#### ICanScienceThat

• 201
##### Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #160 on: July 14, 2018, 02:07:46 AM »
If I were to provide supporting evidence for that concept, I would point to the fact that the lunar phase does not point at the sun.

it always does.  you can demonstrate this to yourself with a piece of string.  hold the string taut to make it into a straight line.  now align it perpendicular to the moon's phase and see where it points.  be careful, because it's going to point right at the sun.

The sun is below the horizon in the above image, Gary. The phase is pointing upwards away from the earth. If you track the straight path it goes out into space.

If you have a line angled above the horizontal, pointing upwards, it can't end up below the horizontal.

You are repeating nonsense you read in an astronomy book.

Tom, this has been explained to you before, can you stop going there please? I have a whole video on this I made just for you.

I would love to avoid getting pulled off into a whole new rabbit hole. I often wonder if this could be a deliberate tactic to avoid discussing a difficult point. I'm going to leave my video there for you again and get back to the inner glow idea.

If the moon is lit from the inside, the shape of the light source must be quite interesting to explain the phases. I'm picturing a rotating half-sphere inside a sphere. That's the best I've got. If that is our hypothesis, the next step is to design tests for that. Are there ways to confirm or disprove it?

#### garygreen

• 1942
##### Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #161 on: July 14, 2018, 02:09:24 AM »
The sun is below the horizon in the above image, Gary. The phase is pointing upwards away from the earth. If you track the straight path it goes out into space.

If you have a line angled above the horizontal, pointing upwards, it can't end up below the horizontal.

You are repeating nonsense you read in an astronomy book.

no, i've actually done it myself a bunch of times.  it always works.  i promise you: if you try it for yourself, you will see that i'm right.

you're just not thinking of the light's path through space correctly.  hint: it's not a coincidence that the moon was on the southeast horizon at sunset.
shitposting leftists are never alone

#### Bobby Shafto

• 1382
##### Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #162 on: July 14, 2018, 03:40:07 AM »

If I were to provide supporting evidence for that concept, I would point to the fact that the lunar phase does not point at the sun. It is often seen to point away from the sun, and can even be seen pointing up into the air away from the earth after the sun has already set below the horizon.

The sun is below the horizon in the above image, Gary. The phase is pointing upwards away from the earth. If you track the straight path it goes out into space.

If you have a line angled above the horizontal, pointing upwards, it can't end up below the horizontal.

It's the Natural Law of Perspective at work.

Here's a demonstration that's quite zetetic:

#### ICanScienceThat

• 201
##### Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #163 on: July 14, 2018, 04:20:03 AM »
Notice how we're now off onto the tangent of the moon terminator illusion? I am going to act like I believe this tangent is a pure and natural accident. Now it has been explained 3 more times, I'll attempt to draw the conversation back to the idea of a self-illuminated moon that could produce the phases that we see.

I propose that such a thing would have to be something like a police siren. A translucent outer shell with a rotating light source inside it. We should now attempt to find any evidence for or against this hypothesis.

As a note to iampc's idea that it could be both... sure. The question I'm personally interested in is what is the source of the moon's phases. Is it light reflected from outside or is it light transmitted from inside?

#### Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 5883
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #164 on: July 14, 2018, 05:36:47 AM »
Perspective:

The moon will only shift by two degrees under the Round Earth model. Do the math .

Comparing a ball to the moon:

Dumb. There is an image of the moon pointing up away from the earth when the sun is below the horizon. Are you to assert that a ball will point up into the sky when the sun is below the horizon?

Gibbous moon tricks, et all:

The effect also happens with crescent moons, which is even more perplexing. See the video nick linked me to on the other forum the last time we had the conversation. A crescent moon is seen to behave the same way.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2018, 12:21:37 AM by Tom Bishop »

#### ICanScienceThat

• 201
##### Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #165 on: July 14, 2018, 05:47:12 AM »
Perspective:

The moon will only shift by two degrees under the Round Earth model. Do the math .
You need to explain in more detail. What math do you have an issue with exactly?

