[InquisitiveREer]

I have noticed that while this site will work immensely hard to prove the possibility of a flat earth there seams to be a lack on how a round earth is not possible. So I am asking any and all members of the Flat Earth Society to tell me how a Round Earth Does NOT Work.

Fore those on the side of a Round Earth Please wait for The Flat Earth Society to respond before posting your own theories.

[Tom Bishop]

I have noticed that while this site will work immensely hard to prove the possibility of a flat earth there seams to be a lack on how a round earth is not possible. So I am asking any and all members of the Flat Earth Society to tell me how a Round Earth Does NOT Work.

Fore those on the side of a Round Earth Please wait for The Flat Earth Society to respond before posting your own theories.

Here is a simple observation. The next time you see the sun and the moon in the sky at the same time notice that the phase of the moon never points at the sun. The angle is often wildly off.

How is this possible?

Example:



Here is another:

[Tom Bishop]

The answer we have gotten before is a reference to a "celestial sphere," with a vauge argument that when we look up at the sky it is like looking at a curved planetarium surface. But this is assuming that the celestial bodies are painted on a curved sphere of glass around the earth. It doesn't really make sense in geometric space.

If we are standing in space, the moon should always point at the sun, no matter where we stand around the moon.

If, instead of a moon and sun, we have an arrow pointing at a sphere in a digital 3D environment, at what angle would we have to stand where the arrow is NOT pointing at the sphere? It doesn't make sense. The arrow should always be pointing at the sphere, from wherever we look at the scene.

[Curious Squirrel]

The answer we have gotten before is a reference to a "celestial sphere," with a vauge argument that when we look up at the sky it is like looking at a curved planetarium surface. But this is assuming that the celestial bodies are painted on a curved sphere of glass around the earth. It doesn't really make sense in geometric space.

If we are standing in space, the moon should always point at the sun, no matter where we stand around the moon.

If, instead of a moon and sun, we have an arrow pointing at a sphere in a digital 3D environment, at what angle would we have to stand where the arrow is NOT pointing at the sphere? It doesn't make sense. The arrow should always be pointing at the sphere, from wherever we look at the scene.

You were also told to hold a string up and stretch it between the moon and the sun, and this would show the moon's lit face pointing at the sun. The few who tried it acknowledged this worked, while you attempted to argue there was some form of duplicity inherent in the experiment and refused to even attempt it, whether with a string or a straight edge. I seem to recall Junker even chiming in that the string trick worked, although I would need to go digging to verify this for sure. You need to stop dismissing explanations simply because you either don't understand them, or don't think they can be correct by glancing at them. Your video, and by extension the picture, don't take into account some optical issues to do with the sky being a sphere.

[Tom Bishop]

Another argument wee have gotten is "perspective" causes it, like the corners of a room may me misaligned to perspective as so:





But, how could perspective cause it if the sun and moon are so distant? The room perspective explanation only works if the sun and moon are getting significantly closer and further from you over the day as they pass by. This is not so when the sun is supposed to be 93 million miles away at all times.

For this room perspective explanation to work with such celestial distances the difference in distance would also have to be on a similar magnitude.

[Tom Bishop]

You were also told to hold a string up and stretch it between the moon and the sun, and this would show the moon's lit face pointing at the sun.

One of the examples I quoted was taken one hour after sunset. The moon is still pointing into the sky. How does your string example make sense?

The few who tried it acknowledged this worked, while you attempted to argue there was some form of duplicity inherent in the experiment and refused to even attempt it, whether with a string or a straight edge. I seem to recall Junker even chiming in that the string trick worked, although I would need to go digging to verify this for sure. You need to stop dismissing explanations simply because you either don't understand them, or don't think they can be correct by glancing at them. Your video, and by extension the picture, don't take into account some optical issues to do with the sky being a sphere.

How does connecting the moon and the sun with a string show that the moon is pointed at the sun? It is possible to connect any two points in your vision.

In a 3D model of an arrow pointing at a sphere, the arrow should ALWAYS be pointed at the sphere, from wherever you look at it. There can't be an illusion where the arrow is not pointing at the sphere. From wherever you are around the objects, the arrow will be pointed at the sphere.

[inquisitive]

You were also told to hold a string up and stretch it between the moon and the sun, and this would show the moon's lit face pointing at the sun.

One of the examples I quoted was taken one hour after sunset. The moon is still pointing into the sky. How does your string example make sense?

The few who tried it acknowledged this worked, while you attempted to argue there was some form of duplicity inherent in the experiment and refused to even attempt it, whether with a string or a straight edge. I seem to recall Junker even chiming in that the string trick worked, although I would need to go digging to verify this for sure. You need to stop dismissing explanations simply because you either don't understand them, or don't think they can be correct by glancing at them. Your video, and by extension the picture, don't take into account some optical issues to do with the sky being a sphere.

How does connecting the moon and the sun with a string experiment show that the moon is pointed at the sun? It is possible to connect any two points in your vision.

