Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the Globe

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile on September 29, 2017, 01:12:21 AM

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.

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]


If you are visually impaired and are unable to see the photographic evidence and video footage I provided in the videos it is not my problem.

No one has addressed the points I have raised regarding the many orbs that the Black hole Sun is constructed of.

The Black hole Sun is the cause of the eclipse and not the Moon.

Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.

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 regarding 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: JackBlack on September 29, 2017, 03:35:54 AM

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.

You really need to stop confusing angular speed and lateral velocity and their relation to one another in this.

Disclaimer: The following diagram is not directly to scale, and is meant to convey an idea, not show exactly what is going on.


The moon doesn't need to move the same amount of angular distance. Not even close. It only has to cover the lateral distance from one side of the sun to the other. Shown here as distance X. This is roughly the distance of the Earth's diameter, or 7900 miles. This is made even less by only having to cover a distance within that section equal to where it's on the ground, but let's start with 7900 miles.

It needs to cover that distance faster than the rotation of the Earth. The moon moves at about 2290 mph. The Earth rotates at about 1037 mph. This means the moons shadow will move at about 1000 mph across the surface of the Earth. As well, it will take just a bit under 3.5 hours to get across the whole Earth. Allow a bit of extra time since the Moon isn't a point source, and is itself approx. 2000 miles across, and that would bring us up to right around the 4-4.5 hour mark for how long the shadow will be on Earth. Which is right in the ballpark for how long the eclipse was.

My numbers could be better, but I'm just trying to show it's not a comparison of angular speed here. It's Earths rotational speed, vs. the moons lateral speed, over a short distance. The sun doesn't move, so stop pretending it does, as that is what comparing the angular speed is predicated upon. The moon only needs to move about 8000 miles out of it's orbit distance of about 239.000 miles.

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.

How many miles of rotation does that work out to for the earth and moon?

You really need to stop confusing angular speed and lateral velocity....

It's not confusion, it is deception, or rather a poor attempt at deception.   It's all he has left in the epic self-pwnage.  It's been explained too many times, nobody is that stupid.
Bless you for trying though.

If you are visually impaired and are unable to see the photographic evidence and video footage I provided in the videos it is not my problem.

Photographic evidence? Do you mean this?



There's no evidence there. That image shows a little light bit of light scattered away from the visible part of the sun, as expected. There's not enough data to conclude more than that.

Can you specify which video footage (which URLs and the times of the relevant parts) that you think provide the high-altitude footage you claim to be evidence? You've posted dozens of videos, few worth watching. None seem to show what you claim, but I was off grid for a couple of weeks; perhaps I missed the key videos amidst your oft-repeated long spammy post. Was this footage (if any) from any of those thousands of high-altitude weather balloons you said would be lofted for the eclipse? You never answered that. Are you avoiding the question because you were mistaken (or lying) about those "thousands of high-altitude weather balloons" and don't want to admit it? Exercising Hanlon's Razor, we can presume "mistaken" for the time being.

No one has addressed the points I have raised regarding the many orbs that the Black hole Sun is constructed of.

Yeah, we have. There's only one orb. It's the moon.

The Black hole Sun is the cause of the eclipse and not the Moon.

You keep asserting that. We're still waiting for evidence, not empty assertions based on mistaken conjecture.

In regards to the Black Hole Sun, I'm still waiting for someone to show me how to predict the next Solar or Lunar eclipse using a flat earth method and not a Round Earth method...

Please, show your work!


In regards to "Photographic Evidence"   The only evidence I show is....

https://himawari8.nict.go.jp/


I've asked about "Moon Bounce" got nothing...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%E2%80%93Moon%E2%80%93Earth_communication


nothing...

And in regards to the "Moon's" angular movement or what ever.... I would just like to say... You can throw out all the equations and math and distances and miles and speeds you want.... IF it is all still wrong, then it means squat.

For instance... I don't know what your numbers mean... BUT... I have seen, through the course of the night, the moon move in relation to the sky....

https://www.space.com/32000-full-moon-jupiter-rendezvous-february-2016.html

I have seen the Moon.... and JUPITER be very close together in the sky, with Jupiter on the left side of the moon.... After a Few Hours... Guess what... Jupiter is on the right side of the moon..... I'm not saying your math is wrong... But I'm pretty sure your math is wrong.

