[Bobby Shafto]

Open topic (of course) but directed toward Tom Bishop (who asked that this be split off to a separate topic).

In answering explanations for how a full moon is possible in the globe earth model, you (Tom) said:

If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Fair enough. Can we discard these claims then that serve as explanatory claims for a full moon on a flat earth?

TFES Wiki

"The moon is a sphere. It has a diameter of 32 miles and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth."

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

Show me evidence for how a sun can illuminate a moon, both of which are above the surface plane of the earth such that a full moon ("bottom" of the moon, remember) can be seen from earth.

Can you model (or just diagram) that and show me evidence of how that can work?

[Bobby Shafto]

Here's a cross-section of flat earth with sun and moon 3000 miles (or so) above the earth's surface:


Fix the diagram or move the moon to where it would be so that its "bottom" is fully illuminated by the sun resulting in a full moon visible from earth.

[iamcpc]

Here's a cross-section of flat earth with sun and moon 3000 miles (or so) above the earth's surface:


Fix the diagram or move the moon to where it would be so that its "bottom" is fully illuminated by the sun resulting in a full moon visible from earth.

Bobby,

I've done research on this.





This is a circular, ice wall, no dome flat earth model. In this model the full moon is determined based on how close you are to the middle of the circle.

[ICanScienceThat]

Here's a cross-section of flat earth with sun and moon 3000 miles (or so) above the earth's surface:


Fix the diagram or move the moon to where it would be so that its "bottom" is fully illuminated by the sun resulting in a full moon visible from earth.

Bobby,

I've done research on this.





This is a circular, ice wall, no dome flat earth model. In this model the full moon is determined based on how close you are to the middle of the circle.

In that video, aren't they showing a full moon in the north at the same time as a new moon in the south? Is this the pro-FE explanation?

[MCToon]

Here's a cross-section of flat earth with sun and moon 3000 miles (or so) above the earth's surface:


Fix the diagram or move the moon to where it would be so that its "bottom" is fully illuminated by the sun resulting in a full moon visible from earth.

Bobby,

I've done research on this.

This is a circular, ice wall, no dome flat earth model. In this model the full moon is determined based on how close you are to the middle of the circle.

This video claims that northern viewers see a full moon when southern viewers see a new moon.

The image Bobby provided illustrates the spotlight effect, a central claim to the day-night cycle for flat earth.  The moon would reside outside the spotlight for most of the 28 day lunar cycle.  How would the moon be illuminated by the spotlight sun?

Are you really going to present this as an explanation?

[Bobby Shafto]

No offense, but I'd like to avoid a "but Tom said" discussion with others.  This is a public board and topic, of course, but I posted this in response to Tom, who asked that I move it out of the other topic and into a new one.

So, while I  appreciate you globe-ists wanting to chime in, this is mainly for Tom, OR whoever endorses/composed the current wiki pages on the moon.

[iamcpc]

In that video, aren't they showing a full moon in the north at the same time as a new moon in the south?

yes

Is this the pro-FE explanation?

It is for this particular model.

One thing you have to understand is that there are dozens of earth models. This is the explanation for one specific flat earth model.

[iamcpc]

No offense, but I'd like to avoid a "but Tom said" discussion with others.  This is a public board and topic, of course, but I posted this in response to Tom, who asked that I move it out of the other topic and into a new one.

So, while I  appreciate you globe-ists wanting to chime in, this is mainly for Tom, OR whoever endorses/composed the current wiki pages on the moon.

I believe you have answered this question yourself

How about this?

Combination of spotlight effect and upward curving of sunlight:

the light from the sun is curving upwards to shine on the moon allowing a spotlight sun and an illuminated moon

[Bobby Shafto]

I believe you have answered this question yourself...the light from the sun is curving upwards to shine on the moon allowing a spotlight sun and an illuminated moon

No. I don't want my answer. Nor an everything-and-the-kitchen-sink devil's advocate answer. I'm asking for an integregated, internally consistent answer given the unambiguous declarations in the wiki, to which Tom avers.

If you're going to forward EAT in the model, you can't promote perspective. If you claim perspective, you can't rely on EAT.

If you want to play the part of FE, take it seriously and don't just play a caricature. If that's how Tom or some other FE advocate wants to defend the FE model, let him do it.

If a RE full moon is impossible because a giant distant sun-earth-moon geometry can't perfectly align without the earth eclipsing the sun, then how can a near small moon appear fully illuminated by an equally small, near sun, both of which are on a perpendicular plane above earth?

I can't work it out, even if the spotlight sun is abandoned. The giant Rubik's cube perspective rationale for why the "bottom" of the full moon is visible from all night portions of flat earth didn't make sense to me, but if committed to that, you can't rely on EAT to solve the geometry.

[Pete Svarrior]

Why would you start a thread and then complain about literally every answer you get? Tom clearly asked you to stop posting off-topic in another thread - that is by no means an indication that he'd rush to discuss the other subject with you. None of your complaints are valid, and the OP's approval for where a thread ends up going is irrelevant.

[StevieCRT]

Can someone explain to me how shadows are cast from the moon onto the Earth and vice versa?

[Tumeni]

Why would you start a thread and then complain about literally every answer you get? Tom clearly asked you to stop posting off-topic in another thread - that is by no means an indication that he'd rush to discuss the other subject with you.

It is, because Tom suggested himself that if another thread were started, that he would participate;

Can you please repost that in the Flat Earth Theory forum, or can we get a moderator split that. We can go over the Flat Earth perspective/electromagnetic accelerator explanations there, and maybe improve the Wiki article. I'm looking at ICanScienceThat's video that he made and would prefer to keep on this topic.

