Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the Globe

That's not true.  You have cherry picked the things that fit your view and ignored the ones that did not.  You haven't even remotely used all recorded info about them, so that's a lie.

Not true !
I have meticulously written all comments about seeing stars from the lunar surface and outerspace that were available on the www.
From Neil Armstrong, Edgar Mitchell and Neil deGrasse Tyson.
I have written them all, not altering one word !
I did not comment on many subjects, as you prefectly know, but the visabilty of stars was as accurate and honest as possible.
I expect a bit more from you after all this time,.....i never claimed about other subjects. I have sticked to very specific ones and addressed them accordingly.

And you have shown your ignorance, not your expertise when it comes to audio engineering, though I consider that more a Dunning Kruger thing than a lie.

I disagree
I have talked to several festival and theatre engeneres and asked them about the recording, sound and video to verify my take or debunk it.
They all agree,.....a clear studio production, because of what you hear and see the moment the musical video is played.

So who did you contemplate ?

Quote from: Badxtoss on September 28, 2017, 01:42:57 PM

And you have shown your ignorance, not your expertise when it comes to audio engineering, though I consider that more a Dunning Kruger thing than a lie.

I disagree
I have talked to several festival and theatre engeneres and asked them about the recording, sound and video to verify my take or debunk it.
They all agree,.....a clear studio production, because of what you hear and see the moment the musical video is played.

So who did you contemplate ?

Which you, once again, never proved was actually advertised to be a live show. That was your take on the matter. Your opinion. Many options for how they did it were presented, quite a few I recall you even agreeing as possible to plausible. I can't stop others from bringing it up, but at least be honest about it not being a live show other than in your opinion (unless you can actually bring out evidence that's what it was advertised as, and not just starting banter for show).

Quote from: rabinoz on September 28, 2017, 05:24:12 AM

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile on September 28, 2017, 04:30:34 AM

I have told you before that I will not take direction from you Heliocentric plebs.

Well, little man, I don't take rubbish from you!

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile

This is my thread.

Big deal, so what!

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile

The thread is called Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the Globe which it has.

Incorrect and you know it!

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile

It is not called Saros cycle explained and calculated to determine the next eclipse.

I couldn't care less what you claim its called! You can't wriggle out of your numerous Saros Cycle claims that easily!
You are the one that brought up the Saros Cycles, so you have to justify your claims, or admit that it was all totally fabricated rubbish.

But it is totally untrue to claim that the exact timing and path of an eclipse can be determined only from saris cycles.
If you think you can, please show exactly how that has been done for the most recent eclipse.
If you cannot do this we will know you have been deceiving us all along with totally false claims.

So, by you refusal to answer my simple request you have admitted that you have been deceiving us all along!

Run away and waste someone else's time!

Look at the times you dragged these Saros Cycles into the argument, now you want to wriggle out - not on your Nellie!

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile on August 21, 2017, 05:11:31 PM

The Saros cycle was originally calculated by the ancient Babylonian's who like all civilisations knew the earth was flat.
NASA still use the SAROS cycle to this day.

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile on August 22, 2017, 03:54:33 AM

You speak nonsense.
Eclipse predictions have nothing to do with the shape of the earth.
NASA use the 4000 year old Ancient Babylonian Saros Cycle.
The Ancient Babylonian's new the true shape of the earth to be flat.

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile on August 23, 2017, 12:38:27 PM

The only reason NASA could predict the eclipse is because they have learnt how to use the 4000 year old Ancient Babylonian Saros Cycle.
Predicting the Eclipse Has nothing at all to do with your Heliocentric fairytale.

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile on August 23, 2017, 04:37:39 PM

NASA use the SAROS Cycle to predict eclipses.

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile on September 09, 2017, 02:20:06 PM

The ancient Babylonian's and the ancient Chinese could predict Eclipses just as accurately 4000 years ago they used the Saros Cycle.
The Heliocentric mathematics has been retrofitted to the Saros cycle.

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile on September 25, 2017, 11:04:53 PM

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

That is an outright lie! The "the Ancient Babylonians" did not  believe in the same flat Earth model that is generally accepted today". It was different in at least one very vital way!

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futil

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.

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile on September 26, 2017, 05:33:45 AM

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.

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile on September 27, 2017, 02:02:02 PM

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.

Now, you claim so often that "NASA have retrofitted their mathematics to the Saros cycle so they can claim it is unique to them"

So now, prove that statement or admit that you have lied to us all along.

We are sick of ypur deception and it is time for you to prove all you have been claiminging!

As this is my thread and this thread is about the eclipse I will not allow you to change the subject old man.

You are just trying to avoid addressing the points I raised about the Black hole Sun.

It is obvious to anyone who has observed the photographic evidence and "REAL" video footage I have provided that the Black hole Sun is responsible for the  Solar eclipse and NOT the dissappearing and reappearing Magic Moon.

I will accept the refusal of you and your colleagues to answer the points raised on the said object as an admission that I'm correct and that your Heliocentric model is a ridiculous fabrication that was concocted in the 19 th century which explains why it is so easily pulled apart by any person of average intelligence and above.


You fool NO one with your nonsensical  explanations out of scale diagrams and shit CGI.

As you will come to realise I'm a man of my word and as I said I will keep posting the thread below until you address the points raised.

Your explanation is unsatisfactory.



Quote from: JackBlack on September 23, 2017, 07:09:16 PM



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_eclipseIt 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-WhySo

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 onePart 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.

Thanks for your relentless but great efforts !!!

Quote from: dutchy on September 28, 2017, 01:58:55 PM

Quote from: Badxtoss on September 28, 2017, 01:42:57 PM

And you have shown your ignorance, not your expertise when it comes to audio engineering, though I consider that more a Dunning Kruger thing than a lie.

