- This topic has 6,414 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 2 months, 1 week ago by
.
- Posts
Okay, stop already. We are talking about the impossibility of the solar eclipse shadow going west to east in the heliocentric model.
Okay, I thought it might have been something else.
Did you check out the math that I posted some pages back regarding this?
Was there an error? If not, then that explains it right?
I don’t know, T8. Did I make a post responding to that math? I’m not here to track down things for you or continually repeat myself. Either keep your head in the game or take a seat on the bench.
Here’s my latest absolute debunk of the globe…
Yes, I posted some Math and asked you to check it out. It could have the answer to your question, but it could also be wrong. I haven’t got the time to check this out, but the person claims it adds up. And since you are the one saying that the current understanding makes no sense, then I offer this for now.
You can use 86,400 seconds as the length of the day, that times 28 days, the time it takes for one revolution of the moon around the Earth, is about 2,400,000 seconds. Using the distance to the moon as 225,000 miles (it varies but for this exercise, that’s close enough), which is the radius of the more or less circular path the moon takes around the Earth, it’s not circular but elliptical but lets call it circular for this discussion. So times 2 is the diameter, 450,000 miles, times pi makes that circle 1.4 million miles give or take. So divide 1,400,000 miles by 2,400,000 seconds and you find the moon traveling in its Earthy orbit going about 0.6 miles per second. Multiply that by 3600 and you get miles per hour, which is a bit over 2000 miles per hour. At the equator the Earth is spinning about 1000 miles per hour (it’s about 25,000 miles around and it takes 24 hours so divide the two and you get close to 1000 miles per hour) So the moon is going in it’s orbit twice as fast as the Earth spins on it’s axis. Since the rate of the moon’s spin is the same as it’s orbital period of about 28 days, you always see only one side of the moon. (not completely correct since it does wobble a bit and you can see just a bit around the ‘corner’ of the moon)
Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-the-moon-orbiting-the-earth-at-the-same-speed-that-earth-spins.695011/T8, how is it that you were able to find your math post, but not the 3 different posts in which I responded to that math? Keep your head in the game, brother.
Okay, I will take a look.
For now, I want to check the math on the Ruapehu shot and you claim that half the mountain should be missing.
Okay, so when the weather/air is just right so you can see it, do you ever see just the top half?
Hang on, let me work this out again using your own video and possibly other stats you may or may not have mentioned. Hopefully your stats are correct because I will be relying on them rather than look everything up again.
Ruapehu stats:
Height: 2797m (9176 ft)
Taupo Plateau that Ruapehu slopes/ shape begins is up to 900m (3000ft) above sea level.
Total height of mountain shape in the best case scenario is a shape that is 2797 – 900 = 1897m (9176 – 3000 = 6176 ft) high.Paekakariki Lookout stats:
Height: 213m (700ft)
Distance to Ruapehu: 200km (123 miles) approx.
Hidden height of mountain: 1668m (5473ft)
Taupo Plateau consideration: 1668m – 900m = 768m (2519ft) of hidden mountain shape.Total stats:
Ruapehu height of 2797m – 768m of hidden height = 2000 metres (6561ft) of visible mountain.Percentage of hidden mountain is closer to one-third of the mountain than half as you say. Please check my math, I could easily have made a mistake here.
If correct, how come the bottom third of the mountain appears in the image when it should be hidden? The answer is it probably isn’t showing. What we see in the bottom third is not the actual mountain,. but landscape that is on my side of the horizon and because of the zoom lense it has merged in with the mountain. Yes we can easily identify features on the mountain in the visible two-thirds or so above, but the bottom third has no recognisable features when compared to the close up shot of Ruapehu taken at approximately the same angle.
Hi Mike.
Additional support for my post above.
Ruapehu sits on a plateau that is up to 900 metres high. Yet the image I have taken shows the mountain starting at sea level.
Clearly, my hypothesis appears to be correct. There is a missing 900 metres of mountain at the bottom hidden by the earth’s curve because the sea is nowhere near Ruapehu. Between the sea and the Taupo Plateau is a 900 metre climb. Clearly this 900 metres is missing.
