The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: Aralith on July 14, 2006, 12:54:38 PM
-
Okay, this is going to be hard to explain, but I'll try. A lunar eclipse occurs when the Earth gets between the sun and the moon, hence making the moon appear a darker than normal. Since man has first started recording events of this kind (using sophisticated language, not cave paintings and stuff) they have noticed that it can occur when the moon is at any position in the sky. Whether it's closer to the horizon, or high in the sky, the entire moon is darkened. If the earth was flat, it would not always cast a shadow that would cover the entire moon. Basically, if the earth was flat, some lunar eclipses would have only half of the moon dark. While this happens (it's called a penumbral eclipse), if the earth really is flat, then the wrong half would be darkened. In the penubral eclipse, the "left" side of the moon won't be dark, but the "right" side will, and vice versa. If the FE theory is correct, then there would sometimes be eclipses where the "bottom" half of the moon is dark, but the "top" half isn't. This has never occured. Not once in the history of man. Heres a picture of a lunar eclipse.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/af/Lunareclipses2003.jpg)
Now, a solar eclipse is when the moon gets in between the earth and the moon, casting a circular shadow on the earth. Now, we can predict when these eclipses (whether they be solar or lunar, but this is only pertinent to my arguement about solar eclipses) will occur. Not only this, but also where they will appear on the earth. Now, these calculations are based on the moon's orbit around the earth, the earth's orbit around the sun, and the earth's rotation on it's axis. Now, you can say that their predictions based on earth orbiting around the sun can be modeled the same by the sun moving around the earth (as much as I disagree with it, I know this arguement is going to come up so I'm going to address it right now). But, if the earth did not rotate (as you FE'ers claim) then the calculations of when and where solar eclipses occur would be totally off. Plus, most of the models I've seen for how a sun and moon would work on a flat earth place them at the same distance from earth. If this was true, they would run into each other when an eclipse was supposed to occur. Now, I know that you're all going to say conspiracy and that they don't really factor in the earth's rotation on it's axis, but dispute this: I've done these calculations myself. I came up with roughly the same answer for when the next lunar eclipse will occur and where. And it is the same as the predicted one. Here is a picture of how the next lunar eclipse will work.
(http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/OH/image1/LE2006Sep07-Fig4.GIF)
Now, I'd just like to point out that the areas where it will be visible are curved like they are, is because the earth is round, and they're trying to show what will occur on a flat map. So they have to take into account what the curve of the earth does to a flat map. Just thought I'd point that out, but yeah. Discuss this FE'ers!
-
The lines on the right moon that extend from the bottom. They curve, therefore the moon is spherical.
You've got to be kidding.
-
The lines on the right moon that extend from the bottom. They curve, therefore the moon is spherical.
You've got to be kidding.
Okay. That was stepping over the boundaries a little bit. I'll edit the post so it doesn't read that. Though, (according to RE and therefore round moon thought) those curved lines are caused by the moon being spherical.
-
I love how the only reply I got to this topic was trying to disprove one statement I said, that was not at all relevant to the actual topic. Answer the damn question. How would these eclipses be faked. A government can't do that. They can't cast a shadow on the moon to give the illusion that the world is round, nor can they make it look like that from anywhere on earth.
-
You're going to get the same treatment I received. When irrefutable proof is presented, they will ignore it.
It's terribly dishonest.
-
You're going to get the same treatment I received. When irrefutable proof is presented, they will ignore it.
It's terribly dishonest.
Very true. Though I have to say, I expecte Dogplatter to come up with some radical theory on this (something similar to his "dinosaurs traversed the coninents with boats" theory). I was hoping to at least get some laughs from this thread. Damn. Oh well, guess that it proves the earth is round to me, so whatever (and it should prove it to all the FE's as well).
-
I contend that the lunar eclipses are not a result of the earth blocking rays that radiate from the sun, but rather, that it is a periodic distruption in the light that emanates from the moon itself. Something like the filament of a light flickering for a moment, albeit, a fairly long moment.
-
I contend that the lunar eclipses are not a result of the earth blocking rays that radiate from the sun, but rather, that it is a periodic distruption in the light that emanates from the moon itself. Something like the filament of a light flickering for a moment, albeit, a fairly long moment.
Wow. Though you didn't back this up, I have to say that this so far is the best FE'er explanation that I've ever heard for any of the RE arguments. Well done, though I still am going to ask for what evidence you're using to support this evidence. So, what is your evidence? And how would scientists be able to predict said disturbances of the moons light?
-
The moon reflects light, it does not create it.
6string, that's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Admit it, you're beat. Give up the charade.
Aralith, I congratulate you on presenting accurate, irrefutable evidence that the Earth is a rounded sphere.
-
The moon reflects light, it does not create it.
6string, that's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Admit it, you're beat. Give up the charade.
Aralith, I congratulate you on presenting accurate, irrefutable evidence that the Earth is a rounded sphere.
Thank you. You are of course right that the moon reflects the light of the sun, but I still have to admit that that's one of the best FE reasons I've heard for why eclipses happen (though it is still utterly ridiculous).
-
*in sing-song tone* I'm still waiting. *bursting into song* Please, please, oh please, take a look at this thread. Oh why is it, that the FE's have left it dead. I don't understand, why they can't comprehend, that the earth is indeed, round. *back to normal tone* Sorry. Just had to entertain myself there for a minute. Now I'm back to normal. But really, I think this thread requires, if fact it demands an answer.
-
Sorry, could you prove to me that the moon doesn't emit light? Because, otherwise, I find your claim that my reasoning is "utterly ridiculous" offensive and, not to mention, wrong.
-
Sorry, could you prove to me that the moon doesn't emit light? Because, otherwise, I find your claim that my reasoning is "utterly ridiculous" offensive and, not to mention, wrong.
The moon reflects light because as you can see from your porch, it is made of rock.
You have absolutely no evidence to support it emits light. The notion that emits light is truly ridiculous. It's a rock. Not a star. A moon. We have space rocks... except I guess those are part of the conspiracy too. However, just look at the moon. You can see the moon during daylight even sometimes, it's just faint because it is so bright out. It's a rock. Rock's don't emit light. 'Nuff said.
-
No. It appears to be a rock. Since we haven't actually been there, we have no way of knowing whether it is a rock, or if it simply looks lik one.
And this:
You can see the moon during daylight even sometimes, it's just faint because it is so bright out.
supports neither claim in any substantial way.
-
Sorry, could you prove to me that the moon doesn't emit light? Because, otherwise, I find your claim that my reasoning is "utterly ridiculous" offensive and, not to mention, wrong.
Exactly how does it emit light? What is it made of? And how can light be cold?
If it emits light, what causes the phases of the moon and the changes of the shade of the moon, like the Harvest Moon for example?
-
Well, something shouldn't be insulting if it's correct. Which my theorum (see, that's what we call theories that are proven) is. And I have evidence. First of all, the phases of the moon. Don't you think it's a little odd how it's right on tandem with the position of the sun and the earth? Or is it another coincidence, just like the tides happen to coincide with the phases of the moon? And what do you know, scientists can predict exactly when new moons and full moons are coming. Now, you may say that this is common knowledge, because the moon completes a cycle every 28 days. This is true. Mostly true anyways. Rarely is anything exactly in days in our universe. The reason we need a leap year is because a year .24 of a day over 365 days, and then we don't have a leap year once every century, because it's not quite one quarter of a year. All very confusing, but the same thing applies to the moon. It's not on a perfect 28 day cycle, so once in a while we have to make corrections for it, and science can predict these minute imperfections perfectly.
While we're on the topic of the moon, you FE'ers believe the moon is flat as well, don't you? Well, I have proof that it's not. First, off, I have pictures that depict what the moon looks like from two different sides! This wouldn't be possible if the moon was flat and the same side was always facing us, now would it.
(http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/wiki/images/thumb/0/0b/129px-Moon_PIA00302.jpg) (http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/wiki/images/thumb/9/99/129px-Moon_PIA00304.jpg)
The picture on the left is the "near side" that's always facing us (mostly anyways, I'll explain in my next point). The picture on the left depicts the "far side" of the moon, which is pointed away from us. Of course, this might not be enough to convince you because you think we haven't gone into space, which brings me to my next point. The moon has slight fluctuations in which side is facing us, called librations. Though we never see more than a few miles of the "dark side" of the moon during these librations, it is proof enough that the moon is round. If it were not, then when the moon was in a libration phase, it would appear more eliptical were it flat, because it would be slightly starting to turn. If you don't believe me that this would happen, take a plate and turn it slightly. It starts to look like an ellipses, rather than a perfect circle. Since the moon has never once, in the histrory of mankind, it can be concluded that the moon is spherical. The librations and the moon retaining it's circular shape are proof of this.
-
No. It appears to be a rock. Since we haven't actually been there, we have no way of knowing whether it is a rock, or if it simply looks lik one.
And this:
You can see the moon during daylight even sometimes, it's just faint because it is so bright out.
supports neither claim in any substantial way.
If the moon emits light, explain lunar eclipses?
Oh yeah, it's just the lightbulb inside the moon turning off at the exact same time the Earth is casting a shadow on it. :roll:
-
I notice that still no one is answering to this. If you have a legit explanation provide it, but if not, don't be ignorant and just ignore the post, admit that you might be wrong and that the earth indeed could be round.
-
don't be ignorant and just ignore the post,
Your people skills are awesome. Insults are a great way to get people to do what you want.
-
Ignorance is not always an insult. Not everyone is willfully ignorant, and that is not a bad thing. If no one knows this thread exists, then that kind of ignorance is okay, but if one of you guys know that this thread exists (as you obviously do) it's still not meant as an insult, just that you are not replying for one reason or another (so I made some speculation based on what else I have seen on this forum, but I'm not going to pretend to know your reasons, because I don't).
-
if one of you guys know that this thread exists (as you obviously do) it's still not meant as an insult, just that you are not replying for one reason or another (so I made some speculation based on what else I have seen on this forum, but I'm not going to pretend to know your reasons, because I don't).
I think you're lying. Calling us ignorant is pretending to know our reasons. You know what ignorant means, right?
-
if one of you guys know that this thread exists (as you obviously do) it's still not meant as an insult, just that you are not replying for one reason or another (so I made some speculation based on what else I have seen on this forum, but I'm not going to pretend to know your reasons, because I don't).
I think you're lying. Calling us ignorant is pretending to know our reasons. You know what ignorant means, right?
Erasmus, still you're sidestepping. The fact is, you don't have an explanation for lunar eclipses.
-
if one of you guys know that this thread exists (as you obviously do) it's still not meant as an insult, just that you are not replying for one reason or another (so I made some speculation based on what else I have seen on this forum, but I'm not going to pretend to know your reasons, because I don't).
I think you're lying. Calling us ignorant is pretending to know our reasons. You know what ignorant means, right?
Erasmus, still you're sidestepping. The fact is, you don't have an explanation for lunar eclipses.
Finally, they have been proved wrong. Yay!
-
It's true! They have been defeated!
