The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Investigations => Topic started by: Tom Bishop on January 18, 2025, 02:49:55 AM
-
As we've discussed over the last 15+ years, the eclipse predictions are based on patterns (https://wiki.tfes.org/Astronomical_Prediction_Based_on_Patterns#The_Eclipses) rather than an actual geometric model. The denialists are defeated on that point every time it is discussed. Since the predictions are not based on a geometric RE model it creates doubt in the mind, and further evidence that the eclipse predictions do not follow that model fosters cynicism.
Take a look at the Solar Eclipse of Aug 12, 2026, which will pass over our favorite future US protectorate:
https://twitter.com/NationalEclipse/status/1878982718438207924
Notice anything odd? During the eclipse the shadow of the Moon will be moving vertically in a North-South direction. This is quite odd, considering that the Moon is said to travel around the Earth in a East-West direction (or West-East, if you want to argue about rotating earth semantics).
The best excuse you can expect for this typically amounts to "you haven't considered that the Earth is tilted", without expanding further. But any possibility of a coherent explanation can be easily dismissed, since in the Round Earth Theory the Moon is traveling in the same plane of the Sun, and only misaligned by 5 degrees. They are essentially on the same plane. The tilted Earth effect must also occur with the Sun. Reviewing the path that the Sun makes over the Earth, it is difficult to see how the Moon's shadow can move in this direction.
-
I'lll give it to you Tim Bishop, that's actually an interesting observation!
Of course the tilt of the earth does have to be considered, you can't just throw that out. This eclipse is happening in August, during which the northern hemisphere is tilted towards the sun - so that at least goes a bit of a way towards an explanation. I'm curious about the full geometric explanation though.
-
What "tilt" of the earth?
-
There's a gif on wikipedia that explains the path of the eclipse without resorting to a weird moon path.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_eclipse_of_August_12,_2026
It implies the moon is passing in front of the sun more towards the top.
-
What "tilt" of the earth?
Given that the primary alternative to "flat earth" is "globe earth", and in the globe earth model, the earth is tilted at an angle compared to the sun, it's gotta be that tilt - the tilt proposed by the globe model. Right?
-
The FET does "throw out" the tilt of the earth.
-
The FET does "throw out" the tilt of the earth.
I don't think that's relevant to what I said. OP brought this up as something the RE theory should have trouble explaining. What the FE theory throws out is not very relevant to how well the RE theory can explain something. The RE theory isn't based on the FE theory.
-
I quote you: "Of course the tilt of the earth does have to be considered, you can't just throw that out."
So, it is relevant. The gif you posted does not appear to match the image in Tom's post.
-
I quote you: "Of course the tilt of the earth does have to be considered, you can't just throw that out."
So, it is relevant. The gif you posted does not appear to match the image in Tom's post.
you can't just throw that out IF YOU ARE CONSIDERING RE. Which the argument in OP is doing. If you want to talk about RE at all in this context, then in that context, you can't ignore the tilt. If you don't want to talk about tilt, don't talk about RE.
The gif does match the image, i'd be happy to explain if it's non-obvious.
-
. The gif you posted does not appear to match the image in Tom's post.
Tom just chose to post the predominently north-south element of the track as it passes through Orangeland Greenland
-
The breadth of the track appears to be consistently wide in the second image, whereas the first image reflects a broadening.
-
The breadth of the track appears to be consistently wide in the second image, whereas the first image reflects a broadening.
I believe you're referring to how the path is broader in the north section of Tom's image, and narrows as the path proceeds southward.
That also happens (subtly) in the gif, because the area is being spread over the edge of the sphere as it's north and hits more direct on the sphere as it goes south.
In addition to that, a projection of a sphere onto a flat surface always has distortions, and the most common distortion is called the Mercator Projection, which makes more northern areas look comparatively wider than they really are, assuming of course that RE is true.
In fact even if you don't assume RE is true, the common flat-earth models - bi-polar and mono-polar - also have the same stretching problem with respect to the Mercator Projection. So globers and flat earthers should actually generally agree that the widening in the north of Tom's image is a distortion due to projection stretching.
-
As we've discussed over the last 15+ years, the eclipse predictions are based on patterns (https://wiki.tfes.org/Astronomical_Prediction_Based_on_Patterns#The_Eclipses) rather than an actual geometric model. The denialists are defeated on that point every time it is discussed. Since the predictions are not based on a geometric RE model it creates doubt in the mind, and further evidence that the eclipse predictions do not follow that model fosters cynicism.
Take a look at the Solar Eclipse of Aug 12, 2026, which will pass over our favorite future US protectorate:
https://twitter.com/NationalEclipse/status/1878982718438207924
Notice anything odd? During the eclipse the shadow of the Moon will be moving vertically in a North-South direction. This is quite odd, considering that the Moon is said to travel around the Earth in a East-West direction (or West-East, if you want to argue about rotating earth semantics).
The best excuse you can expect for this typically amounts to "you haven't considered that the Earth is tilted", without expanding further. But any possibility of a coherent explanation can be easily dismissed, since in the Round Earth Theory the Moon is traveling in the same plane of the Sun, and only misaligned by 5 degrees. They are essentially on the same plane. The tilted Earth effect must also occur with the Sun. Reviewing the path that the Sun makes over the Earth, it is difficult to see how the Moon's shadow can move in this direction.
Is that really the most outlandish image of the predicted eclipse path you could find? This took moments to find:
(https://www.eclipsewise.com/pubs/images/Map-2026-TSE-3c.jpg)
And since the Wikipedia image is public domain, why not show it too?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/77/SE2026Aug12T.png/640px-SE2026Aug12T.png)
This one shows the predicted eclipse path on the globe, making it altogether more understandable: the eclipse is forecast to begin off the northern coast of Siberia and finish over the western Mediterranean. Remembering how accurate the predictions were of an eclipse in 1999, also in August, and how I was able, having known for 20 years, to travel just 20 miles to see it completely black out the sun, it would be useful to know how the Saros cycle patterns predict the precise timing and exact location of an eclipse so accurately. It would also help your case to plot the 2026 path on a flat earth map instead of your bad Mercator projection of the globe – I mean, Greenland looks even bigger than Canada and Svalbard at least as big, if not actually bigger than the UK: the ratios in each case are roughly 1:4, oops.
If you're going to poke holes in eclipse calculations, you're going to need more than that.
-
That last image appears to prove that the shadow travels Northwards.
(https://i.imgur.com/2tEZjk6.png)
-
That last image appears to prove that the shadow travels Northwards.
I don't see any directionality in that image at all, why are you so sure it's not going south?
-
The assumption you make regarding projection of the sphere onto a flat surface is that the earth is the sphere, when it is the spherical coordinates of the celestial objects above projected upon the flat plane of the earth.
-
You aren't reading your chart correctly Tom, it's travelling South across Greenland, then East.
Jesus, check the timings for direction of travel; North Pole 17.00 UTC, South of Iceland 18.00 UTC, etc. The Event begins in Northern Russia and ends in the Mediterranean.
(edit; clarifying the zone of North to South travel)
-
The assumption you make regarding projection of the sphere onto a flat surface is that the earth is the sphere, when it is the spherical coordinates of the celestial objects above projected upon the flat plane of the earth.
Don't know what point you're trying to make. I was making a specific point about you saying that one image shows it widening while one shows it more consistent width - I was explaining why that would be. So with that being explained, it's not clear what you're trying to say here my man.
-
That last image appears to prove that the shadow travels Northwards.
I don't see any directionality in that image at all, why are you so sure it's not going south?
The shadow is approaching the North Pole and passing nearly through the North Pole, so it is defacto moving Northward in its establishment. If you want to say that it is moving Southward once it passes the North Pole, that is correct, but not really relevant to the discussion since Southward movement also doesn't work.
You aren't reading your chart correctly Tom, it's travelling South across Greenland, then East.
Jesus, check the timings for direction of travel; North Pole 17.00 UTC, South of Iceland 18.00 UTC, etc. The Event begins in Northern Russia and ends in the Mediterranean.
(edit; clarifying the zone of North to South travel)
By calling out the locations and times it looks like you debonked your own self. When the event starts in Northern Russia it will be moving in a Northward direction.
Whether the shadow is moving from North to South or from South to North on areas of the map, it doesn't work either way. I don't see what point you are trying to make. Instead adopting the debate tactic of posting irrelevancies you should be working on a genuine explanation for this under the Round Earth Theory.
