[rabinoz]

On a recent thread I posted that:

. . . . . . . .
(The Flat Earth had) no reasonable explanations for so many observations:
          The sharp horizon, especially at sea on a clear day,
          Lunar eclipses,
          Sunrise and sunsets,
          The constant size of the sun and almost constant of the moon from rising to setting,
          The directions and times of sunrises and sunsets,
etc, etc. 
And, before you ask, I have looked up "the Wiki" and read quite a lot ENAG.

The "highly informative" reply was:

. . . . . . . . . .
All of the observations are accounted for in FET. You say that you have read some of the reference material. I would suggest going back and doing it again.
. . . . . . . . . .

I have found very little in the Q&A and to me, at least, "the Wiki" explanations are either quite impossible or completely unconvincing.

Does anyone have any better suggestions?

I know that there are really 5 questions here, so I don't expect anyone to try to answer them all.

Some individual topics could then possibly go into "Flat Earth Debate".

[Boots]

It seems all of you round earthers prefer arbitrarily making hollow statements rather than having an actual discussion. Oh well...

As far as I can see the OP has made a good first step toward an "actual discussion." I'll be keeping an eye on this thread to see what happens next. I am very interested to hear (by hear I actually mean read) both sides of this discussion.

[rabinoz]

It seems all of you round earthers prefer arbitrarily making hollow statements rather than having an actual discussion. Oh well...

As far as I can see the OP has made a good first step toward an "actual discussion." I'll be keeping an eye on this thread to see what happens next. I am very interested to hear (by hear I actually mean read) both sides of this discussion.

Yet, nothing! Junker doesn't debate, just refers you to Q&A and "the Wiki", both of which are useless.
I know my answers to all those things, so it's not much point my posting further on my own topic.

Maybe after a decent time has elapsed I could "read the last rites" and pronounce the topics as "dead and buried", which would include
"It is hereby declared that
The Flat Earth has no reasonable explanations for:
          The sharp horizon, especially at sea on a clear day,
          Lunar eclipses,
          Sunrise and sunsets,
          The constant size of the sun and almost constant of the moon from rising to setting,
          The directions and times of sunrises and sunsets
so five more nails are hereby driven into the coffin of the Flat Earth.
                      May it forever rest in peace!"

[geckothegeek]

It seems all of you round earthers prefer arbitrarily making hollow statements rather than having an actual discussion. Oh well...

As far as I can see the OP has made a good first step toward an "actual discussion." I'll be keeping an eye on this thread to see what happens next. I am very interested to hear (by hear I actually mean read) both sides of this discussion.

Yet, nothing! Junker doesn't debate, just refers you to Q&A and "the Wiki", both of which are useless.
I know my answers to all those things, so it's not much point my posting further on my own topic.

Maybe after a decent time has elapsed I could "read the last rites" and pronounce the topics as "dead and buried", which would include
"It is hereby declared that
The Flat Earth has no reasonable explanations for:
          The sharp horizon, especially at sea on a clear day,
          Lunar eclipses,
          Sunrise and sunsets,
          The constant size of the sun and almost constant of the moon from rising to setting,
          The directions and times of sunrises and sunsets
so five more nails are hereby driven into the coffin of the Flat Earth.
                      May it forever rest in peace!"

rabinoz
I think the flat earth was quite dead before you started driving nails in its coffin ! LOL
I could probably supply you with a few more nails.

[geckothegeek]

It seems all of you round earthers prefer arbitrarily making hollow statements rather than having an actual discussion. Oh well...

As far as I can see the OP has made a good first step toward an "actual discussion." I'll be keeping an eye on this thread to see what happens next. I am very interested to hear (by hear I actually mean read) both sides of this discussion.

I wonder if junker considers the amateur radio "Moon Bounce" as "arbitrarily making hollow statements rather having an actual discussion."   Speaking for my fellow hams and one of my favorite subjects.

[juner]

Yet, nothing! Junker doesn't debate, just refers you to Q&A and "the Wiki", both of which are useless.

Please stop with the baseless, nonsensical claims. You haven't asked me to debate anything.

I know my answers to all those things, so it's not much point my posting further on my own topic.

Irrelevant.

I wonder if junker considers the amateur radio "Moon Bounce" as "arbitrarily making hollow statements rather having an actual discussion."   Speaking for my fellow hams and one of my favorite subjects.

Why would you wonder that? I thought I was fairly clear about the hollow claims RErs were making. You sure do seem to like to make up scenarios, it seems.

[Boots]

Please stop with the baseless, nonsensical claims. You haven't asked me to debate anything.

How about engaging in an actual discussion with the OP regarding one or more of the five points he brought up?

[juner]

I am happy to have an actual discussion. Someone should try to start one.

[Boots]

I am happy to have an actual discussion. Someone should try to start one.

