- This topic has 6,414 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 2 months, 1 week ago by
.
- Posts
Also this. I’m not claiming to have answered your question completely, but every bit I add will eventually lead to the complete answer.
In the first case, since Earth is turning in the same direction that the moon is traveling, any particular spot on Earth’s surface is, in essence, “racing” the moon’s shadow across the globe during a solar eclipse. And how fast any particular spot on Earth moves depends on its location: The planet spins fastest at the equator: 1,037 mph (1,670 km/h).
Even there, Earth’s rotation is less than half the speed of the moon’s shadow, so the shadow will win every race. Nonetheless, along the equator and at tropical latitudes, because the rotation of the Earth can stay with the moon’s shadow for a greater length of time, the ground speed of the moon’s shadow is noticeably less than the shadow’s actual speed through space. [Amazing Total Solar Eclipse Photos Show ‘Black Hole in the Sky’]
This article makes the point that the ground speed of the moon’s shadow is noticeably less than the actual speed through space. Could this explain why the shadow moves backwards?
T8: Mike, here is my post with the math.
https://heavennet.net/forums/topic/flat-earth/page/128/#post-839443
You haven’t answered it.
I addressed it on the very next page. In posts 2, 6, 9, 11, 14, 15, 19 and 20 of that page. Almost half of that entire page was filled with posts from me addressing your math post. And that’s what pisses me off about you, T8. It’s in one ear and out the other… IF you even take the time to read it in the first place. And then you’re continually coming back to the same subject and saying I haven’t addressed it. Like with Ruapehu. I addressed two days ago exactly what I’ve already addressed a half dozen times before. The bottom line, once again, is that even accepting your erroneous claim that 3000 feet of plateau is missing from your photo, you should STILL have at least 40% of the mountain itself also missing from your photo. And now that I’ve addressed the same thing for the 6th time, you say you’re going to re-check my math or whatever. But you won’t. You’ll just blow it off altogether for a few weeks, and then bring the exact same thing up yet ANOTHER time! And you’ll keep badgering me about it saying that globe earth wins because I can’t address your Ruapehu concerns. And I’ll tell you that I’ve already addressed it. And you’ll say I haven’t. And then I’ll have to spend my precious time – once again – addressing the same thing I’ve already addressed.
I told you yesterday to go find the post where I addressed your math post, so I don’t have to waste my time doing your work for you. But you didn’t, did you? Nope. You just posted YOUR post again with the erroneous claim that I still haven’t addressed it. Yet I was just able to find 8 different posts on one page where I did address it. Hmm… How about you go find one of those posts, re-post it here, and if you can’t figure out how your point was addressed, I’ll make the pertinent parts big and red for you. How’s that sound?
D4T: Oh boy, talk about not listening. T8, you’re not listening which is important unless you just want to post the same thing over and over and over.
I’m sorry but I’m not as patient as Mike. You’ll have to just walk away thinking you’ve made a valid point without even understanding the counter point to your position. Now go and celebrate. The rest of us who read this will know that you didn’t even understand (or didn’t want to understand) the real answer. It has been explained more than several times for you and I’m not about to waste any more time on someone who is unwilling to think about an argument before taking a position on it.
Yeah… what he said. 🙂 I didn’t read your post before making my own that said basically the same thing.
I call BS on that Mike.
You haven’t addressed the math I posted at all. All you have done is stick to your too simplistic 2D understanding of orbits and speed which looks correct on the outset. But I gave you the math and its up to you to show what part of the equation is wrong. Otherwise it adds up just fine. If you can understand the math, then you might see what your simplistic 2D understanding is missing. Right? I’m just trying to help get to the truth of the matter.
Your just trying to avoid this Mike by being offended because you don’t want to be challenged outside of your simplistic 2D world. I already acknowledged in a number of posts that you have a point in a 2D world where the earth is stationary and the moon is moving around the earth only. And the most hilarious part is that is closer to a Flat Earth model and you are pointing out how wrong it is.
Step up another dimension and lets discuss. Take a look at the math I sent and scrutinize from there.
Further, a shadow can go backward in the event of an object going forward but if the light source is also going faster forward. I’m trying to picture what is really going on and it is not that easy without an actual model. Your 2D diagrams and argument are way too simplistic to draw all truth from it. It might point out some things correctly, but certainly not all. I have already pointed out the weakness of 2D digrams regarding the second source of light on the moon, but once I pulled out 3 soccer balls and setup what the 2D graphic was portraying, then it was obvious where the second source of light was coming from. I solved that in time, so please be patient and it will happen again.
Here’s a thought, grab you soccer balls again and use one for the moon, one for the earth and a flashlight for the sun. Now move the “moon” as fast as you want from a east to west direction. Notice if the shadow ever moves from west to east. If not then you have your answer.
