My birthday is Aug 21, Flat Earthers.. How do you explain Spherical earthers ability to Predict what is going to happen?

[harakim]

I would have to draw some diagrams and do some math to spell it out algorithmically, which I don't have time for. What's fundamentally wrong with the video that was posted? (Other than the Occam's Razor aspect of it)

[brianj]

What I like about the flat-earth people is that they say, in effect "don't take my word for it; go out and do your own observations and experiments". I really like that approach. It's a refreshing change from all the PhD's and "ologists" who say "believe what I say because I went to school and am good at repeating the stuff I was told there".

But, when you do your own experiments and try providing the results to a flat earth person, they deny your research. They call you a liar. They emotionally turn away from any real proof that what they believe is wrong. Reasoning with these people is a waste of time because you can't reason with the unreasonable.

And I've never had a legitimate astronomer or planetary scientist try using an appeal to authority. I hear that all the time from climatologists, but not from legitimate scientists. I certainly understand why they would get short with a flat earth person because they can point out so much evidence to show why the planet is spheroidal then have absolute nonsense used to rebut every point they make.

Flat earth people like to claim that the sun is really close to the earth and that's why shadows vary across the surface, but anybody who wants to can re-purpose a satellite dish as a radio telescope to observe the sun, and monitor satellites that scientists will tell you are at the first LaGrage point. And the really funny thing: the positions and movement of those six satellites across the sky will not match the movement of the sun but will appear to move relative to the observer and sun exactly as mathematically predicted for objects 1.5 million km from the planet, or 1% of the distance to the sun.

[gclayjr]

harakim,

I would have to draw some diagrams and do some math to spell it out algorithmically, which I don't have time for. What's fundamentally wrong with the video that was posted? (Other than the Occam's Razor aspect of it)

I have explained this above. Watch the video, not as something trying to demonstrate how a solar eclipse could occur, but simply as a model to show everyday observations from the earth. Try and imagine as you watch the video that you are 2 people on the earth, one in Australia, and one in Great Britain. Now try and imagine it getting dark, and being able to see the moon as it crosses the sky, but not the sun, in Australia, and at the same time, it getting light in Great Britain, and being able to see the sun rising, but not the moon. I submit that that video does not present a scenario that would reproduce what these guys see every day.

It's not even close. Just ask yourself, If the sun is on one side of the dish and the moon is on the other, how will you ever see a full moon in either Australia, or Britain? As the moon and sun get closer, how do you not see both in the sky at the same time? If the sun's light hides the moon, then how come we see the moon 26 or 27 days out of every 28? Not to mention the fact that there would be no sensible phases of the moon anywhere near the equator?

Regards,

George Clay

[gclayjr]

harakim,

A good nights sleep, even brings even bigger problems of the video to mind. For us spherical earthers who believes that the earth and moon revolve around a sun that is 93 million miles away, and a moon that revolves around the earth at 250 thousand miles, and an earth that rotates on its axis every 24 hours., watching a full moon from anyplace on the earth is easy to explain. The full moon is reflecting light from a sun which is generally behind the earth in relation to the moon, 93 million miles away. Of course, as the moon rotates around the earth, its relation to the sun follows he phases of the moon as we see them.

Now in this ridiculous video, you have a sun chasing a moon around the rim of a plate shaped earth. Actually, there is no point at all where there would ever be a full moon, because the sun is always at about 90 degrees horizontal from the moon in relation to the earth, no matter where they are in their little dance. I will let you look at it, but how a New moon would able to be displayed on an earth, sun, and moon modeled by the video, would be even more problematic.

Just watch the video, and imagine you are on the ground, and which side of the moon would be lit, and you will see that, by looking up at it from just about anyplace on the earth, the moon, would never look remotely like the moon actually does over any 28 day period.

Regards,

George Clay

[Silver Pie]

Yes, I is true. I was born on Aug 21, 1951.

It is predicted that on August 21, of this year, The universe will celebrate my birthday, with a complete solar eclipse visible across the United states. You flat earthers have a conspiracy theory for every bit of the mountains of proof that the earth is spherical, that you can't see with your own eyes. So I have 3 questions for you

1. ) How can us evil conspiring spherical earthers predict in advance the fact that there is going to be complete eclipse of the sun, and exactly when and were it can be seen?

2.) how come it can only be seen on a special path on 1 side of the earth?

3) How do you guys explain solar eclipses?

Robin Hood: Is it putting your head in the sand if you stay in Britain, and don't come over here on my birthday and see it for yourself, and then maintain the argument that you didn't actually see it yourself?



