*

Offline JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 585
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #60 on: July 07, 2018, 05:55:31 PM »
JRowe, I have two things to say to you

Long shadows at sunrise/sunset
Short shadows at noon / mid-day


If you were at the terminator line, what "time of day" would it be?
1. What does that have to do with the moon?

Sunrise/sunset occurs on the terminator line on both Earth and Moon. No?


2. Depends on the season.

The time would change, but it would always be sunrise or sunset time, wouldn't it?



Really have no idea where you're planning to go with this.

See above.

On the Earth, yes, but there is no sunrise or sunset on the moon. Well, barring eclipses and the like.
My DE model explained here.
Open to questions, but if you're curious start there rather than expecting me to explain it all from scratch every time.

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1079
    • View Profile
Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #61 on: July 07, 2018, 06:02:42 PM »
On the Earth, yes, but there is no sunrise or sunset on the moon. Well, barring eclipses and the like.
Why is there no sunrise or sunset on the moon? Isn't half of it illuminated at all times?

*

Offline JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 585
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #62 on: July 07, 2018, 06:05:13 PM »
On the Earth, yes, but there is no sunrise or sunset on the moon. Well, barring eclipses and the like.
Why is there no sunrise or sunset on the moon? Isn't half of it illuminated at all times?
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10056.msg158077#msg158077
My DE model explained here.
Open to questions, but if you're curious start there rather than expecting me to explain it all from scratch every time.

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #63 on: July 07, 2018, 06:50:47 PM »
On the Earth, yes, but there is no sunrise or sunset on the moon. Well, barring eclipses and the like.
Why is there no sunrise or sunset on the moon? Isn't half of it illuminated at all times?
You guys are missing JRowe's contention. The moon is lit not by the sun. It issues its own light. That's why he's having difficulty accepting that the features he calls "course" in one image or the same that don't look coarse in another. There are shadows on crater walls in the crescent moon photo. But in the full moon, those shadows are missing. We know that's because the sun's angle is causing the shadows (or lack thereof). JRowe insists these aren't the same surface features because the moon has rotated.

To contend with that, you can't rely on sun illuminating moon notions. Imagine the moon is internally lit. How do you explain the changing of the features we see? How can that be Theophilus crater in both the crescent and full moon images if they look different?

You've got to convince him that the moon isn't rotating and presenting we earthbound observers with a different face/side as it goes through its phases. Good luck.

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #64 on: July 07, 2018, 08:19:17 PM »
Because they are absolutely, unambiguously not. Let's snip away the rest of the image, let's look just at the features you pointed out as meant to be similar without worrying about your mind playing tricks because you expect them to be the same. From your image, the lines you drew. You're welcome to do the same.


How can it reasonably be concluded that these are somehow the same features? RET says they are because that is what the model wants, not because it is what is observed, and i urge you to look at the actual observations here.
The first is a completely different shape, there's nothing to even compare on the second, the third you could maybe argue for inasmuch as 'oh, something's there' but not much more, and the fourth and fifth to finish off have nothing whatsoever in common.

You have a few similarities on the large scale, yes, because features that had been on the right of the moon would seem closer to the left as it turns (see the circle and dot illustration i used earlier), but they are far too twisted and contorted to believe that you are looking at the same features from the same perspective, when they are even there at all.

When expectation is taken out of the picture, can you honestly say to me that it looks like they're the same?

When snipped out of context, and to the boundary limits you chose, I would be hard pressed to identify any but the 1st and 3rd ones.

But the first one is clearly the Sea of Serenity in either picture. It has that distinctive "horn" that faces to the NE with the crater Posidonius in its lower crook.

Here's a quick collage I assemble of pics picked off the Web of the Mare from different aspects and on moons at different phases, some of which I annotated to point out the distinctive crater.



The third line is also obviously the Sea of Tranquility and I wouldn't need any other references to ID it.

The rest though? Yeah, I'd need to see what surrounded them to know what the were for sure. The 3 big Mares: Serenity, Tranquility and Fertility are good landmarks for other features. Sea of Crisis is what I imagine as the "eye" of the moon, always just above its leading (Eastern) edge as it transits the sky. (When south of the moon's latitude the Crisium 'eye' will seem to be below the Eastern center, but then I'm northern hemi biased.)

