Why doesn’t the sun have phases like the moon?

Earth is a solid object, right? Can anyone explain how that's supposed to be a full moon?

Yes, as has already been done.

They are rarely in perfect alignment.
When they are, you get a lunar eclipse.
The moon is roughly somewhere between 350 000 to 400 000 km away from Earth.
You only need a very small misalignment to have the moon not be in Earth's shadow.

And while it is in that slight misalignment, you still get almost an entirely full moon. If I recall correctly, something like 99% full.

The "full moon" is not when it is actually 100% full, it is when it reaches its peak for that cycle, which is generally very close to 100% full.
Likewise, a new moon is close to 0% full.

I've heard the rhetoric. I look at it, And I look at it again, and I finally just throw up my hands at it.

i.e. you know the explanation of how it works.
You know that your argument is pure BS.
You know that this doesn't show a problem with the model.
But you just ignore all that and lie to everyone about it.

And then you get something like this where the moon is full or nearly full during broad daylight.

Yes, which isn't hard either.

If we completely ignore the axial tilt and the fact that the orbit of the moon is not in the same plane, then you get roughly 12 hours of daylight, while the moon is visible for 12 hours.
During a new moon in this hypothetical which would always be a solar eclipse, the moon and sun would be visible over the same area.
During a full moon in this hypothetical which would always be a lunar eclipse, the moon and sun would be on opposite sides of Earth, and have pretty much no overlap.
And it doesn't just magically switch from one to the other. Instead, the shift is gradual.
So at a quarter moon, the sun and moon are visible together for roughly 6 hours.
As it gets closer and closer to a full moon, the time they are both visible gets smaller and smaller, until eventually at the full moon, due to refraction you can just see them together.

But switching back to reality with axial tilt and the plane of the moon not being in the axis of rotation of Earth, nor in the plane of the orbit of Earth around the sun, you can get even more overlap.
Even if we take the simple approximation of "you should be able to see it if you are within 90 degrees of the point on Earth it is directly above", we end up with a maximum of ~5.15 degrees offset between the moon's position and the sun on the other side of Earth.
That means there will be a 5.15 degree wedge around Earth which can see the moon and the sun during a full moon at this peak, and opposite that there will be a 5.15 degree wedge which can't see it.

Through back in atmospheric refraction, then there will be more that can see it together during a full moon.

So yet again, no problem at all for the RE model.

But still no explanation of the phases from your pile of garbage.

They go on to rationalize it away.

i.e. yet again you fully understand you are intentionally lying to everyone by pretending it is a problem when it is not.

I was technically able to do the new moon and full moon like they said.

i.e. you were even able to test it and see that it works and still that isn't enough to stop you lying to everyone.

But if you shove the moon to the left or right, it also works.

Because you are using a coin rather than a sphere.

They would also wonder why this isn't also possible.
Or for that matter, this.

No, because we know the answer.
Everywhere on Earth sees basically the same phase of the moon.

Just consider this example and a few other locations:

You have the Mexico seeing a near full moon, you have the west coast of the US seeing a "full" moon (ignoring the 3D aspect which I will get to in a minute), which is already different.
But what about Canada and South America? They are seeing a quarter moon. What about Africa? They are seeing a new moon.
Even forget all these different locations and just think about how it would vary over the course of a day for a given location.
You would have the moon "rise" as a full moon, pass overhead as a quarter moon, and then "set" as a new moon.

Then we have the issue of 3D. Where is the sun if it is shining on the moon to give view to a full moon?
If it is at roughly the same height above your fantasy earth, then the observer also needs to be roughly the same height.

If Earth were spinning in place, this would be one thing. But North Dakota on the same day has the same moon phase as New Zealand. By pure rotation, this could technically be possible (I guess?) but not with the addition of Earth's supposed orbit screwing with angles.

Why?
Yet again you asset pure delusional BS.
Why should the orbit of Earth screw with it?
Over the course of a day Earth moves less than 1 degree in its orbit.
Why should this cause a problem for the phases of the moon.

So anyway, this is their explanation, and it's as rich in double talk as I expected.

No, it is quite honest and simple and like usual you just lie about it.

The time of the full moon doesn't need you to see it.
It is the same time for everyone all over Earth (assuming you are stating it in the same time zone).

but our eyes can wrap around to see the moon? No... that's not true. That's impossible.

No, you can't. And you are the only lying POS even trying to suggest that.
The moon is full, you just can't see it.

Also, coins are flat objects! Does this even work with multiple spherical objects?

Yes.
And in fact, you can't get the phases from a flat object.
If you try it goes from being illuminated to not illuminated at once. You can't have a flat object being illuminated to produce a quarter moon.

