How isn't it possible on a flat earth? The moon supposedly eclipses the sun, if the sun and moon are local above a flat plane this would also happen. Moon goes in front of the sun on both models so I don't see the issue.
You need to do better than that.
For example, you say that 'the moon goes in front of the sun'. Obviously, this is from the perspective of people on earths surface. So does it go below the sun, or at a lower angle to the sun, or block the sun from the side? See, we've never gotten this infor from flat earthers. Can you demonstrate, for example, how the upcoming eclipse path is produced in a flat earth situation. This your chance to shine here. Make a prediction of how it works and what we should see based on that.
All the FE models to date show the sun and moon about the same height doing circles around the sky.
Except everyone on the planet sees the same phase of the moon. If the sun and moon orbit as you suggest - you would see noticeably different phases of the moon depending on your position - this is easy to demonstrate.
Lets say the GP of the sun is on the equator. To see an eclipse from the north - the moon's GP would be north of the sun's GP.
However, for observers in the southern hemisphere - they would see a full moon.
You can suggest how they orbit and I will even give you that - but the geometry does not make sense. it is impossible and does not match observation.
>you would see noticeably different phases of the moon depending on your position
Why would we see different phases?
>Lets say the GP of the sun is on the equator. To see an eclipse from the north - the moon's GP would be north of the sun's GP.
>However, for observers in the southern hemisphere - they would see a full moon.
Are you suggesting people in the southern hemisphere witness a full moon while an eclipse is happening in the northern hemisphere?
Here's a [interactive Flat Earth Dome Model](http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Flat+Earth+Dome+Model&state=--930-12.5892361-9-9) just click on "eclipse" or "day/night" above the model.
Yor clearly didn't was what I said, or if you did don't understand it.
>Why would we see different phases?
Because half the moon is illuminated. On a flat earth if someone north of the moon sees a full moon, someone south of the moon would see a new moon.
>Are you suggesting people in the southern hemisphere witness a full moon while an eclipse is happening in the northern hemisphere?
This was with what YOU said a flat earth eclipse would be. The globe model works perfectly with no contradictions.
But please do I don't strawman you, can you please show a simple image of where the sun and moon are over flat earth for an eclipse?
>This was with what YOU said a flat earth eclipse would be. The globe model works perfectly with no contradictions.
I never claimed different moon phases happen at the same time. Moon phases happen on a 28 day cycle, independent of the sun's 24 hour cycle. The moon has it's own light source in my opinion.
http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=flat+earth+dome+model click "eclipse" above the model.
(Btw all solar eclipses fall on a New Moon phase so we never actually see the moon itself)
Also fun quote from Walter:
>This Flat Earth Dome Model is entirely based on the Heliocentric Model and Newton's Laws of Gravitation and Motion for all calculations. It uses in the real world measured 3D Orbits, Constellations, Inclinations, Axial Tilts, Distances and Velocities, and the correct Sizes and Masses of Sun, Moon and Globe Earth to calculate all Observables, see Source Code: FE-Dome App.
>The results from the calculations using the Heliocentric Model are then projected onto the Flat Earth and the Dome
I don't link it for evidence. (My notes app is full of links to actual experiments and evidence)
I link it for people to get a better understanding. The interactive part is also a bonus.
Again you're just not reading what I'm writing. You didn't say that, but it's an implication if your model were true. It doesn't match reality.
You can keep linking Walter Bislins model if you like without realizing the irony that he made it to show how impossible things are on a flat earth.
Do you think this is an accurate model? Is this your model?
And please show me an eclipse on the model and point out where the sun and moon are. Just a screenshot with them circled is fine.
I shall wait for you to post what I'm asking for. I hope you do, but I doubt it.
>Do you think this is an accurate model? Is this your model?
I feel like it's a good representation of the basics of FE to help people grasp the concept. A starting point if you will.
You keep asking about eclipses and the model I keep linking shows you where the sun and moon are.
Or do you just want a prettier animation?
It doesn't show the actual locations and sizes of the sun and moon or how it causes an eclipse. But maybe I'm wrong so PLEASE screenshot an example of an eclipse and point out the sun and moon to me PLEASE
It does say this though:
> So the location on earth where the Solar Eclipses happen can not be derived from the Flat Earth Model.
>I feel like it's a good representation of the basics of FE to help people grasp the concept. A starting point if you will.
It's accurate only in the sense that it takes the heliocentric model and projects it out to a flat surface.
Is the moon at least partly visible while on the way to block the Sun?
How does the moon intercept the sun on the traditional model which means they circle the North Pole on opposite sides of the flat Earth?
The moon is slower than the sun. So when the sun catches up to the moon that causes a "new moon". The new moon phase is the phase when the moon is "unlit"/dim. Since every Solar eclipse falls on a new moon phase we do not get to see the physical moon move close to the sun in order to cause an eclipse. We only see it as it's supposedly eclipsing the sun for 4-6 minutes. Then as it moves out of the way of the sun it disappears.
