Lunar eclipse

  • 18 Replies
  • 1662 Views
*

Nopadon

  • 47
  • +1/-0
Lunar eclipse
« on: April 09, 2025, 05:55:18 AM »
Globesters cite this as proof of their globe. What sort of fallacy is it when assuming the shape of the earth is causing the shadow on the moon?

*

magellanclavichord

  • 1034
  • +8/-10
  • Cheerful Globularist
Re: Lunar eclipse
« Reply #1 on: April 09, 2025, 07:55:42 AM »
What sort of fallacy is it when instead of believing the evidence of your own eyes (e.g. the shape of the Earth's shadow on the moon during a lunar eclipse) you make up outlandish explanations to try to conform reality to an outdated interpretation of a book (the Bible) written thousands of years ago by people who didn't even understand where rain comes from?

Answer: That fallacy is called Special Pleading. Flat-earth theory has more special pleading in it than all other silly conspiracy theories combined.

?

DataOverFlow2022

  • 6220
  • +14/-29
Re: Lunar eclipse
« Reply #2 on: April 09, 2025, 09:39:37 AM »
by people who didn't even understand where rain comes from?



Did the rain fall from somewhere other than the clouds? 

*

magellanclavichord

  • 1034
  • +8/-10
  • Cheerful Globularist
Re: Lunar eclipse
« Reply #3 on: April 09, 2025, 10:51:34 AM »
Heat from the sun causes water to evaporate from the surface of the Earth. Colder temperatures at higher altitudes causes moisture to condense, forming clouds. When the condensation droplets become learge and heavy enough, they fall to earth as rain.

The people who wrote the Bible didn't know any of this. They just thought "God makes it happen" and when they wanted rain they killed some animals as sacrifices to God. They are not reliable sources of information, and neither are the books they wrote.

Believing the Bible when it contradicts common sense is just absurd. (And the great majority of Christians don't take it literally anyway.)

?

DataOverFlow2022

  • 6220
  • +14/-29
Re: Lunar eclipse
« Reply #4 on: April 09, 2025, 12:24:06 PM »
thought "God makes it happen" and

Did they think rain fell from something other than clouds.

The above is not the same as..


 by people who didn't even understand where rain comes from?


And yet many people walk around babbling about karma to this day.

Many people today understand the mechanics of the world, but still believe it’s driven by Karma. Or other Gaia is angry. Or any number of things.

If you think there is no mystery left in this world.  What powers gravity?

?

DataOverFlow2022

  • 6220
  • +14/-29
Re: Lunar eclipse
« Reply #5 on: April 09, 2025, 12:36:07 PM »

The people who wrote the Bible didn't know any of this.

Shrugs..

Using google AI






Educated Hebrews from the 3 and 2 century BC probably had an idea of the water cycle.  Believing something might have power over something isn’t the same thing as not understanding the basic mechanics of something. 





*

bulmabriefs144

  • 4188
  • +8/-29
  • Roco the Fox
Re: Lunar eclipse
« Reply #6 on: April 09, 2025, 02:11:26 PM »
What sort of fallacy is it when instead of believing the evidence of your own eyes (e.g. the shape of the Earth's shadow on the moon during a lunar eclipse) you make up outlandish explanations to try to conform reality to an outdated interpretation of a book (the Bible) written thousands of years ago by people who didn't even understand where rain comes from?

Answer: That fallacy is called Special Pleading. Flat-earth theory has more special pleading in it than all other silly conspiracy theories combined.

The evidence of your eyes?

Who is talking special pleading here? You are saying when the sun is lined up with the moon and Earth (which btw, should happen almost every night!) the shadow of the sun hitting the Earth kinda bounces back just so that it turns the moon blood red. Meanwhile the shadow from everything else is black. And btw, you seem to think the moon gets its light from the sun, but how exactly is this possible when the

Blind trust in nonsense science, but sure, the Bible is outdated.

Forget the Bible for a second. This is simple logic.

1. Shadows cannot be driven backwards.
2. If a light has no apparent source, the only way it can cast light is if it is a source of light.
3. As DataOverFlow2022 says, the ancients (including the writers of the Bible) understood science. In fact, as early as Egypt and Rome, we have found things like solar power of sorts. And Rome's cement was so good that we today don't know exactly how it is done. The Pantheon (not to be confused with the Parthenon) has stood for over 1200 years, as has a Roman bridge.
4. More importantly, unlike you, a stupid moderner, they understood the bicycle in the woods paradigm. That you can't just have something exist without a cause. "The fool says in his heart there is no God."
5. Oh yeah, and you still haven't explained what exactly is different from a regular new moon, or a regular shadow.


