Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Seeker

Any flat earthers about?

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Reinold said:

 

 I'm not getting any answers to these Flat Earth questions

 

Fear not, the cavalry is here!

 

I recently decided to buy myself an old book, just for the hell of it, and didn't really care about the subject. I went on ebay and chose the first book that caught my eye, for being old but decent condition and not too expensive. Then I looked at the title - 'Earth not a Globe' by Samuel Rowbotham (Parallax). I've always found the FE arguments to be interesting (some of them, not all!) so I couldn't resist buying it. I tried to read it from the perspective of someone living back when it was written in 1881 (3rd ed), so no space travel/NASA to consider, just to see how convincing his arguments would have been back then. Overall I found many of his arguments and experiments to be very persuasive, definately gets you thinking.

 

Anyway, I will try to answer all your FE questions accoring to Rowbotham, but please remember I am telling you what he says and not necessarily what I think.

 

I'll start with sun set, this is down to perspective and vanishing point. It moves in concentric circles as illustrated in Gleeson's map here, zoom in to the 2 small yellow circles to see the suns path and brief explanation. I made sure I chose a pic with high enough resolution to read the small text when you zoom.

 

Gleeson.jpg.71c741a277d0c6a247fc3ad9e564a683.jpg

 

'Although the sun is at all times above the earth’s surface, it appears in the morning to ascend from the north-east to the noonday position, and thence to descend and disappear, or set, in the north-west. This phenomenon arises from the operation of a simple and everywhere visible law of perspective. A flock of birds, when passingover a flat or marshy country, always appears to descend is it recedes; and if the flock is extensive, the first bird appears lower or nearer to the horizon than the last, although they are at the same actual altitude above the earth immediately beneath them. When a balloon sails away from an observer, without increasing or decreasingits altitude, it appears to gradually approach the horizon. In a long row of lamps, the second – supposing the observer to stand at the beginning of the series — will appear lower than the first; the third lower than the second; and so on to the end of the row; the farthest away always appearing the lowest, although each one has the same altitude; and if such a straight line of lamps could be continued far enough, the lights would at length descend, apparently, to the horizon, or to a level with the eye of theobserver, as shown in the following diagram' direct book quote.

 

Lamppost.jpg.3387701290d1780e992609c145a9e325.jpg

 

Getting late so that's all for now, a start at least! Feel free to question further and I'll try and answer direct from the book where possible. Also let me know which question you would like me to answer next, I should get chance to answer it tomorrow!

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, ink said:

 

Love that you are trying to bring light to the dead but really.... I have tried for some time and there is no point as they are nothing more than parrots :)

 

If you bring to the table something which they cannot get an answer to via a debunking forum, which is all the knowledge they have, (which they then just copy paste here) they just ignore it and then try and twist your posted words or call you xyz!

 

They have no self and thus can only parrot the indoctrination of their masters words (which is the mainstream lies)....which is all they have lol

 

Really mate....they have no knowledge which is via their individual experience....it is only that which is told to them, in-order that they are good and willing slaves until they die....never to be again!

 

It is sad that they have no thought which is from the self....but go for interacting with the dead....if it makes you smile :)

 

Ye tell me about it lol. I knew he would be nothing but subjective on this matter just by the way he tried to justify the NASA earth photo's you posted of the changes in landmass. Was rather ridiculous to be honest. Hopefully viewers can see his poor and vague attempt in defending NASA, and after all the money NASA have accumulated, they have given him nothing but theories, assumptions, formulas, equations and beautiful 'space' pictures. 

 

It's so sad that he would go and find an apologetic excuse for Nixon's phone call to the moon.

 

 

Edited by Forsaken Bankzy
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Forsaken Bankzy said:

I knew he would be nothing.....

Hopefully viewers can see his....

they have given him....

It's so sad that he would....

 

. You've been owned in this exchange with your brainless and gullible belief in stupid yoootub videos ...now like a big chicken you are avoiding responses.

 

The Apollo rocks. I have a thread on it that all the HB chickens have avoided. So will you.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Silent Bob said:

 

Fear not, the cavalry is here!

