-
Are there any FEers on this site who are able to explain in their own words how a lunar eclipse is explained on the Flat Earth? I am very interested in having an actual discussion about this.
-
Are there any FEers on this site who are able to explain in their own words how a lunar eclipse is explained on the Flat Earth? I am very interested in having an actual discussion about this.
This has been explained on another thread. But if no FE shows up to answer, I will venture that this is the FE usual answer.
There is a mysterious, disc shaped , round , called the "dark object" or "shadow object", which comes between the earth and the moon and blots out the moon and causes the eclipse.
The "dark object" is otherwise invisible and lost in the glare of the sun. It seems to be like some gigantic black ping pong paddle about 5 or 10 miles in diameter.
According to FE , both the sun and the moon are 32 miles in diameter and 3000 miles above the earth, just below the ice dome above tbe earth.
There seems to be a disagreement amongst FE's as to how the moon gets it illumination. One group says the moon is "self-illuminated" by some kind of "bio-illumenescent creatures called 'moonshrimp' or 'moonshramp' and the phases of the moon are caused by these creatures migrating back and forth across the moon." If this is not correct, I hope some FE will supply the right information.
I would also like to see the flat earth explain the horizon in their own words.
I'm just an ignorant RE and paraphrasing Will Rogers, " All I know is what I read (on the FES website) and that's my excuse for ignorance." LOL.
-
Firstly, it would be nice to figure out how strong your understanding is of a lunar eclipse on a round earth. Please tell me what you believe to be causing a lunar eclipse in the presently accepted model, then we can delve into the logic behind it.
-
Firstly, it would be nice to figure out how strong your understanding is of a lunar eclipse on a round earth. Please tell me what you believe to be causing a lunar eclipse in the presently accepted model, then we can delve into the logic behind it.
What I have posted is simply what I have read from FE sources on this website. If this information is not correct, please make corrections.
FE logic explanation would be appreciated.
I have been accused of being disruptive for posting the true facts, so I will refrain from doing so and refer you to a reliable source such as an astronomical observatory for a true explanation of a lunar eclipse.
-
Firstly, it would be nice to figure out how strong your understanding is of a lunar eclipse on a round earth. Please tell me what you believe to be causing a lunar eclipse in the presently accepted model, then we can delve into the logic behind it.
What I have posted is simply what I have read from FE sources on this website. If this information is not correct, please make corrections.
FE logic explanation would be appreciated.
I have been accused of being disruptive for posting the true facts, so I will refrain from doing so and refer you to a reliable source such as an astronomical observatory for a true explanation of a lunar eclipse.
I wasn't talking to you, I was talking to OP. I've long written off any of your posts as anything worth reading.
-
Are there any FEers on this site who are able to explain in their own words how a lunar eclipse is explained on the Flat Earth? I am very interested in having an actual discussion about this.
I understand that you want an explanation using my own words but I'm not the best when it comes to that (language barrier) but I watched this video the other day and to me it made total sense. Here it is
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-MVb5gz7ck&list=LLTL3xKKWqCLmO56JQNUvNwA&index=12
-
Firstly, it would be nice to figure out how strong your understanding is of a lunar eclipse on a round earth. Please tell me what you believe to be causing a lunar eclipse in the presently accepted model, then we can delve into the logic behind it.
What I have posted is simply what I have read from FE sources on this website. If this information is not correct, please make corrections.
FE logic explanation would be appreciated.
I have been accused of being disruptive for posting the true facts, so I will refrain from doing so and refer you to a reliable source such as an astronomical observatory for a true explanation of a lunar eclipse.
Wow, what wonderful deflection. Again, using one of the same few canned responses you have, which is is no way related to the discussion. Well done.
Also:
I have been accused of being disruptive for posting the true facts, so I will refrain from doing so...
That was priceless. You really are delusional, aren't you?
-
Are there any FEers on this site who are able to explain in their own words how a lunar eclipse is explained on the Flat Earth? I am very interested in having an actual discussion about this.
I understand that you want an explanation using my own words but I'm not the best when it comes to that (language barrier) but I watched this video the other day and to me it made total sense. Here it is
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-MVb5gz7ck&list=LLTL3xKKWqCLmO56JQNUvNwA&index=12
The FE game is to deny all reality, so I see no need or any reason to coninue and leave you to play your little games.
It is a simple fact the earth is a globe any way . But TFES game is to pretend they don't know and useless to try to change their minds.
So.... Adios , amigos y amigas ! .....For now at least. I shall be lurking. Enjoy !
-
Are there any FEers on this site who are able to explain in their own words how a lunar eclipse is explained on the Flat Earth? I am very interested in having an actual discussion about this.
I understand that you want an explanation using my own words but I'm not the best when it comes to that (language barrier) but I watched this video the other day and to me it made total sense. Here it is
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-MVb5gz7ck&list=LLTL3xKKWqCLmO56JQNUvNwA&index=12
The FE game is to deny all reality, so I see no need or any reason to coninue and leave you to play your little games.
It is a simple fact the earth is a globe any way . But TFES game is to pretend they don't know and useless to try to change their minds.
So.... Adios , amigos y amigas ! .....For now at least. I shall be lurking.
and is this how you prove to us that Earth is a globe? I will be waiting for proof but in the mean time your response has nothing to do with this post or with what I have posted.
You probably didn't even watch the video or have looked at all into the FE model.. but its ok.
Thank you for leaving, you are doing us a favor.
Some of us have legit questions and wanna just talk about it but all I have seen so far are the globe heads being rude and very imature.
anyways... have a nice day. =)
-
Any comments on the FE comments, Boots ?
Ask him to explain the flat earth horizon ::) ???
Just one more question for FE's. My apologies for popping back in here.
Have you ever visited an observatory ? They can answer all your "Round Earth" questions.
-
Any comments on the FE comments, Boots
Ask him to explain the flat earth horizon ::) ???
(http://i66.tinypic.com/25aoojs.jpg)
-
no matter how high you go you see this same exact thing. But you can see further away the higher you get...
-
no matter how high you go you see this same exact thing. But you can see further away the higher you get...
Not true, I took a photo from 24218 meters altitude that shows curvature.
I've challenged people here to do the same. It's literally a $100-$200 operation, I'm sure you can get together and do the same.
-
Firstly, it would be nice to figure out how strong your understanding is of a lunar eclipse on a round earth. Please tell me what you believe to be causing a lunar eclipse in the presently accepted model, then we can delve into the logic behind it.
No, the topic is "How is a lunar eclipse explained on the Flat Earth?" Answer that! You pop up every so often, but never explain anything about Flat Earth.
The explanations about the Lunar Eclipse on the Globe Earth have been given plenty of times.
But you could take a look at Introductory Astronomy: The Celestial Sphere (http://astro.wsu.edu/worthey/astro/html/lec-celestial-sph.html)
Where you will find: (http://astro.wsu.edu/worthey/astro/html/im-sky/moon-lunar-eclipse-sm.jpg)
Diagram of lunar eclipse. Relative scale is correct!
-
Firstly, it would be nice to figure out how strong your understanding is of a lunar eclipse on a round earth. Please tell me what you believe to be causing a lunar eclipse in the presently accepted model, then we can delve into the logic behind it.
The question was about the lunar eclipse on a flat earth.
I saw no response from any fe's , so I just filled in their place with what I have read on this forum.
If you have a better explanation please post your explanation and correct any errors in mine.
Once again, the question was asked for an explanation of a lunar eclipse on a "flat earth", not on a "round earth."
Please tell us first the answers for a lunar eclipse on a flat earth in your own words.
I am sure explanations for a lunar eclipse on a "round earth" will follow.
A diagram showing a lunar eclipse on a flat earth would be instructional, such as the one shown for a round eartn in rabinoz's previous post before this one.
-
no matter how high you go you see this same exact thing. But you can see further away the higher you get...
You got one thing right. The horizon will be further away the higher you get. .
Consult any Naval Manual For Lookouts for* distances to the horizon fof heights of the observer.
Explain how this would be on flat earth.
But, please, back to the question.:
Explain the lunar eclipse on a flat earth.
-
Any comments on the FE comments, Boots ?
I have been offline for awhile. I'll make another post soon.
-
Firstly, it would be nice to figure out how strong your understanding is of a lunar eclipse on a round earth. Please tell me what you believe to be causing a lunar eclipse in the presently accepted model, then we can delve into the logic behind it.
I subscribe to the theory that the earth is shaped like a wedge of watermelon. So I don't have that strong of an understanding of a lunar eclipse on a global earth. I do plan on posting my question on a global earth website as well. I hope they don't require me to explain my understanding of a lunar eclipse on a flat earth before they can tell me how a lunar eclipse is explained on a global earth. That would leave me in a real pickle.
-
Firstly, it would be nice to figure out how strong your understanding is of a lunar eclipse on a round earth. Please tell me what you believe to be causing a lunar eclipse in the presently accepted model, then we can delve into the logic behind it.
Seriously though, here is a diagram describing what I believe to be causing a lunar eclipse on a global earth:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f1/Solar_lunar_eclipse_diagram.png)
As you can see, the earth comes between the sun and the moon and casts a shadow over some or all of the moon. Even if the moon is completely in earth's shadow it still appears reddish-brown. This is because some of the Sun's light bends through the Earth's atmosphere and reflects off the moon. Is that enough to get us started?
-
no matter how high you go you see this same exact thing. But you can see further away the higher you get...
Not true, I took a photo from 24218 meters altitude that shows curvature.
I've challenged people here to do the same. It's literally a $100-$200 operation, I'm sure you can get together and do the same.
may I see this photo please? Why aren't there more of them? ddid you use fish eye lens?
-
no matter how high you go you see this same exact thing. But you can see further away the higher you get...
Not true, I took a photo from 24218 meters altitude that shows curvature.
I've challenged people here to do the same. It's literally a $100-$200 operation, I'm sure you can get together and do the same.
may I see this photo please? Why aren't there more of them? ddid you use fish eye lens?
Sure, I posted it here: http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3406.msg97357#msg97357 - (And in various other threads concerning this matter)
I have plenty of photo's snapped from that altitude (and highger, up to 32 km), but you all usually rule them out as fake or "bad quality". I chose this picture, because it contains an artifact which were the result of a missed package in my stream (10mW @ ~432MHz resulting in a bandwith of ~28 bytes/second), sort of a way to prove that lower quality images still show clear results, and that live streaming isn't trivial if you don't have the appropriate licenses - This is an actual photo sent back while the balloon was still ascending.
Here's the technical specs of the camera: http://www.arducam.com/downloads/modules/RaspberryPi_camera/RaspberryPi_Mini_Camera_Module_DS.pdf
The reason that I haven't added more photo's is because people claim they are fake or "low quality" - So my next iteration of the camera module I'm assembling and the GPS tracker (yes, GPS, to locate the package when it ascends/descends/lands, which is on point every single time) will contain a Canon EOS700D, just without the camera housing. Before the launch, I'll do videos about the assembly etc. The reason for taking this camera apart and using it for additional photos is for the RAW images.
Surely nobody can complain about that.
-
So my next iteration of the camera module I'm assembling and the GPS tracker (yes, GPS, to locate the package when it ascends/descends/lands, which is on point every single time) will contain a Canon EOS700D, just without the camera housing. Before the launch, I'll do videos about the assembly etc. The reason for taking this camera apart and using it for additional photos is for the RAW images.
Nice! I'm looking forward to seeing this!
Surely nobody can complain about that.
Are you new here?
-
So my next iteration of the camera module I'm assembling and the GPS tracker (yes, GPS, to locate the package when it ascends/descends/lands, which is on point every single time) will contain a Canon EOS700D, just without the camera housing. Before the launch, I'll do videos about the assembly etc. The reason for taking this camera apart and using it for additional photos is for the RAW images.
