Eclipse proportions refute RET

  • 130 Replies
  • 6932 Views
*

rabinoz

  • 25566
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
« Reply #120 on: January 27, 2018, 07:12:58 PM »
We should see it present against the moon, we don't.
Rubbish!
          
How many (dozen) more do you want?

*

Nightsky

  • 900
  • Know the implications of what you believe.
Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
« Reply #121 on: January 28, 2018, 02:06:05 AM »
It really speaks volumes that you would all rather ignore the calculations presented and try desperately to distract than face up to the simple fact RET does not work.

On the contrary, you just showed that the Earth must be round. You just showed that the Earth cannot be flat. The only thing we have left to debate is size.
No, I did not. I wrote out calculations about the proportion of the Sun and moon that you refuse to address, then used the RE figures to demonstrate a contradiction inherent in RET. Those figures are demonstrably not accurate.
At no point in the calculations is anything about the shape of the Earth assumed.

Stop evading the problem. Your model has been refuted and you'd rather change the topic than respond.

Ignoring things! Wow youíve been ignoring facts that donít suit your crazy ideas for years. Why not go have a look at any of the thousands of images that show the earth is a sphere?
How about you check out some of the daily data from some of the satellites orbiting the sun? All pretty inconvenient for one such as you.
You can call me Gwyneth
I said that
Oh for the love of- Logical formulation:
FET is wrong, unsupported by evidence, and most models are refuted on multiple fronts; those that aren't tend not to make enough predictions to be realistically falsifiable
Jane said these

?

totallackey

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 4194
Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
« Reply #122 on: January 28, 2018, 04:51:31 AM »
It really speaks volumes that you would all rather ignore the calculations presented and try desperately to distract than face up to the simple fact RET does not work.

On the contrary, you just showed that the Earth must be round. You just showed that the Earth cannot be flat. The only thing we have left to debate is size.
No, I did not. I wrote out calculations about the proportion of the Sun and moon that you refuse to address, then used the RE figures to demonstrate a contradiction inherent in RET. Those figures are demonstrably not accurate.
At no point in the calculations is anything about the shape of the Earth assumed.

Stop evading the problem. Your model has been refuted and you'd rather change the topic than respond.
Ignoring things! Wow youíve been ignoring facts that donít suit your crazy ideas for years...
Have you lived down this thread yet???

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=73908.0

LMMFAO!!!

*

Nightsky

  • 900
  • Know the implications of what you believe.
Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
« Reply #123 on: January 28, 2018, 06:57:09 AM »
It really speaks volumes that you would all rather ignore the calculations presented and try desperately to distract than face up to the simple fact RET does not work.

On the contrary, you just showed that the Earth must be round. You just showed that the Earth cannot be flat. The only thing we have left to debate is size.
No, I did not. I wrote out calculations about the proportion of the Sun and moon that you refuse to address, then used the RE figures to demonstrate a contradiction inherent in RET. Those figures are demonstrably not accurate.
At no point in the calculations is anything about the shape of the Earth assumed.

Stop evading the problem. Your model has been refuted and you'd rather change the topic than respond.
Ignoring things! Wow youíve been ignoring facts that donít suit your crazy ideas for years...
Have you lived down this thread yet???

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=73908.0

LMMFAO!!!

Iím glad you brought that up I couldnít find it, had to go away for a couple of days.
Whatís really hilarious about this thread is the data John quotes comes from an orbital lander, something both you and he deny exist.  Now That is really funny, plus if you care to read the blurb from NASA; an organisation I belive you despise, you will quickly learn that it makes John look an even bigger idiot than he already is, atmosphere gobbling, moon shrimp, now that is funny. Whatís your next joke Pal?
You can call me Gwyneth
I said that
Oh for the love of- Logical formulation:
FET is wrong, unsupported by evidence, and most models are refuted on multiple fronts; those that aren't tend not to make enough predictions to be realistically falsifiable
Jane said these

*

Nightsky

  • 900
  • Know the implications of what you believe.
Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
« Reply #124 on: January 28, 2018, 07:06:11 AM »
It really speaks volumes that you would all rather ignore the calculations presented and try desperately to distract than face up to the simple fact RET does not work.

On the contrary, you just showed that the Earth must be round. You just showed that the Earth cannot be flat. The only thing we have left to debate is size.
No, I did not. I wrote out calculations about the proportion of the Sun and moon that you refuse to address, then used the RE figures to demonstrate a contradiction inherent in RET. Those figures are demonstrably not accurate.
At no point in the calculations is anything about the shape of the Earth assumed.

Stop evading the problem. Your model has been refuted and you'd rather change the topic than respond.
Ignoring things! Wow youíve been ignoring facts that donít suit your crazy ideas for years...
Have you lived down this thread yet???

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=73908.0

LMMFAO!!!

