Eclipse proportions refute RET

Step one. Calculate the proportional sizes of the Sun and moon during an annular eclipse. You'll find the Sun appears to be approximately 1.3 times the size of the moon, it will vary depending on which eclipse.

Step two. Create two isoceles triangles, one giving the angular distance of the Sun in the sky, one giving the angular distance of the moon. We can fill in these values.
We want the angles to be equal, to give the situation of a total eclipse. The angular distance of both objects will be the same. So in both triangles, the angle will be x. The side opposite this angle will have length M (the apparent size of the moon) in the moon triangle, and 1.3 M in the Sun triangle.
The remaining two sides will be k in the Sun triangle, and k+c in the moon triangle. k is the distance to the Sun. c is unknown, defined to just be the difference between the distance to the Sun and the distance to the moon. It will likely be negative.

Step three. Use the cosine rule to come up with a quadratic formula relating c and k.

Step four. Solve for c. If you don't know how to solve a quadratic equation, I can't help you.

I cannot write math into the forum, but I expect any capable reader will be able to run through and verify the calculations for themselves. Using p as the proportion (given as 1.3 above, but left open so that you may test with your own).
You will find that the distance to the moon, k+c, is k/p times the square root of (2-p²)
Certainly, there is some error in this calculation. According to RET the precise distances to the Sun and moon vary, as does p, but using p=1.3 and k as the distance to the Sun google gives me the distance to the moon as 64 million km. This is substantially different to the value RET gives.


For those interested in the theory behind this calculation, we begin by finding a proportion relating the Sun and moon. We then create, essentially, one large triangle. At one point is the observer, who looks up during a total eclipse to see the Sun and moon with the same angular size. They are different distances away however, so this triangle (currently a V, with the observer looking up) will have two lines opposite the angle, at varying distances away. One is the moon, the further is the Sun. Thus, there are two triangles in this one, the only differences being a) the size of the object, b) the distance to the object.
We can then use the proportion to relate the two distances, so b is the only unknown left to find. The distance to the Sun gives us the distance to the moon, and vice versa.

The RE values are dramatically far from what it is RET states.


Edit: Breakdown to demonstrate how many of the responses are either evasion or misunderstanding.

During a total eclipse, we can calculate the distance from the moon to the Earth in terms of their relative sizes, and the distance from the Sun to the Earth.
Their relative sizes stay the same during an annular eclipse. Only the distances change.
Calculate their relative sizes with pixel measurements of a photo during an annular eclipse, say, or whichever kind of measurement you prefer.
Use this knowledge to remove that unknown during a (limiting) total eclipse, where the Sun and moon appear the same size. You now have a gauge of distance to the moon in terms of distance to the Sun.

None of this relies on any assumptions, beyond the basic assumptions of math and logic. It applies to both FET and RET, but if we apply it to the RE numbers, they fail.

The problem with this is: a sun 64 million km away would indeed cause some problems with our current understanding of distances in the Solar System if it were true. But it would confirm that the Earth is round. Larger, but still round. It would however completely refute Flat Earth.

If it were true.

The problem with this is: a sun 64 million km away would indeed cause some problems with our current understanding of distances in the Solar System if it were true. But it would confirm that the Earth is round. Larger, but still round. It would however completely refute Flat Earth.

If it were true.

The proportion is far more in line with what FET states about the distances to the Sun and moon. The millions figure is relevant only to RET.

It does however thoroughly discredit RET, especially areas such as tides which rely on a nearby moon.
If it is not true, you are welcome to demonstrate it.

I disagree.  It fully supports RET.  As does this...

https://www.space.com/39458-super-blue-blood-moon-eclipse-best-viewing.html

Mike

Quote from: EvolvedMantisShrimp on January 24, 2018, 04:16:42 PM

The problem with this is: a sun 64 million km away would indeed cause some problems with our current understanding of distances in the Solar System if it were true. But it would confirm that the Earth is round. Larger, but still round. It would however completely refute Flat Earth.

If it were true.

The proportion is far more in line with what FET states about the distances to the Sun and moon. The millions figure is relevant only to RET.

It does however thoroughly discredit RET, especially areas such as tides which rely on a nearby moon.
If it is not true, you are welcome to demonstrate it.

