[AATW]

Observers in the South would have to look North and observers in the North would have to look South. This occurs regardless of the Moon's distance from the Earth.

I see. So you agree that EA has been invented without any evidence to match the observations you'd expect on a globe?
And why does it make light bend downwards to create the moon tilt illusion?

[existoid]

Tom, I don't think you read his post very carefully.  He's not showing a diagram of what RET predicts, but what FET predicts, and stating that it doesn't match observation.

What observation would that be? His imagined observation which contradicts Round Earth Theory's prediction that observers in the North would have to look South and observers in the South would have to look North?

You've also failed to respond to the ORIGINAL question from the OP despite multiple posts, as well as the two addenda questions I've repeated a few times now.  Care to respond to those?

Those were discussed. You were directed to the FE's celestial model of EA Theory - https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration

I thought I'd be even more concise, here's the issue I  still have  in different words, in case my really wordy prior post is too much to weed through:

Q: Why do we see the same face of the moon from all over?
A: Light bends, it’s not going in a straight line from the moon

Q: Why doesn’t the light from the sun illuminate the full FE at once?
A: It’s a directional spotlight that only illuminates a particular portion of the earth below

Q: How do you reconcile those two answers which directly contradict each other?
A:

EDIT:
and that other question that's also always dodged, and not at all addressed in the Wiki:
Q: Why do the earth and sun not get bigger as they near your position, and get smaller as they go away, like we would expect?
A: ??

[GoldCashew]

Tom, I don't think you read his post very carefully.  He's not showing a diagram of what RET predicts, but what FET predicts, and stating that it doesn't match observation.

What observation would that be? His imagined observation which contradicts Round Earth Theory's prediction that observers in the North would have to look South and observers in the South would have to look North?

You've also failed to respond to the ORIGINAL question from the OP despite multiple posts, as well as the two addenda questions I've repeated a few times now.  Care to respond to those?

Those were discussed. You were directed to the FE's celestial model of EA Theory - https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration

I don't even know how to have a meaningful debate anymore with a flat Earth proponent.

The Electromagnetic Accelerator theory is one of the most ridiculous things I've recently come across as a rationale explanation. I don't even know what to say. It's like the Flux Capacitor on Back to the Future.

I was just thinking how difficult it must be defending FE theory, because one would have to constantly keep on their toes and keep up with and create these tangled spider-webs of theories to try and rationalize the FE model.

The RE model works so seamlessly beautiful. And, yes, people have been to space and have also observed the Earth as round.

[existoid]

Tom, I don't think you read his post very carefully.  He's not showing a diagram of what RET predicts, but what FET predicts, and stating that it doesn't match observation.

What observation would that be? His imagined observation which contradicts Round Earth Theory's prediction that observers in the North would have to look South and observers in the South would have to look North?

You've also failed to respond to the ORIGINAL question from the OP despite multiple posts, as well as the two addenda questions I've repeated a few times now.  Care to respond to those?

Those were discussed. You were directed to the FE's celestial model of EA Theory - https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration

I don't even know how to have a meaningful debate anymore with a flat Earth proponent.

The Electromagnetic Accelerator theory is one of the most ridiculous things I've recently come across as a rationale explanation. I don't even know what to say. It's like the Flux Capacitor on Back to the Future.

I was just thinking how difficult it must be defending FE theory, because one would have to constantly keep on their toes and keep up with and create these tangled spider-webs of theories to try and rationalize the FE model.

The RE model works so seamlessly beautiful. And, yes, people have been to space and have also observed the Earth as round.

Totally. 

When I first got to this site in the past few days, I loved reading all about the scienc-y proofs and explanations.  The FET cannot account for so much, whereas the RET does it without effort.  But even aside from physics and math, there is an inherent illogic amongst the FET claims. They are so self-contradictory that you don't even really need to know the math to grasp that it is unworkable.

I'm trying to discuss it through logic alone, without resort to calculations, physics, math, and it's ridiculously simple to discover fallacy.