T8: I call BS on that Mike.
You haven’t addressed the math I posted at all.
T8, your math post amounted to this: “So the moon is going in it’s orbit twice as fast as the Earth spins on it’s axis.”
And this was me addressing the math:
“You couldn’t have possibly watched the entire video. If you did, you’d know this:
Yes, the official scientism explanation is that the moon orbits at twice the speed the earth rotates, and so overtakes the rotation of the earth – causing the shadow to go from west to east. So the explanation you posted is exactly what I spent 10 minutes of my video documenting.
- Also according to scientism, the moon’s 1.5 million mile orbit is 60 times farther than the 25,000 mile rotation of the earth.
Now remember, flat earth is a B.Y.O.B. party… you must Bring Your Own Brain. If the distance the moon has to travel is 60 times farther than the distance the earth has to rotate on its axis, how much faster will the moon need to be going in order to keep pace with the rotation of the earth?
A. Twice as fast.
B. 60 times as fast.
C. 43 billion times as fast.
After I get your answer, I’ll continue the lesson. Or you could skip ahead by actually watching my video to the end, and you’ll know what’s about to come.”
Do you see it now? I’ve underlined it for you. Ready? Are you really listening this time? YES T8! The math you posted is EXACTLY what the heliocentric model tells us, AND WHAT I SPENT 10 MINUTES OF MY FIRST VIDEO EXPLAINING! I KNOW their explanation says the moon moves twice as fast in its orbit than the surface of the earth rotates. I said as much in great detail in the first solar eclipse video I made!
Now, are you still paying attention here – so I don’t have to do this a 20th time? Let’s say you and I are meeting up at Jimmy’s Pizza. You live one mile away, and I live 60 miles away. That means I have 60 times farther to travel, right? You’re going to drive your one mile to the pizza place at the rate of ONE MILE PER HOUR. So you will arrive in ONE HOUR from the time you leave your house. I want to meet you there at the same time, but I have to travel 60 miles. Will going TWO MILES PER HOUR – OR TWICE THE SPEED YOU’RE GOING – get me there in one hour from 60 miles away?
No, T8, it won’t. If I have 60 times as far to travel, then going MERELY TWICE as fast as you really means I’m getting there 30 times SLOWER than you. Do you understand MY math?
Because the people who tell us the moon travels twice as fast than the earth orbits also tell us that the moon’s orbit is 60 times greater than the surface of the earth moves during its rotation.
So T8, when one of us has to go 60 TIMES AS FAR, will going only TWICE as fast allow us to even keep pace – let alone overtake the other one? No, T8. I would have to go 60 TIMES AS FAST just to arrive at the SAME TIME. If I wanted to OVERTAKE you and beat you there, I’d have to go 60+ times as fast as you…. NOT JUST TWICE AS FAST.
Likewise, for the moon to overtake the rotation earth when its orbit is 60 times greater, going TWICE AS FAST isn’t going to cut it. It must go 60+ times as fast.
Do you now see how I addressed your math post immediately after you posted it? And what I quoted in purple above was just the first of EIGHT different posts I made on that same page – all of them saying basically the same thing as a response to your math post.
I don’t know if I’m right on this solar eclipse shadow, but for me it all comes down to this… If a shadow passes over you from your right to your left, then the thing that caused the shadow must have also passed over you from your right to your left. So the way I see it, if the moon’s shadow goes west to east across the earth, then the moon is going west to east across the sky.
T8, I’m waiting on your mathematical review so we can put the Ruapehu thing to rest. And speaking of mountains people have photographed from 123 miles away, check this baby out…
Probably just refraction again. 🙂
Hey Mike, this stuff is way harder than I thought. It seems hard to find info on these questions, I guess because people do not really look into things like this. I’ve read a whole lotta stuff and one comment I saw said the moon travels the other way. Only saw it once and when I google it, nothing comes up. Who knows at this stage. I will keep looking.
As for Ruapehu, My honest opinion on that is a portion of the mountain in the shot is behind the curve at least according to the Curve Calculators (honestly, not sure how accurate these are at 200km). So that leaves a few options if the Earth is a globe.
- The mountain is hidden around half or whatever it is, but light bounced over the curve by being reflected or refracted by the atmosphere acting like a lense.I don’t see this as a miracle. I have personally seen skyscrapers on that peninsula in that photo at least twice. Something happens there regarding the atmosphere. Perhaps related to clear air, the high coastal hills, and Tasman Sea.
- Half the mountain or perhaps less is hidden behind the curve, and what has taken its place (as something has to take its place) is the sea and the land rising out of the sea toward the Taupo Plateau that resides my side of the curve
- The Earth Curve Calculators are sufficiently inaccurate at 200 km distance.