I understand the concept of confirmation bias and human nature to try to force patterns into where there are none, to try to fit a mold. I know that can happen, and I try to guard against it. But I'm afraid you will find yourself in the extreme minority of those who don't see and recognize that the same side of the moon faces the earth regardless of phase. You should consider that maybe -- just MAYBE -- you are rejecting the identification of moon features for confirmation bias reasons, in order to bolster your self-luminescence theory.

Taking a minority position isn't a bad thing. It would be amazing if you detected that the moon does, in fact, rotate so that we see it's other side during quarter or crescent moons. That would be revolutionary. Unfortunately, I can't buy it. I see the same moon features, with changes to their presentation having to do with the direction and amplitude of light cast on and reflected off of them. Self-luminescence is already far-fetched, but phenomenological, I can entertain the idea IF the moon isn't rotating and the luminescence varies, like the skin of an octopus. Otherwise, no. The moon is tidally locked and always presents its same side to the earth. That's not just drilled into my head or regurgitating what I'm told. That's what I see.

And just for the record, I think I've been polite to you. I haven't disparaged your theory or you at all. I think you will have better luck persuading other if you don't disparage them like you've tried with me. My ego isn't threatened by it, so it doesn't bother me if you think I'm a loon or blind or ignorant. But you won't convince many people that way. Just sayin'.

*

Offline JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 585
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #65 on: July 07, 2018, 09:18:23 PM »
When snipped out of context, and to the boundary limits you chose, I would be hard pressed to identify any but the 1st and 3rd ones.

But the first one is clearly the Sea of Serenity in either picture. It has that distinctive "horn" that faces to the NE with the crater Posidonius in its lower crook.
I chose the boundaries to fully encompass the features in question. Yes, it is snipped of context, but only so more than pattern recognition is at play.
You probably could make an argument that it is the same Sea in each, but my point for the first image stands; it does not appear the same. You have a couple of similar features, as we would expect to see on one lit rotating face, but it is compressed as though viewed at an angle.
I must disagree on the third one though. Beyond the color, I can see no similarity of shape, size or detail. I suppose you could argue the triangle at the bottom, but on the left image it blends too well with the right of the image so it's hard to believe it's genuinely a triangle, rather than actively searching for things that could be construed as similar. Beyond that you have details in one missing in the other, and vice versa, and huge differences down the right hand side.

Quote
Here's a quick collage I assemble of pics picked off the Web of the Mare from different aspects and on moons at different phases, some of which I annotated to point out the distinctive crater.

To tackle this in rows:
Row one. They are both grey ovals, I will give you that, but past that I can't credit much in the way of similarity. You have all the details surrounding it on the left which cannot be seen on the right; while you might argue that's just camera focus, the problem there is that there are other dots, other features that bear a similarity across both (such as the crater you point the arrow at) and yet multiple comparable aspects completely lack an equivalent.
Row two. Focusing on the larger two images, I really cannot credit them as being similar, there are huge discrepancies in shape. In the interests of making references easier, the left-hand image is similar to a whale, water shooting out of its spout, with the tail to the left and head to the right, almost looking head-on at you. I understand the second image is rotated, but the water shooting from the spout is far wider in the second, there is a crater up and left of the tail in the first image that is not present in the second (there's one in a vaguely similar location, but it itself looks too different to be the same). You have a dot in the first image below the crater you point an arrow at that does not appear in the second, as well as a whole slew of craters on the underside of the head where the reverse is true. The angle of the tail too does not seem to line up, though my image editing software doesn't have as clean a rotation tool so I can't be sure.
Row three. The crater pointed out with the red arrow does not exist in the first image. There is a darker spot under the arrowhead that is not present in the third, and all that arrow points to is a faint smudge that frankly could be anything, and lacks the adjacent craters that are in the last, to say nothing of how the overall angle of each Sea shifts.

I'll give you that there are similarities, but as there is only one face of the moon we would expect to see similar features. However they are viewed from different angles, hence the distortions we see above. I cannot credit the claim that all of those images are of the same face from the same angle with all those flaws mentioned above, just to begin with.