Comparing a ball to the moon:

Dumb. There is an image of the moon pointing up away from the earth when the sun is below the horizon. Are you to assert that a ball will point up into the sky when the sun is below the horizon?
My mistake... when the sun is below the horizon, you cannot do this experiment because you're in the Earth's shadow while the moon is not. Wait until the sun comes up, and you'll see the illusion is easily explained.

Gibbous moon tricks, et all:

The effect also happens with crescent moons, which is even more perplexing. See the video nick linked me to on the other forum the last time we had the conversation. A crescent moon is seen to behave the same way:   https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=76072.msg2064864#msg2064864
The same explanation works for gibbous and crescent moons. Check it. Would you like me to look up the next crescent moon?... hint... it's tomorrow.

Show us something more of an argument than this. If you think we're wrong, demonstrate that. We say holding up a ball will show you where the sun is, and the rest is an illusion.

It's time to put up or shut up.
« Last Edit: July 14, 2018, 05:49:01 AM by ICanScienceThat »

#### Bobby Shafto

• 1382
##### Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #166 on: July 14, 2018, 06:24:41 AM »
Perspective:

The moon will only shift by two degrees under the Round Earth model. Do the math

I don't understand "the moon will only shift by two degrees..."

Shift?

Same jet (Blue Angel) flying straight and level in a flyby. Why's his nose up in the 1st pic as he approaches and nose down in the 2nd pic as he departs?

« Last Edit: July 14, 2018, 06:40:07 AM by Bobby Shafto »

#### Tumeni

• 1098
##### Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #167 on: July 14, 2018, 08:15:46 AM »
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.

You may well be on terra firma, but a host of others have travelled either to the Moon or around it. Unmanned craft have circled around it, and some are still doing so.

So we do know what shape it is, and from examination of geological samples, we have a good idea of what it's made of.

Do you disbelieve that people have actually done this? If so, why?
==============================
==============================
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"

#### Tumeni

• 1098
##### Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #168 on: July 14, 2018, 08:19:31 AM »
My example was meant to show that the mind is prone to seeing and interpreting what it expects to see. I do believe that Rowbotham is expressing that the moon is spherical in his work.

Hundreds upon thousands of astronomers have studied the Moon. You aren't really suggesting they were all suffering from expectation bias, are you?
==============================
==============================
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"

#### Tumeni

• 1098
##### Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #169 on: July 14, 2018, 08:28:56 AM »
In your OPINION it was extremely clear and incontrovertible that the features of the moon remained pointed towards us.
In Jrows OPINION it was extremely clear and incontrovertible that the features of the moon rotated.
How can we test these two conflicting OPINIONS?

By looking at the features, and identifying them on repeated observations. From the first set of photos JRowe said he couldn't see the correlation between features in two pictures. I cited a different pair of pictures and labelled the features for him. He seems to have gone a bit quiet after that, and retreated to other threads.

"It was extremely clear and incontrovertible to me that the features of the moon remained pointed towards us " Is not very objective to me. You looked at some pictures, decided that the pictures supported your hypothesis and claimed it was "incontrovertible". I believe the pictures supported your hypothesis but I need more than to look at some pictures. I need some sort of test that we can all agree on. Looking at pictures is not such a test.

You do realise you can look at the Moon yourself, with your own astronomical telescope, don't you? You don't have to look at pictures.

Again the claim that "shadows cast by the craters is evidence against the self-lit hypothesis" Is definitely biased. There is CLEARLY still light hitting my eye from the dark side of the moon. The same light is also hitting the camera in the pictures. You even saw it yourself here: "the unlit portion of the moon emits some light too."

Yes, but the Earthshine hitting the dark side isn't sufficient to generate clear shadows, as it's far dimmer than sunlight.

I agree that  this evidence suggest that the moon is not a hologram.

