Roundies: why didn't the moon scorch the earth during the eclipse?

  • 44 Replies
  • 8928 Views
?

realNarcberry

  • 136
  • +0/-0
  • Reason > RET
We recently just experienced the greatest evidence that the round earth theory is a hoax.

In that hoax theory, imagine placing the moon between the sun and earth. The solid moon would, at it's edges, form a giant aragoscope - the phenomena of light waves oscillating AROUND solid objects. This would focus the sun's tremendous energy onto a focused spot on the surface of the earth - scorching it.

No such event occurred. Round earthism is a hoax!

Re: Roundies: why didn't the moon scorch the earth during the eclipse?
« Reply #1 on: December 07, 2017, 11:05:33 AM »
We recently just experienced the greatest evidence that the round earth theory is a hoax.

In that hoax theory, imagine placing the moon between the sun and earth. The solid moon would, at it's edges, form a giant aragoscope - the phenomena of light waves oscillating AROUND solid objects. This would focus the sun's tremendous energy onto a focused spot on the surface of the earth - scorching it.

No such event occurred. Round earthism is a hoax!
I didn't see your calculations showing that the focal point for the diffracted light would be on the surface of the Earth.  Did you omit them from your post or did you just not bother doing them? 

?

realNarcberry

  • 136
  • +0/-0
  • Reason > RET
Re: Roundies: why didn't the moon scorch the earth during the eclipse?
« Reply #2 on: December 07, 2017, 11:12:27 AM »
I don't repeat work, see my signature and easily available zetetic works if you actually care about the numbers.

Re: Roundies: why didn't the moon scorch the earth during the eclipse?
« Reply #3 on: December 07, 2017, 11:29:04 AM »
I don't repeat work, see my signature and easily available zetetic works if you actually care about the numbers.
I don't see anything calculating where the focal point of diffracted light around the moon would be.  I'll happily read the work elsewhere so you don't need to do it again, but it's customary to provide a footnote or citation of some sort so that readers can quickly find the source material your statement is based on. 

Could you just point me to which of those threads has your calculations?

?

realNarcberry

  • 136
  • +0/-0
  • Reason > RET
Re: Roundies: why didn't the moon scorch the earth during the eclipse?
« Reply #4 on: December 07, 2017, 11:30:57 AM »
I don't repeat work, see my signature and easily available zetetic works if you actually care about the numbers.
I don't see anything calculating where the focal point of diffracted light around the moon would be.  I'll happily read the work elsewhere so you don't need to do it again, but it's customary to provide a footnote or citation of some sort so that readers can quickly find the source material your statement is based on. 

Could you just point me to which of those threads has your calculations?

Happy to help

?

Alpha2Omega

  • 4107
  • +1/-1
Re: Roundies: why didn't the moon scorch the earth during the eclipse?
« Reply #5 on: December 07, 2017, 11:42:42 AM »
I don't repeat work, see my signature and easily available zetetic works if you actually care about the numbers.
I don't see anything calculating where the focal point of diffracted light around the moon would be.  I'll happily read the work elsewhere so you don't need to do it again, but it's customary to provide a footnote or citation of some sort so that readers can quickly find the source material your statement is based on. 

Could you just point me to which of those threads has your calculations?

Happy to help

That fails at "point light source" since the sun isn't one. Do you have any more questions?
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

?

realNarcberry

  • 136
  • +0/-0
  • Reason > RET
Re: Roundies: why didn't the moon scorch the earth during the eclipse?
« Reply #6 on: December 07, 2017, 12:39:27 PM »
That fails at "point light source" since the sun isn't one. Do you have any more questions?

Not at the cosmic distances RET suggests. This criticism would also apply to pinhole cameras, which work just fine.

Re: Roundies: why didn't the moon scorch the earth during the eclipse?
« Reply #7 on: December 07, 2017, 12:51:09 PM »
That fails at "point light source" since the sun isn't one. Do you have any more questions?

Not at the cosmic distances RET suggests. This criticism would also apply to pinhole cameras, which work just fine.
It also requires a 'perfectly circular occluder' for the focusing. The moon is quite irregular around the 'edges' as it were.

Re: Roundies: why didn't the moon scorch the earth during the eclipse?
« Reply #8 on: December 07, 2017, 12:51:57 PM »
I don't repeat work, see my signature and easily available zetetic works if you actually care about the numbers.
I don't see anything calculating where the focal point of diffracted light around the moon would be.  I'll happily read the work elsewhere so you don't need to do it again, but it's customary to provide a footnote or citation of some sort so that readers can quickly find the source material your statement is based on. 

Could you just point me to which of those threads has your calculations?

Happy to help
I'm sorry, but it's apparent from your google search that you don't understand the question.  I'll try again. 

In order for you hypothesis of a scorched Earth to be correct, the focal point of the diffracted solar light would have to be the exact distance between the Earth and the Moon.  None of the works in your signature link have any calculations showing where the focal point of a lunar aragoscope would be.  None of the links in your google search address where the focal point of a lunar aragoscope would be.  Your initial post has no demonstration that the focal point would actually be at the correct distance to burn the Earth.

