The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: deathsink on October 13, 2009, 10:43:24 PM
-
Sorry if this is a repeat thread, because it just might, but the search function on the site was not working. I think the problem had to do with me using this shitty Mac and running Safari, but I digress.
I would like to debate the resolve: The Moon has a terminator which changes position and this is due to the fact that the moon wobbles showing up to 59% of its face total over a given amount of time.
1. One reason the moon appears to wobble in the sky is because the moons orbit around the earth is eccentric, therefore it is sometimes slightly ahead of the earth, and sometimes it is slightly behind.
2. Libration in latitude appears to only be able to happen if the sun illuminates it from slightly above or slightly below. This has to do with the orientation of the moon compared to the plane of the ecliptic.
The moon's libration allows us to see up to 59% of its face. The librations of the moon have been measured quite accurately with laser retroreflectorshttp://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1972Moon....4..155M&data_type=PDF_HIGH&whole_paper=YES&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf (http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1972Moon....4..155M&data_type=PDF_HIGH&whole_paper=YES&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf).
If the moon was a disc, there would be no slight libration that could cause 59% of the moon to be seen. The tilt of the moon would have to be huge and would be very noticeable from earth.
If the moon was flat, no libration would be able to show more than 50%, unless it showed 100%, which would mean the moon would completely flip over.
-
We all know that the moon is round. It is the earth that is flat.
-
We all know that the moon is round. It is the earth that is flat.
The problem is that a round Moon blows a hole in flat earth theory because it means the Moon has to be very far away in order to explain how the Moon's face looks the same when viewed simultaneously from different locations on Earth. This then destroys the flat earth theories on how the Moon appears to rise and set, because if it were so far away it would be visible all the time. When you bring in the phases and light from the Sun falling on the Moon, the whole flat earth Sun-Moon system starts to crumble.
So you see, the shape of the Moon is fairly fundamental to FET.
-
How much did you spend researching this?
Did you talk to anyone else about this?
-
We all know that the moon is round. It is the earth that is flat.
The problem is that a round Moon blows a hole in flat earth theory because it means the Moon has to be very far away in order to explain how the Moon's face looks the same when viewed simultaneously from different locations on Earth. This then destroys the flat earth theories on how the Moon appears to rise and set, because if it were so far away it would be visible all the time. When you bring in the phases and light from the Sun falling on the Moon, the whole flat earth Sun-Moon system starts to crumble.
So you see, the shape of the Moon is fairly fundamental to FET.
That's the beauty of FET. Any proof of a spherical earth doesn't count or is only in existance due to a conspiracy and any equation to show a flat earth need not be correct nor relevant.
It dates back to their origins. They don't believe in the burden of proof.
http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2006/05/19/5000-for-proving-the-earth-is-a-globe/?Qwd=./ModernMechanix/10-1931/globe&Qif=globe_1.jpg&Qiv=thumbs&Qis=XL#qdig (http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2006/05/19/5000-for-proving-the-earth-is-a-globe/?Qwd=./ModernMechanix/10-1931/globe&Qif=globe_1.jpg&Qiv=thumbs&Qis=XL#qdig)
-
How much did you spend researching this?
Did you talk to anyone else about this?
Uh oh. I think we have our first taste of someone in on the conspiracy getting jarred. I think it would be best we don't talk about the moon anymore.
-
The Moon is certainly not a sphere, but yes, it does have a terminator. The Moon emits its own light, because of a bioluminescent array of matter on its surface. The systematic motions of the Moon's visible features are thought to be an artifact of the seasonal habits of the fauna inherent to its surface. For much of each month, a great part of the Moon is uninhabitable, but as soon as it again becomes available, life will return there. Libration occurs when the density of biomass is altered slightly to emphasise better areas of habitation.
-
The Moon is certainly not a sphere, but yes, it does have a terminator. The Moon emits its own light, because of a bioluminescent array of matter on its surface. The systematic motions of the Moon's visible features are thought to be an artifact of the seasonal habits of the fauna inherent to its surface. For much of each month, a great part of the Moon is uninhabitable, but as soon as it again becomes available, life will return there. Libration occurs when the density of biomass is altered slightly to emphasise better areas of habitation.
And your evidence for this is?
-
The Moon is certainly not a sphere, but yes, it does have a terminator.
Will it be back?
-
the moon is a sphere, the earth is a sphere.
ill play the game, here comes "where is the proof".
-
the moon is a sphere, the earth is a sphere.
ill play the game, here comes "where is the proof".
Please read the board-specific rules and stay on topic. Consider this a warning.
-
The Moon is certainly not a sphere, but yes, it does have a terminator. The Moon emits its own light, because of a bioluminescent array of matter on its surface. The systematic motions of the Moon's visible features are thought to be an artifact of the seasonal habits of the fauna inherent to its surface. For much of each month, a great part of the Moon is uninhabitable, but as soon as it again becomes available, life will return there. Libration occurs when the density of biomass is altered slightly to emphasise better areas of habitation.
