#### Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 7947
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #20 on: July 01, 2018, 05:14:57 PM »
Finite geometry is easily illustrated:

Click to enlarge.

I don't see the lines receding infinitely, linearly, and continuously into the distance. Do you?

The Ancient Greek model taught in schools is a H-Y-P-O-T-H-E-S-I-S.

The concept of finite perspective lines also has consequences related to the rotation of receding overhead objects.

An object suspended one foot above your head, that recedes into the distance, will rotate to perspective quickly. An object suspended 10 feet above your head that recedes into the distance will rotate to perspective a little slower, and slower still as the object increases its height.

The perspective model of the Ancient Greeks predicts that the perspective lines recede infinitely without connecting, and therefore the object will never reach a point where it stops turning.

If the Ancient Greeks are wrong, and a finite geometry model is correct, then the usual point of infinity is actually at a finite distance and an object will stop turning at a finite distance away.

The particular makeup of finite perspective geometry might subject to a number of properties; perhaps that there is a difference between overhead and horizontal positions/motions -- but that is speculation until additional empirical data can be generated on this subject.

At the moment, much of the true nature of perspective seems to still be a question mark -- hence the multiple non-euclidean geometries that are in competition to each other, none necessarily demonstrated to be wrong to the world, as there is no good evidence for what happens at real world limits.

Rowbotham did demonstrate in his chapter Why a Ship's Hull Disappears Before The Mast Head that perspective seems to operate on multiple motions on the horizontal, in contradiction to how traditional perspective theory is taught, showing that the postulates of Euclid are not necessarily true and, if the experiments are to be believed, demonstratively false.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2018, 06:22:42 PM by Tom Bishop »
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

#### lookatmooninUKthenAUS

• 71
##### Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #21 on: July 01, 2018, 07:37:03 PM »
Quote
An object suspended one foot above your head, that recedes into the distance, will rotate to perspective quickly.....

No it won't......'rotate'. You simply see the underside and as the angle of observation allows photons of light to reflect off the front surface you see that. You would not see, for instance, the letter T rotate so that the horizontal of the T was at the bottom. Not in any direction.

This perspective stuff is raised anytime a simple question that cannot be answered with FE theory is asked. It is smoke and mirrors. No data....no discussion to be had. Come back with data and a worked out theory.

Quote
For the moon to be full, it can't be out of alignment from the sun. Just like you argued for RE. The geometry based on the claimed form and magnitude "assumptions" of FE wiki make it impossible. If that's not true -- if it's possible -- show how. That's the point of this topic.

......My version: How can a spotlight sun or a radial sun create a full moon when it is night at a given observing point on Earth?

for the RE theory both the rotation of the moon and the phases of the moon are easily and beautifully explained by the same phenomena....that the EARTH IS ROUND!
« Last Edit: July 01, 2018, 07:39:42 PM by lookatmooninUKthenAUS »

#### lookatmooninUKthenAUS

• 71
##### Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #22 on: July 01, 2018, 08:07:11 PM »
Watch this. Its a lovely, clear demonstration.

Notice how the moon orbits 'round' the Earth (her head) and the sun remains static. She (and we) can only see the moons phases if it goes around us.

#### edby

• 1214
##### Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #23 on: July 01, 2018, 08:17:47 PM »

I don't see the lines receding infinitely, linearly, and continuously into the distance. Do you?

Which lines are you referring to? The lines on the picture - which do converge - or the parallel lines they represent - which don't?

Generally, you need to be clear on the distinction between pictures, and the things they are pictures of.

The thing above is a picture.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2018, 08:19:45 PM by edby »

#### Bobby Shafto

• 1390
##### Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #24 on: July 01, 2018, 08:38:22 PM »
Finite geometry is easily illustrated:

Lot of words followed that opening phrase, but none answered the challenge. I see no diagram or practical demo of sun and moon over a flat earth showing me how your response is applicable. How can a full moon be seen on a flat earth? If it's in a position for its bottom to be 100% illuminated, it can't be seen as full from anywhere on earth.

You sure seem to understand why that is in RE sun/earth/moon alignment. Why doesn't alignment matter over a flat earth?

