*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 2446
    • View Profile
Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #120 on: July 12, 2018, 10:03:01 AM »
Rowbotham believed that the moon produced its own light, and wrote about that in Earth Not a Globe.
It's clear that it is being lit by a light source.

Laser ranging and radio wave ranging confirm it to be solid, and a 49-year history of humankind sending spacecraft to and around it, also confirm it to be a solid, and a solid globe.
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 2446
    • View Profile
Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #121 on: July 12, 2018, 10:13:05 AM »
Another example of Earthshine upon the Moon, showing exactly the same features as were shown a couple of pages back;



It's only three minutes, but if anyone wants the salient point, jump to 1m12s, where the camera begins tracking when the Moon is hidden by the Earth, then shows Moonrise by tracking the Moon.
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #122 on: July 12, 2018, 12:46:00 PM »
Where will the Sun be on the night of July 27th? Full lunar eclipse. But only visible in certain countries. Why is that? Can someone explain,please? Thanks

The Lunar Eclipse is visible to anyone who can see the moon. You are thinking about the Solar Eclipse.

To find the positions of the sun on July 27, we can use the NOAA Sun Calculator. The NOAA has provided an Excel spreadsheet version of their online calculator here:

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/solcalc/NOAA_Solar_Calculations_day.xls

Feel free to look at the formula sources in that spreadsheet and try and find where the Round Earth Theory is expressed or where we see keplerian orbital mechanics. The calculations are simple equations that are based on the pattern of previous observations and occurrences, as all of the astronomical calculators are.
A light perusing of the source material for those equations suggests they are derived from/using the RE Heliocentric model. But I'm not 100% on this, as the listed source is in fact more of a secondary source, that has created/condensed this information. They are under no requirement to say how the formula is derived in that page, when they list the source. While I can't say what would need to change to reflect a FE model, if what I'm reading is correct the original derivations are indeed dependent on a model.

We can reverse engineer it. Find the columns that you think have something to do with the Round Earth model and put zeros into the fields and see what happens.

For instance:

O: Sun Rad Vector (AUs)

The default is 1.000001018.

Put 0 in those boxes and see what happens. It doesn't affect the predictions at all. I also tried 9.5 AUs. No effect. It gives the same result whether the calculator is operating under the assumption of 0 Astronomical Units or 9.5 Astronomical Units.

Looking at the equations shows that these are very simple formulas, and certainly not orbital mechanics.
You DO get that Sun Rad Vector is a derived value right? Not an 'input' value? Also, that formulas and equations can be simplified/derived OUT of orbital mechanics in some (according to the book many actually) cases? Did you read the forward? It suggests quite clearly that the books numbers are derived based on orbital mechanics. Just because the formulas are simple seeming, does not mean they were simple to get to.

Feel free to attempt to reverse engineer the equations though. Perhaps you can finally create a model of the FE solar system with where everything is at any given time. Assuming you feel you can trust any of the equations/information presented in this book that is. After all, have you gone around and observed every place on Earth to confirm its accuracy?

Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #123 on: July 12, 2018, 02:58:50 PM »
According to the NOAA website the calculator is based on a book called Astronomical Algorithms (PDF) by Jean Meeus. Reading closely, the book admits that the algorithms are just using statistical (pattern-based) methods:

you obviously haven't read it closely.  you just saw a chapter on curve fitting and moved on.

maybe try some of the other chapters:
16. angular separation
29. equation of kepler
30. elements of planetary orbits

tbh basically all the chapters are making geometric arguments.  he shows you the equations and defines all the terms.

I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

Offline iamcpc

  • *
  • Posts: 829
    • View Profile
Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #124 on: July 12, 2018, 04:51:03 PM »
Rowbotham believed that the moon produced its own light, and wrote about that in Earth Not a Globe.
Really? He believed the moon is self-illuminating, that it produces "cold light" and that it's translucent?!
And this is someone whose writings you take seriously and base your beliefs on? Wow...

On the first of those, this is a photo I took of the moon with a relatively cheap camera


Even on that you can see the moon's features (which you can see with the naked eye) and you can see some of the bigger craters and the way shadows are cast by them.
It's clear that it is being lit by a light source.

