The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: stanlee on March 13, 2018, 09:00:55 PM
-
the full moon from norway:
(https://s31.postimg.cc/klkxmo2l3/moon_nor.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/image/klkxmo2l3/)
(https://s17.postimg.org/vld7fjefv/moon_nor.jpg) (https://postimg.org/image/vld7fjefv/)
from new zealand:
(https://s31.postimg.cc/sr2zkzqvr/moon_nz.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/image/sr2zkzqvr/)
(https://s17.postimg.org/pkfiiihjv/moon_nz.jpg) (https://postimg.org/image/pkfiiihjv/)
norway is close to the 'so called' north pole. i believe new zealand is further from the 'south pole', but still very much southern
oh, wow! the moon appears to 'flip' as one travels from north to south.
also, lets see some pictures of the half moon (illustrative only, as i don't know the source):
this is something like how the half moon appears close to a 'pole':
(https://s31.postimg.cc/x1hng7taf/moon_pole2.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/image/x1hng7taf/)
(https://s17.postimg.org/lha8uuhrv/moon_pole2.jpg) (https://postimg.org/image/lha8uuhrv/)
and how it might appear close to the equator:
(https://s31.postimg.cc/lcdns57fr/moon_eq2.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/image/lcdns57fr/)
(https://s17.postimg.org/43zyg14h7/moon_eq2.jpg) (https://postimg.org/image/43zyg14h7/)
the angle of the 'shadow line' has changed.
at the equator the line is parallel to the horizon. it does not remain horizontal to the horizon as one travels between the poles.
so when i travel from the north pole to the south pole i will see the moon flip over completely, with a horizontal shadow at the equator.
will my friend that i left behind see the moon 'flip'? or is it the horizon that i am standing on that has flipped?
(https://s31.postimg.cc/iiaiezv2f/rnd_ert.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/image/iiaiezv2f/)
(https://s17.postimg.org/xkmx4q48b/rnd_ert.jpg) (https://postimg.org/image/xkmx4q48b/)
(the earth is to the foreground and the half moon is further away (bad drawing))
edit: the green arrow example (below) may well 'flip' its apparent orientation as you travel across the equator, but it would remain parellel to the horizon, as it is at the equator, when you travel north or south (in FE). this simple diagram (RE) shows how the moons angular displacement to the horizon would change gradually as you travel from the equator (to +90 degrees to the north pole and -90 to the south).
-
This is perfectly explainable. Imagine a green arrow suspended horizontally above your head pointing to the North. Standing 50 feet to the South of the arrow it is pointing "downwards" towards the Northern horizon. Standing 50 feet to the North of the arrow, looking back at it, it points "upwards" above your head to the North. The arrow flip-flops, pointing down or away from the horizon depending on which side you stand.
-
is your arrow parellel to the horizon? does it flip with respect to the background stars? does it flip with respect to the horizon? does it flip 180 degrees as you walk from your northern antarctic ice wall to your arctic center, or do you have to keep walking to your southern antarctic wall? or perhaps it never flips 180 degrees?
but it rises from the eastern horizon and sets in the western.
the half moon at the equator remains horizontal?
-
This is perfectly explainable. Imagine a green arrow suspended horizontally above your head pointing to the North. Standing 50 feet to the South of the arrow it is pointing "downwards" towards the Northern horizon. Standing 50 feet to the North of the arrow, looking back at it, it points "upwards" above your head to the North. The arrow flip-flops, pointing down or away from the horizon depending on which side you stand.
Are you asserting the Moon is somewhere "between" the two observers who took the photos in the OP?
In your example, the Moon has to remain above and between the two, but that doesn't happen in real life. The Moon rises from behind/beyond the horizon, and sets behind/beyond it too, after a few hours.
-
This is perfectly explainable. Imagine a green arrow suspended horizontally above your head pointing to the North. Standing 50 feet to the South of the arrow it is pointing "downwards" towards the Northern horizon. Standing 50 feet to the North of the arrow, looking back at it, it points "upwards" above your head to the North. The arrow flip-flops, pointing down or away from the horizon depending on which side you stand.
Though on the surface (which is generally as far as FEers dare to dig) your argument seems both logical and relevant, it's not.
Though logical, it's not relevant. The relevant aspect of the moon's appearing "upside down" in New Zealand is that it appears upside down not only to the viewer, but to his surroundings, as well. Your arrow never changed orientation with regard to its surroundings, only to the viewer. This is the most important point of the subject at hand!
What appears to be the "top" of the moon in the northern hemisphere always appears to be the "bottom in the southern hemisphere. Since "UP" is always up to an observer, no matter where on earth he stands, the upside down moon is only possible on a spherical earth, never possible on a flat earth.
-
This is perfectly explainable. Imagine a green arrow suspended horizontally above your head pointing to the North. Standing 50 feet to the South of the arrow it is pointing "downwards" towards the Northern horizon. Standing 50 feet to the North of the arrow, looking back at it, it points "upwards" above your head to the North. The arrow flip-flops, pointing down or away from the horizon depending on which side you stand.
Though on the surface (which is generally as far as FEers dare to dig) your argument seems both logical and relevant, it's not.
Though logical, it's not relevant. The relevant aspect of the moon's appearing "upside down" in New Zealand is that it appears upside down not only to the viewer, but to his surroundings, as well. Your arrow never changed orientation with regard to its surroundings, only to the viewer. This is the most important point of the subject at hand!
What appears to be the "top" of the moon in the northern hemisphere always appears to be the "bottom in the southern hemisphere. Since "UP" is always up to an observer, no matter where on earth he stands, the upside down moon is only possible on a spherical earth, never possible on a flat earth.
You will need to provide more information on what the moon actually does in reference to its surroundings.
-
This is perfectly explainable. Imagine a green arrow suspended horizontally above your head pointing to the North. Standing 50 feet to the South of the arrow it is pointing "downwards" towards the Northern horizon. Standing 50 feet to the North of the arrow, looking back at it, it points "upwards" above your head to the North. The arrow flip-flops, pointing down or away from the horizon depending on which side you stand.
Though on the surface (which is generally as far as FEers dare to dig) your argument seems both logical and relevant, it's not.
Though logical, it's not relevant. The relevant aspect of the moon's appearing "upside down" in New Zealand is that it appears upside down not only to the viewer, but to his surroundings, as well. Your arrow never changed orientation with regard to its surroundings, only to the viewer. This is the most important point of the subject at hand!
What appears to be the "top" of the moon in the northern hemisphere always appears to be the "bottom in the southern hemisphere. Since "UP" is always up to an observer, no matter where on earth he stands, the upside down moon is only possible on a spherical earth, never possible on a flat earth.
You will need to provide more information on what the moon actually does in reference to its surroundings.
You can make your own observations, like you have for the angle of the sun which proves timeanddate.com to be correct.
-
You can make your own observations, like you have for the angle of the sun which proves timeanddate.com to be correct.
I'm not going to travel to different parts of the earth to look at the moon. I didn't propose this proof.
-
I'm not going tot travel to different parts of the earth to look at the moon. I didn't propose this proof.
Is/are your contributions to this thread a "thought experiment"?
-
You will need to provide more information on what the moon actually does in reference to its surroundings.
In the green arrow example, the arrow is always pointing toward the Northern horizon. Even as the person moves and the arrow appears to change, they still see it as pointing North. i.e., it flips from the perspective of the viewer, but not with regards to the horizon.
The moon's concentration of dark spots, seen in the top half of the Norway picture and the bottom half of the New Zealand picture, point to different horizons in each picture. The moon-arrow does flip with regards to the horizon, unlike the green arrow example.
-
You will need to provide more information on what the moon actually does in reference to its surroundings.
That's what the photos do. No one needs to go through any mental gymnastics here. The photos do the work for you.
-
I like the moon as the best proof for a round earth because we can see the details of the surface without a telescope. If you use a telescope it clearly shows shadows like it is being lit by something else.
Instead of an arrow, I will again introduce the concept of a car. It is coming from beyond the eastern horizon, passes over head and leaves beyond the western horizon. Since you do not see the headlights coming, then the undercarriage and finally the tail lights, the only conclusion is that you are seeing the same part of the car all the time. It is "turning" to face you.
Like Tom likes to acknowledge, if you refuse to travel, like Rowbotham, you can believe the the earth is flat and the universe jumps through hoops to give you a certain perspective. But if you acknowledge that there are other people that matter in other countries, then you have to understand that they are not seeing the headlights, side doors, and tail lights as this "car" moves to suit you. The only model that will allow everyone to see the same face of the moon on the same day all the time, is if it is far away and moving in a circle around a round earth. A geocentric universe would work at this level, but only if the earth is round. Or you can ignore that there are other people on this planet that matter as much as you. The Zetetic way is to observe and conclude.
-
Before we continue this discussion we need the FEers to explain how it is that the Kiwis would even be able to see the full moon in the first place.
In a couple of days the moon will be waxing and in another couple of weeks it will be full. At that time we will be well within a couple of weeks of the spring equinox (just a week or so after it), meaning that the sun and moon will be orbiting above the flat earth very near the equator. When the moon is full it is on the opposite site of the orbital path followed by the sun (and the moon). The lit side of the full moon faces the sun and, as the two orbit around the equator that side also faces north at all times. Hence the unlit side faces south. That, just by the way, is where New Zealand is.
-
You can make your own observations, like you have for the angle of the sun which proves timeanddate.com to be correct.
I'm not going tot travel to different parts of the earth to look at the moon. I didn't propose this proof.
This is something I'll never understand. You claim to value empirical evidence, yet you have no desire to actually go and find the answers you are (supposedly) looking for. Traveling to the other hemisphere is quite a bit of work, but it also can make for an awesome vacation and would do wonders for your worldview.
-
You can make your own observations, like you have for the angle of the sun which proves timeanddate.com to be correct.
I'm not going tot travel to different parts of the earth to look at the moon. I didn't propose this proof.
This is something I'll never understand. You claim to value empirical evidence, yet you have no desire to actually go and find the answers you are (supposedly) looking for. Traveling to the other hemisphere is quite a bit of work, but it also can make for an awesome vacation and would do wonders for your worldview.
If you have a claim to make, it is your burden to demonstrate that claim.
-
You can make your own observations, like you have for the angle of the sun which proves timeanddate.com to be correct.
I'm not going tot travel to different parts of the earth to look at the moon. I didn't propose this proof.
This is something I'll never understand. You claim to value empirical evidence, yet you have no desire to actually go and find the answers you are (supposedly) looking for. Traveling to the other hemisphere is quite a bit of work, but it also can make for an awesome vacation and would do wonders for your worldview.
If you have a claim to make, it is your burden to demonstrate that claim.
All right. Refer to the photos in the OP. There is my claim.
-
You can make your own observations, like you have for the angle of the sun which proves timeanddate.com to be correct.
I'm not going tot travel to different parts of the earth to look at the moon. I didn't propose this proof.
