361

Flat Earth Theory / Re: EA simply can't explain lunar eclipses

« on: December 08, 2020, 08:34:50 PM »

It might be possible for an event where the Sun and Full Moon are more than 180 degrees N-S longitude, without eclipsing.

Here is a quick example:

Black Circle = Sun Path around the Earth, say over the equator. Moon path not depicted. Moon may be following a similar, but not exact circle.

Red Circle = Total extent of the extended rays if the Sun (after they curve back upwards) with a radius about the diameter of the black circle (my guess, may differ).



Top Blue Arrow = It is possible for the Full Moon to be not exactly in the eclipsing region, yet a little further south so that it's 182 degrees longitude from the Sun at its maximum southernly point if you count up the longitude degrees from the North Pole

Of course, the sun is not to scale. If the above image was vectorized you could zoom in and perhaps find a spot closer to the midpoint eclipse area on the right side where a small 32 mile diameter Moon could fit and where its maximum southernly point just skirts by a Lunar Eclipse.

I won't try to disect this except to say your geometry and premise are correct.  So let's look at further detail.

For the Jan. 2019 eclipse I posted, the solar noon preceded the lunar meridian by 12 hours.  It took me a bit to find it, but for the preceding Dec. 2018 full moon the location with solar noon preceding lunar meridian by 12 hours was at Wudwin, Muyanmar (I admit that I was off with my previous location of the fullest moon) seen here:



This occurs at a lattitude .3 degrees north of the Honolulu location I gave earlier.  So a slight mathematical adjustment in the FE favor puts the distance at 182.1 degrees.  In both cases, the sun would be at the exact same rotational angle from the moon.  In other words both images would plot the same sun moon orientation on the illustration you provided. This rules out any sun/moon angular distance differences in the two occurrences.  So, this yields that with the sun and moon at equal distances, a lunar eclipse occurs with the moon more than 7 degrees nearer the sun than the full moon.

362

Flat Earth Theory / EA simply can't explain lunar eclipses

« on: December 08, 2020, 05:43:23 PM »

There's a section in the WIKI - https://wiki.tfes.org/Lunar_Eclipse_due_to_Electromagnetic_Acceleration - discussing lunar eclipses caused by EA.  The premise is that a full moon happens when the moon travels " "out of bounds," beyond the vertical rays of the Sun."

This is fairly easy to disprove by simply finding a full moon that occurs further from the sun than a lunar eclipse.

Jan 21, 2019, a full lunar eclipse occurred at 5:12 UTC.  At 5:12 UTC the moon was above Cuba at approximately 20.2 deg N, 75.16 deg. W. seen here:



At that time, the sun would have traveled 31 days from the solstice and covered 8 deg. placing it at 15.5 deg south.  Do the math on the flat earth model and you have them separated by 69.8 + 90 +15.5 = 175.3 deg.

The previous full moon occurred occurred very near Honolulu, HI Dec. 22, 2018.  At that time the moon was at approximately 20.8 deg N, 157.93 deg W seen here:



At that time, the sun is 1 day past the winter solstice placing it at 23.24 deg south.  Do the math on the flat earth model and you have them separated by 69.2 + 90 + 23.24 = 182.44 deg.

As you can see, the full moon occurred over 7 deg. further from the sun than the lunar eclipse.  In the FE theory of EA this places the lunar eclipse occurring with the moon well within the verticle upreach of the suns rays.

363

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: My Philosophy on beer...

« on: December 05, 2020, 09:58:24 PM »

This post brought to you by DUFF beer. You just can’t get enough of that wonderful DUFF.

364

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Take J-Man to the mat if you dare

« on: December 05, 2020, 01:12:12 AM »

33. But I’m a moron.

Well, that and the Bible is fiction just like UA, EA and the rest of flat earth theory.

365

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: December 04, 2020, 07:32:00 PM »

0-30

“This will continue to be a losing strategy, and in a way it’s even bad for him: He gets to re-lose the election numerous times,” said Kent Greenfield, a professor at Boston College Law School. “The depths of his petulance and narcissism continues to surprise me.”