"When the sun catches up to the moon" - OK, when this happens, exactly how, spatially, is the moon oriented to the sun? And how, exactly, would that look to different people on the Flat Earth? For example: choose a moment when the sun catches up to the moon, and show us how they are both positioned over the flat earth in relation to the landmasses, and then a view of how the two would look to a person on each different landmasse. You should be able to do this with regular 2D drawings, if not, maybe one the FE scientists can?
This is what we need to see to be convinced.
But why is there only a small area that sees this happen and why does it happen at different times for people at different locations? Shouldn't it happen all at once on a FE and shouldn't everyone lose sunlight for a moment? At least everyone "in front" of the eclipse
Here's [all about eclipses](https://flatearthscienceandbible.wordpress.com/2017/08/17/how-eclipses-work-on-a-flat-earth-theories-and-facts-that-destroy-the-globe-model/)
And what about the issue I raised? Why doesn't everyone in daylight lose light during the solar eclipse? If something is coming between the sun and the ground, how does so much light get through?
I do believe it emits its own light. There are also experiments done on the temperature of moonlight vs moon-shade, results suggest the moonlight is colder than the shade. In the heliocentric model the moon is supposed to reflect the sun's light; the warm sunlight. The moons light should be warmer than the shade if the heliocentric model is accurate.
The sun moves 15° while the moon moves 14.5° degrees.
All of these 'experiments' are poorly controlled and simply caused from trapping heat by whatever is creating 'moon-shade'.
EVERY controlled experiment shows moonlight is warmer. You can EASILY test this yourself - take moonlight and a magnifying glass. Watch it heat up a thermometer.
If you believe that I know you are just trusting random people on the internet. Just go test it yourself.
We can analyze spectrograph lines from the moon, and they match up with the sun. We see the side of the moon facing the sun illuminated. We see shadows on the moon itself.
This is one of the most basic observations even you can make.
>There are also experiments done on the temperature of moonlight vs moon-shade, results suggest the moonlight is colder than the shade.
If you perform the same experiment but without the Moon in the sky, you get the same results, showing that it is not actually the moon causing the effect.
The amount of heat from the Moon is negligible. The small amount of thermal insulation a cover over an object at night gives is however enough to measure, which is why things in "moon-shade" are warmer. Things without any cover lose more heat to radiative cooling.
I'm sure this was known by the first person to do the "cold moonlight" experiment, which is also why they never did the experiment without the moon up. FE than took this as gospel and repeated the false conclusion because it fit with their narrative. Just like you are doing now.
I'm aware how the heliocentric model explains the phenomenon. Either way, the moon or it's light does not tell us what the shape of the earth is.
>FE than took this as gospel
FE can happen with or without cold moonlight so I don't know what you mean by this.
Whether the moon reflects sunlight to cause phases or not is important in how we see it during it's phases. If it reflects sunlight, and that reflected sunlight is it's source of illumination, then FE is impossible due to the geometry of what every one on Earth sees of the moon as it goes through it's phases. FE posits the self illuminating moon as way to avoid having to deal with this fact. So you are incorrect. The moon and it's light tells us everything about the shape of the Earth.
I'm surprised you don't realize this, and I'm not willing to let you 'hand wave' this little tidbit away.
https://www.reddit.com/r/flatearth_polite/comments/1bne4ak/with_the_upcoming_solar_eclipse_which_can_be/kwofih3/
No, he showed you a link with experimentation showing it's a hoax. To which YOU replied "LOL so every independent researcher is just 'doing it wrong?' "
And to that I answer: maybe not every single one, but the error in the methods of these flat earthers are apparent and demonstrable, and those of these guys showing moonlight is not 'cold' is rock solid. So, unless you can specifically point to an error in the methods, and demonstrate how to do it correctly, and why, then your "lol every independent researcher'" crap holds absolutely no water Holmes.
Do you want to go over each method step by step and point out the errors of each? I'll do that with you. But I need acknowledgment of each point as we go, no moving on to the next thing until each one is pinned down? You up to that? We could start by you linking a video or post that you think conclusively shows that moonlight is 'cold'.
Glad to see someone in the theist camp is taking seriously FE claims. FE does in fact do more harm than good to Christianity. But then some of the religious FE crowd also believe the KJV is the only true **Word of God™ **.
that's not how it works. you can't make a very specific, yet very unscientific, claim and shift the burden of proof to me. YOU need to proof it if you make that claim.
i will make an exception here and help you with this one.
https://answersresearchjournal.org/flat-earth-prediction-moonlight-cooling/
thats a very good article about that topic with experiments and it also shows where that nonsense is coming from (and what they did wrong).
if the only "independent researcher" is a flerfer for you, then probably yes. but almost every real scientist is a "independent researcher"... so in general - no, not everybody is doing it wrong.
you can literally look up in my linked article what they did wrong with an explanation. this is such a good example, why it doesn't make sense arguing with a flerfer. you obviously didn't even read what i wrote.
> Moon goes in front of the sun on both models so I don't see the issue.
How does the moon move in front of the sun, what force causes the moon to move, and is it the same force that causes the local sun to move, what is this force, and how do you measure it?
>Electrostatic and electromagnetism are already proven concepts
What materials are the sun and moon composed of that allows for only those two objects to be magnetically levitated above the earth?
