41 EDT. But the eclipse started at 1:13 EDT for Columbia. That puts the eclipse as much wider than the US. The penumbra, that is the partial shadow, is wider than the US. That means it is wider than the moon.

So what is the problem meant to be?


As the carousel only takes one hour to do a full revolution and the said spherical object takes 27 hours to do one full orbit of the carousel it is impossible for the shadow cast by the said spherical object to move faster than the carousel is revolving.
Again, this is not an explanation, it is a baseless assertion.

Do the math.
Here is the simple version, which underestimates how much the shadow moves. Because the shadow is further away from the moon, if the moon moves 1 m, the shadow has to move more than 1 m but this is simpler, where we assume this extra bit is negligible so if the moon moves 1 m, the shadow does as well.

The moon, over the course of 1 hour (reality, not your model) has moved ~3600 km. As this is a very small portion of its orbit, by the small angle approximation this corresponds to the linear distance the moon has moved. Thus the shadow will have moved 3600 km to the east.
Meanwhile, Earth below (with its equator moving at ~1600 km per hour) will be turning such that the equator, the part which moves the most, will have moved 1600 km (and this is now a more significant portion of its circular path and thus this will be more of an over estimate than the 3600 km for the moon).
This means relative to a person on the surface of Earth, who has moved 1600 km while the moon's shadow moved 3600 km, both to the east, the moon's shadow will appear to have moved 2000 km to the east.

As such, YOU ARE COMPLETELY WRONG!
It is quite possible for the shadow of the moon to move west to east.

Now then, like I said, can you actually show what is wrong with my explanation?

How about this, you do the math and show that it is impossible for the moon's shadow to move west to east. So far all you have done is asserted it.

As such your out of scale diagrams and explanations are a nonsense designed to fool stupid gullable inferior people like yourself.
No, that is what your baseless assertions are for. My out of scale diagrams and explanations are tools to help people understand the truth. As I wasn't conned by your pathetic lies I am clearly not inferior.

Any normal person with half a brain that thinks about this will see your model is false .
No they wont. They will see that there is nothing wrong with my claims (and the HC model) which are backed by explanations and math, unlike yours which are backed by baseless assertions and dismissal.

You have not a addressed the many points raised in my last post regarding your ridiculous Heliocentric model so I will be forced to repost until these points are addressed by you or one of your colleagues.
They have all been addressed. How about you stop repeating the same refuted crap and instead go over the explanations and explain exactly what is wrong with them. Don't just assert a part is wrong, explain why it is wrong, proving it beyond any reasonable doubt.

And like I said, when it does come time for a new argument, introduce them one at a time, don't just bring up a bunch of crap which is solely designed to try and bury your opponent in BS to make it take far too much effort for them to refute.


And if you do want to continue, pick one thing to discuss. Do you want to discuss the size of the shadow, or the apparent motion of the shadow?

Your explanation is a nonsense.


Why 200 m?


Why not ?

The model provided was only used as an illustration.


One can imagine the shadow cast by the said spherical object with a diameter of 3 metres onto the carousel .
The shadow would be atleast the same size as the said spherical object as it is impossible for any object to cast a shadow smaller than itself.


Firstly, this isn't explaining what is wrong with my explanation.


Yes it is ; you Heliocentrics claim that the shadow obsered in reality is 32 times smaller than the object that you claim is casting the said shadow.


But it is completely wrong, one would realise that the shadow is more complex than the simple idea of a shadow.


This is absolute bollocks anyone that has seen a shadow will be able to verify that the shadow is consistent in the fact that it represents the object blocking the light.

The antumbra is the region in which all light from the source is blocked.

So on your model you claim that only 3% of the objects size is blocking the light as the alleged antumbra is only 70 miles.

Lol.

Lol.

This is ridiculous and impossible.


Another simple way is by viewing the shadow of an object above the ground, like this video:

The shadow is quite sharp near the ground, but as the object gets higher, the shadow becomes fuzzy, there is a dark central region (umbra) and a light outer region (penumbra). Once it is high enough, this dark central region disappears entirely and the light outer region gets light enough to not be distinguished from the rest of the ground.



In that video, when the quad is close to the ground, its landing gear is quite clearly visible, but when it is higher, the shadow umbra has shrunk so much and the penumbra is so light that that part of the shadow is missing.



Anyone that can be arsed to watch your video of the drone or has observed a shadow in reality will be able to determine  that these antumbra umbra and penumbra that you speak of are absolute bollocks.



I will reiterate the fact regarding my last post that :

As the carousel only takes one hour to do a full revolution and the said spherical object takes 27 hours to do one full orbit of the carousel it is impossible for the shadow cast by the said spherical object to appear to move faster than the carousel is revolving.


You have not a addressed the many points raised in my last post regarding your ridiculous Heliocentric model so I will be forced to repost until these points are addressed by you or one of your colleagues.

Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
« Last Edit: September 27, 2017, 05:42:03 PM by Resistance.is.Futile »