I found a clear soap bar, held it up to the light, the bar lit up.

So nothing like the moon, and not capable of showing phases?

From the direction facing the sun, the full moon being visible is three options.

And all three of them fail.
If the moon is translucent, there are no phases.
Having the moon between us and the sun should still have the moon lit up.
You need it to be opaque and block light to get phases.

Having it at the side then gives us a quarter moon, not a full moon.

And if you have it lit up you have no explanation at all for the phases.

Do you know what does work and what you are yet to show any fault with? The RE model, with the moon orbiting Earth and being illuminated by the sun.

This was 45 degree tilt.

No, that is still without any tilt.

It still wasn't enough that any person would realistically believe the moon could be seen while the sun was up.

You mean imbeciles and brainwashed fools like you wouldn't believe it.
While sane people that actually understand would.

And the shadow is now wrong.

Because you made it 45 degrees instead of 5.
It shouldn't be surprising that when you completely screw up the model you get the wrong result.


If you want to see from the drawing if you can see both, then you need a too scale diagram. Or instead of actually drawing in the position of the sun and moon, you just note the direction to them and see what portion of Earth can see Each.

If you did this honestly with a 45 degree offset, you would get something like this:


Notice the large 45 degree region of overlap?

Here you can see a more honest view:
https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/moon/light.html?iso=20250512T1834
This shows the regions that can see the sun, and the regions that can see the moon. And you can see there is a narrow band of overlap at this time of the full moon.

Go 12 hours ahead and the region of overlap gets even larger.

Because that is another point which I didn't actually go into above.
The full moon is a specific point in time, not an entire day.

Most people don't see the full moon, because it isn't the right time.
Instead, they see it when it is near full, e.g. 12 hours later.
Yet with the moon's orbit of roughly 29 days, that means each day it has to move ~12 degrees each day. That is half a degree each hour.
So just being 1 hour off of the full moon time gives a region of overlap which is ~0.5 degrees wide. Going for 6 hours, and you get 3 degrees. That is quite a large region and easily allows people to see both.

Can someone explain to what causes venus phases? And also mercury for those who have an unfettered western view.

Do you mean for a RE HC model or a FE model?

Such a liar.

No, that is still without any tilt.

Tilt is exactly the angular shift. The point being that it would be tilting from pretty much level, even 45° was not enough to even remotely see the object in question which it is still facing the sun. In fact nothing short of a 90° tilt, which would throw off all processes and give one of the poles a very nice tan would be enough to see the moon without some big mirror akin to the firmament. Which is off-limits in your theory.

Such a liar.

Tilt works the way it is explained in the heliocentric model.  Not the lies you use with false assurances to butcher the heliocentric model to create false arguments.

Where we know the phases of the moon are caused by sunlight for the simple fact the phases of the moon are disrupted by the lunar eclipse and the earth blocking light to the moon.

Such a liar.

There you go projecting again.

Tilt is exactly the angular shift. The point being that it would be tilting from pretty much level, even 45° was not enough to even remotely see the object in question which it is still facing the sun.

Instead of just asserting the same pathetic, refuted BS, try justifying it.
I gave a simple diagram:

https://i.imgur.com/IipwNp7.png

A 45 degree offset between the moon and the sun.
Makes an entire 45 degree region able to see both the sun and the moon.

Your pathetic lies wont change that.

But now I see where your dishonesty truly lies.

Reread what was said you lying POS:

If you understood the heliocentric model as well as you claim, then you would know that the moon’s orbit is tilted by about 5 degrees.

It isn't Earth that is tilted for this, it is the orbit of the moon.
The tilt of Earth is irrelevant for it, unless you want to talk about how it varies over a day with the rotation of Earth.
So sorry for not seeing you entirely pathetic and entirely useless and entirely dishonest rotation of Earth in that crappy image you made.

Now care to try being honest for once in your life?

Or maybe just addressing the topic and explaining what magic causes the phases of the moon in your delusional fantasy?

I don't need to project lies.

It's called common sense.

You can clearly see from that picture that doesn't exist anymore thanks to Discord changing the address that 45° angle isn't enough and 5° tilt wouldn't do anymore. That's a full 50° of total angle utterly useless.

More importantly, the Tropic of Cancer and Capricorm set the limits for seasons,

The Tropic of Cancer, also known as the Northern Tropic, is the Earth's northernmost circle of latitude where the Sun can be seen directly overhead. This occurs on the June solstice, when the Northern Hemisphere is tilted toward the Sun to its maximum extent

and Cancer is 23° N so if we were saying that seasonal lean was based on that, and then you add tilt, not even that much. 28°! Or are you gonna define tilt as a the Earth rolling upwards 5° until you get to the viewpoint you want? Again, you lying liar, that doesn't square sunlight or sun shadow during what is supposed to be daylight hours. Give it up. Like bad Columbo villains, lies always catch you. The angle is not even close to what is needed to see the moon when it is behind you.

