So today across Europe there is a solar eclipse.... how do flatearthers meet today's solar eclipse

Today is rather awkward ......

 

On 12 August 2026, the Moon is passing directly between the Sun and Earth, producing a total solar eclipse along a precisely calculated path across Greenland, Iceland and northern Spain, while much of Europe—including the UK—sees a very deep partial eclipse.

 

And here's the interesting bit:

Astronomers didn't just say, "There'll probably be an eclipse somewhere in Europe."

They calculated exactly when it would happen, exactly where it would be visible, how much of the Sun would be covered at different locations, and where the Moon's shadow would travel…. then we get to watch the calculation happen….IN REAL TIME… Across an entire continent.

 

People in different countries can look up and see different amounts of the Sun disappearing exactly as predicted.

 

This presents Flat Earth with a tiny problem. Where's the flat-earth calculation? Not the explanation after the event, the prediction.

 

Can you give us the mathematical model that starts with your flat disc, your little local sun and moon, and predicts today's eclipse across Europe?

Please tell: - What time does it begin? Where does the shadow go? Where is totality? How long does it last?

Most importantly, why does someone hundreds of kilometres away see a different percentage of the Sun covered at precisely the predicted time?

 

The spherical-Earth model answers all of those questions.

Flat Earth generally answers them with some combination of: "Perspective." "Local Sun." "Electromagnetic plasma." And then resorts to conspiracies – e.g. "NASA lies." Or even, apparently, occasionally an invisible celestial object that nobody can actually demonstrate exists.

 

That's not a predictive model. That's making up the rules after you've seen the result!

 

And today's eclipse is particularly inconvenient because the Moon's shadow has a measurable, moving path across the Earth's surface. It isn't sitting over one bloke's garden waiting for him to decide whether it looks convincing.

 

So, here's a modest challenge for the Flat-Earthers: Stop borrowing the predictions produced by spherical-Earth astronomy and then pretending your model explains them, why not produce your own?

Before the next eclipse, publish the mathematics, predict the path, predict the timings and predict the duration. - Then compare the results.

 

Saying "the Earth looks flat from my balcony" isn't a scientific argument, it's just a statement about the height of your balcony. Today, while millions of people across Europe watch the Moon move across the Sun exactly as orbital mechanics predicts, the Flat-Earth explanation remains what it has always been: an enormous amount of confidence resting on an almost complete absence of mathematics.

On 6/15/2026 at 5:23 AM, save the frogs said:

Ok, how about this then?

This is absolutely relevant to the topic.

Her thesis is that conspiracy theorists should NOT be completely ignored and it's perhaps the most eloquent and well-thought out response to your initial question.

they weren't conspiracy theorists! They were an actual conspiracy!!

here's a great post about the 7 types pof c;imate denier...

https://verybrexitproblems.com/blogs/news/seven-types-of-climate-denier?fbclid=IwY2xjawTrEEdwZG9mBWV4dG4DYWVtAjEwAGJyaWQRMU4xYXRRc2UzeHNhd3NDYkhzcnRjBmFwcF9pZBAyMjIwMzkxNzg4MjAwODkyAAEe28QR-3O9GtxwlRmGpRUK2B_LSCB7GHBHLQtcTIogVRDyrFa6Ykfi2LNbNa4_aem_eu4WCVuCLvwy462KDegYKQ&utm_campaign=seven-types-of-climate-denier&utm_content=vbp&utm_medium=post_comment&utm_source=facebook

25 minutes ago, kwilco said:

here's a great post about the 7 types pof c;imate denier...

that climate is moving in one direction and hasn't constantly fluctuated historically is hard to prove.

15 minute cities would reduce traffic and air pollution, so I don't have a problem with it. as long as it's not too draconian.

4 hours ago, save the frogs said:

that climate is moving in one direction and hasn't constantly fluctuated historically is hard to prove.

15 minute cities would reduce traffic and air pollution, so I don't have a problem with it. as long as it's not too draconian.

Forced 15 minute cities IS draconian. I live in a 15 minute city,and I love it here. But to not be able to venure out, NO THANKS.

A few words I don't ever want to hear, crossing provincial or even amphur lines ...