I can’t think of any other reason at this stage to explain it. But let me be clear, I am happy with refraction, and zoom lense effects to not even be suspicious that the Earth could be flat. Besides, I have personal experience with the Globe Earth living here in NZ. I have travelled and lived in Australia particularly Perth. While the culture and language, and even accent is similar, the distance is huge, but not anywhere near what the FE model requires. My countrymen and even a dad of a friend of mine has been to the South Pole because NZ has a close connection to Antarctica. Also, boats are a really big thing here in NZ because of the abundance of islands, lakes, and rivers. Auckland for example has a boat ownership equating to car ownership. We love yachts, (except me). And they are not simple. They have onboard computers and maps. The truth is, if the Earth was flat, we of all people on Earth would have figured it out by now. I am being bloody honest mate. That is how it is. While I have not sailed the Southern Ocean, I have met some of the people who have including the guy in the video below. I even gave him a lift in my car one day.
Finally, there is no way the space industry, satelites, Antarctica, is all a conspiracy and the Bible doesn’t even teach a Flat Earth. Sure it uses language that we are familiar with, bit that is it. We essentially have a FE experience because we do not travel far enough to see things from God’s perspective or even from space. But we know that knowledge shall increase, so we do live in the age of increased knowledge and even prophets in ancient times probably wondered about their visions, but we are living in a time to perhaps understand some of the things they have seen.
The sidereal month is the time it takes to make one complete orbit around Earth with respect to the fixed stars. It is about 27.32 days. So it spins around the Earth much slower in relation to the rotation of the Earth. When I imagine the sun in this video, the shadow would go the other way.
T8: Hey Mike, this stuff is way harder than I thought. It seems hard to find info on these questions, I guess because people do not really look into things like this. I’ve read a whole lotta stuff and one comment I saw said the moon travels the other way. Only saw it once and when I google it, nothing comes up. Who knows at this stage. I will keep looking.
That’s a decent comment, T8. The only thing that would have made it better is if you began with, “I definitely see your point, Mike. It is most assuredly counter-intuitive to think something that moves across the sky east to west could cast a west to east shadow across the earth. And the explanation that it’s because the moon travels TWICE as fast as the earth makes no sense when you consider that the moon is also going 60 TIMES the distance. So you are right that going 60 TIMES as far at only TWICE the speed really means the moon is going 30 times SLOWER than the earth rotates. Which would make sense since we’re told the earth rotates 30 times for every one moon orbit.”
Since the beginning of this thread, you’ve ridiculed and rolled your eyes – as if people like me must be the stupidest people in the spherical world. It’d be great if you could start acknowledging the completely rational REASONS that we don’t buy the ball earth story. We see too far… the moon shadow goes the wrong way… it’s absurd to think selenelions are because a projected moon and sun are above the horizon while the real ones have sunk below the curve… there is no logical reason to think a highly pressurized atmosphere could exist directly adjacent to the most powerful vacuum known to man with no hard barrier between them…
See, there are tons of very good reasons to question the ball story, and tons of observational evidence that demonstrate the earth as a stationary plane. So please continue to show the respect that you did in this post. I might not be right about everything, but I’m not an idiot. I believed exactly as you do only one short year ago. The difference between us is that when I began my investigation, it didn’t involve just typing “flat earth debunked” into YouTube and sharing videos I hadn’t even watched. I actually considered the claims, investigated them and their mainstream rebuttals, and decided for myself which had a stronger case: the flat earth claim, or the mainstream rebuttal to it.
T8: As for Ruapehu, My honest opinion on that is a portion of the mountain in the shot is behind the curve… I can’t think of any other reason at this stage to explain it. But let me be clear, I am happy with refraction…
Another brilliant response! We both agree that refraction/distortion is a real thing. But this is what I was just talking about in the last post… When I first saw the Chicago skyline photo and saw the Michigan newscaster saying it was a mirage, I had a decision to make. First of all, nobody was denying that we were seeing Chicago. And nobody was denying that we couldn’t possibly see it from that distance on the ball earth. So the only debate was whether the observational evidence (seeing the actual Chicago on a flat earth) made more sense than the mainstream rebuttal (it’s a perfect image of Chicago projected up over the ball and set perfectly on the horizon so it just appears exactly as it would if we were seeing the real thing on a flat earth).
I found the mainstream rebuttal to be, not only unsubstantiated speculation that cannot possibly be scientifically verified, but also absurd in the highest possible degree from a philosophical point of view. It seemed to be a very weak rescue device designed for no other reason than we were clearly seeing Chicago from an impossible distance.
And that’s where we differ on Chicago and on Ruapehu. I find the idea that humidity and such could project a mountain or city up over a curve and place it perfectly on the horizon and in perfect shape utterly asinine. And in my opinion, the ONLY reason you even consider such a thing as plausible is because you are heavily invested in a spinning ball earth with lots of worlds that God created. If a similarly weak rescue device was given for something you weren’t so invested in, you’d recognize it as the rescue device it was immediately.
