Re: Solar Eclipse

  • 73 Replies
  • 7135 Views
Re: Solar Eclipse
« on: July 25, 2017, 08:59:03 AM »
Genesis 1:16King James Version (KJV)

16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

1 Timothy 6:19-21King James Version (KJV)

19 Laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life.

20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called


Re: Re: Solar Eclipse
« Reply #1 on: August 04, 2017, 03:36:20 AM »
A shadow is always larger than the object that it cast from.

How come the shadow cast on the Earth of the Solar Eclipse om August 21, 2017 will only be 70 miles wide, if the moon is 3474 km in diameter?

Spherical Earth disproved AGAIN!

To simply dismiss the concept of God as being unscientific is to violate the very objectivity of science itself.

My experiences with science led me to God.

The Truth Will Set You Free

Werner Von Braun

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41870
Re: Re: Solar Eclipse
« Reply #2 on: August 06, 2017, 09:37:34 AM »
A shadow is always larger than the object that it cast from.

How come the shadow cast on the Earth of the Solar Eclipse om August 21, 2017 will only be 70 miles wide, if the moon is 3474 km in diameter?
The moon's penumbral shadow is around 6400 km in diameter.

Spherical Earth disproved AGAIN!
Spherical Earth misunderstood AGAIN!!!
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: Re: Solar Eclipse
« Reply #3 on: August 06, 2017, 10:18:28 AM »
A shadow is always larger than the object that it cast from.

How come the shadow cast on the Earth of the Solar Eclipse om August 21, 2017 will only be 70 miles wide, if the moon is 3474 km in diameter?

Spherical Earth disproved AGAIN!


How does the eclipse work on a flat earth?

Re: Re: Solar Eclipse
« Reply #4 on: August 06, 2017, 11:55:56 AM »
A shadow is always larger than the object that it cast from.

How come the shadow cast on the Earth of the Solar Eclipse om August 21, 2017 will only be 70 miles wide, if the moon is 3474 km in diameter?
The moon's penumbral shadow is around 6400 km in diameter.

Spherical Earth disproved AGAIN!
Spherical Earth misunderstood AGAIN!!!

Nice try.

Where is your 6400 km diameter shadow in this official NASA photo?


https://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/87000/87675/eclipse_epc_2016068.gif




Re: Re: Solar Eclipse
« Reply #5 on: August 06, 2017, 01:26:09 PM »
A shadow is always larger than the object that it cast from.

How come the shadow cast on the Earth of the Solar Eclipse om August 21, 2017 will only be 70 miles wide, if the moon is 3474 km in diameter?
The moon's penumbral shadow is around 6400 km in diameter.

Spherical Earth disproved AGAIN!
Spherical Earth misunderstood AGAIN!!!

Nice try.

Where is your 6400 km diameter shadow in this official NASA photo?

https://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/87000/87675/eclipse_epc_2016068.gif

It's the diffuse shadow. Note that the diameter of the obviously darkened area is greater than the length of Australia, which is more than 2,500 miles, and the penumbra is actually much larger than that. The penumbra darkens so gradually from its outer edge inward that you can't tell exactly where its edge is in photos like that. You have to detect it from the ground, or calculate where it is. Similarly, the transition from penumbra to umbra is also gradual in photos; again, you can tell from the ground (or calculations), but not by looking at the shadow from above.

That's a cool picture, isn't it!
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Re: Solar Eclipse
« Reply #6 on: August 06, 2017, 01:48:39 PM »
A shadow is always larger than the object that it cast from.

How come the shadow cast on the Earth of the Solar Eclipse om August 21, 2017 will only be 70 miles wide, if the moon is 3474 km in diameter?
The moon's penumbral shadow is around 6400 km in diameter.

Spherical Earth disproved AGAIN!
Spherical Earth misunderstood AGAIN!!!

Nice try.

