The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Loominaty on July 01, 2014, 02:32:13 PM
-
Hey,
I'm pretty new to this Flat Earth Society but i really like it because it shows us a different point of view on the planet we're living. I've read a lot in the FAQ but however I still have some questions concerning the moon.
In the FAQ there's a beautiful gif, demonstrating the day and night cycle, but why can we see at night at all? Why isn't it completely dark? And especially, how can we see the moon?
And since the moon and the sun are in one geometrical plane parallel to the earth's plane, how can Solar/Lunar Eclipses occur?
I can't seem to find an explanation in the FAQ, so I wanted to ask here and hope to get some clarification :)
-
Interesting, if slightly naive questions.
Solar/Lunar eclipses are caused by the anti-moon. It's a disc that covers the moon/sun during said eclipse, some also call it the Shadow Object. Its orbital plane is tilted at an angle of about 5°10' to the sun's orbital plane, making eclipses possible only when the three bodies are aligned and when the moon is crossing the sun's orbital plane.
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.
-
Interesting, if slightly naive questions.
Solar/Lunar eclipses are caused by the anti-moon. It's a disc that covers the moon/sun during said eclipse, some also call it the Shadow Object. Its orbital plane is tilted at an angle of about 5°10' to the sun's orbital plane, making eclipses possible only when the three bodies are aligned and when the moon is crossing the sun's orbital plane.
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.
That's not right. I suggest you spend some time reading and thinking.
In FET, solar eclipses are caused by the interposition of the Moon between the Sun and the observer, and Lunar eclipses are caused by the interposition of the Shadow Object between the Moon and the observer. Also, the "anti-moon" in FET is often the Moon of the "flip" side that causes the tides "opposite" the Moon.
I never seen any FET (or FEer post) explain the varying transparency of the Shadow Object, the predictable cycle (and locations) of eclipses, the apparent velocity of eclipses, and much more. V's contention that the Shadow Object orbits the Sun in the specified orbital plane is beyond fancy. Heck, you can't possibly describe an orbit plane with just one angle.
-
Sorry to burst you bubble, but most of what I typed was lifted straight from the wiki. Maybe you should spend some time reading and thinking? ::)
So yes, most of what I said applies to FET. Whether or not you agree with it is irrelevant.
-
Its orbital plane is tilted at an angle of about 5°10' to the sun's orbital plane, making eclipses possible only when the three bodies are aligned and when the moon is crossing the sun's orbital plane.
Could you explain this any further? As far as I've read, the sun and the moon are in the same orbital plane and never really cross each others orbits.
There's this gif in the FAQ (http://wiki.tfes.org/images/7/70/SunAnimation.gif) which demonstrates the orbits of sun and moon quite well but leaves some questions open as i mentioned earlier.
Your explanation of the Anti Moon makes me also wonder what that thing is and why such a small object can even exist that close to the sun without either getting swallowed by the sun or just burnt and destroyed by the powerful rays.
-
Sorry to burst you bubble, but most of what I typed was lifted straight from the FAQS. Maybe you should spend some time reading and thinking? ::)
So yes, most of what I said applies to FET. Whether or not you agree with it is irrelevant.
I do feel sad for your confusion. I suspect that you are confusing new and old sites. This, new, site, has a FAQ that does not even include "anti-moon" or "shadow object". See: http://wiki.tfes.org/FAQ
-
Sorry to burst you bubble, but most of what I typed was lifted straight from the FAQS. Maybe you should spend some time reading and thinking? ::)
So yes, most of what I said applies to FET. Whether or not you agree with it is irrelevant.
I do feel sad for your confusion. I suspect that you are confusing new and old sites. This, new, site, has a FAQ that does not even include "anti-moon" or "shadow object". See: http://wiki.tfes.org/FAQ
You are correct, but it doesn't change the validity of the theories. Just because this is a different site doesn't mean it follows a completely different Flat Earth Theory. I do not make the wiki, so any lack of information on the wiki's part is not my concern. I use both wikis depending on what information I need. Have you ever heard of cross-referencing? Have you ever wrote a school paper? ???