-
Okay, I'll rephrase. I do not demand an ignorant answer. I'm going to ask you for your theory and how it is backed up with scientific evidence. So, here I go. If you have an alternate reason to explain lunar and solar eclipses, please post it and provide the scientific evidence backing up your theory. Thank you.
-
Aralith, I don't think that is even possible, because obviously the Earth is round and there is no explanation.
-
Aralith, I don't think that is even possible, because obviously the Earth is round and there is no explanation.
I concur, which is why I'm asking them to cite their facts as well. If they can't do that, then their theory falls apart (which I'm certain it wil). But as I am trying to get a response to this, I'm going to do what they ask me, which, as people, they have every right to be respected, even if I don't agree with their POV.
-
Aralith, I don't think that is even possible, because obviously the Earth is round and there is no explanation.
I concur, which is why I'm asking them to cite their facts as well. If they can't do that, then their theory falls apart (which I'm certain it wil). But as I am trying to get a response to this, I'm going to do what they ask me, which, as people, they have every right to be respected, even if I don't agree with their POV.
I don't totally agree with that. I don't see why we should respect stupidity when they have been given many chances to be educated.
-
You don't have to respect their views, but you should still respect them as people. Just because they're wrong about the shape of the earth, doesn't make them any less kind, or caring, it doesn't mean that they don't enjoy a good movie; it doesn't mean that they're not people. That's what I mean by respecting them.
-
I see. A good spin on things Aralith. I guess I thought you meant you were respecting the Flat Earth "beliefs" rather than the people we call "Flat Earthers."
I think they are just going to let this thread slip back into the third page and go on about how we have never shown them any proof.
-
Though it might happen, I would ask that it not. I would like to see some evidence backing any theory you might have. Please post here. I'm not begging, I'm just asking, because I don't want to have what Ubuntu was talking about happen. I don't want this to slip away and then claim I never had proof. Not because it wouldn't be fair to me, but because it wouldn't be fair for science. I mean this in the most respectful way possible.
-
Rowbotham would disagree with your claim that the RE model very accurately predicts lunar eclipses, citing (as he did in this chapter of his book (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za29.htm)) a plethora of examples of lunar eclipses occuring with the sun still above the
Instead, he postulates the existence of a dark, semiopaque satellite in orbit around the Earth's axis that occassionally obscures some of the moon's own light.
-
Hmm... if those cases are indeed correct, it presents a little dilemma, but I think I might be able to explain it. Water bends light. We know this is true. Now, this is compelete speculation, and in no way is me saying this is how it is, but isn't it possible that if the sun and the moon were in just the right positions, that the sun could shine onto the water, and the water would bend it back up at an angle where it would not hit the moon. At least not all of it. I'd imagine that all of the eclipses that occured in these cases were penumbral, so not all of the rays of the sun would have to do this. Just enough to make some kind of "shadow" (what would actually be the lack of light at all) on the moon. This theory will probably be shot down pretty easily because I'm sure I've violated some scientific principle, but it's worth a try I guess.
-
Errrr...well, water bends light when the light passes through the water, but if the light is reflecting off the water, it pretty much follows the law of reflection: angle of incidence=angle of reflection (barring minor variations for imperfections in the reflective surface).
-
a dark, semiopaque satellite in orbit around the Earth's axis that occassionally obscures some of the moon's own light.
If that can orbit the earth, why can't a normal man-made satellite?
-
If that can orbit the earth, why can't a normal man-made satellite?
Firstly, it doesn't orbit the Earth, it orbits the Earth's central axis.
Secondly, the mechanism that keeps it in that orbit is unknown, so its unknown whether merely putting a satellite up there would be enough to keep the satellite in orbit.
-
If that can orbit the earth, why can't a normal man-made satellite?
Firstly, it doesn't orbit the Earth, it orbits the Earth's central axis.
Secondly, the mechanism that keeps it in that orbit is unknown, so its unknown whether merely putting a satellite up there would be enough to keep the satellite in orbit.
6strings has said that the Flat Earth rotates, so why couldn't we put up satellites?
Care to explain how satellite signals get disrupted during storms and radio waves do not, if the satellite dishes connect with radio towers? How can I have no TV signal, then clear the dish, and get a signal again? This doesn't happen with radio technology.
-
6strings has said that the Flat Earth rotates, so why couldn't we put up satellites?
How is whether the Earth rotates relevant to whether we can put satellites in orbit?
Care to explain how satellite signals get disrupted during storms and radio waves do not, if the satellite dishes connect with radio towers? How can I have no TV signal, then clear the dish, and get a signal again? This doesn't happen with radio technology.
Actually, it does happen with radio technology. Solar flares, sunspots, and geomagnetic storms all disrupt radio communications -- this is a well-known issue among radio operators, and as far as I know is fairly well-known issue among radio listeners as well.
-
6strings has said that the Flat Earth rotates, so why couldn't we put up satellites?
How is whether the Earth rotates relevant to whether we can put satellites in orbit?
Care to explain how satellite signals get disrupted during storms and radio waves do not, if the satellite dishes connect with radio towers? How can I have no TV signal, then clear the dish, and get a signal again? This doesn't happen with radio technology.
Actually, it does happen with radio technology. Solar flares, sunspots, and geomagnetic storms all disrupt radio communications -- this is a well-known issue among radio operators, and as far as I know is fairly well-known issue among radio listeners as well.
In snow and lightning storms all of our radio technology works. Our satellite technology doesn't. The dish can be covered with snow and the TV won't get a signal. I go outside, clean it off, and the TV gets a signal. How would this happen if it were recieving from a radio tower?
-
In snow and lightning storms all of our radio technology works. Our satellite technology doesn't. The dish can be covered with snow and the TV won't get a signal. I go outside, clean it off, and the TV gets a signal. How would this happen if it were recieving from a radio tower?
The not-so-subtle flaw in your argument is that a satellite dish is an antenna. It's just shaped to amplify signals from a certain direction.
-
In snow and lightning storms all of our radio technology works. Our satellite technology doesn't. The dish can be covered with snow and the TV won't get a signal. I go outside, clean it off, and the TV gets a signal. How would this happen if it were recieving from a radio tower?
The not-so-subtle flaw in your argument is that a satellite dish is an antenna. It's just shaped to amplify signals from a certain direction.
Snow on an antenna does not stop it from recieving signals. Satellites (alledgedly) transmit a differt sort of signal than radio antennas, and my accounts back this up.
-
Satellites (alledgedly) transmit a differt sort of signal than radio antennas, and my accounts back this up.
What sort of signal do they transmit?
-
Satelites transmit a frequency of radio waves that is in what is called the K-u Band. This ranges from 12 to 18 GHz. This is very different from AM and FM broadcasts, which transmit radio waves ranging from 30 kHz to 300 MHz. That is the difference between "radio" radio frequency, and satelite radio frequency. They transmit in completely different range of each other.
-
Satelites transmit a frequency of radio waves that is in what is called the K-u Band. This ranges from 12 to 18 GHz. This is very different from AM and FM broadcasts, which transmit radio waves ranging from 30 kHz to 300 MHz. That is the difference between "radio" radio frequency, and satelite radio frequency. They transmit in completely different range of each other.
Great. So the difficulty in using a satellite dish covered in snow is entirely based on the frequency of the electromagnetic radiation used, and in no way dependent on the location of the transmitter. In other words, if you pointed a dish at a K-u transmitter on a radio tower, you'd have the exact same problems as if you pointed it at a supposed satellite.
-
Not entirely, but in the example Unbuntu gave of wiping the snow off of his reciever and then having it work. The wave frequency is what caused that. I'm not saying position of the reciever (and the transmitter) has nothing to do with it. By the way, how is it that one can recieve (using a satelite dish) a transmission from straight up? Point the recieving dish straight up and recieve a signal? How is that?
-
Point the recieving dish straight up and recieve a signal? How is that?
Excellent point, Aralith. Thanks for explaining the wave frequency for me. Also, in places where there are no radio towers, you can get a satellite signal. For example in the Antarctic (oh yeah, it doesn't exist) you can communicate using a satellite dish. The same is true at sea (in clear weather).
-
Not entirely, but in the example Unbuntu gave of wiping the snow off of his reciever and then having it work. The wave frequency is what caused that. I'm not saying position of the reciever (and the transmitter) has nothing to do with it.
Exactly. So the example in no way rules out transmitters on towers.
By the way, how is it that one can recieve (using a satelite dish) a transmission from straight up? Point the recieving dish straight up and recieve a signal? How is that?
Do you know from first-hand experience that this is possible?
Electromagnetic radiation can reflect off different layers of the atmosphere depending on frequency.
-
By the way, how is it that one can recieve (using a satelite dish) a transmission from straight up? Point the recieving dish straight up and recieve a signal? How is that?
Do you know from first-hand experience that this is possible?
Electromagnetic radiation can reflect off different layers of the atmosphere depending on frequency.
My old satellite dish turned depending on the channel you set it to. Sometimes it would turn directly upwards and still work.
So you're claiming the rado towers fire off signals that bounce off the atmosphere to the dishes? Wouldn't it be more feasible for there to be satellites above the atmosphere? 6strings has already admitted that the flat Earth would have to rotate.
*edit* oops... the above should have been a "Quote", not an "Edit"... my bad :( -Erasmus
-
Sky dishes in the UK all point the same way, to a single geostationary sattellite.
-
I think we're still waiting for an explanation on this one... Otherwise this could be the argument that kills your theory. It will go nowhere if you can't explain Lunar Eclipses.
-
Wouldn't it be more feasible for there to be satellites above the atmosphere?
Firstly, it would definitely not be more feasible to do so if there is no way to keep the satellites above the atmosphere where you want them.
Secondly, bouncing signals off interfaces in the atmosphere requires no new technology, whereas satellites do. People were bouncing radio signals off the atmosphere long before you and I were born, so it seems to me that it would be way more feasible to just keep doing what we were doing than to try a new method whose plausibility is under debate.
-
Wouldn't it be more feasible for there to be satellites above the atmosphere?
Firstly, it would definitely not be more feasible to do so if there is no way to keep the satellites above the atmosphere where you want them.
Secondly, bouncing signals off interfaces in the atmosphere requires no new technology, whereas satellites do. People were bouncing radio signals off the atmosphere long before you and I were born, so it seems to me that it would be way more feasible to just keep doing what we were doing than to try a new method whose plausibility is under debate.
They would have to bounce them only from where the satellite is transmitting. That means you should be able to get the signal when it is being sent up to the biosphere and on the way down.
-
Wouldn't it be more feasible for there to be satellites above the atmosphere?
Firstly, it would definitely not be more feasible to do so if there is no way to keep the satellites above the atmosphere where you want them.
Secondly, bouncing signals off interfaces in the atmosphere requires no new technology, whereas satellites do. People were bouncing radio signals off the atmosphere long before you and I were born, so it seems to me that it would be way more feasible to just keep doing what we were doing than to try a new method whose plausibility is under debate.
This is true, but satelites allow you to bounce a signal to the other side of the globe with only three or four relay stations, while radio technology would require closer to ten or eleven. Satelites cut down on lag-time a lot, so new technology would be a good thing to introduce, even if you believe that it's less feasible, it still would be a better method than using radio signlas.
