[Tom Bishop]

When you figure out how to get FErs to explain things that make FE look impossible, let me know. I have a bunch of questions that get zero replies. I would be very entertained to hear an explanation of how an equatorial mount works on FE.

Search YouTube and do your own research.

[Balls Dingo]

That, my friend, is the logical fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. The claim was made that there are only two options. The burden of proof is with you making that claim. Until you demonstrate that these are the only two options, the claim is unjustified.

I have no obligation to prove you wrong, you must prove the claim correct.

I accept that. I cannot prove that those are the only two options and you are not obligated to provide one for the reasons you give.

I concur that the light must be reflected and would go further and say that during occasions when the moon and the sun are both visible, it is always the case that the light reflecting off the moon is coming from the direction of the sun. I'd also say that at those times the light from the sun appears to be reasonably isotropic, or at least insofar as the moon's face doesn't seem to be illuminated in areas that would be unexpected given the position of the sun. Also, the sun's light can clearly radiate "down" to cover a large area of the known Earth, and the moon can be illuminated from both sides.

So rather than rudely demanding a third option from you, can I politely ask a couple of questions?

1. Do you think it's possible, without pushing our current understanding of physics too far, that the light reflected off the moon is not coming from the direction of the sun during night, but it is during the day?
2. If it is coming from the direction of the sun, that sun would need to be "below" or somewhere roughly between the observer and the moon on a flat Earth to illuminate it's full face for those below. So how is it possible for the sun be directly overhead somewhere on the other side of the Earth at that exact moment?

I'm trying to think like FE'er but finding a reasonable explanation for something so commonplace is surprisingly difficult. But I have faith that you will succeed where I have failed!

[QED]

That, my friend, is the logical fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. The claim was made that there are only two options. The burden of proof is with you making that claim. Until you demonstrate that these are the only two options, the claim is unjustified.

I have no obligation to prove you wrong, you must prove the claim correct.

I accept that. I cannot prove that those are the only two options and you are not obligated to provide one for the reasons you give.

I concur that the light must be reflected and would go further and say that during occasions when the moon and the sun are both visible, it is always the case that the light reflecting off the moon is coming from the direction of the sun. I'd also say that at those times the light from the sun appears to be reasonably isotropic, or at least insofar as the moon's face doesn't seem to be illuminated in areas that would be unexpected given the position of the sun. Also, the sun's light can clearly radiate "down" to cover a large area of the known Earth, and the moon can be illuminated from both sides.

So rather than rudely demanding a third option from you, can I politely ask a couple of questions?

1. Do you think it's possible, without pushing our current understanding of physics too far, that the light reflected off the moon is not coming from the direction of the sun during night, but it is during the day?
2. If it is coming from the direction of the sun, that sun would need to be "below" or somewhere roughly between the observer and the moon on a flat Earth to illuminate it's full face for those below. So how is it possible for the sun be directly overhead somewhere on the other side of the Earth at that exact moment?

I'm trying to think like FE'er but finding a reasonable explanation for something so commonplace is surprisingly difficult. But I have faith that you will succeed where I have failed!

I don’t think you were being rude

1. Sure it’s possible. Identifying the direction of the Sun at night is not that easy to do in RE. Visualising 3D is surprisingly difficult. There could be another source that illuminates the moon.

2. In FE, there HAS to be an alternate light source. It’s simply not geometrically possible for the Sun to be close enough to illuminate the moon, but far enough away to be invisible to us using vanishing perspective theory.

Maybe you say: sure it is, the Sun is just on the other side of the moon farther away from our view. But it won’t work, because the Sun has to be placed in order to creat daytime for the other half of the FE too! So if you sit down and try to configure an orientation of the moon and Sun so that it illuminates the moon correctly for our night time while still being placed correctly to produce daytime for the other half of the world, you’ll see that this never happens. You either don’t get the correct moon, or you get the correct moon and it’s daytime for you when it should be night.

In summary, FE must posit an alternate light source for causing moon phases to be viable.

[Jeppspace]

In summary, FE must posit an alternate light source for causing moon phases to be viable.

Have you considered star light? 

After all, it does travel here from all parts of the known universe. Perhaps cumulatively, it could work, no?

I find oftentimes the biggest yet most trivial things get in the way of good solid research.

Might be a thought worth absorbing and reflecting on. 

[manicminer]

Have you considered star light?