This is something I'll never understand. You claim to value empirical evidence, yet you have no desire to actually go and find the answers you are (supposedly) looking for. Traveling to the other hemisphere is quite a bit of work, but it also can make for an awesome vacation and would do wonders for your worldview.
If you have a claim to make, it is your burden to demonstrate that claim.
All right. Refer to the photos in the OP. There is my claim.
Those photos were already addressed.
-
You can make your own observations, like you have for the angle of the sun which proves timeanddate.com to be correct.
I'm not going tot travel to different parts of the earth to look at the moon. I didn't propose this proof.
This is something I'll never understand. You claim to value empirical evidence, yet you have no desire to actually go and find the answers you are (supposedly) looking for. Traveling to the other hemisphere is quite a bit of work, but it also can make for an awesome vacation and would do wonders for your worldview.
If you have a claim to make, it is your burden to demonstrate that claim.
All right. Refer to the photos in the OP. There is my claim.
Those photos were already addressed.
Yes, they were addressed. As was your rebuttal.
Can you show me what the moon looks like in South America?
-
Yes, they were addressed. As was your rebuttal.
If you want to make any further claims for what the moon does with reference to the local terrain, then you should provide evidence for those assertions. What we got was "well if you look at the scenery.. the moon will do this" and when questioned on that we were told to go travel the world and see for ourselves.
That's not how it works. Your claim, your burden.
Can you show me what the moon looks like in South America?
I have made no claim on that.
-
Yes, they were addressed. As was your rebuttal.
If you want to make any further claims for what the moon does with reference to the local terrain, then you should provide evidence for those assertions. What we got was "well if you look at the scenery.. the moon will do this" and when questioned on that we were told to go travel the world and see for ourselves.
That's not how it works. Your claim, your burden.
Can you show me what the moon looks like in South America?
I have made no claim on that.
My claim, more specifically, is that you cannot claim to be an empirical researcher and then proceed to refuse to empirically research.
The southern hemisphere is within your reach. You can get there and see for yourself -- I have!
You were asked to make the trip because that is the only way you can find the evidence for yourself. Until you do (or until you realize that photographers aren't part of the conspiracy), you shouldn't be arguing here.
-
My claim, more specifically, is that you cannot claim to be an empirical researcher and then proceed to refuse to empirically research.
Why not? Are you funding me?
-
This topic was previously addressed here:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=8653.0
To summarize:
The inversion of the Moon's face is not an issue, inversion alone could be consistent with an FE model.
The fact that all observers, regardless of the distance separating them, view essentially the same surface area of the Moon [inversion not with standing]. Essentially all observers appear to be looking at Moon from the SAME angle.
The FE model cannot account for this without a secondary phenomenon, such as light not traveling in a straight line or geometry not working at the distance involved [min. 3000(ish) miles].
Euclid geometry can be proven functional at the FE claimed distance to the Moon [3000(ish) miles] via observation of a Solar Eclipse. That is; Distant observer's view the Eclipse at DIFFERENT angles, proportional to the distance from the path of totality (Zenith of the Eclipse).
It should also be noted that the FE model utilized Euclid geometry to determine the Sun was 3000(ish) miles away. Meaning if geometry is broken at 3000 miles, then the FE stated distance to the Sun was calculate based on broken geometry as well, and is thus also inaccurate. [The FE altitude to the Sun appears to be the basis for FE altitude of the Moon]
[I think this was discussed in a different thread possibly about stars]:
The direction light would have to refract for distant observer's to view [the same face of the Moon] would require a concave lens. There is no evidence to support a concave atmosphere.
Again, the FE calculation of the altitude of the Sun was also based on light traveling in a straight line. Calculating the distance to the Sun without consideration for this variable could produce a considerably inaccurate result.
The logical conclusion, being that Euclid geometry can be proven functional at significant distances and no evidence supports a concave atmosphere, is that the Moon is significantly farther away from the Earth than 3000(ish) miles.
-
This topic was previously addressed here:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=8653.0
To summarize:
The inversion of the Moon's face is not an issue, inversion alone could be consistent with an FE model.
The fact [is] that all observers, regardless of the distance separating them, view essentially the same surface area of the Moon [inversion notwithstanding]. Essentially all observers appear to be looking at Moon from the SAME angle.
The FE model cannot account for this without a secondary phenomenon, such as light not traveling in a straight line or geometry not working at the distance involved [min. 3000(ish) miles].
Euclid geometry can be proven functional at the FE claimed distance to the Moon [3000(ish) miles] via observation of a Solar Eclipse. That is; Distant observer's view the Eclipse at DIFFERENT angles, proportional to the distance from the path of totality (Zenith of the Eclipse).
It should also be noted that the FE model utilized Euclid geometry to determine the Sun was 3000(ish) miles away. Meaning if geometry is broken at 3000 miles, then the FE stated distance to the Sun was calculate based on broken geometry as well, and is thus also inaccurate. [The FE altitude to the Sun appears to be the basis for FE altitude of the Moon]
[I think this was discussed in a different thread possibly about stars]:
The direction light would have to refract for distant observer's to view [the same face of the Moon] would require a concave lens. There is no evidence to support a concave atmosphere.
Again, the FE calculation of the altitude of the Sun was also based on light traveling in a straight line. Calculating the distance to the Sun without consideration for this variable could produce a considerably inaccurate result.
The logical conclusion, being that Euclid geometry can be proven functional at significant distances and no evidence supports a concave atmosphere, is that the Moon is significantly farther away from the Earth than 3000(ish) miles.
I agree with all of the above EXCEPT: The inversion of the Moon's face is not an issue, inversion alone could be consistent with an FE model.
Inversion CANNOT BE and IS NOT consistent with an FE model. An observer on a planar surface will never experience an inversion of the moon as the observer never experiences a change in orientation anywhere on that surface.
BTW, I notice that Tom has managed to blithely ignore the more important aspect revealed by myself earlier: that the full moon CANNOT BE SEEN in New Zealand on a flat earth. A deal breaker as glaring and obvious as this needs to be dealt with by the FE community, for, as it stands, it appears to be fatal to the theory.
-
This topic was previously addressed here:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=8653.0
To summarize:
The inversion of the Moon's face is not an issue, inversion alone could be consistent with an FE model.
The fact [is] that all observers, regardless of the distance separating them, view essentially the same surface area of the Moon [inversion notwithstanding]. Essentially all observers appear to be looking at Moon from the SAME angle.
The FE model cannot account for this without a secondary phenomenon, such as light not traveling in a straight line or geometry not working at the distance involved [min. 3000(ish) miles].
Euclid geometry can be proven functional at the FE claimed distance to the Moon [3000(ish) miles] via observation of a Solar Eclipse. That is; Distant observer's view the Eclipse at DIFFERENT angles, proportional to the distance from the path of totality (Zenith of the Eclipse).
It should also be noted that the FE model utilized Euclid geometry to determine the Sun was 3000(ish) miles away. Meaning if geometry is broken at 3000 miles, then the FE stated distance to the Sun was calculate based on broken geometry as well, and is thus also inaccurate. [The FE altitude to the Sun appears to be the basis for FE altitude of the Moon]
[I think this was discussed in a different thread possibly about stars]:
The direction light would have to refract for distant observer's to view [the same face of the Moon] would require a concave lens. There is no evidence to support a concave atmosphere.
Again, the FE calculation of the altitude of the Sun was also based on light traveling in a straight line. Calculating the distance to the Sun without consideration for this variable could produce a considerably inaccurate result.
The logical conclusion, being that Euclid geometry can be proven functional at significant distances and no evidence supports a concave atmosphere, is that the Moon is significantly farther away from the Earth than 3000(ish) miles.
I agree with all of the above EXCEPT: The inversion of the Moon's face is not an issue, inversion alone could be consistent with an FE model.
Inversion CANNOT BE and IS NOT consistent with an FE model. An observer on a planar surface will never experience an inversion of the moon as the observer never experiences a change in orientation anywhere on that surface.
BTW, I notice that Tom has managed to blithely ignore the more important aspect revealed by myself earlier: that the full moon CANNOT BE SEEN in New Zealand on a flat earth. A deal breaker as glaring and obvious as this needs to be dealt with by the FE community, for, as it stands, it appears to be fatal to the theory.
He won't go to New Zealand to see it for himself, therefore it doesn't exist.
-
I agree with all of the above EXCEPT: The inversion of the Moon's face is not an issue, inversion alone could be consistent with an FE model.
Inversion CANNOT BE and IS NOT consistent with an FE model. An observer on a planar surface will never experience an inversion of the moon as the observer never experiences a change in orientation anywhere on that surface.
Looks like it could be consistent to me (I didn't say it wasn't stretching it though):
(https://i.imgur.com/2vRdUXw.jpg)
-
You're flipping it side to side, or horizontally, not vertically.
This is no different from the horizontal green arrow ploy Tom tried at the outset.
Nice try, though.
-
You're flipping it side to side, or horizontally, not vertically.
This is no different from the horizontal green arrow ploy Tom tried at the outset.
Nice try, though.
Rotate it 90 degrees clockwise to place his 'equator' horizontally (it's there on the diagram already), and it works fine. Or, how about this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fU6R0kXUBTQ
-
You're flipping it side to side, or horizontally, not vertically.
This is no different from the horizontal green arrow ploy Tom tried at the outset.
Nice try, though.
Rotate it 90 degrees clockwise to place his 'equator' horizontally (it's there on the diagram already), and it works fine. Or, how about this?
Thank you, I was scratching my head how this wasn't clear, but clearly I should have drawn this with the Moon to the side instead of overhead. I did not realize spatial relationships was going to be an issue.
The basic mechanism that causes the inversion is no different on a flat plane than it is on a curved one.
Here it is with both a Round (in orange) and flat (in purple) Earth superimposed over each other.
(https://i.imgur.com/TBdanxB.jpg)
The only thing a putting a hill (a part of a round Earth) between the two observers changes is that the orange chicks don't have to tilt their heads back as far.
A practical demonstration utilizing a playing card taped to the ceiling (it was not moved between images):
As viewed from the Northern portion of the room facing South:
(https://i.imgur.com/zKbIgjT.jpg?3)
White diamond appears at the TOP of the image.
As viewed the Southern portion of the room facing North:
(https://i.imgur.com/qOP9WhW.jpg?3)
White diamond appears at the BOTTOM of the image.
...That sure looks inverted to me...
I stand by my assertion, as demonstrated both diagrammatically and by practical demonstration (observations of card taped to a ceiling over a flat floor). The inversion of the Moon's face is not an issue, inversion alone [that means excluding the other factors that make a small Moon 3000 miles overhead an unfeasible proposition] could be consistent with an FE model.
-
Now you've created an artificial "up" with the vertical horizon. It's called a "horizon" because it's horizontal. Changing the manner it which it is presented on the page doesn't fix that.
Howerer, putting the "hill" between the observers does change the picture substantially, so that you now have two entirely different situations. In the FE situation the observer always has the same orientation with respect to the "top" and the "bottom" of the moon. The RE observer doesn't. Which is my point. Thank you for presenting it graphically.
