Clearly during eclipse the Earth gets between the Moon and Sun and the Moon gets between the Sun and Earth.1 Earth doesn't get between moon and sun. Lunar eclipse is caused by a "shadow object" orbiting close to the sun.
Three questions.
how does FET explain
#1 Earth between Moon & Sun?
#2 Moon between Earth & Sun?
#3 Sun between Moon & Earth? Oh wait, that never happens. So the question should be,
Why not?
Clearly during eclipse the Earth gets between the Moon and Sun and the Moon gets between the Sun and Earth.1 Earth doesn't get between moon and sun. Lunar eclipse is caused by a "shadow object" orbiting close to the sun.
Three questions.
how does FET explain
#1 Earth between Moon & Sun?
#2 Moon between Earth & Sun?
#3 Sun between Moon & Earth? Oh wait, that never happens. So the question should be,
Why not?
2 Same basic idea as on a round Earth.
2 Paths simply don't cross.
I answered your first question. The Earth doesn't come between the sun and the moon during a lunar eclipse. The shadow object does. https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Lunar_Eclipse https://wiki.tfes.org/The_shadow_on_the_moon_during_a_Lunar_Eclipse_is_roundClearly during eclipse the Earth gets between the Moon and Sun and the Moon gets between the Sun and Earth.1 Earth doesn't get between moon and sun. Lunar eclipse is caused by a "shadow object" orbiting close to the sun.
Three questions.
how does FET explain
#1 Earth between Moon & Sun?
#2 Moon between Earth & Sun?
#3 Sun between Moon & Earth? Oh wait, that never happens. So the question should be,
Why not?
2 Same basic idea as on a round Earth.
2 Paths simply don't cross.
That's not the question or what was implied. The Earth and Moon absolutely don't cross the suns path. However at some point the the Moon crosses the Earths path and the Earth crosses the Moons path. But that's not what's taking place during eclipse conditions.
However on FET models that adhere to the UA theory the Sun and the Moon are always directly in the path of the Earth.
So no, no paths are crossed during eclipse. Simply put one celestial body must come directly between the other two in order to create the phenomena we witness during total lunar and solar eclipse.
My question is does FET have a model that shows how eclipse work when the Sun and Moon are 3,000 miles above the the earth circling overhead? Specifically how the "EARTH" comes between the Moon and Sun to create a lunar eclipse?
My 2nd question is why don't we see the Sun getting between the Earth and Moon, EVER?
The moon can be seen tracking across the sky day to day perfectly predictable correct? We can make a table of where the moon will be at least monthly from hour to hour and it WILL be there. We can see its phases as it approaches the new moon, the moon is still there, we can see earth shine lighting up the non sunlit portion frequently. Then on solar eclipse day, directly where we would track the moon from the days before, and then the days after, we are supposed to believe a mythical shadow object blocks the sun....? Where was the moon in that time? Why is the moon which we can clearly see even getting nearer to the sun on a FE model the moon looks to be always chasing the sun?What? There's no 'shadow object' when it comes to a solar ecplise (except for one right wacko on the other site). The shadow object only explains the lunar eclipse. Apologies, I'll correct my last post as it looks like I wasn't paying enough attention when I wrote it, although both of the sources I linked to referred to a lunar eclipse so....
This is such an easy killer of the FE theory/“model”.
As it goes both ways, we can accurately track and predict when and where the sun will be in the sky months in advance, during a lunar eclipse we know where the sun will be (and for people on the other side of the world who can confirm where the sun will be) using the globe earth model those same predictions put the earth between the sun and moon. Why can we not spot and track this shadow object to confirm it's existence on a flat earth model?The moon can be seen tracking across the sky day to day perfectly predictable correct? We can make a table of where the moon will be at least monthly from hour to hour and it WILL be there. We can see its phases as it approaches the new moon, the moon is still there, we can see earth shine lighting up the non sunlit portion frequently. Then on solar eclipse day, directly where we would track the moon from the days before, and then the days after, we are supposed to believe a mythical shadow object blocks the sun....? Where was the moon in that time? Why is the moon which we can clearly see even getting nearer to the sun on a FE model the moon looks to be always chasing the sun?What? There's no 'shadow object' when it comes to a solar ecplise (except for one right wacko on the other site). The shadow object only explains the lunar eclipse. Apologies, I'll correct my last post as it looks like I wasn't paying enough attention when I wrote it, although both of the sources I linked to referred to a lunar eclipse so....
This is such an easy killer of the FE theory/“model”.
Because special pleading and ad hoc answers. Seriously, I'm not an FE guy. But you won't disprove the shadow object idea that produces the lunar eclipse, for the same reason you can't prove God doesn't exist. The shadow object is a natural result of the Earth being a flat plane, and the sun and moon always being above it. That means something must get between the sun and the moon to produce a lunar eclipse. Ergo, shadow object. The evidence for it is the shadow on the moon which we know can't be the Earth. So that proves something else is up there getting in between the sun and the moon.As it goes both ways, we can accurately track and predict when and where the sun will be in the sky months in advance, during a lunar eclipse we know where the sun will be (and for people on the other side of the world who can confirm where the sun will be) using the globe earth model those same predictions put the earth between the sun and moon. Why can we not spot and track this shadow object to confirm it's existence on a flat earth model?The moon can be seen tracking across the sky day to day perfectly predictable correct? We can make a table of where the moon will be at least monthly from hour to hour and it WILL be there. We can see its phases as it approaches the new moon, the moon is still there, we can see earth shine lighting up the non sunlit portion frequently. Then on solar eclipse day, directly where we would track the moon from the days before, and then the days after, we are supposed to believe a mythical shadow object blocks the sun....? Where was the moon in that time? Why is the moon which we can clearly see even getting nearer to the sun on a FE model the moon looks to be always chasing the sun?What? There's no 'shadow object' when it comes to a solar ecplise (except for one right wacko on the other site). The shadow object only explains the lunar eclipse. Apologies, I'll correct my last post as it looks like I wasn't paying enough attention when I wrote it, although both of the sources I linked to referred to a lunar eclipse so....
This is such an easy killer of the FE theory/“model”.
