The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Investigations => Topic started by: Jay Seeby on February 19, 2019, 10:31:57 AM
-
Hi guys,
I am new to the flat-earth theory, and try as I might, I can't wrap my head around some things.
Is everything in the sky flat? The moon, sun, and planets? Or is it just us? How does the sun and moon get from the point in the sky where we last saw it, back to where we first saw it again? My thinking is that something as bright as the sun would be visible 24/7, unless it is orbiting us (or us orbiting it, as I believe it does)?
If everything in the sky is also flat, why does everything appear to be perfectly round? Does everything in the sky point their flat surfaces directly at us? Why don't we ever see ellipses, or even flat lines in the sky? I have owned a telescope, and viewed many objects in the sky, and everything is round.
What are the moon phases? Why does the moon appear as a crescent in perfectly predictable cycles? I am having trouble trying to work out why I've never seen a straight line in the sky? This isn't NASA telling me this, but rather things I have observed with my own eyes.
If we were able to dig straight down far enough, where would it lead us? What is on the bottom of our earth? My army buddy spent time in Antarctica, at Casey station; he never told me of a giant wall of ice.
I have so many questions, and as someone who believes whole-heartedly that the governments and elite institutions of the world are well and truly involved in cover-ups and conspiracies, I am willing to believe in this too, should the evidence be compelling enough. I don't, for instance, believe we have been to the moon; I believe this is a cold-war conspiracy. I need to address my lack of understanding before I can accept this theory. I will be honest and tell you I think flat-earthers are crazy, but I have been wrong about things I believed in the past, and can accept I may be wrong now. I just need something to make my brain understand.
All I ask is somebody explain these things to me.
Thank you all sincerely for taking the time to read, and address these things.
-
Post Flat Earth questions in Flat Earth boards only. Thread moved.
-
Is everything in the sky flat? The moon, sun, and planets? Or is it just us?
The official stance is that it is just us (https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Cosmos#The_Sun).
How does the sun and moon get from the point in the sky where we last saw it, back to where we first saw it again? My thinking is that something as bright as the sun would be visible 24/7, unless it is orbiting us (or us orbiting it, as I believe it does)?
See: previous hyperlink.
What are the moon phases? Why does the moon appear as a crescent in perfectly predictable cycles? I am having trouble trying to work out why I've never seen a straight line in the sky? This isn't NASA telling me this, but rather things I have observed with my own eyes.
The official stance (https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Phases_of_the_Moon) can be found on the Wiki.
If we were able to dig straight down far enough, where would it lead us? What is on the bottom of our earth?
Interesting question. No clue.
My army buddy spent time in Antarctica, at Casey station; he never told me of a giant wall of ice.
It's possible (https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Ice_Wall) your friend didn't recognize that part.
-
Hi guys,
I am new to the flat-earth theory, and try as I might, I can't wrap my head around some things.
Is everything in the sky flat? The moon, sun, and planets? Or is it just us? How does the sun and moon get from the point in the sky where we last saw it, back to where we first saw it again? My thinking is that something as bright as the sun would be visible 24/7, unless it is orbiting us (or us orbiting it, as I believe it does)?
If everything in the sky is also flat, why does everything appear to be perfectly round? Does everything in the sky point their flat surfaces directly at us? Why don't we ever see ellipses, or even flat lines in the sky? I have owned a telescope, and viewed many objects in the sky, and everything is round.
Those objects also spin, and some have visible moons which visibly orbit their planets. The FE explanation is that just because every object of significant size we have found is spherical and rotate doesn’t mean the Earth is.
What are the moon phases? Why does the moon appear as a crescent in perfectly predictable cycles? I am having trouble trying to work out why I've never seen a straight line in the sky? This isn't NASA telling me this, but rather things I have observed with my own eyes.
This question has been asked and asked with no explanation given which match our observations that I have found. Multiple models isn’t an answer when none of the models work with a near Sun/Moon to make the moon phases as observed.
If we were able to dig straight down far enough, where would it lead us? What is on the bottom of our earth? My army buddy spent time in Antarctica, at Casey station; he never told me of a giant wall of ice.
Ask your friend if he witnessed the Sun not setting for 24 hours. The Earth isn’t flat if he witnessed it. Which routes did he take to get to or from Antarctica? If he flew some connecting direct routes in the Southern Hemisphere such as anywhere in Australia or New Zealand to South America or South Africa in the time stated by the airlines then the Earth isn’t flat as described by the FE wiki.