I agree that this picture makes the moon appear that it is being lit by another light source. The problem with this is that i've also seen pictures which make the moon appear that it is producing it's own light. I'm less interested in what pictures can make the moon look like it is being lit by and more interested in how can we come up with an experiment or series of observations which supports one of those two conflicting theroies.

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 2446
    • View Profile
Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #125 on: July 12, 2018, 04:58:31 PM »
I agree that this picture makes the moon appear that it is being lit by another light source. The problem with this is that i've also seen pictures which make the moon appear that it is producing it's own light. I'm less interested in what pictures can make the moon look like it is being lit by and more interested in how can we come up with an experiment or series of observations which supports one of those two conflicting theroies.

Have you looked at it yourself with an astronomical telescope?

Can I also refer you back to Reply #120, earlier today?
« Last Edit: July 12, 2018, 05:01:42 PM by Tumeni »
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #126 on: July 12, 2018, 05:15:29 PM »
I'm ... more interested in how can we come up with an experiment or series of observations which supports one of those two conflicting theroies.
Me too!  Let's science this thing!

Observation #1. The phases of the moon are lock-step perfect with its position in the sky relative to the sun. If the moon is self-illuminated, it seems quite the coincidence that the phase of the moon's light correlates to the sun so well.

Observation #2. Look at the craters at the edges of the moon. They appear to be lit at an angle while the craters facing us appear to be lit head-on. You can even see what looks like shadows being cast behind the craters onto the surface behind them.

I'll post a link, but you can see this yourself if you have a high-quality telescope.


So these are not proofs, but it sure seems weird that whatever causes the moon to self-illuminate is bright on the farthest edges of the craters and dim on the nearest edges of the craters.

Any more we can come up with?

Offline iamcpc

  • *
  • Posts: 829
    • View Profile
Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #127 on: July 12, 2018, 05:20:21 PM »
I'm ... more interested in how can we come up with an experiment or series of observations which supports one of those two conflicting theroies.
Me too!  Let's science this thing!

Observation #1. The phases of the moon are lock-step perfect with its position in the sky relative to the sun. If the moon is self-illuminated, it seems quite the coincidence that the phase of the moon's light correlates to the sun so well.

Observation #2. Look at the craters at the edges of the moon. They appear to be lit at an angle while the craters facing us appear to be lit head-on. I'll post a link, but you can see this yourself if you have a high-quality telescope.


So these are not proofs, but it sure seems weird that whatever causes the moon to self-illuminate is bright on the farthest edges of the craters and dim on the nearest edges of the craters.

Any more we can come up with?

I agreed that based on observations made on pictures that the it appears that the moon is lit by a light source outside of the moon. I've also agree based on similar observations made on pictures that the moon appears to be generating it's own light.

One thing i struggle to understand in the self lit moon theory is how a new moon works.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2018, 05:49:15 PM by iamcpc »

Offline iamcpc

  • *
  • Posts: 829
    • View Profile
Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #128 on: July 12, 2018, 05:22:58 PM »
Rowbotham believed that the moon produced its own light, and wrote about that in Earth Not a Globe. A self-illuminating moon can be added as an alternative, sure. However, I am only one person, and there are not many people working on the Wiki.

The description in the Wiki uses the finite perspective ideas where the perspective lines do not extend infinitely as believed by the Ancient Greeks, and will instead meet a finite distance away, like railroad tracks appear to meet in a perspective scene. A rewrite is in order to explain it better.

See: Why we see the same side of the moon

How can we get this alternate model put on the flat earth wiki? I don't like how there are many flat earth models for much of this stuff but the wiki, many times, chooses a specific subset of a specific part of one of the models. I feel like the different models (or at least the top 2-3) should be mentioned.

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 2446
    • View Profile
Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #129 on: July 12, 2018, 05:47:08 PM »
I'm less interested in what pictures can make the moon look like it is being lit by and more interested in how can we come up with an experiment or series of observations which supports one of those two conflicting theories.

Go outside on a day when you can see the sun and moon in the sky. Stand in sunlight, and hold a ball up to the Moon at arm's length. The illumination on the ball will always match that on the moon.

https://imgur.com/a/Ci10Oo7

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

Why would this happen, other than from the ball and the moon both being lit by the same sun?
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #130 on: July 12, 2018, 06:01:23 PM »
I agreed that based on observations made on pictures that the it appears that the moon is lit by a light source outside of the moon. I've also agree based on similar observations made on pictures that the moon appears to be generating it's own light.
I'm sorry I missed that. Could you tell me more about an observation that the moon appears to generate its own light? It was probably in this thread somewhere, but this thread is so wandering at this point. Please lay it out for me. We can collect it all up together.