-
since Southward movement also doesn't work.
Doesn't work for what? Did you watch the gif from Wikipedia? It seems like it works pretty seamlessly to me.
-
It's puzzling that the argument here is that the globe model can't explain this, when this thing that's been predicted was explicitly predicted using globe models.
https://flatearth.ws/eclipse-prediction
This article goes through software any normal person can install on their computer to use globe models to predict future eclipses (including the 2026 one in question here). Not only can the globe model explain this, the globe model is the precise thing used to explain this in the first place.
-
It's puzzling that the argument here is that the globe model can't explain this, when this thing that's been predicted was explicitly predicted using globe models.
https://flatearth.ws/eclipse-prediction
This article goes through software any normal person can install on their computer to use globe models to predict future eclipses (including the 2026 one in question here). Not only can the globe model explain this, the globe model is the precise thing used to explain this in the first place.
It is one of Tom's go to arguments that he doesn't understand how the globe model explains ... therefore it can't be explained. Checkmate!
I haven't looked in to this eclipse in any detail but I would note that the earth's axis of rotation is tilted with respect to the moon and the moon is orbiting while the earth is rotating which makes this all a bit complicated.
I note at no point has he showed how this path works on a FE or used any FE model to predict the date and path of the eclipse.
-
Eclipse cycles were predicted by flat earthers millenia ago.
-
Eclipse cycles were predicted by flat earthers millenia ago.
Cool. So it should be easy for you to show how you predict future ones and how you calculate the paths they will follow.
Looking forward to seeing your workings.
-
What do flat earthers believe solar eclipses are? Is it the moon getting in front of the sun or something else?
-
Doesn't work for what? Did you watch the gif from Wikipedia? It seems like it works pretty seamlessly to me.
This is what you posted:
There's a gif on wikipedia that explains the path of the eclipse without resorting to a weird moon path.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_eclipse_of_August_12,_2026
It implies the moon is passing in front of the sun more towards the top.
Here is the gif:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a8/SE2026Aug12T.gif)
Your explanation of "It implies the moon is passing in front of the sun more towards the top." needs more demonstration, since the Moon is not rotating around the Earth on a North-South plane.
-
Doesn't work for what? Did you watch the gif from Wikipedia? It seems like it works pretty seamlessly to me.
This is what you posted:
There's a gif on wikipedia that explains the path of the eclipse without resorting to a weird moon path.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_eclipse_of_August_12,_2026
It implies the moon is passing in front of the sun more towards the top.
Here is the gif:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a8/SE2026Aug12T.gif)
Your explanation of "It implies the moon is passing in front of the sun more towards the top." needs more demonstration, since the Moon is not rotating around the Earth on a North-South plane.
The moon rotates around the sun east-to-west, but it wobbles along the plane of orbit in a north-south direction. That's why there's not a lunar eclipse or solar eclipse every month. In this particular case, the moon is more northward on the plane.
-
You are talking about this North-South movement from this University of Arizona diagram (http://ircamera.as.arizona.edu/Astr2016/lectures/skyappearance.htm):
(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/5/50/Arizona-Moon.jpg)
The above diagram is not to scale, but we can compute with the correct values. Starting from the New Moon position in the diagram lets calculate how fast the Moon is descending Southward.
To get the dimensions of one of the sides of the triangle to the right of the Earth in the above image we can fill out a Triangle Calculator (https://www.calculator.net/triangle-calculator.html?vc=&vx=&vy=&va=5&vz=230900&vb=90&angleunits=d&x=Calculate) with 5 degrees, 238900 (avg distance from earth to moon in miles), and 90 degrees.
(https://i.imgur.com/RRIybes.png)
This creates the following result:
(https://i.imgur.com/GpeNHQ0.png)
The shortest side a, the Opposite Side, is 20,201.13241 miles
We take this value and double it to get the Opposite Side of the other triangle that would be on the lower left of the diagram scene when it approaches Full Moon.
20,201.13241 miles x 2 = 40402.26482 Miles
There are 29.5306 days in a lunar month, the time it takes to get from New Moon to the next New Moon. This should be divided by two to get the time from New Moon to Full Moon
29.5306 / 2 = 14.7653 days in half a lunar month
Half a lunar month in hours is 354.3672 Hours
Now, to get the speed the Moon is traveling Southward we can divide distance by time:
40402.26482 / 354.3672 = 114.0124 Miles Per Hour
The total time of the Aug 12, 2026 total eclipse shadow can be found on https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/solar/2026-august-12
First location to see the full eclipse begin Aug 12 at 16:58:09 (UTC)
Last location to see the full eclipse end Aug 12 at 18:34:07 (UTC)
This is only about 1 hour and a half hours, and according to the maps the total eclipse shadow is traveling a distance equivalent to about the diameter of the Arctic Circle. Unless you are proposing that that North-South distance traveled is only about 171 miles, this does not make sense.
The shadow should obviously be moving Southward far slower.
-
Now, to get the speed the Moon is traveling Southward we can divide distance by time:
40402.26482 / 354.3672 = 114.0124 Miles Per Hour
That's how far it travels southward on average over that half of the month. On average. It's going to be at its peak speed southward as it's passing the earth-sun ecliptic plane - which it is of course in the process of doing during a solar eclipse.
Also, you should be aware that the distance the shadow travels southward is going to be far larger than the distance the moon travels southward. Think about the geometry of the situation.
-
Eclipse cycles were predicted by flat earthers millenia ago.
Cool. So it should be easy for you to show how you predict future ones and how you calculate the paths they will follow.
Looking forward to seeing your workings.
Why would I repeat the work that is already done?
-
Eclipse cycles were predicted by flat earthers millenia ago.
Cool. So it should be easy for you to show how you predict future ones and how you calculate the paths they will follow.
Looking forward to seeing your workings.
Why would I repeat the work that is already done?
He didn't ask you to repeat the work - that would be hard. He said it would be easy to show the work. As in, maybe you have a link to some resource, that someone else already made, that shows how these are predicted with a flat earth model.
-
Have you read the Wiki?
-
Did I read the entire wiki? No of course not, why are you asking me that? The dude just wants a link to a resource that demonstrates your claim.
-
There is a resource concerning solar eclipses within the Wiki.
https://wiki.tfes.org/Solar_Eclipse (https://wiki.tfes.org/Solar_Eclipse)
Further:
https://wiki.tfes.org/Astronomical_Prediction_Based_on_Patterns#The_Eclipses (https://wiki.tfes.org/Astronomical_Prediction_Based_on_Patterns#The_Eclipses)
-
There is a resource concerning solar eclipses within the Wiki.
https://wiki.tfes.org/Solar_Eclipse (https://wiki.tfes.org/Solar_Eclipse)
Further:
https://wiki.tfes.org/Astronomical_Prediction_Based_on_Patterns#The_Eclipses (https://wiki.tfes.org/Astronomical_Prediction_Based_on_Patterns#The_Eclipses)
Wonderful, thank you for graciously providing the link.
So of course the link doesn't say the eclipses were calculated using a flat earth model. They were just calculated using pattern recognition, independent of any model.
In modern times, you can calculate them using a model-less pattern system, or you can use a globe model. Both seem to work.
-
The patterns mentioned, including eclipses, were provided by FET proponents.
Nothing added by RET.
-
The patterns mentioned, including eclipses, were provided by FET proponents.
I would love it if you could provide evidence of that.
-
To what type of theory did the ancient Babylonians ascribe?
"ancient babylonian models of the earth" (https://www.google.com/search?q=ancient+babylonian+models+of+the+earth&rlz=1C1GCEO_en&oq=ancient+baylonian+models+of+the+&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqCQgDECEYChigATIGCAAQRRg5MgkIARAhGAoYoAEyCQgCECEYChigATIJCAMQIRgKGKABMgkIBBAhGAoYoAEyCQgFECEYChirAjIJCAYQIRgKGKsCMgkIBxAhGAoYqwIyBwgIECEYjwIyBwgJECEYjwLSAQkxMjk5OWowajeoAgiwAgE&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8)
-
To what type of theory did the ancient Babylonians ascribe?
