*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6741
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: flipping moon
« Reply #20 on: March 15, 2018, 05:46:40 PM »
My claim, more specifically, is that you cannot claim to be an empirical researcher and then proceed to refuse to empirically research.

Why not? Are you funding me?

"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

Re: flipping moon
« Reply #21 on: March 15, 2018, 06:50:08 PM »
This topic was previously addressed here:

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=8653.0

To summarize:

The inversion of the Moon's face is not an issue, inversion alone could be consistent with an FE model.

The fact that all observers, regardless of the distance separating them, view essentially the same surface area of the Moon [inversion not with standing]. Essentially all observers appear to be looking at Moon from the SAME angle.

The FE model cannot account for this without a secondary phenomenon, such as light not traveling in a straight line or geometry not working at the distance involved [min. 3000(ish) miles].

Euclid geometry can be proven functional at the FE claimed distance to the Moon [3000(ish) miles] via observation of a Solar Eclipse. That is; Distant observer's view the Eclipse at DIFFERENT angles, proportional to the distance from the path of totality (Zenith of the Eclipse).

It should also be noted that the FE model utilized Euclid geometry to determine the Sun was 3000(ish) miles away. Meaning if geometry is broken at 3000 miles, then the FE stated distance to the Sun was calculate based on broken geometry as well, and is thus also inaccurate. [The FE altitude to the Sun appears to be the basis for FE altitude of the Moon]

[I think this was discussed in a different thread possibly about stars]:

The direction light would have to refract for distant observer's to view [the same face of the Moon] would require a concave lens. There is no evidence to support a concave atmosphere.

Again, the FE calculation of the altitude of the Sun was also based on light traveling in a straight line. Calculating the distance to the Sun without consideration for this variable could produce a considerably inaccurate result.

The logical conclusion, being that Euclid geometry can be proven functional at significant distances and no evidence supports a concave atmosphere, is that the Moon is significantly farther away from the Earth than 3000(ish) miles.

Offline Scroogie

  • *
  • Posts: 120
    • View Profile
Re: flipping moon
« Reply #22 on: March 15, 2018, 07:22:14 PM »
This topic was previously addressed here:

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=8653.0

To summarize:

The inversion of the Moon's face is not an issue, inversion alone could be consistent with an FE model.

The fact [is] that all observers, regardless of the distance separating them, view essentially the same surface area of the Moon [inversion notwithstanding]. Essentially all observers appear to be looking at Moon from the SAME angle.

The FE model cannot account for this without a secondary phenomenon, such as light not traveling in a straight line or geometry not working at the distance involved [min. 3000(ish) miles].

Euclid geometry can be proven functional at the FE claimed distance to the Moon [3000(ish) miles] via observation of a Solar Eclipse. That is; Distant observer's view the Eclipse at DIFFERENT angles, proportional to the distance from the path of totality (Zenith of the Eclipse).

It should also be noted that the FE model utilized Euclid geometry to determine the Sun was 3000(ish) miles away. Meaning if geometry is broken at 3000 miles, then the FE stated distance to the Sun was calculate based on broken geometry as well, and is thus also inaccurate. [The FE altitude to the Sun appears to be the basis for FE altitude of the Moon]

[I think this was discussed in a different thread possibly about stars]:

The direction light would have to refract for distant observer's to view [the same face of the Moon] would require a concave lens. There is no evidence to support a concave atmosphere.

Again, the FE calculation of the altitude of the Sun was also based on light traveling in a straight line. Calculating the distance to the Sun without consideration for this variable could produce a considerably inaccurate result.

The logical conclusion, being that Euclid geometry can be proven functional at significant distances and no evidence supports a concave atmosphere, is that the Moon is significantly farther away from the Earth than 3000(ish) miles.

I agree with all of the above EXCEPT: The inversion of the Moon's face is not an issue, inversion alone could be consistent with an FE model.

Inversion CANNOT BE and IS NOT consistent with an FE model. An observer on a planar surface will never experience an inversion of the moon as the observer never experiences a change in orientation anywhere on that surface.