 

I recently decided to buy myself an old book, just for the hell of it, and didn't really care about the subject. I went on ebay and chose the first book that caught my eye, for being old but decent condition and not too expensive. Then I looked at the title - 'Earth not a Globe' by Samuel Rowbotham (Parallax). I've always found the FE arguments to be interesting (some of them, not all!) so I couldn't resist buying it. I tried to read it from the perspective of someone living back when it was written in 1881 (3rd ed), so no space travel/NASA to consider, just to see how convincing his arguments would have been back then. Overall I found many of his arguments and experiments to be very persuasive, definately gets you thinking.

 

Anyway, I will try to answer all your FE questions accoring to Rowbotham, but please remember I am telling you what he says and not necessarily what I think.

 

I'll start with sun set, this is down to perspective and vanishing point. It moves in concentric circles as illustrated in Gleeson's map here, zoom in to the 2 small yellow circles to see the suns path and brief explanation. I made sure I chose a pic with high enough resolution to read the small text when you zoom.

 

Gleeson.jpg.71c741a277d0c6a247fc3ad9e564a683.jpg

 

'Although the sun is at all times above the earth’s surface, it appears in the morning to ascend from the north-east to the noonday position, and thence to descend and disappear, or set, in the north-west. This phenomenon arises from the operation of a simple and everywhere visible law of perspective. A flock of birds, when passingover a flat or marshy country, always appears to descend is it recedes; and if the flock is extensive, the first bird appears lower or nearer to the horizon than the last, although they are at the same actual altitude above the earth immediately beneath them. When a balloon sails away from an observer, without increasing or decreasingits altitude, it appears to gradually approach the horizon. In a long row of lamps, the second – supposing the observer to stand at the beginning of the series — will appear lower than the first; the third lower than the second; and so on to the end of the row; the farthest away always appearing the lowest, although each one has the same altitude; and if such a straight line of lamps could be continued far enough, the lights would at length descend, apparently, to the horizon, or to a level with the eye of theobserver, as shown in the following diagram' direct book quote.

 

Lamppost.jpg.3387701290d1780e992609c145a9e325.jpg

 

 

Perspective is his claim...haha.

 

Does he see the birds smaller far away. Does he see the lampposts smaller far away.

 

Does he see the Sun smaller....oh wait....it's the same size.

 

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Rupert Ugo said:

 

Your post is pure ad hominem. You've been owned in this exchange with your brainless and gullible belief in stupid yoootub videos ...now like a big chicken you are avoiding responses.

 

The Apollo rocks. I have a thread on it that all the HB chickens have avoided. So will you.

 

Truthers huh.

 

"You post is pure ad hominem."  - The hypocrisy!  

 

"Truthers huh" - You as a 'truther' take in all the pseudoscience horseshit from a US government agency and you have the cheek to say "Truthers huh".....ye TRUTHERS HUH! 

 

"You've been owned in this exchange" - Like how you owned the skeptics in your moon rocks thread? Didn't look like owning to me lol. 

 

I love how you presumed that Elon Musk was mocking 'conspiracy theorists' when quoting "You can tell everything is real because it looks so fake". Absolutely delusional. 

 

Man didn't land on the moon and you most probably never made a thread refuting claims from 'conspiracy theorists' about fake moon landings. And you never will because you simply are not convincing when attempting to debunk 'yuutoobe' videos. You wasn't convincing whatsoever in your moon rock thread nor your points on here.... You only 'think' you owned this exchange without ever seeing the thoughts of the viewers on this forum. That is just ego. 

 

Your belief in space relies on complete faith in NASA.... Who are pretty much the government.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Forsaken Bankzy said:

 

"You post is pure ad hominem."  - The hypocrisy!  

 

 

Uhuh, you don't know what an ad hominem is do you! I don't do them at all. I address the content and debate...abrasive yes, rude sometimes(usually baited), insults ocassionally, usually in response. But ad-hominems, nope. I suggest you google the term, because I'm betting you think it means flinging a few insults around.

 

Also, I pointed this out because YOU called ME out on a response to the "itsallbs" stalker troll(who popped in to like your post:classic_rolleyes: - shivers). Ergo, it is you and only you who is the hypocrite here!

 

51 minutes ago, Forsaken Bankzy said:

"Truthers huh" - You as a 'truther' take in all the pseudoscience horseshit from a US government agency and you have the cheek to say "Truthers huh".....ye TRUTHERS HUH! 

