- This topic has 6,407 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 5 days, 3 hours ago by
.
- Posts
Partial eclipses
Mike, I don’t know much about eclipses, but my point which may be naive was to say that at a certain location on a certain hour of a certain day, you can view a blood red moon. I saw one a few years back. So my idea was a simple one. If you moved north of the eclipse so that you viewed a partial eclipse, then how would that look? Then move south where you get a partial eclipse and what do you see? Is the light shining through exactly the same? I doubt it. Is the light shining over the top of the moon for one person and the bottom of the moon for the other? Maybe.
If not, then what exactly do both partial eclipses look like. Obviously they won’t be the same right?
“Satan is trying to get us to focus endless hours of our time on this smoke and mirrors, garbage, we have undeniable proof, ton of proof, that proves the earth is indeed round. ”
But Gene according to your theology Satan is only doing God’s will to show forth his righteousness correct? Don’t blame the devil! 🙂
AndrewAD. .. Satan, evil advasarieral spirits, the spirit of deception, Who knows who is doing it, but it is just a waste of time and serves no real perpose in efifying anyone. It’s not even a question to me if the world is Flat or not. We have tons and tons of proof the earth is round. What would you think is the reason, for this waste of time?
Peace and love to you and yours. ……gene
T8, I just went through all the scriptures I can find that have “sunrise” or “sunset”, and none of the Hebrew words actually mean “sunrise” or “sunset”. Take this famous verse, for example…
Psalm 103:12
As far as the east is from the west, So far has He removed our transgressions from us.These same Hebrew words are often translated into English as “sunrise” and “sunset”, but they refer to the sun’s appearance in the east, and its disappearance in the west. I was unable to find any verse in scripture in which the Hebrew or Greek words actually convey the sun rising up, or going down.T8: Is the light shining over the top of the moon for one person and the bottom of the moon for the other? Maybe.
Hey T8, study the following image…
The claim is that the sun lights the moon, and during an eclipse, the earth is what causes the shadow on the moon. So the above image shows what’s supposed to happen. Do you see that the sun was lighting the entire moon, but as the moon passes behind the earth, the earth casts a shadow on the moon? So at first, just a sliver of the bottom of the moon is shadowed, while the majority is still lit by the sun. A while later, as the moon sets behind the earth, the shadow on the bottom will continue to grow upwards, while the lit part on the top will continue to decrease. Do you understand that as the moon sets further behind the earth in the west, more of the moon will become shadowed by the earth, while less and less of the top will be lit by the sun?
Now let’s alter that diagram to show what I and many others actually saw on 1-31-18…
Notice how it’s the bottom of the moon that is lit, while the top is shadowed.
Do you understand that the sun couldn’t be shining through the earth to light the bottom?
Do you understand that the earth cannot possibly be what’s causing the shadow on the top, since it’s not even between the sun and the top of the moon?
That will be the case for any observer anywhere on earth. There is absolutely no possible way the bottom of the moon (from the perspective of any observer anywhere on earth) could be lit by the sun while the top is being eclipsed by the earth. So while I appreciate the effort of wondering how person A would see the same eclipse from position X, and how person B would see it from position Y, none of that really matters for the point I’m making here. My only point is that the bottom cannot be lit while the earth is shadowing the top. I’d appreciate a YES or NO answer to the two questions above.
T8, I was also wondering if you’ve given any consideration to seeing a plane from 369 miles, and to the x axis versus z axis point.
The latter is simple. If the earth is a ball, and you can see a ship or building or whatever disappear over the horizon on your z axis (straight out in front of you), then you also have to be able to see the same curve that the object is hidden behind on your x axis (from your left to your right). For example…
If the curve is such that the real Chicago is hidden behind 2100 feet of curvature on our z axis, then we would be able to see a 2100 foot tall bulge of Lake Michigan in the middle of our x axis. Any lake or ocean should look like this to us…
Notice the left to right curvature from the fisheye lens. That’s how any ocean view should look to our own eyes, and to cameras without a fisheye lens. Of course they say we can’t get high enough to see this curve on our x axis – which negates the possibility of us seeing its effect on our z axis. You simply can’t have one without the other on a ball. If we lived on a cylinder you could… but not on a ball.