Where is your 6400 km diameter shadow in this official NASA photo?

https://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/87000/87675/eclipse_epc_2016068.gif

It's the diffuse shadow. Note that the diameter of the obviously darkened area is greater than the length of Australia, which is more than 2,500 miles, and the penumbra is actually much larger than that. The penumbra darkens so gradually from its outer edge inward that you can't tell exactly where its edge is in photos like that. You have to detect it from the ground, or calculate where it is. Similarly, the transition from penumbra to umbra is also gradual in photos; again, you can tell from the ground (or calculations), but not by looking at the shadow from above.

That's a cool picture, isn't it!


So what you're saying is the penumbra does not show up in photos, is that right?

Re: Re: Solar Eclipse
« Reply #7 on: August 06, 2017, 02:47:22 PM »
A shadow is always larger than the object that it cast from.

How come the shadow cast on the Earth of the Solar Eclipse om August 21, 2017 will only be 70 miles wide, if the moon is 3474 km in diameter?
The moon's penumbral shadow is around 6400 km in diameter.

Spherical Earth disproved AGAIN!
Spherical Earth misunderstood AGAIN!!!

Nice try.

Where is your 6400 km diameter shadow in this official NASA photo?

https://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/87000/87675/eclipse_epc_2016068.gif

It's the diffuse shadow. Note that the diameter of the obviously darkened area is greater than the length of Australia, which is more than 2,500 miles, and the penumbra is actually much larger than that. The penumbra darkens so gradually from its outer edge inward that you can't tell exactly where its edge is in photos like that. You have to detect it from the ground, or calculate where it is. Similarly, the transition from penumbra to umbra is also gradual in photos; again, you can tell from the ground (or calculations), but not by looking at the shadow from above.

That's a cool picture, isn't it!

It's an invisable magic shadow.

Lol.

Lol.

Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Re: Solar Eclipse
« Reply #8 on: August 06, 2017, 02:49:26 PM »
Nice try.
Where is your 6400 km diameter shadow in this official NASA photo?
https://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/87000/87675/eclipse_epc_2016068.gif

It's the diffuse shadow. Note that the diameter of the obviously darkened area is greater than the length of Australia, which is more than 2,500 miles, and the penumbra is actually much larger than that. The penumbra darkens so gradually from its outer edge inward that you can't tell exactly where its edge is in photos like that. You have to detect it from the ground, or calculate where it is. Similarly, the transition from penumbra to umbra is also gradual in photos; again, you can tell from the ground (or calculations), but not by looking at the shadow from above.

That's a cool picture, isn't it!
So what you're saying is the penumbra does not show up in photos, is that right?
Where did he say that?
In this image the penumbra forms most of the dark area, but "the penumbra darkens so gradually from its outer edge inward that you can't tell exactly where its edge is in photos like that".

But, surely Mr Silicon, you are not going to take any notice of a "motion gif" taken by NASA's EPIC on DSCOVR!
It's obviously a "Computer Generated Image"! That is an fact!

Re: Re: Solar Eclipse
« Reply #9 on: August 06, 2017, 03:36:28 PM »
Nice try.
Where is your 6400 km diameter shadow in this official NASA photo?
https://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/87000/87675/eclipse_epc_2016068.gif

It's the diffuse shadow. Note that the diameter of the obviously darkened area is greater than the length of Australia, which is more than 2,500 miles, and the penumbra is actually much larger than that. The penumbra darkens so gradually from its outer edge inward that you can't tell exactly where its edge is in photos like that. You have to detect it from the ground, or calculate where it is. Similarly, the transition from penumbra to umbra is also gradual in photos; again, you can tell from the ground (or calculations), but not by looking at the shadow from above.

That's a cool picture, isn't it!
So what you're saying is the penumbra does not show up in photos, is that right?
Where did he say that?
In this image the penumbra forms most of the dark area, but "the penumbra darkens so gradually from its outer edge inward that you can't tell exactly where its edge is in photos like that".

But, surely Mr Silicon, you are not going to take any notice of a "motion gif" taken by NASA's EPIC on DSCOVR!
It's obviously a "Computer Generated Image"! That is an fact!

