How does a lunar eclipse work on a flat earth?

Quote from: rabinoz on December 20, 2017, 03:02:53 PM

Which is one reason why the FE explanation of the lunar eclipse is totally impossible.

When the light source (sun) is (much) larger than the shading object (Venus, Mercury or the shadow object) the umbra (total shadow) must be smaller than the shading object.
That's so elementary that it needs no explanation, so I do not know how you can even entertain the idea.

Because they asked for the FE answer and I gave it.
Besides, that doesn't really work as an argument,

Agreed, it does not work, but why do you have make up a solution?

the FE Sun isn't a ball and it isn't the downwards facing side of the Sun that illuminates the moon.

Really? Where do you get your "Flat Earth Theory" from? You make up your own by the look of it.

The Sun
The sun is a sphere. It has a diameter of 32 miles and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth.

Don't you think that the  poor helpless flat earthers can work these things out for themselves.

I'll admit I'm not clear on which part of the Sun does cause the phases, but it's pretty clearly not that be. Even with the lack of other information it's pretty clear the light that causes the moon's phases comes from something closer to the sides of the spotlight-Sun, not the circular face, meaning it's the size of that which determines size of the shadow. What is your data that confirms it would be larger than the shadow object?

Look, face reality! During a full moon we see the (almost) same face of the sun that illuminates the moon.
Even during the other phases, on the flat earth, some parts of the earth would see the face that illuminates the moon.
But the face of the sun always looks quite circular.

Really, you are grasping at straws for a completely lost cause.

I cannot fathom why you try to make up your own "flat earth theory"?
The Wiki gives the flat earther's own ideas, why do you throw in more and more pure conjecture?

Bad arguments has been a phrase banded about by a certain individual on this and other threads. Its something  that has been levelled at a number of posters including myself. In the quest for fairness I would like to see The individual in question offer a good argument for the existance of a shadow object. If we can all agree that a good argument is an argument that is either valid or strong, and with plausible premises that are true, do not beg the question, and are relevant to the conclusion.On the other hand A bad, or fallacious argument is a misleading one. It leads to a conclusion, often very persuasively, by illicit steps of argumentation. There are three types of fallacious argument:

1) Those that depend on dubious premises
2) Those weakened by irrelevance
3) Those that draw hasty conclusions

Over to you and we can all judge your argument based on some recognised criteria.

According to Jane the sun is not a ball!

*According to FET
The idea of a spotlight Sun under FET should not be new to you.

is it not a requirement that evidence is supplied to back the claim up?

Except I'm not saying this is the way things are, just that if you want to make an argument to disprove FET you need to do a whole lot more. FET has a response. I don't need this to be the real world, I don't believe this is, the world's round, but that doesn't mean you can claim any random nonsense you come up with is a refutation. If you do that you're just convincing every FEer and every FE-open person that all we have is lies, and that is wrong.

Quote from: Jane

the FE Sun isn't a ball and it isn't the downwards facing side of the Sun that illuminates the moon.

Really? Where do you get your "Flat Earth Theory" from? You make up your own by the look of it.

...Sorry, are you seriously saying that you've never seen a FEer talk about a spotlight Sun before? It's in the bloody FAQ.
If the Sun was a ball emitting light from all sides under FET, nighttime would not exist, unless you wanted to get really weird.

Look, face reality! During a full moon we see the (almost) same face of the sun that illuminates the moon.
Even during the other phases, on the flat earth, some parts of the earth would see the face that illuminates the moon.
But the face of the sun always looks quite circular.

Why does a light source that faces the moon, an object at the approximate altitude as the Sun under FET, have to be visible from Earth, a location substantially lower than both?
Like I said, sure, this is a but I have issues with, you'd end up with an odd shaped moon, but it's an automatic consequence of what FEers say. The Sun acts like a spotlight, and its light reflects off the moon... The downwards face clearly isn't pointed at the moon, so it has to come from some other spot.

The individual in question offer a good argument for the existance of a shadow object.

The FE argument is that it is necessary to explain a lunar eclipse under FET.
How is it you think FEers work? They believe the world is flat for whatever reason, and so much of the models come from that. They don't go "Ooh, rock near the Sun, the world must be flat!" If you want the exact chain of reasoning as to why they think the world's a disc, ask them. It's just a distraction to talk about it here.

Quote from: rabinoz on December 21, 2017, 02:29:47 AM

Quote from: Jane

the FE Sun isn't a ball and it isn't the downwards facing side of the Sun that illuminates the moon.

