Re: Full moon impossible?
« Reply #100 on: July 03, 2018, 08:40:08 AM » seems to me that the conclusion of this is that the Wiki page claim that

"100% totality should be impossible"

is actually correct ...

I still disagree that 100% is 'impossible'. It will be possible in the situation where line from the 'bottom' of the sun passes in a tangent to the 'top' of the earth, then hits the 'bottom' of the moon. This is geometrically possible, but will only happen for an instant.

'Top' and 'bottom' here means perpendicular to the plane of the solar ecliptic.

Well, whatever. The general point is that most full moons are, in reality, not 100% full. But they're close enough that you can't discern the difference.
I don't know what that Wiki page is trying to demonstrate. If the point of it is to demonstrate a glaring flaw in RE then it doesn't, so what's the point of it?

While we're here, the FE explanation of moon phases:

would have the exact same problem. And you'd have the problem of what forces are acting on the sun and moon to make them wobble up and down although the FE model has no explanation of what makes the sun travel in the path they claim.
"On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa...Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore
- An excerpt from the account of the Bishop Experiment. My emphasis

Re: Full moon impossible?
« Reply #101 on: July 04, 2018, 10:49:32 AM »
According to that same link:
"The lunar phases vary cyclically according to the changing geometry of the Moon and Sun, which are constantly wobbling up and down and exchange altitudes as they rotate around the North Pole."

So, with this in mind, how does it get to be night in the North Pole? They have months of it on end.

If I am understanding this right, then the north pole, being the apparent centre, will always be in daylight