One thing i struggle to understand in the self lit moon theory is how a new moon works.
If the moon is self-lit, the phases show us that it's not uniformly lit. Only half at a time (assuming it's a sphere). So when the back-half is lit, it's a new moon.

Offline iamcpc

  • *
  • Posts: 829
    • View Profile
Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #131 on: July 12, 2018, 07:52:42 PM »
I'm ... more interested in how can we come up with an experiment or series of observations which supports one of those two conflicting theroies.
Me too!  Let's science this thing!

Observation #1. The phases of the moon are lock-step perfect with its position in the sky relative to the sun. If the moon is self-illuminated, it seems quite the coincidence that the phase of the moon's light correlates to the sun so well.

Observation #2. Look at the craters at the edges of the moon. They appear to be lit at an angle while the craters facing us appear to be lit head-on. You can even see what looks like shadows being cast behind the craters onto the surface behind them.
I'll post a link, but you can see this yourself if you have a high-quality telescope.

So these are not proofs, but it sure seems weird that whatever causes the moon to self-illuminate is bright on the farthest edges of the craters and dim on the nearest edges of the craters.

Any more we can come up with?

I can also see the outline of the part of the moon I would consider "unlit". I also observe this frequently with the naked eye. If i'm "seeing" something doesn't the act of "seeing" mean that light is coming from the object and hitting my eye. I believe that observation would support the hypothesis that the moon is both being lit from an outside source and ALSO generating it's own light which is significantly dimmer than the outside source light.

Also is there any way that the moon could generate it's own light and also create crater shadows observed in the pictures? I have no idea how to test it.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2018, 07:54:54 PM by iamcpc »

Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #132 on: July 12, 2018, 08:39:55 PM »
I'm ... more interested in how can we come up with an experiment or series of observations which supports one of those two conflicting theroies.
Me too!  Let's science this thing!

Observation #1. The phases of the moon are lock-step perfect with its position in the sky relative to the sun. If the moon is self-illuminated, it seems quite the coincidence that the phase of the moon's light correlates to the sun so well.

Observation #2. Look at the craters at the edges of the moon. They appear to be lit at an angle while the craters facing us appear to be lit head-on. You can even see what looks like shadows being cast behind the craters onto the surface behind them.
I'll post a link, but you can see this yourself if you have a high-quality telescope.

So these are not proofs, but it sure seems weird that whatever causes the moon to self-illuminate is bright on the farthest edges of the craters and dim on the nearest edges of the craters.

Any more we can come up with?

I can also see the outline of the part of the moon I would consider "unlit". I also observe this frequently with the naked eye. If i'm "seeing" something doesn't the act of "seeing" mean that light is coming from the object and hitting my eye. I believe that observation would support the hypothesis that the moon is both being lit from an outside source and ALSO generating it's own light which is significantly dimmer than the outside source light.
I argue that what you are seeing is light reflected from the Earth bouncing off the Moon. We call it "Earth shine". Got anything else?

Also is there any way that the moon could generate it's own light and also create crater shadows observed in the pictures? I have no idea how to test it.
I'm sure it could. I mean maybe there are trillions of tiny little bio-luminescent shrimp-like creatures that crawl across the moon. And for some reason they like to crawl around on craters in a peculiar way. Is this possible?

I guess we could say that maybe God is playing a joke on us. He wants to trick us into thinking the world is round, so he makes it look like that. It's better than the shrimp thing.

Edit... one more I just remembered... The moon isn't a physical object at all but is some kind of projection/hologram/trick of the light.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2018, 08:41:46 PM by ICanScienceThat »

Offline iamcpc

  • *
  • Posts: 829
    • View Profile
Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #133 on: July 12, 2018, 09:51:53 PM »

I argue that what you are seeing is light reflected from the Earth bouncing off the Moon. We call it "Earth shine". Got anything else?

