[Swyzlebeth]

I'm new to the flat earth theory but I would like to so what everyone's opinion is on the phases of the Moon. With a flat earth how would that work?

[Pete Svarrior]

http://wiki.tfes.org/The_Phases_of_the_Moon

[Charming Anarchist]

You have to decide for yourself whether you want to believe the moon is a physical object floating above your head or whether it is holographic projection.   

If you can understand how a rainbow is not a physical object, then you can begin to consider that the moon is just a reflection of light/energy emitted by the earth. 

The wiki makes the assumption that the moon is a physical object.  There is no proof of such and the appearance of the moon lends itself to being a projection. 





The phases you see of the moon projection are easy to understand by experiment. 
Take a glass cake cover and shine a torch light down through it in the dark.  You will see the same moon phase projection as the focus of your light moves in and out from the center of your dome. 

[Luke 22:35-38]

You have to decide for yourself whether you want to believe the moon is a physical object floating above your head or whether it is holographic projection.   

If you can understand how a rainbow is not a physical object, then you can begin to consider that the moon is just a reflection of light/energy emitted by the earth. 

The wiki makes the assumption that the moon is a physical object.  There is no proof of such and the appearance of the moon lends itself to being a projection. 





The phases you see of the moon projection are easy to understand by experiment. 
Take a glass cake cover and shine a torch light down through it in the dark.  You will see the same moon phase projection as the focus of your light moves in and out from the center of your dome.

What about the ancients using the moon for times and seasons?

[UnionsOfSolarSystemPlanet]

http://wiki.tfes.org/The_Phases_of_the_Moon

The Moon isn't always at apogee at full Moon and perigee at new Moon and the Sun's last perihelion was January 3 2016 with the next aphelion at July 4 2016. The wiki is incorrect the phases of the Moon have nothing to do with the Sun & Moon distance.

[Pete Svarrior]

The Moon isn't always at apogee at full Moon and perigee at new Moon

The wiki does not suggest that it is.

[Charming Anarchist]

What about the ancients using the moon for times and seasons?

What about them?  What makes them so special? 
I would imagine folks can do that now just the same.  I do not see what difference that makes to the true form of the earth. 

[Luke 22:35-38]

What about the ancients using the moon for times and seasons?

What about them?  What makes them so special? 
I would imagine folks can do that now just the same.  I do not see what difference that makes to the true form of the earth.

Wasn't it you who said the moon is just a hologram? If so then how did the ancients see it? Did they had hologram technology?

[Charming Anarchist]

Ancient folks see the moon the same way we see it --- with their naked eyes. 

[Luke 22:35-38]

Ancient folks see the moon the same way we see it --- with their naked eyes.

So what did you meant that the moon is a hologram?

[Charming Anarchist]

So what did you meant that the moon is a hologram?

It is not a physical object. 

[Luke 22:35-38]

So what did you meant that the moon is a hologram?

It is not a physical object.

Then who made the hologram?

[JRowe]

Then who made the hologram?

And this is why I call you a timewaster. I don't agree with anarchist's model yet it's blindingly obvious he's referring to a natural occurrence. There doesn't need to be a 'who.'

To the OP, the DE model answers this by having the moon as a spotlight (like all celestial objects). Only one face is lit, and it rotates. Sometimes the whole face is towards up (full), sometimes only half or less or none.

[Luke 22:35-38]

Then who made the hologram?

And this is why I call you a timewaster. I don't agree with anarchist's model yet it's blindingly obvious he's referring to a natural occurrence. There doesn't need to be a 'who.'

To the OP, the DE model answers this by having the moon as a spotlight (like all celestial objects). Only one face is lit, and it rotates. Sometimes the whole face is towards up (full), sometimes only half or less or none.

What natural means can make a hologram?

[JRowe]

You have to decide for yourself whether you want to believe the moon is a physical object floating above your head or whether it is holographic projection.   

If you can understand how a rainbow is not a physical object, then you can begin to consider that the moon is just a reflection of light/energy emitted by the earth. 

The wiki makes the assumption that the moon is a physical object.  There is no proof of such and the appearance of the moon lends itself to being a projection. 





The phases you see of the moon projection are easy to understand by experiment. 
Take a glass cake cover and shine a torch light down through it in the dark.  You will see the same moon phase projection as the focus of your light moves in and out from the center of your dome.

Luke, stop wasting time.

[Luke 22:35-38]

You have to decide for yourself whether you want to believe the moon is a physical object floating above your head or whether it is holographic projection.   

If you can understand how a rainbow is not a physical object, then you can begin to consider that the moon is just a reflection of light/energy emitted by the earth. 

The wiki makes the assumption that the moon is a physical object.  There is no proof of such and the appearance of the moon lends itself to being a projection. 





The phases you see of the moon projection are easy to understand by experiment. 
Take a glass cake cover and shine a torch light down through it in the dark.  You will see the same moon phase projection as the focus of your light moves in and out from the center of your dome.

Luke, stop wasting time.

I'm not. First off rainbows are not holograms. Second that doesn't explain why the moon is or what evidence you have that the moon is a hologram. And third, I jumped in this thread late and missed that.

[JRowe]

I'm not. First off rainbows are not holograms. Second that doesn't explain why the moon is or what evidence you have that the moon is a hologram. And third, I jumped in this thread late and missed that.

When you have more than whining about semantics, presupposing your model, and now inexplicably claiming you 'missed' a post that you quoted, maybe your claim that you're not wasting time will mean something. Until then, shut up.

[andruszkow]

I'm not. First off rainbows are not holograms. Second that doesn't explain why the moon is or what evidence you have that the moon is a hologram. And third, I jumped in this thread late and missed that.

When you have more than whining about semantics, presupposing your model, and now inexplicably claiming you 'missed' a post that you quoted, maybe your claim that you're not wasting time will mean something. Until then, shut up.

Wait, I get warnings left and right, but this is OK? Asking for an explanation is a legitimate question, especially when claiming that a celestial body is just a hologram. Arriving at that as a conclusion must be easily explained.

[JRowe]

I'm not. First off rainbows are not holograms. Second that doesn't explain why the moon is or what evidence you have that the moon is a hologram. And third, I jumped in this thread late and missed that.

When you have more than whining about semantics, presupposing your model, and now inexplicably claiming you 'missed' a post that you quoted, maybe your claim that you're not wasting time will mean something. Until then, shut up.

Wait, I get warnings left and right, but this is OK? Asking for an explanation is a legitimate question, especially when claiming that a celestial body is just a hologram. Arriving at that as a conclusion must be easily explained.

I've plenty of experience of Luke. He never asks for an explanation, he just demands we repeat ourselves. Five seconds later he'll be asking the exact same question with no acknowledgement as to the answer. He's already admitted that he didn't even read a post he directly quoted.
As I've said, I don't accept anarchist's model, though I expect his evidence will be the universal standard: it explains observations.

[Luke 22:35-38]

I'm not. First off rainbows are not holograms. Second that doesn't explain why the moon is or what evidence you have that the moon is a hologram. And third, I jumped in this thread late and missed that.

When you have more than whining about semantics, presupposing your model, and now inexplicably claiming you 'missed' a post that you quoted, maybe your claim that you're not wasting time will mean something. Until then, shut up.

Wait, I quoted what you quoted, maybe I did quote the OP and didn't remember. But don't you do the same with your model? Presupposing it?