*

magellanclavichord

  • 1034
  • +8/-10
  • Cheerful Globularist
Re: Lunar eclipse
« Reply #7 on: April 09, 2025, 02:54:23 PM »
Yeah, Aristotle knew that stuff, but the people who wrote the Bible didn't.

*

bulmabriefs144

  • 4188
  • +8/-29
  • Roco the Fox
Re: Lunar eclipse
« Reply #8 on: April 09, 2025, 06:57:20 PM »
Actually, they kinda did.

https://thepremierdaily.com/science-confirms-these-parts-of-the-bible/

As an addendum though, a "circle" is not a sphere.



A circle.



A sphere.

As a second addendum, they didn't mention that the sun standing still is a geocentric (not heliocentric) event.

As a third addendum, there are additional things that are science in regard to the Bible.
  • Crop rotation
  • Ambient light and darkness (what your "science" cannot account for because it relies on the fallacious assumption that all light during daylight is from the sun, even though we get light on heavily foggy days and eclipses)

https://greatmountainpublishing.com/2025/03/09/the-bible-reveals-the-trickery-of-the-final-experiment/
  • Hot springs (the pool of Siloam)
  • Knowledge of genetics (grafting, separating animals for breeding, understanding that each animal produces its own kind).
  • Currents and trenches in the water
  • Air has mass
  • That light travels and doesn't just appear (the basis for later electromagnetic understanding)
  • Life is in the blood (at one point, "modern" people of the Middle Ages thought they knew better, and bleeding was practiced)


And so on. Almost as if God, having created the Earth, knows how it works!

*

magellanclavichord

  • 1034
  • +8/-10
  • Cheerful Globularist
Re: Lunar eclipse
« Reply #9 on: April 11, 2025, 08:24:35 AM »
The people who wrote the Bible thought that if you show a pregnant cow a picture of spots, its calf would be born with spots. This is just dumb.

Yes, they got a few things right. And they got a lot of things wrong. Therefore you cannot assume that any given passage from the Bible must be true.

By the way, the people who compiled the Biblical canon did not believe that it was all literally true. They believed that those were the specific books that priests should use when preaching to their congregations. They didn't even believe that ordinary people should read them, and in fact most people were illiterate and could not read. The notion of Biblical inerrancy didn't come along until Luther, and even he only applied inerrancy to matters of faith, in opposition to the corruption of the Church. It was later still when more modern preachers invented the idea of Biblical literalism.

The idea that everything in the Bible is literally true is a very recent invention. And it's patently false, as there is so much that is verifiably false in it. Such as breeding spotted calves by showing their mothers pictures of spots. Or the two conflicting accounts of Creation in Genesis (can't BOTH be right).

If a man tells the truth half the time and lies half the time you cannot say that people should believe him because sometimes he tells the truth. The Bible is like that: You cannot believe it just because SOME of it is true. The fact that some of it is false means that it is not a trustworthy source.

*

JackBlack

  • 24588
  • +23/-46
Re: Lunar eclipse
« Reply #10 on: April 11, 2025, 04:06:46 PM »
Globesters cite this as proof of their globe. What sort of fallacy is it when assuming the shape of the earth is causing the shadow on the moon?
It is not a fallacy, because that isn't how it works at all.
You act as if on the basis of absolutely nothing they just assume that it is Earth causing a shadow on the moon.

But that is not the case.
Instead, careful observations of the angular separation between the moon and the sun clearly demonstrate that the moon is illuminated by the sun and extrapolation of those positions to when both are not visible show that a lunar eclipse occurs when the sun, Earth and moon are aligned with the sun and moon on either side of Earth.
Based upon this we recognise that Earth is blocking the light of the sun from reaching the moon, and thus Earth's shadow is what we see causing the eclipse.

You are saying when the sun is lined up with the moon and Earth (which btw, should happen almost every night!)
No, it shouldn't.
Just what makes you think it should happen almost every night?
You are demonstrating the BS mentality of the Bible of the moon being the "light of night" as if it remains opposite the sun.
We can see crescent moons, where the moon is clearly quite close in angular position to the sun. How is it meant to get from there to directly opposite to align up at night?

