Simple challenge, draw out how a solar and lunar eclipse works on FE

I see lots of word salad in this thread’s future, and no FE’r rising to the challenge.  Lots of trying to change the subject,  Or the thread will just be completely ignored, just more evidence the heliocentric model is correct.

Anyway.  The challenge is to draw out and post a working model how solar and lunar eclipses as witnessed would be possible on a flat earth. 

Let's first discuss what doesn't make any sense.



I'm sorry, in what way is the sun eclipsing the moon?



Not rocket science. The sun and moon are virtually the same size. If the sun, the moon, and the onlooker from Earth are all kinda lined up so the sun is lighting the moon, you have a lunar eclipse. If the sun is out, and the moon moves behind it, you have a solar eclipse.



In order for the moon to eclipse the sun or vice versa, they must be comparable sizes.



Btw. Not, a video of the sky during an eclipse. Black construction paper spraypainted a lighter color of black with a hole cut out. The circle is moved to the center, and you are gullible enough to see this trick and not recognize it for what it is. 

Here, I need you to put on these special green glasses when walking around the Emerald City (Seattle).

Obviously, you have a profound need to be fooled.

quote NASA where they say the moon shado is like a “laser.”

In order for the moon to eclipse the sun or vice versa, they must be comparable sizes.

What?  Why can I block a mountain from view with my thumb.

I can block the sun from view with by thumb.  Is my thumb as big as the sun? 

Or a smaller object close in view can block the view of a much larger object if at great enough distance.


Funny bulmabriefs144, all your stuff is based on ignorance and lies. 

Did you draw a lunar eclipse.

And how much farther is the sun than the moon?

So the moon and sun are physical objects where the moon can block the suns radiation. 

How can you accurately predict solar eclipses with the flat earth BS?

Your sun is too close to the moon to create the difference shadows of the penumbra and umbra as actually witnessed during a solar eclipse. 

Let's first discuss what doesn't make any sense.

That was the very topic of the thread. The FE BS, which makes no sense, and can't explain a lunar or solar eclipse.

I'm sorry, in what way is the sun eclipsing the moon?

Your question makes no sense.
Who says the sun is eclipsing the moon?

It is quite clear that a lunar and solar eclipse are significantly different phenomenon, at least in relation to Earth.
This is because a solar eclipse is local, with some regions of Earth getting a total (or annular) eclipse, with other regions only getting a partial eclipse, and other regions, which can still see the sun at the same time, not getting an eclipse at all.
But a lunar eclipse is global. Everyone who can see the moon sees basically the same stage of the eclipse.
During a total lunar eclipse, everyone who can see the moon sees the total lunar eclipse.

Not rocket science. The sun and moon are virtually the same size.

We know from the existence of annular eclipses that the moon is smaller than the sun so the region of totality will be smaller than the moon during any total solar eclipse.

If the sun, the moon, and the onlooker from Earth are all kinda lined up so the sun is lighting the moon, you have a lunar eclipse

The problem with that is the lunar eclipse doesn't depend on observer location, so that fails.
We also know the lunar eclipse occurs when the moon is opposite the sun, so that also fails.

And what you have drawn has the moon blocking the view of the sun, which would be a lunar eclipse.
But the region of the penumbra would be massive and pretty much cover all of Earth if they were that close.

In order for the moon to eclipse the sun or vice versa, they must be comparable sizes.

Again, there is no vice versa.
If the sun goes in front of the moon, we see the sun. It doesn't cause an eclipse.

But no, they don't need to be comparable sizes.
The object blocking the light needs to be a comparable or larger ANGULAR size.
The sun and moon are both around 0.5 degrees, so the moon can eclipse the sun.

This is just like how you can hold up your thumb to block the view of a distant mountain or building.
Are you saying your thumb is physically larger than that mountain?

And notice how you make no attempt to refute the facts and physics? You just boldly proclaim that objects can't cast shadows smaller than them.
What is that based upon? Your BS fantasy?