No offense, but there is not evidence of this. At all. Although it is a reasonable possibility, I see literally no proof for this. In fact, this sounds almost totally ripped off from one of the beginning chapters of The Reality Function by Peter F. Hamilton. He describes a type of creature that can only live on a planet on the side that constantly faces the planet it revolves around. Please provide any evidence of bioluminescent organisms living on the moon. Fred Hoyle had a similar idea to explain the deep redness of some Kuiper Belt objects. I cannot find the paper right now but will post to it.
Edit: The Astonishing Redness of Kuiper-Belt Objects - http://www.panspermia.org/kuiper.htm (http://www.panspermia.org/kuiper.htm)
-
No answer to this old thread?
I really want to know how more FEers respond to this problem.
-
No answer to this old thread?
I really want to know how more FEers respond to this problem.
They can't. Explaining one aspect involves making other aspects more difficult to explain, and so they stay away.
-
No answer to this old thread?
I really want to know how more FEers respond to this problem.
They can't. Explaining one aspect involves making other aspects more difficult to explain, and so they stay away.
I see.
-
We all know that the moon is round. It is the earth that is flat.
The problem is that a round Moon blows a hole in flat earth theory because it means the Moon has to be very far away in order to explain how the Moon's face looks the same when viewed simultaneously from different locations on Earth. This then destroys the flat earth theories on how the Moon appears to rise and set, because if it were so far away it would be visible all the time. When you bring in the phases and light from the Sun falling on the Moon, the whole flat earth Sun-Moon system starts to crumble.
So you see, the shape of the Moon is fairly fundamental to FET.
Bendy light
-
We all know that the moon is round. It is the earth that is flat.
The problem is that a round Moon blows a hole in flat earth theory because it means the Moon has to be very far away in order to explain how the Moon's face looks the same when viewed simultaneously from different locations on Earth. This then destroys the flat earth theories on how the Moon appears to rise and set, because if it were so far away it would be visible all the time. When you bring in the phases and light from the Sun falling on the Moon, the whole flat earth Sun-Moon system starts to crumble.
So you see, the shape of the Moon is fairly fundamental to FET.
Bendy light
Then why does the old bedford level experiment show what it does?
-
We all know that the moon is round. It is the earth that is flat.
The problem is that a round Moon blows a hole in flat earth theory because it means the Moon has to be very far away in order to explain how the Moon's face looks the same when viewed simultaneously from different locations on Earth. This then destroys the flat earth theories on how the Moon appears to rise and set, because if it were so far away it would be visible all the time. When you bring in the phases and light from the Sun falling on the Moon, the whole flat earth Sun-Moon system starts to crumble.
So you see, the shape of the Moon is fairly fundamental to FET.
Bendy light
Not only does not explain it but has been disproved. Try to keep up.
-
Major bump on a thread that majorly screwed FE'ers, still waiting for a response that doesnt involve bendy light or something thats been disproven..
-
a few posts above has an explanation for the phases of the moon. I havent thought of a cheap inexpensive way to proove or disproove it
-
Bendy light is a law unto itself. If it wants to make various celestial bodies look round, it can. If it wants to make the earth appear round, it can.
-
Beeny light is a law unto itself. If it wants to make various celestial bodies look round, it can. If it wants to make the earth appear round, it can.
Unfortunately it can't find a way round not causing visible effects we should all see.
-
Sorry if this is a repeat thread, because it just might, but the search function on the site was not working. I think the problem had to do with me using this shitty Mac and running Safari, but I digress.
I would like to debate the resolve: The Moon has a terminator which changes position and this is due to the fact that the moon wobbles showing up to 59% of its face total over a given amount of time.
1. One reason the moon appears to wobble in the sky is because the moons orbit around the earth is eccentric, therefore it is sometimes slightly ahead of the earth, and sometimes it is slightly behind.
2. Libration in latitude appears to only be able to happen if the sun illuminates it from slightly above or slightly below. This has to do with the orientation of the moon compared to the plane of the ecliptic.
The moon's libration allows us to see up to 59% of its face. The librations of the moon have been measured quite accurately with laser retroreflectorshttp://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1972Moon....4..155M&data_type=PDF_HIGH&whole_paper=YES&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf (http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1972Moon....4..155M&data_type=PDF_HIGH&whole_paper=YES&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf).
If the moon was a disc, there would be no slight libration that could cause 59% of the moon to be seen. The tilt of the moon would have to be huge and would be very noticeable from earth.
If the moon was flat, no libration would be able to show more than 50%, unless it showed 100%, which would mean the moon would completely flip over.
Have the FE'ers dug a whole too deep? Is there any plausible explanation? Where are you guys?