Really? Where do you get your "Flat Earth Theory" from? You make up your own by the look of it.

...Sorry, are you seriously saying that you've never seen a FEer talk about a spotlight Sun before? It's in the bloody FAQ.

So, was I out of order quoting "the Wiki"? Silly me!

The Sun
The sun is a sphere. It has a diameter of 32 miles and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth.

Spotlight effect
The Sun's area of light is limited to a circular area of light upon the earth much like the light of a lighthouse is limited to a finite circular area around it. The rotating light on a lighthouse does not propagate infinitely into the distance. This means that only certain portions of the Earth are lightened at a time. It also describes how night and day arise on the Flat Earth.

About "about a spotlight Sun", no! But about the "Spotlight effect", yes.
Then in

Flat Earth FAQ - Please Read!

How do you explain day and night cycles?

Day and night cycles are easily explained on a flat earth. The sun moves in circles around the North Pole. When it is over your head, it's day. When it's not, it's night. The sun acts like a spotlight and shines downward as it moves. The picture below illustrates how the sun moves and also how seasons work on a flat earth:

Yes, I am being pedantic because I have been "hauled over the coals" (on TFES.org) for calling the sun a "spotlight".

If the Sun was a ball emitting light from all sides under FET, nighttime would not exist, unless you wanted to get really weird.

Not my problem!
But Tom Bishop is a very prominent Flat Earth Believer, Zetetic Council Member and Flat Earth "Scientist".
He is a member here, but posts mainly on TFES.org and he posts:

Here's an idea: Read the Wiki, because it says that the sun shines light in all directions. The duration of light is limited by perspective and opacity of the atmosphere.

or is that one more Flat Earth Theory?

Quote from: rabinoz

Look, face reality! During a full moon we see the (almost) same face of the sun that illuminates the moon.
Even during the other phases, on the flat earth, some parts of the earth would see the face that illuminates the moon.
But the face of the sun always looks quite circular.

Why does a light source that faces the moon, an object at the approximate altitude as the Sun under FET, have to be visible from Earth, a location substantially lower than both?

Not really that "substantially lower than both", when you realise that the sun and moon are supposedly about 5000 km above and the moon-sun and observer-sun distance can be over 15,000 km.

As I've asked before, can't you picture these things yourself, without my having to point them out in great detail?

Now, I fully realise that I am not really explaining myself all that well in the following, but I hope you get the gist of it.
Looking at the above diagram.
The person under the moon cannot see the sun because the time has to be roughly midnight - a full moon is overhead.
But the moon is illuminated by light from the sun at a very similar angle.
That must be a very selective sun, especially as we know it rotates (sun spots), so must be spherical.

Of course, there is another massive problem with the above geometry (it is just my interpretation of the Wiki) is how anyone on earth could ever see a full moon.

The person under the moon (at midnight) can see only half of it.
The other person (at sunset, with the moon just rising) sees most of moon illuminated.

But we know that everybody that is able to see the moon sees the same phase, though the orientation depends on how you look at it.

If you think my diagram if wrong somewhere, please tell me how to fix it.

Flat Earthers must really hate that pesky moon.

Quote from: Jane on December 19, 2017, 02:42:09 PM

Quote from: Nightsky on December 19, 2017, 02:40:17 PM

Small non reflective rock... like what for example? Even meteors 100 or so meters across with the lowest known Albedo can be tracked, so why has this object never been seen? Sounds a bit suspicious....pretty obvious! Obvious to who?

How close to the Sun are they?
It's pretty hard to see something right next to a blinding light.

Plus for that matter some FEers say the shadow object is Mercury or Venus, in which case if you want observations, there you go.

SO first you keep saying the shadow object can't be seen against the sun because it is too bright, and now you are saying it can be seen against the sun.

If there is something in front of the sun that blocks it light, astronomers will have noticed.


What do you think about the photo I have posted that clearly shows the moon at a total eclipse?
I will post an other one:

What you post is picture of Solar eclopse caused by Moon.
But this topic is talking about Lunar eclipse.

Yes, I am being pedantic because I have been "hauled over the coals" (on TFES.org) for calling the sun a "spotlight".

Context matters. The Sun does not emit light from a ball-shaped surface, that should be the end of a discussion. I'll put my hand up to potentially questionable phrasing but if you're going to act like a spotlight effect was unthinkable you're being more than pedantic.

But Tom Bishop is a very prominent Flat Earth Believer, Zetetic Council Member and Flat Earth "Scientist".

