Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Fighting Errors in the Modern World => The Earth God Made - Flat Earth, Geocentrism => Topic started by: Matthew on April 12, 2024, 06:15:51 PM
-
I can't believe how they repeat a lie early and often, to try to convince us it's true.
"Lie big or go home!" is their philosophy. Most good people, who can't conceive of such satanic boldness, assume they CAN'T POSSIBLY be lying about something so fundamental -- that they would never lie that BIG. ...Would they?
They would.
Look at the picture on the bottom. That is REALITY. You can do it yourself, at home, in a minute or two. Just get a light source, a ball of some kind, and a globe. Read 'em and weep.
I understand they can't prove gravity at small scale, or "molecules to man" evolution, or random chance creating information/new features in a creature, or pressurized air without a container, the motion of the earth, the curvature of the earth, etc. Most of the Globe Earth model they can't prove at all. They basically say "trust us!".
But THIS is merely the behavior of light, spheres, bodies, basic physics. This SHOULD be demonstrable at small scale. This should take up little space or materials, it should be very cheap and easy to demonstrate. They should be able to SHOW US this with actual, physical models and lights. Not a CGI cartoon where they could have anything happen -- why not have a basic, physical model set up to demonstrate this alleged behavior?
Nowhere in human experience or reality do 2 bodies and a light source cast pin-point focused shadows like this. As a matter of fact, the exact OPPOSITE happens. The shadow would spread out with increased distance. So the further the "earth" was behind the moon, the LARGER the moon's shadow cast on the earth would be.
This is all made-up nonsense to salvage the Globe model. People are SO trusting of authorities! They distrust their own senses, and trust some liars who have been proven to lie again, and again, and again. It's sad.
-
These few are apropos.
Do you get it yet? This isn't about "trusting" Flat Earthers. This isn't something you can fake. Something anyone can observe, in reality, with common sense, CAN'T BE FAKED or a hoax.
A shadow can never be smaller than the object casting the shadow. Larger, yes. But when the obscuring object (e.g., the moon) is right up against the surface being "shadowed" -- as far from the light source as you're going to get -- it's always 1:1. Try it yourself.
All Flat Earthers are doing is playing the role of the little boy who said, "The Emperor hasn't on any clothes at all!" You can call him names -- but how about debunk what he's saying? It's clear that the Emperor is buck naked. The little boy is right.
-
That one about the angle of the sun's rays is absolutely conclusive for me. By the time the sun's light reaches the earth, it would be about 99.99% parallel (or something like that, as I've looked it up). Also, if the sun's rays were coming in at an angle, that would invalidate the highly-vaunted Eratosthenes experiment. But the globers like to maintain both contradictory theses at the same time, yet another example of their intellectual dishonesty.
If the sun's rays come in parallel, as heliocentric globe earth math requires, the shadow of the moon would be roughly the size of North America (as models demonstrate).
-
Also, eclipses absolutely should NOT move from West to East, but rather from East to West, on the heliocentric globe model. They should move from West to East on an FE model, however. Quo keeps bloviating about the lack of an FE "model" ... except that the evidence and observations fit better with an FE model while invalidating the globe model.
-
Lots wrong with these posts, but I think the quickest and easiest to point out is the picture of a model eclipse experiment with model moon, flashlight and model globe. So... the moon is only 2 lunar diameters distant from the earth? So much for intellectual honesty.
-
Ok, I'll entertain another regarding the "eclipse reality vs nonsense png."
That's equivalent to flat earthers calling the earth flat while it's covered in hills and mountains.
-
That's equivalent to flat earthers calling the earth flat while it's covered in hills and mountains.
:facepalm: You know what we mean by the earth being flat (i.e. oppose to a sphere, not that it's absolutely flat).
-
Lots wrong with these posts, but I think the quickest and easiest to point out is the picture of a model eclipse experiment with model moon, flashlight and model globe. So... the moon is only 2 lunar diameters distant from the earth? So much for intellectual honesty.
OK, that picture isn't the best, but I've seen models done to scale, and the result was that the entirety of North America (where it was pointed during the demonstration) was covered in darkness.