-
ask Fe'r for a navigable coordinate system accurate in the equivalence of the RE coordinate system.. They don't have one ;)
-
ask Fe'r for a navigable coordinate system accurate in the equivalence of the RE coordinate system.. They don't have one ;)
Jackel, you repeat yourself far too often :P
-
ask Fe'r for a navigable coordinate system accurate in the equivalence of the RE coordinate system.. They don't have one ;)
Jackel, you repeat yourself far too often :P
It's because they Hate that request :P.. I'm like the kid screaming for his 2 dollars while chasing the person that owes it to me 8) I think I just like the fact they could never in analogy terms pay up :) I will hound them until they either concede or provide.
-
TheJackel, I have warned you before about the perspicuity of your posts; if you err once more I shall ban you from these forums.
Now, to the matter at hand: the Moon is illumined by a vast, heaving swathe of bioluminescent matter which traverses its inferior surface with regularity and unity. The Moon is certainly flat, we can tell this simply by looking at it. In spheres, lit by external sources (as globularists claim the Moon is), we see a darker area around the edges, and a lighter one toward the centre of the sphere, generally in the direction of the light source, as seen in the diagram below:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/dogplatter/7esfera.jpg)
It so happens that tonight there is a full Moon. At great personal risk, I have been able to sneak a glance at it, taking care not to expose myself to its harmful rays, and, to my complete lack of surprise, it looks much as it always does: distinctly NOT like the sphere in the diagram. What I see, when I part the shutters and peer through a window at the fearful object, is what one might expect of a disc: a largely homogenous spread of tincture, with areas of white and light grey dispersed across its surface without discernable pattern, peering blankly back at me with flat and threatening radiance.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/dogplatter/ANAUD00Z.jpg)
-
TheJackel, I have warned you before about the perspicuity of your posts; if you err once more I shall ban you from these forums.
Now, to the matter at hand: the Moon is illumined by a vast, heaving swathe of bioluminescent matter which traverses its inferior surface with regularity and unity. The Moon is certainly flat, we can tell this simply by looking at it. In spheres, lit by external sources (as globularists claim the Moon is), we see a darker area around the edges, and a lighter one toward the centre of the sphere, generally in the direction of the light source, as seen in the diagram below:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/dogplatter/7esfera.jpg)
It so happens that tonight there is a full Moon. At great personal risk, I have been able to sneak a glance at it, taking care not to expose myself to its harmful rays, and, to my complete lack of surprise, it looks much as it always does: distinctly NOT like the sphere in the diagram. What I see, when I part the shutters and peer through a window at the fearful object, is what one might expect of a disc: a largely homogenous spread of tincture, with areas of white and light grey dispersed across its surface without discernable pattern, peering blankly back at me with flat and threatening radiance.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/dogplatter/ANAUD00Z.jpg)
First off:
Plagiarism and copying copyright material and posting it as your own should get you banned:
Nothing worse than another liar that even used someone else's picture to post their own magical emotional pleading story to!
http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:tViV0N6bYXKeYM:http://www.hornblowerholidays.com/images/big/full_moon.jpg&t=1
http://addins.wgem.com/blogs/weather/?p=1618
For this I am going to have to report you (even if nothing will likely be done)
--------------
Now do that with something other than a full moon.. And do get a telescope and use your own images. And you should be banned for spamming misinformation, or spamming false information. And do realize even in that Picture you posted, it's still non-lambertian! I can still tell it's a sphere. And do learn how to track the moon phases and their angular relation to the setting sun and position to figure out your double fail here.
do you understand lambert's law when considering the moon or even a full moon, or the presumed flatness appearance of the moon? I would hope those who read the OP would understand this law and why the moon for the most part is considered Non-Lambertian.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CCMQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fciteseerx.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.38.5304%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&rct=j&q=why%20is%20the%20moon%20Non-Lambertian&ei=ObGRTOXON4SdlgfUwamoCg&usg=AFQjCNHcNI5WRWiqey48YPd-NisdhA5xTA&cad=rja
http://www1.cs.columbia.edu/CAVE/publications/pdfs/Oren_SIGGRAPH94.pdf
http://www.planetary.brown.edu/pds/Pieters_NV99_8025.pdf
(http://www.solarworlds.co.uk/astro/moon/20071104_CrescentMoonMosaic_750x750hi.jpg)
(http://paul.kedrosky.com/WindowsLiveWriter/FullMoononMonday_1317E/full-moon-on-monday_2.jpg)
-
Now, to the matter at hand: the Moon is illumined by a vast, heaving swathe of bioluminescent matter which traverses its inferior surface with regularity and unity.
Evidence? Or are you just posting wild speculations again?
-
TheJackel, I have warned you before about the perspicuity of your posts; if you err once more I shall ban you from these forums.