-
They would have to bounce them only from where the satellite is transmitting. That means you should be able to get the signal when it is being sent up to the biosphere and on the way down.
The biosphere, iirc, is below the upper layers of the atmosphere.
-
satelites allow you to bounce a signal to the other side of the globe
... to the other side of the what now?
-
It looks like he is using the classic use RE theory to attempt to disprove FE.
But Erasmus, would it be too much of a stretch for a satellitte to go up into the Atmostphere. The conspiracy could possibly have learned to harness the dark energy in order to facilitate the constant linear acceleration, and 6strings did acknowledge a rotating earth.
-
Sorry. I wasn't even thinking when I wrote that. I wasn't even thinking that FE's don't believe in a globe (though I know that they don't), just most people I talk with think the earth is round and we talk about it as such. I wasn't at all trying to use RE theory to disprove FE. 'Twas a slip of the tongue... hand, whatever. So, yeah, you don't have to count that comment. But satelites, even on a flat earth, could relay a signal to the other side of the disc (according to FE theory) much faster than radio waves could.
-
But satelites, even on a flat earth, could relay a signal to the other side of the disc (according to FE theory) much faster than radio waves could.
Assuming you could get them into the right positions, and get them to stay there, then yes, you certainly could.
Now, why you would want to is a bit of a mystery, considering the whole world is on the top.
-
Okay... let's get on topic. Explain lunar eclipses. Currently the FE theory is suspending into a state of uncertainty and if you do not sometime in the near future it will be totally proven wrong.
-
Currently the FE theory is suspending into a state of uncertainty and if you do not sometime in the near future it will be totally proven wrong.
What? Proofs have an expiration date, now? Where if you don't find the proof by then, it's no good anymore?
Hypotheses don't wait around to be proven, get insulted that nobody's proving them, and stomp off in the night, never to be true again. That's not how logic works.
-
Currently the FE theory is suspending into a state of uncertainty and if you do not sometime in the near future it will be totally proven wrong.
What? Proofs have an expiration date, now? Where if you don't find the proof by then, it's no good anymore?
Hypotheses don't wait around to be proven, get insulted that nobody's proving them, and stomp off in the night, never to be true again. That's not how logic works.
:!: The Flat-Earth has been soundly disproven by this topic. So there's no point in your argument anymore.
-
:!: The Flat-Earth has been soundly disproven by this topic. So there's no point in your argument anymore.
How? I know I'm extremely partisan, but I haven't seen anything remotely convincing here.
-
:!: The Flat-Earth has been soundly disproven by this topic. So there's no point in your argument anymore.
How? I know I'm extremely partisan, but I haven't seen anything remotely convincing here.
Read Aralith's first post again. He explains why Lunar Eclipses are solid, undeniable evidence of the Earth's round shape.
-
Read Aralith's first post again. He explains why Lunar Eclipses are solid, undeniable evidence of the Earth's round shape.
His first post assumes that Lunar eclipses are caused by the Earth moving between the Sun and the Moon, a claim which I dispute.
-
Read Aralith's first post again. He explains why Lunar Eclipses are solid, undeniable evidence of the Earth's round shape.
His first post assumes that Lunar eclipses are caused by the Earth moving between the Sun and the Moon, a claim which I dispute.
Well, go on, dispute it.
-
Well, go on, dispute it.
As any Flat Earther knows, the Moon and the Sun both emit light and are both on the same "side" of the Earth - there's no configuration by which the Earth, Sun or Moon could obscure one another to create an eclipse of any kind.
There are two plausible Flat Earth model explanations for eclipses, both solar and lunar.
The first possiblity is that both periodically "flicker" like the filament in a lightbulb. Something causes them to temporarily stop producing light.
The second, more likely explanation is that another mass passes between Earth and Moon or Earth and Sun. It's likely that the Earth has a third, non-light emitting "satellite" which rotates at a lower altitude than the other two celestial bodies. This would explain the predictability of Lunar and Solar eclipses - if all three have a fixed rotation, their paths will be easily predictable.
-
Well, go on, dispute it.
As any Flat Earther knows, the Moon and the Sun both emit light and are both on the same "side" of the Earth - there's no configuration by which the Earth, Sun or Moon could obscure one another to create an eclipse of any kind.
There are two plausible Flat Earth model explanations for eclipses, both solar and lunar.
The first possiblity is that both periodically "flicker" like the filament in a lightbulb. Something causes them to temporarily stop producing light.
The second, more likely explanation is that another mass passes between Earth and Moon or Earth and Sun. It's likely that the Earth has a third, non-light emitting "satellite" which rotates at a lower altitude than the other two celestial bodies. This would explain the predictability of Lunar and Solar eclipses - if all three have a fixed rotation, their paths will be easily predictable.
This is what I mean by "ludicrous counter-logic idea."
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/af/Lunareclipses2003.jpg)
What are the reasons that, in 52 thousand years of human history, not one person has ever noticed this third satellite?
-
What are the reasons that, in 52 thousand years of human history, not one person has ever noticed this third satellite?
It doesn't emit light - how could we see it? (don't say it reflects the Sun's light - that's impossible in FE model)
-
What are the reasons that, in 52 thousand years of human history, not one person has ever noticed this third satellite?
It doesn't emit light - how could we see it? (don't say it reflects the Sun's light - that's impossible in FE model)
So this object doesn't reflect light? Like a black hole?
If it were in the sky we would notice black spots blocking the light.
-
So this object doesn't reflect light? Like a black hole?
It would reflect light, but the light of what exactly?
If it were in the sky we would notice black spots blocking the light.
Congratulations genius, you've discovered what I was getting at in the first place. Those "black spots" are eclipses.
-
So this object doesn't reflect light? Like a black hole?
It would reflect light, but the light of what exactly?
If it were in the sky we would notice black spots blocking the light.
Congratulations genius, you've discovered what I was getting at in the first place. Those "black spots" are eclipses.
no,we would notice these black spots wether there blocking the sun or not.its just retarded to say theyre only visible when blocking the sun.if your theory is correct,when we look into the sky,we would notice a huge black spot constantly in the middle of the sky.52 thousand years of human observance says otherwise.dogplatter...give up...its not worth it anymore.
-
So this object doesn't reflect light? Like a black hole?
It would reflect light, but the light of what exactly?
If it were in the sky we would notice black spots blocking the light.
Congratulations genius, you've discovered what I was getting at in the first place. Those "black spots" are eclipses.
no,we would notice these black spots wether there blocking the sun or not.its just retarded to say theyre only visible when blocking the sun.if your theory is correct,when we look into the sky,we would notice a huge black spot constantly in the middle of the sky.52 thousand years of human observance says otherwise.dogplatter...give up...its not worth it anymore.
You've explained exactly what I meant... thank you.
-
The first possiblity is that both periodically "flicker" like the filament in a lightbulb. Something causes them to temporarily stop producing light.
FErs really need to come up with an agreed upon definition of these satellites and how they emit light in order to explain the predictability of eclipses.
But don't bother, this is totally wrong because eclipses are seen by only part of the Earth exposed to the sun or moon... so you're suggesting that the sun and moon have the power to uhm... make... people... think they're being eclipsed...
The second, more likely explanation is that another mass passes between Earth and Moon or Earth and Sun. It's likely that the Earth has a third, non-light emitting "satellite" which rotates at a lower altitude than the other two celestial bodies. This would explain the predictability of Lunar and Solar eclipses - if all three have a fixed rotation, their paths will be easily predictable.
So.. why can't these masses be seen through telescopes?
-
So this object doesn't reflect light? Like a black hole?
It would reflect light, but the light of what exactly?
If it were in the sky we would notice black spots blocking the light.
Congratulations genius, you've discovered what I was getting at in the first place. Those "black spots" are eclipses.
no,we would notice these black spots wether there blocking the sun or not.its just retarded to say theyre only visible when blocking the sun.if your theory is correct,when we look into the sky,we would notice a huge black spot constantly in the middle of the sky.52 thousand years of human observance says otherwise.dogplatter...give up...its not worth it anymore.
You've explained exactly what I meant... thank you.
yea,i kind of put it into more agrressive tone and more lamens terms hoping that will get him to understand.i guess not.
-
Flat-Earth has been soundly disproven by this topic. So there's no point in your argument anymore.
Nothing has been disproven. If we had an explanation for lunar eclipses that this ran counter to, then it would DISPROVE THAT PART. This is just another yet to be answered question.
-
Flat-Earth has been soundly disproven by this topic. So there's no point in your argument anymore.
Nothing has been disproven. If we had an explanation for lunar eclipses that this ran counter to, then it would DISPROVE THAT PART. This is just another yet to be answered question.
Seems like there's a lot of very basic stuff FE doesn't have an explanation for.
-
Flat-Earth has been soundly disproven by this topic. So there's no point in your argument anymore.
Nothing has been disproven. If we had an explanation for lunar eclipses that this ran counter to, then it would DISPROVE THAT PART. This is just another yet to be answered question.
Seems like there's a lot of very basic stuff FE doesn't have an explanation for.
They keep debating when what they should be doing is thinking up a theory that includes crazy invisible light-blocking satellites and electromagnetic mind changing rays that affect people's minds to see roundness.
The Earth can't be flat -- look at the lunar eclipse evidence.
-
Flat-Earth has been soundly disproven by this topic. So there's no point in your argument anymore.
Nothing has been disproven. If we had an explanation for lunar eclipses that this ran counter to, then it would DISPROVE THAT PART. This is just another yet to be answered question.
Seems like there's a lot of very basic stuff FE doesn't have an explanation for.
They keep debating when what they should be doing is thinking up a theory that includes crazy invisible light-blocking satellites and electromagnetic mind changing rays that affect people's minds to see roundness.
The Earth can't be flat -- look at the lunar eclipse evidence.
You haven't in any way disproven that the earth is flat. All you repeated over and over is that lunar eclipses occur. No where do I see this being debated. We don't have an explanation, we will. Argue against stuff we've actually said, not put forward your strawmen and non sequiturs.
All theories have things they can't explain. All that means is that they don't have an explanation, not that the theory is wrong. Heck, stuff can be wrong with PARTS of a theory, yet at the same time not invalidate other parts.
Extending your cuckoo logic though, all of science has been 'disproven', because there are things which are still beyond explanation.
And as a general note on posts concerning nagging and ego stroking, along with some mental circle jerks; we don't do this for a living. This is a hobby of ours. If your post goes unanswered for an hour, or a day, claiming 'victory' makes you out to be an imbecile. Other posts along these lines do nothing but clutter the forum and make you out to be childish.
-
I'd love to debate explanations for the FE cause of eclipses. Dogplatter's have been proven to be inaccurate, and so i wait for others.
And if this is a hobby, a challenge, then completely ignore the threads re-hashing simple doubts/questions and spend time in the threads posing valid arguments against the FE theory.
-
no,we would notice these black spots wether there blocking the sun or not.its just retarded to say theyre only visible when blocking the sun.
We would not. The standard FE model holds that the Sun only illuminates a certain amount of the Earth at once. While the ecliptor was not within the Sun's "spotlight area" it would be invisible. While it was, it would cause an eclipse.
