[Loominaty]

Hey,

I'm pretty new to this Flat Earth Society but i really like it because it shows us a different point of view on the planet we're living. I've read a lot in the FAQ but however I still have some questions concerning the moon.
In the FAQ there's a beautiful gif, demonstrating the day and night cycle, but why can we see at night at all? Why isn't it completely dark? And especially, how can we see the moon?
And since the moon and the sun are in one geometrical plane parallel to the earth's plane, how can Solar/Lunar Eclipses occur?
I can't seem to find an explanation in the FAQ, so I wanted to ask here and hope to get some clarification

[Ghost of V]

Interesting, if slightly naive questions.

Solar/Lunar eclipses are caused by the anti-moon. It's a disc that covers the moon/sun during said eclipse, some also call it 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 are aligned and when the moon is crossing the sun's orbital plane.

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.

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.

[Gulliver]

Interesting, if slightly naive questions.

Solar/Lunar eclipses are caused by the anti-moon. It's a disc that covers the moon/sun during said eclipse, some also call it 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 are aligned and when the moon is crossing the sun's orbital plane.

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.

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.

That's not right. I suggest you spend some time reading and thinking.

In FET, solar eclipses are caused by the interposition of the Moon between the Sun and the observer, and Lunar eclipses are caused by the interposition of the Shadow Object between the Moon and the observer. Also, the "anti-moon" in FET is often the Moon of the "flip" side that causes the tides "opposite" the Moon.

I never seen any FET (or FEer post) explain the varying transparency of the Shadow Object, the predictable cycle (and locations) of eclipses, the apparent velocity of eclipses, and much more. V's contention that the Shadow Object orbits the Sun in the specified orbital plane is beyond fancy. Heck, you can't possibly describe an orbit plane with just one angle.

[Ghost of V]

Sorry to burst you bubble, but most of what I typed was lifted straight from the wiki. Maybe you should spend some time reading and thinking? 

So yes, most of what I said applies to FET. Whether or not you agree with it is irrelevant.

[Loominaty]

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 are aligned and when the moon is crossing the sun's orbital plane.

Could you explain this any further? As far as I've read, the sun and the moon are in the same orbital plane and never really cross each others orbits.
There's this gif in the FAQ (http://wiki.tfes.org/images/7/70/SunAnimation.gif) which demonstrates the orbits of sun and moon quite well but leaves some questions open as i mentioned earlier.
Your explanation of the Anti Moon makes me also wonder what that thing is and why such a small object can even exist that close to the sun without either getting swallowed by the sun or just burnt and destroyed by the powerful rays.

[Gulliver]

Sorry to burst you bubble, but most of what I typed was lifted straight from the FAQS. Maybe you should spend some time reading and thinking? 

So yes, most of what I said applies to FET. Whether or not you agree with it is irrelevant.

I do feel sad for your confusion. I suspect that you are confusing new and old sites. This, new, site, has a FAQ that does not even include "anti-moon" or "shadow object". See: http://wiki.tfes.org/FAQ

[Ghost of V]

Sorry to burst you bubble, but most of what I typed was lifted straight from the FAQS. Maybe you should spend some time reading and thinking? 

So yes, most of what I said applies to FET. Whether or not you agree with it is irrelevant.

I do feel sad for your confusion. I suspect that you are confusing new and old sites. This, new, site, has a FAQ that does not even include "anti-moon" or "shadow object". See: http://wiki.tfes.org/FAQ

You are correct, but it doesn't change the validity of the theories. Just because this is a different site doesn't mean it follows a completely different Flat Earth Theory. I do not make the wiki, so any lack of information on the wiki's part is not my concern. I use both wikis depending on what information I need. Have you ever heard of cross-referencing? Have you ever wrote a school paper? 

Where I got the information is not important. I guess you're just resorting to low-blows since you can't disprove the invisible Shadow Object.

Oh, here's this wiki's explanation of eclipses. Notice anything in the second sentence?  Please try to do some research before you rage-post, thanks.

Could you explain this any further? As far as I've read, the sun and the moon are in the same orbital plane and never really cross each others orbits.
There's this gif in the FAQ (http://wiki.tfes.org/images/7/70/SunAnimation.gif) which demonstrates the orbits of sun and moon quite well but leaves some questions open as i mentioned earlier.
Your explanation of the Anti Moon makes me also wonder what that thing is and why such a small object can even exist that close to the sun without either getting swallowed by the sun or just burnt and destroyed by the powerful rays.

The Shadow Object (antimoon) is made out of aetheric particles and is resistant to heat. You can easily identify the Antimoon at night by looking for the patch of darkness (no stars) in the sky. It's usually pretty easy to spot.

[Gulliver]

Sorry to burst you bubble, but most of what I typed was lifted straight from the FAQS. Maybe you should spend some time reading and thinking? 