So where is your 6400 km diameter shadow in this official NASA photo?  Where is it?  It's a very simple question.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41870
Re: Re: Solar Eclipse
« Reply #10 on: August 06, 2017, 04:47:49 PM »
Nice try.
Where is your 6400 km diameter shadow in this official NASA photo?
https://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/87000/87675/eclipse_epc_2016068.gif

It's the diffuse shadow. Note that the diameter of the obviously darkened area is greater than the length of Australia, which is more than 2,500 miles, and the penumbra is actually much larger than that. The penumbra darkens so gradually from its outer edge inward that you can't tell exactly where its edge is in photos like that. You have to detect it from the ground, or calculate where it is. Similarly, the transition from penumbra to umbra is also gradual in photos; again, you can tell from the ground (or calculations), but not by looking at the shadow from above.

That's a cool picture, isn't it!
So what you're saying is the penumbra does not show up in photos, is that right?
Where did he say that?
In this image the penumbra forms most of the dark area, but "the penumbra darkens so gradually from its outer edge inward that you can't tell exactly where its edge is in photos like that".

But, surely Mr Silicon, you are not going to take any notice of a "motion gif" taken by NASA's EPIC on DSCOVR!
It's obviously a "Computer Generated Image"! That is an fact!

So where is your 6400 km diameter shadow in this official NASA photo?  Where is it?  It's a very simple question.
Does that look like a 72 mile diameter shadow to you?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: Re: Solar Eclipse
« Reply #11 on: August 06, 2017, 06:12:26 PM »
Nice try.
Where is your 6400 km diameter shadow in this official NASA photo?
https://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/87000/87675/eclipse_epc_2016068.gif

It's the diffuse shadow. Note that the diameter of the obviously darkened area is greater than the length of Australia, which is more than 2,500 miles, and the penumbra is actually much larger than that. The penumbra darkens so gradually from its outer edge inward that you can't tell exactly where its edge is in photos like that. You have to detect it from the ground, or calculate where it is. Similarly, the transition from penumbra to umbra is also gradual in photos; again, you can tell from the ground (or calculations), but not by looking at the shadow from above.

That's a cool picture, isn't it!
So what you're saying is the penumbra does not show up in photos, is that right?
Where did he say that?
In this image the penumbra forms most of the dark area, but "the penumbra darkens so gradually from its outer edge inward that you can't tell exactly where its edge is in photos like that".

But, surely Mr Silicon, you are not going to take any notice of a "motion gif" taken by NASA's EPIC on DSCOVR!
It's obviously a "Computer Generated Image"! That is an fact!

So where is your 6400 km diameter shadow in this official NASA photo?  Where is it?  It's a very simple question.
Does that look like a 72 mile diameter shadow to you?

It is not the same size as the Moon.

How is it possible for the Moon to project a shadow that is 24 times smaller than itself as it will in reality on the 21.08.17 Solar Eclispe?

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41870
Re: Re: Solar Eclipse
« Reply #12 on: August 06, 2017, 07:00:51 PM »
How is it possible for the Moon to project a shadow that is 24 times smaller than itself as it will in reality on the 21.08.17 Solar Eclispe?
Geometry.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: Re: Solar Eclipse
« Reply #13 on: August 06, 2017, 07:23:25 PM »
How is it possible for the Moon to project a shadow that is 24 times smaller than itself as it will in reality on the 21.08.17 Solar Eclispe?
Geometry.

Incorrect

It is impossible.

Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41870
Re: Re: Solar Eclipse
« Reply #14 on: August 06, 2017, 07:39:17 PM »
How is it possible for the Moon to project a shadow that is 24 times smaller than itself as it will in reality on the 21.08.17 Solar Eclispe?
Geometry.

Incorrect

It is impossible.
How do you know? 

