[Pete Svarrior]

I dunno, man, why would NASA lie about it when WTF_Seriously can crack the code by looking at timeanddate.com for 5 minutes?

https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/5236/

Then again, actually looking at timeanddate.com also yields funny results...

[WTF_Seriously]

I dunno, man, why would NASA lie about it when WTF_Seriously can crack the code by looking at timeanddate.com for 5 minutes?

https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/5236/

Surprisingly poor effort from you, Pete.  You're better than this.

I dunno, why would NASA lie?

https://science.nasa.gov/eclipses/geometry/#:~:text=A%20solar%20eclipse%20occurs%20when,see%20the%20Sun%20completely%20blocked.

"The code" to solar eclipses was cracked long ago, by thousands of people far more intelligent than me but evidently not more intelligent than you since they're all wrong.

Then again, actually looking at timeanddate.com also yields funny results...

I'm sure everyone would like to see you elaborate on this.  I won't hold my breath.

[Pete Svarrior]

Surprisingly poor effort from you, Pete.  You're better than this.

If you have nothing to say, please consider saying nothing. Let's not go down that path, all right?

I dunno, why would NASA lie?

I dunno. Why would they? Why would they post maps identical to the one you described as non-representative nonsense? Have you considered telling them that they're misrepresenting RE, and that they should instead selectively glance at timeanddate.com? Considering how trivial it is, as you clearly demonstrated, they'll probably be quite embarassed!

Though... there is an alternative here... hrmmm... Nay, surely that's not it!

https://science.nasa.gov/eclipses/geometry/#:~:text=A%20solar%20eclipse%20occurs%20when,see%20the%20Sun%20completely%20blocked.

Respectfully, you couldn't missed the point any harder if you tried. Hopefully the above helps, but, just in case: the position you're currently trying to defend is not that the Earth is round; it's that the eclipse map presented here is nonsense that doesn't represent RE accurately.

It's really no big surprise that RE sources say the Earth is round, and you shouldn't feel too proud for noticing that.

[WTF_Seriously]

I dunno. Why would they? Why would they post maps identical to the one you described as non-representative nonsense? Have you considered telling them that they're misrepresenting RE, and that they should instead selectively glance at timeanddate.com? Considering how trivial it is, as you clearly demonstrated, they'll probably be quite embarassed!

Though... there is an alternative here... hrmmm... Nay, surely that's not it!

Wait.  Wait.  Ohhhhh.  That's a tough one.  Maybe.  A flat projection of the globe is the typical way to show the entirety of the earth in one view even though it's greatly distorted and doesn't accurately represent what is really happening?  Nay, surely that's not it.

https://science.nasa.gov/eclipses/geometry/#:~:text=A%20solar%20eclipse%20occurs%20when,see%20the%20Sun%20completely%20blocked.

Respectfully, you couldn't missed the point any harder if you tried. Hopefully the above helps, but, just in case: the position you're currently trying to defend is not that the Earth is round; it's that the eclipse map presented here is nonsense that doesn't represent RE accurately.

No.  I got the point just fine.  Gotcha!!!!  NASA does the same thing.  WTF So stoOOOpid.  It's your MO.  You won't debate the content of my post because you can't so you resort to deflect and degrade the poster.  You know very well that the NASA animation isn't representative of what actually happens in the round earth model and you know why they create an animation in that way and that it would never be used in an actual debate of eclipse paths between NASA and the FE community.  And no, the point I'm trying to defend is not that the eclipse map is nonsense, that's what you've tried to to turn it into beacuse you have nothing else.

[Pete Svarrior]

A flat projection of the globe is the typical way to show the entirety of the earth in one view even though it's greatly distorted

Right, right, we already went over your ability to spot the blindingly obvious; but why does that projection not map, even in the slightest, to what you assert? After all, you did describe it as nonsense, and highlighted an obvious discrepancy.

And no, it's not "flat map bad" - you're an adult who seemingly went through at least compulsory education in a western country. You can do a little bit of basic geometry in your head and project it back onto a sphere.