You do understand that almost all drawings of the sun/earth/moon system are not to scale, don’t you? 

Ahhh right, just keep increasing scale. Only I believe that I did that with the parabola in another thread and...
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=91587.msg2442658#msg2442658
...something like this happened? Tell me, if you don't accept it from me (that is, if this argument is right, and I'm not saying it is necessarily) then why should I accept it from you? Either we are both right (in which case, you must apologize for ever doubting my parabola loudly and publicly) or both wrong.

Tilt works the way it is explained in the heliocentric model.  Not the lies you use with false assurances to butcher the heliocentric model to create false arguments.

Where we know the phases of the moon are caused by sunlight for the simple fact the phases of the moon are disrupted by the lunar eclipse and the earth blocking light to the moon.

So you gave no example but the lunar eclipse. The same lunar eclipse that is in the general position of the full moon, but instead of turning very bright now has a big umbra around it? How does this happen btw? Is someone's hand in front of it?

Quote

You do understand that almost all drawings of the sun/earth/moon system are not to scale, don’t you? 

Ahhh right, just keep increasing scale.

Not so much increasing scale as showing the correct scale.  At around a quarter of a million miles away, a 5 degree tilted orbit is plenty for the moon to clear earth’s shadow.

Ahhh right,

Do you understand what was actually posted?

The lunar eclipse has been explained to you countless times with you lying about that.

Care to address what I actually posted.

Where we know the phases of the moon are caused by sunlight for the simple fact the phases of the moon are disrupted by the lunar eclipse and the earth blocking light to the moon.

  Bulma.  A lunar eclipse does interrupt the phases of the moon.  As in the cycle of phases.  If you don’t think the phases of the moon are from being illuminated by the sun.  What causes the phases of the moon, and what is a lunar eclipse, and why does it interrupt the phase cycle of the moon.  Just keep digging yourself in a hole Bulma.

What causes the phases of the moon, and what is a lunar eclipse, and why does it interrupt the phase cycle of the moon.

Parabolas, of course.  Haven’t you been keeping up?

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on May 29, 2025, 09:30:55 AM

What causes the phases of the moon, and what is a lunar eclipse, and why does it interrupt the phase cycle of the moon.

Parabolas, of course.  Haven’t you been keeping up?

Which has as much weight and evidence as claiming tuna. 

I don't need to project lies.

No, you don't need to, you just choose to.

You can clearly see from that picture

That you are a dishonest POS, entirely ignoring what was said to instead latch to a single word and entirely misrepresent it.
So much so that the pathetic change you made in the image is entirely pointless, doesn't address what was said at all, and as such is very easily missed, and just further demonstrates you are a lying POS.


Meanwhile, you can clearly see from MY image, that a 45 degree tilt OF THE ORBIT OF THE MOON will give you a 45 degree region which can see both the sun and moon.

That's a full 50° of total angle utterly useless.

of YOU being totally and utterly useless. Not even bothering to tilt the right thing.
That is how pathetic and dishonest you are.

More importantly, the Tropic of Cancer and Capricorm set the limits for seasons

Which has literally nothing to do with the topic.

Again, you lying liar,

No, that is still you.
Still wanting to pretend people are saying the tilt of Earth rather than the tilt of the orbit of the moon.
A child can understand the difference. So why are you still playing dumb?
Are you truly just trying to demonstrate the depths of your dishonesty? How you will happily, repeatedly lie to people's faces?

Ahhh right, just keep increasing scale.

No, not increasing or even changing scale, just calling you out on your pathetic BS.

Only I believe that I did that with the parabola in another thread

Yes, where you entirely ignored scale to lie to everyone, just like you are doing now.
Was this meant to be yet another example of you being a lying POS?

How does this happen btw? Is someone's hand in front of it?

Again, this has already been explained countless times.

Once more, the ORBIT OF THE MOON is not in the same plane as the orbit of Earth around the sun.
That means most of the time you will not have the needed alignment between Earth the moon and the sun. Instead (depending on the time of year) the moon will pass north or south of Earth's shadow. This means it wont be an eclipse.
Likewise, it will pass north or south of the sun during a new moon so we wont get a solar eclipse.

It is only during 2 periods each year that there is enough alignment to cause the moon to go through Earth's shadow or to get between Earth and the sun.