Since you're so fond of people doing their own work, I'm sure you wouldn't expect me to have to go through the actual process of calculating where the focal point would be to disprove your claim, seeing as it's entirely your responsibility to do the calculation supporting your currently baseless assertion.

Come back when you've done your homework.

Re: Roundies: why didn't the moon scorch the earth during the eclipse?
« Reply #9 on: December 07, 2017, 12:53:32 PM »
By the way, you don't get to be arrogant until you're competent. 

?

realNarcberry

  • 136
  • +0/-0
  • Reason > RET
Re: Roundies: why didn't the moon scorch the earth during the eclipse?
« Reply #10 on: December 07, 2017, 12:53:54 PM »
That fails at "point light source" since the sun isn't one. Do you have any more questions?

Not at the cosmic distances RET suggests. This criticism would also apply to pinhole cameras, which work just fine.
It also requires a 'perfectly circular occluder' for the focusing. The moon is quite irregular around the 'edges' as it were.

The experiment yields results with coins - which are much more irregular in shape than the moon. I think you underestimate just how round the moon would be in RET. It's only in FET that the shape would be irregular enough to distort the image.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45174
  • +99/-139
Re: Roundies: why didn't the moon scorch the earth during the eclipse?
« Reply #11 on: December 07, 2017, 12:58:24 PM »
We recently just experienced the greatest evidence that the round earth theory is a hoax.

In that hoax theory, imagine placing the moon between the sun and earth. The solid moon would, at it's edges, form a giant aragoscope - the phenomena of light waves oscillating AROUND solid objects. This would focus the sun's tremendous energy onto a focused spot on the surface of the earth - scorching it.

No such event occurred. Round earthism is a hoax!
Check me if I'm wrong, but doesn't FET also put the moon between the sun and the earth during a solar eclipse?
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.

?

realNarcberry

  • 136
  • +0/-0
  • Reason > RET
Re: Roundies: why didn't the moon scorch the earth during the eclipse?
« Reply #12 on: December 07, 2017, 01:02:19 PM »
Check me if I'm wrong, but doesn't FET also put the moon between the sun and the earth during a solar eclipse?

It does, great point!

Unlike RET, the moon is way to close in FET to the light source as well as to the earth. All light will be excluded except at the edge.

*

FalseProphet

  • 3696
  • +0/-0
  • Life is just a tale
Re: Roundies: why didn't the moon scorch the earth during the eclipse?
« Reply #13 on: December 07, 2017, 01:08:35 PM »
The solid moon would, at it's edges, form a giant aragoscope - the phenomena of light waves oscillating AROUND solid objects. This would focus the sun's tremendous energy onto a focused spot on the surface of the earth - scorching it.

It would not focus "sun's tremendous energy", only the little fraction of it that gets diffracted around the edge

Re: Roundies: why didn't the moon scorch the earth during the eclipse?
« Reply #14 on: December 07, 2017, 01:09:44 PM »
Check me if I'm wrong, but doesn't FET also put the moon between the sun and the earth during a solar eclipse?

It does, great point!

Unlike RET, the moon is way to close in FET to the light source as well as to the earth. All light will be excluded except at the edge.
Do you have the calculations for the focal length of a lunar aragoscope in this model?  How can you be certain the moon is too close unless you do the math? It looks like you have 2 assignments now.  Stop wasting time here, you've got math to do! Run along!

?

realNarcberry

  • 136
  • +0/-0
  • Reason > RET
Re: Roundies: why didn't the moon scorch the earth during the eclipse?
« Reply #15 on: December 07, 2017, 01:10:47 PM »
It would not focus "sun's tremendous energy", only the little fraction of it that gets diffracted around the edge

That edge is extremely large in RET, only FET would it be insignificant.

*

FalseProphet

  • 3696
  • +0/-0
  • Life is just a tale
Re: Roundies: why didn't the moon scorch the earth during the eclipse?
« Reply #16 on: December 07, 2017, 01:27:43 PM »
It would not focus "sun's tremendous energy", only the little fraction of it that gets diffracted around the edge

That edge is extremely large in RET, only FET would it be insignificant.
Then show me the calculation, how much of the light would be focused. And as other people have pointed out, show me your calculation for the focal length

?

realNarcberry

  • 136
  • +0/-0
  • Reason > RET
Re: Roundies: why didn't the moon scorch the earth during the eclipse?
« Reply #17 on: December 07, 2017, 01:28:52 PM »
It would not focus "sun's tremendous energy", only the little fraction of it that gets diffracted around the edge

That edge is extremely large in RET, only FET would it be insignificant.
Then show me the calculation, how much of the light would be focused. And as other people have pointed out, show me your calculation for the focal length

Happy to help

*

FalseProphet

  • 3696
  • +0/-0
  • Life is just a tale
Re: Roundies: why didn't the moon scorch the earth during the eclipse?
« Reply #18 on: December 07, 2017, 01:32:14 PM »
It would not focus "sun's tremendous energy", only the little fraction of it that gets diffracted around the edge

That edge is extremely large in RET, only FET would it be insignificant.
Then show me the calculation, how much of the light would be focused. And as other people have pointed out, show me your calculation for the focal length

Happy to help
You have not even done any calculation? You just pulled it out of your ass? Whodathunkit?

