721

Flat Earth Theory / Question about the motion of the Moon

« on: August 22, 2017, 12:43:58 PM »

Can someone explain to me how the Moon supposedly bobs up and down? (resulting in the solar eclipse)
The problems I see:
There has to be a force acting on the Moon to cause it to dip below the Sun since they normally share the same orbital height.
The Moon should look larger when it is closer to us and yet it doesn't. (no, the optical illusion of a large Moon on the horizon doesn't count. If you take a picture, you'll see the Moon is actually the same size)
How is it that the Moon and Sun haven't collided?
If the Sun and Moon orbit each other, what would ever cause the Moon to dip below and move across the Sun? That would be like the Moon dipping below the south pole and coming up the other side in the round Earth scenario.
Many thanks!

722

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Earth Questions

« on: August 22, 2017, 12:36:11 PM »

I want to go into this by saying I'm a researcher working in geosciences and physics but will make an effort not to discuss things I haven't personally observed, I believe that is what I am expected to do, correct? I would like to start a series based on personal questions I have about flat earth theory.

Q1. What causes us to return to Earth when we step off a high bridge? Does gravity exist in flat-earth theory? If so, what causes it? - in physics it is understood gravity is caused by mass which is equivalent to energy and therefore objects are moving from a lower potential (distance) to a higher potential (close) in an energy field. This is based on observations of object behaviour in electric and magnetic fields for example.

Flat Earthers will tell you the Earth is undergoing steady acceleration. Now, they will also tell you that there is actual gravity that keeps the moon and planets in orbit and affects the tides. They won't, however, tell you how this gravitational attraction doesn't cause the Sun and Moon to collide with Earth.

723

Flat Earth Community / Re: Nevermind the Earth, what about the Heavens?

« on: August 22, 2017, 02:37:46 AM »

The eclipse today was an excellent example of how much we really do know. I knew down to the minute when the eclipse would start, when it would reach maximum for my location, and when it would end. I also know that in 7 years, another total eclipse is going to pass right over where I live. In order to pull that off, astronomers have to know the exact (more or less) sizes, distances, relative locations, and relative motion of the Earth, Moon and Sun. That is extremely impressive when you think about it. Maybe that can be a source of trust that they know what is going on up there. This doesn't even touch on the cyclical meteor showers and comet visits that occur. Not to mention the actual spacecraft we have orbiting other plants right now. They know what is up, if you'll forgive the pun.

724

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The phases of the moon

« on: August 22, 2017, 01:46:06 AM »

https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Phases_of_the_Moon

When one observes the phases of the moon he sees the moon's day and night, a shadow created from the sun illuminating half of the spherical moon at any one time.

The lunar phases vary cyclically according to the changing geometry of the Moon and Sun, which are constantly wobbling up and down and exchange altitudes as they rotate around the North Pole.

When the moon and sun are at the same altitude one half of the lunar surface is illuminated and pointing towards the sun, This is called the First Quarter Moon. When the observer looks up he will see a shadow cutting the moon in half. The boundary between the illuminated and unilluminated hemispheres is called the terminator.

When the moon is below the sun's altitude the moon is dark and a New Moon occurs.

When the moon is above the altitude of the sun the moon is fully lit and a Full Moon occurs.

The time between two full moons, or between successive occurrences of the same phase, is about 29.53 days (29 days, 12 hours, 44 minutes) on average. This denotes the cycle of alternating altitudes.

Also check out the Moon's Monthly Analemma. We can see it moving up and downwards over the course of its lunar cycle in relation the the ecliptic:

http://www.skymarvels.com/news2010-10.htm

According the above quoted Wiki article Flat Earth Theory predicts that a Solar Eclipse would occur when the Moon is below the plane of the sun and between the Sun and observer. Today is Solar Eclipse day and according to the Moon Phase calendar, today is a New Moon, meaning that it is at its lowest. Prediction has met reality.

What force acts upon the moon to make it bob up and down? It would have to be a massive force. Also, why does the moon not change size during this bobbing up and down relative to the distance it would have to move?

725

Flat Earth Community / Re: Nevermind the Earth, what about the Heavens?

