[GoldCashew]

Hi,

No matter where one is located on Earth, the same round side of the observed globe Moon always faces the observer.

In a Flat Earth model, the Sun and globe Moon orbit above the Flat Earth, as shown in the Wiki. The Sun And Moon are also much much closer to the Earth VS. the RE model.

For the Flat Earth model, if I am say in South America/ Lower South America, Africa/ South Africa, or Australia, it would appear that if I were to look up at the Moon, I would potentially observe the "back side" or "bottom side" of the globe Moon.

Yet, I have been to Cap Town-South Africa, Brazil, and Australia and observe the same side of the globe Moon with my telescope as I do when I am in the northern part of the USA, like Chicago. This observation is a factual observation by anyone else on Earth looking up at the Moon.

So, I am curious as to how seeing the same globed side "face" of the Moon would be possible in the FE model, no matter if one is located in Chicago, Australia, or South Africa?

I've read the Wiki several times and could not find any info. that helps answer the above question.

Thank you.

[existoid]

When you play the old Doom video game, the world you play in simulates 3D to an extent (in that you can walk around objects with length, width, height). But items you pick up and dead demons only show one face no matter how you circle it (unlike walls and doors). It always shows the same image, because these items are not simulated 3D, they are just flat images.

Maybe the moon is like that - a flat image projected by some entity.

Oh, wait.  The moon also rotates a full circle about once per month.  I guess I'm wrong.
 

[Zack Bimmel]

The moon must be much, much further away from earth than any distance between two points on earth. There are at least two reasons why we actually can see a little bit of the far-side of the moon. 1) The moon's orbit is an ellipse (albeit very close to a circle) and 2) the moon is not infinitely far away.
By the way, the effect you mentioned (that at the same time we all see the same face of an object in space irrespective of location on earth) applies also to the sun and planets when we can identify some distinct features. That would be sun-spots on the sun, great red spot on Jupiter, moon around planets  and phases of the planets all look the same when viewed at the exact same time from different positions on earth.

[BRrollin]

The moon must be much, much further away from earth than any distance between two points on earth. There are at least two reasons why we actually can see a little bit of the far-side of the moon. 1) The moon's orbit is an ellipse (albeit very close to a circle) and 2) the moon is not infinitely far away.
By the way, the effect you mentioned (that at the same time we all see the same face of an object in space irrespective of location on earth) applies also to the sun and planets when we can identify some distinct features. That would be sun-spots on the sun, great red spot on Jupiter, moon around planets  and phases of the planets all look the same when viewed at the exact same time from different positions on earth.

Well, no that’s not quite correct. The reason we see the same side of the moon is that it is tidally locked to the earth in its stable equilibrium. The reason we see the same features on the sun and Jupiter is because of the distance - but those features change as we orbit (but we still agree everywhere on earth about what they are).

[Pete Svarrior]

For the Flat Earth model, if I am say in South America/ Lower South America, Africa/ South Africa, or Australia, it would appear that if I were to look up at the Moon, I would potentially observe the "back side" or "bottom side" of the globe Moon.

How did you arrive at this conclusion? It doesn't follow from FET.

[GoldCashew]

For the Flat Earth model, if I am say in South America/ Lower South America, Africa/ South Africa, or Australia, it would appear that if I were to look up at the Moon, I would potentially observe the "back side" or "bottom side" of the globe Moon.

How did you arrive at this conclusion? It doesn't follow from FET.

I am reacting to the flat Earth animation on the Wiki. The top view of the animation model depicts a moon that moves within the perimeter of the flat earth.

[existoid]

For the Flat Earth model, if I am say in South America/ Lower South America, Africa/ South Africa, or Australia, it would appear that if I were to look up at the Moon, I would potentially observe the "back side" or "bottom side" of the globe Moon.

How did you arrive at this conclusion? It doesn't follow from FET.

I assume he is referring to the animation of the sun and moon circling overhead from the FAQ:
https://wiki.tfes.org/File:SunAnimation.gif

Based on this, what GoldCashew is saying absolutely follows from FET.  Pick his first example that he is in South America.  Attached is a screenshot of the animation.  Suppose the moon is at this point, and he is in S. America looking up at it.  Now, say that I am in North America. We are far enough apart, and the moon is close enough to the earth (as depicted by the animation) that we would see different parts of the moon at the same time.  But that's not what is observed. So, it's a problem for FET.  I cannot see it addressed on the wiki, though I admit I have not read all of it.

