The Black Sun is the cause of Eclispes

Quote from: MicroBeta on August 15, 2017, 01:28:35 AM

Quote from: The Earth is a Pyramid on August 14, 2017, 03:22:44 PM

Has anyone seen this black sun?

If it's as close as the sun in FET then there should be a way to detect it.

Mike

Yeah, i understand that it cant be seen in visible light, as i suppose, its very close to the sun, however, that doesnt explain why it isnt detected by:

- Radio waves
- Infrared
- Ultraviolet
- Xray
- Microwaves

Resistance.Is.Futile also needs to answer these:

- Size?
- Shape?
- Mass?
- What is it made of?
- How far is it from earth?
- Is there any evidence that this shadow object exist?

How do you know it's not on the spectrum?

Have you ever tried to find it ?

Do you think your Heliocentric Brethren would want to prove it's existance ; when it would bring their fairytale crashing down.

You will see it in front of the Sun on the 21.08.17.

You Heliocentrics still don't know the mass of the Sun on your model.

There have been many Solar Eclispes where the Sun and the Moon have been visable on opposite sides of the sky.

On the 21.08.17 totality goes west to east which is the opposite way to the moon.

This is because it is the Black Sun that causes totality NOT the moon.

http://ifers.123.st/t65-rahu-the-black-sun

Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.

There has NEVER been a total solar eclipse where the sun and moon were visible on opposite sides of the sky.

You are a liar.

Your tiny feeble mind is useless.

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile on August 14, 2017, 03:36:36 PM

Quote from: Here to laugh at you on August 14, 2017, 03:06:20 PM

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile on August 14, 2017, 03:00:01 PM

Quote from: Albert Wesker on August 14, 2017, 02:47:46 PM

Black sun seems a bit racist to me....

 

It is part of the balence we have a White Sun and a Black Sun.

That doesn't answer my question.

Where is it?
Do you have any photographic evidence of this "black Sun"?

It's there in front of the Sun.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_solar_eclipses_in_the_21st_century

Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.

No that's the moon.  We know this because we see and predict it's movements.

The Solar Eclipse on 21.08.17 is impossible on your model your fooling no one.

It is impossible for a object to cast a shadow smaller than the object itself.

It is also impossible for an object shadow to move in the opposite direction to the object itself on yoir model.

Your Heliocentric model is as tired and worn out as Rab.

Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.

There has NEVER been a total solar eclipse where the sun and moon were visible on opposite sides of the sky.

You are a liar.

Your tiny feeble mind is useless.

Did you read the link ?

Your Strange Heliocentric is False.

There have been many Solar Eclispes where the Sun and the Moon have been visable on opposite sides of the sky.

Then you shouldn't have any problem showing us documentation of one of them.

I wonder if you might be thinking of a horizontal lunar eclipse, which shows the fully eclipsed moon and sun at opposite horizons.

Quote from: The Earth is a Pyramid on August 15, 2017, 11:33:51 AM

Quote from: MicroBeta on August 15, 2017, 01:28:35 AM

Quote from: The Earth is a Pyramid on August 14, 2017, 03:22:44 PM

Has anyone seen this black sun?

If it's as close as the sun in FET then there should be a way to detect it.

Mike

Yeah, i understand that it cant be seen in visible light, as i suppose, its very close to the sun, however, that doesnt explain why it isnt detected by:

- Radio waves
- Infrared
- Ultraviolet
- Xray
- Microwaves

Resistance.Is.Futile also needs to answer these:

- Size?
- Shape?
- Mass?
- What is it made of?
- How far is it from earth?
- Is there any evidence that this shadow object exist?

How do you know it's not on the spectrum?

Have you ever tried to find it ?

Do you think your Heliocentric Brethren would want to prove it's existance ; when it would bring their fairytale crashing down.

You will see it in front of the Sun on the 21.08.17.

You Heliocentrics still don't know the mass of the Sun on your model.

There have been many Solar Eclispes where the Sun and the Moon have been visable on opposite sides of the sky.

On the 21.08.17 totality goes west to east which is the opposite way to the moon.

This is because it is the Black Sun that causes totality NOT the moon.

http://ifers.123.st/t65-rahu-the-black-sun

Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.

