Offline JCM

  • *
  • Posts: 156
    • View Profile
Re: Phases of the Moon
« Reply #20 on: April 09, 2019, 05:58:13 PM »


An image of a full moon diagram where the light from the sun bends upwards:



Looking at this illustration, the moons phases are caused by the moon changing altitude?  It is interesting and sort of works if you don’t have to match the moon and sun locations above the Earth.  How the phases change and then pair that with a solar eclipse I don’t see how that is possible with that image since solar eclipses are timed perfectly with the new moon.  I also don’t see how shadows seen on a full moon would work if the light was bending the shadows would bend as well I would expect as light on the far side of the sun is being necessarily bent quite a bit to light it up.

*

Offline QED

  • *
  • Posts: 863
  • As mad as a hatter.
    • View Profile
Re: Phases of the Moon
« Reply #21 on: April 09, 2019, 06:08:46 PM »


An image of a full moon diagram where the light from the sun bends upwards:



Looking at this illustration, the moons phases are caused by the moon changing altitude?  It is interesting and sort of works if you don’t have to match the moon and sun locations above the Earth.  How the phases change and then pair that with a solar eclipse I don’t see how that is possible with that image since solar eclipses are timed perfectly with the new moon.  I also don’t see how shadows seen on a full moon would work if the light was bending the shadows would bend as well I would expect as light on the far side of the sun is being necessarily bent quite a bit to light it up.

As the light bends it would radiate energy trangentially anyway. So even if you didn’t see the sun you would see it’s glow (or something) marking the straight line trajectory.
The fact.that it's an old equation without good.demonstration of the underlying mechamism behind it makes.it more invalid, not more valid!

- Tom Bishop

We try to represent FET in a model-agnostic way

- Pete Svarrior

Offline JCM

  • *
  • Posts: 156
    • View Profile
Re: Phases of the Moon
« Reply #22 on: April 09, 2019, 06:21:28 PM »


An image of a full moon diagram where the light from the sun bends upwards:



Looking at this illustration, the moons phases are caused by the moon changing altitude?  It is interesting and sort of works if you don’t have to match the moon and sun locations above the Earth.  How the phases change and then pair that with a solar eclipse I don’t see how that is possible with that image since solar eclipses are timed perfectly with the new moon.  I also don’t see how shadows seen on a full moon would work if the light was bending the shadows would bend as well I would expect as light on the far side of the sun is being necessarily bent quite a bit to light it up.

As the light bends it would radiate energy trangentially anyway. So even if you didn’t see the sun you would see it’s glow (or something) marking the straight line trajectory.

I understand that, except the light at full moon is coming perpendicular to the surface of the moon as seen by the shadows or lack of them.  How does light bend around a curved surface but still have no shadows or next to no shadows?

*

Offline QED

  • *
  • Posts: 863
  • As mad as a hatter.
    • View Profile
Re: Phases of the Moon
« Reply #23 on: April 09, 2019, 08:35:43 PM »


An image of a full moon diagram where the light from the sun bends upwards:



Looking at this illustration, the moons phases are caused by the moon changing altitude?  It is interesting and sort of works if you don’t have to match the moon and sun locations above the Earth.  How the phases change and then pair that with a solar eclipse I don’t see how that is possible with that image since solar eclipses are timed perfectly with the new moon.  I also don’t see how shadows seen on a full moon would work if the light was bending the shadows would bend as well I would expect as light on the far side of the sun is being necessarily bent quite a bit to light it up.

As the light bends it would radiate energy trangentially anyway. So even if you didn’t see the sun you would see it’s glow (or something) marking the straight line trajectory.

I understand that, except the light at full moon is coming perpendicular to the surface of the moon as seen by the shadows or lack of them.  How does light bend around a curved surface but still have no shadows or next to no shadows?

You mean how would the shadows on the moon exist in this scenario? Not sure what you’re saying here. Rephrase?
The fact.that it's an old equation without good.demonstration of the underlying mechamism behind it makes.it more invalid, not more valid!

- Tom Bishop

We try to represent FET in a model-agnostic way

- Pete Svarrior

Offline JCM

  • *
  • Posts: 156
    • View Profile
Re: Phases of the Moon
« Reply #24 on: April 09, 2019, 08:50:24 PM »


An image of a full moon diagram where the light from the sun bends upwards:



Looking at this illustration, the moons phases are caused by the moon changing altitude?  It is interesting and sort of works if you don’t have to match the moon and sun locations above the Earth.  How the phases change and then pair that with a solar eclipse I don’t see how that is possible with that image since solar eclipses are timed perfectly with the new moon.  I also don’t see how shadows seen on a full moon would work if the light was bending the shadows would bend as well I would expect as light on the far side of the sun is being necessarily bent quite a bit to light it up.