And as you know full well many FEers believe different things. Sceptimatic also disagrees with the idea of a spotlight-sun. So? It's a pretty regular thing to see FEers talk about light only coming from one side of the Sun.

Not really that "substantially lower than both", when you realise that the sun and moon are supposedly about 5000 km above and the moon-sun and observer-sun distance can be over 15,000 km.

As I've asked before, can't you picture these things yourself, without my having to point them out in great detail?

Why is it you assume I haven't pictured them? 5000km is still a fair bit, especially given the size of objects like the Sun and moon under FET.

Of course, there is another massive problem with the above geometry (it is just my interpretation of the Wiki) is how anyone on earth could ever see a full moon.

Bingo.
It's another of those A implies B, B disproves C, but C was already disproven by A arguments. if you're going to talk about the shadow object, sure reference issues with underlying principles but it's not an argument about moon phases. You can pluck the shadow object out of the diagram and you still have an argument.
I agree, I haven't seen a good response for reflected-sunlight moon phases. The problem is, if you want to debate the merits of the shadow object as an explanation for lunar eclipses you need to at least temporarily accept the underlying assumptions, otherwise all you get is the pointlessness of "FET isn't right because [unrelated topic]"

If you assume phases work, then the light that illuminates the moon won't inherently be the same size as the light that illuminates the Earth, the shadow object can be small and cast a shadow.
If you don't assume phases work, it's a good argument but it's nothing to do with lunar eclipses.

Quote from: rabinoz on December 21, 2017, 11:14:58 PM

Yes, I am being pedantic because I have been "hauled over the coals" (on TFES.org) for calling the sun a "spotlight".

Context matters. The Sun does not emit light from a ball-shaped surface, that should be the end of a discussion. I'll put my hand up to potentially questionable phrasing but if you're going to act like a spotlight effect was unthinkable you're being more than pedantic.

Quote

But Tom Bishop is a very prominent Flat Earth Believer, Zetetic Council Member and Flat Earth "Scientist".

And as you know full well many FEers believe different things. Sceptimatic also disagrees with the idea of a spotlight-sun. So? It's a pretty regular thing to see FEers talk about light only coming from one side of the Sun.

Quote

Not really that "substantially lower than both", when you realise that the sun and moon are supposedly about 5000 km above and the moon-sun and observer-sun distance can be over 15,000 km.

As I've asked before, can't you picture these things yourself, without my having to point them out in great detail?

Why is it you assume I haven't pictured them? 5000km is still a fair bit, especially given the size of objects like the Sun and moon under FET.

Quote

Of course, there is another massive problem with the above geometry (it is just my interpretation of the Wiki) is how anyone on earth could ever see a full moon.

Bingo.
It's another of those A implies B, B disproves C, but C was already disproven by A arguments. if you're going to talk about the shadow object, sure reference issues with underlying principles but it's not an argument about moon phases. You can pluck the shadow object out of the diagram and you still have an argument.
I agree, I haven't seen a good response for reflected-sunlight moon phases. The problem is, if you want to debate the merits of the shadow object as an explanation for lunar eclipses you need to at least temporarily accept the underlying assumptions, otherwise all you get is the pointlessness of "FET isn't right because [unrelated topic]"

If you assume phases work, then the light that illuminates the moon won't inherently be the same size as the light that illuminates the Earth, the shadow object can be small and cast a shadow.
If you don't assume phases work, it's a good argument but it's nothing to do with lunar eclipses.

So many examples of bad arguments, Ive lost count on the number of logical transgressions and talk about use of argument from fallacy, now that is bad.

All what you say is totally at odds with the daily factual data produced from the many worldwide ground based solar observatories, like this one in France.
https://www.obspm.fr/observation-du-soleil?lang=en
Thats apart from the several space based observatories, but we wont mention them as we know how sensitive you are about space based facts.
I predict your next bad argument will be based on special pleading with a touch of shifting the burden of truth and a good measure of argument from ignorance. Why do I make this claim? Because an analysis of many of your previous posts show that these are the bad arguments you most often use apart from your constant use of wilful ignorance.

So many examples of bad arguments, Ive lost count on the number of logical transgressions and talk about use of argument from fallacy, now that is bad.

An argument from fallacy states that because an argument is bad, what it's arguing for is wrong. I am not doing that. The world is round, you are just not proving it with poor logic. This should not be a hard concept.

All what you say is totally at odds with the daily factual data produced from the many worldwide ground based solar observatories, like this one in France.

Great. And if you can provide an instance of that it would be an actual argument.