[LoveScience]

The shadow object is never seen because it orbits close to the sun.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
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.

If an object of just a few miles diameter was orbiting close the Sun there is absolutely no way its shadow would ever reach Earth! It's apparent size from Earth would be so small that we wouldn't even notice it, let alone any shadow from it.

[edby]

The shadow object is never seen because it orbits close to the sun.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
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.

If an object of just a few miles diameter was orbiting close the Sun there is absolutely no way its shadow would ever reach Earth! It's apparent size from Earth would be so small that we wouldn't even notice it, let alone any shadow from it.

Remember in FE the sun is much close to the earth, and is much smaller than the orthodox view would have it.

[LoveScience]

Of course  And far be it for me to suggest any different. As far as I know (and no, I haven't personally measured it) the Sun has a diameter of 1.5 million km give or take a few and a volume of one million times the volume of Earth. 

Sorry!  make that 1,39 million km.

[JCM]

The moon can still be five degrees off from the ecliptic. FEH says the sun and moon are similar in size, 32 miles in diameter I believe.  For such small objects, over such a huge object the size of the earth, the two absolutely have to follow each other around or else the solar eclipses would rarely ever happen.  THis would require them to have the same orbit with the moon slightly off kilter by 5 degrees. This would require the moon to shift North towards Tropic of Cancer till June 21 then south towards Tropic of Capricorn till December 21 just like the Sun.  Solar eclipses have occurred every single month but not consecutively hence the needed 5 degree angle of inclination off the same orbit of the sun for FEH to work.

There is less then zero explanation for how the moon is able to cause even a solar eclipse in FEH that matches the simplest observation of the moon orbit for moon and sun 32 miles in diameter and near the earth.  If the FE wiki wants to claim the moon causes solar eclipses, are both very small at 32 miles or whatever in diameter, then the FE wiki has to explain why the moon doesn’t follow the same orbit just off kilter by 5 degrees.    This should be incredibly easy to prove if it were true and would be actual evidence of FEH beyond it just looks flat.

[LoveScience]

The true size of the Sun and the Moon have been known for a long time.  Not theory, known fact. Even back in the days of Aristarchus (310 -230BC) he was able to deduce by simple interpretation of his naked eye observations that the Sun was much further away (and therefore much bigger) than the Moon.

He wasn't able to put any accurate figures on the proportions etc for obvious reasons but at least his interpretation was consistent with observation. He also used this information to draw an impressively accurate schematic of how a lunar eclipse happens.

[RonJ]

Take a look at the Astronomers Without Borders website.  They seem to believe in the Zetetic methods.  Just ordinary people trying to use simple equipment to observe things with the human eye.  Unfortunately some of their observations don't seem to match the flat earth theory.  I believe that they did a measurement of the distance to the moon recently using simple parallax methods that showed a lot longer distance than 3000 miles.  Perhaps it would be a good idea for the Flat Earth Society to team up with the Astronomers Without Borders. 

[TomInAustin]

You do realize you are arguing with a round earther right?   He is just really good at processing what he has read and heard here.   No one owes you diagrams, explanations,  etc.

I disagree.  Their own FEH wiki states that the moon is seen blocking the sun for all of the solar eclipses throughout the year.  Their own wiki also shows the sun shifting north and south throughout the year towards the Tropics of Cancer and Capricorn. In order for the moon to make the solar eclipses it too obviously has to follow the same trajectories as the sun or else the eclipses would only happen when the sun crossed into the moons orbit (so only a small fraction of the year and only during those weeks or months). 

The moons path looks nothing like the suns perfectly predictable path shifting north then south, the predictability of the solar eclipses requires the moon to follow the sun to make such eclipses if near the earth.  If the moon doesn’t follow the suns path as it would need to for the eclipses, it is just more evidence the sun and moon are NOT near us destroying a major component of FEH.

I totally agree with the obvious issues with moon and sun orbits in FE but that does not change what I said about no one owing diagrams or explanations.  This is their house.

[LoveScience]

I believe that they did a measurement of the distance to the moon recently using simple parallax methods that showed a lot longer distance than 3000 miles

Just a bit longer!  The distance to the Moon (average) has been measured by laser ranging among other methods and is just over 250,000 miles or 384,400km in metric. About 1.5 seconds light travelling time.