As the light bends it would radiate energy trangentially anyway. So even if you didn’t see the sun you would see it’s glow (or something) marking the straight line trajectory.

I understand that, except the light at full moon is coming perpendicular to the surface of the moon as seen by the shadows or lack of them.  How does light bend around a curved surface but still have no shadows or next to no shadows?

You mean how would the shadows on the moon exist in this scenario? Not sure what you’re saying here. Rephrase?

Right.  The moon is a sphere. For a full moon and all moon phases for that matter, we can trace the shadows back to the Sun.  For the full moon specifically, the sun is 180 degrees from the moon, and the shadows show this as well.   

How does bendy light curving around the curve of the moon maintain perpendicular shadows as needed by a sun 180 degrees away?  The angle of the shadows particularly near the edges of the moon on a full or nearly full moon if produced by bending light should show the light coming from a different angle I would think.  If it doesn’t then why shouldn’t the moon be full most of the time.

Offline iamcpc

  • *
  • Posts: 653
    • View Profile
Re: Phases of the Moon
« Reply #25 on: April 09, 2019, 09:38:11 PM »
A big problem here is that there are LOT of different answers to the same question. Because there are so many answers no one specific answer gets the research it deserves to provide evidence which could help eliminate some of the other answers. Keep in mind that I only showed you like 2-3 diagrams.


In the flat circle model with the north pole in the center

(and the subset of that model where the moon and sun are spinning above the surface of the earth)

(and the subset of that model where the moon and sun are not millions of miles away)

 where are the sun and moon in relation to each other which creates a full moon which is visible to everyone on earth (because a simple twitter search shows people from all over the earth are looking at the same full moon).







The Moon experiences what we call a synchronised orbit. That is to say its rotation period on its axis is the same as its orbital period around the Earth. Net result: the same faced of the Moon is always turned towards the direction of Earth.

Demonstration of principle: place a chair in the middle of a room to represent the Earth and then walk around the chair while you (representing the Moon) remain facing the chair. You rotate on your own axis while you are walking around the chair.  After half an 'orbit' you will be facing the opposite wall of the room to when you started.

There is a little bit of a wobble on the Moon as it orbits.  It is called libration and so we actually see 60% of the Moons surface during each phase cycle.
Please read this thread: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10056 It was discussed in detail there.

This depends on the FE model. Is some FE models the earth is always looking at roughly the same side of the moon.


This was the first time I had ever discussed the self lit moon theory JRowe specifically explains that the moon is rotating here:



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.


So that during the full moon the moon has rotated and is shining it's lit half down upon us and during a new moon has rotated 180 degrees and the dark half of the moon is facing us and the lit half of moon is facing away from us.


The Moon is not rotating - it is tidally locked to the Earth. Hence, we always see the same side of it.
This occurs because the moon is a rigid body and non-homogenous in density. Effectively, one (denser) of the Moon was pulled towards the Earth, so the moon rotated, and it stays that way.
This is a stable equilibrium, deviations from this tidally locked position will return the moon to the condition we see now.

I don't disagree with you on this one but the flat earth model that I can most relate to is very unpopular here. The Main proponent of the self lit moon subset of jrowe's personal flat earth model has a rotating moon.

« Last Edit: April 09, 2019, 09:53:12 PM by iamcpc »

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1250
    • View Profile
Re: Phases of the Moon
« Reply #26 on: April 09, 2019, 10:49:56 PM »
A big problem here is that there are LOT of different answers to the same question. Because there are so many answers no one specific answer gets the research it deserves to provide evidence which could help eliminate some of the other answers. Keep in mind that I only showed you like 2-3 diagrams.

In the flat circle model with the north pole in the center

(and the subset of that model where the moon and sun are spinning above the surface of the earth)

(and the subset of that model where the moon and sun are not millions of miles away)

 where are the sun and moon in relation to each other which creates a full moon which is visible to everyone on earth (because a simple twitter search shows people from all over the earth are looking at the same full moon).

I've never heard of a flat earth model with a distant sun/moon. It has never seemed to come up anywhere I've looked. Always local sun and moon. Do you have any info on the distant FE model?


The Moon experiences what we call a synchronised orbit. That is to say its rotation period on its axis is the same as its orbital period around the Earth. Net result: the same faced of the Moon is always turned towards the direction of Earth.

