The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: minetruly on September 22, 2009, 02:52:48 PM
-
I'm new to FET. I'm a round earther who's trying to question longstanding beliefs-- after all, if I believe the Earth is round just because the authorities tell me it is, I'm using no more of my brain than a Creationist.
So maybe the Earth is flat? I think we can easily argue the moon is flat. If the Earth spins as it orbits around the sun, shouldn't the moon spin as it orbits the Earth? What are the chances that the moon's spin PERFECTLY lines up so we only see one side of it? The moon clearly appears by all observations to be a disk, and to those who say the moon is spherical-- I say extraordinary claims call for extraordinary proof. How many shuttles by how many governments are claimed to have actually circled around to the backside of the moon? Not more than a conspiracy-driven handful, I'm sure. Governments just pretend they've circled the moon so other governments think they're technologically advanced.
What do you have to say to that?
-
I'm new to FET. I'm a round earther who's trying to question longstanding beliefs-- after all, if I believe the Earth is round just because the authorities tell me it is, I'm using no more of my brain than a Creationist.
So maybe the Earth is flat? I think we can easily argue the moon is flat. If the Earth spins as it orbits around the sun, shouldn't the moon spin as it orbits the Earth? What are the chances that the moon's spin PERFECTLY lines up so we only see one side of it? The moon clearly appears by all observations to be a disk, and to those who say the moon is spherical-- I say extraordinary claims call for extraordinary proof. How many shuttles by how many governments are claimed to have actually circled around to the backside of the moon? Not more than a conspiracy-driven handful, I'm sure. Governments just pretend they've circled the moon so other governments think they're technologically advanced.
What do you have to say to that?
1. The Moon looks like a sphere. I suggest observing it through a telescope when it is not full - it is immediately apparent that it is rounded. Foreshortening of features is visible. Libration of the Moon also shows features a little way round the side.
2. A round Moon is consistent with phases. A flat disc Moon isn't.
3. It's not coincidence the Moon keeps the same face turned to us, it's a physical phenomenon but I can't remember the name of it.
4. Moon rocks collected from the Moon are available for study by independent bodies and are demonstrably different from any rocks found on earth.
-
I'm new to FET. I'm a round earther who's trying to question longstanding beliefs-- after all, if I believe the Earth is round just because the authorities tell me it is, I'm using no more of my brain than a Creationist.
So maybe the Earth is flat? I think we can easily argue the moon is flat. If the Earth spins as it orbits around the sun, shouldn't the moon spin as it orbits the Earth? What are the chances that the moon's spin PERFECTLY lines up so we only see one side of it? The moon clearly appears by all observations to be a disk, and to those who say the moon is spherical-- I say extraordinary claims call for extraordinary proof. How many shuttles by how many governments are claimed to have actually circled around to the backside of the moon? Not more than a conspiracy-driven handful, I'm sure. Governments just pretend they've circled the moon so other governments think they're technologically advanced.
What do you have to say to that?
As Thermal Detonator told you, it's not by chance that the Moon spin about its axis at the same rate it orbits. Read a bit: http://www.digipro.com/Trials/moon.html
-
The moon's front face is always its front face because it is tidally locked to the earth. Apparently, a lot of other moons we know of are also tidally locked to their planets.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libration
The pictures in the libration article show that the moon looks like a sphere.
-
(http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0b109fbd4932.gif)
End of discussion.
-
(http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0b109fbd4932.gif)
End of discussion.
You do realize that's just a computer simulation, don't you?
-
LOL. No REer wants to believe in FET and not believe in creationism.
I'm calling this bluff.
I was once a REer, and I don't believe in creationism nor have I ever.
-
(http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0b109fbd4932.gif)
End of discussion.
You do realize that's just a computer simulation, don't you?
No it's not, they're actual pictures of the moon complied into a GIF time-lapse image.
-
I'm new to FET. I'm a round earther who's trying to question longstanding beliefs-- after all, if I believe the Earth is round just because the authorities tell me it is, I'm using no more of my brain than a Creationist.
So maybe the Earth is flat? I think we can easily argue the moon is flat. If the Earth spins as it orbits around the sun, shouldn't the moon spin as it orbits the Earth? What are the chances that the moon's spin PERFECTLY lines up so we only see one side of it? The moon clearly appears by all observations to be a disk, and to those who say the moon is spherical-- I say extraordinary claims call for extraordinary proof. How many shuttles by how many governments are claimed to have actually circled around to the backside of the moon? Not more than a conspiracy-driven handful, I'm sure. Governments just pretend they've circled the moon so other governments think they're technologically advanced.
What do you have to say to that?
Even if this is intended as sarcasm or irony, it is more subtle and better executed than usual.
Either way, I commend you for this thought-provoking post, OP. Welcome to the forums.
-
Thank you, Proleg!
-
No it's not, they're actual pictures of the moon complied into a GIF time-lapse image.
I see, and you took these pictures yourself?
-
Yeah, I don't trust that image-- it could have been CGI'd. The only thing I'd trust is if I went out every night for a month with a telescope and observed it myself, and I'm too lazy to do anything other than read things on my computer.