The Moons orbit is elliptical so the Earth to Moon distance does vary over a month (perigee and apogee). The Media like to use the term Super Moon when the full Moon is at perigee.

[RonJ]

Of course that's all true.  I believe it was in 1946 there was a government project to bounce radio signals off the moon.  That project was successful and you could easily see that the distance was much farther than 3000 miles.  The idea wasn't to show the distance to the moon, that's been known for 100's of years, it was to see if the moon could be used for useful communications purposes. At that time, with the radio equipment available then, the moon wasn't all that practical  to use.  Today private individuals own radio equipment that is used to bounce signals off the moon and amateur radio operators do so on a regular basis as a hobby.  Yes, there are several laser reflectors left on the surface of the moon and there are observatories that measure the earth-moon distance down to the centimeter on a regular basis.  That goes against the 'morals' of this site because NASA didn't really 'send a man to the moon'.  If they did, it would bust things wide open and knock over the 'rice bowl'.   

[Curious Squirrel]

So, thought occurred. You guys were wondering how the moon gets between sun and Earth for solar eclipses, pointing out the sun moves between the two tropics. Well, what if the moon does too (or at least close)?

FEH already posits that the moon moves up and down in altitude over the course of the month to create the phases of the moon. Well, this would normally create differences in where the moon sets/rises throughout the month no? What if the moon ALSO shifts it's 'position' North South throughout this time as well. Thus keeping it appearing to set and rise from about the same location through the month. This would also allow it to cross, not the suns path, but the light from the sun to various parts of the flat Earth at various times, depending on where the sun was in its cycle in comparison to the moon. Obviously I can't model this out, as we'd need an accurate map of the flat Earth to even begin, but it seems reasonable to me.

[Curiosity File]

So, thought occurred. You guys were wondering how the moon gets between sun and Earth for solar eclipses, pointing out the sun moves between the two tropics. Well, what if the moon does too (or at least close)?

FEH already posits that the moon moves up and down in altitude over the course of the month to create the phases of the moon. Well, this would normally create differences in where the moon sets/rises throughout the month no? What if the moon ALSO shifts it's 'position' North South throughout this time as well. Thus keeping it appearing to set and rise from about the same location through the month. This would also allow it to cross, not the suns path, but the light from the sun to various parts of the flat Earth at various times, depending on where the sun was in its cycle in comparison to the moon. Obviously I can't model this out, as we'd need an accurate map of the flat Earth to even begin, but it seems reasonable to me.

Nice. That's what I was looking for.
FET would need a diagram,(with mathematical calculations showing the distances between sun&moon, moon&earth, earth&sun),  that showed linear shadows that correlate with real world observation. Also how, where and possible time lapses of their proposed paths.
I wasn't aware that FET had figures that show the Moon at a lower altitude, at some point, than the Sun.
Could you link me to information?   

[Curious Squirrel]

So, thought occurred. You guys were wondering how the moon gets between sun and Earth for solar eclipses, pointing out the sun moves between the two tropics. Well, what if the moon does too (or at least close)?

FEH already posits that the moon moves up and down in altitude over the course of the month to create the phases of the moon. Well, this would normally create differences in where the moon sets/rises throughout the month no? What if the moon ALSO shifts it's 'position' North South throughout this time as well. Thus keeping it appearing to set and rise from about the same location through the month. This would also allow it to cross, not the suns path, but the light from the sun to various parts of the flat Earth at various times, depending on where the sun was in its cycle in comparison to the moon. Obviously I can't model this out, as we'd need an accurate map of the flat Earth to even begin, but it seems reasonable to me.

Nice. That's what I was looking for.
FET would need a diagram,(with mathematical calculations showing the distances between sun&moon, moon&earth, earth&sun),  that showed linear shadows that correlate with real world observation. Also how, where and possible time lapses of their proposed paths.
I wasn't aware that FET had figures that show the Moon at a lower altitude, at some point, than the Sun.
Could you link me to information?

I don't know that they do for sure, the up and down motion of the moon is one of the methods by which it's been proposed that the phases of the moon occur. Combined with this idea, and the inexactness often cited due to 'perspective effects' I've always been under the impression the 3k miles high is a bit more of a rough estimate than anything else (outside of a few specific individuals). I believe the other site has a thread where someone (Brotherhood of the Dome?) had a list of observations and laid out his math on how he put the sun at least at 5800 something km (he actually decided on a relatively precise altitude). But his math appeared to have at least some bit of 'fudging' with a relatively unexplained extra figure to make everything line up. At least he never explained it that I saw.

