[TheTruthIsOnHere]

I've been wading through all 6 pages of this thread. LOL.
Maybe it has been covered and I have overlooked it or maybe it HAS  been overlooked.
One flat earth notion is that the sun "acts like a spotlight and shines down on the earth causing night and day".
If the sun and the moon are at the same distance above the earth , and in the same orbit,  how then would  it be possible for any light from the sun  to shine on the moon ?
This would seem to support the "self-illumination" notion.
There are so many of these contradictions that one wonders if who ever made them up (Rowbotham ?) ever gave much thought to them.

We got along just fine with the old "Round Earth" in the old United States Navy , thank you ! LOL

Also :
How do the sun and the moon keep from bumpimg into each other if they are the same distance from the earth and in the same orbit ?
Do they always travel at the same speed and are always separated by 180 degrees ? Seems like this would have to be so ?

How is self illumination a contradiction?

[geckothegeek]

I've been wading through all 6 pages of this thread. LOL.
Maybe it has been covered and I have overlooked it or maybe it HAS  been overlooked.
One flat earth notion is that the sun "acts like a spotlight and shines down on the earth causing night and day".
If the sun and the moon are at the same distance above the earth , and in the same orbit,  how then would  it be possible for any light from the sun  to shine on the moon ?
This would seem to support the "self-illumination" notion.
There are so many of these contradictions that one wonders if who ever made them up (Rowbotham ?) ever gave much thought to them.

We got along just fine with the old "Round Earth" in the old United States Navy , thank you ! LOL

Also :
How do the sun and the moon keep from bumpimg into each other if they are the same distance from the earth and in the same orbit ?
Do they always travel at the same speed and are always separated by 180 degrees ? Seems like this would have to be so ?

How is self illumination a contradiction?

Well........One flat earther may say the moon reflects the light from the sun.
Another says ......No ! The sun can't do that ....It just lights up the earth because it acts like a spotlight.
Another says.......No !  It can't work that way !  The moon is lit up by moonshrimp scampering back and forth !
Who can you believe ?

If any flat earther can ever say anything that makes any sense , I would find it interesting to read.
That's all right, some of us find TFES a lot of fun. Keep it up !

So.....Back to the original question : How is a lunar eclipse explained on the Flat Earth ?

[rabinoz]

How is self illumination a contradiction?

Like this.

CHAPTER XI.
CAUSE OF SOLAR AND LUNAR ECLIPSES.pp 138,9

From the facts and phenomena already advanced, we cannot draw any other conclusion than that the moon is obscured by some kind of semi-transparent body passing before it; and through which the luminous surface is visible: the luminosity changed in colour by the density of the intervening object. This conclusion is forced upon, us by the evidence; but it involves the admission that the moon shines with light of its own - that it is not a reflector of the sun's light, but absolutely self-luminous.
From Zetetic Astronomy, by 'Parallax' (pseud. Samuel Birley Rowbotham), [1881], at sacred-texts.com

Note "it involves the admission that the moon shines with light of its own - that it is not a reflector of the sun's light, but absolutely self-luminous"
and "that the moon is obscured by some kind of semi-transparent body passing before it".

So clearly Rowbotham claims that the moon is "absolutely self-luminous".

Then in

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

And

The Phases of the Moon
When one observes the phases of the moon he sees the moon's day and night, a shadow from the sun illuminating half of the spherical moon at any one time.
The lunar phases vary cyclically according to the changing geometry of the Moon and Sun, which are constantly wobbling up and down and exchange altitudes as they rotate around the North Pole.
When the moon and sun are at the same altitude one half of the lunar surface is illuminated and pointing towards the sun, This is called the First Quarter Moon. When the observer looks up he will see a shadow cutting the moon in half. The boundary between the illuminated and unilluminated hemispheres is called the terminator.
When the moon is below the sun's altitude the moon is dark and a New Moon occurs.
When the moon is above the altitude of the sun the moon is fully lit and a Full Moon occurs.

and finally

The Lunar Eclipse
A Lunar Eclipse occurs about twice a year when a satellite of the sun passes between the sun and moon.
This satellite is called the Shadow Object.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The shadow object is never seen because it orbits close to the sun. As the sun's powerful vertical rays hit the atmosphere during the day they will scatter and blot out nearly every single star and celestial body in the sky. We are never given a glimpse of the celestial bodies which appear near the sun during the day - they are completely washed out by the sun's light.
It is estimated that the Shadow Object is around five to ten miles in diameter. Since it is somewhat close to the sun the manifestation of its penumbra upon the moon appears as a magnified projection. This is similar to how during a shadow puppet show your hand's shadow can make a large magnified projection upon your bedroom wall as you move it closer to the flashlight.