If something is getting between the sun and moon, both of which we can track and accurately place in the sky at all times from earth, then for an object to cast a shadow on the moon has to be directly between the sun somewhere, which should be easy to track too since it'll be a linear line. The problem here is for something to cast a shadow it has to block or reflect the light from the sun, which would mean it would be visible or clearly blocking anything behind it from our view, so in theory we could see the shadow object in the sky (or just not see behind it, which would still make a visible effect in it's place).Why do you think we should be able to clearly see the object? It's orbiting the sun, the brightness of the sun drowns it out. You can't see the stars during the day can you? Why would you be able to see an object that doesn't produce or reflect any light?
If we should clearly be able to see the object then why has no one seen it yet? And if it does not exist as far as we can see, then surely there must be an object we can see that is causing the shadow instead, which would be the earth in round earth logic, since we can accurately track and predict the earths movements around the sun and the moons movements around the earth in this method.
First, With that logic how can you see the moon during the day? Heck how can you see anything during the day if the suns light 'drowns' everything out visibly? The sun emits light, which travels and bounces off surfaces and into our eyes, without the sun we cannot see anything.If something is getting between the sun and moon, both of which we can track and accurately place in the sky at all times from earth, then for an object to cast a shadow on the moon has to be directly between the sun somewhere, which should be easy to track too since it'll be a linear line. The problem here is for something to cast a shadow it has to block or reflect the light from the sun, which would mean it would be visible or clearly blocking anything behind it from our view, so in theory we could see the shadow object in the sky (or just not see behind it, which would still make a visible effect in it's place).Why do you think we should be able to clearly see the object? It's orbiting the sun, the brightness of the sun drowns it out. You can't see the stars during the day can you? Why would you be able to see an object that doesn't produce or reflect any light?
If we should clearly be able to see the object then why has no one seen it yet? And if it does not exist as far as we can see, then surely there must be an object we can see that is causing the shadow instead, which would be the earth in round earth logic, since we can accurately track and predict the earths movements around the sun and the moons movements around the earth in this method.
Two important facts in this equation.
#Stars in the sky don't disappear because of sun light. There is no separation of night and say beyond earth's atmosphere and stars and planets are visible 7/24.
It's the effect sunlight has on earths atmosphere that makes it hard to see stars during the day.
#2 The Moon passes in front of the sun during a solar eclipse. How do we know? Because we watch it happen and its mathematically calculated.
The same way we calculate solar eclipse we calculate lunar eclipse and we watch it happen perfectly timed to the calculation.
Why would we think there's something else in the sky causing this phenomena when we can so precisely calculate the events and physically observe them?
If the sun and moon were only 3,000 miles away like FET claims, and there was something else up there getting between the sun and moon I'm 100% positive we would have detected by now.
So that's not it. FET has to come up with, once again, another model that explains how this works on FE, which I'm sure will cause another FE model to fail.
I assume you're referring to FET when saying, " General application of the Three Body Problem are, in fact, impossible". Because in this day and age it's very simple.Two important facts in this equation.
#Stars in the sky don't disappear because of sun light. There is no separation of night and say beyond earth's atmosphere and stars and planets are visible 7/24.
It's the effect sunlight has on earths atmosphere that makes it hard to see stars during the day.
#2 The Moon passes in front of the sun during a solar eclipse. How do we know? Because we watch it happen and its mathematically calculated.
The same way we calculate solar eclipse we calculate lunar eclipse and we watch it happen perfectly timed to the calculation.
Why would we think there's something else in the sky causing this phenomena when we can so precisely calculate the events and physically observe them?
If the sun and moon were only 3,000 miles away like FET claims, and there was something else up there getting between the sun and moon I'm 100% positive we would have detected by now.
So that's not it. FET has to come up with, once again, another model that explains how this works on FE, which I'm sure will cause another FE model to fail.
The eclipses aren't being solved on the basis of the three body problem of the Sun-Earth-Moon system. General applications of the Three Body Problem are, in fact, impossible. Only very few and limited versions of the Three Body Problem can be solved.
The eclipses are being predicted based on patterns of previous eclipses, just like how Aristotle and the Ancient Babylonians did it. They could predict the eclipses thousands of years into the future.
They also threw out the FET, is how the predicted eclipse into the future. There were NO invisible body's casting shadows in ancients theories and predictions of how eclipse works.I assume you're referring to FET when saying, " General application of the Three Body Problem are, in fact, impossible". Because in this day and age it's very simple.Two important facts in this equation.
#Stars in the sky don't disappear because of sun light. There is no separation of night and say beyond earth's atmosphere and stars and planets are visible 7/24.
It's the effect sunlight has on earths atmosphere that makes it hard to see stars during the day.
#2 The Moon passes in front of the sun during a solar eclipse. How do we know? Because we watch it happen and its mathematically calculated.
The same way we calculate solar eclipse we calculate lunar eclipse and we watch it happen perfectly timed to the calculation.
Why would we think there's something else in the sky causing this phenomena when we can so precisely calculate the events and physically observe them?
If the sun and moon were only 3,000 miles away like FET claims, and there was something else up there getting between the sun and moon I'm 100% positive we would have detected by now.
So that's not it. FET has to come up with, once again, another model that explains how this works on FE, which I'm sure will cause another FE model to fail.
The eclipses aren't being solved on the basis of the three body problem of the Sun-Earth-Moon system. General applications of the Three Body Problem are, in fact, impossible. Only very few and limited versions of the Three Body Problem can be solved.
The eclipses are being predicted based on patterns of previous eclipses, just like how Aristotle and the Ancient Babylonians did it. They could predict the eclipses thousands of years into the future.
"They could predict the eclipses thousands of years into the future". This statement is contradiction of the former. ???
An object that is circular in nature moves between the sun and the moon during a lunar eclipse.I know it's beside the point so far but I'm sure once FE'ers come to realise it could actually be the earth causing the shadow on the moon I can just see them shouting "but it's a circular shadow so the earth must be a disk!". Casting a circular shadow doesn't have to be a disk though, the object in question could also be cylindrical, cone, spherical or even a rhombicosidodecahedron. The chances are though, since we've observed moons and planets to be spherical it's safe to say what ever the object is, is most likely also spherical.
I assume you're referring to FET when saying, " General application of the Three Body Problem are, in fact, impossible". Because in this day and age it's very simple.
"They could predict the eclipses thousands of years into the future". This statement is contradiction of the former. ???
As Poincare experimented, he was relieved to discover that in most of the situations, the possible orbits varied only slightly from the initial 2-body orbit, and were still stable, but what occurred during further experimentation was a shock. Poincare discovered that even in some of the smallest approximations some orbits behaved in an erratic unstable manner. His calculations showed that even a minute gravitational pull from a third body might cause a planet to wobble and fly out of orbit all together.