Demonstration of principle: place a chair in the middle of a room to represent the Earth and then walk around the chair while you (representing the Moon) remain facing the chair. You rotate on your own axis while you are walking around the chair.  After half an 'orbit' you will be facing the opposite wall of the room to when you started.

There is a little bit of a wobble on the Moon as it orbits.  It is called libration and so we actually see 60% of the Moons surface during each phase cycle.
Please read this thread: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10056 It was discussed in detail there.

This depends on the FE model. Is some FE models the earth is always looking at roughly the same side of the moon.

Oh god, not the 19 page 'moon terminator' thread. I'll pass on rereading it, I lived it once and that was enough.

This was the first time I had ever discussed the self lit moon theory JRowe specifically explains that the moon is rotating here:

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.

So that during the full moon the moon has rotated and is shining it's lit half down upon us and during a new moon has rotated 180 degrees and the dark half of the moon is facing us and the lit half of moon is facing away from us.

Yeah, but it's not a rotating spotlight per millions of human observations. See here how the the same face is toward us throughout the phases. It's like a black curtain being pulled back to reveal the same face. If it were a rotating spotlight during let's say, a waxing gibbous, we would observe the left side of the face from the side, like a profile. We don't, we observe the right side of the face from the 'front'.


Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6474
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Phases of the Moon
« Reply #27 on: April 10, 2019, 12:24:03 AM »
The moon moves at a slightly different rate than the sun. After 14 days, at the same time point in the day, the moon is on the other side of its orbit. It stands to reason that the process may appear reversed.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1250
    • View Profile
Re: Phases of the Moon
« Reply #28 on: April 10, 2019, 04:03:26 AM »
The moon moves at a slightly different rate than the sun. After 14 days, at the same time point in the day, the moon is on the other side of its orbit. It stands to reason that the process may appear reversed.

How so? I'm not following. Do you have a diagram or visual representing this reversal?
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

Re: Phases of the Moon
« Reply #29 on: April 10, 2019, 09:02:07 AM »
The moon moves at a slightly different rate than the sun. After 14 days, at the same time point in the day, the moon is on the other side of its orbit. It stands to reason that the process may appear reversed.
Your first post in this thread was:

Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

So what is this now based on?
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

*

Offline QED

  • *
  • Posts: 863
  • As mad as a hatter.
    • View Profile
Re: Phases of the Moon
« Reply #30 on: April 10, 2019, 11:11:39 AM »
The moon moves at a slightly different rate than the sun. After 14 days, at the same time point in the day, the moon is on the other side of its orbit. It stands to reason that the process may appear reversed.

By orbit do you mean trajectory? (Obviously in a FE there is nothing to “orbit”).

I think you may find that the motions of the moon and sun on a FE are not easily predictable if we wish to recover daily observations of moon phases and sky positioning. This is the impetus behind my desire to encourage the FE community to address this challenge and identify trajectories for their theory.
The fact.that it's an old equation without good.demonstration of the underlying mechamism behind it makes.it more invalid, not more valid!

- Tom Bishop

We try to represent FET in a model-agnostic way

- Pete Svarrior

Re: Phases of the Moon
« Reply #31 on: April 10, 2019, 08:47:45 PM »
I'm an Amateur Astronomer so I've seen a lot of things in the sky and space first hand and know how to use telescopes and use them regularly.

I've tried to create some kind of model of the flat earth map which might work in my mind and then on paper.  It's impossible for the flat earth version 1.0 (Basic flat earth with described circular sun and moon going over the earth) or flat earth version 2.0 that uses the magical magnetic donut which magically bends light far more than gravity does, to work.   There are at least 50 things really many more which show the true nature of the earth and the stars and we don't need NASA and space flight to know the shape of the earth and how it is orbiting the sun and how the moon is orbiting the earth.  So let's take on this moon phase thing.  Some people say the moon glows and gives off light by itself.  This is not true but a small flash might occur if a meteorite impacts it and the heat gives off light.   That of course is fairly rare on any given night.  The moon does not give off light.   Some say well the sun is reflecting off the north pole.  That's a nice theory but that doesn't explain how you can have a lunar eclipse unless you add some kind of magical black hole body in your FE religion/model.  So that won't work.

