The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: InquisitiveREer on February 22, 2018, 04:54:49 PM
-
I have noticed that while this site will work immensely hard to prove the possibility of a flat earth there seams to be a lack on how a round earth is not possible. So I am asking any and all members of the Flat Earth Society to tell me how a Round Earth Does NOT Work.
Fore those on the side of a Round Earth Please wait for The Flat Earth Society to respond before posting your own theories.
-
I have noticed that while this site will work immensely hard to prove the possibility of a flat earth there seams to be a lack on how a round earth is not possible. So I am asking any and all members of the Flat Earth Society to tell me how a Round Earth Does NOT Work.
Fore those on the side of a Round Earth Please wait for The Flat Earth Society to respond before posting your own theories.
Here is a simple observation. The next time you see the sun and the moon in the sky at the same time notice that the phase of the moon never points at the sun. The angle is often wildly off.
How is this possible?
Example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-ZU3jTReco
Here is another:
(https://i.imgur.com/pfpp621.jpg)
-
The answer we have gotten before is a reference to a "celestial sphere," with a vauge argument that when we look up at the sky it is like looking at a curved planetarium surface. But this is assuming that the celestial bodies are painted on a curved sphere of glass around the earth. It doesn't really make sense in geometric space.
If we are standing in space, the moon should always point at the sun, no matter where we stand around the moon.
If, instead of a moon and sun, we have an arrow pointing at a sphere in a digital 3D environment, at what angle would we have to stand where the arrow is NOT pointing at the sphere? It doesn't make sense. The arrow should always be pointing at the sphere, from wherever we look at the scene.
-
The answer we have gotten before is a reference to a "celestial sphere," with a vauge argument that when we look up at the sky it is like looking at a curved planetarium surface. But this is assuming that the celestial bodies are painted on a curved sphere of glass around the earth. It doesn't really make sense in geometric space.
If we are standing in space, the moon should always point at the sun, no matter where we stand around the moon.
If, instead of a moon and sun, we have an arrow pointing at a sphere in a digital 3D environment, at what angle would we have to stand where the arrow is NOT pointing at the sphere? It doesn't make sense. The arrow should always be pointing at the sphere, from wherever we look at the scene.
You were also told to hold a string up and stretch it between the moon and the sun, and this would show the moon's lit face pointing at the sun. The few who tried it acknowledged this worked, while you attempted to argue there was some form of duplicity inherent in the experiment and refused to even attempt it, whether with a string or a straight edge. I seem to recall Junker even chiming in that the string trick worked, although I would need to go digging to verify this for sure. You need to stop dismissing explanations simply because you either don't understand them, or don't think they can be correct by glancing at them. Your video, and by extension the picture, don't take into account some optical issues to do with the sky being a sphere.
-
Another argument wee have gotten is "perspective" causes it, like the corners of a room may me misaligned to perspective as so:
(https://www.metabunk.org/data/attachments/22/22165-1f3ee69097e1408dd12bbc35ac389691.jpg)
(https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/you_doodle_2016-11-19t23_54_56z-jpg.22808/)
But, how could perspective cause it if the sun and moon are so distant? The room perspective explanation only works if the sun and moon are getting significantly closer and further from you over the day as they pass by. This is not so when the sun is supposed to be 93 million miles away at all times.
For this room perspective explanation to work with such celestial distances the difference in distance would also have to be on a similar magnitude.
-
You were also told to hold a string up and stretch it between the moon and the sun, and this would show the moon's lit face pointing at the sun.
One of the examples I quoted was taken one hour after sunset. The moon is still pointing into the sky. How does your string example make sense?
The few who tried it acknowledged this worked, while you attempted to argue there was some form of duplicity inherent in the experiment and refused to even attempt it, whether with a string or a straight edge. I seem to recall Junker even chiming in that the string trick worked, although I would need to go digging to verify this for sure. You need to stop dismissing explanations simply because you either don't understand them, or don't think they can be correct by glancing at them. Your video, and by extension the picture, don't take into account some optical issues to do with the sky being a sphere.
How does connecting the moon and the sun with a string show that the moon is pointed at the sun? It is possible to connect any two points in your vision.
In a 3D model of an arrow pointing at a sphere, the arrow should ALWAYS be pointed at the sphere, from wherever you look at it. There can't be an illusion where the arrow is not pointing at the sphere. From wherever you are around the objects, the arrow will be pointed at the sphere.
-
You were also told to hold a string up and stretch it between the moon and the sun, and this would show the moon's lit face pointing at the sun.
One of the examples I quoted was taken one hour after sunset. The moon is still pointing into the sky. How does your string example make sense?
The few who tried it acknowledged this worked, while you attempted to argue there was some form of duplicity inherent in the experiment and refused to even attempt it, whether with a string or a straight edge. I seem to recall Junker even chiming in that the string trick worked, although I would need to go digging to verify this for sure. You need to stop dismissing explanations simply because you either don't understand them, or don't think they can be correct by glancing at them. Your video, and by extension the picture, don't take into account some optical issues to do with the sky being a sphere.
How does connecting the moon and the sun with a string experiment show that the moon is pointed at the sun? It is possible to connect any two points in your vision.
In a 3D model of an arrow pointing at a sphere, the arrow should ALWAYS be pointed at the sphere, from wherever you look at it. There can't be an illusion where the arrow is not pointing at the sphere. From wherever you are around the objects, the arrow will be pointed at the sphere.
Strange when I look at the moon after sunset it is lit on the side facing the sun. I can call someone west of me to check where they see the sun at that time.
-
Strange when I look at the moon after sunset it is lit on the side facing the sun. I can call someone west of me to check where they see the sun at that time.
Every time I have seen the moon during the day I have never seen it pointing at the sun. I will often point it out to those around me, to their curiosity and confoundment. It is an easy demonstration that the heliocentric model is not correct.
The observation is not really explainable. The "celestial sphere" and "room perspective" arguments are weak and do not work.
-
Strange when I look at the moon after sunset it is lit on the side facing the sun. I can call someone west of me to check where they see the sun at that time.
Every time I have seen the moon during the day I have never seen it pointing at the sun. I will often point it out to those around me, to their curiosity and confoundment.
What do you mean by pointing? Do you mean lit by the sun?
-
Here is a simple observation. The next time you see the sun and the moon in the sky at the same time notice that the phase of the moon never points at the sun. The angle is often wildly off. How is this possible?
You are at one point of a triangle. Earth at one point, Sun and Moon at the others. IF you were aligned with the plane of the triangle, and exactly perpendicular to it, you would see the terminator on the Moon vertically every time, and the sun and moon would both be on a horizontal with your line of sight.
But you're not. You're not standing in space, aligned with these things. You could only be aligned this way if you were at approx the North or South pole. You're somewhere inbetween, and at an angle to the triangle. You're tilted with respect to the sun/moon plane
Where were your videos taken from, and when?
-
I have noticed that while this site will work immensely hard to prove the possibility of a flat earth there seams to be a lack on how a round earth is not possible. So I am asking any and all members of the Flat Earth Society to tell me how a Round Earth Does NOT Work.
Fore those on the side of a Round Earth Please wait for The Flat Earth Society to respond before posting your own theories.
I would debate that the reason why a Flat Earther does not believe a Round Earth works is as per my earlier thread post entitled "Understanding the Psychology (or Mindset) of a Flat Earther".
My argument is that it is based not so much on science but a deep distrust and skepticism in government agencies such as NASA...i.e. that space travel is a hoax. No matter what NASA or even an independent firm like Space X do, it will never be believed.
