The Flat Earth/Globe Earth Discussion Thread

[amy G]

Hi all, I'd like to share a story. I'm not here to argue with anyone. The petty arguing that has captured this thread is a shame, and it is not necessary. I don't see this on threads on other topics here... hmmm. Hopefully, we are all here in search of truth and that's really all I need to say about that.

 

This is the story of my "flat earth" awakening. Long story short, I met a man a few months back and mostly because of my background, we became close quickly. I majored in mathematics, it became my life and I have worked for over two decades in the aerospace industry. He is a "flat earther." I guess you can see where this is going. It started as simply as if i believed men have actually walked on the moon and when we were leaving he had suggested to me that I look at the thread on the old forum. I came on about a week before it went down, I read it all.

 

What fascinated me most was the fact that there was legitimate discussion. I had never thought of a flat, stationary earth as anything more than a punchline... like most of us I would assume. I understand how people mock the idea, but after careful consideration, still ongoing, I have come to the conclusion that heliocentrism is in no way a settled matter, that proof of either axial or orbital speeds has never been presented, and that we have in fact seen multiple horizons that simply cannot exist on a ball with a radius of 3,963 miles.

 

To me the rest of it becomes obfuscation and distraction.

 

Thanks for reading.

[peter]

5 hours ago, amy G said:

and that we have in fact seen multiple horizons that simply cannot exist on a ball with a radius of 3,963 miles.

Could you explain multiple horizons  ,meaning do you see more than one horizon,  from the same position if so how, or you changed position and therefore the horizon changed and why can't we exist on a sphere

 You say you are a math wiz and have worked in the aerospace industry for two decades  and yet you call the earth a ball , rather unprofessional don't you think, funny  all the FE crowd use that exact same terminology,  you also have not offered any proof  mathematical or otherwise.

If I'm wrong I'm sorry but I have started to smell the distinct aroma of bullshit starting to waft up from the heap and I should know as I live near a dairy

Edited September 4, 2020 by peter

[zArk]

18 hours ago, Carlos said:

Once again avoiding 90% of the post.

not once again but i will ignore the entire post if its based upon junk drawings like that

 

the issue is the shadow hitting the earth, its duration and length

you say its well within calcs

i say your calcs show how the shadow is off the earth after 3 hrs

 

you pointed out the shadow would move equal to moon speed across the diameter of the earth but the speeds recorded are land speeds due to the ball shape???

 

so the diameter of the earth 12,500km coupled with the linear speed of the moon results in a headache

 

additionally the moons arc distance  is almost equal to its straight line distance for 5 hours

 

the shadow is outside the earth based upon this

 

 

Edited September 4, 2020 by zArk

[Carlos]

21 minutes ago, zArk said:

not once again but i will ignore the entire post if its based upon junk drawings like that

 

 

The drawings are simplified to help people who are having trouble understanding simple stuff.

 

21 minutes ago, zArk said:

the issue is the shadow hitting the earth, its duration and length you say its well within calcs

 

 

I also gave you 3 animations that demonstrated this. The last one, the MP4 had the times of the shadow arfrival and departure. Of course you completely ignored that, no "junk drawings" there dude, just you afraid of things that show your silly claim to be wrong.

 

21 minutes ago, zArk said:

i say your calcs show how the shadow is off the earth after 3 hrs

 

you pointed out the shadow would move equal to moon speed across the diameter of the earth but the speeds recorded are land speeds due to the ball shape???

 

so the diameter of the earth 12,500km coupled with the linear speed of the moon results in a headache

 

 

You say that do you? I don't recall calculating it. All I did was show why the speed varies according to how sharp the curve is and how shallow the latitude.

 

This is where YOU back up that statement with something other than relying on useless videos and hot air. Your "calculations" in your own time.

 

21 minutes ago, zArk said:

you pointed out the shadow would move equal to moon speed across the diameter of the earth but the speeds recorded are land speeds due to the ball shape???

 

After 3 pages of this evasion, has the penny finally sunk? Local speeds are varied for reasons explained. The Moon tracks across the Earth at a constant speed.

 

21 minutes ago, zArk said:

so the diameter of the earth 12,500km coupled with the linear speed of the moon results in a headache

 

No it doesn't dude. It results in exactly what is claimed.