It would have made an even clearer demonstration if you had used a smaller radius for the earth, allowing even more curvature in the diagram. That would get us even closer to a "Norway" versus "New Zealand" representation, which is where this all began.
With regard to the "doodad taped to the ceiling" demonstration, please think a bit more about that demonstration. I'm hoping that eventually the light bulb will go on and you'll be able to see that it is another repeat of Tom's argument. Maybe do a thought experiment with the card suspended vertically in the air, then you move across a planar surface to any place you choose, then report back on the orientation of the card that you perceive with respect to "top" and "bottom".
-
You're flipping it side to side, or horizontally, not vertically.
This is no different from the horizontal green arrow ploy Tom tried at the outset.
Nice try, though.
Rotate it 90 degrees clockwise to place his 'equator' horizontally (it's there on the diagram already), and it works fine. Or, how about this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fU6R0kXUBTQ
Well, the pic is perfect, no need to look at the video - (which I didn't). This is all the rebuttal anyone should need.
-
Now you've created an artificial "up" with the vertical horizon. It's called a "horizon" because it's horizontal. Changing the manner it which it is presented on the page doesn't fix that.
Howerer, putting the "hill" between the observers does change the picture substantially, so that you now have two entirely different situations. In the FE situation the observer always has the same orientation with respect to the "top" and the "bottom" of the moon. The RE observer doesn't. Which is my point. Thank you for presenting it graphically.
It would have made an even clearer demonstration if you had used a smaller radius for the earth, allowing even more curvature in the diagram. That would get us even closer to a "Norway" versus "New Zealand" representation, which is where this all began.
With regard to the "doodad taped to the ceiling" demonstration, please think a bit more about that demonstration. I'm hoping that eventually the light bulb will go on and you'll be able to see that it is another repeat of Tom's argument. Maybe do a thought experiment with the card suspended vertically in the air, then you move across a planar surface to any place you choose, then report back on the orientation of the card that you perceive with respect to "top" and "bottom".
I’m not the one having trouble getting the light bulb screwed in.
Look at the Moon, notice the lack of depth perception, it looks like flat disc, because that’s what a sphere looks like from a fair distance away, it has a front that we see and a back that we don’t.
As to your suggestion of taping the card on edge. This would expose the thinnest face of the card, one that has no identifiable features as the face of the Moon. Also, because it’s so thin, it would also be exposing two different faces (the picture on one and the numbers on the other).
Are people in the South looking at a different side of the Moon? No… Do you know why? Because once side of the Moon always faces away from the surface of the Earth, and the other side always faces towards it. Taping the card on edge would not match any model, FE or RE, so it’s pointless to do it that way.
Again, I failed to realize that difficulty of 3 dimensional spatial relationships was going to be an issue. I’ll redo the observation and pics using a color coded sphere as soon as I get the chance.
So, tell me, is there difference standing to look at the Moon compared to leaning back in a chair to look at it? No?
Like if, lying on back and suddenly jump up to my feet, is this Moon going to flip over? No?
How about if I was lying on my stomach? No?
The position of the observer’s body is irrelevant. The only difference, is the angle the observer has to look up at, that is how far they have to tilt their heads back.
As for the diagram, redone as requested, using Kristiansand, Norway located at 58 degrees N and Campbell Island, New Zealand at 52 degrees S, as reference points and placing the observers at those approximate Latitudes, while extending the visible curvature of the RE to both the N and S pole. The FE model, including lawn chairs, is super imposed in orange.
(https://i.imgur.com/EtAxuI1.jpg)
So, apparently, Flat Earth people are smarter, instead of standing there craning their necks to gaze up at the stars, they recline comfortably in lawn furniture (while possibly sipping on Mai Tais).
-
Now you've got it. That is a correct representation of the real world. Now I have no idea what you were trying to demonstrate with the two dimensional stuff.
Looking back, though, I see that your initial statement was "The inversion of the Moon's face is not an issue, inversion alone could be consistent with an FE model".
So let's try that thought experiment, but change the target, which should eliminate any confusion:
Take a long, thin strip of paper and, instead of Tom's arrow, write the word ARROW on it several times, enough to fill the strip from end to end. Now tape the ends of the strip together, with the words ARROW facing out, forming a stubby cylinder. Hang your cylinder from an imaginary skyhook, then travel to various points on a planar surface below the cylinder. When looking at the cylinder from any point on the planar surface you will find that the words ARROW will always be upright, never upside down.
-
Now you've got it. That is a correct representation of the real world. Now I have no idea what you were trying to demonstrate with the two dimensional stuff.
Looking back, though, I see that your initial statement was "The inversion of the Moon's face is not an issue, inversion alone could be consistent with an FE model".
So let's try that thought experiment, but change the target, which should eliminate any confusion:
Take a long, thin strip of paper and, instead of Tom's arrow, write the word ARROW on it several times, enough to fill the strip from end to end. Now tape the ends of the strip together, with the words ARROW facing out, forming a stubby cylinder. Hang your cylinder from an imaginary skyhook, then travel to various points on a planar surface below the cylinder. When looking at the cylinder from any point on the planar surface you will find that the words ARROW will always be upright, never upside down.
Everything I've drawn, including the last graphic has been 2-dimensional. The last one is basically the exact same thing image I made on 3/16/2018, with the exception of placing the observers further apart so you could see more of the RE surface. I have no idea what you mean by 'the two dimensional stuff', are you referencing the fact that I was only drawing the 1/2 of the Moon? Can you explain why I would take the time to draw the half we can't see?
Do you not understand that standing on the top of the RE model is equivocal to laying down on the FE model, or did you choose to ignore those points [a common FE debater tactic] because you realize they are correct assertions and body position is not a factor?
Do you not understand what side of the Moon we are actually looking at? Look at the drawing again, notice how whatever the RE observer sees, the FE observer will see the same exact thing.
I understand how you asking for the arrow cylinder to mounted, basically with the works facing up. Here it is:
You cylinder, constructed mostly as requested, as viewed 4 times with 1/4 rotation depicting the surfaces of the Moon as you envision them. I added a bottom and aligned it to your front and back side. My version Top & Bottom are also noted.
(https://i.imgur.com/Pi1aABD.jpg)
I set this up an a white board showing RE in green with observers at N and S pole. FE is in black with observers a roughly equivalent distance from the equator. The cylinder is mounted with the arrows and words facing up.
(https://i.imgur.com/bNoXPnr.jpg?1)
I couldn't set it up sideways as my camera flips when it turned upside down but turning the entire setup 90 degrees is equivocal too. [Edit - wrong pic]
(https://i.imgur.com/bKS7Mlv.jpg?2)
Same either way...
I setup my camera with a representative of the observer:
(https://i.imgur.com/hNN151Y.jpg?1)
And gave him a tilty head by taping his face to the screen:
(https://i.imgur.com/sdAoC6R.jpg?1)
I then took a series of four pictures, with the observer camera positioned with the stick-man feet on the appropriate surface and the lens pointed up toward the cylinder:
1.) (https://i.imgur.com/0Hp38b8.jpg)
2.) (https://i.imgur.com/XJIBNZi.jpg)
3.) (https://i.imgur.com/SOKO8Qs.jpg)
4.) (https://i.imgur.com/UA1QW9Y.jpg)
I know what order I took these in. Maybe you'd like to take a guess. Since you are the one who thinks thinks this would work differently on FE vs RE, I'm SURE that you could EASILY tell the difference between the FE and RE pics.
I'm calling the debate, let's have a vote:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9289.0
Have a nice day!
-
I have to be honest... if that is not a deliberate missinterpretation then i dont know what is....
-
I have to be honest... if that is not a deliberate missinterpretation then i dont know what is....
You are going to have to be a little more specific. What did I misinterpret?
The cylinder construction?
The hand-drawn version of the diagram?
The stick-man representation of the observer?
The approximate scale?
The cylinder matches his description. It has the word 'ARROW'. I was poking fun at him by labeling the side front and back because that's what it appears he thinks we're all looking at, but the words are all upright. I also put a bottom on it, because I know that the Moon is far enough away that we are all actually looking at the bottom of it (side facing Earth).
The hand- drawn version is slightly different, but still a fair representation of the 3/19/2018 drawing, which we agreed (despite being the same thing I had been drawing, just rotated 90 degrees):
Now you've got it. That is a correct representation of the real world.
The cylinder appears to be an additional Earth radius or so further away. 2 vs. 3 isn't a big difference and certainly not deliberate.
I think stick-man camera was a good representation of how most people can tilt their head back to look up at the sky.
The scale isn't a problem. The topic is whether the Moon image can flip (invert) if it were being viewed from a flat plane. When the stick man is positioned as if observing from a round surface, that's called the control group BTW, the model captures the expected result, validating the of the model is suitable for our purposes. If the control didn't capture the expected result, then we could say there was a problem with the setup.
If you don't think I'm being honest about the stick-man camera position between the 4 result pictures, which you can tell are 4 unique images by the parallax between the cylinder and the ceiling tile joint, then do the observation yourself. Just be sure your camera phone doesn't auto flip the images when it's turned upside down. [Mine did and I couldn't figure out how to shut that off, which is why I had to rotate the whole setup 90 degrees].
-
I lost hope and interest in pointless arguing as soon as you said you dont understand how your approach was 2D. I came to this forum to actually find out whats the big deal, i thought theres a reason why a lot of people claim to believe in flat earth. What i found was dissapointing. My opinion should not influence anyone in here, but funny how there is no unified flat earth model yet FET are argueing about aspects of it..... agree on one actual model instead of talking about everything out of context. Even if the moon flipping or sunshine questions would " prove that the earth is flat", it would raise 2 million new questions whick could simply not be explained
I do not need geometry or complex maths to dismiss this delusional thinking.
1. FET claims there is no gravity - how is the moon and the sun floating under " the dome" if they are not attached to the dome or the flat earth surface and the whole earth plane is actually moving upwards throught the universe or the void or whatever its supposed to be called
2. Dome is inpenetrable, hence satelites even if they exist they are either baloons or anything but not an object free falling or orbiting the earth ( basically they cant leave ) - explain meteorite craters, explain videos of meteorites coming to earth, exploding mid air, explain meteorites that are found. ( not all footage is from Nasa ) They should not penetrate the dome so are they fake or are they coming from below the dome?
3. If you "could" detect so called planets Mercury and Venus passing between us ( observer) and the Sun - would that not completely destroy whatever unagreeable flat earth model/models in existance?
