- This topic has 6,414 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 2 months, 2 weeks ago by
.
- Posts
Kathi: Mike,
Here is the pic #11 from your ABC 15 site at 5:30 am. It looks like the timeanddate.com picture at 5:30 am.
Yes, timeanddate.com has indeed illustrated what we in North America observed. The question isn’t whether someone can make a graphic showing the event, but how the event could happen in the first place.
It seems we are in agreement now that the penumbra is a shadow, and doesn’t cast any light of its own, right? So at any point when the moon is partially darkened by the umbra, and partially lit up, it isn’t the penumbra doing the lighting up, but the sun that is lighting the moon despite it being in the slight shadow of the penumbra, right?
Am I correct that we now agree on this fact, and that the claim that the moon is being lit BY the penumbra is erroneous?
T8: Reminded me a bit of the Mt Ruapehu photo supposedly proving the Flat Earth.
Me too. It is yet another example of us seeing an object that should be hidden behind curvature if the earth was a ball. Thanks for sharing.
Gene: Mike…. There is tons of proof the earth is round. It’s hard for me to believe you haven’t seen this yet or have you?
Hi Gene, when you bring up some proof that you can personally verify, we’ll have something to discuss. Until then, I’m going to focus my attention on the three members (D4T, Kathi, T8) here who are actually making an attempt to discuss this subject. Thanks for understanding.
T8: I have never said that earth curve calculators are wrong. I assume they are correct as they weren’t setup by Flat Earthers, so they would have no reason to fudge the numbers due to a lack of agenda…
So personal attack and accusations aside, we are in agreement that 8 inches per mile squared is the correct calculation – up to 1000 miles. That is a big step in the right direction.
T8: I have however noted that calculations are based on zero moisture in the atmosphere and many of these pics that are floated as evidence including mine have large bodies of water in the foreground.
“Based on zero moisture” as compared to what? How would you go about including a “moisture quotient” if you were to make your own earth curve calculator? Do you think moisture makes us see farther? Or over a curve? If so, why would you think such a thing?
We are making headway here, and that is good. At first you resisted the 8 inches per mile squared… because you could see the photos in which we can see way further than we would be able to. But then you learned the word “refraction”, and have decided that it is your new rescue device, and therefore it’s okay to accept the 8 inches per mile squared. Now we just need to educate you on the fact that refraction will NEVER cause an object hidden behind a curve to rise up over that curve and rest on the horizon. Once we’ve succeeded in that, you’ll have no other rescue devices to fall back on. And at that point, you might just consider the observational evidence for what it is. That will be a good day.
Mike,
you said:
Am I correct that we now agree on this fact, and that the claim that the moon is being lit BY the penumbra is erroneous?
I think the way I said it was unclear, so I’ll give you that. The light rays from the sun are indirectly in the penumbra, not direct rays. The atmosphere causes the direct rays from the sun to bend and scatter. The sun is not directly lighting up the eclipse. The indirect light from the sun is in the penumbra and indirectly casting light on the moon.
Mike,
Maybe a neighbor, family member, or co-worker can loan you a globe on a stand that shows the tilt. I do think it will help you. Also, the timeanddate.com site has a lot of information about angles and such. If you study it as if they know what they are talking about, you could probably get the answers that you are looking for much better than asking me. Realize that you saw that the actual pictures lined up to what the graphic was showing on there. Timeanddate didn’t see the pictures first and then make their graphics to match.
T8: Does this help you grasp how big the Earth is and why we do not naturally see the curve?
Further, while I do not for one minute believe the Earth is flat, it is obvious God has given us a flat earth experience.
Uh… maybe God has given us a flat earth, not a “flat earth experience”. 😉
Btw, do you notice how your first statement contradicts your claim that we can observe boats disappearing over the horizon? If not, don’t worry, as we’ll be covering that topic soon in the debate thread.
T8: Hi guys.
Does the guy in this video have a point?
His claim that 8 inches per mile squared is only accurate to a point is accurate. It’s good up to about 1000 miles. Other than that, he is very much mistaken in his math, as is attested by any mathematics expert you can find on the internet. The vast majority are globers, but all of them agree that 8 inches per mile squared is correct. It is the formula every earth curve calculator uses… including the Metabunk one that adds in the invented property of “standard refraction” as a way of undoing the damage caused by using only the “8 inches per mile squared” formula.