Have you done the correct math?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Re: Solar Eclipse
« Reply #15 on: August 06, 2017, 07:39:50 PM »
Nice try.
Where is your 6400 km diameter shadow in this official NASA photo?
https://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/87000/87675/eclipse_epc_2016068.gif

It's the diffuse shadow. Note that the diameter of the obviously darkened area is greater than the length of Australia, which is more than 2,500 miles, and the penumbra is actually much larger than that. The penumbra darkens so gradually from its outer edge inward that you can't tell exactly where its edge is in photos like that. You have to detect it from the ground, or calculate where it is. Similarly, the transition from penumbra to umbra is also gradual in photos; again, you can tell from the ground (or calculations), but not by looking at the shadow from above.

That's a cool picture, isn't it!
So what you're saying is the penumbra does not show up in photos, is that right?
Where did he say that?
In this image the penumbra forms most of the dark area, but "the penumbra darkens so gradually from its outer edge inward that you can't tell exactly where its edge is in photos like that".

But, surely Mr Silicon, you are not going to take any notice of a "motion gif" taken by NASA's EPIC on DSCOVR!
It's obviously a "Computer Generated Image"! That is an fact!

So where is your 6400 km diameter shadow in this official NASA photo?  Where is it?  It's a very simple question.
Simple questions don't always have simple answers.
For example, "How are solar eclipses explained on your flat earth?" - simple question!

You did read
Quote
It's the diffuse shadow. Note that the diameter of the obviously darkened area is greater than the length of Australia, which is more than 2,500 miles, and the penumbra is actually much larger than that. The penumbra darkens so gradually from its outer edge inward that you can't tell exactly where its edge is in photos like that. You have to detect it from the ground, or calculate where it is. Similarly, the transition from penumbra to umbra is also gradual in photos; again, you can tell from the ground (or calculations), but not by looking at the shadow from above.
The penumbra fades so gradually that the outer edges are hard to determine in the satellite photo.

Frame from DSCOVR EPIC, Eclipse on March 9, 2016
     
Path of the total solar eclipse on March 9, 2016
     
Eclipse on March 9, 2016, part penumbra outlined.
I have outlined the part of the penumbra that I could see in the photo, but it fades so gradually that the edges are impossible to detect.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Re: Solar Eclipse
« Reply #16 on: August 06, 2017, 08:05:17 PM »
How is it possible for the Moon to project a shadow that is 24 times smaller than itself as it will in reality on the 21.08.17 Solar Eclispe?
Easily! Providing you are referring to the umbra, the region of totallity.
Quote
Umbra and Penumbra
Because the Sun appears as a disk ~1/2 across, Sun shadows are fuzzy rather than sharp.
This means shadows cast by the Earth & Moon are two-part shadows:

Grossly out of scale, of course[1]
Umbra: Inner core of total darkness
The disc of the Sun is completely blocked.
 
Penumbra: Outer, partial shadow
Sun's disc is only partly blocked, with a bit peeking over the edge.

From: Ohio State University, Astronomy, Eclipses, Umbra and Penumbra
The umbra tapers from the moon down to a point, so the umbra can range from non-existent to areound 494 km across.
 
You might read Shadows and Eclipses, The lore of shadows, and its application to eclipses to get a better understanding.
Or this The Science: Mechanics of Solar Eclipses.

[1] If you want to see the solar system to scale look at:
      If the Moon were only 1 Pixel, a tediously accurate scale model of the solar system.

Re: Re: Solar Eclipse
« Reply #17 on: August 06, 2017, 08:23:31 PM »
A shadow is always larger than the object that it cast from.

How come the shadow cast on the Earth of the Solar Eclipse om August 21, 2017 will only be 70 miles wide, if the moon is 3474 km in diameter?
The moon's penumbral shadow is around 6400 km in diameter.

Spherical Earth disproved AGAIN!
Spherical Earth misunderstood AGAIN!!!

Nice try.