Now, to the matter at hand: the Moon is illumined by a vast, heaving swathe of bioluminescent matter which traverses its inferior surface with regularity and unity. The Moon is certainly flat, we can tell this simply by looking at it. In spheres, lit by external sources (as globularists claim the Moon is), we see a darker area around the edges, and a lighter one toward the centre of the sphere, generally in the direction of the light source, as seen in the diagram below:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/dogplatter/7esfera.jpg)
It so happens that tonight there is a full Moon. At great personal risk, I have been able to sneak a glance at it, taking care not to expose myself to its harmful rays, and, to my complete lack of surprise, it looks much as it always does: distinctly NOT like the sphere in the diagram. What I see, when I part the shutters and peer through a window at the fearful object, is what one might expect of a disc: a largely homogenous spread of tincture, with areas of white and light grey dispersed across its surface without discernable pattern, peering blankly back at me with flat and threatening radiance.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/dogplatter/ANAUD00Z.jpg)
This does absolutely nothing to explain the libration of the moon. Read the OP please, and also this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libration
-
The markings on the Moon shift in tandem with the movements of its biomass. Why is that surprising?
-
The markings on the Moon shift in tandem with the movements of its biomass. Why is that surprising?
Would you please justify your statement. How can a disc show more marking to its east on some days and then more on its west of other days? How could the alleged biomass cause this shift? Why isn't the libration synchronized with the biomass's growth?
-
The markings on the Moon shift in tandem with the movements of its biomass. Why is that surprising?
Actually, the entire mass of the moon wobbles over a period of time so in total 59% of the moon can be viewed over a given time. Hence, it is a sphere, because only a sphere exhibits this property. Conclusion: Evidence points to the moon being a sphere, get over it.
-
The markings on the Moon shift in tandem with the movements of its biomass. Why is that surprising?
Would you please justify your statement. How can a disc show more marking to its east on some days and then more on its west of other days? How could the alleged biomass cause this shift? Why isn't the libration synchronized with the biomass's growth?
If I paint a white blob on my dog's back, and then get my dog to run around in a disc-shaped cage in my garden, is it not fair to say that the disc's markings are moving to the east and west? What if I do the same with 100 dogs?
-
The markings on the Moon shift in tandem with the movements of its biomass. Why is that surprising?
Would you please justify your statement. How can a disc show more marking to its east on some days and then more on its west of other days? How could the alleged biomass cause this shift? Why isn't the libration synchronized with the biomass's growth?
If I paint a white blob on my dog's back, and then get my dog to run around in a disc-shaped cage in my garden, is it not fair to say that the disc's markings are moving to the east and west? What if I do the same with 100 dogs?
So are you saying that the Moon is painted on a dog's neck? Your analogy fails for various reasons. Please read about libration before posting again.
-
The markings on the Moon shift in tandem with the movements of its biomass. Why is that surprising?
Would you please justify your statement. How can a disc show more marking to its east on some days and then more on its west of other days? How could the alleged biomass cause this shift? Why isn't the libration synchronized with the biomass's growth?
If I paint a white blob on my dog's back, and then get my dog to run around in a disc-shaped cage in my garden, is it not fair to say that the disc's markings are moving to the east and west? What if I do the same with 100 dogs?
So are you saying that the Moon is painted on a dog's neck? Your analogy fails for various reasons. Please read about libration before posting again.
I said my dog's back, not its neck.
-
Also, what are the "various reasons" for which my illustrative biomass-marking analogy fails, as you so claim? Are you going to explain why, or are we to simply take it on trust from you that I am wrong?
-
The markings on the Moon shift in tandem with the movements of its biomass. Why is that surprising?
Would you please justify your statement. How can a disc show more marking to its east on some days and then more on its west of other days? How could the alleged biomass cause this shift? Why isn't the libration synchronized with the biomass's growth?
If I paint a white blob on my dog's back, and then get my dog to run around in a disc-shaped cage in my garden, is it not fair to say that the disc's markings are moving to the east and west? What if I do the same with 100 dogs?
So are you saying that the Moon is painted on a dog's neck? Your analogy fails for various reasons. Please read about libration before posting again.
I said my dog's back, not its neck.
You're right. Now about my challenge?
-
Also, what are the "various reasons" for which my illustrative biomass-marking analogy fails, as you so claim? Are you going to explain why, or are we to simply take it on trust from you that I am wrong?
Did you read about libration yet? Aren't you smart enough to read about libration and understand your own error?
It's sad if not.
You understand that libration means that more of the backside of the RE moon to one side is visible from one side than the other and then the other in a cycle. Your dog's white spot doesn't show more white as it moves. And that's just one problem.
-
I know what libration is - don't insult my intelligence - why does pointing it out reduce the validity of my claims in any way, shape or form? My claims, in case you had missed them, and it seems you have, are that the lunar biomass shifts with regularity across the Lunar surface, and that the phenomenon you refer to as libration is caused by the systematic rearrangement of this biomass.
