#### Curious Squirrel

• 481
##### Re: What about World's End?
« Reply #20 on: August 12, 2017, 03:15:48 PM »
So being as you both say earth and the moon are balls, you are both saying there is no such thing as a full moon. Well there are full moons. My calendar says there are 13 of them this year. So my point, saying the earth is round has a whole bunch of problems that a flat earth doesn't.

https://www.timeanddate.com/moon/phases/
There it is. A mathematical calculator using mathematics to tell you when the next full moon occurs. Not the next almost full moon. The next full moon ... which is impossible on a round earth because for the moon to be full, the sun has to be directly behind the earth, and that causes a lunar eclipse instead.
Have not said there's no such thing as a full moon. Have said a full moon and a lunar eclipse are in fact two rather different things.
FET - A few old books making claims and telling you how things must be based on the words contained therein. This sounds familiar....

The triangle doesn't work

#### Screamer

##### Re: What about World's End?
« Reply #21 on: August 12, 2017, 04:01:52 PM »
So being as you both say earth and the moon are balls, you are both saying there is no such thing as a full moon. Well there are full moons. My calendar says there are 13 of them this year. So my point, saying the earth is round has a whole bunch of problems that a flat earth doesn't.

https://www.timeanddate.com/moon/phases/
There it is. A mathematical calculator using mathematics to tell you when the next full moon occurs. Not the next almost full moon. The next full moon ... which is impossible on a round earth because for the moon to be full, the sun has to be directly behind the earth, and that causes a lunar eclipse instead.
Have not said there's no such thing as a full moon. Have said a full moon and a lunar eclipse are in fact two rather different things.

Then show me, how can you see a full moon?

#### Mock

• 41
##### Re: What about World's End?
« Reply #22 on: August 12, 2017, 05:18:49 PM »
So being as you both say earth and the moon are balls, you are both saying there is no such thing as a full moon. Well there are full moons. My calendar says there are 13 of them this year. So my point, saying the earth is round has a whole bunch of problems that a flat earth doesn't.

https://www.timeanddate.com/moon/phases/
There it is. A mathematical calculator using mathematics to tell you when the next full moon occurs. Not the next almost full moon. The next full moon ... which is impossible on a round earth because for the moon to be full, the sun has to be directly behind the earth, and that causes a lunar eclipse instead.
Actually, I take back my statement about you being pleasant to discuss with. It's called a Full Moon because it looks full - you won't be able to tell it's not just from looking at it. It's as full as it will get. We still don't get to see 100% of the illuminated side ever, because obviously it would result in a lunar eclipse.

And the FE model has WAY more problems with moon phases than the RE one - the generally accepted one, I might say - has. Explain to me, how can you see a 100% full moon in your model?

#### inquisitive

• 416
##### Re: What about World's End?
« Reply #23 on: August 12, 2017, 05:47:25 PM »
So being as you both say earth and the moon are balls, you are both saying there is no such thing as a full moon. Well there are full moons. My calendar says there are 13 of them this year. So my point, saying the earth is round has a whole bunch of problems that a flat earth doesn't.

https://www.timeanddate.com/moon/phases/
There it is. A mathematical calculator using mathematics to tell you when the next full moon occurs. Not the next almost full moon. The next full moon ... which is impossible on a round earth because for the moon to be full, the sun has to be directly behind the earth, and that causes a lunar eclipse instead.
timeanddate helpfully gives details of sunrise and sunset that we see across the world, and which prove the earth is round.

#### Curious Squirrel

• 481
##### Re: What about World's End?
« Reply #24 on: August 12, 2017, 07:08:52 PM »
So being as you both say earth and the moon are balls, you are both saying there is no such thing as a full moon. Well there are full moons. My calendar says there are 13 of them this year. So my point, saying the earth is round has a whole bunch of problems that a flat earth doesn't.

https://www.timeanddate.com/moon/phases/
There it is. A mathematical calculator using mathematics to tell you when the next full moon occurs. Not the next almost full moon. The next full moon ... which is impossible on a round earth because for the moon to be full, the sun has to be directly behind the earth, and that causes a lunar eclipse instead.
Have not said there's no such thing as a full moon. Have said a full moon and a lunar eclipse are in fact two rather different things.

Then show me, how can you see a full moon?
Any time the moon is within a few degrees or less of passing into the shadow to create a lunar eclipse is a full moon. You need to look at it from more than a single angle.
FET - A few old books making claims and telling you how things must be based on the words contained therein. This sounds familiar....

The triangle doesn't work

#### Screamer

##### Re: What about World's End?
« Reply #25 on: August 12, 2017, 08:45:12 PM »
Actually, I take back my statement about you being pleasant to discuss with.
Well that hurt my heart a little.

All I wanted was for you to acknowledge that not everything in Round Earth Theory was straight forward and easy to explain, and that some things are incorrect ... such as full moons. So that you wouldn't hold me to account on every little semantic point, when you don't hold your own beliefs to such scrutiny. You probably never even considered that a full moon is impossible on a round earth, yet you have known about them all your life. And yet 5 mins into Flat Earth theory, you are trying to tear it to bits looking for any tiny flaw in explanation.