I dont need qoutes, no need source material, dont even need math - just common sense please. I do not want to offend or argue and i am sorry if i will come off as a deuche. I just need answers considering the fact that earth is flat for you and your colleagues. So please:
1.No gravity - how does sun and the moon orbit or float above north pole, under the dome or whatever you want to call it
2. Cannot leave the dome - how does meteors come in and leave craters?
3. Mercury and Venus in front of the sun / between earth and the sun ?
Indulge me please
Thank you
-
I lost hope and interest in pointless arguing as soon as you said you dont understand how your approach was 2D. I came to this forum to actually find out whats the big deal, i thought theres a reason why a lot of people claim to believe in flat earth. What i found was dissapointing. My opinion should not influence anyone in here, but funny how there is no unified flat earth model yet FET are argueing about aspects of it..... agree on one actual model instead of talking about everything out of context. Even if the moon flipping or sunshine questions would " prove that the earth is flat", it would raise 2 million new questions whick could simply not be explained
I do not need geometry or complex maths to dismiss this delusional thinking.
1. FET claims there is no gravity - how is the moon and the sun floating under " the dome" if they are not attached to the dome or the flat earth surface and the whole earth plane is actually moving upwards throught the universe or the void or whatever its supposed to be called
2. Dome is inpenetrable, hence satelites even if they exist they are either baloons or anything but not an object free falling or orbiting the earth ( basically they cant leave ) - explain meteorite craters, explain videos of meteorites coming to earth, exploding mid air, explain meteorites that are found. ( not all footage is from Nasa ) They should not penetrate the dome so are they fake or are they coming from below the dome?
3. If you "could" detect so called planets Mercury and Venus passing between us ( observer) and the Sun - would that not completely destroy whatever unagreeable flat earth model/models in existance?
I dont need qoutes, no need source material, dont even need math - just common sense please. I do not want to offend or argue and i am sorry if i will come off as a deuche. I just need answers considering the fact that earth is flat for you and your colleagues. So please:
1.No gravity - how does sun and the moon orbit or float above north pole, under the dome or whatever you want to call it
2. Cannot leave the dome - how does meteors come in and leave craters?
3. Mercury and Venus in front of the sun / between earth and the sun ?
Indulge me please
Thank you
You are off-topic. Please review the topic of THIS thread. We are talking about the fact that the Moon appears, when viewed from the Southern Hemisphere, to be inverted from what is viewed from the Northern Hemisphere.
I stated on 3/15/2018:
This topic was previously addressed here:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=8653.0
To summarize:
The inversion of the Moon's face is not an issue, inversion alone could be consistent with an FE model.
The fact that all observers, regardless of the distance separating them, view essentially the same surface area of the Moon [inversion not with standing]. Essentially all observers appear to be looking at Moon from the SAME angle.
The FE model cannot account for this without a secondary phenomenon, such as light not traveling in a straight line or geometry not working at the distance involved [min. 3000(ish) miles].
Euclid geometry can be proven functional at the FE claimed distance to the Moon [3000(ish) miles] via observation of a Solar Eclipse. That is; Distant observer's view the Eclipse at DIFFERENT angles, proportional to the distance from the path of totality (Zenith of the Eclipse).
(...)
The logical conclusion, being that Euclid geometry can be proven functional at significant distances and no evidence supports a concave atmosphere, is that the Moon is significantly farther away from the Earth than 3000(ish) miles.
To which Scroogie replied:
I agree with all of the above EXCEPT: The inversion of the Moon's face is not an issue, inversion alone could be consistent with an FE model.
Inversion CANNOT BE and IS NOT consistent with an FE model. An observer on a planar surface will never experience an inversion of the moon as the observer never experiences a change in orientation anywhere on that surface.
(...)
This debate thread is only about the Moon inverting when viewed from opposite sides of an equator, which it could do (which I think I've conclusively proven) regardless of the shape of the surface it is being viewed from.
As to your remaining questions...
1. I'm the one who understands a drawing is 2 dimensional, Scroogie was the one who said "I have no idea what you were trying to demonstrate with the two dimensional stuff.", immediately after I drew what was essentially the same 2D picture that I had been drawing. I think he may have been complaining about the use of an essentially 2 dimensional playing card to represent the Moon, not realizing that we don't really need a 3D object to represent it. Not really sure though, you should ask him about it.
2. In case you missed it, I'm not debating that the Earth is flat, only that the image Moon of the could invert when viewed from a flat plane, in the same fashion that it does when viewed from a curved plane. Just because it could flip when viewed from a flat plane does mean I think we are standing on a flat plane. This effect could be a 6 or 1/2 dozen between RE and FE.
3. Even if I did think the Earth was flat, I wouldn't address your additional questions in THIS thread because:
a. They are off topic
b. Answered in the FE wiki (which is courteous to search before starting a topic)
4. Just as an FYI, the general FE consensus seems to be an un-domed model.
-
Basically none of my questions were answered. Thank you i will try to create a thread
-
are we allowed to google images to determine the angular displacement (flip angle) between various parts of the earth?
or do we have to go get the photos ourselves?
i dont know the rules here.
-
are we allowed to google images to determine the angular displacement (flip angle) between various parts of the earth?
or do we have to go get the photos ourselves?
i dont know the rules here.
It doesn't matter, either way someone else can always challenge the authenticity of the image. (call it "FAKE").
Keep in mind the Moon will also rotate due to E/W displacement of the observers. Up to this point we assumed observers on the same meridian.
-
both models? FE and RE?
why would the moon rotate due to east/west displacement?
-
the line separating the black half of the moon in your diagram remains horizontal to the horizon in the flat earth scenario, but not in the round earth scenario.
Now you've created an artificial "up" with the vertical horizon. It's called a "horizon" because it's horizontal. Changing the manner it which it is presented on the page doesn't fix that.
Howerer, putting the "hill" between the observers does change the picture substantially, so that you now have two entirely different situations. In the FE situation the observer always has the same orientation with respect to the "top" and the "bottom" of the moon. The RE observer doesn't. Which is my point. Thank you for presenting it graphically.
It would have made an even clearer demonstration if you had used a smaller radius for the earth, allowing even more curvature in the diagram. That would get us even closer to a "Norway" versus "New Zealand" representation, which is where this all began.
With regard to the "doodad taped to the ceiling" demonstration, please think a bit more about that demonstration. I'm hoping that eventually the light bulb will go on and you'll be able to see that it is another repeat of Tom's argument. Maybe do a thought experiment with the card suspended vertically in the air, then you move across a planar surface to any place you choose, then report back on the orientation of the card that you perceive with respect to "top" and "bottom".
I’m not the one having trouble getting the light bulb screwed in.
Look at the Moon, notice the lack of depth perception, it looks like flat disc, because that’s what a sphere looks like from a fair distance away, it has a front that we see and a back that we don’t.
As to your suggestion of taping the card on edge. This would expose the thinnest face of the card, one that has no identifiable features as the face of the Moon. Also, because it’s so thin, it would also be exposing two different faces (the picture on one and the numbers on the other).
Are people in the South looking at a different side of the Moon? No… Do you know why? Because once side of the Moon always faces away from the surface of the Earth, and the other side always faces towards it. Taping the card on edge would not match any model, FE or RE, so it’s pointless to do it that way.
Again, I failed to realize that difficulty of 3 dimensional spatial relationships was going to be an issue. I’ll redo the observation and pics using a color coded sphere as soon as I get the chance.
So, tell me, is there difference standing to look at the Moon compared to leaning back in a chair to look at it? No?
Like if, lying on back and suddenly jump up to my feet, is this Moon going to flip over? No?
How about if I was lying on my stomach? No?
The position of the observer’s body is irrelevant. The only difference, is the angle the observer has to look up at, that is how far they have to tilt their heads back.
As for the diagram, redone as requested, using Kristiansand, Norway located at 58 degrees N and Campbell Island, New Zealand at 52 degrees S, as reference points and placing the observers at those approximate Latitudes, while extending the visible curvature of the RE to both the N and S pole. The FE model, including lawn chairs, is super imposed in orange.
(https://i.imgur.com/EtAxuI1.jpg)
So, apparently, Flat Earth people are smarter, instead of standing there craning their necks to gaze up at the stars, they recline comfortably in lawn furniture (while possibly sipping on Mai Tais).
-
both models? FE and RE?
why would the moon rotate due to east/west displacement?
Yes, on both models. On the Equator, it flips 180 degrees throughout the day, you only need 1 observer to see it, since the Earth rotates. (Or the Moon circles).
Just replace N & S with E & W in any of the drawings and that's the basic concept.
The effect is reduced at higher latitudes.
-
the line separating the black half of the moon in your diagram remains horizontal to the horizon in the flat earth scenario, but not in the round earth scenario.
Actually, that divides the front and back of the moon, it's not a line, it's a circle.
It is not perpendicular to either an FE or RE surface, nobody can ever see it because there's a 1/2 a moon in the way.
We can't see the black half, it's the side of the Moon that faces away from everyone.
-
granted, but i was talking about the light side and dark side of a half moon
-
the line separating the black half of the moon in your diagram remains horizontal to the horizon in the flat earth scenario, but not in the round earth scenario.
Right, we're talking about the same line.
It is not perpendicular to either an FE or RE surface, nobody can ever see it because there's a 1/2 a moon in the way.
We can't see the black half, it's the side of the Moon that faces away from everyone. It doesn't really matter what it does.
The fact that it is horizontal to the horizon only changes the elevation of the moon over the horizon. In RE, we can the moon would be low in the sky, on FE it's much more overhead.
So yes, moving the horizon does move the horizon. I don't really think that's too unexepected though and doesn't affect the observer's sense of up.
-
we're not talking abt the same line. i'm talking abt the half moon light and dark sides, ie both halves on this side of the moon. (and yes, it just looks like a straight line of seperation)
-
The fact that so many round earthers in this thread decided to abandon all logic because they wanted to be right about FE is entertaining.
-
we're not talking abt the same line. i'm talking abt the half moon light and dark sides, ie both halves on this side of the moon. (and yes, it just looks like a straight line of seperation)
The moon is the drawing is dived into quarters. The black ones make a half, that half always faces away from earth. The half that is red and green always faces the Earth.
We only ever see the red and green half (light half).
If you flip the drawing around the x-axis, so it wasn't a side view, we would only see a red half and a green half, each in the shape of a semi circle.
-
yes, i got that now. i was just clarifying my point was not represented in your diagram afterall although i originally misconstrued it that way.
i was just talking abt the disc that we see and the half moon.
-
yes, i got that now. i was just clarifying my point was not represented in your diagram afterall although i originally misconstrued it that way.
i was just talking abt the disc that we see and the half moon.
Yeah, no problem.
Do you understand now, why the Moon can be modeled as a playing card taped to the ceiling? Do you understand that you can model FE and RE surface by either standing or laying on your back?
From there it's easy to see that the view is the same from either, no matterm where you're at.
The moon flipping orientation (rotating) based on the location of the observers neither proves nor does it disprove either model.
