*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6458
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Solar Eclipse Path Moving in Wrong Direction
« Reply #220 on: May 26, 2019, 01:37:20 AM »
Your theory was not created on the basis of experimentation in an artificial way to determine true causes of phenomena, as demanded by the scientific method? Only observation and interpretation like Astrology? I see.

So the Bishop “Experiment” is also astrology? I see.

It matched the FE model. So it must be flat.

Not an experiment is it?

Tumeni says that observations are experiments. This experiment proved the earth to be flat.

*

Offline markjo

  • Purgatory
  • *
  • Posts: 3756
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Solar Eclipse Path Moving in Wrong Direction
« Reply #221 on: May 26, 2019, 01:52:43 AM »
Your theory was not created on the basis of experimentation in an artificial way to determine true causes of phenomena, as demanded by the scientific method? Only observation and interpretation like Astrology? I see.

So the Bishop “Experiment” is also astrology? I see.

It matched the FE model. So it must be flat.

Not an experiment is it?

Tumeni says that observations are experiments. This experiment proved the earth to be flat.
But you say that observations are not experiments.  Therefore your observation didn't prove anything.

Make up your mind Tom, because you can't have it both ways.
« Last Edit: May 26, 2019, 01:54:23 AM by markjo »
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

Re: Solar Eclipse Path Moving in Wrong Direction
« Reply #222 on: May 26, 2019, 05:16:03 AM »
The ability to get this to work in RET merely  means that astronomers had this conversation hundreds of years ago to get it to work.

You don't think astronomers ever questioned why the eclipse travels in the way that it does and how they can make a model or explain it in a way that makes any sense? Confirmation bias. Little evidence of any matter.

I'd like to point out that Tom just acknowledged that this works just fine in the standard heliocentric model of the globe Earth.

Let's not all get distracted about what is and what is not the scientific method. Let's enjoy this moment where we bask in Tom's admission that thanks to the hard work of scientists hundreds of years ago, the eclipse works perfectly well in RET.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I've gotten the impression that Tom is trying to argue that the RET explanation DOESN'T work, and yet he's admitting it DOES work.

Re: Solar Eclipse Path Moving in Wrong Direction
« Reply #223 on: May 26, 2019, 05:24:45 AM »
Your theory was not created on the basis of experimentation in an artificial way to determine true causes of phenomena, as demanded by the scientific method? Only observation and interpretation like Astrology? I see.

So the Bishop “Experiment” is also astrology? I see.

It matched the FE model. So it must be flat.

Not an experiment is it?

Tumeni says that observations are experiments. This experiment proved the earth to be flat.
Where is the map for this?

Offline model 29

  • *
  • Posts: 397
    • View Profile
Re: Solar Eclipse Path Moving in Wrong Direction
« Reply #224 on: May 26, 2019, 05:48:58 AM »
So Tom, do you at least understand why the shadow moves eastward?
Tumeni says that observations are experiments. This experiment proved the earth to be flat.
What experiment?

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1229
    • View Profile
Re: Solar Eclipse Path Moving in Wrong Direction
« Reply #225 on: May 26, 2019, 06:17:49 AM »
The ability to get this to work in RET merely  means that astronomers had this conversation hundreds of years ago to get it to work.

You don't think astronomers ever questioned why the eclipse travels in the way that it does and how they can make a model or explain it in a way that makes any sense? Confirmation bias. Little evidence of any matter.

I'd like to point out that Tom just acknowledged that this works just fine in the standard heliocentric model of the globe Earth.

Let's not all get distracted about what is and what is not the scientific method. Let's enjoy this moment where we bask in Tom's admission that thanks to the hard work of scientists hundreds of years ago, the eclipse works perfectly well in RET.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I've gotten the impression that Tom is trying to argue that the RET explanation DOESN'T work, and yet he's admitting it DOES work.

No correction needed, I'd say you're spot on in your assessment. The conversation was had 100's of years ago on how this works in RET and Tom just acknowledged that the conversations were fruitful. The real issue is how to get this to work on a flat earth. Any takers?
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1379
    • View Profile
Re: Solar Eclipse Path Moving in Wrong Direction
« Reply #226 on: May 26, 2019, 08:05:46 AM »
Tumeni says that observations are experiments. This experiment proved the earth to be flat.

No, I said the proof came from hundreds, or possibly thousands of observations over many years (where the results were recorded, compared, and the aggregate of them made it into the standard texts).

