[Boots]

A message to any knowledgable FEers on this site:

Despite certain posts to the contrary, I have read the FAQ and the Wiki regarding how a lunar eclipse is explained on the Flat Earth. I am very interested in having a discussion with you about how a 5 to 10 mile diameter Shadow Object can block all the light from a 32 mile diameter sun from reaching a 32 mile diameter moon.

[geckothegeek]

A message to any knowledgable FEers on this site:

Despite certain posts to the contrary, I have read the FAQ and the Wiki regarding how a lunar eclipse is explained on the Flat Earth. I am very interested in having a discussion with you about how a 5 to 10 mile diameter Shadow Object can block all the light from a 32 mile diameter sun from reaching a 32 mile diameter moon.

A message to Boots

Like you, I have read, or scanned, most of the FAQ , the wiki, ENAG and "The Sacred Texts."
If you take any of these seriously, or any of the replies from flat earthers, you will either be frustrated or disappointed.
Most of these are based on the writings of a 19th Century author whom some consider rather dubious.
I think the FES would be better off  to call itself "The Samuel Birley Rowbotham Society."
Most of us "Round Earthers" just come here for the entertainment and to post facts and figures to show just have how false these  "Flat  Earth Theories" (Weird Ideas) are.
So, welcome to the club !
As one "RE" frequent flyer puts it : "Shalom and welcome to the trenches "
 LOL

[juner]

Most of these are based on the writings of a 19th Century author whom some consider rather

Yet the best evidence round earthers can provide for gravity is from a guy from the 18th century...

[TotesNotReptilian]

Most of these are based on the writings of a 19th Century author whom some consider rather

Yet the best evidence round earthers can provide for gravity is from a guy from the 18th century...

General Relativity wasn't even invented in the 18th century. Here's some more recent stuff: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity.

But perhaps you could stop dancing around the issue and actually address OP's question? The FAQ/Wiki obviously don't give a satisfactory answer.

[juner]

General Relativity wasn't even invented in the 18th century.

Irrelevant.

[TotesNotReptilian]

General Relativity wasn't even invented in the 18th century.

Irrelevant.

Eh, I don't know why I bothered responding to you. My mistake. Have fun with your trolling.

[juner]

General Relativity wasn't even invented in the 18th century.

Irrelevant.

Eh, I don't know why I bothered responding to you.

I'm not sure either, considering your response was unrelated to my post.

[rabinoz]

General Relativity wasn't even invented in the 18th century.

Irrelevant.

Quite relavent, it was in reply to your

Most of these are based on the writings of a 19th Century author whom some consider rather

Yet the best evidence round Globe earthers can provide for gravity is from a guy from the 18th century...

Mind you the best evidence for gravitation is that the theory works.
Even Newtonian Gravitation is almost perfectly accurate within the Solar System and is used in almost all orbital calculations, with relativistic corrections where necessary.

UA doesn't work with any great degree of accuracy anywhere.

Yes, I know this is all irrelevant,
but you still don't  seem to be able to explain a lunar eclipse on the Flat Earth,
         other than with the completely impossible explanation in "the Wiki"
         or the equally implausible explanation from Rowbotham.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

Even Newtonian Gravitation is almost perfectly accurate within the Solar System and is used in almost all orbital calculations, with relativistic corrections where necessary.

How many orbital calculations do you run a week? Have you been to space? Have you launched a satellite?

So your burden of proof is whether or not the information you're regarding was given to you by an official government agency or something?

[TotesNotReptilian]

Even Newtonian Gravitation is almost perfectly accurate within the Solar System and is used in almost all orbital calculations, with relativistic corrections where necessary.

How many orbital calculations do you run a week? Have you been to space? Have you launched a satellite?

So your burden of proof is whether or not the information you're regarding was given to you by an official government agency or something?

Calculating orbits with Newtonian gravity is actually pretty trivial. I HAVE done this in the past. Very easy. Just don't expect your predictions to be accurate hundreds of years in the future.

You can then confirm your predictions for most of the planets with an amateur telescope. No need to rely on a government agency at all.

[garygreen]

Even Newtonian Gravitation is almost perfectly accurate within the Solar System and is used in almost all orbital calculations, with relativistic corrections where necessary.

How many orbital calculations do you run a week? Have you been to space? Have you launched a satellite?