Got any actual pics of a solar eclipse with the moon and sun on opposite parts of the sky?
Or dates when that happened?

Quote from: Sentinel on August 15, 2017, 11:30:28 AM

May god help us all, dutchy arrived in here to back his buddy I.i.B. 

I am here because i appreciate resistance is futile.
Yopu vultures tried to brake him down in the eclips topic, but he stood firm.
Calm, reasonable, while you vastly outnumbered him and mocked him in every thinkable way.
Kudos to him, yes i admire his efforts at the flatearth forums.

You are no good ''wannabe teachers'' and i hope your children will never have a teacher so mean and rude as you all have been towards resistance is futile.
I know where is peace of heart comes from......because any other person would have left this place long ago !

I hope I never have a child as goddamn stupid as resistance is futile. I probably would be mean to them if they were that brain dead. Considering my youngest child of four already has an intellect that vastly exceeds RIF's, it would appear highly unlikely. His opinion on the fairytale of a black sun was predictable. "Excuse the French, but that sounds like a pile of steaming horse shit daddy". He's a good boy. 😁

I hope I never have a child as goddamn stupid as resistance is futile. Considering my youngest child of four already has an intellect that vastly exceeds RIF's, it would appear highly unlikely.

I do not envy your husband

Quote from: Zammo on August 15, 2017, 04:22:47 PM

I hope I never have a child as goddamn stupid as resistance is futile. Considering my youngest child of four already has an intellect that vastly exceeds RIF's, it would appear highly unlikely.

I do not envy your husband

You can't envy my husband. I don't have one. My wife on the other hand is very proud of our bright young children. Clear headed and unafraid of embracing logical thought processes and the scientific method. They understand fairy tales belong in fictional books. 

Quote from: Here to laugh at you on August 14, 2017, 03:06:20 PM

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile on August 14, 2017, 03:00:01 PM

Quote from: Albert Wesker on August 14, 2017, 02:47:46 PM

Black sun seems a bit racist to me....

 

It is part of the balence we have a White Sun and a Black Sun.

That doesn't answer my question.

Where is it?
Do you have any photographic evidence of this "black Sun"?

Like the moon is luminescent instead of a place where rockets can land upon, Rahu is from a substance we don't know.
See it as a form of dark matter,....you can only see it's effect during an eclips, not study Rahu itself.

Science has no problem with creating non observable matter and energy.....so is Rahu !

Science have not created such thing, if you are refering to "Dark matter", that's just a concept that acts as a placeholder, not as the definte fact/truth, is different than what you FE's claim for the black sun.

Shouldn't we see this thing though? Even if it's pure darkness or something, we should still see if blocking the light of the stars.

Unrelated, but I don't really get why you people accept scientific discoveries of ancient civilizations from thousands of years ago while ignoring modern science that has the advantage of much advanced technology and time to develop. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Ugh, modern science is so mainstream, better stick to vintage science.

You will see it in front of the Sun on the 21.08.17.

Incorrect! We've had enough of your Pancake Earth Fair-Tails.

You Heliocentrics still don't know the mass of the Sun on your model.

Incorrect! The mass of the Sun is 1.989 × 10³⁰ kg, known to the same accuracy as G is known.

There have been many Solar Eclispes where the Sun and the Moon have been visable on opposite sides of the sky.

Incorrect! You do not quote, nor have any solid evidence for this, so it is just one more of your Pancake Earth Fair-Tails.

On the 21.08.17 totality goes west to east which is the opposite way to the moon.

Incorrect! Because the moon moves from west-to-east and the shadow moves from west-to-east as you have been told many times.

This is because it is the Black Sun that causes totality NOT the moon.

Incorrect! Because there is no black sun and you have no reliable evidence for one. Besides look what the local expert on solar eclipses wrote.

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.