But the elephant in the room here is that scientific establishment realize there's a problem with the shadow being this narrow, and that's why they've released those pictures that depict the sun as being several times larger than the earth, and then draw the rays pointing inward. You talk about the FE memes being wrong, but this is utterly ridiculous. In point of fact, the two are the same size from the perspective of the earth (given the distances involved). So if the scale of the FE picture is wrong, how about the scale on that stupid picture (posted by NASA)? Also, it's well known (and the math proves it) that the sun's rays are effectively parallel by the time they reach earth (and also the moon) ... deviating from one end of earth to the other by a tiny fraction of a degree. So why do they post that stupid picture and come up with the absurd explanation that the sun's rays point inward from the edges of the sun? Please explain. On top of that, if the sun's rays come in at an angle, that would invalidate Eratosthenes experiment, which assumed as a premise that the sun was very large and very far away, so that the sun's rays were effectively parallel by the time they reached earth.
-
But you don't know what we mean? The sun's rays are practically parallel. Anyone capable of reasoning can determine that the sun's rays are both not perfectly parallel, and are quite divergent unlike laser beams, which again are not perfectly straight beams like most people think, but are somewhat divergent as well, just on such a small scale that it isn't noticed that the dot is getting much larger because perspective counters the apparent size increase with distance.
:facepalm: You know what we mean by the earth being flat (i.e. oppose to a sphere, not that it's absolutely flat).
-
This is on NASA's website ... and is a complete joke. No, the sun is not 5-10 times bigger (from the perspective of earth) than the moon so that it's rays come in at an angle. And you talk about the FE pictures being not to scale? This is to the point of being laughable.
(https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a010000/a012600/a012674/Eclipse_Graphic_1_print.jpg)
-
OK, that picture isn't the best, but I've seen models done to scale, and the result was that the entirety of North America (where it was pointed during the demonstration) was covered in darkness.
Yep, and just how much of the country was included in some part of the shadow? In other words, from where all could a partial eclipse of some extent be seen? I'm guessing most of the country without looking it up.
-
Point made by this picture, despite the scale, stands ...
(https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=73766.0;attach=22405;image)
-
This is on NASA's website ... and is a complete joke. No, the sun is not 5-10 times bigger (from the perspective of earth) than the moon so that it's rays come in at an angle. And you talk about the FE pictures being not to scale? This is to the point of being laughable.
(https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a010000/a012600/a012674/Eclipse_Graphic_1_print.jpg)
Put your glasses on, it says not drawn to scale.
-
Point made by this picture, despite the scale, stands ...
(https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=73766.0;attach=22405;image)
Refuted
-
Yep, and just how much of the country was included in some part of the shadow? In other words, from where all could a partial eclipse of some extent be seen? I'm guessing most of the country without looking it up.
No, the question is that without the bogus NASA picture showing rays coming at an angle, you can't explain the small path of TOTALITY.
-
Refuted
:jester: ... yeah, because you say so. You've refuted absolutely nothing, and your uttering the word doesn't count as a refutation, just like uttering the word "refraction" doesn't magically make all the problems with the globe model disappear, as much as you'd like them to. Globe model has been refuted by that picture, but your weak mind refuses to let go of worshipping the scientific establishment, which has done nothing but lie for centuries.
UNREFUTED: According to the prevalent model, by the time the sun's rays reach the earth, they're a fraction of a degree from parallel. That's the premise of the entire Eratosthenes experiment also. But NASA has to claim that they suddenly are coming in at angles (illustrating it with a laughable image) to explain the small size of totality.
Your posts on this thread demonstrate your intellectual dishonesty.
-
No, the question is that without the bogus NASA picture showing rays coming at an angle, you can't explain the small path of TOTALITY.
I don't follow. Are you saying it can't be concluded with reason by anyone without NASA drawing the lines on a picture to prompt such an idea?
-
:jester: ... yeah, because you say so. You've refuted absolutely nothing, and your uttering the word doesn't count as a refutation, just like uttering the word "refraction" doesn't magically make all the problems with the globe model disappear, as much as you'd like them to. Globe model has been refuted by that picture, but your weak mind refuses to let go of worshipping the scientific establishment, which has done nothing but lie for centuries.