All you need to do is measure the angle of elevation and azimuth of the Sun or Moon at a specific time then determine the distance to the zenith location at that time. If the Earth is flat, that information would give you the distance from the Earth to the Sun or Moon. But if that distance is known to be wrong as your calculations claim, then the only rational explanation why is because the surface of the Earth is curved.

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.

Step one. Calculate the proportional sizes of the Sun and moon during an annular eclipse. You'll find the Sun appears to be approximately 1.3 times the size of the moon, it will vary depending on which eclipse.

Yes, with an annular eclipse the sun has a larger angular size than the moon.

Step two. Create two isoceles triangles, one giving the angular distance of the Sun in the sky, one giving the angular distance of the moon. We can fill in these values.
We want the angles to be equal, to give the situation of a total eclipse. The angular distance of both objects will be the same. So in both triangles, the angle will be x.

The angles are only equal for the limiting case of a total eclipse, not an annular eclipse.

The side opposite this angle will have length M (the apparent size of the moon) in the moon triangle, and 1.3 M in the Sun triangle.
The remaining two sides will be k in the Sun triangle, and k+c in the moon triangle. k is the distance to the Sun. c is unknown, defined to just be the difference between the distance to the Sun and the distance to the moon. It will likely be negative.

So you are heading off on with totally incorrect premise.
For an annular eclipse the apparent size of the moon < apparent size of the sunfor the limiting total eclipse the apparent size of the moon = apparent size of the sun and
for most total eclipses  the apparent size of the moon > apparent size of the sun.
So I suggest that you start again.

So I suggest that you start again.

Why? Limiting total eclipses exist.

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.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on January 24, 2018, 04:44:59 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.

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.

The calculations presented are based on incorrect assumptions, which makes it all wrong.  You are making the unfounded assumption that the sun and moon are the same distance from earth, roughly.  When you only know the angular measurement, you cannot make that assumption.  It has been shown over and over that the Eratosthenes method that gives you a distance of 3000 miles only works from exactly two carefully chosen cities (and by the way, it gives the same value for the moon)

Here are three competing scenarios that each give a moon that covers the sun during a total eclipse, and covers 76% of the sun during a 1.3x annular eclipse:

You are making the unfounded assumption that the sun and moon are the same distance from earth, roughly.

At no point do I make that assumption.

Step one. Calculate the proportional sizes of the Sun and moon during an annular eclipse. You'll find the Sun appears to be approximately 1.3 times the size of the moon, it will vary depending on which eclipse.

Assuming you mean the apparent sizes here, then the angular sizes will be in the same proportion, i.e. 1.3:1

Step two. Create two isoceles triangles, one giving the angular distance of the Sun in the sky, one giving the angular distance of the moon. We can fill in these values.
We want the angles to be equal, to give the situation of a total eclipse. The angular distance of both objects will be the same. So in both triangles, the angle will be x.

Hang on. We seem to have gone from an annular eclipse to a total eclipse. Why is that?

Anyway, the apparent size ratio is now 1:1 as per the angular size, agreed?

The side opposite this angle will have length M (the apparent size of the moon) in the moon triangle, and 1.3 M in the Sun triangle.

Er, no. The ratio is now 1:1. The 1.3:1 was for the annular eclipse, remember?

The remaining two sides will be k in the Sun triangle, and k+c in the moon triangle. k is the distance to the Sun. c is unknown, defined to just be the difference between the distance to the Sun and the distance to the moon. It will likely be negative.

You can't say anything about the distances to the sun and moon at this point because your only inputs are the apparent sizes which have a dependency on those distances. So the remainder of your calculations are moot.

In short, the apparent sizes tell you nothing about the distances unless you have some idea of the actual sizes and vice-versa.

<-- insert Father Ted clip here -->

Quote from: EvolvedMantisShrimp on January 24, 2018, 05:23:36 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on January 24, 2018, 04:44:59 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.

I don't know what to tell you. You refuted the wrong model.  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Hang on. We seem to have gone from an annular eclipse to a total eclipse. Why is that?

The total eclipse gives us the distance to one in terms of both the distance to the other, and their relative sizes. The annular eclipse lets us remove one of those unknowns giving us something workable.