Refer to the OP. He would like to have a discussion about one or more of the points he listed.

[rabinoz]

Junker asks why we don't start a thread.

Well, I thought I did, and was asking for the Flat Earth explanation of five observations. I did say that a responder could pick one topic, but no-one has.

So I ask straight out "How is a lunar eclipse explained on the Flat Earth?"

The TFES Wki gives the following explanation:

The Lunar Eclipse
A Lunar Eclipse occurs about twice a year when a satellite of the sun passes between the sun and moon.

This satellite is called the Shadow Object. Its orbital plane is tilted at an angle of about 5°10' to the sun's orbital plane, making eclipses possible only when the three bodies (Sun, Object, and Moon) are aligned and when the moon is crossing the sun's orbital plane (at a point called the node).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The shadow object is never seen because it orbits close to the sun. As the sun's powerful vertical rays hit the atmosphere during the day they will scatter and blot out nearly every single star and celestial body in the sky. We are never given a glimpse of the celestial bodies which appear near the sun during the day - they are completely washed out by the sun's light.^[1]

It is estimated that the Shadow Object is around five to ten miles in diameter. Since it is somewhat close to the sun the manifestation of its penumbra upon the moon appears as a magnified projection. This is similar to how during a shadow puppet show your hand's shadow can make a large magnified projection upon your bedroom wall as you move it closer to the flashlight.

The geometry I interpret from the Wiki for a lunar eclipse is:

Flat Earth Sun, Shadow Object and Lunar Eclipse

I cannot see how this explanation is feasible. It does not matter where the "Shadow Object" is located

a "five to ten miles in diameter" "Shadow Object" simply cannot block all the light from a 32 mile diameter sun from reaching a 32 mile diameter moon.

Also any object that size and distance would have shown up on radar long ago.

The topic of lunar eclipses has been brought up numerous times here and on TheFlatEarthSociety.org numerous times and as far as I am concerned no-one has any plausible "flat earth" explanation.

I tried to get some answers to this and the related "moon phases" problem in
Why should anyone believe the earth is flat? « Reply #75 on: March 16, 2016, 11:08:14 PM ».
How does a Full Moon appear Full for everyone? « on: April 28, 2016, 08:40:55 AM »
How does a Full Moon appear Full for everyone? « on: April 24, 2016, 01:29:43 AM »

So what is the cause of a lunar eclipse?

[geckothegeek]

Yet, nothing! Junker doesn't debate, just refers you to Q&A and "the Wiki", both of which are useless.

Please stop with the baseless, nonsensical claims. You haven't asked me to debate anything.

I know my answers to all those things, so it's not much point my posting further on my own topic.

Irrelevant.

I wonder if junker considers the amateur radio "Moon Bounce" as "arbitrarily making hollow statements rather having an actual discussion."   Speaking for my fellow hams and one of my favorite subjects.

Why would you wonder that? I thought I was fairly clear about the hollow claims RErs were making. You sure do seem to like to make up scenarios, it seems.

Are you saying the "Moon Bounce" is a "hollow claim and a made up scenario " ? If so, I would suggest you contact The American Radio Relay League (arrl.com) in Newington, Connecticut, USA  for information. Or the Federal Commuications Commission.

How about a debate on "What is the distance from the earth to the moon and what have been the methods to measure the distance." ?

[juner]

Are you saying the "Moon Bounce" is a "hollow claim and a made up scenario " ?

No, I literally didn't say that. I'm not sure why you're trying to twist words and continue to make up things that never happened. Or maybe you just really struggle with reading comprehension.

How about a debate on "What is the distance from the earth to the moon and what have been the methods to measure the distance." ?

Given your history of literally making things up, I'm not sure a debate with you is even possible. I'm willing to give it a try though. The distance to the moon from earth is variable. There have been quite a few methods for measuring the aforementioned distance. I'd suggest reading Wikipedia's article on them.

[Getoboy]

Given your history of literally making things up, I'm not sure a debate with you is even possible. I'm willing to give it a try though. The distance to the moon from earth is variable. There have been quite a few methods for measuring the aforementioned distance. I'd suggest reading Wikipedia's article on them.

A trust in Wikipedia seems strange. Wouldn't that website be easier to fake than the space race and whatever you believe NASA has been doing this whole time?

[geckothegeek]

Are you saying the "Moon Bounce" is a "hollow claim and a made up scenario " ?

No, I literally didn't say that. I'm not sure why you're trying to twist words and continue to make up things that never happened. Or maybe you just really struggle with reading comprehension.

How about a debate on "What is the distance from the earth to the moon and what have been the methods to measure the distance." ?

Given your history of literally making things up, I'm not sure a debate with you is even possible. I'm willing to give it a try though. The distance to the moon from earth is variable. There have been quite a few methods for measuring the aforementioned distance. I'd suggest reading Wikipedia's article on them.