 When I frequently see the "unlit" side of the moon How can we test the following light paths to determine which answer is most accurate:

1.  sun -> Earth -> moon -> eye
2.  moon -> eye
3.  sun -> something non earth celestial body -> moon -> eye
4. earth (in the form of light pollution) -> moon -> eye
6. Sun -> atmosphere -> moon ->eye
7. sun -> dome (in the dome FE model) ->moon -> eye
8. sun -> firmament (in the firmament FE model)-> moon -> eye
9. any combination of those listed above

Also is there any way that the moon could generate it's own light and also create crater shadows observed in the pictures? I have no idea how to test it.
I'm sure it could. I mean maybe there are trillions of tiny little bio-luminescent shrimp-like creatures that crawl across the moon. And for some reason they like to crawl around on craters in a peculiar way. Is this possible?

I guess we could say that maybe God is playing a joke on us. He wants to trick us into thinking the world is round, so he makes it look like that. It's better than the shrimp thing.

Edit... one more I just remembered... The moon isn't a physical object at all but is some kind of projection/hologram/trick of the light.

How can we test these theories about bio-luminescence,  some sort of light generating elements, some sort of light absorbing elements, hologram hypothesis


If the moon is self-lit, the phases show us that it's not uniformly lit. Only half at a time (assuming it's a sphere). So when the back-half is lit, it's a new moon.

I read that previously in this thread but our perceptions of the rotation of the moon differed greatly. When comparing pictures of the moon during different phases my observations let me to perceive that through the moon phases we are still, more or less, looking at the same side of the moon.

JRowe's observations let him to perceive  that the moon is rotating which causes the phases of the moon.

How can we put these two conflicting hypothesis to a test?
« Last Edit: July 12, 2018, 09:57:14 PM by iamcpc »

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 2446
    • View Profile
Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #134 on: July 12, 2018, 10:04:07 PM »
JRowe's observations let him to perceive  that the moon is rotating which causes the phases of the moon.

I refer you back to Reply #78, but JRowe claims not to see the same features that everyone else does...
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #135 on: July 12, 2018, 10:35:46 PM »

I argue that what you are seeing is light reflected from the Earth bouncing off the Moon. We call it "Earth shine". Got anything else?

 When I frequently see the "unlit" side of the moon How can we test the following light paths to determine which answer is most accurate:

1.  sun -> Earth -> moon -> eye
2.  moon -> eye
3.  sun -> something non earth celestial body -> moon -> eye
4. earth (in the form of light pollution) -> moon -> eye
6. Sun -> atmosphere -> moon ->eye
7. sun -> dome (in the dome FE model) ->moon -> eye
8. sun -> firmament (in the firmament FE model)-> moon -> eye
9. any combination of those listed above
The best I've got is the photo analysis, and we've agreed that's pretty one-sided.
Maybe we could estimate the brightness of the dim side and calculate what we think the albedo of the Earth is. Maybe we could do a spectral analysis to see what frequencies of light we're seeing. Maybe that could help us determine where the light is coming from.
We could accept evidence from the Chinese space agency, the Russians, or the Americans. All 3 claim to have been there and taken photos. I guess those are out though.
Super open to other ideas.

Also is there any way that the moon could generate it's own light and also create crater shadows observed in the pictures? I have no idea how to test it.
I'm sure it could. I mean maybe there are trillions of tiny little bio-luminescent shrimp-like creatures that crawl across the moon. And for some reason they like to crawl around on craters in a peculiar way. Is this possible?

I guess we could say that maybe God is playing a joke on us. He wants to trick us into thinking the world is round, so he makes it look like that. It's better than the shrimp thing.

Edit... one more I just remembered... The moon isn't a physical object at all but is some kind of projection/hologram/trick of the light.

How can we test these theories about bio-luminescence,  some sort of light generating elements, some sort of light absorbing elements, hologram hypothesis


If the moon is self-lit, the phases show us that it's not uniformly lit. Only half at a time (assuming it's a sphere). So when the back-half is lit, it's a new moon.

I read that previously in this thread but our perceptions of the rotation of the moon differed greatly. When comparing pictures of the moon during different phases my observations let me to perceive that through the moon phases we are still, more or less, looking at the same side of the moon.

JRowe's observations let him to perceive  that the moon is rotating which causes the phases of the moon.

How can we put these two conflicting hypothesis to a test?
I forgot JRowe's opinion. (TBH I dismissed it already.) If you want to look at it, that one is super easy to create a test for. Just compare images from different phases.