"ancient babylonian models of the earth"
(https://www.google.com/search?q=ancient+babylonian+models+of+the+earth&rlz=1C1GCEO_en&oq=ancient+baylonian+models+of+the+&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqCQgDECEYChigATIGCAAQRRg5MgkIARAhGAoYoAEyCQgCECEYChigATIJCAMQIRgKGKABMgkIBBAhGAoYoAEyCQgFECEYChirAjIJCAYQIRgKGKsCMgkIBxAhGAoYqwIyBwgIECEYjwIyBwgJECEYjwLSAQkxMjk5OWowajeoAgiwAgE&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8)
Does that make them a proponent of a model? I guess I think the word "model" refers to something a bit more rigorous than "the world kinda looks like such and such to me". And a proponent is someone who advocates for a theory, not just someone who kinda passively believes something. Were they out there convincing people the world is flat?
I wouldn't call their mythology a model or a theory at all. It's at best the seedlings of something that you could later turn into a model or a theory, which they didn't do.
And it's obviously not relevant to their calculations of the eclipses anyway. Right? Their calculations didn't involve calculating positions of things relative to a flat earth.
-
The Ancient Babylonians did not need to be "proponents" of any "model."
They knew the earth was flat and so did everyone else.
So, I guess I misused the word "proponents".
The fact is, Ancient Babylonians ascribed to a flat earth.
They predicted eclipses relevant to the flat earth.
The same calculations we use today.
Saros cycles.
Nothing has changed.
It is not mythology.
Globularism is the mythology.
-
They knew the earth was flat and so did everyone else.
They didn't have the technology to observe the earth directly.
Now we do.
And while cycles may be used to predict eclipses at a high level, calculating the exact path uses a globe model
-
They predicted eclipses relevant to the earth, period. They didn't use a model of a flat earth to do it - they didn't really use a model of the earth or the moon or the sun at all to do it. So with all that being said, I'm not sure why we're even talking about it. Yes they were flat eathers. That doesn't mean everything they did, they did with a real model of a flat earth. There's not a whole lot more to say on that topic.
-
Of course, the patterns were all established relative to the flat earth they were standing on.
Look, if you do not want to get blasted out of the water on points you brought up to begin with, then quit bringing up those points.
-
Of course, the patterns were all established relative to the flat earth they were standing on.
Look, if you do not want to get blasted out of the water on points you brought up to begin with, then quit bringing up those points.
What point do you think I brought up?
-
I imagine you're referring to my 'globe model' post at the top of the previous page.
But it's true, saros cycles can be used to make imprecise predictions about the time and approximate path of the solar eclipse, but the eclipse also has a specific shape drawn out on the surface of the earth as well, and the saros calculations don't include information about that.
However, there are calculations that can be done to determine the shape:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_eclipse#:~:text=Besselian%20elements%20are%20used%20to,umbra's%20shadow%20on%20Earth's%20surface.
Besselian elements are used to predict whether an eclipse will be partial, annular, or total (or annular/total), and what the eclipse circumstances will be at any given location.[34]: Chapter 11
Calculations with Besselian elements can determine the exact shape of the umbra's shadow on Earth's surface.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Besselian_elements
That's all about projecting shadows onto spheres. Globe model baby.
-
You are talking about this North-South movement from this University of Arizona diagram (http://ircamera.as.arizona.edu/Astr2016/lectures/skyappearance.htm):
(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/5/50/Arizona-Moon.jpg)
The above diagram is not to scale, but we can compute with the correct values. Starting from the New Moon position in the diagram lets calculate how fast the Moon is descending Southward.
To get the dimensions of one of the sides of the triangle to the right of the Earth in the above image we can fill out a Triangle Calculator (https://www.calculator.net/triangle-calculator.html?vc=&vx=&vy=&va=5&vz=230900&vb=90&angleunits=d&x=Calculate) with 5 degrees, 238900 (avg distance from earth to moon in miles), and 90 degrees.
(https://i.imgur.com/RRIybes.png)
This creates the following result:
(https://i.imgur.com/GpeNHQ0.png)
The shortest side a, the Opposite Side, is 20,201.13241 miles
We take this value and double it to get the Opposite Side of the other triangle that would be on the lower left of the diagram scene when it approaches Full Moon.
20,201.13241 miles x 2 = 40402.26482 Miles
There are 29.5306 days in a lunar month, the time it takes to get from New Moon to the next New Moon. This should be divided by two to get the time from New Moon to Full Moon
29.5306 / 2 = 14.7653 days in half a lunar month
Half a lunar month in hours is 354.3672 Hours
Now, to get the speed the Moon is traveling Southward we can divide distance by time:
40402.26482 / 354.3672 = 114.0124 Miles Per Hour
The total time of the Aug 12, 2026 total eclipse shadow can be found on https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/solar/2026-august-12
First location to see the full eclipse begin Aug 12 at 16:58:09 (UTC)
Last location to see the full eclipse end Aug 12 at 18:34:07 (UTC)
This is only about 1 hour and a half hours, and according to the maps the total eclipse shadow is traveling a distance equivalent to about the diameter of the Arctic Circle. Unless you are proposing that that North-South distance traveled is only about 171 miles, this does not make sense.
The shadow should obviously be moving Southward far slower.
I applaud your trying some actual calculations for this, but must point out some shortcomings in your reasoning.
Although you've calculated vertical distance (relative to the ecliptic) between new moon and full moon, you then divide this distance by the time between these events to give an average vertical speed for this movement. This suggests the Moon moves at this speed between new and full moon, but this is unrealistic and implies the Moon's vertical speed would immediately reverse at the full moon to the same speed in the opposite direction. This sudden reversal in vertical speed would be immediately visible to astronomic observers, but no such change is seen: it would be a big talking point for anyone interested in lunar astronomy. The Moon moves in an elliptical orbit around Earth, so vertical speed (relative to the ecliptic) will increase from nil at the new moon to a maximum as it crosses the ecliptic, decrease to nil as the full moon is reached, increase to maximum in the opposite direction as it re-crosses the ecliptic and decrease to nil as the next new moon is reached. The acceleration and deceleration won't be linear either, as a consequence of the elliptical orbit. Solar eclipses occur when the Moon is on or very close to the ecliptic, so the Moon will be moving at or near its maximum vertical speed.
Applying the calculated vertical speed to the globe presents further problems: a globe is not a flat wall and 100 vertical miles (relative to the ecliptic) will be almost exactly 100 surface miles on Earth near the Equator, but more than 1100 surface miles, for example, at latitude 85°N. This shows in the gif when the shadow is crossing the Arctic Ocean much faster than in mid-Atlantic.
Furthermore, the animated gif shows that the moon shadow is running off to the eastern rim of daylight over the Mediterranean as the eclipse ends, so the horizontal surface speed (relative to the ecliptic) on the globe is much greater than at mid-eclipse.
Much more work to do, sorry.
-
The Moon is obviously moving very slow on a Southward trajectory over its lunar month. I don't see any contradicting math which says otherwise. Therefore this doesn't work.
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Besselian_elements
That's all about projecting shadows onto spheres. Globe model baby.
Incorrect. The polynomials in the Besselian Elements are most directly derived from a flat earth, not directly from a round earth:
https://eclipse2024.org/predictions.html
"First (without realizing the joy of legitimization this act might bring to a certain subset of future Earth inhabitants), Bessel flattened the Earth. That’s right, he considered an Earth that was not spherical but flat (have we opened a can of worms here?), and thought about how to calculate the umbral path on this flattened Earth. But to do that, he needed to consider a very “special” flat Earth. Bessel imagined a huge flat plane lying in space, with the conical umbra of the Moon scraping across it during an eclipse:
As the Moon moved, the imaginary flat Earth-plane rotated slightly along with it, so that the umbra was at all times hitting this “Earth” in a perfectly perpendicular fashion. This simplified the situation so much that the entire shadow path could be calculated using only a few orbital parameters, mostly based on the movement of the Moon.
By keeping the plane of the now-flat Earth (which Bessel called the “fundamental plane”) perfectly perpendicular to the Moon’s shadow axis, Bessel was assured that the outline of the umbra’s intercept of the fundamental plane would always be a circle. This gives us a very easy-to-describe object traveling over a very easy-to-describe plane, using only parameters that involve the movement of the Moon. While it is still true that finding the position of the Moon in the first place was still ultra-complicated, there were known algorithms to do that. Bessel was only taking as input some values from those lunar position calculations that were already being done (called the “Besselian Elements” of the eclipse), and then applying them to his simplified eclipse situation. The eclipse calculations can then, in fact, be done with nothing more than high school trig! Bessel’s simplification was pure genius."