Nice! I'm looking forward to seeing this!
Surely nobody can complain about that.
Are you new here?
Haha, no, but you know... I'm aware nobody will complain about the RAW images, but most likely will complain about not supplying a continuous live stream from soldering to landing. Even so, they'll probably also complain about my pace, and they had to sleep during important parts of the process.
We'll see :)
-
Firstly, it would be nice to figure out how strong your understanding is of a lunar eclipse on a round earth. Please tell me what you believe to be causing a lunar eclipse in the presently accepted model, then we can delve into the logic behind it.
No, the topic is "How is a lunar eclipse explained on the Flat Earth?" Answer that! You pop up every so often, but never explain anything about Flat Earth.
The explanations about the Lunar Eclipse on the Globe Earth have been given plenty of times.
But you could take a look at Introductory Astronomy: The Celestial Sphere (http://astro.wsu.edu/worthey/astro/html/lec-celestial-sph.html)
Where you will find: (http://astro.wsu.edu/worthey/astro/html/im-sky/moon-lunar-eclipse-sm.jpg)
Diagram of lunar eclipse. Relative scale is correct!
I was asking his level of understanding about the present model just to know where to start.
So in that graphic you shared, the lunar eclipse would only ever be observed at night, and the sun would be completely on the other side of the Earth. How do you explain the many cases where a lunar eclipse has been observed with the sun still in the sky, sometimes referred to as a selenelion? You might say refraction, but refraction is about light, not shadows.
Either way, what scientific evidence is there that a lunar eclipse is the earth shadow? I'll wait.
-
<< irrelevant >>
In case you can't read the OP is "Re: How is a lunar eclipse explained on the Flat Earth?"
The post in this link contains the only Flat Earth explanation I have seen Flat Earth General / Re: How does TFES explain. « Message by geckothegeek on October 28, 2016, 10:37:17 PM » (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5446.msg106038;topicseen#msg106038) and it simply does not work.
By the way refraction allows us to see the sun and moon while thay are each around 0.5° below the "geometric horizon". That fact is attested to by the length of day at equinox being a few minites longer than 12 hours.
But, please post some answers relevant to the OP!
-
<< irrelevant >>
<< Usual RE logic dictating that you must explain something that even they can not >>
To the OP... honestly, we may never know the truth about our world and our "solar system" if we keep on stacking assumptions upon assumptions instead of finding the right questions to ask, and the right experiments that have actual reproducible results. So far we have a lot of stuff that doesn't hold up to the scientific method accepted as dogma in the scientific community. The reason behind eclipses being one of those assumptions based on another assumption.
-
Ok one last question and I'm out. How about all the other videos that are from the same height than yours and some higher and some lower that shows a perfectly flat horizon?
The camera super stable just slowly spinning around showing a 360 degree view of the perfectly flat horizon?? what about those videos? There are quite a few of them ...
-
Ok one last question and I'm out. How about all the other videos that are from the same height than yours and some higher and some lower that shows a perfectly flat horizon?
The camera super stable just slowly spinning around showing a 360 degree view of the perfectly flat horizon?? what about those videos? There are quite a few of them ...
There are just as many videos showing curvature. Investigate the HAB community.
-
Firstly, it would be nice to figure out how strong your understanding is of a lunar eclipse on a round earth. Please tell me what you believe to be causing a lunar eclipse in the presently accepted model, then we can delve into the logic behind it.o
The globular, or "round earth" , explanation of lunar and solar eclipses is really quite simple.
These are the facts, not just assumptions.
In a lunar eclipse, the earth comes between the sun and the moon.
In a solar eclipse, the moon comes between the earth and the sun.
Now, for the Nth time, please : Explain the lunar eclipse on the flat earth
-
Firstly, it would be nice to figure out how strong your understanding is of a lunar eclipse on a round earth. Please tell me what you believe to be causing a lunar eclipse in the presently accepted model, then we can delve into the logic behind it.
What I have posted is simply what I have read from FE sources on this website. If this information is not correct, please make corrections.
FE logic explanation would be appreciated.
I have been accused of being disruptive for posting the true facts, so I will refrain from doing so and refer you to a reliable source such as an astronomical observatory for a true explanation of a lunar eclipse.
I wasn't talking to you, I was talking to OP. I've long written off any of your posts as anything worth reading.
Do you consider my explanation of the lunar eclipse on the flat earth as anything worth reading ?
-
<< irrelevant >>
<< Usual RE logic dictating that you must explain something that even they can not >>
To the OP... honestly, we may never know the truth about our world and our "solar system" if we keep on stacking assumptions upon assumptions instead of finding the right questions to ask, and the right experiments that have actual reproducible results. So far we have a lot of stuff that doesn't hold up to the scientific method accepted as dogma in the scientific community. The reason behind eclipses being one of those assumptions based on another assumption.
No, if you want a thread on the explanation for the lunar eclipse on the Globe earth, make your own thread on that topic.
The answers you get will be the same as it was around 2,500 years ago, when the circular shadow of the of the earth on the moon was one of the earliest pieces of evidence that the earth is a globe.
But, this thread is a genuine thread specifically to find out "How is a lunar eclipse explained on the Flat Earth?" because the explanation in "the Wiki" is quite unsatisfactory and we cannot get any more information from Flat Earthers.
So offer some relevant information or go and start you own thread.
-
<< irrelevant >>
<< Usual RE logic dictating that you must explain something that even they can not >>
To the OP... honestly, we may never know the truth about our world and our "solar system" if we keep on stacking assumptions upon assumptions instead of finding the right questions to ask, and the right experiments that have actual reproducible results. So far we have a lot of stuff that doesn't hold up to the scientific method accepted as dogma in the scientific community. The reason behind eclipses being one of those assumptions based on another assumption.
So the explanation I gave is based on the false assumption that the earth is a globe. Since the world is flat this explanation cannot hold. Now what I really want to know is what causes the lunar eclipses we observe from this flat earth of ours.
-
<< irrelevant >>
<< Usual RE logic dictating that you must explain something that even they can not >>
To the OP... honestly, we may never know the truth about our world and our "solar system" if we keep on stacking assumptions upon assumptions instead of finding the right questions to ask, and the right experiments that have actual reproducible results. So far we have a lot of stuff that doesn't hold up to the scientific method accepted as dogma in the scientific community. The reason behind eclipses being one of those assumptions based on another assumption.
So the explanation I gave is based on the false assumption that the earth is a globe. Since the world is flat this explanation cannot hold. Now what I really want to know is what causes the lunar eclipses we observe from this flat earth of ours.
So I guess we will just have fo wait for a FE to explain it. The best answer you usually get is usually "Look it up in the flat earth FAQ or the flat earth wiki."
My apology, Boots, but some of us "round earthers" make a living in the real world. Of course in addition to the pay checks we get from the government for being "shills" to hide the fact that the earth is flat.
-
<< irrelevant >>
<< Usual RE logic dictating that you must explain something that even they can not >>
To the OP... honestly, we may never know the truth about our world and our "solar system" if we keep on stacking assumptions upon assumptions instead of finding the right questions to ask, and the right experiments that have actual reproducible results. So far we have a lot of stuff that doesn't hold up to the scientific method accepted as dogma in the scientific community. The reason behind eclipses being one of those assumptions based on another assumption.
So the explanation I gave is based on the false assumption that the earth is a globe. Since the world is flat this explanation cannot hold. Now what I really want to know is what causes the lunar eclipses we observe from this flat earth of ours.
I want to know what causes the eclipse to. As I said, we wont find the answer through present-day cosmogony.
-
<< irrelevant >>
<< Usual RE logic dictating that you must explain something that even they can not >>
To the OP... honestly, we may never know the truth about our world and our "solar system" if we keep on stacking assumptions upon assumptions instead of finding the right questions to ask, and the right experiments that have actual reproducible results. So far we have a lot of stuff that doesn't hold up to the scientific method accepted as dogma in the scientific community. The reason behind eclipses being one of those assumptions based on another assumption.
So the explanation I gave is based on the false assumption that the earth is a globe. Since the world is flat this explanation cannot hold. Now what I really want to know is what causes the lunar eclipses we observe from this flat earth of ours.
I want to know what causes the eclipse to. As I said, we wont find the answer through present-day cosmogony.
The information I posted was the flat earth explanation, "in my own words."
But I am a round earther and the request was a for flat earther to respond with a flat earth answer...."in their own words."
-
Ok one last question and I'm out. How about all the other videos that are from the same height than yours and some higher and some lower that shows a perfectly flat horizon?
The camera super stable just slowly spinning around showing a 360 degree view of the perfectly flat horizon?? what about those videos? There are quite a few of them ...
Really and in what way is that evidence of a flat earth.
Imagine you are on a low island with no trees on a perfectly clear day.
If the earth is a globe the horizon we would see a sharp horizon some 5 miles away, depending on the height.
Now a globe is perfectly symmetrical so we see exactly the same sharp horizon all 360° around.
On a flat earth it would be much the same except that the distance to the horizon would now be determined by the limited transparency of the atmoplane, as these flat earthers keep reminding us. Depending on the conditions, this distance can be tens to a couple of hundred miles.
But, the important thing is that there could now be no sharp horizon, just the fuzzy blur similar to what we see from a mountain.
So, fine, do you experiment and prove that the earth is a Globe.
And even from higher altitudes almost exactly the same thing applies, except that not we are look ever so slightly down on a massive circle of up to hundreds of miles radius, so still very little curvature to see.
-
This is post #36 and still no FE has explained the lunar eclipse on the flat earth " in their own words."
-
This is post #36 and still no FE has explained the lunar eclipse on the flat earth in his own words.
I'd suggest reading the FAQ/wiki.
-
This is post #36 and still no FE has explained the lunar eclipse on the flat earth in his own words.
I'd suggest reading the FAQ/wiki.
I'd suggest reading the question. The OP asked for an FE willing to engage in discussion about lunar eclipse to "explain in their own words" how it works on the flat earth. "In their own words" is the key part of the request. We all know what the wiki has to say, but we cannot hold a conversation with the wiki.
-
This is post #36 and still no FE has explained the lunar eclipse on the flat earth in his own words.
I'd suggest reading the FAQ/wiki.
I'd suggest reading the question. The OP asked for an FE willing to engage in discussion about lunar eclipse to "explain in their own words" how it works on the flat earth. "In their own words" is the key part of the request. We all know what the wiki has to say, but we cannot hold a conversation with the wiki.
Given that you are not the OP, this comment and your preceding one are irrelevant. But good job speaking on behalf of others though.
-
This is post #36 and still no FE has explained the lunar eclipse on the flat earth in his own words.
I'd suggest reading the FAQ/wiki.
I'd suggest reading the question. My OP asked for an FE willing to engage in discussion about lunar eclipse to "explain in their own words" how it works on the flat earth. "In their own words" is the key part of the request. I know what the wiki has to say, but I cannot hold a conversation with the wiki.
-
This is post #36 and still no FE has explained the lunar eclipse on the flat earth in his own words.
I'd suggest reading the FAQ/wiki.
I'd suggest reading the question. My OP asked for an FE willing to engage in discussion about lunar eclipse to "explain in their own words" how it works on the flat earth. "In their own words" is the key part of the request. I know what the wiki has to say, but I cannot hold a conversation with the wiki.
If you may have noticed, there have been several requests for a flat earther to "explain a lunar eclipse in their own words."
But there have been no replies other than "read the FAQ or read the wiki" and no further discussion.
Maybe flat earthers know how to read but they don't know how to write ?
I did make an attempt to explain a lunar eclipse for both round earth and flat earth in my own words.