And since "the Wiki" claims that the lunar eclipse is caused by "a satellite of the sun passes between the sun and moon" it claims that the moonlight is reflected sunlight.

There Mr TheTruthIsOnHere is you complete contradiction.

We live on one earth, have one moon all illuminated by one sun, so I would have thought we might have come to a consensus by now, but each Flat Earther seems to have a different idea on something.

As for me, I'll stick with a model that has been tried, refined and tested over a couple of millennia.

[geckothegeek]

How is self illumination a contradiction?

Like this.

CHAPTER XI.
CAUSE OF SOLAR AND LUNAR ECLIPSES.pp 138,9

From the facts and phenomena already advanced, we cannot draw any other conclusion than that the moon is obscured by some kind of semi-transparent body passing before it; and through which the luminous surface is visible: the luminosity changed in colour by the density of the intervening object. This conclusion is forced upon, us by the evidence; but it involves the admission that the moon shines with light of its own - that it is not a reflector of the sun's light, but absolutely self-luminous.
From Zetetic Astronomy, by 'Parallax' (pseud. Samuel Birley Rowbotham), [1881], at sacred-texts.com

Note "it involves the admission that the moon shines with light of its own - that it is not a reflector of the sun's light, but absolutely self-luminous"
and "that the moon is obscured by some kind of semi-transparent body passing before it".

So clearly Rowbotham claims that the moon is "absolutely self-luminous".

Then in

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

And

The Phases of the Moon
When one observes the phases of the moon he sees the moon's day and night, a shadow from the sun illuminating half of the spherical moon at any one time.
The lunar phases vary cyclically according to the changing geometry of the Moon and Sun, which are constantly wobbling up and down and exchange altitudes as they rotate around the North Pole.
When the moon and sun are at the same altitude one half of the lunar surface is illuminated and pointing towards the sun, This is called the First Quarter Moon. When the observer looks up he will see a shadow cutting the moon in half. The boundary between the illuminated and unilluminated hemispheres is called the terminator.
When the moon is below the sun's altitude the moon is dark and a New Moon occurs.
When the moon is above the altitude of the sun the moon is fully lit and a Full Moon occurs.

and finally

The Lunar Eclipse
A Lunar Eclipse occurs about twice a year when a satellite of the sun passes between the sun and moon.
This satellite is called the Shadow Object.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The shadow object is never seen because it orbits close to the sun. As the sun's powerful vertical rays hit the atmosphere during the day they will scatter and blot out nearly every single star and celestial body in the sky. We are never given a glimpse of the celestial bodies which appear near the sun during the day - they are completely washed out by the sun's light.
It is estimated that the Shadow Object is around five to ten miles in diameter. Since it is somewhat close to the sun the manifestation of its penumbra upon the moon appears as a magnified projection. This is similar to how during a shadow puppet show your hand's shadow can make a large magnified projection upon your bedroom wall as you move it closer to the flashlight.

And since "the Wiki" claims that the lunar eclipse is caused by "a satellite of the sun passes between the sun and moon" it claims that the moonlight is reflected sunlight.

There Mr TheTruthIsOnHere is you complete contradiction.

We live on one earth, have one moon all illuminated by one sun, so I would have thought we might have come to a consensus by now, but each Flat Earther seems to have a different idea on something.

As for me, I'll stick with a model that has been tried, refined and tested over a couple of millennia.

The moon and the sun wobbling up and down
How can a shadow illuminate something
I must be missing something. None of this makes any sense to me

[rabinoz]

The moon and the sun wobbling up and down
How can a shadow illuminate something
I must be missing something. None of this makes any sense to me

If you are short of humorous reading matter (got to the end of  "Mad"  ) you can always try "the Wiki", Rowbotham and then,
if that style is too archaic, try  "The Sea-Earth Globe and its Monstrous Hypothetical Motions (Zetetes, 1918)" 

[Boots]

Let's summarize what we have so far (Paraphrased. Feel free to let me know if I have misrepresented your position, I will fix it immediately.) :