Besides, I thought you just said you accept that formula because it wasn’t derived by some dishonest flat earther with an agenda. What gives?
Kathi: I think the way I said it was unclear, so I’ll give you that. The light rays from the sun are indirectly in the penumbra, not direct rays. The atmosphere causes the direct rays from the sun to bend and scatter. The sun is not directly lighting up the eclipse. The indirect light from the sun is in the penumbra and indirectly casting light on the moon.
I think you are mistakingly attributing atmospheric qualities to the penumbra… as if the sunlight can hit one part of the penumbra and the light carries throughout the entire penumbra, making this shadow a light source of it’s own.
The penumbra is the fuzzy outer edges of the shadow cast by the earth, so as in this photo, the light source illuminating the table top is the same light source that is illuminating the table top through the fuzzy outer shadow. The fuzzy outer shadow does not become its own light source through some atmospheric refraction process, but only diminishes the intensity of the actual light source.
So if the moon was the word “Penumbra” in the photo, it is currently being directly lit by the sun. As it moves upwards into the fuzzy outer finger shadows, it will still be dierctly lit by the sun… only some of the sunlight will be diffused by the fuzzy outer shadow. As the word “Penumbra” moves further into the solid umbra shadow of the hand, the top of it will become blocked from the sun, and it will be dark. But any part of the the word “Penumbra” that remains lit in the fuzzy outer shadow of the hand is being directly lit by the sun… albeit through a slight fuzzy shadow.
Mike,
you said: I think you are mistakingly attributing atmospheric qualities to the penumbra… as if the sunlight can hit one part of the penumbra and the light carries throughout the entire penumbra, making this shadow a light source of it’s own.
I think that atmospheric conditions, weather conditions, and temperature conditions certainly have something to do with the level of darkness of the penumbra area that completely encircles the umbra. Foggy mornings certainly show you atmosphere, weather conditions and temperature all make car headlights brighter even while the sun is up.
I believe that I have put enough time into this top-down eclipse, the wet flag moon landing, etc. I appreciate what I have learned but now I don’t think that I am getting anywhere with this. I am completely fine with the globe earth, the Apollo moon landings and the scriptures. This thread is stealing some joy from me because of the level of deception that people can be under. I wish for you to come to peace with this. I am in total peace. If I think that I can help you further, I will write a post. Right now, I feel like I am just beating a dead horse and wasting my time. Sorry that I couldn’t help you understand.
Blessings, LU
Kathi: Mike,
Maybe a neighbor, family member, or co-worker can loan you a globe on a stand that shows the tilt. I do think it will help you.
As I see it, I’m not the one in need of help here. 🙂 But I found an eclipse animation that I think we both can get behind. Give me some time to chop it up and present it. In the meantime, you can do a quick video using your globe, if you think it will help.
Kathi: Also, the timeanddate.com site has a lot of information about angles and such. If you study it as if they know what they are talking about, you could probably get the answers that you are looking for much better than asking me.
I reject the answers timeanddate.com gives, but it isn’t a forum where I can talk to someone about it. But feel free to keep promoting their info, and I’ll keep trying to show you how it doesn’t work.
Kathi: Realize that you saw that the actual pictures lined up to what the graphic was showing on there. Timeanddate didn’t see the pictures first and then make their graphics to match.
The ancient Babylonians were able to do the same thing millenia ago, Kathi. Look into the history of the Saros Cycle. From Wiki…
The earliest discovered historical record of what is known as the saros is by Chaldean(neo-Babylonian) astronomers in the last several centuries BC.
And here’s a short article from NASA about it…
What is a Saros Cycle?
A Saros Cycle is approximately 6585.3211 days, or 18 years, 11 days, 8 hours in length. One saros period after an eclipse, the Sun, Earth, and Moon return to approximately the same relative geometry, a near straight line, and a nearly identical eclipse will occur. The Moon will have the same phase and be at the same node and the same distance from the Earth. In addition, because the saros is close to 18 years in length (about 11 days longer), Earth will be nearly the same distance from the sun, and tilted to it in nearly the same orientation (same season). Given the date of an eclipse, one saros later a nearly identical eclipse can be predicted. Each total solar eclipse track looks similar to the previous one, but is shifted by 120 degrees westward. The August 21, 2017 total solar eclipse is part of the Saros 145 series. The previous total solar eclipse in this series occurred on August 11, 1999. The next one will be on September 2, 2035. The first cycle in this series occurred on January 4, 1639, and the last one will be on April 17, 3009.