An object that is circular in nature moves between the sun and the moon during a lunar eclipse.I know it's beside the point so far but I'm sure once FE'ers come to realise it could actually be the earth causing the shadow on the moon I can just see them shouting "but it's a circular shadow so the earth must be a disk!". Casting a circular shadow doesn't have to be a disk though, the object in question could also be cylindrical, cone, spherical or even a rhombicosidodecahedron. The chances are though, since we've observed moons and planets to be spherical it's safe to say what ever the object is, is most likely also spherical.
We have 3D simulations of solar systems using the maths that predict the movement of celestial bodies, we can use these 3D simulations to show the earth being between the sun and moon and casting the shadow. Can anyone here run 3D a simulation of a flat earth version of a lunar eclipse while predicting celestial bodies time and locations perfectly?
Here's a few cool ones I found, just for fun
https://theskylive.com/3dsolarsystem
http://project-metis.com/SolarSystem/
https://www.solarsystemscope.com/
Yes, to clarify when I said for fun I did mean just that. But in one of them you could probably line the planets up to particular times and see how the sun, earth and moon are positioned to get a possible example of eclipses, it's a nice visual representation.An object that is circular in nature moves between the sun and the moon during a lunar eclipse.I know it's beside the point so far but I'm sure once FE'ers come to realise it could actually be the earth causing the shadow on the moon I can just see them shouting "but it's a circular shadow so the earth must be a disk!". Casting a circular shadow doesn't have to be a disk though, the object in question could also be cylindrical, cone, spherical or even a rhombicosidodecahedron. The chances are though, since we've observed moons and planets to be spherical it's safe to say what ever the object is, is most likely also spherical.
We have 3D simulations of solar systems using the maths that predict the movement of celestial bodies, we can use these 3D simulations to show the earth being between the sun and moon and casting the shadow. Can anyone here run 3D a simulation of a flat earth version of a lunar eclipse while predicting celestial bodies time and locations perfectly?
Here's a few cool ones I found, just for fun
https://theskylive.com/3dsolarsystem
http://project-metis.com/SolarSystem/
https://www.solarsystemscope.com/
Those are just cartoons. The only reason software such as Stellarium and Celestia can predict the positions of planets in the sky with any accuracy is because the prediction is actually based on ancient pattern-based methods. Planetary prediction, or any other astronomical prediction, is not modeled based on Newtonian or Einsteinian physics or the Heliocentric Solar System. Read more at https://wiki.tfes.org/Astronomical_Prediction_Based_on_Patterns
Aside from n-body issues and predictive versus calculated astronomy, what is the shadow object? Where does it go between eclipses? How come no one has ever seen it other than during an eclipse? Literally no one can verify/explain it's existence.Thanks for keeping this thread on track.
Lastly, is the shadow object the only explanation for the lunar eclipse FET has?
FE eclipses are predicted by carefully noting that they come in patterns over the course of about 18 years known as Saros cycles.Aside from n-body issues and predictive versus calculated astronomy, what is the shadow object? Where does it go between eclipses? How come no one has ever seen it other than during an eclipse? Literally no one can verify/explain it's existence.Thanks for keeping this thread on track.
Lastly, is the shadow object the only explanation for the lunar eclipse FET has?
I'd like to also point out that it's completely impossible to calculate or predict when this phenomena will occur if the proposed, by FET, body is, invisible, have no idea how fast it's moving, it's size, where it's at at any given point in time, the path it travels etc. Yet we predict it with to the minute and second accuracy.
How can FET use a RE model that predicts this based on the orbit of the moon around the earth and the earth around the sun and points out that the earth gets between the sun&moon and moon between sun&earth?FE eclipses are predicted by carefully noting that they come in patterns over the course of about 18 years known as Saros cycles.Aside from n-body issues and predictive versus calculated astronomy, what is the shadow object? Where does it go between eclipses? How come no one has ever seen it other than during an eclipse? Literally no one can verify/explain it's existence.Thanks for keeping this thread on track.
Lastly, is the shadow object the only explanation for the lunar eclipse FET has?
I'd like to also point out that it's completely impossible to calculate or predict when this phenomena will occur if the proposed, by FET, body is, invisible, have no idea how fast it's moving, it's size, where it's at at any given point in time, the path it travels etc. Yet we predict it with to the minute and second accuracy.
How can FET use a RE model that predicts this based on the orbit of the moon around the earth and the earth around the sun and points out that the earth gets between the sun&moon and moon between sun&earth?They don't. They just observed the timing of eclipses for a few hundred years and worked out the pattern.
I suppose anybody could figure out the timing over hundreds of years, wouldn't matter what their beliefs were.How can FET use a RE model that predicts this based on the orbit of the moon around the earth and the earth around the sun and points out that the earth gets between the sun&moon and moon between sun&earth?They don't. They just observed the timing of eclipses for a few hundred years and worked out the pattern.
In any case none of this answers the questions I asked or the one Stack asked.The shadow object is one explanation. I'm not sure, but I seem to recall some FE'ers thinking that the moon's self-luminous nature might have something to do with it.
"is the shadow object the only explanation for the lunar eclipse FET has?"
andIt doesn't. End of story.
how does the earth get between the moon and sun in FET?
I do believe that the 3 body problem is mostly under control. Euler, Lagrange, and Jacobi have found some general solutions to the problem. A general (explicit) solution isn't really necessary these days anyway. You can calculate the orbital paths to as much precision as you have processing power and time available. The numerical power of modern computers are very remarkable and you can use numerical series incorporating hundred or thousand of parameters to obtain any level of accuracy you need. In the near future quantum computers will make the 3 body problem even more viable to solve in detail. Don't be afraid. The heliocentric model does indeed work under Newtonian laws and the solar system won't be flying apart anytime soon.I agree and I was just reading something the other day about modern science and mathematics having some 1,200 new,"easy" solutions to end the 300 years of ponder over the hard to solve "three body problem". I love modern science.
How can FET use a RE model that predicts this based on the orbit of the moon around the earth and the earth around the sun and points out that the earth gets between the sun&moon and moon between sun&earth?They don't. They just observed the timing of eclipses for a few hundred years and worked out the pattern.