Where I got the information is not important. I guess you're just resorting to low-blows since you can't disprove the invisible Shadow Object.
Oh, here's this wiki's explanation of eclipses. (http://wiki.tfes.org/The_Lunar_Eclipse) Notice anything in the second sentence? Please try to do some research before you rage-post, thanks.
Could you explain this any further? As far as I've read, the sun and the moon are in the same orbital plane and never really cross each others orbits.
There's this gif in the FAQ (http://wiki.tfes.org/images/7/70/SunAnimation.gif) which demonstrates the orbits of sun and moon quite well but leaves some questions open as i mentioned earlier.
Your explanation of the Anti Moon makes me also wonder what that thing is and why such a small object can even exist that close to the sun without either getting swallowed by the sun or just burnt and destroyed by the powerful rays.
The Shadow Object (antimoon) is made out of aetheric particles and is resistant to heat. You can easily identify the Antimoon at night by looking for the patch of darkness (no stars) in the sky. It's usually pretty easy to spot.
-
Sorry to burst you bubble, but most of what I typed was lifted straight from the FAQS. Maybe you should spend some time reading and thinking? ::)
So yes, most of what I said applies to FET. Whether or not you agree with it is irrelevant.
I do feel sad for your confusion. I suspect that you are confusing new and old sites. This, new, site, has a FAQ that does not even include "anti-moon" or "shadow object". See: http://wiki.tfes.org/FAQ
You are correct, but it doesn't change the validity of the theories. Just because this is a different site doesn't mean it follows a completely different Flat Earth Theory. I do not make the wiki, so any lack of information on the wiki's part is not my concern. I use both wikis depending on what information I need. Have you ever heard of cross-referencing? Have you ever wrote a school paper? ???
Where I got the information is not important. I guess you're just resorting to low-blows since you can't disprove the invisible Shadow Object.
Could you explain this any further? As far as I've read, the sun and the moon are in the same orbital plane and never really cross each others orbits.
There's this gif in the FAQ (http://wiki.tfes.org/images/7/70/SunAnimation.gif) which demonstrates the orbits of sun and moon quite well but leaves some questions open as i mentioned earlier.
Your explanation of the Anti Moon makes me also wonder what that thing is and why such a small object can even exist that close to the sun without either getting swallowed by the sun or just burnt and destroyed by the powerful rays.
The Shadow Object (antimoon) is made out of aetheric particles and is resistant to heat. You can easily identify the Antimoon at night by looking for the patch of darkness (no stars) in the sky. It's usually pretty easy to spot.
How interesting. So when you tell us where you "got" the information, and you admit that you were confused and didn't really get it from there, it's unimportant to you. I guess I know more about your integrity now.
Did you want to derail this thread into a discussion based on another site? Surely the other site is the place to defend its FAQ.
Now it you want to advance a theory of this "anti-moon" here, and present evidence of it, I'd be happy to join the debate.
Let me start then with: First you stated that there was one object that causes both types (solar and lunar) of eclipses. You claimed before that you cannot readily see the anti-moon because the Sun washes it out. Now you claim that you can readily see the anti-moon and provide a method to do so. If it's so easy, then please do provide a photograph of it within the last 30 days. Please be sure to demonstrate its shape, size, location in the sky, and (anonymized) provenance. Thanks.
-
Oh, here's this wiki's explanation of eclipses. (http://wiki.tfes.org/The_Lunar_Eclipse) Notice anything in the second sentence? Please try to do some research before you rage-post, thanks.
Remember to reread posts before your post something.
-
Oh, here's this wiki's explanation of eclipses. (http://wiki.tfes.org/The_Lunar_Eclipse) Notice anything in the second sentence? Please try to do some research before you rage-post, thanks.
Remember to reread posts before your post something.
So you now want to switch from the FAQ to the Wiki. That's fine by me.
Let me start by the challenge, again, how do you expect to define "an orbital plane" by just one angle? What is the Sun's "orbital plane"? It doesn't orbit in the satellite sense. As the welcome page wishes "Happy New Gears"!
