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

And it would too!

Would it really?  Have you done the math or is this just another one of your ridiculous floating oceans claims?

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!

The same reason why you dont get sunburned when your under a beach umbrella on a sunny day stupid.  Seriously, is that actually a legit question?  Is this april fools day?  Am I on punked right now?  Wheres the camera?  Seriously...

And it would too!

Great! Just supply your math and we can talk about this like grown ups!

The only thing scorched during the eclipse, were the asses of every flat-earther on the globe.

The eclipse said nothing of the shape of the earth, either way.

The eclipse said nothing of the shape of the earth, either way.

Your right, one single eclipse does not show the shape of the earth.  However if the earth was flat not every single eclipse or moon phase would show it to be round now would it.  Its kinda like the sunset i guess.  If it was only the sunset that we had to prove a round earth than maybe the flat earthers would have a debate.  But since its so much more than the sunset, all of the evidence or "nouns" as you like to call them build a case to prove a round earth.  Thats why round earthers know the earth is round and flat earthers think the earth is round.  Big difference and only once can be right, and its the "roundies" by a long shot. 

I don't know. Kepler observed quite a few daytime eclipses that might beg to differ.

I don't know. Kepler observed quite a few daytime eclipses that might beg to differ.

So, your taking one other flat earthers observation and take that as hard evidence? 

Kepler was not a flat earther. He was an astronomer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Kepler

Kepler was not a flat earther. He was an astronomer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Kepler

And nowhere does it say anything about any eclipses that were anything but normal

Yeah, because you'd actually have to had read his work.

Yeah, because you'd actually have to had read his work.

And even if she did see an eclipse that didnt show a round profile on the moon, why is she the only one that saw it? 

I don't know. Kepler observed quite a few daytime eclipses that might beg to differ.

I seriously doubt that Kepler personally observed more than one daytime full lunar eclipse in his lifetime, although he may have heard accounts of others.  Even so, can you provide any documented observations of the sun and fully eclipsed moon being both observed more than two degrees above the horizon at the same time?  I ask because atmospheric refraction can reasonably explain the sun and fully eclipsed moon both being seen just above the horizon at the same time.

Somehow the words “in theory” got left out of the conversation. As well as the words, “light intensity would be lower” was left out. This is exactly the opposite of what you would need to scorch the earth. You would want something that makes the sun brighter not dimmer.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aragoscope

Experiments demonstrating the existance of Poisson's Spot (the diffractive "focus" point of an aragoscope) have been made and well understood for 200 years.

While the point is brighter than the surrounding shadow, the maximum power intensity on axis is no greater than the undisturbed wavefront (what would be present without the obscuration).

Even if everything else was correct (point source or collimated light, correct distances and sizes for whatever geometry you choose), the intensity at any point on the Earth would not be any greater than usual.