 

Nope. I go where ALL the evidence takes me. You don't know what "pseudoscience" is either. It is pretty much the exclusive domain of you and your ilk.

 

I don't have ANY cheek in saying "Truthers Huh", because over the short period this forum has been going and the decade at the other one, you and your ilk do nothing but...

 

EVADE, DIVERT, OBFUSCATE AND FINALLY AS YOU JUST DID, FULL ON AD HOMINEM - WHICH AVOIDS THE CONTENT COMPLETELY AND GOES AFTER THE POSTER.

 

51 minutes ago, Forsaken Bankzy said:

"You've been owned in this exchange" - Like how you owned the skeptics in your moon rocks thread? Didn't look like owning to me lol. 

 

Come on then son, let's have it. I guarantee you will get your arse kicked. You know nothing about it, I do! Oh and what things "look like" to you are based on your bias and ignorance...so thanks for your woeful opinion.

 

51 minutes ago, Forsaken Bankzy said:

I love how you presumed that Elon Musk was mocking 'conspiracy theorists' when quoting "You can tell everything is real because it looks so fake". Absolutely delusional. 

 

I love how you are too delusional to see it.

 

51 minutes ago, Forsaken Bankzy said:

Man didn't land on the moon and you most probably never made a thread refuting claims from 'conspiracy theorists' about fake moon landings. And you never will because you simply are not convincing when attempting to debunk 'yuutoobe' videos. You wasn't convincing whatsoever in your moon rock thread nor your points on here.... You only 'think' you owned this exchange without ever seeing the thoughts of the viewers on this forum. That is just ego. 

 

Errr...what? I am THE debunker of Apollo hoax claims. I have been destroying you and your ilk on this subject for over 10 years … here and on the original  DIF. There is not one solitary idiotic hoax claim that I haven't seen and taken to pieces. They all run away - every last one of them.  NEVER do they respond to the debunks with anything close to integrity.

 

51 minutes ago, Forsaken Bankzy said:

 

Your belief in space relies on complete faith in NASA.... Who are pretty much the government.

 

Haha, what a comedian. You seem to think NASA are the only people who have ventured into space.

 

I think you ARE a flat earther. I think you ARE a full on ISS denier and I strongly suspect you are a space isn't real and rockets don't work in space advocate.

 

Come on then, or are you just all noise!! Answer the OP - kindly don't post any hoax crap...get your own thread for that......

 

 

 

And here...in your own time....

 

 

 

 

Edited by Rupert Ugo
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Rupert Ugo said:

 

 

Perspective is his claim...haha.

 

Does he see the birds smaller far away. Does he see the lampposts smaller far away.

 

Does he see the Sun smaller....oh wait....it's the same size.

 

  

 

He actually goes one step further than that, he doesn't see it as smaller but in fact see's it as larger:

 

'CAUSE OF SUN APPEARING LARGER WHEN RISING AND SETTING THAN AT NOONDAY

 

It is well known that when a light of any kind shines through a dense medium itappears larger, or rather gives a greater “glare,” at a given distance than when it is seen through a lighter medium. This is more remarkable when the medium holds aqueous particles or vapour in solution, as in a damp or foggy atmosphere. Any one may be satisfied of this by standing within a few yards of an ordinary street lamp, and noticing the size of the flame; on going away to many times the distance, the light or “glare” upon the atmosphere will appear considerably larger. This phenomenon may be noticed, to a greater or less degree, at all times; but when the air is moist and vapoury it is more intense. It is evident that at sunrise, and at sunset, the sun’s light must shine through a greater length of atmospheric air than at mid-day; besides which, the air near the earth is both more dense, and holds more watery particles in solution, than the higher strata through which the sun shines at noonday; and hence the light must be dilated or magnified, as well as modified in colour.'