You wiill have to excuse me, flat earthers, but like a few others , I have had studies in geography, had sea duty in the Navy and worked on radar and microwave relay systems in both military and civilian employment enough to know that the earth is a globe (or a sphere.) It is not a belief, it is, as in the words of Colonel Pickering said in "My Fair Lady" , "Common knowledge."
-
Could we then be forgiven for claiming that TFES has no viable answer to the question "How is a lunar eclipse explained on the Flat Earth?"
-
While waiting for a substantive answer, I thought I would post a couple quotes I noticed which appear to demonstrate gecko's predictive capabilities.
So I guess we will just have fo wait for a FE to explain it. The best answer you usually get is usually "Look it up in the flat earth FAQ or the flat earth wiki."
Then about 32.5 hours later this:
I'd suggest reading the FAQ/wiki.
-
I see none of you have taken the time to read the FAQ/wiki, then. No wonder you don't get any engagement from the FE side. It's cute how entitled you all are.
-
I see none of you have taken the time to read the FAQ/wiki, then. No wonder you don't get any engagement from the FE side. It's cute how entitled you all are.
Really! You might look at this post Re: Please explain Earth's shadow on the moon. « Reply #8 on: October 26, 2016, 10:59:35 PM » (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5401.msg105871#msg105871) which contains: According to TFES Wiki it is not the earth but a "Shadow Object" that comes between the sun and the moon:
The Lunar Eclipse
A Lunar Eclipse occurs about twice a year when a satellite of the sun passes between the sun and moon.
This satellite is called 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 (Sun, Object, and Moon) are aligned and when the moon is crossing the sun's orbital plane (at a point called the node).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
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.
And
I have been looking through FE theory for a while, and I want to ask: How does the moon fit in? In the theory, is it flat, or a sphere? What causes it to revolve around the Earth? How big is it? How far away is it?
Junker keeps hammering "Look up the Wiki"! . . . . . . . . . . . Look it up on the Wiki (http://wiki.tfes.org/The_Flat_Earth_Wiki). Here are a few bits on the moon: Moon
The moon is a rotating sphere. It has a diameter of 32 miles and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth.[/size]
The Phases of the Moon
When one observes the phases of the moon he sees the moon's day and night, a shadow from the sun illuminating half of the spherical moon at any one time.
The lunar phases vary cyclically according to the changing geometry of the Moon and Sun, which are constantly wobbling up and down and exchange altitudes as they rotate around the North Pole.
When the moon and sun are at the same altitude one half of the lunar surface is illuminated and pointing towards the sun, This is called the First Quarter Moon. When the observer looks up he will see a shadow cutting the moon in half. The boundary between the illuminated and unilluminated hemispheres is called the terminator.
When the moon is below the sun's altitude the moon is dark and a New Moon occurs.
When the moon is above the altitude of the sun the moon is fully lit and a Full Moon occurs.
If anyone can work out the geometry of this and show how it could possibly give us the phases we actually see, I would love to see it.
Then The Lunar Eclipse
A Lunar Eclipse occurs about twice a year when a satellite of the sun passes between the sun and moon.
This satellite is called 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 (Sun, Object, and Moon) are aligned and when the moon is crossing the sun's orbital plane (at a point called the node). Within a given year, considering the orbitals of these celestial bodies, a maximum of three lunar eclipses can occur.
Have fun!
I do believe I have certainly looked up "the Wiki" and I am afraid I not anything more useful in the Q&A, but that may be my lack of patient searching.
I am so sorry for not showing the deference due to you, but I have never known you to present any useful information, other than, "read the FAQ/wiki", which I do!
I have shown in other threads that the explanation of a lunar eclipse presented in "the Wiki" is simply not possible, and have never received a constructive answer.
All we get from you is "read the FAQ/wiki" (which I try to do diligently) and all we get from Tom Bishop is "bendy light" or "we can't know how light behaves at such tremendous distances", or some ting to that effect.
Things have progressed considerably since Rowbotham's time, but looking at the TFES, I have to wonder if it has progressed all.
-
I see none of you have taken the time to read the FAQ/wiki, then. No wonder you don't get any engagement from the FE side. It's cute how entitled you all are.
Really! You might look at this post Re: Please explain Earth's shadow on the moon. « Reply #8 on: October 26, 2016, 10:59:35 PM » (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5401.msg105871#msg105871) which contains: According to TFES Wiki it is not the earth but a "Shadow Object" that comes between the sun and the moon:
The Lunar Eclipse
A Lunar Eclipse occurs about twice a year when a satellite of the sun passes between the sun and moon.
This satellite is called 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 (Sun, Object, and Moon) are aligned and when the moon is crossing the sun's orbital plane (at a point called the node).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
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.
And
I have been looking through FE theory for a while, and I want to ask: How does the moon fit in? In the theory, is it flat, or a sphere? What causes it to revolve around the Earth? How big is it? How far away is it?
Junker keeps hammering "Look up the Wiki"! . . . . . . . . . . . Look it up on the Wiki (http://wiki.tfes.org/The_Flat_Earth_Wiki). Here are a few bits on the moon: Moon
The moon is a rotating sphere. It has a diameter of 32 miles and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth.[/size]
The Phases of the Moon
When one observes the phases of the moon he sees the moon's day and night, a shadow from the sun illuminating half of the spherical moon at any one time.
The lunar phases vary cyclically according to the changing geometry of the Moon and Sun, which are constantly wobbling up and down and exchange altitudes as they rotate around the North Pole.
When the moon and sun are at the same altitude one half of the lunar surface is illuminated and pointing towards the sun, This is called the First Quarter Moon. When the observer looks up he will see a shadow cutting the moon in half. The boundary between the illuminated and unilluminated hemispheres is called the terminator.
When the moon is below the sun's altitude the moon is dark and a New Moon occurs.
When the moon is above the altitude of the sun the moon is fully lit and a Full Moon occurs.
If anyone can work out the geometry of this and show how it could possibly give us the phases we actually see, I would love to see it.
Then The Lunar Eclipse
A Lunar Eclipse occurs about twice a year when a satellite of the sun passes between the sun and moon.
This satellite is called 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 (Sun, Object, and Moon) are aligned and when the moon is crossing the sun's orbital plane (at a point called the node). Within a given year, considering the orbitals of these celestial bodies, a maximum of three lunar eclipses can occur.
Have fun!
I do believe I have certainly looked up "the Wiki" and I am afraid I not anything more useful in the Q&A, but that may be my lack of patient searching.
I am so sorry for not showing the deference due to you, but I have never known you to present any useful information, other than, "read the FAQ/wiki", which I do!
I have shown in other threads that the explanation of a lunar eclipse presented in "the Wiki" is simply not possible, and have never received a constructive answer.
All we get from you is "read the FAQ/wiki" (which I try to do diligently) and all we get from Tom Bishop is "bendy light" or "we can't know how light behaves at such tremendous distances", or some ting to that effect.
Things have progressed considerably since Rowbotham's time, but looking at the TFES, I have to wonder if it has progressed all.
Irrelevant.
-
I have shown in other threads that the explanation of a lunar eclipse presented in "the Wiki" is simply not possible, and have never received a constructive answer.
All we get from you is "read the FAQ/wiki" (which I try to do diligently) and all we get from Tom Bishop is "bendy light" or "we can't know how light behaves at such tremendous distances", or something to that effect.
Things have progressed considerably since Rowbotham's time, but looking at the TFES, I have to wonder if it has progressed all.
Irrelevant.
A large part of my post was showing that I have read much in "the Wiki", and quite a bit of RowBotham and Zetetes as it happens, and your only answer is "Irrelevant".
Well, hide in your little box and "never go to see" the real world if that is what you want,
but most people do realise that the observations on that real world do not match what is in "the Wiki", Rowbotham or Zetetes and we are trying to find out if there are better explanations.
Well, I guess there are no better explanations. That does make life a lot simpler.
-
I see none of you have taken the time to read the FAQ/wiki, then. No wonder you don't get any engagement from the FE side. It's cute how entitled you all are.
How exactly do you come to that conclusion? I most certainly did take the time to read the FAQ/Wiki. What I want to do is have a discussion with you about lunar eclipses, not the wiki. As I mentioned in one of my previous posts I cannot have a discussion with the wiki. I have read the wiki explanation and there are some things I don't understand about it. That is why I want to have a discussion with you.
One thing I don't understand about the wiki explanation is how can a five to ten miles in diameter "Shadow Object" block all the light from a 32 mile diameter sun from reaching a 32 mile diameter moon and why has an object that size and distance not shown up on radar?
On the FAQ I found this:
Your next question will, of course, be "What causes eclipses, then?" to which I will say "I don't know, as I've never been on the moon during one.
Now could we have a discussion about what causes lunar eclipses?
-
I see none of you have taken the time to read the FAQ/wiki, then. No wonder you don't get any engagement from the FE side. It's cute how entitled you all are.
How exactly do you come to that conclusion? I most certainly did take the time to read the FAQ/Wiki. What I want to do is have a discussion with you about lunar eclipses, not the wiki. As I mentioned in one of my previous posts I cannot have a discussion with the wiki. I have read the wiki explanation and there are some things I don't understand about it. That is why I want to have a discussion with you.
One thing I don't understand about the wiki explanation is how can a five to ten miles in diameter "Shadow Object" block all the light from a 32 mile diameter sun from reaching a 32 mile diameter moon and why has an object that size and distance not shown up on radar?
On the FAQ I found this:
Your next question will, of course, be "What causes eclipses, then?" to which I will say "I don't know, as I've never been on the moon during one.
Now could we have a discussion about what causes lunar eclipses?
One more prediction :
It's impossible to try to carry on an intelligent discussion with a flat earther.
-
I have shown in other threads that the explanation of a lunar eclipse presented in "the Wiki" is simply not possible, and have never received a constructive answer.
All we get from you is "read the FAQ/wiki" (which I try to do diligently) and all we get from Tom Bishop is "bendy light" or "we can't know how light behaves at such tremendous distances", or something to that effect.
Things have progressed considerably since Rowbotham's time, but looking at the TFES, I have to wonder if it has progressed all.
Irrelevant.
A large part of my post was showing that I have read much in "the Wiki", and quite a bit of RowBotham and Zetetes as it happens, and your only answer is "Irrelevant".
Well, hide in your little box and "never go to see" the real world if that is what you want,
but most people do realise that the observations on that real world do not match what is in "the Wiki", Rowbotham or Zetetes and we are trying to find out if there are better explanations.
Well, I guess there are no better explanations. That does make life a lot simpler.
..
"Never go to see"/"Never go to sea"
-
I see none of you have taken the time to read the FAQ/wiki, then. No wonder you don't get any engagement from the FE side. It's cute how entitled you all are.
How exactly do you come to that conclusion? I most certainly did take the time to read the FAQ/Wiki. What I want to do is have a discussion with you about lunar eclipses, not the wiki. As I mentioned in one of my previous posts I cannot have a discussion with the wiki. I have read the wiki explanation and there are some things I don't understand about it. That is why I want to have a discussion with you.
One thing I don't understand about the wiki explanation is how can a five to ten miles in diameter "Shadow Object" block all the light from a 32 mile diameter sun from reaching a 32 mile diameter moon and why has an object that size and distance not shown up on radar?
On the FAQ I found this:
Your next question will, of course, be "What causes eclipses, then?" to which I will say "I don't know, as I've never been on the moon during one.
Now could we have a discussion about what causes lunar eclipses?
Bump?
-
I see none of you have taken the time to read the FAQ/wiki, then. No wonder you don't get any engagement from the FE side. It's cute how entitled you all are.