Only if the moon were very far away, would those in N. AND S. America see the same side (the "bottom" side of the moon from this model of a FE).  But if it were far enough away that both would see the same part of the moon at once, then ALL humans on the planet would see the moon at the same time. And they don't - only half (geographically) of the world can see the moon at a time.

Additionally, this animation brings up far more questions for which I cannot find answers in the wiki. Two of them come immediately to mind:

1. What causes the sunlight to stop its shine from covering the whole earth, regardless of where it is on its course above? Even when it is directly over the Phillipines (as in my screen capture of the animation), on an actual FE light should trivially still reach S. America. The Wiki reads "its light acts like a spotlight upon the Earth."  But this doesn't make sense - imagine you are in a big circular field with a spotlight in the relative proportions and distances as the flat earth animation capture I've attached. The people in this field in the relative area where S. America is would not be under the direct spotlight. But they would SEE the light and that part of the field that is directly illuminated. There is nothing on the Wiki that explains this which I can find.

2. Why do the sun and moon not drastically change size as they move across the sky? As it moves around, if it were traveling within this system, and this much closer, it would obviously become much smaller as it travels over thousands of miles across the earth.  (EDIT: Yes, I know there is a section on the Wiki that addresses why the sun doesn't shrink when it sets. But this is a much bigger problem that seems unaddressed to me. The sizes of both the sun and moon would be visibly changing in size just about every single hour, if it were anywhere close to proportional as depicted in this animation).

In the past few days, after discovering this forum, I've read through several threads and been fascinated and enlightened by the clear reasoning and sophisticated understanding of math that I do not grasp. I'm new, and while I've read the forum rules, I don't believe I've broken any of them.

If these questions have been answered by the Wiki, please point them out to me.  They seem like glaring errors.

[GoldCashew]

For the Flat Earth model, if I am say in South America/ Lower South America, Africa/ South Africa, or Australia, it would appear that if I were to look up at the Moon, I would potentially observe the "back side" or "bottom side" of the globe Moon.

How did you arrive at this conclusion? It doesn't follow from FET.

I assume he is referring to the animation of the sun and moon circling overhead from the FAQ:
https://wiki.tfes.org/File:SunAnimation.gif

Based on this, what GoldCashew is saying absolutely follows from FET.  Pick his first example that he is in South America.  Attached is a screenshot of the animation.  Suppose the moon is at this point, and he is in S. America looking up at it.  Now, say that I am in North America. We are far enough apart, and the moon is close enough to the earth (as depicted by the animation) that we would see different parts of the moon at the same time.  But that's not what is observed. So, it's a problem for FET.  I cannot see it addressed on the wiki, though I admit I have not read all of it.

Only if the moon were very far away, would those in N. AND S. America see the same side (the "bottom" side of the moon from this model of a FE).  But if it were far enough away that both would see the same part of the moon at once, then ALL humans on the planet would see the moon at the same time. And they don't - only half (geographically) of the world can see the moon at a time.

Additionally, this animation brings up far more questions for which I cannot find answers in the wiki. Two of them come immediately to mind:

1. What causes the sunlight to stop its shine from covering the whole earth, regardless of where it is on its course above? Even when it is directly over the Phillipines (as in my screen capture of the animation), on an actual FE light should trivially still reach S. America. The Wiki reads "its light acts like a spotlight upon the Earth."  But this doesn't make sense - imagine you are in a big circular field with a spotlight in the relative proportions and distances as the flat earth animation capture I've attached. The people in this field in the relative area where S. America is would not be under the direct spotlight. But they would SEE the light and that part of the field that is directly illuminated. There is nothing on the Wiki that explains this which I can find.