-
I'd love to debate explanations for the FE cause of eclipses. Dogplatter's have been proven to be inaccurate, and so i wait for others.
They have not.
-
I'd love to debate explanations for the FE cause of eclipses. Dogplatter's have been proven to be inaccurate, and so i wait for others.
And if this is a hobby, a challenge, then completely ignore the threads re-hashing simple doubts/questions and spend time in the threads posing valid arguments against the FE theory.
Can't just ignore stuff like that. If we did, stuff like, "But helicopters can't work with FE gravity, and no one said otherwise for a week now, LAWL YOUR THEORY IS WRONG!!11" would start flooding the forum instead.
We appreciate threads like this, well, I do at least. Just not the taunting and mental circle jerk part.
-
no,we would notice these black spots wether there blocking the sun or not.its just retarded to say theyre only visible when blocking the sun.
We would not. The standard FE model holds that the Sun only illuminates a certain amount of the Earth at once. While the ecliptor was not within the Sun's "spotlight area" it would be invisible. While it was, it would cause an eclipse.
The sun cannot be a sphere then.
-
I think it could be a sphere, as long as it is not universally bright.
-
I think it could be a sphere, as long as it is not universally bright.
The FE theory is slowly turning into Solipsism.
-
Whoa there man, I don't claim to believe in the dribble I spout on this site, so I dont think that anything that I say should be considered absolutley cannon.
-
The FE theory is slowly turning into Solipsism.
Not slowly. It's always been that. Anything on how YOU saw a round earth, or YOU have a picture of it is meaningless as evidence.
-
The FE theory is slowly turning into Solipsism.
Not slowly. It's always been that. Anything on how YOU saw a round earth, or YOU have a picture of it is meaningless as evidence.
Do you understand what Solipsism is? According to that philsophy, Earth doesn't exist.
-
Flat-Earth has been soundly disproven by this topic. So there's no point in your argument anymore.
Nothing has been disproven. If we had an explanation for lunar eclipses that this ran counter to, then it would DISPROVE THAT PART. This is just another yet to be answered question.
Seems like there's a lot of very basic stuff FE doesn't have an explanation for.
They keep debating when what they should be doing is thinking up a theory that includes crazy invisible light-blocking satellites and electromagnetic mind changing rays that affect people's minds to see roundness.
The Earth can't be flat -- look at the lunar eclipse evidence.
You haven't in any way disproven that the earth is flat. All you repeated over and over is that lunar eclipses occur. No where do I see this being debated. We don't have an explanation, we will. Argue against stuff we've actually said, not put forward your strawmen and non sequiturs.
All theories have things they can't explain. All that means is that they don't have an explanation, not that the theory is wrong. Heck, stuff can be wrong with PARTS of a theory, yet at the same time not invalidate other parts.
Extending your cuckoo logic though, all of science has been 'disproven', because there are things which are still beyond explanation.
And as a general note on posts concerning nagging and ego stroking, along with some mental circle jerks; we don't do this for a living. This is a hobby of ours. If your post goes unanswered for an hour, or a day, claiming 'victory' makes you out to be an imbecile. Other posts along these lines do nothing but clutter the forum and make you out to be childish.
yea,i know...the FE theory cant explain anything that they claim.sure sucks to be a FEer.
-
The sun cannot be a sphere then.
What? The sun's allegedly spherical nature is a claim exclusive to heliocentrism. Flat Earthers believe the Sun is an essentially flat disc.
-
The sun cannot be a sphere then.
What? The sun's allegedly spherical nature is a claim exclusive to heliocentrism. Flat Earthers believe the Sun is an essentially flat disc.
That's not what I see in the Flat Earth model image...
-
That's not what I see in the Flat Earth model image...
Yeah it is. It's a 3D representation of a flat disc. Your eyes are broken if you think otherwise.
-
The FE theory is slowly turning into Solipsism.
Not slowly. It's always been that. Anything on how YOU saw a round earth, or YOU have a picture of it is meaningless as evidence.
Do you understand what Solipsism is? According to that philsophy, Earth doesn't exist.
Which one is the philosophy that says the only truth is what you experience yourself? It's been a while since I took a philosophy class.
-
oops didn't realise there were 7 pages of this post
-
yea,i know...the FE theory cant explain anything that they claim.sure sucks to be a FEer.
Must be an interesting way to view the world. Not being able to process abstract thought and all.
-
The FE theory is slowly turning into Solipsism.
Not slowly. It's always been that. Anything on how YOU saw a round earth, or YOU have a picture of it is meaningless as evidence.
Do you understand what Solipsism is? According to that philsophy, Earth doesn't exist.
Which one is the philosophy that says the only truth is what you experience yourself? It's been a while since I took a philosophy class.
"Empirical evidence"?
-
I'd love to debate explanations for the FE cause of eclipses. Dogplatter's have been proven to be inaccurate, and so i wait for others.
They have not.
I guess you missed my post... they were.
To remind you:
...eclipses are seen by only part of the Earth exposed to the sun or moon... so you're suggesting that the sun and moon have the power to uhm... make... people... think they're being eclipsed...
Not "seen only by the part of the Earth exposed", but "by only part." That wording is very important. It means that although both hypothetical points A and B are in the same time zone, because they are in different hemispheres, one will see a solar eclipse while the other enjoys a clear, sunshiny day. If the "spotlight" were just growing dimmer or turning off completely, every single area exposed to its light would experience darkness.
Then, to refute your second possible explanation
So.. why can't these masses be seen through telescopes?
I'm not claiming victory over FE, but there do seem to be some pretty big holes in it (such as the distortion south of the equator).
Speaking of telescopes... where do some of you FErs live? Maybe you could take a trip to a nearby observatory and see for yourself that the moon and sun are spheres, and look at satellites orbiting earth.
-
Not quite was I referring to. It was more along the lines of, only what you experience yourself is true. It's what fuels most of the arguments around here. Such as saying you've seen pics of earth, a counter using this philosophy would be, "Well, pics aren't good enough. I would need to go take the pics myself, and I didn't, thus I can't know if it's true or not".
-
bumpage.
-
Still waiting for someone to disprove this.
-
Bumpage.
-
Man, I did not expect this thread to be around this long. I was surprised when I saw that it still had new posts. Looks like the RE'ers are still winning. Imagine that. Maybe, just maybe FE'ers, the reason that all your hypothesis about eclipses are being shot down is because the RE'ers are right. Just a thought.
-
It is my hope than this topic doesn't go away.
-
We can't let these guys ignore answers they can't refute. Keep bumping these threads.
-
*Ubuntu politely requests a reply.*
-
I'd also like to see some debate in this thread.
-
I'd also like to see some debate in this thread.
We're still waiting...
-
A whole 5 minutes I see. How very patient of you.
-
A whole 5 minutes I see. How very patient of you.
Actually it's been several pages.
-
A whole 5 minutes I see. How very patient of you.
This topic was posted over one month ago.
But even you admit the Earth is round. :roll:
-
But even you admit the Earth is round.
No, I don't "admit" it.
-
*drumroll*
FLAT-EARTH EXPLANATION FOR LUNAR ECLIPSES:
well? someone? hurry up!
-
Amazing how all of the FE'ers are either ignoring this topic, or posting irrelevant shit in here, like about how we're being impatient with our answers. They never really provide an answer to the question, and when they do, it's based on backwards and/or faulty science/premises. Truly amazing how ignorant they are. Oh well.
-
But even you admit the Earth is round.
No, I don't "admit" it.
so youre with "THEM".lets here it strings.give me all you got.whatever little that may be.
BUMPAGE
-
(and it should prove it to all the FE's as well).
They wont listen to any proof, they have a cultish devotion to this theory and no amount of facts or evidence will convince them otherwise.
-
(and it should prove it to all the FE's as well).
They wont listen to any proof, they have a cultish devotion to this theory and no amount of facts or evidence will convince them otherwise.
yea,i used to think just like that.and then i realized...this is just too fun.
-
Planets.... what shape are they? Planets... what shape are they! PLANEST... WHAT SHAPE ARE THEY?!
Roooooooound!!!
-
Bump!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctwo/programmes/?id=blizzard (Open in Internet Explorer, may crash firefox!)
-
I'm not letting this get away from you, FE'ers. *sing-song tone* We want answers. *end sing-song* Okay, now that my sanity has come back, I will kindly and respectfully ask for answers to some of the questions asked in this thread. Posed by both myself in the initial post and by others thereafter.
-
We're sending a bump to this thread *TO THIS THREAD* It's goin' to the top of the forum *TO THE TOP*
-
But even you admit the Earth is round.
No, I don't "admit" it.
Yep I saw you on a topic... you said "Then our Flat Earth model will be air-tight... except, of course, that the Earth is round."
800th POST PLOX!
-
But even you admit the Earth is round.
No, I don't "admit" it.
Yep I saw you on a topic... you said "Then our Flat Earth model will be air-tight... except, of course, that the Earth is flat."
800th POST PLOX!
lol, wut?
-
That made no scence.
-
Ooops, 6strings said it is round... I have the exact quote on another thread... he's probably gone and edited it now... but editing leaves traces.
-
First off, your low esteem in my integrity wounds me. Second off, you contend that I "admit" that the earth is round; note the fact that it is in the present tense. Is it not entirely possible that I now believe that the earth is flat, and I have merely believed, and stated in the past, that I believed it was round.
-
6strings, it seems to me now you are just covering up your slip for your own amusement. :twisted:
-
It's not a matter of believe that the earth is round, it's a matter of accepting it.
-
It's not a matter of believe that the earth is round, it's a matter of accepting it.
That is true!
-
If that can orbit the earth, why can't a normal man-made satellite?
Firstly, it doesn't orbit the Earth, it orbits the Earth's central axis.
Secondly, the mechanism that keeps it in that orbit is unknown, so its unknown whether merely putting a satellite up there would be enough to keep the satellite in orbit.
more unknown magical mechanisms.
-
This topic is "yet to be answered."
-
This topic is "yet to be answered."
-
This topic is "yet to be answered."
-
This topic is "yet to be answered."
-
This topic is "yet to be answered."
-
This topic is "yet to be answered."
[Blah all this waiting is getting boring... it's been 30+ days]
-
This topic is "yet to be answered."
Bump'd.
-
This topic is "yet to be answered."
Bump'd.
x2
-
While I'm still working on the exact mechanisms of the third satellite, which I have named the Lire*, I would like to point out one, quite simple thing you fail to realize about us FE'ers:
Until 1492, everyone assumed the world was flat. Then, Columbus discovered the "Indies." Then, Magellan sailed "around" the "globe." Since those times, just about every scientist has gone along with the belief that the world is round. Therefore, every time they make a "discovery," the only way they test it is through the RE theory.
FE'ers don't have these scientists - we're trying to explain it for ourselves. RE'ers can simply go onto the net, type in "explanation lunar eclipse" to google.com, and copy and paste the response onto this forum with the heading, "LIEK OMG UNDENIABLE PROOF." And so far, you've given us thirty days with the matter. Thirty days. That's ridiculous.