 

The Earth diameter at the equator is 12,756 at the equator and 17,712 at the poles. It's tracking diagonally across so lets split that and say 12,734 kilometres.

The Moon is going at close on 3,800 kph at perigee, but it is at a 5 degree angle to the ecliptic, so slightly less than that relative to Earth, but we'll use that figure.

 

That's 3.35 hours. Duration of 2017 eclipse 3.24 hours.

 

YOUR TURN, show why it's a problem. 

 

21 minutes ago, zArk said:

additionally the moons arc distance  is almost equal to its straight line distance for 5 hours

 

There is no "additionally" - the arc distance is 0.51 degrees 3,474 km. It's straight line distance is 3,800 and already calculated.

 

21 minutes ago, zArk said:

the shadow is outside the earth based upon this

 

Gibberish. No it isn't. And once again like a truly dishonest person you quote this 5hrs bullshit. The shadow was on Earth 3hrs 14mins.

 

But let's break this down and dispense with my previous estimates of 4hrs and 1hr either side, based purely on angular size.

 

The Penumbra is 6400km wide. So in theory under ideal circumstances a partial eclipse can be seen well over an hour before the shadow arrives if the narrowest edge is on the path travelled.

 

 

[zArk]

2 minutes ago, Carlos said:

 

The drawings are simplified to help people who are having trouble understanding simple stuff.

 

the drawings are inaccurate to the spherist model

2 minutes ago, Carlos said:

I also gave you 3 animations that demonstrated this. The last one, the MP4 had the times of the shadow arfrival and departure. Of course you completely ignored that, no "junk drawings" there dude, just you afraid of things that show your silly claim to be wrong

 

the spherist calculations do not add up,

3 minutes ago, Carlos said:

All I did was show why the speed varies according to how sharp the curve is and how shallow the latitude.

 

sharp and shallow curve?? we're talkign about a shadow from an object 240,000 miles from a light source 93,000,000 miles and you think a couple of tiny lumps on the north american land cause the shadow to decrease in speed by 1000km/hr?

WOW!

6 minutes ago, Carlos said:

The Earth diameter at the equator is 12,756 at the equator and 17,712 at the poles. It's tracking diagonally across so lets split that and say 12,734 kilometres.

The Moon is going at close on 3,800 kph at perigee, but it is at a 5 degree angle to the ecliptic, so slightly less than that relative to Earth, but we'll use that figure.

That's 3.35 hours. Duration of 2017 eclipse 3.24 hours.

 

 the moon is travelling at 3800 km/hr at all times therefore the shadow is travelling at 3800

 

the shadow starts at 15:55 and ends 20:55 thats 5 hrs

10 minutes ago, Carlos said:

There is no "additionally" - the arc distance is 0.51 degrees 3,474 km. It's straight line distance is 3,800 and already calculated.

exactly

10 minutes ago, Carlos said:

Gibberish. No it isn't. And once again like a truly dishonest person you quote this 5hrs bullshit. The shadow was on Earth 3hrs 14mins.

 

no, the official data shows the eclipse begins at 15:55 ends 20:55, 5 hrs

 

 

 

 

[Carlos]

1 minute ago, zArk said:

the drawings are inaccurate to the spherist model

 

 

No they are not. Each one cannot be drawn to scale and merely demonstrates the IDEA being presented. The principle demonstrated in each case works if you were able to draw to scale. For example to all intents and purposes, in the eclipse duration the Moon has gone in a straight line, it has gone so little around a curve it is hardly worth noting. The rotation of the Earth is irrelevant to how the shadow presents. The proximity of the Moon to Earth is irrelevant when showing how the land speed varies etc.

 

1 minute ago, zArk said:

the spherist calculations do not add up,

 

 

You keep repeating this lie. I showed them to add up exactly. I did some maths to show the shadow tracking within the 2017 eclipse time. I showed the size of the penumbra and it is easily viewable beyond one hour either side of the shadow being cast.

 

1 minute ago, zArk said:

sharp and shallow curve?? we're talkign about a shadow from an object 240,000 miles from a light source 93,000,000 miles and you think a couple of tiny lumps on the north american land cause the shadow to decrease in speed by 1000km/hr?

WOW!

 

You are either rather unintelligent, can't read properly or are playing the goat.

