![](https://i.imgur.com/esVdE2C.gif?1)
I added the angular degrees of the Sun's circular spotlight for easy reference. And since it's supposedly a circle, you can spin it to measure N and S along a meridian, or even catty corner - SE to NW for example (nifty thing about a circle, being same all the way around).
Oh, wait, that's not how the Eclipse works. It's NOT visible from everywhere daylight is at the same moment with a minimum of about 50% totality, as the EA model appears to predict.
Why do you have the moon right up against the sun, touching it? If you decrease its altitude it will only intersect a portion of those rays at a time.
[...]
Because I read the wiki and that's where it says it goes.
https://wiki.tfes.org/SunThe sun is a rotating sphere. It has a diameter of 32 miles and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth.
https://wiki.tfes.org/MoonThe moon is a rotating sphere. It has a diameter of 32 miles and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth.
I positioned both at 3000(ish) miles, but since putting them right on top of each other seemed catastrophic and I've never seen the Moon and the Sun collide, it's a pretty safe assumption that one must pass the other at a slightly lower altitude.
I could probably easily validate the angular diameter for the Moon and Sun at 29.3 to 34.1 and 31.6 to 32.7 arcminutes, respectively, as provided by Wikipedia.
However, you're the one who says geometry doesn't work at the distance of the Earth to the Moon, so why would I assume you would accept a calculated a distance from those figures (assuming the bodies are 32 miles in diameter)? But that that really isn't a problem, if you want Sun and Moon around 3000 miles away, the math actually works (I was being condescending there, as I assumed that TFES came up with 32 miles by taking their stated distance of 3000(ish) miles and determining what size the Sun and Moon need to be match the observed angular measurements).
What I'm saying here is, I'm pretty sure I just reversed the math TFES did to come up with a 32 mile diameter. You can argue against it, but then your probably arguing against a TFES measurement as well.
Anyway...
The results would be 3226 - 3750 miles for the Moon and 3364 - 3481 miles for the Sun, clearly well within the range to be right next to each other (and colliding, one 4311 of a cosmic dance going on in FE land, BTW). Ultimately, your suggestion of decreasing the Moon's altitude doesn't match the established data obtained by TFES via observation.
Why should I lower the Moon's altitude to say 2000 miles, when the wiki states it is 'approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth', when the math the TFES used to determine it's size says it's at 3000 miles, when that's not where anyone's observations are placing it?
Let's even look a little closer, clearly the nature of the drawing is NOT TO SCALE. The Sun and Moon, as depicted there, are both like 300 miles in diameter when compared to their distance over the Earth's surface. What I penciled in was pretty much a BEST CASE SCENARIO separation, that is, the Sun at it's maximum elevation and the Moon at it's minimum. But, even drawn to scale it's not going to address the fact that this model does not fit the actual observation of an eclipse.
Here's a scale version with a generic Moon altitude of 3000 miles and Lunar/Solar separation of 32 miles (which seems like it could happen).
![](https://i.imgur.com/AdgFy9k.jpg)
If the The Flat Earth Society would like to provide different & verifiable observational data, I will be glad to redraw this to scale again, using it instead.