I disagree
I have talked to several festival and theatre engeneres and asked them about the recording, sound and video to verify my take or debunk it.
They all agree,.....a clear studio production, because of what you hear and see the moment the musical video is played.

So who did you contemplate ?

Which you, once again, never proved was actually advertised to be a live show. That was your take on the matter. Your opinion. Many options for how they did it were presented, quite a few I recall you even agreeing as possible to plausible. I can't stop others from bringing it up, but at least be honest about it not being a live show other than in your opinion (unless you can actually bring out evidence that's what it was advertised as, and not just starting banter for show).

Have you watched the initial interview between earth and the ISS right before kick off ?
If that doesn't count for a legimite claim of a coming live event you really need to understand more about how humans interact and what they mean while behaving in a certain way.
They fully meant it to sell it as a live event,...every word from the ''do you have your trusty guitar pick ?'', ''are you ready to do this'' ?, every sentence is proof of a supposed live event in the initial converstaion between ISS and earth.

I am very polite, but i think it is a waste of time when talking to people who deliberately ignore the very obvious time and time again !
If Trump implicate certain things like that. the media would be all over him and rightfully so, but in this particular case the excuses are beyond pathetic.

Quote from: Curious Squirrel on September 28, 2017, 02:05:12 PM

Quote from: dutchy on September 28, 2017, 01:58:55 PM

Quote from: Badxtoss on September 28, 2017, 01:42:57 PM

And you have shown your ignorance, not your expertise when it comes to audio engineering, though I consider that more a Dunning Kruger thing than a lie.

I disagree
I have talked to several festival and theatre engeneres and asked them about the recording, sound and video to verify my take or debunk it.
They all agree,.....a clear studio production, because of what you hear and see the moment the musical video is played.

So who did you contemplate ?

Which you, once again, never proved was actually advertised to be a live show. That was your take on the matter. Your opinion. Many options for how they did it were presented, quite a few I recall you even agreeing as possible to plausible. I can't stop others from bringing it up, but at least be honest about it not being a live show other than in your opinion (unless you can actually bring out evidence that's what it was advertised as, and not just starting banter for show).

Have you watched the initial interview between earth and the ISS right before kick off ?
If that doesn't count for a legimite claim of a coming live event you really need to understand more about how humans interact and what they mean while behaving in a certain way.
They fully meant it to sell it as a live event,...every word from the ''do you have your trusty guitar pick ?'', ''are you ready to do this'' ?, every sentence is proof of a supposed live event in the initial converstaion between ISS and earth.

I am very polite, but i think it is a waste of time when talking to people who deliberately ignore the very obvious time and time again !
If Trump implicate certain things like that. the media would be all over him and rightfully so, but in this particular case the excuses are beyond pathetic.

So was this a live interview between Al and Snoop?

If you say not, what exactly is the difference between that and what happened with the ISS? Because all I can come up with is some production quality, and the ability to make each side say what you want.

Unless you're talking about something before the very brief banter back and forth, which it doesn't seem like it. It looks like it was a show set up to entertain. Mocking up the appearance of a live concert (just like Al's live interview) is certainly entertaining. Of course you try and 'sell' it as a live event, that's the essence of entertainment. Helping your audience in their suspension of disbelief, and it was done beautifully. I would say the fact you've bought into it so hard is good evidence of that. Without a specific reference to this being a live event, it looks completely like a studio-made entertainment piece, and you've said the audio even backs that up.

I'm not sure where this business about Trump is coming in though, he has nothing to do with this whatsoever.

It looks like it was a show set up to entertain. Mocking up the appearance of a live concert (just like Al's live interview) is certainly entertaining. Of course you try and 'sell' it as a live event, that's the essence of entertainment. Helping your audience in their suspension of disbelief, and it was done beautifully. I would say the fact you've bought into it so hard is good evidence of that. Without a specific reference to this being a live event, it looks completely like a studio-made entertainment piece, and you've said the audio even backs that up.

Ahh, so who determines that ''outerspace events'' can participate in a show set up to entertain ?

What else was mere entertainment ?......playing with water bubbles int he middle of delicate electric equipment, that was augmented reality to entertain after all ?
Doing backflips with visual errased wires that was part of ''space entertainment'' ?

Is there a list from NASA where they claim what is part of ''space entertainment'' and what was related to ''scientific research'' and micro gravity show off's ?

You smell the problems here,...don't you ?

Quote from: Curious Squirrel on September 28, 2017, 02:24:51 PM

It looks like it was a show set up to entertain. Mocking up the appearance of a live concert (just like Al's live interview) is certainly entertaining. Of course you try and 'sell' it as a live event, that's the essence of entertainment. Helping your audience in their suspension of disbelief, and it was done beautifully. I would say the fact you've bought into it so hard is good evidence of that. Without a specific reference to this being a live event, it looks completely like a studio-made entertainment piece, and you've said the audio even backs that up.

Ahh, so who determines that ''outerspace events'' can participate in a show set up to entertain ?

What else was mere entertainment ?......playing with water bubbles int he middle of delicate electric equipment, that was augmented reality to entertain after all ?
Doing backflips with visual errased wires that was part of ''space entertainment'' ?

Is there a list from NASA where they claim what is part of ''space entertainment'' and what was related to ''scientific research'' and micro gravity show off's ?

You smell the problems here,...don't you ?

Why do you insist NASA had anything to do with it?

Quote from: rabinoz on September 28, 2017, 05:24:12 AM

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile on September 28, 2017, 04:30:34 AM

I have told you before that I will not take direction from you Heliocentric plebs.