More of your Heliocentric nonsense.

Again, if it was nonsense you would be able to show exactly what is wrong with it.

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 .

No they aren't.
This completely ignores the scale of the system.
This produces fundamentally different results if the moon is orbiting at 400 km vs the moon orbiting at 400 000 km.

If the angles were all that is important, you wouldn't be complaining about the not to scale diagram. You would have seen that the shadow moved more than the moon moved in its orbit, and more than Earth rotated, and thus accepted that the shadow can move west to east and be done with it.

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.

And with that we completely discard the angular motions as they become useless to describe it.
Instead you need to use the linear motions.
In the 5 minutes Earth rotates 1.25 degrees, which means a point on the equator moves 139 km.
But the moon, in its much further out orbit of roughly 400 000 km, moving just 0.0462 degrees results in it moving 323 km, which corresponds to an angle of 2.90 degrees on the surface of Earth at the equator.

So the simple way just using lengths:
The moon's shadow moves west to east 323 km while the equator moves west to east 139 km. Thus, relative to that moving point on Earth, the moon's shadow moves 183 km west to east.

Or to put it in angular terms:
The Earth rotates 1.25 degrees, west to east, while the moon's shadow moves 2.90 degrees west to east, meaning the moon's shadow moves 1.65 degrees west to east.

Both cases, the moons shadow moves WEST TO EAST!!!

So therefore the Moon's shadow would only move 0.0462 degrees in the said five minutes

No it wouldn't.
That would only be the case if the sun was moving with the moon.
The moon's shadow is behind the moon, that is following a line from the sun, through the moon, to Earth.
That is not the same as below the moon.

As such, the moons shadow does not move the same amount as the moon.
Again, if you don't like the above picture, here is another one to show that:

Notice how the moon's shadow, represented by the purple line going from the top of the image/the sun, through the moon and to Earth is not always directly "below" the moon? That is, it isn't the same line as the line connecting the centre of Earth to the moon?

They are only the same if the moon is on the surface of Earth.

Now stop just repeating the same refuted BS.
Repeating the same BS is not showing what is wrong with my explanation, it is completely ignoring it.

If you wish to keep claiming such garbage you need to show what is actually wrong with my explanation and/or provide your own explanation showing why the moon's shadow magically stays below the moon.

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

As shown by me, it DOES reflect what has been observed.
Your pathetic lies about it are what do not reflect reality.

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

You mean with our completely rational explanations which make perfect sense which you are simply unable to refute?

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 you will keep spamming the same refuted nonsense while being completely unable to refute the arguments made by us?

As an extension, here is an image for you, as a too scale diagram, with the sun assumed to be so far away all shadows would be parallel (not quite true, but again, remove that and it makes it worse for you), with the sun at perigee:

This shows the Earth and the moon.
It has a starting point, with the moon directly overhead and with its shadow directly below it.
It also has a point 1 hour later, with the moon moving along it its orbit and Earth rotating.
It shows lines going from the moon to the centre of Earth, in both positions, showing the tiny angle it moves through in that hour.
It shows lines going from the Earth outwards to show the rotation of Earth in that time.
It also shows lines going straight from the moon down, representing the shadow of the moon.

This shows, beyond any doubt, that even though the moon moves a tiny angular amount (so small, you can't see it over the thickness of the lines right at Earth), with Earth moving a much greater angular amount, the shadow of the moon still moves more than Earth.

You would need the radius of Earth to be over twice the size it is in reality for the shadow to go east to west.

So are you going to mount a rational argument against this, showing what is wrong with this TOO SCALE diagram?
Or will you finally be rational and honest and admit that you were wrong and that the HC model does predict that the shadow of the moon will go west to east rather than east to west like you have repeatedly claimed?

So basically, you don't know how to resize an image, and this makes you credible somehow?

So basically, you don't know how to resize an image, and this makes you credible somehow?

And who is that meant to be addressed to, me or RiF?

I have provided smaller/easier to handle images, but they weren't too scale and RiF bitched about that, so this is a too-scale diagram, which by necessity needs to be big to be able to see the detail.