... PAPERS PLEASE

Edited August 14Aug 14 by KhunLA

Twenty years ago, flat Earth, fake moon landings, anti-vax fear, and fringe politics were laughed off. Now? They're everywhere. Why?

Because smart, rational people underestimated the sheer power possible when you get enough stupid people in a room together united to do stupid things for a stupid racist demagogue tv show reality "star".

You were supposed to laugh at this foolish clown not vote for him and worship every dumb thing he says, jeez Louise. 😇

Just now, SiSePuede419 said:

Twenty years ago, flat Earth, fake moon landings, anti-vax fear, and fringe politics were laughed off. Now? They're everywhere. Why?

Because smart, rational people underestimated the sheer power possible when you get enough stupid people in a room together united to do stupid things for a stupid racist demagogue tv show reality "star".

You were supposed to laugh at this foolish clown not vote for him and worship every dumb thing he says, jeez Louise. 😇

Get a grip Homer, conspiracy theorists were around long before Trump.

You still believe the Russian collusion hoax and that Butler was staged, yes?

Just now, SiSePuede419 said:

Twenty years ago, flat Earth, fake moon landings, anti-vax fear, and fringe politics were laughed off. Now? They're everywhere. Why?

Because smart, rational people underestimated the sheer power possible when you get enough stupid people in a room together united to do stupid things for a stupid racist demagogue tv show reality "star".

You were supposed to laugh at this foolish clown not vote for him and worship every dumb thing he says, jeez Louise. 😇

Or maybe people just realised the lefty New World Order governments were just lying about everything.

All the western governments suddenly had the same laws, same banking regulations, and the same policy to allow unvetted, uneducated, thuggish military age males from the 3rd world into their countries.

In reality, hard to not see it as a conspiracy!

4 hours ago, save the frogs said:

that climate is moving in one direction and hasn't constantly fluctuated historically is hard to prove.

15 minute cities would reduce traffic and air pollution, so I don't have a problem with it. as long as it's not too draconian.

Shouldn't you return to your home town in your home country and stay there then?

Just now, BritManToo said:

Shouldn't you return to your home town in your home country and stay there then?

A 15 minute city is not a permanent prison.

At least I hope not.

15 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

A 15 minute city is not a permanent prison.

At least I hope not.

Like anything, it starts one way, that no one has and evolves.

It starts with you don't need a car, and soon you can't have a car.

On 5/18/2026 at 3:48 AM, save the frogs said:

Another conspiracy.

Pasteurization was not done for health -- raw milk is healthier.

It was done to push out the small dairy farmers and consolidate power and control of the milk supply. Since small farmers did not have access to pasteurization, their milk was deemed illegal and people were all forced to buy from the big guys.

Raw milk is still available in some places, but most people are afraid of it now.

Erling Haaland can't get enough of the stuff.

Unpasteuried beer is also ther real deal - NO HANGOVER.
Go to Munich and try it for yourself!

On 8/12/2026 at 12:39 PM, kwilco said:

So today across Europe there is a solar eclipse.... how do flatearthers meet today's solar eclipse

Today is rather awkward ......

 

On 12 August 2026, the Moon is passing directly between the Sun and Earth, producing a total solar eclipse along a precisely calculated path across Greenland, Iceland and northern Spain, while much of Europe—including the UK—sees a very deep partial eclipse.

 

And here's the interesting bit:

Astronomers didn't just say, "There'll probably be an eclipse somewhere in Europe."

They calculated exactly when it would happen, exactly where it would be visible, how much of the Sun would be covered at different locations, and where the Moon's shadow would travel…. then we get to watch the calculation happen….IN REAL TIME… Across an entire continent.

 

People in different countries can look up and see different amounts of the Sun disappearing exactly as predicted.

 

This presents Flat Earth with a tiny problem. Where's the flat-earth calculation? Not the explanation after the event, the prediction.

 

Can you give us the mathematical model that starts with your flat disc, your little local sun and moon, and predicts today's eclipse across Europe?

Please tell: - What time does it begin? Where does the shadow go? Where is totality? How long does it last?

Most importantly, why does someone hundreds of kilometres away see a different percentage of the Sun covered at precisely the predicted time?

 

The spherical-Earth model answers all of those questions.