-
sure, i get that
but i think thats missing my point (which would be cos i haven't made it so well)
if we consider the half-moon shadow line (for want of a better term) it remains parallel to the horizon at the equator for it's entire journey across the nights sky (correct me if i'm wrong)
likewise its orientation is different at other latitudes, but remains consistent viewed from the same spot as it traverses the sky, (of course it is flipped over like a pancake, but you know what i mean)
the angular displacement between the equator and poles is exactly 90 degrees and 180 from pole to pole.
in FE i get that the image flips due to point-of-view, but why doesn't the parallel-to-horizon half moon stay parellel to the horizon at various latitudes? and would the moon flip gradually, 180 degrees, between the 'poles'?
-
I will repeat that I think the moon is the best proof of a round earth that is visible to everyone. During the arctic winter, the full moon goes around the viewer and is visible the entire night. If you are in Norway, Siberia or Canada, the full moon circles you with the same face visible all the time. How can it face all three viewers all the time on a flat model? If it were an automobile, one should see headlights, or tailights, side doors and undercarriage as it circles around the overhead track if it is circling the north pole. And then again we have to assume the people south of the equator are not as important and can be ignored.
-
sure, i get that
but i think thats missing my point (which would be cos i haven't made it so well)
if we consider the half-moon shadow line (for want of a better term) it remains parallel to the horizon at the equator for it's entire journey across the nights sky (correct me if i'm wrong)
likewise its orientation is different at other latitudes, but remains consistent viewed from the same spot as it traverses the sky, (of course it is flipped over like a pancake, but you know what i mean)
the angular displacement between the equator and poles is exactly 90 degrees and 180 from pole to pole.
in FE i get that the image flips due to point-of-view, but why doesn't the parallel-to-horizon half moon stay parellel to the horizon at various latitudes? and would the moon flip gradually, 180 degrees, between the 'poles'?
It never flips over like a pancake. It only ever presents one side (the red/green (or golden brown if you like) face) the dark side (the side of a pancake that looks a little bubbly) always faces away. It only rotates around the axis pointing directly towards us. The Moon is so very very freaking far away that we only ever are looking at the one side (and because it's tidally locked).
I think I know what your getting at - that the line separating light/dark side is parallel to FE surface but not to RE surface. And you are making a correct observation, however for that to make any difference it would have to intersect one of the viewing surface to to the North or South be visible. Since it does not intersect the surface in either model and it's an imaginary line, there's no way to determine what the shape of the viewing surface is.
In the East to West direction, the drawing in shows what it would look like from an observer standing East of the two observer in the drawing. Because the moon is so far away they still only see the underside, red/green side, but to them red would be on the right and green to the left. Someone to the West, like on the other side of your screen, would have to turn around to see the Moon. They have a different concept of left and right than you, it looks like red is on the left and green is on the right.
I don't have Visio available right now to draw with. But if you relabel look at the last drawing, relabel N and S as W and E, and change 'Equator' to 'Prime Meridian', you're now looking down at the North Pole and the people are now sanding on the Equator, looking E/W or W/E, respectively. The Moon, doesn't move, as it presents it underside to everyone at all times.
Hopefully, you starting to see how 'UP' is relative to the observer, not the shape of the surface. On RE everyone senses UP as above their heads, and can't tell other people's up is different. On FE everyone senses UP as above their heads, but can't tell other people's up is same.
I will repeat that I think the moon is the best proof of a round earth that is visible to everyone. During the arctic winter, the full moon goes around the viewer and is visible the entire night. If you are in Norway, Siberia or Canada, the full moon circles you with the same face visible all the time. How can it face all three viewers all the time on a flat model? If it were an automobile, one should see headlights, or tailights, side doors and undercarriage as it circles around the overhead track if it is circling the north pole. And then again we have to assume the people south of the equator are not as important and can be ignored.
I'm not arguing an FE model here. Only that The inversion of the Moon's face is not an issue, inversion alone could be consistent with an FE model.
However, to your question, How can it face all three viewers all the time on a flat model?. The answer is the same way it does on a spherical model. By being both (a) 'tidally locked' and (b) very far away (way more than 3000 miles).
I've talked about how the Moon is not 3000 miles away in this thread:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=8653.0
-
Decide a unified FE model that everyone agrees on, then try to prove or disprove. Until then all of this argueing is pointless
I'm pretty sure this thread stopped being about FE vs RE awhile ago. I've talked about how the Moon is not 3000 miles away in this thread:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=8653.0
We are talking about what we are actually looking at when one looks up at the Moon, mostly about the orientation of what we perceive as the 'TOP' of it when viewed from different places. A couple people seemed to be mis-conceptualizing the geometry, not realizing [understandably] that it's so so far away, that everyone is actually always looking at one side. I call it the 'bottom' since it's the side that always points down toward Earth.
In fact it's so fantastically distant, that the inversion of the Moon's face is not an issue, inversion alone could be consistent with an FE model. Or in other words, no determination about the shape of the Earth can be made by the sole observation of the Moon appearing rotated between observers from different parts of the world.
-
I will repeat that I think the moon is the best proof of a round earth that is visible to everyone. During the arctic winter, the full moon goes around the viewer and is visible the entire night. If you are in Norway, Siberia or Canada, the full moon circles you with the same face visible all the time. ....
yeah....and couldn't we measure the angular displacement of the moons face to the horizon at all 3 points? and wouldn't that angular displacement at equal latitudes on different sides of the pole tell us something? i mean if the FE model is a green arrow moon wouldn't the angular displacement change? but for RE it's the same, isn't it?
-
I will repeat that I think the moon is the best proof of a round earth that is visible to everyone. During the arctic winter, the full moon goes around the viewer and is visible the entire night. If you are in Norway, Siberia or Canada, the full moon circles you with the same face visible all the time. ....
yeah....and couldn't we measure the angular displacement of the moons face to the horizon at all 3 points? and wouldn't that angular displacement at equal latitudes on different sides of the pole tell us something? i mean if the FE model is a green arrow moon wouldn't the angular displacement change? but for RE it's the same, isn't it?
Yes, it would tell us something. It tells us how far away the Moon is and that it is tidally locked (the same side always faces the Earth's surface).
In reality mot much more than 50% of the Moon surface is visible at any one time (libation allows us to see 59% over the course of a Month). This means the difference in the angle is very small, like 1 degree. (Compared to the actual distance to the Moon, the North pole is like right next to the South one)
If we know the length of the base of the triangle (lets call it 4000 miles) and the difference in viewing angle at the Moon (1 degree), assuming angles 'A+B+C = 180' and knowing angles A & B are equal (thus 89.5 degrees), we can solve for the sides. Feel free to plug this into an online triangle calculator, I get 229,186.027 miles. Wiki says the average orbital distance to the Moon is average is 238,856 miles. (That ain’t half bad for napkin math!)
Visual aid, with comparison to a very close Moon (3000 miles):
(https://i.imgur.com/uS8TG48.jpg)
{edit: if your not feeling the overhead projection, rotate your monitor so it's sideways
}
Just for fun, I also calculated how big FE would be from North Pole to Ice Wall, in order to fit the Lunar observation of only seeing 1 side, and I get just over 52 miles! (lol)
[Geometry has also previously been proven to work at a distance of up to 3000 miles]
-
well i dunno, but you do do some nice diagrams.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/EtAxuI1.jpg)
This image is perfect for illustrating my point.
First, assume that the moon, as drawn, is showing the face that would be seen by all viewers.
Assume the brown line to be the surface of a flat earth. From any viewpoint on that flat earth an observer will perceive the black half of the moon to be the top half, or "up".
On the spherical earth, the red fellow, near the north pole, will perceive the red half of the moon to be the top half of the moon, whereas the green fellow, near the south pole, will perceive the green half to be the top half of the moon.
To the green fellow the moon is upside down with respect to what the red fellow perceives. On the flat earth the moon is never perceived with the black half as the bottom of the moon. That is, on a flat earth the moon will never be perceived as being upside down with regard to what another observer on the flat earth perceives.
That is the core of this debate - the difference between reality and flat earth belief.
-
I lost hope and interest in pointless arguing as soon as you said you dont understand how your approach was 2D. I came to this forum to actually find out whats the big deal, i thought theres a reason why a lot of people claim to believe in flat earth. What i found was dissapointing.
Thank you
If you were expecting brilliantly presented factual dissertations on flat earth theory, accompanied by voluminous documentation and incontrovertible evidence, I'm sorry to have to break the news to you, but such does not exist. Essentially, all you'll ever find here are a group of people of opposing views bickering over what is, in truth, a moot point.
-
My claim, more specifically, is that you cannot claim to be an empirical researcher and then proceed to refuse to empirically research.
The southern hemisphere is within your reach. You can get there and see for yourself -- I have!
You were asked to make the trip because that is the only way you can find the evidence for yourself. Until you do (or until you realize that photographers aren't part of the conspiracy), you shouldn't be arguing here.
It's reasonable to say that travel to the Southern Hemisphere is expensive and time-consuming, and that there are some FE advocates who won't be able to do it. However, it's certainly possible for them to get together with other FE advocates who live in South America and Australia and Africa, and to do coordinated measurements.
Ideally this would involve predicting what the effect of a flat Earth should be, and then making observations and determining whether the results of said observations fitted with the predictions. Of course that won't happen. It should be possible for flat Earthers North and South of the equator to look into the sky and tell each other what they see.
Indeed, one would imagine that they'd be very keen to do so. It's a quirk of FE thinking that their confidence and belief in FE doesn't extend to actually taking a good look. One can only praise the rocket guy. True, his experiment was pointless, misleading, and very dangerous, but at least he had the courage of his convictions.
-
i can't help thinking the rocket guy wudda done it anyway. to test global warming or something if not FE.
what were his conclusions anyway? any link?
-
(https://i.imgur.com/EtAxuI1.jpg)
This image is perfect for illustrating my point.
First, assume that the moon, as drawn, is showing the face that would be seen by all viewers.
Assume the brown line to be the surface of a flat earth. From any viewpoint on that flat earth an observer will perceive the black half of the moon to be the top half, or "up".
On the spherical earth, the red fellow, near the north pole, will perceive the red half of the moon to be the top half of the moon, whereas the green fellow, near the south pole, will perceive the green half to be the top half of the moon.
To the green fellow the moon is upside down with respect to what the red fellow perceives. On the flat earth the moon is never perceived with the black half as the bottom of the moon. That is, on a flat earth the moon will never be perceived as being upside down with regard to what another observer on the flat earth perceives.
That is the core of this debate - the difference between reality and flat earth belief.
You post is a perfect illustration that you don't understand what you are looking at. This is still a 2D SIDE VIEW. The observer are on the same plane as the Moon. Just because I added the part of the Moon nobody see doesn't change that.
The BLACK half is the side of the Moon NOBODY can see, it faces directly away from the surface of the Earth. Since the Moon is so far away, it doesn't matter where you stand on the surface no matter what shape it is, that side is not visible. On Round Earth it can't seen because it's facing away from the Earth's surface. On Flat Earth, it facing away from the surface. From the angle they are viewing it at, only the red/green parts are visible to the observers. There are sight lines and everything, you can see that from both the brown FE surface and the black RE surface that the red/green side is IN FRONT of the Black side.