UNREFUTED: According to the prevalent model, by the time the sun's rays reach the earth, they're a fraction of a degree from parallel. That's the premise of the entire Eratosthenes experiment also. But NASA has to claim that they suddenly are coming in at angles (illustrating it with a laughable image) to explain the small size of totality.
Your posts on this thread demonstrate your intellectual dishonesty.
A fraction of a degree from parallel is not an angle? A rocky projection extending up a fraction of the distance covered by the ground is still flat?
We can agree the image is laughable, but that's because it is drawn nowhere near to scale. It takes a good imagination (not in terms of a lying and deceitful imagination) to adapt the picture to a to-scale mental image to understand the concept and see how it really is possible.
-
OK, that picture isn't the best, but I've seen models done to scale, and the result was that the entirety of North America (where it was pointed during the demonstration) was covered in darkness.
I'm sure...
-
A fraction of a degree from parallel is not an angle? A rocky projection extending up a fraction of the distance covered by the ground is still flat?
No. They are parallel for all intents and purposes, and insufficient to account for the degree of bend necessary to reduce totality to about 100-150 miles wide.
The rays are emitted radially in all directions. So each ray is emitted at an angle. By the time they reach our earth, by virtue of the distance they have travelled, the angular difference between two rays becomes super microscopic. So for all practical purposes they are considered to be parallel.
-
I can't believe how they repeat a lie early and often, to try to convince us it's true.
"Lie big or go home!" is their philosophy. Most good people, who can't conceive of such satanic boldness, assume they CAN'T POSSIBLY be lying about something so fundamental -- that they would never lie that BIG. ...Would they?
They would.
Look at the picture on the bottom. That is REALITY. You can do it yourself, at home, in a minute or two. Just get a light source, a ball of some kind, and a globe. Read 'em and weep.
I understand they can't prove gravity at small scale, or "molecules to man" evolution, or random chance creating information/new features in a creature, or pressurized air without a container, the motion of the earth, the curvature of the earth, etc. Most of the Globe Earth model they can't prove at all. They basically say "trust us!".
But THIS is merely the behavior of light, spheres, bodies, basic physics. This SHOULD be demonstrable at small scale. This should take up little space or materials, it should be very cheap and easy to demonstrate. They should be able to SHOW US this with actual, physical models and lights. Not a CGI cartoon where they could have anything happen -- why not have a basic, physical model set up to demonstrate this alleged behavior?
Nowhere in human experience or reality do 2 bodies and a light source cast pin-point focused shadows like this. As a matter of fact, the exact OPPOSITE happens. The shadow would spread out with increased distance. So the further the "earth" was behind the moon, the LARGER the moon's shadow cast on the earth would be.
This is all made-up nonsense to salvage the Globe model. People are SO trusting of authorities! They distrust their own senses, and trust some liars who have been proven to lie again, and again, and again. It's sad.
Matthew,
This may help you understand what actually happens during an eclipse:
https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/shadows.html
Umbra, Penumbra, and Antumbra: Why Are There 3 Shadows?
By Konstantin Bikos (https://www.timeanddate.com/company/team-editorial#kb)
On their journey through space, the Earth and the Moon cast 3 different shadows causing different types of solar and lunar eclipses. Why are there 3 shadows?
(https://c.tadst.com/gfx/600x337/annular-solar-eclipse-all-shadows.png?1)
Eclipse Type Depends on Shadow Type
If the Moon's shadow falls on Earth, we get to see a solar eclipse (https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/list-solar.html); the Earth's shadow falling on the Moon results in a lunar eclipse (https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/list-lunar.html). However, there are different types of solar and lunar eclipses. A solar eclipse may be total (https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/total-solar-eclipse.html), partial (https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/partial-solar-eclipse.html), or annular (https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/annular-solar-eclipse.html); a lunar eclipse may be total (https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/total-lunar-eclipse.html), partial (https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/partial-lunar-eclipse.html), or penumbral (https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/penumbral-lunar-eclipse.html).
The type of eclipse we experience depends on the type of shadow that is involved. Both the Moon and Earth cast 3 shadows:
- an umbra (https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/umbra-shadow.html),
- a penumbra (https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/penumbra-shadow.html),
- and an antumbra (https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/antumbra-shadow.html).