Besselian Elements also does not require a globe model for plotting the elements onto a map projection:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsszvDnGn0M
-
Nope. You see, we know with high accuracy where that shadow’s outline lies on the fundamental plane at any given time. We also know (via some very common spherical trigonometry formulas – or at least, as common as spherical trig ever gets!) how to “project” that lunar shadow circle on the fundamental plane up to the surface of the real Earth, thereby converting the coordinates of that shadow’s position on the plane into real latitude and longitude coordinates we can use with a round Earth. This assumes we know what part of the Earth is lying directly above that shadow’s spot on the fundamental plane; but since we know the exact time represented by our calculation (we choose it to be whatever we want), we know how far the Earth has moved in its daily rotation. A big tweak due to the equation of time (based on what day of the year it is), and a little tweak due to an ever-changing value of Delta-T, and we have our answer!
A complication arises due to the fact that the Earth’s flattening is not constant, but depends on the latitude under consideration. So if you want to know where that fundamental plane shadow outline projects up onto the real Earth’s surface, you have to know the latitude of where that projection will end up at. But you don’t know that exactly where that is UNTIL you project it
For evidence that they don't use a globe model, this article sure does spend a lot of time talking about projecting stuff onto a globe. Good find Tom.
-
Incorrect. The polynomials in the Besselian Elements are most directly derived from a flat earth, not directly from a round earth:
Oh dear! You accidently left this bit out from the link you provided:
We also know (via some very common spherical trigonometry formulas – or at least, as common as spherical trig ever gets!) how to “project” that lunar shadow circle on the fundamental plane up to the surface of the real Earth, thereby converting the coordinates of that shadow’s position on the plane into real latitude and longitude coordinates we can use with a round Earth. This assumes we know what part of the Earth is lying directly above that shadow’s spot on the fundamental plane; but since we know the exact time represented by our calculation (we choose it to be whatever we want), we know how far the Earth has moved in its daily rotation. A big tweak due to the equation of time (based on what day of the year it is), and a little tweak due to an ever-changing value of Delta-T, and we have our answer!
some detail snipped
And, sorry to say for flat-Earthers, if we do this based on our knowledge of the exact value of the flattening of the Earth that we've determined through the science of geodesy, we come up with values that are found in practice to be literally perfect on eclipse day. Yup, we’ve assumed a round Earth, and we’ve obtained values that match our observations to the second. That’s pretty good evidence that we’ve got the Earth’s curvature correct!
Thanks for yet more globe earth evidence, Tom. You're really good at finding this stuff!
-
I highly doubt that the world is going to experience the August 2026 solar eclipse. When the Sun will reach the outer limit of its precessional westward shift, it will start to orbit beyond the Tropic, and this phenomenon will happen soon. The first signs to watch out for will be massive GPS signal fluctuations/interferences, which will indicate a magnetic pole shift (reversal).
https://theskylive.com/planetarium?obj=jupiter&date=1776-07-04&h=17&m=22
https://theskylive.com/planetarium?obj=jupiter&date=1776-06-21&h=17&m=22
https://theskylive.com/planetarium?obj=jupiter&date=2025-06-21&h=17&m=22
https://theskylive.com/planetarium?obj=jupiter&date=2025-07-04&h=17&m=22
-
sandokhan, the images you posted are all from the year 1776.
I clicked the images and have posted the same website with the correct date and year shown.
Solar Eclipse (https://theskylive.com/planetarium?objects=sun-moon-jupiter-mercury-venus-mars-saturn-uranus-neptune&localdata=41.5295059%7C-86.8766341%7CIndiana%2C%20United%20States%7CAmerica%2FChicago%7C0&obj=jupiter&h=16&m=31&date=2026-08-12#ra|8.782843779934591|dec|18.436047761411537|fov|74)
-
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0e/Continental_%2450_note_1778_pyramid.jpg)
The original mayan step pyramid on the Great Seal.
But why is the year 1776 depicted on the first step of the pyramid? Why is it so important?
July IV MDCCLXXVI / July IV MMXXV
On June 21 1776, Jupiter was on top of the club held by Orion, and so it will be on June 21 2025. Now, in FET we have the westward precessional shift of the Sun, ~1.52-1.54 km/yr.
While the total interval which has been alloted for the solar precession measures 508.8 km, we can infer from various sources that after the great flood there are only 381.8 km left which amounts to some 249 years.
Most researchers refer to this source when they are trying to calculate the date of the astronomical reset:
The sun, moon, and Brihaspati will align in the constellation of Karkata and enter simultaneously the lunar mansion of Pushya (Pushya Nakshatra) at that exact moment the age of Satya, or Krita, will begin.
Srimad Bhagavatam, Canto 12
Karkata = Crab constellation
The problem is with Brihaspati which is Rudra (Betelgeuse), and since Jupiter and Mars were located exactly in that sign of the zodiac some 249 years ago (the date which I believe was related to the last astronomical reset), Brihaspati became planet Jupiter (Vedic cosmology). However, Brihaspati is Rudra. How would Rudra move between the Gemini and Crab constellations from its current position?
https://sacred-texts.com/bib/boe/boe083.htm
And the moon shall alter her order,
And not appear at her time.
[And in those days the sun shall be seen and he shall journey in the evening †on the extremity of the great chariot† in the west]
And shall shine more brightly than accords with the order of light.
And many chiefs of the stars shall transgress the order (prescribed).
And these shall alter their orbits and tasks,
And not appear at the seasons prescribed to them.
If I knew precisely the date when Sun had started to move precesionally westward, I could calculate the time of the next astronomical reset to the very day.
-
Are you stating the alignment shown in the screengrab I posted will not occur?
-
1967: "The results were ASTONISHING. The cosmic rays could not penetrate the water saturated limestone blocks of the pyramids."
1974: "In 1974, apparently unaware of the pyramid x-raying of Alvarez, the National Science Foundation launched another attempt to x-ray the pyramids.
This time the results were published.
The limestone rocks were too saturated with water to allow penetration by cosmic rays."
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2225892#msg2225892
The Gizeh pyramid was submerged under the sea for weeks, up to an altitude of 100 meters:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2241300#msg2241300
That is when the last magnetic pole reversal and dome shift had occurred. And where the countdown of the precessional clock began. In my opinion we are very near the end of the Sun's precessional cycle, where it will reach the outer limit of its alloted orbit, and then it will go beyond the Tropic: this event will start the astronomical reset.
The grammatical errors which have been found in the text of the book of apocalypse:
https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/2c19oh/poor_quality_greek_in_the_book_of_revelation_why/
https://www.bereaninsights.org/bible-gem-2188-why-is-the-greek-of-revelation-and-johns-gospel-different/
https://postmillennialworldview.com/2014/04/23/revelations-hebraic-grammar/
https://www.bartehrman.com/who-wrote-the-book-of-revelation/
C. Selwynn’s complaint regarding John’s grammar: it would be a “disgrace” to an “English fifth-form school-boy” because it involves “hopelessly bad Greek.” Schlesinger notes that “the solecisms of the Apocalypse remain virtually indetectable to the English reader. English translations smooth out the awkward grammar of the apocalyptist so that the reader of the English is never ‘stopped in mid-course and confounded.”
As Maier puts it: “a reading of contemporary translations of the Apocalypse [does] not reveal [its] complexity. The Book of Revelation translated in modern English Bibles reflects a cleaned-up Greek text and, especially when it comes to translation of verb tenses, a far more orderly account of the things John heard and saw than the original suggests.”
The original text in 13:5 says "new moons", not "months". That is, forty and two new moons.
https://www.billmounce.com/greek-dictionary/hemera
https://www.bibleinsight.com/rev13.html new moons not months
https://www.bibleinsight.com/newmoon.html
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2011,Hisgalus%201&version=ESV;OJB
4. And the moon shall alter her order,
And not appear at her time.
https://sacred-texts.com/bib/boe/boe083.htm
That is, there will be 42 consecutive new moons (40 days or so), not 42 consecutive months.
When the Sun will go beyond the Tropic, everything we know about astronomy will be thrown into dissaray, including the periodicity/recurrence of the solar/lunar eclipses.