[Tom Bishop]

I see. So you agree that EA has been invented without any evidence to match the observations you'd expect on a globe?

In this case, looking South to see the Sun was already there in FE with a close sun before EA. EA doesn't really have anything to do with that one.

thought I'd be even more concise, here's the issue I  still have  in different words, in case my really wordy prior post is too much to weed through:

Q: Why do we see the same face of the moon from all over?
A: Light bends, it’s not going in a straight line from the moon

Q: Why doesn’t the light from the sun illuminate the full FE at once?
A: It’s a directional spotlight that only illuminates a particular portion of the earth below

It illuminates the Earth like a spotlight (spot of light) but I don't believe that we ever wrote that it's a directional spotlight.

I don't even know how to have a meaningful debate anymore with a flat Earth proponent.

The Electromagnetic Accelerator theory is one of the most ridiculous things I've recently come across as a rationale explanation. I don't even know what to say. It's like the Flux Capacitor on Back to the Future.

"I think it's ridiculous" does not seem like a very compelling argument. I could say the same about the thought of a particle or a wave traveling in a straight line for a long distance. Since straight line trajectories are not really known anywhere in nature, that could easily be ridiculed as special pleading.

[JSS]

It illuminates the Earth like a spotlight (spot of light) but I don't believe that we ever wrote that it's a directional spotlight.

I'm confused what a non-directional spotlight is describing. Aren't spotlights by definition unidirectional?

Can you draw a picture?

[BRrollin]

I see. So you agree that EA has been invented without any evidence to match the observations you'd expect on a globe?

In this case, looking South to see the Sun was already there in FE with a close sun before EA. EA doesn't really have anything to do with that one.

thought I'd be even more concise, here's the issue I  still have  in different words, in case my really wordy prior post is too much to weed through:

Q: Why do we see the same face of the moon from all over?
A: Light bends, it’s not going in a straight line from the moon

Q: Why doesn’t the light from the sun illuminate the full FE at once?
A: It’s a directional spotlight that only illuminates a particular portion of the earth below

It illuminates the Earth like a spotlight (spot of light) but I don't believe that we ever wrote that it's a directional spotlight.

I don't even know how to have a meaningful debate anymore with a flat Earth proponent.

The Electromagnetic Accelerator theory is one of the most ridiculous things I've recently come across as a rationale explanation. I don't even know what to say. It's like the Flux Capacitor on Back to the Future.

"I think it's ridiculous" does not seem like a very compelling argument. I could say the same about the thought of a particle or a wave traveling in a straight line for a long distance. Since straight line trajectories are not really known anywhere in nature, that could easily be ridiculed as special pleading.

I would not consider this special pleading, but common. Indeed, most particles created in the universe travel in a straight line, with the mean free path being longer than the Hubble radius. I am of course talking about photons. On large scales, space is flat (from cosmology) - so this implies straight trajectories relative to the CMB.

[Tom Bishop]

I'm confused what a non-directional spotlight is describing. Aren't spotlights by definition unidirectional?

Can you draw a picture?

A spotlight created on a surface != Sun is a unidirectional spotlight. Spotlight can also mean a spot of light.

I would not consider this special pleading, but common. Indeed, most particles created in the universe travel in a straight line, with the mean free path being longer than the Hubble radius. I am of course talking about photons. On large scales, space is flat (from cosmology) - so this implies straight trajectories relative to the CMB.

All of that is part of the RE cosmology. Straight line trajectories aren't really known elsewhere in nature or science. Bodies, waves, and particles tend to be affected by phenomena in the universe.

[TrueRoundEarther]

Without any obstacles, of course the Hubble would still move forward, explained by Newton's 1st Law. Straight-line trajectory is commonly seen with robotics, which is part of science.

[Tom Bishop]

Without any obstacles

That would require a perfect universe, and perfect knowledge of all obstacles; both unreasonable to merely assume.