No?

[Pete Svarrior]

That's not how it reads to me, but of course that's entirely subjective. Even then, just complaining that people are responding to your thread is unlikely to help.

[ICanScienceThat]

Can someone explain to me how shadows are cast from the moon onto the Earth and vice versa?

Yes. Happy to. Although, I can explain it for RE only.

Here's the Moon's shadow on the Earth:
Here's the Earth's shadow on the Moon:

Those are pretty non-technical. If you have a more specific question, I'd be happy to help you find a more detailed explanation.

[Tom Bishop]

Here is the perspective theory response:

Open topic (of course) but directed toward Tom Bishop (who asked that this be split off to a separate topic).

In answering explanations for how a full moon is possible in the globe earth model, you (Tom) said:

If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

That's right Bobby. You are using the Ancient Greeks Continuous Universe perspective model as a disproof. Where did the Ancient Greeks ever demonstrate their perspective model and their concept of perspective lines that receded infinitely, linearly, and continuously into the distance?

Can you show that the perspective lines are infinite, that they don't meet, or anything else about that model?

Since the assumptions and axioms in your disproof are without evidence, it can be discarded without evidence.

I see that you are making a number of assumptions in your post. You are assuming that the sun is a literal spotlight, that perspecitve is as the Ancient Greeks describe, that the rules of Euclid have been proven to be true, that the sun and moon are increasing and decreasing their altitudes in vertical lines, among other things. You are mixing in your assumptions about the Flat Earth model with your school-taught hypothesis of a perfect universe.

A full perspective theory is still in its infancy, but right now I will point you to the "Why do we se the same face of the moon" thread we had recently.

In the Flat Earth model, if the moon is above the altitude of the sun, the sun will see its underside. If the moon is below the altitude of the sun, the sun will see the top of the moon. Your idea of how the relation works in Ancient Greek Perspective Theory would need to be first demonstrated true, before we can say that perspective operates or scales in that manner.

[Tom Bishop]

There exist non-Euclidean geometries that do not use Euclid's postulates.

Consider Projective Geometry. It is a form of geometry that was created empirically, rather than based on a hypothetical  concept of a perfect universe. The perspective lines are finite, and meet in the distance. It is used in computer graphics and other areas.

There are a large number of other finite geometries as well, a number of which reject Elucid's parallel line postulate entirely.

To say for certain what should or should not happen in the distance would require thorough study of the world and how perspective behaves at various distances. Since the Ancient Greeks could not provide evidence for their model, that model can be discarded.

[Bobby Shafto]

That's right Bobby. You are using the Ancient Greeks Continuous Universe perspective model as a disproof.

I am? I don't even know what the "Ancient Greeks Continuous Universe perspective model" is. Is it what underlies the concept that "in order to see a full moon with 100% totality, you would need to be looking at the moon's daylight side face-on?"

I can't reproduce your apparently non-Greek version of "perspective" in the real world. If you could just explain, or better yet demonstrate with a practical model, or even just  diagram, how the sun illuminates the moon in a flat earth configuration such that anyone with a view to the moon will see it "full." You're just throwing the word "perspective" out like it's a magic cure-all answer. Where's the evidence that perspective answers the challenge?  I saw where you expressed disdain for RE propensity to rely on "refraction" to explain any observation that challenges earth's rotundity. You're doing the same thing, but with "perspective."

Show me an alignment of sun and moon over a flat earth that will create a full moon illumination for people on the night side of earth. I don't know about the Greeks, but I can't do it. Seems impossible to me. Even more impossible than a full moon in RE.  I say it can't be done. Prove that it can. Show me evidence that a 100% full moon on flat earth can work.

[Bobby Shafto]

You are assuming that the sun is a literal spotlight...

I do the best I can with the description FE has given me. If the spotlight nature of the sun isn't literal, what is it? A metaphor?

Of course I assume the sun is a literal spotlight. How could I not?

Heck, we can ditch the spotlight "assumption" entirely. You still can't solve the full moon problem even if the sun beams omnidirectionally unless you invoke more un-evidenced, ad hoc rationalizations.

[Bobby Shafto]

A full perspective theory is still in its infancy, but right now I will point you to the "Why do we se the same face of the moon" thread we had recently.

In the Flat Earth model, if the moon is above the altitude of the sun, the sun will see its underside. If the moon is below the altitude of the sun, the sun will see the top of the moon. Your idea of how the relation works in Ancient Greek Perspective Theory would need to be first demonstrated true, before we can say that perspective operates or scales in that manner.

Again with the Ancient Greek stuff. I'm trying to be zetetic here. I'm not assuming any Greek theory. Have you tried to model your Rubik's cube illustration. I have. It doesn't work. You're the self-claimed empiricist. Don't just say it works. Show it.

For the moon to be full, it can't be out of alignment from the sun. Just like you argued for RE. The geometry based on the claimed form and magnitude "assumptions" of FE wiki make it impossible. If that's not true -- if it's possible -- show how. That's the point of this topic.

[lookatmooninUKthenAUS]

There is absolutely no need to be banging on about different types of geometry here.

It should be simple to draw a basic line drawing that shows where the suns rays go in order to create full and partial (phases of the) moon.

Indeed the phases of the moon are the best evidence we have that our moon is a globe. The shadows generated could only be made by a spherical object casting its shadow as the sun orbits behind it emitting light radially in all directions. A circular disk shaped Earth would not produce the same regular arrangement of shapes throughout the month.

As for the full moon problem.....QUITE! Lets just see a simple line drawing by a FE supporter explaining it. IT CANT BE DONE!