Here's an example for you: I believe it was Galileo who first viewed the world as nothing special, thinking that it orbited around the sun. When he brought this out into the public, everyone, including political leaders and the Catholic church said, "Uh-uh. No way man. You're definitely wrong." Mind you, he'd worked on this theory himself for a good decade or so. Then, people thought about how it worked for about half a century, only to decide that Galileo's theory was a bit better than the current one.
And what's the moral of the story, you might ask? People had a century to think proof over. You've given us thirty days. I think you owe us a good 49 years, three hundred and thirty four days, give or take some, until you DEMAND an answer.
*I've also thought about calling it the Phoomp, because that just sounds invisible to me. Any other ideas?
-
And what's the moral of the story, you might ask? People had a century to think proof over. You've given us thirty days. I think you owe us a good 49 years, three hundred and thirty four days, give or take some, until you DEMAND an answer.
shouldnt all your ancient FE scholars and the "earth not a globe" guy have explained it years ago? they must all have been tossers not to notice lunar eclipses. i bet they just had never heard of them, being so uneducated. or just ignored them.
if everyone used to believe in FE, then why the fuck is it still unexplained? Bollox!
-
Well, for starters the FE-believing scientists didn't have the technology they do now. And there is a pretty convincing model for how planets move in the sky for an earth-centric model. Not that that is at all related to this.
Also, back in the day (which was a Wednesday, go figure), only select people had time to even worry about if the earth was round or flat. Everyone else just went along with what was accepted - they didn't think about it themselves. If they did, we'd probably have a lot more than what we have now. As for right now, I think we're doing the best we can.
-
Until 1492, everyone assumed the world was flat.
I think most historians will agree, you sir, are terribly mistaken.
(http://img242.imageshack.us/img242/5905/copyofgeodesytimelinezn0.png)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_geodesy#Classical_Greece
-
Here's an example for you: I believe it was Galileo who first viewed the world as nothing special, thinking that it orbited around the sun. When he brought this out into the public, everyone, including political leaders and the Catholic church said, "Uh-uh. No way man. You're definitely wrong." Mind you, he'd worked on this theory himself for a good decade or so. Then, people thought about how it worked for about half a century, only to decide that Galileo's theory was a bit better than the current one.
Uh, that's not quite how it went. First, Aristarchus of Samos was the first to propose a heliocentric model of the solar system, and he lived from 310-230 B.C., long before Galileo, though his model wasn't well received. Second, Galileo's confrontation with the Church went more along the lines of, "Ok, your data is pretty convincing, and it's all right if you say that it looks as if those little points of light orbit Jupiter, and that it looks as though the Earth orbits the sun, but we're really the final authority on this, so you can't say that's what it actually does."
-
I don't think we should take Pythagoras seriously because he spent his life working out different lengths of right-angled triangles, not the most useful thing in the (flat) world.
-
While I'm still working on the exact mechanisms of the third satellite, which I have named the Lire*, I would like to point out one, quite simple thing you fail to realize about us FE'ers:
Until 1492, everyone assumed the world was flat. Then, Columbus discovered the "Indies." Then, Magellan sailed "around" the "globe." Since those times, just about every scientist has gone along with the belief that the world is round. Therefore, every time they make a "discovery," the only way they test it is through the RE theory.
FE'ers don't have these scientists - we're trying to explain it for ourselves. RE'ers can simply go onto the net, type in "explanation lunar eclipse" to google.com, and copy and paste the response onto this forum with the heading, "LIEK OMG UNDENIABLE PROOF." And so far, you've given us thirty days with the matter. Thirty days. That's ridiculous.
Here's an example for you: I believe it was Galileo who first viewed the world as nothing special, thinking that it orbited around the sun. When he brought this out into the public, everyone, including political leaders and the Catholic church said, "Uh-uh. No way man. You're definitely wrong." Mind you, he'd worked on this theory himself for a good decade or so. Then, people thought about how it worked for about half a century, only to decide that Galileo's theory was a bit better than the current one.
And what's the moral of the story, you might ask? People had a century to think proof over. You've given us thirty days. I think you owe us a good 49 years, three hundred and thirty four days, give or take some, until you DEMAND an answer.
*I've also thought about calling it the Phoomp, because that just sounds invisible to me. Any other ideas?
This whole post is just bullshit. As Ubuntu pointed out, people have known the earth was round for much longer than that. As early as 300 BCE, people first started realizing that the earth was round. Then, as dysfunction pointed out, you guys have had much longer than thirty days to answer this. The current FE movement was started by Samuel Rowbotham more than 150 years ago.
That's plenty of time to answer how a lunar eclipse works. And as also mentioned, a heliocentric model was produced also in the 3rd century BCE. The reason FE'ers don't have said scientists these days is because everyone knows the shape of the earth and there shouldn't be any debate about it. To address your thing about how we test things according to the RE model: isn't it strange how we still get the right answers?
I mean, we can predict when lunar eclipses will happen, we can predict the tides, we can predict the phases of the moon. Wow. That'd have to be quite a coincidence for round earth theorum to be able to predict things on a flat earth. Also, whenever we gather new evidence about the earth, don't you find it strange that it always seems to corroborate a round earth?
If you can show me even one piece of evidence that supports a flat earth and only a flat earth (none of this interpretation crap) other than, "The earth appears flat, therefore it is." Because really, that's the only actual piece of evidence I've heard for a flat earth, and it's very weak considering that we live on, relatively, a rather large planet and our perspective is skewed.
-
you don't understand what I posted. In fact, you proved my point even more. Let me rephrase this so you can understand it.
Scientists have believe the earth to be round for a really really long time. Therefore, they've had over 2000 years to prove it was round, that it's a heliocentric solar system, that lunar eclipses are caused by the earth's shadow moving in between them, and stuff like that. However, us FE'ers believe that the earth is flat. For right now - this is based on faith. We're still working our theory out, without the help of some of the greatest minds in history. So you need to give us time, and stop thinking that you can change our minds. It's our belief.
And so while most of my post may have been bullshit last time Aralith, you completely missed the fucking point. I applaud you.
-
you don't understand what I posted. In fact, you proved my point even more. Let me rephrase this so you can understand it.
Scientists have believe the earth to be round for a really really long time. Therefore, they've had over 2000 years to prove it was round, that it's a heliocentric solar system, that lunar eclipses are caused by the earth's shadow moving in between them, and stuff like that. However, us FE'ers believe that the earth is flat. For right now - this is based on faith. We're still working our theory out, without the help of some of the greatest minds in history. So you need to give us time, and stop thinking that you can change our minds. It's our belief.
And so while most of my post may have been bullshit last time Aralith, you completely missed the fucking point. I applaud you.
So you admit that FEism is nothing more than an irrational belief. If it's not based on evidence at all, why would you believe it in the first place? Because you like the idea?
-
I never said it was irrational. I said that for right now, I have a belief, a "hypothesis" if you will, and that I'm working on proving it.
-
However, us FE'ers believe that the earth is flat. For right now - this is based on faith.
I never said it was irrational. I said that for right now, I have a belief, a "hypothesis" if you will, and that I'm working on proving it.
(http://img159.imageshack.us/img159/5687/sfunnelflatearthck0.png)
-
I never said it was irrational. I said that for right now, I have a belief, a "hypothesis" if you will, and that I'm working on proving it.
Fine, but until you have evidence, maybe you should stop talking about how the round-earth is all just a big lie?
-
This topic is "yet to be answered."
-
This topic is "yet to be answered."
My thoughs exactly.
-
I never said it was irrational. I said that for right now, I have a belief, a "hypothesis" if you will, and that I'm working on proving it.
Fine, but until you have evidence, maybe you should stop talking about how the round-earth is all just a big lie?
Then since your theory is infallible, why argue with us at all? Go make your own "Round Earth Society."
And Ubuntu, your flow chart is mostly flawed, calling all religion erroneous. Unless that's what you believe, but it's still erroneous.
-
I never said it was irrational. I said that for right now, I have a belief, a "hypothesis" if you will, and that I'm working on proving it.
Fine, but until you have evidence, maybe you should stop talking about how the round-earth is all just a big lie?
Then since your theory is infallible, why argue with us at all? Go make your own "Round Earth Society."
And Ubuntu, your flow chart is mostly flawed, calling all religion erroneous. Unless that's what you believe, but it's still erroneous.
Of course religion is erroneous; it is based on faith.
-
I never said it was irrational. I said that for right now, I have a belief, a "hypothesis" if you will, and that I'm working on proving it.
Fine, but until you have evidence, maybe you should stop talking about how the round-earth is all just a big lie?
Then since your theory is infallible, why argue with us at all? Go make your own "Round Earth Society."
The "Round Earth Society" equals basically the entire population of the world. I just argue with you because it's fun.
-
This topic is "yet to be answered."
My thoughs exactly.
Ubuntu, why do you keep bumping this? You already started a whole thread about it, and the answer given in that thread applies to this one as well.
If the earth is flat, lunar eclipses are not caused by Earth being between the sun and the moon, since this can't happen in the flat Earth model.
Since lunar eclipses must be caused by some other mechanism, the shadow on the moon is not Earth's shadow, and thus is not indicative of Earth's shape.
-
This topic is "yet to be answered."
My thoughs exactly.
Ubuntu, why do you keep bumping this? You already started a whole thread about it, and the answer given in that thread applies to this one as well.
If the earth is flat, lunar eclipses are not caused by Earth being between the sun and the moon, since this can't happen in the flat Earth model.
Since lunar eclipses must be caused by some other mechanism, the shadow on the moon is not Earth's shadow, and thus is not indicative of Earth's shape.
Until FEers come up with a valid alternative mechanism for eclipses, that has the same predictive power as the RE mechanism, the point remains.
-
Until FEers come up with a valid alternative mechanism for eclipses, that has the same predictive power as the RE mechanism, the point remains.
It does, but this answer still gives flat Earthers a valid (sort of) way to ignore it.
-
So, Enraged Penguin, you (or if you're not an actual FE and playing devil's advocate, then just FE'ers in general) actually beleive that it's a coincidence that lunar eclipses are perfectly (and down to almost the exact moment in time that it occurs) predictable based on the RE model. If the RE model is incorrect (and it is not), that is quite a coincidence. Of course, I guess tides and the phases of the moon have the same kind of coincidence. Wow. Don't know Dogplatter (or anyone for that matter) manages to believe in FEism and not a God, because that's quite a coincidence. It actually takes more faith to believe in FE than God I think. So, back to my original point, you actually believe that all these predictions RE scientists can make are coincidences?
-
If the RE model is incorrect (and it is)
Congrats on another convert FES!! :D
-
Shit! I meant to say it is not. Yeah. I really messed that one up. I'll edit that too. Damnit! I hate it when I do that.
-
Lies, I thought you pierced the void of ignorance
-
IF ANY OF YOU FLAT EARTHERS WANT TO COME SHARE YOUR VIEWS ON AN INTERNET RADIO SHOW FOR ABOUT 1 HOUR TO 2 HOURS, PLEAES CONTACT ME.
The radio show will be www.infidelguy.com .
Please contact me VIA PM if interested!
