381

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Fun with 2-D orbital geometry

« on: November 20, 2020, 05:15:11 AM »

I would need an additional piece of FE information to address this fully.  I think my point is independent of it,  but if I can include it as part of my discussion, I may be able to address your statement more accurately.  In the FE model, what is the longitudinal position of the sun and moon at the new moon?  I would assume 0 degrees but I would prefer your answer.

Tom,  as I thought more about how things work in FE theory I realized that this is a difficult question and can't expect you to answer it.  I will compose my thoughts in a separate post.

Edited to add: As I'm on vacation until after the holidays.  I may not have the free time to adequately respond to this until I return to work. 

382

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Fun with 2-D orbital geometry

« on: November 19, 2020, 10:22:32 PM »

Thank you again for entering discussion, Tom.  You provide me with good insight to FE theory and force me to look at RE theory and discover misconceptions that I hold.

The Moon rises 50 minutes later than the Sun every day.

I don't think this is exactly what you meant to say or I simply misunderstand the statement.  Obviously we've all seen the moon rise at night.  Rising and setting is irrelevant to the discussion anyway.

You are comparing two days when the first quarter moon occurred, and when the Moon passed over your meridian on that day. You need to find the exact time the first quarter moon occurred.

I would need an additional piece of FE information to address this fully.  I think my point is independent of it,  but if I can include it as part of my discussion, I may be able to address your statement more accurately.  In the FE model, what is the longitudinal position of the sun and moon at the new moon?  I would assume 0 degrees but I would prefer your answer.

383

Flat Earth Theory / Fun with 2-D orbital geometry

« on: November 19, 2020, 09:20:02 PM »

The nice thing about FE theory is that it allows what would be a complicated 3-D discussion to be presented in a 2-D world.  2-D is much easier to comprehend and the math is often basic.

I apologize for starting several threads recently discussing the topic of lunar orbital phenomenon.  It's a discussion where "the documentation is fake" is usually of little use.

I created this for another topic:



The purpose was to illustrate the positions of the sun, moon, north pole, and a viewer on earth at the 1st quarter moon.  These relationships are constant regardless orbital radii of the sun and moon.  They can differ in any way and the 12:00-3:00 relationship will still hold true.  The FE model and 2-D geometry dictate it. The relationship is also the same regardless the viewer's position on earth.  What is also constant is the fact that the sun will lead the moon by a little over 6:12 at this time due to their differing orbital periods.

At the 1st quarter moon at my location on June 28, 2020 solar noon led lunar meridian crossing by 6:40.  At the upcoming 1st quarter moon on Nov. 12, 2020 solar noon will lead lunar meridian crossing by 6:20.  So, not only do the observable times differ from what the geometry dictates they also vary.  I specifically discuss solar noon and meridian crossing as they are the times when the sun and moon are directly south of the viewer so any effects of EA or refraction are negated.

How does FE theory explain these observed differences?

384

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moonrise-Moonset in northern lattitudes

« on: November 19, 2020, 04:47:24 PM »

As you said, when it is Full Moon under the FE-EA Theory the Moon is furthest from the Sun in its lunar month circuit.

When the Sun is in the South near the Tropic of Capricorn, the Full Moon is in the North near the Tropic of Cancer. The extreme North will see a Perpetual Full Moon.

Let's assume for a moment this is always true.  So, the closer the full moon falls to the soltice the nearer the north pole it is.  It would lead then that the closer the full moon occurs to the solstice, the more days of perpetual moon we should have .  What we see though, doesn't correlate.

In 2018 at Prudhoe Bay, the full moon fell on Dec. 22.  There were two days of perpetual moon that month.  This year, the full moon falls on Dec. 29 yet there are 6 days of perpetual moon this year.

You can find any amount of data you want here: https://www.timeanddate.com/moon/usa/prudhoe-bay?month=12&year=2020

385

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Water is always level?

« on: November 19, 2020, 04:20:35 PM »

Sort of. The horizon is an optical illusion, and the edge of nothing but our vision.  Assuming mostly uniform weather / air conditions in our viewing "bubble"/sphere, the maximum distance we can see laterally is fixed/static and linear.

So the limit of our vision is variable depending upon altitude.

