Theories Relating to Lunar and Solar Luminosity

  • 87 Replies
  • 14268 Views
Theories Relating to Lunar and Solar Luminosity
« on: April 15, 2011, 04:31:59 AM »
Greetings Flat Earthers,

I'm an old (casual) member who just discovered the FES' recent website remodelling, and was delighted to come back and join up once again.

Anyway, I wanted to come here to discuss some ideas I've been considering for a rather long time regarding the reasons behind the various celestial body's luminosity. Anyone who's ever truly looked at the sun and the moon will tell you that they're roughly the same size-- and, quite obviously, flat. This congruency leads me to postulate that they are not only similar, they are twin entities-- at different stages of existance. The sun, for instance, still glows hotly, while the moon's radiance is considerably weaker.

Now, for my argument I'm going to use the asumption that the light emitted by these entities is due to bioluminesent lunar and solar crustaceans or bacteria (which is, to be honest, the only logical conclusion-- the proof can be found in nature today. What, for instance, looks more alien, more obviously from outer space, than a prawn? How else can you explain the obvious interrelation between crustacean spawning and the full moon? And, finally, why would such creatures need rigid exoskeletons unless they've had to exist in zero gravity-- furthermore, such structures could possibly help them survive entering our atmosphere!). Given the facts at our disposal, we can surmise (or rather, hypothesize-- we must remain, after all, firm men of science) that the sun and the moon are not in fact bodies in and of themselves, but rather isolated pockets of stellar life-- solid masses of bioluminescent organisms, perhaps threaded through with predators. This explains the literally blinding radiance of the sun-- the sheer quantity of glowing organic matter boggles the mind. Surely it can only be made of these lunar shrimps-- any solid mass beneath would show as a silhouette.

The moon, on the other hand, is, I believe, an extinct colony. The faint, wan light we see is, in my opinion, the faintly glowing corpses of a dead shrimp empire, a bounteous culture now dead. And, perhaps, rather than THEM migrating over the surface of the moon, it is instead a separate kind of organism, one which is unable to glow (perhaps the organism that killed the shrimps in the first place) traversing the corpses of the stellar crustaceans and blotting out the pallid light.

Or-- perhaps more interestingly-- it is possible that the shrimps are indeed still migrating... despite being dead. Indeed, undead shrimps traversing the surface of the moon is not so outlandish a notion as it sounds-- "terrestrial" crustaceans are able to flip around for some time after dying.

These are my theories-- I believe you will agree that they're all quite plausible.

*

hoppy

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 11803
Re: Theories Relating to Lunar and Solar Luminosity
« Reply #1 on: April 15, 2011, 09:59:51 AM »
Greetings,
  We welcome you back. You are obviously a brilliant scientist with distinquished ideas and knowledge. I am glad that you have not been corrupted into false beliefs about the size and shape of the large celestial bodies in the heavens.
 
   There has been much debate recently on here about the moonshrimp & solarshrimp. Perhaps I am not as smart as you are. I don't understand any of the evidence of these shrimp. I don't think they exist and am confused by this CRAZY subject.
   Let me just say again that I can tell that you are a brilliant person, with much to offer. Welcome back to TFES.
God is real.                                         
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9665708/Flat-Earth-Bible-02-of-10-The-Flat-Earth

?

Around And About

  • 2615
  • Circular Logic Falls Flat
Re: Theories Relating to Lunar and Solar Luminosity
« Reply #2 on: April 15, 2011, 10:50:03 AM »
I just wanted to say that I do genuinely think it's a remarkable coincidence that the sun and the moon appear to be approximately the same apparent size despite vast differences in actual size and distance (i.e. ratio of sizes equivalent to ratio of distances).

FET has a much simpler if decidedly less robust explanation for this, of course.
I'm not black nor a thug, I'm more like god who will bring 7 plagues of flat earth upon your ass.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42530
Re: Theories Relating to Lunar and Solar Luminosity
« Reply #3 on: April 15, 2011, 12:18:29 PM »
I just wanted to say that I do genuinely think it's a remarkable coincidence that the sun and the moon appear to be approximately the same apparent size despite vast differences in actual size and distance (i.e. ratio of sizes equivalent to ratio of distances).

FET has a much simpler if decidedly less robust explanation for this, of course.