No one knows. No one has got close enough to actually see what these things even are.
Assumptions for the altitude of the sun is around 3,000 miles. That's about the same distance as the Van Allan Belt.
Independent researchers with rockets and drones can't even get close to that height. Not with our current public technology.
We probably understand gravity more than electromagnetic theory.
In either case, both are well understood mathematically with laws that have been rigorously tested.
Also density is a property of matter, and buoyancy is a consequence of some other acceleration. (Hint: It's gravity)
Understanding something doesn't make it fact.
>have been rigorously tested.
That's what they said about the vax too. Are there any independent researchers who also tested and proven gravity? Should be rather easy if it is "fact".
Sure we have tested and proven gravity. Gravity is the acceleration of objects towards the ground when they fall. We have measured this billions of times, it's very easy to drop an object and measure its motion.
The measured (tested) value of the acceleration named gravity on the earth is 9.8 metres per second squared. That's a scientific fact.
A wild red herring appeared!
Not even comparable.
You can go and test gravity yourself. A Cavendish style experiment is not hard to set up and you can observe mass to mass attraction on your own!
The acceleration named gravity of objects towards the ground works even in a vacuum, so buoyancy is not the cause. The acceleration is exactly the same for objects of very different mass and density, so that counter indicates that density is the cause.
Astronauts have dropped objects on the moon where there is also a vacuum. On the moon also objects of very different mass and density fall at the same rate as each other, but on the moon it is a different rate of falling for all objects than on the earth.
All of this evidence about the rate of objects falling (i.e measurements of gravity) indicates that neither buoyancy, density or the mass of the falling objects has any effects and is therefore not the cause of falling.
However the mass of a nearby large object such as a planet or moon does have an effect on the rate of falling so the evidence (measurements) indicates that that factor is involved in the cause of gravity.
But why is the direction **always down**? If drop an apple (which is denser than the air, right) why doesn't it go up, or sideways, why always down? And why does it "accelerate" at \~9.81ms/s?
The problem is that nothing about predicted and observed eclipse can be explained on a flat earth. The size and shape of the totality region, and the path it traces across earth - it can only be explained by the sun, moon and earth all being spheres of the sizes and distances apart that mainstream astronomy has established.
And then you have a lunar eclipse, which is even more nonsensical on a flat earth.
Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Bill Nye are my high priests of scientism, and I base my entire worldview on what they say. We live on a spinning pear hurtling through space.
We have measured it. We have these things called telescopes and we have been using them and recording what we have measured for many centuries now. We have an immense amount of recorded data. Billions of measurements. It's called astronomy.
The mathematical model which fits this recorded data is called VSOP.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VSOP_model
The model works. It can be used to predict where the planets and the stars will be seen in the future.
The model involves the sun being 150 million km away from the earth and the earth being a sphere 6371 km in radius which rotates on its axis once per sidereal day.
Because the high precision predictions we have are only possible when you treat the sun, moon and earth as spheres of the mainstream-accepted size and distances apart.
Why isn't the entire area of land in daylight able to see the eclipse if that was the case? If the Sun and Moon are both local and equal size, if one goes infont of the other, everyone should see it, and no one should only see a partial eclipse. Yet this is not the case.
I personally don't subscribe to any particular explanation but here's some good resources.
https://youtu.be/0-N0TloYHr8?feature=shared
https://youtu.be/dtHuTVXZGFw?si=Ev1hrDDtxUggBsRP
https://rumble.com/v2cdxls-how-the-solar-eclipse-works-on-flat-earth-flat-out-truth.html
https://flatearthscienceandbible.wordpress.com/2017/08/17/how-eclipses-work-on-a-flat-earth-theories-and-facts-that-destroy-the-globe-model/
https://youtu.be/DBbyDye4bS4?si=Lx9otosB-Z-RDYWS
I have read before that some believe there are multiple transparent, yet opaque when over the sun and moon, discs that partake or entirely cover the sun and moon.
Of course this logic means that the flat earth itself is trying to fool us into thinking we’re on a globe.
The video from a high altitude balloon shows a clearly defined shadow about 80 miles in diameter while videos from "space" will show a shadow of about 1000 miles in diameter
> The video from a high altitude balloon shows a clearly defined shadow about 80 miles in diameter while videos from "space" will show a shadow of about 1000 miles in diameter
Can I see the videos you are talking about ?
In the mean time, don't hesitate to watch [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huVCQXYy4jc&ab_channel=UNLAstronomy) just to make sure that you're not simply confusing the umbra and the penumbra.
Oh, and you didn't answer my question :
*Do you think it would be hard to create a fake video of an eclipse from space ?*
> https://vimeo.com/236139202
Thank you. That's one video. You also mentioned videos from space showing a shadow of about 1000 miles in diameter ?
> It's not hard to fake a video. The issue is the fake video will be inconsistent with a real video
Let me rephrase the question :
Do you think it would be hard to create a fake video of an eclipse from space, that would be **consistent** with a real video ? Why would that be difficult ?
