One obvious reason the sun and moon don't smash into each other is because they are on different tracks, relatively close and not hundreds of thousands or millions of miles away.  In fact, they only need to be a mile away in order to pass each other.  

.
Really? Different tracks? Seriously?
.
Prove they're on different tracks. Where are the tracks? What evidence do you have for the "tracks" of the sun and moon?
.
If they're "relatively close" you should be able to quote a precise distance. How Close Are They??
.
You keep digging your hole deeper. 
.
In fact, you have nothing to back up your silly statement that "they only need to be a mile away in order to pass each other." 
.
A mile away? A mile away? In fact?  I think I'm falling off my chair!! AAAAAAA!!    

Uriel ---------- what is the real story behind Uriel?

• The angel known as Uriel is not found in the canonical writings.
• Only three angels are named in Scripture: Gabriel, Michael, and Raphael.

• He was also one of the four who asked for divine intervention on behalf of the fallen watchers who took human wives and created the Nephilim, the half-angel, half-human offspring mentioned in Genesis 6:1-4.
• Uriel is one of the archangels of post-exilic Rabbinic tradition.
• All that we know about Uriel comes from legends, tales, and angel lore. 
• In one apocryphal book, The Life of Adam and Eve, he is one of the cherubs in the Garden of Eden.
• He is also thought to be one of the angels that will rule at the end of time.
• In 745, the reigning Pope, St. Zachary, tried to clarify the church’s position on angel worship. He condemned any obsession with angels but affirmed the practice. They removed Uriel and many other angels from the list of those that could be venerated. Basically, the only ones left were Michael, Gabriel, and Raphael.
• In the 11th century, however, Uriel was venerated by Bulgarian followers who were dualists.   [Note: dualists are heretics]
• He rules over Tartarus (hell) where the watchers await judgment.             [Rules over hell]
• In the Gospel of Barnabas found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, Uriel is one of the four leaders of the War of the Sons of Light and the Sons of Darkness. 

.
The Church does not recognize any angels by name but for the three, Gabriel, Michael and Raphael. There is a serious danger in recognizing other angels or in the forbidden practice of giving an angel some name, because it is far too easy to invoke a devil by mistake. When you invoke devils you get all kinds of problems, as for example the problem of refusing to recognize the reality before your eyes which is the problem shared by all flat-earthers. Maybe their problem is traceable back to Uriel? 
.

Uriel ---------- what is the real story behind Uriel?

• The angel known as Uriel is not found in the canonical writings.
• Only three angels are named in Scripture: Gabriel, Michael, and Raphael.

• He was also one of the four who asked for divine intervention on behalf of the fallen watchers who took human wives and created the Nephilim, the half-angel, half-human offspring mentioned in Genesis 6:1-4.
• Uriel is one of the archangels of post-exilic Rabbinic tradition.
• All that we know about Uriel comes from legends, tales, and angel lore.
• In one apocryphal book, The Life of Adam and Eve, he is one of the cherubs in the Garden of Eden.
• He is also thought to be one of the angels that will rule at the end of time.
• In 745, the reigning Pope, St. Zachary, tried to clarify the church’s position on angel worship. He condemned any obsession with angels but affirmed the practice. They removed Uriel and many other angels from the list of those that could be venerated. Basically, the only ones left were Michael, Gabriel, and Raphael.
• In the 11th century, however, Uriel was venerated by Bulgarian followers who were dualists.   [Note: dualists are heretics]
• He rules over Tartarus (hell) where the watchers await judgment.             [Rules over hell]
• In the Gospel of Barnabas found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, Uriel is one of the four leaders of the War of the Sons of Light and the Sons of Darkness.

.
The Church does not recognize any angels by name but for the three, Gabriel, Michael and Raphael. There is a serious danger in recognizing other angels or in the forbidden practice of giving an angel some name, because it is far too easy to invoke a devil by mistake. When you invoke devils you get all kinds of problems, as for example the problem of refusing to recognize the reality before your eyes which is the problem shared by all flat-earthers. Maybe their problem is traceable back to Uriel?
.

SMH

Globalist sheeple 

In case you missed it, this was previously posted.

.
I went back to read this thread with the intention of saying that at least flat-earthers are honest enough to admit that they have no explanation for what causes eclipses to happen. 
.
But now I see that was something they USED to say BEFORE the great American eclipse of August 21st, 2017.
.
Apparently they all got tired of being shown up for their ignorance and pretentiousness in regards to eclipses so they circled the wagons around a contrived, silly notion that eclipses can only be explained by a flat-earth model. But NEVER MIND that they can't provide any example of how their model explains even one eclipse.
.
This pathetic record is yet more evidence for the ridiculous character of flat-earthism.

.
Where are the flat-earthers' predictions of eclipses to come in the future?
.
Too difficult with the flat-earth model, eh?
.

That's because their model is speculative ... since they don't have the funds, equipment, etc. to study the actual model.  That's not an argument against flat earth.

Modern Planetariums use Ptolemaic / geocentric math to plot the movement of the stars (and eclipses).  Are you a geocentrist?

Ok a couple of things here.  

...over this is silly because the 2018 eclipse deflates ball earth theory.  The (flat) ball is in your court, Neil.

Um..the guy in the this video was trying to prove that the moon is flat.  And considering it was supposed to shut the door forever on the spherical moon argument...it was a pretty bad video.

1) The confirmation factor...He was saying that the shadow would bevel and skew, wrapping the moons surface.  A pencil and bowl inches apart do not represent the visual acuity in the distance from the earth to the moon. Yet at the 9:10 mark you can see in his example that the light vs shadow bends across the surface.
2) The diffusion faction...He was talking about the sharpness of shadow based on distance.  This is oversimplification.  It doesn't factor in the intensity of the light.  For example get a cheap regular bulb flashlight and point at an object 20ft away.  Now get a high intensity LED flashlight from the same distance.  You will see a difference in the shadow's 'diffusion.  Using his explanation as a premise for 'diffusion factor' is a bad way to prove something.  Its like ignoring the numbers after the decimals, you won't get an accurate answer.  At the 10:32 mark, he said there is no stretching, no conformation, no warping....yet the shadow extends out....note the yellow into orange into darkness....and the fuzzy area between the orange and the dark...looks like what he was describing as diffusion.
3) Sine factor...I have never heard about a sine factor before.  Maybe I am not educated enough, but other than trig and calc, I've never used it again.  Is this a real thing? I could not find anything on this in a google search.
4) Reflected light factor. So he held an object less than an inch away to show proof that the earth should reflect light back to the moon....thus eliminating new moons.  Another thing...the sun's light is not yellow as he describes.  And moon light isn't blue? Atmosphere plays a part in it.  He says you should see this, or the moon should do that, but again with no data to back him up other than opinion.  No one too my knowledge has ever seen the new moon.  So we should be able to see it because he thinks we should

How does a puppet show, in his words, "100% discounts and debunks any further arguments or perspectives that hold to our moon being a sphere."  That by itself is a illogical statement.

So now the earth AND the moon are flat.  What is next flat Mars and flat sun theory?