Many of the Flat Earth Society members, such as Tomh Bishop I would argue are also likely trying to do everything possible to hold onto and guard a ridiculous pseudo-science type belief that dates back centuries. I.e. The Zetetic society. Many of these Society members have their identity wrapped up and invested in this pseudo-science work and so it is in their best interest to continue to believe. I also suspect many FE like Tom enjoy being seen as the leader of a society or are even proud of being named after an experiment and so it's what gets them excited and up in the morning.
None of these Zetetic Society members are physicists /astrophysicists and neither are most Round Earthers on this site including myself. And so many of the back and forth debates tend to do very little because they cover the same ground over and over again.
-
I would debate that the reason why a Flat Earther does not believe a Round Earth works is as per my earlier thread post entitled "Understanding the Psychology (or Mindset) of a Flat Earther".
My argument is that it is based not so much on science but a deep distrust and skepticism in government agencies such as NASA...i.e. that space travel is a hoax. No matter what NASA or even an independent firm like Space X do, it will never be believed.
Many of the Flat Earth Society members, such as Tom Bishop I would argue are also likely trying to do everything possible to hold onto a ridiculous pseudo-science type belief that dates back centuries. I.e. The Zetetic society. Many of these Society members have their identity wrapped up and invested in this pseudo-science work and so it is in their best interest to continue to believe.
None of these Zetetic Society members are physicists /astrophysicists and neither are most Round Earthers on this site including myself. And so many of the back and forth debates tend to do very little because they cover the same ground over and over again.
How can you make this argument right after I have posted something you guys have a hard time explaining?
-
I would debate that the reason why a Flat Earther does not believe a Round Earth works is as per my earlier thread post entitled "Understanding the Psychology (or Mindset) of a Flat Earther".
My argument is that it is based not so much on science but a deep distrust and skepticism in government agencies such as NASA...i.e. that space travel is a hoax. No matter what NASA or even an independent firm like Space X do, it will never be believed.
Many of the Flat Earth Society members, such as Tom Bishop I would argue are also likely trying to do everything possible to hold onto a ridiculous pseudo-science type belief that dates back centuries. I.e. The Zetetic society. Many of these Society members have their identity wrapped up and invested in this pseudo-science work and so it is in their best interest to continue to believe.
None of these Zetetic Society members are physicists /astrophysicists and neither are most Round Earthers on this site including myself. And so many of the back and forth debates tend to do very little because they cover the same ground over and over again.
How can you make this argument right after I have posted something you guys have a hard time explaining?
I am able to confidently make the argument I made because it is true.
If you can provide a logical, scientific explanation as to why a man made object (the ISS) travels speedily overhead every 90 minutes or so, and has been doing this non-stop for years, and whose flight and image is crisp and visible via an amateur telescope, plus provide a logical explanation as to why when a camera mounted on board the external tank of the Space Shuttle during launch tracking clearly show the curvature of the Earth as it begins to orbit, and you can do this without immediately resorting to non-scientific excuses such as NASA hoaxes or cover ups and fish-eyed lenses being used to alter perception, than i might be a Flat Earth believer.
-
The first YT video quoted above has comments disabled. Dontcha have to wonder why ....?
-
You were also told to hold a string up and stretch it between the moon and the sun, and this would show the moon's lit face pointing at the sun.
One of the examples I quoted was taken one hour after sunset. The moon is still pointing into the sky. How does your string example make sense?
The few who tried it acknowledged this worked, while you attempted to argue there was some form of duplicity inherent in the experiment and refused to even attempt it, whether with a string or a straight edge. I seem to recall Junker even chiming in that the string trick worked, although I would need to go digging to verify this for sure. You need to stop dismissing explanations simply because you either don't understand them, or don't think they can be correct by glancing at them. Your video, and by extension the picture, don't take into account some optical issues to do with the sky being a sphere.
How does connecting the moon and the sun with a string show that the moon is pointed at the sun? It is possible to connect any two points in your vision.
In a 3D model of an arrow pointing at a sphere, the arrow should ALWAYS be pointed at the sphere, from wherever you look at it. There can't be an illusion where the arrow is not pointing at the sphere. From wherever you are around the objects, the arrow will be pointed at the sphere.
The string will be perpendicular to the line of light upon the moon, thus showing the moon is in fact 'pointing' at the sun. I apologize if I somehow didn't make myself clear, I figured it was clear enough in context. I don't know the mechanics/science behind it offhand, they were laid out in that other thread. I DO know that it works, and that you refused to even attempt it and report back. As far as the one just after sunset, once again. Sphere.
-
One of the examples I quoted was taken one hour after sunset. The moon is still pointing into the sky. How does your string example make sense?
Like this. The Sun shines past the Earth, onto the Moon. You look at the Moon from any number of points on the dark side of the Earth, and see it lit by the Sun. Because you're at an angle to it, you don't see the whole lit face, which is why it's not a full moon in the picture you used.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WniDZudVWmE
-
One of the examples I quoted was taken one hour after sunset. The moon is still pointing into the sky. How does your string example make sense?
Like this. The Sun shines past the Earth, onto the Moon. You look at the Moon from any number of points on the dark side of the Earth, and see it lit by the Sun. Because you're at an angle to it, you don't see the whole lit face, which is why it's not a full moon in the picture you used.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WniDZudVWmE
According to that illustration the moon should be pointing towards the horizon after sunset, not away from it:
(https://i.imgur.com/j4HpTCE.png)
But, as per my earlier example, the moon is pointing away from the horizon after sunset:
(https://i.imgur.com/pfpp621.jpg)
-
I'm providing a general illustration to show the principle. I picked an arbitrary location on the night side of the Earth because I don't actually know where or when your photo was taken.
And I've just realised mine shows the observer before sunrise, not just after sunset. So what? It's an illustration of the principle, not the actuality.
The illustration is in 2D. Your observer could have been above or below the page. You have to at least imagine it in 3D, with a hemisphere toward you, above the page, and another below it. You can't draw a line and say "this is the observer's horizon" unless you know exactly where he or she was. I'm happy to have another go if you can specify where and when.
-
I'm providing a general illustration to show the principle. I picked an arbitrary location on the night side of the Earth because I don't actually know where or when your photo was taken.
And I've just realised mine shows the observer before sunrise, not just after sunset. So what? It's an illustration of the principle, not the actuality.
The illustration is in 2D. Your observer could have been above or below the page. You have to at least imagine it in 3D, with a hemisphere toward you, above the page, and another below it. You can't draw a line and say "this is the observer's horizon" unless you know exactly where he or she was. I'm happy to have another go if you can specify where and when.
It doesn't really matter where we put the horizon on the night side of that earth. The moon should still be pointing into it, not away from it. Imaging it in 3D doesn't help either.
The moon will only point away from the horizon on that earth if we put the horizon line on the day side.
-
It doesn't really matter where we put the horizon on the night side of that earth. The moon should still be pointing into it, not away from it. Imaging it in 3D doesn't help either.
The moon will only point away from the horizon on that earth if we put the horizon line on the day side.
So you're not going to tell us where and when that photo was taken, then?
If not, perhaps you could illustrate what you mean when you talk about "pointing into the Earth", since I've gone to the trouble for you ... ?
-
It doesn't really matter where we put the horizon on the night side of that earth. The moon should still be pointing into it, not away from it. Imaging it in 3D doesn't help either.
The moon will only point away from the horizon on that earth if we put the horizon line on the day side.
So you're not going to tell us where and when that photo was taken, then?
If not, perhaps you could illustrate what you mean when you talk about "pointing into the Earth", since I've gone to the trouble for you ... ?
The photo comes from Page 1 of this University of Pennsylvania paper on the subject: http://www.seas.upenn.edu/~amyers/MoonPaper20June.pdf
-
The above paper seems to support the ridiculous "Celestial Sphere" theory I mentioned earlier.
