21

Flat Earth Theory / Re: flipping moon

« on: March 29, 2018, 06:00:41 PM »

I began by saying, and THIS IS IMPORTANT, so PAY ATTENTION - "First, assume that the moon, as drawn, is showing the face that would be seen by all viewers". What I meant there is that, since we are dealing with a two dimensional illustration, for the sake of my argument it becomes necessary to mentally place the moon deeper into the illustration in the Z axis, thereby creating a "virtual" 3D illustration, so that the viewers in the illustration have essentially the same view of the moon as drawn that you and I have.

I get it, it appears that you're not getting it. I'm simply trying to show that flat earthers would never see the moon as "upside down", when compared to that seen by another viewer, from anywhere on their "flat earth". That should be obvious to anyone who gives it a modicum of thought.

As for "seeing the backside of the moon" I've consistently been trying to deal with a two dimensional representation of the moon, the face we see, disregarding its third dimension for the purposes of this discussion. The amount of miscommunication here seems gargantuan. This is almost like kibitzing with an FEer. 

I know, and you're the one playing the part of the FEer.

You keep demanding more proofs and taking materials out of context, without providing anything of you own. You're the one who complained I used a playing card to represent the Moon and then had me make a 3D cylinder for no good reason, only to come back and say "I've consistently been trying to deal with a two dimensional representation of the moon, the face we see, disregarding its third dimension for the purposes of this discussion".

I mean really, make me build a model in 3D than come back and say YOU'RE the one whose been "trying to deal with a two dimensional representation of the moon".

8!tc4, please!

Still haven't heard you tender a guess at to which set of pics are from the FE model and which are from the RE model, BTW. But hey, that's a classic FE debate tactic, too - Avoid answering the questions that challenge your point ... by ignoring them.

I've understood that we can model the Moon as a 2 dimensional surface oriented so that all observers can only see one face. You're the one who wanted it mounted so one person would see the value and the other would see the picture, which doesn't happen in either model or in real life.

You're the one who keeps dis-believing all the evidence that I've put forth that this could work over a flat surface, but provided nothing to show it can't.

You're the one who is having trouble unfolding the RE mechanics of an orbit to visualize what amounts to a race track over FE.

Also, pushing the moon in the Z direction causes it to rotate on it axis (in reality it's the Earth rotating, the Moon essentially stays still over the course of a day) so it's continues to present only one side. This is the best 3D rendering I can do:



You should also note that the Moon also flips between rise and set. The red/green edge rising first out of the horizon, is the edge that will lead the moon setting on the other horizon. Go out and watch it tonight.

Nothing is wrong with anyone's understanding of how the works on RE. You're just not getting how it works when FE peels it out into basically what amounts to an overhead race track. (Which we can model as a below a blimp racetrack)

Imagine you're up in the Goodyear blimp over a stretch of racetrack, so high you're almost looking straight down on at the cars roofs, can't really see the sides at all. You watch the Number 6 car take the lead, but the people in the MetLife blimp, on the other side of the track, see the Number 9 car pulling ahead. How is this possible? Because the direction you are facing makes a difference.



On FE the image could flip, just not for the same reason as on RE. Still, on FE with it's fake horizon and with the inverted bowl effect (which exists on RE as well), the act of passing under the zenith and turning around could create a similar effect.

This Moon flipping thing between North and South, by itself, could be consistent on a FE (flat plane) model.

It's not consistent with the common FE model of a Moon 3000 miles away though. The Moon still needs to be much more distant and must remain tidally locked (in FE case the o part of the 6/9 always facing the North Pole and 1 side always facing Earth. (Not sure why the Moon would be tidally locked of on Fantasy Earth though, since gravity isn't really supposed to be a thing there.)

Still, the only argument I'm making is:

If taken alone, that is not considering the other factors that make FE Moon conjecture laughable, the inversion of the image between North and South points in the FE model is consistent enough not to falsify the FE conjecture (i.e. it could be consistent with an FE model).