Quote
I understand the concept of confirmation bias and human nature to try to force patterns into where there are none, to try to fit a mold. I know that can happen, and I try to guard against it. But I'm afraid you will find yourself in the extreme minority of those who don't see and recognize that the same side of the moon faces the earth regardless of phase. You should consider that maybe -- just MAYBE -- you are rejecting the identification of moon features for confirmation bias reasons, in order to bolster your self-luminescence theory.
I am in the extreme minority as far as what shape I think the Earth is too. I'm used to it. I have refined my theory of the Earth's shape and how it works many times over before it reached the current point, and I was happy to do so; I had no emotional connection to any tenet, and self-luminescence was the option that made the most sense. There are too many discrepancies for the idea that it is the same place to be scientifically held, in my mind, and I reached that conclusion by trying to disprove it. I did not reach this conclusion by trying to make it work; I have been willing to discard multiple aspects of my model as it developed.
The problem is that, as you say, you use those large grey areas as landmarks, and as a result you assign meaning to smudges and smears and specks, even when some are missing, or unexpectedly present, or the wrong shape or wrong orientation.

Quote
Self-luminescence is already far-fetched
Why? I have already gone over the mechanism.

Quote
And just for the record, I think I've been polite to you. I haven't disparaged your theory or you at all. I think you will have better luck persuading other if you don't disparage them like you've tried with me. My ego isn't threatened by it, so it doesn't bother me if you think I'm a loon or blind or ignorant. But you won't convince many people that way. Just sayin'.
Apologies if anything I've said to you has come across as disparaging, none of it was intended, and especially not directed at you. (I mostly spent time on the other site so it's refreshing to be able to have a good discussion and this is one of the best I've had, I absolutely do not intend to jeopardize that).
My DE model explained here.
Open to questions, but if you're curious start there rather than expecting me to explain it all from scratch every time.

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #66 on: July 07, 2018, 10:45:25 PM »
Okay. Well, I see similarities. You don't. We'll have to move on from that.

I haven't seen moon self-luminescence discussed before, and it's not part of the Flat Earth "could be's" I've seen before, so maybe that's worth starting a new discussion topic since the premise of this one is that the sun illuminates the moon. Having something new to ponder would be nice.

As far as whether or not the moon revolves such that we see different sides during its phases, I'll take it as a challenge to provide a photograph of a non-full moon in which the dark portion is dimly lit and visible. I checked this morning, but though the sky was clear it was already too bright. I've seen it and I can find online examples of the phenomenon, but I'd rather capture it myself.

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
    • View Profile
Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #67 on: July 07, 2018, 11:28:55 PM »
So, is the entirety of the discussion restricted to these two images?

Astronomers have observed and photographed the Moon far more extensively. You can buy any number of Lunar Atlases over the counter or from your favourite South-American-river-themed online retailer.

Honestly, I don't see how, with so much information out there, how there can be any dispute over which feature is which.
==============================
==============================
Pete Svarrior "We are not here to directly persuade anyone ... You mistake our lack of interest in you for our absence."

Tom Bishop "We are extremely popular and the entire world wants to talk to us. We have better things to do with our lives than have in depth discussions with every single curious person. You are lucky to get one sentence dismissals from us"

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
    • View Profile
Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #68 on: July 07, 2018, 11:38:48 PM »
We can show that the sun is causing the illumination of the Moon by going out in the day, when the Moon is visible, and holding up any kind of sports ball or similar in front of the Moon.

The illumination pattern on the Moon is reflected exactly in the illumination pattern on the ball

https://imgur.com/a/Ci10Oo7

https://imgur.com/a/7DMpx3L

So, if the Moon is its own source of illumination, it's lighting itself to match not only the pattern that indicates it is being illuminate by the sun, but also the pattern cast on any other spherical object in sunlight. Quite a feat, or quite a coincidence.
==============================
==============================
Pete Svarrior "We are not here to directly persuade anyone ... You mistake our lack of interest in you for our absence."

Tom Bishop "We are extremely popular and the entire world wants to talk to us. We have better things to do with our lives than have in depth discussions with every single curious person. You are lucky to get one sentence dismissals from us"

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
    • View Profile
Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #69 on: July 07, 2018, 11:43:19 PM »
I model it so:

Why? When multiple countries have sent orbital craft around it, when some have mapped and photographed the far side as well as nearside, why would you model it like this?