I have so many questions, and as someone who believes whole-heartedly that the governments and elite institutions of the world are well and truly involved in cover-ups and conspiracies, I am willing to believe in this too, should the evidence be compelling enough. I don't, for instance, believe we have been to the moon; I believe this is a cold-war conspiracy. I need to address my lack of understanding before I can accept this theory. I will be honest and tell you I think flat-earthers are crazy, but I have been wrong about things I believed in the past, and can accept I may be wrong now. I just need something to make my brain understand.
You should do some research on third party verification of the moon landings. This is a good start:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings
In a few years, SpaceX is planning a pass around the Moon with a rich benefactor, it should be interesting to see.
All I ask is somebody explain these things to me.
Thank you all sincerely for taking the time to read, and address these things.
Thanks for stopping by! For me, looking into these ideas expands my knowledge of our place in the Universe and that can’t be a bad thing.
-
What are the moon phases? Why does the moon appear as a crescent in perfectly predictable cycles? I am having trouble trying to work out why I've never seen a straight line in the sky? This isn't NASA telling me this, but rather things I have observed with my own eyes.
This question has been asked and asked with no explanation given which match our observations that I have found. Multiple models isn’t an answer when none of the models work with a near Sun/Moon to make the moon phases as observed.
Well, this isn't really true. There are several explanations, to wit:
1. The Moon emits its own light
2. The Moon reflects light from a different source than the Sun.
If we were able to dig straight down far enough, where would it lead us? What is on the bottom of our earth? My army buddy spent time in Antarctica, at Casey station; he never told me of a giant wall of ice.
Ask your friend if he witnessed the Sun not setting for 24 hours. The Earth isn’t flat if he witnessed it. Which routes did he take to get to or from Antarctica? If he flew some connecting direct routes in the Southern Hemisphere such as anywhere in Australia or New Zealand to South America or South Africa in the time stated by the airlines then the Earth isn’t flat as described by the FE wiki.
It is not known what exists beneath the Earth. No one has dug far enough to tell. Also, the lack of evidence is not evidence for the contrapositive. The ice wall could simply be farther than Casey station.
"Ask your friend if he witnessed the Sun not setting for 24 hours. The Earth isn’t flat if he witnessed it." This makes no sense at all. Please explain how a FE precludes a 24 daylight period?
-
It is obvious the moon does not emit it's own source of light. I'm not sure why this keeps getting raised in debates. You can use a camera/telescope to look closer at the moon to see it has craters with a light source casting shadows that match perfectly to a spheroid body with an external light source. Based on this alone it is obvious the moon isn't emitting it's own source of light.
-
It is obvious the moon does not emit it's own source of light. I'm not sure why this keeps getting raised in debates. You can use a camera/telescope to look closer at the moon to see it has craters with a light source casting shadows that match perfectly to a spheroid body with an external light source. Based on this alone it is obvious the moon isn't emitting it's own source of light.
Hi Chris!
I quite disagree. Observing shadows does not indicate whether the light is incident or originating from an object. It’s pretty easy to see this. Using the flashlight on your phone and an index card will suffice. Give it a try!
-
It is obvious the moon does not emit it's own source of light. I'm not sure why this keeps getting raised in debates. You can use a camera/telescope to look closer at the moon to see it has craters with a light source casting shadows that match perfectly to a spheroid body with an external light source. Based on this alone it is obvious the moon isn't emitting it's own source of light.
Hi Chris!
I quite disagree. Observing shadows does not indicate whether the light is incident or originating from an object. It’s pretty easy to see this. Using the flashlight on your phone and an index card will suffice. Give it a try!
So I guess the typical glober stance is that the shadows on the moon itself prove that the light is not originating from the moon.
Specifically, if you look through a telescope, you can see mountains and craters on the moon, and it appears that the mountains and craters have shadows behind and in them, respectively.
They argue that this proves that the moon itself is no the source of light, otherwise the earth's moon's surface would be giving off the same light all around the mountains and inside the craters as well.
Can you explain how I would use my phone and an index card to emulate the moon's appearance as a light source?
-
Specifically, if you look through a telescope, you can see mountains and craters on the moon, and it appears that the mountains and craters have shadows behind and in them, respectively.
Also, there's any number of apps and websites that can tell you where the sun, Earth and moon are in relation to each other in a heliocentric model at any time. You could use one of these to check where the sun is in relation to the moon and whether the angles of the shadows on the moon matches a light source from this direction.
If the position of the sun is correct in relation to observers on Earth at that time, and the position of the moon is correct in relation to observers on Earth at that time, and the angle of the shadows on the moon indicate a light source from the direction of the sun's location, that is quite a strong argument in favour of the heliocentric model, particularly for gibbous and full moons. Now let's also consider a partial lunar eclipse, and you confirm that the sun and the moon are supposed to be on opposite sides of the Earth at that time in the heliocentric model, and you see something that looks like the shadow of a large object on the moon at that time, and that shadow looks to be of a round object, and the other shadows match a light source from the direction where the sun is expected to be...