The first sign to watch out for will be the massive disruptions in the GPS signals.
-
sandokhan, are you stating the alignment I posted in the screengrab will not occur?
-
There are several screengrabs in this thread, all dealing with the August 12, 2026 total solar ecilpse. What I am stating is this: if the Sun will go beyond one of the Tropics before that date (8/12/26) the times listed for the solar/lunar eclipses for the 21st century will have to be modified greatly (they may not even occur at all after the astronomical reset).
-
How did you figure that out? Did you consult your tarot cards?
-
How did you figure that out? Did you consult your tarot cards?
https://www.getyourfree.info/WIP-ch30.pdf
Chapters 27-30:
https://web.archive.org/web/20250000000000*/https://avalonlibrary.net/ebooks/Kenneth%20White%20-%20World%20in%20Peril%20(extracted%20pages).pdf
-
How did you figure that out? Did you consult your tarot cards?
https://www.getyourfree.info/WIP-ch30.pdf
If the world "flips" before the next eclipse, the eclipse predictions will come out wrong.
That seems like what you're saying, but that's also just trivially true. If the shape of the world drastically changes before ANY eclipse, not specifically the 2026 one, then of course the eclipse predictions could end up wrong.
Is there some reason why you think it's likely to happen before the next eclipse? If there's not, I'm not sure how your position here is more meaningful than me saying something like, "if we nuke Greenland of the map, then the prediction that the next eclipse will go over Greenland will be wrong", or "if the sun turns into a giant egg, then the eclipse predictions will be wrong." They're all technically true statements, but also... not interesting in any way.
-
Sandokan made a decent argument in this thread (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=92401.msg2420710#msg2420710) here on theflatearthsociety.org that the Bessel and derivatives are actually using a FE North Azimuthal projection or something similar which amounts to the same projection when put together.
We've pointed out in the past that when the eclipse path are mapped out on the Northern Azimuthal projection that the twisted paths on the RE globe coincidentally turn into symmetrical arcs.
https://wiki.tfes.org/Solar_Eclipse
Solar Eclipse Path Comparison
It is of interest that on the globe the paths of the Solar Eclipse look rather odd:
(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/thumb/7/70/RE-FiftyYearsOfEclipses.png/1300px-RE-FiftyYearsOfEclipses.png)
Source (http://eclipse-maps.com/Eclipse-Maps/Welcome.html)
On the Flat Earth map the paths appear to be symmetrical arcs:
(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/8/85/AE-TwentyYearsOfEclipses.jpg)
From A Text-Book of Astronomy by George C. Comstock (p.113) (https://www.gutenberg.org/files/34834/34834-h/34834-h.htm)
“ Fig. 36.—Central eclipses for the first two decades of the twentieth century. Oppolzer.
Future eclipses.—An eclipse map of a different kind is shown in Fig. 36, which represents the shadow paths of [pg. 114] all the central eclipses of the sun, visible during the period 1900-1918 A. D., in those parts of the earth north of the south temperate zone. Each continuous black line shows the path of the shadow in a total eclipse, from its beginning, at sunrise, at the western end of the line to its end, sunset, at the eastern end, the little circle near the middle of the line showing the place at which the eclipse was total at noon. The broken lines represent similar data for the annular eclipses. This map is one of a series prepared by the Austrian astronomer, Oppolzer, showing the path of every such eclipse from the year 1200 B. C. [pg. 115] to 2160 A. D., a period of more than three thousand years. ”
In the theflatearthsociety.org thread linked above Sandokhan argues that Oppolzer actually used the Besselian Elements in his derivation of his maps, and I am inclined to agree.
However, regardless of method of creation, considering that the North centered map is the only map which makes symmetrical arcs and other variants such as the RE version or the Mercator version have a spaghetti of different shadow directions, it suggests that the earth is flat and a Northern centered map is correct for at least for the Northern Hemiplane area.
The coincidence cannot be simply dismissed as random, and suggests a geometric importance.
-
I've circled the 2026 eclipse over Greenland on the RE "Fifty years of solar eclipses" image above. If the shadow path is moving Southwards so fast that the eclipse goes almost straight downwards over a period of one and a half hours, why don't the other shadow paths exhibit this behavior?
If this was expected inherent geometry then we should see the eclipses all move vertically like that, moving Northward or Southward at a rapid pace.
It is clearly a bogus explanation that the Southwards trajectory of the Moon over the period of a Lunar Month causes this behavior. Many of the other eclipses travel relatively horizontal for long stretches of time. The one in 2031 is even traveling both Southwards and then Northwards at different times of its duration.
(https://i.imgur.com/LkUsuhi.jpeg)
-
Sandokan made a decent argument in this thread (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=92401.msg2420710#msg2420710) here on theflatearthsociety.org that the Bessel and derivatives are actually using a FE North Azimuthal projection or something similar which amounts to the same projection when put together.
We've pointed out in the past that when the eclipse path are mapped out on the Northern Azimuthal projection that the twisted paths on the RE globe coincidentally turn into symmetrical arcs.
https://wiki.tfes.org/Solar_Eclipse
Solar Eclipse Path Comparison
It is of interest that on the globe the paths of the Solar Eclipse look rather odd:
(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/thumb/7/70/RE-FiftyYearsOfEclipses.png/1300px-RE-FiftyYearsOfEclipses.png)
Source (http://eclipse-maps.com/Eclipse-Maps/Welcome.html)
On the Flat Earth map the paths appear to be symmetrical arcs:
(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/8/85/AE-TwentyYearsOfEclipses.jpg)
From A Text-Book of Astronomy by George C. Comstock (p.113) (https://www.gutenberg.org/files/34834/34834-h/34834-h.htm)
“ Fig. 36.—Central eclipses for the first two decades of the twentieth century. Oppolzer.
Future eclipses.—An eclipse map of a different kind is shown in Fig. 36, which represents the shadow paths of [pg. 114] all the central eclipses of the sun, visible during the period 1900-1918 A. D., in those parts of the earth north of the south temperate zone. Each continuous black line shows the path of the shadow in a total eclipse, from its beginning, at sunrise, at the western end of the line to its end, sunset, at the eastern end, the little circle near the middle of the line showing the place at which the eclipse was total at noon. The broken lines represent similar data for the annular eclipses. This map is one of a series prepared by the Austrian astronomer, Oppolzer, showing the path of every such eclipse from the year 1200 B. C. [pg. 115] to 2160 A. D., a period of more than three thousand years. ”
In the theflatearthsociety.org thread linked above Sandokhan argues that Oppolzer actually used the Besselian Elements in his derivation of his maps, and I am inclined to agree.
However, regardless of method of creation, considering that the North centered map is the only map which makes symmetrical arcs and other variants such as the RE version or the Mercator version have a spaghetti of different shadow directions, it suggests that the earth is flat and a Northern centered map is correct for at least for the Northern Hemiplane area.
The coincidence cannot be simply dismissed as random, and suggests a geometric importance.
Those two pictures clearly have nothing to do with each other. You're presenting them like one is how a globe represents the paths of eclipse and the other is how it's presented on a flat earth, but those maps very clearly, to anyone who looks closely, aren't displaying the same paths as each other. Those aren't the same eclipse paths displayed two different ways. Those are two entirely different maps with two sets of entirely different paths. There's no point comparing those pictures except to fool people too lazy to look at the details.
Show a like for like comparison of the paths and it will be worth looking at.
-
why don't the other shadow paths exhibit this behavior?
If this was expected inherent geometry then we should see the eclipses all move vertically like that, moving Northward or Southward at a rapid pace.
Because not all eclipses happen under the same conditions. That seems almost so obvious it's not worth saying.
And of course some of the other shadows do look similar. That's quite clearly not the only one with a heavy north south direction.
-
Those two pictures clearly have nothing to do with each other. You're presenting them like one is how a globe represents the paths of eclipse and the other is how it's presented on a flat earth, but those maps very clearly, to anyone who looks closely, aren't displaying the same paths as each other. Those aren't the same eclipse paths displayed two different ways. Those are two entirely different maps with two sets of entirely different paths. There's no point comparing those pictures except to fool people too lazy to look at the details.
Show a like for like comparison of the paths and it will be worth looking at.
The eclipses repeat themselves every 18 years, shifted in longitude, so this not really that relevant that the time span is not the same.