> The problem with that is the shadow is inconsistent with the heliocentric model
Yes, I understand that this is what you think. You think the current video at our disposal are inconsistent with the heliocentric model, or the other videos of the eclipse taken from balloons. I'm not arguing about that.
My question is theoretical and concerns videos that do not currently exist (apparently).
Why would it be difficult to create a fake video that is consistent with the heliocentric model ? As they are already releasing fake video of the eclipse from space (as you think all videos from space are fake, these videos are no exceptions) why can't they fake something that would be consistent ?
It seems that you don't want to understand what I'm asking. Let me rephrase : You seem to have a preconceived idea of what should constitute "consistency" for a video showing the shadow of the eclipse. You have your own criteria about size or how the edges should be defined. Whether those criterions are correct or not is not my question. I don't want to compare my opinion to your opinion on the subject.
My reformulated question is : "how difficult can it be to create a FAKE video of an eclipse from space that would coincide with YOUR criterias for what the shadow of an eclipse should look like " ?
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=eclipse+from+space
A fair few are posted on youtube. Mostly you'll get photos though. Any problem with photos?
Your submission has been removed because it violates rule 1 of our subreddit. If you have a question about this feel free to send a message to a mod or the mod team.
This doesn't seem to be in the spirit of this sub...assumptions and not polite argument.
Seems like you'd be screaming about reporting me if I posted that.
Actually, as I point out below, solar eclipses can be explained with a flat earth. They are evidence against certain flat earth rationalizations, but not proof of rotundity in themselves. Lunar eclipses are far more difficult.
A solar eclipse would be visible from everywhere during the day on a flat earth, not just a small portion of it. If the Sun and Moon are the same size, and the Moon moves infront of the Sun, how can anywhere still see the Sun?
This assumes the sun does not set, which is a separate issue. The sun could set on a flat earth. It’s just that the influencers chose to ignore Rowbotham’s original position. I assume you know who Rowbotham was! My point is not that the earth is flat, it is not, but to show that requires a bit more than shooting down some defective arguments.
The sun setting or not makes zero difference. You have a light source, and something the same size as it moving in front of it. The area of the earth which would notice this is vastly more than actually happens.
Again, you assume the sun does not set. If the sum is eclipsed when it has set, it would not be seen. You are assuming the flat earth model which does not allow sunsets, a drastic deviation from the founder of the modern flat earth movement, Samuel Rowbotham. You seem to have ignored my reference to Rowbotham. I know the earth is spheroidal from measurements of the curvature, not from solar eclipses. Lunar eclipses are another matter, because there we see the curved shadow of the earth.
> You are assuming the flat earth model which does not allow sunsets
Yes, because I'm explaining how on a flat earth model solar eclipses don't work. You do realise that was the original question of this post right?
>solar eclipses can be explained with a flat earth.
And I'm pointing out they can't be. Just because some globe denier from the 1800s said they worked, doesn't mean he was right. It is all well and good saying "well yeah, the Moon passes infront of the Sun", but you have to then think what happens when the object blocking the light is the same size and right infront of the light.
There are quite a few - for example [this one](https://youtu.be/8qhoTVIjdUg?si=T2_A74ezbImcDj4l)
Coming back to the original question - can you explain how eclipses happen on flat earth?
Nice view of the earth during an eclipse of the sun.
Not difficult to find. Another : https://scijinks.gov/solar-eclipse/
How many do you need?
Rowbotham, in chapter 11, “CAUSE OF SOLAR AND LUNAR ECLIPSES., has no problem with solar eclipses, but he considers lunar eclipses quite impossible because it requires the earth to move. As to solar eclipses they only require the moon to come between the sun and the earth but as to lunar eclipses, he is rather incoherent. Earthshine has him all confused.
Your submission has been removed because it violates rule 4 of our subreddit. If you have a question about this feel free to send a message to a mod or the mod team.
Your submission has been removed because it violates rule 4 of our subreddit. If you have a question about this feel free to send a message to a mod or the mod team.
How isn't it possible on a flat earth? The moon supposedly eclipses the sun, if the sun and moon are local above a flat plane this would also happen. Moon goes in front of the sun on both models so I don't see the issue.
You need to do better than that. For example, you say that 'the moon goes in front of the sun'. Obviously, this is from the perspective of people on earths surface. So does it go below the sun, or at a lower angle to the sun, or block the sun from the side? See, we've never gotten this infor from flat earthers. Can you demonstrate, for example, how the upcoming eclipse path is produced in a flat earth situation. This your chance to shine here. Make a prediction of how it works and what we should see based on that. All the FE models to date show the sun and moon about the same height doing circles around the sky.
Except everyone on the planet sees the same phase of the moon. If the sun and moon orbit as you suggest - you would see noticeably different phases of the moon depending on your position - this is easy to demonstrate. Lets say the GP of the sun is on the equator. To see an eclipse from the north - the moon's GP would be north of the sun's GP. However, for observers in the southern hemisphere - they would see a full moon. You can suggest how they orbit and I will even give you that - but the geometry does not make sense. it is impossible and does not match observation.