So in the case of the Nowicki photo, if the curve on our z axis is such that the real Chicago is hidden behind it, then the curve of the lake on our x axis will look like this…
Are you with me?
Good points Mike!
How about that moon y’all? Why does it eclipse from top to bottom?
If it curves over the horizon then it curves across the horizon. Right? Right! If a ship goes “over” the horizon then it will also go “over” the curve from left to right or right to left, remember it’s a ball, right?
Why don’t we see this happen? Why is it that a ship only goes over the horizon going straight away from the observer? Why has there never been any photo or video of this occurring from left to right or right to left? Anyone?
Gene,
What would you think is the reason, for this waste of time?
Because it’s interesting, it’s something to think and talk about if one so desires. It shows that there are a lot of unanswered questions about our universe and planet. And we shouldn’t always just assume we know things that we may not. Even if the world is round/ a globe there are still many things that don’t make sense in our current cosmology.
Hi Mike.
You indirectly claim to have a better understanding of eclipses than me, so I have a question that I would like answered.
If you are in a location that experiences a Blood Moon, then how does it appear to a person that experiences a partial eclipse who is to the north and likewise to another person who is south of the full blood moon.
If you can answer that, then it may help me drop this line of inquiry and look for another explanation to the video of the topsy turvy eclipse.
Thanks.
Mike, this perplexed me somewhat.
How does the topsy turvy eclipse work on a flat earth. Globe Earthers say eclipses prove the earth is not flat, period.
While you argue that some eclipses disprove the globe, then how do they prove the flat earth. If they don’t prove a flat earth at all, then it would seem strange to use this as one of the main pieces of evidence in a topic that is trying to prove a flat earth.
T8: Hi Mike.
You indirectly claim to have a better understanding of eclipses than me, so I have a question that I would like answered.
If you are in a location that experiences a Blood Moon, then how does it appear to a person that experiences a partial eclipse who is to the north and likewise to another person who is south of the full blood moon.
If you can answer that, then it may help me drop this line of inquiry and look for another explanation to the video of the topsy turvy eclipse.
Thanks.
A blood moon is a total eclipse. The totality of the eclipse doesn’t rely on who can see it from where. The claim is that the when the entire moon is within the shadow of the earth, it is a total eclipse. Anyone from anywhere on earth could only see it as a total eclipse, since the moon is completely shadowed by the earth.
My assertion is that from anywhere on the earth, it would be impossible to see the moon eclipse from the top down. This is the only point I’m asking you about. So say somebody in location A saw it eclipse from the bottom up. And someone in location B saw it eclipse from the left to the right. Doesn’t matter to my point, since there is documented evidence that many different people (including myself) saw it eclipse from the top down. And in the heliocentric model, where the sun lights the moon, and the shadow of the earth eclipses it, this is absolutely impossible. So while I can’t tell you what people north and south of me saw, I can tell you that I saw and documented it as eclipsing from the top down. That means the sun would have had to be lighting the bottom of the moon, while the earth cast a shadow on the top. And that is impossible whether we’re talking about the sun, earth and moon system, or a room lamp, a banana, and an orange.
T8: Mike, this perplexed me somewhat.
How does the topsy turvy eclipse work on a flat earth. Globe Earthers say eclipses prove the earth is not flat, period.
While you argue that some eclipses disprove the globe, then how do they prove the flat earth. If they don’t prove a flat earth at all, then it would seem strange to use this as one of the main pieces of evidence in a topic that is trying to prove a flat earth.
The topsy turvy eclipses don’t prove the earth is flat. They don’t even show that the sun isn’t what’s lighting the moon. But they do show that if the sun is what’s lighting the moon, something besides the earth is causing the shadow.
There are only two possible explanations, as I see it…
- The moon is it’s own light, and the varying degrees of what we’ve been told are shadows throughout the month are designs that God built into it to mark days and seasons, etc.