For a beginning

 Do you believe that "Moon Bounce" is real or made up ?

And....But.....Doesn't flat earth say that the moon is a constant 3000 miles from the earth ?
If you say that the distance varies aren't you agreeing with the true "round earth" facts ?

[geckothegeek]

Two more questions. If it is too taxing a problem , just take your time......one at a time.

Let's take the horizon.

If you go down to the beach and look out to sea, what do you see ?
If you are of average height, how far can you see to the horizon ?

[juner]

Wouldn't that website be easier to fake than the space race and whatever you believe NASA has been doing this whole time?

I am not sure what you are talking about. I haven't made any claim about NASA in this thread.

For a beginning

Do you believe that "Moon Bounce" is real or made up ?

This isn't a debate. This is you asking pointless questions. I would suggest you learn what it means to debate, and maybe try again when you better understand what it means.

I don't see why moon bounce couldn't be real. Haven't done it though, so I can't say for sure.
 

And....But.....Doesn't flat earth say that the moon is a constant 3000 miles from the earth ?

Some flat earth proponents believe the moon is 3000 miles from earth, sure.

If you say that the distance varies aren't you agreeing with the true "round earth" facts ?

No.

If you go down to the beach and look out to sea, what do you see ?
If you are of average height, how far can you see to the horizon ?

Irrelevant.

[geckothegeek]

I can see that I am getting about as far as rabinoz got so I will leave it to you, junker and rabinoz.

But in closing.

The distance from the earth to the moon does vary. At the particular time and date the ham radio operators calculated the distance was 238,150 miles.
What is your reply to that.?

When I went down to the beach, I could see the horizon and it was a distinct line where the sea and sky meet and it was about 2 to 3 miles distant.
What is your reply to that ?

I have read the flat earth FAQ and wiki, but  I would be interested in your opinions and how you would explain them.
Just the subject title of "How does TFES explain"    In these examples how does TFES explain the difference between flat earth and round earth ?

[rabinoz]

You post:

I am happy to have an actual discussion. Someone should try to start one.

So I ask a specific question "How is a lunar eclipse explained on the Flat Earth?" in Re: How does TFES explain. « Reply #9 on: Today at 11:18:35 AM ».
In that post I give the Wiki answer with this interpretation of the geometry.
The geometry I interpret from the Wiki for a lunar eclipse is:

Flat Earth Sun, Shadow Object and Lunar Eclipse

The Flat Earth answer - many posts since then, but so far a big fat nothing on this topic!

[juner]

The distance from the earth to the moon does vary. At the particular time and date the ham radio operators calculated the distance was 238,150 miles.
What is your reply to that.?

My reply is that ham radio operators claim to have calculated a distance of 238,150 miles.

When I went down to the beach, I could see the horizon and it was a distinct line where the sea and sky meet and it was about 2 to 3 miles distant.
What is your reply to that ?

My reply is that this is mostly irrelevant.

In these examples how does TFES explain the difference between flat earth and round earth ?

Nothing in what you posted suggests a round earth.

[rabinoz]

The distance from the earth to the moon does vary. At the particular time and date the ham radio operators calculated the distance was 238,150 miles.
What is your reply to that.?

My reply is that ham radio operators claim to have calculated a distance of 238,150 miles.

When I went down to the beach, I could see the horizon and it was a distinct line where the sea and sky meet and it was about 2 to 3 miles distant.
What is your reply to that ?

My reply is that this is mostly irrelevant.

On the flat earth, all that limits the distance we can see is limited transparency of the atmosphere.
Even for perfectly clear air, Rayleigh scattering limits this to a couple of hundred miles and we know that the air is rarely this clear.
So please explain why, on the flat earth, the horizon does not simply fade into a blue.


On the globe, the distance to the horizon is set by the curvature of the earth (and possible some refraction) and can show a quite sharp line. So I think it is not only completely relevant, but one of the simplest arguments for a curved ocean.

In these examples how does TFES explain the difference between flat earth and round earth ?

Nothing in what you posted suggests a round earth.

I beg to differ!

The "distance of 238,150 miles" from the earth to the moon is completely inconsistent with any Flat Earth model we have seen and it completely blows any of the FE's theories of lunar phases, lunar eclipses and solar eclipses right out of the water.

So, I would say of your claim that "Nothing in what you posted suggests a round earth" might literally be true, but sure plays havoc with you flat earth ideas!

The current distance from the earth has been measured by a variety of methods, some of which rely on the Globe model of the solar system (parallax, meridian crossing and eclipses) and some direct methods (radar and laser measurements) and these are consistent with historical measurements of the distance to the moon.

But, I can find absolutely no reference to any flat earth measurements of the distances to the moon.

So, I would say that these measurements certainly are very relevant to whether the earth is flat of a Globe.