If someone in the flat earth society actually built a small model and looked at how it would work in 3d space all the scales and angles could be accurate enough to show us what would happen.  There are also a number of observations regarding sunrise and moonrise which can never happen on a Flat Earth model but that is another major point they cannot prove with the observations on the earth nor the common FE explanations which have no observable things happening behind them.  You are supposed to be observing and then making up theory but FE sadly cannot do that nor can it's followers.  As a matter of fact light will bounce off the earths surface and illuminate the moon's dark side which is away from the sunlit side.  It's called earth shine and any one can see this with a pair of binoculars.  It does not matter the bias you have, whether you are a creationist, and evolutionist, a Moslem, a Hindu, a Christian, a Jewish person, or an athiest.  You can easily view with your own eyes and see with a telescope and with simple experiments and know what is happening.

So earth shine does illuminate the dark side of the moon.  I say the dark side because it's the side that is facing away from the sun.  Now there are literally hundreds of examples and writings on how this works, but if you get a simple Ipad app that shows how this works it may help you. But a scale model would be of course better.  So earthshine happens, but the same face of the moon is seen with a full moon (where ironically half of the moon facing us is lit).  The full moon is never lit except perhaps when it's new and earthshine lights the dark side which is to close to the sun to observe.  During a total eclipse you can see the entire surface of the moon in earth shine while it's dark  and while the moon is in totality you can actually look at it with your eyes in 10x binoculars without a filter.  Only for a minute or so, depending on where you are in the path of the eclipse.  I have a friend who took HDR photos of the moon and you can see earthshine because he took exposures to show the moon and the details around it.  I have another friend who was watching the eclipse and he verified the photos produced shows exactly what was seen visually. 

The moon moves in relation to the sun in one night over any point on the earth with any flat earth model (except perhaps the magical magnetic firmament 2.0 model) which would cause the moon to have a phase change each night for every observer on the earth.  And the moon would go through all the phases and never be full.  Because of it's elevation.   The moon phases cannot be explained in any way but also it's rising and setting cannot be explained in any way.   And the rising and setting of the sun which is our close by star and the stars cannot be explained in any way by the flat earth map, nor their models, nor their theory.

They can make up fake theories which are never proven, but this is to fit the observations which are consistent with the real model which works (globe model accepted by modern science) to fit the flat earth model.  In effect there is a math principle of "what they will accept" and what they will not accept as true and it's based on a model which must have a world and experience which is bound to an X, Y coordinate system.  The earth being flat is on an X, Y plane.  So any observations or facts outside of 2d observations like tidal forces in gravity must be denied or turned into a conspiracy.  Thus all theory and observations to work with flat earth theory must be ignored and I have not found one flat earth person who would actually approach the large body of observational evidence and attempt to use that as evidence. 

The moon does not give off it's own light or "cold light" as some might claim. I have even measured the temperature of the reflected IR light from the moon with a simple FLIR camera and while the air was below 30 degrees the full moon was 60 degrees when the FLIR camera was aimed at the moon.  This is because reflected IR light at that distance will give a reading about 5 to 6 times lower than the actual temperatures of the surface.   So with IR radiation we know the moon light is actually light and it's reflected from the sun.

There are many other points I can make but the overall thing to understand is the common orbits of the moon and the sun over the FLAT EARTH circle or their equivalent for the ECLIPTIC could never so the full moon ever to someone living south of the equator because the sun would be on the opposite side.  So anyone in the southern hemiphere could never see a full moon with the FLAT EARTH model.

Also the distance of the moon and the sun are supposed to be around 4000 miles above the flat earth map, if they are real bodies and not projections against the fake planetarium in the sky which some propose is how Flat Earth work. Flat Earth theorists cannot even agree if the moon exists or if it's a projection. 

If the moon is a sphere and I can tell you it is, then when it's seen as a full moon from below at the distance FE maps claim it would be if it glowed then you'd see the back side of the moon.  Over 75 percent of the moon would be seen including the back side of the moon. 

The sun exibits the same problems that the moon has because the sun is a glowing ball of plasma which is huge and there are sunspots and outbursts of solar flares which are on the surface of the sun and can be seen.  These spin into view.  These show that the sun is a globe and we can watch the objects which are a little bit like storms but they are not really storms, we can see these things spin as their life is quite long and watch them change when we are using a solar telescope. 

Now if the sun was as close to the earth as Flat Earth theory states then when I look at it and someone in Hawaii is looking at it we would see different views from different parts of the globe of the sun and see more than 50% of the sun.  But if you look at the GONG HA network which is a network of solar observatories you will see if they are all looking at the sun at the same time, and able to see it, all their views are the same.   And not only that, but my solar telescope where I'm located (near Detroit Michigan) is the same as well.