BTW, I notice that Tom has managed to blithely ignore the more important aspect revealed by myself earlier: that the full moon CANNOT BE SEEN in New Zealand on a flat earth. A deal breaker as glaring and obvious as this needs to be dealt with by the FE community, for, as it stands, it appears to be fatal to the theory.





Offline Frocious

  • *
  • Posts: 188
    • View Profile
Re: flipping moon
« Reply #23 on: March 15, 2018, 07:47:20 PM »
This topic was previously addressed here:

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=8653.0

To summarize:

The inversion of the Moon's face is not an issue, inversion alone could be consistent with an FE model.

The fact [is] that all observers, regardless of the distance separating them, view essentially the same surface area of the Moon [inversion notwithstanding]. Essentially all observers appear to be looking at Moon from the SAME angle.

The FE model cannot account for this without a secondary phenomenon, such as light not traveling in a straight line or geometry not working at the distance involved [min. 3000(ish) miles].

Euclid geometry can be proven functional at the FE claimed distance to the Moon [3000(ish) miles] via observation of a Solar Eclipse. That is; Distant observer's view the Eclipse at DIFFERENT angles, proportional to the distance from the path of totality (Zenith of the Eclipse).

It should also be noted that the FE model utilized Euclid geometry to determine the Sun was 3000(ish) miles away. Meaning if geometry is broken at 3000 miles, then the FE stated distance to the Sun was calculate based on broken geometry as well, and is thus also inaccurate. [The FE altitude to the Sun appears to be the basis for FE altitude of the Moon]

[I think this was discussed in a different thread possibly about stars]:

The direction light would have to refract for distant observer's to view [the same face of the Moon] would require a concave lens. There is no evidence to support a concave atmosphere.

Again, the FE calculation of the altitude of the Sun was also based on light traveling in a straight line. Calculating the distance to the Sun without consideration for this variable could produce a considerably inaccurate result.

The logical conclusion, being that Euclid geometry can be proven functional at significant distances and no evidence supports a concave atmosphere, is that the Moon is significantly farther away from the Earth than 3000(ish) miles.

I agree with all of the above EXCEPT: The inversion of the Moon's face is not an issue, inversion alone could be consistent with an FE model.

Inversion CANNOT BE and IS NOT consistent with an FE model. An observer on a planar surface will never experience an inversion of the moon as the observer never experiences a change in orientation anywhere on that surface.

BTW, I notice that Tom has managed to blithely ignore the more important aspect revealed by myself earlier: that the full moon CANNOT BE SEEN in New Zealand on a flat earth. A deal breaker as glaring and obvious as this needs to be dealt with by the FE community, for, as it stands, it appears to be fatal to the theory.

He won't go to New Zealand to see it for himself, therefore it doesn't exist.

Re: flipping moon
« Reply #24 on: March 15, 2018, 08:56:59 PM »

I agree with all of the above EXCEPT: The inversion of the Moon's face is not an issue, inversion alone could be consistent with an FE model.

Inversion CANNOT BE and IS NOT consistent with an FE model. An observer on a planar surface will never experience an inversion of the moon as the observer never experiences a change in orientation anywhere on that surface.

Looks like it could be consistent to me (I didn't say it wasn't stretching it though):


Offline Scroogie

  • *
  • Posts: 120
    • View Profile
Re: flipping moon
« Reply #25 on: March 16, 2018, 01:47:50 AM »
You're flipping it side to side, or horizontally, not vertically.
This is no different from the horizontal green arrow ploy Tom tried at the outset.

Nice try, though.
« Last Edit: March 16, 2018, 01:55:01 AM by Scroogie »

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1828
    • View Profile
Re: flipping moon
« Reply #26 on: March 16, 2018, 07:39:51 AM »
You're flipping it side to side, or horizontally, not vertically.
This is no different from the horizontal green arrow ploy Tom tried at the outset.