You are just asserting pure BS to pretend there is a problem with the model when you know you can't show anything.

the shadow of the sun hitting the Earth kinda bounces back just so that it turns the moon blood red.
Wrong again.
The light from the sun is mostly stopped by Earth, but some still passes through the atmosphere and is scattered, with the red light being scattered less and able to go through the atmosphere to illuminate the moon.

Meanwhile the shadow from everything else is black.
Wrong again.
Have you never held up a piece of coloured plastic to a light?

Old style coloured lights were made by taking a white light and placing a coloured material in front of it so the "shadow" produced is coloured.

And btw, you seem to think the moon gets its light from the sun, but how exactly is this possible when the
Because that is what all the evidence shows, with no one able to provide a viable alternative, and no one able to provide anything that challenges it.
Just look at you, you couldn't' even finish your sentence and instead need to spam other crap.

1. Shadows cannot be driven backwards.
And no one is saying they are.

2. If a light has no apparent source, the only way it can cast light is if it is a source of light.
I assume by this you are saying if you can't figure out the moon is just reflecting the light of the sun it must be casting its own light?
If so, your wilful ignorance doesn't change reality.
You failing to understand how the moon reflects the light of the sun doesn't mean it isn't.

the bicycle in the woods paradigm. That you can't just have something exist without a cause.
Which is just a pile of delusional crap, and isn't even the right one.
What you want is a watch in the woods.

But the fact you recognise the bike as special compared to the woods demonstrates the problem with this argument. All the trees there are clearly different.
What you really want is a bicycle in a field full of bicycles, where none are special.

And then to further double down on that foolishness, these people proclaim that if something exist it must have a cause, to then go on to assert this cause is God, God exists, but God does not have a cause.
Meanwhile, sane people recognise that if something existing means it needs a cause, then if God exists it needs a cause, and whatever caused that god likewise needs a cause and so on. And then each of those gods could have just gone straight to creating the bicycle, skipping all the in-between gods.
So they recognise you end up with an infinite sequence of unneeded gods, and so they rightly discard them all as unneeded.

The only solution is to have things not need a cause. At which point why should we need your god?

Sane people also recognise the difference between a bicycle and biological systems.
Biological systems are composed of chemicals which can spontaneously react to form complex structures; and then go on to replicate with slight changes to the structure.
Bicycles are not and instead need someone to put it together.
That is the difference.

"The fool says in his heart there is no God."
Yet continues to pretend to believe. While an intelligent person recognises there is no reason to believe in a god and discards it as the garbage that it is.

5. Oh yeah, and you still haven't explained what exactly is different from a regular new moon, or a regular shadow.
For a new moon, the moon is very close to the sun, instead of directly opposite as in a lunar eclipse.
Likewise, a new moon occurs roughly 14 days after a full moon, while a lunar eclipse occurs during an otherwise full moon.
And during a new moon, the moon is incredibly faint and usually not visible. During an eclipse the moon appears red.

As for a shadow, most shadows you appeal to are from objects in Earth's atmosphere with light only travelling a short distance through the atmosphere.
The lunar eclipse comes from Earth blocking most of the light, but the passage of the light through the atmosphere causes it to appear red as the blue light is scattered away and a small amount of red light is scattered to the moon.

Here is a somewhat comparable example (but still far from perfect):

Notice that the object appears blue due to the scattered light and in the shadow we have a bright orange spot.

Actually, they kinda did.
Actually, they didn't.
And science happening to match a part of the Bible which has been quite twisted to pretend it matches, doesn't mean it actually matches.
Likewise, getting some things coincidentally right doesn't mean they understood.
Where in the Bible does it show they recognise water evaporates to produce clouds which then fall as rain?


Ambient light and darkness (what your "science" cannot account for
You mean what science can trivially account for and has already been explained to you with you just ignoring it because it shows you are wrong?

*

Nopadon

  • 47
  • +1/-0
Re: Lunar eclipse
« Reply #11 on: April 12, 2025, 04:01:57 AM »
To Jack Black

‘Instead, careful observations of the angular separation between the moon and the sun clearly demonstrate that the moon is illuminated by the sun’

Do you come up with this stuff yourself off the cuff like?