 

The shallow curve is this:

 

 

 

Maybe you didn't understand the simple diagram. The Moon goes from A to B at the same but where the curve is not shallow it covers MORE Earth distance, therefore less relative speed on the Earth. Please don't make yourself even more foolish by disputing that.

 

The variance in rotational speed by latitude is indisputable, basic physics.

 

1 minute ago, zArk said:

 the moon is travelling at 3800 km/hr at all times therefore the shadow is travelling at 3800

 

That is correct. Though on Earth with variable rotation, variable Earth curve it appears to change accordingly. Exactly as you would expect.

 

But I did the calculation of the time the Moon would track across the full face of the Earth and the 2017 eclipse falls within that figure.

 

 

1 minute ago, zArk said:

the shadow starts at 15:55 and ends 20:55 thats 5 hrs

exactly

 

NO IT DOES NOT! Your whole case relies on data from a third party graphic. That data shows quite clearly that the shadow starts at 16.48 and ends at 20.02.

 

For some odd reason the graphic designer has chosen to add penumbra data to each point on the shadow path, possibly because it involves a massive amount of extra work to do this for every point on his map.

 

 

So once again, the parts you are afraid to address - read the bits in red FFS!

 

https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/35635/during-an-eclipse-how-big-is-the-shadow-of-the-moon-on-the-earth#:~:text=Typically%2C the umbra is 100–160 km wide%2C while,km. Source%3A Geometry of a Total Solar Eclipse

Typically, the umbra is 100–160 km wide, while the penumbral diameter is in excess of 6400km.  Source: Geometry of a Total Solar Eclipse

 

https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/partial-solar-eclipse.html#:~:text=During a partial solar eclipse%2C the Moon's umbra,a place close to one of the poles.

"During a partial solar eclipse, the Moon's umbra or antumbra, the shadow's center portion, is cast into space just above the polar regions, missing

poles."

 

 

  

That is a screenshot from YOUR video, does it or does it not point to the start and end of the shadow on Earth?

 

QUESTION 2:

 

Every single diagram shows that thin line to be the shadow path of FULL eclipse - is that a correct statement? If not fully explain why not.

 

QUESTION 3:

 

The source of your video comes from Xjubier - here is another of their videos. 

 

http://xjubier.free.fr/site_movies/TSE_2017_Simulation_1024x768.mp4

 

Since I cannot embed the damn thing, the question is this -

 

 

Does the screen shot show the shadow appearing on Earth at 15:55 or 16:48?

 

 QUESTION 4:

 

 

Does this screen shot show the shadow disappearing off of the edge of the Earth at 20:02?

 

You can't answer any of those questions and we both know why, you lost this debate pages ago and are simply too afraid to admit it.

 

 

 

 

[alexa]

There is another theory why people would lie about the earth being round. Because it's a way to hide other land.

 

 

[alexa]

20 hours ago, amy G said:

I understand how people mock the idea, but after careful consideration, still ongoing, I have come to the conclusion that heliocentrism is in no way a settled matter,

 

We all come to this conclusion one way or another  The masses have been indoctrinated since an early age it's impossible to bring them to the truth of a none heliocentric earth. And God wants us to so know the truth and not to be deceived...........

[alexa]

 

[Carlos]

@alexa How about you stop cluster bombing this thread with total crap and start explaining all the things you keep avoiding?

@amy G So, you are a mathematician are you?

 

1. Why does the Sun appear to be the same size all over the planet regardless of its distance to the observer?

2. How can it possibly set or rise? It is above the eyeline of any observer, it is impossible to duck down below it.

3. How can it disappear full size in the first place? Same with the Moon.

4. The Sun moves at 15 degrees per hour in every single orientation on the entire planet - explain this.

5. Even when the Sun is supposed to be doing a different "orbit" on the flat Earth it maintains the same speed and size. How?

 

https://penguinsfalloff.blogspot.com/2017/06/as-internet-debates-go-one-concerning.html

 

Regarding proof - that requires the entire space industry of multiple agencies to be faked involving an astonishing number. Every single photograph in and of space to be faked. Every single orbiting satellite when you can see the damn things, including the ISS - also fake? That's just for openers.

 

Chicago, where did it go?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 5, 2020 by Carlos

[alexa]

1 hour ago, Carlos said:

@alexa How about you stop cluster bombing this thread with total crap and start explaining all the things you keep avoiding?