I see the self-illuminated idea as something like this: Perhaps the surface of the moon is some kind of outer shell that's always facing us, and the glow comes from underneath. Like the moon has a sphere inside that rotates. Half that sphere glows, and there's a translucent shell over it with craters in it. That explains the phases and how the features always face us. It doesn't explain how the craters appear to cast shadows, but that's about the best I can do.

I honestly think the projection/hologram idea is better. It's also harder to pin down and test for. The idea is that some light source (probably the sun) is hitting something (probably the dome) and we see a strange optical effect as a result. The features of the moon are the result of whatever the light is bouncing off of or refracting through, and the phase changes based on how the sun is aligned with the dome. This one is only better because it's essentially untestable. You cannot disprove it. Well you can, but it would involve bouncing a radio beam or a laser off the moon. That's something that an observatory can do (and frequently does), but I think that falls into the "we can't trust them" category.

Edit: I just remembered... the hologram does have a test for it. The hologram needs to be translucent. If we can show the unlit side of the moon blocking stars, we can disprove the hologram.

So of the testable claims: "self-illuminated" vs "lit by the sun" I don't see any way around it. Unless somebody has any other evidence, all we have points to a clear winner. I think we should move on to looking at Tom's idea of bendy light.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2018, 10:38:04 PM by ICanScienceThat »

Offline iamcpc

  • *
  • Posts: 829
    • View Profile
Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #136 on: July 13, 2018, 06:27:33 PM »
The best I've got is the photo analysis, and we've agreed that's pretty one-sided.
Maybe we could estimate the brightness of the dim side and calculate what we think the albedo of the Earth is. Maybe we could do a spectral analysis to see what frequencies of light we're seeing. Maybe that could help us determine where the light is coming from.
We could accept evidence from the Chinese space agency, the Russians, or the Americans. All 3 claim to have been there and taken photos. I guess those are out though.
Super open to other ideas.

Someone could write a letter to someone who teaches an optics class, astronomy class, astrophysics class, etc. I'm sure they could come up with a home made experiment or test we could do to attempt to determine where the light from the "unlit" side of the moon is most likely originating from.


I forgot JRowe's opinion. (TBH I dismissed it already.) If you want to look at it, that one is super easy to create a test for. Just compare images from different phases.

Why did you dismiss his opinion? We tried comparing images and one some of the points he made i agreed. On most of the points he made I didn't agree. I have not dismissed his opinion. I am very curious about it.



So of the testable claims: "self-illuminated" vs "lit by the sun" I don't see any way around it. Unless somebody has any other evidence, all we have points to a clear winner. I think we should move on to looking at Tom's idea of bendy light.


There are many claims here it's not just self illuminated and lit by the sun. There were other claims too like the moon is lit by "earthshine" Now there is a claim that either the Earth is generating light (I assume either internally, man made, or through reflected light from the sun). It was my claim that the moon is lit by the sun and some other unknown light source.


Looking at a picture and disagree with what hypothesis the observations support does not equal a clear winner IMO.
1. your observation was that the moon is clearly lit from a very bright celestial body.
2. jrows observation was that the moon is clearly self lit and rotating.
3. My observation was that the moon appears to possibly be lit from a very bright celestial body and also either generating it's own light or being lit from a second light source.
« Last Edit: July 13, 2018, 06:32:09 PM by iamcpc »

Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #137 on: July 13, 2018, 07:00:08 PM »
The best I've got is the photo analysis, and we've agreed that's pretty one-sided.
Maybe we could estimate the brightness of the dim side and calculate what we think the albedo of the Earth is. Maybe we could do a spectral analysis to see what frequencies of light we're seeing. Maybe that could help us determine where the light is coming from.
We could accept evidence from the Chinese space agency, the Russians, or the Americans. All 3 claim to have been there and taken photos. I guess those are out though.
Super open to other ideas.

Someone could write a letter to someone who teaches an optics class, astronomy class, astrophysics class, etc. I'm sure they could come up with a home made experiment or test we could do to attempt to determine where the light from the "unlit" side of the moon is most likely originating from.


I forgot JRowe's opinion. (TBH I dismissed it already.) If you want to look at it, that one is super easy to create a test for. Just compare images from different phases.