At least from a Rowbotham perspective, yes, the shadow object is a must. He also swizzles in the self-luminous moon bit as well. I haven’t read ENAG Chapter XI In a while. But enlightening:
"From the facts and phenomena already advanced, we cannot draw any other conclusion than that the moon is obscured by some kind of semi-transparent body passing before it; and through which the luminous surface is visible: the luminosity changed in colour by the density of the intervening object. This conclusion is forced upon, us by the evidence; but it involves the admission that the moon shines with light of its own--that it is not a reflector of the sun's light, but absolutely self-luminous. Although this admission is logically compulsory, it will be useful and strictly Zetetic to collect all the evidence possible which bears upon it.”
The last line is a particular favorite, kind of a, “Logic demands this conclusion,’compulsory’, in fact, but here on in, I’ll pepper you with cherry picked phrases from philosophers, astronomers, greeks and scriptural references to cement this undeniable logical conclusion.” type of argument. Clever, that Rowbotham.
Bottom line, the shadow object argument as a requirement to explain a flat earth lunar eclipse is just that; a requirement. One necessary to get FET out of the earth “getting in the way” jam. It is literally not based on anything observable, testable, measurable…nothing. It doesn’t even pass the Zetetic sniff test. It is a ‘compulsory’ necessity in FET, manufactured to solve a problem in FET that doesn’t exist in RET.
At least from a Rowbotham perspective, yes, the shadow object is a must. He also swizzles in the self-luminous moon bit as well. I haven’t read ENAG Chapter XI In a while. But enlightening:
"From the facts and phenomena already advanced, we cannot draw any other conclusion than that the moon is obscured by some kind of semi-transparent body passing before it; and through which the luminous surface is visible: the luminosity changed in colour by the density of the intervening object. This conclusion is forced upon, us by the evidence; but it involves the admission that the moon shines with light of its own--that it is not a reflector of the sun's light, but absolutely self-luminous. Although this admission is logically compulsory, it will be useful and strictly Zetetic to collect all the evidence possible which bears upon it.”
The last line is a particular favorite, kind of a, “Logic demands this conclusion,’compulsory’, in fact, but here on in, I’ll pepper you with cherry picked phrases from philosophers, astronomers, greeks and scriptural references to cement this undeniable logical conclusion.” type of argument. Clever, that Rowbotham.
Bottom line, the shadow object argument as a requirement to explain a flat earth lunar eclipse is just that; a requirement. One necessary to get FET out of the earth “getting in the way” jam. It is literally not based on anything observable, testable, measurable…nothing. It doesn’t even pass the Zetetic sniff test. It is a ‘compulsory’ necessity in FET, manufactured to solve a problem in FET that doesn’t exist in RET.
So FET can't put the earth between the moon and sun because that would kill all of FET models and hypothesis that they hold as evidence of a flat earth.
Now the problem of expiation from FET doubles when we put the moon between the earth and sun.
There's NO claiming hidden invisible objects casting shadows across the earth during solar eclipse because we physically observe the moon passing in front of the sun. Just another conundrum that orbits around flat earth. FET
Will someone explain where the moon went when this shadow object passes in front of the sun? Because we can track the path of the moon extremely accurately and this object is in its place right where the moon should be, directly in front of the sun! A day later the moon is viewable again as a crescent on the other side of the sun right where we expect it to be...I'm not sure where you two are getting this idea the shadow object does anything with solar eclipses. The moon causes them, just like in RET (except for one example over on the other forums who's pretty well ignored.) The shadow object only exists for lunar eclipses, and only because it's a requirement for the Flat Earth Hypothesis to get past stage 1 really.
I'm not sure where you two are getting this idea the shadow object does anything with solar eclipses. The moon causes them, just like in RET (except for one example over on the other forums who's pretty well ignored.) The shadow object only exists for lunar eclipses, and only because it's a requirement for the Flat Earth Hypothesis to get past stage 1 really.
Maybe there is another job for the shadow object besides just accounting for the lunar eclipse. The sun and moon must also line up in such a way as to cause the variations in the regular tides you see. In the heliocentric model the moon can be on the same side of the earth as the sun and then both bodies can exert a gravitational pull on the earths water and cause a variable strength tide. The sun is much more massive but is much further away from the earth than the moon, so the gravitational effects of the sun and moon are different. The moons gravitational pull on the earth’s water is about 2.5 times stronger than the sun. With the FET model the sun and moon are opposite of each other and are of variable distances in different seasons. I also don’t see in the wiki where the sun exerts any gravitation pull on the earth’s water, just the moon and stars. If the FET model were true, I would then expect to see tides that were different in different seasons of the year on a regular basis. Maybe the FET model will have to be adjusted so that the shadow object will have some tidal effects as well. If the shadow object did that then, by definition, it would have to have some mass. You then should be able to detect and measure it. You can easily see other objects when the sun is in the sky. I have personally seen the planet Venus and even used it as a navigational body during the daylight hours.That is something to consider, that is seasonal differences in tides due to sun and moon distance changes in FET.
Thanks RonJ for your in depth respons and I do like your perspective.FEH has no problems with the solar eclipse having the moon cover the sun. How many times will I have to repeat this in a single thread.....
I think my fist question has been answered. FET doesn't believe the earth ever get between the moon & sun. Of course it couldn't because that would me FET is wrong in so many ways. Instead it's an invisible object.
So lets move on to my 2nd question from my OP.
how does FET explain
#1 Earth between Moon & Sun?
#2 Moon between Earth & Sun?
We know without a shadow of doubt it's not a shadow object, it's the moon that passes in front of the sun, covering the sun in total solar eclipse, casts a very small shadow on the surface of the earth for a very short time and distance.
How does FET explain what we physically observe?
I want more that you repeating yourself.Thanks RonJ for your in depth respons and I do like your perspective.FEH has no problems with the solar eclipse having the moon cover the sun. How many times will I have to repeat this in a single thread.....
I think my fist question has been answered. FET doesn't believe the earth ever get between the moon & sun. Of course it couldn't because that would me FET is wrong in so many ways. Instead it's an invisible object.
So lets move on to my 2nd question from my OP.
how does FET explain
#1 Earth between Moon & Sun?
#2 Moon between Earth & Sun?
We know without a shadow of doubt it's not a shadow object, it's the moon that passes in front of the sun, covering the sun in total solar eclipse, casts a very small shadow on the surface of the earth for a very short time and distance.
How does FET explain what we physically observe?
