[Pete Svarrior]

The discussion changed to you saying "you failed to take EA into account" and I asked just how one takes EA into account.

No, it didn't. You might have wanted it to, but I'm not letting you off that easily. If you or OP want to demonstrate why you think FET should allow you to see the dark side of the moon, you're welcome to. If you have nothing, then this thread is dead.

After all, anyone can make similar unsubstantiated accusations. Here, look: if the Earth is round, I should be able to see a giant teapot in the sky. I can't see a giant teapot in the sky. What gives? This is a flaw with the RE model, clearly.

[GoldCashew]

The discussion changed to you saying "you failed to take EA into account" and I asked just how one takes EA into account.

No, it didn't. You might have wanted it to, but I'm not letting you off that easily. If you or OP want to demonstrate why you think FET should allow you to see the dark side of the moon, you're welcome to. If you have nothing, then this thread is dead.

After all, anyone can make similar unsubstantiated accusations. Here, look: if the Earth is round, I should be able to see a giant teapot in the sky. I can't see a giant teapot in the sky. What gives? This is a flaw with the RE model, clearly.

Pete,

I've read the EU theory several times and I now better understand the basis of the EU theory as to why one on Earth (no matter their location) would see the same face of the moon.

Mainly, it has to do with light bending (not travelling in a straight line).

The one question I asked Tom was if this EU theory has been checked // verified with Physicists. It would be interesting to get feedback on this from Physicists.

[GoldCashew]

The discussion changed to you saying "you failed to take EA into account" and I asked just how one takes EA into account.

No, it didn't. You might have wanted it to, but I'm not letting you off that easily. If you or OP want to demonstrate why you think FET should allow you to see the dark side of the moon, you're welcome to. If you have nothing, then this thread is dead.

After all, anyone can make similar unsubstantiated accusations. Here, look: if the Earth is round, I should be able to see a giant teapot in the sky. I can't see a giant teapot in the sky. What gives? This is a flaw with the RE model, clearly.

Pete,

I've read the EU theory several times and I now better understand the basis of the EU theory as to why one on Earth (no matter their location) would see the same face of the moon.

Mainly, it has to do with light bending (not travelling in a straight line).

The one question I asked Tom was if this EU theory has been checked // verified with Physicists. It would be interesting to get feedback on this from Physicists.

Lastly, similar to how you gave me a warning for telling people "what to do", you can't just declare when a thread is dead or not dead as you did with JSS. It's fair to be a Moderator but not fair to Moderate a debate. JSS is simply trying to dig into the specifics of the equation and challenging the FE group on this.

[Pete Svarrior]

you can't just declare when a thread is dead or not dead as you did with JSS.

It's my job to do just that. If you started a thread which focuses on an assertion that you're unwilling to substantiate, and if no one else is willing to step up in your place, then the thread does not belong in the upper fora. As I already explained, the alternative would be for everyone to start spurting out baseless assertions and expect the other side to defend itself against them.

If you're unwilling to defend your own OP, then the thread is dead for all intents and purposes.

It's fair to be a Moderator but not fair to Moderate a debate.

[existoid]

I am reacting to the flat Earth animation on the Wiki. The top view of the animation model depicts a moon that moves within the perimeter of the flat earth.

I'm afraid just looking at pretty pictures won't work here. I can't tell for sure (because you said nothing more than "I looked at a GIF", thus forcing me to guess), but I suspect you failed to take EA into account. Others seem to agree, but somehow that made you angry.

Instead of saying "I looked at this image and this phenomenon doesn't work", navigate us through your logic. Go through each step between the assumptions and conclusion. It's very difficult to help you identify your error without that.

I did navigate through the logic several times during this thread pointing  out the exact logical flaw more than once. It has not yet been responded to on this thread or in the Wiki.  I read the explanation for EA on the wiki thoroughly twice.  It is certainly possible I missed some other section on the wiki that accounts for the logical inconsistency between observation and the explanation provided for FET via EA, but I could not find it.  To wit:

Why does EA make moonlight bend in the exact proper way so that two people in very different parts of the earth see the same part of the moon BUT the sun's light doesn't bend at all, and instead shines quite directionally so that night happens?  Furthermore, how does EA also cause the sun and moon to not change their size constantly as they draw near and far from the observer's place on the FE? 