Why did you dismiss his opinion? We tried comparing images and one some of the points he made i agreed. On most of the points he made I didn't agree. I have not dismissed his opinion. I am very curious about it.
Ok let's go through it again. As I understand it, JRowe argued that the features of the moon (craters, etc) are NOT all pointing at us in the same way while the lit crescent moves across that face. We took photos and compared them. It was extremely clear and incontrovertible to me that the features of the moon remained pointed towards us while the lit crescent moved over them. If there was something I missed, I'm happy to look at it again. Please present anything to contradict my conclusion. To be entirely honest, once that was shown and JRowe continued to insist that the features didn't line up, I stopped reading his argument. So it's entirely plausible that I've missed something. I'll admit fault and agree to look again if you have something.

So of the testable claims: "self-illuminated" vs "lit by the sun" I don't see any way around it. Unless somebody has any other evidence, all we have points to a clear winner. I think we should move on to looking at Tom's idea of bendy light.


There are many claims here it's not just self illuminated and lit by the sun. There were other claims too like the moon is lit by "earthshine" Now there is a claim that either the Earth is generating light (I assume either internally, man made, or through reflected light from the sun). It was my claim that the moon is lit by the sun and some other unknown light source.


Looking at a picture and disagree with what hypothesis the observations support does not equal a clear winner IMO.
1. your observation was that the moon is clearly lit from a very bright celestial body.
2. jrows observation was that the moon is clearly self lit and rotating.
3. My observation was that the moon appears to possibly be lit from a very bright celestial body and also either generating it's own light or being lit from a second light source.
I'm not trying to win any particular point. I want to remain carefully objective. I'm trying very hard to help the FE side come up with something viable.

On 1. above: The photos of the moon show what appears to be shadows behind craters. This is not disputed. (Is it?) This makes that an objective conclusion. There appear to be shadows cast by the craters. This is strong evidence for the externally lit hypothesis and is evidence against the self-lit hypothesis. Not biased and not a conclusion. This is evidence, and I don't think it's in dispute. (Although I make that mistake often, so correct me please.)

Another interesting observation is that the unlit portion of the moon emits some light too. This observation has multiple explanations. We've discussed possible ways to tease more data out of this, but so far, this one is a wash.

Finally, I noted that the moon is opaque. (Didn't show it, but we could test this if you want.) This rules out the hologram hypothesis but leaves the externally lit and self-lit hypothesis workable.
I summarize this all to say the only evidence we have here so far only matches the externally lit hypothesis. More evidence and further exploration of what we have is welcome.

On 2. above: JRowe made some claim that the moon is self-illuminated. Was any evidence put forth to back this up? As I've said, I didn't see what it was, so bring it forth, and I agree to consider it.

On 3. above: Yeah I can't see any way to rule out that both could be true. The moon could be partially self-lit and also partially externally lit. There is a thread of logic that follows this point that I'd rather not go down just yet. For now, I'd like to focus on whether or not we can rule out the externally lit hypothesis - be it in addition to self-lit or without.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8248
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #138 on: July 13, 2018, 07:59:13 PM »
Lets consult Earth Not a Globe: Moon's Appearance

Quote from: Samuel Birley Rowbotham
ASTRONOMERS have indulged in imagination to such a degree that the moon is now considered to be a solid, opaque spherical world, having mountains, valleys, lakes, or seas, volcanic craters, and other conditions analogous to the surface of the earth. So far has this fancy been carried that the whole visible disc has been mapped out, and special names given to its various peculiarities, as though they had been carefully observed, and actually measured by a party of terrestrial ordnance surveyors. All this has been done in direct opposition to the fact that whoever, for the first time, and without previous bias of mind, looks at the moon's surface through a powerful telescope, is puzzled to say what it is really like, or how to compare it with anything known to him. The comparison which may be made will depend upon the state of mind of the observer. It is well known that persons looking at the rough bark of a tree, or at the irregular lines or veins in certain kinds of marble and stone, or gazing at the red embers in a dull fire will, according to the degree of activity of the imagination, be able to see many different forms, even the outlines of animals and of human faces. It is in this way that persons may fancy that the moon's surface is broken up into hills and valleys, and other conditions such as are found on earth. But that anything really similar to the surface of our own world is anywhere visible upon the moon is altogether fallacious. This is admitted by some of those who have written on the subject, as the following quotations will show:--