366

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Terrible Political Memes

« on: December 04, 2020, 07:22:30 PM »

367

Flat Earth Theory / Why don't we see more solar eclipses?

« on: December 02, 2020, 10:30:38 PM »

The August 12, 2017 total solar eclipse was a marvelous thing to witness.  I was lucky enough to enjoy it while having a fine cigar in my backyard.

A few things I've discovered about it.  The center (my term for the exact longitudinal alignment of the sun and moon) of the eclipse occurred near the longitude of St. Louis, MO.  If you check https://www.timeanddate.com/moon/phases/usa/st-louis you'll find that solar noon and the lunar meridian crossing of the new moon occur at the same time as one would expect.

I appreciate @Tom Bishop for turning me on to the mooncalc website.  One can gather great data there. Using that site, I was able to iterate that at the time of the center of the eclipse the moon was directly above between 12 deg. 18'-20' N lattitude.  Just doing a little math with the sun traveling .26 deg/day, the sun would be approximately 8 deg. 30' N at that time.  That alignment was able to cast the umbra as far north as 44 deg.

Now according to the WIKI: "When the moon is below the sun's altitude and near it, the moon is dark and a New Moon occurs."

So this raises the following question.  Twice a year, the sun and new moon approach the equator at the same time.  Near the Sept. equinox in 2025 they are within a degree of each other and within a degree of the equator.  How could this alignment not cause a total solar eclipse at that time as well as the numerous other times the sun and new moon would align in locations nearer the equator and closer to each other than the nearly 4 degree difference witnessed in August 2017?

368

Flat Earth Community / Re: A Question From a Round-Earther

« on: December 02, 2020, 06:45:01 PM »

Refraction can cause light to bend upwards or downwards.

That proves absolutely nothing.  The only way the red line can be drawn to try to reference refraction is if it can be drawn in a zero refraction condition which it can't.  The video maker selectively chose to draw the red line at a point in time when refraction was greater than the refraction which caused the lights to appear to "move up".  I can take that video and draw the same red line (well, I can't personally because I'm no videographer) at a different time in the video and all of the lights will appear to only move down.

Edited to add:  That's not to say that refraction can't cause upward bending of light but what is usually witnessed is refraction causing light to bend downward.

369

Flat Earth Community / Re: A Question From a Round-Earther

« on: December 02, 2020, 05:13:18 PM »

For as long as I can remember I have always known the Earth is round, when I was a kid I went on a boat and saw the coastline disappear bottom first, as you would expect from a round object. I've always wondered since knowing about the FES how people could believe the Earth is flat, but that's my personal experience. How did you come to believe that the Earth was flat? I really want to know.

This video shows what happens when refraction is added to a scene in Cinema 4D. It might be of use to you perhaps.

I'll admit I'm no professor of optics, but doesn't atmospheric refraction cause light to bend toward the earth?  As such, aren't these WIKI statement true?

"Terrestrial refraction usually causes terrestrial objects to appear higher than they actually are,"

"A simple approximation is to consider that a mountain's apparent altitude at your eye (in degrees) will exceed its true altitude by its distance in kilometers divided by 1500. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction#Terrestrial_refraction

So the video is incorrect.  Adding refraction would cause each subsequent bridge tower to appear taller with the ground plane remaining straight.

370

Flat Earth Community / Re: A Question From a Round-Earther

« on: December 02, 2020, 04:54:34 PM »

This video shows what happens when refraction is added to a scene in Cinema 4D. It might be of use to you perhaps.

https://youtu.be/1XoFnXX4UOI

What use is the video meant to be?  All it does is show that refraction can, depending on extent (which is unknown in that video) make it appear as though something in the distance is shorter than you'd expect, or even not visible at all.  In of itself it shows nothing about the shape of the Earth, only the possible effect of atmospheric refraction which is basically the same process in both models.  Maybe a curved surface alone would not be enough to create the pronounced effect as shown in some of the images earlier, but it would certainly compound the effect of refraction.

It shows how refraction can fool people into thinking the horizon curves downwards thus making them believe the world is a globe.

At what height from the earth's surface would refraction be negligible in a straight line of sight observation?