BOOM!
This image actually proves the curve because 900 or so metres of mountain and landscape is missing.
- The bottom of the top image is 900m above sea level or thereabouts.
- The bottom of the second image is 0m above seal level.
- So 900 or so metres is missing. Why? Because the Earth is a globe.
How I see it…
How you see it…
In your scenario, there is no explanation for the beach/flat ground and the forests in the foreground of the mountain. But either way, we are seeing a whole bunch of mountain that should be hidden behind the curve, right? And either way, you should be able to see everything above the yellow line on the second picture every day, right? So the fact you can only see the part above the yellow line on days when you can also see everything below it shows that my conclusion is the more sensible one. On clear days, you can see it all. On not so clear days, you see none of it. That means what you CAN see on clear days is actually there above the horizon.
*I used 2500 feet for the plateau because Encyclopædia Britannica says the plateau ranges between 2000 and 3000 feet. I split the difference. https://www.britannica.com/place/Mount-Ruapehu
And just so you know, you are looking over 55 miles of ocean in your picture…
I believe your photo shows the 55 miles of water, the 68 miles of beach and forested plateau, and the entire mountain.
Hi Mike.
I read your posts and have a few things to say, but before doing so, I will post this video because it touches on the idea that a mountain can be sitting on a plateau and thus the shape doesn’t start at zero metres above sea level as assumed in many FE videos even though the official height of mountains are calculated from that. An extreme case of this from my own experience comes from a time I lived in Bogota Colombia. The city sits on the Andes in what appears to be a giant plateau with a height of 2600 metres above sea level. There are smaller peaks on top that have a height of 3000m above sea level, but visually they are only around 300m high from the surrounding plane.
The fact is Mike, your video says the same height for the mountain while one starts at sea level and the other is on the Taupo Plateau which is up to 900 metres high. So your point is definitely wrong because there is 900 metres difference (to my favour) in the height of the mountain bases pictured.
So here is Ruapehu close up again and in your video, all the features except one are in the top half to two-thirds of the mountain such as the ridges and peaks. The one feature that you say is at the base of both images are the trees or tree line. But I can assure you that my photo doesn’t show trees like the above photo does. It shows hills that of course likely have trees on them but could also be pastoral land. But definitely not individual trees as the top photo shows. I am just too far away to be able to zoom into trees at 200km away. Thus, you cannot say that the bottom half to third are the exact same thing. In fact it stands to reason that it wouldn’t be as the Taupo Plateau is as high as 900 metres so ends the idea that you can see the same trees. Why? Because there is sea at 0 metres above sea level below the supposed trees in my photo when it is common knowledge that the Taupo Plateau is below these trees. That is a steady 900 metres climb from the sea to the Taupo Plateau that my photo has to show.
And as or the same snow line. Well the snow line changes all the time. In the heat of summer I think there is no snow line. Further, It is possible that the snow line is actually right down on the Taupo Plateau because that gets covered. So the snow could be lower down in my image right down to the flat surrounding ground which is over the curve and hidden from view in my photo.
Now here is my image again with some lines to guide us. Notice how possible it is that even at sea level on my side of the horizon, you could easily imagine a percentage of the mountain and plateau below being hidden by the curve of the earth. Remember, there are no same or similar features in the bottom section of each photo. So it is not hard to accept that just above sea level and below the curve where the mountain is visible above is simply made up of hills on my side of the horizon that has blended into the mountain because that is what serious zoom lensing does. It blends distant things and squishes them together into a much smaller distance, so to speak.
Again, look at the bottom section of each picture. There are no similar or same features. Definitely not trees. That bottom 900 metres is simple the steady climbing landscape from the sea to the Taupo Plateau of which some of that could actually be hidden too.
What’d you think of the 5 minute selenelion video?