I tried to explain this to Gene and T8 earlier on, but I think it fell on deaf ears. It’s not some fancy NASA mathematics that allow for their “predictions”. They simply copied the predictions compiled by ancient peoples who thought the earth was flat. In fact, somewhere on the NASA website, they admit that all of their “predictions” are the result of one man, who used the ancient saros cycle to produce a list that goes on for centuries, telling us when and where every future eclipse will occur. And that means in 18 years, 11 days and 8 hours from Jan 31, 2018, (Feb 11, 2036), we’ll have a nearly identical eclipse. Unfortunately, the 8 hours difference means we won’t be able to see this one from North America. But look at these Wiki diagrams. The first is of the 1-31-18 eclipse, and the second for the 2-11-36 eclipse…
Do you see any difference? So don’t be in awe with NASA or timeanddate.com just because they can tell you in advance where, when, and how the moon will eclipse in the future. Be in awe of some ancient flat earthers from Babylon, and of God, who set the sun, moon, and stars on an appointed circuit that doesn’t alter – except for the 7 stars who transgressed God’s laws and veered off their appointed circuits. You can read about them in Enoch, section 18…
And beyond that abyss I saw a place which had no firmament of the heaven above, and no firmly founded earth beneath it: there was no water upon it, and no birds, but it was a waste and horrible place. I saw there seven stars like great burning mountains, and to me, when I inquired regarding them, The angel said: ‘This place is the end of heaven and earth: this has become a prison for the stars and the host of heaven. And the stars which roll over the fire are they which have transgressed the commandment of the Lord in the beginning of their rising, because they did not come forth at their appointed times. And He was wroth with them, and bound them till the time when their guilt should be consummated (even) for ten thousand years.’
You know these seven as planets, but God’s ancient people knew them as wandering stars.
Really Mike, I have to stop this. I have some other interests to attend to presently.
God bless you richly!
LU
I’m still wondering why the moon was only half lit at 10:00 am with the sun high in the sky, only 2 hours from being directly overhead, and the moon was approximately the same degree above. Both required me to strain my neck to look that high up to see them and yet the moon was only half lit!
Would I be correct in saying that some here would say that the sun was actually below the horizon but refraction made it look like it was high in the sky? I’m just guessing because there are no logical reasons that I can think of as to why this phenomenon should occur.
So personal attack and accusations aside, we are in agreement that 8 inches per mile squared is the correct calculation – up to 1000 miles. That is a big step in the right direction.
At this stage, I assume it is correct up to a point. Cannot tell you at what distance (if at all) when it becomes inaccurate.
For all I know, it could be like a calendar. Accurate, but when measuring long distant time, the tiny error adds up to a big error. The fix for the Gregorian calendar is the leap year. But even that is incorrect. And there is a further correction needed over a much bigger time span.
That said, most of us don’t care enough to spend huge amounts of time on all this Flat Earth stuff because we have no reason to believe the world is flat. No scientific reason and no biblical reason. We are all in agreement that we have a flat earth experience, but you have failed to prove that from a different perspective, that is, from high up enough, that the world remains flat.
The only advantage you have, is this being your pet project so you are willing to spend good time on this while for us, we are seriously ill prepared for lack of time and desire. But your disadvantage is huge because you have to deny the massive body of evidence for the globe and this leads to a big problem as you will simply deny all proof as you have already done.
But from our perspective, you have failed to provide any proof of this supposed massive conspiracy. No photos of the 10,000 patrol boats in the Southern Ocean, no pics of the actual dome, no proof that NASA is not a actual space agency, no proof that Antarctic explorers are conspirators, and no proof that fishing vessels and their crew are conspirators by hiding the true distances down here in the Southern Ocean.
My advice to you Mike is simple. You can prove this for yourself if you are willing to shell out $10,000 or thereabout. Fly to Melbourne and take a flight over Antarctica. Or take a flight from Sydney to Santiago. This would be $10,000 well spent because it will stop you from being deceived and deceiving plus Australia and Chile are exciting destinations, so you will have a great time exploring these beautiful lands.
Make sure you bring a GoPro with you to document the journey and then put up some videos and I am pretty sure you could monetize this content regardless of what you discover.