-
The markings on the Moon shift in tandem with the movements of its biomass. Why is that surprising?
Would you please justify your statement. How can a disc show more marking to its east on some days and then more on its west of other days? How could the alleged biomass cause this shift? Why isn't the libration synchronized with the biomass's growth?
If I paint a white blob on my dog's back, and then get my dog to run around in a disc-shaped cage in my garden, is it not fair to say that the disc's markings are moving to the east and west? What if I do the same with 100 dogs?
Wouldn't that produce wave like variations?
Come to think of it, if you took 1,000 lights all together and move them around individually, that too would produce a noticeable variation in the light.
The only time it wouldn't show variations is if you're looking at it with the naked eye and the intensity is too high.
Kinda like the Sun. You can easily see the swirls of plasma with a light filter and a telescope.
-
What you are calling plasma is in fact living matter, and yes, you're right that the Solar life-forms and Lunar life-forms have markedly different behaviours and lifestyles.
-
What you are calling plasma is in fact living matter, and yes, you're right that the Solar life-forms and Lunar life-forms have markedly different behaviours and lifestyles.
So what happens to the lunar life forms when they get close to the sun during a solar eclipse?
-
It is thought that the two biomasses may be in some kind of violent struggle during a Solar eclipse; this accounts for the redness of the Moon during that time.
-
I know what libration is - don't insult my intelligence - why does pointing it out reduce the validity of my claims in any way, shape or form? My claims, in case you had missed them, and it seems you have, are that the lunar biomass shifts with regularity across the Lunar surface, and that the phenomenon you refer to as libration is caused by the systematic rearrangement of this biomass.
I still don't understand how the pictures taken about moon display always the same pattern if there is such systematic rearrangement of this biomass. The moon surface moves according to you but there is no visible trace for that. Why?
-
What you are calling plasma is in fact living matter, and yes, you're right that the Solar life-forms and Lunar life-forms have markedly different behaviours and lifestyles.
....
So let me make sure I understand you correctly. Your saying the sun has the following properties:
It's a 32 mile diameter sphere.
On the sphere is (millions?) of living organisms that move in a fluid motion very quickly, leap out into the sky (solar flares), and, combined, generate more energy across the entire EM spectrum per second than the entire planet Earth could generate in a year all without any visible food source?
And the Moon:
A sphere of living organisms that generate light, stay perfectly still, have glowing blood, reproduce so fast that it's nearly instantaneous (If they die during solar eclipses they need to be reborn) and in such a way as to be in the exact same arrangement as before, AND have no visible food source?
-
I know what libration is - don't insult my intelligence - why does pointing it out reduce the validity of my claims in any way, shape or form? My claims, in case you had missed them, and it seems you have, are that the lunar biomass shifts with regularity across the Lunar surface, and that the phenomenon you refer to as libration is caused by the systematic rearrangement of this biomass.
What evidence do you have to support your claim. You do understand that evidence gathering should come before making a conclusion, right? By the way, I'll continue to insult your intelligence every time you make this sophomoric error. Remember it's evidence then conclusion. Oh and your dreams are not evidence.
-
LordDave, no, the Sun and Moon are flat discs, not spheres.
Clocktower, your criticisms are not even intelligible. You shift listlessly from claiming that the observable phenomenon of libration is somehow at odds with my explanatory model in one post to a vague call for evidence in the next. Your arguments lack structure and coherency to the point of intellectual bankruptcy. Your ramblings would not convince the most die-hard and gullible globularist on this flat world.
-
Clocktower, your criticisms are not even intelligible. You shift listlessly from claiming that the observable phenomenon of libration is somehow at odds with my explanatory model in one post to a vague call for evidence in the next. Your arguments lack structure and coherency to the point of intellectual bankruptcy. Your ramblings would not convince the most die-hard and gullible globularist on this flat world.
This from a rambling poster that claims white spots on the backs of dogs demonstrate how the unsupported notion of biomass answers the observed libration of the disc called the Moon. Obviously you can't answer the challenge. Let's start with a simple task for you.
Do you have any evidence of life on the Moon? Do you have any evidence about its behavious? Do you have a sample of this biomass? Do you have any observation directly of this biomass? If not, why not?
-
Yes, a large amount of my research has already been published to the FEB. You can access some of it here: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=31831.0
-
Yes, a large amount of my research has already been published to the FEB. You can access some of it here: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=31831.0
So, no evidence to answer my questions. How typical. Do you ever provide evidence for your cause? Aren't you ashamed of your record? Let's focus on one challenge since you couldn't answer the last posts.
The one challenge: Do you have any direct observational evidence of the alleged biomass? Please be sure to show how you determined that it is alive.
-
LordDave, no, the Sun and Moon are flat discs, not spheres.
Tom Bishop says otherwise. How can I trust you over him?