That the sun and moon are indeed about the same size and distance from the earth?  I hardly see how this is any better an explanation than the RET explanation, especially when one considers than the moon must be smaller and closer than the sun as can be observed during a solar eclipse.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

Around And About

  • 2615
  • Circular Logic Falls Flat
Re: Theories Relating to Lunar and Solar Luminosity
« Reply #4 on: April 15, 2011, 01:11:04 PM »
I just wanted to say that I do genuinely think it's a remarkable coincidence that the sun and the moon appear to be approximately the same apparent size despite vast differences in actual size and distance (i.e. ratio of sizes equivalent to ratio of distances).

FET has a much simpler if decidedly less robust explanation for this, of course.

That the sun and moon are indeed about the same size and distance from the earth?  I hardly see how this is any better an explanation than the RET explanation, especially when one considers than the moon must be smaller and closer than the sun as can be observed during a solar eclipse.

*sigh*

I did not say FET offered a better explanation, just a simpler and less robust one. My only point is that the coincidence is a striking one, but I don't have a problem with it.
I'm not black nor a thug, I'm more like god who will bring 7 plagues of flat earth upon your ass.

?

fluffycornsnake

  • Official Member
  • 1307
Re: Theories Relating to Lunar and Solar Luminosity
« Reply #5 on: April 15, 2011, 01:15:43 PM »
I just wanted to say that I do genuinely think it's a remarkable coincidence that the sun and the moon appear to be approximately the same apparent size despite vast differences in actual size and distance (i.e. ratio of sizes equivalent to ratio of distances).

FET has a much simpler if decidedly less robust explanation for this, of course.

That the sun and moon are indeed about the same size and distance from the earth?  I hardly see how this is any better an explanation than the RET explanation, especially when one considers than the moon must be smaller and closer than the sun as can be observed during a solar eclipse.

*sigh*

I did not say FET offered a better explanation, just a simpler and less robust one. My only point is that the coincidence is a striking one, but I don't have a problem with it.

Why don't you have a problem with such an absurd coincidence?

?

Around And About

  • 2615
  • Circular Logic Falls Flat
Re: Theories Relating to Lunar and Solar Luminosity
« Reply #6 on: April 15, 2011, 03:21:52 PM »
Why don't you have a problem with such an absurd coincidence?

I dunno lol ¯\(°_o)/¯
I'm not black nor a thug, I'm more like god who will bring 7 plagues of flat earth upon your ass.

?

fluffycornsnake

  • Official Member
  • 1307
Re: Theories Relating to Lunar and Solar Luminosity
« Reply #7 on: April 15, 2011, 03:52:49 PM »
Why don't you have a problem with such an absurd coincidence?

I dunno lol ¯\(°_o)/¯

But you have literally presented a compelling argument for FET, without any encouragement from us. How are we ever to convince you if you won't even listen to your own better judgement!? ???

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42530
Re: Theories Relating to Lunar and Solar Luminosity
« Reply #8 on: April 15, 2011, 04:02:21 PM »
Why don't you have a problem with such an absurd coincidence?

Are you suggesting that the coincidence is any less absurd in FET?  ???
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

fluffycornsnake

  • Official Member
  • 1307
Re: Theories Relating to Lunar and Solar Luminosity
« Reply #9 on: April 15, 2011, 04:04:53 PM »
Why don't you have a problem with such an absurd coincidence?

Are you suggesting that the coincidence is any less absurd in FET?  ???

Yes, brother markjo, that is exactly my suggestion.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42530
Re: Theories Relating to Lunar and Solar Luminosity
« Reply #10 on: April 15, 2011, 04:08:46 PM »
Why don't you have a problem with such an absurd coincidence?

Are you suggesting that the coincidence is any less absurd in FET?  ???

Yes, brother markjo, that is exactly my suggestion.

Then please explain why the sun and moon being the same size in FET is not an absurd coincidence.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

Around And About

  • 2615
  • Circular Logic Falls Flat
Re: Theories Relating to Lunar and Solar Luminosity
« Reply #11 on: April 15, 2011, 05:03:17 PM »
Why don't you have a problem with such an absurd coincidence?

I dunno lol ¯\(°_o)/¯

But you have literally presented a compelling argument for FET, without any encouragement from us. How are we ever to convince you if you won't even listen to your own better judgement!? ???