No ifs, no buts, it's a quite unambiguous statement that Surely that proves the case once and for all, so run away and try your your Pancake Earth Fair-Tails on some poor gullible person!

http://ifers.123.st/t65-rahu-the-black-sun

Rubbish, now you expect us to believe the superstitions of ancient Indian Astrologers with this stuff:

In Indian Astrology, Rahu is the eternal enemy of the Sun and Moon, and he is a third celestial body that eclipses them. He catches them by surprise and only comes out when the Moon is full. Rahu is always depicted as a dark circle or eating a circle. Wikipedia says: "In Hindu tradition, Rahu is a severed head of an asura, that swallows the sun causing eclipses. He is depicted in art as a serpent with no body riding a chariot drawn by eight black horses. Rahu is one of the navagrahas (nine planets) in Vedic astrology and is paired with Ketu. The time of day considered to be under the influence of Rahu is called Rahu kala and is considered inauspicious. In Vedic astronomy, Rahu is considered to be a rogue planet. The other name of Rahu is Bhayanka. Astronomically, Rahu and Ketu denote the points of intersection of the paths of the Sun and the Moon as they move on the celestial sphere. Therefore, Rahu and Ketu are respectively called the north and the south lunar nodes. The fact that eclipses occur when the Sun and the Moon are at one of these points gives rise to the myth of the swallowing of the Sun and the Moon by the demon snake."

Next you'll be relying on the teachings of Papa Legba, the Haitian Voodoo priest! Papa Legba and Other Spirits of the Crossroads.

So go try to fool someone else with your Pancake Earth Fair-Tails.

Really, Mr Resistance.is.Futile before posting this sort of stuff, you should consult with some knowledgeable flat-earther,

The Black Sun is the cause of Eclispes

It is impossible for the Moon to be responsible for Solar Eclispes.

It is impossible for the Earths shadow to be responsible for Lunar Eclispes.

This is because during Solar Eclispes and Lunar Eclispes in the past it has been possible to see both the Sun and the Moon in the sky at the same time.

The Ancient Babylonian's /Sumerians /Ancient Chinese and Ancient Indians where aware the Black Sun is the cause of Eclispes.

They named a God after the Black Sun Called Rahu.


They made many Images of Rahu The Black Sun;  it is still possible to buy one of these Images today.

http://m.ebay.com/itm/272265255535?_mwBanner
I
There are many images online of the Black Sun " Rahu" swallowing the Sun.

http://ifers.123.st/t65-rahu-the-black-sun



The NAZI'S also used the Black Sun as their logo.

I believe they did this deliberately as us in the west used to believe in the Heliocentric model.

Helios or Apollo is the name of the Sun God.

So it is obvious what the NAZI'S where trying to imply.

It is also obvious that the NAZI'S like NASA today and just about every other civilisation knew the true cause of Solar Eclispes and knew the earth  was flat.

http://www.angelfire.com/dawn666blacksun/Symbols666.htm


Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.

Maybe the whitish yellow sun and the black sun had a baby which is the moon and thats why the moon is gray? Would it be a stereotype if that explains why the black sun leaves the mamma sun and the baby moon to fend for themselves and only shows up once in a while when it wants a booty call? Whoa mind blown 

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile on August 15, 2017, 12:29:50 PM

You will see it in front of the Sun on the 21.08.17.

Incorrect! We've had enough of your Pancake Earth Fair-Tails.

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile

You Heliocentrics still don't know the mass of the Sun on your model.

Incorrect! The mass of the Sun is 1.989 × 10³⁰ kg, known to the same accuracy as G is known.

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile

There have been many Solar Eclispes where the Sun and the Moon have been visable on opposite sides of the sky.

Incorrect! You do not quote, nor have any solid evidence for this, so it is just one more of your Pancake Earth Fair-Tails.

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile

On the 21.08.17 totality goes west to east which is the opposite way to the moon.

Incorrect! Because the moon moves from west-to-east and the shadow moves from west-to-east as you have been told many times.

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile

This is because it is the Black Sun that causes totality NOT the moon.

Incorrect! Because there is no black sun and you have no reliable evidence for one. Besides look what the local expert on solar eclipses wrote.

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile on August 14, 2017, 02:32:16 PM

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.

No ifs, no buts, it's a quite unambiguous statement that

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

Surely that proves the case once and for all, so run away and try your your Pancake Earth Fair-Tails on some poor gullible person!