Proof does not come from your one un-recorded, un-compared, un-repeated experiment
==============================
==============================
Pete Svarrior "We are not here to directly persuade anyone ... You mistake our lack of interest in you for our absence."

Tom Bishop "We are extremely popular and the entire world wants to talk to us. We have better things to do with our lives than have in depth discussions with every single curious person. You are lucky to get one sentence dismissals from us"

Re: Solar Eclipse Path Moving in Wrong Direction
« Reply #227 on: May 26, 2019, 08:24:49 AM »
Oh Mother Goose, we've made it to page 12.

Tom, why did you ask if you are not willing to acknowledge a possibility of any feasible answer?
It could be round or flat, but round has really been working out so much better for us.

Perhaps it would be better to say the Earth is "pointy".

Re: Solar Eclipse Path Moving in Wrong Direction
« Reply #228 on: May 26, 2019, 11:28:35 AM »
Once I'd got my head around how things actually work, it all fell easily into place and seems completely obvious now.

Moon rises first, travels East to West at about 14.5 deg/hour.

Sun afterwards, travels East to West at about 15 deg/hour.

A line connecting the centre of the Sun with the centre of the Moon will point to the West of the observer. This seems undeniable and simple.

Later on the Sun catches up with the Moon, we see our eclipse and the line through the centres will point at the observer (i.e. the line has moved eastwards from it's original position).

Sun overtakes the Moon, line will now point towards the East.

Conclusion, Sun and Moon move East to West, shadow (which must follow the above mentioned line) must move from West to East.

How hard is this to grasp, with or without diagrams?

Losing the will to live here.

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1379
    • View Profile
Re: Solar Eclipse Path Moving in Wrong Direction
« Reply #229 on: May 26, 2019, 11:39:26 AM »
How hard is this to grasp, with or without diagrams?

There's a thousand and one folk on YouTube who STILL don't grasp it ... 
==============================
==============================
Pete Svarrior "We are not here to directly persuade anyone ... You mistake our lack of interest in you for our absence."

Tom Bishop "We are extremely popular and the entire world wants to talk to us. We have better things to do with our lives than have in depth discussions with every single curious person. You are lucky to get one sentence dismissals from us"

Re: Solar Eclipse Path Moving in Wrong Direction
« Reply #230 on: May 26, 2019, 05:25:42 PM »
How hard is this to grasp, with or without diagrams?

There's a thousand and one folk on YouTube who STILL don't grasp it ...

By my calculation then there are exactly one thousand fewer on here that still don't grasp it. Should be grateful for that I suppose.

Re: Solar Eclipse Path Moving in Wrong Direction
« Reply #231 on: May 26, 2019, 06:17:46 PM »
Since we've established that the RET model works, and even Tom now understands it, let's start investigating the proposed FE model.

Draw a diagram. I can see how this might work on a Flat Earth model where both the Sun and Moon are in motion:



-Both the Moon and the Sun are traveling Westwards. They both set in the West.
-The Sun is traveling faster than the Moon in the sky.
-The shadow is traveling from the West Coast to the East Coast.

From the data we have available, we can start to draw some useful conclusions. I'm still shaky on exactly how the zetetic method works, but I think we can still take the data we've observed and use it to draw some conclusions, can't we? With that in mind, let's consider what information we have, and the implications for this diagram.

First off, we know how fast the shadow moves across the Earth. Based on this diagram, we can see some similar triangles. This should let us determine how high the Sun and Moon are. This isn't enough to tell us exactly how high they are, but we can establish the RATIO based on this. That could be useful.

But wait... aren't the Sun and Moon supposed to be the same size and at roughly the same height? Seems like maybe they aren't afterall. Ok... so the Moon and Sun are at different heights.

What should we do next? I think we should look at where exactly the Sun and Moon were at different times. Where was the Sun directly overhead during this eclipse. Where was the Moon directly overhead at the same time? Can we plot the exact location of the Sun and the Moon during this time period? How well do those correlate with the FE models of how they are supposed to move?