?

Alpha2Omega

  • 4107
  • +1/-1
Re: Roundies: why didn't the moon scorch the earth during the eclipse?
« Reply #19 on: December 07, 2017, 02:19:40 PM »
That fails at "point light source" since the sun isn't one. Do you have any more questions?

Not at the cosmic distances RET suggests. This criticism would also apply to pinhole cameras, which work just fine.

The sun is only 1 AU away. That's nothing compared to cosmic distances. Because the sun is large and that close (cosmologically), it has an apparent size of about a half degree. A true point source has an apparent size of zero degrees. A pinhole camera with a pinhole 1/2 degree across would be pretty terrible.

Any more questions?
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

?

realNarcberry

  • 136
  • +0/-0
  • Reason > RET
Re: Roundies: why didn't the moon scorch the earth during the eclipse?
« Reply #20 on: December 07, 2017, 02:20:55 PM »
The sun is only 1 AU away. That's nothing compared to cosmic distances.

Uh, that IS a cosmic distance. Exactly 1 of them.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45174
  • +99/-139
Re: Roundies: why didn't the moon scorch the earth during the eclipse?
« Reply #21 on: December 07, 2017, 02:30:52 PM »
Check me if I'm wrong, but doesn't FET also put the moon between the sun and the earth during a solar eclipse?

It does, great point!

Unlike RET, the moon is way to close in FET to the light source as well as to the earth. All light will be excluded except at the edge.
Did you miss the part where the image formed is much dimmer than if an actual lens of comparable size was used?  Sounds like it's more like a tiny fraction of "the sun's tremendous energy" would be focused, assuming that the focal length of the interference patterns is correct in the first place.
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.

?

realNarcberry

  • 136
  • +0/-0
  • Reason > RET
Re: Roundies: why didn't the moon scorch the earth during the eclipse?
« Reply #22 on: December 07, 2017, 02:39:36 PM »
So imagine a moon sized lens - plenty of optical strength to reduce and still have tremendous power. Even a reduction to, say, the strength of a magnifying glass would still cause fires and scorching

Re: Roundies: why didn't the moon scorch the earth during the eclipse?
« Reply #23 on: December 07, 2017, 02:41:45 PM »
It would not focus "sun's tremendous energy", only the little fraction of it that gets diffracted around the edge

That edge is extremely large in RET, only FET would it be insignificant.
Then show me the calculation, how much of the light would be focused. And as other people have pointed out, show me your calculation for the focal length

Happy to help
Again?? There is nothing relevant in that link.  If you believe the moon could make an aragoscope that could scorch the Earth, then it's up to you to do the math to show what the focal length is. 

If you don't know how, I would do it for you, but you have to ask nicely.

?

realNarcberry

  • 136
  • +0/-0
  • Reason > RET
Re: Roundies: why didn't the moon scorch the earth during the eclipse?
« Reply #24 on: December 07, 2017, 02:42:50 PM »
That's where you're wrong. You are the one asserting the focal length is wrong. And you know the idiom, "He who asserts must prove"

I never asserted the focal length was wrong.

Re: Roundies: why didn't the moon scorch the earth during the eclipse?
« Reply #25 on: December 07, 2017, 02:47:50 PM »
That's where you're wrong. You are the one asserting the focal length is wrong. And you know the idiom, "He who asserts must prove"

I never asserted the focal length was wrong.
You asserted that the focal length was the correct length to scorch the Earth.  I never said it wasn't, I asked to see your calculations.

Ball is still in your court dumbass.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45174
  • +99/-139
Re: Roundies: why didn't the moon scorch the earth during the eclipse?
« Reply #26 on: December 07, 2017, 02:50:26 PM »
So imagine a moon sized lens - plenty of optical strength to reduce and still have tremendous power. Even a reduction to, say, the strength of a magnifying glass would still cause fires and scorching
Again, you have yet to show any evidence that any of that power would focus to any point on the surface of the earth.

It never ceases to amaze me how many claims that FE'ers make about RET without actually doing the math to prove their point.
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.

?

realNarcberry

  • 136
  • +0/-0
  • Reason > RET
Re: Roundies: why didn't the moon scorch the earth during the eclipse?
« Reply #27 on: December 07, 2017, 02:51:47 PM »
You asserted that the focal length was the correct length to scorch the Earth.

Thanks for pointing that out, could you please quote me so I can link to the event and give it the attention it deserves?

Re: Roundies: why didn't the moon scorch the earth during the eclipse?
« Reply #28 on: December 07, 2017, 02:59:03 PM »
You asserted that the focal length was the correct length to scorch the Earth.

Thanks for pointing that out, could you please quote me so I can link to the event and give it the attention it deserves?
You bet!  First post in this thread:

This would focus the sun's tremendous energy onto a focused spot on the surface of the earth - scorching it.

?

realNarcberry

  • 136
  • +0/-0
  • Reason > RET
Re: Roundies: why didn't the moon scorch the earth during the eclipse?
« Reply #29 on: December 07, 2017, 03:02:05 PM »
And it would too!