Again, this is not hard to understand. STOP PLAYING DUMB!
Or are you really going to try convincing everyone that you are actually that stupid?

And again, none of this pathetic crap from you is even attempting to explain phases in your fantasy. As if you know you have no chance at all, and that the only way you can make your crap appear to be believable is by lying to everyone about the RE model.
With these lies being so pathetic and obvious, that you need to bait and switch Earth and the orbit of the moon.

I guess phases of the moon are one of those taboo subjects for the flat earth cult since the masters of the FE cult like Eric Dubay can’t come up with a working model for phases of the moon and why the phase cycle is interrupted time to time by lunar eclipses.

So flat earthers have to run in terror from the subject and star babbling and derailing with pathological lies.  Like NASA ninjas protecting the ice wall.  Or some BS

Pitiful for something a flat earther should be able to see for themselves.

Where the FE cult can’t explain in a working way why everyone sees the same face of the moon.  Why the face of the moon changes orientation with position on the earth.





Where the moon would have to change apparent size as it traveled overhead.


The moon proves the heliocentric solar system. 

Oh.  Someone keeps posting in other threads to push this thread out of the way.

I guess the FE cult can’t handle the moon proves the heliocentric model.

See the FE brainwashing cult has to igore the FE taboo topic of what causes moon phases and why they are interrupted by lunar eclipses.

This thread is about phases of the sun, not phases of the moon.  Please stay on topic.

This thread is about phases of the sun, not phases of the moon.  Please stay on topic.

Doesn’t matter.  I don’t think flat earthers are much interested in either topic.  Not lots of room for word salad. 

This thread is about phases of the sun, not phases of the moon.  Please stay on topic.

Strictly speaking, the thread is about why the sun doesn't have phases like the moon [does have phases].

This can be answered by explaining what makes the sun special so it doesn't have phases or what makes the moon special so it does.
This was even made clear in the OP:

If you think the moon and sun are both projections, why doesn’t the sun have phases like the moon?

If you think the moon is self illuminating, why does it have phases instead of acting more like the sun?

This thread is about phases of the sun, not phases of the moon.  Please stay on topic.

And how would we "stay of topic" of phases of the sun, which don't exist, unless we first understand phases of the moon?
Unless the analogous idea is based on some sort of parallel logic, you're basically talking about (1) a fictional object, (2) which attributes that haven't fully been defined.

In other words, if you can fully establish why the moon behaves as it does, you can establish why the sun doesn't do that.

Which kinda leads us the problem of angles. The supposedly common sense answer is that it has something to do with the moon getting light cast through the Earth from the sun, that creates  light that shows up on the backside of Earth apparently from the men without a light source visible. But then the moon is also full during daylight hours.



Yet all that angle nonsense and you want an answer as to why the sun doesn't do this. And I suppose the only answer you'd accept is that it doesn't have the sun's light doing weird angle bullshit, and only the sun can cast light on it.
Hmmm, I'm currently looking at the light from my Kindle shining on a Make America Great Again coin, and it occurs to me that as per Occam's Razor, the two most direct explanations of why something appears lit from the front is that (a) the area facing it - such as the Earth - directly casts light on it, or (b) it have light of its own.
But once again, the "science" dogma insists the Earth cannot give off its own light, just as it insists the moon cannot give off its own light. So we have convoluted angles that involve light moving past a solid object to hit an object behind it, to bounce light back to Earth so that the moon appears bright at night, and when asked why that explanation, well it's the only option. Bullshit.

Either the moon (inclined toward this answer) or the Earth could have some sort of light, which would far more direct than relying on the sun opposite the side of the Earth it has set. Which by the way is an explanation without its own internal logic, because explains little about how over the course of a night, the moon fully moves around the Earth, while over the course of a month changes phases. You can clearly see moon rise and moon set. "Earth's rotation blah blah blah." Which completely fails to work, for the reason of daylight full moon.


We are told that day time is when the Earth faces in its rotation in the direction of the sun, like this.

O--------------------<=0

And we are told that a full moon is here.

O--------------------0=>---------------o

But the only way that you can have a daylight full moon is if something other than the sun is responsible for the moon's phases. The position would be wrong, putting it here:
O----\o/----<=0

Which would seem to indicate that yes, the moon goes more than a partial orbit around a rotating Earth but instead has a 25 hour full orbit, and sometimes the next day that puts the moon in a weird place.

On the 23 of December, 2026, the moonrise is about 4:15 pm. Full moon up in the afternoon. There is usually at least a day a month where some phase of the moon rises during the afternoon, and one day a month where the moon doesn't cross the meridian. That day, both happen. Same for December 4, this year. And December 15, last year. In fact, if I pick a random year, at least once a year has an early moonrise or a late moonset that is also full moon. It's not even uncommon. And December seems to have a higher than normal incidence of that.