Er, no. The ratio is now 1:1. The 1.3:1 was for the annular eclipse, remember?

Yes, which is why I calculated what would be required for that ratio to hold.

I don't know what to tell you. You refuted the wrong model.  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I am still waiting for you to tell me how at any part of the calculation I assumed RET. The only time it ever got brought up was after all the calculations were done, to demonstrate the numbers don't work. You evidently have absolutely no understanding of what my post says.

Quote

Hang on. We seem to have gone from an annular eclipse to a total eclipse. Why is that?

The total eclipse gives us the distance to one in terms of both the distance to the other, and their relative sizes. The annular eclipse lets us remove one of those unknowns giving us something workable.

Quote

Er, no. The ratio is now 1:1. The 1.3:1 was for the annular eclipse, remember?

Yes, which is why I calculated what would be required for that ratio to hold.

Quote

I don't know what to tell you. You refuted the wrong model.  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I am still waiting for you to tell me how at any part of the calculation I assumed RET. The only time it ever got brought up was after all the calculations were done, to demonstrate the numbers don't work. You evidently have absolutely no understanding of what my post says.

Then how far are the sun and moon?

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on January 24, 2018, 05:39:25 PM

Quote

Hang on. We seem to have gone from an annular eclipse to a total eclipse. Why is that?

The total eclipse gives us the distance to one in terms of both the distance to the other, and their relative sizes. The annular eclipse lets us remove one of those unknowns giving us something workable.

Quote

Er, no. The ratio is now 1:1. The 1.3:1 was for the annular eclipse, remember?

Yes, which is why I calculated what would be required for that ratio to hold.

Quote

I don't know what to tell you. You refuted the wrong model.  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I am still waiting for you to tell me how at any part of the calculation I assumed RET. The only time it ever got brought up was after all the calculations were done, to demonstrate the numbers don't work. You evidently have absolutely no understanding of what my post says.

Then how far are the sun and moon?

That's a far trickier question to answer under DET, and it is also irrelevant. The true distance to the Sun does not matter when I am demonstrating that the RE distances cannot coexist. Stop distracting.

Quote

So I suggest that you start again.

Why? Limiting total eclipses exist.

All I meant by a "limiting total eclipse" is where the apparent moon size is exactly the same as the apparent moon size.

In that case, the umbral width is zero and your isosceles triangle have equal angles.

So for the Globe sizes and distances.
The sun's average distance is about 150,000,000 km and it's diameter is about 1,400,000 km (both rounded somewhat) and the moon's is about 3470 km.

So the typical angular size of the sun is 0.0093 radians (0.53° if you prefer).
As the moon becomes closer, we get total eclipses with larger and larger umbral widths and further away, we get annular eclipses.

Of course, the sun's distance varies a little too, but only about 3.5%.

The Globe distances and sizes seem to fit quite well.

Quote from: EvolvedMantisShrimp on January 24, 2018, 05:46:20 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on January 24, 2018, 05:39:25 PM

Quote

Hang on. We seem to have gone from an annular eclipse to a total eclipse. Why is that?

The total eclipse gives us the distance to one in terms of both the distance to the other, and their relative sizes. The annular eclipse lets us remove one of those unknowns giving us something workable.

Quote

Er, no. The ratio is now 1:1. The 1.3:1 was for the annular eclipse, remember?

Yes, which is why I calculated what would be required for that ratio to hold.

Quote

I don't know what to tell you. You refuted the wrong model.  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I am still waiting for you to tell me how at any part of the calculation I assumed RET. The only time it ever got brought up was after all the calculations were done, to demonstrate the numbers don't work. You evidently have absolutely no understanding of what my post says.

Then how far are the sun and moon?

That's a far trickier question to answer under DET, and it is also irrelevant. The true distance to the Sun does not matter when I am demonstrating that the RE distances cannot coexist. Stop distracting.

So you think your proof refuted a Sun with a radius of 695700 km at a distance of 149600000 km cannot be occluded by a Moon with a radius of 1797 km at a distance of 405,000 km?

Because I bet if you did the math with those numbers, the angles would be almost perfect.

Quote

You are making the unfounded assumption that the sun and moon are the same distance from earth, roughly.

At no point do I make that assumption.