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile

http://ifers.123.st/t65-rahu-the-black-sun

Rubbish, now you expect us to believe the superstitions of ancient Indian Astrologers with this stuff:

Quote

In Indian Astrology, Rahu is the eternal enemy of the Sun and Moon, and he is a third celestial body that eclipses them. He catches them by surprise and only comes out when the Moon is full. Rahu is always depicted as a dark circle or eating a circle. Wikipedia says: "In Hindu tradition, Rahu is a severed head of an asura, that swallows the sun causing eclipses. He is depicted in art as a serpent with no body riding a chariot drawn by eight black horses. Rahu is one of the navagrahas (nine planets) in Vedic astrology and is paired with Ketu. The time of day considered to be under the influence of Rahu is called Rahu kala and is considered inauspicious. In Vedic astronomy, Rahu is considered to be a rogue planet. The other name of Rahu is Bhayanka. Astronomically, Rahu and Ketu denote the points of intersection of the paths of the Sun and the Moon as they move on the celestial sphere. Therefore, Rahu and Ketu are respectively called the north and the south lunar nodes. The fact that eclipses occur when the Sun and the Moon are at one of these points gives rise to the myth of the swallowing of the Sun and the Moon by the demon snake."

Next you'll be relying on the teachings of Papa Legba, the Haitian Voodoo priest! Papa Legba and Other Spirits of the Crossroads.

So go try to fool someone else with your Pancake Earth Fair-Tails.

Really, Mr Resistance.is.Futile before posting this sort of stuff, you should consult with some knowledgeable flat-earther,

like John Davis, before making the whole idea of the flat earth more of a laughing stock than it already is.

I do not find your nonsense explanation acceptable.

You are wrong yet again .

Just as I have said your Heliocentric Brethren have realised the solar eclipse is impossible on your model so NASA now say they " think" the sun is bigger.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4739226/Sun-larger-think-claim-Nasa-scientists.html

In the link provided it says one of your Heliocentric brethren fabricated the size of the Sun in 1891.

As I have said your Heliocentric model was fabricated so long ago that it no longer matches reality.

In the link provided it also says the Sun has a radius of 432470 miles

Lol.

Lol.

What a coincidence yet another 9 11  your Strange people do really underestimate the intelligence of normal people if you believe they can't see what your doing;  you telegraph every move with your occultist numbers.

Matthew 11:15

He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.


I have explained already the quote your using to discredit me was taken from a post where I was describing your Heliocentric model as you very well know ; the readers can verify this for themselves:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71435.360

Once they have verified this they will see how dishonest you are.

You must be desperate to have to employ the use of misdirection people that are telling the truth or even think they are telling the truth have no need to employ these methods.

You call yourself a Christian you are Not.

You have given false testimony against me twice now in this thread alone ( commandment 9 ) just to reinforce your true religion which is Heliocenticism.

Matthew 6:24

No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.

They're talking about some hundreds of kilometers here, so what's the point? Still no reason at all that the solar eclipse wouldn't work as postulated, you pathetic moron. 

They're talking about some hundreds of kilometers here, so what's the point? Still no reason at all that the solar eclipse wouldn't work as postulated, you pathetic moron. 

Your Heliocentric model doesn't work.

Notice how they say they "think" it's bigger.

This is because your Heliocentric model does not match the reality that will be observed on the 21.08.17

Lol.

Lol

So they do not know the size of the Sun on your Heliocentric model.


NASA get 52 million dollars a day and have allegedly sent many satellites into "space " Lol.

If this was true they would "know" the size of the Sun and would not be using some estimate from 1891 that one of your brethren pulled out of his arse.
 
.

Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is Finished.

Quote from: Sentinel on August 16, 2017, 03:11:13 AM

They're talking about some hundreds of kilometers here, so what's the point? Still no reason at all that the solar eclipse wouldn't work as postulated, you pathetic moron. 

Your Heliocentric model doesn't work.

Notice how they say they "think" it's bigger.

This is because your Heliocentric model does not match the reality that will be observed on the 21.08.17

Lol.

Lol

So they do not know the size of the Sun on your Heliocentric model.


NASA get 52 million dollars a day and have allegedly sent many satellites into "space " Lol.

If this was true they would "know" the size of the Sun and would not be using some estimate from 1891 that one of your brethren pulled out of his arse.
 
.

Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is Finished.

The model does work, is proven to be incredibly accurate time after time.  Therefore saying is doesn't work just doesn't make any sense.