Why is it so implausible to you that the moon could have its own source of light? Why is it so implausible that this light needs to "warm up" unlike the sun, which is always on but rotates out of sight?

But no, like the same little tools that Karened everyone who didn't wear a mask, you "follow the science" to point where you lose the thread.

And how would we "stay of topic" of phases of the sun, which don't exist, unless we first understand phases of the moon?.

Come to stupidly babble and derail another thread to showcase your brainwashed cult.

From the opening post.

If you think the moon and sun are both projections, why doesn’t the sun have phases like the moon?

If you think the moon is self illuminating, why does it have phases instead of acting more like the sun?

Bulma.  The only thing you have presented for the moon are vague cult knowledge that has nothing to do with what can be observed concerning the moon.  Cult knowledge with no goal explaining the actual moon, but the only goal of protecting the FE lie.

What is the FE working model that explains how the phases of the moon work and how is it rectified that the phase are interrupted by lunar eclipses.

The supposedly common sense answer is that it has something to do with the moon getting light cast through the Earth from the sun

No, that's your strawman.

the two most direct explanations of why something appears lit from the front is that (a) the area facing it - such as the Earth - directly casts light on it, or (b) it have light of its own.

A is shown to be wrong by how faint the light of Earth is and B is shown to be wrong by the phases.
This leaves the far simpler option - It is illuminated by the sun.
And when Earth gets in the way, we get a lunar eclipse.
No need for any convoluted BS.

So we have convoluted angles that involve light moving past a solid object to hit an object behind it, to bounce light back to Earth so that the moon appears bright at night

No, we have simple angles, without any of that convoluted nonsense.
You just pretend it is convoluted by ignoring scale.

Again, your BS is refuted by a light shining through a doorway, so you can see the light shining on the wall, but not the light directly.

explains little about how over the course of a night, the moon fully moves around the Earth

No, it doesn't.
It moves very little while Earth rotates.

You can clearly see moon rise and moon set.

Just like a kid on a merry go round sees their parents appear to circle them.
I guess you skipped that childhood activity.

Which completely fails to work

Except you have no reason why.

daylight full moon.

Already explained why that isn't a problem.
Again, you would expect a region where you can see both, because a full moon is not perfectly full. It is not perfectly 180 degrees separated, and even if it was you still have refraction allowing you to see both.
And your fake photos wont change that.

We are told that day time is when the Earth faces in its rotation in the direction of the sun, like this.

No, that is mid day.

And we are told that a full moon is here.

No, that is a perfect alignment when you have an eclipse.
In general it is slightly off.

The position would be wrong, putting it here:

No, as we can see a wide range of angles, not just 1.

On the 23 of December, 2026, the moonrise is about 4:15 pm.

Where?
Provide a source.
You have already shown you are happy to lie to everyone, so your vague baseless claim is worthless.

Why is it so implausible to you that the moon could have its own source of light?

Because it entirely fails to explain the phases.
The best you can come up with is vague BS of it "warming up" with no explanation of what it is actually doing.
It in no way explains the massive coincidence that the angular separation between the sun and moon correlates to the phase so well.
It in no way explains the shadows on the surface of the moon.
It in no way explains lunar eclipses.
And we know it isn't the moon simply having half illuminated and rotating because we can see detail on the moon and see it isn't rotating (and again, the shadows).

It behaves in every way as if the sun is illuminating it.
Why is that simplest explanation so implausible to you?
And why is it so threatening you need to repeatedly lie about it?

Quote from: markjo on June 23, 2025, 03:05:07 PM

This thread is about phases of the sun, not phases of the moon.  Please stay on topic.

And how would we "stay of topic" of phases of the sun, which don't exist, unless we first understand phases of the moon?

Well, you could start by reading the OP a little more carefully.

Provide a source?

You can literally type in "moon times" and you get a chart (which refreshingly does little to no RE preaching) where every day, the mention the time for moonrise each day.

https://www.timeanddate.com/moon/
Just search a location.

You accuse me of lying, but don't even bother with most basic research.

---

If you think the moon and sun are both projections, why doesn’t the sun have phases like the moon?

If you think the moon is self illuminating, why does it have phases instead of acting more like the sun?

The goals of the topic are marked clearly in the first post.