Thank you!
-
And now you're exploiting us...
-
And now you're exploiting us...
What? I am just inviting you on a radio show, it is a skeptical radio show on the internet, and your homepage says that you welcome skeptics, presumably, you would also want to discuss this with them. No harm is intended in this, really.
-
Ok. All is forgiven. I just don't think that blogging will be an effective tool on spreading the FE way until we figure out what we believe.]]
And I think religion can be good, if it teaches the right beliefs.
-
Ok. All is forgiven. I just don't think that blogging will be an effective tool on spreading the FE way until we figure out what we believe.]]
And I think religion can be good, if it teaches the right beliefs.
Well, quite a number of people listen to this radio show, both atheists and theists, non-skeptics and skeptics alike. So, if you or anyone you know is interested, or becomes interested, please PM me, thanks!
-
Well, quite a number of people listen to this radio show, both atheists and theists, non-skeptics and skeptics alike. So, if you or anyone you know is interested, or becomes interested, please PM me, thanks!
It's probably a good idea to create a seperate thread.
-
Ok. All is forgiven. I just don't think that blogging will be an effective tool on spreading the FE way until we figure out what we believe.]]
And I think religion can be good, if it teaches the right beliefs.
Well, quite a number of people listen to this radio show, both atheists and theists, non-skeptics and skeptics alike. So, if you or anyone you know is interested, or becomes interested, please PM me, thanks!
-
This topic is "yet to be answered."
My thoughs exactly.
Ubuntu, why do you keep bumping this? You already started a whole thread about it, and the answer given in that thread applies to this one as well.
If the earth is flat, lunar eclipses are not caused by Earth being between the sun and the moon, since this can't happen in the flat Earth model.
Since lunar eclipses must be caused by some other mechanism, the shadow on the moon is not Earth's shadow, and thus is not indicative of Earth's shape.
1) Lunar eclipses can be perfectly predicted
2) That's circular reasoning; your point is invalid and based on assumptions
(http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/3692/avatar177000mr5.gif)
-
1) Lunar eclipses can be perfectly predicted.
True.
2) That's circular reasoning; your point is invalid and based on assumptions
No. What you're doing is circular reasoning, invalid, and based on assumptions. You assume that lunar eclipses are caused by Earth's shadow. You then say because the shadow is always round, the Earth must be round as well. Of course, your first assumption that lunar eclipses are caused by Earth's shadow assumes the Earth to be round in the first place.
Unless you prove that lunar eclipses are caused by Earth's shadow, your entire argument is circular reasoning, and flat Earthers will simply ignore the issue.
-
1) Lunar eclipses can be perfectly predicted.
True.
2) That's circular reasoning; your point is invalid and based on assumptions
No. What you're doing is circular reasoning, invalid, and based on assumptions. You assume that lunar eclipses are caused by Earth's shadow. You then say because the shadow is always round, the Earth must be round as well. Of course, your first assumption that lunar eclipses are caused by Earth's shadow assumes the Earth to be round in the first place.
Unless you prove that lunar eclipses are caused by Earth's shadow, your entire argument is circular reasoning, and flat Earthers will simply ignore the issue.
But the fact has been proven as far as anything is proven in science; predictions agree with observations. We know when lunar eclipses will occur, years in advance. Since you offer NO mechanism WHATSOEVER to explain lunar eclipses, the burden of proof rests on you.
-
Unless you prove that lunar eclipses are caused by Earth's shadow...
http://www.eclipse.org.uk/eclbin/query.cgi Search Term: 2006
-
http://www.eclipse.org.uk/eclbin/query.cgi Search Term: 2006
Predictive power is a wonderful thing; however, the entire RE theory has greater predictive power than the FE, and this fact hasn't seemed to trouble FEr's in the slightest.
I would guess they will just say it's a coincidence.
-
they
As in who? I don't think anyone actually believes this. I think this is just an interesting debate.
-
they
As in who?
As in "Flat Earth Believers".
-
All ten of them.
-
Since you offer NO mechanism WHATSOEVER to explain lunar eclipses, the burden of proof rests on you.
Sorry, I missed your post earlier.
There is, in fact, an explanation offered in the FAQ:
Q: "What about Lunar Eclipses"
(Possible A) The moon isn't a spotlight; it glows with light from the sun, reflected off the Earth. Different parts of the Earth are more reflective than others (the seas, the polar cap, the ice wall, for example). Sometimes, the position of the sun (which is a spotlight) means that only very low-reflective or non-reflective parts of the Earth's surface are illuminated, so the moon is abnormally dark. This could potentially explain lunar phases as well.
-
Since you offer NO mechanism WHATSOEVER to explain lunar eclipses, the burden of proof rests on you.
Sorry, I missed your post earlier.
There is, in fact, an explanation offered in the FAQ:
Q: "What about Lunar Eclipses"
(Possible A) The moon isn't a spotlight; it glows with light from the sun, reflected off the Earth. Different parts of the Earth are more reflective than others (the seas, the polar cap, the ice wall, for example). Sometimes, the position of the sun (which is a spotlight) means that only very low-reflective or non-reflective parts of the Earth's surface are illuminated, so the moon is abnormally dark. This could potentially explain lunar phases as well.
Interesting, I forgot that one. It's... even less plausible than the dark-matter disc explanation. Since the majority of the Earth is ocean (which is, of course, quite reflective), I find it hard to imagine how the sun could ever be at a position to shine only on non-reflective areas. I find it even harder to imagine that the effect would be completely uniform- there should be spots of light here and there appearing on the moon during an eclipse. Plus, I seem to recall that the moon IS in fact a spotlight, according to FE.
-
You never said you wanted a good explanation...
-
You never said you wanted a good explanation...
Yes, I did:
Until FEers come up with a valid alternative mechanism for eclipses, that has the same predictive power as the RE mechanism, the point remains.
-
Okay, Penguin, I'll leave alone lunar eclipses right now since I can't seem to convince you that the power of prediction pretty much means that RE'es are right. Ignoring that, let's bring up something else I brought up in my initial post. All of the time, we see the same side of the moon, however, because the speed at which the moon is orbiting doesn't quite equal the rate that we're spinning at to meet it, there are some variances in this.
These are called librations. It is only a slight variance, however, it does allow us to see a bit of what is called the "dark side of the moon". Now, if the moon was flat as FE'ers profess, how come the moon does not become oblong when it librates. After all, if you turn a circle a little bit away from you, it appears to become more elliptical in shape. How do you explain this?
If you have never noticed this before, there is a picture in one of Ubuntu's posts on page twelve that has a sped up rendition of the moon waxing and waning. You can see the moon "wobble" a little bit in this short movie. That is because it is librating. However, during the entire "film", the moon stays a sphere. How do you explain this?
-
Okay, Penguin, I'll leave alone lunar eclipses right now since I can't seem to convince you that the power of prediction pretty much means that RE'es are right.
He's basically admitted as much in this thread.
-
Penguin, I asked you a question. You could at least do me the decency of saying you wish not to comment or that you know not the answer. At least provide some semblance of an answer. Thank you.
-
Penguin, I asked you a question. You could at least do me the decency of saying you wish not to comment or that you know not the answer. At least provide some semblance of an answer. Thank you.
I'm sorry, but you'll have to ask your question to a flat Earther, since I've never understood why the FE theory says the sun and moon are flat in the first place.
-
Okay then, anyone else wish to explain libration with a flat moon to me, or is this thread just going to be ignored forever.
-
Lunar eclipse is due to the light from the suns reflecting off the surface of the earth onto the flat moon. This is possible due to diffusion in the atmosphere which alters the direction of the light away from the spotlight direction. Lunar eclipses look slightly different due to land reflecting more/less than water. Obviously this is only a small amount of light thus the long exposure times on the images in the first post. Colours are caused by angle at which the moon is to the sun relative to the earth.
ie:
sun...........moon
...\............/
.....\......../
.......\.A./
.........\/
A = angle.
If this angle is big, red eclipse is caused, if small, slightly blue as seen in the left image of the moon. This is only a shit small amount of light proved by the long exposure times on the camera (1.2 secs etc).
As for the libration i have no idea...CONSPIRASY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
EDIT: didnt read all the posts -_- this argument has already been made
-
I don't mean to be annoying, but I really would like to hear an explanation on libration from a true FE'er. Dogplatter, Dionysius, Erasmus, or any other FE'ers I didn't mention that have even some semblance of an idea, I would like to hear it.
-
umm wow, just wow, they will come eventually... Dionysios aparently doesn't post out of FEB, Dogplatter has been gone a while, and yeaaa
-
If the earth is flat, lunar eclipses are not caused by Earth being between the sun and the moon, since this can't happen in the flat Earth model.
Since lunar eclipses must be caused by some other mechanism, the shadow on the moon is not Earth's shadow, and thus is not indicative of Earth's shape.
This is ridiculous, completely unscientific, and circular reasoning.
As for the FE explanation, it doesn't explain the predictability of lunar eclipses, nor does it explain the fact that eclipses are not viewed by all areas exposed to the sun/moon. I.E. Texas will be experiencing a normal, humdrum, hot as fuck summer day, while waaay south, in the same time zone, will be experiencing an eclipse.
If anybody noticed that I was gone, it was because the login for this site isn't compatible with Firefox.
-
If anybody noticed that I was gone, it was because the login for this site isn't compatible with Firefox.
It's fine for me in Firefox.
-
If anybody noticed that I was gone, it was because the login for this site isn't compatible with Firefox.
It's fine for me in Firefox.
Yeah, it's working now... and maybe it wasn't a Firefox problem... but for the past few weeks it wasn't. It was weird. Daniel was very helpfull, and even he experienced the problem once or twice when trying to login for me.
Anyhoo... FE needs a better explanation for Eclipses, and it's sad that this thread is mostly "whatever, just move on and ask something else" instead of people actually taking the challenge and trying to use their brains!
That's part of the purpose of this site. Intelligent debate and counter-science. I'm seeing apathy and non-science.
-
I'm seeing apathy and non-science.
Amen to that!
-
I contend that the lunar eclipses are not a result of the earth blocking rays that radiate from the sun, but rather, that it is a periodic distruption in the light that emanates from the moon itself. Something like the filament of a light flickering for a moment, albeit, a fairly long moment.
ok.
lets take a look at the sun.. done looking? ok i'll give you a few more minutes...
notice the lack of any shadows or landscape... that is becuase the sun IS a source of light in itself...
now take a look at the moon...
craters, shadows, mountains...
how the hell can a light source have shadows on itself, IF light is travelling from the source (moon) then we would not see the shadows, they would appear only if the light source was pointed AT it ... like hmm.. i wonder.. maybe THE SUN.
edit:wrong quote
-
While I'm still working on the exact mechanisms of the third satellite, which I have named the Lire*, I would like to point out one, quite simple thing you fail to realize about us FE'ers:
Until 1492, everyone assumed the world was flat. Then, Columbus discovered the "Indies." Then, Magellan sailed "around" the "globe." Since those times, just about every scientist has gone along with the belief that the world is round. Therefore, every time they make a "discovery," the only way they test it is through the RE theory.
