[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.

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

You complain at the complain about the complexity of replies. Not all answers can be in one simple sentence.

So what are we to think?

[Tom Bishop]

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.

In the same way you can project a hand and puppet shadow show onto your bedroom wall, with the shadow of your hands being several times the size of your physical hands.

Any further questions?

[juner]

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.

In the same way you can project a hand and puppet shadow show onto your bedroom wall, with the shadow of your hands being several the size of your physical hands.

Any further questions?

I'm really not sure what the RE objection is to this. It's actually quite a simple concept.

[TotesNotReptilian]

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.

In the same way you can project a hand and puppet shadow show onto your bedroom wall, with the shadow of your hands being several the size of your physical hands.

Any further questions?

Yes, I have 2 questions.

1. It has been pointed out several times that a 10 mile diameter object cannot effectively block the light between two 32 mile diameter objects. It doesn't matter where you place the shadow object. The reason you can make your hand's shadow bigger is because your hand is wider than the light source. Why do you continue to ignore this issue?

2. Why do you continue to conspicuously ignore this thread?

[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.

In the same way you can project a hand and puppet shadow show onto your bedroom wall, with the shadow of your hands being several the size of your physical hands.

Any further questions?

Yes, I have 2 questions.

1. It has been pointed out several times that a 10 mile diameter object cannot effectively block the light between two 32 mile diameter objects. It doesn't matter where you place the shadow object. The reason you can make your hand's shadow bigger is because your hand is wider than the light source. Why do you continue to ignore this issue?

2. Why do you continue to conspicuously ignore this thread?

Inb4 complaints that Totes is not the OP.(I don't understand why that should matter if his questions and/or comments are relevant(whether junker thinks they are relevant or not is totally irrelevant IMHO)).

Also, I have the same question and have posted it in another thread. I did a simple experiment and got results that do not support the idea that a 10 mile diameter object can effectively block the light between two 32 mile diameter objects. I was told my experiment made no sense at all, but am still wondering why it makes no sense at all. I would really like to find out what the problems were so we could address them and further our inquiry.

[rabinoz]

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.

In the same way you can project a hand and puppet shadow show onto your bedroom wall, with the shadow of your hands being several the size of your physical hands.

Any further questions?

I challenge you to try the "hand and puppet shadow show onto your bedroom wall" with a light source 3 to 6 times the size of your hand.

In other words with a light source 12 to 24 inches in diameter.

Get my drift yet?

[Tom Bishop]

I challenge you to try the "hand and puppet shadow show onto your bedroom wall" with a light source 3 to 6 times the size of your hand.

In other words with a light source 12 to 24 inches in diameter.

Get my drift yet?

Even if the end of a flashlight was two feet in diameter, when you project that light to fill a 10 foot by 10 foot wall, whatever shadows you are creating will enlarge as the light projects against that wall.

Do you not know of the concept of projection?

[Rama Set]

I challenge you to try the "hand and puppet shadow show onto your bedroom wall" with a light source 3 to 6 times the size of your hand.

In other words with a light source 12 to 24 inches in diameter.

Get my drift yet?

Even if the end of a flashlight was two feet in diameter, when you project that light to fill a 10 foot by 10 foot wall, whatever shadows you are creating will enlarge as the light projects against that wall.

Do you not know of the concept of projection?

Apparently you don't.  The shadow will enlarge proportionately to the size of the light pool the source throws.  Since the shadow will never be larger than the source in your case, Totes objection still stands.  I for one, am not surprised.

[rabinoz]

I challenge you to try the "hand and puppet shadow show onto your bedroom wall" with a light source 3 to 6 times the size of your hand.

In other words with a light source 12 to 24 inches in diameter.

Get my drift yet?

Even if the end of a flashlight was two feet in diameter, when you project that light to fill a 10 foot by 10 foot wall, whatever shadows you are creating will enlarge as the light projects against that wall.

Do you not know of the concept of projection?

I understand the concept of projection very well, thank you. I have for the past 60 years or so.
Back there I did quite a bit of film and slide projection, including running repairs on the equipment, so yes, I can claim to "know of the concept of projection"!

Projection focuses a brightly illuminated object (film frame, LCD image) onto a screen.

The illumination in the case of  film or slide projector is a high intensity collimated light source, often using a part concave spherical mirror an a collimation lens.
The focusing process uses another set of convex lenses.

Now for a "shadow puppet" to cast a sharp shadow larger than the puppet requires a small light source.
If the light source is much larger than "shadow object" most of the light simple shines past (no need to bend around) the "shadow object". No need for curved light!

Of course, the sun can cast a fairly sharp shadow, but being much further away than the object-screen distance the shadow is almost the same size as the object.

But "the Wiki" explanation of the lunar eclipse has the "shadow object" much closer to the sun than to the moon, with the intention of causing a much enlarged shadow at the moon's location. That shadow must be roughly four times the moon's diameter - remember how those wise Greek stronomers estimated the moon's diameter.

Sketch it out on paper. I don't want to waste my time drawing up a diagram for something so elementary.

[Boots]

Here is a sketch I made very quickly. I think it demonstrates how ineffective a 5 to 10 mile diameter Shadow Object would be at blocking all the light from a 32 mile diameter sun from reaching a 32 mile diameter moon.

[Tom Bishop]

Now for a "shadow puppet" to cast a sharp shadow larger than the puppet requires a small light source.
If the light source is much larger than "shadow object" most of the light simple shines past (no need to bend around) the "shadow object". No need for curved light!

Come on. You're smarter than that. If we have a flashlight with a large flash light and hold our hand against it, it will create a shadow against the wall. If you project the light against a larger surface area, the larger the shadow will be.