Well, little man, I don't take rubbish from you!

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile

This is my thread.

Big deal, so what!

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile

The thread is called Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the Globe which it has.

Incorrect and you know it!

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile

It is not called Saros cycle explained and calculated to determine the next eclipse.

I couldn't care less what you claim its called! You can't wriggle out of your numerous Saros Cycle claims that easily!
You are the one that brought up the Saros Cycles, so you have to justify your claims, or admit that it was all totally fabricated rubbish.

But it is totally untrue to claim that the exact timing and path of an eclipse can be determined only from Saros Cycles.
If you think you can, please show exactly how that has been done for the most recent eclipse.
If you cannot do this we will know you have been deceiving us all along with totally false claims.

So, by you refusal to answer my simple request you have admitted that you have been deceiving us all along!

Run away and waste someone else's time!


Now, you claim so often that "NASA has retrofitted their mathematics to the Saros cycle so they can claim it is unique to them"

So now, prove that statement or admit that you have lied to us all along.

We are sick of your deception and it is time for you to prove all you have been claiming!

<< Silly repeated rubbish deleted >>

I repeat: You claim so often that "NASA has retrofitted their mathematics to the Saros cycle so they can claim it is unique to them"

So sorry for shouting, but your seem to be totally deaf to any reasonable request.

Quote from: Curious Squirrel on September 28, 2017, 02:24:51 PM

It looks like it was a show set up to entertain. Mocking up the appearance of a live concert (just like Al's live interview) is certainly entertaining. Of course you try and 'sell' it as a live event, that's the essence of entertainment. Helping your audience in their suspension of disbelief, and it was done beautifully. I would say the fact you've bought into it so hard is good evidence of that. Without a specific reference to this being a live event, it looks completely like a studio-made entertainment piece, and you've said the audio even backs that up.

Ahh, so who determines that ''outerspace events'' can participate in a show set up to entertain ?

What else was mere entertainment ?......playing with water bubbles int he middle of delicate electric equipment, that was augmented reality to entertain after all ?
Doing backflips with visual errased wires that was part of ''space entertainment'' ?

Is there a list from NASA where they claim what is part of ''space entertainment'' and what was related to ''scientific research'' and micro gravity show off's ?

You smell the problems here,...don't you ?

Yes, you appear to have a hard time understanding the difference between things when it comes to anything to do with NASA. Not sure what exactly you're attempting to say with that first question. I'm not speaking to anything beyond this specific example that you set forth. I see no reason to believe it was a full live event.

My pet hypothesis is the ISS was delayed long enough to be threaded in seamlessly on the Earth end. I see no reason that couldn't be true and still give it a very strong appearance of a live event. Can I prove it? No, but you can't prove that this was anything else either. You claim they're lying, but can't show anything specific they lied about. You just 'feel' like they did. Sounds like bias.

If only i could report NASA for deliberate ongoing fakery, but for the real impotant matters in life there is no international moderation out there.......the father of all fakeries can continue so it seems, without reprimands and extreme funding cuts.
I am going to watch a couple of ISS fake shows to keep the spirit alive.
Long live youtube !!
 

P.s. who can contain himself right now after so much outragious and scandalous anti NASA claims.......keep your outcries coming guys, i deserve it ! 

And of course all credits to Resistance is Futile who keeps his own in the middle of a very hostile environment.
But what do you expect,....it's the flatearth forums after all........

Wait a minute 

In case you have forgotten how to read the thread is "Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the Globe".
But, as with so many threads, Mr NASAphobic Dutchy has to drag it around to attacking his Nemesis NASA.

By the way, when Resistance.is.Futile and now by implication you, criticise NASA for fakery in their eclipse calculations, it is a real person you are denigration and accusing of what amounts to fraud.

The eclipse data NASA uses is calculated by the Fred Espenak an astronomer who did work for the Goddard Space Center,
Read a bit about this real person!

Fred Espenak

Fred Espenak is a retired emeritus American astrophysicist. He worked at the Goddard Space Flight Center. He is best known for his work on eclipse predictions. He became interested in astronomy when he was 7–8 years old, and had his first telescope when he was around 9–10 years old. Espenak earned a bachelor's degree in physics from Wagner College, Staten Island, where he worked in the planetarium. His master's degree is from the University of Toledo, based on studies he did at Kitt Peak Observatory of eruptive and flare stars among red dwarfs. He was employed at Goddard Space Flight Center, where he used infrared spectrometers to measure the atmosphere of planets in the Solar System. He provided NASA's eclipse bulletins since 1978. He is the author of several canonical works on eclipse predictions, such as the Fifty Year Canon of Solar Eclipses: 1986–2035 and Fifty Year Canon of Lunar Eclipses: 1986–2035,[1] both of which are standard references on eclipses. The first eclipse he saw was the solar eclipse of March 7, 1970, which sparked his interest in eclipses,[3] and he has since seen over 20 eclipses. He is co-author with Jean Meeus of Five Millennium Canon of Solar Eclipses, which covers all types of solar eclipses (partial, total, annular, or hybrid) from 2000 BC to AD 3000. From: Fred Espenak

Fred Espenak Nationality:   American Occupation:  Astrophysicist Years active: 1978–2009 Website:        mreclipse.com

When you or Resistance.is.Futile have 1/100 th knowledge of eclipse prediction you might be qualified to comment, in the meantime either put a sock it it or prove your or Resistance.is.Futile's case!

 The Total Eclipse
The Earth and moon orbit the sun as a pair with the moon orbiting the earth.
The moons orbit around Earth is 5° off the eclectic.
The motion of the Moon is from below the eclectic to above the eclectic casting a shadow.
The solar eclipse occurs when the moon passes through the eclectic during the new moon.
And the earth passes through the shadow of the Moon
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AVisualizing_the_2017_All-American_Eclipse.webm
And this is what happened.