Nice try, though.

Rotate it 90 degrees clockwise to place his 'equator' horizontally (it's there on the diagram already), and it works fine. Or, how about this?

« Last Edit: March 16, 2018, 08:16:09 AM by Tumeni »
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

Re: flipping moon
« Reply #27 on: March 16, 2018, 06:50:01 PM »
You're flipping it side to side, or horizontally, not vertically.
This is no different from the horizontal green arrow ploy Tom tried at the outset.

Nice try, though.
Rotate it 90 degrees clockwise to place his 'equator' horizontally (it's there on the diagram already), and it works fine. Or, how about this?

Thank you, I was scratching my head how this wasn't clear, but clearly I should have drawn this with the Moon to the side instead of overhead. I did not realize spatial relationships was going to be an issue.

The basic mechanism that causes the inversion is no different on a flat plane than it is on a curved one.
Here it is with both a Round (in orange) and flat (in purple) Earth superimposed over each other.



The only thing a putting a hill (a part of a round Earth) between the two observers changes is that the orange chicks don't have to tilt their heads back as far.

A practical demonstration utilizing a playing card taped to the ceiling (it was not moved between images):

As viewed from the Northern portion of the room facing South:

White diamond appears at the TOP of the image.

As viewed the Southern portion of the room facing North:

White diamond appears at the BOTTOM of the image.

...That sure looks inverted to me...

I stand by my assertion, as demonstrated both diagrammatically and by practical demonstration (observations of card taped to a ceiling over a flat floor). The inversion of the Moon's face is not an issue, inversion alone [that means excluding the other factors that make a small Moon 3000 miles overhead an unfeasible proposition] could be consistent with an FE model.

Offline Scroogie

  • *
  • Posts: 120
    • View Profile
Re: flipping moon
« Reply #28 on: March 16, 2018, 09:06:39 PM »
Now you've created an artificial "up" with the vertical horizon. It's called a "horizon" because it's horizontal. Changing the manner it which it is presented on the page doesn't fix that.

Howerer, putting the "hill" between the observers does change the picture substantially, so that you now have two entirely different situations. In the FE situation the observer always has the same orientation with respect to the "top" and the "bottom" of the moon. The RE observer doesn't. Which is my point. Thank you for presenting it graphically.

It would have made an even clearer demonstration if you had used a smaller radius for the earth, allowing even more curvature in the diagram. That would get us even closer to a "Norway" versus "New Zealand" representation, which is where this all began.

With regard to the "doodad taped to the ceiling" demonstration, please think a bit more about that demonstration. I'm hoping that eventually the light bulb will go on and you'll be able to see that it is another repeat of Tom's argument. Maybe do a thought experiment with the card suspended vertically in the air, then you move across a planar surface to any place you choose, then report back on the orientation of the card that you perceive with respect to "top" and "bottom".
« Last Edit: March 16, 2018, 10:51:08 PM by Scroogie »

Offline Scroogie

  • *
  • Posts: 120
    • View Profile
Re: flipping moon
« Reply #29 on: March 16, 2018, 09:32:30 PM »
You're flipping it side to side, or horizontally, not vertically.
This is no different from the horizontal green arrow ploy Tom tried at the outset.

Nice try, though.

Rotate it 90 degrees clockwise to place his 'equator' horizontally (it's there on the diagram already), and it works fine. Or, how about this?



Well, the pic is perfect, no need to look at the video - (which I didn't). This is all the rebuttal anyone should need.

Re: flipping moon
« Reply #30 on: March 19, 2018, 08:19:58 PM »
Now you've created an artificial "up" with the vertical horizon. It's called a "horizon" because it's horizontal. Changing the manner it which it is presented on the page doesn't fix that.

Howerer, putting the "hill" between the observers does change the picture substantially, so that you now have two entirely different situations. In the FE situation the observer always has the same orientation with respect to the "top" and the "bottom" of the moon. The RE observer doesn't. Which is my point. Thank you for presenting it graphically.