So yes, most of what I said applies to FET. Whether or not you agree with it is irrelevant.

I do feel sad for your confusion. I suspect that you are confusing new and old sites. This, new, site, has a FAQ that does not even include "anti-moon" or "shadow object". See: http://wiki.tfes.org/FAQ

You are correct, but it doesn't change the validity of the theories. Just because this is a different site doesn't mean it follows a completely different Flat Earth Theory. I do not make the wiki, so any lack of information on the wiki's part is not my concern. I use both wikis depending on what information I need. Have you ever heard of cross-referencing? Have you ever wrote a school paper? 

Where I got the information is not important. I guess you're just resorting to low-blows since you can't disprove the invisible Shadow Object.

Could you explain this any further? As far as I've read, the sun and the moon are in the same orbital plane and never really cross each others orbits.
There's this gif in the FAQ (http://wiki.tfes.org/images/7/70/SunAnimation.gif) which demonstrates the orbits of sun and moon quite well but leaves some questions open as i mentioned earlier.
Your explanation of the Anti Moon makes me also wonder what that thing is and why such a small object can even exist that close to the sun without either getting swallowed by the sun or just burnt and destroyed by the powerful rays.

The Shadow Object (antimoon) is made out of aetheric particles and is resistant to heat. You can easily identify the Antimoon at night by looking for the patch of darkness (no stars) in the sky. It's usually pretty easy to spot.

How interesting. So when you tell us where you "got" the information, and you admit that you were confused and didn't really get it from there, it's unimportant to you. I guess I know more about your integrity now.

Did you want to derail this thread into a discussion based on another site? Surely the other site is the place to defend its FAQ.

Now it you want to advance a theory of this "anti-moon" here, and present evidence of it, I'd be happy to join the debate.
 
Let me start then with: First you stated that there was one object that causes both types (solar and lunar) of eclipses. You claimed before that you cannot readily see the anti-moon because the Sun washes it out. Now you claim that you can readily see the anti-moon and provide a method to do so. If it's so easy, then please do provide a photograph of it within the last 30 days. Please be sure to demonstrate its shape, size, location in the sky, and (anonymized) provenance. Thanks.

[Ghost of V]

Oh, here's this wiki's explanation of eclipses. Notice anything in the second sentence?  Please try to do some research before you rage-post, thanks.

Remember to reread posts before your post something.

[Gulliver]

Oh, here's this wiki's explanation of eclipses. Notice anything in the second sentence?  Please try to do some research before you rage-post, thanks.

Remember to reread posts before your post something.

So you now want to switch from the FAQ to the Wiki. That's fine by me.

Let me start by the challenge, again, how do you expect to define "an orbital plane" by just one angle? What is the Sun's "orbital plane"? It doesn't orbit in the satellite sense. As the welcome page wishes "Happy New Gears"!

[Ghost of V]

You're a big fan of pedantic arguments that have no bearing on what we're talking about, huh? Your original point was that this site's wiki does not mention the Shadow Object. I have provided evidence that it does. Clearly. And guess what? It explains eclipses the same way I did. Big surprise. I guess I inaccurately assumed you understood what I meant when I said "FAQs" because I really meant "wiki". After all, the FAQs are part of the Wiki to begin with... I'm sorry that that confused you so much, but maybe that's a symptom of a bigger problem?

 

Handling defeat is pretty tough, huh? If you want to know what "orbit" and "angle" means, please use google and type a quick "define:".

Also, if you're confused about how the Sun and Moon discs rotate there are several diagrams, one of which was posted in this thread. I can't expect you to find it (judging by your er... questionable original posts), so I will post it myself:




Also, like I've said before, you can easily spot the Shadow Object with your own eyes by looking at the sky at night. There is almost always a circular patch of sky that has no stars. That's the Shadow Object. Are you blind as well as stupid?

Also, this might interest and benefit you as well.

[markjo]

Also, like I've said before, you can easily spot the Shadow Object with your own eyes by looking at the sky at night. There is almost always a circular patch of sky that has no stars. That's the Shadow Object. Are you blind as well as stupid?

  Wait a minute.  Didn't you say that the shadow object is never seen because it orbits close to the sun?

The Shadow Object is never seen because it orbits close to the sun.

Why yes, you did say that.  Perhaps you should get your own story straight before you start calling other people blind and/or stupid.

[Gulliver]

You're a big fan of pedantic arguments that have no bearing on what we're talking about, huh? Your original point was that this site's wiki does not mention the Shadow Object. I have provided evidence that it does. Clearly. And guess what? It explains eclipses the same way I did. Big surprise. I guess I inaccurately assumed you understood what I meant when I said "FAQs" because I really meant "wiki". After all, the FAQs are part of the Wiki to begin with... I'm sorry that that confused you so much, but maybe that's a symptom of a bigger problem?