In a 3D model of an arrow pointing at a sphere, the arrow should ALWAYS be pointed at the sphere, from wherever you look at it. There can't be an illusion where the arrow is not pointing at the sphere. From wherever you are around the objects, the arrow will be pointed at the sphere.

Strange when I look at the moon after sunset it is lit on the side facing the sun.  I can call someone west of me to check where they see the sun at that time.

[Tom Bishop]

Strange when I look at the moon after sunset it is lit on the side facing the sun.  I can call someone west of me to check where they see the sun at that time.

Every time I have seen the moon during the day I have never seen it pointing at the sun. I will often point it out to those around me, to their curiosity and confoundment. It is an easy demonstration that the heliocentric model is not correct.

The observation is not really explainable. The "celestial sphere" and "room perspective" arguments are weak and do not work.

[inquisitive]

Strange when I look at the moon after sunset it is lit on the side facing the sun.  I can call someone west of me to check where they see the sun at that time.

Every time I have seen the moon during the day I have never seen it pointing at the sun. I will often point it out to those around me, to their curiosity and confoundment.

What do you mean by pointing?  Do you mean lit by the sun?

[Tumeni]

Here is a simple observation. The next time you see the sun and the moon in the sky at the same time notice that the phase of the moon never points at the sun. The angle is often wildly off.  How is this possible?

You are at one point of a triangle. Earth at one point, Sun and Moon at the others. IF you were aligned with the plane of the triangle, and exactly perpendicular to it, you would see the terminator on the Moon vertically every time, and the sun and moon would both be on a horizontal with your line of sight.

But you're not. You're not standing in space, aligned with these things. You could only be aligned this way if you were at approx the North or South pole. You're somewhere inbetween, and at an angle to the triangle. You're tilted with respect to the sun/moon plane

Where were your videos taken from, and when?

[BrownRobin]

I have noticed that while this site will work immensely hard to prove the possibility of a flat earth there seams to be a lack on how a round earth is not possible. So I am asking any and all members of the Flat Earth Society to tell me how a Round Earth Does NOT Work.

Fore those on the side of a Round Earth Please wait for The Flat Earth Society to respond before posting your own theories.

I would debate that the reason why a Flat Earther does not believe a Round Earth works is as per my earlier thread post entitled "Understanding the Psychology (or Mindset) of a Flat Earther".

My argument is that it is based not so much on science but a deep distrust and skepticism in government agencies such as NASA...i.e. that space travel is a hoax. No matter what NASA or even an independent firm like Space X do, it will never be believed.

Many of the Flat Earth Society members, such as Tomh Bishop I would argue are also likely trying to do everything possible to hold onto and guard a ridiculous pseudo-science type belief that dates back centuries. I.e. The Zetetic society. Many of these Society members have their identity wrapped up and invested in this pseudo-science work and so it is in their best interest to continue to believe. I also suspect many FE like Tom enjoy being seen as the leader of a society or are even proud of being named after an experiment and so it's what gets them excited and up in the morning.

None of these Zetetic Society members are physicists /astrophysicists and neither are most Round Earthers on this site including myself. And so many of the back and forth debates tend to do very little because they cover the same ground over and over again.

[Tom Bishop]

I would debate that the reason why a Flat Earther does not believe a Round Earth works is as per my earlier thread post entitled "Understanding the Psychology (or Mindset) of a Flat Earther".

My argument is that it is based not so much on science but a deep distrust and skepticism in government agencies such as NASA...i.e. that space travel is a hoax. No matter what NASA or even an independent firm like Space X do, it will never be believed.

Many of the Flat Earth Society members, such as Tom Bishop I would argue are also likely trying to do everything possible to hold onto a ridiculous pseudo-science type belief that dates back centuries. I.e. The Zetetic society. Many of these Society members have their identity wrapped up and invested in this pseudo-science work and so it is in their best interest to continue to believe.

None of these Zetetic Society members are physicists /astrophysicists and neither are most Round Earthers on this site including myself. And so many of the back and forth debates tend to do very little because they cover the same ground over and over again.

How can you make this argument right after I have posted something you guys have a hard time explaining?

[BrownRobin]

I would debate that the reason why a Flat Earther does not believe a Round Earth works is as per my earlier thread post entitled "Understanding the Psychology (or Mindset) of a Flat Earther".

My argument is that it is based not so much on science but a deep distrust and skepticism in government agencies such as NASA...i.e. that space travel is a hoax. No matter what NASA or even an independent firm like Space X do, it will never be believed.

Many of the Flat Earth Society members, such as Tom Bishop I would argue are also likely trying to do everything possible to hold onto a ridiculous pseudo-science type belief that dates back centuries. I.e. The Zetetic society. Many of these Society members have their identity wrapped up and invested in this pseudo-science work and so it is in their best interest to continue to believe.

