The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Swyzlebeth on January 07, 2016, 05:24:52 AM
-
I'm new to the flat earth theory but I would like to so what everyone's opinion is on the phases of the Moon. With a flat earth how would that work?
-
http://wiki.tfes.org/The_Phases_of_the_Moon
-
You have to decide for yourself whether you want to believe the moon is a physical object floating above your head or whether it is holographic projection.
If you can understand how a rainbow is not a physical object, then you can begin to consider that the moon is just a reflection of light/energy emitted by the earth.
The wiki makes the assumption that the moon is a physical object. There is no proof of such and the appearance of the moon lends itself to being a projection.
The phases you see of the moon projection are easy to understand by experiment.
Take a glass cake cover (http://decoritem.com/decoration-accessories/stylish-glass-cake-stand-with-cover.php) and shine a torch light down through it in the dark. You will see the same moon phase projection as the focus of your light moves in and out from the center of your dome.
-
You have to decide for yourself whether you want to believe the moon is a physical object floating above your head or whether it is holographic projection.
If you can understand how a rainbow is not a physical object, then you can begin to consider that the moon is just a reflection of light/energy emitted by the earth.
The wiki makes the assumption that the moon is a physical object. There is no proof of such and the appearance of the moon lends itself to being a projection.
The phases you see of the moon projection are easy to understand by experiment.
Take a glass cake cover (http://decoritem.com/decoration-accessories/stylish-glass-cake-stand-with-cover.php) and shine a torch light down through it in the dark. You will see the same moon phase projection as the focus of your light moves in and out from the center of your dome.
What about the ancients using the moon for times and seasons?
-
http://wiki.tfes.org/The_Phases_of_the_Moon
The Moon isn't always at apogee at full Moon and perigee at new Moon and the Sun's last perihelion was January 3 2016 with the next aphelion at July 4 2016. The wiki is incorrect the phases of the Moon have nothing to do with the Sun & Moon distance.
-
The Moon isn't always at apogee at full Moon and perigee at new Moon
The wiki does not suggest that it is.
-
What about the ancients using the moon for times and seasons?
What about them? What makes them so special?
I would imagine folks can do that now just the same. I do not see what difference that makes to the true form of the earth.
-
What about the ancients using the moon for times and seasons?
What about them? What makes them so special?
I would imagine folks can do that now just the same. I do not see what difference that makes to the true form of the earth.
Wasn't it you who said the moon is just a hologram? If so then how did the ancients see it? Did they had hologram technology?
-
Ancient folks see the moon the same way we see it --- with their naked eyes.
-
Ancient folks see the moon the same way we see it --- with their naked eyes.
So what did you meant that the moon is a hologram?
-
So what did you meant that the moon is a hologram?
It is not a physical object.
-
So what did you meant that the moon is a hologram?
It is not a physical object.
Then who made the hologram?
-
Then who made the hologram?
And this is why I call you a timewaster. I don't agree with anarchist's model yet it's blindingly obvious he's referring to a natural occurrence. There doesn't need to be a 'who.'
To the OP, the DE model answers this by having the moon as a spotlight (like all celestial objects). Only one face is lit, and it rotates. Sometimes the whole face is towards up (full), sometimes only half or less or none.
-
Then who made the hologram?
And this is why I call you a timewaster. I don't agree with anarchist's model yet it's blindingly obvious he's referring to a natural occurrence. There doesn't need to be a 'who.'
To the OP, the DE model answers this by having the moon as a spotlight (like all celestial objects). Only one face is lit, and it rotates. Sometimes the whole face is towards up (full), sometimes only half or less or none.
What natural means can make a hologram?
-
You have to decide for yourself whether you want to believe the moon is a physical object floating above your head or whether it is holographic projection.
If you can understand how a rainbow is not a physical object, then you can begin to consider that the moon is just a reflection of light/energy emitted by the earth.
The wiki makes the assumption that the moon is a physical object. There is no proof of such and the appearance of the moon lends itself to being a projection.
The phases you see of the moon projection are easy to understand by experiment.
Take a glass cake cover and shine a torch light down through it in the dark. You will see the same moon phase projection as the focus of your light moves in and out from the center of your dome.
Luke, stop wasting time.
-
You have to decide for yourself whether you want to believe the moon is a physical object floating above your head or whether it is holographic projection.
If you can understand how a rainbow is not a physical object, then you can begin to consider that the moon is just a reflection of light/energy emitted by the earth.
The wiki makes the assumption that the moon is a physical object. There is no proof of such and the appearance of the moon lends itself to being a projection.
The phases you see of the moon projection are easy to understand by experiment.
Take a glass cake cover and shine a torch light down through it in the dark. You will see the same moon phase projection as the focus of your light moves in and out from the center of your dome.
Luke, stop wasting time.
I'm not. First off rainbows are not holograms. Second that doesn't explain why the moon is or what evidence you have that the moon is a hologram. And third, I jumped in this thread late and missed that.
-
I'm not. First off rainbows are not holograms. Second that doesn't explain why the moon is or what evidence you have that the moon is a hologram. And third, I jumped in this thread late and missed that.