Finally can we combine all this information to triangulate exactly where the Sun and the Moon are at any given time during this eclipse? That seems like a worthwhile effort. We could learn a lot from this.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6458
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Solar Eclipse Path Moving in Wrong Direction
« Reply #232 on: May 26, 2019, 06:30:34 PM »
The directions of the bodies and shadow movements look to be in the correct direction to me. Flat Earth model confirmed. --Your logic

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1229
    • View Profile
Re: Solar Eclipse Path Moving in Wrong Direction
« Reply #233 on: May 26, 2019, 07:08:37 PM »
The directions of the bodies and shadow movements look to be in the correct direction to me. Flat Earth model confirmed. --Your logic

Not exactly. It's all sussed out in the RET model. However, not so much in the FET model. As ICST has pointed out, in FET, where are the Sun and Moon? At what altitudes? The sun must be higher than the moon. Is it in FET? If so, by how much? Are they the same size? How might that factor into the umbra size?

So until these basic questions can be addressed and more, there is less than zero confirmation of the FET model. --Anyone's logic
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6458
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Solar Eclipse Path Moving in Wrong Direction
« Reply #234 on: May 26, 2019, 07:17:22 PM »
The directions of the bodies and shadow movements look to be in the correct direction to me. Flat Earth model confirmed. --Your logic

Not exactly. It's all sussed out in the RET model. However, not so much in the FET model. As ICST has pointed out, in FET, where are the Sun and Moon? At what altitudes? The sun must be higher than the moon. Is it in FET? If so, by how much? Are they the same size? How might that factor into the umbra size?

So until these basic questions can be addressed and more, there is less than zero confirmation of the FET model. --Anyone's logic

We were merely talking about basic directions in this thread. You have not demonstrated any math for anything about RET.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1229
    • View Profile
Re: Solar Eclipse Path Moving in Wrong Direction
« Reply #235 on: May 26, 2019, 07:22:31 PM »
The directions of the bodies and shadow movements look to be in the correct direction to me. Flat Earth model confirmed. --Your logic

Not exactly. It's all sussed out in the RET model. However, not so much in the FET model. As ICST has pointed out, in FET, where are the Sun and Moon? At what altitudes? The sun must be higher than the moon. Is it in FET? If so, by how much? Are they the same size? How might that factor into the umbra size?

So until these basic questions can be addressed and more, there is less than zero confirmation of the FET model. --Anyone's logic

We were merely talking about basic directions in this thread. You have not demonstrated any math for anything about RET.

Agreed, we're not talking about math per se. But how does the basic direction of the eclipse path as observed work in FET if the sun and moon are at the same altitude?
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

Re: Solar Eclipse Path Moving in Wrong Direction
« Reply #236 on: May 28, 2019, 02:50:06 PM »
Is this conversation over now?

I'm going to try to recap where we ended. Please jump in and correct me if I'm wrong.

1) Tom said he didn't understand the RET model of a solar eclipse.
2) After many pages of explanation, Tom said, "The ability to get this to work in RET merely means that astronomers had this conversation hundreds of years ago to get it to work." I take this to mean Tom now acknowledges that the geometry DOES work under RET.
3) It remains somewhat unclear whether Tom agrees that he understands how it works under RET. (Tom, could you clarify that one please?)
4) Tom suggested this works under FET by virtue of a Moon that is much closer to the Earth and a Sun that is farther away.
5) Tom has declined any interest in researching the FET explanation any further.

That about right?

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1379
    • View Profile
Re: Solar Eclipse Path Moving in Wrong Direction
« Reply #237 on: May 28, 2019, 03:31:55 PM »
You have not demonstrated any math for anything about RET.

You said you had "done the math(s)" on the first page. More precisely, you said you had done it, then quoted from Caltech's math(s).

I and others showed you how that applied to RE eclipse in the following pages.
==============================
==============================
Pete Svarrior "We are not here to directly persuade anyone ... You mistake our lack of interest in you for our absence."

Tom Bishop "We are extremely popular and the entire world wants to talk to us. We have better things to do with our lives than have in depth discussions with every single curious person. You are lucky to get one sentence dismissals from us"

Re: Solar Eclipse Path Moving in Wrong Direction
« Reply #238 on: May 29, 2019, 04:30:37 PM »
The ability to get this to work in RET merely  means that astronomers had this conversation hundreds of years ago to get it to work.

You don't think astronomers ever questioned why the eclipse travels in the way that it does and how they can make a model or explain it in a way that makes any sense?
I don't know what they questioned but the model we have of the solar system has evolved over time based on observations. So you seem to think this is a failing of science but it's actually a strength. Models should always be open to changing or replacing as we learn more and newer models better fit what we observe.

