61

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Solar Eclipse

« on: November 23, 2017, 04:32:43 PM »

Ok, so it's definitely a shadow object. An object that casts a shadow. An unknown, never directly observed planet that has never been seen blocking the view of any other object in the sky, including the sun which it orbits. Where is your empirical evidence? Beyond just a shadow.

The shadow is direct evidence that an object was somewhere between the path of the sun and the moon. This is direct evidence of an object in RET or FET.

There are a number of conclusion which follow from this in the Flat Earth model; such as since, during the eclipse, there are no visible celestial bodies at night on a path to the sun, that celestial body must be on the day side of the earth.

You say it would be visible if transiting the sun. When has this been recorded?

The shadow object is rotating around the sun from the sun's side, at a slightly off tilt plane. We only see a limited range of the sun's underside, and never see the sun from its side, as discussed in my posts on the previous page, and so we should never expect it to transit for us.

Mercury and Venus can be seen in transit with a filter. Post/pre transit, perhaps not. But they are also visible before sunrise and after sunset. Why is this not the case with the shadow object/planet.

Mercury and Venus are traveling along the underside of the sun, not the sun's side.

The order I learned was sun, Mercury, Venus, Earth. Where does the shadow planet orbit, within the orbit of Mercury or between the Earth and Venus. Does it orbit on the same plane as the other inner planets?

We have deduced that the Shadow Object is slightly off tilt with the plane of the sun, but not much is known about its distance from the sun.

There is an old saying that once you find you are digging yourself into a hole, the first course of action is to stop digging. Just a thought for you Tom.

Now, where to start...

In your proposed theory, there is a planet orbiting the sun that causes lunar eclipses. I'm using the word planet here since that's what a large satellite of the sun is called. And you, Tom, the man that demands evidence for items of commonly held, everyday knowledge, claim the existence of this planet based only on it's shadow. If there were such an item, how could it never be observed in any other respect. It never reflects the sun's light. It never blocks the view of other stars or planets. It exerts no gravitational influence. Thru Earth based telescopes we can see all the other planets, the rings of some planets, the moons of some planets, asteroids, and comets. But not your shadow object. Why? (Spoiler alert, it doesn't exist).

As to the distance, FE makes claims about the distance to the sun and the moon as they orbit the north pole. You can find numerous example pictures of the shadow crossing the moon. Shouldn't FE experts be able to extrapolate at least a relationship between the size of the body and it's position?

Please define the "day side of the earth". I know what that phrase would mean in RE science, but the meaning in FE terms is not clear to me.

You claim that Mercury and Venus are

traveling along the underside of the sun

. So they don't revolve around the sun as every astronomer in the world, and your wiki claim? What is the center of the mid point of their round travelling pattern?

Why do you think the shadow object only causes lunar eclipses during a full moon?

62

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Solar Eclipse

« on: November 23, 2017, 05:48:41 AM »

I look forward to empirical evidence of this shadow object you and your wiki claim explains lunar eclipses. As a reminder...

Empirical evidence IS positive evidence. It is the most powerful evidence you can have. You keep trying to convince us of illusions and such, but you seem to have a hard time actually demonstrating your wild claims.

Our standard of evidence is just fine. The person with the claim provides the evidence. You are expected to defend your claims.

63

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Solar Eclipse

« on: November 23, 2017, 05:16:58 AM »

I get the impression that after he explained "there's a shadow object" we were supposed to say thanks for the explanation and move on to something else.

None of this stuff stands up to even a shallow examination.

64

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is and isn't proof

« on: November 23, 2017, 04:40:28 AM »

Congratulations!   You just won the 3DGeek prize for most coherent explanation that'll screw with Tom's head!

This is beautiful.   I may print and frame it!

Very high praise! I'm quite envious 

65

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Solar Eclipse

« on: November 23, 2017, 04:35:25 AM »

I know what my statement was. The body which creates the shadow is the Shadow Object. That is definitive. Whatever casts the shadow is called the Shadow Object. What is not definitive is what the Shadow Object is.

...

Mercury and Venus disappear immediately after transiting the sun, even with a solar filter.

...

It would only be visible if it is transiting the sun. If it is in the vicinity of the sun, but not transiting its surface, it is invisible.