Thank you RIF, the thread is good and I appreciate it.

The info about the orbs is facinating and very uncommon knowledge.

Thanks for your relentless but great efforts !!!

Since you chip in and RiF refuses to answer, I must assume that you are offering to explain:

It is totally untrue to claim that the exact timing and path of an eclipse can be determined only from Saros Cycles. If you think you can, please show exactly how that has been done for the most recent eclipse. If you cannot do this we will know RiF has been deceiving us all along with totally false claims.

If you have nothing constructive to offer, butt out!

The Total Eclipse
The Earth and moon orbit the sun as a pair with the moon orbiting the earth.
The moons orbit around Earth is 5° off the ecliptic .
The motion of the Moon is from below the ecliptic to above the ecliptic casting a shadow.
The solar eclipse occurs when the moon passes through the ecliptic during the new moon.
And the earth passes through the shadow of the Moon
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AVisualizing_the_2017_All-American_Eclipse.webm
And this is what happened.

Even The Flat Earth Society Wiki seems to agree

A Solar Eclipse occurs when the moon passes in front of the sun.
The Lunar Eclipse, duh

.
It seems only people like Deception.is.Futile, Hopalong Catastrophe and dutchy that disagree.

Somehow Deception.is.Futile and his cheer squad have to drag ancient Indian Mythology into it.

You are all very much behind the times. Look at this from the Astronomer/Mathematician, Aryabhata of India (AD 476–550)!

Aryabhata, Eclipses

Eclipses
Solar and lunar eclipses were scientifically explained by Aryabhata. He states that the Moon and planets shine by reflected sunlight. Instead of the prevailing cosmogony in which eclipses were caused by Rahu and Ketu (identified as the pseudo-planetary lunar nodes), he explains eclipses in terms of shadows cast by and falling on Earth. Thus, the lunar eclipse occurs when the moon enters into the Earth's shadow (verse gola.37). He discusses at length the size and extent of the Earth's shadow (verses gola.38–48) and then provides the computation and the size of the eclipsed part during an eclipse. Later Indian astronomers improved on the calculations, but Aryabhata's methods provided the core. His computational paradigm was so accurate that 18th-century scientist Guillaume Le Gentil, during a visit to Pondicherry, India, found the Indian computations of the duration of the lunar eclipse of 30 August 1765 to be short by 41 seconds, whereas his charts (by Tobias Mayer, 1752) were long by 68 seconds.

Sidereal periods
Considered in modern English units of time, Aryabhata calculated the sidereal rotation (the rotation of the earth referencing the fixed stars) as 23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4.1 seconds;[30] the modern value is 23:56:4.091. Similarly, his value for the length of the sidereal year at 365 days, 6 hours, 12 minutes, and 30 seconds (365.25858 days)[31] is an error of 3 minutes and 20 seconds over the length of a year (365.25636 days).

Heliocentrism
As mentioned, Aryabhata advocated an astronomical model in which the Earth turns on its own axis. . . . . . . . . . The general consensus is that a synodic anomaly (depending on the position of the sun) does not imply a physically heliocentric orbit (such corrections being also present in late Babylonian astronomical texts), and that Aryabhata's system was not explicitly heliocentric.

From: Aryabhata, Eclipses.

Really you mob, esp Deception.is.Futile, Hopalong Catastrophe and dutchy, need to get a bit up-to-date and stop relying on ancient mythology.

Quote from: Badxtoss on September 28, 2017, 01:42:57 PM

That's not true.  You have cherry picked the things that fit your view and ignored the ones that did not.  You haven't even remotely used all recorded info about them, so that's a lie.

Not true !
I have meticulously written all comments about seeing stars from the lunar surface and outerspace that were available on the www.
From Neil Armstrong, Edgar Mitchell and Neil deGrasse Tyson.
I have written them all, not altering one word !
I did not comment on many subjects, as you prefectly know, but the visabilty of stars was as accurate and honest as possible.
I expect a bit more from you after all this time,.....i never claimed about other subjects. I have sticked to very specific ones and addressed them accordingly.

Quote

And you have shown your ignorance, not your expertise when it comes to audio engineering, though I consider that more a Dunning Kruger thing than a lie.

I disagree
I have talked to several festival and theatre engeneres and asked them about the recording, sound and video to verify my take or debunk it.
They all agree,.....a clear studio production, because of what you hear and see the moment the musical video is played.

So who did you contemplate ?

you use a statement from Neil Armstrong as a prove that the earth is flat and that nobody ever went to the moon.
how about the statements where he said that they were to the moon and that he saw the earth from the moon.

As this is my thread and this thread is about the eclipse I will not allow you to change the subject old man.

I'm all for that, but best of luck enforcing it.

A good start, and something under your own control, would for you to cease spamming your own thread with acres of tripe. Maybe you could politely ask your pal dutchy to do the same, as a favor to you.

<link to video:

How will this Eclipse be possible on your Heliocentric model ?

Thoroughly explained in the first dozen and more pages of this thread.

The producer in this video gives a detailed description of how and why the upcoming solar Eclipse is impossibe on the Heliocentric Globe Model.

The relative motions of the moon and earth in that video are not to scale; that's all. It's wrong. It may be detailed, but it's incorrect. There's lots of stuff like that that out there, which is why you shouldn't rely on videos like this to try to illustrate your point. They just lead you to the wrong conclusion.

Eight days until a video from a high altitude weather balloon shows the Moon is not eclipsing the Sun.