Where is your 6400 km diameter shadow in this official NASA photo?

https://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/87000/87675/eclipse_epc_2016068.gif

It's the diffuse shadow. Note that the diameter of the obviously darkened area is greater than the length of Australia, which is more than 2,500 miles, and the penumbra is actually much larger than that. The penumbra darkens so gradually from its outer edge inward that you can't tell exactly where its edge is in photos like that. You have to detect it from the ground, or calculate where it is. Similarly, the transition from penumbra to umbra is also gradual in photos; again, you can tell from the ground (or calculations), but not by looking at the shadow from above.

That's a cool picture, isn't it!


So what you're saying is the penumbra does not show up in photos, is that right?

Part of it does, but not all of it does.

Do you expect to recognize a 0.001% reduction in light on a photo due to the moon eclipsing a tiny portion of the sun? To me, this seems unrealistic. It's still in the penumbra, though.

Do you expect to recognize a 75% reduction in light due to the moon eclipsing a large portion of the sun? Yeah, that does seem likely.

This is what the image you linked shows: a gradual change from full sun to completely blocked sun.

Sorry there's not a binary sun isn't eclipsed at all to sun is slightly eclipsed boundary to make it easy for you. That's nature for you.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Re: Solar Eclipse
« Reply #18 on: August 06, 2017, 11:14:42 PM »
Nice try.
Where is your 6400 km diameter shadow in this official NASA photo?
https://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/87000/87675/eclipse_epc_2016068.gif

It's the diffuse shadow. Note that the diameter of the obviously darkened area is greater than the length of Australia, which is more than 2,500 miles, and the penumbra is actually much larger than that. The penumbra darkens so gradually from its outer edge inward that you can't tell exactly where its edge is in photos like that. You have to detect it from the ground, or calculate where it is. Similarly, the transition from penumbra to umbra is also gradual in photos; again, you can tell from the ground (or calculations), but not by looking at the shadow from above.

That's a cool picture, isn't it!
So what you're saying is the penumbra does not show up in photos, is that right?
Where did he say that?
In this image the penumbra forms most of the dark area, but "the penumbra darkens so gradually from its outer edge inward that you can't tell exactly where its edge is in photos like that".

But, surely Mr Silicon, you are not going to take any notice of a "motion gif" taken by NASA's EPIC on DSCOVR!
It's obviously a "Computer Generated Image"! That is an fact!

So where is your 6400 km diameter shadow in this official NASA photo?  Where is it?  It's a very simple question.
Simple questions don't always have simple answers.
For example, "How are solar eclipses explained on your flat earth?" - simple question!

You did read
Quote
It's the diffuse shadow. Note that the diameter of the obviously darkened area is greater than the length of Australia, which is more than 2,500 miles, and the penumbra is actually much larger than that. The penumbra darkens so gradually from its outer edge inward that you can't tell exactly where its edge is in photos like that. You have to detect it from the ground, or calculate where it is. Similarly, the transition from penumbra to umbra is also gradual in photos; again, you can tell from the ground (or calculations), but not by looking at the shadow from above.
The penumbra fades so gradually that the outer edges are hard to determine in the satellite photo.

Frame from DSCOVR EPIC, Eclipse on March 9, 2016
     
Path of the total solar eclipse on March 9, 2016
     
Eclipse on March 9, 2016, part penumbra outlined.
I have outlined the part of the penumbra that I could see in the photo, but it fades so gradually that the edges are impossible to detect.

Look at your circle vs. NASA's. 

https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/4424

Nope. It doesn't work.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Re: Solar Eclipse
« Reply #19 on: August 07, 2017, 03:16:05 AM »

You did read
Quote
It's the diffuse shadow. Note that the diameter of the obviously darkened area is greater than the length of Australia, which is more than 2,500 miles, and the penumbra is actually much larger than that. The penumbra darkens so gradually from its outer edge inward that you can't tell exactly where its edge is in photos like that. You have to detect it from the ground, or calculate where it is. Similarly, the transition from penumbra to umbra is also gradual in photos; again, you can tell from the ground (or calculations), but not by looking at the shadow from above.
The penumbra fades so gradually that the outer edges are hard to determine in the satellite photo.