We used to think we lived on a flat earth and that everything goes around us.
That kind of makes sense from a local perspective. The horizon looks flat, it does look like celestial bodies go around us.
The fact we were living on a ball was discovered thousands of years ago though. You know about that.
But we still thought we were the centre of everything. Again, kinda makes sense. The sun rises, goes around the sky and sets.
It was 1534 before Copernicus realised that actually we were just another planet orbiting the sun.
This was such a revolutionary idea that the Inquisition declared it heretical, based on Scripture (1 Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 104:5, Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10).
It was actually illegal to believe in the heliocentric model!
But Copernicus turned out to be right, the motions of the planets just don't work in a geocentric model. Attempts were made to fix the model, so ingrained in people's psyche was it). But, ultimately, the heliocentric model was the only one which properly worked and matched observations.
Even the Pope apologised to Galileo for the church putting him under house arrest for promoting the heliocentric model (the apology came a mere 350 years after Galileo's death. Better late than never I guess!). The Bible is not intended to be a science book. Scripture itself tells us what it's for (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

So now we're left with a pretty simple (in some ways) model:
The earth rotates on its axis and it orbits the sun. And the axis of the earth's rotation is tilted.
The moon, in turn, orbits us. It also rotates but the speed or rotation is tidally locked so we always see the same side of it.
The other planets also orbit the sun in a similar way at different distances and speeds.

This single model explains night and day
It explains the seasons.
It explains the way the length of day changes over the course of a year.
It explains 24 hour sunlight in the summer of each hemisphere at certain latitudes.
It explains our observations of the stars - why they rotate around the poles in the different directions in each hemisphere.
It explains which stars we can and can't see from where and at which time of the year.
It explains our observations of the way planets move in the sky.
It explains the moon's phases.
It explains lunar eclipses.
It explains solar eclipses and, as we've seen, it explains the direction the shadow goes in. It's a bit counter-intuitive and you have to think about it a bit, but it does explain it.

You might not understand why the model explains all these things, but it does. That is the test of a good model. And that's without the fact we've got lots of satellites able to take photos of the globe earth, hundreds of people have been to space including 7 space tourists who had to pay for the privilege and the numerous technologies (GPS, weather satellites, satellite TV etc) which rely on satellites orbiting a globe.

To explain the seasons you have to have the sun moving in different size circles throughout the year, smaller in the northern hemisphere summer, larger in the southern. This either requires the day and night cycle length to change throughout the year (which it doesn't), or the sun to speed up and slow down throughout the year (which it doesn't, we observe a consistent angular speed throughout the year). It also means the sun size stays constant despite the constantly changing distance to it. You have to create another fudge to explain that.
You have no explanation for what would make the sun keep changing orbit in terms of the size of circle it makes or what makes it keep changing speed.

Day length I'm not clear about. It's probably something to do with the above but suffers from the same issues.

24 hour daylight works in the Arctic but not in the Antarctic. In your model the sun cannot orbit an observer in Antarctica as we observe. So you either have to invoke another conspiracy and say that those observations and Antarctica itself as a continent is fake, or you have to have some other bi-polar model of the sun orbiting the Arctic in the northern summer and Antarctica in the southern summer, which completely contradicts the above.

For stars you have to have some celestial gears mechanism or other fudge.

You have a Wiki page about Retrograde movement of planets but there's very little detail and not based on any evidence. You dismiss gravity because it wouldn't work on a FE model but then invoke UA with no evidence for it or explanation as to how it would work. You then claim that there is some celestial gravitation which arbitrarily works on some objects and I think you believe they do pull on us but for some reason the earth doesn't pull back so they don't fall on us.

Moon phases are either because of a self-illuminating moon (although why only parts of the moon would illuminate at different parts of the lunar cycle is unclear, as is why the shadows indicate it is being lit from elsewhere), or it is a similar to the RE explanation but you have to have the moon changing altitude with no explanation as to how and no change in angular size. Confusingly, you seem to think that the moon reflecting light from the sun turns the light cold.

Lunar eclipses are because of a shadow object which we can never see and is translucent - hence the red tint, although there is no real evidence for any of this.

Solar eclipses is something to do with the moon going under the sun but whether the size of the sun and moon in your model and the distances correlate to the size of the shadow we observe is unclear.

The RE model explains all this, your model requires separate explanations for all of them, none of which you have any evidence for and it requires huge global conspiracies to explain the things which just don't work in your model.

You started this thread excitedly thinking you had found a flaw in the RE model. When it was finally explained to you, you're now changing to "Meh, that proves nothing".
Can you really not see how silly this all is?
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.