- The sun is lighting the moon, but there is another celestial body out there causing the shadow on it.
Btw, globers say the shadow on the moon is proof that the earth is round because they’ve been erroneously claiming for centuries that only a spherical object can cast a curved shadow like that.
T8: Globe Earthers say eclipses prove the earth is not flat, period.
And there you have the reason I brought it up here. Now we know that eclipses don’t prove the earth is not flat. Besides, we’ve supposedly had this heliocentric model down pat for centuries, and if it’s not even the earth causing the shadow on the moon, it might make you think twice about the validity of the rest of the model.
So the eclipse doesn’t prove either model. And this eclipse doesn’t disprove either model. So whatever we say about this eclipse we need to apply the judgement to both models. So this one video negates the existence of the globe earth and flat earth. Got it now. Maybe there is no earth, meaning quantum physics is closer to the truth.
How about we both find the explanation of this video when applied to both. Of course I will focus on explaining it using the globe model and you will explain how it fits with the flat earth model.
That would be fair right?
I just need to check that the video is genuine. I think it is because I have seen quite a few pics of a similar eclipse in Google Images. Did you take the video? I think I asked this before and the answer was no.
What the question should be is if the moon could ever be eclipsed from the top down on a globe earth. If the answer is no then look elesewhere.
Hi Dig4,
Just the last to say ok we accept you have a point of view but we are bored of your stuff and want you to go away?
If it quacks like a duck
T8, look at your pictures, the glass, the straw, the duck and the truck. Do they look natural or are they obviously distorted?
They look natural with some distortion. Not too dissimilar to looking at a boat on or slightly over the horizon to be honest. The duck is half cut off and the pencil or pen is a little fatter. If you couldn’t see the original, then you could easily think it was a pencil with that width and the bottom half of the duck looks pretty normal. If I was shown just that, I would have guessed it was a duck. And if it quacks like a duck then its a duck.
Pay close attention to this video.
What do you think? Where is the curvature?I got this with an earth curve calculator:
- Results ignoring refraction
- Horizon = 3 Miles (15838 Feet)
- Bulge = 7.04 Feet (84.52 Inches)
- Drop = 28.17 Feet (338.09 Inches)
- Hidden= 8.17 Feet (98.05 Inches)
- Horizon Dip = 0.043 Degrees, (0.0008 Radians)
That is results ignoring refraction. So obviously, if the calculation is correct and the test genuine, then refraction is the answer. And before you say, ‘Refraction is a cop out’, I would like to say that refraction is real, you know it is real, and it has to do with moisture in the atmosphere. And what is that thing covering the earth surface in the video? Could it be abundant moisture I wonder. The video even showed distortion from moisture that changed within minutes. Obviously we are not looking at zero moisture. Look at the calculation I have posted here and read the first line. That is the variable you need to consider and it is a real variable. No one denies that variable except perhaps Flat Earthers when it is convenient.
It ain’t over till you go over the curve
It’s over guys!
What is that? Scotland yes judging by the map. And you can see that some of the land is hidden. So this with refraction could produce this result, and judging by WTF reaction, I would take a guess that you do not see this everyday. So an anomaly explained by refraction.
I assume Earth curve calculators base their working on zero moisture. Moisture in the atmosphere is a variable that you need to consider once again. And what is that I see, oh, the sea. I see the sea, see that? That is a big body of moisture right? So there is not going to be zero moisture in the atmosphere right?
You might be correct though, it could be over. Light refracted OVER the curvature because of atmospheric moisture. Flat Earthers seem to ignore any possibility of atmospheric refraction when it suits them.
If the Earth was flat, then why can’t you see it every fine day? Because it is over the curve perhaps and once in a while the light is refracted over the curve? Some food for thought.