371

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Vendée Globe

« on: December 02, 2020, 03:50:04 PM »

Here's their position Dec. 2, 2020



At the time, the leading boat (Apivia) has sailed 9,132.9nM (16,914.1km) and has 16,945.2nM (31,382 km) remaining currently headed from the Cape of Good Hope to Australia.

If you plot their course on the WIKI approved FE map, there would be roughly the same distance to travel (using the most FE favorable translation of route) from the Cape to Cape Leeuwin.



We'll see how the next stretch goes.

372

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why the round earth hoax?

« on: November 29, 2020, 07:29:56 PM »

Space travel is fake.

The conspiracy has to be true for flat earth to be real

Everything else is pseudoscience. Pseudoscience is anything that doesn't follow the scientific method, ie. lacking experimental confirmation and relying on observational interpretation.

You mean like universal acceleration and electromagnetic acceleration?  Your statement describes everything flat earth theory relies on.

373

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why the round earth hoax?

« on: November 29, 2020, 05:55:39 PM »

The existence of a hoax, or not, is irrelevant to the shape of the earth, and to determining it with certainty. 

Which has been done, unless you believe in the conspiracy that all the evidence has been faked.  Flat earth can't exist without the conspiracy theory because the conspiracy is the only way to discount the volumes of evidence of the spherical model.

374

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moonrise-Moonset in northern lattitudes

« on: November 24, 2020, 04:55:34 PM »

@Tom Bishop

Thank you for turning me onto the mooncalc site.  It has helped answer many questions I've been having.  As a side note. Your illustration of moon phasing in the Wiki is completely inaccurate.



It appears to show the sun and moon traveling in concentric orbits about the north pole.  I don't believe the FE model follows this as is evidenced by the two illustrations you presented. This has caused me great confusion in trying to understand the FE model.

375

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moonrise-Moonset in northern lattitudes

« on: November 24, 2020, 12:46:58 AM »

Nov 30, 2020 - Full Moon

Moon appears to the North at its apex in Equator. Also rises and sets in the North.

https://www.mooncalc.org/#/0,-78.0469,2/2020.11.30/00:00/1/3

Thank you for that, Tom.  Always interested in learning.  I can see how I misinterpreted your two drawings as I try to further understand the FE model. And, admittedly, learn more about how things work.

376

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moonrise-Moonset in northern lattitudes

« on: November 23, 2020, 11:33:20 PM »

When the Sun is in the South near the Tropic of Capricorn, the Full Moon is in the North near the Tropic of Cancer. The extreme North will see a Perpetual Full Moon.

When the Sun is in the North near the Tropic of Cancer, the Full Moon is in the South near the Tropic of Capricorn. The extreme North will not see the Full Moon rise or set throughout the day, as it is too far away.

I said I'd revisit this at the full moon.  Turns out I don't have to wait that long.  If Tom is correct, the moon would currently be north of 10 degrees latitude.  As such, a viewer at the equator today would need to look northward to see the rising moon.  As it turns out, an equitorial viewer needs to look south.

I had placed an Imgur image here but deleted it without thinking about the ramifications to my posts here.  Sorry for that

377

Flat Earth Theory / Solar noon drift

« on: November 23, 2020, 10:49:39 PM »

In researching a response to another post I ran across an unexpected interesting phenomenon.

"Solar noon occurs when the sun reaches its maximum height in the sky on any given day. At any location on Earth, the time of noon slowly oscillates back and forth by several minutes throughout the year (in other words, a sundial would not consistently show noon occurring at the same time as your wristwatch). These shifts are due to the earth’s elliptical (non-circular) orbit and axial tilt, and are summed up in a complex relationship called the equation of time (for simplicity, let’s call it the “solar noon effect”)." - https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/post/winter-solstice-marks-the-shortest-day-of-the-year-thursday-morning/2011/12/21/gIQANxaG9O_blog.html

With the Sun rotating about the north pole above a flat disc once a day, how does the FE model explain not only the oscillation of solar drift but the fact that solar noon drift occurs at all?

378

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Fun with 2-D orbital geometry

« on: November 23, 2020, 10:33:10 PM »

I apologize up front as this is rather lengthy

You are comparing two days when the first quarter moon occurred, and when the Moon passed over your meridian on that day. You need to find the exact time the first quarter moon occurred.