I guess you can't, I'm sorry.  :-\


But, as Markjo points out, it's fairly coincidental either way. The only two major celestial bodies in the earth's sky just happen to be the same apparent size? Well, in a word, yes. I'm not attributing this to some grand design; I simply think that it's what I called it: coincidence.
I'm not black nor a thug, I'm more like god who will bring 7 plagues of flat earth upon your ass.

?

fluffycornsnake

  • Official Member
  • 1307
Re: Theories Relating to Lunar and Solar Luminosity
« Reply #12 on: April 15, 2011, 05:33:59 PM »
I have expressed this truth by means of a Socratic dialogue.

fluffy: It is the case that the sun and moon appear the same size, is it not?
markjo: Certainly, brother fluffy.
fluffy: And we know that they occupy the same height above the flat Earth?
markjo: Indeed we do.
fluffy: Then it follows that the sun and the moon are indeed the same size.
markjo: Most assuredly.
fluffy: But we have yet to establish the reason for the movements of these celestial bodies.
markjo: Alas, it grieves me that it is so.
fluffy: And of course, just as we have yet to explain their movements, likewise we have yet to explain their height.
markjo: Yes, it is as you say.
fluffy: And likewise again, we have yet to explain their similar size.
markjo: Brother fluffy, your words are like nectar to my soul, but I do not understand the point you are making.
fluffy: I must beg a little more of your patience, dear brother markjo. My argument will become clear.
markjo: Please continue, brother fluffy.
fluffy: Then it seems to me indubitably clear that the similar size of these celestial bodies is no coincidence at all.
markjo: Please explain.
fluffy: We have ascertained three, as yet unexplained, phenomena--all of which concern the same bodies, have we not?
markjo: We have indeed.
fluffy: And two of these appear to us as strange coincidences.
markjo: If you are referring to the height and size of the bodies, yes of course.
fluffy: Indeed. And is it not sometimes the case that a coincidence to our minds can turn out to be no coincidence at all, once we are in command of all the facts?
markjo: Yes, this is sometimes the case.
fluffy: Then is it not plausible--indeed, probable--that these unexplained phenomena are related? Could it not be that once we command all of the relevant facts, the coincidence will disappear?
markjo: How could this be so?
fluffy: Could there not be one overarching theory to explain the bodies' movements, height and size? Is this not probable?
markjo: It is conceivable, but my learned friend, what makes you think it is probable?
fluffy: Given Occam's razor, is it not far more likely than the crass, lazy suggestion that the height and size of the bodies are unconnected coincidences?
markjo: Now that I ponder it, I am overwhelmed with agreement.
fluffy: So it is then. We have discovered an explanatory dead end in the myth of the round Earth. Those myth-makers must simply entrust their hopes to absurd coincidence. But the truth of the flat Earth is saved from this unsightly weirdness owing to an overreaching theory which will serve to explain the size, height and movements of our two most prominent celestial bodies.
markjo: Brother fluffy, you are indeed the wisest sage in all of the flat lands. May a thousand angels soothe your soul with the sweet music of a thousand harps. May your enemies fall dead at the sound of your great voice. May a thousand wives bear for you a thousand children. And may your name echo for a thousand eternities throughout a thousand infinities.

?

Around And About

  • 2615
  • Circular Logic Falls Flat
Re: Theories Relating to Lunar and Solar Luminosity
« Reply #13 on: April 15, 2011, 05:58:51 PM »
That was an immensely entertaining dialogue, but I was saddened to observe that I played no part in it. It's not like I brought it up or anything. But that's...that's fine, I'll...just..go lurk somewhere.  :'(

I'm not black nor a thug, I'm more like god who will bring 7 plagues of flat earth upon your ass.

*

hoppy

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 11803
Re: Theories Relating to Lunar and Solar Luminosity
« Reply #14 on: April 15, 2011, 06:07:36 PM »
I have expressed this truth by means of a Socratic dialogue.