2. Why do the sun and moon not drastically change size as they move across the sky? As it moves around, if it were traveling within this system, and this much closer, it would obviously become much smaller as it travels over thousands of miles across the earth.  (EDIT: Yes, I know there is a section on the Wiki that addresses why the sun doesn't shrink when it sets. But this is a much bigger problem that seems unaddressed to me. The sizes of both the sun and moon would be visibly changing in size just about every single hour, if it were anywhere close to proportional as depicted in this animation).

In the past few days, after discovering this forum, I've read through several threads and been fascinated and enlightened by the clear reasoning and sophisticated understanding of math that I do not grasp. I'm new, and while I've read the forum rules, I don't believe I've broken any of them.

If these questions have been answered by the Wiki, please point them out to me.  They seem like glaring errors.

existoid,

Your exactly correct in re-summarizing my query about the Wiki animation model.

It presents a problem with the FE model in that if the moon is moving INSIDE of the perimeter of the Earth and moving INSIDE the tips of say South America // Africa // Australia (as the Wiki model shows), than folks living at these locations would see the "bottom face" or a portion of the "back side face" of the Moon which doesnt occur in real life. Hence, the potential flaw. For the FE model to be consistent with how people at every location on Earth actually see the same face of the Moon, the Moon would have to be moving about the flat Earth outside of the Earth's perimeter. The dome firmament that contains the Moon would look kind of funky, like a large mushroom or an expanded Jiffy Pop bag, if viewed from the side. So. I am just trying to get clarity on the FE model as depicted in the Wiki.

[existoid]

For the Flat Earth model, if I am say in South America/ Lower South America, Africa/ South Africa, or Australia, it would appear that if I were to look up at the Moon, I would potentially observe the "back side" or "bottom side" of the globe Moon.

How did you arrive at this conclusion? It doesn't follow from FET.

I assume he is referring to the animation of the sun and moon circling overhead from the FAQ:
https://wiki.tfes.org/File:SunAnimation.gif

Based on this, what GoldCashew is saying absolutely follows from FET.  Pick his first example that he is in South America.  Attached is a screenshot of the animation.  Suppose the moon is at this point, and he is in S. America looking up at it.  Now, say that I am in North America. We are far enough apart, and the moon is close enough to the earth (as depicted by the animation) that we would see different parts of the moon at the same time.  But that's not what is observed. So, it's a problem for FET.  I cannot see it addressed on the wiki, though I admit I have not read all of it.

Only if the moon were very far away, would those in N. AND S. America see the same side (the "bottom" side of the moon from this model of a FE).  But if it were far enough away that both would see the same part of the moon at once, then ALL humans on the planet would see the moon at the same time. And they don't - only half (geographically) of the world can see the moon at a time.

Additionally, this animation brings up far more questions for which I cannot find answers in the wiki. Two of them come immediately to mind:

1. What causes the sunlight to stop its shine from covering the whole earth, regardless of where it is on its course above? Even when it is directly over the Phillipines (as in my screen capture of the animation), on an actual FE light should trivially still reach S. America. The Wiki reads "its light acts like a spotlight upon the Earth."  But this doesn't make sense - imagine you are in a big circular field with a spotlight in the relative proportions and distances as the flat earth animation capture I've attached. The people in this field in the relative area where S. America is would not be under the direct spotlight. But they would SEE the light and that part of the field that is directly illuminated. There is nothing on the Wiki that explains this which I can find.

2. Why do the sun and moon not drastically change size as they move across the sky? As it moves around, if it were traveling within this system, and this much closer, it would obviously become much smaller as it travels over thousands of miles across the earth.  (EDIT: Yes, I know there is a section on the Wiki that addresses why the sun doesn't shrink when it sets. But this is a much bigger problem that seems unaddressed to me. The sizes of both the sun and moon would be visibly changing in size just about every single hour, if it were anywhere close to proportional as depicted in this animation).

In the past few days, after discovering this forum, I've read through several threads and been fascinated and enlightened by the clear reasoning and sophisticated understanding of math that I do not grasp. I'm new, and while I've read the forum rules, I don't believe I've broken any of them.

If these questions have been answered by the Wiki, please point them out to me.  They seem like glaring errors.

existoid,

Your exactly correct in re-summarizing my query about the Wiki animation model.