OK.  A little time to discuss this.

Tom is correct here.  My original post presented a static view of things when the situation is a dynamic one.  Though the original post was accurate with regards to the static case, the dynamics of the situation must be considered.

The original illustration is correct for one specific case; the one in which the previous new moon occurred at 3:00 in the sketch.  For a new moon which occurs at 3:00, the 1st quarter moon will appear as shown with the sun leading the 1st quarter moon by approximately 6:12:00 (6:12:30 is more accurate) as it passes the viewers meridian.

So now to the dynamics.  The moon lags the sun by 50 minutes every day (approximately 12.2 deg). At this point I'm going to switch to degrees rather than a clock in my discussion.  This leads to a time between new moons of 29.5 days.  RE and FE models both agree on this point.  If we now look at the 2-D geometry of the situation, we'll see this.  If we allow the original new moon to be at 0 degrees, with the viewer on the 0 degree meridian, this would mean that the next new moon would occur 29.5 days later which would put the second new moon at 180 degrees. 

This would then put the first quarter moon at 0 degrees,  sun at 90 degrees for the original 1st quarter and 180 degrees sun at 270 degrees for the second 1st quarter when the 1st quarter moon passes the preceding new moon meridian.

As my original post accurately stated, the time between the first solar noon and 1st quarter moon meridian crossing would be 6:12:30 each occurring at 0 degrees according to the FE model.  Now to the second 1st quarter moon.  The sun will cross the zero degree line of the viewer after traveling 90 degrees.  During this time, the moon will now lag 270 degrees by an additional 12:30.  As the sun rotates to 90 degrees the moon will have lost another 12:30.  Do the math and the second 1st quarter moon meridian crossing lags solar noon at the point of the viewer by a time in excess of 6:37:30.  If we think about the next lunar cycle we would expect the time to return to 6:12:30 as the new moon occurs back at 0 degrees.  At this time, I will admit that these times are approximations.  However, the observed data fall well outside of any possible error.

At first, I thought it might take awhile to find the proper data points.  Turns out I got lucky.  The city I've been using as my reference is Portland, OR.  As luck would have it, at the 1st quarter moon of Dec. 21, 2020 solar noon leads the lunar meridian crossing by 6:12:00.  The max error for this would be +/- 1 minute.  If the FE model is correct, this puts Portland at very near the location of the previous new moon. The FE model would then suggest that at the previous new moon of Dec. 14 we should see solar noon and lunar meridian crossing line up +/- 1 minute.  Turns out the difference is 10 minutes.  Problem 1 with the FE model.

Now let's look at the January 2021 1st quarter moon.  We would expect the crossings to differ by 6:37:30.  What we find is that they differ by 5:57.  Problem 2 with the FE model.

Now let's look at February 2021 1st quarter moon.  We would expect the crossings to return to 6:12:00.  What we find is that they differ by 5:59.

That's my analysis of the dynamic situation.  I fully leave open the possibility that it is flawed.  Would not be the 1st time I've made a fool of myself.  I look forward to the rebuttals.

379

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Questions regarding gravity

« on: November 22, 2020, 02:29:57 AM »

They don't believe in gravity. They believe in 'gravitation' cause by the earth accelerating 'upward'. They even have an explanation for not exceeding the speed of light. It's convenient that the direction of this acceleration is perpendicular to the 'plane' of the earth. Otherwise it would like the entire world was built on a hill. I'm not sure how they explain that the atmosphere (atomsplane?) doesn't get swept away, but I do know they will have an explanation.

There 'math' is a joke.  The try to present Lorentz transform as an equation that can be integrated.  It's a transform.   It relates one space to another.  It's doesn't work with calculus.  Also, it deals only with constant velocity bodies not acceleration.

380

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why the round earth hoax?

« on: November 21, 2020, 06:01:31 PM »

Has anyone explained the purpose of saying the earth is round if it's really flat. What is achieved by perpetuating the lie?

It's all a great conspiracy so governments all over the world can continue to fund all kinds of different  endeavors and keep the cash coming in or something like that.