386

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moonrise-Moonset in northern lattitudes

« on: November 18, 2020, 04:59:32 PM »

Here's what I'm referring to:

I had placed an Imgur image here but deleted it without thinking about the ramifications to my posts here.  Sorry for that



https://www.timeanddate.com/moon/phases/usa/prudhoe-bay

Simple explanation, rotating sphere with axial tilt and moon orbiting with an inclination of 5 degrees.

Not so simple explanation, flat earth with orbiting body that changes orbital radius and velocity significantly over the period of 27 days bound by the fact that even at it's elliptic of largest measured radius it can be viewed rising and setting.

Edited to add: I'm not patient enough to spend the time to think of every point that a post surfaces and include them all in the original post.  What is important to this moon calendar is that this phenomenon happens every month, not just at the soltices and that the all day-none moon cycles occur at different phases not just full and new throughout the year.

387

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moonrise-Moonset in northern lattitudes

« on: November 18, 2020, 04:33:23 PM »

Thank you for the discussion, Tom.

When the Sun is in the South near the Tropic of Capricorn, the Full Moon is in the North near the Tropic of Cancer. The extreme North will see a Perpetual Full Moon.

When the Sun is in the North near the Tropic of Cancer, the Full Moon is in the South near the Tropic of Capricorn. The extreme North will not see the Full Moon rise or set throughout the day, as it is too far away.

These two statements are not completely accurate.  Everyone is familiar with the seasonal cycle of the Sun as it travels north-south over 365 days.  Fewer are familiar with the fact that the moon does the same thing except the N-S range is farther and the period is 18.6 years.  This is an observable and measured characteristic.  As such, the latitude of the lunar elliptic changes a little over 6 degrees a year not Cancer to Capricorn and back.

Even if they are true, they don't address the phenomenon I'm discussing.  The phenomenon is not seasonal.  It occurs every lunar cycle.  My second post is similar. It is a lunar cycle phenomenon not a seasonal one.  Edited from original post:  After reviewing Tom's post a little more, I would retract this statement if true.

"At higher latitudes, there will be a period of at least one day each month when the Moon does not rise, but there will also be a period of at least one day each month when the Moon does not set. This is similar to the seasonal behaviour of the Sun, but with a period of 27.2 days instead of 365 days."  - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon

Edited to add:  I'll revisit this post at the full moon Nov. 30.  I will capture the image from the moon calendar for Quito, Ecuador.  Being on the equator, if what you're saying is true then the angle of the full moon would be to the North.  At the full moon I believe you will see that the angle will be sourthernly just as it is now.

388

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moonrise-Moonset in northern lattitudes

« on: November 17, 2020, 05:46:02 PM »

I'll add a second post to this same subject which I struggle to find a FE explanation for.

The moon travels a path nearly along a constant lattitude as it completes an orbit.  This is a measureable property. This measurable property dictates that the distance from the moon to the north pole is nearly constant throughout its orbit. As alluded to in the original topic post, this would mean that the EA effect of the moon's reflection would be nearly constant throughout its orbit.

Is it possible to explain this North Pole phenomon:

"Near the new Moon phase, the Moon is near the Sun and therefore never rises during the winter. As the Moon approaches full, it will start to pop up above the horizon. Eventually near the full Moon phase it will be high enough in the sky to stay up all day and circle like the Sun in the video above. The elevation of the circle will rise as the Moon becomes completely full and then start to decrease until it begins to dip below the horizon. Eventually the Moon will stop rising at all as it gets close enough to the new phase. The cycle then repeats." - http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/our-solar-system/46-our-solar-system/the-moon/observing-the-moon/127-is-the-moon-always-visible-during-winter-on-the-north-pole-intermediate

with flat earth theory?  Again, the RE model explains this fairly easily.

389

Flat Earth Theory / Moonrise-Moonset in northern lattitudes

« on: November 17, 2020, 03:35:45 PM »

FET explains sunrise-sunset, moonrise-moonset with the theory of EA.  In addtion, EA is also given as the driver for the lunar phase cycle - https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration#Lunar_Phases

In the FE model, the sun is farthest away from the moon at the full moon.  At that time, the sun's rays are powerful enough to illuminate the moon.  This would mandate that at all phases of the lunar cycle, the sun's rays are powerful enough to illuminate the moon as empirical observation verifies. 

Also at this time, the moon is viewable from moonrise to moonset. This is true at every location on the earth plane.  Even at the extreme northern lattitudes a full moon can be witnessed.  What this observation means is that even when the EA effect is at its most extreme (object at its farthest viewing distance) the reflection of the sun's light off the moon can be witnessed.