I don't get it. All your ad hoc perspective handwaving to allow that a flat full moon is possible could apply to a RE moon just barely out of earth's shadow. The geometry is even less problematic for RE than it is for FE, and that's even ignoring the "spotlight" said sun, which apparently isn't meant to be a literal spotlight.

What I'm challenging you to do, Tom, is be consistent. If "zetetic" is what it is, be zetetic in both RE and FE.

I'm going to do what you won't and create a practical demonstration of your Rubik's cube analogy. I predict it will not show what you claim without evidence.

#### Rama Set

• 7194
• Round and round...
##### Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #25 on: July 01, 2018, 10:37:25 PM »
Don’t take the bait on Tom’s complaint about Euclidean geometry. Nothing in Euclid mentions perspective lines meeeting at a point in infinity. It’s something Tom made up.
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

#### ICanScienceThat

• 328
##### Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #26 on: July 02, 2018, 05:55:18 AM »
So Tom is suggesting that perhaps light does NOT travel in straight lines. This is a difficult one TBH.
Since this is FES, we must set aside any scientific results gathered by others and anything that includes experiments we cannot reproduce ourselves. That makes this one somewhat difficult.
We can easily verify that light travels in straight lines over short distances. In fact, we can easily verify this finding out to distances as far as we can reasonably verify - say out to hundreds of meters. However, once we get out to distances measured in km, the curvature of the Earth is going to confound us. While most of us will say that the visual sinking of a distant ship proves the Earth is curved, Tom is going to suggest that light itself bends at those distances. It's pretty hard to come up with a backyard experiment for this one, but I believe I've come up with some evidence. Crepuscular rays:

(Please disregard the annotations, but I couldn't resist choosing an image from FES where the crepuscular rays are shown to be straight lines.)
Here's a cool video:

Perhaps these rays aren't travelling far enough to cover what is happening out in space, but these should answer the question of ships vanishing bottom-first nicely.
Crepuscular rays show that light travels in straight lines at least to the distances of distant clouds.

So that leaves what could happen out in space... We aren't going to get crepuscular rays out that far. Normally, I would sight eclipses and other simple astronomy, but this is FES where none of those are valid. I think this leaves us with an obvious approach to take. Let us hypothesize that light DOES bend as it travels from the Sun to us. Further, let us speculate that this bending of the light is why the Sun appears to be where it is in the sky. (The subject of eclipses is a bit more complex, so let's start simple.) We don't really need the mechanism for why the light bends just yet... we'll search for that after we've established how much bending we have and in what direction. Let's pick a moment in time - say 12 noon GMT on the equinox. Look up the apparent location of the sun from many points all over the world and plot those onto your favorite FE map. Next to each of those lines, plot the straight-line direction towards the FE Sun. The angle created represents the amount of bending the light has done before getting to the ground. I bet if we see this pattern of bending, it will shed some light onto what the cause of that bend might be.
« Last Edit: July 02, 2018, 05:57:54 AM by ICanScienceThat »

#### rabinoz

• 1441
• Just look South at the Stars
##### Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #27 on: July 02, 2018, 06:13:27 AM »
Finite geometry is easily illustrated:

Click to enlarge.

I don't see the lines receding infinitely, linearly, and continuously into the distance. Do you?

You don't?
I see a 2-D representation (a diagram) of 3 sets of parallel lines appearing to get closer as they recede into the distance
till they finally apear to meet at infinity in the 3 points, Z, O and N.

But it is only a representation.

#### iamcpc

• 824
##### Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #28 on: July 02, 2018, 08:05:54 PM »
Finite geometry is easily illustrated:

This reply is about finite geometry. It does nothing to help bobby understand where the sun and the moon could be in relation to each other during a full moon.

That's right Bobby. You are using the Ancient Greeks Continuous Universe perspective model as a disproof

This reply is about perspective.  It does nothing to help bobby understand where the sun and the moon could be in relation to each other during a full moon.

Why would you start a thread and then complain about literally every answer you get? Tom clearly asked you to stop posting off-topic in another thread - that is by no means an indication that he'd rush to discuss the other subject with you. None of your complaints are valid, and the OP's approval for where a thread ends up going is irrelevant.

He is complaining because he asks a question about flat earth models and gets 30 answers from people who either believe the earth is round or are undecided and the response from people who believe the earth is flat does nothing to help him understand a full moon.