Regards,

George Clay

Cool birthday present. :ymparty:

I heard someone say that if you put the path of this eclipse and the path of the eclipse coming up in a few years together, they make an X across the United States - rather like God is crossing us out. I intended to go to a site like NASA that has info about the eclipses to see if this is true (about the two paths, together, looking like giant X). I even heard that the center of the X is in Missouri. Anyway, take it for what it's worth, since I haven't verified whether it is accurate or not.

[Silver Pie]

I will have a front row seat to the eclipse from my front porch overlooking the lake. I'm dead center of the full eclipse path across My part of Oregon. The towns around here have all the rooms booked solid for the eclipse. Some charging 1000$ for rooms.

People keep telling me I should rent some camp spots for the eclipse.

Oh, freakin' cool! I wish I lived close enough to see the full eclipse. I've seen two partial eclipses in my life. Both times, I was living in southeastern AZ. The light dimmed a little, got a weird yellowish cast, then became bright again.

[bbsion]

With regards to the flat earth issue specifically, the fact that everyone believes the earth is a globe because that is what they havr been told, and never question it even though their daily experience is of a flat stationary plane, is interesting to me. What else do we believe simply because we have been told it from a very young age? There must be lots of things.

We've been down this road before. I (and several others on this thread) are absolutely on board with you as far as this goes. Yes, we should be skeptical of everything we've been taught all our lives. Yes, we should question science and religion and everything else we've been taught. Put it all to the test and find out for ourselves.

It's just that Flat Earth-ism is such a lousy example of this. Like I said above, they posture as if they are questioning from an intellectual and scientific curiosity. "Let's not take our teachers' (and NASA's, etc.) word for it, let's find out for ourselves." Great! It's only when you get into the nitty-gritty with them that you discover that they have no interest in honest intellectual inquiry. It's pure anti-intellectual polemics.

Carl Sagan tells the story of the dragon living in his garage:

"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage."

Suppose I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!

"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle--but no dragon.

"Where's the dragon?" you ask.

"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."

You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.

"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air."

Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.

"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."

You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.

"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick."

And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.

Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder.

In this analogy, RH, I would commend you for not dismissing outright the possibility that a dragon might exist, despite the fact that we've been indoctrinated all our lives that they are mythical creatures. We should all be that open-minded, because you never know.

But after witnessing the agile machinations of ad hoc apologia for why there is no actual evidence of said dragon, instead of seeing this for what it is, you come away impressed. Look at this guy, how brave he is to stand up against the anti-dragon establishment. And no one can prove him wrong! That's where you lose me. It's not impressive how easily FE types are able to wave off all the evidence for the Round Earth. It's weak. Anyone could to that about any belief if they aren't committed to scientific integrity.

That last part gets back to the OP's initial point, I think. What's the difference between a dragon with none of the physical properties of a dragon, and no dragon at all? What's the difference between a Flat Earth model that doesn't deliver anything that a working model of the earth's surface ought to deliver, and no model at all? The flat earth model doesn't predict eclipses any better or more accurately than the round earth model, if at all. The flat earth theory can't even chart the earth's surface accurately. That's the biggest advantage the flat earth would provide, two-dimensional maps that are perfectly accurate and precise in all respects, and FE can't even deliver that. What good is it, then?

The FE theory reminds me of the dark sucker theory. Yes, it's possible to re-imagine electromagnetic theory as if darkness, not light, is the energy that fills the universe. Light bulbs do not emit light at at all, rather they absorb darkness. We ought to instead call them dark suckers. It's interesting and amusing to look at things like that from another perspective, but that's about all. No one would seriously entertain this as a viable theory because it falls apart under any real scientific rigor. Just like the Flat Earth.

Personally, I do not believe this story by Carl Sagan is a good analogy in this situation. I am fairly certain he came up with this crap story to try and discredit people who believe in God. God = Dragon. At the end of this nonsense he says "Once again, the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion."

If you use his story to prove that flat earthers are delusional... then what is the difference from using it to prove that people who believe in God are delusional?

[captainfearnot]

Personally, I do not believe this story by Carl Sagan is a good analogy in this situation. I am fairly certain he came up with this crap story to try and discredit people who believe in God. God = Dragon. At the end of this nonsense he says "Once again, the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion."

If you use his story to prove that flat earthers are delusional... then what is the difference from using it to prove that people who believe in God are delusional?

I don't think Sagan would say that people who believe in God are delusional. (Well, maybe he would.) But I think what he's saying here is that people who believe there is scientific evidence for the existence of God are delusional. Or that they don't understand what scientific evidence is. What he's trying to demonstrate is the difference between a theory that can be disproved by evidence and one that is contrived to be impervious to any and all scientific experimentation.