FE'ers don't have these scientists - we're trying to explain it for ourselves. RE'ers can simply go onto the net, type in "explanation lunar eclipse" to google.com, and copy and paste the response onto this forum with the heading, "LIEK OMG UNDENIABLE PROOF." And so far, you've given us thirty days with the matter. Thirty days. That's ridiculous.
Here's an example for you: I believe it was Galileo who first viewed the world as nothing special, thinking that it orbited around the sun. When he brought this out into the public, everyone, including political leaders and the Catholic church said, "Uh-uh. No way man. You're definitely wrong." Mind you, he'd worked on this theory himself for a good decade or so. Then, people thought about how it worked for about half a century, only to decide that Galileo's theory was a bit better than the current one.
And what's the moral of the story, you might ask? People had a century to think proof over. You've given us thirty days. I think you owe us a good 49 years, three hundred and thirty four days, give or take some, until you DEMAND an answer.
*I've also thought about calling it the Phoomp, because that just sounds invisible to me. Any other ideas?
I realize this thread is a little old, particularly this post, but aside from the obvious contradictions to your post made by Ubuntu (here (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=44480#44480)), you're neglecting one thing.
You claim that RE'ers have had 2000 years to explain eclipses, and you only had 30 days at the point in this thread. However, you forget that people have "known" the earth was flat, LONG before two thousand years ago. You've had since the beginning of time to come up with a plausible explaination for eclipses, yet still can't. 2000 years is nothing in comparison to the at least 20,000 years that thinking humans have roamed the earth. The round earth.
-
I think this qualifies as definitive proof that the Earth is round.
-
Unbuntu wrote:
I think this qualifies as definitive proof that the Earth is round.
Indeed it does. 8-)
-
Unbuntu wrote:
Indeed it does. 8-)
Right on. 8-)
-
Unbuntu wrote:
Indeed it does. 8-)
Right on. 8-)
Right on indeed.
Further FE pwnage:
http://www.phy6.org/stargaze/Scolumb.htm
-
Something has to come up eventually.
-
Something has to come up eventually.
Hm?
-
Something has to come up eventually.
Hm?
I mean a reply/answer/rebuttal.
-
Something has to come up eventually.
Hm?
I mean a reply/answer/rebuttal.
I wouldn't hold your breath for something satisfactory.
-
This topic is "yet to be answered."
Bump'd.
x2
bumpity bumpski :wink:
-
the earth could just be a flat...but round object, like a plate...
doesn't this completely ruin every argument stated in the previous posts? about the circular shadow cast on the moon by the earth?
course, ur ideas do completely disband the fiction that the sun and moon are both beacons, both above the earth, as if this was the case there would not be a possibility for a lunar eclipse to occer, as both would be above the earth, therefore the earth could not get inbetween
-
So far, no FE has given a satisfactory explaination of eclipses.
We are still waiting, FEers.
-
REPLY TO THIS THREAD REPLY TO THIS THREAD REPLY TO THIS THREAD REPLY TO THIS THREAD REPLY TO THIS THREAD
-
ok
-
Shut up.
-
Well that makes 3 I guess.
-
So as this is a time passer for all you guys and you all believe that the earth is round and it is just a mater weather you will admit it or not. I thought I would let you know what is happening around the earth and not in theory, in reality.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5944615355863607664
You flat-earth's always say that if you haven't seen it with your owns eyes, then it probably isn't how it is. So in theory there is no third world debt, no poverty, no racism, no ozone-layer depletion and no ice caps melting. This goes back the the age old argument that if a tree falls over in a forest and there is no one there to hear it, did it make a sound?
For more information about this visit http://www.greenpeace.org/apple/ this is there current campaign, they have a wide agenda and I'm sure you will find one that you will be able to help out with what ever your theory.
-
So as this is a time passer for all you guys and you all believe that the earth is round and it is just a mater weather you will admit it or not. I thought I would let you know what is happening around the earth and not in theory, in reality.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5944615355863607664
You flat-earth's always say that if you haven't seen it with your owns eyes, then it probably isn't how it is. So in theory there is no third world debt, no poverty, no racism, no ozone-layer depletion and no ice caps melting. This goes back the the age old argument that if a tree falls over in a forest and there is no one there to hear it, did it make a sound?
For more information about this visit SLIMY-PROSELYTIZING-DELETED this is there current campaign, they have a wide agenda and I'm sure you will find one that you will be able to help out with what ever your theory.
Wow. Not only is this nowhere near on-topic, but you managed to try to prove that the Earth is round using the fact that people in third-world countries are exploited. omg. You just have no shame, do you?
-
If everyone in the world was like you, it would probably be flat.
-
So as this is a time passer for all you guys and you all believe that the earth is round and it is just a mater weather you will admit it or not. I thought I would let you know what is happening around the earth and not in theory, in reality.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5944615355863607664
You flat-earth's always say that if you haven't seen it with your owns eyes, then it probably isn't how it is. So in theory there is no third world debt, no poverty, no racism, no ozone-layer depletion and no ice caps melting. This goes back the the age old argument that if a tree falls over in a forest and there is no one there to hear it, did it make a sound?
For more information about this visit SLIMY-PROSELYTIZING-DELETED this is there current campaign, they have a wide agenda and I'm sure you will find one that you will be able to help out with what ever your theory.
Wow. Not only is this nowhere near on-topic, but you managed to try to prove that the Earth is round using the fact that people in third-world countries are exploited. omg. You just have no shame, do you?
Damn. That IS shameful. Speaking of proof though, I think there's some on this site: http://www.thehungersite.com
-
What the hell happened to this topic?
-
REer: And So by this scientific data, very scientifficly presented, the earth could not possibly be flat.
FEer: Duh..... You spelt scientifficality wrong
REer: Well thats not the point the point is that eclipses ultimatly proves the earth is spherical.
FEer: Yeh... Well... The Government causes Eclipses...
REer: How could the Government posibly gain the resouses and produce a contaption to temporarely block out the sun?
FEer: Eh... the Government is like... Magic
REer: What, so they turn off the sun?
FEer: No... er... Yeh... Thats it... End of discotion
*FEer: leaves without further questioning*
-
So as this is a time passer for all you guys and you all believe that the earth is round and it is just a mater weather you will admit it or not. I thought I would let you know what is happening around the earth and not in theory, in reality.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5944615355863607664
You flat-earth's always say that if you haven't seen it with your owns eyes, then it probably isn't how it is. So in theory there is no third world debt, no poverty, no racism, no ozone-layer depletion and no ice caps melting. This goes back the the age old argument that if a tree falls over in a forest and there is no one there to hear it, did it make a sound?
For more information about this visit SLIMY-PROSELYTIZING-DELETED this is there current campaign, they have a wide agenda and I'm sure you will find one that you will be able to help out with what ever your theory.
Wow. Not only is this nowhere near on-topic, but you managed to try to prove that the Earth is round using the fact that people in third-world countries are exploited. omg. You just have no shame, do you?
At least he provided a post for you to quote, and then make it look like you aren't ignoring this thread altogether. But if you want to respond to the eclipse point, feel free. Not responding indicates that you concede the point.
-
Not responding indicates that you concede the point.
Ah, one of the most annoying RE tactics.
-
*Ahem.*
-
I'm going to answer a question put forth on page one which I doubt has yet recieved this response, though I haven't gone through all 15 pages to look:
They can't cast a shadow on the moon to give the illusion that the world is round
Here it comes...
...
...
...
...
...
...
(http://www.etsu.edu/math/gardner/batsignal.jpg)
-
Has anything like the Bat Signal ever been done in real life?
-
Has anything like the Bat Signal ever been done in real life?
Didn't think so.
-
I'd like all the new members to see this topic. :arrow:
-
Why?
-
Why?
So that they can know this impeccable argument against the Flat Earth Society's claims has already been made.
-
The only response to the eclipse question has been that rather than the Earth's shadow causing lunar eclipse, it is instead a flat disk in orbit between the Moon and Earth. The problem with this, however, is that then only people directly under the Moon would see a circular shadow; people elsewhere would see an elliptical shadow of varying eccentricity.
-
Hey,
Havent been here for sometime... but I came back ... just to see how the bullshitting is going.. Seems like we WON!! Great work fellow RE'ers . FE'rs, ... YHBT... YHL... HAND!!
W00t
-
You sure seem proud of winning an argument about whether or not the Earth is flat.
-
Not responding indicates that you concede the point.
Ah, one of the most annoying RE tactics.
Not nearly as annoying as FErs only responding to proof threads just to snark and snipe and point out inconsequential errors (such as a flaw in how a scientific principle is described regardless of whether the principle itself actually proves a Round Earth) instead of making a counter-argument or conceding the point.
I mean, that's the classic FE response to that comment, but that comment is never made by the most reasonable RE debaters, it's made by the cocky ones who are usually new to the forum, but that doesn't stop you from making a blanket statement implying it's an actual "tactic" used by all RErs.
-
I mean, that's the classic FE response to that comment, but that comment is never made by the most reasonable RE debaters, it's made by the cocky ones who are usually new to the forum,
The majority of RE's are the cocky ones that are usually new to the forums. And they do use that tactic.
-
dysfunction.. You misunderstood me... I am an RE. I edited the post to remove the misunderstanding.
Thomas
-
dysfunction.. You misunderstood me... I am an RE. I edited the post to remove the misunderstanding.
Thomas
I was aware of that. My point was that the argument you 'won' was won over a thousand years ago, so it isn't much to be proud of.
-
maybe this should be stickied so we shouldn't have to bump it all the time.
-
Concur.
-
does wayne brady have to bump a thread?
-
If that can orbit the earth, why can't a normal man-made satellite?
Firstly, it doesn't orbit the Earth, it orbits the Earth's central axis.
Secondly, the mechanism that keeps it in that orbit is unknown, so its unknown whether merely putting a satellite up there would be enough to keep the satellite in orbit.
its not unknown about what will happen if we put a satellite in orbit, and i have proof. its called a freakin cell phone. HHHIIOOOOOO! haha. but seriously, satellites are in orbit, and thats why my cell phone works great. thanks for your time.
-
You sure seem proud of winning an argument about whether or not the Earth is flat.
hahaha LOLOL yeah dude calm down. i knew RE was right before conception.
-
its not unknown about what will happen if we put a satellite in orbit, and i have proof. its called a freakin cell phone. HHHIIOOOOOO! haha. but seriously, satellites are in orbit, and thats why my cell phone works great. thanks for your time.
Your cell phone may work great, but it's certainly not because of satellites, which have nothing to do with how cell phones work.
-
its not unknown about what will happen if we put a satellite in orbit, and i have proof. its called a freakin cell phone. HHHIIOOOOOO! haha. but seriously, satellites are in orbit, and thats why my cell phone works great. thanks for your time.