Thanks RonJ for your in depth respons and I do like your perspective.FEH has no problems with the solar eclipse having the moon cover the sun. How many times will I have to repeat this in a single thread.....
I think my fist question has been answered. FET doesn't believe the earth ever get between the moon & sun. Of course it couldn't because that would me FET is wrong in so many ways. Instead it's an invisible object.
So lets move on to my 2nd question from my OP.
how does FET explain
#1 Earth between Moon & Sun?
#2 Moon between Earth & Sun?
We know without a shadow of doubt it's not a shadow object, it's the moon that passes in front of the sun, covering the sun in total solar eclipse, casts a very small shadow on the surface of the earth for a very short time and distance.
How does FET explain what we physically observe?
There's another huge problem with FET according to the FAQ section in the Wiki. The sun changes it's orbital diameter in the different seasons. You can see that on the nice diagram. When you go from a smaller diameter circle to a larger diameter circle you have to speed up the sun in order to keep the same orbital time (length of day). This would require some kind of a retro-rocket. The opposite would be true when going from a larger diameter orbit to a smaller one. The retro-rocket would have to fire in the opposite direction to slow the sun down. I'm assuming that the sun has some mass. However I haven't been able to find a figure for the mass of the sun under the FET model. Since the sun has to have some mass it would take a specific amount of time to change the orbital diameter. More thrust means a shorter time to change orbits. All of this would have to be accounted for in any kind of diagram showing the timing of an eclipse. Additionally since the sun has some kind of mass it would require a force to keep it in an orbital path. Could this be some kind of gravitational attraction between the sun and another body? Maybe the shadow body is somehow involved. Again I am going on very little information and having to make some educated guesses. It sure would help to have some kind of reading on the speculated mass of the sun under this FET model so some accurate predictions could be arrived at for an eclipse.
There's another huge problem with FET according to the FAQ section in the Wiki. The sun changes it's orbital diameter in the different seasons. You can see that on the nice diagram. When you go from a smaller diameter circle to a larger diameter circle you have to speed up the sun in order to keep the same orbital time (length of day). This would require some kind of a retro-rocket. The opposite would be true when going from a larger diameter orbit to a smaller one. The retro-rocket would have to fire in the opposite direction to slow the sun down. I'm assuming that the sun has some mass. However I haven't been able to find a figure for the mass of the sun under the FET model. Since the sun has to have some mass it would take a specific amount of time to change the orbital diameter. More thrust means a shorter time to change orbits. All of this would have to be accounted for in any kind of diagram showing the timing of an eclipse. Additionally since the sun has some kind of mass it would require a force to keep it in an orbital path. Could this be some kind of gravitational attraction between the sun and another body? Maybe the shadow body is somehow involved. Again I am going on very little information and having to make some educated guesses. It sure would help to have some kind of reading on the speculated mass of the sun under this FET model so some accurate predictions could be arrived at for an eclipse.
There's another huge problem with FET according to the FAQ section in the Wiki. The sun changes it's orbital diameter in the different seasons. You can see that on the nice diagram. When you go from a smaller diameter circle to a larger diameter circle you have to speed up the sun in order to keep the same orbital time (length of day). This would require some kind of a retro-rocket. The opposite would be true when going from a larger diameter orbit to a smaller one. The retro-rocket would have to fire in the opposite direction to slow the sun down. I'm assuming that the sun has some mass. However I haven't been able to find a figure for the mass of the sun under the FET model. Since the sun has to have some mass it would take a specific amount of time to change the orbital diameter. More thrust means a shorter time to change orbits. All of this would have to be accounted for in any kind of diagram showing the timing of an eclipse. Additionally since the sun has some kind of mass it would require a force to keep it in an orbital path. Could this be some kind of gravitational attraction between the sun and another body? Maybe the shadow body is somehow involved. Again I am going on very little information and having to make some educated guesses. It sure would help to have some kind of reading on the speculated mass of the sun under this FET model so some accurate predictions could be arrived at for an eclipse.
Does the needle of a record player change its rotational rate when it travels towards the center?
Because we know it's there because lunar eclipses happen. You can't see the oxygen you breathe can you? Something creates a shadow on the moon during a lunar eclipse. It can't be the Earth under the FEH. So it has to be something else. The most likely explanation is an object we've yet to see or notice. This could be orbiting the sun close in, or any of a number of other places. Although personally I think it would have to be close to the sun, made of a material with a very low reflective index, and possibly be flat itself. Like a disk circling the sun. But I'm not sure what the main idea is concerning the shape/form of the shadow object tbh.
I want more that you repeating yourself.Thanks RonJ for your in depth respons and I do like your perspective.FEH has no problems with the solar eclipse having the moon cover the sun. How many times will I have to repeat this in a single thread.....
I think my fist question has been answered. FET doesn't believe the earth ever get between the moon & sun. Of course it couldn't because that would me FET is wrong in so many ways. Instead it's an invisible object.
So lets move on to my 2nd question from my OP.
how does FET explain
#1 Earth between Moon & Sun?
#2 Moon between Earth & Sun?
We know without a shadow of doubt it's not a shadow object, it's the moon that passes in front of the sun, covering the sun in total solar eclipse, casts a very small shadow on the surface of the earth for a very short time and distance.
How does FET explain what we physically observe?
I want diagrams, explanations etc. of, for example, if the moon and sun are relatively the same size, same distance from the surface of the earth, circling opposite each other, how does FET explain the exact phenomena/s we physically observe.
You do realize you are arguing with a round earther right? He is just really good at processing what he has read and heard here. No one owes you diagrams, explanations, etc.
For the record, the Moons orbital plane around the Earth is inclined to the ecliptic (Suns visible path through the sky) by 5 degrees. That's why we don't get a solar eclipse with each new Moon or lunar eclipse with each full Moon.This subject has been frequently discussed on the forum. Unfortunately the wiki does not contain information on what has been discussed, I always use a Google query such as this to search the site:
This 'shadow object' intrigues me. What is the object that creates the shadow? In RE theory the object is the Moon creating a shadow on the Earth in the case of a solar eclipse or the Earth creating a shadow on the Moon in the case of a lunar eclipse.
The Moons shadow is a lot smaller, hence you have to be on a very specific and narrow track to observe a total solar eclipse.
I have posted essentially the same material numerous times here and on The Flat Earth Society, Forum (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/) and I have never had a satisfactory answer.