The umbra is the shadow's dark center portion, while the penumbra and the antumbra are different types of half-shadows.
Shadow Experiments
To understand why the Earth and the Moon have 3 types of shadows, let's start on a smaller scale. The number and types of shadows created by an opaque object depend on its size in relation to the size of the light source. However, their absolute size is irrelevant, so a basketball illuminated by a large lamp produces the same shadows as the Moon illuminated by the Sun.
So imagine that you are in a windowless room with 1 light source and 1 round object that casts a shadow, say, a basketball. Both the light source and the basketball are at the same height as your head. You are standing on the side of the ball exactly opposite to the light source, facing it, so the order is: light source – basketball – you.
(https://c.tadst.com/gfx/600x337/shadow-experiments-umbra.png?1)
1st Experiment: Umbra Only
Rule: If the light emanates from a punctual light source, the object casts only 1 type of shadow: an umbra (https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/umbra-shadow.html).
Let's say the light source is a tiny flashlight pointing into your direction. If you look into the direction of the lamp from behind the basketball, it is entirely invisible as the ball blocks the view and the light rays don't reach you. The ball's shadow is uniform, it only has an umbra.
If you move to the side, the flashlight immediately becomes visible as soon as you leave the shadow.
2nd Experiment: Umbra and Penumbra
(https://c.tadst.com/gfx/600x337/shadow-experiments-penumbra.png?1)
A light source with a larger surface area creates 2 shadows.
Rule: If the light source is not punctual but has a larger surface area, a 2nd type of shadow appears around the object's umbra: the penumbra (https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/penumbra-shadow.html).
Now the light source is a round lamp that is a little smaller in diameter than the basketball. If you line up with the lamp and the ball, no light is visible because you are within the ball's umbra. However, as you move to either side, part of the light source becomes visible. That's the penumbra.
If you move further to the side until you can see all of the lamp's surface, you have left the penumbra.
3rd Experiment: Umbra, Penumbra, and Antumbra
(https://c.tadst.com/gfx/600x337/shadow-experiments-antumbra.png?1)
If the diameter of the light source exceeds that of the object, an antumbra appears.
Rule: If the diameter of the light source is larger than the diameter of the object, a 3rd type of shadow appears where the cone-shaped umbra ends: the antumbra (https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/antumbra-shadow.html).
In this experiment, the light source is another round lamp, but this time it has twice the ball's diameter. Imagine once more that you are looking at the lamp from behind the ball. As long as you are fairly close to it, the ball's apparent size exceeds the lamp's apparent size. You are within the umbra, and the lamp is invisible.
However, as you move away from the ball, its apparent size decreases. At some point, the basketball will appear smaller than the lamp. A ring of light will appear around the ball as the outer rim of the lamp comes into view. You have just entered the basketball's antumbra.
3 Shadows, 6 Types of Eclipses
Our solar system resembles the set-up of the last experiment. The Sun is a very large light source, its diameter exceeding that of both the Earth and the Moon. This means that, on their journey through space, both objects produce all 3 types of shadows.
Depending on which shadow type is involved, we can experience 3 different types of solar eclipses and 3 different types of lunar eclipses on Earth:
Umbra Eclipses
The umbral shadow (https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/umbra-shadow.html) can produce the following eclipses:
- Total solar eclipse (https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/total-solar-eclipse.html) – the Moon's umbra falls on the Earth's surface, and the observer is within the umbra.
- Total lunar eclipse (https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/total-lunar-eclipse.html) – the Earth's umbra completely covers the Moon.
- Partial lunar eclipse (https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/partial-lunar-eclipse.html) – the Earth's umbra covers only part of the Moon.
Penumbra Eclipses
The penumbral shadow (https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/penumbra-shadow.html) is involved in these eclipses:
- Partial solar eclipse (https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/partial-solar-eclipse.html) – the Moon's penumbra falls on the Earth's surface, and the observer is within the penumbra.
- Partial lunar eclipse (https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/partial-lunar-eclipse.html) – the Earth's penumbra covers the area of the Moon's visible surface that is not covered by the umbra.