NASA, although you might want to deny their probes going out actually sent two probes with cameras on each side of the sun.  One in front of the earths orbit and one behind.  For many years they had live updates to a solar globe which was mapping the sun and it's activity and you could see what was going to happen with these outbursts of energy from the sun causing flares and other activity before they would revolve into view around the sun which is revolving.  So the NASA probes were actually on each side of the sun and as they attained their positions combined with images from the earth the entire solar disk even the backside was mapped with live data.  These observations were seen and easily verified as facts by many amateur astronomers who don't have any bias toward any creation theory or against it.  As amateur astronomers come from many backgrounds they are not bought off or fooled easily.   So you have no evidence now nor will you ever that your FLAT EARTH MODEL CAN WORK. 

Flat Earth 2.0 claims that a magnetic field can bend like so the localized horizon where each observer and camera sits will see a bend version of the light in the sky.  This requires that light be bent more than 45 degrees sideways.  And that magnetism is bending it.  There is so many silly things about this theory of magnetic fields being light it's laughable.  This because magentism cannot bend light at all nearly as much as FLAT EARTH MODELS REQUIRE. The bending of light can only happen in a minor amount in photon packet to photon packet exchange and that will not bend light 1 degree in space much less 45 degrees. Magnetic fields don't bend light at all.  They can bend charged particles and they do, causing the northern lights, but those are from charged particles which glow when they hit the atmosphere and cause the northern lights over the north and south poles.   The amount of magnetism would be greater than any we have ever seen and experienced and that magnetic field would be existing for every observation space.  And even then if it could work which cannot happen the magnetism would be almost an infinate amount of magical light bending lenses for every observer on the earth moving with each one.  That's like having a magnetic demon flying overhead distorting your reality to bend light so fit the flat earth model.  We have seen and observed no such activity.   And the massive magnetic field which FLAT EARTH CLAIMS exists is absent from the earth.  Some FLAT EARTH folks, maybe they don't like the magic elevator ride past the speed of light, say magnetism accounts for gravity as well, which is silly and ridiculous.

Basically Flat Earth "quasi-wannabee" science theories don't work. And they don't work to explain really anything.

Flat earth also works as a theoretical mindset which is akin to being drunk and seeing pink elephants and claiming they are real.  This is not meant as a personal insult to anyone but their "logic" works that way.  Because they have blinders on to all observations or evidence which easily disproves their theory and always proves the current scientific theory which is accepted by people who use logic and don't have a biased reason or conspiracy reason to lie.

So although Flat Earth theory tries to become an umbrella organization and collector of every wacky conspiracy theory.  Their slamming of modern science with the NASA denying and denying all things that work in the world in the past 500 years.  Including basic navigation principles to get ships to their location.  They must deny history and even the tools they claim they use and use.  They must deny everything that works, for a theory that is hopelessly broken in so many ways it's not even funny.  It's just ironically sad.

I'm not sure why Flat Earth researchers as so blind, but it seems it's a kind of cult like brainwashing technique.  It can however be summed up in a math principle which can predict what they will ultimately have to deny based on the basic math concept of what they are trying to push.

X,Y is a flat world and all observations on a 3d plane with X, Y and Z must be denied.  This is the basic math principle that guides the mental thoughts under flat earth theory.  It's a kind of Occum's razor which is measured against X, Y coordinate space. 

There is only one flat earth reality which people can see and appears to show a flat earth. That is the local horizon.  But once you take different locations and the history of time over even one night into account their theory falls apart. 

I've tried different flat earth models and projected future model speculations that they might make and have Flat Earth models or some inspired models with their logical approach which includes Flat Earth version 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, 5.0 and 6.0 models.  None of them will work.   Version 5.0 is quite advanced and my own creation in a theorectical framework to address some of the drawbacks I've seen but it diverged from the Flat Earth shape to deal with some of their drawbacks and it still 95% in error.  Flat Earth theory seems to me to be 100% in error and they only have one observation which seems to make sense to people who cannot gather facts and observe and learn what is really going on.

(Sorry if I've wandered off the topic a bit.  I wanted to give a brief overview with some of the basic problems I can see as an astronomer and there are more than 50 things I can pretty easily see that confirms the model in science and cannot be explained at all by the flat earth models I've seen.)  So I've actually kept this post down quick a bit.   And the phase of the moon is a big problem.  Not being able to see a full moon from Chile or if you do seeing a different side is a huge problem.

Light cannot be bend by magnetic fields on this earth 180 degrees.  Earth shine won't cut it.  We don't see the back side of the moon from earth shine.