22

Flat Earth Theory / Re: flipping moon

« on: March 29, 2018, 12:45:24 AM »

Actually we have. The whole thing. Not all from earth, no, but here's a link.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far_side_of_the_Moon
Read up.

Now you are just being obtuse.

I think most people would realize I was implying 'as seen from Earth'.

Thanks for the link, but I am familiar with searching both Wikipedia and Google without assistance.

23

Flat Earth Theory / Re: flipping moon

« on: March 28, 2018, 04:08:43 PM »

This image is perfect for illustrating my point.

First, assume that the moon, as drawn, is showing the face that would be seen by all viewers.
Assume the brown line to be the surface of a flat earth. From any viewpoint on that flat earth an observer will perceive the black half of the moon to be the top half, or "up".

On the spherical earth, the red fellow, near the north pole, will perceive the red half of the moon to be the top half of the moon, whereas the green fellow, near the south pole, will perceive the green half to be the top half of the moon.

To the green fellow the moon is upside down with respect to what the red fellow perceives. On the flat earth the moon is never perceived with the black half as the bottom of the moon. That is, on a flat earth the moon will never be perceived as being upside down with regard to what another observer on the flat earth perceives.

That is the core of this debate - the difference between reality and flat earth belief.

You post is a perfect illustration that you don't understand what you are looking at. This is still a 2D SIDE VIEW. The observer are on the same plane as the Moon. Just because I added the part of the Moon nobody see doesn't change that.

The BLACK half is the side of the Moon NOBODY can see, it faces directly away from the surface of the Earth. Since the Moon is so far away, it doesn't matter where you stand on the surface no matter what shape it is, that side is not visible. On Round Earth it can't seen because it's facing away from the Earth's surface. On Flat Earth, it facing away from the surface. From the angle they are viewing it at, only the red/green parts are visible to the observers.  There are sight lines and everything, you can see that from both the brown FE surface and the black RE surface that the red/green side is IN FRONT of the Black side.

Nobody is going to see 'black on top' because they can't even see the black half in the first place. They can only see the red/green half.

How are not getting this?

Remember that cylinder you had me make? Remember how none of the pictures show the TOP circle? Remember how they only show the BOTTOM circle? Remember how the bottom circle flipped between my pictures? Remember how I asked if you could tell the difference between the FE model pics and the RE model pics and you NEVER RESPONDED?

My best suggestion is for you is to find yourself another science teacher and have them explain this to you in person. You are having a really hard time understanding why we can only see one side of the Moon, and seem to think it's possible to see the back side, despite the fact that nobody on Earth has ever seen the back of it.

24

Flat Earth Theory / Re: flipping moon

« on: March 26, 2018, 08:33:56 PM »

I will repeat that I think the moon is the best proof of a round earth that is visible to everyone.  During the arctic winter, the full moon goes around the viewer and is visible the entire night.  If you are in Norway, Siberia or Canada, the full moon circles you with the same face visible all the time.  ....

yeah....and couldn't we measure the angular displacement of the moons face to the horizon at all 3 points? and wouldn't that angular displacement at equal latitudes on different sides of the pole tell us something? i mean if the FE model is a green arrow moon wouldn't the angular displacement change? but for RE it's the same, isn't it?

Yes, it would tell us something. It tells us how far away the Moon is and that it is tidally locked (the same side always faces the Earth's surface).

In reality mot much more than 50% of the Moon surface is visible at any one time (libation allows us to see 59% over the course of a Month). This means the difference in the angle is very small, like 1 degree. (Compared to the actual distance to the Moon, the North pole is like right next to the South one)

If we know the length of the base of the triangle (lets call it 4000 miles) and the difference in viewing angle at the Moon (1 degree), assuming angles 'A+B+C = 180' and knowing angles A & B are equal (thus 89.5 degrees), we can solve for the sides. Feel free to plug this into an online triangle calculator, I get 229,186.027 miles. Wiki says the average orbital distance to the Moon is average is 238,856 miles. (That ain’t half bad for napkin math!)