I’m not sure why that fact they think it’s larger is a problem.  The difference in size they’re talking about is estimated to be couple tents of a percent.

Also, it may have been first defined in 1891 the current value set by the International Astronomical Union in 2015, not NASA.

It has zero effect on the calculation for an eclipse so why do you think it’s such a big deal?

Mike

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile on August 16, 2017, 03:25:53 AM

Quote from: Sentinel on August 16, 2017, 03:11:13 AM

They're talking about some hundreds of kilometers here, so what's the point? Still no reason at all that the solar eclipse wouldn't work as postulated, you pathetic moron. 

Your Heliocentric model doesn't work.

Notice how they say they "think" it's bigger.

This is because your Heliocentric model does not match the reality that will be observed on the 21.08.17

Lol.

Lol

So they do not know the size of the Sun on your Heliocentric model.


NASA get 52 million dollars a day and have allegedly sent many satellites into "space " Lol.

If this was true they would "know" the size of the Sun and would not be using some estimate from 1891 that one of your brethren pulled out of his arse.
 
.

Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is Finished.

The model does work, is proven to be incredibly accurate time after time.  Therefore saying is doesn't work just doesn't make any sense.

I’m not sure why that fact they think it’s larger is a problem.  The difference in size they’re talking about is estimated to be couple tents of a percent.

Also, it may have been first defined in 1891 the current value set by the International Astronomical Union in 2015, not NASA.

It has zero effect on the calculation for an eclipse so why do you think it’s such a big deal?

Mike

You are incorrect.

It is a big deal.

NASA do not "know" the size of the sun on your Heliocentric model.

NASA "think" it's bigger.

Lol.

Lol.

52 million dollar a day budget.

3000 satellites allegedly in orbit 

And NASA " think " the sun is bigger.

Lol.

Your people must think normal people are stupid.

Give it up you have been caught out.

The video below illustrates me vs all of you Heliocentrics.

I'm Darth Vader and you Heliocentrics are the cattle like soldiers .
 

 

Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is Finished.

Quote from: Albert Wesker on August 14, 2017, 02:47:46 PM

Black sun seems a bit racist to me....

 

It is part of the balence we have a White Sun and a Black Sun.

So, affirmative action has spread to celestial objects now? What is this?

Quote from: MicroBeta on August 16, 2017, 03:33:51 AM

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile on August 16, 2017, 03:25:53 AM

Quote from: Sentinel on August 16, 2017, 03:11:13 AM

They're talking about some hundreds of kilometers here, so what's the point? Still no reason at all that the solar eclipse wouldn't work as postulated, you pathetic moron. 

Your Heliocentric model doesn't work.

Notice how they say they "think" it's bigger.

This is because your Heliocentric model does not match the reality that will be observed on the 21.08.17

Lol.

Lol

So they do not know the size of the Sun on your Heliocentric model.


NASA get 52 million dollars a day and have allegedly sent many satellites into "space " Lol.

If this was true they would "know" the size of the Sun and would not be using some estimate from 1891 that one of your brethren pulled out of his arse.
 
.

Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is Finished.

The model does work, is proven to be incredibly accurate time after time.  Therefore saying is doesn't work just doesn't make any sense.

I’m not sure why that fact they think it’s larger is a problem.  The difference in size they’re talking about is estimated to be couple tents of a percent.

Also, it may have been first defined in 1891 the current value set by the International Astronomical Union in 2015, not NASA.

It has zero effect on the calculation for an eclipse so why do you think it’s such a big deal?

Mike

You are incorrect.

It is a big deal.

NASA do not "know" the size of the sun on your Heliocentric model.

NASA "think" it's bigger.

Lol.

Lol.

52 million dollar a day budget.

3000 satellites allegedly in orbit 

And NASA " think " the sun is bigger.

Lol.

Your people must think normal people are stupid.

Give it up you have been caught out.

The video below illustrates me vs all of you Heliocentrics.

I'm Darth Vader and you Heliocentrics are the cattle like soldiers .
 

 

Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is Finished.

You still haven't said why it's a big deal to calculating an eclipse.

Mike

I do not find your nonsense explanation acceptable.

I could not care less what you find acceptable. I gave you a correct explanation.  If you don't accept it, that's your loss, not mine.