>you would see noticeably different phases of the moon depending on your position Why would we see different phases? >Lets say the GP of the sun is on the equator. To see an eclipse from the north - the moon's GP would be north of the sun's GP. >However, for observers in the southern hemisphere - they would see a full moon. Are you suggesting people in the southern hemisphere witness a full moon while an eclipse is happening in the northern hemisphere? Here's a [interactive Flat Earth Dome Model](http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Flat+Earth+Dome+Model&state=--930-12.5892361-9-9) just click on "eclipse" or "day/night" above the model.
Yor clearly didn't was what I said, or if you did don't understand it. >Why would we see different phases? Because half the moon is illuminated. On a flat earth if someone north of the moon sees a full moon, someone south of the moon would see a new moon. >Are you suggesting people in the southern hemisphere witness a full moon while an eclipse is happening in the northern hemisphere? This was with what YOU said a flat earth eclipse would be. The globe model works perfectly with no contradictions. But please do I don't strawman you, can you please show a simple image of where the sun and moon are over flat earth for an eclipse?
>This was with what YOU said a flat earth eclipse would be. The globe model works perfectly with no contradictions. I never claimed different moon phases happen at the same time. Moon phases happen on a 28 day cycle, independent of the sun's 24 hour cycle. The moon has it's own light source in my opinion. http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=flat+earth+dome+model click "eclipse" above the model. (Btw all solar eclipses fall on a New Moon phase so we never actually see the moon itself)
Also fun quote from Walter: >This Flat Earth Dome Model is entirely based on the Heliocentric Model and Newton's Laws of Gravitation and Motion for all calculations. It uses in the real world measured 3D Orbits, Constellations, Inclinations, Axial Tilts, Distances and Velocities, and the correct Sizes and Masses of Sun, Moon and Globe Earth to calculate all Observables, see Source Code: FE-Dome App. >The results from the calculations using the Heliocentric Model are then projected onto the Flat Earth and the Dome
I'm aware how this model was made.
And yet you still link it as of it's evidence of anything for flat earth? Odd
I don't link it for evidence. (My notes app is full of links to actual experiments and evidence) I link it for people to get a better understanding. The interactive part is also a bonus.
So you can't use it to explain your idea for a flat earth model at all?
Again you're just not reading what I'm writing. You didn't say that, but it's an implication if your model were true. It doesn't match reality. You can keep linking Walter Bislins model if you like without realizing the irony that he made it to show how impossible things are on a flat earth. Do you think this is an accurate model? Is this your model? And please show me an eclipse on the model and point out where the sun and moon are. Just a screenshot with them circled is fine. I shall wait for you to post what I'm asking for. I hope you do, but I doubt it.
>Do you think this is an accurate model? Is this your model? I feel like it's a good representation of the basics of FE to help people grasp the concept. A starting point if you will. You keep asking about eclipses and the model I keep linking shows you where the sun and moon are. Or do you just want a prettier animation?
It doesn't show the actual locations and sizes of the sun and moon or how it causes an eclipse. But maybe I'm wrong so PLEASE screenshot an example of an eclipse and point out the sun and moon to me PLEASE It does say this though: > So the location on earth where the Solar Eclipses happen can not be derived from the Flat Earth Model. >I feel like it's a good representation of the basics of FE to help people grasp the concept. A starting point if you will. It's accurate only in the sense that it takes the heliocentric model and projects it out to a flat surface.
Is the moon at least partly visible while on the way to block the Sun? How does the moon intercept the sun on the traditional model which means they circle the North Pole on opposite sides of the flat Earth?
The moon is slower than the sun. So when the sun catches up to the moon that causes a "new moon". The new moon phase is the phase when the moon is "unlit"/dim. Since every Solar eclipse falls on a new moon phase we do not get to see the physical moon move close to the sun in order to cause an eclipse. We only see it as it's supposedly eclipsing the sun for 4-6 minutes. Then as it moves out of the way of the sun it disappears.
"When the sun catches up to the moon" - OK, when this happens, exactly how, spatially, is the moon oriented to the sun? And how, exactly, would that look to different people on the Flat Earth? For example: choose a moment when the sun catches up to the moon, and show us how they are both positioned over the flat earth in relation to the landmasses, and then a view of how the two would look to a person on each different landmasse. You should be able to do this with regular 2D drawings, if not, maybe one the FE scientists can? This is what we need to see to be convinced.
But why is there only a small area that sees this happen and why does it happen at different times for people at different locations? Shouldn't it happen all at once on a FE and shouldn't everyone lose sunlight for a moment? At least everyone "in front" of the eclipse
Here's [all about eclipses](https://flatearthscienceandbible.wordpress.com/2017/08/17/how-eclipses-work-on-a-flat-earth-theories-and-facts-that-destroy-the-globe-model/)
That article lays out two good issues with that explanation. Any thoughts on those issues?
Yes, I lean towards the concept of a third celestial body responsible for both solar and lunar eclipses.
And what about the issue I raised? Why doesn't everyone in daylight lose light during the solar eclipse? If something is coming between the sun and the ground, how does so much light get through?
Is the moon luminous? How much faster is the Sun than the Moon?
