Solar eclipse of November 23, 2003

  • 75 Replies
  • 3699 Views
*

kopfverderber

  • 440
  • Globularist
Solar eclipse of November 23, 2003
« on: September 05, 2019, 12:15:36 PM »
I have been researching FE explanations for Solar eclipses. I found this:

"A Solar Eclipse occurs when an observer on Earth passes through the shadow cast by the Moon which fully or partially blocks the Sun. This happens when the Sun, Moon and observer are nearly aligned on a straight line when the Moon is close to the ecliptic. In a total solar eclipse, the disk of the Sun is fully obscured by the Moon. In partial and annular eclipses, only part of the Sun is obscured." (https://wiki.tfes.org/Solar_Eclipse)

So far so good. Then I found this eclipse from November 23 2003:




Most solar eclipses move from west to east, however this eclipse is moving first south and then west. I'm not sure how that would fit the FE model.

Then there's the fact that the penumbra covers all of Antarctica at the same time. On FE that would mean the whole ice wall is covered by the penumbra. I'm not sure how could that work on FE, maybe there's more than one moon? or the sun got inside the moon? I'm out of ideas.

The penumbra starts in Australia, where a partial eclipse was visible in most of the country and 4 hours later it reaches the southern tip of South America. On the FE disk that would be a huge distance for the shadow to cover in just four hours. Since FE southern hemisphere is three times bigger as the northern hemisphere, maybe that is expected. However I haven't found any information regarding to eclipse shadow speed in FE. Is it rue that FE eclipses move faster in the southern hemisphere?

So the my questions for FE are:
1. Can FE explain sun and moon path and distances during this eclipse?
2. Does the eclipse shadow move generally faster in southern eclipses vs northern eclipses?
You must gather your party before venturing forth

*

EvolvedMantisShrimp

  • 926
  • Physical Comedian
Re: Solar eclipse of November 23, 2003
« Reply #1 on: September 05, 2019, 01:39:57 PM »
November 23, 2003 is nothing but NASA CGI. The whole day has been photoshopped.  ;)
Nullius in Verba

*

rvlvr

  • 1884
Re: Solar eclipse of November 23, 2003
« Reply #2 on: September 05, 2019, 01:40:14 PM »
I think the easiest answer is the eclipse did not happen. Or it did, but not the way you describe.

FE is clever.

EDIT: Prawnman got there first.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6454
Re: Solar eclipse of November 23, 2003
« Reply #3 on: September 05, 2019, 01:49:57 PM »
You chose the wrong solar eclipse.

We know for sure the identity of two of the three heavenly bodies which take part in a solar eclipse: the Sun and the Earth.

However, the photographs taken in Antarctica by Fred Bruenjes, during the November 2003 total solar eclipse show us that the Moon COULD NOT POSSIBLY cause the solar eclipse.







http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/


CONFIRMATION OF THE ALLAIS EFFECT DURING THE 2003 SOLAR ECLIPSE:

http://www.acad.ro/sectii2002/proceedings/doc3_2004/03_Mihaila.pdf

(it also shows that the effect was confirmed during the August 1999 solar eclipse)


The title of the paper is as follows:

A NEW CONFIRMATION OF THE ALLAIS EFFECT
DURING THE SOLAR ECLIPSE OF 31 MAY 2003

"During the total solar eclipse of 11 August 1999, the existence of the Allais effect was confirmed."

The authors indicate that more measurements/experiments have to be undertaken during future solar eclipses.

*

Stash

  • 5746
Re: Solar eclipse of November 23, 2003
« Reply #4 on: September 05, 2019, 02:03:34 PM »
You chose the wrong solar eclipse.

We know for sure the identity of two of the three heavenly bodies which take part in a solar eclipse: the Sun and the Earth.

However, the photographs taken in Antarctica by Fred Bruenjes, during the November 2003 total solar eclipse show us that the Moon COULD NOT POSSIBLY cause the solar eclipse.

Why?

*

kopfverderber

  • 440
  • Globularist
Re: Solar eclipse of November 23, 2003
« Reply #5 on: September 05, 2019, 02:08:29 PM »
You chose the wrong solar eclipse.

We know for sure the identity of two of the three heavenly bodies which take part in a solar eclipse: the Sun and the Earth.