How exactly do you come to that conclusion? I most certainly did take the time to read the FAQ/Wiki. What I want to do is have a discussion with you about lunar eclipses, not the wiki. As I mentioned in one of my previous posts I cannot have a discussion with the wiki. I have read the wiki explanation and there are some things I don't understand about it. That is why I want to have a discussion with you.
One thing I don't understand about the wiki explanation is how can a five to ten miles in diameter "Shadow Object" block all the light from a 32 mile diameter sun from reaching a 32 mile diameter moon and why has an object that size and distance not shown up on radar?
On the FAQ I found this:
Your next question will, of course, be "What causes eclipses, then?" to which I will say "I don't know, as I've never been on the moon during one.
Now could we have a discussion about what causes lunar eclipses?
Bump?
In this post
Re: How is a lunar eclipse explained on the Flat Earth? « Reply #45 on: November 05, 2016, 10:29:39 AM » (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5461.msg106489#msg106489) I detailed what "the Wiki" had to say about the "Lunar Eclipse"
and the reply from Junker was:
Irrelevant.
Am I to interpret that as "what 'the Wiki' had to say about the 'Lunar Eclipse' " is "Irrelevant"? Looks like it.
In other words "the Wiki" is wrong, and no Flat Earther has any idea about the cause of lunar eclipses!
You ask "Now could we have a discussion about what causes lunar eclipses?" It doesn't look likely does it?
One more thing to add to the list of things completely unexplainable on the flat earth.
-
I see none of you have taken the time to read the FAQ/wiki, then. No wonder you don't get any engagement from the FE side. It's cute how entitled you all are.
Really! You might look at this post Re: Please explain Earth's shadow on the moon. « Reply #8 on: October 26, 2016, 10:59:35 PM » (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5401.msg105871#msg105871) which contains: According to TFES Wiki it is not the earth but a "Shadow Object" that comes between the sun and the moon:
The Lunar Eclipse
A Lunar Eclipse occurs about twice a year when a satellite of the sun passes between the sun and moon.
This satellite is called 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 (Sun, Object, and Moon) are aligned and when the moon is crossing the sun's orbital plane (at a point called the node).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
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.
And
I have been looking through FE theory for a while, and I want to ask: How does the moon fit in? In the theory, is it flat, or a sphere? What causes it to revolve around the Earth? How big is it? How far away is it?
Junker keeps hammering "Look up the Wiki"! . . . . . . . . . . . Look it up on the Wiki (http://wiki.tfes.org/The_Flat_Earth_Wiki). Here are a few bits on the moon: Moon
The moon is a rotating sphere. It has a diameter of 32 miles and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth.[/size]
The Phases of the Moon
When one observes the phases of the moon he sees the moon's day and night, a shadow from the sun illuminating half of the spherical moon at any one time.
The lunar phases vary cyclically according to the changing geometry of the Moon and Sun, which are constantly wobbling up and down and exchange altitudes as they rotate around the North Pole.
When the moon and sun are at the same altitude one half of the lunar surface is illuminated and pointing towards the sun, This is called the First Quarter Moon. When the observer looks up he will see a shadow cutting the moon in half. The boundary between the illuminated and unilluminated hemispheres is called the terminator.
When the moon is below the sun's altitude the moon is dark and a New Moon occurs.
When the moon is above the altitude of the sun the moon is fully lit and a Full Moon occurs.
If anyone can work out the geometry of this and show how it could possibly give us the phases we actually see, I would love to see it.
Then The Lunar Eclipse
A Lunar Eclipse occurs about twice a year when a satellite of the sun passes between the sun and moon.
This satellite is called 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 (Sun, Object, and Moon) are aligned and when the moon is crossing the sun's orbital plane (at a point called the node). Within a given year, considering the orbitals of these celestial bodies, a maximum of three lunar eclipses can occur.
Have fun!
I do believe I have certainly looked up "the Wiki" and I am afraid I not anything more useful in the Q&A, but that may be my lack of patient searching.
I am so sorry for not showing the deference due to you, but I have never known you to present any useful information, other than, "read the FAQ/wiki", which I do!
I have shown in other threads that the explanation of a lunar eclipse presented in "the Wiki" is simply not possible, and have never received a constructive answer.
All we get from you is "read the FAQ/wiki" (which I try to do diligently) and all we get from Tom Bishop is "bendy light" or "we can't know how light behaves at such tremendous distances", or some ting to that effect.
Things have progressed considerably since Rowbotham's time, but looking at the TFES, I have to wonder if it has progressed all.
Irrelevant.
In the explanation of " The Phases Of The Moon" , these are explained by the moon being at the same , or higher or lower in altitude, than the sun. How can this be if the sun and the moon are always at the same altitude by the fe definition ? Do they both "wobble up and down". I think that rates a big LOL.
-
In other words "the Wiki" is wrong, and no Flat Earther has any idea about the cause of lunar eclipses!
False.
-
In other words "the Wiki" is wrong, and no Flat Earther has any idea about the cause of lunar eclipses!
False.
Lapwing Defense.
-
In other words "the Wiki" is wrong, and no Flat Earther has any idea about the cause of lunar eclipses!
False.
Lapwing Defense.
Do you have any evidence to support your outlandish claim?
-
In other words "the Wiki" is wrong, and no Flat Earther has any idea about the cause of lunar eclipses!
False.
"The Wiki" claims that a 5 to 10 mile diameter "Shadow Object" is able to block all the light of a 32 mile diameter sun from reaching a 32 mile diameter moon.
Since "the Wiki" explanation is obviously impossible, would you please direct us to a "Flat Earther" that has some "idea about the cause of lunar eclipses"
When I did quote "the Wiki", your response was simply "Irrelevant"!
Yes, I agree it is quite "Irrelevant", so we get back to the OP, "How is a lunar eclipse explained on the Flat Earth?"
Over to some knowledgeable Flat Earthed for a relevant answer.
-
Do you have any evidence to support your outlandish claim?
LWD
Still looking to some knowledgeable FEer for a relevant answer.
-
Do you have any evidence to support your outlandish claim?
LWD
Still looking to some knowledgeable FEer for a relevant answer.
So, no evidence then. Gotcha.
-
Do you have any evidence to support your outlandish claim?
LWD
Still looking to some knowledgeable FEer for a relevant answer.
So, no evidence then. Gotcha.
Wrong answer. I am asking you for an explanation for "How is a lunar eclipse explained on the Flat Earth?"
The explanation in "the Wiki" is obviously quite impossible, as has been explained numerous times.
In case you have forgotten, "the Wiki" explains it like this:
The Lunar Eclipse
A Lunar Eclipse occurs about twice a year when a satellite of the sun passes between the sun and moon.
This satellite is called 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 (Sun, Object, and Moon) are aligned and when the moon is crossing the sun's orbital plane (at a point called the node).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
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.
Now it should be obvious that a 5 to 10 miles in diameter Shadow Object cannot block the from a 32 mile diameter sun from reaching a 32 mile diameter moon.
Do I have to draw a picture?
So, no Gotcha! Now what about an explanation?
-
Do you have any evidence to support your outlandish claim?
LWD
Still looking to some knowledgeable FEer for a relevant answer.
So, no evidence then. Gotcha.
Wrong answer. I am asking you for an explanation for "How is a lunar eclipse explained on the Flat Earth?"
The explanation in "the Wiki" is obviously quite impossible, as has been explained numerous times.
In case you have forgotten, "the Wiki" explains it like this:
The Lunar Eclipse
A Lunar Eclipse occurs about twice a year when a satellite of the sun passes between the sun and moon.
This satellite is called 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 (Sun, Object, and Moon) are aligned and when the moon is crossing the sun's orbital plane (at a point called the node).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
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.
Now it should be obvious that a 5 to 10 miles in diameter Shadow Object cannot block the from a 32 mile diameter sun from reaching a 32 mile diameter moon.
Do I have to draw a picture?
So, no Gotcha! Now what about an explanation?
Given that the post you quoted didn't involve you, I'm not sure why you're copy pasting the same nonsense as a reply to me. Do you understand how discussions on a forum work?
-
Do you have any evidence to support your outlandish claim?
LWD
Still looking to some knowledgeable FEer for a relevant answer.
So, no evidence then. Gotcha.
Wrong answer. I am asking you for an explanation for "How is a lunar eclipse explained on the Flat Earth?"
The explanation in "the Wiki" is obviously quite impossible, as has been explained numerous times.
In case you have forgotten, "the Wiki" explains it like this:
The Lunar Eclipse
A Lunar Eclipse occurs about twice a year when a satellite of the sun passes between the sun and moon.
This satellite is called 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 (Sun, Object, and Moon) are aligned and when the moon is crossing the sun's orbital plane (at a point called the node).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
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.
Now it should be obvious that a 5 to 10 miles in diameter Shadow Object cannot block the from a 32 mile diameter sun from reaching a 32 mile diameter moon.
Do I have to draw a picture?
So, no Gotcha! Now what about an explanation?
Given that the post you quoted didn't involve you, I'm not sure why you're copy pasting the same nonsense as a reply to me. Do you understand how discussions on a forum work?
Try again! Boots comment was almost a direct of my post: Over to some knowledgeable Flat Earthed for a relevant answer.
So, you wriggle and squirm, but still don't have an answer!
Yes, I realise I am "copy pasting the same nonsense" after all most of it was directly fro YOUR "Wiki".
Try again!
-
Do you have any evidence to support your outlandish claim?
LWD
Still looking to some knowledgeable FEer for a relevant answer.
So, no evidence then. Gotcha.
Wrong answer. I am asking you for an explanation for "How is a lunar eclipse explained on the Flat Earth?"
The explanation in "the Wiki" is obviously quite impossible, as has been explained numerous times.
In case you have forgotten, "the Wiki" explains it like this:
The Lunar Eclipse
A Lunar Eclipse occurs about twice a year when a satellite of the sun passes between the sun and moon.
This satellite is called 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 (Sun, Object, and Moon) are aligned and when the moon is crossing the sun's orbital plane (at a point called the node).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
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.
Now it should be obvious that a 5 to 10 miles in diameter Shadow Object cannot block the from a 32 mile diameter sun from reaching a 32 mile diameter moon.
Do I have to draw a picture?
So, no Gotcha! Now what about an explanation?
Given that the post you quoted didn't involve you, I'm not sure why you're copy pasting the same nonsense as a reply to me. Do you understand how discussions on a forum work?
Try again! Boots comment was almost a direct of my post: Over to some knowledgeable Flat Earthed for a relevant answer.
So, you wriggle and squirm, but still don't have an answer!
Yes, I realise I am "copy pasting the same nonsense" after all most of it was directly fro YOUR "Wiki".
Try again!
Answer for what? Try again for what? We weren't having a discussion.
-
Answer for what? Try again for what? We weren't having a discussion.
An answer for "How is a lunar eclipse explained on the Flat Earth?"
That is the topic, in case you had missed it.
-
Jesus, stop feeding junker! He is messing with you, stop falling into that trap every single time.
-
An answer for "How is a lunar eclipse explained on the Flat Earth?"
That is the topic, in case you had missed it.
Ah, gotcha.
I'd suggest taking a look at the wiki and FAQ.
Seems this thread can be closed now. Glad that one was simple to clear up.
-
An answer for "How is a lunar eclipse explained on the Flat Earth?"
That is the topic, in case you had missed it.
Ah, gotcha.
I'd suggest taking a look at the wiki and FAQ.
Seems this thread can be closed now. Glad that one was simple to clear up.
You "suggest taking a look at the wiki and FAQ"!
Have you ignored all the foregoing? The explanation in "the Wiki" is patently absurd. That is the reason for the whole thread.
Since the thread was started by Boots,
How is a lunar eclipse explained on the Flat Earth? New
Started by Boots.