     "Some persons when they look into a telescope for the first time having heard that mountains are to be seen, and discovering nothing but these (previously described) unmeaning figures, break off in disappointment, and have their faith in these things rather diminished than increased. I would advise, therefore, before the student takes even his first view of the moon through a telescope, to form as clear an idea as he can how mountains, and valleys, and caverns, situated at such a distance ought to look, and by what marks they may be recognised. Let him seize, if possible, the most favourable periods (about the time of the first quarter), and previously learn from drawings and explanations how to interpret everything he sees." 1

     "Whenever we exhibit celestial objects to inexperienced observers, it is usual to precede the view with good drawings of the objects, accompanied by an explanation of what each appearance exhibited in the telescope indicates. The novice is told that mountains and valleys can be seen in the moon by the aid of the telescope; but on looking he sees a confused mass of light and shade, and nothing which looks to him like either mountains or valleys. Had his attention been previously directed to a plain drawing of the moon, and each particular appearance interpreted to him, he would then have looked through the telescope with intelligence and satisfaction." 2

     "It is fresh in our remembrance that when showing a friend the moon at an advanced phase, 'Is this the moon?' he said, 'why I see nothing but clouds and bubbles!'--a very graphic description of a first view by an uneducated eye. None of the wonderful beauties of the landscape scenery that are so striking to the beholder, can either be recognised or appreciated under such circumstances. It is only after a careful training of the eye, that the peculiarities of the full moon can be truly apprehended." 1

Thus it is admitted by those who teach, that the moon is a spherical world, having hills and dales like the earth, that such things can only be seen in imagination.

"Nothing but unmeaning figures" are really visible, and "the students break off in disappointment, and have their faith in such things rather diminished than increased, until they previously learn from drawings and explanations how to interpret everything seen."

But who first made the drawings? Who first interpreted the "unmeaning figures" and the "confused mass of light and shade?" Who first declared them to indicate mountains and valleys, and ventured to make drawings, and give explanations and interpretations for the purpose of biassing the minds, and fixing or guiding the imaginations of subsequent observers? Whoever they were, they, at least, had "given the reins to fancy," and afterwards took upon themselves to dogmatise and teach their bold, crude, and unwarranted imaginings to succeeding investigators. And this is the kind of "evidence and reasoning" which is obtruded in our seats of learning, and spread out in the numerous works which are published for the "edification" of society.

Lets next read Shadows on the Moon

Quote from: Samuel Birley Rowbotham
THERE seems to be a thorough conviction in the minds of the Newtonian theorists that many of the dark places on the moon are the shadows of mountains, and very graphic descriptions are given of the manner in which these dark places lengthen and shorten, and change their direction, as the sun is high or low, or on the right or left of certain parts. Hitherto, or in the preceding pages of this work, a spirit of antagonism has been maintained towards the Newtonian astronomers. The Zetetic process has forced a direct denial of every part of their system; but in the present instance there are certain points of agreement. There is at present no reliable evidence against the statements of the following quotation

"As the moon turns towards the sun, the tops of her mountains being the first to catch his rays, are made to stand out illuminated, like so many bright diamonds on her unilluminated black surface. And if watched with a pretty good telescope the light of the sun may be seen slowly descending the mountain sides, and at length to light up the plains and valleys below; thus making those parts which but a short time before were intensely black, now white as the snows of winter. And in those basin-like mountains (the craters) the shadows on one

p. 342

side may be seen descending far down on the opposite side, thereby revealing their vast proportions and mighty depths. As the time of the full moon approaches the shadows shorten, and when the rays of the sun fall perpendicularly on her surface (as, at full moon) they cease altogether. But now, if still watched, just the opposite appearances will take place, as the enlightened face of the moon begins to turn from the sun the lower parts are the first to lose his rays and pass into darkness, which will be observed to creep gradually up the mountain sides, and at last their tips will appear to pass out of the sun's light as the last spark of a lighted candle. The enlightened parts of the moon, however, no sooner begin to turn from the sun than the shadows of the mountains again come into view, but on the opposite side to that on which they were seen when the moon was on the increase, and gradually to increase in length so long as the parts up which they are thrown are in the light of the sun." 1

That such changes of light and shade in the varying positions of the moon, as those above described, are observed may be admitted; but that they arise from the interposition of immense mountain ranges is of necessity denied. If the Newtonians would be logically modest, the only word they could use would be that prominences exist on the moon's surface. To say that mountains and valleys and extinct volcanic craters exist, is to insult the understanding and the common sense of mankind. What possibility of proof exists that such is the character of the moon? Let them be content with that which is, alone warranted by the appearances which have been observed--that the moon's surface is irregular, having

p. 343

upon it prominences and indentations of various forms and sizes, and running in many different directions. This is the common property of all observers, and is not to be seized and perverted, or interpreted by any one class of philosophical arrogants as proving an essential part of their illogical hypothesis.