 

Handling defeat is pretty tough, huh? If you want to know what "orbit" and "angle" means, please use google and type a quick "define:".

Also, if you're confused about how the Sun and Moon discs rotate there are several diagrams, one of which was posted in this thread. I can't expect you to find it (judging by your er... questionable original posts), so I will post it myself:




Also, like I've said before, you can easily spot the Shadow Object with your own eyes by looking at the sky at night. There is almost always a circular patch of sky that has no stars. That's the Shadow Object. Are you blind as well as stupid?

Also, this might interest and benefit you as well.

No, I did not contend the Wiki does not mention the Shadow Object.
No, the Wiki does not explain eclipses the way you did.  For example, the Wiki does not address solar eclipse or postulate that the same object is involved in both types.
Yes, you'd be correct. I expect that when you say "FAQ" you mean it.
No, I do not need to review either "orbit" or "angle". My challenge to you remains unanswered: Explain how one angle can describe an orbital plane. Also, still open: Tell us what the Sun orbits. The diagrams show nothing near the center (or focuses) of the Sun's (or Moon's) path.
I suspect that you've accidentally used "rotate" for "revolve" and made allowances accordingly.
I renew my challenge about your providing a photograph (with conditions) of the Shadow Object. I now have to question your honesty: If it's so easy to see most nights, why can't you produce photographic evidence of it. You wouldn't be lying now, would you?

[Ghost of V]

Yes, let me take a picture real quick of a practically invisible disc object.   

I've provided ways to research this for yourself. Stop being lazy. We do not accept photographic evidence because it can be doctored. You should go by our example. Photographic evidence is never reliable. Use your mind instead of your eyes for once.

What I'm trying to say is that if I posted a picture I would not be able to guarantee reliability.

[Gulliver]

Yes, let me take a picture real quick of a practically invisible disc object.   

I've provided ways to research this for yourself. Stop being lazy. We do not accept photographic evidence because it can be doctored. You should go by our example. Photographic evidence is never reliable. Use your mind instead of your eyes for once.

You said is was easy to see. Now when challenged to support your outlandish claim, it's "practically invisible". Photographic evidence with proper provenance is wonderfully reliable, accepted in courts and scientific journals around the world for over a hundred years.

It's your claim. It's your responsibility to bring your evidence. You're the one being lazy. On second thought, now I rather think you've confirmed your dishonesty.

[Ghost of V]

When I say "easy to spot" what I assume you'd gather from that is that it is easy to precieve. Especially combined with words like invisible and "patch of darkness". I do have a picture of the supposed Shadow Object but it does not constitute evidence, its just a patch of missing stars from the night sky.

[Gulliver]

When I say "easy to spot" what I assume you'd gather from that is that it is easy to precieve. Especially combined with words like invisible and "patch of darkness". I do have a picture of the supposed Shadow Object but it does not constitute evidence, its just a patch of missing stars from the night sky.

Why would it not constitute evidence? You keep using that word, but I do not think it means what you think it means. Do you understand provenance? Do you understand how to document the locations (observation site and location in the sky)? Do you understand that FET should be able to predict when and where to see this object?

Have you conceded your error about solar eclipses?

[Ghost of V]

Have you conceded your error about solar eclipses?

Nope.

Just so you know.

Perceive: interpret or look on (someone or something) in a particular way; regard as.

[Gulliver]

Have you conceded your error about solar eclipses?

Nope.

Just so you know.

Perceive: interpret or look on (someone or something) in a particular way; regard as.

Did you have a response that you forgot to post? Are you still claiming that FET has only one object for both types of eclipses? I realized you misspelled "perceive" and made allowances, but thanks for the effort.

When I say "easy to spot" what I assume you'd gather from that is that it is easy to precieve. Especially combined with words like invisible and "patch of darkness". I do have a picture of the supposed Shadow Object but it does not constitute evidence, its just a patch of missing stars from the night sky.

[Ghost of V]

Have you conceded your error about solar eclipses?

Nope.

Just so you know.

Perceive: interpret or look on (someone or something) in a particular way; regard as.

Did you have a response that you forgot to post? Are you still claiming that FET has only one object for both types of eclipses? I realized you misspelled "perceive" and made allowances, but thanks for the effort.

When I say "easy to spot" what I assume you'd gather from that is that it is easy to precieve. Especially combined with words like invisible and "patch of darkness". I do have a picture of the supposed Shadow Object but it does not constitute evidence, its just a patch of missing stars from the night sky.

That was my mistake. I am posting from a phone and my auto-correct is wacky. Do you have a better rebuttal than "show me pictures" or "you spelled this word incorrectly"?

Are you just grasping at straws now or...?