[akis]

hello everybody. my name is Akis and im from Greece. this is my first topic, my English is also a litle poor.

From the time i heard about flat earth i saw many things. many video and opinios.
i got maaaany questions but i will tel you about the moon.

first of all i believe the moon is not a plane. wacthing only one side is not a prove.
if it was a plane no matter the size when it sets, you would see it very oblegate and only when it would be vertical to you , youcould see it round.
seeing stars from throught proves the semitransparent.

now my thing.

if the moon is a sphere and the earth a plane then how we see the same thing when it goes away from us. we sopused to see the left side.
i will refrase becaouse my english is no so good.

if the moon is a sphere and the earth a plane
if we have the moon coming to us, we sould see a little bit of its right side and when it goes away the left side.
if the monn is a plene and the earth also a plane then it would be round only vertical to us.


also see the same light in all the moon consintering it is a sphere makes no sence.

thank you

[TotesNotReptilian]

Good points. This is proof that the moon is much farther away from us than the 3000 miles claimed by flat earthers.

See this thread for a previous discussion. The only explanation given in that thread was Tom Bishop's default excuse for everything: "maybe perspective doesn't work like we think it does".

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

So looking at the moon from an extremely sharp angle on a round Earth as opposed to it supposedly being directly overhead, why do we not see any noticeable difference?

Oh yeah, the magic answer of "it's just perfectly far away enough." Same reason why it has the same apparent size of the sun. Just so happens to be 400 times smaller and 400 times closer. Oh the path just so happens to appear the exact same as the suns too, even though it is orbiting Earth in the opposite direction. Oh yeah, we only see one side of the moon even though it rotates once every 29 days because it is perfectly locked to Earth's spin like a gear.

[Tom Bishop]

The moon actually does turn a little. In fact, it turns so much that the far side of the moon was mapped by astronomers long before NASA claimed to have gone there.

[TotesNotReptilian]

The moon actually does turn a little. In fact, it turns so much that the far side of the moon was mapped by astronomers long before NASA claimed to have gone there.

It turns about 5 degrees.

Have you ever actually looked at the moon? Do you honestly think it turns enough for us to see the far side of the moon from earth?

[Tom Bishop]

The moon actually does turn a little. In fact, it turns so much that the far side of the moon was mapped by astronomers long before NASA claimed to have gone there.

It turns about 5 degrees.

Have you ever actually looked at the moon? Do you honestly think it turns enough for us to see the far side of the moon from earth?

The moon wobbles as it moves, allowing us to see large areas of its backside. The idea that we only see its face is a myth. See: Lunar Liberation

[TotesNotReptilian]

The moon actually does turn a little. In fact, it turns so much that the far side of the moon was mapped by astronomers long before NASA claimed to have gone there.

It turns about 5 degrees.

Have you ever actually looked at the moon? Do you honestly think it turns enough for us to see the far side of the moon from earth?

The moon wobbles as it moves, allowing us to see large areas of its backside. The idea that we only see its face is a myth. See: Lunar Liberation

Yes, I am aware of lunar libration. That's what I was referring to when I said "It turns about 5 degrees".

Lunar libration only allows us to see slightly over half of the moon. About 60%. We certainly can't see much of the backside. If the moon was only 3000 miles away, we should be able to see over 85% of the surface over the course of one night. If you have ever watched the moon over the course of a night, you would know that we definitely can't see 85% of the spherical surface of the moon.

[TotesNotReptilian]

So looking at the moon from an extremely sharp angle on a round Earth as opposed to it supposedly being directly overhead, why do we not see any noticeable difference?

What do you mean by an extremely sharp angle? The moon is 240,000 miles away from us. The diameter of the earth about 4000 miles. The difference in angle to the moon from the far east to the far west is less than 2 degrees. This is what causes diurnal lunar libration.

Just so happens to be 400 times smaller and 400 times closer.