I’m not impressed. The moon and sun look small from the perspective of viewing from space but in reality the moon is a lot bigger and the sun is huge. So if you are going to move the moon and sun down to the equator then at least increase the size of the bodies to reflect reality.
Of course graphics like this cannot show the true scale because you are forced to shrink distances down to fit inside an A4 page or thereabout. These kinds of graphics remind me of world maps where a 3D globe is projected to a 2D surface and thus you know it is not a perfect rendering. When you make one thing accurate it distorts something else and the reason why we have so many projections as each one focussed on getting one thing right to the expense of the others. FE make a meal out of these distortions, but their points often fail if you apply it to a globe. They are good at using these inaccurate models, diagrams, and graphics to show things as being impossible when in reality if you could have a graphic large enough to place the sun, earth, and moon to scale and to distance, you would see the point is not only clear but logical. And even if FE get their images from NASA, a cartographer, or whatever, they are being disingenuous or ignorant with the image and its intended use and limitations.
And of course I am not surprised if there is a little variation in what you observe compared to where the object really is. While light travels in straight lines, light passing through the atmosphere is bound to be subject to some distortion or change. When I view the world through a wine glass I see the world distorted to some degree. A reflection on a spoon shows the image upside down. So why should you expect the atmosphere to have zero impact on light? Why would you come to that conclusion when you see everyday how light is changed when it is filtered through glass, water, air, etc?
And as for the moon setting twice, I think that is ridiculous. The phenomena is not happening just as it dips, but is happening because of the atmosphere. The atmosphere is not just present near the horizon is it?
T8: Again, look at the bottom section of each picture…
Here was my last point about Ruapehu…
But either way, we are seeing a whole bunch of mountain that should be hidden behind the curve, right? And either way, you should be able to see everything above the yellow line on the second picture every day, right? So the fact you can only see the part above the yellow line on days when you can also see everything below it shows that my conclusion is the more sensible one. On clear days, you can see it all. On not so clear days, you see none of it. That means what you CAN see on clear days is actually there above the horizon.
Address that point directly, and I’ll be willing to talk more about it. Otherwise we’re just going around in circles.
T8: And as for the moon setting twice, I think that is ridiculous. The phenomena is not happening just as it dips, but is happening because of the atmosphere. The atmosphere is not just present near the horizon is it?
The mainstream explanation for this impossible event is that the moon we see setting in the sky isn’t the real moon at all. At the very moment we’re watching this fake moon slowly set, the REAL moon has already COMPLETELY set and is directly between the earth and the sun. Do you understand the claim they are making? They are saying that 100% of the moon we see in the sky is fake, because 100% of the real moon has already set. And I’m asking why nobody has ever first seen the real moon set, and the an hour or so later watch the fake moon set.
My latest vids. This one is only 3 minutes long, and you shouldn’t have any problem understanding the point this time…
And just in case you still don’t get the solar eclipse shadow problem after the 3 minute vid, this 4 minute one should cinch it for you…
The mainstream explanation for this impossible event is that the moon we see setting in the sky isn’t the real moon at all. At the very moment we’re watching this fake moon slowly set, the REAL moon has already COMPLETELY set and is directly between the earth and the sun. Do you understand the claim they are making?
In no way is anything fake because light takes time for us to see it. Are you fake when people see you? Because believe it or not, seeing you is not absolutely instant as it does take some time at least for light reflecting from you to the observers eye. So in the same way that you are not fake, so it is with more distant objects.
The sun’s light takes about 8 minutes to reach the Earth after it has been emitted from the sun’s surface. The time it takes for light to reach planets in our Solar System (not the Milky Way, which is our galaxy) varies from about 3 minutes for Mercury, to about 5.3 hours for Pluto.
T8: In no way is anything fake because light takes time for us to see it.
Tell us something you personally know about light, and how it behaves. Does it actually move from one place to another? How do you know? Does it move at a constant speed as we’ve been told? (Please answer that last one directly.)