-
You're a big fan of pedantic arguments that have no bearing on what we're talking about, huh? Your original point was that this site's wiki does not mention the Shadow Object. I have provided evidence that it does. Clearly. And guess what? It explains eclipses the same way I did. Big surprise. I guess I inaccurately assumed you understood what I meant when I said "FAQs" because I really meant "wiki". After all, the FAQs are part of the Wiki to begin with... I'm sorry that that confused you so much, but maybe that's a symptom of a bigger problem?
Handling defeat is pretty tough, huh? If you want to know what "orbit" and "angle" means, please use google and type a quick "define:".
Also, if you're confused about how the Sun and Moon discs rotate there are several diagrams, one of which was posted in this thread. I can't expect you to find it (judging by your er... questionable original posts), so I will post it myself:
(http://wiki.tfes.org/images/7/70/SunAnimation.gif)
Also, like I've said before, you can easily spot the Shadow Object with your own eyes by looking at the sky at night. There is almost always a circular patch of sky that has no stars. That's the Shadow Object. Are you blind as well as stupid?
Also, this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_college) might interest and benefit you as well.
-
Also, like I've said before, you can easily spot the Shadow Object with your own eyes by looking at the sky at night. There is almost always a circular patch of sky that has no stars. That's the Shadow Object. Are you blind as well as stupid?
??? Wait a minute. Didn't you say that the shadow object is never seen because it orbits close to the sun?
The Shadow Object is never seen because it orbits close to the sun.
Why yes, you did say that. Perhaps you should get your own story straight before you start calling other people blind and/or stupid. ::)
-
You're a big fan of pedantic arguments that have no bearing on what we're talking about, huh? Your original point was that this site's wiki does not mention the Shadow Object. I have provided evidence that it does. Clearly. And guess what? It explains eclipses the same way I did. Big surprise. I guess I inaccurately assumed you understood what I meant when I said "FAQs" because I really meant "wiki". After all, the FAQs are part of the Wiki to begin with... I'm sorry that that confused you so much, but maybe that's a symptom of a bigger problem?
Handling defeat is pretty tough, huh? If you want to know what "orbit" and "angle" means, please use google and type a quick "define:".
Also, if you're confused about how the Sun and Moon discs rotate there are several diagrams, one of which was posted in this thread. I can't expect you to find it (judging by your er... questionable original posts), so I will post it myself:
(http://wiki.tfes.org/images/7/70/SunAnimation.gif)
Also, like I've said before, you can easily spot the Shadow Object with your own eyes by looking at the sky at night. There is almost always a circular patch of sky that has no stars. That's the Shadow Object. Are you blind as well as stupid?
Also, this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_college) might interest and benefit you as well.
No, I did not contend the Wiki does not mention the Shadow Object.
No, the Wiki does not explain eclipses the way you did. For example, the Wiki does not address solar eclipse or postulate that the same object is involved in both types.
Yes, you'd be correct. I expect that when you say "FAQ" you mean it.
No, I do not need to review either "orbit" or "angle". My challenge to you remains unanswered: Explain how one angle can describe an orbital plane. Also, still open: Tell us what the Sun orbits. The diagrams show nothing near the center (or focuses) of the Sun's (or Moon's) path.
I suspect that you've accidentally used "rotate" for "revolve" and made allowances accordingly.
I renew my challenge about your providing a photograph (with conditions) of the Shadow Object. I now have to question your honesty: If it's so easy to see most nights, why can't you produce photographic evidence of it. You wouldn't be lying now, would you?
-
Yes, let me take a picture real quick of a practically invisible disc object. ::)
I've provided ways to research this for yourself. Stop being lazy. We do not accept photographic evidence because it can be doctored. You should go by our example. Photographic evidence is never reliable. Use your mind instead of your eyes for once.
What I'm trying to say is that if I posted a picture I would not be able to guarantee reliability.