However, the photographs taken in Antarctica by Fred Bruenjes, during the November 2003 total solar eclipse show us that the Moon COULD NOT POSSIBLY cause the solar eclipse.







http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/


CONFIRMATION OF THE ALLAIS EFFECT DURING THE 2003 SOLAR ECLIPSE:

http://www.acad.ro/sectii2002/proceedings/doc3_2004/03_Mihaila.pdf

(it also shows that the effect was confirmed during the August 1999 solar eclipse)


The title of the paper is as follows:

A NEW CONFIRMATION OF THE ALLAIS EFFECT
DURING THE SOLAR ECLIPSE OF 31 MAY 2003

"During the total solar eclipse of 11 August 1999, the existence of the Allais effect was confirmed."

The authors indicate that more measurements/experiments have to be undertaken during future solar eclipses.

A third body? That's a good one. What makes you think it wasn't the moon and how could NASA and others predict the eclipse if it was caused by an unknown body?

You must gather your party before venturing forth

*

kopfverderber

  • 440
  • Globularist
Re: Solar eclipse of November 23, 2003
« Reply #6 on: September 05, 2019, 02:14:22 PM »
Btw Sandokhan, from your link:

Quote
The framed image below is a highly processed composite of four images that's intended to be a more artistic representation of what the eclipse felt like. I have increased the color saturation slightly to better show the green thru red corona colors, otherwise the image is truthful. (For an unprocessed single image click here, or here for a detailed explanation of how the image was created.)

This is the real image:


Why would you use the processed artistic image instead of the real one in your post?
You must gather your party before venturing forth

*

mak3m

  • 737
Re: Solar eclipse of November 23, 2003
« Reply #7 on: September 05, 2019, 02:23:08 PM »
You chose the wrong solar eclipse.

We know for sure the identity of two of the three heavenly bodies which take part in a solar eclipse: the Sun and the Earth.

However, the photographs taken in Antarctica by Fred Bruenjes, during the November 2003 total solar eclipse show us that the Moon COULD NOT POSSIBLY cause the solar eclipse.

Why?

 ::)

Keep up

Experiments that cant be fully replicated, produce results showing a result for an as yet unidentified source, which requires further observation.

Which turns out provides positive proof of a black sun...

Erm obviously apparently
You have to learn to reply without quoting a long previous answer.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6454
Re: Solar eclipse of November 23, 2003
« Reply #8 on: September 05, 2019, 02:28:02 PM »
Everyone here knows about these fantastic photographs.

The color of the Black Sun is unprocessed.

What makes you think it wasn't the moon

The Allais effect:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg760382#msg760382

*

EvolvedMantisShrimp

  • 926
  • Physical Comedian
Re: Solar eclipse of November 23, 2003
« Reply #9 on: September 05, 2019, 02:29:55 PM »
What is a 'black sun'?
Nullius in Verba

*

kopfverderber

  • 440
  • Globularist
Re: Solar eclipse of November 23, 2003
« Reply #10 on: September 05, 2019, 02:35:49 PM »
Everyone here knows about these fantastic photographs.

The color of the Black Sun is unprocessed.

What makes you think it wasn't the moon

The Allais effect:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg760382#msg760382

How did NASA and others predict the eclipse and its exact path? Next one in the same Saros cycle is in 2021. Does NASA know about the black sun then?

The moon looks black just like in other eclipses. The image you used to prove your point is an artistic representation made of these four images.  Nothing unusual.



You must gather your party before venturing forth

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6454
Re: Solar eclipse of November 23, 2003
« Reply #11 on: September 05, 2019, 02:39:34 PM »
Cut out the BS.

The heavenly body in the photograph is located less than 1000 km from the photographer.

If that is the Moon, then Armstrong and Aldrin might as well have used a raindeer drawn carriage to reach it.

It couldn't possibly be the Moon.

*

Stash

  • 5746
Re: Solar eclipse of November 23, 2003
« Reply #12 on: September 05, 2019, 02:48:30 PM »
Cut out the BS.

The heavenly body in the photograph is located less than 1000 km from the photographer.

How would you know this? Why not 2000 km?

If that is the Moon, then Armstrong and Aldrin might as well have used a raindeer drawn carriage to reach it.

It couldn't possibly be the Moon.

How would you know this?

*

kopfverderber

  • 440
  • Globularist
Re: Solar eclipse of November 23, 2003
« Reply #13 on: September 05, 2019, 02:53:34 PM »
Cut out the BS.