If you are suggesting that star light is connected in any way with the phases of the Moon then you need to think again about that one.  Apart from one obvious star, all the other stars are far, far too distant for their light to illuminate the surface of the Moon.

[Jeppspace]

Have you considered star light?

If you are suggesting that star light is connected in any way with the phases of the Moon then you need to think again about that one.  Apart from one obvious star, all the other stars are far, far too distant for their light to illuminate the surface of the Moon.

No I'm not suggesting that entirely, only that collectively starlight may contribute.

There are uncountable number of stars. When we look up at the night sky we see the entire light of all the visible universe. Regardless of its distance, that's a lot of light.

Yet if all the starlight in the universe failed to touch the Moon I'd find that somewhat illogical. We see all the stars in our cosmos because their light travels to us. If it travels to us, then it travels to the Moon too.

The moon is also much, much more reflective, than your average rock, but to a limit. The majority of the time however, I agree we wouldn't notice its influence.

I'm only musing, but it's an interesting thought.

[manicminer]

If you were standing on the Moon you would see a lot of stars. That much is true.  The light from the Sun is still intense enough so that the 12% of incident light that is reflected is  strong enough to make the Moon as bright as it is as seen from Earth.

However the intensity of light from all the other stars that are visible from the Moon is not, even collectively, enough to have any detectable reflection off the Moons surface. Its a bit like suggesting that after a snowflake hits a pad of cotton wool on the ground it will have enough energy to bounce off it high enough to return to the cloud from which it came.

[Jeppspace]

And I thought I was bathing in starlight, aww shucks. 

Nay, it popped in my mind from an idea I once had for a scifi novel, about a civilisation who discovered the features of their natural moon were actually a mirror of their neighbouring galaxy, and that it was in fact... a wormhole. 

Cheers.

[Balls Dingo]

Yet if all the starlight in the universe failed to touch the Moon I'd find that somewhat illogical. We see all the stars in our cosmos because their light travels to us. If it travels to us, then it travels to the Moon too.

I think you might be misunderstanding the problem. In a full moon, the side of the moon that is illuminated is facing us. We know that the stars are further away than the moon because they never, ever cross in front to it (just to name one of many reasons). While they may be illuminating the moon to some degree, it's the wrong side to be relevant to this situation. On a flat Earth, to illuminate the side of the moon facing the observer, the source of light has to be between the observer and the moon. You might think of this as "below" the moon on a flat Earth. It can't be the sun because that is overhead to observers on the other side of the Earth. And we can't see it in the sky at that time of course. It's not anything else because obviously we don't see another powerful light source in the sky at this time. Even if some imaginative theory was invented where this mystery object/light source was completely dark to us but projecting light up at the moon, we'd still know it was there because it would be blocking the light from other stars that we normally see. Lastly, when the sun and moon are both visible in the sky, it looks very much like it's the sun that's illuminating the moon (See

https://twitter.com/kurtisbaute/status/1036255606414471168

).

In summary, a full moon is impossible on a flat Earth so the Earth is not flat. I don't personally think that any other additional proof is required to disprove FET than this.

In case there's any confusion, on a spheroid Earth the explanation is simple. A full moon occurs when the sun is on the other side of the Earth to the moon. The light goes past the Earth and hits the moon. Occasionally the Earth is right in the way and you get a lunar eclipse which can only happen on a full moon (which is yet another proof). This is perfectly consistent with the observed orbit of the Earth around the sun and the moon around the Earth and perfectly matches up with the fact that the sun is always observed to be overhead on the other side of the spheroid Earth when there's a full moon.

[QED]

Yet if all the starlight in the universe failed to touch the Moon I'd find that somewhat illogical. We see all the stars in our cosmos because their light travels to us. If it travels to us, then it travels to the Moon too.

I think you might be misunderstanding the problem. In a full moon, the side of the moon that is illuminated is facing us. We know that the stars are further away than the moon because they never, ever cross in front to it (just to name one of many reasons). While they may be illuminating the moon to some degree, it's the wrong side to be relevant to this situation. On a flat Earth, to illuminate the side of the moon facing the observer, the source of light has to be between the observer and the moon. You might think of this as "below" the moon on a flat Earth. It can't be the sun because that is overhead to observers on the other side of the Earth. And we can't see it in the sky at that time of course. It's not anything else because obviously we don't see another powerful light source in the sky at this time. Even if some imaginative theory was invented where this mystery object/light source was completely dark to us but projecting light up at the moon, we'd still know it was there because it would be blocking the light from other stars that we normally see. Lastly, when the sun and moon are both visible in the sky, it looks very much like it's the sun that's illuminating the moon (See

https://twitter.com/kurtisbaute/status/1036255606414471168

).