Yes, nobody denies that refraction is a real thing, and that it is caused by moisture in the air. Keep that in mind the next time you think we should be able to see across the entire flat earth, because that moisture not only distorts light, but prohibits you from seeing unlimited distances. Consider the diffused Plexiglas on your shower door. With one pane, you can still make out shapes on the other side. But now add another pane, and the shapes are barely discernible. Add yet another, and you’ll barely be able to make out colors on the other side. Then keep adding more and more of them, and eventually you wouldn’t be able to see even a very bright spot light through them. That’s how our air works too. The more of it you’re looking through, the less you’ll be able to see the things on the other side.
You vastly underestimate how far you can see. We see the stars in the firmament and while we hugely disagree as to their distances, even in your model it is probably some of the furthest objects. So at night, the sun has moved to the other side of the disk and is too distant to see, yet we can see these very lesser lights called stars quite clearly. Something doesn’t add up here Mike.
And you open this paragraph with “Yes, nobody denies that refraction is a real thing, and that it is caused by moisture in the air.” If that were true, then why do you show pictures of city skylines that are clearly missing the bottom section yet are visible when they are not supposed to be if there is zero refraction? Answer is refraction of course. This is why I say you deny it. If you accepted it or didn’t cherry pick when refraction can happen, then you have the answer, so no need to keep asking the question right?
This is what irritates me about you lately. I’ve already used my precious time to locate, paste, and queue the Skunk Bay Weather Service time lapse to show you exactly what refraction will do.
One example of refraction is not going to be the total explanation as to all it can do is it? Am I really suppose to believe that one video showing refraction is standard across all examples? Obviously it is a no brainer to consider that moisture percentage is never going to be exactly the same. The location of the viewer and the sun and moon is never going to be the same. And neither is the angle of light, the distance that we can see beyond the horizon, or the tide. This only shows me the picture more clearly. You watch a FE video and go, well that was more logical than I thought. So you watch another and say, hmm good points. Then you watch a third and say, it is possible. Then the fourth video increases the small convisction you have been fed by the previous videos and after multiple videos you think, well men have been wrong before about things. Most of the while, you are not looking at the other view and by the time others show videos or evidence that debunks these claims, you will hang on for dear life and wiggle out of it any way possible. In one example, you ask a question when you know the answer could be refraction. Or perhaps the answer is that the earth, moon, and sun are not always in the same plane. You never mention that and seem to give 2D projections only. Same with air routes. Always shown on a flat map that exaggerates distances of things because projecting a 3D globe on a 2D space is difficult.. I could go on, but I think you get the point by now.
No, it has never been demonstrated to lift an object up over a curve and plant it in the view of an observer.
You first have to believe in the Flat Earth and then when this phenomenon demonstrates the very thing you are talking about (objects being lifted or placed into view beyond the horizon), you just write it off as false because you believe the earth is flat. Not a scientific way to approach this Mike. It reminds me of the Dark Ages where a person who was accused of witchcraft was thrown into water. If they sank, they were innocent and if they floated, that indicated witchcraft. I have butted heads with others such as Trinitarians. They believe in the Trinity first and then extract the Trinity all over the Bible and even in nature.
And as for your cherry picked pictures, if genuine, they just show one example each. I notice you never show huge ocean liners going over the horizon just small boats this side of the horizon. For every picture you say proves a flat earth, I have access to thousands that show the Earth is a sphere. But then you will write all that off and expect me to believe that a dozen of so pictures explains everything at the expense of all other pictures that show otherwise. Try not to say that your cherry picked example explains everything and other examples that are contrary are wrong. No, why not just accept the obvious. No two examples are exactly the same, but the Globe Earth explains most of them easily and some of them while more difficult to explain can still be explained. Refraction nearly explains most of your questions I think and could even explain the eclipse video if that is a genuine video.
False signs, wonders, and real refraction
An alien city spacecraft or is it refraction or a mirage?
I think the latter given that choice. If we deny atmospheric refraction, then it must be aliens, perhaps a dimensional rift in the space time continuum, or a hologram?
Or maybe the video was fake as the following video explains. Some good explanations in that video about mirages and fata morgana. But remember guys, some videos are fake too. We live in an age of false signs and wonders. Be wary about subscribing to conspiracy theories.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