So, we're back to square 1: why does NASA peddle nonsense which you can easily disprove? Why is WTF_Seriously a better authority on what does and doesn't represent RET than NASA? Is this Orange Man ruining everything again?

WTF So stoOOOpid.  It's your MO.  You won't debate the content of my post because you can't so you resort to deflect and degrade the poster.

I do do that with stupid people, and you've shown yourself to be quite out there on that spectrum (remember "calling unknowns unknowns"? That one took you a solid couple years to parse). But part of your problem is that you have yet to articulate your position. You just keep stating that a flat map is a projection, but you're missing the part where everybody already knows that and is accounting for it.

And no, the point I'm trying to defend is not that the eclipse map is nonsense

Then why did you say it? Why would you so loudly proclaim something you don't believe? Are you trying to make yourself even less credible than you already are?

[WTF_Seriously]

At least you're consistent, Pete.  I've got nothing to add.  On the off chance you'd like to join the rest of us and discuss the topic at hand, eclipses, their paths and whether they're plausible on a round earth by all means feel free.  I'd probably be compelled to comment.

[Pete Svarrior]

At least you're consistent, Pete.  I've got nothing to add.

Understood. In that case, please heed my advice. If you have nothing to say, say nothing. I am asking politely one last time.

[Tom Bishop]

This is complicated and you keep on conflating you not understanding that complication with it not being possible.

If its it's too complicated to explain means that it doesn't work. In order for it to work it would require an explanation.

is nonsense.  If, Tom, you’re going to argue, “Gee, RE is silly.” you should use a reference that actually represents RE.  The map is a flat projection and has zero accurate representation of the reality that is the spheroid earth.

The mechanics of every eclipse are exactly the same.  The moon, at 238,000 miles away, crosses in front of the sun in a path across the entire diameter of the earth casting its shadow in various locations due to, well, geometry.  That’s it.  An eclipse path is that of the shadow cast, not the path of the actual moon.  As such, the path can travel differently in the same way  a 50ft. tree can cast a 75 ft. shadow.

Everyone here has been analyzing the situation using 2D maps with the north pole directly at the top.   That’s not reality.  Reality is a 3D object with the north pole tilting toward or away from the direct path of the sun.

The TimandDate website presents a rotatable 3D model of every eclipse.  Play with it a little and put the north pole in a realistic position and you get this:

Every eclipse path is a nearly (not exactly due to the tilted, rotating spheroid shape of the actual earth) straight line all running a horizontal path if the north pole is positioned such that it aligns properly with the inclined orbit of the moon.  It’s almost as if, and bear with me ‘cause this is crazy talk, the shadows are all being caused by an object moving at a consistent angle to N-S in a straight line between a spheroid and a distant light source.

Nice lying. You have selective and partial eclipse paths. This doesn't work on all of them. Here are different views of the August 2027 eclipse:

https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/globe/2027-august-2

[Pete Svarrior]

In fairness, WTF_Seriously already included the 2027 eclipse in his examples. The actual problem is with the step he describes as "put[ting] the North Pole in a realistic position" - what he actually means is "keep spinning around until the line looks straight when you squint". And, even then, this requires him to be selective with his eclipses.

Now, crucially, none of this is at odds with RET. WTF_Seriously just has a very poor understanding of RET, as one would expect.

[AATW]

This is complicated and you keep on conflating you not understanding that complication with it not being possible.

If its it's too complicated to explain means that it doesn't work. In order for it to work it would require an explanation.

It can be explained. You not understanding that explanation doesn't mean "it doesn't work".
It has been explained. In multiple ways. And you were shown a website which has detailed animations of past and future eclipse paths.
They show how the shadow moves across the spinning globe and the path of the shadow that results. Those animations can be compared with observations.
As I've said elsewhere, a new model only replaces an old one when it makes better predictions. Otherwise what use is it?
If you can show equivalent animations for how the shadow path moves across a flat earth then great, then we can talk.
Otherwise you're just yelling about how you can't understand RE while not being able to explain in any detail how eclipses work on FE.
In order to do the latter you'd have to have a working FE map, so you're rather falling at the first hurdle there.