How can EA account for all of these contradictory phenomena?
  Logically you need separate explanations rather than simply "It's EA."  Sorry, doesn't work. 



 

[JSS]

The discussion changed to you saying "you failed to take EA into account" and I asked just how one takes EA into account.

No, it didn't. You might have wanted it to, but I'm not letting you off that easily. If you or OP want to demonstrate why you think FET should allow you to see the dark side of the moon, you're welcome to. If you have nothing, then this thread is dead.

After all, anyone can make similar unsubstantiated accusations. Here, look: if the Earth is round, I should be able to see a giant teapot in the sky. I can't see a giant teapot in the sky. What gives? This is a flaw with the RE model, clearly.

Nobody said "dark side of the moon" before you did.

The question was how do Flat Earth believers explain how we all see the exact same side of the moon, when we should all see it from different angles it if it's so close.

The response was "take EA into account" and when asked how to do this, no answer but "read the Wiki" which also doesn't explain it.

[Pete Svarrior]

Nobody said "dark side of the moon" before you did.

Yes, your friend was pretty bad at describing what he meant. I wasn't gonna be as mean about it as you were. Nonetheless, it's obvious what was intended by the following:

I would potentially observe the "back side" or "bottom side" of the globe Moon.

Are you going to start substantiating it, or is the thread dead?

[JSS]

Nobody said "dark side of the moon" before you did.

Yes, your friend was pretty bad at describing what he meant. I wasn't gonna be as mean about it as you were. Nonetheless, it's obvious what was intended by the following:

I would potentially observe the "back side" or "bottom side" of the globe Moon.

Are you going to start substantiating it, or is the thread dead?

It's only dead because nobody on the FE side will even try and explain how EA works. His question is pretty simple, why does everyone see the same side of the moon on a flat Earth if it's so close?

FE theory has yet to explain this other than saying "Because EA" and then not explaining how that actually works.

[GoldCashew]

Hi all,

Wanted to also follow up on my additional previous query (to Tom or other Flat Earthers) in this topic to see if the light bending Electromagnetic Acceleration theory has been verified // checked with Physicists. Specifically, as it pertains why we see the same face of the Moon no matter where one is located on Earth.

There were some additional queries from existoid as well.

Thanks.

[existoid]

I would potentially observe the "back side" or "bottom side" of the globe Moon.

Are you going to start substantiating it, or is the thread dead?

All it requires is simple spatial reasoning. It's quite simple, but I can only conclude from reading this thread one of two possibilities regarding your posts
A) You are intentionally deflecting because you have no answer
B) You misunderstand your own FE model as put forward in the Wiki and/or cannot grasp its spatial implications.

I'm going to elaborate as best I can on the OP's question and why it requires an explanation from the FET.  I'll do my best to explain the Wiki's explanation (which has been elaborated on not one bit in this thread, despite specific questions about it that are not clarified in the Wiki).  I’ll then fully describe how the Wiki’s explanation then creates a contradiction with the Wiki’s explanation of why there is night on a FE. 

PART 1 – Substantiating and Explaining the OP’s Question
Imagine you are standing in a circular field 2 miles in diameter (Edit, previously wrote "1 mile" but the example needs it to be 2).  Imagine you are standing about halfway along the radius. Imagine further that there is a drone flying in a concentric circle to the field that is about half the field’s size. This would mean that it is flying in a circle that passes directly over your head (since you’re halfway along the radius of the field). When the drone flies in its circle directly over your head, you see the very bottom of the drone. So far, so good, right?

I am standing at a point slightly closer to the center of the field from you. Say, another quarter mile in. And a third person is standing a quarter mile out from where you are. All of us are standing along the same radius to the center of the field itself.

When the drone flies over your head, I do not see the exact same parts of the drone as  you do. You see the direct bottom of it. I see it at an angle from where I’m standing, closer to the center  of the field. I see part of the bottom, but not directly. And the third person standing further out from you sees the other side of the drone, which I  do not see.

All three of us see different parts of the drone at different angles.