« on: August 22, 2017, 01:43:25 AM »

So what do you want people here to tell you? You're all over the place and your questions have been answered. If you don't trust then go do the research. As far as the heavens go, our ships and probes get where they are going. That is a start. Look up how the distance to the sun was calculated before NASA existed. I don't know what more you expect from a forum.

726

Flat Earth Community / Re: Reminder: The Moon Covers the Sun in Total Eclipse Because 'Coincidence'

« on: August 22, 2017, 01:23:28 AM »

Just a friendly reminder to everyone who saw the eclipse today. Despite that the sun's diameter is hundreds of times larger than moon and millions of miles distant, the sun and moon appear to be the same size from earth and fit perfectly into each other during the Solar Eclipse. The official scientific reason for this is that it is a coincidence.

Yes, Tom told the truth! It is a coincidence that the sizes and distances match up as they do. Good thing we don't live in the FE model or else the Sun and Moon would collide and we would be goners for sure!

727

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Distance debate based on poll results

« on: August 21, 2017, 09:28:58 PM »

Since this is all "known" and "proven" (your words), please provide this proof. Provide evidence that:

- GPS predicted distances are accurate
- Round Earth Latitude and Longitude are accurate
- Aircraft cruise speeds are measured in a way that does not use a Round Earth coordinate system

If you are making any of these claims, it is your burden to back up your argument and demonstrate it.

And herein lies the problem. Tom won't accept any evidence as valid. Period. We use GPS all day every day to get where we are going be it aircraft, shipping, or cars, but that isn't good enough. He wants things measured in a way that does not rely on RE coordinates. He knows that that is highly unlikely since the Earth is round and all coordinate systems reflect that. FE doesn't even have a workable map and yet the RE crowd is supposed to screw with their measurement systems? He even acknowledges the existence of GPS which is satellite based, but still clings to a dead theory.

Tom, if you are claiming the Earth is flat, the burden is on YOU. Prove that it is flat. I would love to see that.

728

Flat Earth Community / Re: Nevermind the Earth, what about the Heavens?

« on: August 21, 2017, 01:43:30 AM »

Why does he have to trust authority? Why can't he know for himself?

Well......"The distance from New York to Paris is unknown."

QFT - Tom also doesn't know why the sun and moon supposedly bob up and down in the sky, he just trusts that they do based on zero evidence.

729

Flat Earth Community / Re: Nevermind the Earth, what about the Heavens?

« on: August 21, 2017, 01:39:16 AM »

I'll trust them enough to listen to what they're saying, but that's it, if I have questions, I'll ask them, and if I spot what I think are holes in what they're saying, I'll call them out.
I'm not going to trust their claims without something I can empirically verify.

What makes you think that you are even remotely qualified or capable of verifying things empirically? I don't mean that in a nasty way, but what training or special mental capabilities do you possess that qualifies you to verify everything? No one can verify everything.

The trust thing - you don't have to trust one teacher or individual. You trust the body of knowledge because it has been tested an verified to the extents possible. Nothing is 100%, but we have amassed a lot of knowledge that people use to get work done. Do you ever doubt that flipping the light switch in your home will result in the light coming on? (assuming there isn't a blackout, of course) Did you ever verify that quadrillions of electrons are flowing back and forth 60x every second in the light bulb? No, you don't have to or need to. People have already figured it out and it works. You can use that knowledge reliably, but you can't empirically verify it. Nothing in life is 100% and eventually, you either trust that the whole world isn't pulling the wool over your eyes, or you go down the rabbit hole and start believing things like the Earth is flat even though we can and have proven over and over and over again that is certainly not.

730

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Are there any FE who think it's NOT the moon causing the eclipse?

« on: August 20, 2017, 10:19:51 PM »

I also searched the wiki and got the same results. All lunar. The FEers probably won't touch this one with any real comments. A shadow object??? LOL, they just keep making stuff up so they don't have to admit their pet theory is wrong.

Question for those that think this shadow object is real - has it ever been observed blocking out any star light or the planets?

731

Flat Earth Community / Re: Nevermind the Earth, what about the Heavens?