It would have made an even clearer demonstration if you had used a smaller radius for the earth, allowing even more curvature in the diagram. That would get us even closer to a "Norway" versus "New Zealand" representation, which is where this all began.

With regard to the "doodad taped to the ceiling" demonstration, please think a bit more about that demonstration. I'm hoping that eventually the light bulb will go on and you'll be able to see that it is another repeat of Tom's argument. Maybe do a thought experiment with the card suspended vertically in the air, then you move across a planar surface to any place you choose, then report back on the orientation of the card that you perceive with respect to "top" and "bottom".

I’m not the one having trouble getting the light bulb screwed in.

Look at the Moon, notice the lack of depth perception, it looks like flat disc, because that’s what a sphere looks like from a fair distance away, it has a front that we see and a back that we don’t.

As to your suggestion of taping the card on edge. This would expose the thinnest face of the card, one that has no identifiable features as the face of the Moon. Also, because it’s so thin, it would also be exposing two different faces (the picture on one and the numbers on the other).

Are people in the South looking at a different side of the Moon? No… Do you know why? Because once side of the Moon always faces away from the surface of the Earth, and the other side always faces towards it. Taping the card on edge would not match any model, FE or RE, so it’s pointless to do it that way.

Again, I failed to realize that difficulty of 3 dimensional spatial relationships was going to be an issue. I’ll redo the observation and pics using a color coded sphere as soon as I get the chance.

So, tell me, is there difference standing to look at the Moon compared to leaning back in a chair to look at it? No?
Like if, lying on back and suddenly jump up to my feet, is this Moon going to flip over? No?
How about if I was lying on my stomach? No?
The position of the observer’s body is irrelevant. The only difference, is the angle the observer has to look up at, that is how far they have to tilt their heads back.

As for the diagram, redone as requested, using Kristiansand, Norway located at 58 degrees N and Campbell Island, New Zealand at 52 degrees S, as reference points and placing the observers at those approximate Latitudes, while extending the visible curvature of the RE to both the N and S pole. The FE model, including lawn chairs, is super imposed in orange.



So, apparently, Flat Earth people are smarter, instead of standing there craning their necks to gaze up at the stars, they recline comfortably in lawn furniture (while possibly sipping on Mai Tais).
« Last Edit: March 20, 2018, 04:49:26 PM by 6or1/2Dozen »

Offline Scroogie

  • *
  • Posts: 120
    • View Profile
Re: flipping moon
« Reply #31 on: March 21, 2018, 01:26:38 AM »
Now you've got it. That is a correct representation of the real world. Now I have no idea what you were trying to demonstrate with the two dimensional stuff.

Looking back, though, I see that your initial statement was "The inversion of the Moon's face is not an issue, inversion alone could be consistent with an FE model".

So let's try that thought experiment, but change the target, which should eliminate any confusion:

Take a long, thin strip of paper and, instead of Tom's arrow, write the word ARROW on it several times, enough to fill the strip from end to end. Now tape the ends of the strip together, with the words ARROW facing out, forming a stubby cylinder. Hang your cylinder from an imaginary skyhook, then travel to various points on a planar surface below the cylinder. When looking at the cylinder from any point on the planar surface you will find that the words ARROW will always be upright, never upside down.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2018, 01:45:03 AM by Scroogie »

Re: flipping moon
« Reply #32 on: March 22, 2018, 06:24:21 PM »
Now you've got it. That is a correct representation of the real world. Now I have no idea what you were trying to demonstrate with the two dimensional stuff.

Looking back, though, I see that your initial statement was "The inversion of the Moon's face is not an issue, inversion alone could be consistent with an FE model".

So let's try that thought experiment, but change the target, which should eliminate any confusion:

Take a long, thin strip of paper and, instead of Tom's arrow, write the word ARROW on it several times, enough to fill the strip from end to end. Now tape the ends of the strip together, with the words ARROW facing out, forming a stubby cylinder. Hang your cylinder from an imaginary skyhook, then travel to various points on a planar surface below the cylinder. When looking at the cylinder from any point on the planar surface you will find that the words ARROW will always be upright, never upside down.