Would it not be polite for him to close the thread when he has a satisfactory answer?
Of course, you could admit outright that you simply do not have a better explanation than the impossibility given in "the Wiki".
-
...the impossibility given in "the Wiki".
Citation needed...
-
So, no evidence then. Gotcha.
It is my opinion that you have a bad case of LWD Syndrome. There is no evidence that I'm interested in discussing with you.
Still looking to some knowledgeable FEer for a relevant answer.
-
So, no evidence then. Gotcha.
It is my opinion that you have a bad case of LWD. There is no evidence that I'm interested in discussing with you.
Still looking to some knowledgeable FEer for a relevant answer.
Good to see that you have conceded. Another victory for FE!
-
Good to see that you have conceded. Another victory for FE!
LWDS
Still looking to some knowledgeable FEer for a relevant answer.
-
Good to see that you have conceded. Another victory for FE!
LWD
Still looking to some knowledgeable FEer for a relevant answer.
And yet you still quote/reply... And it is clear you still haven't even read the FAQ or wiki. It is disingenuous for you to think anyone should take you seriously given your lack of effort.
-
And yet you still quote/reply... And it is clear you still haven't even read the FAQ or wiki. It is disingenuous for you to think anyone should take you seriously given your lack of effort.
LOL. LWDS
Still looking to some knowledgeable FEer for a relevant answer.
-
And yet you still quote/reply... And it is clear you still haven't even read the FAQ or wiki. It is disingenuous for you to think anyone should take you seriously given your lack of effort.
LOL. LWDS
Still looking to some knowledgeable FEer for a relevant answer.
You just can't help yourself. It is actually quite funny to watch. Good luck with everything, friend! :)
-
Are there any knowledgable FEers on this site who are able to explain in their own words how a lunar eclipse is explained on the Flat Earth? I am very interested in having an actual discussion about this.
-
Are there any knowledgable FEers on this site who are able to explain in their own words how a lunar eclipse is explained on the Flat Earth? I am very interested in having an actual discussion about this.
Knowledgable ???
-
Knowledgable ???
Please refrain from low content posting in the upper fora.
-
Knowledgable ???
Please refrain from low content posting in the upper fora.
Neither Junker nor anyone else appear to have an answer to the question "How is a lunar eclipse explained on the Flat Earth?",
Junker refuses to give any explanation in this thread and nobody else from the FES deigns to answer.
So I started a new top specifically claiming
The explanation for the Lunar Eclipse in "the Wiki" is quite Unsatisfactory. « on: Today at 11:18:38 AM » (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5495.msg106943#msg106943).
I was expecting some explanation, because as shown in this diagram (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Astronomy/Flat%20Earth%20Sun%20Lunar%20Eclipse_zpsmjltzrtj.png)
Flat Earth Sun, Shadow Object and Lunar Eclipse
I cannot see any possibility of the "Shadow Object" causing a shadow on the moon.
A 5 to 10 mile diameter Shadow Object can only block a small fraction of the light from a 32 mile diameter sun from reaching a 32 mile diameter moon.
So this 5 to 10 mile diameter "Shadow Object" explanation of the lunar eclipse is unsatisfactory.
So is there a better explanation of this well known event?
How are we to interpret this action? Junker refuses to give any further explanation in this thread, and throws out my attempt at getting further elucidation.
-
Knowledgable ???
Please refrain from low content posting in the upper fora.
Neither Junker nor anyone else appear to have an answer to the question "How is a lunar eclipse explained on the Flat Earth?",
Junker refuses to give any explanation in this thread and nobody else from the FES deigns to answer.
So I started a new top specifically claiming
The explanation for the Lunar Eclipse in "the Wiki" is quite Unsatisfactory. « on: Today at 11:18:38 AM » (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5495.msg106943#msg106943).
I was expecting some explanation, because as shown in this diagram (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Astronomy/Flat%20Earth%20Sun%20Lunar%20Eclipse_zpsmjltzrtj.png)
Flat Earth Sun, Shadow Object and Lunar Eclipse
I cannot see any possibility of the "Shadow Object" causing a shadow on the moon.
A 5 to 10 mile diameter Shadow Object can only block a small fraction of the light from a 32 mile diameter sun from reaching a 32 mile diameter moon.
So this 5 to 10 mile diameter "Shadow Object" explanation of the lunar eclipse is unsatisfactory.
So is there a better explanation of this well known event?
How are we to interpret this action? Junker refuses to give any further explanation in this thread, and throws out my attempt at getting further elucidation.
You seem to be under the impression that someone owes you a response. I assure you that is not the case. Frankly, with your immature behavior, it isn't at all surprising no one wants to talk to you.
-
A message to any knowledgable FEers on this site:
Despite certain posts to the contrary, I have read the FAQ and the Wiki regarding how a lunar eclipse is explained on the Flat Earth. I am very interested in having a discussion with you about how a 5 to 10 mile diameter Shadow Object can block all the light from a 32 mile diameter sun from reaching a 32 mile diameter moon.
-
A message to any knowledgable FEers on this site:
Despite certain posts to the contrary, I have read the FAQ and the Wiki regarding how a lunar eclipse is explained on the Flat Earth. I am very interested in having a discussion with you about how a 5 to 10 mile diameter Shadow Object can block all the light from a 32 mile diameter sun from reaching a 32 mile diameter moon.
A message to Boots
Like you, I have read, or scanned, most of the FAQ , the wiki, ENAG and "The Sacred Texts."
If you take any of these seriously, or any of the replies from flat earthers, you will either be frustrated or disappointed.
Most of these are based on the writings of a 19th Century author whom some consider rather dubious.
I think the FES would be better off to call itself "The Samuel Birley Rowbotham Society."
Most of us "Round Earthers" just come here for the entertainment and to post facts and figures to show just have how false these "Flat Earth Theories" (Weird Ideas) are.
So, welcome to the club !
As one "RE" frequent flyer puts it : "Shalom and welcome to the trenches "
LOL
-
Most of these are based on the writings of a 19th Century author whom some consider rather
Yet the best evidence round earthers can provide for gravity is from a guy from the 18th century...
-
Most of these are based on the writings of a 19th Century author whom some consider rather
Yet the best evidence round earthers can provide for gravity is from a guy from the 18th century...
General Relativity wasn't even invented in the 18th century. Here's some more recent stuff: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity).
But perhaps you could stop dancing around the issue and actually address OP's question? The FAQ/Wiki obviously don't give a satisfactory answer.
-
General Relativity wasn't even invented in the 18th century.
Irrelevant.
-
General Relativity wasn't even invented in the 18th century.
Irrelevant.
Eh, I don't know why I bothered responding to you. My mistake. Have fun with your trolling.
-
General Relativity wasn't even invented in the 18th century.
Irrelevant.
Eh, I don't know why I bothered responding to you.
I'm not sure either, considering your response was unrelated to my post.
-
General Relativity wasn't even invented in the 18th century.
Irrelevant.
Quite relavent, it was in reply to your Most of these are based on the writings of a 19th Century author whom some consider rather
Yet the best evidence round Globe earthers can provide for gravity is from a guy from the 18th century...
Mind you the best evidence for gravitation is that the theory works.
Even Newtonian Gravitation is almost perfectly accurate within the Solar System and is used in almost all orbital calculations, with relativistic corrections where necessary.
UA doesn't work with any great degree of accuracy anywhere.
Yes, I know this is all irrelevant,
but you still don't seem to be able to explain a lunar eclipse on the Flat Earth,
other than with the completely impossible explanation in "the Wiki"
or the equally implausible explanation from Rowbotham.
-
Even Newtonian Gravitation is almost perfectly accurate within the Solar System and is used in almost all orbital calculations, with relativistic corrections where necessary.
How many orbital calculations do you run a week? Have you been to space? Have you launched a satellite?
So your burden of proof is whether or not the information you're regarding was given to you by an official government agency or something?
-
Even Newtonian Gravitation is almost perfectly accurate within the Solar System and is used in almost all orbital calculations, with relativistic corrections where necessary.
How many orbital calculations do you run a week? Have you been to space? Have you launched a satellite?
So your burden of proof is whether or not the information you're regarding was given to you by an official government agency or something?
Calculating orbits with Newtonian gravity is actually pretty trivial. I HAVE done this in the past. Very easy. Just don't expect your predictions to be accurate hundreds of years in the future.
You can then confirm your predictions for most of the planets with an amateur telescope. No need to rely on a government agency at all.
-
Even Newtonian Gravitation is almost perfectly accurate within the Solar System and is used in almost all orbital calculations, with relativistic corrections where necessary.
How many orbital calculations do you run a week? Have you been to space? Have you launched a satellite?
So your burden of proof is whether or not the information you're regarding was given to you by an official government agency or something?
No reliance on governments or universities is required. For example, one can verify the validity of Kepler's and Newton's laws by observing what are called "visual binary" star systems. These are double-star systems in which each member of the binary can be fully resolved and does not eclipse the other, and there are plenty of nearby double-star systems nearby that can be fully resolved with amateur equipment (http://www.skyandtelescope.com/observing/celestial-objects-to-watch/double-stars/). It's just a matter of having the time and patience to make careful observations for a long time. I think the shortest period of any of the nearby visual binaries is something like 2 years.
-
Even Newtonian Gravitation is almost perfectly accurate within the Solar System and is used in almost all orbital calculations, with relativistic corrections where necessary.
How many orbital calculations do you run a week? Have you been to space? Have you launched a satellite?
So your burden of proof is whether or not the information you're regarding was given to you by an official government agency or something?
No reliance on governments or universities is required. For example, one can verify the validity of Kepler's and Newton's laws by observing what are called "visual binary" star systems. These are double-star systems in which each member of the binary can be fully resolved and does not eclipse the other, and there are plenty of nearby double-star systems nearby that can be fully resolved with amateur equipment (http://www.skyandtelescope.com/observing/celestial-objects-to-watch/double-stars/). It's just a matter of having the time and patience to make careful observations for a long time. I think the shortest period of any of the nearby visual binaries is something like 2 years.
Too long comment, if you want to persuade someone you should speak much more light English and much shorter.
-
No reliance on governments or universities is required. For example, one can verify the validity of Kepler's and Newton's laws by observing what are called "visual binary" star systems. These are double-star systems in which each member of the binary can be fully resolved and does not eclipse the other, and there are plenty of nearby double-star systems nearby that can be fully resolved with amateur equipment (http://www.skyandtelescope.com/observing/celestial-objects-to-watch/double-stars/). It's just a matter of having the time and patience to make careful observations for a long time. I think the shortest period of any of the nearby visual binaries is something like 2 years.
Too long comment, if you want to persuade someone you should speak much more light English and much shorter.
Don't make me break out my hand puppets.
-
No reliance on governments or universities is required. For example, one can verify the validity of Kepler's and Newton's laws by observing what are called "visual binary" star systems. These are double-star systems in which each member of the binary can be fully resolved and does not eclipse the other, and there are plenty of nearby double-star systems nearby that can be fully resolved with amateur equipment (http://www.skyandtelescope.com/observing/celestial-objects-to-watch/double-stars/). It's just a matter of having the time and patience to make careful observations for a long time. I think the shortest period of any of the nearby visual binaries is something like 2 years.
Too long comment, if you want to persuade someone you should speak much more light English and much shorter.
Don't make me break out my hand puppets.
What ?
-
Too long comment, if you want to persuade someone you should speak much more light English and much shorter.
perhaps. i would be happy to try to better explain anything from my post that you found unclear.
-
Too long comment, if you want to persuade someone you should speak much more light English and much shorter.
perhaps. i would be happy to try to better explain anything from my post that you found unclear.