Take any large light source, like a computer screen set to display pure white, with no other lighting in the room, and hold up a small object in front of it, and observe the shadow has 3 regions.
There is the umbra, this is where all light is blocked. It starts at the size of the object, and shrinks, such that the further away the point you are considering is from the object, the smaller this region of the shadow is. This is equivalent to a total eclipse.
There is the antumbra, this is an extension of the umbra, where the object has too small an angular size to entirely block the light. This starts as a point and grows larger and larger. This is where you can observe an annular eclipse.
There is the penumbra. This is the region of the shadow off to the side, where some of the light is blocked, but not all. The edges of this (so from one side of the shadow to the other) start off at the size of the object, and grow bigger.

And the easier way to understand is to not consider the shadow itself, but instead to consider an observer in the shadow.
Outside the shadow, the object doesn't block the light source at all.
Inside the umbra, the object entirely blocks the light source.
Inside the antumbra, the object appears surrounded by the light.
Inside the penumbra, the light source is partially blocked, with the blocked region overlapping the "side" of the object.
Outside the shadow, the light isn't blocked.



It truly is so simple a child can understand. But not you. You refuse to understand as you are desperate for lies to attack the RE.

You are focusing on the path of totality rather than all parts of the shadow.

Note: This applies when the blocking object is physically smaller than the light source.
If the object is equal in size to the light source, the size of the umbra is constant, and there is no antumbra.
If the object is larger than the light source, the size of the umbra increases with distance and there is no antumbra.
If the light source is a point then there is no penumbra as you either block the entire light or none.
Because Earth experiences annular solar eclipses, we know the moon is smaller than the sun.

Again, as we see annular eclipses, that means the moon MUST be smaller than the sun, and the umbra must be smaller than the moon, which means the moon MUST be bigger than your 112 km wide width of a total solar eclipse, corresponding to the umbra.
And the moon must be smaller than the penumbra, the region of partial solar eclipse which is

If the light and the object has the exact same angular size, we would have a region of totality which was just a line (a point at any given time). That would be the point where the sun and moon perfectly overlap, with any slight misalignment resulting in a partial eclipse.

This also means if you very precisely measure the size of the region of totality, the size of the region which experiences a partial solar eclipse, the angular size of the moon, and the angular size of the sun, you will be able to determine the size and distance of the moon and sun.

Btw. Not, a video of the sky during an eclipse. Black construction paper spraypainted a lighter color of black with a hole cut out.

Prove it.

you are gullible enough

No, because we can see it ourselves.
I have observed plenty of eclipses.
So even if that video was fake, it would have no impact on real eclipses.

But you are paranoid enough to desperately come up with whatever delusional BS you can to try to pretend your fantasy works.

Obviously, you have a profound need to be fooled.

Says the one desperate to pretend their fantasy is true, desperate to reject reality at all costs, and accept whatever dishonest BS they can think of or other people can come up with to prop up your fantasy.

Look at how easily you accept being fooled regarding the size of shadows.
A child can understand about the size of the umbra and penumbra, and realise how the region of totality will be smaller than the object and the region of partial eclipse will be larger; but not you. You accept being fooled into thinking the umbra must be bigger, which would mean you could never have an annular eclipse.

First of all. In your delusion bulmabriefs144, how is the moon blocking anything?

Prove that the moon cannot be a projection.

You can't, can you?

So?  We just proved the moon is a physical object.  Not a projection?

https://tenor.com/view/flat-earth-atmosphere-and-sun-and-moon-movement-gif-18798944


This is the most far north passage of the sun?  Tropic of Cancer.  In June.



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropic_of_Cancer

Exactly how would it create the path of the total eclipse in April 2024 on a flat earth?


https://science.nasa.gov/eclipses/future-eclipses/eclipse-2024/where-when/

The sun and moon are virtually the same size.

Which is it?  My finger is virtually the same size as the sun?  Or my thumb is virtually the same size as a telephone pole?

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on August 31, 2023, 06:55:39 AM

 It's a glorified mirror reflecting the actual brightness of God nearby.

Look.  I can put your god on my finger😂😂😂😂😂

Let's first discuss what doesn't make any sense.



I'm sorry, in what way is the sun eclipsing the moon?