-
Yes, a large amount of my research has already been published to the FEB. You can access some of it here: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=31831.0
So, no evidence to answer my questions. How typical. Do you ever provide evidence for your cause? Aren't you ashamed of your record? Let's focus on one challenge since you couldn't answer the last posts.
The one challenge: Do you have any direct observational evidence of the alleged biomass? Please be sure to show how you determined that it is alive.
John Davis has a variety of information regarding pieces of Moon-animals which have fallen to Earth. However this is not my area of expertise. I advise that you contact him with regard to this matter.
-
Yes, a large amount of my research has already been published to the FEB. You can access some of it here: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=31831.0
So, no evidence to answer my questions. How typical. Do you ever provide evidence for your cause? Aren't you ashamed of your record? Let's focus on one challenge since you couldn't answer the last posts.
The one challenge: Do you have any direct observational evidence of the alleged biomass? Please be sure to show how you determined that it is alive.
John Davis has a variety of information regarding pieces of Moon-animals which have fallen to Earth. However this is not my area of expertise. I advise that you contact him with regard to this matter.
So you make claims without the evidence in hand. Obviously, you don't have anything to support your claims, again.
-
Yes, a large amount of my research has already been published to the FEB. You can access some of it here: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=31831.0
So, no evidence to answer my questions. How typical. Do you ever provide evidence for your cause? Aren't you ashamed of your record? Let's focus on one challenge since you couldn't answer the last posts.
The one challenge: Do you have any direct observational evidence of the alleged biomass? Please be sure to show how you determined that it is alive.
John Davis has a variety of information regarding pieces of Moon-animals which have fallen to Earth. However this is not my area of expertise. I advise that you contact him with regard to this matter.
So you make claims without the evidence in hand. Obviously, you don't have anything to support your claims, again.
ClockTower, as you well know there is plenty of evidence of animals falling to earth in the shrimp thread. The same thread that you turned into a farse, by suggesting that lions lived on the moon.
-
Yes, a large amount of my research has already been published to the FEB. You can access some of it here: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=31831.0
So, no evidence to answer my questions. How typical. Do you ever provide evidence for your cause? Aren't you ashamed of your record? Let's focus on one challenge since you couldn't answer the last posts.
The one challenge: Do you have any direct observational evidence of the alleged biomass? Please be sure to show how you determined that it is alive.
John Davis has a variety of information regarding pieces of Moon-animals which have fallen to Earth. However this is not my area of expertise. I advise that you contact him with regard to this matter.
So you make claims without the evidence in hand. Obviously, you don't have anything to support your claims, again.
ClockTower, as you well know there is plenty of evidence of animals falling to earth in the shrimp thread. The same thread that you turned into a farse, by suggesting that lions lived on the moon.
Please show where I suggested that lions lived on the Moon.
There is no evidence that in that thread that links the falling items to the Moon. Do try harder.
-
Yes, a large amount of my research has already been published to the FEB. You can access some of it here: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=31831.0
So, no evidence to answer my questions. How typical. Do you ever provide evidence for your cause? Aren't you ashamed of your record? Let's focus on one challenge since you couldn't answer the last posts.
The one challenge: Do you have any direct observational evidence of the alleged biomass? Please be sure to show how you determined that it is alive.
John Davis has a variety of information regarding pieces of Moon-animals which have fallen to Earth. However this is not my area of expertise. I advise that you contact him with regard to this matter.
So you make claims without the evidence in hand. Obviously, you don't have anything to support your claims, again.
ClockTower, as you well know there is plenty of evidence of animals falling to earth in the shrimp thread. The same thread that you turned into a farse, by suggesting that lions lived on the moon.
Please show where I suggested that lions lived on the Moon.
There is no evidence that in that thread that links the falling items to the Moon. Do try harder.
There should be like... trillions of dead bodies of those creatures given that the moon has been shining since the beginning of the times...
No, you see the dead ones, lose their grip and fall to earth as explained here.
http://www.prairieghosts.com/falls_sky.html
They definitely exist as explained here.
http://www.raleys.com/www/apps/recipes/recipe.jsp?recipeid=1080613
http://home-and-garden.webshots.com/photo/2337453120102585871NbhpYa
http://www.chihsinyang.com/project3/Seafood1-2.html
Filipino shrimp collectors, need then only follow the moon around the earth, to collect the dead shrimp for their recipes. Its a multi-million dollar industry.
So maybe now you will allow James to continue?
-
Well they come out of the sky, which is where the Moon spends most of its time. Doesn't that at least raise our suspicions against the Moon?
-
Well they come out of the sky, which is where the Moon spends most of its time. Doesn't that at least raise our suspicions against the Moon?
Nope. I also don't think that rain comes from the Moon either. Do try harder.
-
Well they come out of the sky, which is where the Moon spends most of its time. Doesn't that at least raise our suspicions against the Moon?