It presents a problem with the FE model in that if the moon is moving INSIDE of the perimeter of the Earth and moving INSIDE the tips of say South America // Africa // Australia (as the Wiki model shows), than folks living at these locations would see the "bottom face" or a portion of the "back side face" of the Moon which doesnt occur in real life. Hence, the potential flaw. For the FE model to be consistent with how people at every location on Earth actually see the same face of the Moon, the Moon would have to be moving about the flat Earth outside of the Earth's perimeter. The dome firmament that contains the Moon would look kind of funky, like a large expanded Jiffy Pop bag, if viewed from the side. So. I am just trying to get clarity on the FE model as depicted in the Wiki.

"you're" (sorry, I used to teach HS English) 

Thank you!  Do you have any thoughts on my other two questions?  I can't find anything about them anywhere in the Wiki, but it seems like those would really need to be addressed.  How is at least SOME light of the "spotlight" not seen anywhere at night?  And the sun and moon, if moving around a perimeter as depicted, would have to be constantly shrinking and growing as they get closer and further to where you are on the flat earth. But they don't.  I have read about the sunset solution, but as described that can only explain it at sunset, not at all other times, right?  Or am I missing something.

[JSS]

existoid,

Your exactly correct in re-summarizing my query about the Wiki animation model.

It presents a problem with the FE model in that if the moon is moving INSIDE of the perimeter of the Earth and moving INSIDE the tips of say South America // Africa // Australia (as the Wiki model shows), than folks living at these locations would see the "bottom face" or a portion of the "back side face" of the Moon which doesnt occur in real life. Hence, the potential flaw. For the FE model to be consistent with how people at every location on Earth actually see the same face of the Moon, the Moon would have to be moving about the flat Earth outside of the Earth's perimeter. The dome firmament that contains the Moon would look kind of funky, like a large expanded Jiffy Pop bag, if viewed from the side. So. I am just trying to get clarity on the FE model as depicted in the Wiki.

"you're" (sorry, I used to teach HS English) 

Thank you!  Do you have any thoughts on my other two questions?  I can't find anything about them anywhere in the Wiki, but it seems like those would really need to be addressed.  How is at least SOME light of the "spotlight" not seen anywhere at night?  And the sun and moon, if moving around a perimeter as depicted, would have to be constantly shrinking and growing as they get closer and further to where you are on the flat earth. But they don't.  I have read about the sunset solution, but as described that can only explain it at sunset, not at all other times, right?  Or am I missing something.

The closest in the Wiki that explains this is Electromagnetic Acceleration.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration

The issues are it doesn't really have any working math on how light bends to produce any, or all of the effects we see. Just that, light bends somehow. Not that just a formula would help without knowing the distance to the moon and sun, how big they are and how they move, none of which is also known.

[BRrollin]

existoid,

Your exactly correct in re-summarizing my query about the Wiki animation model.

It presents a problem with the FE model in that if the moon is moving INSIDE of the perimeter of the Earth and moving INSIDE the tips of say South America // Africa // Australia (as the Wiki model shows), than folks living at these locations would see the "bottom face" or a portion of the "back side face" of the Moon which doesnt occur in real life. Hence, the potential flaw. For the FE model to be consistent with how people at every location on Earth actually see the same face of the Moon, the Moon would have to be moving about the flat Earth outside of the Earth's perimeter. The dome firmament that contains the Moon would look kind of funky, like a large expanded Jiffy Pop bag, if viewed from the side. So. I am just trying to get clarity on the FE model as depicted in the Wiki.

"you're" (sorry, I used to teach HS English) 

Thank you!  Do you have any thoughts on my other two questions?  I can't find anything about them anywhere in the Wiki, but it seems like those would really need to be addressed.  How is at least SOME light of the "spotlight" not seen anywhere at night?  And the sun and moon, if moving around a perimeter as depicted, would have to be constantly shrinking and growing as they get closer and further to where you are on the flat earth. But they don't.  I have read about the sunset solution, but as described that can only explain it at sunset, not at all other times, right?  Or am I missing something.

The closest in the Wiki that explains this is Electromagnetic Acceleration.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration

The issues are it doesn't really have any working math on how light bends to produce any, or all of the effects we see. Just that, light bends somehow. Not that just a formula would help without knowing the distance to the moon and sun, how big they are and how they move, none of which is also known.