Astronomers rely upon the celestial sphere model for maps of the sky because loca-
tions of stars and constellations depend only on their right ascension and declination.
For the topocentric model used for the sun and the moon, location is specified by
azimuth and altitude. All objects in the sky are assumed to be located at the same
distance from the observer, as if pasted upon the surface of an imaginery sphere sur-
rounding the observer. Astronomers, for whom the celestial sphere model is a basic
tool for mapping the stars, are not surprised by the apparently curved path of light
from the sun to the moon because they know that straight lines in 3-D object space
are transformed to great-circle arcs on the imaginary celestial sphere. Straight lines in
space are not actually transformed into great circle arcs on a visible celestial sphere.
Great circle arcs cannot be captured on photographs and visible straight lines are not
perceived as arcs when scanned by human vision.
How can it be that the celestial bodies around us appear on an invisible curved surface like a planetarium? The "Celestial Sphere" theory suggests that the sun and the moon are painted on a glass sphere around the earth, and light travels in curved paths on that surface, rather than appearing in normal 3D space.
Again, in a computer model an arrow pointing at a sphere will always be pointed at that sphere, no matter what angle or position the camera is looking at the scene from. There is no "Celestial Sphere".
-
The photo comes from this Page 1 of this University of Pennsylvania paper on the subject: http://www.seas.upenn.edu/~amyers/MoonPaper20June.pdf
Did you read that document, or merely take the photo and caption from it?
and ...
You're not going to illustrate yourself what you mean when you talk about "pointing into the Earth" .... at all?
-
Did you read that document, or merely take the photo and caption from it?
Yes. The paper concludes that the situation can't really be explained geometrically and that light must be curved. It attempts to pass off the "Celestial Sphere" theory which argues that the celestial bodies and all light we see between them are painted on an invisible curved surface, and therefore the light between them will be curved.
This explanation is clearly ridiculous. That is not how normal 3D space works.
You're not going to illustrate yourself what you mean when you talk about "pointing into the Earth" .... at all?
By pointing into the earth I mean pointing down towards the earth or away from it. In your illustration on the previous page the moon would be seen pointing towards the earth. But the photograph we are talking about has the moon is pointing away from the earth. The moon is photographed pointing away from the horizon, when it should be pointing towards the horizon according to your illustration.
-
Please confirm which part of the Moon you're regarding as the 'point' ...
-
Please confirm which part of the Moon you're regarding as the 'point' ...
In Round Earth theory the phase of the Moon should be pointed at the Sun at all times. It is hard to explain why the phase of the moon would be pointed away from the horizon when the sun has already set below the horizon:
(https://i.imgur.com/pfpp621.jpg)
-
(http://preview.ibb.co/mWntyH/Sun_Moon_Phase.jpg) (http://ibb.co/kyBLdH)
Could this be the geometry?
edit (of the first video)
-
In Round Earth theory the phase of the Moon should be pointed at the Sun at all times. It is hard to explain why the phase of the moon would be pointed away from the horizon when the sun has already set below the horizon
Sorry, but I covered this in post #9
The line between Moon and Sun is one side of a triangle. You are at the triangle point opposite that side, so the line between Moon and Sun is 'looking' past you, regardless of where you are on the Earth, and regardless of whether or not your horizon is between you and the Sun. The Moon can see the Sun even if you can't.
You're also at an angle to the plane of the triangle
-
In Round Earth theory the phase of the Moon should be pointed at the Sun at all times. It is hard to explain why the phase of the moon would be pointed away from the horizon when the sun has already set below the horizon
Sorry, but I covered this in post #9
The line between Moon and Sun is one side of a triangle. You are at the triangle point opposite that side, so the line between Moon and Sun is 'looking' past you, regardless of where you are on the Earth, and regardless of whether or not your horizon is between you and the Sun. The Moon can see the Sun even if you can't.
You're also at an angle to the plane of the triangle
Can you provide an illustration? The last illustration you provided demonstrated that the geometry doesn't actually work out.
-
Can you provide an illustration?
Why should I draw another, when all you will do is draw an aribitrary blue line on it, and say that's the 'horizon' of the observer?
Why should I, when you can't and won't show how you think it all fits together?
The last illustration you provided demonstrated that the geometry doesn't actually work out.
I disagree. Regardless of observer position on Earth, the relation between three objects (Sun. Moon, Observer) is a triangle. The Observer is at the point opposite the line connecting sun and moon. The line between observer and Moon is approx 240k miles.
If you mean the geometry didn't match your particular photo exactly, then I'm not surprised. It wasn't intended to.
The Moon doesn't care if the observer is three miles or so beyond his horizon toward the sun, nor whether or not the observer can see the sun or not. It can still see the sun from where it is.
The observer having the sun behind his horizon does not pull the Moon 240k out of its orbit, down to Earth's surface, to share his view of the sun. The Moon has its own line of sight to the Sun
-
Tom...
...the caption says the moon is in the southeast. The sun sets in the west. The moon is just above the eastern horizon, with its dark side facing east and its lit side facing west. The lit side of the moon is indeed facing the sun.
this is not hard to explain; it is just hard for you et al to accept when it means the Earth can't be flat
-
Actually, here's a curiosity. Presuming you're 100% correct in what you're saying here. How does this not break FE too? The two are nearly on the same plane relative to us. This shouldn't be a thing for FE either. What an I missing?
-
Funny that I was just looking at the moon last night and was thinking how if anyone did Zetetic research, they could believe in a flat earth.
The celestial sphere thing sounds pretty hokey to me. As mentioned many times here, no one that goes to a planetarium would believe it represents what the night sky looks like. Just go to one and see for yourself. The operator of the planetarium (usually a lonely person) will typically tell you where to sit for the best view of whatever they are showing. Just move around a bit inside one and see that this does not reflect reality. The stars behind you look all distorted because the wall is more parallel to your line of sight. It is just like how anyone that travels at all should not believe in a flat earth if they take a Zetetic approach.
Rather than debate images posted, just go look at the sun and moon. As I have mentioned many times, the moon is clearly lit by the sun and the earth is round. From what we see casually, it would be impossible to tell if the solar system was geocentric or heliocentric. But we never have solar eclipses during a full moon. Think back to the one a few weeks ago. Over the night, the moon does not change phases or look any different which one would expect if it and the sun were a few miles up and circling a flat earth.
My late father used to tell me how I had figured out when I was three that I was directly between the sun and full moon because we were on a hilly road and I would see one or the other and I declared "it is like the sun and moon are on a see saw!"
If the sun were circling a flat earth similar to the moon one should expect to see things differently. A new moon moves in the same path as the sun and a full moon follows a path the sun will take 6 months later. It all works very easily for a round earth but there has been no flat earth model that can explain how it would all work. If one is a Zetetic, they should believe the thing that matches what they see.
If light bends and can shine on things around corners, we should all give up driving or flying or moving at all. We should not have any discussions at all about things pointing to other things because we would not know where any of these things are.
The sun is very far away and that is why the moon does not change phase every hour.
The night sky does not behave like a planetarium and the constellations look the same (they do not distort as you travel) because they are even farther away.
Just go out and look at the sky.
Be a Zetetic and look and travel.
-
The photo comes from this Page 1 of this University of Pennsylvania paper on the subject: http://www.seas.upenn.edu/~amyers/MoonPaper20June.pdf
Did you read that document, or merely take the photo and caption from it?
and ...
You're not going to illustrate yourself what you mean when you talk about "pointing into the Earth" .... at all?
Just to clarify - the paper doesn't, of course, imply "curved light". It explains, in some complex detail, exactly why the moon appears exactly as it should do.
It's not surprising that the paper should be massively misunderstood.
-
The above paper seems to support the ridiculous "Celestial Sphere" theory I mentioned earlier.