Have you even found any high-altitude balloon video of the eclipse yet, much less one that provides some semblance of evidence you might be right? It's been well over a month. We're still waiting.

Quote from: Badxtoss on September 28, 2017, 01:42:57 PM

That's not true.  You have cherry picked the things that fit your view and ignored the ones that did not.  You haven't even remotely used all recorded info about them, so that's a lie.

Not true !
I have meticulously written all comments about seeing stars from the lunar surface and outerspace that were available on the www.
From Neil Armstrong, Edgar Mitchell and Neil deGrasse Tyson.
I have written them all, not altering one word !
I did not comment on many subjects, as you prefectly know, but the visabilty of stars was as accurate and honest as possible.
I expect a bit more from you after all this time,.....i never claimed about other subjects. I have sticked to very specific ones and addressed them accordingly.

Quote

And you have shown your ignorance, not your expertise when it comes to audio engineering, though I consider that more a Dunning Kruger thing than a lie.

I disagree
I have talked to several festival and theatre engeneres and asked them about the recording, sound and video to verify my take or debunk it.
They all agree,.....a clear studio production, because of what you hear and see the moment the musical video is played.

So who did you contemplate ?

Ok now you are admitting you cherry picked.  You originally said you posted all comments by them.  You did not.  You posted the ones that fit your view.
They talked at length about being on the moon, seeing the earth, seeing the stars from space.  You picked one interview and tried to skew it to fit your narrative.
As for sound, I have worked with some of the best both recording and live engineers and you can absolutely create what you heard live in a controlled environment like we saw.  But that was never really the point, I agree that one or both are prerecorded, which would be necessary when trying to deal with the delay from space.  Your argument does not really support your position.
Also I'm still waiting for you to show NASA involvement in that particular event.

Quote from: Badxtoss on September 28, 2017, 01:42:57 PM

That's not true.  You have cherry picked the things that fit your view and ignored the ones that did not.  You haven't even remotely used all recorded info about them, so that's a lie.

Not true !
I have meticulously written all comments about seeing stars from the lunar surface and outerspace that were available on the www.

You have watched this on stars on the moon? Look particularly from 8:32, not that it could change a NASAphobic conspiritard's mind.

This is so simple a middle school student can figure it out. I have my 8th grade students keep a diary of when and where they see the moon for about three weeks. We then model it with a globe, styrofoam ball and lamp. They can, astonishingly I guess, figure out that the moon orbits the earth, and that as it does so different amounts of the surface of the moon that are reflecting sunlight are facing Earth. Amazingly they can by the end of three weeks predict where and when they should be able to see the moon.

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile on September 28, 2017, 01:57:01 PM

As this is my thread and this thread is about the eclipse I will not allow you to change the subject old man.

I'm all for that, but best of luck enforcing it.

A good start, and something under your own control, would for you to cease spamming your own thread with acres of tripe. Maybe you could politely ask your pal dutchy to do the same, as a favor to you.

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile on July 26, 2017, 02:51:59 PM

<link to video:

How will this Eclipse be possible on your Heliocentric model ?

Thoroughly explained in the first dozen and more pages of this thread.

Quote

The producer in this video gives a detailed description of how and why the upcoming solar Eclipse is impossibe on the Heliocentric Globe Model.

The relative motions of the moon and earth in that video are not to scale; that's all. It's wrong. It may be detailed, but it's incorrect. There's lots of stuff like that that out there, which is why you shouldn't rely on videos like this to try to illustrate your point. They just lead you to the wrong conclusion.

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile on August 13, 2017, 02:13:57 AM

Eight days until a video from a high altitude weather balloon shows the Moon is not eclipsing the Sun.

Have you even found any high-altitude balloon video of the eclipse yet, much less one that provides some semblance of evidence you might be right? It's been well over a month. We're still waiting.

You speak nonsense.

Have you even found any high-altitude balloon video of the eclipse yet, much less one that provides some semblance of evidence you might be right? It's been well over a month. We're still waiting.

This is the second time I have addressed this you REtard.

I have provided two videos that have video footage from high altitude proving it is not the Moon that causes the solar eclipse it is the the black whole Sun that is constructed of many small orbs; the photographic evidence and the video footage in the two videos prove this and as I said it has most definitely debunked your Imaginary Globe.

You are just trying to avoid addressing the points I raised about the Black hole Sun.

It is obvious to anyone who has observed the photographic evidence and "REAL" video footage I have provided that the Black hole Sun is responsible for the  Solar eclipse and NOT the dissappearing and reappearing Magic Moon.

I will accept the refusal of you and your colleagues to answer the points raised on the said object as an admission that I'm correct and that your Heliocentric model is a ridiculous fabrication that was concocted in the 19 th century which explains why it is so easily pulled apart by any person of average intelligence and above.


You fool NO one with your nonsensical  explanations out of scale diagrams and shit CGI.

As you will come to realise I'm a man of my word and as I said I will keep posting the thread below until you address the points raised.

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_eclipseIt 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-WhySo

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 onePart 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.


Quote from: Alpha2Omega on September 28, 2017, 05:50:28 PM

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile on September 28, 2017, 01:57:01 PM

As this is my thread and this thread is about the eclipse I will not allow you to change the subject old man.

I'm all for that, but best of luck enforcing it.

A good start, and something under your own control, would for you to cease spamming your own thread with acres of tripe. Maybe you could politely ask your pal dutchy to do the same, as a favor to you.

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile on July 26, 2017, 02:51:59 PM

<link to video:

How will this Eclipse be possible on your Heliocentric model ?

Thoroughly explained in the first dozen and more pages of this thread.

Quote

The producer in this video gives a detailed description of how and why the upcoming solar Eclipse is impossibe on the Heliocentric Globe Model.