I agree, and imo that’s the entire issue with current FE status. It seeks to provide a descriptional account for its claims - which it has yet to fully do. While RE (or just “science”) provides an explanatory framework.

Proponents then seek to elevate FE and hold an equal comparison of it to RE claims. But it’s not even in the same ballpark yet.

The lion-share of the justification reads as an attempt to poke holes in RE explanations, in the hopes that this will support the FE construction. But it never will, because each claim inherits its own burden of proof. 

[Tom Bishop]

I agree, and imo that’s the entire issue with current FE status. It seeks to provide a descriptional account for its claims - which it has yet to fully do. While RE (or just “science”) provides an explanatory framework.

As you have been unable to find a single physicist who says that the three body problem is solved or working for the Sun-Earth-Moon system, this is false. You are unable to contradict the many sources and physicists who say that the Three Body Problem is insoluble except for some symmetrical solutions.

Your model can't even keep the Sun, Earth and Moon together.

[JSS]

I agree, and imo that’s the entire issue with current FE status. It seeks to provide a descriptional account for its claims - which it has yet to fully do. While RE (or just “science”) provides an explanatory framework.

As you have been unable to find a single physicist who says that the three body problem is solved or working for the Sun-Earth-Moon system, this is false. You are unable to contradict the many sources and physicists who say that the Three Body Problem is insoluble except for some symmetrical solutions.

Your model can't even keep the Sun, Earth and Moon together.

You love to spam every subject with this 3-body problem problem, but it's not, you know, a problem. As has been explained many times we can use numerical methods to solve the 3-body problem to as many decimal places as we want. You keep ignoring that. We sent a spacecraft to Pluto and didn't do that by guessing.

Just because we can't calculate PI to an infinite amount of digits doesn't mean we don't know what a circle looks like!

You have yet to provide a single physicist who has published a paper saying we can't use Newtons 2-body laws to accurately calculate planets, moons, comets and spacecraft.

Please provide such a paper. I have asked before and have yet to get anything that says that numerical methods of the n-body problem don't work. They do.

[GoldCashew]

I agree, and imo that’s the entire issue with current FE status. It seeks to provide a descriptional account for its claims - which it has yet to fully do. While RE (or just “science”) provides an explanatory framework.

As you have been unable to find a single physicist who says that the three body problem is solved or working for the Sun-Earth-Moon system, this is false. You are unable to contradict the many sources and physicists who say that the Three Body Problem is insoluble except for some symmetrical solutions.

Your model can't even keep the Sun, Earth and Moon together.

Tom,

I am a little new and so not sure what you are referring to when you talk about the three body problem regarding the Sun-Moon-Earth.

I wasn't aware there was a problem. The RE model is pretty much a unifying model that I've never heard of a physicist having a problem with.

You've got a Sun (which is a star), the Earth which orbits about the Sun, and the Moon which is a satellite that orbits about the Earth.

So, not sure of the problem you refer to.

[Tom Bishop]

You love to spam every subject with this 3-body problem problem, but it's not, you know, a problem.

Then find a single physicist who says that it's solved or working for the Sun-Earth-Moon system.

I am a little new and so not sure what you are referring to when you talk about the three body problem regarding the Sun-Moon-Earth.

I'm referring to the Three Body Problem: https://wiki.tfes.org/Three_Body_Problem

[JSS]

You love to spam every subject with this 3-body problem problem, but it's not, you know, a problem.

Then find a single physicist who says that it's solved or working for the Sun-Earth-Moon system.

How about NASA which employs lots of physicists. Not a paper but actual software that works. ( https://software.nasa.gov/software/LEW-17816-1 )

"SNAP is an N-body high-fidelity propagation program that can model the trajectories of the planets, the Sun, and virtually any natural satellite in the solar system."

How about this one? ( http://sites.apam.columbia.edu/courses/ap1601y/Moon-Earth-Sin%20RMP.70.589.pdf )

"This review is intended as a case study of the many stages that characterize the slow development of a problem in physics from simple observations through many forms of explanation to a high-precision fit with the data."