Maybe if you present a diagram, I wouldn't misunderstand you.

The true distance to the Sun does not matter when I am demonstrating that the RE distances cannot coexist. Stop distracting.

I'd say that if you don't have a more accurate explanation, it is certainly relevant.

All flat earthers seem to do is attempt to "tear the Globe apart", with no better hypothesis to replace it.

In that case, the umbral width is zero and your isosceles triangle have equal angles.

The triangle only exists in a workable fashion for a limiting total eclipse. It is why I specifically said I was dealing with the case where they appear to be the same size. I suggest you go back and reread as you clearly didn't take the time to understand what I said.

So for the Globe sizes and distances.
The sun's average distance is about 150,000,000 km and it's diameter is about 1,400,000 km (both rounded somewhat) and the moon's is about 3470 km.

So the typical angular size of the sun is 0.0093 radians (0.53° if you prefer).

For this limiting total eclipse, the moon must be: 3474/0.0093 = 371,786 km away, which is nicely above the closest approach of the moon, about 356,500 km.

Instead of taking the figures you are given and are told work, do the calculations for yourself, as I did.

So you think your proof refuted a Sun with a radius of 695700 km at a distance of 149600000 km cannot be occluded by a Moon with a radius of 1797 km at a distance of 405,000 km?

Because I bet if you did the math with those numbers, the angles would be almost perfect.

I disproved the notion that the moon we observe during annular eclipses can be as far away from the Sun during total eclipses as RET predicts. If you disagree, I am still waiting for you to provide a problem with the proof.

Maybe if you present a diagram, I wouldn't misunderstand you.

Or you could pay attention to the calculation.

I'd say that if you don't have a more accurate explanation, it is certainly relevant.

All flat earthers seem to do is attempt to "tear the Globe apart", with no better hypothesis to replace it.

I have a better model to replace it, I link to DET in my sig in every post I make. I will also not put up with your blatant cowardice and attempts to run away and distract from the point here.

I disproved the notion that the moon we observe during annular eclipses can be as far away from the Sun during total eclipses as RET predicts. If you disagree, I am still waiting for you to provide a problem with the proof.

I just did. Check the numbers.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on January 24, 2018, 05:58:41 PM

I disproved the notion that the moon we observe during annular eclipses can be as far away from the Sun during total eclipses as RET predicts. If you disagree, I am still waiting for you to provide a problem with the proof.

I just did. Check the numbers.

No you didn't, you threw out a bunch of random numbers that you want to insist work. I have already shown that, even if they do, they are not the numbers we observe in the real world as the proportion is entirely wrong.

I suggest you at least try to actually read my post.

Quote from: EvolvedMantisShrimp on January 24, 2018, 06:02:56 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on January 24, 2018, 05:58:41 PM

I disproved the notion that the moon we observe during annular eclipses can be as far away from the Sun during total eclipses as RET predicts. If you disagree, I am still waiting for you to provide a problem with the proof.

I just did. Check the numbers.

No you didn't, you threw out a bunch of random numbers that you want to insist work. I have already shown that, even if they do, they are not the numbers we observe in the real world as the proportion is entirely wrong.

I suggest you at least try to actually read my post.

They aren't random. They are the actual numbers. Check them. See if they work. See if they produce an annular eclipse. If they don't, then we'll go from there.

The point to consider is to do a little research to find out  why eclipses appear as they do.
It has to do with the sizes of the earth, the moon and the sun and the distances between them.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on January 24, 2018, 06:04:55 PM

Quote from: EvolvedMantisShrimp on January 24, 2018, 06:02:56 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on January 24, 2018, 05:58:41 PM

I disproved the notion that the moon we observe during annular eclipses can be as far away from the Sun during total eclipses as RET predicts. If you disagree, I am still waiting for you to provide a problem with the proof.

I just did. Check the numbers.

No you didn't, you threw out a bunch of random numbers that you want to insist work. I have already shown that, even if they do, they are not the numbers we observe in the real world as the proportion is entirely wrong.

I suggest you at least try to actually read my post.

They aren't random. They are the actual numbers. Check them. See if they work. See if they produce an annular eclipse. If they don't, then we'll go from there.