-
Yes, let me take a picture real quick of a practically invisible disc object. ::)
I've provided ways to research this for yourself. Stop being lazy. We do not accept photographic evidence because it can be doctored. You should go by our example. Photographic evidence is never reliable. Use your mind instead of your eyes for once.
You said is was easy to see. Now when challenged to support your outlandish claim, it's "practically invisible". Photographic evidence with proper provenance is wonderfully reliable, accepted in courts and scientific journals around the world for over a hundred years.
It's your claim. It's your responsibility to bring your evidence. You're the one being lazy. On second thought, now I rather think you've confirmed your dishonesty.
-
When I say "easy to spot" what I assume you'd gather from that is that it is easy to precieve. Especially combined with words like invisible and "patch of darkness". I do have a picture of the supposed Shadow Object but it does not constitute evidence, its just a patch of missing stars from the night sky.
-
When I say "easy to spot" what I assume you'd gather from that is that it is easy to precieve. Especially combined with words like invisible and "patch of darkness". I do have a picture of the supposed Shadow Object but it does not constitute evidence, its just a patch of missing stars from the night sky.
Why would it not constitute evidence? You keep using that word, but I do not think it means what you think it means. Do you understand provenance? Do you understand how to document the locations (observation site and location in the sky)? Do you understand that FET should be able to predict when and where to see this object?
Have you conceded your error about solar eclipses?
-
Have you conceded your error about solar eclipses?
Nope.
Just so you know.
Perceive: interpret or look on (someone or something) in a particular way; regard as.
-
Have you conceded your error about solar eclipses?
Nope.
Just so you know.
Perceive: interpret or look on (someone or something) in a particular way; regard as.
Did you have a response that you forgot to post? Are you still claiming that FET has only one object for both types of eclipses? I realized you misspelled "perceive" and made allowances, but thanks for the effort.When I say "easy to spot" what I assume you'd gather from that is that it is easy to precieve. Especially combined with words like invisible and "patch of darkness". I do have a picture of the supposed Shadow Object but it does not constitute evidence, its just a patch of missing stars from the night sky.
-
Have you conceded your error about solar eclipses?
Nope.
Just so you know.
Perceive: interpret or look on (someone or something) in a particular way; regard as.
Did you have a response that you forgot to post? Are you still claiming that FET has only one object for both types of eclipses? I realized you misspelled "perceive" and made allowances, but thanks for the effort.When I say "easy to spot" what I assume you'd gather from that is that it is easy to precieve. Especially combined with words like invisible and "patch of darkness". I do have a picture of the supposed Shadow Object but it does not constitute evidence, its just a patch of missing stars from the night sky.
That was my mistake. I am posting from a phone and my auto-correct is wacky. Do you have a better rebuttal than "show me pictures" or "you spelled this word incorrectly"?
Are you just grasping at straws now or...?
-
That was my mistake. I am posting from a phone and my auto-correct is wacky. Do you have a better rebuttal than "show me pictures" or "you spelled this word incorrectly"?
Are you just grasping at straws now or...?
I'll wait on your answers to the questions and challenges I've already posted. If your "scroll" on your phone is wacky too and you can't review the thread, please wait until you're on a device made this century. Thanks.
-
That was my mistake. I am posting from a phone and my auto-correct is wacky. Do you have a better rebuttal than "show me pictures" or "you spelled this word incorrectly"?
Are you just grasping at straws now or...?
I'll wait on your answers to the questions and challenges I've already posted. If your "scroll" on your phone is wacky too and you can't review the thread, please wait until you're on a device made this century. Thanks.
I'm sorry that my explanation eludes you. I have given you all my knowledge on the Antimoon. Make of it what you will.
It's funny that you're demanding evidence when it hasn't even been proven beyond a doubt that your theory is correct. Which is that the Earth is round. Maybe once you prove this to us without the use of doctored photos, straw man arguments, and intellectual dishonesty we can have a productive discussion? I look forward to that day.
-
That was my mistake. I am posting from a phone and my auto-correct is wacky. Do you have a better rebuttal than "show me pictures" or "you spelled this word incorrectly"?