There are so many, the problem is you won't accept any of them.

[JSS]

I agree, and imo that’s the entire issue with current FE status. It seeks to provide a descriptional account for its claims - which it has yet to fully do. While RE (or just “science”) provides an explanatory framework.

As you have been unable to find a single physicist who says that the three body problem is solved or working for the Sun-Earth-Moon system, this is false. You are unable to contradict the many sources and physicists who say that the Three Body Problem is insoluble except for some symmetrical solutions.

Your model can't even keep the Sun, Earth and Moon together.

Tom,

I am a little new and so not sure what you are referring to when you talk about the three body problem regarding the Sun-Moon-Earth.

I wasn't aware there was a problem. The RE model is pretty much a unifying model that I've never heard of a physicist having a problem with.

You've got a Sun (which is a star), the Earth which orbits about the Sun, and the Moon which is a satellite that orbits about the Earth.

So, not sure of the problem you refer to.

Tom is trying to claim that because we don't know how to solve the 3-body problem using algebraic equations, that somehow means we can't use analytic, numeric or simulations to solve them (which we do all the time). Thus the Earth-Moon-Sun 3-body problem is impossible. Thus space isn't real. Thus the Earth is flat. QED.

[BRrollin]

You love to spam every subject with this 3-body problem problem, but it's not, you know, a problem.

Then find a single physicist who says that it's solved or working for the Sun-Earth-Moon system.

I am a little new and so not sure what you are referring to when you talk about the three body problem regarding the Sun-Moon-Earth.

I'm referring to the Three Body Problem: https://wiki.tfes.org/Three_Body_Problem

Alright. “it's solved or working for the Sun-Earth-Moon system.”

- BRrollin, physicist.

As I have mentioned to you several times (though you elect to ignore it), the working examples have been posted (with active links for cross reference) for both computational and analytical cases.

[stack]

You love to spam every subject with this 3-body problem problem, but it's not, you know, a problem.

Then find a single physicist who says that it's solved or working for the Sun-Earth-Moon system.

I am a little new and so not sure what you are referring to when you talk about the three body problem regarding the Sun-Moon-Earth.

I'm referring to the Three Body Problem: https://wiki.tfes.org/Three_Body_Problem

Why does everything distill down to the 3 body problem for you? Look at it this way, from a practical real world example of 3 body scenario predicted and solved: The 2017 North American Total Solar Eclipse. Helio science not only predicted the when, but again, the where. As in exactly where the area of totality would be, down to meters:

"Space.com talked with NASA's Ernie Wright, who has been producing NASA's visualizations of the celestial event, to learn how satellites mapping the surface of the moon and advances in computing power have made it possible for scientists to predict precisely where on Earth the eclipse will be visible and for exactly how long — with a precision of about 100 meters (330 feet, or about the length of a city block)."

https://www.space.com/37128-how-to-predict-eclipse-2017-path.html

The old fashioned way will get you within kilometers. In any case, FET can't make that precise prediction because it requires, first and foremost, a map of earth. FET doesn't have one. In addition, you need the precise topography of both earth and the moon. FET doesn't have those either.

So there you go, 3 body scenario predicted and solved down to 100 meters. 

Your 3 body problem is a perpetual red herring that doesn't mean anything especially considering that Helio seems to be able to handle it whereas FET does not.

[Tom Bishop]

Tom is trying to claim that because we don't know how to solve the 3-body problem using algebraic equations, that somehow means we can't use analytic, numeric or simulations to solve them (which we do all the time).

Lets see a source from a physicist on that.

As I have mentioned to you several times (though you elect to ignore it), the working examples have been posted (with active links for cross reference) for both computational and analytical cases.

I want to see your sources from physicists telling us that the three body problem has solutions or works for the Sun-Earth-Moon system.

Why does everything distill down to the 3 body problem for you? Look at it this way, from a practical real world example of 3 body scenario predicted and solved: The 2017 North American Total Solar Eclipse.

Eclipses can be predicted in ways that do not involve the three body problem. Lets see a source from a physicist that the three body problem has solutions for the Sun-Earth-Moon system, or that a three body problem can solve for an eclipse.