The FE model depicts and describes a scenario like this, in which the drone is the moon, and we three are standing hundreds or thousands of miles apart in S. America, Central America, and N. America. And yet, what is actually observed is the SAME EXACT face of the moon at the same time. (Something which is easily explained in the RET by the fact that the moon is very far away).

PART 2 – How the Wiki Answers it
To explain why this is, the Wiki on this website claims the “EA” phenomenon. And it provides a helpful diagram (with the concept of it attributed to you!). It shows that light from the moon bends upward in all directions such that all observers on the FE see the same “bottom” part of the moon ("nearside" in the wiki), no matter where they are.

Okay, so far the Wiki has an explanation. I don’t know physics or math very well, so I can’t easily go deep into arguing about the proofs for electromagnetic acceleration.  The diagram shows the answer, and it conceptually makes sense.

PART 3 – We therefore need a new explanation for why night exists
The Wiki in the introduction/FAQ states  “Day and night cycles are easily explained on a Flat Earth. The Sun moves in circles around the North Pole. When it is over your head, it's day. When it's not, it's night. The light of the sun is confined to a limited area and its light acts like a spotlight upon the Earth.” [emphasis added].

How is this possible if light actually “bends upward” per the electromagnetic acceleration claim?  (And the section on EA also uses EA to explain time zones, so it clearly is claiming that EA applies to sunlight as well as moonlight).

This is a massive logical contradiction. Are the sun’s rays bending or not bending? They can’t be doing both.

Going back to the three people standing in the field, this leads us to yet another problem with the FE model.

All three of us are standing in the same half of the circle (at ¼ mile from the center, half a mile, and ¾ of a mile all along the same radius). Suppose it is night, and the drone we’re observing has a spotlight directly below it that shines directly down, illuminating about half of the field at once. This would be very similar to how the sun is described as working in the FE model on the wiki. When the drone is in the other half of the circular field such that its spotlight does not illuminate any of the three people standing there, those three people should still easily be able to see the light on the ground across the field. And, looking up at an angle, they would see the spotlight itself!

But we do NOT see the sun from a great distance when it is night. In the field analogy, there are no mountains or ground structures inhibited our view of the rest of the field. But what about a plane ride at night? If you are thousands of feet in the air, higher than any mountain, when flying at night you might still be lower than the sun, but high enough to look over  and see where the sun is illuminating the other half of the FE, even if the features are not discernable due to the distance, why not see a great patch of light in the vast distance?

EDIT:
And I didn't even get to the fact that the drone, as it nears where we are overhead, it would get bigger, and then get smaller as it goes past us.  Why don't the sun and moon change size as they cross the sky?  I have yet to find an answer in the Wiki on this thread that addresses that problem in the context of the other contradiction that EA brings us.

[Pete Svarrior]

It's only dead because nobody on the FE side will even try and explain how EA works.

It's been explained plenty of times, both in threads here and in the Wiki. It's not all that shocking that people aren't willing to explain it over and over again to someone who lacks basic maths literacy.

His question is pretty simple, why does everyone see the same side of the moon on a flat Earth if it's so close?

If his question is so simple, why do you keep misrepresenting it?

PART 1 – Substantiating and Explaining the OP’s Question

Right, so I was correct in stating that your failure was in assuming that light travels in a straight line, then?

This is a massive logical contradiction. Are the sun’s rays bending or not bending? They can’t be doing both.

What is the contradiction? There is nothing about EA that would prevent the spotlight effect. Be specific, for Christ's sake. I don't care if the contradiction is massive, I care about what exactly you think it is.

Why don't the sun and moon change size as they cross the sky?  I have yet to find an answer in the Wiki on this thread that addresses that problem in the context of the other contradiction that EA brings us.

What is it with this new wave of RE'ers, their complete and utter inability to find pages on the Internet, and assuming that if they can't find it, it must not be there? I'm really not here to teach you how to use search engines. If you're going to waste my time, don't expect it to work.

[existoid]

PART 1 – Substantiating and Explaining the OP’s Question

Right, so I was correct in stating that your failure was in assuming that light travels in a straight line, then?

I'm not saying anything about whether light bends or does not bend. I'm being agnostic about that. Just re-read my posts. I'm saying that the Wiki's explanations REQUIRE light to BOTH bend AND go straight, in order to be consistent with itself.