What did you want to say ?
-
A message to any knowledgable FEers on this site:
I am still very interested in having a discussion with you about how a 5 to 10 mile diameter Shadow Object can block all the light from a 32 mile diameter sun from reaching a 32 mile diameter moon.
-
Too long comment, if you want to persuade someone you should speak much more light English and much shorter.
Oh, for crying out loud! If he gave you any shorter an answer, it wouldn't contain any actual information. You want a substantive answer, you're going to have to read a few words with four or five syllables.
-
Too long comment, if you want to persuade someone you should speak much more light English and much shorter.
Oh, for crying out loud! If he gave you any shorter an answer, it wouldn't contain any actual information. You want a substantive answer, you're going to have to read a few words with four or five syllables.
Come, come! He won't understand that, Just count all those syllables in "information" (1,2 ? too many!) and "substantive" (1,2 ? too many!).
Just imagine using "Heliocentric" - the mind boggles.
-
Too long comment, if you want to persuade someone you should speak much more light English and much shorter.
Oh, for crying out loud! If he gave you any shorter an answer, it wouldn't contain any actual information. You want a substantive answer, you're going to have to read a few words with four or five syllables.
Come, come! He won't understand that, Just count all those syllables in "information" (1,2 ? too many!) and "substantive" (1,2 ? too many!).
Just imagine using "Heliocentric" - the mind boggles.
You are genius at telling people how evil and pathetic you can get.
-
Too long comment, if you want to persuade someone you should speak much more light English and much shorter.
Oh, for crying out loud! If he gave you any shorter an answer, it wouldn't contain any actual information. You want a substantive answer, you're going to have to read a few words with four or five syllables.
Come, come! He won't understand that, Just count all those syllables in "information" (1,2 ? too many!) and "substantive" (1,2 ? too many!).
Just imagine using "Heliocentric" - the mind boggles.
You are genius at telling people how evil and pathetic you can get.
You complain at the complain about the complexity of replies. Not all answers can be in one simple sentence.
So what are we to think?
-
A message to any knowledgable FEers on this site:
I am still very interested in having a discussion with you about how a 5 to 10 mile diameter Shadow Object can block all the light from a 32 mile diameter sun from reaching a 32 mile diameter moon.
In the same way you can project a hand and puppet shadow show onto your bedroom wall, with the shadow of your hands being several times the size of your physical hands.
Any further questions?
-
A message to any knowledgable FEers on this site:
I am still very interested in having a discussion with you about how a 5 to 10 mile diameter Shadow Object can block all the light from a 32 mile diameter sun from reaching a 32 mile diameter moon.
In the same way you can project a hand and puppet shadow show onto your bedroom wall, with the shadow of your hands being several the size of your physical hands.
Any further questions?
I'm really not sure what the RE objection is to this. It's actually quite a simple concept.
-
A message to any knowledgable FEers on this site:
I am still very interested in having a discussion with you about how a 5 to 10 mile diameter Shadow Object can block all the light from a 32 mile diameter sun from reaching a 32 mile diameter moon.
In the same way you can project a hand and puppet shadow show onto your bedroom wall, with the shadow of your hands being several the size of your physical hands.
Any further questions?
Yes, I have 2 questions.
1. It has been pointed out several times that a 10 mile diameter object cannot effectively block the light between two 32 mile diameter objects. It doesn't matter where you place the shadow object. The reason you can make your hand's shadow bigger is because your hand is wider than the light source. Why do you continue to ignore this issue?
2. Why do you continue to conspicuously ignore this thread (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5431.0)?
-
A message to any knowledgable FEers on this site:
I am still very interested in having a discussion with you about how a 5 to 10 mile diameter Shadow Object can block all the light from a 32 mile diameter sun from reaching a 32 mile diameter moon.
In the same way you can project a hand and puppet shadow show onto your bedroom wall, with the shadow of your hands being several the size of your physical hands.
Any further questions?
Yes, I have 2 questions.
1. It has been pointed out several times that a 10 mile diameter object cannot effectively block the light between two 32 mile diameter objects. It doesn't matter where you place the shadow object. The reason you can make your hand's shadow bigger is because your hand is wider than the light source. Why do you continue to ignore this issue?
2. Why do you continue to conspicuously ignore this thread (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5431.0)?
Inb4 complaints that Totes is not the OP.(I don't understand why that should matter if his questions and/or comments are relevant(whether junker thinks they are relevant or not is totally irrelevant IMHO)).
Also, I have the same question and have posted it in another thread. (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5479.msg107167#msg107167) I did a simple experiment and got results that do not support the idea that a 10 mile diameter object can effectively block the light between two 32 mile diameter objects. I was told my experiment made no sense at all, but am still wondering why it makes no sense at all. I would really like to find out what the problems were so we could address them and further our inquiry.
-
A message to any knowledgable FEers on this site:
I am still very interested in having a discussion with you about how a 5 to 10 mile diameter Shadow Object can block all the light from a 32 mile diameter sun from reaching a 32 mile diameter moon.
In the same way you can project a hand and puppet shadow show onto your bedroom wall, with the shadow of your hands being several the size of your physical hands.
Any further questions?
I challenge you to try the "hand and puppet shadow show onto your bedroom wall" with a light source 3 to 6 times the size of your hand.
In other words with a light source 12 to 24 inches in diameter.
Get my drift yet?
-
I challenge you to try the "hand and puppet shadow show onto your bedroom wall" with a light source 3 to 6 times the size of your hand.
In other words with a light source 12 to 24 inches in diameter.
Get my drift yet?
Even if the end of a flashlight was two feet in diameter, when you project that light to fill a 10 foot by 10 foot wall, whatever shadows you are creating will enlarge as the light projects against that wall.
Do you not know of the concept of projection?
-
I challenge you to try the "hand and puppet shadow show onto your bedroom wall" with a light source 3 to 6 times the size of your hand.
In other words with a light source 12 to 24 inches in diameter.
Get my drift yet?
Even if the end of a flashlight was two feet in diameter, when you project that light to fill a 10 foot by 10 foot wall, whatever shadows you are creating will enlarge as the light projects against that wall.
Do you not know of the concept of projection?
Apparently you don't. The shadow will enlarge proportionately to the size of the light pool the source throws. Since the shadow will never be larger than the source in your case, Totes objection still stands. I for one, am not surprised.
-
I challenge you to try the "hand and puppet shadow show onto your bedroom wall" with a light source 3 to 6 times the size of your hand.
In other words with a light source 12 to 24 inches in diameter.
Get my drift yet?
Even if the end of a flashlight was two feet in diameter, when you project that light to fill a 10 foot by 10 foot wall, whatever shadows you are creating will enlarge as the light projects against that wall.
Do you not know of the concept of projection?
I understand the concept of projection very well, thank you. I have for the past 60 years or so.
Back there I did quite a bit of film and slide projection, including running repairs on the equipment, so yes, I can claim to "know of the concept of projection"!
Projection focuses a brightly illuminated object (film frame, LCD image) onto a screen.
The illumination in the case of film or slide projector is a high intensity collimated light source, often using a part concave spherical mirror an a collimation lens.
The focusing process uses another set of convex lenses.
Now for a "shadow puppet" to cast a sharp shadow larger than the puppet requires a small light source.
If the light source is much larger than "shadow object" most of the light simple shines past (no need to bend around) the "shadow object". No need for curved light!
Of course, the sun can cast a fairly sharp shadow, but being much further away than the object-screen distance the shadow is almost the same size as the object.
But "the Wiki" explanation of the lunar eclipse has the "shadow object" much closer to the sun than to the moon, with the intention of causing a much enlarged shadow at the moon's location. That shadow must be roughly four times the moon's diameter - remember how those wise Greek stronomers estimated the moon's diameter.
Sketch it out on paper. I don't want to waste my time drawing up a diagram for something so elementary.
-
Here is a sketch I made very quickly. I think it demonstrates how ineffective a 5 to 10 mile diameter Shadow Object would be at blocking all the light from a 32 mile diameter sun from reaching a 32 mile diameter moon.
(https://s12.postimg.org/fe7d5ukh9/14796813792692b.png)
-
Now for a "shadow puppet" to cast a sharp shadow larger than the puppet requires a small light source.
If the light source is much larger than "shadow object" most of the light simple shines past (no need to bend around) the "shadow object". No need for curved light!
Come on. You're smarter than that. If we have a flashlight with a large flash light and hold our hand against it, it will create a shadow against the wall. If you project the light against a larger surface area, the larger the shadow will be.
Here is a sketch I made very quickly. I think it demonstrates how ineffective a 5 to 10 mile diameter Shadow Object would be at blocking all the light from a 32 mile diameter sun from reaching a 32 mile diameter moon.
(https://s12.postimg.org/fe7d5ukh9/14796813792692b.png)
Why is the light at the top of the sun turning in a 90 degree angle and also moving downwards? The light only radiates outwards from the sun. You have the light changing directions all over the place.
-
Why is the light at the top of the sun turning in a 90 degree angle and also moving downwards? The light only radiates outwards from the sun. You have the light changing directions all over the place.
this isn't true. flux is emitted at all angles from every point on the surface of a light source.
-
Now for a "shadow puppet" to cast a sharp shadow larger than the puppet requires a small light source.
If the light source is much larger than "shadow object" most of the light simple shines past (no need to bend around) the "shadow object". No need for curved light!
Come on. You're smarter than that. If we have a flashlight with a large flash light and hold our hand against it, it will create a shadow against the wall. If you project the light against a larger surface area, the larger the shadow will be.
Here is a sketch I made very quickly. I think it demonstrates how ineffective a 5 to 10 mile diameter Shadow Object would be at blocking all the light from a 32 mile diameter sun from reaching a 32 mile diameter moon.
(https://s12.postimg.org/fe7d5ukh9/14796813792692b.png)
Why is the light at the top of the sun turning in a 90 degree angle and also moving downwards? The light only radiates outwards from the sun. You have the light changing directions all over the place.
There's so many flaws in that reply that it's hard to figure out where to begin. And I'm not talking about this topic in particular, the problem is with your lack of understanding very, very basic physics.
-
Why is the light at the top of the sun turning in a 90 degree angle and also moving downwards? The light only radiates outwards from the sun. You have the light changing directions all over the place.
So to be clear, your position is that the sun only emits light outward from its surface at a 90 degree angle as depicted in the sketch below? I am quite sure that is wrong but if that were the case the wiki explanation for lunar eclipses which you are defending would make sense. I guess all we need to clear up now is whether light actually behaves in that manner. Perhaps I need to do another experiment specifically addressing this issue?
My understanding is this is how you believe the lunar eclipse described in the wiki occurs:
(https://s4.postimg.org/tuchzv3vh/14798635464367b.png)
-
Why is the light at the top of the sun turning in a 90 degree angle and also moving downwards? The light only radiates outwards from the sun. You have the light changing directions all over the place.
So to be clear, your position is that the sun only emits light outward from its surface at a 90 degree angle? I am quite sure that is wrong. Perhaps I need to do another experiment specifically addressing this issue?
TB is just winding people up.
-
Now for a "shadow puppet" to cast a sharp shadow larger than the puppet requires a small light source.
If the light source is much larger than "shadow object" most of the light simple shines past (no need to bend around) the "shadow object". No need for curved light!
Come on. You're smarter than that. If we have a flashlight with a large flash light and hold our hand against it, it will create a shadow against the wall. If you project the light against a larger surface area, the larger the shadow will be.
Here is a sketch I made very quickly. I think it demonstrates how ineffective a 5 to 10 mile diameter Shadow Object would be at blocking all the light from a 32 mile diameter sun from reaching a 32 mile diameter moon.