That is a neat coincidence, but it would be just as much of a coincidence if the earth was flat as it is now. I'm not sure why it's relevant.

Oh the path just so happens to appear the exact same as the suns too, even though it is orbiting Earth in the opposite direction.

If you spin in a circle, are you surprised when everything around you appears to spin around you in the same direction? No, of course not. The earth rotates much faster than the earth orbits the sun, or the moon orbits the earth. Therefore, they both appear to circle it at about the same rate.

Oh yeah, we only see one side of the moon even though it rotates once every 29 days because it is perfectly locked to Earth's spin like a gear.

No, the moon isn't locked to the earth's spin. It's orbit is locked to it's own spin. See tidal locking. Tidal locking can be a bit difficult to understand, but it is very real. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it is impossible.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

No, the moon isn't locked to the earth's spin. It's orbit is locked to it's own spin. See tidal locking. Tidal locking can be a bit difficult to understand, but it is very real. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it is impossible.

I'm familiar with the concept. You say it's real, but it can't be verified by any experimentation. It is an astronomers best guess.

[Rama Set]

No, the moon isn't locked to the earth's spin. It's orbit is locked to it's own spin. See tidal locking. Tidal locking can be a bit difficult to understand, but it is very real. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it is impossible.

I'm familiar with the concept. You say it's real, but it can't be verified by any experimentation. It is an astronomers best guess.

It has been verified by observation.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

No, the moon isn't locked to the earth's spin. It's orbit is locked to it's own spin. See tidal locking. Tidal locking can be a bit difficult to understand, but it is very real. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it is impossible.

I'm familiar with the concept. You say it's real, but it can't be verified by any experimentation. It is an astronomers best guess.

It has been verified by observation.

Umm?? Bullshit. The observation is what the concept came from, not the other way around. Not very scientific now is it.

I could say unequivocally that the Sun travels over the Earth if we are basing evidence solely on observation alone.

[Rama Set]

People have stood on the moon and observed that the Earth remains in the sky the whole time.

We know the moon is spheroid via observations made while orbiting the moon. These are facts.

[UnionsOfSolarSystemPlanet]

Oh the path just so happens to appear the exact same as the suns too, even though it is orbiting Earth in the opposite direction.

False, the Moon does not share the Sun's rise and set path, i observed this around June-July of 2014 from the 7th parallel south, the Sun sets a bit north while the Moon sets nearly south. Neither does the Moon orbits the opposite direction, viewed from above the north ecliptic pole, the Earth orbits the Sun, rotates around on it's axis and the Moon orbits the Earth all in the counter-clockwise direction.

Oh yeah, we only see one side of the moon even though it rotates once every 29 days because it is perfectly locked to Earth's spin like a gear.

We've been over this before, it's not perfect, even the old astronomers know that when making a map of the Moon.

No, the moon isn't locked to the earth's spin. It's orbit is locked to it's own spin. See tidal locking. Tidal locking can be a bit difficult to understand, but it is very real. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it is impossible.

I'm familiar with the concept. You say it's real, but it can't be verified by any experimentation. It is an astronomers best guess.

Iapetus one of Saturn's moon are observed to be brighter when it's on the western side of Saturn (viewed from Earth) and very very dim when it's on the eastern side of Saturn, this could only mean that Iapetus is tidally locked and have a dark and bright hemisphere.

[TotesNotReptilian]

No, the moon isn't locked to the earth's spin. It's orbit is locked to it's own spin. See tidal locking. Tidal locking can be a bit difficult to understand, but it is very real. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it is impossible.

I'm familiar with the concept. You say it's real, but it can't be verified by any experimentation. It is an astronomers best guess.

Ok. Does it matter if its a guess? Your main point was that it seemed improbable that the moon would always face the earth. I gave you a plausible explanation for why the moon always faces the earth. If you don't think it is plausible, please explain why.