Ok, so it's definitely a shadow object. An object that casts a shadow. An unknown, never directly observed planet that has never been seen blocking the view of any other object in the sky, including the sun which it orbits. Where is your empirical evidence? Beyond just a shadow.

You say it would be visible if transiting the sun. When has this been recorded?

Mercury and Venus can be seen in transit with a filter. Post/pre transit, perhaps not. But they are also visible before sunrise and after sunset. Why is this not the case with the shadow object/planet.

The order I learned was sun, Mercury, Venus, Earth. Where does the shadow planet orbit, within the orbit of Mercury or between the Earth and Venus. Does it orbit on the same plane as the other inner planets?

Are all the world's astronomers conspiring to hide it? I've never heard mention of it. And it's gravitational effects would have to be observed on the other inner planets.

66

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Solar Eclipse

« on: November 23, 2017, 12:54:12 AM »

I expect Tom was already done with this thread, but we shall see.

67

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What happens when the ice wall melts?

« on: November 22, 2017, 10:08:28 PM »

I do believe the FE view of the ice wall is that it is roughly 150 ft tall and infinitely thick. Under the ice is actual rocks, but the lack of sunlight beyond the ice wall allows for an infinite plane of ice/rocks.

I don't think they claim infinite thickness. That would cause a problem with universal acceleration requiring infinite energy.

68

Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earth rocket launch this weekend

« on: November 22, 2017, 10:05:26 PM »

Best case scenario here is that he survives, apparently he's done it once before.
Will his parachute open automatically if he passes out on the way up?
I hope he has some contingencies organised, apart from funeral insurance.

No idea, I would assume the parachute is set on a timer rather than manual.

69

Flat Earth Theory / Re: New to the movement and have a few Qs

« on: November 22, 2017, 10:04:24 PM »

Lastly: Images can be faked, therefore no images will be accepted as true evidence.

Except pictures of glaciers or icebergs that can be represented as the ice wall. Those pictures are ok.

70

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Evidence of Flat Earth?

« on: November 22, 2017, 05:29:26 AM »

Earth Not a Globe was peer reviewed by a journal called The Earth Not a Globe Review, later renamed The Earth, which ran for over 75 issues.

Do you think that sounds like an objective peer review source Tom?

Sure, what's wrong with it? A repeat of the Bedford Canal Experiment was also published in The English Mechanic, a scientific journal.

Would you accept a NASA report on the Apollo project if it was peer reviewed by NASA engineers?

71

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Evidence of Flat Earth?

« on: November 22, 2017, 05:11:24 AM »

Youtube videos are not evidence of anything as the motives of those on both sides cannot be trusted. Where are the peer-reviewd academic papers that evidence a flat earth? Are there any reputable scientists in any field that will stand behind the claim that the earth is flat?

Earth Not a Globe was peer reviewed by a journal called The Earth Not a Globe Review, later renamed The Earth, which ran for over 75 issues.

Do you think that sounds like an objective peer review source Tom?

72

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Solar Eclipse

« on: November 22, 2017, 05:06:30 AM »

A note for the original poster. This is an example of flat Earth thought processes. They hold the belief in a flat Earth to be their most sacrosanct principle.

Instead of drawing conclusion from facts and observations, the flatness is given from the start. Then reasons and explanations must be molded to somehow fit that conclusion.

In the lunar eclipse we are discussing here. Note that neither the wiki nor Tom's comments have a mention of observations, sightings, etc. Their flat model(s) can't explain the sun casting the Earth's shadow on the moon. And there is a shadow on the moon. Therefore, there must be an unobserved thing in space is casting the shadow.

73

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Solar Eclipse

« on: November 22, 2017, 04:58:08 AM »

At the very least we should seem some areas of stars blacked out by this mystery object.

I'm not even going to start talking about how there would have to be detectable gravitational effects from this undiscovered moon/satellite/whatever. Come to think of it, if it is a satellite of the sun, wouldn't that qualify it as a planet?

74

Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earth rocket launch this weekend

« on: November 22, 2017, 04:54:49 AM »

Yes, will need some serious propulsion upgrades. But you have to start somewhere!