Here is the Oppolzer eclipse map for 2008 to 2030 (https://www.eclipse-maps.com/Eclipse-Maps/History/Pages/1887_Canon_der_Finsternisse_1309_to_2161_files/Media/CanonDerFinsternisse_Oppolzer_blatt154_2008_2030/CanonDerFinsternisse_Oppolzer_blatt154_2008_2030.jpg), which includes the 2026 path over Greenland. Browsing through the collection of maps in the site's directory (https://www.eclipse-maps.com/Eclipse-Maps/History/Pages/1887_Canon_der_Finsternisse_1309_to_2161_files/Media/) the eclipse paths are, as expected, symmetrical arcs.
why don't the other shadow paths exhibit this behavior?
If this was expected inherent geometry then we should see the eclipses all move vertically like that, moving Northward or Southward at a rapid pace.
Because not all eclipses happen under the same conditions. That seems almost so obvious it's not worth saying.
And of course some of the other shadows do look similar. That's quite clearly not the only one with a heavy north south direction.
They do happen under the same geometrical conditions within the Earth-Moon system. According to what you claimed earlier, the Southward and Northward movement is caused by the Moon going down or up this ramp of its inclined tilt over the lunar month. As you also pointed out, due to the circular nature of the Moon's orbit, it would be moving faster on a Northward or Southward trajectory closer to the intersection with the earth center/ecliptic, painted below in red. But this is not what we see.
(https://i.imgur.com/tV6a2wI.png)
If the 2026 Greenland path is a gauge for the rapid vertical movement, it is certainly not increasing further down. According to what you have suggested is happening we should see the steep vertical movement all over the place in all eclipses.
None of this is seen with consistency and is therefore insufficient as an argument.
-
Notice how none of those flat earth maps of the eclipse show those southward-going eclipses that happen over Australia.
The conditions are not always the same. YES the moon is always going north south or south north during these eclipses, but that is only one variable. You must expand your mind so that you can think of more than one variable at a time. As hard as that may sound to you, it's necessary.
Other variables include tilt of earth relative to sun, which changes throughout the year, and North-South position of the moon relative to the plane of earth's orbit.
Earth's tilt is such that at some points of the year, the north pole is more pointed towards the sun, other points the south pole, and other points the tilt isn't pointing to the sun at all. You haven't thought about that, but it's a variable you must be able to imagine. All of us globies can imagine it.
And the moon shadow isn't always starting on the very-north side of earth, or the very-south side. It's clearly, obviously, sometimes starting more central.
So these are two variables you have not been considering that will affect the shape of the path of the shadow.
-
So these are two variables you have not been considering that will affect the shape of the path of the shadow.
This stuff is complex. You have the earth orbiting the sun, the moon orbiting the earth.
The earth is also rotating and its axis of rotation is tilted with respect to the sun.
The moon's orbit is elliptical which means it's not at a constant distance from the earth - which is why we get annular eclipses - and the plane of its orbit is also tilted with respect to the sun/earth line - which is why we don't get an eclipse every month.
Then you have the fact that the earth is a globe but slightly oblate
All of this has to be taken into account when calculating the path of totality.
Tom routinely conflates him not understanding something with the something not being possible. And it's notable that he hasn't shown how eclipses work on a Flat Earth or how the details of the path of totality are calculated. The link he provided explained how projecting the shadow on to a flat plane is done to make the maths simpler, but it also explained (in a part he didn't quote, strangely) how it then has to be projected back onto a globe and the oblateness taken into account in order to get useful results and calculate the eclipse path to the accuracy which is now possible. Only when you do that do you get results which match observations - it's a vindication of the globe model.
There is no FE way of doing this and no agreed FE map. A thought for future FE research is to use historic eclipse paths to try and make a working FE map.
-
And it's notable that he hasn't shown how eclipses work on a Flat Earth or how the details of the path of totality are calculated.
To Tom's credit, he's one of the few flat earthers who actually commits to a map. Of course, the map he commits to is explicitly falsified - it's the Gleason map, which is falsified by observing the southern celestial pole overnight from 2 countries - south african and brazil (you could of course use argentina or chile or any other number of southern-hemisphere countries, those are just the first that come to mind).
-
And it's notable that he hasn't shown how eclipses work on a Flat Earth or how the details of the path of totality are calculated.
To Tom's credit, he's one of the few flat earthers who actually commits to a map. Of course, the map he commits to is explicitly falsified - it's the Gleason map, which is falsified by observing the southern celestial pole overnight from 2 countries - south african and brazil (you could of course use argentina or chile or any other number of southern-hemisphere countries, those are just the first that come to mind).
I think Tom now favours the bi-polar model. The issue is there is on FE map which works with movements of the sun, known distances between places, flight times and so on. Obviously the reason for that is any flat earth map has to be a projection of the reality of a globe, that necessarily distorts things. But as I said maybe historic eclipse paths can be used to construct a FE map which does work.
-
And it's notable that he hasn't shown how eclipses work on a Flat Earth or how the details of the path of totality are calculated.
To Tom's credit, he's one of the few flat earthers who actually commits to a map. Of course, the map he commits to is explicitly falsified - it's the Gleason map, which is falsified by observing the southern celestial pole overnight from 2 countries - south african and brazil (you could of course use argentina or chile or any other number of southern-hemisphere countries, those are just the first that come to mind).
I think Tom now favours the bi-polar model.
Weird considering the images he's been posting of flat earth eclipse paths on this thread, which are all Gleason based.
What happens to the sun in the bipolar model? How does it go from west to east? I've heard people talk about teleporting, like we live in pacman world. Is that the state of the art of bipolar flat earth? Is the globe so unacceptable that they'd rather go with pacman world than a would that fits with literally all of known physics?
-
Weird considering the images he's been posting of flat earth eclipse paths on this thread, which are all Gleason based.
Indeed. Tom has never been troubled by the thought that one should be logically consistent
What happens to the sun in the bipolar model? How does it go from west to east?
Literally no idea. Does it spend 6 months circling the north pole and then 6 months circling the south each year? I don't think there's any pacman stuff going on. But for me while the bi-polar FE model does solve some problems in the southern "hemisphere" it creates a load of new ones which are bigger problems for a coherent FE model. It would be interesting to see eclipse paths mapped on to the bi-polar map.
-
. It would be interesting to see eclipse paths mapped on to the bi-polar map.
By my reckoning, they would look remarkably similar to the paths shown on the globe, with one notable exception: eclipse paths happening over the Pacific Ocean would leap inexplicably from East to West.
-
As has been said, these things are complex, so here's an interesting animation of the August 12, 2026 eclipse looking at the globe from the Moon. (https://eclipsewise.com/solar/SEprime/2001-2100/SE2026Aug12Tprime.html)
(https://eclipsewise.com/solar/SEanim800/2026_08_12_TSE_800px.gif)
The Moon's shadow is seen both descending North to South and moving West to East, consistent with its observed behaviour at a descending node. The small black shadow of totality (full eclipse) moves at a consistent speed in a straight line across the field of view during the roughly 1½ hrs of its track over the globe. The larger, slightly shaded circle shows where a partial eclipse will be seen. Projecting this eclipse path animation on to a Mercator map of the world will show the contorted path I showed on page 1 of this thread, and the OP's illustration. Perhaps this will help explain his difficulty.
-
Amazing, I was hoping to find something similar to this (thinking of finding something just like this but from the sun's perspective, but this is just as good). This is just perfect.
-
Notice anything odd? During the eclipse the shadow of the Moon will be moving vertically in a North-South direction. This is quite odd, considering that the Moon is said to travel around the Earth in a East-West direction (or West-East, if you want to argue about rotating earth semantics).
The best excuse you can expect for this typically amounts to "you haven't considered that the Earth is tilted", without expanding further. But any possibility of a coherent explanation can be easily dismissed, since in the Round Earth Theory the Moon is traveling in the same plane of the Sun, and only misaligned by 5 degrees. They are essentially on the same plane. The tilted Earth effect must also occur with the Sun. Reviewing the path that the Sun makes over the Earth, it is difficult to see how the Moon's shadow can move in this direction.
So, tying this back in with the OP, once it's visualized like the gif above, it actually becomes much easier to understand that the moon doesn't have to do anything bizarre in the globe model in order to create that shadow path on the surface of the earth. It turns out that considering the Earth's tilt IS important for fully understanding the globe model approach to this, and in fact the globe model DOES expand further by quite a bit. In fact the globe model is the only model that has expanded at all on the mechanics of a solar eclipse.
