Offline wclubin

  • *
  • Posts: 16
    • View Profile
Today the moon was in the half moon phase. when the moon rose the top half was lit. Half way across the sky the right side was lit. Upon setting the bottom half was lit. How does FE explain that?

The resultant orbital lag between the sun and the moon causes the phases of the moon; here is the book of the luminaries (one of the oldest textbook on astronomy) explaining the phases of the moon on a flat earth:

http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/enoch.html#Enoch_72


The Moon has astonishing synchronicity with the Sun. When the Sun is at its lowest and weakest in mid-winter, the Moon is at its highest and brightest, and the reverse occurs in mid-summer. Both set at the same point on the horizon at the equinoxes and at the opposite point at the solstices. What are the chances that the Moon would naturally find an orbit so perfect that it would cover the Sun at an eclipse and appear from Earth to be the same size? What are chances that the alignments would be so perfect at the equinoxes and solstices?

    Farouk El Baz,
    NASA


Who Parked Our Moon?

"Undoubtedly the greatest mystery concerning our Moon is how it came to be there in the first place. Prior to the Apollo missions, one serious theory as to the Moon’s origin was that it broke off of the Earth eons ago. Although no one could positively locate where on Earth it originated, many speculated the loss of material explained the huge gouge in the Earth, which forms the Pacific Ocean. However, this idea was discarded when it was found that there is little similarity between the composition of our world and the Moon.

A more recent theory had the Moon created out of space debris left over from the creation of the Earth. This concept proved untenable in light of current gravitational theory, which indicates that one large object will accumulate all loose material, leaving none for the formation of another large body. It is now generally accepted that the Moon originated elsewhere and entered the Earth’s gravitational field at some point in the distant past.

Here theories diverge — one stating that the Moon was originally a planet which collided with the Earth creating debris which combined forming the Moon while another states the Moon, while wandering through our solar system, was captured and pulled into orbit by Earth’s gravity. Neither of these theories are especially compelling because of the lack of evidence that neither the Earth nor the Moon seem to have been physically disrupted by a past close encounter. There is no debris in space indicating a past collision and it does not appear that the Earth and the Moon developed during the same time period.

As for the “capture” theory, even scientist Isaac Asimov, well known for his works of fiction, has written, “It’s too big to have been captured by the Earth. The chances of such a capture having been effected and the Moon then having taken up nearly circular orbit around our Earth are too small to make such an eventuality credible.”

Asimov was right to consider the Moon’s orbit — it is not only nearly a perfect circle, but stationary, one side always facing the Earth with only the slightest variation. As far as we know, it’s the only natural satellite with such an orbit.

This circular orbit is especially odd considering that the Moon’s center of mass lies more than a mile closer to the Earth than its geometric center. This fact alone should produce an unstable, wobbly orbit, much as a ball with its mass off center will not roll in a straight line. Additionally, almost all of the other satellites in our solar system orbit in the plane of their planet’s equator. Not so the Moon, whose orbit lies strangely nearer the Earth’s orbit around the Sun or inclined to the Earth’s ecliptic by more than five degrees. Add to this the fact that the Moon’s bulge — located on the side facing away from Earth — thus negating the idea that it was caused by the Earth’s gravitational pull — makes for an off-balanced world.

It seems impossible that such an oddity could naturally fall into such a precise and circular orbit. It is a fascinating conundrum as articulated by science writer William Roy Shelton, who wrote, “It is important to remember that something had to put the Moon at or near its present circular pattern around the Earth. Just as an Apollo spacecraft circling the Earth every 90 minutes while 100 miles high has to have a velocity of roughly 18,000 miles per hour to stay in orbit, so something had to give the Moon the precisely required velocity for its weight and altitude … The point—and it is one seldom noted in considering the origin of the Moon — is that it is extremely unlikely that any object would just stumble into the right combination of factors required to stay in orbit. ‘Something’ had to put the Moon at its altitude, on its course and at its speed. The question is: what was that ‘something’?”

If the precise and stationary orbit of the Moon is seen as sheer coincidence, is it also coincidence that the Moon is at just the right distance from the Earth to completely cover the Sun during an eclipse? While the diameter of the Moon is a mere 2,160 miles against the Sun’s gigantic 864,000 miles, it is nevertheless in just the proper position to block out all but the Sun’s flaming corona when it moves between the Sun and the Earth. Asimov explained: “There is no astronomical reason why the Moon and the Sun should fit so well. It is the sheerest of coincidences, and only the Earth among all the planets is blessed in this fashion.” "


http://www.rense.com/general69/moon.htm

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/03-ss2.htm#Nebular
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/03-ss2.htm#Fission
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/03-ss2.htm#Capture
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/03-ss2.htm#Accretion
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/03-ss2.htm#Planetary


The best place to start in order to answer all of the above listed mysteries/questions is to understand/estimate the actual age of the moon: here is the faint young sun paradox

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1707290#msg1707290

*

Offline Orbisect-64

  • *
  • Posts: 137
  • I'M REVOLTING! . . . make of it what you will
    • View Profile
Personally I haven't found enough reason to put stock in the book of Enoch.