-
There are times when the sun is just setting and the moon is visible and it looks to the naked eye as though the sun is too low in the sky to be illuminating the moon. The terminator on the moon doesn’t appear to line up with where the sun is. That has been discussed on here before, the effect is actually an optical illusion. You can prove this by holding out a piece of string in front of you and lining it up between the moon and sun. If you do that you’ll see it all lines up perfectly.
This is more evidence that it is indeed the sun illuminating the moon.
I’m not clear why the moon would have phases if it was self-illuminating. Do only certain parts of it light up at certain points in the lunar cycle? Why would that be?
I’m also not clear about the light and index card experiment.
-
It is obvious the moon does not emit it's own source of light. I'm not sure why this keeps getting raised in debates. You can use a camera/telescope to look closer at the moon to see it has craters with a light source casting shadows that match perfectly to a spheroid body with an external light source. Based on this alone it is obvious the moon isn't emitting it's own source of light.
Hi Chris!
I quite disagree. Observing shadows does not indicate whether the light is incident or originating from an object. It’s pretty easy to see this. Using the flashlight on your phone and an index card will suffice. Give it a try!
So I guess the typical glober stance is that the shadows on the moon itself prove that the light is not originating from the moon.
Specifically, if you look through a telescope, you can see mountains and craters on the moon, and it appears that the mountains and craters have shadows behind and in them, respectively.
They argue that this proves that the moon itself is no the source of light, otherwise the earth's surface would be giving off the same light all around the mountains and inside the craters as well.
Can you explain how I would use my phone and an index card to emulate the moon's appearance as a light source?
Hi Tom!
I don’t understand the statement that the Earth would be giving off the light in all directions. You mean the light from the Moon? Assuredly not. The Earth’s composition is not uniform, hence the radiation of light from its surface would not be either.
Use the card to cast a shadow on the table. Now without moving the card, change the position of the phone from above the table to closer to the table’s surface. You can produce the same shadow with some experimentation.
It is my experience that folks have a rather poor understanding of how shadows work. One can observe this especially with Conspiracy theorists who question the moon landing photographs.
-
There are times when the sun is just setting and the moon is visible and it looks to the naked eye as though the sun is too low in the sky to be illuminating the moon. The terminator on the moon doesn’t appear to line up with where the sun is. That has been discussed on here before, the effect is actually an optical illusion. You can prove this by holding out a piece of string in front of you and lining it up between the moon and sun. If you do that you’ll see it all lines up perfectly.
This is more evidence that it is indeed the sun illuminating the moon.
I’m not clear why the moon would have phases if it was self-illuminating. Do only certain parts of it light up at certain points in the lunar cycle? Why would that be?
I’m also not clear about the light and index card experiment.
Yes, the moon phases are interesting. There may be a combination of reflected and emitted light from the moon. Or, the moon may emit a certain spectrum of light, which when passes through out atmosphere, only certain wavelengths scatter off air molecules (which is what we see), thus complicating it what is really the emission spectrum.
Remember, we only see visible, which is a minute fraction of the em spectrum.
-
QED, you are simply coming up with ad hoc and post hoc explanations where there is no explanation needed for the moon emitting or not emitting light.
-
QED, you are simply coming up with ad hoc and post hoc explanations where there is no explanation needed for the moon emitting or not emitting light.
No. I am proposing possible explanations for observations to spur further investigation. This is part of the process.
Do you even science, bro?
-
Hi Tom!
I don’t understand the statement that the Earth would be giving off the light in all directions. You mean the light from the Moon? Assuredly not. The Earth’s composition is not uniform, hence the radiation of light from its surface would not be either.
Sorry QED, Yeah, I meant to type "moon's" not "earth's"! I have corrected it:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=13663.msg186155#msg186155
Use the card to cast a shadow on the table. Now without moving the card, change the position of the phone from above the table to closer to the table’s surface. You can produce the same shadow with some experimentation.
It is my experience that folks have a rather poor understanding of how shadows work. One can observe this especially with Conspiracy theorists who question the moon landing photographs.
I'm trying to follow your card example, but I'm not sure I have it right.
Are you saying hold the card flat above the table let's say 12 inches, then hold the phone light 24 inches above the table, above the card, and shining down?
The shadow should be approximately double the size of the card, right?
Then I move the phone closer to the table, without moving the card, right?