(https://s12.postimg.org/fe7d5ukh9/14796813792692b.png)
Why is the light at the top of the sun turning in a 90 degree angle and also moving downwards? The light only radiates outwards from the sun. You have the light changing directions all over the place.
The light at the "top of the sun" is not "turning in a 90 degree angle".
Unless you are going to claim that the sun is a "point source of radiation", each point on the surface of the sun radiates light in all directions.
You can check this out by shining the light of the sun through a pin-hole onto a screen. The light from the pinhole diverges an angle of almost 0.6° (32/3200 radians).
-
Why is the light at the top of the sun turning in a 90 degree angle and also moving downwards? The light only radiates outwards from the sun. You have the light changing directions all over the place.
So to be clear, your position is that the sun only emits light outward from its surface at a 90 degree angle as depicted in the sketch below? I am quite sure that is wrong but if that were the case the wiki explanation for lunar eclipses which you are defending would make sense. I guess all we need to clear up now is whether light actually behaves in that manner. Perhaps I need to do another experiment specifically addressing this issue?
Here is another more realistic sketch IMO. It doesn't have lines running all over the place which I thought might be a little simpler.
(https://s21.postimg.org/hb9vu18br/14798743211958b.png)
-
Firstly, it would be nice to figure out how strong your understanding is of a lunar eclipse on a round earth. Please tell me what you believe to be causing a lunar eclipse in the presently accepted model, then we can delve into the logic behind it.
This thread is about the lunar eclipse on a flat earth.
-
Firstly, it would be nice to figure out how strong your understanding is of a lunar eclipse on a round earth. Please tell me what you believe to be causing a lunar eclipse in the presently accepted model, then we can delve into the logic behind it.
This thread is about the lunar eclipse on a flat earth.
You aren't the arbiter of the discussion. It's a similarly related question. You say all kinds of unrelated things in nearly every thread so stop being such a hypocrite.
-
I've been wading through all 6 pages of this thread. LOL.
Maybe it has been covered and I have overlooked it or maybe it HAS been overlooked.
One flat earth notion is that the sun "acts like a spotlight and shines down on the earth causing night and day".
If the sun and the moon are at the same distance above the earth , and in the same orbit, how then would it be possible for any light from the sun to shine on the moon ?
This would seem to support the "self-illumination" notion.
There are so many of these contradictions that one wonders if who ever made them up (Rowbotham ?) ever gave much thought to them.
We got along just fine with the old "Round Earth" in the old United States Navy , thank you ! LOL
Also :
How do the sun and the moon keep from bumpimg into each other if they are the same distance from the earth and in the same orbit ?
Do they always travel at the same speed and are always separated by 180 degrees ? Seems like this would have to be so ?
-
I've been wading through all 6 pages of this thread. LOL.
Maybe it has been covered and I have overlooked it or maybe it HAS been overlooked.
One flat earth notion is that the sun "acts like a spotlight and shines down on the earth causing night and day".
If the sun and the moon are at the same distance above the earth , and in the same orbit, how then would it be possible for any light from the sun to shine on the moon ?
This would seem to support the "self-illumination" notion.
There are so many of these contradictions that one wonders if who ever made them up (Rowbotham ?) ever gave much thought to them.
We got along just fine with the old "Round Earth" in the old United States Navy , thank you ! LOL
Also :
How do the sun and the moon keep from bumpimg into each other if they are the same distance from the earth and in the same orbit ?
Do they always travel at the same speed and are always separated by 180 degrees ? Seems like this would have to be so ?
How is self illumination a contradiction?
-
I've been wading through all 6 pages of this thread. LOL.
Maybe it has been covered and I have overlooked it or maybe it HAS been overlooked.
One flat earth notion is that the sun "acts like a spotlight and shines down on the earth causing night and day".
If the sun and the moon are at the same distance above the earth , and in the same orbit, how then would it be possible for any light from the sun to shine on the moon ?
This would seem to support the "self-illumination" notion.
There are so many of these contradictions that one wonders if who ever made them up (Rowbotham ?) ever gave much thought to them.
We got along just fine with the old "Round Earth" in the old United States Navy , thank you ! LOL
Also :
How do the sun and the moon keep from bumpimg into each other if they are the same distance from the earth and in the same orbit ?
Do they always travel at the same speed and are always separated by 180 degrees ? Seems like this would have to be so ?
How is self illumination a contradiction?
Well........One flat earther may say the moon reflects the light from the sun.
Another says ......No ! The sun can't do that ....It just lights up the earth because it acts like a spotlight.
Another says.......No ! It can't work that way ! The moon is lit up by moonshrimp scampering back and forth !
Who can you believe ?
If any flat earther can ever say anything that makes any sense , I would find it interesting to read.
That's all right, some of us find TFES a lot of fun. Keep it up !
So.....Back to the original question : How is a lunar eclipse explained on the Flat Earth ?
-
How is self illumination a contradiction?
Like this. CHAPTER XI.
CAUSE OF SOLAR AND LUNAR ECLIPSES.pp 138,9
From the facts and phenomena already advanced, we cannot draw any other conclusion than that the moon is obscured by some kind of semi-transparent body passing before it; and through which the luminous surface is visible: the luminosity changed in colour by the density of the intervening object. This conclusion is forced upon, us by the evidence; but it involves the admission that the moon shines with light of its own - that it is not a reflector of the sun's light, but absolutely self-luminous.
From Zetetic Astronomy, by 'Parallax' (pseud. Samuel Birley Rowbotham), [1881], at sacred-texts.com (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za29.htm)
Note "it involves the admission that the moon shines with light of its own - that it is not a reflector of the sun's light, but absolutely self-luminous"
and "that the moon is obscured by some kind of semi-transparent body passing before it".
So clearly Rowbotham claims that the moon is "absolutely self-luminous".
Then in Moon
The moon is a rotating sphere. It has a diameter of 32 miles and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth.
And The Phases of the Moon
When one observes the phases of the moon he sees the moon's day and night, a shadow from the sun illuminating half of the spherical moon at any one time.
The lunar phases vary cyclically according to the changing geometry of the Moon and Sun, which are constantly wobbling up and down and exchange altitudes as they rotate around the North Pole.
When the moon and sun are at the same altitude one half of the lunar surface is illuminated and pointing towards the sun, This is called the First Quarter Moon. When the observer looks up he will see a shadow cutting the moon in half. The boundary between the illuminated and unilluminated hemispheres is called the terminator.
When the moon is below the sun's altitude the moon is dark and a New Moon occurs.
When the moon is above the altitude of the sun the moon is fully lit and a Full Moon occurs.
and finally The Lunar Eclipse
A Lunar Eclipse occurs about twice a year when a satellite of the sun passes between the sun and moon.
This satellite is called the Shadow Object.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
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.
And since "the Wiki" claims that the lunar eclipse is caused by "a satellite of the sun passes between the sun and moon" it claims that the moonlight is reflected sunlight.
There Mr TheTruthIsOnHere is you complete contradiction.
We live on one earth, have one moon all illuminated by one sun, so I would have thought we might have come to a consensus by now, but each Flat Earther seems to have a different idea on something.
As for me, I'll stick with a model that has been tried, refined and tested over a couple of millennia.
-
How is self illumination a contradiction?
Like this. CHAPTER XI.
CAUSE OF SOLAR AND LUNAR ECLIPSES.pp 138,9
From the facts and phenomena already advanced, we cannot draw any other conclusion than that the moon is obscured by some kind of semi-transparent body passing before it; and through which the luminous surface is visible: the luminosity changed in colour by the density of the intervening object. This conclusion is forced upon, us by the evidence; but it involves the admission that the moon shines with light of its own - that it is not a reflector of the sun's light, but absolutely self-luminous.
From Zetetic Astronomy, by 'Parallax' (pseud. Samuel Birley Rowbotham), [1881], at sacred-texts.com (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za29.htm)
Note "it involves the admission that the moon shines with light of its own - that it is not a reflector of the sun's light, but absolutely self-luminous"
and "that the moon is obscured by some kind of semi-transparent body passing before it".
So clearly Rowbotham claims that the moon is "absolutely self-luminous".
Then in Moon
The moon is a rotating sphere. It has a diameter of 32 miles and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth.
And The Phases of the Moon
When one observes the phases of the moon he sees the moon's day and night, a shadow from the sun illuminating half of the spherical moon at any one time.
The lunar phases vary cyclically according to the changing geometry of the Moon and Sun, which are constantly wobbling up and down and exchange altitudes as they rotate around the North Pole.
When the moon and sun are at the same altitude one half of the lunar surface is illuminated and pointing towards the sun, This is called the First Quarter Moon. When the observer looks up he will see a shadow cutting the moon in half. The boundary between the illuminated and unilluminated hemispheres is called the terminator.
When the moon is below the sun's altitude the moon is dark and a New Moon occurs.
When the moon is above the altitude of the sun the moon is fully lit and a Full Moon occurs.
and finally The Lunar Eclipse
A Lunar Eclipse occurs about twice a year when a satellite of the sun passes between the sun and moon.
This satellite is called the Shadow Object.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
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.
And since "the Wiki" claims that the lunar eclipse is caused by "a satellite of the sun passes between the sun and moon" it claims that the moonlight is reflected sunlight.
There Mr TheTruthIsOnHere is you complete contradiction.
We live on one earth, have one moon all illuminated by one sun, so I would have thought we might have come to a consensus by now, but each Flat Earther seems to have a different idea on something.
As for me, I'll stick with a model that has been tried, refined and tested over a couple of millennia.
The moon and the sun wobbling up and down ???
How can a shadow illuminate something ???
I must be missing something. None of this makes any sense to me ???
-
The moon and the sun wobbling up and down ???
How can a shadow illuminate something ???
I must be missing something. None of this makes any sense to me ???
If you are short of humorous reading matter (got to the end of ;D "Mad" ;D) you can always try "the Wiki", Rowbotham and then,
if that style is too archaic, try ::) "The Sea-Earth Globe and its Monstrous Hypothetical Motions (Zetetes, 1918)" ::)
-
Let's summarize what we have so far (Paraphrased. Feel free to let me know if I have misrepresented your position, I will fix it immediately.) :
- gecko: Gives the wiki explanation as well as the self-illuminating moon explanation. (possibly bioluminescent moonshramp? lunar eclipses caused by migration?)
- Truth: I don't know but I would like to. We'll never find out if we keep doing our research on the mistaken basis that the earth is a globe.
- Identifythis: Some long religious sounding video. I confess I'd have to re-watch it to know what it said about lunar eclipses, if anything. I am using expensive data right now so don't want to waste it on that.
- junker: Read the FAQ/Wiki/irrelevant/incorrect/false/ but mostly "irrelevant." Must be his favorite word.
- FAQ:
Your next question will, of course, be "What causes eclipses, then?" to which I will say "I don't know, as I've never been on the moon during one.
- Tom Bishop: Lunar eclipses occur because the "shadow object" creates a shadow puppet effect as described in the wiki. This works because the sun only emits light at or near 90 degrees from the suns surface. Also shadows are much crisper and cleaner in space where there is no atmosphere.
I would like to know more about how lunar eclipses are caused according to the moonshramp theory if anyone is interested in expounding on that.
Tom Bishop has come the closest to giving what I would consider a real answer but I think he is mistaken regarding how light behaves. Like a good zetecist? I have actually done an experiment to test that theory. The results did not support the theory. When I asked him about it, he said my post and my experiment made no sense at all. However, he did not say why it made no sense at all.
In conclusion, I still don't feel I have a satisfactory answer. I am somewhat interested in the moonshramp theory. I am also hoping Tom Bishop will answer my follow-up questions. And:
A message to any knowledgable FEers on this site:
I am still very interested in having a discussion with you about how a 5 to 10 mile diameter Shadow Object can block all the light from a 32 mile diameter sun from reaching a 32 mile diameter moon.
