For 8 or 9 pages, I've been actively been trying to help you, since you expressed a lack of understanding from page 1 onwards.
We can close the thread now if we can establish whether or not the contributions from myself and others have answered your original questions. Have they?
You seem to have difficulty understanding the thread, the discussion, and the subject-matter. I don't see anyone saying "look at Tunemi's drawings/explanations, he explained it!". You have had zero support. No one seems to care about your drawings or explanations. You continuously make "explanations" for subjects which are not argued or discussed, here and elsewhere.
Tumeni has been entirely accurate with every one of his diagrams and explanations. So, please look at Tumeni's drawings/explanations, he explained it!.
I think what I've thunk all along. Tom is simply trying to distract and divert from anything relevant to answering his original question. Let me remind you:
Help me understand the direction of the Solar Eclipse.
According to what we observe:
- The Sun sets in the West.
- The Moon sets in the West.
...
"The Earth rotates counter-clockwise on its axis (picture a spinning top). Because of this motion, celestial bodies such as the Sun, Moon and stars appear to rise in the eastern sky and set in the western sky."
...
If we observe the earth from the perspective of the sun, from a static point over the earth, the shadow of the moon would appear on the East Coast first and end on the West Coast.
...
When pressed for an answer, some have that it started in the West because the Moon is traveling around the Earth from West to East. However, if we have the Moon rotating around the Earth faster than Earth's rotation, then we should see the Moon set in the East every day.
How does this work?
So there is no doubt whatsoever that Tom is conflating the Moon's linear motion (and thus the shadow) with the Moon's angular speed. That's the entire premise behind Tom's question. Here it is once more: "...if we have the Moon rotating around the Earth faster than Earth's rotation, then we should see the Moon set in the East every day."
As Tumeni has been trying to explain, Tom is conflating linear motion with angular motion. To be clear
1) The location of the Moon in our sky is determined by its relative angular speed (degrees per hour).
2) The location of the Moon's shadow on our ground is determined by its relative linear speed (miles per hour).
It's unclear whether or not Tom is on board with this distinction at this point. The fact Tom's stance remains unclear tells you everything you need to know.
Tom is not trying to prove that the eclipse shows a flaw in the geometry. He's making no effort to show that.
Tom is not trying to understand how the eclipse works. Someone trying to understand asks clarifying questions, and they are willing to cooperate in the process by answering questions themselves.
So what is Tom trying to do? Tom's posts form a pattern. No matter what you post, Tom somehow doesn't understand. When shown a physical model, he still claims it isn't possible. Although he is clearly conflating angular speed with linear speed, he insists that you're off-topic by trying to explain that. When asked direct questions, he doesn't answer. Instead, he distracts and deflects.
It appears that he is merely trying to frustrate his opponents.
I dare say, that's the best debate tactic available for this position. If I were to persist with a point that is so clearly defeated, I don't think I could do any better.