75

Flat Earth Community / Flat Earth rocket launch this weekend

« on: November 22, 2017, 03:54:32 AM »

How am I the first to mention this? A flat Earth beleiver and self taught rocket maker is launching himself in a homemade rocket this weekend. Says he is expecting to reach 1800 feet of altitude. Don't think there will be much science coming from a flight that low, but he is working his way up to space.

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/national-international/Mad-Mike-Hughes-Rocket-Over-Amboy-458823163.html

76

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Solar Eclipse

« on: November 22, 2017, 01:24:45 AM »

The fact that there is a shadow on the moon is evidence that there is something to cast that shadow.

Agreed, spoiler alert, it's the Earth!

The Wiki article asserts that this may be a new object, or it may be a known object.

Your statement was 

a body known as the Shadow Object

When a new user asked a question your answer was definitive. When someone scratches the surface of that answer, you're saying it might be known or it might be new. Flat Earth science changes fast.

If is exists, it would have to periodically block our view of other objects (sun, stars, planets). How can its effects only be revealed during an eclipse?

The Shadow Object is thought to be a satellite of the sun that is always on the "day side" of the earth. We don't see any celestial bodies near the sun. Everything is washed out by the sun's light. Even when we see the moon in the daytime sky, we can only see it when it is far from the sun where daylight is not as intense.

This is not accurate. With proper instruments and filters the surface of the sun and objects transiting its surface are commonly photographed. Mercury and Venus regularly transit the surface of the sun (from our viewpoint). A Google image search will provide numerous examples. I have personally looked at sunspots through a telescope with a solar filter.

But getting back to your statement... If the mystery object is a satellite of the sun that means it orbits the sun, but you say it is always on the day side of Earth. How could this be? If it orbits the sun it should sometimes be on the far side of the sun and it should be visible just before sunrise or after sunset.

That animation is just for illustrative purposes and does not reflect actual movements or positions.

Perhaps the wiki should have more disclaimers. FE believers frequently refer readers to the wiki for your view on the facts of the world, but what is the use of that when on the other hand you tell people things there are just for illustrative purposes and can't be taken as representations of fact?

77

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Solar Eclipse

« on: November 21, 2017, 11:44:28 PM »

Solar response

The Solar Eclipse occurs when the Moon passes in front of the Sun and the observer. The Lunar Eclipse occurs when a body known as the Shadow Object passes between the Sun and the Moon.

https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Lunar_Eclipse

Your wiki animations show the sun and moon having the same orbital diameters. If they orbit at the same diameter from the uni-polar center and the same height, there would be a possibility of a collision.

Maybe they orbit at the same diameter but a different altitude (moon lower.)  With the moon orbiting once every ~28 days and the sun once a day, the sun would then pass over the moon once a day. Shouldn't some part of the Earth see an eclipse each day?

78

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Solar Eclipse

« on: November 21, 2017, 11:37:54 PM »

Lunar response

The Solar Eclipse occurs when the Moon passes in front of the Sun and the observer. The Lunar Eclipse occurs when a body known as the Shadow Object passes between the Sun and the Moon.

https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Lunar_Eclipse

What empirical evidence do you have for this object? If is exists, it would have to periodically block our view of other objects (sun, stars, planets). How can its effects only be revealed during an eclipse?

79

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Bedford Levels experiment

« on: November 21, 2017, 11:35:14 PM »

I am inert and the earth is observed to rise upwards to meet me.

Has anyone in the world on seeing something dropped, had a first instinct to say, hey look at the Earth rising up to meet the dropped object? Lunacy.

What is the scope of the universal acceleration? I read mentions of it as the Earth constantly accelerating. But wouldn't everything we see in the sky have to be accelerating also? I assume UA isn't bringing us rapidly closer to the sun, moon, planets and stars. So you propose that something hidden from us below the disk Earth is accelerating us, and something between us and the objects in the sky that is invisible to us is accelerating them also?

If you want to make the case for something below the flat Earth, obviously it can't be seen. But if something is also accelerating the sun and moon, what visible and empirical evidence do you have for this force?

80

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Tom Bishop Experiment and Waves

« on: November 21, 2017, 10:05:00 PM »

 If waves explain sunsets, then if you were higher than the highest wave ever recorded, you could never see a sunset, right?