I think the implicit challenge of the OP - that we make it make sense with the globe model - is satisfied. Longitube for the win.
-
It still has the same problem. If the Moon's shadow is traveling at that steep of an angle then there should be steep Southward or Northward vertical shadow movement in all eclipse shadow paths. Yet we see many with relatively horizontal Eastwards paths for the same duration.
-
Yet we see many with relatively horizontal Eastwards paths for the same duration.
For example? They all look sufficiently north/south to me.
It seems just obviously, intuitively false that all eclipse paths should look the same. Some eclipse paths happen more towards the edge. Some happen more towards the equator. Some start north and go south, some start north and go further north. Some start south and go north, some start south and go further south. And then all the different variations for ones that can start more near the middle.
There's just no good reason to assume they should ALL look the same. "Things happen differently sometimes, therefore this doesn't make sense" just isn't a compelling argument. Yes, things happen differently sometimes. That makes perfect sense.
-
It still has the same problem. If the Moon's shadow is traveling at that steep of an angle then there should be steep Southward or Northward vertical shadow movement in all eclipse shadow paths. Yet we see many with relatively horizontal Eastwards paths for the same duration.
Firstly, I can't find any horizontal ones.
https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEatlas/SEatlas3/SE2001-25T-2.GIF
But also one factor is the latitude. This is not a very good diagram and don't take the numbers that literally, this is just to illustrate the point:
(https://i.ibb.co/gbKZpNfT/eclipsepath.jpg)
The two red lines represent the start and end point of where it hits the earth in the "y" axis - up/down. With the same difference in "y" it causes an eclipse near the equator to have a difference of about 8.6 degrees. At a more northerly latitude it's nearly 12.3 degrees. And if it was more northerly or southerly still you can see it would be even more.
Because (all together now) we live on a globe.
This is complicated and you keep on conflating you not understanding that complication with it not being possible.
-
It still has the same problem. If the Moon's shadow is traveling at that steep of an angle then there should be steep Southward or Northward vertical shadow movement in all eclipse shadow paths. Yet we see many with relatively horizontal Eastwards paths for the same duration.
I get that you don't understand this, but I also don't get your thinking there should be "steep Southward or Northward vertical shadow movement in all eclipse shadow paths." Spoiler alert: the marked southern or northern movements occur when the eclipse shadow lands on the northern or southern polar latitudes. For your better understanding, have a look at the global eclipse animations at EclipseWise: they have dozens, if not hundreds, starting from AD2001 and running to at least AD2100 and they make sense of the convoluted paths on Mercator maps that have you baffled. You will find all the examples you've already referred to, so knock yourself out.
https://eclipsewise.com/solar/SEdecade/SEdecade2021.html (https://eclipsewise.com/solar/SEdecade/SEdecade2021.html) (this is for 2021-2030)
-
I really wish this website wasn't so entertaining. It seems everyone is making this harder than it is.
First off, this:
It is of interest that on the globe the paths of the Solar Eclipse look rather odd:
(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/thumb/7/70/RE-FiftyYearsOfEclipses.png/1300px-RE-FiftyYearsOfEclipses.png)
is nonsense. If, Tom, you’re going to argue, “Gee, RE is silly.” you should use a reference that actually represents RE. The map is a flat projection and has zero accurate representation of the reality that is the spheroid earth.
The mechanics of every eclipse are exactly the same. The moon, at 238,000 miles away, crosses in front of the sun in a path across the entire diameter of the earth casting its shadow in various locations due to, well, geometry. That’s it. An eclipse path is that of the shadow cast, not the path of the actual moon. As such, the path can travel differently in the same way a 50ft. tree can cast a 75 ft. shadow.
Everyone here has been analyzing the situation using 2D maps with the north pole directly at the top. That’s not reality. Reality is a 3D object with the north pole tilting toward or away from the direct path of the sun.
The TimandDate website presents a rotatable 3D model of every eclipse. Play with it a little and put the north pole in a realistic position and you get this:
(https://i.imgur.com/l3IBoiz.jpg)
Every eclipse path is a nearly (not exactly due to the tilted, rotating spheroid shape of the actual earth) straight line all running a horizontal path if the north pole is positioned such that it aligns properly with the inclined orbit of the moon. It’s almost as if, and bear with me ‘cause this is crazy talk, the shadows are all being caused by an object moving at a consistent angle to N-S in a straight line between a spheroid and a distant light source.
-
I dunno, man, why would NASA lie about it when WTF_Seriously can crack the code by looking at timeanddate.com for 5 minutes?
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/5236/
Then again, actually looking at timeanddate.com also yields funny results...
-
I dunno, man, why would NASA lie about it when WTF_Seriously can crack the code by looking at timeanddate.com for 5 minutes?
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/5236/
Surprisingly poor effort from you, Pete. You're better than this.
I dunno, why would NASA lie?
https://science.nasa.gov/eclipses/geometry/#:~:text=A%20solar%20eclipse%20occurs%20when,see%20the%20Sun%20completely%20blocked.
"The code" to solar eclipses was cracked long ago, by thousands of people far more intelligent than me but evidently not more intelligent than you since they're all wrong.
Then again, actually looking at timeanddate.com also yields funny results...
I'm sure everyone would like to see you elaborate on this. I won't hold my breath.
-
Surprisingly poor effort from you, Pete. You're better than this.
If you have nothing to say, please consider saying nothing. Let's not go down that path, all right?
I dunno, why would NASA lie?
I dunno. Why would they? Why would they post maps identical to the one you described as non-representative nonsense? Have you considered telling them that they're misrepresenting RE, and that they should instead selectively glance at timeanddate.com? Considering how trivial it is, as you clearly demonstrated, they'll probably be quite embarassed!
Though... there is an alternative here... hrmmm... Nay, surely that's not it!
https://science.nasa.gov/eclipses/geometry/#:~:text=A%20solar%20eclipse%20occurs%20when,see%20the%20Sun%20completely%20blocked.
Respectfully, you couldn't missed the point any harder if you tried. Hopefully the above helps, but, just in case: the position you're currently trying to defend is not that the Earth is round; it's that the eclipse map presented here is nonsense that doesn't represent RE accurately.
It's really no big surprise that RE sources say the Earth is round, and you shouldn't feel too proud for noticing that.
-
I dunno. Why would they? Why would they post maps identical to the one you described as non-representative nonsense? Have you considered telling them that they're misrepresenting RE, and that they should instead selectively glance at timeanddate.com? Considering how trivial it is, as you clearly demonstrated, they'll probably be quite embarassed!
Though... there is an alternative here... hrmmm... Nay, surely that's not it!
Wait. Wait. Ohhhhh. That's a tough one. Maybe. A flat projection of the globe is the typical way to show the entirety of the earth in one view even though it's greatly distorted and doesn't accurately represent what is really happening? Nay, surely that's not it.
https://science.nasa.gov/eclipses/geometry/#:~:text=A%20solar%20eclipse%20occurs%20when,see%20the%20Sun%20completely%20blocked.
Respectfully, you couldn't missed the point any harder if you tried. Hopefully the above helps, but, just in case: the position you're currently trying to defend is not that the Earth is round; it's that the eclipse map presented here is nonsense that doesn't represent RE accurately.
No. I got the point just fine. Gotcha!!!! NASA does the same thing. WTF So stoOOOpid. It's your MO. You won't debate the content of my post because you can't so you resort to deflect and degrade the poster. You know very well that the NASA animation isn't representative of what actually happens in the round earth model and you know why they create an animation in that way and that it would never be used in an actual debate of eclipse paths between NASA and the FE community. And no, the point I'm trying to defend is not that the eclipse map is nonsense, that's what you've tried to to turn it into beacuse you have nothing else.
-
A flat projection of the globe is the typical way to show the entirety of the earth in one view even though it's greatly distorted
Right, right, we already went over your ability to spot the blindingly obvious; but why does that projection not map, even in the slightest, to what you assert? After all, you did describe it as nonsense, and highlighted an obvious discrepancy.
And no, it's not "flat map bad" - you're an adult who seemingly went through at least compulsory education in a western country. You can do a little bit of basic geometry in your head and project it back onto a sphere.