Anyway, let me re-word my statement so as to remove your escape hatch…
The mainstream explanation for this impossible event is that the moon we see setting in the sky isn’t the real moon at all. At the very moment we’re watching this
fakeprojected moon slowly set, the REAL moon has already COMPLETELY set and is directly between the earth and the sun. Do you understand the claim they are making? They are saying that 100% of the moon we see in the sky isfakeprojected, because 100% of the real moon has already set. And I’m asking why nobody has ever first seen the real moon set, and then an hour or so later watch thefakeprojected moon set.T8, does it seem plausible and rational to you that we can watch a refracted projection of the moon slowly eclipse in the sky while the actual moon is over the horizon and directly in line with the earth and sun? Does it seem plausible and rational that this refracted projection of the moon could be in the sky if the actual moon wasn’t previously in the sky? And does it seem plausible and rational to you that nobody has ever observed the actual moon set behind the horizon before observing the refracted projection of the moon eclipse above the horizon?
NOTE: THIS POST HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SUN, THE MOON, OR THE EARTH. IT IS ABOUT TWO RACE CARS ON TWO DIFFERENT TRACKS – AND NOTHING MORE. PLEASE ANSWER THE QUESTION AT THE BOTTOM AS IT APPLIES TO THESE TWO CARS AND TWO TRACKS.
The red car does 30 laps on his 1 mile track for every single lap the green car does. Even though the green car moves at twice the speed, his track is 60 times longer, so the red car will complete his track 30 times for every one time the green car completes his track. With me so far?
The yellow line is a laser beam. It shoots toward the center of the inner track at all times as the green car makes its circuit around his 60 mile long track.
Now, as the red car keeps lapping the green car over and over, he passes right through the laser beam each time. And each time he passes through the laser beam in a forward direction as he laps the green car yet again. The laser beam passes over the red car from the front of the car to the back of the car, right?
Question: Is it possible for the laser beam to pass over the red car from back to front?
Hi Mike
Here a post from Brain Cox
Professor Cox spoke to IFLScience ahead of the North American release of his latest book, ‘Universal… Read more at https://www.higgypop.com/news/brian-cox-flat-earth/
Hope it helps, God bless Mike
No thanks, Anthony. But you’re welcome to answer my questions in the last two posts. See this is the problem, you think you can just make FACTS go away by saying, “Here’s some crap from Brian Cox”, or “Here’s a YouTube debunking flat earth”. It doesn’t work like that, Anthony. I’m asking serious questions – for which you guys have NO answers. I don’t need Brian Cox telling me it all works out somehow because “smart” people have already figured it all out. What I need is for people like you to actually look at the things we’re showing you, think about them with your own brain instead of Brian Cox’s brain, and figure our FOR YOURSELF if they actually work the way we’ve been told or not. Unfortunately, very few people in the world are willing to think for themselves anymore. They’ve gotten so used to other people doing their thinking for them, and they find it’s easier to just nod and go along than to use their own brains. Well God gave me my brain for a reason – and it wasn’t to just blindly accept loads of absolutely ridiculous garbage just because a dude in a white lab coat told that garbage to me.
Judging from every comment you’ve made in this thread, you are content to just nod and go along with whatever they tell you. That is your choice to make. But since you’ve made that choice, what communion has light with darkness? I’m in the light and seeking more of it. You are content to stay in the darkness. I hope you change your mind at some point, because this world is Satan’s, and you are a part of it with all its lies of spinning balls and outer space and rockets to the moon, etc. All of those lies have the same goal in mind… to remove people from the idea that there exists a Creator who made ONE special world for them and who loves them.
So while you’re free to believe the men in white lab coats who tell you the earth goes around the sun, I will believe God and His faithful servants who say otherwise. You believe Brian Cox if you want. I’ll believe Joshua when he says he commanded the sun and moon to stand still in the sky – not the earth to stop spinning.
Anthony, it’s very simple. You don’t need an “expert” telling you anything.
Can some object overtake another object going a relatively slower rate of speed from your observation point? Yes or no?
If “no” then you have to agree with Mike. Or at the very least explain why physics doesn’t work on your planet.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