« on: August 20, 2017, 10:14:55 PM »

Everyone to their own beliefs.
I have made this apology before, but I believe that if you had never worked in some job that depended on the earth being round, you might be taken into this flat earth nonsense.
If you want to learn about something, you have to do some study of it.
You have to do that in the real world.

We're not talking about FET now, we're talking about the layout of the heavens.
Have you ever been to an astronomical observatory, and if so, how did it help you prove the Sun was 149.6 million kilometers from the earth?
I'm not saying you don't have proof, maybe you do, I just want to see and interpret it for myself.

Then become an astronomer. Don't be taken in by people with claims that sound good. Go learn the subject. I can make a very valid-sounding case for FET, but it would be mostly a lie with enough legitimate stuff tacked on to make it sound plausible. That is how all of these fringe theories survive. Given real scrutiny, they fall apart, but they sound just good enough for curious minds to latch onto. And they are kind of fun to read about.

732

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sunrise and Sunset II

« on: August 20, 2017, 10:07:13 PM »

Yes, this theory makes WAY more sense than the simple fact that we live on a globe orbiting a star. If you have to keep adding a bunch of unproven nonsense to your hypothesis to make it viable, you're probably wrong. Multiple suns, suns that sink into water or mud pits, get a grip on reality man.

As for the goofy dancing sun video, it looks like someone messing with the exposure levels on their camera. I'd bet money on it. (And I would win)

733

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Question about tides/gravity

« on: August 20, 2017, 09:54:21 PM »

What force keeps the Moon from crashing into the Earth given this attraction?

I might be placing a wrong answer, but maybe it will be interseting for you.

So you post a link to some video of the sun rising and you claim it is rising out of a lake or ocean? Give me a break. Are there any serious FEers, or is this site just have a handful of goofs making stuff up. As for your sun video, it is purely light refraction. Honestly, if an incredibly hot ball of plasma was in water, can you even begin to comprehend the amount of steam that would be generated?? Also, having a 32 mile wide object submerge into the ocean would cause massive tsunamis. But hey, lets just make stuff up and call it real.

As for the visual effect, you can create a similar effect by bringing your thumb and pointer finger very close together, but not touching. Do it in a dark room while sitting in front of your computer screen. Helps if your hand is close to your eye when you do it.

734

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why space launches?

« on: August 20, 2017, 09:44:04 PM »

None of this reptile nonsense even relates to my question, which no FEer can explain. If you think there are alien shape shifters controlling the world, get help for your mental condition before you become a danger to yourself or others. Fact is, while there are almost certainly other life forms in our galaxy, none of them are here controlling our world. We are alone on this rock, separated from any other world by distances so vast as to be insurmountable. Humans haven't even been making our presence known for long enough to be detected by many civilizations, let alone any advanced enough to travel here in a short time period. (with the ability to shape shift, lol. This is high school level daydreaming)

735

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Airplanes lit from below

« on: August 19, 2017, 03:35:16 PM »

Yes, you've shared this video before. But that doesn't change light. The sun will never go below an 8.5 degree angle from the observer. Fact. Light travels in a straight line. Fact. Ergo, light can never come at you from an angle of less than 8.5 degrees. Perspective is a visual trick of the eyes, as I showed you with your wiki's own example of flat Kansas. The ground still appears to rise to eye level right? Parallel lines converging in the distance is a visual illusion. They never converge, because they are parallel. The ground rising to eye level in the distance is a visual illusion (assuming a flat ground) as the ground doesn't actually rise to that level. The sun sinking below the horizon due to perspective, is a visual illusion on a FE. But the measured rays of light, cannot go below an angle of 8.5 degrees (more like 15 degrees for any reasonable approximation of Earth's size).

How do you know that it's an illusion that the perspective lines converge and that they do not really converge? Is it because you said the word "Fact."?

Tom, what causes the Sun and Moon to look larger when they are on the horizon? Wouldn't your interpretation of perspective preclude this? Also, I would appreciate your comments on my previous post as I do feel they point out some very obvious problems with how you try to use perspective to explain the setting of the Sun.