So, we're back to square 1: why does NASA peddle nonsense which you can easily disprove? Why is WTF_Seriously a better authority on what does and doesn't represent RET than NASA? Is this Orange Man ruining everything again?
WTF So stoOOOpid. It's your MO. You won't debate the content of my post because you can't so you resort to deflect and degrade the poster.
I do do that with stupid people, and you've shown yourself to be quite out there on that spectrum (remember "calling unknowns unknowns"? That one took you a solid couple years to parse). But part of your problem is that you have yet to articulate your position. You just keep stating that a flat map is a projection, but you're missing the part where everybody already knows that and is accounting for it.
And no, the point I'm trying to defend is not that the eclipse map is nonsense
Then why did you say it? Why would you so loudly proclaim something you don't believe? Are you trying to make yourself even less credible than you already are?
-
At least you're consistent, Pete. I've got nothing to add. On the off chance you'd like to join the rest of us and discuss the topic at hand, eclipses, their paths and whether they're plausible on a round earth by all means feel free. I'd probably be compelled to comment.
-
At least you're consistent, Pete. I've got nothing to add.
Understood. In that case, please heed my advice. If you have nothing to say, say nothing. I am asking politely one last time.
-
This is complicated and you keep on conflating you not understanding that complication with it not being possible.
If its it's too complicated to explain means that it doesn't work. In order for it to work it would require an explanation.
is nonsense. If, Tom, you’re going to argue, “Gee, RE is silly.” you should use a reference that actually represents RE. The map is a flat projection and has zero accurate representation of the reality that is the spheroid earth.
The mechanics of every eclipse are exactly the same. The moon, at 238,000 miles away, crosses in front of the sun in a path across the entire diameter of the earth casting its shadow in various locations due to, well, geometry. That’s it. An eclipse path is that of the shadow cast, not the path of the actual moon. As such, the path can travel differently in the same way a 50ft. tree can cast a 75 ft. shadow.
Everyone here has been analyzing the situation using 2D maps with the north pole directly at the top. That’s not reality. Reality is a 3D object with the north pole tilting toward or away from the direct path of the sun.
The TimandDate website presents a rotatable 3D model of every eclipse. Play with it a little and put the north pole in a realistic position and you get this:
(https://i.imgur.com/l3IBoiz.jpg)
Every eclipse path is a nearly (not exactly due to the tilted, rotating spheroid shape of the actual earth) straight line all running a horizontal path if the north pole is positioned such that it aligns properly with the inclined orbit of the moon. It’s almost as if, and bear with me ‘cause this is crazy talk, the shadows are all being caused by an object moving at a consistent angle to N-S in a straight line between a spheroid and a distant light source.
Nice lying. You have selective and partial eclipse paths. This doesn't work on all of them. Here are different views of the August 2027 eclipse:
https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/globe/2027-august-2
(https://i.imgur.com/uTW6x6g.png)(https://i.imgur.com/XSsiPoB.png)(https://i.imgur.com/sHaFbss.png)
-
In fairness, WTF_Seriously already included the 2027 eclipse in his examples. The actual problem is with the step he describes as "put[ting] the North Pole in a realistic position" - what he actually means is "keep spinning around until the line looks straight when you squint". And, even then, this requires him to be selective with his eclipses.
Now, crucially, none of this is at odds with RET. WTF_Seriously just has a very poor understanding of RET, as one would expect.
-
This is complicated and you keep on conflating you not understanding that complication with it not being possible.
If its it's too complicated to explain means that it doesn't work. In order for it to work it would require an explanation.
It can be explained. You not understanding that explanation doesn't mean "it doesn't work".
It has been explained. In multiple ways. And you were shown a website which has detailed animations of past and future eclipse paths.
They show how the shadow moves across the spinning globe and the path of the shadow that results. Those animations can be compared with observations.
As I've said elsewhere, a new model only replaces an old one when it makes better predictions. Otherwise what use is it?
If you can show equivalent animations for how the shadow path moves across a flat earth then great, then we can talk.
Otherwise you're just yelling about how you can't understand RE while not being able to explain in any detail how eclipses work on FE.
In order to do the latter you'd have to have a working FE map, so you're rather falling at the first hurdle there.
-
Now, to get the speed the Moon is traveling Southward we can divide distance by time:
40402.26482 / 354.3672 = 114.0124 Miles Per Hour
That is so nice to imagine the camera attached to the moon looking down the earth and showing and feeling us the speed it goes over us. And indeed, since there is, it is said, this geostationary orbit with satellites on it (only ten times closer than moon is supposed to be by RE) - that would be cool to launch just one satellite to orbit the moon, right? That would be magnificent. But there is none...
With all the curiosity of the humankind, we would already have one satellite to show us how fast moon travels above us with the full look of the earth. Just imagine such satellite's video stream or at least a video record showing the earth from the moon's height - how would that matter to us. But there is none.
And it is good - the humankind still in an unpredictable tale and situation - so live our life with great respect to the nature and stay ones who still can wonder by the greatness of this Creation.
-
Nice lying. You have selective and partial eclipse paths. This doesn't work on all of them. Here are different views of the August 2027 eclipse:
https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/globe/2027-august-2
(https://i.imgur.com/uTW6x6g.png)(https://i.imgur.com/XSsiPoB.png)(https://i.imgur.com/sHaFbss.png)
As Pete said. Aug 2027:
(https://i.imgur.com/FZp3PKW.png)
Partial eclipse paths are only a result of the limitations of rotating the model.
-
Well there you go, you admit that you skewed the truth by only showing a partial eclipse path to fit your narrative.
-
Now, crucially, none of this is at odds with RET. WTF_Seriously just has a very poor understanding of RET, as one would expect.
I have this recent recollection of you saying something to the effect of, "if you have nothing to say...."
And, even then, this requires him to be selective with his eclipses.
Pick a date.
-
Now, to get the speed the Moon is traveling Southward we can divide distance by time:
40402.26482 / 354.3672 = 114.0124 Miles Per Hour
That is so nice to imagine the camera attached to the moon looking down the earth and showing and feeling us the speed it goes over us. And indeed, since there is, it is said, this geostationary orbit with satellites on it (only ten times closer than moon is supposed to be by RE) - that would be cool to launch just one satellite to orbit the moon, right? That would be magnificent. But there is none...
With all the curiosity of the humankind, we would already have one satellite to show us how fast moon travels above us with the full look of the earth. Just imagine such satellite's video stream or at least a video record showing the earth from the moon's height - how would that matter to us. But there is none.
And it is good - the humankind still in an unpredictable tale and situation - so live our life with great respect to the nature and stay ones who still can wonder by the greatness of this Creation.
Here you go
https://www.flickr.com/photos/fireflyspace/54348431345/in/photostream/
-
Now, to get the speed the Moon is traveling Southward we can divide distance by time:
40402.26482 / 354.3672 = 114.0124 Miles Per Hour
That is so nice to imagine the camera attached to the moon looking down the earth and showing and feeling us the speed it goes over us. And indeed, since there is, it is said, this geostationary orbit with satellites on it (only ten times closer than moon is supposed to be by RE) - that would be cool to launch just one satellite to orbit the moon, right? That would be magnificent. But there is none...
With all the curiosity of the humankind, we would already have one satellite to show us how fast moon travels above us with the full look of the earth. Just imagine such satellite's video stream or at least a video record showing the earth from the moon's height - how would that matter to us. But there is none.
And it is good - the humankind still in an unpredictable tale and situation - so live our life with great respect to the nature and stay ones who still can wonder by the greatness of this Creation.
Here you go
https://www.flickr.com/photos/fireflyspace/54348431345/in/photostream/
Phantastic. Just watched that on MSN in the news. An obvious scam. If moon just 4 times smaller than the earth how come in this "video" that device(btw made by, it seems, a Ukrainian company created in 2014) flies over the moon just in a few seconds. Also how come the lunar surface is fully lit and visible if the sun seems to be behind the moon? Such an odd video craft is just abusive to show public - but some will believe it is real, ergo mission completed.
-
Eclipse predictions have indeed been based on observed cycles like the Saros series for centuries, independent of specific geometric models. However, modern eclipse forecasting does align with well-established celestial mechanics, which accurately predicts not only timings but also paths of totality. Understanding both historical pattern-based methods and contemporary orbital models can provide a more complete picture of how these predictions are made.