You instead change them to talk about lunar eclipses. First of all, solar eclipses are more on topic, don't you think? And second, lunar eclipses do very little to prove anything about the moon. Here's why: while I can create a full moon effect in several ways,
1. Shining a light directly on a coin
2. Shining a light through another object at a distance (what RE says is the only way full moons work)
3. Having the coin itself be made of some bright and/or mildly radioactive material
the number #2 dogmatically accepted method of full moon  doesn't really account for new moon at night, just as it doesn't account for full moon at daylight, and there is no real difference between a full moon and lunar eclipse on your model.

Remember the crucifixion of Jesus? Well, they talk about sky going dark for several hours. Just a couple issues. First, solar eclipses don't  happen during Passover. This is supposed to be when the moon is full, so it's in position to have a lunar eclipse. Second, the timeline of a sun in full solar eclipse is about seven minutes or so, but a lunar eclipse lasts hours.
https://nypost.com/2025/04/18/science/jesus-crucifixion-linked-to-lunar-eclipse-according-to-nasa-discovery-and-it-could-pinpoint-the-day-he-died/
This was not only a daylight full moon, but a daylight lunar eclipse.

Again, the positionality of RE basically counts daylight full moons out. Whereas it is quite possible on a FE. A daylight lunar eclipse is a big harder, because of certain timing issues. Basically, the Eric Dubay theory on this matter is that moon phases are based on a black sun, that obstructs the moon partially. I don't think I believe him, but in his model, the black sun is usually opposite the sun, yet this day, the sun, black sun, and moon all lined up to create perfect obstruction of light. My theory is that the moon's phases are due to the way the moon's light charges and decharges, and that this day, contrary to the normal pattern of things, went new moon and fully obstructed the light of the sun as a perfect daylight new moon lunar eclipse.

In any case,  it's rather easy to shove the moon across the sky if you're God. It's abit more of a nuisance to bypass a physical object (that RE of yours) when you can just move it over the expanse.

---

Well, you could start by reading the OP a little more carefully.

It's called analogous logic. I didn't somehow not read the topic.

Had you bothered to read, you'd see I explained my rationale.

Unless the analogous idea is based on some sort of parallel logic, you're basically talking about (1) a fictional object, (2) which attributes that haven't fully been defined.

If you don't explain first what exactly it is that makes phases, then you can't answer your own question. The only way to explain phases is by dealing with the real object (the moon), not the fantastic one (the phased sun). But that's not really your goal. Your goal is to hamstring discussion by artificially shifting focus on the fantastic object, without allowing any discussion of what makes it tick. The object is to force a specific theory of how the moon works, and superimpose it onto the sun.

As much as it would be cool to build a Star Wars world with multiple suns, or odd phases of the moon, or other such things, even a fantasy novelist like me understands that these things need logical foundation. The sun going backwards can't just do so, and we accept it, its arc needs to be explained. Is it shallower or a deeper arc? Slower? Faster? Does the moon travel the same or opposite direction? These things need to follow a logic.

Here's why: while I can create a full moon effect in several ways,
1. Shining a light directly on a coin
2. Shining a light through another object at a distance (what RE says is the only way full moons work)

Nope.  Shining a light through another object is how you get an eclipse.  The moon’s 5 degree orbital tilt is how we get a full moon.

You instead change them to talk about lunar eclipses.

Are you really this stupid Bulma.

You think the moon is a self illuminating projection?

You think the sun is a self illuminating projection?

Yet, the moon has phases.

Yet, the sun doesn’t have phases.

The sun does have spots, and solar flares, and emits charged particles.

Anyway. 

Yet, the moon when viewed by telescope shows no signs of being self illuminating.

Yet, when viewed by telescope. The way the craters of the moon are shadowed shows the moon isn’t self illuminating.

Yet, during a lunar eclipse.  The moon goes dark.  The moon isn’t self illuminating.

Why does a lunar eclipse make the moon go dark and interrupt the phase of the moon.  It’s like the big thing illuminating the solar system is illuminating the moon. 

Where FE has no working model for the moon as viewed in reality.

Where using the parallax of the moon can be used to determine the right magnitude of distance of the moon from the earth which is much farther than the cult group thought of FE.  Where the cult group thought concerning their stated distance to the moon is not based on actual observations and data.  But what the FE delusion needs.

Bulma.  All you have is stupid cult thought based on nothing in reality or the physical existence of the moon. 

The only way to explain phases is by dealing with the real object (the moon),

 Vs..

The actual sun moves around the disc that is the Earth. The perceived sun is a projection, similar to a planetarium dome, designed to be light sensitive.

Which is it.  Moon is real.  Or the moon is a projection on a planetarium dome. 

Provide a source?

Yes, provide a source for your specific claim.
You aren't talking about generic moon times.
You are talking about quite specific ones.

For example, following your crap, I look for Sydney, and see that on the 23rd of December, the moon rises at 7:32 pm.
I fail to see any problem here.

