[Scroogie]

... well, goofy is the most polite description I can devise right now.

I started this as a response to another thread, the name of which I can't even remember, hit a wrong key, was taken two light years away and dropped wherever it is I am now. In any event, below is a quick & dirty rendition of the "Shadow Object", hereinafter to be referred to as the SO, at work. The image depicts, from left to right, the moon, SO and sun. Each is drawn to scale, the sun at 32 miles in diameter, the moon at 32 and the SO in the center of estimates given, at 7.5 miles in diameter. Necessarily, the SO is drawn as being quite close to the sun, a distance of about 40 miles.



From the WIKI:
The moon is a rotating sphere. It has a diameter of 32 miles and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth.
The shadow object is never seen because it orbits close to the sun. It is estimated that the Shadow Object is around five to ten miles in diameter.
The sun is a rotating sphere. It has a diameter of 32 miles and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth.

A cursory glance at the image above will be sufficient to allow anyone to see that the writers of the pertinent Wiki page never even took the time to visualize or model their SO theory. I defy anyone to mentally move or reorient the three objects in question in such a way that a full eclipse of the moon by the SO becomes possible.

This is as far removed from science as the galaxy GN-z11 is from my garage.

[devils advocate]

Great diagram.

Where are "we" watching the eclipse from? Might be helpful to add a little "you are here" arrow to demonstrate this? I assume the earth is the bottom of the page? If so it demonstrates the sheer lunacy (haha) of the proposition of the SO

[Curious Squirrel]

Great diagram.

Where are "we" watching the eclipse from? Might be helpful to add a little "you are here" arrow to demonstrate this? I assume the earth is the bottom of the page? If so it demonstrates the sheer lunacy (haha) of the proposition of the SO

Since a lunar eclipse occurs during the full moon....yeah that's hard to make work in my head. Because we should be under the moon, and to the left. The sun and moon would be the farthest apart they could be (during summer in the South this would be greater than half the diameter of the flat Earth) but not quite half of the area between the sun and moon are in night time. This lunar eclipse is visible from approx the lower left corner of the image, to somewhere around the middle. Obviously at a fair distance away, but the center group is closer to the sun than the moon is, yet are in darkness.

[devils advocate]

Well so far I only recall reading Tom Bishop proposing the shadow object (apart from its mention in the Wiki) so maybe he could amend the diagram. I can't visualise how this object could line up in such a way to cause the eclipse we see, especially as it would have to do so for a large surface area of (flat) earth. The RE model is much easier to understand as the distances and sizes are greater thus the effect would be noticeable for a wider audience.

[Tom Bishop]

The diagram assumes certain properties of the sun. If the light from the sun were exiting its surface in a direction that was only outwards from its center, like a point light source, the shadow would be solid.

[Curious Squirrel]

The diagram assumes certain poperties of the sun. If the light from the sun were exiting its surface in a direction that was onky outwards from its center, like a point light source, the shadow would be solid.

So FE assumes the sun to be a point light source because why? Solar eclipses clearly demonstrate light comes from all locations on the sun. It cannot be a point light source as you suggest and create a solar eclipse as we see it. This is fairly conclusive evidence against the sun being a point light source.

[devils advocate]

It would seem that someone stood at point 1 would see the light reflect back off the SO but someone at point 2 would not, however they would see a black spot on the sun.

Also interesting to note that as witnessed at sunsets the sun can light the underside of the clouds (see bottom left) which means the light CAN bend and would still be able to hit the moon a bit.

[devils advocate]

The diagram assumes certain poperties of the sun. If the light from the sun were exiting its surface in a direction that was onky outwards from its center, like a point light source, the shadow would be solid.