Just as I have said your Heliocentric Brethren have realised the solar eclipse is impossible on your model

No, they have not! If you really understood what you read you might realise the difference in sun's size does not make any perceptible difference!

so NASA now say they " think" the sun is bigger.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4739226/Sun-larger-think-claim-Nasa-scientists.html

Big deal!

In 1891, a German astronomer known as Arthur Auwers was the first to estimate the size of the sun.
Based on the star's photosphere, the body of the sun whose wavelengths are visible to the naked eye, he calculated that the sun had a radius of 432,470 miles (696,000km).

Arthur Auwers estimated the size of the sun as 696,000 km.
So

This benchmark figure was widely used until 2015, when the International Astronomical Union updated this figure to 432,280 miles (695,700km) based on data from solar-observing satellites.

A change of 393 km or less than .04% and you complain about that?
If you are the best "apoligist" the Flat Earth can rustle up then pity help the whole idea Flat Earth!

In the link provided it says one of your Heliocentric brethren fabricated the size of the Sun in 1891.

No, it says nothing of the kind and now you are doing the fabrication!

As I have said your Heliocentric model was fabricated so long ago that it no longer matches reality.

I don't care what you have said! The Heliocentric Globe is the result of gradual development, based on observations over a period of over 1800 years.

Your Flat Earth model was cobbled together over a few years just to fit the short sighted reasoning that
and all observations are simply bent and twisted to fit that one assumption!

In the link provided it also says the Sun has a radius of 432470 miles

Sure, that's about right!
You don't have the slightest understanding of the accuracies possible in physical measurements.
The 1891 estimate by the German astronomer, Arthur Auwers, was in fact extremely accurate for the time, and differs only about 0.04% from the current figure.
More recent results have improved that, but no measurement is ever exactly correct.

<< most totally irrelevant >>

You have not the slightest idea what you are talking about. I have not been dishonest, so desist in your libellous accusations!

But the 0.04% change you are basing your whole silly fallacy on is far better accuracy any flat earther has ever done in measuring the sun's diameter or the sun's height.
The only actual flat earth measurement I have ever seen in print is
and that is easliy proved wrong even from a flat earth standpoint! So don't you dare complain about a change of 0.04%!

Now, let's look at the effect of that 0.04% change in the sun's size on the umbra width or nominally 114 km.
It would widen the umbra by a whole 48 metres.


You are are totally wrong with

You must be desperate to have to employ the use of misdirection people that are telling the truth or even think they are telling the truth have no need to employ these methods.

I am not wrong and have not used misdirection. I have been honestly telling you what I believe is the truth.

It is almost funny that as soon as flat earthers realise that they have completely lost the argument, they start attacking the person.
And just look how viciously you are doing it right now with!

You call yourself a Christian you are Not.

That is not for you to say.

Matthew 7:1-3, King James Version (KJV)

• Judge not, that ye be not judged.
• For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
• And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

You have given false testimony against me twice now in this thread alone ( commandment 9 )

I do not believe that I have,
I challenge you to back up all your accusations!

just to reinforce your true religion which is Heliocenticism.

No! The Heliocentric Globe is not a "religion"! It is simply the correct description of the shape and motion of the earth.
In any case, the Flat Earth vs. Globe Earth is not one of religious doctrine, but one of simple observable facts.

Your Heliocentric model doesn't work.

Notice how they say they "think" it's bigger.

Did you even read the article?

It said that some think it's bigger.  Not all, just some.

This is because your Heliocentric model does not match the reality that will be observed on the 21.08.17

It may not be 100% accurate down to 27 decimal places, but it's a damn sight better than anything that FET has.

So they do not know the size of the Sun on your Heliocentric model.

Well, it's not as if they can use a tape to measure it.

NASA get 52 million dollars a day and have allegedly sent many satellites into "space " Lol.

NASA, like most government agencies, gets an annual budget, not a daily one.

If this was true they would "know" the size of the Sun and would not be using some estimate from 1891 that one of your brethren pulled out of his arse.

According to the article that you linked, but obviously didn't read, the current estimate is from 2015 and is based on sun observing satellites.

Notice how they say they "think" it's bigger.