A metal core surrounded by rock, more cylindrical (or rather hemiellipsoidal), such that a circle of that metal is visible from the flat side, surrounded by rock. It is then superheated so that the metal becomes white-hot, while the stone stays dull, as stone tends to do at all but more obscene temperatures.

Inconsistent with experimental results from the surface, though.

A full moon is when the circle faces us. However, it rotates; the unlit side of the stone cuts off the lit circle of metal, and the circle we see would be somewhat distorted, appearing increasingly like an ellipse. Then, towards the end, you'd just have light peeking out past an unlit obstruction, forming a crescent. The new moon would be when none of the lit face is visible.
Thus, the phases of the moon, new through full, are explained on a flat Earth without recourse to a reflective moon.

Inconsistent with physical observation and the actuality of manned and unmanned lunar orbital missions. See the most recent, a joint Chinese/Saudi Arabian mission;


« Last Edit: July 07, 2018, 11:58:55 PM by Tumeni »
==============================
==============================
Pete Svarrior "We are not here to directly persuade anyone ... You mistake our lack of interest in you for our absence."

Tom Bishop "We are extremely popular and the entire world wants to talk to us. We have better things to do with our lives than have in depth discussions with every single curious person. You are lucky to get one sentence dismissals from us"

*

Offline JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 585
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #70 on: July 08, 2018, 12:57:44 AM »
As far as whether or not the moon revolves such that we see different sides during its phases, I'll take it as a challenge to provide a photograph of a non-full moon in which the dark portion is dimly lit and visible. I checked this morning, but though the sky was clear it was already too bright. I've seen it and I can find online examples of the phenomenon, but I'd rather capture it myself.
Just for a point of clarification, as it seems as though there may be some misunderstanding here, it is not so much seeing different sides during its phases, but rather seeing the one side from different angles. Only one face of the moon emits light (reasons gone into previously), so it is the features on that which are observed. Yes, other sides rotate into view, but we don't see them; they're unlit, hence causing the phases.
Just making sure that's clear.

So, is the entirety of the discussion restricted to these two images?

Astronomers have observed and photographed the Moon far more extensively. You can buy any number of Lunar Atlases over the counter or from your favourite South-American-river-themed online retailer.

Honestly, I don't see how, with so much information out there, how there can be any dispute over which feature is which.
Bring in whatever images you want, Bobby did. I just picked up two of the top results when I typed 'full' and 'crescent' moon into google as an illustration. Yes, there are plenty of images out there, I've seen them and I stand by what I've said.

We can show that the sun is causing the illumination of the Moon by going out in the day, when the Moon is visible, and holding up any kind of sports ball or similar in front of the Moon.

The illumination pattern on the Moon is reflected exactly in the illumination pattern on the ball

https://imgur.com/a/Ci10Oo7

https://imgur.com/a/7DMpx3L

So, if the Moon is its own source of illumination, it's lighting itself to match not only the pattern that indicates it is being illuminate by the sun, but also the pattern cast on any other spherical object in sunlight. Quite a feat, or quite a coincidence.
What? You're going to get a different pattern on the ball depending on whether it's noon, sunrise or sunset but I don't think anyone, RE or FE, is going to claim moon phase changes daily.
That is just blatantly not true.

I model it so:

Why? When multiple countries have sent orbital craft around it, when some have mapped and photographed the far side as well as nearside, why would you model it like this?

A metal core surrounded by rock, more cylindrical (or rather hemiellipsoidal), such that a circle of that metal is visible from the flat side, surrounded by rock. It is then superheated so that the metal becomes white-hot, while the stone stays dull, as stone tends to do at all but more obscene temperatures.

Inconsistent with experimental results from the surface, though.

A full moon is when the circle faces us. However, it rotates; the unlit side of the stone cuts off the lit circle of metal, and the circle we see would be somewhat distorted, appearing increasingly like an ellipse. Then, towards the end, you'd just have light peeking out past an unlit obstruction, forming a crescent. The new moon would be when none of the lit face is visible.
Thus, the phases of the moon, new through full, are explained on a flat Earth without recourse to a reflective moon.