Tom/Pete/any other flat earther,

I've made an attempt to describe or create some sort of rough diagram of where the sun and the moon are in relation to each other when there is a full moon.  Do you agree/disagree with either of these, if so why?

Here is one where the moon is above the sun. The Sun is shining upwards illuminating a full circle of the moon from the viewers below.

From the wiki:
"When the moon is above the altitude of the sun the moon is fully lit and a Full Moon occurs."
https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Phases_of_the_Moon

Here is one where the moon could be at an equal or lower altitude if the light is refracting/bending back upwards

« Last Edit: July 03, 2018, 08:48:28 PM by iamcpc »

#### rabinoz

• 1441
• Just look South at the Stars
##### Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #29 on: July 03, 2018, 12:28:13 AM »

Tom/Pete/any other flat earther,

I've made an attempt to describe or create some sort of rough diagram of where the sun and the moon are in relation to each other when there is a full moon.  Do you agree/disagree with either of these, if so why?

Here is one where the moon is above the sun. The Sun is shining upwards illuminating a full circle of the moon from the viewers below.

I am by no means a flat-earther but one big objection to that geometry is that no-one in the night area of the earth can see a full moon.
Hence it seems that again a "Full Moon is Impossible on Flat Earth". Not only that, but the angular size of the moon does not change a great deal.

#### SphericalEarther

• 75
##### Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #30 on: July 05, 2018, 07:36:10 AM »
Finite geometry is easily illustrated:

Click to enlarge.

I don't see the lines receding infinitely, linearly, and continuously into the distance. Do you?

In your provided image, I hope you will agree that the purple horizontal lines are the same distance apart if we viewed them in a top down view or in reality?
In perspective view, as in your image, we see the distance between the lines become shorter and shorter, where you now have 10 horizontal lines further away in the same space as 1 line close to you.
The thing you probably do not realize and can't comprehend, is that if you continue this shortening of distance between the lines, in accordance with perspective, you would be able to continue to draw an infinite amount of lines and never reach the presented horizon line.
We have simple trigonometry math which can be used for this (since perspective is based upon straight lines and angles), which can calculate the exact position of every line. It really is as simple as that, and shows that the lines recede to infinity (even though it is hard to grasp).

I will note however that the lines will be extremely close to the horizon line not that far away from an observer. 100 meters away and it would almost look to be at the horizon.

#### Bobby Shafto

• 1390
##### Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #31 on: July 06, 2018, 01:22:54 AM »

Here is one where the moon is above the sun. The Sun is shining upwards illuminating a full circle of the moon from the viewers below.

From the wiki:
"When the moon is above the altitude of the sun the moon is fully lit and a Full Moon occurs."
https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Phases_of_the_Moon

Where on the surface of earth would a full moon be visible?

Anyone on the night side (assuming the moon could even be seen through the sun's emanation) would not see a full moon because of the off axis alignment.

The alignment conundrum improves for viewers on the day side, but not resolved, and is further complicated it being day.

The only alignment that would provide a fully illuminated moon would be directly under the sun, but then, of course, the sun would be eclipsing the moon.

#### Bobby Shafto

• 1390
##### Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #32 on: July 06, 2018, 01:29:25 AM »

Here is one where the moon could be at an equal or lower altitude if the light is refracting/bending back upwards

Firstly, that was my adapted illustration of how "bendy light" might work, but I acknowledge that it is goofed in that the light pattern wouldn't terminate like that.

Nevertheless, ignoring that, such light behavior would illuminate the "underside" of the moon, but then there's still the issue that the rays from the sun are oblique and not illuminate the entire underside of the moon. There would still be a terminator visible on the side furthest from the sun that would be visible from earth. The "bendy" light would need to be vertical when it's being reflected by the moon. Without knowing what the degree of curve of the light is, it can't explain it. If it could be curved enough to be vertical by the time it's reached distance to the moon at the moon's altitude, then that creates significant geometry problems for other phenomena that Electro-Magnetic Accelerator Theory (EAT) is proposed to resolve.

So I assert that's an inadequate solution as well.