 

I would also add something he doesn't say (he probably thought it was too obvious to have to point out) - The sun is a little bit higher than birds or lamp posts. So, your perception of the size of birds or lamp posts will be determined primarily by their horizontal distance from you. With the sun your perception of its size will be determined primarily by its horizontal distance, the vertical distance won't significantly alter it's total diagnol distance from the observer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Silent Bob said:

 

He actually goes one step further than that, he doesn't see it as smaller but in fact see's it as larger:

 

'CAUSE OF SUN APPEARING LARGER WHEN RISING AND SETTING THAN AT NOONDAY

 

It is well known that when a light of any kind shines through a dense medium itappears larger, or rather gives a greater “glare,” at a given distance than when it is seen through a lighter medium. This is more remarkable when the medium holds aqueous particles or vapour in solution, as in a damp or foggy atmosphere. Any one may be satisfied of this by standing within a few yards of an ordinary street lamp, and noticing the size of the flame; on going away to many times the distance, the light or “glare” upon the atmosphere will appear considerably larger. This phenomenon may be noticed, to a greater or less degree, at all times; but when the air is moist and vapoury it is more intense. It is evident that at sunrise, and at sunset, the sun’s light must shine through a greater length of atmospheric air than at mid-day; besides which, the air near the earth is both more dense, and holds more watery particles in solution, than the higher strata through which the sun shines at noonday; and hence the light must be dilated or magnified, as well as modified in colour.'

 

I would also add something he doesn't say (he probably thought it was too obvious to have to point out) - The sun is a little bit higher than birds or lamp posts. So, your perception of the size of birds or lamp posts will be determined primarily by their horizontal distance from you. With the sun your perception of its size will be determined primarily by its horizontal distance, the vertical distance won't significantly alter it's total diagnol distance from the observer.

 

Provable nonsense. The Sun has Zero change of size the whole day. Optical illusion about it appearing bigger....since it can easily be measured. If a flatnut comes along I will give a nore detailed answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Rupert Ugo said:

 

Provable nonsense. The Sun has Zero change of size the whole day. Optical illusion about it appearing bigger....since it can easily be measured. If a flatnut comes along I will give a nore detailed answer.

 

Are you being deliberately stupid now? Of course it doesn't actually change its size, no one is claiming it does. The explanation is for why it APPEARS bigger, which is not disputed anywhere as far as I can see. There may be different opinions as to why it APPEARS bigger but we are all agreed that it only appears bigger, which is kind of the definition for an optical illusion. I'm not sure what point you think you're making here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Rupert Ugo said:

 

Are you being deliberately antagonistic now. Kindly STFU!

 

 

Gee Bob, you don't know jack about the flatnut claims do you!!

 

https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset

 

That is EXACTLY what they claim and they use that eejit Rowbotham's "analysis" as their "explanation".

 

 

Exactly as stated. Flatnuts don't claim that it APPEARS bigger, they say it IS bigger and use the moronic Rowbotham claim as their bible.

 

I find it ironic that you are playing Devil's Advocate and screwing it up.

 

My mini-blog...

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

 

I really don't know how to debate with you when you just out right claim things which are not true, proven by your own link.

 

2 points:

 

1. The link is the opinion of one person most likely, perhaps a small group. They do not speak on behalf of every single person who believes the earth to be flat, just for themselves. The inference you make that is does represent every FE believer would be like me finding someone who believes the world to be round and then assuming that because of this you agree with every single belief they have and that every RE believer has the exact same opinions and set of views. Very simple minded view to take which I'm sure you realise is nonsense.

 

2. You state that 'they' (the authors of a website) claim the sun actually gets bigger. I skim read but couldn't see this claim, only explanations of why the sun appears bigger. If they have stated that the sun is actually bigger, please copy and paste this section and will admit that I missed it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Silent Bob said:

I really don't know how to debate with you when you just out right claim things which are not true, proven by your own link.

 

Uhuh. Right at the top. You should have stopped that sentence after word 4.

 

20 minutes ago, Silent Bob said:

1. The link is the opinion of one person most likely, perhaps a small group. They do not speak on behalf of every single person who believes the earth to be flat, just for themselves. The inference you make that is does represent every FE believer would be like me finding someone who believes the world to be round and then assuming that because of this you agree with every single belief they have and that every RE believer has the exact same opinions and set of views. Very simple minded view to take which I'm sure you realise is nonsense.

 

 

That "one person" would be the bloody FLAT EARTH SOCIETY!! And you said this...

 

"Of course it doesn't actually change its size, no one is claiming it does."

 

The Flat Earth Society proves that statement wrong.