Visual aid, with comparison to a very close Moon (3000 miles):



{edit: if your not feeling the overhead projection, rotate your monitor so it's sideways
}
Just for fun, I also calculated how big FE would be from North Pole to Ice Wall, in order to fit the Lunar observation of only seeing 1 side, and I get just over 52 miles! (lol)

[Geometry has also previously been proven to work at a distance of up to 3000 miles]

25

Flat Earth Theory / Re: flipping moon

« on: March 26, 2018, 02:59:25 PM »

Decide a unified FE model that everyone agrees on, then try to prove or disprove. Until then all of this argueing is pointless

I'm pretty sure this thread stopped being about FE vs RE awhile ago. I've talked about how the Moon is not 3000 miles away in this thread:

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=8653.0

We are talking about what we are actually looking at when one looks up at the Moon, mostly about the orientation of what we perceive as the 'TOP' of it when viewed from different places. A couple people seemed to be mis-conceptualizing the geometry, not realizing [understandably] that it's so so far away, that everyone is actually always looking at one side. I call it the 'bottom' since it's the side that always points down toward Earth.

In fact it's so fantastically distant, that the inversion of the Moon's face is not an issue, inversion alone could be consistent with an FE model. Or in other words, no determination about the shape of the Earth can be made by the sole observation of the Moon appearing rotated between observers from different parts of the world.

26

Flat Earth Theory / Re: flipping moon

« on: March 25, 2018, 04:38:26 PM »

sure, i get that
but i think thats missing my point (which would be cos i haven't made it so well)
if we consider the half-moon shadow line (for want of a better term) it remains parallel to the horizon at the equator for it's entire journey across the nights sky (correct me if i'm wrong)
likewise its orientation is different at other latitudes, but remains consistent viewed from the same spot as it traverses the sky, (of course it is flipped over like a pancake, but you know what i mean)
the angular displacement between the equator and poles is exactly 90 degrees and 180 from pole to pole.
in FE i get that the image flips due to point-of-view, but why doesn't the parallel-to-horizon half moon stay parellel to the horizon at various latitudes? and would the moon flip gradually, 180 degrees, between the 'poles'?

It never flips over like a pancake. It only ever presents one side (the red/green (or golden brown if you like) face) the dark side (the side of a pancake that looks a little bubbly) always faces away. It only rotates around the axis pointing directly towards us. The Moon is so very very freaking far away that we only ever are looking at the one side (and because it's tidally locked).

I think I know what your getting at - that the line separating light/dark side is parallel to FE surface but not to RE surface. And you are making a correct observation, however for that to make any difference it would have to intersect one of the viewing surface to to the North or South be visible. Since it does not intersect the surface in either model and it's an imaginary line, there's no way to determine what the shape of the viewing surface is.

In the East to West direction, the drawing in shows what it would look like from an observer standing East of the two observer in the drawing. Because the moon is so far away they still only see the underside, red/green side, but to them red would be on the right and green to the left. Someone to the West, like on the other side of your screen, would have to turn around to see the Moon. They have a different concept of left and right than you, it looks like red is on the left and green is on the right.

I don't have Visio available right now to draw with. But if you relabel look at the last drawing, relabel N and S as W and E, and change 'Equator' to 'Prime Meridian', you're now looking down at the North Pole and the people are now sanding on the Equator, looking E/W or W/E, respectively. The Moon, doesn't move, as it presents it underside to everyone at all times.

Hopefully, you starting to see how 'UP' is relative to the observer, not the shape of the surface. On RE everyone senses UP as above their heads, and can't tell other people's up is different. On FE everyone senses UP as above their heads, but can't tell other people's up is same.

I will repeat that I think the moon is the best proof of a round earth that is visible to everyone.  During the arctic winter, the full moon goes around the viewer and is visible the entire night.  If you are in Norway, Siberia or Canada, the full moon circles you with the same face visible all the time.  How can it face all three viewers all the time on a flat model?  If it were an automobile, one should see headlights, or tailights, side doors and undercarriage as it circles around the overhead track if it is circling the north pole. And then again we have to assume the people south of the equator are not as important and can be ignored.