Some things you should always consider when asking flat earthers questions ... we don't have a flat earth google, we don't have the weight of the world's scientists to lean on, and we don't know every last piece of physics of the universe any more than round earth scientists do. Regular scientists can't explain gravitons. They can't even isolate them. But yet a flat earther needs to prove in minutia the concepts of universal acceleration. This isn't a forum run by God and His angels. Just people who question what they are told. I'd always rather be one of those people.

Any time the moon is within a few degrees or less of passing into the shadow to create a lunar eclipse is a full moon. You need to look at it from more than a single angle.
In a round earth 'full moon', the moon is said to be 5 degrees off the ecliptic. The very notion that it is a ball and 5 degrees off, means there is no way you could ever view the full shining face of the moon and still be stood on earth. Ergo, there is no such thing as a full moon.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2017, 08:48:53 PM by Screamer »

#### inquisitive

• 416
##### Re: What about World's End?
« Reply #26 on: August 12, 2017, 08:59:23 PM »
Actually, I take back my statement about you being pleasant to discuss with.
Well that hurt my heart a little.

All I wanted was for you to acknowledge that not everything in Round Earth Theory was straight forward and easy to explain, and that some things are incorrect ... such as full moons. So that you wouldn't hold me to account on every little semantic point, when you don't hold your own beliefs to such scrutiny. You probably never even considered that a full moon is impossible on a round earth, yet you have known about them all your life. And yet 5 mins into Flat Earth theory, you are trying to tear it to bits looking for any tiny flaw in explanation.

Some things you should always consider when asking flat earthers questions ... we don't have a flat earth google, we don't have the weight of the world's scientists to lean on, and we don't know every last piece of physics of the universe any more than round earth scientists do. Regular scientists can't explain gravitons. They can't even isolate them. But yet a flat earther needs to prove in minutia the concepts of universal acceleration. This isn't a forum run by God and His angels. Just people who question what they are told. I'd always rather be one of those people.

Any time the moon is within a few degrees or less of passing into the shadow to create a lunar eclipse is a full moon. You need to look at it from more than a single angle.
In a round earth 'full moon', the moon is said to be 5 degrees off the ecliptic. The very notion that it is a ball and 5 degrees off, means there is no way you could ever view the full shining face of the moon and still be stood on earth. Ergo, there is no such thing as a full moon.
Just explain the easy things like sunrise and sunset observations and the angles of satellite dishes.  When you have dome that we can move on to the more complicated stuff.

#### Mock

• 41
##### Re: What about World's End?
« Reply #27 on: August 12, 2017, 09:39:19 PM »
Actually, I take back my statement about you being pleasant to discuss with.
Well that hurt my heart a little.

All I wanted was for you to acknowledge that not everything in Round Earth Theory was straight forward and easy to explain, and that some things are incorrect ... such as full moons. So that you wouldn't hold me to account on every little semantic point, when you don't hold your own beliefs to such scrutiny. You probably never even considered that a full moon is impossible on a round earth, yet you have known about them all your life. And yet 5 mins into Flat Earth theory, you are trying to tear it to bits looking for any tiny flaw in explanation.

Some things you should always consider when asking flat earthers questions ... we don't have a flat earth google, we don't have the weight of the world's scientists to lean on, and we don't know every last piece of physics of the universe any more than round earth scientists do. Regular scientists can't explain gravitons. They can't even isolate them. But yet a flat earther needs to prove in minutia the concepts of universal acceleration. This isn't a forum run by God and His angels. Just people who question what they are told. I'd always rather be one of those people.

Any time the moon is within a few degrees or less of passing into the shadow to create a lunar eclipse is a full moon. You need to look at it from more than a single angle.
In a round earth 'full moon', the moon is said to be 5 degrees off the ecliptic. The very notion that it is a ball and 5 degrees off, means there is no way you could ever view the full shining face of the moon and still be stood on earth. Ergo, there is no such thing as a full moon.
Sorry about hurting your heart. You just effectively restated what I said. You are right, there is no such thing as a full moon - full as in 100% illuminated when observed from Earth. This article should answer all your questions about this. If not, I'll gladly answer them and listen to your explanation as to why the explanation given in the article is not valued. (there seems to be a displaying / typing error on that site that makes all the apostrophs appear as question marks)

You have yet to produce any explanation for how the moon can possibly appear full on a Flat Earth. I'm waiting.

#### Hmmm

• 144
##### Re: What about World's End?
« Reply #28 on: August 13, 2017, 01:23:14 AM »
Mock, and i wonder, what about Tree of life, Does it exist here on earth or not?
As you will notice, there are some extremely vile, insulting and disruptive individuals on the forums. It's not just their words, it's the repulsive toxic energy they emit, and their tangible vicious burning hatred for the truth. Everyone just a bit intuitive can sense that. Let's be clear about the obvious, they are not human.
And they get so panicked and aggressive over some topics, because they see their food source threatened.

