So show me a light source, an object casting a shadow and the object the shadow is cast on that are all "nearly" parallel where the shadow is smaller than the object. In other words show evidence a 2000 mile wide moon would only cast a 70ish mile wide shadow.
I say sunrays are outwardly propagating [aka Crepuscular] (---< ), you say they are nearly parallel ( ---=) but during an eclipse they are converging (---->).

You claim it was the moon that caused the ecipise so why then could no one see the moon before - during or after the eclipse and why when you forensically exam photos of the event - that show that there was no physical object that was there.



Helps if you understand the difference between raw and jpeg photographic evidence




------> "We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid. ~ Benjamin Franklin"

Would thinking sunrays are "nearly" parallel while also believing they are converging qualify as "work"?



This post was edited by card_sultan on Sep 11 2017 12:21pm

I already did, including the math involved. And they are nearly parallel. Over the span of 149,600,000 KM, we can see the entire 1,391,400 KM face of the sun within just the span of half of one degree.

If sunlight were ONLY outwardly propagating, you could only see the part of the sun directly facing you, not the whole half of it facing you. The fact is that rays of light leave the surface of the sun in all directions from all points. That means that rays of sunlight leaving the sun from the left side (as we look at it) are travelling past both sides of the moon. But we're only going to see the ones coming directly at us.

That's great that you showed the math of the Helio Model, but if I say I have a model that Earth is a triangle and then say it's proved because i can add up the three sides Can i say Math proves Earth is a Dorito?

The main problem with your model is that you clearly dont wish to address the fact the moon is not seen before, during or after the eclipse. People that were tracking the moon for days before until the eclipse say that moon was not the cause of the eclipse because it was nowhere near where it should be. You claim its straight trig but your math does not account for the 40 times the event was viewed and shown by Nasa as the event crossed the USA, so if it was just straight line of sight as you are claiming - how do you account for those 40 different viewings of the event and the fact no one can see the moon?

And for the third time ill ask you that when both the moon and sun are above you during the day, how is the front side of the moon lite? And stop dodging by claiming you can only think of one thing at a time. This is just the way you dodge everything, what are you 3 years old. Grow up.

This post was edited by card_sultan on Sep 11 2017 05:18pm

he thinks he people

he doesn't know he's a worthless psychotic liar

How has this dragged on for 289 pages?

Man you guys are persistent.

hehe, this debate has been raging for +2300 years and and especially since the C of E adopted the Copernican model because they saw it as a way to increase state profit.

You can't see the moon during a total eclipse because a total eclipse is only possible during a new moon. You can't see the moon when it's new, regardless if there is an eclipse or not.

"People say?" Which people? Where? Super vague statement. Perhaps you mean to say "flat Earthers who wish to remain anonymous?"

For the third time... Like, what? The part of the moon that is lit is completely opposite the side of the moon facing the planet. There is no lit up part of the moon that we can see during a total eclipse. I don't understand what it is that you don't comprehend.