Putting it sideways may help, but that depends upon screen size.

Would you prefer something like this:

You're asking me if I would prefer something that is the exact same size as the thing I suggested you shrink?

You're asking me if I would prefer something that is the exact same size of the thing I suggested you shrink?

No, I'm asking you if you would prefer something which is significantly smaller.
It isn't my problem if whatever device you are using is unable to properly interpret HTML to resize the image to the stated size, nor if you are incapable of resizing the image yourself, or being able to understand it at that size.

But here, just to be nice, a scaled down version where the image itself has been shrunk rather than just having the html specifying a size:

Is that better?

EDIT: If you don't like this size, how about you tell me what size you want it, you can even tell me if you want it horizontal or vertical, just remember that it must remain as a scale diagram to appease the likes of RiF.
Too small and you wont see any detail.

Or would you prefer a set just showing the ends:
First the moon side

Then Earth:


What this doesn't show is that the left line for the moon is actually 2 lines, where one goes straight down and one drifts to the right, so much so that by the time it gets to Earth it is basically the right line.
/EDIT

Just what is your issue?
Do you have a rational objection to the argument at hand, or are you just capable of bitching about the image itself?

Do you have a rational objection to the argument at hand, or are you just capable of bitching about the image itself?

No, your image was perfect.

Quote from: JackBlack on September 29, 2017, 05:16:58 PM

Do you have a rational objection to the argument at hand, or are you just capable of bitching about the image itself?

No, your image was perfect.

So I take it that means you accept that RiF was wrong and that the HC model does correctly predict the west to east motion of the moon's shadow?

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile on September 29, 2017, 08:38:44 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on September 29, 2017, 03:35:54 AM

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.

You really need to stop confusing angular speed and lateral velocity and their relation to one another in this.

Disclaimer: The following diagram is not directly to scale, and is meant to convey an idea, not show exactly what is going on.


The moon doesn't need to move the same amount of angular distance. Not even close. It only has to cover the lateral distance from one side of the sun to the other. Shown here as distance X. This is roughly the distance of the Earth's diameter, or 7900 miles. This is made even less by only having to cover a distance within that section equal to where it's on the ground, but let's start with 7900 miles.

It needs to cover that distance faster than the rotation of the Earth. The moon moves at about 2290 mph. The Earth rotates at about 1037 mph. This means the moons shadow will move at about 1000 mph across the surface of the Earth. As well, it will take just a bit under 3.5 hours to get across the whole Earth. Allow a bit of extra time since the Moon isn't a point source, and is itself approx. 2000 miles across, and that would bring us up to right around the 4-4.5 hour mark for how long the shadow will be on Earth. Which is right in the ballpark for how long the eclipse was.

My numbers could be better, but I'm just trying to show it's not a comparison of angular speed here. It's Earths rotational speed, vs. the moons lateral speed, over a short distance. The sun doesn't move, so stop pretending it does, as that is what comparing the angular speed is predicated upon. The moon only needs to move about 8000 miles out of it's orbit distance of about 239.000 miles.

You REtards can not even understand primary school geometry.

Which part of the Moon is allegedly 200000 miles away on your ridiculous Heliocentric model do you not understand.

As the moon is allegedly so far away the distance it travels and it's actual velocity are insignificant iN relation to the earth's alleged angular velocity.

Watch this again:





You fool NO one with your nonsense.

Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile on September 29, 2017, 09:20:16 AM

If you are visually impaired and are unable to see the photographic evidence and video footage I provided in the videos it is not my problem.

Photographic evidence? Do you mean this?



There's no evidence there. That image shows a little light bit of light scattered away from the visible part of the sun, as expected. There's not enough data to conclude more than that.

Can you specify which video footage (which URLs and the times of the relevant parts) that you think provide the high-altitude footage you claim to be evidence? You've posted dozens of videos, few worth watching. None seem to show what you claim, but I was off grid for a couple of weeks; perhaps I missed the key videos amidst your oft-repeated long spammy post. Was this footage (if any) from any of those thousands of high-altitude weather balloons you said would be lofted for the eclipse? You never answered that. Are you avoiding the question because you were mistaken (or lying) about those "thousands of high-altitude weather balloons" and don't want to admit it? Exercising Hanlon's Razor, we can presume "mistaken" for the time being.

