[Mock]

What if the solar eclipse is a part of a sun hologram, and the sun is definitely an interactive hologram!

What if we're all floating unconscious in a giant jar of magical peanut butter along with unicorns and leprechauns with 3.1415 fingers on each hand, and they're manipulating our brains Matrix-style using fairy dust and reptilian magic to make us experience the things we do, AND make annular solar eclipses possible?

Everyone can write up some bullshit that is impossible to directly disprove. It will still be bullshit, though.
And that's disregarding the fact that my bullshit is still even harder to disprove than yours...

[rabinoz]

What if the solar eclipse is a part of a sun hologram, and the sun is definitely an interactive hologram!

What if we're all floating unconscious in a giant jar of magical peanut butter along with unicorns and leprechauns with 3.1415 3.1416 fingers on each hand, and they're manipulating our brains Matrix-style using fairy dust and reptilian magic to make us experience the things we do, AND make annular solar eclipses possible?

Everyone can write up some bullshit that is impossible to directly disprove. It will still be bullshit, though.
And that's disregarding the fact that my bullshit is still even harder to disprove than yours...

Just fixing your finger count.

[juner]

What if the solar eclipse is a part of a sun hologram, and the sun is definitely an interactive hologram!

What if we're all floating unconscious in a giant jar of magical peanut butter along with unicorns and leprechauns with 3.1415 3.1416 fingers on each hand, and they're manipulating our brains Matrix-style using fairy dust and reptilian magic to make us experience the things we do, AND make annular solar eclipses possible?

Everyone can write up some bullshit that is impossible to directly disprove. It will still be bullshit, though.
And that's disregarding the fact that my bullshit is still even harder to disprove than yours...

Just fixing your finger count.

Thanks for the usual low-content, rabinoz. Warned.

[3DGeek]

Just a friendly reminder to everyone who saw the eclipse today. Despite that the Sun is 4 million times larger than the Moon, the Sun and Moon appear to be the same size from earth and fit perfectly into each other during the Solar Eclipse. The official scientific reason for this is that it is a coincidence.

Yeah - "coincidence".  Weird - but true.

We know that the moon was once closer to the Earth (like in the time of the Dinosaurs) and is gradually moving further away.   So in the deep past, the Moon was close enough to completely cover the sun and prevent the spectacular effects people saw last week - and in the distant future, it'll be too far away to cover the sun.

So the coincidence isn't the size of the moon - it's that we happen to be alive during the period when the position is exactly right.

This might seem like a small difference - but it's important.   Many people imagine that the perfection of the "fit" must mean that some "creator" intended it that way - but the Moon wasn't created to "fit" - it's just that the slowly increasing spiral of it's orbit just happened to make the fit perfect for modern humans.

We got lucky for once!

The underlying cause for the gradual increase in the moon's orbit is because the energy to produce the Earth's tides come from the kinetic energy of the moon - and as the moon is gradually slowed down by this, it's orbit gets gradually larger.

[Ga_x2]

Also, it's not a perfect coincidence (see annular eclipses, which by the way are yet another problem for the mechanism proposed by the FES)

[Pete Svarrior]

Also, it's not a perfect coincidence (see annular eclipses, which by the way are yet another problem for the mechanism proposed by the FES)

In what way are annular eclipses less coincidental than any other type of eclipse?

[Rounder]

Also, it's not a perfect coincidence (see annular eclipses, which by the way are yet another problem for the mechanism proposed by the FES)

In what way are annular eclipses less coincidental than any other type of eclipse?

The coincidence Tom and other FE mock is that Moon and Sun appear to be exactly the same size in the sky despite being vastly different sizes.  During the annular eclipse the moon does not appear to be exactly the same size, it appears to be a little smaller.

[Ga_x2]

Also, it's not a perfect coincidence (see annular eclipses, which by the way are yet another problem for the mechanism proposed by the FES)

In what way are annular eclipses less coincidental than any other type of eclipse?

As Rounder said. Tom put it as if the relative sizes and distances were a perfect coincidence, too good to be true. They aren't, see annular eclipses.
By the way, how do you explain those?

[Roundy]

That's a good question about annular eclipses, but I'm certain Tom has figured this one out. He's the greatest FE mind of our generation. Tom?

[Pete Svarrior]

The coincidence Tom and other FE mock is that Moon and Sun appear to be exactly the same size in the sky despite being vastly different sizes.  During the annular eclipse the moon does not appear to be exactly the same size, it appears to be a little smaller.

Which is exactly what you'd expect as the altitude of the bodies relative to Earth's surface varies slightly. This is true of both models, but the "coincidence" element of RET remains unexplained. Ga_x2's claim was that it's no longer a coincidence because sometimes they don't appear identical, but rather near-identical. I fail to see how that's any less of a coincidence and would appreciate an explanation.

[Boots]

That's a good question about annular eclipses, but I'm certain Tom has figured this one out. He's the greatest FE mind of our generation. Tom?

If that's the case, the FE movement may be in trouble. lol

There are a lot of coincidence. It's a coincidence that the sun is close enough to provide the right amount of light and heat but not so close as to burn us up. There are many more. These would be coincidences under FET or GET. This proves nothing about the shape of the earth.

These coincidences may be an argument for a creator or some type of ID but not for the shape of the earth.

[Ga_x2]

The coincidence Tom and other FE mock is that Moon and Sun appear to be exactly the same size in the sky despite being vastly different sizes.  During the annular eclipse the moon does not appear to be exactly the same size, it appears to be a little smaller.

