[Intrepid Explorer]

I know how to answer most questions about eclipses.  Equilateral triangles; flat shapes can cast round shadows, etc. etc.

But what about predicting the eclipses?  The Round Earthers can predict the paths and start and end times of solar eclipses at various locations down to the second.  What do I say when someone asks me about that?

Do we have some way of predicting eclipses?  Help!

[Tom Bishop]

This is addressed in the Wiki:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Astronomical_Prediction_Based_on_Patterns#The_Eclipses

[Iceman]

The wiki article provides a thorough explanation for the perceived weaknesses in astronomy - perturbations, three-body problem etc. - it is an interesting read, but does not explain how solar eclipses work on a flat earth. The solar eclipse page explains how eclipse paths look nicer on a flat earth map, agrees that the cause is the moon blocking the sun, but no other details are provided.

 Are the sun and moon the same size, roughly the same height above the disk? Does it get colder during an eclipse because the cold lazer light emitted from the moon is blocking all the hot sunlight? Do the lengths of the shadow paths make sense with the orbital velocities of the two bodies above the earth's plane?

I'm not pretending to have any answers, this stuff is out of my wheelhouse, but I'm very curious how it works.

[Tom Bishop]

The wiki article provides a thorough explanation for the perceived weaknesses in astronomy - perturbations, three-body problem etc. - it is an interesting read, but does not explain how solar eclipses work on a flat earth.

The Solar Eclipse occurs when the Moon passes in front of the Sun.

Are the sun and moon the same size, roughly the same height above the disk?

Yes, and under RE the visual diameters of the Sun and Moon are described as an "extraordinary coincidence".

A Question and Answer Guide to Astronomy, p 67, by engineer/astronomer Pierre-Yves Bely (bio), astrophysicist Carol Christian (bio), astrophysicist Jean-René Roy (bio) -

“ Is it just coincidence that the apparent diameters of the Moon and the Sun are the same?

Yes, it is a coincidence that the two diameters are the same but it was not always so. The diameter of the Sun is about 400 times that of the Moon, but the Sun is also 400 times further away from us than the Moon. The configuration leads to the same apparent diameters for both objects when seen from Earth (05°). This extraordinary coincidence grants us the opportunity to have total eclipses of our star, a majestic cosmic phenomenon that used to terrify ancient peoples. ”

Does it get colder during an eclipse because the cold lazer light emitted from the moon is blocking all the hot sunlight? Do the lengths of the shadow paths make sense with the orbital velocities of the two bodies above the earth's plane?

I'm not pretending to have any answers, this stuff is out of my wheelhouse, but I'm very curious how it works.

It was mainstream scientists from the 1800's who produced the majority of the specialized experiments suggesting that the light of the Moon cooled. Mainstream science of the 1800's used specially designed equipment, much better than the YouTubers claiming to replicate those results with home thermometers. I don't see how those experiments are pertinent, however.

[GreatATuin]

Yes, and under RE the visual diameters of the Sun and Moon are described as an "extraordinary coincidence".

And under FE the size of the Sun and Moon being equal would need to be a coincidence too. As well as the fact that a lunar eclipse, even partial, always happens during a full Moon.

It's also a striking coincidence (without an explanation in the Wiki) that the Sun and Moon on a flat Earth have an angular size that doesn't significantly change when they're closer or further.

[AmoebaReeba]

And under FE the size of the Sun and Moon being equal would need to be a coincidence too.

Unless the FE system was created by intelligent design. This goes back to my question (which nobody seems to want to pick up) as to whether there can be any explanation for the FE system's creation by any natural processes that don't involve a god or intelligent designer.

[AATW]

And under FE the size of the Sun and Moon being equal would need to be a coincidence too.

Unless the FE system was created by intelligent design.

Fair point. The thing which really doesn't work in the FE model is the hugely varying distance of the sun and moon through the day and night with no correlated change in angular size - unlike other bodies like planets which do vary in angular size greatly as we get closer and further away. It's surely an "extraordinary coincidence" that there's some effect which makes that happen - keeps the sun the same angular size no matter the distance.

[Tumeni]

Patterns which show the expected date of an eclipse don't explain how the speed of the eclipse over the surface varies according to the curve of the globe.

Here's what was predicted for the Great Solar Eclipse of 2017; note the difference in the distance covered in each 30 minute span, and how this varies as the eclipse approaches its central point of the path, and recedes away from it. Just as you would expect from a shadow moving at linear speed, but which varies on progress as it is cast on the surface of a sphere. Simple geometry.



This is what was predicted, and not one observer on the surface reported anything which differed from it.

[Longtitube]

And under FE the size of the Sun and Moon being equal would need to be a coincidence too.

But the FE sun and moon are not the same size - at an annular eclipse the sun is not completely covered by the moon and is visible behind and all around the moon: the famous “ring of fire” phenomenon. If the moon wasn’t smaller than the sun this would be impossible.



RE says the moon’s orbit is not perfectly circular and it is at times closer to the Earth than others. When it is closest (perigee) and a total eclipse occurs, the period of complete blackout can occasionally last up to 7 minutes or so. If the eclipse occurs when the moon is farthest away (apogee), an annular eclipse may result.