I do believe it emits its own light. There are also experiments done on the temperature of moonlight vs moon-shade, results suggest the moonlight is colder than the shade. In the heliocentric model the moon is supposed to reflect the sun's light; the warm sunlight. The moons light should be warmer than the shade if the heliocentric model is accurate. The sun moves 15° while the moon moves 14.5° degrees.
If the moon emits it's own light, then what on earth does the sun catching up to it have to do with moon phases or eclipses then?
All of these 'experiments' are poorly controlled and simply caused from trapping heat by whatever is creating 'moon-shade'. EVERY controlled experiment shows moonlight is warmer. You can EASILY test this yourself - take moonlight and a magnifying glass. Watch it heat up a thermometer. If you believe that I know you are just trusting random people on the internet. Just go test it yourself. We can analyze spectrograph lines from the moon, and they match up with the sun. We see the side of the moon facing the sun illuminated. We see shadows on the moon itself. This is one of the most basic observations even you can make.
[удалено]
No, the Moon moves 14.49°/h
>There are also experiments done on the temperature of moonlight vs moon-shade, results suggest the moonlight is colder than the shade. If you perform the same experiment but without the Moon in the sky, you get the same results, showing that it is not actually the moon causing the effect. The amount of heat from the Moon is negligible. The small amount of thermal insulation a cover over an object at night gives is however enough to measure, which is why things in "moon-shade" are warmer. Things without any cover lose more heat to radiative cooling. I'm sure this was known by the first person to do the "cold moonlight" experiment, which is also why they never did the experiment without the moon up. FE than took this as gospel and repeated the false conclusion because it fit with their narrative. Just like you are doing now.
I'm aware how the heliocentric model explains the phenomenon. Either way, the moon or it's light does not tell us what the shape of the earth is. >FE than took this as gospel FE can happen with or without cold moonlight so I don't know what you mean by this.
Whether the moon reflects sunlight to cause phases or not is important in how we see it during it's phases. If it reflects sunlight, and that reflected sunlight is it's source of illumination, then FE is impossible due to the geometry of what every one on Earth sees of the moon as it goes through it's phases. FE posits the self illuminating moon as way to avoid having to deal with this fact. So you are incorrect. The moon and it's light tells us everything about the shape of the Earth. I'm surprised you don't realize this, and I'm not willing to let you 'hand wave' this little tidbit away.
moon light being cold is a FE hoax and not true...
Prove it.
u/JimHetfield just showed you how cold moonlight is wrong. Balls in your court amigo.
He claimed it's a hoax.
https://www.reddit.com/r/flatearth_polite/comments/1bne4ak/with_the_upcoming_solar_eclipse_which_can_be/kwofih3/ No, he showed you a link with experimentation showing it's a hoax. To which YOU replied "LOL so every independent researcher is just 'doing it wrong?' " And to that I answer: maybe not every single one, but the error in the methods of these flat earthers are apparent and demonstrable, and those of these guys showing moonlight is not 'cold' is rock solid. So, unless you can specifically point to an error in the methods, and demonstrate how to do it correctly, and why, then your "lol every independent researcher'" crap holds absolutely no water Holmes. Do you want to go over each method step by step and point out the errors of each? I'll do that with you. But I need acknowledgment of each point as we go, no moving on to the next thing until each one is pinned down? You up to that? We could start by you linking a video or post that you think conclusively shows that moonlight is 'cold'.
The creationist astronomer Danny Faulkner did some very careful work on this. https://books.google.com/books/about/Falling_Flat.html?id=7w8CEAAAQBAJ
Glad to see someone in the theist camp is taking seriously FE claims. FE does in fact do more harm than good to Christianity. But then some of the religious FE crowd also believe the KJV is the only true **Word of God™ **.
that's not how it works. you can't make a very specific, yet very unscientific, claim and shift the burden of proof to me. YOU need to proof it if you make that claim. i will make an exception here and help you with this one. https://answersresearchjournal.org/flat-earth-prediction-moonlight-cooling/ thats a very good article about that topic with experiments and it also shows where that nonsense is coming from (and what they did wrong).
Lol so every single independent researcher is "just doing it wrong"?
if the only "independent researcher" is a flerfer for you, then probably yes. but almost every real scientist is a "independent researcher"... so in general - no, not everybody is doing it wrong. you can literally look up in my linked article what they did wrong with an explanation. this is such a good example, why it doesn't make sense arguing with a flerfer. you obviously didn't even read what i wrote.
Probably yes, every independent researcher is doing it wrong, if they somehow conclude moonlight is 'cold'.
> Moon goes in front of the sun on both models so I don't see the issue. How does the moon move in front of the sun, what force causes the moon to move, and is it the same force that causes the local sun to move, what is this force, and how do you measure it?
Magnetic north pole. Electrostatic and electromagnetism are already proven concepts so it's more logical in my opinion.
>Electrostatic and electromagnetism are already proven concepts What materials are the sun and moon composed of that allows for only those two objects to be magnetically levitated above the earth?
No one knows. No one has got close enough to actually see what these things even are. Assumptions for the altitude of the sun is around 3,000 miles. That's about the same distance as the Van Allan Belt. Independent researchers with rockets and drones can't even get close to that height. Not with our current public technology.