I'm not arguing an FE model here. Only that The inversion of the Moon's face is not an issue, inversion alone could be consistent with an FE model.

However, to your question, How can it face all three viewers all the time on a flat model?. The answer is the same way it does on a spherical model. By being both (a) 'tidally locked' and (b) very far away (way more than 3000 miles).

I've talked about how the Moon is not 3000 miles away in this thread:

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=8653.0

27

Flat Earth Theory / Re: flipping moon

« on: March 24, 2018, 11:19:29 PM »

yes, i got that now. i was just clarifying my point was not represented in your diagram afterall although i originally misconstrued it that way.
i was just talking abt the disc that we see and the half moon.

Yeah, no problem.

Do you understand now, why the Moon can be modeled as a playing card taped to the ceiling? Do you understand that you can model FE and RE surface by either standing or laying on your back?

From there it's easy to see that the view is the same from either, no matterm where you're at.

The moon flipping orientation (rotating) based on the location of the observers neither proves nor does it disprove either model.

28

Flat Earth Theory / Re: flipping moon

« on: March 24, 2018, 06:42:17 PM »

we're not talking abt the same line. i'm talking abt the half moon light and dark sides, ie both halves on this side of the moon. (and yes, it just looks like a straight line of seperation)

The moon is the drawing is dived into quarters. The black ones make a half, that half always faces away from earth. The half that is red and green always faces the Earth.
We only ever see the red and green half (light half).

If you flip the drawing around the x-axis, so it wasn't  a side view, we would only see a red half and a green half, each in the shape of a semi circle.

29

Flat Earth Theory / Re: flipping moon

« on: March 24, 2018, 03:39:29 PM »

the line separating the black half of the moon in your diagram remains horizontal to the horizon in the flat earth scenario, but not in the round earth scenario.

Right, we're talking about the same line.

 It is not perpendicular to either an FE or RE surface, nobody can ever see it because there's a 1/2 a moon in the way.

We can't see the black half, it's the side of the Moon that faces away from everyone. It doesn't really matter what it does.

The fact that it is horizontal to the horizon only changes the elevation of the moon over the horizon. In RE, we can the moon would be low in the sky, on FE it's much more overhead.

So yes, moving the horizon does move the horizon. I don't really think that's too unexepected though and doesn't affect the observer's sense of up.

30

Flat Earth Theory / Re: flipping moon

« on: March 24, 2018, 03:27:10 PM »

the line separating the black half of the moon in your diagram remains horizontal to the horizon in the flat earth scenario, but not in the round earth scenario.

Actually, that divides the front and back of the moon, it's not a line, it's a circle.

 It is not perpendicular to either an FE or RE surface, nobody can ever see it because there's a 1/2 a moon in the way.

We can't see the black half, it's the side of the Moon that faces away from everyone.

31

Flat Earth Theory / Re: flipping moon

« on: March 24, 2018, 03:12:07 PM »

both models? FE and RE?
why would the moon rotate due to east/west displacement?

Yes, on both models. On the Equator, it flips 180 degrees throughout the day, you only need 1 observer to see it, since the Earth rotates. (Or the Moon circles).

Just replace N & S with E & W in any of the drawings and that's the basic concept.

The effect is reduced at higher latitudes.

32

Flat Earth Theory / Re: flipping moon

« on: March 24, 2018, 02:39:37 PM »

are we allowed to google images to determine the angular displacement (flip angle) between various parts of the earth?
or do we have to go get the photos ourselves?
i dont know the rules here.

It doesn't matter, either way someone else can always challenge the authenticity of the image. (call it "FAKE").

Keep in mind the Moon will also rotate due to E/W displacement of the observers. Up to this point we assumed observers on the same meridian.

