Re: Shadow Object and empyrical demonstration against total eclypses.
« Reply #20 on: July 07, 2014, 08:38:51 AM »
...
In that case, I am discussing the FE model described in the wiki.
Even the Wiki can't settle on a consistent model. Heck, they can't even agree if the South Pole exists within the same thread.

In that case, I'm discussing what the FE wiki says, independently of the consistency of the data there written.

Offline Gulliver

  • *
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
Re: Shadow Object and empyrical demonstration against total eclypses.
« Reply #21 on: July 07, 2014, 09:41:56 PM »
...
In that case, I am discussing the FE model described in the wiki.
Even the Wiki can't settle on a consistent model. Heck, they can't even agree if the South Pole exists within the same thread.

In that case, I'm discussing what the FE wiki says, independently of the consistency of the data there written.
So you'll be arguing against the "one-pole" and "two-pole" models at the same time; and the "mass-has-gravity-everywhere" and the "mass-has-gravity-only-well-above-the-Earth" at the same time. Good luck the whacking moles.
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

Re: Shadow Object and empyrical demonstration against total eclypses.
« Reply #22 on: July 07, 2014, 10:45:05 PM »
It is very easy to smash the two-pole model.

About the gravity, whatever be the case, the FE can't work (I'm working on thi now).

I aldeady demonstrated that the FE is wrong when talking about the Sun and the Moon, no mater if the moon reflects light or is self-luminiscent.
You can read my thread about how it is impossible to see the moon during night.

Offline Gulliver

  • *
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
Re: Shadow Object and empyrical demonstration against total eclypses.
« Reply #23 on: July 07, 2014, 11:32:20 PM »
It is very easy to smash the two-pole model.

About the gravity, whatever be the case, the FE can't work (I'm working on thi now).

I aldeady demonstrated that the FE is wrong when talking about the Sun and the Moon, no mater if the moon reflects light or is self-luminiscent.
You can read my thread about how it is impossible to see the moon during night.
I'm sure you're missing the point, but I suspect that giving you the opportunity to play the "whack-a-mole" game is the best way for you to learn. Queue up "Yakety Sax":
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

Re: Shadow Object and empyrical demonstration against total eclypses.
« Reply #24 on: July 08, 2014, 07:32:49 AM »
I'm sure you're missing the point, but I suspect that giving you the opportunity to play the "whack-a-mole" game is the best way for you to learn. Queue up "Yakety Sax":

Kid's logic

A = C
B = C
A ≠ B

Then A and B can't be C at the same time.

Offline Gulliver

  • *
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
Re: Shadow Object and empyrical demonstration against total eclypses.
« Reply #25 on: July 09, 2014, 01:25:04 AM »
Kid's logic

A = C
B = C
A ≠ B

Then A and B can't be C at the same time.
Sorry, did you have a point to make? If so, I've missed it entirely.
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.