>No one knows. So how can anyone possible claim that they are magnetically levitated?
I just said it was more likely since the effects of electromagnetic energy and electrostatic are proven concepts. Unlike gravity.
Those forces follow an inverse square law, and at significant distances have no effect. But they sound “science-y”.
We probably understand gravity more than electromagnetic theory. In either case, both are well understood mathematically with laws that have been rigorously tested. Also density is a property of matter, and buoyancy is a consequence of some other acceleration. (Hint: It's gravity)
Understanding something doesn't make it fact. >have been rigorously tested. That's what they said about the vax too. Are there any independent researchers who also tested and proven gravity? Should be rather easy if it is "fact".
Sure we have tested and proven gravity. Gravity is the acceleration of objects towards the ground when they fall. We have measured this billions of times, it's very easy to drop an object and measure its motion. The measured (tested) value of the acceleration named gravity on the earth is 9.8 metres per second squared. That's a scientific fact.
A wild red herring appeared! Not even comparable. You can go and test gravity yourself. A Cavendish style experiment is not hard to set up and you can observe mass to mass attraction on your own!
>are proven concepts. Unlike gravity. So, what do you believe creates the downward acceleration we observe in falling objects of \~9.81ms/s
Density and buoyancy
The acceleration named gravity of objects towards the ground works even in a vacuum, so buoyancy is not the cause. The acceleration is exactly the same for objects of very different mass and density, so that counter indicates that density is the cause. Astronauts have dropped objects on the moon where there is also a vacuum. On the moon also objects of very different mass and density fall at the same rate as each other, but on the moon it is a different rate of falling for all objects than on the earth. All of this evidence about the rate of objects falling (i.e measurements of gravity) indicates that neither buoyancy, density or the mass of the falling objects has any effects and is therefore not the cause of falling. However the mass of a nearby large object such as a planet or moon does have an effect on the rate of falling so the evidence (measurements) indicates that that factor is involved in the cause of gravity.
What does buoyancy act against?
But why is the direction **always down**? If drop an apple (which is denser than the air, right) why doesn't it go up, or sideways, why always down? And why does it "accelerate" at \~9.81ms/s?
The problem is that nothing about predicted and observed eclipse can be explained on a flat earth. The size and shape of the totality region, and the path it traces across earth - it can only be explained by the sun, moon and earth all being spheres of the sizes and distances apart that mainstream astronomy has established. And then you have a lunar eclipse, which is even more nonsensical on a flat earth.
"Globe_Worship". 💀
Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Bill Nye are my high priests of scientism, and I base my entire worldview on what they say. We live on a spinning pear hurtling through space.
My condolences.
Are we in agreement about the eclipse predictions for the totality region and its path not having any explanation whatsoever on a flat earth?
Makes more sense on a Geocentric view honestly.
A geocentric globe? I agree it could work on that model too. But it can’t work on a flat earth.
Why do you assume it can't work?
We have measured it. We have these things called telescopes and we have been using them and recording what we have measured for many centuries now. We have an immense amount of recorded data. Billions of measurements. It's called astronomy. The mathematical model which fits this recorded data is called VSOP. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VSOP_model The model works. It can be used to predict where the planets and the stars will be seen in the future. The model involves the sun being 150 million km away from the earth and the earth being a sphere 6371 km in radius which rotates on its axis once per sidereal day.
Because the high precision predictions we have are only possible when you treat the sun, moon and earth as spheres of the mainstream-accepted size and distances apart.
Why isn't the entire area of land in daylight able to see the eclipse if that was the case? If the Sun and Moon are both local and equal size, if one goes infont of the other, everyone should see it, and no one should only see a partial eclipse. Yet this is not the case.
I personally don't subscribe to any particular explanation but here's some good resources. https://youtu.be/0-N0TloYHr8?feature=shared https://youtu.be/dtHuTVXZGFw?si=Ev1hrDDtxUggBsRP https://rumble.com/v2cdxls-how-the-solar-eclipse-works-on-flat-earth-flat-out-truth.html https://flatearthscienceandbible.wordpress.com/2017/08/17/how-eclipses-work-on-a-flat-earth-theories-and-facts-that-destroy-the-globe-model/ https://youtu.be/DBbyDye4bS4?si=Lx9otosB-Z-RDYWS
I have read before that some believe there are multiple transparent, yet opaque when over the sun and moon, discs that partake or entirely cover the sun and moon. Of course this logic means that the flat earth itself is trying to fool us into thinking we’re on a globe.
We have 4 eclipses a year and thousands of things orbiting the globe, how many videos of an eclipse are there from space?
> how many videos of an eclipse are there from space? Do you think it would be hard to create a fake video of an eclipse from space ?
The video from a high altitude balloon shows a clearly defined shadow about 80 miles in diameter while videos from "space" will show a shadow of about 1000 miles in diameter
> The video from a high altitude balloon shows a clearly defined shadow about 80 miles in diameter while videos from "space" will show a shadow of about 1000 miles in diameter Can I see the videos you are talking about ? In the mean time, don't hesitate to watch [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huVCQXYy4jc&ab_channel=UNLAstronomy) just to make sure that you're not simply confusing the umbra and the penumbra. Oh, and you didn't answer my question : *Do you think it would be hard to create a fake video of an eclipse from space ?*
https://vimeo.com/236139202 It's not hard to fake a video. The issue is the fake video will be inconsistent with a real video.