The heavenly body in the photograph is located less than 1000 km from the photographer.

If that is the Moon, then Armstrong and Aldrin might as well have used a raindeer drawn carriage to reach it.

It couldn't possibly be the Moon.

Ok, so you don't believe it's the moon. Then as proof you post an artistic picture, a link to a paper about the (dubious) Allais effect in a different eclipse in the same year and your opinion that the moon seems to be too close. So all we have is your opinion.  Good luck finding the black sun.
You must gather your party before venturing forth

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6454
Re: Solar eclipse of November 23, 2003
« Reply #14 on: September 05, 2019, 03:08:35 PM »
No artistic picture, a very real one, taken by one of the world's most famous photographers, Fred Bruenjes.

The Allais effect is very real as well.

REFERENCE #1

CONFIRMATION OF THE ALLAIS EFFECT DURING THE 2003 SOLAR ECLIPSE:

http://www.acad.ro/sectii2002/proceedings/doc3_2004/03_Mihaila.pdf

(it also shows that the effect was confirmed during the August 1999 solar eclipse)


The title of the paper is as follows:

A NEW CONFIRMATION OF THE ALLAIS EFFECT
DURING THE SOLAR ECLIPSE OF 31 MAY 2003

"During the total solar eclipse of 11 August 1999, the existence of the Allais effect was confirmed."

The authors indicate that more measurements/experiments have to be undertaken during future solar eclipses.


REFERENCE #2

CONFIRMATION OF THE ALLAIS EFFECT DURING THE SEPT. 2006 SOLAR ECLIPSE:

http://www.hessdalen.org/sse/program/Articol.pdf

The title of the article is as follows:

A confirmation of the Allais and Jeverdan-Rusu-Antonescu effects
during the solar eclipse from 22 September 2006 , and the quantization
of behaviour of pendulum


"The experiments made with a paraconical pendulum during annular solar eclipse from 22 September 2006 confirm once again the existence of the Allais effect."


REFERENCE #3

CONFIRMATION OF THE ALLAIS EFFECT DURING THE 2008 SOLAR ECLIPSE:

http://ivanik3.narod.ru/Astrophiz/AnomSunEclip/pugarticleGoodey.pdf

Published in the Journal of Advanced Research in Physics


Given the above, the authors consider that it is an inescapable conclusion from our experiments that after the end of the visible eclipse, as the Moon departed the angular vicinity of the Sun, some influence exerted itself upon the Eastern European region containing our three sets of equipment, extending over a field at least hundreds of kilometers in width.

The nature of this common influence is unknown, but plainly it cannot be considered as gravitational in the usually accepted sense of Newtonian or Einsteinian gravitation.


We therefore are compelled to the opinion that some currently unknown physical influence was at work.


REFERENCE #4

The Allais pendulum effect confirmed in an experiment performed in 1961:

http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf074/sf074a05.htm


REFERENCE #5

Observations of Correlated Behavior of Two Light Torsion Balances and a Paraconical Pendulum in Separate Locations during the Solar Eclipse of January 26th, 2009:


http://www.researchgate.net/publication/235701910_Observations_of_Correlated_Behavior_of_Two_Light_TorsionBalances_and_a_Paraconical_Pendulum_in_Separate_Locationsduring_the_Solar_Eclipse_of_January_26th_2009

http://www.hindawi.com/journals/aa/2012/263818/

Published in the Advances in Astronomy Journal

Another independent confirmation has been obtained of the previously established fact that at the time of solar eclipses, a specific reaction of the torsion balance can be observed. During a solar eclipse, the readings of two neighboring TBs seem to be correlated. This fact demonstrates the nonaleatory character of the reactions of TBs. Consequently, the reaction of these devices is deterministic, not random. A solar eclipse is such a determinant, since upon termination of a solar eclipse, the correlation becomes insignificant. This conclusion is supported by the PP observations. The PP graph and the TB graphs showed obvious similarity, with the coefficient of correlation of these two independent curves being close to 1.

In particular, we wonder how any physical momentum can be transferred to our instrument during a solar eclipse. Gravity can hardly suffice as an explanation even for understanding the results of the PP measurements. The gravitational potential grows slowly and smoothly over a number of days before eclipse and then declines smoothly afterwards without any sudden variations, but we see relatively short-term events. Moreover, gravity is certainly not applicable to the explanation of the results of the TB observations, since the TB is not sensitive to changes in gravitational potential.