Not rocket science. The sun and moon are virtually the same size. If the sun, the moon, and the onlooker from Earth are all kinda lined up so the sun is lighting the moon, you have a lunar eclipse. If the sun is out, and the moon moves behind it, you have a solar eclipse.



In order for the moon to eclipse the sun or vice versa, they must be comparable sizes.



Btw. Not, a video of the sky during an eclipse. Black construction paper spraypainted a lighter color of black with a hole cut out. The circle is moved to the center, and you are gullible enough to see this trick and not recognize it for what it is. 

Here, I need you to put on these special green glasses when walking around the Emerald City (Seattle).

Obviously, you have a profound need to be fooled.

Has anybody ever told you, you are a very, very silly little boy, Bulma?

Make yourself an accurate scale model of the sun earth and moon system with accurate to scale distances, and see how easily you can dismiss it.

Your little diagram is the most pathetic sun, earth, moon diagram I have ever seen in my entire life.

How long did it take you to draw it?

Your little diagram is the most pathetic sun, earth, moon diagram I have ever seen in my entire life.

How long did it take you to draw it?

 bulmabriefs144 isn’t an art student and expert with the CGI? 

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on December 28, 2023, 03:14:25 AM

 bulmabriefs144 isn’t an art student and expert with the CGI?

Bulmabriefs144 isn't even 12 years old yet?

User name has been kicking around awhile?



I was trying to figure out what a bulmabriefs was. 

Has anybody ever told you, you are a very, very silly little boy, Bulma?

Make yourself an accurate scale model of the sun earth and moon system with accurate to scale distances, and see how easily you can dismiss it.

Has anyone ever told you that you are very very delusional?

There is no such thing as an accurate to scale model of the sun, Earth, and moon. You are convinced that somehow this size of the sun, Earth, and moon are at all accurate to this when in fact an event casual glance at the sun shows it as being exactly (or nearly exactly) the same size at the moon. And you believe in a distance so perfect as to make a much bigger sun appear much smaller than it is, rather than just coming to a far more obvious conclusion that the sun and moon are the same size and same proximity.

You are delusional. Or a liar.

There is no such thing as an accurate to scale model of the sun, Earth, and moon.

Not sure about that. The world is a very big place, so I wouldn't be surprised if someone did do it. There are certainly scale models of the sun and Earth.

casual glance at the sun shows it as being exactly (or nearly exactly) the same size at the moon.

No it doesn't, for reasons already explained.
You would either have to a complete imbecile that fails to understand very basic geometry, and very simple everyday observations like putting your thumb in front of an object off in the distance and entirely blocking the view; or the vastly more likely option that you are a compulsive liar, knowingly spouting pure BS to pretend the FE is real and pretend there are problems with the RE.

And you believe in a distance so perfect as to make a much bigger sun appear much smaller than it is, rather than just coming to a far more obvious conclusion that the sun and moon are the same size and same proximity.

There is nothing perfect about it.

We know they cannot be the same distance away, as that would make them collide during a solar eclipse, so the sun MUST be further than the moon.
And as we get both total and annular solar eclipses we know the moon must be smaller than the sun.

So regardless of what kind of distances you want to invoke, it is a coincidence, and the obvious conclusion is that they are NOT the same size.

And due to the way the moon is illuminated by the sun, as shown in its various phases, with them appearing roughly 90 degrees apart during a quarter moon, the obvious conclusion is that the sun is much much much much much further away than the moon.

So what's wrong with you? Stupid or playing dumb to intentionally and dishonestly deny the obvious?

You are delusional. Or a liar.

Great job projecting again.

In 2017 my family and I went to Tennessee to see the total eclipse of the sun.  Astronomers, and mathematicians were able to tell us the exact location we needed to be at the exact time based on the round Earth model of the Sun, Moon, and Earth.  We traveled more than 300 miles camped out the day before and went to a park with large open spaces near where we camped.  The eclipse occurred at the park at the exact time that was predicted.  We witnessed one of the most extraordinary events I have seen in my lifetime.  We now are planning our trip up to Rochester N.Y. for the eclipse that round Earth astronomers have said will occur there in April.  I have absolute confidence that the eclipse will happen as predicted.  My only concern is the weather.  Can a flat Earth believer here show me how the flat Earth model can predict an eclipse the way the round Earth model can.  Or, should I cancel the trip as it was just pure luck it worked out the last time.