When you have more than whining about semantics, presupposing your model, and now inexplicably claiming you 'missed' a post that you quoted, maybe your claim that you're not wasting time will mean something. Until then, shut up.
-
I'm not. First off rainbows are not holograms. Second that doesn't explain why the moon is or what evidence you have that the moon is a hologram. And third, I jumped in this thread late and missed that.
When you have more than whining about semantics, presupposing your model, and now inexplicably claiming you 'missed' a post that you quoted, maybe your claim that you're not wasting time will mean something. Until then, shut up.
Wait, I get warnings left and right, but this is OK? Asking for an explanation is a legitimate question, especially when claiming that a celestial body is just a hologram. Arriving at that as a conclusion must be easily explained.
-
I'm not. First off rainbows are not holograms. Second that doesn't explain why the moon is or what evidence you have that the moon is a hologram. And third, I jumped in this thread late and missed that.
When you have more than whining about semantics, presupposing your model, and now inexplicably claiming you 'missed' a post that you quoted, maybe your claim that you're not wasting time will mean something. Until then, shut up.
Wait, I get warnings left and right, but this is OK? Asking for an explanation is a legitimate question, especially when claiming that a celestial body is just a hologram. Arriving at that as a conclusion must be easily explained.
I've plenty of experience of Luke. He never asks for an explanation, he just demands we repeat ourselves. Five seconds later he'll be asking the exact same question with no acknowledgement as to the answer. He's already admitted that he didn't even read a post he directly quoted.
As I've said, I don't accept anarchist's model, though I expect his evidence will be the universal standard: it explains observations.
-
I'm not. First off rainbows are not holograms. Second that doesn't explain why the moon is or what evidence you have that the moon is a hologram. And third, I jumped in this thread late and missed that.
When you have more than whining about semantics, presupposing your model, and now inexplicably claiming you 'missed' a post that you quoted, maybe your claim that you're not wasting time will mean something. Until then, shut up.
Wait, I quoted what you quoted, maybe I did quote the OP and didn't remember. But don't you do the same with your model? Presupposing it?
-
Yeah I quoted it, I forgot about it.
-
I'm not. First off rainbows are not holograms. Second that doesn't explain why the moon is or what evidence you have that the moon is a hologram. And third, I jumped in this thread late and missed that.
When you have more than whining about semantics, presupposing your model, and now inexplicably claiming you 'missed' a post that you quoted, maybe your claim that you're not wasting time will mean something. Until then, shut up.
Wait, I get warnings left and right, but this is OK? Asking for an explanation is a legitimate question, especially when claiming that a celestial body is just a hologram. Arriving at that as a conclusion must be easily explained.
I've plenty of experience of Luke. He never asks for an explanation, he just demands we repeat ourselves. Five seconds later he'll be asking the exact same question with no acknowledgement as to the answer. He's already admitted that he didn't even read a post he directly quoted.
As I've said, I don't accept anarchist's model, though I expect his evidence will be the universal standard: it explains observations.
I forgot that I've already read it. This new platform kinda threw me off.
-
But don't you do the same with your model? Presupposing it?
No, you just consistently ignore the evidence despite the fact I have lost count of how many times I've explained it to you. Exactly as you have in this thread, you forget anything you're told five seconds after and whine that a question wasn't answered. How are you not just a tremendous waste of time? You're incapable of learning a thing.
When explaining what is contained within a model, it is necessary to presuppose it: else how are you to explain it? When trying to poke holes in an explanation, you cannot simply presuppose your model and thus presuppose that the explanation is false, you have to mount an actual argument.
When trying to compare models and how one is better than another, then presupposition should be avoided.
Do you understand the difference between those two situations? the discussion in this thread is the former kind.
Let's see how long it takes for you to completely forget this basic fact of logic yet again.
-
But don't you do the same with your model? Presupposing it?
No, you just consistently ignore the evidence despite the fact I have lost count of how many times I've explained it to you. Exactly as you have in this thread, you forget anything you're told five seconds after and whine that a question wasn't answered. How are you not just a tremendous waste of time? You're incapable of learning a thing.
When explaining what is contained within a model, it is necessary to presuppose it: else how are you to explain it? When trying to poke holes in an explanation, you cannot simply presuppose your model and thus presuppose that the explanation is false, you have to mount an actual argument.
When trying to compare models and how one is better than another, then presupposition should be avoided.
Do you understand the difference between those two situations? the discussion in this thread is the former kind.
Let's see how long it takes for you to completely forget this basic fact of logic yet again.
This is going off topic. Before you interjected with your model I was talking to anarchist about whether the moon was a hologram. Now you have two choices:
1. Let anarchist and I continue on whether the moon is a hologram
2. You take it upon yourself to prove or at least give evidence that the moon is a hologram.
-
Before you interjected with your model
*Before you directly attacked my model.
You take it upon yourself to prove or at least give evidence that the moon is a hologram.
Yet another example of you utterly ignoring my posts. Anarchist, don't bother with this guy, he'll just waste your time as he's demonstrated several times in this thread already (and we're only on the second page). He's not interested in answers, he's interested in acting smart and asking questions expecting to not get an answer: and when he inevitably does, he ignores it. Just your typical RE timewaster, too arrogant to honestly consider FET.