If the Flat Earthers were claiming that the shape of the earth were a matter of faith, that would be a different story. We all believe a lot of things based on faith, without any scientific evidence. But that's not what they're doing. They're claiming that their theory is better supported by the evidence than the Round Earth theory, which is demonstrably incorrect. The only way they are able to do that is by continually redefining their claims to make them unfalsifiable.

[sandman45]

Yes, I is true. I was born on Aug 21, 1951.

It is predicted that on August 21, of this year, The universe will celebrate my birthday, with a complete solar eclipse visible across the United states. You flat earthers have a conspiracy theory for every bit of the mountains of proof that the earth is spherical, that you can't see with your own eyes. So I have 3 questions for you

1. ) How can us evil conspiring spherical earthers predict in advance the fact that there is going to be complete eclipse of the sun, and exactly when and were it can be seen?

2.) how come it can only be seen on a special path on 1 side of the earth?

3) How do you guys explain solar eclipses?

Robin Hood: Is it putting your head in the sand if you stay in Britain, and don't come over here on my birthday and see it for yourself, and then maintain the argument that you didn't actually see it yourself?



Regards,

George Clay

try these videos.. much better

if you have more time then check this out too

[SmallFarm]

Yes, I is true. I was born on Aug 21, 1951.

It is predicted that on August 21, of this year, The universe will celebrate my birthday, with a complete solar eclipse visible across the United states. You flat earthers have a conspiracy theory for every bit of the mountains of proof that the earth is spherical, that you can't see with your own eyes. So I have 3 questions for you

1. ) How can us evil conspiring spherical earthers predict in advance the fact that there is going to be complete eclipse of the sun, and exactly when and were it can be seen?

2.) how come it can only be seen on a special path on 1 side of the earth?

3) How do you guys explain solar eclipses?

Robin Hood: Is it putting your head in the sand if you stay in Britain, and don't come over here on my birthday and see it for yourself, and then maintain the argument that you didn't actually see it yourself?



Regards,

George Clay

Cool birthday present. :ymparty:

I heard someone say that if you put the path of this eclipse and the path of the eclipse coming up in a few years together, they make an X across the United States - rather like God is crossing us out. I intended to go to a site like NASA that has info about the eclipses to see if this is true (about the two paths, together, looking like giant X). I even heard that the center of the X is in Missouri. Anyway, take it for what it's worth, since I haven't verified whether it is accurate or not.

Yeah the center of the 'x' looks like it will be in south-east Missouri

[SmallFarm]

https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEgoogle/ ... oogle.html

[gclayjr]

Sandman45,

Did you actually waste your time watching these videos before asking me to waste my limited time watching them? or did you just link into a couple of videos and didn't even look at them with childlike faith that your flat earth heroes, actually had something to say about this? Can you give me back 20 min of my life that was stolen from me? I watched your first video, thinking that maybe, just maybe, I would see something that actually explained a flat earth model? it was over 18 min long, and not 1 word, not one picture, there was absolutely NOTHING in there explaining a lat earth model of an eclipse! The whole video was a stupid critique of the size of moon's shadow, ending with some standard conspiracy BS. The other video is even longer. I was stupid to believe you when said that these videos was a "Better" flat earth explanations of a solar eclipse.I have no intention of wasting even more of my time watching the second video for nothing!

You know what they say. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. I'll leave it your shame, not mine!

Regards,

George Clay

[Robin Hood]

Robin Hood: Is it putting your head in the sand if you stay in Britain, and don't come over here on my birthday and see it for yourself, and then maintain the argument that you didn't actually see it yourself?

OK George, as you've thrown down the gauntlet, you now have no choice other than to follow through.
You will have to send me the plane ticket so I can visit you, celebrate your birthday, and watch the eclipse.
It's the very least you can do in the circumstances.
I have my passport at the ready.

[gclayjr]

Robin Hood,

OK George, as you've thrown down the gauntlet, you now have no choice other than to follow through.
You will have to send me the plane ticket so I can visit you, celebrate your birthday, and watch the eclipse.
It's the very least you can do in the circumstances.
I have my passport at the ready.

Can't afford a ticket, but you can stay at my house. However, we will be driving down to South Carolina on Aug 20. Look forward to your company.

Regards,

George clay

[Silver Pie]

https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEgoogle/ ... oogle.html

Awesome! Thanks.

I saw a lot of eclipses listed. I didn't realize earth had so many.