In summary, a full moon is impossible on a flat Earth so the Earth is not flat. I don't personally think that any other additional proof is required to disprove FET than this.

In case there's any confusion, on a spheroid Earth the explanation is simple. A full moon occurs when the sun is on the other side of the Earth to the moon. The light goes past the Earth and hits the moon. Occasionally the Earth is right in the way and you get a lunar eclipse which can only happen on a full moon (which is yet another proof). This is perfectly consistent with the observed orbit of the Earth around the sun and the moon around the Earth and perfectly matches up with the fact that the sun is always observed to be overhead on the other side of the spheroid Earth when there's a full moon.

Wait - I thought you just said that the source has to be between the moon and the Earth to make a full moon. So how can the Sun do it if it is on the other side of the Earth?

You appear to claim that a Sun can illuminate the moon when the earth is between it and the moon, but other stars cannot.

I do not find your argument valid even for a RE explanation, let alone being sufficient to disprove a FE one.

Can you think of a good reason why starlight could not illuminate the Moon in RE theory? I’ll give you a hint: it has nothing to do with what you previous said.

If you get stuck, go watch Behing the Curve. That documentary actually contains the answer, although it is in an entirely different context.

[Balls Dingo]

Wait - I thought you just said that the source has to be between the moon and the Earth to make a full moon. So how can the Sun do it if it is on the other side of the Earth?

No, I didn't actually. I qualified that statement with "on a flat Earth".

You appear to claim that a Sun can illuminate the moon when the earth is between it and the moon, but other stars cannot.

Again, a flat Earth has different rules. Right now, for example, the moon is East of Lima, West of Recife, South of Paramaribo, and North of Montevideo. If the moon was close and the size of the flat Earth was even the minimum required to contain all known continents, it's obvious that nothing on the other side of the flat Earth could illuminate the full face of the moon. How could some places see a full moon if they're closer to the edge than other places (i.e, the rest of the Earth to the "North" would be blocking the starlight to that part of the face)? Even ignoring that, given the dispersion of the stars, I don't see how it's possible for the light from the stars to have enough "directionality" to cause predictable, definitive phases of the moon. How could there ever be a new moon? Starlight stops for a while? You could never have a lunar eclipse because that requires a single source of light. And clearly starlight is not causing part of the moon to be illuminated at times when both the sun and moon are visible unless all the stars are coincidentally concentrated in an area in the same direction as the sun. I'm sure I could think of others if there was some agreement about the path that the moon takes over the flat Earth too.

I do not find your argument valid even for a RE explanation, let alone being sufficient to disprove a FE one.

A valid RE explanation is not required to disprove the FE one. And I disagree, I believe I have disproved all FE theories that I've ever encountered. But if you want to put the final nail in the coffin by conclusively disproving the starlight theory, I'm not going to stop you

Can you think of a good reason why starlight could not illuminate the Moon in RE theory? I’ll give you a hint: it has nothing to do with what you previous said.

If you get stuck, go watch Behing the Curve. That documentary actually contains the answer, although it is in an entirely different context.

I provided a few more above. The lunar eclipse is probably the strongest but the others combined are sufficient too. And I'm not sure I could sit through that

[QED]

Wait - I thought you just said that the source has to be between the moon and the Earth to make a full moon. So how can the Sun do it if it is on the other side of the Earth?

No, I didn't actually. I qualified that statement with "on a flat Earth".

You appear to claim that a Sun can illuminate the moon when the earth is between it and the moon, but other stars cannot.

Again, a flat Earth has different rules. Right now, for example, the moon is East of Lima, West of Recife, South of Paramaribo, and North of Montevideo. If the moon was close and the size of the flat Earth was even the minimum required to contain all known continents, it's obvious that nothing on the other side of the flat Earth could illuminate the full face of the moon. How could some places see a full moon if they're closer to the edge than other places (i.e, the rest of the Earth to the "North" would be blocking the starlight to that part of the face)? Even ignoring that, given the dispersion of the stars, I don't see how it's possible for the light from the stars to have enough "directionality" to cause predictable, definitive phases of the moon. How could there ever be a new moon? Starlight stops for a while? You could never have a lunar eclipse because that requires a single source of light. And clearly starlight is not causing part of the moon to be illuminated at times when both the sun and moon are visible unless all the stars are coincidentally concentrated in an area in the same direction as the sun. I'm sure I could think of others if there was some agreement about the path that the moon takes over the flat Earth too.