Everything I've drawn, including the last graphic has been 2-dimensional. The last one is basically the exact same thing image I made on 3/16/2018, with the exception of placing the observers further apart so you could see more of the RE surface. I have no idea what you mean by 'the two dimensional stuff', are you referencing the fact that I was only drawing the 1/2 of the Moon? Can you explain why I would take the time to draw the half we can't see?

Do you not understand that standing on the top of the RE model is equivocal to laying down on the FE model, or did you choose to ignore those points [a common FE debater tactic] because you realize they are correct assertions and body position is not a factor?

Do you not understand what side of the Moon we are actually looking at? Look at the drawing again, notice how whatever the RE observer sees, the FE observer will see the same exact thing.

I understand how you asking for the arrow cylinder to mounted, basically with the works facing up. Here it is:

You cylinder, constructed mostly as requested, as viewed 4 times with 1/4 rotation depicting the surfaces of the Moon as you envision them. I added a bottom and aligned it to your front and back side. My version Top & Bottom are also noted.



I set this up an a white board showing RE in green with observers at N and S pole. FE is in black with observers a roughly equivalent distance from the equator. The cylinder is mounted with the arrows and words facing up.



I couldn't set it up sideways as my camera flips when it turned upside down but turning the entire setup 90 degrees is equivocal too. [Edit - wrong pic]



Same either way...

I setup my camera with a representative of the observer:



And gave him a tilty head by taping his face to the screen:



I then took a series of four pictures, with the observer camera positioned with the stick-man feet on the appropriate surface and the lens pointed up toward the cylinder:

1.)

2.)

3.)

4.)

I know what order I took these in. Maybe you'd like to take a guess. Since you are the one who thinks thinks this would work differently on FE vs RE, I'm SURE that you could EASILY tell the difference between the FE and RE pics.

I'm calling the debate, let's have a vote:

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9289.0

Have a nice day!
« Last Edit: March 23, 2018, 03:52:07 PM by 6or1/2Dozen »

Offline Talala

  • *
  • Posts: 10
    • View Profile
Re: flipping moon
« Reply #33 on: March 23, 2018, 01:21:32 PM »
I have to be honest... if that is not a deliberate missinterpretation then i dont know what is....

Re: flipping moon
« Reply #34 on: March 23, 2018, 03:44:51 PM »
I have to be honest... if that is not a deliberate missinterpretation then i dont know what is....

You are going to have to be a little more specific. What did I misinterpret?

The cylinder construction?
The hand-drawn version of the diagram?
The stick-man representation of the observer?
The approximate scale?

The cylinder matches his description. It has the word 'ARROW'. I was poking fun at him by labeling the side front and back because that's what it appears he thinks we're all looking at, but the words are all upright. I also put a bottom on it, because I know that the Moon is far enough away that we are all actually looking at the bottom of it (side facing Earth).

The hand- drawn version is slightly different, but still a fair representation of the 3/19/2018 drawing, which we agreed (despite being the same thing I had been drawing, just rotated 90 degrees):
Now you've got it. That is a correct representation of the real world.
The cylinder appears to be an additional Earth radius or so further away. 2 vs. 3 isn't a big difference and certainly not deliberate.

I think stick-man camera was a good representation of how most people can tilt their head back to look up at the sky.

The scale isn't a problem. The topic is whether the Moon image can flip (invert) if it were being viewed from a flat plane. When the stick man is positioned as if observing from a round surface, that's called the control group BTW, the model captures the expected result, validating the of the model is suitable for our purposes. If the control didn't capture the expected result, then we could say there was a problem with the setup.