[TrueRoundEarther]

Before I continue further, do you believe that the Hubble Telescope is fake or it doesn't do what it is supposed to do?

[existoid]

thought I'd be even more concise, here's the issue I  still have  in different words, in case my really wordy prior post is too much to weed through:

Q: Why do we see the same face of the moon from all over?
A: Light bends, it’s not going in a straight line from the moon

Q: Why doesn’t the light from the sun illuminate the full FE at once?
A: It’s a directional spotlight that only illuminates a particular portion of the earth below

It illuminates the Earth like a spotlight (spot of light) but I don't believe that we ever wrote that it's a directional spotlight.

It's possible the Wiki doesn't out right state that it's "directional."  But...that's kind of what a spotlight is - it doesn't shine in all directions.  I'm not trying to get into semantics about the definition of directional or spotlight, though.   My point is that for the FE model to make sense it HAS to be directional, otherwise there would be no night (hence "spotlight"). 

But you're saying it's NOT directional like that?  Are you saying that so as not to contradict the explanation for the moon question?  If so, then why does night exist?  You can't have it both ways (without creating a logical fallacy, which has kind of been my point all along in this thread).

[GoldCashew]

I see. So you agree that EA has been invented without any evidence to match the observations you'd expect on a globe?

In this case, looking South to see the Sun was already there in FE with a close sun before EA. EA doesn't really have anything to do with that one.

thought I'd be even more concise, here's the issue I  still have  in different words, in case my really wordy prior post is too much to weed through:

Q: Why do we see the same face of the moon from all over?
A: Light bends, it’s not going in a straight line from the moon

Q: Why doesn’t the light from the sun illuminate the full FE at once?
A: It’s a directional spotlight that only illuminates a particular portion of the earth below

It illuminates the Earth like a spotlight (spot of light) but I don't believe that we ever wrote that it's a directional spotlight.

I don't even know how to have a meaningful debate anymore with a flat Earth proponent.

The Electromagnetic Accelerator theory is one of the most ridiculous things I've recently come across as a rationale explanation. I don't even know what to say. It's like the Flux Capacitor on Back to the Future.

"I think it's ridiculous" does not seem like a very compelling argument. I could say the same about the thought of a particle or a wave traveling in a straight line for a long distance. Since straight line trajectories are not really known anywhere in nature, that could easily be ridiculed as special pleading.

Tom,

Have you checked or consulted the validity of your assumptions or claims with a physicist / astrophysicist? Specifically the created Electromagnetic Acceleration theory?

[JSS]

I'm confused what a non-directional spotlight is describing. Aren't spotlights by definition unidirectional?

Can you draw a picture?

A spotlight created on a surface != Sun is a unidirectional spotlight. Spotlight can also mean a spot of light.

Maybe if you mean "spot of light" you should say, "spot of light".  I ask for a "flashlight" I don't say "hand me that flash of light". Then you wouldn't have to explain that "spotlight" doesn't mean "spotlight".

Regardless, Electromagnetic Acceleration has a long way to go before you could even call it a hypothesis, let alone a theory. The Wiki is pretty empty of any hard data, and most of the diagrams have serious flaws and don't match observations of what we see.

It doesn't make any predictions, it doesn't explain how the bendy light behaves, it has one formula with missing variables and no numbers for any critical values like how big the Sun is and how far away. I've said before, it would be interesting to run visual simulations but there is just zero information to work with.

If I said all spheres were actually cubes and light just makes them look round, I'd have about the same level of evidence to back up my claim as EA is currently providing.

[Pete Svarrior]

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.

I'm afraid just looking at pretty pictures won't work here. I can't tell for sure (because you said nothing more than "I looked at a GIF", thus forcing me to guess), but I suspect you failed to take EA into account. Others seem to agree, but somehow that made you angry.

Instead of saying "I looked at this image and this phenomenon doesn't work", navigate us through your logic. Go through each step between the assumptions and conclusion. It's very difficult to help you identify your error without that.