[Tom Bishop]

There are two to five solar eclipses a year, and the annular eclipse occurs once every one or two years. You are pointing out an anomaly. I am fairly sure those astrophysicists know about the existence of the annular eclipse when they were designating the visible size of the sun and moon to be an extraordinary coincidence.

It's surely an "extraordinary coincidence" that there's some effect which makes that happen - keeps the sun the same angular size no matter the distance.

Actually, there is photographic evidence of lights staying a consistent size in the distance. This is long part of FE Theory, which is what you should familiar yourself with if you want to criticize any part of it.

See: https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset

I've seen the effect described in the above link many times. A receding line of lights of sufficient quality in the far field do not consistently shrink in a linear manner.

[stack]

There are two to five solar eclipses a year, and the annular eclipse occurs once every one or two years. You are pointing out an anomaly. I am fairly sure those astrophysicists know about the existence of the annular eclipse when they were designating the visible size of the sun and moon to be an extraordinary coincidence.

It's surely an "extraordinary coincidence" that there's some effect which makes that happen - keeps the sun the same angular size no matter the distance.

Actually, there is photographic evidence of lights staying a consistent size in the distance. This is long part of FE Theory, which is what you should familiar yourself with if you want to criticize any part of it.

See: https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset

I've seen the effect described in the above link many times. A receding line of lights of sufficient quality in the far field do not consistently shrink in a linear manner.

I think your examples are referring to 'glare'.

Without glare, and even with a little, sure a receding line of lights of sufficient quality in the far field does, absolutely, consistently shrink in a linear manner.

[Tom Bishop]

Nope. Zoom in on the last ten lights in the last picture you posted. It's not consistently shrinking in the far field.

[stack]

Nope. Zoom in on the last ten lights in the last picture you posted. It's not consistently shrinking in the far field.

It's called glare. And what about the first 10?

And for the non-glare representation, looks pretty much receding all the way:

[Tom Bishop]

Nope. That's not the last picture you posted. The diameters of the orbs in the night scene in the far field are clearly of identical size.

[stack]

Nope. That's not the last picture you posted. The diameters of the orbs in the night scene in the far field are clearly of identical size.

I said for the "non-glare representation", meaning the one above without glare, the orbs picture above, shrinking all the way, hence the red lines.

As for the "glare" representation you're speaking of, first half of the lights are shrinking then glare totally takes over and you can't really tell what's what.

See, non-glare:

[Tom Bishop]

That's not the photo I'm talking about, fibber.

There is a difference between light which is direct, luminous, or reflected, fogged or dimmed. This is specified in the Wiki link that it does not apply to everything. Your post provides further confirmation that the FE Theory is correct.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset

So your example is specifically addressed and shows that the theory remains correct.

[Tumeni]

Tom, what you're seeing in your photos is simply the "heliograph effect", where the emitted light can be seen at a far farther distance than the distance at which you can discern the size of the emitter or reflector. It's more pronounced at night.

Merely seeing the light is not a proof of the size of the emitter or reflector.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliograph

The range of a heliograph depends on the opacity of the air and the effective collecting area of the mirrors. Heliograph mirrors ranged from 1.5 inches to 12 inches or more. Stations at higher altitudes benefit from thinner, clearer air, and are required in any event for great ranges, to clear the curvature of the earth. A good approximation for ranges of 20–50 miles is that the flash of a circular mirror is visible to the naked eye for 10 miles for each inch of mirror diameter, and farther with a telescope. The world record distance was established by a detachment of U.S. signal sergeants by the inter-operation of stations on Mount Ellen, Utah, and Mount Uncompahgre, Colorado, 183 miles (295 km) apart on September 17, 1894, with Signal Corps heliographs carrying mirrors only 8 inches square.

[Tom Bishop]

Sure, that might be further evidence and another example that luminous objects don't follow the linear shrinking laws of perspective. Quite a deviation to those who say that linear shrinkage should apply to luminous objects.

The FE Theory states that this enlargement takes place on the atmosphere rather than in the eye.

[GreatATuin]

There are two to five solar eclipses a year, and the annular eclipse occurs once every one or two years. You are pointing out an anomaly.

Annular eclipses actually outnumber total eclipses: https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEcatmax/SEcatmax.html . Even if they occurred once every 100 eclipses, you'd still need to account for them.

On a flat Earth, why does the Moon sometimes appear slightly larger and sometimes slightly smaller than the Sun? But never much larger nor much smaller, as would be expected when its distance from the observer varies considerably?

[AATW]

I've seen the effect described in the above link many times. A receding line of lights of sufficient quality in the far field do not consistently shrink in a linear manner.

Well you've deliberately picked pictures with a lot of glare, but I've helpfully gone through and annotated your pictures with the number of pixels of each light. I've just measured the width of the actual light, not the "halo" around each one. Here you go:



Oh dear, that's not good, is it? I don't know if it's linear but it's certainly a very clear shrinking in each one.
Something not observed with the sun even when viewed through a filter.