Are you just grasping at straws now or...?
I'll wait on your answers to the questions and challenges I've already posted. If your "scroll" on your phone is wacky too and you can't review the thread, please wait until you're on a device made this century. Thanks.
I'm sorry that my explanation eludes you. I have given you all my knowledge on the Antimoon. Make of it what you will.
It's funny that you're demanding evidence when it hasn't even been proven beyond a doubt that your theory is correct. Which is that the Earth is round. Maybe once you prove this to us without the use of doctored photos, straw man arguments, and intellectual dishonesty we can have a productive discussion? I look forward to that day.
It's the "Shadow Object".
So you give up providing evidence. I expected as much.
Does "my" theory have proof? What a silly question. Please study the Scientific Method and try again.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method)
If you have any RET evidence that was doctored, or RET arguments that were fallacious, or some other RET dishonesty, please do open a new thread to present it. I'd really hate to see this noob's question derailed. Thanks.
-
When I say "easy to spot" what I assume you'd gather from that is that it is easy to precieve. Especially combined with words like invisible and "patch of darkness".
How is an object that orbits close to the sun "easy to spot" in the night sky? ???
-
When I say "easy to spot" what I assume you'd gather from that is that it is easy to precieve. Especially combined with words like invisible and "patch of darkness".
How is an object that orbits close to the sun "easy to spot" in the night sky? ???
I also want to know this. Seems quite contradictory to me ???
Furthermore, I'd like to know how we can see the moon at all. In school and university I've learnt that the moonlight is just a reflection of the sunlight which sounds plausible but however this doesn't work if sun and moon are in the same orbital plane. The moon would always be invisible, it would be completely dark at night, there would be no lunar phases, etc.
I'd really like to know this :)
-
When I say "easy to spot" what I assume you'd gather from that is that it is easy to precieve. Especially combined with words like invisible and "patch of darkness".
How is an object that orbits close to the sun "easy to spot" in the night sky? ???
I also want to know this. Seems quite contradictory to me ???
Furthermore, I'd like to know how we can see the moon at all. In school and university I've learnt that the moonlight is just a reflection of the sunlight which sounds plausible but however this doesn't work if sun and moon are in the same orbital plane. The moon would always be invisible, it would be completely dark at night, there would be no lunar phases, etc.
I'd really like to know this :)
Let me try to answer for the FEers...
Again, the Sun (and the Moon) do not orbit, so they have no "orbital plane". Perhaps, just "gear plane" or "plane" would be the best terms.
According to Rowbotham's Earth is not a Globe, the Moon shines by its own, harmful, light. (I have posted a extensive critique of EnaG that shows EnaG is inherently flawed and worthless.)
According to the "other site", it's caused by self-luminous life, that grows and dies with the Moon's phases.
So, if you expect a reasonable, consistent answer, I fear you're going to be disappointed.
Also, I strongly suggest that you discount Vauxhall's post. He has the basics of FET wrong. The Moon causes solar eclipses in most "flavors" of FET, not the "AntiMoon", and definitely not the "Shadow Object".
Best wishes in getting decent responses from FEers.
-
There are actually a few theories on how Solar eclipses occur. One is that the antimoon causes it, and one is that the moon disc causes it. In the second theory, the Sun is at 3000 miles in altitude and the moon disc is located below it. A solar eclipse occurs when the Moon passes in front of the Sun. It occurs only on a narrow strip of land. People who observe the eclipse are looking at an angle where the two do not line up.
Now, like I said, this is one theory. From my observations, the sun and moon disc seem to be at the same altitude. So I choose to believe that an antimoon and/or antisun causes both solar and lunar eclipse. If this means that I can't "grasp the basics of FET" (Lol), then so be it. I just choose to come up with my own conclusions based on empirical evidence. Gulliver chooses to rephrase things he read on a message board, and then he expects you to assume that he's a reliable source of information (lol).
And Gulliver, I suggest you drop the holier-than-thou attitude. It hurts your credibility. Just a helpful tip. Maybe your rampant ego is acceptable in the lower fora, but it's not appreciated here.