I do not find your argument valid even for a RE explanation, let alone being sufficient to disprove a FE one.

A valid RE explanation is not required to disprove the FE one. And I disagree, I believe I have disproved all FE theories that I've ever encountered. But if you want to put the final nail in the coffin by conclusively disproving the starlight theory, I'm not going to stop you

Can you think of a good reason why starlight could not illuminate the Moon in RE theory? I’ll give you a hint: it has nothing to do with what you previous said.

If you get stuck, go watch Behing the Curve. That documentary actually contains the answer, although it is in an entirely different context.

I provided a few more above. The lunar eclipse is probably the strongest but the others combined are sufficient too. And I'm not sure I could sit through that

Your arguments are reasonable, but are littered with ignorance fallacies. Just because you can’t think of how sometime could happen is not evidence that it cannot. Also, you present sufficient conditions but treat them as necessary.

Nice job on identifying dispersion as the evidence. You even used the correct word.

[Balls Dingo]

Your arguments are reasonable, but are littered with ignorance fallacies. Just because you can’t think of how sometime could happen is not evidence that it cannot. Also, you present sufficient conditions but treat them as necessary.

I partly agree. I guess it depends on whether we are opening the discussion up to physical phenomenon that we haven't observed anywhere else in the universe. That is possible but I think, and you may disagree, that the burden of proof to provide evidence of that phenomenon then falls on the one proposing it. Otherwise my theory of lunar glow worms is just as valid as any other and I don't accept that. I know you don't accept that either because you have admitted that some things have already been definitively demonstrated, which would be impossible in a worldview where an explanation could be valid just by the mere act of proposing it.

So far you appear to have agreed that on a flat Earth:

1. The moon doesn't emit it's own light.
2. The sun can't be illuminating the moon.
3. Starlight can't be illuminating the moon.

But perhaps you disagree with this?

1. To illuminate the full face of the moon on a flat Earth, the source of the light must be between the observer and the moon.

I can only conclude that that is what you disagree with because it is clear that there is no such source of light visible to the observer. However, if you agree with this, then I think the burden of proof falls on you to propose a source of light that is not visible to an observer below, that illuminates an object above, and does not block the view of other stars. Because I don't believe there is an existing physical phenomenon that can explain this.

One last point, I am assuming that the moon is close in accordance with most flat Earth models, as in thousands of miles away rather than hundreds of thousands of miles away. This can be challenged but I believe it opens up FET to more serious issues and is worthy of a separate discussion. I'm happy to accept that one explanation is that the moon is a distant object and the light source is not visible on the other side of the flat Earth but I'm hoping we can restrict this particular debate to the more common flat Earth/close moon theory. Or you can rule out a distant moon on a flat Earth right away if you choose, there's many different ways to do it

Nice job on identifying dispersion as the evidence. You even used the correct word.

Thanks

[QED]

Hmm, did I state that the Sun cannot be illuminating the moon? Yes that’s right, I did.

I agree mostly, but I am quite careful about what claims I make. Since I do not know what model would work for Illuminating the moon on a FE, I do not claim to know, but am still free to propose possibilities!

I disagree that if I reject your claim then I somehow inherit a burden of proof. You have claimed conjecture #1 in your reply. The responsibility is on you. If I fail to be persuaded, then that’s just where we stand. Maybe someone else WILL be pursuaded by your argument.

Now if you are intent on convincing me, then we proceed with a debate. But I am not the one defending a position. Of course, if I make any claims during the debate, then clearly I have a burden to them.

I do not assume the moon’s distance; I’ve heard no argumentation that convinces me that of the moon’s distance in a FE model. On a RE model, the evidence is overwhelmingly convincing for demonstrating a known distance.

You’ll find (probably) that I am a very tedious debater, and you’ll have to really know your shit to convince me of anything.

You will also find that I concede points immediately when it becomes clear that I am wrong. I have no dog in this fight, and don’t care FE or RE. All I care about is having good reasons for believing it, and knowing enough about what I believe to explain it in precise detail.