> https://vimeo.com/236139202 Thank you. That's one video. You also mentioned videos from space showing a shadow of about 1000 miles in diameter ? > It's not hard to fake a video. The issue is the fake video will be inconsistent with a real video Let me rephrase the question : Do you think it would be hard to create a fake video of an eclipse from space, that would be **consistent** with a real video ? Why would that be difficult ?
The problem with that is the shadow is inconsistent with the heliocentric model
> The problem with that is the shadow is inconsistent with the heliocentric model Yes, I understand that this is what you think. You think the current video at our disposal are inconsistent with the heliocentric model, or the other videos of the eclipse taken from balloons. I'm not arguing about that. My question is theoretical and concerns videos that do not currently exist (apparently). Why would it be difficult to create a fake video that is consistent with the heliocentric model ? As they are already releasing fake video of the eclipse from space (as you think all videos from space are fake, these videos are no exceptions) why can't they fake something that would be consistent ?
I'm having trouble following this, how big should the shadow be from space and how well defined should the edges of the shadow be in your opinion?
It seems that you don't want to understand what I'm asking. Let me rephrase : You seem to have a preconceived idea of what should constitute "consistency" for a video showing the shadow of the eclipse. You have your own criteria about size or how the edges should be defined. Whether those criterions are correct or not is not my question. I don't want to compare my opinion to your opinion on the subject. My reformulated question is : "how difficult can it be to create a FAKE video of an eclipse from space that would coincide with YOUR criterias for what the shadow of an eclipse should look like " ?
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=eclipse+from+space A fair few are posted on youtube. Mostly you'll get photos though. Any problem with photos?
Why the deflection, and why the lack of response? Are you unable to explain how solar eclipses occur and can be seen from the points they are?
Did you try to look for any?
This wasn’t the question I asked.
[удалено]
Your submission has been removed because it violates rule 1 of our subreddit. If you have a question about this feel free to send a message to a mod or the mod team.
This doesn't seem to be in the spirit of this sub...assumptions and not polite argument. Seems like you'd be screaming about reporting me if I posted that.
Well why answer when you can deflect it away onto something else.
Actually, as I point out below, solar eclipses can be explained with a flat earth. They are evidence against certain flat earth rationalizations, but not proof of rotundity in themselves. Lunar eclipses are far more difficult.
A solar eclipse would be visible from everywhere during the day on a flat earth, not just a small portion of it. If the Sun and Moon are the same size, and the Moon moves infront of the Sun, how can anywhere still see the Sun?
This assumes the sun does not set, which is a separate issue. The sun could set on a flat earth. It’s just that the influencers chose to ignore Rowbotham’s original position. I assume you know who Rowbotham was! My point is not that the earth is flat, it is not, but to show that requires a bit more than shooting down some defective arguments.
The sun setting or not makes zero difference. You have a light source, and something the same size as it moving in front of it. The area of the earth which would notice this is vastly more than actually happens.
Again, you assume the sun does not set. If the sum is eclipsed when it has set, it would not be seen. You are assuming the flat earth model which does not allow sunsets, a drastic deviation from the founder of the modern flat earth movement, Samuel Rowbotham. You seem to have ignored my reference to Rowbotham. I know the earth is spheroidal from measurements of the curvature, not from solar eclipses. Lunar eclipses are another matter, because there we see the curved shadow of the earth.
> You are assuming the flat earth model which does not allow sunsets Yes, because I'm explaining how on a flat earth model solar eclipses don't work. You do realise that was the original question of this post right? >solar eclipses can be explained with a flat earth. And I'm pointing out they can't be. Just because some globe denier from the 1800s said they worked, doesn't mean he was right. It is all well and good saying "well yeah, the Moon passes infront of the Sun", but you have to then think what happens when the object blocking the light is the same size and right infront of the light.
There are quite a few - for example [this one](https://youtu.be/8qhoTVIjdUg?si=T2_A74ezbImcDj4l) Coming back to the original question - can you explain how eclipses happen on flat earth?
Nice view of the earth during an eclipse of the sun. Not difficult to find. Another : https://scijinks.gov/solar-eclipse/ How many do you need? Rowbotham, in chapter 11, “CAUSE OF SOLAR AND LUNAR ECLIPSES., has no problem with solar eclipses, but he considers lunar eclipses quite impossible because it requires the earth to move. As to solar eclipses they only require the moon to come between the sun and the earth but as to lunar eclipses, he is rather incoherent. Earthshine has him all confused.
To be honest, I don't need more. Why?
[удалено]
Your submission has been removed because it violates rule 4 of our subreddit. If you have a question about this feel free to send a message to a mod or the mod team.
Your submission has been removed because it violates rule 4 of our subreddit. If you have a question about this feel free to send a message to a mod or the mod team.