The cause of the time lag between the response of the device in Suceava and the reactions of the devices in Kiev also remains unknown. What can be this force which acts so selectively in space and time?

The anomalies found, that defy understanding in terms of modern physics, are in line with other anomalies, described in a recently published compendium “Should the Laws of Gravitation be reconsidered?” [14].


REFERENCE #6

Precise Underground Observations of the Partial Solar Eclipse of 1 June 2011 Using a Foucault Pendulum and a Very Light Torsion Balance

Published in the International Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics Journal


http://www.researchgate.net/publication/235701885_Precise_Underground_Observations_of_the_Partial_Solar_Eclipse_of_1_June_2011_Using_a_Foucault_Pendulum_and_a_Very_Light_Torsion_Balance

http://file.scirp.org/Html/3-4500094_26045.htm

http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=26045


Simultaneous observations of the solar eclipse on 06/01/2011 were carried out using a Foucault pendulum and a torsion balance. The instruments were installed in a salt mine, where the interference was minimal. Both instruments clearly reacted to the eclipse. We conclude that these reactions should not be considered as being gravitational effects.

REFERENCE #7

Dr. Erwin Saxl experiment (1970)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1629054#msg1629054

Published in the Physical Review Journal

Saxl and Allen went on to note that to explain these remarkable eclipse observations, according to "conventional Newtonian/Einsteinian gravitational theory," an increase in the weight of the pendumum bob itself on the order of ~5% would be required ... amounting to (for the ~51.5-lb pendulum bob in the experiment) an increase of ~2.64 lbs!

This would be on the order of one hundred thousand (100,000) times greater than any possible "gravitational tidal effects" Saxl and Allen calculated (using Newtonian Gravitational Theory/ Relativity Theory).



A TOTAL DEFIANCE OF NEWTONIAN MECHANICS.

For the same masses/corresponding distances of the Earth, Sun and the Moon, during the Allais experiment, the pendulum's direction of rotation changed from clockwise to counterclockwise, at the end of the eclipse it resumed its normal direction of rotation.

In order to arrive at an explanation, M. Allais considered a wide range
of known periodic phenomena, including the terrestrial tides, variations in
the intensity of gravity, thermal or barometric effects, magnetic variations,
microseismic effects, cosmic rays, and the periodic character of human
activity. Yet, on close examination, the very peculiar nature of the
periodicity shown by the change in azimuth of the pendulum forced the
elimination of all of these as cause.


Dr. Maurice Allais:

In both cases, with the experiments with the anisotropic
support and with those with the isotropic support, it is found
that the amplitudes of the periodic effects are considerably
greater than those calculated according to the law of gravitation,
whether or not completed by the theory of relativity.
In the case of the anisotropic support, the amplitude of
the luni-solar component of 24h 50m is about twenty million
times greater than the amplitude calculated by the theory of
universal gravitation.

In the case of the paraconical pendulum with isotropic
support, this relation is about a hundred million.


In other words, the pendulum motions Allais observed during his two eclipses – 1954 and 1959 -- were physically IMPOSSIBLE … according to all known “textbook physics!”


"Allais used the phrase “a brutal displacement” … to describe the “sudden, extraordinary backwards movement” of the pendulum his laboratory chief had seen (and carefully recorded!), even while not knowing its “mysterious” cause ... until later that same afternoon.

Here (below) is what those “anomalous eclipse motions” in Allias’ pendulum looked like; this graphic, adapted from Scientific American, depicts the mechanical arrangement of Allais’ unique paraconical pendulum (below – left).

The three vertical panels to its right illustrate the pendulum’s “highly anomalous motions” -- recorded during two partial solar eclipses to cross Allais’ Paris laboratory in the 1950’s (the first in 1954, the second in 1959); the phase of each eclipse that corresponded with these “anomalous motions,” is depicted in the last three vertical strips (far right)."




"This normal, downward-sloping trend is abruptly REVERSED!