This being the case, how does FET explain the fact that one day a month the moon doesn't rise in the extreme northern lattitudes.  The RE model explains this phenomenon quite easily.


Note:  In my orginal post I mistakenly typed UA instead of EA.  The post has been corrected.  My apologies for any confusion.

390

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Daytime/Nighttime half moon

« on: November 16, 2020, 08:59:56 PM »

thank you for that.

391

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Daytime/Nighttime half moon

« on: November 16, 2020, 08:30:46 PM »

Tom,

1st attempt to upload a picture.  Not sure if it will be successful.

Position of Sun, Moon, me and North Pole when looking down on a flat earth map from above.  These positions are constant for every 1st quarter moon.

392

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Daytime/Nighttime half moon

« on: November 16, 2020, 08:01:48 PM »

Tom,

Let me clarify my 12:00-3:00 reference as the position of 12:00 changes depending on where an observer is on the plane.  On the FE monopole map, longitude lines emit radially from the north pole.  Taking an observer closer to the pole than the equator, when the new moon passes the longitude line of the observer, the observer will be looking directly south with south being 3:00 from the pole and the sun being at 12:00.

I apologize for having to use a round earth model for number purposes but the general idea remains the same.  Using a RE map, and I'll use rough locations since it's difficult to pin an exact longitude from a representative world map.

At Los Angeles.  New Moon at approx. 120 deg. W sun at approx. 150 deg E.
At Tokyo. New Moon at approx. 140 deg. E. sun at approx. 50 deg. E.
At Greenwich.  New Moon at 0 deg. sun at 90 deg. W

The point being, that at each location, the new moon-sun relationship doesn't change.  It can't in a FE model.  As such, the ambient light surrounding a new moon, be it some shade of light or dark, must remain constant for every new moon at that location.  You can't have a both a day 1st quarter and night 1st quarter at Los Angeles since the sun and moon will always be in the same location relative to L.A.

393

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Daytime/Nighttime half moon

« on: November 16, 2020, 07:34:00 PM »

Thank you for responding again.

Unless the Moon is directly at the position of the Sun there should always be an area in the Moon's reach which overlaps with night.

Can you draw a picture to explain what you mean?

I would furnish a picture but I'm not familiar with uploading to the forum at the moment so let me elaborate and maybe state my point a little better.  I believe the WIKI map is enough to illustrate my point.

You are correct.  Under FE theory, there will always be an area in the Moon's reach with overlaps with night.  I don't debate that FE interpretation.  As I stated, in FE theory, the relationship to a specific point on earth, the Sun, and the 1st quarter moon is fixed every cycle.  The sun leads the moon by 90 degrees and they are on equal plane.  With the north pole as the center of the orbit, if we designate the sun at 12:00 then the first quarter moon sits at 3:00 as we look away from the plane regardless where on the plane a person is located.  This relationship is true every new moon.

As you state, at that exact point and time, the moon will be visible in varying degrees of daylight at other locations on the plane, but for a specific point on the plane, the ambient light must be identical for every 1st quarter moon viewed from that location.  This is fixed because the relationship of the three points are fixed.

394

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Daytime/Nighttime half moon

« on: November 16, 2020, 03:21:26 PM »

Draw a moon somewhere in the middle of that side view diagram, and then draw descending curving lines away from it like the Sun in EA. Some of those Moon rays will end up on the daylight side, and some on the night side.

Thank you for your reply, Tom.

I'll specifically talk about the 1st quarter moon which can be viewed both in daylight and dark.

If we allow the sun's orbit to be described as a clock, when looking away from the earth in the diagram the 1st quarter moon will always appear at 3:00 with the sun always being at 12:00.  This is always the orientation of the 1st quarter moon for the FE orbits to be accurate, always.  This being the case, drawing a moon somewhere else on the diagram is irrelevant to the 1st quarter moon's position to a viewer on the earth.  The relationship of viewer, moon, and sun is always the same.  As such, the light reflecting off of the moon at the time of the 1st quarter moon always travels the same direction.  Therefore, the 1st quarter moon must appear the same in relationship to ambient light at the time it's viewed.

395

Flat Earth Theory / Daytime/Nighttime half moon

« on: November 16, 2020, 02:44:41 PM »

According to the WIKI diagram here: https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration#Lunar_Phases

The FE explanation for 1/2 moon phases would have them always occurring with an identical relationship to the sun.  This being the case, how is it possible to have both a daytime 1/2 moon as well as a nighttime 1/2 moon which can be easily witnessed.