fluffy: It is the case that the sun and moon appear the same size, is it not?
markjo: Certainly, brother fluffy.
fluffy: And we know that they occupy the same height above the flat Earth?
markjo: Indeed we do.
fluffy: Then it follows that the sun and the moon are indeed the same size.
markjo: Most assuredly.
fluffy: But we have yet to establish the reason for the movements of these celestial bodies.
markjo: Alas, it grieves me that it is so.
fluffy: And of course, just as we have yet to explain their movements, likewise we have yet to explain their height.
markjo: Yes, it is as you say.
fluffy: And likewise again, we have yet to explain their similar size.
markjo: Brother fluffy, your words are like nectar to my soul, but I do not understand the point you are making.
fluffy: I must beg a little more of your patience, dear brother markjo. My argument will become clear.
markjo: Please continue, brother fluffy.
fluffy: Then it seems to me indubitably clear that the similar size of these celestial bodies is no coincidence at all.
markjo: Please explain.
fluffy: We have ascertained three, as yet unexplained, phenomena--all of which concern the same bodies, have we not?
markjo: We have indeed.
fluffy: And two of these appear to us as strange coincidences.
markjo: If you are referring to the height and size of the bodies, yes of course.
fluffy: Indeed. And is it not sometimes the case that a coincidence to our minds can turn out to be no coincidence at all, once we are in command of all the facts?
markjo: Yes, this is sometimes the case.
fluffy: Then is it not plausible--indeed, probable--that these unexplained phenomena are related? Could it not be that once we command all of the relevant facts, the coincidence will disappear?
markjo: How could this be so?
fluffy: Could there not be one overarching theory to explain the bodies' movements, height and size? Is this not probable?
markjo: It is conceivable, but my learned friend, what makes you think it is probable?
fluffy: Given Occam's razor, is it not far more likely than the crass, lazy suggestion that the height and size of the bodies are unconnected coincidences?
markjo: Now that I ponder it, I am overwhelmed with agreement.
fluffy: So it is then. We have discovered an explanatory dead end in the myth of the round Earth. Those myth-makers must simply entrust their hopes to absurd coincidence. But the truth of the flat Earth is saved from this unsightly weirdness owing to an overreaching theory which will serve to explain the size, height and movements of our two most prominent celestial bodies.
markjo: Brother fluffy, you are indeed the wisest sage in all of the flat lands. May a thousand angels soothe your soul with the sweet music of a thousand harps. May your enemies fall dead at the sound of your great voice. May a thousand wives bear for you a thousand children. And may your name echo for a thousand eternities throughout a thousand infinities.
    +1
God is real.                                         
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9665708/Flat-Earth-Bible-02-of-10-The-Flat-Earth

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Theories Relating to Lunar and Solar Luminosity
« Reply #15 on: April 15, 2011, 06:10:55 PM »
All right, fluffy, you've gone and done it.  You've made me fall in love with you.

I think it is, in fact, a remarkable coincidence in RE that the sun and moon are roughly the same size in the sky, while it's not so much of a coincidence that they are roughly the same size in FE.  In RE, no direct correlation can really be found, as one is many times larger than the other, and the relationship of size to distance from Earth can only be an arbitrary one.  In FE, with them being about the same size, it can be surmised that their origins are similar.

I believe the OP may have found the long-sought-after magic bullet that destroys RET with his brilliant insight that they are the same type of body, in different stages of development, whether it's true that their luminescence comes from living organisms or not (a hypothesis which hasn't entirely convinced me yet, although, again, the OP raises some interesting points).

Welcome back.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42530
Re: Theories Relating to Lunar and Solar Luminosity
« Reply #16 on: April 15, 2011, 06:14:44 PM »
I have expressed this truth by means of a Socratic dialogue.

fluffy: It is the case that the sun and moon appear the same size, is it not?
markjo: Certainly, brother fluffy.
fluffy: And we know that they occupy the same height above the flat Earth?
markjo: Indeed we do.  Alas, brother Fluffy, we can be assured that this is not so.  The moon must necessarily be closer to the earth so that it can interpose itself between the sun and the earth so that we may observe the mystical grandeur that is the solar eclipse.

Fixed.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

fluffycornsnake

  • Official Member
  • 1307
Re: Theories Relating to Lunar and Solar Luminosity
« Reply #17 on: April 15, 2011, 06:45:52 PM »
That was an immensely entertaining dialogue, but I was saddened to observe that I played no part in it. It's not like I brought it up or anything. But that's...that's fine, I'll...just..go lurk somewhere.  :'(

You're right! I'm truly sorry. The next time a dialogue is called for, I promise to feature you. And perhaps Roundy as well, to earn more love.

?

Crustinator

  • 7813
  • Bamhammer horror!
Re: Theories Relating to Lunar and Solar Luminosity
« Reply #18 on: April 15, 2011, 07:01:45 PM »
Variations are most likely to be due to the waxing and waning of moon shrimp populations.