33

Flat Earth Theory / Re: flipping moon

« on: March 23, 2018, 07:54:30 PM »

I lost hope and interest in pointless arguing as soon as you said you dont understand how your approach was 2D. I came to this forum to actually find out whats the big deal, i thought theres a reason why a lot of people claim to believe in flat earth. What i found was dissapointing. My opinion should not influence anyone in here, but funny how there is no unified flat earth model yet FET are argueing about aspects of it.....  agree on one actual model instead of talking about everything out of context. Even if the moon flipping or sunshine questions would " prove that the earth is flat", it would raise 2 million new questions whick could simply not be explained

I do not need geometry or complex maths to dismiss this delusional thinking.
1. FET claims there is no gravity - how is the moon and the sun floating under " the dome" if they are not attached to the dome or the flat earth surface and the whole earth plane is actually moving upwards throught the universe or the void or whatever its supposed to be called
2. Dome is inpenetrable, hence satelites even if they exist they are either baloons or anything but not an object free falling or orbiting the earth ( basically they cant leave ) - explain meteorite craters, explain videos of meteorites coming to earth, exploding mid air, explain meteorites that are found. ( not all footage is from Nasa ) They should not penetrate the dome so are they fake or are they coming from below the dome?
3. If you "could"  detect so called planets Mercury and Venus passing between us ( observer) and the Sun - would that not completely destroy whatever unagreeable flat earth model/models in existance?

I dont need qoutes, no need  source material, dont even need math - just common sense please. I do not want to offend or argue and i am sorry if i will come off as a deuche. I just need answers considering the fact that earth is flat for you and your colleagues. So please:
1.No gravity - how does sun and the moon orbit or float above north pole, under the dome or whatever you want to call it
2. Cannot leave the dome - how does meteors come in and leave craters?
3. Mercury and Venus in front of the sun / between earth and the sun ?


Indulge me please

Thank you

You are off-topic. Please review the topic of THIS thread. We are talking about the fact that the Moon appears, when viewed from the Southern Hemisphere, to be inverted from what is viewed from the Northern Hemisphere.

I stated on 3/15/2018:

This topic was previously addressed here:

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=8653.0

To summarize:

The inversion of the Moon's face is not an issue, inversion alone could be consistent with an FE model.

The fact that all observers, regardless of the distance separating them, view essentially the same surface area of the Moon [inversion not with standing]. Essentially all observers appear to be looking at Moon from the SAME angle.

The FE model cannot account for this without a secondary phenomenon, such as light not traveling in a straight line or geometry not working at the distance involved [min. 3000(ish) miles].

Euclid geometry can be proven functional at the FE claimed distance to the Moon [3000(ish) miles] via observation of a Solar Eclipse. That is; Distant observer's view the Eclipse at DIFFERENT angles, proportional to the distance from the path of totality (Zenith of the Eclipse).

(...)

The logical conclusion, being that Euclid geometry can be proven functional at significant distances and no evidence supports a concave atmosphere, is that the Moon is significantly farther away from the Earth than 3000(ish) miles.

To which Scroogie replied:

I agree with all of the above EXCEPT: The inversion of the Moon's face is not an issue, inversion alone could be consistent with an FE model.

Inversion CANNOT BE and IS NOT consistent with an FE model. An observer on a planar surface will never experience an inversion of the moon as the observer never experiences a change in orientation anywhere on that surface.

(...)

This debate thread is only about the Moon inverting when viewed from opposite sides of an equator, which it could do (which I think I've conclusively proven) regardless of the shape of the surface it is being viewed from.

As to your remaining questions...

1. I'm the one who understands a drawing is 2 dimensional, Scroogie was the one who said "I have no idea what you were trying to demonstrate with the two dimensional stuff.", immediately after I drew what was essentially the same 2D picture that I had been drawing. I think he may have been complaining about the use of an essentially 2 dimensional playing card to represent the Moon, not realizing that we don't really need a 3D object to represent it. Not really sure though, you should ask him about it.