@amy G So, you are a mathematician are you?

 

1. Why does the Sun appear to be the same size all over the planet regardless of its distance to the observer?

2. How can it possibly set or rise? It is above the eyeline of any observer, it is impossible to duck down below it.

3. How can it disappear full size in the first place? Same with the Moon.

4. The Sun moves at 15 degrees per hour in every single orientation on the entire planet - explain this.

5. Even when the Sun is supposed to be doing a different "orbit" on the flat Earth it maintains the same speed and size. How?

 

https://penguinsfalloff.blogspot.com/2017/06/as-internet-debates-go-one-concerning.html

 

Regarding proof - that requires the entire space industry of multiple agencies to be faked involving an astonishing number. Every single photograph in and of space to be faked. Every single orbiting satellite when you can see the damn things, including the ISS - also fake? That's just for openers.

 

Chicago, where did it go?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why don't you tell us, you seem to be the one who thinks he knows it all ? Lets see how ridiculous you sound trying to explain all this on a ball.

 

Thanking you most kindly Sir C

[Carlos]

Just now, alexa said:

 

Why don't you tell us, you seem to be the one who thinks he knows it all ? Lets see how ridiculous you sound trying to explain all this on a ball.

 

Thanking you most kindly Sir C

 

You know my explanation and it fits everything we see exactly as expected. You are the one proposing the lunatic claim, the post needs answering, why are you so afraid?

 

Example. Sun directly overhead how far away is it? ANSWER PLEASE.

 

And don't give me that ridiculous shite about "portals". I can track the Sun across the entire sky, it gets further away on a flat earth, so why no size change and how the hell can it always go the same speed?

[zArk]

@Carlos  the umbra is interesting stuff during an eclipse however back the data

You spherists still run out of runway

The start to finish of the shadow on the earth is 143.7 degrees

So the start point is 0 degrees at 0mins in the mid pacific

The end point is 143.7 degrees at 0 mins mid atlantic

 

The end of eclipse 5 hrs later the mid atlantic point has spin eastwards 75 degrees. 15 degrees per hour

 

The recorded end point mid atlantic says the earth is not spinning

 

So before you go rushing ahead with linear speed, diameter of earth and then use the umbra diagram keep your eyes on the prize

 

The figures do not add up and bolster the flat earth explanation

 

N.b i will attend to your last post but i felt it important to keep us grounded on what this discussion is about

 

The shadow length across the earth and the recorded speeds aligned with sphere theory

 

[alexa]

2 minutes ago, Carlos said:

Example. Sun directly overhead how far away is it? ANSWER PLEASE.

 

Quote

In 2014, the Civilian Space Exploration Team launched their second GoFast rocket from a site in the Black Rock desert in Nevada, reaching a height of 117 km. Once it reached its maximum altitude, its insane spin, recorded on GoPro cameras, abruptly ceased, which has led flat earthers to assume that it must have hit the firmament. Or as they call it, the dome.

 

 Well if this is the case, being as the sun and the moon are in the Dome, I'd put the sun at about 3,000 miles away.

[Carlos]

7 minutes ago, alexa said:

 

 Well if this is the case, being as the sun and the moon are in the Dome, I'd put the sun at about 3,000 miles away.

 

Do you understand mathematics? Namely trigonometry?

 

ONLY at the equator can the Sun be 3000 miles away because it is vertical above the observer. The red line below is matey at the Equator seeing the Sun 3000 miles up above him.

 

Now the bloke at 30 degrees has just watched the Earth go across the sky and he sees the Sun at a distance of 5200 miles. But it hasn't changed speed or size and has been in view the entire time for both of them!

 

Now change the observer to someone by the sea watching a beautiful sunset. He's watched the Sun go across the sky the whole day always in view, same speed, same size, he lives on the equator. The sun is now just 5 degrees above the horizon, still the same bloody size(!?) but see if you can work out how far away it is from him.

 

http://www.cleavebooks.co.uk/scol/calrtri.htm

 

Side a = 3000 because the observer still on the equator is seeing the sun 3000 miles above him. Meanwhile the observer also on the equator at an angle A of 5 degrees sees the Sun, wait for it,  34,400 miles away!!!

 

It takes a profound ignorance not to understand the terminal problems here.