Astronomers rely upon the celestial sphere model for maps of the sky because loca-
tions of stars and constellations depend only on their right ascension and declination.
For the topocentric model used for the sun and the moon, location is specified by
azimuth and altitude. All objects in the sky are assumed to be located at the same
distance from the observer, as if pasted upon the surface of an imaginery sphere sur-
rounding the observer. Astronomers, for whom the celestial sphere model is a basic
tool for mapping the stars, are not surprised by the apparently curved path of light
from the sun to the moon because they know that straight lines in 3-D object space
are transformed to great-circle arcs on the imaginary celestial sphere. Straight lines in
space are not actually transformed into great circle arcs on a visible celestial sphere.
Great circle arcs cannot be captured on photographs and visible straight lines are not
perceived as arcs when scanned by human vision.
How can it be that the celestial bodies around us appear on an invisible curved surface like a planetarium? The "Celestial Sphere" theory suggests that the sun and the moon are painted on a glass sphere around the earth, and light travels in curved paths on that surface, rather than appearing in normal 3D space.
Again, in a computer model an arrow pointing at a sphere will always be pointed at that sphere, no matter what angle or position the camera is looking at the scene from. There is no "Celestial Sphere".
That's a typical FE obfuscation: Picking some buzz words from the article like "celestial sphere" and "curved lines"
Adding some assumptions to make it a painted ... glass sphere around the earth.
A quick scan of the referred document nowhere found the word "glass"!
It's mentioned two times that "celestial sphere" is a pure imaginary model, to chart stars/sun/moon, which cannot be observed in real world, and they spent two extra sentences, that the curved lines found on the chart cannot be observed in real world.
So if anything is ridiculous, than the additional assumptions of fairy lady Tom Bishop.
Back to the origin of the thread:
It is very hard to get away from the perception that the horizon and the ground you are standing on is always the one and only reference. So relative to the horizon - presumed to be the one and only reference - the tilt of the moon is quite astonishing.
But:
The orientation of the observer in almost any case is not perpendicular to the plain of earth orbit around the sun.
And to worsen it, the horizon line has an additional tilt against the the orbital plain. It is tilted against the orbital plain to a different degree, in each direction you are looking around. Only for two points, one in the south and another in the north, the horizon is parallel to the orbital plain.
So not the moon is tilted - it always has (nearly) the same orientation to the orbital plain. No, it is the observer and the horizon which is tilted.
If you would have watched the moon for more hours after this photo was taken, you would have seen the moon upright in the south and later tilted to the other side in westerly directions.
-
Ok, let me ask this question cause I don't see where it's properly been answered by FE folk.
If there is a plausible answer I'll entertain it.
There are well some 7 other planets out there possibly 8 if they ever find Planet X.
We use telescopes (I have one too) and observe the celestial bodies in the skies.
When looking at Saturn you can see the 4 main rings and they wrap around in a circle.
Ok now lets take Mercury and Venus, skip Mars for a minute. Go out to Saturn and Jupiter.
When observed through a telescope they appear round, and if you say they are always facing earth I think it would be obvious that's not likely.
Then heck let's look at the moon our nearest celestial body.
If you want to argue that anything is flat I think you should use that one. Since we only get to view one side and only one side. Due to rotational speed matching the orbit speed of a bit over 27 days. Are all of the planets 100% of the time directly facing Earth where the universe revolves around the Earth?
I'm not trying to be difficult but I just simply don't understand the logic at play here.
-
Can you provide an illustration?
Why should I draw another, when all you will do is draw an aribitrary blue line on it, and say that's the 'horizon' of the observer?
Why should I, when you can't and won't show how you think it all fits together?
If you think that you know the reason for why the moon is pointed away from the horizon after sunset, why not illustrate it for us? You are free to put your own line of the horizon where the observer is.
I disagree. Regardless of observer position on Earth, the relation between three objects (Sun. Moon, Observer) is a triangle. The Observer is at the point opposite the line connecting sun and moon. The line between observer and Moon is approx 240k miles.
If you mean the geometry didn't match your particular photo exactly, then I'm not surprised. It wasn't intended to.
The Moon doesn't care if the observer is three miles or so beyond his horizon toward the sun, nor whether or not the observer can see the sun or not. It can still see the sun from where it is.
The observer having the sun behind his horizon does not pull the Moon 240k out of its orbit, down to Earth's surface, to share his view of the sun. The Moon has its own line of sight to the Sun
Illustrate your scene for us. Your last illustration did not show that the moon would be pointing away from the horizon.
Tom...
...the caption says the moon is in the southeast. The sun sets in the west. The moon is just above the eastern horizon, with its dark side facing east and its lit side facing west. The lit side of the moon is indeed facing the sun.
this is not hard to explain; it is just hard for you et al to accept when it means the Earth can't be flat
Provide an illustration if this is so easy to understand. The attempted illustrations so far have been unsound.
-
Actually, here's a curiosity. Presuming you're 100% correct in what you're saying here. How does this not break FE too? The two are nearly on the same plane relative to us. This shouldn't be a thing for FE either. What an I missing?
The "Room Perspective" argument I had mentioned on the first page of this thread doesn't make sense in RET, since the celestial distance are great and the sun and moon do not descend and ascend because of perspective. At no time are the bodies significantly closer to the observer as to cause them to be affected by perspective in that manner. The sun and moon are at their respective distances at all times. It is the rotation of the earth that causes their ascent or descent and position in the sky.
The "Room Perspective" argument may make sense if the sun and moon are close to the earth, and in fact, are descending to perspective.
-
The above paper seems to support the ridiculous "Celestial Sphere" theory I mentioned earlier.
Astronomers rely upon the celestial sphere model for maps of the sky because loca-
tions of stars and constellations depend only on their right ascension and declination.
For the topocentric model used for the sun and the moon, location is specified by
azimuth and altitude. All objects in the sky are assumed to be located at the same
distance from the observer, as if pasted upon the surface of an imaginery sphere sur-
rounding the observer. Astronomers, for whom the celestial sphere model is a basic
tool for mapping the stars, are not surprised by the apparently curved path of light
from the sun to the moon because they know that straight lines in 3-D object space
are transformed to great-circle arcs on the imaginary celestial sphere. Straight lines in
space are not actually transformed into great circle arcs on a visible celestial sphere.
Great circle arcs cannot be captured on photographs and visible straight lines are not
perceived as arcs when scanned by human vision.
How can it be that the celestial bodies around us appear on an invisible curved surface like a planetarium? The "Celestial Sphere" theory suggests that the sun and the moon are painted on a glass sphere around the earth, and light travels in curved paths on that surface, rather than appearing in normal 3D space.
Again, in a computer model an arrow pointing at a sphere will always be pointed at that sphere, no matter what angle or position the camera is looking at the scene from. There is no "Celestial Sphere".
That's a typical FE obfuscation: Picking some buzz words from the article like "celestial sphere" and "curved lines"
Adding some assumptions to make it a painted ... glass sphere around the earth.
A quick scan of the referred document nowhere found the word "glass"!
It's mentioned two times that "celestial sphere" is a pure imaginary model, to chart stars/sun/moon, which cannot be observed in real world, and they spent two extra sentences, that the curved lines found on the chart cannot be observed in real world.
So if anything is ridiculous, than the additional assumptions of fairy lady Tom Bishop.
Please illustrate this ridiculous concept of the "Celestial Sphere" for us. How can stars and planets and other celestial bodies be located around the earth in geometric space, with the light between those celestial bodies appearing from the earth to travel on a curved path to the observer? It does not make sense at all. Why would straight lines not be straight and why would the moon not be pointed at the sun?
