1
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moons - How?
« on: October 21, 2018, 01:24:10 AM »
I never thought of this, also how would the planets move across the sky if they aren't orbiting anything? and the Earth isn't spinning.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Denser Objects still weigh the same no matter if they are falling or not. Air resistance does not affect the weight of an object, and denser objects still fall faster in vacuums.I don't believe air resistance would change all too much"Change all that much" compared to what?
From one object that doesn't have as much mass and one that has more.and even if this is true, denser objects are still heavier.That's entirely irrelevant to your question.
I doubt that FE'ers believe in plate tectonics.
Most of them are in the "Religious right" - and believe that the Earth is only 6,000 years old.
One of their main claims is that the Bible says that the Earth is fixed and unchanging...so tectonic plate motion is completely out of the question.
(Again, I hate to have to speak for them...but they're not talking to us anymore.)
If the sun is around 3,000 miles away then why can't we see it moving? It's movement would have to be visible without using time lapses, etc. Not just that but easily seen. You do not state how fast the Sun is moving.
Again - I hate to be an FE "apologist" - but the sun appears to move across the sky in RE theory too...very slowly...but at sunset and sunrise, especially near the equator - you can easily see the sun moving. The motion of the FE sun is claimed to produce identical motion across the sky as we see in the real world...at identical speeds.
For one specific spot on the Earth's surface, there is indeed a route that both FE Sun and FE Moon might take to mimic the RE experience.
The HUGE problem is that no possible set of FE sun/moon/star/planet motions can explain the positions of those bodies at multiple locations simultaneously.
That may not have been a problem in the 1800's and 1900's - but here in 2017, we have instant communications around the world - with web-cams accessible in many cities. This makes it MUCH harder for FE'ers to explain the motions of their sun and moon.
At this point, they usually appeal to "refraction" and various other distortions of the path of light from a straight line.
This is clearly needed because without that, there can be no sunrises and sunsets in Europe while it's midday in China or the USA.
If the FE'ers carefully explained how all of this works - you could tear their explanation down instantly - but they remain incredibly vague on the details...so we're back to nailing Jello to the ceiling.
So - at time of writing, 85 people have viewed this thread - and the only response so far can only explain ONE tide per day and not TWO.
Have FE'ers given up on this?
The standard FE explanation for eclipses (both solar and lunar) is that a mysterious "shadow object" - which is evidently round and opaque (maybe a disk, maybe a sphere) - gets between the observer and the sun or moon respectively. This is intended to explain why there is a curved shadow on the moon during a partial lunar eclipse.
In RE terms, the shadow of the curved Earth cast onto the moon explains the curved shadow.
My new problem is how FE'ers can explain why this "Shadow object" or "antimoon" doesn't block out the stars - during a partial lunar eclipse or when moving across the sky between eclipses...that's not explained at all.
In RE theory - the stars are luminous and are clearly visible - even when we see them right next to the semi-eclipsed moon...which we clearly do.
In FE theory, during a partial lunar eclipse, the part of the Shadow object that does not overlay the moon should block starlight from stars in that small region of the sky...but it doesn't. Furthermore, just before and after the eclipse, we ought to see a circular region of blocked-out stars moving towards and then away from the moon. No such observations have ever been made...I've watched countless lunar eclipses - and I have not seen a blotting out of the stars close to the moon in the time leading up to, and following the eclipse.
I think FE proponents have to rethink their eclipse ideas...what's there right now doesn't fit with simple naked-eye observations.
If Antarctica is an ice rim then why can you see solid rock sometimes below and around the ice. Also can you explain the mapping of what's under the ice and what's in the ice?
Do you have a photo of this in mind? I can't think of ever seeing rock in photos of the coast of Antarctica.
I'm not sure it makes a difference to FE vs RE though.
What can explain the fact that there are different shadows around the world at different times?Different how?In addition, doesn't the fact that the mast of a ship appears first disprove flat earth?No.