It is actually a relatively simple phenomenon if you have a basic understanding of dynamics. We also have observed many other moons that are tidally locked to their planet.

[akis]

for me its easy to be looked. everything is strange this is no more strange.
if you make a big balloon, paint it light green and the put it away, then put a progector on a distanse.
you will see that the sphere do not reflects the light the same amount at its all surface.
the moon give us the feeling that it is the same amount of light everywhere.
sould be darker while it goes to rounded surfaces from us.
and one other thing i dont know about. did any of you make the thing with the thermometer and the moon?
im planing to do it on a full moon. if theres no diference in the moon light and in the sandow then i thing im going crazy.......

and another thing, if someone haw a telescope, if you are in the moon and at the midle and then you move your telescope to the edge
sould it be fade because of the distance going biger? does it fade?


thanks everybody.

i like you talk with many diferent ideas but always calm and civil, take care.

[Rounder]

No, the moon isn't locked to the earth's spin. It's orbit is locked to it's own spin. See tidal locking. Tidal locking can be a bit difficult to understand, but it is very real. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it is impossible.

I'm familiar with the concept. You say it's real, but it can't be verified by any experimentation. It is an astronomers best guess.

It has been verified by observation.

Umm?? Bullshit. The observation is what the concept came from, not the other way around.

This is a point where TTIOH has some justification for skepticism.  I disagree with him, but considering that never once have we watched a body BECOME tidally locked (as in: it was rotating, then it slowed, then it stopped, while we watched it happen) we should acknowledge that he isn't being unreasonable here. 

Mind you, we do have some evidence to support the theory: the earth's rotation is slowing by a measurable (but humanly imperceptable) amount each year and the moon is 'stealing' that energy in the form of increased orbital elevation.  If the small moon can do this to the much larger earth, it is reasonable to suggest the earth already did so to the moon.

[Roundy]

I have a thing with the moon too.  But don't tell the sun!

[TotesNotReptilian]

if you make a big balloon, paint it light green and the put it away, then put a progector on a distanse.
you will see that the sphere do not reflects the light the same amount at its all surface.
the moon give us the feeling that it is the same amount of light everywhere.
sould be darker while it goes to rounded surfaces from us.

Balloons are relatively smooth and reflect light in one direction, like a bad mirror. The moon reflects light somewhat equally in all directions. Try redoing the experiment, but this time cover the balloon with a very rough cloth.

The mathematical explanation: The density of reflected light passing through a 2D projection of the full moon is roughly proportional to the density of incident light. Since the density of incident light is equal across the entire projection, the density of the reflected light is also roughly equal.

and one other thing i dont know about. did any of you make the thing with the thermometer and the moon?
im planing to do it on a full moon. if theres no diference in the moon light and in the sandow then i thing im going crazy.......

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

and another thing, if someone haw a telescope, if you are in the moon and at the midle and then you move your telescope to the edge
sould it be fade because of the distance going biger? does it fade?

That is only a 0.4% change in distance. That telescope would have to have a ridiculously shallow depth of field for you to notice a difference in blurriness. I don't think it is possible for any consumer telescopes.

[Rounder]

and one other thing i dont know about. did any of you make the thing with the thermometer and the moon?
im planing to do it on a full moon. if theres no diference in the moon light and in the sandow then i thing im going crazy.......

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

I do know what he's talking about.  Flat Earthers are fond of repeating one particular gem from Earth Not A Globe Chapter XI, wherein Rowbotham makes this claim:

In sun-light a thermometer stands higher than a similar thermometer placed in the shade. In the full moon-light, a thermometer stands lower than a similar instrument in the shade.

He uses this dubious phenomenon (and other even more ludicrous statements) to support his claim that the moon does not reflect sunlight but is instead self-luminous, and with light opposite in nature to that of sunlight.  He claims moonlight has no heat in it, and in fact is cooling rather than heating the objects it illuminates, hence the thermometer reading lower in moonlight than in shadow.