Good. I'm sure those who have flown spacecraft around and onto the Moon agree with you. How's that for a test?
« Last Edit: July 14, 2018, 10:43:53 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"

#### Tumeni

• 1098
##### Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #170 on: July 14, 2018, 08:33:04 AM »
Could there be a celestial light source which exists behind or to the side of the surface of the earth?
We never see it directly, only its effects.  If there is a sun and a moon above the Earth, why couldn't there be other light sources to the side or below the earth?

..because the presence of such would cause multiple shadows on the Moon. Why wouldn't we see this alt source at night?
==============================
==============================
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"

#### Tumeni

• 1098
##### Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #171 on: July 14, 2018, 08:34:51 AM »
This image of the sun is an example, like the blowfish, where light and dark shapes are caused by other phenomenon besides external light shadows.

Yes, but 'dark shapes' is all they are, with no directional consistency. They do not look like shadows.
==============================
==============================
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"

#### Tumeni

• 1098
##### Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #172 on: July 14, 2018, 08:41:41 AM »
If I were to provide supporting evidence for that concept, I would point to the fact that the lunar phase does not point at the sun. It is often seen to point away from the sun, and can even be seen pointing up into the air away from the earth after the sun has already set below the horizon.

IMG (Tom, there's a REASON your image is captioned with the word ILLUSION)

There are some attempted explanations for this, but they are untenable ...

No, they are not

The moon is reflecting light from the night side of the earth?

No, the day side of the Earth is reflecting the light. You're observing, or the photographer is photographing, from the night side.

Look at this simplistic diagram. Can you draw a straight line between the day side of the Earth and the 'night' side of the Moon at any of the Moon phases here? I can.

Here's how your photographer can be on the night side of Earth, looking at an almost Full Moon, with the moon illuminated by a sun below his horizon (not to scale, of course). The sun is to the left, obviously...

« Last Edit: July 14, 2018, 10:50:53 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"

#### Tumeni

• 1098
##### Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #173 on: July 14, 2018, 08:47:15 AM »
If I were to provide supporting evidence for that concept, I would point to the fact that the lunar phase does not point at the sun.

it always does.  you can demonstrate this to yourself with a piece of string.  hold the string taut to make it into a straight line.  now align it perpendicular to the moon's phase and see where it points.  be careful, because it's going to point right at the sun.

The sun is below the horizon in the above image, Gary. The phase is pointing upwards away from the earth. If you track the straight path it goes out into space.

...and the Sun is ... out in space.

If you have a line angled above the horizontal, pointing upwards, it can't end up below the horizontal.

Show us how the line is "pointing upwards" based on that photo. We can't see the horizon off to the right, so how can you show the angle of the illumination points above it?

You are repeating nonsense you read in an astronomy book.

Repeating what I've done more than once to show Moon and hand-held baseball are both illuminated by the Sun.

Baseball Moon - https://imgur.com/a/Ci10Oo7

Baseball Moon 2 -  https://imgur.com/a/7DMpx3L
« Last Edit: July 14, 2018, 10:52:07 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"

#### Tumeni

• 1098
##### Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #174 on: July 14, 2018, 12:31:41 PM »
I suggest that everyone reads the full text of the article associated with Tom's isolated Moon picture (with the arrow)

http://www.seas.upenn.edu/~amyers/MoonPaper20June.pdf
==============================
==============================
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"

#### Tumeni

• 1098
##### Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #175 on: July 14, 2018, 12:40:30 PM »
If you have a line angled above the horizontal, pointing upwards, it can't end up below the horizontal.

You need to define your horizontals, though.  What IS the horizontal to which you refer?

One hour after sunset, the photographer is 360/24 = 15 degrees beyond the Earth terminator line, at an unspecified latitude, with the camera inclined upward by 45 degrees. What does the horizontal of the camera frame then represent, other than itself?

It's certainly not comparable to the line of illumination connecting the Moon and Sun. That's a different 'horizontal'. The camera frame is inclined on one axis by some 15 degrees relative to this, and by unspecified angles in the other axes.