This is what "the Wiki" says (bits about solar eclipse etc, removed for brevity):Quote from: The WikiThe Lunar Eclipse. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .A Lunar Eclipse occurs about twice a year when a satellite of the sun passes between the sun and moon.
This satellite is called the Shadow Object. Its orbital plane is tilted at an angle of about 5°10' to the sun's orbital plane[1], making eclipses possible only when the three bodies (Sun, Object, and Moon) are aligned and when the moon is crossing the sun's orbital plane (at a point called the node). . . . . . . . A lunar eclipse can be seen from the entire half of the earth beneath the moon at that time. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The shadow object is never seen because it orbits close to the sun.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .It is estimated that the Shadow Object is around five to ten miles in diameter. Since it is somewhat close to the sun the manifestation of its penumbra upon the moon appears as a magnified projection. This is similar to how during a shadow puppet show your hand's shadow can make a large magnified projection upon your bedroom wall as you move it closer to the flashlight.
From The Lunar Eclipse (http://wiki.tfes.org/The_Lunar_Eclipse)
This is my interpretation of that geometry. In this diagram the size of the objects has been enlarged (or they would be almost invisible), but the locations are approximately to scale:
[image now lost]
With the "shadow object" so small, it is quite impossible for the it to cast any significant shadow on the moon. Almost all of the sunlight will shine around it.
If my interpretation of the geometry or light paths is incorrect, I would love to be informed, but please no massive refraction or magnification in the atmoplane, there is no atmoplane 5,000 km up!So, I claim that "the Wiki" explanation of the Lunar Eclipse is completely incorrect, so what is the true cause of a Lunar Eclipse.
Some will I ask why I am asking the same question over and over. The answer to that is simple - it has not yet been answered.
[1] If the "shadow object" can never be seen, how was the inclination of its orbit determined, for we are told "Its orbital plane is tilted at an angle of about 5°10' to the sun's orbital plane"?
I can guess, that's simply been "borrowed" from the measured orbital inclination of the moon by astronomers!
First, we assume that the sun gives the moon its light. Second, we assume that the earth and not another celestial body intervenes between the sun and the moon to cause the lunar eclipse. Third, we assume that the behavior of light is the same in outer space as it is on earth. Fourth, we assume that the rotation of the earth has no effect on the shape of the shadow cast by the earth upon the moon. Fifth, we assume that the shadow cast by the sun is not obscured by light from other heavenly bodies, such as the stars. On the theoretical side, we assume a theory of optics that would allow us to tell the difference between a curved and flat shadow.
The shadow object is never seen because it orbits close to the sun.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
It is estimated that the Shadow Object is around five to ten miles in diameter. Since it is somewhat close to the sun the manifestation of its penumbra upon the moon appears as a magnified projection. This is similar to how during a shadow puppet show your hand's shadow can make a large magnified projection upon your bedroom wall as you move it closer to the flashlight.
Remember in FE the sun is much close to the earth, and is much smaller than the orthodox view would have it.QuoteThe shadow object is never seen because it orbits close to the sun.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
It is estimated that the Shadow Object is around five to ten miles in diameter. Since it is somewhat close to the sun the manifestation of its penumbra upon the moon appears as a magnified projection. This is similar to how during a shadow puppet show your hand's shadow can make a large magnified projection upon your bedroom wall as you move it closer to the flashlight.
If an object of just a few miles diameter was orbiting close the Sun there is absolutely no way its shadow would ever reach Earth! It's apparent size from Earth would be so small that we wouldn't even notice it, let alone any shadow from it.
You do realize you are arguing with a round earther right? He is just really good at processing what he has read and heard here. No one owes you diagrams, explanations, etc.
I disagree. Their own FEH wiki states that the moon is seen blocking the sun for all of the solar eclipses throughout the year. Their own wiki also shows the sun shifting north and south throughout the year towards the Tropics of Cancer and Capricorn. In order for the moon to make the solar eclipses it too obviously has to follow the same trajectories as the sun or else the eclipses would only happen when the sun crossed into the moons orbit (so only a small fraction of the year and only during those weeks or months).
The moons path looks nothing like the suns perfectly predictable path shifting north then south, the predictability of the solar eclipses requires the moon to follow the sun to make such eclipses if near the earth. If the moon doesn’t follow the suns path as it would need to for the eclipses, it is just more evidence the sun and moon are NOT near us destroying a major component of FEH.
I believe that they did a measurement of the distance to the moon recently using simple parallax methods that showed a lot longer distance than 3000 miles
So, thought occurred. You guys were wondering how the moon gets between sun and Earth for solar eclipses, pointing out the sun moves between the two tropics. Well, what if the moon does too (or at least close)?Nice. That's what I was looking for.
FEH already posits that the moon moves up and down in altitude over the course of the month to create the phases of the moon. Well, this would normally create differences in where the moon sets/rises throughout the month no? What if the moon ALSO shifts it's 'position' North South throughout this time as well. Thus keeping it appearing to set and rise from about the same location through the month. This would also allow it to cross, not the suns path, but the light from the sun to various parts of the flat Earth at various times, depending on where the sun was in its cycle in comparison to the moon. Obviously I can't model this out, as we'd need an accurate map of the flat Earth to even begin, but it seems reasonable to me.
I don't know that they do for sure, the up and down motion of the moon is one of the methods by which it's been proposed that the phases of the moon occur. Combined with this idea, and the inexactness often cited due to 'perspective effects' I've always been under the impression the 3k miles high is a bit more of a rough estimate than anything else (outside of a few specific individuals). I believe the other site has a thread where someone (Brotherhood of the Dome?) had a list of observations and laid out his math on how he put the sun at least at 5800 something km (he actually decided on a relatively precise altitude). But his math appeared to have at least some bit of 'fudging' with a relatively unexplained extra figure to make everything line up. At least he never explained it that I saw.So, thought occurred. You guys were wondering how the moon gets between sun and Earth for solar eclipses, pointing out the sun moves between the two tropics. Well, what if the moon does too (or at least close)?Nice. That's what I was looking for.
FEH already posits that the moon moves up and down in altitude over the course of the month to create the phases of the moon. Well, this would normally create differences in where the moon sets/rises throughout the month no? What if the moon ALSO shifts it's 'position' North South throughout this time as well. Thus keeping it appearing to set and rise from about the same location through the month. This would also allow it to cross, not the suns path, but the light from the sun to various parts of the flat Earth at various times, depending on where the sun was in its cycle in comparison to the moon. Obviously I can't model this out, as we'd need an accurate map of the flat Earth to even begin, but it seems reasonable to me.