2. In case you missed it, I'm not debating that the Earth is flat, only that the image Moon of the could invert when viewed from a flat plane, in the same fashion that it does when viewed from a curved plane. Just because it could flip when viewed from a flat plane does mean I think we are standing on a flat plane. This effect could be a 6 or 1/2 dozen between RE and FE.

3. Even if I did think the Earth was flat, I wouldn't address your additional questions in THIS thread because:
    a. They are off topic
    b. Answered in the FE wiki (which is courteous to search before starting a topic)

4. Just as an FYI, the general FE consensus seems to be an un-domed model.

34

Flat Earth Theory / Re: flipping moon

« on: March 23, 2018, 03:44:51 PM »

I have to be honest... if that is not a deliberate missinterpretation then i dont know what is....

You are going to have to be a little more specific. What did I misinterpret?

The cylinder construction?
The hand-drawn version of the diagram?
The stick-man representation of the observer?
The approximate scale?

The cylinder matches his description. It has the word 'ARROW'. I was poking fun at him by labeling the side front and back because that's what it appears he thinks we're all looking at, but the words are all upright. I also put a bottom on it, because I know that the Moon is far enough away that we are all actually looking at the bottom of it (side facing Earth).

The hand- drawn version is slightly different, but still a fair representation of the 3/19/2018 drawing, which we agreed (despite being the same thing I had been drawing, just rotated 90 degrees):

Now you've got it. That is a correct representation of the real world.

The cylinder appears to be an additional Earth radius or so further away. 2 vs. 3 isn't a big difference and certainly not deliberate.

I think stick-man camera was a good representation of how most people can tilt their head back to look up at the sky.

The scale isn't a problem. The topic is whether the Moon image can flip (invert) if it were being viewed from a flat plane. When the stick man is positioned as if observing from a round surface, that's called the control group BTW, the model captures the expected result, validating the of the model is suitable for our purposes. If the control didn't capture the expected result, then we could say there was a problem with the setup.

If you don't think I'm being honest about the stick-man camera position between the 4 result pictures, which you can tell are 4 unique images by the parallax between the cylinder and the ceiling tile joint, then do the observation yourself. Just be sure your camera phone doesn't auto flip the images when it's turned upside down. [Mine did and I couldn't figure out how to shut that off, which is why I had to rotate the whole setup 90 degrees].

35

Flat Earth Theory / Has 6or1/2Dozen proven that the 'Moon flipping' is consistent with an FE model?

« on: March 22, 2018, 06:35:01 PM »

In the Flat Earth Debate thread titled 'flipping moon'

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9212.20:

Has 6or1/2Dozen successfully defended his assertions that "The inversion of the Moon's face is not an issue, inversion alone could be consistent with an FE model".

OR

Has Scroogie shown the hypothesis to be falsified.

OR

Has neither party presented sufficient data for you to reach a conclusion.

36

Flat Earth Theory / Re: flipping moon

« on: March 22, 2018, 06:24:21 PM »

Now you've got it. That is a correct representation of the real world. Now I have no idea what you were trying to demonstrate with the two dimensional stuff.

Looking back, though, I see that your initial statement was "The inversion of the Moon's face is not an issue, inversion alone could be consistent with an FE model".

So let's try that thought experiment, but change the target, which should eliminate any confusion:

Take a long, thin strip of paper and, instead of Tom's arrow, write the word ARROW on it several times, enough to fill the strip from end to end. Now tape the ends of the strip together, with the words ARROW facing out, forming a stubby cylinder. Hang your cylinder from an imaginary skyhook, then travel to various points on a planar surface below the cylinder. When looking at the cylinder from any point on the planar surface you will find that the words ARROW will always be upright, never upside down.

Everything I've drawn, including the last graphic has been 2-dimensional. The last one is basically the exact same thing image I made on 3/16/2018, with the exception of placing the observers further apart so you could see more of the RE surface. I have no idea what you mean by 'the two dimensional stuff', are you referencing the fact that I was only drawing the 1/2 of the Moon? Can you explain why I would take the time to draw the half we can't see?