They cannot produce both an annular and total eclipse, because I have already proven the proportions necessary do not work for RET. If you disagree I am waiting for you to stop being such a fucking coward and address the proof.

The point to consider is to do a liitle research to find out  why eclipses appear as they do.
It has to do with the sizes of the earth, the moon and the sun and the distances between them.

I know, which is why I used that knowledge in constructing the post, and demonstrating that the distances between them are not in line with RET.

Quote from: EvolvedMantisShrimp on January 24, 2018, 06:08:35 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on January 24, 2018, 06:04:55 PM

Quote from: EvolvedMantisShrimp on January 24, 2018, 06:02:56 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on January 24, 2018, 05:58:41 PM

I disproved the notion that the moon we observe during annular eclipses can be as far away from the Sun during total eclipses as RET predicts. If you disagree, I am still waiting for you to provide a problem with the proof.

I just did. Check the numbers.

No you didn't, you threw out a bunch of random numbers that you want to insist work. I have already shown that, even if they do, they are not the numbers we observe in the real world as the proportion is entirely wrong.

I suggest you at least try to actually read my post.

They aren't random. They are the actual numbers. Check them. See if they work. See if they produce an annular eclipse. If they don't, then we'll go from there.

They cannot produce both an annular and total eclipse, because I have already proven the proportions necessary do not work for RET. If you disagree I am waiting for you to stop being such a fucking coward and address the proof.

Quote

The point to consider is to do a liitle research to find out  why eclipses appear as they do.
It has to do with the sizes of the earth, the moon and the sun and the distances between them.

I know, which is why I used that knowledge in constructing the post, and demonstrating that the distances between them are not in line with RET.

Your "proof" is fatally flawed. The real  numbers work.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on January 24, 2018, 06:10:21 PM

They cannot produce both an annular and total eclipse, because I have already proven the proportions necessary do not work for RET. If you disagree I am waiting for you to stop being such a fucking coward and address the proof.

Your "proof is fatally flawed." I let it slide because you also proved that the Earth can't be flat. The numbers I gave produce an annular eclipse. If you want a total eclipse, use any number between 362600 and 380000 km. It is primarily the difference between the Moon's perigee(362600) and apogee(405400) that determines whether an eclipse is total or annular.

Check the numbers.

If it's flawed then show the flaw. Randomly giving a set of numbers without appealing any real world facts, as I did, is meaningless, all the more so because one set of numbers cannot explain both total and annular eclipses. If you want to know what relationship numbers need in order to explain both then READ MY FUCKING POST ALREADY.
If you are just going to repeat that lie, then you have no understanding of what it says. The shape of the Earth never enters into it. I could have made the entire post and never mentioned it once. RET is brought up only to demonstrate the numbers do not work. They are far more in line with what FET predicts about the nearby nature of the Sun and moon. You have demonstrated yourself to be nothing but an evasive, lying coward.

Quote from: EvolvedMantisShrimp on January 24, 2018, 06:19:55 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on January 24, 2018, 06:10:21 PM

They cannot produce both an annular and total eclipse, because I have already proven the proportions necessary do not work for RET. If you disagree I am waiting for you to stop being such a fucking coward and address the proof.

Your "proof is fatally flawed." I let it slide because you also proved that the Earth can't be flat. The numbers I gave produce an annular eclipse. If you want a total eclipse, use any number between 362600 and 380000 km. It is primarily the difference between the Moon's perigee(362600) and apogee(405400) that determines whether an eclipse is total or annular.

Check the numbers.

If it's flawed then show the flaw. Randomly giving a set of numbers without appealing any real world facts, as I did, is meaningless, all the more so because one set of numbers cannot explain both total and annular eclipses. If you want to know what relationship numbers need in order to explain both then READ MY FUCKING POST ALREADY.
If you are just going to repeat that lie, then you have no understanding of what it says. The shape of the Earth never enters into it. I could have made the entire post and never mentioned it once. RET is brought up only to demonstrate the numbers do not work. They are far more in line with what FET predicts about the nearby nature of the Sun and moon. You have demonstrated yourself to be nothing but an evasive, lying coward.

You have already been shown the flaw in this thread. Want to see your fatal flaw with your own eyes? On the next sunny day, block the Sun with you hand.

And stop calling me a coward, you fucking imbecile.