FET would need a diagram,(with mathematical calculations showing the distances between sun&moon, moon&earth, earth&sun), that showed linear shadows that correlate with real world observation. Also how, where and possible time lapses of their proposed paths.
I wasn't aware that FET had figures that show the Moon at a lower altitude, at some point, than the Sun.
Could you link me to information?
Another huge fallacy in FET.Why do you keep trying to put the sun/moon on opposite sides of the Earth from one another when you make these thought experiments? It takes the sun 24 hours to complete one rotation around the plane of the Earth. It takes the moon something like 25 hours. From waning crescent to waxing crescent (approx) the sun/moon are on the same 'quadrant' of the FE. How does this put them 8,000 miles apart?
Let us look at a few factors and see what happens if we try to line them up.
Someone can do a chart if they'd like based on what I'm going to describe, especially if you can't picture it in your mind. or a simple paper, pencil, match stick model experiment.
Paper to represent the disc earth, pencil to represent distance moon and sun are apart from each other and match stick to represent the distance the moon & sun are up from the surface of the earth. FET presents tthis as about 3,000 miles.
Note that the united states is nearly 3,000 miles from coast to coast.
Match the match stick to scale the USA and scale the rest of the flat earth (paper) accordingly.
Note where the USA is in relation to FE maps.
Trim the pencil to match the distance that the sun & moon are apart from each other as represented by FET.
Now place the match stick at the north pole straight up and the center of the pencil on the tip of the match stick.
Now try to imagine how, or demonstrate how or what it would take to bring the moon in line with the sun to cast an ecliptic shadow of the moon on the earth at the united states.
That's the realities of the moon and sun being only 3,000 miles up from the surface of the earth and, I'm guessing, about 8,000 mile apart.
Also think about how close to the earth a shadow abject would have to be to cast a shadow on the moon.
Also how easy it would be to go to the moon if it were only 3,000 miles away.
I'm in the middle of something right now, I'll edit this later if needed
8,000 miles was a guess as stated.Another huge fallacy in FET.Why do you keep trying to put the sun/moon on opposite sides of the Earth from one another when you make these thought experiments? It takes the sun 24 hours to complete one rotation around the plane of the Earth. It takes the moon something like 25 hours. From waning crescent to waxing crescent (approx) the sun/moon are on the same 'quadrant' of the FE. How does this put them 8,000 miles apart?
Let us look at a few factors and see what happens if we try to line them up.
Someone can do a chart if they'd like based on what I'm going to describe, especially if you can't picture it in your mind. or a simple paper, pencil, match stick model experiment.
Paper to represent the disc earth, pencil to represent distance moon and sun are apart from each other and match stick to represent the distance the moon & sun are up from the surface of the earth. FET presents tthis as about 3,000 miles.
Note that the united states is nearly 3,000 miles from coast to coast.
Match the match stick to scale the USA and scale the rest of the flat earth (paper) accordingly.
Note where the USA is in relation to FE maps.
Trim the pencil to match the distance that the sun & moon are apart from each other as represented by FET.
Now place the match stick at the north pole straight up and the center of the pencil on the tip of the match stick.
Now try to imagine how, or demonstrate how or what it would take to bring the moon in line with the sun to cast an ecliptic shadow of the moon on the earth at the united states.
That's the realities of the moon and sun being only 3,000 miles up from the surface of the earth and, I'm guessing, about 8,000 mile apart.
Also think about how close to the earth a shadow abject would have to be to cast a shadow on the moon.
Also how easy it would be to go to the moon if it were only 3,000 miles away.
I'm in the middle of something right now, I'll edit this later if needed
It takes the sun 24 hours to complete one rotation around the plane of the Earth
There's nothing accurate about FET. The sun circling a dics is one of the worst flawed concepts FET has. 3,000 miles up from the surface of earth.QuoteIt takes the sun 24 hours to complete one rotation around the plane of the Earth
Sorry... no idea where you get this idea from... please explain. It takes the Earth 24 hours (23hrs 56m and 4sec relative to the stars which is the sidereal day) to rotate on its axis as it orbits the Sun. The sidereal day is 4 minutes shorter than the mean solar day which is why the constellations vary with the season.
The sun takes 24 hours to return to it's initial starting point in the sky. This is true even on RE. I'm not sure what there is to explain....QuoteIt takes the sun 24 hours to complete one rotation around the plane of the Earth
Sorry... no idea where you get this idea from... please explain. It takes the Earth 24 hours (23hrs 56m and 4sec relative to the stars which is the sidereal day) to rotate on its axis as it orbits the Sun. The sidereal day is 4 minutes shorter than the mean solar day which is why the constellations vary with the season.
Actually the real Sun takes an average of a little over 24 hours to complete two transits of the observers meridian. That is why the Sun moves through the 12 constellations of the zodiac. Technically that should be 13 as the ecliptic passes every so slightly through Ophiuchus as well.Correct. One Solar Day is 24 hours. Which is how long the sun takes to complete one transit around the flat Earth. I'm struggling to understand how this is a hard concept to grasp? The 'mean sun' as you put it, isn't imaginary on a flat Earth. It's the time it takes the sun to travel one rotation around the plane. The stars then move at a different speed, either because that's the speed of the 'dome' rotating above, or some other reason depending on the exact FE hypothesis being discussed. Which results in the moving of the sun through the constellations.
It is the mean Sun (an imaginary Sun) which takes exactly 24 hours to complete two transits. It is the mean Sun that we base our clocks on. Owing to the elliptical orbit of the Earth the speed of the Sun along the ecliptic does vary slightly through the year an this is compensated for when it comes to reading Sun dials for example by applying the equation of time.
The Sun does not remain exactly stationary in space (nothing does) but is rocked slightly due to the planets around the gravtiational centre (barycentre)
The way you describe it is a hard concept to grasp because it is wrong.It's only wrong under the RE paradigm. Under the FE hypothesis the sun is only about 32 miles across, and 3000 miles above the flat plane of the Earth. It takes 24 hours (the duration of one mean solar day and will have some slight variance just like is observed) for the sun to complete a single rotation around whichever pole it's circling. This creates the 24 hour day.