736

Flat Earth Theory / Question about tides/gravity

« on: August 19, 2017, 03:27:04 PM »

I read the wiki on tides, but it didn't have much info. As we know, large bodies of water (and land, ftm) go through regular tidal changes caused by the gravitational pull of the Sun and Moon. FET claims the tides are caused by the gravitational pull of stars. It also states that the Moon has some gravitational attraction, which helps cause the tides. This raises a very important question. What force keeps the Moon from crashing into the Earth given this attraction?

737

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Airplanes lit from below

« on: August 19, 2017, 04:16:20 AM »

But that doesn't make them physically at the height of your eye, any more than the sun doing it would.

In a 360 degree circle around you the horizon is at 90 degrees. Does it not follow that those photons on the horizon are arriving at 90 degrees?

The interesting thing about this comment is that you are actually proving that the Earth is round and simply don't realize it. Yes, if the horizon is 90 degrees, and the sun is on the horizon, the photons will arrive from that angle. This is critical. In FET, the sun will NEVER truly be on the horizon. Train tracks are often used in matters of perspective, so let's use them in an example. Let's suppose you have a laser point on a roller and a detector at the starting point. If you sent the pointer down the track it would appear to your eye to move to towards the other track as they converged VISUALLY. The beam of light, however, would stay on the detector. It would never change. This is the same with a never setting sun. It may APPEAR to be moving towards the horizon, but it isn't. Not even a little.

The Earth is round. Many nations have gone into space in one fashion or another. Private companies are now going into space. How long can you keep deluding yourself? And my importantly, why???

An alternative explanation is that the Ancient Greeks did not really understand how perspective works at large distances.

Where did they ever prove their theory that two parallel perspective lines will approach each other for eternity but never touch?

I couldn't care less about the ancient Greeks. The rest of the world has advanced in our understanding of optics and how the brain works. I am discussing real, verifiable facts. For the last time PERSPECTIVE DOESN'T CHANGE WHERE AN OBJECT IS LOCATED!!! A light source above an object will NEVER directly illuminate the bottom of it. You treat perspective like it something it is not. The train track example proves exactly what I am talking about, but you ignored that...

738

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Airplanes lit from below

« on: August 18, 2017, 11:57:41 PM »

But that doesn't make them physically at the height of your eye, any more than the sun doing it would.

In a 360 degree circle around you the horizon is at 90 degrees. Does it not follow that those photons on the horizon are arriving at 90 degrees?

The interesting thing about this comment is that you are actually proving that the Earth is round and simply don't realize it. Yes, if the horizon is 90 degrees, and the sun is on the horizon, the photons will arrive from that angle. This is critical. In FET, the sun will NEVER truly be on the horizon. Train tracks are often used in matters of perspective, so let's use them in an example. Let's suppose you have a laser point on a roller and a detector at the starting point. If you sent the pointer down the track it would appear to your eye to move to towards the other track as they converged VISUALLY. The beam of light, however, would stay on the detector. It would never change. This is the same with a never setting sun. It may APPEAR to be moving towards the horizon, but it isn't. Not even a little.

The Earth is round. Many nations have gone into space in one fashion or another. Private companies are now going into space. How long can you keep deluding yourself? And my importantly, why???

739

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Airplanes lit from below

« on: August 18, 2017, 08:24:33 PM »

The plane is lit from the side.

Yes, the light is coming from the side. The sun is 90 degrees from zenith at sunset. Therefore the light is intersecting you horizontally from the side.

If it is 90 degrees from zenith, then it is one the horizon. Earth is round. Perspective, and please read this carefully, does NOT change positions of objects. The sun, according to FET NEVER GETS LOWER TO THE GROUND. (at least substantially since I guess the sun and moon magically bob around up there) Light travels in a straight line and will never illuminate the bottoms of clouds, etc, yet you can see this every day. You misuse perspective to huge extent and you know it.

740

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Airplanes lit from below

« on: August 17, 2017, 12:38:53 PM »

It's not being lit from below, it's being lit from the side. The horizon line rises to the level of the eye and the sun disappears into it via perspective.

I see planes lit from the bottom all the time. Even more convincing is that fact that you can go out any morning/evening when their are some clouds in the sky and see they are lit from the bottom. Perspective cannot cause light to illuminate the underside of clouds if the light source is above the clouds. Your willingness to ignore evidence that you are clearly wrong, while basing your views on outdated material, is very odd.