There is no such thing as an accurate to scale model of the sun, Earth, and moon.

And yet using the heliocentric model, tides, solar and lunar eclipses are predicted with reliable and accuracy not achievable with FE.
 

bulmabriefs144, are you done derailing another thread.

Can you post a drawing how a lunar eclipse would even work on a flat earth. 

Or a drawing that shows how the upcoming eclipse in April 2024 would work on a flat earth. 

That wasn't a simple challenge, you liar.



Solar eclipse is actually opposite the position these scientists tell you it is. This is why you can't star at it. Because the moon is casting shadow, and you are directly looking at the sun.



Both the sun and moon get their light from an external source. You know, that Source that you don't like to talk about. It is just that the moon filters light much better, which is why sunlight heats the air and grows crops while moonlight is safe to look at.

We are not looking directly at the sun or moon, but an afterimage of these created by perception. Even the afterimage of the sun is really too bright to look at directly, given the higher conductivity of the sun of light and heat.

That wasn't a simple challenge, you liar.



Solar eclipse is actually opposite the position these scientists tell you it is. This is why you can't star at it. Because the moon is casting shadow, and you are directly looking at the sun.



Both the sun and moon get their light from an external source. You know, that Source that you don't like to talk about. It is just that the moon filters light much better, which is why sunlight heats the air and grows crops while moonlight is safe to look at.

We are not looking directly at the sun or moon, but an afterimage of these created by perception. Even the afterimage of the sun is really too bright to look at directly, given the higher conductivity of the sun of light and heat.

Ok

Already refuted here..
Asteroid Models Require A Flat And Unmoving Earth

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=92158.0



I’ll posit it here too

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on January 20, 2024, 10:26:25 AM

Yes, this is the model I meant.

Think about it.

It’s an over simplification.

It’s been pointed out to you the moon orbits the earth with a tilt.  Not in a perfect plane with the earth’s equator. 

And the moon isn’t always directly behind the earth.

And it’s been pointed out it takes the moon 27 days to orbit the earth. 


That you butcher and ignore what’s been explained to you already to create this false arguments?

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on August 29, 2023, 02:41:39 PM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on August 29, 2023, 01:21:53 PM

What about that is coherent? You would have eclipses all the time!

Eclipses of what?

The time intervals are offset because the moon’s orbit is tilted in relation to the plane the sun and earth sit in.

Again..

Quote

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/An-illustration-of-the-Moons-orbital-plane-around-the-Earth-and-rotational-axes-of-the_fig2_233086230

Quote from: JackBlack on August 28, 2023, 02:21:28 PM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on August 28, 2023, 08:19:29 AM

When I literally prove that this doesn't work...

Again, you are just proving your strawman doesn't work.

Again, try it to scale, or make a not to scale diagram and do the math.
If you need a hand, here:

Now.  Where did you post a picture of how a lunar eclipse could even be possible on a flat earth.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on January 20, 2024, 10:26:25 AM

 Sun and moon are discs which receive their light externally (do you want to ask where it comes from?  ).

The sun as in the way light reflects off the planets is proven to be the major source of illumination for the solar system.

As backed by the nature of the reactions, magnetic storms, the radiation, the charge particles emitted from the sun.

The way charge particles from the sun interact with the van Allen belts and the resultant northern and southern lights.  And how their activity are directly affected by the intensity of solar storms. 

As backed by the moon being solid as proven by radar surveys and blocking the radiation from the sun during a solar eclipse.

With no evidence of the sun nor moon being illuminated by a dome. 

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on January 20, 2024, 10:26:25 AM

This light does not carry all the way to Earth,

Radiation as light doesn’t magically stop.  It needs to be blocked, absorbed, reflected by something physical.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on January 20, 2024, 10:26:25 AM

 The difference is their conductivity.