I wrote that I cannot mathematically dispute the Wiki's explanation of EA, and said it conceptually makes sense. 

However, if light does not travel in a straight line, then how do you explain night, which requires light traveling uni-directionally to illuminate only one half of the FE? 

I've asked this several times now, and you've never provided an answer.  The burden is on you to respond to the logical contradiction that your Wiki creates. And you haven't. 

Why don't the sun and moon change size as they cross the sky?  I have yet to find an answer in the Wiki on this thread that addresses that problem in the context of the other contradiction that EA brings us.

What is it with this new wave of RE'ers, their complete and utter inability to find pages on the Internet, and assuming that if they can't find it, it must not be there? I'm really not here to teach you how to use search engines. If you're going to waste my time, don't expect it to work.

I'm not trying to waste your time.  I've tried searching several times. There are long pages about the moon tilt illusion, and plenty of related things, but there is no discrete section about why the sun and moon do not change sizes every hour that I can find.

Rather than being glib, perhaps you can either provide a one sentence summary, or even just a link to the part of the wiki that explains it? 

You don't have to, of course.  You can continue to be belligerent in your responses to my sincere and thoughtful posts, I can handle it.  But it would be nice if you at least addressed the major logical contradiction that is the focus of my posts.

[Pete Svarrior]

I'm saying that the Wiki's explanations REQUIRE light to BOTH bend AND go straight, in order to be consistent with itself.

Right. Now, instead of just stating it with a wondrous mix of bold italic and CAPITALS with no qualification, explain why you believe this to be the case.

However, if light does not travel in a straight line, then how do you explain night, which requires light traveling uni-directionally to illuminate only one half of the FE?

Is there something about the first few paragraphs and diagrams in the EA page that you disagree with? They seem to illustrate this exact scenario quite well.

I've asked this several times now, and you've never provided an answer.  The burden is on you to respond to the logical contradiction that your Wiki creates. And you haven't.

In order to respond to the supposed contradiction, I need to know what it is. My reading of your posts here so far goes along the lines of "This must both be bending and not bending? How COME? This is a massive contradiction!!!!" Until you clarify your reasoning, I can't really tell you where you went wrong. I'm no mind reader.

I'm not trying to waste your time.  I've tried searching several times. There are long pages about the moon tilt illusion, and plenty of related things, but there is no discrete section about why the sun and moon do not change sizes every hour that I can find.

Sigh. Let's see.

I want to learn about why the Sun doesn't change its size. I would expect that effect to be most pronounced at sunrise and sunset. Let's look at https://wiki.tfes.org/Sunrise_and_Sunset

Wow, that's a short page. Let's have a quick scan. Oh, look: "Magnification of the Sun at Sunset describes why the Sun does not shrink as it recedes"

That wasn't so hard. Let's try again! This time, I'm going to use Google. Don't we all just love Google?

I'll copy the exact phrasing of your question as you used it now: "why the sun and moon do not change sizes every hour". I'll throw in a "site:wiki.tfes.org", because we're looking for our wiki pages.



Not bad, second result.

This really is not that hard.

[existoid]

I'm saying that the Wiki's explanations REQUIRE light to BOTH bend AND go straight, in order to be consistent with itself.

Right. Now, instead of just stating it with a wondrous mix of bold italic and CAPITALS with no qualification, explain why you believe this to be the case.

However, if light does not travel in a straight line, then how do you explain night, which requires light traveling uni-directionally to illuminate only one half of the FE?

Is there something about the first few paragraphs and diagrams in the EA page that you disagree with? They seem to illustrate this exact scenario quite well.

I've asked this several times now, and you've never provided an answer.  The burden is on you to respond to the logical contradiction that your Wiki creates. And you haven't.

In order to respond to the supposed contradiction, I need to know what it is. My reading of your posts here so far goes along the lines of "This must both be bending and not bending? How COME? This is a massive contradiction!!!!" Until you clarify your reasoning, I can't really tell you where you went wrong. I'm no mind reader.

I'm not trying to waste your time.  I've tried searching several times. There are long pages about the moon tilt illusion, and plenty of related things, but there is no discrete section about why the sun and moon do not change sizes every hour that I can find.