-
I mean, I made a thing in MS paint, but it's not super different from the other ones conceptually. The scale is more accurate, but it's still not 100% to scale.
(https://i.imgur.com/tj9qzc8.png)
So here, we have an observer at the equator, the north pole is pointed at us, and the Earth is rotating clockwise. So from the perspective of the observer, west is left on the picture and east is right. Overhead is the top of the picture.
The sun has just set behind the western horizon which, it should be noted, would be part of the same pixel as the observer at this scale. When full, the moon is to the east, just over the horizon.
-
Please illustrate this ridiculous concept of the "Celestial Sphere" for us. How can stars and planets and other celestial bodies be located around the earth in geometric space, with the light between those celestial bodies appearing from the earth to travel on a curved path to the observer? It does not make sense at all. Why would straight lines not be straight and why would the moon not be pointed at the sun?
Sorry, did I say, I fully understand the concept "Celestial Sphere"? No.
I just mentioned, according the authors of the referred article, this is a imaginary model, which cannot be observed in real world.
It's a method to create a chart of stars for what purpose ever.
It was You who produced a real world incarnation from this.
-
I mean, I made a thing in MS paint, but it's not super different from the other ones conceptually. The scale is more accurate, but it's still not 100% to scale.
(https://i.imgur.com/tj9qzc8.png)
So here, we have an observer at the equator, the north pole is pointed at us, and the Earth is rotating clockwise. So from the perspective of the observer, west is left on the picture and east is right. Overhead is the top of the picture.
The sun has just set behind the western horizon which, it should be noted, would be part of the same pixel as the observer at this scale. When full, the moon is to the east, just over the horizon.
Now draw in the observer's horizon with a blue line like I did with the illustration at the end of Page 1 and show us how the moon's phase can be pointing away from the horizon for an observer on the dark side of the earth.
-
okay
(https://i.imgur.com/oFl0Xpj.png)
the moon is low to the eastern horizon, with its lit side facing the western horizon
made a closeup with multiple observers and moon positions
(https://i.imgur.com/2tV7CLz.png)
also found this animation that clarifies how it moves over time
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fESt5fVR2fI
-
okay
(https://i.imgur.com/oFl0Xpj.png)
the moon is low to the eastern horizon, with its lit side facing the western horizon
made a closeup with multiple observers and moon positions
(https://i.imgur.com/2tV7CLz.png)
Good. Now which of those positions you've created illustrates the phase of the moon facing AWAY from the horizon?
-
all of them? none of them?
the horizon is seen in all directions, isn't it, so the moon faces both towards and away from the horizon, you dig?
anyway I already pointed out how the picture you showed earlier is consistent with these diagrams; I guess that picture is most like the phase that's 3rd from the top, for the observer at 12 o'clock with the most recent sunset
-
tom: imagine yourself standing in a large, dark room. you see this sphere directly in front of you:
(https://i.imgur.com/M67S7wG.jpg)
where is the light source?
-
You were also told to hold a string up and stretch it between the moon and the sun, and this would show the moon's lit face pointing at the sun.
One of the examples I quoted was taken one hour after sunset. The moon is still pointing into the sky. How does your string example make sense?
The few who tried it acknowledged this worked, while you attempted to argue there was some form of duplicity inherent in the experiment and refused to even attempt it, whether with a string or a straight edge. I seem to recall Junker even chiming in that the string trick worked, although I would need to go digging to verify this for sure. You need to stop dismissing explanations simply because you either don't understand them, or don't think they can be correct by glancing at them. Your video, and by extension the picture, don't take into account some optical issues to do with the sky being a sphere.
How does connecting the moon and the sun with a string show that the moon is pointed at the sun? It is possible to connect any two points in your vision.
In a 3D model of an arrow pointing at a sphere, the arrow should ALWAYS be pointed at the sphere, from wherever you look at it. There can't be an illusion where the arrow is not pointing at the sphere. From wherever you are around the objects, the arrow will be pointed at the sphere.
The discussion has gotten a bit bogged down in specifics over the last few pages, but here's what we mean by the lighted side of the moon always pointing at the sun, even after sunset:
I drew out the phenomenon on a skychart to show how anything pointing "away" from the horizon doesn't really make sense.
(https://imgur.com/LmFLY6Q.png)
Next time you're outside, and see this illusion, pull out a string and try it for yourself. It always lines up.
-
Good. Now which of those positions you've created illustrates the phase of the moon facing AWAY from the horizon?
You do realise all these illustrations are from the position of an imaginary observer suspended in space, set off to the side of the Earth/Moon/Sun system (EDIT - ABOVE the system), and that you have to turn these around, possibly invert them, to imagine yourself as the observer on Earth, don't you?
Simply drawing a line on these diagrams shows a tangent line based on their imaginary position, not a horizon line from their viewpoint....
-
In the illustrations in #42, three lines connect Earth and Moon. However, the range of locations from which the Moon can be observed are best described with reference to a Spherical Cap.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_cap
Determine position of Moon, draw a line connecting the centres of both bodies, passing through the points on their surfaces which are nearest each other, and the range of locations from which the Moon can be seen will be described by a spherical cap, where line h passes through this connecting line, and the meeting point of lines a and r is the point at which a line can be drawn from the Moon to a tangent on Earth's surface.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2f/Spherical_cap_diagram.tiff/lossless-page1-220px-Spherical_cap_diagram.tiff.png)
Anyone on Earth at the highest point of line h will have the Moon directly overhead. Anyone at the end of line a/r will have it on their horizon. Anyone inbetween will see the Moon at some elevation between these extremes.
In short, you need more info on observer/photographer location before drawing a horizon line for such an observer.
-
I hope some people will find this amusing.
Using once again a Zetetic approach, last night I looked at the moon around midnight. It appeared to be lit from a direction more or less straight underground which in a round earth model would be Jakarta or there abouts. In a flat earth model, the sun should be uhm, where would that be? That is, how would I get to Jakarta? Back to the round earth model, if I headed pretty much any direction, it would not matter since it is on the other side of the world. I knew a guy that did not want to travel with his wife so he sent her across the Atlantic and he went over the Pacific and their flight times were very similar. On a flat earth model, if you do not fly over the North Pole, it is going to take a long time to get there. So the moon should have looked like it was being lit from the direction of the North Star, not from underground if the sun circles a flat earth.
Then I thought about that photo near the start of this thread. As I noticed often here, the people that took that photo are from Imperial College London, so I assume our flat earth evidence is again from the land of Rowbotham. Now since that photo was taken an hour after sunset and the waxing moon is in the south east about 45degrees up, I would suspect that was taken during the summer months. So let us say it is 10:00pm London time (sun setting at 9:00 pm). So at that time, the sun would be over approximately Aukland longitutde. So in a round earth model, the sun should be to the west of the observers, and in a flat earth model, it should once again be coming from the north north east (which is where Aukland would be flat earth wise).
Taking a Zenetic approach, even if the sun looks high in the sky according to the moon tilt thing, there is no evidence here to support a flat earth model. So we can argue about intricacies on the accuracy of the round earth model based on some photo taken in England, but it is a wild jump to then proclaim that the earth is flat when none of the evidence supports that at all.
I think the answer once again is to just take the Zenetic approach and look for yourself at the world around you.
-
Next time you're outside, and see this illusion, pull out a string and try it for yourself. It always lines up.
oh yeah, i totally forgot about this.
tom, forget about all the other stuff in this thread. just be a good empiricist and demonstrate the fact of the matter for yourself with a piece of string.
-
Presuming Tom's example photo to have been taken from London, as suggested above, here's a demo of how a viewer in London can see the Moon in their south-east, whilst themselves being in twilight, and hence unable to see the Sun.
I've taken no account of axial tilt, since I don't know when the photo was taken, so this should be taken as an approximation to demonstrate the principle.