#### Bobby Shafto

• 1390
##### Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #33 on: July 06, 2018, 04:09:32 PM »
Sun and moon locations over a candidate Bi-Polar flat earth at 1900 UTC on 27 July 2018, near start of lunar eclipse. How can the moon appear full outside of the eclipse region in this configuration? Even if the moon is "higher" than the sun, it's not aligned to produce a full moon to those on the night side, below the moon looking up at it.

(Red highlighted longitude are where those locations are that will see this at that time and date.)
« Last Edit: July 06, 2018, 04:11:43 PM by Bobby Shafto »

#### JRowe

• 641
• Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
##### Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #34 on: July 06, 2018, 05:41:15 PM »
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.
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.

#### Curious Squirrel

• 1338
##### Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #35 on: July 06, 2018, 06:37:37 PM »
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.
The problem with a self-lit moon has always been visible shadows cast by ranges of mountains upon the moon. How does your self illumination hypothesis account for those? I'd also love to hear about lunar eclipses if you care to share. Both are glaring issues that a self-illumination hypothesis needs to cover.

#### JRowe

• 641
• Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
##### Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #36 on: July 06, 2018, 07:09:24 PM »
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.
The problem with a self-lit moon has always been visible shadows cast by ranges of mountains upon the moon. How does your self illumination hypothesis account for those? I'd also love to hear about lunar eclipses if you care to share. Both are glaring issues that a self-illumination hypothesis needs to cover.
Shadows are just that; shadows cast by imperfections, scraps of dull stone on the illuminated surface. They prevent some of the light reaching us, therefore we see greyer areas, increasingly obvious when viewed from the side and there's less light drowning them out.
Lunar eclipses are more a result of the Earth than the moon, the basic idea is that they occur at the time the moon shines from the further side of the Sun and its light has to travel through more air to reach us, so it undergoes more Rayleigh scattering. That's far from a rigorous description though.
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.

#### Bobby Shafto

• 1390
##### Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #37 on: July 06, 2018, 07:13:18 PM »
Self-luminous would answer the full moon challenge, but to account for the phases of the moon cycle (and eclipses if a "Shadow Object" isn't being replaced by an "Eclipsing Object"), the luminescence would have to be variable. Even a self-luminescent moon would have to be explained with keeping the same side facing toward the earth, so you can't use rotation to explain the changes in appearance. There'd need to be a mechanism to cause the "face" of the moon itself to go dark and light up in a cyclic pattern.

I have a self-luminous moon, actually. Like this:

I can't simulate phases, but I wonder if there's a way to make a practical model or use it to demonstrate whether or not a self-luminous mood matches what we observe?

#### JRowe

• 641
• Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
##### Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #38 on: July 06, 2018, 07:24:20 PM »
Self-luminous would answer the full moon challenge, but to account for the phases of the moon cycle (and eclipses if a "Shadow Object" isn't being replaced by an "Eclipsing Object"), the luminescence would have to be variable. Even a self-luminescent moon would have to be explained with keeping the same side facing toward the earth, so you can't use rotation to explain the changes in appearance. There'd need to be a mechanism to cause the "face" of the moon itself to go dark and light up in a cyclic pattern.
No shadow object, lunar eclipses explained (vaguely, it draws on a lot of other topics at length that I don't feel like regurgitating, linked in sig) above.
I explicitly said the same face is not facing the Earth, it rotates. This is a departure from RET. I am not going to try to shoehorn in elements of RET. The idea of one face only facing the Earth is a relic of RET and its reflective moon, but for a non-reflective moon we observe different faces, we have to; look at how the features change. REers call that light being cast at different angles on mountains and craters, I call it a different perspective on one face and the rocks that cover it.

Quote
I can't simulate phases, but I wonder if there's a way to make a practical model or use it to demonstrate whether or not a self-luminous mood matches what we observe?
Wrap foil or something around it, block light from going out the back, have light only come out in a circle around the front. The foil should always be in contact with the surface of the faux-moon. The amount with which it curves is going to be the major sticking point, and the one thing that might prevent it working completely, but if you experiment a bit, gauge how much the foil would cover of the lit face, you should get a decent approximation. You can even simulate phases by turning it around; it just won't look completely accurate because you don't have 3-d objects to block light and cast shadows.
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.

• 1390