The relative motions of the moon and earth in that video are not to scale; that's all. It's wrong. It may be detailed, but it's incorrect. There's lots of stuff like that that out there, which is why you shouldn't rely on videos like this to try to illustrate your point. They just lead you to the wrong conclusion.

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile on August 13, 2017, 02:13:57 AM

Eight days until a video from a high altitude weather balloon shows the Moon is not eclipsing the Sun.

Have you even found any high-altitude balloon video of the eclipse yet, much less one that provides some semblance of evidence you might be right? It's been well over a month. We're still waiting.

You speak nonsense.

And you write deceptive rubbish.

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on September 28, 2017, 05:50:28 PM

Have you even found any high-altitude balloon video of the eclipse yet, much less one that provides some semblance of evidence you might be right? It's been well over a month. We're still waiting.

This is the second time I have addressed this you REtard.

I have provided two videos that have video footage from high altitude proving it is not the Moon that causes the solar eclipse it is the the black whole Sun that is constructed of many small orbs; the photographic evidence and the video footage in the two videos prove this and as I said it has most definitely debunked your Imaginary Globe.

You are just trying to avoid addressing the points I raised about the Black hole Sun.

Another lie, unless by "the Black hole Sun." you mean the moon, that everybody but a few FE retards know causes the solar eclipse.

It is obvious to anyone who has observed the photographic evidence and "REAL" video footage I have provided that the Black hole Sun is responsible for the  Solar eclipse and NOT the dissappearing and reappearing Magic Moon.

I will accept the refusal of you and your colleagues to answer the points raised on the said object as an admission that I'm correct and that your Heliocentric model is a ridiculous fabrication that was concocted in the 19 th century which explains why it is so easily pulled apart by any person of average intelligence and above.


You fool NO one with your nonsensical  explanations out of scale diagrams and shit CGI.

As you will come to realise I'm a man of my word and as I said I will keep posting the thread below until you address the points raised.

You mean that you will keep posting your deceptive rubbish!

Your explanation is unsatisfactory.

In other words you don't have the brains to understand that Jack black is perfectly correct! So stop this repeated deception.



Quote from: JackBlack on September 23, 2017, 07:09:16 PM



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.


<< repeatedly debunked garbage deleted >>

Besides,  you will wear out your copy-'n-paste key if you keep this up.

I'm still fairly new here, so could you explain?  Is spamming allowed or not allowed?

If you are a FEer, yes.
If you are a REer, no.

If only i could report NASA for deliberate ongoing fakery

You mean slander them for continued baseless claims of fakery which you are yet to substantiate?

I have never lied about NASA, you may find my conclusions offending, false or farfetched

Yes, your conclusions are false, farfetched and offensive.
You have repeatedly lied about them.

I have used all recorded info by Werner von Braun and James van Allen about future space explorations to proof the impossibilties of Apollo.

You mean difficulties, especially regarding electronics which didn't exist back then and a route which was not used, which has no bearing on the Apollo missions.

I have shown my expertise in the field of music, mixing and production to expose the ISS live event (a clear attempt from fakers based on the initial interview between ISS and earth)

You mean where you couldn't understand how they managed to sing together, even though the ping to the ISS was quite small and nothing like what you suggested it should be?

What and where did i specifically lied about, could you elaborate and point out my wrongdoings instead of disagreeing with my conclusions which seem fair of course ?
Aren't you accusing me somewhat falsly ?

Well, how about the lies you made in that post, claiming that the footage indicates Apollo was impossible or your lies about the live event?

As this is my thread and this thread is about the eclipse I will not allow you to change the subject old man.
You are just trying to avoid addressing the points I raised about the Black hole Sun.

Sure, only you get to change the subject to avoid addressing the points that have been raised.

Again, saying an explanation is unacceptable doesn't disprove it in the slightest.

You need to show what is wrong with our explanations and you are yet to do that.

So again, what is wrong with my explanation of why the shadow moves west to east?

Did you need it in full, without the assumption?

Well, here it is, from where I did it for pajama boy before, so it used 5 minutes as the time period:



You are correct that the rotation of Earth will result in the shadow apparently moving in that direction, by 1.25 degrees for those 5 minutes.
This is indicated by θR.
However, the moon also moves, a small distance d, or an angle θM (0.04 degrees). θd is the angle measured from the sun for this motion.
θS shows the result of this motion on the position of the shadow. θs then corrects this for the rotation of Earth (θR).

One thing I noted was not on my diagram, which I shall call b, basically where h intersects the purple line, measured from the centre of Earth.
So, THE MATH:
tan(θM)=d/R=>d=R*tan(θM).
tan(θd)=d/(S-R)=h/(S-b)=>h=d(S-b)/(S-R)=>R*tan(θM)(S-b)/(S-R)
sin(θS)=h/r=R*tan(θM)(S-b)/r(S-R)
θs=θS-θR=asin(R*tan(θM)(S-b)/r(S-R))-θR.

Now, the easiest way to simplify this is to note that S is 150 000 000, R is 400 000 and b is less than 6371, thus S-R=149600000, and S-b~= (technically, slightly greater than)149993629.
These are both effectively the same as S and thus you can simplify S-b and S-R to S. This gives you:
θs=asin(R*tan(θM)(S)/r(S))-θR.
=asin(R*tan(θM)/r)-θR.
=asin(400 000 * tan(0.04) / 6371) - 1.25=1.26218495 degrees.

If you instead (i.e. don't make the simplifications above) simplify b=r, it is more complex and gives you:
=asin(400 000 * tan(0.04) *149993629 / (6371*149600000)) - 1.25=1.268799292 degrees.