Of what?  Light is either absorbed, scattered, or reflected. 

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on January 20, 2024, 10:26:25 AM

The sun conducts a great deal more light and heat so it appears as a bright object

The sun is a source of light.  With no proof of anything being projected on the sun.  With the moon reflecting sunlight like a car reflects sunlight to be seen.  As proven by a solar eclipse and new moon.


 

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on January 20, 2024, 10:26:25 AM

The moon is refracting light off itself

If the moon is a source of light.  Then there shouldn’t be a lunar eclipse which is explained by the moon transiting for a short time in the earths shadow as it takes 27 days to make a complete circuit of the earth. 



Note.  Added old post.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on September 28, 2022, 07:34:52 AM

Yes.  The earth is spherical.

We see it in the lunar eclipse.

You bulmabriefs144 also have no explanation how the shadow falls across the moon during a lunar eclipse and why it is the shape it is.

That in no way explains what is witnessed during an actual lunar eclipse.

Yes.  The earth is spherical.

We see it in the lunar eclipse.

You claim?

“The sun conducts a great deal more light and heat so it appears as a bright object while the moon casts a dim light. ”

Then why would the moon be dark during a new moon?  Why does the moon go dark during a lunar eclipse.  Why is the shape of the earth first increasingly and then decreasing projected on the moon during a lunar eclipse. 

Both the sun and moon get their light from an external source. You know, that Source that you don't like to talk about.

A delusion you have absolutely no proof of?  And you can’t explain?  So what am I avoiding?





It is just that the moon filters light much better, which is why sunlight heats the air and grows crops while moonlight is safe to look at.

given the higher conductivity of the sun of light and heat.

Even fiber optic cables don’t “conduct”?

How Does a Fiber Optic Cable Work?
Light travels down a fiber optic cable by bouncing off the walls of the cable repeatedly. Each light particle (photon) bounces down the pipe with continued internal mirror-like reflection.

The light beam travels down the core of the cable. The core is the middle of the cable and the glass structure. The cladding is another layer of glass wrapped around the core. Cladding is there to keep the light signals inside the core.


https://www.nai-group.com/optical-fiber-technology-how-it-works/#:~:text=Light%20travels%20down%20a%20fiber,cable%20and%20the%20glass%20structure.

That wasn't a simple challenge, you liar.

It is a very simple challenge, if your model actually works.

For a RE it is, and there are countless drawings showing how you can get a lunar and solar eclipse.

For a FE it is impossible, because it doesn't work.

Solar eclipse is actually opposite the position these scientists tell you it is. This is why you can't star at it. Because the moon is casting shadow, and you are directly looking at the sun.

So for this, you have the sun below the moon.
How is the moon blocking the light?
You literally have nothing blocking the path of the light of the sun, yet magically it is stopped.
This makes no sense at all.

This is especially problematic for a multitude of reasons.
The first is how the eclipse progresses, as if something is blocking the light between the sun and Earth.
Especially how this varies for observers across Earth.
If it was the moon blocking the light to the sun which magically re-radiates it, you would expect EVERYONE to see the same eclipse, not it varying across Earth.
And with the sun "conducting" that light, you would have the entire sun lit up, until all the light is blocked, at which point it instantly goes dark.

This also means you wouldn't see the corona and wouldn't get an annular eclipses like we observe plenty of times.

The other is how with the right equipment, you can photograph the moon during a solar eclipse, showing it is in front of the sun.

With your lunar eclipse, you have the sun and moon in alignment above Earth, meaning it should occur during a new moon, not a full moon. And like the solar eclipse it should occur in a localised manner.
And it has the massive problem of why would that cause a lunar eclipse in the first place?

Both the sun and moon get their light from an external source. You know, that Source that you don't like to talk about.

All the evidence shows that the sun has its own light, and the moon is reflecting the sun's light.

And if we just fully accept this BS, you have the exact problem you falsely claim the RE has.

For a solar eclipse, you claim the moon is blocking the light of the sun.
For a lunar eclipse, you claim the sun is blocking the light of the moon.
These are equivalent and have just switched which is which.
So either both should be local or neither should be.