 

20 minutes ago, Silent Bob said:

2. You state that 'they' (the authors of a website) claim the sun actually gets bigger. I skim read but couldn't see this claim, only explanations of why the sun appears bigger. If they have stated that the sun is actually bigger, please copy and paste this section and will admit that I missed it.

 

"A: The sun remains the same size as it recedes into the distance due to a known magnification effect caused by the intense rays of light passing through the strata of the atmolayer."

 

"The lights maintaining their size in the background is a great example of the magnification effect of the atmolayer balancing out the natural shrinking to perspective. "

 

Should I translate?

They are saying words to the effect of...."yes we know objects get smaller as they recede into the distance, but the reason the Sun doesn't is because the atmosphere makes it bigger". They use car headlights to show this "effect". Of course they fail to acknowledge that it does this all over the planet and in such a way as to never change size whatsoever. So no matter where, uniformly, the atmosphere exactly "magnifies" the Sun the same size wherever it is. Facepalm.

Edited by Rupert Ugo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Couldn't resist this. From those imbeciles at the Flat Earth Society...

 

https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset

"The intense light from the headlights have caught onto the atmoplane between the source and camera to create a magnification of the light. This magnification increases with distance, allowing the headlights to appear the same size down the entirety of the lane. "

 

Say what flatnuts?

 

a-busy-m6-motorway-full-of-night-time-dr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Rupert Ugo said:

 

 

"A: The sun remains the same size as it recedes into the distance due to a known magnification effect caused by the intense rays of light passing through the strata of the atmolayer."

 

"The lights maintaining their size in the background is a great example of the magnification effect of the atmolayer balancing out the natural shrinking to perspective. "

 

Should I translate?

They are saying words to the effect of...."yes we know objects get smaller as they recede into the distance, but the reason the Sun doesn't is because the atmosphere makes it bigger". They use car headlights to show this "effect". Of course they fail to acknowledge that it does this all over the planet and in such a way as to never change size whatsoever. So no matter where, uniformly, the atmosphere exactly "magnifies" the Sun the same size wherever it is. Facepalm.

 

I didn't need you to translate, it's perfectly clear that they are talking about the perception of the sun getting smaller with distance but larger due to atmosphere, effectively cancelling each other out. Still no where does it say that the sun actually changes size. Personally I don't think either horizontal distance or the atmosphere would have much effect on the perception of the sun's size, as I said earlier it would be mainly due to the sun being so high creating the percetion of size primarily, the effect of the others would be trivial in comparison in my opinion.


As for your claim about the atmosphere having the same effect regardless of position you are in no position to face palm, other than over your own faulty thinking. Sam beats you again on this one, how embarrassing.....

You can clearly see below that the path of light from the sun travels at different angles and hence distance through the atmosphere.

'The following diagram, fig. 66, will show also that, as the sun recedes from the meridian, over a plane surface, the light, as it strikes the atmosphere, must give a larger disc.

 

image.png.8fe40985e1d5ea87c5ee9219d3f437b2.png

 

Let A, B, represent the upper stratum of the atmosphere; C, D, the surface of theearth; and 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, the sun, in his morning, forenoon, noon, afternoon, and evening positions. It is evident that when he is in the position 1, the disc of light projected upon the atmosphere at 6, is considerably larger than the disc projected from the forenoon position, 2, upon the atmosphere at 7; and the disc at 7 is larger than that formed at 8, when the sun, at 3, is on the meridian; when at 4, the disc at 9 is again larger; and when at 5, or in the evening, the disc at 10 is again as large as at 6, or the morning position. It is evident that the above results are what must of necessity occur if the sun’s path, the line of atmosphere, and the earth’s surface,are parallel and horizontal lines. That such results do constantly occur is a matter of everyday observation; and we may logically deduce front it a striking argument against the rotundity of the earth, and in favour of the contrary conclusion, that it is horizontal. The atmosphere surrounding a globe would not permit of anything like the same degree of enlargement of the sun when rising and setting, as we daily seein nature.'

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/31/2019 at 10:58 AM, Reinold said:

Compasses prove that the Earth is a giant magnet. All magnets have two poles.

 

On a flat Earth, where is the south pole?

 

Any answers for that one?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/27/2019 at 8:42 AM, Reinold said:

Here is the Flat Earth model.