[RonJ]

All the math with the moon and sun above the earth really can't work no matter what they do unless it has an energy source to change the orbits.  Without gravity, which isn't possible in this arrangement, the sun and moon would require a retro-rocket to keep them in a circular orbit and would also be needed to change orbits.  Since the earth is under constant acceleration upwards (in place of gravity) the sun and moon have to move in this manner also.  I've speculated that the dark energy supplies this but have gotten no answer on this subject.  Dark energy above the earths surface would obviously be detectable as a force that could accelerate mass.  How could this be explained?  If somehow dark energy is the force that keeps the sun and moon in orbit it would also have to be smart.  It would have to know when to change the orbits of the sun and moon on a regular basis and not just supply a constant push.  All of this is a tall order.  The math for all this would be an interesting sight.   

[Curiosity File]

Another huge fallacy in FET.
Let us look at a few factors and see what happens if we try to line them up.
Someone can do a chart if they'd like based on what I'm going to describe, especially if you can't picture it in your mind. or a simple paper, pencil, match stick model experiment.
Paper to represent the disc earth, pencil to represent distance moon and sun are apart from each other and match stick to represent the distance the moon & sun are up from the surface of the earth. FET presents tthis as about 3,000 miles.
Note that the united states is nearly 3,000 miles from coast to coast.
Match the match stick to scale the USA and scale the rest of the flat earth (paper) accordingly.
Note where the USA is in relation to FE maps.
Trim the pencil to match the distance that the sun & moon are apart from each other as represented by FET.
Now place the match stick at the north pole straight up and the center of the pencil on the tip of the match stick.
Now try to imagine  how, or demonstrate how or what it would take to bring the moon in line with the sun to cast an ecliptic shadow of the moon on the earth at the united states.
That's the realities of the moon and sun being only 3,000 miles up from the surface of the earth and, I'm guessing, about 8,000 mile apart.
Also think about how close to the earth a shadow abject would have to be to cast a shadow on the moon.
Also how easy it would be to go to the moon if it were only 3,000 miles away.

I'm in the middle of something right now, I'll edit this later if needed
   
   

[Curious Squirrel]

Another huge fallacy in FET.
Let us look at a few factors and see what happens if we try to line them up.
Someone can do a chart if they'd like based on what I'm going to describe, especially if you can't picture it in your mind. or a simple paper, pencil, match stick model experiment.
Paper to represent the disc earth, pencil to represent distance moon and sun are apart from each other and match stick to represent the distance the moon & sun are up from the surface of the earth. FET presents tthis as about 3,000 miles.
Note that the united states is nearly 3,000 miles from coast to coast.
Match the match stick to scale the USA and scale the rest of the flat earth (paper) accordingly.
Note where the USA is in relation to FE maps.
Trim the pencil to match the distance that the sun & moon are apart from each other as represented by FET.
Now place the match stick at the north pole straight up and the center of the pencil on the tip of the match stick.
Now try to imagine  how, or demonstrate how or what it would take to bring the moon in line with the sun to cast an ecliptic shadow of the moon on the earth at the united states.
That's the realities of the moon and sun being only 3,000 miles up from the surface of the earth and, I'm guessing, about 8,000 mile apart.
Also think about how close to the earth a shadow abject would have to be to cast a shadow on the moon.
Also how easy it would be to go to the moon if it were only 3,000 miles away.

I'm in the middle of something right now, I'll edit this later if needed
   
 

Why do you keep trying to put the sun/moon on opposite sides of the Earth from one another when you make these thought experiments? It takes the sun 24 hours to complete one rotation around the plane of the Earth. It takes the moon something like 25 hours. From waning crescent to waxing crescent (approx) the sun/moon are on the same 'quadrant' of the FE. How does this put them 8,000 miles apart?