- Penumbral lunar eclipse (https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/penumbral-lunar-eclipse.html) – the penumbra covers all or part of the Moon, the umbra misses it.
Antumbra Eclipses
The antumbral shadow (https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/antumbra-shadow.html) can only cause 1 type of eclipse:
- Annular solar eclipse (https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/annular-solar-eclipse.html) – the Moon's antumbra falls on the Earth's surface, and the observer is within the antumbra.
-
Types of shadows:
(https://i.imgur.com/wZnYjBb.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/29tZAzs.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/3jGtFSj.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/UG7fbkv.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/8rJgcLE.jpeg)
-
No. They are parallel for all intents and purposes, and insufficient to account for the degree of bend necessary to reduce totality to about 100-150 miles wide.
Prove it with math.
They are either parallel or they aren't. The earth is flat for all intents and purposes, so don't worry about driving off the road and getting stuck in a ditch.
The moon looks pretty small, why can't it cast a shadow as small as it looks? That's a valid question, though I'm not implying that it really does cast a shadow the size of a dime. Maybe it casts a shadow 70miles wide because it is only as big as a dime, and shadows, as you say, can only get bigger.
What makes you so sure you are right? Everyone thinks they are right about a lot of stuff that they are actually wrong about. How is it that people can reason through something and come up with differing and wrong conclusions? Don't put too much faith in your own judgments, and certainly not in the convincing yet deceiving pictures/demonstrations by others like what Matthew posted.
-
Matthew,
This may help you understand what actually happens during an eclipse:
https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/shadows.html
Umbra, Penumbra, and Antumbra: Why Are There 3 Shadows?
By Konstantin Bikos (https://www.timeanddate.com/company/team-editorial#kb)
On their journey through space, the Earth and the Moon cast 3 different shadows causing different types of solar and lunar eclipses. Why are there 3 shadows?
(https://c.tadst.com/gfx/600x337/annular-solar-eclipse-all-shadows.png?1)
Eclipse Type Depends on Shadow Type
If the Moon's shadow falls on Earth, we get to see a solar eclipse (https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/list-solar.html); the Earth's shadow falling on the Moon results in a lunar eclipse (https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/list-lunar.html). However, there are different types of solar and lunar eclipses. A solar eclipse may be total (https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/total-solar-eclipse.html), partial (https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/partial-solar-eclipse.html), or annular (https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/annular-solar-eclipse.html); a lunar eclipse may be total (https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/total-lunar-eclipse.html), partial (https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/partial-lunar-eclipse.html), or penumbral (https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/penumbral-lunar-eclipse.html).
The type of eclipse we experience depends on the type of shadow that is involved. Both the Moon and Earth cast 3 shadows:
- an umbra (https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/umbra-shadow.html),
- a penumbra (https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/penumbra-shadow.html),
- and an antumbra (https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/antumbra-shadow.html).
The umbra is the shadow's dark center portion, while the penumbra and the antumbra are different types of half-shadows.
Shadow Experiments
To understand why the Earth and the Moon have 3 types of shadows, let's start on a smaller scale. The number and types of shadows created by an opaque object depend on its size in relation to the size of the light source. However, their absolute size is irrelevant, so a basketball illuminated by a large lamp produces the same shadows as the Moon illuminated by the Sun.
So imagine that you are in a windowless room with 1 light source and 1 round object that casts a shadow, say, a basketball. Both the light source and the basketball are at the same height as your head. You are standing on the side of the ball exactly opposite to the light source, facing it, so the order is: light source – basketball – you.
(https://c.tadst.com/gfx/600x337/shadow-experiments-umbra.png?1)
1st Experiment: Umbra Only
Rule: If the light emanates from a punctual light source, the object casts only 1 type of shadow: an umbra (https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/umbra-shadow.html).
Let's say the light source is a tiny flashlight pointing into your direction. If you look into the direction of the lamp from behind the basketball, it is entirely invisible as the ball blocks the view and the light rays don't reach you. The ball's shadow is uniform, it only has an umbra.
If you move to the side, the flashlight immediately becomes visible as soon as you leave the shadow.
2nd Experiment: Umbra and Penumbra
(https://c.tadst.com/gfx/600x337/shadow-experiments-penumbra.png?1)
A light source with a larger surface area creates 2 shadows.
