The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: dgw on February 13, 2006, 03:26:52 PM

Title: How does the sun and moon move upwards?
Post by: dgw on February 13, 2006, 03:26:52 PM: OK lets assume the earth is flat and is moving upwards giving us 'gravity'. What makes the sun and the moon also move upwards so they appear at a constant distance from us? We can see the moon fairly clearly and from what I've read on other threads it is only 15 miles up, and I can't see anything on the bottom of the moon that's pushing it up.
Title: How does the sun and moon move upwards?
Post by: flyingleaf on February 13, 2006, 04:53:44 PM: I think the question should be: Why do they stay up at all? And I'm pretty sure even FE thinks they are further out than 15 miles. After all, they are supposed to have a diameter of 32 miles. 15 miles is still within their radius.

I also don't think you'll get a proper answer. AFAIK, there's no mechanism in place to explain how the FE stars/planets/sun/moon stays above the flat earth, much less two discs hanging under it.

Wait, maybe that's it. Hanging from the ceiling. On some kind of tracks.
Title: How does the sun and moon move upwards?
Post by: Erasmus on February 13, 2006, 05:41:53 PM: I think 15 miles is supposed to be the distance to the surface of the moon, not to its center.

-Erasmus
Title: How does the sun and moon move upwards?
Post by: 6strings on February 13, 2006, 05:47:07 PM: I'm sure they believe it's rushing up as a result of the same force pushing the earth.
Title: How does the sun and moon move upwards?
Post by: Erasmus on February 13, 2006, 05:50:24 PM: Right. And sometimes the forces pushes a little bit sideways, resulting in a closed orbit around the Earth. Epicycles, my friends, epicycles!

-Erasmus
Title: How does the sun and moon move upwards?
Post by: flyingleaf on February 13, 2006, 06:15:01 PM: Quote from: "Erasmus"
I think 15 miles is supposed to be the distance to the surface of the moon, not to its center.

-Erasmus

Ah. I stand corrected. My assumptions were somewhat incorrect anyway since they are not supposed to be spherical, and therefore the radius would not be in the way.

However, would not a 32-mile wide disc, 15 miles up in the sky, occupy about a quarter of the sky? If I recall correctly, both the sun and the moon occupy less than a 5 degree arc of the visual field.
Title: How does the sun and moon move upwards?
Post by: Erasmus on February 13, 2006, 09:52:47 PM: Quote from: "flyingleaf"
However, would not a 32-mile wide disc, 15 miles up in the sky, occupy about a quarter of the sky? If I recall correctly, both the sun and the moon occupy less than a 5 degree arc of the visual field.

Please hold while we compute....

We care about 2t, the angle the moon occuppies in the sky. Making a right triangle from {me, center-of-moon, edge-of-moon}, we see that tan(t) = 32/15 = 2.1333. Thus 2t is about 130 degrees.

The solid angle subtended by a cone with apex angle 2t is 2*pi*(1 - cos(t)) steradians -- thanks Wikipedia. So that's 2*pi*0.58, approximately, and the whole sky above the horizon is 2pi steradians. So the moon should, in this model, take up about 58% of the sky -- just over twice your estimate :)

-Erasmus
Title: How does the sun and moon move upwards?
Post by: joffenz on February 14, 2006, 01:51:46 AM: Erasmus, remember, you can't use maths to disprove the Flat Earth theory, only to prove it.
Title: How does the sun and moon move upwards?
Post by: Erasmus on February 14, 2006, 02:31:26 AM: Quote from: "cheesejoff"
Erasmus, remember, you can't use maths to disprove the Flat Earth theory, only to prove it.

Doh!
Title: How does the sun and moon move upwards?
Post by: Believer on February 14, 2006, 04:13:53 AM: Quote from: "cheesejoff"
Erasmus, remember, you can't use maths to disprove the Flat Earth theory, only to prove it.

thats a sham lol
Title: How does the sun and moon move upwards?
Post by: joffenz on February 15, 2006, 01:57:43 PM: Actually, according to the Johnson article, they're 3000 miles away? Maybe the Johnson model is different from the one mentioned in this thread.