Frame from DSCOVR EPIC, Eclipse on March 9, 2016
     
Path of the total solar eclipse on March 9, 2016
     
Eclipse on March 9, 2016, part penumbra outlined.
I have outlined the part of the penumbra that I could see in the photo, but it fades so gradually that the edges are impossible to detect.
Look at your circle vs. NASA's. 
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/4424
Nope. It doesn't work.
Really, I did say, "The penumbra fades so gradually that the outer edges are hard to determine in the satellite photo".
What is your big problem with:
As I said before, the outer edge has so little shade that it does not show on the photo.
The circled region I have marked is not greatly different from the darker part in the NASA animation.

Now, Mr Silicon you seem so adamant that the 3000 year-old explanation for the solar is incorrect that you must have a much better flat earth explanation.

So, before you criticise the current theory of solar eclipses any more, please give us your ultimate  theory of solar eclipses.

Re: Re: Solar Eclipse
« Reply #20 on: August 07, 2017, 10:02:27 AM »
So what you're saying is the penumbra does not show up in photos, is that right?
Where did he say that?
In this image the penumbra forms most of the dark area, but "the penumbra darkens so gradually from its outer edge inward that you can't tell exactly where its edge is in photos like that".

But, surely Mr Silicon, you are not going to take any notice of a "motion gif" taken by NASA's EPIC on DSCOVR!
It's obviously a "Computer Generated Image"! That is an fact!

So where is your 6400 km diameter shadow in this official NASA photo?  Where is it?  It's a very simple question.
Simple questions don't always have simple answers.
For example, "How are solar eclipses explained on your flat earth?" - simple question!

You did read
Quote
It's the diffuse shadow. Note that the diameter of the obviously darkened area is greater than the length of Australia, which is more than 2,500 miles, and the penumbra is actually much larger than that. The penumbra darkens so gradually from its outer edge inward that you can't tell exactly where its edge is in photos like that. You have to detect it from the ground, or calculate where it is. Similarly, the transition from penumbra to umbra is also gradual in photos; again, you can tell from the ground (or calculations), but not by looking at the shadow from above.
The penumbra fades so gradually that the outer edges are hard to determine in the satellite photo.

Path of the total solar eclipse on March 9, 2016
     
Eclipse on March 9, 2016, part penumbra outlined.
I have outlined the part of the penumbra that I could see in the photo, but it fades so gradually that the edges are impossible to detect.

Look at your circle vs. NASA's. 

https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/4424

Nope. It doesn't work.

What's the problem? Rab circled the darkest part of the penumbra (he even said so in the caption, highlighted in red for your convenience). According to the other map, that circle corresponds to about 50% eclipse.

Works fine.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Solar Eclipse
« Reply #21 on: August 08, 2017, 09:37:29 AM »
Anyone can see the 'photos' and the model cannot be reconciled.  They are not even close.

The model (animation+data) is wrong, but it has to be this way for obvious reasons. The 'photo' is most likely a composite of real photos stitched together from weather balloons, planes drones or whatever.

So the end result is the enormous discrepancy you see above.
« Last Edit: August 08, 2017, 09:39:07 AM by Silicon »

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Solar Eclipse
« Reply #22 on: August 08, 2017, 06:23:40 PM »
Anyone can see the 'photos' and the model cannot be reconciled.  They are not even close.
Please, with the aid of some pretty diagrams exactly what you are raving about.

Then explain, with the aid of some more pretty diagrams exactly what causes solar eclipses on you flat earth.
Please remember that the "umbral width" (region of totality) can vary in width from zero to over 495 km, look at a few past eclipses:
Date
     
Eclipse Type
     
Path Width
2001 Jun 21
     
Total central
     
200.0 km
2002 Jun 10
     
Annular central
     
13.5 km
2003 Nov 23
     
Total central
     
495.5 km
All from: Solar Eclipse Paths: 2001 - 2020.
So even here we have eclipses with (umbral) path width as small as 13.5 km and as wide as 495.5 km.
Your 50 km diameter sun and moon around 5000 km above the earth cannot possibly cause that.
If your model does not explain it better than the age-old Globe model, you can hardly criticise!