-
Now, like I said, this is one theory. From my observations, the sun and moon disc seem to be at the same altitude. So I choose to believe that an antimoon and/or antisun causes both solar and lunar eclipse.
That's fine, but still doesn't explain why a small, dark, invisible object that closely orbits the sun should be easy to spot in the night sky.
-
Now, like I said, this is one theory. From my observations, the sun and moon disc seem to be at the same altitude. So I choose to believe that an antimoon and/or antisun causes both solar and lunar eclipse.
That's fine, but still doesn't explain why a small, dark, invisible object that closely orbits the sun should be easy to spot in the night sky.
It blots out stars and other objects behind it. The antimoon moves around. It's not that hard to comprehend.
-
I get the feeling that the explanations are getting more and more ridiculous. I mean, "self-luminous life, that grows and dies with the Moon's phases" that sounds pretty retarded. If you compared the spectrum of the sun's and moon's light you would see that they are identical, leading to the conclusion that they both come from the same source.
All these explanations seem to me as vague assumptions without any evidence and no logical connection. I mean, if you've seen the Anti Moon or Shadow Object or however you want to call it, then why not show us? No one said they would deny photographic evidence here or am i missing out something? It's just you, Mr Vauxhall, who doesn't want to deliver these lovely shots of the Anti Moon you took.
-
I get the feeling that the explanations are getting more and more ridiculous. I mean, "self-luminous life, that grows and dies with the Moon's phases" that sounds pretty retarded. If you compared the spectrum of the sun's and moon's light you would see that they are identical, leading to the conclusion that they both come from the same source.
All these explanations seem to me as vague assumptions without any evidence and no logical connection. I mean, if you've seen the Anti Moon or Shadow Object or however you want to call it, then why not show us? No one said they would deny photographic evidence here or am i missing out something? It's just you, Mr Vauxhall, who doesn't want to deliver these lovely shots of the Anti Moon you took.
It is difficult to capture an invisible object on film. I have said this at least four times now. Do not make me say it again.
Also, please quote where I said anything about "self-luminous life, that grows and dies with the Moon's phases". Don't put words in my mouth. Gulliver gave you a ridiculous sounding theory because he is a Round Earther. He is trying to discredit FET.
Also, have you personally done the tests to prove that the light from the moon is the same light emanating from the sun? If so, please post your research logs. I'd love to see them.
-
Now, like I said, this is one theory. From my observations, the sun and moon disc seem to be at the same altitude. So I choose to believe that an antimoon and/or antisun causes both solar and lunar eclipse.
That's fine, but still doesn't explain why a small, dark, invisible object that closely orbits the sun should be easy to spot in the night sky.
It blots out stars and other objects behind it. The antimoon moves around. It's not that hard to comprehend.
Since when are objects that orbit very close to the sun visible in the night sky? Or do you have a definition of "night sky" that's different from the one that's normally used?
-
Now, like I said, this is one theory. From my observations, the sun and moon disc seem to be at the same altitude. So I choose to believe that an antimoon and/or antisun causes both solar and lunar eclipse.
That's fine, but still doesn't explain why a small, dark, invisible object that closely orbits the sun should be easy to spot in the night sky.
It blots out stars and other objects behind it. The antimoon moves around. It's not that hard to comprehend.
Since when are objects that orbit very close to the sun visible in the night sky? Or do you have a definition of "night sky" that's different from the one that's normally used?
"Very close to the Sun"
Excuse me? The Shadow Objects might orbit the Sun, but it's not very close to it. Otherwise we'd be seeing Solar eclipses all the time.
The shadow object might actually travel very far away from the Earth and be pulled back into the Sun due to its aetheric pull value.
-
Also, have you personally done the tests to prove that the light from the moon is the same light emanating from the sun? If so, please post your research logs. I'd love to see them.
I might for sure do that, but I'm only a student, I don't have enough money or time to get good instruments for reasonable results right now.