So it is really you aren't even bothering to provide the most basic substance to your claims.

And no, I'm not accusing you of lying. Instead, I am correctly pointing out that you have proven that you will repeatedly lie to everyone, so your worthless claims are useless.

You instead change them to talk about lunar eclipses.

No, I don't.
I object to your strawman, where you want to pretend every "full moon" must be a lunar eclipse.

Again, that is not the RE model you are objecting to.
Instead, that is your pathetic strawman.

First of all, solar eclipses are more on topic, don't you think?

No, I don't.
Pretty much the only point worthwhile for discussing a solar eclipse is that it occurs during a new moon, when the moon passes between Earth and the sun, and that lunar and solar eclipses occur around the same time of year, rather than in completed disconnected times.

A solar eclipse, by virtue of being local, is clearly an object (the moon) blocking the light from the sun, from reaching Earth.
A lunar eclipse on the other hand is global, where you either magically switch off the moon, or something blocks the light from whatever is illuminating the moon from reaching it.
And the fact it goes red instead of completely dark lends more weight to the idea that something is blocking most of the light while allowing a small portion of red light through.

Shining a light through another object at a distance (what RE says is the only way full moons work

No. Again, this is just your pathetic strawman, your pathetic lie.
That is a lunar eclipse, not a normal full moon.

doesn't really account for new moon at night, just as it doesn't account for full moon at daylight, and there is no real difference between a full moon and lunar eclipse on your model.

All of this pathetic BS of yours has already been refuted.

Again, we are not restricted to viewing a tiny portion of the sky.
We can see roughly 180 degrees of the sky.
And the sun and the moon are not appearing to circle us in the same plane.
This offset makes it trivial to be able to point to where a new moon would be during the early or late hours of the night, and likewise trivial to see a full moon at the early or late hours of the day.
Again, a child can understand this, e.g. this exaggerated view, where we are viewing from perpendicular to the Earth-Sun-Moon plane, at the time of a full moon:

Notice the large region of overlap that can see both?

This is not hard to understand.
To change it for a new moon, you just change the direction of the moon to be directly opposite where it is, and then that blue sector can look towards the new moon, but not see the sun (i.e. night).

Again, this is not hard to understand. So this is not simply an issue of you not understanding. Instead, it is an issue of you blatantly lying about the RE model to pretend it can't work; or you being so heavily brainwashed by your cult leaders that you can't bring yourself to accept such basic things.


You are yet to present a single example where you can clearly show it is impossible.
Instead you just keep appealing to this pathetic vague BS.
The closest you have ever come to something resembling an actual argument, is with a clearly fake photo which has been shown to be fake, and one you clearly didn't bother providing a source for.
Again, this demonstrates your mentality where you are happy to lie to everyone, even after your lies have been refuted, and where you will reject anything that shows you are wrong as fake, but as soon as you find something you think supports you you happily accept it without thinking.

As for the difference between a full moon and a lunar eclipse, again this has been explained.
Once more, the sun and moon do not appear to circle us in the same plane.
They are misaligned.
This is offset by roughly 5 degrees.
5 degrees, at a distance of 350 000 km is an offset of over 30 000 km. That is enough to make it easily miss Earth's shadow.
So the vast majority of time, a full moon will not pass through Earth's shadow because it is not aligned correctly.

And this behaves similar to axial tilt, where over the course of a year you go from the moon passing north of the shadow, to passing through the shadow, to passing south of the shadow to passing through the shadow then back to passing north.

Again, this has been explained to you repeatedly, and you just keep on ignoring it, to repeat the same pathetic BS again and again.

Remember the crucifixion of Jesus?

Your pathetic religious BS has nothing to do with the topic.
Claiming some BS happened in a fairy tale story has no baring on reality.
If you need to appeal to a crappy religious book full of BS, you have no argument.

These things need to follow a logic.

And that is something your garbage entirely lacks; meanwhile, the RE model has plenty and you can't show a fault with it and instead need to repeatedly lie about it.

 Basically, the Eric Dubay theory on this matter is that moon phases are based on a black sun, that obstructs the moon partially.

As pointed out before.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on May 26, 2025, 09:45:33 AM

Data, you first. I have in fact explained what causes the phases of the moon.

No.  You create world salad that has as much credibility as if you posted “because of tuna.”

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on May 26, 2025, 07:24:00 AM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on May 26, 2025, 05:43:02 AM

Have you heard of Dyson spheres?

Which would have the same problem as the Dubay farce…


Directly under the Dubay farce.



If you just get a little away from being directly under the Dubay farce…



The moon phases as witnessed are from the relative position of earth as we see the moon being illuminated by the sun. 