Nope. I also don't think that rain comes from the Moon either. Do try harder.
http://www.moonraincentrefortapestryarts.blogspot.com/
Please continue James
-
Well they come out of the sky, which is where the Moon spends most of its time. Doesn't that at least raise our suspicions against the Moon?
Nope. I also don't think that rain comes from the Moon either. Do try harder.
http://www.moonraincentrefortapestryarts.blogspot.com/
Please continue James
What does weaving tapestries have to do with this discussion of the moon? ???
-
No, you see the dead ones, lose their grip and fall to earth as explained here.
http://www.prairieghosts.com/falls_sky.html
There were no sightings of the moon when these things fell. So they can't be from the moon.
ClockTower, as you well know there is plenty of evidence of animals falling to earth in the shrimp thread. The same thread that you turned into a farse, by suggesting that lions lived on the moon.
And please, you were the one who said that the lions were on the moon. It's really rude when you blame others for your wrongdoings.
-
Please James, answer my question.
Who is right about the shape of the Sun and Moon, you or Tom Bishop because both of you can't be right.
-
Please James, answer my question.
Who is right about the shape of the Sun and Moon, you or Tom Bishop because both of you can't be right.
Wait a minute - in the Flat Earth Theory - what is the shape of the Sun and Moon?
I assumed from reading that they are disks and was about to place a post in the Q&A forum. Are there other theories on the shape of these two bodies?
Berny
-
Please James, answer my question.
Who is right about the shape of the Sun and Moon, you or Tom Bishop because both of you can't be right.
Wait a minute - in the Flat Earth Theory - what is the shape of the Sun and Moon?
I assumed from reading that they are disks and was about to place a post in the Q&A forum. Are there other theories on the shape of these two bodies?
Berny
Yes.
James says they are both disks.
Tom Bishop says they are spheres. (Well the Sun, I don't know his view on the Moon)
As you can see, both can't be right.
-
Please James, answer my question.
Who is right about the shape of the Sun and Moon, you or Tom Bishop because both of you can't be right.
I am right. The Sun and Moon are flat discs.
-
I know what libration is - don't insult my intelligence - why does pointing it out reduce the validity of my claims in any way, shape or form? My claims, in case you had missed them, and it seems you have, are that the lunar biomass shifts with regularity across the Lunar surface, and that the phenomenon you refer to as libration is caused by the systematic rearrangement of this biomass.
When then you are not arguing that the moon is not a sphere, so please stop posting on this thread, because that is what this thread is about.
-
Please James, answer my question.
Who is right about the shape of the Sun and Moon, you or Tom Bishop because both of you can't be right.
I am right. The Sun and Moon are flat discs.
If the moon shows the property of libration, it is a sphere. If the moon wobbled and was a flat disc, it would appear to become an ellipse and the FLAT sides would be visible.
-
Please James, answer my question.
Who is right about the shape of the Sun and Moon, you or Tom Bishop because both of you can't be right.
I am right. The Sun and Moon are flat discs.
If the moon shows the property of libration, it is a sphere. If the moon wobbled and was a flat disc, it would appear to become an ellipse and the FLAT sides would be visible.
Yes, James is demonstratively wrong, again.
-
Please James, answer my question.
Who is right about the shape of the Sun and Moon, you or Tom Bishop because both of you can't be right.
I am right. The Sun and Moon are flat discs.
And why should I believe you over him? What evidence or tests do you have that he doesn't?
-
What was the point in asking that either-or question when in fact you wouldn't accept either answer?
-
What was the point in asking that either-or question when in fact you wouldn't accept either answer?
Avoiding my post there James and worrying more about stuff that doesn't have much to do with the thread?
-
Please James, answer my question.
Who is right about the shape of the Sun and Moon, you or Tom Bishop because both of you can't be right.
I am right. The Sun and Moon are flat discs.
If the moon shows the property of libration, it is a sphere. If the moon wobbled and was a flat disc, it would appear to become an ellipse and the FLAT sides would be visible.
This mistaken belief of yours is the reason I have explained why libration actually occurs in the first place. Have you been following the thread? Your post so missed the point that if you had not so rudely complained I would have ignored it entirely.
-
Please James, answer my question.
Who is right about the shape of the Sun and Moon, you or Tom Bishop because both of you can't be right.
I am right. The Sun and Moon are flat discs.
So what you are saying is the the moon is a flat disc, somewhat like a beverage coaster, but it still undergoes libration?
If the moon shows the property of libration, it is a sphere. If the moon wobbled and was a flat disc, it would appear to become an ellipse and the FLAT sides would be visible.
This mistaken belief of yours is the reason I have explained why libration actually occurs in the first place. Have you been following the thread? Your post so missed the point that if you had not so rudely complained I would have ignored it entirely.
So what you are saying is the the moon is a flat disc, somewhat like a beverage coaster, but it still undergoes libration?