• gecko: Gives the wiki explanation as well as the self-illuminating moon explanation. (possibly bioluminescent moonshramp? lunar eclipses caused by migration?)
• Truth: I don't know but I would like to. We'll never find out if we keep doing our research on the mistaken basis that the earth is a globe.
• Identifythis: Some long religious sounding video. I confess I'd have to re-watch it to know what it said about lunar eclipses, if anything. I am using expensive data right now so don't want to waste it on that.
• junker: Read the FAQ/Wiki/irrelevant/incorrect/false/ but mostly "irrelevant." Must be his favorite word.
• FAQ:

  Your next question will, of course, be "What causes eclipses, then?" to which I will say "I don't know, as I've never been on the moon during one.
• Tom Bishop: Lunar eclipses occur because the "shadow object" creates a shadow puppet effect as described in the wiki. This works because the sun only emits light at or near 90 degrees from the suns surface. Also shadows are much crisper and cleaner in space where there is no atmosphere.

I would like to know more about how lunar eclipses are caused according to the moonshramp theory if anyone is interested in expounding on that.

Tom Bishop has come the closest to giving what I would consider a real answer but I think he is mistaken regarding how light behaves. Like a good zetecist? I have actually done an experiment to test that theory. The results did not support the theory. When I asked him about it, he said my post and my experiment made no sense at all. However, he did not say why it made no sense at all.

In conclusion, I still don't feel I have a satisfactory answer. I am somewhat interested in the moonshramp theory. I am also hoping Tom Bishop will answer my follow-up questions. And:

A message to any knowledgable FEers on this site:

I am still very interested in having a discussion with you about how a 5 to 10 mile diameter Shadow Object can block all the light from a 32 mile diameter sun from reaching a 32 mile diameter moon.

[Boots]

Hello? Hello-oooo... Yoo-hoo... Anyone? 

[Woody]

Hello? Hello-oooo... Yoo-hoo... Anyone? 

As far as I know the "moohshramp" have been dropped and I usually only see RE's mention them now.  John Davis adopted them as an explanation for phases of the Moon and included it in the wiki under his model.  He has since removed it, also he did not call them moonshramp.

The explanation is simple.  These life forms migrate on a regular predictable schedule causing the phases of the Moon.  Shadows like near crater rims are just areas these creatures avoided.

One thing I have not seen brought up is weather on the Moon causing the phases.  If I recall I have seen John Davis bring this up.  So basically clouds moving over the surface of the Moon cause the phases.

Intikam I have seen mention the Moon is a lens of some sort.  Did not see any explanation for the phases.

I have seen people mention the Moon is a reflection and is actually on Earth somewhere. Only once on this site if I am recalling correctly.

Things I have seen not on this site:

It is a hologram so the phases are programmed to happen to fool us.

The Moon has a rotating shell that is partially opaque and clear.  So as it rotates it causes the phases.

I have not seen it mentioned , but I imagine the shadow object could cause the phases. Not sure if I just missed it as an explanation or it has never been mentioned here.

[rabinoz]

Hello? Hello-oooo... Yoo-hoo... Anyone? 

As far as I know the "moohshramp" have been dropped and I usually only see RE's mention them now.  John Davis adopted them as an explanation for phases of the Moon and included it in the wiki under his model.  He has since removed it, also he did not call them moonshramp.

The explanation is simple.  These life forms migrate on a regular predictable schedule causing the phases of the Moon.  Shadows like near crater rims are just areas these creatures avoided.

One thing I have not seen brought up is weather on the Moon causing the phases.  If I recall I have seen John Davis bring this up.  So basically clouds moving over the surface of the Moon cause the phases.

Intikam I have seen mention the Moon is a lens of some sort.  Did not see any explanation for the phases.

I have seen people mention the Moon is a reflection and is actually on Earth somewhere. Only once on this site if I am recalling correctly.

Things I have seen not on this site:

It is a hologram so the phases are programmed to happen to fool us.

The Moon has a rotating shell that is partially opaque and clear.  So as it rotates it causes the phases.

I have not seen it mentioned , but I imagine the shadow object could cause the phases. Not sure if I just missed it as an explanation or it has never been mentioned here.

On "TheFlatEarthSociety.org", jroa claims that the moon is half self-luminous and rotates (I assume) once each cycle so we see the phases.

An interesting exercise is to count the number of obvious fallacies in that explanation. But, if I ask jroa, I will probably be ridiculed for not understanding it.

Not only that bit he has shadow object(s) explaining lunar and solar eclipses.

[Boots]

Cool. Thanks for those explanations. If Davis didn't call the bio-luminescent creatures moonshramp where did the name come from? And did he have another name for them?