The Dubay farce of an “invisible moon” is a failed model for obvious reasons.

Just substitute Dyson spheres for invisible moon….

My theory is that the moon's phases are due to the way the moon's light charges and decharges,

Why do the phases act as being immunated by the sun.

Why doesn’t the sun have phases.

Why doesn’t the moon have spots like the sun and its sun spots. 

Where there is no evidence the moon is self illuminating.

All evidence points to the sun illuminating the moon.  Starting with telescope observations and the why shadows play over the moon’s surface and craters.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on May 21, 2025, 04:21:38 AM

They all just make best guesses. Eric Dubay thinks the moon is followed by an invisible black moon,

You don’t get shadowing on the moon like this from an invisible object.  You get shadowing the way sunlight plays over the surface of the moon relative to the viewer.

Bulma, how about you invest in some equipment and take actual photos and video of the moon?  Instead of Dubay telling you what to believe?
[/quote]

Old post Bulma babbling incoherently about moon phases.

Have you heard of Dyson spheres? The idea is that for a space program, you use stars to get where you're going. But remember that I talked above about perpetual energy? Well, the thing is, if we're assuming that stars are finite energy sources that ultimately run out of juice (our nova/supernova/etc theory) then using a star as energy does no good. In the vastness of this space, a frictionless state is like one of those perpetual energy fantasies. Doesn't work. Momentum winds down through energy conversion and you're stranded; fuel source is just used up.

. Stars flicker and twinkle, but I do not believe they are going out. What is true is that light pollution is getting brighter than the stars (someone is obsessed with the idea of Revelations getting rid of night; I happen to like stargazing, turn off your damned streetlights).

(Btw, planets are sources of light, not recipients of light. This is why Venus shines when no sun is out. Planets are simply stars that wander.)

What do I mean by wind up engine? Well, the other two appear to be  active 24 hours and then recharge at some (between moments) 25th hour. Sorta like this but mainly for the sun.

The moon on the other hand charges up over time, then releases energy over time. Why does it release energy, you ask? Well, one of the fundamental problems of perpetual energy systems was they gather heat, and then wear down. In other words, the moon is not rotating to some dark side. And it's not getting sunlight from the other side of your round Earth. And it's not getting periodically blocked by some dark sun/moon. It's like some kind of slow light bulb that gathers 80 watts, 1 watt at a time, the uncharges so as not to overheat.

Yeah. My point was, unless stars are perpetual energy ordained by God, it is impossible for them to even last

So either you accept God and his flat Earth depiction of Earth as mentioned in the Bible, or as part of secular science, thermodynamics hits stars pretty hard, and all of them are slowly diminishing due to energy output. In fact, forget thousands of years. They don't even last tens of years emitting energy billions of miles away, much less trillions.

You can't have it both ways.

Yeah. My point was, unless stars are perpetual energy ordained by God, it is impossible for them to even last

We see things because light makes it to our eyes if it’s not physically blocked from view with enough intensity to be perceived by the unaided eye.


We can see into rooms even if the light bulb illuminating the room is physically blocked from view as pointed out by Jack.


We can see stars to faint to be seen with the unaided eye by simply using telescopes with larger lens than our eyes.

So either you accept God

Yet, you’re a pathological liar lying about creation.

 thermodynamics hits stars pretty hard,

It’s been explained to you repeatedly.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on October 10, 2024, 08:48:51 PM

Notice these topics are being buried while the topics are about FE changing subjects or dodging questions.

Totally not what you guys are doing, though.

(In a side note, I'm heading out of town tomorrow. So here's a bump for this to still be on page 1 next week)

The foundation of your delusion that light dies as required by your delusion has been exposed as a total lie and totally debunked.

Quote

But there is lots of light pollution in my area.



Light dies my ass.  More like bounces around everywhere cause a F’n mess.

Anyway. The Milky Way..

Quote

BEGINNERS GUIDE TO IMAGING THE MILKY WAY

https://www.highpointscientific.com/

Where you have to ignore the creation of the Milky Way and the light the collective of millions of stars gives off to create “light pollution” on a galaxy level.

Where you butchering thermal dynamics has nothing to do with the simple fact unless a photon from a distance star is blocked, absorbed, scattered, or reflected, is going to keep traveling.  Why uncounted number of photons makes it to us on  a clear starry night as a signature of the existence of millions of stars.

Where our own star the sun can often be seen despite a fog, haze, or thin clouds.  But yet the sun sets on a perfectly clear evening because the curvature of the earth physically blocks it from view.  In a world and reality where telescopes allow us to see stars too faint to be seen with the unaided eye.