Huh? The sun's light exits in all directions as we can empirically see. The diagram represents the problem with the shadow object as described in the Wiki and by your good self. Can you please respond with YOUR diagram of how it works? I think that would make it easier to understand your point of view, a picture paints 1,000 words and all that

 

[Rounder]

I’ve never understood how a good zetetic can support the idea of a Shadow Object in the first place.  Zeteticism is supposed to be all about observation, but the wiki admits “The shadow object is never seen because it orbits close to the sun” (emphasis added)

[JocelynSachs]

The diagram assumes certain poperties of the sun. If the light from the sun were exiting its surface in a direction that was onky outwards from its center, like a point light source, the shadow would be solid.

...and the sun would appear to be a bright point rather than a bright disc. Like, as you say, a point light source.

[Curious Squirrel]

I’ve never understood how a good zetetic can support the idea of a Shadow Object in the first place.  Zeteticism is supposed to be all about observation, but the wiki admits “The shadow object is never seen because it orbits close to the sun” (emphasis added)

As pointed out by Tom before, the evidence for the shadow object is the lunar eclipse. There has to be something blocking the light of the sun, and since it can't be the Earth or any of the planets, there must be something else up there that has never been seen doing it. Ergo, shadow object and evidence for said object.

[Rounder]

I know, but that’s not how zeteticism claims to do things.

“Zeteticism differs from the usual scientific method in that using zeteticism one bases his conclusions on experimentation and observation rather than on an initial theory that is to be proved or disproved. A zetetic forms the question then immediately sets to work making observations and performing experiments to answer that question, rather than speculating on what the answer might be then testing that out.”

“The earth is flat (initial theory), therefore the shadow on the moon comes from something else (speculating on what the answer might be)” is exactly the sort of thought process that zeteticism claims to reject.

[JocelynSachs]

I’ve never understood how a good zetetic can support the idea of a Shadow Object in the first place.  Zeteticism is supposed to be all about observation, but the wiki admits “The shadow object is never seen because it orbits close to the sun” (emphasis added)

As pointed out by Tom before, the evidence for the shadow object is the lunar eclipse. There has to be something blocking the light of the sun, and since it can't be the Earth or any of the planets, there must be something else up there that has never been seen doing it. Ergo, shadow object and evidence for said object.

Is it, though?

If I start with an unsafe assumption, and then do nothing but pile on excuses for why it doesn't look like my assumption was correct, can it really be said that my observations constitute evidence?

For instance, if I were in a windowless room with the door closed and the light off, I might hypothesise that it's night-time. Suppose the door opens and I can see a bright sunny day outside. If I respond to this by saying "My hypothesis requires there to be an elaborate 3D projection system outside my room," can I really claim what I'm observing is evidence of the existence of that projection system?

[Curious Squirrel]

I’ve never understood how a good zetetic can support the idea of a Shadow Object in the first place.  Zeteticism is supposed to be all about observation, but the wiki admits “The shadow object is never seen because it orbits close to the sun” (emphasis added)

As pointed out by Tom before, the evidence for the shadow object is the lunar eclipse. There has to be something blocking the light of the sun, and since it can't be the Earth or any of the planets, there must be something else up there that has never been seen doing it. Ergo, shadow object and evidence for said object.

Is it, though?

If I start with an unsafe assumption, and then do nothing but pile on excuses for why it doesn't look like my assumption was correct, can it really be said that my observations constitute evidence?

For instance, if I were in a windowless room with the door closed and the light off, I might hypothesise that it's night-time. Suppose the door opens and I can see a bright sunny day outside. If I respond to this by saying "My hypothesis requires there to be an elaborate 3D projection system outside my room," can I really claim what I'm observing is evidence of the existence of that projection system?

I never claimed it was good evidence, or a sound conclusion. But all of FE starts with the decision that the Earth is flat. Always remember "The Flat Earth is an obvious truth" and as such all observations are then explained with this in mind. To the FE mind there is no doubt the Earth is flat. Thus explanations must be made for how everything that is observed happen. Shadow object, perspective, planet size, etc. All explanations are created with that 'obvious truth' in mind.

[Scroogie]

Great diagram.