The other option is to figure out b or h:
First, we need the total length of the pink line from the sun to Earth, which I shall call a.
Now r^2=a^2+S^2-2*a*S*cos(θd)
0=a^2-2*a*S*cos(θd)-r^2+S^2

For θd, we know:
tan(θd)=d/(S-R)=R*tan(θM)/(S-R)
Thus θd=0.000106952 deg

Thus we can sub some things in the above (more sig figs carried over in real calcs):
0=a^2-2*a*S*cos(θd)-r^2+S^2
0=a^2-a*2*150000000*cos(0.000106952 deg) - 6371^2+150000000^2
0=a^2-300000000*a+2.25E+16
Thus a=(300000000+-sqrt((300000000)^2-4*2.25E+16))/2
a=(300000000+-12729.68813)/2
a=150006364.8 or 149993635.2

Now, we can tell that a<S, and thus we pick the smaller one so a=149993635.2.

Now then, to find h we have:
sin(θd)=h/a
Thus h=a*sin(θd)
=149993635.2*sin(0.000106952 deg)=279.9875097

Compare this to d:
tan(θM)=d/R
d=R*tan(θM)=400000*tan(0.04 deg)=279.2527257.
So the shadow has moved more than the size of the moon.

Now sin(θS)=h/r
so θS=asin(h/r)=asin(279.9785097/6371)=2.518799395
θs=θS-θR=2.518799395-1.25=1.268799395 degrees.

So what is the issue with it?
Why does it produce a result you think is wrong?

Quote from: ItsRoundIPromise on September 28, 2017, 09:07:18 AM

I'm still fairly new here, so could you explain?  Is spamming allowed or not allowed?

If you are a FEer, yes.
If you are a REer, no.

I think that the identity of RiF's puppet master is the real question. RiF was created on May 19, 2017 just to "play with" these "Heliocentrics".
It's much more fun than playing with the flat earthers, they have no facts to argue with anyway.

And the puppet master is high enough to be immune to mundane things like rules.

If only i could report NASA for deliberate ongoing fakery, but for the real impotant matters in life there is no international moderation out there.......the father of all fakeries can continue so it seems, without reprimands and extreme funding cuts.

I honestly wish there was somewhere you could go to get your delusion cleared up.

I am going to watch a couple of ISS fake shows to keep the spirit alive.

Yes, it must be hard keeping all that hatred alive, maybe these will help:
  I don't know what your favourite hoax is, but maybe it's one of these. 
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">5 Actual Apollo Hoaxes that Hoax Nuts Fell For, Astrobrant2
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Moon Hoax Insanity - UPDATE BertieSlack
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Moon Hoax Insanity - UPDATE #2, BertieSlack
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Moon Hoax Insanity - UPDATE #3, BertieSlack
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Moon Hoax Insanity - UPDATE #4, BertieSlack
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Moon Hoax Insanity - UPDATE #5, BertieSlack
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Proof We Landed on the Moon: It's In the Dust, Vintage Space
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">"A Funny Thing..." Moon Conspiracy debunked pt 1 of 2, GreaterSapien
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">"A Funny Thing..." Moon Conspiracy debunked pt 2 of 2, GreaterSapien
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Addendum: A Funny Thing Happened..., GreaterSapien
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">On Astronauts Seeing Stars, GreaterSapien, Astrobrant2
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Moon hoax: No stars?, Astrobrant2
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Jarrah's star!, Astrobrant2
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">arrah's Star! (Pt 2.) Now for MY stars!, Astrobrant2

If it's not here just post a list and we'll see what we can dig up.

Glad to be of service.

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.

You claimed that the moon would be somewhere over Asia during the solar eclipse. 

When should we expect you to provide some evidence to support that claim?

When should we expect you to provide some evidence to support that claim?

When's his next morning shit due? The timing, consistency, smell and content is usually perfectly correlated.

Have you even found any high-altitude balloon video of the eclipse yet, much less one that provides some semblance of evidence you might be right? It's been well over a month. We're still waiting.

I have provided two videos that have video footage from high altitude proving it is not the Moon that causes the solar eclipse it is the the black whole Sun that is constructed of many small orbs; the photographic evidence and the video footage in the two videos prove this and as I said it has most definitely debunked your Imaginary Globe.
[/quote]

You've posted no videos or photographs that show anything of the sort. Don't you remember these bold predictions:

Quote from: markjo on August 09, 2017, 05:23:45 AM

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile on August 09, 2017, 05:19:57 AM

Quote from: markjo on August 09, 2017, 05:15:23 AM

Quote from: Rip Riley on August 08, 2017, 08:34:24 PM

I would love to see some photographs from planes of this upcoming eclipse, to check the size of the shadow on the ground. Hopefully someone will take some (unaltered) ones that we can all look at afterwards.

What makes anyone think that planes fly enough to see the entire shadow?

Planes possibly not .

The thousands of high altitude weather balloons that will be launched will.

Who will be launching these balloons and why?

There are millions of people in the States who know the " True" shape of the Earth.

Thousands of these people will be launching high altitude weather Balloons on the 21.08.17.

The footage from the said Balloons will show an Eclipsed Sun it will also show the Moon 180 degrees away from the Eclisped Sun.

Enjoy your deception why you still can you have 12 days left.

That was almost two months ago. Nothing yet.

You are just trying to avoid addressing the points I raised about the Black hole Sun.

I'm just trying to find out what results those weather balloons launched by thousands of people in the States during the eclipse showed.
 

It is obvious to anyone who has observed the photographic evidence and "REAL" video footage I have provided that the Black hole Sun is responsible for the  Solar eclipse and NOT the dissappearing and reappearing Magic Moon.