Also, Tom Bishop are you ever going to come back and explain why you think the sun only emits light at or near 90 degrees from the surface? I also still want to know why my post makes no sense at all on what experiment I performed and what I found.

[rabinoz]

Cool. Thanks for those explanations. If Davis didn't call the bio-luminescent creatures moonshramp where did the name come from? And did he have another name for them?

Also, Tom Bishop are you ever going to come back and explain why you think the sun only emits light at or near 90 degrees from the surface? I also still want to know why my post makes no sense at all on what experiment I performed and what I found.

I don't know exactly when  bioluminescent moonshrimp (plural moonshramp) first came in, but it might have been somewhere around this post on "the other site"
Re: New Dangers - Eye Filters are now REQUIRED.
I suspect "Space Cowgirl" took it up as a humorous concept, somewhere later in the same thread. SCG rarely seems post anything that is not at least faintly ridiculous.

So, the bioluminescence idea might have been introduced there (though Rowbotham suggested it at least 135 year ago) but John Davis tried to scotch the "moonshramp" tag with "Except I'm not talking specifically about shrimp-like Lunas, I'm talking about Lunas. Thus, the more generic, and non-derogatory, term is appropriate."

You will find lot of that thread is partly "tougue-in-cheek" with John Davis' 

This is consistent with a bioluminescent source and also explains the genesis of the irregularly shaped particles[1]. Even in glob science this effect has very little study attributed to it, likely due to the ridiculous myth that the moon's light is not dangerous and again the 'damned' nature of the research itself. To replicate this exactly in a laboratory would be impossible due to a lack of samples for the bioluminescent source to match the Neil-Sokarul particles it gives off.
 1.    Known as Neil-Sokarul Particles or NSP for short

In case you haven't met them yet, Dinosaur Neil and Sokarul are two "Globularist" members, and you can work out the rest!

Well, that's my story an' I'm stickin' to it.

[Boots]

A message to any knowledgable FEers on this site:

I am still very interested in having a discussion with you about how a 5 to 10 mile diameter Shadow Object can block all the light from a 32 mile diameter sun from reaching a 32 mile diameter moon.

In the same way you can project a hand and puppet shadow show onto your bedroom wall, with the shadow of your hands being several times the size of your physical hands.

Any further questions?

Yes.

I'm still wondering why my post makes no sense at all on what experiment I performed and what I found. Would you be able to clear this up for me?

Also, could we confirm that you believe the sun only emits light at or near 90 degrees from its surface?

[Boots]

You have to explain what experiment you performed. I don't know what I am replying to to. In your last quote tier there are two experiments mentioned, one that you told me to do and one that I told you to do.

OK thanks for clarifying that. I felt I had done both experiments at the same time. But your post inspired me to redo them with some minor changes. I redid the spotlight experiment but then it occurred to me that it would be more realistic to use a round 100W light bulb so I did that too.

Here is what I did with the spotlight:

I used a spotlight with a 75mm face. I drew a 75mm circle on the wall. I positioned the light so it was fully illuminating the circle on the wall. I then tried to place a quarter to where it was blocking the light from reaching the circle on the wall. In the same experiment I also used a spotlight and a quarter and tried to position the quarter to where it was making a shadow with a much larger diameter than the quarter.

Results from the spotlight experiment:

If the center of the beam was aimed directly at the circle I could hardly even notice the effect of the quarter no matter where I placed it as long as I stayed closer to the spotlight. I was able to get a shadow by moving the quarter toward the circle on the wall. It first appears as a dot and gradually grows larger as you move it toward the wall. By the time you reach the wall the shadow is predictably almost identical in size to the quarter. I was able to get the shadow puppet effect under two conditions. One was when blocking much more of the light then was possible with a quarter. The other was when I aimed the spotlight away from the circle on the wall but in such a way that it was still being faintly illuminated by the peripheral light. This is the only condition under which I was able to use a quarter to create a shadow as large as the circle on the wall.


Here is what I did with the 100W light bulb:

I used a 100W light bulb about 55 mm in diameter. I drew a 55 mm circle on the wall. I positioned the light so that the circle on the wall was fully illuminated. I then tried to place a penny to where it was blocking the light from reaching the circle on the wall. In the same experiment I also used a 100W light bulb and a penny and tried to position the penny to where it was making a shadow with a much larger diameter than the penny.