Here is a sketch I made very quickly. I think it demonstrates how ineffective a 5 to 10 mile diameter Shadow Object would be at blocking all the light from a 32 mile diameter sun from reaching a 32 mile diameter moon.

Why is the light at the top of the sun turning in a 90 degree angle and also moving downwards? The light only radiates outwards from the sun. You have the light changing directions all over the place.

[garygreen]

Why is the light at the top of the sun turning in a 90 degree angle and also moving downwards? The light only radiates outwards from the sun. You have the light changing directions all over the place.

this isn't true.  flux is emitted at all angles from every point on the surface of a light source.

[andruszkow]

Now for a "shadow puppet" to cast a sharp shadow larger than the puppet requires a small light source.
If the light source is much larger than "shadow object" most of the light simple shines past (no need to bend around) the "shadow object". No need for curved light!

Come on. You're smarter than that. If we have a flashlight with a large flash light and hold our hand against it, it will create a shadow against the wall. If you project the light against a larger surface area, the larger the shadow will be.

Here is a sketch I made very quickly. I think it demonstrates how ineffective a 5 to 10 mile diameter Shadow Object would be at blocking all the light from a 32 mile diameter sun from reaching a 32 mile diameter moon.

Why is the light at the top of the sun turning in a 90 degree angle and also moving downwards? The light only radiates outwards from the sun. You have the light changing directions all over the place.

There's so many flaws in that reply that it's hard to figure out where to begin. And I'm not talking about this topic in particular, the problem is with your lack of understanding very, very basic physics.

[Boots]

Why is the light at the top of the sun turning in a 90 degree angle and also moving downwards? The light only radiates outwards from the sun. You have the light changing directions all over the place.

So to be clear, your position is that the sun only emits light outward from its surface at a 90 degree angle as depicted in the sketch below? I am quite sure that is wrong but if that were the case the wiki explanation for lunar eclipses which you are defending would make sense. I guess all we need to clear up now is whether light actually behaves in that manner. Perhaps I need to do another experiment specifically addressing this issue?

My understanding is this is how you believe the lunar eclipse described in the wiki occurs:

[inquisitive]

Why is the light at the top of the sun turning in a 90 degree angle and also moving downwards? The light only radiates outwards from the sun. You have the light changing directions all over the place.

So to be clear, your position is that the sun only emits light outward from its surface at a 90 degree angle? I am quite sure that is wrong. Perhaps I need to do another experiment specifically addressing this issue?

TB is just winding people up.

[rabinoz]

Now for a "shadow puppet" to cast a sharp shadow larger than the puppet requires a small light source.
If the light source is much larger than "shadow object" most of the light simple shines past (no need to bend around) the "shadow object". No need for curved light!

Come on. You're smarter than that. If we have a flashlight with a large flash light and hold our hand against it, it will create a shadow against the wall. If you project the light against a larger surface area, the larger the shadow will be.

Here is a sketch I made very quickly. I think it demonstrates how ineffective a 5 to 10 mile diameter Shadow Object would be at blocking all the light from a 32 mile diameter sun from reaching a 32 mile diameter moon.

Why is the light at the top of the sun turning in a 90 degree angle and also moving downwards? The light only radiates outwards from the sun. You have the light changing directions all over the place.

The light at the "top of the sun" is not "turning in a 90 degree angle".

Unless you are going to claim that the sun is a "point source of radiation", each point on the surface of the sun radiates light in all directions.

You can check this out by shining the light of the sun through a pin-hole onto a screen. The light from the pinhole diverges an angle of almost 0.6° (³²/₃₂₀₀ radians).

[Boots]

Why is the light at the top of the sun turning in a 90 degree angle and also moving downwards? The light only radiates outwards from the sun. You have the light changing directions all over the place.

So to be clear, your position is that the sun only emits light outward from its surface at a 90 degree angle as depicted in the sketch below? I am quite sure that is wrong but if that were the case the wiki explanation for lunar eclipses which you are defending would make sense. I guess all we need to clear up now is whether light actually behaves in that manner. Perhaps I need to do another experiment specifically addressing this issue?

Here is another more realistic sketch IMO. It doesn't have lines running all over the place which I thought might be a little simpler.

[geckothegeek]

Firstly, it would be nice to figure out how strong your understanding is of a lunar eclipse on a round earth. Please tell me what you believe to be causing a lunar eclipse in the presently accepted model, then we can delve into the logic behind it.

This thread is about the lunar eclipse on a flat earth.

[juner]

Firstly, it would be nice to figure out how strong your understanding is of a lunar eclipse on a round earth. Please tell me what you believe to be causing a lunar eclipse in the presently accepted model, then we can delve into the logic behind it.

This thread is about the lunar eclipse on a flat earth.

You aren't the arbiter of the discussion. It's a similarly related question. You say all kinds of unrelated things in nearly every thread so stop being such a hypocrite.

[geckothegeek]

I've been wading through all 6 pages of this thread. LOL.
Maybe it has been covered and I have overlooked it or maybe it HAS  been overlooked.
One flat earth notion is that the sun "acts like a spotlight and shines down on the earth causing night and day".
If the sun and the moon are at the same distance above the earth , and in the same orbit,  how then would  it be possible for any light from the sun  to shine on the moon ?
This would seem to support the "self-illumination" notion.
There are so many of these contradictions that one wonders if who ever made them up (Rowbotham ?) ever gave much thought to them.

We got along just fine with the old "Round Earth" in the old United States Navy , thank you ! LOL

Also :
How do the sun and the moon keep from bumpimg into each other if they are the same distance from the earth and in the same orbit ?
Do they always travel at the same speed and are always separated by 180 degrees ? Seems like this would have to be so ?