[franklinho]

OK - the eclipse was not seen everywhere on the globe - because the Earth is round. *surprise* Now, we have the refutation that electromagnetic accelation is distorting light so that this is possible. However, where is the mathematical evidence/scientific trials that have proven that this exists? I want a direct answer - not one that asks Round Earther's for proof of how the Earth is round, but a post directed at the proof.

[3DGeek]

OK - the eclipse was not seen everywhere on the globe - because the Earth is round. *surprise* Now, we have the refutation that electromagnetic accelation is distorting light so that this is possible. However, where is the mathematical evidence/scientific trials that have proven that this exists? I want a direct answer - not one that asks Round Earther's for proof of how the Earth is round, but a post directed at the proof.

I'm not quite sure what you're asking for here.  Tom Bishop (lead flatty) doesn't accept electromagnetic acceleration.

I hate to fight for the FE'ers - but I'm scrupulous about "intellectual honesty" and I don't see why their "shadow object" (aka "anti-moon") explanation couldn't explain eclipses.  They could claim that a black, circular (or spherical) object that's about 29.99 miles across moves in front of the 30 mile across sun and casts a shadow onto the Earth...just like in RET.

Probably there is some complicated problem with that "explanation" (maybe it doesn't explain the path of the eclipse or the penumbra or something) - but it's not very easy to debunk without more math than most people here could cope with.

How the shadow object gets there - and why it has bumps that match the mountains of the moon so perfectly is the same unspecified magic that makes the sun, moon, planets and stars dance around in weird shapes - and why it happens to perfectly coincide with where RET predicts eclipses is anyone's guess.

But I don't see an easy "smoking gun" proof or disproof here.

[Curious Squirrel]

OK - the eclipse was not seen everywhere on the globe - because the Earth is round. *surprise* Now, we have the refutation that electromagnetic accelation is distorting light so that this is possible. However, where is the mathematical evidence/scientific trials that have proven that this exists? I want a direct answer - not one that asks Round Earther's for proof of how the Earth is round, but a post directed at the proof.

I'm not quite sure what you're asking for here.  Tom Bishop (lead flatty) doesn't accept electromagnetic acceleration.

I hate to fight for the FE'ers - but I'm scrupulous about "intellectual honesty" and I don't see why their "shadow object" (aka "anti-moon") explanation couldn't explain eclipses.  They could claim that a black, circular (or spherical) object that's about 29.99 miles across moves in front of the 30 mile across sun and casts a shadow onto the Earth...just like in RET.

Probably there is some complicated problem with that "explanation" (maybe it doesn't explain the path of the eclipse or the penumbra or something) - but it's not very easy to debunk without more math than most people here could cope with.

How the shadow object gets there - and why it has bumps that match the mountains of the moon so perfectly is the same unspecified magic that makes the sun, moon, planets and stars dance around in weird shapes - and why it happens to perfectly coincide with where RET predicts eclipses is anyone's guess.

But I don't see an easy "smoking gun" proof or disproof here.

In the theme of intellectual honesty, the FES (at least on this site) state the solar eclipse is caused by the moon being in front of the sun, just like RE does. There's really no issue here with the solar eclipse unless you want to dig into the nitty gritty of how annular eclipses happen on a FE, but the size and movements of their celestial objects is sketchy at best, so there's not much to work with in that regard. The lunar eclipse is the one FES explains with a shadow object, because obviously you can't have a flat Earth interposing itself between two objects that spend all their time above it. Obviously there's some interesting issues with that, but nothing involving electromagnetic acceleration in any model as far as I'm aware.

[3DGeek]

OK - the eclipse was not seen everywhere on the globe - because the Earth is round. *surprise* Now, we have the refutation that electromagnetic accelation is distorting light so that this is possible. However, where is the mathematical evidence/scientific trials that have proven that this exists? I want a direct answer - not one that asks Round Earther's for proof of how the Earth is round, but a post directed at the proof.

I'm not quite sure what you're asking for here.  Tom Bishop (lead flatty) doesn't accept electromagnetic acceleration.

I hate to fight for the FE'ers - but I'm scrupulous about "intellectual honesty" and I don't see why their "shadow object" (aka "anti-moon") explanation couldn't explain eclipses.  They could claim that a black, circular (or spherical) object that's about 29.99 miles across moves in front of the 30 mile across sun and casts a shadow onto the Earth...just like in RET.

Probably there is some complicated problem with that "explanation" (maybe it doesn't explain the path of the eclipse or the penumbra or something) - but it's not very easy to debunk without more math than most people here could cope with.

How the shadow object gets there - and why it has bumps that match the mountains of the moon so perfectly is the same unspecified magic that makes the sun, moon, planets and stars dance around in weird shapes - and why it happens to perfectly coincide with where RET predicts eclipses is anyone's guess.

But I don't see an easy "smoking gun" proof or disproof here.

In the theme of intellectual honesty, the FES (at least on this site) state the solar eclipse is caused by the moon being in front of the sun, just like RE does. There's really no issue here with the solar eclipse unless you want to dig into the nitty gritty of how annular eclipses happen on a FE, but the size and movements of their celestial objects is sketchy at best, so there's not much to work with in that regard. The lunar eclipse is the one FES explains with a shadow object, because obviously you can't have a flat Earth interposing itself between two objects that spend all their time above it. Obviously there's some interesting issues with that, but nothing involving electromagnetic acceleration in any model as far as I'm aware.

Yes - I agree.  They could place the FET moon very close to the sun to make this work.  Lunar eclipses are much more problematic.   The moon is a huge problem for FET though - it's not a perfectly smooth disk as the sun appears - it has dark patches that let you see which way up it is and that's a problem for them.  It has phases that must somehow be explained.

These are more subtle points - but they are what defeats FET.