My first guess is that Rowbotham either misinterpreted something he heard about, or invented the whole thing.  My second guess is that his "instrument in the shade" was warmed slightly by infrared radiation from the object providing the shade (if I were trying to fake such a result, I would shade the thermometer with my hand), or that the air around that instrument was stagnant or sheltered somehow from the moving air to which the other instrument was exposed.  My third guess is that the exposed instrument will read colder than the sheltered instrument even without moonlight, because the shelter reduces the amount of heat the thermometer loses to infrared radiation by reflecting some of it back.

If you want to test this, Akis, the following setup might deal with those variables: place two or more thermometers outside, in a location where a shadow cast by something will pass over each thermometer during the night.  You want each thermometer to go from full moonlight to full shadow and back to full moonlight during the night, and the thermometer must spend a good amount of time in the shadow.  The thermometers need to be near enough to each other that they have similar surroundings and will feel the same wind, but far enough apart that the shadow hits them at different times.  Ideally, the first one to get shadow should be back in full moonlight before the shadow reaches the second one.  Record the temperatures from both at regular intervals.  They should track more or less identical temeratures while both are in full moonlight; if they don't then either your setup has some variable you didn't notice or one of your instruments is bad.  If Rowbotham's moonlight phenomenon exists, each thermometer should get warmer than its neighbor while in the shadow, then cool down again in moonlight.

[Unsure101]

and one other thing i dont know about. did any of you make the thing with the thermometer and the moon?
im planing to do it on a full moon. if theres no diference in the moon light and in the sandow then i thing im going crazy.......

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

I do know what he's talking about.  Flat Earthers are fond of repeating one particular gem from Earth Not A Globe Chapter XI, wherein Rowbotham makes this claim:

In sun-light a thermometer stands higher than a similar thermometer placed in the shade. In the full moon-light, a thermometer stands lower than a similar instrument in the shade.

He uses this dubious phenomenon (and other even more ludicrous statements) to support his claim that the moon does not reflect sunlight but is instead self-luminous, and with light opposite in nature to that of sunlight.  He claims moonlight has no heat in it, and in fact is cooling rather than heating the objects it illuminates, hence the thermometer reading lower in moonlight than in shadow.

My first guess is that Rowbotham either misinterpreted something he heard about, or invented the whole thing.  My second guess is that his "instrument in the shade" was warmed slightly by infrared radiation from the object providing the shade (if I were trying to fake such a result, I would shade the thermometer with my hand), or that the air around that instrument was stagnant or sheltered somehow from the moving air to which the other instrument was exposed.  My third guess is that the exposed instrument will read colder than the sheltered instrument even without moonlight, because the shelter reduces the amount of heat the thermometer loses to infrared radiation by reflecting some of it back.

If you want to test this, Akis, the following setup might deal with those variables: place two or more thermometers outside, in a location where a shadow cast by something will pass over each thermometer during the night.  You want each thermometer to go from full moonlight to full shadow and back to full moonlight during the night, and the thermometer must spend a good amount of time in the shadow.  The thermometers need to be near enough to each other that they have similar surroundings and will feel the same wind, but far enough apart that the shadow hits them at different times.  Ideally, the first one to get shadow should be back in full moonlight before the shadow reaches the second one.  Record the temperatures from both at regular intervals.  They should track more or less identical temeratures while both are in full moonlight; if they don't then either your setup has some variable you didn't notice or one of your instruments is bad.  If Rowbotham's moonlight phenomenon exists, each thermometer should get warmer than its neighbor while in the shadow, then cool down again in moonlight.

My interpretation of Rowbotham's divine observation is that it's hotter in direct sunshine, colder at night and in between in the shade.

I cannot begin to imagine how using these observations, anyone can deduce that the moonlight is producing "cold waves" when there has never been any further research on this matter.
If Rowbotham's actually had a PhD (arguable) he should have known better.