In the first slide, you HAVE to use your imagination, for the Moon should be nearer to you than the flat of the page/screen. This is reflected in the plan view second slide.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Li8w2aRjoQ8
-
The moon phase is still pointing towards the horizon in both of those images. You need the moon phase to point AWAY from the horizon.
-
The moon phase is still pointing towards the horizon in both of those images. You need the moon phase to point AWAY from the horizon.
Can you draw on a skychart how the lighted part of the moon would ever not be pointing at the horizon? The horizon is a circle completely surrounding us so the only way I can see that as possible is during a new moon, which isn't what we're talking about.
-
I find this thread interesting as an insight into how evidence is taken. We have a recognised optical illusion, whereby we misjudge the source of the light illuminating the moon. We can verify that it's an optical illusion using the very simple string stretching exercise. We draw a line between the Sun and Moon and, yes, it is exactly as it should be.
But what about when the Sun isn't in the sky? When, according to conventional thinking, the Sun is blocked by the round Earth? In that case, say the FEs, we can ignore the previously demonstrated optical illusion, and say that the Sun must be above the horizon.
Of course, this leads to all kinds of problems for the FE theory. For once, if the Sun is above the horizon, then why can't we see it? If refraction is curving the light away, then it would curve the light away from the moon as well. Oh, but the Sun is a spotlight? Then how is it illuminating the moon at all, if it's just shining downwards.
And so we get ever more esoteric theories of complicated optical convolution. If the Sun is above the Moon, it must be higher in the sky. If the light from the Sun reflected off the Moon is bright enough to read by, then why is there no light visible directly from the Sun? It becomes ever more incoherent.
Try drawing a flat Earth diagram like the ones shown above that makes a lick of sense. It can't be done. Try it with a disk Moon, sphere Moon, spotlight Sun, sphere Sun, disk Sun, or any other shapes, and none of it makes the slightest sense.
But this is how FE theory works. There's no real attempt to provide working models for a flat Earth, no flat Earth map, no astronomical measurements, no flat Earth navigation. It's a matter of pointing out supposed anomalies, areas of misunderstanding.
Flat Earth is considered a fact, not something to be established. When evidence contradicts flat Earth, as it inevitably will; often evidence cited by the flat Earth proponents themselves; then it can simply be ignored. No flat Earth proponent will seriously engage with the challenge to draw a diagram that explains how the Sun can illuminate the Moon and at the same time be invisible. It's not necessary, because thinking about how a flat Earth would actually work is just ignored.
-
The moon phase is still pointing towards the horizon in both of those images. You need the moon phase to point AWAY from the horizon.
Please explain further what you mean by this, or better still, illustrate it for us. I've shown a line connecting moon and sun, and the illuminated hemisphere of the Moon faces the Sun. To my mind, that IS the 'phase' pointing toward the Sun.
-
The moon phase is still pointing towards the horizon in both of those images. You need the moon phase to point AWAY from the horizon.
Please explain further what you mean by this, or better still, illustrate it for us. I've shown a line connecting moon and sun, and the illuminated hemisphere of the Moon faces the Sun. To my mind, that IS the 'phase' pointing toward the Sun.
In RET the horizon is a plane that sits on the surface of the earth. Things are either pointed towards it or away from it. Things are pointed either up or down. Towards the earth or away from it.
It is not possible for the moon phase to be pointed into the sky, away from the earth, one hour after the sun has set under the Round Earth model. All illustrations here have the phase of the moon phase pointing towards the earth.
The moon is pointing AWAY from the earth in the photograph, and this is what you need to illustrate.
-
Sorry, but you're just repeating yourself.
Please explain what you mean by the Moon phase 'pointing' in any particular direction. What's the pointer? How are you identifying this 'pointer' on my diagrams? Is it one of the lines I've drawn, or another one that's in your imagination? If the latter, how are we supposed to know what it is?
-
I drew out the phenomenon on a skychart to show how anything pointing "away" from the horizon doesn't really make sense.
(https://imgur.com/LmFLY6Q.png)
Perhaps horizon isn't the best word to use. The moon is pointing AWAY from the earth in this illustration. The center point is out into space. It needs to be pointing TOWARDS the earth, since the sun is on the day side.
-
Sorry, but you're just repeating yourself.
Please explain what you mean by the Moon phase 'pointing' in any particular direction. What's the pointer? How are you identifying this 'pointer' on my diagrams? Is it one of the lines I've drawn, or another one that's in your imagination? If the latter, how are we supposed to know what it is?
If the earth is round and we are on the night side the phase of the moon would point TOWARDS the earth. The sun is on the other side. The moon would be pointing in that direction.
But we have a photograph of the moon pointing AWAY from the earth.
In all illustrations so far we have seen that the moon is pointing TOWARDS the earth. It is not possible to create an illustration where the moon is pointing AWAY from the earth, the opposite direction from the sun, from a position on the night side.
Are we clear?
-
The moon is pointing AWAY from the earth in this illustration. The center point is out into space. It needs to be pointing TOWARDS the earth, since the sun is on the day side.
Covered this already.
Sun/Earth/Moon at three points of a triangle. Earth is at the point opposite the side connecting Sun and Moon. Sunlight passes along this line to illuminate the Moon. The centre point of Moon's lit side is aligned with this line.
You, the observer, are up to 240k miles to the side of this line. The Sun shines past the Earth.
-
I drew out the phenomenon on a skychart to show how anything pointing "away" from the horizon doesn't really make sense.
(https://imgur.com/LmFLY6Q.png)
Perhaps horizon isn't the best word to use. The moon is pointing AWAY from the earth in this illustration. The center point is out into space. It needs to be pointing TOWARDS the earth, since the sun is on the day side.
I'd argue anytime the moon is in a gibbous phase the lighted part is pointed towards the Earth. We can see the center of the lit side (where it's high noon on the moon) so it's certainly pointed closer to us than away from us. Regardless though, no matter what the naked eye tells you, the string trick *always* works, proving it's the sun lighting up the moon. Even when the sun is below the horizion, the moon points to it, and you can verify this by using a free stargazing app on your smart phone to see where the RE model predicts the sun should be.
-
The moon is pointing AWAY from the earth in this illustration. The center point is out into space. It needs to be pointing TOWARDS the earth, since the sun is on the day side.
Covered this already.
Sun/Earth/Moon at three points of a triangle. Earth is at the point opposite the side connecting Sun and Moon. Sunlight passes along this line to illuminate the Moon. The centre point of Moon's lit side is aligned with this line.
You, the observer, are up to 240k miles to the side of this line. The Sun shines past the Earth.
Illustrate it for us. You keep showing illustrations where the moon is pointing TOWARDS the earth.
Show something where the observer is on the night side and the moon is pointing AWAY from the earth.
-
I drew out the phenomenon on a skychart to show how anything pointing "away" from the horizon doesn't really make sense.
(https://imgur.com/LmFLY6Q.png)
Perhaps horizon isn't the best word to use. The moon is pointing AWAY from the earth in this illustration. The center point is out into space. It needs to be pointing TOWARDS the earth, since the sun is on the day side.
I'd argue anytime the moon is in a gibbous phase the lighted part is pointed towards the Earth. We can see the center of the lit side (where it's high noon on the moon) so it's certainly pointed closer to us than away from us. Regardless though, no matter what the naked eye tells you, the string trick *always* works, proving it's the sun lighting up the moon. Even when the sun is below the horizion, the moon points to it, and you can verify this by using a free stargazing app on your smart phone to see where the RE model predicts the sun should be.
Even if the sun does line up with the moon, the scenario is still geometrically unsound. The moon needs to be pointing TOWARDS the earth in the RET model, not away from it.