[A_Buffer]

Now, to get the speed the Moon is traveling Southward we can divide distance by time:

40402.26482 / 354.3672 = 114.0124 Miles Per Hour

That is so nice to imagine the camera attached to the moon looking down the earth and showing and feeling us the speed it goes over us. And indeed, since there is, it is said, this geostationary orbit with satellites on it (only ten times closer than moon is supposed to be by RE) - that would be cool to launch just one satellite to orbit the moon, right? That would be magnificent. But there is none...

With all the curiosity of the humankind, we would already have one satellite to show us how fast moon travels above us with the full look of the earth. Just imagine such satellite's video stream or at least a video record showing the earth from the moon's height - how would that matter to us. But there is none.

And it is good - the humankind still in an unpredictable tale and situation - so live our life with great respect to the nature and stay ones who still can wonder by the greatness of this Creation.

[WTF_Seriously]

Nice lying. You have selective and partial eclipse paths. This doesn't work on all of them. Here are different views of the August 2027 eclipse:

https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/globe/2027-august-2

As Pete said. Aug 2027:



Partial eclipse paths are only a result of the limitations of rotating the model.

[Tom Bishop]

Well there you go, you admit that you skewed the truth by only showing a partial eclipse path to fit your narrative.

[WTF_Seriously]

Now, crucially, none of this is at odds with RET. WTF_Seriously just has a very poor understanding of RET, as one would expect.

I have this recent recollection of you saying something to the effect of, "if you have nothing to say...."

And, even then, this requires him to be selective with his eclipses.

Pick a date.

[andiwd]

Now, to get the speed the Moon is traveling Southward we can divide distance by time:

40402.26482 / 354.3672 = 114.0124 Miles Per Hour

That is so nice to imagine the camera attached to the moon looking down the earth and showing and feeling us the speed it goes over us. And indeed, since there is, it is said, this geostationary orbit with satellites on it (only ten times closer than moon is supposed to be by RE) - that would be cool to launch just one satellite to orbit the moon, right? That would be magnificent. But there is none...

With all the curiosity of the humankind, we would already have one satellite to show us how fast moon travels above us with the full look of the earth. Just imagine such satellite's video stream or at least a video record showing the earth from the moon's height - how would that matter to us. But there is none.

And it is good - the humankind still in an unpredictable tale and situation - so live our life with great respect to the nature and stay ones who still can wonder by the greatness of this Creation.

Here you go
https://www.flickr.com/photos/fireflyspace/54348431345/in/photostream/

[A_Buffer]

Now, to get the speed the Moon is traveling Southward we can divide distance by time:

40402.26482 / 354.3672 = 114.0124 Miles Per Hour

That is so nice to imagine the camera attached to the moon looking down the earth and showing and feeling us the speed it goes over us. And indeed, since there is, it is said, this geostationary orbit with satellites on it (only ten times closer than moon is supposed to be by RE) - that would be cool to launch just one satellite to orbit the moon, right? That would be magnificent. But there is none...

With all the curiosity of the humankind, we would already have one satellite to show us how fast moon travels above us with the full look of the earth. Just imagine such satellite's video stream or at least a video record showing the earth from the moon's height - how would that matter to us. But there is none.

And it is good - the humankind still in an unpredictable tale and situation - so live our life with great respect to the nature and stay ones who still can wonder by the greatness of this Creation.

Here you go
https://www.flickr.com/photos/fireflyspace/54348431345/in/photostream/

Phantastic. Just watched that on MSN in the news. An obvious scam. If moon just 4 times smaller than the earth how come in this "video" that device(btw made by, it seems, a Ukrainian company created in 2014) flies over the moon just in a few seconds. Also how come the lunar surface is fully lit and visible if the sun seems to be behind the moon? Such an odd video craft is just abusive to show public - but some will believe it is real, ergo mission completed.

[alpha07]

Eclipse predictions have indeed been based on observed cycles like the Saros series for centuries, independent of specific geometric models. However, modern eclipse forecasting does align with well-established celestial mechanics, which accurately predicts not only timings but also paths of totality. Understanding both historical pattern-based methods and contemporary orbital models can provide a more complete picture of how these predictions are made.