Bottom line is that we could model this in 3D, but we need to know where the photo was taken from, i.e. the latitude of the photographer. We know his 'longitude', that's 15 degrees beyond the terminator, but we don't know his latitude. It would also help to know the date of the photo, to determine how far off the sun/earth plane the moon was at the time.

You're regarding the line connecting moon and sun as being 'above the horizontal', but all that horizontal represents is a line in the camera frame, non-parallel to any of the lines connecting sun, moon and earth.
« Last Edit: July 14, 2018, 01:06:19 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"

#### garygreen

• 1942
##### Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #176 on: July 14, 2018, 01:13:58 PM »
Do the math.

no math required.  you only need a piece of string and maybe 20 seconds of your time.  if you would stop being a rationalist for a moment and actually do an experiment yourself, you'd see that the string points to the sun's location, even if the sun is below the horizon.

it seems like you're perfectly willing to depart from an empiricist mindset the moment it's inconvenient to your narrative.
shitposting leftists are never alone

#### BillO

• 343
• Huh?
##### Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #177 on: July 14, 2018, 03:35:54 PM »
The moon doesn't have to be within the sun's area of light that shines on the earth. The sun and moon are at similar altitudes, so the light from the sun can proceed unimpeded.

Really?

So, if the light from the sun can reach the moon laterally, what prevents it from lighting the entire surface of your flat earth?

Can you draw  for us, or present to us, a diagram that shows the emission of light from the sun that is consistent with producing a 50% division of night and day on your flat earth, while at the same time fully illuminating the moon to viewer in the 'night' region?
Here a quack, there a quack, everywhere a quack quack.

Quote from: Tom Bishop - Zetetic Council Member
The moon's orbital path has a diameter of 768,000 km. That is almost one million miles.

#### Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 5883
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #178 on: July 14, 2018, 07:29:25 PM »
Perspective:

The moon will only shift by two degrees under the Round Earth model. Do the math .
You need to explain in more detail. What math do you have an issue with exactly?

As a body increases its distance from you the less it will turn, shift, or angle itself to perspective. The examples of corners of rooms tilting, planes tilting, rubix cubes tilting as they are seen over the observer are all irrelevant, since the distance to the moon as it passes over you in RET is at a much greater distance, and generally stays the same distance from you at all times. Examples of perspective as it occurs to an observer or a camera when those bodies are close to the camera is irrelevant and lacking.

You did the math on how much the moon would tilt or change position due to perspective in RET before in previous threads. I saw you. Don't play dumb. You know that the moon barely shifts or turns to perspective.

DO THE MATH

In your trolling video against me, in the examples bobby is referencing, and many other explanations, you and others are referencing small scale or close up perspective. I don't really give a flip about those explanations. They only showcase a handicap in logic and critical thinking, as far as I am concerned.
« Last Edit: July 14, 2018, 09:08:44 PM by Tom Bishop »

#### Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 5883
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Reply #179 on: July 14, 2018, 07:40:14 PM »
Look at this simplistic diagram. Can you draw a straight line between the day side of the Earth and the 'night' side of the Moon at any of the Moon phases here? I can.

http://www.sciencekids.co.nz/images/pictures/space/moonphases.jpg

Here's how your photographer can be on the night side of Earth, looking at an almost Full Moon, with the moon illuminated by a sun below his horizon (not to scale, of course). The sun is to the left, obviously...

And if you draw in the horizon line for the observer the moon points into the observer's horizon.

Do the math.

no math required.  you only need a piece of string and maybe 20 seconds of your time.  if you would stop being a rationalist for a moment and actually do an experiment yourself, you'd see that the string points to the sun's location, even if the sun is below the horizon.

it seems like you're perfectly willing to depart from an empiricist mindset the moment it's inconvenient to your narrative.

How does the string point to the direction of the sun if the sun is below the horizon and the moon is pointing upwards into the sky?

Are you telling us that any and all angles that are pointing upwards are eventually going to come back and meet the earth's horizon rather traveling out into space?

« Last Edit: July 14, 2018, 07:46:11 PM by Tom Bishop »