Where are "we" watching the eclipse from? Might be helpful to add a little "you are here" arrow to demonstrate this? I assume the earth is the bottom of the page? If so it demonstrates the sheer lunacy (haha) of the proposition of the SO

I would suggest that our point of view here is immaterial as, whether mankind is observing or whether we are all asleep in bed, neither the geometry nor the relative sizes of the pertinent objects undergoes any change.

[Scroogie]

Since a lunar eclipse occurs during the full moon....yeah that's hard to make work in my head.

That's an interesting point. It tends to suggest a resonance in the motions of the earth, the moon, the sun and the SO, as only when these four bodies are properly aligned, and only then, is it possible for a lunar eclipse to occur. Any thoughts on that matter, anyone?

[Scroogie]

The diagram assumes certain p[r]operties of the sun. If the light from the sun were exiting its surface in a direction that was only outwards from its center, like a point light source, the shadow would be solid.

point light source!?!?!?!? After years of "studying" FE theory that's what you have?!?!?! point light source... ... ... ...

I won't waste our time in asking for any proof to support that supposition. Instead, I'll suggest that you already have in your possession the empirical evidence (which FEers seem to prize and cherish, after all) to refute your own proposition. You have, I'm somewhat certain, actually seen the sun, or at least a photo of it (taken by an FEer). Did it appear as a point source? In my own experience it almost never does. 

[Tom Bishop]

The diagram assumes certain p[r]operties of the sun. If the light from the sun were exiting its surface in a direction that was only outwards from its center, like a point light source, the shadow would be solid.

point light source!?!?!?!? After years of "studying" FE theory that's what you have?!?!?! point light source... ... ... ...

I won't waste our time in asking for any proof to support that supposition. Instead, I'll suggest that you already have in your possession the empirical evidence (which FEers seem to prize and cherish, after all) to refute your own proposition. You have, I'm somewhat certain, actually seen the sun, or at least a photo of it (taken by an FEer). Did it appear as a point source? In my own experience it almost never does. 

Nowhere did I say that the sun was a pointed light source. Pay attention to the details next time.

[JocelynSachs]

The diagram assumes certain p[r]operties of the sun. If the light from the sun were exiting its surface in a direction that was only outwards from its center, like a point light source, the shadow would be solid.

point light source!?!?!?!? After years of "studying" FE theory that's what you have?!?!?! point light source... ... ... ...

I won't waste our time in asking for any proof to support that supposition. Instead, I'll suggest that you already have in your possession the empirical evidence (which FEers seem to prize and cherish, after all) to refute your own proposition. You have, I'm somewhat certain, actually seen the sun, or at least a photo of it (taken by an FEer). Did it appear as a point source? In my own experience it almost never does. 

Nowhere did I say that the sun was a pointed light source. Pay attention to the details next time.

Well, you did suggest that light might be leaving the sun as it would leave a point light-source: only directly outward from the centre. And since we see things based on the light leaving them, that would mean we would SEE something that looked like a point light-source. Yes? A point on the sun's surface towards the edge, as we looked at it, would not be pointing straight at us, and would therefore appear dark to us (well, sky-coloured; dark as in 'not the blinding brightness of the sun'). Only the very centre, as we looked at it, would be aimed in our direction and appear bright. Hence, the appearance of a point light source.

[Scroogie]

I know, but that’s not how zeteticism claims to do things.

“Zeteticism differs from the usual scientific method in that using zeteticism one bases his conclusions on experimentation and observation rather than on an initial theory that is to be proved or disproved. A zetetic forms the question then immediately sets to work making observations and performing experiments to answer that question, rather than speculating on what the answer might be then testing that out.”

“The earth is flat (initial theory), therefore the shadow on the moon comes from something else (speculating on what the answer might be)” is exactly the sort of thought process that zeteticism claims to reject.

Another excellent and cogent point. Only a mind blinded by doggedly clinging to a specific preconceived notion in the face of even the tiniest shred of evidence to the contrary could ever profess that FE theory and zeteticism have anything whatsoever in common.