It has been written, :D by me :D, that "People who live in stone houses should not throw glasses!"
« Last Edit: August 08, 2017, 06:34:11 PM by rabinoz »

Re: Solar Eclipse
« Reply #23 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.

Also curious about the path this eclipse is taking on a flat earth model. Too bad it seems like only those really in 'the know' have an accurate model of the world, and they certainly don't seem eager to share their knowledge.

Re: Solar Eclipse
« Reply #24 on: August 08, 2017, 08:38:11 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.

Also curious about the path this eclipse is taking on a flat earth model. Too bad it seems like only those really in 'the know' have an accurate model of the world, and they certainly don't seem eager to share their knowledge.
Yeah, started a thread and I there is at least one more new one asking this.  So far no flat earthier has come forward with an explanation.

Re: Solar Eclipse
« Reply #25 on: August 08, 2017, 09:12:00 PM »
Yeah, started a thread and I there is at least one more new one asking this.  So far no flat earthier has come forward with an explanation.

Found this, linked to a decent spot to watch for a couple minutes.

Explains the west-east shadow fairly well on a flat model. He says the sun and moon both circle clockwise, sun slightly faster so that it catches up every 2 weeks causing the moon phases ranging from full-new. In the case of this eclipse the sun will be approaching the moon from the east (casting the moon's shadow to the west) and overtaking it around the middle of the country (straight down shadow) then passing it casting the shadow back towards the east/south carolina, in a more oblong shape.

I am just having trouble visualizing the shape (sphere?) of sun and moon and their relative sizes and distances from each other when the eclipse occurs.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Solar Eclipse
« Reply #26 on: August 09, 2017, 12:40:22 AM »
Yeah, started a thread and I there is at least one more new one asking this.  So far no flat earthier has come forward with an explanation.

Found this, linked to a decent spot to watch for a couple minutes.

Explains the west-east shadow fairly well on a flat model. He says the sun and moon both circle clockwise, sun slightly faster so that it catches up every 2 weeks causing the moon phases ranging from full-new. In the case of this eclipse the sun will be approaching the moon from the east (casting the moon's shadow to the west) and overtaking it around the middle of the country (straight down shadow) then passing it casting the shadow back towards the east/south carolina, in a more oblong shape.

I am just having trouble visualizing the shape (sphere?) of sun and moon and their relative sizes and distances from each other when the eclipse occurs.
Since no-one seems to give the heights of the sun and moon there seems no way to check the details,
but that video does give a reasonable  qualitative explanation of at least the direction of the shadow's motion.

But, as far as I can see, it does not address at all the the size of the shadows that are observed. This is from another post:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Look at this diagram:
That should make it completely obvious that
  • if the light source size is greater than the size of the object, then the umbra is smaller than the size of your object,
  • if the light source size is equal in size to the object, then the umbra is equal in size to the object and
  • if the light source size is less than the size of the object, then the umbra is greater than the size of the object.
Then look at past eclipses:
Date
     
Eclipse Type
     
Path Width
2001 Jun 21
     
Total central
     
200.0 km
2002 Jun 10
     
Annular central
     
13.5 km
2003 Nov 23
     
Total central
     
495.5 km
All from: Solar Eclipse Paths: 2001 - 2020.
So here we have eclipses with (umbral) path width as small as 13.5 km and as wide as 495.5 km.
But, we know that
  • if the light source size is greater than the size of the object, then the umbra is smaller than the size of your object,
  • if the light source size is equal in size to the object, then the umbra is equal in size to the object and
  • if the light source size is less than the size of the object, then the umbra is greater than the size of the object.
On the flat earth the sun and moon are both supposedly 50 km in diameter,
so the above observed umbral widths are quite impossible on the flat earth model.