-
What was the point in asking that either-or question when in fact you wouldn't accept either answer?
To force you to defend your point with something other than "because I said so".
-
Please James, answer my question.
Who is right about the shape of the Sun and Moon, you or Tom Bishop because both of you can't be right.
I am right. The Sun and Moon are flat discs.
So what you are saying is the the moon is a flat disc, somewhat like a beverage coaster, but it still undergoes libration?
If the moon shows the property of libration, it is a sphere. If the moon wobbled and was a flat disc, it would appear to become an ellipse and the FLAT sides would be visible.
This mistaken belief of yours is the reason I have explained why libration actually occurs in the first place. Have you been following the thread? Your post so missed the point that if you had not so rudely complained I would have ignored it entirely.
So what you are saying is the the moon is a flat disc, somewhat like a beverage coaster, but it still undergoes libration?
It is something like a 32-mile wide beverage coaster covered in bioluminescent life which migrates across its surface with regularity, causing what you believe to be libration. So no it is not really like a beverage coaster.
-
It is something like a 32-mile wide beverage coaster covered in bioluminescent life which migrates across its surface with regularity, causing what you believe to be libration. So no it is not really like a beverage coaster.
You continuously evade the question, why we don't see the movement in the moon surface with telescopes and why the surface pattern stays the same.
-
It is something like a 32-mile wide beverage coaster covered in bioluminescent life which migrates across its surface with regularity, causing what you believe to be libration. So no it is not really like a beverage coaster.
You continuously evade the question, why we don't see the movement in the moon surface with telescopes and why the surface pattern stays the same.
Because he said so.
-
Please James, answer my question.
Who is right about the shape of the Sun and Moon, you or Tom Bishop because both of you can't be right.
I am right. The Sun and Moon are flat discs.
So what you are saying is the the moon is a flat disc, somewhat like a beverage coaster, but it still undergoes libration?
If the moon shows the property of libration, it is a sphere. If the moon wobbled and was a flat disc, it would appear to become an ellipse and the FLAT sides would be visible.
This mistaken belief of yours is the reason I have explained why libration actually occurs in the first place. Have you been following the thread? Your post so missed the point that if you had not so rudely complained I would have ignored it entirely.
So what you are saying is the the moon is a flat disc, somewhat like a beverage coaster, but it still undergoes libration?
It is something like a 32-mile wide beverage coaster covered in bioluminescent life which migrates across its surface with regularity, causing what you believe to be libration. So no it is not really like a beverage coaster.
I am somewhat confused. Is the entirety of the moon some kind of living, glowing creature?
How does its shape vary over time?
I do not see how it could be shaped like a beverage coaster and still exhibit libration
-
What was the point in asking that either-or question when in fact you wouldn't accept either answer?
To force you to defend your point with something other than "because I said so".
Good luck with that.
-
TheJackel, I have warned you before about the perspicuity of your posts; if you err once more I shall ban you from these forums.
Now, to the matter at hand: the Moon is illumined by a vast, heaving swathe of bioluminescent matter which traverses its inferior surface with regularity and unity. The Moon is certainly flat, we can tell this simply by looking at it. In spheres, lit by external sources (as globularists claim the Moon is), we see a darker area around the edges, and a lighter one toward the centre of the sphere, generally in the direction of the light source, as seen in the diagram below:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/dogplatter/7esfera.jpg)
It so happens that tonight there is a full Moon. At great personal risk, I have been able to sneak a glance at it, taking care not to expose myself to its harmful rays, and, to my complete lack of surprise, it looks much as it always does: distinctly NOT like the sphere in the diagram. What I see, when I part the shutters and peer through a window at the fearful object, is what one might expect of a disc: a largely homogenous spread of tincture, with areas of white and light grey dispersed across its surface without discernable pattern, peering blankly back at me with flat and threatening radiance.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v499/dogplatter/ANAUD00Z.jpg)
As you can see, I've created my own diagram using a 3D sphere model and attempted to duplicate a similar look between the RET "full moon" position of my model and the full moon with some success. As you can see, my model does bear significanly more resemblance to the moon than the diagram James Provided, plus the other phases shown of my model are quite similar in light distribution to those of the actual moon. Currently the the moon is in it's waning crescent phase, approaching first quarter. At first quarter, it will be highest tomorrow at around suppertime (indeed during the day, for Eastern Ontario, rising between 2 and 3 PM, and setting before midnight). I have observed the moon extensively today with no ill effects, and carefully noted how the visible side of the moon exactly faced the Sun. The light distribution can clearly be seen to match closely the diagram I have provided
(http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p264/Nojaru/moonphases.jpg)
Here I provide the exact material settings I used for the sphere, should anyone with experience with Blender 3D wish to duplicate my experiment. Perhaps someone with more experience may reproduce the actual light distribution of the moon.
(http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p264/Nojaru/moonmaterialsetup.jpg)