Sigh. Let's see.

I want to learn about why the Sun doesn't change its size. I would expect that effect to be most pronounced at sunrise and sunset. Let's look at https://wiki.tfes.org/Sunrise_and_Sunset

Wow, that's a short page. Let's have a quick scan. Oh, look: "Magnification of the Sun at Sunset describes why the Sun does not shrink as it recedes"

That wasn't so hard. Let's try again! This time, I'm going to use Google. Don't we all just love Google?

I'll copy the exact phrasing of your question as you used it now: "why the sun and moon do not change sizes every hour". I'll throw in a "site:wiki.tfes.org", because we're looking for our wiki pages.



Not bad, second result.

This really is not that hard.

Did you not read my analogy with the field?  In that analogy I showed how we would see different parts of the moon from different parts of the earth.  But we don't.  The EA answers this by showing how the moonlight bends so that we all see the "nearside" of the moon at once.  So far so good.

But the explanation for night in the Wiki (on a different page than EA, because the EA page doesn't not discuss day/night), it says that there is night  because on the other half of the FE, the sun is acting like a spotlight.  If this were not uni-directional, but with bending lights, as it says on the EA page, then we would not have night time.  We would see  the sun from all the way across the FE, as the light bends up towards us.

Hence, the explanation on the EA page about bending light, and the explanation about why night exists on a differents page of the Wiki contradict each other.

I am using no bold or italics or some wondrous mix of words without qualification.  I am summarizing the same point I've been making that you have yet to directly address. In the most simplest, basic form:

In the FE model as explained on the Wiki, why does the explanation for why the nearside of the moon is seen from different points require bending light, whereas the explanation for night existing require uni-directional light?  How can light both bend and not bend?

....

As far as the size of the sun - I totally did read the "magnification of the sun at sunset" portion of the Wiki already. But I'm not talking about sunset - I never once used that term in this thread so far. I'm talking about the size of the sun and moon while they travel across the sky at all hours of the day, and in particular when it nears just above us in the sky. In my analogy, I explained that we would be seeing the drone change sizes as it nears us, then it would be the largest as it passes overhead, and then would get smaller. This is not about the drone's relative position of where it would be "at sunset" relative to the FE model.  This is more about noon.

EDIT:
Your search results are the same as mine, and hilariously, those are the things I read over previously.  First, I find it funny that it suggests you add "sides" in the result, implying the question itself hasn't been much discussed.  Secondly, the moon tilt article says nothing about the sizes of the objects - I've read it twice now.  And the third one, about magnification, again, doesn't address why it isn't always changing sizes throughout the day, as it would.











 

[Pete Svarrior]

If this were not directional, but with bending lights, as it says on the EA page, then we would not have night time.  We would see  the sun from all the way across the FE, as the light bends up towards us.

This is not the case. What makes you think that light would not be directional under EA?

Once again: Is there something about the first few paragraphs and diagrams in the EA page that you disagree with? They seem to illustrate this exact scenario quite well.

First, I find it funny that it suggests you add "sides" in the result, implying the question itself hasn't been much discussed.

Good lord, you really don't know how search engines work, do you? Yes, it's not very surprising that your exact phrasing of the question is not one of Google's most common search phrases.

And the third one, about magnification, again, doesn't address why it isn't always changing sizes throughout the day, as it would.

Well, it does. You're doing that thing again where you point-blank state something while not explaining yourself at all. That's time-wasting at its finest. Don't expect it to be effective.

I am using no bold or italics or some wondrous mix of words without qualification.

Why would you lie about something so simple?

I'm saying that the Wiki's explanations REQUIRE light to BOTH bend AND go straight, in order to be consistent with itself.

This is a massive logical contradiction. Are the sun’s rays bending or not bending? They can’t be doing both.

[existoid]

If this were not directional, but with bending lights, as it says on the EA page, then we would not have night time.  We would see  the sun from all the way across the FE, as the light bends up towards us.

This is not the case. What makes you think that light would not be directional under EA?

Once again: Is there something about the first few paragraphs and diagrams in the EA page that you disagree with? They seem to illustrate this exact scenario quite well.

I meant to write "uni-directional" in that sentence, and I've edited it to reflect that.