[Carlos]

1 hour ago, zArk said:

@Carlos  the umbra is interesting stuff during an eclipse however back the data You spherists still run out of runway

The start to finish of the shadow on the earth is 143.7 degrees So the start point is 0 degrees at 0mins in the mid pacific

The end point is 143.7 degrees at 0 mins mid atlantic The end of eclipse 5 hrs later the mid atlantic point has spin eastwards 75 degrees. 15 degrees per hour

 

The recorded end point mid atlantic says the earth is not spinning So before you go rushing ahead with linear speed, diameter of earth and then use the umbra diagram keep your eyes on the prize The figures do not add up and bolster the flat earth explanation

 

Wrong yet again. The shadow passed across the Earth surface in 3hrs 14 minutes. Please stop quoting the 5 hours, that is really dumb after it has been exhaustingly explained to you.

 

The Earth rotates around 48.5 degrees in that time.

 

Now I've read your post several times and I still don't understand what you are saying. It almost looks like you are expecting the Earth to have rotated 143.7 degrees. Please tell me you do not think this.

 

Edited September 5, 2020 by Carlos

[Lady Baynham]

Hi Carlos,a few pages back I posted something to the thread ,this thread of discovery,sharing and learning . It was from a channel where a woman told of the 5hr difference in sunrise between 2 islands in the seas between Alaska and Russia. You said it was because of the international timeline.I went back and looked at her video again,and noticed in the comments under the video that people were being as cross as you that people were just not getting it.

The quickest way to shut anyone down is to be rude ,angry and insulting.This thread will probably be closed soon,someone will loose it and abuse you back.If you are so sure of your argument why are you so angry? I really don,t understand why you are so bloming cross about everything.

It is starting to make me laugh now....Mr Angry tight pants Carlos you are funny.

More numbers and graphs please,but longer and much much much more complicated  please.

[amy G]

 

 

4 hours ago, Carlos said:

1. Why does the Sun appear to be the same size all over the planet regardless of its distance to the observer?

What planet?

 

2 hours ago, alexa said:

2. How can it possibly set or rise? It is above the eyeline of any observer, it is impossible to duck down below it.

Have you ever looked down a long hallway? See if you can picture in your mind what you might see if that hallway was one mile long.

 

4 hours ago, Carlos said:

3. How can it disappear full size in the first place? Same with the Moon.

I don't know what you are talking about here.

 

4 hours ago, Carlos said:

4. The Sun moves at 15 degrees per hour in every single orientation on the entire planet - explain this.

What?

 

4 hours ago, Carlos said:

5. Even when the Sun is supposed to be doing a different "orbit" on the flat Earth it maintains the same speed and size. How?

I am not aware of any proof that anything orbits anything. And if you can offer sufficient proof that it maintains the same speed and size, then I might be able to help you here.

 

3 hours ago, alexa said:

Regarding proof - that requires the entire space industry of multiple agencies to be faked involving an astonishing number.

There are not competing space agencies any more than democrats and republicans are competing political parties. The symbology tells their story and it's right in front of us.

 

3 hours ago, alexa said:

Every single photograph in and of space to be faked.

Please post one that is not so we can discuss it.

 

4 hours ago, Carlos said:

Every single orbiting satellite when you can see the damn things, including the ISS - also fake?

Show me proof that anything orbits anything and then we might actually get somewhere.

 

4 hours ago, Carlos said:

Chicago, where did it go?

It is still right there in the exact same place that it always is. This is important. You cannot see forever and no geometric horizon can be shown.

 

If we truly lived in your world, there would be a maximum distance that an observer could see because of where a physical barrier must lie. This is based on mathematics that has been accepted for a few thousand years and still used today all over earth. What is confusing for people looking into this are the cherry-picked images when downward refraction is most obvious, so while there is a maximum distance that can be viewed, the atmospheric conditions must be perfect for this to be achieved. All other times, less distance will be observed because of several factors that are these atmospheric conditions.

 

Thanks for reading.

 

[Carlos]

27 minutes ago, Lady Baynham said:

Hi Carlos,a few pages back I posted something to the thread ,this thread of discovery,sharing and learning . It was from a channel where a woman told of the 5hr difference in sunrise between 2 islands in the seas between Alaska and Russia. You said it was because of the international timeline.I went back and looked at her video again,and noticed in the comments under the video that people were being as cross as you that people were just not getting it.