*

JackBlack

  • 24588
  • +23/-46
Re: Lunar eclipse
« Reply #12 on: April 12, 2025, 01:52:51 PM »
To Jack Black

‘Instead, careful observations of the angular separation between the moon and the sun clearly demonstrate that the moon is illuminated by the sun’

Do you come up with this stuff yourself off the cuff like?
I wouldn't necessarily say off the cuff, given how many times it has to be explained to flat Earthers.
But I didn't need to look anything up for it.

Do you have any response to it?

Do you accept that it isn't an assumption and instead is a conclusion based upon the available evidence?

*

Nopadon

  • 47
  • +1/-0
Re: Lunar eclipse
« Reply #13 on: April 14, 2025, 05:51:57 PM »
To Jack Black

‘Instead, careful observations of the angular separation between the moon and the sun clearly demonstrate that the moon is illuminated by the sun’

Do you come up with this stuff yourself off the cuff like?
I wouldn't necessarily say off the cuff, given how many times it has to be explained to flat Earthers.
But I didn't need to look anything up for it.

Do you have any response to it?

Do you accept that it isn't an assumption and instead is a conclusion based upon the available evidence?

I simply can’t believe an intelligent individual could believe something so moronic as this nonsense about the moon reflecting sunlight. I can only think you must be getting paid to spread this rubbish.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 43562
  • +22/-33
Re: Lunar eclipse
« Reply #14 on: April 14, 2025, 07:06:16 PM »
I simply can’t believe an intelligent individual could believe something so moronic as this nonsense about the moon reflecting sunlight.
Why shouldn't the moon reflect sunlight? ???
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

JackBlack

  • 24588
  • +23/-46
Re: Lunar eclipse
« Reply #15 on: April 15, 2025, 12:31:58 AM »
I simply can’t believe an intelligent individual could believe something so moronic as this nonsense about the moon reflecting sunlight. I can only think you must be getting paid to spread this rubbish.
You need help.
All the evidence shows it is.
There is nothing moronic about it.

Do you know what is completely moronic? Thinking it magically casts it's own light, and then magically shows phases with this magically produced light, complete with these phases causing apparent shadows in the craters, and then deciding to change colour for a lunar eclipse for no reason at all.
That idea makes absolutely no sense, there is no reason for it to do any of that, there is no explanation for any of it.

Meanwhile, the idea of it reflecting light makes perfect sense. It explains why it has phases because when you light up a sphere from one direction it only has half the sphere illuminated and you get different phases depending upon the angle it is viewed from (relative to the light).
This explains the shadows in the craters.
This even explains the eclipse.

So there is nothing moronic about accepting the fact that the moon reflects sunlight. But it is very moronic to think it doesn't.


It seems more likely that you simply can't believe an intelligent person wouldn't agree with you.
That an intelligent person can realise you are wrong.

*

magellanclavichord

  • 1034
  • +8/-10
  • Cheerful Globularist
Re: Lunar eclipse
« Reply #16 on: April 15, 2025, 06:48:28 PM »
I simply can’t believe an intelligent individual could believe something so moronic as this nonsense about the moon reflecting sunlight. ...

This is a joke, right? You're just saying this to get Jack going on a rant. I mean, you can see that the Moon reflects sunlight. What's the alternative? That it's a frigging lamp?

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 43562
  • +22/-33
Re: Lunar eclipse
« Reply #17 on: April 15, 2025, 07:29:27 PM »
I simply can’t believe an intelligent individual could believe something so moronic as this nonsense about the moon reflecting sunlight. ...

This is a joke, right? You're just saying this to get Jack going on a rant. I mean, you can see that the Moon reflects sunlight. What's the alternative? That it's a frigging lamp?
Migrating bioluminescent life forms have been suggested in the past.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

JackBlack

  • 24588
  • +23/-46
Re: Lunar eclipse
« Reply #18 on: April 16, 2025, 01:13:12 AM »
This is a joke, right? You're just saying this to get Jack going on a rant. I mean, you can see that the Moon reflects sunlight. What's the alternative? That it's a frigging lamp?
This is another example of Poe's law in action.
One of the many issues for FE is explaining the moon.
With the moon and sun above Earth, there is no way for the moon to be reflecting the light of the sun to give us what we see, so FEers need to reject it.
They have no reasonable alternative to substitute it, but that goes for the vast majority of the flat earth.