Rule: If the light source is not punctual but has a larger surface area, a 2nd type of shadow appears around the object's umbra: the penumbra (https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/penumbra-shadow.html).
Now the light source is a round lamp that is a little smaller in diameter than the basketball. If you line up with the lamp and the ball, no light is visible because you are within the ball's umbra. However, as you move to either side, part of the light source becomes visible. That's the penumbra.
If you move further to the side until you can see all of the lamp's surface, you have left the penumbra.
3rd Experiment: Umbra, Penumbra, and Antumbra
(https://c.tadst.com/gfx/600x337/shadow-experiments-antumbra.png?1)
If the diameter of the light source exceeds that of the object, an antumbra appears.
Rule: If the diameter of the light source is larger than the diameter of the object, a 3rd type of shadow appears where the cone-shaped umbra ends: the antumbra (https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/antumbra-shadow.html).
In this experiment, the light source is another round lamp, but this time it has twice the ball's diameter. Imagine once more that you are looking at the lamp from behind the ball. As long as you are fairly close to it, the ball's apparent size exceeds the lamp's apparent size. You are within the umbra, and the lamp is invisible.
However, as you move away from the ball, its apparent size decreases. At some point, the basketball will appear smaller than the lamp. A ring of light will appear around the ball as the outer rim of the lamp comes into view. You have just entered the basketball's antumbra.
3 Shadows, 6 Types of Eclipses
Our solar system resembles the set-up of the last experiment. The Sun is a very large light source, its diameter exceeding that of both the Earth and the Moon. This means that, on their journey through space, both objects produce all 3 types of shadows.
Depending on which shadow type is involved, we can experience 3 different types of solar eclipses and 3 different types of lunar eclipses on Earth:
Umbra Eclipses
The umbral shadow (https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/umbra-shadow.html) can produce the following eclipses:
- Total solar eclipse (https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/total-solar-eclipse.html) – the Moon's umbra falls on the Earth's surface, and the observer is within the umbra.
- Total lunar eclipse (https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/total-lunar-eclipse.html) – the Earth's umbra completely covers the Moon.
- Partial lunar eclipse (https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/partial-lunar-eclipse.html) – the Earth's umbra covers only part of the Moon.
Penumbra Eclipses
The penumbral shadow (https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/penumbra-shadow.html) is involved in these eclipses:
- Partial solar eclipse (https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/partial-solar-eclipse.html) – the Moon's penumbra falls on the Earth's surface, and the observer is within the penumbra.
- Partial lunar eclipse (https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/partial-lunar-eclipse.html) – the Earth's penumbra covers the area of the Moon's visible surface that is not covered by the umbra.
- Penumbral lunar eclipse (https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/penumbral-lunar-eclipse.html) – the penumbra covers all or part of the Moon, the umbra misses it.
Antumbra Eclipses
The antumbral shadow (https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/antumbra-shadow.html) can only cause 1 type of eclipse:
- Annular solar eclipse (https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/annular-solar-eclipse.html) – the Moon's antumbra falls on the Earth's surface, and the observer is within the antumbra.
These illustrations are helpful up until the bigger light source one. That one doesn't make sense to me honestly. The first two show two shadows, both bigger than the object but then the third shows the Umbra shrinking? You've also shared other photos where the two shadows grow but not one where they shrink could you show a live example where the light source is bigger and we see the shrinking of the shadow?
I also find the image where there's a giant boulder on the earth compelling. It looks like what the NASA photos of being on the moon look like but contradict the "luminous" aspect of the moon that we see on earth. If the moon is super luminous from the earth it seems intuitive that the photos NASA shows of the astronaut on the moon would also reflect a brilliant light. It would be really hard to get a photo that didn't look overexposed or something.
-
You'll notice how all the illustratons rely on the deception of making the sun look 5-10 times larger than the earth, which is not the case given the distances involved. Then they even have to make the lightbulb super giant sized to pull it off. :laugh1:
It's ridiculous and it's deception, but the resident dupes fall for anything that NASA and the scientific establishment feed to them. CAD models completely debunk the nonsense falsely depicted in the NASA cartoons. Bottom line for these clowns here is that they've already made up their minds beforehand that the modern narrative regarding the cosmos is true and they'll accept anything that they think might even sound remotely plausible as "proof".