Can you show some of this? What you've provided so far doesn't even begin to show any of that.

I will accept the refusal of you and your colleagues to answer the points raised on the said object as an admission that I'm correct and that your Heliocentric model is a ridiculous fabrication that was concocted in the 19 th century which explains why it is so easily pulled apart by any person of average intelligence and above.

You fool NO one with your nonsensical explanations out of scale diagrams and shit CGI.

Hey, you're the one providing the shit videos, not me.

As you will come to realise I'm a man of my word

Cool. We're still waiting for the results from the thousands of high-altitude weather balloons you said were going to be launched by some of the "millions of people in the States who know the 'True' shape of the Earth." What's up with that? Have you got something to hide?

and as I said I will keep posting the thread below until you address the points raised.

...

Since those points have already been addressed, in great detail, many times already, and you say you're a man of your word, you can be true to your word and stop posting them.

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile on September 28, 2017, 01:57:01 PM

As this is my thread and this thread is about the eclipse I will not allow you to change the subject old man.
You are just trying to avoid addressing the points I raised about the Black hole Sun.

Sure, only you get to change the subject to avoid addressing the points that have been raised.

Again, saying an explanation is unacceptable doesn't disprove it in the slightest.

You need to show what is wrong with our explanations and you are yet to do that.

So again, what is wrong with my explanation of why the shadow moves west to east?

Did you need it in full, without the assumption?

Well, here it is, from where I did it for pajama boy before, so it used 5 minutes as the time period:



You are correct that the rotation of Earth will result in the shadow apparently moving in that direction, by 1.25 degrees for those 5 minutes.
This is indicated by θR.
However, the moon also moves, a small distance d, or an angle θM (0.04 degrees). θd is the angle measured from the sun for this motion.
θS shows the result of this motion on the position of the shadow. θs then corrects this for the rotation of Earth (θR).

One thing I noted was not on my diagram, which I shall call b, basically where h intersects the purple line, measured from the centre of Earth.
So, THE MATH:
tan(θM)=d/R=>d=R*tan(θM).
tan(θd)=d/(S-R)=h/(S-b)=>h=d(S-b)/(S-R)=>R*tan(θM)(S-b)/(S-R)
sin(θS)=h/r=R*tan(θM)(S-b)/r(S-R)
θs=θS-θR=asin(R*tan(θM)(S-b)/r(S-R))-θR.

Now, the easiest way to simplify this is to note that S is 150 000 000, R is 400 000 and b is less than 6371, thus S-R=149600000, and S-b~= (technically, slightly greater than)149993629.
These are both effectively the same as S and thus you can simplify S-b and S-R to S. This gives you:
θs=asin(R*tan(θM)(S)/r(S))-θR.
=asin(R*tan(θM)/r)-θR.
=asin(400 000 * tan(0.04) / 6371) - 1.25=1.26218495 degrees.

If you instead (i.e. don't make the simplifications above) simplify b=r, it is more complex and gives you:
=asin(400 000 * tan(0.04) *149993629 / (6371*149600000)) - 1.25=1.268799292 degrees.

The other option is to figure out b or h:
First, we need the total length of the pink line from the sun to Earth, which I shall call a.
Now r^2=a^2+S^2-2*a*S*cos(θd)
0=a^2-2*a*S*cos(θd)-r^2+S^2

For θd, we know:
tan(θd)=d/(S-R)=R*tan(θM)/(S-R)
Thus θd=0.000106952 deg

Thus we can sub some things in the above (more sig figs carried over in real calcs):
0=a^2-2*a*S*cos(θd)-r^2+S^2
0=a^2-a*2*150000000*cos(0.000106952 deg) - 6371^2+150000000^2
0=a^2-300000000*a+2.25E+16
Thus a=(300000000+-sqrt((300000000)^2-4*2.25E+16))/2
a=(300000000+-12729.68813)/2
a=150006364.8 or 149993635.2

Now, we can tell that a<S, and thus we pick the smaller one so a=149993635.2.

Now then, to find h we have:
sin(θd)=h/a
Thus h=a*sin(θd)
=149993635.2*sin(0.000106952 deg)=279.9875097

Compare this to d:
tan(θM)=d/R
d=R*tan(θM)=400000*tan(0.04 deg)=279.2527257.
So the shadow has moved more than the size of the moon.

Now sin(θS)=h/r
so θS=asin(h/r)=asin(279.9785097/6371)=2.518799395
θs=θS-θR=2.518799395-1.25=1.268799395 degrees.

So what is the issue with it?
Why does it produce a result you think is wrong?

More of your Heliocentric nonsense.

Are you familiar with the phrase " bullshit baffles brains "

The only relevant digits regarding the Heliocentric model and the solar eclipse are the earth's rotation and the Moon's orbit ; in the five minutes the earth's rotation being  1.25 degrees and the the Moon's orbit around the Earth ( I used 27 days for simplicity )in the said five minutes which is 0.0462 degrees .

We all know the Sun is stationary in relation to the earth and the Moon ; as on your HC model it is in the centre of the alleged solar system.

With that said the light source which is the Sun is directly in front of the Moon and the Earth is directly behind the Moon on your HC model.

With that said the Moon's shadow would be cast directly behind it.

https://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/k-4/stories/solar-eclipse-diagram

So therefore the Moon's shadow would only move 0.0462 degrees in the said five minutes in the same time the earth would have rotated 1.25 degrees equating to a difference of  1.2038.

As the earth allegedly rotates anticlockwise on your HC model this would cause the shadow to move east to west and NOT west to east as is observed in reality.

The Heliocentric model does not reflect what has been observed and verified in reality as such it is false.

Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.