If you don't think I'm being honest about the stick-man camera position between the 4 result pictures, which you can tell are 4 unique images by the parallax between the cylinder and the ceiling tile joint, then do the observation yourself. Just be sure your camera phone doesn't auto flip the images when it's turned upside down. [Mine did and I couldn't figure out how to shut that off, which is why I had to rotate the whole setup 90 degrees].
« Last Edit: March 23, 2018, 04:06:26 PM by 6or1/2Dozen »

Offline Talala

  • *
  • Posts: 10
    • View Profile
Re: flipping moon
« Reply #35 on: March 23, 2018, 04:41:31 PM »
I lost hope and interest in pointless arguing as soon as you said you dont understand how your approach was 2D. I came to this forum to actually find out whats the big deal, i thought theres a reason why a lot of people claim to believe in flat earth. What i found was dissapointing. My opinion should not influence anyone in here, but funny how there is no unified flat earth model yet FET are argueing about aspects of it.....  agree on one actual model instead of talking about everything out of context. Even if the moon flipping or sunshine questions would " prove that the earth is flat", it would raise 2 million new questions whick could simply not be explained

I do not need geometry or complex maths to dismiss this delusional thinking.
1. FET claims there is no gravity - how is the moon and the sun floating under " the dome" if they are not attached to the dome or the flat earth surface and the whole earth plane is actually moving upwards throught the universe or the void or whatever its supposed to be called
2. Dome is inpenetrable, hence satelites even if they exist they are either baloons or anything but not an object free falling or orbiting the earth ( basically they cant leave ) - explain meteorite craters, explain videos of meteorites coming to earth, exploding mid air, explain meteorites that are found. ( not all footage is from Nasa ) They should not penetrate the dome so are they fake or are they coming from below the dome?
3. If you "could"  detect so called planets Mercury and Venus passing between us ( observer) and the Sun - would that not completely destroy whatever unagreeable flat earth model/models in existance?

I dont need qoutes, no need  source material, dont even need math - just common sense please. I do not want to offend or argue and i am sorry if i will come off as a deuche. I just need answers considering the fact that earth is flat for you and your colleagues. So please:
1.No gravity - how does sun and the moon orbit or float above north pole, under the dome or whatever you want to call it
2. Cannot leave the dome - how does meteors come in and leave craters?
3. Mercury and Venus in front of the sun / between earth and the sun ?


Indulge me please

Thank you

Re: flipping moon
« Reply #36 on: March 23, 2018, 07:54:30 PM »
I lost hope and interest in pointless arguing as soon as you said you dont understand how your approach was 2D. I came to this forum to actually find out whats the big deal, i thought theres a reason why a lot of people claim to believe in flat earth. What i found was dissapointing. My opinion should not influence anyone in here, but funny how there is no unified flat earth model yet FET are argueing about aspects of it.....  agree on one actual model instead of talking about everything out of context. Even if the moon flipping or sunshine questions would " prove that the earth is flat", it would raise 2 million new questions whick could simply not be explained

I do not need geometry or complex maths to dismiss this delusional thinking.
1. FET claims there is no gravity - how is the moon and the sun floating under " the dome" if they are not attached to the dome or the flat earth surface and the whole earth plane is actually moving upwards throught the universe or the void or whatever its supposed to be called
2. Dome is inpenetrable, hence satelites even if they exist they are either baloons or anything but not an object free falling or orbiting the earth ( basically they cant leave ) - explain meteorite craters, explain videos of meteorites coming to earth, exploding mid air, explain meteorites that are found. ( not all footage is from Nasa ) They should not penetrate the dome so are they fake or are they coming from below the dome?
3. If you "could"  detect so called planets Mercury and Venus passing between us ( observer) and the Sun - would that not completely destroy whatever unagreeable flat earth model/models in existance?

I dont need qoutes, no need  source material, dont even need math - just common sense please. I do not want to offend or argue and i am sorry if i will come off as a deuche. I just need answers considering the fact that earth is flat for you and your colleagues. So please:
1.No gravity - how does sun and the moon orbit or float above north pole, under the dome or whatever you want to call it
2. Cannot leave the dome - how does meteors come in and leave craters?
3. Mercury and Venus in front of the sun / between earth and the sun ?