The Sun rotates around a common centre of gravity as I previously described. The location of that centre of gravity (point around which the two bodies rotate or orbit) depends on the mass ratio between the bodies concerned. If you have two bodies of equal mass then the centre of gravity is mid way between the two bodies. The so-called dumbbell situation.
The Sun is much more massive than the Earth (1 solar mass = 99% of the solar system mass) and so the centre of gravity is shifted proportionally towards the more massive body. In the case of the Earth Sun pairng, the centre of gravity lies well within the volume of the Sun itself just beyond the solar core. The centre of gravity between the Sun and Jupiter by comparison lies just beyond the visible surface of the Sun which we call the photosphere.
If I am misunderstanding what you mean by saying the Sun completes one transit of a flat Earth in 24 hours then I apologise but it doesn't sound quite right to me. The 24 hour part is one mean solar day as I previous said.
The main problem is that the sun has to change orbits throughout the year. Anytime you do this will require that the Sun has some kind of retro-rocket that can fire to get it into a different orbit. As far as that goes, it will need a retro-rocket to fire just to stay in orbit. Of course the Sun and Moon will have to stay above the earth that's being constantly accelerated (no gravity). That means they will have to figure out how to move vertically as well. The FET paradigm doesn't work.Here, let me give FET some ammunition.
It would have to be a 'smart sun' as well. The application would have to be good enough to know when to change orbits. With all the folks out there watching the sun, any small change, no matter how minor would be noticed by someone. Any 'compu-sun' would have to be completely reliable and the whole system couldn't malfunction, even once in a couple of thousand years.Also lets not forget the Moon? Since it obviously does not have solar flares it would have to have a type of propulsion that was invisible. Gases or air? This would explain heavy wind storms, tornado etc. and the solar flares at only 3,000 miles away might account for all the fires burning California up?
Under the FE hypothesis the sun is only about 32 miles across, and 3000 miles above the flat plane of the Earth
You'll get much farther with these basic questions if you make sure to peek through the wiki for the record. https://wiki.tfes.org/Distance_to_the_Sun Distance and size of the sun is (once again) a natural result of the Earth being flat. If one assumes the Earth is flat, it's easy to see most explanations for things have been....'created' in order to answer what is happening. Observations as well are generally tabulated under the assumption of this paradigm imo. But we're starting to get a bit beyond the thread topic here.QuoteUnder the FE hypothesis the sun is only about 32 miles across, and 3000 miles above the flat plane of the Earth
What utter rubbish. The Sun has been very accurately measured to be in the order of 865,000 miles across and on average 92,960,000 miles away from Earth. These are facts regardless of what the FE hypothesis says. Explain to us exactly how these figures are reached. By that I mean the 32 mile diameter and 3000 mile distance of course... I await in anticipation!
I too am interested in the 32 miles value, since my own maths didn't get that but I am of course basing it on the visual shrinking of the sun relative to moving it closer to the earth based on the difference between the globe earth sun and flat earth sun distances.You'll get much farther with these basic questions if you make sure to peek through the wiki for the record. https://wiki.tfes.org/Distance_to_the_Sun Distance and size of the sun is (once again) a natural result of the Earth being flat. If one assumes the Earth is flat, it's easy to see most explanations for things have been....'created' in order to answer what is happening. Observations as well are generally tabulated under the assumption of this paradigm imo. But we're starting to get a bit beyond the thread topic here.QuoteUnder the FE hypothesis the sun is only about 32 miles across, and 3000 miles above the flat plane of the Earth
What utter rubbish. The Sun has been very accurately measured to be in the order of 865,000 miles across and on average 92,960,000 miles away from Earth. These are facts regardless of what the FE hypothesis says. Explain to us exactly how these figures are reached. By that I mean the 32 mile diameter and 3000 mile distance of course... I await in anticipation!
By all means continue this line of questioning as it is retentive to the questions I proposed in the opening OP.I too am interested in the 32 miles value, since my own maths didn't get that but I am of course basing it on the visual shrinking of the sun relative to moving it closer to the earth based on the difference between the globe earth sun and flat earth sun distances.You'll get much farther with these basic questions if you make sure to peek through the wiki for the record. https://wiki.tfes.org/Distance_to_the_Sun Distance and size of the sun is (once again) a natural result of the Earth being flat. If one assumes the Earth is flat, it's easy to see most explanations for things have been....'created' in order to answer what is happening. Observations as well are generally tabulated under the assumption of this paradigm imo. But we're starting to get a bit beyond the thread topic here.QuoteUnder the FE hypothesis the sun is only about 32 miles across, and 3000 miles above the flat plane of the Earth
What utter rubbish. The Sun has been very accurately measured to be in the order of 865,000 miles across and on average 92,960,000 miles away from Earth. These are facts regardless of what the FE hypothesis says. Explain to us exactly how these figures are reached. By that I mean the 32 mile diameter and 3000 mile distance of course... I await in anticipation!
By all means continue this line of questioning as it is retentive to the questions I proposed in the opening OP.I too am interested in the 32 miles value, since my own maths didn't get that but I am of course basing it on the visual shrinking of the sun relative to moving it closer to the earth based on the difference between the globe earth sun and flat earth sun distances.You'll get much farther with these basic questions if you make sure to peek through the wiki for the record. https://wiki.tfes.org/Distance_to_the_Sun Distance and size of the sun is (once again) a natural result of the Earth being flat. If one assumes the Earth is flat, it's easy to see most explanations for things have been....'created' in order to answer what is happening. Observations as well are generally tabulated under the assumption of this paradigm imo. But we're starting to get a bit beyond the thread topic here.QuoteUnder the FE hypothesis the sun is only about 32 miles across, and 3000 miles above the flat plane of the Earth
What utter rubbish. The Sun has been very accurately measured to be in the order of 865,000 miles across and on average 92,960,000 miles away from Earth. These are facts regardless of what the FE hypothesis says. Explain to us exactly how these figures are reached. By that I mean the 32 mile diameter and 3000 mile distance of course... I await in anticipation!
One question was how does the moon get between the sun and FE, to cause the phenomena we see?
Getting to the bottom of how they calculate the size and distance of the sun would help to show how this would work, or not work.
Again I propose looking at the distance of 3,000 miles above the surface of the earth creates enormous problems solar eclipse and much much more.
I suspect this is why no more FET have chimed in with anymore fabricated evidence because even tey now how utterly ridiculous this idea is.