Matrix, is your icon from xkcd?
-
Yeah, I don't trust that image-- it could have been CGI'd. The only thing I'd trust is if I went out every night for a month with a telescope and observed it myself, and I'm too lazy to do anything other than read things on my computer.
You have all the qualities needed of a top flat earth believer. Well done.
-
Matrix, is your icon from xkcd?
Maybe...
-
What if the Moon was actually a proponent of a God-like figure such as the giant turtles or Jebus. Would it still be a disk? Or maybe it could be more like a plate of rocks? Like a dish? Can turtles eat rocks even? I don't know if I believe in turtles.
Or maybe it could be like Earth's poncho. You know, for rain. Only it's off and put away like if you put your poncho in the closet. I know that I usually keep my poncho in my closet. My Poncho is named Juancho.
I mean, it doesn't HAVE to be spherical, does it? When it gets all shadowy, you know, like half moons and stuff, couldn't that just be because it's wearing a poncho of it's own sometimes? You know, because of rain?
So many questions.
-
I agree with you totally. Rationality isn't all it's cracked up to be.
-
I know right? I mean are ponchos even spherical? I call b.s.
-
Yeah, I don't trust that image-- it could have been CGI'd. The only thing I'd trust is if I went out every night for a month with a telescope and observed it myself, and I'm too lazy to do anything other than read things on my computer.
You have all the qualities needed of a top flat earth believer. Well done.
*bows*
-
(http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0b109fbd4932.gif)
End of discussion.
Rotated slightly to the north and then south again. Impossible according to the FET.
Moon is spherical
/End of discussion.
-
So if the moon is round, the earth has to be too?
I'm not sure if I follow your logic OniXera.
-
Rotated slightly to the north and then south again. Impossible according to the FET.
Moon is spherical
/End of discussion.
No it's not, they're actual pictures of the moon complied into a GIF time-lapse image.
I see, and you took these pictures yourself?
-
So if the moon is round, the earth has to be too?
I'm not sure if I follow your logic OniXera.
Read the title of the thread, Davis. Duh. Case for this thread closed.
-
The point he was making was that it is irrelevant what the shape of the moon is when debating FET.
FET does not require the moon to be any shape.
-
Indeed, my post was in response to the one directly above it.
-
The point he was making was that it is irrelevant what the shape of the moon is when debating FET.
FET does not require the moon to be any shape.
Then why do several FE guys bang on about it being a flat disc? Is it to make themselves look even less credible?
And actually a round moon does cause a problem for FET, as if the moon was moving around the earth at the close distance you say it is, someone looking at the moon from Britain would see a different part of it to someone looking at it from Canada. Assuming the moon is directly over the atlantic at the time of observation.
-
Then why do several FE guys bang on about it being a flat disc? Is it to make themselves look even less credible?
And actually a round moon does cause a problem for FET, as if the moon was moving around the earth at the close distance you say it is, someone looking at the moon from Britain would see a different part of it to someone looking at it from Canada. Assuming the moon is directly over the atlantic at the time of observation.
Unless the Moon is also a spotlight...
-
The point he was making was that it is irrelevant what the shape of the moon is when debating FET.
FET does not require the moon to be any shape.
As a basic concept, if other celestial bodies are round, then why not the Earth? There is some assumption of consistency. There's another difficult concept for FE.
Unless the Moon is also a spotlight...
Is this just some random idea? On a clear night when the moon is not full it is still possible to see the unlit portion of the moon. Why are FEer's so obsessed with spotlights!
-
As a basic concept, if other celestial bodies are round, then why not the Earth? There is some assumption of consistency. There's another difficult concept for FE.
You are walking right into the oldest non sequitur on the FES there - brace yourself.
Is this just some random idea? On a clear night when the moon is not full it is still possible to see the unlit portion of the moon. Why are FEer's so obsessed with spotlights!
Just throwing some ideas around - presumably the whole spotlight is not illuminated at all times, and the non-illuminated parts reflect light from the Earth in the same way as the Moon in RET.
-
Is this just some random idea? On a clear night when the moon is not full it is still possible to see the unlit portion of the moon. Why are FEer's so obsessed with spotlights!
Because they are desperately clutching at straws, unwilling to admit that their FE system Moon is totally unviable, unworkable and completely in conflict with almost all observed data.
-
Because they are desperately clutching at straws, unwilling to admit that their FE system Moon is totally unviable, unworkable and completely in conflict with almost all observed data.
If you don't like what you hear, suggest a better way of modelling the Moon in FET.
-
If you don't like what you hear, suggest a better way of modelling the Moon in FET.
Wel that's the real trick, isn't it? There is no proper way to model the Moon in FET. If it is far away, then that pokes holes in it rising and setting. If it is close, then that gives you the problem of seeing different parts of it, if it is a spheroid. If it's a flat disc, that negates that problem but then you are left with no explanation of libration or the curvature of its surface features. Similarly, the phases make no sense on a disc. In a nutshell, there is not one single Flat Earth model of the Moon that is consistent with all observations.