#### Jackson Junglist

• 4
##### Re: What about World's End?
« Reply #29 on: August 13, 2017, 06:48:23 PM »
Actually, I take back my statement about you being pleasant to discuss with.
Well that hurt my heart a little.

All I wanted was for you to acknowledge that not everything in Round Earth Theory was straight forward and easy to explain, and that some things are incorrect ... such as full moons. So that you wouldn't hold me to account on every little semantic point, when you don't hold your own beliefs to such scrutiny. You probably never even considered that a full moon is impossible on a round earth, yet you have known about them all your life. And yet 5 mins into Flat Earth theory, you are trying to tear it to bits looking for any tiny flaw in explanation.

Some things you should always consider when asking flat earthers questions ... we don't have a flat earth google, we don't have the weight of the world's scientists to lean on, and we don't know every last piece of physics of the universe any more than round earth scientists do. Regular scientists can't explain gravitons. They can't even isolate them. But yet a flat earther needs to prove in minutia the concepts of universal acceleration. This isn't a forum run by God and His angels. Just people who question what they are told. I'd always rather be one of those people.

Any time the moon is within a few degrees or less of passing into the shadow to create a lunar eclipse is a full moon. You need to look at it from more than a single angle.
In a round earth 'full moon', the moon is said to be 5 degrees off the ecliptic. The very notion that it is a ball and 5 degrees off, means there is no way you could ever view the full shining face of the moon and still be stood on earth. Ergo, there is no such thing as a full moon.
Sorry about hurting your heart. You just effectively restated what I said. You are right, there is no such thing as a full moon - full as in 100% illuminated when observed from Earth. This article should answer all your questions about this. If not, I'll gladly answer them and listen to your explanation as to why the explanation given in the article is not valued. (there seems to be a displaying / typing error on that site that makes all the apostrophs appear as question marks)

You have yet to produce any explanation for how the moon can possibly appear full on a Flat Earth. I'm waiting.

I believe that the Moon can be observed as full.  Due to the Sun being much larger than the Moon, it would always (unless obscured during a lunar eclipse) illuminate slightly more than 50% of its surface.  When observing the Moon from the Earth, we can see slightly less than 50% of its surface because of the Moon's size.  Because of the slight variance, I believe that there will be times when the Moon is near a lunar eclipse, it would be observed as full.  Please correct me if I'm wrong.

#### Jackson Junglist

• 4
##### Re: What about World's End?
« Reply #30 on: August 13, 2017, 08:13:07 PM »
Actually, I take back my statement about you being pleasant to discuss with.
Well that hurt my heart a little.

All I wanted was for you to acknowledge that not everything in Round Earth Theory was straight forward and easy to explain, and that some things are incorrect ... such as full moons. So that you wouldn't hold me to account on every little semantic point, when you don't hold your own beliefs to such scrutiny. You probably never even considered that a full moon is impossible on a round earth, yet you have known about them all your life. And yet 5 mins into Flat Earth theory, you are trying to tear it to bits looking for any tiny flaw in explanation.

Some things you should always consider when asking flat earthers questions ... we don't have a flat earth google, we don't have the weight of the world's scientists to lean on, and we don't know every last piece of physics of the universe any more than round earth scientists do. Regular scientists can't explain gravitons. They can't even isolate them. But yet a flat earther needs to prove in minutia the concepts of universal acceleration. This isn't a forum run by God and His angels. Just people who question what they are told. I'd always rather be one of those people.

Any time the moon is within a few degrees or less of passing into the shadow to create a lunar eclipse is a full moon. You need to look at it from more than a single angle.
In a round earth 'full moon', the moon is said to be 5 degrees off the ecliptic. The very notion that it is a ball and 5 degrees off, means there is no way you could ever view the full shining face of the moon and still be stood on earth. Ergo, there is no such thing as a full moon.
Sorry about hurting your heart. You just effectively restated what I said. You are right, there is no such thing as a full moon - full as in 100% illuminated when observed from Earth. This article should answer all your questions about this. If not, I'll gladly answer them and listen to your explanation as to why the explanation given in the article is not valued. (there seems to be a displaying / typing error on that site that makes all the apostrophs appear as question marks)

You have yet to produce any explanation for how the moon can possibly appear full on a Flat Earth. I'm waiting.

I believe that the Moon can be observed as full.  Due to the Sun being much larger than the Moon, it would always (unless obscured during a lunar eclipse) illuminate slightly more than 50% of its surface.  When observing the Moon from the Earth, we can see slightly less than 50% of its surface because of the Moon's size.  Because of the slight variance, I believe that there will be times when the Moon is near a lunar eclipse, it would be observed as full.  Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I did some online snooping, and it seems that what I am describing would be considered a "penumbral eclipse" where the Moon would appear to be a perfect circle, but no point on the Moon would be totally shadowed by the Earth.