Re: Theories Relating to Lunar and Solar Luminosity
« Reply #19 on: April 15, 2011, 08:32:37 PM »
Quote
I believe the OP may have found the long-sought-after magic bullet that destroys RET with his brilliant insight that they are the same type of body, in different stages of development, whether it's true that their luminescence comes from living organisms or not (a hypothesis which hasn't entirely convinced me yet, although, again, the OP raises some interesting points).

Thankyou sir; the debunking of such pointless (and, indeed, Godless) myths has ever been the goal of my people.

In terms of convincing you of the veracity of the moonshrimp theory, consider this. We have shrimps here on earth, correct? We also have small bioluminescent crustaceans. If we work off the basic principle of Occam's Razor (and ignore the obviously foolhardy belief that someone has established a psychic connection with said moonshrimp-- such a bond would kill the human almost instantaneously, and besides, the lunar moonshrimps are all dead) and the belief (well, fact) that, since the moon, sun and earth are all flat entities, they may well share many of the same characteristics, it's only reasonable to conclude that the moon is a mass of glowing shrimps. See my original post for more compelling reasons.

A further, more outlandish thought occurs. What if the earth itself is but another nesting colony for the "moon"shrimp, one that has long since passed its senescence? My thought is that the sand and earth we see around us is in fact the leavings of these ancient arthropods (Even today, scientists, even the RE ones, recognise that much of the sand in the ocean is actually the droppings of some marine animals, like parrotfish, lobsters and... Shrimp), and that the corpses of this ancient shrimp civilization have long since eroded or been consumed?

I realise that this sounds like a pretty out-there theory, but when you think about it, it does make sense. Thoughts? Is it not possible that the earth itself is an extinct moonshrimp colony?

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12107
Re: Theories Relating to Lunar and Solar Luminosity
« Reply #20 on: April 17, 2011, 09:12:23 AM »
Greetings friend. You may consider ideas to be "out-there", but this is a place for free-thinkers. Your intellectual innovation is welcome here at the Flat Earth Society.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

?

Crustinator

  • 7813
  • Bamhammer horror!
Re: Theories Relating to Lunar and Solar Luminosity
« Reply #21 on: April 17, 2011, 06:51:52 PM »
I realise that this sounds like a pretty out-there theory, but when you think about it, it does make sense. Thoughts? Is it not possible that the earth itself is an extinct moonshrimp colony?

Young Acolyte, yes this iddea has already been made, by myslef and other leading moon shrimp experts. It is quite likely that when the sun, moon and earth were joined the "planets" were populated by a protoshrimp. Then as the tides receded it became harder for the shrimp to interbreed. Moonshrimp then developed their high luminiscity, perhaps as a signalling mechanism in the much darker waters of the moon. The sun shrimp in turn diverged. The remenants of the protoshrimp are seen on earth to day in the form of brine shrimp.

There is still a clear close bond between sun, moon and brineshrimp as found by the locking of shrimp migrations to the earth and the sun.

*

Hessy

  • 1185
  • My alts: Edgeworth, any/all spambots
Re: Theories Relating to Lunar and Solar Luminosity
« Reply #22 on: April 18, 2011, 09:47:05 AM »
Anyone who's ever truly looked at the sun and the moon will tell you that they're roughly the same size-- and, quite obviously, flat

???

Re: Theories Relating to Lunar and Solar Luminosity
« Reply #23 on: April 21, 2011, 09:51:37 PM »
... Hm?

I'm sorry, I don't understand the confusion. Is it not obvious?

?

Around And About

  • 2615
  • Circular Logic Falls Flat
Re: Theories Relating to Lunar and Solar Luminosity
« Reply #24 on: April 21, 2011, 10:05:31 PM »
... Hm?

I'm sorry, I don't understand the confusion. Is it not obvious?

Yes, it is not obvious.
I'm not black nor a thug, I'm more like god who will bring 7 plagues of flat earth upon your ass.

*

Hessy

  • 1185
  • My alts: Edgeworth, any/all spambots
Re: Theories Relating to Lunar and Solar Luminosity
« Reply #25 on: April 22, 2011, 05:17:42 AM »

Re: Theories Relating to Lunar and Solar Luminosity
« Reply #26 on: April 22, 2011, 09:23:01 PM »
Well... Have you ever Looked at the sun and the moon? They're the same size. I mean, in an eclipse, one completely obscures the other. If the sun was a colossal ball of fire like modern science would have us believe, it would appear much larger than the moon. Unless it was much further away... In which case we wouldn't be able to see its light. Catch-22, Real Earthers.