From there, things rapidly got even more bizarre--

As the pendulum’s azimuth motion continues in an accelerating, COUNTER-clockwise direction … for the next 45 minutes; then, after peaking, the pendulum motion REVERSES direction (moving clockwise again …), only to reverse BACK again (counterclockwise!) … briefly [as the Moon reaches “mid-eclipse” (the central green line)] -- before abruptly reversing once more, accelerating again in a CLOCKWISE direction … before eventually “bottoming out” … parallel to the ORIGINAL “Foucault/Earth rotation” downward-sloping trend line!"

HERE ARE THE PRECISE CALCULATIONS INVOLVING THE ALLAIS EFFECT:




Dr. Maurice Allais:

With regard to the validity of my experiments, it seems
best to reproduce here the testimony of General Paul Bergeron,
ex-president of the Committee for Scientific Activities for
National Defense, in his letter of May 1959 to Werner von
Braun:

"Before writing to you, I considered it necessary to
visit the two laboratories of Professor Allais (one 60
meters underground), in the company of eminent
specialists – including two professors at the Ecole
Polytechnique. During several hours of discussion, we
could find no source of significant error, nor did any
attempt at explanation survive analysis.

"I should also tell you that during the last two years,
more than ten members of the Academy of Sciences and
more than thirty eminent personalities, specialists in
various aspects of gravitation, have visited both his
laboratory at Saint-Germain, and his underground
laboratory at Bougival.

"Deep discussions took place, not only on these
occasions, but many times in various scientific contexts,
notably at the Academy of Sciences and the National
Center for Scientific Research. None of these discussions
could evolve any explanation within the framework of
currently accepted theories."


This letter confirms clearly the fact that was finally
admitted at the time - the total impossibility of explaining the
perceived anomalies within the framework of currently
accepted theory.



An overview of the Allais effect (parts I - VII):

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1676115#msg1676115 (the Black Sun and the laevorotatory subquarks)


Proof that the lunar eclipse could not possibly be caused by the Earth:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2138487#msg2138487

*

kopfverderber

  • 440
  • Globularist
Re: Solar eclipse of November 23, 2003
« Reply #15 on: September 05, 2019, 03:12:32 PM »
No artistic picture, a very real one, taken by one of the world's most famous photographers, Fred Bruenjes.

Did you miss the part where Fred Bruenjes says it's an artistic picture in the link you provided yourself?

Quote
The framed image below is a highly processed composite of four images that's intended to be a more artistic representation of what the eclipse felt like.
Fred Bruenjes
http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/
You must gather your party before venturing forth

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Solar eclipse of November 23, 2003
« Reply #16 on: September 05, 2019, 03:14:19 PM »
You chose the wrong solar eclipse.

We know for sure the identity of two of the three heavenly bodies which take part in a solar eclipse: the Sun and the Earth.

However, the photographs taken in Antarctica by Fred Bruenjes, during the November 2003 total solar eclipse show us that the Moon COULD NOT POSSIBLY cause the solar eclipse.
Please explain why the third body cannot be moon!

Here is the path of the eclipse and X marks the spot at the exact time of the new moon - Nov 23rd 2003 at 22:58 UTC.



That fits perfectly with the moon being the third body.

Quote from: sandokhan
     
The 2003 Antarctic Total Solar Eclipse, November 23, 2003 by Fred Bruenjes
I see no problem with those except that the photo you show is a composite to achieve a good exposure of the whole region.

Now, just for interest, could you show your photos that prove that the sun is about 600 metres in diameter and roughly 15 km above the earth - or should I?

*

Stash

  • 5746
Re: Solar eclipse of November 23, 2003
« Reply #17 on: September 05, 2019, 03:14:53 PM »
No artistic picture, a very real one, taken by one of the world's most famous photographers, Fred Bruenjes.

Actually, it was already pointed out to you that one of the world's most famous photographers, Fred Bruenjes, describes his photo as "a highly processed composite of four images that's intended to be a more artistic representation of what the eclipse felt like."

So how do you know the moon is 1000 km away in that image?

*

mak3m

  • 737
Re: Solar eclipse of November 23, 2003
« Reply #18 on: September 05, 2019, 03:15:06 PM »
What is a 'black sun'?

Dont Google it at work comes back with all kinds of crazy nazi shit

You have to learn to reply without quoting a long previous answer.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6454
Re: Solar eclipse of November 23, 2003
« Reply #19 on: September 05, 2019, 03:25:25 PM »
The Black Sun is Fenrir in nordic mythology.

It has the same diameter as that of the Sun.