For now I believe the researchers who have done that a million times before with published results that confirm my statement from earlier. You can of course believe what you want but it sounds pretty dumb if you have your own theories which seem to contradict and you can't even prove them.
-
"Very close to the Sun"
Excuse me? The Shadow Objects might orbit the Sun, but it's not very close to it. Otherwise we'd be seeing Solar eclipses all the time.
The shadow object might actually travel very far away from the Earth and be pulled back into the Sun due to its aetheric pull value.
Then why did you say:
The Shadow Object is never seen because it orbits close to the sun.
???
-
Typo.
For now I believe the researchers who have done that a million times before with published results that confirm my statement from earlier. You can of course believe what you want but it sounds pretty dumb if you have your own theories which seem to contradict and you can't even prove them.
I prefer to think for myself, but if you're fine being a sheep then more power to you.
-
Typo.
For now I believe the researchers who have done that a million times before with published results that confirm my statement from earlier. You can of course believe what you want but it sounds pretty dumb if you have your own theories which seem to contradict and you can't even prove them.
I prefer to think for myself, but if you're fine being a sheep then more power to you.
Either I believe in your theories or in science. There seems to be no difference from my point of view. Thus, believing in science would be the better choice I guess, wouldn't it?
-
When I say "easy to spot" what I assume you'd gather from that is that it is easy to precieve. Especially combined with words like invisible and "patch of darkness".
How is an object that orbits close to the sun "easy to spot" in the night sky? ???
Thanks to elongation.
This can show (or hide) Mercury or Venus when you try seeing it. This workd on Round Earth model.
Now, for the Flat Earth model, I can't say for sure, but chances are that planetary elongation could not exist in their Flat Earth model. I'm still investigating and doing calculations and observations, so I can't ensure it right now.
-
Interesting, if slightly naive questions.
Solar/Lunar eclipses are caused by the anti-moon. It's a disc that covers the moon/sun during said eclipse, some also call it the Shadow Object. Its orbital plane is tilted at an angle of about 5°10' to the sun's orbital plane, making eclipses possible only when the three bodies are aligned and when the moon is crossing the sun's orbital plane.
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.
What is the exact distance from the Shadow Object to the Sun?
What is its diameter in arcseconds (or Arcminutes), if it was observed from the earth?
Also, I read somewhere in this thread that the Shadow Object is made of dense Aether. I require an explanation about what mechanism allows the Aether to be more dense in that exact spot than on the rest of the universe, and which mechanism allows this dense Aether to orbyt around the Sun, knowing that the Sun in your flat earth model doesn't have gravity force.
Thanks.
-
Could it be because the moon is a reflection of the earth, and the sun (whatever it is) is further away from the reflection and some how the reflection blocks the suns view. Could this explain eclipses?
Also the moon light could still be the reflection of sunlight.
Btw I'm not a flat earther, I just want to know what people think of this. :-\
-
Could it be because the moon is a reflection of the earth, and the sun (whatever it is) is further away from the reflection and some how the reflection blocks the suns view. Could this explain eclipses?
Also the moon light could still be the reflection of sunlight.
Btw I'm not a flat earther, I just want to know what people think of this. :-\
How could a reflection block the sun? What is it reflected onto? Why does the moon look nothing like the earth if it is a reflection? Sorry, but they theory doesn't make much sense. :/
-
Hey,
I'm pretty new to this Flat Earth Society but i really like it because it shows us a different point of view on the planet we're living. I've read a lot in the FAQ but however I still have some questions concerning the moon.
In the FAQ there's a beautiful gif, demonstrating the day and night cycle, but why can we see at night at all? Why isn't it completely dark? And especially, how can we see the moon?
And since the moon and the sun are in one geometrical plane parallel to the earth's plane, how can Solar/Lunar Eclipses occur?
I can't seem to find an explanation in the FAQ, so I wanted to ask here and hope to get some clarification :)
The Earth is spherical, therefore it doesn't totally block the Moon via a shadow. If it were flat, no one could have landed on it. It's a spheroid object like the Earth.