Inconsistent with physical observation and the actuality of manned and unmanned lunar orbital missions. See the most recent, a joint Chinese/Saudi Arabian mission;



And if space travel were real you might have a point.
My DE model explained here.
Open to questions, but if you're curious start there rather than expecting me to explain it all from scratch every time.

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1436
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #71 on: July 08, 2018, 01:45:57 AM »
I'm reminded of an argument that states the universe could not arise naturally because all of the cosmological constants are so fine tuned; if you tweak one by just 0.001 everything gets thrown out of whack and life the universe and everything can't exist. However that's not the whole story; if you change more than one constant a random amount you can find a myriad other possibilities thatcould conceivably work, if you adhere to RET.
The lesson being: big changes work where small ones might not.

FET isn't RET, the idea of the moon reflecting sunlight is a relic that should be discarded with the globe. There's a lot to be said with respect to lunar eclipses and full moons, but leaving that aside for now, a self-illuminating moon is the way to go. A reflective moon is a product of RET and only works within the framework of RET, it should not try to be shoehorned into FET.

I model it so:
A metal core surrounded by rock, more cylindrical (or rather hemiellipsoidal), such that a circle of that metal is visible from the flat side, surrounded by rock. It is then superheated so that the metal becomes white-hot, while the stone stays dull, as stone tends to do at all but more obscene temperatures.
A full moon is when the circle faces us. However, it rotates; the unlit side of the stone cuts off the lit circle of metal, and the circle we see would be somewhat distorted, appearing increasingly like an ellipse. Then, towards the end, you'd just have light peeking out past an unlit obstruction, forming a crescent. The new moon would be when none of the lit face is visible.
Thus, the phases of the moon, new through full, are explained on a flat Earth without recourse to a reflective moon.
That explanation does not fit with photos like this that show the moon always a disc with various amounts illuminated.
This photo is somewhat overexposed to show earthshine illuminating that part not lit by the sun:

The crescent moon lit up by earthshine was captured by astrophotographer John Chumack on Sept. 8, 2015.
Credit: John Chumack | www.galacticimages.com
Compare this with a good full moon photo and see if it is almost the same face, possibly rotated.

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #72 on: July 08, 2018, 01:55:21 AM »
As far as whether or not the moon revolves such that we see different sides during its phases, I'll take it as a challenge to provide a photograph of a non-full moon in which the dark portion is dimly lit and visible. I checked this morning, but though the sky was clear it was already too bright. I've seen it and I can find online examples of the phenomenon, but I'd rather capture it myself.
Just for a point of clarification, as it seems as though there may be some misunderstanding here, it is not so much seeing different sides during its phases, but rather seeing the one side from different angles. Only one face of the moon emits light (reasons gone into previously), so it is the features on that which are observed. Yes, other sides rotate into view, but we don't see them; they're unlit, hence causing the phases.
Just making sure that's clear.
This does clarify a bit a misunderstanding I was under, but it raises different questions that I'd rather not belabor.  Why don't we move this to a new Flat Earth Theory discussion topic and start fresh? I can do it, but I don't want to appear to be framing the discussion as a flat earth vs. round earth debate. I'd prefer to approach it as a germ for discussion for both flat and round earth advocates to critique or evaluate. I'll present any further challenges there, and I think I can do so using "zetetic" methods vice relying on a presumption of defending either a round or flat earth model. (I hope.)

The challenge to a full moon possibility proposed in this topic assumes a reflected light moon and not a moon emanating its own light.

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
    • View Profile
Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #73 on: July 08, 2018, 08:26:36 AM »
We can show that the sun is causing the illumination of the Moon by going out in the day, when the Moon is visible, and holding up any kind of sports ball or similar in front of the Moon.

The illumination pattern on the Moon is reflected exactly in the illumination pattern on the ball

(Links to images above)

So, if the Moon is its own source of illumination, it's lighting itself to match not only the pattern that indicates it is being illuminate by the sun, but also the pattern cast on any other spherical object in sunlight. Quite a feat, or quite a coincidence.
What? You're going to get a different pattern on the ball depending on whether it's noon, sunrise or sunset but I don't think anyone, RE or FE, is going to claim moon phase changes daily.

I didn't say the phase would change daily. I said that if you have both sun and moon in the daytime sky, and perform the above, the sun/shade pattern on your ball always matches the phase of the Moon at the time you do this. I said nothing about the phase changing within the day.