Here are two that make an X. I think the line of eclipsed suns that go from top to bottom in the first picture are showing how much of the sun will be eclipsed(?). The actual path of the eclipse is the east-west line.

Total Solar Eclipse 2017 August 21.jpg (96.83 KiB) Viewed 1706 times

Total Solar Eclipse 2024 April 8.jpg (41.71 KiB) Viewed 1706 times

[Silver Pie]

So is there ever going to be a full eclipse that crosses Utah or Arizona, I wonder?

[Silver Pie]

Take that April 8, 2024 eclipse and put it with the eclipse on Oct 14, 2023 and you get a better X. It looks like its center is in Texas.

https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEgoogle/ ... oogle.html

https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEgoogle/ ... oogle.html

[SmallFarm]

Take that April 8, 2024 eclipse and put it with the eclipse on Oct 14, 2023 and you get a better X. It looks like its center is in Texas.

https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEgoogle/ ... oogle.html

https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEgoogle/ ... oogle.html

That's only an annular ecplise. They're more common and less dramatic.

[sandman45]

Sandman45,

Did you actually waste your time watching these videos before asking me to waste my limited time watching them? or did you just link into a couple of videos and didn't even look at them with childlike faith that your flat earth heroes, actually had something to say about this? Can you give me back 20 min of my life that was stolen from me? I watched your first video, thinking that maybe, just maybe, I would see something that actually explained a flat earth model? it was over 18 min long, and not 1 word, not one picture, there was absolutely NOTHING in there explaining a lat earth model of an eclipse! The whole video was a stupid critique of the size of moon's shadow, ending with some standard conspiracy BS. The other video is even longer. I was stupid to believe you when said that these videos was a "Better" flat earth explanations of a solar eclipse.I have no intention of wasting even more of my time watching the second video for nothing!

You know what they say. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. I'll leave it your shame, not mine!

Regards,

George Clay

your welcome Happy Bday!! you know what they say 'You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink'

Questioning the shadow the moon gives or where you can see the eclipse should make us question... give how large the moon is supposed to be and the sun etc.

[gclayjr]

Sandman45,

Questioning the shadow the moon gives or where you can see the eclipse should make us question... give how large the moon is supposed to be and the sun etc.

While one could get into a debate regarding conflicting claims about the physics behind the size of the moon's shadow, the challenge on this thread was for you flat earthers to demonstrate how YOUR theory explains both the prediction, and the solar eclipse itself.

In looking at a previous video, I discovered that your theory not only doesn't explain the prediction or observation of a solar eclipse, but can't even explain the more common observation of the phases of the moon.

This is typical. You guys blow "questionable" smoke on proven physics, and then cannot even explain common observations with your own models and theory. It was deceitful for you to say that this was a "better" video. But then I now get your dishonesty, and will not waste any more of my time viewing "better" videos that explain nothing!

Regards,

George Clay

[Silver Pie]

Take that April 8, 2024 eclipse and put it with the eclipse on Oct 14, 2023 and you get a better X. It looks like its center is in Texas.

https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEgoogle/ ... oogle.html

https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEgoogle/ ... oogle.html

That's only an annular ecplise. They're more common and less dramatic.

I did not realize there was a difference until a few hours ago. So both kinds of eclipses have the moon come directly in front of the sun but with an annular eclipse, the moon is farther away from the earth so it doesn't cover all of the sun? (something about "a ring of fire"). Did I get that right?

(edited it because it didn't make sense)

[Silver Pie]

George Clay, I am wondering how flat earthers explain away those who worked on the space station in space (and other astronauts that have been out there, orbiting earth). Surely, those people who orbit and who work in space can see that the earth is a globe.

[brianj]

I did not realize there was a difference until a few hours ago. So both kinds of eclipses have the moon come directly in front of the sun but with an annular eclipse, the moon is farther away from the earth so it doesn't cover all of the sun? (something about "a ring of fire"). Did I get that right?

(edited it because it didn't make sense)

This is correct. And be warned: although most of the sun is hidden behind the disk of the moon during an annular eclipse, it is still not safe to look at the sun without proper eye filters.

If you are going to watch either eclipse, either in the path of totality or where you can only see a partial eclipse, you really need to get some eclipse glasses. I recently purchased a 25 pack for $10 from Amajor online retailer.

[SmallFarm]

Yep and annular eclipses make cool shadows

[BeNotDeceived]

Did you realize that August 21, 2017 (the day of the Adam ondi Ahman eclipse) is also President Thomas S. Monson’s 90th birthday? ... http://thejoshuaaaronblog.com/total-sol ... oincidence