[JSS]

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.

I'm afraid just looking at pretty pictures won't work here. I can't tell for sure (because you said nothing more than "I looked at a GIF", thus forcing me to guess), but I suspect you failed to take EA into account. Others seem to agree, but somehow that made you angry.

Instead of saying "I looked at this image and this phenomenon doesn't work", navigate us through your logic. Go through each step between the assumptions and conclusion. It's very difficult to help you identify your error without that.

I would like to know how to take EA into account but the Wiki doesn't provide any usable theories. All I could find was this equation which is both missing the 'Bishop Constant' and also gives a result that isn't a distance or position. 



y = 3/4 * root((b*x^4)/c^2,3)

Can you explain how we are to take EA into account and determine where the Sun actually is at a given apparent position?

[Pete Svarrior]

All I could find was this equation

Sorry, I'm not sure how to help you with your ability to find things. You clearly found the page which includes the image, but you somehow managed not to find the rest of the page, or the related pages linked within. It's far beyond my ability to identify how this happened, or how you could improve.

[JSS]

All I could find was this equation

Sorry, I'm not sure how to help you with your ability to find things. You clearly found the page which includes the image, but you somehow managed not to find the rest of the page, or the related pages linked within. It's far beyond my ability to identify how this happened, or how you could improve.

Not a very helpful response there, but effective at avoiding the question.  I was trying to be as concise as I could, but let me be more verbose...

The only potentially useful information on the Wiki about how to apply EA to explain where the Sun and Moon are is this equation, as the rest is all vague pictures and quotes from other sources that all boil down to different ways of saying "bendy light" with no explanation on why it bends or even how much or any observations to back up the vague assertions.

If you want people to "take EA into account" you need to explain what EA is and how it works better than "it bends light somehow" and "read the Wiki" which also gives no answers.

[Pete Svarrior]

The only potentially useful information on the Wiki about how to apply EA to explain where the Sun and Moon are is this equation

I disagree. Once again, I don't know how to help you with your inability to synthesise information, but I suggest you work it out in your own time, without pestering others.

You were provided with diagrams which visualise an equivalent displacement. Of course, you're also trying to shift the goalposts, just in case. The OP talks about a "flaw with the FE model". Now that a plausable explanation has been presented to you, you're immediately jumping towards complaining that you weren't provided with precise numbers.

I hope you realise that no one is going to fall for this.

To clarify: the question here is not where the moon and sun are. The question is whether you should be able to see the dark side of the moon. I posit that there is nothing in FET that suggest this would be the case. If you'd like to demonstrate otherwise, please go ahead. We will not be wasting time with proving negatives.

[JSS]

The only potentially useful information on the Wiki about how to apply EA to explain where the Sun and Moon are is this equation

I disagree. Once again, I don't know how to help you with your inability to synthesise information, but I suggest you work it out in your own time, without pestering others.

You were provided with diagrams which visualise an equivalent displacement. Of course, you're also trying to shift the goalposts, just in case. The OP talks about a "flaw with the FE model". Now that a plausable explanation has been presented to you, you're immediately jumping towards complaining that you weren't provided with precise numbers.

I hope you realise that no one is going to fall for this.

To clarify: the question here is not where the moon and sun are. The question is whether you should be able to see the dark side of the moon. I posit that there is nothing in FET that suggest this would be the case. If you'd like to demonstrate otherwise, please go ahead. We will not be wasting time with proving negatives.

The discussion changed to you saying "you failed to take EA into account" and I asked just how one takes EA into account.

A bunch of GIFs with curved lines isn't a theory.  I can synthesize information fine, but there needs to be information in the first place. I haven't been presented with any plausible model, just "bendy light" and a refusal to answer questions.

I'm not complaining you don't have precise numbers, I'm claiming you have no numbers at all, and the Wiki just says that bendy light makes the sky look like it does.

I'll start a new discussion since you don't feel this one is appropriate and clearly won't answer any questions.