No, as I've said a few times, I'm not arguing against the explanation of EA on that section of the Wiki.  Rather, I'm saying that that section is consistent conceptually (I've said this in a few of my posts on this thread). 

I'm not trying to disprove EA or something (because, again, I can't do the maths anyway). 

But given EA, we then have a problem with the explanation for night, which requires the sunlight to illuminate only a portion of the FE directly below, and to not bend upwards in order to illuminate the entire FE plane. That must be why the explanation on the introduction/FAQ uses the word "spotlight" as an analogy for how the sun works. Because spotlights shine pretty directly at a single spot. In this case, half the FE.

Let me ask about this logical contradiction using different words to perhaps break it down better:

Why is the moon not a spotlight, but the sun is? 

I'm not going to respond to the other parts of our conversation, because really, the size of the sun/moon as they travel is a separate discussion, and it's going nowhere on this thread.

[Pete Svarrior]

I meant to write "uni-directional" in that sentence, and I've edited it to reflect that.

I understood you, the question stands.

But given EA, we then have a problem with the explanation for night, which requires the sunlight to illuminate only a portion of the FE directly below, and to not bend upwards in order to illuminate the entire FE plane.

The question stands: what makes you think EA would cause sunlight to "illuminate the entire FE plane"?  This is not the case, and the very first diagram in the EA page illustrates that for your convenience. I ask once again: is there anything about that diagram and the beginning of that article that you disagree with?

Why is the moon not a spotlight, but the sun is? 

This is not the case.

[existoid]

But given EA, we then have a problem with the explanation for night, which requires the sunlight to illuminate only a portion of the FE directly below, and to not bend upwards in order to illuminate the entire FE plane.

The question stands: what makes you think EA would cause sunlight to "illuminate the entire FE plane"?  This is not the case, and the very first diagram in the EA page illustrates that for your convenience. I ask once again: is there anything about that diagram and the beginning of that article that you disagree with?

Why is the moon not a spotlight, but the sun is? 

This is not the case.

Going back to my analogy of the drone.  If the light from the very bottom of the drone were bending towards us, all three people would see the bottom of it, whether at the 1/4 mile out circle, the 1/2 mile out, or the 3/4 miles out.  That's the explanation in the EA section for how moonlight works.  So far so good.

Now, instead of looking at the drone representing the moon, another drone, representing the sun has a bright spotlight shining below it illuminating half the field. If the light from this were bending so that we all see the "nearside" of the drone as it passes overhead (as does the drone representing the moon), then why does this light that is bending "upward" not let three other people on the non-illuminated half (the night time side) not see the light too?  Maybe it doesn't bend quite enough to illuminate that side, but why would it not even be seen at all?    What is "stopping" the light from reaching across?

The EA page says light bends to account for timezones and why we see the same side of the moon in different places at once.  But the explanation for night needs to describe the sun as a spotlight, not bending up.

[Pete Svarrior]

What is "stopping" the light from reaching across?

The Earth.

Once again: the diagram I pointed to you illustrates this. Is there anything about it, or the accompanying text, that you disagree with?

[existoid]

What is "stopping" the light from reaching across?

The Earth.

Once again: the diagram I pointed to you illustrates this. Is there anything about it, or the accompanying text, that you disagree with?

"The earth" doesn't provide me with enough information to get what you mean at all.  If light is bending "up" from a spherical sun (which is not disputed by the wiki  https://wiki.tfes.org/Sun), it would illuminate across the entire FE, because it's high enough from the surface to do so. 

Rays from the "nearside" might only reach one portion, but rays from other parts of the sun would "bend" to reach the "night" part of the FE.  Does that make more sense why I find a logical contradiction in how the FE is described?  It's a spotlight, or it has bending rays that reach across.

Further, a plane that is thousands of miles up should be able to look over at the "night" side and see a massive patch of light many thousands of miles across.  The Wiki talks about the horizon and how at higher altitudes we should be able to see farther, but this also presents (a different) problem.  (I.e., imagine a third drone following our analogy with the field that has a camera, and is flying much lower than the "sun" and "moon" drones, but still higher than anything else in the field - that drone should see the "day" side no problem).  But I digress.