-
Hello? Hello-oooo... Yoo-hoo... Anyone? :)
-
Hello? Hello-oooo... Yoo-hoo... Anyone? :)
As far as I know the "moohshramp" have been dropped and I usually only see RE's mention them now. John Davis adopted them as an explanation for phases of the Moon and included it in the wiki under his model. He has since removed it, also he did not call them moonshramp.
The explanation is simple. These life forms migrate on a regular predictable schedule causing the phases of the Moon. Shadows like near crater rims are just areas these creatures avoided.
One thing I have not seen brought up is weather on the Moon causing the phases. If I recall I have seen John Davis bring this up. So basically clouds moving over the surface of the Moon cause the phases.
Intikam I have seen mention the Moon is a lens of some sort. Did not see any explanation for the phases.
I have seen people mention the Moon is a reflection and is actually on Earth somewhere. Only once on this site if I am recalling correctly.
Things I have seen not on this site:
It is a hologram so the phases are programmed to happen to fool us.
The Moon has a rotating shell that is partially opaque and clear. So as it rotates it causes the phases.
I have not seen it mentioned , but I imagine the shadow object could cause the phases. Not sure if I just missed it as an explanation or it has never been mentioned here.
-
Hello? Hello-oooo... Yoo-hoo... Anyone? :)
As far as I know the "moohshramp" have been dropped and I usually only see RE's mention them now. John Davis adopted them as an explanation for phases of the Moon and included it in the wiki under his model. He has since removed it, also he did not call them moonshramp.
The explanation is simple. These life forms migrate on a regular predictable schedule causing the phases of the Moon. Shadows like near crater rims are just areas these creatures avoided.
One thing I have not seen brought up is weather on the Moon causing the phases. If I recall I have seen John Davis bring this up. So basically clouds moving over the surface of the Moon cause the phases.
Intikam I have seen mention the Moon is a lens of some sort. Did not see any explanation for the phases.
I have seen people mention the Moon is a reflection and is actually on Earth somewhere. Only once on this site if I am recalling correctly.
Things I have seen not on this site:
It is a hologram so the phases are programmed to happen to fool us.
The Moon has a rotating shell that is partially opaque and clear. So as it rotates it causes the phases.
I have not seen it mentioned , but I imagine the shadow object could cause the phases. Not sure if I just missed it as an explanation or it has never been mentioned here.
On "TheFlatEarthSociety.org", jroa claims that the moon is half self-luminous and rotates (I assume) once each cycle so we see the phases.
An interesting exercise is to count the number of obvious fallacies in that explanation. But, if I ask jroa, I will probably be ridiculed for not understanding it.
Not only that bit he has shadow object(s) explaining lunar and solar eclipses.
-
Cool. Thanks for those explanations. If Davis didn't call the bio-luminescent creatures moonshramp where did the name come from? And did he have another name for them?
Also, Tom Bishop are you ever going to come back and explain why you think the sun only emits light at or near 90 degrees from the surface? I also still want to know why my post (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5479.msg106986#msg106986) makes no sense at all on what experiment I performed and what I found.
-
Cool. Thanks for those explanations. If Davis didn't call the bio-luminescent creatures moonshramp where did the name come from? And did he have another name for them?
Also, Tom Bishop are you ever going to come back and explain why you think the sun only emits light at or near 90 degrees from the surface? I also still want to know why my post (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5479.msg106986#msg106986) makes no sense at all on what experiment I performed and what I found.
I don't know exactly when ::) bioluminescent moonshrimp (plural moonshramp) first came in, but it might have been somewhere around this post on "the other site"
Re: New Dangers - Eye Filters are now REQUIRED (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66597.msg1776708#msg1776708).
I suspect "Space Cowgirl" took it up as a humorous concept, somewhere later in the same thread. SCG rarely seems post anything that is not at least faintly ridiculous.
So, the bioluminescence idea might have been introduced there (though Rowbotham suggested it at least 135 year ago) but John Davis tried to scotch the "moonshramp" tag with "Except I'm not talking specifically about shrimp-like Lunas, I'm talking about Lunas. Thus, the more generic, and non-derogatory, term is appropriate."
You will find lot of that thread is partly "tougue-in-cheek" with John Davis' This is consistent with a bioluminescent source and also explains the genesis of the irregularly shaped particles[1]. Even in glob science this effect has very little study attributed to it, likely due to the ridiculous myth that the moon's light is not dangerous and again the 'damned' nature of the research itself. To replicate this exactly in a laboratory would be impossible due to a lack of samples for the bioluminescent source to match the Neil-Sokarul particles it gives off.
1. Known as Neil-Sokarul Particles or NSP for short
In case you haven't met them yet, Dinosaur Neil and Sokarul are two "Globularist" members, and you can work out the rest!
Well, that's my story an' I'm stickin' to it.
-
A message to any knowledgable FEers on this site:
I am still very interested in having a discussion with you about how a 5 to 10 mile diameter Shadow Object can block all the light from a 32 mile diameter sun from reaching a 32 mile diameter moon.
In the same way you can project a hand and puppet shadow show onto your bedroom wall, with the shadow of your hands being several times the size of your physical hands.
Any further questions?
Yes.
I'm still wondering why my post (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5479.msg106986#msg106986) makes no sense at all on what experiment I performed and what I found. Would you be able to clear this up for me?
Also, could we confirm that you believe the sun only emits light at or near 90 degrees from its surface?
-
You have to explain what experiment you performed. I don't know what I am replying to to. In your last quote tier (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5479.msg107813#msg107813) there are two experiments mentioned, one that you told me to do and one that I told you to do.
OK thanks for clarifying that. I felt I had done both experiments at the same time. But your post inspired me to redo them with some minor changes. I redid the spotlight experiment but then it occurred to me that it would be more realistic to use a round 100W light bulb so I did that too.
Here is what I did with the spotlight:
I used a spotlight with a 75mm face. I drew a 75mm circle on the wall. I positioned the light so it was fully illuminating the circle on the wall. I then tried to place a quarter to where it was blocking the light from reaching the circle on the wall. In the same experiment I also used a spotlight and a quarter and tried to position the quarter to where it was making a shadow with a much larger diameter than the quarter.
Results from the spotlight experiment:
If the center of the beam was aimed directly at the circle I could hardly even notice the effect of the quarter no matter where I placed it as long as I stayed closer to the spotlight. I was able to get a shadow by moving the quarter toward the circle on the wall. It first appears as a dot and gradually grows larger as you move it toward the wall. By the time you reach the wall the shadow is predictably almost identical in size to the quarter. I was able to get the shadow puppet effect under two conditions. One was when blocking much more of the light then was possible with a quarter. The other was when I aimed the spotlight away from the circle on the wall but in such a way that it was still being faintly illuminated by the peripheral light. This is the only condition under which I was able to use a quarter to create a shadow as large as the circle on the wall.
Here is what I did with the 100W light bulb:
I used a 100W light bulb about 55 mm in diameter. I drew a 55 mm circle on the wall. I positioned the light so that the circle on the wall was fully illuminated. I then tried to place a penny to where it was blocking the light from reaching the circle on the wall. In the same experiment I also used a 100W light bulb and a penny and tried to position the penny to where it was making a shadow with a much larger diameter than the penny.
Results from the 100W light bulb experiment:
When placing the penny between the light bulb and the circle on the wall but right next to the light bulb there was no discernible shadow. I was able to get a shadow by moving the penny toward the circle on the wall. When the shadow first became discernible, it was about the size of the 55 mm circle but it was very faint . As I moved the penny toward the wall the shadow became smaller and clearer until it was about the size of the penny. It was still quite blurry though. As I continued to move the penny toward the wall, it remained the same size but gradually became clearer until it reached the wall where it was a clean crisp shadow about the size of the penny. I was able to get the shadow puppet effect using the penny but only very faintly. I was also able to get the shadow puppet effect when blocking much more of the light then was possible with a penny.
From this experiment I conclude that the shadow object described in the wiki is able to block some of the sun's light from reaching the moon but certainly not all of it, unless the vacuum of space causes light to behave differently. So, I want to confirm that if these same experiments were done in a vacuum and produced the same results, you would agree that "With the "shadow object" so small, it is quite impossible for it to cast any significant shadow on the moon. Almost all of the sunlight will shine around it." If you have other objections that is fine. I would just like to know what they are before proceeding.
-
"Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic."
I am sure. I want this post. Exactly this one.
Hello. I am new. I am 22 years old right now. I have recently learned of FET. I am, and please bear with me, a little skeptic. But I have been questioning my understanding of the world all my life. I am "that guy". I angrily lash out at my friends and call them "sheep". I find myself starting out the window asking why I feel so alone in ... understanding certain things. First of which being how little is understand. Second of all how much of what we "know" just can't be true. "Can't". Because it just feels wrong. I tend to be accepting things when they can be observed. So I am a skeptic towards both sides. This is my first post, so please, be merciless. I, as a person, don't matter. What matters is what is true.
So, why this post? Honestly, I could have picked any post. I first heard of FE through family. A "friend" then made a horrible (in the sense of unwarranted, mean and unsophisticated) joke about FE; I knew little of it, but I told him to not insult something he has no understanding of. He linked (and then ridiculed) a video about "How the 2k17 Solar Eclipse Proves FE" or something. I mean, there is tons. But as I watched the video, it grew apparent that he had ridiculed FE without actually watching the video. Like many people here read, but do not understand, the FAQ/Wiki and then start to lash out. But there is other people here. People I realize seem to be open to real, open, relevant discussion. That is why I chose this topic. (And I also woke up today thinking "alright, I can get behind FE solar eclipse, somewhat, but how does the lunar eclipse work?")
First of all: I read this. I read the Wiki - but only the lunar eclipse part - and while reading this post, I have smiled many times telling myself, "Boots, you are an idiot". I do not mean this in a condescending way. I am rather impressed as to how you stayed so calm. Some of both the FEs and REs here are giving quite ridicolous answers - the forum mod is probably the shining star on that sky - but then there is you. So I really hope you have not given up on this yet. Because you are the reason I am posting here.
I love how you tried these experiments. And I want them to keep going. I want to try them, too. I want us all to keep going. Digging further. There probably is things that could be added to or improved on with this experiment. For example, how about using a weaker light source? Maybe not a 100W light bulb. What about 75? 60? 40? You had the shadow effect. You got this, and then the thread dies, and I feel robbed. This thread read like a book. A TERRIBLE one, I must say. But you were "the one characters that made me force myself through the pages". I want to know how this "story ends". How "my favourite characters" comes to the final conclusion, and then I want to feel empty and crave more of that "book", know more about that "world". So in a way, I am posting because of that strange feeling of "losing out" on something here. It intrigues me. The thought experiment of a flat earth with all of its implications is too tasy for my mind to not at least want a bite of it.
Now I know I am just using metaphors, that there are, in fact, many more informations about FE and that it is not a "story" and probably won't "end". But I am young, and I am scared, and I feel alone. So, please. Let us not stop here. If this really is a thing, we deserve to know. And if it is not, well, even more so.
PS:
Please, FEs, read this free from all sarcasm. I am free of all judgement about you. I am open to any possibility. All I am asking is to be welcomed by the same thing here.
-
He linked (and then ridiculed) a video about "How the 2k17 Solar Eclipse Proves FE" or something. I mean, there is tons. But as I watched the video, it grew apparent that he had ridiculed FE without actually watching the video.
The videos I've seen so far saying the solar eclipse disproves the globe all suffer from an understanding of relative motion and how light and shadows work.