Nobody is going to see 'black on top' because they can't even see the black half in the first place. They can only see the red/green half.
How are not getting this?
Remember that cylinder you had me make? Remember how none of the pictures show the TOP circle? Remember how they only show the BOTTOM circle? Remember how the bottom circle flipped between my pictures? Remember how I asked if you could tell the difference between the FE model pics and the RE model pics and you NEVER RESPONDED?
My best suggestion is for you is to find yourself another science teacher and have them explain this to you in person. You are having a really hard time understanding why we can only see one side of the Moon, and seem to think it's possible to see the back side, despite the fact that nobody on Earth has ever seen the back of it.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/EtAxuI1.jpg)
This image is perfect for illustrating my point.
First, assume that the moon, as drawn, is showing the face that would be seen by all viewers.
Assume the brown line to be the surface of a flat earth. From any viewpoint on that flat earth an observer will perceive the black half of the moon to be the top half, or "up".
On the spherical earth, the red fellow, near the north pole, will perceive the red half of the moon to be the top half of the moon, whereas the green fellow, near the south pole, will perceive the green half to be the top half of the moon.
To the green fellow the moon is upside down with respect to what the red fellow perceives. On the flat earth the moon is never perceived with the black half as the bottom of the moon. That is, on a flat earth the moon will never be perceived as being upside down with regard to what another observer on the flat earth perceives.
That is the core of this debate - the difference between reality and flat earth belief.
You post is a perfect illustration that you don't understand what you are looking at. This is still a 2D SIDE VIEW. The observer are on the same plane as the Moon. Just because I added the part of the Moon nobody see doesn't change that.
The BLACK half is the side of the Moon NOBODY can see, it faces directly away from the surface of the Earth. Since the Moon is so far away, it doesn't matter where you stand on the surface no matter what shape it is, that side is not visible. On Round Earth it can't seen because it's facing away from the Earth's surface. On Flat Earth, it facing away from the surface. From the angle they are viewing it at, only the red/green parts are visible to the observers. There are sight lines and everything, you can see that from both the brown FE surface and the black RE surface that the red/green side is IN FRONT of the Black side.
Nobody is going to see 'black on top' because they can't even see the black half in the first place. They can only see the red/green half.
How are not getting this?
Remember that cylinder you had me make? Remember how none of the pictures show the TOP circle? Remember how they only show the BOTTOM circle? Remember how the bottom circle flipped between my pictures? Remember how I asked if you could tell the difference between the FE model pics and the RE model pics and you NEVER RESPONDED?
My best suggestion is for you is to find yourself another science teacher and have them explain this to you in person. You are having a really hard time understanding why we can only see one side of the Moon, and seem to think it's possible to see the back side, despite the fact that nobody on Earth has ever seen the back of it.
Actually we have. The whole thing. Not all from earth, no, but here's a link.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far_side_of_the_Moon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far_side_of_the_Moon)
Read up.
-
i can't help thinking the rocket guy wudda done it anyway. to test global warming or something if not FE.
what were his conclusions anyway? any link?
Oh, it was spectacularly dumb and wouldn't prove anything, but at least he went out and did something, instead of providing links to antique books.
-
i can't help thinking the rocket guy wudda done it anyway. to test global warming or something if not FE.
what were his conclusions anyway? any link?
Oh, it was spectacularly dumb and wouldn't prove anything, but at least he went out and did something, instead of providing links to antique books.
Those 'antique books' actually birthed this movement and were able to prove the theory correct. Samuel Rowbotham was a man ahead of his time, you should show his work the proper respect.
-
Those 'antique books' actually birthed this movement and were able to prove the theory correct. Samuel Rowbotham was a man ahead of his time, you should show his work the proper respect.
I like to think I do.
-
Those 'antique books' actually birthed this movement and were able to prove the theory correct. Samuel Rowbotham was a man ahead of his time, you should show his work the proper respect.
I like to think I do.
If you do then I apologise, but it didn't come across that way.
-
Those 'antique books' actually birthed this movement and were able to prove the theory correct. Samuel Rowbotham was a man ahead of his time, you should show his work the proper respect.
I like to think I do.
If you do then I apologise, but it didn't come across that way.
FSV of "proper respect".
-
Those 'antique books' actually birthed this movement and were able to prove the theory correct. Samuel Rowbotham was a man ahead of his time, you should show his work the proper respect.
If he “proved” the theory correct then I’d have heard of him before I joined his place.
And his “proofs” wouldn’t make anyone who knows a bit of science laugh out loud.
Most of his “proofs” are him just claiming stuff, none of it is backed up.
-
Those 'antique books' actually birthed this movement and were able to prove the theory correct. Samuel Rowbotham was a man ahead of his time, you should show his work the proper respect.
If he “proved” the theory correct then I’d have heard of him before I joined his place.
And his “proofs” wouldn’t make anyone who knows a bit of science laugh out loud.
Most of his “proofs” are him just claiming stuff, none of it is backed up.
Oh? So because you haven't heard of him then he must not have been important. Nice to see you've a high opinion of yourself. His 'proofs' were indeed that. Scientists will not accept it because its against what the religion of science preachers. If you bothered to read the book, you'd find he did back his experiments up with detail. Like the Bedford level experiment, he even explains how he accounted for refraction.
-
Those 'antique books' actually birthed this movement and were able to prove the theory correct. Samuel Rowbotham was a man ahead of his time, you should show his work the proper respect.
If he “proved” the theory correct then I’d have heard of him before I joined his place.
And his “proofs” wouldn’t make anyone who knows a bit of science laugh out loud.
Most of his “proofs” are him just claiming stuff, none of it is backed up.
Oh? So because you haven't heard of him then he must not have been important. Nice to see you've a high opinion of yourself. His 'proofs' were indeed that. Scientists will not accept it because its against what the religion of science preachers. If you bothered to read the book, you'd find he did back his experiments up with detail. Like the Bedford level experiment, he even explains how he accounted for refraction.
Bedford Level he simply claims he did. Every one of his experiments is "I did this and saw this" or "I saw this, which means this must be what's happening!" with little to no corroborating evidence beyond his word. In fact the Bedford Level Experiment was done by no less than 4 people, and produced 3 different conclusions! A discussion of Rowbotham (again) however is quite off topic. If you wish I would be more than happy to create a post detailing the problems in a number of his 'experiments' or conclusions to discuss this in though. Or feel free to do so yourself.
-
Those 'antique books' actually birthed this movement and were able to prove the theory correct. Samuel Rowbotham was a man ahead of his time, you should show his work the proper respect.
If he “proved” the theory correct then I’d have heard of him before I joined his place.
And his “proofs” wouldn’t make anyone who knows a bit of science laugh out loud.
Most of his “proofs” are him just claiming stuff, none of it is backed up.
Oh? So because you haven't heard of him then he must not have been important. Nice to see you've a high opinion of yourself. His 'proofs' were indeed that. Scientists will not accept it because its against what the religion of science preachers. If you bothered to read the book, you'd find he did back his experiments up with detail. Like the Bedford level experiment, he even explains how he accounted for refraction.
Bedford Level he simply claims he did. Every one of his experiments is "I did this and saw this" or "I saw this, which means this must be what's happening!" with little to no corroborating evidence beyond his word. In fact the Bedford Level Experiment was done by no less than 4 people, and produced 3 different conclusions! A discussion of Rowbotham (again) however is quite off topic. If you wish I would be more than happy to create a post detailing the problems in a number of his 'experiments' or conclusions to discuss this in though. Or feel free to do so yourself.
Have you read his book? He goes into extreme detail with regards to how his experiments were conducted and the various things he took into account. And I assume you were referring to Alfred Russell Wallace who claimed to take into account refraction, yet Dr Rowbotham himself went into extreme detail as to how he took refraction into account, thereby rendering Wallace's 'experiment' invalid. Dr Rowbotham produced many experiments and the conclusions were the result of the facts. Hence the reason he revealed that the sun is less than 700 miles above the earth.
-
Actually we have. The whole thing. Not all from earth, no, but here's a link.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far_side_of_the_Moon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far_side_of_the_Moon)
Read up.
Now you are just being obtuse.
I think most people would realize I was implying 'as seen from Earth'.
Thanks for the link, but I am familiar with searching both Wikipedia and Google without assistance.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/EtAxuI1.jpg)
This image is perfect for illustrating my point.
First, assume that the moon, as drawn, is showing the face that would be seen by all viewers.
Assume the brown line to be the surface of a flat earth. From any viewpoint on that flat earth an observer will perceive the black half of the moon to be the top half, or "up".
On the spherical earth, the red fellow, near the north pole, will perceive the red half of the moon to be the top half of the moon, whereas the green fellow, near the south pole, will perceive the green half to be the top half of the moon.
To the green fellow the moon is upside down with respect to what the red fellow perceives. On the flat earth the moon is never perceived with the black half as the bottom of the moon. That is, on a flat earth the moon will never be perceived as being upside down with regard to what another observer on the flat earth perceives.
That is the core of this debate - the difference between reality and flat earth belief.
You post is a perfect illustration that you don't understand what you are looking at. This is still a 2D SIDE VIEW. The observer are on the same plane as the Moon. Just because I added the part of the Moon nobody see doesn't change that.
The BLACK half is the side of the Moon NOBODY can see, it faces directly away from the surface of the Earth. Since the Moon is so far away, it doesn't matter where you stand on the surface no matter what shape it is, that side is not visible. On Round Earth it can't seen because it's facing away from the Earth's surface. On Flat Earth, it facing away from the surface. From the angle they are viewing it at, only the red/green parts are visible to the observers. There are sight lines and everything, you can see that from both the brown FE surface and the black RE surface that the red/green side is IN FRONT of the Black side.
Nobody is going to see 'black on top' because they can't even see the black half in the first place. They can only see the red/green half.
How are not getting this?
Remember that cylinder you had me make? Remember how none of the pictures show the TOP circle? Remember how they only show the BOTTOM circle? Remember how the bottom circle flipped between my pictures? Remember how I asked if you could tell the difference between the FE model pics and the RE model pics and you NEVER RESPONDED?
My best suggestion is for you is to find yourself another science teacher and have them explain this to you in person. You are having a really hard time understanding why we can only see one side of the Moon, and seem to think it's possible to see the back side, despite the fact that nobody on Earth has ever seen the back of it.
I began by saying, and THIS IS IMPORTANT, so PAY ATTENTION - "First, assume that the moon, as drawn, is showing the face that would be seen by all viewers". What I meant there is that, since we are dealing with a two dimensional illustration, for the sake of my argument it becomes necessary to mentally place the moon deeper into the illustration in the Z axis, thereby creating a "virtual" 3D illustration, so that the viewers in the illustration have essentially the same view of the moon as drawn that you and I have.
I get it, it appears that you're not getting it. I'm simply trying to show that flat earthers would never see the moon as "upside down", when compared to that seen by another viewer, from anywhere on their "flat earth". That should be obvious to anyone who gives it a modicum of thought.