Yes, you pathetic idiot! They think

The sun might be BIGGER than we think: Nasa scientists claim this year's historic solar eclipse could prove our star is hundreds of miles larger

Just how significant is "hundreds of miles" in "432,470 miles"? Something like one part in 1500! So what?
That difference makes no noticeable difference to any eclipse calculations.

Now, you tell me the diameter and height of you flat earth sun to better than 1 part in 1500!
So, put up or shut up!

Measurements of the Globe and of astronomical objects are never known precisely and that is why real scientists do repeated measurements with better methods and better equipment.

But on your flat earth the sun's height and hence diameter were guessed without actually taking measurements back in the early 1900s and nobody has bothered to verify them or come up with better values - and I assert that they are wrong antway.
So once again, it is total hypocrisy for a flat earther to criticise NASA or astronomers in general for small differences like this!

Maybe the whitish yellow sun and the black sun had a baby which is the moon and thats why the moon is gray? Would it be a stereotype if that explains why the black sun leaves the mamma sun and the baby moon to fend for themselves and only shows up once in a while when it wants a booty call? Whoa mind blown 

This sounds at least as plausible as any of the other "flat earth" explanations for solar eclipses I've heard, and much more than most of them.

It still has some problems, though. Probably the most obvious: if you think about how many eclipses there have been, why is there still only one moon?

Quote from: GRIZZ420 on August 16, 2017, 01:07:52 AM

Maybe the whitish yellow sun and the black sun had a baby which is the moon and thats why the moon is gray? Would it be a stereotype if that explains why the black sun leaves the mamma sun and the baby moon to fend for themselves and only shows up once in a while when it wants a booty call? Whoa mind blown 

This sounds at least as plausible as any of the other "flat earth" explanations for solar eclipses I've heard, and much more than most of them.

It still has some problems, though. Probably the most obvious: if you think about how many eclipses there have been, why is there still only one moon?

Birth control

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile on August 16, 2017, 02:50:19 AM

I do not find your nonsense explanation acceptable.

I could not care less what you find acceptable. I gave you a correct explanation.  If you don't accept it, that's your loss, not mine.

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile

Just as I have said your Heliocentric Brethren have realised the solar eclipse is impossible on your model

No, they have not! If you really understood what you read you might realise the difference in sun's size does not make any perceptible difference!

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile

so NASA now say they " think" the sun is bigger.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4739226/Sun-larger-think-claim-Nasa-scientists.html

Big deal!

Quote

In 1891, a German astronomer known as Arthur Auwers was the first to estimate the size of the sun.
Based on the star's photosphere, the body of the sun whose wavelengths are visible to the naked eye, he calculated that the sun had a radius of 432,470 miles (696,000km).

Arthur Auwers estimated the size of the sun as 696,000 km.

You do understand what estimates means! And how do you accurately measure a gaseous object like the sun with no sharp edges?

So

Quote

This benchmark figure was widely used until 2015, when the International Astronomical Union updated this figure to 432,280 miles (695,700km) based on data from solar-observing satellites.

A change of 393 km or less than .04% and you complain about that?

You really do not have the slightest understanding of what you are talking about!

If you are the best "apoligist" the Flat Earth can rustle up then pity help the whole idea Flat Earth!

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile

In the link provided it says one of your Heliocentric brethren fabricated the size of the Sun in 1891.

No, it says nothing of the kind and now you are doing the fabrication!

If you claim that, please show the exact words saying exactly that or admit that making up stories again!

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile

As I have said your Heliocentric model was fabricated so long ago that it no longer matches reality.

I don't care what you have said! The Heliocentric Globe is the result of gradual development, based on observations over a period of over 1800 years.

Your Flat Earth model was cobbled together over a few years just to fit the short sighted reasoning that

"The earth looks flat, so it must be flat!"

and all observations are simply bent and twisted to fit that one assumption!

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile

In the link provided it also says the Sun has a radius of 432470 miles

Sure, that's about right!
You don't have the slightest understanding of the accuracies possible in physical measurements.
The 1891 estimate by the German astronomer, Arthur Auwers, was in fact extremely accurate for the time, and differs only about 0.04% from the current figure.
More recent results have improved that, but no measurement is ever exactly correct.