So your burden of proof is whether or not the information you're regarding was given to you by an official government agency or something?

No reliance on governments or universities is required.  For example, one can verify the validity of Kepler's and Newton's laws by observing what are called "visual binary" star systems.  These are double-star systems in which each member of the binary can be fully resolved and does not eclipse the other, and there are plenty of nearby double-star systems nearby that can be fully resolved with amateur equipment.  It's just a matter of having the time and patience to make careful observations for a long time.  I think the shortest period of any of the nearby visual binaries is something like 2 years.

[truth]

Even Newtonian Gravitation is almost perfectly accurate within the Solar System and is used in almost all orbital calculations, with relativistic corrections where necessary.

How many orbital calculations do you run a week? Have you been to space? Have you launched a satellite?

So your burden of proof is whether or not the information you're regarding was given to you by an official government agency or something?

No reliance on governments or universities is required.  For example, one can verify the validity of Kepler's and Newton's laws by observing what are called "visual binary" star systems.  These are double-star systems in which each member of the binary can be fully resolved and does not eclipse the other, and there are plenty of nearby double-star systems nearby that can be fully resolved with amateur equipment.  It's just a matter of having the time and patience to make careful observations for a long time.  I think the shortest period of any of the nearby visual binaries is something like 2 years.

Too long comment, if you want to persuade someone you should speak much more light English and much shorter.

[TotesNotReptilian]

No reliance on governments or universities is required.  For example, one can verify the validity of Kepler's and Newton's laws by observing what are called "visual binary" star systems.  These are double-star systems in which each member of the binary can be fully resolved and does not eclipse the other, and there are plenty of nearby double-star systems nearby that can be fully resolved with amateur equipment.  It's just a matter of having the time and patience to make careful observations for a long time.  I think the shortest period of any of the nearby visual binaries is something like 2 years.

Too long comment, if you want to persuade someone you should speak much more light English and much shorter.

Don't make me break out my hand puppets.

[truth]

No reliance on governments or universities is required.  For example, one can verify the validity of Kepler's and Newton's laws by observing what are called "visual binary" star systems.  These are double-star systems in which each member of the binary can be fully resolved and does not eclipse the other, and there are plenty of nearby double-star systems nearby that can be fully resolved with amateur equipment.  It's just a matter of having the time and patience to make careful observations for a long time.  I think the shortest period of any of the nearby visual binaries is something like 2 years.

Too long comment, if you want to persuade someone you should speak much more light English and much shorter.

Don't make me break out my hand puppets.

What ?

[garygreen]

Too long comment, if you want to persuade someone you should speak much more light English and much shorter.

perhaps.  i would be happy to try to better explain anything from my post that you found unclear.

[truth]

Too long comment, if you want to persuade someone you should speak much more light English and much shorter.

perhaps.  i would be happy to try to better explain anything from my post that you found unclear.

What did you want to say ?

[Boots]

A message to any knowledgable FEers on this site:

I am still very interested in having a discussion with you about how a 5 to 10 mile diameter Shadow Object can block all the light from a 32 mile diameter sun from reaching a 32 mile diameter moon.

[Rounder]

Too long comment, if you want to persuade someone you should speak much more light English and much shorter.

Oh, for crying out loud!  If he gave you any shorter an answer, it wouldn't contain any actual information.  You want a substantive answer, you're going to have to read a few words with four or five syllables.

[rabinoz]

Too long comment, if you want to persuade someone you should speak much more light English and much shorter.

Oh, for crying out loud!  If he gave you any shorter an answer, it wouldn't contain any actual information.  You want a substantive answer, you're going to have to read a few words with four or five syllables.

Come, come! He won't understand that, Just count all those syllables in "information" (1,2 ? too many!) and  "substantive" (1,2 ? too many!).

Just imagine using "Heliocentric" - the mind boggles.

[truth]

Too long comment, if you want to persuade someone you should speak much more light English and much shorter.

Oh, for crying out loud!  If he gave you any shorter an answer, it wouldn't contain any actual information.  You want a substantive answer, you're going to have to read a few words with four or five syllables.

Come, come! He won't understand that, Just count all those syllables in "information" (1,2 ? too many!) and  "substantive" (1,2 ? too many!).

Just imagine using "Heliocentric" - the mind boggles.

You are genius at telling people how evil and pathetic you can get.