For those that missed that thread it was truly extraordinary. John was arguing a point about the dietary likes of moonshrimp, I know moonshrimp!  using data from an Appolo moon lander! Something he denies exists. Whatís even funnier he didnít even understand the data or itís implications, and to top it off he still believes in the existance of carnivorous light emitting moonshrimp, now that is funny!
You can call me Gwyneth
I said that
Oh for the love of- Logical formulation:
FET is wrong, unsupported by evidence, and most models are refuted on multiple fronts; those that aren't tend not to make enough predictions to be realistically falsifiable
Jane said these

Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
« Reply #125 on: January 28, 2018, 12:01:00 PM »
John was arguing a point about the dietary likes of moonshrimp, I know moonshrimp!  using data from an Appolo moon lander! Something he denies exists. Whatís even funnier he didnít even understand the data or itís implications, and to top it off he still believes in the existance of carnivorous light emitting moonshrimp, now that is funny!
I don't see any of that in that thread.
Got any quotes for it?

?

totallackey

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 4194
Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
« Reply #126 on: January 28, 2018, 12:17:35 PM »
It really speaks volumes that you would all rather ignore the calculations presented and try desperately to distract than face up to the simple fact RET does not work.

On the contrary, you just showed that the Earth must be round. You just showed that the Earth cannot be flat. The only thing we have left to debate is size.
No, I did not. I wrote out calculations about the proportion of the Sun and moon that you refuse to address, then used the RE figures to demonstrate a contradiction inherent in RET. Those figures are demonstrably not accurate.
At no point in the calculations is anything about the shape of the Earth assumed.

Stop evading the problem. Your model has been refuted and you'd rather change the topic than respond.
Ignoring things! Wow youíve been ignoring facts that donít suit your crazy ideas for years...
Have you lived down this thread yet???

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=73908.0

LMMFAO!!!

For those that missed that thread it was truly extraordinary. John was arguing a point about the dietary likes of moonshrimp, I know moonshrimp!  using data from an Appolo moon lander! Something he denies exists. Whatís even funnier he didnít even understand the data or itís implications, and to top it off he still believes in the existance of carnivorous light emitting moonshrimp, now that is funny!
For those that missed that thread, John never fucking wrote the word "moonshrimp." John did write:
I didn't leave that out at all. You are the one that has been going about accusing me of lying (for demonstrable example - this very instance) and not showing that I have.

Shame on you.
If I'm wrong, please let me know why. NASA always puts a bit of truth in theirs lies; if you pay attention.
I'm asking you.

Professor, profess.
What is a 'moonshramp'?
See? This is the kind of round earth malarky we have to deal with every day. "Moonshramp farts."

The fissuring continues and has not diminished as far as records and your theory shows.

Thanks Jane; I'd also love to hear the justification for why its wrong.
Indeed, what a ludicrous claim.

For those that missed the thread, John was quoted (by you) as writing, "The lunar atmosphere consists of Argon, Helium, Neon, Sodium, Potassium, and HydrogenĒ- John Davis

You ran off from the thread once you were busted for NOT accepting NASA...

It is you RE-tards that cannot get your story straight...

Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
« Reply #127 on: January 28, 2018, 01:05:52 PM »
You ran off from the thread once you were busted for NOT accepting NASA...
Like JRowe and Sandy have fled this thread after repeatedly being refuted.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 5439
Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
« Reply #128 on: January 28, 2018, 02:22:28 PM »
We should see it present against the moon, we don't.

That is not my quote.

It is from youtube.

In fact, I was the first to publish the ISS solar/lunar photographs here:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1787025#msg1787025

Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
« Reply #129 on: January 28, 2018, 02:25:55 PM »
We should see it present against the moon, we don't.
That is not my quote.
It is from youtube.
Was it from a video you presented?
If so, and you knew it was wrong, why present it?

Now again, how about we deal with the OP?
The OP clearly indicating they are using an isosceles triangle. For the sun, 2 of the sides are k, the other is 1.3M which represents the size of the sun.
Draw a diagram to show this, clearly indicating how k is the direct distance to the sun rather than the diagonal.
When you are unable to, then stop lying, admit you were wrong the entire time and that it wasn't my mistake.

Once you have failed to do that and admitted you were wrong, you can then move on to explaining quite clearly how that single photo magically showed the sun is only 10 000 km away, explaining in detail how you can determine it from that single photo.
When you are unable to, then stop lying, admit you were wrong and that you can't tell how far away the sun is from a single photo.

After that failure you can move on to your claims of the 2 formulas being the same, even though they differ by a factor of sqrt(2-p^2).
Explain how sqrt(2-p^2)=1, when p=1.3.
When you are unable to, then stop lying, admit you were wrong and that even you disagree with the formula provided by the OP.

Then once you have had enough of those failings you can deal with the core argument, and explain how the ratio of angular sizes magically changes to the ratio of actual sizes, especially considering you have already admitted it doesn't.

*

rabinoz

  • 25566
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Eclipse proportions refute RET
« Reply #130 on: January 29, 2018, 04:35:11 AM »
We should see it present against the moon, we don't.

That is not my quote.

It is from youtube.

In fact, I was the first to publish the ISS solar/lunar photographs here:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1787025#msg1787025
And in that you proved that you have no idea about either photography or perspective.