If the observer is in night, the direction of the sun is down towards the earth on the day side.
The moon should NOT be seen pointing away from the earth.
-
Illustrate it for us. You keep showing illustrations where the moon is pointing TOWARDS the earth.
My illustrations show the sightline between Earth and Moon.
You do see the shading, white/grey to show lit and unlit sides of each, don't you?
Show something where the observer is on the night side and the moon is pointing AWAY from the earth.
I think I have. I've shown London on the night side, and the lit side of the Moon linked to the Sun PAST the side of the Earth, i.e. AWAY from the Earth. It's in the YT video linked to above.
You still haven't explained what you regard as your "pointer".
-
Illustrate it for us. You keep showing illustrations where the moon is pointing TOWARDS the earth.
My illustrations show the sightline between Earth and Moon.
You do see the shading, white/grey to show lit and unlit sides of each, don't you?
Show something where the observer is on the night side and the moon is pointing AWAY from the earth.
I think I have. I've shown London on the night side, and the lit side of the Moon linked to the Sun PAST the side of the Earth, i.e. AWAY from the Earth. It's in the YT video linked to above.
You still haven't explained what you regard as your "pointer".
If you draw in the line of the horizon into your illustration, like I did on page 1, you will find that the moon would be seen pointing towards the earth.
The pointer is the brightest area of the moon's phase - the apex of the crescent. The moon's crescent is supposed to point towards the sun.
-
Illustrate it for us. You keep showing illustrations where the moon is pointing TOWARDS the earth.
Show something where the observer is on the night side and the moon is pointing AWAY from the earth.
[/quote]
And you can illustrate how this works with the flat Earth model?
-
The moon's crescent is supposed to point towards the sun.
it always does.
you can prove this to yourself with a piece of string. you claim to embrace empiricism and reject rationalism; if that's true, then why are you so reluctant to perform a simple experiment?
-
yeah these diagrams all have the center of the lit face of the moon pointing at the sun, I really don't get what Tom's objection is
Show something where the observer is on the night side and the moon is pointing AWAY from the earth.
(https://i.imgur.com/aWNloCg.png)
-
Even if the sun does line up with the moon, the scenario is still geometrically unsound. The moon needs to be pointing TOWARDS the earth in the RET model, not away from it.
Says who or what? Which particular aspect of the RET model are you referring to here?
If the observer is in night, the direction of the sun is down towards the earth on the day side.
If the observer is in day, the direction of the sun is exactly the same, surely? The direction to and from the sun doesn't change because one or more folk have moved around on Earth
The moon should NOT be seen pointing away from the earth.
Yes, it should. It should be pointing at the source of light, which can be 'seen' by the Moon on a line going PAST the Earth to the Sun
-
If you draw in the line of the horizon into your illustration, like I did on page 1, you will find that the moon would be seen pointing towards the earth.
Drawing a blue line on my diagram doesn't change the orientation of the Moon in the diagram. The Moon is still 'pointing' toward the Sun, regardless of whether you draw a blue line across it or not.
The pointer is the brightest area of the moon's phase - the apex of the crescent. The moon's crescent is supposed to point towards the sun.
And it does, in all my diagrams
-
(https://i.imgur.com/CkWvJuI.png)
Here is a very crude and unimpressive diagram of how this works for the flat Earth model. The Sun illuminates the part of the world that is in daylight, and also illuminates the Moon so it can be seen by people in the part of the world in darkness. There is some other optical phenomenon
(SOOP) that makes the Sun invisible to the person who can see the Moon.
How can anyone doubt the flat Earth model once they see how it totally explains everything?
(BTW - I'm very, very happy for any flat Earth proponent to come up with a better diagram that explains this any better. It is very crude work.
-
Show something where the observer is on the night side and the moon is pointing AWAY from the earth.
I think this may be an impossible task, because the moon's rotation is synchornized with Earth's rotation in such a manner that only one side of the moon is visible to us on Earth at any given moment. Which, yes, is REALLY weird. The odds of the moon's rotation being THAT precisely synchronized with Earth's rotation are ASTRONOMICAL. I personally think, as crazy as it may sound, that this is because the moon was engineered. Some more supporting evidence for that theory can be found by observing the craters on the moon; they all seem to be roughly the same depth. Which again, is pretty weird....unless of course the moon is some kind of a structure with a dense material just under the surface. I haven't had the chance to read it yet, but someone else had the same theory and wrote a book about it entitled "Who Built the Moon?" by Christopher Knight and Alan Butler. No; I don't think humans built the moon; that's ridiculous seeing as the moon has been around since at least Biblical times, (if I recall correctly, there was a piece of scripture that started something like "before the time of the moon...") I'm pretty sure the moon was engineered, and then brought here by extraterrestrial entities. ....Yep...I know how crazy that sounds, but it would explain a lot, including why we never see the dark side of the moon...possibly because there may be technological bases stationed on the far side of the moon. But yeah...I could go on and on about the moon and all the weird things about it; the subject greatly fascinates me.
-
Show something where the observer is on the night side and the moon is pointing AWAY from the earth.
I think this may be an impossible task, because the moon's rotation is synchornized with Earth's rotation in such a manner that only one side of the moon is visible to us on Earth at any given moment. Which, yes, is REALLY weird. The odds of the moon's rotation being THAT precisely synchronized with Earth's rotation are ASTRONOMICAL. I personally think, as crazy as it may sound, that this is because the moon was engineered. Some more supporting evidence for that theory can be found by observing the craters on the moon; they all seem to be roughly the same depth. Which again, is pretty weird....unless of course the moon is some kind of a structure with a dense material just under the surface. I haven't had the chance to read it yet, but someone else had the same theory and wrote a book about it entitled "Who Built the Moon?" by Christopher Knight and Alan Butler. No; I don't think humans built the moon; that's ridiculous seeing as the moon has been around since at least Biblical times, (if I recall correctly, there was a piece of scripture that started something like "before the time of the moon...") I'm pretty sure the moon was engineered, and then brought here by extraterrestrial entities. ....Yep...I know how crazy that sounds, but it would explain a lot, including why we never see the dark side of the moon...possibly because there may be technological bases stationed on the far side of the moon. But yeah...I could go on and on about the moon and all the weird things about it; the subject greatly fascinates me.
If it were a coincidence, then it would certainly be weird. However, it isn't. The reason the rotation of the Moon has ceased relative to the Earth is gravity. It's exactly the same effect that causes tides on Earth. The Earth is much more massive than the Moon, and hence has more effect on it than it does on us.
It's yet more evidence for the reality of gravity.
-
I looked at the moon again last night. It was high in the sky and was being lit by something below me just a little north of straight west. In the flat earth model, the sun should have been almost directly north of me.
The night before the moon was lit by something almost straight down from my perspective. How is that possible in Flat Earth?
I am annoyed now at this site because the obvious stuff is ignored by the FE'ers and they focus on some little thing that requires a lot of explanation. In this thread we are focused on what happens shortly after sunset in England on a summer day. We hear that it is necessary for the moon to look like it is being lit by something on the horizon, when the horizon is simply the land within our field of vision on a round earth with mountains and whatnot. The moon is lit by the sun which has nothing to do with where ever the horizon is. On a flat earth, we might be able to come up with a necessary condition involving the earth's influence over the heavenly bodies that circle it. When we see vapour trails in the sky left by airplanes, you should think that they should always be horizontal with the ground since the plane is flying at a constant altitude. But the vapour trails in the sky go all over the place in all directions. If you have never flown, you might, (like some FE's here) argue that how do you know the airplane is not flying almost straight up? They don't even if from my perspective it might look like it is.