And you're saying the shadow won't change size? or just that it won't change shape?
And I still fail to see how this helps me understand how a self luminous moon would be casting shadows on itself.
-
Hi Tom!
I don’t understand the statement that the Earth would be giving off the light in all directions. You mean the light from the Moon? Assuredly not. The Earth’s composition is not uniform, hence the radiation of light from its surface would not be either.
Sorry QED, Yeah, I meant to type "moon's" not "earth's"! I have corrected it:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=13663.msg186155#msg186155
Use the card to cast a shadow on the table. Now without moving the card, change the position of the phone from above the table to closer to the table’s surface. You can produce the same shadow with some experimentation.
It is my experience that folks have a rather poor understanding of how shadows work. One can observe this especially with Conspiracy theorists who question the moon landing photographs.
I'm trying to follow your card example, but I'm not sure I have it right.
Are you saying hold the card flat above the table let's say 12 inches, then hold the phone light 24 inches above the table, above the card, and shining down?
The shadow should be approximately double the size of the card, right?
Then I move the phone closer to the table, without moving the card, right?
And you're saying the shadow won't change size? or just that it won't change shape?
And I still fail to see how this helps me understand how a self luminous moon would be casting shadows on itself.
Oh, I see the problem. No, the way you’re doing it won’t help. My bad; my instructions were unclear.
Hold the card normal to the table. Now tilt it to like a 45 angle relative to normal. You see a shadow with the phone shining from above. Now put the phone on the table with flashlight pointing up. Tilt the phone towards the card and this will produce a shadow too. They won’t be the same shadow - the angles are all wrong. This just shows that all you need is a non-homogenous light source on the moon, which can make shadows on its surface by scattering off topography that is non-emitting.
Hence, if the Moon is an emitter, it must be non-uniform. This is almost required in order to produce Moon phases, so it is not a surprise.
-
This is such a convoluted explanation when the one we have - that the moon is lit by the sun - already matches observations.
-
Of course, there is a very simple observation which definitely rules out the proposition that the Moon is emitting its own light. Can any REer out there identify it?
I would expect several of you to know this, since the trend I see on these forums is that REers believe themselves to be much smarter about these things than us.
Don’t let me down :)
-
This is such a convoluted explanation when the one we have - that the moon is lit by the sun - already matches observations.
See my most recent post, and please offer me the observation to justify your claim :)
-
This is such a convoluted explanation when the one we have - that the moon is lit by the sun - already matches observations.
See my most recent post, and please offer me the observation to justify your claim :)
There is no need to ask here, look it up on the internet.
-
In order for the Moon to emit light of its own light it would have to be generating its own energy from within. There are two very good reasons why it can't do that. Firstly it is made entirely of rock and secondly it is far too small. The shadow patterns that we see from the craters, mountains and other features are exactly what we would expect to see if one assumes that the Moon is being illuminated by the Sun.
When the Moon is at first quarter (90 degree angular elongation between the Sun and Moon as seen from Earth) the shadow detail is most pronounced along the terminator which also coincides with the central meridian of the visible disk. As we edge from first quarter towards full Moon the shadow detail gradually lessens until they vanish completely on the night of full Moon. At that point the Sun is shining directly down on the lunar surface as seen from Earth and hence there are no shadows visible. Apart from the merest suggestion at the very edge (limb) of the lunar disk. We would expect that as the Moons surface is curving away from the Sun.
As we go from full Moon towards last quarter and then new Moon again we see the shadows pointing in the opposite direction to what they were while the Moon was waxing. That of course is exactly what we would expect to see given that the Moons surface is being illuminated by the Sun. The Moons spectrum is also identical to the solar spectrum. The faintly glowing light on the dark part of the Moons disk that we see for a few nights after new Moon is called Earth shine. As the name implies, it is caused by light reflected off the Earth in the direction of the Moon.
I have been observing and image the Moon for about 40 years now through various telescopes and cameras so that is my evidence. The simplest explanation for this is that the Sun is illuminating the Moons surface. The appearance and lengths of the shadows that I see is are caused by the changing angles between the Sun, Moon and Earth as the Moon orbits the Earth during the month. That also explains very nicely the observed phase cycle.
I don't consider myself any smarter than anyone on here. I am simply offering you my own evidence based on my own observations. I leave the rest up to you.
-
I suppose it would be possible for there to be street lamps on the moon, thus casting shadows.
But if you look at the shadows they all point to a single light, a great distance from the moon.
That light can either be hitting from the side, or straight above, or hitting from the other side, but the shadows always go the same way on any given day so it's not like local light.