Do you not understand that standing on the top of the RE model is equivocal to laying down on the FE model, or did you choose to ignore those points [a common FE debater tactic] because you realize they are correct assertions and body position is not a factor?

Do you not understand what side of the Moon we are actually looking at? Look at the drawing again, notice how whatever the RE observer sees, the FE observer will see the same exact thing.

I understand how you asking for the arrow cylinder to mounted, basically with the works facing up. Here it is:

You cylinder, constructed mostly as requested, as viewed 4 times with 1/4 rotation depicting the surfaces of the Moon as you envision them. I added a bottom and aligned it to your front and back side. My version Top & Bottom are also noted.



I set this up an a white board showing RE in green with observers at N and S pole. FE is in black with observers a roughly equivalent distance from the equator. The cylinder is mounted with the arrows and words facing up.



I couldn't set it up sideways as my camera flips when it turned upside down but turning the entire setup 90 degrees is equivocal too. [Edit - wrong pic]



Same either way...

I setup my camera with a representative of the observer:



And gave him a tilty head by taping his face to the screen:



I then took a series of four pictures, with the observer camera positioned with the stick-man feet on the appropriate surface and the lens pointed up toward the cylinder:

1.)

2.)

3.)

4.)

I know what order I took these in. Maybe you'd like to take a guess. Since you are the one who thinks thinks this would work differently on FE vs RE, I'm SURE that you could EASILY tell the difference between the FE and RE pics.

I'm calling the debate, let's have a vote:

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9289.0

Have a nice day!

37

Flat Earth Theory / Re: flipping moon

« on: March 19, 2018, 08:19:58 PM »

Now you've created an artificial "up" with the vertical horizon. It's called a "horizon" because it's horizontal. Changing the manner it which it is presented on the page doesn't fix that.

Howerer, putting the "hill" between the observers does change the picture substantially, so that you now have two entirely different situations. In the FE situation the observer always has the same orientation with respect to the "top" and the "bottom" of the moon. The RE observer doesn't. Which is my point. Thank you for presenting it graphically.

It would have made an even clearer demonstration if you had used a smaller radius for the earth, allowing even more curvature in the diagram. That would get us even closer to a "Norway" versus "New Zealand" representation, which is where this all began.

With regard to the "doodad taped to the ceiling" demonstration, please think a bit more about that demonstration. I'm hoping that eventually the light bulb will go on and you'll be able to see that it is another repeat of Tom's argument. Maybe do a thought experiment with the card suspended vertically in the air, then you move across a planar surface to any place you choose, then report back on the orientation of the card that you perceive with respect to "top" and "bottom".

I’m not the one having trouble getting the light bulb screwed in.

Look at the Moon, notice the lack of depth perception, it looks like flat disc, because that’s what a sphere looks like from a fair distance away, it has a front that we see and a back that we don’t.

As to your suggestion of taping the card on edge. This would expose the thinnest face of the card, one that has no identifiable features as the face of the Moon. Also, because it’s so thin, it would also be exposing two different faces (the picture on one and the numbers on the other).

Are people in the South looking at a different side of the Moon? No… Do you know why? Because once side of the Moon always faces away from the surface of the Earth, and the other side always faces towards it. Taping the card on edge would not match any model, FE or RE, so it’s pointless to do it that way.

Again, I failed to realize that difficulty of 3 dimensional spatial relationships was going to be an issue. I’ll redo the observation and pics using a color coded sphere as soon as I get the chance.

So, tell me, is there difference standing to look at the Moon compared to leaning back in a chair to look at it? No?
Like if, lying on back and suddenly jump up to my feet, is this Moon going to flip over? No?
How about if I was lying on my stomach? No?
The position of the observer’s body is irrelevant. The only difference, is the angle the observer has to look up at, that is how far they have to tilt their heads back.

As for the diagram, redone as requested, using Kristiansand, Norway located at 58 degrees N and Campbell Island, New Zealand at 52 degrees S, as reference points and placing the observers at those approximate Latitudes, while extending the visible curvature of the RE to both the N and S pole. The FE model, including lawn chairs, is super imposed in orange.