So you have refuted your own model.

Conversely, the RE model has the moon block the light to an observer on Earth for a solar eclipse, and has Earth block the light to the moon for a lunar eclipse. Importantly, this changes the observer from being in the shadow to experience it, to looking at an object that is in the shadow.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on January 20, 2024, 10:33:38 AM

That wasn't a simple challenge, you liar.

It is a very simple challenge, if your model actually works.

For a RE it is, and there are countless drawings showing how you can get a lunar and solar eclipse.

For a FE it is impossible, because it doesn't work.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on January 20, 2024, 10:33:38 AM

Solar eclipse is actually opposite the position these scientists tell you it is. This is why you can't star at it. Because the moon is casting shadow, and you are directly looking at the sun.

So for this, you have the sun below the moon.
How is the moon blocking the light?
You literally have nothing blocking the path of the light of the sun, yet magically it is stopped.
This makes no sense at all.

This is especially problematic for a multitude of reasons.
The first is how the eclipse progresses, as if something is blocking the light between the sun and Earth.
Especially how this varies for observers across Earth.
If it was the moon blocking the light to the sun which magically re-radiates it, you would expect EVERYONE to see the same eclipse, not it varying across Earth.
And with the sun "conducting" that light, you would have the entire sun lit up, until all the light is blocked, at which point it instantly goes dark.

This also means you wouldn't see the corona and wouldn't get an annular eclipses like we observe plenty of times.

The other is how with the right equipment, you can photograph the moon during a solar eclipse, showing it is in front of the sun.

With your lunar eclipse, you have the sun and moon in alignment above Earth, meaning it should occur during a new moon, not a full moon. And like the solar eclipse it should occur in a localised manner.
And it has the massive problem of why would that cause a lunar eclipse in the first place?

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on January 20, 2024, 10:33:38 AM

Both the sun and moon get their light from an external source. You know, that Source that you don't like to talk about.

All the evidence shows that the sun has its own light, and the moon is reflecting the sun's light.

And if we just fully accept this BS, you have the exact problem you falsely claim the RE has.

For a solar eclipse, you claim the moon is blocking the light of the sun.
For a lunar eclipse, you claim the sun is blocking the light of the moon.
These are equivalent and have just switched which is which.
So either both should be local or neither should be.

So you have refuted your own model.

Conversely, the RE model has the moon block the light to an observer on Earth for a solar eclipse, and has Earth block the light to the moon for a lunar eclipse. Importantly, this changes the observer from being in the shadow to experience it, to looking at an object that is in the shadow.

There is a huge amount of data that has been published over the last few hundred years about the movements of planets and their moons such as our own. There are currently many apps that used this expert derived knowledge to make predictions about planetary movement.

I doubt that Jack Black has made these calculations himself and from my perspective is in no way qualified to comment on this area unless he himself has personally made all the observations and completed all the calculations required to make any valid statement on this subject.

Given what Jack Black claims about expert knowledge there is no way he can comment on such a topic unless he himself can prove that all he says is based on his own observations and calculations. Anything else would be for him to be seen to be contradicting all he has said. He can't have it both ways.

Quote from: JackBlack on January 20, 2024, 11:47:49 AM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on January 20, 2024, 10:33:38 AM

That wasn't a simple challenge, you liar.

It is a very simple challenge, if your model actually works.

For a RE it is, and there are countless drawings showing how you can get a lunar and solar eclipse.

For a FE it is impossible, because it doesn't work.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on January 20, 2024, 10:33:38 AM

Solar eclipse is actually opposite the position these scientists tell you it is. This is why you can't star at it. Because the moon is casting shadow, and you are directly looking at the sun.

So for this, you have the sun below the moon.
How is the moon blocking the light?
You literally have nothing blocking the path of the light of the sun, yet magically it is stopped.
This makes no sense at all.