And if space travel were real you might have a point.

Really? You expect everyone to regard that as a cogent argument against the accumulated evidence from some 130 separate missions to and around the Moon from at least four different countries?

You get to dodge the evidence with "Space travel isn't real" ???

Do we get to respond with "superheated cylinders don't exist in space" ??

A metal core surrounded by rock, more cylindrical (or rather hemiellipsoidal), such that a circle of that metal is visible from the flat side, surrounded by rock. It is then superheated so that the metal becomes white-hot, while the stone stays dull, as stone tends to do at all but more obscene temperatures.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2018, 09:10:40 AM by Tumeni »
==============================
==============================
Pete Svarrior "We are not here to directly persuade anyone ... You mistake our lack of interest in you for our absence."

Tom Bishop "We are extremely popular and the entire world wants to talk to us. We have better things to do with our lives than have in depth discussions with every single curious person. You are lucky to get one sentence dismissals from us"

*

Offline JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 585
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #74 on: July 08, 2018, 09:55:14 AM »
This does clarify a bit a misunderstanding I was under, but it raises different questions that I'd rather not belabor.  Why don't we move this to a new Flat Earth Theory discussion topic and start fresh? I can do it, but I don't want to appear to be framing the discussion as a flat earth vs. round earth debate. I'd prefer to approach it as a germ for discussion for both flat and round earth advocates to critique or evaluate. I'll present any further challenges there, and I think I can do so using "zetetic" methods vice relying on a presumption of defending either a round or flat earth model. (I hope.)

The challenge to a full moon possibility proposed in this topic assumes a reflected light moon and not a moon emanating its own light.

Happy to, though I will still reply when people respond to me here. Make whatever threads you want and let me know, I'll be happy to join them.


That explanation does not fit with photos like this that show the moon always a disc with various amounts illuminated.
How exactly does that exist? Never seen the moon looking anything like that.

I didn't say the phase would change daily. I said that if you have both sun and moon in the daytime sky, and perform the above, the sun/shade pattern on your ball always matches the phase of the Moon at the time you do this. I said nothing about the phase changing within the day.
Read my post. The light on the ball is going to change daily from sunrise through to sunset, so if it is meant to match the moon then the same should be true of it.


Quote
Really? You expect everyone to regard that as a cogent argument against the accumulated evidence from some 130 separate missions to and around the Moon from at least four different countries?

You get to dodge the evidence with "Space travel isn't real" ???

Do we get to respond with "superheated cylinders don't exist in space" ??

A metal core surrounded by rock, more cylindrical (or rather hemiellipsoidal), such that a circle of that metal is visible from the flat side, surrounded by rock. It is then superheated so that the metal becomes white-hot, while the stone stays dull, as stone tends to do at all but more obscene temperatures.
Sure, if you were going to put in the effort to say why. FEers (and soem REer for that matter) have dedicated plenty of time to showing why everything from the motive to the consequences of space travel is suspect.
My DE model explained here.
Open to questions, but if you're curious start there rather than expecting me to explain it all from scratch every time.

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
    • View Profile
Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #75 on: July 08, 2018, 11:52:32 AM »
The light on the ball is going to change daily from sunrise through to sunset, so if it is meant to match the moon then the same should be true of it.

Yes, the angle of the sunlight on the Moon, as seen from Earth, will vary, but the phase of the moon will not noticeably change.

Do this at any time you can see the sun and the moon, and the light on the ball matches the light on the moon. I've done this personally, twice over the last three days. Quite a coincidence, for a non-illuminated superheated cylinder, wouldn't you say?

Doesn't it suggest to you that the ball and the moon are being illuminated by the same light source?
« Last Edit: July 08, 2018, 11:58:50 AM by Tumeni »
==============================
==============================
Pete Svarrior "We are not here to directly persuade anyone ... You mistake our lack of interest in you for our absence."