So, apparently, Flat Earth people are smarter, instead of standing there craning their necks to gaze up at the stars, they recline comfortably in lawn furniture (while possibly sipping on Mai Tais).

38

Flat Earth Theory / Re: flipping moon

« on: March 16, 2018, 06:50:01 PM »

You're flipping it side to side, or horizontally, not vertically.
This is no different from the horizontal green arrow ploy Tom tried at the outset.

Nice try, though.

Rotate it 90 degrees clockwise to place his 'equator' horizontally (it's there on the diagram already), and it works fine. Or, how about this?

Thank you, I was scratching my head how this wasn't clear, but clearly I should have drawn this with the Moon to the side instead of overhead. I did not realize spatial relationships was going to be an issue.

The basic mechanism that causes the inversion is no different on a flat plane than it is on a curved one.
Here it is with both a Round (in orange) and flat (in purple) Earth superimposed over each other.



The only thing a putting a hill (a part of a round Earth) between the two observers changes is that the orange chicks don't have to tilt their heads back as far.

A practical demonstration utilizing a playing card taped to the ceiling (it was not moved between images):

As viewed from the Northern portion of the room facing South:

White diamond appears at the TOP of the image.

As viewed the Southern portion of the room facing North:

White diamond appears at the BOTTOM of the image.

...That sure looks inverted to me...

I stand by my assertion, as demonstrated both diagrammatically and by practical demonstration (observations of card taped to a ceiling over a flat floor). The inversion of the Moon's face is not an issue, inversion alone [that means excluding the other factors that make a small Moon 3000 miles overhead an unfeasible proposition] could be consistent with an FE model.

39

Flat Earth Theory / Re: flipping moon

« on: March 15, 2018, 08:56:59 PM »

I agree with all of the above EXCEPT: The inversion of the Moon's face is not an issue, inversion alone could be consistent with an FE model.

Inversion CANNOT BE and IS NOT consistent with an FE model. An observer on a planar surface will never experience an inversion of the moon as the observer never experiences a change in orientation anywhere on that surface.

Looks like it could be consistent to me (I didn't say it wasn't stretching it though):

40

Flat Earth Theory / Re: flipping moon

« on: March 15, 2018, 06:50:08 PM »

This topic was previously addressed here:

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=8653.0

To summarize:

The inversion of the Moon's face is not an issue, inversion alone could be consistent with an FE model.

The fact that all observers, regardless of the distance separating them, view essentially the same surface area of the Moon [inversion not with standing]. Essentially all observers appear to be looking at Moon from the SAME angle.

The FE model cannot account for this without a secondary phenomenon, such as light not traveling in a straight line or geometry not working at the distance involved [min. 3000(ish) miles].

Euclid geometry can be proven functional at the FE claimed distance to the Moon [3000(ish) miles] via observation of a Solar Eclipse. That is; Distant observer's view the Eclipse at DIFFERENT angles, proportional to the distance from the path of totality (Zenith of the Eclipse).

It should also be noted that the FE model utilized Euclid geometry to determine the Sun was 3000(ish) miles away. Meaning if geometry is broken at 3000 miles, then the FE stated distance to the Sun was calculate based on broken geometry as well, and is thus also inaccurate. [The FE altitude to the Sun appears to be the basis for FE altitude of the Moon]

[I think this was discussed in a different thread possibly about stars]:

The direction light would have to refract for distant observer's to view [the same face of the Moon] would require a concave lens. There is no evidence to support a concave atmosphere.

Again, the FE calculation of the altitude of the Sun was also based on light traveling in a straight line. Calculating the distance to the Sun without consideration for this variable could produce a considerably inaccurate result.

The logical conclusion, being that Euclid geometry can be proven functional at significant distances and no evidence supports a concave atmosphere, is that the Moon is significantly farther away from the Earth than 3000(ish) miles.