-
Wel that's the real trick, isn't it? There is no proper way to model the Moon in FET.
Just because neither you nor I can come up with one doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and since the Earth is flat there must be a solution.
-
Or you could accept the working solutions for RE?
-
Or you could accept the working solutions for RE?
If by 'working solutions' you mean 'carefully crafted deception', then yes, I could accept then and bury my head in the intellectual sand. However, I have chosen not to.
-
You can see the other bits of the moon because the weather system on the moon is not perfectly transparent.
-
Wel that's the real trick, isn't it? There is no proper way to model the Moon in FET.
Just because neither you nor I can come up with one doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and since the Earth is flat there must be a solution.
Hmmm, nobody in the entire history of civilisation has so far come up with a theory that fully describes every observation of the Moon - except for the simple one proposed by the round earthers - that the Moon is a large sphere, very far away, that orbits a spherical earth, which in turn orbits the Sun at an even greater distance. Funny how that one sentence there provides an explanation for phases, eclipses, libration, tides, appearance of features on the Moon - everything.
Saying "There must be a solution because the earth is flat" is circular logic. If there doesn't appear to be a solution in your scenario, then maybe there isn't one.
-
You can see the other bits of the moon because the weather system on the moon is not perfectly transparent.
Seriously! What are you talking about now? Weather systems on the moon... I have never heard of this before, and for a good reason most likely. Please enlighten me.
-
You can see the other bits of the moon because the weather system on the moon is not perfectly transparent.
Seriously! What are you talking about now? Weather systems on the moon... I have never heard of this before, and for a good reason most likely. Please enlighten me.
Lurk moar. http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=31306.0
-
Part of the problem is that I find it difficult to accept FE references for confirming FE concepts. I really don't see how it can be considered valid information or a reliable source. It's kind of like how religious types claim that the bible is the word of god because the bible says so. A wide range of references beyond FES links and "Earth not a globe" are really required for developing a strong argument.
-
For some odd reason, FE'ers seem to like to make things a lot more complicated than they need to be.
-
Part of the problem is that I find it difficult to accept FE references for confirming FE concepts. I really don't see how it can be considered valid information or a reliable source. It's kind of like how religious types claim that the bible is the word of god because the bible says so. A wide range of references beyond FES links and "Earth not a globe" are really required for developing a strong argument.
Most flat earth believers would not expect you to accept flat earth references with which you disagree. Consideration of flat earth concepts with an open mind is enough.
-
That's not his problem.
His problem is that all solutions are pretty much fairy tales being said about physics by FEers.
When the only reference you have is a post from another user, or E:NaG, you don't have references.
-
Most flat earth believers would not expect you to accept flat earth references with which you disagree. Consideration of flat earth concepts with an open mind is enough.
-
/me failed at reading the first time.
Sorry.
-
'sokay. Conversions of round earth enthusiasts ain't really our shtick. :)
-
And actually a round moon does cause a problem for FET, as if the moon was moving around the earth at the close distance you say it is, someone looking at the moon from Britain would see a different part of it to someone looking at it from Canada. Assuming the moon is directly over the atlantic at the time of observation.
Don't forget to factor in bendy light. It would seem you're thinking of the model as if the line of observation to the moon made a triangle reaching the side of it.
-
Still, if it was a sphere and as close as stated, I'm sure people would get different views of it.
Also, on the topic of bendy light, I want to see a diagram of a ship sinking over a horizon.
-
Hmmm, nobody in the entire history of civilisation has so far come up with a theory that fully describes every observation of the Moon - except for the simple one proposed by the round earthers - that the Moon is a large sphere, very far away, that orbits a spherical earth, which in turn orbits the Sun at an even greater distance. Funny how that one sentence there provides an explanation for phases, eclipses, libration, tides, appearance of features on the Moon - everything.
Saying "There must be a solution because the earth is flat" is circular logic. If there doesn't appear to be a solution in your scenario, then maybe there isn't one.
I'm confident that the true FE solution can be expressed in equally succinct terms, although thanks to a lifetime of RET propaganda and the decades of careful planning on the part of the Conspiracy the RE solution appears to be superior at present. This is merely the result of the enormous resources that have been spent misinforming the public, combined with the fact that FE science just can't compete on a financial and time level with the Conspiracy. We'll get there eventually, as the truth always does, but it's going to take time.
-
And actually a round moon does cause a problem for FET, as if the moon was moving around the earth at the close distance you say it is, someone looking at the moon from Britain would see a different part of it to someone looking at it from Canada. Assuming the moon is directly over the atlantic at the time of observation.
Don't forget to factor in bendy light. It would seem you're thinking of the model as if the line of observation to the moon made a triangle reaching the side of it.
Sorry, this type of bendy light theory already disproved by myself and Senoctar. No, I won't go through explaining it again, I have already outlined it on about four or five seperate occasions, and no I won't link to the thread. If you want to read up on it, use the search function.
Additionally, with the Moon, your bendy light theory is incompatible with the way background stars would be visible as the same from different locations.