Results from the 100W light bulb experiment:

When placing the penny between the light bulb and the circle on the wall but right next to the light bulb there was no discernible shadow. I was able to get a shadow by moving the penny toward the circle on the wall. When the shadow first became discernible, it was about the size of the 55 mm circle but it was very faint  . As I moved the penny toward the wall the shadow became smaller and clearer until it was about the size of the penny. It was still quite blurry though. As I continued to move the penny toward the wall, it remained the same size but gradually became clearer until it reached the wall where it was a clean crisp shadow about the size of the penny. I was able to get the shadow puppet effect using the penny but only very faintly. I was also able to get the shadow puppet effect when blocking much more of the light then was possible with a penny.


From this experiment I conclude that the shadow object described in the wiki is able to block some of the sun's light from reaching the moon but certainly not all of it, unless the vacuum of space causes light to behave differently. So, I want to confirm that if these same experiments were done in a vacuum and produced the same results, you would agree that "With the "shadow object" so small, it is quite impossible for it to cast any significant shadow on the moon. Almost all of the sunlight will shine around it." If you have other objections that is fine. I would just like to know what they are before proceeding.

[FE Forum Name]

"Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic."

I am sure. I want this post. Exactly this one.


Hello. I am new. I am 22 years old right now. I have recently learned of FET. I am, and please bear with me, a little skeptic. But I have been questioning my understanding of the world all my life. I am "that guy". I angrily lash out at my friends and call them "sheep". I find myself starting out the window asking why I feel so alone in ... understanding certain things. First of which being how little is understand. Second of all how much of what we "know" just can't be true. "Can't". Because it just feels wrong. I tend to be accepting things when they can be observed. So I am a skeptic towards both sides. This is my first post, so please, be merciless. I, as a person, don't matter. What matters is what is true.

So, why this post? Honestly, I could have picked any post. I first heard of FE through family. A "friend" then made a horrible (in the sense of unwarranted, mean and unsophisticated) joke about FE; I knew little of it, but I told him to not insult something he has no understanding of. He linked (and then ridiculed) a video about "How the 2k17 Solar Eclipse Proves FE" or something. I mean, there is tons. But as I watched the video, it grew apparent that he had ridiculed FE without actually watching the video. Like many people here read, but do not understand, the FAQ/Wiki and then start to lash out. But there is other people here. People I realize seem to be open to real, open, relevant discussion. That is why I chose this topic. (And I also woke up today thinking "alright, I can get behind FE solar eclipse, somewhat, but how does the lunar eclipse work?")

First of all: I read this. I read the Wiki - but only the lunar eclipse part - and while reading this post, I have smiled many times telling myself, "Boots, you are an idiot". I do not mean this in a condescending way. I am rather impressed as to how you stayed so calm. Some of both the FEs and REs here are giving quite ridicolous answers - the forum mod is probably the shining star on that sky - but then there is you. So I really hope you have not given up on this yet. Because you are the reason I am posting here.

I love how you tried these experiments. And I want them to keep going. I want to try them, too. I want us all to keep going. Digging further. There probably is things that could be added to or improved on with this experiment. For example, how about using a weaker light source? Maybe not a 100W light bulb. What about 75? 60? 40? You had the shadow effect. You got this, and then the thread dies, and I feel robbed. This thread read like a book. A TERRIBLE one, I must say. But you were "the one characters that made me force myself through the pages". I want to know how this "story ends". How "my favourite characters" comes to the final conclusion, and then I want to feel empty and crave more of that "book", know more about that "world". So in a way, I am posting because of that strange feeling of "losing out" on something here. It intrigues me. The thought experiment of a flat earth with all of its implications is too tasy for my mind to not at least want a bite of it.

Now I know I am just using metaphors, that there are, in fact, many more informations about FE and that it is not a "story" and probably won't "end". But I am young, and I am scared, and I feel alone. So, please. Let us not stop here. If this really is a thing, we deserve to know. And if it is not, well, even more so.

PS:
Please, FEs, read this free from all sarcasm. I am free of all judgement about you. I am open to any possibility. All I am asking is to be welcomed by the same thing here.

[model 29]

He linked (and then ridiculed) a video about "How the 2k17 Solar Eclipse Proves FE" or something. I mean, there is tons. But as I watched the video, it grew apparent that he had ridiculed FE without actually watching the video.

  The videos I've seen so far saying the solar eclipse disproves the globe all suffer from an understanding of relative motion and how light and shadows work.