TIP: To get a substantial discount, do this not as a personal thing but as part of a business, that way you can claim back some tax on your expenses.
Kathi: Really Mike, I have to stop this. I have some other interests to attend to presently.
God bless you richly!
No problem. As you can see from the timestamps, I was creating that last response while you were posting that you didn’t want to continue on with the discussion. I’m glad that at least now you have a tiny idea of what you’re up against, and I pray that God will cause the seed I planted to take root somewhere down the line – when you have more time/desire to look into this subject.
T8: The only advantage you have, is this being your pet project so you are willing to spend good time on this while for us, we are seriously ill prepared for lack of time and desire.
As T8 has inadvertently pointed out, the main difference between flat earthers and those who reject it out of hand is that the flat earthers had the desire to invest a little time looking into it – to see which model the observational and Biblical evidence actually supported. In his words, the flat earthers made it their “pet project” for a few weeks, months or years – and are therefore not so “ill prepared” to discuss it as the average globe believer is. Fact is, everyone who has read this thread has come away with a far better knowledge of what the heliocentric model is than when they started. I mean, who here knew the formula for the curve of the earth is 8 inches per mile squared? Who here ever really thought about all the scriptures that clearly say we live on a fixed earth with the sun, moon, and stars moving over us in the sky – from one end of the heaven to the other? Surely you never considered a top-down eclipse before, right? Or a selenelion eclipse where the moon and sun are both visible above the horizon. Or the fact that you and I can see the Big Dipper all year round, when the helical model says we should be looking out on an entirely different section of space every three months. Or the fact that the equatorial annual mean temperature pattern has no bearing whatsoever to the earth’s orbit around the sun – and therefore makes zero sense. Or even the fact that I can ice up my Hydro-Flask at 6 am on a 115 degree day, and still have ice left in it at 4 in the afternoon. Why? Because it uses a sealed vacuum chamber between the inside and outside compartments, and heat doesn’t travel through a vacuum. Yet the heat from the sun allegedly travels 93 million miles through a vastly more powerful vacuum to warm the earth. These are just the tip of the iceberg, so I’m sorry to see you go. But can I ask you one favor as you leave? PLEASE subscribe to my debate with T8 – so you will get notices and can keep up with the things I’m about to show him. As it is, we’re each only making a post or two per week – so you should be able to easily follow along. And if you see something there you’d like to comment on or discuss, hit me up in this thread.
Kathi: This thread is stealing some joy from me because of the level of deception that people can be under.
The level of deception so many fine Christian folks are under also breaks my heart. That’s why I’m doing this… not because I enjoy being called an idiot flattard whack-job. 🙂
Take care.
Mike: …we are in agreement that 8 inches per mile squared is the correct calculation – up to 1000 miles. That is a big step in the right direction.
T8: At this stage, I assume it is correct up to a point.
Very good.
Mike,
Thank you for understanding. My prayer lately is that Father God delivers us from evil and graces us with a sound mind and wisdom and truth in the knowledge of His precious only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, our Lord and Saviour.
Be blessed,
Kathi
Mike… If you are “truly” seeking truth, you can’t if you have a preconcieved mentality that is polarised in a definate deriction. You will simple reject sound evidence that is contrary to you preconcieve thoughts. Another word you are not in the middle unbiased seekibg truth, so no matter how much truth is given from the opposite side you will never see it as truth. Because you are predesposed against it already. So the opposite side never had a chance from the beginning.
There are, as i have said, tons of material that prove the earth is round, given every day, every FE theory has been debunked over and over, by solid proof, but again what good does that do to a mind already predesposed by a certian mind set? I still love you brother.
Peace and love to you and yours. …..gene
Gene, can you see that you have just displayed your “preconceived mentality”? Are you not polarized in a “definite direction”?
Do you discount evidence based on this bias? Are you after truth or just trying to be proven right?
Have you considered the evidence that we can see much further than we should be able to on a curved surface? Have you considered that water always finds a level? Have you considered that a vacuum always draws a pressure into it and our atmosphere is a pressurized system adjoining to an absolute vacuum? Have you considered these things?
Or are you content with the status quo? Are you content with making a mockery out of those “brothers” that are seeking the answers? It’s great to be liked isn’t it!?
What about the pillars? God said there are pillars. Where are the pillars on a spinning sphere?
Just a few of the questions you need to answer before you judge others.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