They both appear to be flat, too. As a scientist, I can't completely discount the fact that they may be round... But it's a lot more likely, to my mind, that they're flat. Furthermore, if the moon is a sphere, why do we only ever see one side? Hm.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2011, 09:24:58 PM by Ptch.K.K.Ath »

Re: Theories Relating to Lunar and Solar Luminosity
« Reply #27 on: April 22, 2011, 09:34:44 PM »
Well... Have you ever Looked at the sun and the moon? They're the same size. I mean, in an eclipse, one completely obscures the other. If the sun was a colossal ball of fire like modern science would have us believe, it would appear much larger than the moon. Unless it was much further away... In which case we wouldn't be able to see its light. Catch-22, Real Earthers.

Uh no. It is much farther away, and it is large enough that you still see its light. I don't see how that is at all complicated. It might help to keep in mind that light doesn't disappear over distance it just spreads out.

Quote
They both appear to be flat, too. As a scientist, I can't completely discount the fact that they may be round... But it's a lot more likely, to my mind, that they're flat. Furthermore, if the moon is a sphere, why do we only ever see one side? Hm.

Simply saying that something looks like it is flat to you doesn't help matters. And the reason we generally only see one side of the moon is because of tidal locking . In fact, the tidal locking allows you to see slightly more than half of the moon, so we don't just see one side, and it looks like part of a sphere. This is due to something called libration which is sort of a fancy way of saying that the moon rocks back and forth slightly. .

*

hoppy

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 11803
Re: Theories Relating to Lunar and Solar Luminosity
« Reply #28 on: April 23, 2011, 05:02:37 AM »
Well... Have you ever Looked at the sun and the moon? They're the same size. I mean, in an eclipse, one completely obscures the other. If the sun was a colossal ball of fire like modern science would have us believe, it would appear much larger than the moon. Unless it was much further away... In which case we wouldn't be able to see its light. Catch-22, Real Earthers.

Uh no. It is much farther away, and it is large enough that you still see its light. I don't see how that is at all complicated. It might help to keep in mind that light doesn't disappear over distance it just spreads out.

Quote
They both appear to be flat, too. As a scientist, I can't completely discount the fact that they may be round... But it's a lot more likely, to my mind, that they're flat. Furthermore, if the moon is a sphere, why do we only ever see one side? Hm.

Simply saying that something looks like it is flat to you doesn't help matters. And the reason we generally only see one side of the moon is because of tidal locking . In fact, the tidal locking allows you to see slightly more than half of the moon, so we don't just see one side, and it looks like part of a sphere. This is due to something called libration which is sort of a fancy way of saying that the moon rocks back and forth slightly. .

  There's a good one,the rocking horse moon theory.         FET 1     RET 0
God is real.                                         
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9665708/Flat-Earth-Bible-02-of-10-The-Flat-Earth

*

Omega

  • 929
  • Debating honestly even if no-one else will
Re: Theories Relating to Lunar and Solar Luminosity
« Reply #29 on: April 23, 2011, 07:56:32 AM »
Well... Have you ever Looked at the sun and the moon? They're the same size. I mean, in an eclipse, one completely obscures the other. If the sun was a colossal ball of fire like modern science would have us believe, it would appear much larger than the moon. Unless it was much further away... In which case we wouldn't be able to see its light. Catch-22, Real Earthers.

Uh no. It is much farther away, and it is large enough that you still see its light. I don't see how that is at all complicated. It might help to keep in mind that light doesn't disappear over distance it just spreads out.

Quote
They both appear to be flat, too. As a scientist, I can't completely discount the fact that they may be round... But it's a lot more likely, to my mind, that they're flat. Furthermore, if the moon is a sphere, why do we only ever see one side? Hm.

Simply saying that something looks like it is flat to you doesn't help matters. And the reason we generally only see one side of the moon is because of tidal locking . In fact, the tidal locking allows you to see slightly more than half of the moon, so we don't just see one side, and it looks like part of a sphere. This is due to something called libration which is sort of a fancy way of saying that the moon rocks back and forth slightly. .

  There's a good one,the rocking horse moon theory.         FET 1     RET 0

Even amateur timelapse footage shows libration and shows is spherical nature. Proven beyond the shadow of a doubt by many independent observers.
Only thing round in FE is its circular logic.