 

eyuUVdc.gif

 

I cannot see how eclipses work, when the moon comes directly between us and the sun.

Can anyone explain that to me?

 

What about solar eclipses?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/24/2019 at 2:37 PM, Rupert Ugo said:

 

Really? REALLY?

 

On the bloody fence On the dumbest ever claim in human history?

 

Define which bits make you unconvinced.....in the meantime google "flatard" videos(yes ...not impressed with the choice of label..but wth).

 

Chill, bro. You're so tense.

 

And using part of the word "retarded" as an insult is pretty lazy, even for you.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I went to a Globe Believers Forum and asked the question "How do eclipses work on a spherical globe" I would get a full answer within 90 seconds.

 

So:

 

How do eclipses work on a flat Eath?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd prefer an EXECUTIVE SUMMARY rather than a link.

 

I am sure that any Flat Earth Fellow Travellers visiting this site will be erudite enough to give explanations in their own words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Reinold said:

I'd prefer an EXECUTIVE SUMMARY rather than a link.

 

I am sure that any Flat Earth Fellow Travellers visiting this site will be erudite enough to give explanations in their own words.

 

It would be a lot easier and quicker for you to use this free pdf to answer all of your questions. The book is indexed, you'll find the answers you're looking for pretty quickly. This is of course assuming that you want to know the answers, rather than just bait someone into posting a reply so you can mock them. Executive summary indeed....

 

https://eindtijdinbeeld.nl/EiB-Holle aarde/Zetetic Astronomy - Earth Not a Globe - Samuel Birley Rowbotham - 1881.pdf

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Silent Bob said:

 

It would be a lot easier and quicker for you to use this free pdf to answer all of your questions. The book is indexed, you'll find the answers you're looking for pretty quickly. This is of course assuming that you want to know the answers, rather than just bait someone into posting a reply so you can mock them. Executive summary indeed....

 

https://eindtijdinbeeld.nl/EiB-Holle aarde/Zetetic Astronomy - Earth Not a Globe - Samuel Birley Rowbotham - 1881.pdf

 

I have not mocked anyone.

 

I am NOT going to read a book on Flat Earth from 1881 - are you serious

 

Spherical earth has easy and straightforward answers to the questions I am asking.

 

 

Is it impossible for someone to give me a flat earth answer?

 

How do eclipses happen on a flat earth?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Reinold said:

 

I have not mocked anyone.

 

I am NOT going to read a book on Flat Earth from 1881 - are you serious

 

Spherical earth has easy and straightforward answers to the questions I am asking.

 

 

Is it impossible for someone to give me a flat earth answer?

 

How do eclipses happen on a flat earth?

 

You don't have to read the whole book, just look at the index on the left, click the heading that says 11. Cause of Lunar and Solar eclipses and then read the definate FE response to the question you just asked. You would have achieved that in less time than it took you to write your reply. Again, assuming you actually want to know which seems increasingly unlikely with your bizarre reluctance to read the answer from the book rather than it being copied and pasted on here, which is all I would have done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Silent Bob said:

 

You don't have to read the whole book, just look at the index on the left, click the heading that says 11. Cause of Lunar and Solar eclipses and then read the definate FE response to the question you just asked. You would have achieved that in less time than it took you to write your reply. Again, assuming you actually want to know which seems increasingly unlikely with your bizarre reluctance to read the answer from the book rather than it being copied and pasted on here, which is all I would have done.

 

I have now read it and I understand your reluctance to post it. He says that eclipses don't happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/1/2019 at 12:22 AM, Silent Bob said:

Feel free to question further and I'll try and answer direct from the book where possible. Also let me know which question you would like me to answer next, I should get chance to answer it tomorrow!

 

Thanks for that!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Reinold said:

 

Thanks for that!

 

That was before you started shouting at me (I assume that's was writing in CAPS means) demanding answers to questions like a spoilt child and demonstrating that this is really nothing more than a bait thread. Have fun!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Silent Bob said:

 

That was before you started shouting at me (I assume that's was writing in CAPS means) demanding answers to questions like a spoilt child and demonstrating that this is really nothing more than a bait thread. Have fun!

 

You are clearly most extraordinarily sensitive: two words in capital letters make you withdraw from the thread?? That sounds a bit like a useful excuse to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×