-
I also find the image where there's a giant boulder on the earth compelling. It looks like what the NASA photos of being on the moon look like but contradict the "luminous" aspect of the moon that we see on earth. If the moon is super luminous from the earth it seems intuitive that the photos NASA shows of the astronaut on the moon would also reflect a brilliant light. It would be really hard to get a photo that didn't look overexposed or something.
The brightness of things in pictures can't be compared unless you have the camera settings used to compare them with. There can literally be thousands of times difference in brightness between 2 real life objects while in the images they look like the same brightness.
Our eyes do the same thing. Go to the bathroom in the middle of the night, turn the light on, and you squint due to the extreme perceived brightness of a 40w bulb. But when you've been outside in the full summer sun without sunglasses and go inside a house with several 40w lights on, and you can barely see until your eyes adjust. The moon is like a flashlight: bright at night with night adjusted vision, but very dim during the day.
-
You'll notice how all the illustratons rely on the deception of making the sun look 5-10 times larger than the earth, which is not the case given the distances involved. Then they even have to make the lightbulb super giant sized to pull it off. :laugh1:
It's ridiculous and it's deception, but the resident dupes fall for anything that NASA and the scientific establishment feed to them. CAD models completely debunk the nonsense falsely depicted in the NASA cartoons. Bottom line for these clowns here is that they've already made up their minds beforehand that the modern narrative regarding the cosmos is true and they'll accept anything that they think might even sound remotely plausible as "proof".
Thanks for providing said CAD models and the math proof requested. Now I know that you have not already made up your mind beforehand and are most honest, rational, and open minded. ::)
-
You'll notice how all the illustratons rely on the deception of making the sun look 5-10 times larger than the earth, which is not the case given the distances involved. Then they even have to make the lightbulb super giant sized to pull it off. :laugh1:
It's ridiculous and it's deception, but the resident dupes fall for anything that NASA and the scientific establishment feed to them. CAD models completely debunk the nonsense falsely depicted in the NASA cartoons. Bottom line for these clowns here is that they've already made up their minds beforehand that the modern narrative regarding the cosmos is true and they'll accept anything that they think might even sound remotely plausible as "proof".
But you are making the claim, a priori, that the distances and sizes are not what is asserted by modern, or even older, science. I have no problem with believing that the sizes or the distances are incorrect, but you are gratuitously claiming that they are off by 1000+ times. You need to prove your assertion first.
-
The brightness of things in pictures can't be compared unless you have the camera settings used to compare them with. There can literally be thousands of times difference in brightness between 2 real life objects while in the images they look like the same brightness.
Our eyes do the same thing. Go to the bathroom in the middle of the night, turn the light on, and you squint due to the extreme perceived brightness of a 40w bulb. But when you've been outside in the full summer sun without sunglasses and go inside a house with several 40w lights on, and you can barely see until your eyes adjust. The moon is like a flashlight: bright at night with night adjusted vision, but very dim during the day.
But those photos reflect what I observe in nature. Rocks don't glow like the moon when exposed to direct sunlight. I guess white cement is pretty bright but that's about it.
-
Prove it with math.
You aren't going to be swayed by something as easy to grasp and powerful as common sense. Much less some mathematical proof, even if Ladislaus were to take the time & trouble to offer it.
Reminds me of Luke chapter 16:
29 And Abraham said to him: They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. 30 But he said: No, father Abraham: but if one went to them from the dead, they will do penance. 31 And he said to him: If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they believe, if one rise again from the dead.
-
All those made-up terms are just to describe "shadows". And you *can't get a shadow smaller than the sphere blocking the light*
Try it yourself. I did. The largest shadow is cast when the sphere is right by the light source. The farthest away you can get the sphere is when it's right on top of the surface that shadow is cast upon (e.g., the earth). At that point, the shadow will be 100% the diameter of the sphere. Not a pinprick laser focus. That's nonsense that violates all common sense and experience.
Only someone desperate to believe we're living on a spinning ball rocketing through "outer space" at breakneck speeds would cleave to such nonsense.