Tom Bishop "We are extremely popular and the entire world wants to talk to us. We have better things to do with our lives than have in depth discussions with every single curious person. You are lucky to get one sentence dismissals from us"

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1436
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #76 on: July 08, 2018, 12:00:11 PM »
That explanation does not fit with photos like this that show the moon always a disc with various amounts illuminated.
How exactly does that exist? Never seen the moon looking anything like that.
Well, I and many others have. Just do an internet search on "photos moon lit by earthshine" - some matches just illustrations and drawings but there are many of the "moon lit by earthshine".
Here's another:
Quote from: Deborah Byrd
Crescent moon with earthshine


EarthSky Facebook friend Abhijit Juvekar captured this crescent moon with earthshine on December 1, 2013.
Thank you, Abhijit!
Here’s the moon on December 1, a waxing crescent moon in the evening sky. You’ll see a moon much like this, but with an increasingly fatter crescent, in the coming evenings. Abhijit Juvekar, who captured and labeled this photo, wrote:    The bright area is direct sunlight falling on moon while the faint area is called ‘earthshine.’
    Earthshine is also sunlight, reflected from the Earth and falling back onto the moon’s surface.

    Image shot using Canon EOS 550D with Sigma 70-300mm Lens.
    Place – Lonavala, India.
    1 Dec 2013

Thank you, Abhijit!

From: EarthSky, Crescent moon with earthshine, By Deborah Byrd in Today's Image | December 4, 2013
And this site has High Dynamic Range photo, HDR Crescent Moon With Earthshine.
I didn't show that one because it combined multiple exposures to get a wider dynamic range and you might call that ";) PhotoShopping ;)" though my camera can do it to a limited extent internally.

But the whole point of these "earthshine photos" is that they show that the same of the moon we see is the same whatever its phase. All that changes is the fraction illuminated.

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
    • View Profile
Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #77 on: July 08, 2018, 12:12:07 PM »
Sure, if you were going to put in the effort to say why.

Your superheated cylinder theory is contradicted by the real-world data, experiences and observations of almost 50 years of sending craft to and around the Moon.

Much of the data is summarised in The Lunar Sourcebook -https://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications/books/lunar_sourcebook/

Missions are summarised on wikipedia and other places. Photos, anecdotes, etc are a google search away, or in a library.

I could fill page upon page with a continuation of the above.


FEers (and soem REer for that matter) have dedicated plenty of time to showing why everything from the motive to the consequences of space travel is suspect.

Merely saying it's suspect is not a disproof of any of it. No space mission has ever reported seeing a superheated cylinder where our Moon is supposed to be. What evidence do you have of it, beyond your theory?
==============================
==============================
Pete Svarrior "We are not here to directly persuade anyone ... You mistake our lack of interest in you for our absence."

Tom Bishop "We are extremely popular and the entire world wants to talk to us. We have better things to do with our lives than have in depth discussions with every single curious person. You are lucky to get one sentence dismissals from us"

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
    • View Profile
Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #78 on: July 08, 2018, 01:22:54 PM »
Comparison moons at https://imgur.com/a/Qked6cR, and inline below

First image from https://photographylife.com/landscapes/how-to-photograph-moon, the photographer's 'straight from the camera' image, an almost-full moon, almost entirely lit by sunlight

Second image from the HDR site mentioned a couple of posts above. The Moon a couple of days past New Moon, almost entirely lit by earthlight, not sunlight.

Both annotated to show matching features. One rotated to match the other.

One yellow dot = Mare Serenitatis
Two yellow dots = Mare Tranquillitatis
Three yellow dots = Mare Imbrium

One red dot = Tycho
Two red dots = Sanus Iridium
Three red dots = Mare Fecunditatis

Green circles (counter-clockwise from Mare Imbrium) = Kepler, Mare Humorum, Mare Crisium





Same features? Or not?

 
==============================
==============================
Pete Svarrior "We are not here to directly persuade anyone ... You mistake our lack of interest in you for our absence."

Tom Bishop "We are extremely popular and the entire world wants to talk to us. We have better things to do with our lives than have in depth discussions with every single curious person. You are lucky to get one sentence dismissals from us"

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
    • View Profile
Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #79 on: July 08, 2018, 01:50:01 PM »
Same again, with more features indicated. Am I the only one who sees the pattern here?



==============================
==============================
Pete Svarrior "We are not here to directly persuade anyone ... You mistake our lack of interest in you for our absence."

Tom Bishop "We are extremely popular and the entire world wants to talk to us. We have better things to do with our lives than have in depth discussions with every single curious person. You are lucky to get one sentence dismissals from us"