Your cell phone may work great, but it's certainly not because of satellites, which have nothing to do with how cell phones work.
true for non-portable-satellite phones. but for those types of cell phones (one of which i have), satellites are involved (i mean come on, its right there in the title).
and besides, frak off. we both know i could list 2034932054 things that use a satellite (all of which work) so we must conclude that humans know how to put a satellite in orbit. here are a few: xm radio, DBS (tv via direct broadcast by satellite), oceanographers use them to track surface marine life, astronomers use them (come on, we all know thats true), and surveillance.
also keep in mind that to refute my argument here one would have to give explanations for how EACH of these things works if satellites do not orbit the earth. responding and saying that tvs can work w/out a satellite won't suffice.
-
true for non-portable-satellite phones. but for those types of cell phones (one of which i have), satellites are involved (i mean come on, its right there in the title).
:shock: Wha...??? Do you mean you have a satellite phone? If so, how is that a cell phone?
and besides, frak off. we both know i could list 2034932054 things that use a satellite (all of which work) so we must conclude that humans know how to put a satellite in orbit. here are a few: xm radio, DBS (tv via direct broadcast by satellite), oceanographers use them to track surface marine life, astronomers use them (come on, we all know thats true), and surveillance
Just because the names include the word "Satellite", doesn't mean they're actually being broadcast from satellites.
-
No. It appears to be a rock. Since we haven't actually been there, we have no way of knowing whether it is a rock, or if it simply looks lik one.
And this:
You can see the moon during daylight even sometimes, it's just faint because it is so bright out.
supports neither claim in any substantial way.
how can you know it is made of rock??? well it is like this, everything except black colored things reflect light, and every element reflects a different kind of light, so that`s how we know what`s the moon made of, elements that are not able emanate light!
-
Just because the names include the word "Satellite", doesn't mean they're actually being broadcast from satellites
You're not really showing that they're not.....
-
I have read that eslipse is cause by a Sky dog swallowing it :P
-
bump
-
Taiji talks about a sky Dog, and then Crypto shows up :)
-
dysfunction.. You misunderstood me... I am an RE. I edited the post to remove the misunderstanding.
Thomas
I was aware of that. My point was that the argument you 'won' was won over a thousand years ago, so it isn't much to be proud of.
Heh, heh, heh.
-
Bump.
-
Bump.
Bump+1
-
Well I suggest to all FE'ers that if they really want to learn the truth, that they go and charter a flight which flies directly over Antarctica.
-
Well I suggest to all FE'ers that if they really want to learn the truth, that they go and charter a flight which flies directly over Antarctica.
If you're willing to pay, sure!!
-
If I would really believe that the earth is flat, I would pay the flight. It would be so satisfying to see that I'm right.
(I love 'believing' that the earth is a globe, it's satisfying for me every day :D )
But as the earth is a globe and most of them know that, they won't do it. Then they would have to stop this nonsense...
-
I won't do it for the same reason you won't - why would I waste money to prove to myself something I know to be true?
-
I won't do it for the same reason you won't - why would I waste money to prove to myself something I know to be true?
I have my evidences. I have the pictures (I don't believe that someone fakes millions of pictures whithout having any motive). I know people who flew over the antarctica. I know that a lot of science/laws/... is based on the earth being a globe or has the same foundations as the 'theory' that the earth is a globe and I know that it all 'works'. I've got my evidences.
But you haven't got anything. Just an unfounded theory. You NEED the flight.
-
I won't do it for the same reason you won't - why would I waste money to prove to myself something I know to be true?
Why not? Can't you find some rich guy to invest in such an expidition? Thats how these scientific geographical exploration things work yanno. You find an investor or a grant...
OH right yeah... No one would give you a grant just to discover whether or not the world was flat or round.... Well I suppose you could pool together enough money between you and the other nutcases.
The simple fact is that this type of challenge presents something that scares you, a chance to find out the truth.
A true scientific mind would leap at the oppertunity. One unsure of their theory completely would be less willing to do so. One in your position, with no real fact and a simple minded insistence that you are right and everyone else is wrong, would come up with every excuse imaginable to avoid such a blunt method of finding the truth.
-
Pack your bags or admit that you don't really believe that the earth is flat. Let's get through it.
-
Pack your bags or admit that you don't really believe that the earth is flat. Let's get through it.
Pack your bags or admit that you don't really believe that the earth is round. Let's get through it.
-
Pack your bags or admit that you don't really believe that the earth is flat. Let's get through it.
Pack your bags or admit that you don't really believe that the earth is round. Let's get through it.
We've got enough evidence. And I'll fly over the antarctica in the course of my life. But until then, I take the word of the people who flew over it and the millions of pictures of the antarctica AND the worldglobe.
-
Well FEs, ten years have passed. Has anybody come up with any FE model that can accurately predict solar and lunar eclipses with the accuracy of the RE model?
-
Actually, using my model, I simply look at past events and make predictions based on them. Is this wrong?
-
Actually, using my model, I simply look at past events and make predictions based on them. Is this wrong?
Yes. Past events will not predict the exact time or location a future solar eclipse will be visible.
It also doesn't explain how some locations can see a solar eclipse yet other locations cannot.
-
Predicitons based on past events...
Unfortunatelly, this is not that simple.
-
TEN YEARS
This thread was started when Bush was still in office, and FE believers still can't give an explanation for eclipses.
-
Actually, using my model, I simply look at past events and make predictions based on them. Is this wrong?
Some explanations, using your model, of how lunar eclipses can even occur at all would be appreciated.
The one given in "the Wiki" is clearly unsatisfactory. In case you have forgotten, here it is: The Lunar Eclipse
A Lunar Eclipse occurs about twice a year when a satellite of the sun passes between the sun and moon.
This satellite is called the Shadow Object. Its orbital plane is tilted at an angle of about 5°10' to the sun's orbital plane, making eclipses possible only when the three bodies (Sun, Object, and Moon) are aligned and when the moon is crossing the sun's orbital plane (at a point called the node). Within a given year, considering the orbitals of these celestial bodies, a maximum of three lunar eclipses can occur. Despite the fact that there are more solar than lunar eclipses each year, over time many more lunar eclipses are seen at any single location on earth than solar eclipses. This occurs because a lunar eclipse can be seen from the entire half of the earth beneath the moon at that time, while a solar eclipse is visible only along a narrow path on the earth's surface.
Total lunar eclipses come in clusters. There can be two or three during a period of a year or a year and a half, followed by a lull of two or three years before another round begins. When you add partial eclipses there can be three in a calendar year and again, it's quite possible to have none at all.
The shadow object is never seen because it orbits close to the sun. As the sun's powerful vertical rays hit the atmosphere during the day they will scatter and blot out nearly every single star and celestial body in the sky. We are never given a glimpse of the celestial bodies which appear near the sun during the day - they are completely washed out by the sun's light.
It is estimated that the Shadow Object is around five to ten miles in diameter. Since it is somewhat close to the sun the manifestation of its penumbra upon the moon appears as a magnified projection. This is similar to how during a shadow puppet show your hand's shadow can make a large magnified projection upon your bedroom wall as you move it closer to the flashlight.[/size]
It is simply not possible for "the Shadow Object . . . . . five to ten miles in diameter" to cast a shadow on the moon when the sun is 32 miles in diameter and around 12,500 miles from the moon.
So, over to the expert.
-
Okay, this is going to be hard to explain, but I'll try. A lunar eclipse occurs when the Earth gets between the sun and the moon, hence making the moon appear a darker than normal. Since man has first started recording events of this kind (using sophisticated language, not cave paintings and stuff) they have noticed that it can occur when the moon is at any position in the sky. Whether it's closer to the horizon, or high in the sky, the entire moon is darkened. If the earth was flat, also check this phenq review (http://reviewphenq.com/) it would not always cast a shadow that would cover the entire moon. Basically, if the earth was flat, some lunar eclipses would have only half of the moon dark. While this happens (it's called a penumbral eclipse), if the earth really is flat, then the wrong half would be darkened. In the penubral eclipse, the "left" side of the moon won't be dark, but the "right" side will, and vice versa. If the FE theory is correct, then there would sometimes be eclipses where the "bottom" half of the moon is dark, but the "top" half isn't. This has never occured. Not once in the history of man. Heres a picture of a lunar eclipse.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/af/Lunareclipses2003.jpg)
Now, a solar eclipse is when the moon gets in between the earth and the moon, casting a circular shadow on the earth. Now, we can predict when these eclipses (whether they be solar or lunar, but this is only pertinent to my arguement about solar eclipses) will occur. Not only this, but also where they will appear on the earth. Now, these calculations are based on the moon's orbit around the earth, the earth's orbit around the sun, and the earth's rotation on it's axis. Now, you can say that their predictions based on earth orbiting around the sun can be modeled the same by the sun moving around the earth (as much as I disagree with it, I know this arguement is going to come up so I'm going to address it right now).
you have very interesting theory to share about eclipse. This surely has to be answered by flatearth supporters.
moon doesn't produce but reflects light.
Sun moving around earth ? I would love to see any argument coming on this one..
-
This topic is "yet to be answered."
-
Please stop making low content posts in the upper fora. Thanks.
-
Please stop making low content posts
I will stop bumping this thread when you explain how you can predict eclipses with the accuracy of the RE model
-
Poor Aralith. He never got an answer to his question. 10 years is a long time, a lot can change. Wonder where he is now.
Why does everybody ignore this thread? How can Flat Earthers not see the obvious flaws in their models? This thread is literally 10 years old, and still the FE religion has no answers.
-
Sorry, could you prove to me that the moon doesn't emit light? Because, otherwise, I find your claim that my reasoning is "utterly ridiculous" offensive and, not to mention, wrong.
The moon reflects light because as you can see from your porch, it is made of rock.
You have absolutely no evidence to support it emits light. The notion that emits light is truly ridiculous. It's a rock. Not a star. A moon. We have space rocks... except I guess those are part of the conspiracy too. However, just look at the moon. You can see the moon during daylight even sometimes, it's just faint because it is so bright out. It's a rock. Rock's don't emit light. 'Nuff said.
Haven't you ever heard of those (flat earth) "moonshrimp" ......or is it "moonshramp" ?
They are those "bioluminescent" (spelling ? ) creatures that light up the moon and cause the phases of the moon as they migrate back and forth across the surface of the moon. .......LOL.....
I haven't seen this from the flat earthers and I'm just guessing until I get "the truth" from the flat earthers.
But here is my guess.
Those moonshrimp have to have something to stay alive and light up the moon.
The moon is made of cheese and they feed on it.
Those craters are just where they dug down to get some more.
This is just my guess. I stand corrected when FES comes up with the official word !
-
It's hard to beat that logic. The moon MUST BE inhabited by moonshramp. It is the only explanation.
-
It's hard to beat that logic. The moon MUST BE inhabited by moonshramp. It is the only explanation.
It takes time but at the end all get turned to moonshramp religion. You just can't beat it.
-
Someone post on my facebook page about people who still think the earth is flat so i checked it out and couldnt believe it.
Now i know why our round world if so screwed up its filled with delusional people.
It actually makes me sad when I think about it.
-
Don't be sad. This kind of thinking stems from skepticism, which is one of humanity's greatest assets. One should never blindly accept what one is told.
At the same time, one must resist willful ignorance. There are many aspects of the round earth model that explain observable phenomena that Flat Earthers cannot answer for.
One such phenomena is the predictability of eclipses.