Looking at the moon is one of the easiest proofs of a round earth. If a person stays in England and does not consider other people on the globe, you can imagine a flat earth model that might work for you. When the moon is full, the same face is always looking at you. It comes up when the sun goes down. It is being lit as if you are shining a flashlight directly at it. That is the light source is directly in line with you and the moon. And this works on the same day for everyone everywhere. Although everyone sees the moon at different times according to their time zone, they can publish a calendar years in advance saying what day that full moon is going to be. If all the people at the same latitude as you can see the full moon between sun set and sun rise for their timezone and it looks the same for everyone on their turn and you can see it in the west at 4:00 am when someone else is seeing it in the east at 8:00 pm and you can both see the man in the moon looking directly at you, what other model than a sphere can give you that?
And that is what being a Zetetic is all about!
-
If you draw in the line of the horizon into your illustration, like I did on page 1, you will find that the moon would be seen pointing towards the earth.
The pointer is the brightest area of the moon's phase - the apex of the crescent. The moon's crescent is supposed to point towards the sun.
The apex IS pointing to the Sun. It intersects the horizon line you've drawn, but that doesn't mean it's pointing toward the observer's horizon, for you haven't drawn that. You've drawn a side view of the plane of the observer's horizon.
See my annotated version below;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4aBUSJpQ0Q
-
If you draw in the line of the horizon into your illustration, like I did on page 1, you will find that the moon would be seen pointing towards the earth.
The pointer is the brightest area of the moon's phase - the apex of the crescent. The moon's crescent is supposed to point towards the sun.
The apex IS pointing to the Sun. It intersects the horizon line you've drawn, but that doesn't mean it's pointing toward the observer's horizon, for you haven't drawn that. You've drawn a side view of the plane of the observer's horizon.
See my annotated version below;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4aBUSJpQ0Q
The view from above the Sun/Moon/Earth plane is certainly the best way to see what's going on.
-
I went through all 4 pages of this debate and I realised that
1. Tom Bishop has asked for diagrams from REs to explain their position. He has been given a plethora of those
2. REs have asked Tom Bishop for illustrations so as to understand what he is going on about in order to give him a reply. Tom Bishop has given none, has made no indication he will give any or that for some technical reason related to the site or his ability to create diagrams, he cannot.
3. REs have given answers based on their understandings of what Tom Bishop is asking and Tom Bishop has not accepted any of those as they have not answered the question he is asking even though that is because no one seems to understand what Tom is asking as he has failed to illustrate to make that clear.
I believe this is because Tom knows his position is not tenable and needs to make it as vague as posibke in order to keep the illusion that RE cannot explain a point he is apparently making.
Meanwhile, all evidence and means of aquiring said evidence for one's self is immediately discounted by someone who claims to believe only what he can observe himself. So in order not to have his beliefs sheken or threatened he has chosen not to observe at all.
Am I right so far?
My own piece of evidence. Take a tennis ball and hold it up against the sky at the moon visible at twilight and tell me if the effect of the sun on said tennis ball isn't the same as that seen on the moon.
And hell no, I am not going to illustrate that.
-
Show something where the observer is on the night side and the moon is pointing AWAY from the earth.
I think this may be an impossible task, because the moon's rotation is synchornized with Earth's rotation in such a manner that only one side of the moon is visible to us on Earth at any given moment. Which, yes, is REALLY weird. The odds of the moon's rotation being THAT precisely synchronized with Earth's rotation are ASTRONOMICAL. I personally think, as crazy as it may sound, that this is because the moon was engineered. Some more supporting evidence for that theory can be found by observing the craters on the moon; they all seem to be roughly the same depth. Which again, is pretty weird....unless of course the moon is some kind of a structure with a dense material just under the surface. I haven't had the chance to read it yet, but someone else had the same theory and wrote a book about it entitled "Who Built the Moon?" by Christopher Knight and Alan Butler. No; I don't think humans built the moon; that's ridiculous seeing as the moon has been around since at least Biblical times, (if I recall correctly, there was a piece of scripture that started something like "before the time of the moon...") I'm pretty sure the moon was engineered, and then brought here by extraterrestrial entities. ....Yep...I know how crazy that sounds, but it would explain a lot, including why we never see the dark side of the moon...possibly because there may be technological bases stationed on the far side of the moon. But yeah...I could go on and on about the moon and all the weird things about it; the subject greatly fascinates me.
If it were a coincidence, then it would certainly be weird. However, it isn't. The reason the rotation of the Moon has ceased relative to the Earth is gravity. It's exactly the same effect that causes tides on Earth. The Earth is much more massive than the Moon, and hence has more effect on it than it does on us.
It's yet more evidence for the reality of gravity.
Interesting. Unless I'm mistaken though, I don't think the moon's rotation as ceased at all; it's still rotating, just really slowly; if I recall correctly the moon rotates on it's axis about once every 27 days. ....Here's a video of it; not quite sure how to describe it:
Here's another video going into some of the other weird things about the moon (sorry if it's kind of boring):
Though to be fair, the "ringing like a gong" phenomenon that was described could be explained by the fact there's no moisture on the moon; it's possible Earth would ring like a bell if it was hit hard enough, provided of course we didn't have vast oceans to serve as a type of shock-absorbing sponge that would dampen down the effects.
Definitely interesting to contemplate though. Really wished I could go there for myself; apparently there's also some pictures of what apear to be structures on the surface of the moon that can't be explained by pure natural formations. Of course, those pictures could have been doctored. Hard telling.
-
Unless I'm mistaken though, I don't think the moon's rotation as ceased at all; it's still rotating, just really slowly; if I recall correctly the moon rotates on it's axis about once every 27 days. ....Here's a video of it; not quite sure how to describe it:
The Moon has to rotate to keep the same face Earthside at all times. It can be assumed that it was originally rotating at a different speed, and its face was changing according to its rotation speed. Tidal effects would have slowed it down, until it rotated at exactly the same speed as it's orbit around the Earth. the same forces are working on the Earth, slowing its rotation, but because the Earth is far more massive, it will take vastly longer to lock the Earth to present the same face to the Moon in perpetuity. I'm not sufficiently adept in celestial mechanics to determine if this will ever happen. There must be paired heavenly bodies out there which face each other always. I think this is the case with Pluto and Charon. If you were to live on the far side of Pluto, you'd never see its moon.
-
To give an intuitive explanation of why planets and their moons might end up facing each other - imagine a pair of dance partners, holding each other tight. The tighter the hold, as they spin around each other, the more likely they are to keep facing each other. If the weaker partner can't hold very tightly, the stronger partner has the freedom to swivel around, while his partner has to keep facing him, in his steely grip.
That's right, the Earth is sexist.
-
Haha! Awesome. Thanks for sharing. :)
-
So from my observations the original question was completely avoided and instead people choose to focus on whether or not the earth orbits the sun
-
So from my observations the original question was completely avoided and instead people choose to focus on whether or not the earth orbits the sun
Well, the way I saw it is that the argument is that if the Earth is Round, then when the moon is being lit from a sun we cannot see, it should look like the sun is below the horizon. If the sun is simultaneously not visible and yet higher than the moon at that time, it proves the Earth is not Round, and the whacky laws of bending light and what not prevail. If the sun goes below the horizon and comes up on the other side the next morning, this proves the earth is round. The evidence was given by FE and the rebutal followed.
-
itt: Tom argued that real predictions for moon phases (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_phase) didn't match what was observed, and he was unceremoniously debunked. That's my read on it anyway.
The moon is coming into full tonight and tomorrow, so maybe let's get some pictures of moonrise with people's rough locations and see how it adds up.
-
The moon is coming into full tonight and tomorrow, so maybe let's get some pictures of moonrise with people's rough locations and see how it adds up.
Would be happy to, but too cloudy and snowy in the UK just now....