Flat Earth generally answers them with some combination of: "Perspective." "Local Sun." "Electromagnetic plasma." And then resorts to conspiracies – e.g. "NASA lies." Or even, apparently, occasionally an invisible celestial object that nobody can actually demonstrate exists.

 

That's not a predictive model. That's making up the rules after you've seen the result!

 

And today's eclipse is particularly inconvenient because the Moon's shadow has a measurable, moving path across the Earth's surface. It isn't sitting over one bloke's garden waiting for him to decide whether it looks convincing.

 

So, here's a modest challenge for the Flat-Earthers: Stop borrowing the predictions produced by spherical-Earth astronomy and then pretending your model explains them, why not produce your own?

Before the next eclipse, publish the mathematics, predict the path, predict the timings and predict the duration. - Then compare the results.

 

Saying "the Earth looks flat from my balcony" isn't a scientific argument, it's just a statement about the height of your balcony. Today, while millions of people across Europe watch the Moon move across the Sun exactly as orbital mechanics predicts, the Flat-Earth explanation remains what it has always been: an enormous amount of confidence resting on an almost complete absence of mathematics.

“If you believe strongly enough, beliefs can move mountains,”

13 hours ago, Hummin said:

“If you believe strongly enough, beliefs can move mountains,”

no they can't

23 hours ago, save the frogs said:

that climate is moving in one direction and hasn't constantly fluctuated historically is hard to prove.

15 minute cities would reduce traffic and air pollution, so I don't have a problem with it. as long as it's not too draconian.

...and there is a classic example of the kind of lazy wishy-washy thinking that both pseudoscience and conspiracy theories rely on. But there is an important commonality: they frequently operate using the same failure of reasoning

19 hours ago, KhunLA said:

Forced 15 minute cities IS draconian. I live in a 15 minute city,and I love it here. But to not be able to venure out, NO THANKS.

A few words I don't ever want to hear, crossing provincial or even amphur lines ...

... PAPERS PLEASE

They were doing that a few months back to people wanting to travel to Trat!

2 hours ago, kwilco said:

...and there is a classic example of the kind of lazy wishy-washy thinking that both pseudoscience and conspiracy theories rely on. But there is an important commonality: they frequently operate using the same failure of reasoning

The "reasoning" I use is the following.

The "real" science for climate change is far too easy to fake.

Because you have to go back in time 10,000 years to compare the climate to today's climate. There are too many complex variables involved.

The more complex science becomes, the easier it is for the powers that be to put out fake science for their own political motivations.

I'm not saying it's definitely fake. I'm saying the science is way too complex for the average person to verify.

I am not against reducing pollution and reducing waste, by the way.

5 hours ago, kwilco said:

They were doing that a few months back to people wanting to travel to Trat!

Reports of that also during scamdemic. We're were out the first or 2nd week of 'lock down', and even though reports of check points at provincial border, we never saw one. So all BS, and we cruised the whole country 1st year or less. Tourist areas were shuttered, even 7-11s

That's during the 3 ish years of scamdemic, and only once, mid province, did anyone have a check point, and used a temp gun on forehead to check us. Seem like a bunch of retired PoPo office workers with nothing better to do.

Really does remind you of the silliness back then. Temp scanners to enter buildings, Makro & such. Too funny, and the people fell for it. That's just sad.

In 25 yrs, only 2x maybe, did military check point actually ask for ID. That was along the Myanamar border, between Mae Sot & MHS, early on when here, pre 2009, as had 1st car.

Edited August 15Aug 15 by KhunLA

9 hours ago, kwilco said:

...and there is a classic example of the kind of lazy wishy-washy thinking that both pseudoscience and conspiracy theories rely on. But there is an important commonality: they frequently operate using the same failure of reasoning

I saw a lovely pic of the earth last week. It was very sharp. I zoomed into the top bit. Then again. And again. I saw people walking about. Must have been in Europe somewhere. Then I honed into the middle bit, and after much zooming, I could make out people again. But they looked to me to be walking horizontally. Then I looked at the bottom, and saw the people were upside down. Probably New Zealand. I'm baffled.