No artistic imagery: the color of the Black Sun was not modified in any way, the author clearly describes everything, that is why I included the link from the very start.

It cannot be the Moon.

Yes, the image shows a heavenly body which is very close, geographically, from the photographer, a total confirmation of the 636 meter height, but more basically YOU, THE RE, have to explain the Allais effect.

Unless you can explain the Allais effect, I win.

Here are the calculations published by Dr. Allais, sent to Nasa (Dr. Maurice Allais, a Nobel prize winner):



Dr. Maurice Allais:

In both cases, with the experiments with the anisotropic
support and with those with the isotropic support, it is found
that the amplitudes of the periodic effects are considerably
greater than those calculated according to the law of gravitation,
whether or not completed by the theory of relativity.
In the case of the anisotropic support, the amplitude of
the luni-solar component of 24h 50m is about twenty million
times greater than the amplitude calculated by the theory of
universal gravitation.

In the case of the paraconical pendulum with isotropic
support, this relation is about a hundred million.


I already explained everything about the new Moon:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1628430#msg1628430

*

EvolvedMantisShrimp

  • 926
  • Physical Comedian
Re: Solar eclipse of November 23, 2003
« Reply #20 on: September 05, 2019, 03:29:58 PM »
The Black Sun is Fenrir in nordic mythology.

It has the same diameter as that of the Sun.

No artistic imagery: the color of the Black Sun was not modified in any way, the author clearly describes everything, that is why I included the link from the very start.

It cannot be the Moon.

Yes, the image shows a heavenly body which is very close, geographically, from the photographer, a total confirmation of the 636 meter height, but more basically YOU, THE RE, have to explain the Allais effect.

Unless you can explain the Allais effect, I win.

I have no interest in the Allais effect. Let's focus on this 'black sun'. Where is it right now? What is its orbit? What is its composition? How can it be the same size as the Sun without significant gravitational effects?
Nullius in Verba

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6454
Re: Solar eclipse of November 23, 2003
« Reply #21 on: September 05, 2019, 03:39:45 PM »
There is no gravitation effect, in the sense of Newtonian gravitation.

Newton first had to prove that the Earth rotates around its own axis, before trying to apply any equations to other planets.

Einstein failed to show that his GR applies to many body problems, that is why he was refused the Nobel prize in general relativity.

There is no such thing as attractive gravitation.

Terrestrial gravity is a force of pressure.

Stellar/planetary gravity is a force of rotation, the circulating aether (Newton's own words) causes the planets to orbit between the two domes.

The Black Sun only crosses the sky to cause the solar eclipse, for the rest of the time it orbits the flat earth surface beyond Antarctica.

*

Stash

  • 5746
Re: Solar eclipse of November 23, 2003
« Reply #22 on: September 05, 2019, 03:47:17 PM »
The Black Sun only crosses the sky to cause the solar eclipse, for the rest of the time it orbits the flat earth surface beyond Antarctica.

How would you know this?

*

EvolvedMantisShrimp

  • 926
  • Physical Comedian
Re: Solar eclipse of November 23, 2003
« Reply #23 on: September 05, 2019, 03:51:51 PM »
The Black Sun only crosses the sky to cause the solar eclipse, for the rest of the time it orbits the flat earth surface beyond Antarctica.

Isn't it a bit peculiar to you that by a cosmic coincidence of timing, all Solar Eclipses have occurred during New Moons?
Nullius in Verba

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 40126
Re: Solar eclipse of November 23, 2003
« Reply #24 on: September 05, 2019, 04:42:34 PM »
Everyone here knows about these fantastic photographs.

The color of the Black Sun is unprocessed.

What makes you think it wasn't the moon

The Allais effect:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg760382#msg760382
If the moon doesn't cause the eclipse, then where is the moon during the eclipse and why do eclipses only ever happen when the moon is predicted to be in front of the sun?
« Last Edit: September 05, 2019, 04:44:26 PM by markjo »
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.

*

EvolvedMantisShrimp

  • 926
  • Physical Comedian
Re: Solar eclipse of November 23, 2003
« Reply #25 on: September 05, 2019, 04:59:58 PM »
Everyone here knows about these fantastic photographs.

The color of the Black Sun is unprocessed.