As for "seeing the backside of the moon" I've consistently been trying to deal with a two dimensional representation of the moon, the face we see, disregarding its third dimension for the purposes of this discussion. The amount of miscommunication here seems gargantuan. This is almost like kibitzing with an FEer. :)
-
Have you read his book? He goes into extreme detail with regards to how his experiments were conducted and the various things he took into account. And I assume you were referring to Alfred Russell Wallace who claimed to take into account refraction, yet Dr Rowbotham himself went into extreme detail as to how he took refraction into account, thereby rendering Wallace's 'experiment' invalid. Dr Rowbotham produced many experiments and the conclusions were the result of the facts. Hence the reason he revealed that the sun is less than 700 miles above the earth.
More importantly, have YOU read his book?
This remark by yourself seems more than a bit off the mark: "Hence the reason he revealed that the sun is less than 700 miles above the earth."
The rest of the FE community is of the opinion that the sun is about 3,000 miles above the earth. Did they get that number from Rowbotham, or another source? If Rowbotham indeed believed the 700 mile number, then the community seems to believe him to be in error.
Incidentally, I DID read the book and passed it off as complete hogwash, which it is, and always will be. It's part pseudo science and part religious proselytizing. Scientifically, it is deserving of no respect whatever, in my opinion. The book was written by a man simply trying desperately to cling to his bizarre interpretation of the Christian religion in the face of all evidence to the contrary. To him, a flat earth was absolutely necessary because, in his interpretation, that's what the bible indicated it to be.
-
Have you read his book? He goes into extreme detail with regards to how his experiments were conducted and the various things he took into account. And I assume you were referring to Alfred Russell Wallace who claimed to take into account refraction, yet Dr Rowbotham himself went into extreme detail as to how he took refraction into account, thereby rendering Wallace's 'experiment' invalid. Dr Rowbotham produced many experiments and the conclusions were the result of the facts. Hence the reason he revealed that the sun is less than 700 miles above the earth.
More importantly, have YOU read his book?
This remark by yourself seems more than a bit off the mark: "Hence the reason he revealed that the sun is less than 700 miles above the earth."
The rest of the FE community is of the opinion that the sun is about 3,000 miles above the earth. Did they get that number from Rowbotham, or another source? If Rowbotham indeed believed the 700 mile number, then the community seems to believe him to be in error.
Incidentally, I DID read the book and passed it off as complete hogwash, which it is, and always will be. It's part pseudo science and part religious proselytizing. Scientifically, it is deserving of no respect whatever, in my opinion. The book was written by a man simply trying desperately to cling to his bizarre interpretation of the Christian religion in the face of all evidence to the contrary. To him, a flat earth was absolutely necessary because, in his interpretation, that's what the bible indicated it to be.
I have. And it's pride of place on my shelf. The Dr Rowbotham presented many facts to back up his experiments, taking different situations into account yet each one proved the point that earth is not a globe.
And I'm not sure where other people get their information from, I can't speak for them. I do, however, trust Dr Rowbothams work.
-
I began by saying, and THIS IS IMPORTANT, so PAY ATTENTION - "First, assume that the moon, as drawn, is showing the face that would be seen by all viewers". What I meant there is that, since we are dealing with a two dimensional illustration, for the sake of my argument it becomes necessary to mentally place the moon deeper into the illustration in the Z axis, thereby creating a "virtual" 3D illustration, so that the viewers in the illustration have essentially the same view of the moon as drawn that you and I have.
I get it, it appears that you're not getting it. I'm simply trying to show that flat earthers would never see the moon as "upside down", when compared to that seen by another viewer, from anywhere on their "flat earth". That should be obvious to anyone who gives it a modicum of thought.
As for "seeing the backside of the moon" I've consistently been trying to deal with a two dimensional representation of the moon, the face we see, disregarding its third dimension for the purposes of this discussion. The amount of miscommunication here seems gargantuan. This is almost like kibitzing with an FEer. :)
I know, and you're the one playing the part of the FEer.
You keep demanding more proofs and taking materials out of context, without providing anything of you own. You're the one who complained I used a playing card to represent the Moon and then had me make a 3D cylinder for no good reason, only to come back and say "I've consistently been trying to deal with a two dimensional representation of the moon, the face we see, disregarding its third dimension for the purposes of this discussion".
I mean really, make me build a model in 3D than come back and say YOU'RE the one whose been "trying to deal with a two dimensional representation of the moon".
8!tc4, please!
Still haven't heard you tender a guess at to which set of pics are from the FE model and which are from the RE model, BTW. But hey, that's a classic FE debate tactic, too - Avoid answering the questions that challenge your point ... by ignoring them.
I've understood that we can model the Moon as a 2 dimensional surface oriented so that all observers can only see one face. You're the one who wanted it mounted so one person would see the value and the other would see the picture, which doesn't happen in either model or in real life.
You're the one who keeps dis-believing all the evidence that I've put forth that this could work over a flat surface, but provided nothing to show it can't.
You're the one who is having trouble unfolding the RE mechanics of an orbit to visualize what amounts to a race track over FE.
Also, pushing the moon in the Z direction causes it to rotate on it axis (in reality it's the Earth rotating, the Moon essentially stays still over the course of a day) so it's continues to present only one side. This is the best 3D rendering I can do:
(https://i.imgur.com/JHFkYgV.jpg)
You should also note that the Moon also flips between rise and set. The red/green edge rising first out of the horizon, is the edge that will lead the moon setting on the other horizon. Go out and watch it tonight.
Nothing is wrong with anyone's understanding of how the works on RE. You're just not getting how it works when FE peels it out into basically what amounts to an overhead race track. (Which we can model as a below a blimp racetrack)
Imagine you're up in the Goodyear blimp over a stretch of racetrack, so high you're almost looking straight down on at the cars roofs, can't really see the sides at all. You watch the Number 6 car take the lead, but the people in the MetLife blimp, on the other side of the track, see the Number 9 car pulling ahead. How is this possible? Because the direction you are facing makes a difference.
(https://i.imgur.com/nbkHQwD.jpg)
On FE the image could flip, just not for the same reason as on RE. Still, on FE with it's fake horizon and with the inverted bowl effect (which exists on RE as well), the act of passing under the zenith and turning around could create a similar effect.
This Moon flipping thing between North and South, by itself, could be consistent on a FE (flat plane) model.
It's not consistent with the common FE model of a Moon 3000 miles away though. The Moon still needs to be much more distant and must remain tidally locked (in FE case the o part of the 6/9 always facing the North Pole and 1 side always facing Earth. (Not sure why the Moon would be tidally locked of on Fantasy Earth though, since gravity isn't really supposed to be a thing there.)
Still, the only argument I'm making is:
If taken alone, that is not considering the other factors that make FE Moon conjecture laughable, the inversion of the image between North and South points in the FE model is consistent enough not to falsify the FE conjecture (i.e. it could be consistent with an FE model).
-
Have you read his book? He goes into extreme detail with regards to how his experiments were conducted and the various things he took into account. And I assume you were referring to Alfred Russell Wallace who claimed to take into account refraction, yet Dr Rowbotham himself went into extreme detail as to how he took refraction into account, thereby rendering Wallace's 'experiment' invalid. Dr Rowbotham produced many experiments and the conclusions were the result of the facts. Hence the reason he revealed that the sun is less than 700 miles above the earth.
More importantly, have YOU read his book?
This remark by yourself seems more than a bit off the mark: "Hence the reason he revealed that the sun is less than 700 miles above the earth."
The rest of the FE community is of the opinion that the sun is about 3,000 miles above the earth. Did they get that number from Rowbotham, or another source? If Rowbotham indeed believed the 700 mile number, then the community seems to believe him to be in error.
Incidentally, I DID read the book and passed it off as complete hogwash, which it is, and always will be. It's part pseudo science and part religious proselytizing. Scientifically, it is deserving of no respect whatever, in my opinion. The book was written by a man simply trying desperately to cling to his bizarre interpretation of the Christian religion in the face of all evidence to the contrary. To him, a flat earth was absolutely necessary because, in his interpretation, that's what the bible indicated it to be.
I have. And it's pride of place on my shelf. The Dr Rowbotham presented many facts to back up his experiments, taking different situations into account yet each one proved the point that earth is not a globe.
And I'm not sure where other people get their information from, I can't speak for them. I do, however, trust Dr Rowbothams work.
You need to stop typing "Dr" in front of "Rowbotham."
-
Have you read his book? He goes into extreme detail with regards to how his experiments were conducted and the various things he took into account. And I assume you were referring to Alfred Russell Wallace who claimed to take into account refraction, yet Dr Rowbotham himself went into extreme detail as to how he took refraction into account, thereby rendering Wallace's 'experiment' invalid. Dr Rowbotham produced many experiments and the conclusions were the result of the facts. Hence the reason he revealed that the sun is less than 700 miles above the earth.
More importantly, have YOU read his book?
This remark by yourself seems more than a bit off the mark: "Hence the reason he revealed that the sun is less than 700 miles above the earth."
The rest of the FE community is of the opinion that the sun is about 3,000 miles above the earth. Did they get that number from Rowbotham, or another source? If Rowbotham indeed believed the 700 mile number, then the community seems to believe him to be in error.
Incidentally, I DID read the book and passed it off as complete hogwash, which it is, and always will be. It's part pseudo science and part religious proselytizing. Scientifically, it is deserving of no respect whatever, in my opinion. The book was written by a man simply trying desperately to cling to his bizarre interpretation of the Christian religion in the face of all evidence to the contrary. To him, a flat earth was absolutely necessary because, in his interpretation, that's what the bible indicated it to be.
I have. And it's pride of place on my shelf. The Dr Rowbotham presented many facts to back up his experiments, taking different situations into account yet each one proved the point that earth is not a globe.
And I'm not sure where other people get their information from, I can't speak for them. I do, however, trust Dr Rowbothams work.
You need to stop typing "Dr" in front of "Rowbotham."
And why exactly?
-
Have you read his book? He goes into extreme detail with regards to how his experiments were conducted and the various things he took into account. And I assume you were referring to Alfred Russell Wallace who claimed to take into account refraction, yet Dr Rowbotham himself went into extreme detail as to how he took refraction into account, thereby rendering Wallace's 'experiment' invalid. Dr Rowbotham produced many experiments and the conclusions were the result of the facts. Hence the reason he revealed that the sun is less than 700 miles above the earth.
More importantly, have YOU read his book?
This remark by yourself seems more than a bit off the mark: "Hence the reason he revealed that the sun is less than 700 miles above the earth."
The rest of the FE community is of the opinion that the sun is about 3,000 miles above the earth. Did they get that number from Rowbotham, or another source? If Rowbotham indeed believed the 700 mile number, then the community seems to believe him to be in error.