I think this is why Mark Sargent has taken the stance that the sun, moon, and stars are projected upon [the dome], by an ultra high definition system, using super LED technology, and a combination of 2D and 3D imaging..
https://youtu.be/4SlRsbQ3nfM?t=4030
But I'm even having doubts about that being a workable model.
Even if the sun was a projection on the dome, and it was projected to be over behind Alaska for the correct position in the sky to be seen from Australia, it would still be projected onto the dome at a point that was closer to Alaska during the Australian Equinox Sunset.
So we'd have to basically say that it was being holographically projected at a much much lower level.
-
In order for the Moon to emit light of its own light it would have to be generating its own energy from within. There are two very good reasons why it can't do that. Firstly it is made entirely of rock and secondly it is far too small. The shadow patterns that we see from the craters, mountains and other features are exactly what we would expect to see if one assumes that the Moon is being illuminated by the Sun.
When the Moon is at first quarter (90 degree angular elongation between the Sun and Moon as seen from Earth) the shadow detail is most pronounced along the terminator which also coincides with the central meridian of the visible disk. As we edge from first quarter towards full Moon the shadow detail gradually lessens until they vanish completely on the night of full Moon. At that point the Sun is shining directly down on the lunar surface as seen from Earth and hence there are no shadows visible. Apart from the merest suggestion at the very edge (limb) of the lunar disk. We would expect that as the Moons surface is curving away from the Sun.
As we go from full Moon towards last quarter and then new Moon again we see the shadows pointing in the opposite direction to what they were while the Moon was waxing. That of course is exactly what we would expect to see given that the Moons surface is being illuminated by the Sun. The Moons spectrum is also identical to the solar spectrum. The faintly glowing light on the dark part of the Moons disk that we see for a few nights after new Moon is called Earth shine. As the name implies, it is caused by light reflected off the Earth in the direction of the Moon.
I have been observing and image the Moon for about 40 years now through various telescopes and cameras so that is my evidence. The simplest explanation for this is that the Sun is illuminating the Moons surface. The appearance and lengths of the shadows that I see is are caused by the changing angles between the Sun, Moon and Earth as the Moon orbits the Earth during the month. That also explains very nicely the observed phase cycle.
I don't consider myself any smarter than anyone on here. I am simply offering you my own evidence based on my own observations. I leave the rest up to you.
Your comments are reasonable, but are only consistent with the Moon not emitting light. None of them definitively prove the moon can’t.
The energy argument is most compelling, but there could be an energy source we have not yet identified.
There is a very simple observation one can make with the unaided eye which proves the Moon cannot be an emitter. I am still waiting for a REer to find it.
And I agree, you have always been fair with your statements as far as I have seen. Not all REers share this property.
-
And I agree, you have always been fair with your statements as far as I have seen. Not all REers share this property.
I am also honest. I read all the views expressed and then compare them to my own real world experiences. Many people on here make comments about astronomy but the nature of them tells me straight away that they have no actual experience of doing astronomy. The example above about having street lamps on the Moon is one such example. In order to detect a light with the energy output of a street lamp from the distance of the Moon would require one of the worlds largest telescopes and a very sensitive camera. And of course that begs the question of how did the street lights get there?!?
I have already stated all the evidence I need to do for this post so I shall step aside now and let others provide their contributions.
There is a very simple observation one can make with the unaided eye which proves the Moon cannot be an emitter. I am still waiting for a REer to find it.
Please PM me and describe this to me... I would love to know what you think that is!
-
Lunar phases are proof the moon does not produce it's own light. Whether you subscribe to the RE model or what is stated here in the FE wiki.
-
Lunar phases are proof the moon does not produce it's own light. Whether you subscribe to the RE model or what is stated here in the FE wiki.
Precisely. You have my respect, sir.
Lunar eclipses would also suffice.
-
So we'd have to basically say that it was being holographically projected at a much much lower level.
And even that wouldn't work because people at different latitudes viewing the spherical holograph moon (I assume this is what you meant) simultaneously see the same features in the same places. For example, a crater near the edge will be near the edge for both (although it could be near the top or the bottom edge depending on the location of the observer). In other words, they wouldn't see the same "face" of the moon. That only works for a distant moon.
Actually, can we agree that:
1. Any shape projected onto any surface (flat or curved) can not appear circular to observers in Tokyo and Melbourne (or Warsaw and Johannesburg, etc) simultaneously at the distances proposed for the dome (thousands of kilometres rather than hundreds of thousands). One will always be an oval if the other is a circle.
2. If the same "face" of a spherical object/hologram appears to observers in Tokyo and Melbourne simultaneously, the object must be distant (hundreds of thousands of kilometres).