This is especially problematic for a multitude of reasons.
The first is how the eclipse progresses, as if something is blocking the light between the sun and Earth.
Especially how this varies for observers across Earth.
If it was the moon blocking the light to the sun which magically re-radiates it, you would expect EVERYONE to see the same eclipse, not it varying across Earth.
And with the sun "conducting" that light, you would have the entire sun lit up, until all the light is blocked, at which point it instantly goes dark.

This also means you wouldn't see the corona and wouldn't get an annular eclipses like we observe plenty of times.

The other is how with the right equipment, you can photograph the moon during a solar eclipse, showing it is in front of the sun.

With your lunar eclipse, you have the sun and moon in alignment above Earth, meaning it should occur during a new moon, not a full moon. And like the solar eclipse it should occur in a localised manner.
And it has the massive problem of why would that cause a lunar eclipse in the first place?

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on January 20, 2024, 10:33:38 AM

Both the sun and moon get their light from an external source. You know, that Source that you don't like to talk about.

All the evidence shows that the sun has its own light, and the moon is reflecting the sun's light.

And if we just fully accept this BS, you have the exact problem you falsely claim the RE has.

For a solar eclipse, you claim the moon is blocking the light of the sun.
For a lunar eclipse, you claim the sun is blocking the light of the moon.
These are equivalent and have just switched which is which.
So either both should be local or neither should be.

So you have refuted your own model.

Conversely, the RE model has the moon block the light to an observer on Earth for a solar eclipse, and has Earth block the light to the moon for a lunar eclipse. Importantly, this changes the observer from being in the shadow to experience it, to looking at an object that is in the shadow.

There is a huge amount of data that has been published over the last few hundred years about the movements of planets and their moons such as our own. There are currently many apps that used this expert derived knowledge to make predictions about planetary movement.

I doubt that Jack Black has made these calculations himself and from my perspective is in no way qualified to comment on this area unless he himself has personally made all the observations and completed all the calculations required to make any valid statement on this subject.

Given what Jack Black claims about expert knowledge there is no way he can comment on such a topic unless he himself can prove that all he says is based on his own observations and calculations. Anything else would be for him to be seen to be contradicting all he has said. He can't have it both ways.

I didn’t know Jack was the topic of this thread? 

There is a huge amount of data that has been published over the last few hundred years about the movements of planets and their moons such as our own.

Which really has no bearing on this thread.

This thread is about a FE model of a lunar and solar eclipse.

is in no way qualified to comment on this area unless he himself has personally made all the observations and completed all the calculations required to make any valid statement on this subject.

And if you truly believe that then you are also entirely unqualified to say anything on this, so you should remain silent.

Given what Jack Black claims

You mean your repeated lies about me.

Now, care to offer anything constructive, rather than continuing with your pathetic tantrum?

Quote from: Timeisup on January 26, 2024, 06:22:03 AM

There is a huge amount of data that has been published over the last few hundred years about the movements of planets and their moons such as our own.

Which really has no bearing on this thread.

This thread is about a FE model of a lunar and solar eclipse.

Quote from: Timeisup on January 26, 2024, 06:22:03 AM

is in no way qualified to comment on this area unless he himself has personally made all the observations and completed all the calculations required to make any valid statement on this subject.

And if you truly believe that then you are also entirely unqualified to say anything on this, so you should remain silent.

Quote from: Timeisup on January 26, 2024, 06:22:03 AM

Given what Jack Black claims

You mean your repeated lies about me.

Now, care to offer anything constructive, rather than continuing with your pathetic tantrum?

Indeed Jack so what personal experience has led you to obtain knowledge of such an area. I know where to find it that has come from past experts who have made all the observations and did all the calculations. But what about you Jack where did you get your information from.

What I want to know, what everyone wants to know did you get your information based on your own personal experience? In other words did you yourself do all the observations and all the calculation that allow you to comment on this subject as the information you are using must have come from somewhere.

What you say Jack?

How are you qualified to comment on such a subject? I feel I am as Ive read the books on the subject. Books produced by experts in the field.

Indeed Jack

So you accept your off topic tantrum from you being butthurt over being wrong so often is entirely irrelevant to this thread. Great.
So why are you still spamming it with crap?

Seeing how long it takes you to get banned?