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile

<< most totally irrelevant >>

You have not the slightest idea what you are talking about. I have not been dishonest, so desist in your libellous accusations!

But the 0.04% change you are basing your whole silly fallacy on is far better accuracy any flat earther has ever done in measuring the sun's diameter or the sun's height.

So stop being a totally hypocritical idiot!

The only actual flat earth measurement I have ever seen in print is

Rowbotham's "not more than 700 statute miles" for the "true height of the sun"

and that is easliy proved wrong even from a flat earth standpoint! So don't you dare complain about a change of 0.04%!

Now, let's look at the effect of that 0.04% change in the sun's size on the umbra width or nominally 114 km.
It would widen the umbra by a whole 48 metres.

Do you yet see how totally ridiculous your whole silly argument has been.

You are are totally wrong with

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile

You must be desperate to have to employ the use of misdirection people that are telling the truth or even think they are telling the truth have no need to employ these methods.

I am not wrong and have not used misdirection. I have been honestly telling you what I believe is the truth.

It is almost funny that as soon as flat earthers realise that they have completely lost the argument, they start attacking the person.
And just look how viciously you are doing it right now with!

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile

You call yourself a Christian you are Not.

That is not for you to say.

Quote

Matthew 7:1-3, King James Version (KJV)

• Judge not, that ye be not judged.
• For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
• And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile

You have given false testimony against me twice now in this thread alone ( commandment 9 )

I do not believe that I have,

so please just show where have I given "have given false testimony against" you "twice now in this thread"

I challenge you to back up all your accusations!

Quote from: Resistance.is.Futile

just to reinforce your true religion which is Heliocenticism.

No! The Heliocentric Globe is not a "religion"! It is simply the correct description of the shape and motion of the earth.
In any case, the Flat Earth vs. Globe Earth is not one of religious doctrine, but one of simple observable facts.

Frankly, Mr Resistance.is.Futile I am totally sick of your silly childish antics and scurrilous accusations.

You are dishonest.

It obvious to the readers and yourself where you have been so as I have already highlighted this and provided a  link to the thread you quoted.

I'm not judging you ; as you live a delusion I thought it best you know how it is.

Believe it or not I'm not concerned with how you feel.

Does a Lion care for the opinion of sheep ?

I suppose your Heliocentric model Sun having a radius 432470 miles wide is a coincidence  9 11  .

Lol.

Your Strange Heliocentric Religion is False.

I'm not judging you ; as you live a delusion I thought it best you know how it is.

Believe it or not I'm not concerned with how you feel.

Does a Lion care for the opinion of sheep ?

Do you think yourself a lion?

Who's being delusional now?

And still no explaination of how the eclipse actually works on a flat earth.

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on August 16, 2017, 07:08:30 AM

Quote from: GRIZZ420 on August 16, 2017, 01:07:52 AM

Maybe the whitish yellow sun and the black sun had a baby which is the moon and thats why the moon is gray? Would it be a stereotype if that explains why the black sun leaves the mamma sun and the baby moon to fend for themselves and only shows up once in a while when it wants a booty call? Whoa mind blown 

This sounds at least as plausible as any of the other "flat earth" explanations for solar eclipses I've heard, and much more than most of them.

It still has some problems, though. Probably the most obvious: if you think about how many eclipses there have been, why is there still only one moon?

Birth control

Was that allowed so long ago? I suppose the black sun and white sun can do whatever they want.

Quote from: Albert Wesker on August 16, 2017, 07:52:36 AM

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on August 16, 2017, 07:08:30 AM

Quote from: GRIZZ420 on August 16, 2017, 01:07:52 AM

Maybe the whitish yellow sun and the black sun had a baby which is the moon and thats why the moon is gray? Would it be a stereotype if that explains why the black sun leaves the mamma sun and the baby moon to fend for themselves and only shows up once in a while when it wants a booty call? Whoa mind blown 

This sounds at least as plausible as any of the other "flat earth" explanations for solar eclipses I've heard, and much more than most of them.

It still has some problems, though. Probably the most obvious: if you think about how many eclipses there have been, why is there still only one moon?

Birth control

Was that allowed so long ago? I suppose the black sun and white sun can do whatever they want.

Or possibly magnum condoms