Quote

No one has addressed the points I have raised regarding the many orbs that the Black hole Sun is constructed of.

Yeah, we have. There's only one orb. It's the moon.

Quote

The Black hole Sun is the cause of the eclipse and not the Moon.

You keep asserting that. We're still waiting for evidence, not empty assertions based on mistaken conjecture.

These videos :






For making me go over the same basic principles again and again ...you can enjoy this :



The latest from Dubay .

Lol.

Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.

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 regarding 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.


You REtards should also read this:

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 .

Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.

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

Incorrect!It is easy for the umbra to be smaller than the object!
Read: Eclipses of the Sun & Moon and
          Umbra, penumbra and antumbra and the best till last
          Diagram of Umbra and Penumbra
Bye bye, Mr Ignorance.is.Bliss.

You REtards can not even understand primary school geometry.

Which part of the Moon is allegedly 200000 miles away on your ridiculous Heliocentric model do you not understand.

As the moon is allegedly so far away the distance it travels and it's actual velocity are insignificant iN relation to the earth's alleged angular velocity.

Watch this again:





You fool NO one with your nonsense.

Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.

As you claim to have so much more knowledge as other ones, why do you not generate a computer model of a flat earth in the software blender?

That way you could easily prove your ideas and show us all that you are right.

Why is that not be done by a FEIB before.
There must be one under the FEIB that have enough knowledge of blender to do so.

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile on September 29, 2017, 10:40:37 PM

You REtards can not even understand primary school geometry.

Which part of the Moon is allegedly 200000 miles away on your ridiculous Heliocentric model do you not understand.

As the moon is allegedly so far away the distance it travels and it's actual velocity are insignificant iN relation to the earth's alleged angular velocity.

Watch this again:





You fool NO one with your nonsense.

Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.

As you claim to have so much more knowledge as other ones, why do you not generate a computer model of a flat earth in the software blender?

That way you could easily prove your ideas and show us all that you are right.

Why is that not be done by a FEIB before.
There must be one under the FEIB that have enough knowledge of blender to do so.

Do you mean like the 3D light simulation provided in one of the video's I posted that you all do not want to discuss and have chose to ignore.

Because you people are ridiculous.

I have provided lots of evidence you just try and decieve people with your cherry picked nonsensical explanations so I will not bother wasting my time.

Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.

I have provided lots of evidence

Sure, you have provided lots of evidence in shape of videos about yuor ignorance. Nothing more. So its quite understandable that you are getting picked on.

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile on September 30, 2017, 03:05:08 AM

I have provided lots of evidence

Sure, you have provided lots of evidence in shape of videos about yuor ignorance. Nothing more. So its quite understandable that you are getting picked on.

Me

Picked on ?

Lol.

Lol.

Don't be silly.

I destroy you REtards.

This video illustrates me vs all of you REtards.

I'm Darth Vader and you Heliocentrics are the inferior cattle like pleb soldiers that follow orders.




Lol.

Lol.


Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.

You REtards can not even understand primary school geometry.
Which part of the Moon is allegedly 200000 miles away on your ridiculous Heliocentric model do you not understand.
As the moon is allegedly so far away the distance it travels and it's actual velocity are insignificant iN relation to the earth's alleged angular velocity.

Nope, it seems to be you failing to understand.

The moon is quite far away, around 360 000 - 400 000 km.
That means it's quite insignificant angular motion amounts to a very large linear motion.
That makes its shadow move quite a lot.

Again, here is a TO SCALE diagram to show that:

Notice how the moon, even though it moves just a tiny angular amount, due to its vast distance, has moved quite some translational amount and thus its shadow has as well.
This is the HC model you are lying about.

Watch this again:

No!
Deal with your lies about the HC model first.
Once you either show that the HC model predicts that the moon's shadow should move east to west or you admit that the HC model correctly predicts that the moon's shadow moves west to east we can move on.

Until then, STOP TRYING TO CHANGE THE SUBJECT!

Explain what is wrong with my explanation.
Do the math yourself and prove that the moon's shadow should move east to west.