I read a report recently about 9/11. The official vid of the plane crashing into the tower. You know the one put out by the authorities. Some disbelieving conspiracy nerds had slowed the vid right down to just frame by frame. Just before impact the right wing disappeared. So for a few frames the plane only had one wing. Only for it to come back as the crash occurred. I'm baffled.

Christine Massey has spent the last few years trying to get to the bottom of viruses. Any one. She is not fussy. She sends out these FOIs to different institutions and governments asking, very politely, if they could point her to the experiments that shows isolation and purification of a virus. Her results to date show; 224 requests. 224 replies saying they have no such evidence. Even the CDC, FDA, both English and European health agencies have not any records of such. I'm baffled.

This actual year, I saw, in an English newspaper, that Nessie - that's the Loch Ness Monster - had left the water and was terrorizing the local town of Inverness by breathing fire at any man wearing a kilt. Evidently the lassies are fine. How does Nessie differentiate between a kilt and a skirt? I'm baffled.

It's a baffling world for sure.

9 hours ago, save the frogs said:

The "reasoning" I use is the following.

The "real" science for climate change is far too easy to fake.

Because you have to go back in time 10,000 years to compare the climate to today's climate. There are too many complex variables involved.

The more complex science becomes, the easier it is for the powers that be to put out fake science for their own political motivations.

I'm not saying it's definitely fake. I'm saying the science is way too complex for the average person to verify.

I am not against reducing pollution and reducing waste, by the way.

The particularly revealing part is you are making a leap from “I personally cannot verify all of this” to “therefore it could easily be fake.” That isn't scepticism; it's an argument from personal ignorance.

 

This is precisely the kind of thinking that confuses scepticism with scientific reasoning

“The science is too complex for the average person to verify, therefore it could be fake.”

 

That sounds cautious until you actually examine the reasoning. It amounts to:

I don't personally understand all the evidence → therefore the evidence might be fabricated. - That's not how science works.

The scientific method isn't a system in which the average person is expected to personally verify every experiment ever conducted. It is a method for producing knowledge that can be independently tested, replicated, challenged and refined by other researchers. Scientists don't ask you to take their word for it; they publish methods, data, measurements and results precisely so that other scientists can scrutinise them.

 

And here's the rather important point being missed: climate science isn't one enormous experiment conducted by one mysterious organisation. It is thousands of separate observations, measurements, experiments, computer models, physical laws and independent lines of evidence accumulated over decades.

 

You don't have to understand every component of an aircraft to know that aerodynamics works. You don't personally need to repeat every medical trial to understand that a particular drug has been tested. And you don't need to reconstruct 10,000 years of climate history yourself to understand the basic physics of greenhouse gases.

 

In fact, the basic chemistry and physics of the greenhouse effect are remarkably straightforward. CO₂ absorbs infrared radiation. Increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases changes the balance between incoming and outgoing energy. That isn't some complicated 21st-century political invention. The greenhouse effect was understood in the 19th century, long before modern climate politics, computer modelling or today's political arguments.

 

The 10,000-year comparison is also a red herring. Scientists don't simply look at one graph and announce a conclusion. They use multiple independent proxies—ice cores, tree rings, sediments, corals, historical records, isotope measurements and other evidence—to reconstruct past climates. Modern instrumental measurements then provide an entirely different body of evidence about the recent warming trend.

 

And the idea that “the more complex science becomes, the easier it is to fake” gets scientific methodology almost exactly backwards.

Complexity creates more opportunities for independent checking, not fewer. Different countries, universities, research groups and individual scientists have competing interests, competing theories and reputations to protect. If somebody could demonstrate that the fundamental climate science was fabricated, they would not merely have discovered a political scandal—they would have produced one of the most important scientific discoveries in modern history.

 

You might also bear in mind that 25 to 30 years ago scientific consensus was about 93%...now it is over 99%. People still try to make out that the old figure is significant  - it wasn’t them and is not accurate now

 

That's what makes the argument so revealing.

It doesn't actually provide evidence that climate science is wrong. It simply argues that because the speaker cannot personally verify everything, somebody else might be lying.

That's not empirical scepticism.

It's an argument from ignorance dressed up as intellectual caution.

 

There is an important distinction here: “I don't understand this well enough to be certain” is a perfectly reasonable position.