It has been demonstrated by more than sufficient matter-of-fact evidence that the moon is self-luminous, semi-transparent, admitted to be globular, observed to have prominences and irregularities upon her surface, and moves in a path always above the earth, and at a distance less than that of the sun, and, therefore, that she is a comparatively small body, and simply a satellite and light-giver to the earth. If we choose to reason at all from the facts which appear in evidence, we must necessarily conclude that the moon is a cold, semi-transparent, crystalline mass, more like a spherical ice-berg than anything else, shining with a peculiar delicate phosphorescent light of her own, but, in certain positions, her own light is overcome by the stronger and more violent light of the sun, which causes her protuberances to darken the various indentations adjoining them. This is all that any human being can possibly say without presuming on the ignorance of his fellow men, and daring to obtrude his own wild imaginings where only fact and reason and modest anxiety to know the simple truth ought to exist. This said and submitted to, we are able to illustrate and corroborate it by corresponding facts on earth. It is a well-known fact that often, when passing over the sea during a summer's night, the wake of a vessel--of a steam-ship in particular--is strongly

p. 344

luminous as far as the eye can see. It is also a fact often observed that some kinds of fish will shine with a peculiar light for hours after they are taken out of the water; and it is known that, collect this light by concave reflectors to what extent we may, it will not, to whatever degree of brilliancy we may bring it by concentration to a focus, increase the temperature, as indicated by the most delicate thermometer. This is precisely what we find as to the character of moon-light. The following experiment will also illustrate the subject:--Take a partially transparent ball, such as are prepared and sold by the cautchouc toy manufacturers, or a very thin bladder well blown out until it is semi-transparent. To represent the many protuberances, &c., place small patches of gum arabic or isinglass in various directions over one half its surface. Now rub the whole of this half surface with a solution of phosphorus in oil of almonds, and carry it into a dark room. It will give, by turning it slowly round, all the peculiar appearances and phases of the moon; but now bring into the apartment a lighted ordinary tallow candle, and at certain distances it will not overcome the comparatively feeble phosphorescent light, but will cause the places immediately behind the gum arabic or isinglass protuberances to be darkened, on account of the light of the candle being intercepted; thus imitating all the peculiarities which' are known to belong to the moon. Hence, it is repeated, that observation, fact, experiment, and consistent reasoning, all lead us to the conclusion that the moon is a comparatively small body, only a few hundred miles above the earth, that her surface is irregular, that her substance is crystalised

p. 343

and semi-transparent, and that she shines with a delicate phosphorescent light of her own, but is subject to the action of the light of the sun, which, when in certain positions, causes those peculiar manifestations of light and shade which dreamy and prepossessed philosophers have assigned to the interposition of immense and peculiar mountain structures. Surely the night of dreams is coming to an end, and the sleepers will awake ere long to open their eyes and apply their talents, not for the interpretation of what they have for so long a period been simply dreaming, but for the discovery of the real and tangible causes of the numerous beautiful phenomena constantly occurring in the world around them.

Also see Moon's Phases
« Last Edit: July 13, 2018, 08:50:12 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

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8248
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #139 on: July 13, 2018, 08:03:56 PM »
Rowbotham does have a point. Since as terrestestial investigators we don't know enough about the moon to say what it is, what shape it might be, or what it is made out of, the author makes a good point that we are assuming a lot with our most basic assumptions.

As an example, depending on skewed view, vertical perspective flipping, or other effects, a lunar pothole could easily be interpreted to be a lunar pimple.



Rowbotham is not expressing the above in particular in his work, but it shows the fallacy of assumption.

Since ICST brought up the idea of projections, another chapter of interest is Moon Transparent.
« Last Edit: July 13, 2018, 08:28:28 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