396

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Disappearing Stars as you walk North/South

« on: November 13, 2020, 05:10:08 PM »

There has been no verifiable evidence or tests or theories that support EA. 

Tests are not required.  Verifiable evidence does exist as you witness EA everyday.  At least I think that will be the argument presented, but I'm just guessing here.

397

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Disappearing Stars as you walk North/South

« on: November 13, 2020, 04:38:15 PM »

Pretty sure the answer lies in EA.  What you're experiencing is the bending of light due to EA.  At least that's my understanding which anyone is free to correct and I won't get my feelings hurt.

398

Flat Earth Theory / Let's try this again.

« on: November 13, 2020, 04:12:31 PM »

Pete - "The Sun moves in circles around the North Pole." - https://wiki.tfes.org/Flat_Earth_-_Frequently_Asked_Questions

Sorry for my literal interpretation.  If that's not correct you might should update the Wiki page.  Then perhaps you should let me correct my error and restate the post rather than just shut the post down, but you do you.

The geometry of my original post (reposted below with a couple minor edits) still holds true.

-------------------------------
The Wiki poses that solar eclipse paths make more sense on a flat earth map than the RE map.

https://wiki.tfes.org/File:AE-TwentyYearsOfEclipses.jpg#file

At first glance, this appears reasonable.  However, upon further thought the map would appear to me to refute the FE model.  Two objects rotating in NEAR circular orbits around the same point would cause shadow arcs to appear on the map below which have starting and ending points at the same lattitude.  This is absolutely certain. Geometry dictates it.  Two objects rotating in NEARLY concentric paths in a 3-D model would always have their, what I'll term 'visual intersection point', drawing a NEARLY concentric path as well when projected on a plane below them.  On the FE map though the arcs are at multiple orientations.  EA would not be an adequate explanation for this as even if the sun's light waves are bending, they would still be traveling in a circular path.

Is there another piece of FE theory which would explain this?
---------------------------------------------

Even if their paths are not exact circles, there is no explanation for a path with has one point at a lattitude < 10 deg. and the other point at a lattitude of nearly 40 degrees.  Though not identical, the orbits of the moon and sun are too close in relation for this to be possible.

399

Flat Earth Theory / Solar eclipse paths on a FE map

« on: November 13, 2020, 03:40:32 PM »

The Wiki poses that solar eclipse paths make more sense on a flat earth map than the RE map.

https://wiki.tfes.org/File:AE-TwentyYearsOfEclipses.jpg#file

At first glance, this appears reasonable.  However, upon further thought the map would appear to me to refute the FE model.  Two objects rotating in circular orbits around the same point would cause shadow arcs to appear on the map below which have starting and ending points at the same lattitude.  This is absolutely certain. Geometry dictates it.  Two objects rotating in concentric circles in a 3-D model would always have their, what I'll term 'visual intersection point', drawing a concentric circle as well when projected on a plane below them.  On the FE map though the arcs are at multiple orientations.  EA would not be an adequate explanation for this as even if the sun's light waves are bending, they would still be traveling in a circular path.

Is there another piece of FE theory which would explain this?

400

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon wax and wane direction

« on: November 12, 2020, 09:06:46 PM »

In a nutshell, this "bendy light" due to an as-yet unexplained force accounts for a number of phenomenon, including why the Sun behaves like a spotlight on Earth, and also why the Moon appears inverted in different hemispheres.

I'm guessing it's the "bendy light" that explains this:

"You cannot see Kawaikini from the peak of Mauna Kea. Mauna Kea, the highest peak in Hawaii (the summit of the Big Island), offers incredible views. With nothing but the ocean around it, and a few other nearby islands, you should be able to see extremely far away. The island of Kauai has the seventh highest point in the Hawaiian islands: the peak known as Kawaikini. If you were to draw a straight line from Mauna Kea (elevation: 13,796 ft.) to Kawaikini (elevation: 5226 ft.) it would span a distance of 303 miles." which I obtained here:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/11/24/five-impossible-facts-that-would-have-to-be-true-if-the-earth-were-flat/?sh=12ff43287c4f

If I'm understanding, according to the Bishop experiment light doesn't bend at all in 23 miles yet it bends in excess of 8,000' in 300.