First off, if we accept the Bible as God's word, as 2 Timothy 3:15 states, then he has the power to make sure that ONLY what he inspired would make it into the final canon. Otherwise we may as well say that he is powerless to direct his own book.

Then there's the fact that the book mentions angels and demons by name. In the Bible only two or three angels are mentioned by name, and one who was inquired of his name made it clear that he would not give it, so that he would not be worshipped. This is how angels think. And as for the fallen angels? ...NO demon's name was ever mentioned in the Bible. As most of us know, Satan and Devil are not the original rebel's name, they are titles which mean accuser/slanderer and deceiver. Satan wanted to be elevated above God, and so God took his name away so that no one on earth would ever know it. And no demon was ever mentioned by name in God's word.

The idea that the book of Enoch mentions so many demon's names says, if anything, that whoever wrote it had a blast with making up names—and perhaps the writer was inspired by the demons, seeing it breaks so many major principles within the Bible.

In my research I found that the book only appeared in Ethiopia many years after the Bible was completed. Some people try to say that Moses was inspired by Enoch; but I find the opposite to be true. There is more evidence that Moses' writings existed long before the book of Enoch—hence, it was Enoch that would have borrowed ideas from Moses' writings. What people want to say is "inferred," is up to pure speculation. It would be just like Satan and his followers to write a book and then try to validate it by inferring that Moses got ideas from it.

I believe it was John who wrote about how the Bible would be complete at his death. And so the idea of adding to the canon this book that showed up long after his death... it just does't fit the guidelines—it comes in too late in the race to be considered a running candidate.



As to NASA's doctrine that the moon broke off from the earth? We (FE believers) here should all be shrewd and awake enough now to know better than to listen to the bantering of proven liars and sexual perverts. That teaching is designed for their own purposes, and it is designed to contradict the Bible. The whole idea that the moon broke off the earth is a way of explaining its existence devoid of creation—it created itself. And yet again, science claims that a giant asteroid struck the earth... and a big explosion caused something to be created... just like the explosion of the Big Bang caused all the order and laws in the universe. The two stories have the same M.O. - that of the same crazy and deluded mad-scientists.



But no matter what people's thoughts are on the Bible, let's just stick with what all of us know - that NASA are chronic liars and sexual perverts. The science-clergy is no better than the religious-clergy. Let's treat their word with as much weight and merit as they deserve.



If any shills disagree with my thoughts on the big bang, please respond to me by blowing up your computer. I'm sure it will construct itself into coherent sentences far better than anything you could write. Please, go ahead, I promise you in the name of science that it won't damage your computer, in fact it will give it an upgrade! Don't argue with science, just listen and believe.







« Last Edit: September 29, 2015, 10:00:49 PM by Orbisect-64 »
PRONOIA: “The delusional belief that the world is set up to benefit people … The confident and assumed trust that despite years of lies and oppression, government is secretly conspiring in your favor.”

Tellthetruth

Personally I haven't found enough reason to put stock in the book of Enoch.

If any shills disagree with my thoughts on the big bang, please respond to me by blowing up your computer.



I so agree with you on so many points you make. I agree that GODS word would be available to all who sought it very carefully. So much so that GOD set HIS word above HIS name.
As far as Enoch goes, it is evident that people in the first century read and held the book in high regard.
Jude quoted from it in the modern canon. "And Enoch, the seventh from Adam prohesied....etc"
Also where as Enoch went into detail about the watchers, (or the shining ones), modern canon makes similar
references to "Demons"
Not to say that scripture has not been edited or doctored, only that those with eyes could see if they sought with faith.
I speak as if a brother in GOD's kingdom. (Iron sharpens iron...etc)
Lucifier (The light bearer) is mentioned in scripture (With great authority) and many lesser gods. (The god of this world)
Legion.... Baal, molach, ramphen, diana, apollion, tamuz etc.
I look forward to more insightful posts by you and others here.
I still may blow up my computer, but, more because it may have something to do with the mark of the beast.
Best to you.