Which is exactly what you'd expect as the altitude of the bodies relative to Earth's surface varies slightly. This is true of both models, but the "coincidence" element of RET remains unexplained. Ga_x2's claim was that it's no longer a coincidence because sometimes they don't appear identical, but rather near-identical. I fail to see how that's any less of a coincidence and would appreciate an explanation.

It's a coincidence to the extent that the moon happens to be able to cover the sun most of the times, yes. I was just pointing out that that's not one of those perfect clockwork things.
It escapes me though how that should be any less a coincidence for the flat earth. It also escapes me how it would work in a flat earth... given that the two bodies are said to be of the same size. Care to elaborate?

[Curious Squirrel]

That's a good question about annular eclipses, but I'm certain Tom has figured this one out. He's the greatest FE mind of our generation. Tom?

If that's the case, the FE movement may be in trouble. lol

There are a lot of coincidence. It's a coincidence that the sun is close enough to provide the right amount of light and heat but not so close as to burn us up. There are many more. These would be coincidences under FET or GET. This proves nothing about the shape of the earth.

These coincidences may be an argument for a creator or some type of ID but not for the shape of the earth.

Actually (at least according to Tom in another post) the FE hypothesis claims there's a maximum size anything can naturally be. Thus the moon/sun being the same size isn't a coincidence, but rather simply a factor of the universe. He pointed to raindrops only being within a relatively small band, as well as sand dunes only being so high and many of them will be that height.

[Ga_x2]

Actually (at least according to Tom in another post) the FE hypothesis claims there's a maximum size anything can naturally be. Thus the moon/sun being the same size isn't a coincidence, but rather simply a factor of the universe. He pointed to raindrops only being within a relatively small band, as well as sand dunes only being so high and many of them will be that height.

Sorry I missed that one spectacularly ad hoc explanation... these threads go everywhere
Did he say anything about annular eclipses too?

[Curious Squirrel]

Actually (at least according to Tom in another post) the FE hypothesis claims there's a maximum size anything can naturally be. Thus the moon/sun being the same size isn't a coincidence, but rather simply a factor of the universe. He pointed to raindrops only being within a relatively small band, as well as sand dunes only being so high and many of them will be that height.

Sorry I missed that one spectacularly ad hoc explanation... these threads go everywhere
Did he say anything about annular eclipses too?

He did not mention anything. Upon a quick inspection the post appears to be his second in this thread. http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6772.msg123434#msg123434

[Ga_x2]

He did not mention anything. Upon a quick inspection the post appears to be his second in this thread. http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6772.msg123434#msg123434

Thank you!
It still looks like he's making stuff up to justify the coincidence after the fact, but at least it's a start
By the by... is there anything on the origin of the sun, the moon or the whole shebang somewhere? He makes it sound as if it is some sort of accretion, with those examples, but I haven't found anything in the wiki.

[Curious Squirrel]

He did not mention anything. Upon a quick inspection the post appears to be his second in this thread. http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6772.msg123434#msg123434

Thank you!
It still looks like he's making stuff up to justify the coincidence after the fact, but at least it's a start
By the by... is there anything on the origin of the sun, the moon or the whole shebang somewhere? He makes it sound as if it is some sort of accretion, with those examples, but I haven't found anything in the wiki.

I asked him after he said that, but he never got back to me. So no idea, because I haven't found anything either.
It WOULD make The Big Bang pretty hard to be the origins though, considering it would need a mechanism to make Earth not follow the laws/rules of everything else.

[Ga_x2]

I asked him after he said that, but he never got back to me. So no idea, because I haven't found anything either.
It WOULD make The Big Bang pretty hard to be the origins though, considering it would need a mechanism to make Earth not follow the laws/rules of everything else.

Judging by the posts, as of right now I would pick:"special creation by a drunken god".
Kidding aside, it would help a lot if he could propose a formation mechanism.
A diagram of the movement of the bodies would also be really great. Any chance guys?

[3DGeek]

In what way are annular eclipses less coincidental than any other type of eclipse?

The Moon's orbit around the earth isn't a perfect circle.  Like most orbits, it's an ellipse.

So sometimes the moon is a bit further away, other times a bit closer.  This makes it's apparent size a little larger or smaller.

So when the moon gets between sun and earth, it might be a little smaller than usual or a little larger.

A "perfect" alignment of the moon's orbit produces that PERFECT eclipse that was seen over the USA a few days ago - but if the orbital alignments are not so great - the moon might be further away, and fail to COMPLETELY cover the sun.

The result is an "annular" eclipse - where the sun is visible as a ring (and "annulus") around the moon...which is a lot less impressive than a "total" eclipse.

These things are easily explained in RET - but much harder in FET.

[3DGeek]

That's a good question about annular eclipses, but I'm certain Tom has figured this one out. He's the greatest FE mind of our generation. Tom?

Yikes!  Really?  That's the best you guys have?  Wow!

Anyway - Tom believes that light travels in straight lines - but that the "laws of perspective" (which derive solely from the "straight lines" thing) are broken.  I don't know how he can keep this straight in his head - and he gave up posting to my thread on this important subject...but that's his problem.

The point being that if he can simultaneously admit and deny some rather fundamental fact like that, his "explanations" for things like eclipses cannot be trusted either.

Bottom line here is that if light DOES travel in straight lines then there are no sunsets - and if light DOESN'T travel in straight lines then there are no eclipses...well, not without magical fairies who can bend light on demand to order to make it do whatever the heck Tom wants it to do.

Nearly every day I find another phenomenon that nobody here can explain.   Tom typically attempts one or two answers then disappears off the thread once he's proven wrong.

Just look at the dozen or so threads I've started in the "Debates" forum...read the sequence of posts from me and from Tom - not a single one of them ended up with an FE "win".