[Curiosity File]

Another huge fallacy in FET.
Let us look at a few factors and see what happens if we try to line them up.
Someone can do a chart if they'd like based on what I'm going to describe, especially if you can't picture it in your mind. or a simple paper, pencil, match stick model experiment.
Paper to represent the disc earth, pencil to represent distance moon and sun are apart from each other and match stick to represent the distance the moon & sun are up from the surface of the earth. FET presents tthis as about 3,000 miles.
Note that the united states is nearly 3,000 miles from coast to coast.
Match the match stick to scale the USA and scale the rest of the flat earth (paper) accordingly.
Note where the USA is in relation to FE maps.
Trim the pencil to match the distance that the sun & moon are apart from each other as represented by FET.
Now place the match stick at the north pole straight up and the center of the pencil on the tip of the match stick.
Now try to imagine  how, or demonstrate how or what it would take to bring the moon in line with the sun to cast an ecliptic shadow of the moon on the earth at the united states.
That's the realities of the moon and sun being only 3,000 miles up from the surface of the earth and, I'm guessing, about 8,000 mile apart.
Also think about how close to the earth a shadow abject would have to be to cast a shadow on the moon.
Also how easy it would be to go to the moon if it were only 3,000 miles away.

I'm in the middle of something right now, I'll edit this later if needed
   
 

Why do you keep trying to put the sun/moon on opposite sides of the Earth from one another when you make these thought experiments? It takes the sun 24 hours to complete one rotation around the plane of the Earth. It takes the moon something like 25 hours. From waning crescent to waxing crescent (approx) the sun/moon are on the same 'quadrant' of the FE. How does this put them 8,000 miles apart?

8,000 miles was a guess as stated.
Judging by the overall distance of from edge to edge on FE models, the path the moon and sun appear to circle the disc, is how I based my guess without calculating. If someone wants to calculate a more accurate distance go for it.
Using the difference in time of rotation obviously would being the moon close to the sun at some point. This isn't even in question in my proposal. As my proposed experiment has to have that happen to bring the sun and moon close enough together to line up in such a manner as to cast a shadow on the earths surface, especially on the USA which on the that FE map would place the moon and sun closer to the center than anything FET shows on any of their mapping.
 

[LoveScience]

It takes the sun 24 hours to complete one rotation around the plane of the Earth

Sorry... no idea where you get this idea from... please explain.  It takes the Earth 24 hours (23hrs 56m and 4sec relative to the stars which is the sidereal day) to rotate on its axis as it orbits the Sun.  The sidereal day is 4 minutes shorter than the mean solar day which is why the constellations vary with the season.

[Curiosity File]

It takes the sun 24 hours to complete one rotation around the plane of the Earth

Sorry... no idea where you get this idea from... please explain.  It takes the Earth 24 hours (23hrs 56m and 4sec relative to the stars which is the sidereal day) to rotate on its axis as it orbits the Sun.  The sidereal day is 4 minutes shorter than the mean solar day which is why the constellations vary with the season.

There's nothing accurate about FET. The sun circling a dics is one of the worst flawed concepts FET has. 3,000 miles up from the surface of earth.

I spent countless hrs reading and searching the internet for a scale model that depicts, accurately, the size/distance edge to edge of flat earth with the sun 3,000 miles from the surface. I could nothing on FES wiki or anywhere else. You know why? Because none of FET would work with the sun and moon so close to the surface of the earth.

So tell me LoveScience what are some of the techniques and tools we use to measure the speed in which the Earth rotate on it's axis? Probably should start a new thread for this question.
 

[Curious Squirrel]

It takes the sun 24 hours to complete one rotation around the plane of the Earth

Sorry... no idea where you get this idea from... please explain.  It takes the Earth 24 hours (23hrs 56m and 4sec relative to the stars which is the sidereal day) to rotate on its axis as it orbits the Sun.  The sidereal day is 4 minutes shorter than the mean solar day which is why the constellations vary with the season.

The sun takes 24 hours to return to it's initial starting point in the sky. This is true even on RE. I'm not sure what there is to explain....

[LoveScience]

Actually the real Sun takes an average of a little over 24 hours to complete two transits of the observers meridian.  That is why the Sun moves through the 12 constellations of the zodiac.  Technically that should be 13 as the ecliptic passes every so slightly through Ophiuchus as well.

It is the mean Sun (an imaginary Sun) which takes exactly 24 hours to complete two transits. It is the mean Sun that we base our clocks on. Owing to the elliptical orbit of the Earth the speed of the Sun along the ecliptic does vary slightly through the year an this is compensated for when it comes to reading Sun dials for example by applying the equation of time.


The Sun does not remain exactly stationary in space (nothing does) but is rocked slightly due to the planets around the gravtiational centre (barycentre)