Indulge me please

Thank you

You are off-topic. Please review the topic of THIS thread. We are talking about the fact that the Moon appears, when viewed from the Southern Hemisphere, to be inverted from what is viewed from the Northern Hemisphere.

I stated on 3/15/2018:

This topic was previously addressed here:

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=8653.0

To summarize:

The inversion of the Moon's face is not an issue, inversion alone could be consistent with an FE model.

The fact that all observers, regardless of the distance separating them, view essentially the same surface area of the Moon [inversion not with standing]. Essentially all observers appear to be looking at Moon from the SAME angle.

The FE model cannot account for this without a secondary phenomenon, such as light not traveling in a straight line or geometry not working at the distance involved [min. 3000(ish) miles].

Euclid geometry can be proven functional at the FE claimed distance to the Moon [3000(ish) miles] via observation of a Solar Eclipse. That is; Distant observer's view the Eclipse at DIFFERENT angles, proportional to the distance from the path of totality (Zenith of the Eclipse).

(...)

The logical conclusion, being that Euclid geometry can be proven functional at significant distances and no evidence supports a concave atmosphere, is that the Moon is significantly farther away from the Earth than 3000(ish) miles.

To which Scroogie replied:

I agree with all of the above EXCEPT: The inversion of the Moon's face is not an issue, inversion alone could be consistent with an FE model.

Inversion CANNOT BE and IS NOT consistent with an FE model. An observer on a planar surface will never experience an inversion of the moon as the observer never experiences a change in orientation anywhere on that surface.

(...)

This debate thread is only about the Moon inverting when viewed from opposite sides of an equator, which it could do (which I think I've conclusively proven) regardless of the shape of the surface it is being viewed from.

As to your remaining questions...

1. I'm the one who understands a drawing is 2 dimensional, Scroogie was the one who said "I have no idea what you were trying to demonstrate with the two dimensional stuff.", immediately after I drew what was essentially the same 2D picture that I had been drawing. I think he may have been complaining about the use of an essentially 2 dimensional playing card to represent the Moon, not realizing that we don't really need a 3D object to represent it. Not really sure though, you should ask him about it.

2. In case you missed it, I'm not debating that the Earth is flat, only that the image Moon of the could invert when viewed from a flat plane, in the same fashion that it does when viewed from a curved plane. Just because it could flip when viewed from a flat plane does mean I think we are standing on a flat plane. This effect could be a 6 or 1/2 dozen between RE and FE.

3. Even if I did think the Earth was flat, I wouldn't address your additional questions in THIS thread because:
    a. They are off topic
    b. Answered in the FE wiki (which is courteous to search before starting a topic)

4. Just as an FYI, the general FE consensus seems to be an un-domed model.
« Last Edit: March 23, 2018, 08:50:13 PM by 6or1/2Dozen »

Offline Talala

  • *
  • Posts: 10
    • View Profile
Re: flipping moon
« Reply #37 on: March 23, 2018, 08:31:14 PM »
Basically none of my questions were answered. Thank you i will try to create a thread

Offline stanlee

  • *
  • Posts: 43
    • View Profile
Re: flipping moon
« Reply #38 on: March 24, 2018, 12:31:52 PM »
are we allowed to google images to determine the angular displacement (flip angle) between various parts of the earth?
or do we have to go get the photos ourselves?
i dont know the rules here.

Re: flipping moon
« Reply #39 on: March 24, 2018, 02:39:37 PM »
are we allowed to google images to determine the angular displacement (flip angle) between various parts of the earth?
or do we have to go get the photos ourselves?
i dont know the rules here.

It doesn't matter, either way someone else can always challenge the authenticity of the image. (call it "FAKE").

Keep in mind the Moon will also rotate due to E/W displacement of the observers. Up to this point we assumed observers on the same meridian.

« Last Edit: March 24, 2018, 03:00:21 PM by 6or1/2Dozen »