“I don't understand it well enough to verify it; therefore, it might all be fake” is not.

The first is intellectual humility.

The second is how conspiracy thinking begins.

Just now, kwilco said:

I am not against reducing pollution and reducing waste, by the way.

Why?

25 minutes ago, kwilco said:

Why?

What ?

6 minutes ago, Hummin said:

What ?

thought it was a simple enough question.... you don't seem to understand climate change so I wondered what you made of pollution etc.

Edited August 15Aug 15 by kwilco

7 hours ago, KhunLA said:

Reports of that also during scamdemic.

OK “Scamdemic”?? -  kinda invalidates anything you say. How can you be taken seriously when using this portmanteau of "scam" and "pandemic," which is used primarily by people who believe complex global biosecurity, virology, and public health infrastructure exist solely to prevent them from getting a haircut on a Tuesday.

26 minutes ago, kwilco said:

OK “Scamdemic”?? -  kinda invalidates anything you say. How can you be taken seriously when using this portmanteau of "scam" and "pandemic," which is used primarily by people who believe complex global biosecurity, virology, and public health infrastructure exist solely to prevent them from getting a haircut on a Tuesday.

Exactly!

And don't you think also that these silly eclipses should be banned. They confuse people. They confuse animals. They confuse plants and trees. Even insects are having doubts as to their existance.

Let's get back to normality I say.

4 hours ago, kwilco said:

Why?

Why did you revive this thread after such a long hiatus?

Where you been, man?

https://www.eco-business.com/opinion/solarpunk-visions-of-a-just-nature-positive-world/

“It is 2050. In most places in the world, the air is moist and fresh, even in cities. It feels a lot like walking through a forest, and very likely this is exactly what you are doing. The air is cleaner than it has been since before the Industrial Revolution. We have trees to thank for that. They are everywhere.”

23 hours ago, save the frogs said:

Why did you revive this thread after such a long hiatus?

Where you been, man?

https://www.eco-business.com/opinion/solarpunk-visions-of-a-just-nature-positive-world/

“It is 2050. In most places in the world, the air is moist and fresh, even in cities. It feels a lot like walking through a forest, and very likely this is exactly what you are doing. The air is cleaner than it has been since before the Industrial Revolution. We have trees to thank for that. They are everywhere.”

You stated you have doubts about global warming

Then you said

"I am not against reducing pollution and reducing waste, by the way."

I asked, "Why?" a simple question, yet you have spent two defectional and tangential posts deliberately avoiding answering.

Of course you don't have to answer, but it does make you look even more out of touch with the issues as predicted for a conspiracy theorist

Edited August 16Aug 16 by kwilco

5 minutes ago, kwilco said:

You stated you have doubts about global warming

Then you said

"I am not against reducing pollution and reducing waste, by the way."

I asked, "Why?" a simple question, yet you have spent two defectional and tangential posts deliberately avoiding answering.

Of course you don't have to answer, but it does make you look even more out of touch with the issues as predicted for a conspiracy theorist

Without a clear definition of "global warming", only a fool would not have doubts.

What is wrong with being against waste and pollution? Do you think the people that "doubt" global warming want more waste and pollution?

37 minutes ago, kwilco said:

Of course you don't have to answer, but it does make you look even more out of touch with the issues as predicted for a conspiracy theorist

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1112950/

Many climate change scientists do not agree that global warming is happening

This led Dr Frederick Seitz, former head of the United States National Academy of Sciences, to write, “In more than sixty years as a member of the American scientific community ... I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report.”

Policymaking should be guided by proved fact, not speculation.

40 minutes ago, kwilco said:

"I am not against reducing pollution and reducing waste, by the way."

I asked, "Why?" a simple question, yet you have spent two defectional and tangential posts deliberately avoiding answering.

Maybe some people don't care too much about pollution, but I never met anyone who likes pollution or wants more pollution. I shouldn't even have made that statement.

Since climate change seems to be highly contested by many scientists, and since I will never be able to prove it or disprove it, I don't concern myself too much with it.

I am hoping for a "Solarpunk" future. That interests me more than debating complex unprovable scientific theories endlessly. So yes, I am going a bit off topic.