If you are unable to do so then just admit you were wrong.

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile on September 29, 2017, 10:40:37 PM

You REtards can not even understand primary school geometry.
Which part of the Moon is allegedly 200000 miles away on your ridiculous Heliocentric model do you not understand.
As the moon is allegedly so far away the distance it travels and it's actual velocity are insignificant iN relation to the earth's alleged angular velocity.

Nope, it seems to be you failing to understand.

The moon is quite far away, around 360 000 - 400 000 km.
That means it's quite insignificant angular motion amounts to a very large linear motion.
That makes its shadow move quite a lot.

Again, here is a TO SCALE diagram to show that:

Notice how the moon, even though it moves just a tiny angular amount, due to its vast distance, has moved quite some translational amount and thus its shadow has as well.
This is the HC model you are lying about.

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile on September 29, 2017, 10:40:37 PM

Watch this again:

No!
Deal with your lies about the HC model first.
Once you either show that the HC model predicts that the moon's shadow should move east to west or you admit that the HC model correctly predicts that the moon's shadow moves west to east we can move on.

Until then, STOP TRYING TO CHANGE THE SUBJECT!

Explain what is wrong with my explanation.
Do the math yourself and prove that the moon's shadow should move east to west.

If you are unable to do so then just admit you were wrong.

I have explained many times what is wrong with your explanation .

One aspect of this is it does not account correctly for the angular velocity of your imaginary Globe.

Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.

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 regarding 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.


You REtards should also read this:

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 .

Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.

I have explained many times what is wrong with your explanation .

No you haven't.
You have repeatedly dismissed it and spouted the same refuted bullshit many times.

One aspect of this is it does not account correctly for the angular velocity of your imaginary Globe.

No, it doesn't deal with any imaginary globes.
But it does correctly account for the angular velocity of the REAL Earth.
See that line going from the centre of Earth (the large circle at the bottom) up and to the left? That is representing the angular velocity of Earth, specifically the amount Earth has turned in 1 hour, 15 degrees. So no, it accounts for that.
It shows (by intersection) where the same spot on Earth would be after the hour.

Again, I am not moving on to your new BS until you have dealt with this.
Either show what is wrong, explicitly, providing a picture or the math behind it if you are able to; or admit that you have been lying this entire time and that the HC model does in fact predict a west to east motion of the moon's shadow.

You REtards should also read this:

You have already said all this crap, and it was pointed out to be crap, including the reason why.

One can imagine a carousel /merry go round that has a diameter of  12 metres.
[snip]
The said spherical object is 200 metres away from the carousel.
[snip]
As such your out of scale diagrams and explanations are a nonsense designed to fool stupid gullable inferior people like yourself.

And here you are again, bitching about out of scale diagrams, when you provide an out of scale model.
One which still fails to match your claims, but comes close to them.
If you were to make this a to-scale model, you would have had the said spherical object being 400 m away, not 200.
By putting it at 200 m instead of 400 m you have cut its translational speed in half and thus roughly cut the speed of its shadow in half.

And remember, you can't say that it doesn't matter, because you are complaining about models being not-to-scale.

But don't worry, not all have been.
There is this one, a to-scale model:

Which quite clearly shows you to be full of shit.
The moon's shadow has moved much more than the point on the surface of Earth.

So no, anyone that honestly evaluates the model will realise the HC model matches reality.

Quote from: zork on September 30, 2017, 03:24:04 AM

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile on September 30, 2017, 03:05:08 AM

I have provided lots of evidence

Sure, you have provided lots of evidence in shape of videos about yuor ignorance. Nothing more. So its quite understandable that you are getting picked on.

Me

Picked on ?

Lol.

Lol.

Don't be silly.

I destroy you REtards.

This video illustrates me vs all of you REtards.

I'm Darth Vader and you Heliocentrics are the inferior cattle like pleb soldiers that follow orders.




Lol.

Lol.


Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.

Oh that's how you think, all the person that do not share your believe needs to be destroyed.
You say you are Vader, you know what happened at the end with Vader, he realized that he was wrong all the time before.

So you also will realize one time that you were wrong all the time.

You even can not argue to support your believes.