None of these Zetetic Society members are physicists /astrophysicists and neither are most Round Earthers on this site including myself. And so many of the back and forth debates tend to do very little because they cover the same ground over and over again.

How can you make this argument right after I have posted something you guys have a hard time explaining?

I am able to confidently make the argument I made because it is true.

If you can provide a logical, scientific explanation as to why a man made object (the ISS) travels speedily overhead every 90 minutes or so, and has been doing this non-stop for years, and whose flight and image is crisp and visible via an amateur telescope, plus provide a logical explanation as to why when a camera mounted on board the external tank of the Space Shuttle during launch tracking clearly show the curvature of the Earth as it begins to orbit, and you can do this without immediately resorting to non-scientific excuses such as NASA hoaxes or cover ups and fish-eyed lenses being used to alter perception, than i might be a Flat Earth believer.

[Tumeni]

The first YT video quoted above has comments disabled. Dontcha have to wonder why ....?

[Curious Squirrel]

You were also told to hold a string up and stretch it between the moon and the sun, and this would show the moon's lit face pointing at the sun.

One of the examples I quoted was taken one hour after sunset. The moon is still pointing into the sky. How does your string example make sense?

The few who tried it acknowledged this worked, while you attempted to argue there was some form of duplicity inherent in the experiment and refused to even attempt it, whether with a string or a straight edge. I seem to recall Junker even chiming in that the string trick worked, although I would need to go digging to verify this for sure. You need to stop dismissing explanations simply because you either don't understand them, or don't think they can be correct by glancing at them. Your video, and by extension the picture, don't take into account some optical issues to do with the sky being a sphere.

How does connecting the moon and the sun with a string show that the moon is pointed at the sun? It is possible to connect any two points in your vision.

In a 3D model of an arrow pointing at a sphere, the arrow should ALWAYS be pointed at the sphere, from wherever you look at it. There can't be an illusion where the arrow is not pointing at the sphere. From wherever you are around the objects, the arrow will be pointed at the sphere.

The string will be perpendicular to the line of light upon the moon, thus showing the moon is in fact 'pointing' at the sun. I apologize if I somehow didn't make myself clear, I figured it was clear enough in context. I don't know the mechanics/science behind it offhand, they were laid out in that other thread. I DO know that it works, and that you refused to even attempt it and report back. As far as the one just after sunset, once again. Sphere.

[Tumeni]

One of the examples I quoted was taken one hour after sunset. The moon is still pointing into the sky. How does your string example make sense?

Like this. The Sun shines past the Earth, onto the Moon. You look at the Moon from any number of points on the dark side of the Earth, and see it lit by the Sun. Because you're at an angle to it, you don't see the whole lit face, which is why it's not a full moon in the picture you used.

[Tom Bishop]

One of the examples I quoted was taken one hour after sunset. The moon is still pointing into the sky. How does your string example make sense?

Like this. The Sun shines past the Earth, onto the Moon. You look at the Moon from any number of points on the dark side of the Earth, and see it lit by the Sun. Because you're at an angle to it, you don't see the whole lit face, which is why it's not a full moon in the picture you used.

According to that illustration the moon should be pointing towards the horizon after sunset, not away from it:



But, as per my earlier example, the moon is pointing away from the horizon after sunset:

[Tumeni]

I'm providing a general illustration to show the principle. I picked an arbitrary location on the night side of the Earth because I don't actually know where or when your photo was taken.

And I've just realised mine shows the observer before sunrise, not just after sunset. So what? It's an illustration of the principle, not the actuality. 

The illustration is in 2D. Your observer could have been above or below the page. You have to at least imagine it in 3D, with a hemisphere toward you, above the page, and another below it.  You can't draw a line and say "this is the observer's horizon" unless you know exactly where he or she was. I'm happy to have another go if you can specify where and when. 
 

[Tom Bishop]

I'm providing a general illustration to show the principle. I picked an arbitrary location on the night side of the Earth because I don't actually know where or when your photo was taken.

And I've just realised mine shows the observer before sunrise, not just after sunset. So what? It's an illustration of the principle, not the actuality. 

The illustration is in 2D. Your observer could have been above or below the page. You have to at least imagine it in 3D, with a hemisphere toward you, above the page, and another below it.  You can't draw a line and say "this is the observer's horizon" unless you know exactly where he or she was. I'm happy to have another go if you can specify where and when.

It doesn't really matter where we put the horizon on the night side of that earth. The moon should still be pointing into it, not away from it. Imaging it in 3D doesn't help either.

The moon will only point away from the horizon on that earth if we put the horizon line on the day side.

[Tumeni]

It doesn't really matter where we put the horizon on the night side of that earth. The moon should still be pointing into it, not away from it. Imaging it in 3D doesn't help either.

The moon will only point away from the horizon on that earth if we put the horizon line on the day side.

So you're not going to tell us where and when that photo was taken, then?

If not, perhaps you could illustrate what you mean when you talk about "pointing into the Earth", since I've gone to the trouble for you ... ?