Anyway, thanks for your direct and succinct answer to the Ruapehu issue. We can put that one to bed for now. 😀
I found the mainstream rebuttal to be, not only unsubstantiated speculation that cannot possibly be scientifically verified, but also absurd in the highest possible degree from a philosophical point of view. It seemed to be a very weak rescue device designed for no other reason than we were clearly seeing Chicago from an impossible distance.
So it was absurd and the solution was to not only double down on absurd, but to double down the double down x 1 million, that is throw out all the evidence we have for the globe earth because we sometimes see things that do not ordinarily happen.
Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.
The universe is a big place Mike. Strange things happen. It actually would be very strange if strange things never happened. While you have an almost zero chance of winning the lottery, regardless, someone always ends up winning it.
And that’s where we differ on Chicago and on Ruapehu. I find the idea that humidity and such could project a mountain or city up over a curve and place it perfectly on the horizon and in perfect shape utterly asinine.
Try reflecting an image of a number of mirrors, glasses, or lenses and you will see that it is not just a possible thing, but is an unsurprising thing. Light carries data to our eyes and brain and light travels in straight lines, but can be manipulated by things like moisture. As I’ve mentioned before, driving up the coastal highway below Paekakriki Hill has given me a view of skyscrapers on a peninsula that only has low-rise and coastal cliffs on an island where there is gentle slopes merging down to a beach. Moisture / water, what else could it be? Just because these things are rare does not make them impossible.
And many things like this that supposedly puts the globe earth to bed, is actually worse for the Flat Earth. Eclipses being one of them.
Debunking a few points made earlier in this topic
I just watched this and thought I would pot it here as it debunks points you made earlier in this topic.Ignoring the silly skits he uses as interjections, some pf the points might help dispel some of the things you believe. It covers eclipses and objects seen that sit on elevated platforms and viewed from elevated positions.
T8: So it was absurd and the solution was to not only double down on absurd, but to double down the double down x 1 million, that is throw out all the evidence we have for the globe earth because we sometimes see things that do not ordinarily happen.
The solution for me was to investigate further, to see if there were any other similarly absurd explanations we’d been given for observations that don’t align with the theory. I found dozens of them.
So here you are at the jumping off point that I was at a year ago. I could have done what you are doing, and just accept whatever story and rescue device they give – assuming that flawless men who are much smarter than me have this stuff all figured out. But I had the advantage of just having gone through years of intensive research about the evolution/creation debate – so I already knew that these “flawless scientists who are only interested in truth” were anything but that. I already knew how they lied and skewed the data to force the results they wanted. So instead of blind acceptance, I said to myself, “My God, what if they’ve been lying about all this ball earth stuff along with the billions of years and the common descent evolution?” And that’s how it all began for me.
So right now you have to make a decision for yourself. You clearly recognize the absurdity of thinking an entire city can be perfectly projected up over a curve and set on the horizon in such a way as to make it appear exactly as it would if the earth was flat and we were seeing the actual city. You realize that you must accept this rescue device, not only for the Chicago skyline, but for Ruapehu, Superstition Mountain, Mount Canigou from 175 miles, the world record-holding Pic de Finestrelles from a whopping 443 km (275 miles), and a slew of other cities, mountains, boats, and lighthouses that are clearly visible at distances that they wouldn’t be if we lived on a ball. And you’ve got to ask yourself (because nobody else can do it for you) if you’re willing to accept that ALL OF THESE are the result of light waves projecting PERFECT images of these objects thousands of feet and even miles up over a curve and placing them perfectly on the horizon.
If you are okay with that explanation, then carry on with your blind faith in the absurd rescue devices of godless men who want nothing more than to convince you that there is no God. If, on the other hand, you find it a little odd that ALL OF THESE objects would refract the same exact way in all different parts of the world and in all different atmospheric conditions, then you’ll be like I was and start taking a deeper look into these things.
Anyway, speaking of objects magically refracting themselves up over a curve, here’s the next thing I’m hoping you will take a closer look at…
You can read the explanation for selenelion eclipses in this globe earth meme for yourself. But I have two questions for you:
- In the globe earth model, the sun and moon in this meme are not supposed to be just a hair below the horizon. They are both supposed to be perfectly aligned with the horizontal diameter of the earth, ie: half way down around the globe. So while this meme makes it seem like the sun and moon are only being projected up over the curve a tiny amount, does it still make sense to you knowing that they should really be being projected 3000 miles up around an entire half of the ball earth?
- If the man at the top of the world in the meme is observing a refracted “apparent” sun and moon because the real moon had set and the real sun hasn’t yet risen, wouldn’t he have previously observed the REAL moon set – and won’t he observe the REAL sun rise fairly soon?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