Re: Solar Eclipse
« Reply #27 on: August 09, 2017, 02:41:14 AM »
Yeah, started a thread and I there is at least one more new one asking this.  So far no flat earthier has come forward with an explanation.

Found this, linked to a decent spot to watch for a couple minutes.

Explains the west-east shadow fairly well on a flat model. He says the sun and moon both circle clockwise, sun slightly faster so that it catches up every 2 weeks causing the moon phases ranging from full-new. In the case of this eclipse the sun will be approaching the moon from the east (casting the moon's shadow to the west) and overtaking it around the middle of the country (straight down shadow) then passing it casting the shadow back towards the east/south carolina, in a more oblong shape.

I am just having trouble visualizing the shape (sphere?) of sun and moon and their relative sizes and distances from each other when the eclipse occurs.
Since no-one seems to give the heights of the sun and moon there seems no way to check the details,
but that video does give a reasonable  qualitative explanation of at least the direction of the shadow's motion.

But, as far as I can see, it does not address at all the the size of the shadows that are observed. This is from another post:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Look at this diagram:
That should make it completely obvious that
  • if the light source size is greater than the size of the object, then the umbra is smaller than the size of your object,
  • if the light source size is equal in size to the object, then the umbra is equal in size to the object and
  • if the light source size is less than the size of the object, then the umbra is greater than the size of the object.
Then look at past eclipses:
Date
     
Eclipse Type
     
Path Width
2001 Jun 21
     
Total central
     
200.0 km
2002 Jun 10
     
Annular central
     
13.5 km
2003 Nov 23
     
Total central
     
495.5 km
All from: Solar Eclipse Paths: 2001 - 2020.
So here we have eclipses with (umbral) path width as small as 13.5 km and as wide as 495.5 km.
But, we know that
  • if the light source size is greater than the size of the object, then the umbra is smaller than the size of your object,
  • if the light source size is equal in size to the object, then the umbra is equal in size to the object and
  • if the light source size is less than the size of the object, then the umbra is greater than the size of the object.
On the flat earth the sun and moon are both supposedly 50 km in diameter,
so the above observed umbral widths are quite impossible on the flat earth model.

As you are a Heliocentric how are you an authority on the size of the Sun and Moon ?

When I cover my luminaire at home with a solid object the same size the vast majority of the room is in shadow even though the luminaire is only 300 mm

The vast majority of the 25 square meter room is in the shade.

You can not use your Heliocentric nonsense to debunk a Flat Earth Model.

Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
« Last Edit: August 09, 2017, 02:54:54 AM by Resistance.is.Futile »

Re: Solar Eclipse
« Reply #28 on: August 09, 2017, 03:09:54 AM »

As you are a Heliocentric how are you an authority on the size of the Sun and Moon ?

When I cover my luminaire at home with a solid object the same size the vast majority of the room is in shadow even though the luminaire is only 300 mm

The vast majority of the 25 square meter room is in the shade.

You can not use your Heliocentric nonsense to debunk a Flat Earth Model.

Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Interesting comment but that has nothing to do with nor is representative of a solar eclipse. 

Mike
Since it costs 1.82 to produce a penny, putting in your 2 if really worth 3.64.

Re: Solar Eclipse
« Reply #29 on: August 09, 2017, 03:53:55 AM »

As you are a Heliocentric how are you an authority on the size of the Sun and Moon ?

When I cover my luminaire at home with a solid object the same size the vast majority of the room is in shadow even though the luminaire is only 300 mm

The vast majority of the 25 square meter room is in the shade.

You can not use your Heliocentric nonsense to debunk a Flat Earth Model.

Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.
Interesting comment but that has nothing to do with nor is representative of a solar eclipse. 

Mike

Yes it is.

 On the Flat model the Sun and Moon are very small and close to Earth .

So a solid object covering a luminary would have the same effect that I have verified myself at home.

Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.