What makes you think it wasn't the moon

The Allais effect:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg760382#msg760382
If the moon doesn't cause the eclipse, then where is the moon during the eclipse and why do eclipses only ever happen when the moon is predicted to be in front of the sun?


And we are REALLY GOOD a predicting solar eclipses! Here is a map of every solar eclipse to come until 2060:


Now if predicting solar eclipses is so easy, why can't Sandokhan tell us EXACTLY where the 'black sun' is right now?
Nullius in Verba

*

Shifter

  • 15348
  • Flat Earth Believer
Re: Solar eclipse of November 23, 2003
« Reply #26 on: September 05, 2019, 05:03:32 PM »
Everyone here knows about these fantastic photographs.

The color of the Black Sun is unprocessed.

What makes you think it wasn't the moon

The Allais effect:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg760382#msg760382
If the moon doesn't cause the eclipse, then where is the moon during the eclipse and why do eclipses only ever happen when the moon is predicted to be in front of the sun?


And we are REALLY GOOD a predicting solar eclipses! Here is a map of every solar eclipse to come until 2060:


Now if predicting solar eclipses is so easy, why can't Sandokhan tell us EXACTLY where the 'black sun' is right now?

You cant tell us that is accurate until after the fact. Lets see that picture again in 2060 and see if it comes to pass just as it says
RIP rabinoz. Forum legend

*

EvolvedMantisShrimp

  • 926
  • Physical Comedian
Re: Solar eclipse of November 23, 2003
« Reply #27 on: September 05, 2019, 05:06:21 PM »
Everyone here knows about these fantastic photographs.

The color of the Black Sun is unprocessed.

What makes you think it wasn't the moon

The Allais effect:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg760382#msg760382
If the moon doesn't cause the eclipse, then where is the moon during the eclipse and why do eclipses only ever happen when the moon is predicted to be in front of the sun?


And we are REALLY GOOD a predicting solar eclipses! Here is a map of every solar eclipse to come until 2060:


Now if predicting solar eclipses is so easy, why can't Sandokhan tell us EXACTLY where the 'black sun' is right now?

You cant tell us that is accurate until after the fact. Lets see that picture again in 2060 and see if it comes to pass just as it says

Considering the map is copyright 2011, we are already getting a sneak peek at its accuracy.
Nullius in Verba

*

Shifter

  • 15348
  • Flat Earth Believer
Re: Solar eclipse of November 23, 2003
« Reply #28 on: September 05, 2019, 05:10:11 PM »
Everyone here knows about these fantastic photographs.

The color of the Black Sun is unprocessed.

What makes you think it wasn't the moon

The Allais effect:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg760382#msg760382
If the moon doesn't cause the eclipse, then where is the moon during the eclipse and why do eclipses only ever happen when the moon is predicted to be in front of the sun?


And we are REALLY GOOD a predicting solar eclipses! Here is a map of every solar eclipse to come until 2060:


Now if predicting solar eclipses is so easy, why can't Sandokhan tell us EXACTLY where the 'black sun' is right now?

You cant tell us that is accurate until after the fact. Lets see that picture again in 2060 and see if it comes to pass just as it says

Considering the map is copyright 2011, we are already getting a sneak peek at its accuracy.

Do you have a cached image proving its existence in 2011 to authenticate that? Otherwise as far as I may as well know it could have been whipped up last week
RIP rabinoz. Forum legend

*

Stash

  • 5746
Re: Solar eclipse of November 23, 2003
« Reply #29 on: September 05, 2019, 05:10:52 PM »
Everyone here knows about these fantastic photographs.

The color of the Black Sun is unprocessed.

What makes you think it wasn't the moon

The Allais effect:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg760382#msg760382
If the moon doesn't cause the eclipse, then where is the moon during the eclipse and why do eclipses only ever happen when the moon is predicted to be in front of the sun?


And we are REALLY GOOD a predicting solar eclipses! Here is a map of every solar eclipse to come until 2060:


Now if predicting solar eclipses is so easy, why can't Sandokhan tell us EXACTLY where the 'black sun' is right now?

You cant tell us that is accurate until after the fact. Lets see that picture again in 2060 and see if it comes to pass just as it says

If 2011 to 2019 is any sort of a predictor, I'd say, odds are this map is so far batting 1000 for the last 8 years. Given that probability, I bet it's very accurate going through 2060.
And, we could look at Espernak's formulas/predictions going back more years and they were all spot on as well.