-
You aren't going to be swayed by something as easy to grasp and powerful as common sense. Much less some mathematical proof, even if Ladislaus were to take the time & trouble to offer it.
Reminds me of Luke chapter 16:
29 And Abraham said to him: They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. 30 But he said: No, father Abraham: but if one went to them from the dead, they will do penance. 31 And he said to him: If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they believe, if one rise again from the dead.
That doesn't apply here. Where does the Catholic faith teach that the moon doesn't cause eclipses? Are we just supposed to guess at everything with common sense? Does you common sense say all magic tricks are performed by demonic powers, when some reasoning and logic can determine that many tricks are possible by natural means?
I think you and Lad have some mental block that would tempt you to lose the faith if you were to try to consider logical and mathematical proof for eclipse phenomena. I don't want your faith to be tempted, but don't just throw these beliefs that go against common sense and reason out there, and find every excuse to avoid using math or any rational means that may prove modern science correct about some things. It's like the liberal who chooses to believe whatever they feel like while picking and choosing what modern science gets right just based on feeling. And of course accusing the other side of whatever kind of dishonesty you yourselves use.
-
All those made-up terms are just to describe "shadows". And you *can't get a shadow smaller than the sphere blocking the light*
Try it yourself. I did. The largest shadow is cast when the sphere is right by the light source. The farthest away you can get the sphere is when it's right on top of the surface that shadow is cast upon (e.g., the earth). At that point, the shadow will be 100% the diameter of the sphere. Not a pinprick laser focus. That's nonsense that violates all common sense and experience.
Only someone desperate to believe we're living on a spinning ball rocketing through "outer space" at breakneck speeds would cleave to such nonsense.
QVD did the hard work and provided excellent pictures to help you understand how this works. Short of a video demonstration, there's nothing more that can be done to help you understand, and I doubt a video would help because you'd likely willfully ignore and dismiss it as false. You can pray to God for the grace to understand our view even if you choose not to believe it, but at this point we are on different pages, so further discussion is pointless. You could try to provide mathematical proof and accurate CAD sim proof, so I and others can try to understand your view, but so far I understand your view to be gullibly deceived by FE memes.
-
You're the gullible one. You believe the most idiotic propaganda that insults our intelligence. What does that say about you I wonder.
YOU're the one whose faith requires believing modern science, even though they all don't believe in God and say we randomly developed from an amoeba over billions of years. Oh, but they got the earth/creation right. Sure.
And you are SO dense. You do realize I'm in my late 40's, right? I went to public school. I used to spend all my time with books about the planets, watched all the sci-fi movies, and know more about the "official story" on the sun/universe/galaxy/planets than most people.
I'm not some sheltered teen who grew up in some Fundamentalist protestant cult compound, never being exposed to anything else, taught that the earth was flat and that the Leader deserves to have all the prettiest young ladies in the group for his wives.
I believed in Globe Earth just a few years ago. Fortunately I've always been in love with the truth, and never denied it when it came to my attention, WHATEVER the costs or fallout might be. The first domino to fall was NASA and their nonsense. Then I learned that the earth doesn't move, from the Geocentrists (a couple great movies by Sungenis, "Galileo was Wrong" and "The Principle"). Thanks to those docuмentaries I was surprised to learn that NO EXPERIMENT HAS EVER SHOWN THE EARTH TO MOVE, and many experiments have accidentally proved the contrary.
I haven't been deceived by flat earthers, memes, or anyone else. I don't trust random humans on human faith. "In God We Trust. All others pay cash!" I've considered the evidence for myself, applied my reason, thought about it, and I chose to acknowledge and accept the Truth, it's that simple.
I didn't believe in Flat Earth myself until I started to investigate it. So stop being disingenuous and intellectually dishonest. I voluntarily left the Globe Earth paradigm knowing the "science" better than most. I chose Flat Earth because I learned better. I advanced.
Just like St. Paul was a Pharisee among Pharisees and rejected it all to become a Christian,
I was a science lover among science lovers, but also chose to follow Christ when He knocked me off my horse with the evidence for Flat Earth.
St. Paul knew what he was giving up, and what he was accepting.
Same here.