The quickest way to shut anyone down is to be rude ,angry and insulting.This thread will probably be closed soon,someone will loose it and abuse you back.If you are so sure of your argument why are you so angry? I really don,t understand why you are so bloming cross about everything.

It is starting to make me laugh now....Mr Angry tight pants Carlos you are funny.

More numbers and graphs please,but longer and much much much more complicated  please.

 

I'm not angry at all. You ignored my reply and still haven't admitted it as being correct. The rather silly women who made the video forgot to check the local times.

[Carlos]

57 minutes ago, amy G said:

What planet?

 

The Earth, but hey for the purposes of the question I shall rephrase it - since you are playing silly buggers!

 

1. Why does the Sun appear to be the same size all over the "flat earth" regardless of its distance to the observer?

 

57 minutes ago, amy G said:

Have you ever looked down a long hallway? See if you can picture in your mind what you might see if that hallway was one mile long.

 

 

 

Yes, everything gets smaller towards the vanishing point. But you always have to look up to the sun - yellow line.

 

 

 

57 minutes ago, amy G said:

I don't know what you are talking about here.

 

Really? The Sun at zenith has an angular diameter of 0.5 degrees of arc. Wherever it is it stays the same size.

 

3. How can it set or rise full size in the first place? Same with the Moon.

 

Bearing in mind the "1 mile corridor" where, you know, things get smaller as they get farther away.

 

57 minutes ago, amy G said:

What?

 

Playing silly buggers again. Wherever you are on the "flat earth", the angular distance the sun covers per hour is 15 degrees. No matter what elevation, what time of year or time of day, no matter where you view it from. On a flat earth that is impossible. A novice mathematician would know this straightaway and would know why.

 

57 minutes ago, amy G said:

I am not aware of any proof that anything orbits anything. And if you can offer sufficient proof that it maintains the same speed and size, then I might be able to help you here.

 

Once again, playing silly buggers. The sun rises and sets without changing size.

 

You want me to prove that the Sun travels at 15 degrees per hour everywhere on Earth? Some mathematician you are. This one thing could prove beyond doubt that the globe model is incorrect. Find one place on Earth where the sun doesn't do that and it's cracked.

As for things orbiting, I wonder what kind of student of mathematics can be that ignorant of satellites or visible planets and their moons. Astronomers spend hours watching things like moon transits across Jupiter or Mars, or Mercury transiting the Sun through a filter. 

 

57 minutes ago, amy G said:

There are not competing space agencies any more than democrats and republicans are competing political parties. The symbology tells their story and it's right in front of us.

 

Ahhh ok, the standard conspiracy bullshit answer.

 

57 minutes ago, amy G said:

Please post one that is not so we can discuss it.

 

 

https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=apollo+pictures+of+Earth&form=HDRSC2&first=1&scenario=ImageBasicHover

 

Zoom in to individual pictures:

https://quickmap.lroc.asu.edu/?extent=50.3348544,-23.6121387,90,-15.4187484&proj=10&layers=NrBsFYBoAZIRnpEoAsjYIHYFcA2vIBvAXwF1SizSg

 

Oh and just in case you claim that was done with a telescope, the far side of the Moon:

https://quickmap.lroc.asu.edu/projections?extent=-90,-25.8276945,90,25.8276945&proj=7&layers=NrBsFYBoAZIRnpEoAsjYIHYFcA2vIBvAXwF1SizSg

 

57 minutes ago, amy G said:

Show me proof that anything orbits anything and then we might actually get somewhere.

 

 

I could show you numerous things that you could look up yourself, but I sense you will arm wave them all away.  

 

57 minutes ago, amy G said:

It is still right there in the exact same place that it always is. This is important. You cannot see forever and no geometric horizon can be shown.

 

Playing dumb. The bottom of all the buildings has disappeared. How is this possible on a flat earth?

 

Sure you cannot "see forever" but what trick of light cuts the bottoms off just as you would expect on a curved surface?

 

57 minutes ago, amy G said:

If we truly lived in your world, there would be a maximum distance that an observer could see because of where a physical barrier must lie. This is based on mathematics that has been accepted for a few thousand years and still used today all over earth.

 

The mathematics of visibility on Earth also rely on the physics of refraction.