Incidentally, I DID read the book and passed it off as complete hogwash, which it is, and always will be. It's part pseudo science and part religious proselytizing. Scientifically, it is deserving of no respect whatever, in my opinion. The book was written by a man simply trying desperately to cling to his bizarre interpretation of the Christian religion in the face of all evidence to the contrary. To him, a flat earth was absolutely necessary because, in his interpretation, that's what the bible indicated it to be.
I have. And it's pride of place on my shelf. The Dr Rowbotham presented many facts to back up his experiments, taking different situations into account yet each one proved the point that earth is not a globe.
And I'm not sure where other people get their information from, I can't speak for them. I do, however, trust Dr Rowbothams work.
You need to stop typing "Dr" in front of "Rowbotham."
And why exactly?
What did he receive his doctorate in?
-
Still, the only argument I'm making is:
If taken alone, that is not considering the other factors that make FE Moon conjecture laughable, the inversion of the image between North and South points in the FE model is consistent enough not to falsify the FE conjecture (i.e. it could be consistent with an FE model).
I'm sorry, but you just aren't going to get what it is I'm trying to point out, so I give up.
-
Still, the only argument I'm making is:
If taken alone, that is not considering the other factors that make FE Moon conjecture laughable, the inversion of the image between North and South points in the FE model is consistent enough not to falsify the FE conjecture (i.e. it could be consistent with an FE model).
I'm sorry, but you just aren't going to get what it is I'm trying to point out, so I give up.
I'm can't get your 'point' because what you're trying to point out amounts to 'nu-uh'. Your sticking your fingers in your ears and refusing to listen to good science. I'm not trying to convince you of FE, that's a bunch of bunk. I'm trying to teach about basic geometry and point of view.
I've shown (in two different sets of pictures) a model over a flat plane that an overhead object in which only one face is visible to all observer's, will appear to flip over based solely on the observer crossing underneath and it turning around. You're refusing to believe it.
Did I fake the pictures? If you say, 'No', then what the problem, I've shown 'that flat earthers COULD see the moon as "upside down", when compared to that seen by another viewer, from SOMEWHERE on their "flat earth'. [paraphrasing you]
If you scream 'FAKE'; Welcome to the mindset of the FEer's. Congratulations, you now probably understand their cognitive dissociation better than any other RE in the room.
What you're saying is that such an observation can't happen, ever, at all, under no conditions. You claim is that I should NEVER have been able to take a picture of the 3D cylinder from the flat floor of my office and have the image appear to invert (which I did BTW). You, on the other hand, have provided nothing to backup your claim, A) because you can't really backup 'nu-uh' and B) I've already falsified it.
I've explained it to you in blimp-o-vision. Are you telling me that you think that the peeps in both the Goodyear blimp and the peeps in the MetLife blimp on the other side of the track would both read the number on the race car roof as '6'?
Are you saying a racetrack isn't [relatively] flat?
Or that 2 blimps at similar altitudes aren't on the same plane with the same reference of the direction defined as away from the surface of the Earth?
Then I provided you a drawing that related this concept to a distant object circling overhead (like the FE Moon).
And, then there is my personal favorite, the attempt to obfuscate and confuse a 2D drawing, by injecting you own 3D perspective without considering that when you push (or pull) the Moon around in the Z direction, you have to rotate it so the back side continues to face away from everyone, confuse a card taped to the ceiling on edge as a fair depiction of the Moon's image, have me make a 3D cylinder, but then say, you're the one whose been "trying to deal with a two dimensional representation of the moon, disregarding its third dimension for the purposes of this discussion".
Maybe it's my fault for taping a card up, perhaps if I had drawn the Moon on my ceiling in permanent marker, you would have realized that I had the ink oriented in the proper direction to begin with? I'm not sure why you're having trouble understanding that turning around is sufficient to to invert the Moon image.
Maybe it's because this is the FE site, had you read this elsewhere you might been more open minded to the idea that there is not a preferred direction of 'top' on a flat plane.
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/46-our-solar-system/the-moon/observing-the-moon/135-does-the-moon-look-different-in-the-northern-and-southern-hemispheres-beginner
I'm not surprised they noticed a difference in the appearance of the moon. Had they tilted their head and looked at the Moon upside down, it would have looked normal (to them anyway). In short, the moon looks upside down in the southern hemisphere (or in your case the moon would look upside down in the northern hemisphere). I noticed exactly the same thing on my first trip to southern hemisphere.
To understand why this happens, imagine for simplicity that the orbit of the Moon was exactly in the same plane as the Earth's equator. From the northern hemisphere, the Moon is in the southern sky because that's the direction of the Earth's equator. In the southern hemisphere the situation is reversed. Now imagine that you are standing on the equator. The Moon would be directly overhead. First face north and look straight up at the Moon. It should look like it does in Australia. Now turn and face south and look at the Moon. You are now looking at the Moon flipped from how it looked when facing north. This is how the moon looks in the northern hemisphere to your American friends.
The equator is a special place because the moon is overhead (at least in our thought experiment), and there's no preferred viewing direction. At higher or lower latitudes there is a preferred direction, namely the one when you're standing on your feet and not your hands, so you really only see the moon in one orientation.
Key points:
The orbit of the Moon was exactly in the same plane as the Earth's equator. = On flat earth, the Moon ALWAYS orbits in the same plane of the equator.
The equator is a special place because the moon is overhead (at least in our thought experiment), and there's no preferred viewing direction. = When the viewing plane is parallel to orbital plane, there is no preferred viewing direction.
From the northern hemisphere, the Moon is in the southern sky because that's the direction of the Earth's equator. In the southern hemisphere the situation is reversed. = On FE, turning around reverses your viewing direction.
At higher or lower latitudes there is a preferred direction, namely the one when you're standing on your feet and not your hands, so you really only see the moon in one orientation. = The is only a preferred direction on RE, a model where people can be upside down while still standing on their feet, but this only applies to higher and lower latitudes.
-
the point of view FE argument is fine except it's not the angular displacement of the moon with respect to the viewer. it's with respect to the horizon. it should not change in FE. simultaneous observation and correspondence betwen the northern and southern hemisphere will show you the horizon flipped. (RE).
-
Yes, the moon "flipping" is not an issue in FET.
Yes, the theories of Ancient Greek continuous perspective do predict that we should be able to see the side of the moon when viewed from an angle. However we questions those assumptions. See my comments in this thread (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6673.msg121826#msg121826).
-
with respect to horizon.
wrt horizon!
are you obfuscating, tom?
we are not talking about greek continuous perspective flipping anything 180.
take 2 points above the horizon(A&B). align them such that a straight line joining them is parallel to the horizon. does it remain parallel to the horizon as you pass across the flat earth? yes. yes, it does. despite the fact the the points switch from A is closer to B is closer.
-
Yes, the moon "flipping" is not an issue in FET.
Yes, the theories of Ancient Greek continuous perspective do predict that we should be able to see the side of the moon when viewed from an angle. However we questions those assumptions. See my comments in this thread (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6673.msg121826#msg121826).
The assumption are shown to be accurate at the distance from the Earth to the Moon & Sun in an FE model. If they were not, the path of totality during the solar eclipse would be vastly different than what is observed.
As seen in this scale cross-section, in order for both observers (4666 miles apart) to see the same portion of the Lunar surface, a perspective effect or a non-continuous universe could (and would have to) bend their field of view, as depicted by the uncolored sight lines. However, under these conditions, both observers (and presumably every one in between) would also view a 100% total Solar Eclipse.
(https://i.imgur.com/AdgFy9k.jpg)
The actual path of totality of the Solar Eclipse is much narrower and the observed % totality at various locations is not consistent with a model invoking non-Euclidean geometries or non-continuous universe.
The observations seem to more closely match the Euclidean geometry predictions in a continuous universe, as depicted by the colored fields of view, indicating that people 2333 miles from the path of totality would not observe a 100% total eclipse (if they seen any eclipse at all).
(https://i.imgur.com/Ix27ESd.jpg)
Time of maxim and % totality confirmed from Corpus Christi, Pittsburgh, points along the path of totality and everywhere else that an eclipse did not occur
-
pretty graphics.
not sure it's relevant though.
-
pretty graphics.
not sure it's relevant though.
Thank you, I did the cross-sectional line-drawing, the Eclipse map was one I found on the internet from a non-governmental source (i.e. not NASA).
As for the relevancy:
It was noted that Ancient Greek theories perspective do predict that we [observers] should be able to see [different] sides of the moon when viewed from an [different] angle [like when standing thousands of miles apart]. This presents a problem in the FE model as this isn't what we actually observe.
The poster presented, in order to reconcile the discrepancy between prediction and observation, the argument that those ancient theories are incorrect, some phenomena, such a curved space, electromagnetic acceleration or incomplete model of the perspective, causes the observers to both see the Moon from the same angle.
The line drawing, shows via the uncolored and slightly curving lines, the reconciling conjecture, that somehow the observer's field of view is bent so all observer's see the same Lunar surface.
To counter this argument, a study of the Solar Eclipse was presented:
The curving lines of the reconciling conjecture appear to predict that all observers would view a 100% Total Solar Eclipse, due to the phenomena bending their fields of view to observer in a nearly straight up direction, and would occur at the same moment for all observers.
The predictions of the straight colored fields of view [representing that space is not curved, photons generally travel in straight lines and the RE model of perspective are correct] indicate observers 2333 miles from the path of totality would be unlikely to see the Eclipse and implies that the % of totality would decrease proportionally to the distance viewed from the path of totality. Additionally, the point of totality would sweep along a path West to East, so the local time of the eclipse maxim would vary by longitude.
To summarize:
The Eclipse map shows the RE prediction [the straight colored lines].
The FE prediction, based on alternate perspective conjecture discussed here and in the linked thread, predicts all (or nearly all) observers in the daylight zone would see a 100% total Eclipse all at the same time.
The result:
The actual observations of the August 21, 2017 Solar Eclipse are consistent with the RE model prediction. During the Eclipse the path of totality is relatively narrow and the % totality observable decrease with the distance the observer is away from the path of totality, with the eclipse maxim occurring at different time based on the observer's longitude.
The FE model prediction is found to be wildly inaccurate. And, you simply can't have the view bend to see the Moon from the same angle while simultaneously have it not bend to see the Eclipse from different angles.
This would suggest that the FE conjecture of light bending (for whatever reason) is false and we can discount any conjecture that results in a curvature in space or the general path a photon takes, at least to the distance of the Moon. It also suggests, that perspective and geometry function as theorized by the Ancient Greeks, at least to the distance of the Moon and that the Moon is significantly farther away than 3000(ish) miles.
-
oh, ok. seems to have gone further than the point of the OP, but i think i get the your point.
round abouts.
-
sorry, images went down but are back up
-
If you want to make any further claims for what the moon does with reference to the local terrain, then you should provide evidence for those assertions. What we got was "well if you look at the scenery.. the moon will do this" and when questioned on that we were told to go travel the world and see for ourselves.
That's not how it works. Your claim, your burden.
Can you show me what the moon looks like in South America?
I have made no claim on that.
my own claim is demonstrated in the original post