 

57 minutes ago, amy G said:

What is confusing for people looking into this are the cherry-picked images when downward refraction is most obvious, so while there is a maximum distance that can be viewed, the atmospheric conditions must be perfect for this to be achieved. All other times, less distance will be observed because of several factors that are these atmospheric conditions.

 

It confuses you does it? Give me some examples where you are confused and maybe we "might actually get somewhere"! 

57 minutes ago, amy G said:

Thanks for reading.

 

Try replying honestly this time. I strongly suspect you have zero mathematics and are 100% a flat earther, here to play games and evade all the difficult questions.

Edited September 5, 2020 by Carlos
formatting

[amy G]

1 hour ago, Carlos said:

I'm not angry at all.

You seem angry.

 

 

31 minutes ago, Carlos said:

Playing silly buggers again.

 

32 minutes ago, Carlos said:

Once again, playing silly buggers.

 

32 minutes ago, Carlos said:

Ahhh ok, the standard conspiracy bullshit answer.

 

32 minutes ago, Carlos said:

you will arm wave them all away.  

 

33 minutes ago, Carlos said:

Playing dumb.

 

33 minutes ago, Carlos said:

Try replying honestly this time.

 

34 minutes ago, Carlos said:

here to play games and evade all the difficult questions.

Like showing any proof of orbital or axial speed?

[zArk]

3 hours ago, Carlos said:

Wrong yet again.

Well its not carlos

The official data is clear for the start and end

3 hours ago, Carlos said:

Please stop quoting the 5 hours, that is really dumb after it has been exhaustingly explained to you.

 

The Earth rotates around 48.5 degrees in that time.

Its written down as official eclipse data

Its not made up by a flat earther

Its the recorded and observed eclipse

 

 

[Carlos]

44 minutes ago, amy G said:

You seem angry.

 

Yet again another flat earther turns up and runs away from direct questions. Absolutely pathetic.

 

Why are you people so afraid to answer things?

47 minutes ago, amy G said:

Like showing any proof of orbital or axial speed?

 

The sun comes back to pretty much the same spot every 24 hours. That is 360 degrees. It is 24hrs on every single point on Earth. As a mathematician the inevitable conclusion should be bloody obvious. Since it didn't even occur to you that speaks volumes about your level of maths skills.

 

Now at this point, anyone who is not a committed flat earther would investigate how this flat-madness explains it. Instead, what say you play more diversion games and continue to avoid about half a dozen questions and a very long detailed response above.

[Carlos]

24 minutes ago, zArk said:

Well its not carlos

The official data is clear for the start and end

Its written down as official eclipse data

Its not made up by a flat earther

Its the recorded and observed eclipse

 

When can I expect you to answer the post posted yesterday at 8.49? Because it wraps up all the nonsense I keep having to revisit. 

 

Your mistake is the same blundering one you keep making. By the way, YOUR source for times is NOT correct, it is longer than 5hrs for the visible partial to start and end. It is actually 5hrs 18 minutes. But that's not where you are wrong, you keep insisting that the visibility of the partial contributes to the total shadow on Earth time. It does not.

 

Now don't go getting your knickers in a twist at wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_eclipse_of_August_21,_2017

 

(P1) Partial begin	15:46:48
(U1) Total begin	16:48:32
Greatest eclipse	18:26:40
(U4) Total end	20:01:35
(P4) Partial end	21:04:19

 

 

 

 

 

[amy G]

22 minutes ago, Carlos said:

Absolutely pathetic.

 

22 minutes ago, Carlos said:

you people so afraid

 

22 minutes ago, Carlos said:

As a mathematician the inevitable conclusion should be bloody obvious. Since it didn't even occur to you that speaks volumes about your level of maths skills.

You still seem angry to me.

 

22 minutes ago, Carlos said:

The sun comes back to pretty much the same spot every 24 hours. That is 360 degrees.

A mathematician (I prefer math nerd) knows that if the sun simply moves in a circle above, that that is 360 degrees.

 

Now, if you would like to show us proof of axial or orbital speeds, I would be interested in continuing this discussion.

 

Or, you could show us proof that earth is a planet, yes?

 

Or that a southern hemisphere exists? You could begin by showing us something as simple as the distance along the 45th parallel, both north and south are even close to the same length, fair?

 

There certainly are many difficult questions that would actually be worth discussing. These are just a few that I have looked into.